body,date,page,text,path
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE MAYOR'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY PANEL
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2019
CONFERENCE ROOM 391, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 6:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson David Mik called the meeting to order at approximately 6:03pm.
1-A. Roll Call
Present: Gia Schneider, Tim Karas, Mike Rose, David Mik, Adam Elsesser, Debi Stebbins, Brock
Grunt, Madlen Saddik (via teleconference), Warren DeSouza.
Absent: Remy Monteko (excused).
Lois Butler (secretary) and Eric Fonstein are present as staff to the Commission.
1-B. Panel Introductions and Introduction of City Manager
Tim Karas - President at College of Alameda, Gia Schneider - President and CEO of Natel Energy,
David Mik - Power Engineering Construction, Adam Elsesser - Chairman and CEO at Penumbra,
Brock Grunt - Operations Manager for McGuire and Hester, Debi Stebbins - Executive Director
of City of Alameda Health Care District, Madlen Saddik - President and CEO of Alameda
Chamber of Commerce, Michael Rose - ""Mad Scientist"" at Semifreddi's Bakery, Warren DeSouza
- CFO at Sila Nanotechnologies, Eric Levitt - City Manager.
1-C. Welcome to New Members and Brief Review of Panel History and Purpose. Key points:
purpose is to improve business climate, and provide strategic policy and tactical advice for
business attraction and retention, ambassadors to potential businesses, network, advise on
policy issues, and to report key issues and support special projects/requests from City Council
for a variety of industries. Meets 1-2x/yr as needed. Members serve a two-year term.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PUBLIC
None.
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A. 2019-7520 Discuss and Provide Guidance for a Citywide Economic Development Branding
Campaign
Staff Member Butler presented staff report on developing a Citywide Economic
Development Branding campaign. Key points: logo outdated; need for cohesive overall
branding messages; requesting input on important points for branding RFP to be
submitted to City Council; business parks Marina Village and Harbor Bay both currently
rebranding; purpose of rebranding to update messaging, encourage and retain
businesses, use for tourism, use for Econ Dev communication (mixers, supporting",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2019-12-05.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,2,"Minutes of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel
Regular Meeting
Thursday, December 5, 2019
business districts), request that Panel advise on general city branding vs. economic
development-focused branding.
Speaker Joe Ernst with Harbor Bay Business Park. Key points: history of park; rebranding
process included identifying target market (STEM, hard-tech, S.SFO companies),
location's key amenities, capturing key message (interviewed tenants) ""in an important
place doing important work""; redeveloping logo, aim to produce focused 12-mo
campaign, and correct challenges of park (transportation).
Clarifying questions: focus of campaign - brokers and CEOs (facilitators and decision
makers). Demonstrate key assets - space, modern facilities, and improved
transportation.
Speakers Dan McGill and David Ferrell with Marina Village. Key Points: rebranding to
focus on research, Life-Science and innovation, collaborative ""University feel"";
transportation challenges (identifying and supporting alternatives to tunnel); rebranding
aims are to focus on plentiful space, collaborating w/ other businesses, increasing
container amenities (food/coffee like Bay Meadows), and invest in tenant base
engagement and retention (kayaks, gym, mixers, etc).
Discussion. Key points:
Branding purpose to represent business parks, municipality, tourism, small business
and retail businesses in scope of branding;
RFP Ideas/Suggestions: develop tags/key words for RFP so that RFP proposals can be
properly assessed and to guide branding process, include in branding RFP (duration of
contract, be specific in type of branding consultants/agencies- - general vs. specialized,
clarify scope of RFP (overall city vs. variety of specific segments), specify who target
audience is (branding for business, hospitality, and community all very different);
good branding consultant will evoke key words; specify branding focus (living,
working, hospitality/tourism, etc); identify metrics for quantifying successful branding,
identify channels of distribution (brochures vs. social media), identify target audience,
should branding firm capture both B2B and B2C (Business to Business and Business to
Consumer) message; identifying attraction for existing companies (locational benefit
for existing employees); contemplate intersection of EDSP and branding and express
aesthetic that is modern and exciting, successful branding captures and sells what
differentiates Alameda from other cities, tie-in hospitality (the outlier) to existing
features; branding could weight certain aspects/tags from EDSP that drive other
economic strategic aims (i.e. business activities require adequate hotel amenities,
choice foods, etc); suggest Harbor Bay's concept/logo/themes could be starting point
for City's branding (effective and attractive branding).
Alameda's distinguishing features: hidden gem, ease of permitting process, full
concierge service from city, quality of life, reduced business costs, ample undeveloped
space and parking, variety of transportation options, ability to grow/scale, ability to
make products/things onsite, innovation and applied innovation, oasis in Bay Area,
surrounded by natural resources, beauty of views, educated community, Alameda
could be seen as innovation district, ""where innovation meets tradition"", historic
buildings, restoration/preservation (new-wave innovation versus preservation/reuse).
2",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2019-12-05.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,3,"Minutes of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel
Regular Meeting
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Naval Base feel - authenticity that is attractive, approachability of community, ribbon
cuttings for new businesses, and assistance w/ maintenance issues.
Logo: anchor perceived as logo although not, Logo ideas - variety of icons with shared
theme (i.e. color) allowing for departmental differentiation but shared overall brand.
Staff Member Butler summary: Harbor Bay Business Park rebranding appealing:
inspiration for City's branding process, RFP must have good metrics to measure
successful branding, where innovation meets tradition, ""come to work, stay to live"", can
have foundational/overall (business, residents, visitors = overall branding) idea with
separate ideas branching off (like economic development), and full concierge service.
4-B. 2019-7521 Progress Report on the Implementation of the Economic Development
Strategic Plan (EDSP)
Staff Member Fonstein presented staff report addressing the progress report on items
identified in the 5-10 yr roadmap for business attraction/retention/workforce
development to support Life Sciences, Clean/Green/High Tech, Blue Tech/Marine,
Tourism/Hospitality, Artists/Small Manufacturers, Transportation, Housing, Workforce
Development, City Services/Policy.
Commissioners had no clarifying questions.
Discussion: pedestrian and bicycle bridge between Alameda and Oakland (Jack London)
still in conceptual phase; the City's Vision-Zero pedestrian and bicyclist safety initiative,
the benefits of small business Saturday, City Manager Eric Levitt highlighted unique
challenges of small businesses and restaurants adjusting to the increase in minimum
wage and requested input from EDAP on how to support businesses (to be agendized
for next meeting), Madlen advised EDAP of small business networking event, Cocktails
and Commerce, on April 30, and of Junior Chamber activities where businesses are
invited to participate.
4-C. 2019-7522 Election of Officers
Staff Member Butler asked for nominations for the Chairperson position: Panel Member
Elsesser nominated current Chairperson Mik, seconded by Panel Member Rose. Panel
Member Stebbins moved to close nominations, seconded by Panel Member DeSouza.
Nominations closed. Nomination for additional term accepted by Chairperson Mik.
Motion passed unanimously.
Staff Member Butler asked for nominations for the Vice Chairperson position: Panel
Member Grunt nominated Panel Member Schneider, seconded by Panel Member
Stebbins. Panel Member Stebbins moved that nominations be closed, seconded by
Rose. Panel Member Schneider accepted nomination for Vice Chairperson. Motion
passed unanimously.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PANEL MEMBERS AND STAFF
Staff Member Butler clarified that schedule for the RFP is by June 30, 2020.
3",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2019-12-05.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,4,"Minutes of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel
Regular Meeting
Thursday, December 5, 2019
7. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Mik adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:08pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler, Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel
4",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2019-12-05.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MAYOR'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY PANEL
WEDNESDAY JULY 20, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER:
6:13 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Chubb, Elsesser, Grunt, Laguerre (arrived at 6:17),
Mik, Monteko, Winters.
Absent:
Panlasigui, Sorensen
2. MINUTES:
City of Alameda's Development Manager, Eric Fonstein, stated that this is the initial meeting
of the panel. There are no minutes of previous meetings.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS--PUBLIC: None
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None
5. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS:
5-A. Welcome and Introductions
Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer welcomed the Advisory Panel to its first meeting. Each Panel
member made introductions.
Erik Chubb, representing high-tech industries, works for Makani Power/Google X,
which builds a new kind of wind turbine. He formerly worked for Ford Motor
Company.
Adam Elsesser, CEO and President of Penumbra, a medical device company in
Harbor Bay, with approximately 1,400 employee.
Brock Grunt, Area Manager for McGuire and Hester, a civic engineering contractor.
McGuire and Hester are about to move into its recently built offices in Harbor Bay.
Jowel Laguerre, Chancellor at Peralta Community College District. He oversees
the entire district, which includes four community colleges. The District started a
new unit for workforce development to partner directly with businesses to ensure
that the colleges provide the right kind of support for career development.
David Mik, co-owner of Power Engineering, a contractor in the marine construction
industry, located at Alameda Point.
Remy Monteko, asset manager for Jamestown Properties, which owns the South
Shore Shopping Center. She has a background in urban planning and worked in
real estate economics consulting before joining Jamestown.
Lance Winters, owner of St. George Spirits, at Alameda Point, anchor for Spirits
Alley
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 9
July 20, 2016",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,2,"5-B Overview of Economic Development Advisory Panel's Proposed Role and
Activities.
Economic Development Manager Lois Butler provided a brief overview. The purpose of
the Advisory Panel is to advise the City Council and staff on important economic
development issues and initiatives. The City may ask individual panel members to help
with specific, high-leve business attraction or retention activities related to his or her
industry sector. This may include such activities as talking with an important business
considering relocating to Alameda.
5-C
Review Rules and Procedures
Ms. Butler introduced the item. The staff report and attachment can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2781414&GUID=15CD7565-
C4B1-4F4F-85D9-31ADDEBA4138&Options=&Search=
Ms. Butler recommended proceeding with the rest of the agenda and after the Chair and
Vice Chair are elected, revisit the draft Rules and Procedures, consider any revisions, and
formally adopt the Rules and Procedures.
Panel member Laguerre asked for clarification of which sector he represents.
Ms. Butler said workforce development.
Panel member Monteko asked about the frequency of the meetings.
Ms. Butler said normally the Panel will meet at least once per year. However, this year
the City will be asking the Panel to have two or three additional meetings to assist with the
preparation of the citywide Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP).
5-D
City Attorney's Office to Provide Instructions on Compliance with the Brown
Act and the Sunshine Ordinance -
Senior Assistant City Attorney Farimah Brown gave a briefing on the Brown Act and the
Sunshine Ordinance.
Panel member Mik asked for clarification regarding the prohibition on emailing one another
about the business that they are doing.
Ms. Brown answered that outside of the public meeting, if a majority of the panel emails one
another, they are essentially conducting a meeting, which is prohibited by the Brown Act.
Panel member Grunt asked if this is prohibited even if the email gets forwarded from one
member to another.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 9
July 20, 2016",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,3,"Ms. Brown said yes, even if there was no intention for this to happen. The intention is
irrelevant. It is easy to lose control of the email.
Panel member Winters inquired if these prohibitions are also for looking for information from
other board members and not planning to discuss any ongoing strategy or issue before the
Panel.
Ms. Brown answer yes, this is a problem area.
Panel member Winters commented that this is going to be a slow process.
Ms. Brown agreed that it is slow, but the intent is for the public to be part of the process.
The greater benefit is public participation.
Panel member Elsesser brought up the subject of telephone conversations.
Ms. Brown stated that a quorum cannot be part of a conference call. Also, if one member
calls the next person and shares information from the previous call, this is a serial
conversation and is prohibited.
Panel member Elsesser asked even if the Panel member is just looking for information?
Ms. Brown said yes.
Mr. Fonstein asked if they can direct their information request to staff, who can email a
response to the entire Panel.
Ms. Brown answered that this may be the way to do it, or the item can be agendized for a
future meeting.
Panel member Elsesser raised the scenario of running into each other by chance, and
economic development issues come up during casual conversation.
Ms. Brown responded that small talk and social gatherings are okay. The problem is a
majority discussing City business, such as if five Panel members happen to be at Peet's and
discuss last night's meeting.
Panel member Elsesser asked for some clarification. He mentioned that the topic of this
panel is business. Having a conversation with another Panel member about his or her
specific business is fine. But if the conversation steers to what this Panel is doing, such as
what do you think about the strategic plan, that is a different topic.
Ms. Brown said yes, she meant City business.
Panel member Monteko asked if emails to City staff are sunshine-able.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 9
July 20, 2016",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,4,"Ms. Brown said that this is a good question, and that they haven't covered the Public
Records Act, which is the California version of the federal Freedom of Information Act. Staff
will need to decide about issuing City email addresses to Panel members, which is done for
City Council and some boards and commissions. If we get a request for emails of public
officials, their emails get sent to the public. Staff will discuss this and get back to the
Advisory Panel.
Panel member Laguerre wondered about using blind copy on emails.
Ms. Brown answered that this is tricky because it depends on the content of the email. It is
best to stay away.
Panel member Winters commented that this will force the Panel to keep tighter notes to bring
topics up in a public forum. The Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance make a lot of
sense for transparent government and keep people engaged in local democracy. From a
business sense, it is tough to swallow.
Panel member Grunt added if we are meeting only two or three times a year and this is the
only time we can brainstorm, it doesn't seem really productive.
Ms. Butler pointed out that the Panel can meet as often as they want.
Panel member Laguerre asked if it is okay if only three members got together to talk.
Ms. Brown answered yes, but this also is a slippery slope: if one of the three then goes and
talks with another Panel member about the same subject it could be a violation of the Brown
Act.
Panel member Mik suggested talking in subgroups (e.g. Alameda Point) that report back to
the panel in a public forum. That way the Panel can continue as it is used to doing in the
private sector while still complying with the law. Is that fair?
Ms. Brown said other bodies have successfully used ad hoc subcommittees. Still, there are
some precautions, but she can work with the Panel to set something up.
Mr. Grunt brought up socializing events to get to know one another, though there would be
a tendency to discuss Alameda.
Ms. Brown said socializing is fine, but advised that the panel members keep in mind the
purview of this body (see the purpose section in the Rules and Procedures document).
Community Development Director Debbie Potter noted that the Brown Act and the Sunshine
Ordinance applies to this setting (e.g. a public meeting of the Panel). The City intends to use
the Panel in a lot of different ways, such as business visitations, where the Brown Act would
not apply.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 9
July 20, 2016",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,5,"5-E
Provide Direction for the Preparation of a Citywide Economic Development
Strategic Plan (EDSP) -
Mr. Fonstein made the staff presentation. The staff report and attachment can be found
at:
  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2781416&GUID=0D44D571-29E3-
4C96-B700-7294F6D6337F&Options=&Search=
Mr. Fonstein introduced Sujata Srivastava and Derek Braun of Strategic Economics to guide
the discussion.
Ms. Srivastava suggested starting with questions about the perception of the community in
the business world and from a resident's perspective.
Panel member Chubb talked about some of the assets at Alameda Point, particularly
space. It's edgy and weird.
Panel member Winters pointed out that this is also one of the biggest challenges for
Alameda Point, because as it gets developed, it runs the risk of this edginess going away.
The land represents a lot of opportunity, but the there is a risk of turning it into a
homogenous every-town. We want to keep populating the island with unique businesses,
which maintains a reason for coming to Alameda.
Panel member Elsesser remarked that from the other end of the City (Harbor Bay
Business Park), for a lot of folks who run businesses in San Francisco, and uniformly over
the years, the biggest reaction to Alameda is, where? Alameda is as close as you can be
to San Francisco, and people have no idea. There is a lack of awareness of where
Alameda is and how to get there. For more traditional businesses, they have found it
remarkable because there is easy access, lots of space, space is cheaper, and there are
great expansion opportunities. Mr. Elsesser said he is not sure if he wants people to
know, because it will mean more competition for space.
Panel member Monteko added on the flip side, there are a lot of success stories of
Alameda being a destination: Trader Joe's, the Antique Fair, and Spirits Alley. There
could be better story telling about the destination factor that already exists. People don't
know what a strong market this is.
Panel member Mik considered that part of the confusion is that the County shares the
name. From a marine perspective, the geography in the middle of the Bay is the best
aspect. The waterfront property is beautiful. It's got great access to the Oakland Airport.
And it's a very short distance by water to almost anywhere. It was a very easy choice for
them to locate their business here. The development of Alameda Point brings a bit of
concern about the gentrification on the waterfront and the loss of working waterfront to
something more attractive to a residential population. Maritime has a long history in
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 9
July 20, 2016",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,6,"Alameda and he hopes that history continues, at least in some parts of the island. The
waterfront is commercially a very valuable product. The Navy gifted us with large hangars
and piers. It's a capital good; no one today would want to build all that infrastructure.
People don't appreciate where we are until they are on the island and look back at San
Francisco.
Panel member Chubb asked where are marine industries going? What are the big
industries in marine that we could attract?
Panel member Mik responded that Alameda has a maritime industry. The constant
challenge is truck access. All of the maritime industries agree that one of the difficulties is
the success of the island. It is crowded and there's a lot of traffic for large scale trucks
getting on and off the island.
Panel member Chubb then asked if a small port in Alameda is needed to support the
industry.
Panel member Mik said possibly, or perhaps a dedicated trucking lane. What is needed,
he said, is a recognition that this is a requirement to keep these industries going.
Panel member Grunt remarked that access is always going to be a problem. He thinks
the future is more about niche maritime industries, that don't necessarily rely on moving
large amounts of things onto or off of the island. The maritime history is really important
to preserve in some manner and to build on economies around that or to enhance existing
economies that are meaningful.
He also pointed out that Alameda probably has the most private marina slips in the Bay
Area. People who own slips come to Alameda from all over the place. The island is one
of the few places you can keep a boat in the Bay Area, and consequently has more of a
draw than it otherwise would.
Panel member Monteko said that there is a lot of underutilized land that can take some of
the commercial load. Rather than competing directly with industry, we should focus on
growing commercial on other locations. In answering the question of what key issues we
would like to see the EDSP address, two come to mind: 1) under-utilized land and 2)
transportation/accessibility to the island is also a serious issue, that will need to be fixed,
access and transportation for workers, mass transit. Retailers are looking at drive time,
and workers are looking for transit. Right now, neither of these are great.
Panel member Elsesser commented that Harbor Bay is this weird location in the Bay Area
that doesn't exist anywhere else. They draw from the furthest extents in every direction.
It is an appealing, reverse commute in most directions. This is one of the very few
locations where one can grow and scale a business. A lot of businesses in his industry
have moved out to Pleasanton, which brings other issues for its employment base. If
in
the Peninsula or Silicon Valley, one cannot attract the hourly workforce like he can.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 9
July 20, 2016",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,7,"Panel member Grunt agreed. They chose to build their new office on Harbor Bay, after an
initial decision to grow in Pleasanton. They rethought the decision during the recession,
when Alameda become more competitive in price. Harbor Bay makes sense to pull
employees from a lot of directions in the Bay Area. Alameda Point has a lot of potential to
offer the same thing.
Panel member Laguerre commented as a non-islander, the island has a very nice friendly
feel, which can be attractive to some businesses. One does not hear of crime and the
schools are considered good. There is an excellent community college, which has land to
grow. The faculty and staff of Alameda are different from other faculties-in that they care
a lot about Alameda and what happens on Alameda. There is a sense of family, when
looking at Alameda from a distance.
The college draws from the region to a certain extent and draws other people to Alameda.
The recruiters go out of the way to draw people from outside the island. The college has
a workforce development center in partnership with the County Workforce Development
Board. They have training centers that could be attractive to industries, such as
automotive, maritime, and other industries. They work with Bay Ship & Yacht.
Ms. Srivastava asked the Panel, what are the key priorities or pressing concerns that the
EDSP should address?
Panel member Chubb answered that he is interested in living and working in close
proximity. Also, Alameda is a very bikeable community. The City just put in a beautiful
bike path down by the beach.
Panel member Elsesser said that the concept of living in Alameda is pretty magical.
There are very few communities left that have the same current feel (warm, welcoming
small town, quirky beach town feel) that the residential part of Alameda has. As you add
businesses, it is critical to add them in a way that doesn't mess this part up. At the same
time, we want a thriving business environment, and that brings with it the challenges of
getting people on and off the island. An increasing number of employees are living in
Alameda. The economics of living here are still accessible at least for part of its
employment base. He emphasized doing economic development in the right places and
in the right ways, not just for the sake of economic growth. He would like to know why
there are a lot of shuttered retail spaces in the neighborhood stations. There are
opportunities there.
Panel member Grunt commented that Alameda is not on the path to anywhere. You only
come here if something brings you here. It is pretty unique, cut off from the rest of the
world and you know that you are in a different place. It has been incredible to watch
Alameda blossom over the past twenty years. It is like a shrub or tree: cut the dead
branches and it comes back stronger. We need to look for the dead branches and trim
them to allow new things to happen. We can be selective. We have a hugely diverse
community and lot going for ourselves.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 9
July 20, 2016",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,8,"Panel member Laguerre remarked from an education standpoint, it would be great to have
businesses getting together to discuss their workforce and training needs through the
college. This would provide greater numbers to build programs around. The community
college is here to meet the needs of the community.
Panel member Mik reflected that maybe we're going back in time to where people lived
near where they worked. We do need to address the balance of employment and
residential. The uniqueness of Alameda is its character. It would be a tragedy to lose
that. The EDSP should be a discussion about the types of businesses the City wants that
would also support the ability to live and work here. More of our employees are moving
closer to Alameda. But not everyone is going to live here. We should also talk about a
mass transit or transportation solution. We are going to be talking about the types of
businesses the City wants, where to put them, and the transportation solutions. Those
are the things I would want to see in the EDSP.
Panel member Monteko echoed the need to address the job-housing balance. The South
Shore Shopping Center is a large employer. Many of the people who work there would
like to live on the island but can't. They would love to see more housing near their center.
Also, retail leakage is part of the scope of work. It is a story that can be told. All these
people are leaving the island to shop, when those dollars can be spent here. It would be
really great to understand where people are going instead of Alameda and how to capture
that sales leakage. Underutilized land is an issue in other parts of the City besides
Alameda Point, such as neighborhood and community shopping centers. Permit time for
small businesses is challenging everywhere. Making it as easy as possible will bring
more business to Alameda.
Panel member Winters said that awareness is a big problem. Alameda Point is a great
area of opportunity to create other things that are unique to draw people and get them
talking about Alameda. On the flip side to sales leakage, we want inflow traffic from off of
the island and have people shop and stay here. The idea of putting a small artists'
community at Alameda Point would be great, such as turning the Bachelors Enlisted
Quarters into live/work artists space would create a unique experience. By their natures,
artists will create things that can only be found in Alameda. It will bring life to a dead area
and maintains the fun and weirdness factor. There are grants to help facilitate that.
Panel member Elsesser wanted to highlight this as a brilliant idea. Hunter's Point open
studios would draw thousands of visitors. The cost of doing this would be relatively little in
the scheme of things and the potential benefit would be kind of cool.
5-F
Provide Feedback on the City of Alameda's Approach to Attracting
Development to the Enterprise District at Alameda Point
Jennifer Ott, the City of Alameda's Base Reuse Director, introduced the item. The staff
report and attachments can be found at:
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 9
July 20, 2016",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,9,"  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2781417&GUID=16211D8D-2D63-
4E9A-8531-6366B3DB8COD&Options=&Search=
Panel member Grunt asked about the ferry terminal.
Ms. Ott said that the new Seaplane Lagoon terminal will be right in the heart of the
development in the Enterprise District. This is the number one issue for developers:
when is the ferry terminal coming? It will operate as a joint consolidated service with the
Main Street Terminal. Most likely, the Seaplane Terminal will be the commute ferry with
Main Street/Oakland supplying mid-day and weekend service. We did look at the
relocating the Main Street Terminal, but it would undermine the Oakland service. The
Oakland line cannot sustain itself and depends on Alameda ridership.
Panel member Mik commented that Main Street is the most popular ferry terminal and is at
capacity. They are selling out their boats. They are really adding capacity with the new
terminal.
Ms. Ott added that ferry ridership has grown 60 percent since 2012, which is unheard of
for public transit.
Panel member Chubb asked about the maker space cluster.
Ms. Ott said that the buildings are being redeveloped by master developers. They will
subdivide them into smaller spaces for specialty manufacturing, artist spaces and some
office. One floor will most likely become work/live, with tight restrictions on the residential
component.
Panel member Monteko asked who pays for the infrastructure in Site B.
Ms. Ott said the developer or end user through a negotiated land deal with the City.
Alameda Point's infrastructure costs are approximately $600 million, or $1 million per acre.
Panel member Elsesser asked about the square footage of entitled space and height
limits.
Ms. Ott answered that there is approximately 5.5 million square feet for all of Alameda
Point, which is a lot of entitlement. We do not want low intensity development; we want
jobs or catalyst benefit. The height limit is 100 feet. It is a very permissive, a big
envelope to create a lot of flexibility. We do not know who the end user(s) will be. We
want to create an opportunistic envelope to take advantage of each businesses' vision.
Ideally, we want a diversified base and not just one end user.
Panel member Monteko asked how is Cushman Wakefield advising on the commercial
market for companies being pushed out of San Francisco and moving to Oakland. On the
one hand, it is someone who wants the flexibility to expand quickly but they want it
yesterday. How are you going to address that?
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 9
July 20, 2016",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,10,"John McManus of Cushman Wakefield, said, historically, companies that have grown up
like Genentech or Facebook start very small, incubate and then expand somewhere else.
In the last cycle, companies like Sun and Cisco moved out and tried to get geographic
diversity, grow as much in the South Bay and then buy another campus in Pleasanton.
We are not seeing that now. Many companies want to stay together in one place, like
Apple. Google X is an exception. We had hoped to see users that wanted that diversity
of locations, but it has not happened that way in this cycle. We believe that there will be
companies wanting to expand. In this awareness phase of the marketing, in addition to
contacting these companies directly, we are going around to brokerage houses in San
Francisco and on the peninsula that represent these companies. Cushman's message in
the weekly and monthly meetings is when you have a large campus requirement that
cannot go into an adaptive, existing building-typically bio-tech that requires building from
the ground up-we have 82 acres, through CEQA, you just need site plan, elevations, and
a design that works. The CEQA process is all done. We could also take incubators,
much like TheraSense in Harbor Bay that became Abbott Diabetes Care. They started at
5,000 square feet and has expanded to nearby buildings. So when the technology hits,
they go.
Panel member Monteko inquired why no one is biting now.
Mr. McManus said that there is no infrastructure; plus the City is picky. You can have a
warehouse distribution center now. Interest from warehouse users in short term, but they
are high traffic and low intensity. There is precedence with VF Outdoor. They moved
from San Leandro and picked up more land as they grew. As we get the infrastructure in
place with 9 to 15 acre projects that make it feasible, we can go down to four acre parcels
and start to look at Semifreddi's and Peet's Coffee that have come out of Emeryville and
Berkeley to Harbor Bay. It is not practical now to leapfrog Site A.
5-G Elect Chair and Vice Chair
Ms. Butler introduced the item.
Panel member Laguerre nominated Mr. Mik as Chair, quickly seconded by Mr. Winters.
The Panel unanimously voted in favor. The meeting was turnover to the newly elected
chair.
Panel member Elsesser nominated Mr. Winters as Vice Chair, seconded by Ms. Monteko.
The Panel unanimously voted in favor.
5-H
Adopt Rules and Procedures
The Chair asked if there was any discussion. There was none.
The Vice Chair moved to adopt the Rules and Procedures; seconded by Dr. Laguerre.
The Panel unanimously voted in favor.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 9
July 20, 2016",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,11,"5-I
Next Meeting
Mr. Fonstein said that the next meeting is anticipated to be in September to report on the
initial research for the EDSP.
6.
Written Communications: None.
7.
Oral Communications - Panel Members and Staff: None.
8.
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 9
July 20, 2016",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,1,"MINUTES OF THE MAYOR'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY PANEL
SPECIAL MEETING OF THURSDAY, May 14, 2020
VIRTUAL MEETING VIA ZOOM
6:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President David Mik called the meeting to order at approximately 6:03pm.
Roll Call
Attendance: Gia Schneider, Tim Karas, David Mik, Adam Elsesser, Debi Stebbins, Brock Grunt,
Madlen Saddik, Remy Monteko, and Warren DeSouza.
Absent: Mike Rose.
City Staff: Lois Butler (secretary), Eric Fonstein, and Amanda Gehrke.
Honored Guests: Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers Jim Oddie, Malia Vella,
and John Knox White.
2. MINUTES
2-A. 2020-7939 Review and Approve Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel Minutes
from December 5, 2019 A motion to approve the December 5, 2019 minutes was made by Panel
member Stebbins, and seconded by Panel member Schneider. Ayes: President Mik, Vice
President Schneider, Panel Members Karas, Elsesser, Stebbins, Grunt, Saddik, and Monteko
(NOTE: DeSouza vote was not recorded due to muted mic). Nays: none. The motion passed 8-0.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PUBLIC
None.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
City branding has been put on hold. Discussions were tabled for a future meeting.
5. NEW BUSINESS
5-A. 2020-7940 Provide Direction for Creating a COVID-19 Economic Recovery Task Force; and
Recommendation to the City Manager regarding which Economic Development Advisory Panel
members, and business/business association representatives, should sit on the Task Force
Staff Member Fonstein presented a report on the creation of an Economic Recovery
Task Force. City staff sought input on proposed task force objectives and goals for short-
term, mid-term, and long-term recovery, and recommendations on Task Force
composition including business sectors/key stakeholders, and for EDAP members who
are interested in participating in the Task Force.
Fonstein welcomed comments and answered clarifying questions.
Panel members discussed and provided input on the presented topics. In addition to
supporting the proposed goals, objectives and timeline, Panel Members suggested the
Task Force develop a guide for businesses that offers best practices/protocols which",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2020-05-14.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,2,"Minutes of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel
Special Meeting
Thursday, May 14, 2020
encourage employee safety and reassure customers. Additionally, members
recommended the task force develop or synthesize materials that help businesses pivot
and adapt to the current situation, to serve as a starting point for businesses in their
resiliency plans. Suggested task force nominees included Panel Member Saddik,
Downtown Alameda Business Association Executive Director Kathy Weber, West
Alameda Business Association Executive Director Linda Asbury, Giuseppe Naccarelli of
Trabocco Restaurant, Dhruv Patel of Ridgemont Hospitality, and representatives from
Merlon Geier or Bank of Marin. Panel Members suggested representation from
restaurant/beverage, public health, urban planning, academia, county health,
hospitality, property owners, real estate, non-profit, childcare, business associations,
retail, and finance on the task force. Members recommended the task force be limited
to 8-10 members.
President Mik made a motion to approve a recommendation to develop a task force
composed of 8-10 representatives from identified key sectors (restaurant/beverage,
retail/property owners, public health/academia, city planning, childcare, banking,
hospitality, and Alameda Business Associations), and put forward several names
mentioned above to the City Manager as suggested task force members. Seconded by
Panel Member Grunt. Ayes: President Mik, Vice President Schneider, Panel Members
Karas, Elsesser, Stebbins, Grunt, Saddik, DeSouza, and Monteko. Nays: none. The motion
passed 9-0.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PANEL MEMBERS AND STAFF
Panel Member Saddik informed the panel of the Alameda Strong Community Grant
fund, a collaborative effort between the Downtown Alameda Business Association, the
West Alameda Business Association, The Chamber of Commerce, and the City, with an
aim of fundraising $200,000 plus to provide relief funding to Small Businesses, Sole
Proprietors, and other Alamedans who have been impacted by the COVID-19 crisis.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Panel Member Karas made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Panel Member
DeSouza. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:09pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler, Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel
2",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2020-05-14.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-06-27,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) SPECIAL
MEETING Monday, June 27, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03pm and because the
recording was not started, staff started the recording, and Chairperson Gillitt
started the meeting over and called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Jennifer Hoffecker, Peter Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson.
Absent: none.
Lois Butler and Walker Toma present as staff to the Commission.
3. MINUTES
2022-2158 Review and Approve Draft May 16, 2022 PAC Minutes
Chairperson Gillitt requested a motion to approve the minutes. After discussion the
motion was postponed to the next meeting to allow additional time for
commissioners to review the draft minutes.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. 2022-2159 Presentation by Forecast Public Art on Public Art Master Plan
Process
Staff member Walker Toma welcomed Forecast Public Art (Forecast), a consultant
firm hired through an RFP process to produce Alameda's Public Art Master Plan
and explained to the Commission and the public that there would be multiple
opportunities for public comment during the presentation.
Jen Krava, Director of Programming and New Initiatives at Forecast, shared
Forecast's mission to activate, inspire, and advocate for public art that advance
justice, health and human dignity by 1) supporting, funding, and training artists who
work in the public realm, 2) partnering and consulting on public art and creative
placemaking projects, and 3) building local capacity, gathering stories, and sharing
research.
The Forecast team members facilitating the Public Art Master Plan process for the
City of Alameda introduced themselves as:",PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-06-27,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, June 27, 2022
Jen Krava, Director of Programming
Mark Salinas, Senior Project Manager
Yarlyn Rosario, Project Manager
Mallory Rukhsana Nezam, Consultant
Yolanda Cotton Turner, Local Artist
Consultant Rukhsana Nezam explained the Group Agreements for the evening's
facilitation process, and shared Forecast's Master Plan timeline and engagement
plan.
After defining Public Art in general, including common locations, sample funding
models, and a presentation of the wide variety of existing public art, Forecast
facilitated an exercise to gather input for the definition of Public Art specific to the
process of developing the Public Art Master plan for the City of Alameda.
Questions and a summary of responses are as follows:
Where should Public Art be located (concentrated or spread out)? Throughout
Alameda; very publicly accessible; the diversity of opportunities within a variety
of neighborhoods; art is missing from shoreline and other high-traffic key
destination areas: difficult to locate existing public art; continue to expand
artwork beyond nautical-theme; historical challenges has been finding sites
and working with City to get approval for public art sites; and the importance of
equitable distribution.
How long should Public Art be installed? Program should support both
performance and temporary physical art (temporary) as well as permanent
pieces like sculpture (permanent); allow artwork to be deaccessioned so that
artwork can represent a diversity of artists instead of the historical precedent of
white male artists; increased cost of maintaining long term art pieces takes
funding away from new artwork; temporary art can be placed in more locations;
set term limits for art which allows a living-gallery feel and fresh art; civic
buildings and garages might be a good fit for murals or light installations;
Alameda has had no audio installations; and keep art permanently, but move
art from key places to allow new art.
Should the aesthetics and content of public art be more symbolic or literal?
Political or heavily messaged art can be challenging in a public setting; support
for a variety of art; the community is the final arbiter of what fits; value of having
artwork that challenges people; performance art has been better able to
capture more political/challenging topics.
Should the aesthetics and content focus on the historic or contemporary?
Existing artwork is mostly contemporary; Alameda is quite nostalgic yet
constantly changing; encourage a focus on new art; and too much nostalgic
artwork doesn't capture the full history (e.g. Alameda is missing artwork about
shellmounds and Japanese internment camps).
2",PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-06-27,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, June 27, 2022
To what extent should the public art be static or interactive? Important to have
some art that can be experienced by all senses and allows people to be
involved in the art; Alameda has too much static art; interactive art is more
memorable, permanent interactive installations can have higher maintenance
expenses depending on the material.
Should the artwork be created by local or global artists? Currently preference
is given to local artists, however certain sites would be best served by artists
outside of the area; miss talent of regional/national/global artists if only
supporting local artists; local cost of living prohibits many artists from living
locally; the rich diversity of artists attempting to stay local should be supported;
has been difficult to reach all local artists with RFP information as well as inform
public about public art; private art galleries support regional/national/globa
artist of notoriety - save Public Art funds for local artists, however preference
to ex-local artists too; multiple factors (like artists availability, marketing of
RFP/RFQ, cost of materials, site specific needs) contribute to which artist might
best fit - so it's a balance of attracting artists from outside the area and
supporting local artists.
Staff member Toma opened the floor for public comment:
Resident Pat Atkinson offered that location does not need to be either completely
spread out or totally concentrated, temporary art allows more community
involvement, a sculpture garden by the Seaplane Lagoon ferry terminal would
welcome visitors, popup art installations could be placed throughout the city and
in public parks, Rhythmix Cultural Works has been very successful at producing
art experiences that are a combination of visual and performing arts, mapping
existing public art would be helpful in driving the Public Art Master Plan.
Tina Blaine, Executive Director of Rhythimix Cultural Works, made the suggestion
to perform a survey of existing public art curated on a website, including a list of
previous performance and cultural arts.
Jennifer Radakovich, Associate Director at Rhythimix Cultural Works, shared that
there is a mural and a Healing Garden on Webster Street, and also that Rhythmix
has offered several public art installations.
Staff member Toma closed public comment.
Forecast facilitated an activity to define success for the Public Art Master Plan.
Commissioners provided the following responses: a framework that ensures Public
Art will be available in Alameda for generations to come; art that attracts visitors
specifically for public art; maps the future of Public Art in Alameda; has simple,
understandable guidelines for art and measurable goals with a focus on cultural
3",PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-06-27,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, June 27, 2022
equity that fits the community of Alameda; and that demonstrates that art is
Alameda's long-term priority.
Forecast shared next steps, including planned surveys, community engagement
pop-ups, presentations, one-on-one interviews, focus groups, and facilitated
workshops, with the goal of creating an visionary plan that contains actionable,
immediately implementable, and modifiable processes, and includes creative input
from the a diversity of voices within the larger community.
Local artist and consultant with Forecast, Yolanda Cotton Turner, informed the
PAC and public that she will be facilitating the first pop-up event at the Alameda
Summer Art Fair, on July 3, 2022 from 11am-3pm. More information is available
at www.alamedaartfair.com.
Ms. Krava shared that the one-on-one interviews are designed to focus on
understanding and improving City processes for public art approval, and Mr.
Salinas shared that the focus groups aim to gather insight from those within the
arts and culture community as well as the larger community.
Chairperson Gillitt expressed his appreciation for Forecast's presentation.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Toma provided the following updates:
the Alameda Marina LandSea Homes recently fulfilled their contribution to
Public Art via an approximately $250,000 in lieu contribution to the Public Art
Fund;
fabrication has been completed for the ""Beken"" sculpture, with an estimated
installation of August 2022 at the Waterfront Park sculpture; and
the July PAC Special Meeting will be postponed to allow time to prepare and
present RFP Cultural Art applications to the PAC. Chairperson Gillett asked
how many submissions have been received to date. Secretary Butler advised
that sharing submission information before the close of the RFP may not be
allowed, and offered to research and provide clarification on this at the next
PAC meeting.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Chairperson Gillett shared that Tina Blaine is retiring from her role as Executive
Director of Rhythmix Cultural Works, and expressed appreciation for her many
years of service and contributions the art community.
4",PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-06-27,5,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, June 27, 2022
Commissioner Ferguson asked for clarification about receiving requests from the
public to notify the PAC and public about upcoming public art, which Ms. Butler
offered to provide.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 8:12p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary, Public Art Commission
5",PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 7, 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: Vice Mayor Vella
arrived at 5:28 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-361) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9); Case Name: Unspecified to Protect Service of Process; Court:
Superior Court of the County of Alameda; Case Number: Unspecified to Protect Service
of Process; Number of Cases: 2
(22-362) Conference with Legal Counsel Workers' Compensation Claim (Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.95); Claimant: Employee - Fire Department; Claims:
149550063, 1895500067, 0695500047; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda
(22-363) 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
(22-364) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957); Position Evaluated: City Attorney - Yibin Shen
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding the Workers' Compensation, the case involves three workers'
compensation claims by a former employee with the Fire Department; Applicant
sustained injuries to his knee, hips and heart as a result of his work duties; he retired via
industrial disability retirement on July 7, 2020; the Council authorized the City Attorney
to settle the pending workers' compensation claim in an amount not to exceed
$132,480.80, resulting in a combined complete case payout of $293,645 which includes
past payments for statutory permanent disability, by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Absent: 1; regarding Existing Litigation, staff
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,2,"provided information and Council provided direction 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; and regarding Labor Negotiators, staff
provided information and Council provided direction by the following two roll call votes:
Vote 1: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1 and Vote 2: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 6:59 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:30
p.m.
Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced regarding Performance Evaluation, Council conducted the City Attorney
performance evaluation and gave direction to staff by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:17
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,3,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - JUNE 7, 2022--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-365) Proclamation Declaring June 11, 2022 as Doug Siden Day.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
(22-366) Proclamation Declaring June 2022 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and
Queer or Questioning Pride Month.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
(22-367) Proclamation Declaring June 19, 2022 as Juneteenth Day.
(22-368) Proclamation Declaring June 2022 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Clerk announced the Public Hearing [paragraph no. 22-378 and called for speakers.
Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote on the teleconference findings [paragraph no. 22-
371] and the CSI Mini Storage lease [paragraph no. 22-377]. .
Councilmember Herrera Spencer recoded a no vote on the teleconference findings [paragraph
no. 22-371].
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Home Together Plan [paragraph no. 22-375 be withdrawn
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,4,"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.]
(*22-369) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held on April 28, 2022 and the Special
and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 3, 2022. Approved.
(*22-370) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,812,822.49.
(22-371) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via
Teleconference. Accepted.
Since Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, the motion 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.
(*22-372) Resolution No. 15910, ""Approving the City of Alameda Climate Adaptation and
Hazard Mitigation Plan as the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Including Incorporation into
the City of Alameda General Plan Safety Element by References and Adopting a General Plan
Amendment Amending the Health and Safety Element and Conservation and Climate Action
Element of the Alameda General Plan 2040 to Align with the Climate Adaptation and Hazard
Mitigation Plan, 2022."" Adopted.
(*22-373) Resolution No. 15911, ""(a) Amending Resolution No. 9460 to Reflect Current
Positions and Entities to be Included in the City of Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and (b)
Rescinding Resolution No. 15661.' Adopted.
(*22-374) Resolution No. 15912, ""Amending the Salary Schedule for Part-Time Classifications
Effective June 5, 2022 to Reflect Changes to the City of Alameda Minimum Wage and to
Maintain Adequate Differentials Between Part-Time Job Categories.' Adopted.
(22-375) Resolution No. 15913, ""Endorse the Alameda County Home Together 2026
Community Plan: A 5-Year Strategic Framework Centering Racial Equity to End Homelessness
in Alameda County."" Adopted.
The Homelessness Area Manager gave a brief presentation and shared a video.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Herrera Spencer participated in the
February Point and Time Count; Council has seen what homelessness in Alameda looks like
first-hand.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the 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.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,5,"(*22-376) Ordinance No. 3322, ""Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter Four to Comply
with Assembly Bill 1276 Regarding Single Use Foodware Accessories and Standard
Condiments."" Finally passed.
(22-377) Ordinance No. 3323, ""Ordinance Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute a
Lease with Rhoads Property Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, dba CSI
Mini Storage for Thirty Six Months for Buildings 338, 608, and 608A C, Located at 50 and 51
West Hornet Avenue, at Alameda Point.' Finally passed.
Since Councilmembers Daysog recorded a no vote, 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.
(*22-378) Public Hearing to Consider Collecting of the Water Quality and Flood Protection Fees
on the Property Tax Bills; and
(*22-378A) Resolution No. 15914, ""Finding [No] Majority Protest and Approving the Continuation
and Collection of the Existing 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee on the Property Tax
Bills for Fiscal Year 2022-23."" Adopted.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-379) Recommendation to Authorize City Attorney to Effectuate the Transition for the
Administration of the Rent Program from the Alameda Housing Authority, who Currently Acts as
the City's Contract Program Administrator, Back In-house to the City of Alameda's City
Attorney's Office; and
(22-379A) Resolution No. 15915, ""Amending the Salary Schedule for: the Alameda City
Employees Association (ACEA) to Reinstate the Classification of Housing Specialist Il and
Approving Workforce Changes in the City Attorney's Office to Add Six New Positions: Three
Housing Specialists, One Administrative Management Analyst, One Administrative Technician Il
Position, and One Director of Rent Program; and Authorize the City Attorney to Fill the Six New
Positions Consistent with All Applicable Laws and Regulations."" Adopted.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Expressed support for the timing; stated renters have been confused about overlapping roles
and complexities; the proposed structure improves efficiency; correspondence being from the
City Attorney's office will receive proper attention: Catherine Pauling, Alameda.
Expressed concern about the housing program being managed by the Alameda Housing
Authority (AHA); stated the City rent program is controlled by City law and enforcement is
handled by the City Attorney's office; urged Council approve the staff recommendation: Toni
Grimm, Alameda.
Stated there has been confusion about the rent program being under AHA; expressed support
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,6,"for the program being moved to the City Attorney's office; stated the switch will be clean: Laura
Woodard, Alameda Renters Coalition.
Councilmember Daysog stated the rent program should be under the AHA; the program subject
matter is a natural fit for AHA; he is confident that the City Attorney's office will perform well;
however, he feels AHA is a better fit for the rent program.
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 stated that she has concerns about moving
the program from AHA; noted that she is a renter; inquired whether the City staff handling the
program will be located at City Hall West.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated there is not enough space to house the
program and staff at City Hall.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the hours of business for City Hall West.
The City Attorney responded that his intent is to have the rent program staff operate on Friday's
for critical matters; stated that he will work with the Human Resources Director to ensure intake
opportunities on Fridays.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for services being offered on Fridays;
expressed concern about the process being adversarial since attorneys will be involved; stated
moving away from mediation will be more adversarial between tenants and landlords; the City
Attorney currently takes action against landlords; inquired whether the City Attorney offers
serves both sides, representing landlords and tenants.
The City Attorney responded that he does not represent landlords or tenants; stated
enforcement actions are on behalf of the State of California; the City Attorney's office represents
the people of the State of California; mediation services have been taken over from Centro
Legal de la Raza at half the cost; staff is engaging in mediation and question and answer
sessions; staff looks forward to expanding the area of work in collaboration with the rent team;
mediation is an important part of the landlord and tenant relationship; enforcement actions are
viewed as a last resort; the goal is to provide education and mediation efforts first and take
enforcement actions only when necessary.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be any change to salaries or
benefits for employees.
The City Attorney responded staff has found parallel tracks for compensation and
classifications; stated the goal is to keep things the same.
The Human Resources Director stated staff obtained employment information from the AHA and
aligned the positions with City salaries and job descriptions; Human Resources will do
recruitments; the goal is to bring employees over.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,7,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the employees are currently employed by
AHA, to which the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be any negative effects on
pensions.
The Human Resources Director responded the employees are members of California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS); stated there is reciprocity; the change will not
impact pensions; staff will receive the same benefit under the City.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Attorney's office has taken proactive steps towards
education; requested staff to provide information on mediation and education.
The City Attorney stated since taking over operations from Centro Legal in January, staff has
provided counselling to 227 different landlords and tenants; staff has completed 10 mediations
and conducted two remote conferences in coordination with fair housing month; both
conferences were well-attended; staff is looking forward to engaging with landlords and tenants
in order to educate, mediate and inform.
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: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(22-380) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Community Development Block
Grant/HOME Investment Partnerships Program Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 Action Plan; Authorize
the Interim City Manager to Use Affordable Housing Unit Fee and Permanent Local Housing
Allocation Funds; and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related
Documents, Agreements, and Modifications at Funding Levels Approved by Congress.
The Program Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any of the funding will go towards bottle
parcel housing or transitional homes at Alameda Point.
The Program Manager responded the proposed funds for the upcoming fiscal year will not go
towards the bottle parcel or transitional housing; Council previously approved community
cabins, known as Dignity Village; approximately $175,000 of unspent funds are being carried
forward into the upcoming fiscal year.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is any new funding for the bottle parcel
or transitional homes at Alameda Point.
The Program Manager responded there is no proposed funding.
Expressed appreciation for the City supporting services; discussed small funding amounts;
urged Council to consider allocating General Fund money for services; stated Family Violence
Law Center receives funding from the County; residents would benefit from more robust
services: Erin Scott, Family Violence Law Center.
Stated the funding supports high schools and delivers mental health services to students in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,8,"need; the well-being of the community is important to the City; encouraged Council approval:
Katherine Schwartz, Alameda Family Services.
Expressed support for the funding; stated the partnership is critical to support programs for older
adults, such as legal services, Medicare counseling and education: James Treggiari, Legal
Assistance for Seniors.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the grants are critical and go towards services which
are otherwise unfunded; the programs cover a breadth of services; the City will see more need
for services in the future; expressed support for using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
funding for mental health programs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(22-381) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15916, ""Summarily Vacate an Excess
Portion of Everett Street Approximately 116-feet Northeasterly of Blanding Avenue in the City of
Alameda Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code, Sections 8330, et seq.' Adopted.
The Deputy Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired who owns the right-of-way of the parcel being vacated.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the two parcels are owned by the same
corporation; stated that he has been working with Ross Stackhouse of Tidewater Capital.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the owners of the parcel were allowed to close off
access to the street.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the gate was in place prior to ownership.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is requirement for the gate to be open as a
public right-of-way.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded during when the parking lot was constructed, a
soil cap remediation project was completed; stated the City gave the owner the option to either
relocate the gate or prepare the vacation as part of the permit; the owner chose to vacate.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the request is from a private entity, to which the
Deputy Public Works Director responded the request is from the City.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how many years the gate had been closed.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded that he understands the gate has been in place
since 2015, but could be as far back as 2011.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
6",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,9,"the resolution].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired why the gate was in place and why
the City waited until now to decide to take action.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the actions were triggered by the permit pulled for
soil remediation; stated the condition had been present for a long time.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the owner could make a formal request to remove the
gate and roadway if the right-of-way continues.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded after Council takes action, the gate will be part of
the property; stated the owners will be responsible for maintenance of the gates and roadway
area; the City will still be allowed to access the area if maintenance needs arise.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the current General Plan designation for the site.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded there are no changes to the General Maritime
zoning.
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.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(22-382) The Interim City Manager made brief comments on his background.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-383) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of having the referral come back to Council
for discussion.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he will not support the referral; noted
after the referral was filed, Council discussed the issue and provided direction to staff to address
the issue as part of the Housing Element and zoning changes happening across the City; he
does not see a reason to re-hash the previous Council discussion; the matter is problematic to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,10,"reconsider since an application has been filed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are a series of public forums where people can hear from the
Planning, Building and Transportation Director; stated forums have been well attended and
discussions have been robust; discussed upcoming forums.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has been able to attend meetings and hear
comments from members of the public; having hundreds of people attend meetings supports
having a separate hearing for zoning to give Council the opportunity to clarify and take actions
separate from the Housing Element.
On the call for the question, the motion carried 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.
(22-384) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of bringing the matter back for Council
discussion on the regular agenda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the amount of meetings a referral has been on can be seen on the
agenda; pending Council referrals could have been heard at the Council priority workshop.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Council workshop was not a regular meeting where
normal business was heard; expressed concern about Council referrals and lack of public
comment at the workshop; stated referrals should be heard at regular Council meetings;
discussed public comment.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about statements made
related to public comment; stated that he will not support the motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed members of the public attending Council meetings;
expressed support for hybrid meetings.
On the call for the question, the motion carried 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.
(22-385) Consider Directing Staff to Develop an Ordinance Setting Fines for Injury-Collisions
Involving Non-Commercial Vehicles that Do Not Meet Federal Design Standards or Have Been
Lifted/Altered in a Manner that Increases the Likelihood of Severe Injury or Death in Collisions
with Pedestrians and Bicyclists. (Councilmember Knox White)
Councilmember Knox White gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
8",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,11,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the referenced letter falls under the
legislative agenda.
Councilmember Knox White responded the letter is not a part of the referral; stated the letter
aligns with the City's Vision Zero safety legislation.
The City Attorney stated Council may provide brief direction for staff to look at its legislative
policy and consider whether or not to act with existing Council authority without debating
whether or not to provide staff direction.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the content of the letter of support.
Councilmember Knox White stated the letter addresses safe vehicle design; vehicles are being
designed for higher speeds than legal on City streets; the letter is three pages long.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the letter will be directed at auto manufacturers or federal
law makers.
Councilmember Knox White responded the letter will be submitted as part of the rule-making
call for comments, which closes tomorrow; the letter will go directly to the National Highway
Safety Transportation Agency.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is being asked to develop a City ordinance
versus supporting State or federal legislation; how the process works due to federal preemption
for commercial vehicles not meeting federal design standards; stated that she would like to
know where the City fits into the matter.
The City Attorney responded there are a number of preemption concerns; stated staff will need
to perform significant legal analysis to see whether there is a way to get around the
preemptions; staff will devote significant effort if Council so directs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the referral; the matter is
preemptive and there are more pressing City issues for Council to address.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is worth looking into; expressed support for staff looking into
legislation or other options; stated the City is preempted from taking actions; Council can direct
staff to perform brief legal research and provide legislative alternatives; the issue should be
looked into; vehicles are causing serious injuries.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed meetings lobbying for federal funding; stated lobbying includes
safety matters; the referral is relevant; she has concerns about how to approach the matter at a
local level; questioned whether the topic can be brought to the Alameda County Transportation
Commission (ACTC); stated the topic seems like more than a quick review of federal law.
Vice Mayor Vella questioned whether Council can limit the research performed; stated the City
could raise the matter with lobbyists and obtain feedback to see whether pending legislation
exists versus legislating at a local level; expressed support for bringing the matter to ACTC and
other representatives.
Councilmember Knox White stated the topic is already part of the City's legislative agenda;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
9",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,12,"Washington, D.C. found a way to take action on the issue.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the situation in Washington, D.C. is unique.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council can have staff review whatever Washington, D.C. passes and
raise the issue with lobbyists.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the proposed request would require significant staff research;
questioned whether staff can look into actions taken by Washington, D.C.
The City Attorney stated staff is happy to follow Council direction; the Washington, D.C. law
involves vehicle registration; Washington, D.C. acts as a State, similar to the State of California,
which could impose registration regulations on vehicles of certain sizes and weights; the
authority does not lie with local jurisdictions; staff is happy to look further if Council desires;
Washington, D.C. has significantly more authority acting as a State than local jurisdiction.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Council referral.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes direction to have ACTC and lobbyists
look into the matter at the State and federal level, to which Councilmember Knox White
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is part of the City's legislative package; Washington, D.C.
newly passed regulations; bringing the matter to ACTC is worthwhile; she would like to raise the
issue with State elected representatives.
Councilmember Daysog stated the referral could be unnecessary; the Municipal Code has
standards related to vehicle types; the standards cover the type of vehicles raised by the
referral; the matter is duplicative; expressed concern about the City not enforcing the standards
in Municipal Code Section 8-6.1; stated the City would be enforcing the standard on many
vehicles; many vehicles come to Alameda from off-Island; questioned whether the vehicles will
be tracked and fined; stated the matter is handled at a higher level in order to create
consistency across localities; there is virtue in working with State and federal leaders; the City
does not enforce the standard similar to other cities across the United States; the practical
approach is to have the matter dealt with at the State or federal level.
Councilmember Knox White withdrew his referral.
(22-386) Consider Supporting Assembly Bill 1445. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the Assembly Bill language provided.
Councilmember Knox White stated the Bill is worth supporting; expressed support for t
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) being used as an example for considering
climate change; stated the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process used by ABAG
aligns with the Bill; the matter is an great way to ensure other housing and planning
organizations across the State consider climate.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
10",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,13,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Council referral.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would prefer to see the matter continued
and return to Council with the Bill language.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the language quoted in the staff report comes from the
Bill; the referral process is to have the matter return to Council on a future agenda for
discussion; inquired whether the letter of support can be submitted without returning to Council.
The City Attorney responded Council rules and process for referrals include directing staff to
have the matter return for further Council discussion.
The Interim City Manager stated that staff should check for any relevant amendments to the Bill
due to the amount of time the matter has been agendized; staff can check with lobbyists and
return to Council if approved.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would support the matter returning; the report can return
with basic analysis; requested clarification about process from the City Clerk.
The City Clerk stated the one exception to not returning for further Council discussion is any
urgent or time-sensitive matter; this matter was not presented as time-sensitive or urgent and
returning for further Council discussion would be the route to follow.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern over RHNA reform; stated that she values analysis; noted
one of the supporters of the Bill is the Alameda Citizens Task Force.
Councilmember Knox White stated support should be registered without waiting a month for a
staff report; Council has taken action on legislation; expressed support for moving the matter
forward.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the referral includes the terms ""urgent"" and ""important;""
the language is clear; the matter has been on the agenda for a while; the Bill could have been
looked up.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for attaching Bill language; inquired the actions to be
taken if the referral is approved, to which the City Clerk responded Council typically sends a
letter of support.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the letter would be sent before Council has had a chance
to read the language of the Bill, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is possible to have the matter return to Council with the
Bill language attached at the next Council meeting under continued agenda items section.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated Council may create a substitute motion and
vote to continue the matter to the continued agenda items section of the next Council meeting
with the Bill and additional information attached.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
11",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,14,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a substitute motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated her motion is to proceed with the letter of support from
Council; the language is provided in the Council referral.
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: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22-387) Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about towing fees.
(22-388) Councilmember Herrera Spencer made announcements regarding a free paper
shredding event, a walk, the sand castle contest, a fundraiser at the skate park, and the
dedication of the Doug Siden Visitors' Center; discussed the Memorial Day celebration at
Veterans Park.
(22-389) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed her time in Washington, D.C.; announced Alameda
County received $25 million for rail safety programs; discussed a Zoom meeting with the United
States Coast Guard and a meeting with Veterans Affairs (VA); stated the VA Medical Clinic and
Columbarium at Alameda Point is fully funded; discussed the ""Everyone Belongs Here"" poster
and poetry contest, the Asian American Pacific Islander heritage celebration, the Memorial Day
celebration, the Change of Command ceremony and a press conference with Congresswoman
Barbara Lee about funding brought to the district; announced the upcoming graduation for
Alameda Unified School District.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
12",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-05-26,1,"City of Alameda, California
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2022
APPROVED MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Sarah Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sarah Lewis, Vice President Kristin Furuichi Fong, Board members
Dianne Yamashiro-Omi, Samantha Green, Scott Means and Priya Jagannathan.
City staff: Eric Fonstein, Lois Butler, Veronika Cole, and Marcie Johnson
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3-A Review and Approve April 28, 2022 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes of April 28, 2022 was made by Board member Green and
seconded by Board member Yamashiro-Omi. Ayes: President S. Lewis, Vice President
Furuichi Fong, Board members Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, and Means. Nays:
none. Motion passed 6-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. AGENDA ITEMS
5-A Continued Discussion of the Development and Implementation of the 2022
Community Needs Assessment
President Lewis introduced Angela Irvine, consultant, president of CERES Policy
Research. Ms. Irvine shared her background and goals for working with the City on the
upcoming focus groups.
Board member Green and Jagannathan presented the list of indicators. SSHRB reviewed
the spreadsheet, and discussed suggested indicators. The following is a summary of
discussion points and questions:
Board member Yamashiro-Omi asked if the indicators would reflect disaggregated
data. Board member Jagannathan clarified that the indicators will be listed tables,
and not interactive.
Staff member Butler mentioned that the reported population for the City of
Alameda may not be accurate, as the Census count was cut off early. Board
member Green mentioned an adjusted Census population count, which did not
include Alameda. Staff member Butler confirmed she will look into this. Board
member Green modified the source for population.",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-05-26.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-05-26,2,"Ms. Irvine stated that there is a lack of data from COVID-19 years, and wanted to
know if SSHRB has experienced the same. Board Member Green confirmed that
she has run into the same issue and plans to use the most recent data available.
Ms. Irvine responded to Board member Yamashiro-Omi concern surrounding the
immigration population, stating it is difficult to get data past 2018. She will share
available data on Alameda County, which lists country of origin.
Board member Means said that the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) indicator
may be problematic, as the number of children is merely a total, and does not
account for the severity of each learning disability.
Board member Yamashiro-Omi asked if there is a data source for number of
minority-owned, woman-owned businesses. Stating it will be difficult to have a
conversation/develop a strategy about inequity without having relevant data.
Board member Green stated that SSHRB will be looking to the City to assist with
this indicator.
President Lewis stated that she is hesitant to remove indicators as they are all
important, and tell their own story. Emphasizing that SSHRB is setting the stage
and the overall goal is to understand the context.
President Lewis suggested replacing the officer per capita with another indicator
regarding overall safety.
Board member Means suggested consolidating some of the homeless information
and adding accessible housing stock availability.
President Lewis asked the Board if there was anything missing. Board member
Yamashiro-Omi highlighted the community concern surround transportation and
asked if there is a data source which would help show the lack of public transit.
Board member Green shared some of the reports which provide transportation
data and agreed it would be an essential indicator to add.
Board member Yamashiro-Omi mentioned her concern regarding the lack of
indicators within the social connection category. Board member Green stated
there is a very little data available and suggests this is a topic for the focus
groups.
President Lewis addressed the Board, asking for input on the potential next steps.
Board member Green stated the next step is to gather all of the data collected, put
into charts and graphs for SSHRB to review, and review at the next SSHRB
meeting.
Ms. Irvine suggested the Board reviews what other cities have determined to be
the most important measuring indicators. Board member Means and Jagannathan
recommended looking at Portland's eight domains for age-friendly cities; and A
Life Course Framework by Andrew Chandler.
Board members confirmed aiming for July timeline.
5-B Continue the Discussion of SSHRB'S Homelessness Activities
President Lewis opened the discussion by sharing her thoughts regarding SSHRB's role
as ""public educator,"" highlighting the need to correct misinformation about what it means
to be homeless - focusing on humanizing the issue so people are not afraid.
Board member Green asked if the Point-In-Time (PIT) count has been released, and if
there are any upcoming public events or activities around the released information. Staff
member Butler stated that the PIT data was released by Everyone Home on May 16,
2022. The City does not have any planned events.",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-05-26.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-05-26,3,"Vice President Furuichi Fong and Board member Yamashiro-Omi support the idea of
highlighting community members and their lived experiences, specifically around their
interactions with social service providers.
Board members discussed a community press release and kick-off event with shared
stories from the community. Possible collaboration with the College of Alameda, high
school students and Shaun Daniels with Castaway.
Board member Yamashiro-Omi suggested mirroring some of the material presented by
Alameda Point Collaborative.
President Lewis summarized SSHRB consensus, confirming that it will remain on the
agenda for next month's SSHRB meeting.
5-C Workgroup Reports
Domestic Violence (DV) Task Force (Furuichi Fong): Board member Furuichi
Fong attended the May 19 meeting. Discussion included, DV Awareness Month
(October) and the need to provide additional resources to the public prior to. With
the assistance of DABA & WABA, the Task Force plans to post resource flyers
around Alameda, specifically in restrooms at bars and restaurants.
Alamedans Together Against Hate (Yamashiro-Omi, Furuichi Fong): Board
member Yamashiro-Omi confirmed they are still reviewing consultant proposals.
Infrastructure Workgroup (Lewis, Means): President Lewis shared that they will
present four (4) options/recommendations for the Community Service Awards, at
next month's SSHRB meeting.
5-D Presentation on City of Alameda's Funding for Social Service Initiatives and
Activities
Staff member Butler presented a detailed spreadsheet of the funding sources for Social
Services. The following six (6) sources, fund a total amount of $2,080,054:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Alameda County
Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC)
General Fund
Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP)
Permanent Local Housing Assistance (PLHA)
Board member Jagannathan asked what percentage of the General Fund is spent on
social services; how much is being invested into social services? Staff member Butler
said she did not know the exact percentage, nor did she think she would be able to pull
that information. She directed Board member Jagannathan to the City website, where the
Finance Department published the budget.
Staff member Butler noted that staff time was not included in the spreadsheet, however it
is included in the budget, published on the City website.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-05-26.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-05-26,4,"6-A Status Report on Homeless Services
Staff member Johnson provided the following update:
Winter Warming Shelter: Services have concluded.
Dine and Connect: Hosted a volunteer appreciation event, which was well attended.
Emergency Housing at Alameda Point: City Council passed the rehab/outfitting of
three homes.
Approval of Site A: City Council passed the building of 600 housing units (market &
BMR mixed).
Homeless Encampments: Monthly clean-up with Planning & Building and Alameda
Police Department are happening on second and fourth Tuesdays of the month.
Village of Love: Currently looking for a new location.
7. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
President Lewis adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Fonstein, Board Secretary",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-05-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - MAY 17, 2022--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor
Vella arrived at 7:18 p.m. The meeting was conducted via
Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(22-334) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that City Manager Communications would be heard
next.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(22-335) The Interim City Manager discussed the Fourth of July parade and pre-parade 5K
benefitting the Midway Shelter; announced new parking enforcement service starting on May 23
and National Public Works Week; noted the COVID-19 case numbers are increasing; urged
people to wear high quality masks; expressed his appreciation for the ability to serve Alameda.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-336) Proclamation Declaring May 2022 as Jewish American Heritage Month.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-337) Paul Foreman, Alameda, expressed concerns over the draft Housing Element (HE)
document; discussed Assembly Bill (AB) 215's requirement for Council consideration of all
public comment before submission of the draft HE.
(22-338) Zac Bowling, Alameda, expressed support for the HE work being done.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Expressed concern about the proposed Interim City Manager: Erin Fraser, Alameda.
Expressed concern about the proposed Interim City Manager: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
The Human Resources director stated the comments were not identified during background
process.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether anyone from the public reached out with concerns, to
which the Human Resources Director responded in the negative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,2,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote on the teleconference findings [paragraph
no. 22-341 and the resolution continuing the emergency declaration [paragraph no. 22-349
and requested the Interim City Manager contract [paragraph no. 22-342], homeless housing
assistance and prevention grant [paragraph no. 22-350 and Metropolitan Transportation
Commission grant [paragraph no. 22-351 be withdrawn for discussion.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote on the teleconference findings.
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. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*22-339) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting and the Continued April 5, 2022 Meeting
Held on April 12, 2022, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on April 19,
2022. Approved.
(*22-340) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,647,168.48.
(22-341) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via
Teleconference.
Note: Since Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer recorded note votes, the matter
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.
(22-342) Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing Dirk Brazil as Interim City
Manager for a Term of No More Than 960 Hours in a Fiscal Year at a Salary of $133.85 Hourly,
Commencing on May 23, 2022, and Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Agreement on Behalf of
the City.
The City Attorney briefly announced and summarized the terms and employment agreement.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like guidance on appropriate public
discussion topics.
The City Attorney stated Council is able to speak about anything which is not confidential closed
session material; anything received solely through closed session remains confidential; anything
within public record, comments raised or staff report is permissible to discuss.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is permissible to allow the proposed
Interim City Manager to respond to Council publically.
The City Attorney responded Council may ask the candidate to respond to questions; stated the
responses are voluntary and the candidate does not have to respond.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,3,"Councilmember Daysog stated his vote on the matter does not reflect the candidate; the City
should have had a number of candidates and more time should be spent on finding more
candidates; expressed concern over the process.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is uncomfortable with starting a dialogue with the
proposed Interim City Manager in a public forum; allegations have been brought forth which
have not yet been a part of any discussion; expressed support for the proposed Interim City
Manager being able to address the issue which has been raised; stated that it is unfair to ask
open up an additional discussion with the candidate.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Knox White; stated that she finds it
troubling for individuals to come forward with unsubstantiated allegations; expressed support for
allowing an opportunity to address allegations.
To allow time, Council addressed other pulled Consent Calendar items.
(*22-343) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Accept the Work of G & G
Builders, Inc. for Godfrey Park Recreation Building Renovations, No. P.W. 02-21-08. Accepted.
(*22-344) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Accept the Work of G & G
Builders, Inc. for the Maintenance Service Center Interior Improvements, No. P.W. 02-21-10.
Accepted.
(*22-345) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Partially Accept the
Improvements Completed by Alameda Point Partners for Tract 8336, Site A, Phase 1, at
Alameda Point. Accepted.
(*22-346) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute an Agreement
with Suarez & Munoz Construction Inc. for Alameda City Hall Lawn Conversion, Project No.
P.W. 02-22-05, for a Not to Exceed Amount of $204,445. Accepted.
(*22-347) Resolution No. 15904, ""Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the City
of Alameda's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for
Notice of Public Hearing on June 21, 2022 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina
Cove).' Adopted.
(*22-348) Resolution No. 15905, ""Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the City
of Alameda's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for
Notice of Public Hearing on June 21, 2022 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2
(Various Locations). Adopted.
(22-349) Resolution No. 15906, ""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.
Note: Since Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, the motion carried by the
following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,19,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to know the number of units; people
in the community use the facility for storage; expressed concern about where current customers
will store items after the three year term is up; inquired whether staff will be offering storage
space at another facility.
The Management Analyst responded currently, staff does not plans to do so; stated the timeline
has not been determined; staff can take direction from Council to consider alternatives.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would have liked to know how many
Alamedans are being impacted and the plan for the future; there is a need for storage facilities;
expressed concern about terminating the tenancy; stated some customers might have been
renting storage space for almost 20 years.
The Interim City Manager stated the matter is a lease extension recommendation; the use has
been in place since 2005; staff is providing additional time; redevelopment at Alameda Point
comes with twists and turns; staff would like to preserve flexibility as the landlord; the intent is
not to terminate the tenancy, but to extend the term by three years.
Vice Mayor Vella stated a new storage facility is being constructed not far from the facility; the
units could be factored into the nearby, new, storage facility; Council tries to grapple with job
creation and building adequate housing; neither job creation or adequate housing are
accomplished with using the space as a storage facility; expressed support for direction being
provided, while keeping larger goals in mind.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the new storage facility is near Mariner's Square, to
which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council balances many interests and desires to ensure properties
have the highest and best use; the area is currently suitable for storage; however, the lease
extension has been structured to allow for another use when the opportunity arises; the storage
facility nearby is a larger, multi-level alternative.
Councilmember Daysog stated it is time to begin planning the Enterprise District; he will not
support the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for Council being briefed in advance;
stated similar items in the future should not exclude briefings; the number of units and alternate
locations should have been considered; questioned whether the owner of both storage facilities
is the same; stated that she will support the matter because she would like the tenants to have
three years versus no extension; expressed support for exploring alternate sites for the tenant.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about Council briefings.
The Interim City Manager stated staff generally provides an overview or briefing for Council to
address any questions; the matter relates to the City acting as landlord; any negotiation related
to price and terms is heard in closed session; the lease extends a pre-existing use of a facility
paying market rate rents; staff can provide more in-depth discussions; staff provides as much
information as possible while acting as both the landlord and land use authority.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she often has questions about staff reports and reaches out to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
19",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,20,"staff for clarification; inquired whether Councilmembers can reach out to staff for additional
clarifying information.
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff is available to answer
questions and will typically review the agenda with Councilmembers the week of the meeting;
not every Councilmember has the availability for a briefing prior to each meeting.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the matter requires four affirmative votes; expressed
support for Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about unit amounts being answered prior
to approval.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded Councilmember Herrera Spencer has indicated that she will
vote in favor of the lease extension.
Councilmember Knox White stated the matter has been agendized for almost a month and
questions could have been made prior to the meeting; Council can request a briefing prior to the
meeting.
Councilmember Knox White moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated Council has been discussing the Enterprise District
for some time; the City needs to make the most of the property and not displace tenants while
the City is working on the Enterprise District plan; she will support the motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about whether the matter needs three
or four affirmative votes.
The City Attorney stated the lease requires four affirmative votes.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what would happen to the tenant if the matter does
not pass.
The Management Analyst responded the existing lease has expired; stated the tenant is being
held over on a month-to-month tenancy; if the lease is not passed, staff will continue the month-
to-month tenancy and could renegotiate further if Council desires; if renegotiation do not occur,
staff would make considerations to remove the tenant.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the tenant is paying the lower rent amount during month-
to-month tenancy.
The Community Development Director responded the language provided in the holdover lease
dictates the rent; stated holdover rent is typically 150% to 200% of the initial rent.
The Management Analyst stated the lease allows the City to charge 200% of the current rent
during the holdover period; staff has opted to maintain the current rate due to scheduling issues.
The City Attorney stated the City should charge the set amount of rent shown in the lease; staff
can implement the letter of the lease if Council does not approve the matter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
20",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,21,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the holdover amount is more than amount proposed in
the lease amendment.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the holdover amount
is double the existing rent as opposed to a 10% increase.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council could have met in closed session to
discuss options for extending the lease and finding and alternate location.
The City Attorney responded the matter is a real property transaction and Council could direct
staff to agendize a closed session item at a future meeting in order to discuss price and terms.
The Interim City Manager stated agendas have become congested; staff is trying to move
matters through; closed session agendas have been lengthy due to labor negotiations; the lease
extension is relatively straight forward; there is opportunity to see lease extensions in closed
session; the approach creates a backlog since the City owns a lot of land and has many
tenants; expressed support for clear Council direction on which matters staff should bring to
closed session versus open session; stated the extension provides continued flexibility; the
Enterprise District is not ready to be built yet; the lease language provides flexibility for the City
in the future.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is not supportive of having every lease extension come before
Council for consideration; the City should not negotiate alternative space for the tenant; stated
that she would like to be reasonable and go with the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the lease is an extension as well as a termination; the
tenant has three years at most; the termination aspect is different from other lease extensions
which often include multiple options; she plans to support the extension to keep the tenant as
long as possible; expressed support for consideration of alternate locations.
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.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Not heard.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-357) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-358) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-359) Consider Directing Staff to Develop an Ordinance Setting Fines for Injury-Collisions
Involving Non-Commercial Vehicles that Do Not Meet Federal Design Standards or Have Been
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
21",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,22,"Lifted/Altered in a Manner that Increases the Likelihood of Severe Injury or Death in Collisions
with Pedestrians and Bicyclists. (Councilmember Knox White) Not heard.
(22-360) Consider Supporting Assembly Bill 1445. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not
heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
22",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,23,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - MAY 17, 2022- -5:15 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:16 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Herrera Spencer, Knox White, and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: Councilmember Daysog was
absent. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
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.]
(22-329) Recommendation to Approve Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director,
Len Aslanian, Assistant City Attorney, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community
Development Director, as Real Property Negotiators for 950 West Tower Avenue,
Alameda, CA. Accepted.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-330) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: 950 West Tower Avenue (Building 39, Alameda Point,
Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Community Development Director Lisa Maxwell,
Assistant Community Development Director Nanette Mocanu, and Assistant City
Attorney Len Aslanian.
(22-331) 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.
(22-332) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring (Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957); Title/Description of Positions to be Filled: City Manager.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,24,"Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding the Labor Negotiators, staff provided information and Council
provided direction 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.]; regarding Property Negotiators, staff provided information
and Council provided direction by the following Councilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye;
Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. [Absent:
Councilmember Daysog - 1]; regarding Employee Appointment/Hiring staff provided
information and Council provided direction, including forming a subcommittee of Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft and Vide Mayor Vella with no vote taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:00
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,25,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY-MAY 17, 2022- -6:59 P.M.
Mayor/Chair
Ezzy
Ashcraft
convened
the
meeting
at
7:04
p.m.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog,
Herrera
Spencer, Knox White, and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft
- 4. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella - 1.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye;
Spencer: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella
- 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*22-07 SACIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting Held on May 3,
2022. Approved.
(*22-333 CC/22-08 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Transactions
Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2022. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at
7:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
1
to the Community Improvement Commission
May 17, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,4,"(22-350) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a $285,767 Grant
Agreement with Alameda County for Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Grant, and
Authorize the City Manager, in the Future, to Extend the Term of the Contract up to December
31, 2023; and
(22-350 A) Resolution No. 15907, ""Amending the Grants Fund (222) Budget to Appropriate
$285,767 for the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Grant Project."" Adopted.
The Economic Development made brief comments.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated some of the funds requested were not approved; the
County has not approved using funds to support outreach, mental health support or flexible
funds; inquired how much funding is needed or whether alternate funding can be allocated.
The Economic Development Manager responded $50,000 is for the flexible funds; stated
$85,000 is for the mental health funds; staff has put all funding towards the overnight day
center; staff is able to house the unhoused for a longer period of time.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City could consider alternate funding for the
programs; inquired the cost for outreach.
The Economic Development Director responded the $50,000 for flexible funds includes
outreach.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the discussion remains within the agendized parameters.
The City Attorney responded that he believes Councilmember Herrera Spencer is trying to
establish whether or not the grant should move forward; stated
the wisdom of the underlying action is not being debated; members of Council may ask
questions in order to understand whether or not a grant should be pursued.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is not currently directing staff to explore other
funding opportunities, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated her inquiry appropriately falls under the grant;
discussed using parking spaces for the overnight day center; inquired how many parking spaces
are being used.
The Economic Development Manager responded that she does not have the exact count; stated
there are only few remaining spaces not being used at the day center when she last checked;
the count is up from the past.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the spaces were not being fully utilized in the past;
expressed support for the increase in count.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolution].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,5,"Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted against the matter in 2019; he is
willing to be flexible and will support the matter; however, putting people in cars is not the best
idea; if the City combats homelessness, available funding should be used to find shelter.
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.
(22-351) Resolution No. 15908, ""Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Submit a Request to
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of $126,618 in Fiscal Year 2022-
23 for Two Grand Street Transportation Safety Projects per Transportation Development Act
Article 3 for Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding, and to Execute All Necessary Documents.""
Adopted.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter includes two projects; the Grand Street
bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements have not come to Council for approval yet; inquired
whether the matter will be heard by the Transportation Commission later in May.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated there have been two
public workshops on the project.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the funds will be flexible to meet needs; inquired
whether other approved projects could have been submitted.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded staff considered other projects; stated the
scope has expanded as the project has moved forward; originally, the project was solely for
paving; rectangular flashing beacons have been added.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is happy to support the first project, but not the
second project until it has been approved.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of bifurcating the two projects to allow her to
support the first project.
Councilmember Knox White made a substitute motion to approve the staff recommendation
[including adoption of the resolution].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer's
motion is to bifurcate the vote, to which Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog seconded Councilmember Herrera Spencer's motion to bifurcate the
vote.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,6,"On the call for the question, Councilmember Herrera Spencer's motion 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 Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolution].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated there is virtue in understanding the plan; it is
possible that the Shoreline Drive project will be fine; however, it is good to know the details and
understand the public first; noted that he will abstain from the vote.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she feels Council will have ample time to weigh in on the two
proposed projects; expressed support for the proposed motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the second project could be changed entirely; inquired
whether the motion is to fund the Grand Street bicycle project.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated approval would go
towards the $2.5 million that has already been allocated to the project; the project has an
$827,000 grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as well as local paving
funds; approval will supplement the project.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is a reason the project could not have
been brought to Council after being approved by the Planning Board.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded the grant application must be submitted to
the County in June prior to the next Council meeting.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not support the motion; expressed concern
about the motion not being bifurcated.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. Abstentions: 1.
(22-342 CONTINUED) Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing Dirk Brazil as
Interim City Manager for a Term of No More Than 960 Hours in a Fiscal Year at a Salary of
$133.85 Hourly, Commencing on May 23, 2022, and Authorize the Mayor to Sign the
Agreement on Behalf of the City.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the statements made during public comment.
Dirk Brazil discussed an incident at an annual Picnic Day; stated undercover Officers pulled
over individuals in a van; a confrontation occurred causing people to leave the scene; an
investigator was hired; shortly after the investigator's hiring, reports about concerning comments
arose; the contract was severed with the investigator; McGregor Scott was hired to take over
the investigation; the result of the investigative report was the creation of a larger, more robust
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
6",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,7,"Police Oversight Operation, Auditor and Commission; the switch was made quickly once
concerns arose.
In response to Councilmember Knox White's inquiry, Mr. Brazil stated the City of Davis has an
excellent Police Chief; he relied on the Police Chief in selecting the initial investigator.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether changing course would be a problem if an issue or cause for
concern is raised.
Mr. Brazil responded in the negative; stated the investigator had been recommended by the
Police Chief who is still working with the City of Davis and is highly respected; the
recommendation was the wrong call.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the hiring would have still occurred if the concerning
comments had been known.
Mr. Brazil responded in the negative; stated the field is specialized; he relied on law
enforcement for recommendations; staff quickly figured the recommendation was not proper;
staff brought in a credible replacement to produce the report.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the allegations being made; expressed support
for the clarification provided.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not plan to support the matter; expressed
support for the public comments.
Councilmember Knox White discussed a link to an op-ed being shared with select
Councilmembers; stated mistakes made were quickly identified and corrected.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the contract as presented.
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.
(*22-352) Ordinance No. 3321, Concerning Rent Control and Limitations on Evictions Applicable
to Maritime Residential Tenancies including Floating Homes. Finally passed.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-353) Recommendation to Approve Proposed Term Sheet for Development of Alameda
Point Site A and Direct Staff to Negotiate a Sixth Amendment to the Disposition and
Development Agreement with Alameda Point Partners (APP) Based Substantially on the Term
Sheet, as well as Directing Staff to Negotiate Amendments to Ancillary Project Agreements.
The Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,8,"Councilmember Knox White stated the plan proposes a significant increase in the number of
townhomes; inquired the percentage of units, which are visitability and universal design
compliant.
The Planning Building and Transportation Director responded staff has been discussing the plan
with APP; stated City ordinances require 30% of every project to have universally designed
units where someone with a disability could live; 100% of the units must be visitable where
someone with disabilities can comfortably visit the units; City ordinances recognize the
requirement and establishes a process by which Council and the City can grant waivers;
townhomes are particularly difficult and are a product type that does not lend itself to universal
design or visitability due to the amount of stairs; there are ways to modify townhome units to
meet the visitability standard; Site A has a lot of multi-family housing that is elevator served and
is doing well with universal design standards; APP will be able to meet and exceed the universal
design standard by 100%; Site A has almost doubled the requirement for universal design; the
visitability standard has been a problem for every project with a large number of townhomes;
APP believes a 70% compliance rate can be reached by modifying the townhome design;
Council may choose to include terms in the Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA).
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how Council will know the affordable housing will be
built; and whether the cost for affordable housing is significantly higher than $50,000.
The Community Development Director responded one of the milestone schedule requires is that
the affordable housing provider has to be identified fairly early in the planning process; the
provider will be able to work with the development partner to plan for the affordable housing
project; $50,000 will be paid by APP incrementally throughout the project and will not be paid as
a lump sum; the incremental payments help assure investment in the affordable housing project;
the provider will be in a position to apply for and raise funding; the $50,000 provides great
assistance.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the cost per unit.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the cost varies from site to site;
stated the affordable units are part of land and infrastructure that had been provided for free; the
developer is providing a finished pad; the site has many advantages; discussed a housing
project near Eagle Avenue and Everett Street with separate buildings and lower density with a
higher cost per unit; stated building the units cost $900,000 each.
The Community Development Director stated the Eden Housing project cost was approximately
$700,000 per unit.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City previously tethered the affordable housing
units to ensure affordable units were built before market rate units; inquired whether Site A was
the first project to untether the affordable housing units from the market rate units, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
David Doezema, Keyser Marston Associates, stated the $700,000 per unit cost is a good
number; a portion of the cost would be paid by the project's operating income; the cost does not
necessarily need to be covered by a subsidy source; rents can cover some of the costs for
amortizing a mortgage; tax credits are generally able to help offset a portion of the costs; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
8",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,9,"cost gap can be reduced to roughly $300,000.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated except for the affordable housing, the units being built
are not rentals; the market rate units are for sale; inquired about the rental income.
The Community Development Director responded a final determination has not yet been made;
stated the units for sale and for rent will be established by the market condition at the time the
units come online; the developer is committed to putting a condominium map on every parcel to
allow for either option; a final determination will be made as the market shows itself.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the determination contradicts an earlier meeting held
with staff; rentals would be provided for affordable housing units and market rate units would be
available for purchase.
The Community Development Director stated that she was referring to the market rate units; the
affordable housing units are planned to be for rent.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether all market rate units will be for sale and not
for rent, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the plan could change; discussed rental income from
affordable housing; inquired the financial guarantee for the affordable housing to be built.
The Community Development Director responded there is not a guarantee; stated the terms set
a pot of money to supplement associated costs; Phase 1 project has the affordable housing on
Block 8 come online first; an experienced developer will be selected with enough time to secure
funds; the free land and $50,000 will provide enough to get the project started.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is a reason the proceeds from the
market rate units will not be put into a trust that can be used for affordable housing.
The Project Manager stated the developer contributed approximately $30,000 per unit for the
first phase; $50,000 per unit is an increase from past contributions; the expectation is the
construction of affordable housing units will not be fully funded; the contribution helps the
affordable housing developer secure future financing in the form of tax credits.
The Community Development Director responded the proceeds from market rate being put into
a trust would create an impractical environment to proceed with the balance of development;
stated funds will need to flow out of the project to the developer as the project moves forward.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether a contribution of more than $50,000 per unit
has been considered; stated the City used to require affordable housing units to be built before
any market rate units could be sold; she is surprised that the City is not recommending money
to be set aside or another form of guarantee.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated Alameda Point is different from the
rest of the City; Alameda Point has a 25% affordable housing requirement, the rest of the City
has a 15% requirement; projects are structured differently between Alameda Point and the rest
of the City; the City is the property owner and project partner at Alameda Point; staff is satisfied
and believes the project will work for the reasons outlined by the Project Manager; staff has
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
9",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,10,"successfully built 128 units of affordable housing with the partner and a lower subsidy per unit;
staff is confident the City has been set up to meet the 25% affordable housing requirement; APP
will not be building the affordable housing units; an affordable housing developer will be brought
in to partner with the City and APP to build the affordable housing; the term sheet has a high
likelihood of success; the 25% affordable housing units is a City requirement; staff cannot
guarantee the success; however, the term sheet puts the City in the best possible position to
meet the requirement.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired why the City does not put money from the sale of
market rate units into a trust until the affordable housing units are built; expressed support for
covering 15%.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the investors for the project need
to invest millions of dollars to make the project move forward and build infrastructure to prepare
the property for vertical developers; investors need to have a return; if the City requires a trust,
the project will no longer be financially viable.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether for sale units might end up being rentals.
The Community Development Director responded the determination has not yet been made;
stated a mix of market rate and affordable housing units is the current plan; the developer could
reconsider if there is a dramatic shift in the market.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the for sale market rate units could end up
being market rate units for rent.
The Community Development Director responded that the approach is not the current plan.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter provides a sixth amendment to the DDA;
inquired the reason the developer has been unable to perform the prior amendments.
Karen Tiedemann, Goldfarb and Lipman, responded it is not accurate to state the developer has
been unable to perform the various amendments; stated the developer has performed on most
of the amendments; previous amendments revised the agreement, but have not released the
developer from obligations; the fourth and fifth amendments related to affordable housing and
timing; the amendments related to performance of obligations and schedules needed to be
revised; a project of significant size and multi-phases typically has a variety of amendments;
changes occur over time, many things cannot be predicted and adjustments must be made.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated inflation is at a current 40-year high; inquired how the
high inflation rates will impact the ability to complete the project and perform the sixth
amendment.
Mr. Doezema responded inflation is not a favorable factor and does not help the project;
inflation can drive interest rates up placing downward pressure on sales prices; the project is
feasible at this time; a guarantee cannot be made about changes to future conditions.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired why staff is not recommending tethering the
affordable housing units to market rate units.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
10",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,11,"Mr. Doezema responded staff pursued the concept with the developer and was met with strong
concerns; stated tethering the units would result in the inability to finance the project; the
developer is investing millions into infrastructure; tethering the affordable housing to an
uncontrollable aspect would prevent financing of the larger project due to unpredictability.
The Interim City Manager requested staff to expand on the complications associated with
financing affordable housing projects and tethering concepts.
Mr. Doezema stated getting funding for affordable housing projects is a process; tax credits
must be obtained; there are different layers of funding from the County, State or other
opportunities; time is needed to make the project work.
The Interim City Manager stated the market is competitive; many projects in different
jurisdictions are competing for the same affordable housing funding; the competitiveness adds
to the uncertainty; projects must be competitive; affordable housing is tricky; tethering in the
current environment becomes challenging; staff is recommending the amendment since seeding
the project with $50,000 will allow the affordable housing developer to move forward.
The Project Manager stated the goal is to have the developer identify a potential affordable
housing developer to work with and begin the process of finding affordable housing project
funding.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the current market rate housing units for purchase are
up to 3,300 square feet; expensive monthly rentals exist; inquired whether market rate prices
are similar and the proposed square footage.
The Community Development responded APP indicated the current proposal is in the 1,900 to
2,200 square foot range; 2,200 square foot units would be the universal design townhomes.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired if staff has an idea of the purchase price.
The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the price will vary
based on the unit's finishes and details; the price will be available later in the planning.
Mr. Doezema stated although it is not a figure from the developer, the average cost of
townhomes in the area is $1 to $1.4 million.
Councilmember Daysog requested clarification of Phase 1B; stated the City is planning to build
an additional 199 housing units; inquired the original land use that is being replaced with
housing and the community facility; noted the community facility sounds exciting.
The Community Development Director responded APP will complete the infrastructure and
development pad for the community facility; stated staff will put out a request for proposals
(RFP) to make a determination of what will be placed on the pad.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated that he does not have the exact
numbers; Block 10 is being proposed for residential and is currently planned for three existing,
small, Navy buildings to be adaptively reused for commercial space with the construction of a
fourth building to be used for commercial; the four buildings add up to less than 100,000 square
feet; the plan has become a non-viable option; Phase 2 has approximately 400,000 square feet
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
11",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,12,"of adaptive reuse for commercial purposes in existing warehouses; a 2018 amendment included
the remaining commercial and 128 housing units; the amendment replaced commercial with
housing to support the Housing Element.
Stated that he is proud of the work the APP team has achieved; the partnership with the City
has achieved progress around a comprehensive scope and $90 million investment; a lot has
been delivered to-date; decisions for the proposal are critical to maintain momentum and
complete Site A: Joe Ernst, APP.
Stated Eden Housing has worked with APP to deliver the Starling and Corsair flats; many units
are rented at affordable rates; expressed support for the proposed term sheet; stated Eden
Housing considers APP a great partner; urged Council approve the term sheet: Louis Liss, Eden
Housing.
Stated that he has championed a performing arts center at Alameda Point for many years;
expressed support for the new phase of the project and the performing arts center; stated
putting in the infrastructure will help; discussed parking and traffic concerns: Christopher
Seiwald, Alameda.
Stated MidPen Housing is working with partners to expand existing supportive housing at
Alameda Point; expressed support for Council approving the proposed term sheet: Sarah
Mclntire, MidPen Housing.
Expressed support for the amended term sheet; stated the additional units will be vital for
Alameda to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); discussed access to new
transit; expressed concern over the maximum amount of parking spaces; discussed impacts on
low-income residents: Zac Bowling, East Bay YIMBY.
Discussed difficulties hosting the first Animate Dance Festival (ADF) event; stated the recent
ADF event was fantastic and successful due to infrastructure and density brought by
construction; supporting the project continues the development and potential for performing arts:
Tara Pilbrow, West End Arts District.
Urged Council to approve the term sheet; stated that she has been working towards a
performing arts center in the area; a performing arts center would serve as an important
entertainment anchor; expressed support for increasing the density of the area: Rachel Campos
de Ivanov, Alameda.
Urged Council to approve the development plan and term sheet for Site A in order to continue
redevelopment; stated APP is the right developer for Alameda Point and have installed critical
infrastructure to allow future development; development at Alameda Point is challenging; APP
understands the challenges and constraints of Alameda Point: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Stated there is dire need for housing at the low-income level; urged Council to support the
project; expressed concern about the term sheet containing a waiver of universal design without
consultation from the Commission on Persons with Disabilities as required; stated Council is
making decisions for persons with disabilities without consulting the Commission on Persons
with Disabilities: Beth Kenny, Commission on Persons with Disabilities.
Stated housing is a tremendous need in the community for employers and employees; urged
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
12",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,13,"Council to support the Site A project and approve the term sheet: Madlen Saddik, Chamber of
Commerce.
Expressed support for the Phase 1B and Phase 2 proposals; stated the work has been
impressive; the proposed phases will build on the success to-date and infrastructure will be
expanded; the affordable housing requirements across the site will be met; noted the units will
aid the City's RHNA; urged Council to approve the term sheet: Bill Pai, Alameda.
Stated the developments made to-date have provided a vastly improved quality of life for
Alameda Point residents; expressed support for Waterfront Park being a resource for refugees;
discussed access to transportation and parks; stated infrastructure remains the biggest threat;
expressed support for the completion of West Tower Avenue infrastructure: Doug Biggs,
Alameda Point Collaborative.
Expressed support for the proposal and for keeping momentum; stated the proposed housing
units are key to the City meeting its RHNA numbers; urged Council to move ahead with the
proposal: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.
Stated approving Site A is important for positive economic growth; urged Council to approve the
proposal for Site A; discussed infrastructure further supporting master developments; expressed
support for continuing the reuse of Alameda Point: Joann Guitarte, Café Jolie, Alameda.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry about universal design, the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director stated the matter relates to a term sheet which sets forth the basic
parameters upon which the City will negotiate a final DDA; the DDA will come before Council for
approval at a later date; staff is laying out a road map; staff understands the project will require
waivers; it is important to bring the discussion early and create awareness; the project will need
to go to the Commission on Persons with Disabilities for input prior to staff returning to Council
for any final approvals; if Council moves forward with the term sheet, staff will have a lot of work
to do with APP to negotiate the final DDA amendments; before returning to Council, staff will
meet with both the Planning Board and the Commission on Persons with Disabilities.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:14 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:27 p.m.
***
Councilmember Knox White stated the journey has been long and arduous; he hopes the term
sheet will include a commitment for universal design and visitability; expressed support for the
commitment being developed with input from the Commission on Persons with Disabilities;
stated that he supports the comments provided by Ms. Tiedemann related to the project
amendments; expressed support for the matter moving forward.
Councilmember Daysog discussed Jimmy Doolittle and Pearl Harbor; stated that he is
convinced that the accomplishments at Alameda Point and Site A proudly protect the military
past of the former Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS); the amended project continues to honor
the military past and helps to build inclusive neighborhoods; some of the proposed sites would
be job generating commercial space; the City will need to remain flexible; the City is receiving a
commitment to help with the community facility; expressed support for the community facility
being a performing arts center and for people enjoying the area; stated the City is fulfilling the
objectives of the former NAS Alameda; expressed support for the matter; stated staff has
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
13",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,14,"worked through details to provide a good deal for Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated the City has worked hard to get where it is today; the
City has gone through several renditions of the DDA and has had to amend it over the years in
order to adjust to changing conditions and the market; expressed support for the work that has
brought the project to its current state; stated that she will be supporting the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supported the project in 2015; expressed
concern about the project building units for the middle class to purchase; stated the possibility
continues not to occur; affordable housing units being offered are rentals, not for purchase;
housing units for sale are very expensive; homes will cost over $1 million and will not provide
housing for the middle; discussed the cost of rental units at Alameda Point; stated inflation is the
highest it has been in 40 years; Council is being asked to trust that staff will confirm affordable
housing units will be built since the units are not being tethered to market rate or requiring a
financial investment; the approach is wrong; expressed concern about aspects of the project;
stated members of the armed forces will not be able to afford the housing units; the middle class
will not be able to rent or purchase at Alameda Point; affordability is a problem; the City needs
to offer housing for the middle to purchase; expressed concern about the units lacking rent
control; stated rents will increase; the City continues to leave the middle behind, which is
a
problem; expressed support for a public arts center; stated the matter is related to finding ways
to house the middle; she will not continue to support the matter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the former Alameda NAS being active, operating military base;
stated people who were not active military did not visit the base; Alameda Point did not feel like
a part of the rest of the City; an important part of redeveloping Alameda Point is making it a
place that seamlessly feels like a part of Alameda; the opening of Waterfront Park joined
hundreds of Alameda residents at a place with potential; the City has been able to accomplish
so much; discussed the ribbon cutting for Corsair Flats and Starling; stated APP has worked
with the City to accomplish so much; she has every faith APP will move forward and reach the
finish line; discussed a meeting with the Veterans Administration (VA) related to the Alameda
Columbarium; stated that she has been able to share the developments at Alameda Point and
the progress made to help veterans; the stakes are high; the City would lose much if it does not
move forward in keeping the project alive; changes to conditions and demands are occurring;
projects must adapt; expressed support for the project.
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.
(22-354) Recommendation to Provide Direction on a Proposal to Develop a Guaranteed Basic
Income Pilot Program; and
(22-354 A) Resolution No. 15909, ""Appropriate $4,600,000 of American Rescue Plan Act of
2021 Funds for a Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program."" Adopted.
The Development Managers gave a Power Point Presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
14",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,15,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the recommendation is to serve 150 low income
households; inquired how many low income households exist in Alameda.
The Development Manager responded the amount depends on the definition of low income;
stated staff has performed preliminary estimates based on median area income; the amount is
considerable.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like a range of information provided in order to
define low income.
The Development Manager stated that he does not currently have the numbers, but can provide
them after public comment.
Urged enactment of a pilot Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) program; stated pilot program test
groups of single mothers with school aged children have been performed elsewhere: Marilyn
Rothman, Alameda.
Expressed support for the proposed program; stated GBI is an important step in a transition the
City can make towards justice and meeting basic needs; GBI ensures the City makes a
commitment to high quality and standards of living for everyone; urged Council to approve the
program: Savanna Cheer, Alameda.
Discussed her Native American Tribe's basic income program; stated the pilot program will be a
great start in providing for basic needs; the program can change people's lives; urged Council to
follow through with the program and fund it as fully as possible; expressed support for a higher
distribution amount: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Expressed support for the proposed program; stated GBI works and moves beyond old patterns
of paternalism and outdated anti-poverty programs; the program provides autonomy to people
to
meet their needs and have stability; urged Council to pursue the program and staff
recommendations: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Stated the program is a wonderful idea; the goal is for people to sustain themselves; the
program could mean self-sufficiency; urged Council to approve the program: Melodye
Montgomery, Alameda.
The Development Manager stated based on data from 2019 American Community Survey
(ACS) approximately 11,000 households in Alameda are under $75,000 in household income;
depending on how the City decides to define low income, the number of households can vary; a
significant number of households are eligible for the program.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he appreciates how much work went into the proposed
program; expressed support for GBI; stated City staff have performed outstanding work; he is
confident in following the recommendations; expressed support for the program being
meaningful and providing the necessary data and for program efficiency; stated that he is
confident staff will keep administration costs down; the subcommittee requested a meaningful
program evaluation; the pilot should not be short term and forgotten; the program should add to
the volume of knowledge that is being developed and collected; the program can change over
the years and is a way to provide some of the money received to families struggling through the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
15",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,16,"pandemic; expressed support for the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is a lot of work still to be done; expressed
concern about offering aid to 150 homes when 11,000 homes qualify under the identified
criteria; inquired how the 150 homes will be chosen.
The Development Manager responded staff will work with a research partner to develop a
lottery or pool; staff will promote and publicize the program and allocation process.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not plan to support the matter; she has
concerns; the program helps 1.5% of eligible people; she would be comfortable providing less
funding to more people in order to help people get to and from work; $1,000 per month for 150
people is not the type of program that meets the needs of Alamedans; expressed concern about
the program funding not continuing in the future; stated the City would never have the money to
serve 11,000 people at the proposed rate; the pool will need to be changed; the funds could be
used better; expressed support for funding being put towards mental health services; expressed
concern about serving only 1.5% of the eligible population; stated it is important for Council to
come up with a better way to serve people with needs; mental health and other needs matter as
well; the City can go farther with the amount of funding to serve more people than the proposed
150 people.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the program process and research
components.
The Development Manager stated the pilot program will allow impacts to be felt locally; the
findings from the research component will help support policy design and implementation.
The Development Manager stated the research also provides a narrative which illustrates how
the programs work and impact people's lives in providing resources; the program is developing
and changing the narrative of how to fund poverty.
Councilmember Daysog stated it is not proper for City Hall to throw $4.6 million at a limited
handful of 150 households; he will not be supporting the matter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a need to establish an amount that is meaningful to help lift
people out of poverty and make a difference; more people could receive a lower amount; she
would like more details on how staff arrived at the proposed recommendation.
The Development Manager stated pilot programs range in the number of participants; staff
debated internally over smaller payments for more recipients versus larger payments to a
smaller number of recipients; staff's recommendation reflects a belief that providing larger
benefits, given the high cost of living in Alameda, may allow for more transformational impacts
than a smaller monthly payment; the group of participants would be smaller; however, the
impacts would be profound.
The Development Manager stated the bottom number of $400 was based off of Federal
Reserve information that 40% of the population could have trouble paying an unexpected
expense of $400 or more in one month; staff moved just above due to the Bay Area's high cost
of living.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
16",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,17,"Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports the matter; a number of cities are piloting GBI for
good reason; the cost of living is extremely high; child care facilities have closed during the
pandemic; child care and living costs are increasing; the amount is an investment in members of
the community to ensure that people are able to stay in Alameda and meet rising costs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated tax payer dollars come from the same families; the
11,000 low income households struggle and have to buy necessities, which include sales tax;
taxes have been placed on homes that are rented; low income households pay taxes; it is
inappropriate to ask people paying taxes to give funding to 150 people out of 11,000; the
funding may be transformational to the 150; however, many people do not have money for
necessities; she is saddened that the City will be taking money from other families to provide
money to 150 households; many families are struggling and will be left behind.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has been excited about the concept of GBI since the City
of Stockton's Mayor spoke at an Alameda County Mayor's conference; staff has put together an
excellent report; expressed support for the program having a chance to make a direct impact on
people's lives; stated the program can be leveraged to provide more or similar benefits to more
people; there is a time to be bold and transformative; expressed support for doing something
that creates happiness for other people; stated GBI allows people opportunities; Alameda has
been moving forward with a lot of transformative programs; inquired whether the proposed
timeline is realistic; stated the program has been discussed with Alameda Housing Authority
(AHA); expressed support for AHA residents being eligible to participate in the program; the
program is new to Alameda, but not new to the state; discussed GBI programs in Canada being
long-standing with positive results.
The Community Development Director stated staff is juggling quite a bit; the Development
Managers has done an admirable job of getting the complicated research and reporting
completed; the program will take a bit to implement with the help of consultants; there is
possibility for a longer timeline due to unknown variables; staff will return to Council with any
delays; as staff determines the complexity of the project, there could be a need for part-time
staff; staff will return to Council if it is determined that the program is more time consuming.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation, with understanding
that staff may return to Council and amend the timeline; stated the program is another value
statement made by the City.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the program is a value statement;
the City is stating that it values taking money from people that cannot afford and are being
pushed out of the City in order to provide funding to 150 people; she does not support the
matter.
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: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(22-355) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter Four to Comply
with Assembly Bill 1276 Regarding Single-Use Foodware Accessories and Standard
Condiments. Introduced.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
17",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,18,"The Program Specialist gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether an establishment can provide items without
penalty if a customer makes the request, to which the Program Specialist responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the establishment can advertise the
provision.
The Program Specialist responded in the affirmative; stated the law allows food facilities to put
items out on a counter in a single use dispenser so customers can have access without having
to make a request.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether online orders can have a check box to
request single use items, to which the Program Specialist responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer further inquired whether enforcement would occur only due to
complaints.
The Program Specialist responded in the affirmative; stated the City currently enforces the
disposable food serve law via complaints; staff recommends utilizing the same strategy.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted complaints should not be made against an
establishment if a person has requested the permitted items.
Expressed support for amending the City's foodware ordinance; stated the business districts'
support for the ordinance; compliance has been delayed due to COVID-19; stated communities
in the area are beginning to comply; expressed support for SeeClickFix being used for
compliance; discussed reasonable foodware projects: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a
Sustainable Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White moved introduction of the ordinance.
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.
(22-356) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute a Lease
with Rhoads Property Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, dba CSI Mini-
Storage for Thirty-Six Months for Buildings 338, 608, and 608A-C, Located at 50 and 51 West
Hornet Avenue, at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many storage units are at the property.
The Management Analyst responded the storage facility has a diverse offering with smaller and
larger warehouse units and additional outside space.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
18",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-05-16,1,"ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING
DATE:
Monday, May 16, 2022
TIME:
7:00 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
A video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
The following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.
ROLL CALL
Present: (Teleconference via Zoom), Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner Navarro and Commissioner
Jones
Absent: Chair Alexander and Commissioner Nguyen
Staff: (Teleconference via Zoom) Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy
Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Vice Chair Robbins moved to accept the minutes of April 14, 2022 Regular Meeting as presented.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones. All present in favor with 3 ayes via roll call vote.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (For topics not on the agenda)
Written Communication - Director Wooldridge read an email from Leslie Ooi regarding the tennis
court lights at Leydecker Park. See Exhibit 1.
Oral Communication - none
REPORT FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR - ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave
the report. See Exhibit 2.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Navarro: Visited Tillman Park and Godfrey Park said the upgrades and repairs
look fantastic. Saw a glimpse of the Alameda Landing Waterfront Park's playground and said it
looks great; her children are looking forward to playing on it when the park is open. Excited to
hear the public's choice for park names at the next meeting.
Commissioner Jones: Planning to volunteer to help ARPD with the 4th of July Parade. Visited
Krusi Park for a softball playoff and said the backstops on field 1 and 2 need to be repaired.
Vice Chair Robbins: Happy to hear more shade structures are going up in parks and will be
included in the new park plans. Gave accolades the ARPD staff for the successful Spring Shindig
event as it was a lot of fun.
AGENDA ITEMS
6-A Solar Walk panel and cost review and approval
Ryan Liu, Eagle Scout Troop 2 gave presentation which included the trail layout and each planet's sign
with the general information and fun facts. Fundraising for the project has been through Go Fund Me
1",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-05-16.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-05-16,2,"and Community outreach. The total estimated project cost is $5,700. Ryan has presently has raised
$3,000. The installation work will be done by troop members and Ryan's father who is a structural
engineer.
Public Comments - none
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Jones: What are the stands and signs made of? Answer by Ryan Liu: Both sign
and post are made of aluminum.
Commissioner Navarro: Great project. Asked if there could be a marker on each sign showing
the distance in miles between signs. Answer by Director Wooldridge: It is a possibility to stencil
the mileage on each sign.
Vice Chair Robbins: Project looks fantastic. Asked what the inspiration for the project was.
Answer by Ryan Liu: Inspired by a similar project at a park in Utah and his passion of the
outdoors as he hopes it would get a few more people outdoors.
6-A Motion
Commissioner Navarro motioned to approve the plan as submitted.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones.
All present in favor with 3 ayes via roll call vote.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
Dog Park, Park names in June and Commissioner tour of the parks in July.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: June 9, 2022 - Regular RPC Meeting
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones.
Motion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 3 ayes via roll call vote.
Vice Chair Robbins adjourned the meeting at 7:50 PM.
2",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-05-16.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-05-16,3,"EXHIBIT 1
From:
Matt Nowlen
To:
Amy Wooldridge
Subject:
Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Re: Leydecker tennis court light time adjustment
Date:
Monday, May 2, 2022 2:02:19 PM
Amy please see attached for next Recreation commison.
Thanks
Matt
From: Leslie Ooi <leslieooienglee@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022, 12:29 PM
To: Matt Nowlen <MNowlen@alamedaca.gov>
Cc: Eric Vlnar <evlnar@alamedaca.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Leydecker tennis court light time adjustment
Hello Matt,
Here's the message for the Recreation commission. Thanks.
To the Alameda Recreation Commission,
We had been enjoying the health benefits of being able to play tennis in the night hours at Leydecker
Park until 10.40. This allows for a few parents and older folks to enjoy their favorite exercise sport, as this
is the only hour that is workable for some working people.
Recently the shut off time for the lights have been reduced to 10 p.m. This severely cuts our time on the
court, and we are asking that the time be brought back to what it used to be, which is 10.40 p.m.
The lights are on auto off, and therefore are not a waste of electrical use when no one is using the court.
Also, there is no observed public disturbance brought on by the courts being on till 10.40. p.m.
We hope that this request can be answered, as it is definitely a good health benefit for the residents who
utilize the courts at this time.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Best,
Leslie Ooi",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-05-16.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-05-16,4,"EXHIBIT 2
05/16/2022 ARPD Director's Report
Presented by Recreation and Park Director Amy Wooldridge
Recreation Services
Registration for the next school year (2022-23) is available soon:
a. Recreation After School Program (RAP) on June 22 at 10:00am
b. Tiny Tots on July 6
Still in need of more people to apply as Recreation Leaders. We have been doing significant outreach
at the high schools and elsewhere. We have an ongoing staffing issue in after school and need more
staff for summer programs.
Registration is open for the Fourth of July Parade entries. We are also seeking volunteers to be
drivers for the VIPs, particularly convertibles.
Adult basketball league starting this summer
This is the 70th year of our free Summer Park Baseball League (T-Shirt League), sponsored by
Alameda Elk's Lodge #1015, available for all kids who have completed Kindergarten through 5th
grade.
The 54th Annual Sand Castle and Sand Sculpture Contest will take place on Saturday, June 11 at
Robert Crown Memorial State Beach Park. Registration begins at 9 am and last until 11 am.
Building will take place from 9 to 12 Noon and judging will take place between 12 and 1 pm. There
are three divisions in each category: Under 12, 13 & over, and Family.
We are dealing with issues at the O'Club due to both old pipes and security problems. Working on
solutions.
Mastick Senior Center
The Mastick Organic Garden irrigation replacement project was completed on April 27th, 2022. We
are committed to planting fruits, vegetables, and herbs in the next few weeks.
Mastick Senior Center is continuing to see growth in the following groups: Creative Writing, Hula,
Chair Yoga, Line Dancing, Zumba, and Table Tennis.
On May 13th, 2022 Mastick collaborated with Seaplane Lagoon Kayaking Tours to offer 10 of our
members a wonderful experience on the water.
The AARP tax program began on January 27 and ended on April 26, 2022. The AARP volunteers
logged 1,303 hours and assisted 491 taxpayers with the free tax preparation service.
SPARKL reusable containers: The reusable container program started on May 2nd, 2022 with the
purpose of reducing waste and implementing a sustainable zero waste culture at Mastick Senior
Center. We hand out 40 containers a day and we have a successful return rate of 100% containers
daily. Our dine-in service has increased from 8 to 12 people daily.
On May 10th, 2022, The Alameda Community Band utilized the Social Hall for a friend and family
performance. 70 people attended the event.
Mercy Brown Bag continues to distribute food bags on the 1st and 3rd of every month at Mastick Senior
Center. The program is currently averaging 45 people every two weeks.
On Tuesday, June 7, from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM, St. Barnabas Catholic Church in Alameda will be
distributing free food to all Mastick Center visitors. There will be pasta, along with cans of soup,
vegetables, fruit, tuna, chicken, and an assortment of other items free for the taking. The food will be
available at tables under the awning in the parking lot.
Park Maintenance
Converted the sand at the Tillman Park playground to wood chips which is ADA accessible and an
improvement to sanitation and public health",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-05-16.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-05-16,5,"Placed logs from the two downed oak trees throughout Lincoln Park
Re-installed the merry-go-round at Franklin Park
Held a volunteer tree planting at Tillman Park and planted 20 trees
We have hired three new full-time Gardeners
Continuing to improve sports field maintenance such as pitching mounds, aeration, top dressing, and
re-seeding
We installed three picnic tables at Bayport Park with a shade structure to follow. Benches were
installed inside the playground fenced area.
Godfrey Recreation Center renovation is now complete and open to the public
Administration/Projects
Co-sponsored the Alameda Unified School District End of Year BBQ for Families of Color on Sun,
May 15 at Washington Park. Many thanks also to Fire Chief Luby and firefighters who took care of
doing the BBQ and handing out food.
Update on Recreation Facilities approved project list:
Starting resurfacing project soon and will do Lincoln Park pickleball courts first.
Starting design work for shade structures, such as at the Sweeney Park sand area, with a
goal toward developing a standard that can easily be permitted and adapted to different park
areas.
At the FY 22-23 Budget Workshop, City Council approved all recommended ARPD budget items
including $250,000 for asphalt pathway paving in parks and adding the Recreation Services Manager.
Final approval is at a June City Council meeting.
City Council also directed staff to identify $7.5 million to fund 50% of the Alameda High School (Emma
Hood) Swim Center renovation and include it in the final budget presented to City Council in June.
Staff is also working with Alameda Unified School District staff on the Joint Use Agreement for
operation and maintenance of both Alameda and Encinal High School swim centers. High level points
regarding the AHS renovation will be included in this agreement. Anticipate bringing it to City Council
in June or July.",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-05-16.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-05-16,1,"FINAL
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) MEETING
Monday, May 16, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Jennifer Hoffecker, Peter Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson.
Absent: none.
Lois Butler and Walker Toma present as staff to the Commission.
3. MINUTES
2022-2012 Review and Approve Draft April 18, 2022 PAC Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and
seconded by Commissioner Ferguson. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson
Rush, Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer and Ferguson. Nays: none. Motion
carried 5-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. 2022-2014 Rhythmix Cultural Works Presentation of Island City
Waterways
Jennifer Radakovich, Associate Director, and Janet Koike, Artistic Director and
Founder at Rhythmix Cultural Works, presented information for an upcoming
cultural art event that is funded, in part, through the Public Art Fund. The event,
""Island City Waterways,"" is taking place on May 21-23 at Alameda Point's West
Mall. Ms. Radakovich and Ms. Koike shared two video clips of previous
performances of this site-specific, immersive art event, described recent
production challenges resulting from COVID and road closure permit issues, and
invited PAC members and members of the public to register to attend this free
event by going to www.rhythmix.org.
There were no public comments.
Chairperson Gillitt expressed his appreciation for the presentation.",PublicArtCommission/2022-05-16.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-05-16,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, May 16, 2022
5-B. 2022-2013 Recommendation to Approve the Attached Resolution and
Conditions Approving the Revised ""Neptune Beach Roller Coaster"" Public
Art Proposal for Subpar Miniature Golf at 1600 Park Street
Staff member Toma presented the revised public art proposal for the new Subpar
Miniature Golf project, located at 1600 Park Street, titled ""Neptune Beach Roller
Coaster."" In response to feedback from the PAC, illumination lighting, signage, and
information tags, and a descriptive plackard have been added to the proposal to
better showcase and describe the artwork to the public. Staff find the proposed
artwork meets the Public Art requirement evaluation criteria, and recommends the
proposal for approval. From last minutes: Mr. Toma introduced artist Jon Altemus
and project applicant Michael Taft. Artist Jon Altemus who answered clarifying
questions.
There were no public comments.
Commissioners discussed the proposal, and determined that the revised public art
proposal meets all criteria, and expressed appreciation for the additional lighting
and signage in response to the PAC's recommendations. A motion to approve the
attached resolution and conditions approving the revised ""Neptune Beach Roller
Coaster"" public art proposal was made by Chairperson Gillitt and seconded by
Vice Chairperson Rush. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion
carried 5-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Toma provided the following updates:
a Cultural Art and Arts Programming RFP was issued on March 10, 2022. An
orientation session will be held on March 24 at 5pm; and
the June 20 PAC meeting will be a working session for the Public Art Master
Plan facilitated by the consultant Forecast Public Art.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Commissioner Hoffecker asked if arts organizations can apply for Cultural Arts and
Arts Programming grants if a member of the PAC serves on their board. Secretary
Butler offered to get clarification from City counsel and provide clarification at the
next PAC meeting.
Commissioner Ferguson expressed the desire to meet in person. Ms. Butler
responded that returning to in-person meetings may possible in the near future;
however, the decision depends on emergency orders being lifted and additional
technical infrastructure allowing for hybrid meetings.
2",PublicArtCommission/2022-05-16.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-05-16,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, May 16, 2022
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 6:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary, Public Art Commission
3",PublicArtCommission/2022-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-12,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY--MAY 12, 2022--6:00 P.M.
(22-328) The special meeting was cancelled.
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 12, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-05-12.pdf
LibraryBoard,2022-05-11,1,"CITY
OF
of
TERRA
MINUTES OF THE
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2022
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Amber Bales, President
Joyce McConeghey Vice President
Dimple Kanji, Board Member
Kathleen Kearney, Board Member
Sara Strickler, Board Member
Absent:
None
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Lori Amaya, Recording Secretary
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Public Comment)
Lisa Foster, Senior Transportation Coordinator for the City of Alameda, informed the board that a
new parking enforcement service will begin on May 23, 2022. This service includes improved
parking enforcement at the meters and of time limits in the Park Street and Webster Street areas,
which includes Oak Street near the Main Library. Once the program is expanded, enforcement of
time limits in the Main Library parking lot will be included. Director Chisaki asked Lisa for the
name of the of the appropriate contact in the Public Works Department to inquire about the size
of parking spaces in the main library parking lot. Lisa responded that Alan Ta is appropriate
contact.
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar
*A.
Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of March and April,
2022.
*B.
Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of March 9, 2022.
*C.
Modified Library Services Report for the Months of February and March, 2022.
*D.
Financial Report Reflecting FY21/22 Expenditures by Fund for March and April, 2022.
*E.
Bills for Ratification for the Months of March and April, 2022.",LibraryBoard/2022-05-11.pdf
LibraryBoard,2022-05-11,2,"Page 2 of 4
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
May 11, 2022 Meeting
Director Chisaki reported that Assistant City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, was appointed Acting City
Manager on May 2, 2022 and will be leaving on May 17, 2022 to become the City Manager for the
City of Pleasanton. City Council will discuss in closed session on May 17, a contract for Dirk Brazil
to become Interim City Manager. If approved, he will start on May 23, 2022. The budget workshop
went well. The library asked to add a full-time position, but it was not recommended to move
forward, although increases for contracts, supplies, and services were approved. A request to
add a full-time position will be made in the next round. The Peeps Diorama contest brought in
more entries than expected which is believed to be due to the Library providing free kits. The Hot
Spot program is going well with 22 of 30 being checked out. Karen Butter, President of the Friends
of the Library, spoke at the budget workshop and thanked the City Council for giving the Library
some of the federal money received to launch the Hot Spot program, and requested if there is any
more money to give, it should be given to the library to expand the program. The State Library
and the California State Parks gave the Library free day use vehicle passes to use at California
State Parks. They can be checked out for three weeks. The Library may receive another six
passes in the next two weeks because the program is going so well. The historical marker project
is inching forward. The first unveiling of one of the markers is hoped to be held before Council
member John Knox White's term ends as he was one of the driving forces to move the project
forward. The digital history project is coming along. Some of the library's information is now live
on Densho's digital repository. The library has asked for a one year extension on the project, but
may not need that long.
The City completed a survey to test the community's temperature for revenue generating
measures that may be added to the ballot. Director Chisaki was sent one page of the survey
which showed that there was a 16% decrease in satisfaction with Library customer service.
Director Chisaki learned that the time frame of the survey was 2020 when the library was closed.
At that time, the Library pivoted to online programs and databases, which some patrons did not
have access to which explains why there would be a decrease in satisfaction of customer service.
The Red Cross presented Director Chisaki with a certificate thanking her for continuing to hold
blood drives through 2020. Because the library hosted blood drives through the pandemic, they
were able to collect 194 units of blood at those drives. Board Member Strickler asked if the City
is planning to resurvey. Director Chisaki doesn't think so because the City Council couldn't agree
to move forward to pursue any kind of revenue measure. Some Council members didn't want
to
spend money for a consultant to redo the survey, and after a lengthy discussion, it didn't move
forward. If the City Council decides later to do a revenue measure, there will be new surveying
involved.
There are no changes to the Draft Minutes of the March 9, 2022 Library Board Meeting.
Vice President McConeghey moved to accept the Consent Calendar. Board Member Kearney
seconded the motion, which passed with a 5-0 vote.",LibraryBoard/2022-05-11.pdf
LibraryBoard,2022-05-11,3,"Page 3 of 4
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
May 11, 2022 Meeting
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Current and On-Going Library Activities (J. Chisaki)
Director Chisaki presented the new proposed schedule of library hours with 5 additional hours.
This would allow for more children's programing in the morning, and for staff to have a dedicated
time for committee meetings. The new schedule would add only an additional $600 per month
in staff time. The new schedule will be implemented with the start of the new fiscal year in July.
The Library Board will be voting for the positions of President and Vice President at the July
meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Friends of the Library (J. Chisaki)
The Friends are working on a formal grand opening plan for their bookstore. The Café is now
open five days per week. Friends are hoping for the concert series to be held in September,
October and November, but they are waiting for room occupancy limits to be lifted. Virtual
programs continue to be very successful. With permission, the recordings are uploaded to the
Friends YouTube channel. There are more views on the YouTube channel than the number of
attendees of virtual programs. The book sale at the O'Club will be held on October 21, 22, and
23.
B.
Patron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response
A patron complained that the Library's bathrooms do not have accessible door buttons. Director
Chisaki was informed by the City Attorney's office that restroom doors do not require automatic
doors to open the restroom for access and the director will reply as such.
A patron complained that the parking spaces in the Library parking lot are too small and suggested
removing one space to make each space 6"" wider. Director Chisaki explained that the spaces are
of legal size and there are a required number of spaces to comply with the grant used when the
library was being built. Director Chisaki will pass the information along to the patron.
Director Chisaki informed the board that yesterday morning there was a small fire was set in the
corner of the parking lot and burned a portion of the fence. Public Works will repair the damaged
section of the fence.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Vice President McConeghey asked if there is any book banning going on at the Library and
whether there is a policy in place. Director Chisaki replied that there has not been a book",LibraryBoard/2022-05-11.pdf
LibraryBoard,2022-05-11,4,"Page 4 of 4
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
May 11, 2022 Meeting
challenge in many years. There is a collection development policy which includes requests to
remove materials from the collection. If someone objects to an item, they can submit a request
for reconsideration. The policy can be found on the library's website. Board Member Kearney
asked what started the Lucy Day collection. Director Chisaki responded that Rosemary Van Lare,
Senior Librarian, loved the idea when she was in San Jose and volunteered to start and maintain
the collection. Board Member Kearney added that she has been working at the Friends' bookstore
and at the last two pop-up book sales. President Bales will be joining the Friends' virtual program
as soon as the Library Board meeting ends.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",LibraryBoard/2022-05-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-10,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-MAY 10, 2022--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: The meeting was
conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
WORKSHOP
(22-327) Budget Workshop for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Cycle Budget Update to Provide
Direction on Funding Changes that will be Incorporated into Budget Adoption Hearing Materials
for City Council Consideration in June 2022.
The Principal Financial Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.
The Interim City Manager responded to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the
Librarian position.
Expressed support for reliable broadband on the Island; suggested that Council consider
expanding the pilot program in the Library with any remaining funding from the federal
government: Karen Butter, Friends of the Alameda Library.
Discussed racial equity, people struggling to pay a parking ticket or overdue library fines, the
Police Lieutenant position and the CARE Team; expressed support for the budget changes:
Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Library Director discussed the Library not
collecting fines.
The Interim City Manager suggested Council approve the following budget proposals: Finance,
Human Resources, Library, Information Technology, Planning Building and Transportation, and
City Clerk.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Interim City Manager's suggestion.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer made brief comments
expressed opposition.
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: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
The City Attorney's budget was reviewed.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-10,2,"Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the City Attorney budget proposal.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the City Attorney responded to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiries
regarding the Prosecutor position and unit.
Councilmember Daysog made comments expressing his support.
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.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the City Manager budget proposal.
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 Knox White moved approval of the Community Development budget proposal.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Interim City Manager and Community Development Director responded to
Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the Program Manager position.
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.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Fire budget proposal.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Interim City Manager and Finance Director responded to Councilmember
Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the Fireboat.
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.
The Interim City Manager and Police Chief made brief comments on the Police Department
budget.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Police budget proposal.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-10,3,"The Public Works Director made brief comments regarding the Public Works Budget.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Public Works budget proposal.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Interim City Manager responded to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's
inquiry regarding parking garage and Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested information.
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.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Recreation and Parks proposal with
direction for staff to come back in June with a solution for Emma Hood.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed interest in directing staff to look
at its own pool, Council discussed the funding amount and the motion was discussed.
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.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of staff returning to Council with information
on a City pool.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Recreation and Parks Director noted the matter would return in July and
Council discussed the matter.
On the call for the question, the motion 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.
The Interim City Manager made brief comments regarding interdepartmental changes.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the interdepartmental changes.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Interim City Manager outlined the changes in response to Councilmember
Herrera Spencer's and Daysog's inquiries.
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.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-10,4,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - MAY 10, 2022- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:03 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held
via Zoom.
Absent:
None.
(22-324) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Gerry Beaudin, Interim City Manager; 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
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that staff provided information and Council provided direction by the
following two roll call votes: Vote 1: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer:
Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; Vote 2:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 5:59
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-10,5,"Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the workforce changes.
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.
The Interim City Manager discussed the options to balance the General Fund budget.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the using funds that would have been set aside
for pension.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Interim City Manager responded to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry and
the pension reserve transfer policy and specific amount was discussed.
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: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-10,6,"MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED MAY 3, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MAY 10, 2022- -5:59 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:15 p.m. Councilmember Herrera
Spencer led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox
White, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: The
meeting was conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
CONTINUED ITEM
(22-325) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Potential Revenue Measures to
Submit to Voters for the November 8, 2022 Election.
The Interim City Manager, Miranda Everitt, FM3, and Jeremy Hauser, TBWTH Props &
Measures, gave a Power Point presentation.
(22-326) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing 5 more minutes for
the presentation.
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.
***
Mr. Hauser and the Public Works Coordinator completed the presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed her experience working on a library parcel tax measure;
inquired about concern over the polling for the infrastructure bond.
Ms. Everitt responded a two-thirds threshold is very challenging; stated from February
to now it has become even more challenging due to war abroad and concern about gas
prices and cost of living; the approach is conservative so the City does not go to the
ballot with something the voters would ultimately reject; negatives would come from
Facebook, Nextdoor and the whisper network of communities; a two-thirds measures is
tough in any kind of environment, let alone, one where cost of living is such a concern.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a sliding scale of the bond amount was tested.
Ms. Everitt responded numbers had to be picked and stuck with since it was a 20
minute survey; stated more time could be spent flushing out amounts with a narrower
set of mechanisms.
Continued May 3, 2022 Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-10,7,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how much money FM3 received to do the
survey.
The Interim City Manager responded the $37,000 contract amount was approved by
Council and includes the polling, analysis, summary and presentation.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the questions, the
Interim City Manager stated Council received a summary of all of the questions; the
specific, detailed question language was not attached to the staff report.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is possible to get a complete copy
of the survey questions and responses.
The Interim City Manager responded it is not considered best practice; stated it is
typical to summarize survey questions and provide the analysis; the document can be
provide if Council desires.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired is it public information.
The Interim City Manager responded staff has not published the survey in detail; it is not
proprietary; standard questions were asked so it would not be a privacy issue.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she requested the survey at the beginning
of May and did not receive it; she would like to know if the questions and answers are
public information.
Ms. Everitt stated it can be shared, but the context provided by the consultant team is
really important in interpreting the results; an opposition campaign could use the
information; ultimately, the decision is up to legal counsel.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to hear from the City
Attorney.
The City Attorney stated the survey is not subject to attorney client privilege; in some
ways, up to Council discretion; two potential Public Records Act exceptions could be
used; one is a balancing test whether public interest in disclosure is outweighed by
other considerations; it might also qualify for deliberative process.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted some pages have truncated questions.
Ms. Everitt stated that was a formatting mistake.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted demographic data was not provided.
Ms. Everitt responded the data was collected.
Continued May 3, 2022 Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-10,8,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated she thinks the data should be provided.
Ms. Everitt noted the data includes party registration, location in the City, age, gender
and other demographic information.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would be interested in the
demographic data being shared.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, Ms. Everitt reviewed the infrastructure bond
responses; stated the highest priorities were response times, bridge upgrades and flood
prevention; some questions were regarding housing and some were general purpose.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiries, the Interim City Manager
reviewed the survey results, revenue generation, two-thirds voting threshold and
affordable housing.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, Ms. Everitt reviewed the
various yes percentages needed to meet the two-third threshold.
Mr. Hauser noted the percentages fall within the margin of error.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the survey was done in February; inquired
whether inflation going up would have an impact.
Ms. Everitt responded her conservative assumption would be that the numbers would
be lower with increased concerns about cost of living.
The Interim City Manager stated if Council is interested in in pursuing the infrastructure
bond, more detailed questions could be asked; there could be a deeper conversation
with voters about infrastructure things that matter, such as sea level rise.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed her library bond experience and the importance of the
ballot measure giving voters what they want; expressed support for taking a deeper
dive.
Urged Council not to move forward with the cannabis tax; discussed jobs and taxation
of cannabis businesses: Steven Chow, Stiiizy Alameda.
Expressed opposition to the cannabis tax and business tax; stated businesses are just
recovering from the pandemic; infrastructure funding is needed: Ron Mooney,
Downtown Alameda Business Association.
Discussed his cannabis business; urged Council not to move forward with the local
cannabis tax, which would be a burden to local businesses; stated there has not been
any outreach to local operators: John Ngu, Embarca.
Continued May 3, 2022 Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-10,9,"Outlined his cannabis company's formation and plans to move the headquarters to
Alameda; stated the proposed tax would put the plans in doubt; urged the Council to
vote no on the tax proposal: Scott Palmer, Kiva Confections.
Stated that she took the survey and was fairly cautious in what she would and would not
support because she was not sure where the information was going; the emphasis
seemed to be on the funding mechanism; she is a values voter; showing things will help
with sea level rise and climate change is critical; encouraged more community
engagement: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Stated that she was priced out of Alameda; discussed the market collapse in the
cannabis industry; stated the industry cannot absorb an additional tax; the tax would be
paid by patients and consumers: encouraged having stakeholder lead process and a
voluntary tax agreement: Nara Dahlbacka.
Stated agencies throughout California are currently reducing or eliminating local excise
cannabis taxes, including Humboldt, Lake, Monterey and Sonoma counties and the
cities of Bellflower, Berkeley, Desert Hot Springs, Long Beach, Oakland, Palm Springs,
San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose and many others; the tax being proposed would
only further harm the viability of cannabis businesses and drive more people to the
black market; discussed his business: Aaron Kraw, Park Social.
Stated that he is a cannabis union worker and opposes the cannabis tax; discussed
jobs being jeopardized: Zachery Gilmore, United Food and Commercial Workers Union.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is very unsupportive of the cannabis tax,
which would be problematic at this point in time; after the cannabis industry has
matured and stabilized, some form of tax can be considered, but it probably will not be
in the next five years; the research is pretty clear; there would be a negative impact on
businesses; the business license tax is similar with everything businesses are going
through; the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is probably a little premature given that
the travel industry has not rebounded in any meaningful way; the TOT could come back
in a few years when the economy has shifted; he shares concerns about how razor thin
the two-thirds support is for an infrastructure bond, but thinks it should be probed a little
bit further; the poll found that people were concerned about traffic safety, traffic
congestion, homelessness and housing costs; he hopes Council could make some kind
of minimum commitment to looking at supporting replacement of Emma Hood, which is
probably going to be shutting down sometime this summer or fall; he would be very
open to staff coming back with alternative funding suggestions if the pool is not a good
fit for an infrastructure bond.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Knox White; stated a measure is
jeopardized if voters are not given what they say they would support; there are other
ways to support Emma Hood; the public needs a better understanding of what an
infrastructure bond would look like; she would like to see TOT explored; Alameda's TOT
Continued May 3, 2022 Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-10,10,"is less than surrounding communities, including San Leandro, Oakland and Emeryville;
there is no reason the City should not at least be equal to said cities.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is interested in exploring both the TOT and
infrastructure bond; Alameda has huge infrastructure needs; the influx of federal funding
also requires local investment; the Climate Action Resiliency Plan (CARP) and traffic
safety response times need to be prioritized; the infrastructure bond has been put off for
many, many years; more detailed questions should be asked; the timeline is quick;
since it is the greatest need, exploring an infrastructure bond would be of interest; the
bond would only cover a fraction of the overall need; she has zero interest in cannabis
or business license taxes; the cannabis tax is incredibly regressive; a fledgling industry
is competing against the black market; the business license tax should not be increased
coming out COVID when the City had to help businesses.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she strongly opposes the cannabis tax; discussed
cannabis being sold on the black market; stated it is not the time to increase the
business license tax.
Councilmember Daysog stated when it comes to infrastructure, the issue is not a
revenue problem; the problem comes down to spending priorities; in the past five years,
$46 million has been spent because of the unfunded liabilities policy; all of the City's
leggs have gone into one basket with regard to excess reserves; before going after new
revenues, the City needs fiscal priorities and does not deserve to ask taxpayers to
shore up inadequacies; he does not see how $95 million can be figured out in two
months; the wiser course of action is to spend more time researching needs; since the
problem lies with prioritizing revenue, he would oppose the measure.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she agrees with Vice Mayor Vella in
regards to cannabis; she strongly supports businesses; continued support is critical;
requested the TOT information be displayed again and outlined rates; stated the
average is 10.27%; Alameda is in the middle; she does not support the business license
tax; she has serious concerns about an infrastructure bond; residents and the business
community are struggling right now; imposing more taxes goes in the wrong direction
during a high inflation period; $95 million would not stretch as far; revenue generating
assets have been flipped to become expenditures, such as homes at Alameda Point
being used for transitional housing and the bottle parcel not being sold; discussed high
inflation; stated the City should help businesses and residents stay in town.
The Interim City Manager stated the budget presentation up next mentions the pension
policy; discussed the unfunded accrued pension liability; stated a few years ago, there
was $200 million in deferred maintenance across the City, not including Alameda Point;
the commercial construction index is going up by 14% per year; deferred maintenance
just gets more and more expensive; whether or not infrastructure needs should try to be
tackled through a bond is a policy decision; discussed TOT rates; stated immediate
neighbors are all up around 14%; there could be a phased approach or tie to economic
conditions, so the increase does not hit while hotels might be struggling.
Continued May 3, 2022 Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-10,11,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he brought up the TOT years ago; Union City has a
range with the amount determined by the City Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is in favor of staff
looking into the TOT.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; stated it probably only results in
$200,000 to $300,000, which is better than nothing; visitors pays the tax, not local
residents.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated people pay a higher TOT in neighboring cities; it is time to
address climate change; bond funds could be leveraged to get even more money;
federal grants are available, but require some matching funds; she would like staff to
bring back a more detailed plan for further polling on the infrastructure bond.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would not necessarily want to move forward
with the infrastructure bond if there are two very hard noes since four votes are required
to put a bond measure on the ballot.
The Interim City Manager confirm the infrastructure bond requires four votes; stated
other items, such as TOT, have a three vote threshold.
Councilmember Knox White suggested the motion be bifurcated.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of exploration of a TOT tax, including
direction to staff to do additional outreach to identify what hotel owners see as a
potential impacts.
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.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would only move approval of giving direction
to do additional exploration on the infrastructure bond if there are four votes; he does
not want staff to spend time on something that would not get four votes in the future.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated perhaps, with additional information, some might take a
different position.
Councilmember Knox White stated two Councilmember expressed that they
ideologically have a problem with moving forward; he is a strong supporter of the
infrastructure bond, but does not want to have staff spend time unless there are four
votes to move forward with additional research.
Continued May 3, 2022 Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2022
6",CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-10,12,"The Interim City Manager stated if there is an openness to gathering more information,
staff is willing to do the work; a significant amount of infrastructure needs to be
addressed.
Vice Mayor Vella stated being one vote short of putting the measure before the people
of Alameda is disappointing; allowing voters to make a decision is direct democracy;
while Councilmembers may individually disagree philosophically, she would hope that
her colleagues would put it to a vote of the people.
Councilmember Daysog stated his grave concern is the reserve policy that has been in
place since 2017 without the vote of the people; $46 million has been spent on
unfunded liabilities; the policy needs to be fixed, as well as other spending priorities.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred the policy needs to be revisited, which the Interim City
Manager indicated would be done; Alameda has an existential climate change threat;
more information is need.
Councilmember Knox White stated there is a commitment to bring back and revise the
reserve policy; infrastructure funding will not be fixed from said discussion; the issues
are separate; addressing concerns about the reserve policy will not fix the infrastructure
problem; the City will still have an unfunded infrastructure need as well; inquired
whether Councilmember Daysog is open to having a conversation with staff in the next
four weeks; stated the conversation would not be committing to support a measure
going on the ballot, but would be to see if there might be pieces of a supportable
infrastructure bond; he understands nothing will change Councilmember Spencer's
opinion.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not see how a $95 million infrastructure
bond could be addressed between now and late July; educating people previously for
the library bond required a lot of legwork; doing a $95 million infrastructure bond
between now and August is not practical; the City should revisit the matter in 2024; for
philosophical and practical reasons, he does not see it.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Vice Mayor has a motion.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the votes not being there.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is an opportunity to inform the voters better than they
were informed by the first round of polling.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council colleagues have indicated it does not matter what the
voters think; they do not want to put the matter to a vote of the people; discussed
percentages and other measures; stated there is an opportunity to put a measure on the
ballot, which is worth exploring, but the point is moot since other Councilmembers do
not support putting it to a vote of the people.
Continued May 3, 2022 Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-10,13,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he opposes putting a measure on the ballot
because the City has the wrong reserve policy in place; a lot of money that that has
gone towards pensions could have gone towards infrastructure.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would have liked more survey
information; the full questions and demographic data was not provided; she has serious
concerns that bonds do not have opt outs for people on fixed incomes, seniors or those
who are disabled, which can be done with a parcel tax.
Vice Mayor Vella stated unfunded liabilities need to be funded one way or another;
infrastructure needs are not being met; the matter should be put to a vote of the people;
climate change and sea level rise are real and are happening; emergency services
response times impact lives; many Armenians live in a Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone and are paying thousands of dollars extra in
insurance.
The Interim City Manager stated the pension policy conversation came up as part of the
midyear budget; a revision to the policy will be coming to Council in June; discussed the
Capital Improvement Program; stated the City is trying to keep up with deferred
maintenance, sea level rise, climate change and redevelopment of Alameda Point.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Mr. Hauser stated the first step would be additional
targeted polling to zero in on one specific proposal; at a two thirds level, it is really
important to test the 75 word question and specific projects; the second step would be
public information outreach on behalf of the City, including outlining the infrastructure
needs and how a bond might be able to address the needs; additional feedback would
come from a voter opinion survey of 500 residents; once a measure is placed on the
ballot, the City cannot advocate for or against its passage; an independent campaign
committee would have to be formed in order to advocate either for or against the
measure.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether there is a motion to go forward with additional
polling.
Vice Mayor Vella stated she is not hearing Council colleagues are interested in a
measure; she does not know if a motion will pass, but is happy to make one.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of additional polling with the intent of putting the
measure through.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City should give the public a little
more time to be informed and bring back information.
Continued May 3, 2022 Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2022
8",CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-10,14,"Councilmember Knox White stated that he does not think the consultant should be
asked to go and do polling; it is not about finding out what happens when voters are
educated; he will not support the motion; the City has a lot of work to do; he does not
support directing staff to go do additional work with consultants and spend funding on
consultants for an item that has no path to actual enactment.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: No; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:02
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Continued May 3, 2022 Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2022
9",CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- MAY 3, 2022--5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:04 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella
arrived at 5:19 p.m. and left at 6:50 p.m. The meeting was
held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
Public Comment Read into the Record:
Expressed support for Greenway Golf: Chris Iglesias, Unity Council; Mark Swartz,
Alameda; Nick Wolf, Alameda High School; and Christ Tam, All Good Living
Foundation.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-285) Conference With Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation, Initiation of Litigation
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4)); Number of Cases:
One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendant(s): Greenway Golf
Associates, Inc.
(22-286) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring (Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957); Title/Description of Positions to be Filled: City Manager
(22-287) 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; and 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.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding the Potential Litigation, 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;
regarding Employee Appointment/Hiring, Council provided direction to staff to return
with an Interim City Manager agreement at the next regular Council Meeting on May 17,
2022 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; and
regarding Existing Litigation, Council provided direction to staff 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].
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,2,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:56
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
2",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,3,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY-MAY 3, 2022- -6:59 P.M.
Mayor/Chair
Ezzy
Ashcraft
convened
the
meeting
at
7:15
p.m.
Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Herrera
Spencer, Knox White, and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft
- 4. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella - 1.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Herrera Spencer 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.]
(*22-05 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council/SACIC Meeting Held on
March 1, 2022. Approved.
AGENDA ITEM
(22-06
SACIC) Adoption of Resolution Declaring That the Property Located at 2350
Fifth Street is Exempt Surplus Land Pursuant to Government Code Section
54221(f)(1)(D);
(22-06 SACIC A) Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Conveyance of the Property
Located at 2350 Fifth Street to the City of Alameda in Accordance with the Terms of a
Purchase and Sale Agreement Between the City and the Successor Agency; and
Authorizing the Interim City Manager, as Executive Director of the Successor Agency, to
Execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement and to Take Other Actions Necessary to
Complete Conveyance of the Property;
(22-288 ( CC) Amending the General Fund Budget to Appropriate an Additional $250,000
for Purchase of 2350 Fifth Street; and
(22-289 CC) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing Acceptance of the Property Located
at 2350 Fifth Street from the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement
Commission of City of Alameda in Accordance with the Terms of a Purchase and Sale
Agreement Between the City and the Successor Agency; and Authorizing the Interim
City Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the Successor Agency
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
1
to the Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,4,"and to Take Such Other Actions Necessary to Complete the Conveyance of the
Property. Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at
7:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
2
May 3, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,5,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - MAY 3, 2022--7:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:16 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox
White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:
Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 7:29 p.m. and left the
meeting at 11:39 p.m. The meeting was conducted
via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-290) Proclamation in Support of the People of Ukraine.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
(22-291) Proclamation Declaring May 2022 as Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage
Month.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
(22-292) Proclamation Declaring May 2022 as East Bay Affordable Housing Month.
(22-293) Proclamation Declaring May 2022 as Older American's Month.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-294) Zac Bowling, Alameda Democratic Club, made an announcement regarding an
upcoming meeting.
(22-295) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority, provided an update on the Housing
Authority.
(22-296) Rosalinda Fortuna Corvi, Alameda, expressed concern over the Maritime
Marine Officers Training Center being pulled from the State Historical Resources
Commission agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,24,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the term by right is used multiple times
throughout the HE, including low barrier navigation centers; inquired whether the City's
legal counsel believes Council is required to include low barrier navigation centers.
The Assistant City Attorney responded State law requires the City to identify locations
for low barrier navigation centers; stated staff has identified various locations.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated every place shown by right is
required by State law; the only exception to the requirement is the R-5 district; the
requirement is unclear due to how the R-5 district is structured.
Councilmember Knox White stated all projects have used density bonus due to the
City's zoning; inquired whether density bonus is not something that can be automatically
granted, must be requested and a case has to be made.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated
State density bonus is structured if a developer voluntarily offers to provide a certain
amount of affordable housing, the developer is eligible for a density bonus and waivers;
since the City's existing zoning has a multi-family prohibition, the only way to produce
more than two units in a building is by offering additional affordable housing; the offer
creates eligibility for waivers to the multi-family prohibition.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the requirement to have developers show
a financial reason for the density bonus has been removed from density bonus law.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded State density bonus law
has been amended over the years; stated the law has become more lenient over the
years; there are two aspects to the law; one is the waiver of things, such as height
limits; a more rigid requirement used to relate to financial incentives; a developer had to
show the financial unviability in order to qualify for a waiver; the burden now falls on the
City.
Urged Council be respectful of the will of the voters; stated upzoning density in
neighborhoods and increasing heights is clearly counter to the Measure Z vote;
expressed support for Alameda complying with State housing law; stated the proposed
HE is an extreme interpretation; expressed concern about taller buildings; urged Council
continue the hearing to after May 9th: Elizabeth Greene, Alameda.
Stated the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) created a plan to protect the
integrity of Webster Street and restrict heights; the plan is viable and speaks to
protecting the historical value: Sandra Pilon, WABA
Stated that she has continued to try and be involved with proposals to meet the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); the HE does not include allocations
without undue density increases and by right upzoning; expressed concern about
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
20",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,25,"residential and commercial zones; urged the matter be seriously considered: Dolores
Kelleher, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS).
Stated her neighborhood is dense and diverse; discussed the capability for more units
in existing areas; expressed concern about building heights taller than three stories;
stated the HE has more than enough places to provide housing throughout the City;
urged Council to decide where new housing should go; questioned why the Bridgeside
Shopping Center is off the list: Betsy Mathison, Alameda.
Discussed RHNA numbers; stated any buffer is unnecessary; urged Council to focus on
the 5,353 housing units; the amount is attainable through the current Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) process; there is no need to upzone R-2 through R-6 areas; urged
Council to build to the requirement: Matt Reid, Alameda.
Expressed support for height limits; stated that she supports smaller units in transit
areas and the request to remove unnecessary blanket upzoning across residential
neighborhoods; she disagrees with the proposal to include either Lum School or
Thompson Field for future housing; urged Council to consider continuing public
hearings: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Discussed the HCD letter attached to the staff report; stated the letter provides for a
compliant HE which meets the RHNA obligation and fair housing without upzoning the
R-2 through R-6 areas; questioned whether deletion of upzoning is not in compliance
with fair housing law; stated upzoning all districts is overkill and manipulates the HE
without voter approval: Paul Foreman, Alameda.
Questioned why staff was not directed to =object to the RHNA numbers while 70 other
cities submitted letters of objection; expressed support for an initiative prohibiting out of
State developers from funding campaigns and building new infrastructure before RHNA
units; discussed a bike and car bridge and spending State funds on infrastructure:
Rosalinda Fortuna Corvi, Alameda.
Urged Council to upzone Central Avenue and Webster Street; stated Webster Street is
full of parking lots and one story buildings; expressed support for encouraging façade
reuse; expressed concern about shopping centers being limited to five stories; stated
not building high equals building out: Alex Spher, Alameda.
Expressed support for the AAPS letter; stated more housing will be built and Alameda
will be more dense; questioned how the City will go about adding more housing; stated
the current HE overreaches with upzoning residential areas; expressed support for
adding units, while keeping a livable City and the three story height limit; stated that she
would add units to her property to help: Joyce Boyd, AAPS.
Discussed Alameda Point; stated that she would like to challenge the position of
Alameda Point's role in RHNA and urge staff and the Fair Housing Task Force to
authenticate the methodology and update where needed; expressed concern about the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
21",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,26,"methodology being out of date: Donna Fletcher, Alameda.
Discussed collective knowledge on the HE being shared; stated many people believe
the HE is moving in the right direction and the City is being set up for success;
expressed concern about correspondence; stated the City cannot risk entertaining the
proposed concerns; the State will go after noncompliant cities: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Expressed support for the work being done on the HE; stated the City needs the
numbers and distribution of housing units across the Island; Article 26 stands out like a
sore thumb; cities have tried to get out of requirements; doubling down on Article 26 will
likely not be effective: Josh Geyer, Alameda.
Expressed support for a good faith effort in submitting a compliant HE; questioned how
R-1 through R-6 zones can contribute more; urged Council to modify base zoning;
expressed support for tall, modern buildings on Park and Webster Streets: Drew Dara-
Abrams, Alameda.
***
(22-315) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of continuing the current
item and not hearing any more items.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is not needed to hear the current item.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer withdrew her motion.
Councilmember Knox White noted Council has two budget hearings in next week;
questioned whether the revenue measures matter [paragraph no 22- ] can be
continued to the budget session; expressed concern about discussing another item.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval the revenue measures matter beginning
continued to the May 10th budget session meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the required vote to move the matter, to which the City
Clerk responded three affirmative votes are needed.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry the City Clerk stated the Rules require a
vote to consider new matters after 11:00 p.m.; Council can complete the current
discussion and address the agenda sections, including Oral Communications, City
Manager Communications, and Council Communications without a vote; there is no
time limit for hearing said agenda sections.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is not feeling well and supports only hearing the
current matter.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
22",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,27,"Under discussion, the City Attorney stated the motion to move the matter must be time-
specific.
The City Clerk stated the matter can be continued to 5:59 p.m. on May 10th.
Councilmember Knox White and Vice Mayor Vella accepted the amendment to the
motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not support the motion; the matter
should return on a Regular Council Agenda.
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: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Stated preserve the historic look and feel of Webster Street is important; increasing the
units in the area will dramatically change the neighborhood look and feel; discussed an
alternate WABA proposal; urged a more refined proposal be submitted: Lori Bilella,
Alameda.
Stated AAPS recommends the City remove the proposed blanket upzoning of R-2
through R-6 from the draft HE; the proposed upzoning is unnecessary and overkill; the
draft HE includes a 20% buffer; discussed ADUs; stated targeted upzoning can happen
in the future: Birgitt Evans, AAPS.
Stated that he is paying attention to neighboring cities since RHNA is regional; it is
important to show leadership across the East Bay; noted Berkeley is considering a 30%
buffer to ensure its goal is met; the defense of Article 26 does not go over well; the
region is trying to solve a housing problem; it is essential to meet RHNA numbers: Nico
Nagle, Oakland.
Stated that she objects to the proposed upzoning of residential neighborhoods
throughout Alameda; upzoning would eliminate Article 26 that was supported by a large
majority of voters; Council should support the voters and not indirectly void Article 26 in
supporting upzoning; expressed concern about the HE buffer and setbacks: Reyla
Graber, Alameda.
Showed a slide; expressed support for staff exploring alternate height strategies;
discussed density bonuses and ADUs; expressed concern about the proposed density
of north Park Street: Christopher Buckley, AAPS.
Stated adding more units might be a less expensive option versus building from the
ground up; questioned why the draft HE removed adding more units: Karen Miller,
Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
23",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,28,"Expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated creating a fair and expanded
housing program is critical; many people are looking for affordable housing; the City has
a chance to address and right structural racism which has been built into the housing
plan; urged the plan move forward: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he has heard comments not supporting
rezoning the R-1 through R-6 areas; inquired the process and response if the City
submits a draft HE to HCD that does not include the residential areas.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded HCD would send the
draft HE right back to the City; stated the City would essentially state that it is keeping
Measure A/Article 26 in-tact for residential areas; HCD has already stated the approach
is not acceptable; acceptance is not related to numbers or allocation, it is related to fair
housing; HCD states the City cannot prohibit multi-family housing in residential densities
which support affordable housing in all residential districts; the approach is unfair to
those who need affordable housing by Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH);
HCD has been consistent in its approach and attitude around what Alameda needs to
do; discussed HCD's 2012 letter.
Councilmember Knox White stated the AFFH language requires cities to overcome
patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers which
restrict access to opportunity; inquired the location of the areas referenced in the
statement.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded prohibiting multi-family
housing and not allowing residential densities that support affordable housing are
barriers to AFFH; stated west Alameda has a higher percentage of lower-income
households; continuing the trend of placing all affordable housing on the West End does
not affirmatively further fair housing.
Councilmember Knox White stated most of the patterns of segregation related to
housing show up in the residential districts; in order to overcome patterns, the City will
be required to do something; expressed support for the number of public hearings being
held and the effort to try to balance State requirements; stated information about
educational opportunities recommends considering encouraging open enrollment in
Alameda Unified School District (AUSD); inquired whether the City is not taking a
stance that the schools on the West End are not as good as the East End; stated the
staff recommendation is that the City will support AUSD and address educational
outcomes as opposed to telling people to drive to different schools.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated
the clarification will be added as cleanup language to be made by staff before
submitting it to HCD.
Councilmember Knox White stated there is a lot of confusion related to AFFH;
expressed support for clarification related to the approach not being based on numbers,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
24",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,29,"but outcomes; stated that he would like to add direction to staff to develop a
memorandum that outlines the meaning and specifics of AFFH in Alameda; many
southern California cities HE were not certified in the first or second round; the bar is set
high; expressed support for the City submitting a certified HE; stated the City can point
to what is being done to AFFH, rather than forcing HCD and the community to read
through the document and try to pick up what is being done to address fair housing and
historical inequities; many people do not want to leave their home; if failed housing
policies continue in California, people who cannot afford to live in the area will be
pushed into other States; people who have grown up in California and have California
values do not necessarily want to live under more stringent and conservative regimes
which do not recognize and honor people the same as California; policy makers are
responsible if cities lose people due to unaffordability; the City needs to be looking
towards the future, not just at the economy and climate, but in caring for each other and
making sure future generations can live in the area.
Councilmember Daysog stated each Councilmember must do their best to represent the
values and visions which are best for the City and its residents; he believes the City
must do the minimum amount necessary to meet the State requirements; the City can
continue to do so within the framework of City Charter Article 26 by following through
and continuing the housing overlay strategy signed off on by HCD in the previous HE;
he suspects HCD will sign off on the strategy once again; there are new concerns
related to AFFH; however, the City should figure out how to meet the requirements
within the context of Measure A; discussed the 2020 election results; stated the
message put forth was understood by Alamedans; Alameda is an Island and has limited
infrastructure; it is difficult to meet the RHNA requirement of 5,300 units; he would
rather not be required to produce so many units; he would prefer to produce 3,700 units;
however, the City is required to produce the 5,300 units; he would like the City to do the
minimum amount necessary in compliance with the Measure Z; upzoning so much of
Alameda is inconsistent with the will of the voters; expressed concern about having a
HE that undoes the City Charter; stated the City can meet its HE and HCD obligations
while working within Article 26; expressed concern about elements of the HE; stated the
most vital thing is how the City is undermining something that the voters of Alameda
recently reaffirmed; the City figured out how to work around limitations, which was
enough to get through the last HE; acquiesced HCD could sue the City on grounds of
noncompliance; stated the City needs to stand its ground; he is not supportive of many
elements of the HE and undermining Article 26.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not agree with upzoning the
school properties; one of the schools should be used for open space; she supports the
minimum; expressed support for the public comments related to the possibility of adding
homes within an envelope and challenging the AFFH data related to high and low
resource areas; stated it is possible for the data to be updated due to Alameda Point
housing; discussed home and rent prices; stated the approach is not lowering housing
prices; she stands by the no on Z vote due to the older housing stock keeping Alameda
affordable for residents; Berkeley has a higher density than Alameda; Alameda is a
majority minority community due to the old housing stock; Berkeley's majority is white;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
25",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,30,"the State does not agree with the City's approach to protect old housing stock; many
people have been pushed out of other cities with new housing stock; she disagrees with
the language in the draft HE stating: ""systemic reduction of the supply of affordable
housing in Alameda;"" rent control will not apply to new rental units and condominiums;
inquired where the condominium development in Alameda is located or whether any
condominiums have been built in the past 10 years.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded all of the townhomes
being built and sold are condominiums; stated many developers are not building
condominium flats or apartment type buildings due to concerns over lawsuits;
developers are building multi-family buildings which are held as rentals for at least 10
years until a statute runs; the units can potentially change into condominiums after 10
years; the City is not getting a lot of condominium multi-family housing that are not
townhomes.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the starting price for the market rate
townhomes in Alameda, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director
responded over $900,000.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the price is not affordable; it is unfortunate that
the State is pretending the housing units are affordable housing; many people do not
qualify for the units; the housing units lead to gentrification; she will only agree to
minimal upzoning; expressed support for the draft HE being rejected multiple times;
inquired whether the City is advocating for permit waivers.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff does not want
people to waive universal design requirements.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated waivers continued to be provided in Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports upzoning where needed in order to be
responsible; local voters spoke on a measure that causes the City to jump through
additional hoops in order to meet its RHNA obligation; the obligation is to the region and
the people of Alameda; the obligation is to provide enough housing so that the region
does not continue to lack housing such that the cost of housing continues to rise; the
median house price in Alameda is over $1 million; there is not a lot of housing stock due
to the lack of building over time; many people are getting priced out of the area and are
unable to buy starter homes; the City needs to move forward with the draft HE and send
it to HCD; expressed concern about moving backwards; stated the City can either build
up or build out and lose the valued open space and parks; staff has tried to address a
number of different concerns and find ways to build fairly throughout the City in a way
that is going to ensure housing units being added are well integrated into the existing
fabric.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports complying with State law; there are
penalties for noncompliance; many funding opportunities for important projects and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
26",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,31,"programs require the City to have a certified HE; the City needs to take the HE seriously
and comply with State law; expressed support for the various options and creative ways
to provide compliance; stated the City can add a number of different housing units and
sizes in order to satisfy the affordable by design approach; discussed concerns raised
by WABA and area residents; stated there is an opportunity to provide form based
zoning cones similar to Park Street; expressed support for more right-sized residential,
and doing more in the historic area of Webster Street with corner buildings being
anchors; stated that she advocates for a walking tour of the area; there is potential to
add housing stock in the transit corridors; she supports making the business districts
more vital and visited; urged the building of more housing in order to address
homelessness; expressed support for the next steps.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the next steps include staff
meeting with the Historical Advisory Board on Thursday and the Planning Board on
Monday; staff will finish consolidating all comments received and perform additional
cleanup and adjustments to the draft HE to put the City in the best possible position with
HCD; the draft HE will be sent to HCD and staff will spend the next three months
working with the Planning Board and community to continue to refine the zoning and
start getting into the details; staff will hear back from HCD towards the end of August;
once staff knows what HCD thinks of the City's HE, the Planning Board and Council will
hold public hearings and start making tough decisions about what needs to be done in
response to HCD comments to ensure certification; once staff hears back from HCD,
another Council workshop will be held; the Planning Board will have the first round of
heavy lifting; Council may provide direction to the Planning Board; the current schedule
is to have Council see the HE in November or December; the HE needs to be
completed by January 2023.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supports the proposed WABA plan;
expressed support for the City working with WABA and a better way to evacuate if a
bicycle and pedestrian bridge is built; stated the developers and builders are making
money off the units; the approach yields unfortunate gentrification.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-316) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Potential Revenue Measures to
Submit to Voters for the November 8, 2022 Election. Continued to May 10, 2022.
(22-317) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute a
Lease with Rhoads Property Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, dba
CSI Mini-Storage for Thirty-Six Months for Buildings 338, 608, and 608A-C, Located at
50 and 51 West Hornet Avenue, at Alameda Point. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(22-318) The Interim City Manager announced an affordable housing grand opening
event for the Starling and Corsair flats and an Earhart Elementary School informative
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
27",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,32,"sign program; discussed improvements to the City's bicycle network; announced an
APD swearing in ceremony and Boards and Commissions openings.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer, the Interim City Manager stated his
last day will be after the May 17th Council meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-319) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-320) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-321) Consider Directing Staff to Develop an Ordinance Setting Fines for Injury-
Collisions Involving Non-Commercial Vehicles that Do Not Meet Federal Design
Standards or Have Been Lifted/Altered in a Manner that Increases the Likelihood of
Severe Injury or Death in Collisions with Pedestrians and Bicyclists. (Councilmember
Knox White) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22-322) Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced a webinar on the Grand Street
project.
(22-323) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended the Oakland Police
Academy graduation; announced Board and Commission openings and encouraged
residents to apply.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:48
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
28",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,6,"The City Clerk read the title of the two Public Hearings [paragraph nos. 22-310 and 22-
311] and indicated public comment would be accepted.
Stated the Military Equipment Policy [paragraph no. 22-300] matter should be pulled
from the Consent Calendar for discussion; the armored vehicle has been used three
times; military riot equipment is not likely needed; the equipment is expensive and
useless: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Urged Council pull the Military Equipment Policy from Consent; stated the California
legislature has directed local governments to fully vet the equipment and explore
alternatives; the City needs to stop preparing for riots and prepare for the emergencies
which do occur in Alameda; the policy does not include Council as the governing body:
Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the teleconference findings [paragraph no.
22-299 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion and recorded a note
vote on the Alameda Fire Chief Association (AFCA) MOU [paragraph no. 22-306 and
CFD 22-2 ordinance [paragraph no. 22-309].
Councilmember Knox White requested the Military Equipment Policy be removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Daysog recorded no votes on Final Map 8610 [paragraph no. 22-304],
Tentative Map 8468 [paragraph no. 22-305], the AFCA MOU and CFD 22-1 ordinance
[paragraph no. 22-308 and recused himself from the Webster Street BIA [paragraph no.
22-311].
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.]
(*22-297) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on April 4,
2022. Approved.
(*22-298) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,167,850.58.
(22-299) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted
via Teleconference.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is correspondence attached to the report;
noted the Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Fremont, Oakland and Union City are
still closed for public meetings; Dublin, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Piedmont,
Pleasanton and San Leandro are offering hybrid meetings; stated more cities are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,7,"opening meetings to the public; she has voted not to continue the current
teleconference method; expressed support for following the approach in other cities;
inquired the progress made on the City's efforts for a hybrid meeting model.
The City Clerk responded staff has an agreement with a company to come in an
integrate Zoom to the Council Chambers system; stated a project team has been
assigned and a kick-off meeting is being scheduled soon; the estimated timeline is
about six weeks from the kick-off meeting; noted the necessary equipment is likely in
stock; however, other cities have experienced equipment delays due to supply chain
shortages.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is another way to integrate Zoom and still
have in-person meetings which does not require the six week delay.
The City Clerk stated staff remains flexible and able to move on a dime; there is a
patchwork workaround approach where the Council Chambers can be shot with the
same web camera used by most staff at a wide angle.
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: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(22-300) Recommendation to Accept Transmittal of the Police Department Military
Equipment Use Policy.
The Police Captain gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is an unfortunate missed opportunity for
Council to have a discussion with the community about issues; the matter being placed
on the Consent Calendar shows that the issue is being taken lighter than meant;
expressed support for the matter returning to Council as a regular agenda items in order
to have a presentation and public comment; stated the presentation could have
addressed how most of the items are being used; while there are crowd control uses for
some items, other tactical uses are also intended, which may be helpful in tricky
situations; the discussion could center around how infrequently the items have been
used; there is typically no desire to use the devices; expressed support for setting
careful and thoughtful boundaries for use; if Council does not do anything to limit the
use of the devices, the commitment to the community and subcommittees is not being
met; stated that he is supportive of the policies as-written; he would like the matter to
return to Council with a report centered on reporting requirements; frequent reporting
requirements would help people understand what is happening with the equipment;
aggregated reporting loses context; it would be beneficial to inform people that they will
hear about item use, which could decrease concerns; the reporting will help the annual
discussion and commits to checks and balances for the community; he trusts that the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,8,"current Police Chief and Captain will not use the items; however, future staff might have
different ideas about how to interact with the public; the community should be aware if
use of the items changes significantly; expressed support for language related to
frequent reporting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether more frequent reporting requirements means
having a report whenever a particular item is used as opposed to six month or annual
reporting, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired where the annual reporting frequency came
from and how more frequent reporting would affect the Police Department.
Vic Mayor Vella inquired whether the proposed reporting could fall under the policy for
significant incidents; stated significant incident information (Sig Info) reporting
immediately comes to Council; noted the information is broad.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about Sign Info reporting and criteria.
The Police Chief stated a policy requires notification within 60 days of use of any of the
items during crowd control; staff can provide a Sig Info notification.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Sig Info policy be paraphrased.
The Police Captain stated Policy 468.13 is derived from Assembly Bill (AB) 48 and
states anytime staff uses chemical agents or kinetic energy projectiles during any crowd
control purpose, staff must provide a summary and report on the website within 60 days
of each incident, unless there are exemptions as defined by law.
Vice Mayor Vella stated notifications which come to the Council; the usage could fall
under the notification to Council; the reporting would not be public and would be
internal.
The Police Chief stated staff can use the Sig Info process to make notifications; the only
cause for pause would be staff initiating an internal investigation associated with the use
of equipment.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Council discussion is still within the purview
of the agenda item or whether Council should provide direction to staff to return with an
amended policy.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the purpose for presenting the matter to Council
is to obtain Council direction and instruction on the proposed final policy; the final policy
will come back to Council pursuant to AB 481, presented as an ordinance; Council is
within its rights to express preferences and discuss how to tailor the policy to City
needs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,9,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the policy could be accepted as-is; Council
already receives notification within 60 days.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting the use policy as-
presented.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether two additional minutes of
speaking time is desired.
Vice Mayor Vella noted there have been comments provided by the public related to
amendments to the proposed policy language; expressed support for including the
amended language and reporting being built-in, including the 60 day reporting.
***
(22-301) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of adding a minute for Councilmembers.
There was no second to the motion.
***
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the policy states: ""governing body, elected or
appointed body that oversees the department;"" inquired whether the language should
reference Alameda City Council.
Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; stated that she would also support the
policy referencing required reporting for the crowd control policy.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella accepts the changes proposed
by Councilmember Knox White, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Councilmember Knox White's proposed
inclusion is already being performed by the Police Chief within 60 days of use.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the reference is solely for crowd control, not for any use.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification from staff on the proposed
changes.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she has inquired whether the changes can be performed
and added as another box to check on Sig Info alerts; if a Councilmember wishes to
raise an issue, Council will know that one of the items were used in the incident; the
changes elevate the incident to Council-level.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft staff can incorporate the comments provided by Council and return
with a final policy for approval.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,10,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is looking for more information; there
is a lot of law related to the matter; expressed support for ensuring the requests from
Councilmembers are not conflicting with the charges from the State of reporting and that
the proposed changes work for the Department.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is confident staff can carry out the duties.
The Assistant City Attorney stated AB 481 sets a floor in policies and reporting
requirements; the Department has discretion to exceed the floor; Council may
implement policies and direct staff to exceed the floor established by AB 481.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council receives a separate notice
any time the equipment is used.
The Interim City Manager responded Sig Info updates happen in real-time; expressed
concern for setting the Department up to fail if staff inadvertently fails to check a box;
expressed support for having the 60 day window to allow the information to flow
naturally and not make mistakes; stated Sig Info updates are designed to get to elected
officials within a few hours or sooner; recommended the policy remain as presented by
the Police Chief and Captain leaving the 60 day window; stated the window allows staff
to roll out the information and annual reporting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the information related to equipment uses beyond
chemical agents and projectiles be expanded.
The Interim City Manager stated there is a more limited list in the policy referenced; staff
can link the policy to AB 481.
The Police Chief expressed support for the proposed policy; stated the 60 day notice
allows staff a window to expand beyond crowd control incidents and allows time to be
comprehensive; the check box for Sig Info updates might not be as informative as a 60
day report; expressed support for any follow up investigation being assessed to
consider the information being put out; stated staff would like to include whether the
equipment had been used and associated dates at a minimum; additional information
should not be provided during open investigations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer amended her motion to approve including the 60 day
reporting notification, with the exception noted by the Police Chief related to ongoing
investigations.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended 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.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
6",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,11,"(*22-302) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to
Accept the Improvements Completed by Alameda Marina, LLC for Tract 8500, Alameda
Marina Clement Avenue Improvement Plans. Accepted.
(*22-303) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute Two
Water Line Easements to the East Bay Municipal Utility District Across City Tidelands
Property at Alameda Marina and Any and All Ancillary Documents, and Direct the
Recording of the Grant of Easements for the Development Projects Related to Tract
8500. Accepted.
(*22-304) Resolution No. 15899, ""Approving a Final Map and Authorize the Interim City
Manager to Execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 8610, Alameda
Marina Townhomes."" Adopted.
Note: Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote, so the motion carried by the
following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye;
Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(*22-305) Resolution No. 15900, ""Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 8468 and a
Condominium Plan (PLN21-0587) to Subdivide 2350 Saratoga Street into Three
Commercial Condominium Units."" Adopted.
Note: Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote, so the motion carried by the
following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye;
Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(*22-306) Resolution No. 15901, ""Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Between the Alameda Fire Chiefs Association (AFCA) and the City of Alameda for a
Forty-Eight Month Term Commencing December 19, 2021 and Ending December 31,
2025."" Adopted.
Note: Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer recorded no votes, so 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.
(*22-307) Ordinance No. 3318, ""Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 8 and
Chapter 12 Authorizing Public Works Enforcement of Parking Provisions and Ensuring
Consistency with California Vehicle Code."" Finally passed.
(*22-308) Ordinance No. 3319, ""Levying Special Taxes within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina). Finally passed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the motion carried by the
following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye;
Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,12,"(*22-309) Ordinance No. 3320, ""Levying Special Taxes within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 22-2 (Alameda Marina - Shoreline Improvements
Maintenance and Adaptive Measures).' Finally passed.
Note: Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote, so the motion carried by the
following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye;
Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(*22-310) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15902, ""Confirming the Park Street
Business Improvement Area Annual Assessment Report for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and
Levying an Annual Assessment on the Park Street Business Improvement Area.""
Finally passed.
(*22-311) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15903, ""Confirming the Webster
Street Business Improvement Area Assessment Report for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and
Levying an Annual Assessment on the Webster Street Business Improvement Area.
Finally passed.
Note: Councilmember Daysog recused himself, so the motion carried by the following
vote: Councilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
(22-312) Recommendation to Provide Direction to City Staff on Emergency Supportive
Housing for Three City-Owned Vacant Homes at Alameda Point.
The Economic Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined identification needs for the program; inquired
whether individuals would be housed prior to being identified and screened through
Megan's Law.
The Community Development Director responded people would be screened based on
identification provided; individuals would be supported in obtaining a license or other
form of identification and would be screened again.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to ensure no one would be
housed until being identified and screened by staff.
The Community Development Director stated staff will house and screen individuals
based on the information provided; staff will verify the information provided and will
assist in obtaining official identification for additional screening when needed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the issue related to Megan's Law.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
8",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,13,"The Community Development Director stated staff will screen individuals through the
Megan's Law database based on information received; some people do not have official
identification and only have other forms or documentation; staff will re-screen with
official documentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the initial screening could solely be verbal
identification.
The Community Development Director responded staff would take whatever
documentation the individual has; stated a membership card or other documentation
could be utilized; staff will attempt to verify identity using other resources, such as social
services.
The Economic Development Manager stated in housing first, staff takes people as they
are; staff will take whatever identification is held at the time and address any issues.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to confirm people can be
housed without actually verifying identity and confirming Megan's Law status; the
priority is housing first and verification screening will happen at some point in the future.
The Community Development Director stated Megan's Law is very important and staff
will attempt to screen individuals based on the information provided; staff will try to
obtain additional information and re-screen.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the program model provides housing
first and later determines identity and screens for Megan's Law issues.
The Community Development Director responded the assessment could be correct if an
individual does not have an official California identification at the time of entering the
home.
The Interim City Manager stated the characterization for the program by
Councilmember Herrera Spencer is possible, but not likely due to the identification
provided being screened; people may end up with identification that is not their own;
however, the stolen or found identification will be noted during screening; the goal is to
get people fully screened as soon as possible; pre-screening will allow people to prove
who they are, but could also uncover falsified information.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is possible for people to stay at the Day Center
until identification is verified.
The Economic Development Manager responded Village of Love will bring in familiar
people.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is looking for an affirmative or negative
response to whether people will be screened for Megan's Law prior to being placed in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
9",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,14,"homes.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether individuals are picked up off the street
and offered housing; stated that he believes there is a process and individuals are
generally well assessed and known; he understands that people will be screened with
the information provided; the likelihood of unknown people moving into the house is
very unlikely.
The Community Development Director concurred with Councilmember Knox White;
stated the amount of unhoused people in the City is such that staff typically does have
information and almost a relationship with each person through various service
providers; the City will hopefully be partnering with Village of Love; people have the
opportunity to come through the program via Village of Love; the goal for staff is to
ensure people receive supportive housing; people should be housing ready and able to
co-house with other individuals.
Councilmember Knox White requested clarification about the process of certifying
people for compliance with Megan's Law while living in the community, not housed and
living in an encampment.
The Community Development Director stated there is not a certification process unless
the individual participates in a City program.
Councilmember Knox White stated moving into the house would require a higher
process; the greatest need for this type of housing is not families; he is concerned the
number of people able to be served could be cut in half; it is easy to work with families
and seniors while leaving the people who need the most help off to the side; requested
program details being shared.
The Community Development Director stated staff is responding to community
comments and concerns; the staff report indicates the program could be slightly
modified for an opportunity to house additional individuals in two of the homes and a
family in another; concurred the highest need is for individuals; stated medically
vulnerable seniors have been prioritized and other individuals would be housing using a
prioritization system; two families can be housed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested an explanation of the population being served at the
Dignity Village development.
The Community Development Director stated the development is a combination which
will house individual unhoused people and serve the top priority of those who are
chronically unhoused; there will be an effort to house individuals that are considered re-
housed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether any families with children will be included.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
10",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,15,"The Community Development Director responded there is potential for families to be
served by the program; staff has reserved five rooms for transitional-age youth.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated transitional-aged youth are not families with children; the
youths are exiting the foster care system; inquired whether Dignity Village is designed to
house families that are living out of their car or utilizing hotel vouchers.
The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated Dignity Village
is not designed to house families.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Dignity Village is designed for adults, including people
aging out of the foster care system.
The Community Development Director stated staff will not exclude families under
Dignity Village.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the need for individuals to be housed is a good point; the
area of Alameda Point is not the only area being looked at for services.
Stated demonizing homelessness is appalling; candidates will have been actively
engaged with outreach workers and the Community Assessment Response &
Engagement (CARE) team; discussed low barrier housing; expressed support for the
Village of Love: Doug Biggs, Alameda.
Stated that her opposition is well documented and due to the program not helping with
the Main Street encampment; discussed hotel vouchers; expressed concern over
feasibility issues, permit delays and information being vague; stated the neighborhood is
chronically neglected; urged Council take accountability for substandard conditions:
Shelby Sheehan, Alameda.
Expressed support for families occupying the three homes and for hotel vouchers;
expressed concern for the neighborhood being a dumping ground and for minimizing
the opposition: Alan Tubbs, Alameda.
Stated that he is impressed with Village of Love; he cannot support single families in the
proposed homes due to concerns related to Megan's Law; people need to be vetted
prior to obtaining housing; discussed fake identification; expressed concern over health
conditions and public indecency: Craig Miott, Alameda.
Discussed identification being required for Alameda Food Bank services; stated there
should not be a mystery related to where people come from; expressed support for
requiring a birth certificate: Rosalinda Fortuna Corvi, Alameda.
Stated others comments related to people experiencing homelessness is appalling and
offensive; the community must do better in showing compassion; the point of housing
first is to get people in houses as the best way to improve the outcome; it is shameful to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
11",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,16,"equate homelessness with being a danger to children: Josh Geyer, Alameda.
Stated Village of Love are ideal partners for the program; Village of Love will step up
and handle any problems that arise; expressed support for a mother with children being
one of the first families in the program housing: Fred Fielding, Twin Towers United
Methodist Church.
Stated people criticizing the program should walk with someone that is experiencing
homelessness; discussed issues related to being homeless; stated people need to be
treated with compassion; people running the program know how to handle issues:
Sandra Pilon.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the program; stated the Village of Love is
hand selecting people that are ready to transition from the Village of Love to transitional
housing; people able to be housed will have the opportunity to avail themselves of wrap
around services to help get to the next step of permanent housing; programs succeed
one life at a time; the City is starting small and has a lot of potential; expressed concern
over complaining about problems without taking action; the matter is an opportunity to
take action through a reliable model.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is important; expressed concern about the amount of
time taken to get to the point of moving forward; stated there is an important statistic:
many Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) youth end up
homeless without beds in Alameda County; when youth transition out of the system,
they are left at the mercy of available services; she would like people to consider the
youths that are unsafe staying home and do not have support from their family; mental
health issues arise as a result from the stresses of being unhoused; housing first is the
recommended model due to the aid in stabilization; many LGBTQ individuals would
benefit from transitional housing and a housing first model; expressed support for a
proposal and model that maximizes the use of space and the populations to be serviced
by the units; stated the neighborhood concerns are heard; people will be screened;
obtaining identification is often a barrier and will be taken into account; expressed
support for models which maximize space with more than one family per house as well
as alternatives to provide supportive housing to individuals and not just being limited to
families.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is recommending the housing
be used for homeless LGBTQ youth.
Vice Mayor Vella responded in the negative; stated the housing should be used for
individuals; it is problematic to state the program will only serve families; many people
become homeless at a young age and transition out; there is a large homeless
population aged from 19 to 25 years and many would benefit from supportive housing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated many families are opposed to families sharing housing;
there are many different issues; families need their own housing unit; expressed support
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
12",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,17,"for following the lead of providers working with affected groups; providers are adamant
about not sharing housing; expressed support for a reasonable framework to
contemplate concerns raised by neighbors; stated some concerns are based on
stereotypes and old-fashioned thinking without knowing much about possibilities or
services provided; there is respect for surrounding neighbors; the area has vacant
homes which should be used to help other people be neighbors; expressed support for
moving forward.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the homes would be rented out if
placed on the market.
The Community Development Director responded the City has a good track record of
leasing the homes; staff would not have a problem renting the homes if the program
does not move forward.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the price, the
Community Development Director stated the price varies depending on the size of the
home; the Big Whites rent ranges from the high $3,000 to low $4,000 per month; the
amount is less for the ranch and town homes.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated explicit house rules were provided at a meeting
held at the O'Club; inquired whether the provider would have house rules.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the housing
first, low-barrier approach does not mean that inappropriate or poor behavior would be
tolerated.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the house rules included not allowing the use
of drugs or smoking inside the home; noted pets are allowed; questioned whether the
provider would have limits or similar rules, to which the Community Development
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted there are no rules for people outside of the
home; inquired whether doing drug outside the house could be allowed and not result in
someone being removed from the home.
The Community Development Director responded trespassing in another person's yard
would not be permitted; there is an expectation of behaving like other citizens and
observing property boundaries; the program does not permit someone conducting
themselves illegally or inappropriately similar to other citizens; illegal activities fall under
Alameda Police Department's (APD) jurisdiction as well as the program director;
participants are expected to be good neighbors.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there are explicit rules related to
what behavior would result in removal from the house; questioned whether staff has the
rules and whether rules pertain to behavior outside of the home.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
13",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,18,"The Community Development Director responded staff has not contracted with a
provider yet; however, staff can take Council recommendations; stated there would
likely be requirements to be good neighbors and not being disruptive.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated community members have raised concerns; the
Main Street encampment still exists; inquired whether program residents would reduce
the number of people at the Main Street encampment.
The Community Development Director responded that she is not certain whether the
assessment is correct.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff to clarify the City efforts to address the Main Street
encampments.
The Interim City Manager stated there is a multi-prong approach to the Main Street
encampments; the Public Works, Community Development and Police Departments are
working to try and manage things that collect in the area, to connect people with social
services and to move in the direction of creating transitional and supportive housing; the
bottle parcel will create the opportunity to unlock options around housing people in the
community; the project goes beyond the exiting housing stock; the City performs a
cleanup of the Main Street encampment every two weeks to ensure the site is as
orderly as possible in the interim period.
The Community Development Director stated every time the City creates more housing
opportunities, such as the proposed program, there are more possibilities to get people
off the streets; staff working with the Village of Love will help transition some of
individuals and create a new opportunity for other individuals; the more options
available, the more staff can help people flow through various opportunities.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Main Street encampments have been
present for over one year; she appreciates the multi-prong approach; people in the
neighborhood submitting concerns are familiar with homeless people; she has not heard
that the Main Street encampments will disappear; inquired whether there is a timeline
for the Main Street encampment to no longer exist.
The Interim City Manager responded the homeless issue in the Bay Area is significant;
stated that he does not have a timeline for the Main Street encampment to no longer
exist; opportunities, such as the proposed program, create new services and
opportunities to have people housed; between the proposed project and the transitional
housing site at the bottle parcel, Alameda will be in a much different position one year
from now; the City relies on a few service providers to connect people with resources;
however, there are not many opportunities to put people into a house or shelter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the meaning of the term
saturation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
14",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,19,"The Community Development Director stated the area being saturated means that a
great deal of homeless services are provided at Alameda Point and the West End;
Alameda does not have the same opportunities elsewhere in the City; expressed
support for creating a similar program in another part of the City with comparable
opportunities; however, such an area does not exist; if other opportunities present
themselves in other areas in the City, staff will look into spreading out services.
The Interim City Manager stated the Housing Element provides an opportunity to
discuss housing barriers and opportunities in different parts of the community; there are
ways to shift the policy perspective over-time for the community related to where
properties are re-zoned and placed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she previously voted against the matter;
discussed a community meeting; stated staff has been more forthright with the proposal;
the proposed use is not three families being placed in three homes; the program will
likely have individuals, which is not what the community members support; there are
multiple people at the encampment on Main Street; the City needs to repair the homes
in the area; the City has received complaints about the state of the properties; it is
imperative that the City be a good landlord to the current tenants in the area; the homes
could be rented out, which would generate rental income for the City; rent revenue
should have been used for repairs; house rules must address inside and outside the
home; identification needs to be confirmed prior to offering anyone housing; the City is
housing people within an established neighborhood; people need to be identified and
screened per Megan's Law; expressed support for Village of Love's work as a provider;
stated that she would like to regularly hear from community members if the program is
approved.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council can find reasons not to support the matter;
he hopes to move the matter forward and is enthusiastic about building housing in
Alameda; expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated that he would like one
supportive housing unit to be used for up to 50% seniors and medically vulnerable; he
believes Council would be doing the City and community a disservice in creating a
system that de-prioritizes the highest need and largest number; recommended a second
Big White be held in abeyance for repairs; stated the number of people being served is
being reduced by using two homes for single families; the City will not be collecting rent;
the City's job is not to make money, it is to serve the people who live in the City whether
or not they have a house.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation with one
house being used for prioritization of up to 50% seniors and medically vulnerable, and
maintaining a second Big White house which could be put into effect once the City has
had the opportunity to go through the program and judge its effectiveness and impact
on the neighborhood; leaving the decision to staff about renting another existing Big
White if one becomes available.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
15",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,20,"Councilmember Knox White stated the Carnegie Library is a place the City could be
looking at; Council has given staff direction to come back with a plan for addressing the
geographic issue; the answer will likely include money; he expects those concerned
about the East versus West divide will be supportive of spending money to buy
expensive houses and address homelessness; he supports plans to place housing
through the City.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White is recommending
the City add another Big White to be fixed with City funds and held in abeyance for
homeless accommodations, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the
affirmative.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Knox White stated that
he is recommending the City move forward with all three proposed buildings: one
building for individuals and two for homeless families; the second building can be
expanded if the City finds the program to be successful.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated proposing up to 50% senior and medically vulnerable allows
the other 50% to be adult individuals; the largest growing segment of the homeless
population is seniors age 55 and older; expressed support for the completion of the
Wellness Center project on McKay Avenue; stated people are trying to stop the project
from moving forward by having the area designated on the National Historic Register.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the highest moral obligation the City
of Alameda has is to try to assist homeless families with children; children have a
difficult time handling the situation; there is a variety of reasons for an adult to be
homeless; homelessness for children is a tragedy; he supports the two houses being
set aside for homeless families; the third house prioritizing seniors is a need; however,
some of the challenges are being addressed in Alameda through the Wellness Center
on McKay Avenue; proposed the third house be used to house homeless, unwed,
teenage mothers; there is a tremendous amount of unwed, homeless, teenage mothers
in the East Bay who need a chance to get back on their feet and get back into school
with a safe environment for their newborns; the third house would still be a group home
situation targeted at families; the City has reached an understanding with the
neighborhood; expressed concern about going beyond the three housing units; stated
the City should have a more focused and thematic approach involving homeless
families.
Councilmember Daysog made a substitute motion approving the City not pursuing the
fourth housing unit and the third housing unit being for unwed, teenage mothers from
the East Bay.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll
call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: No; Vella:
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
16",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,21,"No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he will vote no on the original motion due to his
desire to stick to staff's original recommendation; staff's recommendation is a
considered approach that takes into account the need to work with and provide for
homeless families.
On the call for the question, the original motion 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.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to ensure Council is providing clear
direction to City staff; the three homes are to be rehabilitated with City funds and
brought to livable conditions in order to house the populations as described with the
modifications that 50% seniors and medically vulnerable be housed in one Big White
and others being held in abeyance for future accommodations; inquired whether staff
understands the direction.
The Community Development Director inquired whether staff is being instructed to
utilize a fourth home once the program is up and running for housing general population
homeless individuals.
Councilmember Knox White responded there is no expectation that staff should do
anything with the fourth house other than ensuring that a house is available once there
has been a chance to evaluate the first three homes; the matter would return to Council
for discussion; the people to be placed in the fourth home should be determined by
what is learned from the initial program; the goal is to have a Big White which can hold
individuals where the highest need is present; the fourth house may not end up being
used; expressed concern about providing specific direction to staff to have the fourth
house for a specified group; stated Council is allowing flexibility; expressed support for
the program running for a minimum of one year to evaluate the three houses and make
necessary changes.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council desires to rehabilitate the houses.
Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated the housing unit should
be rehabilitated and ready to be used by the time it is needed.
Vice Mayor Vella stated rehabilitating the houses could take time; the time taken to
rehabilitate will likely be the same time needed for evaluation; Council needs to know
programmatic needs.
Councilmember Daysog stated the fourth housing unit could be used for unwed teenage
mothers.
The Community Development Director stated that she would like to verify that the fourth
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
17",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,22,"house rehabilitation would return to Council for guidance in the future.
Councilmember Knox White concurred with the Community Development Director.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:48
p.m.
***
(22-313) Public Hearing to Review and Comment on Annual Report on the General
Plan and Draft Housing Element Update.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
***
(22-314) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing up to 5 additional
minutes for the presentation.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director completed the Power Point
presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Government Code Section 65585
requires that the proposed draft to come back to Council for review, public comments
and changes prior to being submitted to the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) or whether staff will submit the draft after the current Council
meeting.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the Code does not
require Council to approve the draft Housing Element (HE) prior to sending it to HCD;
the Code section does require that the City consider all comments received and make
any necessary changes prior to submitting to HCD; the State requirement has the City
draft its HE, provide the public 30 days to review, consider public comments, make any
necessary changes, and then submit it to HCD for review; once the HCD review has
occurred, the HE is brought back to the Planning Board and City Council; Council can
consider HCD and Planning Board comments to make a final decision; Council could
decide to add a step and have the matter return prior to being sent to HCD; the real
discussion will occur once HCD review is complete and decisions will need to be made;
the HCD review is an important part of the process; there is opportunity for public
hearings and Council decision once HCD review occurs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when the last changes were made to the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
18",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,23,"exhibits attached to the staff report and whether documents are redline.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the draft HE published
for public review on April 5th is the draft before Council; staff released an initial set of
clarifications and changes for the May 9th Planning Board meeting in order to show
necessary clean-up; staff does not have a redline version, but a list of changes has
been started.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council has received a number of comments related
to the height of buildings in the commercial district; inquired whether it is possible for the
City to get three story buildings with housing in the commercial districts.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff has been speaking
with property owners and housing developers about Park and Webster Streets; stated
staff is recommending a five story height limit due to feedback from property owners
and housing developers; the feedback included the extreme difficulty and unlikeliness
for housing to be built on Park or Webster Streets; Park Street and Webster Street
already have buildings; a three story limit does not make sense economically; if Council
wants to maintain a three story height limit on Webster Street, it is possible; staff will
then have to reduce the real estate capacity and 400 units will not be attained on Park
and Webster Streets; the units will need to be accommodated in the residential district.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how density bonus impacts height limits.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded density bonus is typically
a 20% bonus if a property owner or developer proposes additional affordable housing;
the Park and Webster Streets proposed five story height limit is best viewed as a four
stories of residential; if an owner provides affordable housing, they would receive a 20%
density bonus; almost every density bonus project performed in the past has used a
20% bonus; the bonus provides for an additional story; the past 10 years, every project
has been required to provide a density bonus due to the multi-family prohibition; the
only way projects could provide multi-family units in Alameda was through density
bonus; once the multi-family prohibition is removed, staff anticipates there will not be as
many density bonus projects; Alameda provides significantly more density bonus
projects when compared to other cities in the area.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether a project might have a higher height
limit if the owner qualifies for a density bonus, to which the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's further inquiry, the Planning, Building
and Transportation Director stated Council could decide how many places to allow
multi-family by right; other types of housing, such as supportive housing, is allowed by
right under State law; if Council does not allow multi-family housing, shared housing
must still be allowed by right; shared housing cannot be treated differently than single
family homes.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
19",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-04-28,1,"City of Alameda, California
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THURSDAY, April 28, 2022
APPROVED MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Sarah Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sarah Lewis, Vice President Kristin Furuichi Fong, Board members
Dianne Yamashiro-Omi, Samantha Green, Scott Means and Priya Jagannathan.
City staff: Eric Fonstein, Lois Butler, Veronika Cole, and Marcie Johnson
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3-A Review and Approve March 24, 2022 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes of March 24, 2022 was made by Board member
Yamashiro-Omi and seconded by Board member Means. Ayes: President S. Lewis, Vice
President Furuichi Fong, Board members Yamashiro-Omi, Green, and Means. Nays: none.
Note: Board Member Jagannathan abstained due to absence from meeting. Motion passed
5-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. AGENDA ITEMS
5-A Discuss the Creation of a Permanent SSHRB Homelessness Subcommittee
Staff member Fonstein made a short presentation of Brown Act, Sunshine Ordinance,
and logistical considerations in creating a subcommittee indicating that creating a
subcommittee would require a formal vote, which can be placed on next month's agenda.
President Lewis opened the floor for Board discussion. The following is a summary of
discussion points and questions:
Board member Yamashiro-Omi asked for additional information on the
subcommittee roles. President Lewis responded, to provide relevant oversight of
the City's Homelessness Strategic Plan, such as the community convener and
public education components. SSHRB's role would be to help with public
education and promotion of homelessness issues.
Board member Yamashiro-Omi asked if it needed to be a formal subcommittee or
if there was an option to meet informally.
Board member Means asked who on SSHRB would be interested in taking the
lead in chairing the subcommittee. President Lewis, Vice President Furuichi Fong,",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-04-28.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-04-28,2,"and Board member Green agreed that it is important for SSHRB to take the lead
on homelessness activities and to be involved.
Board member Means liked the idea of embedding an item in SSHRB's regular
agenda to make the discussion a part of SSHRB's regular meetings.
Staff member Butler recommended that a formal subcommittee, if created by
SSHRB, be composed of two SSHRB members.
President Lewis summarized the SSHRB consensus: starting with SSHRB's next
meeting, make this item a part of SSHRB's regular agenda so all members can
participate in the discussion.
5-B Continue the Discussion of the Development and Implementation of the 2022
Community Needs Assessment
Board member Green and Jagannathan went through community indicators and
discussed limitations. The following is a summary of discussion points and questions:
Board member Jagannathan would like for SSHRB to review/provide input, on the
current data collection points and overall end product appearance. The idea is for
it to be presented to City Council as a power point documents with the data at the
end of the report.
Staff member Butler emphasized that need for a variety of data collection, to
ensure SSHRB is covering indicators identified by City Council and members of
the public.
Board member Green stated that there are limitations to data, and believes the
Community Needs Assessment (CNA) will need focus groups to fill in the data
gaps.
Board member Yamashiro-Omi asked about available funding to hire a individual
who could facilitate/draft a narrative. And recommended that board members
review, Portland and Richmond's, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) strategic
plan as an appraisal for the CNA. The Board agreed that it could prepare the
document in house, but requested a consultant for facilitating the focus groups.
Staff member Butler confirmed that there is funding available in the current fiscal
year to hire a focus group facilitator. Stating that this individual(s) would need to
be on contract, performing work, before June 30.
President Lewis asked for input on what the focus groups would look like, logistically. The
following is a summary of discussion points:
Board member Means suggested, day events at senior centers and
evening/weekends for working families.
Board member Jagannathan suggested, compensating people or providing food
during participation, as well as presenting data to the focus groups and asking
them if it matches reality.
Board members Green and Yamashiro-Omi suggested focus groups for individual
demographics.
Board suggested five to six focus groups, with eight to twelve people.
President Lewis provided a summary of the action items for next meeting:",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-04-28.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-04-28,3,"Board member Yamashiro-Omi will reach out to consultant and put them in
contact with staff member Fonstein.
Board member Jagannathan will provide current list of indicators/data collection
sources to staff member Fonstein (who will blind distribute to SSHRB members).
Board members will continue to think about additional data sources and focus
group possibilities.
5-C Workgroup Reports
Domestic Violence (Furuichi Fong): Next meeting is scheduled for May 19.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Status Report on Homeless Services
Staff member Cole provided the following update:
HHAP Contract: The City of Alameda has contracted with Alameda County to
provide funding ($287,767) for the Village of Love, Safe Parking, Day Center
(extended hours) and Overnight Services programs. Services will be provided
through 2023.
Community Development will be issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a
Homeless Outreach Team, in May.
Emergency Housing at Alameda Point: Item was moved to the May 3, City Council
meeting. Recommended that SSHRB members attend, if available.
Homeless Encampments: Monthly clean-up will be increasing to two times a month
(second and fourth Tuesdays).
7. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Board member Green wanted to address to open board seat, and requested for a youth
member to be considered. Staff member Fonstein provided background information from
previous years, highlighting the potential issue of student time constraints.
Board member Means stated, every May, the Administration for Community Living (ACL)
leads the nation's observance of Older Americans Month (OAM).
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Butler shared that she will be stepping back from her participation in SSHRB
meetings, but will continue to oversee board projects.
9. ADJOURNMENT
President Lewis adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Fonstein, Board Secretary",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-04-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-28,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 28, 2022- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:06 p.m. Councilmember Herrera Spencer led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella
arrived at 6:33 p.m. and the meeting was conducted via
Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(22-282) Adoption of Uncodified Urgency Ordinance to Take Effect Immediately Upon Its
Adoption Concerning Rent Control and Limitations on Evictions Applicable to Maritime
Residential Tenancies including Floating Homes. [Requires four affirmative votes]; and
(22-282 A) Introduction of Uncodified Ordinance Concerning Rent Control and Limitations on
Evictions Applicable to Maritime Residential Tenancies including Floating Homes.
Special Counsel gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether approval of the ordinances includes the
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); stated there have been reference to fee and rent increases for
tenants; inquired whether approval of the matter would allow staff to review whether or not
related expenses can be passed through.
The City Attorney stated the ordinance as provided exempts two current provisions of the rent
control ordinance: temporary relocation and CIPs if Council believes provisions should also
apply, Council can direct staff to amend the language.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council would like to discuss the reason
behind excluding the two provisions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded Council can discuss the matter or hear public comment;
requested the City Attorney provide clarification.
The City Attorney stated the reason for excluding the provisions is due to being less applicable
for marine tenancies; the temporary relocation provision usually applies to a situation where a
bathroom is taken out of commission at a regular apartment and repairs need to be made where
the tenant cannot stay in the apartment; floating home tenants actually have control over the
fixtures and the rent is different from typical tenants in an apartment; Council may provide staff
different direction if it so desires.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to hear the difference between a maritime
tenancy and a typical apartment tenancy; inquired whether the difference is due to maritime
tenants actually owning the structure.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the scenario is akin to mobile homes; the
resident owns the structure and has control over electrical and plumbing; however, the land is
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 28, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-04-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-28,2,"rented; apartment tenancies are different; everything, including fixtures and utilities, are rented
and not within a tenant's control; the difference is the reason staff proposed excluding the two
provisions.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Council could include the CIP policies if a property
owner desires to perform substantial rehabilitation to a seawall or boat slip.
Special Counsel responded the difficulty in enlarging the CIP program with respect to the entire
marina would be figuring out what falls under the CIP as defined in the current policy; Council
could amend what would be included in the policy and allow for a recovery or amortized cost
recovery for the owner; currently, the CIP does not encompass said type of reconstruction.
The City Attorney stated the City's rent program currently has a process where owners can
recover investments into their property in order to make a constitutional right of return; the
process could be available to the marina owners, the same as any other landlord.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council has already given direction to come back with a CIP
update; Council can adopt the emergency ordinance as written and provide direction to return
with any recommendations.
Special Counsel stated staff will bring back the CIP policy sometime in June; Council may wish
to include the related types of improvements.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that Councilmember Knox White wishes to have the
CIP policy return to Council.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council should discuss the matter under Council discussion.
Discussed the rent increases; expressed concern about the ordinance effective date; requested
the date be changed: Leila Minnis, Alameda.
Stated the proposed rent increases will result in displacement of homeowners; urged the rent
protections and ordinance be adopted: Beth Remenap, Alameda Floating Home Association.
Expressed support for the urgency ordinance and the residents living at Barnhill Marina; stated
the same protections are needed for people renting on land and water; Council has the power to
remedy the issue and bring relief: Andrey Shmakov, Alameda.
Expressed support for enacting rent stabilization at Barnhill Marina; stated that she is appalled
at the rent increases proposed by the new owner; the increases will result in financial hardship
for many senior residents; urged Council to extend rent protections: Carolyn Foster, Alameda.
Outlined conditions and average fair rent at other floating homes in the area; stated the data
shows average rent at other marinas being $570 per month with docks in better condition;
discussed rent increase percentages; urged Council pass the ordinance: Mayumi Stroy,
Alameda.
Stated that she is concerned about the issues being brought up; discussed her rent increase
of
over 100%; stated that she is in support of the matter: Alice Gore, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 28, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-04-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-28,3,"Expressed concern about any misinformation and negotiation team tactics; stated the
comments should be heard through the context of a community that is terrified and cannot find
legal representation; urged Council hear everything from all speakers: Liz Williams, Alameda.
Stated approximately half of the residents are seniors and on a fixed income; expressed
concern about displacement of the most vulnerable; stated the urgency ordinance protects at-
risk neighbors: Rosemary Reilly, Alameda.
Outlined the purchase and sale of Barnhill Marina; provided information on the landlord; stated
the increase leaves her facing eviction; urged Council to pass the urgency ordinance: Ashley
Mullins, Alameda.
Outlined the purchase and sale process for floating homes; stated there is only one lender for
floating homes; the lender has expressed concern over the introduction of unregulated and
excessive rent increases and new lease terms; discussed the lease's force majeure clause;
stated the vulnerability is breathtaking and there are multiple paths to displacement; urged
Council pass the ordinance: Steve Cardenas, Alameda.
Stated floating home values have been lower than comparable land homes; floating homes
have been naturally occurring affordable housing; discussed a ban on new floating home
marinas; stated there is no place to move: James Morgenroth, Alameda.
Discussed the history of Barnhill Marina; stated rents have increased and the docks have
improved over the years; the proposed ordinances give residents a chance to be relieved from
vulnerability; urged Council to protect the residents and pass the ordinance: John Crossley,
Alameda.
Stated residents of Barnhill Marina are a part of the community and woven into the City;
residents rent berths; residents' vulnerability allows landlords to easily take advantage;
residents are asking to be treated like all other renters in Alameda: Lisa Cannelora, Alameda.
Outlined rent negotiations the past few weeks; urged adoption of the urgency ordinance: Robert
Houlihan, Alameda.
Stated floating home owners own their property and pay to maintenance and insurance; the
berths are rented from the marina owner; floating home residency law states tenants must be
protected from constructive or actual eviction; the lease terms are designed to create rolling
displacement; urged Council pass the ordinance: Lynn Houlihan, Alameda.
Stated that she had no idea the ordinance was being proposed until a reporter contacted her on
Monday; she is deeply invested in a sustainable future for the marina and floating homes; urged
Council to consider a much broader set of data before making a decision; discussed running a
sustainable operation; expressed concern over the future of floating home marinas in Alameda;
stated the matter is a one-sided presentation of facts: Drishti Narang, Barnhill Marina.
Stated that she is in support of the residents at Barnhill Marina; urged Council to come together
to vote to ensure the community is protected; discussed Council granting rent relief and
protections for Alameda residents; stated residents of Barnhill Marina should be granted the
same protections: Meredith Hoskin, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 28, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-04-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-28,4,"Urged Council further consider the catastrophe that would follow if floating homes are not
included in rent stabilization; stated that she and her neighbors will be displaced and homes will
be lost; residents are facing a mortgage default crisis that few can afford: Tara Flanagan,
Alameda.
Stated there is a question of how to address the ordinances; the owners of Barnhill Marina take
the community concerns seriously; in order to fashion an appropriate solution addressing the
concerns, Council must be adequately informed of many more issues and facts; there has not
been an opportunity to gather facts; expressed concern about the ordinances not tailoring
language and the long-term viability of Barnhill Marina: Galin Luk, Attorney, Barnhill Marina.
Urged Council to protect the distinct neighborhood; stated floating homes are a naturally
occurring form of affordable housing and need protection; the values of the Barnhill Marina
community reflect the values of the City; expressed support for the creation of more affordable
housing; expressed concern over rent increases: Laura Thomas, Alameda.
Expressed concern over losing his home; urged Council to do what is right and protect residents
by passing the ordinance: Dominick Drisdon, Alameda.
Stated that he owns a sailboat that lies within one of the few live-aboard slips at Barnhill Marina;
discussed his learning of possible threats of eviction and strong arm tactics tripling rents; urged
Council to pass the ordinance: Brian Linke, Alameda.
Stated that he has lived at Barnhill Marina for 40 years and is on a low, fixed income; he and
other marina residents are at risk of losing life savings and being evicted; his rent increase is
178%; many only have the option of eviction or homelessness on May 1st; urged Council to pass
the ordinance: Walter Knox, Alameda.
Stated that he would like the ordinance to be effective April 1, 2022, not April 14, 2022: Rick
Minnis, Alameda.
Discussed things that make the Barnhill Marina community special; stated many neighbors have
provided help when needed; urged Council to help keep the community: Robert Knop, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the public comments; stated speakers have been
articulate and eloquent; she has heard both heartbreaking and heartwarming remarks; she is
certain calling a special meeting was the right thing to do; expressed support for passing the
emergency ordinance and introducing the other ordinance; stated that she has heard many
alarming accounts from residents of Barnhill Marina; part of preventing homelessness is not
allowing homelessness to happen; the Bay Area's largest growing segment of the homeless
population includes seniors 55 years and older; for people living on the street, 55 is similar to 75
due to rapid aging; the owner's background does not excuse the kind of behavior experienced
by the residents of Barnhill Marina; there has been communication between Council, the City,
the District Attorney's office and tenants to work out resolutions; the communications have been
one-sided and the opportunity for sharing information has been present all along; the
information Council has is egregious; more than one resident has alluded to payment plans that
amounted to the owner taking a lien out on the property or a reverse mortgage; expressed
support for the District Attorney's office being made aware of the practice; stated the State of
California is strict on who is able to offer said financial instruments; floating homes are naturally
occurring affordable housing; Alameda's rent ordinance recognizes that landlords need to make
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 28, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-04-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-28,5,"a reasonable return on their property; the marina property is unique; expressed concern about
constructive evictions; stated that she is looking forward to doing the right thing by the residents
of Barnhill Marina; inquired whether the ordinance effective date can be modified to April 1st.
The City Attorney responded staff considered which date to choose for the ordinance; stated
typically ordinances are effective upon adoption when urgent or 30 days after second reading
for regular ordinances; retroactive dates back to the date of publication was the option that has
a reasonable risk-benefit calculation; public speakers have requested a further reach back that
potentially creates more protection; however, it also creates additional risk due to the date
reaching back prior to publication; Council may choose to reach back further and staff can make
any modifications directed by Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is seeking an approach which is legally defensible; she
expects the owners of Barnhill Marina to challenge the ordinance in court; inquired the safest
course of action, to which the City Attorney responded it is safer not to retroactively date an
ordinance beyond the publication date of the staff report.
Councilmember Knox White stated it is clear that people who live in Barnhill Marina are
residents, similar to all other residents of Alameda; he does not understand why the City would
have separate rules for people depending on where they live.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of adoption of the urgency ordinance with direction
for staff to look at the CIP issues and address issues of shared infrastructure in the same way
the City is addressing the matter for multi-family buildings with common areas.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on the appropriateness of the motion
including direction regarding the CIP.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for attaining a second for the motion to allow for
Council discussion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated based on information provided by the City Attorney, the
CIP language currently included in the City's rent ordinance can be included; the CIP language
could be included in the current ordinance and fine-tuned at a later date; expressed support for
receiving clarification from the City Attorney.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion on the floor needs a second in order for Council
discussion to follow; inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is making an
amendment to the motion, to which Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like
to hear from the City Attorney.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like
to
make a friendly amendment to the motion and have the CIP language put into the ordinance
similar to the existing rent control ordinance if possible.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not support the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Knox White stated the current CIP language relates to rental units; adding the
language to the urgency ordinance would not have a strong, material impact for Barnhill Marina;
if Council looks at shared infrastructure, the approach would have to be unique due to rental
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 28, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-04-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-28,6,"differences.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned about pass through costs being sought from
the landlord; renters of Barnhill Marina already pay property taxes, which is not paid by other
renters.
The City Attorney stated the current CIP policy is out-of-date; Council has given direction to
update the CIP; Council may direct staff to include the CIP language; however, the language
would be difficult to apply; few landlords have applied for CIP; staff is working on bringing an
amendment to Council for consideration.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the process when an owner has repairs and is trying
to pass through fees and costs.
The City Attorney responded Council can offer protection in a couple ways; stated the way for
an owner to apply pass through is to apply for a fair return petition; in the petition, an
independent hearing officer would compare the owner-submitted capital plans to expenditures in
order to make a constitutional right of return and adjust rents, if necessary, under guidance of
federal and State law; staff can bring back a CIP policy that provides more options on how to
broadly apply it to both regular land tenancies and marine tenancies in the coming months.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there are other things which could be added
to the emergency or non-emergency ordinance for protection.
The City Attorney responded applying the existing rent control to marine tenancies is
administratively the most expedient path forward; stated rent staff are already trained to
administer the ordinance.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the date will be retroactive to April 14th, to
which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the shabby treatment of Barnhill Marina
residents must not continue; it is vital for Council to extend the rent control provisions to the
residents along and on the water; he supports the matter moving forward; the residents, children
and seniors especially have very limited options and Council must take a stand.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the City's history of supporting rent stabilization;
stated there have been times where Council has been asked to step-up; the matter goes
beyond Barnhill Marina and is unfortunate; the emotional drain on someone subjected to rent
increases is difficult; the stress has to end; she is confident that the ordinances will pass.
Councilmember Daysog stated it is possible the current matter is not the end; he will continue to
support the residents that are being treated badly.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is disappointed that the situation got this far; staff had been
trying to reach out to the owners of Barnhill Marina to see if a solution could be reached; she
has supported tenant rights and protections for the duration of her time on Council; this matter is
no different; it is unfortunate that Council is having to take the emergency ordinance action and
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 28, 2022
6",CityCouncil/2022-04-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-28,7,"that better behavior with more consideration was not provided to the residents of Barnhill
Marina.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether language needs to be added to the current
ordinance in order to clarify the instructions for the tenants who have already paid their rent with
the increase due to the date being April 14th.
The City Attorney responded the argument could be made with the existing language; stated the
existing language allows a potential resident to argue that the rent in effect is not what was
announced; if there be desire to make the language clearer, another sentence can be added on
page 4, Section 2 of the urgency ordinance stating: ""rent being paid as of April 14th is defined as
rent being paid, not rent that was announced to be paid in the future.""
Councilmember Knox White amended the motion to include the proposed language.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the amended 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.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the language of the ordinance needs to
include the language proposed for the urgency ordinance.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated that he recommends Council insert the
exact same language from the urgency ordinance into Section 2-E.
Councilmember Knox White amended his motion to include the language from the urgency
ordinance.
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.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-283) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments thanking the City Manager.
(22-284) The City Manager thanked current and former City Councilmembers; stated that he
has appreciated the opportunity to work with everyone; Council has always stepped up and
worked for the community; expressed support for City staff.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 28, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-04-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-- -APRIL 19, 2022--5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:02 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella
arrived at 6:10 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 5:40 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 6:00
p.m. and
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-242) Conference With Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation, Initiation of Litigation
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4)); Number of Cases:
One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendant(s): Alameda Point
Partners, LLC
(22-243) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring (Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957); Title/Description of Positions to be Filled: City Manager
(22-244) Conference With Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation, Initiation of Litigation
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4)); Number of Cases:
One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendants: Greenway Golf
Associates, Inc. Not heard.
(22-245) Conference With Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6); City Negotiators: Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, Nancy Bronstein,
Human Resources Director, 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), and 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 Potential Litigation, staff provided information and Council
provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera
Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,2,"Noes: 1, Absent: 1; and regarding Employee Appointment/Hiring, Council provided
direction with no vote taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:28
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,3,"TUESDAY- APRIL 19, 2022 - 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:43 p.m. Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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
(22-246) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the public hearing on the parking provision ordinance
[paragraph no. 22-274 would be called first under Regular Agenda Items.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-247) Proclamation Declaring April 24 through 30, 2022 as Alameda County Victims' Rights
Week.
(22-248) Proclamation Declaring April 22, 2022 as Earth Day Alameda 2022 and Arbor Day
Alameda 2022.
(22-249) Proclamation Declaring April 2022 as Autism Acceptance Month.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-250) Shelby Sheehan, Alameda, expressed concern about services for homeless
individuals.
(22-251) Melodye Montgomery, Alameda, discussed the date being one-year since the death of
Mario Gonzales; stated the City does not have a Police reform community committee to oversee
and review Police actions.
(22-252) Erin Fraser, Alameda, expressed support for remembering Mario Gonzales one year
after his death; stated the death is horrific and holds collective guilt; urged Council to remember
the death in order to take actions that honor Mr. Gonzales' memory.
(22-253) Carmen Reid, Alameda, discussed a humanitarian fundraiser event to support Ukraine
on Sunday at the Preacher's Daughter Café.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Expressed concern over the Smart City Master Plan [paragraph no. 22-256] including
signalization and driver prioritization; discussed emission reductions and electric vehicles:
Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White requested the Smart City Master Plan be withdrawn for discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,4,"Councilmember Daysog announced that he would recuse himself from Webster Street Business
Improvement Area [paragraph no. 22-268].
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the purchase of a Fire Truck [paragraph no. 22-
270] be withdrawn 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.]
The City Attorney noted the terms of the Interim City Manager agreement [paragraph no. 22-
262] must be announced.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the item be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.
(*22-254) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on March 15, 2022.
Approved.
(*22-255) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,064,567.90
(22-256) Recommendation to Approve the Smart City Master Plan.
Councilmember Knox White stated that his comment is procedural; the majority of Council
previously requested the matter come back for discussion with specific information; expressed
concern about the matter coming on the Consent Calendar with no information related to any of
the Council questions and with none of the text changed based on the October 2021 discussion;
stated that he would like to know whether the matter can be moved to a future Council agenda
with the requested information included in the presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staff presenting the matter.
The Information Technology Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the reason for the matter coming before Council.
The Information Technology Director responded Council is approving the high-level plan to
allow staff to get into the ten different recommendations; noted the first recommendation is
needed for the following nine.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the plan is high-level and similar to the
Transportation Choices Plan; staff returns to Council with a concept prior to seeking funding and
grants; staff is looking for a core communication system.
David Huynh, Iteris, Inc., stated the intent of the plan is to be a high-level road map; the plan will
serve the function of helping the City obtain grant funding; having a plan in-place is useful when
going after competitive grants; additional details will be developed for specific projects; specific
projects will be brought back to Council for consideration and approval.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,19,"perpetuity and is the next item Council will consider; the current item will issue bonds with a 30-
year repayment period.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the owners of the properties vote on the
matter.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the ballots were sent out and
received by the City Clerk.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many ballots were sent out.
Paul Thimmig, Quint & Thimmig, responded only one property owner is subject to the tax; stated
the property owner has submitted a ballot; the next CFD item has three property owners subject
to the tax; a future annexation area exists for CFD 22-1, which will only be added if the property
owner petitions to add the area.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff anticipates more than one property
owner.
Mr. Thimmig responded CFD 22-1 will have condominiums and multiple property owners; the
future annexation area owners could come in at a subsequent time.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the property owners will be allowed to vote
and determine whether or not to pay the tax.
Mr. Thimmig responded in the negative; stated condominium owners will receive notices of
special tax on the property at the time of purchase; if prospective owners do not wish to pay the
tax, the property could not be purchased; property owners in the future annexation area will be
able to vote.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is a reason Council is being asked to
vote on the matter while the developer is the only current owner and voting entity as opposed to
in the future when multiple owners could vote.
Mr. Thimmig responded the CFD is a condition of the Master Plan; staff is implementing the
Master Plan; the facilities are under construction and roadways are virtually complete; it is time
to put the district in place so that bonds can be issued to pay for the facilities.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated if the vote is taken after the condominium owners are in
possession of the property and eligible to vote, the vote would more than likely fail; having the
matter come before Council at this moment is part of a strategy; it is important for the public to
understand the process; the only person voting on a tax that will last for 35 years is the
developer.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he previously voted against the matter and will continue to
do so.
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.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
17",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,20,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the ballot be opened and results announced.
The City Clerk stated one ballot had been cast representing 11 aye votes; stated the matter
passes.
Councilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolution declaring election results.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the City Clerk inquired whether the motion includes introduction of the
ordinance.
Councilmember Knox White responded the motion includes approval of introduction of the
ordinance.
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.
(22-276) Public Hearing to Consider Formation of the City of Alameda Community Facilities
District No. 22-2 (Alameda Marina - Shoreline Improvements Maintenance and Adaptive
Measures);
(22-276 A) Resolution No. 15895, ""Formation of the City of Alameda Community Facilities
District No. 22-2 (Alameda Marina - Shoreline Improvements Maintenance and Adaptive
Measures), Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax Within the District, Preliminarily Establishing
an Appropriations Limit for the District, and Submitting Levy of the Special Tax and the
Establishment of the Appropriations Limit to the Qualified Electors of the District."" Adopted;
(22-276 B) Resolution No. 15896, ""Necessity to Incur Bonded Indebtedness within the City of
Alameda Community Facilities District No. 22-2 (Alameda Marina - Shoreline Improvements
Maintenance and Adaptive Measures). Adopted;
(22-276 C Resolution No. 15897, ""Calling Special Election within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 22-2 (Alameda Marina - Shoreline Improvements Maintenance
and Adaptive Measures);' and Conduct Special Election."" Adopted;
(22-276 D) Resolution No. 15898, ""Declaring Results of Special Election and Directing
Recording of Notice of Special Tax Lien - Alameda Marina - Shoreline Improvements
Maintenance and Adaptive Measures."" Adopted; and
(22-276 E) Introduction of Ordinance Levying Special Taxes within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 22-2 (Alameda Marina - Shoreline Improvements Maintenance
and Adaptive Measures). Introduced.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are any protests and opened the public hearing for
comment.
With no comments, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft closed the hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
18",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,21,"Councilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolutions of formation, necessity and
calling the election.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the matter seems to be an interesting
approach to deal with uncertainty of sea level rise; Council should support the matter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Council considered the CARP matter earlier in the meeting; stated
the solutions are in Council's hands and the City should plan for uncertain futures.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when the tax will go into effect.
The Public Works Director responded bonds will take a little time to issue; stated in 31 years,
the district could have a levy assessed or a decision that the City will not need to adapt the
improvements or have a Tidelands lessee; the City will also be assessing the matter from a
maintenance perspective; a number of things need to happen in order for assessment in year
31.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the year will be 2053, to which Mr. Thimmig
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether property owners will be voting on the matter
at this time, to which Mr. Thimmig responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired who the property owners are.
Mr. Thimmig responded Alameda Marina LLC, a different entity which owns the boat hoist area,
and the property owner of the area to be developed into condominiums.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many property owners are anticipated in the
area for the future.
Mr. Thimmig responded the two primary condominium and apartment developments will have a
number of residents.
Sean Murphy, Alameda Marina, stated that he anticipates as many as 300 property owners.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is reason the City does not wait until
2045 to let the property owners vote and decide as opposed to conducting the vote at the
current meeting.
Mr. Thimmig responded the CFD is required by the Master Plan; stated the CFD needs to be
placed at the front end.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired who wrote the Master Plan.
The Assistant City Manager responded the Master Plan process was worked on by the City and
developer; Council would have approved the Master Plan; the idea behind the approach is to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
19",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,22,"ensure the City is well positioned to proactively maintain the infrastructure; if sea level rise
projections fall short, the City will be in a better position to address the matter without having to
go to 300 property owners; the approach becomes problematic for a number of reasons.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about reasons why the matter would
become a problem, the Assistant City Manager stated getting 300 people to tax themselves will
be a community discussion; the result will likely cause the City to use different funding sources
to bail itself out; the CFD opportunity comes with the larger development area to help the sea
wall against sea level rise.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the matter; the matter is
unconscionable; many people making the decision will not be present in 2053; she has
concerns about the appropriateness; expressed concern about commercial builders focusing on
making money; stated Council regularly goes back to the public on issues which are important;
discussed school bond votes; stated the City rarely has taxes without a sunset; the report
should be written clearly; Council is being asked to take the vote as opposed to waiting and
asking property owners to vote in 2053; she has heard the ends justify the means; however, she
believes the approach lends to not trusting voters of the time; she is not sure that the process is
fair or appropriate; discussed her support for the 35 year bond; stated bonds are not typically
indefinite; inquired the procedure if property owners need recourse to end the tax.
Mr. Thimmig responded the property owners could petition for removal at any time under CFD
22-2 as long as bonds have not been issued; stated the decision would be solely up to Council
whether or not to grant the petition.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed petitioning and voting against a hospital tax; stated
there is some recourse for 2053; she will not be supporting the matter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the process for recourse in 2053.
Mr. Thimmig responded Council could decide not to issue bonds and dissolve the CFD; stated
there would be no obligation; Council could remove the bonds and keep the maintenance; the
decision falls under the control of the Council, not the voting property owners.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who would bear the cost of sea wall.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council has covered many similar matters; builders build homes and
are in the business not to only make money, but to build needed structures, including
infrastructure, which benefits all; the bonds and the money being asked for relates to
infrastructure and ensuring the City is providing needed things; many inquiries have been
previously answered; several Councilmembers have indicated support understanding the cost is
needed to provide infrastructure and services; Council is trying to problem solve, rather than
pretending issues do not exist; she would like to ensure the City is planning ahead and
addressing issues; expressed support for the CFD.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated if a future Council decides to dissolve the CFD or not issue the
bond, the threat being protected against does not go away; discussed the Housing Element;
stated the CFD makes sense.
Councilmember Daysog stated the crux of the question is whether or not the matter is an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
20",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,23,"concern about the Housing Element not being heard at the next Council meeting; inquired when
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
21",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,24,"staff can bring back the Housing Element back.
The City Manager responded staff can bring the Housing Element on May 3rd or 17th.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can place the matter under Continued Agenda Items to
ensure it is heard.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council has received correspondence requesting Council
hold a second hearing after the May 5th Historical Advisory Board meeting; proposed Council
hear the matter on May 17th; staff has stated the matter can be brought forth that date.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there are any deadlines related to wrapping up the
draft Housing Element.
The City Manager responded the Housing Element should be heard by May or early June.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft proposed Council place the supportive housing matter on the Continued
Agenda Items section of the May 3rd meeting agenda and she would decide whether to continue
the Housing Element matter on the same section for May 3rd or on the May 17th meeting
agenda.
The Assistant City Manager stated the deadline to submit the draft Housing Element is the week
of May 23rd; Council can hear the matter on May 17th without issue.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether it is possible to frame the draft Housing Element
discussion as a Council discussion.
The City Attorney responded the frame of the discussion depends on the staff report; actions
able to be taken by Council will be limited by the agenda title and report contents.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of placing the supportive housing and Housing
Element on the May 3rd meeting under the Continued Agenda Items section.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like the Housing Element heard
May 3rd; continuing the matter to only May 17th does not allow for a vote on the draft
recommendation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for options being presented to address
multiple concerns.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. [Absent:
Councilmembers Knox White and Vella - 2.]
(22-278) Public Hearing to Review and Comment on Annual Report on the General Plan and
Draft Housing Element Update. Not heard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
22",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,25,"(22-279) Recommendation to Provide Direction to City Staff on Emergency Supportive Housing
for Three City-Owned Vacant Homes at Alameda Point. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Not heard.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-280) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-281) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:20 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
23",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,5,"Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is concerned about the previous Council questions remaining
unanswered; she is not supportive of the plan as-is; expressed support for the matter returning
to Council in May as a Regular Agenda Item to address questions; stated there are many good
things in the plan.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over delaying the matter.
Vice Mayor Vella concurred with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; stated that she does not want the matter
delayed and would like to see the topic return in May to answer questions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when and how Councilmember Knox White would like the matter
to return.
Councilmember Knox White responded that he has been asking to have the matter return since
last year; stated that he is not trying to delay the project; the plan sets 10 priority projects;
Council is being asked to approve the projects; Council has previously questioned the projects
listed; Council discussing transportation and climate is not centered around increasing
intersection access; many transportation-centric matters are not covered by the plan;
prioritization should be discussed; Council should figure out ways for the plan to leverage
transportation issues; expressed support for free wi-fi and wireless rings; noted a few of the
transportation-related matters called out in the plan should have data included; Council may
remove items from the plan; expressed support for items 3, 4, 7, 9, and 10 being from the plan
to and returning to Council ; stated the items can be added back into the plan.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of the items being removed from the plan.
Councilmember Knox White stated the items are all related to infrastructure built on top of the
fiber ring specific to traffic signals: Citywide vehicle preemption, deploying transit signal priority,
centralized transportation management, transportation data analytics, and deploying a traffic
monitoring camera network.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Plan, suspending items 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10
until future discussion.
The Information Technology Director stated staff is open to suspending items; the amount of
Federal funding available is unprecedented; $7 billion was set aside for broadband
infrastructure back in 2008; now, $100 billion has been set aside; staff would be happy to look
into available federal funding opportunities for the communications network and revisit the
suspended items.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff is working with Alameda Unified School District (AUSD)
in relation to broadband; stated the third round of the e-rate program is being released and 13%
of the overall funds have gone to California schools; questioned whether AUSD will apply for the
third round of funding.
The Information Technology Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff's would work with
AUSD; other stakeholders have expressed interest; as staff goes after and receives federal
funding, local partnership applications can be viewed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,6,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the ways in which the City has partnered with
AUSD.
The Information Technology Director stated staff is working on a fun project using sensor
technology; discussed AUSD using the program to develop its Geographic Information System
(GIS) curriculum; stated the idea is to have a pilot program with AUSD to model sensor
technology into other areas for City use.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the matters Council would be
approving.
The Information Technology Director stated item 1 is building out the City communications
network; item 2 includes deploying public wifi network; item 5 relates to partnering with internet
service providers; item 6 is developing the dig once policy and installation standards; item 8
includes interconnecting the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and other City facilities.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the staff report indicates approximately $47 million
would achieve all components with an annual cost of $550,000; inquired whether any General
Fund money will be anticipated on an annual basis for the items to be approved or whether
grant funding will be used.
The Information Technology Director responded staff is focused on the communications network
with an estimated cost of $6 million; stated staff would seek federal funding for the
communications network; the project will target business districts, as well as equity-priority
neighborhoods, and will connect City buildings.
Mr. Huynh stated the plan intent is to not dictate the type of money spent, but to provide a sense
of how much improvements cost; most cities use the plan as a tool to seek grant funding; a lot
of funding and grant programs are available; most agencies pay for the improvements through a
series of federal, State and local grants.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City Manager recommendation does not
obligate any financial resources and any financial commitments would be required to come back
to Council for approval either in the budget or as specific items, to which the Information
Technology Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed a previous Council Referral for public wifi in
business districts; stated the City has yet to accomplish the task; she will be supporting the
components; expressed support for hot spots to allow people access to the internet; expressed
concern about delays; stated that she is happy to see the matter make progress; she would like
to know more about vehicle emission technology and electric vehicles; inquired whether 10% or
less of cars in Alameda are electric.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded the amount could be less; stated the
percentage is an estimate.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated 10% of the total amount of cars would be a small
amount; the number is increasing; however, many people cannot afford a new car; she
understands getting an electric car is difficult; a majority of cars in Alameda are using gasoline,
which creates emissions; expressed support for a plan which deals with the current issues being
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,7,"faced; stated the City is a long way from 100% zero emissions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be clarified.
Councilmember Knox White stated the motion is to approve the Smart City Master Plan,
suspending items 3, 4, 7, 9, and 10 to come back for further discussion at a future time.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made a friendly amendment to the motion to add: ""affirming items 1, 2, 5,
6, and 8.""
Councilmember Knox White accepted the friendly amendment.
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.
(*22-257) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Annual Subscription
License Fee of the Enterprise Dropbox Inc. Agreement in the Amount in an Amount Not to
Exceed $44,100 for an Aggregate Total Not to Exceed $150,000. Accepted.
(*22-258) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Five-
Year Agreement with Centralsquare Technologies, LLC, Substantially in the Form of the
Attached Agreement, for Enterprise Asset Management System Licensing Fees, for a Total
Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $229,674. Accepted.
(*22-259) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Mark
Lee and Yong Kay, Inc., DBA Bay Construction Company for the Police Department Reception
Area and Ramp Renovation Project, No. P.W. 11-19-53, in a Not to Exceed Amount of
$341,000. Accepted.
(*22-260) Recommendation to Review and Approve the Social Service Human Relations Board
Work Plan for the 2022 Calendar Year. Accepted.
(*22-261) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Third Amendment with
Kaiser Permanente Medical Group to Add QuantiFERON Tuberculosis Testing to the Scope of
Services for the Remainder of the Current Service Provider Agreement. Accepted.
(22-262) Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing Girard Beaudin as Interim City
Manager at an Annual Salary of $278,409, Commencing on May 3, 2022, and Authorize the
Mayor to Sign the Agreement on Behalf of the City.
The City Attorney and Human Resources Director summarized the benefits and salary.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
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.
(*22-263) Resolution No. 15883, ""Approving a Retroactive City of Alameda Paid Supplemental
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,8,"Sick Leave Policy, for the Period of October 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021, for Employees Who
Have Not Exhausted Their Available 2021 COVID-19 State Supplemental Sick Leave.' Adopted.
(*22-264) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of Playground Equipment from
Landscape Structures Inc. for the Lincoln Park Playground Replacement Project in an Amount
Not to Exceed $367,044.93. Accepted; and
(*22-264 A) Resolution No. 15884, ""Amending the Capital Budget for Fiscal Years 2021-23.""
Adopted.
(*22-265) Resolution No. 15885, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 General Fund Recreation
and Parks Department Operating Budget to Increase Revenue in the Amount of $401,000 and
Increase Expenditures in the Amount of $307,000 for a Positive Net Total of $94,000 to the
General Fund; and to Increase Expenditures in the Mastick Trust Fund by $27,000."" Adopted.
(*22-266) Resolution No. 15886, ""Accepting the Recommendation of the Public Utilities Board
and Approve Assignment of Alameda Municipal Power's Allocation of Hydroelectric Power
under the Base Resource Contract (BRC) with the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)
to the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Commencing Calendar Year 2025 through the
Expiration of the BRC Contract Term; and Authorize the General Manager to Execute the (1)
the Request for Assignment with of WAPA and (2) the Assignment Administration Agreement
with NCPA."" Adopted.
(*22-267) Recommendation to Approve the Park Street Business Improvement Area (BIA)
Annual Assessment Report. Accepted; and
(*22-267 A) Resolution No. 15887, ""Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Park Street
BIA for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23, and to Set a Public Hearing for May 3, 2022."" Adopted.
(22-268) Recommendation to Approve the Webster Street Business Improvement Area (BIA)
Annual Assessment Report. Accepted; and
(22-268 A) Resolution No. 15888, ""Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Webster
Street BIA for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23, and to Set a Public Hearing for May 3, 2022."" Adopted.
Note: Councilmember Daysog recused himself, so the motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4.
[Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]
(*22-269) Resolution No. 15889, ""Approving a Final Map and Authorizing Execution of a
Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 8617, Bay 37 - Phase 3, as a Condition to Final
Map Approval (Alameda Landing Waterfront Development). Adopted.
(22-270) Resolution No. 15890, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute (1) a
Lease-Purchase Agreement with Golden State Fire Apparatus, Inc. through the HGACBuy
Purchasing Cooperative and (2) a Financing Agreement with JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA for
the Purchase of One Pierce Fire Truck in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,865,550.53.' Adopted.
The Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the purchase amounts to almost $2 million; public
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
6",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,9,"speakers in the past have expressed concern over large purchases being placed on the
Consent Calendar; the cost of the Fire apparatus is increasing and approving the matter sooner
saves the City $130,000; she would like to know why a new Fire apparatus is necessary as well
as any additional benefits.
The Fire Chief stated the purchase was previously approved and was expected to be included
as part of the work plan for next fiscal year; however, the Apparatus Committee and Public
Works Department were alerted about the price increase; staff worked to get the purchase on
the agenda sooner in order to avoid the $130,000 cost increase; the City has one reserve
apparatus which is 30 years old; wear and tear on in-use apparatuses occurs; AFD does rely on
the reserve apparatus to fill in when frontline equipment goes out of service; the fleet
replacement plan has a replacement cycle of 15 years; the new apparatus will increase
reliability for the spare apparatus; finding parts for the spare apparatus is challenging due to
age; the new apparatus and fleet will be environmentally friendly; the new apparatus will have a
longer ladder, quicker deployment time, increased maneuverability and can carry all equipment;
the new apparatus is built to the 2016 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901
standards; the apparatus will ensure the City is meeting all modern apparatus safety
technology, which protects both the community and Fire Fighters; discussed the apparatus
technology.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.
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.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
(22-271) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report on the Climate Action and Resiliency
Plan (CARP) and the Annual Report on Transportation.
The Sustainability and Resilience Manager and Transportation Planner gave a Power Point
presentation.
Discussed the West End Bicycle and Pedestrian bridge as a priority for Bike Walk Alameda;
stated the bridge is needed and is the best long-term solution; many recommendations support
the 2009 report; discussed studies validating the need for an estuary crossing: Denyse
Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda.
Stated the bike and pedestrian bridge is essential to aggressive and important climate and
safety objectives; discussed her experience using an electric bike leaving the Island from the
West End; stated the West End stands to have the highest density of housing with zero
infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians to get on and off of the Island: Rachel Campos de
Ivanov, Alameda.
Expressed support for the work done to support sustainability in Alameda and for City staff;
stated Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA) would like to continue being a
partner with the City: Ruth Abbe, CASA.
Stated a lot of work has been done; discussed recommendations provide by the Transportation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,10,"Commission; expressed support for the proposed bridge having a toll; stated that he is confused
by the emission reduction percentage concepts; expressed concern over an increase in
intersection navigation difficulty as a driver; stated work needs to be done: Jay Garfinkle,
Alameda.
Discussed his enjoyment of being able to bike to the Waterfront Park from the East End along
the Cross Alameda Trail; expressed support for slow streets; stated that he is looking forward to
more, if the City continues to plan; the bike pedestrian bridge will have the most impact for
Alamedans; other transportation projects will help; however the bridge would be the only 24-
hour option: Michael Sullivan, Alameda.
Stated that she is struggling with bicycling advocates; questioned the amount of cars versus
bicycles in Alameda; stated there is a tremendous amount of cars and many will be electric in
the future; she and her husband do not ride bikes; expressed concern over road changes
favoring bicycles; stated that she does not see bicycles on Shoreline Drive often: Karen Miller,
Alameda.
Expressed concern over the lack of infrastructure on the West End as housing increases in the
area; stated the City needs another tube or vehicle bridge to adequately meet the transportation
needs for all Alameda residents; expressed support for the bike pedestrian bridge; urged staff to
seek federal and State transportation funds: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation, especially the bike pedestrian bridge; the
current design meets the Coast Guard's out-of-the-box navigation requirements; the
requirements are overly conservative and can change; prioritizing automobiles is not
sustainable; the path forward is improving mobility while reducing car dependency: Cyndy
Johnsen, Bike Walk Alameda.
Stated that he appreciates the comprehensive staff report; Alameda's central location allows for
a
variety of transportation connections; federal funding is available; urged the City seek funding
to build more sustainable and safe transportation options: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.
Expressed support for the reports; stated it is challenging to bike through the Tube; a bike
bridge would be a better option: Erin Fraser, Alameda.
Expressed support for advancing the West End pedestrian bridge project; stated the bridge
would be transformative for families that bike; many families with one car ride bikes as
a
necessity; bike and pedestrian access to Oakland is a barrier for some families; a bridge would
remove the barrier; buses are nice, but are not a family-friendly solution; the Tube is also not a
friendly solution; urged Council advance the bridge: Jacy Gaige, Alameda.
Expressed support for the bike pedestrian bridge; stated the experience biking through the Tube
is terrible; he is supportive of finding a solution to advance the bridge project forward; expressed
support for not centering cars as much in the transportation plans and for focusing on multi-
modal options: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the reports; discussed a report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); stated the City needs to be thinking about
how to accommodate all road users.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
8",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,11,"Councilmember Knox White moved approval of accepting both reports.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like to see the City advance the groundwater
work faster than simply including the work in a plan; groundwater is a big issue that the City
does not know how to address; the work should be moved forward as money is spent on areas
to protect the Island; ensuring money is being spent in the correct places will rely on what has
been learned through climate work; extra money for climate issues can be held to Council
priorities and policy of ensuring that funds are only used for adaptation and resiliency; he
supports using the General Fund to go after transportation needs; expressed support for the two
plans being linked, and for the plan coming forward being the most bold; stated the City needs
to figure out how to provide protected, safe and family-friendly infrastructure; he wants to see
the City continue to go with Council policy; expressed support for building bike signals along the
Cross Alameda Trail; stated Council needs to start having a discussion with the community
about the concept of induced demand; discussed emission increases through project
intersections; stated the City has already done over half of the Transportation Safety Plan (TSP)
projects; Council can look at the impacts of projects before moving forward; the CARP is big on
congestion pricing, which has been a missed discussion opportunity; questioned the role of the
technology in tackling congestion; stated congestion will not likely disappear if another Tube is
constructed; discussed an article related to induced demand; stated the City needs to be looking
at pricing and other opportunities to address congestion and put funds into providing better
options and cheaper access; the City cannot keep doing what has been done for the past 50
years.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff highlighted things known to be true, which is
being in the midst of climate change and global warming; fire season is now year-round and
does not appear to be abating anytime soon; elected officials have an obligation to meet needs,
look reality in the eye and not delay; the bike and pedestrian bridge is part of a transformative
time for infrastructure; the City needs to step up and apply for funding; discussed the bipartisan
infrastructure bill which is providing more money than ever; stated huge sums of money are
coming from the federal government; the current situation is hopeful; City staff have held
productive calls with the Department of Transportation (DOT); she will be calling on the DOT for
transformative projects; the bridge is well timed due to a prioritization of complete streets and
Vision Zero; it costs money to build a bridge and costs nothing to cross the bridge; complete
streets are needed for all users; Council is leveling the playing field, which has been auto-
centric; she is working on a meeting with CalTrans; the project's future is hopeful; discussed a
Public Utilities Board planning workshop and subsidizing solar for people with lower incomes;
expressed support for future plans promoting electrification; stated that she would like staff to
perform root-cause analysis for vehicle deaths in the City, as well as bridge details.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff is reviewing five proposals to
start work on the next phase of feasibility study for the bicycle pedestrian bridge; staff will return
to Council in June with the selected firm; staff is making the selection in partnership with
regional partners; the effort will take one year and the public will be involved; staff will develop
feasibility studies while also working with the Alameda community.
The Transportation Planner stated every time there is a fatal crash, City staff gathers at the site
to review what happened; staff thinks about improvements; staff is working on a best practices
scan of a rapid response program after severe injury and fatal crashes; staff has performed an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
9",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,12,"continues to be a long-time skeptic of the bicycle pedestrian bridge; the bridge is a hard sell due
to the cost; the City will go after regional, State, and federal funding; Council should consider
the correct bang for the buck; discussed census data related to commuters identifying 2% as
bicyclists; stated nine times as many people are taking public transit relative to bicycle riding;
the argument can be made that if the bridge is built, more people will begin to bicycle; the cost
means Council should move carefully; he will continue to be a skeptic and will also continue to
support the CARP; expressed support for people excited about the bridge; stated the
Transportation Plan update and CARP are great things for the City.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City is looking at a lot of available federal money; Alameda is
just as deserving as any other region in the country.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the annual review of the CARP ensures the City is keeping on track
with necessary changes; expressed concern about the price of gasoline; stated the cost factors
into some of the updates and building for the future; stated groundwater is an important issue
and is currently impacting Alameda residents; many residents are located within the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zones and will have to carry costly flood
insurance; concurred with Councilmember Knox White's comments related to addressing and
prioritizing groundwater; stated the bicycle pedestrian bridge is being built in conjunction with
the City of Oakland; the bridge will help connect Alameda to Oakland; small numbers of
commuting cyclists are seen due to the unfriendly environment connecting to Oakland; the
bridge project is regional; regional partners are helping; the bridge is the type of project the
State and federal government are looking forward to; Council can continue to lead on the project
and be a welcoming, multimodal City for everyone; the project is part of a cohesive plan being
put forward in order to connect Alameda to the broader region; expressed support for staff's
work on the matter; stated Council needs to prioritize the bridge in order to ask regional partners
to stand with Alameda; she supports the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed a conference with Bloom Energy related to
advancing clean energy; stated a study has found a proliferation of backup generators across
California; 90% are diesel fueled, which poses significant obstacles to achieving greenhouse
gas reduction targets; there was a 22% increase in generators in Southern California last year
and a 34% increase in the Bay Area over the last three years; Bloom Energy has connected the
increase in generators to rolling blackouts and electricity interruptions; people come up with
solutions to having electric service interrupted; electrical interruptions cause issues with
operating medical devices, as well as food refrigeration, which many do not have the money to
replace; expressed concern about people being alone in a dark home with an increase in crime;
stated the reaction is not due to a lack of care for the environment, it is due to legitimate
concerns; not everyone can afford to buy a new electric vehicle or provide charging
infrastructure; she appreciates the topic of gasoline bring addressed; discussed her experience
purchasing gasoline; stated many people are concerned about the cost of gasoline; many ideas
are well intended; however, there is overreach and a disregard for the impact on regular people;
many people do not make over $100,000, annually and do not work from home; some people
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
10",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,13,"drive trucks in order to carry tools for work; she supports the City encouraging being green,
planting trees and the Transportation Commission; numbers do not show a decrease in
fatalities; there have been fewer drivers on the road due to COVID-19; accidents happen;
people should be cautioned; expressed concern about slow street traffic diversions; stated
public transportation usage is down; many people still have concerns about riding the bus and
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART); she has been assaulted in Alameda and confronted on BART;
it is important for Council to recognize that many well intended ideas are impractical and
misguided; some actions being taken are increasing the dangers to the public at large; she will
not support either plan.
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.
(22-272) Recommendation to Receive an Update on the Community Assessment Response
and Engagement (CARE) Team Pilot Program and Authorize the Extension of the CARE Team
Pilot Program until June 30, 2023.
The Fire Chief gave a Power Point presentation.
Stated the program is needed and impactful; important things take time; the reduction in 5150
holds and the successful focus on mental health and well-being of people is paramount; there is
still more Police presence than is comfortable; the program has potential as the partnership with
Alameda Family Services (AFS) deepens; urged Council to give the program the time and
resources needed: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Expressed support for comments provided by Speaker Rakowski; discussed an incident at
Waterfront Park involving a health and wellness check call resulting in two Police vehicles
showing up with armed Officers; expressed concern over the CARE team not being dispatched
and two Police vehicles responding instead; stated that she would like to see more and
continued training for dispatch staff and better response: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Stated that she continues to push for the program to become what it was intended to be;
expressed concern about not having data related to Alameda Police Department (APD) being
on calls; stated that she would like data to include if APD goes on the call and the level of
involvement; APD presence has been visible during CARE program calls; expressed support for
clear goals related to reducing APD involvement: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Expressed support for the program; stated that he shares the same sentiments as other
speakers; he supports unbundling APD services to the extent that APD is not necessary for
program calls: Erin Fraser, Alameda.
Discussed a CARE team program call; stated the client received necessary support and is going
to a psychiatrist appointment while regularly checking in with AFS's case manager; the client
has started his own business detailing cars; expressed support for the CARE program: Joey
Harrison, Village of Love.
Expressed support for the CARE program; stated that she is hopeful and resonates with
comments; expressed concern about the amount and percentage of people of color having
mental health issues; stated that she hopes for transitional housing for individuals: Anana Clark,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
11",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,14,"Alameda.
Expressed support for the program, and its continuance and evolution; stated anything worth
doing takes work and time; it is important to center on the program goals and objectives; the
goals and objectives do not seem to be consistent with what is occurring on calls; urged the
continuance of the program being an alternative to APD: Jackie Zipkin, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is proud of the work that has been done; the program is off
to a promising start; changes and modifications are likely needed; the program has been
making a positive difference in a number of lives; other communities are reaching out to
Alameda and AFD to find out how to provide a similar program; expressed support for more
similar programs starting up throughout the State; stated there is no shame in having a mental
health crisis; expressed support for working on transitional housing since it relates to mental
health; stated that it is difficult for most to imagine the circumstances of homelessness and
many are close to housing insecurity.
Councilmember Knox White stated that staff is looking for Council approval to extend the pilot
program to June 2023.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of authorizing extension of the program.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the program roll out has been successful;
Alameda County is looking at how the program can be more of a model for their Community
Assessment and Transport Team (CATT) program as a possible alternative; expressed concern
over the CARE team objectives; stated the objective has been to provide an alternative to
armed involvement in response to mental health; there are reasons why a single CARE team
might not be able to address every call; data should be collected on the number calls are
received that should be taken by the CARE team, but lacked resources; there are many reasons
for APD to go along on calls during the CARE pilot responses; the more feedback that can be
received, such as responding to CARE team calls without lights, is helpful; there are benefits to
non-CARE team calls when APD Officers arrive and assess that the CARE team or AFS
is
needed; anything worth doing is worth refining in order to get better; the program will only get
better thanks to all partners involved.
Councilmember Daysog stated the early success of the CARE program shows that the City is
succeeding in reforming policing in Alameda; future generations of Alamedans will see adoption
of the CARE program as one of the biggest and best decisions made by a City Council; he
anticipates the future returns will only get better.
Vice Mayor Vella stated getting the CARE program off the ground with little to build from could
be a daunting task; program staff have stepped up to the task; she is ready to support the
matter; expressed support for the City seeing the pilot through; stated that she supports the City
helping others find better solutions; Alameda is the right size city to launch this type of program
and has many invested community members; people in the program are learning ways to
improve and build upon what exists every day; the responsibility is taken seriously; she is
concerned about ensure that program staff are provided support; trauma is experienced by first
responders; policies should reflect that responders are cared for and provided time off when
needed; expressed support for addressing worker's compensation in a meaningful way;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
12",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,15,"expressed concern about staffing levels and possible burnout; stated that she would like to hear
about what needs to be done in order to create a long-term successful program; there is a
broader trend at the State level with nationally recognized mental health first response; she
would also like to build partnerships with AUSD; California is investing in behavioral and mental
health; the process needs to be expansive and not solely focused on staffing for County
Behavioral Health Services; school based mental health counselors are important; expressed
support for the CARE program partnering with and building off of resources in order to receive
ongoing funding and ensure a lasting program.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it has been less than one year since Council made the
decision to allow AFD to provide CARE program services; discussed the Council decision;
stated the program is bold and is comprised of first responders; AFS joined the program in
December 2021; expressed support for program staff thinking outside the box for an Alameda
solution; discussed the vote approving the program; stated it can be difficult to think about what
is best for the community; she is proud of the results and good work; requested clarification
about why Police join some of the calls for service and for APD being dispatched to a call;
inquired whether Police receive the call and about the criteria used by dispatch.
The Fire Chief responded said data is the reason the City is bringing on Beyond Lucid
Technology (BLT); staff identified dots are not able to be connected for data; staff reached out
to the City Manager when approached by BLT; BLT is on board; staff is working to get BLT the
needed access to data points; staff is working to show what success looks like to meet the
direction of reducing the Police presence during calls for service; APD responds to ensure AFD
members are safe on scene; the program will evolve and staff will see what does and does not
work; he would like to ensure all crews are safe on scene; triage calls include AFD or APD as
primary; AFD primary calls make initial contact with clients and Police may be in the area while
staging to provide support when needed; if the client be potentially dangerous or have a
weapon, then APD is primary and will make the first contact; if a client inside is unwilling to
come out of a building, APD will ensure safety clearance; once data is compiled, staff hopes to
show Council a reduction in Police on-scene time; discussed Assembly Bill (AB) 988; stated a
comprehensive mental health response program will be required by July 2027; discussed an
upcoming County meeting about the 9-8-8 number.
The Police Chief stated the matter has been covered well; the program is fantastic; APD
supports CARE; there is a triage system to help decide which entity is dispatched; APD looks to
support AFD by staging nearby and not being present; APD is closely monitoring the calls and
the program; the mindset for the program is moving in the direction of finding every opportunity
not to have APD presence unless necessary; staff identified the incident of APD being
dispatched to a CARE call and recognized cross information was provided; APD provided
training to ensure similar mishaps do not occur again; staff is committed to working to overcome
issues.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the Fire Chief bringing a report to Council when the
9-8-8 number is approved.
The Fire Chief stated staff is monitoring the matter closely and hopes the number will positively
impact mental health response services throughout California; the standard will be adopted at
the federal level; 9-8-8 will be utilized for accessing mental health professionals; the program
will extend into triaging and how calls or protocols are used to send the correct resource.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
13",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,16,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is an option to transition from a pilot program to a
fully funded program with the current data; she would be curious to hear the best
recommendation for the program moving forward.
The Fire Chief stated remaining in pilot status is in the best interest in order to provide a
thorough analysis of the pilot program; staff continues to look at success and ensure the
expectations of Council and the community are met; he recommends the program continue to
January 2023 and come back to Council; the approach gives staff months to pivot and decide
the next model.
Katherine Schwartz, AFS, stated that she agrees with the Fire Chief's recommendation; the
program is still early on; having flexibility is helpful in order to be able to make adjustments as
data becomes more robust; providing support to first responders is part of an ongoing
discussion; staff is looking to provide additional training and opportunities for de-briefings with
one-on-one check-ins; staff is also looking at other ways to ensure the emotionally taxing work
is done in a way that does not produce burnout and allows staff to provide a fully empathetic
response; AFS and AFD staff are working to make the support available.
(22-273) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested addressing the hearings for the parking provisions
[paragraph no. 22-274 and the two Community Facilities Districts [paragraph no. 22-267 and
22-268].
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the items after 11:00 p.m. then
adjourning.
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.
The Police Chief concurred with Ms. Schwartz and the Fire Chief.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on AFS's organization and background.
Ms. Schwartz stated AFS has been serving Alameda for 50 years; AFS is a continuum of
service provider serving all ages; AFS has three primary divisions: early childhood and family
support services, school based and a clinic and community based behavioral health division; the
AFS family resource center includes a family resource van; AFS has crisis and case
management services; AFS is trying to develop a broad network of support; the intention is to
ensure AFS is able to support all of the members of Alameda in whatever capacity is needed;
AFS is working hard and appreciative of Council support and partnership.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the motion to continue the program as
a pilot; stated that she commends all for stepping up and addressing the issue; the program is
being looked at across the country for reference; she is looking forward to the continual
evolution of the program over time; she is confident that the current team is the team she
envisioned last year as most capable.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
14",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,17,"Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 10:54 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:14 p.m.
***
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-274) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal
Code Chapter VIII and Chapter XII Authorizing Public Works to Enforce Parking Provisions and
Ensuring Consistency with California Vehicle Code. Introduced.
The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including introduction
of the ordinance].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Public Works will be
determining the rates for parking meters.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the Municipal Code empowers
the Public Works Director to set the rates; the Public Works Department works closely with
Transportation Planning in setting rates; an ordinance passed in 2020 allows for a hourly rate
range from $0 to $5.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the rates will come to Council prior to being
set.
The Public Works Director responded there is intent to come back to Council to set ferry
terminal parking rates; stated currently staff does not intend to change the on-street parking
meter rates.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be a process if there is a change in
the business districts parking rates.
The Public Works Director responded that she does not currently have a specific process;
stated that she is happy to reach out to Transportation Planning staff in order to gain a sense of
how changes have been performed in the past and how changes are intended for the future.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Council has received multiple complaints about cars
blocking street cleaning; enforcement is inconsistent; she does not support having enforcement
policies if enforcement does not occur; people park in no parking areas due to insufficient
parking; inquired whether parking enforcement is anticipated.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated Public Works has two full-time
positions funded; priority will be within the business districts and street sweeping routes; a
roadmap was developed with a consultant in order to provide the best resources; two full time
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
15",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,18,"technicians are not enough to cover the entirety of the program; staff will likely be coming back
to Council once the program is established with a request for additional staff to ensure the
department can cover the on street paid parking, parking garage, soon to be ferry terminal lots
and street sweeping routes.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he will continue to be supportive of having APD enforce
parking; there is a new program underway; however, he prefers the older way.
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.
(22-275) Public Hearing to Consider Formation of City of Alameda Community Facilities District
No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina) Therein;
(22-275 A) Resolution No. 15891, ""Formation of the City of Alameda Community Facilities
District No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina), Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax Within the District,
Preliminarily Establishing an Appropriations Limit for the District, and Submitting Levy of the
Special Tax and the Establishment of the Appropriations Limit to the Qualified Electors of the
District;"" Adopted;
(22-275 L B) Resolution No. 15892, ""Determining the Necessity to Incur Bonded Indebtedness
within the City of Alameda Community Facilities District No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina) and
Submitting Proposition to the Qualified Electors of the District."" Adopted;
(22-275 C) Resolution No. 15893, ""Calling Special Election within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina);' and Conduct Special Election.""
Adopted;
(22-275 D) Resolution No. 15894, ""Declaring Results of Special Election and Directing
Recording of Notice of Special Tax Lien - Alameda Marina."" Adopted; and
(22-275 E) Introduction of Ordinance Levying Special Taxes within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina). Introduced.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are any protests and opened the public hearing for
comment.
With no comments, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft closed the hearing.
Councilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolutions of formation, necessity and
calling the election.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated one of the matters indicates the
bond as indefinite with an ongoing tax and the other is for 35 years; requested clarification about
the duration of the current bond.
The Public Works Director stated the current the service CFD has the ability to go on in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
16",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-04-18,1,"Approved
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) MEETING
Monday, April 18, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Jennifer Hoffecker, Peter Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson.
Absent: none.
Lois Butler and Walker Toma present as staff to the Commission.
3. MINUTES
2022-1943 Review and Approve Draft February 22, 2022 PAC Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Fergueson and
seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer and Ferguson. Nays: none. Motion
carried 5-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jennifer Radakovich, Associate Director at Rhythmix Cultural Works, presented
information for an upcoming cultural art event, ""Island City Waterways"", taking
place on May 21-23 at Alameda Point's West Mall. Please register to attend this
free event by going to www.rhythmix.org.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. 2022-1944 WePlayers Presentation for The Keeper at Alameda Point
Ava Roy, Artistic Director for WePlayers Theater Production Company, presented
a promotional video for a one-woman-show, titled ""The Keeper"", that will run
Friday, Saturday, and Sunday from May 27 through June 26, 2022, at Alameda
Point.
For public comment, Tara Pilbrow, Executive Director of West End Arts District,
expressed appreciation for this project and offered to support or collaborate on
future projects. Staff member Toma will connect Ms. Roy with Ms. Pilbrow.
Chairperson Gillitt expressed his appreciation for the presentation.
5-B. Recommendation to Approve the Attached Resolution and Conditions
Approving the ""Neptune Beach Roller Coaster"" Public Art Proposal for
Subpar Miniature Golf at 1600 Park Street",PublicArtCommission/2022-04-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-04-18,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, April 18, 2022
Staff member Toma presented the public art proposal for the new Subpar Miniature
Golf project, located at 1600 Park Street, titled ""Neptune Beach Roller Coaster"".
Mr. Toma reviewed the evaluation criteria for evaluating public art proposals and
presented staff's recommendation to approve the proposal. Mr. Toma introduced
artist Jon Altemus and project applicant Michael Taft. Artist Jon Altemus provided
background and described the artistic process of developing the artpiece. Mr.
Toma and Mr. Altemus answered clarifying questions. After receiving no public
comments, Mr. Toma invited Commissioners to discuss.
Commissioners discussed the proposal. In addition to general support, they
provided the following feedback:
Suggest a mobile or moving element to the rollercoaster;
Concern that the proposed project has lower visibility than existing installation.
Adding a light feature to showcase the artwork and/or adding additional art in
the other windows would increase visibility;
Suggestion to add an informational plaquard about the artwork; and
Suggestion to add signage or graphics that incorporate reproductions of
posters or ephemera from Neptune Beach in the open space of the window
above the artwork.
A motion to propose that Subpar Miniature Golf return to the PAC with an amended
proposal, taking in consideration the feedback provided by the commissioners,
while staying within the existing budget, was made by Chairperson Gillitt and
seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson
Rush, Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The
motion carried 5-0.
5-C 2022-1942 Recommendation to Review Cultural Arts and Arts
Programming Request for Proposals (RFP) for Issuance
Staff Member Toma presented an overview of the updated RFP, highlighting
changes made in response to feedback from the PAC and members of the public
at the February PAC meeting. Mr. Toma answered clarifying questions, invited
comment from the public, and then invited discussion from commissioners.
Jennifer Radakovich expressed appreciation for the increase in the number of
grants in the revised RFP. Additionally, Ms. Radakovich was curious to know if
individual artists or for-profit organizations without a fiscal sponsor could apply for
a grant, if the RFP specified the duration of the awards, if grants could be awarded
to organizations outside of Alameda, and if there was a matching fund requirement.
Tara Pilbrow, on behalf of West End Arts District, offered to provide assistance to
individual artists looking for fiscal sponsorship so that they can qualify for cultural
art grants.
2",PublicArtCommission/2022-04-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-04-18,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, April 18, 2022
Commissioners expressed appreciation for the changes made by staff in response
to feedback given at the February PAC meeting. Commissioners addressed
comments made by the public, clarifying that a preference is given to Alameda
artists/organizations. Further, Secretary Butler clarified that when the Public Art
Ordinance was put in place, the City Attorney's Office advised staff that if there
were to be language allowing for for-profit entities to receive grants up to a certain
dollar amount, that the dollar amount be included in the Public Art Guidelines
(Guidelines) as opposed to in the Ordinance itself. While there are currently no
Guidelines, the intent is that for-profit entities have the ability to apply for grants of
$2,000 or less. Therefore, due to the size of the grants proposed in the RFP,
awardees need to either be a non-profit, or have fiscal sponsorship, even if they
are an individual artist. Commissioners discussed the proposal, weighing the
concern that requiring 501(c)(3) status or fiscal sponsorship limits the pool of
qualifying applicants against the concern that delays caused by changing
requirements would further delay the distribution of awards in this fiscal year.
A motion to approve the cultural arts and arts programming RFP as presented was
made by Commissioner Fergueson and seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes:
Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Hoffecker,
Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Toma provided the following updates:
The development of a Public Art Master Plan has begun by preferred consultant
Forecast Public Art. A special meeting will be held in May to allow for a
facilitated discussion led by Forecast and to gather input from the PAC on the
development of the Public Art Master Plan. In addition to the May special
meeting and several other public engagement elements, there will likely be a
second PAC meeting largely devoted to the Public Art Master Plan over the
next few months. The development of the Public Art Master Plan has an
estimated completion time of 6-8 months.
The permit has been issued for the installation of the Alameda Afore public art.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Chairperson Platzgummer expressed appreciation to Chairperson Gillitt and
Dennis Evanowsky for the three guided walking tours of Alameda neighborhoods
in celebration of Alameda's 150th anniversary.
Chairperson Gillitt announced that several additional tours will be offered of
Alameda throughout the year, organized by the Alameda Post.
3",PublicArtCommission/2022-04-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-04-18,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, April 18, 2022
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:39pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary, Public Art Commission
4",PublicArtCommission/2022-04-18.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-04-14,1,"ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, April 14, 2022
TIME:
7:00 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
A video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
The following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.
ROLL CALL
Present: (Teleconference via Zoom) Chair Alexander, Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner Navarro and
Commissioner Nguyen, Commissioner Jones
Staff: (Teleconference via Zoom) Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy
Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of March 10, 2022 Regular Meeting as presented.
M/S Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Navarro. All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
Commissioner Nguyen unable to vote due to technical difficulties.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (For topics not on the agenda)
Written Communication - none
Oral Communication - none
REPORT FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR - ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave
the report. See exhibit 1.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Nguyen: Spent time at Jean Sweeney Park, commented on the efficiency of the
garbage cans. Visited the Godfrey volleyball court and is looking forward to playing volleyball on
it.
Commissioner Navarro: Sad that she missed the Waterfront Park Grand Opening as she was
out of town. Has been talking to the public and trying to find ideas to get the East End Dog Park
going. Said she hopes people would stop using Lincoln Park as a dog park and letting their dogs
be off leash there.
Commissioner Jones: Moved last month from the East End to the West End so doesn't have
much to report. Has been taking her dog to the dog park by the Ferry Building which is fantastic
with plenty of parking and space.
Vice Chair Robbins: Agreed to represent ARPD in behalf of the Recreation and Park
Commission to speak at the City Council Meeting for the budget workshop May 10 and 12.
Attended the opening of the Waterfront Park and said it was fantastic. Shout out to Rhythmix
and West End Arts District for amazing performances. Noticed there is a lack of shade structures
1",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-04-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-04-14,2,"at the Waterfront Park and spoke to the architect who said they would try to add them in phase
2. In charge of the Home Town Hero's Float at the 4th of July Parade and is open for volunteers
to help. Will be one of the judges for the Sandcastle contest on June 11, 2022. Attended the
Association of Environmental Planners Conference in Yosemite and was talking to different
planners around the country who were impressed with Alameda changing one of our park's
name to represent the Chochenyo people.
Chair Alexander: Attended the Waterfront Park Grand Opening and said it was fabulous;
entertainment and food trucks were wonderful, great to see the public riding scooters and bikes,
commended staff on their hard work. Interested in seeing the 70th Anniversary of the T-shirt
league rebooted this year and would like to see some type of celebration in honor of the 70 years
and encouraged kids to come out for the t-shirt league. Has seen a lot of Volleyball games at
Tillman Park on the weekends, soccer at Ritler Park and girls softball is back at Krusi along with
the over 65 men who are practicing at Krusi. Dropped by Chochenyo Park and it looks like the
kids and parents are enjoying the new playground. Good to see the merry-go-round back at
Franklin. Noticed more dogs running loose off leash in the parks which is an issue and hopes
there will be a solution soon.
AGENDA ITEMS
6-A Introduce Morace McKay, Mastick Senior Center Recreation Supervisor II.
Director Wooldridge introduced Morace McKay and complimented him on a job well done. Morace
shared his background with the Commission and is happy and excited to be a part of the ARPD team
and said Mastick Senior Center has something for everyone.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
Dog Park update, Eagle Scout Solar Panel Walk cost and design review and approval
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022 - Special RPC Meeting (May 12, 2022 RPC Regular
Meeting was cancelled).
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones
Motion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 5 ayes via roll call vote.
Chair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 8 PM.
2",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-04-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-04-14,3,"EXHIBIT 1
04/14/2022 ARPD Director's Report
Presented by Recreation and Park Director Amy Wooldridge
Recreation Services
The Alameda Youth Committee, a youth leadership development group, is planning and facilitating
a
carnival for elementary aged youth on Saturday, April 30. The group of 30+ active AYC members is
excited to plan fun games and prizes for kids.
The Emma Hood Swim Center has been down for several weeks which has affected swim lessons,
lap swim and local youth aquatics groups. Group swim lessons are beginning again in April/May.
Adult Softball season is underway. ARPD is offering Coed, Men's and Women's Leagues. Adult
basketball season begins in April.
ALAMEDA SPRING SHINGDIG- Saturday April 16th from 12pm - 3pm at Alameda Point Gym & Multi-
purpose Field. Games, arts & crafts, community organizations, demonstrations/performances,
jumpers, and food. Advance registration for all summer swim lessons at the event.
Register is now open for the 70th year of the free Summer Park Baseball League. ARPD is once again
proud to team up with the Alameda Elk's Lodge #1015 to present our FREE Recreational Baseball
Program, for children who've completed kindergarten through fifth grades.
Friends of the Park Foundation is once again inviting you to participate in Play for the Parks - Golfun
& Dinner on Monday, May 23. Shotgun start begins at 1 pm and post dinner and auction at 6 pm at
Harrison Center in Lincoln Park. Cost is $125 for both or $40 for Dinner only. Sign up at
www.alamedaparks.org
ARPD is facing a significant staffing shortage for summer programs and is actively hiring. Please let
everyone know!
Registration is open for the Fourth of July Parade entries. The Alameda business community has
responded well to our request for sponsorships. A significant amount of work goes into coordinating
this event, especially as the first time for ARPD, so a huge shout out to Recreation Manager Patrick
Russi for his hard work to make this year's parade the best it's ever been.
Mastick Senior Center
We welcomed the return of Hula 1 and 2 in the month of March. We had a demonstration class today
April 14th 2022 with 18 participants in attendance.
The AARP Smart Driver Refresher Course restarted in the month of March. The first class had a
turnout of 12 members. This was the first class back since the pandemic.
The Mastick Organic Garden's irrigation project to replace the old watering system will happen on
April 25th, 2022. The organic garden has harvested and distributed 17,279 bags of fresh fruits,
vegetables, and herbs since April of 2014.
The AARP tax program has been extended to April 26th, 2022. To date, volunteers have logged 399
hours for the month of March and 476 tax participants' returns have been completed to date.
Movie Matinee will be returning to Mastick Senior Center in May 2022.
Mastick is still seeking additional fitness instructors for three days of the week. We are currently in
conversations with a few potential candidates.
We are also looking for instructors to start a multi-level hiking group for the Mastick members.
Success story from Connections and Senior Resources case manager Shawn Minter:
A 57-year-old female that lives in Alameda with her husband needed financial assistance. Both have
health conditions and need more income to meet their financial obligations. They also needed
assistance with finding a part-time job. The Case Manager helped the senior develop a resume and",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-04-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-04-14,4,"posted it on several temporary job sites. The client was notified and got an interview with The City of
Oakland Senior Access Program; she is now working 20 hours per week doing administrative duties.
Park Maintenance
Converted the sand at the Tillman Park playground to wood chips which is ADA accessible and an
improvement to sanitation and public health
Placed logs from the two downed oak trees throughout Lincoln Park
Re-installed the merry-go-round at Franklin Park
Volleyball net was installed at Godfrey Park for all to use
Held a volunteer tree planting at Tillman Park and planted 20 trees
We have hired three new full-time Gardeners
Continuing to improve sports field maintenance such as pitching mounds, aeration, top dressing, and
re-seeding
We installed three picnic tables at Bayport Park with a shade structure to follow. Benches were
installed inside the playground fenced area.
Godfrey Recreation Center renovation is now complete and open to the public
Administration/ Projects
Alameda Point Waterfront Park Grand Opening was a huge success with hundreds of people
attending. Lots of accolades and happy people at the event.
The 1st Annual Storytelling & Drumming Festival that took place on Saturday, March 19th was a
success. 240 community members came out to support the event.
Reached agreement on high level lease terms with Alameda Swimming Pool Association. Finalizing
draft agreement which will go to City Council for approval.
Alameda Landing Waterfront Park is opening within the next two months
City-wide we are starting Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging work with the Seed Collaborative.
Civil engineer design of four connectors to the Cross Alameda Trail within Sweeney Park (two north
and two south)
Update on Recreation Facilities approved project list:
BMX feasibility study
Met with skateboarders to discuss process and ideas for skate park improvements
Installing the LED lights at the Leydecker Park tennis courts on 4/19-4/20. Washington Park
and Krusi Park LED lighting replacement are next.
Soliciting bids for the re-surfacing of the pickleball courts (Lincoln) and tennis courts
(Washington, Krusi and Franklin).
FY 22-23 Budget Workshops with City Council are on 5/10 and 5/12. The City Manager's
recommended budget includes the following for ARPD:
$250,000 - Asphalt pathway paving in parks
$230,000 - Adding a Recreation Services Manager (including benefit costs)
$179,000 - Re-allocate expenses from the Alameda Point Community Facilities District (CFD)
so 40% of Parks Maintenance budget is funded by the CFD and 60% is funded by the General
Fund
$663,000 - Increasing both expenditures (supplies and part-time staff) and revenues to offset
costs based on expanding programs during the pandemic recovery.",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-04-14.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-04-12,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, April 12, 2022
1
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Downing called the special meeting to order at approximately 6:3 p.m. via
teleconference
ROLL CALL
Present:
(Via teleconference) Chair Ed Downing, Vice Chair Claire
Loud, Commissioner Kaiwin Su, Commissioner John Kim and
Commissioner Robert Lattimore
Absent:
None
Staff:
(Via teleconference) Recreation and Parks Director Amy
Wooldridge, Umesh Patel, Tracy Craig and Zac Wald of
Greenway Golf
Also Present:
None
2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of March 8, 2022, were approved unanimously with one correction
3
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
4
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None
5
WRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club
None
6
AGENDA ITEMS
6-A Review and Make a Recommendation on the Corica Park Fire Tower Design
1
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, April 12, 2022",GolfCommission/2022-04-12.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-04-12,2,"Tracy Craig of Greenway Golf gave a timeline of when the fire tower was vacated and
when Greenway approached the City regarding renovation as well as a timeline of how
the project has progressed with the City regarding amendments of the lease.
Zac Wald of Greenway Golf explained that the Design Review Committee is a subset
of the Planning Board. He was brought on board with Greenway to coordinate this
project. The designer for this project is April Phillips, who designed the newest
Alameda waterfront park.
Mr. Wald explained that Greenway hired engineers to make sure the building was
sustainable, and it was determined that the building is structurally sound. The
renovation is planned to be done by Fall 2022. Mr. Wald proceeded through the
Beautification Plan which was attached to the agenda.
Commissioner Lattimore asked if there was a plan for the interior, and Mr. Wald
answered not at this time.
Commissioner Loud asked if the existing wall on Island Drive is remaining and if the
existing fence still remaining on the second hole side. Mr. Wald stated that the
existing wall will remain and will be painted on the Greenway side but will not on the
roadway side and the fence will be cleaned up and will later determine if the fence
might be removed depending on several factors. Commissioner Loud then asked if
the gardens will be open to the patrons of the golf course as well as the general public
and Mr. Wald stated that has not been evaluated as yet. Ms. Craig added that is what
type of input they are looking for. Mr. Patel added that this a beautification project and
the intention is not opening it to the general public but may occasionally open it for a
community gathering.
Commissioner Loud asked if the garden was going to be irrigated with potable or non-
potable, and Mr. Patel responded that it will be non-potable, following the path the golf
course already uses.
Chair Downing asked if the artwork on the windows will be on the inside or the outside,
and Mr. Wald explained that it would be on the inside.
Chair Downing then asked what the asphalt will be covered with, and Mr. Wald stated
that it would be decomposed granite that is compacted and on top of that, would be
raised planters.
Chair Downing asked what the cost of the project would be, and Mr. Wald stated that
he did not know. Chair Downing shared his concern regarding this as construction on
the north course has stopped. Mr. Patel stated that the two projects are not
connected. Greenway plans to complete this project on time.
Amy Wooldridge stated that the next step for their recommendations would be brought
to the Planning Board, which is scheduled for May 9, 2022, for review by the public
2
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, April 12, 2022",GolfCommission/2022-04-12.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-04-12,3,"Commissioner Loud made a motion not to recommend to the Planning Board at this
time, and Chair Downing seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
7
OLD BUSINESS
7-A
Facility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf
Umesh Patel stated that they have implemented new procedures regarding frost and
weather delay notifications as well as notifications regarding aerification, as the golf
course will be closed until 1:00 PM with reduced rates on those days. There will be
about six days through this year and will be posted in the near future.
Vice Chair Loud asked about sand bottles on the carts, and they will be available
shortly.
Chair Downing asked about update on the North Course construction, and Mr. Patel
responded there is no update at this time.
Chair Downing asked about stocking the pro shop, and Mr. Patel stated that Shawn
Shelby is working on it.
Chair Downing asked about the liquor license and beverage service, and Mr. Patel
stated they are working on the best way moving forward.
7-B
Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report
Tom Geanekos stated that 2022 sales numbers are up similar to pre-pandemic and
could possibly surpass. The price of food has gone up substantially. Staffing has
been an issue, and hopefully will be solved by summer with bringing staff to work over
three months from other countries, which they have been doing previously. Labor
costs have also risen, so there will be a price increase. The beverage cart will
continue to run. He also stated that the wanted to thank the community for their
support over the last two years.
7-C
Recreation and Parks Director Report
None
8.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - May 24, 2022
Facility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf
3
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, April 12, 2022",GolfCommission/2022-04-12.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-04-12,4,"Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report
Recreation and Parks Director Report
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:45 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the
Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the
Brown Act.
4
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, April 12, 2022",GolfCommission/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--APRIL 12, 2022- 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:11 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting
was conducted via Zoom. Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 5:33
p.m.]
Absent:
None.
WORKSHOP
(22-239) Workshop to Address City Council Priorities and Strategic Planning
Marie Knight, Knight Leadership Solutions, gave a Power Point presentation facilitating the
workshop and Council provided input.
***
A recess was called at 6:38 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 6:55 p.m.
Ms. Knight continued the presentation facilitating the workshop with Council providing input.
The Workshop Summary is attached an incorporated herein by reference.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(22-240) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority, provided a Housing Authority update.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 12, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,2,"ALAMEDA
City of Alameda
City Council Strategic Planning Workshop
Follow-Up Report
Prepared by:
Marie Knight
Municipal Resource Group, LLC
April 2022
MRG
Post Office Box 561
Wilton, California 95693
916-261-7547
www.Solutions-MRG.com",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,3,"MRG
I. BACKGROUND
The City of Alameda reached out to MRG for assistance with planning and facilitating a Strategic
Planning Workshop for the City Council. MRG Consultant Marie Knight, Owner of Knight
Leadership Solutions, met with the City Manager Eric Levitt and Mayor Ezzy Ashcroft to discuss
their needs and a plan moving forward. After this initial meeting MRG was engaged for this event
and Marie Knight was engaged to facilitate the workshop.
In preparation for the workshop, Ms. Knight conducted the following activities: (1) Multiple
planning meetings with the City Manager, some of those meetings also included the Assistant
City Manager and Human Resources Director, to obtain background information and discuss their
goals for the workshop in order to prepare the agenda for the Workshop. Ms. Knight interviewed
four of the five City Councilmembers in advance of the workshop. (Scheduling conflicts prevented
an interview with the fifth member of the Council.) All interviews were conducted virtually via
zoom and lasted on average 45 minutes. The Councilmembers were asked the three questions
with respect to the five current City Council Priorities. All were asked to provide candid, honest
feedback in return for anonymity, and were assured that any comments made would be shared
in general manner and not attributed to any one person. The Councilmembers were asked the
following questions with respect to the five existing City Council Priority Areas:
1. On a scale of 1-5 (5 being close to full achievement) - -What do you believe to be the status
of achieving the goal and why?
2. On a scale of 1-5 - -How is the staff doing in this area?
3. Is there anything related to the priority area that you feel we should either Start doing,
Stop Doing, or Continue and why?
4.
Other than these priority areas, what are three other ""Top of Mind"" issues you have going
into this workshop?
After the interviews, Ms. Knight discussed the comments received with the City Manager and
finalized the agenda. Based on comments received during the interview process, there was some
consensus from the Council that it would be helpful if some of the following information was
covered during the workshop:
The Roles and Responsibility of the City Council and Staff
Creating better communication between Councilmembers, and consensus building
Review the Council Priority Areas and creating more defined goals for the future.
The City Manager approved the final agenda as well as the power point presentation that Ms.
Knight would utilize during the workshop.
City of Alameda
Page 2
Council Strategic Planning Workshop",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,4,"MRG
II.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM COUNCIL INTERVIEWS
For each of the five Council Priority Areas, the summary below outlines areas of consensus and
common ground among the Councilmembers interviewed as well as additional individual
comments.
Common Ground: These are comments that were shared by several of the Councilmembers
How can we get Council to work together more as a body - instead of individual voices?
Council rules of conduct were enacted 3 years ago, but some are not abiding by them.
There is not a good understanding of the Council/Manager relationship.
Self-awareness and self-reflection is lacking with respect to how some Councilmembers are behaving.
Staff is not treated well, at times there is a ""toxic"" ""hostile"" environment created by Council. staff are
leaving due to how they are treated.
Council Priorities are too broad, open to multiple interpretations with no specific outcomes identified.
We need meaningful goals and measures.
Climate change and sea level rise is a huge issue and not well understood in the community. We need
to do more to educate the community. We have a good staff team leading this.
Councilmembers are worried about staffing challenges as we ramp up for the future needs. It is
unsustainable having people do more with less long term.
Staff has risen to the occasion during Covid and taken the brunt of things. Trying to keep good staff
on controversial projects is difficult, there is burn out with the number of public meetings.
There is concerned about the unfunded liability - pensions growing, this will impact service delivery -
a plan is needed.
Council meetings are not productive or enjoyable.
The City has an amazing staff - small and mighty, what they get done is amazing, however, there is
concern that they are over committed with workload.
The City Manager should be the one who prioritizes staff work, not the Council.
We need to streamline our processes - get out of our own way.
Additional Thoughts made by individual Councilmembers:
We need to model behavior needed from the community i.e.. - Drought tolerant landscape at City
Facilities.
We struggle with housing and city long term planning, and unique challenges at Alameda point.
Community safety should be in every sense of the word - low crime rate, safe streets - we are close
to being there, have safe parks - don't sit back and rest on our laurels.
We are coming to a place where we have made promises about funding certain things and the funds
may not be there - difficult conversations will need to take place.
We need more of a plan for providing services and support to businesses, how can they be supported
with marketing etc. ?
City of Alameda
Page 3
Council Strategic Planning Workshop",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,5,"MRG
Council needs to get out of the way - sometimes we appear to be antagonistic towards business.
We need to get away from the ""project of the moment"".
Livable is different throughout the city- neighborhoods needs are different - where are the walkable
-
livable needs like preschools etc. don't design to push everyone to one spot.
At times staff culture is to make policy- they need to bring policy to Council.
Economic Development efforts and team could be stronger.
We need good communication within the organization and City Manager needs to know what is going
on in the community -internal communication needs to improve, and we need to discuss what meets
the threshold that the Council should be informed.
Council priorities are used to determine what can come before Council, this is wrong, a
Councilmember should be allowed to bring any issue forward.
Would love to see more creative approach to business retention.
Not in favor of establishing Council priorities, goals or objectives - staff will tell the council what they
need.
We are often in the weeds too much as policy makers.
During Covid, would have liked to have seen more cohesion and uniformity related to outdoor dining.
At times we struggle as we see ourselves as tiny bedroom community, yet we provide full services,
there is tension around those things.
Strategic Planning Workshop - April 12, 2022
City Council Attendees: Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Malia Vella, Councilmember
Tony Daysog, Councilmember Trish Herrera Spencer, Councilmember Kohn Knox White
City Staff Attendees: City Manager Eric Levitt, Assistant City Manager Gerry Beaudin,
City Attorney Yibin Shen, City Clerk Lara Weisiger
MRG Consultant and Facilitator Marie Knight
The Mayor opened the meeting, introduced the purpose for the workshop, introduced the
facilitator, and then turned it over to the facilitator Ms. Knight. The Following is a summary of
the various exercises and discussions throughout the workshop. Attachment A is the Power Point
presentation the facilitator used to guide the workshop discussions.
City of Alameda
Page 4
Council Strategic Planning Workshop",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,6,"MRG
Top of Mind Issues (slide 2 of Attachment A)
Ms. Knight started the workshop reviewing the agenda, as well as some of the ""Rules"" for the
workshop. She then asked the Council for their ""Top of Mind"" issues and concerns. Each
Councilmember and staff were allowed to enter 5 comments into the ap Mentimeter.com on
their phone. The results are in the diagram below. All comments are anonymous, and those
comments/words in the diagram below that are larger than others indicate that more people
entered in the same comments.
What are your Top of Mind Issues?
bart to sf at alameda pt
public swimming pool
community safety
reduce crime
city council meetings
climate change
theft
crime on cars
develop businesses
crime traffic
safety
fire
transportation
overcrowding
welfare
tube traffic
collaboration
fully-staffed apd
historical
housing crisis
goal oriented
leadership
save historic areas
maintain historic center
housing affordability
business sustainability
more housing alameda pt
Overview of Best Practices, Roles, and Responsibilities for Effective Public Governance (Slides
6-26 on Attachment A)
Ms. Knight led a discussion related to effective public governance, the role of the City Council,
the challenges of being an elected official. She reviewed the information gathered during the
pre-workshop interviews with the Council, and the benefits of seeking Mutual Purpose as an
elected body.
Ms. Knight also led a discussion on the ""90/10 Rule"". City employees are hired with a job to do,
and generally 90% of their time is focused on that job. Depending on capacity, there may only
be room for an additional 10% of new projects and initiatives. In some cases, staff may be at or
over capacity and have no room for additional projects.
City of Alameda
Page 5
Council Strategic Planning Workshop",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,7,"MRG
Ms. Knight and Assistant City Manager Gerry Beaudin provided examples of priorities or projects
where, although the work falls into the job description of a staff member, they may already be
at or over their capacity with their current workload to take more on. Thus, in order to ensure
that there is capacity to more a new project or initiative forward there are questions that the
Council should be asking of staff, and information staff should be providing as new projects,
initiatives, and needs arise:
(1) How does this relate to the Council's Priorities/Goals?
(2) What is the capacity of the staff to take this on?
(3) What are the resources available to move this forward?
(4) Will something else have to be put on the back burner to make this a priority?
(5) What is the impact vs effort?
It was also discussed that it is critical to keep in mind that workload overload, among other things,
can negatively affect the culture and environment and ultimately the ability to recruit the best
and the brightest in today's job market.
Picture the Future of Alameda (Slides 28-32 on Attachment A)
During this exercise Council and Staff were asked to think about the future of the City. What is the vision
of the future that the Council and Staff should be striving towards? All were asked to fill in a diagram
that asked for:
(1) A Headline - 5 years from now, what do you want the frontpage story to be about Alameda?
(2) Some of the supporting information to the story
(3) Provide a few quotes about the headline they would like to hear from others
4) Talk about what would need to change to make this happen.
The following are the responses to this exercise:
Headline: 2027 Point in Time Count finds only 24 individuals living unsheltered in Alameda!
Subtext: The City Council in 2022 laid the groundwork, formulated policies, and followed through
to achieve this result which was made possible by the hard work of the dedicated City staff
Quotes: ""We made life changing and lifesaving decisions"" ""Alameda was a good steward of the
funds we granted it to reduce homelessness""
What would have to change to achieve this? Keep doing what we are doing, keep funding
streams flowing. Focus on funding
City of Alameda
Page 6
Council Strategic Planning Workshop",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,8,"MRG
Headline: West Alameda has it all!
Subtext: The bike/pedestrian bridge is underway, Housing is built, multimodal commitment,
Housing jobs
Quotes: ""Best place to live"" ""Alameda is California's blueprint for Housing"" ""Alameda is a model
for housing - how to have it all"" ""Alameda is bridging the old and new""
What would have to change to achieve this? RHNA #'s, Backbone infrastructure, City Council
Consensus, Bring in More partners, Bike Ped bridge, Policies, CARP Commitment organizational
change
Headline: Crime is down, Alameda is in the top 10 safest cities in California!
Subtext: City/State has to address crime.
Quotes: ""I can feel safe walking outside"" ""I don't have to worry about waking up in the morning
hand having my car stolen"" ""Part 1 and Part 2 Crimes are down""
What would have to change to achieve this? Council, County and State will need to work
together to address crime
Headline: Alameda ranked the most livable inclusive city in the world!
Subtext: by focusing on people centered goals, Alameda has become carbon-negative while
addressing affordability, mobility, and safety. Due to its focus on outcomes rather than
maintaining the status quo, City meets the needs the residents say re most important
What would have to change to achieve this? Agreed upon Goals and Vision. Commitment to
prioritizing effective outcome solutions. Realigning of budget and projects to goals
Headline: West Alameda Bart Station to San Francisco ok'd!
Subtext: New BART station good for environment and traffic and regional and local economic
wellbeing.
Quotes: ""Alameda Point Multi-modal transit dreamland!' ""Ferry, Bart!"" ""Now we can build even
more housing at Alameda Point- Bust the Navy Cap!""
What would have to change to achieve this? Organizational commitment
City of Alameda
Page 7
Council Strategic Planning Workshop",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,9,"MRG
Based on the Headlines, several Aspirational Themes for the Future emerged:
Transportation
Safety
Livability
Inclusive
Economic Well Being
Housing at all Levels
Goals and Objectives: (Slides 35 - 38 on Attachment A)
Ms. Knight led a discussion about goals and objectives outlining whose responsibility it is to set them,
their purpose in guiding the work of the organization, and how to make them more specific and SMART.
Strategic Planning Workshops in the Future (Slide 39 on Attachment A)
Ms. Knight led a Group Discussion regarding the timing of future planning workshops related to the
establishment of Council Goals, as well as the methods and means preferred by the Council to receive
information and updates on major goals, projects, and initiatives.
(1) In the future when should Strategic Planning Workshops take place?
Council Consensus:
These workshops should take place every two years coinciding with the most recent
election and would be held by the end of February following the election.
During the ""off year"" when there will not be a formal workshop, the City Manager should
do an annual update on the Council Priorities/Goals noting accomplishments from the
previous year and workplans for the coming year at a regular City Council Meeting.
(2) In between these annual meetings, what are the methods and means the City Council prefers
staff uses to communicate movement in the priority/goal areas?
Council Consensus:
The City Manager should utilize the bi-weekly Council Update memo to communicate
progress and milestones.
City of Alameda
Page 8
Council Strategic Planning Workshop",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,10,"MRG
The City Council Priority Summary Report (which is currently posted online, and is sent to
the Council occasionally, however not regularly) should be revised in the following ways
in order to provide the Council more clarity on the status of the projects and projected
completion dates:
(1) Create a separate column indicating anticipated completion dates
(2) Create a separate column that identifies the objectives for the coming year,
(noting that many projects are long term)
(3) Some of the priorities may need to be broken up into multiple sections with
shorter term goals for easier tracking purposes.
Review of the existing five Council Priority areas (Slides 40-45 on Attachment A)
The remainder of the workshop was dedicated to a discussion related to the existing five Council Priority
areas. (1) Preparing Alameda for the Future (2) Protecting Core Services (3) Supporting Enhanced
Livability and Quality of Life (4) Encouraging Economic Development Across the Island (5) Ensuring
Effective and Efficient Operations
Ms. Knight started the discussion with a review of the five current Council Priorities. (During this
discussion it was noted that using the word ""current"", as it is on slide 40, to refer to the Council Priority
Areas could be construed to mean that the currently seated City Council agreed to/developed these
Priority Areas, which is not the case. Thus, in order to avoid further confusion, they will be referred to
the ""existing five"" Council Priority Areas.) Ms. Knight question posed several questions to the Council
related to these five areas:
(1) Are these areas still relevant?
(2) If not, Why? What is missing?
(3) If they are, how do we make them more specific?
Discussion ensued as to how these priorities came to be, how they are used in the Referral Process, how
each one is very broad and can be interpreted to mean a variety of things, and what are the
measurement metrics and indicators that will show success? In general, there was consensus that each
priority area needed to be more specific with success indicators.
City of Alameda
Page 9
Council Strategic Planning Workshop",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,11,"MRG
What Does Prepare for the Future of Alameda mean?
Starting with this first Priority Area, Ms. Knight led a discussion asking the Council what this means to
them, and what would be indicators that this was achieved? The following responses were received:
Balanced Budget while addressing the unfunded liability
Housing at all levels
Climate Action Plan in action
Digital Divide is addressed along with equity access to computers and equipment
Increased and improved recreation facilities
Improved infrastructure
More reliance on public transportation
Elimination of rolling blackouts
Further, from this discussion came the suggestion that possibly there needed to be a separate Priority
Area related to Climate Change. Through a brainstorming process, an example of a future goal in this
area could include the following:
Goal: Prepare Alameda Climate for the Future Now: By focusing on policies that will ensure the
elimination of greenhouse gas emissions through the mitigation and adaptation to sea level rise
and groundwater inundation.
***Due to several technical issues throughout the evening, the full agenda was not realized and there
was not sufficient time to discuss each of the other four Priority Areas
Next Steps
With the departure of the City Manager and Assistant City Manager in the next several weeks, Ms.
Knight suggested the following next steps:
As discussed earlier in the evening, the Council should plan to have another Strategic Planning
Workshop in early 2023 after the November 2022 election.
City of Alameda
Page 10
Council Strategic Planning Workshop",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,12,"MRG
In the meantime, Council should be looking at the existing five priority areas and begin to think
about the questions posed, and be ready to address these at the next workshop with the newly
seated Council.
(1) Are these areas still relevant?
(2) If not, Why? What is missing?
(3) If they are, how do we make them more specific?
City of Alameda
Page 11
Council Strategic Planning Workshop",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,13,"MRG
ATTACHMENT A
Facilitator's Power Point is included in the meeting materials here: https://alameda.legistar.com/
LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5541437&GUID=0AC9E162-20CE-4D87-9E2B-7D3E955A218D&Options=&Search:
City of Alameda
Page 12
Council Strategic Planning Workshop",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,14,"MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED APRIL 5, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 12, 2022--8:50 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:51 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.
REFERRAL
(22-241) Consider Directing Staff to Bring the Rent Program ""In-House"" to the City Attorney's
Office. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella)
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether staff is being asked to return with information,
including cost and location, to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the referral to direct staff to return by late
summer with a plan for bringing the rent program in house in a smooth and amicable fashion.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated either tenants or landlords initiate actions; the
range of issues surround housing; legal issues might speak to having the City Attorney's office
administer the program, but the starting point is always some kind of housing issue; keeping the
operation as it is currently seems more efficient; he would prefer to have the matter return in a
year; he will not support the referral; he is not convinced the status quo is broken.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is directing staff to come back with a proposal.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter would return in June, to which
Councilmember Knox White responded by the end of the summer.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated since Council is dark in August, it would probably be in
July; expressed concern about asking staff to respond by the end of summer given the
discussion tonight about everything staff is already doing; stated that she does not see the issue
as the greatest priority the City is facing; questioned whether staff at City Hall West would be
under the City Attorney's office, which is at City Hall; stated that she will not support the referral
and she has concerns; related services are offered through the Housing Authority.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's request, the City Attorney stated that his office would take
Council direction and be happy to do the work; the matter can be brought back by the end of
summer.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he checked with staff prior to the meeting to ensure the
direction would not conflict with other work.
Continued April 5, 2022 Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 12, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-12,15,"Vice Mayor Vella stated the motion is clear that staff would come back with recommendations;
the City Attorney's office already works very closely with rent staff.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concerns about staff time and other referrals.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer did not support
continuing the other referrals to tonight.
Councilmember Knox White stated referrals addressing tradeoffs was raised earlier, but has not
been discussed; when the referral returns, the City Attorney can provide an update on how the
proposal would be done and Council can decide at that time.
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: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Continued April 5, 2022 Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 12, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-04-11,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2022
1. CONVENE
Vice President Teresa Ruiz convened the *meeting at 7:00 p.m.
*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning
Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Alan Teague led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Hom and Teague.
Absent: President Asheshh Saheba and Board Members Xiomara Cisneros and Rona
Rothenberg.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2022-1917
1435 Webster Street - -Use Permit for Use of Parking Lot for Outdoor Commercial
Entertainment Events - Applicant: West Alameda Business Association. Consideration of
a Use Permit to allow use of an existing parking lot at 1435 Webster Street for outdoor
commercial and entertainment events. The project is located within the C-C (Community
Commercial) Zoning District. The project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities and
Section15183 - Projects Consistent with General Plan and Zoning
Brian McGuire, Planner, introduced the item and gave a brief presentation. The staff
report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5544815&GUID=92833593-
C1A5-4513-8C3B-5D129D944FCB&FullText=1
Vice President Ruiz opened the board clarifying questions.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 9
April 11 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-04-11,2,"Board Member Teague asked how the owner would be monitoring the amplified sound, if
it would be continuously monitored. He also asked about attendance for non-ticketed
events and then wording in connection to how the noise was monitored.
Allen Tai, City Planner, discussed how WABA (West Alameda Business Association)
would monitor noise. He added that they had the readings from last year.
Staff Member McGuire discussed non-ticketed events and how the Noise Ordinance was
worded and how they had to work with that to make it clear.
Board Member Hanson Hom wanted to know the changes to how amplified sound was
handled. He also wanted to know of there were any changes to the parking conditions.
Staff Member McGuire discussed how this Use Permit was clearer and more specific in
regards to amplified sound and what days that was allowed. He added that there were no
changes to the parking conditions.
Board Member Ron Curtis discussed noise levels and decibel readings. He wanted to
know where the 85-107 decibel limits came from.
Staff Member Tai answered that the numbers came from readings they had gathered last
year and from Santa Monica's Noise Ordinance.
Board Member Teague asked if there was a condition of where speakers could go.
Staff Member McGuire discussed the layout of the location and where the stage was
located.
Vice President Ruiz asked about past noise complaints and wanted to know if they could
instead do another Temporary Use Permit.
Staff Member Tai discussed past complaints and how the board could ask for a review in
one year to make sure the noise was being handled appropriately.
Vice President Ruiz opened public comment.
Melissa Milam was very much against this Use Permit. She described how the noise was
awful and that it was not fair to their community. She discussed how these events had
effected their lives and that the people in charge were not abiding by the rules and the
laws.
Maria Milam was in total shock that this being proposed. She said the events at this
location last summer had caused stressed and anxiety. The noise was too much. She
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 9
April 11 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-04-11,3,"didn't understand that with things opening back up why this was still needed. She urged
the board to ban all amplified sound, she felt like she was being slapped in the face by the
board and the city.
Gina Ledesma, leader for recent event, clarified that time that the high school band played.
She thought it was a wonderful event that brought the community together. She added
that that they were very respectful of the parking and the noise levels.
Johanna Hall was against this Use Permit. She wanted to know more about the wording
in the Use permit and was afraid that these events would negatively affect the daily lives
of the neighborhood. She wanted to see street barricades to keep people from taking non
metered parking spots and more communication with the residents. She even urged for a
Street Liaison to be assigned. *Cheryl, who was on the call, seconded Johanna and
believed there were more than just two complaints.
Stacy Marino was in favor or the Healing Garden and outdoor dining but was very against
any event with amplified sound. She discussed how the past events negatively affected
the lives of her and her neighbors. She was shocked that this was happening since last
time it was said this was a temporary event space.
Dede Lewis, PTA President of Maya Lin School, discussed how appreciative the PTA was
to be able to use this space for events. She discussed planned events and that since the
pandemic was still going having outdoor events was important.
Linda Asbury, Executive Director of WABA, clarified past events and that this was only for
6 amplified sound events and the Taylor lot had always been a private lot. She said that
events never go past 9pm and that they were listening to their neighbors and had even
canceled events that clashed with neighbor's needs.
Vice President Ruiz closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Hom wanted to know if the applicant would be fine with revising the
condition to be a maximum of one amplified sound event per month.
Ms. Asbury said absolutely she would.
Staff Member McGuire said the 3 per month was to give flexibility and allowances for
different types of events.
Board Member Teague wanted details about the proposed schedule of events and wanted
to see a corrected list. He was not in favor of the amplified music or having events on
Thursdays. He discussed what decibel readings he was comfortable approving and that
he wanted this to come back in a year. He wanted to see the space used but not at the
sacrifice of the neighbors.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 9
April 11 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-04-11,4,"Board Member Curtis agreed with Board Members Hom and Teague. He discussed
conditions that he wanted to see added.
Vice President Ruiz was very concerned with the noise and the negative impact the
residential neighbors. She discussed the conditions around the previous temporary Use
Permit. She also wanted to see a time limit on events with amplified sound.
Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the Use Permit with the following
conditions. Limit the amplified (related to DJs and live bands) sound events to 1
calendar day (limited to 3 hours on Friday and Saturday) a month. The Use Permit
will expire in one year. Decibel readings for amplified sound would be 85 decibels
and be measured at the residential property lines. Applicant must also provide a
formal schedule of events to the Planning Staff. Board Member Curtis seconded the
motion and the motion passed 4-0.
7-B 2022-1918
Alameda Point Site A Development Plan and Development Agreement Amendment
(PLN22-0172) - Applicant: City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners. Planning Board
Study Session to consider a Development Plan and Development Agreement Amendment
to increase housing capacity at Alameda Point Site A to meet the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation. General Plan Designation: Mixed-Use. Zoning: AP-TC, Alameda Point Town
Center District. CEQA Determination: Use of Alameda Point Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 201312043, and Alameda General Plan 2040
FEIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2021030563. No further environmental review is required.
Before the presentation Board Member Teague asked for the City Attorney to address the
issue with Exhibit 1 and how that was being handled.
Celena Chen, Planning Staff Counsel, explained that the link to Exhibit 1 was broken. She
added that the Planning Board could still conduct this Study Session and that Director
Thomas could provide options on how to move forward.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Building and Transportation Director, introduced the item and
gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5544816&GUID=3BEB565C-
 9B2D-441F-A214-E6B383E2EC52&FullText=1.
Vice President Ruiz opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Teague asked about waivers requests combined with Density Bonus for
this project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 9
April 11 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-04-11,5,"Director Thomas said that was allowed and further explained as the property owner what
they could allow.
Board Member Curtis wanted details on what developers made up Alameda Partners.
Director Thomas answered that the two main partners were Trammell Crow Residential
and Cypress Equity Investments (CEI).
Vice President Ruiz asked about what units were included in the Housing Element Update.
Director Thomas said that the additional units had been included in the update and
discussed the 600 units that needed to be built on Site A and what had to happen in order
for that to happen.
Vice President Ruiz opened public comments.
There were no speakers.
Vice President Ruiz closed public comments and opened board discussion.
Board Member Teague questioned why they were building so many townhomes on the
area, he would rather see more houses there which would make the Universal Designer
easier to achieve. He liked the idea of having the pedestrian/bike area.
Board Member Curtis still wanted more clarification on the Alameda Partners.
Vice President Ruiz reopened public comments.
Stephanie Hill, Trammell Crow, discussed Trammell Crow's involvement with Alameda
Point and a background on the type of development they specialize in. She discussed in
detail the complexities of building at the Point.
Karen Bey, resident, discussed the work that Trammell Crow was required to do at Point
form Affordable Housing and community benefits. She pointed out that they had done the
community benefits in Phase 1 which was very unique. She felt that the developer had
done a wonderful job and they should be rewarded for the work they had done.
Vice President reclosed public comments and reopened board discussion.
Board Member Hom agreed that this location was ideal for an increase in density. He also
acknowledged that the commitment to 25% affordable housing was very positive and that
moving the building to increase the pedestrian corridor was also very positive. He was
supportive of the parking decision recommended by staff and discussed ways to achieve
the Universal Design Standards.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 9
April 11 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-04-11,6,"Board Member Teague encourage a type of design similar to what Alameda Marina did to
their townhouses that would accomplish more of the Universal Design.
Vice President Ruiz supported the proposed revision on Coronado St but wanted the
connection between Coronado St and Main St to be evaluated for safety to cyclist. She
has similar concerns brought up by Board Member Teague about the amount of
townhomes. She discussed the importance of job/housing balance and where the retail
components could fit. She also discussed the difficulties of townhomes to achieve
Universal Design.
Director Thomas thanked everyone and stated that they would be working with the
Commission on Persons with Disabilities and what the next steps were.
7-C 2022-1919
Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the April 2022 Draft Housing Element and
the proposed Zoning Code Amendments to Accommodate the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation for the Period 2023-2031 in Compliance with State Law.
Director Thomas introduced this item. Staff report and attachments can be found at
ittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5544817&GUID=C4CD068A-
5603-425A-AF2E-A59409B20A26&FullText=1.
Vice President Ruiz opened board clarifying questions
Board Member Curtis pointed out that he wanted to see just the changes that the board
had suggested and what had been implemented. He also wanted clarification on the
definition shared living.
Director Thomas discussed what the state required for the Housing Element and what
parts of the appendixes were brand new.
Board Member Teague asked about the 15-30% Buffer being required in the staff report
but in the reference it says recommended. He wanted clarification. He also wanted
clarification on the definition shared living. He pointed out discrepancies in the definitions.
He also wanted to see where his commentary had been reflected.
Director Thomas said the words from HCD were ""highly recommended"". He then went into
detail about what the benefits of the Buffer were. He then went into detail about the
definition of shared living. He discussed what the focus had been with every update of the
Housing Element and added that they had received comments from a huge amount of
people.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 9
April 11 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-04-11,7,"Board Member Hom had questions about the Zoning Code and asked about the discussed
design requirements for Park and Webster St.
Director Thomas discussed the takeaways from the last workshop and how staff had
interpreted the board's notes.
Staff Member Tai added information about height limits on Webster St and that the
takeaway had been to make them uniformed.
Vice President Ruiz asked about the process of submitting to HCD (Housing and
Community Development) and next steps. She also had questions about upzoning vs
overlays and State Density bonus.
Director Thomas described in detail what HCD needed and what was next in the process
for the staff. He added that there will be comments back form HCD which would be another
opportunity for the board to comment. He then discussed using a combo of both upzoning
and overlays and how developers could and have used the State Density bonus in
Alameda.
Vice President Ruiz opened public comments.
Karen Bey supported the amendments to make a uniformed zoning amendment for both
Park and Webster Street. She supported higher building heights in high opportunity sites.
She discussed areas where retail spaces should be preserved.
Drew Dara-Abrams asked to make sure that R1-R6 equally contribute to the housing
goals. He was very excited at the proposed zoning changes to Park and Webster and
gave suggestions on height limits.
Chris Buckley, Alameda Architecture Preservation Society, did not think that the massive
upzoning proposed was necessary and was overkill. He also discussed in detail issues
and concerns with Density Bonus and the proposed height limits for Park and Webster St.
Vice President Ruiz closed public comments and opened board member discussion.
Board Member Teague discussed his concerns with the wording around Article 26. He
wanted to see the Neighborhood Commercial station called out separately, he was not in
favor of putting the density into each one of the zones. He believed that all parcels in all
residential zones should be eligible for 4 units. For the transit overlay he believed that a
quarter mile was too far. He felt that the section for SB-9 left a lot of information out. He
then discussed the changes he wanted to see for height limits for the Stations and the
Mixed-Used locations. He added that he wanted to see 7 units by right to every parcel for
the Transit Route. He also discussed the Design Standards for ADUs and how to make
them contemporary compatible. He then discussed definitions Density Bonus.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 9
April 11 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-04-11,8,"Director Thomas replied in detail about what was considered Shared Living and other
definitions. He also went into detail about Density Bonus.
Board Member Hom discussed his concerns about the geographical distribution of fair
housing units. He had questions about the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and how to
strengthen it. He also had notes about tables in the Housing Element and how they could
be clearer. He also gave notes on the Zoning Ordinance and the North Park Street District.
He also discussed the Transit Overlay Districts, he agreed with Board Member Teague
that a quarter mile was too far.
Vice President Ruiz discussed ways to strengthen communication with the citizens of
Alameda and how to best work with the State Density Law. She agreed with the AAPS's
recommendation that the Transit Overlay was difficult to implement. She pushed for
neutrality in dealing with Article 26 and not make the wording politically charged, she
wanted to remain nonbiased in the public documents. She then pointed out conflicts with
the wording connected to Density Bonus and vacancies in Alameda's rental pool. She
agreed with Board Member Hom about having a legend for Table D-1.
There was a conversation about the differences between Park and Webster and what
height limits would work best.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2022-1912 - Draft Meeting Minutes - February 28, 2022
This item was continued due to a lack of a quorum.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2022-1910
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent actions and decisions can be found at
ittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5544812&GUID=897EC6D8-
2F54-4171-AFC5-7DABDABOA3CB&FullText=1
No item was pulled for a review.
9-B 2022-1911
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai announced that the April 25th meeting had been canceled and the next
meeting was May 9th.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8 of 9
April 11 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-04-11,9,"10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Hom announced that he would be unable to attend the May 9th meeting.
Vice Chair Ruiz announced that she had submitted Alameda's ADU Policy to The Urban
Land Institute for a leadership award. She also announced that the Housing the Bay
Conference was coming up.
Board Member Hom believed that Alameda's General Plan should be put forth for an
American Planning Association Award and the deadline was coming up.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Vice President Ruiz adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9 of 9
April 11 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-04-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- - -APRIL 7,2022- -11:00 A.M. -
(22-238) A special meeting was called to allow the City Council to attend the Chamber
of Commerce State of the City.
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 7, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 5, 2022- -5:00 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: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at
5:21 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-200) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957);
Title/Description of Positions to be Filled: City Manager.
(22-201) Conference With Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources
Director, Jessica Romeo, Human Resources Manager, and Steve Woo, 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), and Alameda
Police Management Association (APMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and
Terms of Employment.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that
regarding the Public Employee Appointment, 1) Council gave direction to have the Human
Resources Department conduct the search for the permanent City Manager position, instead of
an outside search firm, 2) Council gave direction to the City Attorney to return with an Interim
City Manager agreement at the next regular City Council meeting on April 19, 2022, and 3)
Council gave direction to have the Human Resources Director begin the search for a long-term
City Manager and return at the next closed session in two weeks with the process for hiring a
permanent City Manager by the following three roll call votes: Vote 1: Councilmembers Daysog:
No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes:
4. Noes: 1, Vote 2: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye;
Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5, and Vote 3: 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: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Abstain: 1.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,2,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 5, 2022--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:37 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
(22-202) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Five Keys agreement [paragraph no. 22-225 is time
sensitive and would be addressed after the State of the City [paragraph no. 22-226].
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Mayor can
revise the order of agenda items and Councilmembers can also propose motions to change the
order.
Councilmember Knox White suggested the Five Keys agreement be heard after the Continued
Items.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft agreed.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-203) Proclamation Declaring April 2022 as National Arab American Heritage Month.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
(22-204) Proclamation Declaring April 2022 as Parkinson's Awareness Month.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-205) Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda, announced a Waterfront Park launch event on
Saturday; urged attendees to join Bike Walk Alameda on a ride to the park; noted the ride will
be slow-paced and family friendly.
(22-206) Anna Rossi, Shelter in Peace, expressed appreciation for the City leasing a house to
Shelter in Pease for refugees and immigrants and for working with Shelter in Peace.
(22-207) Stephen Van Lare, Shelter in Peace, stated that he wants to thank the City for the
cooperation in making the house available; discussed his work with Shelter in Peace and
housing 31 individuals.
(22-208) Brian Kennedy, Alameda, discussed Sanctuary City provisions; read a list of child
victims' names; urged the City remove the Sanctuary City designation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,3,"(22-209) Jenice Anderson, Alameda, discussed not feeling safe in Alameda due to people in her
neighborhood.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote on the teleconference findings [paragraph
no. 22-214 and the emergency declaration [paragraph no. 22-217]; and requested the SCI
Consulting Group agreement [paragraph no. 22-215] and the power purchase agreement
[paragraph no. 22-216] be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
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. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22-210) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and
Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the Regular City
Council Meeting Held on March 1, 2022. Approved.
(*22-211) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,918,697.98
(*22-212) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Reporting Period
Ending September 30, 2021 (Funds Collected During the Period April 1, 2021 to June 30,
2021). Accepted.
(*22-213) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Reporting Period
Ending December 31, 2021 (Funds Collected During the Period July 1, 2021 to September 30,
2021). Accepted.
(*22-214) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via
Teleconference.
Since Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, the item carried by the following
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(22-215) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to
the Agreement with SCI Consulting Group for Fee Levy Administrative Services for the 1992
Urban Runoff Fee and the 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee in an Amount Not to
Exceed $86,479 for an Aggregate Amount Not to Exceed $157,849.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the total amount the City receives from the two types
of taxes that the services agreement will continue to monitor.
The Assistant City Manager responded the 1992 fee brings in about $2.4 million per year and
the 2019 Water Quality fee brings in about $2.8 million per year.
2",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,20,"Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the Five Keys agreement next, and
continuing the parking ordinance and State of the City to the Continued Agenda Items section of
the April 19th meeting.
Councilmember Daysog made a substitute motion to approve hearing the Five Keys agreement
and State of the City.
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 Knox White moved approval of hearing the CARP and CARE items under
Continued Agenda Items section on April 19, 2022.
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.
***
(22-224) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report on the Climate Action and Resiliency
Plan (CARP) and the Annual Report on Transportation. Continued to April 19, 2022.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-225) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Interim Funding
Agreement and a Promissory Note, both in Substantially the Form Attached to this Staff Report,
to Memorialize a Short-Term Loan from the City of Alameda General Fund to Five Keys Schools
and Programs in the Amount of $2,000,000 for Use on General Development Costs for an
Interim Supportive Homeless Housing Project on the Bottle Parcel at 2530 5th Street;
(22-225 A) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Service Provider
Agreement, in Substantially the Form Attached to this Staff Report, in an Amount Not to Exceed
$1,000,000, Between the City of Alameda and Five Keys Schools and Programs, for Five Keys
Schools and Programs to Serve as Project Manager for the Design and Construction of
Electrical Work and Water, Storm and Sewer Infrastructure for an Interim Supportive Homeless
Housing Project on the Bottle Parcel at 2530 5th Street;
(22-225 E B) Resolution No. 15881, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 General Fund Budget to
Appropriate an Additional $2,000,000 to Fund General Development Costs for an Interim
Supportive Homeless Housing Project on the Bottle Parcel at 2350 5th Street."" Adopted; and
(22-225 C) Resolution No. 15882, ""Increasing Expenditure Appropriations in the American
Rescue Plan 2021 Project (C99300) in the Capital Projects Fund (310) by $1,000,000 to Pay
Costs to Design and Construct Electrical Work and Water, Storm and Sewer Mains and Laterals
for an Interim Supportive Homeless Housing Project on the Bottle Parcel at
2350 5th Street."" Adopted.
The Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,21,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the matter; stated Alameda is among a couple other
cities in the County to have received funds.
The Community Development Director stated Alameda and Oakland were the only cities in the
County to receive funding.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council is being asked to take $1 million out
of
the City's American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for the project and the City will not be
reimbursed for the funding.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated there is service
provider funding for five years and staff will actively be pursuing future grant funding.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the grant funding language commits the City
to provide the transitional housing for more than five years.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the County requires
a 20 year commitment; the City received $2.3 million from the County; the State requires a 15
year commitment; staff has 5 years secured already; staff will continue to find additional funds.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City will need to come up with 15 years
of funding for the project if the grant money is accepted, to which the Community Development
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired where funding will come from in the future.
The Community Development Director responded staff will be pursuing other funding
opportunities; stated there is currently a lot of energy around homeless housing efforts; there
will continue to be opportunities at the federal, State and local levels; staff will be aggressively
pursuing the opportunities and will look into private funding as well as fundraising; noted Dignity
Moves is also pursuing alternative funding.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not seen an updated five-year forecast
update; expressed concern about the City committing to 20 years of funding for the project and
funding coming from the General Fund if it cannot be found somewhere else.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated ARPA funds are not General Fund money; Council has allocated a
portion of ARPA funds to address homelessness; she agrees with comments related to the
housing and homelessness crisis throughout the State; money is being allocated to address
homelessness; the City is laying a strong foundation; doing nothing leaves people to languish
and die on the streets, which has a cost.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands ARPA funds are not General
Fund; ARPA funds will not continue for 20 years; inquired whether the funding for the program
would come from General Fund in the future once ARPA funds are exhausted; inquired whether
ARPA is a short-term commitment.
The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated ARPA funding only runs
through 2026; funding for homelessness and housing issues will be up against other Council
priorities; the City is committing to an ongoing funding obligation; the project creates new
20",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,22,"opportunities to address homelessness, which is a priority; addressing homelessness takes time
to ramp up; staff will be looking to the State and county for continued support.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the obligations from the grant will force the
City to continue to pay for the project using General Fund money, which may result in cuts to
City staff and services.
The Assistant City Manager responded there are some challenging years in the upcoming five
year forecast; stated beyond the next five years, City revenues continue to grow with expenses
likely to be contained; the City's finances look relatively strong based on revenue expectations;
the City will be able to meet needs across the board depending on future priorities and
allocation of resources; the goal is for the City not to struggle financially in the future; pension
issues will create financial strain if not addressed with strong revenues.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be a legal obligation attached to
accepting grant funds which creates a contract and the contract will be separate from any
additional Council desires regarding expenditures.
The City Attorney responded the City will be committing to 20 years of operations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer questioned whether the commitment is similar to a contract,
where the City will have to perform.
The City Attorney stated the City has a greater commitment towards contractual obligations
rather than non-contractual obligations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over the contractual obligation; stated if
grant funding is not available for the project, the City will have to use General Fund money to
keep the transitional housing operating; the program will end up being a forced priority of
expenditure from the General Fund; there is uncertainty; stating that the City will have great
financials for the next 20 years is untrue; expressed concern about the transitional housing
obligation needing to be funded ahead of other City staff and services.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is comfortable in the City's ability to find funding for
the program moving forward through grants and the General Fund.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolutions].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she previously supported the
project; she did not expect the project to circle back so soon without sufficient funds; the project
will become a priority obligation for the City to fund; 20 years is a long time to agree to use
General Fund money ahead of other things; she will not be able to support the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated the project is necessary; ARPA and State funds are paying for
the project's capital costs; there is no doubt that ongoing operational costs will be needed; the
housing crisis will not go away anytime soon; the project is a vital service for Alameda; the City
will face fiscal challenges due to a tightly wound economy; the City will have to decide to tighten
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,23,"its belt when fiscal challenges arise, including letting City staff and services go to preserve the
project services; the project is necessary, exciting and appropriate due to its proximity to
services and amenities; he will continue to support the project; Councilmembers make difficult
decisions and will have to prioritize housing for vulnerable families similar to the proposed
project.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated the project is a stepping
stone as part of the solution to ending homelessness in the region; the transitional housing is
providing an opportunity for people to get off the street with wrap around services in order to
help gain permanent housing; as people transition out to permanent housing, another group of
formerly homeless individuals will come in; the project is something that is desired for other
communities in the area; expressed support for the project and grant application.
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.
(22-226) Mayor's State of the City Address.
The Mayor gave the State of the City Address.
(22-227) Recommendation to Receive an Update on the Community Assessment Response
and Engagement (CARE) Team Pilot Program and Authorize the Extension of the CARE Team
Pilot Program until June 30, 2023. Continued to April 19, 2022.
(22-228) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal
Code Chapter VIII and Chapter XII Authorizing Public Works to Enforce Parking Provisions and
Ensuring Consistency with California Vehicle Code. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(22-229) The City Manager discussed the draft Housing Element being available for public
review and comment at: www.alameda2040.org/housing, and a Posey/Webster Street Tube
closure; announced the annual Alameda Free Library annual Peeps contest; discussed
Alameda Restaurant Week.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-230) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-231) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-232) Consider Directing Staff to Bring the Rent Program ""In-House"" to the City Attorney's
Office. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella) Continued to April 12, 2022.
22",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,24,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22-233) Councilmember Daysog discussed his attendance at the 2022 all-City concert at
Encinal High School.
(22-234) Councilmember Knox White made an announcement regarding ACTC meetings and
workshops; discussed an upcoming ILC meeting; expressed his appreciation for the City
Manager.
(22-235) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed her attendance at the Afghan Resource
Fair held at Alameda Point and the Navy League Crab Feed; announced her participation as a
judge for the Boy Scouts Pinewood Derby; discussed the five year anniversary event for
Feathered Outlaw and her attendance at a webinar for Project Opiod; stated that she attended a
Bay East Real Estate Summit; expressed support for the City Clerk presenting information on
NextRequest at a League of Women Voters event; expressed her appreciation for the City
Manager.
(22-236) Vice Mayor Vella discussed her attendance at the Lead Abatement Board meeting;
expressed her appreciation for the City Manager.
(22-237) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support and bid an early farewell to the City Manager;
discussed the early stages of the pandemic; announced an event put on by the East Bay
Economic Development Alliance promoting the Resilient East Bay launch; discussed an event
honoring Chris Tam; announced a memorial ceremony at the USS Hornet recognizing the 80th
anniversary of the Bataan Death March; discussed the Ukraine conflict and opportunities for
support.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,4,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed appreciation for the information being provided and
support for the agreement.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.
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.
(22-216) Resolution No. 15879, ""Approving a Second Amendment to the Power Purchase
Agreement between Ameresco Keller Canyon, LLC (""Ameresco"") and Alameda Municipal
Power (""AMP"") Decreasing Ameresco's Power Output Obligations in Exchange for
Compensation to AMP for its Administrative Costs in an Amount Not to Exceed $250,000 per
Year, a Payment to AMP Not to Exceed $135,000 per Year to Compensate AMP for its Loss of
Resource Adequacy Capacity, and Compensation to AMP for California Independent System
Operator (CAISO) Charges in an Amount Not to Exceed a Total of $50,000."" Adopted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what the matter will look like for the City and whether
the matter will not contribute to any additional rolling blackouts.
The City Manager responded the amendment will reduce AMP's share of the output facility and
provides cost-savings for AMP customers; stated the resource is not necessary to address
rolling blackouts; AMP has access to other resources.
The AMP Energy Resources Supervisor stated AMP is fully resourced; rotating outages are
driven at the Statewide level based on shortages; the agreement will have no impact on rotating
outages.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.
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.
(22-217) Resolution No. 15880, ""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 Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, the item carried by the following
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(*22-218) Ordinance No. 3316, ""Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Execute a First
Amendment to the Lease with Park Street Wine Cellars, Inc., a California Corporation, for
Approximately 700 Square Feet of Retail Space in the Historic Alameda Theatre Located at
2315 Central Avenue, Suite 122, to Provide Six Months of Rent Deferral with a Three Year
Repayment Period."" Finally passed.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,5,"(22-219) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Draft Alameda Police
Department Policy for Fixed Automatic License Plate Technology.
The Police Chief gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the draft policy stating: ""once an alert is received, the
operator should confirm that the observed license plate from the system matches the license
plate can be revised to: ""must"" or ""shall.""
The Police Chief responded that he has no problem with replacing the word ""should"" with
""must;"" stated ""must"" captures the intent of the policy.
Commended the Police Chief for adding another safety tool; stated the policy is similar to DNA
requirements; expressed support for the tool being implemented: Rockne Harmon, Alameda.
Stated that she is disappointed the Council decided to go forward with the license plate camera
plan; studies have shown the readers do not decrease crime; expressed support for the time
and care taken with the proposed policy; discussed shorter retention: Rebecca Jeschke,
Alameda.
Urged the retention timeline be greatly reduced and auditing be done every 30 days with
oversight: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Expressed support for retaining data for 30 days or less; expressed concern that a yearly audit
is not often enough and over who owns the data: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Stated the retention policy is too long; San Leandro adopted a 15-day policy; there is no reason
Alameda needs to retain data longer; discussed data: Mike Katz-Lacabe, Oakland Privacy.
Encouraged looking at the matter from an equity lens; urged the policy address dragnet issues,
such as parking tickets and expired tags: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Expressed appreciation for the Police Chief adding guard rails; discussed data not showing
Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are effective; suggested the data retention be based
on actual use: Brian Hofer, Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the revised policy with changing ""should"" to
""must"" in Section C on page 3.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog expressed support for staff being responsive to
questions and concerns raised; stated Alameda needs a tool like ALPRs in order to prevent
crimes.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like reassurance there will be enough
staff to preserve the data needed if retention is reduced.
The Police Chief stated staff will assess the process; he feels comfortable with the 60 day
retention period.
4",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,6,"Vice Mayor Vella stated that she appreciates staff's willingness to work through the questions
raised around data retention and privacy; she will be supporting the matter; however, she would
like the City to think about the duration of the data retention; the retention time could be
reduced; she intends to continue to watch and monitor the use of ALPRs to ensure compliance.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of concerns raised about low-income individuals
being stopped for unpaid parking tickets and other minor violations via ALPRs.
The Police Chief stated the system would not be used to address parking tickets or low level
offenses; ALPRs are used after crimes have occurred; staff would use the tool for serious
crimes, such as a felony want audit; the technology will not be used to identify parking tickets or
low level offenses.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is impressed with the work done; expressed support for the
work done with Secure Justice; stated staff has put together an excellent policy; she is ready to
support the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the possibility of editing footage.
The Police Chief stated the technology only takes photographs of license plates; the images
cannot be edited; the system is designed to prevent edits.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what happens when a vehicle does not have a
license plate.
The Police Chief responded staff can do other things if a crime is committed using a vehicle
without a license plate; stated the technology has utility for vehicles without license plates; staff
can look for the specific vehicle that matches the description and examine the vehicle features.
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.
Councilmember Knox White stated increasing and changing technology brings a host of ethical
issues which are just starting to be studied and discovered; expressed support for staff returning
in June with a work program to ensure the City has a staff member that will stay on top of
technology ethics to provide input and guidance; stated technology is not a Police Department
specific issue and is used throughout the City; he would like staff to come back with a proposal
for Council consideration.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the topic could be discussed during the upcoming Council priorities
work session; inquired whether Councilmember Knox White's proposal is specific to the Police
Department or Citywide.
Councilmember Knox White responded Citywide; stated the comment is not only related to
Police.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposal discussion is able to be added to the current
agenda item.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,7,"The City Attorney responded Council has discretion to discuss the matter; stated Council could
provide brief direction to staff without substantial discussion.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is proposing brief Council direction to have staff
return in June with a more robust discussion around moving forward with privacy and
surveillance.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for also discussing the matter at the priority setting
workshop.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he believes the proposed matter should be brought forward
as a Council Referral; the matter is separate from the agenda item.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City has Council direction on overall privacy policies that have been
pending for years; it is not necessary for the proposed matter to go through the Council Referral
process; expressed support for a report back from staff of the status of the Citywide privacy
policy.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated the proposed
matter would be more appropriate as a Council Referral; expressed support for staff bringing
back information on mobile APLRs; stated that she understands mobile APLRs will be coming
back to Council.
The Police Chief stated the Police Department has a mobile ALPR system; he would like to
expand the program and will work with the City Manager.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the current mobile cameras are not functional.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the commitment from the
Police Chief is all which can be discussed at the time, given the agenda title.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to know when the privacy policy will return; the topic
is related to the policy at-hand; the privacy policy is over-arching.
The Police Chief stated that he will prioritize the matter; he would like to discuss timing with the
City Manager.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the Police Chief would not be heading the Citywide privacy policy which
will interact with other Departments.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the policy update will be provided by the City Manager.
The City Manager stated staff has discussed bringing the policy discussion back in June.
Councilmember Knox White stated the last time Council voted on ALPRs specifically, the mobile
ALPR expansion program was not included; the motion only addressed fixed ALPRs; said
direction is inconsistent with Council vote.
6",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,8,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supported bifurcating the two matters to help establish the
policy on fixed ALPRs and then move on to mobile ALPRs; she understands mobile ALPRs are
a tool the department uses; the mobile ALPR matter can return once the policy is established;
much of the fixed ALPR policy should apply to the mobile ALPRs as well.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he possibly misheard a Councilmember directing staff to
return with an extended camera program and the purchase of new mobile ALPR cameras, not a
policy.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Police Chief will confer with the City Manager regarding timing.
(22-220) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Crime Prevention Programs
to Deter and Reduce Catalytic Converter Thefts.
The Police Captain gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the last slide presented, the Police
Captain responded the slide is a mock up if Council approves the event.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding alternatives, the Police
Captain stated that he searched for peer review articles on efficacy of theft prevention with little
results; expressed support for even a minor amount of prevention.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the cost for etching and how many units can be
etched per day.
The Police Captain responded that he has seen the process completed in a couple of different
ways; stated one option includes heat resistant paint or fluorescent badges; expressed concern
about potentially overwhelming auto-repair shops.
Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about the proposed etching not having an
impact across the City; stated that he has championed catalytic converter cages for some time;
he does not think staff needs to ask for permission to host an event and etch 100 units; he
would like the budget discussion to include a request to provide a substantial number of cages;
expressed support for the City helping to prevent the thefts from occurring; stated the City can
provide services for 1,000 cars to have cages installed; Council needs to help people install
cages on catalytic converters to prevent thefts; encouraged people to park off-street when
possible.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is in favor of ramping up as the program goes along; the
public education campaign is a must; expressed support for etching units; discussed an event
sponsored by the League of California Cities regarding catalytic converter thefts; stated the City
is supporting legislation that imposes liability on catalytic converter buyers; starting with etching
units makes sense; the City can gauge community interest; she is not opposed to the idea of the
City subsidizing cages; however, there is no evidence of efficacy; she would prefer to start with
etching and public education first then revisit the matter later in the year.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports subsidizing cages; cages have been effective in other
instances and are recommended; cages add a level of deterrence; etching is helpful; however, a
lot needs to be done on the recycling side; the State will be monitoring the situation; the public
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,9,"education and awareness campaign is important; many units are being stolen in front of homes
and everyone does not have access to a locked garage to park their vehicle.
Councilmember Daysog discussed a catalytic converter theft; stated that he understands the
importance of the matter; he does not think City Hall should be subsidizing cage installations;
the City has a role to play in educating residents; expressed support for cracking down on those
trying to sell catalytic converters and an emphasis on enforcement and education; stated that he
is aware of the catalytic converter theft crisis.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated most cars that have catalytic converter stolen are
totaled and the price is too high to pay for most people; catalytic converters are difficult to come
by and can be costly, which affects working class community members; she supports coming up
with a subsidy for theft prevention; expressed support for finding out the cost for an etching
program and cages; stated Alameda can send a clear message to people trying to steal
catalytic converters; discussed correspondence related to legislation; stated that she would like
the City to support legislation that criminally punishes theft offenders; having a catalytic
converter stolen is a large price to pay.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of having staff return with a proposal for an
etching program and subsidizing cages, along with support of additional legislation if further
direction is needed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that the motion is to direct staff to come back with a
proposal for subsidizing the purchase of cages.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the direction is for staff to return; expressed support for
an etching event; stated that she would like staff to continue the etching proposal; she supports
doing everything in the hopes of sending a clear message.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether public education is included in the motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the negative; stated the motion includes
supporting legislation as represented in the correspondence; she would like an update on
whether the City will take a position; staff can return to Council if further direction is needed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the City might not be ready to take a position; inquired the
reasoning.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter of legislation is not agendized; Council can provide direction;
however, the discussion is getting outside the bounds of the agenda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is interpreting it as an inquiry of the staff report; the
correspondence is part of the staff report.
The City Manager stated staff has had a chance to talk about legislation; there are some
questions about whether or not the City can support certain legislation; staff can bring the matter
back for Council consideration.
The Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer stated the legislative agenda item related to
catalytic converters is specific to restricting the sales of catalytic converters; staff was able to
8",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,10,"identify several bills which would restrict the sales of catalytic converters; staff has put support
positions in for the related pieces of legislation; other bills dealing with catalytic converters
increase the penalties for theft up to a felony, rather than addressing sale, which goes against
some of the Police reform recommendations supported by Council.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer amended the motion to add direction to staff to bring the
legislative matter back to Council for consideration.
The City Attorney expressed support for staff bringing the information back for future Council
discussion.
Councilmember Daysog requested a friendly amendment to bifurcate the vote on the subsidy
matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of staff bringing back the three legislative bills
mentioned in the correspondence attached to the report with more information and Council
consideration and the etching program as proposed by staff.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion should include an etching event or an etching
program.
The Police Captain responded that his goal is to go beyond a one day event if people use the
program; the etching program is not meant to be limited to one day; staff wants to see how
many people show interest before a program is developed.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like to understand the
etching program if Council is approving a program; the proposal is not what Council is being
asked to approve; he would like to know the cost and time involved.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion is directing staff to return with information about the
etching program.
The Police Captain stated that he has looked at other programs and sometimes there is no cost
when collaborating with local businesses; many businesses provide the service for free; his
proposal is to find a local business that will partner with the City.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the program.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated many local body shops tend to provide etching for free as a service
to customers and the process is not long or difficult.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated staff does not need to return if the program is free of
cost; staff can proceed with the program; if a monetary cost is eventually reached, staff can
return to Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want to assume the local shops will provide the
service for free; staff can look into the possibility.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,11,"Councilmember Knox White stated that he is still confused and will not be supporting the
motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Councilmember Knox White stated bringing back the legislation for discussion is of no interest
to him; expressed support for the etching program; stated the program does not need Council
approval.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of Council directing staff to develop a program and
return with a budget request as part of the mid-cycle budget process to provide support and
substantially ensure that people in Alameda have access to cages.
Councilmember Knox White stated that there are a multitude of ways for this to be
accomplished; he would like to see a substantial budget request for the City to provide cages to
enough people to ensure there is an impact.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated residents are asking Council to enforce laws
and crack down on those that are stealing catalytic converters as well as those that are buying
and selling stolen units; he does not believe residents are asking Council for a handout to cover
the costs of stolen units; stolen units are not the responsibility of City Hall; the City cannot cover
the cost of all stolen catalytic converters; covering the cost for a few people does not seem fair;
covering the cost does not seem like a good use of City funds.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she views the matter as subsidizing a crime prevention measure
similar to ALPRs; the cages are a preventative tool; discretion is being given to allow Police
Department staff to look into different possibilities; she did not support the previous motion
based on her position relative to legislation about being tough on crime; expressed support for
the etching program proposal.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the proposed subsidy; questioned whether the
subsidy will be an administrative nightmare; inquired who will administer the program and who
would be eligible for the cages; stated there is a lot to be done with City funding; inquired
whether the motion includes direction for the program or whether staff will return with
information.
Councilmember Knox White responded Council is directing staff to provide and fund a program;
staff is capable of figuring out how to implement the program and return to Council with costs
and considerations; some residents feel strongly about locking up offenders; however, most
residents want crime to stop and catalytic converters to stop being stolen; Council can spend
money after the crime or can spend money ahead of time in a preventative manner with better
outcomes; Council can consider the matter further if staff returns with administrative issues.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the conventional wisdom around catalytic converter thefts is to
approach it from different angles; expressed support for making the theft less attractive as well
as the units not being valuable; questioned whether the motion is to have staff return to Council
10",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,12,"with an analysis; stated that she does not have enough information to decide whether or not she
would support the program.
Councilmember Knox White stated the motion is to have staff come back with a budget request
for a program; Council could approve the budget request in order for the program to launch.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the motion; stated the matter is worthy;
she would like an outline for similar programs from other jurisdictions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Herrera Spencer.
The Police Captain stated that he currently does not know of any programs and will do
research.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for initially limiting the program to one cage
per household; stated the opportunity will allow for one working car per household; the program
is one way to prevent thefts; however, units are still stolen after cages are installed; the cages
are not an end-all for catalytic converter thefts.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is hesitant to limit the cages to one per household due to
multiple people each needing a car to get to work; inquired the cost per cage.
The Police Captain responded the cost ranges between one hundred to a few hundred dollars
each; stated costs depend on installation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would be supportive of directing staff to come back to
Council with a proposal; the motion sounds like a program is being put into the budget.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the direction is for staff to provide a budget proposal with options; the
matter is not a preemptive blank check budget request.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council will have a menu of options to select from.
Councilmember Knox White responded the motion is for a budget proposal; stated staff can
bring multiple options; staff will bring something that is actionable during the budget discussion.
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.
(22-221) Recommendation to Discontinue the Alameda Loop Shuttle; and Authorize the City
Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Three-Year Agreement with AC Transit, Substantially the
Same as Exhibit 4, for an Amount Not to Exceed $673,000 to Provide a Free AC Transit Bus
Pass Pilot Program for Seniors and People with Disabilities as Part of the City's Paratransit
Program.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.
Stated that he would like Council to reconsider the recommendation of discontinuing the
Alameda Loop Shuttle; many seniors were not using public transportation during the pandemic
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,13,"and many are late to adopt public transportation; ridership is generally starting to rise; it is
premature to discontinue the service: Stephen Zimmerman, Waters Edge Lodge (WEL).
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a shuttle service; inquired whether there has been
communication with WEL; noted WEL has transportation options.
The Paratransit Coordinator responded a WEL van provides medical rides for residents; stated
that she has received feedback from WEL residents; she has been able to help every resident
sign up with East Bay Paratransit and other programs, including bus services and the Alameda
Independent Mobility (AIM) program; there are not as many Alameda County (AC) Transit
routes on Bay Farm Island; however, she has not encountered anyone that has not been
satisfied.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of the AIM program.
The Paratransit Coordinator stated the AIM program is for East Bay Paratransit members; five
subsidized rides on Uber and Lyft are allowed using the 2-1-1 system; the program provides
oversight and an on-demand ride for members; the program has been growing successfully.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the five rides are free.
The Paratransit Coordinator responded in the negative; stated the member pays the first $4 and
everything above $20, the City pays the in-between amount.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the cost for rides, to which the Paratransit Coordinator responded
the cost depends on the destination.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated there is no cost to seniors or people
with disabilities to ride AC Transit; the program pays 100% of the cost.
The Paratransit Coordinator discussed a ""Hop on the Bus with Us"" program user being ecstatic
with her ability to be independent.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the ""Hop on the Bud with Us"" program trains
riders; noted the AC Transit Board unanimously approved the three-year pilot program.
Margaret Tseng, AC Transit, stated many seniors and people with disabilities are on a fixed-
income; the program allows travel on transit without running the risk of being unable to cover
expenses; the pilot program uses the pay-per-ride model and invoices participating cities based
on actual boarding; the program is a benefit to seniors and those who are disabled.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the program is all seniors and people with
disabilities or low-income seniors and people with disabilities, to which the Planning, Building
and Transportation Director responded low-income seniors and people with disabilities.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer further inquired whether the Alameda Loop Shuttle is for all
seniors, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated seniors have signed a petition; inquired whether staff
12",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,14,"has reached out to all everyone who signed the petition.
The Paratransit Coordinator responded that she set up a meeting with WEL when the petition
began; stated the meeting was advertised and was open to everyone; everyone is satisfied;
people are not happy that the shuttle is going away; however, people are being provided other
alternatives.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her concern is whether or not riders are happy;
expressed concern about petition signers not being satisfied; stated the information received by
WEL staff is likely not outdated; something appears to be inconsistent; the program being
limited to low-income individuals needs to be qualified; many seniors living may not qualify for
services; noted the proposed program using Uber or Lyft requires a call for each leg of a trip
and can be costly.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the Uber and Lyft AIM program is in
place and will not be changed; staff is recommending providing a free bus pass to low-income
seniors and people with disabilities instead of a free Alameda Loop Shuttle; AC Transit buses
run 7 days per week for 12 hours instead of 3 days per week for 4 hours; staff believes the
service is much better; staff has structured a 3-year agreement, which is capped at $673,000;
the City will pay per-ride; the program will be opened to low-income seniors and people with
disabilities first as the highest priority and most vulnerable; since the City pays per-ride, staff
can monitor how many rides are being taken and how fast the budget is being used; the
program can be opened up if the budget is not used up.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the senior bus pass or Clipper Card provides for a lower
bus ride cost.
The Paratransit Coordinator responded a senior Clipper Card provides a 50% discount for AC
Transit rides, as well as discounts for 22 other agencies; stated people should keep their senior
Clipper Card in addition to the free bus pass.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated some people do not prefer AC Transit; noted the
Commission on Persons with Disabilities (CPD) recommended that the Alameda Loop Shuttle
be phased out and continued through the end of the calendar year.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the City has the money to continue
the Loop Shuttle to the end of the year or extend the transition period if Council so desires.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated staff is seeing 25 to 50 regular Loop Shuttle
riders; the Paratransit Coordinator has done a great job of reaching out proactively to the
regular riders to get them signed up for the free bus pass program, East Bay Paratransit and
AIM; staff has been performing leg-work and recommend concluding the Alameda Loop Shuttle
at the end of June.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many current riders the Loop Shuttle has.
The Paratransit Coordinator responded the City is averaging 485 rides per month.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the number of rides shows that the shuttle is still being
used; inquired whether riders are not using the shuttle due to being transitioned to AC Transit.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,15,"The Paratransit Coordinator responded many rides are round-trips; stated the ridership average
is 242; the shuttle service has not been reliable due to driver issues; reluctance to get on buses
goes away when people actually ride the bus.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry related to March ridership, the
Paratransit Coordinator stated that she does not have March ridership numbers yet.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the ridership for February.
The Paratransit Coordinator responded the average rides for February were 485.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated 485 rides is a great number; the number shows that the
shuttle riders have not been transitioned to AC Transit yet and that there is work to be done;
expressed concern about abruptly ending a service with that many riders; discussed her recent
experience riding AC Transit from the airport and the bus being empty; stated that she sees
many seniors getting off the shuttle near Trader Joe's; the shuttle is still being used; it is
premature to end the service at this time; expressed support for the matter returning to Council
when the transition can be shown as successful; stated the issue of not having a driver is a
different problem and should be addressed separately the numbers confirm the demand for
service.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a report of passenger amounts that the ridership
numbers represent.
The Paratransit Coordinator responded in the negative; stated staff brought the matter to the
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC); the pre-pandemic ridership average was
1,100; ACTC looked at Alameda's ridership numbers compared to similar cities; the ridership in
other cities is close to pre-pandemic numbers; the Alameda shuttle ridership has not
consistently returned; many people are riding both the bus and the shuttle; many people with a
free bus pass are also seen on the shuttle; the transition will not be a challenge for many riders.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the program comes down to the per-
ride cost of the shuttle; the cost exceeds the standard to be met by the City for use of public
money; there is a fundamental problem that the City is spending too much per ride for the
shuttle service, which is not sustainable; the City is out of compliance with the funding
guidelines; there might be a handful of people that love the shuttle and want to continue riding;
however, the public paying $25 for each ride cannot continue; staff is recommending moving to
the other free program which costs $2 per ride.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and AC Transit
ridership is significantly down from pre-pandemic levels; public transportation being down is not
unusual.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the City had been exceeding the
standard pre-pandemic; the issue is not directly related to the pandemic; the cost per ride was
too high before COVID-19 hit; ridership became worse throughout the pandemic.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City being out of compliance is related to Measure
B/BB funds, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the
14",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,16,"affirmative; stated the City should not be paying so much per ride.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council has received a lot of correspondence from WEL; WEL is
located on Island Drive next to the Harbor Bay Landing shopping center; noted the shuttle only
stops near the WEL location on Wednesdays every 30 minutes; residents of WEL would take
AC Transit Line 21 if they switch to riding the bus, which is available daily every 30 minutes;
Line 21 not stopping directly at WEL could be a concern; the City could work with AC Transit on
the stop location; staff is trying to provide more robust service with AC Transit; WEL residents
could find a less occupied bus positive; the Line 21 route does not go directly into the South
Shore shopping center; however, the route comes close and is similar to the route the shuttle
takes.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated a lot of
work has been put into the matter of changing services and deep engagement has occurred; the
proposed program will likely serve many more people; the concern about stopping shuttle
service is understandable; it is possible that some people will not see the same level of service;
however, many people cannot use the services due to the single-day per week schedule;
discussed people's support for the shuttle, AC Transit scheduling and an Inter-Agency Liaison
Committee (ILC) meeting presentation; expressed support for the program and continued
engagement with WEL residents to ensure the City is meeting needs; stated the City can
discuss ways to have Line 21 better serve the WEL residents; the possibility can be raised at
the next ILC meeting; the shuttle ridership is not a lot; it is unreasonable to think that the City will
wait until all riders make the change and stop using the free shuttle while it is still operates; staff
has a solid transition plan as the City moves from one service to another.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated hopefully, AC Transit will work with the City
on moving the current Line 21 bus stop on Mecartney Road closer to Safeway.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter can be brought to the next ILC meeting.
Vice Mayor Vella stated changes and transitions are always difficult; concurred with
Councilmember Knox White's comments; stated that she appreciates the advocacy from both
Councilmembers Knox White and Daysog at the ILC meetings around increasing access and
accessibility to transit stops to make the new system work for everyone impacted; urged people
to continue ensuring the system works for those most in need; discussed her grandmother using
AC Transit and the shuttle; stated the options provided lifelines and allowed for socialization and
independence; the shuttle is appreciated; however, there has been amazing expansion of AC
Transit lines; it is important to invest and maintain public transit; expressed support for a
cohesive, subsidized system providing benefits to a broad pool of people; stated the goal is to
make public transit work for everyone; expressed support for the staff recommendation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is impressed with the care and thoughtfulness of the
personal service teaching seniors how to ride public transportation; discussed her use of Line
51; stated many people with wheelchairs or physical limitations utilize the bus route; expressed
support for the compassionate AC Transit drivers helping seniors and people with disabilities.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,17,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the bus does not go to Mastick Senior Center, which is
another important area of access to figure out; the CPD recommended phasing the shuttle out
through the end of the calendar year; the City Manager concurred with the CPD
recommendation; proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to approve phasing out the
shuttle until the end of the calendar year.
Councilmember Knox White requested clarification about the City Manager concurring with the
CPD recommendation.
The City Manager stated the CPD raised good points; Council may extend the transition period
to the end of the calendar year if desired; staff has indicated the City has funds to do so.
Councilmember Knox White accepted the friendly amendment to the motion to extend the
transition period to the end of the year.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the program needs to be extended to the end of the
calendar year; expressed concern about unreliable drivers.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the 480 ridership number relates to 480 boarding
instances per month; the number includes round trips equaling 240 boarding instances for 20 to
50 regular riders per month; staff is not as concerned about the transition because the
Paratransit Coordinator is working with the 25 to 50 regular riders; at least one third of the riders
are already riding AC Transit; if Council extends the shuttle service, the cost will be $90,000,
which does not feel appropriate from staff's perspective.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to begin the program as soon as possible so
the City can begin to acclimate people; Line 21 runs every 30 minutes 7 days per week; the AC
Transit system is more robust than the shuttle for WEL residents; he understands that many
people love the shuttle service on Wednesday; however, the City can help people understand
that AC Transit is a better alternative and will likely win more people over.
Councilmember Knox White concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated phasing out the
service does not phase people off the shuttle; expressed support for a 4 to 6 week time frame to
let people know that the shuttle is going away and providing alternative options; stated that he
hopes staff can explain Lines 21 and 51 options; he would like to ensure staff is continuing to
provide the intensive outreach.
Councilmember Knox White reverted to the original motion approving the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the public commenter understands the residents he
serves; catching two buses to get to Mastick Senior Center can be a big deal; it is unfortunate
that Council is not going to accept the CPD recommendation; she will not support the motion; it
is difficult to take two buses; the shuttle has more riders per trip than AC Transit.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is supporting increased mobility for seniors; people are
able to get on one bus are able to get on a second bus; expressed support for the opportunity to
provide seniors with transit opportunities 7 days per week.
16",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,18,"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.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 10:18 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:33 p.m.
(22-222) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like Council to continue the three Council
Referrals to the Council Priority Setting Workshop on April 12th.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about continuing the referrals to the
workshop due to limited broadcast options and participants.
Councilmember Knox White stated the workshop will be recorded; expressed support for
continuing the referrals to the Council workshop.
The City Manager stated the Council workshop will not be televised; however, it will be
broadcast via Facebook Live.
The City Attorney stated the motion should continue the referrals to a date, time, and location
specific.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the referrals at 8:30 p.m. on April 12th.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over cutting the workshop time short.
Councilmember Knox White withdrew his motion.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the workshop can be extended by 15 minutes and schedule
the referrals for the last 5 minutes of the workshop; stated that she feels as though the referrals
can be completed; the referrals can be scheduled for 8:50 p.m. on April 12th providing Council
with a little time to get through the referrals.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Council is being vague about what is to be considered;
the referrals include a matter on the Harbor Bay Club zoning [paragraph no. 22-230], which
could have public speakers; public comment is allowed for Council Referrals; another referral is
on the rent program [paragraph no. 22-232] being moved to the City Attorney's office; she has
already received emails related to the matter; both of the referrals could have public speakers;
expressed concern about timing; stated it is important to share the discussion with the public.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like to honor concerns raised by
Councilmember Herrera Spencer; the rent program matter is Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice
Mayor Vella's referral.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the rent program referral at 8:50 p.m.
on April 12th. .
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,19,"Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
***
***
(22-223) Councilmember Knox White proposed Council hear the Five Keys agreement
[paragraph no. 22-225] and continue the CARP [paragraph no. 22-224 to the Continued
Agenda Items agenda section at the next Council meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what will happen with the remaining agenda items.
Councilmember Knox White expressed concern over loading the upcoming Council meeting by
adding to the Housing Element discussion; expressed support for hearing the CARE [paragraph
no. 22-227 and parking ordinance [paragraph no. 22-228] matters until 12:00 midnight.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the possibility of providing the State of the City
[paragraph no. 22-226 and for moving CARP to the Continued Agenda Items agenda section.
Councilmember Knox White stated the Five Keys agreement can be heard next; the CARE
program and parking ordinance are time intensive; the State of the City can also be heard;
inquired whether Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft would like to provide the State of the City first.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she would like to complete the substantive matters,
including the Five Keys agreement, first, followed by the State of the City; expressed support for
staff leaving the meeting if their matters are being continued; inquired the items moving to the
Continued Agenda Items section.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the CARP and CARE programs to
the beginning of the Continued Agenda Items section on April 19th; stated Council should hear
the Five Keys agreement, the State of the City, and the parking ordinance past 11:00 p.m.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the meeting will have an end time of 12:00 midnight.
Councilmember Knox White responded that he hopes so; stated that he would prefer to commit
to finishing the matters.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether going past 11:00 p.m.
requires four affirmative votes.
The City Clerk responded the Rules of Order require Council consideration of new items past
11:00 p.m. to have four affirmative votes; the motion on the table will require four affirmative
votes.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not be support the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion, which required four affirmative votes failed 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.
18",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-03-28,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2022
1. CONVENE
Vice President Teresa Ruiz convened the *meeting at 7:00 p.m.
*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning
Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Ron Curtis led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Rothenberg, Cisneros, Hom
and Teague.
Absent: President Asheshh Saheba
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Vice President Ruiz announced that she had a hard stop at 8:30pm due to a prior
commitment.
Vice President Ruiz made a motion to continue item 7-C to the next meeting and to
make Board Member Hanson Hom Chair Pro Tem if needed, Board Member Curtis
seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed
6-0.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2022-1863
PLN21-0587 - 2350 Saratoga Street - Tentative Map - Applicant: Jonah Hendrickson on
behalf of Alameda Point Redevelopers LLC. Public hearing to consider recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 8468 and a Condominium Plan for an existing 4-story
building currently under renovation to create 250 Work/Live units. The Condominium Plan
will create three commercial condominium units that each occupy approximately one-third
of the building. CEQA Determination: Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 - Minor
Land Divisions
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 7
March 28, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-03-28,2,"David Sablan, Planner II, introduced the item and gave a brief presentation. The staff
report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5532058&GUID=0BE24216-
8536-4F4A-BA09-C380827BF18F&FullText=1.
Vice President Ruiz opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Hom asked about Fire Wall/Door requirements and other Building Code
questions.
Staff Member Sablan discussed that the Building Official had reviewed these plans and
worked with the Engineer on this to make ensure the Building Code was met.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg asked about the total number of units and what was
approved. She had questions on the Staff Analysis and if the units could be sold
individually.
Staff Member Sablan explained what the City's Ordinance allowed, how the building was
divided and how those units could potentially be sold.
Vice President Ruiz opened public comment.
There were no public speakers on this item.
Vice President Ruiz closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Alan Teague pointed out a typo on the Tentative Map he then made
a motion to recommend to the City Council to move forward as indicated in the Draft
Resolution, Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken
and the motion passed 6-0.
7-B 2022-1864
PLN21-0438 - 1245 McKay Avenue - Design Review Amendment - Applicant: Alameda
Point Collaborative. Public hearing to consider an amendment to the City Council's Design
Review Approval PLN20-0047 to allow the construction of an approximately 61,300-
square-foot, two-story senior convalescent living facility. General Plan designation:
Medium Density Residential. Zoning: A-P, Administrative Professional Zoning District.
CEQA Determination: Design Review approval for a permitted use is not subject to CEQA.
McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group V. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80,
Public Resources Code Section 21080. As a separate and independent basis, the City of
Alameda adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and an Addendum thereto in
compliance with CEQA and no further environmental review is required.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 7
March 28, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-03-28,3,"Henry Dong, Planner III, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
ps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5532059&GUID=4941D5FB-
FE4C-48B5-898E-FOE22307AD33&FullText=1.
Doug Biggs, the applicant, also presented on the process and design changes of the
project.
Gary Struthers, the architect, presented on the design details.
Vice President Ruiz opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Teague asked about laundry facilities and trash rooms. He also wanted to
know if an applicant could amendmend their design without any requirements.
Mr. Struthers showed where the laundry facilities and trash rooms were located and stated
that they were sufficient for the 50 units.
Staff Member Tai said that was correct about amendments to the design. He further
explained what the board's role was.
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros wanted to know about funding and constructive costs.
She wanted to know if the applicant foresaw any issues that would keep this project from
being completed.
Mr. Biggs discussed in detail how they had been diligent at looking at the cost impact of
every decision they had made for this project.
Board Member Hom asked about specific design choices and how they worked with
Design Regulations. He also had questions about the site plan, mainly the lighting plan.
He noted that the Planning Board had asked for the lighting plan on previous projects. He
wanted to know if new street lights were proposed on McKay Ave.
Mr. Struthers discussed in detail design choices. He added that there was a lighting plan
and that it would evolve, he said there would be landscaping lighting. He showed on the
plans were additional lighting was planned. He apologized for the lighting plan not being
included in the presentation. He said that any work they did on McKay would require
coordination with many other organizations.
Allen Tai, City Planner, clarified that the street was owned by the state of California but
managed by the East Bay Reginal Park District (EBRPD). He added that the city had
ongoing conversations with the Park District about improvements on the street but it was
a few years down the road.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 7
March 28, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-03-28,4,"Board Member Hom appreciated that the street trees were being saved and wanted to
know if there had been a study done if the site trees could be saved.
Mr. Struthers said they had been working closely with the landscaper to see what trees
could be saved. He did not which trees were being saved but that had been part of the
design submittal but it was not in the presentation.
Mr. Biggs noted which trees he knew would be saved and which ones were beyond saving.
Board Member Hom asked if a more decorative gate had been discussed.
Mr. Struthers discussed what type of gate was needed but they were open to other
designs.
Board Member Rothenberg also urged the preservation of trees due to the number of birds
in the area. She also urged against the use of white stucco since they weather badly in
the ocean side environment. She also had questions about security features and that the
fence was an excellent opportunity to address the public art requirement.
Vice President Ruiz wanted to know if there was buffer between McKay streets and the
residents on the ground floor units.
Mr. Struthers discussed the setbacks and that the buffer for now was the landscaping. He
added that there would be staff on site.
Vice President Ruiz opened public comment.
Carmen Reid believed that a new environmental report needed to be done and that a plan
for complete demolition had been created before the election. She also wanted to wait
until a decision had been made at the state level about adding the location to the National
Historic Registry of Historic Places before demolition started, she felt that was what the
public deserved.
Josh Geyer addressed that as a member of the public this had already been voted on,
twice, to have this property be devoted to those in need. He was very happy to see the
thought that had gone into this project and saw it as a win for dignity in the community. He
added that the community was in favor of this project.
Vice President Ruiz closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Teague echoed Board Member Hom's question to see the lighting plan.
He was supportive of moving this project forward provided they provide a lighting plan to
the staff.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 7
March 28, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-03-28,5,"Board Member Curtis discussed the controversy around the project, and those who
objected had their say and this had been voted on and approved. He was fully in support
of this project.
Board Member Hom said the project was acceptable for the site. He did ask about the
report that Ms. Reid had brought up.
Staff Member Dong discussed what reports had already been done.
Vice President Ruiz recommended to provide heavier planting on the ground level around
windows to provide more privacy. She also cautioned against the use of bright colors and
gave design recommendations for the front entryway.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the design review amendment with the
addition of the requirement for the applicant to provide an approved, by the staff, lighting
plan for the site. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion.
Board Member Hon suggested the amendments of seeing if any of the trees on the site
could be preserved and look into a more decorative gate.
Staff Member Tai clarified where some of the lighting details were located and that staff
would ask for a photometric plan that they would use to make sure it complied with the
Dark Sky Ordinance.
Staff Member Dong also confirmed that the staff had an arborist report about the trees.
Board Member Teague insisted on seeing the photometric study, this was something the
board had asked for in the past.
Board Member Hom did drop the requirement to see the arborist report if the staff already
had it.
Vice President Ruiz added the condition to review the colors with the staff, it would still be
staff approval. She wanted the accent colors to be more muted.
Board Member Teague motion to approve the design review amendment with the
addition of the requirements for the applicant to provide an approved, by the staff,
lighting photometric plan for the site, increase base landscaping along McKay, a
review of the accent colors, and to look into a more decorative gate. Board Member
Rothenberg seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed
6-0.
7-C 2022-1865
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 7
March 28, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-03-28,6,"Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update and
Zoning Code Amendments to Accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for
the Period 2023-2031 in Compliance with State Law.
This item was moved to the next meeting.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2022-1839 - Draft Meeting Minutes - January 24, 2022
Board Member Teague made a correction to his comment under 7-B, the word needed to
be preceding.
Vice President Ruiz opened public comments.
There were no speakers.
Board Member Curtis made a motion to approve the minutes with this correction.
Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the
motion passed 5-0, Board Member Hom abstained due to his absence at the
meeting.
8-B 2022-1840 - Draft Meeting Minutes - February 14, 2022
Vice President clarified her comments on page 6 pertaining to Webster Street.
Vice President Ruiz opened public comment.
There were no speakers.
Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes with these corrections.
Board Member Teague seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the
motion passed 6-0.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2022-1837
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent actions and decisions can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5532054&GUID=B4DCFFFF-
9DF4-4E9F-8CCO-A5A602849DEA&FullText=1.
No item was pulled for a review.
9-B 2022-1838
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 7
March 28, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-03-28,7,"Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai announced that at the April 11th meeting they would bring back the
Housing Element discussion, a Use Permit for special events for the vacant lot on Webster
St, and a request for a Development Plan Amendment for Alameda Point Site A. He added
that they anticipate cancelling the April 25th meeting.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Vice President Ruiz adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 7
March 28, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-03-28.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-03-24,1,"City of Alameda, California
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THURSDAY, March 24, 2022
APPRVOED MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Sarah Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
President Lewis shared background information on the Season for Nonviolence, and the
Word of the Day: ""Ecology."" The day's quote is from Wangari Maathai, who was a
Kenyan social, environmental and political activist in Kenya and was the first African
woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004. In her Nobel Lecture on December 10,
2004, she said:
""Today we are faced with a challenge that calls for a shift in our thinking, so that
humanity stops threatening its life-support system. We are called to assist the Earth
to heal her wounds and in the process heal our own - indeed to embrace the whole
of creation in all its diversity, beauty and wonder.""
2. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sarah Lewis, Vice President Kristin Furuichi Fong, Board members
Dianne Yamashiro-Omi, Samantha Green, Scott Means.
Absent: Priya Jagannathan (Excused).
City staff: Eric Fonstein, Lois Butler, Veronika Cole, and Lisa Fitts
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3-A Review and Approve February 24, 2022 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes of February 24, 2022 was made by Board member Means
and seconded by Vice President Furuichi Fong. Ayes: President S. Lewis, Vice President
Furuichi Fong, Board members Yamashiro-Omi, Green, and Means. Nays: none. Note:
Board Member Jagannathan abstained due to absence from meeting. Motion passed 5-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. AGENDA ITEMS
5-A Make Recommendation to City Council on CDBG Funding Levels for FY 2022-
23
Staff member Fitts, presented the Social Services, Public Service recommendations for
FY 2022-23. The following is a summary of the key segments:
SSHRB is tasked with three duties that benefit CDBG:",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-03-24.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-03-24,2,"1. Assess and provide input on the community's social service needs
2. Review CDBG Public Service funding recommendations
3. Report to the City Council on recommended allocations
Alameda County has a critical need to assist older adults who are at risk of, or are
already experiencing homelessness, require high-acuity care, or hospice
SSHRB's Needs Statement identified the following priority areas:
Housing and Homeless services
Domestic Violence
Information and Referral Services
Legal Information Services
Mental Health and Crisis Intervention
Disaster Related Cash Grants
Food Pantries and Food Security
COVID-19 Diagnostic Tests
Public Service funding comes from 15% of the following:
Entitlement Allocation from HUD
Program Income received in the previous fiscal year
Staff Recommendations:
Fund the public services at the proposed levels.
Use CDBG administrative funds for the Eden Information & Referral
contract.
Pay for $25,000 of the Midway Shelter contract with Permanent Local
Housing Allocation Funds.
Adjust CDBG funding recommendations on a pro rata basis once the
CDBG allocations have been announced.
Pending the completed Community Needs Assessment, return to a two-
year funding cycle for FY 23-24 and FY 24-25, which will be the last two
years of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan.
Next Steps:
May 3, 2022: City Council holds a Public Hearing to consider the full
CDBG funding recommendations for FY 2022-23, including the Non-
Housing Public Service recommendations reviewed tonight.
After May 3, 2022: Once approved, staff will obtain FY 2022-23 budgets
and prepare amendments to the Service Provider Agreements.
July 1, 2022: Funded agencies may begin making use of the funds.
President Lewis opened the floor for clarifying questions and public comment.
Board member Means asked for additional information regarding the reallocation of
Permanent Local Housing Allocation Funds (PLHA).
Staff member Fonstein read public comment received (via email) by Marjorie Rocha,
Executive Director for Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO).
""Dear President Lewis and Members of the SSHRB: We appreciate City
staff's recommendation of $22,000 to fund Fair Housing and Tenant/Landlord
Services. As always, it is a pleasure to provide services for City of Alameda
renters. As a Qualified Fair Housing Enforcement Organization, we deliver
fair housing counseling and investigation services to the City. In addition, we
are a HUD-approved Housing Counseling Agency, and take pride in our
ability to deliver critical tenant/landlord counseling and mediation services to
low-income renters and housing providers in Alameda. Thank you for your",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-03-24.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-03-24,3,"consideration of staff's recommendation. We request your vote to fund our
proposal.'
The following comments were made by the public:
Erin Scott, Executive Director of Family Violence Law Center thanked City staff
and Board members for their continued support, and shared the following
statistics:
From July to December 2021, there has been a 95% increase in the
number requests for legal services from Domestic Violence survivors, as
well as, a 50% increase in overall requests for legal services
Alison DeJung with Eden I&R, thanked City staff for their creative approach to
continue funding its 2-1-1 program.
Sabrina Thomas with Building Futures for Women and Children, thanked City staff
for the continued support/funding for the Midway Shelter, Crisis Prevention and
Domestic Violence Education programs.
Kale Jenks with Alameda Family Services highlighted the continued need for
Mental Health Services for students.
Board members thanked the providers for their attendance and continued service.
Board member Yamashiro-Omi wanted to know if there is a ""plan B"", if there is a change
to the projected funding. Staff member Fitts stated that in previous years, funding has
been pro-rated once actual funding numbers are made available.
President Lewis applauded the City's response to meet community needs, and asked for
additional information on City staff recommendation, #3 (Pay for $25,000 of the Midway
Shelter contract with Permanent Local Housing Allocation Funds). Staff member Fitts,
explained that the utilization of PLHA funds would avoid the overall reduction in CDBG
funds. If approved, the Midway Shelter contract would be paid from two funding sources
($25,000 PLHA funds / $50,158 CDBG funds).
President Lewis asked about the possibility of City staff presenting a pie chart to show,
year to year, estimates vs. actuals. Staff member Fitts urged against the use of historical
data trends, as the overall variance in funding amounts is unpredictable.
Board member Yamashiro-Omi asked if there are other funding sources, dedicated to
social services. Such as, a percentage of funds from new home builds. Staff member
Butler suggested that Board member Yamashiro-Omi make a formal request for a future
agenda item, under the Board Communication section of the agenda.
President Lewis outlined recommendation options and requested a motion to approve.
A motion to approve City staff recommendation for CDBG Funding Levels for FY 2022-23
was made by Board member Yamashiro-Omi and seconded by Board member Means.
Ayes: President Lewis, Vice President Furuichi Fong, Board members Yamashiro-Omi,
Green, and Means. Nays: none. Note: Board member Jagannathan abstained due to
absence from meeting. Motion passed 5-0.
5-B Review and Approve the Draft Social Service Human Relations Board 2022
Work Plan for the City Council Consideration
Board reviewed work plan for accuracy and made minor changes to text.",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-03-24.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-03-24,4,"A motion to approve the 2022 Work Plan for City Council Consideration was made by
Board member Means and seconded by Board member Green. Ayes: President Lewis,
Vice President Furuichi Fong, Board members Yamashiro-Omi, Green, and Means.
Nays: none. Note: Board member Jagannathan abstained due to absence from meeting.
Motion passed 5-0.
5-C Discuss the Development and Implementation of the 2022 Community Needs
Assessment (CNA)
As a member of the CNA subcommittee, Board member Green recommended the
following:
Eliminate survey format (unless there is a Federal requirement)
Utilize secondary date/data collected from community wide surveys
Conduct community meetings (forum, focus group or task force) to collect data
Introduce a new report, broken down by the following domains:
Demographics
Income and Employment
Education and Skills
Housing
Health
Social Connectedness
Social Supports
Transportation
Civic Engagement
Personal Security
Environmental Quality
Wellbeing/Quality of Life
Board member Green asked for input on recommended changes. Board members
agreed with proposed changes and provided potential data sources and collaboration
possibilities (ATAH, Girls Inc., APC, AFS, Democratic Club, League of Women Voters
and Senior Services Coalition).
Board member Green asked if it would be an option to pay individuals for participating.
Possibly with gift cards. Staff member Butler confirmed this may be an option, if
approved by the City Manager.
5-D Workgroup Reports
Domestic Violence (Furuichi Fong): Staff member Fonstein confirmed the next
meeting has been scheduled for May 19.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Status Report on Homeless Services
Staff member Cole provided the following update:
Dignity Village/Homekey: The City of Alameda was awarded $12.25 million in
Project Homekey Round 2 grant funding. There is an eight month timeline for
construction and occupancy (end of October 2022). Dignity Village/Homekey will
be presented to City Council on April 5, where CDD will be requesting a $2 million,",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-03-24.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-03-24,5,"short-term loan to ensure the timely and successful completion of the Dignity Village
project.
Emergency Housing at Alameda Point: The City hosted a community listening
session on March 10, where the public raised concern regarding the immediate
need to direct resources, to support individuals suffering homelessness.
Suggestions included the distribution of EBT cards, hotel vouchers and transit
passes.
Winter Warming: Contract with Building Futures with Women and Children will be
completed on April 15. Contract with Christ Church will be extended through May,
as funds have not been exhausted.
Dine and Connect: Started discussion on the possibility of in-person dining.
Homeless Encampments: Monthly clean-up will be increasing to two times a month
(2nd and 4th Tuesdays).
Village of Love: In February the Day Center served 12 individuals, and Safe Parking
served 13 individuals.
6-B City Council consideration of a Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) Pilot Project
Staff member Fonstein provided a description of the GBI pilot program, which will be
presented to City Council in May. The following are summary of the key segments:
City Council directed staff to research developing a pilot program and prepare a
report on GBI
Similar to Universal Basic Income (UBI)
Basic income programs provide a flat monthly cash payment to a defined
population of residents
Research indicates that basic income programs increase expenditure on
education and training, improve food security, and improve measures of well-
being among the recipients
If directed by City Council, staff will develop an outline for steps moving forward and
action plan with potential for SSHRB involvement
7. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Board member Yamashiro-Omi made a request that funding for social services be
discussed at a future meeting.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
President Lewis adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Fonstein, Board Secretary",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-03-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-- -MARCH 15, 2022--5:45 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:48 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Councilmember
Herrera Spencer arrived at 5:59 p.m. and Vice Mayor Vella
arrived at 6:04 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
Consent Calendar
(22-158) Recommendation to Approve Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, Nancy
Bronstein, Human Resources Director, Jessica Romeo, Human Resources Manager,
Steve Woo, Senior Human Resources Analyst and Alan Cohen, Assistant City Attorney,
as Labor Negotiators for the City of Alameda.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Human Resources
Director stated the Human Resources Manager and Senior Human Resources Analyst
would be leading negotiations with different the 5 different miscellaneous groups.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney would be
invited to participate in meetings, to which the Human Resources Director responded
the Assistant City Attorney would not participate in negotiations, but might be in the
closed sessions.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's request, the City Attorney stated the Human
Resources Director reaches out to the City Attorney's office for advice and assistance
from time to time.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired who make the determination to include the
Attorney, the City Attorney responded he assumes the Human Resources Director
makes the determination.
The Human Resources Director stated the Assistant City Attorney can be included in
future closed sessions.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,2,"The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-159) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section
54957.6)
CITY NEGOTIATORS: Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager; Nancy Bronstein,
Human Resources Director; 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
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that staff provided information and Council provided direction, by the
following two roll call votes: Vote 1: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer:
No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1; Vote
2: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2; Vote 3: Councilmembers Daysog: No;
Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye;
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2; Vote 4: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox
White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1;
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:19
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,3,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - MARCH 15, 2022--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Councilmember Herrera Spencer led
the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments regarding the Ukraine.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:
Councilmember Knox White arrived at 7:35 p.m. The
meeting was conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(22-160) The City Clerk announced the designation of negotiators [paragraph no. 22-171] would
not be heard.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated City Manager Communications would be heard next.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(22-161) The City Manager announced the City was awarded a $12.3 million grant from the
HomeKey program, which will be used for development of the bottle parcel working with the
developer, Dignity Moves; stated the project will be 47 modular units of interim supportive
housing for homeless individuals and couples; encouraged the public to attend a March 16
workshop about how to electrify your home.
AGENDA CHANGES
(22-162) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the Annual Report [paragraph
no. 22-191 under Continued Agenda Items on April 5, 2022.
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.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-163) Season for Nonviolence Word of the Day: Patience
Councilmember Knox White read a quote.
(22-164) Proclamation Declaring March 2022 as Women's History Month.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-165) Zac Bowling, Alameda Democratic Club, stated the Club would be addressing its 2022
traffic and safety initiatives tomorrow; discussed traffic fatalities; encouraged everyone to attend.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,4,"(22-166) Brian Kennedy, Alameda, discussed the State and City sanctuary laws.
(22-167) Carmen Reid, Alameda, made an announcement about an April 24th fundraiser to
benefit Ukraine; encouraged interested artists to email alamedasunflowers@gmail.com
(22-168) Rosalinda Fortuna, Alameda, stated her catalytic converter was stolen and her
husband's car was broken into and damaged; neighbors' cars have been stolen; urged Council
not to defund any more of the Police Department's budget; stated the Police Department is
doing a great job.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Under Agenda Changes, the City Clerk announced the designation of negotiators [paragraph
no. 22-171 was withdrawn from the agenda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the commercial streets costs [paragraph no. 22-
173], Community Facility District (CFD) 22-1 [paragraph no. 22-176 and CFD 22-2 [paragraph
no. 22-177 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion; and recorded a no vote on
the teleconference findings [paragraph no. 22-172 and the resolution amending the rules of
order [paragraph no. 22-179].
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the reminder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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.]
(*22-169) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on February 15, 2022.
Approved.
(*22-170) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,521,819.91.
(22-171) Recommendation to Approve Adding Lisa Fitts, Interim Base Reuse Manager, as a
Designated Real Property Negotiator for the West Midway Project and Site A at Alameda Point.
Not heard.
(22-172) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via
Teleconference. Approved.
[Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the matter carried by the
following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.]
(22-173) Recommendation to Endorse Next Steps and Projected Costs for Commercial Streets
(Parklets) Two Year Extension.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director made brief comments.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she thinks the City should have k-rails like other
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,5,"jurisdictions, instead of decorative concrete barriers; staff indicated k-rails are less expensive
and safer; the cost difference is almost $200,000; she does not support the staff
recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates the staff analysis that k-rails are safer and
less expensive; he would rather have the k-rail.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation with the proviso that k-
rails be pursued instead of what is on the table.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the City's Engineers find the
proposed decorative barriers just as safe as k-rails at 25 miles per hour (MPH) and provide the
necessary safety; stated some cities are not even putting in barriers.
The Senior Engineer responded the concrete barriers provide a satisfactory level of safety to
protect the parklets.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry about speeds above 25 MPH, the Senior Engineer
stated crash data is not available to compare the two options; testing has not been done, but
staff has determined the barriers are safe for the street conditions.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would not support the motion; he believes the
decorative concrete barriers go above other Bay Area cities; designing downtown districts to
look like freeway medians would be a problem; he supports the staff recommendation.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff does not need a motion or
direction at this point; staff will come back after coming up with a striping and barricade plan; the
contract to purchase and install the barricades will return to Council; the proposal can price both
options for Council to decide; the water filled barricades made Park Street look like a
construction zone, which everyone thought the highway k-rails would perpetuate; the
businesses and staff felt the decorative barriers would make Park Street look less like a
construction zone; Council could provide direction tonight to only return with one option.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the Planning, Building and Transportation Director
returning with options.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer read the staff report comments regarding safety; stated safety
is the most important thing; barriers have been hit; fortunately, people have not been injured;
other cities have painted, decorated or installed planters to address the appearance of the k-
rails.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the program; having one lane, which slows
traffic and makes life more enjoyable on Park and Webster Streets; getting more information
would be great, including how decorative barrier hold up at 30 to 35 MPH; he could be
convinced to support decorative barriers; he can live with the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director's recommendation to return with options; stated that he would be willing
to withdraw the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,6,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated her primary concern is not cost, it is safety followed by aesthetics;
people exceed the speed limit; the same parklet on Park Street has been hit twice; expressed
support for the Planning, Building and Transportation Director's recommendation to return with
comparisons, with costs and benefits.
Councilmember Daysog withdrew the motion.
Councilmember Knox White stated removing cars would be safest; everything can always be
safer; the question is whether an adequate, good faith effort for safety is being provided; people
drive onto sidewalks all the time and barriers are not constructed at the intersections where
people are doing so; the analysis he wants would be answering is it safe enough.
(*22-174) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Three-Year Agreement,
in an Amount Not to Exceed $723,727, with Chrisp Company for the Sign and Striping
Maintenance Project, No. P.W. 10-21-35. Approved.
(*22-175) Resolution No. 15870, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Execute and Record Two
Grants of Easements to East Bay Municipal Utility District Over City-Owned Land; and to
Execute and Record Two Amended and Restated Partial Assignments of Non-Exclusive
Easements and Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement Over Navy-Owned Land; and to Execute Any
and All Ancillary Documents."" Adopted.
(22-176) Resolution No. 15871, ""Declaring Intention to Establish the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina), and to Authorize the Levy of
Special Taxes Therein."" Adopted; and
(22-176 A) Resolution No. 15872, ""Declaring Intention to Incur Bonded Indebtedness of the
Proposed City of Alameda Community Facilities District No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina). Adopted.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed the sample tax bill attached to the staff report;
stated the taxes would be $20,000 to $26,000 for townhomes; inquired the amount for
condominiums.
Sara Mares, NBS, responded the first phase of the development, which is only townhomes, is
included in the CFD; reviewed the sample tax bill.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the tax would not apply to the
condominiums.
Ms. Mares responded the CFD is not applicable to any properties but the townhomes at this
time; stated the boundary map has the other phases of the project in the future annexation area;
there is potential the condominiums could be annexed in the future, which would require Council
approval.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about the likelihood of annexation, the
Assistant City Manager stated there is a large amount of infrastructure, which makes annexation
probable; the decision is not being made at this time since the project is not being constructed
yet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,7,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the square footage of the condominiums, to which
Sean Murphy, Alameda Marina, responded the average would be 700 to 1,100 square feet.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the tax amount would be lower since the
square footage is significantly lower and whether the CFD is based on square footage.
Ms. Mares responded the tax rate would be calculated in the future.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not support the matter because he thinks there
ought to be more affordable housing; a density bonus was awarded for doing the required 15%
affordable housing; bonuses are usually for going above and beyond.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many townhomes are in the development, to
which Mr. Murphy responded there are 182 townhomes; stated the 25 affordable units are
exempt from the CFD.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the entire project is 760 units, to which Mr.
Murphy responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the type of units remaining,
Mr. Murphy stated the remaining units are apartments and condominiums.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired if the apartments would pay the CFD.
Mr. Murphy responded the infrastructure cost of the apartments is $12 million, which is outside
of the CFD.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by 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.
(22-177) Resolution No. 15873, ""Declaring Intention to Establish the City of Alameda
Communities Facilities District (CFD) No. 22-2 (Alameda Marina - Shoreline Improvements
Maintenance and Adaptive Measures), and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein.""
Adopted; and
(22-177A) Resolution No. 15874, ""Declaring Intention to Incur Bonded Indebtedness of the
Proposed City of Alameda Community Facilities District No. 22-2 (Alameda Marina - Shoreline
Improvements Maintenance and Adaptive Measures). Adopted.
The Assistant City Manager and Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the timeline since CFD 22-2 commences after the
CFD 22-1 bonds are repaid.
The Public Works Director responded the CFD 22-1 bonds would be repaid after 30 years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,8,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Council is being asked to make a decision that would
not arise until after 2052; inquired why the matter could not be addressed then.
The Assistant City Manager stated the idea is to inform property owners about the CFD when
they first purchase the property.
Paul Thimmig, Thimmig and Quint, stated the Master Plan for the community specifies that the
City would establish the CFD upfront; the triggering event is only if the requirements are not
met; the CFD is a backstop; getting a two-thirds vote of the property owners would be difficult; it
is a safeguard for the City.
Charles Olson, Lubin Olson, concurred that the CFD was built into the Master Plan from day 1
as a way to address the issue; implementation is very dependent on the future of sea level rise;
the project includes adapting to 42 inches of sea level rise through the end of the century, but
no one knows if the estimate will be sufficient.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether CFD 22-2 automatically includes more than
townhomes.
Sara Mares, NBS, responded the CFD 22-2 boundary map includes the additional areas that
are the CFD 22-1 future annexation area; the apartment, live-work, non-residential and
townhome areas are all included.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the current number of property owners, to which Mr.
Thimmig and Mr. Olson responded three.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, Mr. Thimmig stated two of the
property owners are related to Alameda Marina and the third is the townhome developer.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired about future owners, to which Mr. Thimmig
responded it is hard to predict future owners.
The Assistant City Manager stated getting the two-thirds vote would be less likely in the future.
Mr. Thimmig outlined the Municipal Code requirements.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a sample tax bill was not attached to this item; inquired
whether the future tax amount is known.
Ms. Mares responded the effective tax rate is based on the value of the home; stated it is very
difficult to predict the value of the homes in 30 to 40 years; CFD 22-2 rates start lower than CFD
22-1; property owners will be paying less for CFD 22-2.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, Ms. Mares stated the amount
established in the rate method of apportionment is a maximum special tax, which can annually
increase by 2% at most.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the action tonight sets up the process for the
election, but Council could elect not to proceed with the election, to which the Assistant City
Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the challenge is the financing mechanism
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
6",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,9,"contemplated in the Master Plan.
Councilmember Knox White questioned whether the vote could move forward and deep dive
questions could be answered before the next meeting at which time Council could choose not to
move forward if the answers are unsatisfactory.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City needs to address sea level rise; the CFD is innovative;
discussed sea level rise; stated the mechanism before Council requires support and is important
for all of Alameda; hopefully, other waterfront projects will do something similar.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated addressing sea level rise does not just affect the development, it
would also affect other properties in the vicinity.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation [adoption of the
resolutions].
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, with direction that staff connect with
Councilmember Herrera Spencer to answer questions before the next meeting.
Under discussion, Ms. Mares provided data in response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's
inquiry regarding tax rates.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the length of time for CFD 22-2, to which Ms. Mares
responded it is in perpetuity, does not have an expiration and is as needed to fund the special
tax requirement.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how the CFD could be terminated, to which Ms.
Mares responded a citizen wanting to end the special tax could petition the City.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the homeowners would have to convince a
Council majority and cannot put something on the ballot to end the tax, to which Mr. Thimmig
responded in the affirmative; stated the property owners can petition the Council to terminate
the CFD.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether a future Council could increase the amount,
to which Mr. Thimmig responded in the negative; stated the amount cannot be increased
without a vote; the tax is in perpetuity because the maintenance of the wall will not stop; the tax
may never get levied.
The Public Works Director stated whether or not the maximum amount needs to be levied would
be decided every year and would only be levied if needed to cover maintenance and adaptive
measures.
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.
***
(22-178) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of moving the Alameda Loop Shuttle item
[paragraph no. 22-190] to Continued Agenda Items on April 5, 2022.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,10,"Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated he thinks Council should stick to the process
for moving items.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following vote: Councilmembers Daysog:
No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes:
4. Noes: 1.
(22-179) Resolution No. 15875, ""Amending Resolution Nos. 15382, 15697, 15766 and 15772 to
Amend the Rules of Order Governing City Council Meetings Exempting the Mayor's State of the
City Address from Time Limitations."" Adopted.
[Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the matter carried by the
following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.]
(*22-180) Ordinance No. 3314, ""Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXX to Implement
Senate Bill 9 Regarding Two Unit Housing Developments and Urban Lot Splits in Single Family
Residential Zones, as Recommended by the Planning Board.' Finally passed.
(*22-181) Ordinance No. 3315, ""Amending, in Part, Uncodified Ordinance No. 3275 Concerning
a Temporary Moratorium on Rent Increases for Fully Regulated Residential Rental Units and
Ordinance No. 3250 Concerning Various Clean Up Amendments.' Finally passed.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
(22-182) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Execute a First
Amendment to the Lease with Park Street Wine Cellars, Inc., a California Corporation, for
Approximately 700 Square Feet of Retail Space in the Historic Alameda Theatre Located at
2315 Central Avenue, Suite 122, to Provide Six Months of Rent Deferral with a Three-Year
Repayment Period. Introduced.
The Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for approving the staff recommendation; stated the
business opened October 2019, which was unfortunate timing.
Councilmember Knox White moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the date the business took
possession and the dates payments were made.
The Management Analyst responded the business took possession October 2019; stated
payments were made through July 2021; payments were not made August 2021 through
January 2022; payments resumed February 2022.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
8",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,11,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether rent payments were not required for the first
6 months after the business took possession due to credits being given for improvements, to
which the Management Analyst responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the tenant made every required payment
through July 2021, to which the Management Analyst responded in the affirmative; stated
August 2021 was the first missed payment.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any payments were made after July 2021, to
which the Management Analyst responded the tenant was able to make the February 2022
payment and the March payment is due today.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Management Analyst stated the
tenant was unable to make payments from August 2021 through January 2022.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Management Analyst stated that
she would confirm whether or not the March payment has been made tomorrow.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is a guarantor, to which the Assistant
Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the guarantor is the
owner of the business.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the tenant received any COVID related
assistance or grants.
The Management Analyst responded the options were no longer available by the time the
tenant needed assistance.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated there has been a phenomenon of
tenants making it through COVID, but not being able continue after opening; the Theater used
all of the City funding that was allocated for the entire complex; the tenant is requesting deferral,
not abatement.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter would return to Council if further
payments are delayed, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded if
the tenant cannot meet the requirements of the lease amendment, Council could request that
the matter return.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the lease is for 700 square feet.
Councilmember Knox White stated the business owners must fear coming to Council since their
validity is always questioned; expressed his support for the business and the staff
recommendation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City is the landlord; she would like to be a model for other
landlords; commercial tenants have been extremely challenged.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the tenant is only requesting deferral.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
9",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,12,"Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of calling the question.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which required four affirmative votes and
failed 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.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft encouraged Councilmembers to follow the Council rules.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated she did follow the rules.
The City Manager stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer's questions started prior to today
and continued into today; additional questions were asked after information was provided.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the tenant paid rent last month, but did not pay the prior
six months; she is concerned the business may continue to struggle, which is why she wants to
ensure there is a sufficient personal guarantee to reimburse the City if the tenant falls behind;
she plans to support the staff recommendation, but wants to acknowledge it is City property and
having the tenant get back on schedule is very important; the tenant received 6 months credit
for improvements; an additional 6 month is being deferred, which will make the payment higher
and might be difficult for the tenant.
The Assistant Community Development Director noted the tenant requested the same thing the
City offered to other tenants.
On the call for the question, the original motion carried by the following vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 5.
(22-183) Resolution No. 15876, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget."" Adopted; and
(22-183 A) Resolution No. 15877, ""Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA)
Salary Schedule to Add the Classification of Street Light Maintenance Technician; Amending
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule to Remove the
Streetlight Technician; Upgrading Two Maintenance Worker II Positions to Streetlight
Technicians, Effective March 12, 2022."" Adopted.
The Senior Management Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Councilmember Knox White's inquiry regarding the cross Alameda trail
connector project, the Public Works Director stated it connects 9th and Wood Streets to Sweeny
Park.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of budget as recommended [including adoption of
the resolutions].
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the City received a grant from Alameda County
Transition Commission for four connection points that are from the Cross Alameda Trail through
Sweeney Park, 8th and Wood Streets, and Triumph and Challenger Drives.
The Assistant City Manager stated other money is coming from private sources for the project
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
10",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,13,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the reserves would not be as high and not as
much would have gone to OPEB if the City spent more on the community during COVID, to
which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the pension policy is a
balancing act.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City should have spent more money on people
dealing with COVID; provided an example.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she looks forward to discussing the policy and potential
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
11",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,14,"modifications; the City has to do something to get a handle on the pension and OPEB costs;
noted Hayward is also addressing the issue.
Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about the OPEB formula; stated $37 million has
been allocated to buy down pension and OPEB obligations; the City has $356 million in
unfunded OPEB and CalPERS pension liabilities, of which $277 million is a CalPERS liability;
clearly, the City needs to find a way to buy down the unfunded liability, but what is in place is not
the right formula; the people of Alameda need to be involved when $37 million is spent; an
additional $9 million is being spent; in the audit for the past two fiscal years, spending came in
approximately $13 million under for both years; underspending ends up increasing the reserve;
he will not support the staff recommendation because the issue needs to be fixed; he is not
saying nothing should be spent on the unfunded liabilities, but $37 million is way out there and
the residents need to be involved; if the formula is reasonable, he thinks residents would
support it.
The City Manager stated that his recommendation is to set aside the funding until the Council
reviews the policy at the budget workshop at which time Council could decrease the amount.
Councilmember Knox White stated adoption of the Vision Zero Action Plan included direction to
put $2 million towards new safety projects; inquired whether the amount is included in the
budget.
The Assistant City Manager responded the $2 million set aside is not currently budgeted, but it
can be in place for the budget workshop; stated the mid-year budget is technical fixes and the
mid-cycle budget is the opportunity to address policies and priorities.
Councilmember Knox White stated in December, the Council wanted fast and decisive action;
expressed concern about the money not being used until July and waiting until May to talk about
it; stated that he expects a funded program based on the Council direction to be presented at
the budget workshops.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council priority setting prior to the budget workshops is another
opportunity for Council to prioritize staff work.
The City Manager stated the matter can be addressed in the mid-cycle; he met with the Public
Works and Planning, Building and Transportation Directors about the matter; both want to
expedite projects in the pipeline and already have funding; the issue is getting the funding
spent, which they want to do; he will get an update and follow up.
Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about Council giving direction and decisions
being made that the money cannot be spent after Council made a commitment to the
community; a plan is needed at the upcoming workshops.
The City Manager stated the items are already included in the mid-cycle budget.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is voting no with the utmost respect to City staff who did
great work.
On the call for the question, 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.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
12",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,15,"Noes: 2.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:58 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:12 p.m.
***
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-184) Presentation by the Alameda Point Collaborative on the Alameda Wellness Campus
on McKay Avenue.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, gave a Power Point presentation.
(22-185) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of allowing an additional five minutes for the
presentation.
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.
***
Mr. Biggs completed the presentation.
Councilmember Knox White stated the buildings are over 75 years old; people not connected to
the property filed an application for historic monument status; inquired whether there is any
impact.
Mr. Biggs responded an application was submitted to the State Parks Department and will be
considered on April 29th; stated the application to list the property on a National Register of
Historic Places will not impact the project; the application was draft, incomplete and failed to
disclose key points of the project; federal law does not allow privately owned property to be
listed on the National Registry over the objections of its owners; the General Services
Administration (GSA) objected to the listing; in 2003, GSA completed a 106 Assessment to
determine historic suitability; the State Preservation Officer affirmed the property is not suitable
for listing; the draft application is going against the objections of the owner and the State's
previous determination.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the construction schedule for the respite center might be later than
July due to East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD); stated that she marshalled the support of
fellow Mayors; inquired how something EBRPD is doing could hold up construction; noted that
she serves on the subcommittee of the City Council and EBRPD.
Mr. Biggs responded the end date of September 2023 will remain the same; stated EBRPD is
replacing sewer lines going down McKay Avenue; having EBRPD complete the work prior to
starting the project would be much easier; currently, EBRPD uses the Wellness Center's sewer
lines, which will be separated; the street will be closed, which will make it difficult to start
construction; at a meeting a couple of days ago, EBRPD indicated the project might be delayed,
which would allow construction to go forward.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
13",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,16,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like City staff to reach out to EBRPD; time is of the
essence.
Expressed support for the project: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Questioned how the public can get information on the historic plaques, especially the Merchant
Marines: Rosalinda Fortuna, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the project has been worked on since the ballot measure; inquired
how many years it has been since the ballot measure passed, to which Mr. Biggs responded
three.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed the homeless count.
Councilmember Knox White concurred with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; stated the City should help
with any hurdles; the project needs to move forward as expeditiously as possible.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff understands the gravity and need for the project; encouraged
Mr. Biggs to reach out if any assistance is needed.
(22-186) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with
Andrew M. Jordan, Inc., DBA A&B Construction, in a Not to Exceed Amount of $31,277,673, for
the Alameda Point Reuse Area Infrastructure Replacement Phase 1 and Phase 2, No. P.W. 11-
19-55; and
(22-186 A) Resolution No. 15878, ""Amending the Capital Improvement Program Budget by
Increasing Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in the Alameda Point Backbone
Infrastructure Capital Improvement Project (C75000) by $5,790,913 from Available Fund
Balance in the Alameda Point/Base Reuse Fund (290) to Construct the Alameda Point Reuse
Area Infrastructure Replacement Phase 1 and 2, No. P.W. 11-19-55."" Adopted.
The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Councilmember Knox White's inquiries about land not included on the map, the
Public Works Director stated Package K would be sold to a developer who would be responsible
for the infrastructure; the streets not included are not backbone streets; when the adaptive
reuse areas are subdivided and sold, the adjacent development would be responsible for
frontage improvements.
Councilmember Knox White stated the program is $31 million; related to an earlier discussion
regarding voter approval, inquired whether the voters approved the program.
The Public Works Director responded the voters did not approve the project; stated the Master
Infrastructure Plan was approved by Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not see an issue; the earlier discussion was about
General Fund money and activities; the project is pay as you go; proceeds from the property
sales are being used to pay for infrastructure; the subjects are completely different.
Councilmember Knox White stated a Council policy requires the building sales to go into an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
14",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,17,"infrastructure fund; the decision regarding the large amount of funding was made by Council; he
supports fiscal neutrality; there is not a threshold that requires voter approval; the program is a
good example of a past Council making policies that are being implemented by the current
Council to meet long term needs.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolution].
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the project is exciting.
(22-187) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the Automatic License Plate
Reader (ALPR) policy [paragraph no. 22-188 and catalytic converter item [paragraph no. 22-
189].
Councilmember Knox White suggested that Council finish the current item.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which required four affirmative votes
and failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye;
Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the two items be heard under Continued Items.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing the ALPR policy [paragraph no.
22-188].
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which required four affirmative votes and failed
by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox
White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing the ALPR policy and catalytic
converter item under Continued Agenda Items on April 5, 2022.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the items being
heard in the same order on April 5th.
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.
***
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether prior agenda items can be discussed in
context of the current item.
The City Attorney responded as long as the conversation relates to the current item, the Brown
Act gives latitude.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
15",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,18,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a Councilmember brought up a previous item that she
does not think is relevant to this item; inquired whether she could discuss why she voted no on
the previous item, but will be voting in favor of this item.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the City Attorney would let Council know if discussion veers
into Brown Act danger zones.
The City Attorney stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer could use prior experience to explain
how she will vote in this case; everything should be related to the current matter, but prior
agenda items could be used to inform the decision.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she voted against allocating $9 million under the
previous agenda item, which she does not think is appropriate to discuss at this time; she is
happy to see this item move forward; prior Council policy requires funds be spent at Alameda
Point; the rest of the City will not be imposed upon to complete Alameda Point projects; the
people did vote on how to make progress at Alameda Point; at least one measure failed;
Council has tried to hear the public; the fiscal neutrality policy is good, has helped balance the
needs of the community at large and forces the City to do heavy lifting and good work.
Councilmember Daysog stated when he was elected in 1996, his message was Alameda Point
has to pay for itself; money from land proceeds is funneled back into Alameda Point; discussed
implementing the fiscal neutrality policy in 2003; stated that he is excited about the project.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed development at Alameda Point; noted the ribbon cutting for the
Waterfront Park would be in a few weeks.
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.
(22-188) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Attached Draft Alameda
Police Department Policy for Fixed Automatic License Plate Technology. Continued to April 5,
2022.
(22-189) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Crime Prevention Programs
to Deter and Reduce Catalytic Converter Thefts. Continued to April 5, 2022.
(22-190) Recommendation to Discontinue the Alameda Loop Shuttle; and Authorize the City
Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Three-Year Agreement with AC Transit, Substantially the
Same as Exhibit 4, for an Amount Not to Exceed $673,000 to Provide a Free AC Transit Bus
Pass Pilot Program for Seniors and People with Disabilities as Part of the City's Paratransit
Program. Continued to April 5, 2022.
(22-191) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report on the Climate Action and Resiliency
Plan (CARP) and the Annual Report on Transportation. Continued to April 5, 2022.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
16",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-15,19,"COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-192) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-193) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-194) Consider Directing Staff to Bring the Rent Program ""In-House"" to the City Attorney's
Office. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22-195) Councilmember Knox White discussed a meeting of the City Council and School Board
Subcommittee, the Community Assessment Response and Engagement (CARE) Team, School
District Measure B and pools.
(22-196) Councilmember Daysog discussed the CARE Team and a ceremony honoring for
Robert Davey, Jr.
(22-197) Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced that she attended the Encinal High
School Crab Feed and an East Bay Toishan Association event commending Oakland
Chinatown volunteer patrols.
(22-198) Vice Mayor Vella discussed the Lead Abatement Health Homes Department Board
Meeting.
(22-199) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed U.S. Conference of Mayors' webinars, infrastructure
grants, a second grade class visit, wearing masks, a community listening session on interim
supportive housing at Alameda Point and an Eagle Scout Court of Honor for the first City of
Alameda female Eagle Scout.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2022
17",CityCouncil/2022-03-15.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-03-14,1,"DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2022
1. CONVENE
President Asheshh Saheba convened the *meeting at 7:00 p.m.
*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning
Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Alan Teague led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Saheba, Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Rothenberg,
Cisneros*, Hom* and Teague.
Absent: None.
*Board Members Cisneros and Hom arrived after roll call.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2022-1832
A Public Hearing to Review and Comment on 1) General Plan and Housing Element
Annual Report, 2) the Draft Housing Element Update Zoning Code Amendments Related
to the R-1 through R-6 Residential Zoning Districts, and 3) Zoning Code Amendments
Related to Design Review exemptions as required by State law and to streamline the
review of special needs housing projects
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, introduced the item
and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5518152&GUID=5B2535F9-
F4E-4AAC-82A6-BC2933C32815&FullText=
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 6
March 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-03-14,2,"Board Member Teague wanted to know the how No Net Loss requirements in the state
statutes applied, and specifically the repercussions for the City when it takes action that
results in a net loss in housing units. He also wanted to understand the timing of when a
net loss determination is made. He asked the City's Attorney's office for guidance on
these changes since State law would be overriding the City's Charter.
Director Thomas explained the implications and repercussions of No Net Loss, and that
the City would be required to rezone land to make up for any lost housing capacity. He
further explained that if the City acts on a rezoning or development project that results in
a loss of housing capacity, then it is at the time of the action when the City must make
findings on making up for the lost capacity. Director Thomas also explained the state laws
are putting greater weight on the Housing Element Annual Report and that it is best for
cities to avoid net loss situations.
Celena Chen, Chief Planning Counsel, discussed the multiple staff reports available to the
public that discussed state law. She added that the Planning Board could make a request
for guidance and the City Attorney's office would provide a confidential memorandum and
analysis in response.
Board Member Teague then made a request for formal guidance.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg asked about and discussed the Alameda Architecture
Preservation Society's (AAPS) letter discussing upzoning and density bonus. She also
had questions about the changes in building codes and design standards.
Director Thomas explained the State Density Bonus Law and how the law was structured.
He then clarified the building separation requirements in the building and zoning codes.
Vice President Teresa Ruiz agreed with Board Member Teague about addressing the
changes they were proposing in relation to Article 26. She wanted this addressed directly
to correct any misinformation that was out in the public. She also asked Director Thomas
to explain in detail what the repercussions would be for not complying with the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). She also asked about the ADU count and how City
staff project projected 60 units annually.
Director Thomas discussed in general what was required from cities in California and what
it meant to be out of compliance with state law. Director Thomas emphasized that the City
could immediately be sued and would ineligible for any sort of grant funding, which often
requires having a state-certified Housing Element. He then responded that the 60 ADUs
annually is a projection based on the number of ADUs built within the past three years; a
number with could be adjusted based on production this calendar year.
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 6
March 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-03-14,3,"Board Member Ron Curtis discussed his concern about traffic generated by the number
of new housing units in the RHNA. He wanted to know if a traffic study had been done
showing the effect on emergency response vehicles.
Director Thomas discussed the work that was being done with the Police and Fire
Departments, mainly redesigning roads and rethinking how roadways can be enhanced
to be safer and more efficient for all users.
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros asked about the City's inclusionary zoning requirements
and how whether it contributed to more affordable housing.
Director Thomas discussed that the citywide requirement for affordable housing was 15%
and at Alameda Point it was 25%. He explained more about the feasibility for more
affordable housing at Alameda Point.
Board Member Hanson Hom asked about the benefits of the Overlay Districts compared
to amending the development standards in the base zoning districts. He wanted staff to
clarify the density standards being proposed for the R-3 - R-6 zones. Board Member Hom
was also curious if staff knew more about preliminary reactions from Housing &
Community Development (HCD) on the direction of the zoning amendments to
accommodate the RHNA goal.
Director Thomas noted a minor correction to the Staff Report. The information Board
Member Hom was looking for was on page 6 of the Annual Report, and he explained those
changes regarding density. Director Thomas also summarized conversations with HCD
and noted that the City can no longer prohibit multifamily housing.
Brian McGuire, Staff Planner, also offered information about the overlay districts.
President Saheba wanted to know how the numbers for assisted living counted toward the
RHNA. He also had questions about open space requirements proposed in the transit
overlay.
Director Thomas said as long as assisted living units served as primary housing for a
housing need, then HCD should be able to count them towards the RHNA. He then went
into detail about open space area requirements in the transit overlay district.
President Saheba opened public comment.
Zac Bowling thought that for Options 1 and 2, it did not have to be an either or. He further
explained how that might work. He encourage more housing in the high resource density
areas. He discouraged downzoning since it could lead the City into legal trouble.
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 6
March 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-03-14,4,"Karen Bey spoke about Affordable Housing. She was concerned that by putting all the
Affordable Housing at Alameda Point the City was making the same mistake again. She
instead encouraged that the goal should be to make Alameda Point a high resource area
with job and retail opportunities. She spoke about growing up in the projects and having a
sense of hopelessness and not wanting that to happen at Alameda Point.
Christopher Buckley, member of AAPS, discussed a letter sent in by the AAPS. He felt
blindsided by the changes in the RHNA numbers and how that affected the numbers that
AAPS had worked on. AAPS still believed that the proposed upzoning was unnecessary
and he discussed the negatives about Density Bonus.
Josh Geyer discussed upzoning around high density transit corridors and that the City
shouldn't be thinking either/or and try a bit of everything. He discussed neighborhoods
that should be upzoned.
Alex Spehr discussed her confusion with the historical elements. She felt that it was more
geared to just building heights and not actually preserving historical buildings. She
discussed ways to preserve history while still building new structures.
Drew Dara Abrams gave his support to the changes to the R1-R6 zoning districts that the
staff had proposed. He also thought that the changes to the Design Review regulations
really focused on the important items and not the unnecessary ways that projects could
get held up.
Dolores Kelleher, member of AAPS, gave her support of a letter that was sent by the
society and items that Mr. Buckley had already discussed. She discussed her concerns
around upzoning and changing zoning in general.
Rev. Sophia DeWitt, Program Director for East Bay Housing, gave her support of staff's
recommendation for the proposed changes to the R1-R6 zoning. She also stressed that
all the Affordable Housing should not be grouped together and the whole island of
Alameda needed to support Affordable Housing.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Teague pointed out wording that needed to be clearer to be more in line
with state law. He also gave his thoughts on definitions that needed to be broader. He also
gave his thoughts on the Transit Overlays and how they were dealing with the RHNA. He
also discussed the difference between overlays and changing the zoning. He then stated
that he was his uncomfortable with voting to allow multifamily in an R Zone with Article 26
still in the books.
Board Member Cisneros was not against overlay zoning but would prefer to make changes
directly in the zoning. She would also appreciate any guidance from the City Attorney's
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 6
March 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-03-14,5,"Office on the legal concerns raised by Board Member Teague. She discussed the
importance of having important and social issues addressed in the Zoning Code.
Board Member Hom liked the concept of an overlay district, and he believed it could be
used to further address affordable housing needs. He shared his comments on the
definitions for Shared Living.
Vice President Ruiz discussed the housing shortage and how Alameda needed to
increase the housing stock. She believed that revising the Zoning Code would be more
straight forward and be a more equitable way to provide housing compared to overlay
districts targeting specific sites. She cautioned against increasing the density too fast to
prevent overcrowding. She then discussed definitions that she thought could be broader.
She had questions about SB-9 compared to the ADU ordinance.
Director Thomas explained those differences. He then discussed the thought process
behind the definitions.
Board Member Rothenberg discussed a hybrid of the two plans, she echoed points made
by
Board Member Cisneros and Vice President Ruiz. She also discussed references to
the Building Codes and Design Standards.
President Saheba thought that the overlay districts were a valuable way to look at density.
He then noted that there are commercial areas in Bay Farm and other parts of the that
were underutilized and could be explored for more housing.
Director Thomas thanked everyone and discussed next steps. He also discussed the
changes that staff would be making. At the next Planning Meeting staff would bring back
the discussion about Park and Webster Street. He said they could expect the Final Draft
of the Housing Element on 4/1.
8. MINUTES
None.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2022-1801
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent actions and decisions can be found at
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5518150&GUID=C14CFFC3-
B16F-40B3-BD78-F6D9295C125E&FullText=1.
No item was pulled for a review.
9-B 2022-1802
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 6
March 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-03-14,6,"Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Director Thomas covered this at the end of item 7-A.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
President Saheba would miss the Planning Meeting in two weeks.
Vice-President Ruiz also had a conflict in two weeks. She then asked when they would go
back to in person meetings.
Director Thomas said they were waiting to see when City Council would return to in person
meetings. He added that staff was looking into ways to have hybrid meetings so that
members of the community could still participate remotely.
Board Member Cisneros also noted that she would be out 4/11.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 9:56 p.m.
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 6
March 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-03-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-03-10,1,"ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, March 10, 2022
TIME:
7:00 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
A video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
The following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.
ROLL CALL
Present: (Teleconference via Zoom) Chair Alexander, Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner Navarro and
Commissioner Nguyen
Absent: Commissioner Jones
Staff: (Teleconference via Zoom) Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy
Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of February 10, 2022 Regular Meeting as presented.
M/S Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Navarro. All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (For topics not on the agenda)
Written Communication - none
Oral Communication:
Speaker John Healy - More sport facilities for organized sports, ball fields, tennis courts and
recreation areas, especially for kids, are needed to accommodate the growing population in the
City of Alameda as we don't even have enough facilities for the population now and need them
desperately.
Chair Alexander noted that March is Women's History Month and that it is nice to have so many women
on the Recreation and Park Commission including the ARPD Director. The City of Alameda was one
of the first cities to offer sports for girls' softball and basketball. Thanked all the women at ARPD, past,
present and future for all their hard work.
REPORT FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR - ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave
the report. See Exhibit 1.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Nguyen: Visited the dog park and spoke with residents who suggested it would
be nice to have more grass, benches and signage for new dog owners to give rules of the dog
park.
Commissioner Navarro: Visited Chochenyo Park and said she is a fan of the naturally
landscaped gathering space; there have been a lot of families there enjoying the space. Also
excited about the new Activity Guide.
Vice Chair Robbins: Excited about Chochenyo Park using natural materials. Encouraged others
1",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-03-10,2,"to visit the new Tunnel Top Park in San Francisco Presidio by the Marina for inspiration as it is
an all-natural wood park, including play areas and a shining example.
Chair Alexander: Visited Chochenyo Park and was excited to see it finished and is looking
forward to the installation of the information signage. Attended the meeting for the new Lincoln
Park playground. Parents and kids gave good suggestions. Excited to hear the t-shirt league is
coming back this year as it will be the 70th year anniversary. Impressed by the Summer Activity
Guide. Sent a welcome note to Mastick Senior Center new employee Morace McKay, Recreation
Supervisor Il at Mastick Center. Would like to see an ARPD and Friends of the Park have a float
in the 4th of July parade.
AGENDA ITEMS
6-A Lincoln Park Playground Design
Director Wooldridge gave presentation which included background, site location, scope of work,
funding with the purchase of new large trees and an overview of playgrounds with diagrams. The
theme of the park is a jungle theme which tied in with the mascot of the park which is the Lincoln
Lions. The front area of Lincoln Park has space for options of a lion on rocks or an elephant.
6-A Public Comments - none
6-A Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Excited about the new playground and that the kids had input.
Commissioner Nguyen: Appreciates the thoughtfulness of getting and feedback from the public
especially from the young kids. Also appreciates that new trees will be part of the plan.
Vice Chair Robbins: Happy that the natural trees will be kept to provide shade. Curious if there
could be a partial pour of ADA type surface without disturbing the trees. Director Wooldridge:
The wood chips migrate constantly and when it gets walked on it degrades the poured in place
surface which loses the integrity of the poured in place surface.
Chair Alexander: Votes to have the lion on the two rocks in honor of the Lincoln Lions. Will there
be benches around the playground? Director Wooldridge: Yes, the goal is for more benches and
one picnic table.
6-A Motion
Commissioner Navarro motioned to approve the Lincoln Park playground design as presented including
the lion on the rocks for the circular seating area.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Vice Chair Robbins
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-B Develop a Short List of Names for Alameda Point Neighborhood Park
Director Wooldridge gave presentation which included background, park location, design, park names
from survey and existing list. The goal tonight is to select a short list of no more than 10 names within
the previously approved criteria of the history of naval maritime, natural landscape and wildlife at
Alameda Point which will go back to the public for a second vote.
2",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-03-10,3,"6-B Public Comments - none
6-B Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Favorites include Whale Park, Alameda Whale Point Park and Ohlone
Park and Humpback Commons Park.
Commissioner Nguyen: Favorites include Whale Park and Allie Park. Also suggested to keep
the names short with two to three names as it is easier to reference a park.
Vice Chair Robbins: Favorite is Little Whale Park.
Chair Alexander: Favorites include Allie's Annex, Allies Cove Park, Allie at the Point, Navy
Veterans Park, Rosie the Riveter Park, Rear Admiral Evelyn Fields Park and Midway Park.
The Commissioners' final list for Alameda Point Neighborhood Park:
Whale Park
Alameda Whale Park
Little Whale Park
Alameda Whale Point Park
Allie at the Point
Allie's Humpback Park
Navy Veteran's Park
Rosie the Riveter Park
Midway Park
Rear Admiral Evelyn Fields Park
6-B Motion
Commissioner Nguyen motioned to approve final list recommendations for Alameda Point
Neighborhood Park.
M/S Commissioner Nguyen / Vice Chair Robbins
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
Director Wooldridge informed Commissioners that Rear Admiral Evelyn Fields is still alive and
therefore does not meet the naming criteria.
The Commissioners' revised final list for Alameda Point Neighborhood Park:
Whale Park
Alameda Whale Park
Little Whale Park
Alameda Whale Point Park
Allie at the Point
Allie's Humpback Park
Navy Veteran's Park
Rosie the Riveter Park
Midway Park
3",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-03-10,4,"Commissioner Navarro motioned to rescind previous list and approve the Alameda Point Neighborhood
Park name list as shown.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Nguyen
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-C Develop a Short List of Names for Alameda Point Waterfront Park
Director Wooldridge gave presentation with the goal to select a short list of no more than 10 names
within the previously approved criteria of Aviation - Alameda history, people and park features.
6-C Public Comments
Speaker Carmen Reid: Suggested the name Bessie Coleman Park.
6-C Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Favorites include Seaplane Lagoon Promenade, Captain Frank
McCreary Waterfront Park, Seaplane Lagoon Park, Waterfront Promenade, Alameda Aviation
Park and Liwa Promenade Park.
Commissioner Nguyen: Favorites include Naval View Promenade, Pacific Fleet Promenade,
Seaplane View Park, Seaplane Promenade, Betsy Coleman and Wilma Chan Memorial Park.
Vice Chair Robbins: Favorites include Alameda Point Seaplane Park, Alameda Point Seaplane
Promenade, Alameda Point Seaplane Lagoon and Naval View Promenade.
Chair Alexander: Favorites include Alameda Point Promenade, Alameda Point Seaplane
Lagoon, Seaplane Lagoon Park, Maritime Waterfront Promenade, Pacific Fleet Park, Seaplane
Lagoon Promenade, Navy Veterans' Waterfront Park at Alameda Point, Bessie Coleman Park,
Pacific Fleet Park
The Commissioners' final list for Alameda Waterfront Park:
Alameda Point Promenade
Seaplane Lagoon Promenade
Maritime Waterfront Promenade
Pacific Fleet Park
Navy Veteran's Waterfront Park at Alameda Point
Bessie Coleman Promenade
Naval View Promenade
Captain Frank McCreary Waterfront Park
Liwa Promenade
Waterfront Promenade
Rear Admiral Evelyn Fields Park
6-C Motion
Commissioner Navarro moved to approve the list as presented.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Nguyen
4",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-03-10,5,"All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
Director Wooldridge informed Commissioners that Rear Admiral Evelyn Fields is still alive and
therefore does not meet the naming criteria.
The Commissioners' final revised list for Alameda Waterfront Park:
Alameda Point Promenade
Seaplane Lagoon Promenade
Maritime Waterfront Promenade
Pacific Fleet Park
Navy Veteran's Waterfront Park at Alameda Point
Bessie Coleman Promenade
Naval View Promenade
Captain Frank McCreary Waterfront Park
Liwa Promenade
Waterfront Promenade
Commissioner Nguyen motioned to rescind the previous list and approve the Alameda Waterfront Park
list as shown.
M/S Commissioner Nguyen / Commissioner Navarro
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-D Develop a Short List of Names for Alameda Landing Waterfront Park
Director Wooldridge gave presentation with the goal to select a short list of no more than 10 names
within the previously approved criteria of the uniqueness of the park's location on the pier and estuary
with an intersection with diverse and inclusive cultural significance in Alameda.
6-D Public Comments
Speaker Dr. Crystal Faith Cajilog-Espinosa Requested to shortlist the name Bohol Circle
Immigrant Landing Park. Speaking in behalf of the 300 plus Bohol Circle members to provide an
avenue for their history of the Filipino-American experience. Bohol Circle was a haven and
protection for Filipino Americans and is looking for the recognition our ancestors deserve.
Speaker Stewart Chen: Echoes speaker Dr. Crystal Faith Cajilog-Espinosa and supports Bohol
Circle Immigrant Landing and dedicate it to all the immigrants that inhabit Alameda Island.
Speaker Cynthia Bonta: Would like to add to Bohol Circle Immigrant Landing Park, Bohol Circle
Immigrant Waterfront Park, Bohol Circle Immigrant Gateway Park or Bohol Circle Immigrant
Crossing of Hope Park to the list. Clarified that the word Landing was used symbolically meaning
that immigrants landed here and made it home.
Director Wooldridge read 2 public comment emails. See Exhibit 2.
6-D Commissioner Comments
Vice Chair Robbins: Favorites include Bohol Circle Immigrant Waterfront Park, Alameda Estuary
Park, Alameda Pier Fleet Park, Fleet and Industrial Supply Park and Waterways Terminal Park.
5",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-03-10,6,"Commissioner Navarro: Favorites include Costanoa Park, Bohol Circle Immigrant Waterfront
Park, Estuary Esplanade and Gateway Park.
Commissioner Nguyen: Favorites include Immigrant Landing Park, Estuary Park and Island City
Park.
Chair Alexander: Favorites include Bohol Circle Immigrant Waterfront Park, Estuary Pier Park,
Waterfront Pier Park and Diversity Pier.
The Commissioners' final list for Alameda Landing Waterfront Park:
Bohol Circle Immigrant Waterfront Park
Alameda Pier Fleet Park
Fleet and Industrial Supply Park
Waterways Terminal Park
Costanoa Park
Gateway Park
Immigrant Landing Park
Island City Park
Diversity Pier
Waterfront Pier Park
6-D Motion
Commissioner Nguyen motioned to approve the name list for Alameda Landing Waterfront Park as
shown.
M/S Commissioner Nguyen / Commissioner Navarro
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-E Develop a Short List of Names for Alameda Marina Park
Director Wooldridge gave presentation with the goal to select a short list of no more than 10 names
within the previously approved criteria of the reflection and history of working waterfront shipyards.
6-E Public Comments
Speaker Carmen Reid: Suggested the name Alaska Packers as they were significant to the area.
6-E Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Favorites include Shipbuilders' Park, Shipyard Park, Tibbit's Shipyard
Park and Naomi Parker Waterfront Park.
Commissioner Nguyen: Favorites include Alameda Shipyard Marina, Alameda Waterway Park,
and Waterfront Park.
Vice Chair Robbins: Favorites include Alameda Shipyard Launch, Shipyard Marina,
Shipbuilders' Park and Shipyard Landing Park
Chair Alexander: Favorites include Alameda Boatworks Marina, Alameda Marina Shipyard and
Dockside Park.
6",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-03-10,7,"The Commissioners' final list for Alameda Marina Park
Waterway Park
Waterfront Park
Shipyard Harbor Park
Shipbuilder's Park
Shipyard Landing Park
Tibbit's Shipyard Park
Alameda Boatworks Park
Dockside Park
Riveter's Waterfront Park
6-E Motion
Commissioner Nguyen motioned to approve the name list for Alameda Marina Park as shown.
M/S Commissioner Nguyen / Commissioner Navarro
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
Introduce Morace McKay, Mastick Senior Center Recreation Supervisor Il
Update of the Dog Park
Update on the Tennis Reservation System
Discussion on how to advocate for a larger revenue a measure that would fund large
infrastructure projects such as an aquatics center or a sports complex including a status report
of the parks.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: April 14, 2022
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn
M/S Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Nguyen
Motion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 4 ayes via roll call vote.
Chair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 9:30 PM.
7",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-03-10,8,"EXHIBIT 1
03/10/2022 ARPD Director's Report
Presented by Recreation and Park Director Amy Wooldridge
Recreation Services
ARPD rentals have increased significantly with 95 picnic rentals in March and 35 reservations of the
Officer's Club between April through October. A huge thanks to Katherine Sirota who is handling this
higher volume of rentals with a strong level of customer service.
Get a Job Workshop for Teens is Thursday, March 10. This interactive workshop is designed to help
tweens and teens put their best foot forward when trying to land a job or volunteer opportunity. Topics
will include approaching and introducing yourself to prospective employers, being professional, how
to best present yourself and how to interview successfully.
The Alameda Youth Committee has begun work to coordinate a carnival that they will plan and
facilitate for elementary aged youth on Saturday, April 30. The group of 30+ active AYC members is
excited to plan fun games and prizes for kids, and they will soon be making important decisions -
such as where they'd like to hold the event!
ARPD Aquatics - We are bringing back group swim lesson in April. Registration for April swim
lessons will take place on Saturday, March 26th at 3 pm online only.
Alameda Adult Softball season will begin the week of March 21st. ARPD is offering Coed, Men's and
Women's Leagues. In addition Adult basketball season will begin in April.
ARPD Summer Activity Guide is out and summer programs are filling quickly. ARPD has lots of variety
of camps and classes for all to enjoy.
NEW Storytelling and Drumming Festival is Saturday, March 19 at the Mastick Senior Center from 1
pm to 4 pm. This community event will feature programs from many diverse cultures including
interactive workshops with puppetry, learning how to drum, and poetry slam.
NEW Alameda Spring Shindig is Saturday April 16th at Alameda Point Gym & Multi-purpose Field
from 12 to 3 pm. Come celebrate Spring with us! Games, arts & crafts, community organizations,
demonstrations/performances, jumpers, and food. Registrations will open for all summer swim
lessons and you will also be able to register for the 70th year of our T-Shirt Summer Recreation
Baseball League.
ARPD is once again proud to team up with the Alameda Elk's Lodge #1015 to present our FREE
Recreational Baseball Program, for children who've completed kindergarten through fifth grades.
Friends of the Park Foundation is once again inviting you to participate in Play for the Parks - Golfun
& Dinner on Monday, May 23. Shotgun start begins at 1 pm and post dinner and auction at 6 pm at
Harrison Center in Lincoln Park. Cost is $125 for both or $40 for Dinner only. Sign up at
www.alamedaparks.org
Mastick Senior Center
In February Mastick welcomed 49 new members and 32 were age 65+. Total membership at the end
of February is 2,651.
The AARP free tax preparation program at Mastick continues to be a positive resource for the
community. The 13 Tax volunteers logged 336 hours of service for the month of February. 144 tax
clients received assistance.
On February 16th, the Center for Independent Living hosted a PPE give-away event and distributed
NK95 masks, hand sanitizer, and home COVID test kits for free to the Mastick Senior Center
community. A total of 60 people received supplies and information.",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-03-10,9,"In February, Mastick welcomed the following groups: Consumer Fraud Presentation, Stroke
Education Zoom presentation, Self-Publishing on the Internet, Everything Audio, and Connections
Support Group with Alameda Family Services. We continue to open more services and activities.
The Alameda Winter Pickle Ball Tournament was a success with 28 teams and 56 players. All
divisions were full.
Park Maintenance
The Chochenyo Park gathering area is now open and we have opportunities for people to sponsor
memorial benches.
Working on installing benches in the Bayport Park playground which requires concrete footings and
cutting out the poured in place sections. Finishing permit for the picnic area here and waiting on
shipment of benches, shipment and shade structure.
Starting tennis court light LED conversion this month with the first being at Leydecker Park
Franklin Park merry-go-round was removed to be repaired and it's expected to be completed no later
than May
Facing ongoing challenges of athletic field usage with ongoing maintenance to maintain playability
and safety.
Implemented a comprehensive safety training program for all parks maintenance staff.
Administration/ Projects
ARPD is purchasing a volleyball net to install at Godfrey Park for open public play based on
Commissioner feedback.
Updated citywide mask policy for staff and public programs: as of 3/14/22 masks are strongly
recommended indoors and are not required outdoors. This follow state and county health guidelines.
Alameda Point Waterfront Park Grand Opening, Saturday, April 9th from 1:30pm - 5:00pm. Along
with a ribbon cutting, this is a free, all-ages art-fest featuring some of the Bay Area's most talented
musicians and dance artists. In partnership with Rhythmix Cultural Works and West End Arts District.
https://www.westendartsdistrict.org/waterfrontparklaunchfest.htm",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-03-10,10,"EXHIBIT 2
From: Brian Lin [mailto:brianlin160@gmail.com)
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 6:06 PM
To: Amy Wooldridge <AWooldridge@alamedaca.gov>
Cc: CYNTHIA BONTA <cynthiabonta@comcast.net>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item6-D; March 10, 2022; Recreation and Park Commission
Madame Chair,
My name is Brian Lin. I am a student at Encinal High School.
I
live in Alameda and I visit and enjoy the parks that we have. I learned about the new
parks that are waiting to be named in particular about the Alameda Landing Waterfront
Park that the Bohol Circle, Inc. is proposing to be named Bohol Circle Immigrant
Landing or Bohol Circle Crossing of Hope.
I
am happy to hear that the City is finally wanting to name a park that will reflect its
diversity and inclusiveness. As an immigrant youth I envision a city that values the
history and contributions of people from another country who has made Alameda home
and actively makes it a city to be proud of because the people see the richness in
diversity and acceptance of differences.
I am not Filipino, but I know that the immigrant experience is shared by my ancestors
who immigrated to the US and all other ethnicities. To include a specific Ethnic name,
in this case Filipino in the name we give one of our parks certainly demonstrates that we
truly welcome everyone to our city.
I see that to bring out our humanity is the way to live a life where we all can pursue
happiness and prosperity.
Please include the name, Bohol Circle Immigrant Landing and Bohol Circle Crossing of
Hope in the short list.
Sincerely,
Brian Lin
Take care,
Brian Lin
rianlin160@gmail.com
From: Raine Allen Pagud [mailto:rainepagud30@gmail.com)
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 5:37 PM
To: Amy Wooldridge <AWooldridge@alamedaca.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item6-D; March 10, 2022; Recreation and Park Commission",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-03-10,11,"Ms. Adrienne Alexander
Chair of the City of Alameda Recreation & Park Commission
Mr. Eric Robbins
Vice Chair of the City of Alameda Recreation & Park Commission
Ms. Philly Jones
Ms. Tara Navarro
Ms. Alice Nguyen
Commissioners of the City of Alameda Recreation & Park Commission
Alameda City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
Madame Chair,
My name is Raine Allen Pagud. I am a 12th grade student at Encinal High School.
I live in Alameda and I visit and enjoy the parks that we have. I learned about the new
parks that are waiting to be named in particular about the Alameda Landing Waterfront
Park that the Bohol Circle, Inc. is proposing to be named Bohol Circle Immigrant
Landing or Bohol Circle Crossing of Hope. Which I am so glad is happening.
I am happy to hear that the City is finally wanting to name a park that will reflect its
diversity and inclusiveness. As an immigrant youth, I envision a city that values the
history and contributions of people from another country who has made Alameda home
and actively makes it a city to be proud of since the people see and experience the
richness in diversity and acceptance of differences. Coming to Alameda myself as
a
Filipino immigrant in 2009, I was welcomed with open arms from different individuals in
the island, thus, I believe that this amazing city should mirror the families living in it.
With this new name, there would be an increase of cultural sensitivity in our community.
As always, through representation we are stepping towards an environment of peace
and broadening of perspectives of future generations.
I see that to bring out our humanity is the way to live a life where we all can pursue
happiness and prosperity.
Please include the name, Bohol Circle Immigrant Landing and Bohol Circle Crossing of
Hope in the short list.
Respectfully,
Raine A. Pagud
A Filipino Immigrant and Alameda Resident since 2009
510-206-7966",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-03-10.pdf
LibraryBoard,2022-03-09,1,"CITY
OF
of
TERRA
ORATEL
MINUTES OF THE
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2022
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Joyce McConeghey Vice President
Dimple Kanji, Board Member
Kathleen Kearney, Board Member
Sara Strickler, Board Member
Absent:
Amber Bales, President
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Lori Amaya, Recording Secretary
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Public Comment)
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar
*A.
Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of January and
February, 2022.
*B.
Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of January 12, 2022.
*C.
Modified Library Services Report for the Months of December, 2021 and January, 2022.
*D.
Financial Report Reflecting FY21/22 Expenditures by Fund for January and February,
2022.
*E.
Bills for Ratification for the Months of January and February, 2022.
Director Chisaki reported that the City's mask mandate will end on Monday, March 14, 2022. Face
masks will be strongly encouraged within city buildings. The Dewey's Friends Café opened on
February 14, 2022. Eating is allowed outside in the courtyard only. In-person Children's
programming will begin the week of April 4. Ticketing system may be used to control the number
of people attending. The Grogu Library Card campaign is going well. The water bottle fill stations",LibraryBoard/2022-03-09.pdf
LibraryBoard,2022-03-09,2,"Page 2 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
March 9, 2022 Meeting
have been installed at the Main Library. The branches will have their installation completed within
the next week. The Red Cross Blood Drive was held yesterday in the Stafford Room, and it went
smoothly. The next drive will be on May 10, 2022. The Hotspot lending program is moving forward.
The contract was signed yesterday and the program is expected to launch in mid-April. The
internment camp grant and the Japantown marker project are slowly moving forward.
There are no changes to the Draft Minutes of the January 12, 2022 Library Board Meeting.
Board Member Kearney moved to accept the Consent Calendar. Board Member Strickler
seconded the motion, which passed with a 4-0 vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Current and On-Going Library Activities (J. Chisaki)
Adult Services book clubs have been virtual, and it has not been decided when they will return to
in-person programming. Teen programs have been in-person since there have been no more
than 15 attendees and they can be spread out. Tech. Services Supervisor, Marlon Romero,
welcomes input from the board members on changes to the Library's webpage. Staff is
discussing changing library hours. Any changes wouldn't start until the new fiscal year. Board
Member Strickler asked if the change to the hours would be extending or limiting hours. Director
Chisaki responded that it would be a reshuffling of the existing number of hours. The City has
hired a firm to help organize its Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI) program. Employees will be
pulled for interest groups, focus groups, and steering committees. Director Chisaki is pushing to
include part-time staff for more diversity.
B.
American Rescue Plan Funding - Hotspot Lending Program (J. Chisaki)
The Hotspot contract has been signed. Next steps include receiving the equipment, creating
policies and procedures, and obtaining packaging. The launch is expected in April.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Friends of the Library (J. Chisaki)
The Café has opened. The bookstore has opened and is named Books for Friends (BFF). There
will be a pop-up book sale on Saturday, March 12, 2022 in the Stafford room. The bookstore will
open Thursday, March 17, 2022. It will be open Thursday - Saturday from 12:00 - 4:00 pm. The
Friends are continuing with virtual docent tours and author talks. They have hybrid programs in
the future.
B.
Patron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response
None.",LibraryBoard/2022-03-09.pdf
LibraryBoard,2022-03-09,3,"Page 3 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
March 9, 2022 Meeting
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Kearney is working at the Friends pop-up book sale and at the new bookstore.
Board Member Kanji asked if the Friends are doing set up for the book sale on Friday or if they
are doing a soft run. Director Chisaki responded that they are setting up on Friday. They will be
bringing boxes over from storage, unboxing books, and arranging the tables.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",LibraryBoard/2022-03-09.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-03-08,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, March 8, 2022
1
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Downing called the regular meeting to order at approximately 6:36 p.m. via
teleconference
ROLL CALL
Present:
(Via teleconference) Chair Ed Downing, Vice Chair Claire
Loud, Commissioner Kaiwin Su, and Commissioner Robert
Lattimore
Absent:
Commissioner John Kim
Staff:
(Via teleconference) Recreation and Parks Director Amy
Wooldridge and Umesh Patel and Tracy Craig, Greenway
Golf
Also Present:
None
2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of January 11, 2022, were approved unanimously.
3
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
4
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Downing reminded the commission to complete the Sunshine Ordinance
agreement.
Chair Downing reminded the commission that they cannot enter into an email
discussion or phone conversation on a particular subject as it is a violation of the
Brown Act. But both he and Claire are happy to talk on a one-on-one basis, so if there
are any questions, they would like to be contacted.
Chair Downing mentioned that there has been a lawsuit filed by Marc Logan against
Greenway Golf and is in the Alameda Superior Court.
1
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, March 8, 2022",GolfCommission/2022-03-08.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-03-08,2,"5
WRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club
Vice Chair Loud mentioned that the Alameda Junior Golf Club will be holding their
major fundraiser the last Thursday in July. The tournament which has been known
historically as the Jack Clark Memorial Tournament will now be The Jack Clark and
Norma Arnerich Memorial Tournament in support of Alameda Junior Golf Club. Norma
Arnerich founded the club with Jack Clark, and also was chair of the golf commission
and advocated for the youth in Alameda. The tournament has not been held for the
last two years due to Covid. The tournament will be held at the Metropolitan Golf
Course in Oakland as they able to provide a price of $60.00 per person for a shotgun
as that was 20% less than the price they could receive from Greenway.
Chair Downing stated that per Connie Wendling, their membership drive and their
charitable contribution drive has been very good, and they have 63 golfers signed up
for the summer golf program.
Commissioner Lattimore asked about volunteering to support this effort or for
donations. Claire Loud stated they are looking for tee sponsors, and raffle prizes, and
hope to have a flyer out by the end of April and will provide to all commissioners. Amy
Wooldridge stated that ARPD can provide ARPD bucks in support of the tournament.
6
AGENDA ITEMS
6-A Nominate and Vote on Golf Commission Chair and Vice-Chair
Amy Wooldridge stated that only the Chair nomination is necessary due to the timing
of Claire Loud's appointment in November 2021. Vice-Chair Loud nominated Ed
Downing as Chair and the vote was unanimous.
6-B Receive Greenway Golf 2021 Annual Report
Umesh Patel stated that it has been a busy year, a lot of good progress as well as
hiccups. Mr. Patel stated that Marc Logan filed a lawsuit against Greenway Golf, and
stated there are only two partners, himself and Marc Logan. They were surprised and
disappointed as they had been working with Marc and his attorney on an equitable and
harmonious parting of ways this year after completion of the last nine holes of the
North Course. Despite the lawsuit, those efforts are continuing, and they are optimistic
that a mutually acceptable settlement will be reached in the near future. While it's
unfortunate that Marc has chosen this path, they are confident that it is without merit,
and look forward to a quick resolution of these claims. The litigation stems from an
internal corporate dispute that will have no impact on Greenway's ability to conduct
business and to fulfill its contractual obligations. Mr. Patel stated that there should be
no concern regarding the day-to-day operations of Corica Park. The team of 55
people at Corica Park and the 99 overall team of Greenway are stronger than ever and
2
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, March 8, 2022",GolfCommission/2022-03-08.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-03-08,3,"are united and focused on doing our best work. He stated that he can't comment more
tonight giving it is an ongoing legal matter.
Mr. Patel also wanted to address the ongoing misinformation about Greenway Golf
that is being circulated among these meetings and a larger public audience specifically
regarding the Women's club and Alameda Junior Golf. He understands that there is
concern regarding tee times being cut back. It was stated at a recent commission
meeting that this action is having a devastating impact on women's participation on
golf. Greenway strongly disagrees. Greenway honors their members and the clubs,
however this is a business, and we need to balance the needs of the service clubs and
all patrons. One of the biggest complaints have been it is impossible to get a tee time.
The majority of the tee times freed up by the clubs have been taken by Alameda
residents. Greenway strongly supports all women who golf which is evidenced by their
support of the high school and collegiate women's golf, as well as their summer camp,
where this summer they will be dedicating one full week of free camp for girls. These
include girls who would otherwise have no access to golf. Both city staff and Vice
Chair Loud visited these camps last summer and saw the work that was being done.
They have worked with the Commuters committee, an organization that has been here
since 1928, and have helped them introduce a women's division for the first time in
their tournament in 2022.
Mr. Patel addressed a letter that was cited at the last meeting, as evidence of the
many grievances of residents. That letter was not from an Alameda resident and was
quoted from an internal private Greenway RFP document that was not connected to
Corica Park. He encourages all to check the integrity of their sources before bringing
them to this platform.
Mr. Patel addressed the comments at the last meeting that Greenway does not
support junior golf. It was stated for the record that if something impacted revenue,
then Greenway was not willing to do it and were given no consideration for the 2022
fundraising tournament that Vice Chair Loud spoke about earlier. Mr. Patel stated that
in 2020 and 2021, Greenway had supported the junior golf club with free tee times
totaling $12,000, further, even with the 2022 rate increase, they will be supporting the
club with free tee times totaling over $4,000. They also offered the club a 30%
decrease in the rates for the shotgun format, which is the most expensive tournament,
which totaled a discount of $3,000. Greenway has been one of the largest, if not the
largest, supporter of the Alameda Junior Golf Club. Greenway's discussions with the
junior club were called negotiations, but Greenway's intent was to be a collaboration,
not a negotiation. Alameda Junior Golf is a 501C3 nonprofit organization that has
been independently managed. The club is not connected to the City or Greenway,
and has helped generations of local youth including his two sons. Greenway has
dedicated significant resources to our summer camp program for youth from
underserved communities that cannot afford to participate in the junior club program.
Greenway believes the summer camps are complimentary to the junior club so they
could dedicate greater resources to reach the kids that currently have no access to the
game. They would like to work with the golf club to create a synergy between the two
clubs, so participants could play golf together. Greenway's attempts to work with the
3
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, March 8, 2022",GolfCommission/2022-03-08.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-03-08,4,"junior club have been turned down with reasons that are troubling. He takes his role
as a steward of the club very seriously and believes the commissioners do as well.
Greenway's vision is for Corica Park to remain a sustainable open space for everyone,
meaning being environmentally, financially, and socially sustainable. For Greenway to
be effective, we all need to hold each other responsible in these meetings, and to
come to these meetings with facts. The commission meeting should be a platform to
address issues and to represent all of the citizens of Alameda, many of whom are not
golfers, but are impacted by the tax dollars by this wonderful City of Alameda asset.
He invites each and everyone to come to Corica Park and meet him to let him show
you what is being done at the complex.
Mr. Patel began his presentation of the 2021 Annual Report at this time, which was
attached to the agenda.
Chair Downing asked about the cart paths on the North Course and Mr. Patel
responded that it is not happening at this time. They are exploring options to complete
this but does not have a timeline at this time.
Commissioner Lattimore asked about the revenue growth and if the margins are
growing at the same rate as the revenue, and Mr. Patel responded that the margins
generally do not go up at the same rate as the revenue growth.
Chair Downing asked who will be doing the grow-in on the North Course, and Mr.
Patel stated that Vinny Paul, the superintendent would be doing the grow-in. Chair
Downing asked about the amount of dirt that is visible from Doolittle Drive and Mr.
Patel stated that is for shaping, the grow-in process comes after that. Chair Downing
asked if Greenway has a construction license, and Mr. Patel responded that Marc
Logan has a license.
Vice Chair Loud asked about the work being done on the sloughs on the South course
in regard to drainage. Mr. Patel stated that it was work that was intended to be done
this year, but they moved it up and are working with Public Works checking it is the
way it should be, they have cut back some vegetation.
Chair Downing asked about taking cash in the pro shop and Mr. Patel stated that they
are looking to reimplement it.
Chair Downing asked about the liquor license, as his understanding is there in only
one liquor license per property, and Mr. Patel stated that they have different avenues
they are pursuing.
Vice Chair Loud asked the Greenway Foundation and if it is a separate entity and Mr.
Patel stated that it is a 501C3 entity and financed the summer camps last year.
Chair Downing stated that moving forward he will do everything that is presented at
this meeting to be factual, but he will defend the group and that all that has been
presented has been factual. He stated that he had been in several of these meetings,
4
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, March 8, 2022",GolfCommission/2022-03-08.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-03-08,5,"and if Mr. Patel had been in those meetings, the outcome may have been different, as
at times the people did not represent Mr. Patel in the same matter as he speaks. He
felt at times they were confrontational. Mr. Patel stands by his team and would like to
bridge the gap. Tracy Craig of Greenway Golf stated to Mr. Downing that moving
forward, she will be working with them directly and attending these meetings.
Commissioner Su asked when aerification and topdressing happens on the course,
and Mr. Patel stated that he would obtain that information from Vinny, the
superintendent, of that schedule. Commissioner Su stated that communication to the
public at check in would be helpful.
Vice Chair Loud asked if the divot bottles are going to return, and Mr. Patel stated that
they are working on it.
Commissioner Lattimore asked about the Founders club continuing with the privileges
that they have moving forward, and Mr. Patel stated that he met with the Founders in
the 4th quarter of last year and have no answers at this time.
7
OLD BUSINESS
7-A Facility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf
Jim Strehlow stated that there are many non-golfers Alamedans that enjoy frequenting
Jim's on the Course. Jim's invested a lot of money in order to construct the patio area,
it is a lovely place to visit and eat. When shopping centers have encouraged food
trucks to visit on their property for over a decade, he refuses to give his business to a
food truck at the expense of the local shopping centers own restaurants who pay
enormous rents and invest heavily in their community in order to generate repeat
patronage. Greenway's statements of getting their own liquor license, food trucks, etc.
threaten the probability of Jim's. He speaks for a lot of his friends who are concerned
about Greenway's intentions.
7-B
Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report
None
7-C
Recreation and Parks Director Report
Amy Wooldridge stated that all of Bay Farm Island storm water collected goes through
the City's storm water system ultimately to Corica Park, flows through the sloughs and
into certain ponds, and then pumped out by a City pump to the bay. During December
and October, when there was a major rainstorm, there was flooding on Harbor Bay
Parkway, as well on Beach Road. Public Works is working on the system closely with
5
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, March 8, 2022",GolfCommission/2022-03-08.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-03-08,6,"Marc Logan, as they have been cleaning out the sloughs. This is the first phase of the
work. The second phase will be surveying the sloughs to assess the condition and the
depth, as over time silt can build up and not as much water can flow through. Public
Works can present a technical memo at a future golf commission meeting.
8.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - May 10, 2022
Facility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf
Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report
Recreation and Parks Director Report
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:45 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the
Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the
Brown Act.
6
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, March 8, 2022",GolfCommission/2022-03-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 1, 2022- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:03 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.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-124) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation, Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9, Subsection (d)(4); Number of Cases: Five (As Plaintiff -
City Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendants: Owners of: 2801 Newport Road, Alameda,
CA 94501 (Residential), 2825 Pearl Harbor Road, Alameda, CA 94501 (Residential), and
Steeltown Winery 2440 Monarch Street, Alameda, CA 94501, Project Burger 2319 Central
Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501.
(22-125) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director;
Employee Organizations: Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA), Alameda Police
Managers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire Managers Association (AFMA); Under
Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that
regarding the Potential Litigation, staff provided information and Council provided direction by
the following six 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: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5. Vote 3: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox
White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Vote 4:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Vote 5: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer:
No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Vote 6:
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: No; Herrera Spencer: No;
Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,2,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY--MARCH 1, 2022--6:59 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:16 p.m. and made brief
comments in support of Ukraine. 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.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog 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.]
(*22-03 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting Held on
January 4, 2022. Approved.
(*22-126 CC/22-04 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Transactions
Report for the Period Ending December 31, 2021. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at
7:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
1
March 1, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,3,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- MARCH 1, 2022- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:19 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
(22-127) The City Clerk announced that the Play House lease [paragraph no. 22-148], the
Climate Action Resiliency Plan [paragraph no. 22-150) and the Council Referral regarding the
land use initiative [paragraph no. 22-155 were withdrawn and would not be heard.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-128) Season for Nonviolence Word of the Day: Si Se Puede!
Councilmember Herrera Spencer read a quote.
(22-129) Proclamation Declaring March 7, 2022 as COVID-19 Memorial Day.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
(22-130) Proclamation Declaring March 2022 as American Red Cross Month.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-131) Zac Bowling, Alameda, discussed Seaplane Lagoon ferry ridership increasing;
expressed support for the AC Transit Line 78 bus route; expressed concern over the closure of
Oriskany Avenue and the Consent Calendar public comment process; urged the Open
Government Commission to develop a policy recommendation for the Consent Calendar.
(22-132) Clifton Linton, Alameda, discussed a recent mechanical failure of the filtration system
and heater at Emma Hood pool causing closure; stated the closure has impacted the aquatics
community and programs; the pool infrastructure is fragile.
(22-133) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority (AHA), provided a monthly Housing Authority
update.
(22-134) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, expressed support for the monthly Housing Authority updates
being presented as an agenda item; discussed the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force; expressed
concern about a decrease in open government; urged Council to consider creating an open
working group of citizens to set priorities and create a more open process.
(22-135) Anne Lee, Alameda, discussed the cancellation of the Alameda Free Shuttle program;
expressed support for additional Uber and Lyft round-trip rides; noted there will be a cost for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,20,"Housing Secure Emergency Rental Assistance Program; stated the application is online and
able to be found by searching Alameda Housing Secure; the application is intended for tenants
who have been affected by COVID-19 and are behind on their rent or utilities; the program can
pay up to 15 months of rent as well as past-due utility payments; landlords may also apply
directly to the program; ultimately, both parties need to cooperate in the process since
documentation is required from tenants; landlords have to receive and validate information
provided by the tenants.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the process can be accessed and utilized by landlords; however,
cooperation with tenants is required; the threshold for documentation is low and includes self-
attestation; the program pays 12 months of back rent and three months of forward rent and
utility payments.
Councilmember Daysog inquired which cities have resumed payment.
Greg Kats, AHA, stated staff has looked at East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Berkeley and Los
Angeles.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Mountain View and East Palo Alto had allowed rent
increases.
Mr. Kats responded that he would have to look into the matter.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager stated only Los Angeles and Oakland are not allowing
increases.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether tenants were consulted and the reason behind the lack of
consultation.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded the impetus was landlords providing public
comment in December 2021; stated Council directed staff to present alternatives; staff shared
the presentation with landlord representatives, stakeholders and tenants.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the staff recommendation allows a 2.7% rent increase
and any capturing of banked increases will occur when the pandemic is over.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff reviewed different
alternatives; Council can approve the Annual General Adjustment (AGA) rent increases or de-
couple the AGA rent increases plus banked rent increases; staff is recommending de-coupling
AGA rent increases from the emergency rent ordinance; the action would allow landlords to
begin raising rents up to the current AGA of 2.7%.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether capturing of the banked increase would only occur
when the pandemic is officially declared over.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded banked increases are still tied to the emergency
ordinance; staff is not recommending untying banked increases from the emergency ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff's recommendation is only the increase of 2.7%,
to which the Interim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
18",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,21,"Vice Mayor Vella stated that she understands the Oakland rent moratorium prohibits rent
increases above 1.9% or CPI unless high is required in order to provide a fair return; inquired
what is meant by the exceptions being Oakland and Los Angeles.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded Oakland is allowing the AGA and are not currently
allowing banked increases or capital improvement pass throughs.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how long Oakland has been allowing the AGA.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded not the entire pandemic; stated that she will have
to confirm the timing.
Vice Mayor Vella stated inquired whether there is an off-ramp if Council moves forward with the
matter and COVID-19 cases rise and rent increases need to halt.
The City Attorney responded there are some off-ramps, but they are limited; stated the easiest
off-ramp would be at second reading; if cases rise within the next two weeks, Council does not
have to adopt the ordinance at the second reading; if Council approves the ordinance as
proposed and decided re-impose a moratorium, Council would need to re-adopt a rent
moratorium by either emergency ordinance and four affirmative votes or a regular ordinance
and three affirmative votes.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the process if Council amends the proposed ordinance to create
conditions which trigger the off-ramp proposed by Vice Mayor Vella and whether there are
associated problems with said course of action.
The City Attorney responded the result depends on Council; stated Council could set forth
objective criteria to pause implementation of the ordinance; Council can direct staff to bring back
a first reading after creating a set of objective criteria.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is intrigued by Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry; the rent
moratorium ordinance passed at the beginning of the pandemic does not address
advancements made since; Council has learned a lot in the interim; however, not everything is
known about COVID-19; new variants are popping up and will continue; questioned whether a
new variant could cause the Public Health Department to take extraordinary measures again;
she is not sure how to include said possibility in the ordinance; inquired whether it is worth
creating objective criteria.
The City Attorney responded as long as the local emergency remains in place, the City Manager
has executive authority and could impose regulations subject to ratifications; stated the City
Manager could implement the actions in the ordinance and bring it to Council for ratification as
long as the local emergency is declared.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the notice provision and allowing groups to have an
opportunity for input; stated there has been some input; however, the City should allow for
enough notice time and clarify the notice dates; Council is trying to be mindful in its approach;
the approach is similar to other jurisdictions trying to mitigate increases; expressed concern
about what is unknown; stated there is an easing of mandates and restrictions; expressed
support not creating language on the spot; stated that she would like staff to provide language,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
19",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,22,"which will allow time for conversation to occur with interested groups; the earliest increases
would go into effect would be June 1st; the City Attorney provided workable solutions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is proposing providing staff with
direction to bring back the matter and not move forward at the current meeting, to which Vice
Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is not easy; the initial discussion occurred when
the pandemic had just begun, people were being forced to stay in their houses and jobs were
being shut down; he does not see a scenario in the next 6 to 9 months where the same will
occur again even with future surges and variants; he did not imagine the rent moratorium lasting
two years; Council should honor the 60 day notice; Council committed to allowing landlords to
bank increases; public comment received from landlords and tenants suggests a middle ground
has be found; expressed support for the ordinance and ensuring a 60 day notice; stated that he
would also like to have a 60 day notice instead of allowing the banked AGA as soon as the
pandemic is over; when the pandemic is over, everyone will know the AGA increases will not be
available for another 60 days; if a landlord raises rent 2.7% in June, any other banked AGA
cannot be used until the following June; the increase being available for use does not mean
landlords can release the banked increases; the system and rules are in place to allow the more
phasing; the faster Council allows the 2.7% increase, the less likely people will wait until
September 1st when a larger AGA will be in place; the longer Council waits, the more likely
landlords will wait until a higher AGA percentage occurs; expressed support for Council acting
tonight; stated that he is not supportive of delaying the matter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the additional 60 day notice before banked
increases can occur; expressed concern about payment shock; stated the current situation is
different than two years ago; there are vaccines.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she prefers an effective date of May 1st; she
agrees with the comments provided by Councilmember Knox White; inquired whether there is a
cap on how much landlords can use for banked rent increases.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded landlords can bank up to 8% and can implement
increases that are based on the current year AGA plus up to 3%.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over how large the CPI will be with an
additional 3%; stated it is appropriate to begin loosening the restriction; she is concerned about
the increases since she is a renter; the increases will hit hard if the City does not allow for slow
and gradual increases; it is appropriate to approve 2.7% now; staff's report is balanced and
includes a lot analysis to try to figure out how to unwind the matter without hitting tenants with a
difficult increase.
Councilmember Daysog stated a number of renters and landlords are hurting during the
pandemic; the staff recommendation is a middle-ground approach and is reasonable; the
recommendation takes into consideration the concerns of renters and landlords; Council should
begin to move forward with the matter; many other cities that have rent control have realized
landlords cannot be hindered from performing economically; landlords and renters must cover
costs.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of staff's recommendation [introduction of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
20",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,23,"ordinance], including the associated technical corrections.
Councilmember Knox White proposed a friendly amendment which includes a 60 day notice for
banked AGA after the end of the local emergency.
Councilmember Daysog stated the notice is not currently included in the staff recommendation;
expressed support for hearing from other Councilmembers.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the 60 day notice would mean landlords have to wait 60 days
to use the banked increase; whether a landlord waiting until the end of the local emergency
could increase by 2.7% plus the next banked increase.
Councilmember Knox White responded landlords would bank the 2.7% and use the next AGA,
plus up to 3% of the bank; the 2.7% would not be added to the increase and would go into the
bank.
The City Attorney concurred with Councilmember Knox White.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the total amount able to increase would be the 3% plus AGA,
to which Councilmember Knox white responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Katz stated the most a landlord could impose at any given time would be the AGA at the
time, plus 3% banked increase.
Councilmember Daysog outlined Councilmember Knox White's proposed motion amendment;
inquired whether the process of the banked amount does not happen simultaneously, that the
amount is increased 60 days later if there is an AGA rent increase, to which Councilmember
Knox White responded in the negative.
The City Attorney stated there are a number of banking rules which remain in effect and create
limitations on rent increases; one limitation is that there can only be a rent increase every 12
months; a landlord increasing rent in July prior to the pandemic ending, cannot increase rent
again within 60 days of the pandemic ending; a landlord cannot increase rent twice within 12
months; landlords will have to wait until the 12 months is up before implementing another rent
increase plus AGA.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the reason for having the 60 day notice for banked increases.
Councilmember Knox White responded a 60 day notice starts putting the use of the AGA out far
enough that there is encouragement for landlords to use the 2.7% rent increase rather than
sitting on a rent increase for months to utilize 5% plus 3%; the proposal encourages a phased in
approach.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding banked increases, Councilmember
Knox White stated the 60 day notice pushes the increase out and banking still cannot be used
until the end of the emergency.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of staff's recommendation [introduction of the
ordinance].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
21",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,24,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the proposed 60 day notice.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff considered the 60 day notice proposed
by Councilmember Knox White.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded not exactly; stated that she is unclear whether the
existing emergency ordinance includes the 60 day notice; the proposed change is new.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if Council approves the proposal from Councilmember Knox
White, staff will need to add language to the ordinance clarifying the 60 day notice and delay of
banked increases; the original ordinance does not have the language coupled with banked rent
increases; the original ordinance 60 day notice applies to all rent increases; the new ordinance
only addresses AGA rent increases and leaves out the proposed 60 day notice of banked rent
increases.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has worked hard trying to keep people housed; she would
like to ensure the City is continuing along those lines; she understands that it is time to move
forward.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried 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 Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [introduction of the
ordinance] with amendment that the use of banked AGA will not be available until 60 days after
the rescission of the local emergency.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the May 1st date is part of the motion, to
which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City will be sending notifications and
how the City will notify tenants about the changes to ensure timelines are understood.
Mr. Katz responded staff will provide a variety of outreach on the matter; stated staff will send
out an e-newsletter to subscribers announcing the change and will put out a headline on the
rent program website; staff will send out new maximum allowable rent increase letters to
landlords and tenants.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for staff providing as much as possible to make it clear;
stated multiple websites are available, which can be updated with information; she would like
staff to streamline and find ways to clarify and provide an insert; expressed concern about staff
only relying on the internet or emails; stated that she would like the information provided with
enough time so that people do not scramble.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for staff including information about how
renters can qualify or sign up for assistance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
22",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,25,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he will support the motion; the motion is in line with trying to
work things out with different perspectives of landlords and tenants; two years of no rent
increases is not sustainable for many; the proposed motion is reasonable and has middle-
ground.
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.
(22-147) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Execute a First
Amendment to the Lease with Park Street Wine Cellars, Inc., a California Corporation, for
Approximately 700 Square Feet of Retail Space in the Historic Alameda Theatre Located at
2315 Central Avenue, Suite 122, to Provide Six Months of Rent Deferral with a Three-Year
Repayment Period. Continued to March 15, 2022.
(22-148) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Execute a First
Amendment to the Lease with Play House, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Doing
Business as Director's Cut, for Approximately 1,850 Square Feet of Retail Space in the Historic
Alameda Theatre Complex, Located at 2319 Central Avenue, to Provide a Six-Month Rent
Credit and a Rent Reduction. Withdrawn and not heard.
(22-149) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget; and
(22-149 A) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA)
Salary Schedule to Add the Classification of Street Light Maintenance Technician; Amending
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule to Remove the
Streetlight Technician; Upgrading Two Maintenance Worker Il Positions To Streetlight
Technicians, Effective March 12, 2022. Continued to March 15, 2022.
(22-150) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report on the Climate Action and Resiliency
Plan (CARP) and the Annual Report on Transportation. Withdrawn and not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(22-151) The City Manager discussed the removal of the indoor mask mandate, the City's 4th of
July parade and the Point in Time Count.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-152) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-153) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
23",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,26,"(22-154) Consider Directing Staff to Bring the Rent Program ""In-House"" to the City Attorney's
Office. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella) Not heard.
(22-155) Consider Adoption of Resolution Expressing Support for the ""Brand-Huang-Mendoza
Tripartisan Land Use Initiative"" to Amend Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California
to Make Zoning and Land Use Community Affairs, and Not of State Interest. Withdrawn and not
heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22-156) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed the Point in Time Count.
(22-157) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the Point in Time Count, a Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC) Enforcement Committee meeting discussion related to
abandoned vessels in the estuary, a joint meeting of the Alameda County Mayors and the Board
of Supervisors to address homelessness, an interview held with consultants working on the
three year strategic plan for Alameda Health Systems and a meeting of the City Council and
Alameda Health Care District subcommittee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
24",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,4,"Uber and Lyft versus the free shuttle; urged free trips be offered each month.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Clerk announced the Police Chief would like provide revised policy language on the
Police Department Policy Manual update [paragraph no. 22-136].
(22-136) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of allowing speakers to comment for
2 minutes on the Police Department Policy Manual and the emergency response vehicle policy
[paragraph no. 22-141].
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the two matters are each policy-
related.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following rolling call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.
Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
Expressed concern over increases in rent and housing for low-income; urged Council to take
action to check on the Housing Authority: Ana Morales Salazar, Alameda.
Expressed concern about the use of Lexipol; stated the City does have the ability to modify and
change policies using Lexipol; he does not support the City keeping the armored vehicle: Zac
Bowling, Alameda.
Stated the subcommittee on Police reform recommended review of Lexipol policies; the
language and motivations behind some of the policy updates are questionable and offensive;
expressed concern about using the armored vehicle at community events; stated that she would
like the community to have more of a voice regarding the matter: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Discussed the vote to extend public comment for the Consent Calendar: Jay Garfinkle,
Alameda.
Stated Police policy matters being on the Consent Calendar appears dubious; discussed the
death of Mario Gonzalez; urged policies be compliant with State law and go beyond including
not allowing positional asphyxia; stated that it does not seem as though the community is being
listened to; expressed concern about the armored vehicle being at parades in the community:
Savanna Cheer, Alameda.
Expressed support for adding the duty to intercede in unlawful use of force; stated clear
timelines for training and a definition of interceding are needed; the proposal for Assembly Bill
(AB) 490 is an abomination; Council does not respect the community and does not respect
Officers when the First Amendment policy leaves out duties; the policies need further vetting;
urged Council take a careful look: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Discussed the death of her son Angelo Quinto-Collins and AB 490; stated excited delirium is a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,5,"pseudo-scientific diagnosis and should not be used; urged Council to attend a webinar called
Debunking Excited Delirium and to support AB 1608: Cassandra Quinto-Collins, Antioch, CA
Discussed the death of her brother Angelo Quinto-Collins; stated the upcoming webinar
includes knowledgeable experts with valuable information; webinar information can be found
online and on social media; the webinar will provide a closer look at excited delirium, restraint
and physical asphyxia: Bella Quinto-Collins, Antioch, CA.
Discussed the death of his step-son Angelo Quinto-Collins; stated the death has been reported
as an accident due to excited delirium via the Contra Costa County Coroner's Office; noted the
American Medical Association has come out against the diagnosis; the term is used to cover-up
actions of Police Officers; excited delirium is controversial and a tool for obfuscation; urged
Council's support of AB 1608: Robert Collins, Antioch, CA.
Expressed concern over positional asphyxia; stated it is obvious that any policy should prevent
positional asphyxia; he is concerned over the militarization of Police; Alameda does not need
militarization of Police: Roger Slattery, Alameda.
Stated the policies presented are inhumane and contrary to treating people as human beings;
the policies should not be on the Consent Calendar, which is misleading and wrong; expressed
concern for an attempt at the matters being under the radar; urged Council to take action to stop
certain matters from being placed on the Consent Calendar: Erin Fraser, Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White requested the emergency response vehicle policy be removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested that the resolution opposing Initiative 21-0042A1
[paragraph no. 22-143) be removed from the Consent Calendar and recorded a no vote on
teleconference findings [paragraph no. 22-142].
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: 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.]
(*22-137) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on February 1, 2022.
Approved.
(*22-138) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,645,095.00.
(22-139) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, Via the Chief of Police, to Update the
Existing Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to be Current with Existing Best Practices
and Statutory Requirements.
The Police Chief gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Policies 314, 318, and 312 were presented
exactly as the published in the meeting packet with no changes.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,6,"The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the only modification made relates to
Policy 300.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the changes to the policy have gone through
the City Attorney's Office, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney stated staff has reviewed and approved the changes; staff recommended
many of the changes presented.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like to see the proposed changes to Policy
300; he appreciates the changes coming forward; Council directed the changes due to the
desire for multiple community eyes being able to catch issues; the Police Chief quickly
acknowledges concerns; questioned whether the language about unreasonably impairing an
individuals' breathing fits with the Government Code; stated the Government Code does not
authorize techniques which involve a significant risk of positional asphyxia; requested
clarification on the use of the term unreasonably impair; expressed support for not using the
technique if there is any threat of impairing; stated the term ""unreasonable"" is concerning.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with concern about using the term ""unreasonably"" as a qualifier.
The City Attorney stated the term ""unreasonable"" includes ""unlawful;"" AB 490 makes clear that a
law enforcement agency cannot authorize techniques which involve a substantial risk of
positional asphyxia; the term ""unreasonable"" encompasses AB 490 and goes further by taking
the position that any method that has an unreasonable restraint on breathing and respiration is
unlawful under the policy; under AB 490, positional asphyxia is specifically called out; the
""unreasonable"" standard is read as broader and more protective.
The Police Chief concurred with the City Attorney; stated the ""reasonable"" standard is used
when assessing force, other than lethal force; inserting the term comports with how Officers
make the assessment about what force is reasonable and not.
Councilmember Knox White stated changes respond to community feedback, including the
subcommittees, wanting to tighten up language; he looks forward to supporting the changes;
expressed support for Council adopting Policy 358.3 regarding the minimum criteria for
notification of major incidents; stated notifications are not provided for traffic collisions involving
vulnerable road users; one of the biggest safety dangers in Alameda is with vulnerable road
users; highlighting the collisions would bring the policy into alignment with the current City
Manager practice; he is comfortable proceeding with the matter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White is requesting Council be
notified by the City Manager via text message, to which Councilmember Knox White responded
Council is already alerted via text.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the direction to staff.
Councilmember Knox White stated Policy 358.3 sets the minimum criteria for notification of
homicides, traffic fatalities, unusual deaths, rapes and armed robberies; he would like to direct
staff to add traffic collisions with vulnerable road users.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she appreciates the response to feedback; inquired why the City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,7,"would not include the statutory language in the Use of Force policy and is including ""or
unreasonable.""
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the section relates to Policy 300.3.
Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; inquired whether the statutory language can be
placed after: ""or unreasonably impair.""
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated the language is included
in AB 490; the terms ""reasonably"" and ""unreasonably"" are used throughout policies based on
different legal standards and reasons; questioned whether there is legal reason to object to or
use the statutory language.
The City Attorney stated that he has no concerns with Vice Mayor Vella's proposed changes;
Council may insert the language as proposed.
Councilmember Knox White stated Government Code Section 7286.5 contains the desired
language.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the text would read: ""a law enforcement agency shall not authorize
techniques or transport methods that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxiation.""
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the policy would read: ""Officers are not authorized to use
any restraint or transportation method that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxia or
unreasonably impair an individuals' breathing,' to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the
affirmative.
The Police Chief stated the positional asphyxia language was removed to address his concerns.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on concerns related to confusion.
The Police Chief stated the direction of the original language was that terms, such as positional
asphyxia, restraint asphyxia and excited delirium, all lead to an outcome that is dangerous to
the public; regardless of the terms, his direction is that Officers not do anything which puts
someone at risk; he does not want Officers to do anything which will restrict breathing;
expressed support for adding the Council proposed language to the policy; stated that he
originally utilized the term for consistency.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for including the language of: ""substantial risk of, or
unreasonable
stated that she agrees with the Police Chief swapping out terms relative to
breathing.
The City Attorney recommended adding definitional language from the statute if the term
""positional asphyxia"" is taken out; stated the definitional language provides a caveat that if an
Officer places someone in a compressed airway situation, the person must be monitored; the
added policy language should read: "" without reasonable monitoring for signs of loss of
oxygen. if the policy copies the statutory text, there is no need for change; however, the
definitional language should be included; discussed an Officer effectuating an arrest with
actions that create risk; stated the Officer's constant monitoring of the arrestee, comports with
Fourth Amendment standards and should go back into the policy.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,8,"Councilmember Knox White stated that he understood the initial recommendation from Vice
Mayor Vella to include both options, including a substantial risk of positional asphyxia, which
addresses the City Attorney's comments; the term ""unreasonable"" can be added; Vice Mayor
Vella did not narrow the policy, she specially called out the substantial risk of positional
asphyxia due to the term being in the statute to provide clarity about the intent.
The Police Chief stated the updated language ties to the statute and respects and honors the
concerns of the community.
The City Attorney stated that he recommends adding: ""as defined by Government Code Section
7286.5"" after positional asphyxia to make clear that positional asphyxia is a defined term under
State law.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the language stricken from the originally
proposed policy is from the Government Code.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she
is not sure why the stricken language was included; she would like to ensure that the language
being struck is no longer necessary; questioned whether the language is necessary; expressed
concern about changing the Government Code language.
The City Attorney stated that he recommended striking the language; the language is not
contained in the State law and does not add to the policy; the language is not necessary and
removal is recommended.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired where the language came from, to which the Police
Chief responded the language came from Lexipol.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied that the new language, which is in the best
interest of securing public safety in Alameda; expressed support for the new language; stated
that he appreciates both the City Attorney and Police Chief considering the community's
concerns; if Council adopts the matter, the action will be another profound reform implemented
by the Alameda Police Department (APD).
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the policies as written with the exception of
substituting the language proposed by the Police Chief: ""Officers are not authorized to use any
restraint or transportation method which would create substantial risk of positional asphyxia as
defined by Government Code Section 7286.5 and/or unreasonably impair an individual's
breathing or respiratory capacity. Once controlled, the individual should be placed into a
recovery position (e.g. supine or seated) and monitored for signs of medical distress
(Government Code section 7286.5).' and the addition of traffic collisions with vulnerable users
into Policy 358.3.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what the additional language means for Policy 358.3.
The City Attorney responded that he has no legal concerns about the additional language.
The City Manager stated the language is not currently part of the policy; the language would
formalize the current practice; alerts would be from APD, rather than the City Manager; he has
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
6",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,9,"no concerns with the change.
The Police Chief expressed support for adding the language.
The Police Captain requested clarification about the language being added to the policy; stated
that he would like to provide clear direction to staff.
***
(22-140) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of giving Councilmember Knox White one
additional minute.
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.
Councilmember Knox White stated vulnerable road users are those who walk and bike;
notification would be of any traffic collisions involving a person walking or biking.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the clarification provided is sufficient, to which the Police
Captain responded he would like Council to provide the specific collision incidents which
Officers will need to report to Council.
The Police Chief recommended the language: ""any traffic collision involving pedestrians and
bicyclists;"" inquired whether Council can narrow the scope down to reportable injuries or age
groups.
Councilmember Knox White stated that the City averages about 50 collisions per year and his
proposal stands; the reporting does not appear to be overly broad.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the language proposed involves any collision involving a
vehicle and pedestrian or bicyclist that results in some injury.
Councilmember Knox White responded the language can include ""results in some injury;"" stated
oftentimes people do not know whether or not they are injured; if Council wants to know where
safety is an issue in the City, Council needs to hear about collisions; Council does not hear
about collisions without the policy; the City Manager already provides the information; the
language will formalize the existing practice.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether statistics will be kept and reported.
The Police Captain responded in the affirmative; stated the statistics are generally published
around April or May.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the information is requested in real-time for
Councilmembers.
Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated that he would like the collision
report to occur the same day; having the information is useful.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,10,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether APD already keeps track of all accidents
regardless of injury, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is unsure whether Council receives a text each
time an accident occurs; inquired whether the City Manager sends out a text to Council for each
accident.
The City Manager responded APD reports to him and then he reports to Council; stated if APD
is not called to the scene, the incident does not get reported to Council.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the language needs to be added to make
sure staff is in compliance, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to add the
language to clarity expectations.
Councilmember Knox White stated the amendment is unnecessary; calls are reported; there is
no reasonable expectation to have a report of a call that was not received.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether both the Police
Department policy manual and the emergency response vehicle policy matters are being
considered concurrently.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded Council is currently considering the Police Department policy
manual.
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.
(22-141) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police, Via the City Manager, to Establish
New and Amended Police Department Policies Governing the Use of the Alameda Police
Department's Emergency Response Vehicle.
The Police Captain and Police Chief gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Exhibit 3 denotes major incident notifications; noted
Council just made changes to the notifications in the previous agenda matter; requested
clarification for the Council direction provided.
The Police Captain stated the exhibit is attached to the emergency response vehicle matter due
to the proposal for the new policy to make it clear notification has to be provided anytime the
vehicle is deployed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the reason the notification is being heard is due to the use of the
emergency response vehicle being added as a significant event.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the policy also refers to the previous agenda
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
8",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,11,"matter, to which the Police Captain responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he has mistakenly combined an exhibit from the current
matter with the previous policy matter; Council can take the same action under the current
policy matter for the emergency response vehicle.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to include the action under the
current matter; proposed the previous action be included in the motion.
Councilmember Knox White stated a number of comments have been received related to the
purpose of having the vehicle at community related events and public gatherings; expressed
support for Council providing direction to clarify the language; stated public gatherings have to
first find an incredible threat in order for the vehicle to be used; the vehicle will not be sent to
public gatherings and hidden away; requested clarification.
The Police Chief concurred with Councilmember Knox White's comments; stated staff
recognizes the vehicle as a tool; however, the tool has associated concerns; staff wants to be
respectful and honor the associated concerns; noted Policy 409 opens with: ""the emergency
response vehicle shall be used as an armored vehicle resource to safely resolve incidents
where there is an objective risk to civilians and/or Officer safety from a person or persons who
may be considered armed and dangerous;"" the qualifier must be met in order for the vehicle to
be used; he is willing to add language that states use at community events is for educational
purposes; the vehicle will not be used at recruitment events; expressed support for being
transparent.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation with the addition
provided by the Police Chief [and the language from the previous motion].
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.
(22-142) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via
Teleconference.
Since Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, the matter carried by the following
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(22-143) Resolution No. 15869, ""Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1, a Proposed Amendment to the
State Constitution that would Limit the Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to
Raise Revenues for Government Services."" Adopted.
The Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the initiative adds a requirement for taxes to
have a sunset dates, to which the Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer responded in
the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
9",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,12,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer further inquired what happens to current taxes that do not
have a sunset date.
The Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer responded taxes already passed by voter
would not change; stated measures passed going forward would need to have a sunset date or
specified duration of time.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the duration of time could be 100 years.
The Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer responded the language only specifies a
duration of time, not a limit.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification from the City Attorney's Office.
The City Attorney stated that he concurs with the Communications and Legislative Affairs
Officer's assessment of the amendment.
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.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:04 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:21 p.m.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
(22-144) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal
Code Chapter XXX to Implement Senate Bill (SB) 9 Regarding Two-Unit Housing Developments
and Urban Lot Splits in Single-Family Residential Zones. Introduced.
The Planning Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) put
together a detailed letter; requested clarification about separate metering and affordability
requirements mentioned in the letter.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff anticipates new SB 9 units will
be separately metered; staff has not recommended requiring SB 9 units to be deed restricted for
affordable housing; staff does not feel the restriction is necessary at the moment; discussed a,
Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) study of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) from
the; stated the study found that many ADUs are built for family members and over 30% of units
charged very low rent and 30% charged low rent; there is a natural tendency for the units to be
made affordable; Council may consider deed restricting the units.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the affordability categories for the remaining 40% of
ADUs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
10",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,13,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded he over-generalized; stated
housing includes four categories: very low, low, moderate and market rate; the unit breakdown
was 33% very low, 30% low, 30% moderate and the remaining percentage were market rate;
the breakdown is a result of ADU builds being used for family members, not deed restrictions.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Planning, Building and Transportation
Department charges fees for SB 9 units or ADUs.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded ADUs are exempt from the
Citywide Development Impact Fee (DIF); stated deed restricted, affordable units are also
exempt from fees.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether SB 9 units would incur permit fees, to which
the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog requested clarification about the issue of applying the ordinance to
residential district areas.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated AAPS suggested that residential
districts with an associated overlay, such as Harbor Bay Isle, do not fall under State law; it is
risky to take the position that an overlay will exempt the City; Harbor Bay Isle does not have
many second units since newer developments have smaller back yards; the same instance
occurs in the Bayport region; most second units are built in older residential neighborhoods.
Stated the ordinance fits with the recommendation and understanding of SB 9; expressed
support for 1,200 square foot units and for removing the cap; expressed concern about pitting
SB 9 units against ADUs; stated deed restrictions on SB 9 units could create favor toward
ADUs: Zac Bowling, East Bay YIMBY.
Questioned whether four units on a lot would all be detached or a combination of attached and
detached; urged the square footage for SB 9 units be capped at 900 square feet; stated 1,200
square foot units are not affordable by design; units under 1,000 square feet are more
affordable: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Urged Council to adopt the AAPS recommendations and consider limiting new units to 800
square feet, maintaining height limits and requiring that one SB 9 unit be deed restricted;
discussed a new sea-level rise report; urged staff to review the report; expressed support for
Council addressing whether ADUs will be allowed as AirBNB rentals: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Stated that he disagrees with staff and State regulators; the City should require a report from
Alameda's Emergency Operations Officer related to safe evacuation volume; Alameda does not
have enough electricity for existing infrastructure or a safe way to evacuate its population in
emergencies; expressed concern about allowing people to create policies which do not address
evacuation needs: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
Discussed the AAPS letter; urged Council to adopt a revised ordinance with proposed
modifications; expressed support for noticing related to SB 9 construction projects and for
limiting SB 9 preemption of local development standards; stated the draft ordinance applies the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
11",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,14,"preemption to all SB 9 units; discussed requirements for non-SB 9 units: Christopher Buckley,
AAPS.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is concern that the units will be used for AirBNB rentals;
inquired whether the matter is addressed in the ordinance.
The Planning Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated a pre-
condition of building SB 9 units requires a deed restriction stating the property cannot be used
for rentals that are less than 30 days.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has comments regarding AAPS's letter
referencing limiting the preemption of local standards only to the smaller 800 square foot unit
size; requested staff to clarify the background and theory.
The Planning Building and Transportation Director responded the R1 District has a 20 foot rear
yard setback; stated the front yard setback is much smaller and the side yard setback is 5 feet;
the City can regulate back and side yard setbacks based on State law; the proposed ordinance
states SB 9 units should have a 4 foot setback from the rear and side yard; the process is
ministerial and will be handled by staff without the Planning Board or a public hearing process;
the goal is to have a clear and objective ordinance that requires the minimum amount of staff
judgement and discretion; property owners in the R1 District have a good idea of where to place
second units; 2021 yielded about 20 second units; most property owners think about and do not
wish to have issues with neighbors; staff rarely finds poor placement of second units;
implementing the AAPS idea brings second units as close as possible to the main unit in order
to keep as much of the rear yard setback as possible; second units typically work better with
space between the main and second units; Council can direct staff to use AAPS's approach.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned about the height standard; inquired whether
SB 9 unit have to be subordinate to the height of the primary unit; expressed concern about
backyard mansions.
The Planning Building and Transportation Director responded the ordinance has a 30 foot
height limit; stated a two-story house with a pitched roof would be an appropriate SB 9 unit; staff
has not recommended a lower height limit; the limit will likely create a smaller footprint; a lower
height limit would require a larger footprint; the entire R1 District has a 30 foot height limit.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council has come to a decision that makes sense and
honors both SB 9 and the 2020 election result; expressed support for staff to return with the
Housing Element; stated that he has a concern with historic preservation and design rules
adding time and cost to processes; the new rules allow for discretionary Historic Advisory Board
review; he would like to give direction to staff to come back with tighter rules on how
determinations can be made within the Housing Element; votes have gone against the findings
of fact and he would like to honor the historic extensions.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including introduction
of the ordinance] with direction that the City will look at clarifying and specific rules under the
Housing Element.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft proposed a friendly amendment of having a smaller maximum square
footage for units.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
12",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,15,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supports smaller unit size.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed information from an Alameda County Mayor's Conference
meeting about the growing homeless population being age 50 and over; living on the street
ages people prematurely; there is a lack of affordable housing for people with lower income;
many people are retiring from low paying, non-union jobs lacking benefits; many people are
vulnerable to medical emergencies or car repairs, which cause the inability to afford rent; the
best medicine is housing; more housing needs to be built; expressed support for capping SB 9
units between 800 and 1,000 square feet; stated Council is trying to increase the amount of
affordable housing by design; she would like to keep the ordinance simple; limiting the unit size
allows for more outdoor space; a property owner can still build a larger second unit under the
ADU ordinance; 800 square foot units are affordable by design; ensuring access to affordable
housing is a matter of Statewide concern as noted in SB 9.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she strongly supports the affordable by design
effort and the 800 square foot unit size; the unit size is critical; 1,200 square foot units will cost
over $1 million; many people can only afford less; there is an opportunity to try and provide
housing that is affordable by design; expressed concern about tree removal impacts to the
environment; stated there should be balance with the SB 9 units.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Planning, Building and Transportation
Director stated staff originally proposed 1,200 square feet; the Planning Board increased the
size to 1,600 square feet; noted the January public hearing yielded Council wanting smaller
units; stated staff dropped the limit to the original 1,200 square feet.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the previous total number of allowable units on a parcel.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the amount had been up to ten
units; stated there is a range; cities that wish to be liberal about second units and interpreting
SB 9 allow up to ten units; most cities are landing around four units per parcel.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council previously had concerns about ten units per parcel as
well as the unit size of 1,600 square feet; the current proposal is reasonable with a maximum of
four SB 9 units or a combination of SB 9 and ADUs; Alameda Citizens Task Force put for a
piece about price per square footage; expressed support for a smaller unit size of 800 to 1,000
square feet; stated the matter is a chance for Council to do something unique; it is reasonable to
proceed with a maximum of four units between 800 and 1,000 square feet.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would second the motion with a friendly
amendment to limit SB 9 units to 800 square feet.
Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about the 800 square foot size; stated people
will not do SB 9 units due to the size and fewer homes will be built; expressed support for
consideration of 1,000 square feet and higher; stated lower square footage will produce less
housing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes many additional units can be built at 1,000 square
feet; expressed support for a maximum of 1,000 square feet and for working towards getting
more housing built; noted a substitute motion can be created.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
13",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,16,"Vice Mayor Vella stated Council previously provided direction on the matter; expressed support
for units which are affordable by design; stated some people find affordability in building on their
own parcel in order to house family or friends; previously, she did not support capping the unit
size; expressed support for the 1,000 square foot unit size; stated additional space can make a
difference for people wishing to age in place; many people have supported higher square
footage for full visitability; she would prefer the higher end of the unit size range.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands many people are building units for family
members and multi-generational living; the ADU size limit is 1,200 square feet; property owners
have the option to elect build either SB 9 units or ADU units; expressed support for Council
being creative and trying to put into place units which are affordable by design; the option to go
up to 1,200 square feet exists with ADUs.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like more similarities between SB 9 units and ADUs so
people do not have to choose; people are considering planning for the future due to a 19%
increase in home prices; Council is trying to encourage home building that meets all needs; she
would prefer a higher unit size range.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella would support a maximum of 1,000
square feet, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White amended the motion to 1,000 square feet.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed a January article in The Chronicle related to home
prices; stated 1,000 square feet is not affordable by design; she supports Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's
analysis about ADUs being 1,200 square feet; SB 9 units provide opportunity to provide
affordable by design units; 1,200 to 1,000 square foot units are not affordable by design in
Alameda; homes are selling for above asking price; she is willing to compromise with 900
square foot units; higher unit sizes continue to drive gentrification in Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the amended motion; stated 1,000 square foot units provide
versatility and allow people to build for all needs and create more affordability; ; the size limit is
a cap; people can create smaller units.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired what would occur if Council requires at least
one SB 9 unit to be 800 square feet.
Councilmember Knox White stated an 800 square foot home in Alameda is $1.6 million; Council
arguing between the 800 and 1,000 square foot unit size is not meaningful for affordable versus
non-affordable units; housing is not affordable because people in Alameda, the Bay Area and
the State have refused to build housing for 50 years; building a few 800 square foot units will not
create affordability; Council needs to figure out how to incentivize housing to be built within the
confines of the City Charter; expressed support for a maximum unit size of 1,000 and nothing
lower; stated that he is happy to withdraw his motion if Councilmembers wish to go with a lower
unit size.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is trying to keep the ordinance fairly streamlined and easy
to administer; expressed support for leaving the decision to the property owner; stated many
things can be done with smaller units; expressed support for the 1,000 square foot unit limit.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
14",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,17,"Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Council is willing to split the difference and allow for a
maximum of 900 square foot units.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what would be gained by a 100 square foot difference.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he does not know if it is
worth worrying about the difference; stated the vast majority of R1 property owners that could
build two ADUs on their property are only building one and are not getting close to 1,200 square
feet in size; the units being built are generally smaller; staff thinks that making the unit maximum
too small will cause a family not to build; 1,000 square foot maximum is a good size; height
limits are the problem with second units; property owners building 1,200 square foot units on
one floor uses much of the backyard; staff has debated the reason for second units being small
and part of the reason is due to height limits.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council has made substantial progress; the maximum amount of
units decreased from ten to four and the square footage decreased from 1,600 to 1,000; he
would have preferred 800 square foot units; however, there is compromise; expressed support
for the 1,000 maximum square foot unit size and four units on one lot.
Councilmember Knox White stated 1,000 square foot unit size is splitting in the middle; there
has been a lot of compromise and movement in the unit size.
Vice Mayor Vella stated compromise is good; however, she still would prefer not to have a cap
on unit size; Council is working on housing as a top priority.
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.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-145) Introduction of Ordinance Amending, in Part, Uncodified Ordinance No. 3275
Concerning a Temporary Moratorium on Rent Increases for Fully Regulated Residential Rental
Units and Alameda Municipal Code, Article XV, Concerning Various Clean-Up Amendments.
Introduced.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog requested clarification of the technical corrections.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager stated Alameda County is piloting a program where property
owners may borrow a small amount of funds from the County and receive a regulatory
agreement in exchange for agreeing to maintain a small percentage of units as affordable; a 50
unit building can have as few as 10 affordable units and the entire building would become
exempt from the rent program.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether all 50 units must be deed restricted, to which the
Interim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
15",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,18,"Urged Council to vote no on the matter; stated the pandemic has destabilized the community;
the Bay Area needs time to recoup; the matter is antithetical; expressed concern over not
receiving 60 days advance notice of rent increases; stated the 60 days are vital for renters to
get their finances in order; there is no reason for the grace period to be halved; urged Council to
reject allowing banked rent increases; stated the current rent relief options remain precarious for
renters: Austin Tam, Filipino Advocates for Justice and Alameda Renters Coalition.
Discussed Measure K; stated escalating rents and evictions are decimating the community;
55% of the Alameda community are tenants; the percentage could be higher with rentals at
Alameda Point; discussed Ordinance 3275; stated Ordinance 3275 reflects the values of a
compassionate community in Alameda; urged Council to listen to the softer voices of
compassion, vote no on the amendment and not lift the moratorium: Cheri Johansen, Alameda
Progressives.
Stated that she is taken aback by the sudden proposal to lift the moratorium; the matter affects
half of Alameda residents; questioned where the documentation exists in order to understand
the problem; renters have previously been asked to provide hard evidence of rising rents and
evictions; landlords making such a request for aid is unsettling; the matter feels like a slap in the
face; Council must make a distinction between small landlords and investment groups; proof
needs to be provided: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.
Questioned whether there is awareness that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is at 7% and when
landlords can use the banking option; stated most small landlords rental properties and income
are lifelines; Council has cut off income; landlords must keep up with repairs to provide units in
good condition; housing inventory is old and needs a lot of maintenance; questioned when
landlords can use banked rent; expressed concern about the calculations: BeBe Cheng.
Discussed the Council rent cap action of 2019; stated the previous ordinance was in effect six
months prior to the pandemic hitting; the amount of time was not enough for renters to recover
the inequities of past years; the rent moratorium provided some measure of security; the local
emergency has not ended; however, Council is considering taking away the 60 day notice to
renters; questioned whether Council believes the financial state for renters has improved over
the pandemic; stated all costs are rising, including cost of living; urged Council to vote no: Toni
Grimm, Alameda.
(22-146) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the Park Street Wine Lease
[paragraph no. 22-147] and budget resolution [paragraph no. 22-149 under Continued Agenda
Items on March 15, 2022.
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.
Stated the current rent ordinance was created and agreed upon by both landlords and tenants
after many community meetings; discussed the current unemployment rate in Alameda County;
expressed concern about the proposed 2.7% limitation on rent increases; stated inflation will
create higher conditions than 2.7%; landlords should have a choice of whether or not to go with
the 2.7% increase or the current years' increase; the current ordinance does not allow banking
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
16",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,19,"in consecutive years; urged Council to temporarily suspend the limit on cost recuperation and
allow landlords to come up with a banking formula: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Stated there is a need for affordable housing; Alameda is one of the few cities in the area to
have a rent freeze; expressed support for an increase 60 days from notification and for the City
reiterating rent program assistance options; stated employment rates do not mean renters can
afford market rate or rate increases; renters must be protected; people need to remain housed:
Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Stated many people are surprised by the matter and the lack of a 60 day notice; the City needs
to have compassion for renters struggling with the pandemic: Zac Bowling,
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the technical amendment is meant to address the the 60
day notice issue, to which the Interim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's request for clarification of the process, the Interim Base
Reuse Manager stated the ordinance itself becomes effective on May 1st; landlords may
increase rent after May 1st; any notice that goes out starting May 1st would not be valid for
another 30 days.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the ordinance is being
presented to Council as a first reading and will require a second reading; as proposed, the
ordinance will not become effective for 45 days; the time would be further lengthened to 60
days.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the effective date for the ordinance would be
May 1st at which time landlords could give notice, to which the Interim Base Reuse Manager
responded the alternative proposed allows for notice to be given May 1st
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she heard comments from the public regarding
tenants and problems related to COVID-19; inquired whether there are rental assistance
programs.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Alameda County
emergency rental assistance program will accept applications from both tenants and landlords
for tenants behind in rent; some tenants are experiencing issues for the first time and may not
be aware of programs or associate shame with applying for assistance; Alameda County
continues to accept applications and has put in a request to the Federal Government for
additional funds.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the AHA and rent program are helping
people and where people should go for assistance.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded there is an application online; stated people can
call 2-1-1 if they cannot access the application online.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a news article; stated some money is going unused in some
cases; inquired what the money goes towards and where to look for the application online.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded the name of the program is the Alameda County
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
17",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-28,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2022
1. CONVENE
President Asheshh Saheba convened the *meeting at 7:00 p.m.
*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning
Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Rona Rothenberg led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Saheba, Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Hom,
Rothenberg, and Cisneros.
Absent: Board Member Alan Teague
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Kimi Sugioka, an Alameda resident, discussed her frustration about the ongoing
construction near her home on Shorepoint Court. She also discussed the noise from AC
units that had been put in across the street that had very high decimal readings.
Allen Tai City Planner, discussed ways to get in touch with the Planning Department to
properly address these issues.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2022-1775
Endorse the Annual Report on the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan and the Annual
Report on Transportation.
Danielle Mieler, Sustainability & Resilience Manager, introduced the Annual Report on the
Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP) and gave a presentation.
Lisa Foster, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the Annual Report on
Transportation and also gave a presentation.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 7
February 28, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-28,2,"The staff report and attachments for both presentations can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5458967&GUID=C1C3AB75-
BB8F-40C3-9376-F3322B83C674&FullText=1.
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Ron Curtis discussed the intersection of Broadway and Otis. He wanted
to know specifics about the safety enhancements planned at this intersection. His own
wife was struck by a car at that intersection in 2021. He wanted to know what could be
done quickly.
Staff Member Foster answered that that intersection was managed by Cal Trans. She
discussed what they had planned and she would pass along his comments. She said that
rapid response was something they were working on.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg asked for clarification on grant funds in regards to the
VA Property. She pointed out numbers in the report and what was reported in the Alameda
Sun.
Staff Member Mieler clarified that those were two different project locations. One was at
Alameda Point and the other was on Bay Farm Island.
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros asked for information on the Cool City Project and what
""moonshot"" entailed. She also wanted to know which priority items were tied to actual
needs in 2022 and how projects in Transportation are prioritized.
Staff Member Mieler answered that this was a joint City and Grassroot Effort. The Climate
Moonshot was the attempt to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030. She discussed how the
team would be formed and who could be involved. She then broke down the 2022 items
that needed more attention.
Staff Member Foster discussed priorities and how they found grants that would fit.
Vice President Teresa Ruiz wanted to know if the upcoming CARP workshop at the West
End Library would also be available on Zoom. She also asked about the likelihood of
receiving grant funding and how Transportation projects would be funded otherwise.
Staff Member Mieler responded in the affirmative, that the meeting was planned as
a
hybrid meeting with a cap of 20 people and broadcast live on Zoom.
Staff Member Foster summarized how current projects were funded and what the grant or
funding sources asked for.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 7
February 28, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-28,3,"Board Member Hanson Hom wanted to more about the goals and the objectives for the
Adaptational Regional working group. He then asked about roundabouts and how
Transportation identified streets for consideration.
Staff Member Mieler described the work that the group was doing to address sea-level
rise and how they would be working with other groups in the area.
Staff Member Foster discussed the Roundabout Screening Analysis project that was being
worked on.
President Saheba was happy to see work on Shoreline Drive. He wanted to know what
the plans were to make it safer for pedestrians at Corica Park.
Staff Member Foster said if there was a particular intersection that needed attention
putting it in See Click Fix would be very helpful. Some improvements had been planned
near Earhart School but she was not aware of any other plans.
President Saheba opened public comment.
Cyndi Johnson, Bike Walk Alameda, spoke in support of the staff's recommendations. She
spoke very favorably of the proposed bike/pedestrian bridge and hoped the Board would
support the staff's plan to continue to pursue the bridge.
Betsy Mathieson, Alameda resident, discussed the desire for Alameda to develop a policy
that required new and renovated buildings to have easily accessible exterior clotheslines
to reduce the use of dryers.
Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda, said she was happy with the
work done by the Planning Board. She also complimented the hard work by Danielle Mieler
and gave her support of the staff's recommendations. She said that the Transportation
goals were essential for Alameda to meet its climate goals.
Zac Bowing spoke in support of the staff recommendation. He also complimented the in-
town bus, in particular AC Line 78.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Hom discussed the importance of regional efforts on adaptation. He also
liked the efforts to incentivize homeowners to go electric, install solar and add EV charging
stations. He also applauded the seismic retrofitting effort that the city was emphasizing
and the Cool City Challenge. He believed the bike/pedestrian bridge could be a real benefit
and wanted to continue exploring it.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 7
February 28, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-28,4,"Board Member Curtis agreed with Board Member Hom on the bike/ped bridge but also
found it hard not to agree with the staff recommendation.
Vice President Ruiz discussed ridership and what additional information could be
beneficial before they went to City Council. She would endorse both reports.
President Saheba liked that both plans were forward-looking. For CARP he appreciated
the additional bike lanes and recommended a map showing where progress was being
made and where future progress was planned.
Board Member Curtis would also endorse but wanted a caveat added saying that the
Planning Board would suggest looking at the ranking of the bike/ped bridge.
Board Member Cisneros suggested seeing an alignment of the ""Needs Work"" section with
the 2022 Work Plan.
Vice President Ruiz made a motion to endorse both the CARP and Transportation
Annual Reports with staff recommendations with the emphasis that the City Council
evaluate the ranking of the bike/ped bridge. A roll call vote was taken and the motion
passed 6-0.
7-B 2022-1782
Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update and
Alameda Point Program to Construct 1,489 housing units on public land at Alameda Point
in support of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the Period 2023-2031.
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building and Transportation, introduced this item
and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5458969&GUID=4C227EDF-
CA2-426D-B66B-09386EA2BEA1&FullText=1
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Curtis wanted to know how the development would be structured with the
developers. Would the City be selling the land to them? He wanted to know how it was
financially sound for the developers.
Director Thomas explained that in most cases the land would essentially be coming for
free in exchange for the developers to build all the public infrastructure and public benefits.
He added that Lisa Maxwell, Director of Community, would be doing the negotiations with
the development partners.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 7
February 28, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-28,5,"Board Member Rothenberg wanted clarification on the partners and the process of events.
She questioned who would cover extra expenses and wanted to know about opportunities
for the City to budget.
Director Thomas explained that the City already had an existing agreement with Alameda
Point Partners and they did not have an agreement with West Midway yet. He explained
opportunities to amend their current agreement with the Site A Development Plan and
how it could be a win/win for everyone.
Lisa Maxwell, Director of Community Development, also discussed the linkage between
Phase 2 at Alameda Point and the West Midway Project. She described in detail the
important challenges and what steps needed to happen for the project to be successful.
Board Member Cisneros inquired if the 1,485 units were within the Navy Cap. She also
wanted to hear more about the goal to increase the affordable housing percentage.
Director Thomas answered that it was within the Navy Cap and explained the
preconditions with the land from the Navy. He then described in detail the Housing Needs
Assessment in Alameda and about affordable housing. He broke down the role of the
private sector to build housing and how the market-rate housing pays for affordable
housing.
Vice President Ruiz discussed the high cost connected to infrastructure. She then asked
about increasing the units in Block 10 and wanted to know if the increased number of units
is being allocated from a future phase and how affordable units will be distributed.
Director Thomas said no, they were just increasing the overall numbers in Block 10, in
total. He discussed how the number of units had changed since 2015. He then explained
that in each phase 25% of the units would be affordable.
Board Member Hom discussed the challenges around affordable housing. He then
discussed the RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) numbers and how the numbers
broke down for low income when it was presented to HCD (Housing and Community
Development).
Director Thomas agreed that it was one of the most perplexing parts of state housing law.
He described in detail the regional need and what state law would allow.
President Saheba asked for the parameters of the RESHAP Project.
Director Thomas explained what the RESHAP Project was and how the Alameda Point
Collaborative was involved. He then went into history and what partners they worked with.
President Saheba opened public comment.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 7
February 28, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-28,6,"Sarah Mclntire, MidPen Housing, discussed her company's role as one of the partners
Director Thomas mentioned in the reshape project. She discussed the energy-efficient
homes they were designing and their support for more housing at Alameda Point.
Zac Bowling thought the 25% was a huge ask and proving to HCD that it could be done
would be difficult. He was an affordable housing advocate but it was unfortunate that it
was all going in one place where there weren't a lot of resources. He suggested doing
15% and doing an Affordable Housing Overlay like what Berkeley had done.
Doug Biggs provided background and more detail on the RESHAP Project to the Board.
Karen Bey discussed Site A and Block 10 and what was entitled at each of them. She
wanted to know how and where retail would go. She also wanted to know what the new
zoning codes would be. She wanted Alameda to have a plan to retain shoppers.
President Saheba closed public comment.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2022-1767 - Draft Meeting Minutes - January 24, 2022
Board Member Cisneros clarified her comment, she was ""open"" to multifamily overlay but
preferred to make changes to the zoning code.
President Saheba opened public comment.
There were no public speakers.
President Saheba closed public comments and asked for a motion to approve.
Vice President Ruiz made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Board Member
Curtis seconded the motion. The minutes passed 5-0 with Board Member Hom in
absentia.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2022-1765
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent actions and decisions can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5458964&GUID=5F90EE37-
033E-4B75-B325-31243E6B620A&FullText=1
Board Member Rothenberg pulled PLN21-0545 1611 Sherman St for review.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 7
February 28, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-28,7,"Staff Member Tai noted that all calls for review needed to be submitted in writing with
justification for the review per the AMC.
Board Member Rothenberg said she would do SO.
9-B 2022-1766
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai announced that the next meeting, March 14th, would have another
Housing Element Workshop this time on Zoning Text Amendments.
Board Member Hom let the board know he would be absent from the March 14th meeting.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
10-A 2022-1781 - ACT Letter dated February 11, 2022
The letter can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5458968&GUID=2C15FFCD-
9645-4224-A228-8EBC78A3B329.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Curtis pointed out that in his 5 years on the board they had never had to
submit in writing with justification why a permit was pulled for review.
Staff Member Tai said they had recently reviewed their procedures and this was an
important step per the AMC. Director Thomas added that giving a reason for the Call for
Review is especially so that applicants could know the reason for the Call for Review. It
also made it easier for the staff when they wrote the report.
Celena Chen, Staff Counsel, informed Board Member Curtis when you could call an item
for review. There was a 10-day period where you could call an item for review.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 7
February 28, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-28.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-02-24,1,"City of Alameda, California
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THURSDAY, February 24, 2022
APPROVED MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Sarah Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:02pm.
President Sarah Lewis shared background information on the Season for Nonviolence,
and the Word of the Day: ""Friendliness.""
""Friendship that insists upon agreement on all matters is not worth the name. Friendship
to be real must ever sustain the weight of honest differences, however sharp they be.""
-
Mahatma Gandhi
2. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sarah Lewis, Board members Dianne Yamashiro-Omi, Priya
Jagannathan, Samantha Green, Scott Means.
Absent: Vice President Kristin Furuichi Fong (Excused).
City staff: Veronika Cole, Walker Toma, and Danielle Sullivan.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3-A Review and Approve November 13, 2021 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes of November 13, 2021 was made by Board member
Means and seconded by Board member Jagannathan. Ayes: President S. Lewis, Board
members Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, and Means. Nays: none. Note: Vice
President Furuichi Fong abstained due to absence from meeting. Motion passed 5-0.
3-B Review and Approve January 27, 2022 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes of January 27, 2022 was made by Board member
Jagannathan and seconded by Board member Green. Ayes: President S. Lewis, Board
members Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, and Means. Nays: none. Note: Vice
President Furuichi Fong abstained due to absence from meeting. Motion passed 5-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Staff member Cole read into the public record the email received on February 23 from Jay
Garfinkle. (Email Attached)
President Lewis then opened the floor for additional public comment.",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-02-24.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-02-24,2,"Public member, Jay Garfinkle, stated his appreciation for the Board, and all the work being
done. However, Mr. Garfinkle was upset with the limited access to current SSHRB
activities/information. He suggested additional information be provided prior to each
meeting, e.g. a copy of the Alameda Wellness Center presentation, which would allow for
members of the public to review before each meeting as well as comment on items at the
end of the meeting.
President Lewis thanked Mr. Garfinkle for his comments.
5. AGENDA ITEMS
5-A Presentation on Status of Alameda Wellness Campus - Doug Biggs, Executive
Director of the Alameda Point Collaborative (APC)
Mr. Biggs presented the Status of the Alameda Wellness Campus. The following is a
summary of the key segments:
Alameda County has a critical need to assist older adults who are at risk of, or are
already experiencing homelessness, require high-acuity care, or hospice
Wellness Center is focused on a new standard of care, with permanent supportive
housing for seniors; medical respite program; co-located health clinic with medical
and behavioral health care; homeless prevention/housing placement program;
and end-of-life care in one location
APC will be collaborating with Mercy Housing, Lifelong Medical Care and
Alameda County Health Care Services Agency on this project.
Restorative Waterfront Location - supports health restoration and improved
quality of life
Welcoming Community - City of Alameda residents affirm serving the most
vulnerable in Alameda County
Social Justice & Racial Equity - promotes health equity & repairs historic harm
Campus site (3.65 acres) is located near Crab Cove, and will be a ""Build-to-Suit""
facility
Secured initial funding awards and partnerships (Kaiser, Alameda County, CA
Health Care Foundation, Anthem Foundation, Sutter Health, CA Wellness
Foundation) with a recent invitation to apply for $3 million from The California
Endowment
Awarded $15 million in state funding for one-time capital costs to build the medical
respite building
Senior Housing will have 100 units for unhoused Alameda County residents 55
years and up
Respite Center will have 50 beds, serving an estimate of 400 patients per year
APC has an established oversight/outreach committee that meets on a monthly
basis. They are holding their next community meeting in March.
APC is seeking input on how to name the building.
Provided the following build forecast for the Wellness Center:",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-02-24.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-02-24,3,"Alameda Wellness Campus Schedule
PHASE
MEDICAL RESPITE
SENIOR HOUSING
Start
End
Start
End
Schematic Design
05/05/20
08/02/21
10/02/21
Design Review
10/6/20
09/30/21
09/20/21
12/06/21
Design Development
05/06/20
12/04/20
06/01/21
04/01/22
Construction Documents
08/16/21
12/27/21
07/01/22
09/01/22
Building Permits
01/03/22
05/31/22
09/15/22
03/15/23
GC Bid
01/03/22
03/02/22
12/15/22
03/15/23
Acquisition/Construction Close
06/20/22
07/01/23
Construction
07/01/22
09/15/23
07/01/23
10/31/24
President Lewis opened the floor for clarifying questions and public comment.
Public member, Jay Garfinkle asked for clarification on the following questions:
Why housing for homeless was partially modified to housing for homeless, 55
years and up?
Does APC own the Wellness Center land/property?
Will preference be given to City of Alameda residents?
Mr. Biggs confirmed the following:
The only change to the 2017 application, and reason for additional information
regarding individuals 55 years and up, is the new building, specifically for Senior
Housing (noted, all of APC's applications are available on their website)
APC has signed a 20-year lease on the land, with options to extend
Alameda residents have access to the resource center, where staff assists with
housing applications/placement
Board members expressed their appreciation for the work being done by APC, thanked Mr.
Biggs for his presentation, and asked clarifying questions. Board member Jagannathan
asked if APC would be willing to share information that may assist with the 2022 Community
Needs Assessment (CNA). President Lewis asked if APC has established outcome metrics
to determine successes/failures. Mr. Biggs offered to share information which would be
helpful for the CNA as well as past, present and future metrics.
5-B Continuation of Discussion for SSHRB 2022 Work Plan and Ad Hoc Committee
reports:",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-02-24.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-02-24,4,"Sub-committee members provided updates on individual work plans and revised
completion dates, as needed. Board members discussed the updated information, and
open action items. The following is a summary of the discussion items:
Thinking about the goals we have identified as SSHRB members, what
information do we need to inform our work?
Utilization of city services - who is using it, are tutorials available?
The biggest strengths of our community
Feeling potential to be active participants, belonging and contributing
Citizens feeling safety and security
Transparency about what is happening, what is going on in the city, staff
bringing data to our attention, events or changes and trends that are
affecting the Community
How they want SSHRB to represent them, City Council to connect with
them; how they want to interact with us (websites, emails, apps);
addressing the gap between what is being done and what people are
seeing and hearing
Thinking about your specific subcommittee, what information do you need to be
effective?
Acts of racism/discrimination by police/city staff
Coordinate with consultants who have done work with communities before
Sharing of positive/healing experiences that have brought people together
Identify funding streams and possible gaps
How is funding being spent and what is the community's perception of how
it is being spent
The CNA should be brief, how and what can we effectively ask through a
survey
Reporting back to the community
Do people know what services are available, how to access them, and are
they what they need
What are the parameters of SSHRB, who can we talk to, what can we do,
can we get funding from other sources and what can we do with it
Central location for previous meetings, reports and presentations
(website?)
The CNA has primarily been used for CDBG. Thinking about the December
meeting when we discussed CDBG funding, did you feel like you had enough
information to make recommendations? What information would have been
helpful? Where would that information come from? E.g. does it need to come
from a community survey, community experts, people with lived experience, etc.
Prevention - what are activities that the City if engaging in to prevent
domestic violence, homelessness, etc.
Call for assistance - 211 data with trend
Additional community needs calls, emails
Ensuring we are truly representative of the community in whatever data we
collect
City specific goals around different activity areas, what are they and where
do applicants or un-met needs fit
Recommendation from staff on what to focus on, insight into what areas we
focus on, what is that process, can we be included",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-02-24.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-02-24,5,"Felt that we are working out of context
CDBG application review, funding streams and funding narratives, more
information to assist review process
Can the group make use of other surveys?
5-C Workgroup Reports
Domestic Violence (Veronika Cole): Ms. Cole reported that the quarterly meeting
occurred on February 17. Sgt. Mountain with the Alameda Police Department
presented Alameda's domestic violence statistics. Highlighting the following:
Misdemeanor offenses are lower than 2019, but higher than 2020
Felony offenses and total offenses have significantly risen
Numbers are typically higher during the summer
APD has seen a high number of repeat offenders as well of incidents
where children are present
Committee discussed the need for additional outreach options (posters
with resource options)
Katherine Schwartz plans to coordinate a follow-up meeting to discuss
next steps
Board member Yamashiro-Omi asked if the City has shelter beds/rooms set
aside for domestic violence victims. Staff member Cole stated that she will
gather this information and provide an update at the next SSHRB meeting.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Review of CDBG Public Service Applications due by Monday, February 28, 9
a.m.
Staff member Cole reminded SSHRB members of the application review deadline. Board
member Jagannathan asked how much funding was available, and if all proposals
submitted will be funded? Staff member Cole stated she will follow-up with City staff and
provide an update once available.
6-B Status Report on Homeless Services
Staff member Cole provided the following update:
The Point in Time Count was successfully completed. The total count has not been
finalized, however over 100 individuals were counted
City staff will be presenting a proposal for Emergency Supportive Housing to City
Council on March 15. The proposal includes 3 vacant properties at Alameda Point
(1 for homeless individuals, and the other 2 for families that are homeless)
The Village of Love was recently informed that they will need to relocate due to
construction impacted Alameda Point. Timeline is currently unknown.
7. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-02-24.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-02-24,6,"None.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Carmen Reed requested to speak (by raising her hand virtually). Staff member Cole was
unsure if public could comment unless it is an agenda item. She requested Ms. Reed to
email her with any questions and she would be happy to help with a response.
9. ADJOURNMENT
President Lewis adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Veronika Cole, Acting Board Secretary",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-02-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-02-22,1,"Approved
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) MEETING
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:01p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Jennifer Hoffecker, Peter Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson.
Absent: none.
Walker Toma and Annie Cox present as staff to the Commission.
3. MINUTES
2022-1764 Review and Approve December 20, 2021 Draft PAC Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairpeson Rush and
seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer and Ferguson. Nays: none. Motion
carried 5-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-1768 Recommendation to Review and Provide Feedback on Staff
Proposal to Develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Cultural Arts and Arts
Programming
Staff member Toma presented the staff proposal to develop a Request for
Proposal (RFP) for cultural arts and arts programming. Mr. Toma provided
background, overview of funds available, explained RFP considerations and
presented staff recommendations. Mr. Toma answered clarifying questions and
invited Commissioners to discuss.
Tina Blaine, Executive Director of Rhythmix Cultural Works, member of the public
and former public art grant recipient, expressed a preference for a larger number
of grants for smaller amounts ($5-10K) to allow a greater number of artists to be
supported by the RFP.
Jennifer Radakovich, Associate Director at Rhythmix Cultural Works, seconded
the recommendation to have more grants in smaller denominations to support",PublicArtCommission/2022-02-22.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-02-22,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
more of Alameda's artists and arts organizations. Ms. Radakovich expressed
concern about one awardee receiving multiple grants.
Carmen Reid, expressed appreciation for the Public Art Commission for the
continued support of the arts, particularly during COVID-19, and asked for
clarification on the makeup of a proposed subcommittee for evaluating grant
applications, and if the Brown Act would be triggered depending on the
composition. Finally, Ms. Reid supported a larger number of grants for smaller
amounts, and suggested a Go-Fund-Me to solicit funds from the public to allow for
more funding towards art grant programs.
Tara Pilbrow, Executive Director of West End Arts District and a recipient of a
previous City of Alameda Cultural Arts and Arts Progamming grant, suggested that
a larger number of grants for a smaller amount allows grants to be spread further
among various organizations. This provides funding to a larger number of voices
and allows organizations to receive supplemental funding for their events.
Additionally, Ms. Pilbrow, recommended regularly scheduled RFPs so that cultural
arts organizations can plan out their performances in accordance with funding
scheudles.
Commissioners discussed the proposed RFP, and provided the following
feedback:
Suppoort for expediting the process to ensure funds are distributed in the most
expedient way possible;
Increase the number of grants awarded to (4) $5,000 awards and (4) $10,000
awards, while streamlining the number of award categories;
Allow for-profit organizations to apply for grants; and
Potentially allow organizations to apply for multiple grants in the event they are
providing larger events.
A motion to approve that staff develop a Cultural Arts RFP, taking into account the
feedback received from both the Commission and the public, was made by
Commissioner Platzgummer and seconded by Chairperson Ferguson. Ayes:
Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Hoffecker,
Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Toma provided the following updates:
Installation updates for Rockspinners, Alameda Afore, Beken, and Tidal Arch.
Mr. Toma announced the completion of the ""Egret with No Regrets"" mural, as
well as a new public art proposal for Subpar Mini Golf that will likely come to
the PAC in April.
Mr. Toma provided the PAC with an updated spreadsheet of proposed and
upcoming Public Art projects, based on feedback from Commissioners at the
2",PublicArtCommission/2022-02-22.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-02-22,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
December 20, 2021 PAC meeting. Chairperson Gillitt asked if the upcoming
VA development will trigger a Public Art requirement. Mr. Toma offered to
update the PAC when information becomes available.
Staff hope to issue a second round of small art grants in the second half of
2022.
The preferred consultant for the Public Art Master Plan, Forecast Public Art,
has identified top local candidates to be hired as the primary point person for
the Public Art Master Plan.
WePlayers will put on a one-woman-show, titled ""The Keeper"" at Alameda
Point, that will run Friday, Saturday, and Sunday from May 27 through June 26,
2022.
The West End Arts District has expressed interest in persuing painting the
asphalt on the old tarmac near the new Alameda Waterfront Park at Alameda
Point.
There is a new shortened URL for the Public Art Commission website:
https://www.alamedaca.gov/publicart
In response to a question posed to the staff at the December 20, 2022 PAC
meeting, Mr. Toma clarified that the Public Art section of the Ordinance states
""other expenses associated with installation, conservation, maintenance, and
deaccession of public art shall be prioritized for public art on public property"".
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Chairperson Gillitt invited commissioners, staff, and City residents to join the
walking tours of the original three villages of Alameda on February 27, March 6,
and March 13 in celebration of Alameda's 150th anniversary. For more information,
visit: AlamedaPost.com.
Commisioner Ferguson stated that he appreciated previous concerts at
Chochenyo Park, and Chairperson Gillitt suggested Commissioner Ferguson
contact the Alameda Recreation and Parks Department.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Carmen Reid informed the PAC and public that art by students of Saint Joseph's
School is currently on display at the Blue Dot Café in Alameda.
Tara Pilbrow added the suggestion to allow for grants to provide partial funding
and/or seed money towards a larger-budgeted event for the Cultural Art RFP
submissions.
3",PublicArtCommission/2022-02-22.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-02-22,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
Jennifer Radakovich informed the PAC and public of an upcoming cultural art
event, ""Island City Waterways"", taking place on May 21-23 at Alameda Point's
West Mall.
Chairperson Gillitt informed the PAC and public of an upcoming cultural art event,
""Words that Made the Difference: BROWN VS the BOARD OF EDUCATION"",
taking place on February 26 at Rhythmix Cultural Works.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:28pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary, Public Art Commission
4",PublicArtCommission/2022-02-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 15, 2022- 5:15 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:23 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella
arrived at 5:25 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
Consent Calendar:
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.] [Items so enacted or
adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22-098) Recommendation to approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Community
Development Director Lisa Maxwell, Assistant Community Development Director
Nanette Mocanu, and Assistant City Attorney Len Aslanian as Real Property
Negotiators for Building 41, Located at 650 West Tower Avenue, Alameda, CA.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-099) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
54956.8); Property: 650 West Tower Avenue (Building 41) Alameda Point, Alameda,
CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Community Development Director Lisa
Maxwell, Assistant Community Development Director Nanette Mocanu, and Assistant
City Attorney Len Aslanian; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Wrightspeed, Inc.;
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Lease.
(22-100) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources
Director; Employee Organizations: Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA),
Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire Managers
Association (AFMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of
Employment.
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: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5;
regarding; regarding Labor, staff provided information and Council provided direction by
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,2,"the following two 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: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1
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.
Special Meeting
Alameda City
Council February 15,
2022",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,3,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- FEBRUARY 15, 2022- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. and Councilmember Herrera Spencer
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
(22-101) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated items will be heard in the following order: the Wilma Chan
street renaming [paragraph no. 22-115], the aquatic center conceptual design [paragraph no.
22-116], the Franklin and Lincoln Park pools [paragraph no. 22-119], followed by the Senate Bill
9 ordinance [paragraph no. 22-120].
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-102) Season for Nonviolence Word of the Day: Choice
Councilmember Daysog read a quote regarding choice.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-103) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, discussed Measure Z; urged Council to support returning the
control of zoning and land use to the people of Alameda by way of a State initiative; announced
a related petition called ""Our Neighborhood Voices"" being circulated for signatures; urged
Council endorse the petition.
(22-104) Carmen Reid, Alameda, discussed the State initiative petition circulating which seeks
to return control of local land use and zoning.
(22-105) Anne Lee, Alameda, expressed support for continuing the Alameda Loop Shuttle.
(22-106) Zac Bowling, Alameda, expressed support for the Line 78 bus route to the Seaplane
Lagoon; stated funding for the bus route is no longer solvent; urged people to take the bus
route.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would recuse himself from the Landscaping and Lighting
District 84-2 resolution [paragraph no. 22-111].
Discussed the pension obligation bonds and opposition to the matter; expressed concern about
the matter being placed on the Consent Calendar; urged Council to disclose the amount of
money spent on the matter: Jason Bezis, Attorney for Alameda County Taxpayers Association
and Steve Slauson.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,4,"Expressed concern over the Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA) MOU and the pension
obligation bonds matters being placed on the Consent Calendar; stated that he finds himself
without sufficient information on the matters; the staff reports provide no competitive data; the
public deserves more from Council: Paul Foreman, Alameda.
Expressed support for comments provided by speaker Foreman; expressed concern about the
Fire Medical Director and the provider not billing the City; stated the City should receive routine
billing: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the Fire Medical Director [paragraph
no. 22-109], APOA MOU [paragraph no. 22-110], pension obligation bonds [paragraph no. 22-
113) and the local emergency [paragraph no. 22-114 matters removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the reminder 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: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22-107) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on January 18, 2022.
Approved.
(*22-108) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,786,782.07.
(22-109) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to
the Agreement with the Regents of the University of California, on Behalf of Its University of
California San Francisco School of Medicine, Department Of Emergency Medicine (""UCSF"") to
Provide the Services of Medical Director for the Alameda Fire Department Through February
29, 2024, in an Amount Not to Exceed $139,883.
The Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the provider has been providing services yet
not billing the City.
The Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated UCSF has not billed for services; staff has
repeatedly requested and a response has not yet been provided; noted the language in the
second amendment includes a timely billing requirement.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,20,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for finishing the current matter, continuing the SB 9
matter, hearing public comment on the Franklin and Lincoln Park pools, followed by any Council
referrals prior to 11:30 p.m.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the amount of public comment for the park pools
matter; expressed concern over the timing.
The City Clerk responded 13 speakers have indicated that they wish to speak; stated the
amount is increasing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of finishing the current matter, followed by the Franklin
and Lincoln Park pools matter for public comment only, and followed by any Council referrals
heard prior to 11:30 p.m.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the meeting will continue
if public comments continue past 11:30 p.m.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded Council will finish hearing public comments.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted the meeting could continue past 11:30 p.m.
On the call for the question, the motion failed 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 Herrera Spencer moved approval of completing the current matter only; noted
the Franklin and Lincoln Park pools matter should be placed first under Continued Items,
Section 6, of the next agenda, followed by the SB 9 matter.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he feels bad for the people who have
waited until 10:50 p.m. to be told that Council does not want to continue for an extra 45 minutes
to hear comments.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the motion because the public comments
should occur at the same time as Council deliberation; expressed concern for those that have
waited; stated the public is better served in having one uniform meeting.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the concern is related to hearing both the public comment
and Council deliberation.
Vice Mayor Vella made a substitute motion approving continuing the meeting to hear the
Franklin and Lincoln Park pools matter in its entirety.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
18",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,21,"Councilmember Daysog inquired how the substitute motion differs from the motion proposed by
Councilmember Herrera Spencer.
Vice Mayor Vella responded that her substitute motion approves hearing the next matter
entirely.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the substitute motion.
On the call for the question, the substitute 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.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the SB 9 hearing to the
continued section of the March 1st meeting.
(22-118) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the SB 9 matter to the Continued
Agenda Items Section 6 of the March 1st agenda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer, 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.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's request, the Recreation and Parks Director stated whether or
not AUSD funding will allow for the project to be placed on a list for a bond measure and
whether or not the bond will pass are unknown; recommended working with AUSD staff to
further refine the $15 million cost and propose AUSD work with its architect to see whether the
project could happen sooner if the City provides matching funds; stated that she has not
considered the ballot measure not passing; however, if so, City staff will need to look into a full
City aquatic center at either the Emma Hood site or an alternative to allow for higher
participation; City staff can work with County Health to extend the closure date; there has been
interest indicated for a City pool to be placed on City-land; staff can connect with design-build
firms and review recent projects to gain a sense of whether $15 million is a realistic budget; her
goal is to review whether the City can perform both the assistance for AUSD's repair of Emma
Hood and a City aquatic center for a cost of around $20 million.
The City Manager concurred with the Recreation and Parks Director.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff will be including information related to the matter in
the upcoming budget workshops in addition to considering other revenue measures.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the information will be included in the
budget workshop for the mid-cycle report in May.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about Emma Hood pool not having
enough capacity and the City ending up with a pool on AUSD property instead of a City aquatic
center; stated AUSD needs to come up with the least expensive way of getting the capacity; the
City needs to come up with a plan that provides more occupancy; many cities have City pools;
she has a problem with focusing on a City pool located on AUSD property; expressed support
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
19",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,22,"for AUSD leading for Emma Hood and the City leading for a City aquatic center; stated the City
cannot afford to maintain two pools long-term.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is excited to see information returns.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for a lane and use analysis being provided
when the matter comes back; stated there is confusion about the original scheme not increasing
the number of lanes and water space versus rebuilding Emma Hood; expressed concern about
the community paying two separate entities to build two separate pools, or the City building its
own City pool leaving Emma Hood to crash and burn or the City not building a City pool and not
having the needed capacity; stated the calculus information should be included to ensure that
there is no City versus AUSD scenario which hurts the City.
(22-119) Recommendation to Provide Direction on the Operation and Management of the
Franklin Park and Lincoln Park Pools.
Councilmember Knox White announced that he would recuse himself and left the meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 11:02 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:18 p.m.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.
Stated that she and her children have been swimming in Alameda as a key holder; she
appreciates her children being able to swim every weekend; she has become a better swimmer
during the pandemic; expressed support for more equity around the kindergarten times: Jacky
Hayward, Alameda Swimming Pool Association (ASPA).
Urged Council pause negotiations with ASPA in order to solicit public input; stated residents
have a vested interest in the outcome of negotiations based on the potential closure of Emma
Hood; accessing public pools is a matter of equity; discussed membership requirements for
private pools; stated it is immoral to hoard limited pool space when the demand has increased;
discussed the history of private pools and the link to racism: Neveen Acero, Alameda.
Discussed accessibility of the pools; stated the annual membership fee is cheaper than most
gyms; membership discount programs exist; ASPA is a volunteer organization that has worked
successfully for years; the current effort is a solution in search of a problem; the City can
subsidize memberships: Brendan Macaulay, ASPA.
Discussed her experience with ASPA being positive; stated that she has been a key holder, has
passed the lifeguard test and is disabled; the ability to swim is essential to well-being; the
concerns related to lifeguarding are valid; working solutions can happen; urged Council
negotiate the lease with ASPA: Julie Lyons, ASPA.
Urged Council to think big and do the right thing; stated ASPA has done an exemplary job of
running the pools; anyone can join by completing an application form; expressed concern about
reasons being created to cause difficulty for ASPA to operate; stated there is desire to keep
Franklin and Lincoln Park pools open; urged Council be part of the solution sought: John
Zenner, Alameda ASPA.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
20",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,23,"Discussed her use of the pools; expressed support for drop-in swim lessons; stated changes
might be needed; urged Council to take the matter slowly and work with membership to ensure
changes can be implemented over time; expressed concern about the pool being closed for the
summer due to changes: Katherine Van Dusen, Alameda ASPA.
Stated that he sees demographic diversity at the pools regularly; Lincoln Park pool could benefit
from signage; questioned why Council cannot grant a longer lease for ASPA; discussed fair rate
structure plans; stated that he has not seen the City publicize the existing swim facilities;
expressed support for ASPA managing the facilities: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
Urged Council to consider equity, accessibility and the need for community input; stated the City
has made efforts to seek community input on other park features; expressed support for the
opportunity of a large scale community swimming pool, but the resource will not be accessible
for years; stated the lease with ASPA represents an immediate opportunity to increase access:
Maia Werner-Avidon, Alameda.
Urged Council to renew the lease with ASPA; stated the pools operate differently than others;
ASPA offers unstructured weekend time and drop-in swim classes; other pools do not have the
capacity for swim lessons; ASPA could do a better job of making information available regarding
pool operations and signage could be improved; ASPA is a community resource: Mary Matella,
ASPA.
Stated ASPA has allowed generations to be water-safe; members thrive in the current ASPA
environment; discussed the buildings and facilities; stated maintenance of the facilities is largely
performed by volunteers; the levels of volunteering are not barriers to membership; ASPA
facilities are vital; urged Council to secure an exception to the Surplus Lands Act, renegotiate
the lease and use the resources of the City: Betsy Mathieson, ASPA.
Urged Council not to continue negotiating with ASPA and direct staff to explore alternatives for
the management of the Franklin and Lincoln Park pools; stated the time has come to start a new
chapter; the model for the pools results in private, exclusive memberships inside public parks;
there are issues of safety, compliance and access; urged Council end the lease with ASPA:
Kristan LaVietes, Alameda.
Stated that he is an avid swimmer; expressed support for the options to swim in Alameda;
stated ASPA needs to be preserved as an important option; ASPA must continue to expand and
improve; discussed the private pool being on City land; the pool is a co-op; the cost of
membership is cheaper than most drop-in services: Erich Stiger, Alameda.
Stated the Franklin and Lincoln Park pools are a special part of the community; the pools
provide important life-saving skills; membership costs are reasonable; the pools have been
managed by volunteer members; urged Council to continue allowing ASPA to manage the
pools; stated volunteer hours are a great way to be inclusive and build community: Carmen
Reid, Alameda.
Stated the community is rich and can pay for access to pools; urged people consider the
differences in income; stated access to pools is not free or nominal for those who cannot afford
membership: Roger Slattery, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
21",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,24,"Urged Council pause the negotiations and reconsider the equity argument that many have
made; stated the practice of pool memberships is not inclusive or accessible; expressed support
for the use of the pools and volunteerism; stated the pools should be open to everyone or shut
down: Seth Marbin, Alameda.
Stated that he is a loyal ASPA member; ASPA needs guidance in the pursuit of safety and
membership; ASPA is a great model; more equity and access needs to be addressed;
expressed support for the City holding quarterly meetings to provide information to members
and allow for questions: Marshall Dortch, ASPA and Alameda Gators.
Stated in response to the concerns for safety, ASPA has insurance; ASPA has remained
insurable; discussed lifeguard qualifications; stated there is room for improvement in the
courses; expressed support for the pools continuing with improved operations: Randall Miller,
ASPA.
Provided a reading excerpt from ""The Sum of Us:"" Morgan Bellinger, Alameda.
Urged Council to renew the lease with ASPA; stated the City can do a better job of advertising
available pools to the public; discussed access differences between ASPA and other Alameda
pools; stated the membership fees are economical for families; expressed support for
scholarship funds to make memberships affordable: Therese Hall, Alameda.
Stated more needs to be done to ensure swimming is more accessible for all; expressed
support for the City being a partner with ASPA; stated ASPA is a co-op and is open and
accessible; the City can help with advertising; urged the City to partner with ASPA; stated the
hours are focused on youth swimming: Pam Luo, ASPA.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there are equity issues with the matter; discussed her previous use of
the pools; noted the ASPA website and pool site has little information posted; expressed
concern about the access to the pools being during defined and limited periods of time; stated it
is odd to discuss membership on a public resource; expressed concern about safety aspects
and little City oversight; expressed support for finding ways to expand public access, for clear
information being available and for moving away from the membership model; stated that she
appreciates the volunteerism and co-op process; questioned whether there is a reason the City
cannot move forward with the same sentiment in opening up the pools to all; stated there is an
equity issue with membership and accessibility; she would like to see the pools expanded and
opened up to the neighborhood without a membership for access.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff is recommending Council provide the authority to negotiate a
short-term lease as opposed to entering into an operating agreement; more access to pools and
swimming is needed; expressed support a creative and flexible approach to the matter; stated a
few items are non-negotiable, including lifeguards; questioned the amount of lifeguards needed;
stated pools are required to have insurance; State law requires trained, certified lifeguards be
on site; lifeguards should be included as a term of the lease; questioned the consequences of
lease terms not being met; stated there are short-comings and safety must be first; expressed
support for an automated, online registration system; stated automated systems are a way to
ensure the pool is being used to its maximum capacity; discussed costs being a barrier to
access; stated many people do not have the $400 membership fee saved; questioned whether
there is a way for membership not to be paid in a lump sum; and whether the pool can be made
available for people that wish to swim on a one-time or drop-in basis; stated the age
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
22",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,25,"requirement for youth access to the pool unattended should be increased; there are ways to do
more with the pool; the City can come up with a model which utilizes the pool resource; the City
can work with ASPA to get the word out about the pools.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the 8-year age limit for youths to be allowed in the
pool unattended is being reviewed; the Board has agreed to increase the age requirement to 13
in concept.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her children used the pools for free for multiple
summers; noted that she could not get free swim lessons anywhere else in the City; the City
does not offer free swim lessons for seniors or children; inquired the cost of City swim lessons.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded that she does not have the exact cost for
lessons; stated the City does not offer free lessons; however, scholarships are available for
those that qualify and apply.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated many renters do not qualify for scholarships.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the lessons cost $10 per class.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City has been lucky to have the ASPA pools and
volunteers; the volunteers have found ways to serve children, seniors and people with
disabilities; further stated that she never paid for membership at ASPA pools; there are free
options for youth and seniors; expressed support for the returning report to show what ASPA
offers for free; stated that she supports ASPA; many families utilize ASPA pools; she
appreciates the volunteers help in providing accessibility to pools; the volunteer time put into the
pools is important; tiny tot swimming lessons range from $50 to $100; ASPA has been equitable
in serving the community; questioned who pays for the operation and maintenance of the ASPA
pools; stated it is not appropriate to continue to ask people to volunteer; expressed concern
about increasing volunteer work; stated the pools likely would have been closed long ago if
operated by the City; pools are expensive to maintain; the City has been fortunate to have
community members working on the pools; ASPA is the most equitable pool available in
Alameda; City swim programs are expensive; discussed the history of racism related to pool
memberships; stated that she has seen people of color use the pool over the years;
commended the community for providing free swimming lessons over the years for many
children, including her own; stated ASPA is the only opportunity for free swim lessons; many
children do not qualify for swimming scholarships and cannot afford to pay; requested the legal
requirements to have lifeguards present at pools be presented when the matter returns.
The City Attorney stated staff can provide information to Council.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the information made available to
the community in advance of the meeting.
The City Attorney stated staff is happy to follow the direction of Council.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City must have lifeguards to operate the
pools.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
23",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,26,"The City Attorney responded staff can look into the requirements and provide response in
writing; stated staff's position has been explained by the Recreation and Parks Director.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated parents have to be present with children for kindergarten swim; the
hours are not always accessible for working parents; expressed support for staff returning with
different options; stated the City has many good resources and should get more people
involved.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he learned to swim at the Encinal High School pool;
swimming pools are a vital part of the social fabric; ASPA has been around for decades and has
provided good work; discussed the desire for community pools starting in the 1930s and 1940s;
stated the ASPA pool project was in the late 1940s to early 1950s; discussed racist histories
related to pools; stated pools have provided an incredible service; good service should be
rewarded; encouraged staff to work with ASPA to understand constraints; stated ASPA has
operated for many years and understands what works best; expressed support for modifying
areas which need collaboration, including the swimming times and parents being present; stated
the City should work with ASPA within the current system to ensure vital services are provided;
the City can show flexibility in the lifeguard matter and meet ASPA halfway; the fee system in
place for ASPA should be discussed; expressed concern over stopping negotiations; stated the
partnership should continue.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the City showing flexibility on the lifeguard
matter; stated staff should return with more specifics on the topic.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City must do its utmost to ensure that the minimum requirements
are upheld and that a safe environment exists; she would like staff to return with the proposals
presented in the staff report; expressed support for opening the matter up to include expanding
the days and hours of access; stated pool information needs to be presented better and be
more accessible on the ASPA website; expressed support for weekend hours being open to the
public; noted only members are able access the pools on the weekend; stated that she likes the
idea of an electronic system and the proposal of City approval of policies and procedures;
expressed support for public access on weekends, including drop-in options for all lessons;
stated the City does not offer enough swim lessons and many lessons fill up quickly; she would
like the ASPA lessons and free swim expanded; she supports an online advance reservation
system; the system would allow the City to track and better understand the demand and
interest; expressed support for highlighting the ASPA pools information on the City website;
stated that she would like to see better signage.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for ASPA volunteer options being
presented.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to ensure staff maintains the intention of
keeping ASPA as the provider for the pools; the City should allow flexibility on ASPA matters;
good work should be rewarded; ASPA has provided fabulous work for the community; the City
should work with ASPA and allow ASPA leadership to continue; Alameda is special in having a
volunteer organization; it is possible that the City needs to work on improving its swim programs
costs; the City should look at the matter holistically and find improvements for both.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Recreation and Parks Director provided extensive work related
to fee increases; inquired whether additional direction is sought from staff.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
24",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,27,"The Recreation and Parks Director responded that she has enough information to proceed;
stated staff will continue to meet with the ASPA Board of Directors.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is critical that the City work with ASPA and have
ASPA be the leader in the matter.
(22-120) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal
Code Chapter XXX to Implement Senate Bill 9 Regarding Two-Unit Housing Developments and
Urban Lot Splits in Single-Family Residential Zones. Continued to March 1, 2022.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Not heard.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-121) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-122) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-123) Consider Directing Staff to Bring the Rent Program ""In-House"" to the City Attorney's
Office. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:44 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
25",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,5,"(22-110) Resolution No. 15863, ""Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between
the Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA) 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 inquired whether the salary surveys are public information, to
which the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the staff report shows approximately $5.4 million of
increased pay for the contract; noted the five year forecast has shown that the City will begin
touching the reserves; expressed support for clarification on where the funding will come from.
The Assistant City Manager stated the MOU includes a 3.4% increase over the existing Police
Department budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, which will occur in the subsequent years; staff
anticipates the City can afford the recommended salary increases and associated costs; the five
year financial forecast was completed during COVID-19; staff has been conservative; revenues
have come in slightly higher than projected; staff is fairly certain that property, sales and transfer
taxes will come in where originally budgeted; staff anticipates an assumed 3.5% increase
annually on salaries; staff is recommending moving forward with the contract.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when staff anticipates returning to Council with new
budget information.
The Assistant City Manager responded the mid-year budget will be presented March 1st; stated
the mid-cycle budget will come prior to adoption in June; staff will be sharing the surplus
revenue information in roughly two weeks.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the pay increases are reasonable; the
agreement has a 4% increase starting January 2022; it is important to move ahead with the staff
recommendations in order to retain and recruit Officers; he appreciates the reasonable pay
increases; having fixed pay rate increases helps the City move away from the previous method
of increasing pay; previous methods were tied to increases in property and sales tax revenues,
which were typically above the reasonable amounts presented.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not historically supported the contract;
expressed concern about the City's ability to attract and retain Officers; stated the Department
has been under-staffed; it is important that the City try to be competitively priced; she will be
supporting the matter.
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.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,6,"(22-111) Resolution No. 15864, ""Appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-Record for
Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2 (Various Locations Throughout the City).
Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left the meeting. The motion 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.]
(*22-112) Resolution No. 15865, ""Appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-Record
for Maintenance Assessment District 01-1 (Marina Cove). Adopted.
(22-113) Resolution No. 15866, ""Rescinding Resolution No. 15829 which Authorized the
Issuance of One or More Series of Pension Obligation Bonds to Refinance Outstanding
Obligations of the City to the California Public Employees' Retirement System and Related
Matters."" Adopted.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is important to provide more information to the public;
inquired whether the amount of money spent on the consultant is public information.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry within the
matter.
The City Attorney responded the call is close; stated the inquiry may be briefly answered without
Council going into a great deal of discussion; communications with the City's business
consultants are generally public records; communications with the City's attorneys are not public
records.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether a person could submit a Public Record Act
(PRA) request in order to know how much has been incurred for consultants, to which the City
Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer further inquired whether the attorney's fees are public
information, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a motion to rescind the previous decision must be
moved by a Councilmember which previously voted against the matter.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; noted rules for reconsideration only apply to the
same meeting, not across meetings; stated any Councilmember may move the staff
recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the City is trying to address decade long
pension obligations which do not go away; the actions taken continue to put the City on the
expensive hook of paying the full costs over many years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,7,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates rescinding the previous decision; the
previous matter is not the solution to solve the pension obligations and was fiscally risky, due to
inflation and interest rate swings; the calculation showed a $2 million annual savings; discussed
$2 million savings compared to annual wages for City staff; stated the $2 million savings can be
eaten away and undo the strategy; CalPERS can still make decisions that would require the City
to pay more; the desire to solve the pension obligation is spot-on; however, the strategy
recommended had been incorrect.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1.
(22-114) Resolution No. 15867, ""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.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Council has received multiple emails and inquiries
regarding when the City will return to in-person meetings; inquired whether the matter is related.
The Assistant City Manager responded not directly; stated separate actions are happening
related to the Brown Act and the flexibility which has been offered relative to Council meetings.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter is related to tenant protections.
The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff has heard from the
landlord and tenant communities; staff will bring an item related to the rent moratorium to
Council in March.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when the rent increase moratorium went into effect.
The City Attorney responded that he does not have the specific date; stated staff will include the
information in the March staff report.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when changes made to the rent moratorium would be
effective.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about discussing the rent moratorium; requested
clarification on the discussion parameters.
The City Attorney stated the inquiry posed relates to a future agenda matter; recommended staff
present the matter when ready.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter continues the rent freeze; inquired
whether the rent freeze would cease immediately if Council does not support the matter.
The City Attorney responded if Council decides not to continue the local emergency, rents will
be able to increase in approximately 60 days.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,8,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is important to be upfront with the community.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether it is possible for Council to provide direction on
how to proceed with relation to the emergency and when meetings will come back in-person or
whether Council should wait until the next meeting.
The City Attorney responded Council is always able to provide brief direction; stated that his
recommendation is to wait until the next meeting when the matter is before Council.
Councilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember 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.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-115) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15868, ""Renaming Constitution Way to
Wilma Chan Way in Honor of Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan."" Adopted.
The City Planner gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the $6,000 has been budgeted and the
funding source.
The City Planner responded part of the cost comes from the Planning, Building and
Transportation fund for staff time; presented a chart of associated costs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the budget for pavement and street markings
includes potholes.
The City Planner responded that he is unsure; stated staff understands the money will come out
of the budgeted maintenance fund; sign replacement and street markings come out of the same
fund; an outside contractor has already been selected to perform the work.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff has reached out to East Bay Municipal
Utilities District (EBMUD).
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether EBMUD has a building on the street.
The City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated that he contacted EBMUD's real estate
division to provide an opportunity to comment; he has not received a response; the City also
sent a public notification.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
6",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,9,"Supervisor Chan; Wilma has done a lot for the community and the renaming would mean a lot
to her family; urged Council to support the resolution: Alameda County Supervisor Dave Brown.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry related to findings, the City Planner
stated staff based the resolution findings on a previous proclamation; Council may supplement
the findings if desired.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter is important and warrants waiving the three
year period; a prior Council waived the period for Ralph Appezzato; the resolution does not
include that Wilma Chan was a long-time Alameda resident; expressed support for adding the
language into the resolution; stated Wilma Chan lived in Alameda for over 15 years.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City had a renaming policy in place for the renaming
of Ralph Appezzato Way.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,10,"The City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the first Council street name policy was
adopted in 1991.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an exception needed to be made for Ralph Appezzato
Way.
The City Planner responded the three year waiting period was added in 2007; stated at the time
of Ralph Appezzato's passing, the policy was much shorter, did not have many procedural
requirements and made no mention of procedure or process for significant public figures; shortly
after Ralph Appezzato's passing, the street renaming was brought to Council; staff is following a
similar precedent for Wilma Chan.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution with adding that Wilma Chan
was a long-term resident of Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he had the opportunity of serving with
Supervisor Chan on the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; one of Supervisor
Chan's most impactful acts in 1995 was having Bay Conservation Development Commission
(BCDC) lift the seaport designation; after Base closure, the priority use for Alameda Point would
have been for Port Authority purposes; Supervisor Chan led an extraordinary fight to lift the port
designation and avoid having tractor-trailer trucks going through Alameda; the late Supervisor
Chan did many incredible things; lifting the port designation was one of the most pivotal
moments for the City of Alameda and Alameda Point; discussed the BCDC vote; expressed
support for the resolution and considering alternate renaming, such as the Seaplane Lagoon
and Waterfront Park; encouraged Council to think about other areas to commemorate the
leadership of Wilma Chan; stated that he supports the renaming of Constitution Way.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he will abstain on the vote; the naming policy includes a
three year hold on renaming due to the feelings of those involved in the decision; stated the
renaming would be better if more time were provided; the current matter will be the first time for
Council to ignore the policy; there is a petition from over 1,000 Alamedans requesting the
renaming of a park named after a racist Alameda Mayor; three sitting Councilmembers have
requested the matter be brought forth and instead, new policies have been developed; the
policies re-support the three year waiting period; no action on renaming the park has been
taken; he holds Supervisor Chan in the highest regard; Council must think about how to use
discretionary action; he cannot make the finding that Council is in a place that necessitates
jumping the matter ahead of the line; he could not support renaming Constitution Way after
Wilma Chan given her impact on traffic; discussed a memorial service for someone killed on
Constitution Way; Constitution Way is one of the City's most dangerous streets; expressed
concern about the rush to rename a street which is not appropriate given the circumstances;
stated that he would like to ensure the renaming would be honoring the circumstances; he is not
proclaiming that things should not be renamed after Wilma Chan; however, she and the
community are worthy of the respect the naming policy puts into place.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City's policy is fairly new; there are exceptions to the policy and
Council has a mechanism to make the decision; the circumstances were both tragic and
unimaginable; the action is more than warranted due to Supervisor Chan's legacy, commitment
and service to the community; the matter does not preclude the possibility of looking at other
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
8",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,11,"ways of honoring Wilma Chan; Supervisor Chan has had an impact on many; discussed her
experience in asking Supervisor Chan for advice on college selections; stated Wilma Chan has
been a role model for many; renaming is the right thing to do and she is glad Council is taking
action; expressed condolences to the family.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she whole-heartedly supports the resolution; stated the request
comes directly from the family; it is important to honor the family's wishes; expressed support for
adding residency information to the resolution; stated the information can be added to one of the
last paragraphs; provided highlights of the resolution; stated many lives have been saved due to
legislation Wilma Chan sponsored; it is fitting that Wilma Chan be honored; Council is looking at
the matter with hindsight; at the time of the naming policy, no one anticipated the tragedy would
occur; Council did not leave room for an exception to the policy; stated that she is forming an ad
hoc subcommittee of Councilmembers Daysog and Knox White to go over the naming policy
and return to Council with any recommendations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council has the authority to make an
exception to the current policy.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Council has wide discretion to deviate
from the policy due to the policy being Council-adopted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for placing the addition of long-time
resident in the second to last whereas.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it should state: ""Whereas Supervisor Wilma Chan, a long-time
resident of Alameda, faithfully served the residents of her district.'
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over any misunderstanding of the term
district.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the resolution states that Wilma Chan served on the Board of
Supervisors and State Assembly; she thinks most people understand the terminology.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the resolution discusses which cities or how
many people fall under the District.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the negative; stated other districts are considering honoring
Wilma Chan; the resolution is specific to the City of Alameda.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:43 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
(22-116) Recommendation to Review City Aquatic Center Conceptual Design Options and
Provide Further Direction on Development of a City Aquatic Center.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
9",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,12,"The Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the cost of a City-owned complex is estimated around $20 million;
debt service would be $1 million per year for 30 years; inquired whether the total cost would be
$50 million, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded the price would be $30
million.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the timeframe for the project.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded within two years would be preferred; stated staff
will move as quickly as possible.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the new pool would provide excess capacity
or whether there is need for multiple swimming facilities.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded there is need for all three facilities; stated Emma
Hood is not appropriate for games and some kids practice until 9:30 p.m.; there is a lot of
shifting at Alameda High School; adding year-round programs during a pandemic has yielded
9,000 participants from the previous 800; the increase shows the community need.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City facility would allow for games.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the facility would allow
for both games and meets for community organizations, as well as provide space for the School
District aquatics teams.
Councilmember Knox White inquired stated the Council and School Board subcommittee have
been undertaking a process to identify preferred sites for a City aquatic center; inquired how
Emma Hood ended up being the preferred location.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated one of the proposed top ranking sites had been to the
left of the O'Club; the area is close to utility lines and has parking; the area was not considered
due to the School District being a 50% partner; the School District had already re-built Encinal
High School not long before; having two pools serving the School District on the West End did
not make sense; it would be more equitable to have one pool at each high school.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether another option would be to have the aquatic
center centrally located, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the
affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director
stated the City started year-round programming in August of 2020.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would not contribute to the School District's
renovation of Emma Hood if the City chooses to pursue a City-owned site.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated Council can decide to
put funding towards both.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
10",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,13,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes the School District can only ask for $7.5 million in
a bond; inquired what would happen if Emma Hood goes out of commission; questioned
whether more burden would be placed on existing pools.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded it would be incredibly challenging and difficult for
the aquatics community; stated there is potential for the School District to review numbers and
find that rebuilding Emma Hood is possible.
Stated Alameda needs a new pool; discussed his use of Emma Hood and Encinal High School
pools; stated there is a lack of pool space, practices run late and Emma Hood does not have
competition standards; he is missing swim practice to comment; the pools in Alameda do not
have adequate space and safety is a concern: Owen DeCourcy, Alameda High.
Stated the issue relates to surface area; there is not enough area for a 50 meter pool;
expressed concern about parking at Emma Hood; stated Alameda deserves world class
amenities; urged Council to fund a pool for the community, meet the demand and be bold: Jim
Wheeler, Community Pool Task Force.
Stated that she has seen the issue of pool availability come to Council many times over the
years; many people have had to beg Council for funding and band aids to keep the existing
pools running; pools and sports are important to Alameda; urged Council to step up and commit
to providing support by building an aquatic center: Linda Gilchrist, Alameda.
Stated that he is impressed with the current proposal; Alameda needs a new public aquatic
center; discussed the Alameda Aquatic Masters members and activities; stated there is a strong
investment in the community, aquatics facilities and programs; a new pool would support health
and wellness; expressed support for Alameda being a top class City: Clifton Linton, Alameda
Aquatic Masters.
Stated the Alameda Gators Swim Club has a wait-list to join; more pools would allow more kids
to be involved; discussed his family's experiences with aquatics in Alameda; stated swimming
and water polo offer alternatives to other land sports; swimming provides a healthy lifestyle,
daily exercise and fitness, a social network and time management: Bryan Graham, Alameda
Gators Swim Club.
Stated Alameda needs to at least keep the current number of pools, or at best, add to the
number; expressed support for having both Emma Hood and a new pool; stated the proposed
space barely covers the City's needs; Alameda can provide what other cities have provided;
Emma Hood closing would be a loss for the community: Stephanie Lapachet, Alameda Aquatic
Masters.
Urged funding for the modernization of Emma Hood pool; stated the pool is old and does not
comply with current health and safety standards; the pool is in jeopardy of being shut down by
the Health Department unless necessary steps are taken to fix and resolve issues; closing
Emma Hood will place strain on the Encinal pool; finding times to use the pools is challenging;
swimmers are turned away each year from joining teams: Andrea Long, Alameda.
Stated swimming and water polo have been an important part of his life; closing Emma Hood
would be a huge loss to the aquatic programs in Alameda; expressed concern about practices
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
11",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,14,"running late on school nights; stated a new pool would be beneficial to the Alameda aquatic
program and make it easier for kids to get home at night: Zach Dortch, Alameda.
Stated that his goal is to get back to swimming and water polo and give back to the youth;
programs have been successful regardless of pool-related challenges; discussed his pride in
successful aquatic programs; stated that he hopes his kids have the opportunity to be involved
in aquatic programs; a new swim center has the opportunity to affect more lives: Marshall
Dortch, Alameda High School, Neptune Water Polo Club and Alameda Gators.
Stated $7.5 million in School District funding would be part of an upcoming bond initiative that
has yet to be voted on; the commitment will have to come from the community during the
election; the $7.5 million will not be committed to until approved by voters; urged approval of the
best structure possible in a proper location: Ryan LaLonde, Alameda.
Stated that he is an avid swimmer; aquatics can have a great impact on people of all ages;
expressed concern about kids practicing late on school nights; stated Emma Hood is a wreck
and is ready to be shut down; Encinal pool is too small to host aquatic events; Alameda needs
more surface area; new pools should not be put in at the expense of others; expressed support
for a new City-owned aquatic center; stated the City needs to work with the School District to
ensure Emma Hood is replaced; urged the City to provide free access to schools for large
tournaments: Erich Stiger, Alameda.
Expressed concern about people of color not feeling welcome in Alameda pools; urged great
emphasis be put on ensuring that everyone feels welcome at Alameda pools; stated that he
hopes there is no charge to swim at the pool facilities: Roger Slattery, Alameda.
Stated that she has seen all ages able to use the pools; access to pools is important; the pools
have daily use and wear and tear; damage restricts use of pools; repairs would allow more time
and users in the pools; aquatics facilities are costly, yet important, to communities: Olivia Fry,
Alameda High Swim Team and Alameda Gators.
Discussed inequity of closing a pool; stated a new pool is important to the female demographic;
the swimming program at Alameda High is one of the biggest programs; many females drop out
of aquatic programs due to lack of access; urged Council to consider providing a new pool or
helping the School District: Erica Escalante, Alameda High Swim Team.
Stated there is a necessity for more pool space; many kids are stuffed into pools in order not to
turn users away; more space would produce better athletes; it is disheartening to see so many
young people being turned away; many core values come from participating in the Alameda
aquatics program: Donovan Chan, Alameda.
Expressed support for replacing the Emma Hood pool as soon as possible; stated pool
availability for the public falls well below what is available in many nearby cities; he drives to
Moraga or Albany to lap swim due to the lack of lap swimming in Alameda; closing Emma Hood
without replacement would create difficulties for those who wish to swim; members of the
community rely on swimming as their primary form of exercise; urged Council to take action:
Jimmy Song, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
12",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,15,"Expressed support for previous comments; stated aquatics in Alameda are extremely important;
stated aquatics in Alameda increased during COVID-19; there are enough programs to support
having a City-owned pool: Amelia McDonald, Alameda Masters, Alameda Gators and Jets.
Stated water sports have played an important part in her life since she was young; there have
been instances of insufficient time for swim teams to successfully practice; many programs
share the pool at Alameda High School; expanded pool space is important and would make a
huge difference for all users; Alameda needs a safe pool and more space: Annabel Fiero,
Alameda High Swim Team, Alameda Gators and Neptunes.
Urged Council to revamp Emma Hood at a minimum; stated the pool is unusable for any serious
use; Franklin and Lincoln pools are a good stop gap measure for the Gators and other uses;
however, the pools are not good for swim teams; the City must have a prime swimming facility;
Alameda Point presents an opportunity with enough space; discussed the San Ramon Swim
Center; urged Council to implement a similar program in Alameda: Brendan Macaulay,
Alameda.
Expressed support for comments provided by Speaker Macaulay; stated that she is an avid lap
swimmer; aquatic facilities help children learn how to swim and provide space for student
athletes; redoing Emma Hood and providing an additional swim center site at Alameda Point
would be the best scenario; urged Council to consider looking at Alameda Point; stated
swimming has kept her going through the pandemic: Julie Lyons, Alameda.
Expressed support for more pools, the renovation of Emma Hood and placing a larger pool at
Alameda Point; stated the natatorium looks great; expressed support for adding a rooftop café;
stated that she would like better access to pools and free swim programs: Carmen Reid,
Alameda.
Expressed support for the City having a new pool and upgrading the current pool; stated that
her children have benefitted from the pools in Alameda; however, upgrades are needed;
expressed concern about the fees and membership policies resulting in many Alamedans being
excluded from community pools; stated access to pools has been exclusionary: Iris Mitchell,
Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the direction to be provided by Council.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated staff is looking for direction about whether Council
would like staff to pursue a partnership with the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) or
proceed with a City aquatics center; the concept for a City aquatics center is in the beginning
stages and many steps will come before Council in terms of financing and design.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for both options; stated that she learned to swim at
Emma Hood pool; questioned whether there is a way to include the matter in the upcoming
budget presentations; stated that she would like Council to think big; a City pool would be a
community investment; the School Board has not voted to place the bond measure on the ballot
yet; stated the measure would still need to pass; Council must consider different scenarios,
including the measure not passing.
Councilmember Knox White stated prior to the pandemic, Council discussed wholly funding the
swim center project with AUSD; no decisions have been made; however, the City is not in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
13",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,16,"place to step away from the commitment; expressed support for providing direction to work with
AUSD to build and jointly operate the community-designed facility; stated the City can look at
building a smaller pool if there is a need for additional swim space; the City can provide half of
the funding to match AUSD's funds and build the original concept; another pool can be built at
Alameda Point for $7.5 million to $12 million as an athletic and lap swim pool; Emma Hood's
site is good since it has the needed infrastructure; Alameda Point development will grow over
the next 20 to 30 years; large swim meets should occur in the downtown area in order to reduce
driving, traffic and climate impacts; expressed concern about building on the periphery of
Alameda causing people to drive to the location.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she learned to swim at Alameda pools; the City is celebrating the
anniversary of Title 9 and Women in Sports Day; her days spent in the pool were formative;
swimming is important to the community; AUSD has not yet taken action; expressed concern
about two contingencies of AUSD needing to vote to place the bond measure on the ballot and
voters passing the measure; stated that she would like to provide direction to staff to ensure the
contingencies are taken into account; if the bond measure does not pass and the City is unable
to get the funds needed to keep Emma Hood open, the City needs to find a way to move
forward with a plan to ensure that students have access to a pool; Emma Hood needs
substantial repairs; expressed support for having a City aquatics center and expanding the pool
size to allow programs to grow; stated that she would like to hear recommendations for
addressing the contingencies.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director stated more
thought needs to be put into the matter, including further discussion with AUSD; the City also
needs to work with County Health for an extension at Emma Hood; AUSD staff has been
meeting with County Health; City staff would like the opportunity to further participate in
discussions; initial steps would be working with County Health on an extension.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City is unsure what the bond measure would actually fund or
whether supplemental funding would be needed; inquired whether a partnership with the City
would be needed for continuing operations of Emma Hood.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded that she has not discussed the funding ongoing
operations with AUSD; stated there is potential for a partnership and win-win situation if both the
City and AUSD rebuild Emma Hood and build a new City aquatics center; there is cross-over
between the two; the City could still provide space for community and Recreation and Parks
Department programs; there is potential for a continued joint-use agreement for operations with
the School District.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter also relates to timing; the City looking at a new aquatics
facility will take more time; inquired whether the City could find a way to keep Emma Hood open
in the interim.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City could develop a
plan to do both and convince County Health to keep Emma Hood open while building the City
aquatics center; Emma Hood can be re-built once the aquatic center is open; expressed
concern over a scenario of only Encinal High School pool being open.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
14",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,17,"Vice Mayor Vella stated the community will benefit from having a larger aquatic facility; other
communities have large facilities and have found ways to utilize them for meets and other
needs.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated nearby cities of equal size have both school and city
aquatic centers, which are both are easily programmed; many nearby cities have two city pools;
it has been proven that the facilities are needed by the community.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over an extension with County Public Health; stated
the extension buys time; inquired the cost of the time bought related to health and safety
impacts and the status of the extension.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the District indicated the original deadline of May
2022 continues to be in place despite the pandemic; there are issues with the pool; she is
confident that the pool can hobble along for a couple of years with the correct maintenance.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the maintenance standards are from the City's side.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated the District is responsible
for maintenance under the current joint use agreement.
Councilmember Daysog stated AUSD's pool concept costs roughly $15 million; AUSD is looking
at seeking $7.5 million through a bond measure vote, with the possibility of the City matching
the funds; inquired whether the $15 million AUSD pool would fulfil the demand; stated the
agreement between the City and AUSD potentially effects the City achieving its needs;
requested clarification about the City's programs not being significantly lowered and whether the
City may not be able to achieve the growth in demand.
The Recreation and Parks Department responded both; stated the $15 million is AUSD's high
estimate to rebuild the existing pool with the same number of lanes; the rebuild will not expand
pool space; the existing amount of pool space is not enough for the current demand; local swim
teams are having to turn people away; the Recreation and Parks Department programs are
rescheduled or cancelled due to lack of space; athletic teams have grown, which is fantastic;
however, there is not enough space to accommodate the growth of teams and community
programs; the addition of a City aquatics center would both provide the space needed for the
current demand and allow for anticipated growth.
In
response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director stated the
cost without the natatorium is a rough estimate; staff can try to lower costs.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the $20 million would cover the renderings for design
on Emma Hood without the natatorium.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the cost will be similar
for a different location.
Councilmember Daysog stated $15 million will bring Emma Hood up to code; however, the cost
will not necessarily address the larger issue of the increase in overall demand and the need for
the City to provide services; the City can build a $20 million aquatic center, which could address
both Emma Hood being brought to code as well as providing the need for more space.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
15",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,18,"The Recreation and Parks Director stated if the City build the aquatic center at the Emma Hood
site, the capacity would be increased to an extent; however, the capacity would not increase as
much as if Emma Hood were rebuilt and another aquatic center was built.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed previous problems with Emma Hood pool during
her time on the School Board; stated the issue has been present for a long time; the County has
stated Emma Hood would be shut down for multiple reasons over the years; Alameda does not
have sufficient pool capacity for all users; the current amount of pool users is significantly higher
than it was previously; inquired whether the property under Emma Hood belongs to AUSD.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a City pool should be placed on City property; Emma
Hood is AUSD's pool; the City helps provide funding for use based on the City's access and
use; use has been limited due to the location being at a school.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the City has to be careful in allowing non-students on
campus during the day; Emma Hood is allowed to run daytime programs due to the separation
from the school; Encinal High School pool is working on potential solutions; however, daytime,
non-school programs are not available on-campus.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City needs its own pool on City land; the pool
needs to meet the needs of the City; AUSD can retain their pools; however, it is important to
separate AUSD property and funding; AUSD should lead the future of Emma Hood pool and the
City should lead a City pool site; the City would end up with more surface area, which is critical;
many swimmers travel and compete all over the area; inquired the cost difference of building the
natatorium versus an outdoor pool.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the difference is significant; stated the base price
is about $7 million to $8 million, plus an additional $14 million; the project is increased from
about $20 million to $34 million.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City should be looking at as much surface area as
fiscally possible for the community; it is more important to have swim capacity; other pools in the
City are not covered; uncovered pools have been a lifesaver during COVID-19; she would like to
pursue an uncovered City pool; expressed support for looking at public amenities for a pool at
Alameda Point; stated the pool can be considered a public amenity, which can receive some
funding; the City could potentially use American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for the
project; it is important to continue to keep Emma Hood pool open and operating; the City should
figure out how to fiscally cover all options, including keeping Emma Hood open as AUSD's pool;
the City can contribute to Emma Hood.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council needs to provide direction to staff; expressed support for
clarifying how the budget process ties into the matter; stated not all of Council is of a like-mind;
she is hearing interest for finding a way for the City to help with the renovation of Emma Hood
as well as look at building a new City aquatic center; the aquatic center presented looks great;
she would like to have staff come back to Council with various ways of funding the options
presented.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
16",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,19,"The City Manager stated the mid-year budget is tentatively scheduled for March 1; there is likely
not enough time to bring the current matter forth at the same time; the mid-cycle budget is
beginning to be scheduled for May; staff can perform analysis and bring back options for
Council under the mid-cycle agenda; Council can look at the matter as part of a revenue
measure.
Councilmember Knox White stated the School District has spent a lot of money on pools that
teams and the community have used; the City has been looking at ways of stepping in to take
on operational costs related to pools and allow AUSD to spend money on educating students;
questioned the importance of doing something in conjunction with the District; stated Council
can ask for options which look at how to get to both results; he has heard consensus around the
school issues; Council's actions might help provide AUSD with guidance.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Knox White; stated the School Board will
consider the bond measure in the coming week.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is interested in the path with less moving parts; the first
task is to work with AUSD on Emma Hood; the City cannot place a pool at Emma Hood that
does not increase pool lanes; if the City builds an aquatic center, the center should be built at
the Emma Hood site; a City aquatic center on City land would be ideal; the stance would send a
message in terms of a bond measure; it is ideal for a City pool to be centrally located; discussed
providing a pool under the current arrangements; stated the City might be able to make
sacrifices and achieve a larger aquatic center in the middle of Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella stated an aquatic center will not be built in a short time; the project will be
years out; expressed support for placing a pool at Alameda Point; facilities are needed on the
West End; she is not fixated on having the aquatic center located in the middle of Alameda; the
School Board is deciding about the bond measure; athletics and access to recreation has a
huge impact on mental health; keeping Emma Hood open is the right thing to do; requested
clarification about the timing of the School Board vote.
(22-117) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced a vote is needed to hear new items after 11:00 p.m.;
stated Council can finish the current matter and hear the Franklin and Lincoln Park Pools matter
[paragraph no. 22-119]; the Senate Bill (SB) 9 [paragraph no. 22-120 could be continued to the
next meeting.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over starting the Franklin and Lincoln Park
pools matter and hearing public comments at the late hour.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated many people have waited this long to comment; expressed support
for moving ahead; stated there should be less public comment.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he will need to recuse himself on the Franklin and
Lincoln pools; expressed support for allowing public comment and continuing the Council
discussion to a later date.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Knox White; expressed support for the
meeting continuing until 11:30 p.m. and for dismissing any staff related to SB 9; inquired
whether the SB 9 matter is time-sensitive, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
17",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-14,1,"DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2022
1. CONVENE
President Asheshh Saheba convened the *meeting at 7:00 p.m.
*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning
Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Vice President Teresa Ruiz led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Saheba, Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Rothenberg,
Cisneros, Teague, and Hom.
Absent: None.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2022-1741
PLN22-0032 - Design Review Amendment - 1051 Harbor Bay Parkway- Applicant: Shriji
Hospitality, Inc. A Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Planning Board's
Design Review Approval PLN17-0600 to allow minor modifications to the southwest and
southeast elevations of the hotel building approved at 1051 Harbor Bay Parkway. General
Plan designation: Business Employment. Zoning: C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing -
Planned Development zoning district. CEQA Determination: Design Review approval for
a permitted use is not subject to CEQA. McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group V. City
of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80, Public Resources Code Section 21080
Henry Dong, a Planner III, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report
and attachments can be found
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5445281&GUID=90DA8C28-
8BE1-4268-B1B4-C7933F49A1C1&FullText=1.
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
February 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-14,2,"President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Hanson Hom asked about previous design changes the board had asked
the applicant to work with the staff on and wanted an update on those.
Staff Member Dong answered that they were still working with the applicant on those. The
previous conditions of approval would still apply.
Vice President Ruiz also asked about a condition that had not been addressed.
Staff Member Dong explained that they would address those conditions before the building
permit.
President Saheba opened public comment.
There were no public speakers.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Ron Curtis wanted to know what assurances they had that the conditions
would be met in the future.
Allen Tai, City Planner, addressed those concerns and explained how the pandemic had
affected timelines. He also discussed what the board could ask of the staff and the
applicant.
President Saheba was happy to see this had come back but brought up the importance of
this being a ""gateway"" site and how they addressed the corner was critical. He
recommended putting a condition on the Design Review to bring this back as they updated
it.
Vijay Patal, the applicant, discussed the history of the project and addressed the concerns
over the design and the entry corner.
Board Member Hom asked about the timeframe for proposals about the corner elevation.
Mr. Patal hoped to have things done in the next 60 days.
Staff Member Tai reminded the board that this development was subject to Public Art and
that was part of the consideration for the corner.
Director Thomas added information on the timeline and that an Ad Hoc Subcommittee
could be useful.
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 10
February 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-14,3,"Board Member Rona Rothenberg made a motion to approve the Design Review
Amendment as submitted with the condition that the refined design options for the
corner come back to a working group with staff before the design is finalized for a
permit. Board Member Hom seconded the motion. The subcommittee would be
President Saheba, Vice President Ruiz, and Board Member Hom. A vote was taken
by a roll call and the motion passed 7-0.
7-B 2022-1743
PLN21-0459 - Design Review and Development Plan Amendment - 2607 - 2619 Santa Clara
Avenue & 1514 - 1518 Broadway - Applicant: Branagh Land Inc. Public hearing to consider Design
Review and Development Plan Amendment to allow the construction of eight townhome dwellings
within an existing 1.29-acre residential development. General Plan designation: Medium Density
Residential. Zoning: R-5-PD, General Residential-Planned Development zoning district and partly
within the R-4-PD, Neighborhood Residential-Planned Development. CEQA Determination: Design
Review approval for a permitted use is not subject to CEQA. McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood
Group V. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80, Public Resources Code Section 21080. As
a separate and independent basis, the development plan amendment is categorically exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332,
In-fill Development.
Staff Member Dong introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5445282&GUID=4AD523DE
BOF2-4DD8-9A36-421D05CA98CE&FullText=1.
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Alan Teague clarified that the number of affordable units would stay at
two.
Staff Member Dong said that was correct.
Vice President Ruiz asked about discrepancies between the site plan and the strong water
control plan.
Stefan Schnider, the applicant, discussed and explained the discrepancies.
Board Member Curtis, asked where the mailboxes would be located.
Mr. Schnider said they would likely have cluster mailboxes in the center drive aisle.
Board Member Curtis also asked about where lighting for the bathrooms came from for
the interior units. He also questioned the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) unit and if
it had the appropriate space and how the flow of trash collection would work. He also
wanted to know if they had considered the noise from the playground for two of the units.
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 10
February 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-14,4,"Mr. Schnider explained the lighting layout and said they had followed the Universal Design
Requirements for the ADA units. He also discussed the thoughts behind the playground.
Dan Hale, the architect, also shared some slides on the project and gave a presentation.
Board Member Rothenberg asked if they had considered some sort of barrier at the end
of the driveway to protect the play area. She then asked if they had considered
incorporating public art into the canopy.
Mr. Schnider was open to considering art with the canopy. He then discussed the fencing
around the play area and that they were open to considering bollards.
Board Member Rothenberg asked for a recap on a portion of the Resolution on the Density
Bonus.
Mr. Schinder explained how the Density Bonus was calculated.
Staff Member Dong said the Resolution called out which units those lots were in.
Board Member Curtis asked if there would be noise when the rain fell on the metal canopy.
He also wanted to understand how garbage would be picked up.
Mr. Schnider did not anticipate a noise problem. He then explained the HOA would have
to pay a bit more for the garbage bins to be pulled out for collection. He then discussed
what the options were.
President Saheba asked about site-wide lighting and wanted to know if there had been a
photometric study done for egress. He also wanted to know if this project fell under Fair
Housing Laws. He was curious why one unit was labeled an ADA unit.
Mr. Schinder said they had not done a photometric study, he discuss what they had done.
Director Thomas explained the local Universal Design Ordinance and the Basic California
Building Code and how those worked with Fair Housing.
President Saheba opened public comment.
There were no public speakers.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Hom discussed options for the canopy and variety would have a nice
effect. He liked the idea of removing the parking and having more open space.
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 10
February 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-14,5,"Board Member Xiomara Cisneros agreed with Board Member Hom about less parking and
was sad about one less unit but overall it was a better design. She believed the elimination
of minimum parking made it a better fit and hoped other developers would consider
eliminating parking. She supported the project.
Board Member Teague agreed with Board Member Cisneros and thought that staff should
take note of the change they were approving for these canopies and add them to the list
of the Design Standards.
Board Member Curtis could not support this project due to the flow. He felt that the overall
flow of the garbage pick-up and the play area was unsafe.
President Saheba wanted to add to the motion that the staff works with the applicant to
ensure that this project meets the Fair Housing Guidelines. Also, that staff works with the
applicant that the site meets egress lighting.
Staff Member Tai explained that these issues would be reviewed during the Building
Permit review.
Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the modifications to the Design
Review with the acceptance to the amendment to the design of the canopy, so they
have flexibility, and the amendment to Condition #9 to correct the required number
of bicycle parking spaces, 8 long term, and 2 short term. Also the addition of
bollards in the parking lot, review of the lighting plans as well as ensuring that the
project meets Accessible and Fair Housing Guidelines. Board Member Teague
seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 with
Board Member Curtis voting against.
7-C 2022-1744
Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update and
Zoning Code Amendments for Park Street, Webster Street, and Commercial Areas to
Accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the Period 2023-2031 in
Compliance with State Law
Director Thomas introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5445283&GUID=996B7DF3-
466C-4CFF-A548-D3763AAE2C7C&FullText=1.
President Saheba opened up the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Teague asked about Zoning Changes that were not related to the RHNA
(Regional Housing Needs Allocation).
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 10
February 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-14,6,"Director Thomas explained why those items stilled pertained to the RHNA.
Vice President Ruiz asked if Webster had a Uniformed Height. She then wanted to know
if WABA's (West Alameda Business Association) design recommendations had been
vetted or approved by the Webster Street property owners.
Director Thomas said Webster Street had a Uniformed Height and that the property
owners had not approved WABA's Design recommendations.
Board Member Hom asked about the intent behind raising Webster's height limit.
Director Thomas explained what the extra height would be able to allow.
Board Member Cisneros asked about Webster being a historic district.
Director Thomas explained the history and background of Webster. Park Street had a
designated Historic District and Webster Street did not, he explained more on that.
Board Member Rothenberg discussed a letter sent by the AAPS (Alameda Architecture
Preservation Society) that discussed height increases in and out of historic areas. She
also discussed Harvey Rosenthal's thoughtful comments about Neptune Plaza. She
believed he had made a very strong business case and was worthy of deliberation.
Director Thomas discussed Neptune Plaza and the several emails with Mr. Rosenthal. He
believed the staff's recommendation was a compromise between what Mr. Rosenthal
wanted and what WABA's Design committee wanted. He then discussed how they looked
at Historic areas and why they were not looking at down-zoning.
President Saheba opened public comment.
Betsy Mathieson was excited by the return of residential over commercial on Park and
Webster Street. She was also pleased to see the emphasis on visibility active uses of
storefronts. She also believed that opaque storefront windows had no place in Alameda's
downtowns. She also strongly agreed with the height limits suggested by the AAPS.
Karen Bey believed the height limits and zoning changes for Park and Webster Street
should be the same as it would eliminate confusion. She also supported Neptune Plaza
getting a Multi-Family overlay.
Josh Geyer was very excited to hear about the proposed upzoning for the main streets in
Alameda. He discussed the many benefits this would allow.
Jay Garfinkle felt that Staff Member Tai's image showing building heights was not
accurate. He was concerned about the lack of parking on Webster and suggested that all
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 10
February 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-14,7,"staff parking at City Hall be eliminated so that employees could set a good example by
taking public transit. He also felt that the Planning Board only focused on compliance and
should change its name to the Compliance Board.
Harvey Rosenthal, the owner of Neptune Plaza, gave his thoughts on height limits and
why not everything could have a blanket height limit. He also discussed other
developments and why now was the time to increase height limits.
Zac Bowling supported the staff's proposal and believed they were on the right track. He
was excited about redevelopment along Webster St.
Christopher Buckley, with the AAPS, discussed and went over the main point in a letter
the society had sent.
Therese Hall was curious how the public was being notified about these workshops. She
was very concerned about the creation of microclimates with these tall buildings. She was
also concerned about limiting vehicular traffic since it felt that there was little or no concern
for disabled people.
Marilyn Alwan supported Neptune Plaza being treated like all the other shopping centers
and saw it as a great housing opportunity.
Alex Spehr expressed her approval of the staff's proposal to upzone, especially Neptune
Plaza. She was shocked to hear there was no historic protection on Webster Street, she
wanted to see some historic protection as well as upzoning to get more housing. She also
pointed out that disabled people use motorized wheelchairs as well as transit and
sidewalks, not just cars.
Daniel Hoy, Design Committee and Board of Directors for WABA, wanted to do more
canvassing of parcel owners in the Webster Area to ensure they were aware of all the
changes.
Drew Dara Abrams discussed the height limits and densities. He believed that they
needed to encourage private developers to build units in these areas that brought a mix
of amenities. He liked seeing the different ways to improve the pedestrian experience. He
also hoped to see a BART station on Webster.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Teague discussed the importance of being very clear so people
understand why they were doing things the way they were. He wanted to use Housing
Needs Overlays to deal with the Multi-Family Density issues instead of changing zoning
directly. He discussed different overlays and how they would be beneficial.
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 10
February 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-14,8,"Board Member Curtis addressed there was the demand for units but they needed to focus
on the reality of getting them built. He discussed what the developer had to do and having
the height to build those units was important. He discussed the importance of finance for
these developers.
Vice President Ruiz discussed Overlay zones and the conflicts around those. She also
agreed that WABA needed to talk to its business owners. She also wanted to discuss the
sight line they were using to create these new height limits, having livable streets was
important. She thought a Shadow Study should be a requirement as a better gauge to set
building height. She thought that Webster and Park St should be kept at the same height
and was in support of Neptune Plaza being in an Overlay Zone.
Director Thomas explained and discussed the issues around the Density Bonus
Ordinance and the overlays. He also discussed current projects and the issues they were
having.
Board Member Hom discussed the importance of balancing the historic core with where
residential density is logical. He believed these two corridors were great for housing, he
thought housing would be beneficial and wouldn't deter from the historic feel. He also gave
his thoughts on increasing density and the Density Bonus Law.
Board Member Cisneros agreed that overlays could be a very useful tool. However, she
felt it was important to change the zoning. She also agreed there should be more flexibility
on Webster Street. She also discussed her concerns around zoning.
President Saheba generally was more supportive of no density limits and discussed the
benefits of that. He also thought a consistent height through Webster would be good. He
then discussed when an Overlay made more sense.
Director Thomas went into detail discussing Density Bonus.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2022-1745 - Draft Meeting Minutes - December 12, 2021
Board Member Teague pointed out a typo.
President Saheba opened public comments.
There were no speakers.
President Saheba closed public comment.
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 8 of 10
February 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-14,9,"Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Vice
President Ruiz seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the minutes
passed 7-0.
8-B 2022-1746 - Draft Meeting Minutes - January 10, 2022
Board Member Hom clarified his thoughts on how the parcels would work.
President Saheba opened public comment.
There were no public comments.
President Saheba closed public comment.
Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Board
Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the
minutes passed 7-0.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2022-1728
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent actions and decisions can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5445279&GUID=12B8C3AD-
4EE-43A7-88FA-C51A038B63AA&FullText=1.
No board members wanted to pull any item for review.
9-B 2022-1729
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai announced that at the next meeting the staff hoped to bring back the
Annual CARP Report, Transportation Choices Plan, and to continue the Housing Element
Workshops.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
10-A 2022-1747 - HCD Letter dated 11-29-21
The letter can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5445286&GUID=E384EA51-
CE16-4A13-9F4B-A72DD47B61FF.
Staff Member Tai explained this letter was about Article 26 and the City's Charter.
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 9 of 10
February 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-14,10,"11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Vice President Ruiz brought to the staff's attention practical application challenges with
moving to all electrical, especially for Multi-Family. She wanted the staff to plan and work
with Public Works and AMP to see how to work out the rules and regulations so that all
the departments are ready for the challenges.
Staff Member Tai discussed what the city was already doing.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 10 of 10
February 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-02-10,1,"ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, February 10, 2022
TIME:
7:00 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
A video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
The following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.
ROLL CALL
Present: (Teleconference via Zoom) Chair Alexander, Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner Jones,
Commissioner Navarro and Commissioner Nguyen
Staff: (Teleconference via Zoom) Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy
Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of January 13, 2022 Regular Meeting as presented.
M/S Commissioner Nguyen / Commissioner Navarro. All present in favor with 5 ayes via roll call vote.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (For topics not on the agenda)
Written Communication - none
Oral Communication - none
REPORT FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR - ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave
the report. See exhibit 1.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Nguyen: Visited the new Alameda Point Waterfront Park and thought it was really
nice, however; did mention sadly there was already graffiti on the trash cans. Liked how the
chairs face the estuary so people can enjoy the view. Spoke to a member of the public who said
she enjoyed rollerblading through the new Waterfront Park. Also visited Jean Sweeney and saw
the art structures and thought they were really nice. Had a good experience visiting the parks.
Commissioner Navarro: Visited the new Alameda Point Waterfront Park and said it was a
beautiful park and it was great to see so many people enjoying the park. Visited Chochenyo Park
and will be excited to see the fence around the play structure come down when the project is
completed.
Commissioner Jones: Visited Estuary Park and said the sports fields are beautiful with a different
type of turf. Noticed there was no restroom facility and asked about the type of turf. Director
Wooldridge answered: The field has a synthetic turf with shorter blades and no infill that was
designed for people with physical disabilities. Phase 2 of the Estuary Park plan will include
building a bathroom. There currently are portable toilets near the fields.
1",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-02-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-02-10,2,"Vice Chair Robbins: Visited the new Alameda Point Waterfront Park and said it is a showcase
for Alameda; hopes there will be more shade structures installed. Shared that he is now a
member of the Alameda Tennis Coalition who gave high praise to Director Wooldridge and her
team.
Chair Alexander: Visited the new Alameda Point Waterfront Park for the second time and brought
a friend who said it was spectacular. The park was full of people doing a variety of activities.
Visited Chochenyo Park and is looking forward to the completion of the playground. Visited
Woodstock Park and to see new tables. Spent time at Towata Park and Leydecker taking note
of how busy the parking lots are at different times of the day to gather information for the
upcoming dog parks.
AGENDA ITEMS
6-A Approve the City of Alameda Transportation Program Plan for Seniors and People with Disabilities
for the Fiscal Year 2022/2023
Presentation by Katherine ""Kat"" Kaldis, City of Alameda Paratransit Program Coordinator and Gail
Payne, City of Alameda Senior Transportation Coordinator which included the FY 2021/22 Status
Summary, the proposed program for 2022/23 with a recommendation to discontinue the Alameda Loop
Shuttle due to high cost and low interest with a plan to expand the AC transit program with free bus
passes to accommodate low income Alameda seniors and people with disabilities. The budget and
planning process going forward were also discussed.
6-A Public Comments
Speaker Judith Pruess-Mellow: Lives at Waters Edge and is against the discontinuation of the
shuttle. Many people who have walkers use the shuttle as it is difficult to get to the AC bus stops.
6-A Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Impressed with the Transportation Program Plan and is in support of it.
Commissioner Nguyen: Appreciates the data and clarified the data numbers but would like to
have more time for the people who have been using the shuttle to come forward with their opinion
before replacing it.
Vice Chair Robbins: Thanked Katherine Kaldis and Gail Payne for the presentation. Thinks it is
a good idea to discontinue the free shuttle from a financial point of view.
Chair Alexander: Concerned about people on the island that are not close to the AC bus stops
and would like to see the shuttle phased out over the year to give time for more input from the
public and other options to replace the shuttle.
6-A Motion
Vice Chair Robbins motioned to approve the City of Alameda Transportation Program Plan for Seniors
and People with Disabilities for the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 as presented.
M/S Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Navarro
2",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-02-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-02-10,3,"Motion passed with 3 ayes and 2 noes from Chair Alexander and Commissioner Nguyen via roll call
vote.
6-B Review and Recommend the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP) 2021 Annual Report
Danielle Mieler, City of Alameda Sustainability and Resilience Manager gave the Report which included
CARP goals and vison, commitment to equity, 2021 highlights, key adaption efforts and 2022 priorities.
6-B Public Comments
Speaker Alex Spehr: Concerned about removal of the wetland at Alameda Point and also
concerned about the type of trees being planted. Native trees are better than non-native trees,
but it seems that non-native trees are being planted.
6-B Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Happy to see the Urban Forest Plan is being expanded.
Commissioner Nguyen: Curious about if you buy an electrical car if there is an ongoing discount.
Danielle Mieler answered AMP provides a one-time rebate for purchasing the car.
Chair Alexander: Proud to see that Krusi Recreation Center is the first all-electric building in the
city. Commented that it sounds like there is still a lot of work ahead of us to meet the goal.
6-B Motion
Commissioner Navarro motioned to recommend the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP) to City
Council.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones
All present in favor with 5 ayes via roll call vote.
6-C Approve Recommendation on Recreation Facility Project Improvements List
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the presentation which included the recommended recreation
facilities project list and the 2021 Recreation Facilities Survey Data. Highest ranking projects were the
BMX and Skate Park projects. First projects to be done include LED lights to the tennis courts,
resurfacing tennis courts and pickleball courts. The BMX feasibility study will begin in the next few
months. Emphasized that there are many projects underway and there is limited staff capacity to
complete everything so will continue to work through project list but it will take time.
6-C Public Comments:
Speaker: Cassandra Caron: Supports the BMX track as the focus of the BMX groups are
community based to bring in new members. Also supports the Skate Park have separate areas.
Speaker John Roberts: Supports BMX as it is family friendly. Bike riding is a positive influence
for kids as they are getting exercise and gaining skills.
Speaker Scott Ramos: Supports expanding the skate park as it builds community and
friendships. It also grows confidence and supports kids that have nowhere to go.
Speaker Josh C.: Supports the BMX track as there are not many tracks nearby and it has
become a popular sport.
3",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-02-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-02-10,4,"Speaker Zach Thompson: Supports BMX track as it a great outlet for kids and it family oriented.
6-C Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: In support of BMX seed funding. Would like to see the report move
forward as presented.
Commissioner Nguyen: Likes the idea of putting different funds to different areas. Supportive of
the list.
Vice Chair Robbins: In support of both the BMX track and expanding the skateboard park. In
regards to the skate park, we need to keep in mind to have two separate areas for the different
level of users such as beginners and intermediate. Likes the ideas to resurface the tennis courts
and replace the lighting first. Wants more information on the BMX track but supports moving
ahead. Supports the idea of doing the Pickleball Courts next to the Officers' Club in the future.
Chair Alexander: Thanked Director Wooldridge and staff for their work and thanked the public
for their input.
6-C Motion
Commissioner Navarro motioned to accept the Recreation Facility Project Improvements List as
presented.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Vice Chair Robbins
All present in favor with 5 ayes via roll call vote.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
Lincoln Park Playground Design
Develop a Short List of Names for Alameda Point Neighborhood Park
Develop a Short List of Names for Alameda Point Waterfront Park
Develop a Short List of Names for Alameda Landing Waterfront Park
Develop a Short List of Names for Alameda Marina Park
Feasibility of leaving volley ball nets up for public use
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: March 10, 2022
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn
M/S Commissioner Nguyen / Commissioner Navarro
Motion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 5 ayes via roll call vote.
Chair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 9:15 PM.
4",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-02-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-02-10,5,"EXHIBIT 1
02/10/2022 ARPD Director's Report
Presented by Recreation and Park Director Amy Wooldridge
Recreation Services
ARPD is partnering with the Housing Authority of Alameda to provide Mobile Recreation at their
properties. This program has been a great success and met twice in January at Esperanza
Apartments with nearly 20 children participating. This week they were flying kites by end of the
program.
ARPD Summer Activity Guide will be delivered to homes next week. ARPD has lots of variety of
camps and classes for all to enjoy.
NEW Storytelling and Drumming Festival is rescheduled to take place on Saturday, March 19 at the
Mastick Senior Center from 1 pm to 4 pm. This community event will feature programs from many
diverse cultures including interactive workshops with puppetry, learning how to drum, and poetry
slam.
Hiring at this time for the SUMMER programs and looking for committed applicants who enjoy working
with children.
The 2022 July 4th Parade is happening, pending any future pandemic changes. Staff is putting a
significant amount of work into the event since it's the first time ARPD has coordinated it. Sponsorship
opportunities are available and the parade entry form will be up on the website starting next week at
www.alamedajuly4parade.com We will be hosting a volunteer committee meeting soon and are
developing a list of opportunities for volunteers to help support the Parade both coordinating
beforehand and day of.
Mastick Senior Center
On Saturday, January 29, the Mayor's Vaccine Task Force, Mastick staff and Haller's Pharmacy
hosted a vaccine booster clinic in the Social Hall. 318 people received their booster.
The AARP free tax preparation program at Mastick is under way. There are 13 volunteer tax preparers
for the program that runs from February 7 - April 18. Additionally 7 Mastick volunteers have logged
60 hours of service booking appointments for members. To date, 230 appointments have been set.
On January 20, a reception for the exhibit of late Mastick Member and artist, Anto Aghapekian, was
held with 30 members attending.
On February 10 a new dishwasher was installed in the Mastick kitchen. This will support the lunch
program and special events and was funded by the Legacy Funds.
In January, Mastick welcomed two new classes - Zumba Gold and Zumba Toning.
Park Maintenance
Grand Street Boat Ramp Phase 2 to replace the northwest dock is occurring Feb. 14 - 16. The boat
ramp will be closed to the public during this time.
The Encinal Boat Launch Facility dock and gangway repair and replacement is now finalized and
underway at a cost of $125,000. We anticipate the replacement will be completed no later than the
end of June.
Lincoln Park historical fence repair is ongoing with no completion date yet as the repair work is
challenging and time consuming. Public Works confirmed that it will install decorative concrete
barriers in front of the fence once replaced.
Lincoln Park playground design is underway and a community input meeting is on Monday, February
28th at 6:00pm at Lincoln Park.
The Chochenyo Park gathering area construction will be completed in the next two weeks.",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-02-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-02-10,6,"Continuing many other maintenance projects including asphalt repaving and patch repair throughout
parks, installing two scoreboards at Estuary Park fields (donated by Alameda Friends of the Parks
Foundation), installing owl boxes for rodent control, Woodstock Park Recreation Center window
replacement and exterior painting, installing the Bayport picnic area and shade structure.
Administration / Projects
Alameda Point Waterfront Park Grand Opening, Saturday, April 9th from 1:30pm - 5:00pm. Along
with a ribbon cutting, this is a free, all-ages art-fest featuring some of the Bay Area's most talented
musicians and dance artists. In partnership with Rhythmix Cultural Works and West End Arts
District. https://www.westendartsdistrict.org/waterfrontparklaunchfest.html
Park Names Survey is open and available on the City website until February 18.
Received partial grant funding for De-Pave Park in the amount of $800,000. Seeking the remaining
amount of $278,000 from the mid-cycle budget adjustment for July 1, 2022.
City Aquatic Center and Franklin/Lincoln Park pools discussions are before City Council on
February 15.
Applied to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for Estuary Park Phase 2 in the amount of
$2,700,000 for a total estimated project cost of $5,200,000.",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-02-10.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-02-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY FEBRUARY 7, 2022 7:00 P.M.
Chair LoPilato convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Cambra, Chen, Montgomery, Tilos and
Chair LoPilato - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted
via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie;
City Clerk Lara Weisiger]
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT
Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he feels the Commission just rubber-stamps whatever
the City Attorney or outside counsel says; Commissioners do not have much training for
their position; discussed the First Amendment Coalition, a non-profit organization of
attorneys who are experts in the Brown Act; suggested Commissioners purchase guides;
a guide addresses the social media issue.
COMPLAINT HEARINGS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A. Minutes of the January 11, 2022 Meeting
Commissioner Tilos moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Cambra seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair
LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.
4-B. Approval of the Annual Report on Issues Arising from the Implementation of the
Sunshine Ordinance and Consider Agendizing a Discussion to Review the 30 Day
Mandatory Hearing
Chair LoPilato requested the recommendation from Commissioner Cambra be
considered separate under agenda Section 6.
Commissioner Chen gave a presentation.
***
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
1",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-02-07,2,"Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of giving an additional 5 minutes.
Commissioner Cambra seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair
LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Commissioner Chen completed her presentation.
Commissioner Montgomery inquired whether there is a report on Public Records Act
(PRA) requests.
The City Clerk responded that the Commission received a chart of the PRAs, which has
now been superseded by the new Next Request software; a demo will be done tonight
[see Item 4-D]; there is no statutory requirement for a PRA report; it was something the
Commission requested in the past.
In response to Commissioner Montgomery's inquiry, Chair LoPilato stated that she
thought the report would continue to be prepared annually; her understanding from the
City Clerk was that the report was an ad hoc response to a request from the Commission
as it is not a requirement in the Sunshine Ordinance; language in the Sunshine Ordinance
states the Commission may request a tally of records with advanced notice to the City
Clerk as opposed to it being an annual report; if Commissioners are attached to referring
to it as an annual report she will not jam up the wheels, but thinks the language could be
a little more precise.
Vice Chair Chen clarified that she made a logical assumption that the report was annual
since she joined when a second PRA report was presented; she can see that the
language is incorrect and stands corrected.
Commissioner Tilos stated he also shared the same assumption as Vice Chair Chen
since the report was presented twice consecutively; inquired whether the Commission will
be done with the Annual Report and it does not have to return again once a motion and
vote are made tonight.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative, stated the Commission could accept all the
edits tonight and that could become the final report, it does not need to come back for
another approval without redline; she will publish and post the final report.
Vice Chair Chen stated that she will fix the end notes so that they reattach to their original
citation reference point; she is ready to move forward.
Chair LoPilato inquired what the best language would be to reference a report on PRA
requests, to which the City Clerk responded the revisions suggested should be captured;
the Commission or individual members could ask her at any time for a tally of the records
and she would be happy to produce it, especially with the Next Request system; it is easy
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-02-07,3,"to use and members could even run the tally themselves; the Next Request
demonstration later tonight may help address and alleviate some of the Commission's
questions.
Speaker:
Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, congratulated Vice Chair Chen on the monumental task; stated
the Commission's duty is to enhance transparency of the government activities; ad hoc
committees are subject to the Brown Act; the Police study done last year should have
been open; the Commission needs to be very liberal when making recommendations to
the City Council as to what it should be doing; encouraged monthly PRA updates;
suggested Police PRAs also be reviewed by the Commission; the Commission should
define what is meant by ""private account"" regarding social media.
Commissioner Cambra stated he concurs with all the suggested edits made by Chair
LoPilato; suggested adding a brief description of ""creating a legislative affairs website"" in
addition to using the link to the Legislative Affairs for those folks who are reading a hard
copy; also suggested including the 2021 hearing results.
Vice Chair Chen stated the 2021 figures are included in the report; it is not listed in the
chart, but is included as text.
Commissioner Cambra stated there does not seem to be specific references back into
the report for the three cases listed in the appendix which occurred prior to 2021; inquired
if it would be appropriate to incorporate the data into the existing report.
Vice Chair Chen responded it due to time and COVID limitations; stated that she and
former Vice Chair Shabazz met on the phone several times to try to create the document
together; in actuality, two documents were created; the portion in the appendix was
created by former Vice Chair Shabazz without a give-and-take between the two of them;
she thought the information he had is important and worthy of being included; she decided
to include the information in an appendix with a disclaimer at the top; she is reluctant to
remove it as this is the first report and other things have happened before this report that
were not recorded anywhere in history; moving forward the report could be more precise.
Commissioner Tilos stated that he values the comments from Commissioner Cambra and
Vice Chair Chen; he believes over 80% of the message the Commission wants to convey
is in the report; he is comfortable with the report as is; there is valuable information in the
appendix and he does not want it removed; in the interest of time, he is leaning towards
the report being the final product.
Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of accepting the report with the edits.
Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Chair LoPilato stated replacement language needs to be suggested
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-02-07,4,"for the edits that were included as comments rather than redline.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk suggested changing the language
to remove the word ""annual"" and make it broader.
Chair LoPilato stated the simplest way to address the issue could be striking the word
""annual"" in the footnote and add language stating: ""to increase the scope of the staff-
produced report on PRA requests;"" inquired whether Commissioner Montgomery's does
not accept deleting the end notes.
Commissioner Montgomery responded in the affirmative, stated the end notes should not
be deleted.
Chair LoPilato re-stated the motion: to accept the report with the redline edits accepted,
including the minor language change to strike the term ""annual"" and to reincorporate the
end notes.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, Commissioner Cambra stated he would make a
friendly amendment to add a brief descriptive passage regarding the legislative affairs
website so long as it does not further the discussion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair
LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.
4-C. Accept the Annual Report
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated an error in the report was
caught by the Chief Assistant City Attorney; she will make sure the corrected version is
posted.
Chair LoPilato inquired if it would be possible to hyperlink to the actual final decision in
the disposition column of the report, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry on how the ""relief sought"" column is characterized,
the Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the she and the City Clerk drafted the report
and chart jointly; ""relief sought"" is the only phrase used in the Sunshine Ordinance; in the
interest of space and using a chart format, the ""relief sought"" is just a truncated version
of how each complainant's filing is distilled; there is no specific process followed other
than to try to have an accurate snap shot of the relief being sought by each complainant.
Chair LoPilato stated that she was curious about whether there might be an adjustment
or footnote to the final column for the complaint heard December 6th regarding the
custodian of records for the NextDoor PRA request.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-02-07,5,"In response to the Chief Assistant City Attorney's inquiry, Chair LoPilato stated the global
question is does the statutory language indicate that there should be a level of specificity
about who potential custodians are or is that referring more to the location of records that
were produced.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that her understanding is the final column is
supposed to relate to where any records, if they exist, are housed in the City.
The City Clerk stated that she concurs with the Chief Assistant City Attorney; the specific
language is: ""the location of all records relevant to each complaint held by the City;"" if
records not housed in the City are not list.
Vice Chair Chen stated if she can get all the data used for the bar chart and the data from
2021, she could do a new bar chart for the report and fulfill Commissioner Cambra's wish.
The City Clerk stated a motion and vote to approve the report was already done and
would have to be reopened if Vice Chair Chen wants to make additional amendments.
Vice Chair Chen stated she will leave it alone.
Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of accepting the annual report.
Commissioner Chen seconded the motion.
In response to Vice Chair Chen's inquiry, the City Clerk stated she will upload the correct
version that includes the Scott Morris case and will be the official report.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk read the section that was missing
in the version of the report included in the packet.
In response to Vice Chair Chen's inquiry regarding the dates, the City Clerk stated the
Scott Morris case was filed in May of 2020, but not heard until April 2021, which is noted
by an asterisk and footnote.
Chair LoPilato stated that she would like to make a friendly amendment to add a hyperlink
in the disposition column of the report to the actual OGC final decision for each complaint.
Commissioner Montgomery accepted the friendly amendment.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair
LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.
4-D. Update on Public Records Act (PRA) Requests
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-02-07,6,"The City Clerk gave a demonstration of the PRA software, NextRequest.
Commissioner Cambra moved approval of extending the time for the City Clerk to finish
her presentation.
Commissioner Montgomery seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call
vote: Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair
LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
The City Clerk finished her presentation.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated there is no vote needed on
the item; the update is for information only.
Vice Chair Chen inquired whether the NextRequest software increased the number of
requests and what that number is.
The City Clerk responded the Next Request launched in August so it is difficult to do a
comparison from last year yet; the PRA tallies are based on the calendar year, not the
fiscal year; it will be interesting to see how much requests have increased after the year.
Commissioner Cambra inquired whether there is a help feature in NextRequest, to which
the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated all of the FAQ and Help options are
always available at the bottom of each webpage; the Clerk's office is happy to help as
well.
Commissioner Montgomery stated she is impressed by NextRequest and cannot wait to
check it out.
Vice Chair Chen inquired whether Mr. Garfinkle's statement that an in-person meeting
between a Commissioner and a Councilmember would not be subject to the PRA is
correct.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded if a written record of a meeting, such as in
a City-maintained calendar, is requested, it could be subject to and produced under the
PRA; Mr. Garfinkle referred to the content of the discussion, which would not be subject
to a PRA request.
Chair LoPilato stated that she echoes Commissioner Montgomery's sentiment that
NextRequest is a cool system; the update was helpful to see how the tallies and statistics
are available for everyone.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry regarding Police Department tallies, the City Clerk
stated the OGC process of going through the City Clerk's office would be the same and
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-02-07,7,"she would be happy to put requests through for individual members or the Commission.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated her office does not actually
receive a tally from the Housing Authority (HA) since they are a completely separate
agency; HA results have never been tallied or shown to the Commission; from time to
time, the Clerk's office receives PRA requests for the HA which are forwarded; the one
really nice thing about the internal end of the system is that staff gets reminder emails
about when requests are due before they are due; it is great at keeping staff on track;
once growing pains are smoothed out, the system will be extremely efficient.
Vice Chair Chen stated because the HA was listed as an agency that needs to follow the
Brown Act, complaints need to go directly to them; inquired whether the OGC has any
jurisdiction over complaints filed against the HA for Brown Act violations.
The City Clerk responded that the City Council makes appointments to the Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners (HABOC), but the HA itself is a separate agency; the
City contracts with the HA for some services and requests for those records, such as rent
program records, have been produced through the City; other than that, there is very little
overlap.
Vice Chair Chen clarified her question, inquired whether a violation of the Brown Act by
a HABOC member be considered a violation under the Sunshine Ordinance.
The City Clerk responded the HABOC is appointed subject to the Health and Safety
codes, so it is a different code; the HABOC is not included in the Municipal Code.
STAFF UPDATE
The Chief Assistant City Attorney announced Commission training would be done at the
March meeting as long as no complaints are filed.
In response to Commissioner Cambra's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated
staff is developing the syllabus which will include topics that have come up over the past
year, including issues that have been raised and conflicts of interests; it is a public
meeting so the public will be able to attend.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated any
Commissioner can email her directly with suggested topics prior to the training.
Chair LoPilato inquired if nothing else planned for March, would the training bump to April.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether Chair LoPilato is suggesting bumping
the training to April if there is no business in March.
Chair LoPilato stated she was just throwing it out there that the Commission does not
need to meet every month since there were 10 meetings last year.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
7",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-02-07,8,"to make sure he interpreted the statute correctly; the options are discussion points and
recommendations the Commission could consider.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she would like to reserve any substantive
discussion for the next meeting; it would be a bit premature for her to start rendering
opinions; as a broad-brush assessment, she read Commissioner Cambra's comments
and thought the topic could be discussed at a future meeting.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, Commissioner Cambra stated that he prefers to
keep it broad so that each of the Commissioners would have an opportunity to be creative
and suggest things; he wants to make sure everyone understands the statutory scheme
and the Commission's authority versus Council's authority.
Vice Chair Chen moved approval of agendizing a discussion of the statutory hearing
dates at a future meeting.
Commissioner Montgomery seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Tilos inquired about Commissioner Cambra's timeline.
Commissioner Cambra responded he is not married to having it on the March agenda.
Commissioner Tilos stated that he would like to make a friendly amendment to have the
item agendized after March.
Vice Chair Chen stated her motion was for a future meeting; if the training is scheduled
in March and would only take one hour, the item could take only a half hour to be done
rather than waiting until April or May.
Chair LoPilato offered a substitute friendly amendment to add: ""at the next scheduled
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-02-07,9,"meeting""
The City Clerk clarified that Chair LoPilato is saying ""at the next scheduled meeting when
there are other agenda items already planned"".
Chair LoPilato inquired whether the amendment to motion is acceptable, to which Vice
Chair Chen responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair
LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Chen stated it is the Year of the Tiger and wished everyone a Happy Lunar
New Year.
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair LoPilato adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
9",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2022-02-03,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2022
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Historical
Advisory Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2022-1714
Historical Advisory Board Draft Meeting Minutes, November 4, 2021
Board Member Norman Sanchez clarified Chair Saxby's comment should have been
""undergrounding"".
Board Member Jen Wit made a motion to approve the minutes with this correction
and Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of
hands and the motion passed 5-0.
3-B 2022-1715
Historical Advisory Board Draft Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2021
Chair Saxby felt that the Public Comment made by Betsy Mathieson for the 7-C Agenda
item was oversimplified and had not accurately captured her thoughts. He wanted her
comment clarified and expanded on.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes with this
correction and Board Member Wit seconded the motions. A vote was taken by a
raise of hands and the motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 1 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2022-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2022-02-03,2,"None
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2022-1713
PLN21-0497 - 2986 Northwood Drive - Certificate of Approval - Applicant: Lauren
Herrera. Public hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval application to allow the
demolition of an accessory structure built prior to 1942 located in the rear yard of a
property that is on the City's Historical Building Study List with an ""S"" designation. This
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(I)(4) - Demolition and Removal of Individual Small
Structures.
David Sablan, Planner II, introduced this item and gave a brief presentation. The staff
report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5397043&GUID=4A9848CD-
B5D2-4631-BFA4-48259EA86847&FullText=
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Chair Saxby wanted clarification on the noted flooding at the accessory structure.
Lauren Herrera, the applicant, discussed the problems she had been experiencing at the
location.
Board Member Sanchez asked what options a future homeowner would have if they
wanted to build an accessory structure.
Staff Member Sablan discussed the options for a future homeowner, a new accessory
structure would be possible.
Vice-Chair Lynn Jones wanted to know how the structure had been modified over the
years and whether the windows were original.
Ms. Herrera clarified that the windows, doors, and siding were not original. It had been
modified over the years and the interior had been gutted due to mold.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the history of the structure and wanted to know if
the structure originally had a gambrel roof.
Staff Member Sablan answered the City only had a 1979 photo.
Ms. Herrera discussed the permit history of the building.
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 2 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2022-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2022-02-03,3,"Henry Dong, Planner III, also discussed the records the City had on file, including a DPR-
523 form that documented the historical character of the primary house. The accessory
structure was not described as one of the character-defining features of the property.
Chair Saxby opened public comment.
There were no public speakers.
Chair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Chair Saxby believed that accessory structures can add some integrity to a site but in this
case, it appeared to be altered too many times from its original design. He was leaning
toward approval.
Board Member Sanchez agreed especially since it was not mentioned in the original
property survey documentation. Also, he noted that the structure was not a street-facing
structure or had any visual impact on the character of the home or the neighborhood. He
was also leaning toward approval.
Vice-Chair Jones noted that the building is one of the more visually appealing accessory
structures that had come before the board and that it had a lot of charm. She discussed
the criteria they looked at when discussing the demolition of accessory structures.
However, she was also leaning toward allowing the demolition due to the issues
mentioned.
Board Member Alvin Lau wanted to know more about the plans for the space after the
demolition.
Ms. Herrera said there were no plans for a new additional structure. They would be adding
some landscaping and a fence.
Sarah Rodebaugh, Interior Designer of Henry & Mae, representing the applicant,
discussed how the owners had tried to save the structure.
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the demolition of the accessory structure
and Vice-Chair Jones seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands
and the motion passed 5-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Saxby discussed an ""eyesore"", an incredible historic property at 1617 Central Ave.
It was abandoned and some work had started on it but had stopped. He wanted to know
what the City could do to help this historic property.
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 3 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2022-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2022-02-03,4,"Staff Member Sablan was aware of the property, and noted that the property has a pending
Code Enforcement case. He discussed its history and what could be the next steps. They
would need to involve the City Attorney's Office and the Building Official.
Board Member Witt discussed a similar property near Webster.
There was a discussion that these large empty homes could accommodate many units
that could help with housing needs.
Vice-Chair Jones noted that the City of Alameda has started a process to rename parks.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Sablan gave a status update on the CLG (Certified Local Government)
Report.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 7:38 pm.
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 4 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2022-02-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 1, 2022--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:24 p.m. and wished everyone a Happy
Lunar New Year. Councilmember Herrera Spencer led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox
White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:
Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 7:29 p.m. The meeting
was conducted via Zoom]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-069) Proclamation Declaring February 2022 as Black History Month.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
(22-070) Vice Mayor Vella did a reading for the Season of Nonviolence: Courage.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-071) Marilyn Rothman, Alameda, discussed the Alameda Police Department (APD)
quadrant meetings; expressed concern about noticing of quadrant meetings and the
lack of mention for the Community Assessment Response & Engagement (CARE);
urged notices be corrected for future meetings; stated the meetings are a good place to
provide information.
(22-072) Linda Gilchrist, Alameda, urged Council to correct an issue related to stop
signs on Clement Avenue; discussed changes to Buena Vista Avenue and Chestnut
Street; stated the improvements made to the neighborhood have been dramatic;
expressed concern about diversion of traffic; urged Council to consider traffic calming
devices; stated that she would like APD to patrol and ticket trucks.
(22-073) Kristi Black, Alameda, discussed the level of participation in remote City
meetings; expressed concern about the duration of City Council meetings and Consent
Calendar discussions; urged Council to consider efficiency and the length of meetings
negatively affecting public participation.
(22-074) Laura Gamble, Alameda, discussed the removal of public trash cans near her
home; stated dumping has increased due to trash can removal; dumping in areas
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,2,"suggests the need for more trash services; expressed concern about quality of life and
effects to the neighborhood; urged Council to consider addressing how dumping
matters are handled.
(22-075) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority, announced that applications are still
being accepted for Rosefield Village; discussed available units at Rosefield Village;
stated the State of California awarded the Housing Authority $2.5 million to build more
affordable housing; discussed upcoming events and landlord-tenant guides for rent
programs.
(22-076) Carmen Reid, Alameda, discussed an initiative related to city and county land-
use, zoning and local housing laws; stated the initiative would return decision making
ability to local communities.
(22-077) Zac Bowling, Alameda Democratic Club, stated the Club is hosting State
Superintendent Tony Thurmond to discuss California's response to the COVID-19
pandemic.
(22-078) Brian Kennedy, Alameda, expressed concern about the SEED Collaborative
contract approved at the last Council meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Expressed concern about abandoned boats and the Police grant [paragraph no. 22-082]
not being utilized last year when there is great demand: Brock de Lappe, Oakland
Marina.
Encouraged the City to apply for the Police grant: Sandra Coong, Marina Village Yacht
Harbor.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote on the teleconference findings
[paragraph no. 22-081 and requested final passage of the Encinal Terminals
ordinances [paragraph nos. 22-083, 22-083A, and 22-083B] be removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff provide comments on the Police grant.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff has applied for the grant in previous years; the
cost per boat is $7,500 and the grant will provide enough funding for the removal of 10
vessels; Bay Area Conservation District Commission has authorized its staff to move
forward with a regional effort related to abandoned boats and the City will participate in
the effort as well.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the reminder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,3,"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.]
(*22-079) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council
and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the
Regular City Council Meeting Held on January 4, 2022. Approved.
(*22-080) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,250,242.47.
(22-081) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted
via Teleconference.
[Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the item carried by the
following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye;
Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.]
(*22-082) Resolution No. 15861, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and
Execute a Grant Agreement Between the State of California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways and the City of Alameda by and through
the Alameda Police Department."" Adopted; and
(*22-082A) Resolution No. 15862, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Police Grants
Fund Estimated Revenue and Expenditures by $75,000 Each for the Surrendered and
Abandoned Vessel Exchange Grant."" Adopted.
(22-083) Ordinance No. 3311, ""Approving a Disposition and Development Agreement
(DDA) for the Encinal Terminals Project By and Between the City of Alameda and North
Waterfront Cove, LLC (""Developer"") Governing the Encinal Terminals Project for Real
Property Located at 1521 Buena Vista Avenue and Approving and Authorizing the City
Manager, or Designee, to Execute a Land Exchange and Title Settlement Agreement
for the Encinal Terminals Project By and Among the State of California Acting By and
Through the State Lands Commission, the City and Developer Substantially in the Form
Attached Hereto."" Finally passed;
(22-083A) Ordinance No. 3312, ""Approving the Amended Encinal Terminals Tidelands
Exchange Master Plan and Density Bonus Application for Redevelopment of Real
Property Located at 1521 Buena Vista Avenue (APN 072-0382-001, 072-0382-002,
072-0383-003 and 072-0382-009). Finally passed; and
(22-084B) Ordinance No. 3313, ""Approving Development Agreement (DA) (Encinal
Terminals Project) By and Between the City of Alameda and North Waterfront Cove,
LLC Governing the Encinal Terminals Project for Real Property Located at 1521 Buena
Vista Avenue."" Finally passed.
The City Manager recused himself from the matter and left the meeting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,20,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog accepts the friendly
amendment as seconder to the motion.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; stated the other issues related to
the RFP are process driven and can be figured out.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated her understanding of the matter is Council is
providing direction, so that the matter [RFP] does not have to return in the future.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she does not plan to support the motion; expressed
support for a second motion to provide clarifying direction on desired policy elements.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for an additional motion.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he thinks the motion had been amended to include
several things, which implies staff will come back with a policy; inquired whether the
policy is included in the current motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands Council is articulating desired
elements of the RFP; the RFP will not come back to Council; however, the policy will
return to Council for further consideration.
Vice Mayor Vella concurred with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft.
The City Clerk noted comments related to the Crime Analyst position would also be
included in the second motion.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council should vote on one motion which covers
everything; noted supporting an RFP for an ALPR system can include direction for the
ALPR policy to return; the matter is not a political issue; the City will either issue an RFP
for an ALPR system with a policy or not; he is not understanding the reasoning for a
second vote.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Vice Mayor Vella can make the motion she desires and
Council has the right to vote accordingly; noted policy returning to Council is not part of
the current motion on the floor.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the motion related to policy would
include Council deciding on the actual policy; expressed concern about not being
upfront with vendors in the RFP process by not deciding the policy at this time.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that her motion would be to provide direction on what will be
included in the policy; the policy itself is not currently agendized and has not been
noticed; the details matter; she has heard many colleagues express concerns; there
could be agreement about some policy areas; Council previously bifurcated votes on
policy matters; expressed support for providing staff with clear policy direction.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
20",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,21,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he is ready to move forward with the motion and
subsequent discussion on the policy.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(22-087) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting until 11:30
p.m. hearing Council Referrals until the stop time.
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.
***
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of directing staff to come back with a policy regarding
ALPRs, including a statement of intended use, data protection provisions, a limit for
data retention, process for deletion, conditions for extended retention, data protection
safeguards, limitations and processes for use and access, limitations and processes for
who uses or would have access, auditing and oversight provision potentially including
things like record keeping, indexing, access, and provisions for sanctions for violations,
potentially add language which limits the type of technology used or would prioritize
certain things like rear license plates, requirements for data sharing, processes for
requesting public access provisions and processes, clear articulation that agencies and
the City would not be sharing the information with ICE, and language regarding how the
Crime Analyst would evaluate efficacy regarding retention.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not see everything that
had been proposed as significantly different from what had been presented by the
Police Chief; the motion only requests the Police Chief to clarify many of the things
listed; he is supportive of the motion; however, he does not see the point.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion acts as a protection for the future; the policies
will be known and will continue.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to see how the new policy
differs from the current policy; she does not want the policy discussion to slow down the
RFP process and moving forward with ALPRs; inquired whether the policy discussion
will delay physically getting ALPRs.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands that the policy discussion will not
need to be done before the RFP goes out.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
21",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,22,"days.
On the call for the question, the motion passed 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
(22-088) The City Manager announced CARE team has received 44 calls for service in
the first month of operation; stated the CARE team can be reached by 911 or 510-337-
8340; the City is tentatively planning on holding the Fourth of July parade while staff
continues to monitor the COVID-19 situation; there is a high wind watch alert for the Bay
Area through Thursday.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-089) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to
Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the
2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog)
Councilmember Daysog gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
22",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,23,"Councilmember Daysog moved approval of directing staff to address identifying new
areas at Alameda Point to develop a number of housing units above the originally
agreed upon amount.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she agrees with the
referral; the matter is something Council has tried to get more information about;
expressed concern about waiting for the Housing Element; noted Alameda Point is
roughly one third of the entire Island; it makes sense to focus on the area of Alameda
Point.
Vice Mayor Vella stated some of Alameda Point will be a wetlands preserve; she
assumes the City will not build housing on the preserve; noted the Navy cap still exists;
staff is in the process of negotiating with the Navy; she has heard concerns about job
creation; expressed support for clarification on where staff will be looking to add
housing; questioned whether the direction is to reduce parkland or the enterprise zone.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about duplicative efforts; stated City staff are
doing a lot and are stretched thin; the City is building houses and opening businesses;
the challenges are not that the City has more area than discovered, it is trying to make
projects pencil out and get built; she does not support the referral.
Councilmember Daysog stated the point of the referral is to have staff indicate where
housing could occur; the referral is not to say whether housing should occur on wetland
areas or natural preserves; staff may report back that housing can be placed in the
Enterprise District and provide the necessary regulatory steps; some of the steps will
sync with the RHNA process and some will not; there is value to the public in
understanding the steps needed to be taken for more housing at Alameda Point.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated one of the things the RHNA process is looking for is that a
city not concentrate all new housing in one place and that the housing is dispersed
throughout the city; Council recently voted on the Encinal Terminals project, which
added housing in the Northern Waterfront area; the RHNA obligation needs to be met;
staff has presented various housing sites throughout the City; expressed concern about
residents being misled by thinking all housing can be placed at Alameda Point; plans
provide a balance of jobs and housing at Alameda Point to replace the 18,000 jobs lost
when the Navy Base closed; the jobs and housing balance is desired to not over burden
one area of the City; she is concerned about the idea of trying to meet the RHNA
obligation solely at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Daysog stated the referral contemplates the fact that additional housing
could not be a part of the 2023 to 2031 RHNA process based on the time it takes to
change regulations and perform an RFP, developer selection and Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement (ENA) going beyond the timeline; the referral recommends staff gather
information on the process for increasing housing at Alameda Point.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
23",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,24,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is important to educate the community on
options; the referral speaks to the ability of housing at Alameda Point; she would like to
hear from staff on reasonable housing numbers that can be added and locations for
housing; the Navy cap considered the balance of housing and jobs; however, with the
need for more housing, she is not sure the balance will be held to; it is important for
Council to make informed decisions; Council cannot make the decision without staff
providing information.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 3.
(22-090) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing.
(Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she discussed the matter with the Recreation and
Parks Director; the area where the fence is being considered is hazardous and not
ready for the public due to safety.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of supporting the referral with direction to
staff that the fence be moved to the new easements as safety allows.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern over not understanding the safety issues present;
stated different portions of the park have had issues; she agrees with allowing public
access; however, she would like to understand the safety issues and any associated
costs; expressed support for the direction including the matter being heard by the
Recreation and Parks Commission (RPC) for input and prioritization of funding; the
matter can return to Council with budget information.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Vice Mayor Vella; stated the last thing Council
should do is take away money from other prioritized park projects; expressed support
for the motion; however, Vice Mayor Vella makes a good point about having the matter
go to the RPC for review.
The City Clerk stated Council is limited to three actions for referrals: take no action,
refer the matter to staff to schedule at a future City Council item or dispositive action
which is limited to legislative matters of urgency.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council can modify the direction or whether the
language has to remain as shown in the referral.
The City Clerk stated the recent process adopted yielded a two-step process to allow a
referral to come back on a Council agenda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
24",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,25,"Vice Mayor Vella stated Councilmember Knox White's recommendation of having the
Recreation and Parks Director bring the matter back to Council would suffice; she would
like to note that Council has recommended the matter go through whichever processes
seen fit prior to coming back before Council.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he has proposed a motion with direction to staff,
not a motion to take action; the direction indicates Council's wish that when the
easements go forward, staff can see fit to move the fence when safety allows; Council is
not taking action.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is to have the matter return to Council
at a future agenda date.
Councilmember Knox White responded in the negative; stated that he does not want to
see the matter return; Council has given direction on matters which are within the
general scope of an item; the motion is general direction that Council would like to see
the fence get moved when the easements are complete and safety permits; the motion
keeps Council from getting into the administrative actions of the City.
The City Attorney stated Council may always provide general direction on any agenda
item; Council may give general direction; the referral rules are clear in that should
Council wish to give specific direction, there are three choices; Council may direct staff
to bring the matter back, take no further action or reject the referral; Council may
provide general direction on any item.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be re-stated.
Councilmember Knox White stated the motion is to approve the Council's wish that the
fence be moved at such a time that the fence is setup for when the new easements are
put in place and that those fences are erected as safety allows.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether budget is included in the motion, to which
Councilmember Knox White responded in the negative.
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.
(22-091) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a
Regular City Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
25",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,26,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Council Priority Setting
Workshop being held on a regular Council meeting date.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
(22-092) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of adding ten more minutes to
the meeting in order to finish the discussion; stated that he is not ready to vote on the
matter; if time is not extended, the matter should be continued to another meeting; he
will not provide any additional dates for the priority setting workshop until the discussion
occurs.
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.
***
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he was enthusiastic about
trying to have regular Council workshops; he understands Councilmembers have
refused to consider dates on the weekends or other times; he is a the point where now
he does not see value in holding a workshop; the current priorities still represent the
priorities of the majority of Council; it is disappointing that a time could not be found due
to inflexibility; he does not see any point in holding a workshop eight months prior to an
election; he will not support the matter and will no longer submit times for workshops;
there will not be any benefit to holding a workshop.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she shares frustrations about the scheduling difficulties
experienced; some members have refused to meet on weekends, which causes
disadvantages for those working jobs during the day; noted having a date where only
four out of five Councilmembers meet defeats the purpose of the workshop.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he has agreed to all but two of the proposed
dates presented and attempted to be as flexible as possible.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for comments; stated Councilmembers are
volunteers and are not full-time; it is difficult for those with jobs to meet during the day
on a weekday; workshops are publically agendized and open to the public; workshops
set in the middle of the day disadvantages the public; workshops should be set at times
which are accessible to the broader public; it is unfortunate; many Councilmembers
have worked to set a date; her priorities have not shifted and housing is still a top
priority.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated multiple dates have been suggested; she is not
privy as to who accepted which dates; some Councilmembers do not fill out charts; she
has provided her availability multiple times and has been available; the current
discussion does not address the referral topic; her referral speaks to setting the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
26",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,27,"workshop during a regular Council meeting; it is untrue that Council must discuss
priorities at a workshop retreat; Council can start by reviewing prior Council priorities
and set the matter as a regular agenda item; all Councilmembers are available the first
and third Tuesday of the month.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that Council discusses priorities at workshops in order to allow
for a focus and deliberation on only the priorities; workshops have previously lasted
several hours; expressed concern about having full agendas; stated taking away from
the business of the City or ensuring the discussion does not occur at 11:00 p.m. is the
reason to have a separate workshop; she will not be supporting the motion.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he found the referral reasonable; the idea of having
a workshop during a Council meeting starting at 5:00 p.m. is reasonable; Council has
held workshops in areas which were not accessible or generally open to the public.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the motion be re-stated.
The City Clerk stated the motion is to approve the referral to have the priority setting
workshop held at a regular City Council meeting.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(22-093) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-094) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22-095) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the Vaccine Task Force's booster clinic at
Mastic Senior Center.
(22-096) Councilmember Daysog discussed the City Council/School Board
Subcommittee meeting; stated the School District will be placing a bond measure on the
June ballot.
(22-097) Councilmember Knox White discussed the AC Transit Interagency Liaison
Committee meeting; stated AC Transit Line 78 to the Seaplane Lagoon for the 1 year
pilot program is coming to the end; the pilot program cannot be extended; public
hearings will be held.
Councilmember Daysog noted AC Transit is also working with the City on a bus pass for
low income senior citizens and those with disabilities.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
27",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,28,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:45
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
28",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,29,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2022- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:02 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella
arrived at 5:34 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
Consent Calendar:
(22-037) Recommendation to approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Nico Procos, Alameda
Municipal Power General Manager, Erin Smith, Public Works Director, Alan Cohen,
Assistant City Attorney, and Alan Harbottle, Senior Energy Resources Analyst, as
Designated Negotiators with NextEra Energy Resources Related to Doolittle Landfill.
Not heard.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-038) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
54956.8); Property: 11-Acre Portion of the 33.2-Acre Doolittle Landfill Sire Located
Northwest of the Intersection of Doolittle Drive and Harbor Bay Parkway. Not heard.
(22-039) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code
Section 54956.9); Case Name: City of Alameda V. All Persons Interested in the Matter
of the Issuance and Sale of One or More Series of Pension Obligation Bonds to
Refinance Outstanding Obligations of the City of Alameda to the California Public
Employees' Retirement Law, and All Proceedings Leading Thereto, Including the
Adoption of a Resolution and Sale of Such Bonds, Alameda County Taxpayers'
Association, Steve Slauson, and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Court: Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: 21CV001157.
(22-040) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation, Initiation of Litigation
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4)); Number of Cases:
One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendant(s): Alameda Point
Partners, LLC.
(22-041) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: Alameda Point, Site A, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric
Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, and Louis Liss,
Base Reuse Manager; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Point
Partners, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,30,"(22-042) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, and
Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations: Alameda Police
Managers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire Chief's Association (AFCA); Under
Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding the Existing Litigation, staff provided information and Council
provided direction, by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera
Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye;
Ayes: 3. Abstain: 1. Absent: 1; regarding Potential Litigation and Real Property, staff
provided information and Council provided direction 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; and regarding Labor, staff provided
information and Council provided direction 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.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:28
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,4,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed appraisals for the project; stated that she
received emails about the value of the property being unfair; the City has been trustee
of the property, but the property belongs to the State; the process will continue;
members of the public will have an opportunity to voice concerns at the State Lands
Commission (SLC) level; expressed support for staff providing clarification on the
project appraisals.
Bill White, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, stated the SLC is required to approve any
exchange of public trust property; the SLC will need to review and make a decision
about the agreement at a public meeting; the SLC is required to make certain findings,
including that the value of the lands that are coming into the public trust are equal or
greater than the lands coming out of the trust; the City has made similar findings in the
resolution; however, the City findings are not required by law; the legal requirement lies
with the SLC; the SLC will be reviewing the appraisal; the SLC may request changes or
provide comments on the appraisal and will be the ultimate entity responsible for looking
at evidence and conducting a confidential legal analysis; the SLC will decide whether
the lands coming in have greater value than the lands coming out; the public will have
the opportunity to participate in the hearing.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the public can visit the SLC website:
www.slc.ca.gov in order to communicate and follow up on the public hearing; the land
belongs to the public, not the City; the City is the trustee; the public has not had access
or benefits of the land; she supports the project providing access to the land; Council
worked hard to develop the best compromise and solution; the SLC will check the City's
work to see whether it is fair; she is looking forward to the completion of the project and
access to the land.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved final passage of the ordinances.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-085) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Use of Fixed and
Mobile Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR).
The Police Chief gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands businesses and private
residents may register cameras with the City; requested clarification about the program.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,5,"The Police Chief stated the City has a camera registry program that allows people with
private camera systems to register with the City; in the event an incident or crime
occurs, the APD is able to look at the camera list for possible footage.
Councilmember Knox White stated there is acknowledgement that the cameras capture
photos which will sometimes have people's faces; questioned whether the information
will be shared with law enforcement throughout the rest of the region and nation.
The Police Chief responded the details are vendor-specific; stated some vendors
prioritize taking a picture of the rear of the vehicle; it is possible that the back of
someone's head could be captured in a picture; staff would recommend considering
vendors that prioritize the rear of the vehicle.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council should provide direction that staff not use
systems which capture that type of information; if the City uses a system that captures
the information, the information should not be shared with other law enforcement;
Alameda is one of the few cities with a facial recognition ban; photos should not be
shared with other agencies that do not have facial recognition bans.
The Police Chief stated staff can include Council direction in vendor selection.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the previous vendor shared information with Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE); inquired whether vendors which share information with
ICE would not be considered.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated some vendors include information
sharing; some vendors allow the agency to decide who the information can be shared
with; staff would have to select an agency to share information; staff would not share
information with ICE.
Stated that she has not had her privacy threatened in her almost 60 years of residence;
she is alarmed and upset at the matter being considered; there is no data showing
ALPRs work to prevent or solve crime or that more policing prevents crimes; expressed
concern about spying on people accessing Alameda: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Stated APD used to be the envy of surrounding cities; the past two years have caused a
lack in patrols throughout Alameda and has led to an increase in crime; ALPRs would
allow APD to be alerted of stolen vehicles; discussed people being intent on committing
crime; stated APD needs a head start to catch people in the act; urged Council to vote
yes on ALPRs: Barry Parker, Alameda.
Stated that she opposes any expansion of ALPRs in Alameda; discussed lack of trust in
police departments; expressed support for APD regaining the trust of herself and the
community; stated increasing surveillance is less likely to regain trust; if the expansion
be approved, general trust of APD will go down: Anna Smalley, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,6,"Stated the impacts of ALPRs will largely be felt by marginalized people in Alameda;
discussed the history of law enforcement abusing surveillance technology; stated the
proposed policy does little to attempt to prevent or detect abuse of the technology;
questioned whether data shows APD's existing ALPRs have been effective; stated the
report indicates data is lacking; inquired about audits; urged Council to reject the
proposal; expressed support for a comprehensive surveillance ordinance: Mike Katz-
Lacabe, Research for Oakland Privacy.
Discussed the lack of data and anecdotal accounts; stated more research is needed to
show that ALPRs are worth the investment and possible lawsuits resulting from
surveillance; expressed concern about the community being a test case; stated misuse
of the system is not impossible; discussed crime statistics; expressed support for the
matter being funded by APD's current budget and for the City matching any funds on
other projects: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Expressed support for Alameda being a Sanctuary City; stated that he is glad the City is
taking steps to ensure social justice; discussed fears of random hate crimes occurring
due to the color of his skin and families installing cameras on their properties; stated
people are strategic in order to stay safe; APD is having difficulty responding to a rise in
crime and response times are abysmal; the installation of ALPRs is a no-brainer
decision; expressed concern about providing political correctness over public safety;
urged Council to vote yes on ALPR's: Michael Robles-Wong, Alameda.
Discussed his experience being a victim of vehicle theft; stated ALPRs are a waste of
money and are a surveillance tool that will provide APD a pretext to monitor citizens and
possibly cause an increase in Police violence; expressed concern about Police violence
and death being repeated in Alameda: Erin Fraser, Alameda.
Stated his neighborhood has frequently had both property and auto-related crime;
expressed support for the proposed installation and use of both fixed and mobile
ALPRs; stated ALPR usage under the authorized use guidelines will be a valuable
crime-fighting and investigative tool; Council has a duty to provide a safe and secure
environment; urged Council support APD's request to use ALPRs: Bill Garvine,
Alameda.
Stated that she strongly opposes the installation of stationary or mobile ALPRs; there is
no evidence that the technology will prevent crime; the collection of data is a violation of
privacy; ALPRs will not reduce the footprint of policing; discussed APD's use of facial
recognition software; stated APD cannot be trusted to operate additional surveillance
technology; the cost adds to an already high Police budget and does not include
maintenance or replacement of broken readers; urged Council not to approve the use of
ALPRs: Isabel Sullivan, Alameda.
Stated that she strongly opposes ALPRs; expressed support for protecting residents
and neighbors of Color by not installing the devices; discussed ALPR reports from the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
6",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,7,"Brennan Center for Justice; stated those that harbor views about ALPRs being neutral
are not the ones being profiled; urged Alameda to do better: Laura Cutrona, Alameda.
Stated that she strongly opposes the matter; urged Council oppose the use of ALPRs;
stated ALPRs do not work; there is no data showing ALPRs are worth their cost or
possible risks; ALPRs would be a step backwards; Alameda has worked toward social
justice through the Steering Committee; questioned how residents are to trust APD;
discussed APD not following protocol; stated there are many unknowns; expressed
support for more stop signs and a better mechanism for ticketing that does not target
people of Color; urged Council to vote against the matter: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.
Urged Council to vote no on ALPRs; stated implementing ALPRs is a knee-jerk reaction
to a small group of people's fears of crime and personal safety; it is reasonable for
people to express fear; however, honesty around the fear should be clarified; it is not
the City's obligation to spend money on efforts to blindly comfort fearful groups;
expressed support for the possibility of other solutions; stated Alameda should not be
implementing harmful surveillance technologies with no safeguard for personal privacy;
the program does not hold up as a good solution: Savanna Cheer, Alameda.
Urged Council vote against ALPRs; stated ALPRs are a waste of money and resources
which can be better used elsewhere; ALPRs do not work as-described and will not
achieve the desired results; the City is working hard to right the wrongs of social justice
and approving ALPRs would be a step backwards: James Bergquist, Alameda.
Stated that she is strongly opposed to the proposed use of ALPRs in Alameda; Council
needs to do more to ensure proper safeguards of the technology; she is distrustful of
APD after their misuse of facial recognition software; currently, there is not an oversight
body; without such a body in place, the City should not trust that APD will not misuse
the technology; expressed concern about the waste of taxpayer funds; stated the funds
can be used in more effective ways: Carly Stadum-Liang, Alameda.
Stated that she supports those that oppose the use of ALPRs; discussed her work and
recommendations on the Subcommittee for Racial Equity and Policing; stated a
recommendation was made to hire a Data Analyst; expressed concern about the Data
Analyst work being diverted to review ALPR data and about using ALPRs for missing
persons: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Expressed support for the full expansion of ALPRs; stated the presentation has been
effective; it is important to consider ALPRs as another tool for investigations; ALPRs
can be used to support APD initiatives; APD can significantly increase its investigative
efficiency while reducing delays in leads; the use of ALPRs would mitigate the
unintended consequences associated with over-policing; urged Council to direct staff to
take the next steps to implement fixed ALPRs and expand mobile ALPRs: Jeff
Wasserman, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,8,"Stated that she does not support the addition of funds to APD's budget for ALPRs;
urged Council to vote no on the matter; stated proof has not been presented that the
system prevents crimes or clears cases; cameras do not prevent crime; it is
irresponsible for the City to have a reactionary response to a sense of fear; expressed
support for waiting for Berkeley's program data; discussed subcommittee
recommendations; stated the recommendations did not include ALPRs; APD funds
should be spent on social services that prevent poverty and desperation, which leads
individuals to resort to crime: Jackie Zipkin, Alameda.
Stated showing crime statistics in the presentation was not material and appeared to be
used as a scare tactic; there is no correlation to solving crimes since the crimes solved
by ALPRs is unknown; discussed the Electronic Frontier Foundation data drive; noted
the results of the data showed 99.9% of data collected is never used in an investigation;
expressed concern about mass data collection and 90-day data retention; stated no
solution should be considered without a full audit of an outside vendor; expressed
support for separate, ongoing security access audits and a better approach to not over-
police certain areas of Alameda: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Stated a reference to Piedmont's statistics without context is misleading and cherry-
picking; ALPRs are not an effective crime fighting tool; providing ALPRs blindly without
justification is not leadership; ALPR technology lends no greater effectiveness;
statistical evaluations show 0% success; urged Council to table the matter to address
missing components or vote no: Brian Hofer, Secure Justice.
Stated that he opposes ALPRs; there is no evidence that ALPRs work; if the technology
works, data would be brought forth; recent increases in crime are likely due to the
COVID-19 pandemic; noted victims often knows perpetrators; being scared should not
compel a response; urged a reasoned approach: Josh Geyer, Alameda.
Stated City government exists to provide vital services to the public it represents;
ALPRs have been proven to be an effective and unobtrusive tool; violent street crime
has increased in the City; part of the reason for the rise in crime is due to APD being
understaffed; urged Council to provide APD with state of the art equipment, including
ALPRs: Burny Matthews, Alameda.
Urged Council to vote no on the matter; stated that she understands people are worried
about their safety; there is little research that ALPRs effectively address crime; the City
should look at solutions that will not compromise people's freedom to privacy or risk
misuse of data; the matter would be an irresponsible waste of money; urged Council
continue to focus on methods that work: Meredith Hoskin, Alameda.
Discussed recent crimes; stated people are angry and scared; a number of people want
ALPRs; privacy concerns can be addressed; costs are reduced; Alameda is a unique
community as an Island with limited access; urged Council to support APD with ALPRs:
Neil Wilson, Garden Isle Homeowners Association.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
8",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,9,"Stated ALPRs are not the correct way to move forward; ALPRs are the wrong system
for the City; the proposal concedes that no studies have been able to show ALPRs help
reduce crime; the system is a data collection for all who enter and exit Alameda;
expressed concern about sensitive location data being shared with other agencies;
stated if Alameda continues, strong protections and policies with community review
should be included prior to purchase and implementation; urged Council vote no:
Rebecca Jaschke, Alameda.
Stated if the City uses the largest vendor in California, Vigilant Solutions, the sharing of
information is turned on automatically by default; the information sharing feature must
be manually turned off; discussed other California departments misusing features and
license plate swapping; stated ALPRs do nothing regarding catalytic converter thefts or
break-ins; the ALPR technology is not the answer: Tracy Rosenberg, Alameda.
Stated that he shares concerns about rising crimes in Alameda; it is Council's duty to
ensure the safety of residents; fixed ALPRs will be security theatre and will not reduce
crime; there is evidence that ALPRs do not help; questioned whether Council is
comfortable installing a tool that any future Alameda Police Chief could misuse: Jeremy
Gillula, Alameda.
Stated some people see ALPRs as part of the solution for safety; it is important to
address objective safety as well as feelings around safety; however, she is not
convinced ALPRs will address either; questioned whether people coming to Alameda to
commit crimes will be dissuaded by ALPRs or whether license plates will be removed
prior; noted ALPRs will not indicate where a stolen car is taken after leaving the Island;
data does not show that ALPRs reduce crime: Kristi Black, Alameda.
Stated that she does not support funding ALPRs; there is no data or studies which show
that ALPRs make streets or the community safer; expressed support for a fact based
approach; discussed costs for street improvements and Vision Zero; stated the funding
could be used towards safety improvements in high injury corridors; urged Council to
spend limited resources where it is known to create more safety; expressed support for
pursuing other proven automated enforcement, such as guard rails and speed
enforcement cameras: Denyse Trepanier, BikeWalk Alameda.
Stated that she is unsure whether the matter will stop anyone from feeling afraid or
scared; discussed being followed across the Island by APD; stated ALPRs will not make
her feel any safer; instead, she will feel more surveilled; urged Council to say no to
ALPRs: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Stated the technology does not reduce crime or increase clearance rates; urged Council
to make data informed choices to improve the City; discussed the death of Mario
Gonzales and data presented; expressed concern about being constantly surveilled:
Laura Gamble, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
9",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,10,"Discussed recommendations provided by the Police Reform and Racial Equity
Subcommittee; stated the Crime Analyst position came about from APD's commitment
to evidence based policing; ALPRs are not evidence based; Council has taken action to
boost and strengthen APD in the past year; urged Council not to vote in favor of ALPRs:
Beth Kenny, Alameda.
Stated there are relevant ALPR documents, studies and articles; discussed a 2004
United Kingdom home office report; stated studies highlight the efficiency of the tool:
Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:18 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:32
p.m.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there has been a freeze on Police hiring.
The Police Chief responded there is not a freeze; stated APD is hiring; three Officers
finished field training; six Officers are currently completing field training; eight people are
in the academy and two are graduating; three recent academy graduates will be hired
soon; APD is actively hiring sworn staff, as well as professional staff.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry about the Crime Analyst being used to
review ALPR data, the Police Chief stated the Crime Analyst will be used to analyze
crime; the hiring process is still underway.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like clarification about the data collection
process; some public comments referenced the location tracking where people live,
worship and gather; inquired the relationship of data and ALPRs.
The Police Chief responded the ALPR system will capture visuals of license plates;
stated license plates exist to identify vehicles; ALPRs are a camera system which
identifies a license plate and take a picture; the only time the system would be accessed
for data would be in response to a crime; Officers would not be able to access or
monitor data; Officers would be required to obtain supervisor approval with a case
number associated with the search; all information is purged and removed after the 90
day retention period; the system would provide a location mark of the vehicle passing in
front of a camera; the recommendation is for 13 to 14 camera locations to be set up;
vehicles will be marked at the time they pass the camera; the information will only be
accessed in response to a follow-up investigation.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry about New York Police Department
surveilling people coming and going from a mosque, the Police Chief stated that he is
not familiar with the incident; he will not tolerate misuse; the camera system will not be
used to surveil anyone in their place of worship or used as a surveillance tool; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
10",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,11,"system will be used to follow up on investigative leads; he will not tolerate staff using the
technology to make people feel uncomfortable.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted staff changes; inquired whether a policy can guarantee how
the system would and would not be used.
The Police Chief responded policies should be created and exist no matter who is in
place; stated clear policies will be created to reference how the technology can and will
be used; the policy creation process includes getting all stakeholders involved.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City is looking at Vigilant Solutions as a
vendor.
The Police Chief responded in the negative; stated the current mobile ALPRs are
provided by Vigilant Solutions; however, the contract has not been renewed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who will be able to access deleted data and whether the
data will be accessible.
The Police Chief responded the data will not be accessible and is purged; stated
various vendors have a digital print of the data; if the matter moves forward, staff will
ensure information is gone and inaccessible once purged.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for speed cameras; stated the State of
California needs to pass legislation which will allow use.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Police Chief has expressed concern about Vigilant
Solutions; requested clarification of the vendor selection process; inquired the process
to be used for vendor selection.
The Police Chief responded the selection process should be clear; stated the process
relates to how the information works with existing technology; the retention period
should allow for information to be purged; vendor track records related to efficacy
should be considered; expressed support for a vendor that is compatible with
evidence.com; stated cost is an important factor; he would like a system which allows
control over who has access to the information; expressed support for the information
not being open for anyone to access; expressed support for a vendor that does not tie
into a third party database; stated privacy is a concern and should be a priority.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Police Chief envisions working with the
City Manager to involve the City Council and the public in the Request for Proposal
(RFP) processes to select a vendor.
The Police Chief responded that he is open; stated that he take direction from the City
Manager.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
11",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,12,"Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the data will not be shared with Northern
California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC).
The Police Chief responded the type of vendor desired is one where the City can select
who information is shared with.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the City will house the information locally,
not in a regional database, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White stated the last speaker pointed out studies showing there
can be some investigative benefit; however, sources were unable to be cited; studies do
not show ALPRs have led to a reduction in crime; inquired which shootings would have
been helped with the use of ALPR technology.
The Police Chief responded that he does not have the specific details on each shooting;
stated anytime a vehicle is used in any type of crime, including shootings, ALPRs
license plate information can be used; the technology can be leveraged to try and help
identify vehicles involved.
Councilmember Knox White stated the technology is useful after-the-fact; inquired
whether ALPR technology is helpful before-the-fact to stop shootings.
The Police Chief responded by providing an example of a possible shooting from a
stolen vehicle; stated an alert would be made when the stolen vehicle enters the Island
and Officers in the area might locate the vehicle [prior to the shooting]; it is difficult to
quantify deterrent and show how many incidents are interrupted; the choice not to
commit a crime can be difficult to show.
Councilmember Knox White stated the three studies he looked at have not found
deterrent occurs; expressed concern about a discussion addressing ALPRs being
useful after a crime has occurred and helping APD catch criminals and possibly return
vehicles; stated many people are discussing fear for safety and ALPRs helping stop
crime from occurring; past Police Chiefs have not made the case and the data does not
support a decrease in crime due to ALPRs; discussed hoping for an effect on crime
rates; stated if the matter passes, ALPRs might help APD solve crimes; however, there
is no reason to believe crime will decrease; crime has gone up in every surrounding
community with ALPRs; ALPRs have not kept crime from increasing; there are many
policy issues; Council is the City's policy body and should set and approve policies;
expressed support for strong direction being provided to ensure the policies come back
to Council ahead of the actual request to purchase.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether specific policies are desired to be included.
Councilmember Knox White responded that he would like the policy to include
evaluation and who data is shared with under which circumstances; expressed support
for retention being included; stated 30 to 60 days of retention seems to be a normal
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
12",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,13,"rate; he is not looking for a report that shows a single case of ALPR usefulness;
expressed support for knowing the impact on crime and safety and that the evaluation
performs a comparison to make the case.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the technology being presented is a traditional ALPR; inquired
whether technology has been considered which would not retain all data while scanning
license plates, similar to FasTrak and retain data relative to hits against a hot list with an
established criminal predicate or at-risk alert.
The Police Chief responded the retention period comes into play for the circumstance;
stated when someone is planning on committing a crime using a vehicle, the person
may scan the area and establish exit routes; the process is quick; there is value in
holding the returns for a short period of time; he is open to reducing the retention period;
six months is a bit long; returns of hits on vehicles associated with a crime will be
retained and saved for evidence; 90 days provides a sufficient window to locate vehicles
and follow up on cases.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the cost-benefit analysis; stated there are
costs to civil liberties and the toll on civil liberties versus the benefit of ideally preventing
and solving crime; there is value in crime solving; inquired whether studies are looking
at efficacy based off solving crimes.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated one metric relates to solving
crimes; another benefit reduces the APD footprint; ALPRs allow APD to know which
vehicle is involved in a crime without misunderstanding; ALPR technology helps narrow
down the vehicle; the technology allows efficient deployment of resources.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for the openness to a policy discussion; stated that
she still has many concerns about the program cost; she would feel most comfortable
with a system that scans license plates, looks for hits and provides alerts; discussed UK
efficacy and the inclusion of fast monitoring helping to close in on offenders, rather than
an overall data retention; expressed support for a Council policy providing direction;
stated the policy can insulate the City; she would like to see the policy include: some
form of annual reporting, how the City gauges efficacy to ensure best use, evidence of
how many crimes the system produced evidence for that led to crime solving, and
vetting within the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) framework related to
acquisition; the policies should be included in the RFP process; the policy should limit
and articulate the limited authorized use so not just anyone can use or access data;
specific categories, such as Amber and silver alerts, should be predicated before
someone can access the system; she would like the policy to articulate who within APD
has access to data and the process for accessing data; the policy should indicate the
requirements for access prior to access and use; expressed support for data protection
language being included, such as safeguards to protect the acquisition or access of
information and encryption in place where the information is housed; the policy should
ensure the City is storing and controlling the information; the policy should include any
processes for releasing data and needed disclosures; she would like to see the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
13",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,14,"retention language be reduced to 30 or 60 days; she is opposed to mass surveillance;
the retention limitation is needed in the policy; expressed support for processes outlined
for deletion, conditions for extended retention, such as evidence in a crime, and the
extent of extended retention and future deletion; stated public access to data should be
defined in the policy; expressed support for auditing and oversight being included in the
policy, as well as internal record keeping to index who has access to data and when;
stated that she would like the legal sanctions for violation included in the policy, as well
as
language related to ensuring deletion of data by other agencies, so that no
automatic sharing occurs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated many important issues and concerns have
been raised; requested the Police Chief to provide his background.
The Police Chief outlined his law enforcement experience of 24 years, with most of his
time at Oakland Police Department.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about the Police Chief's
formal education, the Police Chief outlined his education and training.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how long the Police Chief has been with the
City of Alameda, to which the Police Chief responded 8 months.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what has been done in the 8 months' time to
yield the staff recommendation.
The Police Chief responded that he has met with APD staff to try and understand the
organization, including strengths and weaknesses; APD is a good Department and the
staff is committed to public safety and service; the position is more than just
professional since he lives in Alameda; he has lived in Alameda for almost 8 years;
based on his review, he has been able to identify challenging staffing areas; the
Department has performed mass hiring and has been selective in hiring; some
candidates have not been selected due to not fitting the APD operation; the technology
will help APD with the staffing deficit as a force multiplier; ALPRs are a tool that can
help APD in several areas; APD has been restructured, has initiated public community
meetings and has begun a data-driven approach to crime fighting by instituting
CompStat where Commanders are responsible for specific shifts and areas within the
City; a Captain performs crime review every two weeks; APD questions why crime is up
or down to best deploy resources; several policies have been approved and team-
building workshops have been held.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the former Police Chief recommended installing
fixed cameras at the places to enter and leave the Island; questioned the current Police
Chief's recommendation.
The Police Chief stated that he recommends having the cameras installed at several
strategic locations throughout the City.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
14",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,15,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the recommendation for mobile ALPRS.
The Police Chief responded that he recommends expanding the existing mobile ALPR
system; stated mobile ALPRs would augment the fixed systems and help with Officers
being readily alerted any time a vehicle stop is conducted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated questions have been raised about the system
being the best use of money; the City has limited funds; inquired the Police Chief's
response to the cost of the program.
The Police Chief responded the system is a good use of funds; stated that he assumes
the responsibility of consistently looking at outcomes to see whether the system should
continue to be invested in.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many vehicles would have mobile
ALPRs, to which the Police Chief responded 30 vehicles.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been comments related to the City
of Berkeley; noted Berkeley's system is similar to a security camera or closed circuit
surveillance system; requested clarification on the similarities between systems.
The Police Chief stated that he needs to look at the matter further; many cities are
moving in a similar direction as Berkeley; the system is a little too new and he would like
to see how other agencies implement the system; he will look further into the system if it
is something worth pursuing.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the desired system is considered
mass surveillance.
The Police Chief responded in the negative; stated the technology takes pictures of
vehicle license plates that pass before the camera.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether anything else should be included in
the recommendation
The Police Chief responded in the negative; stated that he feels as though he has been
clear on his recommendations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation in
support of the fixed cameras at the points of entrance and exit of the City as well as the
cameras for the 30 vehicles.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she listens carefully to all public comments
provided to evaluate the best decisions for the City; the City has had multiple Police
Chiefs recommend the system; other cities have implemented an ALPR system; she
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
15",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,16,"disagrees that ALPRs are frittering away money; crime is difficult to address, reduce
and solve; the Police Chief has made it clear that the system is one of the tools to help
the City; the Police Chief is the City's law enforcement expert; she is a person of color
and has been assaulted in the City; discussed other people being victims of crime in the
City; stated that she agrees with speakers and is looking to the Police Chief to do his
best to serve the community; she is aware of racist Police; the City cannot have racist
Officers; cameras are not racist and do not see color; cameras are one of the least
racist ways of policing; expressed her supports; stated a previous Council worked on
policy in 2014; the policy can be improved; the process is a balancing act; the issue has
been delayed too long; other cities are ahead of Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not ready to support the motion; expressed
support for including recommendations from other Councilmembers related to policy
and other considerations.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the way in which the
Police Chief has reached out and worked with the broader Alameda community; stated
admiration for the Police Chief from those who do not support the current matter says a
lot; he is thankful that the Police Chief is making headway in strengthening the trust
between City Hall, APD and the broader community; the presentation and staff report
clearly bring professional experience in the recommendation to move forward with
ALPRs; the recommendation is not made lightly; the Police Chief understands the
environment across the nation, as well as Alameda; the Police Chief making a
recommendation in such a charged atmosphere is because the City needs a tool, such
as ALPRs, for solving crimes; he is going to support the Police Chief's recommendation;
he is confident the City can manage the ALPRs in a professional, culturally sensitive
manner; the Police Chief is ensuring reform and allowing for mental health professionals
to deal with certain situations that Police previously dealt with; the actions taken
demonstrate a Police Chief who truly cares about different ways of policing; he is
confident that when the ALPR system is implemented, APD will use it in a professional,
culturally competent and sensitive manner; he understands that Council might want to
modify policies for implementation and management of ALPRs; however, there is
enough information included in the staff report to cover the issues that have been
raised; Council has an existing basis for coming forward; he is confident that the City
can move forward with the recommendation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she heard more speakers against than for ALPRs; the
email correspondence was evenly divided; there are ideological differences; she wants
to move forward with actions that will protect and provide APD tools needed to help
keep the community safe; Council needs to stay involved in setting standards;
requested clarification about the reference to community forum noticing.
The Police Chief stated the City has been divided into 12 beats, breaking the City down
into smaller areas where APD can have neighborhoods get together at monthly
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
16",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,17,"community meetings; staff makes a presentation on crime trends and solicits feedback
from community members; the meetings are advertised on the City and APD's website;
a Community Resources Unit will be created as the department grows; each beat will
have a specifically assigned, full-time Officer to handle long-term problems; the Officers
will not be handling 911 calls and will be focused on specific beats; the program is new;
urged the public visit the City and APD website to find upcoming community meetings.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated ALPRs provide Police another tool at a time when policing
is complicated; departments are dealing with reduced staffing; there is a need and
desire to focus on reducing policing footprints; discussed a Statewide League of
California Cities webinar related to organized retail crime; the consensus of the webinar
is that ALPRs can provide an additional tool; ALPRs are not a panacea; APD will need
to manage the public's expectations; installing ALPRs will not solve all crimes; ALPRs
help with investigations and solving crimes; Police resources can be freed up to ensure
the City has Officers out on traffic patrol; ALPRs are an important tool that APD could
use; however, it is important to have a policy in place that governs the retention of data;
expressed support for waiting until the City has its Crime Analyst position filled;
questioned how long it takes to open and close a case using ALPR data; she would like
information about what the vendor does with the data; the Council comments related to
data sharing should be incorporated in the vendor selection process; inquired about the
public-facing transparency portal.
The Police Chief responded the portal is based on Piedmont's Police Department;
stated the portal is a way for anyone to look at the way technology is being used;
referenced a spreadsheet showing database access, Officer identifiers and reasons for
access; stated some vendors can customize report fields.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would favor a system which only captures the rear-
facing license plate; expressed support for the comments provided by Vice Mayor Vella
being incorporated into the ALPR policy; stated privacy is important; however, FasTrak
cameras capture similar information; she would like the City to start with fixed ALPRs,
other vendors should be researched for mobile ALPRs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understood the Police Chief will come
back with information regarding vendors and rear-facing cameras; she is unsure
whether the details are decided at this point.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about how the matter will move forward.
The Police Chief stated staff will go through the RFP process and see which vendors
respond; staff will determine whether the vendors fit the details being requested; APD
can find a vendor that fits the City's needs.
The City Manager stated that he is hearing the policies Council wishes to have
considered; when the matter returns, proposed policies will also come forth for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
17",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,18,"consideration; policy details include: retention of data, ensuring facial recognition does
not occur, who data is shared with and who has access to the data.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether cameras are different for fixed
versus mobile ALPRs; questioned whether the same vendor can be used for both fixed
and mobile ALPRs.
The Police Chief responded ideally, a vendor that can provide both systems in
cooperation is desired.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether an RFP for both fixed and mobile
ALPRs would make sense in order to move forward with the fixed ALPR now and add
mobile at a later time.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to start with one aspect of the
technology to see how it works and determine what might need to change and what to
add-on later; expressed support for moving forward cautiously.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to hear from the Police
Chief; expressed concern over only putting out an RFP for fixed ALPRs; stated the best
vendor might not be selected in order to provide compatible fixed and mobile ALPRs.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for starting with fixed ALPRs; stated the City
can later add on from the same company.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like to recommend that the RFP and
policies come back to Council prior to releasing the RFP; the program is complicated
with a lot of moving parts; expressed concern about putting out the RFP, selecting a
vendor and realizing that questions were not addressed in the desired way; stated the
delay will be a couple of weeks; however, the delay ensures Council approved policies
are put in place before the RFP moves forward.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that the recommendation can be added as a
friendly amendment to her motion.
Councilmember Knox White concurred with Councilmember Herrera Spencer [providing
the friendly amendment to motion].
***
(22-086) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of giving Councilmembers that
have run out of time an additional three minutes of speaking time.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog expressed support for all Councilmembers
receiving an additional three minutes of speaking time.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
18",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,19,"Councilmember Knox White amended his motion to include all Councilmembers.
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 requested clarification on the timeline for Council approving the
RFP prior to release.
The City Manager stated he does not know the timeline; noted the RFP has not been
put together yet.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned why Council cannot currently provide policy direction;
inquired whether the motion includes the comments being placed in the RFP or whether
the entire RFP will be brought back.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she is fine with providing the policy if
staff finds it appropriate; expressed support for the RFP including both fixed and mobile
ALPRs to find a vendor that provides both; stated the City can introduce one [fixed
ALPRs] and then the other; expressed concern about breaking up the matter and not
finding a vendor that can provide both.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Councilmember Herrera Spencer's
comments.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is question regarding rear-facing cameras, as well
as starting with fixed ALPRs; inquired whether any of the proposed recommendations
degrade the effectiveness of ALPRs.
The Police Chief responded his recommendation is to find a vendor which prioritizes
rear license plates; stated the system should exclude the front view of a vehicle if the
rear view is captured.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is an issue with timing or effectiveness
by only pursuing fixed ALPRs and moving to mobile ALPRs in the future.
The Police Chief responded mobile ALPRs are different; stated that he has not come
across mobile ALPR technology that excludes the front of the vehicle; vendors that
provide fixed ALPRs have a focus on rear-license plate reading; the benefit of mobile
ALPRs is assisting with traffic enforcement; video evidence is powerful; systems have a
30 to 60 second buffer to indicate what violation an Officer has seen; staff can do a lot
with a fixed ALPR system.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
19",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-01-27,1,"City of Alameda, California
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THURSDAY, January 27, 2022
APPROVED MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Sarah Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:02pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sarah Lewis, Vice President Kristin Furuichi Fong, Board members
Dianne Yamashiro-Omi, Priya Jagannathan, Samantha Green, Scott Means.
City staff: Lois Butler, Veronika Cole, and Eric Fonstein (Secretary to the Board).
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3-A Review and Approve December 9, 2021 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes of December 9, 2021 was made by Board member Means
and seconded by Board member Yamashiro-Omi. Ayes: President S. Lewis, Vice President
Furuichi Fong, Board members Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, and Means. Nays:
none. Motion passed 6-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. AGENDA ITEMS
5-A Review and Endorse the 2021 Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP)
Annual Report
Danielle Mieler, Sustainability and Resilience Manager, with the City of Alameda
presented the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP) 2021 Annual Report. The
following are summary of the key segments:
CARP Annual Report will be presented to City Council for endorsement in March
2022
Goal is to reduce emissions to 50% below 2005 levels by 2030
Three pillars of sustainability: economy, environment and equity
Social equity is considered when assessing impacts of climate change, weighing
costs and benefits of proposed City actions, and prioritizing projects
2021 Highlights and Achievements
Hired a Sustainability and Resilience Manager
Convened internal Green Team
Hired Civic Spark Fellow
Passed an all-electric reach code requiring new construction City-wide to
be all-electric
Completed ""Electrifying Existing Residential Buildings in Alameda"" report",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-01-27.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-01-27,2,"Completed construction of all-electric Krusi Recreation Center
Upgraded West End Library and Mastick Senior Center Social Hall to
serve as a Clean Air and Cooling Center to serve as Clean Air and Cooling
center with
AMP launched electric panel upgrades rebates and online marketplace
Amended City's off-street parking ordinance eliminating parking minimums
and requiring Electric Vehicle (EV) charging in new development
Passed a gas-power leaf blower ban
Convened San Leandro Bay/Oakland Alameda Estuary Adaptation
Working Group
Completed comprehensive General Plan Update with new Climate and
Conservation Element
Completed an updated Climate Adaptation and Hazard Mitigation Plan for
California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) and Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) review
Certified as a Blue City by the nonprofit organization Project O. The Blue
City Network is a certification system that recognizes cities and counties
that demonstrate their commitment to healthy waterways.
Recognized as a Silver-level Bicycle Friendly Community by League of
American Bicyclist
Strategy T1: Reduce commute vehicles traveled
Strategy T2: Build additional bike lanes
Strategy T4: Expand EasyPass Program
Strategy T6: Increase availability of EV chargers citywide
Strategy E3: Programs to encourage fuel switching in certain appliances
Strategy S2: Further develop urban forest
Key adaptation efforts: Sub-regional Adaption Working Group, Veterans Court,
Doolittle Drive and Northern Shoreline
The 2022 CARP priorities include:
Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Develop an equitable existing buildings energy efficiency and electrification
roadmap
Encourage owners to seismically retrofit remaining soft-story apartment
buildings
Adaptation
Advance San Leandro Bay/Oakland-Alameda Estuary Adaptation Working
Group
Identify funding for priority adaption projects identified in CARP
Capacity Building
Consider applying for Cool-City Challenge (""moonshot strategy"")
Consider placing climate revenue measure on ballot
Update Urban Forest Plan
Complete Active Transportation Plan
Ms. Mieler thanked the Board for its time and opened the floor for questions and
comments. Board member Means commented on induction stoves, stating the positive
impacts from its use. Ms. Mieler added that the use has proven to improve indoor air
quality. Board member Yamashiro-Omi asked if there is a strategy to communicate
CARP throughout the community. Ms. Mieler confirmed the forthcoming Building",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-01-27.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-01-27,3,"Electrification 101, Workshop on Wednesday, March 16. Board member Yamashiro-Omi
requested a copy of the socially vulnerable census tracks. Staff member Fonstein stated
he will forward this information. President Lewis asked what resourced will be used for
retrofitting. Ms. Mieler stated the City will be submitting an application for available
grants. President Lewis inquired about the eligibility/likelihood of the City receiving the
""Cool-City"" funding. Ms. Mieler believes, that with appropriate participation from the
community, it is highly likely we will receive funding.
Board members thanked Ms. Mieler for her time and informative presentation.
5-B Approve the City of Alameda Transportation Program Plan for Seniors and
People with Disabilities for Fiscal Year 2022/23
Katherine Kaldis, Paratransit Coordinator and Gail Payne, Senior Transportation
Coordinator with the City of Alameda, presented the Transportation Program Plan for
Seniors and People with Disabilities for Fiscal Year 2022/23. The following are summary
of the key segments:
Plan will be presented to City Council for approval in March 2022
Alameda Loop Shuttle had the lowest monthly boarding and customer
satisfaction. The cost per ride went from $13 to $34 (which is above the required
maximum of $20 per Alameda CTC). Staff recommends that the service is
discontinued.
Free AC Transit Bus Pass holders reported high satisfaction. City plans to
formalize a pay-as-you-go model, with expected cost per ride to be less than $3.
Staff recommends that the program is expanded to provide up to 230 AC Transit
bus passes for low-income Alameda seniors and people with disabilities. In
addition to continue funding passes for the 167 units within Alameda Point
Collaborative (APC). Total budget for the program is $200,000.
TNC Concierge Program, Alameda Independent Mobility (AIM), is a curb-to-curb
service to facilitate same-day trips for low income individuals, enrolled in EBP.
Concierge service by Eden I&R, provides 2-1-1 service, where the cost of a ride is
$15. The current program has 50 participants enrolled with a target of 80. Staff
recommends that the program enroll 56 additional residents, totaling 136
participants. Total budget for the program is $125,000.
Customer Service and Outreach Program includes new monthly travel training for
AC Transit (monthly presentations, East Bay paratransit ticket sales, clipper card
assistance, press releases, annual survey and in-person/phone support). Total
budget for the program is $26,000.
Additional Recommendations
Capital Program: Recommend the continuation of the bus shelter
replacements, improve access to/from bus stops, including sidewalk
enhancements to ensure ADA compliance. Remove signs and poles at
shuttle stops. Total Budget $300,000
Group Trips: Recommend same services once COVID infection rates
decline. Total Budget $25,000
Program Management: Recommend the funding of part-time paratransit
coordinator and group trip driver as well as on-call experts. Total Budget
$38,000
BUDGET
Total Revenue $833,000",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-01-27.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-01-27,4,"Total Expenditures $715,000
Reserve $118,000
Ms. Kaldis opened the floor for questions and comments. Board member Means
applauded the AIM program and the utilization of 2-1-1 services, as there are many
individuals with technology disparities. Ms. Kaldis noted that not only can the AIM
program assist individuals getting to appointments, but also getting home from the
appointment. Board member Yamashiro-Omi wanted to know if there are provisions to
outreach to immigrant communities. Ms. Kaldis confirmed that program materials are
translated into Chinese and Spanish, as well as translation services offered by 2-1-1.
Board member Jagannathan asked if the City has received feedback from other
commissions regarding the discontinuation of the Alameda Loop Shuttle. Ms. Kaldis
reported no negative feedback, and emphasized that free bus passes offer better
flexibility than the shuttle service.
A motion to approve the Transportation Program Plan for Seniors and People with
Disabilities for Fiscal Year 2022/23 was made by Board member Means and seconded by
Board member Jagannathan. Ayes: President S. Lewis, Vice President Furuichi Fong,
Board members Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, and Means. Nays: none. Motion
passed 6-0.
A motion to return to item 5-A was made by Vice President Furuichi Fong and seconded
by Board member Yamashiro-Omi. Ayes: President S. Lewis, Vice President Furuichi
Fong, Board members Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, and Means. Nays: none.
Motion passed 6-0.
A motion to approve the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan was made by Board member
Green and seconded by Board member Means. Ayes: President S. Lewis, Vice President
Furuichi Fong, Board members Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, and Means. Nays:
none. Motion passed 6-0.
5-C Status Report of Emergency Response Services for the Homeless in the City of
Alameda
Staff member Cole provided an overview/presentation on Emergency Response Services
for the Homeless in the City of Alameda. The following are summary of the key
segments:
The Road Home is a five-year plan to prevent and respond to Homelessness in
Alameda (approved by City Council on October 5, 2021)
Goal 2 of the Road Home is to increase access to Homeless Emergency
Response Services by providing low-barrier, temporary housing solutions and
expanding outreach and supportive services to unsheltered households
Services provided through the Village of Love
Day Center: Open 9AM - 8PM, 365 days a year. Serving 60 individuals
per week.
Day Center Overnight Services: Open 9PM - 8AM, 365 days a year.
Serving 10 individuals per week, current capacity is 8 individuals per night.
Safe Parking: Open 7PM - 7AM, 365 days a year. Up to 25 vehicles per
day.
Services provided through Building Futures Women and Children",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-01-27.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-01-27,5,"Midway Shelter: Provides 25 beds for women and children who are
homeless. Currently at 60% capacity.
Winter Warming (BFWC): Provides hotel rooms for 7 elderly and/or
medically vulnerable homeless adults.
Winter Warming (Christ Episcopal Church): Provides group shelter for up
to 20 individuals per overnight services.
Safe Sheltering: Provides 4-8 homeless individuals at high risk due to
COVID-19.
Emergency Supportive Housing at Alameda Point: Approved by City Council on
November 16. This is low-barrier emergency supportive housing at three
addresses in Alameda Point (2845 Pearl Harbor Road, 2815 Newport Road &
2700 Lemoore Road, Unit. A).
The service provider for this project, Bay Area Community Services, has
declined to pursue further work on the project. City staff are now
considering options.
Services provided by Dignity Village
Interim Supportive Housing: 47 units with 5 units set-aside for Transitional
Age Youth who are homeless or at-risk of being homeless and 8 units
adapted for individuals with disabilities.
Dignity Moves is the developer for the project
Five Keys Schools and Programs will operate the project
City staff have submitted a proposal to Homekey for approximately, $12.3
million in funding, and are awaiting response
City has been awarded a contingent grant from Alameda County for
$2,350,000
Proposed location for Interim Supportive Housing is 2350 5th Street,
Alameda
Strategy 2.3: Expand Outreach and Supportive Service to Unsheltered
Households
Mobile/Street Outreach
Intensive Case Management
Homeless Hotline 510-522-HOME
Showers and laundry
Weekly meals through Dine and Connect
The City is piloting the Community Assessment Response & Engagement
(CARE) Team - an alternative emergency response to mental health crisis
calls
Coordinated Outreach Teams: Direct service team to assist vulnerably
individuals living outdoors
Staff member Cole introduced Steve Good, President and CEO of Five Keys. Mr. Good
gave a brief presentation. The following are summary of the key segments:
Operating in 12 counties within California
Focus on education, employment, social justice, housing and revitalizing
communities
Adult Charter/CTE schools for high school dropouts in 24 CA jails and 80
community sites
Housing for women on Treasure Island
Operate 4 Shelter in Place hotels, 2 Navigation Centers and 1 Congregate Shelter",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-01-27.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-01-27,6,"The housing services are known for their trauma-informed, holistic approach that
provides a welcoming space, and staff who take pride in providing caring
customer service following a harm-reduction model.
Emphasis on customer service, treating every individual as a guest/client
Additional services: enrollment in CalFresh, medical/dental programs, mental
health services, legal services and AA/NA programs
Provide housing navigations for transitional aged youth (16-24)
High school diploma and GED programs, vocational training
Serving approximately 1,500 people per year
Staff member Cole opened the floor for questions and comments. Board members
expressed their appreciation and excitement for the program. Board member Green
wanted to know if there is a plan to issue a new RFP for the provider who pulled out of
working with the Emergency Housing at Alameda Point. Staff member Butler confirmed
that staff plans to go back to City Council with new recommendations, possibly in March.
Staff member Yamashiro-Omi wanted to know more about the Alameda Wellness Center,
and its connection to the current strategy. Staff member Butler stated that the City does
not work on this project directly, and suggested Doug Biggs (with the Alameda Point
Collaborative) attend the next meeting to provide and update/presentation. Board
member Yamashiro-Omi encouraged that Mr. Good connects with Mr. Biggs. Staff
member Cole confirmed she will share contact information. Staff member Green stated
she saw the Five Keys process in San Francisco and was extremely impressed.
5-D Continuation of Discussion for SSHRB 2022 Work Plan and Ad Hoc Committee
reports:
President Lewis shared a workbook document, stating that the goal is to ensure all
SSHRB members have the necessary recourses to complete, individual workplans, prior
to present to City Council.
The Community Needs Assessment (CNA)
Board member Green, presented CNA tasks, including, drafting 2022
community assessment project methods, completion of data collection and
project report
Board member Jagannathan confirmed timeline, and asked if City staff
would be in charge of the overall survey logistics
President Lewis stated the CNA, will be a standing item on all future
agendas
Human Relations/Alamedans Together Against Hate
Board member Yamashiro-Omi summarized workplan, and discussed the
possibility of obtaining a list of individuals previously involved in SSHRB
efforts
Board member Yamashiro-Omi and Furuichi Fong suggest that its goal
may be working towards creating an Equity/Inclusion position within City
staff
Board member Jagannathan suggested developing a goal/vision within the
first six months, with input from possible town hall meetings
Staff member Butler stated, SSHRB would require City Council feedback
on various elements, as City Council sets policy, and SSHRB is advisory
Board member Green suggested that SSHRB members gather information
on various perspectives and deliver a report to City Council on findings
and recommendations",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-01-27.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-01-27,7,"SSHRB Infrastructure
President Lewis summarized the infrastructure workplan, stating the need
for a closer look of the individual groups, to accurately depict the
commitment and action plan
Focus on SSHRB workplan at February meeting
SSHRB scheduled to present workplan to City Council in April
5-E Workgroup Reports
Homeless Action Plan Workgroup (Lewis): None. President Lewis requested this
be removed on future agendas.
Domestic Violence (Furuichi Fong): Staff member Fonstein shared the latest
Alameda Police Department statistics, highlighting a 25% increase in the last year,
and a 10% increase over the last two years. Confirmed quarterly meeting will be
scheduled in the next couple of weeks.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Season for Nonviolence
Staff member Fonstein announced that at the beginning of the next SSHRB meeting,
Board members will open with a ""word for the day"", in support of the season for
nonviolence.
Staff member Cole reported on the following:
Point in Time Count has been rescheduled for, February 23, 2022. Staff is
still looking for volunteers to participate, day-of
Day Center is at full capacity. Will continue to prioritize Alameda residents
Warming Shelter at Christ Church, working on building participation
Alameda Food Bank is serving 600 families per week, as well as a free
vaccine clinic on January 31, 2022, between 11:30AM - 2:30PM
Village of Love, Community Circle is currently on hold, due to COVID-19
Homeless hotline received 18 calls in December 2021, almost all were
unsheltered callers
Mobile Van services, will be at Emmanuel Lutheran Church, on the last
Monday of each month, during dine and connect hours of operation
Staff member Butler notified Board members that her participation in monthly meetings
may decrease, as alternate staff members' participation continue to increase.
7. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Board member Means stated that this is the time of year when AARP assists seniors with
their taxes, and how pleased he was to see that the Mastick Center is one of the available
locations.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-01-27.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2022-01-27,8,"9. ADJOURNMENT
President Lewis adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Fonstein, Board Secretary",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,1,"Draft Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, January 26, 2022
Time:
6:30 p.m.
Location:
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 codified at Government Code Section 54953,
Transportation Commissioners can attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allows public
participation via Zoom.
Legistar Link:
https://alamedaca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_RdDnLxBeQjuXZhWV-OEQNA
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Kohlstrand, Weitze, Rentschler and
Nachtigall.
Absent: Commissioner Michael Hans.
2. Agenda Changes
None.
3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385385&GUID=0524F134-2FC5-
 47DB-8D47-125D50782A68&FullText=1.
4. Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow questioned why July 27, 2022, had been recommended for cancelation. He also had
issues with recent City Council decisions about slow streets and beg buttons. He noted there was
no public opportunity to question why the City Council had not followed the staff's
recommendation. He felt that the public had been left out of the process. He also discussed a recent
trip to Orlando Florida where he felt they had very bad bike/pedestrian facilities.
Robert Vance, Public Work Senior Engineer, introduced Tawfic Halaby who had recently joined
Public Works as a Supervising Civil Engineer. He would be working on the Capital Improvement
Program.
TC Draft Minutes
1
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,2,"Chair Samantha Soules congratulated Commissioner Randy Rentschler who had recently retired
from MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission).
5. Consent Calendar
5A. Approve Special Meeting Minutes - October 27, 2021 (Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385386&GUID=7761655A-3E7F-
4669-9501-35A0E865E689&FullText=1.
5B. Approve Meeting Minutes - November 17, 2021 (Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385387&GUID=9067248C-DC24-
40D2-9BED-5F5A482C4702&FullText=1.
Commissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the minutes from October 27th and
November 17th, Commissioner Natchtigall seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of
hands and the motion passed 5-0, Commissioner Rentschler abstained since he had been absent at
the meetings.
5C. Approve Meeting Calendar for 2022 (Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385388&GUID=3A8E20A9-B5DF-
4B06-B387-8CC10BC3F5BA.
Gail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, explained the changes in the calendar for July.
Chair Soules opened public comment.
Jim Strehlow thought that the changes complicated things but he understood and would make sure
people knew about the schedule changes.
Chair Soules closed public comment.
Commissioner Rentschler moved approval of the 2022 Meeting Calendar and Vice-Chair Tina
Yuen seconded the motion. A vote was taken by raise of hands and the motion passed 6-0.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Discuss and Endorse the Annual Report on Transportation and the Annual Report on
the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan for the 2022 Work Plan (Multiple City staff) (Action
Item)
TC Draft Minutes
2
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,3,"Staff Member Payne introduced Danielle Mieler, Sustainability & Resilience Manager, who gave
the presentation on the Annual Report on Climate Action & Resiliency 2022 Work Plan. The staff
report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385389&GUID=CD117554-40EC-
4D67-9B54-5D65F51F339B&FullText=1
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A CARP
There were no questions.)
Public Comments for #6A CARP
Jim Strehlow discussed how many recent council actions (roundabouts) were already slowing
down traffic, he felt that these actions would increase carbon emissions as cars wait longer for
non-existent pedestrians. He also discussed how the city was not preparing for electrical
brownouts, and that too much demand was being put on electricity, especially with plans to get rid
of PG&E gas lines to homes. He felt that these plans were leading Alameda's citizens and
businesses to chaos.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A CARP
Commissioner Scott Weitze questioned the goal for commuters and if it was on track.
Staff Member Meiler discussed current traffic demands and telecommuting. She acknowledged
that people were returning to work but that emphasis was on public transit.
Commissioner Rentschler discussed that FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) had
recognized that roundabouts reduced greenhouse gases and decreased travel times. He then
discussed how the pandemic had affected the data but it looked like people were going back to
driving. He did believe though that the city's goals were on target even if they feel aspirational.
Commissioner Kohlstrand believed Alameda had done a good job developing the policy
framework for CARP. She noted this was a critical time to take action against climate change. She
noted the importance of funding to take concrete actions.
Chair Soules also discussed the stretch goals and goals that were not on track due to lack of
funding. She wholeheartedly would recommend to Council to have revenue priorities.
TC Draft Minutes
3
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,4,"Commissioner Weitze asked about the Easy Pass Programs and free bus tickets. He was concerned
they were not targeting the right ""carbon-intense"" groups. He liked the program but wanted to
make sure they were targeting people who would otherwise drive.
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning Buildings and Transportation, discussed Alameda's role
with AC Transit and how they were looking at the E-Z Pass Program.
Commissioner Kohlstrand noted that the E-Z Pass Program was not on target and wanted to know
metrics that were being discussed to get in back on target.
Vice-Chair Yuen wanted to see a dashboard with performance metrics to see where they were on
track. She also wanted to see Greenhouse Gas measurements.
Staff Member Meiler answered that a dashboard was in the works and explained other metrics that
were in the works. She also discussed potential regional greenhouse gas emission measurements
that locals could use.
Commissioner Yuen then asked about existing housing for electrification.
Director Thomas discussed existing incentive programs and potential requirements to encourage
electrification. He added that this is something that would take time.
Commissioner Alysha Nachtigall asked about data availability for car, electric vs. non-electric
ownership.
Staff Member Meiler answered that 2020 was all that was available at the moment.
Vice-Chair Yuen asked about Congestion Pricing.
Director Thomas said it was still in the plans and that it needed State Legislation to make it
successful. They would have to work with the regional partners.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to support the endorsement of the Climate Action Plan
to the City Council. Also to urge the City Council to not only prioritize Climate Actions for funding
in the city but also to strongly consider new local funding sources to facilitate concrete action
towards meeting these goals. Commissioner Rentschler seconded the motion. A vote was taken by
a raise of hands and the motion passed 6-0.
TC Draft Minutes
4
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,5,"Staff Member Payne then introduced Lisa Foster, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, who gave
a presentation on the Annual Report on Transportation. Robert Vance and Areli Vazquez of Public
Works and Rochelle Wheeler of Transportation and Director Thomas also presented. The staff
report and attachments can be found at
  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385389&GUID=CD117554-40EC-
4D67-9B54-5D65F51F339B&FullText=1.
Public Comments for #6A Transportation Annual Report
Denyse Trepanier expressed her appreciation to the staff for their work and commented on the
Clement St bike path. She also discussed improvement ideas for Willow to make cycling safer.
Jim Strehlow believed that the Traffic Fatality goals were faulty, he believed that traffic fatalities
were usually committed by drunks and bad drivers. He thought the goals penalized good citizens
with infrastructure changes. He discussed how roundabouts would not decrease greenhouse gases.
He also gave suggestions on how Agendas for meetings should be worded.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions and Comments #6A Transportation Annual Report
Commissioner Rentschler discussed roadway striping on Alameda Ave and the paid parking at
Seaplane Lagoon. He discussed that fares should really benefit the rider and he urged everyone to
think twice about charging for parking right now. He also discussed the bike/ped Oakland Bridge
and the likeness of it happening.
Chair Soules discussed the best way to get updates with PowerPoint and what data needed to be
seen by the public and the Commissioners.
Commissioner Kohlstrand agreed with Chair Soules about the mid-year updates through
PowerPoint. She also discussed parts of the Cross Alameda Trail that said they were completed
but were still fenced off. She also wanted the Sub-Committee to get information on the Street
Classifications before it came back to the Commission. She also discussed and agreed with some
of the points made by Commissioner Rentschler about the bike/ped Oakland Bridge.
Director Thomas discussed the timeline for the Street Classification and agreed it should go to the
Sub-Committee first.
Chair Soules discussed that a subcommittee could help with the prioritization of goals.
TC Draft Minutes
5
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,6,"Staff Member Wheeler said the fencing should be down from the Cross Alameda Trail on the
following Monday.
Commissioner Nachtigall asked about the Grand resurfacing project. She discussed other sections
that should be included. She also discussed priorities and that completing the Cross Alameda Trail
should be high on the list.
Staff Member Vance explained that sections for resurfacing were chosen based on paving needs.
Commissioner Weitze discussed the Cross Alameda Trail and how to safely get people to the
Alameda Landing Waterfront. He also wanted an update on the Alameda Point Adaptive Reuse
Project and about the EV (electric vehicle) plan for the parking lot at Seaplane Lagoon.
Staff Member Wheeler answered that Fifth Street was the best option. She also pointed out other
places to find information on the connected network.
Staff Member Vance gave an update on the Adaptive Reuse Project.
Staff Member Foster answered that EV chargers should be put in by spring, it was currently only
a small percentage.
Chair Soules expressed the need for equity with having EV charging spots, especially with
reducing overall parking. She then discussed goals in the Vision Zero Plan and that you have to
look at more than one plan to get the full picture.
Vice-Chair Yuen gave her thoughts on the West End Bike Bridge and the feasibility of it
happening. She believed that regardless of whether the bridge happened or not it was imperative
that the city looked at alternative ways to get on and off the island.
Chair Soules agreed and discussed other potential ideas.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to endorse the Transportation Annual Report,
Commissioner Nachtigall seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands, all were in
favor except for Commissioner Rentschler.
Commissioner Rentschler discussed his issues with the ambitious bike/ped bridge. He believed the
cost was too high, was not feasible and he could not support it.
TC Draft Minutes
6
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,7,"Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to endorse the Transportation Annual Report.
Commissioner Nachtigall seconded the motion. Chair Soules made an amendment to consider the
priority and the low feasibility of the Bike/Ped Oakland Bridge (West End Bike Bridge) with the
comments made by Commissioner Rentschler. Commissioner Rentschler seconded the
amendment. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed
6B. A Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to
accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Period 2023-2031 in
Compliance with State Law
Director Thomas introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can
be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385300&GUID=E42261C5-E282-
4236-BC4A-145AB6AEF4CD&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions and Comments for #6B
Chair Soules asked for clarification on State requirements.
Director Thomas discussed and explained what State Law required and that part of these
workshops was showing citizens what the city had to do. This was a State requirement and the city
had to do this.
Commissioner Rentschler discussed the difficulties around this challenge, such as SB-10.
Commissioner Kolhstrand wanted clarification on where SROs (single room occupancy) were
allowed. She wanted to ensure there was a mix of housing types. She also discussed the Gold Coast
and High Street and where multi-family housing could work.
Director Thomas went into the details around SROs and what other changes were coming to Park
and Webster.
Commissioner Weitze believed that SROs were good and worked. He discussed why they were
beneficial. He also discussed Linear Park and why it should be rezoned. He thought it would be
great for more housing.
Chair Soules went into detail about the importance of equity.
TC Draft Minutes
7
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,8,"Commissioner Nachtigall discussed the different barriers they had to remove to be successful.
Chair Soules discussed the possibility of another joint meeting with the Planning Board.
Public Comments for #6B
Jim Strehlow spoke against multi-family housing. He also expressed his concerns about safe
evacuations off the island.
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow pointed out that in-person meetings were better because you could see who was
attending them. He also wanted to hear more about the plans for water taxis.
Alex Spehr asked about the bike barge idea instead of a bridge. She also suggested bollards for
protected bike lanes.
Chair Soules discussed items that should come back such as Estuary Crossing options.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
TC Draft Minutes
8
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-01-24,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2022
1. CONVENE
President Asheshh Saheba convened the *meeting at 7:00 p.m.
*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning
Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Ron Curtis led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Saheba, Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Rothenberg,
Cisneros*, and Teague.
Absent: Board Member Hanson Hom
*Board Member Cisneros joined the meeting after the roll call.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2022-1665
PLN19-0556 -- Design Review Amendment -- PLN19-0556 - Site A Block 11 at West
Atlantic Avenue and Pan Am Way -- Applicant: UDR, Inc. A Public Hearing to consider
amendments to the previously-approved Design Review applications for Block 11 at Site
A. This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act under McCorkle
Eastside Neighborhood Group V. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 al.App.: 5th 80. As a
separate and independent basis, the environmental effects of the proposed project were
considered and disclosed in the Alameda Point Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse #2013012043). No further environmental review is required.
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, introduced the item.
The staff report and attachments can be found at
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 6
January 24, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-01-24,2," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5379989&GUID=8240DCA5-
261F-4060-AAE5-444187E64F94&FullText=1.
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Alan Teague asked for clarification on where the four different doors lead
to. He wanted to know how the residential entrance was distinguished from the retail
entrance.
Hillary Dowden, a developer with UDR, explained the layout and the entrances.
President Saheba opened public comment.
David Israel, the architect, also discussed and explained the difference between retail
entrances and residential entrances.
Betsy Mathieson, an Alameda resident, had questions about the hanger doors. She
wanted to see the South Elevation.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Teague was not totally in favor of this design but he would not stand in the
way of its approval. He thought the way it was before made it clear how you were
supposed to get into the building, and this way it kinda blends in.
President Saheba agreed that there was no clarity of entryway. He thought there needed
to be more work, perhaps with the canopy design.
Vice President Teresa Ruiz had requested from the applicant the building plan and thought
there was no confusion and was in support of this amendment.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the amendment. Board Member
Xiomara Cisneros seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion
passed 6-0 with Board Member Hom absent.
7-B 2022-1666
A Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update Zoning
Code Amendments Regarding Definitions and Regulations for Residential and Related
Land Uses.
Director Thomas introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5379991&GUID=F97232D8-
E3DF-44D1-9F85-FOEA8FC27926&FullText=1.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 6
January 24, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-01-24,3,"President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Teague asked how they were preceding in regards to Article 26.
Director Thomas explained the position they were in. Alameda has to adopt a Housing
Element and zoning that complies with State Law, it will conflict with the city's Charter.
State Law trumps local initiative and local charter.
Celena Chen, Staff Planning Counsel, added that to the extent that State law conflicted
with the Charter Provision, the city must follow State Law.
Board Member Teague stated he was not a fan of Section 26 but he was a fan of
complying with the law. He discussed hypothetical ways they could move forward.
Vice President Ruiz wanted to know more about the redlining section and was concerned
that separating different parcels it was another form of redlining.
Director Thomas discussed how this was not redlining but they were setting boundaries.
Board Member Cisneros discussed the theme of Article 26, she believed it should be
eliminated since it was inherently a conflict. She also discussed Project Homekey and
matching what they did.
Staff Member Tai discussed Project Homekey and what was allowed.
Board Member Ron Curtis discussed the concerns that Alameda citizens had shared with
him.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg asked about C1, C2, and CC. She wanted to know if
multifamily housing had been built in those districts by conditional use.
Director Thomas explained that the CC districts are Park St and Webster. He then
discussed what the zoning code said.
President Saheba asked about assisted living and where memory care was listed and
considered. He wanted to make they were flexible with the zoning for those types of
facilities.
Staff Member Tai discussed the definition of assisted living/care. He added that currently,
they were treating those as a commercial-type facility. If it was in the R1-R5 then they
would want to have a public hearing.
Heather Coleman, the consultant, also discussed the definitions of assisted living.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 6
January 24, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-01-24,4,"should be allowed in R2 and to allow quads in R3 and R4. He also thought that they should
go to the council and ask to be allowed to do SB-10 in all R5 and R6. He then discussed
how they could continue the MF Overlay and which large parcels needed to be upzoned.
He wanted to increase the density of the whole island but in a controlled fashion.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 6
January 24, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-01-24,5,"Vice President Ruiz echoed Karen Bey's comment that historically the West End had
carried the burden of supporting low-income housing. She was also in agreement with
Board Member Teague regarding Article 26, they were bound by it but could find creative
ways to circumvent it. Generally, she was in support of the staff's recommendation. She
wanted to see clarification on the definition of dwelling and gave suggestions on better
word choices. She also had questions about Senior Care categories and other dwelling
categories.
Director Thomas said they would check all the definitions.
Board Member Cisneros wanted to hear more from Board Member Teague on the
definition of multifamily.
Board Member Teague explained why he wanted the definition to say ""5 plus"" and not just
""3 plus"" and the reason for it. He explained in detail why changing the definition was
important.
There was then a conversation on zoning and meeting the RHNA.
Board Member Cisneros was concerned for all the energy going into the workarounds for
Article 26. She was also open to of the MF Overlay but preferred to make changes to the
Zoning Code.
President Saheba wanted to see clarification on the floating homes section and where that
zoning was allowed.
Director Thomas explained the Estuary District.
8. MINUTES
None.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2022-1662
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent actions and decisions can be found at
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5379981&GUID=F6DDE061-
ECA1-485C-9FA7-7B8BCOE2474F&FullText=1.
No board members wanted to pull any item for review.
9-B 2022-1663
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 6
January 24, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-01-24,6,"Staff Member Tai announced that the next meeting would be on 2/14/22. The staff hoped
to bring back some zoning updates. Also two projects, the infill development at Santa
Clara and the Hilton Hotel at Harbor Bay Gateway. Later in February, they hoped to
continue with the Housing Element Workshops and some Annual Reports to bring forward.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Vice President Ruiz asked if she still needed to recuse herself from any Encinal Terminals
discussion.
Staff Counsel Chen would connect with her offline.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Therese Hall wanted to know who on the Planning Board or in the city was involved with
the Oakland/Alameda Access Project to represent Alameda's interests.
Staff Member Tai discussed how Alameda has been involved.
Director Thomas added that the city had been actively involved in that project and that it
was a good project for Alameda and Oakland. He then added that anyone was welcome
to reach out to him personally.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 6
January 24, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-01-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JANUARY 18, 2022--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:02 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: Vice Mayor
Vela arrived at 7:14 p.m. The meeting was conducted via
Zoom]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(22-043) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing first two referrals [paragraph nos.
22-058 and 22-059 after the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: No; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 2. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.]
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-044) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that the Omicron variant of COVI-19 is making its way
through the community; urged residents to strictly perform all precautionary measures; stated
people should wear an N-95, KN-95, triple-layer, or cloth mask over a surgical facemask
whenever outside or in public spaces; urged social distancing, hand washing and vaccination;
announced a vaccine booster clinic at Mastic Senior Center.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-045) Josh Altieri, Housing Authority, provided a monthly update on Housing Authority
activities.
(22-046) Darren Byrne, Alameda, discussed the destruction and reinvigoration of Lincoln Park
playground and park; urged expanding on the possible.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Daysog requested the SEED Collaborative agreement [paragraph no. 22-049
be removed from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the RiverRock agreement [paragraph no. 22-050]
and playground replacement project resolution [paragraph no. 22-051 be removed from the
Consent Calendar.
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
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,2,"vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: 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.]
(*22-047) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on December 21,
2021. Approved.
(*22-048) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,915,834.26.
(22-049) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with SEED
Collaborative, Inc., to Assist the City with the Development of a Citywide Diversity, Equity,
Inclusion and Belonging Plan for an Amount Not to Exceed $275,000 including a 10%
Contingency.
The Assistant City Manager, Paul Hudson and Tara Taylor, SEED Collaborative, gave a brief
presentation.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the efforts; stated that he pulled the matter to
introduce the project and encourage SEED Collaborative to include background reports on
broader demographic and health trends within the City of Alameda; he would like SEED
Collaborative to provide analytic context to data; Alameda's African American population is
relatively low compared to many other East Bay cities; stated if health related data is included,
data about different demographics experiencing disparate kinds of health outcomes should be
explained and not automatically attributed to racism; expressed support for a range of
perspectives for underlying issues; stated issues related to racism and prejudice should be
called out as seen; expressed concern about Alameda being considered behind the times;
stated that he has seen the City grow tremendously in relation to representation and diversity on
Council; discussed prior instances of offensive language being used by City staff; stated that he
is looking at SEED Collaborative to provide context; discussed the demographics of the East
End of Alameda versus the West End; stated that he would like to look at the data
comparatively, as well as understanding the context; noted issues might be more complex.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns about spending $275,000;
inquired whether the funding comes from the General Fund, to which the Human Resources
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about the five-year fiscal forecast.
The City Manager stated the last five-year budget forecast shows issues in the future mainly
due to increases in pension obligations; a positive surplus occurred in the past year; due to
conservative budgeting, staff is expecting a positive surplus for this year as well; the City has
funds for the project if Council wants to move forward.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff will be requesting additional taxes.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about a discussion related to taxes; inquired whether
the discussion is allowable at the current time.
The City Attorney responded certainly, the Council would not want to discuss tax measures;
however, the inquiry from Councilmember Herrera Spencer can be answered by the City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,3,"Manager in the affirmative or negative; the matter can be left at the simple answer without
further discussion.
The City Manager stated staff does not have any proposals at this time; however, polling is
being conducted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a committee has provided comments and
recommendations on spending funds, including daycare and possibly increasing Council pay;
expressed concern about spending $275,000 on a consultant; stated that she would rather have
the subcommittee recommendations put into action.
Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about the suggesting that the City is more racist
than other places; Alameda is a City of its time which matches other cities of the time that have
significant, ongoing racial issues; he hopes that a vote on the matter does not give credence to
the idea that the City will require data to prove that racism exists; 400 years of systemic issues
around racism have impacts that show up in all data; expressed support for bringing forth the
best proposal as possible to deal with the very large and difficult issues in order to have the
desired discussion; expressed support for the matter.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the work is detailed and important; experts are needed to help lead the
way; the City will have a consultant which is able to perform nuanced discussions; someone
from the outside coming in will help the organization transform, meet the needs of the
community and be as inclusive as possible; expressed support for the matter.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
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.
(22-050) Recommendation to Approve Property Management Agreement with RiverRock Real
Estate Group for an Additional Three (3) Years Not to Exceed $1,209,374.19 and
(22-050A) Resolution No. 15858, ""Amending the Base Reuse Budget to Increase Expenditure
Appropriations by $100,000 to Establish a Liability Reserve Account for Third-Party Claims.""
Adopted.
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the added liability of the City.
The City Attorney stated staff understands it is difficult to continue to maintain the previously
required level of indemnity while continuing to attract the right kind of property managers; staff
has worked to set up a liability fund; the fund estimates how much liability the City is taking on;
at the moment, it is difficult to tell whether or not the amount is correct; staff will have a better
idea in one to two years and will return to Council with a more accurate amount and any
concerns.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there are no numbers attached to the report; inquired
whether an attachment can be provided with numbers for the alleged expenses.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,19,"The Assistant City Attorney outlined proposed language moving the Master Plan into the DDA.
Councilmember Knox White stated that his motion did not intended to move the entire Master
Plan into the DDA; the motion addresses mapping to allow for future sale; expressed concern
about moving the Master Plan into the DDA and raising the Master Plan to require four
affirmative votes; stated changes are made to Master Plans often; inquired whether there is
another way to address the issues.
The Assistant City Attorney responded Council could amend the Master Plan on its own or
Council could attach the Master Plan to the DDA.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated Counsel is providing two options;
there is also an in between option: the specific issues could be added as a term in the DDA,
rather than including the entire Master Plan; obligations in the DDA are above and beyond the
Master Plan; the 50% mapping is in the Master Plan and could also be a requirement of the
DDA; if the particular provision ever needs to be changed in the future, the change would
require four affirmative votes; a minor amendment to the Master Plan at a future date would only
require three affirmative votes.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the proposed option is viable; expressed support
for the in between option proposed by the Planning, Building and Transportation Director; stated
that he cannot support moving the entire Master Plan into the DDA.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the proposed option provided by the Planning, Building
and Transportation Director does work; stated if key terms which are more important can be
carried into the DDA, rather than including the entire Master Plan.
Councilmember Knox White clarifies the motion is to include the option provided by the
Planning, Building and Transportation Director; stated that he is unprepared to support moving
the Master Plan into the DDA.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of the motion.
The City Clerk stated the motion include the mapping and windows; the rest of the proposed
changes were consistent with City policy and therefore have been captured.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the two items, the mapping and windows, would be the
two matters included in the DDA, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council wants to include trading commercial
space for more residential units as part of the agreement.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not support the trade; she thinks it is important to for
any residential development to have supporting retail space; the area has public waterfront,
which holds various opportunities; there will be further opportunities down the line for the
developer to return to Council if there is a need.
Mr. O'Hara stated discussions had to do with not wanting to have empty commercial space on
the project site; the developer is in agreement and also agrees with having commercial space
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
19",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,20,"support the residential areas; the developer also supports a situation if the commercial space is
not being supported and environmental findings can properly be made, additional housing units
could be accommodated if the market conditions allow for the option; the developer can return
to the Planning Board and request a modification of the 50,000 commercial square foot space
for additional residential units.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter can be brought before the Planning Board
without having the change included as part of the motion.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
developer can always return to amend the Master Plan; the change must go to the Planning
Board, then, City Council must ultimately approve the amendment; the proposed language
would authorize the Planning Board to perform the commercial and residential swap at a later
date pending certain findings and would not require a Master Plan amendment.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he does not support adding the language to the motion;
the commercial space has been a key component during community discussions; changes to
the Plan can be made in the future; a broader community discussion would be desired for the
change.
Councilmember Daysog stated the discussion has been an improvement over the current
proposal due to the for sale unit breakdown; discussed the 200 townhome units and 50% of the
non-townhome units being for sale; stated those interested in for sale units are seeing a
substantial improvement; the issue for him relates to the workforce housing units; the workforce
housing units are not low or moderate income and are slightly above moderate income; stated
the City can do better than 10 units out of 589 for workforce housing; noted 80 units are deed
restricted for very low to low income; Council is trying to get more first time homebuyers in the
workforce housing units; the project is worth a delay to flesh out the details regarding workforce
housing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated some of the products for sale are now going to be stacked flats; the
units will be affordable by design and are smaller units than a townhome; some income earners
might not qualify for moderate affordability and will be able to get into the smaller products; the
units will only be available if the project is approved and built; the opportunities are ample and
changes have been made to provide opportunities; the vote will be momentous and will either
move the project forward or allow the land to sit blighted.
Vice Mayor Vella stated if housing is not built, there will be no workforce housing; workforce
housing is every for sale housing unit included in the project; affordable by design exists; data
shows that building housing allows for other units to become affordable and allows people to
save up and become first time homeowners; expressed support for the City desiring to have a
discussion about investing in first time homeowner opportunities or finding other ways to
subsidize the purchase of units; stated the discussion can occur in addition to seeing the
project through; Councilmembers will have explaining to do for other parts of the City if the need
for up-zoning occurs while the project parcel is left vacant due to non-approval; Council has a
responsibility to ensure the RHNA obligation is met and that opportunities are being reviewed;
the project is an opportunity to provide density and build in a way that creates more ownership
opportunities and will not require up-zoning of areas, which will impact existing residents;
expressed support for the project and building housing in a responsible way.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
20",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,21,"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.
***
(22-055) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the balance of the agenda with
a stop time of 12:00 a.m.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not support the motion; noted one Councilmember is
under the weather.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer concurred with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and
stated that she thinks it is not the best time to continue.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.
Ayes: 1. Noes: 4.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(22-056) The City Manager announced applications are being accepted for Roseville Village;
discussed the Federal government supplying up to four free COVID-19 rapid tests via
www.covidtest.gov; stated Community Development Department staff is working on bringing the
rent moratorium matter back to Council for discussion in the future; staff is looking at possible
revisions to the rent moratorium or financial assistance for small landlords.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-057) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting
Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember
Daysog)
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the matter be provided by the City Manager.
The City Manager stated City staff has been working with the US Navy and continues to have
discussions related to possible removal of the Navy Cap that limits the number of market rate
homes which can be built at Alameda Point; units above the Cap cost a fee of $100,000 per unit
payable to the Navy; staff is working to modify the agreement in order to provide increased
housing units at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated the referral was brought forth prior to Council discussion; events
have now overtaken the time when the Referral was published; the Referral is being dealt with
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
21",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,22,"for all intents and purposes.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is no need to give direction to staff due to the work
having begun, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
In
response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated Council can move
on without taking action.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the Referral process.
The City Attorney stated the Council rules indicate that Council can either vote to direct staff to
do work or not; if the request for work is withdrawn due to work already occurring, no action
needs to be taken.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Councilmembers are willing to withdraw the Referral.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her understanding of the matter is that Council
never took a vote in public; expressed support for the matter returning with an actual Council
vote to provide recorded Council support; stated staff does not currently have a vote of Council
support on record.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the official vote is important even with staff working with
the Navy.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative; stated it is cleaner to have a vote
by Council in public, on record; it is helpful when negotiating on behalf of Council to have an
official vote of support from Council.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of having the matter return to Council for a
vote on record.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the events on the ground are working towards
reducing or removing the Cap.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff needs the vote in order to successfully negotiate.
The City Manager responded staff has direction; however, Council can provide clear direction if
desired.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he will not support the motion; noted the City Manager
update from September 2021 announced that the Community Development Department had
already begun discussions with the Navy about the Cap; stated the matter has been moving
forward and the vote is not needed.
On the call for the question, the motion 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.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
22",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,23,"(22-058) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to
Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023-
2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.
(22-059) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers
Herrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard.
(22-060) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular
City Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-061) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-062) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22-063) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed a meeting regarding a proposal to widen
the estuary to allow for a larger turning basin.
(22-064) Councilmember Daysog announced an upcoming joint liaison meeting of the City
Council and Alameda Unified School District with Councilmember Knox White.
(22-065) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a recent hostage situation in Dallas, Texas; expressed
support for the Police Chief reaching out to support to local synagogues.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
23",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,24,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2022- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:02 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella
arrived at 5:34 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
Consent Calendar:
(22-037) Recommendation to approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Nico Procos, Alameda
Municipal Power General Manager, Erin Smith, Public Works Director, Alan Cohen,
Assistant City Attorney, and Alan Harbottle, Senior Energy Resources Analyst, as
Designated Negotiators with NextEra Energy Resources Related to Doolittle Landfill.
Not heard.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-038) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
54956.8); Property: 11-Acre Portion of the 33.2-Acre Doolittle Landfill Sire Located
Northwest of the Intersection of Doolittle Drive and Harbor Bay Parkway. Not heard.
(22-039) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code
Section 54956.9); Case Name: City of Alameda V. All Persons Interested in the Matter
of the Issuance and Sale of One or More Series of Pension Obligation Bonds to
Refinance Outstanding Obligations of the City of Alameda to the California Public
Employees' Retirement Law, and All Proceedings Leading Thereto, Including the
Adoption of a Resolution and Sale of Such Bonds, Alameda County Taxpayers'
Association, Steve Slauson, and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Court: Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: 21CV001157.
(22-040) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation, Initiation of Litigation
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4)); Number of Cases:
One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendant(s): Alameda Point
Partners, LLC.
(22-041) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: Alameda Point, Site A, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric
Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, and Louis Liss,
Base Reuse Manager; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Point
Partners, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,25,"(22-042) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, and
Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations: Alameda Police
Managers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire Chief's Association (AFCA); Under
Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding the Existing Litigation, staff provided information and Council
provided direction, by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera
Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye;
Ayes: 3. Abstain: 1. Absent: 1; regarding Potential Litigation and Real Property, staff
provided information and Council provided direction 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; and regarding Labor, staff provided
information and Council provided direction 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.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:28
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,4,"The Assistant Community Development Director responded the attached property management
agreement includes two to three years of budgets as an exhibit; stated the amounts are broken
down by line items.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the City's liability.
The City Attorney stated the current agreement requires the property manager to assume all
liability for operations; the agreement completely transfers responsibilities; if the City receives a
claim currently, the City submits it to the property manager ; under the new regime, the property
manager would only be liable for negligence, recklessness and intentionally wrongful acts; if
matters do not fall under the new categories, the City will be on the hook instead of the property
manager; staff is recommending the new account to pay for instances where the City might
have to undertake additional liability.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how the City is overseeing the limit of exposure.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the existing contract has the
property manager on the hook for things that may have happened under the Navy's purview;
stated claims would be tended to the property manager even if something happened from
preexisting Navy conditions; property management has taken an inventory of property
conditions; the City has been working on mitigating conditions and liabilities.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not see the budgets break down on a
per-unit basis; the exhibits show dashes through certain line items.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated that she can provide detailed and
specific costs related to the property management budget, if desired.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated janitorial costs for the 2021-22 budget do not show
what was incurred for the first three years; she is trying to figure out any increases over time;
inquired whether the City reimburses the property manager for expenses above the cost of the
contract.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated information
is shown for the 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 budgets; discussed the summary and changes to
security and life safety from 2018 and 2021; stated explanations for the variances are included.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the janitorial costs are shown with dashes instead of
amounts.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the amount is under security, life safety,
cleaning and janitorial.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the amounts are not filled in for the prior years.
The City Manager stated the costs are in the contract; only certain costs go over and above the
contract budget.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the $1,209,374.19 amount is the cost
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,5,"that goes directly to the property manager for operations; other line items shown in the budget,
such as the security, life safety, cleaning and janitorial are not included in the $1,209,374.19
amount; the same occurs with the repairs, maintenance, and Heating, Ventilation and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) costs; the total operating expenses cost $3,700,000 and include
management, landscaping, utilities, and other items; Council is currently considering costs that
go directly to the property manager for operations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is trying to find the breakdown for the
$1,209,374.19 amount.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the $1,209,374.19 includes $840,000 for
administration in 2020-21; the administration cost for 2021-22 is $850,000.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what the $850,000 is spent on; stated that she would
like a breakdown.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the costs includes salaries and benefits,
general office supplies, equipment costs, telephone, internet, janitorial supplies and services,
supplies, services, shared buildings electricity, marketing, tenant support, memberships,
professional associations, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, business licenses, postage,
computers, and wayfinding sign maintenance; the management fee is now $216,000; for the
past five years, the management fee remained at $165,000 with no increase; the new
agreement includes 3% annual increases; the final charge to the $1,209,374.19 is for general
building services which includes the property management's estimate of cleanup costs for trash
and dumping.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like a specific breakdown provided for
the $1,209,374.19; expressed support for receiving a breakdown of salaries and benefits per
property management employee; stated that she is trying to figure out whether the program
should be housed within the City under the Community Development Department as opposed to
hiring property management, especially due to the increase in liability.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated that she does not have the information
currently available; prior to 2000, leasing and property management was performed internally;
Council decided a property manager would be faster, easier and more efficient privatizing
significantly reduced costs; at the time, port management services were $750,000 per year;
privatizing reduced costs by more than half.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolution] with direction to staff to provide information to Councilmember Herrera Spencer
on detailed budget items.
Vice Mayor seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the contract with RiverRock is
separate from the PacWest Security contract, to which the Assistant Community Development
Director responded PacWest Security is a subcontractor of RiverRock; a Request for Proposals
(RFP) process will likely occur soon.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how soon the RFP for security will occur.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,6,"The Assistant Community Development Director responded one service is ahead of PacWest;
stated the RFPs could be simultaneous; once the property management agreement is in place,
there will be RFPs for many of the subcontractors; the indemnity clause needed to be modified
prior to issuing RFPs.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the RFP will occur within the year, to which the
Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the process will
likely occur in the spring.
Vice Mayor Vella stated helpful information has been shared with Council relative to breaking
down details; the administrative costs include 5.5 full time employees; there are a number of
residents and tenants at Alameda Point; many people would like to ensure the City has
responsive services; the RFPs will help address responsiveness and customer service; Council
is discussing general and building services, which cost roughly $135,000 for picking up trash
and dumped items throughout the property; the management fee has been stagnant for five
years; the current contract allows for a slight annual increase to deal with inflation; the bulk of
the costs include administration, which is important to ensure the City has property managers
that will be responsive and provide the level of customer service desired; expressed support for
the contract.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is also supportive of the contract; she expects RiverRock
oversight of all subcontractors and inspection schedules to be met for all City properties,
residential and commercial; expressed concern about deferred maintenance; stated that she
understands challenging situations related to refusing admittance for inspection.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is looking forward to staff's more specific
details and dollar amounts; the report does not show dollar amounts for salaries; she would like
the dollar amounts for salaries and benefits in order to see whether or not the amounts are
competitive; she questions whether or not it makes sense to continue hiring outside firms when
the City is taking on liability.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to ensure that whoever provides security
patrol services does a top notch job; concerns have been raised by citizens; he is looking
forward to the RFP process for security services.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is concerned about holding the matter up; Council has been
provided with more detailed information; the amount listed for 5.5 full time employees includes a
number of general costs; stated $850,000 can be divided by 5.5 yielding $154,000 per person;
however, the yield does not include the other general expenses; the rough estimate provides
enough information; the matter should not be held up.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion includes approving the property management agreement
and simultaneously have staff answer any further outstanding inquiries from Councilmember
Herrera Spencer; questioned whether the motion includes a delay.
Councilmember Knox White stated the motion is to approve the agreement [including adoption
of related resolution] and to work with Councilmember Herrera Spencer on answers to her
questions; staff does not have to come back to Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
6",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,7,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the additional information provided
to the public as well; the information can be attached to the agenda item.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the request was not part of the original motion; staff can work on the
information.
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.
(22-051) Resolution No. 15859, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2021 22 and Fiscal Year 2022-23
Capital Budgets for the Playground Replacement Project (C5200) by Increasing Expenditure
Allocation by $250,000 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 and Decreasing Expenditure Allocation by
$250,000 for Fiscal Year 2022-23."" Adopted.
Councilmember Knox White recused himself and left the meeting.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the staff report; the matter is
important.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Knox White - 1.]
(*22-052) Resolution No. 15860, ""Approving Application to the Land and Water Conservation
Fund for Estuary Park Phase 2 Project, which Authorizes the City Manager to Submit a Grant
Application to the Land and Water Conservation Fund to Construct the Final Phase of Estuary
Park and for His Designee to Execute All Necessary Documents."" Adopted.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-053) Public Hearing to Consider the following Ordinances to Govern the Future
Development of the Encinal Terminals Property:
(22-053 A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Disposition and Development Agreement for
the Encinal Terminals Project By and Between the City of Alameda and North Waterfront Cove,
LLC (""Developer"") Governing the Encinal Terminals Project for Real Property Located at 1521
Buena Vista Avenue and Approving and Authorizing the Assistant City Manager, or Designee,
to Execute a Land Exchange and Title Settlement Agreement for the Encinal Terminals Project
By and Among the State of California Acting By and Through the State Lands Commission, the
City and Developer Substantially in the Form Attached Hereto. Introduced; and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,8,"(22-053 B) Introduction of Ordinance Approving the Amended Encinal Terminals Tidelands
Exchange Master Plan and Density Bonus Application for Redevelopment of Real Property
Located at 1521 Buena Vista Avenue (APN 072-0382-001, 072-0382-002, 072-0383-003 and
072-0382-009). Introduced; and
(22-053 C) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement (Encinal Terminals
Project) By and Between the City of Alameda and North Waterfront Cove, LLC Governing the
Encinal Terminals Project for Real Property Located at 1521 Buena Vista Avenue. Continued to
January 18, 2022. Introduced.
The City Manager recused himself and left the meeting.
***
(22-054) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of allowing the Applicant to speak for 5 minutes.
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.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Mike O'Hara, Applicant, gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the breakdown for the 589 units.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the Master Plan requires that
50% of the units be mapped for sale; stated the units will be individually available for sale.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any of the 80 affordable units will be for sale.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the affordable housing
agreement is not done yet; stated most similar projects in Alameda have the very low and low
units for rent; the moderate units are sprinkled throughout as part of the for sale units; how the
final 80 affordable units will be distributed between rental and for sale has not yet been finalized;
the 10 workforce units will be for sale.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the proposal breakdown for the remaining 500 units.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded 50% of the 589 units will be for
sale; stated it will be safe to assume that the 50 very low and low income units will be for rent;
staff cannot assume more than the current breakdown provided.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on the townhomes.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated townhomes will likely be for sale;
stated townhomes are capped at 200 units.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any of the rentals will not have rent control.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
8",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,9,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated that is
true for all new units.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the rent control requirement falls under Costa Hawkins,
to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White stated if the project is not approved, 589 units will be distributed
throughout residential areas; inquired whether the 589 units will go across the City; questioned
how the process plays out.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded if the entitlements are not
approved, staff will need to increase the number of units which are going to be built in
neighborhoods by 589; current projection is roughly 450 units; adding 589 units will change it to
over 1,000 units; the challenge for staff is to have unit distribution equity across the City; these
589 units would be in central Alameda; approximately 200 more units would be in each of: east
Alameda, Park Street and central Alameda; the unit distribution is needed for the Housing
Element State certification; staff will not be able to place the 589 units in west Alameda, the
units must be distributed in central and east Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the current project requires for affirmative votes; inquired how many
votes are needed for the alternative of placing the 589 units elsewhere.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the alternative consists of zoning
requirements, which only need three affirmative Council votes.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for
the project.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated Council
policy requires any City controlled lands to have a PLA; the executed PLA is required before
any construction occurs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether an executed PLA is currently in place, to
which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the 589 units being placed in other areas of Alameda
through zoning amendments is currently up for Council discussion; questioned whether the topic
lends to a Brown Act issue.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the staff report discusses the
implications of not approving the project; stated Council should not be discussing how to up-
zone neighborhoods if the project is not approved; the implication and consequence of not
approving the project is the distribution of 598 units through other residential areas of Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about being speculative; stated the final vote is not
known.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is reference to the units in the staff report related to the City's
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number and how the units help satisfy the
obligation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
9",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,10,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the implication is not speculative; staff
is in regular communications with the Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) that must approve the City's Housing Element; staff has held discussions with the State
about what would happen in certain situations; staff feels confident about the consequences.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there have been appraisals for the project
parcels.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded there is an appraisal for the
overall site once developed; the appraisals are done for the State Lands Commission (SLC); the
SLC is looking for the value of the entire development, once developed; the SLC requires the
value of the land being received be equal in value to what is being traded; in the current
instance, there is equal value per acre; the State is receiving 7.2 acres; the land is not City-
owned, the land is State land; the SLC feels the State is receiving more than it is giving from a
value perspective; an appraisal has not been conducted for the value of the 6.4 acres versus
the value of the Tim Lewis Communities property.
Bill White, Shute, Mihaly, Weinberger LLP, stated an appraisal has been done for the entire site;
the purpose of the appraisal is to calculate the value of the lands that are coming into the Trust
and lands coming out of the Trust; due to the project being a Master Plan development project,
the only real way to perform an appraisal is to value the entire site as a whole; the appraisal
gets the highest and best use to figure out the maximum economic value of the property.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is an assumption that each acre holds
the same value.
Mr. White responded in the affirmative; stated the assumption is made for Master Plan
development projects; there have been a number of large Trust exchanges with Master Plan
projects; there is no other viable way to perform the appraisal; if the process is not be followed,
there is risk of drastically under-valuing the lands coming to the City; it is difficult to value open
space by itself; the value of the open space is the value that it contributes to the Master Plan
project; the Master Plan project would not be possible without the open space amenity; the
value is considered unitary.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director stated the way the deal is structured, the costs to maintain the
parklands, or State-owned lands, developed by the developer, will be covered through an
annual assessment district; the property owners will pay into the assessment district; there
would be no cost to the City to pay for maintenance; the practice is standard and was previously
done for the Marina Shores Park.
Stated that she is disappointed that the water park elements of the original plan have been
eliminated; expressed support for the Tidelands Exchange; stated the area has been land-
locked for years and development will allow public access to the water: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Expressed support for the Encinal Terminal project; urged Council approve the project; stated
the number one concern for local businesses is local, affordable housing for employees; many
aspiring Alameda businesses question whether there is local affordable housing for staff;
discussed the site's public access and housing; stated the project will reduce the need to up-
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
10",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,11,"zone residential areas: Madlen Saddik, Alameda Chamber of Commerce.
Stated that she is in favor of the Encinal Terminal project; stated only two of her 14 employees
live in Alameda due to the lack of affordable housing; the project offers much needed affordable
and middle housing and will help meet RHNA numbers; expressed support for the public access
to the waterfront; urged Council to move forward with the project: Kelly Lux, Alameda Chamber
of Commerce.
Expressed support for the Encinal Terminals project; stated that she supports public access to
the waterfront; the current conditions are dangerous and the project is a wonderful use of the
space: Michelle Morgan, Alameda.
Expressed support for the land exchange and development of the Encinal Terminals site; stated
the site is key for residential development, which will further Alameda's ability to meet the RHNA
obligation; the City will receive a useful waterfront; the site is ideal for waterfront residential
development and a public shoreline; expressed support for a water shuttle landing; urged the
project showcase waterfront design; urged Council to approve the land exchange and
development proposal: Betsy Mathieson, Alameda.
Expressed support for the project; urged Council approve the Tidelands exchange; discussed
the consequences of not approving the project; stated the City is coming out ahead in the
exchange; he supports the kayak launch and public trust idea; he would like to see the
developer increase the density by replacing the townhomes with mid-rise buildings; expressed
concern about parking: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Questioned whether the planning for the project has taken into account other potential units
being built in Marina Village of it the project is being considered in a vacuum; stated the project
has the potential to transform the area; the project gives the City a good chance at meeting the
RHNA obligation; expressed support for the project; urged Council approval: Bill Pai,
Community of Harbor Bay Isle.
Expressed support for the project; stated that he applauds the emphasis on the RHNA
obligation, Housing Element and ramifications of non-approval; discussed his experience with
the RHNA obligation process; stated HCD has changed its stance on non-compliance with
RHNA; HCD has already taken action against cities for non-compliance and will likely impose
fees; urged Council take the project and run with it: Matt Regan, Bay Area Council.
Expressed support for the project; stated there is no real reason to reject the project; discussed
the shape and value of the project site; expressed concern about not supporting the project;
stated the vote for the project should be unanimous; the City is not losing anything of value; the
project provides benefits to many; he supports a water taxi for the site: Josh Geyer, Alameda.
Stated the project offers workers career pathways, apprenticeship opportunities and healthcare
benefits; an agreement has been made; he supports the partnership; the project is well thought-
out and will play a vital role in the City; it is important to support the land exchange and title
settlement agreement; the project will directly improve the lives of hundreds: Vince Sugrue,
Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 104.
Stated approval of the project is important to Alameda historic preservation; the project will
provide 589 housing units which can be applied towards RHNA; if the project is not approved,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
11",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,12,"other sites will need to absorb the 589 units; expressed concern about promoting architecturally
intrusive new development in historic areas; stated significant issues still need to be worked out;
urged Council to approve the project; stated the remaining issues can be addressed through
subsequent actions with public hearings; expressed support for traditional waterfront design:
Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society.
Urged Council to vote in favor of the project; stated finding appropriate housing in Alameda can
be difficult; expressed support for introducing new housing to Alameda: Blithe Rocher, Alameda.
Expressed support for the Master Plan as recommended by the Planning Board; stated that she
was disappointed in 2017 when the project was not approved; she hopes the outcome will be
different; the project is close to land and water transportation and has a park; the design does
not impinge; the 589 units will attempt to temper the exorbitant prices for the area and will help
satisfy the RHNA obligation; the intent is to stabilize the cost of housing: Laura Thomas,
-
Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.
Urged Council vote to move forward with the project; stated the project is a key component
in
ensuring a compliant Housing Element for the City; discussed walking along the Oakland side of
the estuary being an enjoyable experience; stated that he hopes a similar experience will occur
for the Alameda side of the water: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.
Expressed support for speakers being in favor of housing in Alameda; stated there is still a lot of
work to do; discussed the City's progress on policies for more housing in the City; stated he is
not taking a position on the Encinal Terminals project; the City must have greater investment in
affordable housing and develop a regional plan to address rising groundwater; new financing
methods are needed to finance affordable housing and reduce speculative fevers that drive up
housing prices; affordable housing must also be built elsewhere: William Smith, Alameda.
Stated the developer will address sea level rise protections; the site is prime real estate and has
been languishing; the possibility of the site being vibrant and accessible is exciting; urged
Council to support any new, affordable housing that can be built on the Island; stated the
developer has shown commitment to the community of Alameda: Tina Blaine, Alameda.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:16 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:34 p.m.
***
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including introduction
of the ordinances].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer posed
questions regarding homeownership numbers for first time home buyers; inquired whether
numbers have been discussed.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff has
had months of discussion with the developer around various Council priorities; the Master Plan
has a 50% requirement for homeownership; staff also included workforce housing and recently
discussed different ways of organizing homeownership; the developer feels 50% across the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
12",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,13,"board is the best approach; the developer is concerned about maintaining the financial viability
of the project and has resisted getting more specific about fine tuning for the project's product
types; the developer does not want to promise a project that is not viable.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has been negotiating in good faith with the
developer and is saddened that the responsiveness is not at the desired level; she is not able to
support the project at the current time; inquired whether the 50% units mapped would be for
sale.
The City Attorney responded the developer has committed to creating subdivided units; stated
the units will be sellable; he has not been part of negotiations and cannot say whether the units
will be for sale on day one.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is confused about a Councilmember negotiating in good
faith; requested clarification about the role of Councilmember in negotiations.
The City Attorney stated a Councilmember has made specific requests, through staff, of
preferred project details; staff has then been negotiating with the developer directly.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director concurred with the City Attorney; stated staff
has been communicating with the developer to determine whether or not the preferred project
details are things that the developer could do; the developer believes that the current language
included in the Plan is the best commitment that can be made; questioned how the City can
require homeownership versus rentals; stated the City cannot prevent someone from renting
their property; mapping 50% of the units would allow units to be designed and constructed to be
sold, rather than rental units; there is not a requirement that the developer must sell individual
units to a separate parties; discussed condominium builds; stated many prior projects have units
rented first, then sold when the market returns; the agreements do not prevent the developer
from renting units first and selling later; expressed concern about units remaining vacant; staff
has not recommended having vacant units.
Councilmember Daysog stated that there appears to be the possibility of a major investor
buying properties; inquired whether staff is envisioning major investors buying properties.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated nothing
prevents a buyer from renting a unit.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is intrigued by the matters raised by Councilmember
Herrera Spencer; he is glad to see that 7% of units will be dedicated to moderate income;
inquired what Council can do to get some number of the moderate income units to be for sale;
discussed low and moderate income homeownership.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the project must first be approved; if the project is not be approved,
nothing will be built and the space will be remain blighted; if Council wishes to provide the
opportunity, staff can work with the developer; no one can predict the market or economy; the
goal is laudable; however, she would hate to see the goal be used as a way to kill a project;
there are opportunities for homeownership and affordable housing; it is extremely important that
the project move forward; the City has seen an immense turnout of public comment and all are
in favor of the project; the project can use some fine tuning.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
13",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,14,"Councilmember Daysog expressed support for delaying the project for one month to flesh out
details; stated that he does not believe the total number of affordable units is being changed;
however, some part of the total needs to be looked at once more; a reasonable number can be
struck for the moderate income units.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the Applicant is agreeable to a one month delay;
stated it appears as though the discussion has already been occurring and the Applicant is not
agreeable to a delay; delaying one month would only be for the sake of delay.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the question can be asked; she is willing to support Councilmember
Herrera Spencer's request for more time to explore possibilities with the developer if Council
would be able to get four affirmative votes to move the project forward; expressed concern
about Councilmembers requesting many things to be added yet still vote against it; stated the
project will not address the blight, create public waterfront space, water transit opportunities or
589 units toward the RHNA allocation if it does not move forward; if Council secures the four
affirmative votes to move the project along, further discussion can occur; requested
Councilmember Knox White's inquiry be restated.
Councilmember Knox White stated there have been questions related to timing and the City's
ability to reach agreement on changing the mix of units; his understanding of the matter is that
discussions have been occurring for weeks and feasibility has already been determined;
inquired whether two to four more weeks of delay would be feasible.
Mr. O'Hara responded that he has been discussing numerous ways to address concerns; stated
that he has always expressed a willingness to discuss matters; threading the financial feasibility
needle is a challenge for the project; modifying the number of units does not allow the project to
react to the market; the project is long-term and will have many units over a long period of time;
noted markets change and what works for one component may not work in six months' time; the
aspect of the Master Plan allows the developer to react to the market and provide the types of
units which are needed; the discussions have been occurring and he urges any additional
discussion to occur in short order; he does not see the benefit of a delay for either party; he is
supportive, if the delay is a means by which the project discussion will continue; he would
entertain further discussions; however, the matter must remain within the lens of financial
viability and the ability to properly react to the market.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the meaning of proposing to map the property; stated
the last counter-proposal from the developer included mapping at least 50% of the market rate,
non-townhome units through the subdivision process to allow for homeownership as opposed to
apartment buildings; she is looking at the dispersion of the 50% of units; she is unsure how
close the matter is to a resolution.
Mr. O'Hara responded the proposal had been on the table; stated if the proposal allows the
project issue to be resolved, the developer is agreeable to an increase in the number of non-
townhome products and allow an increase in the number of units mapped for sale.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is concerned about the item being previously agendized and
withdrawn; there has been a lot of back and forth with an opportunity to ask the desired
questions; the matter has been on the agenda for the second time and a lot of work has been
put in; if there is not support for the project to move forward, Council should know so that other
decisions can be made; urged Council to provide direction to staff to come back with an update
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
14",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,15,"on where Council can place the 589 units if the matter does not pass with four affirmative votes;
stated that she is willing to have staff and the developer spend time looking over concerns only
if there be four affirmative votes for the project to move forward; she is happy to amend or
second an amended motion if there is need.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to amend the motion; however, he is unsure
that he understands the concept; questioned whether Council is conditionally approving the
project.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports amending the motion; one Councilmember has stated
that he will not support the project and another Councilmember has expressed a willingness to
support the Tidelands swap; she has heard the developer state that they are willing to explore
the different possibilities; some of the concerns raised have been matters which will be worked
out in the Master Plan; the question is whether or not Council can work out the Tidelands swap
at the current meeting with four affirmative votes and then work out the remaining details as part
of the Master Plan development further down the road.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that it would be nice to approve the matter in its entirety; Council
needs to approve the Tidelands exchange and the Disposition and Development Agreement
(DDA).
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Tidelands swap requires four affirmative votes and
the other matters do not; it is important to have the agreement ensure that four affirmative votes
are needed for the proposed changes moving forward; her proposed changes ensure the
mapping at different levels actually includes that the units are for sale and at least 50% of the
market rate non-townhome units shall be mapped throughout the subdivision.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can add the terms ""mapped for
sale;"" the developer did make a proposal to move the needle closer to 50% of the non-
townhomes; 50% of the apartment buildings would be mapped for sale as condominiums; the
developer is willing to accept the proposed change at the current meeting if Council will approve
the project.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the compromise is being met; stated that he does
not understand the delay.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to go over the proposed changes to
find whether there is agreement for Council; stated the issue is whether or not the map will
actually include units for sale or just the term ""mapping;"" it appears as though the language will
include the term ""for sale"" which is important; expressed concern about housing for the middle
usually landing as rentals, as opposed to opportunities for purchase; stated the ability to
purchase is important; expressed concern about whether the main road going into the
development allows sufficient space to be able to go around delivery trucks or bicycles; stated
Clement Avenue has a four foot buffer between each direction to allow people to pass on either
side; she would like something similar for the main road of the development; inquired whether
staff and the developer agree about the proposed changes.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is having a difficult time considering taking a vote on
something that is not part of the record; questioned whether the list of concerns will be much
longer; stated that she understood the concern to be relative to people's ability to purchase
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
15",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,16,"units.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there are eight points of concern; Council has
discussed two; some points are clarification; the proposed change for the main road is a safety
concern; she does not know whether the developer and staff are agreeable to having the main
road be a similar design to Clement Avenue.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the right
of way for the central road is 62 feet; the right of way for Clement Avenue is 60 feet; there is
plenty of room in the right of way to stripe the road such that cars and trucks can get around
bicyclists and delivery trucks without going into the other lane.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the next proposed change is to have the windows be
operable to open; the proposed language would read: shall be designed with operable
windows to the extent allowed under the [Building] Code.""
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the language is not a problem; there
is agreement that operable windows are a good idea; the Plan encourages operable windows;
the proposed language can certainly be adopted and is not a substantive change.
Mr. O'Hara concurred with the Planning, Building and Transportation Director.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the next point is regarding the block design subsection
having language that does not require cross streets that provide for automobile access; she
understands the language is an error and that the intention is to have vehicle access and ability
to get to parking structures; the language would be a clarification.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director concurred; stated the language is a
clarification; noted the Master Plan states that the east to west streets can be designed primarily
for bicyclists and pedestrians due to being designed around a central corridor; staff will also
need to provide access to parking garages on the east to west streets; staff has come up with
clarifying language which indicates the streets be designed as Slow Streets to allow for vehicle
access in addition to bicycle and pedestrian.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to see all on-street parking spaces
be a minimum of eight feet wide; noted the developer has agreed to the width.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the width is consistent with Council's
recent policy related to street widths.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is agreeable to the requirement of 20,000 to
50,000 square feet of commercial development; it would be appropriate to allow the developer
to modify the requirement if desired to strengthen the project; the commercial development may
or may not be the best use of the space and could allow for an increase in the number of
housing units.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the items have been discussed and agreed upon.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
points are all clarifications to the Plan; the major issue of discussion relates to complications
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
16",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,17,"around homeownership; the North Waterfront Cove has made a proposal to change the
denominator on homeownership; the last communication was understood as not good enough
and yielded back to the 50% requirement.
Councilmember Knox White amended his motion to approve including the mapping and
windows clarification language; stated that he has heard all other proposed changes are
consistent with City policy and will be required in the Plan; Council should not be getting into
extreme detail direction that is already consistent with City policy.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the amended motion.
Under further discussion, Councilmember Daysog requested clarification about the language
related to mapping.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the language will be clarified;
currently the language in the Master Plan states: ""50% of all units will be mapped.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the meaning of the term ""mapped.""
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded it means mapped for sale; stated
the term means a unit cannot be sold unless the unit is legally separate; rental projects include
the entire building as one piece of property and units cannot be sold; a condominium project
must be mapped as a condominium project; maps come before Council and there is a process
to ensure the properties are mapped for sale; when projects are built, the units must meet
certain physical, construction requirements; the proposal for the project includes 50% of the
total number of the 589 units; noted Councilmember Herrera Spencer's desire is to have more
units within the apartment complexes be considered as condominiums to allow for purchase;
stated the developer counter offered and proposed a mapping of 50% of the non-townhome
units; there is assumption that all townhomes will be for sale; there are 200 townhome units; the
remaining 389 units are distributed through multi-story buildings and will be committed to having
50% mapped for sale; roughly 190 additional units will be mapped for sale; the distribution of
different product types mapped for sale is now larger.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the language must state: ""mapped for sale""
as opposed to simply: ""mapped,"" to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the term ""mapped for sale"" was missing and will clarify
the intent; reducing the commercial space requirement allows more housing units within the
commercial area; stated it makes sense to provide more housing by reducing the commercial
space.
Mr. O'Hara stated that he would like to clarify the language related to mapping in order to be
precise; the proposal indicated that ""at least 50% of the non-townhome, market-rate units shall
be mapped through the subdivision process to allow for homeownership;"" expressed support for
the language as-described.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the language is sufficient or whether the
language must include ""mapped for sale.""
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
17",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,18,"The City Attorney responded the term ""mapped for sale"" has no legal significance; stated the
developer is agreeing to map the units to ensure sale; the developer is not committing the units",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-01-13,1,"ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, January 13, 2022
TIME:
7:00 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
A video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
The following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.
ROLL CALL
Present: (Teleconference via Zoom) Chair Alexander, Commissioner Jones, Commissioner Navarro
and Commissioner Nguyen
Absent: Vice Chair Robbins
Staff: (Teleconference via Zoom) Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy
Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of December 9, 2021 Regular Meeting as presented.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones. All present in favor with 3 ayes via roll call vote.
Commissioner Nguyen abstained from the vote as she was absent from the December 9, 2021 meeting.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (For topics not on the agenda)
Written Communication: None
Oral Communication: None
REPORT FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR - ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave
the report. See exhibit 1.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Navarro: Went to Chochenyo Park and was excited to see the playground being
built. Heard from many Alameda Residents who express sadness over the fallen trees in Lincoln
Park.
Commissioner Nguyen: Attended the Breakfast with Santa event. Gave kudos to Recreation
Supervisor Christina Bailey and her team for doing a great job. Visited a few parks and talked to
the public who expressed how much they like the City of Alameda parks as they are beautiful,
safe and they appreciate the parks being open.
Commissioner Jones: Attended a Tillman Park softball practice and also heard from the public
how good the City of Alameda parks look.
Chair Alexander: Thanked the Park Maintenance staff for removing the fallen trees and damaged
playground at Lincoln Park so quickly. Attended the Breakfast with Santa event and also gave
1",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-01-13,2,"kudos to Recreation Supervisor Christina Bailey and her team for doing a great job. Visited
Chochenyo Park and said it looks like it will be a great playground when completed. Happy to
see the public out in the parks as the parks always seem to be full and well used.
AGENDA ITEMS
Chair Alexander proposed to hear item 6-C and 6-D before 6-A as they are shorter presentations.
M/S Commissioner Nguyen / Commissioner Jones
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-C Review and Approve Solar Walk Eagle Scout Project
Ryan Liu, Junior at Alameda High School, Life Scout with Troop 2, gave the presentation and
answered questions from the Commissioners on the Bayfarm Solar Walk which included background
of project, use of trail, trail layout and trail signage of eight separate signs that would give information
about each planet in our solar system including the sun.
6-C Public Comments
Speaker Dawn Jaeger: Asked that Ryan Liu and ARPD communicate and coordinate with the
Community Harbor Bay Isle Association before putting the sign up as they maintain the Harbor
Bay Trail.
6-C Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Supports the project as people enjoy the Solar Walks but would like to
see further development before going forward.
Commissioner Nguyen: Thanked Ryan Liu for his project and is excited to see how it evolves.
Commissioner Jones: Thanked Ryan Liu for his great addition and hopes he gets the support
he needs to go forward.
Chair Alexander: In support of the project but needs further information about what the signs will
look like, how the construction will be implemented and working with ARPD and the Homeowners
Association.
6-C Motion
Commissioner Navarro motioned to recommend the Solar Walk Eagle Scout Project move forward with
the caveat that we see final signage, renderings and a budget before it is implemented.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-D Review and Approve Amelia Earhart Elementary National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Ocean Guardians Sign on Shoreline Trail Near Bay Farm Bridge
2",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-01-13,3,"Mr. Derek Douglass, Science teacher at Amelia Earhart gave presentation which included the
background of the Ocean Guardian Program the students of Amelia Earhart Elementary participated
in which includes the 6R's: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Refuse, Rot and Rethink. A visual of the
proposed Save Our Ocean Signage and a video from the Amelia Earhart 5th grade class was shown.
The sign and installation will be paid for with an obtained grant. The placement of the sign is
proposed to be at the wooden viewing platform along the shoreline path close the Harbor Bay Club.
6-D Public Comments
Speaker Dawn Jaeger: Supportive of sign on the viewing platform. Concerned about the timeline
because EBMUD will be putting a new pipeline to the channel and wants to be sure the two
projects do not coincide with each other.
Speaker Betsy Mathieson: Excited to see the sign and happy to see teachers bringing
awareness to the students and getting them involved.
6-D Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Fantastic idea and is in favor of the project.
Commissioner Nguyen: Appreciated the class video. In support of the sign and coordinating
with Dawn Jaeger for the location. Brought up the issue of people with color blindness since the
sign is in color and wanted to make sure it would be easy to read for all. Director Wooldridge
said she would work with Mr. Douglass on that issue.
Commissioner Jones: Asked for clarification of the location of the proposed signage. Wooldridge
showed the location on Google Maps to clarify.
Chair Alexander: In favor of the project and thanked Mr. Douglass for all he is doing.
6-D Motion
Commissioner Navarro motioned to recommend the signage be placed along the shoreline trail
with the first position being on the viewing platform if possible.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-A Review and Approve Recreation and Parks Department Athletic Facility Allocation Policy
ARPD Director Wooldridge gave the presentation on the 2022 ARPD Athletic Facility Allocation Policy
which included policy purpose, definition of terms, allocation process, seasons and use, fees and
cancellation, Fair Play Act, facility exchange or sublease, user group priority classifications, field
maintenance and closures, background checks and creating a positive sports experience, rules and
regulations for facility usage and consequences of violating the athletic facility policy. Thanked and
commended Recreation Manager Patrick Russi and Recreation Supervisor Stacy Thomas for their
commitment and collaboration in putting together the 2022 Athletic Facility Allocation Policy.
6-A Public Comments: None
6-A Commissioner Comments
3",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-01-13,4,"Commissioner Navarro: Are the guidelines made clear to a group that gets bumped because of
the Fair Play Act? Answer Director Wooldridge: Yes, there is an allocation meeting before the
season starts to go over the allocation policies and the user groups sign off that they have read
the policy.
Commissioner Nguyen: Appreciated all the work done by Director Wooldridge and her staff for
a comprehensive allocation and is supportive of the new allocation.
Chair Alexander: Thanked Director Wooldridge and her staff for such a thorough, thoughtful and
excellent job and is all for going forward.
Commissioner Jones: Also gave appreciation for all the diligent work done by Director
Wooldridge and her staff.
6-A Motion
Commissioner Nguyen motioned to approve the 2022 Recreation and Park Department Athletic Facility
Allocation Policy as presented.
M/S Commissioner Nguyen / Commissioner Navarro
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-B Receive Report on Harbor Bay Parkway Dog Park and Consider Recommendation for East End /
Bay Farm Island Dog Park Location
ARPD Director Wooldridge gave the presentation which included Harbor Bay Parkway site details,
challenges and positive aspects of the location, written public comment, dog park options and next
steps. Also gave new information that anything within 100 feet from the shoreline requires a Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit which is several thousands of dollars to
obtain and can take up to a year with the possibility of the permit not being approved.
6-B Public Comments
Speaker Dawn Jaeger: Against a dog park at Leydecker due to noise and parking; it might be
better if the dog park was proposed closer to the playground but urges the Commission to look
for further sites.
Speaker Benjamin Rikards: Supports having a dog park at Krusi Park.
Speaker Jeff Cambra, East End Dog Park Committee: In favor of Towata Park as it is
underutilized. Suggested to have the park reflect John Towata Senior's Japanese descent and
aesthetic components through design and signage to bring more awareness to the memory of
John Towata Senior that would also enhance the visitors' experience. Showed a slide show of
possibilities.
Speaker Sarah Larcker, East End Dog Park Committee: Surveyed members from the east End
Dog Park. In general, people want a dog park that is close to them.
Speaker Blake Brydon: Suggested the Bill Osborn Model Airplane Field option for consideration
of a site.
4",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-01-13,5,"Speaker Grant: Would still like to consider the Harbor Bay Parkway as the area for the dog park
as it is a beautiful location.
6-B Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Appreciates the input on the East Bay Dog Park. Walkability to a dog
park is the key for most people. There is no perfect answer for a location. Would like to see two
separate dog parks, one at Leydecker Park and one at Towata Park. Suggested to table the
motion until all Commissioners are present.
Commissioner Nguyen: Likes the Bill Osborn Model Airplane Field option but likes the idea of
two parks. Wants to table decision until all Commissioners are present. Director Wooldridge:
There is no water available to that site and it is not feasible due to the cost to put in a water line.
Concerned it will result in a poor quality dog park.
Chair Alexander: Leaning towards Leydecker or Towata; agrees the full Commission should be
present to make the decision. Concerned about the Harbor Parkway site having to deal with
BCDC as that can be quite time consuming and costly so is cautious about that. As a resident
of Bay Farm Island, she expressed the importance of a dog park in Bay Farm that the residents
can walk to.
Commissioner Jones: Inquired if there are any further possible locations or will the Commission
be selecting one of the five presented. Answer Director Wooldridge: Yes, the selection will be
one of the five as staff reviewed quite a few potential locations and none were feasible for a
variety of reasons.
6-B Motion
No Motion made. Commissioners agreed to table a motion until all five Commissioners are present.
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
City of Alameda Transportation Program Plan for Seniors and People with Disabilities for the
Fiscal Year 2021/2022
Climate Action Plan Annual Report
Alameda Park Improvement Survey Results and Recommendation
New Pickleball Court Options
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: February 10, 2022
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn
M/S Commissioner Nguyen / Commissioner Navarro
Motion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 4 ayes via roll call vote.
Chair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 9:02 PM.
5",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-01-13,6,"EXHIBIT 1
01/13/2022 ARPD Director's Report
Presented by Recreation and Park Director Amy Wooldridge
Recreation Services
ARPD Aquatics 2022- Lap swimming continues to do well as ARPD is providing year round
opportunities now. Registration for February swim lessons will take place on Sunday, January 29th
on-line only. Check ARPD website for more information
ARPD is partnering with the Housing Authority of Alameda to provide Mobile Recreation
opportunities to varying Housing Authority properties on site. This program will launch at the end of
January
The 48th Annual ELKS Hoop Shoot Finals took place last week. Six qualifiers in each division will
move on the District finals this Sunday at James Logan High School. Please check ARPD website
for full list of winners.
Summer Activity Guide will be in mailboxes by mid-February.
Voting for next year's Starlight Movies will end on Friday January 14. Help ARPD selects the most
popular movies to show in the park.
NEW Storytelling and Drumming Festival is postponed until a further time. Check back for updates
on the website.
Keeping up with Staffing shortages and needs of programs
Hiring at this time for the SUMMER programs. Finding candidates that will follow through with on-
boarding process. Summer hiring will begin by end of January.
Mastick Senior Center
Jackie Krause is retiring as the Recreation Manager for Mastick Senior Center. Her last day at the
Center was December 30, 2021. She managed Mastick for 23 years and has been an invaluable
asset to the Center and ARPD. Known for her compassion and care with everyone, particularly
seniors, people with developmental disabilities and people who are unhoused. Jackie is extremely
dedicated with boundless energy and willing to do whatever is needed to serve seniors and the
broader Alameda community. She will be greatly missed. The position is anticipated to be filled by
early February.
The Winter 2022 session began at Mastick Senior Center and includes new classes such as Zumba
Gold and Zumba Toning. Presently, there are 1,131 enrollments in Senior Division classes.
Three Instructors who were with Mastick for many years resigned recently and include Carrie
Pickett (Creative Writing), Bonnie Boller (Ceramics), and Alberta Jay (Hula).
A COVID - 19 Vaccination Clinic is scheduled to take place at the Mastick Social Hall on Saturday,
January 29 from 11:00 AM - 3:00 PM. Reservations are required.
Park Maintenance
Addressing court light with replacement of LED instead of repeated repairs to HPS fixtures ( starting
with Leydecker - others to be evaluated)
Ordered additional batteries/equipment to sustain electric blowers use in parks
Opened gardener position. We have 3 vacancies
Added bollards to Sweeney parking lot
In beginning permit phase of Bayport shade structure.
Addressing AC repairs with in various parks depending on priority and funding.",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-01-13,7,"Administration/ Projects
Due to the Surge in COVID cases in the area, the Storytelling and Drumming Festival has been
postponed.
At Jean Sweeney Park, a new intersection at Atlantic/Clement and Sherman is being built and
anticipated to open mid-January.
Did not receive State Parks Program Round 4 for Sweeney Park. $2.42B in applications which
exceeded available funds by $548.3M so it was extremely competitive.
Submitting a grant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for Estuary Park Phase 2. If funded,
this would be redesigned to include four pickleball courts.
On December 13, 2021, a large oak tree fell in Lincoln Park during a major storm event and
significantly damaged the large Lincoln Park playground, rendering it unsafe and unusable. This
playground was already scheduled for replacement in FY 22-23. Staff is bringing a
recommendation to City Council on 1/18/22 to re-allocate the project budget to this fiscal year in
order to accelerate the schedule for this playground replacement. In addition, an insurance claim
has been filed for the playground replacement. Staff is already soliciting designs from playground
companies and intends to have community input on designs in February.
A second large oak tree at Lincoln Park fell during the mid-December major storm and damaged a
major water line. A huge thank you and commendation to Parks Gardener Joe Witt who noticed the
tree was leaning and immediately cordoned off the area for public safety. Also, a big appreciation
to Parks Manager Matt Nowlen and Park Supervisor Eric Vlnar who immediately addressed the
issue and worked quickly and diligently to repair the water line. This was critical as the water had to
be turned off which closed the Lincoln Park swimming pools (operated by the Alameda Swimming
Pool Association), park restrooms and displaced ARPD's winter break camps.
The property issue with neighbors raised from the installation of the Lincoln Park outfield fence has
been resolved. Two options were provided to neighbors - a revocable license or installing a new 12-
foot chain link fence along the original fence line and removing the 10-foot chain link portion of the
new fence while the 40-foot netting and large wood poles will remain. At least one neighbor contacted
City staff and stated that they will not agree to a revocable license so all affected neighbors were
informed that starting in January, the City will move forward with the fence replacement along the
original fence line.
Pride in the Park - Local resident, Jeramie Andehuesen are spearheading an effort to create a
Pride in the Park event in October 2022. ARPD is collaborating with this executive committee
which includes DABA. The event will include a variety of events throughout the weekend with one
goal to support businesses both on Park Street and Webster Street.
Community survey launching soon to solicit names for four parks based on criteria developed by the
Commission last month.",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-01-13.pdf
LibraryBoard,2022-01-12,1,"CITY
OF
of
TERRA
MINUTES OF THE
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2022
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Amber Bales, President
Joyce McConeghey Vice President
Dimple Kanji, Board Member
Kathleen Kearney, Board Member
Sara Strickler, Board Member
Absent:
None
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Lori Amaya, Recording Secretary
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Public Comment)
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar
*A.
Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of November and
December, 2021.
*B.
Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of November 10, 2021.
*C.
Modified Library Services Report for the Month of October and November, 2021.
*D.
Financial Report Reflecting FY21/22 Expenditures by Fund for November and December,
2021.
*E.
Bills for Ratification for the Months of November and December, 2021.
The Library is not yet fully open, but continues to offer programs. The door counts are still down,
but staff are brainstorming ideas to bring patrons in. Grogu Library Cards have arrived and they
are very popular. Patrons can come in and apply for a new card or purchase a replacement card.
The Lucky Day Collection has launched and is considered a success. The funding for hotspots",LibraryBoard/2022-01-12.pdf
LibraryBoard,2022-01-12,2,"Page 2 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
January 12, 2022 Meeting
was approved and Director Chisaki and Library supervisors will be meeting with Verizon to discuss
their program. The grant project had to reschedule interviews due to the COVID surge. Board
Member Strickler asked how the Library's website changes are prioritized. Director Chisaki
explained that most changes are on the back end to make it more seamless and user friendly.
Director Chisaki welcomed any comments for the team to incorporate.
There are no changes to the Draft Minutes of the November 10, 2021 Library Board Meeting.
Board Member Kearney moved to accept the Consent Calendar. Vice President McConeghey
seconded the motion, which passed with a 5-0 vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Current and On-Going Library Activities (J. Chisaki)
The Board letter includes the link to the Sunshine Ordinance training video. Vice President
McConeghey asked if there is a way for the Board to certify that the training has been
completed, and Director Chisaki responded that nothing has been sent out at this time. The
Form 700 request will be coming soon. Volunteers are still on hold, but when they come back,
vaccination verification will be required. Board Member Kanji asked if the courtyard area behind
the Café could be used. Director Chisaki responded that it will be open and patrons are
welcome to sit outside.
B.
American Rescue Plan Funding - Hotspot Lending Program (J. Chisaki)
The update was given during the Director's Report under the Consent Calendar.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Friends of the Library (J. Chisaki)
The Friends have concert dates reserved in March - May, but it's highly unlikely they will be held
that soon. The concerts may happen in the fall. The Café is opening February 7, 2022, and the
new bookstore is opening the first week of February. The bookstore will be open Thursday -
Saturday from noon until 4:00 p.m. There will be genre book sales to reduce their inventory. The
Friends Author and Docent programs continue online and have great attendance. Attendees are
from across the country and from other countries as far away as England and Australia. Board
Member Strickler asked if the Friends know where that traffic is coming from and if they post in
places that would reach that far. Director Chisaki responded that the Friends have a newsletter,
Facebook page and a webpage, but it's mostly word of mouth and from Docent associations. With
Zoom, presenters may be from anywhere. The Friends are interested in the Seed and Tool Library
and are willing to match the $300,000 that Director Chisaki requested from unspent Library Bond
funds.",LibraryBoard/2022-01-12.pdf
LibraryBoard,2022-01-12,3,"Page 3 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
January 12, 2022 Meeting
B.
Patron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response
A patron complained that the Teen Reading Room has tables with bad words/pictures on them
and requested they be covered up. Supervising Librarian Sierra Campagna responded that
funding was just approved to refinish the table tops and in the meantime, the tables will be covered
with paper and plexiglass.
A patron requested more books on Sikhism and more books in Punjabi language for both adults
and children. Supervising Librarian Sierra Campagna responded that additional books were
ordered for the adult collection, and the request was forwarded to the Supervising Librarian in the
Children's department to investigate possible additions to the Children's collection. The Library
also offers a service that provides a great deal of Punjabi language materials. It's the Library's
Link + service which is an interlibrary loan service and provides access to materials from over 60
public and academic libraries in California and Nevada, in many languages. The library is currently
in the process of analyzing the foreign language collections.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Kanji used Link+ and it's awesome. Board Member Stickler saw the Lucky Day
books, but decided to leave them for patrons to check out. Board Member Kearney signed up to
be a book seller at the Friends' new bookstore. Vice President McConeghey has succeeded at
getting the Alameda Sun newspaper delivered to the Main branch and the West End branch. The
Bay Farm branch is being worked on.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Director Chisaki reported that the Library is doing an ILS update, but there shouldn't be any
interruption to services.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",LibraryBoard/2022-01-12.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-01-11,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, January 11, 2022
1
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Downing called the regular meeting to order at approximately 6:35 p.m. via
teleconference
ROLL CALL
Present:
(Via teleconference) Chair Ed Downing, Vice Chair Claire
Loud, Commissioner John Kim, and Commissioner Robert
Lattimore
Absent:
Commissioner Kaiwin Su
None
Staff:
(Via teleconference) Recreation and Parks Director Amy
Wooldridge and Sarah Craig, Greenway Golf
Also Present:
None
2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of November 9, 2021, were approved unanimously.
3
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
4
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Downing reminded the Commissioners to review the Sunshine Ordinance that
was provided to them.
Vice Chair Loud shared a letter that was addressed to the Mayor, the City Council, Ms
Wooldridge, Chair Downing and Vice Chair Loud, and has heard from the service
clubs at Corica Park, especially the women's service clubs, (the nine hole club was
founded in 1972 and the 18 hole club was founded in 1929) regarding the restrictions
that are being put in place by Greenway per a letter from Brett Morrison. She has
received general feedback concerning these restrictions. The Ladies 18-hole club is
now playing in the City of Oakland for 14 of their events this year. She was also
informed that there is no longer a nine-hole rate for the Ladies Nine Hole club.
5
WRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS
1
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, January 11, 2022",GolfCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-01-11,2,"5-A
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club
Chair Downing stated there have been three meetings with Greenway staff and
Alameda Junior Golf involving a Memorandum of Agreement, and after every meeting,
they left with an understanding of what the agreement would look like, and at the next
meeting, there were changes. One of the concerns he had was there was no one in
attendance from Greenway that could make a decision, and by the next meeting,
some of the proposals had changed. He was concerned about two words that were
used, the first being subsidization, they did not feel that they should be subsidizing
Alameda Junior Golf Club, and he feels they should be supporting a city group that
has been playing junior golf for decades on a city owned golf course. In his view,
subsidization was the wrong word, support would have been better. The second
phrase that concerned him was ""stand alone"", that the junior golf club should stand
alone without their support. Again, it's a city group and city club, there should be some
support from Greenway, but his understanding of ""stand alone"" was not to expect any
support from the course, and if it impacts revenue, Greenway is not willing to support.
Green fees went from pre pandemic were $1.00 to $25.00 to play the entire course,
and the Mif rates were previously free and will be $5.00 for the summer events. As a
result of these increases, the junior golf club has had to raise their annual membership
fee from $50.00 to $75.00 to help defer these increases. He feels that this is not as
supportive as he hoped, and the MOU is not what he hoped it would be. He
encourages the City to take a look online at the Solano County Junior Golf program to
see what type of support is given elsewhere.
Per Connie Wendling, membership applications are available in the clubhouse,
Alameda Golf Works, and the driving range. Great response has been received for
their donation requests from the community. There is a new website available, and
volunteers are always needed.
Vice Chair Loud shared that she was also a part of the discussions regarding the MOU
with junior golf and she would help support them, as they have not been able to have
their biggest fundraiser, the Jack Clark tournament, due to Covid. They had heard
from Greenway, that even though they were raising their rates, they would assist with
the first Jack Clark, but she feels those commitments were not honored, as it was left
off the MOU, as junior golf did not feel they were getting any consideration from
Greenway.
6
AGENDA ITEMS
7
OLD BUSINESS
7-A
Facility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf
2
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, January 11, 2022",GolfCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-01-11,3,"Sarah Craig of Greenway stated that she was not provided a facility report and
the report as well as the annual report would be provided at the next meeting
Chair Downing asked about the beverage cart and asked for an update. She
stated that Greenway is considering several options but is not comfortable
discussing them. Vice Chair Loud asked if there was a beverage cart operating
right now, and Ms. Craig stated there is not.
Chair Downing asked about the teaching center and Ms. Craig stated they are
hoping to open it this summer.
Chair Downing asked about the practice area memberships, and she stated that
they are looking to bring them back this year but will have to check with Umesh
and Brett for clarity on when that will occur.
Chair Downing asked Ms. Craig to inquire why there is no resident rate for the
advance tee times.
Vice Chair Loud asked about the fire tower and Ms. Craig stated that they had
completed their initial assessment and it was determined that it was structurally
sound, but they are unable to meet the extension deadline, mostly due to Covid
related issues, but they have kept Amy Wooldridge informed.
Chair Downing asked about the Annual Report and Ms. Craig stated it was
being prepared and would be presented at the next meeting.
Commissioner Kim asked about the advance booking fee, and Ms. Craig stated
that per our website host, EZlinks, this is a common practice for tee times
booked 8-90 days in advance as it is considered to be a premium product and
is utilized by many courses.
7-B
Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report
None
7-C
Recreation and Parks Director Report
Amy Wooldridge stated that she has been working to secure quotes for parking
lot lights. They are looking to add two lights to the back side of the existing
driving range lights which would face the parking lot. There are other lights in
the parking lot that are not activated, that is an additional possibility.
Additionally, they are asking the lighting company for a lighting spread, which
would show the dark spots, and also fix some of the lighting along the road.
3
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, January 11, 2022",GolfCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-01-11,4,"Ms. Wooldridge also stated that she is working with Marc Logan of Greenway
and have asked him to provide information about Greenway's storm drain
system that connects with the City's that runs under the golf course, it collects
storm water for Bay Farm, and sends it out to the bay. Due to Harbor Bay
flooding after the last two storms, they also had backyards along Beach Road
flooding, so Public Works is doing an analysis, once they receive the
information from Greenway, and also will analyze Bay Farm storm drain
systems.
8.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - March 8, 2022
Facility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf
Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report
Recreation and Parks Director Report
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:04 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the
Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the
Brown Act.
4
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, January 11, 2022",GolfCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-01-11,5,"Greenway Golf - Facility Update
January 11, 2022
The following provides an update on Greenway Golf's activities during the months of November and
December 2021 at Corica Park. A portion of this update responds directly to questions asked by Golf
Commissioners at the October 2021 Golf Commission meeting as well as information on the food and
beverage amendment and fire tower. Future updates will include a standard agenda for reporting on
standing items of interest as well as adding in issue and/or topic specific information.
Questions from Golf Commissioners
Does 90-day booking policy that apply to the Founder's Club?
Yes, the booking fee applies to all patrons. The Founders still have 14-day advance booking
privileges.
I noticed that the teaching center by the range has been closed since COVID - any plans to open that
up?
We are evaluating our space needs, including those for our On the Green Summer Camp, and
have no plans to open up that space to instructors at the current time.
Practice center memberships - is that still an offering at the course?
We paused the program at the onset of pandemic-related closures, but we are planning to bring
them back in the new year. We will keep everyone posted.
Food and Beverage
We are currently working through possible food and beverage offerings with a focus on studying food
and beverage carts, working with our legal counsel on securing a liquor license, and evaluating and
talking with local vendors. We will report out on the food and beverage work at every Golf Commission
moving forward.
Fire Tower
We have been making great progress on the beautification and design tasks to restore the old fire tower
located at the entrance of Corica Park. To date, we have done the following:
Reviewed the design review application in its entirety to familiarize ourselves with the City's
process
Researched and held preliminary discussions with architectural firms - one of which will lead the
design/beautification process
Researched and held introductory conversations with potential artists
Identified key stakeholders to participate in the process
Held preliminary discussions with some key stakeholders
Held internal ideation sessions on design themes
Researched similar civic projects
Prepared a timeline and plan",GolfCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
GolfCommission,2022-01-11,6,"Greenway Golf - Facility Update
January 11, 2022
We are now in the process of selecting an architectural firm and artist and finalizing the outreach
process to ensure community input. We anticipate we will be meeting with various stakeholders to
gather input and have preliminary designs to share at the end of Q1 2022.",GolfCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-01-11,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY JANUARY 11, 2022 7:00 P.M.
Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:11 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Cambra, Chen, Montgomery, LoPilato
and Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted
via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie;
City Clerk Lara Weisiger]
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
COMPLAINT HEARINGS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair
In response to Commissioner Montgomery's inquiry, Chair Tilos summarized the
selection process.
Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of electing Vice Chair LoPilato as Chair and
Commissioner Chen as Vice Chair.
Chair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Chair Tilos:
Aye. Ayes: 5.
4-B. Minutes of the December 6, 2021 Meeting
Vice Chair LoPilato outlined minor corrections.
Commissioner Chen moved approval of the minutes with the corrections.
Commissioner Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair
LoPilato. Ayes: 5.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
January 11, 2022
1",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-01-11,2,"4-C. Report to City Council on Issues Arising from Implementation of the Sunshine
Ordinance
Commissioner Chen gave a presentation.
Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of allowing five more minutes for the
presentation.
Chair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair LoPilato.
Ayes: 5.
Commissioner Chen completed her presentation.
Commissioner Montgomery stated the orientation packet should be moved to the success
portion of the report since she received one when she became a Commissioner.
Vice Chair LoPilato thanked Commissioner Chen for her huge undertaking in providing a
well-structured and comprehensive report; stated that she would like to add a link to the
Brown Act and Public Records Act in the Bylaw; she would like clarification about what
the Commission/staff partnership should look like.
The City Clerk stated she will add the links to the bylaws.
In response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry regarding posting the bylaws online, the City
Clerk stated the bylaws for Boards and Commissions are not typically posted, but she
would be happy to post in on the Commission's webpage.
Commissioner Chen stated she would like the bylaws to be posted online.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry regarding the four-year maximum term limit, Vice Chair
LoPilato stated the section regarding the term limits is from the original bylaws; it is a
piece that the Commission does not have the ability to revise since it requires City Council
action; quoted the language, a term that is concurrently linked with the service of the
appointing City Council member but in no event shall exceed four years.
""
The City Clerk stated the key language is that a single term cannot exceed four years.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she was wondering about development of a ten-year plan;
questioned whether problems, such as lack of continuity in institutional memory, might be
solved in a less labor-intensive way; she thinks it is a great aspirational request, but fears
it will be bumped to the bottom of the priority list given everything else staff has to do.
Commissioner Chen stated for her personally and as a resident of Alameda, it would be
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
January 11, 2022
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-01-11,3,"good to have a historical document that talks about open government and democracy,
especially now; it does not have to be as detailed as an encyclopedia; people forget the
importance of open government and we are seeing the destruction of voting rights in this
Country; people do not really appreciate what it entails to have a legitimate democracy
and what should be expected from elected officials; she would like to see the City allocate
resources to the development of a document that allows people to see the background
behind the whole series of open government and Sunshine Ordinances that were passed
10 to 15 years ago and why local communities may be the last place where democracy
is still practiced; it is really important that people have a healthy respect for open
government, what it means and how they can practice it themselves.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated it is a great goal, but she is concerned that it is too big of an
ask to include in this inaugural report in terms of staff allocation and financial resources;
an alternative could be a staff/Commission partnership could prepare the report which
can then be publicized on City channels; the alternative could soften the ask if the
Commission is willing to take on some of the labor.
Commissioner Cambra stated that he would like a little more clarification regarding the
document; questioned if the intent would be that the memory of the decisions made by
the Open Government Commission (OGC) would create precedent; he understands that
it does not address the over-arching issue of democracy, but also wonders if creating a
report every year would add to the continuity of the OGC.
Commissioner Chen stated Commissioner Cambra just took her down a different path on
how the Commission adjudicates all the different cases; the Commission has no idea of
how previous cases were adjudicated, which seems like a case law issue.
Chair Tilos inquired whether the Commission should have knowledge of previous cases
or come in with a fresh set of eyes.
Commissioner Cambra responded that he thinks continuity in the decision-making
process is important so the public understands when they come before the OGC with a
complaint factually similar to a previous one, the Commission will not come to a
completely different decision; he does not want to use the word ""precedent"" as it is a legal
term; the term ""guided by"" may be more appropriate.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk part of the recent Sunshine Ordinance
changes require all of the decisions made by the Commission be posted online; the
information is posted on the City's OGC website.
Commissioner Montgomery stated her thoughts are as the times and days change, the
Commission's ideas will change as well; she is uncertain about using past decisions as a
precedent to base decisions on; she is not totally against the suggestion as worded in the
report.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated past decisions of the OGC are also accessible to anyone in
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
January 11, 2022
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-01-11,4,"the Legistar archives; she is fine with the language that the PRA report could be modeled
after this report; the bigger question is whether to make an ask about the development of
a 10-year plan or report related to the history of the Sunshine Ordinance; she does not
know if the City Council is aware that an annual report on PRAs is prepared.
In response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the PRA report evolved
from the Commission; basically the OGC asked questions about the PRAs, wanted data,
and the information was added to the annual report; now that the City has NextRequest
which tracks the data, it will evolve again.
Commissioner Chen stated that she recalls it was former Commissioner Shabazz who
requested the PRA report; the rest of the Commission joined in the second year of the
report and it became more detailed as a result; she will include the history.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she is in favor of bringing a version back in February to
incorporate the Complaint Form amendments; she offered suggestions for consideration,
not so as much as line-by-line recommendations; inquired what the subcommittee sees
as the best path to ensure an efficient vote on a final report in February.
Commissioner Chen stated the report was started six months ago and keeps changing;
she would like to present a final version next month for the Commission's approval; she
appreciates all the input provided; it is aspirational to see if the City in interested in helping
to produce a more robust document.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner Chen stated that she would like to put
the report to bed to start on the next one.
The City Clerk stated any Commission suggestions should be emailed to her to forward
to Commissioner Chen.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated the Commission is doing great and is slowly learning how to
produce work product as a group on the fly; she would like to receive feedback from the
Commission on the complaint hearing in December; a lot of different issues came up;
there was discussion regarding the possibility of making a recommendation to encourage
the City consider the 15-day statute of limitations as it applies to PRA requests; inquired
whether the Commission would consider it a worthy recommendation before
Commissioner Chen puts time into it.
Commissioner Cambra stated that he supports Vice Chair LoPilato's comments regarding
the recommendation; as long as there are fruitful and productive conversations between
City staff and the requestor, it would be fine; the statute could be refined so there is a
clear point where the parties are done; requiring a meet and confer would be helpful in
the event a complainant did not want to engage with the City.
Commissioner Chen stated that she would appreciate language for the report.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
January 11, 2022
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-01-11,5,"Commissioner Cambra stated he would be happy to help prepare the language.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated as long as the Commission is framing it as encouragement for
Council and the City Attorney's office to consider; her guess as to the origin of the 15-day
statute of limitations was from the need to look forward with open meetings violations,
making sure the complaint process happens quickly and perhaps the implications on a
PRA request did not come into play; she wants to give some deference to the drafters of
the statute in case there was some brilliant reason behind it that the Commission is
missing; Commissioner Cambra's points are well taken, but it strikes her as that it
incentivizes complaints; the more ways to find informal resolutions, the better.
The City Clerk stated as part of the complaint form revision, the Commission gave
direction to include that members of the public could attend OGC meetings and raise an
issue without filing a complaint; the language is included at the top of the revised form; it
could also be placed in other places throughout so that the public knows the Commission
also exists to hear them.
Chair Tilos stated the report should be wrapped up; new comments and ideas could go
into next year's report.
Commissioner Chen stated that she will bring the best of everything back at the meeting
in February; unless there is something highly egregious, she is hoping the Commissioners
will adopt it and a new subcommittee could be set up for the next report.
Commissioner Cambra stated there was a situation at the December 6th hearing
regarding a recusal; inquired whether the Commission should address the issue or make
the Council aware; stated it has the impact of potentially having the Commission's
decision come under judicial review.
Commissioner Chen responded in an earlier iteration of the report, she included the
recusal issue asking for clarification on when it is appropriate for a Commissioner to
recuse themselves from a vote; she could put it back into the report.
Commissioner Cambra stated it would be helpful to put it back into the report so the
Council is aware; the issue is a refusal of recusal puts the entire Commission decision
potentially into question; it would be nice to have the ability to do something about it and
have an answer.
Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Cambra but recalls there was a reason why it
was taken out.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated her loose recollection is that there was going to be specific
training given to the Commission with respect to their roles in the adjudicatory process;
she assumes recusals would fall under the training; the City Council would most likely
defer to the City Attorney's office; perhaps the Commission could ask the Chief Assistant
City Attorney to include the issue in the upcoming training.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
January 11, 2022
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-01-11,6,"The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated training has been discussed, but was bumped
due to the number of complaints the OGC received; the City Attorney's Office and City
Clerk will discuss holding a training session to be conducted during a meeting; the
checklist of topics that are intended to be presented would include conflicts of interest,
both statutory and those defined by case law, in order to advise Commissioners of any
conflicts.
Commissioner Cambra inquired whether the Chief Assistant City Attorney is aware of any
enforcement actions for a non-recusing member of a legislative body.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that she is not aware of any as she is sitting
here today; stated it is always a risk; an action taken could be invalidated because
someone who had a clear conflict of interest failed to heed the advice to recuse; if she
finds any examples, she could include it in the training.
Chair Tilos stated it is a difficult issue because the Commission does not have teeth; the
only recourse would be not to hear an item if Commissioners fear their vote could be
overturned; discussed a similar situation when he sat on the Recreation and Parks
Commission; stated Commissioners are crossing their fingers and hoping, but hope is not
a strategy; a precedent needs to be set.
Commissioner Chen stated that she has her marching orders and invited any comments
be sent to her via the City Clerk.
4-D. Consider Amending the Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Form.
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that she does not quite understand the section in the
form which requires to name the person or department the complainant contacted;
inquired clarification.
The City Clerk responded the section is intended for instances when the complainant did
contact someone; proposed making the field not required to eliminate any confusion.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated a possible two-word fix would be add a parenthetical ""(if any)""
in addition to it not being required; inquired whether the last Date field on the form could
be made to auto-populate with the date it is being submitted.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative, stated when the form comes through the
system it is time-stamped; the form can be made to auto-populate the date submitted and
the language could be changed to Filing Date for clarification.
Commissioner Chen stated that she compared the new form with the old written form;
she can see how a written form is less scary than an online form because if the
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
January 11, 2022
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-01-11,7,"complainant did not contact anyone, they could just skip a section; the recommended
solutions would work.
In response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated a paper form will still be
available; the paper form would match the revised online form; everything would be
exactly the same whether it was obtained online or hard copy; based on the trends, she
highly doubts there will be many paper form submissions.
Vice Chair LoPilato inquired whether there is a word or character limit in the Describe
Alleged Violation field, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative.
Vice Chair LoPilato inquired whether the language regarding submitting ""all evidence
supporting the complaint at the time of filing"" could be revised to be more flexible to allow
complainants to provide information up to, and during, the hearing.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded confusion arises from the actual text of the
statute; the language is not entirely clear, but very suggestive that all evidence the
complainant will be relying upon will be included as part of the complaint; however, further
on in Section 2-93.2, the language states that during the hearing, the Commission will
provide the parties with a chance to present evidence and make arguments; in practice
and in the new complaint procedure, the Commissioners have made it clear that they
would want to hear and consider any evidence the complainant may bring up at the
hearing and do not want to put up any barriers for complainants to put their best foot
forward; one option is the entire sentence could be simplified to say: ""Please attach
relevant documents"" or ""you are not required to submit evidence, but any evidence would
be
helpful"" and provide a link to the complaint procedures; she recommends a very basic
revision with the language: ""attach relevant documents"" and end it there.
The City Clerk suggested the language ""evidence supporting your complaint should be
submitted at the time of filing; during the hearing, the Commission will provide the parties
with an opportunity to present evidence and make arguments.'
Chair Tilos stated that he is leaning more toward the simple path of ""please attach relevant
documents/evidence;"" staff could inform the complainant about the other opportunities to
present documents; it does not need to be on the form.
Commissioner Chen stated that since used the paper form when filing her complaint, she
had the impression that she could present more evidence at the hearing; she does not
want the form to dissuade a complainant from being able to add to their arguments.
The City Clerk noted the old form included the language: ""Please attach all relevant
documentation supporting your complaint. Documentation is required.
Commissioner Montgomery stated there definitely needs to be some language about
submitting any evidence that the complainant now has; she fears that on the day of the
hearing, the Commission gets swamped with pages of late material; a statement on the
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
January 11, 2022
7",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-01-11,8,"form that guides complainants to submit what they now have would be helpful.
Chair Tilos agreed with Commissioner Montgomery's comments; stated that he has not
yet experienced being swamped with documents on the day of the hearings.
Commissioner Cambra stated that he has the same concern on both sides of the coin;
the Commission could potentially be swamped at the end, which could prejudice the other
side; civilians are looking at this; suggested language along the lines of: ""additional
information may be submitted later;"" stated City staff could encourage the complainant to
get the information in sometime before, and not on, the hearing date; the way her would
handle Commissioner Montgomery's point is that he would not be able to evaluate any
evidence submitted on the day of the hearing, which he is concerned the City would not
have the ability to defend; it is a tough call.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated when the City directs complainants to the new
procedure, the revised information might address the issues of providing related
documents and evidence, as well as encourage complainants to present it a certain
number of days before the hearing.
The City Clerk responded the procedure is currently posted on the website; she also
includes: 'contact the City Clerk's office with any questions,"" as she does not want anyone
to feel overwhelmed or discouraged when filing a complaint.
Vice Chair LoPilato inquired whether it is possible to embed the link to the procedures in
the complaint form; suggested adding language to encourage submitting evidence at the
time of filing along with a link to the procedures so it is clear; stated the form needs to be
road tested over time; the Commission may hear from people that the form is too legalistic
or formal; as it is now, the form include an entire section on pre-hearing submissions that
also ties the timing for submissions to the agenda timing.
Chair Tilos stated since complainants will be working with City staff, the language could
be left very basic; he likes Commissioner Cambra's language suggestion: ""additional
evidence could be submitted later.""
Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of the form with the changes suggested by
Vice Chair LoPilato.
In response to Commissioner Cambra's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the suggested
language is: ""you are encouraged to submit evidence supporting your complaint at the
time of filing"" and ""additional information for of submitting evidence. with a link to
the
procedure.
Commissioner Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Chair Tilos:
Aye. Ayes: 5.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
January 11, 2022
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-01-11,9,"Commissioner Chen moved approval of the paper form matching the online form.
Commissioner Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Chair
Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 5.
STAFF UPDATE
The City Clerk made an announcement regarding the Sunshine Ordinance training held
on December 15, 2021.
COMMISSION AGENDA REQUESTS
None.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
7-A. Communication from Commissioner Cambra
Commissioner Cambra stated that he wanted to provide his background information as
the new Commissioner and he is honored to be back on the OGC.
***
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
January 11, 2022
9",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-01-10,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2022
1. CONVENE
President Asheshh Saheba convened the *meeting at 7:00 p.m.
*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning
Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Hanson Hom led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Saheba, Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Hom,
Rothenberg, *Cisneros, and Teague.
Absent: None
*Board Member Cisneros arrived after the start of the meeting.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6-A 2022-1622
est Atlantic Avenue, Site A Block 11 - Design Review Amendment - Applicant: UDR, Inc.
Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Planning Board's Design Review
approval to allow a change in the ground floor windows on a portion of the western
elevation of the proposed building on Block 11 at Alameda Point (APN 74-1378-2) General
Plan: Alameda Point Mixed-Use. Zoning: Alameda Point Town Center Waterfront
Subdistrict. CEQA Determination: The proposed window change would not result in a
change to the environmental impacts of the project. No further environmental review is
necessary. Per the applicant's request, this item was continued to the Planning Board
Meeting of January 24, 2022
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2022-1629
1215 Park Street - Club House Bar Conditional Use Permit Renewal - Six Month Review.
Public hearing to consider renewal of a conditional use permit for use of rear yard patio
and lawn area by bar patrons. General Plan designation: Community Commercial. Zoning
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 7
January 10, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-01-10,2,"designation: C-C, Community Commercial District. CEQA Determination: Exempt per
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities.
Brian McGuire a Planner, introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be
found at
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5371064&GUID=FEDE43DE-
1282-4FA0-8D28-E61DA7B36E79&FullText=1
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg wanted to know more about an incident that had been
noted and what the portion about landscaping in the Resolution entailed.
Staff Member McGuire discussed the landscaping options for the fenced area and why
they were keeping this condition.
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, discussed the noted
complaint.
Board Member Hom asked about the condition to install a privacy wall and wanted to know
the details.
Staff Member McGuire said that condition still stood but the back patio had not been used
much due to the weather. The privacy screen had gone up but it was not 8 ft tall. For now,
staff was leaving that condition since it might be useful going forward.
Vice President Ruiz wanted to know what was the process after this review for the
Conditional Use Permit. She wanted to know what would need to happen to trigger another
review.
Staff Member McGuire explained that this Resolution would remove any further automatic
review and it would be treated like any other Use Permit.
Director Thomas added that this would be something that staff would be monitoring
probably forever. He discussed the importance of how the bar was operated and how staff
would handle situations if they occur.
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros wanted to know if there were any other similar situations
like this one in Alameda.
Director Thomas did not think this was a unique situation since Alameda was a Mixed-Use
Community. He discussed other places where residential areas were close to businesses
with active outdoor spaces.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 7
January 10, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-01-10,3,"Staff Member Tai discussed some of the lessons learned and best practices. One was the
posting of Notices so all of the staff and neighbors were aware of the situation and that it
was being monitored. The Notices also have numbers so neighbors knew exactly who to
call if they have a concern or a complaint.
President Saheba opened public comment.
There were no public speakers.
President Saheba close public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Alan Teague made a motion to approve the renewal of the
Conditional Use Permit as recommended by the staff. Vice President Ruiz seconded
the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
7-B 2022-1630
Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update Zoning
Code Amendments for Shopping Center Sites to Accommodate the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation for the Period 2023-2031 in Compliance with State Law
Director Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5371065&GUID=BCD74EB1-
FFD8-4D6A-90C7-106CB45A7F99&FullText=1.
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Teague asked for clarification on the difference between a site and a
project on the list. He also wanted more detail on rehabbing existing buildings.
Director Thomas explained the difference of statuses on the list of projects. He discussed
the concept behind reusing buildings in residential neighborhoods.
Board Member Rothenberg discussed the height limit concerns and comments brought
up by the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society (AAPS).
Director Thomas explained the height limits and that they could be customized depending
on the area.
Board Member Curtis wanted clarification on Permit Multi-Family Housing by Right. He
also asked about ground floor usage and a developer having parking instead of
commercial use space.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 7
January 10, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-01-10,4,"benefits of the classification of work/live. She also had questions about the Objective
Design Standards.
Director Thomas agreed that work/live would be a permitted use and explained what
it
meant for Alameda. He further explained the Objective Design Standards and what that
meant for the board.
Board Member Hom asked about the process and how the ordinance would be applied.
He also had questions about how the parcels would work and the State Density Law. He
wanted to know with the parcels being developed individually how would they relate to
Master Plan or a Development Plan.
Director Thomas discussed how the city was approaching this process. He discussed the
South Shore Shopping Center and what the owners' long-term goals were. He then
explained in detail how the process would work for the proposed parcels and how State
Density would apply.
Board Member Cisneros wanted to know the current height limit for Harbor Bay and South
Shore. She wanted to know what that meant in stories. She had specific questions about
Neptune Plaza.
Staff Member Tai answered that the current height limits for Harbor Bay and South Shore
were 100 ft.
Director Thomas said that would be about 8 stories. He discussed different heights for
different shopping centers. He shared what the owner of Neptune Plaza had in mind, they
were interested in building housing.
President Saheba discussed high-rise regulations and what other amenities could qualify
as ground floor use. He wanted the staff to continue to think about those options. He also
brought up concerns about new traffic patterns at these shopping locations.
Director Thomas discussed how the staff had been viewing and thinking about housing
and transportation. He also went into detail about the new Parking Ordinance.
President Saheba opened public comment.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 7
January 10, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-01-10,5,"Betsy Mathieson discussed the benefits and possibilities of rezoning shopping centers for
Residential Use. Doing so would put new residents in areas of existing services,
amenities, and high walkability.
Daniel Hoy, a member of WABA, discussed some of the concerns about Neptune Plaza
that WABA had. They had had no conversations with the owners and were very open to
that. He also discussed the density strategy.
Zac Bowling gave his thoughts on height limits and how to make mixed-use spaces more
viable. He also discussed Density Law.
Chris Buckley, a member of AAPS, discussed a letter the society had sent. The society
hoped that this plan would take the pressure off of up zoning residential and historic areas.
Drew Dara Abrams spoke favorably in support of the proposed Mixed-Use Zoning and
higher densities of the shopping centers.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Teague wanted to see other projects change their zoning and plans to
make room for housing and not just limit it to the shopping centers. He was concerned
about shifting an unlimited number of housing from one side to another. He then discussed
bringing up the general density in the residential areas.
Board Member Hom believed the shopping centers were an excellent opportunity for more
housing. He felt that there needed to be more conversation around Neptune Plaza about
increasing density and height. He also agreed that a ""one size fits all"" approach may not
be the best approach so they needed to be flexible. He also wanted to see flexibility for
the usage of the ground floor.
Vice President Ruiz discussed Density Bonus and how developers would still try and get
waivers and exemptions. She also discussed her thoughts around height and materials,
wanted to make sure developers had the tools they needed to get the density they wanted,
she was leaning toward being less restrictive. She was in support of removing Neptune
Plaza from this since the scale was different. She was in support of having one set of
guidelines for the shopping centers.
President Saheba discussed how other cities were also looking into doing these same
things to make room for more housing. He was looking forward to hearing from the
property owners about the densities they wanted to achieve.
Director Thomas discussed the next steps for the Housing Element.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 7
January 10, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-01-10,6,"8. MINUTES
8-A 2022-1625
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 27, 2021
8-B 2022-1626
Draft Meeting Minutes - October 11, 2021
8-C 2022-1627
Draft Meeting Minutes - October 25, 2021
Board Member Rothenberg clarified a comment she made at the October 11th meeting.
President Saheba opened public comment for the minutes.
There were no comments.
President Saheba closed public comment for minutes.
Vice President Ruiz made a motion to approve the September 27th, 2021 meeting
minutes as submitted. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. A roll call
vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 with Board Member Teague abstaining
due to his absence at the meeting.
Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the October 11th, 2021 meeting
minutes with the adjustment. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call
vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0 with Vice President Ruiz and Board
Member Cisneros abstaining due to their absence at the meeting.
Board Member Curtis made a motion to approve the October 25th, 2021 meeting
minutes as submitted. Vice President Ruiz seconded the motion. A roll call vote was
taken and the motion passed 6-0 with President Saheba abstaining due to his
absence at the meeting.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2022-1623
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent actions and decisions can be found at
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5371059&GUID=3E631403-
1664-4587-8445-32AA41007D81&FullText=1.
Staff Member Tai clarified the status of each of the items.
No board members wanted to pull any item for review.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 7
January 10, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-01-10,7,"9-B 2022-1624
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai said Director Thomas had already discussed the upcoming plans.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Curtis praised the staff for how accurate and succinct the minutes had
been.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 7
January 10, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-01-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JANUARY 4, 2022- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor
Vella arrived at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was conducted via
Zoom]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(22-006) The City Clerk announced that the SEEDS Collaborative agreement [paragraph no.
22-014 was withdrawn from the agenda and the Encinal Terminals hearing [paragraph no. 22-
025 was continued to the January 18, 2022 regular meeting.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the recreational vehicles referral [paragraph
no.
22-028 after the Continued Agenda Items.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that his motion is an effort to lessen the
number of Council referrals.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated if the Council is able to move expeditiously through the agenda,
there is a significant chance of getting to all Council referrals; noted the agenda has been
whittled down.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2.
Noes: 2. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1].
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-007) Bill Ng, Alameda, discussed rent increases in Alameda; questioned the progress being
made and next steps for rent increases in Alameda.
(22-008) Brian Kennedy, Alameda, expressed support for Alameda having a National Day of
Remembrance for victims of illegal alien violence.
(22-009) Margaret Hall, Alameda, discussed the Alameda School Board's decision to return to a
rotation system for officer selection.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,2,"The City Clerk announced anyone wishing to comment on the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) block grant hearing [paragraph no. 22-012) could comment now.
Expressed support for the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) work on the needs
statement for the CDBG annual plan; discussed statistics related to Alameda's increases in
services and reports from 2020 to 2021 Erin Scott, Family Violence Law Center.
Expressed support for the amendments related to Police updates; expressed concern about the
continued use of Lexipol; urged Council to develop and define a City policy manual; stated
access to City meetings is important and he would like to see permanent remote public
participation: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Discussed the CDBG annual review process and priority needs; stated the impacts of COVID-
19 continue to impact and challenge many residents; outlined priority areas; urged Council to
approve the needs statement: Sarah Lewis, SSHRB.
Outlined 2-1-1 calls and homelessness calls handled by Eden I&R: Alison DeJung, Eden I&R.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that the Mosquito Abatement Board resolution [paragraph no.
22-019
was removed from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the EveryOne Counts item [paragraph no. 22-013)
and teleconferencing findings items [paragraph no. 22-017 be removed from the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of remainder of the Consent Calendar.
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. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22-010) Minutes of the Continued November 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Held on
November 30, 2021 and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on December 7,
2021. Approved.
(*22-011) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,339,938.15.
(*22-012) Public Hearing to Consider Approving the Housing and Community Development
Needs Statement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Plan for Fiscal
Year 2022-23. Accepted.
(22-013) Recommendation for City Council to Accept a Report Regarding the EveryOne Counts!
2022 Upcoming Point-In-Time Count of the Homeless Population in the City of Alameda.
The Community Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Katie Haverly, EveryOne Home, gave a Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,3,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the program is taking place Statewide.
Ms. Haverly responded in the affirmative; stated the program is required of every continuum of
care to fulfil the county order and receive funding.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the contact information for those who wish to
volunteer for the program.
Ms. Haverly responded two types of volunteers are needed for the count: community volunteers
can email, and outreach volunteers can email the Community Services Manager at
vcole@alamedaca.gov
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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.
(22-014) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with SEED
Collaborative, Inc., to Assist the City with the Development of a Citywide Diversity, Equity,
Inclusion and Belonging Plan for an Amount not to exceed $275,000 Including a 10%
Contingency. Not heard.
(*22-015) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update Section 1030 of the
Existing Alameda Police Department Policy Manual Entitled ""Commendations and Awards"" to
Conform to Operational Changes. Accepted.
(*22-016) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update Section 444 - Watch
Commanders and Section 814 - Computers and Digital Evidence within the Existing Alameda
Police Department Policy Manual to Conform with Best Practices and Operational Changes.
Accepted.
(22-017) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via
Teleconference.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer, the City Clerk stated the matter relates to a
State Assembly Bill with certain exemptions to the Brown Act which allows Councilmembers and
members of Boards and Commissions to continue participating in meetings remotely without
disclosing their location on the agenda or allowing members of the public to participate from the
location; the findings must be made every 30 days in order to continue the practice; the matter
is before Council for another extension.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not support the matter due to members of
the public regularly stating that they are unable to participate in meetings; noted regulars
attendees do not attend virtually; expressed support for a hybrid meeting model for people who
do not have access.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the amount of meeting participants, to which the City Clerk
responded 81 attendees are present via Zoom.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,18,"City Attorney stated staff will need to work with the Planning Department to figure out the
dispersion standards, which could not be finalized at the current meeting; the dispersion
standards will have to be brought back to Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated input from the Planning Board and public might be considered;
expressed concern about things happening on the fly; stated Council needs to measure twice
and cut once; he understands concerns about the risk of State Law; however, it is best to craft
the law as best as possible with public input.
Councilmember Knox White inquired how bad it would be for Council not to pass anything
tonight.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he does not anticipate a
flood of applications; stated over the last few years R1 property owners have built a second unit
for college aged kids who cannot afford housing in Alameda or an in-law unit; not many property
owners are maximizing what is currently allowed; an average of 20 units are built out of 9,000
properties in the R1 district; staff does not see a huge risk in the approach proposed by
Councilmember Daysog.
Councilmember Knox White stated the sky is not going to fall if Council adopts the ten unit
maximum; the City does not have lots large enough; the lots that are large enough will not have
ten units; he is comfortable with the idea of taking time and providing direction to bring back an
ordinance as a part of the Housing Element; expressed support for Council giving direction
about what is desired; prior to SB 9, five units were allowed on a lot; if an applicant chooses not
to split their lot, five housing units are still allowed; questioned the point of having anything
return to Council with less than five units; expressed support for discussing goals and for
smaller units; stated housing affordability is important; he will not vote on a fake use of
affordable housing requirements to limit units; he is interested in increasing the ability for people
to own homes in Alameda and for split lots; housing ownership is important; Council should
think about how to limit the number of units and incentivize lot splits; he does not think limiting
the number of units does anything; expressed support for a limit of five to seven units in the R1
district.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for providing staff direction on Council goals; stated
that she appreciates the work put into the matter and the consideration of the housing crisis; the
matter is one tool in the City's toolkit which can be further refined; she is unsure whether or not
the matter should go back to the Planning Board; the proposed ordinance is not ready for first
reading.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter does not need to go back to the Planning
Board; it is important that the matter stays at the Council level; staff can take direction from
Council and return; the matter should not drag on indefinitely and deserves to be its own
agenda item, rather than as part of the Housing Element; expressed support for pursuing the
recommendation related to dispersion and for the middle having opportunities to buy property;
1,600 square feet does not create the possibility of affordable units; expressed concern about
1,200 square feet; stated that her preference is 800 square feet; 1,200 square foot units are
over $1 million to purchase; questioned whether the City has an ordinance which allows 1,200
square foot units for ADUs.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
18",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,19,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer further inquired whether the square footage would remain
unless changed by Council, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director
responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry related to additional units, the
Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the City it could be part of the same
ordinance; if Council desires to limit all ADUs on SB 9 projects to 800 square feet, the ordinance
should be clear; he believes State law allows the City to implement the limit.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the 800 square foot limit on ADUs;
stated the size provides more opportunity for affordable housing; the City should try to end up
with as many 800 square foot units as possible; she is interested in revisiting the waiver of fees
for any ADU; expressed support for the waiver being limited to units which are deed restricted to
affordable housing; she is unsure why the City is waiving fees for building 1,200 to 1,600 square
foot units; inquired whether rent control would not apply to any of the proposed units.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the best opportunity for ending up with affordable units
is to limit the size; it is important for the matter to return to Council.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the discussion is best to be had along with the Housing Element; based
on questions posed and misinformation circulated, it should be part of the broader Housing
Element discussion; there is unlikelihood of people maximizing the units; she does not see
developers coming in and maximizing the units; affordability and other requirements will make
housing infeasible; expressed support for striking a balance in order to get units and meet the
intent of SB 9 and for having an Alameda ordinance; stated a cap is not necessarily needed;
she appreciates the Planning Board recommendation; she would like to see something that will
allow for flexibility in terms of square footage; a number of factors go into the price of a home,
not just the square footage of the unit; her preference is not to cap the square footage; there
could be a reason to have a 1,200 square foot ADU; she is leaning towards allowing as much
flexibility as possible; the City is in the middle of a housing crisis and housing has been deemed
a Council priority; Council needs to prioritize building housing.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he believes Council needs to move quickly, yet carefully; he
does not think Council should wait until the Housing Element is complete; expressed support for
an 800 square foot maximum, two to four units, and dispersion of units; stated the history of
Alameda includes people taking advantage of the opportunity to build more and is why Measure
A was created; it is incumbent upon Council to respect the history for those who are Article 26
stalwarts,; soon enough, people will exploit the opportunity by building as many housing units as
possible; Council needs to carefully craft the ordinance and should not wait; expressed support
for Council working with City staff and allowing for public input.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want to fold the matter in with the Housing
Element process due to the need to address the housing shortage sooner rather than later;
Council has provided many good suggestions for staff to return with an revised ordinance;
expressed support for a cap on unit size, which provides a better chance at affordable by design
units and more housing opportunities; stated a dispersion requirement makes sense; design can
maximize small square footage; she would vote for a unit size limit; expressed support for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
19",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,20,"scheduling a check-in at six months after the ordinance goes into effect so staff can report how
the ordinance is unfolding and how many applications have been received; stated Council can
make changes when needed; she favors a phased approach; Council can keep an eye on the
Housing Element and meeting RHNA goals; discussed moderate affordable units being 80% to
120% of the area median income; stated some people miss the cutoff and struggle with
housing; this provides more opportunities.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to know how soon the matter can
return to Council with the incorporated direction.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he is hearing strong general
consensus for limiting unit sizes somewhere between 800 and 1,200 square feet in size; stated
the dispersion idea is great for shutting down loopholes and guaranteeing a maximum of five
units; staff will have to work through the question of whether Council will want to use the lot split
as an incentive to gain homeownership; a lot split can increase the number of units to six or
seven and should be considered; staff can return with a solid plan by the second meeting in
February; currently, there is not a single application; if an application comes in before the matter
returns, the information will be helpful; expressed support for returning to Council six months
after an ordinance is passed for a report back on how the process is working.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there are any legal issues with posting draft ideas to
the City's website for public comment.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated staff can
place the information on the City website before the meeting materials are published; the
process can stretch out a couple months depending on how much public input is desired;
suggested setting a deadline.
Councilmember Know White stated the Planning Board is the process of getting public input on
planning projects; the matter should be sent to the Planning Board if Council wants public input;
expressed concern about a false Planning Board process to collect input using staff time; stated
Council will either need to provide staff with six months or have the matter return in February.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Knox White; stated Council is making
substantive changes to the ordinance which does not qualify as a first reading; Council is
providing direction to staff and proposing matters which arose via public comment and
correspondence; the public has had a good change to weigh in; staff can work through Council
direction.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter would be returning to Council
February 15th
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; inquired
whether the matter is being continued to February 15th or whether the matter will be re-noticed.
The City Clerk responded the matter must be re-noticed.
(22-025) Public Hearing to Consider the following Ordinances to Govern the Future
Development of the Encinal Terminals Property:
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
20",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,21,"Councilmember Knox White moved approval of rejecting the referral; stated Council provided
direction in March prior to the referral being placed on the agenda; there has been a hearing
and direction has been provided to staff.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he believes the matter is being brought
forth with the intention of representing constituents; the issues being raised are valid;
Councilmembers would like to know when key items will be resolved; expressed support for the
referral.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was not on Council in March when the matter
came forth; she has been consistent in wanting to hear from the Police Chief.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he supported Councilmember Herrera Spencer's motion
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
21",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,22,"in March of 2021 to place the matter on the agenda; on the first meeting in June, Council
received a staff report; the matter is returning in March of 2022; expressed concern over re-
agendizing matters.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her issue continues to be the same; she would like
the matter to come back to Council as soon as possible; inquired the date the matter will come
before Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer is not asking for much;
Councilmember Herrera Spencer is asking for a formal update to allow a commitment to a
timeline; expressed support for extending courtesy.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council addressed the ALPR matter at a recent meeting; Council
requested additional information and clarification; staff is working on the matter and will return to
Council; the referral reads to provide an update on ALPRs; an update has been received; the
referral has been answered; some issues can be resolved by meeting with the City Manager;
questioned the goal of the referral.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a response to when the matter will return to Council
has not been provided; the matter has remained open-ended, which is the reason the referral
has remained on the agenda.
Councilmember Knox White stated in December, Council provided direction to staff to have the
matter return as fast as possible.
The City Manager stated the intent is to return the first meeting in February; staff is working to
meet Council requirements; certain requirements may cause the matter to push to the second
meeting in February; however, the goal is to have staff bring for the matter at the first meeting in
February.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether further Council direction is needed for the ALPR matter to
return to Council, to which the City Manager responded in the negative.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Abstain. Ayes: 2. Noes: 2. Abstention: 1.
(22-028) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational
Vehicles (RV). (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council should have staff flesh out the matter and return with
analysis and policy issues for Council discussion.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the referral.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter is valid item to consider; however,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
22",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,23,"consideration should not be through the referral process; Council is close to scheduling a
Council priority setting workshop; priority setting workshops provide Council the ability to
prioritize matters; expressed concern about addressing matters piecemeal; stated staff is
working on many projects; inquired whether a date for the workshop has been set.
The City Manager responded the date will either be February 1st, 4th, or 5th; everyone has
responded to the poll.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Council referral is an example of a Councilmember
responding to an issue raised by a constituent; the issue was raised in May; planning meetings
are not meant to stifle how Councilmembers respond to constituents; Councilmembers must do
their best; Councilmembers not in support of the referral can vote accordingly.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Daysog about responding to constituents;
stated there are other ways to get information and provide a response.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has communicated with staff multiple times on
the matter; there is inconsistency in how the policy is applied; there is a question whether
people can park RV in front of houses; some people receive a ticket and others do not; the
referral process is about responding to the public; expressed concern about using the priority
setting meeting as a way to never use the Council referral process and for squashing
Councilmembers' ability to raise issues; stated there is no way for Council to know all matters of
concern that might arise in future; expressed support for priority setting on high level goals;
however, some matters have nuance and require the Council referral process.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the priority setting workshop has categories of topics and does not
require anticipating all future matters.
In response to Councilmember Knox White's request to clarify the motion, Councilmember
Daysog stated the motion is to approve directing staff to publically share information on RV
parking to clarify the policy for Council and the public.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether Council is voting to have information return, to
which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; stated Council needs staff to return
for Council policy discussion.
Councilmember Knox White stated a policy exists.
Councilmember Daysog stated the policy does not exist; the point of the referral is that there are
conflicts in how departments respond to RV parking; the matter will be taken to staff to resolve
conflicts and return to Council with a policy discussion.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Councilmembers have the ability to ask staff questions on policy
discrepancies and respond to constituents; all Councilmembers have done constituent case
work; the referral seems to extrapolate an anecdotal issue into a wholesale policy change; it
seems as though an inquiry was made; Councilmembers owe constituents representation as
well as performing the job of an elected official; expressed concern about Councilmembers
escalating referrals which may or may not be able to be answered by an email and spending
limited time at Council meetings discussing a matter with a simpler solution; stated that she is
unsure whether there is an issue with the policy; policies are typically written to allow a level of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
23",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,24,"discretion for situations to be addressed accordingly; she will not support having staff return.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a desired time frame for the matter to return to
Council.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she has asked staff to figure out the matter;
noted some RVs are ticketed and some are not; expressed support for staff verifying the policy
for the public when convenient; stated that she would like the matter to be enforced consistently
through the City.
On the call for the question, the motion 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.
(22-029) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate
Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Knox White stated all Councilmembers received an email for the matter; he
followed up with staff; the person is not an HOA member; the loophole used has been closed
and the matter has been addressed; the issue of concern was not related to the HOA; the
person was connected with proper City staff; the requestor originally thought the HOA maintains
the green space; he will not support the referral.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter should be looked at in the long-term to
ensure people who buy affordable units are included in the HOA.
Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is in-progress.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the information satisfies Councilmember Herrera
Spencer.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the negative; stated the matter should be
included in City policies.
Councilmember Daysog stated the broader policy is spot-on; if there are projects where the City
is implicated with a subsequent HOA, a City policy should require the HOA voting process
include all residents.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the referral.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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.
(22-030) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting
Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember
Daysog). Not heard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
24",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,25,"(22-031) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to
Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023-
2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog). Not heard.
(22-032) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers
Herrera Spencer and Daysog). Not heard.
(22-033) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular
City Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.
(22-034) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.
(22-035) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.
(22-036) Consider Directing Staff to Immediately Agendize an Urgency Hearing on Senate Bill
(SB) 9. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
25",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,26,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JANUARY 4, 2022- 5:45 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:47 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Councilmember Herrera
Spencer arrived at 5:59 p.m. and Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 6:04
p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
Consent Calendar
(22-001) Recommendation to approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community
Development Director, Elizabeth Mackenzie, Chief Assistant City Attorney, and Nanette
Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director, as Real Property Negotiators for Building
163, Located at 1800 Orion Street, Suite 100 and Building 414, Located at 1820 Orion Street,
Alameda, CA. Not heard.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-002) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code 54956.8);
Property: Alameda Point, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa
Maxwell, Community Development Director, Elizabeth Mackenzie, Chief Assistant City Attorney,
and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director; Negotiating Parties: City of
Alameda and Sustainable Technologies, 1800 Orion Street, Suite 101 (Building 163) and 1820
Orion Street Alameda Point (Building 414). Not heard.
(22-003) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, and Nancy
Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organization: Alameda Police Officers
Association (APOA), Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire
Managers Association (AFMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of
Employment.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that
staff provided information and Council provided direction, by the following two 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; Vote 2: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera
Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,27,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 4, 2022--6:59 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Councilmember/Commissioner
Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Knox White,
Spencer and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: The
meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella - 1.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Clerk announced anyone wishing to comment on the Public Hearing [paragraph no.
*22-005 CC/22-02 SACIC] could comment at this time. There were no speakers.
Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll
call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; and
Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella - 1.] [Items
so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22-004 CC/22-01 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC Meetings Held
on November 16, 2021 and December 7, 2021. Approved.
(*22-005 CC/22-02 SACIC) Public Hearing to Consider City of Alameda Resolution No.
15855/SACIC Resolution No. 22-14 ""Approving the Development List of Affordable Housing
Projects and Funding Request for Such Projects as Requested by the Alameda Unified School
District."" Adopted; and
(*22-005A CC/22-02A SACIC) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Submit the
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) and Administrative Budget for the Period
from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 to the Countywide Oversight Board. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
1
January 4, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,4,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the meeting is also being broadcast on Facebook Live.
The City Clerk stated the meeting is also broadcast on two local channels and the live stream is
available on the City's website.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many chairs are in the Chambers gallery, to
which the City Clerk responded around 120 chairs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated in-person meetings would typically have overflow; she
believes people are being excluded; many people previously heard from are not participating.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is currently an Omicron variant surge of COVID-19; she also
misses in-person meetings; however, in-person meetings would be inviting people to be
exposed to an extremely contagious variant; people in the community have died from COVID-
19.
Vice Mayor Vella stated a couple of occasions required overflow rooms; however, the need was
not normal; remote meetings have had over 100 people call-in and attend via Zoom; people are
watching via live stream and can call-in; it would not be the best in health and safety to have
members of the public fill all the seats in the Chambers; social distancing would be needed as
well as a number of other precautions, which would create barriers; expressed support for
finding as many ways for meetings to be inclusive; stated finding ways of integrating technology
is important; there have been increases in COVID-19 cases; now is not the time for in-person
meetings; the City should take as many precautions as possible; expressed concern about staff,
Council and members of the public being exposed.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like the matter addressed at a Council
workshop.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of findings.
Councilmember Daysog started the points made are valid; the City can begin planning for hybrid
meetings; there is a blip of the Omicron surge; he will support the findings; however, the City
should move look at hybrid models.
By consensus, 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.
(*22-018) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Two-Year Agreement
with NBS for Audit Implementation Services for Alameda's Landscape and Lighting District and
Special Financing Districts, in an Amount Not to Exceed $101,750. Accepted.
(22-019) Resolution No. 15856, ""Appointing Tyler Savage as Trustee to the Alameda County
Mosquito Abatement District Board."" Adopted.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has the privilege of nominating to the regional Board; Mr.
Savage will be one of 15 members within Alameda County.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,5,"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.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office.
Mr. Savage made brief comments.
(*22-020) Resolution No. 15857, ""Ordering Vacation of a Portion of an Existing Public Utility
Easement within Parcel Map 8474, 2450 Marina Square Loop, and Recordation of a Quitclaim
Deed."" Adopted.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
(22-021) Recommendation to Accept an Update and Approve a Work Plan Addressing Efforts to
Reimagine Police Services and Racial Equity.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Knox White have been appointed to
review the matter; expressed support for working collaboratively.
Stated that she supports pursuing American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars to explore
Universal Basic Income (UBI); there is vagueness around community oversight; tools without
human or citizen involvement are inadequate related to body camera footage review; urged
Council to take a more active approach in reviewing policies and go beyond staff
recommendations; expressed concern about gaps in the Police policy manual and the term
excited delirium: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Stated the matter has been around for two years; expressed concern about the amount of time
taken on the matter; expressed support for a short-term Citizen Oversight Board: Melodye
Montgomery, Alameda.
Stated that she does not have confidence in the use of Truleo; the resource is unproven;
expressed support for taking steps towards UBI; stated there should be a continued increase in
Police accountability; she supports oversight: Laura Cutrona, Alameda.
Stated the Citizen Oversight Committee must go forward; expressed concern over the use of
Truleo; stated human contact is needed on Police matters: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the theory in including UBI with the matter.
The Assistant City Manager responded UBI has been included based on Council discussions of
the Steering Committee recommendations; noted the Steering Committee brought UBI forth as
a mechanism to help support members of the community that may not have the resources
needed; stated another recommendation brought forth relates to decriminalizing acts based on
survival; UBI is also based on a societal value in the context of social and economic equity; UBI
is a tool to level the playing field.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,6,"Councilmember Knox White stated UBI ties into policing based on the Committees also focusing
on community safety and security; the number one way to decrease violence in the community
is through addressing income inequality and issues; the UBI pilot is put forth as a way for
Council to address crime and issues from the community.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated presentations related to UBI show it does not take a lot of money to
help lift people out of housing and food insecurity; UBI allows people to find better jobs and
afford child care; UBI models have been used throughout the United States as well as Canada;
the opportunity is exciting; noted cities will need to apply for the State program and will have to
provide matching funds; ARPA funds can be used as matching funds; expressed support for the
subject being included at the priority setting workshop.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry about the business community's effort to
address equity and race, the Assistant City Manager stated the matter came up in the
community-led efforts; the intent is for the City to partner with the business community to create
greater awareness.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Chamber of Commerce, business districts or City
Manager's Committees provided the recommendation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the Chamber of Commerce Executive Director was a member
of one of the subcommittees; discussed members of the community being followed in stores
while shopping; noted the matter is one way to help open a dialogue.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for meetings with the business districts
being open to the public; expressed concern about the subcommittees being represented as
community-led without meeting Brown Act requirements; stated that she is comfortable with UBI
coming back to Council for consideration; both individuals and businesses have been suffering
through COVID-19 and prior; it is appropriate to look at ARPA funding to find matching funds; a
Citizen's Oversight Committee would have to be placed on the ballot and voted on by the public;
stated that her preference is to always have meetings be open to the public; she was
disappointed that meetings were not publically noticed; a lot of work has been done to address
the concerns raised by the subcommittees and community.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the Steering Committee and subcommittees.
The City Manager stated that he appointed four Alameda residents as Board Members to the
Steering Committee in August 2020; communications were sent out about subcommittees; the
Steering Committee reviewed and recommended individuals to subcommittees; he officially
appointed the recommended individuals; individuals were allowed to select which subcommittee
they desired; staff attempted to represent people of color and different view-points on each
subcommittee; Council unanimously approved many of the recommendations put forth by the
Steering Committee.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Jolene Wright, Christine Chilcot, Al Mance, and Cheryl Taylor
compiled the Steering Committee; inquired how many applications were received for serving on
subcommittees, to which the City Manager responded over 100.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
6",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,7,"The Assistant City Manager stated over 70 people were on the 5 subcommittees.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes the City had over 200 applicants; noted the
response was robust.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he would hope the motion could be
amended prior to approval; expressed support for the work completed prior to the presentation;
stated matters marked as complete are not finished; expressed support for shifting traffic
enforcement; traffic enforcement was not part of the original Council direction; discussed the
number of prior citations; stated catalytic converter theft includes staff returning with a program
to fund catalytic converter cages and stop thefts before they occur; the matter came before
Council again during the budget discussion; stated the topic should not be complete until
Council discusses the program; the Citizen's Oversight Committee is important; Council should
provide more direction on the matter for a work plan to be completed within the year; Council
approved budget appropriation for an independent Police Auditor; Council did not discuss
position details; expressed support for Council providing direction to staff to come back with a
proposal for the independent oversight; many cities have not figured out how to execute the
program well; staff can come back with proposals; if a matter need to be placed on the ballot,
the deadline is July; he could support Council placing the matter on the ballot; he would like a
better understanding of the use of Truleo and research on how the Artificial Intelligence (AI) and
algorithm works; expressed support for understanding how Truleo's discrimination and equity Al
works in practice since many existing programs having significant built-in biases; stated Truleo
is a vocal source system and does not look at video; the system provides speech analysis while
identifying key words and could be a great training tool; he does not think the system meets
what the Council has been asking for related to oversight and non-Police review of body camera
footage; the matter is marked as complete due to being in the budget; however, implementation
is not yet complete.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like an update on the concerns related to catalytic
converter theft cages; requested clarification about the use of Truleo.
The Police Chief stated staff has started an educational campaign about catalytic converter
thefts; the campaign focuses on things that can minimize thefts; part of the education includes
devices that can prevent theft, such as cages.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff is seeing the same high level of catalytic converter
thefts in Alameda.
The Police Chief responded catalytic converter theft is not just in Alameda; the trend is National;
catalytic converter theft is up 800% across the country.
The Police Captain stated the thefts are still a concern; staff is working collaboratively with other
agencies; there has been significant progress with other agencies in dismantling criminal rings;
information sharing has been robust and has provided many leads to help solve cases;
headway is being made.
The Police Chief stated Truleo started as Greenkey and is primarily used in customer service for
major banks; the system analyzes and assesses speech and is able to decipher intent and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,8,"identify specific language; the system produces a daily report and identifies at-risk encounters
with staff; the system can identify whether staff are engaging or exposed to at-risk behaviors;
the system is able to decipher commands associated with force and tone and is able to identify
at-risk patterns of behavior; real-time identification of Officers' body worn camera footage is
possible within 24 hours; encounters can be flagged for review as opportunities for re-training,
holding people accountable and acknowledging unacceptable behavior and negative
encounters; negative encounters are approached from a wellness perspective; discussed
employee wellness; stated the Department is leveraging technology to accomplish both aspects;
Truleo technology provides a real-time opportunity to address acceptable behaviors and praise
behavior that goes above and beyond; policies and procedures can be adjusted to provide top-
level services; expressed concern about missing little things, which can avalanche in bad
behavior; unchecked, bad behavior can amount to larger issues; the technology is not a solve-
all; however, it helps people make decisions in the correct direction; the technology is efficient;
outlined review of body worn camera footage; stated the Department is not solely relying on the
technology; the technology is to help point people in the right direction to ensure appropriate
action is taken, at-risk patterns of behavior are curbed, wellness concerns are addressed and
good behavior is applauded.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands Alameda would be the first city in
the State to use the technology; inquired whether other cities are also implementing the
technology.
The Police Chief responded Alameda would be the first City in the State to use the technology;
stated several cities and local agencies in the Bay Area are subscribing as well; the City of
Seattle is conducting reform and Truleo is being used to point people in the right direction.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the use of the technology; stated trying
is worthwhile; the use of technology will complement the Department's efforts; she understands
there has been a reduction in citations issued; inquired what has attributed to the reduction.
The Police Chief responded the City had a full traffic unit; stated currently, one Officer is
assigned to the traffic unit; the Department has a staffing issue; his focus is currently on
providing basic first line service in the Patrol Division; he needs to ensure the Patrol Division is
adequately staffed so that Officers can respond in a timely manner while still considering Officer
safety; he needs to have enough Officers on the street to serve the community at the expected
levels; traffic enforcement does not only include the number of traffic citations; each month will
focus on a specific Vehicle Code violation; January focus on impaired driving; February will
focus on unsafe changes of course; the Department will provide information through all
channels of social media to advise of monthly focuses and provide fun facts and statistics as
regular reminders of related dangers; the Department will use directed patrol teams; many
changes will occur in 2022, including dividing the City into 12 small beats; each beat will have
Traffic, Outreach and Crime (TOC) trend points; each beat will be looked at to find out priorities
associated with TOC trend spikes.
The Police Captain stated there has been a reduction in citations; COVID-19 has curbed
enforcement; Officers are currently more intelligent and deliberate with enforcement; the
Department is more focused on primary collision factors; there is reduced staff in the Traffic
Unit; staff is visiting schools more to educate students on proper bike safety; the Department
has many new items for 2022; he anticipates the numbers will increase as the number of
Officers swells through deliberate growth of the organization.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
8",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,9,"Councilmember Daysog stated there are 25 items on the work plan; three categories are very
important: reforming Police, revamping traffic safety and increasing sworn Officers; some items
relating to reforming Police are complete related to the mental health component; Council has
done incredible work in reforming Police; Council should be proud of the substantial reform;
discussed revamping traffic safety; stated not everything can come from engineering;
enforcement is also vital; the Vision Zero plan goes a long way in providing a more robust traffic
safety plan; part of traffic safety is sworn Officers, which is in progress; the City's target is 88
sworn Officers; one Officer is dedicated to traffic safety; prior years, upwards of 6 sworn Officers
were dedicated to traffic safety; there is a lot for Council to claim victory on; he is not convinced
that some of the listed items are appropriate to include, such as UBI and the business
community issue; businesses not working well with certain segments of the community is an
SSHRB matter; he believes the City already has an Oversight Board in the City Council; Council
has responded in an incredible, rapid manner; expressed concern about having a Citizen's
Oversight Board; stated that he is unsure the Board will be helpful; Council is the rightful
Oversight Board; the remaining 16 items begin to get in the weeds and do not rise to the level of
Police reform; Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) are controversial; however, should not
be a Police reform matter; ALPRs are supplemental; he can support the motion; Council has
done a lot of the heavy lifting related to reforming Police.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed information about mental health programs, including response
call length; inquired how the program is going for Alameda.
The Fire Chief responded the program launched December 16th; stated the Community
Assessment Response and Engagement (CARE) team has responded to 32 calls for service;
10 of the calls for service utilized the on-call Alameda Family Services (AFS) licensed clinician;
16 calls have been referred for case management follow-up with AFS; of the 16 calls, 7 people
are receiving services; the remaining clients have either not responded, declined services or are
still in-process for intake; training is a part of the program; the first training has occurred;
Paramedics and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) have developed safety plans for clients
during interaction; staff has reviewed possible options and other navigation for clients; one of
the biggest successes for the program has been the ability to find appropriate resources;
outlined a thank you note from one of the first calls for service; stated the program is working;
there have been 5 calls that staff was unable to respond to; staff looks forward to continuing to
collect data in order to provide a comprehensive report on the pilot program in the future.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she knows one of the calls was four hours in duration; the
program collaboration is multi-level; expressed support for a portion of Alameda Hospital being
used for a program similar to the White Bird Clinic that supports Crisis Assistance Helping Out-
On-The Streets (CAHOOTS); the matter should be included in the Council priority setting
workshop.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council has done a significant amount of work and has made significant
progress; work still needs to be done; some of the items might be complete in terms of budget
allocation, but are not fully complete and still need follow up or follow through; updates would be
helpful; she understands concerns around the use of Al; Al is not a replacement for actual
review; having a timeline about the Oversight Board item would be helpful when the item returns
to Council; if the item is placed on the ballot, Council can work backward from the deadline;
Council is looking for near and long-term solutions relative to oversight; reviewing hours of
footage is a lot of work and would constitute a few full-time positions; she would like to better
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
9",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,10,"understand long-term solutions and options; expressed support for proposed interim measures;
stated that she hears support for others looking at the matter and an option for civilian review;
she looks forward to seeing the options; expressed support for including UBI; stated that she is
troubled to hear questioning about UBI; effectively reimagining Police includes reimagining
support services to help uplift people and even the playing field; UBI is provided to help uplift
and even the playing field.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Knox White has made some additional requests;
inquired how to incorporate the items in the motion.
Councilmember Knox White made a friendly amendment to the motion to include Council
providing direction to staff to come back with a plan and options for oversight; stated the idea is
to have time to move the matter forward by July or to have an independent staff person in the
City Manager or City Attorney's office; he would also like to change catalytic converter from
complete to return with a plan.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the friendly amendments; stated that she would like
to add having staff come back to Council with a timeline for the oversight.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the amended motion.
Under further discussion, Councilmember Daysog requested clarification about oversight.
Councilmember Knox White stated staff will return with a proposal for oversight on a timeline
which would allow for something to go on the ballot if Council so desires.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the language is broad in order to provide Council with
options, which include going to the ballot; expressed support for the including a breadth of
options.
Councilmember Knox White stated the language includes options.
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 9:06 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
***
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-022) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal
Code Chapter XXX to Implement Senate Bill 9 Regarding Two-Unit Housing Developments and
Urban Lot Splits in Single-Family Residential Zones, as Recommended by the Planning Board;
and
(22-022A) Adoption of Urgency Ordinance_Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXX to
Implement Senate Bill 9 Regarding Two-Unit Housing Developments and Urban Lot Splits in
Single-Family Residential Zones. Not heard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
10",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,11,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a PowerPoint presentation.
(22-023) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of allowing an additional 5 minutes
for the presentation.
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.
***
Councilmember Knox White inquired how many properties could accommodate 10 units under
the rules.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he does not have an actual
number; stated staff believes the amount to be very little; the City has allowed second units;
about 9,500 homes have second units; 2021 has been the biggest year for second units in
Alameda; only 21 property owners from the R1 district requested a second unit; staff does not
believe there is huge demand for R1 property owners to max out and build 10 units; the
standard approach or request will be for one additional unit; no one has submitted an
application and staff has not received calls regarding Senate Bill (SB) 9 units; 10 additional units
per year is the maximum.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry related to findings, the City Attorney
stated one neighboring jurisdiction had health and safety findings due to fire safety near
hillsides; staff prepared findings that are included in the emergency ordinance in the best way
possible; the SB 9 regulations would lead to a faster and more prompt creation of units, which is
critical to resolving the State's housing crisis.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the basis for the other cities' findings were related to fire
safety; to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the jurisdiction found that
there needed to be regulations imposed to ensure hillside and fire safety risk mitigation.
Councilmember Daysog stated several cities have adopted SB 9 using the framework of a
maximum of four units; he does not see why the Alameda cannot use the same maximum.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated every city has been hustling to
develop regulations and have been learning from each other; most cities assumed four units
were possible; the City can write a provision for applicants to request a lot split and have the
units limited to four; if an R1 property owner is allowed a duplex, staff cannot limit Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADU); ADUs can only be limited if an applicant comes in with a lot split first; SB
9 can prevent applicants from building more than four units; staff is struggling with instances
where the limitation is not allowed under SB 9; discussed examples of applicants being able to
build five units under the current ADU ordinance; stated SB 9 regulations allows two units plus
ADUs; SB 9 limits units with a lot split; if applicants come in and apply for units without an initial
lot split, they can return in one year after building units to request a lot split to build more units
on the new, vacant lot; staff does not have all the answers and no city does; staff will need to
make decisions over-the-counter once the first application comes in and there will be no public
hearings with Council and Planning Board; the most effective way to structure the current matter
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
11",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,12,"is to let staff know whether to be as restrictive as possible with unit size and number of units or
push the ordinance as far as legally possible; the Planning Board recommendation allows ADUs
in
addition to the SB 9 units; staff can structure the ordinance based on Council direction; the
regulation is new; staff is unsure how many applications will be received; staff can provide an
update in six months based on applications; Council can make adjustments in the future.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Housing Element is being worked on in the coming year; the
City has Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers to fulfil; inquired whether the
potential lot splits are the only way staff can address the RHNA requirements.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded depending on how strict or
lenient the ordinance is, staff will project how many units will be produced within the R1 district
over the next 8 years; staff needs to provide the projection for the Housing Element; an
advantage of the ordinance being lenient is better ease in advocating that the R1 district will
generate additional units over the next 8 years; staff wants to make a case that the City will add
as many units as possible; however, if Council does not want to have additional units in the R1
district, a more restrictive ordinance is needed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City will get additional units in the R1 district based on SB 9;
inquired whether there are other tools for staff to meet the City's RHNA obligation.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff will
be looking at up-zoning shopping center and Park and Webster Street districts; staff has held
Planning Board and City Council hearing about the need of up-zoning residential districts; the
current matter is part of the residential up-zoning; staff estimates the residential districts are
generating about 60 units per year; the rate should be doubled in order for RHNA obligations to
be met; the ordinance will be helpful if it allows the R1 district to generate an additional 10 units
per year to meet the RHNA obligation; the City's obligation is roughly 5,353 housing units over
the next 8 years, which puts the units around 600 per year; the R1 district of the City only
generates 21 units per year.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there are any minimum requirements for
setbacks and space between ADUs.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated applicants
must meet Building Code requirements for health and safety; the SB 9 setback is four feet; staff
can explore additional requirements in terms of spacing between buildings; however, SB 9 is
clear that the City cannot adopt any rules which prevent at least the two units on-site; each unit
must be at least 800 square feet; the only rule staff can enforce is a four foot setback from the
property line.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what the Building Code requires space between
units.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the requirement is typically three
feet to the property line and approximately six feet between buildings.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer further inquired whether the units can be added to the front of
the property, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the
affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
12",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,13,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there are requirements to add off-street
parking for the units, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in
the negative.
Councilmember Daysog stated some cities are restricting SB 9 units to a certain income
categories; inquired whether anything is preventing the City from doing the same.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is interested in a permanent
deed restriction, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney responded State law does not contain an express prohibition or authorization
on income limitations for the newly created units; stated the area is grey; if Council wishes to
implement a restriction, staff can look into the matter; many jurisdictions have adopted many
different rules that are not specifically authorized or prohibited; restrictions have the effect of
reducing the overall housing production due to cost implications.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding waiving fees on ADUs, the
Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated Council adopted a Citywide Development
Impact Fee (DIF) update three years ago; the update clarifies that the ordinance does not apply
to deed restricted, affordable units and ADUs, which helped reduce costs for affordable and
small units; the only fee that is waived is the DIF.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is possible to have the matter be limited to
affordable units to try and encourage affordable units.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded if Council wishes to create a
deed restriction requirement on the SB 9 units, staff can do so.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City can require the deed restriction on
affordable units if unit fees are waived.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the restriction will require a
change to the Citywide DIF ordinance; currently, second units or ADUs are automatically waived
from Citywide DIF fees whether they are deed restricted or not; the other approach would be to
amend the DIF ordinance to waive fees on ADUs if they are deed restricted; the change will be
an incentive for property owners to deed restrict in order to avoid the upfront DIF costs.
Urged Council to reject the Planning Board's up-zoning to 10 units per parcel, to limit the
maximum size to 800 square feet and to reject the proposal to adopt the four foot setbacks;
expressed support for choosing how new housing happens: Joyce Boyd, Alameda.
Stated that she is confused about what is being accomplished; affordable housing is needed in
Alameda; expressed concern about market rate homes; discussed home sale prices; stated an
800 square foot home will be affordable; the number of units should be limited to four;
expressed support for an State initiative; discussed global warming: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Stated allowing two duplexes on lots will not be the only increase in the number of residential
units in the City; there is no meaningful difference between unit limits; it does not make sense to
add restrictions; people can infill wherever desired: Josh Geyer, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
13",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,14,"Stated the matter is an opportunity to create small, more affordable units with minimum,
negative impact; SB 9 spreads the responsibility for providing housing throughout the City; the
proposed ordinance presents a custom version of SB 9; ten units is too many; discussed
Alameda apartment units causes a loss of trees, stormwater run-off and loss of solar access;
development with no public notice or hearing was previously illegal; urged implementing a
reasonable ordinance and adopting the original staff recommendation: Betsy Mathieson,
Alameda.
Urged Council to take the most restrictive, legal approach; expressed concern about going
beyond the State's suggestion; stated ten units per parcel with no hearing is neither desirable
nor reasonable; cheaper housing will be created; questioned the quality of life being created;
stated the stress on infrastructure needs to be contemplated; there could be negative impacts to
diverse and working class homeowners due to developer interest; SB 9 will make the City too
dense; urged more community input: Tracy Cote, Alameda.
Urged Council to refrain from accommodating ten units per parcel in the R1 district, which can
open the door to up-zone other neighborhoods; transportation infrastructure is not being
considered; Alameda cannot continue to create density at such pace without public notice and
off-street parking; urged Council to consider a more modest and sustainable 800 square foot
size; stated 1,600 square feet seems too large; urged Council look at recommendations
provided by Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT) and Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society (AAPS): Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Expressed support for the Planning Board's proposal; stated Council should eliminate the
square footage requirements; he is a fan of small units and flexibility for a range of housing
options; the matter is for homeowners; a misleading narrative is being spread; discussed the
potential percent increase in lots: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Urged Council to adopt the Planning Board's recommendation; stated staff has made a good
faith effort to update the City's Zoning Code; discussed minimum lot size requirements in Bay
Area cities; stated that he is glad to see City staff and the Planning Board not follow other cities
as a template; the Zoning Code adjustments are straight forward; discussed City website
resources: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.
Expressed support for the ordinance; stated that she lives on a dense parcel; the measure can
help facilitate her children being able to live in Alameda; SB 9 has built important provisions
which preserve housing security for current tenants; the ordinance helps people not to lose
housing security for current tenants as housing is being built: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Urged Council to uphold the Planning Board recommendation, which will allow flexibility and
provide opportunity within the R1 district; discussed the variety of housing opportunities; stated
more housing solutions are needed throughout Alameda; more density should be supported to
help reduce the impacts of climate change: Ruth Abbe, Alameda.
Stated that she is against the Planning Board recommendation; the 800 square foot limit should
be kept on ADUs; expressed support for the minimum allowed under SB 9; stated SB 9 is
forcing the City to allow additional density and will be challenging; expressed support for using
caution and enacting only what is required; stated the City can increase amounts at a later date:
Devon Westerholm, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
14",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,15,"Stated that she does not support the Planning Board recommendation; she would like to see
local control; the matter will not solve the housing problem; discussed an owner-occupied
triplex; urged Council vote against the recommendation: Michelle Morgan, Alameda.
Urged Council to limit units to four per split lot and 800 square feet; stated more housing should
be provided for people being squeezed out; the units will provide lower cost rental units;
discussed real estate websites offering services related to SB 9: Birgitt Evans, Alameda.
Stated that she is concerned about the interpretation of the intention of SB 9; the City should
slow down policy implementation; expressed support for a limit of four units per lot split and 800
square feet on ADUs; stated the limits ensure green space is preserved; she would like more
community input before a new policy is adopted; expressed concern about effects on schools,
Police, parking and infrastructure; discussed electric car charging and the Oakland-Alameda
Access Project: Therese Hall, Alameda.
Stated that he is opposed to the ordinance as proposed; the matter is concerning; central
Alameda parking is congested; expressed concern about rush to approve an ordinance; stated
that he shares fears that developers will take advantage of homeowners: Matt Reid, Alameda.
Stated the new law creates infrastructure problems; expressed concern about Council planning
to purchase distressed and foreclosed properties to build ADUs; questioned the maximum
population that can safely be evacuated from the Island; urged Council to have the City Attorney
push back legislation which endangers the general population and visitors: Jim Strehlow,
Alameda.
Expressed support for capping the number of units on a lot; stated the ordinance is premature;
she supports capping the amount at four units and 800 square feet; expressed concern about
parking; outlined her ability to put ten units on her lot; stated height restrictions have not been
mentioned: Margaret Hall, Alameda.
Expressed support for the Planning Board recommendation; urged Council to move forward;
stated two of the biggest problems being faced in the area are the lack of housing and climate
change; increasing the density of the R1 district addresses both problems; discussed impacts:
Denyse Trepanier, Alameda.
Urged Council not to be more permissive than SB 9; stated the City can loosen rules at a later
time using the Housing Element process; expressed concern about a piecemeal approach to
the R1 district; discussed informational notices, building setback language, waiving zoning
standards, side yard setbacks and deed restrictions: Christopher Buckley, Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS).
Discussed tenants reacting to building ADUs; stated that she has not heard much about how
tenants would be effected: Leslie Carter, Alameda.
Stated that she supports the proposals made by AAPS; urged Council to limit the maximum
number of units on a 1,200 square foot lot to four, rather than ten; stated allowing ten units goes
beyond SB 9 requirements; discussed Measure Z and limiting density; urged Council to vote no
on the Planning Board recommendation: Elizabeth Greene, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
15",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,16,"Expressed support for comments provided by Speaker Rakowski; stated that she is
disheartened to think she will have to look outside of Alameda in order to purchase a home; SB
9 might create the possibility of affordable home purchasing options: Melodye Montgomery,
Alameda.
Stated that he does not know how many R1 parcels are impacted; expressed support for
Council requesting data; stated SB 9 is closely intermingled with SB 10, which applies to all
properties; discussed urban infill and raising the number of housing units: Paul Cohen,
Alameda.
***
(22-024) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if there is a motion to consider new items after 11:00
p.m.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the first three referrals.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed due to requiring four votes
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.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the first two referrals.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed due to requiring four votes
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.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the first three referrals up until midnight.
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 stated there have been comments on how Alameda is full of small lots;
inquired the average lot size.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the R1 district has a wide variety
of lot sizes; stated generally lots sizes are in the 4,000 to 5,000 square foot range; some parcels
can be much smaller and some unusually large lots exist.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether height restrictions exist, to which the Planning, Building
and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the existing height limit in the
R1 district is 30 feet.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what occurs if Council does not pass an ordinance.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded if an application come in before
Council adopts an ordinance, staff will follow State Law; there will be no limit on unit size or lot
splits; every property owner would have rights under SB 9.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
16",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,17,"Councilmember Daysog requested clarification about how seven units could be achieved.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated State Law allows the City to stop an
applicant at four units; a property could build two units without requesting a lot split; a property
with two units is considered multi-family under the City's ADU ordinance and State law; multi-
family properties are allowed two second units in the backyard and a junior unit is allowed within
each of the two units for up to five units total; the City does not have the ability to limit ADUs
since there is no lot split; if someone requests a lot split after placing five units on one side of
the property, two additional units would be allowed for a total of seven units; the City can limit
applicants to four units if the lot split is done first.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether five units are eligible for a density bonus.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded second units are not eligible;
stated the second unit ordinance does not trigger density bonus; if the Council wishes to limit
SB 9 to the minimum amount allowable, Council may direct staff to redraft the ordinance to have
a maximum of four units; even with the direction to limit SB 9 to the minimum allowable units
there is a loophole due to the way the law is written; an applicant can sequence the build to get
to seven units total.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council can conceivably work on a parallel track where the
maximum of four units at 800 square feet; the City should have the discretion and can designate
all SB units must be affordable; he does not know whether or not the affordable clause would
stop people from taking the loophole.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the ordinance could indicate an
applicant can maximize the number of units under SB 9 and the ADU ordinance, but a lot split
after the fact on the same property will only yield two, deed restricted units.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like further clarification of the scenario;
inquired whether it is legally possible for Council to deed restrict the additional units.
The City Attorney questioned whether another scenario is the City could modify the ADU
ordinance to require dispersion; stated once the five units are built, it would not be practically
possible to create a split lot.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the approach is creative and
doable; stated the objective development standards could be set up to have the units spread
out; if an applicant returns for a lot split under SB 9, the existing, previous units cannot be torn
down; the lot can be severed and two of the units can be sold.
The City Attorney stated the approach is an easier legal path to defend than to impose a deed
restriction; outlined the State Law provision; stated local agencies can do three things under SB
9: 1) impose objective zoning standards, 2) objective subdivision standards and 3) objective
design review standards; staff would have to argue that deed restrictions on income limitations
fits within one of the three provisions; staff could possibly argue income limitations are zoning
standards; however, it would be an uphill the argument; the dispersion approach is likely an
easier legal direction; dispersion is a clear provision under State Law.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding a first reading returning to Council, the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
17",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,1,"637
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
UESDAY--DECEMBEF 21, 2021-6:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:04 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella
arrived at 5:18 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-832) Conference With Legal Counsel Workers' Compensation Claim (Pursuant to
Government Code 54956.95); Claimant: Employee - Police Department; Claims:
2195500131, 2195500132, 2095500061, and 2095500048; Agency Claimed Against:
City of Alameda.
(21-833) Conference With Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, and
Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organization: Alameda Police
Officers Association (APOA), Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA), and
Alameda Fire Managers Association (AFMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee
Benefits and Terms of Employment.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding the Workers' Compensation Claim, the case involves four
workers' compensation claims by a former employee with the Police Department;
Applicant sustained injuries to their back and knees as a result of work duties; Applicant
retired via industrial disability retirement on September 12, 2021; the Council
unanimously authorized the City Attorney to settle the pending workers' compensation
claims in an amount not to exceed $170,000, 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 Labor Negotiators: staff provided
information and Council provided direction with no vote taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:00
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,2,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--DECEMBEF 21, 2021--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:11 p.m. Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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
(21-834) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the City Manager Communications be heard after
Special Orders.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of moving up City Manager Communications
and hearing the American Rescue Plan Act resolution [paragraph no. 21-851 before the Police
work plan [paragraph no. 21-854].
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for not moving up the item.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer withdrew her motion.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to move up the referral regarding recreational
vehicles [paragraph no. 21-857 before the first agenda item.
Vice Mayor Vella approval of hearing City Manager Communications after Special Orders with
keeping the comments under 5 minutes.
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.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(21-835) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read a proclamation commending Mastick Senior Center Director
Jackie Krause.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(21-836) The City Manager outlined the launch of the Alameda Community Assessment
Response and Engagement (CARE) team.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-837) Bill Ng expressed concern over landlords not being able to increase rent; questioned
when landlords will be able to increase rent.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,3,"(21-838) Donna Fletcher, Alameda, urged the public receive an update on negotiations with the
Navy regarding Alameda Point.
(21-839) Zac Bowling, Alameda, discussed the opening of the warming shelter; stated new
sleeping bags are needed.
(21-840) Marilyn Rothman, Alameda, urged the Police Commission be approved prior to
adopting any new Police measures.
(21-841) Jill Staten, Alameda, discussed safety training education for pedestrians and bicyclists.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Discussed her service on the Open Government Commission: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
The City Clerk announced the appointment to the Open Government Commission matter
[paragraph no. 21-844 was removed from the Consent Calendar to allow for Oath
administration.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer removed the local emergency resolution [paragraph no. 21-
846 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: 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.]
(*21-842) Minutes of the Special Meeting, the Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the
Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the Regular Meeting Held on November 16,
2021. Approved.
(*21-843) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,398,496.70.
(21-844) Recommendation to Accept a Report on the Appointment of a Member to the Open
Government Commission.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
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.
Mr. Cambra made brief comments.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office.
(*21-845) Resolution No. 15851, ""Setting the 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Dates.""
Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,20,"streets; he is unsure how to move forward with a new camera program until the City addresses
the Clearview issue; expressed support for a discussion on Clearview prior to moving forward;
stated that he will not support the matter; the matter is security theatre and will pull away current
resources with nothing to show for it in two to three years; dozens of agencies use ALPR
technology; there is not one study that shows an impact on crime; he will not support ALPRs
until the data shows an impact on crime.
Councilmember Daysog stated two to three Police Chiefs supporting ALPRs should amount to
something; other agencies using ALPRs should amount for something; he has to balance data
reports and recommendations from APD staff; ALPRs are not being installed for no reason;
ALPRs are recommended as a tool to help deter and solving crimes; Council owes APD and
residents ALPRs; it appears the City will be waiting another seven years to find a perfect tool.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is willing to consider moving forward after the questions
she has posed have been answered.
Councilmember Knox White stated the City has four cameras with two in the shop due to
maintenance; the ALPRs were not deemed important enough to fix and put back on patrol; he is
not looking for the perfect tool, he is looking for a tool which shows impactful data; many studies
show speed cameras slow speeds and reduce crashes to increase safety.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to give the Police Chief the
opportunity to respond to Council comments; expressed support for clarification about cameras
in the shop and the best use of current Officers.
The Police Chief stated the current ALPRs in APD vehicles are not in use are due to the
vehicles being out of commission; in order to move the ALPR equipment from the vehicles
which are out of commission would require initiating another contract with the current vendor;
the City can work with other vendors.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the best use of APD Officers and ALPR equipment.
The Police Chief responded there is value in ALPRs; ALPRs are a tool; crimes are solved by
people; there is value in a tool which will help people solve crimes.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is not about whether a tool can be useful; the matter is about
how effective the tool can be; Councilmembers have raised concerns about efficacy and
efficiency; expressed support for creating limitations to protect members of the public without a
chilling effect; part of Council's job as policymakers is to evaluate all aspects; Council can listen
to staff recommendations; however, Council must ultimately make the policy decisions;
expressed concern about previous policy decisions around privacy parameters; stated certain
things should not be decided or responded to after-the-fact.
On the call for the question, the motion 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 Herrera Spencer stated Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft has provided direction for staff
to
return to Council with information; inquired how much time staff needs to return and address the
points raised.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,21,"The Police Chief requested the points be clarified.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like: the cost, the delta between the $500,000 and
$700,000 amount, information on the City of Berkeley's fixed security cameras and use policy,
information on data retention and storage, how ALPRs would deal with vehicles without license
plates and an overview of the Clearview issue.
The Police Chief stated the points can be addressed fairly soon; the point that would take the
longest would be obtaining information on the City of Berkeley's security camera proposal
policy.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer will be making a
motion based on the topics raised by Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft.
The City Attorney expressed concern about including any information on what happens to
Police Officers on violations of policy related to Clearview; stated the information related to
confidential personnel and cannot be shared in open session; recommended the information not
be included in the report back to Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft withdrew the request for a report on results of Officer violations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is happy to move approval; stated time is of
the essence; inquired when the matter can return to Council.
The City Manager responded the privacy policy report can be brought to Council by January
18th at the earliest; stated that he will rely on the Police Chief to provide an accurate return date;
the first Council meeting in February will be a realistic scenario.
Councilmember Herrera moved approval of staff returning with information requested by Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft by January 18th since time is of the essence, but she leaves it up to staff.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
***
(21-853) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of moving the police services [paragraph
no. 21-854 to the next Council meeting under Continued Agenda Items as 6-A.
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.
***
(21-854) Recommendation to Accept an Update and Approve a Work Plan Addressing Efforts to
Reimagine Police Services and Racial Equity. Continued to January 4, 2022.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,22,"(21-855) Jim Strehlow, Alameda, discussed garbage cans on Alameda Avenue; expressed
concern about confusing motions at the previous meeting; stated that he would like clarification
about transit priorities and when Council will schedule a follow-up agenda item; noted AB 550 is
no longer active.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21-856) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-857) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational
Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-858) 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.
(21-859) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting
Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember
Daysog) Not heard.
(21-860) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to
Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023-
2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.
(21-861) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers
Herrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard.
(21-862) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular
City Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-863) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-864) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-865) Consider Directing Staff to Immediately Agendize an Urgency Hearing on Senate Bill
(SB) 9. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-866) Councilmember Knox White discussed a community workshop related to removing the
truck ban on Interstate 580; expressed wishes for 2022 to be low-key and good.
(21-867) Vice Mayor Vella outlined information regarding the Lead Abatement meeting last
week; announced distribution of COVID-19 tests from California Department of Public Health
(CDPH) for students returning to school.
(21-868) Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the CARE program
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,23,"information.
(21-869) Councilmember Daysog discussed a hiring ceremony for three new APD Officers and
the memorial for Supervisor Wilma Chan; urged Alamedans to visit City Hall at night to see the
holiday tree.
(21-870) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined an Association for Bay Area Governments Regional
Planning Committee meeting; discussed ribbon cuttings for an art installation and the Little Ice
Rink at Alameda Point; outlined a joint meeting of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors
and Mayors of Alameda County related to funding homelessness; discussed distribution of
Target gift cards for families in the Alameda Housing Authority Head Start program.
(21-871) Councilmember Herrera Spencer made an announcement about the West End Arts
District's mural grand opening.
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.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,4,"Section 8630(c). Adopted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification from staff about a landlord's ability to
increase rent during the pandemic.
The City Attorney stated existing local law includes a moratorium on rent increases which
remains in effect until 60 days after the City Council declares an end to the local emergency.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how often the matter comes before Council, to which
the City Attorney responded in the matter comes before Council every 60 days.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Alameda County currently has a rent freeze;
noted that she has received correspondence which indicates the City of Alameda is the only one
with a moratorium on rent increases.
The City Manager responded Alameda County also currently has a moratorium.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on how the matter works.
The City Attorney stated Council took a public position at the beginning of the pandemic that
County ordinances do not apply to incorporated cities; the law on the matter is clear that outside
of a public emergency, county ordinances do not operate within incorporated cities; the law is
less clear during a public emergency; however, the law likely favors the former and county
ordinances do not operate within incorporated cities; there is not complete clarity.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether landlords would be able to continue
administering annual rent increases after 60 days if Council ends the local emergency.
The City Attorney responded when Council ends the moratorium, there will be no further local
law in effect precluding landlords from raising rents; stated the argument about the county effect
on incorporated cities remains to be decided by a court.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter requires three of four affirmative
votes to pass, to which the City Attorney responded three affirmative votes are needed to pass.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like staff to look into other ways of providing relief to
landlords.
Councilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the emergence of the Omicron variant has
provided reason to continue the local emergency; the concerns of small landlords are valid and
Council must find ways to help out; smaller mom and pop landlords do not have the same
means that large landlords and owners have.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,5,"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.
(*21-847) Resolution No. 15853, ""Endorsing the Bay Adapt Joint Platform, a Regional Strategy
for a Rising Bay."" Adopted.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
(21-848) Recommendation to Approve a One-Year Extension of the Slow Streets Program
through December 2022.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether she needs to recuse herself from the matter
due to residing within 250 feet from a slow street location.
The City Attorney responded the matter affects more than 50 parcels and is covered under the
limited neighborhood effect exception to the public generally exception and Councilmember
Herrera Spencer may participate.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Transportation Commission (TC) made a
recommendation.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated the TC asked staff to
evaluate Pearl Street as a possible alternative to Versailles Avenue; the TC also recommended
more extensive community outreach be completed prior to final slow street recommendations.
Stated that she does not see a reason to do slow streets, which are used marginally; expressed
support for changing to different streets or reducing the number: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation, improvements and the plan becoming
permanent: Bill Garvine, Alameda.
Stated that she is walker, but does not use slow streets; expressed concern about including
Versailles Avenue as a slow street and for increased traffic and speeds on surrounding streets;
discussed a traffic study: Jill Staten, Alameda.
Expressed support for slow streets and urged expansion; stated cars seem to go faster since
there are less cars on the roads; discussed barriers, deflection methods and speed bumps;
urged Council support: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Stated BikeWalk Alameda supports the program; outlined collateral benefits; expressed support
for having 2 barricades at each intersection, an expansion of the network and increases in
funding: Cyndy Johnsen, BikeWalk Alameda.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation and improved traffic solutions; outlined benefits
of the program: Susie Hufstader, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,6,"Expressed support for continuing the program and making improvements; stated the slow
streets program has benefitted pedestrians and bicyclists in the area: Nora Munoz, Alameda.
Expressed concern about the surveys being statistically insignificant; discussed surveys: Jay
Garfinkle, Alameda.
Stated that he is excited about extending slow streets; urged the program be improved by
including more barricades; expressed support for a safe connection from the north to the south
area of the Island: Michael Sullivan, Alameda.
Expressed support for slow streets: Brian Kennedy, Alameda.
Stated that she is a huge fan of slow streets; discussed traffic diversion, increased traffic, use of
roads and barriers: Denyse Trepanier, BikeWalk Alameda.
Urged elimination of the slow street program; stated people are confused and walking on streets
that are not slow streets; discussed barriers and non-slow streets: Birgitt Evans, Alameda.
Discussed her positive experience living on a slow street; discussed safety and street
barricades: Paula Ojea, Alameda.
Discussed rotating slow streets, driving routes, traffic diversion, eliminating Versailles Avenue
and Vision Zero; expressed concern about California laws not being followed: Jim Strehlow,
Alameda.
Expressed support for continuing slow streets and urged Council support; stated that she feels
safer on slow streets: Laura Curtrona, Alameda.
Outlined using slow streets and feeling safer as a cyclist; urged Council support: Kristi Black,
Alameda.
Expressed support for slow streets, which make her feel safer biking to school: Hazel McGuire,
Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White stated the Versailles Avenue slow street is one of his favorites;
discussed basketball events at slow streets; expressed support for continuation of the program
without an end date; suggested extending the program until the implementation of the Active
Transportation Plan (ATP), rather than having the matter return for another Council vote in 12
months, which creates more unnecessary work; expressed support for expanding the slow
streets program; stated there has been recommendation to include a north-south connection at
8th Street and Pacific Avenue and at 9th Street and San Antonio Avenue; he would like to look at
ways to connect Jean Sweeney Park and the southern portion of the West End of the Island to
accommodate people who responded to the survey in favor of continuing the program.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she cannot support Versailles Avenue being
included in the program; the street is dangerous; it is unfortunate to have cars being diverted to
other streets which are narrow; many streets are only a single land in width; Otis Street is slow
and backs up; there have been more accidents and deaths in the past two years; she thinks
some of the improvements made are contributing to the increase; cars are being diverted to
narrow streets, which are not designed for the amount of traffic; if Council wants to continue the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,7,"program, it must look at the slow streets as well as the impacted streets nearby; discussed car
and public transportation ridership numbers compared to pre-COVID-19; stated that she hopes
there is an alternative to Versailles Avenue; Versailles Avenue is the only street which is
continuous from Otis Drive to Fernside Boulevard; she is a pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist;
there have been complaints about Pacific Avenue; traffic on Buena Vista Avenue is increased in
car traffic; proposed removing the portion east of Grand Avenue on Pacific Avenue; stated that
she has received questions about the choice of San Jose Avenue as a slow street; San Antonio
Avenue could be considered; the West End of town has better selections for slow streets; slow
streets have not been created equally; noted portions of Versailles Avenue have been open due
to school re-opening; cars are able to go closer to Edison School; inquired whether the entirety
of Versailles Avenue is a slow street.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded Versailles Avenue from Fernside Boulevard
to Calhoun Street is a slow street; stated staff worked with Edison School to move the barricade
from the block of the school.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated car traffic is around the school; expressed support for
Versailles Avenue no longer being a continuous slow street and for maintaining the slow streets
west of Grand Avenue; stated there is work to be done on the slow streets east of Grand
Avenue.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is unsure the increase in accidents and deaths are related
to slow streets and diverting traffic to smaller streets; she does not think there is evidence to
support the assertion; a memorial bicycle ride went to all four sites of cyclist deaths; all deaths
occurred on large streets that could benefit from traffic calming; one side of Franklin School is
bordered by San Jose Avenue; there have been concerns about speeding in the area near the
school; expressed support for the staff recommendation without going beyond; stated that she
would like Pearl Street to be considered; Pearl Street has more apartment buildings than
Versailles Avenue; expressed support for providing the benefit of slow streets on a street with
more apartment complexes; stated complications with Versailles Avenue include access to the
small commercial district; the TC has recommended studying the area in the next year; she is a
bicyclist, pedestrian and car driver; she loves riding her bike on slow streets and talking to
neighbors; neighbors on Pacific Avenue have concerns related to speeding; she has received
suggestions about making non-slow streets into slow streets; slow streets have been a way to
get people out and exercising during the pandemic; slow streets have helped build community;
discussed Noe Valley's closed off slow streets; stated change is always difficult; expressed
support for slow streets and the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council must remember that slow streets started at a time in the
pandemic where much uncertainty was present; many areas of activity were closed or limited in
service; many people were working from home and needed the ability to get out of the house to
walk; space was needed to facilitate the activity needed; the pandemic accelerated the slow
streets program; tennis courts and swimming have managed to come back, as well as
downtown areas; people are able to socially distance with facemasks; the overarching issues
which required the City to put the slow streets program in place are not currently present; the
backdrop for the slow streets program is longer present; people are able to walk on streets while
socially distanced with facemasks; the current condition is different; the urgency for slow streets
program is no longer present; people are not seeing slow streets as a mechanism to deal with
social distancing; slow streets are being seen as a quasi-cul-de-sac; slow streets and cul-de-
sacs are desirable due to lack of traffic; Council must discuss which streets are selected to be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,8,"slow streets; less traffic is a benefit; he does not support the continuation of the slow streets
program for one more year; encouraged City staff, Council, Boards and Commissions to figure
out an equitable approach to select slow streets; slow streets provide some semblance of less
traffic; Council must decide the reasoning behind specific streets being selected for the slow
streets program; expressed support for staff coming back to figure out the reasoning behind
street selection; questioned whether issues of equity should be considered.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the street selection process.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated there are a variety of reasons streets were
selected for the slow streets program; some are already bicycle routes or being considered in
the ACT as future bicycle boulevards; the selected streets also already have a relatively higher
number of people walking and biking; streets were selected for less traffic disruption; larger
streets would cause a disruption in traffic; slow streets were kept off of bus routes.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he understands; however, people on other streets also
deserve to live on a slow street.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the first survey asked the community about slow
street locations; the streets selected were the most frequently mentioned in the survey
responses; staff indicated a need for providing equity across the Island as well.
Councilmember Daysog stated the reasons provided are valid; as policymakers, Council must
think about neighborhoods and residents that may not self-select as wanting slow streets;
others are just as worthy of having slow streets; Council needs to figure out who gets the lottery
of a slow street.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she appreciates the clarification about traffic deaths not being
related to safety and calming efforts; there has been a lot of staff, Board and Commission work
and discussion behind the slow streets selection process and locations; vehicles are slowing
down and being cautious while driving down slow streets; she is supportive of expanding traffic
calming measures on side streets if needed; Council has taken previous measures to ensure
the safety of streets as a priority; expressed support for seeing slow streets becoming
permanent and expanded and for an expansion of traffic calming measures; stated that she
would like Council to ensure slow streets allow for safe routes to school and safe travel across
the entire City; using slow streets is appropriate and in line with the community and Council's
vision; expressed support for equitable mobility opportunities; stated that she is hearing enough
votes to continue the program; she supports seeing expansion and discussion related to
Councilmember Knox White's comments; she is ready to move forward with staff's
recommendation at minimum; inquired whether Councilmember Knox White made a motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see the matter move forward; however, her
comfort level is at the staff recommendation; the staff recommendation is most respectful to time
spent; she does not believe a motion has been made yet.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the [slow streets] program until the
implementation consistent with the completion of the upcoming ATP.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,9,"Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is consistent with staff's
recommendation, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated with
a change to the timing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the change to the timing.
Councilmember Knox White responded the program would not end in one year and come back
to Council, instead it would extend until the ATP is implemented; the ATP is the planning
document which will decide what to do about the slow streets program.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to hear from staff before deciding how to vote;
outlined the staff recommendation.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the staff recommendation is to continue the slow
streets program through the end of December 2022; staff can also tie the matter in to the
adoption of the ATP.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff's proposed extending the
program for one year;, the ATP will likely be completed by said time; the ATP process will select
the permanent slow streets and bicycle boulevards; Councilmember Knox White's logic makes
sense and makes direction clear to extend the slow streets until Council discusses the ATP;
Councilmember Knox White is trying to avoid the slow streets program expiring without the ATP
being fully finished; the action avoids another Council action to be taken in order to extend the
program prior to ATP completion; tying the slow streets program directly to the ATP makes
sense.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the recommendation to tie slow streets to the ATP was not included
in the staff report; she understands the approach; she does not think it too onerous to ask for
another extension; she is satisfied with the staff recommendation and wants to move the plan
forward.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether it is possible to ensure the ATP will be ready in one year and
whether Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft is amenable to having Council provide direction to staff to have
the slow streets matter return with the ATP in one year.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would be satisfied with an evaluation or check-in from staff
in one year's time, while still moving forward with the ATP finalization; expressed support for a
review in one year; inquired whether the check-in is possible.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff can
perform either way and provide a check-in in one year with; if staff is close to completing the
ATP, Council can decide whether or not to extend the program.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is willing to go with Councilmember Knox White's motion;
however, she would like the addition of a check-in in one year's time; inquired whether the
check-in is acceptable.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is not supportive of staff spending time performing a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,10,"review of a program which is already going through the ATP planning process; expressed
concern about staff spending time on a report to Council and staff's workload; stated the ATP
will include the desired review and staff's recommendation based on communication with the
community.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff has acknowledged the ability to provide a check-in; the report
back to Council will not be that time consuming.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether there is a request for him to withdraw his motion;
stated that he can withdraw the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella would like to make a motion; inquired
when staff anticipates having the ATP ready.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded staff anticipating the ATP will be ready by the
end of 2022.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:04 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:18 p.m.
***
Councilmember Knox White amended his motion to include that if staff has not returned in 18
months with a finalized ATP, staff will return with a review of the slow streets program for
Council consideration and direction; stated the amendment allows staff to get to the ATP in the
expected timeline without having to stop and perform additional review of the slow streets
program; if staff falls behind, there is the ability to provide review.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Senior Transportation Coordinator indicated that she anticipates
returning to Council with the ATP in December 2022.
Councilmember Knox White stated if staff is able to complete the ATP, a discussion on slow
streets will not be needed since it would be included in the ATP; the ATP supplants the slow
streets program plan; the plan is to have slow streets until the ATP is in place; if staff falls
behind, a review of the slow streets program will occur; he is supportive of having staff work on
the ATP to get past the slow streets era.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there will be 18 months prior to review, to which
Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella accepted the amendment to the motion; stated that she wants to see the slow
streets continue; inquired about the staff timeline; stated that she would like to avoid
unnecessary items coming back to Council; she is open to hearing from staff.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can guarantee an ATP in 12
months; the staff work to prepare an ATP is not the difficult part; working through the process
with the Transportation Commission and community is the difficult part; staff struggles to provide
a definitive date due to possible difficulties in the process; staff brings plans to Council after
going through the public review process; staff is confident that the ATP will get to Council in 12
months; Councilmember Knox White's concerns are valid; putting the ATP on hold to provide a
report back to Council on slow streets with only a month or two remaining on the ATP timeline
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,11,"would be a shame.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does rely on staff recommendations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated staff should be considering the equity aspect for the
program; many suggestions have been provided about rotating slow streets; she has not heard
of anyone volunteering for more car traffic; many people are happy to have less car traffic; the
concern of increased car traffic is legitimate; the issue of equity is valuable; expressed support
for staff taking the matter to heart.
Councilmember Daysog stated slow streets barriers prevent through traffic; some streets want
the barriers and have reasons just as valid as any other street.
On the call 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.
(21-849) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to
the Agreement with Kittelson & Associates to Increase Compensation by $270,906, for a Total
Aggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $345,876 to Continue Providing Technical Services
Related to Roundabouts.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the work being performed includes rendering
videos.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the contract is currently trying to
identify where roundabouts can physically and practically work; stated the next step would be to
narrow down the limited locations and start conceptual designs for the specific locations; then,
staff can work on graphics and videos.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the contracted amount includes providing the
rendering video or whether the contract includes more preliminary work, to which the Planning,
Building and Transportation Director responded the work is more preliminary.
Mike Alston, Kittelson & Associates, stated that he has been working with staff on roundabout
work throughout 2021; advanced alternatives are included further down the line; a task for
visualization is included in the proposed scope of work.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the additional money covers visualization, to
which Mr. Alston responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether visualization will be included for each
roundabout.
Mr. Alston responded the visualization is included for certain locations where a roundabout
would be viable; once enough is known, the scope includes the task to visualize the proposed
concept; multiple videos for roundabouts will not be made; however, if a viable location be
identified, staff will develop a design for the location; if the location is presented to the
Transportation Commission and Council, the visualization will be prepared.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,12,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the timeframe for the matter.
Mr. Alston responded the work is happening throughout 2022; stated staff will be kept in the
loop as the work progresses; several tasks are included in the scope; all are to occur in 2022.
Expressed support for roundabouts; discussed outreach and public education: Zac Bowling,
Alameda.
[Comment not regarding agenda item] : Brian Kennedy, Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like three to four places
identified for evaluation with the additional supplement to the contract.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated one of the primary locations staff is
review is the Clement Avenue extension as it inter-connects with Tilden Way; staff has also
been looking at Mecartney Road, Lincoln Avenue, Marshall Way and Pacific Avenue; staff is
continuing to work on and evaluate Central Avenue and Sherman Street; grant fund can be
sought for locations that make sense; Council approval is needed to competitively apply for
grant funding; Kittelson's expertise, knowledge, skills and visualization techniques put the City in
a position to be able to communicate, educate and ensure the community will support traffic
roundabouts at a specific locations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for visualizations; stated that she hopes
the visualizations include locations for pedestrians; a proposed location is near a school and
has a lot of new drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians; she would like the visualization to show
drop-off and pickup; expressed concern about roundabouts; stated the contract is an
educational element; expressed support for education on roundabouts including an
understanding of where each person will go without slowing down traffic without a signal or sign;
inquired the source of funding for the contract.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded Measure B and Measure BB
money has been budgeted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether no General Fund money is being used, to
which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director 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.
(21-850) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Installation and Use of
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR), including Fixed and Mobile Equipment on Alameda
Police Department Vehicles.
The Police Chief gave a Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,13,"Councilmember Knox White stated Council policy direction requires a personal privacy analysis
report; he does not see the report; inquired whether the evaluation has been done.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that he has reviewed the privacy policy resolution, which
did not require an analysis; if Council wants to have a written analysis, it can be provided.
Councilmember Knox White stated there is Council direction which was used on a prior matter
involving ALPRs for the Ferry Terminal parking; staff is aware of the policy.
The City Manager stated that he initially forwarded the email request from Councilmember Knox
White to the Police Chief and the Assistant City Attorney; staff will look into the privacy policy
further.
Councilmember Knox White stated part of the Council direction about bringing the ALPR matter
back to Council included bringing studies of effectiveness; he does not see any studies which
show an effective drop in crime; inquired whether or not ALPRs have an impact on crime.
The Police Chief responded a study was attached; stated not many studies look at ALPRs;
cases which have been cleared or closed do not indicate that the closure is directly due to
ALPR; ALPR is a tool; the study looked at any words associated with ALPR to see whether
there was a connection; similarly, solving a case is not due to the surveillance video itself, but to
all evidence; many researchers have found challenges when looking for success rates
associated with ALPRs; he is looking at the matter as qualitative and quantitative; it has been
difficult to find quantitative data; qualitative data shows strong support from agencies utilizing
ALPRs; many agencies are looking to expand ALPR programs and find value in the equipment;
he has seen value in the technology and in the ability to identify specific vehicles, rather than
having a vague description.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is unsure of when the direction for written
analysis of privacy was given; inquired whether the work done by City staff satisfies the prior
Council's direction.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the privacy analysis.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that he has reviewed the Council-adopted resolution from
December 2019 that sets forth a number of overall privacy principles; the resolution contained
three components: a list of general principals, the internal or administrative rules adopted by the
City Manager regarding privacy of information technology that does not apply to uses consistent
with legitimate law enforcement purpose and a final component related to facial recognition
technology; he did not see anything in his review that appeared inconsistent with Council's
general direction of allowing limited retention of certain materials that could impact privacy, as
long as it is used consistent with a law enforcement purpose and not in conjunction with facial
recognition technology.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City Attorney's opinion is that Council
may proceed with the matter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,14,"The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated there appears to be no
inconsistency; if Council wants a more in-depth, written analysis, the City Attorney's office is
happy to provide.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it sounds like the actions are consistent with the former
Council's resolution.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council gave direction to use the San Francisco data privacy
policy until staff returns with an Alameda-specific policy; the policy requires the creation of a
personal privacy impact evaluation report; he is confused as to why the report was not included
with the staff report; questioned how staff found consistency with the Council policy direction.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that he is not aware of Council's direction to perform a written
analysis; he reviewed the resolution.
Councilmember Knox White stated the policy report is not included with the staff report.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the privacy analysis; stated a privacy policy was
supposed to have the fix of an analysis being provided when matters come before Council;
inquired whether the matter can return to Council in the future with an analysis, to which the
Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council decides whether or not to move the matter to a future date;
the matter was continued from a previous meeting; it is not clear that Council will implement
anything at the current meeting; Council can provide direction for more information, including
the privacy analysis.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that he was not aware of the Council direction related to
providing a written analysis; he will review the email and requirements; he will be happy to
provide an expedited written analysis if desired by Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for calling public speakers.
The City Attorney inquired whether the City Clerk could review the previous Council direction.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how much time would be needed for the information to be found;
proposed the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) matter [paragraph no 21-851 be taken in the
meantime.
The City Clerk responded that she can search while public comment is taken; noted the staff for
the ARPA matter is different from the current agenda item.
The City Attorney stated that in his brief review of the email there is real confusion between staff
about whether or not a personal privacy policy was actually included in the Council direction; it
will be helpful for the City Clerk to confirm the Council direction.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Clerk would have enough time if Councils move
ahead to the ARPA matter, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
***
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,15,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called the ARPA item [paragraph no. 21-851 to allow staff to review prior
Council direction.
***
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(21-851) Resolution No. 15854, ""Amending the Capital Budget by Increasing Appropriations in
the 2021 American Rescue Plan Project (C99300) by $1,911,000 for Replacement of Three
Portables and Decking at the Midway Shelter, Food Bank Facility Repairs, and Purchase of
Wireless Hotspots for Lending."" Adopted.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Discussed non-profits and Building Futures Midway Shelter; urged Council to approve the
funding; stated people are thankful for the work of Midway Shelter: Kari Thompson, Alameda
Homeless Network (AHN).
[Comment not regarding agenda item]: Brian Kennedy, Alameda.
Stated that she supports those listed for funding; discussed her experience on the Board of
Directors for Midway Shelter; stated the physical structure of the shelter needs serious help;
discussed the love provided by Midway Shelter; urged Council approve the funding for the
project: Gail Thomas, Alameda.
Stated that she supports Midway Shelter and the Food Bank as quality programs; urged the City
to actively engage with its community members uses for ARPA funding: Jennifer Rakowski,
Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution; expressed support for the
hot spots being included; noted flooding is present at the Food Bank facility.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the staff recommendation; outlined the Feed
Alameda program; stated City departments offered seed money to fund the program; proposed
a friendly amendment to the motion for Council to consider the ability to explore setting aside
some of the ARPA funds as a match for the Universal Basic Income (UBI) program; noted a
State pilot program has $35 million allocated for local cities; the State funding will require a local
match; expressed support for the City having the flexibility to allocate some of the ARPA funding
as a match for the UBI program funds; proposed that Councilmember Knox White work with
herself on exploring the potential program; discussed ARPA funding being used for storm water
repairs; inquired whether the funding would be reimbursed by a developer.
The Assistant City Manager responded staff has considered both ways; stated staff has
considered it an investment in the community based on the allowed uses for ARPA funding;
staff has also considered a possible reimbursement from a developer based on the process at
Alameda Point; water is included as an eligible use for ARPA funds.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council does not need to make the decision at the
current time, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the title and report do not include UBI; inquired whether
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,16,"UBI has been noticed.
The City Attorney responded, generally, the Council is able to provide brief direction to staff on
related matters; stated the Council is being asked to spend ARPA funds; the direction being
provided to staff is to look into it and not make final decisions or allocate funding; as long as the
direction remains brief and does not involve a lot of discussion, the direction is fine; staff will
return with a related agenda item in the future after the direction provided.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the friendly amendment to the motion.
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.
(21-850 CONTINUED) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Installation
and Use of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR), including Fixed and Mobile Equipment
on Alameda Police Department Vehicles.
The City Manager stated there has been confusion and differences of opinion about the report
back to Council related to the privacy portion of the resolution; if Council wants staff to bring
back ALPRs, the privacy analysis can be brought as well.
The City Attorney stated the City Clerk pulled the previous Council motion; it is unclear in
reading the motion that a personal privacy policy is required; if Council wants to move forward,
staff will need to prepare a statement; the City Manager's solution is elegant, responds to
Council's needs and allows staff to move forward if Council so desires.
Mayor Ezzy Aschraft stated if the matter moves forward, the report will come back with the
personal privacy policy analysis.
Expressed support for expanding the use of ALPRs; stated ALPRs are not a cure-all for crime.
but can be a valuable asset in helping to discourage crime; discussed access to Harbor Bay: Bill
Pai, Community of Harbor Bay Isle.
Expressed support for the Police Chief's vision; urged the Alameda Police Department (APD)
have the technology and resources to address safety concerns; discussed crime in the City and
reduced APD staff; stated ALPRs are an investigative tool and deterrent to crime; urged Council
approve the installation and use of ALPRs: Richard Kim, East Shore Home Owners Association
(HOA).
Stated there is no evidence that ALPRs prevent Police mistakes; the clearance rates would be
tracked by the Department if the use of ALPRs is justified; many people have stolen license
plates; the matter is a lot of money to promote more surveillance: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Expressed concern about privacy, secret subpoenas, rouge actors, cross-referencing,
incremental data collection and misuse; discussed his experience with implementing systems
which are secure by design and cannot be reversed; urged an in-depth analysis of any solution
from vendors; stated there is less storage with mobile ALPR units as opposed to fixed units: Zac
Bowling, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,17,"Stated that he is in favor of the installation and use of fixed and mobile ALPRs; Council's
primary responsibility is to provide for the safety and security of City residents; urged Council to
give APD a chance and to permit the Department to acquire ALPRs: Bill Garvine, Alameda.
Questioned why anyone would need to know whether or not a car belongs to a resident; stated
the information has nothing to do with crime; ALPRs are detrimental to public privacy and will
increase the Police footprint: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Discussed meetings with the Police Chief and HOAs; expressed support for the use of ALPR
technology; stated people are at a tipping point due to auto-thefts; the shelf life and access of
data collected should be controlled as discussed by the Police Chief: Michael Robles-Wong,
Alameda.
Stated Alameda is not at war with its neighbors; ALPRs give off an unwelcome message; the
proposal is expensive and has questionable value; expressed concern about the program not
being utilized as presented; stated that she is looking for a more complete analysis: Jennifer
Rakowski, Alameda.
Stated ALPRs do not stop crime; ALPRs make citizens feel as though they are being watched;
questioned the locations for the ALPRs; citizens do not need to be monitored; there is confusion
about how and where the data will be used; a deeper policy is needed; urged Council to say no
to the matter: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Urged Council vote no on ALPRs; discussed an article related to unauthorized use of Clearview
technology; expressed concern about the use of ALPRs; stated data can paint an intimate
picture of a driver's life and can be used to target someone; ALPRs will not change the
clearance rate of cases APD is able to solve; the measure is reactive and not proactive: Laura
Cutrona, Alameda.
***
(21-852) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing all the remaining items up until
midnight and taking another vote at midnight if Council wants to progress further.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which required four affirmative votes and failed
by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White:
Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the Police work plan [paragraph no. 21-
854].
The motion failed for a lack of second.
***
Stated the agenda item is placing ALPRs on Police vehicles; discussed a car break-in: Jim
Strehlow, Alameda.
Stated that she is disappointed in Council not taking action on the matter; the matter has been
around for over three years; Council needs to make a decision; expressed support for Council
voting on the matter; stated Council needs to think about protecting Alameda residents;
discussed a survey on Nextdoor: Reyla Graber, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,18,"Vice Mayor Vella stated that she thought Council provided clear direction in December 2019
about the privacy issue and ensuring Council has a privacy policy in place while following the
San Francisco privacy policy in the interim; expressed concern about potentially undoing a
Council action; stated the matter has nothing to do with whether or not she trusts the current
Police Chief; she will continue to trust the Police Chief until there is reason not to; she is
philosophically opposed to ALPRs due to data showing inefficiency and inefficacy against crime
fighting; the units are costly; expressed concern about the placebo effect of spending money on
technology which is not effective; she has been supportive of ensuring APD has funding to fill
vacancies with quality Officers; the ALPR technology creates a lot of opportunities for abuse of
power; there is no data to show that ALPRs are a deterrent other than anecdotal; her concerns
about privacy remain; expressed support for staff to begin movement on policies; stated that
she looks forward to the policy being finalized so the City is not stuck in limbo of using the San
Francisco policy model; the units are a large expenditure and she is unsure whether the City will
get its money's worth or see the expected deterrence.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter is controversial; discussed the former Police
Chief's concerns about APD racially profiling people and ALPR technology; stated that she
supports the staff recommendation; she understands Alternative 1 to be the staff
recommendation; inquired whether Alternative 1 is the primary ask for Council, to which the
Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of Alternative 1.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on what it will look like to move forward
with Alternative 1; inquired the timeline and whether staff will be coming back at some point in
the near future.
The Police Chief responded that he will take direction from Council on next steps; stated that his
recommendation is to move forward with being able to install ALPR equipment at designated
fixed locations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether additional funding approval is needed; noted
there was a previous allocation of $500,000.
The Police Chief responded the cost will be significantly less; stated there are 13 locations to
install cameras; each camera costs $2,750 for the first year and $2,500 each year following; the
cost will roughly be $36,000.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about mobile ALPR units.
The Police Chief stated mobile units cost roughly $200 per vehicle, per month.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been concerns related to the privacy; she is
happy to include the report as part of a friendly amendment to her motion if desired.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not support the motion.
Councilmember Daysog stated the necessity of ALPRs has been expressed by various
Councils, Police Chiefs and residents over a long period of time; discussed a previous Council
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,19,"meeting discussion about the use of ALPRs; stated the time has come; the way in which crime
is occurring throughout the area is vastly different and more sophisticated; crime is occurring;
discussed a break-in at a cannabis dispensary; stated Officers need to be provided with proper
training and be given the tools; ALPRs are tools to help APD improve the way in which they
either deter crime or capture people who commit crime; the tools are not perfect; the City cannot
wait another seven years in hopes of finding the perfect tool; the units are expensive; however,
the City must amp up its game in terms of deterring and solving crime; ALPRs are one tool that
can help; the issue of privacy is important; he has confidence in City staff that the City will be
mindful of concerns related to privacy; Council needs to move forward and give a signal that the
City will provide APD a fighting chance in deterring and solving crime.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is mindful of concerns about increasing crime and privacy;
the way crime is taking place is changing; there is a need to get tougher on criminals; ALPR
technology can be a valuable tool; however, based on the report provided, she is not ready to
move forward in approving the use of ALPR technology; she would like to give staff direction to
come back to Council; information has been presented which is not included in the staff report;
she would like the information included in the staff report if the matter returns to Council; the
cost of the technology is listed between $500,000 and $700,000 in the staff report and she
would like an explanation for the difference; there is a question about the cost for installation
and maintenance of ALPR cameras; many references to privacy concerns have been made;
she would like to know the proposed retention policy; the retention time needs to be included in
a policy; she would like more discussion about which approach, fixed or mobile ALPRs, would
have a more chilling effect on residents; the City of Berkeley recently approved the use of fixed
security cameras in various locations throughout the City; Berkeley staff are currently drafting
the use policy for the fixed security cameras; staff should communicate with Berkeley staff on
their approach; she understands the need to free up Officers for patrolling and covering
neighborhoods; she would like clarification about handling vehicles without license plates; some
crimes occur with vehicles that do not have license plates; questioned where the data collected
goes and who has access to retention; stated Council needs to have an explanation of the
Clearview use incident; expressed support for Council supporting Assembly Bill (AB) 550
related to automated speed cameras; stated the Bill is part of what is being considered for
Vision Zero and she would like the City to consider the important tool; stated that she is willing
to giving staff direction to come back to Council with more detail and information.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated Council has supported AB 550 and was
one of the few cities to send a letter; he is not against cameras; Council needs to have
confidence that the cameras are going to have an impact; he has not heard one comment which
accurately describes the outcome of putting ALPRs in place; he understands the community has
concerns about safety and crime; Council needs to be doing as much as possible; he would be
supportive of ALPRs if they were a tool that helps address safety and crime; there is a reason
for the lack of studies which show that ALPRs do not deter or change crime; ALPRs do not
deter or change crime; anecdotal stories are due to there being no change in what happens with
crime when cameras are installed; outlined crime statistics for the City of Piedmont after
installation of ALPR cameras; stated Council will be over-promising that putting in cameras will
have an impact on crime outcomes; installing ALPRs will not have an impact on crime
outcomes; discussed incorrect license plate hits in the City of Vallejo; stated Officers will waste
time on going after people not involved with crimes; expressed concern about the shortage of
APD Officers; stated the use of ALPR will be taking away from Officer time being spent on the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-12-20,1,"Approved
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) MEETING
Monday, December 20, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03p.m.
2. ROLL CALL and INTRODUCTIONS
2-A ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Commissioners Jennifer Hoffecker, Peter
Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson.
Absent: Vice Chairperson Liz Rush (excused).
Eric Fonstein and Walker Toma present as staff to the Commission.
3. MINUTES
2021-1581 Review and Approve November 10, 2021 Draft PAC Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Ferguson and
seconded by Commissioner Platzgummer. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt,
Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer and Ferguson. Nays: none.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-1582 Recommendation to Review the Public Art Commission
Meeting Calendar for Possible Conflicts that Inhibit Maximum Public
Participation
Staff member Toma presented a review of the 2022 dates for regular PAC
meetings, identified a possible conflict of February 21 (Federal holiday Presidents
Day) that could inhibit maximum public participation, and recommended two
possible alternate meeting dates of February 22 or March 7.
Commissioners briefly discussed the options. A motion to approve the proposed
regular meeting dates for 2022, which included a meeting date of February 22,
2022, was made by Commissioner Platzgummer and seconded by Chairperson
Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and
Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.
5-B 2021-1584 Status Update on the Eligibility of Upcoming Projects for the
Public Art Requirement
Staff member Toma provided an update on recent and upcoming physical public
art projects, as well as an overview of the 2020-2021 biennial report for the Public",PublicArtCommission/2021-12-20.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-12-20,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, December 20, 2021
Art Fund. In total sixteen public art small grants were awaded, the PAC approved
four on-site physical art pieces, and four existing on-site physical art pieces have
been installed or are close to installation. Based on direction from the Commission,
a consultant has been selected by RFP to begin work on the Public Art Master
Plan in early 2022, and applications for a second round of public art small grants
will be opened in the second half of 2022. Mr. Toma answered clarifying questions
and invited commissioner discussion.
Commissioners discussed. On the upcoming physical public art project list,
Commissioner Platzgummer requested a column that specifies if a project will be
on site or contribute to the in-lieu fund, and suggested large-scale developers be
offered the option to split contribution between onsite and in-lieu. Chairperson
Gillitt requested clarification on the status of upcoming projects, and at what point
items will be removed from the pending public art list. Mr. Toma offered to follow
up at the next meeting with more information.
5-C 2021-1584 Accept an Update on Adopted Citywide Text Amendments to
the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance (AMC Chapter 30) to Modify Public Art
Requirements
Staff member Toma provided a brief overview of the history of the City of Alameda
Zoning Ordinance, and the proposed language amendments that had been
submitted to the Planning Board for feedback, and then presented to City Council.
Mr. Toma shared the proposed edits provided by the Planning Board, as well as
changes that were made by City Council on the dais. Mr. Toma answered clarifying
questions.
Commissioners discussed amended language. Chairperson Gillitt asked for
clarification on the impact of the phrase ""shall be prioritized for public art on public
property"" added by the Planning Board to section 30-98.10a4 of the ordinance. Mr.
Toma offered to get clarification to be shared at the next PAC meeting. In
discussion, Commissioner Ferguson offered to evaluate the existing condition of
the metal of the Birth Sculpture, located at 908 Atlantic Avenue in Alameda.
A motion to accept the update on adopted citywide text amendments to the City of
Alameda Zoning Ordinance (AMC chapter 30) was made by Chairperson Gillitt and
seconded by Commissioner Hoffecker. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Commissioners
Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Toma shared that negotiations are underway with the preferred
consultant for the Public Art Master Plan, and that staff anticipated work beginning
in the first quarter of 2022.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
2",PublicArtCommission/2021-12-20.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-12-20,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, December 20, 2021
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Platzgummer reminded the Commission of an email request by a
member of the public for additional funds to expand the Cruisin' Alameda mural,
located a the corner of Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Toma offered to
provide public art small grant information to the individual.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:07pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary, Public Art Commission
3",PublicArtCommission/2021-12-20.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2021
1. CONVENE
President Asheshh Saheba convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Vice President Teresa Ruiz led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Saheba, Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Hom,
Rothenberg, Cisneros, and Teague.
Absent: None.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Vice President Ruiz made a motion to move item 7-C to the first of the Regular
Agenda Items. Board Member Curtis and Teague seconded the motion. A roll call
vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
President Saheba acknowledged the sad passing of Alameda County Supervisor Wilma
Chan who was killed when she was struck by a motorist in Alameda.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6-A 2021-1539
2022 Planning Board Regular Meeting Schedule.
The schedule can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5350543&GUID=B6514ADO-
1B04-4450-922E-A1DEE5OAADC2.
Board Member Alan Teague made a motion to approve the schedule and Board
Member Rona Rothenberg. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-C 2021-1559
Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Bayport/Alameda Landing Master Plan
and Alameda Landing Waterfront Residential Planned Development at 2800 Fifth Street
(PLN21-0457) to eliminate a requirement for a minimum of 5,000 square feet of
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,2,"commercial services space adjacent to the Alameda Landing Waterfront Park on Fifth
Street.
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, introduced the item.
The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5350551&GUID=D9C80E17-
3993-45F1-B10B-8E17EA1EBO2E&FullText=1
Bill Sadler, Development Director of Pulte Homes, also gave a presentation.
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Ron Curtis wanted confirmation that the increase of units was to 362.
Director Thomas said that was correct.
Board Member Teague confirmed that the term ""commercial"" was broader than ""retail"".
He asked if there were sections they could strike out since it would be giving the developer
a lot more time. He wanted to know the estimated timeline.
Director Thomas explained the idea behind the original condition. He said that the staff
did not want to stop the project as they did Design Review. He then explained the
reasoning behind the revised condition.
Mr. Sadler discussed the timeline for the development for when they would reach building
330.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg disclosed that she had emailed Mr. Sadler. She asked
about the Master Plan and wanted to know if Mr. Sadler had weighed the benefits of a
""commercial"" designation.
Director Thomas explained the history of the original Master Plan and what was needed
to support the types of uses that would be there.
Staff Member Tai added there had been conversations about the benefits of a Community
Commercial Space.
Board Member Ruiz disclosed that she too had reached out to Mr. Sadler before the
meeting. She said that they had discussed that the townhome models yield more units
and if he would consider modifying the ground floor single-family units. She also wanted
to know what was the most efficient and financially feasible.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,3,"Mr. Sadler explained that what they had designed was already approved and permitted.
Any changes could delay completion but he was all for putting the right home on this
property. He gave a cost and time rundown for the options.
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros asked about sales for the development. She also
wanted an update on the public water shuttle.
Mr. Sadler said sales were going well and very steady.
Director Thomas gave an update on the funding and development of the water shuttle
service.
Board Member Hanson Hom wanted to know if there was a Community Space planned or
would Mr. Sadler consider one. He also asked what would happen if the City Council
decided to maintain the Commercial Space designation. He also asked if they were open
to including low incoming housing in the mix.
Mr. Sadler said he would need to look into that since they were already in the process with
the DRE (Department of Real Estate) with an approved budget. He then discussed how
the designation and how having low-income housing would affect their work.
President Saheba asked about the construction of the boardwalk and the park. He wanted
to see things come together in a linked fashion.
Director Thomas discussed the requirements for those constructions. Mr. Sadler
discussed what was delaying those items.
Board Member Hom was concerned about financing and wanted to make sure any
changes would not negatively affect Mr. Sadler.
Mr. Sadler discussed what he would need to do with certain changes.
President Saheba opened public comments.
Betsy Mathieson said she hoped that this would be an opportunity for something new. She
discussed the benefit of having waterfront commercial activity and gave examples. She
thought that would be more beneficial to tenants.
Jay Garfinkle was unsure of the details and wanted to make sure there was adequate
parking for the water shuttle. He felt that someone was back peddling on this and this was
something that should have been addressed months ago.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,4,"President Saheba believed this piece of property was critical to the Master Plan. He
believed that the developer needed to get creative with the space such as some of the
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,5,"ideas suggested by Director Wooldridge. He was supportive of giving the developer more
time.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve to strike out the sentence of
timing for Design Review and to give the developer more time to consider
Community Space or Mixed-Use. The developer would work with City Staff to
consider other alternative uses for the space. Board Member Cisneros seconded
the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
7-A 2021-1557
Public hearing to consider amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30 (Development
Regulations) Section 30-4.1, R-1, One-Family Residence District, and 30-2 Definitions to
bring the R-1 regulations into compliance with State Law and implement Senate Bill 9. The
proposed text amendments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to SB
9, which states that an action by a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement the
provisions of SB 9 shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with
Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
Director Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5350549&GUID=5DFA302F
F982-470B-8DF6-OFOCD8DA2061&FullText=1
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Hom asked if there was language that addressed the maximum of 4 units
allowed. He also had questions about the 1200sqft maximums and if someone wanted to
go above that limit. He also had questions about setbacks and wanted clarification on what
an Urgency Ordinance meant. He also wanted the staff's opinion on what ""condo
standards"" meant.
Board Member Teague discussed what the current ADU law allowed and what language
they could add to make it clearer.
Director Thomas explained the process if someone wanted a larger unit. He also explained
the need and process for an Urgency Ordinance.
Both Director Thomas and Staff Member Tia discussed how ""condo standards"" were
interpreted by the staff and the law.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted to know how this would apply to historic buildings, the
rule about renting and managing setbacks.
Director Thomas explained how state law addressed setbacks and that staff would be
working on a Short Term Rental Ordinance.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,6,"Staff Member Tai explained how historic buildings would be handled.
Board Member Teague had questions about ADUs being allowed with SB-9 and what
Alameda would allow. He had questions about information in the Turner Center Report
and how he was interpreting it. He then discussed hypothetical situations and what could
possibly be allowed. He also had questions about the square footage, setbacks, and
Efficiency Units.
Heather Colman, the consultant, explained that the report was written before the law was
finalized.
Director Thomas went into detail about would could hypothetically be allowed with SB-9.
He also explained which sections and standards Alameda could decide what they wanted
to allow.
Staff Member Tai discussed Efficiency Units.
Vice President Ruiz asked about what standards would be coming up that needed
approval. She also questioned how they reached the 5000 sq ft lot area.
Director Thomas explained that these zoning changes were the Objective Zoning
Standards. He explained the thought process behind the 5000 sq ft lot size.
President Saheba opened public comment.
Zac Bowling discussed the work he had done to champion SB-9.
Jay Garfinkle wanted the Planning Board to recommend to the City Council to enact an
Emergency Ordinance to make sure anyone who applies for SB-9 would be subject to the
same standards and conditions.
Chris Buckley, Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS), discussed a letter the
society had sent.
Betsy Mathieson agreed with the comments and the concerns brought up by the AAPS.
Margaret Hall also supported the recommendations and changes to the text brought up
by the AAPS.
Hank Hernandez, Alameda Tiny Homes, wanted to know what the options were for people
who already had an ADU on their property.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,7,"Vice President Ruiz was concerned with the speed with which this was going through and
thought it needed further review. She recommend making the text more in line with state
law.
Board Member Teague was in favor of moving this forward but with substantial changes
and he agreed with Vice President Ruiz that the text should be more in line with SB-9. He
also recommended that the use needed to be very clear, this was just for Residential Use.
He discussed the other changes he would make to move this forward.
Board Member Hom agreed with most of Board Member Teague's comments. He did
recommend that how many units were allowed on a lot be clarified. He also agreed about
the language being as close to the law as possible.
Board Member Cisneros wanted to know what would happen if they took no action.
Director Thomas explained the process if the council did not adopt anything in January.
Board Member Curtis said he could not accept the part of the Resolution dealing with
Home Occupations, he believed that those should have Use Permit. He also believed that
neighbors should have a say in what goes into their neighborhoods.
President Saheba continued the conversation about the 1200 sq ft parameter. He was in
support of eliminating the 1200 sq ft threshold to allow for more flexibility.
There was a discussion about appropriate Permitted Usage and street access for the
parcel.
Board Member Teague made a motion to recommend to the City Council that they
adopt the resolution regarding SB-9, excluding all of the changes related to
""Permitted Usage"" and the changes to definitions. They must clarify the use of the
words ""alteration"" and ""demolition"". They should replace the section referring to
Alameda's specific Rental Code with the language from SB-9. They would also
clarify which Permitted Usage was considered Residential and Non-residential. The
access to the split lot needed to be a combined pedestrian and vehicle access. They
would not modify Alameda's ADU ordinance and leave it as is. Also, setbacks must
be clarified and in compliance. The building of a 1 family dwelling is a minimum of
800 sq. ft to equal in size to the other unit and the 1600 sq. ft limit be the limit as to
the existing unit. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was
taken and the motion passed 6-1 with Board Member Hom voting against.
7-B 2021-1558
Objective Design Review Standards for One- and Two-Family Dwellings. Public hearing
to consider Objective Design Review Standards for development allowed under Senate
Bill 9. Adoption of the Objective Standards is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,8,"Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), the common-sense exception that CEQA applies only
to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and
Section 15183, projects consistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning.
Staff Member Tai introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5350550&GUID=9D2BEDDA
018E-402D-94E8-0632FCF09D70&FullText=1
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Hom asked for clarification on the Housing Accountability Act and if there
was a change in the process of review for Single Family Homes once they adopt these
new Design Standards.
Staff Member Tai discussed the changes and that they would not affect the process. These
changes were mainly addressing SB-9.
Board Member Rothenberg thought the checklist format was very user-friendly. She made
suggestions on how to make setbacks easier to understand and to use matching materials
when appropriate.
Staff Member Tai addressed massing and setbacks. He then discussed that a judgment
call was very important when choosing materials.
Vice President Ruiz asked about existing garages that were in undesirable conditions and
wanted to know if they could be added to or altered. She also wanted to know about
garage doors that were in the back of the house, it wasn't viewable so why worry about it.
She also had questions concerning upper story additions.
Staff Member Tai discussed SB-9 units that had parking and what the intent was for
garages facing away from the street was. He then discussed upper story additions and
how numbers were arrived at.
Board Member Teague asked about dropping the third bullet, he found it made things very
unclear. He wanted to know if this was based on the Multi-Family Objective Standards.
Staff Member Tai said they could drop that item. He discussed when they did carry some
of the standards over and what was different.
President Saheba opened public comment.
Zac Bowling liked the Objective Design Standard that the staff had come up with. He
discussed how these were easy to work within and thanked staff for their work on this.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 8 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,9,"Chris Buckley, AAPS, discussed a letter the society had sent. He agreed that taking out
the third bullet would help. He also gave suggestions for improving the standards and the
process. He also pointed out that the society had sent a markup showing where the
language was unclear.
Betsy Mathieson endorsed the AAPS's letter and agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments
and concerns.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
President Saheba wanted to know if there were any concerns about this item getting
disjointed with the previous item, SB-9. He did agree that some of the text needed to be
cleaned up and the diagrams refined.
Staff Member Tai did not see any issues but having a set of standards adopted by the new
year would be helpful.
Board Member Cisneros was concerned that this might be too prescriptive and wondered
if they could add room for flexibility.
Vice President Ruiz was hesitant to rush this through and recommended possibly bringing
this back. She gave suggestions on clarifying language around carport/detached garages.
She also gave suggestions on language around windows and upper story additions.
Board Member Teague discussed how this could keep evolving at future meetings and
the importance of getting something approved tonight.
Board Member Hom was comfortable moving this forward with some of the amendments
suggested by his fellow board members and they could be refined down the road.
Board Member Curtis made a motion to approve the Objective Design Review
Standards with the removal of the third bullet point as recommended. Board
Member Hom seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion
passed 6-1 with Vice President Ruiz voting against.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2021-1540
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 27, 2021
8-B 2021-1541
Draft Meeting Minutes - October 11, 2021
8-C 2021-1542
Draft Meeting Minutes - October 25, 2021
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 9 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-12-13,10,"Due to the late hour and the need to take public comment the approval of these minutes
was postponed to a future meeting.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2021-1555
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent actions and decisions can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5350547&GUID=05FCDEED-
FD2C-449E-BCE8-42DA3BA038A5&FullText=1
No board members wanted to pull any item for review.
9-B 2021-1556
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai announced that at the January meeting the plan was to bring more
discussions about the Housing Element Update. There would also be a review of the Use
Permit of the Clubhouse Bar.
9-C 2021-1560
End of Year Planning Board and Planning Department Accomplishments
Director Thomas thanked the board for all the work they had done over the past year and
discussed the activities and accomplishments of the Building Department.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
President Saheba wished everyone a Happy Holiday and thanked them for all their hard
work over the last year.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Betsy Mathieson was happy that Director Thomas's cold was subsiding.
Board Member Curtis took a moment to thank the staff and everyone for their hard work.
The rest of the board agreed with him!
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 11:09 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 10 of 10
December 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-12-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-12-09,1,"ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, December 9, 2021
TIME:
7:00 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
A video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
The following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.
ROLL CALL
Present: (Teleconference via Zoom) Chair Alexander, Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner Jones and
Commissioner Navarro
Absent: Commissioner Nguyen
Staff: (Teleconference via Zoom) Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy
Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of November 18, 2021 Special Meeting as presented.
M/S Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Jones. All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (For topics not on the agenda)
Written Communication: none
Oral Communication
Speaker Cyndy Johnsen: Would like to know the status and timeline of Jean Sweeney
Open Space Park north and south entry points, adding bollards to the Cross Alameda
Trail through the park and consider planting native oak trees along the northeastern
border of the park.
Speaker Betsy Mathieson: Would like to know when the pathway replacement, improved
lighting and tree plantings will be completed in Chochenyo Park and requested the
garbage cans that are open be covered.
REPORT FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR - ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave
the report. See exhibit 1.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Navarro: Visited Alameda Point parks; very exciting to see the progress.
Commissioner Jones: Visited dog park sites and said all three are beautiful.
Vice Chair Robbins: Also visited Alameda Point parks along with the Encinal boat launch and
commented on how spectacular and beautiful that area turned out. Attended a meeting about
the expanding the tennis courts and/or the pickleball courts and is hoping to bring some
information back to the Commission by February 2022.
Chair Alexander: Visited the dog park sites, including the possible fourth site, observed the
1",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-12-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-12-09,2,"ARPD staff safely walking the afterschool kids to their sites, commented on the variety of sports
going on at Tillman Park and how nice it is to see the playgrounds being used and full.
AGENDA ITEMS
6-A Review Results of the East End/Bay Farm Island Dog Park Survey and Consider Recommendation
ARPD Director Wooldridge gave presentation which included the city-wide survey, types of dog parks
preferred, potential dog park locations at Krusi Park, Towata Park and Leydecker Park, and a fourth
potential dog park location on Bay Farm Island southwest of the ferry terminal.
6-A Public Comments
Speaker Walt Jacobs: Opposed to Leydecker Park as a dog park as it is too close to Temple
Israel due to noise and parking. Would like to see a dog park in a business park area.
Speaker Dawn Jaeger: Opposed to Leydecker due to the parking and noise for Bay Farm
Community Churches and urges the fourth area by the ferry to be approved for the new dog
park.
Speaker Grant Scully: Opposed to Leydecker for a dog park as it is already a busy area with too
many cars. In favor of the fourth area for a dog park.
Speaker Michelle Anderson: Likes the Leydecker Park area and also the new fourth option for a
dog park.
6-A Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Has a dog and would be interested to see what could be done to make
the fourth option a possible site and would like to explore it more.
Chair Alexander: Opposed to having a dog park at Krusi, Towata and Leydecker Parks. Would
like to explore the fourth option as a possibility. In favor of having a dog park on Bay Farm Island.
Vice Chair Robbins: Likes the new fourth option because agrees that the residential concerns of
Leydecker, Krusi and Towata Parks are valid reasons to not have a dog park there.
Commissioner Jones: Likes the new fourth option and wants to go visit the site.
6-A Motion
Vice Chair Robbins motioned that we have staff do further research on the fourth proposed location
and also gather any other comments that might come in about the three current parks and come back
to the Commission with another presentation before making a decision to move forward.
M/S Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Navarro
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-B Establish Naming Criteria for Alameda Landing Waterfront Park Located at the End of 5th Street
Near Mitchell Avenue
2",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-12-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-12-09,3,"ARPD Director Wooldridge gave the presentation which included the four-step process of naming
parks, the location, design and history of Alameda Landing Waterfront Park.
6-B Public Comments
Speaker Crystal Faith Cajilog: The naming process should reflect Alameda's values for
diversity, equity and inclusion and well as the historical and geographical character of our
city. Suggestions: Park being near water, water has always been a means of getting people
from one place to another and the piers are landing areas of people. A good name to reflect
immigration and the diversity of Alameda.
6-B Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Honored that we are the first group to start the naming process. Would
like to see the uniqueness of the pier and cultural connection with the water.
Vice Chair Robbins: Thanked Director Wooldridge for the detailed history of the location. Would
like to discuss and come back with a list. Likes the name Pier Front Park.
Chair Alexander: Thinks the history is interesting and hopes it will be reflected in what we tell the
public. Thinks they should have one or two choices for the criteria to start with as this is a learning
process. Prefers non-naval air-based criteria for this park.
Commissioner Jones: Is there a timeline? Director Wooldridge: No, however we have parks that
are open or opening soon and need names.
6-B Motion
Commissioner Navarro motioned the naming criteria for the Alameda Landing Waterfront Park be the
uniqueness of the park's location on the pier and estuary with an intersection with diversity and cultural
significance in Alameda.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Vice-Chair Robbins
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-C Establish Naming Criteria for Alameda Point Neighborhood park, Located on Coronado Avenue
between Ardent Way and Main Street
ARPD Director Wooldridge gave the presentation which included the the location, design and history
of Alameda Point Neighborhood park.
6-C Public Comments - None
6-C Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Her family fondly refers to it as whale playground but is an opportunity
to add maritime history. The playground was designed with an aquatics theme.
Vice Chair Robbins: Would like the shellmounds to be in consideration for naming the park. Also
likes maritime and aquatics for the criteria.
3",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-12-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-12-09,4,"Chair Alexander: Agrees that shellmound should be considered, but also the history of the whale
and the Naval Air base, something new and refreshing.
6-C Motion
Commissioner Navarro motioned the naming criteria for the Alameda Point Neighborhood Park
be the history of naval maritime, natural landscape and wildlife at Alameda Point
M/S Vice-Chair Robbins / Commissioner Navarro
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-D Establish Naming Criteria for Alameda Point Waterfront Park, Located at the Corner of Ferry Point
Near Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway
ARPD Director Wooldridge gave the presentation which included the location, design and history of
Alameda Point Waterfront Park.
6-D Public Comments
Speaker Betsy Mathieson: Hopes that aviation and sea planes are included in the naming process of
the parks at Alameda Point.
6-D Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: The runways and aviation aspect of the base would be good for the
criteria. Theme of aviation which could include notable aviators; noteworthy aviation history of
Alameda also is a good criteria for the park.
Chair Alexander: Criteria could be something with the base, runways and shell mound.
Vice Chair Robbins: Historical Alameda aviation or aviation related name, like Runway Park.
Commissioner Jones: Aviation museum is close by as well which would be inclusive of a talking
point.
6-D Motion
Commissioner Navarro motioned the naming criteria for the Alameda Point Waterfront Park be
aviation including Alameda history, people and park features.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-E Establish Naming Criteria for Alameda Marina Park. Located on the Alameda/Oakland Estuary
Near Clement Avenue Between Grand Street and Willow Street
ARPD Director Wooldridge gave the presentation which included the location, design and history of
Alameda Marina Park.
6-E Public Comments - None
6-E Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Site specific, related to Marina, the working history of the site and the
shipyards.
4",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-12-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-12-09,5,"Chair Alexander: Shipyards, site specific.
Vice Chair Robbins: Maritime shipyards relating to Alameda.
Commissioner Jones: Special place for her as she lives across the street from the park and is
looking forward to seeing the end result.
6-E Motion
Vice Chair Robbins motioned the naming criteria for Alameda Marina Park be a reflection and
history of working waterfront shipyards
M/S Vice-Chair Robbins / Commissioner Navarro
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-F Nominate and Vote on Recreation and Parks Commission Chair and Vice-Chair
6-F Motion #1 Chair
Vice Chair Robbins nominated Chair Alexander to remain Chair of the Recreation and Park
Commission until at least June 30th 2022
M/S Vice-Chair Robbins / Commissioner Navarro
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-F Motion #2 Vice Chair
Commissioner Navarro nominated Vice Chair Robbins to remain Vice Chair of the Recreation
and Park Commission until at least June 30th 2022
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones
All present in favor with 4 ayes roll call vote
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
Athletic Facility Allocation Policy, Pickleball and Tennis Court options, Alameda Park
Improvement Survey Results, Dog Park Location at Harbor Bay Business Park
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: January 13, 2022
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones
Motion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 4 ayes via roll call vote.
Chair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 9:05 PM.
5",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-12-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-12-09,6,"EXHIBIT 1
12/09/2021 ARPD Director's Report
Presented by Recreation and Park Director Amy Wooldridge
Recreation Services
Summer Programming has begun to prepare for 2022
Limited spaces are left for Santa Home and Virtual Visits and Winter Vacation Camp.
Breakfast with Santa is sold out.
Winter STEM, Sports and Drama Camps still have availability for both vacation weeks with
extended care.
January swim lessons registration to begin on December 18th
Mastick Senior Center
Public Works replaced the HVAC unit at the Mastick Senior Center Social Hall with a new unit that
properly filters the air so the Social Hall can be a citywide fresh air and cooling center.
Park Maintenance
Continuing to install smart irrigation clocks - about three per month for reduced water usage.
Beginning to renovate baseball/softball infields and soccer fields now that seasons are over. Now
through February. Note that this is basic annual maintenance but some fields still need complete
overhaul which costs up to $1 million per field.
Godfrey Park Recreation Center renovation is delayed because contractor found significant dry rot.
Will address that issue and open later in 2022.
Littlejohn Recreation Center rebuild from the fire is moving along and nearing completion on design.
Making adjustments to open up the interior space and make it more usable plus add storage. Need
to stay within parameters of insurance claim.
Administration / Projects
Follow up on how tennis balls are recycled. Some are reused for dogs and for many, the rubber is
separated from the felt and ground up to be used in tennis court resurfacing, equestrian footing and
research is being done for more applications.
Staff has been meeting with ASPA members to negotiate lease terms with a focus on safety, equity
and accessibility. The next step will be a high-level discussion of the lease terms as part of the regular
open City Council agenda in February 2022.
Local residents are spearheading an effort to create a Pride in the Park event in October 2022. ARPD
is collaborating with this executive committee which includes DABA. The event will include a variety
of events throughout the weekend with one goal to support businesses both on Park Street and
Webster Street.",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-12-09.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-12-09,1,"City of Alameda, California
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THURSDAY, December 9, 2021
APPROVED MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Sarah Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:07pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sarah Lewis, Vice President Kristin Furuichi Fong, Priya Jagannathan,
Samantha Green, Scott Means, and Dianne Yamashiro-Omi (joined late).
City staff: Lois Butler, Veronika Cole, Lisa Fitts, and Eric Fonstein (Secretary to the Board).
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3-A October 28, 2021 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes of October 28, 2021 was made by Vice President Furuichi
Fong and seconded by Boardmember Means. Ayes: President S. Lewis, Vice President
Furuichi Fong, Boardmembers Jagannathan, Green, and Means. Nays: none. Note:
Boardmember Yamashiro-Omi abstained due to absence from meeting. Motion passed 5-
0 with one abstention.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. AGENDA ITEMS
5-A Continuation of Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) Retreat and
Working Session to Discuss: Current SSHRB Priorities, Revision to Draft 2022
Work Plan Outlining Priorities and Draft 2022 Work Plan.
Staff member Eric Fonstein announced the SSHRB priorities and listed the
Boardmembers assigned to each subcommittee.
Community Needs Assessment: Boardmember Jagannathan and Green
Human Relations/Alamedans Together Against Hate: Vice President
Furuichi Fong and Boardmember Yamashiro-Omi
Infrastructure (e.g., future work groups): President Lewis and
Boardmember Means
President Lewis stated the need for each subcommittee to develop a work plan, with a
clear timeline and realistic deliverable's, to be presented to City Council in March, 2022.
President Lewis then introduced Renato Almanzor, the retreat facilitator, and asked for
input on next steps.",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-12-09.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-12-09,2,"Mr. Almanzor presented a sample worksheet as a tool to collect ideas pertaining to
SSHRB priorities and work plan development. President Lewis opened the floor for
discussion. Following is a summary of comments/recommendations by Boardmembers:
Community Needs Assessment
Review the previous need assessment, determine consistency from year
to year, and SSHRB's needs
Clarify area of curiosity: culture, structures, programs and populations
Decide methodology (e.g., protocols, community engagement, minimum
number of respondents)
Community outreach, such as possible focus group meetings with
seniors, people with disabilities, and homeless individuals and advocates
Determine timeline for completing survey and presentation of findings for
CDBG process in November
Incorporate previous individuals that participated in 2017 Community
Needs Assessment
Human Relations/Alamedans Together Against Hate:
Define Human Relations and vision (with key informants, such as, faith-
based organizations, immigrant communities, elders, etc.,)
Create an action plan to realize the definition
Possibly have the community needs assessment address some of these
issues
Collaboration with community
Town halls that are facilitated toward healing and a place of
understanding; mutual respect
Develop a sense of proactive rather than reactive to build relationships
and sense of community
Infrastructure (e.g., future work groups):
Identify optimal resources
Establish subject matter experts
List of committees where SSHRB0 is currently involved
Shift from ""Committees"" to ""Action Groups"", to maximize production
Rethink what it means to be a SSHRB member and time commitments
5-B Community Needs for Community Development Block Grant FY 2022-23
Staff member Lisa Fitts presented on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Community Needs for FY 2022-23 Action Plan, highlighting the following key segments:
What is CDBG? Federal funds to assist low - and moderate - income persons by
providing; decent housing, suitable living environment and expanded economic
opportunities.
In 2020 the City of Alameda submitted the five-year strategic plan, outlining the
housing and community development needs. Priorities submitted by SSHRB
included; affordable housing, fair housing, food security, food services, homeless
services, mental health services, safety and crime prevention, and transportation
and pedestrian safety.
As part of the Annual Action Plan, there are a few key dates for SSHRB where
individual actions will be required.
December 14, 2021 - SSHRB Needs Letter Finalized
January 4, 2022 - City Council hears public comment and adopts the
Needs Statement for the FY2022-23 Action Plan",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-12-09.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-12-09,3,"February 3, 2022 - RFP responses due
February 21, 2022 - Public scoring due from SSHRB
March 24, 2022 - SSHRB Meeting to Review Proposed Funding Levels
Spring 2022 - SSHRB Kicks off Community Wide Needs Assessment
Ms. Fitts stated that representative from the following companies, have attended
this meeting to provide a brief update. Family Violence Law Center, Eden
Information and Referral (I&R), Legal Assistance for Seniors and Village of Love.
She asked individuals to raise (virtually) their hand if they would like to speak.
Gitanjali Rawat, Director of Programs with Eden I&R, highlighted the following
key segments:
Eden I&R is the operator for Alameda's 211-Line, which is the 24/7
multilingual phone line that connects individuals and families to critical,
health, housing and human services.
Last fiscal year Eden I&R processed1824 calls and two-way text
message conversations, 2611 health, housing and human service
referrals. This included screening for eligibility and the transfer of 64
callers to the Mid-County West Housing Resource Center, through the
County's, coordinated entry system.
The number one reason for Alameda residents contacting 211 year after
year is housing (rental assistance, utilities assistance, emergency shelter
and transitional housing).
Eden I&R has partnered with Alameda County Public Health Department,
assisting with COVID-19 related calls.
Soft launched, the scheduling of Lyft and Uber rides (subsidized by the
City of Alameda) for qualified clients.
Erin Scott, Executive Director with Family Violence Law Center (FVLC), highlighted
the following key segments:
Provides 24-hour, crisis intervention services to survivors of domestic
violence and sexual assault. Free legal services, civil legal services,
family and housing law services.
Noted the City of Alameda has had the highest number of cases within,
Alameda County, specifically, a 45% increase in the number of survivors
served, and 117% increase in legal services provided, from July-
September 2021, compared to the same time period in 2020.
Alameda Policy Department continues to refer domestic violence calls to
FVLC. The number of cases has gone from an average of 35 calls, per
quarter, to 74 calls, from July-November 2021.
Joey Harrison, Executive Director with The Village of Love, highlighted the following
key segments:
Village of Love operates The Day Center (7 days per week), Safe Parking
Program, Overnight Shelter and coordination of FEMA Trailers.
Provide housing navigation and case management for individuals to
ensure needs are being met.
President Lewis opened for Board comment. Boardmember Yamashiro-Omi asked Ms.
Scott if she's seen an increase in cases from immigrant communities or from a specific
demographic. Ms. Scott, replied that she did not have the answer right now, however
will follow up with official demographic percentages. Boardmember Jagannathan asked
Mr. Harrison about the Safe Parking program and its current vacancy. Mr. Harrison",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-12-09.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-12-09,4,"confirmed, there are spaces available. President Lewis thanked everyone for their time
and presentation.
Boardmember Yamashiro-Omi put forth a motion for President Lewis to finalize the
SSHRB Needs Letter, seconded by Boardmember Jagannathan. Ayes: President Lewis,
Vice President Furuichi Fong, Boardmembers Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green and
Means. Nays: none. Motion passed 6-0.
5-C Status of the 2022 Point-in-Time County Count of the Unhoused in the City of
Alameda
Staff member Veronika Cole introduced Katie Haverly with EveryOneHome. Together
they presented the report on the 2022 Point in Time Count for the unhoused in the City of
Alameda. Following were the highlighted key segments:
Point-in-Time (PIT) is a count and survey of sheltered and unsheltered people
experiencing homelessness on a single night in January
It is required by HUD; informs funding that the county will receive for homeless
services
This year the PIT count will be on Tuesday January 25, 2022 (complying with all
COVID-19 policies and procedures)
Outreach teams will be assigned census tracts. Areas with higher concentrations
of unhoused individuals will have teams that include an individual with lived
experience who is paid to be a guide for the count.
Still recruiting for guides and volunteers
Ms. Haverly thanked the Boardmembers for their time, and offered to leave her email
address if anyone had additional questions following the meeting.
5-D Approve SSHRB Meeting Schedule for 2022
Boardmember Furuichi Fong put forth a motion to approve the schedule without any
changes, seconded by Boardmember Means. Ayes: President Lewis, Vice President
Furuichi Fong, Boardmembers Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green and Means. Nays:
none. Motion passed 6-0.
5-E Workgroup Reports
Homeless Action Plan Workgroup: No additional update.
Domestic Violence: Mr. Fonstein reported that Sgt. Mountain for Alameda Police
Department was unable to make the last quarterly meeting on December 9 due to
police training. Therefore, the meeting was cancelled and will be rescheduled after
the New Year.
Community Service Awards: The Awards were held on November 17. There was
no Workgroup report.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Butler provided the following updates:
Feed Alameda: Ms. Butler reported that the program has ended with no more
available funding.",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-12-09.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-12-09,5,"Transitional Housing Program: Ms. Butler confirmed that the HomeKey application
has been submitted. City staff submitted an application for approximately $12.3
million of Project Homekey Round 2 funding available through the State of
California Department of Housing and Community Development. A response is
expected from the State by mid-January. If awarded, Ms. Butler said that
construction of the temporary housing on the ""bottle parcel"", near the College of
Alameda, would need to be completed by October, 2022. This application was
very extensive with many staff hours contributed to its completion, along with
additional time spent from the co-applicants.
Encampments: Ms. Butler provided a status update for various sites.
Civic Center Garage-the person has moved away from the site.
Main Street-The Public Works Department is scheduled to clean up the
encampment on December 16 and the inhabitants will be relocated in the
area.
City Hall Steps-this site is also scheduled to be cleaned up by the Public
Works Department
Homeless Housing Assistance Program (HHAP) Funding: At this time, staff does
not have a timeline from the County. The City has been providing temporary grants
for overnight shelters, which will hopefully be reimbursed by the County.
7. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
President Lewis adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Fonstein, Board Secretary",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-12-09.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -DECEMBER 7, 2021--5:30 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:04 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Spencer, Vella and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at
5:11 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried 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]. [Items
so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*21-776) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager; Lisa Maxwell,
Community Development Director; and Louis Liss, Base Reuse Manager, as
Designated Negotiators with the Navy at Alameda Point. Accepted.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-777) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: Alameda Point/Former Naval Air Station Alameda; City
Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager; Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director
and Louis Liss, Base Reuse Manager; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and U.S.
Navy; Under Negotiation: Terms of property disposition from the U.S. Navy to the
City
(21-778) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation; Initiation of litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4); Number of cases:
One (As Plaintiff City Initiating Legal Action) Potential Defendant(s): Alameda Point
Partners, LLC
(21-779) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager; Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager; and
Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations: Alameda Police
Officers Association (APOA), Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA) and
Alameda Fire Managers Association (AFMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee
Benefits and Terms of Employment
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,2,"Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding Alameda Point, staff provided information and Council
provided direction with no vote taken; regarding Litigation, staff provided information
and Council provided direction 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; and regarding Labor, staff provided information and Council provided
direction by the following roll call votes: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer:
No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3; Noes: 2; and:
Councilmembers Daysog: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3; Noes: 1; Abstention: 1.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:16
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,3,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY--DECEMBER 7, 2021-6:59 - P.M.
Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Councilmember 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.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion noting he posed questions
to staff.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White:
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.]
(*21-780 CC/21-23 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Transactions
Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2021. Accepted.
(*21-781 CC/21-24 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fourth Quarter Financial
Report for the Period Ending June 30, 2021. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at
7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,4,"616
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--DECEMBER - 7, 2021--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor
Vella left the meeting at 10:56 p.m. The meeting was
conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(21-782) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing the License Plate
Readers item [paragraph no. 21-818 as the first regular item.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
(21-783) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the referral regarding parking
recreational vehicle [paragraph no. 21-819 before the first regular item.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(21-784) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read a proclamation honoring Peter Hegarty.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-785) Beth Kenny, Alameda, expressed her appreciation for the Alameda Community
Assessment Response and Engagement (CARE) Team starting before the end of the year;
stated not much has been heard about other recommendations, such as a Community Police
Accountability Commission; if the Commission is going to be in the Charter, there is limited time
before the General Election; suggested an update on Subcommittee recommendations.
(21-786) Fey A, Alameda, discussed COVID drugs, data that she submitted, and treatments.
(21-787) Marlese Ramirez, discussed data regarding injuries from the vaccine.
(21-788) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, discussed Senate Bill (SB) 9; expressed concern about SB 9
decreasing the ambiance and quality of life in Alameda; over Council meetings not starting on
time.
(21-789) Jill Staten, Alameda, inquired when meetings will be opened up; expressed concerns
about Zoom.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,21,"633
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether a six month follow-up is being included for
staff to report on how the program is working at all hours; expressed support for follow-up from
staff due to deviation from the proposed hours and distances.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the follow-up will be addressed by having staff perform a check-in with
AC Transit; she understood the six month check-in to occur whether AC Transit had issues with
bus headways; should staff go to AC Transit, Council will receive feedback.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated one year's time for a check-in will provide a more realistic idea for
the program; implemented changes take time and getting used to; expressed support for a one
year check-in.
The Public Works Director stated staff will have to change the signal timing following the
meeting and the effort is not typically quick; the one year check-in will be sufficient.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the intent is to call AC Transit and schedule a meeting
about the proposed program or to implement the policy and provide a check-in one year later.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands the motion to have staff talk to AC Transit,
should AC Transit have a significant problem with the proposal, staff can return to Council.
Councilmember Knox White concurred with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; stated there is strong interest
in a full report after one year; amended the motion to include staff returning with a report on how
the program is working.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the amendment to the motion.
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.
***
(21-812) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a vote is needed to consider new agenda items past 11:00
p.m.; stated that she does not support hearing the license plate reader [paragraph no 21-
matter.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the meeting until midnight hearing
the slow streets [paragraph no 21- and agreement with Kittelson [paragraph no 21-
matters; recommended the license plate reader matter be continued to the Continued Agenda
Items section as 6-A for the December 21st meeting; stated should there be time, Council
Referrals can be heard.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not inclined to hearing Council Referrals at midnight.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed 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.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the slow streets, the agreement with
Kittelson and the license plate reader matters to the December 21st meeting under the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,22,"634
Continued Agenda Items section.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the current meeting will end and the remaining items
will be heard at the following meeting, to which Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion requires three or four
affirmative votes.
The City Clerk responded three affirmative votes are needed to continue matters.
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 10:56 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:13 p.m.
***
(21-813) Recommendation to Approve a One-Year Extension of the Slow Streets Program
through December 2022. Continued to December 21, 2021.
(21-814) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to
the Agreement with Kittelson & Associates to Increase Compensation by $270,906, for a Total
Aggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $345,876 to Continue Providing Technical Services
Related to Roundabouts. Continued to December 21, 2021.
(21-815) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Installation and Use of
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR), including Fixed and Mobile Equipment on Alameda
Police Department Vehicles. Continued to December 21, 2021.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(21-816) The City Manager announced that the City will begin bargaining with its five
miscellaneous groups including Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA), Management
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA), Alameda Police Officers Association for non-
sworn personnel (APOA), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and Electric
Utility Professionals of Alameda (EUPA); discussed the closure of Sherman Street/Atlantic
Avenue between Buena Vista Avenue and Wind River Road until December 30th due to
construction and detour information is posted; provided updates on Alameda Community
Assessment Response and Engagement (CARE) team which can be reached at (510) 337-
8340; discussed a report coming to Council on December 21st related to the Racial Equity and
Political Reform actions taken by City Council; stated an application for Project HomeKey has
been submitted, staff will be notified after the first of the year of funding availability.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,23,"635
(21-817) Jim Strehlow, Alameda, stated that he experienced confusion with the multiple
motions, counter-motions, amendments and staff confusion; the meeting schedule is unclear.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21-818) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-819) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational
Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-820) 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.
(21-821) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting
Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember
Daysog) Not heard.
(21-822) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to
Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023-
2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.
(21-823) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers
Herrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard.
(21-824) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular
City Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-825) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-826) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-827) Councilmember Knox White discussed AC Transit's review and changes to the ferry
bus schedule and route.
(21-828) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed a menorah and tree lighting at South
Shore Shopping Center; announced an event at Starbucks put on by the Chamber of
Commerce which hosted the new Fire and Police Chief; stated that she has recently been a
victim of assault in town.
(21-829) Councilmember Daysog discussed roll call voting.
(21-830) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced a memorial bike ride which stopped at places
involving pedestrian or cyclist traffic deaths; discussed one menorah lighting at South Shore
Shopping Center and another at Rittler Park; stated that she read a proclamation for Pearl
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,24,"636
Harbor Remembrance Day at Coast Guard Island Alameda; urged those that are eligible to get
their vaccination and booster shots.
ADJOURNMENT
(21-831) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:29
p.m. in memory of Peter Hegarty.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,5,"617
(21-790) Michael Kellett stated emphasis should be on treatment instead of the vaccine; health
should be the focus; expressed concern about children being vaccinated.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Expressed concern about an issue with the livestreaming link at the last meeting and the
livestream being 30 seconds slower than Zoom; suggested opening the Library community
room and holding meetings in person: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's request, the City Clerk outlined the ways to participate
and watch meetings.
In response to Councilmember Knox White's inquiry, the City Clerk stated Mr. Strehlow was
referencing the November 30th meeting; a new piece of equipment was installed and there was
a caching issue; the matter has been resolved.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the teleconference findings [paragraph no. 21-800]
be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Daysog requested the salary schedule resolution [paragraph no. 21-802 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: 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.]
(*21-792) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on November 2, 2021.
Approved.
(*21-793) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,100,557.30.
(*21-794) Recommendation to Accept and File Various Community Facilities Districts (CFD)
Reports for Fiscal Year (FY) Ending June 30, 2021, including: CFD No. 03-1 (Bayport Municipal
Services District); CFD No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements); CFD No. 13-2
(Alameda Landing Municipal Services District); CFD District No. 14-1 (Marina Cove II); and CFD
No. 17-1 (Alameda Point Public Services District). Accepted.
(*21-795) Recommendation to Accept the Development Impact Fee and Fleet Industrial Supply
Center (FISC)/Catellus Traffic Fee Report. Accepted.
(*21-796) Recommendation to Accept the 2013 Local Library Bond Measure Annual Report.
Accepted.
(*21-797) Recommendation to Accept the Police and Fire Construction Impact Fee Annual
Report. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,6,"618
(*21-798) Recommendation to Accept the Biennial Report for the Public Art Fund as Required
by the Public Art Ordinance. Accepted.
(*21-799) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Review of the City of Alameda's Affordable
Housing Unit Fee Requirements Consistent with Section 27-1 of the Alameda Municipal Code;
Accept the Annual Affordable Housing Unit Fee Fund Activity Report; and Find that: 1) Unit/Fee
Requirements Set Forth in Local Law Remain Reasonably Related to the Impacts of
Development, and 2) the Affordable Housing Units, Programs and Activities Required by Local
Law Remains Needed to Support the Production of Affordable Housing in the City. Accepted.
(21-800) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via
Teleconference.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated other agencies have started meeting in person;
inquired the criteria from the State or if opening meetings up is at the discretion of the Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a number of bodies she serves on are waiting until the year is over
and will do an assessment with hopes of going back to in person or hybrid meetings; the
Omicron and Delta variants have thrown a little bit of a wrench into the works.
The City Clerk responded there are not thresholds the City has to meet in order to reopen;
stated the City has to meet thresholds in order to continue teleconferencing; the City Council
has to make findings every 30 days in order to suspend Brown Act requirements and allow
members to meet in other locations without disclosing the location and opening the location to
the public.
The City Attorney stated the State law is permissive of remote meetings until 2024; the Council
needs to make two findings: the State of Emergency established by the Governor remains in
effect, which is true, and State or local officials continue to recommend measures to promote
social distancing or meeting in person will present risk to attendees; the findings allow the
Council to continue to meet remotely.
The City Manager stated the City Council asked staff to bring back information after the first of
the year as the situation is evaluated.
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: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(*21-801) Resolution No. 15843, ""Summarily Vacate an Excess Portion of Mosley Avenue
Between Bette Street and Lakehurst Circle in the City of Alameda (North Housing), Under
Streets and Highways Code, Sections 8330, et seq."" Adopted.
(21-802) Resolution No. 15844, ""Amending the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 1245 Salary Schedule Effective January 2, 2022 to Implement Compensation Changes.'
Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not like salary surveys and will be voting no.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,7,"619
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Public Utilities Board has already
approved the recommendation and whether funding will come from Alameda Municipal Power
(AMP), not the General Fund.
The City Manager responded the increases are paid through AMP revenues; stated the
increase was previously negotiated; the market rate adjustment is part of the 2019 agreement.
The Human Resources Director stated the City Manager is correct; funding is paid by AMP and
was part of the 2019 negotiations.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Human Resources Director stated
the amount is $90,000 for the remainder of this fiscal year covering 28 positions; noted some
positions are not filled or are under-filled.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which 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.
(21-803) Resolution No. 15845, ""Amending the Capital Budget by Increasing Appropriations in
the Library Improvements Capital Project in Fund 310 by $253,000 for the Bay Farm Island
Library Drainage Project, Energy Efficient Lighting Upgrades, Replacing Water Fountains with
Water Bottle Fill Stations, Maintenance of the Main Library Heating Ventilation and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) System and Other Facilities Upgrades."" Adopted.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
(21-804) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to: 1) Execute an
Agreement with Terris Barnes Walters Boigon Heath Lester, Inc. (TBWBH) in an Amount Not to
Exceed $132,000 for Strategic Support, Research, Ballot Measure Development, Informational
Outreach and Other Steps Necessary to Prepare a Potential Revenue Measure for the
November 2022 Ballot; and Execute an Agreement with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz &
Associates (FM3) in an Amount Not to Exceed $37,000 for Survey Development,
Implementation, and Associated Analysis Related to a Potential Revenue Measure for the
November 2022 Ballot; and
(21-804 A) Resolution No. 15846, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget by Increasing
Appropriations in the City Manager's Office by $169,000 to Enter into Agreements with Terris
Barnes Walters Boigon Heath Lester, Inc. (TBWBH) and Fairbank, Maslin, Metz & Associates
(FM3) for Services Related to a Potential Revenue Measure for the November 2022 Ballot.""
Adopted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the types of measures being considered.
The Assistant City Manager responded decisions have not been made; stated the item
authorizes staff to work with two consultants to start to explore options.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's further inquiry, the Assistant City Manager
stated the staff report includes options of a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) related to hotels, a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,8,"620
cannabis tax, an infrastructure bond, a business license tax, an affordable housing bond and
there may be others, such as a Utility Users Tax (UUT).
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolution]; expressed frustration about staff being asked to repeat information in the staff
report.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he agrees with exploring the options; he
is not in favor of any, but leans favorable to hotel tax and possibly the cannabis tax.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council should express favoritism of specific options
since the item is about engaging consultants.
The City Attorney responded the item before Council is a contract; Council could direct the
contractor to only study specific ballot measures, rather than preferences of specific ballot
measures.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is open to the analysis and would love to have an
analysis of the hotel tax and cannabis tax.
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.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted one of the consultants assisted with the Library bond measure.
(21-805) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No.15847, ""Amending Master Fee Resolution
No. 12191 to Add and Revise Recreation and Park Fees for Calendar Year 2022."" Adopted.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding development of the fees,
the Recreation and Parks Director stated staff develops the fees based on comparisons; the
matter goes to the Recreation and Parks Commission for discussion; user groups are informed
of any fee increase; the Commission unanimously approved the fees.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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 acknowledged the Department's work.
The Recreation and Parks Director recognized staff working on the front line.
(21-806) Recommendation that City Council, Boards and Commissions Annually Review
Meeting Schedules for Possible Conflicts that Inhibit Maximum Public Participation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,9,"improvements like pruning trees near stop signs and repairing potholes; expressed support for
education and communication: Jill Staten, Alameda.
Expressed her support and appreciation for the Plan; acknowledged grief; stated the Plan lays
out concrete actions and adds layers of protection; encouraged taking advantage of funding and
momentum: Susie Hufstader, Alameda.
Stated Council knows the right thing to do; expressed support for Vision Zero; stated 2035 is still
13 years; the sooner the better: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,10,"622
Urged the issue be on the forefront with future City Councils through to 2035 to ensure funding
and support; stated traffic safety around schools is important; stated those who have lost their
lives is a tragedy the City cannot afford anymore: Bill Garvine, Alameda.
Expressed concern about statistics not representing reality; discussed accidents and safety
measures; stated most people think increased traffic enforcement is desirable: Jim Strehlow,
Alameda.
Expressed support for the program; stated moving forward is essential; nothing will guarantee
zero deaths, but systemic changes can reduce the probabilty: Bill Pai, Alameda.
Expressed concern about drivers looking at cellphones and support for ticketing the drivers;
urged enforcement: Michael Devine, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the methodology that resulted in Goal 4.14 of 15 to 20 Miles
Per Hour (MPH) speeds around schools.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded the item is in the medium term section to be
achieved in 3 to 5 years, rather than the short term of 1 to 2 years; stated there are a number of
items to be accomplished in the short term period that were high priority; the lower speed limits
around schools will take staff time to complete engineering and speed studies; Council could
instruct staff to make move up the priority, but there would be an opportunity cost; staff thinks
changing the infrastructure around the schools is probably more effective than making new
speed limits.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Plan is well balanced between engineering, education and
enforcement; discussed traffic enforcement data; a recent change in State law allows cities to
use video, which should be taken into consideration; discussed traffic fatalities and showed a
slide; expressed appreciation for looking at all enforcement and engineering options; stated that
he supports the recommendation.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolutions].
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the Plan is fabulous; regarding Actions
1.3 and 3.1, messaging should focus on actions that cause harm, not self-protection; the City
has the data now and can identify where the hard is coming from and where to direct the
majority of communications; communication does not change behavior; it helps people
understand increased enforcement around speeding and redesigning streets; sharing the road
is not an actionable statement; people need to be asked to do specific things, which requires
talking about actions that are causing harm; spending $200,000 on education annually is a lot of
money; only $10,000 to $15,000 should be spent on what people should do to protect
themselves; the Plan should direct the City to focus on actions that result in harm; 15 and 20
MPH was discussed two years ago and COVID got in the way; one resolution encourages using
money for additional staff resources; he hopes one of the first things done is to identify slower
speed school zones; kids are even more vulnerable; discussed fatality rates of pedestrians hit
differing speeds.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,11,"Transportation Director stated the information is based on the number of collisions over time.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether voting for the Plan means there would be
more intersections like Otis Drive and Grand Street and more reductions of lanes, to which the
Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated Council is
voting to take actions to reduce speeds, which reduces the probability of death; road diets are
proven to reduce collisions.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supports slowing down, but not stopping;
discussed areas with long lines of stopped cars; inquired whether staff tries to balance and
prevent slowing and going 5 MPH.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the intersection at Grand Street and Otis Drive has a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,12,"624
center left turn lane.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded there is a left turn lane on Grand Street at Otis
Drive in both directions.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's further inquiry, the Deputy Public Works Director stated
there is not a right turn lane on Otis Drive; there is a through lane and left turn.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the left turn lane is short and backs up preventing
people from being able to go straight; people cannot turn right on red unless they are the first
car; cars enter the bike lane to turn right; signage should be improved; based on the data, she
has concerns about deaths increasing.
Jessica Zdeb, Toole Design, stated what the City is seeing is unfortunately a national trend; at
the end of October, a US Department of Transportation (DOT) press release indicated 2021 is
on track to be the worst year of crashes in a very long time; the trend was going down until a
spike in 2020, which will be exceeded in 2021; there are not clear answers about why the trend
has changed in the last two years; every report indicates speed as the main thing causing traffic
deaths and serious injuries; staff has been doing a diligent job studying before and after
changes are made and should continue; data is really important to the planning effort.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the same types of changes are being made in cities
throughout the Country; she cannot support the recommendation and believes some of the
changes are contributing to the deaths.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated passing this is very important; there are things the community can
do to make improve safety; provided an example of a car running a red light; expressed support
for video cameras; discussed the fatalities; the City needs to reduce speeds and the number of
cars on the roadways.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether Councilmember Daysog understood his
comments clarifying the communications were included in the motion when he seconded the
motion.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
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.
(21-808) Resolution No. 15850, ""Establishing Policies on Signalized Intersection Access Equity
to Promote Safe, Livable Streets, and Environmentally Sustainable Transportation Choices.""
Adopted.
The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.
***
(21-809) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing an additional two minutes for
the presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,13,"625
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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 Public Works Director completed the presentation.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the presentation slide, the
Public Works Director stated the person should be inside the crosswalk.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the resolution prioritizes intersections would be
prioritized for people who are elderly and disabled.
The Public Works Director outlined the provision in the resolution.
Outlined timing issues crossing at Tilden Way and Broadway to try to take the bus; she takes
her car due to missing the bus; discussed emissions: Alana Stoltzfuz, Alameda.
Outlined her experience having to access sidewalk push buttons while cycling around Alameda;
expressed support for the policy; urged pedestrian and cyclists have easy access to parks
without having to hit buttons unnecessarily: Katherine Van Dusen, Alameda.
Stated the fundamental question is how much burden should be placed on people outside of
cars wanting to use the streets; equitable cycle time does not capture the full burden on
pedestrians; outlined issues for pedestrians; suggested implementing the tools in all
intersections, not just in business districts; expressed concern about inconsistencies; inquired
about the implementation timeline and cost: Denyse Trepanier, BikeWalk Alameda.
Expressed concern about inconsistency and signals operating differently from 10 am to 7 pm;
stating having signals operate consistently throughout the day is helpful; separation in space
and time are fundamental for safety; discussed yielding issues; urged targeting the most
dangerous intersections: Susie Hufstader, Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he has recommended amendments; he wants to make
sure the resolution term ""near schools"" means any intersection which qualifies for yellow paint;
noted that the current term is unclear, and consistency is needed to get out of the history of
individualizing intersections; stated that he is excited to have a standard policy; the use of the
term ""intersection access equity"" is not to create equal minutes to cross through intersections
and was meant to address the specific issue of how easy it is to degrade the ease in walking
across the street as a pedestrian in order to put more traffic through intersections; Council is
now making decisions based on aggregate time lost across and intersection and only 8 to 10
seconds for a driver versus 20 to 60 seconds for a pedestrian; the impact on the encouraged
mode of walking, is setting up hurdles at all intersections by confusion through non-standard
implementation and by setting up a situation where pedestrians are met with having to wait for
traffic to pass; expressed support for amending the time in the CC zones to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. which addresses some of the comments heard; noted commuters typically travel between
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. in commercial districts; stated that he is unsure why the City would
wait to make it easier to cross the street until commute times are over; due to encouraging
walking in commercial districts, the lights should not only be in the CC zone but also within one
half mile of CC zones and within one quarter mile of parks; he would like clarity added should an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,14,"626
exemption happen that data will show the problem and not anecdotal; Council needs to identify
a problem and that other options have been considered; expressed concern for minimum
recalls; stated that he would like to propose having a maximum, minimum recall to ensure
pedestrians are not inconvenienced; stated the maximum minimum should be in place during
business hours; noted lights have been staying red for pedestrians and green for cars for 20 to
30 seconds; stated the lights should not be shortened at the other end; should the City give a
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) of 7 seconds, it makes sense to give cars 7 seconds at the
end however, the idea of chopping things off at the end, providing pedestrians less time to walk
through commercial districts; adding the amendments will address comments provided by
speakers Trepanier and Huffstader.
The Public Works Director stated the school zones are defined as having a 600 foot buffer are
typically painted yellow crossings.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated that she
understands the recommendation to add additional intersections one half mile approaching the
commercial districts and one quarter mile from all City parks.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether amending the CC zones from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. is
understood, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; noted the
decisions are policy driven and the staff recommendation is to balance the need to serve transit
signal priority which causes trade-off in maximizing transit signal priority; Council may provide
direction to staff to adjust the hours.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether any of the proposed recommendations have been posed
in the Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC) for either Councilmembers Daysog or Knox White.
Councilmember Knox White responded that ILC has not met since the proposal has been put
together; noted an article on beg buttons had been published recently with extensive quotes
from the Alameda County (AC) Transit Director; the quotes included problems with blind
implementation of transit improvements related to big buttons along corridors; ILC is aware of
the issue, and the decision will be policy based; the delays are calculated in seconds, not
minutes.
Councilmember Daysog stated AC Transit has mentioned concerns about things that slow down
the time for busses as they go through major commercial areas; he is unsure whether the
reference made was for proposed pedestrian safety features; expressed support for the staff
recommendation and for proposed recommendations made by Councilmember Knox White;
questioned whether staff feels as though they can make professional judgements to the
implications of the proposed recommendations; stated there have been many proposed
changes; expressed support for taking time to evaluate the changes; stated page 9 of the
presentation showed emission levels; inquired the baseline used for the increase
measurements.
The Public Works Director responded the number represents a delta; stated the number is a
change between the recall, the proposed operations; the signal is providing a walk signal
regardless of whether a pedestrian is present; the action leads to an unnecessary length of
time; the proposed timing is demand based and a walk signal will only activate should the button
be pressed; the amount shown is the difference between the two approaches.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,15,"627
Councilmember Daysog inquired the denominator for the calculation.
Ryan Dole, Kimley Horn and Associates, responded the tables in the staff report show the
totals; the report shows peak hour times which generally have the most traffic; the totals show
the hours of delay over one year during weekdays; discussed demand based options versus
recall options; stated staff has chosen a variety of intersections and congestion; there is an
overall sway in delay which can be caused by volume.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the report and analysis; stated that she
appreciates the details related to emissions, delays, impacts, unnecessary wait times and a
balanced approach; she supports the matter as-is; questioned the impacts for the proposed
recommendations made by Councilmember Knox White; expressed support for input from staff
on the time change to CC zones.
The Public Works Director stated the recommended changes should be prefaced by an
understanding of policy decisions being made; the timing is a policy decision and the
recommendation of distances from schools and parks will impact a number of additional
signalized intersections across the island; the matters are of policy decision and will put the
discussion in the realm of intersection delays; the timing for Park and Webster Street originally
set a pedestrian volume of 25 pedestrians per hour; staff will go out an collect data when the
limit is reached and set timing based on volume; staff has received feedback and amended the
proposal to include the time frame of 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; another approach could be to go
back to the volume amount of 25 pedestrians per hour with the time frame to be determined
following the meeting.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands Councilmember Knox White's
recommended time frame to include commute hours with a high amount of pedestrians
however, the recommendation does not seem to correlate to the criteria.
The Public Works Director stated that she does not know of many pedestrians in the morning;
the morning typically brings buses which are trying to get on and off the island; until the City
goes into recall at 10:00 a.m. staff is trying to optimize or maximize the use of transit signal
priority; should Council chose the recall operation starting at 7:00 a.m. staff will diminish the
ability to do transit signal priority in the morning.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated one of the concerns is for the people riding buses;
expressed support for encouraging people to ride buses; she supports the staff
recommendation as-is; discussed red lights for pedestrians; noted many times pedestrians enter
the crosswalk late; stated the timing could be based off late crosswalk entry.
The Public Works Director stated the function called ""rest and walk"" involves an extended
pedestrian phase until the green light for the vehicle terminates; the Park Street and Encinal
Avenue intersection signal is being used as an example; noted the signal is in total recall and
should be in ""rest and walk"" when the signals are coordinated; the experience of the pedestrian
signal being exterminated short means that the signal is not in ""rest and walk;"" the signal has
been fixed at the Park Street and Encinal Avenue intersection; inquired whether the assessment
is correct.
Mr. Dole responded in the affirmative; stated a setting exists which allows the pedestrian phase
to continue to stay in walk until an opposing movement occurs on a side street is detected; once
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,16,"628
the opposing movement occurs, a flashing ""do not walk"" phase will begin; fine tuning must be
done on the corridor; staff has been working though the fine tuning under special settings
including recall when vehicles are detected; pedestrian phases might be skipped when a signal
resets to a main or side street based on recalling to the vehicle phase; complicated
programming is being worked through with technicians.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for keeping the staff recommendation
without any proposed additions; stated that she is able to make a motion should there not be
one on the table.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is not interested in supporting the recommendation;
noted a motion has not yet been made for the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation [including
adoption of related resolution.]
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated Oakland has a 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. timing; she
does not understand why Alameda would not try to do the same in order to assist commuters
and reduce congestion; shifting the time will make a difference and help more people
comfortably use alternative modes of transportation to commute; the impacts for Oakland were
not as originally anticipated; the recommendation is worth exploring and the matter is a policy
decision; expressed support for the timing change; stated that she hopes Council provides
consideration for certain areas; Council is encouraging people to walk to and from business
districts; some of the worst intersections for pedestrians waiting at beg buttons are within a few
blocks of the business districts and commercial centers; many times beg buttons are a distance
from the crossing; discussed one of the worst intersections being near Washington Park;
expressed support for streamlining the process, extending the zones throughout the island, and
for safe time to cross intersections
Vice Mayor Vella proposed a friendly amendment to consider shifting the time and extending
zones; stated there are policy decisions worth making.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is generally supportive of approving with or without
amendments; it is important to move the matter forward; her one consideration is whether or not
the City has checked in with Alameda County (AC) Transit; she appreciates that the City of
Oakland has similar timing to the proposed recommendation; noted Alameda and Oakland are
different in many ways; noted that AC Transit has mentioned the challenge in public transit
meeting every ferry arrival and departure; it is important for buses to arrive on time and arrange
for passengers to board the ferry; expressed concern over unintended consequences; there is a
lot to recommend in policy changes however, Council should check in with the City's transit
partner due to impacts to schedules; she is open to hear ways to address the concerns.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would consider leaving the staff
recommendation as-is and have the matter return in six months; after the six months' time, staff
can have more input related to ways the program can be altered; the approval allows the City to
move forward in the meantime, allowing for input from AC Transit on potential impacts.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether six months' time is enough to return to Council with
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,17,"629
statistically relevant information; whether there are ways the City might be able to check-in with
AC Transit.
The Public Works Director responded staff interacts with AC Transit frequently; AC Transit's
general request is for more transit signal priority; the decision is ultimately one for the local
jurisdiction; increases to the zones, and more intersections placed in recall will cause an
increase in intersection delay for transit; the trade-off will need to be considered; staff's
recommendation balances in terms of location and space; adjustments to the policy is a
decision to be made by Council; noted the data presented in the staff report should be used to
guide the policy and decision making process.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is willing to
amend her motion to change the time to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., that the City expand the CC
zoning to within one quarter mile of a park and CC zoning, and to ask staff to look at the
maximum, minimum recall on lights that are not currently on recall to allow for a maximum
amount of time pedestrians have to wait when a button is pressed, and return to Council in the
future with a proposal.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff will return with only the delay time, to which
Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the other recommendations are proposed as being
incorporated with the current motion, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the yellow zone is 600 feet as opposed to the one
quarter mile being recommended; requested clarification for the distance from staff; expressed
support for looking at the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. timing and the 600 foot distance; stated the
timing and distance are a good compromise between the recommendations from
Councilmember Knox White and staff.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can request all details be brought back in six months' time
to review functions, hear from transit partners and receive studies on various intersections.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the approach is her preference.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the recommendations provided by Councilmember Knox
White can be incorporated allowing for staff to return in six months.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded the one quarter mile is too far a distance;
expressed support for a 600 foot distance; stated that she is happy to try the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. timeline; it is important to hear from transit partners; expressed concern over slowing down
too much; stated that she would like more data provided from staff; her preference is to
accommodate the areas however, using the current 600 foot distance from schools.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated one quarter mile is 1,320 feet; the proposed recommendation is to
almost double the current distance amount.
The Public Works Director stated Council may propose a pedestrian based distance instead of a
blanket distance; staff's general recommendation is that the operation be implemented when
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,18,"630
pedestrian volume warrants; when pedestrian volume does not warrant the distance, the
increase in delay at the intersection of serving the walk signal during every signal, may not be a
balanced approach; discussed a distance from a park when the intersections have 25
pedestrians per hour volume; stated staff can assess which intersections have 25 pedestrians
per hour near parks and implement the operation where needed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the operation can be implemented during school hours
for the recommended distance from schools.
The Public Works Director responded it is possible; stated staff will need to develop an
approach to how the times are determined and when pedestrians are present; staff will be able
to have operations on at a certain set time to have signalized intersections revert to demand
based, outside of the determined hours.
Councilmember Knox White stated staff will have to commit to going out to 88 intersections and
count pedestrians twice per year to ensure proper adjustments.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is happy to support the Public Works Director's
recommendation as a friendly amendment, and have the matter return in six months' time with
input from AC Transit partners and staff.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is staff capacity to implement the pedestrian
volume count.
The Public Works Director responded the approach for the volume count would be to perform
the count once over a certain period of time to determine which intersections are in and which
are not; staff can implement changes as they arise; staff does not have the resources to commit
an annual or twice annual pedestrian count.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated staff can change
as-needed; a pedestrian threshold can be set however, a one per year pedestrian count does
seem to be resource-intensive at this point for the purpose.
***
(21-810) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of allowing an additional one minute for
Councilmembers.
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.
Councilmember Knox White stated the current proposal has the highest level of inconsistency
and will result in a degradation of the pedestrian and bike environment in Alameda; he cannot
support the current proposal; the goal of the matter is to stop moving toward making the task of
crossing an intersection more difficult as a pedestrian; Council is creating more difficulty in the
confusion of not knowing when to push a button and having to wait longer; he will support
something which will move the City toward conditions from a few years prior rather than moving
toward conditions taking a long time to walk across town or being unsure of whether to use a
push button or not.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,19,"631
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the current motion on the table.
The City Clerk responded the last amendment made to the motion was to accept the
recommendation from the Public Works Director to measure.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the recommendation from the Public Works Director is staff
comments; inquired the last amended motion from Councilmember Herrera Spencer.
The City Clerk responded the motion included staff's recommendation as-is and have staff
come back in six months' time; noted Councilmember Herrera Spencer approved accepting the
Public Works Director's comments as an amendment to the motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is approving the Public Works Directors' last
comments as well as returning to Council in six months' time.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. time frame and the one quarter
mile distance from school zones is included in the motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded that her understanding of the comments provided
by the Public Works Director, recommended looking at the timing being pedestrian based; the
area covers an expansive portion of the island and timing should be pedestrian based;
expressed support for the timing being pedestrian based with a return to Council in six months'
time for discussion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that her inclination is not to support the iteration; noted Council
does want to encourage people to walk and do so safely; she is afraid of taking an approach
which waits until pedestrian volume reaches 25 per hour, the City is not providing the incentives
for pedestrians to get out there and feel safe doing so; she is struggling with the potential
impacts to AC Transit; the City needs to keep commuters and people that do not have cars and
rely on the bus to be able to get where they need by having buses run on-time.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolution] with amendments to the time in CC zones to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., a 600 foot
distance from schools and parks, transit priority when buses drive by, the signal can shorten or
hold the lights using smart corridors installed, and a request for staff to come back within the
next year with a proposal for how the City will address times when auto-recall is not occurring.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, The Public Works Director stated staff's understanding is a trade-off between
operations giving a walk signal every cycle and being able to give transit signal priority; the
transit signal priority does not trump or override the walk signal; should a walk signal be given,
there is less time to steal from the phases that are not being used in order to extend the green
for the bus; the result is a zero sum game; the more time given to pedestrians, the less time is
able to be given to extend for transit signal priority.
Mr. Dole stated traditional transit priority for buses borrows time; should the time be unused, the
time is borrowed; the signal does not act similar to an emergency vehicle preemption with
override; some override preemptions will change the operations; the transit priority operations
being discussed will only borrow time that is unused; one of the concerns with recall is the a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-07,20,"632
balance between life of cycle and allocating time to people; sometimes there is not a lot of flex",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY
DECEMBER 6, 2021
7:00 P.M.
Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Montgomery, Reid,
Shabazz and Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was
conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
[Staff present: Assistant City Attorney John Le; Chief Assistant City
Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie; City Clerk Lara Weisiger]
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT
Anonymous [not able to speak; spoke under second section of Non-Agenda Public
Comment]
COMPLAINT HEARINGS
3-A. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed on September 21, 2021
Rasheed Shabazz, Complainant, gave an Opening Statement and Presentation of Facts.
The Assistant City Attorney, City/Respondent, gave an Opening Statement and
Presentation of Facts.
Mr. Shabazz gave a Reply to the City/Respondent Opening Statement and Presentation
of Facts.
Vice Chair LoPilato inquired whether the Commission should be considering the
documents produced at the time the complaint was made or documents produced at the
time the complaint reaches the Commission on the hearing date.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the question is about the two alleged
violations being considered separately in terms of the statute of limitations argument.
Vice Chair LoPilato responded in the negative; stated that she is curious about whether
a violation would be moot if it is cured before the hearing.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated it is up to the Commission's discretion; whether
or not there was a technical violation that has now been cured versus no violation is a
factor to weigh; it is at the Commission's discretion to make either finding.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated screenshots provided today have been referenced; she has
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
1",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,2,"not seen anything come through and the agenda has not been updated; the Commission
is totally in the dark about the documents; inquired whether the Complainant can provide
insight about what he received and where it came from.
Mr. Shabazz responded that he cannot describe that much because he received it this
afternoon; screenshots that have an October date from Alamedanonymous were sent to
the City on Friday.
In response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry regarding the screenshots, the Assistant City
Attorney stated he was not aware of the document until this afternoon since City Hall is
closed on Fridays; he did not review it when he received it, so he is not able to summarize
it; he immediately asked that it be provided to the Complainant.
Commissioner Chen inquired what the expectations and requirements are of the
custodian of records when such a request is received.
The Assistant City Attorney stated within about an hour of receipt, the request was
provided to a number of individuals inside the City to process the request; according to
the California Supreme Court, the nature of the request can be summarized to the
custodian of records; since the request was related to social media, it is expected that it
would be given to the custodian of records, who is the best person to look at those type
of requests; the law says that search can be reasonably relied upon and that is precisely
what the City Attorney's office did; the idea that the City Attorney's office did not produce
records is inaccurate.
Commissioner Chen inquired what date the City Attorney's office received the request, to
which the Assistant City Attorney responded the request was received on April 21st and
provided to the custodian of records.
Commissioner Chen inquired about the custodian of records being required to reply.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the custodian of records is required to do a search
to produce records; in this case, it was social media; the standard practice is when the
custodian of records is copied on the request, they are aware of what they need to do;
once it is turned over to the City, it is treated like any other records request; the City
Attorney's office reviews the request for possible exemptions and \produces the records.
In
response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated he recalls
only receiving one related record and was not sure if it was from the custodian of records
or staff.
Commissioner Chen inquired whether the custodian of records would then be in violation
of responding timely.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the City can only act through its agents, the
individuals who do the City's work; stated it can be viewed as anyone who is involved in
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,3,"the processing of the request.
Following a summary of the City's responses, Chair Tilos inquired about Nextdoor.
The Assistant City Attorney responded there are two separate Nextdoor accounts; stated
one is the Agency account, which is managed by the City's Public Information Officer and
is intended for one-way communication, although comments are allowed; records were
produced from said account since it is under the City's custody and control; these records
were in addition to providing the custodian of records of the personal Nextdoor account.
Chair Tilos inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer's comments were on the
City's Nextdoor account, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the City provided
records from the City's Nextdoor account to the Complainant; the Complainant then
stated he was not interested in the records from the City's account, but was interested in
records from the personal account.
Chair Tilos clarified the reason records were not produced from the personal account was
because the City did not have access to them.
The Assistant City Attorney concurred; stated the City produced the records from the
personal account after receiving them today.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Mr. Shabazz stated that he did not have any
expectations about the particular technology, medium or method in which the records
were maintained or retained; he asked for the correspondence and was aware of one
instance which included his name put on a crime thread; he did not know the particulars
of how the information would be obtained.
In response to Commissioner Montgomery, the Assistant City Attorney stated when
referring to the agency account, it is possible for a member of the public to comment on
it, but it is not possible for them to initiate a new post; new posts can only originate from
their own personal Nextdoor account.
Commissioner Montgomery inquired whether Mr. Shabazz requested communication
from Councilmember Herrera Spencer's own Nextdoor account as well as comments she
made under City posts.
Mr. Shabazz responded in the affirmative; stated that he requested correspondence to
and from Councilmember Herrera Spencer and comments by her on the Nextdoor
platform; he was not aware of any particular distinction between the City's account and
Councilmember Herrera Spencer's personal account.
Commissioner Montgomery stated the Commission could not access the complete
comments as only screenshots were provided; inquired whether Mr. Shabazz received
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,4,"and was able to read the complete comments.
Mr. Shabazz responded in the negative; stated that he received two links to policies
related to elected officials usage of the Nextdoor platform, as well as a number of different
comments; he does not use Nextdoor; initially he was using a laptop and was unable to
access the application in order to read the complete comments.
In response to Commissioner Montgomery's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated
there were not any more to the comments than the screenshots provided to the
Commission; only excerpts were provided; this was done because the City Attorney's
office was not clear whether or not the Complainant was requesting records from the
City's agency account; an email stating the documents were excerpts was sent asking if
the information was what was being requested before sending full documents; the
Complainant sent a response stating his request was not about the City's Nextdoor
account, but the writings of a City official discussing City business through a specific social
media platform; the City Attorney's office interpreted the statement to mean there was no
interest in additional records and why the documents remained as excerpts.
Mr. Shabazz shared his screen verifying the email correspondence with the Assistant City
Attorney.
In response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated that he
provided the excerpted documents because he was unclear at the time whether or not
the Complainant was interested in them.
Vice Chair LoPilato inquired what the City's position is on whether a social media
communication could constitute a public record.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the City's position is that there is not clear legal
authority on the issue; a number of other arguments have been raised that the
Commission should consider; the City Attorney's office believes the Commission does
not need to decide the weighty Constitutional issue, which should be dealt with by the
Legislature; there is no clear guidance; one of the practical considerations raised in
dealing with social media being a public record is a retention schedule; gave an example
of a Snapchat post which disappears immediately and cannot be saved or retained like
an email message which is retained for three years; the Commission should not be the
body to make a decision on such a difficult and weighty Constitutional issue.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated for the Nextdoor
account owned, retained and maintained by the City, there is very little issue with
producing information to any requestor; what is being discussed tonight is a personal
social media account; clarified that the City is not taking the position that the post on the
City's account is not a public record.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she is aware an agency may rely on an employee to search
their own personal files, accounts and devices for responsive materials; inquired whether
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,5,"the City received any confirmation that the individual custodian of records conducted such
a search when the City forwarded the request.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that he did not personally forward the request and
is not aware of a response.
Vice Chair LoPilato inquired whether any specific guidance was given to the individual
whose personal account communications were sought in terms of what would constitute
a public record in this context or was the request just forwarded.
The Assistant City Attorney responded when requests are forwarded to a custodian of
records, training is not provided on the spot; the City provides general Public Records Act
(PRA) and open government training and relies on the fact that the custodian of records
have been trained in some manner or another.
Commissioner Chen stated five years ago people would tweet without issue; then, policy
started coming through Twitter, a social media tool; she is still taken aback and questions
when tweets became policy statements; Nextdoor allows every owner of an account to
make a request of every posting they have made; she followed the instructions to do so
and was able to get all the postings she has ever made within three minutes; Nextdoor
makes it very easy for an individual to recover all their documents by a simple request.
In response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the City's
position was that it did not have actual custody of responsive documents until recently;
the City turned over the documents once they were received; the membership agreement
states the City does not have constructive possession; the cases the City cited look to the
contract and have to do with the subcontractor as a determining factor of whether or not
the City had constructive possession; the analogy here is that since the membership
agreement states the City does not have that ability, the City cannot make the request
from Nextdoor; the City followed the California Supreme Court rulings.
Vice Chair LoPilato inquired the City's position on whether some of the comments by the
individual Councilmember, specifically a comment made on January 6, 2021 on the City's
Nextdoor account, would have constituted a public record.
The Assistant City Attorney responded as was stated one of the factors determining
whether the comment was a public record boils down to whether or not it relates to the
conduct of the people's business; the records were produced because the City felt they
were relevant; he falls back on the position already made that there is no clear guidance
until decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction that has a binding effect on the City.
Vice Chair LoPilato inquired whether there is written policy related to the use of social
media for Councilmembers and Commissioners, to which the Assistant City Attorney
responded in the negative; stated he is not aware of a social media policy.
In response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,6,"Commission should stand by a position that they had taken in the past to the extent that
the doctrine of stare decisis applies; decision 19-02 would not be a precedent because
the issue about timeliness was not decided; it was never raised and, therefore, never
decided; the notion that the City is bound because timeliness was not previously raised
is not something the City would ever support.
Vice Chair LoPilato inquired whether the records produced were from the individual
custodian of records or from a third party, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded
they were from a third party.
Mr. Shabazz stated the email he received was from Alamedanonymous; Anonymous
Anonymous, is present at this meeting, along with Councilmember Herrera Spencer, so
it is not likely they are the same person, would suggests the records were not from the
custodian of records.
Mr. Shabazz gave a Closing Statement.
The Assistant City Attorney, City/Respondent, gave a Closing Statement.
Speakers:
Jenice Anderson, Alameda, stated the City needs a new social media policy for
Councilmembers; she does not have access and was blocked from using Nextdoor
without an appeals process; she does not know what Councilmembers are doing or the
business being conducted; other Councilmembers use Twitter, which any members of the
public can see; City officials should not be able to use the Nextdoor platform and should
be required to produce records of communications, especially if talking about
constituents.
Anonymous stated that he has no relationship to AlamedaAnonymous; he is from San
Francisco; quoted State law regarding PRAs; according to State law, the Councilmember
is a local agency and is required to produce the requested records; urged the Commission
to resolve the ambiguity in favor of public access.
Michael Devine, Alameda, stated the term doxing, a criminal act of revealing private
information through hacking or other illegal means, should not be used, as it is
inflammatory and misleading; the content posted to Nextdoor is not doxing any more than
the City releasing the same documents in a prior public records request; because the
requestor is anonymous, the source, intent or how information was acquired cannot be
questioned; the City should not have produced any documents from the anonymously
provided screenshots.
Monica Price stated the Sunshine Ordinance requires timely access to public records;
pointed out key considerations of the City of San Jose case; urged the Commission to
broadly construe that City employees using personal accounts to conduct City business
are public records.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,7,"Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated it is dismaying that the City would accept an email from
Anonymous and egregious to allow Anonymous to address the Commission; the
distinction between public record and public domain needs to be clarified; the process is
dysfunctional; the Commission should provide specific direction to City staff.
Matt Reid, Alameda, stated there are some interesting parallels with the Morris case
heard earlier this year; made comparisons between the Garfinkle and Morris cases;
stated there needs to be a better policy for training elected officials in terms of how they
behave in social media while at the same time, respecting the right to privacy; Nextdoor
is used to amplify information that is also available elsewhere; he does not think it
constitutes being disclosed under the PRA.
Alexia Arocha, Alameda, stated that she supports the Complainant; a request was made;
a timely response was not provided; response was only provided when a complaint was
made; trying to use legalese and Constitutional ambiguity is not quite accurate; a City
official discussing City issues on Nextdoor is not considered a private person; she does
not agree with the comments made about doxing or about being able to face an accuser;
this is not criminal court.
Chair Tilos summarized the complaint and suggested bifurcating the issues.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated it is abundantly clear that there was a violation in that the City
failed to respond timely; enforcing the Sunshine Ordinance statute of limitations would
only generate more complaints and disincentivise back and forth discussion between City
staff and the requestor; if the Commission has to dismiss the first claim as potentially
time-barred, a written decision should probably include a recommendation to the City
about how to deal with the issue.
Chair Tilos stated he concurs with Vice Chair LoPilato about encouraging more follow up
between City staff and requestors; he wishes that the City Attorney's office and the
Complainant could have come to a resolution before five months went by to avoid a
complaint being filed.
Commissioner Montgomery stated the case is difficult because of the time constraints for
both parties; the City did not respond timely and the Complaint was not filed within the
required time period; there should be comments regarding how it should be done in the
future.
Chair Tilos stated one of the decision options is Complaint dismissed due to jurisdictional
or procedural grounds.
In response to Commissioner Montgomery's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney
stated one option the Commission has under the newest revision of the Sunshine
Ordinance, specifically Subsection D of 2-93.2 states: the Commission may also
consider options for informal resolutions of complaint to avoid similar violations;' options
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
7",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,8,"could include changing the Sunshine Ordinance to provide for additional time or pull the
statute of limitations to encourage discussion instead of filing a Complaint; the options
would fall in the category of informal resolution; the Commission would have the ability to
make informal, non-binding recommendations, even if a portion of the complaint is found
to be time-barred.
The City Clerk stated the issue occurred before the new system, NextRequest, was in
place; the human error of miscommunication cannot happen with NextRequest because
everything is documented in the system and nothing can fall through the cracks.
Chair Tilos stated it is nice to see improvements happening since there have been a lot
of issues with PRAs.
Commissioner Chen stated if the City did not respond in the 10 days, it is a de facto
violation whether or not anyone complains.
Commissioner Montgomery stated according to the rules and regulations, it is not on the
Complainant to keep nudging for a response.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated, as a point of order, time limits were not written into the
procedure for deliberation on Complaints; there is room for flexibility.
Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Montgomery's comments; stated seeing even
one friendly reminder or follow-up with the City may have avoided the complaint and
hearing.
Commissioner Chen moved approval of sustaining the Complaint without a Cure and
Correct since the City has a cure with the new software.
In response to Commissioner Chen's motion, Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she is
struggling with the fact that there is a statute of limitations in the Sunshine Ordinance; she
does not like it, especially with regard to PRAs; the Commission should frame whatever
decision is made with some acknowledgement of the statute of limitations.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the Sunshine Ordinance is complaint driven and
violations are found after being raised by a complaint; the Commissioners should be
aware and guided by the statute in this case; because the City has forcefully raised the
statute of limitations argument, she highly urges the Commission to figure out a way to
address the statute of limitations and to marry it with the facts for the decision; years from
now, people may wonder how a complaint that was brought up five plus months after it
ripened into a complaint was able to be heard by the Commission; if the Commission is
inclined to find a violation, the statute of limitations should be addressed.
Commissioner Chen withdrew her motion.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,9,"mechanics and administration of complaints starts with the City Clerk's office; the Clerk's
office is the recipient of the initial complaint and informs the City Attorney's office
immediately about it.
The City Clerk stated upon receipt of the complaint, she reached out to the Complainant
to see if the matter could be resolved outside of bringing it before the Commission; she
was not aware of any jurisdictional issues and was not told not to put it on the agenda;
apologized if it was an error on her part.
Chair Tilos inquired who would make the determination as to whether or not there are
jurisdictional issues and what is the process.
The City Clerk responded if it were 15 days after a meeting occurred, she would be very
clear on the date; she was not looking for a date since the Complainant had not received
a response.
Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of dismissing the complaint based on
jurisdictional grounds because of the timing.
Chair Tilos stated he would like to make a friendly amendment to the motion to include
that the Commission informally address that a violation did occur with regard to timing;
no response within 10 days.
Vice Chair LoPilato made another friendly amendment to Chair Tilos's amendment to
include a factual finding that a violation did occur based on the undisputed statements of
the parties and also include a recommendation for informal resolution of complaints
regarding PRA requests to which no response was given; the City should consider
automatically tolling the statute of limitations for PRA related complaints until the time in
which an eventual response to the request is actually provided to the requestor to allow
sufficient time for informal resolution.
In response to Commissioner Montgomery's requests for a summary of the amendments,
Chair Tilos stated that he concurs with Vice Chair LoPilato's amendments minus the
recommendation.
Vice Chair LoPilato accepted Chair Tilos's reasoning; stated the recommendation could
be included in an implementation report if the Commission is more comfortable with doing
so.
Commissioner Montgomery accepted the friendly amendments.
Chair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.
Ayes: 5.
***
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
9",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,10,"Chair Tilos called a recess at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:12 p.m.
***
Chair Tilos summarized part two of the complaint regarding the City's response to the
Nextdoor issue.
Commissioner Montgomery stated she needs more clarification on what constitutes City
work as opposed to a personal statement made by a Councilmember on any social
platform.
In response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry regarding whether the City of San Jose case
could be used as guidance, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the case law statutes
have not caught up yet with reality and social media; the City of San Jose case is
instructive, but it is not precedent in the sense that it does not address the situation here;
the Commission is trying to grapple with the issue of whether or not the private social
media of a public official is a public record; the law does not give a lot of guidance; cases
from an Appellate Court or Supreme Court in California do not exist yet; the factors
provided in the City of San Jose case evaluate whether or not certain communications
constitute public records.
Chair Tilos stated as a non-lawyer, his thought process is what could the City have
provided; he is not comfortable making a decision based on what the Chief Assistant City
Attorney's statement regarding unchartered territory; the City Attorney's office and City
Council should give the Commission guidance; the City's account is open; information
should have been provided.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the issue is an emerging legal area; the Commission
making precedent decisions regarding social media disclosures would probably be
improper; the language in the San Jose case which she cited is a bit more permissive as
to what analysis the Commission could undertake tonight; however, she thinks Chair
Tilos's comments are well taken into consideration and the Commission may not need to
go in that direction; stated there is a reference in the Assistant City Attorney's October
28th email about a record being apparent on the City's official agency account; a question
could be whether that implicit admission is a record and should have been produced
before the complaint was filed.
Chair Tilos stated that he takes timing into consideration as well; he does not want to see
complaints brought forth from three years ago; the complaint could have been triggered
sooner than five months; he understands there are a lot of moving pieces.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she would argue the complaint was timely; the statute of
limitations was not triggered until the requestor is informed of whether a response was
provided.
Commissioner Montgomery stated the clock does not start ticking until there is an actual
response; the Complainant did not know he could not get what he wanted until a response
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
10",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,11,"was provided.
In response to Chair Tilos, Commissioner LoPilato stated the question is when could the
Complainant have known when they actually had a claim to bring; with Claim 1, the City
did not respond in ten days, which he knew on day 11; with Claim 2, he could not have
known that there were no responsive documents until the City told him.
Chair Tilos concurred with Vice Chair LoPilato and Commissioner Montgomery that
timeliness is not a factor and can be struck to address the social media piece.
Commissioner Chen stated the Complainant did not know until October 19th when he
received an email from the City informing him that there were no records.
Commissioner Reid stated she agrees with all Commissioners; something to discuss is
what would constitute the conduct of public business.
Chair Tilos stated if the City has its own account for blasting information to members of
the public and a public official comments, it would be considered a public record; if the
public official makes comments on a personal account, outside of the City's lane, he does
not want to make a determination about that and needs guidance.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that she is leaning towards whatever happens on
social media should be considered public record; if one Commissioner posted on a City
matter and two other Commissioners responded, the three members responding would
constitute a City meeting and be conducting City business.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner Montgomery stated discussing issues
on social media that are coming on an agenda is City business.
Chair Tilos stated that he does not want to go down the rabbit hole and make a statement
or determination about what is considered City business and what is not.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she cautions the Commission to address
what is actually in the complaint; in the communication between the Complainant and the
Assistant City Attorney, the Complainant stated he was interested in statements made in
the private social media account of Councilmember Herrera Spencer; the Commission is
being asked to decide whether or not the City, in telling the Complainant to deal directly
with Nextdoor for the information he requested, is a violation of the PRA; the question is
whether there is a requirement by the City to go to Nextdoor or do something else to get
the information for the Complainant.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she respects the delineation made by the Chief Assistant
City Attorney if the Commission goes in that direction; any Commission decision should
state it was upon guidance from the City Attorney's office; the Complainant believes the
communications by Councilmember Herrera Spencer on Nextdoor are subject to the
PRA; while she understands there was back and forth after the complaint was filed, she
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
11",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,12,"is uncomfortable narrowing the scope of what is being addressed.
Chair Tilos stated the Complainant was open about wanting everything with no
delineation.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated she appreciates Vice Chair LoPilato's comments;
in Attachment 2 of the City's position, there is communication that the City Clerk attempted
to resolve the issue before a complaint was filed; Mr. Shabazz stated the City did not take
the next step in contacting either Nextdoor or the City official in order to get the records
he requested; his complaint stems from what he views as an insufficient effort by the City
to obtain the records.
Commissioner Chen stated that she asked the Assistant City Attorney if he asked the
custodian of records to produce any responsive records; the Assistant City Attorney said
that he asked Councilmember Herrera Spencer a day after he received the request in
April; inquired whether the City vets documents before release.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated in the process of evaluating and obtaining
records, the City does vet documents to make sure there is no personal information or
anything not related to City business, which would be redacted; the balance would be
disclosed.
Commissioner Chen inquired what happens if the City official does not produce records.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the general rule is that the City takes the
public official at their word; if they state they do not have any responsive records, it is
permissible for the City to rely on that statement; the rule is used to address requests for
private emails and texts and does not yet apply to social media.
Commissioner Chen stated her assumption, based on the Assistant City Attorney's
response, is that there were no records to produce; if the screenshots were accurate and
could be proven, it seems the official did not present the documents.
Chair Tilos stated the accuracy of the screenshots is not in the Commission's purview.
Commissioner Chen stated if the City can obtain personal emails and texts of City
employees and officials, anything posted on social media seems to be even more broad;
with reference to the January 6, 2021 Capitol incident, a lot of social media is being used
in cases; law is formulating and social media could be considered public record in the
future.
Vice Chair LoPilato concurred with Commissioner Chen that laws relating to social media
are definitely moving in that direction; giving guidance and training to officials with a lens
on open government is valuable; comments on the City's Nextdoor account on January
6th in which Councilmember Herrera Spencer urges the public to vote on a specific
agenda item is concrete example as a record responsive to the complaint; the City had
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
12",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,13,"access on its account and it was public record.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether Vice Chair LoPilato's rationale for
finding a violation was that the record was not produced at the time Mr. Shabazz filed his
complaint, to which Vice Chair LoPilato responded in the affirmative, stated it does seem
like a viable basis to say there was a violation.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner Montgomery stated that she is leaning
toward sustaining the complaint; she does not feel like the Complainant received the
available documents.
Chair Tilos stated that he is leaning towards a cure and correct that the Commission
needs more guidance to interpret between public and personal accounts.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated there are two
different potential violations: 1) whether or not the agency posts were timely produced,
and 2) whether the City did all it could do to track down and produce the information
requested; there are potentially two separate cure and corrects; requesting guidance
would be helpful and valuable, but harder to manufacture since there are no laws yet; a
cure and correct to get agency postings is easier to fashion.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she likes the delineation of whether there was a violation
of the agency account versus the private account; she is prepared to make a motion;
inquired whether the reference to the City encompasses the individual official as an agent
of the City and is there a way to parse that.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the question is difficult; neither party briefed the
question and she does not have either party's perspective; the complaint did not address
the violation on behalf of the individual; the violation was addressed against the City and
argues that the City did not do what it was supposed to do vis a vis the PRA and Sunshine
Ordinance; if the question is whether there could be a separate complaint against an
individual, that is not what is before the Commission now and she is reluctant to say that
could happen.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she is not going in that direction so much as she is hoping
to delineate that City staff did all they could do with respect to producing records given
that no records were provided to them by the individual; the clarification would be
important in order not to endorse the act of not responding to the City's request to provide
personal account information.
Chair Tilos stated the City Attorney asked the official to produce it, but the Commission
does not have teeth to enforce it.
Vice Chair LoPilato moved approval of sustaining the complaint on the basis that there
was a violation in that the City was the custodian of an agency Nextdoor account which
contained comments by a Councilmember using the Nextdoor social media platform,
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
13",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,14,"which were responsive to the PRA request that were not produced prior to the complaint;
she would add that the Commission makes no findings whether there was a violation of
the PRA with respect to producing records from a Councilmember's personal account on
the basis that, with the evidence presented, the City took steps to obtain the records but
ultimately no analysis was able to be conducted as to whether there were any public
records.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Vice Chair LoPilato stated the reason the motion is
not concise is that the Commission needs to write the reason of decision statement, which
should include all the basis for the findings; it can be a tighter motion, but the Chief
Assistant City Attorney needs sufficient basis for the decision.
Vice Chair LoPilato moved approval of sustaining the complaint on the basis of the
violation that the City failed to produce records from the Agency Nextdoor account.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry regarding the cure and correct, Vice Chair LoPilato
stated the Commission could address recommendations on both issues; suggested
seeing if there is consensus on the sustained part first.
Chair Tilos stated he would be agreeable without a cure and correct.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she thinks there is a very specific cure and correct the
Commission could issue with respect to the finding; the cure and correct can be discussed
after everyone is aligned with the finding.
Commissioner Montgomery seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call
vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos:
Aye. Ayes: 5.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated to ensure the scope is narrow and case law is not being
manufactured, a reference should be made that the City Attorney's office referred to a
record produced on October 28th; the Commission relying on that as opposed to the
Commission making an independent finding of law as to whether or not it was a record is
significant; further recommended that the City consider maintaining an index that is
accessible to the City Clerk and City Attorney's offices of all social media accounts
maintained as an official communications channel of the City; stated the City should
evaluate whether comments should be disabled on the City account, as comments could
increase the likelihood of a Brown Act violation on a platform which appears not to be
carefully monitored by the City.
Chair Tilos concurred with Vice Chair LoPilato's statements and recommendations
Vice Chair LoPilato stated the Commission could offer up Recommendation 1 to be
included with the decision; separately, the Commission should consider practical training
that might be useful for Board members and Councilmembers, which could be done
through the implementation report and is an action the Commission should take to
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
14",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,15,"address the issues in the complaint.
Commissioner Montgomery inquired whether the Complainant included a
recommendation for cure and correct in his complaint, to which Chair Tilos responded in
the affirmative; stated the Complainant included several cure and correct
recommendations.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated the Complainant's recommendations are on Page 14 of Exhibit
2, Respondent's Statement.
Commissioner Montgomery inquired whether the Commission addressed any of the
specific items in the statement.
Chair Tilos responded that he likes the way it is and does not want to open it up.
Vice Chair LoPilato suggested the recommendations regarding training and policies be in
a follow up report, which would be a good place to revisit and think about the
Complainant's suggestions.
Chair Tilos concurred; stated issues come back after getting feedback from the
Complainant as well as an agenda item and have public comments.
Commissioner Chen stated that she is going to fix up the report on how to improve
operations and what is needed from the City Council to help navigate new territory for
either January or February; maybe the ideas can be included.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that works for her.
Vice Chair LoPilato suggested the finding for Claim 1 include a positive statement that
the likelihood of communication errors would be resolved by the implementation of the
Next Request system.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether there was consensus on the
recommendations or if a vote is required.
In response to Commissioner Montgomery's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney
stated there were no recommendations as part of the first finding.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated the Commission discussed the prospect of recommendations,
but agreed to table them.
The City Clerk inquired whether the direction to add a positive statement about the Next
Request system was a direction by consensus, to which Chair Tilos responded in the
affirmative.
The City Clerk stated the main recommendation for Claim 2 is the list of social media
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
15",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,16,"accounts.
Commissioner Reid suggested pulling Item 4-B.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A. Minutes of the November 1, 2021 Meeting
Commissioner Chen moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner LoPilato seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.
Ayes: 5.
4-B. Consider Amending the Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Form. Not heard.
STAFF UPDATE
None.
COMMISSION AGENDA REQUESTS
None.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None.
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT
Michael Devine, Alameda, discussed cyber bulling and Tweeting pictures of Art Garfunkle
being anti-Semitic behavior; suggested the Commission consider reversing any rulings
and dismissing Mr. Shabazz's complaint.
Anonymous stated he worked with Commissioner Reid on the complaint form and hopes
the Commission takes it on; expressed support for protecting the public's rights to access.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
16",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,17,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
17",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2021
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Historical
Advisory Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
None
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-1531
PLN21-0468/PLN21-0469 - Certificates of Approval - 2263 Santa Clara Avenue/950
West Mall Square - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to consider Certificate of
Approval applications to allow the conversion of lawn to drought-tolerant landscaping at
the grounds of City Hall and City Hall West. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code
Section 13-21.5 a Certificate of Approval by the Historical Advisory Board is required for
alterations to Historic Monuments including trees and plantings. This project is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15304(b) - Minor Alterations to Land, which consists of new gardening or
landscaping, including the replacement of existing landscaping with water-efficient
landscaping
Erin Smith, Director of Public Works, introduced this item. She also introduced Todd
Ainsworth, Senior Associate with Gates & Associates, who gave a presentation. The
staff report and attachments can be found at
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,2,"https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5257047&GUID=CDE2C8D2-
FE6F-4C1A-B097-E61E8B0664B5&FullText=1.
Allen Tai, City Planner, explained the board's role in approving this item.
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Chair Saxby asked if there was any historic information regarding the character-defining
features of the landscape for City Hall. He knew there was such information for City Hall
West.
Staff Member Tai said unfortunately not and discussed the history of City Hall.
Chair Saxby wanted to know how this new landscaping would conform to the well-
manicured character-defining feature described in the report.
Staff Member Tai explained the Cultural Landscape Report and how staff interpreted it.
He also discussed other landscaping in Alameda.
Mr. Ainsworth also discussed what ""well-manicured"" meant and the thought process
behind plant choices.
Board Member Norman Sanchez asked what thought was behind the pathways. He
wanted to see the formality to be maintained.
Mr. Ainsworth answered how they could accentuate the existing paths so they could be
defined in a more traditional manner. He also discussed other ways to bring in a more
geometric and linear look.
Director Smith added that none of the hardscapes at either site would be changing, so
pathways would remain in their existing form.
Board Member Alvin Lau asked about using historical benches and lighting.
Director Smith said this project would not be dealing with lighting. For benches, they had
only thought that they should have seating and not about the overall decor.
Mr. Ainsworth said that the next phase would address historically accurate seating.
Vice-Chair Lynn Jones asked about upkeep.
Director Smith said since Public Works would be maintaining everything they would be
very familiar with what needed to be done.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,3,"Mr. Ainsworth said they would provide a Maintenance Manual.
Board Member Jen Wit asked about the durability of the plants. City Hall is a place for
gatherings such as protests and people might walk or stand on plants and grass.
Mr. Ainsworth discussed options he had thought about.
Chair Saxby opened public comment.
Betsy Mathison discussed different ways to get the word out about the landscaping
changes and why it was happening. She thought it looked great but noted that when
something similar happened in the past the citizens of Alameda were very concerned.
Chair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Chair Saxby liked the idea to modify the design to make more room for
standing/gathering and having places for people to sit was important. He was more
concerned for City Hall West due to the historical relevance of the area. He wanted to
see a sense of belonging with the surrounding buildings.
Vice-Chair Jones was happy that there would be documentation to help with
maintenance and upkeep. City Hall East and West represent Alameda and this would be
a legacy to leave for the future.
Board Member Sanchez thought this was a wonderful project and looked forward to the
new tone and direction that City Hall West would receive. He also believed that
conserving water was a great aim.
Board Member Wit asked about the surrounding areas at City Hall West.
Director Smith and Staff Member Tai discussed what areas were owned by the city and
what development plans had been discussed.
Board Member Lau also was excited to see the final project.
Staff Member Tai explained the next steps in the design process and how the board
would like to stay involved. Director Smith explained the Public Works's timeline.
There was a discussion on what was needed for City Hall and how to address the area
around City Hall West.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,4,"Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the landscaping for City Hall to be
converted to drought-tolerant per the design as was presented tonight with the
amendments to make more standing room around the entry plaza, consider
additional sitting in the landscape, and for it to be maintained properly. Board
Member Lau seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
*For City Hall West the board wanted to see a development of the design to get a better
idea of how the design would work with this very important historic site.
7-B 2021-1532
PLN21-0527 - Certificate of Approval - Citywide - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public
hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval to allow rehabilitation and retrofit of historic
streetlights throughout the City. This project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 - Historic Resource
Restoration/Rehabilitation, which applies to maintenance, repair, rehabilitation,
restoration, or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
Director Smith introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5257048&GUID=9E7A137F
4FF4-4DED-A143-A4AD39CD054C&FullText=1.
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Sanchez asked about design choices to achieve the historic look.
Director Smith said they had created this design specifically for that purpose, there was
no off-the-shelf option that worked.
Vice-Chair Jones asked about the color choice to mimic the historical green color.
Director Smith discussed what information had been available from AMP (Alameda
Munciple Power).
Staff Member Tai discussed the historical color choices.
Board Member Lau asked if they would ever paint them to color match.
Director Smith explained that the streetlights were powder coated and would never be
painted.
Chair Saxby opened public comment.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,5,"There were no public speakers.
Chair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion and comment.
Vice-Chair Jones was excited to see the streetlights changed to be more energy-efficient
and appreciated the historical appearance and charm of these streetlights. She did wish
the wires attached to the poles were not there.
Board Member Lau wanted to see consistency among the lights especially since the new
ones would be LED lights.
Director Smith discussed the plan for replacing the older lights bulbs.
Chair Saxby wanted to know if any of the historic streetlights being replaced could be
preserved and adapted.
Director Smith explained how the LED light project had worked and how many of the lights
were beyond repair. They would only be replacing the ones that required replacement.
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve this resolution with the additional condition
that there be documentation of the damage to the streetlights showing that they
were damaged beyond repair and there needed to be every attempt to preserve the
existing streetlights. Vice-Chair Jones seconded the motion, a vote was taken, and
the motion passed 5-0.
7-C 2021-1533
A Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to
accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Period 2023-2031
in Compliance with State Law.
Staff Member Tai introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5257049&GUID=85489B65
 AF6-4293-B394-9ED1EF4440AC&FullText=1.
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Wit wanted to know more about how the housing allocation numbers were
determined.
Staff Member Tai explained the RHNA (Reginal Housing Needs Allocation) Methodology
and models that ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) used.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,6,"Board Member Lau wanted to know if the RHNA also had requirements on the size of the
housing or how many rooms and bedrooms a home had.
Staff Member Tai answered that the Housing Element would not get that specific but they
would look at the analysis and see what type of housing was the most needed. He agreed
that they would need to create housing for all types of needs.
Board Member Sanchez asked about zoning changes and what was allowed under the
R1 changes and SB-9.
Staff Member Tai explained the R1 zoning changes under SB-9 and what California State
Law would allow.
Board Member Sanchez asked other technical questions pertaining to lot size under SB-
9. He also wanted to know more about how SB-9 would impact how the board would make
rulings.
Staff Member Tai explained SB-9 in detail and gave different examples of what was
allowed. He discussed how SB-9 would affect neighborhood character, how everything
would come down to design, and when designs would need to come before the historical
board.
Chair Saxby asked if SB-9 established a minimum lot coverage.
Staff Member Tai believed that SB-9 would defer to local jurisdictions to set lot coverage
standards. He also discussed what was already allowed under the ADU (Accessory
Dwelling Unit) Law. He added the importance of setting design standards that would help
with the increase in additional units in neighborhoods.
Henry Dong, Planner III, also gave information on unit size and setbacks.
Board Member Lau wanted to know if there was a limit to the ADUs someone could have.
Staff Member Tai answered that staff was putting together a draft that would have four at
the maximum. That would be four including ADUs, Jr. ADUs, or units under SB-9.
Chair Saxby opened public comment.
Betsy Mathieson summarized comments from her November 16, 2021 letter to the City
Council that were pertinent to historic buildings. She said she believed that all of the
neighborhoods in Alameda needed to accommodate new neighbors, including the ones
built in compliance with Article 26. She agreed with a comment made by Planning Board
Member Alan Teague that the ""reuse of existing buildings is how we would move forward.""
She thought that approach would be how the City avoids displacing low income residents,
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,7,"increasing our carbon footprint and converting alameda to any town USA. She stated that
without carefully crafted specifications, upzoning will provide an incentive for demolition,
and found it concerning that the purpose of the annual review of the Design Review
Ordinance is to confirm the standards do not constrain the development of housing. She
felt developers will use that to argue that existing buildings themselves constrain the
development of housing. And felt this logic will result in displacement of low income
residents and may also result in the loss of the very buildings shown in the ""Spotlights.'
She points out that the Housing Element gives what amounts to density bonuses for the
rehabilitation and adaptation of existing buildings with no increase in floor area. She then
suggests that ""no increase in floor area"" be changed to say ""no change to the building
envelope.' She concludes this change will allow new finished floor area in basements and
attics to accommodate more dwelling units in addition to the existing residents. She said
she looks forward to following the progress of the Housing Element.
Chris Buckley, AAPS, discussed a letter the society had sent. AAPS was very concerned
about the massive proposed upzoning, the society believed this was overkill. He discussed
what these changes meant for each zoning and suggested different strategies for
upzoning.
Chair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Sanchez wanted to know about the increase and demand for ADUs.
Staff Member Tai believed it was still too early to establish a trend and then discussed
how they had established the average based on the last 4 years. He did note that 2021
had the most ADU applications.
Board Member Sanchez discussed his concerns about relying on ADUs, such as
homeowners buildings ADUs with no intention of renting them out. He wanted to know
how many of the completed AUDs were actually being used as rental properties.
Chair Saxby asked if that was something the state would want to be verified.
Staff Member Tai discussed that the HCD (Housing and Community Development)
considered the ADU a housing opportunity even if it wasn't rented to anyone outside of
the family.
Board Member Lau asked about the Navy Cap at Alameda Point and suggested different
ways the city or potential developers could work around it.
Chair Saxby agreed with Mr. Buckley about the blanket upzoning of Alameda and he also
agreed with Ms. Mathieson about looking to the existing housing stock as a method of
solving the housing crisis. He also agreed with the proposed mixed-use for Park and
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,8,"Webster Street. He felt that there needed to be more conversation in the Housing Element
about protecting the historic older neighborhoods.
Board Member Sanchez asked if student housing counted toward the RHNA. He also
asked about focusing housing on vacant properties and wanted an idea of the open
parcels in the R zone.
Staff Member Tai said it was a need but those would be addressed on a case by case
basis. He then discussed what open parcels had potential development.
Board Member Sanchez felt that most residential neighborhoods had the potential for
more housing and mixed-use spaces. He discussed the importance of finding balance for
the R1 neighborhoods.
Board Member Lau discussed the potential of Lincoln Ave and if the zoning would change.
Staff Member Tai discussed what had been discussed.
Board Member Witt asked about the Golf Course.
Staff Member Tai clarified that it was owned by the city and was designated as Public
Open Space.
Chair Saxby took a moment to clarify what the primary purpose of the Mills Act was for
and thought the section about it needed to be reworded or struck entirely.
Staff Member Tai said that portion had been flagged. He then discussed all the notes he
had received and thanked the board for their input.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 9:38 pm.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
8",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,1,"MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED NOVEMBER 16, 2021
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
UESDAY- -NOVEMBER 30, 2021-5:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:
Councilmember Knox White arrived at 5:12 p.m. The
meeting was conducted via Zoom]
Absent:
None.
CONTINUED REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(21-773) Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to
Accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Period 2023-2031 in
Compliance with State Law.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
(21-774) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of allowing 5 minutes for the presentation.
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.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director concluded the Power Point presentation.
Expressed support for recommendations provided by the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society (AAPS) and Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT); urged Council to consider adding
more units along the main transit corridors and seek to preserve architectural elements
throughout the City; expressed support for Council refraining from up zoning in the R-2 through
R-6 neighborhoods and for adopting an emergency ordinance related to Senate Bill (SB) 9:
Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Stated that she is pleased to see a draft site inventory; urged Council not to consider the
inventory finalized until the required, companion Fair Housing Analysis is included; stated the
City must maintain adequate capacity for its housing throughout the entire planning cycle; if the
Council decides not to put 1,000 units of housing at shopping centers at a future time, other
locations within the City must be found to make up the units; expressed support for an
affordable housing overlay: Sophia DeWitt, East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO).
Stated that her ideal housing neighborhood has a variety of housing types, including racial,
ethnic and income diversity; expressed support for including neighborhoods built in compliance
with Article 26 and for moving forward with the reuse of existing buildings; stated reuse will
avoid displacing low-income residents and increasing the carbon footprint; up zoning will
provide incentive for demolition; she looks forward to the balancing act needed to provide more
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
1",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,2,"housing and ensure equity, inclusion and anti-displacement: Betsy Mathieson, Alameda.
Expressed support for the draft Housing Element; stated the included goals, policies and
programs are sensible and admirable; she especially appreciates Goal 3; the Housing Element
is lofty and a lot of work must be done in order to reach the goal; the Housing Element goals will
put the City on the right path in addressing the housing crisis; expressed support for the
proposed zoning changes, including increasing density in residential zones R1 to R6; stated the
changes are needed to reverse exclusionary and inequitable land use practices and will
strengthen the vibrancy and diversity of the City; increased density will support more
sustainable and walkable lifestyles; urged City staff to look at further increasing density;
expressed support for the City following all State laws, including putting forth a compliant
Housing Element: Elizabeth Kuwada, Alameda.
Encouraged smart growth, raising Alameda Point housing limits and raising shopping center
height limits to accommodate additional housing; expressed opposition to up zoning: Devon
Westerholm, Alameda.
Expressed support for the attempt to discuss the housing cap being raised for shopping centers;
stated the raised cap is key to not over burdening residential areas; the current Housing
Element density increases avoid Article 26; expressed concern over developers buying
buildings for demolition; questioned the message being sent to voters; urged Council consider
acting on the AAPS proposals: Dolores Kelleher, Alameda.
Stated the draft Housing Element does not adequately reflect the 2010 Webster Street Vision
Plan, nor does it implement the November multi-family overlay zone proposal; the Vision Plan
calls for retaining the existing architectural character of Webster Street south of Lincoln Avenue;
discussed WABA's multi-family overlay proposal height limits; expressed concern about the
Housing Element not reflecting WABA's housing proposal and for higher density limits
exceeding the desired three story limit; urged the inclusion of a strategy to integrate the State
density bonus law: Linda Asbury, West Alameda Business Association (WABA).
Stated that she strongly opposes the up zoning of R1 to R6 zones; discussed the initial passing
of Article 26; stated the proposal will not build affordable units; 373 people have signed a
petition to oppose the Housing Element; elected officials have an obligation to act according to
the will of the electorate; discussed an anticipated Statewide initiative petition for zoning and
land use to be under local control: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Stated that he is in favor of up zoning R1 to R6 areas; expressed support for an affordable
housing overlay; stated cities need compliant Housing Elements; urged Council to support the
proposals: Jake Price, Housing Action Coalition.
Stated people are scared of change; Alameda has better transit access than most surrounding
cities; Alameda has invested in transit, which elevates home values; Alameda has a mid-century
mindset; actions taken have proven to be racially prejudicial and classist; State laws have
passed for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): Josh Geyer, Alameda.
Stated that she has not heard an answer to whether the Navy cap can be lifted; expressed
support for the Democratic party; questioned how the City can meet the housing laws;
expressed concern about overreaching: Cherie Winkler, Alameda.
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
2",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,16,"uses to the end of page 51 under Commercial Recreation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the prior category language; suggested adding: ""the
new development supports or enhances the mission of the institution "" in the Commercial
Recreation category to ""support or enhance the recreation facility;"" stated there are carve outs
for recreation areas; expressed support for coming up with language to limit residential use.
The City Attorney stated adding any of the commercial categories creates no concern; if Council
wishes to add language stating: ""residential uses are not authorized,"" staff will have to return to
Council with conforming zoning changes due to the creation of inconsistencies between the
General Plan and underlying zoning.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated an application to completely rebuild
the recreation center will be submitted; the application will have 6 tennis courts, rather than 18;
the land from the remaining courts will be used for housing; discussed the process for building a
new health club; stated neighbors in the area do not support the application and desire land
preservation; neighbors would like a community-owned recreation facility; community-owned
means the facility is either owned by the City or the Home Owner's Association (HOA); if
Council includes language in support of recreation use, an applicant can defend the use of
housing as supporting recreation; if the goal is not to have housing on the site, Council must
direct staff to provide the zoning change via ordinance.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated Council may
amend the General Plan to provide for a wide range or semi-wide range supporting ancillary
commercial uses; a wide of commercial uses is most helpful for Planning staff; Planning staff
will return to Council for conforming zoning changes, which would presumably eliminate housing
for the site and seek to up zone elsewhere; under State law, staff needs to create housing
opportunity neutrality; the neutrality can be achieved elsewhere.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is necessary to add the term ""ancillary"" and
whether the commercial uses are limited or unlimited, to which the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director responded the current commercial zoning is broad.
The City Planner stated the zoning for the site is the same zoning that applies to shopping
centers, which allow residential; there is not a standalone commercial zoning that allows an
athletic club and prohibits residential; staff would likely need to create a new zoning district.
Expressed support for the General Plan as-is; stated dedicating so much discussion to one
parcel is unfortunate; downzoning could be considered a taking issue causing litigation
concerns; the City would also run afoul of SB 330; the equivalent housing loss for the site would
have to be created elsewhere; the discussion is not a prudent discussion for a General Plan;
expressed concern about Brown Act violations due to un-noticed rezoning discussions: Zac
Bowling, Alameda.
Expressed support for the General Plan; stated the Plan is impressive and will guide in the
years ahead; she applauds the work done on the mobility element; the vision turns today's
challenges of safety, affordability and climate crisis into opportunities; urged Council to support
the General Plan and take every opportunity to resource efficiently through infrastructure and
increasing staff budgets; stated transformative projects are complex and need a doubling down
on commitment: Cyndy Johnsen, BikeWalk Alameda.
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
16",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,17,"Stated the current General Plan draft looks very good and addresses previous concerns;
expressed concern about typos; stated provision CC26A should be strengthened to call for an
improved tree preservation ordinance; the section needs prominent and effective enforcement
provisions and expanded species protections; urged Council to consider modifications he
submitted: Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society.
Expressed support for the latest draft General Plan; stated that she supports designating the
Harbor Bay Club as commercial recreational; the Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners
Association pays for security, fire, schools and must also account for the recreational space;
discussed the sale and development price for the site; expressed concern about the people of
Harbor Bay receiving nothing; stated the recreational space is needed; owners pay for the
available amenities: Lesa Ross, Alameda.
Expressed concern about putting the City in a lose-lose situation where court cases are bound
to appear Statewide; urged Council not to go too far in any one direction that goes against the
general wishes of the public: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
Stated that he agrees with the commercial recreational designation for the Harbor Bay Club;
questioned why the Harbor Bay Club shares the same C2 zoning as the Harbor Bay shopping
center; stated the zoning makes no sense since the land uses are completely different; the
zoning should reflect the differences; expressed concern about C2 zoning allowing housing to
be built at the Harbor Bay Club site; urged the issue be put to rest by clarifying or correcting the
zoning for Harbor Bay Club; stated the zoning clarification should have been made 40 years
ago: Chris Aria, Alameda.
Stated that she feels as though there is perception of something different happening on Harbor
Bay and Bay Farm that is not accurate; expressed concern about the potential for no options of
private and public recreation on Bay Farm and safety issues; stated the perception of a divide
between the East and West Ends needs to stop: Michelle Russi, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for staff addressing concerns raised by
Speaker Aria.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated Speaker Aria raises a good point; the
similar C2 zoning is a result from a Council of 40 years prior; the proposed Housing Element
places a multi-family (MF) overlay to the shopping centers desired for housing, which allows
staff not to draw in the question of the Harbor Bay Club.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director stated public institutional use areas are things like schools; City Hall and
high schools are designated as institutional uses.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether commercial recreation can be moved up to
parks and wildlife and include the general policy of no residential.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he thinks the goal is to clarify
the City's policy to have no housing in the commercial recreational land use designation, similar
to parks and open space; Council can add language to the commercial recreational land use
designation similar to parks and open space; however, there is implication in doing so; the
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
17",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,18,"designation will only apply to one site and staff will need to return with a zoning amendment to
prohibit residential.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the designation for commercial recreational should be
moved up under parks and wildlife.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can move the designation, if
Council desires to do so.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether a motion is being made.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of moving the commercial recreation under
parks and wildlife on page 51 of the General Plan and adding that no residential uses are
permitted in all areas, as well as any commercial use needed to enhance the use.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that she recommends Council take action on the final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to a motion on the General Plan.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the final EIR [including adoption of the related
resolution.]
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether separate votes are needed for the matter.
The Assistant City Attorney responded one vote certifying the final EIR and adopting the
findings is needed.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he will not be supporting adoption of the
final EIR due to the contemplation of certain areas which are still at the heart of the previous
matter, the amount of housing at shopping centers and the possibility of multi-family housing
overlays and associated impacts; the General Plan discussion is intriguing and carefully vetted
questions are needed.
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: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of the motion made by Councilmember Herrera
Spencer.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the motion is to move the commercial
recreation land use category into the parks and wildlife category to make a general statement
that all three land use classifications under park and wildlife prohibit residential use.
The City Clerk stated the motion also includes any accessory commercial uses need to enhance
the use.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
18",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,19,"Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City Attorney's office would
have to take some time to do additional analyses for any legal implications related to the takings
clause; noting takings clauses are usually associated with zoning changes; questioned whether
the takings clause still arises under the General Plan designation; inquired whether the City
Attorney's office needs more time for analysis.
The City Attorney responded that his initial read of the motion is allowing a wide range of
commercial uses; stated the range provides comfort that there is the likelihood of a successful,
defendable, takings claim; the more Council narrows the use, the more difficult it will be for staff
to defend actions on a takings claim; staff cannot predict how a Court will rule in any litigation.
Councilmember Daysog stated the commercial recreation designation in the General Plan is
under the institutions category on page 51; the designation consists of two paragraphs, which
do not reference housing; inquired whether the absence of any reference to housing means that
there cannot be a reliance on the General Plan land use designation to seek housing.
The City Attorney responded the absence of the reference does not mean housing is prohibited;
stated many things are not prohibited but are not mentioned in the General Plan; the General
Plan is a high-level policy document and is not intended to cover every detail; people will read
the General Plan in conjunction with the zoning ordinance to determine what can be done;
Council can set specific policy which creates limits as proposed by Councilmember Herrera
Spencer's motion.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is any reason why Council would need
to
approve the current motion; questioned whether it is possible to table the matter in order for
further legal analysis to occur on the topic of the taking clause; stated the risks are high; given
the magnitude of risk involved, he would feel more comfortable with tabling the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Councilmember Daysog can withdraw his second for the motion.
Councilmember Daysog stated the matter will still need to return.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can provide staff with direction.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for providing staff direction; stated that he seconds
the motion with a friendly amendment that staff perform further legal analysis to supplement the
observations shared.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands Council will vote on accepting the
General Plan; if Council does not make the change, the General Plan will be approved as-is and
the City will continue to have the issue; her preference is to hear from staff.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated that he recommends Council adopt
the General Plan as-is with direction to staff to come back with additional analysis on the Harbor
Bay Club issue; he shares concerns raised by Councilmember Daysog; Council should tread
carefully; the Harbor Bay Club is a separate issue filled with legal implications on both sides;
holding off on the General Plan to sort through the implications of the Harbor Bay Club would be
a shame.
The City Planner stated whether or not Council adopts the General Plan, if a residential
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
19",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,20,"development application for the Harbor Bay Club comes in tomorrow, the current zoning would
require the developer to go through a conditional use permit as well as an amendment to the
zoning; the provisions of the current zoning allow the Planning Board and City Council sufficient
discretion whether residential uses are compatible for the site.
Councilmember Daysog stated part of the problem is that he does not agree with the General
Plan; while he is seconding the motion made by Councilmember Herrera Spencer related to the
Harbor Bay Club, he generally does not agree with the General Plan.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer withdrew her motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she hopes staff can bring the Harbor Bay Club
matter forth sooner rather than later; she disagrees that there is no impact by waiting 40 years
to address the issue.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of moving up the commercial recreation
designation under parks and wildlife as opposed to institutions on page 51.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether additional changes are being proposed or whether the
two sentences are simply moving, to which Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded that
she would like the commercial recreation to fall under parks and wildlife.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired the intention and purpose of moving the designation; stated that it
seems as though Council is trying to sell a bill of goods to the public or create a foundation for
an action which has not yet been reviewed by legal staff; expressed concern about the motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded the sentence under commercial recreation speaks
to similar things listed in the categories under parks and wildlife; stated the designation speaks
to indoor and outdoor recreation, open space for public access or habitat preservation.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the difference is that the Harbor Bay Club is privately owned; open
spaces are not privately owned; expressed concern about creating intent; inquired whether the
change indicates the City is taking the first steps to do something.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the distinction made by Vice
Mayor Vella is on staff's mind; stated the parks and wildlife categories are 100% publically
owned and maintained lands; the institutional category includes some publically owned, areas
such as schools; however, privately owned land is also included; whether staff moves the
commercial recreation under parks and wildlife, a message is being sent.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the definition states: and recreational facilities,
including commercial marinas, restaurants, boat rentals and repair businesses;"" the definition
includes commercial businesses.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the definition is related to publically
owned land; the marinas and golf courses are leased.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that his understanding is that staff has
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
20",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,21,"need on the site in the context of the overall Citywide Housing Element discussion and will
come back with recommendations which could include changing the zoning to have no housing
based on other housing decisions across the City.
Councilmember Knox White made a substitute motion to approve providing direction to continue
following the process outlined by staff with the understanding staff will return with zoning
recommendations as a part of the Housing Element, including recommending whether or not
housing should be an allowable use at the Harbor Bay Club.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White wanted to make the
direction in connection with a motion to approve the General Plan [including related resolution],
to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he seconded Councilmember Herrera Spencer's motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a substitute motion has been made; inquired whether the substitute
motion vote would take precedent, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not believe her motion
and Councilmember Daysog's second can be disregarded.
The City Clerk stated a substitute motion is being made; Council needs to consider the
substitute 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: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council still needs to consider adoption of resolution adopting the
Alameda General Plan 2040.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he has a number of proposed corrections: ""pre-history""
should be changed to ""early history"" on page 10 under milestones; on page 11, Coastal Miwok
is not correct; he expects better language to be used in place for the 2022 update; he would like
to add language to prioritize early engagement of historically ignored voices on page 22 LU-1d.;
there have been a number of processes which consider voices at the end versus at the
beginning; the beginning is where the work is being done; expressed support for Council being
affirmative in the General Plan policies related to outreach; requested Electronic Vehicle (EV)
language move from transportation demand management on page 31 LU-16d to parking
requirements on page 31 LU-16e; ""such as a significant proportion dedicated spaces and
infrastructure to support clean air vehicles like EV's, carpooling vehicles and hybrids as well""
should move to 16.e; expressed support for the language reading: ""commute support and
unbundle parking;"" stated page 39 LU-25 proposes a new action, which should include a
process to ensure the City is aware and helps to pass on costs; page 57 under empower should
include an action requiring the City to report out on how outreach has been conducted; he would
like to add: ""prioritize solutions and strategies which support both the City greenhouse gas
reductions and meet other City policies for transportation, housing and economic development""
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
21",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,22,"on page 60 CC-7 at the end of the policy; ""minimize sound walls"" should change back to the
existing: ""prohibit sound walls"" on page 62 CC-7f; he would like a similar change under page 62
CC-7h for the term ""including transit"" to ""especially transit;"" page 63 CC-10b under parking
requirements, language should be changed to ""maintain street parking requirements and
include maximum parking requirements;' a Section should be added on page 64 CC-12b called
""Revenues"" which will utilize congestion management pricing revenues to fund improvements to
transit and active transportation modes of travel; Council should make sure the City provides
better options for people not to pay for expenses; page 74 CC-29 Alameda Point Marine
Conservation Wildlife and Recreation Area discusses a new park which has not been discussed
by Council and includes six to seven actions that have staff going out to find funding; expressed
support for removing the actions putting staff in charge of the funding and change the first word
to ""support;"" stated the City should be performing more outreach and stepping back to
acknowledge a good thing while also being supportive; language should be changed back to:
""prohibit widening"" from the proposed: ""discourage widening"" on page 88 ME-7h.-i; he would
like to add a Section e: ""complete streets shall not be interpreted to prohibit pedestrian, bicycle
and/or transit-only streets which provide direct connections for active transportation and transit
users"" on page 89 ME-10; the City can say it has complete streets and is developing streets for
everybody and can also ensure that cars do not drive on all asphalt areas; the only action
shown is to increase driving by building off-street driving zones on page 91 ME-12, Council
should add a Section ME-12a: ""prioritize the actions listed in ME-14 and support a safe mobility
and access to school sites"" and change the current Section 12a to 12b adding an intro stating:
""where safety issues are identified, and drop-off areas can be accommodated without prioritizing
drive
to
school
trips
consider.. naming rights agreements that do not limit or change public
access to the facility on should be added page 107 OS-3b; ""seek"" should be changed to
""support"" next to funding requests on page 115 OS-22 in order to enhance habitat values; he
would like to ensure prioritizing outreach and outreach to communities which have not
historically been contacted.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like input on changes to page 74, CC-29, Alameda Point
Marine Conservation Wildlife and Recreation areas; she does not want Council to eliminate
necessary work for grant applications; grants can be time critical; she agrees with the concept
on Council approval; the comments provided are recommendations and can be direction to
staff.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated removing the actions does not
prevent the Recreation and Parks Department from seeking funding; the actions list seeking
funding, but does not determine whether the action is priority over all other things seeking
funding.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is fine with most of the recommendations proposed by
Councilmember Knox White; expressed concern about changes to page 74, the Alameda Point
Marine Conservation Wildlife and Recreation areas; stated that she would like feedback from
partners; she would like to ensure Council does not do something which will impact
relationships with other agencies; outreach should consider not only the who and what, but also
the when; expressed support for equitable access early on without waiting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated early equitable access is key across everything the City does; it
would be difficult for the City to over-communicate; residents expect communication of the City.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like Council to consider adding:
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
22",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,23,"""streamline and expedite permits for businesses"" on page 27; the process is an ongoing issue
for businesses; people of color and women are not included under the list in Section LU-11 on
page 27; the Section needs to include people of color and women; the list should be
alphabetically; people of color are a historically marginalized population; she is saddened to see
the exclusions; the ""partnerships"" should be listed alphabetically; photos included throughout
the General Plan are mostly white people;, she is saddened to see the images.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not disagree with Councilmember Herrera Spencer
regarding Section LU-11; she does not think the list was meant to be inclusive or exclusive; the
Section states: ""interventions that break down barriers to employment pre-historically
marginalized populations such as: youth, seniors, people with disabilities. stated that she
would have added unhoused individuals to the list; the term ""such as"" expands the definition;
she would like to ensure the recommendations provided by Councilmember Knox White would
not hamper the Recreation and Parks Department's ability to pursue outside funding; since
Council has not yet approved the project, the actions listed in the General Plan seem to be
jumping ahead.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated that she does not think adding the term ""support""
would hamper either being lead agency or partner on a grant; the term change still shows the
importance to the City; adding the term is fine.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether removing the actions causes any difficulty.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated that she has come to the discussion late and would
like time to read the details and provide an accurate answer.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the recommendations provided should be considered to have staff
look at all the potential ramifications and implications; staff should report back to Council.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can report back to Council; the
list helps identify high priority matters; there is a way to re-write the policy and indicate support
for efforts with partners; staff can list facilitation of seeking funding or pursue mapping, trash
removal, signage, oil spill, public access structure and additional items; the General Plan is a
policy level document; there has not been much Council discussion about the project; the
General Plan takes a good idea and puts it out in the open.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the section is listed as ""Conservation Climate Action Element;""
Council has held discussions about conservation and climate action; the description includes:
""protecting and restoring natural habitats to support bio-diversity and to prepare for climate
change is a key goal of the General Plan;"" maps which establish a biological inventory should
be done; expressed support for funding being acquired to help with oil spill booms and
protection of sensitive habitat areas affected by oil spills; proposed language can be modified;
however, she would like to give the Recreation and Parks Director and Planning, Building and
Transportation Director the opportunity to confirm; inquired whether Council can provide
direction to staff.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he will need to know whether
Council is adopting the General Plan and asking staff to come back with potential revisions; staff
will return after working through tribal language with the Planning Board; the Transportation
Appendix will be worked on with the Transportation Commission; it will be easiest if the General
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
23",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,24,"Plan is adopt as-is; there is room for more discussion when the matter returns for a revised
policy recommendation.
The City Manager stated that he concurs with the Planning, Building and Transportation
Director's recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog stated a lot of the issues regarding intensity of uses are still tied to the
Housing Element discussion; he is not supportive of the General Plan.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the intensity of uses proposed in the
land use classification are specifically tied to existing zoning intensities; staff did not want to
jump the gun on the Housing Element; the Planning Board set the land uses intensities to
existing zoning; there are no proposed increases in intensities for the General Plan.
Councilmember Daysog stated the South Shore housing has prospects of 800 units; the actual
amount could increase to 1,200 units; the amount is part of the General Plan discussion; he
does not see himself supporting the General Plan; the matter is related to the impacts and EIR;
the housing amount will affect the impacts; everything must work together.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she thinks staff has explained that matters are related to zoning;
she is supportive of the General Plan and the recommendations provided by Councilmember
Knox White; proposed changes should be included in an updated appendix.
Vice Mayor Vella moved adoption of resolution.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the motion includes giving staff
direction to consider including comments made by Councilmember Herrera Spencer.
Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
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: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
24",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,3,"Expressed support for not removing the Harbor Bay recreation area; stated promoting health
and well-being is fundamentally important to communities; the recreation area provides many
resources; mental and physical program access is important after the isolation due to the
pandemic: Jason Gerke, Alameda.
Stated RHNA includes minimum limits set by the State; the minimums only include half of the
amount truly needed; urged Council go above and beyond with zoning changes; stated housing
is needed near transit; expressed support for less focus on parking and automobile traffic; urged
Council not to make the minimum the goal: Paul Bickmore, Alameda.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation and draft Housing Element; stated the City has
to look at considering up zoning R1 to R6 in order to break down historical systems of
segregation; years of exclusionary zoning have left a lasting impact and must be corrected; the
City must allow for higher density and affordable housing; he is not swayed by the arguments
from organizations seeking to deny housing in Alameda; Article 26 is not enforceable and
violates State housing law: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Stated the Encinal Terminals site is a third of the City's RHNA; urged Council to allow the site to
move forward; stated there are practical, legal and moral limits to building all-new housing;
expressed support for the proposed sub zoning and for more housing in shopping center
districts; expressed concern about owners of commercial areas not being open to development;
stated that he would like to see the Park and Webster Street areas expanded for more than the
estimated 300 units; the areas could use 1,000 units or more and are transit-rich; discussed
development in downtown Oakland: Joshua Hawn, Alameda.
Expressed support for the matter; stated that he is confused by people saying more housing is
needed, then not supporting utilizing State density bonus law; the State density bonus law is
one of the strongest tools Alameda has to construct affordable housing; urged Council to ensure
the up zoning allows for State density bonus law to apply everywhere: Sidharth Kapur,
Alameda.
Expressed support for the Housing Element, increased density and up zoning; stated everyone
is in this together; urged Council ensure sufficient housing for all persons at all life stages,
regardless of Article 26: Kathleen Mertz, Alameda.
Stated that she appreciates the presentation and staff report; the materials provided clarity; the
recommendation does not work unless all of Alameda participates; the RHNA obligation cannot
be met unless everyone does their part; the RHNA obligation will be met as required by law and
will provide a safe place to live; urged the public to overcome fears: Savanna Cheer, Alameda.
Stated that she is in favor of low to moderate income housing; outlined concerns about
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): Birgitt Evans, Alameda.
Expressed support for keeping the Harbor Bay Club zoned as recreation; stated there have
been trade-offs in order to keep the land zoned recreational; expressed support for adding
residential to the shopping center at Bay Farm: Charles Johnson, Alameda.
Stated affordability is not being addressed; discussed rent prices for new apartments at
Alameda Point; stated there is not a lack of housing, there is a lack of income to afford the
available housing; affordable housing is built through high-end housing; expressed support for
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
3",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,4,"more housing at Alameda Point, which requires 25% affordable housing; stated the rest of
Alameda only has a requirement of 15% affordable housing; ADUs do not have to be affordable;
urged transit corridors be considered: Margaret Hall, Alameda.
Stated it is a myth that R1 through R6 zones are exclusionary; many of the housing within R1
through R6 include rentals with affordable rates; if housing is torn down, displacement will
occur; greater density land is more expensive; construction costs are expensive; rent control will
leave from old units; expressed concern over gentrification: Paul Foreman, Alameda.
Expressed concern over too much density being pushed on R1 through R6; stated established,
historic neighborhoods need to be protected; increased density will cause more traffic and
transit problems; urged a focused density that does not impact buses and is closer to Alameda
Point; outlined State density bonus law related to units on a single lot; urged Council increase
density, but not go over the top: Erich Stiger, Alameda.
Stated the proposed blanket up zoning of R2 through R6 is unnecessary and overkill; blanket up
zoning will encourage demolition and replacement of historic buildings and threaten the exiting
stock of relatively low-cost, privately owned rental units by encouraging developers to replace
buildings using the State density bonus law; urged Council get the word out to the public about
City happenings; discussed distribution of flyers for the meeting: Brenden Sullivan, Alameda.
Stated that she would like to live in a community that is welcoming, inclusive and diverse;
expressed support for the draft Housing Element; stated the draft Housing Element will help
meet RHNA obligations; she would like an update on the status and enforceability of Article 26
and State preemption: Kristi Black, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the proposed up zoning in residential areas; stated that he is not
convinced the up zoning is necessary; expressed support for looking to large underutilized sites
such as shopping centers, Alameda Point and Encinal Terminals; discussed alternative zoning
locations near the College of Alameda; stated the up zoning is reckless due to difficulty in
downzoning; recommended a limited version of the residential proposals be included in the draft
Housing Element; discussed State density bonus law height limits: Christopher Buckley,
Alameda Architectural Preservation Society.
Stated the draft Housing Element represents an attempt to meet the RHNA obligation, State law
and growth; discussed the commute from the Valley into the Bay Area; stated the City must
grow in order to accommodate jobs and the economy: Jes McBride, Alameda.
Discussed her experience living in high density locations; stated the traffic has gotten crazy in
the City; much of her life is outside of her home; expressed support for housing at Bay Farm not
being at a site which had previously been designated for open and recreational space;
expressed concern over changes to the view and shore line; urged the City look at vacant
spaces for housing at Bay Farm and Harbor Bay: Michelle Russi, Alameda.
Stated parcels in job rich areas located near high quality public transportation are eligible for up
to 10 units per parcel; all parcels within the single family neighborhoods may be split without any
discretionary review or compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; she is part of
those that voted to maintain single family homes in Alameda under Article 26; State legislation
overrides local zoning restrictions; rezoning needs to be postponed until a vote by the people:
Therese Hall, Alameda.
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
4",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,5,"Urged Council to rezone the Harbor Bay Club back to its original intent as a recreational,
commercial space; stated there is a reclamation district bond for bay dredging; Harbor Bay Club
is considered an amenity for the community; urged Council to stand up for the Harbor Bay Club
and not let developers take precedence over people: Lesa Ross, Alameda.
Stated that he would like Harbor Bay Club to be zoned as recreational; the Harbor Bay Club
never paid a reclamation district bond assessment; the bond financed the filling of Harbor Bay
Isle and has been paid off; allowing a private developer to profit at the expense of assessment
paid by the public would be inequitable; many people like the Harbor Bay Club as a recreational
space: Behrad Aria, Alameda.
Urged the City to move more aggressively on discussions with the Navy to lift the cap at
Alameda Point; stated lifting the cap will result in greater capacity for additional housing units in
an area which can accommodate much more than the current cap allows; there is a need for
more affordable housing in the City; the City is straining to meet its infrastructure commitments
to the community; a large increase in housing units will further exacerbate the problem;
expressed opposition over any effort which will rezone areas within the community for high
density housing: Bill Pai, Community of Harbor Bay Isle Board.
Expressed support for the draft Housing Element; stated the plan is sensible and goes a long
way towards fulfilling the legal and moral obligations to produce housing; the Bay Area produces
many jobs; the City must accommodate and do its part to build housing for the people here;
expressed concern about the lack of housing production: Doug Letterman, Alameda.
Expressed support for the housing policies; stated it is important that the policies further fair
housing and the right of first refusal for those who have been displaced; it is important that all
Alameda neighborhoods provide opportunity for affordable housing development to take place;
expressed support for at least 60 units per acre of density in all housing, commercial and
industrial sites; stated higher density is important to allow flexibility in developing challenging
sites for projects to be built; expressed support for up zoning residential areas: Lynette Jung
Lee, Alameda.
Stated that she is in favor of most of the proposal; discussed local obesity statistics in relation to
recreation access; expressed concern about the development of the Harbor Bay Club; stated
the Harbor Bay Club area supports people in open spaces; there is need for open recreation
spaces; urged the City to consider sites which can support housing, not developers building on
a recreational area: Lily, Alameda.
Stated parks are meant to be played in; expressed support for the staff recommendation and
draft Housing Element; urged the City to take an all of the above approach; stated the City
should build all and then some; discussed architecture: Kyle Navis, Alameda.
Expressed support for the draft Housing Element and for comments provided by Speakers
Cheer and Geyer; stated the draft Housing Element is a good first step: Alexia Arocha,
Alameda.
Stated walkability, density and transit issues will resolve itself; the market will not take care of
the housing issue; it is important to affirmatively further fair housing by developing in high
opportunity areas near schools, transit, shopping and parks: William Smith, Alameda.
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
5",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,6,"Urged Council to vote no on the matter of up zoning; expressed concern about the future of
Alameda and residential neighborhoods; stated development will be indiscriminate; expressed
concern over a future lack of open land: Kevin Frederick, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the Housing Element changes around the
WABA district.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the business area corridors are
transit-oriented, commercial corridors that would be good for adding housing; one of the
criticisms received is staff is not pushing enough; staff will begin to look at more sites and talk
with neighbors in the area; staff has questioned how to tailor zoning to get more housing on
Webster Street without sacrificing or losing some of the historic character; staff believes the goal
of tailoring zoning can be accomplished; zoning can be carefully tailored to obtain desired
results.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the Harbor Bay Club zoning.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the Harbor Bay Club site is currently
zoned for mixed use, which allows for commercial and residential; the historic use for the space
has been for a health club under a commercial use; the owners have indicated a desire to sell;
the potential buyer has indicated an interest in replacing the health club with a new health club
facility, plus residential; the development application will go through the normal process.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter of Harbor Bay Club is before the Council, to
which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated
Harbor Bay Club is separate from the Housing Element.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the different types of housing at Alameda
Point.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated Alameda Point has a variety of
housing; the area has market rate and affordable housing; there is agreement in the need for
affordable and subsidized housing; market rate housing pays affordable housing subsidies;
there can be no affordable units without market rate housing unless a tax is implemented, which
generally does not happen; the City relies on the private sector to provide affordable housing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a number of different zones have been referenced; requested
clarification be provided regarding R1 through R6; expressed support for an update on the
current status of Article 26 and SB 9; stated that she would like more information on whether
developers can tear down historic homes.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated residential zones R1 through R6
includes roughly 80% of the land area in Alameda; staff is proposing about 20% of the RHNA
being distributed within the R1 through R6 ones; staff can tailor the zoning in concert with the
historic preservation, rent control and anti-displacement ordinances to get housing added; the
tailoring will not include many of the negative impacts or concerns brought by speakers;
discussed current development applications and financial feasibility for tearing down and
rebuilding; stated staff can craft zoning in a way which allows for careful infill development while
maintaining the character of the residential neighborhoods; SB 9 is a new State law which goes
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
6",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,7,"into effect January 1, 2022; the Planning Board will review staff's initial zoning amendments for
the R1 district on December 13th; there are approximately 9,500 R1 parcels in the City; the R1
district allows an ADU up to 1,200 square feet and a junior ADU; the draft Housing Element
proposal allows for an additional ADU; Council cannot stop State law and SB 9; SB 9 allows a
property owner to perform a lot split and sale of the alternate unit; staff believes SB 9 will
increase the capacity in the R1 zoning districts; staff is expecting a moderate increase in
production and roughly 30 ADU projects per year due to SB 9; many ADUs are not discernable;
the City's ability and authority to regulate land is passed down from the State; if the voters of
Alameda adopt a measure in conflict with State law, the measure is unenforceable; Council
adopted zoning regulations in 2012 which were in conflict with the City Charter since Article 26
is in conflict with State law; it is unfortunate that voters kept the conflict in the Charter since it is
unenforceable; staff cannot maintain General Plan conformance with State law and respect the
City Charter; should if City wishes to maintain its land use authority, a Housing Element must be
adopted; the Housing Element is in conflict with the City Charter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired where the City is currently at with the Navy cap at Alameda Point.
The City Manager responded around 2011, the City and Navy came to an agreement which
included a no-cost transfer of land to the City of Naval land; stated the no-cost transfer includes
several stipulations, including the Navy having to clean up the land; the Navy cap allows only a
certain number of housing units, which are included in the Housing Element; the Navy has had
to review the agreement to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA); the agreement and any subsequent amendments would also have to remain in
compliance with NEPA; NEPA is required when a federal entity works with a local jurisdiction.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a penalty exists for non-compliance.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the City would have to pay $50,000 per
unit once the cap is exceeded; the $50,000 has grown to about $100,000 due to inflation; the
City previously worked out an agreement with the Navy that affordable housing units do not
count towards the cap; the City is working on an amendment to the agreement with the Navy;
the Navy understands that conditions and market changes have occurred.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff has been in discussion with the Navy about the
penalty payment.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff will report back to Council for
direction by the end of the December; staff will continue to work with the Navy and make sure
NEPA is followed.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Planning, Building and Transportation Director
stated R1 through R6 districts are the names of the six residential zoning districts; each zone
has slightly different development requirements; any homeowners are within one of the R1
through R6 zoning districts.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Article 26 being unenforceable is the result of a court
action; stated Article 26 has been voted on by the people and is the law of the land until there is
a court order.
The City Attorney responded staff's obligation is to defend the City and its voter decisions to the
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
7",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,8,"extent directed by the City Council; stated unless there is a direct appellant decision, it is not
staff's place to declare an act of Council or an act of the voters is unlawful; given guidance
received from the State, he recognizes staff's point, that there is some doubt with respect to the
continued viability of Article 26; there is also the perspective that until a court order declares
Council or a voter action unlawful, the Article remains law of the land.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council could include clarification about the
use of Harbor Bay Club in the Housing Element.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded if Council wants to rezone the
Harbor Bay Club space to recreation only, a zoning amendment would need to be done; a
Planning Board public hearing needs to occur prior to Council approval; the purpose of the
Housing Element is to identify the sites available for housing, it does not show where the City
will not build housing.
The City Attorney stated that he agrees with the Planning, Building and Transportation Director
that the Housing Element may not be the best way to address the matter; the General Plan item
up next might be a better place to include direction about the Harbor Bay Club.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to focus on the negativity about
Alameda's racial history; the City currently has a minority-majority; the White population is
42.7%; the percentage has decreased over time; other data that does not depict Alameda as
racist could have been presented; she is Mexican American and has a hard time reading a
document with a negative portrayal; Alameda has done a good job; the report could include data
showing the decrease in the White population is attributable to the housing offered; discussed
the City of Berkeley and San Francisco's population; stated the City of Alameda has been
providing things which result in the diverse community; expressed concern about the language
used; stated multiple places depict Alameda negatively; she agrees with comments about the
residential R1 through R6 areas; the residential areas are very diverse; people rent out rooms in
big homes; she is a renter; her home is older; constructing a newer home in its place with a
higher rent would cause gentrification; Council needs to be careful about what happens; she is
not interested in doing any more within established neighborhoods than what the law currently
requires; she would like to look at other sites; inquired where housing can safely be placed
within the City; displayed slides depicting earthquake fault lines; stated it is important to keep
high seismic risk factors in mind when selecting housing sites; displayed an image depicting
damage to Alameda from the Loma Prieta earthquake.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded new housing is built to current,
seismic standards, while old housing is not; when an earthquake happens, the existing housing
in Alameda built in the 1920s and 1930s is of concern; the original Alameda shoreline for
Alameda is the most stable are, which is essentially the R1 through R6 districts; many have
been opposed to up zoning of those areas; staff must show where housing is to be built; the
proposal is to spread housing throughout the entire City to ensure no one area takes all of the
housing.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer displayed an image depicting high liquefaction locations;
noted high liquefaction areas include landfill spaces.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated landfill areas are more susceptible to
liquefaction; in order to avoid areas of high liquefaction, more housing would have to be in the
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
8",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,9,"central areas; staff is proposing to spread the housing around.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is concern for tsunami risks.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff has raised the issue with the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which responded every city in the Bay Area has
environmental risks and the risk cannot be a reason not to build housing; the concerns are real
issues; however, none will allow the City to avoid identifying where to build housing.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is concerned with how to evacuate or bring
supplies to people and what mitigation can be done; ABAG offered support; expressed support
for keeping access to the Estuary in mind; stated South Shore is problematic due to a lack of
ferry access.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff is working on the issues; a
hazard mitigation plan exists; staff works with the community and surrounding agencies to
prepare for the event of an emergency; staff should be working on these issues irrespective of a
Housing Element; the Housing Element does not force the issues of safety and evacuation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Alameda Point is the better site due to ferry access;
noted South Shore does not have boat access; boat access is available along the Estuary as
well.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated pieces of the draft Housing Element
are not yet complete; a full demographic report and a fair housing analysis will be completed;
if
previous land use patterns show discrimination, the City must show ways the patterns are being
corrected.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the tone of the Housing Element could be changed;
expressed concern over comments showing one side town in a negative way.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 7:17 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
***
Councilmember Knox White stated the City has to follow State law; inquired what happens if the
City be out of compliance with the State.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded there is a deadline for Council to
adopt a new Housing Element; stated if Council misses the deadline, the City is considered out
of compliance; when out of compliance, the City no longer has a valid General Plan or the ability
to govern land use; the City would be found out of compliance by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) which cuts off all State grants and funding
sources; funding includes affordable housing and park funds; many grants received by the City
would not have been possible without being in compliance with State law; the City would likely
immediately be sued; State law is set up to encourage people and interest groups to sue the
City; if the City loses the case, the City has to pay attorney fees; State law includes penalty fees
for being out of compliance; adoption of the Housing Element would likely be forced via Court
order; a Housing Element in compliance with State law will be adopted at some point, whether
the City willingly adopts it or if it is by court order; the cost will ultimately be borne by the
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
9",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,10,"Alameda taxpayers; staff recommends adopting the draft Housing Element.
Councilmember Knox White inquired how the draft Housing Element identifies where the
impacts are in order to affirmatively further fair housing and how the City is looking at furthering
fair housing.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff is aware of affirmatively
furthering fair housing; stated HCD produces maps; the maps show areas of less opportunity on
the West End; most of the affordable housing is being built on the West End; staff is proposing
to spread out the housing; there is more land available on the West End; however, a conscious
effort is being made to show HCD that all new and affordable housing is not being placed on the
West End; the R1 through R6 districts play an important role in furthering fair housing by
providing the most equitable way of spreading the RHNA through all of Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White stated Alameda has a couple large policy guidance choices which
will be beneficial for all; one of the choices is how Council will prioritize historic aesthetics over
affirming fair housing; he is confident that the City can build new housing and also protect a lot
of the older buildings; the City being out of compliance is about the worst thing; he would like to
understand whether or not there is Council unanimity to having a compliant Housing Element; if
Councilmembers do not support a compliant Housing Element, he hopes members will be
willing to more affirmatively seek judicial input on whether Article 26 trumps State law; if there
not be support for a compliant Housing Element, it would be interesting for Council to give
direction to have a Closed Session on how the City might proactively and affirmatively have
judicial review of the questions in order to avoid harm before certifying the Housing Element; the
wise choice is to have a certified Housing Element; however, State laws have to be followed.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to have a dialogue to see where Councilmembers
are; bigger picture questions need to be answered in order for staff to have adequate direction
to move forward; several presentations have been provided on the topic; the discussion has
been happening for quite some time; Council must acknowledge that the policies in place have
created and contributed to the reason for the State taking action; all communities have had
discussions about local control relative to planning and zoning; there is a housing and
affordability crisis; the affordability crisis is due to lack of supply; Council must have discussions;
many of the spaces not impacted by sea level rise or liquefaction are located in the R1 through
R6 zones; expressed support for Council doing the right thing in adopting a compliant and
equitable Housing Element.
Councilmember Daysog stated each Councilmember has their own view and perspective;
November 2020 resulted in a resounding defeat of Measure A and residents declared the Article
26 growth control tool was needed in order to preserve neighborhoods; many things included in
the draft Housing Element would undo the resounding defeat of Measure A; if Council adopts
the draft Housing Element, growth would occur throughout the Island by up zoning R1 through
R6 neighborhoods; Council needs to do something for the R1 neighborhoods as soon as
possible; Council can do better than the proposed draft Housing Element; Council has an
obligation to do better; questioned how the City will meet its RHNA obligation; stated that he
prefers an allocation less than 5,000; the opportunities to meet the RHNA goal are at Alameda
Point, in the West End or within the business corridors; Alameda Point had previously been
designated as a Planned Development area due to an abundance of resources providing space
for housing and transportation; the City should double its effort at Alameda Point; getting the
Navy to change its current cap will be an uphill battle; by virtue of the vote on Measure Z,
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
10",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,11,"Council should save neighborhoods; there are options for housing adjacent to Bayport;
questioned whether the Main Street ferry terminal site is currently being used; stated the City
must offer other spaces for housing; Neptune Park could be looked at; higher densities at
Webster Street make sense; he does not have specific recommendations related to past
discrimination; he would like to ensure an understanding of a number of State and federal laws,
which ensure fair housing; there has been a history of racism; however, there have also been
successes; the disparity seen cannot be solely due to racism; expressed support for having a
balanced review of past discrimination as well as successes; stated elements of the draft
Housing Element are difficult to support; he was the campaign chair for the No on Measure Z
campaign; many things included in the draft Housing Element undermine the success of the
campaign; the City needs to find another way to meet its RHNA obligation; he respects that
fellow Councilmembers come from different perspectives and will fight hard for said
perspectives; he has his own perspective of what Alameda needs in order to move ahead in a
well-planned manner.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is hearing one of his colleagues desire to remain
non-compliant; his question remains about rather than taking a huge risk in provoking two State
groups going after non-compliance, that the City ask the Courts whether or not non-compliance
is allowed; the proposed outline from Councilmember Daysog is non-compliant; the goal of the
process is to have HCD sign-off on the Housing Element; he is looking for a way forward that
does not result in trouble; expressed concern about Council paying legal fees and losing control
of land use planning; stated if Council moves forward with a Housing Element which conforms
to State law, he would like to note concern about not coming anywhere near the needed
numbers for Park and Webster Streets; the proposed 900 units for the residential districts areas
is not realistic will not be reached; previous housing plans have been too conservative causing
the need to look at additional places for more housing; now that Council knows non-compliance
yields its own penalties, he would like to make sure there is enough of a buffer in place to meet
the RHNA obligation; 1,000 units placed at shopping centers will kill main street businesses;
Council should be looking at what needs to be done to place between 1,500 and 2,500 units on
Park and Webster Streets; the zoning could take a little pressure off of the residential districts; it
makes sense to place units at Park and Webster Streets near existing transportation
infrastructure and historic transit streets; it is clear that the City cannot meet the RHNA
requirement for affirmatively furthering fair housing and not touch the R1 through R6 districts; he
is not willing to actively continue the exclusionary and segregationist policies of the past which
have been shown to continue on into the future through land ownership and access to homes; if
Council does not take action against the policies, Council is taking action to support the policies.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is a way for the City to be fully compliant; expressed
support for putting more housing at Park Street; stated that he has confidence staff can figure
out ways to meet the affirmative fair housing obligations throughout the City in a reasonable
way.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the concerns raised by WABA; stated
that she would like to find out the desires of the Park Street and other business districts; the City
should look to Harbor Bay Business Park; a significant amount of funding support for Measure Z
came from Harbor Bay businesses; it is important to consider opening up the business parks to
allow for housing near businesses.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council cannot simply say that staff will find places for housing in a
reasonable manner; the matter needs to be articulated; expressed support for knowing how
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
11",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,12,"many units will be found; stated Council needs to equitably address how to spread housing
throughout the City; saying the City will find reasonable ways to provide housing is not enough;
Council needs to have the numbers and find places for the units designated on a map; negate
housing locations is not enough; outlined Alameda Point historic buildings discussions during
her time on the Historic Advisory Board; expressed concern about the hypocrisy of housing
arguments; stated concerns related to access points for getting on and off Island do not coincide
with placing all housing at Alameda Point; it is difficult to listen to conflicting concerns; policies
are not the only things which address a racist past; racist deed covenants still exist; historic
wealth exists due to racist pasts; Council must ensure equity in housing; the notion of the
market taking care of itself is not enough; Council must vote and provide direction to certify the
Housing Element; she hopes Council's actions can meet its words; the City's current position is
due to policies being in place which put restrictions on and prevented multi-family housing and
generational wealth; the City can ensure it has public housing; Council must approve the units
being built; Alameda is not the only city providing housing arguments and pushback; expressed
support for equitable distribution throughout the City; stated transit options throughout the City
can be expanded; it is not fair, equitable or practical to place all housing at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to look at housing at the Harbor Bay
Business Park.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed rents paid to the City; stated zoning designations exist to
support various uses; the City will hurt itself if it takes away from business parks, which provide
revenue; housing placement should not be a punishment for supporting a ballot measure;
expressed concern about the staff report explanation of furthering fair housing requirements;
stated that she would like to make sure the report cites new housing and lower income or
affordable housing in areas near schools and parks; expressed concern about references to
better wealth and services being located on the East End of town; stated all housing should not
be put on one end of town in order to not over-burden schools, parks and resources; wealth
should be spread throughout; decisions made by Council reflect values and the commitment to
fair housing and addressing the housing crisis; one side of the Island should not point to the
other side to meet the RHNA obligation; expressed support for housing being disbursed
throughout the City and for housing at shopping centers, including Harbor Bay; stated Council is
not discussing a tear-down of businesses located at Harbor Bay; examples of housing being
integrated into shopping centers can be provided; expressed support for the City being creative
and open-minded about the combination of residential and retail at Harbor Bay, South Shore,
Marina Village and Alameda Landing shopping centers; stated the racist past of Alameda did
exist; the City is moving forward, away from the past; the City still has a long way to go;
however, the challenges are not addressed by pretending non-existence; she understands the
proposal to have a Court rule on the enforceability of Article 26; however, she is mindful of staff
being stretched thin across a number of different obligations; expressed support for Council
approval of the Housing Element; stated seeking out a Court determination is not high on her list
of things to do; many things are needed to meet the housing obligation; other sites and different
unit amounts can be considered; this is a listening session; the item will return to Council with
Council comments incorporated in the future; Council should remain solution-oriented; there is a
housing crisis regardless of how many people are moving in and out of the City; the City has
been under-housed; she looks forward to being part of the solution; inquired whether staff
requires additional information from Council.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated the
comments provided have been helpful; staff will be publishing the December draft.
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
12",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,13,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is trying to come up with solutions; when two
businesses give $60,000 to a campaign and have large parking lots, a ferry and are close to the
airport, the businesses might be interested in trying to figure out how to put housing in the
Harbor Bay Business Park.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the December draft will be better than
the November draft; staff will continue to work through issues based on feedback provided.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the public can stay up to date on the matter.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded via the General Plan update
website at: https://www.alameda2040.org/; stated staff is posting all Housing Element
information on the website, including upcoming meetings.
The City Planner stated there is an upcoming HAB Housing Element workshop on Thursday,
followed by a Planning Board meeting on December 13th, which will include draft zoning
amendments related to SB 9 as well as objective design standards.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the Commission on Persons with
Disabilities will hold a workshop on the Housing Element on December 8th.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like a check-up on the progress for
raising the Navy cap at Alameda Point.
(21-775 ) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15841, ""Certifying the Final Environmental
Impact Report, and Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation
Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the General Plan Amendment to
Update the Alameda General Plan."" Adopted; and
(21-775A) Resolution No. 15842, ""Adopting Alameda General Plan 2040.' Adopted.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has spent time with staff making grammatical
changes; inquired whether any of the changes have been made.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated the
document is the Planning Board recommended General Plan; staff will create a final, Council-
adopted version; a Councilmember can move approval of the General Plan with direction to staff
to go through the document and update all typographical errors; noted some residents
volunteered time to go through the document to provide comments and edits; staff will be happy
to go through another round of edits.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council has received correspondence from the Elders of
Lisjan; inquired whether staff can address the matter.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the letter
received from the Lisjan people includes a series of adjustments and changes; staff has
reached out to work on a comprehensive update; staff can make changes and additions to
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
13",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,14,"policies with the Lisjan people, which should go through the normal General Plan amendment
process; the process of taking changes through the Planning Board and community for review is
an educational process; the changes surround sensitivity to the types of issues for staff and
decision-making bodies; staff will return with a 2022 General Plan amendment for the Housing
Element; a Transportation Element appendix amendment is also coming.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the zoning options of the Harbor
Bay Club parcels.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the issue of Harbor Bay Club came
up in the context of the General Plan; staff and the Planning Board decided that the question for
zoning at the Harbor Bay Club should be decided in the Housing Element process; it would be
premature for the General Plan to predict the process; the current designation for the Club,
which is commercial recreation, was kept in the General Plan; the matter is related to the
General Plan designation, not the zoning for the site; changing the designation is possible, if
desired; Council can also direct staff to bring back a zoning amendment to change the
underlying zoning from mixed use to open space; classifications established in the General Plan
are implemented by the zoning code; the General Plan is is the policy document that guides
future zoning, not the zoning code.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what can be done with the proposed document to
clarify keeping the current commercial recreation use.
The Planning, Building and Transportation responded the General Plan cannot establish zoning;
stated the General Plan is adopted by resolution and zoning is adopted by ordinance; the
General Plan cannot do anything specific to change the zoning; the General Plan can include
policy statements such as: consider changing the zoning, which does not create a commitment;
the General Plan can show a priority for site zoning decisions; Council may add an action for
staff to have the matter go through the ordinance adoption process to change the zoning.
The City Attorney stated that he believes Councilmember Herrera Spencer seeks to modify the
General Plan to clarify that the policy Council wishes to effectuate are pure recreational uses;
the process will begin the conversation about staff bringing back conforming zoning updates if
Council establishes overarching General Plan policies that the area should be pure recreation.
The City Planner stated the Harbor Bay Club site is a single site; consideration from Council
might include how the policy effects the individual site versus a broader area; the nature of the
General Plan is to consider general policy, as opposed to specific spot zoning.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a section of the General Plan references open space
where no housing is allowed at the Harbor Bay Club site.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the section references park areas
under Land Use Classifications at the end of the Land Use Element.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director stated it is absolutely possible for the General Plan to state the area has
a land use designation which does not allow housing; the problem which will immediately occur
will be a direct conflict between the underlying zoning and the General Plan designation; if
Council takes the next step to prohibit housing on the site and zone the site for open space,
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
14",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,15,"legal issues will be generated.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the zoning could not be changed, but instead
it could be clarified that the site for recreation or commercial use.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the situation is complicated;
stated the site has been designated commercial recreational in the General Plan for 30 years
and has been zoned mixed use to allow residential; residents would like Council to zone the
space not to allow housing, which is acceptable; he is struggling with what to change the zoning
to; questioned whether the City is committing to owning and running the site as an open park or
public facility if the City designates the site as open space; stated if the City does not allow
housing, the property owner will not be allowed a return on investment and other issues will
arise; staff has left the designation and zoning alone.
The City Attorney stated the City runs greater risk in limiting possible uses; the City runs less
risk in limiting less uses and remaining open to other uses; there is a sliding scale where the
judicial decisions on zoning allow the Council great flexibility in zoning; however, if all viable
uses are eliminated, a compensatory taking argument is possible; if Council wishes to set broad
policy about the kinds of uses desired, Council may direct Planning staff to designate
recreational uses for the site; Council may even designate recreational with ancillary
commercial uses for the site; Council may direct staff to create a zoning for the types of uses
which still create opportunity while limiting the number of uses; if Council places limits, judicial
review is likely.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated page 51 of the General Plan document speaks to parks
and wildlife; there is a category called commercial recreation, which the Harbor Bay Club is
under; other categories listed designate that housing is not permitted in certain areas; inquired
whether Council may direct staff to add similar language under commercial recreation, to which
the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for input from the City Attorney; stated the
commercial recreation section has not prohibited housing; the section could be expanded
without touching the zoning similar to the other listed categories.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the General Plan designations that
indicate no housing is allowed have underlying zoning which prohibits housing; discussed the
public parks designation, which does not allow for housing; stated a covenant preventing
housing at the Harbor Bay Business Park was placed by the Port of Oakland when Harbor Bay
was originally developed; the covenant is the result of a prior lawsuit about building housing
close to the airport; Councilmember Herrera Spencer's proposal would create a General Plan
designation which states no housing is allowed even though the zoning allows for housing; the
conflict would have to be resolved by changing the zoning; staff and the Planning Board chose
to leave the matter as-is and punt the issue to the discussion of the project or Housing Element
if the City decides housing is needed at the site; if housing is needed at the site, the General
Plan designation would need to be changed and the zoning would remain as-is; staff felt as
though it is premature to have the City make decisions on the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to hear from the City Attorney.
The City Attorney stated that he believes there is no problem in adding commercial or ancillary
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
15",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-11-18,1,"ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, November 18, 2021
TIME:
7:00 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
A video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
The following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.
ROLL CALL
Present: (Teleconference via Zoom) Chair Alexander, Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner Jones and
Commissioner Nguyen
Absent: Commissioner Navarro
Staff: (Teleconference via Zoom) Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy
Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of October 14, 2021 Regular Meeting as presented.
M/S Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Jones. All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (For topics not on the agenda)
Written Communication: none
Oral Communication: none
REPORT FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR - ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave
the report. See exhibit 1.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Nguyen: Visited all the parks on Alameda's West End, spoke with residents at
the Alameda Neighborhood Park who said they loved the new park, but would love to have more
shade structures and a sign with the Park's name. Director Wooldridge: The reason there is not
a sign is the park is not formally named yet.
Commissioner Jones: Visited McKinley Park and was asked about the homeless people who
are sleeping in the park during the day and what the community can do about it. Director
Wooldridge: People do have a right to be in a public park and sleep on the benches, however; if
they display bad behavior or become a danger to others, the park goers should call the police.
Vice Chair Robbins: Light at Washington Park Court #5 is out. Asked if the tennis courts located
near the Hornet Soccer Field are a potential location for Pickleball Courts, even if temporary.
Director Wooldridge: Alameda Soccer Field has the Use Agreement and would have to talk with
them first. Commissioner Robbins: Would like to have an internal study on the reality of how
much money is needed for a new Aquatics Center and Sports Complex to bring it to fruition.
Director Wooldridge: Topic can be agendized with a discussion on a revenue measure in 2022.
1",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-11-18.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-11-18,2,"Chair Alexander: Attended meeting to discuss the Jean Sweeney Park purchase of property with
Director Wooldridge and the City of Alameda Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft. It was nice to walk
the park and to see the beautiful new art structure. Attended the Alameda Holiday Boutique
which had many handmade goods and was nostalgic. Thanked Park Manager Matt Nowlen for
sending pictures of the completed picnic area at Woodstock Park, the ARPD staff for always
being attentive to her requests and Office Assistant Katherine Sirota for always delivering the
agenda packets to her. Kudos on the Winter Activity Guide as it is much more user friendly than
previous guides.
AGENDA ITEMS
6-A Review and Recommend Educational Signage and Location Proposed for Chochenyo Park
Director Wooldridge along with Ryan LaLonde, local Graphic Designer who is doing the sign pro bono
gave the report which included the history, value of interpretive signage, placement and how the
signage will be mounted on a triple post pedestal and what the next steps will be.
6-A Public Comments
Speaker Deja Gould, tribal member of the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan thanked Ryan LaLonde
for the beautiful design and everyone who was a part of making it happen.
6-A Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Nguyen: Complimented Ryan LaLonde on his beautiful educational sign and is
excited it is coming to the park. Appreciates the language and intention in the signage and also
getting permission from the people in the tribal areas.
Chair Alexander: Thanked Ryan for all his hard work and for doing the project pro bono as it is
a wonderful gift to the community. Asked if there enough room where the sign will be placed for
both the playground and the landscaped area that is planned. Director Wooldridge: Yes, it is
closer to the landscaped area than the playground and there is plenty of space.
Vice Chair Robbins: Fantastic work and loves the placement. Appreciates the thoughtfulness of
the history and the honesty of the text.
Commissioner Jones: Thanked Ryan LaLonde for his hard work which is beautiful.
6-A Motion
Vice Chair Robbins moved to accept the educational signage and location proposed for Chochenyo
Park as presented.
M/S Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Jones
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-B Receive Report and Presentation from Matt Nowlen, Park Manager
Matt Nowlen, Park Manager gave the presentation which included staff, responsibilities of Park
Maintenance, what makes ARPD parks unique, goals, challenges, improvement projects, new parks,
2",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-11-18.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-11-18,3,"and changes to improve parks presently and in the future.
6-B Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Nguyen: Thanked Park Manager Matt Nowlen for the work that he and his team
do. The parks in Alameda always look so nice.
Vice Chair Robbins: Great job to Park Manager Matt Nowlen and his team. Amazed at how
gorgeous Alameda Parks always look. Concerned about enough funding for not only new parks
but the ongoing upkeep of the established parks and feels it is important for the Commission to
support the ARPD in being properly funded. Asked if the Franklin Park tennis courts lights would
ever be turned on again? Director Wooldridge: Yes, it is a possibility but would have to have
extensive meetings with the surrounding neighbors before it would be considered.
Chair Alexander: Appreciates and is impressed by the work that Parks Maintenance does and
gives Park Manager Matt Nowlen an A plus. Loves the idea of a Volunteer in the Parks program.
Concerned about making sure there is enough funding to employ adequate amount of staff to
take care of the parks. Commented that she has walked through all the parks and took pictures
of the little projects that need to be done. Asked if there was more funding for staff, what would
Park Manager Matt Nowlen's request be? Park Manager Nowlen answered that he would need
more information to give an accurate answer as in an actual study or to compare neighboring
cities to get a standardized answer of the ratio of acreage and staff needed to provide the level
of service desired.
Commissioner Jones: Thanked Park Manager Matt Nowlen and his team for all of their work.
6-C Discuss Commissioner Assignments to Observe Parks and Programs
Director Amy Wooldridge gave a list to the Commissioners for parks, programs and events they could
attend to be in the community to give education and bring back input.
6-C Commissioner Comments
Commissioners agreed to organically choose the parks and events to visit instead of having
actual assignments. Vice Chair Robbins volunteered to make presentations to organizations and
service clubs.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
Dog Park Survey
Nominate new Chair and Vice Chair
Name 4 new parks.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: December 9, 2021
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn
M/S Commissioner Nguyen / Commissioner Jones
Motion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 4 ayes via roll call vote.
Chair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 8:46 PM.
3",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-11-18.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-11-18,4,"EXHIBIT 1
11/18/2021 ARPD Director's Report
Presented by Recreation and Park Director Amy Wooldridge
Recreation Services
All programs are doing well and limited spots are still available for Winter sessions for RAP and Tiny
Tots.
The second annual Turkey Dip or Roll will take place at both swim centers this year starting at on
Thanksgiving at 7:30 am. Registration opens November 22. It also includes a virtual 5K or mile run.
The 48th Annual ELKS Hoop Shoot Competition is underway. There are categories for boys and girls
based on age. Finals are January 7th at Alameda Point Gymnasium.
Several holiday activities are available and already filling including Santa Home and Virtual Visits,
Breakfast with Santa, and Winter Wonderland break camp.
Voting starts December 6 on the ARPD website for the public to select the 2022 Starlight Movies in
the Park.
We are starting hiring for 2022 summer programs!
Mastick Senior Center
Katherine ""Kat"" Kaldis coordinates the Paratransit programs at Mastick and started ""Hop on the Bus""
to teach folks to ride AC Transit. They leave from Mastick and go to Park Street and sometimes on
to South Shore Center. It is a great opportunity for one-on-one outreach with a small group, an
opportunity for members to network, and a confidence builder for riding the bus.
Kat also is facilitating Transportation 101 and bringing awareness about transportation programs
available in town and abroad (ferry, BART, AC Transit). Also working to launch AIM (Alameda
Independent Mobility) to provide access to limited UBER and Lift rides for low-income, East Bay
Paratransit eligible riders. The annual transportation survey was recently conducted and results will
come to the Commission as part of the annual report.
New Member Orientation returned in-person in October and we're continuing to add more in-person
activities such as Zumba Gold and Zumba Toning classes, additional line dancing classes, and
hoping to form a Tech Volunteer Team to assist all the members needing assistance with technology.
New HVAC unit scheduled to be installed in the social hall to replace a very aging unit and provide
filters so the social hall will be a citywide fresh air and cooling center.
We recently brought back transportation for the Leisure Club and are limiting it to nine members to
allow for social distancing on the bus. Transportation is being alternated between areas of the island
to provide opportunity for all and to give parents or caregivers a break from driving at least once out
of the two meetings per month.
Mastick Senior Center is distributing 40 Thanksgiving meals to seniors in need through a collaboration
with Christ Episcopal Church.
Park Maintenance
Completed addition of a picnic area at Woodstock Park. It is a well shaded area from mature trees
and staff will be planting more trees.
Continuing end of season renovations for athletic fields.
Installed a bank of bike racks at Sweeney Park near the playground area to meet a high demand.
We are in the planning stages of the Encinal Boat Launch repairs.
Continuing to see supply chain delays and issues as well as costs increase for goods and services.",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-11-18.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-11-18,5,"Nearing completion of the Alameda Point Waterfront Park. Anticipated to open in the next one to two
months. A formal grand opening in collaboration with Rhythmix and the Animate Dance Festival is
being coordinated for April 2022.
Administration/ Projects
Staff is coordinating the Storytelling and Drumming Festival on February 5, 2022, 1:00pm at Mastick
Senior Center. We already have an Indigenous and Asian Folktales storytellers, puppetry, poets,
Taiko Drumming, and Total Rhythm Drumming.
As was discussed in the reimagining of ARPD community events, the Holiday Tree Lighting Festival
is no longer taking place in front of City Hall. The tree and City Hall will be decorated, including the
menorah and peace sign. The public is invited to the South Shore tree lighting event on 11/26 at
3:00pm to help Santa and the Mayor light the tree, enjoy live music and the Tap Dancing Christmas
Trees.
The Alameda Parks Improvement Survey was launched and is now available. We are advertising it
extensively through email blasts, social media, posting at the project sites with QR codes, direct
notification to user groups and schools.
ARPD is updating its Athletic Facility Allocation Policy. At the beginning of December, staff will meet
with all of the organizations who utilize swimming pools, fields, gym, and tennis/pickleball courts to
review the changes and hear feedback. We anticipate this policy will go before the Recreation and
Parks Commission in January 2022.
Jackie Krause, our Recreation Manager for Mastick Senior Center, is retiring after 30 years of working
for the City of Alameda. Jackie worked for seven years with the Alameda Housing Authority and 23
years managing Mastick. She is well-loved by the seniors and broader community and will be sorely
missed. Jackie's dedication to serving the Alameda community, always striving to improve, and her
infectious laugh have brought much value to ARPD and Alameda. Recruitment is now open for the
position.
ARPD is collaborating with USTA and the Alameda Tennis Coalition (ATC) to implement a tennis ball
recycling program at all tennis facilities. This would be funded by USTA and ATC with ARPD assisting
with ordering the recycling containers and coordinating the funds.",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-11-17,1,"Approved Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, November 17, 2021
Time:
Chair Samantha Soules convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Location:
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 codified at Government Code Section 54953,
Transportation Commissioners can attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allows public
participation via Zoom.
Legistar Link:
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811337&GUID=55BD7254-0A79-471E-
9760-3COE243F3935&Options=info/&Search=
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Nachtigall, Hans, Kohlstrand and
Weitze.
Absent: Commissioner Randy Rentschler
2. Agenda Changes
None.
3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5210433&GUID=7ABD3D66-2823-
-496F-8237-1570FE110518&FullText=1.
4. Announcements/ Public Comments
Chair Soules expressed her sadness and sympathy for the recent death of Alameda County
Supervisor Wilma Chan who was killed in a vehicle-pedestrian collision. She spoke on the
important work and accomplishments done by Supervisor Chan and of the urgency of the Vision
Zero Plan.
Vice-Chair Tina Yuen also discussed the travesty of Wilma Chan's death and made a call for safety
on Alameda streets.",TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-11-17,2,"Commissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand expressed her condolences and also asked that everyone be
aware as you move about the city.
Commissioner Alysha Nachtigall also expressed her condolences and asked that everyone be safe.
Michael Sullivan discussed the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the estuary and wanted a status
update as well as what the bridge landing options were in Oakland. He hoped there would be
funding for this project in the Infrastructure Bill that had just passed.
Denyse Trepanier, Board President for Bike Walk Alameda, discussed the sad tragic passing of
Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan and how she was now one of the too many people who
have died in traffic collisions. She also discussed the Memorial Ride that was planned.
5. Consent Calendar
None
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Review and Comment on School Street Safety (Discussion Item)
Lisa Foster, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The
staff report and attachments can be found at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5210434&GUID=DABCODOF-3768-
B1E-9039-4D56689524B8&FullText=1.
Public Comments for #6A
There were no public comments.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions, Discussion, and Comments for #6A
Chair Soules asked where was the best place the public could engage on this topic.
Staff Member Foster discussed reaching out to the principal of your school or your child's school
and saying you want to see the Safe Routes to School Program at your or your child's school.",TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-11-17,3,"Rochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Manager, added other information about the Safe
Routes to School Program and the importance of having schools that engage and advocate for this
program.
Commissioner Nachtigall asked about bicycle education for 5th Graders and wanted to know if
that included private and charter schools as well. She then thanked the staff for doing this important
work. She also discussed Maya Lin since some students had reached out about having more
crosswalks on Buena Vista, she thought some of those improvements could be integrated into this
effort.
Staff Member Wheeler clarified that the goal was to include all 5th Graders but they did not have
enough funding at this point, but it was for both public and private schools.
Staff Member Foster discussed what this report included and Buena Vista was outside of the area
of the study. She did note that it was an important route to Maya Lin and they were still looking to
add a crosswalk on Ninth Street when it would be resurfaced next year.
Commissioner Scott Weitze asked for clarification on what a High Visibility Crosswalk was. He
also wanted to know why some crosswalks got push-buttons for flashing beacons. He also wanted
to know more about the plan to make school drop off and pick-ups better, he was stunned that this
was something that schools could decide or not decide to opt into.
Robert Vance, a Senior Engineer with Public Works, described what a high-visibility crosswalk
was, wide bars through the center and painted with light-reflective paint. He added that they would
be installing more Rapid Flashing Beacons at intersections near schools and those were evaluated
on a case by case basis.
Staff Member Foster said that under the Vision Zero Plan, the action is to have City Transportation
Engineers support schools in developing their own pickup and drop-off policies. It will be done
on a school-by-school basis.
Staff Member Wheeler added that the city had also worked with the County-Wide Safe Route to
School Programs on improving school pickup and drop-offs.
Commissioner Michael Hans was disappointed to hear that only a few schools were participating
so far. He also discussed his role as a School Administrator at Lincoln Middle School and
applauded APD for their continued efforts to keep everyone safe.",TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-11-17,4,"Commissioner Kohlstrand thanked the school staff who had participated in this work and linked
important items back to the Vision Zero Plan. She discussed her concerns about Fernside Blvd.,
especially between Blanding and High Street, as well as her concerns about Buena Vista Avenue.
She wanted to see more opportunities for the public to have input and not just use a systematic
approach.
Commissioner Nachtigall discussed the pickup and drop-off rules at Nea Charter School.
Chair Soules expressed her concerns about Earhart School pick up and drop off; not just drivers
who need to behave properly. She also expressed her concerns about road diets and diversions to
adjacent parallel streets. She believed they needed to look into it and get a grander sense of where
traffic was being pushed.
Commissioner Weitze added that Third Street by NEA was a good example of how preserving
parking was part of the problem. If the parking were removed then there would be more places to
pick up and drop off.
Commissioner Hans asked if there was a plan to bring back Crossing Guards for Secondary
Schools. Funding now only allowed for Crossing Guards at elementary schools.
Staff Member Wheeler had heard more interest and conversation about having crossing guards at
secondary schools but had not heard about funding. She discussed the growing costs of having
Crossing Guards.
Commissioner Kohlstrand discussed protocols of pick up and drop off at San Francisco Schools
and expressed interest in bringing those protocols to Alameda.
Staff Member Wheeler discussed the 17 schools that had signed up and what grant funding they
had received.
Commissioner Weitze asked about the School Route Map. He pointed out that Nea had many roads
marked as routes but he preferred funneling kids into fewer streets.
Staff Member Wheeler explained that this map had not been updated yet and then discussed what
that process entailed.
Chair Soules praised city staff for their work and said she would take on a personal role to get the
word out about this program.",TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-11-17,5,"Vice-Chair Yuen asked if the new Infrastructure Bill could help with funding for this project.
Staff Member Vance explained what was budgeted for this project and what projects could be
supplemented.
6B. Review and Comment on the Draft Smart City Master Plan Recommendations
(Discussion Item)
Gail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The
staff report and attachments can be found at
ps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5198417&GUID=0D6FDA4C-7B68-
)FA-898A-D30B6EOOD7B4&FullText=1
David Huynh and Monique Fuhrman from Iteris also presented and made themselves available for
questions.
Public Comments for #6B
There were no public comments.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions, Discussion, and Comments for #6B
Commissioner Weitze asked for clarification on the Deploy Public WiFi Map. He also wanted to
know more about Traffic Signal Priority and how that would work in school areas.
Staff Member Payne explained the thought process and criteria behind the map. She also explained
how the priority worked for the traffic signals.
Mr. Huynh added that pedestrian safety was always the top priority with traffic signal timing.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about equity for internet access and wanted to know how the
homeless would be included. She also wanted to know how this new system would be integrated
with all the overhead wires, and if there was a plan to move more underground. She thought this
was a really good job and important to think about these things for the future.
Staff Member Payne discussed the facilities that would have resources available, and those
facilities would have access to public wifi. She then discussed the undergrounding project lists that
Alameda Municipal Power was working on.",TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-11-17,6,"Mr. Huynh added that the plan for all the fiber optic cables was to put them underground.
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted to see a policy that showed they were working toward
undergrounding all wires in the city.
Chair Soules also wanted to see a more documented policy on undergrounding all utilities in
Alameda. She believed for the unhoused, cell phones were lifelines and cell phone dependence
skews towards less education levels and equity priority communities so it is important to have
public wifi, especially due to lack of an address. Data plans also are expensive so it is important.
She discussed the importance of establishing the relationship between the ISP (Internet Service
Provider) - owning the asset and leasing it out is better so as to leverage the investment for the
long term. She did not want to turn over to the private sector and wanted the city to retain those
rights. She then discussed how deliberate policies could help with cyber security with how this
data was used. She did not want to see a misuse of data.
7.
Announcements / Public Comments
Chair Soules reminded everyone to be safe out there with the sun setting earlier and encouraged
everyone to check out a reflective vest. She also wished everyone Happy Holidays since this was
the last Transportation Commission Meeting of the year.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.",TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 16, 2021--5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:03 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at
5:18 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
(21-721) Councilmember Knox White announced that the certain section of Lincoln Park
is within 120 feet of his house and he will need to recuse himself; inquired whether the
matter can be placed at the end of the agenda.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the Lincoln Park property
negotiations [paragraph no. 21-727 at the end of the agenda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following
roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.]
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Consent Calendar matter
could be heard later.
The City Attorney responded that Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft may call the item at a later time;
stated Council will need to come back to open session to conduct the Consent Calendar
vote.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-722) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: Grandview Pavilion; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City
Manager; Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director; and Amy
Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and
Alameda County and Greenway Golf; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms
(21-723) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager; Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager; and
Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organization: Alameda Police
Officers Association (APOA), Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA) and
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,2,"Alameda Fire Chief's Association (AFCA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee
Benefits and Terms of Employment
(21-724) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Request for the City to
Participate in Proposed Multistate Settlements (Pursuant to Government Code §
54956.9); Case Name: In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation; Court: United
States District Court Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division; Case Number: MDL
2804 Case No. 1:17-md 2804
(21-725) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.9); Case Name: Mali Watkins V. City of Alameda, et al.; Court: United
States District Court, Northern District of California; Case Number: 4:21-CV-06080-KAW
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding the Mali Watkins V. City of Alameda, the lawsuit filed by
plaintiff Mali Watkins against the City of Alameda and various Alameda Police
Department (APD) Officers alleges: 1) unlawful detention, 2) unlawful seizure, 3)
excessive force, 4) violation of Civil Rights under California Civil Code Section 52.1, 5)
battery, 6) assault, 7) negligence, and 8) intentional infliction of emotional distress; the
claims generally relate to APD Officers' detention and interactions with Mr. Watkins on
May 23, 2020; in order to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation, the City
Council ratified/authorized the City Attorney to settle the matter, with no admission of
liability by the City or its Officers, with Mr. Watkins in an amount not to exceed
$110,000, 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]; regarding the Opiate Litigation, the case involves litigation against
prescription opioid manufacturers and distributors; nationwide settlements have been
reached to resolve the cases brought by States and local political subdivisions against
three largest pharmaceutical distributors: McKesson, Cardinal Health and
AmerisourceBergen and manufacturer Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its parent
company Johnson & Johnson; the settlements provide that in return for a release of
claims against the defendants, the States and local political subdivisions shall receive
up to a combined total of $26 billion; the City of Alameda is eligible to participate in the
settlements although it is not a named plaintiff in the litigation; the City's share of the
settlement funds could be up to $1,062,000 over 18 years; the Council authorized the
City Attorney to resolve the litigation on behalf of the City by consenting and
participating in the settlements; after electing to consent/participate in the settlements,
the City may later choose to receive its share of the settlement funds to be used to
designated opioid abatement purposes, or can instead allow its share of the funds to be
directed to the County of Alameda; the Council approved doing so by the following roll
call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4; Absent: 1; regarding Grandview
Pavilion, staff provided information and Council provided direction with no vote taken;
regarding Labor Negotiators, staff provided information and Council provided direction
first 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, and by
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,3,"the following second roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No;
Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3; Noes: 2.
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Knox White recused himself and left the meeting.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, 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]. [Items so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*21-726) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Amy Wooldridge,
Recreation and Parks Director and Elizabeth Mackenzie, Chief Assistant City Attorney,
as Real Property Negotiators for the Potential Grant of a Revocable License for a
Certain Section of Lincoln Park at 1450 High Street in Alameda. Accepted.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-727) Conference With Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: Certain Section of Lincoln Park at 1450 High Street
(between ballfield and 9 residences located on Central Avenue); City Negotiator: Eric
Levitt, City Manager; Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director; and Elizabeth
Mackenzie, Chief Assistant City Attorney; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and
Property Owners at 3283, 3281, 3275, 3273, 3271, 3267, 3265, 3261 and 3257 Central
Avenue; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Revocable License
Following the Consent Calendar vote, the Closed Session reconvened and the City
Clerk announced that regarding Lincoln Park, staff provided information and Council
provided direction with no vote taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:13
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,21,"used for the program, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the
negative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the organization has been
around since 1953 and is community-based; inquired why a meeting with the neighbors
has not been conducted.
The Community Development Director responded staff was unsure a program was in
place to discuss with neighbors; stated staff wanted to ensure Council buy-in; noted a
meeting is scheduled for November 29th
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over the meeting occurring after
the Council vote; stated that she is unsure of the point in reaching out to neighbors after
the fact; she understands Council is currently being asked to approve the program.
The Community Development Director stated staff is recommending Council approve
the program; modifications can be considered following receipt of the input.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated members of the community expressed concern
about having 11 individuals in one unit; inquired whether the amount of people is 11 per
home.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated there will be
10 to 11 individuals per home; staff talked to two different service providers; both came
up with the same amount of individuals per home; rooms will be shared; the housing is
not considered dormitory style; BACS observes protocols for COVID-19 safety; the
homes are large and the layout will be dependent on the size of the rooms; BACS
intends to use the living room as an additional sleeping area in order to maximize the
number of individuals served.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands the houses have three
bedrooms; inquired how many bedrooms each home has.
The Community Development Director responded the two homes, referred to as Big
Whites, have four bedrooms and will also utilize the living room; less people will be in
the townhome, which has three bedrooms.
The Economic Development Director stated the two Big Whites houses have four and
five bedrooms.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be two or three people per
room.
The Community Development Director responded typically two people per room; stated
there is the potential for three people per room; however, two people per room is the
preference; the living room is larger and will allow for an additional person.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
10",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,22,"Mr. Russell stated the living room is a large space that can be split into two rooms; the
goal is to have appropriate distancing with two individuals per room; the living room will
accommodate three people.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired where the on-site BACS supervisor will be
located.
Mr. Russell responded the staff person will not be living on-site; stated the staff
members will work in three shifts each day between and in home; additional space
beyond the living quarters will accommodate staff and act as additional shared and
common space; on-site staff will operate within a common area space; the majority of
services are community-based and care coordinators will be working with people in the
community as transitions are planned.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has heard comments about
preferences for families; inquired whether family accommodations are included in the
program.
The Community Development Director responded staff has investigated the need for
families; stated if there are three families, the townhome can be used; Building Futures
informed staff there is not a great number of unhoused families in Alameda; the
Alameda Unified School District perspective is slightly different in relation to what
constitutes homelessness; people might be couch surfing and still have a roof
overhead; there are not many truly unhoused families within Alameda; staff can leave
open the possibility of serving families.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the program includes three homes, each with
approximately 11 individuals inside; inquired whether the distance between the three
homes is approximately half of a mile, to which the Community Development Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether BACS can provide other examples
of three homes with 11 individuals within half of a mile of each other.
Mr. Russell responded BACS operates interim housing programs in varying sizes;
stated programs are currently operating with a census of 25 up to a census of 160; none
of the current programs have the exact same configuration as the Alameda proposal;
there are comparable programs with comparable room arrangements; the current non-
interim permanent housing scattered site program has roughly 20 homes in Alameda
County; numerous programs with formerly homeless individuals are within half a mile of
each other; BACS has operated a similar model for decades.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been requests for Council to delay
the matter and have community outreach first; inquired whether there is a reason to
have the decision made tonight as opposed to after the community outreach meeting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
11",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,23,"The Community Development Director responded there is some urgency around the
fact that the City currently does not have a single bed to offer unhoused community
members; stated staff has been trying to move expeditiously in order to create an
opportunity to have individuals housed, particularly due to the upcoming poor weather
months; staffs goal is to have the houses made available for move-in; one house is
closer to move-in ready than the others.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired which house is closest to being move-in
ready, to which the Community Development Director responded one of the two Big
Whites.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the homes have recently became vacant;
inquired the average rent received by the City for the properties.
The Community Development Director responded the Big Whites are $2,800 per month
and about $80,000 per year; stated only one is currently in a rentable condition.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Council has received complaints from current
renters in the Big Whites related to poor maintenance of the homes; one commenter
has recommended a reduction in rent; inquired whether the City would consider a
reduction in rent for current residents.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council may conduct discussions related to rent
reduction.
The City Attorney responded that he assumes Councilmember Herrera Spencer is
asking the question to understand the amount of rent being foregone for the program
opportunity; inquired whether the intent is assumed correctly, to which Councilmember
Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney stated as long as the Councilmember is considering the amount of
rent being foregone as part of analysis, minimal questioning complys with the Brown
Act.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether asking about possibly reducing current tenant
rent is permissible.
The City Attorney stated that he is assuming Councilmembers are trying to understand
how much rent revenue is at stake in approving the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a speaker raised the concern; there have been
comments online about reduced revenue, which causes questions about the program
affordability.
The City Attorney stated that he advises questions be tailored to how revenues will be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
12",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,24,"lost if the program move forward.
The Community Development Director stated the rent range is $2,800 to $3,800 per
month; the units are currently priced somewhat below-market; stated staff may have
concerns about further rent reductions.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated roughly $80,000 annually should be higher for
three units priced at $3,800; inquired the last rent for the units.
The Community Development Director responded that she does not have the figures,
but can provide the information; stated two of the units have not been rented for some
time.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City has any other possible
properties across the Island and whether the City can decide to put the same type of
housing in another vacant property.
The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated that she is not
aware of another option; it is rare for the City to have City-owned homes; there was not
an intention to cluster the opportunities on the West End.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City has homes anywhere other
than Alameda Point, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the
negative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the idea of a housing trust is something that would allow the
City to buy up a foreclosed property or a property for sale at a good rate anywhere
within the City.
Councilmember Knox White stated that his son has been hired at BACS; it has been
determined that there are no financial recusal required for his participation in the matter;
he is excited to support the program; expressed concern about the outreach not being
completed ahead of time; Council is pushing staff to move forward as fast as possible to
address homelessness; sometimes the ball gets dropped; the process was not done
right; the City can move forward and work on good neighbor agreements; he continues
to be supportive of the matter moving forward; there have been a number of
conversations about things happening and being concentrated on the West End;
Council has given direction to staff to start looking more proactively at sites and how to
find potential sites; Council is aware that a lot of available space that provide
opportunities to move quickly are at Alameda Point; ARPA money also provides
opportunity; matters are landing heavily at Alameda Point; Council directed staff to find
ways to help move projects east.
Councilmember Daysog stated the focus should remain on the agreement; under the
services portion of the agreement, the site management section requires the provider to
immediately notify the City of any complaints received from the business community
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
13",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,25,"including, but not limited to, the businesses adjacent to the site or in the general vicinity;
inquired whether or not there is a reason to include resident complaints; another
requirement is the provider agrees to notify the City should any of the following occur:
violence or credible threats against staff or other program clients; inquired about the
procedure.
Mr. Russell responded BACS is happy to provide notice to the City if it determines
issues are -affecting the community; noted some of the language included in the
agreement is boiler plate and should be modified.
The Community Development Director stated Council can include direction to modify
the contract in order to address concerns posed by Councilmember Daysog; staff can
ensure there is an opportunity to part ways with the program if excessive complaints
arise; staff can hold a discussion on procedure for termination.
Vice Mayor Vella stated questions have been raised relative to cost; the City might
forego roughly $45,000 in rent revenue per unit annually; the units are currently not
being rented; therefore, rent is not being collected; using empty houses at Alameda
Point for homeless housing was recommended during her first Council term; she would
have liked staff to have provided outreach to neighbors ahead of time; expressed
support for outreach being conducted and for scheduling additional outreach meetings
to allow for questions and answers; stated the proposed program has been
recommended by many over the years; the City now has the funding and space;
Council understands that the number of people in need of housing is high and continues
to grow; the proposed program provides units and beds within Alameda for emergency
needs; the program is critical; the weather is beginning to change; this is an opportunity
to make sure emergency beds are available for those who reside in Alameda; she has
similar concerns with the contract as noted by other Councilmembers; the language can
be kept general to state: ""neighbors"" or ""people within the vicinity;"" the contract has
requirements for documentation and reporting; the documents and reports will be official
City records; significant reporting requirements are listed for the contract; staff can
create an opportunity for review if an incident be documented; she would like to see
community buy-in; the meetings are a good start to gaining said buy-in; the neighbors in
the area are compassionate; expressed support for the matter provided that
opportunities are set up for community input beyond the one scheduled meeting and
with edits made to the agreement.
Councilmember Daysog inquired why the City cannot move ahead with one of the three
units in the first year and judge performance; stated the second and third units can be
added after the first year.
The Community Development Director responded that she has concerns relative to
economies of scale.
Mr. Russell stated BACS staff will need to look at the operational economies of scale to
invest in the infrastructure to operate the project; volume can create economic
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
14",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,26,"efficiencies; the cost structure and impact must be reviewed.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City can put together language related to
notification threshold at the current meeting.
The Community Development Director responded it is possible; stated completing the
language will take time; staff can come up with language addressing problems;
Community Development Department staff will need the assistance of the City
Attorney's Office.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the non-compliance protocols section of the
agreement lists the only reasons that may be used as a basis for discharge from a
facility as possession of a weapon at the facility, as opposed to possession of a weapon
not at the facility; the contract should require people not to possesses a weapon, illegal
drugs, assault or violent behavior, theft, etc. outside of the facility; the contract should
be modified prior to Council approving the matter; it is important for staff to hold the
community meeting prior to Council approval of the program; she thinks rents could be
higher than reported by staff.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of delaying the decision until the next
Council meeting to allow for community outreach and input.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is unfortunate the matter was brought forth
without outreach; it is always important to reach out to the community prior to approval
and allow the public to be part of the process.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the project is one that all can be
proud of; 11 people per unit is a little too high; if the contract is tightened, he is willing to
try; the housing crisis is present; staff should measure twice before cutting once and a
delay until the next Council meeting would be in order to deal with the contract issues
raised.
Vice Mayor Vella stated as of the last point-in-time count, over 200 individuals do not
have housing in Alameda; 200 people are being forced to sleep and shelter outdoors;
Council has identified homelessness as a priority in its recent 5-year strategic plan;
Council is making determinations from the safety and security of being housed; it is
important to perform outreach with neighbors and have a contract in place; she does not
want to delay the matter and will not support the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion 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.
***
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
15",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,27,"(21-754) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to hear additional items past 11:00
p.m.
Councilmember Knox White stated November has a fifth Tuesday for the month; noted the
December 7th Council meeting agenda will be full; there is no way for Council to get through the
work; expressed support for calling a special meeting to hear the rest of the agenda.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the parking management program
[paragraph no 21- 1 and any of the remaining Council Referrals, while ending the meeting at
midnight and continuing the remaining Regular Agenda items to a special meeting.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the Housing Element [paragraph no 21-
1
and General Plan [paragraph no 21-
should be heard at a special meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about meeting near the Thanksgiving holiday.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not support the motion; expressed support
for starting the Housing Element discussion.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for a special meeting.
Councilmember Knox White withdrew his motion.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of finishing the current matter, directing staff to find
a time that works for the most Councilmembers possible between now and December 7th to hold
a special meeting.
The City Clerk stated the date must be specified and the matters must be continued to the date
specific due to noticing requirements.
Councilmember Knox White stated the 11:00 p.m. vote is for hearing new matters after 11:00
p.m.; inquired whether the vote to continue items can occur after 11:00 p.m., to which the City
Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether consideration can be given to the proposal from
Councilmember Herrera Spencer related to starting the Housing Element discussion.
Councilmember Knox White responded that he does not see value in starting the discussion just
to stop at a random time and having public comment coming in sporadically.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of continuing the meeting until midnight
hearing the agenda as-presented.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would prefer not to start the Housing Element.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Housing Element can be continued to the Continued
Item section of the agenda on the next Council agenda, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in
the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
16",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,28,"Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the Housing Element under the Continued Agenda
Items section of the next Council agenda.
Councilmember Knox White stated the next Council agenda will be multi-hour discussion.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the Housing Element matter can be continued to a special
meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can agree to take one more matter after the current
discussion; Council may then discuss the continued, date specific matters after.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the parking management plan [paragraph no 21-
after the current matter.
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.
Vice Mayor Vella stated unhoused individuals continue to grow in number year after year; the
winter months bring bad weather events; the project is economy of scale being phased in.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the
resolution] with direction to staff to change the contract language and have more than one
community meeting.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has visited a site run by BACS; she has
discussed BACS success with other mayors; the value of using an organization like BACS is the
track record; there are many ways in which people become homeless; it would have been
preferable to perform outreach ahead of time; Council stretches staff pretty thin; there are only
so many hours in each day; the outreach portion is not a reason to delay the project; the
housing crisis is present and a long time coming; working with BACS, a trusted provider, gives
much confidence; however, good communication with neighbors is critical; having a team and
advisory committee is needed for neighbors to feel that they are being heard; she fully expects
neighbors to be open-minded and allow for further learning; communication is key; the City is
late to start; she is confident in City staff and BACS personnel; she expects staff to be on top of
the encampments in the area; she is pleased that the Day Center is open over-night and is
making a difference; expressed support for staff working with those in encampments to reach
out to Village of Love; the City of Riverside has an expansive homeless outreach program;
Riverside has created a registry similar to a wedding or baby shower registry; the registry acts
as a wish list of needed items in order to furnish units; community members can go online to
purchase items; she does not support using ARPA funds to purchase a vehicle for the program;
expressed support for contracting with a local taxi company for vouchers; stated that she would
not like the purchase of a vehicle for the program to be included; expressed support for the
program and for families to be part of a co-housing model.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he hears concerns raised by neighbors of the area; he
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
17",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,29,"believes that he has found shortcomings in the contract presented; he is putting trust in City
staff listening to Council comments and concerns in order to strengthen the contract; the
opportunity is rare and will quickly address the homeless crisis; the City is able to do something
it was unable to previously do by using ARPA funds; however, the contract must be
strengthened; expressed support for the matter; stated Alameda Point will be better in having a
mixed community.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the motion; it is
unfortunate that the City is not providing public outreach in advance of approving the program;
the community is already mixed; legitimate concerns have been raised; neighbors needed to
have been involved in the process before the matter came to Council.
Vice Mayor Vella restated her motion to approve moving forward with the staff recommendation
[including adoption of the resolution] with direction to staff to change the contract language and
have more than one community meeting; amended her motion to include removal of funding for
the vehicle.
Councilmember Daysog accepted the amendment to the motion.
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.
(21-755) Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to
Accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Period 2023-2031 in
Compliance with State Law. Continued to November 30, 2021.
(21-756) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental
Impact Report, and Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation
Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the General Plan Amendment to
Update the Alameda General Plan; and
(21-756 A) Adoption of Resolution Adopting Alameda General Plan 2040. Continued to
November 30, 2021.
(21-757) Recommendation to Reorganize the City's Parking Management Program and Parking
Fund;
(21-757 / A) Resolution No. 15839, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Parking Fund Budget to
Restructure the Parking Fund."" Adopted; and
(21-757 B) Resolution No. 15840, ""Amending the Salary Schedule for the Alameda City
Employees Association (ACEA) and the Alameda Police Officers Association, Non-Sworn
(PANS) to Move the Two Parking Enforcement Positions from PANS to ACEA and Reassign
Two Full-Time Parking Enforcement Position Allocations from the Police Department to Public
Works."" Adopted.
The Transportation Planner gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what happens to the money collected for ferry
parking.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
18",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,30,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded if the City initiates parking fees at
ferry terminals, all revenue is received by the City; it is not split with the Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA).
Expressed support for moving parking enforcement out of the Alameda Police Department
(APD) and into Public Works and for ferry terminal parking fees: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Expressed support for moving parking enforcement from APD to Public Works; discussed the
death of Mario Gonzales; expressed support for the matter tying into a larger transportation
issue; urged traffic stops also be considered: Savanna Cheer, Alameda.
Expressed support for parking management being part of the new program; stated that she is
against the paid parking at ferry terminals; ferry tickets are expensive; expressed concern about
increasing the cost for commuters; urged Council take the cost and burden into consideration;
discussed accessibility: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Expressed support for the proposed changes being in line with parking minimums; urged City
staff to think of a parking brokerage model for business districts; stated the City could make
business parking pools more straight-forward, such as a branded City facility; expressed
support for moving parking management out of APD and for looking at traffic management in a
holistic manner: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.
Stated that he applauds the City's efforts to bring as many services as possible out from under
the purview of APD; questioned who should pay for parking; stated General Fund parking
maintenance payments are paid for by taxpayers; many pay for enforcement inactions; stated
the City needs to separate parking problems from housing problems; parking as a function of
Public Works is a great first step; urged Council to consider implementing street parking permits
from 2:00 to 4:00 a.m. across the entire Island: Morgan Bellinger, Alameda.
Stated California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (CLETS) does not allow non-
sworn law enforcement officials access to vehicle data; illegally parked vehicles cannot be
checked; Public Works will be allowed to only ticket the vehicles and move along, when APD
could have run the vehicle for its history; Public Works staff and the public will be put at risk with
the inability to check license plates for crimes; staff will be at risk when approaching vehicles;
questioned whether Public Works will choose not to ticket illegally parked bicycles; expressed
concern about vehicles double-parking and the amount of staff needed for towed vehicles;
stated that he is against paid parking at Sea Plan Lagoon Ferry Terminal: Jim Strehlow,
Alameda.
Expressed support for the matter; stated the fewer people on the street with guns in the
community, the better; she does not support paid parking at the ferry terminal: Jenice Anderson,
Alameda.
Stated BikeWalk Alameda strongly supports the staff recommendation, especially for paid
parking at the ferry terminal; paid parking will be during the week; urged support for anything to
help capture costs of taxpayers subsidizing driving in Alameda: Denyse Trepanier, BikeWalk
Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether sworn Officers currently check parking
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
19",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,31,"meters.
The Police Captain responded sworn Officers can enforce parking violations; stated APD tries
not to use sworn Officers for parking enforcement; however, APD Parking Technician staff is
low; Technicians are not sworn Officers.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how APD knows whether a car is stolen; whether
Public Works staff will be able to run license plates to check for stolen vehicles; what follow up
will occur under Public Works.
The Police Captain responded a vehicle found by Public Works staff that is believed to be stolen
will require staff to reach out to APD; stated a stolen vehicle will necessitate a sworn Officer
response; staff will also need to contact APD if a vehicle needs to be towed for blocking a
driveway or citation is needed for parking on private property, both of which require license
plates to be run; Officers use CLETS to identify registered owners.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how Public Works parking enforcement staff will suspect a vehicle
is stolen.
The Public Works Director responded APD will be able to provide Public Works staff with a hot
list that can be loaded into the handheld device; Public Works parking technicians will not be
able to see owner information; however, vehicle on the hot list will be seen for coordination with
APD.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Amber Alerts will immediately be placed on
the list.
The Police Captain responded stolen vehicles are entered into CLETS by the initial reporting
agency; the update is dependent on the originating agency; sometimes the update is immediate
and other times the report updates after several hours.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the information normally goes to APD; however, will
now go to Public Works staff; inquired how the information will flow from APD to Public Works.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the functions of the handheld devices.
The Public Works Director responded that she can speak generally on the devices but does not
yet have detailed knowledge; stated that she does not have information about how long
information updates will take; staff will work out the details; discussed a ride-along; stated
license plate readers differs from the handheld device, which is able to scan the license plate for
ticket auto-generation; staff will work out the details of the how the hot list information ends up
on the handheld devices.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the current enforcement vehicles have
cameras, to which the Police Captain responded in the negative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is no loss of services; inquired whether Public
Works technicians will be trained by APD technicians related to unhappy ticket recipients.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff will work with Dixon
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
20",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,32,"Consulting and develop a program manual with general and specific training in order to target
issues of altercations while issuing a ticket.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the City's plan for active parking meter hours going
forward.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff has not gotten to that level
of detail; stated there are no plans to change the details in the immediate future.
The Public Works Director stated the immediate priority will be enforcement.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council is being asked to approve paid
parking at the ferry terminals, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation and Public
Works Director both responded in the negative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Council is being asked to approve the transfer of
services to Public Works from APD and a program budget; inquired how much the program will
cost the City.
The Public Works Director responded Council is voting on the establishment of a new, umbrella,
single parking fund; the fund will include three divisions; the program is intended to be self-
sufficient and will not have money infused; the program will take time to constitute; the program
will generate sufficient revenue and will eventually provide excess revenue; a Council policy will
address excess revenue; any amount above and beyond operational expenses will be
considered excess revenue; staff is seeking direction that the recommendation is acceptable for
Council; there is more work in detailing the total cost of the program; staff anticipates needing
additional vehicles; however, staff will present a mid-year budget appropriation request.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether current parking rates will change, to which
the Public Works Director responded staff is currently not recommending any changes to meter
rates.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he plans to support the matter; he wants to encourage
staff to put together the work program and think about how the City can use parking control
officers to address issues such as double parking; staff should issue double parking tickets to
address safety concerns being raised by parents near schools; he would like to encourage ways
to deploy enforcement staff to address a wide range of issues similar to other cities; parking was
previously heavily impacted in the evenings; expressed support for utilizing parking prices at
peak times to ensure spaces can be found and for looking at ways to have policies come back.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolutions].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he thinks parking enforcement is better
left in the hands of APD; the residents need people that are able to enforce parking laws in a
neutral and unbiased manner; he will not be supporting the staff recommendation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over comments alluding to City staff being biased.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
21",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,33,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands APD is agreeable to the transfer
of responsibility to Public Works; inquired whether there are reasons APD supports the transfer.
The Police Captain responded APD supports the transfer; stated APD is happy to help
successfully transfer the program; APD has training outlines and programs which can be
provided to Public Works; APD has experienced difficulty hiring for the positions in the past;
transferring the program to Public Works will hopefully provide more success in staffing.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she plans to support the staff recommendation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the matter; noted the program is a better
utilization of resources.
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.
***
(21-758) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Tuesday November 30th at 5:00 p.m. works for
Councilmembers to hold a special meeting; whether the Housing Element [paragraph no. 21-
and the General Plan [paragraph no. 21- ] will be the matters continued for discussion,
to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for limiting the special meeting to the
Housing Element and the General Plan; stated that she would like staff to alert the public of the
meeting start time.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of scheduling a special meeting for November 30th
at 5:00 p.m. to hear the Housing Element and General Plan.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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.
***
(21-759) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution
No. 12191 to Add and Revise Recreation and Park Fees for Calendar Year 2022. Continued to
December 7, 2021.
(21-760) Recommendation that City Council, Boards and Commissions Annually Review
Meeting Schedules for Possible Conflicts that Inhibit Maximum Public Participation. Continued
to December 7, 2021.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(21-761) The City Manager made an announcement regarding the Community Development
Department Annual Community Service Awards and a Posey Tube closure November 17th from
10:00 p.m. to 4:30 a.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
22",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,34,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21-762) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-763) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational
Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-764) 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.
(21-765) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting
Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember
Daysog) Not heard.
(21-766) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to
Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023-
2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.
(21-767) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers
Herrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard.
(21-768) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular
City Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-769) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed an upcoming community Thanksgiving
dinner at Christ Church.
(21-770) Councilmember Daysog announced that he attended the 80th anniversary of the Flying
Tigers at the USS Hornet.
(21-771) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a briefing on the Howard Terminal ballpark proposal;
stated that she attended a ribbon cutting for the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS)
mobile adoption center; discussed a Veterans Day Commemoration event; announced door-to-
door vaccine outreach by Alameda High School's leadership class; discussed Scouting for
Food, Starbucks grand opening and Signal Coffee Roasters ribbon cutting events.
ADJOURNMENT
(21-772) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:00
a.m. in memory of Supervisor Wilma Chan.
Respectfully submitted,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
23",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,35,"Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
24",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,4,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY--NOVEMBER 16, 2021--6:59 - P.M.
Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:39 p.m. Councilmember Herrera
Spencer 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 Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the
following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer:
Aye; Knox White: 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.]
(*21-728 CC/21-21SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor
Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting Held on November 2,
2021. Approved.
AGENDA ITEM
(21-729 CC/21-22 SACIC) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute
a Memorandum of Understanding between DignityMoves, Five Keys Schools and
Programs, Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission and the City
of Alameda to Participate in the State of California Homekey Program to Develop the
Bottle Parcel Located at 2350 5th Street, Alameda, California; and
(21-729A CC) Resolution No. 15834, ""of The Governing Body of City of Alameda, A
Municipal Corporation Authorizing Joint Application to and Participation in the Homekey
Program."" Adopted; and
(21-22A SACIC) Resolution No. 21-13, ""of the Governing Body of the Successor
Agency to the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda, A Public
Body Corporate and Politic Authorizing Joint Application to and Participation in the
Homekey Program."" Adopted; and
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
1
November 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,5,"(21-729B CC) Resolution No. 15835, ""to Increase Expenditure Appropriations in the
American Rescue Plan 2021 Project (C99300) in the Capital Projects Fund (310) by
$4,640,000 and to Encumber $1,200,000 in General Funds (10061833) to Operate
Interim Supportive Homeless Housing at the Bottle Parcel Located at 2350 5th Street,
Alameda, California, for Fiscal Years 2021-22 through 2027-28"". Adopted.
The Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Elizabeth Funk, DignityMoves, and Steve Good, Five Key, gave a brief presentation.
***
(21-730) Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer moved approval of allowing
an extra 5 minutes for the presentation.
Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the
following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer:
Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Mr. Good completed the presentation.
Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer inquired whether the population being
served will be all unhoused Alamedans.
The Community Development Director responded staff will attempt to give an Alameda
preference; stated there is potential County funds and the Coordinated Entry process
will be used.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's request for clarification of Coordinated Entry, the
Community Development Director stated Coordinated Entry is the County system where
each individual is registered; once registered, individuals are prioritized based on need;
needs are based on medical, age and different vulnerabilities; individuals are prioritized
for housing based on need; there is possibility for Alameda to receive individuals from
outside of the City but still within Alameda County.
Mr. Good stated that he spoke with the Alameda County Director of Services; the City
can prioritize services for Alamedans; anyone living in Alameda would be the first
priority; if the services are for permanent supportive housing, the prioritization for
Alamedans would not be possible; since the program being is interim housing, Alameda
can prioritize for Alamedans; if there are not enough eligible participants, the City can
look outside of Alameda for participants.
Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer inquired whether outreach will be
provided to ensure all of the unsheltered would be eligible for the Continuum of Care
program.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
2
November 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,6,"The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff will
reach out to the unhoused community members and will often try to have members
move into the housing opportunity; the program is low-barrier and has minimal
qualifications, with the exception of being a registered sex offender.
Mr. Good stated that he will work with the Continuum of Care system and the
Coordinated Entry system; Five Key will work to do everything possible to fulfil the
obligation to address encampments and unsheltered individuals, including working with
non-profits and other City agencies.
Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer inquired about the general response to
the program and what percentage agree to be on the list to be housed.
Mr. Good responded there are reasons why people do not wish to be housed; stated the
same situation exists in San Francisco; it helps if the City provides a place that is clean,
welcoming, treats people as guests, not numbers, and where safety is paramount; the
program is unique in that people get what they want, including their own individual
space; the program is a great opportunity and will show an immediately significant
difference.
Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer stated the report shows insufficient
funds for the program, which will need General Fund money in year five; the contract is
for 15 to 20 years; the City will be the backstop for future years; inquired the estimate
for the backstop amount per year.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are any additional funding sources aside
from the General Fund.
The Community Development Director responded staff does not currently have the
funding identified after year five; stated there is a requirement to identify funding through
year five in order to apply; it will be important for staff to begin pursuing other grant
opportunities and funding sources once the application is submitted; staff will be diligent
in efforts to pursue funding opportunities.
Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is an estimate
of the annual operating budget for the program for years five through fifteen or twenty;
stated the annual operating budget is the maximum amount the City would be forced to
backstop.
The Community Development responded the cost is roughly $1.5 million per year.
Mr. Good stated that he has already applied for State grant funding and other funding
opportunities; the program is a commitment to get people off the street; paying for the
program now is cheaper than other services in the long-run.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
3
November 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,7,"Expressed support for the needed project; stated the bottle parcel is an odd site, which
is difficult to develop; the program is a great use of the parcel; the project Homekey
grants have weird timelines; modular construction makes sense; the program is
necessary for Alameda to try to help with the homeless crisis; the units are able to be
counted toward the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): Zac Bowling,
Alameda.
Expressed support for the project; stated that he would like to see the project go in so
that people can be moved into housing and away from the business district: Steven
Chabre, Alameda.
Expressed support for the project; stated the parcel should not be vacant when people
can be housed; people will have their own space, a roof over their head, their own
bathroom and access to services; he is sympathetic to others' suffering and wants
people to be in their own space: Josh Geyer, Alameda.
Stated the opportunity to build projects like this is a moral imperative; many crises are
dealt with every day; no single project can build the housing needed for homeless
neighbors; the projects should be moved forward as quickly as possible; the matter is
urgent; the project is special and does many things right, including using modular
construction and strong innovation; each member of the team is a proven entity:
Nicholas Nagle, Housing Action Coalition.
Stated that he has been tracking housing in Alameda since the 1990s; the program
takes a needed housing first approach; the wraparound services will reduce the amount
of money spent; the project is encouraging; expressed concern about sea-level rise and
permanent housing; stated modular housing is a good investment: William Smith,
Alameda.
Stated it is a struggle to be homeless in Alameda; people do not take the time to
understand that everyone is one Alameda; expressed support for available programs
and providers; stated that he has been sleeping near the Alameda Police Station for
one year and nine months; he is deeply affected by being homeless and is supported by
Village of Love: Kareem Williams, Alameda.
Stated that she previously worked with the community based organizations; housing is
the solution; expressed support for the project: Ana Bagtas, Alameda.
Expressed support for the project; stated there has been an emphasis on prioritizing
Alamedans; expressed support for also helping people from outside Alameda: Jenice
Anderson, Alameda.
Expressed support for the program; stated housing is a human right; Alameda needs to
do something to support those who are unhoused and provide a safe space for people
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
4
November 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,8,"November 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,9,"funding as much as possible to help in the later years; the location is good and is close
to services; noted the location is close to College of Alameda; stated there are
unhoused college students; participants of the program might be able to take advantage
of courses offered by the College of Alameda; the location is also close to public
transportation; noted that she will not support any tax efforts for program funding.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella stated housing and lack of housing is a problem for all,
regardless of location; costs continues to escalate; everyone pays the price when
people need social services and assistance due to not being provided with routine and
basic human necessities; the first basic human necessity is shelter; there have been
concerns and comments related to interference with college students; many of her
students face housing insecurity; housing insecurity creates adverse effects in many
different ways; society pays a high price for housing insecurity; the program is a step in
the right direction; expressed support for more similar projects; stated the State will
have discussions about whether or not the project will count towards the Housing
Element; the program is the right thing to do; Council should find funding for the
program; the future cost is to the General Fund is trivial in order to see the project
through; expressed support for compassion through actions; stated compassion is
where the biggest difference can be made; the City depends on the network of County
services for the overall social welfare of the community; the City needs to do its part;
expressed support for the City's ability to move quickly and seeing the program come to
fruition.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the City needs to seize the opportunity to
do something bold; the project will potentially put 46 to 60 individuals back onto a path
of stability; the program will significantly the homeless population numbers; expressed
support for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds; stated City staff will be creative in
future years if General Fund monies are needed; the project is exciting due to the
modular characteristics and ability to be quickly implemented; expressed support for the
project.
Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White expressed support for the project; stated
that he would like to provide direction to staff to work with providers to ensure housing is
maximized over parking; providing parking is needed to run a successful program;
expressed support for 48 to 49 units on the parcel and extending the ability to provide
services and support and for engaging with the neighborhood Homeowners
Associations ; stated concerns and questions are arising; the earlier discussions occur,
the better and more successful the program will be.
Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a center in Berkeley and a facility in Mountain
View; stated results are possible and within the City's grasp; the housing is modular and
can be stood up quickly; inquired whether the Mountain View project contains more
housing than what is proposed for Alameda, to which Mr. Good responded in the
affirmative.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
6
November 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,10,"Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Mountain View project has multiple wings with a
common area and was put up within six months; the fast timeline is promising and
encouraging; ARPA funds are available; the direct allocation of funding is exciting;
however, the funding is one-time, not for operating and ongoing expenses; State
Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) funds and Homekey funds are going to be
utilized; the City will pay for the program one way or another; there is a cost to having
someone sleep in a business's doorway; the program is a way for the City to help
people with dignity; the housing is transitional; some participants of the program will
move onto a more permanent housing situation; the wrap-around services will help; the
work being done is life-changing; the City has not yet had a place where an unsheltered
individual could go at any time; the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS)
developed a mobile unit which provides veterinary care for homeless individual's pets;
the FAAS mobile unit will come to the bottle parcel as well; she understands the desire
to help Alameda residents; however, if there are openings, the City will reach out to the
County to fill the spaces; many times the County has provided help for people to get
vouchers to go elsewhere; the City will have to abide by the regulations which govern
the funding received; the City will likely be starting with many, if not all, Alameda
residents for the program.
Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the staff
recommendation [including adoption of the resolutions].
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer
stated
a
Memorandum of Understanding and two other documents are being recommended for
Council approval; requested clarification for the true ask of the matter.
The City Clerk stated the motion is understood as approving all of the actions, including
adoption of the three resolutions and approval of the two MOUs; noted the staff
recommendation is to approve all matters.
Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White stated that his understanding of the motion
is the same.
Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer stated that she would like confirmation
that the program will be prioritizing Alamedans.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Mr. Good have confirmed Alamedans will be
prioritized.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White:
Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
7
November 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,11,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at
8:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
8
November 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,12,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 16, 2021--7:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor
Vella arrived at 7:35 p.m. and the meeting was conducted
via Zoom]
Absent:
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(21-731) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read a proclamation honoring Wilma Chan.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess 7:39 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:43 p.m.
AGENDA CHANGES
(21-732) The City Clerk announced items Recreation Fees [paragraph no. 21-759 and meeting
schedules [paragraph no. 21-760 could move to December 7, 2021.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the license plate reader referral [paragraph
no. 21-762 first.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the Recreation fees and the meeting
schedules matters to December the 7th Council meeting under the Continued Items agenda
section.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer made a friendly amendment to include the
parking management program [paragraph no. 21-757 under the Continued Items agenda
section of the December 7th Council meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would prefer to keep the original motion as-is and move the
parking management program if needed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff is waiting for the parking management
program matter to be heard.
Councilmember Knox White responded the same staff is presenting for the General Plan
[paragraph no. 21-756 matter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
1",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,13,"The friendly amendment was not approved.
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.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-733) Zac Bowling, Alameda, announced the annual Alameda Peeps turkey drive; stated
donations for the drive can be made at alamedapeeps.com in an effort to help the Alameda
Food Bank.
(21-734) Denyse Trepanier, BikeWalk Alameda, discussed the death of Supervisor Wilma
Chan; stated the death is one of over 40,000; announced a BikeWalk Alameda safe streets rally
and memorial bike ride as part of the World Day of Remembrance for traffic victims; stated the
rally will also honor first responders; expressed support for City staff and event coordination;
stated that she is commenting as someone who has been traumatized by the shocking increase
in traffic violence; many proven remedies can be implemented at the City level; urged Council
think about the topic as budgets are prioritized.
(21-735) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority (AHA), discussed affordable housing solution
projects being brought to the City; stated May 2021 57 emergency housing vouchers were
provided for individuals experiencing homelessness or attempting to flee a domestic violence
situation; noted vouchers have been issued as an effort between AHA, Alameda County and the
Oakland Housing Authority; announced 50% of an upcoming project is complete; stated the
project is on track for housing individuals starting summer of 2022; pre-application for
prospective tenants will open November 30th via the AHA website; discussed the 2615 Eagle
Avenue property project; stated affordable housing projects are expanding supportive services
to program participants and tenants; announced a partnership with the Alameda Fire
Department for a toy drive.
(21-736) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, suggested future reports from the Housing Authority to be
presented as an agendized presentation; discussed Senate Bill (SB) 9; stated SB 9 allows
single family lots to be split in two, divided in such a way that allows many housing units on an
individual family lot; a resolution is circulating which allows cities to adopt specific criteria and
control permitting; a draft resolution has been presented to the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director and has a deadline of December 31st
(21-737) Jenice Anderson, Alameda, stated that she is interested in getting Councilmembers
paid; noted many potential candidates do not run for office due to the financial burden; stated
anyone wishing to help volunteer with the effort can contact her via Alameda Peeps and Twitter;
she is opposed to license plate readers in the City due to privacy issues and the possibility of
misuse in domestic violence situations.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Stated that he would like the findings to allow City meetings [paragraph no. 21-760] to be
discussed; noted the vast majority of the emergency is gone; although infections are seen, the
pandemic is not an emergency; urged looking at all matters adopted by Council in the past year
which no longer deserve an emergency exception: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
2",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,14,"Stated the Open Government Commission (OGC) has sent a letter to Council discussing
permanent Zoom and remote meeting options; expressed support for continuing accessibility
with government: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the agreement with Terris Barnes Walters Boigon
Heath Lester, Inc. [paragraph no. 21-746 and the findings to allow City meetings [paragraph no.
21-747 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion; noted a no vote on final
passage of the parking ordinance [paragraph no. 21-750].
Councilmember Daysog noted a no vote on the ordinance as well.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the agreement with Terris Barnes Walters Boigon Heath
Lester, Inc. can be continued to a future meeting date without repercussions, to which the
Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.
(21-738) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the findings to allow City meetings,
and continuing the agreement with Terris Barnes Walters Boigon Heath Lester, Inc. to the end
of the agenda.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, and provided a friendly amendment to the
motion to continue the agreement with Terris Barnes Walters Boigon Heath Lester, Inc. to the
Continued Agenda Items section of the December 7th Council meeting agenda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft accepted the friendly amendment.
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.
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: 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.]
(*21-739) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on October 19, 2021.
Approved.
(*21-740) Ratified bills in the amount of $744,756.89.
(*21-741) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with NBC
Construction and Engineering, Inc. for the Harbor Bay Isle Lagoon Improvement Project, No.
P.W. 07-21-28, in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $344,683. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
3",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,15,"(*21-742) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with G & G
Builders, Inc. for Maintenance Service Center Interior Improvements, No. P.W. 02-21-10, in a
Not to Exceed Amount of $402,962, Including a Ten Percent Contingency. Accepted.
(*21-743) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year Agreement
with Nute Engineering for Engineering Design Services for Cyclic Sewer Rehabilitation Project,
Phase 19, in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $2,388,446. Accepted.
(*21-744) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Water Line Easement
to East Bay Municipal Utility District Across City-Owned Property and Any and All Ancillary
Documents and Direct the Recording of the Grant of Easement for Installation of the Oakland
Inner Harbor Pipeline Crossing. Accepted.
(*21-745) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Thirty-
Two Month Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. for School Crossing Guard
Services in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $1,083,456; and a Memorandum of Understanding
with the Alameda Unified School District for Partial Reimbursement of the City's Fiscal Year
2021-22 Costs in an Amount Not to Exceed $90,000. Accepted.
(21-746) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to: 1) Execute an
Agreement with Terris Barnes Walters Boigon Heath Lester, Inc. (TBWBH) in an Amount Not to
Exceed $132,000 for Strategic Support, Research, Ballot Measure Development, Informational
Outreach and Other Steps Necessary to Prepare a Potential Revenue Measure for the
November 2022 Ballot; and Execute an Agreement with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz &
Associates (FM3) in an Amount Not to Exceed $37,000 for Survey Development,
Implementation, and Associated Analysis Related to a Potential Revenue Measure for the
November 2022 Ballot; and
(21-746 A) Adoption of Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget by Increasing Appropriations
in the City Manager's Office by $169,000 to Enter Into Agreements With Terris Barnes Walters
Boigon Heath Lester, Inc. (TBWBH) and Fairbank, Maslin, Metz & Associates (FM3) for
Services Related to a Potential Revenue Measure for the November 2022 Ballot. Continued to
December 7, 2021.
(21-747) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via
Teleconference.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the required findings needed from Council in order to
continue allowing City meetings to be conducted via teleconference.
The City Attorney responded stated the findings to be made by the Council are contained in the
staff report; Council must find that the City is still in a state of emergency as declared by State of
California and the Governor, which remains true; Council must also find that local officials
continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated some people have a different opinion of whether
meetings should be in person; noted the City of Hayward is providing a hybrid meeting option
where members can participate in person and via Zoom; stated Hayward requires proof of
vaccination in order to be in person; City of Vallejo has resumed in person meetings as of
November 16th with the requirement of masking while inside; she has heard a preference from
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
4",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,16,"other people that in person meetings are preferred over Zoom; expressed support for the City
providing a hybrid meeting option; questioned the requirements for hybrid meetings; stated
many Councilmembers and City staff are in City Hall during the Council meetings; questioned
whether members participating remotely could use a room within City Hall to participate in the
meetings; she will vote no on the matter and would like more information provided about other
cities the next time the matter is before Council; some people do not have the means and do not
feel comfortable attending Council meetings online via Zoom; some people have no or poor
internet service and are denied the opportunity to participate in the meetings; some people are
not comfortable calling into the meeting; it is important to include all members of the public in
meetings; the City needs to ensure all members of the public can participate; stated that she
looks forward to staff providing accommodations to all members of the public.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation with direction that the
matter remains on the Consent Calendar moving forward for the remainder of the year.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he will support the matter; noted the point
Councilmember Herrera Spencer has brought forth is right-on and the City should be moving
toward a hybrid meeting model to the extent of safety of all.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated this may not be the time to rush into more indoor gatherings based
on reports from public health officials; COVID-19 cases have been surging and the holidays are
approaching; the COID-19 cases and vaccination rate for the City are better than cities that
have switched to a hybrid or all in-person meeting model; public safety comes first and Council
will weigh all options; Boards and Commissions are waiting the matter out until the end of the
year and will reconsider in January.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the California Department of Public Health continues to raise the fact
that the COVID-19 surge of the year prior happened around the holiday season; cases began to
spike around Thanksgiving; noted America's surges are different from the rest of the world while
coinciding with the holidays; stated now is not the time to say that the pandemic is over; the
case rates are increasing; the Governor has issued more emergency declarations while
requesting out of State health official aid; expressed support for the staff recommendation while
taking into account the comments about how the City will function in a post COVID-19 world.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not stated the pandemic is over; many
people do not stay in their home 24 hours, 7 days a week; open government needs to be
supported; a hybrid model is a good compromise being conducted by other cities; the pandemic
is not over.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he hopes the vaccine counts for something so that the
upcoming holiday season and going forward is different from the holiday cases of 2020; he is
putting faith in science; noted Congress is holding committee meetings with a lot of space;
expressed support for the City figuring out an option; stated that he thinks residents would like
to see a path forward.
Councilmember Knox White stated the matter would be a great discussion for a Council
workshop.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
5",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,17,"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.
(*21-748) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with
Alameda County to Accept $60,000 in Funding for the Local Winter Warming Services Program;
and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to the Agreement with Building
Futures with Women and Children to Provide Winter Warming Services For $60,000, Resulting
in a Total Contract Amount of $113,000; and
(*21-748A) Resolution No. 15836, ""Amending the Budget to Increase Revenue and Expenditure
Appropriations in the Homelessness Program by $60,000."" Adopted.
(*21-749) Resolution No. 15837, ""Authorizing Fiscal Year-End Budget Amendments to Facilitate
Closing Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-21."" Adopted.
(*21-750) Ordinance No. 3309, ""Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXX to
Comprehensively Update Citywide Off-Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations and
Make Conforming Changes to Other Zoning Code Sections, as Recommended by the Planning
Board."" Finally passed.
[Note: Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the ordinance was
finally passed by the following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox
White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(*21-751) Ordinance No. 3310, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter
21 (Solid Waste and Recycling) to Comply with Senate Bill 1383, Conform with Franchise
Agreement, and Implement Strategy Four of Alameda's Zero Waste Implementation Plan
Update."" Finally passed.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(21-752) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement in an
Amount not to Exceed $2,536,047 with Bay Area Community Services (BACS) for Emergency
Homeless Housing Services for Up to Two Years; and Recommendation to Authorize the City
Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement with Alameda County in an Amount Ranging
from $30,000 to $45,000 in Homeless Emergency Aid Program Interest Funds to Assist with
Remodel/Repair of City-Owned Housing for Use as Emergency Homeless Housing; and
(21-752 A) Resolution No. 15838, ""Establishing a Budget to Appropriate $2,836,047 in 2021
American Rescue Plan Act Funds (C99300) to Receive Contractual Services from Bay Area
Community Services and Funds to Remodel/Repair and Provide Fixtures, Furniture, Equipment,
a Vehicle, and Supplies for the Emergency Housing."" Adopted.
The Economic Development Manager gave a brief presentation.
Stated that he is a residential tenant of Alameda Point; he supports assistance for unhoused
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
6",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,18,"individuals; however, other neighborhoods in Alameda should bear some of the risks and
externalities of the City's plan to combat homelessness and housing insecurity; questioned why
the efforts are concentrated almost entirely at Alameda Point; stated there is a large uptick in
crime and quality of life issues as a result of the City concentrating homeless outreach around
Alameda Point; the proposed emergency shelters cause concern for himself and other
neighbors; urged the City house families in the units instead; discussed his affordable housing
work; urged the decision be delayed until stakeholder input is received; stated reduced rent in
exchange for taking on the additional risks would be fair: Curtis Thomas, Alameda.
Stated that she supports the matter; any and all options of housing are good for Alameda in
order to address the issue of homelessness in the City; the deliberation of the matter is long
overdue; urged Council to support the matter; stated Council should consider hiring more staff
to run the City's social and homeless services programs; having one staff person handle the
various projects is not sustainable; expressed support for Community Development Department
staff; other cities with similar programs dedicate entire divisions to homelessness; the solution is
temporary; the City will need to continue to work on permanent housing solutions for the
unhoused; discussed government spending on unhoused individuals; urged Council continue
the priority of ending homelessness in Alameda: Ana Bagtas, Alameda.
Stated that she is a resident of Alameda Point; expressed concern about the project being
clustered housing; stated Alameda Point is mixed housing community with more than 200 units
of permanent supportive housing managed by the Alameda Point Collaborative; Alameda Point
has domestic violence shelter, transitional housing trailers and traditional family housing;
Alameda Point has become disproportionately burdened; expressed concern about Alameda
Point being the focus on the need for housing and increased foot traffic due to encampments;
expressed concern about the lack of community input and involvement; urged Council delay the
vote on the matter: Stephanie Chenard, Alameda.
Expressed support for providing housing; stated housing and dignity are human rights; she is a
resident of Alameda Point; expressed concern about 11 people living in one single family home;
stated the amount of people does not seem to be set for success; expressed support for
considering housing insecure families in the units; stated families would be a great fit for the
area; expressed support for the bottle parcel project and considering the Bay Farm area: Dede
Lewis, Alameda.
Stated that she is a resident of Alameda Point; noted the neighborhood is family-oriented; stated
many children riding around the neighborhood; expressed concern about rotating people in the
neighborhood not joining the community and not having the same sense of safety or well-being;
stated family and refugee housing would be welcome; Alameda Point has a strong community;
discussed the bottle parcel; stated the proposed program does not feel as put together; urged
Council to delay the vote on the matter until further discussion is held: Amy Benjamin, Alameda.
Stated that he is a developer and advisor; discussed projects; stated that he does not support
the matter; the proposed district is within a historical district; the area should be preserved
according to policy; there is a segregation of services at Alameda Point; expressed support for
seeing transitional services being provided throughout the City; stated that he would like to see
geospatial mapping; expressed concern over a lack of transparency; stated 11 people living in a
single space is not realistic: Craig Miott, Alameda.
Stated emergency housing, which is not permanent, is being discussed; if the program does not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
7",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,19,"work out at the proposed location, the location can be revoked; emergency housing is needed
for people now which calls for less consideration of other factors; concentration of services at
Alameda Point is a problem; the proposed site is only three units; housing must be provided for
single people, not just families; urged Council to move forward with the sites and provide
adequate staffing: William Smith, Alameda.
Stated the Island needs to share in the responsibility to help the unhoused population; all of
Alameda is a family neighborhood; concerns were raised about bringing in crime and unsafety;
people are part of the community when they receive services and care; expressed concern over
the comments: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Expressed support for comments provided by speakers Smith and Anderson; stated that he is
sympathetic to people who live at Alameda Point where services are being concentrated; people
either have inherent value and the right to dignity or not; the determination of value is not
dependent on being a member of a family or not; people have value and deserve dignity: Josh
Geyer, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess 9:42 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:58 p.m.
(21-753) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of allowing 5 minutes for Jonathan
Russell, BACS, to give a presentation.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried 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.]
Mr. Russell gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated concerns from residents have related to a lack of
communication for the project; inquired how BACS will work with neighbors to
communicate, and the anticipated communication model.
The Community Development Director responded staff has scheduled a community
meeting on November 29th to share ideas and answer questions; stated the information
is posted on the City website; the meeting will be the initial opportunity for staff to
engage with the community; staff can provide an additional community meetings if
needed; if the program moves forward, community members will have easy access and
a continued line to communicate concerns with BACS.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the meeting was scheduled, to which the
Community Development Director responded staff just put the meeting together in order
to address concerns.
Mr. Russell stated BACS believes the program is a community conversation and needs
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
8",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,20,"to have community investment; the community will contribute value to the program
process and BACS will be available on an ongoing basis; 24 hour services for
emergencies and residents are available; however, the line might not be available at all
hours for neighbor concerns.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands a staff person will be on-site at all
hours; inquired whether a concerned neighbor perceiving an emergency could access a
BACS staff member to relay the concern; questioned who the neighbors should call in
the event of a serious concern.
Mr. Russell responded BACS will have staff on-site 24 hours; stated in order for BACS a
meeting for neighbors to discuss concerns will need to schedule during business hours.
The Economic Development Manager stated a BACS staff person will be on-site at
each location 24 hours each day if an immediate emergency arises.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there will be a phone number for neighbors, to
which the Community Development Director responded phone numbers will be
available and can be shared.
Councilmember Daysog stated providing the contract has been helpful; the Program
Non-Compliance Protocols section includes bases for discharge from the facility;
possession of weapons, assault, behavior, theft and destruction of property are listed as
bases for discharge; inquired the definition of assault, theft, and destruction of property
in terms of the list; questioned whether the actions must be proven in a court of law;
inquired how the bases are taken into account if the assault or theft is not targeted at
other residents of the program, but neighbors instead.
Mr. Russell responded the non-compliance protocol process is relative to events that
are internal to the program; BACS staff will manage the investigation; a discharge plan
would be developed for any determination of non-compliance; \incidents do not have to
be defined in a court of law; the same standard would be held for incidents outside the
program site; however, the determination of the incidents would need to involve local
authorities.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Alameda's unhoused population
would solely be housed at he sites, to which the Economic Development Manager
responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director stated the program is allowed to house Alameda
residents only due to the use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding; the funds
do not come with an obligation to go through the Alameda County system or house
individuals from outside the City; staff's priority and focus will be on Alameda's
unhoused population.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any General Fund money will be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
9",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-11-13,1,"City of Alameda, California
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING
SATURDAY, November 13, 2021
APPROVED MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Sarah Lewis called the meeting to order at 1:15 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sarah Lewis, Vice President Kristin Furuichi Fong, Board members
Dianne Yamashiro-Omi, Priya Jagannathan, Samantha Green, Scott Means.
City staff: Lois Butler, Veronika Cole, and Eric Fonstein (Secretary to the Board).
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
4. AGENDA ITEMS
4-A Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) Retreat and Working Session
to Discuss:
SSHRB Member Introductions and SSHRB Team Building Exercises Board. Member
Yamashiro-Om (of the retreat planning workgroup) introduced Renato Almanzor, Retreat
Facilitator. Mr. Almanzor welcomed everyone and provided a detailed agenda for the
retreat. Following is a summary:
Purpose: To set a strategic direction for the SSHRB.
Objectives: Build a greater sense of community and team, among Board Members.
Establish a shared understanding of the Board's 2022 priorities. Develop a workplan
that includes individual and collective commitments for 2022.
Mr. Almanzor prepared a detailed slideshow (attached) which contained various interactive,
discussion slides. The following is a summary of what was presented and discussed:
Aligning How, Why, and What:
Vision: An image of the mission accomplished, the ideal future state
Mission: A task, purpose, and/or calling
Values: Beliefs of judgments about what is worthy, important or desirable that are
reflected in behavior
Why Do We Do Anything?
What is your calling? What pulls you into action?
What is at your core? Who are you at your most essential level? What are you priority
values?
Individual Values (examples):",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-11-13.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-11-13,2,"Autonomy: Resilience, Perseverance, Power
Integrity: Authenticity, Meaning, Purpose, Self-worth, Competence, Adaptability,
Commitment, Sustainability
Interdependence: Acceptance, Appreciation, Community, Consideration, Trust,
Closeness, Contribution, Equality, Love, Support, Safety, Empathy, Honesty,
Respect, Equity
Celebration: To celebrate life and dreams fulfilled. To celebrate loved ones, losses.
Creativity: Calm, Joy, Intuition, Play, Laughter, Song, Dance
Spirituality: Beauty, Faith, Gratitude, Harmony, Compassion, Peace, Justice
Physical Nurturance: Air, Food, Healing, Movement, Rest, Shelter
Why Do We Do Anything?
What is your calling? What matters to you most? What pulls you into action?
What is at your core? Who are you at your most essential level?
What are your powers? What abilities do you perform with grace and mastery?
(Management, Communication, Research, Technical, Financial, Creative, Teaching,
Helping)
My Mission is to
Mr. Almanzor shared an example of his mission statement and asked Board Members to
share their personal mission statements.
President Lewis: My mission is to analyze, organize and execute a more
equitable and compassionate community that more effectively serves its
citizens.
Vice President Furuichi Fong: My mission is to listen, support, and advocate for
equity so that all members of our community feel represented, included, and
heard.
Board member Yamashiro-Omi: My mission is to organize, strategize and
facilitate social change that creates equitable and just communities.
Board member Jagannathan: My mission is to convene, support and develop
community access to power and resources with integrity and empathy.
Board member Green: My mission is to listen, investigate and courage
meaningful understanding and solutions. With a mutual obligation to one
another, we ensure all people are treated with dignity and respect.
Board member Means: My mission is to bring together communities to address
areas of social life that are less than adequate or leave people behind and
launch relentless campaigns to bring to our most in need opportunities and
inclusion.
Staff member Butler: My mission through faith, trust and a sense of peace, I
empower other to live a life that is supportive, balanced and respectful.
Staff member Fonstein: My mission is to collaborate, organize and
communicate with justice, honesty, humility, and compassion to support and
strengthen family, community, and the broader social and natural environment.
Staff member Cole: My mission is to promote leadership, build infrastructure
and connect resources to promote social justice and improve quality of life for
those with less equity in the community.
Board members were pleased to see the collective community goals. Staff member Butler
mentioned her appreciation for how invested Board members are.",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-11-13.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-11-13,3,"Mr. Almanzor tasked everyone to think of how their goals align with current SSHRB goals
and purpose.
Alignment of the personal and SSHRB:
The SSHRB shall have the power: To assess the social service needs of the community
and to facilitate provision therefor. Such other duties and powers may be delegated by
ordinance.
Purpose:
to create an environment which will encourage and bring about mutual
understanding, respect and good will among groups of people in the community and to
improve social services in the community.'
Duties: Encourage formation of organizations to meet need not already provided for.
Foster community. Facilitate the provision of social services, informing needs and areas
of duplication of effort. Disseminate information concerning programs and making
referrals. Assess and report on social service needs and method to meet needs. Adopt
a plan to perform above listed functions.
SSHRB Achievements and Highlights Over the Years:
Community Needs Assessment (CAN)
Strategic Plan to End Homelessness
Community Wellbeing Survey
""In the Mix"" Worshop
Point in Time Count
US 2020 Census
Alamedans Together Against Hate
Annual Season for Non-Violence and Youth Speech Contests
Creation of Alameda Sister Cities Association as off shoot from SSHRB
Advocacy and work on behalf of the unhoused in Alameda
Oversite and approval of Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) grants
Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) funding: Resulting in the Day Center, Safe
Parking, Dine and Connect
Funding for Alameda Family Services youth mental health programs
What are our current Board conversations?
Youth Mental Health
Domestic Violence
Vision Zero Task Force
Shortage of community volunteers
Housing and Homelessness
Update Community Needs Assessment
Alamedans Together Against Hate (ATAH)
Reducing homelessness/homeless strategic plan
What are our current Board actions (e.g., activities, programs, decisions, etc.)?
ATAH town hall and/or facilitated community conversations?
Everyone Home
Approve CDBG funding
Collaboration Advancing Resources, Effforts, and Supports for Alameda's Homeless
(CARES) meeting and attendance, plus report back",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-11-13.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-11-13,4,"Reimaging homelessness subcommittee
Oversight and implementation of homelessness strategic plan
What Board conversations could we start having?
Age-Friendly Alameda
Broadening Community Needs Assessment
Ways to promote youth engagement
What changes need to be made in our direct cervice organizations and City services to
ensure full inclusion
Build community interest and active stakeholder groups
What does implementation of Homeless Strategic Plan look like?
Annual updates on Homeless Strategic Plan and system of care
What Board actions could we start doing?
Articulation the goal for ATAH
Increase community awareness of board activates and engagement in work
Identify City and community partners that will be instrumental in meeting our goals
Get involved in the Point in Time Count of Homeless
Identify polices that need to be adopted by the City to insure full inclusion
Site visits to, or phone calls with community-based organization in Alameda to discuss
their experience providing services to the community
Desire to have access to small community grants funds to allocate to support local
impact work
How well are we structured for our current and desired conversations and actions?
What's Working: Oversight and ensuring Board's integrity. Diverse representation of
Board members; diversity in experience that we bring. The relationships between
elected officials and City staff are high function so they support our work. Zoom format
and Board support from staff with technical questions. A committed Board that brings
a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences and are compassionate with how they
share.
What could be better? What's needed: Create SSHRB website listing resources, our
activities, and City organized events. Make retreat an annual activity. Implement
annual social activity. Access to resources that provide a direct benefit to the
community. Desire for more public engagement and feedback. Create formal
orientation ""program"" and or materials for new SSHRB members. Whether the
Community Service Awards should continue or be restructured.
Brainstorm Salient Issues and Emerging Priorities:
Network Partnerships: Ensuring we are not duplication work of other boards, groups,
commissions, filling gaps. Need to identify the structures that deliver services and
assess whether the delivery systems are fully inclusive - maybe this is part of our
Community Needs Assessment process.
Must Do (per ordinance): CDBG grants. Define what we mean by ""Human Relations""
and what we mean by ATAH. Required activities.
Actions to take: How do we make Alameda a city of full inclusion and equity. How do
we promote better Human Relations.
Take an active role in the creation of a Youth Commission
Embed principles of Age Friendly Cities in all aspects of work in the same way as
universal access and create space to discuss core concepts",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-11-13.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-11-13,5,"Commitment to Vision Zero Task Force
Human Relations Strategy
Report on social needs to City
Meet with CDBG funded grantee to deepen our knowledge of the needs in Alameda
Operationalizing Our Ways:
Accountability
How do we decide, what to decide?
Draft 2022 Workplan Outlining Priorities
Define Human Relations and develop strategy from Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
o
Include deciding its own committee and/or infused
Review prior SSHRB calendars, budget and activities
*Chair & Vice Chair; Revisit
Homelessness Sub-
Domestic Violence
Committee
Committee
Define and develop
Define oversight and
Attend meetings and
orientation program and
implementation of
report to full Board
materials
Homelessness Strategic
Develop annual retreat
Plan
and social activity
Attend CARES meeting
Develop meeting
and report to full board
agendas based on 2022
PIT Count engagement
priorities
Redefine
Report 2022 workplan
Homelessness
to City Council
Subcommittee
Community Service Awards
Whole Board - Alamedans
Community Needs
Committee (ad hoc -
Together Against Hate
Assessment (CNA) Sub-
completed 11/17)
Committee (ad hoc, every
2-4 years)
Create debrief to update
Define and organize
Update CNA tool
full Board on 2021
community listening
Develop / update CNA
event and process
sessions
process /
Discuss future of
Develop a strategic plan
implementation timeline
awards ceremony
Cultivating/define
and plan
Discuss criteria and
""Human Relations"" and
Collect data that can be
process for selection if
develop strategy
used to develop future
continue
priorities (aging,
disabilities, race,
ethnicity, etc.)
Vision Zero
Youth Committee
Older Adults
Minimum one SSHRB
Educate SSHRB about
member on the Vision
how the domains are",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-11-13.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-11-13,6,"Zero Task Force
embedded in our work
Report back during
Gather information
monthly SSHRB
using inclusion in
meetings, take action or
existing work rather
make recommendations
than separate (e.g.
as needed.
Needs Assessment)
Mr. Almanzor summarized the retreat goals and accomplishments, and asked Board
member to reflect on what worked and what did not.
How'd We Do?
What Worked: The connection between our personal missions and SSHRB missions.
Everyone participating equally with their best thinking. Moving from our values to
priorities. Thinking big, bold ideas and determining way of refining our tasks.
Participating via interactive discussion (""the jamboard"").
What could have been better: Taking shorter breaks. The additional of small breakout
group/discussion. A movement or activity or fun icebreaker. Taking time to learn more
about other members, what motivates them, more about the person than talking points.
Board member Yamashiro-Omi asked if it was a good time to finalize the subcommittees
and priorities. Staff member Butler stated that discussion would need to be readdressed
at the next SSHRB meeting. Staff member Fonstein suggested starting the December 9th
meeting an hour early, to finalize. All Board members agreed to continue the discussion
at
the December 9th meeting. Board member Yamashiro-Omi suggested that the retreat
planning committee continue to finalize forms presented during this meeting. Stating this
is a crucial time as the information/ideas are fresh in their mind.
Mr. Almanzor stated he is happy to meet with the retreat planning committee, and
confirmed he will provide a summary of the retreat, and potential next steps.
Board members expressed their appreciation for all of the hard work from City staff and Mr.
Almanzor.
City staff thanked Board members, and Mr. Almanzor for a productive retreat. Emphasizing
how nice it is that everyone cares so much, and truly wants to make a positive impact on
the community.
5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-11-13.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-11-13,7,"None.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Fonstein, Board Secretary",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-11-13.pdf
LibraryBoard,2021-11-10,1,"CITY
OF
of
TERRA
MINUTES OF THE
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2021
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Amber Bales, President
Joyce McConeghey Vice President
Dimple Kanji, Board Member
Kathleen Kearney, Board Member
Sara Strickler, Board Member
Absent:
None
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Lori Amaya, Recording Secretary
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Public Comment)
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar
*A.
Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of September and
October, 2021.
*B.
Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of September 8, 2021.
*C.
Modified Library Services Report for the Month of August and September, 2021.
*D.
Financial Report Reflecting FY21/22 Expenditures by Fund for September and October,
2021.
*E.
Bills for Ratification for the Months of September and October, 2021.
Director Chisaki reported that there was a small fire in a vent blower under the floor of the library.
Staff evacuated and waited at the designated assembly area in the City Hall parking lot until the
Fire Department cleared the building. The library closed for the day and reopened the next day.
The library is beginning to hold programs. Halloween was great and there were over 100 children",LibraryBoard/2021-11-10.pdf
LibraryBoard,2021-11-10,2,"Page 2 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
November 10, 2021 Meeting
that attended the puppet show. There were over 300 views in the one week it was up on the
library's YouTube Channel. Circulation numbers are close to pre-shutdown levels. Vice President
McConeghey was disturbed by the report of people abusing library staff members. Director
Chisaki explained that because they aren't raising their voices, and aren't threating staff, they can't
be asked to leave the library. Staff will get to the point they will explain they can no longer help
the patron. The Library is looking into hiring a part-time Library Services Officer that will be familiar
with the library's policies and can walk around the library and monitor things. The City has
switched to a new Enterprise Resource Planning system, so the Check Registers and the
Expenditure Status reports will look different going forward.
Vice President McConeghey moved to accept the Consent Calendar. Board Member Kearney
seconded the motion, which passed with a 5-0 vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Status of New Library Board Members (J. Chisaki)
Board Member Strickler is excited to join the board and has watched many of the meetings on
Zoom. She works as a Service Designer and is excited to learn about the library's space.
Board Member Kanji is a heavy library user, and is a pharmacist in Alameda.
B.
Current and On-Going Library Activities (J. Chisaki)
Director Chisaki shared the branch libraries have come up with great ideas and created things
such as a scavenger hunt, elaborate displays, and trick or treat bags, since they aren't able to
do normal programming. The Friends had a fundraiser on November 1 at Books Inc. They were
able to fulfil most of the books on the wish lists of local schools. The library is encouraging
physical distancing and hoping to resume in person programming in the new year. The Library
Board can't meet in person until the City Council starts meeting in person. There is unspent
Library Bond money, and requests were submitted to pay for the overrun of the LED lighting
project at Main, the West End Library water heater project, the water bottle fill stations,
refinishing all wooden tables at Main, and HVAC parts replacement. $300,000 will go toward the
future Seed and Tool Library at Jean Sweeney Park.
C.
American Rescue Plan Funding - Hotspot Lending Program (J. Chisaki)
The decision to move forward with the project will be made after the December 7th Council
Meeting. City Council will be asked to decide what projects to approve to use the funds.
Hotspots will be available for a three week check out with a renewal. There are no overdue fees
and if it doesn't come back, the service will be turned off. Customer service comes from the
company the Library will contract with.",LibraryBoard/2021-11-10.pdf
LibraryBoard,2021-11-10,3,"Page 3 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
November 10, 2021 Meeting
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Friends of the Library (J. Chisaki)
The Friends will do a retreat next year for their Board Members. The next meeting is on November
22 and they are hoping to have their election. They approved the Library's $42,000 request for
program funding which covers items such as prizes, refreshments, materials and supplies,
honorariums. Programs will continue on Zoom, which has allowed for more people to attend from
all over the world.
B.
Patron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response
None.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Kearney asked when the volunteer program at the Library will resume. Director
Chisaki responded that the new Volunteer Coordinator has just been hired and he will be the lead
to recruit volunteers, so it should start after the new year.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Director Chisaki will be sending a small gift in the mail for the Board Members.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",LibraryBoard/2021-11-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-11-10,1,"Final
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:01p.m.
2. ROLL CALL and INTRODUCTIONS
2-A ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Jennifer Hoffecker, Peter Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson.
Absent: none.
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary), Amanda Gehrke, and Walker Toma present as staff
to the Commission.
2-B INTRODUCTIONS
Jennifer Hoffecker: Before retiring, Commissioner Hoffecker taught art, ran art
galleries, and worked in art and creative marketing for ""dot-com', retail, medical,
and non-profit industries. She has a Master's Degree in Fine Arts, and has been a
resident of Alameda for 17 years.
Peter Platzgummer: Born in Austria, Commissioner Platzgummer received his PhD
in Public Administration in Switzerland. He manages the design, fabrication, and
installation for large-scale sculptures at Engineered Artworks, and is the Complex
Art Manager for Burning Man.
Robert Ferguson: With a degree in Journalism and a 40 year career in welding,
Commissioner Ferguson began creating large art with his wife in 2012, focusing
on the construction and engineering aspects of large artwork. He owns a welding
company in Hayward and lives in Alameda.
Walker Toma: Before staff member Toma joined the City of Alameda Community
Development Department in October, he spent 5 years in Spain working for UN-
Habitat doing policy work with local governments. He has a Master's Degree in
International Development and Sustainable Emergency Architecture and
a
background as a land use economics consultant in the Bay Area.
3. MINUTES
2021-1460 Review and Approve June 21, 2021 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and
seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion
carried 5-0.",PublicArtCommission/2021-11-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-11-10,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-1461 Performing Arts Center Update
Secretary Butler introduced founder Christopher Seiwald and performing artist
Tara Pilbrow, who provided an overview of the Performing Arts Center project. The
project's vision is to build a 500-seat performing arts theater that would serve as a
creative hub at the center of the Alameda Point Waterfront District, and attract local
and international artists and create a stronger community within Alameda and the
greater Bay Area. A feasibility study has been completed, and the project has
engaged local art organizations and garnered support from City Council, City staff,
and local developers. The provisional site is adjacent to the Waterfront Park and
Alameda Naval Museum, and located 3-5 minutes from the new ferry terminal. The
Performing Arts Center board seeks support from the PAC, as they engage and
gather funding for the project. Mr. Seiwald thanked the Commission for their time
and answered clarifying questions.
Commissioners expressed their appreciation for the project and look forward to
hearing future updates.
5-B 2021-1462 Receive an Update on Recent and Upcoming Physical Public
Art Projects in Alameda
Staff member Gehrke provided an update on recent and upcoming physical public
art projects. To date, 7 cultural arts grants, 5 physical arts grants, and 16 public art
small grants have been awarded. Ms. Gehrke shared images of completed and
soon-to-be completed projects.
Ms. Gehrke informed the commission that, due to pandemic-related cost increases
in materials, shipping, and construction, the Beken sculpture by artist Dewitt
Godfrey needed either a significant reduction in sculpture size or a funding
increase. Staff has identified $52,000 in funding from the Tideland's Fund to
maintain original design size, which is pending City Council approval.
Staff member Gehrke thanked the Commission for their time, and answered
clarifying questions.
Public member Tina Blaine notified the commission of the third installation of the
biennial cultural arts project Island City Waterways, celebrating the history of
Alameda Point and the history of flight that will take place May 20-22, 2022. Ms.
Blaine thanked staff member Gehrke for her years of service to the City of Alameda
Public Art Program.
2",PublicArtCommission/2021-11-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-11-10,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
Secretary Butler informed the commission that the PAC biennial report will be
presented at the December 7 City Council meeting, and invited commissioners to
attend.
5-C 2021-146 Resolution Approving the Tidal Arch Public Art Sculpture with
a Ten Percent Reduction in Overall Scale
Staff member Toma updated the commission on a change to the scale of the Tidal
Arch public art sculpture due to logistical issues and to be in compliance with ADA
requirements for a 5 foot perimeter to allow better access. It has been determined
that the proposed 10% reduction in size was significant enough to warrant review
and approval by the PAC. The original sculpture was to be 80ft long and 17ft high.
Mr. Toma and artist Adrien Segal answered clarifying questions.
Commissioners discussed the change. A motion to adopt the resolution approving
a ten percent reduction in overall scale of the Tidal Arch sculpture to be in
compliance with ADA requirements was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and
seconded by Commissioner Ferguson. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson
Rush, Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The
motion carried 5-0.
5-D Recommendation to Review the Public Art Commission Meeting
Calendar for Possible Conflicts that Inhibit Maximum Public Participation
Staff member Toma presented a review of the 2022 dates for regular PAC
meetings, identified a possible conflict in February that could inhibit maximum
public participation, and recommended two potential alternate meeting dates of
February 23 and March 7.
A motion to continue this item to the December PAC special meeting where staff
can provide specific proposed regular meeting dates for 2022 was made by
Chairperson Gillitt and seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Ayes: Chairperson
Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and
Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Update on Public Art Master Plan
Staff member Gehrke provided an update on the Public Art Master Plan RFP
process. The top candidate, Forecast Public Art, has been selected based on their
emphasis in equity and the clarity of their proposed master art development
process, however many strong proposals were received. Staff anticipate entering
into the contract by the end of the year. Ms. Gehrke answered clarifying questions.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
3",PublicArtCommission/2021-11-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-11-10,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Commissioners expressed their appreciation for outgoing staff member Gehrke's
hard work and support of the PAC and public art in Alameda during her time
working with the City of Alameda. She will be missed.
Commissioner Platzgummer recommends updating the public art map that is on
the City's public art page. Staff member Gehrke shared that updating the public art
map and improving public art marketing was identified as a priority at the PAC's
last working session, with the aim to update the map once the pending physical art
pieces are installed.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:37pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary, Public Art Commission
4",PublicArtCommission/2021-11-10.pdf
GolfCommission,2021-11-09,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, November 9, 2021
1
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Claire Loud called the regular meeting to order at approximately 6:38 p.m.
via teleconference
ROLL CALL
Present:
(Via teleconference) Chair Ed Downing, Vice Chair Claire
Loud, Commissioner John Kim, Commissioner Kaiwin Su and
Commissioner Robert Lattimore
Absent:
None
Staff:
(Via teleconference) Recreation and Parks Director Amy
Wooldridge and Sarah Craig, Greenway Golf
Also Present:
None
2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of October 12, 2021 were approved unanimously.
3
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
4
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Vice Chair Loud shared she received new policies regarding tee times being scaled for
the women's club as well as the niners club.
5
WRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club
None
6
AGENDA ITEMS
7
OLD BUSINESS
1
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, November 9, 2021",GolfCommission/2021-11-09.pdf
GolfCommission,2021-11-09,2,"7-A
Facility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf
Amy Wooldridge shared per Umesh Patel that the North course opened on
October 14 with an opening ceremony recognizing the Greenway's ground
crew. Council Member Tony Daysog was in attendance and Bob Blanchard hit
the opening tee shot. The course will be open five days a week. On October
21, Greenway hosted an autumn mixer to thank community members for their
support. They are in the process of talking to the service clubs regarding 2022
and 2023, as Greenway will have a uniform and transparent policy for all clubs.
Greenway will be hosting a Cal camp in December, and are looking to host free
summer camps in 2022.
Commissioner Lattimore asked about the meeting with the Founders Club
regarding overbookings and Sarah Craig stated she would ask Umesh about
that. He then asked about the food and beverage cart that Greenway would be
taking over, and Sarah stated she would inform Umesh to speak on it in the
future. Commissioner Kim stated that speaking to a Founder member, he was
informed there is now 48 hour cancellation policy in effect.
Vice Chair Loud asked about the teaching center, and if it will be reopened in
the future, and Sarah responded that she can check with the Greenway team
and get back to her.
Commissioner Kim asked about the practice area memberships, and Sarah
responded that she can check with the Greenway team and get back to him.
7-B
Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report
Tom Geanekos stated that they've had a good summer and fall has been good
as well. A new display refrigerator is on order and should be here soon. Vice
Chair Loud asked about the walkway lighting leaving the building at night
regarding whose responsibility and Mr. Geanekos and he does not believe it is
his responsibility. Ms. Wooldridge stated that she would look into possible solar
lighting. Chair Downing asked if they were going to get a new beverage cart
and Mr. Geanekos stated they have no plans to purchase a new cart, and have
no direction from either Greenway or the City at this time. It's possible that the
cart may be repaired in the next few weeks. Chair Downing asked if the
Greenway team would provide information in the future regarding this.
7-C
Recreation and Parks Director Report
2
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, November 9, 2021",GolfCommission/2021-11-09.pdf
GolfCommission,2021-11-09,3,"Amy Wooldridge stated she will look into the solar lights for the parking lot, but
has nothing else at this time. Chair Downing asked about the flooding in the
parking lot from the rain a couple of weeks ago, if it had to do with drainage
from the parking lot, and Ms. Wooldridge has not spoken to the engineers
regarding this, and doesn't believe the drainage system was not equipped to
handle that amount of rain. Chair Downing asked about the pumps on the north
course, and Ms. Wooldridge stated that falls under Public Works and she would
check into it.
8.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - January 11, 2022
Facility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf
Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report
Recreation and Parks Director Report
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the
Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the
Brown Act.
3
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, November 9, 2021",GolfCommission/2021-11-09.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-11-04,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2021
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Historical
Advisory Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2021-1453
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 2, 2021
Board Member Jenn Wit made a motion to approve the minutes as is and Board
Member Norman Sanchez seconded the motion and the motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
Chris Buckley discussed a letter the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS)
had sent about their concerns about upzoning in historic neighborhoods in Alameda. The
AAPS wanted to see this board more involved in the Housing Element.
Chair Saxby informed Mr. Buckley that the HAB would be reviewing the Housing
Element at the December 2nd meeting.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
HAB Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2021
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-11-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-11-04,2,"7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-1454
2022 Meeting Calendar
The 2022 Calendar can be found at
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5197489&GUID=24B43C47-
4AF9-40D1-BOF3-429549D26BD0.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the 2022 Meeting Calendar and
Board Member Alvin Lau seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of
hands and the motion passed 5-0.
7-B 2021-1455
Draft Climate Adaptation and Hazard Mitigation Plan - Citywide - Applicant: City of
Alameda. A Public Hearing to Review and Comment on the Draft Climate Adaptation and
Hazard Mitigation Plan. CEQA Determination: The proposed plan is not a project under
CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and Public Resources Code Section
21065. No further environmental review is needed.
Danielle Mieler, Sustainability and Resilience Manager, introduced the item and gave a
presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5197490&GUID=0A457939-
C676-418E-ABE1-E762F62F42AF&FullText=1.
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Sanchez asked about different types of incentive programs for owners to
retrofit their homes.
Staff Member Mieler discussed how some of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) grants could be used to support owners. She also discussed options for
single-family and multi-family homes.
Chair Saxby asked about at-risk buildings in Alameda (masonry and concrete) and wanted
to know if engineering studies had been done on them. He also wanted to know more
about the denied grant for the North Shoreline adaption.
Staff Member Meiler discussed the complete inventory of buildings that had been
seismically retrofitted. She explained the grant process from CalTrans, it was not
something they typically fund. She discussed the different approaches Alameda was trying
to enhance the shoreline.
Board Member Lau asked if there would be grant money or funds made available to retrofit
older/historic buildings.
HAB Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2021
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-11-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-11-04,3,"Staff Member Mieler clarified what the state grant would be for, it did not provide extra
funds for historical buildings.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the groundwater issue in terms of retrofitting and
wanted to know if they would be curbing that solution.
Staff Member Mieler said that was a good point and discussed what other cities had done.
She discussed options for basements and added they needed to do more work on the
groundwater issue.
Chair Saxby brought up the importance of undergrounding electrical wires in Alameda.
Board Member Wit asked about the clean-up after a fire or earthquake and wanted to
know how those issues would be addressed.
Staff Member Mieler said hopefully with these retrofits there would be less debris to clean
up. She then briefly discussed the plans in place as part of the Emergency Operations
Plan.
Vice-Chair Lynn Jones wanted more clarification on the proper way to retrofit older homes,
she wanted to know if there were resources available. She was concerned about the
scope of impact to homeowners.
Staff Member Mieler discussed information and resources available such as Plan Site A,
a guideline for retrofitting.
Chair Saxby pointed out that the city's website had information on retrofitting. Information
can be found at
https://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building-and-Transportation/Building-
Division/Seismic-Retrofit
Chair Saxby opened Public Comments.
Chris Buckley asked about an earthquake-caused fire and had concerns if there was a
backup plan if anything happened to Alameda's water supply.
Staff Member Mieler agreed that earthquake-caused fires were a major concern and
another important reason to get homes retrofitted since homes knocked off their
foundation could rupture gas lines. She then discussed Alameda's water tenders and what
they had learned from studies on this type of scenario. Retrofitting homes and installing
gas shut-off meters were important ways to help.
Chair Saxby closed Public Comment and opened board comments and discussion.
HAB Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2021
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-11-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-11-04,4,"Board Member Wit wanted to know if the city should be doing more to help people retrofit
their homes since this was in many ways a public safety concern.
Staff Member Mieler said she thought the city could do more and discussed local grants
available for low-income households. She also discussed the importance of bringing
awareness of this issue to homeowners.
Chair Saxby also believed that public outreach and education would be critical and that
some very active work on behalf of the city was needed to make information available.
Board Member Sanchez also believed that community response would be important too.
Board Member Lau asked about the Alameda Cinema and if at been retrofitted. He also
asked about general public facilities.
Staff Member Mieler said it was not since there were no requirements to retrofit it. She
then discussed what public facilities had been retrofitted.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Saxby asked the staff about an update for the Preservation Ordinance.
Henry Dong, Planner III, gave an update on the status. The staff's attention had mainly
been focused on the Housing Element and Zoning changes. The staff was also hoping to
introduce the Mills Act to Alameda.
Board Member Wit also wanted updates on projects they had reviewed.
Staff Member Dong agreed that was something they could do at a future meeting.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Dong said that at the December meeting they would go over the Housing
Element.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chris Buckley discussed the Historic Study List and that it would be good to digitize
those forms to make them more easily available to the public.
HAB Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2021
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-11-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-11-04,5,"11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:15 pm.
HAB Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2021
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-11-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ESDAY--NOVEMBER 2, 2021--5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:03 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [The meeting was held
via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
Public Comment on Closed Session Items Read Into the Record:
Ernesto Montenero, Sustainable Technologies, discussed remediation and cleanup
efforts at Alameda Point; stated Council should consider three issues prior to approving
a long-term lease and sale with Astra: 1) safety, 2) harmful emissions, and 3) an
increase in carbon dioxide emissions; he would like a long-term lease with the option to
purchase; if Sustainable Technologies needs to relocate, the silver lining would be not
worrying about potential catastrophic explosions and emissions.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-676) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: 1770 Viking Street, Alameda Point (Building 170), 1900
Skyhawk Sreet Alameda Point (Building 360), and 1770 Orion Street, Alameda Point
(Building 372); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community
Development Director, Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director,
and Ted Anderson, Cushman and Wakefield; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and
Astra Space, Inc.; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for the Potential
Sale of the Properties
(21-677) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City
Manager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:
Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA) and Alameda Fire Managers
Association (AFMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of
Employment
(21-678) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Requests for the City to
Participate as Amicus in Pending Litigations: (Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9); Case Names: Whole Woman's Health V. Jackson and United States V. Texas;
Court: United States District Court, W.D Texas, Austin Division; Case Numbers: 1:21-
CV-616-RP and 1:21-CV-796
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,2,"Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding the Litigation, staff provided information with no vote taken;
regarding Real Property, staff provided information and Council provided direction with
no vote taken; and regarding Labor, staff provided information and Council provided
direction 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.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:56
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,3,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY- NOVEMBER 2, 2021- - - 6:59 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Councilmember Herrera
Spencer 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.
Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the
following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye;
Knox White: 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.]
(*21-19 SACIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting Held on September 7,
2021. Approved.
(*21-679 CC/21-20 SACIC) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First
Amendment, Substantially in the Form of the Attached, to the Reimbursement Agreement for
Estuary Park Access between the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement
Commission, City of Alameda and Catellus Alameda Development, LLC. Accepted; and
(*21-679 A CC) Resolution No. 15830, ""Amending the Reimbursement Agreement for Estuary
Park Access (""Agreement""), Substantially in the Form of the Attached, to Increase the
$800,000.00 Budget by $85,000 for a Total of $885,000.00 as Authorized by Agreement
Sections 2(A) and (B); Said Increase Shall be Allocated by the City from Its Fleet Industrial
Supply Center (FISC) Lease Revenue Budget."" Adopted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
1
November 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,4,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 2, 2021--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:15 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
(21-680) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the referral regarding License
Plate Readers [paragraph no. 21-706 after the continued agenda item.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer second the motion which failed by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(21-681) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read and presented a Proclamation to Ricci Zombeck.
Ricci Zombeck, former Interim Fire Chief, made brief comments.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-682) Brian Kennedy, Alameda, announced the National Day of Remembrance for Victims of
Illegal Alien Crime; discussed Alameda being a Sanctuary City.
(21-683) Marilyn Rothman, Alameda, questioned whether anything is being done about the
Police Oversight Commission; stated that she has heard nothing for months; she also has not
heard anything about the death of Mario Gonzales; expressed support for a progress report.
(21-684) Jenice Anderson, Alameda, stated that she agrees with Speaker Rothman; the City
could be a leader in the region; noted that no one is illegal on stolen land.
(21-685) Carmen Reid, Alameda, stated that she is disappointed to learn that Councilmembers
supported redoing an appraisal from park land to housing in relation to Jean Sweeney Park; the
decisions should have been made in public; the matter was brought forth at the Open
Government Commission and was denied; urged Council to do better going forward in being
more inclusive to neighbors and the community.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Urged Council send the Centro Legal de la Raza item paragraph no. 21-690 back to staff;
stated that she does not agree with going out with a new Requests for Proposals; she has no
objection to legal services for tenants being handled by the City Attorney's office; favorable
feedback has been received by those who have worked with the City Attorney's office; she does
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
1",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,19,"Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
(21-700) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal
Code Chapter XXX to Comprehensively Update Citywide Off-Street Parking and Loading Space
Regulations and Make Conforming Changes to Other Zoning Code Sections, as Recommended
by the Planning Board. Introduced.
The Land Use and Transportation Planner gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any analysis has been done for the City of
Alameda's housing developments regarding parking and unit size.
The Land Use and Transportation Planner responded the City does not have academic studies
of existing parking, but the Planning, Building and Transportation Director may have local
anecdotes.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated a Bay Area group conducted a survey
of Bay Area communities' existing residential projects which observed parking; a couple
Alameda projects were included in the study; the results are similar to other cities; newer
residential projects were found to not have all parking used; the study indicates the City has
been over-parking some residential projects; the Planning Board has been working to figure out
the correct amount of parking; the City has not been requiring the total amount of parking listed
in the ordinance; the City has regularly been providing parking waivers to try and right-size the
parking amounts; the ordinance uses the information as a maximum; the ordinance is not seen
as something which will provide a large change in the amount of parking for each project; if a
project includes more parking than the maximum listed in the ordinance, the project will need to
explain the need; discussed the parking spaces for Park Street; stated a number of properties in
Alameda cannot fit a single parking space.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the space is commercial or residential, to
which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the space is commercial.
The Land Use and Transportation Planner stated the space is a small mixed use building with a
storefront and residential space.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated many of the projects are not residential; the residential
projects have approved parking spaces; the City has been assigning parking spaces for
residential units; inquired whether more than one off-street parking space per unit requires a
special permit.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded special permission would be
needed; the idea is to establish a maximum amount; in order for projects to go above the limit, a
discussion is held in order to justify spaces above the maximum.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); stated some of
the units have three bedrooms and can be 1,200 square feet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
16",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,20,"The City Planner stated State ADU prohibits cities from requiring any parking when the unit is
within a half mile of transit; every property in Alameda with the exception of Creedon Circle
meets the State criteria and cannot require parking for ADUs.
***
(21-701) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing as many items as possible up
to midnight.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification that Council Communications would
still be heard after the current matter.
The City Clerk stated a vote is needed to consider new regular matters after 11:00 p.m.;
however, Council can hear the other sections past 11:00 p.m.; Council may vote to establish a
hard stop time.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of only hearing the Police policy update [paragraph no. 21-
702 and Council Communications and ending the meeting by midnight.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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 discussed the maximum number of parking spaces for an ADU based
on square footage; noted the proposed minimum off-street parking for a 3,000 square foot ADU
is three spaces and one parking space per hotel/motel guest room; outlined the current
ordinance parking limits.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated all hotels approved in Alameda in the
past 10 years have had 0.83 parking spaces per room; noted not many people bring more than
one car to a hotel per room.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is an approach which can be taken to justify a reduction in
the number of parking spaces from the minimum.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the new ordinance allows less
parking spaces to be used without any process; special permission will be needed in order to
provide more parking than allowed by the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned about projects not providing enough
parking; setting a maximum lower than before implements an easier process to provide a lower
amount of spaces.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff has approved an amount close
to the proposed demands from lenders which finance projects; bankers and lenders often
require a certain amount of parking for projects in order to be financially feasible; staff does not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
17",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,21,"often require more parking than the project is proposing; many of the minimum parking spaces
for projects are too high; outlined recommendations from the Planning Board for less parking
spaces for projects.
Councilmember Daysog stated a system is already in place which is flexible to accommodate
spaces below a lower standard.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the system forces every project to go
through the waiver process; staff is trying to avoid the process and streamline for increased
efficiency and less cost; the goal is to keep costs down, especially for housing projects.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for requiring charging infrastructure for Electric
Vehicles (EV); stated the current proposal has been through a number of different Boards and
Commissions, however, the Public Utilities Board was not one of them; inquired the implications
of expanded EV charging facilities and Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) infrastructure.
The Land Use and Transportation Planner responded staff has consulted with AMP staff; the
ordinance includes a load management system; parking structures cannot over-build the panel
to handle everyone at full power, 24-hours per day; AMP indicates the costs to build are
comparable to recent projects; AMP is comfortable with the levels and is eager for customers.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether AMP is comfortable with the existing transmission lines
and clean green sources of power and whether AMP is able to adequately accommodate the
expanded charging infrastructure.
The Land Use and Transportation Planner responded that he cannot answer directly for AMP;
however, AMP has not expressed any concerns during discussions.
The City Planner stated the EV parking spaces and infrastructure would not happen
automatically; the ordinance would apply with new development or new construction of parking
spaces which are typically reviewed by AMP.
Expressed support for moving away from mandatory minimums and moving towards mandatory
maximums without forcing discretionary review on all projects; stated adding parking spaces to
a project increases the cost of a project by $80,000 per spot; the costs in relation to housing are
especially terrible for affordable housing; it makes sense to require less parking; the City can
discourage car use near transit: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Stated that she opposes the proposal for maximum standards for parking; the matter seems to
be a workaround which does not adequately address the fact that parking is an issue in many
areas of Alameda; new development should sufficiently accommodate parking needs; discussed
increased density from the General Plan; stated an increase in parking is reasonable; parking
will be an issue with an increase in population; unbundling parking will likely lead to those with
less means not purchasing parking, creating an inequitable gap; discussed accessibility:
Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Expressed support for the matter; urged Council to move forward with the ordinance; stated
progress has been made in developing additional transit options; the City is providing more
options for those who want to get out of cars; there is a climate emergency; the proposed
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
18",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,22,"changes need to be made in order to reach goals for reduction and vehicle miles traveled:
Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda.
Discussed a space with zero on-site parking; stated the site works; not every commercial project
should have zero parking spaces; the example shows what can be built when the market has
more flexibility; the City will benefit from more direct influences by market forces; the City has
programmatic means to make parking more available and easier to use; urged Council to adopt
the policy and consider other ways to improve access to existing parking; discussed parking
equity and accessibility: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the presentation; discussed the presentation displaying improvements
to residential properties spurring the need to install EV charging; stated the residential
requirements are not being provided clearly to the average citizen: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification for the residential EV requirements.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the information relates to off-street
parking; the requirements are triggered when building a parking lot, not when putting an in-
home electric circuit; new buildings, new dwelling units, expansions of existing buildings are
effected by Section 30-7 provisions; new parking will be required to install EV charging; the
average household in Alameda has 1.3 cars; many people use their garage for things other than
parking, such as storage; if anyone wishes to provide more than 1.5 parking spaces, questions
will be raised; the spaces reflect the data of car ownership among Alameda households.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted the presentation has a typo in the listed addresses.
The Land Use and Transportation Planner stated the presentation should have listed 1820 Park
Street as the address.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the address corrected in the report; discussed parking
for Coffee Cultures; noted businesses can take advantage of other nearby business' parking
during off hours; however, the off-site parking cannot be counted on; many visitors to Coffee
Cultures are drivers; expressed concern about the staff recommendation; stated the examples
do not take into account the whole area; some residential areas do not currently have sufficient
parking; discussed subdivided rentals do having sufficient parking; questioned where people in
ADUs will park; expressed concern about not taking into account the whole impact; discussed
ridership on AC Transit; stated transit ridership is not back to levels prior to COVID-19 car
ridership on the Bay Bridge is at the top 90%; people in the community are driving a car versus
public transportation; discussed parking availability at Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) facilities
and the availability of finding used cars; stated parking is needed in the City; there has not been
an adjustment for the trends resulting from COVID-19; the City must assume people are not
going to get back to using public transit; expressed support for EV charging stations; stated that
she cannot support the dramatic changes.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [introduction of the
ordinance].
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated public transit has not come back to pre-COVID-
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
19",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,23,"19 ridership numbers yet; the numbers are starting to bounce back slowly; she does not park at
BART due to the ease of taking AC Transit directly to the Fruitvale Station; stated people are
good about wearing masks on BART and AC Transit; discussed parking and construction in the
area of Coffee Cultures and the assisted living facility across the street.
Vice Mayor Vella stated many cases have ample parking lots and parking alternatives; there are
many ways to get to and from locations in the Park Street corridor; expressed support for the
matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated the current ordinance has a system in place which forces
developers to come to the City and ask for lower parking standards; the current proposed
ordinance would make it easier for developers to reduce parking requirements; the current
system is not burdensome on developers; there is no reason to change it; the current system
allows for a lessening of parking requirements in an effort to make housing more affordable;
many developers of large projects have been accommodated; he does not see a compelling
reason to change the current ordinance; the City should not make matters easier for developers.
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: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
The City Planner stated the work performed by staff is fully supported by the State Senate Bill 2
Planning Grant; the City will seek reimbursement.
(21-702) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update Section 310 of the
Existing Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to Conform to Existing Best Practices and
Statutory Requirements Mandating Notification to the California Department of Justice in Certain
Officer Involved Shootings.
The Police Captain gave a brief presentation.
Stated that he is not a fan of Lexipol; the City should be defining its own police manual; the
drafts show fields at the bottom of the proposal which were not fully replaced: Zac Bowling,
Alameda.
Stated the policy indicate death whether or not the method was from a shooting: Marilyn
Rothman, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the policy indicating shootings
and deaths; stated that she understands there is an importance in keeping the language as-is.
The Police Captain stated the policy is a Department of Justice change and is directly related to
officer-involved shootings; the policy is specific to shootings; the policy is not related to any
other type of death which may occur.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification that the policy language will reflect any
needed updates.
The Police Captain stated the language software includes a mask which allows the City to edit
the policy within the program; the fields will automatically repopulate to the proper language.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
20",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,24,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, with the stipulation that the ""Bureau Bureau
Commander"" be typo corrected.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer agreed to include the amendment in the motion.
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.
(21-703)
Recommendation to Reorganize the City's Parking Management Program and
Parking Fund;
(21-703A) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Parking Fund Budget to
Restructure the Parking Fund; and
(21-703B) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Salary Schedule for the Alameda City
Employees Association (ACEA) and the Alameda Police Officers Association, Non-Sworn
(PANS) to Move the Two Parking Enforcement Positions from PANS to ACEA and Reassign
Two Full-Time Parking Enforcement Position Allocations from the Police
Department to Public Works. Not heard.
(21-704) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease with
Rhoads Property Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Substantially in the
Form of Exhibit 2, for Thirty-Six Months for Buildings 338, 608, and 608A-C, Located at 50 and
51 West Hornet Avenue, at Alameda Point. Not heard.
(21-705) Recommendation that City Council, Boards and Commissions Annually Review
Meeting Schedules for Possible Conflicts that Inhibit Maximum Public Participation. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Not heard.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21-706) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.
(21-707) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational
Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.
(21-708) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate
Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
21",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,25,"(Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.
(21-709) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting
Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember
Daysog). Not heard.
(21-710) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to
Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023-
2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog). Not heard.
(21-711) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers
Herrera Spencer and Daysog). Not heard.
(21-712) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular
City Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-713) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed her pin; announced a jewelry sale event
hosted by the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter.
(21-714) Councilmember Daysog discussed the unveiling of two art pieces in Jean Sweeney
Park; announced that he attended a the School Board Subcommittee meeting with
Councilmember Knox White; stated there is a report which indicates traffic safety measures and
should come before Council.
(21-715) Councilmember Knox White discussed the School Board Subcommittee meeting;
noted the matter related to traffic enforcement [paragraph no. 21- ] which was not
heard
is
part of significant concerns voiced by parents; stated that he would like to see a public
workshop to discuss the Shuumi Land Tax.
(21-716) Councilmember Daysog stated Council should discuss traffic impacts from the
Oakland Athletics stadium.
(21-718) Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced that she attended the County Day of
Remembrance with Councilmember Daysog.
(21-719) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended an event called Here I Am and a
workshop put on by the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA); discussed a Diablo
Magazine interview; noted Contra Costa County has recently developed a Countywide transit
safety plan; announced a fundraiser at Books Inc. for the Friends of the Alameda Library.
(21-720) Vice Mayor Vella announced it is Family Literacy Month; discussed an East Bay
Regional Park District Subcommittee meeting and a ribbon cutting for the anniversary of Alley
and Vine.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the owners of Alley and Vine are happy to be in Alameda.
ADJOURNMENT
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
22",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,26,"There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
23",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,5,"not like the idea of a mediation program; the program does not offer a remedy for a tenant
whose landlord refuses to participate; expressed concern about enforcement; expressed
support for a legal assistance program for tenants that is more tenant-friendly being housed in
the City Attorney's office and for continuing the local emergency [paragraph no. 21-692]: Toni
Grimm, Alameda Renters Coalition.
Expressed support for comments provided by Speaker Grimm; stated the problem with
mediation is the program is non-binding, does not include enforcement, discourages tenants
from seeking legal advice and has one legal right given up in exchange for another; a landlord
represented by counsel knows their rights and benefits, while tenants do not; tenants do not
truly have the opportunity to fully negotiate on their own behalf; a mediator is not obligated to
give a tenant any legal advice; people benefitting from the service are typically of low-income,
elderly, disabled and mothers with children; urged Council not yank the program away from
people in uncertain times: Lana Rishina, Alameda.
Expressed support for the permanent continuation of conducting City Council meetings via
teleconference; stated remote participation is easier for all: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Expressed support for the Centro Legal de la Raza matter; stated that she is not fully aware of
the impacts the services provide; discussed her experience answering questions for tenants
through Alameda Renters Coalition; stated many tenants have benefitted from legal help; when
facing eviction, there is an imbalance between tenants and landlords; she has benefitted from
services provided by Centro Legal de la Raza; noted that her relationship with her landlord
improved due to better understanding: Laura Woodard, Alameda Renters Coalition.
Councilmember Daysog requested the resolution declaring an emergency [paragraph no. 21-
692] be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he will support continuing the local
emergency; critical pieces of local rules are linked to the continuation, such as the moratorium
on rent increases and evictions; he understands the difficulties many are facing; small mom and
pop landlords are also facing difficulties; he does not think anyone is interested in evictions;
however, small mom and pop landlords should be able to get back into working within the rent
regulation system in place; the rent regulation system does allow a small rent increase; while
Council cannot adopt any changes to the moratorium on rent increases or evictions, he thinks
Council should begin to have the discussion on behalf of smaller landlords.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer amended the motion to include adoption of the resolution
declaring an emergency and recorded a no vote on the item.
Councilmember Knox White agreed with the amendment to the motion.
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. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
2",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,6,"(*21-686) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on October 5, 2021.
Approved.
(*21-687) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,379,752.90.
(*21-688) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to the
Agreement with Chrisp Company Pavement Marking and Sign Replacement Project, in an
Amount Not to Exceed $110,000 for an Aggregate Amount Not to Exceed $712,218.98; and
Recommendation to Accept the Work of Chrisp Company for Fiscal Year 2017-19 Pavement
Marking and Sign Replacement Project, No. P.W. 03-19-15. Accepted.
(*21-689) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Accept the Work of NBC
Construction & Engineering, Inc. for Alameda Point Modular Restroom Building, No. P.W. 09-
20-36. Accepted.
(*21-690) Recommendation to Allow the Agreement with Centro Legal De La Raza to Expire
and to Authorize the City Attorney's Office to Provide Housing Education and Mediation
Services for Landlords and Tenants on a Pilot Basis Using Contracted Resources. Accepted.
(*21-691) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via
Teleconference. Accepted.
(21-692) Resolution No. 15831, ""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.
Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the item carried by the following
vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEM
(21-693) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Sixth Amendment to the
Agreement with Cultivate, LLC to Increase Compensation by $60,000, for a Total Aggregate
Compensation Not to Exceed $354,000 to Continue Providing Technical Planning Support to
the City of Alameda General Plan Update through Housing Element Adoption.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the technical planning support being
provided includes creating a 3-dimensional video; stated that she thinks the support should
include such video to show the potential changes; questioned what rezoning all residential
districts and changing maximum heights would look like; stated that she has seen other cities
utilizing video to help visualize projects; she hopes a video is part of the technical support being
provided.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff is working on the next
Housing Element as part of the General Plan; stated there are plans for visual simulations; a
video has not yet been considered; staff can look into video options; the Planning Board has
also expressed the need for graphics and visual representations of what the areas will look like;
the community needs to understand what the changes will look like; staff has three different
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
3",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,7,"consultant contracts; the contract being considered presently helps with public outreach,
website, and documents; Cultivate is not a graphics firm; staff holds a contract with Urban
Design Associates, which provides drawings; staff can request more video and visual
simulations; the option to provide the visual graphics Citywide is interesting; there is a Housing
Element workshop on November 16th and he can provide a recommendation at the workshop.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is happy that the Planning Board is also
thinking about visual simulations; the visual aids help conceptualize projects as opposed to the
drawings; noted many times people lament the difference between actual project outcomes
versus the drawings; Council should be doing the most to help be as transparent as possible in
showing impacts.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(21-694) Recommendation to Provide Direction on the Provision of Housing for the City's
Unhoused Population, Including Emergency Housing, Transitional Supportive Housing,
Permanent Supportive Housing and Prospective Homeless Housing Projects.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is a reason the hotel/motel site is not specified
in option number three.
The Community Development Director responded staff has not yet identified a location; stated
at Council's request, staff put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Marina Village Inn; no
responses were received; a Housing Authority proposal has been received for another property;
however, a negotiated, written agreement is not yet pinned down; staff is continuing to
investigate options and will return with more concrete options.
Expressed concern about placing all of the Project Home Key projects on the West End; urged
a more equitable distribution of projects throughout the community; expressed support for
choosing Village of Love for the 30 families option, for funding a 90-unit north housing project
and for developing the Rodeway Inn or Coral Reef Hotel as a mixed-use, mixed-community,
gateway project using Project Home Key funding; urged the City look at other areas for projects:
Karen Bey, Alameda.
Expressed support for comments provided by Speaker Bey; stated staff continues to view the
West End as the area to be developed for homeless projects; urged Council to remember that
equity has been brought up and agreed upon by the City Council as a goal; stated the Road
Home includes counselors as a device to help the unhoused individuals transition into
permanent housing; the solution is permanent housing, which does not exist; urged Council
focus on permanent housing going forward; expressed support for the permanent housing not
creating a concentration of poverty, and for the North Housing site; urged the City to partner
with the Housing Authority: Marilyn Alwan, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
4",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,8,"[Did not comment on the agenda item]: Brian Kennedy, Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he appreciates the prioritization of items which provide
housing and resources; expressed support for the bottle parcel project concept and the City-
owned, available Alameda Point housing; stated that he will support a hotel project which works
when found; noted the hotel project will take time; he would like to provide direction for staff not
to focus just on the West End, but more on the East End and Bay Farm to the extent possible;
the direction will be difficult due to privately owned businesses; he looks forward to opportunities
to discuss resilience centers and other services which would also access funds.
Councilmember Daysog stated any one of the three options provides Council with an
opportunity to go really big in terms of delivering on the needs of persons and families who are
homeless; expressed support for the bottle parcel option and the Big Whites; stated that he
supports the hotel/motel site option if it is placed in an area which has community commercial
zoning; Council must look at the matter as a realistic project for formerly homeless families and
also as part of the beautification for the area; expressed support for the hotel/motel option not
being a simple housing conversion project, but also a project that can be made beautiful for the
area; the matter is a great opportunity for the City to go big.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the projects will apply to homeless people
throughout the County or those currently in Alameda.
The Community Development Director responded emergency housing will focus on local
residents; stated the goal for emergency housing is to provide some opportunities for shelter
and beds for those within Alameda in the short-term; emergency housing is not seen as a long-
term option and is able to get off the ground fairly quickly; a transitional housing project will be
slightly different and needs to go through the County's Coordinated Care System; the City will
have Home Key and County funds involved for transitional housing and will pull from a larger
pool of funds; staff would love to house Alameda residents to the extent legally possible; the
hotel project is envisioned as permanent supportive housing where the population could
potentially be a larger County population.
The Economic Development Manager stated staff will try to get Alameda residents in and will
work with the County on preference.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification for the benefits of coordinated care and entry;
stated there is a selection process for those well suited to a particular resource.
The Economic Development Manager stated staff tries to register each unhoused person in
Alameda in a system; the County and State require staff to go through the system if the City
uses Home Key funds; the bottle parcel option utilizes Home Key funding; the system provides
individuals confidential details and information, including how long someone has been on the
street; many people in the system do not live in Alameda, but are from Alameda and would like
to return; many of the unhoused population in Alameda have relational ties in the City; staff
hopes the County allows the City to use the system and house Alameda residents; the process
is moving quickly; staff needs to negotiate different options; the preference option continues to
be negotiated.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the scattered sites will be used for single
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
5",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,9,"family homes and whether the sites will help families currently unhoused in Alameda.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the sites are the best
opportunity for an expedient solution; there are three homes in varying states of repair and
disrepair; one of the sites could be available fairly quickly; the others will follow in sequence; the
goal is to have the sites up and running quickly for the colder months.
The Economic Development Manager stated since staff does not have funding from other
agencies for the project, the target demographic can be Alameda residents.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands the City is limited in targeting
Alameda residents; inquired the impacts to staff's ability to address those who are unhoused
within the City.
The Community Development Director responded the sites will provide an opportunity to offer
housing to individuals on the streets; staff will have to decide on other solutions if someone is
not interested in the housing option; the solutions sought will be complicated and will require
input from the City Attorney's office, as well as the Alameda Police Department; the preference
is to offer a bed and provide the opportunity for housing first.
The City Attorney stated the City's program is targeting volunteer individuals; the program does
not intend to compel anyone to be in a location.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the Boise case and how the case
impacts the City's options for unhoused individuals.
The City Attorney stated the Boise decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that
local, federal and State agencies cannot criminalize the act of being homeless when there is not
sufficient shelter space; the decision is groundbreaking due to various jurisdictions adopting
laws which precluded individuals from being out on the street and sleeping on the street at
certain nighttime hours; the Court held that the laws are a violation against the 8th Amendment
rights related to cruel and unusual punishment; the decision currently remains good law.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does support the scattered sites; she is
hopeful that the City can continue to look for additional sites to help house Alameda's homeless;
the bottle parcel is next to the College of Alameda; the College of Alameda has many programs
which provide services to help people receive education; inquired whether the City is planning to
find providers to work with the College of Alameda to help the people housed at the bottle
parcel; the location is great, especially if the City can partner with the College of Alameda to
provide services.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the services being sought for the bottle parcel
location.
The Community Development Director stated the City will offer full, wrap-around services;
counselors will be available to assist with educational interests, job needs and driver's license
retention; the direction to have a relationship with the College of Alameda is excellent in offering
an educational pipeline to individuals; staff will begin cultivating a relationship for the project.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the College of Alameda has many services; the City is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
6",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,10,"fortunate to have the College of Alameda; the relationship will provide a unique opportunity; her
least favorite option is the hotel/motel option due to Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT); staff
has recommended the need for hotels for many years due to TOT; she is not interested in giving
up a revenue stream; the City would have to make-up the lost revenue in order to provide the
services being discussed; the City's financial forecast predicts exhausting reserves at some
point; it is critical to continue supporting revenue streams; expressed support for the City looking
at apartments or other buildings instead of losing a TOT revenue stream and for partnering with
the Housing Authority; stated the Housing Authority does a good job and are the housing
experts; she agrees with the need for equity across the City; she supports opportunities across
the Island which the City can purchase through different revenue streams.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council gave many different directions and instructions in the last
round; expressed support for the responses received on how to move forward; there is no
reason for Council not to act on the matter; she is comfortable providing direction to staff to
move forward with the bottle parcel option; she would like to see more exploration into the
hotel/motel option; there are opportunities throughout the City; this is the beginning of much
larger and longer conversations; expressed support for looking throughout the entire City in
ensuring the most is made of parcels; the need exists and continues to grow; Council should
move forward; she looks forward to supporting the options, while recognizing the actions are a
first step; the proposal received by the Village of Love is worth exploring; expressed support for
moving forward with direction to staff to continue pursuing additional opportunities for the City to
fund supportive housing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has seen the life-changing impacts of transitional and
emergency housing; discussed a navigation and residential stair center in Berkeley; stated that
she has had an opportunity to see considered providers bring wonderful and innovative projects;
expressed support for all options recommended; stated the emergency housing at Alameda
Point should be done; currently, Alameda does not have a place that is available 365 days per
year for someone to get out of the weather and sleep; a warming center at Christ Episcopal
Church has been an option for the City; the ability to provide services had been curtailed by the
pandemic; the City must do better; there is a silver lining in the American Recuse Plan Act
(ARPA) funding availability; she would like to take the opportunity to help level the playing field;
expressed support for the bottle parcel; stated the hotel/motel option should continue to be
looked at; TOT revenue is lessened during the pandemic; the hotel providers willing to sell or
enter into a deal have not done well; the City pays a lot to address homelessness; there is an
option to partner with a provider for the hotel/motel option; the Housing Authority would be her
last choice; many more current and innovative providers are offering creative and quick
solutions for people to get employed and connected with needed services; expressed support
for a provider whose specialty is lifting someone out of homelessness; noted the matter will
return to Council at the next meeting.
The Community Development Director stated staff will be bringing a full report on Alameda Point
emergency housing and transitional housing at the bottle parcel.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for parking options being included in the staff
report for the bottle parcel; stated that his preference is more housing for people; there are other
places to find parking and car storage.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated parking is needed; there is a lack of understanding of what
homelessness means; people can be working yet unable to maintain a roof over their head;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
7",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,11,"parking is an important part of the discussion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated many people have been living in their car and develop
an emotional attachment; expressed support for not requiring people to give up vehicles being
lived in.
(21-695) Recommendation to Approve a Commercial Streets Two-Year Work Program to
Improve the Park Street and Webster Street Striping Plans; Improve the On-street Parklet
Program; Maintain the Alameda Avenue Street Closure; Resume Pre-COVID Parking
Management, Fee Collection, and Enforcement Activities;
(21-695A) Resolution No. 15832, ""Approving Precast Concrete Traffic Control Safety Barricade
Standards for Parklets."" Adopted; and
(21-695B) Resolution No. 15833, ""Amending the Capital Budget by Transferring $630,350
in
American Rescue Plan Act Project Funds from Capital Improvement Project (CIP) C90300 to
Commercial/Slow Streets CIP (C12100) and Increasing Appropriations for the Commercial/Slow
Streets CIP (C12100) by $630,350."" Adopted.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry related to recusal, the City Attorney stated the
Fair Political Practices Commission has loosened the public generally exception in recent years
in favor of participation; in the event the City undertakes public safety, street improvement,
nuisance abatement or any street work, where either 5% or more than 50 residences are being
affected, the public generally exception applies; the Public Works Director indicated more than
50 homes are adjacent to the proposed work; staff has advised Councilmember Daysog that he
is not required to recuse himself.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director and the Senior Transportation Coordinator
gave a PowerPoint presentation.
***
(21-696) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing five minutes for the Downtown
Alameda Business Association (DABA) and West Alameda Business Association (WABA)
representative comments.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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.
Stated the Business Districts previously requested the commercial streets program and hopes
the program continues; the street reconfiguration has provided positive benefits to the Business
Districts and an opportunity to rethink interactions with public space; the discussion is not solely
about parklets, it is about the vitality and vibrancy of the Business Districts; discussed benefits
of the commercial streets program; noted the program has helped rebuild a sense of
community; expressed support for a long-term parklet program; stated safety is a shared
priority; expressed support for the installation of concrete barricades which will add a level of
safety and create a unified design; urged Council to reconsider the increased insurance
coverage or create a fund to offset the increased insurance costs; stated increased costs for a
program designed to help businesses is not the intent; the Business Districts are eager to look
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
8",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,12,"at usage and signage to help the City reinstate a parking compliance program: Kathy Weber,
DABA.
Stated parklets are important to the entire district; the mission is to keep Wester Street safe,
clean and inviting; the proposed cement barriers will help with enhanced safety; expressed
support for covering insurance costs; stated the insurance costs are doubled to meet the
threshold; many businesses are trying to recover from the previous 18 months of shutdown;
costs are important: Linda Asbury, WABA.
Councilmember Knox White inquired the reason the City is requiring increased insurance after
putting in safer concrete barriers.
The City Attorney stated staff consulted with the City's insurance carrier related to appropriate
levels of protections for outdoor dining spaces; there is a wide range of uses in the area;
outlined the recommendations; noted carriers have polled a number of recent verdicts on
sidewalk collisions not related to outdoor dining; verdicts cost between $1 million and $10
million.
Councilmember Knox White stated the recommendation to increase premiums is due to the
insurance company recommendation.
The Interim City Engineer stated concrete barriers are not an insurance policy and do not
prevent injury; the concrete barriers are a step-up and provide more protection than water-filled
barricades; the goal is to elevate the safety along streets.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated other jurisdictions have required concrete k-rails;
inquired whether the cement barriers connect with each other similar to k-rails and why the City
is not using k-rails.
The Interim City Engineer responded the barriers are vehicular traffic barricades made for
parklets; stated the barricades are decorative; the City could use k-rails similar to what is used
on freeways and construction projects; the recommended cement barriers have been used in
other jurisdictions and have a more decorative appearance; the cost difference is not huge; the
barricades come in four-foot segments which are easier to manipulate into place.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the four-foot barricades interlock; the appearance
would be a solid barrier.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to ensure the barricades provide
similar protection to that of k-rails; the matter is being proposed for safety; she appreciates
decoration; however, she would like to know how the recommended barricades compare to k-
rails for safety purposes.
The Interim City Engineer stated the barricades are made for the purpose of safety; staff has
reviewed impacts of the barricades at the low speeds which exist along the street segments; the
barricades weigh 1,250 pounds each and are connected with an interlocking cable system; the
barriers are secure and staff is comfortable that the barricades are a suitable safety
enhancement.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
9",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,13,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is data which shows the amount of
force the barricades can withstand versus k-rails; questioned whether data shows the force able
to be withstood is the same.
The Interim City Engineer responded that he currently does not have the data to provide; stated
data does exist for the systems and has been reviewed by staff.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the data can be searched for during public comment.
Stated six lanes were previously dedicated to the automobile on Park Street before COVID-19;
discussed the accessibility for automobiles on Park Street and the design of Park Street; stated
the design is relatively hostile to anyone not in an automobile; redesigning parklets and
improving the concept of Park Street is a good idea; urged Council to follow the staff
recommendations; expressed support for transforming Park Street into a park, for providing
more elaborate landscaping, trees, vegetation and fountains, for having first-class protected
bike lanes with wider sidewalks and for allowing businesses to expand outdoors onto the street
with permanent dining and shopping facilities; expressed support for closing Park Street to
private automobiles: James Johnston, Alameda.
Stated that she does not care for the current commercial streets; she no longer goes near Park
Street due to horrible traffic and narrow lanes; the only benefits of parklets is outdoor dining,
which will likely decline during the winter; stated the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds
would be better spent on the Alameda Fire Department and Alameda Family Services pilot
program: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Stated that he is a fan of road diets; the parklets on Webster Street and Park Street are great
additions to the City; expressed concern about biking infrastructure; stated there is no place to
ride safely in the Webster Street and Park Street areas; discussed shared spaces and
converting roads; stated that he is not a fan of the white barriers and is a fan of the k-72 barriers
on Otis Drive; questioned whether concrete barriers are needed when behavior modifications
can occur to get people to drive slower; expressed support for replacing barricade sections with
other bollards: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Stated that she appreciates the staff report; expressed support for local businesses; expressed
concern about the land reduction on Park and Webster Streets affecting residents in the event
of an emergency evacuation; questioned whether the City has considered the impact and has a
plan to address emergency evacuations; expressed support for the closure of Alameda Avenue;
stated more investment should be made into beautifying the area; discussed structures being
added for farmers markets: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Stated that she is frustrated with the City's response to cars; discussed accessibility; stated
many people will be driving electric cars due to a State mandate; the environmental emphasis
on cars is misplaced; she has not spoken to anyone in favor of the current design on Park and
Webster Streets; she no longer visits Park Street; she is surprised local businesses support the
recommendation; she understands the use of parklets for restaurants; it is wrong to disrupt the
main business corridors: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Expressed support for the quick action taken by the City and Business Districts; stated many
cities around the area have conducted similar programs; Alameda is now in a position to
consider permanent items; his experience walking to Park Street is more pleasant; he
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
10",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,14,"appreciates the ability to walk down Park Street and use a parklet; the experience for drivers
has changed; he hopes part of making the changes permanent includes work on improving
signal timing and signage, which will improve the experience; discussed bikepedinfo.org and
nacto.org: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.
Stated not all businesses support the commercial streets program; the program picks and
chooses winners; some businesses have lost parking spaces and visibility; some businesses
have been closed and cannot open doors due to County rules; businesses need delivery and
shipments and disabled people need access; urged Council not restrict vehicle use; questioned
whether the County will increase tax rates for businesses that are taxed based on square
footage of usable space and whether the City will pay for increased County taxes: Jim Strehlow,
Alameda.
Stated that she would like to see more buildout of Alameda Avenue; expressed support for the
removal of cars on Park Street in the future and for a trolley system in the area; discussed pre-
pandemic automobile conditions; stated that she would like to see areas more pedestrianized;
expressed support for comments from Speaker Bowling related to bike access; stated that she
supports keeping the parklets and safety for pedestrians: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Expressed support for the staff report; stated DABA members are looking to a long-term vision
in improving parklets; noted businesses are not required to build a parklet; expressed support
for Park Street being slower and for the speed limit lowering to 20 miles per hour; urged Council
to support the matter and put parking compliance in place; the parking garage is fantastic and
always has space available: Ron Mooney, DABA.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation to continue the commercial streets program;
stated the original program did not do much for biking and walking, but was needed for
businesses to survive; the program provides a chance to reimagine Business Districts;
expressed support continuing discussions and analysis of the design; stated planning work
takes a lot of time; expressed concern over configuration changes: Denyse Trepanier, Bike
Walk Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is exciting; there were previous discussions about
how to start thinking about Business Districts, the resulting changes brought by the pandemic
and rethinking public spaces; approving the matter and moving forward is important; increased
insurance premiums are due to jury awards for people jumping curbs, not running into k-rails;
the City is likely being exceedingly cautious and risk-adverse; the City should take on the
burden of covering the delta between the current and future insurance costs; the City should
look at putting cement barriers along the length of all streets to create a permanent space; the
incremental cost of building the areas along the full length is likely worth the cost and will lower
hurdles to other businesses coming out of the pandemic; questioned whether Council is
approving the improvement of the commercial streets program for two years; noted the
resolution extends the temporary permits for two years; expressed support; stated that he
appreciates the iterative nature of the program design and the opportunity to make changes
along the way; Council can make more permanent decisions at the two year mark; he would like
staff to come back to Council with the costs of putting uniform barriers the full length of the
blocks.
Councilmember Daysog stated the parklet program and street configuration has given a fighting
chance to businesses on Webster Street especially; there is a liveliness to Webster Street that
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
11",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,15,"expressed concern about the increased premiums being paid by businesses; questioned
whether ARPA funding would be used for two years; expressed support for using ARPA funding
for the additional $40,000 in increased insurance costs; expressed concern about not
addressing all the safety issues and whether the barriers will work.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff has found the data related to barrier impact force.
The Interim City Engineer responded Caltrans has research available on k-rail and temporary
concrete traffic controls; stated the Federal Highway Administration has portable concrete
transition plans, research and barrier guides; there is a wide range of products; the
recommendation is an upgrade from the water filled barricades; a previous collision into a water
filled barricade caused the barricade to slide; putting up Caltrans' freeway style highway
barricades does not guarantee bad things will not happening; stated some cities do nothing and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
12",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,16,"some cities require full Caltrans highway k-rails; Alameda is on the spectrum and toward the k-
rail end; 20-foot k-rails would be safer than the recommendation; the recommendation is
appropriate based on the low speed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not want to compromise the City's safety;
accidents have occurred; expressed support for requiring k-rails.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is a fan of the reconfigurations; parking times might
change; the Civic Center Parking Garage is available near Park Street and typically has space
available; she rides her bicycle throughout the Island; parallel streets to both Webster and Park
Streets allow people to safely ride bicycles; discussed Oak Street bicycle accessibility; stated
Webster Street has rows of bicycle parking; Bike Walk Alameda collaborated on a map of the
City which includes bicycle routes; people have different abilities and comfort levels; the goal is
to make the downtown districts welcoming for all; her two criteria are: safety first and aesthetics;
she does expect parklets to enhance the visibility of streetscapes; she does not want to see
parklets that are an eyesore; expressed support for comments provided from retail shops in the
Business District; stated some retailers have used parklets for outdoor pop up events and share
the space with restaurants for DoorDash and Uber Eats; a farmers market at Alameda Avenue
is enticing; however, vendors need space to unload and park; ending the commercial streets
program would be shameful; the City has gained insight on the program; she does not mind
funding the program for two years; expressed support for a check-in with Council at the one
year mark.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the commercial streets two year work plan with
direction to return to Council with the costs for the proposed concrete barriers in all locations, to
approve the precast concrete traffic control barricade standards as the standard and hold off on
approving the money.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Knox White stated Council
cannot approve the money due to not having the cost; noted staff will need to return with a
capital budget plan for approval.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White would like his motion to be
costed out and included in the budget proposal.
Councilmember Knox White responded staff has provided a proposal and is recommending a
transfer of funds based on the cost; stated that he would like staff to come back with a slightly
different plan which uses modified k-rail on all of the striping to ensure each block is fully k-rail
and has no spotty broken appearance along the Business Districts.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff can bring the matter back as a
budget request on the Consent Calendar.
The City Manager responded if Council decides to narrow the recommendation, staff can bring
back a budget request on the consent calendar.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is any question from staff on how the motion is
framed, particularly around any costs which are above and beyond the current estimate.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
13",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,17,"The Planning, Building, and Transportation Director responded staff has assumed costs for 30
parklets; stated staff has figured the total amount of barricades needed; noted Councilmember
Knox White's motion is to have a continuous line of barriers; staff will need to come up with a
new barrier plan for the blocks; the amount of barriers needed will be an incremental increase;
he does not think the cost will double; staff will need to configure gaps between barricades for
transit and pathways from parking to sidewalks.
Councilmember Daysog stated the motion includes returning to Council; Council will approve
the concept; however, the final cost will be approved by Council at a later date.
The Interim City Engineer stated the price included in the staff report includes the existing
parklets and protection in accordance with the parklet barricade detail; the recommendation
does not include unoccupied parklet areas; the staff recommendation differs from the proposed
motion made by Councilmember Knox White.
The City Manager stated there is an alternate approach; Council can approve the ARPA funding
to move forward and provide direction for staff to bring back the alternate approach; staff can
return with the alternate approach relatively quickly; Council may appropriate the recommended
funding at this time.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to amend his motion.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the City Manager's recommendation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she cannot support the proposed motion at this time;
expressed support for working with the current recommendation; stated an increase in cost
could be used to underwrite the increased insurance costs to ensure local businesses are not
burdened; the process is more complicated than simply placing a long line of barricade down
the blocks with parklets; Council may add or make adjustments to the program in the future.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated if k-rails are not included, the resolution should be clear
a lower standard is being used; expressed concern about giving up more parking.
Councilmember Knox White amended his motion to approve the current funding [and adoption
of related resolutions] and give direction to staff to return with the alternative and any additional
funding requests for further consideration.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the amended motion.
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
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the City covering the differential in insurance
costs of what is currently being paid by businesses and the new insurance requirement by the
City.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
14",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-02,18,"Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a group insurance rate can be done.
Vice Mayor Vella requested clarification for the motion on the table.
Councilmember Knox White stated the motion approves the City covering the differential
between the current insurance coverage rates and any additional coverage required by the City.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to ensure the motion includes staff being able to
look into the recommendation of an umbrella policy, to which Councilmember 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.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:54 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:16 p.m.
(21-697) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing the ordinance
implementing Senate Bill 1383 [paragraph no. 21-698 next.
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.
(21-698) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 21 (Solid
Waste and Recycling) to Comply with Senate Bill 1383, Conform with Franchise Agreement,
and Implement Strategy Four of Alameda's Zero Waste Implementation Plan Update.
Introduced.
The Program Specialist gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter is important and must happen sooner rather
than later; the community is supportive of the work.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved introduction of the ordinance.
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.
***
(21-699) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing the Police policy update
[paragraph no. 21-702 next.
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
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 2, 2021
15",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY NOVEMBER 1, 2021 7:00 P.M.
Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Montgomery, Reid,
Shabazz and Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was
conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie;
City Clerk Lara Weisiger]
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
COMPLAINT HEARINGS
3-A. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed on September 21, 2021
Dorothy Freeman, Complainant, and Paul Foreman gave an Opening Statement and
Presentation of Facts.
Bradford Kuhn, Nossaman, City/Respondent, gave an Opening Statement and
Presentation of Facts.
Mr. Foreman gave a Reply to the City/Respondent Opening Statement and Presentation
of Facts.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether correspondence was submitted for the
September 7, 2021 Closed Session; stated a written submission encouraged purchase
of the entire 2.8 acres.
Ms. Freeman responded in the affirmative; stated that she probably made a statement;
she has made so many that she cannot remember.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the term ""pre-development agreement"" is
a
technical term.
Mr. Foreman responded in the negative; stated legally, there is no such thing as a pre-
development agreement; a City ordinance states what has to go in to a Development
Agreement (DA); two or three of the terms in the Settlement Agreement (SA) would also
be in a DA.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
1",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,2,"Commissioner LoPilato inquired how an eminent domain proceeding can be resolved via
settlement if certain segments have to be discussed in open session.
Mr. Foreman responded the actual negotiation has to be done in Closed Session; stated
once negotiations are completed, the City Attorney could simply ask to present the SA at
an open meeting of the City Council for consideration and public input; if it is not accepted,
it would start over again; compared the matter to labor negotiations.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired how the matter would be agendized, to which Mr.
Foreman responded it would have to be agendized for the next meeting; stated in
February, the City indicated an agreement was reached in principle; he would not be
worried about a two-week delay between a Closed Session and the final presentation.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry regarding appraisals, Mr. Foreman stated the
question is not germane to the issue, but he could answer if there is no objection from the
Commission; he attended a neighborhood meeting at Jean Sweeney Park where Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft explained the original appraisal was approximately $1 million and that the
railroad came back with $8 million; the Mayor further explained that due to the large
disparity, the Council got a second appraisal, which was significantly higher and led
Council to believe the City could not afford to purchase the entire property; he asked the
Mayor about the second appraisal; the Mayor said the City Attorney instructed it cannot
be revealed.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Mr. Kuhn stated there was a confidential
exchange of appraisals between the City and Union Pacific in the middle of litigation;
pursuant to an agreement signed by the parties, the City is not allowed to disclose the
valuation information presented by Union Pacific; he is able to say that the second
appraisal was significantly higher; the Closed Session was necessary to discuss the risks
of litigation on the potential exposure; he does not see any way to have candid dialogue
in open session; he does not think it is fair to reach a decision in Closed Session and then
ask for public input, but not be able to discuss the risks of the litigation and potential
exposure; it puts the City Council in an unfair position; the ultimate outcome was the same
because the SA was disclosed and reported out in open session; the details were fully
laid out to the public.
Mr. Foreman stated the Council was not obligated to keep the appraisals a secret, but
agreed to do so; the Council could have come to an open meeting to make the same
disclosure that the Mayor and Mr. Kuhn just made and the public would at least have
something to discuss; the Complaint is not about a bad decision, it is about a secret
conclusion that was made without public input.
Commissioner Reid stated that she is trying to understand how the appraisal fits into the
context of the current zoning; inquired about the current zoning of the property.
Mr. Foreman responded the current zoning on a small piece of the property is industrial
and Union Pacific (UP) wants to raise to R2 and is also talking about density beyond R2
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,3,"limits, which is why there is a provision about R2 in the SA; if the zoning is changed, the
land will be a whole lot more valuable than it is today.
Ms. Freeman stated approximately 1.7 acres are zoned R2 already, leaving
approximately 2.3 acres still zoned for industrial.
Mr. Kuhn stated no one is disputing that the SA in no way changes the zoning of the
property and somehow eliminates the requirement for Union Pacific to come back to the
City Council; Union Pacific has to go through an entire development application process,
get public input, and get City approval to develop the property, which is not taken off the
table or changed whatsoever by the SA.
Mr. Foreman stated that he agrees Union Pacific has to do everything, but the agreement
greases the rails; requested the Commission to read it and come to its own conclusion
about whether it is germane.
Commissioner Reid requested Ms. Freeman to elaborate on the background of the land
acquisition and how much community involvement there was up until the Closed Session.
Ms. Freeman responded in 2013 when the City started out to develop the Park, she
worked with the Recreation and Parks Department on community meetings which had
over 300 people attended, as well as 700 to 800 people who participated in an online
survey; the survey included options for what people wanted to have in the Park, which
was very close to what Jean Sweeney envisioned; as the Park was being developed, it
was always understood that the Union Pacific land would become part of the Park; the
map portrays that the Union Pacific land is part of the Park, including the bike path; in
2018, the City filed the eminent domain case in public; the case explained that the 1.7
acres zoned R2 was too expensive for the City to purchase; the rest of the 2.8 acres was
addressed in public; people believed the Union Pacific land would be added to the Jean
Sweeney Park; all the community outreach indicated the land would eventually become
part of the Park.
Mr. Kuhn clarified a portion of the Union Pacific corridor was never going to be part of the
Park; every public project always has public involvement and input; candidly, any piece
of litigation involving the City has some sort of public dialogue because taxpayer dollars
are at stake, but does not bring the matter outside of the exemption which allows the City
Council to meet in Closed Session to discuss and resolve pending litigation; otherwise,
every matter the City decides regarding litigation would be open to the public, which
cannot be the case.
Mr. Foreman stated Complainants are not alleging that is the case; they are alleging when
there is an obligation to do something in public, it has to be done in public; it does not
have to disrupt the negotiation process or the closed nature of it; with ordinary litigation
that had nothing to do with public hearings or a claim against the City, there is no
obligation to allow public input; it is a private matter; this is a public matter that involves a
public park, housing and zoning; every time the City has litigation, it does not mean it has
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,4,"to be done in secret from start to finish; this is an exception.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Mr. Kuhn stated the public does not get to control the
litigation; the details were disclosed and made available to the public; if the public wants
to provide participation, they still have the ability to do so; they can voice their concerns
and tell the Council to acquire more land; the open session resolution to acquire the
property to begin with was done in accordance with the City Charter.
Mr. Foreman stated he and Ms. Freeman are here because they think the citizens had a
right to have the proposal presented to the public once the negotiations were completed;
whether or not the Council made a good economic decision is not being challenged.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the Commission needs to be cautious about too much
party to party debate, which is outside of the procedures.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Mr. Kuhn stated the City was quickly
approaching a trial date; typical when that happens, the parties want to continue the trail
later or take it off calendar if they are engaging in negotiations; that happened in this case;
there were preliminary discussions with Union Pacific in February; it took the City until
September to get somewhere; the litigation was still active and pending at the time of the
Closed Session; the dismissal of the case did not happen until after Closed Session was
completed and the SA was signed.
Mr. Foreman stated he just wanted the Commission to read the stipulation.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she has read and is familiar with the stipulation; it is
beneficial to understand that when a SA is signed by one party, the offer can still be
revoked; if an offer is made and an agreement laid out, then the other party listens to an
open session and learns all the weaknesses of the City's case, the whole deal can be
ended with a simple email to the City Attorney saying the deal is off.
Mr. Kuhn concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated anyone can revoke a signature
at any time.
Commissioner LoPilato stated Mr. Foreman outlined what a compliant process under the
Complainant's interpretation would look like; inquired what that timeline and process
could entail.
Mr. Kuhn responded City Council could have gone into closed session, discussed the
matter, stated no decision was reached, put it on a future Council agenda in open session,
get public input and reach a decision; he thinks it is form over substance because the
public did have a chance to weigh in on the matter; Ms. Freeman even submitted a letter
before the City Council hearing; the Recreation and Parks Department held public
meetings about potential revisions to the Park layout and design; ultimately, the City
Council gets to make decisions on pending litigation, weighing the risks and the budget;
laying the cards out on the table for Union Pacific to see would completely change their
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,5,"negotiating position.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the settlement is typically considered to be
under proceedings or if there is a definition for the term.
Mr. Kuhn responded in the affirmative, stated it is all one and the same; he would either
settle an eminent domain action via SA, which calls for the exact terms and dismissal
after the fact pursuant to a stipulated judgment where the Court transfers the property.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether the final Master Plan approved by Council in 2016
includes the parcel in question.
Ms. Freeman responded in the affirmative; stated the design includes the 4.52 acres
along the southern border.
Commissioner Reid inquired why the public would not have the right to know about the
reduction in property if it was part of the Master Plan.
Mr. Kuhn responded that the public did know about it; the terms were reported out in open
session; there were Recreation and Parks meetings well before which discussed potential
reductions and changes in size; Ms. Freeman was aware of it before the meeting and
submitted a comment letter on it; nothing was hidden from the public; the City decided to
resolve pending litigation in Closed Session so they could talk about risks and potential
ramifications of moving forward with acquiring the entire corridor and whether or not there
was funding.
Ms. Freeman stated from copies she obtained of Court case documents and the
Recreation and Parks Director's meeting with the public to explain that the west end of
the park had to be redesigned, she deduced the change; why it had to be redesigned was
not explained; one charts said: ""not City-owned property"" which was subsequently
removed; a blank space showed it would no longer be considered as part of the Park;
what was going on was never discussed in public; she was assuming that this was the
issue due to the Court records and the meeting about the redesign of the park, but it was
never stated by the City.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether Mr. Kuhn was involved in the litigation with Union
Pacific, to which Mr. Kuhn responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Montgomery inquired whether there would have been any effect on the
negotiation or settlement if the matter been placed on a later agenda date.
Mr. Kuhn responded that he does not want to speculate, but would assume that if there
was an open session and the City disclosed valuation, potential exposure and the risks
of acquiring the entire corridor, it would significantly impact the negotiating position with
Union Pacific.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,6,"Mr. Foreman stated that he thinks Mr. Kuhn's explanation is contrived; the City negotiated
with Union Pacific over a long period of time; the City knew the strengths and weaknesses
of the railroad and vice versa; Council came to a consensus as to what would be a good
deal; the railroad agreed to it; all the City Attorney had to do was ask whether it could be
presented to the public in an open meeting; at the public meeting, nothing has to be
disclosed if it would be harmful; the City could have simply stated, like the Mayor did, that
the appraisal cannot be disclosed; it still gives the public a chance to speak out and feel
they have real input and someone is listening to them; let the public feel they are
participating in open government.
Commissioner Reid inquired why the City would agree to pay a previously agreed upon
price for the full parcel and now decide to pay less than half for a lot less land; further
inquired whether the zoning was different in the appraisal process.
Mr. Kuhn responded in the affirmative; stated the zoning was different; the original
appraisal was done incorrectly; the trail appraisal prepared for the City was massively
more expensive than the original $1.1 million deposit.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether the appraisal for housing would add much higher
valuation than for park land, to which Mr. Kuhn responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Reid inquired how long Mr. Kuhn has been contracted with the City on the
project, to which Mr. Kuhn responded he became involved a little over a year ago.
Ms. Freeman gave a Closing Statement.
Mr. Kuhn gave a Closing Statement.
Speakers:
Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he does not find the City Attorney's argument
compelling; the City Council and City Attorney's office have a tendency to disregard the
people's constitutional right to know what the City government is doing; he is disappointed
the Council chose to disregard the will of the people.
Jenice Anderson, Alameda, stated that she knew the reasons for the changes to the park
project, including Union Pacific changing the land price; she does not follow Ms. Freeman
and did not get the information from her, nor is she part of the group bringing forward the
Complaint; the public knew about the changes to the plan before the September 7th
meeting, so it was not out of the blue; the person who did the bulk of the Complaint was
banned from bringing Complaints to the OGC for several years; she feels if anyone else
did a by-proxy Complaint, it would be called out; she thinks the whole Complaint is
ridiculous.
Commissioner Reid stated the closed session discussions placed a veil on the appraisal
procedure; whether or not the valuation was based on housing or parkland would have a
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,7,"huge variation.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry regarding timing Commissioners, the City Clerk stated
the Complaint Procedure does not list a specific time.
Chair Tilos stated he would like to start with five minutes; if more time is needed,
Commissioners can request more, up to nine minutes.
Commissioner Reid stated that she was surprised Mr. Kuhn was involved; it seems there
is considerable bias; the public was involved from the very beginning; then, suddenly, the
Council decided not to include the public in the litigation section of the process; the
Sunshine Ordinance provides for more transparency; the public has the right to know the
reasons regarding the appraisals and has the right to participate; the neighbors should
be included in the process.
Commissioner Chen stated she has been following the Jean Sweeney Park story since
the beginning; everyone who participated in the process feels like part-owners; to have
this suddenly happen is terrible; it is a threading the needle issue; under litigation,
questions and decisions from the City Council cannot be disclosed; she would rule in
favor of the City, but the way it came down does not pass the smell test; the OGC has the
opportunity to recommend how to make it better; the neighbors and community still have
many future opportunities to speak up on how the land is or is not developed; the iron
gates have not shut; she used to follow eminent domain and condemnation of properties,
so she realizes a lot of regular folks might not fully grasp how a City can condemn
properties for City use, but cannot pay less than the land's value; the OGC's role is to try
to figure out a way to bring the community back into the process without jeopardizing the
agreement; an open hearing should be held, but in a manner so that Union Pacific does
not pull out; there are all kinds of dangers when the flood gates are open in the middle of
litigation.
Chair Tilos stated if the Commission votes in a certain manner on the issue, it could be
sent back and open up the gates.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she does not think putting the item back on another
agenda would open up the gates; the agreement has been signed; the Complainants
acknowledged that the possible remedy of having it brought into open session, with the
only goal to have a discussion, would not change the outcome; there is a flawed
assumption by the Complainants that the public could ask the City Council questions
whether in open or closed session; public comment can happen and Councilmembers
can share their reasoning, but the forum for asking questions is to directly contact the
Councilmember and ballot box power; there is not going to be an open session questions
and answers on a SA; remedy-wise, there is not a lot to do; she thinks the OGC has the
jurisdiction to look at the matter and make a decision; substantively, it falls within the
pending litigation exception; she cannot imagine having attorney-client discussion in a
public session; it would not serve the City's interests; when she thinks about how tax
dollars are spent, she would like to be able to trust that the City can have effective
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
7",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,8,"representation in the litigation, which requires being able to have private discussion about
the pros and cons; eminent domain proceedings, including a SA, could probably be a
subject of debate, but the proceedings seem proper; she is inclined to dismiss the
Complaint, but would not find it unfounded; she was troubled by the concept of pre-
development agreement; arguments could be made that the pre-development agreement
functionally paves the way, but she does not think it legally does anything that takes it out
of the pending litigation exception.
Chair Tilos stated that he concurs with Commissioner LoPilato's comments; there is
definitely substance and he would not say the Complaint is unfounded.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that she concurs with Commissioner LoPilato's
statements, as well as Commissioner Chen's comments; she is leaning toward denied at
this point, but not unfounded; she believes there are things to look at; perhaps a
recommendation could be made for the future.
Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Commissioner Chen that the matter does
not pass the smell test in terms of transparency for the community; she is not suggesting
the agreement be withdrawn or substantial changes made, but she wonders what harm
there is in suggesting to the City Council reagendize the item to make the whole process
more transparent; the Commission is here for the public; she is leaning towards
transparency and providing the public with as much information as possible and an
opportunity to participate.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that when Mr.
Kuhn was discussing the ability to exit the agreement, he was talking about the point
when the matter came to closed session in September; if there had been a delay at that
point or some question on whether or not the City was going to agree to certain terms,
Union Pacific or the City could have exited the agreement; at this point, there is a signed
SA; she is not prepared to opine on the ramifications of the City trying to get out of the
SA, but will say it is definitely beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the OGC; to clarify the
point, Mr. Kuhn's statement had to do with the status at the beginning of September, not
now.
Chair Tilos stated since the matter did not pass the smell test, he would consider kicking
it back but it would not change the outcome; it is a done deal; he would not say the
Complaint is unfounded because there is definitely something going on; Complaint denied
seems to be more appropriate.
Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Chair Tilos; bringing it back would give
the public an opportunity to be aware and weigh in; this has been going on since 2013;
leave the doors open to allow the public to be aware; she does not see the harm in it
since the outcome will not change; the OGC would be doing its job to create transparency.
Chair Tilos stated the public is definitely aware now; it is after the fact, but there are quite
a few attendees at the meeting.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,9,"Commissioner Chen stated none of the possible changes are a done deal; decisions will
require hearings; the hearings will give the entire community, especially the neighbors,
an opportunity to weigh in as the Council deliberates on whether or not to change the
zoning or allow a development; it is obvious the Union Pacific attorneys just wanted to get
more out of the deal; they are doing their jobs; it is all part of a legal game; there are many
more times to get a bite of the apple; the process is not closed; the community has
opportunities; everyone will be on alert to practice their democratic rights.
Commission Montgomery stated the public could address the matter by speaking at a
Council meeting on a non-agenda item or could write a letter to Council; inquired what
would be the value of reagendizing the item.
Chair Tilos stated Commissioner Montgomery's understanding is correct; reagendizing
the item would just be reopening the discussion; the Complainants just want the Council
to be more on record about why they made their decisions; it is not an effective use of the
Council's time and taxpayers' dollars.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney directed the Commissioner's attention to the issue at
hand, which is precisely if they have concluded whether there is a violation of the
Sunshine Ordinance or the Brown Act; stated there is a litigation exception for conferring
with legal counsel regarding pending litigation when discussion in an open session would
likely and unavoidably prejudice the position of the City; anyone making a motion should
frame it with this specific provision in mind; if there were to be a vote to sustain, there
should be a finding of how this falls outside of the litigation exception.
Commissioner Reid stated Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-91.10, Council is not required
to hold a Closed Session; she is leaning toward sustained to open up the process, let the
public weigh in and not close the gates.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the way the Complaint Procedure
is written, the Chair can waive the time limit or a supermajority vote is required to amend
the times.
Chair Tilos stated he will extend the time one minute for each Commissioner.
Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of denying the Complaint on the basis that there
was no violation of the Brown Act or Sunshine Ordinance as the matter fell within pending
litigation exception.
Commissioner Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Reid: No; Chair Tilos: Aye.
Ayes: 4, Noes: 1.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she has
enough information to draft a short written decision.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
9",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,10,"In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated that she would send the final
written decision to Commissioners via Docusign.
3-B. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed on October 4, 2021
Jay Garfinkle, Complainant, gave an Opening Statement and Presentation of Facts.
Bradford Kuhn, Nossaman, City/Respondent, gave an Opening Statement and
Presentation of Facts.
Mr. Garfinkle replied to the City/Respondent Opening Statement and Presentation of
Facts.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether Mr. Garfinkle's Exhibit 3 attached to his
Complaint is the full set of documents he received that produced by the City.
Mr. Garfinkle responded in the negative; stated much of what was produced was
repetitious threads.
Commissioner LoPilato clarified that she was asking about the larger exhibit which was
1,052 pages.
Mr. Garfinkle responded he thought he had pulled out the larger exhibit.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she is trying to gauge whether the Commission has
visibility into the full scope of the production, which sounds uncertain; inquired whether
Mr. Garfinkle inquired about any of the specific redactions with the City Attorney's office
representative that was communicating with him about the production before filing the
Complaint.
Mr. Garfinkle responded that he does not know if he did; stated it took him a long time, at
least a couple of weeks, to go through all the documents; while his Complaint was about
the lack of explanation, he was also looking at what was being expressed between the
lobbyists and City staff, much of what he thought was inappropriate; it was not just a
matter of the redactions; he could not file a Complaint about what they were talking about,
his Complaint was about the quality of the redactions; among all of the communications,
he felt a number were inappropriate.
Commissioner LoPilato clarified that her question is whether Mr. Garfinkle inquired about
why there was a redaction, to which Mr. Garfinkle responded in the negative; stated the
City Attorney's office is required to provide it, he should not have to ask for it.
Commissioner Reid thanked Mr. Garfinkle for bringing his Complaint forward; inquired
what type of information would be exempt related to draft position statements and why
the documents were redacted if they are just conversations regarding the legislative
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
10",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,11,"agenda between the City lobbyists and staff.
Mr. Kuhn responded the Public Records Act makes a specific exception for documents
governed by the deliberative process privilege; City staff need the ability to comment on,
exchange dialogue and share information that goes into the City's decision-making
process candidly and confidentially without having all of the draft documents or decisions
made available to the public; the Court has said exposing the agency's decision-making
process would discourage candid discussions within the agency and undermine the
agency's ability to perform its functions; some documents not subject to attorney-client
privilege are still not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act (PRA); draft
documents and iterative process are not typically turned over to the public because it
would discourage and prevent the City from engaging in a candid and open dialogue,
sharing ideas, understanding the basis for certain positions and making revisions without
having it be completely open, disclosed, and nitpicked when just trying to gather
information.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether the deliberative process goes beyond City staff, to
which Mr. Kuhn responded it would include consultants and lobbyists as well.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether the reason is because it would cause harm to the
City.
Mr. Kuhn responded in the affirmative; stated if every document was made available to
the public, it would discourage candid conversations; everyone would be too worried
about putting a draft together or commenting on drafts and exchanging ideas without
being able to fully vet and understand different positions.
Commissioner Reid inquired how that reconciles with open government and the fact that
the public has a right to know the City's process.
Mr. Kuhn responded the law makes a specific finding that disclosure of certain
deliberative process discussions would inhibit the free and candid communication
between staff; it is a finding of the law that allows the iterative process to take place before
things are completely opened and shared.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Mr. Kuhn stated the City produced
documents on a rolling basis; six batches of documents were produced; some batches
had no redactions, some had a few; in the case where there were redactions, there was
an explanation provided about the basis or reasoning why certain records were redacted
when the documents were produced.
Commissioner Reid stated her understanding is the PRA requires the City to explain
precisely why there was a redaction in whole or in part; she does not see it in the
examples.
Mr. Kuhn stated the City's Position Statement includes cover emails explaining the basis
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
11",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,12,"and reasons why certain documents were withheld; for example, when a document
redacted based on the deliberative process privilege, staff indicated information was
withheld based on the grounds that disclosure would inhibit the free and candid
communication between staff and their agents on matters within their purview; that is what
was provided and required under the law; the City is not required to go through every
single email and provide an exact, precise explanation on every single redaction,
especially with thousands of pages of documents.
Commissioner LoPilato stated it appears the Complainant is making an argument that the
passage of Proposition 59 in 2004 essentially weakened the deliberative process
privilege; requested Mr. Kuhn talk a little bit about the legal landscape related to the
deliberative process and whether that has shifted post 2004 or if the current state of affairs
has changed anything.
Mr. Kuhn stated that he does not think anything has changed with respect to what is
before the Commission tonight; Proposition 59 is meant to be a Sunshine Ordinance
provision and placed a statute of limitations restricting access to certain meetings and
records, but it does not suddenly place additional burdens or obligations, or make
additional records available to the public.
Mr. Garfinkle gave a Closing Statement.
Mr. Kuhn gave a Closing Statement.
Speaker:
Ryan LaLonde, Alameda, thanked the Commission for former Commissioner Shabazz's
webinar on the Public Records Act and how to submit requests; stated that he received
PRA documents from the County District Attorney's office; the documents Mr. Garfinkle
received from the City are the same type as the ones he received from the County,
including cover letters stating why there are redactions; there is opportunity to ask for
clarification, which he did and the County sent additional information; follow-up is
important; Mr. Garfinkle decided not to submit the cover letters that came with the email
production; in his case, he worked with the County to get the specific documents he
needed, it was not a fishing expedition; Mr. Garfinkle's Complaint is unfounded in the fact
that there was no due diligence on his part to actually get to the bottom of what he really
wanted.
Commissioner Reid stated the PRA provides protections for the disclosure of documents;
she questions whether or not the exemptions were justified; she does not see that the
deliberative process privilege outweighs the importance of the public receiving the
information; she does not see specific information on the disclosures provided in the
documents themselves.
Commissioner Chen stated that she has the same question as the speaker; the
documents did not include the emailed explanation of the redactions.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
12",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,13,"In response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated the cover
emails stating the reasons for the redactions are exhibits to the City's Position Statement;
Exhibit 8 includes the deliberative process privilege, which Mr. Garfinkle did not include.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated Exhibit 2, the City's
Position Statement, includes exhibits that are clearly outlined and contain the cover
letters.
Commissioner Reid stated the question is whether or not the PRA provides transparency
in the redactions; questioned why some documents are more redacted than others.
Commissioner LoPilato stated sometimes a redaction is a portion of a document;
sometimes it is a larger portion of a document; the proper process should be that if
someone receives six batches of a rolling production over 1,100 pages and has questions
about specific redactions, reach back out to the City for clarification; she did not see any
attempt to do so; if there was evidence that the City was not responsive to follow-up
questions, she would want to flag that as a possible recommendation for better
transparency; unfortunately, the Complainant made no attempt to gain clarification about
any of the documents; there is no obligation under the law to provide an explanation of
redactions document by document; she is inclined to deny the Complaint and really
wishes there had been some attempt for clarification or follow-up on the part of the
Complainant.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the language
she advises the Commission to look at is Government Code Section 6255, Subsection A
which is a provision of the PRA; it states that: ""the agency shall justify withholding any
record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under expressed provisions
of this chapter, or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not
disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the
record;"" the provision itself does not provide any specificity for going item by item; further
interpretation is found in Case law; in this instance, Case law speaks to how the California
Supreme Court has spoken to what Code Section 6255 actually requires; the Supreme
Court found in Section 6255, Subsection A that a requestor was not entitled to a specific
log; the reasoning is that in the PRA, the legislature went to great lengths to impose very
specific requirements in certain cases; the Supreme Court opined that if a public agency
was required to enumerate each time and each record and what the various exception
was for each record, it could have done so and chose not to; it was extrapolated that a
blanket explanation is sufficient; the Case cited is Haney VS. Superior Court; the PRA
does not require an itemized list of every single redaction in a document request; a blanket
email with an explanation, such as the one the City provided, would be acceptable under
the PRA.
Commissioner Reid moved approval of sustaining the Complaint and to cure and correct,
so that Mr. Garfinkle receives a thorough explanation of why the documents were
redacted.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
13",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,14,"The motion failed due to a lack of second.
Commissioner Reid moved approval of dismissing the Complaint on procedural grounds
asking that Mr. Garfinkle work with the City Attorney and City Clerk's offices to understand
a little more of why the redactions occurred.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the dismissal is for procedural or jurisdictional
defects; jurisdictional would be if the Commission did not have the authority to make a
decision on the Complaint or it is something totally out of the Commission's purview;
procedural grounds would be that some sort of procedure was not followed in the actual
making of the Complaint; the most classic example would be if a Complainant filed their
Complaint after the deadline; stated that she is not sure whether dismissal is really what
Commissioner Reid intends.
The motion failed due to a lack of second.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Chair Tilos stated the five options are: 1)
Complaint sustained with cure and correct recommendation, 2) Complaint sustained
without cure and correct recommendation, 3) Complaint denied, 4) Complaint denied as
unfounded, and 5) Complaint dismissed on jurisdictional or procedural grounds.
Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of denying the Complaint as unfounded.
Commissioner Reid suggested a friendly amendment to deny the Complaint, but not
determine it unfounded, as it would be a harsh penalty to the Complainant.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she is inclined to second the motion; she wrestles with
the unfounded distinction solely on the basis of what a layperson may interpret; it comes
down to what a reasonable community member making a PRA would think.
Chair Tilos stated as a non-lawyer person, he is leaning toward unfounded; the City did
its due diligence; the Chief Assistant City Attorney also explained the California Supreme
Court's position regarding redactions on PRAs.
In response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry, Chair Tilos added a minute to everyone's
clock.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that she did not accept the friendly amendment to the
motion.
Commissioner Chen stated that she has been frustrated with the Complaint because it
kept changing every few hours and there was no time limit; there was opportunity for the
Complainant to do more due diligence; this is not the first Complaint he has filed; on one
hand, she does not want to find it unfounded because it seems severe; on the other hand,
the Complainant had the opportunity to prepare a more solid Complaint; the speaker's
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
14",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,15,"experience and back-and-forth communication with the County on a similar PRA seems
like a more reasonable and collaborative process; she supports the unfounded finding.
Commissioner Reid stated that punishing members of the public for bringing forth a PRA
Complaint goes against the values of open government; she is very disappointed in the
unfounded finding because of the harsh punishment.
Commissioner LoPilato seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Reid: No; Chair Tilos: Aye.
Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
***
Chair Tilos called a recess at 10:04 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:12 p.m.
***
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A. Selection of Vice Chair
Commissioner Chen moved approval of Commissioner LoPilato being Vice Chair.
Commissioner Montgomery seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner LoPilato stated that she does not think the Vice Chair
should automatically advance to the Chair role in January and could be anyone
interested.
Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated that he would likely step down;
the Vice Chair is the logical choice; he was reluctant when he was voted as Chair, but
allowing all members an opportunity and experience to Chair is important.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she is happy to take on the role of Vice Chair until the
election in January based on the Commission's constitution at that point.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Abstain; Montgomery: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1.
4-B. Minutes of the September 20, 2021 and October 4, 2021 Meetings
Commissioner Chen moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner LoPilato seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.
Ayes: 5.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
15",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,16,"4-C. Report to City Council on Issues Arising from Implementation of the Sunshine
Ordinance
Commissioner Chen gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she does not think the report is quite in shape to send
to the City Council; it was a huge undertaking; she is refining her thoughts on it; the
Commission is required to do the reports at least once annually; Complaints are still
coming in for 2021; suggested moving the plan to finalize the report closer to January;
she is mindful that certain things already feel outdated; specifically Recommendation #3,
the City already is publishing the legislative agenda.
Commissioner Chen stated work on the Complaint Procedure and form took out half of
the recommendations; she feels the relationship with the City Attorney's office is much
improved; the report can be updated on an ongoing basis; she concurs with
Commissioner LoPilato regarding the timing.
Chair Tilos stated the Commission could hold off until January.
Commissioner Chen stated things can be lost during the turnover of members; the report
is a living document like the Bylaws.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the report should be grounded in the statute; some of the
recommendations read like directives; leading with an explanation and background of
what the Sunshine Ordinance actually says may be a better approach; the
recommendations could be reviewed item-by-item; it is important to look at the accuracy
and weight that is given to some of the language; the Commission's role should be
neutral; the report seems more like an advocacy piece; it might be better received and
more effective if it is more neutral and has a gatekeeper tone; the City Council needs to
give direction to the Commission and staff on what work the Commission should do in
addition to hearing Complaints; the expectations of what the Commission does is a bit
limited.
***
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated a vote was needed to consider
new items at 10:30 p.m. but since it was missed, the next item could be bumped; a vote
is needed to continue past 11:00 p.m.
***
Commissioner Chen stated she would like to have the report come back on the January
agenda.
4-D. Consider Amending the Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Form. Not heard.
STAFF UPDATE
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
16",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,17,"The City Clerk stated that when the last Sunshine Ordinance amendments were adopted,
prior Complaints and decisions were to be posted on the OGC website, which has been
done; she welcomes any feedback.
The City Clerk further stated that she worked on the Complaint Procedure glossary and
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section and will send it out to the Commissioners for
feedback.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney announced a Citywide Sunshine Ordinance training for
all Board and Commission members would be in mid-December; she will be doing a
training for the OGC at a public meeting in January.
COMMISSION AGENDA REQUESTS
None.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None.
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 10:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
17",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-10-28,1,"City of Alameda, California
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THURSDAY, October 28, 2021
APPROVED MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Sarah Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:02pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sarah Lewis, Vice President Kristin Furuichi Fong, Board members
Dianne Yamashiro-Omi, Priya Jagannathan, Samantha Green, Scott Means.
Absent: Board member Tony Lewis (unexcused).
City staff: Lois Butler, Veronika Cole, and Eric Fonstein (Secretary to the Board).
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3-A 2021- - 1434 Review and Approve September 23, 2021 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes of September 23, 2021 was made by Vice President
Furuichi Fong and seconded by Board member Yamashiro-Omi. Ayes: President S. Lewis,
Vice President Furuichi Fong, Board members Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, and
Means. Nays: none. Motion passed 6-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. AGENDA ITEMS
5-A Discussion with Former SSHRB members
Jennifer Williams (President, Board of Education, Alameda Unified School District) and
Doug Biggs (Executive Director, Alameda Point Collaborative) introduced themselves and
provided a brief biography and background, detailing their previous roles and
responsibilities while serving as a Board member for SSHRB.
Board members expressed appreciation for their attendance and insight. Following is a
summary of questions from the Board members:
What were specific actions which benefitted the community?
Looking back, was there any unfinished business which you wished had been
highlighted?
Asked for additional suggestions for the current SSHRB members.
Following is a summary of suggestions from Jennifer Williams and Doug Biggs:
Much of SSHRB's work affects the lives of Alameda's most vulnerable populations.",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-10-28.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-10-28,2,"One of SSHRB's core function is to identify community needs. SSHRB
standardized its assessment tool to be used for CDBG grants.
Emphasized the importance of focusing on human relations in the aftermath of the
pandemic and the planning of strategic events/focus groups (examples include
""Alamedans Together Against Hate"" and the ""In the Mix"" workshop).
Ensuring that the City of Alameda is receiving benefits from Alameda County, which
we are legally entitled to. Reaching out to surrounding cities for insight and
collaboration.
Highlighted the urgency to assist the homeless community and unsheltered
families, and the need to educate the community about the needs of the most
vulnerable.
The Community Service Awards were created to celebrate volunteerism and to help
recruit SSHRB members.
5-B Discuss Agenda for SSHRB ""Retreat""
President S. Lewis introduced Renato Almanzor, Retreat Facilitator.
Renato Almanzor provided a brief biography and explained his approach to facilitating,
especially how to access feeling and opinions to achieve optimal outcome. Mr. Almanzor
asked Board members what they would like to know, feel and be able to do, following the
retreat.
Board members highlight the following goals:
Getting to know the other Board members, their visions for the Board, and what
they would like to accomplish
Develop a further sense of community amongst each other, building a foundation
or trust, cooperation, and unity
Establishing a clear feasible set of priorities that can be accomplished in 12
months
Identify individual strengths and connections to ensure maximum effectiveness
How to consider perspectives not represented on the Board
Mr. Fonstein confirmed the SSHRB ""Retreat"" subcommittee will meet again on November
1 to finalize the retreat agenda.
5-C Review and Comment on the Draft Climate Adaptation and Hazard
Mitigation Plan
Danielle Mieler, the City of Alameda's Sustainability and Resilience Manager, presented
on the Draft Climate Adaptation and Hazard Mitigation Plan, highlighting the following key
segments:
Addressing the natural and climate induced hazards that impact the City
Create a more disaster-resistant and resilient community
Eligibility for hazard mitigation assistance programs
Current local hazard mitigation plan was approved by FEMA in November 2016 -
Must be updated every 5 years
Soft-story building program
Wood framed buildings program
Resilient electrical service
Public education and outreach",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-10-28.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-10-28,3,"Emergency transportation planning
Emergency fuel agreements
Citywide sea level rise adaptation plan
Board members thanked Ms. Mieler for her presentation and confirming the immediate
need to address the sea level rising.
Board President Lewis expressed concern surrounding community fear and the lack of
education pertaining to sea level. She pointed out that we can do much to mitigate the
risks we face.
Board member Means suggested verbiage be changed to person first language (i.e.
Disabled to Persons with disabilities and Elderly or seniors)
Board member Yamashiro-Omi stated that the report seemed to be missing an action
plan for some of the vulnerable population during a crisis. In additional, she asked
why the report did not include cost estimated for proposed work plan. Ms. Mieler
answered that cost projects will be further developed.
5-D Workgroup Reports
Homeless Action Plan Workgroup: A motion to move report to after the Community
Service Awards was made by Board member Yamashiro-Omi and seconded by
Board member Green. Ayes: President S. Lewis, Vice President Furuichi Fong,
Board members Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, and Means. Nays: none.
Motion passed 6-0.
Domestic Violence: Mr. Fonstein confirmed the next quarterly meeting will be on
December 9.
Community Service Awards: Board Vice President Furuichi Fong reported that the
events program is close to being completed. The food and entertainment for the
event has been set. She asked for Board member volunteers to present awards
(either live via zoom, or pre-recorded). Board members Yamashiro-Omi,
Jagannathan, Green, and Means all volunteered.
Homeless Action Plan Workgroup: Ms. Butler provided an update following recent
meeting, highlighting the below key segments:
Alameda Food Bank has announced the implementation of Mobile Van
services
Alameda Point Collaboration confirmed that North Housing is being finalized
(estimate 90 units), and that 100% of individuals selected will come from the
Coordinated Entry List.
Building Futures, Women and Children: Outreach teams are currently
working in Alameda. Food is being provided by Christ Church with laundry
services on Thursdays, and some car repair services. The Midway Shelter
is currently at 60% capacity, with 80% confirmed to be vaccinated.
Dine & Connect is serving up to 106 meals, 4 to 5 times a month (depending
on the number of Monday's per month).
Eden I&R 211 stated an issue with current hold times (one instance
exceeded 90 minutes). They have added two more staff members and are",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-10-28.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-10-28,4,"looking for help to encourage both tenants and landlords to utilize rental
assistance programs.
Mastick Senior Center: They reported that seniors are excited to start
moving back inside for meals, which is complemented with the continuing
""grab and go"" service.
Board member Green volunteered to attend future meetings and help with
reporting back to SSHRB.
5-E Schedule November/December Special SSHRB Meeting
Mr. Fonstein confirmed the need to combine the November/December meeting due to
holidays. Proposed the following dates: December 2, December 9 and December 16. All
of the Board members, except Board member Green, confirmed their availability on
December 9 for the next SSHRB meeting.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Homelessness Updates and Initiatives
Feed Alameda's last date was on October 13. Program is now closed.
Transitional Housing Program (community cabins/tiny homes)-Staff issued an
RFP and selected a service provider. Staff to bring the program to City Council for
recommendation on November 16. The site on 5th and Stargell, will provide 46
units.
Encampments-Ms. Butler reported that Main Street encampment has been moved
from one side of the street to the other, to ensure hazardous waste is not getting
into the estuary. The Alameda Police Department cleared the encampment on
private property behind Encinal Terminal.
Homeless Housing Assistance Program (HHAP) funding - No additional update.
The City of Alameda entered into an agreement with Building Futures to provide
Warming Shelter Services with a hotel (7 rooms for unhoused/unhealthy
individuals). Ms. Butler reported that the Day Center will be open for extended
hours (9am-8pm), 365 days a year.
7.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
President Lewis adjourned the meeting at 9:16 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Fonstein, Board Secretary",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-10-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-10-27,1,"Approved Minutes
Transportation Commission
Special Meeting
Wednesday, October 27, 2021
Time:
Chair Samantha Soules convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Location:
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 codified at Government Code Section 54953,
Transportation Commissioners can attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allows public
participation via Zoom.
Legistar Link:
https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=898688&GUID=FAAC6994-94BA-4EED-
96B5-18C9183B36BD&Options=info/&Search=
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Nachtigall, Kohlstrand, Hans and
Weitze.
Absent: Commissioner Randy Rentschler
2. Agenda Changes
None.
3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182984&GUID=3D056E3F-2689-
40BE-8934-A82B73813818&FullText=1.
4. Announcements / Public Comments
Yahav Kimel Green, a 9-year-old Alameda resident, expressed the need for more crosswalks or
slow signs on Wood or Chapin Street to make it easier and safer for children walking to school.
Jill Staten brought up issues with the Slow Streets and did not feel that they were any safer.
5.
Consent Calendar
5A. Approve Draft Meeting Minutes - September 22, 2021 (Action Item)",TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-10-27,2," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182985&GUID=6CFE355D-9085-
46A7-84A4-6FB800501F57&FullText=1.
Commissioner Scott Weitze clarified his comments for Agenda item 6-C, his concern was for the
scheduling, he felt the scheduling could be better.
Commissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand clarified her comments for Agenda item 6-B.
Commissioner Weitze made a motion to approve the minutes with these edits and Vice-Chair Tina
Yuen seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 4-0,
Commissioners Nachtigall and Hans abstained due to their absence at this meeting.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of the Vision Zero Action Plan (Lisa Foster, Senior
Transportation Coordinator) (Action Item)
Lisa Foster, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The
staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182986&GUID=2C8EE9A4-BCB9-
4772-AAFD-3E9D1F4C119C&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A
Commissioner Weitze asked about the socially vulnerable area around Webster and the Webster
Tube since there was not much of a population there and asked if another analysis has been done
since the map updates.
Staff Member Foster said they had not done another analysis since removing certain areas but they
were planning on updating the Socially Vulnerable Map.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about the High-Injury Corridor Map and wanted to know why
the number differed online from what was in the plan.
Staff Member Foster said she would double-check that information and make sure they had the
most recent map.
Public Comments for #6A",TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-10-27,3,"Jay Garfinkle was concerned that the 2035 goal was too far away and that this plan removed
personal responsibility and put too much emphasis on system changes. He wanted the staff and
Public Works to look into the effect construction has on collisions.
Cyndy Johnsen, Bike Walk Alameda, expressed her support for the Vision Zero Plan. She
discussed how for too long the emphasis had been on cars and thought this plan was a good move
away from being a car-centric culture.
Carmen Reid brought attention to streets that needed repair, specifically on Lafayette between
Clinton and Encinal, also portions of Encinal Avenue between Grand Street and Park Street. She
suggested additional signage and lights to help with speeding. She also suggested a robust
repainting campaign to make crosswalks more visible.
Karen Bey from the Fifth Street Neighborhood group was concerned that the plan did not address
the car racing that was happening on the West End and Fifth Street. She discussed safety requests
that would help tackle illegal racing.
Jim Strehlow believed that system changes would never be able to eliminate drunk
driver/pedestrian/cyclist collisions. He also questioned and had issues about how they captured the
data, he did not think it was the fault of the corridors but the people who used them instead.
Marilyn Alwan supported Karen Bey's comments and asked for proactive actions for Fifth Street.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A
Vice Chair Yuen pointed out that the High Injury Corridor Map from the plan was different than
what was on the website. She asked that it be reconciled before the plan was finalized.
Staff Member Foster said that she would follow up to make sure which one was the correct one
and would get that fixed.
Commissioner Kohlstrand thought the plan was a great effort and supported moving the goal to
2035 and cautioned the need for adequate budgeting. She also wanted staff to look into car racing
on slow streets, design changes cannot change bad behavior but there were things they could do.
She also discussed the High Injury Corridor Map, had questions about certain areas and wanted
clarification on the findings and designations. She gave suggestions on areas that needed more
attention and changes in designations. She felt strongly about these designations and wanted to
make sure they got the appropriate attention.",TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-10-27,4,"Staff Member Foster addressed the car racing concerns, and said that the commission could direct
them to add actions specific to car racing. She discussed that it was a data-based map and that she
would double check the data.
Chair Soules discussed how the data had been collected and that it was dependent on the public
input. She wanted to know if that was a fair assessment.
Staff Member Foster said that along with police reports for data they also were using See Click
Fix. Since some people did not file police reports, they looked at other ways of collecting data.
Vice Chair Yuen recommended double-checking the data and how the high injury corridors were
identified. She also wanted to see a separate map of the near misses.
Commissioner Alysha Nachtigall discussed her experience of living on Buena Vista and which
areas needed attention.
Commissioner Weitze discussed improvements planned for city vehicles and felt that would
require a lot of money with not much gain. He also felt that ""alcohol adjacent areas"" should also
be included in the section about collisions. He wanted to see Alameda Police be on board and
supportive of automatic speed readers and felt that staff had done a great job with outreach.
Commissioner Nachtigall thanked staff and everyone involved for their hard work on this plan.
She was happy to see that equity had been included when discussing traffic safety and supported
the time frame being reduced by five years. She looked forward to seeing the emphasis on
education and the potential Infrastructure Rapid Response Program.
Chair Soules supported this bold and aggressive target to try to reach. She believed that design
leveled the playing field and technology was a worthwhile investment, which would have long-
term impacts. She also believed that data integrity was important because of environmental justice
and would skew against disadvantaged communities.
Vice Chair Yuen thanked staff for their leadership on this great plan. She was excited to see the
plan's implementation to make Alameda safer.
Vice Chair Yuen made a motion to endorse the Vision Zero Plan for City Council to adopt with
the amendments stated for speeding/racing, for focusing on enforcement near establishments that
serve alcohol, and the recommendation that the High-Injury Corridor Map be checked for
accuracy. Commissioner Weitze seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and
the motion passed 6-0.",TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-10-27,5,"6B. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of the Slow Streets Recommendations (Rochelle
Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator) (Action Item)
Rochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a
presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182987&GUID=6B504F66-005A-
 46C2-BEF4-BAA9D3A49881&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B
Commissioner Weitze asked about the stats on the reduction of collisions. He also asked that staff
clarify why Versailles was chosen and maintained as a Slow Street.
Staff Member Wheeler discussed the reduction in collision numbers. She then explained the
criteria and reasons why Versailles was chosen as a Slow Street.
Chair Soules asked if the staff's recommendation was an all-or-nothing endorsement. She
reminded the commission that amendments could come after public comments.
Staff Member Wheeler said this was just the staff's recommendation. The commission could
modify this in any way, remove a street or change a street segment.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to know if Pearl Street could be an alternative choice to Versailles.
Staff Member Wheeler explained why Versailles was a better choice over Pearl Street.
Commissioner Michael Hans wanted to know why Orion had such negative feedback and what
criteria would have to be met for a Slow Street to be removed.
Staff Member Wheeler discussed that given how short the Orion Slow Street is, few people are
using it, and therefore there is not so much negative feedback as a lack of strong support to
maintain it. For criteria, staff looked at the traffic statistics, plus public comment to make a
determination.
Public Comments for #6B",TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-10-27,6,"Jay Garfinkle thought this study was scientifically unsound, the data was biased, the whole effort
was misleading, and that the public was being manipulated.
Cyndy Johnson, Bike Walk Alameda, expressed her support for the staff's recommendation to
extend and enhance the Slow Streets Program. She discussed all the ways this program had
benefited Alameda and wanted the expansion of the program to include connections to Jean
Sweeney Park (JSOSP).
Michael Sullivan was excited to hear that the program might expand. He suggested adding more
barricades and wanted to see the slow streets connected to form a network.
Cameron Holland, Bike Walk Alameda, discussed what an asset this program had been for
Alameda. She thought this program was a great way to combat speeding and wanted to see better
signage on the Slow Streets. She urged the board to approve the staff's recommendation.
Carmen Reid expressed concern about San Jose, especially by Chestnut and Willow, and thought
that the slow street should be removed.
Jill Staten wanted to see Versailles Street removed from the program. She cited that on the survey
over 50 percent of residents on this street wanted it removed.
Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda, thanked the staff and thought the program had been a
success. She discussed how this program was in line with fighting climate change.
Jeanne Lahaie voiced her support for the Slow Streets Program. She also voiced her concern for
the intersections at Bayview, Shoreline, and Broadway and wanted to see more barricades for the
bike lanes.
Jim Strehlow thought this was a failed experiment and that the program encouraged bad habits on
non-slow streets.
Jen Whatley doubted and had concerns about the survey results. She also felt that the barricades
were a distraction and that there was more of an impact on side streets than acknowledged. She
felt like the citizens of Alameda were being tricked.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B",TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-10-27,7,"Commissioner Kohlstrand said she supported this program and thought that it fit in with the city's
overall objective of reducing greenhouse gases. She did have concerns about Versailles and San
Jose after hearing the comments. She stated that since Versailles and Gibbons were used as
collectors they needed to be evaluated as part of the street classifications in the General Plan
update. She wanted staff to do more exploration in the neighborhoods around San Jose and
Versailles, and to see if Pearl could be a better alternative to Versailles.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to see how this program would work in a post-COVID world for at
least a year. He pointed out that it was confusing at the intersections where Slow Streets end and
wanted to see better signage here.
Commissioner Nachtigall was in support of the Slow Streets Program. She also wanted to see
signage that clarified where the slow streets began/ended and for them to connect to the Cross
Alameda Trail in JSOSP.
Vice Chair Yuen supported the staff's recommendations and thanked everyone for their comments.
She recommended that staff keep the survey open to gather additional comments for the remainder
of the year.
Commissioner Weitze expressed concern for fatigue if people felt that a street was being cut off
for them, and that frustrated drivers were not safe drivers.
Chair Soules supported the original concept but struggled with the extension due to the skewed
data and issues with inequities. She wanted the parallel streets to be considered and wanted to
follow established processes with more community outreach.
Commissioner Weitze wanted Pearl to be studied but did not want to remove Versailles.
Vice Chair Yuen wanted to see more data collected through the Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
process to leverage the existing planning process and use the more traditional approach to outreach.
She wanted to study Versailles as part of the ATP process.
Chair Soules made a motion to approve the staff's recommendation with the amendments to
evaluate Pearl St as an alternative to Versailles and to have more community input specifically
from parallel streets along with the ATP. Commissioner Weitze seconded the motion. A vote was
taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 6-0.
*Commissioner Weitze had to excuse himself. There was still a quorum to continue the meeting.",TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-10-27,8,"6C. Review and Comment on the Draft Climate Adaptation and Hazard Mitigation Plan
(Danielle Mieler, Sustainability, and Resilience Manager) (Discussion Item)
Danielle Mieler, Sustainability and Resilience Manager, introduced the item and gave a
presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182988&GUID=446D7CFB-1B78-
4177-819F-50203E0C9CA4&FullText=1.
Public Comments for #6C
Jim Strehlow discussed the issues around tsunami evacuation planning for the island.
Chair Soules pointed out emergency planning tools and education that were available on the city's
website.
Commissioner Comments and Discussion for #6C
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know if currently there were no lifelines designated to get off
the island.
Staff Member Mieler said as of now that was correct.
Commissioner Kohlstrand agreed with establishing lifelines as a high priority. She encouraged
more planning for natural disasters and having different alternatives for getting off the island.
Staff Member Mieler discussed different scenarios and what had been planned.
Staff Member Payne noted that the state has modeled the ability to evacuate for a tsunami and
showed it is possible within the timeframe needed.
Chair Soules was concerned about tsunamis and wanted more coordination with AC Transit,
especially at Alameda Point. She also wants more outreach, especially to seniors.
6D. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of Parking Program and Fund Reorganization and
Moving Parking Enforcement from Police to Public Works (Lisa Foster, Senior
Transportation Coordinator) (Action Item)",TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-10-27,9,"Staff Member Foster introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments
can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182989&GUID=FBA40E71-EB91-
45E6-B7B4-1F790A336070&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6D
Chair Soules asked about parking enforcement at Harbor Bay Ferry and wanted to know if this
would relieve APD and be more cost effective.
Staff Member Foster answered yes and that more staffing would help. Enforcing parking time
limits by hand was difficult.
Public Comment for #6D
Carmen Reid was concerned about having paid parking at Seaplane Lagoon and wanted it to be
free to address equity issues.
Carol Gottstein expressed concern for how ALPRs (Automated License Plate Readers) would look
at the plates of cars that didn't have handicap plates but instead had a handicap placard in the
window.
Christy Cannon promoted the new bus line, #78, that would serve the Seaplane Lagoon. It would
go from Fruitvale BART through Alameda to the Seaplane Lagoon. She also pointed out that
having paid parking would be a major motivation to use that bus.
Jim Strehlow felt that parking places were being reduced too much all over the island. He was also
100 percent against the use of ALPRs and wanted the police to continue to enforce parking rules.
Commissioner Comments and Discussion for #6D
Vice Chair Yuen endorsed the staff recommendation. She did want to focus on and tie in equity to
make sure that low-income groups would not be disproportionally affected by parking fees or fines.
She added that police focus should be on crime and that parking enforcement would not be the
best use of their time.",TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-10-27,10,"Commissioner Kohlstrand discussed charging for parking at Seaplane Lagoon and wanted to make
sure it was equal at the other ferries as well. She also agreed with separating parking enforcement
from police duties and was ready to endorse this recommendation.
Staff Member Foster addressed the public comment about ALPRs reading window placards, this
issue would not be a problem.
Chair Soules provided input on considerations for lower operations and maintenance costs, and to
consider electrification and equity issues, especially with curb management. She wanted to see a
privacy policy that reflected the city's values to not introduce risk and to offer a cost-effective
parking payment program. She also wanted vendors to meet PII compliance and to look at San
Francisco and BART for their privacy policy.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to endorse the City Council's Adoption of the Parking
Program and Fund Reorganization and Moving Parking Enforcement from Police to Public Works.
Chair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 5-
0.
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Chair Soules reminded everyone to watch out for Trick or Treaters this Halloween and that APD
would do a free car seat assessment.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 10:22 p.m.",TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-25,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2021
1. CONVENE
Vice President Teresa Ruiz convened the meeting* at 7:00 p.m.
*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning
Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Hanson Hom led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Vice President Ruiz and Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros,
and Teague.
Absent: President Asheshh Saheba
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-1418
Public Hearing to consider a Resolution Recommending that the City Council Approve
Alameda General Plan 2040.
Director Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, introduced the item.
The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5187688&GUID=3C349A03-
37F7-4F71-8A92-E9OF13DBB8AA&FullText=1.
Vice President Ruiz opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Hom asked for a summarization of the substantive changes to the General
Plan that had happened since June.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 8
October 25, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-25,2,"Director Thomas discussed the number of revisions they had received and how they had
integrated those changes. He said most of the concerns and changes had revolved
around housing. He discussed some of the biggest changes and the issues that were
being addressed.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg thanked the staff for all their hard work. She suggested
that staff review the comments and suggestions from the Alameda Architecture
Preservation Society (AAPS) and incorporate them if they were relevant.
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros also thanked the staff as well for their hard work. She
wanted to confirm that the ""Housing Growth Opportunity Areas"" in the General Plan wasn't
final.
Director Thomas explained how the Spotlights is the General Plan worked. In that
Spotlight, they were trying to see where most of the growth in Alameda would be over 20
years. That map was not inclusive of all the sites they will need to consider for the Housing
Element.
Board Member Cisneros asked for clarification on where information and plans for bicycle
boulevards had gone.
Director Thomas discussed how the staff had thought about that term and how it should
be defined once it was adopted. They had backed away from ME-7 and focused on Slow
Streets.
Board Member Alan Teague asked how changes they made would be presented to the
City Council. He suggested how the changes could be presented to the council.
Director Thomas answered that they would like to bring the board's recommendations to
the council and have the council adopt the General Plan with those additional changes
but he was open to Board Member Teague's suggestion.
Vice President Ruiz asked for clarification between The General Plan and the Housing
Element, for the board's and the public's benefit. These are two living documents and she
wanted to assure the public that the General Plan could move forward while the Housing
Element was still being considered.
Director Thomas agreed and discussed the differences between The General Plan and
the Housing Element and the unique work that went into both of them. He also discussed
the difficult and important work that would be needed for the Housing Element, under state
law it needed to be completed by this time next year.
Vice President Ruiz opened public comment.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 8
October 25, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-25,3,"Zac Bowling was very happy with the General Plan as it exists now. However, he
disagreed with some of AAPS's suggestions on language changes and the Alameda
Citizens Task Force (ACT) request to change the langue around Article 26. He fully
supported the staff's recommendation to approve the General Plan and send it to the City
Council.
William Smith, a resident, appreciated how the General Plan addressed equity in housing
needs. He gave his thoughts on what was making affordable housing difficult in some
areas. He also gave his thought on SB-9 and how Alameda should address those needs.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, discussed a letter they had sent and commented on LU-15B.
He thought a clause should have been deleted and called that to staff's attention. He also
called out some typos and errors and questioned the use of the word ""native"" for tree
removal. He discussed better wording for the tree removal section.
Betsy Mathieson, a resident, thanked Director Thomas for explaining the differences
between the General Plan and the Housing Element. She thought having a spotlight on
housing growth areas was premature.
Vice President Ruiz closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Curtis said this plan showed great work and was well laid out. He
suggested changing or toning down the language about Article 26 on the Spotlight on
page 49. He thought as it was written now it distracted from the plan.
Board Member Hom agreed that this was an excellent document. He was very impressed
with the public review period that took place during the pandemic. He agreed with the
minor amendment from AAPS to remove the word ""native"" in regards to tree preservation.
Other than that he was fine with how the document currently stood.
Board Member Rothenberg concurred with her fellow board members and also agreed
with Board Member Hom about the comments from AAPS about the trees. She also
suggested that staff consider Board Member Curtis's comment about the Spotlight on
page 49 and Board Member Cisneros's comment about the Spotlight on page 50. These
were only suggestions and she was ready to support the plan in its current draft.
Board Member Cisneros thanked the public for their comments and participation. She
discussed the Spotlight on page 50 and that she was tying it to closing to the Housing
Element and was fine with keeping it as it was. She was also amenable to editing the
Spotlight on page 49 but that it needed to be factual. She then discussed the use of the
word ""character"" as one of the four themes. She considered it a provocative word with a
certain connotation to it and could be used against some of the other goals.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 8
October 25, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-25,4,"Board Member Teague thanked everyone who participated in this and he was proud to
have his name on it. He suggested to drop ""by maximizing"" on page 30, he believed it
gave it a larger scope. His other idea was to just change the word ""constructed"" to
""allowed"" and that would include existing property. He called out LU-17 Action A, it was
an amazing action and critical to how they would move forward. He also appreciated that
a Main Street at Alameda Point was included. He also appreciated the updates to Historic
Preservation. He then gave suggestions for rewording the Spotlight on page 49. He also
gave wording suggestions for the Housing Growth Opportunities section and agreed with
the word changing for the tree preservation. He then discussed low-stress bikeways and
felt that ME-21 Ferry Parking Management needed some adjustment. He wanted City
Council to receive an updated version and not a red-line version.
Vice President Ruiz thanked everyone for their heroic effort on this. She discussed the
Spotlight on page 49 and agreed with Board Member Cisneros that they needed to state
the facts regarding Article 26. She also echoed Board Member Curtis about the wording
being divisive. She discussed the trend of people living in multi-family housing by choice
and not economic reasons, so they need to remove the stigma against multi-family
housing. She wanted the language to be more inclusive. For tree preservation, she
suggested ""non-invasive"" plants. She then discussed the use of the word ""character"" and
asked Board Member Cisneros if she had any other suggestions.
Board Member Cisneros suggested balance. She also discussed her issues with the word
character in depth.
Director Thomas explained how they had broadened the theme of the word character in
the General Plan and that many of the comments discussed Alameda's unique character.
There was a discussion on the use of the word ""character"", its pros and cons, and if there
was another word that worked. Board Member Curtis felt that character worked well and
Board Member Teague did not like the word balance. Board Member Rothenberg agreed
with Board Member Teague and Curtis.
Director Thomas then clarified the notes and comments that he was hearing from the
board. He wanted to make sure he understood what the board wanted to see changed.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the General Plan with the
following changes: In LU-15-B, change the word ""constructed"" to ""allowed"" and
change the word ""maximizing"" to ""optimizing"". In regards to the Spotlight on Article
26, the ""therefore section"" be deleted and instead be changed to ""the city must
either repeal this article or mitigate its impact through mechanisms like the multi-
family overlay and density bonus to gain the ability to eliminate disparities and
burdens provide affordable and fair access to housing and social-economic
opportunities to historically underserved and underrepresented populations"". On
page 50, change the word ""these"" to ""some"". On page 71, change the word ""native""
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 8
October 25, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-25,5,"to ""non-invasive"". On page 97 about the ferry terminal, strike from the documents
""such as rebates on needs-based parking passes"". Board Member Hom seconded
the motion and a roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
7-B 2021-1419
A Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to
accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the Period 2023-2031 in
Compliance with State Law.
Vice President Ruiz recused herself from this agenda item and yielded the chair to Board
Member Rothenberg.
Director Thomas introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5187690&GUID=5F160E3A
308F-4586-AC17-656E73493D12&FullText=1.
Board Member Rothenberg opened public comments.
Zac Bowling gave his thoughts on upzoning residential areas. He believed the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers were too high not to do that. He also
discussed that they had to get the Navy Cap removed from Alameda Point.
Betsy Mathieson, a resident, discussed Alameda's history and how past decisions were
affecting us now. Certain neighborhoods had become denser and transportation needs
had affected housing needs. She spoke strongly about protecting historic neighborhoods.
William Smith urged the board to make the Housing Element more equitable. He
discussed past issues that Alameda had faced and how important public engagement
would be. He added that there needed to be concrete provisions to further Fair Housing.
Dolores Kelleher discussed the proposals that had been given by AAPS to prevent
upzoning and density increases to reach our RHNA numbers. She wanted to see more
action on these proposals and wanted to know what had been to contact the Federal
Government about removing the Navy Cap at Alameda Point.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, discussed a 7-page letter the society had sent and said they
were still reviewing this document. The society had major concerns mainly with upzoning
the R-2 & 6 zones. He discussed ideas that AAPS had, such as looking at shopping
centers for housing.
Josh Geyer discussed the importance of housing and how Alameda needed to do more.
He was very much in favor of putting housing in parking lots but they still needed to put
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 8
October 25, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-25,6,"housing in other places, such as the Gold Coast. He said the only way to address
Alameda's past is to reverse those policies that had stopped housing.
Board Member Rothenberg closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Curtis asked about the number of units Alameda was responsible for.
Director Thomas said it was somewhere between 1-2%, Alameda's RHNA was 5,353
units. He then explained the failed appeal of that number, all the appeals from Alameda
County had been denied.
Board Member Curtis asked about the removal of the Navy Market rate Cap and said
getting that removed should be a top priority. He wanted to know what it would take to
make that happen. His point was that removing that cap would buy flexibility for the city.
Director Thomas said that staff had heard that request from the community and the council
loud and clear and that process had already begun. The Community Development and
Base Reuse Department had started that conversation with the Navy. He discussed the
other agencies that staff had reached out to for help on getting the cap removed. He made
it very clear though that as great a housing opportunity as Alameda Point was they could
not put all 5,000 units on the point, they have to spread it out over the whole city. He said
that getting the Navy to respond was going to take work from their state and federal
representatives, regional partners, and all levels of government from California to
Washington D.C.
Board Member Hom discussed the goals for sections one and two. He highlighted the goal
to end homelessness and wanted prevention to be added to the actions. He also gave his
thoughts on the Fair Housing analysis, the need to upzone residential districts, and ways
to utilize shopping centers for housing. He also gave his thoughts on negotiating with the
Navy about the cap and agreed it would take political pressure to get the Navy to respond.
Board Member Cisneros asked about SB-9 if the Housing Element complied with that.
She also brought up SB-10 and how to get some of ADUs to count toward lower income.
Director Thomas explained that was something they were still working on and discussed
how SB-9 would affect Alameda and what was already allowed in Alameda. He then
discussed ways to incentivize homeowners to deed restrict their ADUs for lower-income.
Allen Tai, City Planner, discussed how other cities were encouraging homeowners to build
ADUs by making the permit process easier and even waiving fees. Some cities required
the units to be deed restricted for affordable housing for 3-5 years.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 8
October 25, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-25,7,"Board Member Teague discussed how Alameda's RHNA should be in the first paragraph
on page 5. He then asked questions about table 2 and why low and very low were rolled
together.
Director Thomas explained the table and that it was a Housing and Community
Development (HCD) choice. He then further explained what state law allowed for very low
and low income.
Board Member Teague asked about fees and the list of developers. He then asked for an
update about HCD's response to Article 26 and wanted to know if the Housing Element
Subcommittee was still needed. He also recommended having a list of alternative sites for
sites that were not approved. He then discussed existing buildings and how important it
was to know what they currently had and that they needed a section on removing barriers
to development.
Director Thomas broke down how fees had changed and what to expect by the end of the
cycle and explained the list was a list of developers who were ready to develop Alameda
Point once allowed. He then gave an update from HCD, he said they were swamped but
he was continuing to reach out to them. He was also very much in support of keeping the
Housing Element Subcommittee. He pointed out sections that highlighted ways to remove
barriers to development.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted it to be well laid out for the public and suggested some
rewording and how to make the tables more clear. She also suggested making more
references to the Spotlight sections so people knew what tied together. She thought this
was a great start.
Vice President Ruiz rejoined the meeting.
8. MINUTES
None.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2021-1416
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent action and decisions can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5187683&GUID=7A9F9F72-
1813-4B97-BE2C-71B0289C3DOF&FullText=1.
No items were called for review.
9-B 2021-1417
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 8
October 25, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-25,8,"Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai announced that there were 3 more meetings scheduled for the calendar
year. He quickly polled the board members about their availability around the upcoming
holidays.
Director Thomas said the November 22nd meeting would mostly be zoning issues and
could be moved to the December meeting.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Vice President Ruiz adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 8 of 8
October 25, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf
PensionBoard,2021-10-25,1,"any
OF
TERKA
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., JULY 26, 2021
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:41 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft (joined at 4:45 p.m.), Secretary Nancy
Bronstein, Trustee Bill Soderlund via teleconference.
Absent: Trustee Nancy Elzig
Staff: Annie To, Finance Director, Grace Li, Finance Accountant, Chad Barr,
Human Resources Technician.
3.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 25, 2021 were moved for
acceptance by Trustee Soderlund and seconded by Secretary Nancy Bronstein.
Passed by roll call vote, 3-0.
4.
AGENDA ITEMS:
4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarters Ending June 30, 2021
and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the
Period Ending June, 2021.
Finance Accountant Li presented the quarterly reports. The total pension
expenses for Plan 1079 remained the same in April and May. June's total
pension expenses included the quarterly uniform allowance payout. Expenses
for Plan 1082 remained the same in the fourth quarter.",PensionBoard/2021-10-25.pdf
PensionBoard,2021-10-25,2,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, July 26, 2021
Page 2
Trustee Soderlund moved to accept the financial statements as presented and
Secretary Bronstein seconded. Passed by roll call vote, 3-0.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT):
There were no oral communications from the public.
6.
PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):
Trustee Soderlund asked for an update on finding a police representative for the
board. Secretary Bronstein stated Human Resources had identified current police
employees qualified to serve on the pension board, one being the Chief of Police.
That reach out is going on. Chair Aschaft said surely we will have one committed
for the next meeting.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no additional items to come before the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
me
Nancy Bronstein
Human Resources Director",PensionBoard/2021-10-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--OCTOBER 19, 2021-6:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via
Zoom. Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 6:19 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-638) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4)); Number of Cases: One (As Plaintiff - City
Initiating Legal Action - Bond Validation Action); Potential Defendants: All Interested
Persons.
(21-639) WITHDRAWN - Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54957.6); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager; Gerry Beaudin,
Assistant City Manager; and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee
Organization: Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA); 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 Litigation, staff provided information and Council did not take any action or
vote.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,2,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -OCTOBER 19, 2021--7:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:01 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
(21-640) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested City Manager Communications be moved up to allow
the new Fire Chief to be introduced.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(21-641) The City Manager introduced the new Fire Chief Nicholas Luby.
The Fire Chief made brief comments.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(21-642) Proclamation Declaring October 2021 Filipino American History Month.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
Councilmember Daysog and Vice Mayor Vella made brief comments.
(21-643) Proclamation Declaring October 2021 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
(21-644) Proclamation Declaring October as Disability Awareness Month 2021.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-645) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, expressed concern about the City's Prosecution Unit pursuing
landlords, which is resulting in significant income for the City; he believes it would be
appropriate for Council to include a summary of recent actions by the Prosecution Unit on the
agenda; discussed concerns about the Prosecution Unit.
(21-646) Marcus Holder, Alameda, stated a stadium at Howard Terminal would be crazy; traffic
in and out of the Tube is already jammed; urged correspondence for the matter be read; stated
a stadium would take away 1/7th to 1/8th of the Port capacity; the Port is the economic engine for
the region; discussed condos being built; stated building the projects with infrastructure makes
sense; expressed support for building the coliseum in the existing location.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,3,"Expressed concern about the Cultivate agreement [paragraph no. 21-652] ; stated the Planning,
Building and Transportation Department has frequently advertised its expertise; he is not clear
why the City should be spending so much money for an outside company: Jay Garfinkle,
Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White requested the Open Government Commission appointment
[paragraph no. 21-649 be removed from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the Cultivate agreement [paragraph no. 21-652 be
removed from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of 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.]
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Cultivate agreement be heard at end of the regular agenda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing the item at the end of the regular
agenda.
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.
(*21-647) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Joint City Council and Alameda
Public Financing Authority Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on September
21, 2021. Approved.
(*21-648) Ratified bills in the amount of $27,860.48.
(21-649) Recommendation to Accept a Report on the Appointment of a Member to the Open
Government Commission.
Councilmember Knox White stated Ms. Montgomery could not attend the meeting due to a last
minute issue; Ms. Montgomery has shown herself to be interested in the business of the City
and ensuring people are informed, involved, and engaged.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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.
(*21-650) Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Annual Report for the City's Rent
Program. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,19,"Mr. Morales stated that he is a Director at UFI; he has over 30 years of public and corporate
financing experience; he has a degree from the University of Michigan, a Masters of Public
Policy from Harvard University, a Masters of Business Administration in Finance and Real
Estate as a Dean's fellow from University of California Los Angeles; he has worked at
Transamerica Corporation and abroad as a Technical Advisor for the United States Treasury
and the Country of Paraguay; he has extensive derivative, mathematical and quantitative
experience doing complex financial transactions, including P3's, derivative transactions and
complex valuations and workouts.
James Wawrzyniak stated that he is Bond Counsel from the law firm Jones Hall; Jones Hall is a
bond counsel only firm which represents public agencies in public finance transactions including
POBs, lease revenue bonds and other kinds of municipal financing; the Jones Hall firm is
located in San Francisco, has been a bond counsel firm for 50 years and has represented
hundreds of cities and local agencies throughout the State; he has worked with multiple cities
around the Bay Area for the past 5 years; he previously practiced corporate law and graduated
from Harvard Law School.
Stated the idea has some merit and also carries a lot of risk; the City owes the public a thorough
vetting of the matter before issuing any bonds; he and the City Auditor have not been involved
in any discussions on the matter prior to tonight; he has not seen any public discussion; the
appendix of the presentation includes a great outline of an outreach program, which includes
Council workshops and community meetings; the City should follow the program outlined prior
to taking any final action; expressed support for putting the matter on the ballot to have voters
weigh-in; the resolution indicates the City is going for both judicial approval and approving an
issuance; Section 4 of the resolution indicates hiring a finance team, which seems premature
during the process to seek judicial approval; he is in favor of getting judicial approval; the
approval puts the City in a place to make an educated decision; the matter requires more
discussion in public and among Council; the City needs to fully understand the matter and risks:
Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer.
Questioned how the bond payments will be made, if payments are by property taxes if renters
would be charged and could landlords add the payments to rent if renters are not charged;
stated the current residents ran up the bill and should be the ones to pay; payments can be
made with money already held, such as the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding;
expressed support for the idea of paying the cost over time: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Stated that he hopes the City can follow the plan on page 34 of the presentation; the decision is
important; expressed support for a thorough analysis and considering the dollar amounts;
expressed concern about the effect and impact on possible future borrowings; discussed a
future infrastructure bond; stated that he is concerned about how the allocation of funds is going
to be amongst the two groups; expressed support for a pro-rata approach and for a discussion
on the possibility of involving voters; discussed the City of Oakland's similar experience not
working out; stated the timing of the market is a crucial element; he is not 100% sure where the
City is going; urged Council to consider the timing of the market; stated there is a long way to go
before making the decision; the public needs to be involved; further communication is needed;
future generations are stuck with the decision: Kevin Kearney, City Auditor.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about how payments will be made and any
implications for property owners.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
18",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,20,"Mr. Wawrzyniak stated the payment is through the General Fund which is the same as the
unfunded CalPERS liability; the General Fund includes property and sales tax and is available
for all purposes; the General Fund is currently paying CalPERS; instead of paying CalPERS,
there will be debt service payments on the bond; no new additional taxes would be levied.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City is currently covering pensions or
whether the City is continuing to accrue more unfunded pension liabilities.
The City Manager responded the bond would pay for the unfunded liability; stated the payment
is for unfunded liabilities, which accrued over time; moving forward CalPERS set out a schedule
and cost per employee for current and future liabilities; the current format is set; however, there
is no guarantee of payment; as more employees are hired, an extra percentage is paid per
employee.
Mr. Morales stated the normal costs are part of the current bill; the City has to pay its normal
cost at a minimum; the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) is a past due amount; the UAL is $300
million; the City has a big mountain to climb; eventually $22 million will go to approximately $30
million; as increases or other adjustments occur, the amount will fluctuate; as long as the City
makes the UAL payments, plus the $6.7 million, the City should be able to pay it off, with the
caveat of annual adjustments made by CalPERS; the liability is dynamic and ever-changing; if
the City keeps pace with the adjustments, the City should be able to keep pace with the
liabilities; CalPERS is similar to a bank; whatever deposits are made to the system, investments
are managed and trued up every year; the City could fall behind; the $30 million base liability
not being paid in cash at once would mean the $6.7 million, plus the $20 million UAL payment
and the new base of $33 million could be spread out over a typical 20 year period; it is important
to understand that the amount is not static; the liability is changing and dynamic.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City has enough money in reserves to
pay as it goes for the next five to ten years; stated that when she looks at the numbers, she
does not think the City has enough money to pay as it goes.
The Finance Director responded the normal cost is based on the percentage of payroll; each
budget cycle has to budget the costs; the City currently covers the normal costs as a
percentage of payroll; the budget is sufficient to cover the current and next year.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a chart shows the current payments as dropping at
year 10 or 15; inquired whether the City will be paying more in the last years.
Mr. Morales responded many cities have a similar profile; stated the payment schedule has a
peak; almost every agency has the peak around $32 to $33 million; credits and liabilities are
added each year, so the structure of the UAL payment increase might change as it has in the
past.
The City Manager stated the current annual UAL payments to the UAL total $557 million in
payments without financing.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how the drop from 2043 to 2044 occurs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,21,"Mr. Morales responded that he has structured the POBs to match the dollar amount of the final
years; stated bonds are done in $5,000 increments; the image shown is as close as possible
mathematically.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether current interest rates were used to project
the amounts, to which Mr. Morales responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the number used.
Mr. Morales responded municipal bonds are a series of bonds; each year has a different interest
rate; stated a coupon rate is included; the amounts are also priced as a spread to treasury,
which is different from a tax-exemption; pricing the amount day-of, the City will have the two
year treasury rate; an underwriter who sells and buys the bonds to investors will explain the
bonds as market rate for 25 basis points above the two year treasury rate; the pricing will be up
to the 3, 5, 7, 20 and 30 year treasury rate; all rates are indexed off the spread; there is an
interest rate cushion; recent bonds have all been below 3% on the back end; a significant
cushion has been given due to the required four to six month validation period.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what happens to numbers if fluctuation happens.
Mr. Morales responded interest rates going down result in the bottom number lowering; stated
one interest rate is not used in the calculation; multiple interest rates are used; a gross spread
has been presented, with an average rate of 3.33%; interest rates that increase, cause a
decrease in cushion or savings; a 0.75% point cushion from current market rates is considered
conservative.
The City Manager stated UFI included rate a 0.75% higher than the current rate.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what the cities that lost money on the same process
did wrong and why the recommendation is the right thing to do.
Mr. Morales responded other cities POBs were completed at much higher interest rate
environments and had unideal timing; discussed case studies; stated bonds issued in 2008
were not done at a good time and had a 6% interest rate; the use of cab structures, or zero
coupon bonds, extended payments and took payment holidays; a number of different things are
effecting other cities, including not using the most prudent financial practices; UFI does not
guarantee the financial outcome; when cities study and understand the risk, the results are
substantially different.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is mindful of the comments provided by the City Auditor
and Treasurer; Council should make sure there is as much information and outreach as
possible; further steps will be taken prior to a final decision to issue POBs; expressed support
for understanding the further steps; stated that she would like more flesh on the bones of the
section referring to the strategy to recommended setting 50% of the POB savings creating a
sinking fund to stabilize any future risks and pension obligations; she would have liked more
information about the sinking fund savings; she would like to know more about the option before
voting to authorize issuance of POBs; she is intrigued and has been preaching about how the
City needs to set aside a portion of all unanticipated revenues once debts are paid down; she
would like more information before Council embarks on the current step.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
20",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,22,"Councilmember Knox White stated that his understanding is Council needs to authorize staff to
move forward through the process laid out on page 41 of the presentation; the process is four to
six months; Council may provide direction during that time; he agrees and has questions which
should come back, including policy recommendations about the sinking fund; he would like to
ensure that Council is being asked to start the process and provide direction as to what should
come back for discussion as part of the process before voting to authorize any bonds.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, the City Manager stated the current matter is the first step;
staff will have to return to Council before bonds are issued; Council is not be able to issue
bonds under the current action; the Official Statement has to return to Council as a step in the
process; additional steps are included on page 34 of the presentation; this step is critical in the
process and needs to be taken prior to other steps over the next four to six months; a delay is
fine; however, an interest rate risk is associated.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether or not the City Auditor and Treasurer were consulted.
The City Manager responded there have been brief discussions; neither has been fully involved
with the matter.
Mr. Morales stated every day of delay is costing roughly $30,000; the current matter does not
necessarily approve anything; legally, staff has to come back to Council to approve the offering
document, known as the Official Statement; approving the first step will save the City money;
there is time to put on workshops, ask questions and perform analysis; he has more than
enough time and ability to answer almost every question raised.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can proceed on more than one front at the same time;
inquired whether the City Attorney is in agreement about the four to six months court validation
process.
The City Attorney responded it is difficult to predict litigation timelines; stated that he does not
want to predict timelines in open session; staff is happy to discuss the matter privately in Closed
Session.
The City Manager outlined the current estimated debt service under the assumptions in the
presentation; stated the debt service is projected under the interest rate of 3.3%; outlined
budgetary savings and UAL costs; stated his recommendation is not to spend all the savings
and have Council set aside up to 50% of the money; staff will have to bring back a process to
set aside any money; over two to three years, any volatility or risk associated would be solved
through the sinking fund; if Council sets aside $4 to $5 million per year, the City would have
$10 to $15 million in the first three to four years to mitigate against any downsides of investment
risk.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined rating agencies taking a neutral position on POBs; stated
agencies are taking the time to study pension liabilities and understand the risk of POBs;
inquired the risks Council should be aware of.
Mr. Morales stated most of the risks have been addressed through the systematic process; the
risk of investment is not germane to POBs; ARPA funds cannot be used on pension obligations;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,23,"there is still the risk of whether or not now is the correct time to invest, regardless of the source
of money; Council must decide whether now is the right time to invest; outlined various risk
assessments; stated the most difficult part of POBs is that municipalities are not necessarily
designed to take on the inherent equity risks; when all bonds changed over from fixed income
investments to equities and fixed income, everyone was looking for gain to be received; equities
are a rollercoaster ride; risk free options do not come with the gain of equities; the pension
component adds to the equity risks and occurs with CalPERS every day; the liability will be
something to live with; the risk is difficult to address; however, Council can follow systematic
methods; the market timing is the primary risk to deal with.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated while considering the matter, Council must simultaneously be
looking at ways to keep the City's pension obligations from increasing unreasonably; discussed
hiring contractors versus full-time benefitted employees and using Code Compliance Officers for
inspections instead of Firefighters; stated that she looks to the City Manager to help manage
pension obligations; Council cannot keep digging out of a hole with one shovel while filling with
another; when staff are added, the City has to pay a long-term obligation long after the current
Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council and residents need to understand the magnitude of the
decision; Council is considering issuing a POB for roughly $298 million to cover unfunded
liabilities; when the interest is added, the actual amount comes out to roughly $420 million; he
understands the net present value based on the discount rate; Council is considering the
possibility of $420 million; he is focusing on four areas of the matter.
(21-663) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider new items after 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the first two referrals.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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 Knox White inquired whether Council Communications will still be able to be
heard.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated Council must consider hearing new, regular,
agenda items after 11:00 p.m., not the agenda sections of Oral, Council and City Manager
Communications.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council would still hear Oral and Council
Communications, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White stated the remaining regular agenda item being discussed does not
need a motion to continue.
The City Clerk stated the remaining Consent Calendar item related to the Cultivate agreement is
outstanding due to being moved to the end of the Regular Agenda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
22",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,24,"Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m. in order
to hear the Cultivate agreement [paragraph no. 21-652].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which failed since it required four affirmative-votes, 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.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the Cultivate agreement to Section 6 of the
November 2, 2021 agenda.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which 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.
Councilmember Daysog stated the magnitude of the matter is beyond the initial $298 million
POB; when the interest is taken into account, the sum is $420 million; he understands the net
present value of the figure is different; Council should not take the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) insight related to POBs lightly; the GFOA are the people who certify the
annual budget and are a reputable organization that the City turns to for validation; the GFOA's
advisory states that State and local governments should not issue POBs; Council should frame
its discussion based on the vantage point of the GFOA; discussed how POBs previously worked
for cities; stated cities would invest the POB money into the market in the hopes that the Return
On Investment (ROI) would be above the 3.5% interest rate; Council is not attempting a
previous POB approach; the new approach would generate and issue a $298 million POB in
order to pre-pay the City's unfunded liability; expressed support for the new POB approach;
stated the new approach is not without risks; if the return rate from CalPERS is not be 7% in the
next year, the unfunded liability rate would recalibrate; the City will have to make up for the
shortfall; the budgetary savings would be south of $2.7 million; CalPERS' return falling to the
same amount of or less than the interest being paid is a concern and eliminates the POB
savings; outlined employee hires eliminating the budgetary savings, which eliminates the
purpose of the POB; stated the City Manager is correct in his recommendation for a strict, fiscal
strategy in order to ensure locking the budgetary savings; CalPERS might have a return rate
higher than 7% and will not issue a refund for any excess paid; the City will still pay the annual
debt service; he recommends going slow; he will not support the matter.
Mr. Morales stated the matter is complex; CalPERS returned 21.4% in the past fiscal year; the
City will get a credit of $74.3 million; CalPERS has announced that the discount rate has to go
down to 6.8%, which increases liability; the City will net $24 million; the $295 million liability will
likely be somewhere closer to $241 million; a demographic adjustment always comes into the
process; there is a lot of estimation because the POB is a $300 million liability which changes
each year; he recommends the $295 million amount because of the CalPERS adjustment; the
City does not have to borrow the full amount; there are a lot of mathematics and moving parts;
outlined credits and cash flows; stated impacts would drive payments down; projections have
been shared with City staff; the City should ask for the full amount and decide the amount,
structure and when to perform the POB in the future.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the GFOA advisory.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,25,"Mr. Morales stated the GFOA has a warning on its website which states: ""Do not issue pension
obligation bonds;"" a number of policies are designed to be written for the entire country; the
City's financial sophistication is different from anyone else; the GFOA policy is written with cities
which might not have high financial sophistication; the information is important because each
plan, State law and funding level is different; the CalPERS system is different from the County
of Alameda, the State of New Jersey, Illinois or Minnesota; the GFOA writes one universal
policy to cover the nation; the financial circumstances of each agency in the country are
different; UFI believes a number of the circumstances have been addressed; the most
disconcerting part about the GFOA is the advisory not to issue POBs without any recommended
alternative options provided outside of using reserves; Council should feel free to adhere to the
GFOA advisory; however, the points and counterpoints mentioned by the GFOA should also be
considered; the matter is complex and has some downsides, which include equity risks; the
answer is not easy; doing nothing has a detrimental impact on operations going forward; the
projected operating deficit has to do with increasing pension costs and a shortfall over the next
four to five years; the deficit is due to an increase in UAL payments.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the current economy, stock market and low interest rates are
sustainable and factors into the matter.
Mr. Morales responded rates are at historic lows, which makes the matter compelling; stated the
discount rate has lowered; he does not believe the growth will continue on a long-term basis; a
second industrial revolution is causing some tremendous economic growth; cities cannot
continue at 21.3% growth and outrun the problem; the orders are taking more measured steps
and being realistic; outlined gains and downsides; stated Council must consider the downside;
Councilmember Daysog is correct in his statements about risk; there are things the City can do
to prepare itself; the POB is not a panacea and is not without risk; Council should take the time
to understand and think about alternative options; doing nothing is not ideal; a plan to address
the matter is needed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not plan to support the matter; she would
have liked the City Auditor and Treasurer to have had more time to speak; it is premature to
proceed at this time; the City needs to look at both sides of the equation; she would like to hear
from community members; expressed support for a workshop; stated the matter is a huge risk;
expressed support for Councilmember Daysog's comments; stated the comments help provide
further understanding; the City is rushing through a huge risk; expressed support for the matter
returning with more information; noted cities have lost a lot of money on POBs; the examples of
losses have been minimized in the report.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification from the City Manager on how he envisions the
process going forward.
The City Manager stated the City will start the court process and simultaneously come back with
a Council work session and public meetings; the policies can be refined; staff will return to
Council after the court decision and bring back a full recommendation; there is risk associated
with the matter; the risk of doing nothing will cost roughly $530 million; the POB solution helps.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Manager stated the timeline is about four
to six months; court processes can cause delay; four to six months has been the average time
in other communities.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,26,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the matter would return to Council next.
The City Manager responded staff can hold a workshop in the following months to continue the
educational period; staff will perform other steps during the four to six months in order to
prepare Council to make a decision.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the validation process included in the presentation
is accurate, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White noted sometime between now and next February, there will be a
workshop; inquired whether the matter will come to many meetings in March and April and
Council approval is set for May or June.
Mr. Morales responded the assessment is correct.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he has been doom and gloom on the economy for some
time; he is happy to be proven wrong; if Council wishes to take advantage of the POB, the
advantage should be taken earlier, rather than later; bond rates will likely only go up; every
month of waiting is a month of increased rates; the concerns raised are reasonable; expressed
support for Councilmember Daysog requesting UFI's staff bona fides; stated the City Auditor
and Treasurer will provide input and recommendations; the City Auditor and Treasurer have
both expressed support for moving forward to start the conversation.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolution] with direction to ensure there are two workshops, not Council meetings, between
now and the first Council approval whereby the City can have Mr. Morales and City staff give
a
presentation and have a deep discussion with Council and the community.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated Council owes the City and constituents a
conversation to explore the option; the experts have said now is the time to have the discussion
based on bond ratings; other jurisdictions have done so at less opportune moments; she does
not want to be in a situation where Council is making decisions out of desperation; she wants to
be in a position to make decisions based off the best possible set of facts, knowing that Council
is acting in a fiscally responsible manner; doing nothing is fiscally irresponsible; expressed
support for taking a step forward in giving direction to return to Council to look at POBs as an
option, allowing for a vetting process, the chance for people to weigh-in to have a work session
and for Council to make an informed decision about whether a POB is the right thing at the right
time for the City; the matter does not exclude the ability to look at other options and parallel
tracks; Council must ensure the City is put in a financial position that is responsible; she has not
heard the City Auditor or Treasurer oppose exploring the possibility of a POB; the timeline
provides the opportunity for full vetting; expressed support for moving forward; stated doing
nothing will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and will create an even bigger problem; she
hopes the City can take a positive step forward.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important that Council considers steps to ensure the City is not
creating more liability in moving forward; expressed support for moving forward carefully; stated
that she would like staff to explore ways to minimize getting further into debt; inquired whether
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,27,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the resolution begins by stating for Council to authorize
issuance of one or more series of pension obligation bonds; the resolution contradicts the
current discussion; the resolution has more legal significance then being suggested.
Councilmember Knox White requested clarification be provided by the City Attorney.
The City Attorney stated Section 1 of the resolution exists, so that staff can validate and bring a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
26",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,28,"judicial action for bonds; if Council approves filing a judicial validation action, bonds must exist
as a requirement under State law; staff has provided assurances verbally and in Section 5 of the
resolution that the matter will return to Council before finalization occurs; there will be nothing
for staff to validate if Section 1 of the resolution is removed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the process has to take place in order to begin; checkpoints occur
in the timeline.
Mr. Morales stated it is Council's legal and fiduciary duty to review the Authorizing Statement; a
bond cannot be sold without Council authorizing the Authorizing Statement; the document has
not been generated; there is currently no way the City could legally issue or sell bonds without
coming back to Council.
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: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-664) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, expressed concern about information not being released
regarding the Mario Gonzales investigation.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21-665) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-666) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational
Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.
(21-667) 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.
(21-668) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting
Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember
Daysog). Not heard.
(21-669) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to
Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023-
2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog). Not heard.
(21-670) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers
Herrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-671) Councilmember Knox White made an announcement regarding the AC Transit Inter-
Agency Liaison meeting and an upcoming special meeting of the City Council and School Board
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
27
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,29,"Subcommittee.
(21-672) Councilmember Daysog noted AC Transit will have cameras and be able to issue fines
for cars parked in bus stops; announced that he attended the First Tee event at the Chuck
Corica Golf Course.
(21-673) Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she attended the Italian Heritage Festival
parade in San Francisco; announced an upcoming Airport Noise Forum meeting; expressed
concern about the letter to the County supporting the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
[paragraph no. 21-660 being added to the agenda.
(21-674) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended Walk and Roll to School Day at
Wood Middle School and the Fire Chief swearing in ceremony.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced that she also attended both the Walk and Roll to
School Day and the Fire Chief swearing in ceremony.
ADJOURNMENT
(21-675) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:40
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
28
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,4,"Alameda City Council
3
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,5,"(21-657 B) Resolution No. 15828, ""Appointing Dan Poritzky as a Member of the Mayor's
Economic Development Advisory Panel.' Adopted.
Councilmember Knox White moved 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 and Ms. Jennings made brief comments.
(21-658) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff to Pursue One or More Options for
Reducing the Negative Impacts and Public Safety Challenges Associated with Automobile-
Oriented Events at Alameda Point.
The Assistant City Manager gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the reason the chain link fence near the Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA) does not extend to cover the area where people practice
motorcycle driving.
The Assistant City Manager responded the USS Hornet (USSH) lease covers some of the
areas; the City wants to ensure alignment of the fence is as inclusive as possible without
infringing on lease rights.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated sometimes the USSH has events with many people
driving; the USSH goes beyond the available area; inquired whether the area within the fencing
would be opened for USSH events.
The Assistant City Manager responded it could be; stated the current USSH lease does not
cover the area; however, staff can coordinate with USSH representatives to address any
additional parking needs for large events; the fencing is temporary which can easily be
relocated or moved over time as needed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated many areas have installed raised Botts' dots to address
issues; inquired why staff has not done other similar things to allow the space to be used by
law-abiding citizens; stated she is hearing staff jump to cutting off areas, making them
inaccessible to cars; the intention could be to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to use the areas.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Police Chief provide clarification of the problem being
addressed.
The Police Chief stated the concern being addressed is the gathering of cars; the dots would
actually deter people engaging in reckless driving of areas; noted many of the burnouts occur in
the entry chutes; vehicles can still go into the areas for people to enjoy scenery.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the entry chutes do not have speed bumps to slow
traffic; inquired why has staff not considered speed bumps or humps.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,6,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded both strategies work; stated staff
is trying to make the area unattractive for people to do inappropriate activities with automobiles;
Botts' dots or a barricade system can work; the dots will likely be a more expensive strategy to
implement and maintain.
The Public Works Director stated both speed bumps and Botts' dots are options; the use of
fencing is due to the lack of travel lanes at Alameda Point; the intention is to safely focus travel
in one area; if staff were to only utilize speed bumps or Botts' dots, safety issues are caused; an
option to create travel lanes is possible; the approach staff has taken builds on existing
conditions.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the safety plan; the comments
received show that the approach does not seem to be working; inquired why staff is not
considering adding speed bumps.
The Public Works Director responded speed bumps can be an option within the 40-foot lane;
staff is also trying to prevent large-scale congregations, not just reckless driving; a number of
safety issues arise from the large congregations; speed bumps will not necessarily prevent
large-scale congregations from forming; staff can put in speed deterrents if the issue of
speeding becomes a factor within the 40-foot lane.
Stated the car congregation is two-fold; the USSH would like to grow its admission; the USSH
took a 90% revenue hit during COVID-19; the parking leased by the USSH is generally
sufficient; the Enterprise Lot is sometimes used for overflow parking for larger events; the USSH
depends on car traffic for museum attendance; discussed USSH special events being attractive
to transportation enthusiasts; stated specific car clubs have kicked people out due to poor
behavior; expressed concern about eliminating car clubs due to individual poor choices;
expressed support for wheel stops in the parking lot: Laura Fies, US H Museum.
Stated the City needs to do something; Option 2 shows a car show area that has been full the
past two weeks; car shows have gotten very large with over 500 cars, over 1,000 people, food
vendors and a vendor serving alcoholic beverages; the events' trash and sanitary mess are a
problem; it takes his customer 25 to 30 minutes to get to the building; expressed support for
Option 2, which does not require a gate to be closed and provides a nice parking space in the
more scenic parts of Alameda Point: Steve Shaffer, Urban Legend Cellars.
Stated that he has noticed two to three car shows per month with hundreds of cars speeding
and nearly hitting kids; he is speaking for the neighborhood safety of the West End; speed
bumps could help, but might merely be quickly accelerated over; his neighborhood is impacted
while car show participants leave the area; he agrees with the recommendations and has
compassion for the USSH; expressed support for fencing and maximum barriers to prevent
congregation and allowing permitted shows to continue: Victor Hsu, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested an explanation of the challenges Alameda Police Department
(APD) Officers have face at Alameda Point.
The Police Chief stated enforcement becomes difficult when hundreds of people gather; the
area has no lanes; getting emergency medical assistance through would be difficult; the mindset
with side shows is to draw a large enough audience to perform reckless stunts and driving;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,7,"having a bunch of participants fuels the activity; much of the reckless driving occurs when
participants leave an event; an approach that addresses and minimizes the number of
participants provides a position of public safety; emergency response is possible when
audiences are not as large.
Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is complicated; DePave Park will not be driven on
and instead will be accessed by walking and biking; he does not see any reason to encourage
people to drive within the area; he is saddened to learn about the impact of some of the
activities happening near Building 25; he would be very supportive of choosing Option 1; he
does not know why the City would choose Option 2, which would create another long driveway
for people to race up and down; expressed support for the fence near the USSH; stated many
people have pointed fingers at the USSH; however, the issue is mainly due to people using the
USSH parking space; many people will head back to the large USSH parking area if the
DePave Park area is closed down; sideshows were not the problem back in June; the problem
is people racing through neighborhoods; the City can stop some of the sideshow behaviors by
using Botts' dots and barriers; however, neighbors will still call due to people racing through
streets; he would be more than happy to continue working with the USSH to figure out a way to
support meaningful events which that have an auto-centric focus; the events should have a
focus toward the USSH business.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Dash Cellars and Building 25 will still be
present when DePave Park is created.
The Public Works Director responded the current Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) for Alameda
Point shows the perimeter levy saves Building 25; stated Building 2 is inland of the perimeter
levy, protected from sea level rise and not part of DePave Park.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the area already cordoned off by Dash
Cellars and the Air Tower will be part of DePave Park.
The Public Works Director responded the current MIP indicates the area will be a large
stormwater retention basin, similar to the layout of Bayport; the area will collect storm water
before discharge.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer displayed photos of current parking conditions at Alameda
Point; stated that she goes out to Alameda Point all the time; she does not think it is illegal to
congregate; staff has added cement barriers; the cement barriers are often filled with
skateboarders; the area is a great place for adults, youths and families to congregate; the area
depicted will no longer be accessible to the public from what she understands; inquired whether
the cement barriers will remain for skateboarders to continue using or be removed and
inaccessible.
The Public Works Director responded the intent with Option 2 is not to remove the cement
barriers; stated Option 2 has been presented to allow for access to the end of the area near
Building 29; the space shown is exterior to the barriers.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated quite often, up to 50 young adults are skateboarding on
the barriers; skateboarding is a healthy activity; the area is similar to a playground; photos show
cars parked with people coming out to fish and enjoy the view; inquired whether the area is part
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,8,"of Option 2 and allows cars to come out for people to fish.
The Public Works Director responded Option 2 keeps the area accessible for vehicles.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is not sure how wide the space is; the space
will often have multiple cars on the weekends; people use canopies for shade and have chairs
to enjoy the shoreline; she would like to speak for the law-abiding citizens that hang out and
enjoy the Bay; there will be less Bay access for cars; she supports DePave Park; however,
people should have access via cars in the meantime; accessing the area is very long to walk
while carrying items; she would like Council to come up with a way to allow law-abiding citizens
to congregate and enjoy the space; she thinks the area is insufficient; she would like a ""U""
shape large enough for cars; she is fine with blocking off more of the middle area; more speed
bumps to slow traffic should be considered; she disagrees that people will perform doughnuts
over speed bumps; she believes speed bumps work in deterring and slowing traffic; she has
seen car shows down other long streets; the issue is present Citywide; she needs staff to be
willing to help figure out how to address the criminal behavior as well as support law-abiding
citizens who want to enjoy the bay; the ""U"" shape would be a better solution; expressed support
for the USSH; stated that she would like to work with the USSH on fencing to try and
accommodate shows and events; the biggest event at Alameda Point is the Antiques Faire
which has a lot of cars; expressed support trash cans and bathroom facilities in the area;
expressed concern about overreaching and not addressing the problem; stated the goal to slow
down cars is different from cordoning off large areas and not allowing access.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification whether Option 2 would provide vehicle access and
parking for Building 25 customers and allow vehicle access to the southern-most shoreline;
inquired whether the photos show the southern-most shoreline.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated Option 2 would continue to allow
vehicle access to just the southern portion, but not the full length of the eastern portion.
Councilmember Daysog stated for West Enders traumatized by sideshows and reckless driving,
the message that help is on the way is clear; he supports all of the staff recommendations; he
thinks the issues of barriers and speed bumps raised by Councilmember Herrera Spencer might
help slow down speeding in the area; speed bumps could be placed outside of the USSH as
well; the staff recommendation will go a long way in addressing the underlying causes of
reckless driving; the large open areas allow people to hold massive sideshows.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the visuals from the presentation help the discussion; she wants to
preserve bicycle and pedestrian access; more needs to be done to limit vehicle access; a
number of areas are still left completely open; she does not think additional speed bumps will be
helpful; the City can add things in along the way; however, if the City does not block off larger
spaces, problems of sideshows and large gatherings will still arise at Alameda Point; expressed
support for Option 2, which will offer more protections for the City; many people call related to
events at Alameda Point; APD is doing what it can to enforce the area; it is difficult for APD to
be in all places at all times; mitigation efforts through design will make a difference.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has asked herself the advantages and disadvantages of
auto-oriented events at Alameda Point; the Antiques by the Bay Faire is contributing to the City
by way of sales tax and also causes traffic; the Antiques Faire coincides with the spontaneous,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,9,"non-sanctioned events organized via social media which can create havoc for safety and trying
to get on and off the Island; outlined correspondence and comments received from residents of
the area being terrorized by not being able to safely cross the street or ride a bicycle; stated
unsanctioned gatherings of autos are not paying any revenue; many times litter and human
waste is left behind; cars also spew particulate matter into the atmosphere while the City is
struggling to get greenhouse gas emissions under control; the events interfere with existing
businesses at Alameda Point; visitors cannot get to the buildings; she has been to many USSH
events; she struggles to see the connection to the USSH and permitting auto-related events of
up to 1,000 autos; she thinks the events send the wrong message about Alameda Point being a
great place for open space to perform reckless driving; she wants to support the USSH;
however, she does not want to support it by allowing up to 1,000 autos; automobiles are
clogging streets and causing traffic; she would like to work to help support and market different
events other than cars; expressed support for the staff recommendation of restricting or
eliminating Use Permits; stated that she would like to eliminate Use Permits authorizing large
scale automobile oriented events in order to minimize noise, speeding and emission risks
associated with the events; expressed support for implementing Option 2, for implementing the
West Hornet fence option and for working with the USSH while events are occurring to ensure
visitors have good parking options; stated that she would like to leave the wheel stops in place;
it is time to listen to residents and businesses being impacted at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation with the addition of
having staff consider speed bumps as the situation warrants along the path towards the areas
depicted in the photos.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated Option 1 would restrict or eliminate Use
Permits authorizing large-scale automobile or car events; he would be okay with eliminating Use
Permits with the exception of maintaining the existing contract held with USSH which allows
maintaining a certain number of events.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is amenable to the additions to
the motion proposed by Councilmember Knox White.
Councilmember Daysog responded that he is okay with the addition; inquired whether the
addition would affect Antiques by the Bay, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in
the negative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thinks a permit allowing up to 1,000 vehicles is too many
and she would like to see the number reduced.
Councilmember Daysog stated the reduction seems fair; inquired the amount desired.
Councilmember Knox White stated that there has not been an issue with the USSH; he is
concerned about bumping up against the issue of the USSH trying to find ways to stay solid; he
would rather address the amount of vehicles later on if it becomes an issue; Council is taking a
major steps; he does not see the need to limit the number when staff is working with USSH to
approve appropriate auto-oriented shows to ensure events are thematic, not sideshow.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
8",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,10,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the impact of 1,000 vehicles is significant.
Councilmember Daysog requested staff provide input related to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's
comments.
The Planning, Building and Transportation stated the current Use Permit for the USSH allows
up to 4 car-oriented events per year and limits the events to 75 military and/or antique cars 50
years or older; the Use Permit is set up by treating the USSH as a museum and event space; a
special event permit is only needed when 1,000 people or more are anticipated in order for staff
to warn Police, Public Works and other departments as needed; an additional limitation is set
when the special event is for a car show.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the information provided by staff and for the motion
on the table.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not support the motion; it is unfortunate
that Council is doing an overreach and not doing more to slow down the problem; people have a
right to park their cars and talk to other people; she is concerned about trying to eliminate
congregating.
Councilmember Daysog stated his understanding of Option 2 is that people can still drive down
the road to the end where photos depicted people fishing.
The Public Works Director stated the understanding is correct; her use of the term congregate is
related to the large number of vehicles, not shoreline access by individuals; the large,
unpermitted events relate to the term congregate.
Councilmember Knox White stated there is no prohibition on congregating; there are 846 acres
where people can park their cars next to each other and congregate; the City is trying to
address some large areas that have attracted huge and illegal sideshows which are causing
significant problems; he does not want people to think Council is keeping people from parking or
driving at Alameda Point.
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.
(21-659) Recommendation to Adopt the City Facilities and Street Naming Policy.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Council will be involved with the development of
criteria.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated as-written, Council is not
involved in determining the criteria; new facility names start at the Board or Commission level
and Council determines the final, deciding vote; the process starts with the Council deciding
whether or not to rename; the criteria is determined at the Board or Commission level.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,11,"Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a Councilmember is prohibited from expressing hopes
for criteria during the renaming process.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the hopes for criteria
could be included in the motion.
Councilmember Knox White stated the recommendation includes maintaining the list of potential
names; and also includes not using the list; requested clarification for the rationale of having a
list which has no use.
In response to the Recreation and Parks Director's inquiry, Councilmember Knox White stated
that he thinks the reference was noted in the staff report and recommended by the Historical
Advisory Board (HAB).
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the HAB will no longer have a list and it is not
included in the new policy; the Recreation and Parks Commission has expressed an interest in
the list of names established through the Chochenyo Park naming process; a lot of work has
been put into the community process; the Recreation and Parks Commission did not want to
discard the remaining names in the event another park naming process occurs; the list will be
included in a community process once the criteria is determined; the staff report reflects an
intention to not throw out any previous community work.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted page two of the staff report references keeping the list of names for
future reference only.
Councilmember Knox White stated the section was likely conflated with the list referenced by
the Recreation and Parks Director.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated her understanding of the proposed draft policy is that
all costs associated with renaming such street shall be borne by the new property owner if a
street is named after a business and the business leaves.
The City Planner stated the corporate street naming criteria is not being modified; a new
business or property owner will be responsible for naming the street if the prior business the
street is names after leaves.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Council should look at what can be done; inquired
whether public outreach meetings will be noticed to ensure members of the Council and public
can attend.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded all four of the steps are at the Board and
Commission level and will be required to be noticed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how the City knows that signers of a street name
petition are actual residents of Alameda and whether all ages can sign the petition; further
inquired what the process looks like.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded staff does not have a way to verify signers;
emphasized the amount of public outreach; stated public hearings will ensure voices are heard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
10",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,12,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there are costs for homeowners to change legal
documents to reflect the current name of the street; inquired whether the City would assist with
costs.
The City Planner responded there is a fee for filing the application; stated once Council
approves the street naming, there will be time and logistic costs for residents of the street to
change their mailing address and work with the Post Office.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated legal documents must also be changed, not just the
mailing address.
The City Planner stated some processes might involve costs; the costs are a key consideration;
staff has reached out to other cities with similar processes and received advice not to
underestimate the costs of changing a street name.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like more information about the legal
document costs at some point.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Planning Board process includes applying a tiered system; two
thirds of residents could veto a name change on their street; requested clarification.
The City Planner stated the idea behind the tiered system is for a relatively short street; there
are streets in Alameda which only have 10 homes; a majority of homes would be 6 property
owners; 500 signers on a long street might not be proportional to obtaining a majority; the
approach is based on giving more weight to residents living on the street; the proposed
approaches are variations on what Council might want to establish as a threshold.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the staff report references an application process for renaming
facilities and streets; inquired whether the process will be criteria or subjective based or whether
staff will bring a report to Council.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the policy does not create criteria for whether or
not a facility will be renamed; stated staff will take the information from the application process,
perform due diligence and bring the proposed change to Council; the process might be different
for any particular name.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the draft policy and procedures state: ""the intent of broad outreach
and notification is to involve a more diverse group of stakeholders in the community, including
residents who are historically under-represented in City public discussions;"" inquired the
residents envisioned for the outlined section.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated more people are attending Council meetings now with
Zoom; there are many underrepresented people, including people of color, disadvantaged, low-
income and youth residents; the intent of the sentence is to include people who do not know
how to or choose not to be involved with the bureaucracy of public discussions; there is more
that can be done and learned about in performing outreach and getting information out to
people for active engagement on important issues.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,13,"Stated that he submitted a letter; expressed support for the work of the Recreation and Parks
Department staff; stated costs should be subsidized; renaming Jackson Park was relatively
inexpensive and was a moral imperative; discussed the City's participation in the Shuumi Land
Tax; stated the next step after acknowledging the role of colonialism and white supremacy is to
take substantive steps to start to materially repair the harm done to people in the community;
the issues are not fringe or boutique concerns; the decision between tacit acceptance or active
rejection is fundamental to the collective conscience and the identity as a diverse, inclusive
community on the right side of history; the circle of concern extends beyond the residents of a
street; the concern is for all in the community; actions taken should make people whole: Josh
Geyer, Alameda.
Recommended the City include a financial outlook plan as part of the consideration to allow
homeowners to understand potential financial impacts; the City can offer support if costs are
more than nominal: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Discussed the imposition of moral imperatives and justice; stated the issue is for the entire City;
name changes are not urgent and should be placed on the ballot for a vote; the approach is
more equitable; he does not see why a handful of ideologues should be calling the shots: Jay
Garfinkle, Alameda.
Stated the City is discussing a finite list of street and park names, which are concerning;
discussed a Planning Board meeting discussion about renaming a long street, concerns about
Jackson Street and Jackson and Godfrey Parks and the process of naming Chochenyo Park;
urged Council adopt the process to conduct renaming on an ongoing basis and focus on the
three potential renaming efforts as opportunities to address concerns: Drew Dara-Abrams,
Alameda.
Stated a transition of a name change for someone includes the street name in their will, legal
documents, driver license and mail; expressed concern about her elderly neighbor; stated that
she understands changing park names; renaming streets can be a large toll on individuals:
Megan Larson, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella stated a lot of time has been spent discussing the naming and renaming
processes; a process is being created to get street names on a list; not having enough names
has been an issue; the process has been bureaucratic, which is unnecessary and cumbersome;
Council is also balancing having an accessible process; she has learned a lot about naming in
her time on the City Council and HAB; much effort has been put into the matter; she is
comfortable with the process developed; she hears concerns about the expenses related to
renaming; however, the concerns are reasonably addressed by the public process.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council is not creating a new opportunity to rename streets;
Council is clarifying a process; Council is deciding how to ensure people are plugged into the
process; the item that jumps out to him is the focus on property owners, instead of residents;
Alameda has 52% renters; renters voices are just as important as the people that live out of
town; the majority of rental units are owned by people who do not live in Alameda; ensuring
local input should include renters, not just property owners; expressed support changing the
policy; stated the corporate naming makes the street essentially become a privately named
road; the business should pay for the maintenance to the named street; branding public streets
should not be City business; expressed concern about businesses named after a person;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,14,"questioned whether Council will place a person's name on a street supporting the business, not
the individual person; stated Council should allow for wiggle room; the policy is great and carries
forward a lot of discussions held at both the Council and Boards/Commissions levels; there are
already two requests for naming which have met the criteria set; the alternatives include
providing direction to form an ad hoc committee to discuss street names; expressed support for
Council providing direction to move Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street renaming forward through
the process; stated the time is now; the change from Jackson Park to Chochenyo Park was a
two and a half year process; Council should not have to wait for moments of community uproar
to take on some issues; Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street are two good examples where the
community has stood up; after the new policy is adopted, he hopes Council can provide
direction to bring the names back for discussion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to include both residents and
property owners in regards to collection of 50% plus one signature; she agrees with
Councilmember Knox White about the corporate street naming having the corporation maintain
the named street; she thinks the corporation should include enough money so that any
departure on the business' part should not include costs borne by the new business entity to
remove the former company name; Council has received an email about using the name of a
deceased person after three years; stated that she would prefer ten years; expressed support
for ways to reimburse property owners for costs of changing legal documents related to street
name changes; stated owners could submit the actual costs to the City for reimbursement; the
changes could be expensive.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is struck by, and appreciative of, the importance
of
having Council start the conversation of renaming streets or facilities; the criteria for Chochenyo
Park caused him to vote no on the matter; there could be other criteria to consider; a portion of
the criteria considered is racial diversity; expressed support for the community being more equal
and representative; he feels as though staff has included responses to concerns previously
raised; he sees the process in which ideologues on the far left, right or center cannot hijack it;
expressed support for Council being involved from the beginning to the end of the process in
renaming of streets; stated it is important to analyze the cost implications for property owners;
he would like to know the costs that will be borne to change mortgage and related documents;
renaming streets should include understanding and analyzing associated costs; expressed
supporting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she likes everything that has been recommended and laid out;
Council needs to have more information about private companies naming a street; discussed a
prior issue with the Penumbra request since the business is located on multiple streets; stated
Postal Carriers were confused about where to deliver mail; the United States Postal Service
(USPS) asked the City whether it would be possible to have the main corporate building be set
as 1 Penumbra Way; she worked with the Building Official and the USPS Postmaster for
Alameda to make the change; she does not know whether the address change should require
paying for street maintenance; expressed support for staff looking into the implications; stated
the maintenance requirement might be a quantum leap above naming a street after a business;
an effective process has been laid out; she would like to see the process adopted and followed;
she is hesitant to put together an ad hoc committee for renaming Jackson Street and Godfrey
Park; Jackson Street and Godfrey Park can be moved to the top of the queue while using the
adopted process; she does not think someone needs to be deceased for ten years to consider
using their name; three years seems like a reasonable time frame.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,15,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Councilmember Knox White's street renaming
recommendation of having resident-only signatories gets rid of the option to have 50% plus 1 of
property owners or 500 resident signatories; inquired whether Councilmember Knox White is
amenable to the option of having either.
Councilmember Knox White responded that he is okay with having the option; stated there is
benefit to having 50% of the street concurring, which gets to the concern of people impacted by
the name change; people affected by the change can sign-off on beginning the process;
expressed concern about the requirement of 500 signatures approving the change when the
signatories might not live on the street.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like clarification that the 50% plus 1 signatories of
property owners would not be eliminated; inquired whether 500 Alameda resident signatories
must include a certain percentage of street residents.
Councilmember Knox White stated the 50% plus 1 signatories are not property owners, but
people who live on the street to be renamed; expressed concern about property owners living in
Southern California not knowing the City; stated there are large corporate land owners with
hundreds of units in Alameda; questioned whether Council should allow large corporations to
vote on the matter; stated that he would rather consider the residents of the street; the intention
is to make sure that the people living on the street have an opportunity to say whether or not
they would like the change.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how Council will determine that the 500 Alameda signatories are
actual residents.
The City Planner responded staff has looked into the issue; stated initially, staff's approach was
directed towards property owners due to having good property owner data; staff does not have
good data on tenants, especially new tenants; based on input from Boards, Commissions and
members of the public, staff added the possibility of either 50% plus 1 of property owners and
residents or at least 500 Alameda resident signatures; petitions should include a name and
address; staff does not have very good data to verify all 500 signers are actual Alameda
residents or residents of the street in question; the signature requirements are a threshold to
initiate the conversation; when staff schedules the hearing before the City Council, staff will
formally notify the residents and occupants of the street to be renamed.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is okay with either the 50% plus 1 resident property
owners or 500 Alameda resident signatures; the corporate name issue can include the City
waiving fees in the future; Council should be careful not to start down a road where corporations
name City streets.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the petition with 500 signatures will be required to be
a paper petition or whether the signatures can be electronic.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded there is no requirements for the signatures;
stated the signatures can be paper, electronic or a combination of both.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated her understanding of the 500 signatures is there is no
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
14",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,16,"way to verify signers are residents of Alameda; inquired whether staff will be asking for name
and address within the City in order to verify and confirm residency.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the policy stipulates the signatures need to be
500 Alameda residents; stated a petition turned in with 500 random names and no addresses
will be rejected due to non-compliance.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated when a company with a street named after it leaves,
the City could waive fees for the new company; she does not think it is appropriate for a new
company to pay to change the street name; the City has companies of all sizes which come and
go.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the process for verification of the 500 signatures; noted some
instances only require a portion or sample of the signatures be verified.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the process is to be determined; stated staff does
not have a method outlined in the policy; the petition is not being considered on the same level
as an election; the petition is the start of a conversation that would include a five-step publically
noticed discussion where the public can make their voices heard.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation with a change to the
corporate street naming criteria to collect funds to pay for future renaming if the company moves
off the street and direction to staff to work with the submitters of the two petitions having over
500 signatures to begin the process to submit an application for Council consideration for
Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street would go through the
process recommended by staff, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the 500 signatures should
be residents of Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White responded the signers need to make a best effort of having
Alameda residents; stated the signatures are not for a ballot measure; City staff does not need
to call and verify residency of the 500 people; he accepts at face value that the signers live in
Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the reimbursement for costs on a street
renaming has been addressed.
Councilmember Knox White responded the reimbursement is not part of the policy; stated
reimbursement can be part of the discussion when the matter comes forward.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would rather not have the two renaming additions
included in the motion; discussed qualifying signatures; stated a signature with no address is
not valid; he is still able to move support the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,17,"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.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:48 p.m.
***
(21-660) Recommendation to Support County of Alameda Participation in an Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing District in Support of the Oakland Athletics Stadium at Howard
Terminal. Not heard.
(21-661) Resolution No. 15829, ""Authorizing the Issuance of One or More Series of Pension
Obligation Bonds (POB) to Refinance Outstanding Obligations of the City to the California
Public Employees' Retirement System, Authorizing the Initiation of a Judicial Validation Action
by the City Attorney, and Approving and Directing Related Matters."" Adopted.
Julio Morales, Urban Futures, Inc. (UFI) gave a PowerPoint presentation.
(21-662) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to allow additional time; inquired how
much time is needed.
Mr. Morales responded 2 to 3 minutes.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested 5 additional minutes.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing 5 additional 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.
Mr. Morales concluded the PowerPoint presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that Mr. Morales is a consultant for the City; inquired
how much Mr. Morales has been paid to date, plus any issuance additional costs; questioned
the structure of payments to Mr. Morales.
The City Manager responded the pension analysis has cost $32,000.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a second portion to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's
inquiry related to issuance.
The City Manager stated an issuance will require a financial advisor with a flat fee of $90,000 to
$100,000.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
16",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,18,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the $32,000 has been in full.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the cost does not include the financial
planning from earlier in the year.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be additional costs paid to Mr.
Morales or UFI for the next step in approvals or whether the $32,000 covers the next step.
The City Attorney responded the validation action is a legal action; the associated legal fees
have been shared confidentially in Closed Session and is subject to attorney-client privilege with
respect to legal fees; the legal fees do not cover Mr. Morales' fees.
Mr. Morales stated the services provided to-date include what is needed to validate; fees are
covered in the quote provided by staff.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether multiple issuances of the bond over 20 years
could occur and whether additional costs will be paid to UFI.
Mr. Morales responded each time a bond financing occurs, fees are incurred; the City would pay
firm staff, lawyers, financial advisors and underwriters for each transaction.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many transactions are anticipated and the
estimated total cost at the end of 20 years.
Mr. Morales responded typically, one bond is issued with a 20 year timeline; stated often there
is an opportunity to refinance for cost savings within a 10 year period; the process is similar to a
mortgage being refinanced in time; at least one transaction, possibly two, is a reasonable
estimate.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the dollar amount for each transaction.
Mr. Morales responded the current market value is $90,000 to $100,000; stated that he
anticipates the cost would go up in 10 years due to inflation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council will be hearing from the City's
elected Auditor and Treasurer.
The City Manager responded that he has had discussion the with City Treasurer about
involvement moving forward; noted the City Treasurer has his hand raised for public comment.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City Treasurer and Auditor are being
allowed three minutes to speak or whether they will be treated as a paid consultant.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the meeting will proceed as usual, according to Council rules; stated
a vote to extend speaking time can occur; however, four affirmative votes are needed.
Councilmember Daysog requested each of the consultants provide personal background and
certification information.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-10-14,1,"ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, October 14, 2021
TIME:
7:00 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
A video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
The following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.
ROLL CALL
Present: (Teleconference via Zoom) Chair Alexander, Commissioner Navarro, Commissioner Jones
Absent: Vice Chair Robbins and Commissioner Nguyen
Staff: (Teleconference via Zoom) Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy
Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of September 9, 2021 Regular Meeting as
presented. M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones. All present in favor with 3 ayes via
roll call vote.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (For topics not on the agenda)
Written Communication: none
Oral Communication:
Speaker Clifton Linton, Member of Alameda Aquatic Masters Board of Directors
introduced himself and gave appreciation for the aquatics programs in the City of
Alameda as it is such a benefit to the community and additional pool time has increased
the number of people using the aquatics programs.
REPORT FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR - ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave
the report. See exhibit 1.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Navarro: Re-visited all the proposed East End dog sites and looked at the sites
again after hearing the public comments at the last Recreation and Park Commission meeting
in September.
Commissioner Jones: Attended a private event at the new Krusi Recreation Center and said the
center is beautiful. Gave a shout out to Chair Alexander for providing the history of Krusi Park to
the attendees.
Chair Alexander: The event in October was to celebrate the bench dedication to Bob Rhodes
and Barry Weiss. Great event and the turnout was a tribute to the importance to the parks in
Alameda. Visited Seaplane Lagoon to watch the progress of the new park, visited Lincoln Park
to see the impressive new fence and walked Jean Sweeney Park to get a sense of the land that
belongs to the park and complemented the ARPD staff for their creative fall programs.
1",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-10-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-10-14,2,"AGENDA ITEMS
6-A Review and Recommend the Recreation and Parks Department 2022 Annual User Fee
Schedule
ARPD Director Wooldridge gave the presentation on the 2022 User Fee Report which included the
ARPD Cost Recovery Model, current 2021 fees, proposed 2022 fees and Comparison Study.
6-A Public Comments
Speaker Clifton Linton, Alameda Resident: Thank you for clarifying the fee schedule. Everything
looks affordable. Question, why is there difference between the fees for renting Emma Hood and
Encinal High School pool? Answer from Director Wooldridge: Encinal High has been renovated
and is an improved facility.
Speaker Morgan Bellinger, Alameda Resident: Commented on the aquatics fees for access to
the pools and lessons and asked why ARPD wouldn't do a membership fee at the beginning of
the year similar to other private Alameda aquaticds programs? Answer from Director
Wooldridge: ARPD does not have a membership model and the goal is to keep the programs
equitable.
6-A Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Happy that ARPD is addressing and increasing non-resident tennis
lesson fees as our fees are much cheaper than other places.
Chair Alexander: Agrees with the User Fee changes. Asked if ARPD still has scholarships for
the programs? Answer from Director Wooldridge: Yes.
Commissioner Jones: Thanked Director Wooldridge for all her hard work.
6-A Motion
Commissioner Navarro moved to accept the Recreation and Park Department 2022 Annual User Fee
Schedule as presented to be adopted by City Council.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones
All present in favor with 3 ayes via roll call vote.
6-B Review and Recommend Chochenyo Park Play Area Final Design
ARPD Director Wooldridge gave the presentation on the final design for Chochenyo Park play area
which included the new location, nature based circular design by Tyler Velten with a community
gathering space. The design includes a concrete ramp to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) requirements.
6-B Public Comments
Speaker Meredith Hoskin, Alameda Resident: Thanked everyone for doing the play area project
and agrees with approving the final design.
2",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-10-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-10-14,3,"Speaker Morgan Bellinger, Alameda Resident: Excited to see the new play area and his 5-year-
old daughter would like to see the destination of the train to be Mexico or Unicorn Lane.
Speaker Amy L., Alameda Resident: Are the benches in the park that the City is providing a
possibility for bench sponsorship and can that money go to further playground build out? Answer
from Director Wooldridge: Yes, there is a possibility for bench sponsorship and no for the money
going to the playground build out as the bench sponsorship is at cost to purchase and install the
benches and not a money making revenue for ARPD.
6-B Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Excited to see the park become activated with the play area.
Chair Alexander: Excited to see the play area come to final fruition.
Commissioner Jones: Asked if the play area will be fenced in? Answer from Director Wooldridge:
There was a lot of discussion previously and ultimately settled on the proposed location without
a fence, however; a fence could always be added in the future if there are safety concerns.
6-B Motion
Commissioner Navarro moved to accept the Chochenyo Park Play Area Final Design as presented.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones
All present in favor with 3 ayes via roll call vote.
6-C Discuss Commissioner Assignments to Observe Parks and Programs
Director Amy Wooldridge proposed that item 6-C be tabled as there are two Commissioners not
present and would be best to have the discussion with all 5 Commissioners.
6-C Motion
Chair Alexander moved to table item 6-C
M/S Chair Alexander / Commissioner Navarro
All present in favor with 3 ayes via roll call vote.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA:
Athletic Facility Allocation Proposal
Interpretive Signage for Chochenyo Park
Review and Recommend Locations for Lawn Conversion to Drought Tolerant Landscape in
Parks
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: November 11, 2021
3",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-10-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-10-14,4,"ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones
Motion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 3 ayes via roll call vote.
Chair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 8:16PM.
4",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-10-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-10-14,5,"EXHIBIT 1
10/14/2021 ARPD Director's Report
Presented by Recreation and Park Director Amy Wooldridge
Recreation Services
Alameda Youth Committee (AYC) has successfully reimagined the Teen Haunted House this year
and will create and distribute Halloween goodie bags to local pre-schools, convalescent homes and
RAP sites on October 28. There 45 teens enrolled this year. They are also creating a new Teen
Club program since the drop-in Underground Teen Center is not yet open.
We completed fall and winter gym and field allocations for local non-profit sports organization and
schools. There is very high demand for these facilities.
ARPD Aquatics 2021 - swim lessons are completely filled for the Fall Session.
The Pool Pumpkin Party is on October 24 starting at 1:30pm. Already 350 people have registered to
receive a pumpkin, some crafts and some exercise.
All RAP sites will participate in the annual pumpkin decorating contest. Be ready to vote for your
favorite creation starting October 26. Voting will be available online.
Alameda Holiday Boutique is November 6 & 7 at the Officers' Club from 10:00am to 4:00pm.
Admission is free and it's a great way to support local artists and crafters, including Mastick Senior
Center artists.
Mastick Senior Center
Hybrid Lunch Program: Now serving approximately 9 people in our dining room with an additional
24 picking up a packaged ""grab and go"" lunch. The food is now being delivered in catering pans
and staff and volunteers are preparing the ""grab and go"" packaged lunches, as well as heating and
serving folks in the dining room. Lunch Program participation is greater now than before the
pandemic closure.
For the period of July - September 30, 2021, membership is at 2,235.
About 90% of classes/programs have returned at reduced capacity. More to return in January.
MSCAB approved funding for an additional two years for the case/care management (Senior
Connections) contract with Alameda Family Services.
Park Maintenance
Renovating sports fields at Lincoln, Godfrey, Tillman, and Harrington Parks
Encinal High School students are volunteering in parks picking up trash
Completed landscaping drought tolerant plants and drip irrigation at the Grand Street Boat
Ramp as well as replaced the boat dock and gangway on the southeast side. We've received
lots of positive feedback from the community. Working on BCDC permit for the dock
replacement on the northwest side. Big shout out to park maintenance staff who did all of the
landscape work.
Moving forward with hiring two gardeners to fill vacancies and promoted Cesar Venegas to
Maintenance Worker I. More staff will be hired when two new parks open to the public at
Alameda Landing and Alameda Point early next year
Installed smart irrigation clocks at Multipurpose Field, Woodstock Park and Lincoln Park.
Scheduling more locations at Franklin, Tillman and Littlejohn Parks. This will save
approximately 15% of water costs because it tracks weather and reduces irrigation when it's not
needed.
Conducting a safety training audit and implementing additional trainings as identified\.",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-10-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-10-14,6,"Administration / Projects
Alameda Point Gymnasium floor renovation is complete and includes a new center court ARPD
logo. In addition to basketball and volleyball lines, we added three pickleball courts for indoor play
during the winter with portable nets.
The Dog Park community survey is available on the website and social media. We are getting a
good response and it will be open for a couple more weeks.
There is a grand opening of the mosaic gateway columns at Jean Sweeney Open Space Park on
Friday, Oct. 22 at 5:30pm at the park near Constitution Ave.",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-10-14.pdf
GolfCommission,2021-10-12,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, October 12, 2021
1
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Ed Downing the called the special meeting to order at approximately 6:34 p.m.
via teleconference
ROLL CALL
Present:
(Via teleconference) Chair Ed Downing, Commissioner Claire
Loud, Commissioner John Kim, Commissioner Kaiwin Su and
Commissioner Robert Lattimore
Absent:
None
Staff:
(Via teleconference) Recreation and Parks Director Amy
Wooldridge and Umesh Patel, Greenway Golf
Also Present:
None
2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of June 29, 2021 were approved unanimously.
3
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
4
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Downing thanked Pete Pizzino for his service on the golf commission.
Chair Downing also welcomed the new commissioner, Robert Lattimore. Mr.
Lattimore has been a bay area resident for over 37 years and currently resides on Bay
Farm Island, and is looking forward to working for the community.
5
WRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club
None
6
AGENDA ITEMS
1
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, October 12, 2021",GolfCommission/2021-10-12.pdf
GolfCommission,2021-10-12,2,"6-A
Review and Comment on the Corica Park Rate Increases
Umesh Patel of Greenway Golf stated that rates will be increased on October
14, which have been submitted to Amy Wooldridge and summarized how the
rate structures at other golf courses in the bay area were used to determine the
new rates. It includes a 34% discount for residents over the seven days of the
week, which compares to less than 30% compared to Monarch Bay and Metro
during the week and less then 20% on the weekend, which is higher than any
other course in the area except for Harding Park. Rates have not been raised
in over 3-1/2 years and feels this is a fair increase.
Commissioner Su asked how this would impact tee time availability, and
demand for play. Mr. Patel stated there would be more tee times, due to the
Covid-19 demand waning, more times will be available, and times will be open
after 4:00 PM for both courses starting on October 14, as well as 10-minute tee
time intervals. Commissioner Su then asked about the capability to secure tee
times has been difficult due to only 7 days in advance, and Mr. Patel stated that
changes are coming to the Founders membership in regard to overbooking tee
times. 90-day advance tee times will soon be available.
Chair Downing shared his concern for the service clubs, especially for the non-
resident members. Mr. Patel stated there will be going to a consistent rate
among the clubs which will be fair and transparent and doesn't feel that
Greenway should subsidize the non-resident members, since the non-resident
members pay resident rates during events.
Commissioner Loud feels that consideration should made to the service club
members as they have been coming and supporting the course for several
years, in both good and bad times.
Commissioner Lattimore asked if consumers had any input regarding these
rates, and Mr. Patel responded that they had several conversations with regular
members regarding the raise in rates. There was very little pushback regarding
the new rates, remembering that we did not raise rates during Covid as most
courses had.
Commissioner Loud asked about the resident rates being increased on October
14, without City Council approval. Mr. Patel stated that he had spoken with
Amy Wooldridge making sure that these changes are within the bounds of the
lease obligations, to make sure we were commensurate with the pricing in
regarding to neighboring courses regarding rates and doesn't feel that there
would be any disapproval from City Council. If it is not approved, it will be
addressed at that time. Ms. Wooldridge stated that it does not require City
Council approval, but does require staff approval, and was waiting to hear what
the golf commission comments were before submitting for approval. This
approval process only applies to resident, senior and youth rates.
2
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, October 12, 2021",GolfCommission/2021-10-12.pdf
GolfCommission,2021-10-12,3,"Jane Sullwold felt that Ms. Wooldridge misinterpreted Provision 3.2 of the lease
agreement, that states these rates are to be approved by the City, but her
understanding was that it was City Council approval. She also shared her
concern that Greenway is raising these rates with virtually no notice to the
public. Ms. Sullwold also stated that although the resident discount rates
is
greater in comparison to neighboring courses, the rates increase is substantial
in several categories. She doesn't feel the procedure is completely not being
followed and urges the golf commission to disapprove these changes, as they
were not done according to Greenway's contract.
Cheryl Saxton is disappointed how this is being handled and the way Greenway
has implemented this.
Commissioner Loud asked about clarification regarding Provision 3.2, per Ms.
Sullwold's comments regarding City approval and Ms. Wooldridge quoted
Provision 3.5, ""The City Council designates the City Manager or the City
Manager's designee, as may be designated from time to time, who is
authorized on behalf of the City, to administer this Agreement and monitor
Tenant's compliance with the terms hereof"". Previously rate increases had
been done administratively per the Agreement. She added from this sentence
from Provision 3.5 - ""However, the City Council must approve any material
amendment to this Agreement or the termination of this Agreement on behalf of
the City"".
Chair Downing made a motion to recommend approval to the City for these rate
increases. Commissioner Loud seconded the motion. The motion failed.
Chair Downing made a motion that these rate increases go back to City staff for
review for future approval or disapproval. The motion was withdrawn.
Commissioner Loud shared her concern with the short notice of the rate
increases, and Mr. Patel stated that the intention was to increase the rates in
conjunction with the north course opening, which was originally slated to open
in June, and had been in discussions with City staff for several months.
Commissioner Kim also expressed his concern with the short notice, especially
the residents. He asked about how the discount on the north was noticeably
smaller on the north as opposed to the south. Mr. Patel responded that the
north course is only nine holes is the reason the discount of 20% is smaller than
the 34% discount on the south, and also the north course will have less tee
times as it will only be open five days a week.
7
OLD BUSINESS
3
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, October 12, 2021",GolfCommission/2021-10-12.pdf
GolfCommission,2021-10-12,4,"7-A
Facility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf
Mr. Patel stated that on October 14, there will be a short soft opening of the
north course with three groups teeing off, which include several long-time staff
and patrons, and then the course will open for play at 12:00 PM. The pro shop
is now open, tee sheet hours have been increased to one hour before sunset.
They will be in discussions with the Alameda Junior Golf Club regarding next
year. The summer golf camps were a success, over 200 kids were served,
which included over 2,000 meals in the four weeks, as well as bus
transportation was provided. The Cal camps were also a success, and another
will be run in December. They are hoping to do paid youth camps next year as
well.
Commissioner Loud asked about when water will be available on the course,
and as of now, not sure when based on Alameda County information. She then
asked about the food and beverage cart that Greenway was taking over, but
that has not been finalized as yet. Chair Downing asked about a liquor license
for the beverage cart, and Mr. Patel answered yes.
Jane Sullwold asked about the deteriorating on the fairway grass on the course,
and Mr. Patel stated that they hoping to address these and have it done by next
spring
7-B
Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report
Amy Wooldridge stated that Tom Geanekos shared with her that they replaced
the flooring in the bar area and the dining room with tile, also replaced a portion
of the roof overhang, as well as upgraded the Wifi to cover the patio area, and
also the POS system, installed a new heating and air conditioning. They will be
upgrading the men's restroom in the next couple of months.
7-C
Recreation and Parks Director Report
Amy Wooldridge stated that the slurry and striping of the parking lot was
completed so the City's obligation for the parking lot is complete.
8.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - November 9, 2021
Facility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf
Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report
Recreation and Parks Director Report
4
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, October 12, 2021",GolfCommission/2021-10-12.pdf
GolfCommission,2021-10-12,5,"9.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:50 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the
Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the
Brown Act.
5
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, October 12, 2021",GolfCommission/2021-10-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-11,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2021
1. CONVENE
President Asheshh Saheba convened the meeting* at 7:00 p.m.
*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning
Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Alan Teague led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Saheba and Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, and Teague.
Absent: Vice President Teresa Ruiz and Board Member Xiomara Cisneros.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-1379
Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit application PLN21-0037 for Astra
Space, Inc. for rocket research, development, light industrial manufacturing, indoor
rocket engine testing, perimeter security fencing, and outdoor storage and work areas at
and adjacent to 1900 Skyhawk Street and 1690 Orion Street within the Enterprise
District at Alameda Point.
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, introduced this item
and gave a short presentation. The Staff Report and attachments can be found at
  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5158515&GUID=D4AEB9A9-
DCE7-4963-84C2-665805D64029&FullText=1.
Matt Ganser, Vice President of Business Operations for Astra, also gave a presentation.
President Saheba opened the board's clarifying questions.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 7
October 11, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-11,2,"Board Member Teague wanted to know if this was consistent with Public Trust and
Exchange Act and Agreement.
Director Thomas explained that this land was not within the Public Trust Exchange lands.
He explained where those lands were.
Board Member Teague asked for clarification on the zoning of the various areas of the
project. He also wanted to know how the site's toxic ground compared to other areas on
Alameda Point.
Director Thomas shared a zoning map and the Site Plan and discussed the different areas
and zoning. He then explained how the majority of Alameda Point had been cleaned up
by the Navy and there were still areas actively being cleaned. He was very clear that you
could not build housing over the toxic areas.
Board Member Teague asked if Astra was fully compliant with Alameda's Noise
Ordinance. He also had questions about the Sound Vibration Study and wanted to know
if ambient noise had affected it.
Director Thomas said that Astra was compliant with the Noise Ordinance and he then
discussed what they had noted about noise at various locations compared to the Astra
noise.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg was interested in the management of hazardous
materials. She wanted to know how the hazardous materials and use would be
represented in the Conditions of Approval.
Director Thomas answered that there was a series of steps and goals they had laid out
for Astra. He explained those steps and what the overall process was. These steps would
require a significant investment by Astra and would require a wide range of approval from
different agencies.
Board Member Hom stated that he had been invited and had attended a tour provided by
Astra. He had questions about the noise analysis that was done, he wanted to make sure
the engine noise test that was done would be consistent with the level of noise for future
engine tests.
Director Thomas discussed how the Use Permit addressed the different types of engines
that could be tested in the future with different noise levels. He further explained the
provisions in the Noise Condition and how Astra was complying with Alameda's Noise
Ordinance.
Board Member Hom wanted clarification on what the scope of the Use Perm was. He
wanted to know how much it allowed for growth before the Use Permit needed to be
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 7
October 11, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-11,3,"amended and how was traffic going to be addressed. He also wanted to if the Historical
Advisory Board had to approve anything.
Director Thomas discussed transportation plans and zoning for Alameda Point and what
was expected from the tenants. He clarified what the Use Permit covered and what in the
future would require an amendment. He also clarified that none of this property was within
the Historic District so the HAB would not be involved. However, if they wanted to demolish
a building the HAB would be involved.
Board Member Teague also disclosed that he had met with the applicant as well.
Board Member Curtis disclosed that he had also taken the tour, he thought it was a very
impressive operation. He wanted to know if changing the no-engine testing time from 10
pm - 6 am to 6 pm-7 am would materially affect Astra's operations.
Mr. Ganser answered that it would.
Board Member Curtis wanted to know why Astra was having to pay to replace the
infrastructure at Alameda Point. He thought it was counterintuitive to attract business.
Director Thomas said that Alameda needed to replace all the infrastructure left behind by
the US Navy, the infrastructure that was there now was falling apart did not meet any
standard. No outside agency, such as East Bay MUD, would take ownership or provide
maintenance as it is now. The city has looked at the cost to replace infrastructure and then
divided that total by the number of acres. They could waive that expense but the city did
not have an alternative way to pay that.
President Saheba also disclosed that he had attended a tour at Astra. He had questions
about how Astra's premises were being defined in the packet as well as a lot acreage
diagram in the packet.
Director Thomas explained the diagram from the packet and clarified that the lease
premises could change in the future.
Peter Benoit, Architect with Astra, also helped explain the lot acreage diagram.
President Saheba opened public comment.
Mary Ellen McMuldren, a nearby resident, took issue with the professional noise study
that was done. She said that it was not true that the jet engine tests were not heard as a
distraction and had accessibly vibrated her bedroom windows. She was concerned that
the future would be filled with more disruptive testing.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 7
October 11, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-11,4,"John Atkinson, Executive Director of the Alameda Transportation Management
Association, discussed the current and future plans for transportation to Alameda Point.
He felt that Astra had shown a great ability to be a good neighbor and this expansion
included making sure their employees had other options for transportation than private
vehicles. He also discussed the great TDM options Astra was providing their employees.
Madlen Saddik, President and CEO of Alameda Chamber of Commerce, said she and her
board members had toured Astra. She discussed the great job Astra had been doing at
hiring a diverse workforce. She also discussed the great job Astra had been doing for all
of Alameda and she hoped that the board would support Astra's continued growth.
Lauren Gularte, Manager of Government and Regulatory Affairs at The Water Emergency
Transportation Authority, discussed the new ferry terminal at Seaplane Lagoon and how
many of Astra's employees took advantage of this transit option. She discussed how Astra
was actively encouraging their employees to take alternative transportation routes. WETA
was in full support of this Use Permit.
Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA), discussed the joint
work they had been doing with Astra at Alameda Point. She was very impressed with how
Astra was using the space at the Point and their commitment to Alameda as a whole.
Kelly Lux, Chair of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, discussed how impressed she
was with a tour she took of Astra. She was also impressed with the adaptive reuse they
were planning with this project. She also felt that Astra had been a good neighbor and
encouraged the board to approve this Use Permit.
Mark Epperson, CEO of the USS Hornet Sea, Air and Space Museum, discussed the
community events Astra had joined them in. He also discussed all the exciting future
events and educational programs they had planned together. The Crew of the USS Hornet
fully supported this Use Permit.
Monique Palmer, an Alameda resident, discussed the tour of Astra she had taken and was
blown away by Astra's openness to the community. She was very excited about the
educational programs Astra was working on for Alameda's school children and the other
programs that would benefit all of Alameda.
Hazel Ybona, Community Manager, discussed how helpful Astra had been to her by
housing their employees at one of her properties. She said this was just a small example
of the growth that Astra brings to Alameda and their continued growth would be great for
the businesses of Alameda.
Jeff Vaccari, Director of Customer Success at SHIFT, discussed their partnership with
Astra. He talked about all the benefits of working with Astra and fully supported this Use
Permit.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 7
October 11, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-11,5,"Kris Smith read an email from Reid Watly that discussed how excited they were to have
Astra in Alameda. Mr. Watly thought it was an excellent use of the area and fully the Use
Permit.
President Saheba closed the public comments and opened the board discussion.
Board Member Rothenberg supported the Use Permit. She suggested they add to the
engine testing criteria something about ground-borne vibrations and she wanted to make
sure it would come back to the board for Design Review. These suggestions were for
consideration and she looked forward to seeing the full Design Review.
Board Member Teague thanked the public for speaking and the staff and applicant for the
presentation. He discussed the importance of looking at the zoning and wanted a note
added that stated: ""whereas the use was consistent with the Public Trust Exchange Act
and Agreement as it lies outside of the area covered"". He also wanted it called out that
this was Adaptive Reuse and was glad that staff had pointed out that this land was in no
way useable for housing. He thought what Astra was doing with these buildings was an
excellent use. He fully supported this Use Permit.
Board Member Hom thought this use was an ideal use for these existing buildings and
was excited for the opportunities Astra was bringing to Alameda. He discussed the noise
analysis and thought the conditions covered the noise issues. He suggested that the hours
of limitations on engine testing should also include trucks backing up and unloading.
Board Member Curtis felt that his concerns had been addressed. He believed this was a
great operation and he fully supported the Use Permit application.
President Saheba discussed how this was an important step of many to get Astra where
it wanted to go and he appreciated the long-term thinking behind this Use Permit. He also
appreciated that this was an adaptive reuse of existing buildings and he did not think they
should put a restriction on trucks backing up since that was covered by the Noise
Ordinance.
Board Member Hom asked the staff if the Noise Ordinance included truck activity as part
of the noise-limited construction hours.
Director Thomas discussed how they had dealt with these issues in the past.
Staff Member Tai clarified that the Noise Ordinance had a provision for loading and
unloading with the hours limited to 7 am to 10 pm.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the Use Permit with the addition
of two whereas clauses, one ""whereas the use is consistent with Public Trust
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 7
October 11, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-11,6,"Exchange Act and Agreement as it lies outside of the area covered by said
agreement"" and second ""whereas the proposed use is an adaptive reuse of existing
buildings and structures"". Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. A roll
call vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2021-1377
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 13, 2021
Board Member Hom clarified his comments about the Harbor Bay Club's rezoning.
President Saheba opened public comments.
There were no speakers.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board action.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Board
Member Hom seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion
passed 5-0.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2021-1363
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent Actions and decisions can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5158508&GUID=FBOD1996
E749-4CFD-B95D-707D5D6D52DC&FullText=1.
No board member wanted to pull any item for review.
9-B 2021-1365
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai said the next meeting would be Monday, October 25th and they would
have two workshops, the General Plan for adoption and a Housing Element Workshop.
Director Thomas discussed the changes, what to expect, and the next steps for the
General Plan and that it was available to view on the city's webpage.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 7
October 11, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-11,7,"11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 7
October 11, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-11.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2021-10-06,1,"City of Alameda Page 1
Civil Service Board Minutes - DRAFT
Regular Meeting July 7, 2021
CITY
OF
of
TERRA
RATED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
WEDNESDAY, July 7, 2021
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:01 p.m. by President, Marguerite Malloy.
2.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
President Marguerite Malloy, Vice President Troy Hosmer, Members Bob
Barde, Human Resources Director and Executive Secretary of the Civil
Service Board, Nancy Bronstein
ABSENT:
Members Donna Hom, April Madison-Ramsey
STAFF PRESENT:
Chris Low, Senior Human Resources Analyst
Sabina Netto, Senior Human Resources Analyst
Jessica Romeo, Senior Human Resources Analyst
Steve Woo, Human Resources Analyst Il
Nafisah Ali, Human Resources Analyst I
Chad Barr, Administrative Technician Il
3.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION:
Lisa Foster gave presentation of Draft Vision Zero Action Plan to Eliminate Traffic
Fatalities and Severe Injuries by 2040.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
MINUTES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 7, 2021
President Malloy moved to accept consent calendar. Seconded by Member Barde,
passed by a 3-0 roll call vote.",CivilServiceBoard/2021-10-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2021-10-06,2,"City of Alameda Page 2
Civil Service Board Minutes - DRAFT
Regular Meeting July 7, 2021
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
5-A. SUMMARY REPORT OF EXAMINATION
ELIGIBLE
LISTS
AND
CLASSIFICATIONS FOR JULY 7, 2021
5-A-i. ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
(March 1, 2021 - May 31, 2021)
Administrative Technician Il
03/16/2021
2020-1465-01
Administrative Technician III
03/16/2021
2021-1460-01
Assistant City Attorney I
05/18/2021
2021-1015-01
Assistant Engineer
03/22/2021
2021-3120-01
Associate Civil Engineer
03/22/2021
2021-3140-01
Deputy City Attorney Il
05/18/2021
2021-1017-01
Energy Resources Analyst
04/06/2021
2021-7075-01
Financial Services Manager
04/28/2021
2021-1695-01
Fire Apparatus Operator - Promotional
05/18/2021
2021-4505-01
Fire Captain - Promotional
03/29/2021
2021-4520-01
Human Resources Analyst Il - Promotional
05/13/2021
2021-1260-01
Librarian
04/26/2021
2021-3530-01
Maintenance Worker Il
04/27/2021
2021-2520-01
Park Maintenance Foreperson - Promotional
03/18/2021
2021-5230-01
Permit Technician Il - Promotional
05/03/2021
2020-3270-01
Police Lieutenant - Promotional
05/11/2021
2021-4020-01
Public Works Maintenance Foreperson - Electrical/
04/27/2021
2021-2555-01
Pump Station
Public Works Maintenance Foreperson - Sewer/Storm
04/28/2021
2021-2555-02
Senior Combination Building Inspector - Promotional
03/31/2021
2021-3242-01
Senior Energy Resources Analyst
04/06/2021
2021-7073-01
5-A-ii. CONTINUOUS ELIGIBLE LISTS DATE FIRST ESTABLISHED EXAM NO.
Electrical Equipment Superintendent
12/23/2020
2020-7711-01
Journey Lineworker
12/30/2020
2020-7775-01
Line Superintendent
05/06/2021
2021-7702-01
Police Officer - Academy Graduate
02/17/2021
2021-4040-01
Police Officer - Pre-Graduate Academy Attendee
03/29/2021
2021-4040-02
Police Officer - Lateral
01/07/2021
2020-4040-01
Police Officer - Recruit
02/25/2021
2021-4057-01
Public Safety Dispatcher
05/13/2021
2021-4074-01
Substation & Meter Supervisor
03/25/2021
2021-7750-01
5-A-iii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Associate Civil Engineer (Associate Civil &
10/22/2020
2020-3140-01
Transportation Engineer)
Gardener
03/10/2020
2020-7120-01",CivilServiceBoard/2021-10-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2021-10-06,3,"City of Alameda Page 3
Civil Service Board Minutes - DRAFT
Regular Meeting July 7, 2021
Maintenance Worker II
11/05/2019
2019-2520-03
Park Manager - Promotional
10/28/2020
2020-5145-01
Police Sergeant
04/22/2020
2020-4030-01
Recreation Assistant
03/20/2020
2020-5114-01
Senior Librarian
10/30/2020
2020-3540-01
Senior Management Analyst
10/03/2019
2019-1408-01
Sustainability and Resilience Manager
11/03/2020
2020-1406-01
Utility Energy Analyst (Utility Program Manager)
09/16/2020
2020-7630-01
5-A-iv. ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIRED/
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
CANCELLEDIEXHAUSTED
Assistant City Attorney Il (Prosecutor)
11/12/2019
2019-1013-01
Assistant Engineer
03/22/2021
2021-3120-01
Building Code Compliance Officer
06/17/2019
2019-2077-01
Combination Building Inspector Il
05/15/2019
2019-3245-01
Deputy City Attorney Il (Prosecutor)
11/12/2019
2019-1017-02
Energy Resources Analyst
04/06/2021
2021-7075-01
Fire Captain - Promotional
03/29/2021
2021-4520-01
Human Resources Analyst Il - Promotional
05/13/2021
2021-1260-01
Office Assistant (Investigations Division Office
04/16/2019
2019-1550.01
Assistant)
Park Manager - Promotional
10/28/2020
2020-5145-01
Permit Technician Il - Promotional
05/03/2021
2020-3270-01
Technology Services Coordinator - (Public Safety
10/22/2019
2019-1670-01
Technology Service
Coordinator)
Senior Combination Building Inspector - Promotional
03/31/2021
2021-3242-01
Senior Energy Resources Analyst
04/06/2021
2021-7073-01
System Operator Trainee - Promotional
03/06/2019
2019-7761-01
5-B. Activity Report - Period of March 1, 2021 through May 31, 2021.
FULL-TIME HIRES
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
03/01/21
AMP
System Operator
03/01/21
Library
Library Technician
03/03/21
Public Works
PW Project Manager III
03/09/21
Recreation & Park
Recreation Assistant
03/29/21
Fire
Firefighter x6
04/06/21
AMP
Utility Energy Analyst
04/12/21
Police
Police Officer X 3
04/25/21
Community Development
Community Development Director
05/08/21
Public Works
Assistant Engineer",CivilServiceBoard/2021-10-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2021-10-06,4,"AMP
Line Superintendent
05/04/21
IT
Technology Services Coordinator
05/06/21
Library
Library Technician
05/07/21
Public Works
Supervising Civil Engineer
05/20/21
AMP
Journey Lineworker
05/21/21
AMP
Utility Analyst
05/24/21
Recreation & Park
Gardener
05/27/21
Community Development
Development Manager
5-C. LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS
Existing Classification Specification Revision:
-
Computer Services Technician
New Classification Specifications:
-
Crime Analyst",CivilServiceBoard/2021-10-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2021-10-06,5,"City of Alameda Page 5
Civil Service Board Minutes - DRAFT
Regular Meeting July 7, 2021
Member Barde voiced some concern regarding the Crime Analyst position. Member
Barde asked what the intent of the City Council was with the position. Director Bronstein
stated it is a common class in police departments to get better data on what crimes are
happening and finding better ways to respond. It is a statistical position, crunching
numbers, for example, how to handle mental health calls. Council gave direction in the
last Council meeting on how to handle mental health calls.
Member Barde continued to explain his concern that this job and data is heavy on
standard methods of policing and recent discussions about who is being policed and how
interactions with public are being evaluated, with not much attention being paid to victims
or equity or adverse interactions. President Malloy stated she believed Member Barde is
speaking to who uses the data and is that data used for policy to reinforce that status quo.
Director Bronstein noted that without the data it is hard to know what is working. President
Malloy continued that the CSB role is not to speak to political policy, cultural competency,
or emotional intelligence of how the data is used. Director Bronstein noted that the
Council will see the information collected and then can say this is not the data we need.
President Malloy moved to approve items 5-A-I, 5-A-ii, 5-Aiii, 5-A-iv, 5-B and 5-C.
Seconded by Vice President Hosmer, passed by a 3-0 roll call vote.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
No comment from public.
7.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS AND REQUESTS
FROM THE BOARD)
Member Barde asked to get information regarding the decision of the special meeting, to
hear if the long and short term outcome was a good decision. President Malloy asked
that Director Bronstein provide information by reaching out to Member Barde rather than
discuss in open meeting.
8.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
HR Director Bronstein informed the Board about the City implementing a new human
resources information and finance system and with the work load, providing data reports
is challenging. We are concerned about the volume of work and amount of time it has
taken so far, but hope to be able to provide data in December.
President Malloy wondered if we wanted to consider developing a 1 or 2 page handout
related to hearing rules to provide to the public so they understand what to expect when
these infrequently happen.",CivilServiceBoard/2021-10-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2021-10-06,6,"City of Alameda Page 6
Civil Service Board Minutes - DRAFT
Regular Meeting July 7, 2021
9.
CONFIRMATION OF NEXT CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING
Future meetings were confirmed for Wednesday, 5:00 PM on October 6, 2021.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
me
Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director
and
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board",CivilServiceBoard/2021-10-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -OCTOBER 5, 2021-6:30 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Spencer, Vella and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at
6:36 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-607) Conference with Legal Counsel Workers' Compensation Claim (Pursuant to
Government Code § 54956.95); Claimant: Employee - Fire Department; Claim: ALAY-
005540; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that the case involves a workers' compensation claim by a former firefighter
(""Applicant"") who joined the City in 1995; the Applicant's injury was cumulative trauma
occurring through their two decades plus of service to the City, potentially culminating
into cancer; the Applicant has retired from the City; the Council authorized the City
Attorney to settle the pending workers' compensation claim in an amount not to exceed
$90,000.00 by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera
Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:38
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,2,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--OCTOBER 5, 2021--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox
White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:
The meeting was conducted via Zoom.
Councilmember Knox White left the meeting at 11:01
p.m.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(21-608) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the nominations [paragraph
no. 21-609 next.
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.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-609) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners (HABOC) and Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel
(MEDAP).
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Christina Mun to HABOC and Eva Jennings and Dan
Poritzky to the MEDAP.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(21-610) Proclamation Declaring October 2021 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, Queer History Month.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-611) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, discussed actions related to Jean Sweeney Park
being taken in closed session; stated the City is paying five times as much per acre.
(21-612) Michael Devine, Alameda, discussed loud vehicle noise and health related
concerns; suggested noise traps, ticketing and addressing the matter on a future
agenda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
1",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,3,"(21-613) Casey Farmer, Alameda County, made an announcement regarding Alameda
County redistricting; encouraged public participation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
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. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*21-614) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Joint City Council and
Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting, the Continued
July 20, 2021 City Council Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on
September 7, 2021. Approved.
(*21-615) Ratified bills in the amount of $7,186,584.01.
(*21-616) Ordinance No. 3307, ""Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXIV
Public Health to Add Section 24-13 Prohibition on Gasoline-Powerec Leaf Blowers.""
Finally passed.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
(21-617) Recommendation to Review, Comment and Provide Direction on Preliminary
Needs Assessment and Recommendations for Development of Smart City Master Plan.
The Information Technology Director and David Huynh and Monique Fuhrman, Iteris,
gave a PowerPoint presentation.
***
(21-618) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing an additional five
minutes for the presentation.
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.
Ms. Fuhrman and the Information Technology Director completed the presentation.
Councilmember Knox White stated the City has spent over $1 million for both Park and
Webster Streets Transit Signal Priority (TSP); inquired how the plan proposes to
implement signal priority at the same cost and whether the plan is addressing other
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
2",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,4,"areas in the City.
Mr. Huynh responded Webster Street improvements were done; stated the Plan
identifies other corridors within Alameda with a concentration of AC Transit bus lines;
the intention is to address gaps on Park Street and Santa Clara Avenue.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has already spent $1 million on both Park and
Webster Streets; inquired whether TSP has been implemented on Park Street.
Ms. Fuhrman responded in the affirmative; stated the Plan proposes expanding TSP on
the Island to enhance bus service; other lines go around the Island; additions would be
on Santa Clara Avenue, Otis Drive and Alameda Point.
Councilmember Knox White requested clarification that TSP is not being proposed for
Park Street since the City already has a smart corridor in existence there, to which Ms.
Fuhrman responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated $230,000 is being proposed to invest in a
private company's fiber network; inquired whether the private company is known.
The Information Technology Director responded the City recently received a quote from
Comcast.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding partnering with an
Infrastructure Service Provider (ISP), the Information Technology Director stated the
City does not want to be the ISP provider, but wants to look into opportunities to partner
with providers on the City's fiber network in order to offer free WiFi to residents;
requested Mr. Huynh provide examples from other cities.
Mr. Huynh stated leases or joint use agreements can be used to incentivize private
companies to expand their networks in Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated Alameda is not getting into the internet business; the
provider will be offering a free service to consumers, which he would like to better
understand later, not tonight; expressed support for the goals.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Comcast cannot pay for the
infrastructure, which is why the City would pay.
The Information Technology Director responded the City contacted Comcast to request
the cost of bring fiber to the gym at Alameda Point, which would cost the City $230,000.
Councilmember Knox White stated the main strategy is to build out a network; other
things, such as the TSP, would be used off of the network; inquired whether steps could
come back to Council later, if Council would not be making the decision tonight and if
tonight is simply an agreement to move forward with the vision and strategy having
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
3",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,5,"projects coming separately after the broadband backbone ring is done.
The Information Technology Director responded in the affirmative; stated the broadband
backbone is the key to other top 10 priorities and recommendations move forward.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed short, mid-term and long-term timeframes; stated that
she would like to move up internet availability being enhanced in public places to
decrease the digital divide; cyber security should also be at the top of the list; discussed
ransomware attacks; inquired whether and how cyber security could be accelerated.
The Information Technology Director responded priorities are still being planned; stated
staff is meeting with existing telecommunication carriers: Verizon and Comcast; the
companies are aware of the Smart City Initiatives; in order to get more equitable
internet, Verizon is sending an engineer to areas with weak cellular service to boost
signals, which could be a good stop gap; Comcast has offered to work with the City to
implement its lift zone program and increase gig speed for free for three years in equity
priority community locations; cyber security features would be included in the fiber core
buildout.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she, Vice Mayor Vella and the Information Technology
Director met with Comcast's Government Relations representative about equity issues.
Mr. Huynh stated cyber security has to be included as part of network buildout; phases
will be identified.
Discussed internet service and cyber security; expressed concern over increasing staff;
stated funds would be better spent on roads: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the plan has options to address equity issues, which are a
Council priority; phasing of cyber security makes sense; discussed the dig once policy;
stated the issue has been discussed for several years; $230,000 is for one location;
costs add up quickly to have equitable access at other sites.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds;
inquired when the Council will make final decisions about ARPA funds, to which the
Assistant City Manager responded the first meeting in December.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she brought a referral in 2017 to have free
public WiFi throughout the City; the School District successfully created hot spots;
people have been left behind during the pandemic; her priority is closing the digital
divide as quickly as possible; inquired how quickly it can be done and how much money
is needed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff address the limitations of hot spots.
The Assistant City Manager responded the ARPA funding includes $50,000 for a hot
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
4",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,6,"spot program that would be launched by the Library and could have quick
implementation; stated fiber network allows the City to build its own local system that
would support greater WiFi access for people across the community; the City has near-
term options and a longer-term plan to really enhance local capabilities and take away
unstable hot spot network issues that could arise in different parts of the community.
The Information Technology Director stated the hot spot issue was discussed in the
meeting with Verizon; locations in the City without cellular signal require use of WiFi;
Verizon will send an engineer to certain areas to boost the signal.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there was a discussion about the use of street
lights to support cellular at a League of California Cities conference, she agrees weak
cellular service is across the City; the plan includes more than she is ready to support;
the City has fallen short in providing WiFi; she is concerned it has been four years since
her referral; the Library hot spots and connecting cellular service should be the priority;
questioned how much ARPA funding is needed to fill WiFi gaps across the City; stated
the entire Smart City Plan should not be funded by ARPA; discussed use of ARPA
funds; stated that she is interested in hearing about other possible funding sources for
the Smart City Plan.
Councilmember Daysog stated ARPA funds will allow the City to lay infrastructure to
close the digital divide, improve transit flow and provide free internet through ISPs; cost
estimates should be adhered to; the business model of free internet needs to be
understood; discussed Alameda's experience providing internet and cable; stated that
he is fine with the priorities; this is rare funding opportunity; the City should move
forward.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he supports the concept in general; more
discussion is needed; he is not aware of free citywide public WiFi programs that are
working exceedingly well; he would like more information; a lot of Department of
Transportation program grants overpromised and under delivered; he is a little
concerned about jumping to a decision too quickly because the City has money;
transportation operation benefits beyond staff savings are being over promised;
discussed traffic; stated time has not been saved from either of the two smart corridor
programs; expressed concern about outcomes not being met; stated that he would like
to have further discussion of and information about San Leandro's program; the State
and federal governments are providing a lot of cyber infrastructure funding, which he
would rather use to fund the Smart City program; he is not 100% clear on the strategy
and would like more information, especially about programs in other cities; the City's
internet experience is a good example of why small cities should not get into technology
solutions early on since things change so quickly; broadband is a future the City needs
to prepare for and the ring is one of the first steps; discussed prior meetings with the
School District; expressed concern about relying on private providers.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is providing direction; inquired whether
Councilmember Knox White feels the transportation component should be referred back
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
5",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,7,"to the Transportation Commission.
Councilmember Knox White responded a lot of transportation conversations are not
focused on the City's set goals; stated that he would rather the matter return to Council
for guidance before it goes to the Transportation Commission.
Vice Mayor Vella stated perhaps the direction on the transportation corridors could be
removed; there should be a broader conversation about goals and the efficacy of what
has been done; she would like to see the City exploring different infrastructure options;
WiFi does not exist without infrastructure; where money comes from is separate; there
could be other grants; it could be difficult for staff to go after funding if there is not a
policy in place; staff needs to understand the direction from Council; she would like to
hear more from her colleagues and understand how they want to address infrastructure.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff thinks more funding is needed
to support the Library hot spots; stated that she would like to break the direction down
into parts; expressed support for WiFi across the Island.
The Assistant City Manager responded staff has the funding needed; the ARPA
discussions will be back in December to get formal authorization to spend the funds;
specific amounts for projects are being fleshed out; $50,000 seems adequate for the
program and timeframe; more information will return in December.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she looks forward to the conversation
returning in December; regarding the rest of the Plan, she agrees with Councilmember
Knox White and thinks more time should be spent on the specific items; she is not ready
to proceed with committing $6 million and does not see ARPA as the appropriate
funding source.
Councilmember Daysog stated staff put together and provided costs for 10
recommendations to meet Smart City goals; the Council is raising questions which will
come back; his question is about better understanding the ISP business model;
Councilmember Knox White is focused on transit; staff provided an envelope of
recommendations; Council has follow up question for certain areas; Councilmember
Herrera Spencer raised questions about the digital divide; staff will come back, which
might result in some things falling off; staff provided a starting point for Council to have
a conversation and get the Smart City program going; having ARPA funds is great;
perhaps other funds will be available in the future.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Daysog; discussed ARPA funds;
stated the way people work has changed dramatically; a Chamber of Commerce
speaker indicated it will take a few years for people to return to offices; infrastructure is
needed to support people working from home; discussed telemedicine; stated that she
has questions about the additional staffing; she wants estimates and funding sources;
ARPA is for one-time expenditures; concurred with Councilmember Knox White's
request for information on where programs have been used successfully; stated the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
6",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,8,"Plan relates to the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP); getting traffic moving
more smoothly and efficiently without cars idling helps reduce greenhouse gas
emissions; the Plan relates to the Council priorities; the City needs to move forward with
getting infrastructure in place; expressed support for dig once; stated the needs for
cyber security should not be under estimated; requested staff to come back with
answers to questions raised with an eye towards getting the infrastructure in place.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(21-619) Resolution No. 15821, ""Appointing Kathryn Beehler as a Member of the
Commission on Persons with Disabilities.' Adopted;
(21-619A) Resolution No. 15822, ""Reappointing Lisa Hall as a Member of the
Commission on Persons with Disabilities."" Adopted; and
(21-619B) Resolution No. 15823, ""Reappointing Jennifer Roloff as a Member of the
Commission on Persons with Disabilities. Adopted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Vela 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 made brief comments.
Ms. Beehler, Ms. Hall and Ms. Roloff made brief comments and the City Clerk
administered the Oath of Office.
(21-620) Recommendation to Approve The Road Home: A 5 Year Plan to Prevent and
Respond to Homelessness in Alameda.
Amanda Wehrman, Homebase, gave a PowerPoint presentation.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding Housing First and case
management, Ms. Wehrman stated the Housing First approach is highlighted in a
number of the strategies; the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
and both national and local experts promote Housing First as the best practice to deliver
housing and services to people experiencing homelessness; the idea is about reducing
barriers to entry into programs, as well as reducing restrictions that might force people
out of programs, which enables people to get into housing more quickly and be provided
case management and support to maintain housing stability over time; Continuum of
Care (COC) refers to all of the housing and services available; HUD also uses the term
to refer to a decision making body, typically at the county level, called the COC Board;
there is also a COC funding stream; COC is not meant to be in contrast with Housing
First; COC is the overall approach and Housing First is delivering services within the
Continuum; Housing First can be delivered within a COC setting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
7",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,9,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether numbers might be higher since a count has not
been able to be completed for two years; stated the number might not matter; there is a
problem and the City needs to start addressing it.
Ms. Wehrman responded there is an upward trend; stated steps have been taken during
the pandemic on eviction prevention; a lot of resources have come down from the State;
a comparative number will not be known until the next point in time count; additional
analysis done in the plan looks at other data from the County's Homeless Management
Information System (HMIS), which has higher numbers for the City; in 2019, there were
736 people throughout the County who have a tie back to the City; the HMIS differs
from a point in time count.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are now encampments in new parts of the City; noted
that she would like to share a screen about housing security at the end of the
discussion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the supplemental information from staff be
added to the agenda item; stated it has the data she requested at a prior meeting; the
safe parking program has capacity for 25 vehicles and serves 11 vehicles on average
and 21 unduplicated people per quarter; inquired whether staff thinks there are more
than 11 people in the community who could use the service.
The Economic Development Manager responded there are more than 11 cars in the
City; stated the City is actively going out and letting people know about the safe parking
location; people from Encinal Boat ramp were moved over; the number could be higher;
the data was older than last week.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether adopting Housing First means case
management would not be required as a condition of housing.
Ms. Wehrman responded the recommendations related to Housing First are about how
to reduce barriers; stated it is about making the housing and programs as low barrier as
possible; scenarios should not be created where people are cycling in and out of
programs; instead, space should be created for people to get into programs and be
offered case management and other support service to help maintain housing stability;
Housing First does not say put people in housing and let them be; the program is about
creating robust supports and structures through the design in order to help ensure the
success of program participants; it is about how to have trauma informed care,
motivational interviewing and other best practice approaches coupled with Housing
First.
Stated Housing First is a HUD requirement for all permanent supportive housing
programs; case management services are voluntary for the client, but not the employee;
the process to create the Plan was inclusive; implementation should provide services
throughout Alameda with clear matrix to access success; urged the development of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
8",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,10,"housing be streamlined, especially pertaining to opposition: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point
Collaborative.
Stated the program goal is admirable; using available public and private land makes
sense; the locations do not portray a Citywide program; only 1 of the 10 properties is
east of Webster Street, which feels kind of like redlining; urged review of the map in the
correspondence he submitted; suitable land is available elsewhere; urged Council to
more equally distribute the locations across all of Alameda: Ben Mickus, Alameda.
Stated one of the first items the Plan should focus on is the Fire Department family
services project; the pilot program seems like it fits in here and should be focused on;
questioned who would address large scale shelters during winter: Marilyn Rothman,
Alameda.
Stated that she worked in affordable and supportive for over 30 years; she supports the
City addressing the matter; the locations are concentrated in the West End; going
forward, a mechanism should be established for land and property purchases with
criteria for choosing the locations; requested distribution throughout the Island with
community involvement: Marilyn Alwan, Alameda.
Stated loss of a job was the top reported reason for homelessness; obtaining and
retaining employment through skilled job programs should be a top priority; she would
like to see a substantial increase in support for higher paid workers; the City needs to
support programs that pay a living wage well above the minimum wage; discussed the
need and availability of daily showers; stated focus should be on a data driven
approach: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Stated sites for new housing can be identified as part of the Housing Element (HE)
process; HE goals include furthering fair housing goals; project sites need to be more
than on the West End; the Plan looks good; input was solicited from the right people;
urged speeding up production of new homes, especially affordable housing, and
streamlining: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Stated the process for building or renovating properties for these projects needs to be
streamlined; the East End needs to participate in serving unhoused neighbors: Jenice
Anderson, Alameda.
Stated access should be barrier free and acknowledge what people are facing;
expressed appreciation for people with lived experience participating in the Plan: Alexia
Arocha, Alameda.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding shelter during the winter
months, the Economic Development Manager stated the number of people sheltered
last year was reduced significantly because of COVID; normally 90 people are housed
and the City only housed 7 continuously last year.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
9",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,11,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether hotel and motel rooms were used rather than
Christ Episcopal Church, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in
the affirmative; stated 7 were housed in the hotel.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the site list mentioned in 1.1.a has been
developed, to which the Economic Development Manager responded a list has not been
developed.
Councilmember Knox White stated language should be added to 1.1.a that states: staff
should identify ways in which to ensure there is some form of equitable distribution of
services provided across the Island for the unhoused population and residents; it should
not be assumed everyone will go to Alameda Point; there are land use constraints on
the Island and there is vacant land because the Naval Air Station left; the list should
include strategies that could be implemented in order to make sites available across the
Island and on Bay Farm Island as well; Council gave direction last July; the work kicked
off in January; a well written and developed Plan has been presented tonight; the
Council and community provided input.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how members were chosen to participate in
the process.
The Development Manager responded community outreach was multi-level, including a
steering committee, focus groups and individual interviews; stated a number of
participants were identified by staff; staff also wanted a broader opportunity for the
community to participate; there were over 1,000 responses to a survey and 2
community meetings were held.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the community meetings were virtual, to which
the Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the staff report mentions 434 Central Avenue,
Surfside Apartments; inquired whether the City owns the property, to which the
Community Development Director responded the City does not own the property; stated
the City assisted the owner with a Community Development Block Grant renovation
loan.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's further inquiry, the Community
Development Director stated the City made the loan as an opportunity for the owner to
provide improved housing and offer affordable units.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the total and affordable number of units.
The Community Development Director responded there are 50 units; stated that she
does not recall the number of affordable units.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether units are not for the unhoused, to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
10",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,12,"which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
units are part of an affordable project.
The Development Manager stated any affordable housing helps keep people housed
and prevent homelessness, which is a key part of the Plan.
Ms. Wehrman stated a list was not created; action steps are to complete analysis;
regarding locations, proximity to amenities is included for housing sites.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated lists being presented should be clear to the
public; data related to Alameda's unhoused population is useful; questioned whether the
goals are related to Alameda or would be recommended for any city; stated that she
would like to spend more time on what the goals mean for Alameda; everyone supports
the first goal, but she needs to know what it looks like and how it is going to apply to
Alameda; the Plan is very general and should include more specific asks; she is
concerned about providing housing and services that is based on the data; the goals
are vague; Council should be weighing in and making decision about specific
properties; inquired what Council is being asked to approve.
The Community Development Director stated staff has been exploring specific projects,
including scattered sites, emergency transitional housing, the bottle parcel and the
Marina Village Inn, and will come to Council in the near future; staff is gearing up for
Homekey project and funds; a provider has to be selected; the City needs a partner to
do the projects.
The Economic Development Manager stated the specific action steps included in the
Plan are generalized; staff will return with more specifics.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is a Housing Authority in Alameda;
inquired whether the City is creating its own Housing Department, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated State and County
funding is available to the City; staff is looking at opportunities available to the City.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Housing Authority used to be part of the
City and really still is since the Board is selected by Council; the Housing Authority was
separated to make it more efficient, able to apply for grants, streamline processes and
end up with more money available for the cause; she would like the Plan to include
working with the Housing Authority; she supports the Housing Authority; she has
concerns about staff duplicating efforts; there should be increased conversations with
the Housing Authority to ensure as much money as possible goes to the cause; there
should not be more City Hall staff as opposed to the Housing Authority, which provides
the same service; her preference would be for the City to work with the Housing
Authority.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the objective is to have broad goals for staff to follow while
exploring different solutions to the problems; issues, such as housing, do not have a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
11",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,13,"one size fits all approach; detailed exploration will occur; staff will return to Council after
determining what is feasible with the available funds; concurred with Councilmember
Knox White's concerns about equitable access to housing and distribution throughout
the City regardless of convenience; stated staff is trying to look outside Alameda Point;
the City has an opportunity to make a concerted effort with the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) and other housing discussions.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of supporting the Plan with the comments made by
Councilmembers about ensuring the Plan is inclusive and really looking throughout the
Island; discussed Council's priority related housing.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he will be supportive of specific
projects, such as the Marina Village Inn or bottle parcel; he has supported such projects
since he began serving on the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in 1995;
he does not have enough information on the overarching policies being implemented;
he does not know if Housing First is superior to the current way; discussed current
requirements to keep housing versus considering services voluntary and a barrier;
stated that he thinks people need to be required to get services to access and stay in
housing; he will not support or oppose the Plan; he will support projects.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the goals are too broad and not particular to
Alameda; she will not support the Plan because efforts will duplicate Housing Authority
work, which is not appropriate; she appreciates the data.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined her work on the League of California Cities Statewide
Policy Committee on Housing, Community and Economic Development and the
Alameda County Mayor's Conference Homelessness Working Group; stated there is a
Statewide housing crisis; there are innovative solutions and successes; magic starts to
occur with wrap around services; action is needed; she completely agrees with the
motion and second; metrics and measurables are important; staff is in the process of
interviewing innovative, exciting service providers; she agrees that barriers and
opposition to development of supportive housing need to be reduced; expressed her
support.
Councilmember Knox White stated the Plan is strategic and supposed to be the guiding
principle; there are 51 specific actions to lead to desired outcomes; Housing First is not
new; it went away under Regan when requirements were implemented; until a person
has housing, they cannot be ready to go through drug or mental health treatment or job
training; further discussed Housing First.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Abstention; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. Abstentions: 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
12",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,14,"While a slide was shown with information about the Housing Secure program, Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want people to experience housing insecurity;
urged people to call 211 or go online to www.ac-housingsecure.org; outlined program
details.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:44 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:55
p.m.
(21-621) Uncodified Urgency Ordinance No. 3308, ""Continuing the Suspension During
the Local Emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic of Certain Provisions of the City's
""Sunshine Ordinance"" to the Extent Inconsistent with Assembly Bill No. 361 and
Executive Order N-15-21 of the Governor of the State of California Arising from the
State of Emergency Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic."" Adopted; and
(21-621A) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be
Conducted via Teleconference.
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Requested an explanation of uncodified ordinances; stated the action to comply with
State law seems like a backdoor way to declare a State of Emergency in Alameda,
which no longer exists; expressed concern about Charter ordinance adoption provisions
and declaration of an emergency: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Urged Council to support the recommendation; stated if not passed, she would be
forced to resign from the Commission on Persons with Disabilities due to her
autoimmune disease; the emergency is not behind us; urged meetings be made
accessible for the public and Board/Commission members: Beth Kenny, Alameda.
Concurred with Speaker Kenny's comments; urged meetings continue using the Zoom
format; stated the pandemic is not over: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Concurred with Speakers Kenny and Anderson; urged Council to consider accessibility
for the public and continue Zoom meetings: Savanna Cheer, Alameda.
Stated that he supported Assembly Bills 361 339, which only pertains to large cities;
discussed a letter sent to Council from the Open Government Commission; suggested
language be added to the Sunshine Ordinance to ensure remote access to meetings:
Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Expressed support for accessibility through Zoom meetings: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.
Expressed support for the continuation of remote meetings forever; stated attending
remotely is more manageable and convenient: Debra Mendoza, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
13",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,15,"Expressed support for City Council meetings continuing to be hosted on Zoom; stated
having meetings accessible is critical to having more involvement and engagement:
Laura Cutrona, Alameda.
Expressed support for remote meetings in the future; stated that she has chronic
bronchitis and the pandemic is not over for her; she is not comfortable in large groups
and would not be comfortable in the Council Chambers; urged Council to support
remote meetings: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Stated Zoom is a great way for the public to access meetings and should continue;
questioned whether the urgency ordinance is required to continue Zoom meetings:
Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how the declaration and ordinance differs
from or has an impact on the declaration of the Local Emergency under Government
Code Section 8630(c).
The City Clerk responded the bill that was just passed pertains to the Brown Act, which
is a different section of the Government Code; stated this item has to return every 30
days and the other item has to return to Council every 60 days; stated they are two
completely separate actions.
The City Attorney stated at the beginning of the pandemic, the Council adopted an
urgency ordinance suspending certain provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance; this
ordinance continues the same provisions with respect to AB 361; both ordinances
address Sunshine Ordinance requirements, such as City Hall being the meeting location
and remote members having to provide public access; the ordinances are to be
consistent with State law and reduce the potential for Sunshine Ordinance complaints.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she voted no on the Declaration under
Government Code Section 8630(c) and wants to ensure supporting this item does not
conflict with her other votes; stated the two are very similar.
The City Attorney stated the findings the Council has to make are: 1) the Governor, not
the local agency, has declared a State of Emergency; and 2) public health officials
continue to recommend social distancing and meetings would be a hindrance to the
public health emergency declared by the Governor; although similar, there are nuanced
differences.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated hybrid meetings have been discussed; some
people have issues with Zoom and do not like doing meetings remote; hybrid would
allow people to come in person or participate on Zoom.
The City Clerk stated the provisions outlined in the Assembly Bill pertain to the
members on all City bodies, such as the City Council, Boards and Commissions; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
14",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,16,"action tonight allows members to continue remote without having to disclose locations
and allow members of the public to participate in the remote location; if meetings
continue in the same fashion, City Hall would remain closed and the public would have
to participate via calling in or on Zoom.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when members of the public will be able to
speak in person.
The City Manager stated the hybrid proposal would be once the Council starts meeting
in person.
The City Clerk concurred with the City Manager.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Police Officers were recently sworn in at the
Library inside; Councilmembers and the public attended; she would like a plan for in
person, socially distanced meetings; she would like a hybrid option considered if legally
possible; some members of the public have difficulty doing Zoom; the digital divide has
been discussed; she participates at City Hall because she would lose internet reception
at her home.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the pandemic is not over; there is a marked difference between
an outdoor, brief event versus meetings that are hours long; the decision is not just
about Council; Board and Commission volunteers should not have to put their health
and safety at risk to serve; forcing members to disclose home addresses or explain not
being in person is irresponsible and goes against equity and inclusion; people serving
have said it will impact their ability to volunteer; discussed vaccinations and impacts on
family members; the action allows the Council to govern in a compassionate way and
be very inclusionary of Board and Commission members, which is why she will support
the recommendation; the matter will have to be reauthorized; COVID-19 cases spiked
last year at Halloween; she does not want people to be afraid to serve since they would
have to disclose their remote participation address.
Vice Mayor moved approval of the staff recommendation [adoption of the urgency
ordinance and approval of the findings].
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will support the
motion, but would like a hybrid model considered and would like to figure out how the
City could legally do a hybrid model at some point.
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.
(21-622) Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
15",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,17,"Fees for Fire Department Services and Permits. Not adopted.
The Interim Fire Chief stated that he is available to answer questions.
Expressed concern about the fees being applied to people receiving services through
the alternative response team based out of the Fire Department; stated fees would be a
barrier to service [dropped connection]: Beth Kenny, Alameda.
Concurred with Speaker Kenny; stated fees and impacts of fees on the most vulnerable
members of the community should be kept in mind as services are transitioned to the
Fire Department; urged a racial equity lens be used: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Continued comments after dropping connection]; urged Council to review how fees are
collected, the portion passed onto individuals and income based considerations: Beth
Kenny, Alameda.
Stated that she is opposed to fees for individuals receiving services; she has seen
victims of crime charged for an ambulance; the most vulnerable members of the
community will be receiving services; the State just eliminated juvenile fees: Debra
Mendoza, Alameda.
Concurred with Speakers Rakowski and Mendoza; urged Council to keep in mind
comments about the most vulnerable being charged in their most vulnerable moment:
Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Expressed support for previous comments; discussed paramedic versus fire services;
stated that she hopes the City will not be charging for mental health services: Savanna
Cheer, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested an explanation of the charges discussed by
members of the public.
The Interim Fire Chief stated the matter does not relate to the crisis mobile response
unit; fees are not being recommended for said service; the fees are existing fees, which
are being adjusted for Fire Prevention services inspections and ambulance transport.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Interim Fire Chief stated
a
fee study was completed January 2019; the study recommended the fees be increased
over a four year period to raise cost recovery from 28% to 57%; the first increase was
done; last year, staff did not recommended raising the fees; the City's fees were the
lowest in the County.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether inspections are done by sworn Fire
Fighters, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Council previously discussed using non-
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
16",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,18,"sworn; inquired whether other cities use non-sworn Fire Fighters.
The Interim Fire Chief responded the Fire Department attempted to hire civilian
Inspectors; stated the City was unable to get qualified civilians after four different
outreach efforts; other departments use civilian Inspectors; other cities were also having
trouble hiring civilians.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about businesses' ability to
pay the increase, the City Manager stated businesses ability to pay was considered; the
fee increase was delayed in the summer 2020; he is open to discussing another delay.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is support from the business
associations, to which the City Manager responded that he does not believe the Fire
Department has done specific outreach to business community; businesses are facing
stresses; deferring another year is an option.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about how the City handles
victim's ambulance fees, the Fire Chief outlined costs for fire versus ambulance
services; stated the ambulance service is atypical for Fire Departments; discussed the
ambulance transport fee; stated the Department is mindful of a person's ability to pay;
people can request a hardship; the hardship policy is being updated and will come to
Council.
The City Manager noted Alameda County sets the ambulance fee caps; the City keeps
its fees consistent with the amount set by Alameda County.
The Interim Fire Chief stated Fire Departments charge what the County allows, which
does not capture the cost of providing the service.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she looks forward to having the hardship
policy come back to Council.
The Interim Fire Chief stated a large number of transport patients have Medicare;
patients under Medicare are not charged the maximum amount allowed by the County.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Medicare patients have to pay
anything out of pocket, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded they typically do not
pay.
***
(21-623) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is be needed to consider new items after
11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the remaining items up until
midnight.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
17",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,19,"The motion failed due to a lack of a second.
***
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of not adjusting the fees at this time
and leaving them as is.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will support the motion;
discussed the economic recovery and uncertainty.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City's fees are low relative to the rest of the County; timing
is important; staff should bring the fees back at the appropriate time after the pandemic
and when there are signs of economic recovery.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred; stated small businesses should not be burdened more
than they are already.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he did not support the matter when it first came in
March 2019 and will vote no.
The City Manager suggested the ambulance fees be considered separate and return to
Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would welcome staff bringing the matter back with
all the information needed to make an informed decision.
Vice Mayor Vella recommended amending the motion to bifurcate the vote tonight and
give staff direction to return with the ambulance fees.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a motion is not needed to keep fees as is and
staff could return anytime; she does not know if Medicare could be increased at this
time.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the information should be in the staff report; the better
course would be to bring the matter back.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she does not want the inspection fees to come back; no
action could be taken on the ambulance fees and staff could return.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is happy to accept the amendment to
the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the amended motion be restated.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the amended motion would be to not increase the fees for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
18",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,20,"building inspections at this time.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it would be for both inspections and plan review,
to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; inquired whether the motion
would be to continue the ambulance fees to a future meeting or give direction to staff to
bring it back with more information.
The City Manager stated Council can just make the first motion [regarding inspections
and plan reviews] and staff can bring back approval of the ambulance fees without the
item being continued, which is what he is suggesting.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she agrees with the suggestion as long as it is acceptable
to the original maker of the motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the amendment to the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion is to not increase the permit plan review and
inspection fees.
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. No: 1.
ADJOURNMENT
(21-624) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would adjourn the meeting in memory of
Ash Jones.
The City Clerk noted the Council rules allow the Communications to be heard since a
vote was not taken to stop at 11:00 p.m.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(21-625) The City Manager made announcements regarding free COVID-19 testing at
Alameda Point, Walk and Roll to School day and Alameda County Halloween
recommendations.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-626) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, expressed support for continuing meetings online;
suggested the entire audience be shown on the screen.
(21-627) Carmen Reid, Alameda, suggested the Council adopt a policy to show the
number of people watching meetings on Zoom.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
19",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,21,"(21-628) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-629) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational
Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-630) 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.
(21-631) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints
Limiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and
Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.
(21-632) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to
Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the
2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog) Not
heard.
(21-633) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing.
(Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-634) Councilmember Daysog announced that he attended the Economic Forum last
week and a walk on Saturday following the Supreme Court ruling on the Texas abortion
law; encouraged the City Attorney's office to look into whether there is anything
Alameda can do regarding the matter; stated a Councilmember might want to bring a
referral.
(21-635) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding attending the League
of California Cities conference; stated that she would be at Wood School for Walk and
Roll to School day.
(21-636) Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would be at Otis School for
Walk and Roll to School day; made an announcement regarding attending the League
of California Cities conference.
(21-637) Vice Mayor Vella made an announcement about the City Council/Heath Care
District Subcommittee meeting that she and the Mayor attended; stated that she also
attended the Women's March on Saturday.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Alameda Family Services Executive Director Katherine
Schwartz would be included in future Subcommittee meetings; stated that she missed
the March because she was meeting with the Alameda Renters Coalition.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
20",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,22,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
21",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY OCTOBER 4, 2021 7:00 P.M.
Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid, Shabazz and
Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via
Zoom and Vice Chair Shabazz arrived at 7:04 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie;
City Clerk Lara Weisiger]
Oral Communications
None.
Regular Agenda Items
3-B. Adopted Proposed Amendments to the Bylaw
Commissioner LoPilato gave a brief presentation.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she has no further comments as to any legal
aspects of the Bylaws with exception of referencing the blank in Section 4-B.3 regarding
procedures for complaint hearings; she wants to make sure it gets completed if there is a
future motion; at the last meeting, she mentioned that she wanted to verify the revision
regarding the 15-minute public comment time limit; she is comfortable with the insertion.
Commissioner Reid stated that she had a chance to read the correspondence submitted
by Jay Garfinkle; acknowledge the extensive work; recommended taking additional time
to digest it and allow other members of the public an opportunity to comment and take
the ideas into consideration; stated her take-away from his letter are optimizing
transparency and participation; Mr. Garfinkle's suggestions address said values.
Commissioner LoPilato continued her presentation.
Speaker:
Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he put a lot of effort in reviewing the proposed
revisions; he thinks both the original Bylaws and complaint processes are very lacking;
the public should have every opportunity to participate in the process; what matters now
is the revisions by Commissioner LoPilato and the suggestions he submitted; his offerings
are extensive and are based on many years experience in parliamentary procedure;
urged the Commission to make every effort to optimize enhancing the openness and
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
1",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,2,"transparency of government activities.
Commissioner Reid stated the Commission should acknowledge Mr. Garfinkle's
comments; there should not be any rush to revise the Bylaws without careful
consideration; reiterated some of the points referenced in Mr. Garfinkle's
correspondence, such as the Bylaws being amended by a supermajority vote; stated the
role of the City Clerk as the Secretary is confusing and should be clarified; if the
Commission wants to continue considering meeting monthly, it should be included in the
Bylaws; the suggestion to increase awareness regarding special meetings and updates
is important; locations of meetings should be available and accessible to the public.
Chair Tilos stated that he does not agree with the speaker's comment regarding
steamrolling through issues; nothing has moved that quickly during the entire time he has
been on the Commission; he wants to gauge the rest of the Commissioners on making a
motion tonight or pushing it out for several more meetings.
Vice Chair Shabazz concurred with Chair Tilos regarding the steamrolling comment;
stated that he is willing to move to approve the revisions of the Bylaws; the issue has
been and can be an ongoing process; he does not think any revisions voted on tonight
will be final revisions; if the Commission adopts the provision of a supermajority
requirement, it would make it potentially more difficult to make revisions in the future; he
agrees with some of Mr. Garfinkle's comments; suggested a simple adjustment to noticing
special meetings via electronic communications to add the phrase: ""and others"" beyond
just local media; questioned how a majority of the Commission would call a special
meeting, which could be addressed at a later point; stated other issues could also be
detailed in a practical way that does not cause obstruction and enables the Commission
to function.
Chair Tilos stated that he shares Vice Chair Shabazz's sentiments.
Commissioner Chen stated that she appreciates Commissioner LoPilato's hard work on
the item, as well as the efforts of Mr. Garfinkle; she does not agree with the supermajority
piece for the same reasons Vice Chair Shabazz stated in that it would freeze the
Commission in place; inquired how the Secretary of the Commission is also a staff
member and whether she is a voting member of the Commission.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated he could provide examples of organizations he has been a
part of where there was a similar designation, including the Peralta Community College
Board of Trustees, which has a Board Secretary who was hired to do specific work;
technically based on the Bylaws, the Chancellor of the District is the Secretary of the
Board; often times public institutions have a Secretary who serves as record keeper; if it
is necessary, the City Clerk's role as Secretary to the OGC could be clarified to indicate
that she does not vote; it is a standard practice, as is found in some private and non-profit
organizations; it would be difficult for a volunteer body to have someone do the work that
the City Clerk does as a volunteer; it is a common designation.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,3,"Commissioner LoPilato stated the language regarding the role of the Secretary is
consistent across all Alameda Boards and Commissions Bylaws; there is always an
interest in maintaining specificity to the work of the Commission, but also some uniformity
and basic provisions.
The City Clerk concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated the Secretary is always a
staff person; she does not staff all the Boards or Commissions, so typically someone in
the related Department is the Secretary noted in the Bylaws as an Officer fulfilling said
role.
Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Mr. Garfinkle's position to allow members
of the public to be invited to participate in the work of subcommittees; she feels it is a
good goal to incorporate in the Bylaws; the review and analysis of Public Records Act
(PRA) requests should be an essential goal of the Commission included as an order of
business; it is good preparation and streamlining process to include a section in the
agenda on Standard Commission Business; review of prior meeting meetings could be
something the Chair could work with the City Clerk to streamline the process; allowing
time for the Commissioners to respond to public comments is a good practice.
Chair Tilos inquired whether there are glaring issues that need to be addressed before
moving forward.
Commissioner Chen stated Commissioners are not allowed to hold debates with public
speakers under non-agenda public comment; inquired whether it would be a violation of
the Brown Act.
The City Clerk responded the rule is actually in the Code of Conduct which applies to all
the Boards and Commissions; stated every Commissioner signs that they will follow the
Code of Conduct, which states public comment is not to be a debate.
Commissioner Reid stated the intention behind it is not debate, but for clarification
purposes; speakers should not be excluded just for time limitations if they have something
else to say on a topic.
Vice Chair Shabazz suggested the basis for discussion be the revisions proposed by
Commissioner LoPilato; stated particular things could be added from Commissioners and
Mr. Garfinkle; he has nothing to add to the work done by Commissioner LoPilato, other
than the clarification question around process and majority requesting a meeting; he is
prepared to make a motion.
The City Clerk stated the Bylaw provision Vice Chair Shabazz asked about is actually
replicated based on the City Council; either the Chair or three members can call a special
meeting; the reason it exists is so the Chair does not have the ultimate authority to block
something Commissioners wants to hear; it is a practice that has not been used during
her time, but it does exist.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,4,"Commissioner Reid inquired whether public comment submitted during an appropriate
part of the agenda should be allowed to be read to the Commission.
Commissioner LoPilato stated reading correspondence into the record as a standard
practice could be very time consuming and not ideal; there already is a practice in which
the City Clerk can accommodate speakers who are unable to attend or speak during the
meeting.
The City Clerk concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated the Clerk's office would
make any reasonable accommodation; the feedback received from most of the public
when the COVID lockdown happened and staff was reading public comments was they
were tired of the Clerk reading the comments; then, an automated reader was used, which
the public did not like either; reading the public comments into the record was not well-
received.
Chair Tilos stated that he has no reservations against the current system where the
correspondence is received and distributed by the City Clerk; he is confident all
Commissioners are checking their emails and are very thoughtful of the comments.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he hears an underlying theme from Commissioner Reid
illustrated in the lifting up of Mr. Garfinkle's comments, which is the desire to maximize
public engagement; the theme has been repeated over a few months; his thoughts are to
think of other ways to have the same outcome, including considering a town hall forum or
encouraging people to be involved in civic organizations; he has heard the repeated
suggestions of finding other ways, having public involved in subcommittees or increasing
speaker time, but the meetings have been very long; there are alternate ways of doing it
that does not reduce public participation by having very long meetings.
Chair Tilos concurred with Vice Chair Shabazz; stated the biggest comment he received
from more than one Councilmember was about the length of OGC meetings, which is why
the City Attorney's office proposed removing the complaint procedure from the
Commission completely; he is looking for more efficient ways; it is not efficient use of the
Commission's time to deliberate every point in correspondence received; it is not a
debate; Commissioner Reid already knows how other Commissioners feel about some of
the themes she would like to change and seems redundant.
Commissioner Reid stated that she does not know how other Commissioners feel and
that Chair Tilos's comment is an assumption.
Chair Tilos stated that he understands Commissioner Reid's desire to get the public more
engaged, but he is also trying to balance out how to shorten meetings; the initial schedule
of bi-annual meetings became monthly meetings; work is being done; he would like to tilt
it back the other way in terms of meetings.
Commissioner Reid stated that she appreciates Chair Tilos's position and that he has
been doing this for a long time; she is just an average member of the community and she
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,5,"is not afraid of change or afraid to bring her ideas to the table; just because something
has been done one way does not mean it is the optimal and the best way for the public
to engage; members of the community are unaware of what is going on; the OGC should
be supporting these values; she is sorry to sound redundant, but teachers repeat
themselves hoping their students will learn; Mr. Garfinkle's suggestions should not be
ignored; she appreciates Vice Chair Shabazz asking for ways in which the OGC can
engage the public more; the email list distribution is a very simple change, which is a good
idea.
The City Clerk stated the public already has the ability to sign up to receive email
notifications of any and every meeting; the City sends out notifications of every agenda,
posts upcoming events and lists upcoming meetings; the City makes sure the public has
every ability to know about and participate in every meeting.
Commissioner Chen moved approval of accepting Commissioner LoPilato's revisions to
the Bylaws.
Vice Chair Shabazz seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner LoPilato made a friendly amendment to address a
couple items; under Section 5-A. Regular Meetings, which references semi-annual
meetings, she does not want to automatically assume the OGC is sticking with monthly
meetings; suggested adding the language: ""on the receipt of an alleged complaint or due
to ongoing business before the Commission"" so it is clear that there could be instances
other than a complaint requiring another meeting to be held.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated he thought the language already stated: ""or as needed.""
Commissioner LoPilato stated to be very clear, after the phrase ""alleged complaint ""add
""or due to ongoing business before the Commission;"" under 5-B. Special Meetings, add
the words: ""or others"" after ""local media"" to address the noticing; strike the word ""mail"" so
it just says ""written notice;"" in Section 8. Rules of Order and Governing Procedures,
Section 3-C. Statement of Position, the final line should state: ""each Commissioner may
briefly state his or her position on the matter before roll call or the call for the next item of
business;"" the City Clerk will add the link to the complaint form and procedures in the
highlighted sections once it is completed.
Commissioner Chen and Vice Chair Shabazz accepted Commissioner LoPilato's friendly
amendment.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.
Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated the Bylaws could be revisited at some point in the future;
suggested not dispensing with the subcommittee in the event the Commission considers
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,6,"revisiting the Bylaws.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated if an individual Commissioner
has interest in further revisions to the Bylaws at some point, it could be raised as a
Commission Agenda Request.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated that she would like to
start tonight but is open to a later implementation if more adjustment time is needed; it is
intended to be a living document and reference material that will be consulted a lot.
Commissioner Reid stated starting at the beginning of the year seems appropriate.
Commissioner Chen stated it should be effective at the next meeting; she sees it as a
living document; she has been studying and will keep in mind Mr. Garfinkle's suggestions
while seeing how well the newly revised Bylaws are working.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated he would like to implement it immediately.
Commissioner LoPilato stated there is flexibility about voting to adjust time limits on
presentations and things like that if needed for any other agenda items.
3-A. Approve Report to City Council on Issues/Problems Arising from Implementation of
the Sunshine Ordinance
Vice Chair Shabazz and Commissioner Chen gave a brief presentation.
***
Vice Chair Shabazz moved approval of allowing an additional minute for the presentation.
Chair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.
Ayes: 5.
***
Commissioner Chen and Vice Chair Shabazz completed the presentation.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that
she is not entirely sure what Mr. Foreman's referenced in his correspondence regarding
the City Attorney's office; there may have been comments about complaints hearing
serving as a semi-adjudicatory capacity, which means that the Commission is making
decisions about the legitimacy of a complaint.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether it is the opinion of the City Attorney's office that the
Commission is a quasi-judicial body.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded she is not sure the term is quasi-judicial; she
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,7,"is more familiar with the term quasi-adjudicatory; it is difficult for her to interpret someone
else's statement about another statement that was made.
Commissioner Reid stated that she would like clarification on what Mr. Foreman was
asking in his correspondence; if the OGC is quasi-adjudicatory, what are the ramifications
of the recent null and void proposal and what are the necessary steps to rectify the
situation; inquired whether it is true that the OGC is quasi-adjudicatory.
Chair Tilos stated the term came up when the City Council and City Attorney's office said
the Commission could not use null and void; therefore, the OGC does fall under the label
of quasi-adjudicatory.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated another staff member from her office made the
presentation to the City Council on June 1st; she cannot intuit exactly what Mr. Foreman
is meaning in his comments; she would be happy to respond at a later time with more
depth.
Commissioner Reid stated Mr. Foreman's comments regarding the statements made at
the June 1st City Council meeting that the OGC is quasi-judicial should be addressed;
inquired how the City Attorney's office interprets that statement now.
Chair Tilos stated null and void has been answered; the Commission cannot use it;
inquired whether Commissioner Reid's is intending to bring the null and void issue back
for discussion.
Commissioner Reid stated that she just asked the question and would like an answer
from the Chief Assistant City Attorney on whether the City Attorney's office considers the
OGC to be quasi-adjudicatory.
Chair Tilos stated the Chief Assistant City Attorney already stated she would provide a
response in depth at a later time.
Commissioner Reid stated her question was mentioned in the correspondence from Mr.
Foreman, which she assumes everyone has had a change to read.
Chair Tilos stated the correspondence was sent two hours before the meeting and not
everyone has read it.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she scanned Mr. Foreman's
correspondence; at this point, there is no reason to say anything different than what Mr.
Le may have said on June 1st; she does not recall the exact comments and is still not
entirely clear what Commissioner Reid is asking her to do related to this particular agenda
item.
Commissioner Chen stated what she understood is that the Commission has an
adjudicatory function, which means the Commission decides whether or not there is
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
7",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,8,"validity to a complaint; what can happen once a complaint is deemed valid, is to advise
the Council, or whichever Commission, that they are in violation of the Sunshine
Ordinance; the Commission does not have the function to make any decision null and
void; she has been listening very intently to the entire process; she was indignant when
it
first happened three years ago; sitting on the Commission, she has come to realize that
having an adjudicatory role is not the same as having the right to make something null
and void; as a point of order, the subcommittee did not make any comment or statement
or recommendation on that specific issue and it is not on the table at this point.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated the complaint
by Scott Morris was put on hold due to the expectation that the City Attorney's office would
develop a policy; his understanding is that has not taken place; the recommendation was
for the policy to be put in place and for it to be published publicly.
Speaker:
Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated the staff report appears convoluted and extensive and he
cannot tell what the recommendations are; encouraged the Commission to carefully read
Mr. Foreman's letter; stated the Sunshine Ordinance as drafted in 2013 is out of sync with
what the public expects from the government in terms of openness; encouraged the OGC
to set up a committee to find out what the public would like to see in terms of openness
in the procedures.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated the Word
document provided to the Commissioners has redlines of corrections and revisions.
Commissioner Chen stated because there was not enough time to put together a proper
report, she would like another month to clean it up for the sake of the public being able to
see what was just sent to the Commission today.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated nothing in his report is new; the difference is previous iterations
in July and the rudimentary outline has details he was not able to include before due to
lack of computer access; shared that tonight is his last meeting; stated everyone is
welcome to utilize the information.
Chair Tilos stated since Commissioner Chen will be the sole subcommittee member and
she needs more time to clean up the report, it can be paused and brought back at a later
meeting.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he was unavailable to attend the September meeting; the
subcommittee was hoping to get input; additional feedback should be shared now, so
when the item returns, it can be dealt with effectively and efficiently; this is the first time
the Commission has authored a report; the report does not have to be the everything
report; encouraged subsequent reports and for the Commission to do with it what they
will.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,9,"Commissioner Chen stated in light of what Vice Chair Shabazz said, she is okay if the
Commission approves sending it on; it is an ongoing process; moved approval of
accepting the report.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the draft of the report which was
attached to the agenda has additional language.
Vice Chair Shabazz responded the staff report has blanks where information needed to
be inserted or facts cited; stated the clean document he sent at the start of the meeting
includes the information.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she has concerns; the Commission would
be voting to approve a document that was not in the packet and people are having trouble
locating; it would not be a good idea to consider voting on a document that was provided
so late.
Commissioner Reid stated it seems there is a lot of confusion about the document and
perhaps would be wise to table it until the next time and Commissioner Chen would have
an opportunity to clean it up a bit.
Commissioner Chen withdrew her motion.
Vice Chair Shabazz suggested deferring the item to the next meeting.
Chair Tilos concurred; stated it will be brought back on the next agenda November 1st
3-C. Adopt Proposed Complaint Procedure
Commissioner LoPilato gave a brief presentation.
Speaker:
Karen Butter, League of Women Voters, inquired whether the process addresses
complaints about the Commission.
Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, clarified what he meant regarding the term steamrolling; stated
when members of the Commission have a lot of momentum, it is impossible to change
their mind on issues he believes they misunderstand; he feels the complaint process is
heavily tipped toward protecting the actions of City staff and elected officers; submitted
suggestions on how to tip the process in favor of the public; urged the Commission to
table consideration of the process until the next meeting.
Vice Chair Shabazz moved approval of adopting the proposed complaint procedures.
Commissioner LoPilato seconded the motion.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
9",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,10,"Under discussion, Commissioner Reid thanked the members of the public present at the
meeting; stated that she agrees with Mr. Garfinkle's comments; the Commission should
take a little more time to digest the recommendations; they are very detailed; she is in
favor of adopting most of them; highlighted a list of important items, including keeping a
record of communication between a Complainant and City staff, the idea of the pre-
hearing process, including details for Complainants to visualize the process, removing
the term unfounded, and the Annual Report to the City Council should be on the Regular
Agenda, not the Consent Calendar.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated, typically, according to parliamentary procedures or Robert's
Rules, the person making the motion speaks first to debate the motion; as someone who
has filed a complaint, he echoes some of Mr. Garfinkle's sentiments in regards to feeling
like the process was weighted against him, even when he filed a complaint as a sitting
Commissioner; the process being weighted is not necessarily germane to Commissioner
LoPilato's suggestion; the procedures specifically outline what will be addressed first; the
first thing he would like to see is what the complaint is about, rather than City's response;
at the hearing, the person should have an opportunity to share first; then, a response,
presentation of facts and opportunity for rebuttal with time restrictions provides a clear
process which tips the scale back towards the Complainant; this is a much better process;
he appreciates the efforts around collaboration; he is not trying to change the rules for a
particular outcome; encouraged the Commission adopt something that is going to be
more fair for people who file complaints; what is proposed moves in that direction.
Chair Tilos stated that he shares the same sentiments as well; having the City Attorney's
Office provide a neutral opinion tips the scale towards the Complainant and addresses
some of the concerns Commissioner Reid has regarding making the process more open,
public, easier and fairer; the Commission should move forward.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he absolutely agrees with Chair Tilos; during the
conversations related to Mr. Morris's hearing, there was discussion related to the different
findings and the need to go beyond the binary; the proposal provides a wide array of
opportunities; looking back at the pre-2018 era, the process delineates a spectrum of
options including sustained, unfounded, and denied, which should continue because
there have been a lot of shenanigans and attempts to change rules and manipulate
processes; he does not want people to use the OGC as a vehicle to attempt to do so.
Commissioner Chen stated there has to be a balance between helping a democracy work
or throwing molasses in the wheels; the OGC was set up to make sure the government
does not run roughshod over the public, deny them the right to know what is happening
and to have a representative government; the ultimate decision makers are the voters; if
folks do not like how their elected officials are behaving or legislating, having an election
is what a legislative democracy is; the OGC and Sunshine Ordinance is set to give the
public an opportunity to question whether decisions and access to public records are
being denied; the Commission is able to decide whether or not to agree with the
Complainant; the OGC should not be used to delay how local government; sitting on the
Commission, she can see why there are complaints about government not acting quickly;
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
10",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,11,"being a successful Complainant, she can see why it is important to have a vehicle to
question and ask an objective body to decide whether or not a complaint is valid; she
would vote to accept the proposal, which is a lot better than what came before; moving
forward, tweaks and corrections could be on an annual basis.
Commissioner LoPilato thanked everyone for the feedback; stated that she is glad most
folks feel like it is an improvement; she would like to include a glossary and an FAQ
section; this is the type of thing the Commission could revisit and quickly address; the
FAQs deal with things within the City Clerk's purview, so she has offered to complete it;
the glossary and FAQs could come on a future agenda; the procedures are ready to move
forward; acknowledged Ms. Butter's comments regarding how a complaint against the
OGC would be handled; stated it is a question that the Commission needs to grapple with;
she does not know whether it needs to be resolved tonight and does not know whether
the Commission has the authority to resolve it; it is something to look at and propose
some suggestions in the future; thanked Mr. Garfinkle for his interest in the procedures;
stated that she is not supportive of his proposed changes because she is very mindful of
the need to stay within the boundaries of the Sunshine Ordinance and the Commission's
ability to direct staff.
Commissioner Reid stated that she did not receive an email regarding a complaint filed
that the Commission will hear in November; inquired the date of the email.
Chair Tilos stated Commissioner Reid not receiving the email could have easily been a
staff miscue and is not something the Commission should be discussing.
The City Clerk responded the email was sent to Commissioners on September 22nd
Commissioner Reid stated that she has some concerns she would like to address; while
she appreciates all of Commissioner LoPilato's work on the procedures, she wants to
restate that she believes a subcommittees should be more than one person; it was a lot
of work and the public should have been incorporated in the process; the Commission
should not ignore good suggestions that do not always require extra time from City staff;
the Commission should be tipping the scale towards the public's benefit; she questions
whether it is appropriate for the person who submitted the document to second the
motion; she is in favor of adopting most of the redlines submitted by Mr. Garfinkle, which
support the public and are much more transparent; she will not be supporting a motion of
the proposal as is.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she sent out the email to the Commissioners
on September 22nd regarding the complaint to be heard in November; she sent it to
Commissioner Reid's City email address, which she thought Commissioner Reid uses for
OGC business; she could send it to another account.
Commissioner Reid thanked the Chief Assistant City Attorney; stated she just double-
checked the email address and there was no email from September 22nd
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
11",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,12,"The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated it shows that the message was sent on her end;
she will resend the email; if the email is still not received, she will endeavor to see why it
is not going through.
Commissioner Reid requested the email be sent to the address corresponding to the
OGC.
Chair Tilos stated the conversation could be taken offline.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated that fortunately he was not included in the conspiracy and
received the email on September 22nd at 5:13 p.m.; to address Commissioner Reid's
concern, people who make proposals can also make motions; there is a motion and
second on the floor and he is ready to call the question; he added that it would be helpful
to make the form available electronically.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.
Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
4-A Consider Communication regarding Informational Report on Disclosure of
Documents (Vice Chair Shabazz)
Vice Chair Shabazz gave a brief presentation.
In response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the item does not
require a motion, but the Commission could provide direction.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated as a Commissioner, the
body can make requests or advise the City Council, but cannot tell staff what to do.
Chair Tilos stated that he concurs with Vice Chair Shabazz's request, but since it is under
Commission Communications, he thought the request might be more informal.
Commissioner Chen stated the item should be put on the agenda for next month for the
Commission to formally request staff to provide a report.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated the first question is whether the Commission wants the
information; when would be a matter of staff and their capacity to be able to provide it.
Commissioner LoPilato encouraged feedback from the Chief Assistant City Attorney on
any questions about the nature of the request, if it is doable and not necessarily
committing to any timeline.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated her understanding of Vice Chair Shabazz's
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
12",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,13,"request is he is asking for the same information that is in the semi-annual report the City
Attorney's Office provides as a Consent item on the City Council agenda; the last report
presented was on September 7, 2021; other dates included March 2, 2021, September
3, 2019, and February 19, 2019; she could not readily find the 2020 dates; the report is
required under the Sunshine Ordinance and is publicly available; she reviewed the 2016
report Vice Chair Shabazz included with his Commission Communication; it appears to
be very similar, if not a duplicate, of what was submitted to the City Council; it is
information that has already been made publicly available; information about how the City
responds to PRAs consistent with various new laws poses a definite challenge and would
require direction from the City Council because it is providing legal advice and
interpretation subject to attorney-client privilege; it is not information the City Attorney's
Office would normally disclose in a public meeting; the City Attorney's Office would do so
if the Council directs such disclosures; if the Commission decides to make the request to
the City Council, she would definitely note the fact she has indicated that such analysis
may require legal interpretation that may be subject to attorney work product and
attorney-client privilege.
Commissioner Reid stated that she would like the Commission to receive a copy of the
report sent to the City Council as a point of procedure; she would also like to see all of
the PRAs that have been submitted in a monthly report sent to the OGC.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated if some of the information is already being provided to the City
Council, it would not be difficult to share the information with the Commission; regarding
the piece on attorney-client privilege, his request is that the Commission is asking for an
informational report which provides context and what is required in the Sunshine
Ordinance; what is disclosable has changed over the last five years; perhaps the
additional laws become an issue.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she may not have been clear and
apologized; she is taking the request in two pieces; the first piece is for the City Attorney's
Office to provide the OGC a report similar to what is provided to the Council indicating
what, if any, documents have been released after being initially withheld from disclosure;
as to that piece, the information is regularly provided twice a year to the City Council in
a
publicly available report; the ones that she reviewed indicate no documents have been
declassified; the second piece of Vice Chair Shabazz's request is asking for an analysis
or explanation of how the City Attorney's Office, and the City as a whole, treat document
requests with the advent of some new laws; it is this piece the City Attorney's Office
believes would require her office to divulge attorney work product or attorney-client
communications because it would require her office to indicate what legal interpretation
they take of the laws in their application to specific requests that are made to the City,
which would require direction from City Council.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he understands what the Chief Assistant City Attorney is
communicating; it is not that he disagrees; he is in no position to make a decision for the
City; he is requesting a formal, agendized Commission agenda item in the future; for the
second portion, the Commission may ask the City Council for information or documents
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
13",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,14,"that are now disclosable; having the conversation publicly could help the OGC continue
to effectively do its work.
Commissioner Reid stated that she would support a motion that specifies the OGC would
have a formal agenda item to further discuss these issues, asking the City Attorney's
Office to submit a copy of the same report to the OGC and to also include monthly reports
of PRAs submitted and exemptions that have utilized.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he would make a motion not including everything
Commissioner Reid included; he is a fan of the PRA, but doing a monthly report might be
burdensome; he is attempting to start with one request for an informational report, which
includes a recommendation to permanently implement a PRA supplement in the annual
report.
Vice Chair Shabazz moved approval of the Commission requesting that City staff provide
an informational report on disclosure of documents.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether providing the same document as the one on the
City Council's Consent Calendar under the Commission's Staff Update section meets the
needs of the motion.
Vice Chair Shabazz responded essentially, the issue came before the Commission five
years ago and a Commissioner asked what it was about; he is asking the same thing; the
core of the question is that he is requesting the information come back to the Commission
to be shared in a way that is contextualized; he does not think it should take more than
half an hour to provide the information and allow the public to be aware of the report that
goes before the City Council twice a year.
Commissioner Reid stated that she is familiar with the report and has been following it;
she appreciates Vice Chair Shabazz's motion but would like to make a friendly
amendment to make it even more open and include the list of the PRAs on a monthly
basis; stated that she does not think it would take much of City staff's time; it would be
highly beneficial to the OGC and the public to see all the requests coming through, how
the City Attorney's Office is handling them and what exemptions are being used
repeatedly.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Vice
Chair Shabazz's motion, but would like to add to his motion that a PRAs report is added
on a monthly basis.
Chair Tilos stated Vice Chair Shabazz already declined adding the monthly PRA piece
because it gets a little more tedious and adds more content to already-long meetings.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she is concerned Commissioner Reid's
request is not agendized; there is discussion and action being contemplated about a
request that is not on the agenda; cautioned the Commission to be careful.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
14",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,15,"Commissioner Reid clarified that her request was to place the item on the next agenda.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated if the Commission gives direction
tonight, the item can come back at a later date when there is time on the agenda.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated a motion has been made but not
seconded; a motion can be made since the matter is listed as an agenda item.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the motion is to talk about it at a future date as
an agendized item; stated that she thought the actual motion was to directly request that
staff provide the information and materials at the future agenda.
The City Clerk stated the motion was to request staff to provide an informational report.
Commissioner Chen stated under Commission Communications, the Commission can
only ask to have an item be put on an agenda; technically, the item is not being discussed
right now; it has to be an agendized item for the Commission to ask staff to do something.
Chair Tilos moved that the Commission discuss what they would like to do at a later time;
stated he is trying to avoid putting it on the agenda next month; inquired whether it is
correct procedure to put it on an agenda for a future date.
The City Clerk stated there is no date in the motion, so a later time is fine.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether Chair Tilos is making a motion.
Chair Tilos stated he withdraws his motion.
Commissioner Reid moved approval of placing the item on the agenda for a later time to
include a monthly PRA report and that the City Attorney's Office share the bi-annual report
with the OGC.
Chair Tilos stated there is no second on either Vice Chair Shabazz or Commissioner
Reid's motions.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated the Chief Assistant City Attorney clearly cautioned the
Commission against considering and discussing the item that is not on the agenda; a
simple solution would be to request the item be placed on the next agenda.
Commissioner Chen seconded Vice Chair Shabazz's original motion.
Commissioner LoPilato stated before taking a vote, she wants to make sure the staff who
will be responsible for providing the report is clear on the scope of what is being
requested.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
15",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,16,"The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated in general, the City Attorney's Office takes
direction from City Council on workload; she would like to strike a balance to be
reasonable; the report that includes the information Vice Chair Shabazz has asked for is
already in a written report so a copy could be attached to Commissioner Communications
in a meeting closest to whichever City Council meeting the semi-annual report is
presented; she does not envision producing a separate report.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Commissioners
Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Abstain; Reid: Abstain; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: No. Ayes: 2.
Abstentions: 2. Noes: 1.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated this is his last OGC meeting and shared his resignation letter;
wished all the Commissioners well.
Adjournment
Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
16",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-27,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2021
1. CONVENE
President Asheshh Saheba convened the meeting* at 7:00 p.m.
*Due to Governor Executive Order N-08-21, Planning Board members can attend the
meeting via teleconference.
2.
FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Ron Curtis led the flag salute.
3.
ROLL CALL
Present: Board President Saheba, Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Hom,
Rothenberg, and Cisneros.
Absent: Board Member Alan Teague.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-1322
Amending Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter XXX to Revise Section 30-2
Definitions and Section 30-7 Off-Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations - Citywide
- Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to consider recommending that the City
Council adopt an ordinance to amend Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXX to Revise
Section 30-2 Definitions and Section 30-7, Off-Street Parking and Loading Space
Regulations, to implement the City of Alameda Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP)
and Transportation Choices Plan. The proposed amendments are exempt from the
requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(: where it can
be shown with certainty that the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect
on the environment, and Section 15183, projects consistent with a community plan,
general plan or zoning, each of which provides a separate and independent basis for
CEQA clearance and when viewed collectively provide an overall basis for CEQA
clearance. No further environmental review is needed.
Brian McGuire, a Planner, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report
and attachments can be found at
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5138833&GUID=436A438F-
E81-4521-BF2C-B3300D123799&FullText=1.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
September 27, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-27,2,"President Saheba opened the board's clarifying questions.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg asked how the minimum parking would be calculated
for disabled access. She also suggested not using the word ""desirable"" and instead
focusing on reasonable accommodation. She then had questions about EV (electric
vehicle) handicap parking.
Staff Member McGuire explained the math they used in addition to what the California
Building Code required. He then explained the use of the word ""desirable"" and then
explained the standard for how they settled on the number of spaces for accessible EV
parking spots.
Vice President Teresa Ruiz asked about the intention to deviate from the California
Building Code. She wondered if there should be a clause to follow whichever was more
stringent. She also asked about encroachment for the parking space dimensions and
parking stackers.
Staff Member McGuire said these standards were more stringent and the intention was to
go beyond what was required. He then explained that for encroachment they would follow
the zoning code. They had not really addressed parking stackers.
Board Member Curtis asked about disabled parking spaces and wanted to know how
many spots would be required under the new ordinance. He did not want to see disabled
people penalized to make more room for cyclists or pedestrians.
Staff Member McGuire explained how the new ordinance would calculate disabled parking
spots and how the feedback they had gotten was in line with Board Member Curtis's
concern.
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros asked for an overview of what the Transportation
Commission had thought of this ordinance. She also had questions for the Exception
Piece and asked for examples.
Staff Member McGuire discussed the highlights of that meeting. He then explained when
the Exception Piece might be needed, which would require a Use Permit.
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, discussed what his
takeaways were. He acknowledged that better management was needed of on-street
parking. He further discussed the Use Permit process if someone needed additional
parking for a project
Board Member Hanson Hom asked how the threshold was set, provisions, intensification
process, and EV charging requirements. He had other general questions as well and
asked about how developers on Alameda point had responded. He also had specific
questions about certain parking requirements and how this ordinance would affect ADUs.
Staff Member McGuire discussed how the ordinance would be applied and how this
ordinance would work with existing and new developments. He spoke on the needs and
issues that had been coming up on Alameda Point. He answered the more specific
questions and explained what they would refine before going to the City Council.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 10
September 27, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-27,3,"Director Thomas discussed further when this ordinance would apply and also discussed
projects at Alameda Point.
Allen Tai, City Planner, also helped explain what State Law would and would not allow
when it came to bicycle parking requirements. He also answered Board Member Hom's
questions about landscaping.
President Saheba asked about ADA parking and what would happen if a person wanted
to go to zero parking.
Staff Member McGuire explained what the standard would be if a developer chose to not
have parking.
President Saheba opened public comment.
Denyse Trepanier, President for Bike Walk Alameda, strongly supported the staff
recommendation on the parking ordinance and hoped that the board also supported it.
She then thanked the staff for all their hard work.
Debi Ryan, Community Action for Sustainable Alameda (CASA), thanked Brian, Andrew,
and all the staff for their work on this ordinance. She was in full support of this ordinance
and anything that would further the CARP plan.
President Saheba closed public comments and opened board discussions.
Board Member Curtis was in support but wanted to change the Use Permit process for
additional parking. He wanted it to be done at a staff level to make it more efficient for the
developers. Appeals would still come to the Planning Board.
President Saheba discussed why having the Use Permits come before the board didn't
feel like a hindrance since it would only be for special cases. He was in favor of keeping
the ordinance as it was described.
Staff Member McGuire explained the process in more detail and what would be done at
the staff level and what would come before the board.
Staff Member Tai explained the Zoning Administrator Process. He added that they could
amend the resolution to reflect that these were Administrative Use Permit by the Zoning
Administrator.
Vice President Ruiz asked about parking stackers and how they could affect standard
parking size. She was concerned about future developments. She also wanted the
language around encroachment to be clarified.
Staff Member McGuire discussed standard parking sizes and how they could work with
language to anticipate newer technologies such as parking stackers.
Staff Member Tai also added information about encroachment and what the existing code
allowed.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 10
September 27, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-27,4,"Board Member Hom made a motion to adopt the ordinance as prepared by staff with
the following amendments. Clarify that the Use Permit for exceeding parking would
be an Administrative Use Permit, that staff would clarify the sections on the
encroachments of trees and stackers, clarify the ordinance would only apply to new
and retrofitted parking areas/lots, clarify the floor area be based on what staff's
understanding was, clarify that ADUs were not subject to any parking requirements
or bicycle parking requirements and that lighting design review could be an
Administrative Design Review. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion, and a
roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 6-0.
7-B 2021-1270
Amendment to the City Council Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets -
Citywide - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to review and comment on the City
Council-initiated revisions to the Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities, and Streets.
CEQA Determination: The proposed amendment is not a project under CEQA pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and Public Resources Code Section 21065. No further
environmental review is needed
Staff Member Tai introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5124721&GUID=B507AE6D-
5707-4D08-9460-7394C5713807&FullText=1.
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Rothenberg asked how names of deceased people had been gathered
and how had the 3-year policy been agreed on. She also asked about renters' options and
the costs of renaming streets.
Staff Member Tai stated that the 3-year had been in the policy for a long time. He then
explained the issues between owners vs. renters and what work would be needed to go
into verifying people.
Vice President Ruiz wanted to know if once this was adopted by the City Council would it
be part of the Municipal Code. She also wanted to know if there would be an application
fee for renaming a street. She also questioned how to shorten the process to make it more
efficient and accessible overall.
Staff Member Tai answered no this was an Outside Policy. He said a fee had been
discussed, they would need to research to see what administrative costs there were to the
city. He then discussed the criteria needed and what the thinking was behind the outlined
process.
Board Member Curtis discussed the unintended consequences of renaming a street, it
could really impact residents of that street. He wanted consideration for renaming a street
to first be to the residents of the street in question. He gave his thoughts on the 3-year
policy.
Board Member Hom asked if the 500 signatures needed had to be property owners.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 10
September 27, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-27,5,"Staff Member Tai clarified that it was both property owners and tenants. It would be
residents in general regardless if they were owners or renters.
Board Member Ruiz asked about the process to verify if they were actual residents of
Alameda. She wanted to know if they could also distinguish owners from renters then.
Staff Member Tai said that would be a policy decision for the council if they wanted the
staff to verify owners from renters. He discussed ideas of how they could apply that and
that the public comment was they wanted all residents of Alameda regardless if they live
on the street in question to be able to weigh in on street name changes.
President Saheba opened public comments.
Drew Dara-Abrams, an Alameda resident (Calhoun Street), discussed how he and his
neighbors had been working on changing the Calhoun Street name. He thanked city staff
and the board for doing this important work. He had some concerns about the upfront
application process and he was happy that renters' views were being considered as well.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Hom discussed how controversial street renaming could be. He thought
the 500 threshold was a bit too low, he thought it should be related to the length of the
street. He did believe that tenants should be part of the threshold.
Staff Member Tai clarified to the board that the 500 thresholds wouldn't automatically
change the name, it was the threshold to initiate the question to the council about the
name change. He then explained what would happen if the council agreed on a name
change.
Board Member Curtis still felt that people who lived on the street in question should have
the main vote. He gave ideas on how the residents could have more of a say in the name
change.
Vice President Ruiz concurred with Board Member Curtis's comments that the opinions of
the residents of the street should carry more weight.
Board Member Cisneros suggested ways to get the community more involved.
President Saheba liked the recommendations and that the residents of the street, who
would be the most impacted, would have more of a say. He agreed the 500 threshold was
too low.
Staff Member Tai thanked the board for their input.
7-C 2021-1298
A Public Hearing to Review and Comment on the Draft Climate Adaptation and Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 10
September 27, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-27,6,"Danielle Mieler, Sustainability, and Resilience Manager introduced this item and gave a
presentation. The staff report can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5138828&GUID=9EE7404A-
B585-461D-956A-0AAFAAF535AE&FullText=
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted to know if they would be working with neighboring
cities to make sure the plans were complementary and inclusive. She also wanted to know
specifically about plans for transportation needs (the tubes) since they affected different
regions.
Staff Member Mieler discussed the collaborative work they were doing with other
organizations and cities that would benefit everyone. She then discussed the funding they
had requested for the Posey and Webster tubes and they were working closely with
CalTrans on that issue.
Vice President Ruiz asked if they had considered including Supply Chain Resiliency and
if they had collected data on private wells for the Asset Inventory. She also questioned
other items on the Asset Inventory, such as conduits, and wanted to know more about
what the plan was for those assets.
Staff Member Mieler thought that including Supply Chain Resiliency was an excellent idea.
She then discussed that private wells were an asset but not an asset that they were readily
able to quantify. For the conduits sizes at some of the developments, she believed that
was information they could gather for the final plan.
Board Member Cisneros asked about the grants/points collected and reductions.
Staff Member Mieler explained the Community Rating System and how homeowners
could get flood insurance reductions. She then discussed grants and federal funding that
was in the works.
Board Member Hom asked about flood management and if Alameda could reach a 7
rating.
Staff Member Mieler said she did not have the answer to that but would look into it. She
knew it would take a significant increase to get to those higher ratings.
Board Member Hom then asked about earthquake retrofits and wanted to know if Alameda
would become more aggressive about requiring these retrofits.
Staff Member Mieler discussed what the options were now and how they could support
and encourage owners to get their buildings retrofitted. She added that neighboring cities
had already required these mandatory retrofits for their buildings.
President Saheba opened public comments.
There were no public speakers.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 10
September 27, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-27,7,"President Saheba opened board discussions and comments.
Board Member Cisneros stated that she was in support of the mandatory retrofits.
President Saheba thanked staff and closed the item.
7-D 2021-1321
Request to Review and Comment on the Staff Recommendations to the City Council for
a Commercial Streets Two-Year Work Program to Improve the Park Street and Webster
Street Striping Plans; Improve the On-street Parklet Program; Maintain the Alameda
Avenue Street Closure; and Resume Pre-COVID Parking Management, Fee Collection,
and Enforcement Activities.
Rochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, gave a presentation. The staff
report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5138832&GUID=D6E3E109
AF10-458A-94DE-8E9D15015E83&FullText=1.
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Rothenberg asked about safe access for cyclists, an issue that Bike Walk
Alameda had bought up in a letter. She also had questions about the design standards,
that could be achievable for business owners, for the parklettes.
Staff Member Wheeler addressed the letter from Bike Walk Alameda and what plans were
in the works for bike facilities. She then described what safety standards they were
proposing for parklets that would bring more cohesiveness and they were still working on
those aesthetic standards.
Vice President Ruiz wanted to know if they were able to break down the survey results to
know which residents lived on the affected slow streets, she added that Alameda Ave was
her main concern. She also wanted to know the operating hours of the parklettes and what
safety barrier options for the parklettes the city was considering.
Staff Member Wheeler said they had they did not have that specific survey data and she
discussed what the business district had done to address the concerns of the residents
on Alameda Ave. For the parklettes, generally during the business hours is when they
were allowed to operate and for safety barrier options they did not at this time have a clear
staff preference.
Board Member Curtis asked if there were any plans to start charging businesses for having
a parklet. He discussed the lost revenue to the city since these parklets were taking the
spots of parking meters and it was providing businesses with extra space.
Staff Member Wheeler said that was something they were diving more deeply into. She
then discussed what factors would need to be examined to determine those costs and
fees. The goal eventually was to pass some of the expenses to the businesses. She then
clarified the parklets operating hours, the permit allowed 7 am to 10 pm, Sunday through
Thursday, and then through Midnight on Friday and Saturday nights.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 10
September 27, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-27,8,"Board Member Cisneros wanted to know when the last time the parking meters had been
increased. She also suggested some other information that would be helpful in the surveys
to better understand the demographics. She also asked about parking turnover.
Staff Member Wheeler said she did not have that information on the parking meters, she
knew what the current rates were. She then discussed parking turnover and why having
15% available parking was desirable.
Director Thomas also discussed the importance of having better parking management
with better parking enforcement.
Board Member Hom wanted to know if there was enough time for tenants to apply before
November 1st, he was concerned it was not a realistic period.
Staff Member Wheeler answered that these recommendations had been announced
starting in July. Staff was encouraging businesses to start the process now and not to wait.
They would have some sort of grace period to make sure everyone had a Use Permit.
Board Member Curtis asked if there had been increases in fender benders on Park and
Webster since the program had started.
Staff Member Wheeler said after viewing the Collision Statistics they had not seen an
increase, it might still be too soon to tell.
Director Thomas added that they had learned through the survey that people felt safer.
President Saheba opened public comment.
Kathy Weber, Executive Director of the Downtown Alameda Business Association, urged
the board to continue its support of the Commercial Streets Program. She discussed the
critical lifeline this program offered Alameda businesses.
Ron Mooney, an owner of Daisy's, spoke in support of this project, he discussed what an
asset having the parklets had been. He thought the Commercial Streets program was
great and even encouraged lowering the speed limit even more. He added what reach out
he had done to make sure residents knew what was happening.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussions.
Board Member Hom stated that he was a big proponent of road dieting and creating more
pedestrian-friendly corridors. He discussed how other cities had been doing projects like
this even before the pandemic to create more vibrant downtowns. He liked the idea of
further studying this project and making it permanent. He did think the Kimley-Horn Study
could use further evaluation and he liked all the recommendations that staff brought
forward.
Vice President Ruiz did point out a typo in the Kimley-Horn report.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 8 of 10
September 27, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-27,9,"Board Member Cisneros wanted to see clear and explicit language about parking
enforcement.
President Saheba discussed how the transformation of both Webster and Park had made
the city more walkable and liveable. He did want to see the parklets have the same
alignment as the sidewalks to avoid tripping hazards. He discussed other design issues
that needed to be thought off and was encouraged that this could be a more permanent
thing.
8.
MINUTES
8-A 2021-1316
Draft Meeting Minutes - June 28, 2021 (Continued from the meeting of September 13,
2021)
8-B 2021-1317
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 12, 2021 (Continued from the meeting of September 13,
2021)
8-C 2021-1320
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 26, 2021
Board Member Rothenberg pointed out places where her name needed to be corrected
on the July 12th and in the July 26th minutes.
Board Member Cisneros pointed out a typo in the July 12th minutes, it should have been
Density Discussion.
Vice President Ruiz pointed out that Staff Member Tai's name at been misspelled on the
July 26th meeting.
President Saheba opened public comments.
There were no public speakers.
President Saheba closed public comments.
President Saheba took a roll call vote item by item. For the June 28th meeting, the
minutes passed with corrections 5-0, President Saheba abstained since he had
been absent. For the July 12th meeting, the minutes passed with corrections 4-0,
President Saheba and Vice President Ruiz abstained since they had been absent.
For the July 26th meeting, the minutes passed with corrections 6-0.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2020-1318
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent Actions and Decisions can be found
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5138829&GUID=1B8DEA57-
9450-472F-8D3E-6FDC28DAE705&FullText=1
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 9 of 10
September 27, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-27,10,"9-B 2020-1319
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai said the next board meeting would be October 11th and the staff was
planning a Housing Element Workshop. They would also review a Use Permit for a project
at Alameda Point. Then at the October 25th meeting, they would bring back the revised
General Plan.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Cisneros verified that the Housing Element Subcommittee meeting was
the upcoming Thursday.
Vice President Ruiz asked if they would be discussing the impact of SB-9, Measure A,
and the potential conflict in Alameda.
Staff Member Tai explained SB-9 and how the process would work. He added that the
staff was still reviewing the law and how they planned to bring it to the board for review.
Director Thomas added that this was being viewed as part of the Housing Element
process.
Board Member Curtis asked about the RHNA Appeal, he had heard that it had lost.
Director Thomas said that was true and explained how the process worked. He explained
that as of now Alameda's RHNA number was not going down.
Board Member Hom asked if SB-10 could also affect Alameda and was interested in
learning more.
12.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13.
ADJOURNMENT
President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 10 of 10
September 27, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-27.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-09-23,1,"City of Alameda, California
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THURSDAY, September 23, 2021
APPROVED MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Sarah Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:03pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sarah Lewis, Board members Dianne Yamashiro-Omi, Priya
Jagannathan, Samantha Green, Scott Means.
Absent: Vice President Kristin Furuichi Fong (excused), Board member Tony Lewis
(unexcused).
City staff: Lois Butler, Veronika Cole, and Eric Fonstein (Secretary to the Board).
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3-A 2021-1326 Review and Approve August 26, 2021 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes of August 26, 2021 was made by Board member
Yamashiro-Omi and seconded by Board member Jagannathan. Ayes: Board members
Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, and Means. Nays: none. Note: President S. Lewis
abstained due to absence from meeting. Motion passed 4-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-1327 Alameda Housing Authority Presentation on the Emergency Housing
Vouchers (EHVs)
Shekhar Dubbani, Management Analyst with the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda,
presented on the recently awarded, Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHVs), highlighting
the following key segments:
In May 2021, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocated
70,000 EHVs to public housing authorities. These vouchers were funded as a part
of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).
EHVs are to assist individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness,
on the verge of homelessness, domestic violence, or transitional youth. Vouchers
are portable throughout the United States.
Alameda Housing Authority (AHA) was awarded 57, EHVs.",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-09-23.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-09-23,2,"43 of the 57 EHVs have been issued to qualified applicants, registered in the, Call
2-1-1 program.
Five of the 43 issued, have obtained a lease, and will be housed by October 1,
2021.
AHA advertised an incentive program; $250 bonus, to individuals awarded EHVs
and who were successful in securing housing, on, or before, 10/15/21. And, $500
bonus, to owners, who registered available units through AHA.
Mr. Dubbani thanked the Board for their time, and opened the floor for questions.
Board members expressed concern surrounding the public awareness and understanding
of the Call 2-1-1 program, and it's correlation to EHVs. Suggesting that, another wave of
literature, explaining the program, be distributed throughout the City (including local
businesses and the realtor association).
Public member, Marilyn stated, City Council recently approved agreements with the
Alameda Fire Department (AFD) and Alameda Family Services (AFS), to assist handling
the current mental health crisis. Stating that individuals interested in applying for an EHV,
should use, AFD and AFS as a resource.
Mr. Dubbani thanked the Board for their time and answered clarifying questions.
5-B 2021-1328 Recommendation to Recommend Approval of The Road Home: A 5-
Year Plan to Prevent and Respond to Homelessness in Alameda to City Council.
Staff member Amanda Gehrke introduced consultant, Amanda Wehrman Director of
Strategy and Evaluation at Homebase. Ms. Wehrman presented the updated 5-Year Plan,
which incorporated, City of Alameda, staff and Board member recommendations from the
August meeting. Summary of changes:
Report structure and organization
Highlighted additional achievements
Alignment to County Strategic Plan Update
Clarifying data needs
Two new action steps
Minor formatting and edits for clarity and style
Board members expressed appreciation for quality of the presentation, noting the changes
made to the 5-Year Plan, and their alignment with the recommendations voiced in the
August meeting. Additionally, Board members requested clarification and/or commented
on the following key segments:
Board member Yamashiro-Omi inquired if there is an expectation and/or option for
Board members to submit a list of recommendations to guide the implementation.
Highlighting priorities identified by Board members. Staff member, Gehrke
suggested an annual and/or bi-annual meeting to review work plan, and determine
if existing goals are being met.",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-09-23.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-09-23,3,"Board member Yamashiro-Omi voiced concern that the Plan does not provide the
additional financial assessment/analysis of the implementation cost.
Board member Means voiced that for this plan to work, wrap around services need
greater commitment, including tracking and an ability to spend time on individuals.
Matching funding may be needed to fund these activities. He also suggested a
temporary housing increase during specific times of the year (colder months).
Stating that the partial term housing would be better than none at all.
Board Member Jagannathan questioned why there was a lack of references to
families with young children VS. with older children, such as children in Head Start.
Recommended inclusion of families with young children.
Board member Green suggested that with the assistance of a board member, work
plan Strategy 3.2: Strengthen the homeless response system infrastructure, could
possibly be moved to a short term goal.
Public member, Marilyn voiced concern that the work plan does not include resources for
individuals over the age of 90, and requested information on possible alternatives.
Ms. Wehrman presented the Recommendation to Recommend approval of The Road
Home: A 5 Year Plan to Prevent and Respond to Homelessness in Alameda to City
Council.
Board member Means put forward a motion to approve recommendation, seconded by
Board member Green. Ayes: President Lewis, Board members Yamashiro-Omi,
Jagannathan, Green and Means. Nays: none. Note: Vice President Furuichi Fong and
Board member T. Lewis abstained due to absence from meeting. Motion passed 5-0.
5-C 2021-1329 Review and Revise the Draft 2022 Work Plan for the Social Service
Human Relations Board
Staff member Fonstein confirmed this will be a regular agenda item at the October
meeting, where the work plan will need to be formalized and Board members will need to
establish the recommendation to present to City Council.
Staff member Fonstein addressed the upcoming Community Needs Assessment (Last
completed 3-4 years ago). Stated plan to use previous year as a guide/base tool to form
2022, Community Needs Assessment. Staff member Fonstein will distribute copies of the
previous Community Needs Assessment with Board members.
Board member Yamashiro-Omi put forward a motion to skip to next agenda item,
seconded by Board member Jagannathan. Ayes: President Lewis, Board members
Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green and Means. Nays: none. Note: Vice President
Furuichi Fong and Board member T. Lewis abstained due to absence from meeting.
Motion passed 5-0.
No additional Board member comment.
No Public comment.
5-D Discuss Agenda for SSHRB ""Retreat"" to be held during the next regularly
scheduled SSHRB meeting on October 28, 2021",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-09-23.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-09-23,4,"Staff member Fonstein provided examples of previous ""Retreat"" agenda items:
Current and previous member (Example, Doug Biggs) collaboration, discussion
major initiatives, effective tools and success stories.
Meet & Greet for newer members.
Additionally staff member Fonstein suggested the possibility of including a facilitator to
assist during retreat. Board members agreed to the added value of a facilitator. Board
member Yamashiro-Omi has a suggested facilitator in mind and will confirm availability.
Board members expressed concern surrounding the allotted time for the retreat.
Suggested removal of meet and greet at this time.
Staff member Butler stated that the retreat would be an ideal platform to discuss reviving
community programs and suggested that the retreat could be used to see how some
activities could be revised due to COVID. Suggested Board members form a sub-
committee to finalize agenda. Butler also suggested that the meeting would need to be
noticed to meet Sunshine Ordinance requirements unless it was purely social, and a
weekend retreat would need special notice and would be subject to staff availability.
President S. Lewis and Board member Yamashiro-Omi volunteer for sub-committee.
Staff member Fonstein will follow up to see if past SSHRB members could come to the
next SSHRB meeting.
Board member Jagannathan requested learning more about how past SSHRB members
selected priorities, and how the SSHRB can most effectively represent the community.
Board member Green requested learning more about what was and wasn't effective in
policy taken to the City Council, and where the SSHRB had the most traction.
5-E Appoint SSHRB Representative to Vision Zero Task Force
Staff member Fonstein presented the request to appoint a Board member to Vision Zero
task force. Meeting 3-4 times a year starting in 2022 to ensure implementation plan is
achieved, that it has equity, and is serving priorities of the community. Responsibilities
would include attending meetings, reviewing public safety plans, providing advice and
acting as a liaison with the SHHRB.
Board member Means, volunteered to represent SSHRB on the Vision Zero Task Force.
5-F Workgroup Reports
Homeless Action Plan Workgroup: No update to report aside from item 5-B.
Domestic Violence: Staff member Eric Fonstein confirmed there will be a statistic
update following the next quarterly meeting. Assured members, all will be notified
of any upcoming events. In closing, staff member Fonstein mentioned that
October is National Domestic Awareness Month.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Homelessness Updates and Initiatives",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-09-23.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-09-23,5,"Feed Alameda: Program is still serving the community each week. Unless City
Council extends the program. October 13th will be the final date.
Transitional Housing Program (community cabins/tiny homes): Staff issued RFP.
Four (4) responses were received - Each proposals is currently undergoing
review. Interview date to be determined. The proposals are for a site on 5th and
Stargell. Staff are considering emergency housing in housing properties owned
by the city, with implementation possible more rapidly than with Homekey.
Encampments: Attempt to close Main Street encampment, planned for September
28th. Encampment has become violent as well as hazardous.
Homeless Housing Assistance Program (HHAP) funding: Funds directed toward
shelter only programs. A quick timeline was required, which prevented staff from
seeking SSHRB input. Staff will approach the SSHRB for input around housing in
the future. Received promising proposals.
6-B Status of Community Service Awards
Staff member Fonstein provided an update on the virtual 2021 Community Service
Awards, notified the Board that nominations are being accepted through the end of
September. Date of awards has not been finalized, however leaning toward second week
of November. Vice President, Furuichi Fong and Board members Jagannathan and Green
volunteered to serve as judges.
7. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
President Lewis adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:36 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Fonstein, Board Secretary",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-09-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-09-22,1,"Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, September 22, 2021
Time:
6:30 p.m.
Location:
Due to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners were
able to attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom.
City Hall was NOT open to the public during the meeting.
Legistar Link:
https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811336&GUID=3E8F230B-9CBC-47B0-
8633-082B444CD1D6&Options=info/&Search=.
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Kohlstrand*, Weitze*, Rentschler.
Absent: Commissioner Michael Hans and Alysha Nachtigall.
*Kohlstrand and Weitze arrived after the initial roll call.
2. Agenda Changes
Chair Samantha Soules said they would delay item 5 until they had a quorum.
3.
Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137019&GUID=B567D985-136F-
4FC9-B85D-073F5DCFEFDC&FullText=1.
4. Announcements / Public Comments
Chair Soules thanked Vice Chair Tina Yuen for stepping into the role of Vice Chair. She then
expressed her deepest condolences to the family of the man who was killed recently in a traffic
fatality on Fernside. She discussed the important work that staff was doing with the Vision Zero
Plan.
Hannah Green expressed her safety concerns about crossing the street on Buena Vista with her
children near Chapin Street. She asked that crosswalks be painted at the intersection of Chapin,
TC Minutes
1
9/22/21",TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-09-22,2,"Wood, 9th, and Buena Vista. She added that it was hard to cross there and that cars drove by
without stopping and at high speeds.
Jill Staten discussed the slow street on Versailles and thought that this street was not well chosen
for the program. She explained the many issues with the traffic that she had noted and that drivers
would become frustrated.
5. Consent Calendar
5A. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, July 28, 2021
(Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137020&GUID=EE3E1FEB-85D0-
3AF-985C-5744F51CD6B4&FullText=1.
Gail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, corrected that Commissioner Hans had been
present at the meeting.
Commissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction and
Chair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 4-
0, Vice-Chair Yuen abstained since she had been absent at the meeting.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Discuss Link21: New Regional Rail/Transbay Rail Crossing Project Update
(Discussion Item)
Staff Member Payne introduced Nicole Franklin with BART and Alex Evans of HNTB who gave
the presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137021&GUID=8186601E-EB9D-
4ED2-8402-B67366E4B6C5&FullText=1
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted more information on the vehicle types that would be used. She
wanted to know how the technology would link together and what would need to be electrified.
Mr. Evans explained about the new generation electric vehicles they were working on and how
Caltrans would adopt that technology. He explained what was being electrified and what systems
could use both diesel and electricity.
TC Minutes
2
9/22/21",TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-09-22,3,"Commissioner Weitze wanted to know how this project would be different from the High-Speed
Rail project that California had been developing, which in his opinion had been a disaster. He
wanted to know what lessons they had learned from that project. He also wanted to know how
much faster this would be if they just focused on one thing and then worried about the connections.
Mr. Evans said they had learned a lot from that situation. He explained how and why this project
was different. He saw their analysis as using existing highly functional systems and making
improvements to these existing systems. He then explained what their findings had discovered, to
serve the megaregion this project would likely start in the inner Bay Area but it would still serve
the larger area.
Vice Chair Yuen wanted to know more about potential impacts to the City of Alameda, such as
potential service stops. She also wanted to know what information they should be gathering about
potential stops and the best way to share that information.
Mr. Evans said they would rely on the involvement of city staff and this commission to know
where they thought service stops should be. Then they could match that up with their findings.
Staff Member Payne discussed the work and research staff had done to best locate and decide on
potential service stops. She discussed other ways they could gather information and was open to
other suggestions.
Ms. Franklin discussed the community engagement that BART had done to better understand
service needs and aspirations. She would alert staff about their next survey and would share those
findings.
Chair Soules brought up the RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) and the changing
population that would be happening and wanted to make sure those demographic changes were
captured.
Mr. Evans discussed how the Transbay Crossing was the centerpiece of this project and how this
project would enable so much more. It was not just a way to get to and from San Francisco and he
further discussed how this would serve different needs.
Chair Soules appreciated the big bold vision and was happy to see the outer communities
considered. She wanted to know what assurances they had that once they had the Transbay
TC Minutes
3
9/22/21",TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-09-22,4,"Crossing that the rest of the project would not fizzle. What planning and forethought had been
given to funding and future support.
Mr. Evans wasn't sure if there was a great answer other than planning for the years ahead and
raising expectations, which they were doing. He discussed the other agencies that were involved
and believed this was a Golden Age in rail improvement. Each improvement would inspire people
and groups to want the next one.
Commissioner Randy Rentschler wanted to know if there was any other city that had the same
potential as Alameda to get another potential station.
Mr. Evans stated the reasons why Alameda was a good choice.
Public Comments for #6A
Jim Strehlow discussed how he liked the studies that showed the differences between East and
West Bay. He then discussed his history of living and working in the Bay Area and how
transportation and commuting around was difficult and that sometimes a personal vehicle was the
best option.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A
Commissioner Kohlstrand discussed some of the limitations for high-speed rail in the area, the
main one being no dedicated funding source. For this project, she believed everyone in Northern
California needed to come together to identify how to get these things done. Also, they would need
to work with the federal government for potential funding.
6B. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Signalized
Intersection Equity Policy (Action Item)
Erin Smith, Public Works Director, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report
and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137022&GUID=61E66B31-15AE-
49F5-A8F2-793575E7CCDE&FullText=1.
Director Smith introduced Russ Thompson, Interim City Engineer, Robert Vance, Public Works
Senior Engineer, and Ryan Dole, a Transportation Engineer with Kimley Horn who were available
for questions and input.
TC Minutes
4
9/22/21",TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-09-22,5,"Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B
Commissioner Rentschler wanted staff to be able to maximize use of available tools for optimizing
signal timing. He also made note that despite the City's goal for mode shift, most people currently
drive. He understood there was pressure on Public Works to reach the mode shift goals but he was
opposed to creating needless wait time for drivers as a means to get there. He believed that actuated
pedestrian signal use was most efficient. He discussed other ways they could improve the system
as it was now.
Commissioner Kohlstrand generally agreed with the revisions that had been made. She then asked
for a clarification on the wording in the redline resolution.
Director Smith clarified that the staff report and the presentation were correct, and that the intent
is to use land use designation for community/commercial She apologized for the mistake and
noted that the resolution would be updated for Council's consideration.
Public Comments for #6B
Alexis Kreig strongly opposed prioritizing cars' convenience over allowing pedestrians to be able
to cross when the light is green. She thought that since it was car emissions that were causing the
climate crisis it was unconscionable to be prioritizing driver convenience over pedestrian safety
and access.
Jim Strehlow highly commended the rewording of this resolution and thought it was very
workable. He also endorsed Commissioner Rentschler's words as well and appreciated the work
done by Russ Thompson.
Denyse Trepanier, Board President for Bike Walk Alameda, wanted to have a larger conversation
about how they would want their intersections to behave since there were so many competing
voices. She thought that they had already established in the Vision Zero plan that they would not
prioritize driver convenience so she was surprised to see that as a priority in this policy. She was
not opposed to this policy but believed it did not get to the conversation they should be having.
TC Minutes
5
9/22/21",TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-09-22,6,"Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B
Commissioner Rentschler wanted to know if this was something that should be revisited. He did
not want to create friction between modes and have people angry needlessly. He also wanted to
know if this didn't work, what was the plan.
Director Smith explained how recall was already implemented on Park and Webster currently and
that this policy would allow for the implementation of the time of day component, which is the
functional change of this policy. They would only revisit it if they were directed to do so.
Commissioner Weitze first endorsed Bike Walk Alameda's statement and letter about signal
improvements for bikes on Appezzato Parkway; he thought that was way overdue. He explained
his concerns with the ""sometimes this and sometimes that"" signals, especially in locations where
they are teaching walking signals to children. He thought it should be, you push a button, and then
it's safe to walk. He worried that having recall different at different times could be confusing and
possibly dangerous. He was against the time of day recall.
Commissioner Kohlstrand agreed with Commissioner Weitze's observations and was also
struggling with the time of day concept. She thought that having recall all the time along Park and
Webster would be good. She also wanted to know why the intersection of Park and Otis was left
off the pedestrian map, she pointed out what a busy pedestrian intersection that was. Other than
that she was supportive of the staff recommendation.
Director Smith explained what decisions and criteria had gone into the pedestrian map.
*Commissioner Rentschler had to leave the meeting. He had originally made a motion to approve
this resolution but since he had to leave Commissioner Kohlstrand made the motion instead.
Chair Soules appreciated the red-line and she liked the time of day technology. She discussed how
if the lights were not timed right, you would see drivers trying to ""beat the light"". She also believed
this would allow balance for the different modes better. She also pointed out that the data would
allow them to make adjustments to make this work better. She also agreed with and endorsed
Commissioner Kohlstrand's clarification.
Vice Chair Yuen endorsed this policy and felt that she better understood it after the revisions. She
agreed that the policy was nuanced, adaptive, and could balance everyone's needs. She discussed
why some people were hesitant to support push buttons.
TC Minutes
6
9/22/21",TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-09-22,7,"Commissioner Weitze stated that he would vote against this resolution strictly on the idea that he
did not believe that an on/off again pedestrian recall was safer. He saw Vision Zero as important
and believed this resolution was the opposite of that.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve/endorse the staff's recommendation with the
amendment that the wording change to ""community mixed-use/Commercial"" to be consistent with
the staff report. Chair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the
motion passed 3-1 with Commissioner Weitze voting against and Commissioner Rentschler being
absent.
6C. Status Report on Transportation - September 2021 (Discussion Item)
Staff Member Payne gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137023&GUID=F0B7864D-20DE-
402B-AC24-FFFFC8AF4048.
Rochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, and
Staff Member Vance also gave updates on projects.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6C
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about the repaving and repainting along Buena Vista and if it
would include restriping near Maya Lin School. Would they be establishing crosswalks near that
location? She also wanted to know the timeframe for that project.
Staff Member Vance said the project that just wrapped up was not a resurfacing project so they
did not add crosswalks at that time. The next phase would include a designer who would evaluate
accessible curb ramps, pavement markings, and that is when they would look at that intersection.
This will take place sometime next year, in the fall and the winter.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked staff to respond to the public comment who was concerned for
that intersection and give them an update on the timing of that project.
Commissioner Weitze asked for a completion date for the evaluation (bike lane, road diet) of the
Lincoln/Pacific corridor.
Staff Member Payne discussed how the project had been expanded and that a more comprehensive
look had been planned for the corridor. It would now include a larger area and it needed more
TC Minutes
7
9/22/21",TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-09-22,8,"outreach. Public outreach would start late this year or early next year and she then laid out the
phases and what that entailed. This was a major effort and they would be applying for grant funding
to complete and construct. She also explained what information they look for and gather during
the evaluation.
Chair Soules asked with the investment in bike infrastructure, were they collecting data on bike
counts. Had they been doing surveys, travel diaries, or counts in mode shift?
Staff Member Wheeler answered that they had done a statistically significant survey asking about
mode choice. She did acknowledge that a travel diary would be the best survey and they could do
those in the future. She also pointed out the bike counter on the Cross Alameda Trail but due to
the pandemic, those numbers aren't a true reflection. She discussed other surveys and numbers
they had been looking at for future comparisons.
Staff Member Payne added that working on better data collection with new technologies was
something they would be working on as part of the Smart City Master Plan effort.
Chair Soules discussed how data collected intersected with their equity issues. She wanted to see
if there was actual uptake in what they were offering as the transportation options to a larger
population.
Staff Member Wheeler discussed how the statistically significant surveys would consider the
population diversity. She also added that after projects were done they collected data as well.
Public Comments for #6C
Jill Staten discussed how important before and after data was, you needed to have good baseline
data. She did not believe that survey data was good data, what really mattered was the
observational data. She encouraged more observational data and fewer survey data.
Jim Strehlow wanted more clarification on where the work on Orion Street would take place. He
also had concerns about safety on the new bike lane on Clement. He also wanted an update on
when the Oakland/Alameda Access Project would begin. He also agreed with the previous speaker
about having fewer survey data, he considered them hearsay and could be easily manipulated. He
also pointed out that there was no chat window available for the meeting.
TC Minutes
8
9/22/21",TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-09-22,9,"Staff Member Payne pointed out where the update for the Oakland/Alameda Access Project was
located, page 23, and then discussed that project and timeline. She also clarified that the before
and after data for Otis was based on quantitative analysis.
Chair Soules added that she would follow up with Staff Member Payne about Orion St.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6C
Commissioner Weitze wanted to know what success for Line 78 would be. He felt that it was a
difficult time to be starting a bus line during a pandemic, and he expressed concerned that people
were hesitating to get on a bus right now.
Staff Member Payne answered that she had not seen any of the parameters on what was needed
for that bus line to be successful. She added that there is a good faith effort to keep it beyond the
first year.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to further discuss the Slow Streets map from the presentation. He
discussed what he had observed about slow streets near where he lived, Woodstock, and felt that
at the end of slow streets they did not create safe pedestrian behavior. He wanted to know if staff
had looked at what happens when slow streets end and what people do.
Staff Member Wheeler said that was something that could be incorporated into their work. She
added that a common response they had received on the survey was that people wanted a network
of slow streets created. She discussed how that could address the issue of slow street endpoints.
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know if there was a date set up to initiate the sub-committee
discussions on the technical report for the Mobility Element.
Staff Payne stated that was being delayed until next year until after the AC Transit Recovery Plan
and the Active Transportation Plan approval. She explained what other input was needed since it
all would build on each other.
Staff Member Payne pointed out that it was National Roundabout Week.
Chair Soules pointed out that it was Walk and Roll to school on 10/6 and reminded everyone that
the Special Commission Meeting was 10/27.
TC Minutes
9
9/22/21",TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-09-22,10,"8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
10
TC Minutes
9/22/21",TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--SEPTEMBER 21, 2021--5:00 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:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-569) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager; Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City
Manager; and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:
Alameda Fire Managers Association (AFMA), Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA),
and Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee
Benefits and Terms of Employment.
(21-570) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager; Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City
Manager; and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations: (All
Labor Units) International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW), Electric
Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees Association
(ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and Alameda
Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA), International Association of
Firefighter, Local 689 (IAFF), Alameda Fire Managers Association (AFMA), Alameda Police
Officers Association (APOA) and Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA), Executive
Management Employees (EXME) and Alameda Municipal Power Unrepresented
Management Employees (AMPU); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and
Terms of Employment.
(21-571) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: Alameda Point, Site A, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric
Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, and Louis Liss, Base
Reuse Manager; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners; Under
Negotiation: Price and Terms.
(21-572) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation, Initiation of Litigation
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4)); Number of Cases: One
(As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendant: Sustainable Technologies,
1800 Orion Street, Suite 101 (Building 163) and 1820 Orion Street, Alameda Point (Building
414). Not heard.
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
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,2,"following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White:
Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; regarding All Labor Units, staff
provided information and Council provided direction with no vote was taken; and regarding
Real Property, staff provided information and Council provided direction with no vote taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,3,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA)
TUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - 21, 2021 - -6:59 P.M.
Mayor/Chair
Ezzy
Ashcraft
convened
the
meeting
at
7:33
p.m.
Councilmember/Authority Member Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Authority Member Daysog, Herrera
Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy
Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor/Authority Member
Vella joined the meeting at 7:36 p.m. The meeting
was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Authority Member Knox White moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember/Authority Member Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried
by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera
Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4.
[Absent: Vice Mayor/Authority Member Vella - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*21-01 APFA) Minutes of the Special Alameda Public Financing Authority Meeting Held
on July 16, 2019. Approved.
AGENDA ITEM
(21-573 CC/21-02 APFA) City Council Resolution No. 15815 and APFA Resolution No.
21-26, ""Authorizing the City of Alameda and the Alameda Public Financing Authority to
Commence Proceedings in Connection with the Substitution of the Letter of Credit
relating to the Alameda Public Financing Authority Variable Rate Demand Revenue
Bonds, 2003 Series A and Series B (Alameda Point Improvement Project)."" Adopted.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember/Authority Member Knox White moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember/Authority Member Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried
by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera
Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes:
5.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council Alameda Public Financing Authority
September 21, 2021
1",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,4,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at
7:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, APFA
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
2
June 15, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,5,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER - 21, 2021- - -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:39 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
(21-574) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the Council Referral
on unnecessary animal surgery [paragraph no. 21-575] first.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested an amendment to the motion to move up the
nominations [paragraph no. 21-576].
Councilmember Knox White accepted the amendment to the motion.
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.
COUNCIL REFERRAL
(21-575) Consider Adopting Resolution No. 15816, ""Calling on the State Legislature to
Implement a Ban on Medically Unnecessary Animal Surgery, Such as Declawing of
Cats."" (Councilmember Knox White). Adopted.
Councilmember Knox White gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the matter.
Urged Council to vote yes and ban the act of cat de-clawing; discussed the procedure
causing life-long pain and suffering to felines; stated an affirmative vote will ensure
safety for cats, education of the public and proof that Alameda takes animal rights
seriously; Alameda will lead the way: Ella Halisky, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the referral [adoption of the resolution].
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.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
1",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,22,"background of the engagement process; AFD has held discussions with APD in order to
convey proper roles; AFD will work to de-escalate situations; if a weapon is involved or
an individual is violent at the onset, AFD will need to ensure the safety of the scene and
allow APD to secure the area; AFD has been transporting mental health patients since
1982; the transport process is not new to AFD; the program allows AFD to expand
options and get people to the correct place; AFD's options are not limited to 5150 calls
with transport to psychiatric facilities; under the pilot program, AFD will now have
options which include treatment and release; AFD can refer and release known clients
through AFS handling a caseload and providing follow-up; outlined various issues AFD
will potentially encounter; stated an office space for AFS is already available in the
community paramedic office and a clinician will be in the office Monday through Friday.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the clinician being present will allow AFD to provide
follow-up and ensure the client has been seen as part of the refer and release program.
The Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the presence will be a large
part of the success of the program; there is currently no follow-up care for clients being
taken to a psychiatric ward on a 5150 call; the proposed program will be one of a kind
for California and the area; San Francisco is providing a similar program with a high
success rate.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for the program breakdown; stated the details
provide a more digestible understanding; she would like to ensure the Quality
Assurance Board does not include AFS as part of the Board; it is important to not have
AFS reviewing itself.
The Interim Fire Chief stated the Quality Assurance Board is available for each AFD
program; the oversight is part of the process where AFD reviews what is done and
where improvements can be made; AFD is working in collaboration with AFS and
should review the process together; staff has discussed the prospect of having an open
public meeting or committee meeting where AFD can potentially host a question and
answer event; AFD would like to remain as transparent as possible regarding the
program's health and operation; data reporting will be coming from both AFD and AFS
sources; AFD has robust internal data and records management; outlined patient care
reports; stated that he would like to be able to answer community questions, as
appropriate; quality assurance is a large part of the organization.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a place for peer review in the program
process.
The Deputy Fire Chief responded AFD staff will follow the San Francisco Crisis Mobile
Units' peer review model; a ride along with the San Francisco Mobile Unit will occur;
ACPH and ACEMS will also review the AFD pilot program, including data and
responses review; outlined training; noted some of the staff who volunteered for the
training are veterans.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
18",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,23,"Vice Mayor Vella stated the process should have a clause allowing for collaborative,
regional peer review built into the agreement; expressed support for a bi-annual check
in; stated San Francisco has been providing services for a short period of time; the
matter is regional; the peer review will be helpful; expressed concern about opening the
Quality Assurance Board review up to a full public meeting; stated the program is a pilot
in an emerging area and needs a lot of expertise; she is not in favor of the second year
option being extended by mutual agreement; expressed support for the pilot coming
back to Council after one year for review, a presentation on data and peer review
results; stated the program is a good starting point; a lot of work has been done to get
here; the City could end up looking for a different build-out; Council can make decisions
at the one year mark; expressed support for the work put into the program; stated the
goal is to have the proposed alternative happen; she is concerned about the Exhibit A to
the agreement not being included; stated Council should provide direction on specifics
and have the matter return in a clean fashion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to hear from the City
Attorney regarding the missing Exhibit A; she understands the exhibit to be a tentative
document; she believes Council can proceed with the language included in the report.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about an Open Government Commission
(OGC) complaint being filed against the City Council.
The City Attorney stated if Council wishes to proceed with the matter, Council may
provide clear direction to staff; the staff report acknowledges that the contract is not
complete; Council will need to provide as clear direction as possible so that the authority
given to the City Manager is understood; alternatively, Council may consider providing
direction to have staff return with a clean Exhibit A; both options are legally viable.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the first page of the proposed agreement;
stated her preference is to move forward and allow the City Manager to negotiate and
execute the agreement with AFS; the language is recommending Council approve the
City Manager being allowed to negotiate and execute the agreement with AFS; inquired
how the City Attorney believes Council should proceed.
The City Attorney responded that his previous response is consistent with the language
presented; stated Council has multiple paths forward, including giving the City Manager
authority to negotiate and execute the agreement or staff can return to Council with
something more precise; both approaches are within Council's authority.
Councilmember Herrera Spence moved approval of the staff recommendation to
authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Alameda
Family Services for an amount not to exceed $500,000 for one-year.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for starting the term at one year
and having Council make a decision to provide direction at the current meeting; stated
the direction complies with the staff recommendation; she hopes Council will support
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
19",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,24,"moving forward with the motion; moving forward with the pilot program is important; she
was not on Council when the process began; she agrees with the community that it is
past due; expressed support for first responders being present in times of crisis and for
AFS and AFD joining as Alameda's team; stated AFS has been serving the City since
1969; the community has been supporting AFS for over 50 years; AFS has a presence
in the community; no other provider knows and serves Alameda better than AFS;
expressed support for the pilot program; stated the City has a head start; other cities are
trying to figure out similar programs; the program might need more money at some
point; the City can look at using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for the
program; mental health needs have increased due to COVID-19; time is of the essence.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Vice Mayor Vella made recommendations; inquired whether
the recommendations are included within the motion as direction to the City Manager.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the negative; stated that she does not
want to back-pedal on the matter; expressed support for moving forward; stated that
she articulated the matter would come back in one-year for re-evaluation; the Council
should not get into the weeds; she is happy to consider friendly amendments to the
motion.
Councilmember Knox White stated that the program will be one and a half year into the
duration before needed data is available to decide whether or not to continue with the
program as-designed; it has taken four months to get to the point of having a program
recommendation put before Council for consideration and negotiation; the matter will be
back in front of Council within three months to begin the discussion for year two.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion with amendment; to include the
option to extend; stated if the program is proceeding poorly, Council can stop the
program; the option to extend provides Council the option not to continue; Council will
cause a lot of work without much benefit in having the matter return after one year.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a clause stating that the
agreement may be mutually extended up to one year at the sole discretion of the City
Manager; inquired whether the matter should come back to Council.
Councilmember Knox White responded that he would like to give the authority to the
City Manager.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the friendly amendment to the motion.
Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about stepping into the administrative
realm in writing the contract; outlined the Mali Watkins incident; stated there has been a
commitment to the community from the City Manager about being a leader in how the
City responds to calls for service within one year; Council is being provided with a
contract from City staff and AFS which encompasses that commitment; he would like
Council to move forward; the program is a pilot and is iterative; recommended the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
20",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,25,"contract be written in such a way that Exhibit A can be changed by the City, with
agreement from AFS and a 45 to 60 day notice as the program progresses and
iterations are made when approaches do not work; AFD and AFS can make the
recommendation to change when needed in order to create a mechanism for the
program to go back and change the schedule in a simple manner versus having to
come back to Council and amend the contract; expressed support for the flexibility in
allowing changes to be made, for Council giving direction to have quarterly updates
provided and allowing Council to raise issues prior to the one year extension option;
stated there are ways that Council can create breaks; he agrees with public
commenters that the issue has taken 14 months and it is time to move forward.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed motion amendment becomes a
substitute motion.
The City Clerk responded that she has heard the comment provided as amendment to
the motion on the floor.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thought the entire Council must decide on the
motion amendments, not just the maker of the motion.
The City Clerk stated the usual procedure followed by the City is that the maker of the
motion accepts amendments to the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion has been made by Councilmember Herrera
Spencer, which has been seconded and amended by Councilmember Knox White; the
maker of the motion has accepted the amendment to the motion.
Councilmember Daysog stated the program represents a historic opportunity for
reforming policing in Alameda; the action will be looked at with pride by many
generations of Alamedans; Council should move forward with the motion as-amended;
he has previously voted for Felton Institute to provide services; he is also confident that
the AFD can manage the contract; the RFP is only one and a half pages long; the RFP
is written more as a Request for Qualifications (RFQ); AFD has asked for the
qualifications with respect to the items and sub-items included in the RFP; the response
and proposal from AFS is in-depth; AFS hit all pertinent points in the RFP to ensure
policing reform and allowing mental health professionals to deal with non-violent
situations of implied mental health needs; Council should not miss the rare opportunity
to reform policing; he is unsure whether the program will be a model looked at by other
cities; expressed support for the pilot program.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how the quarterly updates will be provided; expressed
concern about the updates being placed on a Council meeting agenda; expressed
support for the update to Council on the pilot program being agendized ahead of the
one year mark.
Councilmember Knox White responded an off-agenda report for the quarterly updates
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
21",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,26,"seems great; the matter can always be put forth by a Councilmember; Council can
provide direction to have the matter return one month prior to the execution of the one
year extension.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she accepts all of the amendments made
by Councilmember Knox White.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has been persuaded on the matter; she has
listened to many of the speakers over the year process and holds respect for the time,
effort and passion put into the program; expressed support for the work of the Assistant
City Manager; stated the process is iterative; thanked staff and AFS for further
illustrating the program; expressed support for the pilot program; stated it is important to
move forward with the program now; staff will take the discussion points made by
Council into consideration when finalizing negotiations.
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.
(21-594) Resolution No. 15820, ""To Apply for the San Francisco Bay Restoration
Authority Measure AA Grant to Fund Planning and Design of De-Pave Park and
Allocate $50,000 in Matching Funds, if Awarded.' Adopted.
Expressed support for the work being done; stated many people have been
instrumental in bringing the project to this point; DePave Park is an opportunity Alameda
must take; the Park will be a unique resource for wildlife due to location, will have
significant potential to sequester carbon and will be a beautiful place of respite and
learning for all Alamedans; urged Council to vote in favor of the grant application and
matching funding: Linda Carloni, Golden Gate Audubon Society.
Expressed support for comments provided by the Gold Gate Audubon Society and for
the matching funds; stated the matching funds will make a difference in the application;
noted the City was previously unsuccessful in the attempt at grant funding for DePave
Park; stated previous budget requests have been for $280,000 and a $50,000 request is
a bargain: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a newspaper article that she authored about DePave Park
and the second chance at grant funding efforts.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the
resolution].
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
22",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,27,"Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for reaching a
consensus and consistency for the spelling of DePave Park; stated that she would like
to have a discussion around Buildings 25 and 29; she would like to confirm that Council
is not agreeing to demolish either building in approving the grant funding.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is approving a resolution to allow the City to apply
for a grant.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated Buildings 25 and 29 will be a major topic of
discussion for the DePave Park Master Plan process, which would be funded by the
grant if awarded.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for an eventual new name for DePave Park.
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.
(21-595) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda
Municipal Code Chapter XXIV Public Health to Add Section 24-14 Prohibition on
Gasoline-Powered Leaf Blowers. Introduced.
The City Planner gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City is still using gasoline
powered leaf blowers.
The City Planner responded in the negative; stated City contractors are not using
gasoline powered leaf blowers.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she received a complaint about City
contractors using gasoline powered leaf blowers at a park; requested clarification about
the use for City contractors.
The City Manager stated the City is converting from gasoline powered leaf blowers to
electric; contracts are being converted to be consistent with the ordinance.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supports the matter; she hopes the
City will finish the conversion of contractors; the City should be the leader in such
matters.
Vice Mayor Vella moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he plans to support the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
23",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,28,"motion; his only potential change would be to consider whether Council wants the
ordinance to go into effect immediately with enforcement not starting until 2023; the
matter will have the same enforcement timeline; rather than people continuing to use
gasoline powered leaf blowers for a year and a half, the City can begin the education
portion and phase in enforcement.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staying with the staff recommendation;
stated that the education piece for the matter is important, including bilingual outreach;
the City is impacting people's employment; there is hope that the change happens
sooner rather than later.
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.
(21-596) Recommendation to Review, Comment and Provide Direction on Preliminary
Needs Assessment and Recommendations for Development of Smart City Master Plan.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the item to the Continued Agenda Items
section of the October 5, 2021 Council meeting.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(21-597) The City Manager made an announcement regarding the City's annual Job
Fair at South Shore Center; stated the City is seeking Community Service Award
nominations for community members who have made tremendous contributions over
the past year in the City of Alameda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21-598) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief
regarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-599) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-600) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational
Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
24",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,29,"(21-601) 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.
(21-602) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints
Limiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and
Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.
(21-603) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to
Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the
2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog) Not
heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-604) Councilmember Knox White discussed City Council and School Board
Subcommittee meeting; stated the School District has been meeting with Alameda
County about pushing back closing Emma Hood pool due to COVID-19; the current
closure is set for January; it is unclear whether the County is receptive; Encinal High
School is looking to put up flood lights to have backup nighttime use of the Encinal High
School pool; there is forward motion on the shared use agreement that allows the City
to use Encinal High School pool for community swimming during the day; the matter
should come before Council by the end of the year; announced a $290 million bond
being placed on the ballot in June; discussed an AFS contract with the School District;
announced 73% of students are vaccinated as of the previous week.
(21-605) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement about a ribbon cutting for a new
apartment building at Alameda Point; stated the units are all market rate and are helping
to fund the 25% affordable units; discussed the last of the ""Starlight Movies in the Park""
event put on by the Recreation and Parks Department; stated that she attended a
beach cleanup at South Shore Beach.
ADJOURNMENT
(21-606) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting
at 12:03 a.m. in memory of Nick Bianchi.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
25",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,6,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-576) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Commission on Persons with
Disabilities and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Lisa Hall, Jennifer Roloff and Kathryn Beehler for
appointment to the Commission on Persons with Disabilities.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(21-577) Proclamation Declaring September 15 through October 15, 2021 to be
National Hispanic Heritage Month.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
(21-578) Proclamation Declaring October 3 through 9th, 2021 as Public Power Week.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-579) Dorothy Freeman, Alameda, discussed the Beltline Initiative; stated previous
Councils have supported the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park; discussed Union Pacific
land being part of the design for final build-out and Council discussions being held in
open session; stated Council has gone beyond actions considered as good government
policy; outlined an offer from Union Pacific; discussed Council authorizing $1.9 million
for 0.55 of an acre; stated decisions about zoning and housing should be held in open
session with public discussion; attempts to bring the discussion to the public have been
blocked.
(21-580) Paul Foreman, Alameda, discussed 2014 and 2016 Council meetings related
to the Jean Sweeney Master Plan; stated Council filed an Eminent Domain action at an
open Council meeting on September 4, 2018 to secure 2.8 of the 4.52 acres of land;
Council has directed a settlement agreement, which conveys a little over one half acre
with easements for utilities and access; outlined open and closed meeting processes;
stated authorizing final settlement for a case involving substantial downsizing of a
publically approved park expansion requires a meeting with full public notice and ability
for comment; a Sunshine Ordinance complaint has been filed in order to seek
placement of the matter on a Council regular agenda; urged Council place the matter on
the October 5th regular agenda.
(21-581) Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda, expressed support for Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's
public letter regarding rental assistance; stated the need, availability and access to
rental assistance has been accessed by families in Alameda; more needs to be
distributed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
2",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,7,"Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog recorded a no vote on the ordinance
amending the Sunshine Ordinance [paragraph no. 21-588].
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
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. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*21-582) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings, the Continued July 6, 2021
Meeting and the Regular Meeting Held on July 20, 2021. Approved.
(*21-583) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,483,038.57.
(*21-584) Recommendation to Consent to the Public Utilities Board's Request to
Auction Surplus Vehicle 432, a Digger-Derrick. Accepted.
(*21-585) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Bayside Stripe & Seal, Inc. for Fiscal
Year 2020- 21 Sign and Striping Maintenance Project, No. P.W. 02-20-13. Accepted.
(*21-586 Ordinance No. 3304, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second
Amendment to the Lease with Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability
Company to Extend the Term for Fifty-Nine (59) Months for Building 29, Located at
1701 Monarch Street, at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
(*21-587) Ordinance No. 3305, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second
Amendment to the Lease with Small Size Big Mind, Inc., a California Corporation,
Substantially in the Form of Exhibit 4, to Extend the Term for One Year with One 12
Month Extension Option for Building 35, Located at 2450 Pan Am Way in the Main
Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
(*21-588) Ordinance No. 3306, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code, Including
Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) to Clarify Enforcement
Provisions and Provide for Other Updates and Enhancements to the Sunshine
Ordinance. Finally passed.
Note: Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the item
carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer - 2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(21-589) Resolution No. 15817, ""Appointing Robert Lattimore as a Member of the Golf
Commission. Adopted;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
3",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,8,"(21-589 A) Resolution No. 15818, ""Appointing Dimple Kanji as a Member of the Library
Board."" Adopted; and
(21-589 B) Resolution No. 15819, ""Appointing Sara Strickler as Members of the Library
Board.' Adopted.
Councilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolution.
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 and Mr. Lattimore, Ms. Kanji and Ms.
Stricker made brief comments.
(21-590) Presentation by the Chief of Police.
(21-591) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the Police Chief be given 20 minutes or his
presentation.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of allowing 20 minutes for the presentation.
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.
The Police Chief gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the use of the term
""clearance.""
The Police Chief responded clearance is the term used to describe when clearing a
case through arrest; stated an investigation is conducted and the case is cleared when
an arrest is made.
Expressed support for the clarification of the term ""clearance;"" questioned the clearance
numbers reported for domestic violence cases; discussed her experience as a domestic
violence victim; discussed probation and court ordered violations; expressed support for
Alameda Police Department (APD); questioned why repeat violators of probation are
not being arrested: Teresa Guarino.
Expressed support for the organizational aspects of the report; discussed
correspondence sent related to the challenges experienced by the Fernside Marina;
stated the new program and organization takes serious and appropriate steps in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
4",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,9,"resolving problems; discussed a neighborhood watch program; expressed support for
the Police Chief and for the proposed recruitment process; urged Council to support
APD in all ways: Bill Garvine, Alameda.
Urged the continuation of APD providing content-heavy presentations; stated that she
is
pleased to hear the changes have been made to the Police Policy Manual; expressed
concern about page 84 referencing excited delirium; the reference is made to a concept
which has been rejected by American Medical Association (AMA) and not recognized by
the American Psychiatric Association (APA) nor the World Health Organization (WHO);
urged the Policy Manual be focused on science based medical relevance; urged the
public be engaged to update beat boundaries; expressed support for increased public
participation in key policing decisions: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Stated deaths under Police supervision do not appear under the list of statistics;
discussed the Mario Gonzales case; questioned the details being released for the Mario
Gonzales case; expressed support for clarification being provided for the Mario
Gonzales case: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Expressed support for the distinction between legality and procedural justice; stated
legality should be the floor of Police conduct with residents; questioned the boundaries
of procedural justice; expressed support for working with the Police Chief in fleshing out
the commitment to equity and ways in which to remain accountable: Josh Geyer,
Alameda.
Expressed concern about the presentation not including information related to the Mario
Gonzales case; stated that she would like more information on how new Officers will be
properly trained; she is concerned to see many proposed new Officers and promotions
to fill vacancies; the presentation did not provide much information related to bias and
correcting a legacy of racism within APD; she is concerned about the emphasis on data;
the presentation has not addressed preventing the criminalization of Black and Brown
folks and civilian deaths at the hands of APD; discussed rape clearance rates; noted the
public has been asking for less Police interaction: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.
Stated there is a need for additional transparency and policy reforms; discussed a social
media abuse case; stated two Officers were found guilty of violating social media
policies and manipulating social media; noted the two Officers had been fired from one
jurisdiction and hired by an alternate jurisdiction; expressed concern about the
possibility of one of the Officers being hired at APD; stated there is a need for
investigation at the Council level: Beth Kenney, Alameda.
Stated the murder and manslaughter report on the presentation is incorrect; discussed
the Mario Gonzales case; stated the City cannot look away from the irony; the City
omitting information is providing the opposite of accountability and trust: Laura Cutrona,
Alameda.
Stated a silent majority of people are upset with Council; discussed a lack of Council
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
5",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,10,"support for APD; stated crime is increasing; noted people want to move out of Alameda
due to crime and lack of support for APD; discussed recent armed thefts: Wayel Fare,
Alameda.
Expressed support for the data-driven approach to the presentation; stated that she
would like the public to be able to access the information provided; questioned how
catalytic converter thefts are being addressed; stated that she would like additional
Officers patrolling between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m.; expressed concern
about a recent death on Fernside Boulevard; urged Police presence in potentially
problematic areas to serve as a deterrent: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Discussed social media; stated there has been no indication of an investigation around
Officer social media related to the January 6th insurrection; questioned what APD is
willing to give up in order to budget more for neighbor survival needs: Jenice Anderson,
Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the Police Chief and the presentation;
stated the presentation demonstrates a new focus and key ways to address challenges;
the Police Chief is changing the culture of the organization to address wider types of
issues being faced by the community and nation; he is eagerly looking forward to the
implementation of the Police Chief's vision in keeping Alameda a safe place; expressed
support for the change in focus and boundaries; stated the Police Chief is responding to
the data presented; expressed support for directed patrols; discussed previous Officers
patrolling for speeding on Otis Drive; expressed support for the strategy used to develop
staff and fill vacancies within APD.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she previously submitted a Council
Referral for a presentation; the community has provided many comments and concerns;
she is hopeful an update will be provided every six months or once a year; inquired
whether the Police Chief would respond to any of the public comments received.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated public comments included themes of topics, including
inappropriate social media use, possible hiring of Officers terminated from other
organizations and approaches for catalytic converter thefts.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her inquiry is to have the Police Chief
respond to any of the public comments received or provide a method in which people
can receive responses; noted the APD website includes updates.
The Police Chief stated regarding the question related to domestic violence incidents,
the presentation numbers are from 2020; the number of domestic violence cases for
2021 is 31 so far; he will follow up on the question related to page 84 of the Policy
Manual; Officers terminated for misconduct from other jurisdictions are not being hired.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the presentation data; stated
that she agrees with the sentiment of increased crime; outlined incidents of people
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
6",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,11,"being followed and held up and someone shooting into a house; stated shooting into a
house is a serious problem; expressed concern over assaults, rapes and violent crimes.
The Police Chief stated the rape assault clearance numbers show that the offenders are
known to the victim in all incidents; it is difficult to put a number on crimes in relation to
public safety in Alameda; hearing people's stories is important; he intends to take a
qualitative and quantitative approach to the incidents; he has given direction to staff to
inform him about incidents in order to meet with families to discuss the importance and
seriousness of crimes; he is unable to place value on gun crimes; anytime a person is
shot at, there is trauma.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for comments related toward bias,
racism and equity; stated the matters are important to the community; discussed the
armored vehicle; stated that she understands a temporary policy has been in place for
the vehicle; inquired when the policy would be returning to Council for discussion.
The Police Chief responded the matter should come before Council after October.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the armored vehicle discussion is important;
expressed support for the matter returning to Council for policy adoption; inquired
whether the Police Chief plans to bring forth a staff recommendation for License Plate
Readers (LPR's), to which the Police Chief responded the matter will come to Council
October 19th.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the approach brought by the Police
Chief; inquired the steps being taken by Officers and APD to stop shootings.
The Police Chief responded most shooting incidents are not random in occurrence;
stated disturbances which escalate in a family or neighborhood will need steps taken
early to intervene and provide mediation to address underlying issues; there are
opportunities to mitigate crimes that are not random; incidents where the use of a
firearm to commit a crime are challenging due to offenders looking for the perfect
opportunity to commit a crime; offenders are looking for a victim and a location;
eliminating crimes means eliminating one of the three elements: offender, victim and
location; offenders generally look for a location which is not well-lit and a victim who has
been watched and is assumed to have valuable items; Police presence has some
deterring effect; however, the issue is part of a bigger discussion; people are committing
robberies due to being desperate; lack of opportunities tend to influence people's
decision; people are willing to take more of a chance when less hope is present; victims
should be more vigilant, be aware of surroundings, protect belongings and take
additional prevention steps; APD has provided several tips through social media and the
City's website; the tips minimize the opportunity for crime.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the Police Chief acknowledging the
trauma associated with gun crimes; noted the presentation shows robberies are down
20% in the last year; inquired the role of APD in ensuring the community understands
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
7",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,12,"risk and is not unintentionally being driven to believe that things are getting out of
control when random robbery numbers are going down.
The Police Chief responded the approach must be balanced; stated community
members need to be aware that robberies are down; however, robberies are always a
possibility; when robberies occur, victims are encouraged to cooperate and remain
vigilant on the front-end; retaining as much information as possible is helpful for Police
follow-up; a balanced approach is key; numbers provide an indication; however, there is
value to both understanding robbery numbers are down, yet incidents are still traumatic
and unacceptable.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for continuing to encourage the City and
APD to consider how to balance the messaging in order to convey both stories; stated
the result will show a dedicated APD that is doing a great job of clearing cases; urged
Councilmembers to convey the same message to avoid unintentionally feeding the story
of being out of control when robberies and assaults are at a near historic low; expressed
support for APD looking at data and what is known from the data; shootings are mostly
random from a policing standpoint; urged the Police Chief and City Manager to review
the list of Council priorities related to LPRs; stated the LPRs are the last priority; noted
traffic stop policies and the armored vehicle have been prioritized; expressed concern
about LPR correspondence received driving Council discussions instead of Council-set
priorities; LPRs barely had Council support at the time of setting priorities; he would like
to ensure Council is focusing on a more holistic picture; expressed support for staff
working with the body of Council versus responding to the loudest voices in the room.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for the thought put into the presentation, for
ensuring APD is the department both wanted and needed and for the fresh perspective;
stated the domestic violence and rape numbers are high; the crimes are typically ones
where the victim knows the attacker; inquired the follow up procedures for referral
services; questioned whether people and victims are getting needed services and
whether delays are present; inquired what is being done to expand and provide
resources in a timely manner; stated that she is interested in finding out options for
instances where the victim knows the attacker; many times services are not needed for
related cases; often times the victim needs to cut ties financially, especially during a
pandemic; questioned whether the City is providing all alternatives and whether there
are places, based off referrals provided, where the City can do more for people; stated
the City can find housing for people or alternatives; the situations are difficult for people
and cause repeat offenses due to the difficulty in separating and stabilizing family
interactions and due to economic and housing pressures; discussions related to
defunding Police are meant to also ensure funding for services needed, such as mental
health services and housing; there are cycles and different ties to crime data; expressed
support for using data to make a concerted effort to collect the information to see where
a positive disruption can occur; noted the Mario Gonzales case is an active
investigation; the Police Chief has taken a proactive approach in engaging the
community; urged continued engagement with the community by the Police Chief in
order to address underlying concerns and questions; stated that she and Council will
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
8",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,13,"provide support to the Police Chief; Council has prioritized many things and many
priorities are being placed on APD; Council has ranked priorities; however, sometimes
the squeaky wheel gets addressed in a more timely manner; she would like to ensure
that any questions related to the priority list be reviewed; members of the public have
spent a lot of time making recommendations and timeline updates would be helpful.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Police Chief should respond to the question
related to resources available to domestic violence and rape victims.
Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; stated that she would like to know the
efficacy of the resources and whether more resources are needed.
The Police Chief responded APD regularly contacts social services and provides three
day follow-ups on domestic violence cases; stated APD's violent crimes unit meets
quarterly with a task force that supports domestic violence victims in order to
understand any underlying themes; the task force comes up with creative ways to help
victims' basic needs through hotel vouchers, prepaid phones and access to Uber and
Lyft rides; APD takes a support role in providing the mentioned resources; the lead role
should be taken by social services; he does not currently have efficacy data; however,
he will follow-up and look into the numbers; repeat domestic violence cases denote a
continuing occurrence; however, the underlying causes or factors can be unknown; Vice
Mayor Vella's inquiry provides an indication of things to continue reviewing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City and APD are fortunate to have the Police Chief;
inquired whether more information can be provided related to increases in speeding.
The Police Chief responded APD has a role in speeding and traffic problems; stated
Grand Avenue and Otis Drive is an example of an environmental design approach to
address speeding problems; the intersection previously had many collisions and issues
with public safety; the City has done a good job of addressing traffic; data is one way of
viewing the problem, but is not the only way; fatalities and collisions are on a downturn;
the City is taking a holistic approach to the problem; environmental design has an
impact; APD supports the matter by enforcing the California Vehicle Code; with directed
patrols, APD will patrol areas where complaints are received and issues are known to
occur; all agencies can participate in supporting and mitigating problems; APD is also
providing education via social media, signage and presence; he does not believe
citations and ticketing will clear the problem; an approach from all angles will help;
approaches and responses have lifespans, which require adjustment.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the control held by APD over the District Attorney's report
and Coroner's report in relation to the Mario Gonzales case.
The Police Chief responded the case is an active investigation; the investigation itself
cannot be commented on; control over the investigation is not held by APD; the
investigation is held by the Alameda County Sherriff's Office; the Coroner's report is
being prepared by the Alameda County Coroner; APD no longer has anything to do with
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
9",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,14,"the investigation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted a public comment referenced Council not supporting APD
enough in stopping crime; inquired the ways which Council can further support APD.
The Police Chief responded that he has felt supported since his arrival at the City;
stated everyone needs to work together and approach safety in Alameda as a group;
staffing challenges are contributing to the issue; direction is needed; he clearly provides
direction to APD; it is too early to make requests of Council at this time; APD is headed
in a good direction and he feels Council support; he will be seeking guidance and will
make requests as time progresses.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council does need to stop and realize that the Police
Chief's first day was June 8th; the 90-day update takes time to prepare; the first 90 days
have been exciting and ambitious; Council looks forward to hearing more from the
Police Chief.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the previous Interim Police Chief reported a
total of 17 shootings for 2020; inquired the current number of shootings for 2021, to
which the Police Chief responded 16.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the amount of shootings is why people feel as
though there is an issue; the jump from 7 shootings in 2019 to 17 in 2020 is a problem;
she hopes the amount of shootings for 2021 does not break the record; the City is at the
highest amount in four years; inquired the amount of assaults for the year.
The Police Chief responded assaults are up 215% through July 31; stated August
numbers are up 194%.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the numbers are a significant increase;
robberies are shown at a negative 8.8% year to date; inquired how many of the
robberies included guns; noted not every robbery includes a gun.
The Police Chief responded the elements of robbery are the theft of personal property
by use of force or fear; stated the instrument can be hands, brandishing a weapon or
making threatening remarks; thefts by use of force are categorized as robberies; he
does not have the breakdown for the robbery data; reports are generated and rank
crimes higher than others; if someone commits a shooting and a robbery, the crime will
be listed as a shooting.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the Police Chief sharing the
data for 2021 shootings being 16.
The Police Chief stated the amount reported is through July 31; the number will be
higher going through August.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
10",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,15,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the previous Interim Police Chief's shooting
report for prior years; stated that she believes there is a reason to be concerned about
the number of shootings.
The Police Chief stated the numbers show a significant increase as opposed to prior
years.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for future reports including the
current number of shootings.
Councilmember Knox White stated traffic fatalities have gone down from the previous
year; however, last year's traffic fatalities were a 10-year high; the trend is not down, the
trend is up; the likely way for someone to be injured or killed in Alameda is to be hit by a
car; public safety needs to include a focus of resources on places where the greatest
harm will be; the Police will not be able to stop shootings; Alameda is doing a great job
in following up on matters; the City is working regionally; expressed concern about
speeding; stated that he would like to ensure Council is not losing focus leading to the
greater harm in the community by chasing down numbers and not paying attention to
what can be done; expressed support for a maintained focus on safety and creating
safety.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the increase in shootings and automobile-related deaths
are terrifying; there are more interventions to perform on the auto-related injuries and
fatalities; inquired whether there are ways for APD to prevent shootings other than
Council taking action on gun control legislation; noted California already has strong gun
control; it is fair to say too many guns are present; inquired how APD can address the
issue; questioned whether it is better to apprehend individuals that commit crimes using
guns.
The Police Chief responded the approach is multi-faceted; stated a shooting is less
likely to happen when a Police Officer is present; APD has a finite number of Officers;
Officers cannot be placed everywhere in order to prevent all shootings from happening;
people make calculated risks when choosing to use a firearm in a crime; planned
shootings usually take calculated risks; some people are less thoughtful about risk in
the heat of the moment; those with the propensity for violence can be taken and held
accountable through enforcement, which prevents re-offending; the solution is not as
simple as saying the Police can solely resolve it; a multi-faceted approach must be
taken; the Police can take a role by being present and preventing crimes from
happening; however, Officers cannot be in every location at all times; those involved in
shootings can be held accountable; underlying issues causing people to choose crime
might include social issues; people are desperate and chances will be taken when hope
is lost; social services being available as an option can help change choices; some
people will not make the choice even when social services are made available;
expressed support for trying every effort to ensure resources are available to people so
that they are less likely to offend; enforcement is an option to hold people accountable.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
11",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,16,"Councilmember Daysog expressed support for having a good number of Officers on the
streets enforcing traffic laws or deterring gun violence; stated Officers cannot be in front
of every home; a message of strong deterrence is sent when enough Officers are able
to investigate and track down people who shoot a gun in langer; the question is not
about having enough Officers to deter gun violence; the City needs to improve the
amount of Officers on the street; he is confident that the Police Chief and City Manager
are working to increase [APD] staffing numbers; the issue is not about stopping crime
before it happens, but being able to follow-up and track down perpetrators of crime;
nearby cities have a lot of crime which is not followed-up on due to capacity issues;
Alameda's history has been to be able to track down people that commit violent crimes;
discussed a killing at Washington Park; stated APD Officers have been able to track
down perpetrators of violent crimes as soon as possible; it is important to continue to
work to increase APD's staffing.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:48 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:11
p.m.
***
(21-592) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an
Agreement with Alameda Family Services for an Amount Not to Exceed $500,000 for
One-Year, with an Option to Extend for an Additional Year for an Amount Not To
Exceed $1,000,000 for Two-Years, to Provide for Mental Health Services Related to the
City's Alternative Response to Calls for Mental Health Crisis Support Pilot Program.
The Assistant City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the proposal not being ready for a
number of reasons; stated Council is being asked to approve allowing the City Manager
authority to enter into a Service Provider Agreement (SPA); the agreement provided
references services to be performed in Exhibit A, which is not included; noted there was
not enough time to put together the exhibit; County approvals were cause for delay;
expressed concern about the Request for Proposals (RFP) being generic and put
together by the Alameda Fire Department (AFD) that does not have experience with the
services; AFD is awaiting training; the RFP yielded one response, which is also
concerning; outlined Santa Clara County's Mental Health Response; stated Santa Clara
County staff agreed to meet with Alameda City staff; proposed that the agreement be
done with an emphasis on correctness, not speed; expressed support for having the
RFP re-issued in consultation with a firm that has relevant experience; County
Behavioral Healthcare Services can provide assistance; respondents can apply or re-
apply to the new RFP; a new Fire Chief will be starting in the next month; AFD
executive staff could be part of the selection process; the matter is premature and staff
should be given more time; getting the services right is more important than in getting
the program running fast; expressed concern about Alameda Family Services (AFS) not
working with people who are violent or engaged in criminal activities; stated there is a
wide gap in services; a service provider with clinical experience is needed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
12",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,17,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the Council discussion
process; stated the current time is typically reserved for Council clarifying questions;
expressed support for proceeding with the item as agendized.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she raised concerns at the outset due to any Brown Act
or Open Government Commission violations.
Discussed Council meeting rules; expressed support for the City engaging with AFS;
stated the proposal is an important first step; further delay will be an unjustified
extension of the status quo, which is unacceptable; discussed death in Police custody;
urged Council to act: Erin Fraser, Alameda.
Expressed support for the pilot with AFS; discussed her experience with Alameda
Unified School District (AUSD) as a Principal for Island High School; stated her
experience with AFS has shown there would be an effective partnership for a pilot
program; AFS is uniquely positioned to respond to the needed wrap around support;
AFS has worked to divert youth from the justice system and has helped intervene and
support with families dealing with gun violence, addiction, domestic violence and other
mental health needs; the program will require a provider that knows the community with
deep ties and established history; AFS is plugged into the needs and resources in the
community in a way that no other agency has; AFS has multicultural staff, which
supports equitable access to the community: Alysse Castro, Alameda.
Stated that she is astounded to hear support for further delay of the program; discussed
previous support for the Felton Institute; stated further delays will result in more harm to
the community; she appreciates the detailed proposal from AFS; AFS has shown more
detail and care than the previous proposal, which included double the budget; the need
for a program like this is present and not just Monday through Friday from nine to five;
she hopes the proposal will be considered and is part of the beginning of efforts to limit
Police contact with vulnerable neighbors; expressed concern over the budget for the
program being too low; stated the City can prevent another Mario Gonzales case from
happening; urged Council to do the right thing: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Stated the program has to be 24 hours, 7 days a week; the proposed hours are not long
enough; many problems occur when most people are sleeping; the program would help
the prevention of crime; noted crime increases are due to the pandemic and the lack of
housing and work; Alameda needs a strong non-Police response to incidents: Marilyn
Rothman, Alameda.
Expressed support for the proposal; stated that he is part of the Board of Directors for
AFS; he also served on the subcommittee for unbundling Police services; the
subcommittee made the initial recommendation to remove mental health calls from the
purview of APD; the next step is to engage a mental health provider; the City could not
do better than AFS; AFS has decades of experience with proven excellence in mental
health services for the City; AFS has many partnerships nearby; the weaknesses in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
13",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,18,"RFP are bounced out by the robustness provided by AFS; it is time for the City to make
the program happen; urged Council to support the proposal: Jono Soglin, Alameda.
Stated strong mental health programs and support are wanted; the program should be
rooted in the community with strong and consistent local ties; staff has been directed to
listen to the necessity for 24 hour, 7 days a week response; the proposal has improved
in order to create a strong and fiscally sound response; expressed support for the
proposal: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Expressed support for the pilot program; stated there is a need for the service the City
should be thankful to have a qualified, community-based organization; AFS has risen to
the occasion; issuing another RFP does not make sense; the City needs 24 hours, 7
days a week program with $1 million in funding each year; the alternatives to Police
need to continue to grow; delaying the program would be a miscarriage of justice; urged
Council to approve the pilot program and swiftly do the right thing: Debra Mendoza,
Alameda.
Expressed support for the AFS proposal; discussed his experience working with AFS;
stated AFS has highly competent staff, experienced leadership, a continuum of services
and strong relationships with both the community and other providers; he is confident
that AFS will provide effective crisis mental health services; discussed his involvement
with the Justice and Mental Health Task Force; stated the community needs the
proposed program: Matthew Madaus, The Behavioral Health Collaborative of Alameda
County.
Stated the program will not work without everyone being able to access services;
Council must stop delaying; the City does not have any more time to wait; Council has
the opportunity to do something; a pilot program is a pilot for a reason; the program is
unique and will provide more than the County; the City is attempting something which is
a new way of living that will help everyone; the specifics and nit-picky details might be
warranted, but will not save lives; performing the work will help save lives; the need has
been communicated to Council many times; AFS offer critical support to the most
vulnerable within the community: Savanna Cheer, Alameda.
Stated that she is tired of waiting and delays; the program is a pilot and should begin;
changes and fixes can be made along the way; nothing can be fixed when nothing is
started; expressed support for the proposal; urged Council to vote yes on the matter:
Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Stated now is the time to act; the program is a pilot and does not have to be perfect;
urged Council to approve the AFS proposal; stated AFD cannot be critiqued for putting
forth the RFP; critiquing the RFP is disingenuous; discussed Felton Institute's
application; stated any organization could have applied at either point; opening another
RFP would only cause further delay; the program restricts handling people who are
violent or criminal; the program is not meant to send case workers to serve as backup
for law enforcement; there is no reason for delay; the AFS proposal is sound and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
14",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,19,"comprehensive; urged Council award the contract to AFS: Carly Stadum-Liang,
Alameda.
Stated the need for these services has greatly increased during the pandemic; the
program needs to happen in order for the City to have an alternative response team; the
program needs to contain mental health clinicians to be effective; urged Council to
support the staff recommendation and accept Options 1A and 1C; stated the program is
a pilot which can be adjusted; it is more important to have a program in place than to
have something perfect: Beth Kenney, Alameda.
(21-593) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is need to consider new items after 11:00
p.m.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the meeting until midnight while trying to
get through as many remaining agenda items as possible.
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.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the details of the program matter; the program is a matter of life
and death; Council is providing a set of services where people will call in for assistance;
expressed concern about Council not currently providing services; noted AFS clinicians
will receive a stipend for the 24 hours, 7 days a week on-call service; inquired whether
clinicians would be bound to not be drinking by agreeing to be on an on-call shift.
The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the City's expectation
with the contract is to have trained, medical, clinical professionals and clinicians able to
administer services at any given hour; the professionals will be on-call similar to any
other professional working on behalf of the City.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined paragraph four of page 8 titled: ""Ability to Provide
Behavioral Health Professional Services;"" stated the response time listed is 90 minutes;
expressed concern about 90 minutes being a long response time; stated the details of
the program are important.
Katherine Schwartz, Alameda Family Services, stated under no circumstances will a
clinician do anything which would inhibit their ability to perform job functions while being
on-call and paid via stipend; clinicians will be paid hourly when activated by call;
clinicians will either be prepared to respond in-person or by phone; the expectation is to
have a clinician call back and respond within 15 minutes; noted the RFP indicated an
acceptable response time of 90 minutes; stated the 90 minute response time would
likely be the longest response time period possible.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
15",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,20,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the call back includes interaction with the first
responder and whether there will be an opportunity for clinicians to speak with the
individual calling in for service or whether all communication will be limited to first
responders.
Ms. Schwartz responded in person requests for service are expected to engage with the
requestor; there is an opportunity for clinicians to speak with callers having a crisis;
a
clinician's response will depend on the situation; clinicians will use judgement and work
in collaboration with first responders to determine the best course of action.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the clinician or the first responder will be the one to
determine whether or not AFS response will be in-person.
Ms. Schwartz responded the determination will be part of a discussion; stated a first
responder could call AFS and determine in-person services are needed based on the
situation; the clinician could also make the determination for in-person services based
on information provided by the first responder; the clinician will use judgement based on
information received.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there will be a scenario where first responders will
ask for a clinician to respond in-person and the clinician will deny the response, to which
Ms. Schwartz responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Vella stated if a first responder would like a clinician present, the clinician
will arrive without question; the 90 minute response time is assumed to allow for travel
time; inquired whether the first responders will remain on the phone in the interim or
whether the clinician will check-in with the first responders; questioned the process and
communication for calls for service.
The Interim Fire Chief stated AFD has asked AFS to provide support to the program;
several situations will expect assistance from AFS; one situation will be a tele-health
connection between an AFD first responder and an AFS clinician; AFD will have an
opportunity to put the client on the call in order to speak directly to the clinician when
warranted; first responder units will remain on the scene until the completion of the call;
the second situation would be requesting a clinician to respond directly to the scene;
AFD will remain with the caller until AFS arrives.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City has been working with Alameda County.
The Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated staff has been working with
the County on program development, protocols and additional response criteria.
The City Manager stated the proposal includes wrap around services and referral to the
correct agencies for follow-up, which is a critical component.
Vice Mayor Vella stated a proposal on paper can be different than the walk-through of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
16",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,21,"services; AFD is currently responding to calls for service; AFD has an understanding of
needs for calls for service; expressed support for receiving input from the Deputy Fire
Chief; stated that she understands the City discussing County requirements; inquired
whether language should be included in the agreement or if any changes or
modifications to the agreement need to be made; outlined the County providing program
requirements not currently outlined in the proposed agreement; inquired whether the
language needs to be negotiated at the present time.
The Deputy Fire Chief responded AFD is currently working with Alameda County Public
Health (ACPH) and Alameda County Emergency Medical Services (ACEMS); AFD
works under the County Medical Director; one of the things ACPH requires in order to
initiate 5150 calls by telemedicine is oversight from a licensed clinician; AFD would
need access to a licensed, on-call clinician able to assess a situation and provide input
and consultation; APD is not currently required to have a licensed clinician on-call;
ACPH does not want to expand the right for people to invoke 5150; ACPH would like to
limit the amount of 5150 calls being placed and overwhelming the system; outlined the
60-hour training completed by nine paramedics; stated if AFD responds to calls above
what can be handled, staff will have clinician and Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training
in order assess whether to initiate an AFS clinician; the calls may take a long time; the
clinician can be present to provide expertise, complement the program and provide a
team effort to calls for service.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how often AFD is able to use telemedicine for some of the
calls received; stated many references to the Mario Gonzales case have been made;
questioned whether telemedicine would have been used in the Mario Gonzales case
and the parameters.
The Deputy Fire Chief responded that he cannot second guess the Mario Gonzales
case; stated that he was not part of the call for service; crisis mobile units would likely
be present in situations where APD would be moved back to deescalate; if AFD is not
able to successfully deescalate a situation, an AFS clinician will be called in to assist.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what occurs when the person is violent.
The Deputy Fire Chief responded any violent individual requires APD to be present for
safety purposes; noted AFD and AFS will be working as a team in order not to have
people in harm's way.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether de-escalation in a similar scenario would require
AFD to come in and be the first face of the interaction to ensure the interaction is
different from APD.
The Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated that his hope is to have AFD
out first with two people on a low profile crisis unit; the response will not include a Fire
engine and ambulance or APD response; the response will include two people in a
vehicle, dressed casually, to engage with the patient; APD may be present in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
17",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY
SEPTEMBER 20, 2021
7:00 P.M.
Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid and Chair Tilos -
4. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
Vice Chair Shabazz - 1.
[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie;
City Clerk Lara Weisiger]
Oral Communications
None.
Regular Agenda Items
3-A. Minutes of the July 19, 2021 and August 2, 2021 Meetings
Commissioner LoPilato proposed changes to the July 19 minutes; stated on Page 12, her
main point was that the percentage allocation for internal OGC structural issues should
be small and not a big chunk of the report; on Page 15, Vice Chair Shabazz talked about
a public ethics commission report and she does not know if the discussion was clear that
the report was from the City of Oakland; on Page 16, she was delineating things that
seemed right for inclusion which got lumped together; she will send brief language
corrections to the Clerk; on Page 19, there is a typo: Sacrament instead of Sacramento;
on Page 23, there should be more context regarding when the Chief Assistant City
Attorney sent an email instead of just stating she gave an overview.
Commissioner Reid stated she made comments at the last meeting and wants to reiterate
that her changes were noted properly.
Commissioner Chen moved approval of the July 19, 2021 minutes as amended.
Commissioner Reid seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent:
Vice Chair Shabazz - 1]
Commissioner Reid stated the minutes mention that she offered to work with the City
Clerk and it was followed through.
Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of the August 2, 2021 minutes.
Commissioner Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
1",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,2,"Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent:
Vice Chair Shabazz - 1]
3-B. Provide Input to the Subcommittee on Practical and Policy Problems Encountered
on Administration of the Sunshine Ordinance
Commissioner Chen gave a brief presentation.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the report was included in the packet,
to which the City Clerk and Commissioner Chen responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Chen continued her presentation.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she strongly believes the Commission should take the
internal issues in a very small subheading because the focus of the report should be on
external issues heard from the community; one issue that stood out to her was the
concerns over the Alameda Police Department (APD) not tracking Public Record Act
(PRA) denials; she has general concerns about the treatment of community members at
the informal resolution stage of Sunshine Ordinance complaints, specifically the
perception of a bullying dynamic; she is on board with the ad hoc language clarification;
of the complaints that have surfaced, these are the ones she would prioritize.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the new PRA system that was
launched, Next Request, is being used by all the City departments except for the Police;
the APD has extremely different reporting requirements and regulations, so the
Department is still handling requests directly; APD has received the feedback about the
tracking concerns which can be included in the report.
Commissioner Reid stated that she submitted correspondence and was hoping to get
more feedback from the public moving forward; if the issue is agendized for another
meeting, it would be great to get as much public feedback as possible; provided examples
of issues included in her correspondence, including agenda revisions; stated it would be
helpful if agenda subscribers receive notification when an agenda is revised; she noticed
another issue that sometimes attachments are not included in PRA requests.
The City Clerk clarified that the system automatically stores all emails and retains
attachments, but in very small instances, attachments are lost somehow and are not
included.
Commissioner Reid continued sharing comments from her correspondence, including
when exemptions should be used; suggested clarifying exemptions and creating a list of
exemptions used every month for OGC review; suggested links should indicate expiration
dates; stated other PRA issues include masking of information and calendars not
including dates and times of meetings.
Commissioner Chen stated it is obvious Commissioner Reid has run into many
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,3,"roadblocks with requests; the next step is to decide how to bring the issues back and
whether to separate the PRA and Open Government pieces; she would like to make sure
the discussions are productive and come up with good recommendations.
Chair Tilos stated that he is leaning towards staff make determinations about what is
feasible, then bringing it back to the meeting for the Commissioners to make a decision
about whether or not to pursue them.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she agrees with Chair Tilos' approach; some of the
issues sound like they could be more easily resolved by simply asking staff and are not
broad scale community concerns; it seems more feasible for staff to provide a response
or clarification offline; the matter does not need to escalate to Council.
The City Clerk stated the exemptions, link expirations and masking issues are all going
to be addressed with the new system; staff could definitely follow-up on any question
about anything missed.
Commissioner Reid stated that she thinks there is broad community support for as much
transparency as possible and for really understanding some of the details; the example
she gave regarding the masking is just one of possibly two dozen examples she could
personally give; inquired how the public will know about the new system.
The City Clerk responded that she announced the launch to the OGC at the last meeting;
staff wanted to do a soft launch to get the system working; a social media blast and press
releases would go out very soon.
Commissioner Chen inquired what the next step is moving forward.
Commissioner LoPilato suggested the deliverable be a two to three page report;
questioned whether the report would be written by the Commission or staff; stated it
should be presented at a future meeting to the full Commission.
Commissioner Reid stated suggested agendizing the item on the next meeting to provide
an opportunity for public feedback; stated there could be more examples from people who
have done PRA requests.
Chair Tilos stated the issue has been a topic of conversation over the last three meetings;
there has been public comment; he does not want to belabor the topic any longer;
something should be written up by the next meeting for a Commission vote.
Commissioner Chen stated there are some easy things that could be included in a two to
three page report, but the PRA issue is a little bit more nuanced and complicated; if the
Commission decides to hold a hearing at the next meeting on PRAs and invite the people
who have submitted PRAs, the Commission would get the feedback needed to move
forward.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,4,"Chair Tilos stated he would like to see how the new PRA system goes as it would address
many of the issues Commissioner Reid brought forward; after a few months, there can
be a check in with the public.
Commissioner LoPilato read the ordinance language; stated presenting an actual
recommendation for action is ideal; the Commission is safely within compliance with its
statutory duties by simply surfacing an issue as a heads-up; the Commission does not
need to spend a ton of time thinking of exactly how to solve every PRA bottleneck before
preparing the report.
Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Commissioner Chen; it would be great to
get feedback from the public; suggested a public survey.
Commissioner Chen stated the survey could be included in the recommendation as an
action item; she will meet with Vice Chair Shabazz to draft a memo as part of the report;
she appreciates all the feedback and realizes the City is launching the new system for
PRAs and there will be a sorting-out period to get the kinks out.
Commissioner Reid stated the Commission should try to shoot for the maximum possible
to be delivered to the public; encouraged Commissioner Chen to make a motion.
Commissioner Chen stated that she would get together with Vice Chair Shabazz and a
report would come to the Commission next month to go to Council as part of the annual
report.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the report that is prepared will go on the agenda; there will
be opportunity for public comment; suggested Commissioner Reid make the public aware
of the item as opposed to creating a survey since there already will be space for public
engagement.
3-C. Report from Subcommittee on Draft Bylaw Revisions
Commissioner LoPilato gave a brief presentation.
The City Clerk stated the report was shared with the League of Women Voters (LWV)
along with a link to join the meeting; the LWV knows the item is being addressed tonight
and have access to the meeting.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she had
a discussion with Commissioner LoPilato at the beginning of her drafting process
regarding specific issues that could come up; in general, she feels comfortable with the
idea and concept of the Commission revising the rules that guide the meetings provided
that the rules being drafted are consistent with the Brown Act; it seems very appropriate
to spend time to ensure meetings are working well for both the Commission and the
public; the only clause that she would like to double check is the provision about the 15-
minute public comment period for non-agenda items.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,5,"In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the 15-minute public
comment period matches the City Council's practice; the non-agenda public comment
used to be at the end of the Council agenda and was moved to the top because people
were complaining about having to wait through the entire meeting to make comments; the
15-minute limit was imposed to prevent lots of speakers from delaying regular business.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated her concerns regarding the 15-minute comment
period are now evaporated.
Commissioner Chen inquired whether the City Council rarely has speakers during the last
comment section of the agenda, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Chen stated that she did not know the two-part public comment section
was in the Sunshine Ordinance; inquired whether the OGC was in violation of the
ordinance since they do not have a two-part comment section.
The City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the requirement is specific to the City
Council.
Commissioner Reid stated the Commission should consider adding a specific role for the
Vice Chair; she is also concerned about the language added to the Bylaws to establish
one-member subcommittees; members should be working collaboratively; suggested
striking the clause that encourages one-member subcommittees; encouraged two-
member subcommittees instead; stated whatever is decided regarding public comment
time limits should be consistent across all Boards and Commissions; suggested
encouraging the public to engage with the Commission when only a few people, less than
five, are in attendance; stated that she feels there is room for a point- and counter-point
discussion; the OGC should be soliciting feedback from the public.
Chair Tilos stated exposed support for the changes.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether there are public speakers.
The City Clerk responded the one member of the public in attendance has not raised his
hand to speak.
Commissioner LoPilato provided clarification on subcommittees; stated the goal is to give
Commissioners flexibility; she would leave the language as-is, although noting there is a
preference for two people, instead of just one; she is open to thoughts on whether the
Vice Chair should have additional tasks, but is inclined to leave flexibility; requested
feedback from other Commissioners on using Public Comment versus Oral
Communications; stated otherwise, she is prepared to make a motion to adopt the revised
Bylaws; inquired whether additional review from the Chief Assistant City Attorney is
needed.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,6,"The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that she would like the opportunity to run
through it one last time to verify there are no legal issues; overall she is supportive, legally,
of refining the Bylaws to reflect the practice and procedures the Commission would like
to follow.
Chair Tilos concurred with the Chief Assistant City Attorney; stated he would also like to
get comments from Vice Chair Shabazz; inquired Commissioner Chen's thoughts on
Commissioner Reid's concerns about one -member subcommittees.
Commissioner Chen responded the way in which Commissioner LoPilato wrote the
language makes it very clear; individuals can volunteer to get a task done; ideally, it would
be good if another person wants to help; requiring that every subcommittee has at least
two people is restrictive since there are only five members; it is really hard to require a
minimum of two members; leaving it open and encouraging more than one member
works; she understands Commissioner Reid's concern.
Commissioner Reid stated the Chief Assistant City Attorney mentioned in a previous
meeting a one-member subcommittee was a possible concern; requested feedback from
the Chief Assistant City Attorney on the issue and also regarding the spirit of establishing
a subcommittee.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated whether it is satisfactory to have a subcommittee
of one came up before; at that time, her view was a subcommittee of one is satisfactory
and acceptable; she does not have any legal issue with including language that states
either a subcommittee or designated individual can do outside research and advise the
Commission.
Chair Tilos stated the Commission should give staff time to review the revisions.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated the next step would be
to have the item on the next agenda, including the same materials and Commissioner
Reid's correspondence.
Commissioner Reid noted Commissioner LoPilato's summary of what happened in a prior
meeting did not properly indicate that she volunteered to work with the City Clerk;
cautioned against writing summaries in reports before minutes are approved.
3-D. Report from the Subcommittee on Proposed Complaint Procedure Revisions,
includes Draft Complaint Form
Complaint Process
Commissioner LoPilato suggested not using the term subcommittee when the item comes
back on the next agenda and gave a brief presentation.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated
that she had a chance to discuss the matter with her colleagues; as an overarching
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,7,"reminder, her office is tasked by the City Council to staff and advise the OGC; the details
and how it is done that is up to the City Attorney's Office, which wants to be responsive
to the Commission's concerns; the Office is prepared to commit to delivering written
guidance when appropriate; she does not think the Office would be comfortable with the
draft procedures as written being absolute, especially referring to her role in the complaint
process; the Office will commit to delivering the guidance mentioned in her July 19, 2021
email outlining the current staffing plan, which involves guidance to the OGC in its
adjudicatory capacity when deliberating over complaints and calling upon outside counsel
if necessary; she would be the one delivering guidance to the Commission; during the
complaint process, instances may need elaboration; it would not be wise for her to commit
to everything being in writing; guidance ahead of the hearing will be in writing; she does
not know if her position will always advise the Commission; another Attorney could fill the
position; concerns were raised about ethical walls or guardrails; attorneys are used to
walling themselves off from their colleagues in a variety of situations; OGC cases would
be no different; she does not have a formalized process; if a complaint is filed, she would
advise the OGC in a neutral capacity and would not discuss anything with the staff
representing the City.
Commissioner LoPilato stated one of the components of the procedures is dependent on
whether there is a written statement; she wanted to create a timeline; inquired whether it
is beneficial to have the pre-hearing submission timeline include some kind of guidance.
The City Clerk responded that she had some concerns about the timeline; stated if the
Commission wants to hold meetings the first Monday of the month and a complaint is
submitted later in the previous month, the timeline could make it harder to get the hearing
on the agenda; expressed concern about coordinating special meetings.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the process is more like a motion hearing and
more formulaic; individuals filing complaints are most likely not attorneys; the process
should not be stifled too much; after someone has gone through the trouble and effort of
filing a complaint, they might feel boxed out if they do not understand Respondent
Statements; she thinks Commissioner LoPilato addressed the issue and provided enough
flexibility, but she is mindful there may be instances in which the Complainant would not
articulate their argument and her written guidance may not capture all arguments; there
needs to be some flexibility.
Commissioner Reid stated in a prior meeting, the City Clerk mentioned Complainants are
required to attend the hearing; inquired whether there would be any legal issues with
someone filing an anonymous complaint.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that she is not aware of any legal issues;
stated that she would look into the matter more deeply in advance of the next meeting;
most of her concerns have to do with the practicalities; it seems odd to her having a quasi-
adjudicatory process where there are two sides and one side is anonymous; she is not
aware of any legal prohibition.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
7",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,8,"Commissioner Reid stated that she does not want to exclude members of the public who
wish to remain anonymous; the goal is to create a platform of transparency and allow the
public to come forward while still maintaining their privacy; it is a practice in San Francisco
and other places; she sent Commissioners case law which supports doing so; as an
inclusive city, Alameda should allow anyone to come forward anonymously.
Commissioner Chen stated that she has not thought about the issue enough; when talking
about transparency and openness, people should also be transparent and open; if
someone feels strongly that the government is not following the laws, they should be
public about it; she understands the need for privacy, but she is not sold on it; she would
like to look into what the benefit would be.
Chair Tilos stated it would be more of a con or detriment because it would open it up for
a lot more complaints, which could be frivolous.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she would not be supportive of an anonymous
complaint process because it is ripe for abuse; she does not want to change the process
or weaponize the concept of transparency to jam up City government or utilize staff
resources; on the one hand, the Commission wants to hear as much as it can about
issues people are encountering; on the other hand, the complaint process requires a
hearing, staff time and responding party statements; she does not want tax dollars spent
on these things a dozen times a month; if someone wants to privately express issues with
the Sunshine Ordinance, there is still a vehicle to do so; the complaint process is not the
only way to handle issues; if someone wants to raise an issue anonymously, they can
email the Commission via the City Clerk; there are lots of ways to raise a concern other
than the complaint process.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated it would be hard to harmonize an anonymous
complaint procedure with the limit on unfounded complaints that currently exists in the
Sunshine Ordinance.
Commissioner Reid inquired why the language is not more streamlined to just include
denied and sustained; stated San Francisco and Oakland have only two options.
Chair Tilos stated that he asked the same questions two or three meetings ago; the
Commission wanted more options.
Commissioner Chen stated if the complaint is sustained, the Commission agrees the
complaint is valid; if a complaint is denied, it means the facts of the case did not uphold
the complaint; if it is unfounded, it falls into the rule about two unfounded cases in one
year; a person can file more complaints as long as their complaints is denied, rather than
unfounded.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether the unfounded option should just be eliminated, to
which Commissioner Chen responded in the negative; stated unfounded captures cases
in which the process is being weaponized.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,9,"Chair Tilos stated if a person has two unfounded cases, they should not bring more
complaints.
Commissioner Reid stated the penalties are harsh.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the penalties are rooted in the Sunshine Ordinance, which
the Commission does not have the ability to revise, nor is it the topic of the agenda item;
she thinks it might be instructive to describe the different type of findings; listed examples.
Commissioner Reid stated it is overdone and should be much more simplified and fair for
the public.
Chair Tilos stated Commissioner Reid's comments are noted.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the Commission needs to deal with the pre-hearing
submission timeline.
Chair Tilos concurred; stated the decision to have monthly meetings is all new and the
timing need to be hashed out.
The City Clerk discussed scheduling.
Commissioner LoPilato stated she could work with the City Clerk and Chief Assistant City
Attorney between now and the next meeting to streamline a solution; the individual from
the City Attorney's office supporting the OGC needs sufficient time to review the materials
and prepare something for the Commission, while also working to prevent off-cycle
meetings; the goal is to give everybody a clear and transparent process and timeline; the
language could be a little more vague to say: ""based on the complaint submission timing,
the City Clerk will advise all parties of when written submissions will be due. ""
or
something along those lines.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated there are timing requirements for
scheduling a complaint hearing; prior to setting the monthly Mondays, staff always tried
to schedule the hearing for the next meeting; it was quicker because all that was needed
was the complaint and staff report; hearings sometimes had to be set on a different date
based on the schedules of the Commissioners and/or Complainant.
Chair Tilos inquired whether bringing the item back on October 4th is a reasonable
timeframe, to which Commissioner LoPilato responded that she could potentially have it
ready; stated the complaint procedures might require more legal review; deferred to the
Chief Assistant City Attorney.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated she is fine to do the review on one or both items
by the October 4th meeting.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
9",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,10,"Commissioner LoPilato stated getting the Bylaws done by the October meeting might
make sense; the complaint procedures could move to November, but the Commission
could attempt to get it on the next agenda.
Complaint Form
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Reid stated the City Clerk's form is an online form and hers is the paper
version; the forms are modeled after San Francisco's form; her revision includes a
worksheet to help people indicate which section of the Sunshine Ordinance may have
been violated; a hyperlink to the Sunshine Ordinance could be included in the online form;
references could also be posted on the City's webpage; requested the Chief Assistant
City Attorney sure all the references are correct; suggested cleaning up the forms for the
next meeting.
Commissioner Chen stated the revised form may actually reduce the amount of
complaints; in answering the questions on the form, the person may realize that they are
answering ""no"" to most of the questions and what they really should do is come to the
meeting to speak under public comment.
Commissioner Reid concurred with Commissioner Chen's comments; stated it is another
way to educate the public.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the worksheet reminds her of the self-help legal access
center of the court system; the specific breakdown of the sections assists individuals in
articulating claims, which is also helpful for the decision-makers it is definitely a nice
option to consider; she would like to hear from the City Attorney's office to make sure
there are accurate statements of the law and requirements; in the spirit of encouraging
public comment during the meeting, it may be beneficial to include a statement at the end
of the worksheet that people are welcome to share their concerns with the OGC if they
are no longer interested in filing a complaint.
Commissioner Chen concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated the form should lead
with encouraging public attendance and comment during the OGC meetings; she feels
two of the complaints the OGC heard this year have a place in the public comment section
due to the Bylaw revisions.
Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Chen; stated the Commission could guide
people towards public comment before going down the road of filing a complaint; the
complaint process takes a lot of resources on both sides; issues raised during public could
be placed a future agenda.
Commissioner Chen stated that she would have probably addressed the Commission
under public comment before filing a complaint if she has known it was a possibility,
although her timeline would have run out.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
10",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,11,"Commissioner Reid inquired whether the timeline should be extended to 30 days.
Commissioner Chen stated the timeline would have to be changed in the Sunshine
Ordinance.
Commissioner LoPilato stated there should be language regarding the 15-day filing
requirement; people should be aware they may need to file their complaint while going
through the informal process.
Commissioner Reid stated perhaps the 15 calendar days could be changed to 15 working
days to be more accommodating.
The City Clerk stated a revision would need to be approved by Council because the 15-
day requirement is in the Sunshine Ordinance.
Commissioner Reid stated the comments could be suggested to the City Council by the
Commission.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the issue of timing has come up historically, including in
the prior iteration of the Commission's attempt to revise the Sunshine Ordinance; rather
than proposing a lot of revisions to the timing, it might be appropriate to flag during the
revision of the complaint procedure; the 15-day requirement is there for a reason.
In response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry regarding revising a complaint, the City Clerk
stated even if the person outlines the issues vaguely in the complaint, specifics and details
can be raised at the hearing.
Commissioner Reid stated the issue was also one of her concerns; allowing additional
flexibility for an individual to make modifications or additions does not create such a tight
box for people and is more open.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she could take a stab at changing some of the
language to inform Complainants it is in their best interest to give the Commission as
much information as possible, but the Commission also understands the Complainant
may gain information over time or may need to revise or add to their complaint, all of
which will be considered up until the hearing.
Commissioner Reid stated that she is ready to finish her collaboration with the City Clerk
and submit a more polished version of the complaint form documents for the next meeting.
The City Clerk stated she is happy to have it ready for the next meeting; suggested the
complaint form and procedure be addressed together.
Chair Tilos stated the October meeting should tackle the Bylaws and the complaint
procedure should be in November.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
11",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,12,"Commissioner LoPilato stated if there are other items on the October agenda, the
Commission could proactively put the complaint procedures on a future agenda; if both
items can go in October, there may not be a need for a November meeting.
The City Clerk stated Commissioner Chen and Vice Chair Shabazz's subcommittee
report would return in October.
Commissioner Reid stated that she would be happy to bifurcate the procedures and the
form; they do not need to be on the same agenda item; suggested having the item done
in October.
Chair Tilos summarized that agenda items for the October meeting: the Bylaws and the
Sunshine Ordinance practical and policy problems, with the complaint procedures and
form on the November agenda.
Commissioner Reid stated that she is fine with the schedule.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
4-A Consider Communication regarding Informational Report on Disclosure of
Documents (Vice Chair Shabazz)
The City Clerk stated Vice Chair Shabazz requested that she pass on his intention: he
thinks the report should come back before the Commission again as an agenda item; the
report went to the Commission on February 1, 2016 in response to a Commissioner
raising questions at the time; the City Attorney reported back on the issue; the subject
has not changed and an identical report would come back; Vice Chair Shabazz thought
it would be good to have the report on another agenda.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated her understanding of the communication is that
Vice Chair Shabazz is asking for the same information the City Attorney's Office provides
in the twice yearly report to the City Council, which has already been done once this year.
Commissioner LoPilato stated Vice Chair Shabazz's email includes a request for
information about how State laws like Senate Bill 1421 and Assembly Bill 748 have
changed City requirements for disclosure and let the Commission know where the
information is available on the website.
Chair Tilos stated since there are some clarifying questions from the Chief Assistant City
Attorney, perhaps Vice Chair Shabazz should just present the item to the Commission in
October; at the Commission's discretion, it could be placed on the November agenda.
Commissioner Chen stated it is a good idea that the Commission is copied on the report
that City Council receives since it directly impacts open government.
Chair Tilos stated he would like to hear more from Vice Chair Shabazz at the October
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
12",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,13,"meeting.
Commissioner Reid stated that she would also like to hear from Vice Chair Shabazz as
well.
The City Clerk stated she add the item to the October agenda.
4-B Consider Communication regarding Draft Sunshine Charter Article (Commissioner
Reid)
Commissioner Reid made a brief presentation.
Chair Tilos stated getting more teeth has been a two year ordeal; the Commission is close
to a happy compromise; his position is he would like to focus on the Bylaws and making
the OGC meetings more efficient.
Commissioner LoPilato stated it makes sense to see what other jurisdictions are doing,
but the Commission should stay mindful of the impacts on staff bandwidth; comparing
San Francisco and Alameda is like apples and oranges; it is important to stay aware when
looking at things that would actually impact procedure.
Chair Tilos stated the discussion of tonight's meeting was very robust and a good organic
conversation; thanked the Commission for always continuing to bring their thoughts and
perspectives to the meetings.
Adjournment
Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
13",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-13,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
1. CONVENE
President Asheshh Saheba convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Due to Governor Executive Order N-08-21, Planning Board members can attend the
meeting via teleconference.
2.
FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Rona Rothenberg led the flag salute.
3.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Saheba and Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros, and
Teague.
Absent: Vice President Teresa Ruiz.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Board Member Alan Teague suggested splitting up item 7-A., to separate the EIR
discussion from the General Plan Update.
After some discussion, it was decided to have the ERI discussion in 7-A1 and then to have
a discussion for the General Plan Update as 7-A2.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Lesa Ross commented that the link to the meeting was not clear and was very difficult to
find. She said it made it very difficult to join the meeting and asked that they make it blue.
Allen Tai, City Planner, informed everyone that the Legistar system would not allow them
to make it a different color. He also informed everyone that the agenda webpage on the
city's website also had links to all the meetings.
Other board members gave helpful hints to work the link.
Chris Buckley pointed out another link, for public correspondence, that wasn't working.
6.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 182 2021-1269
Public Hearing to consider Resolutions Recommending that the City Council Certify the
Alameda General Plan Final EIR, Adopt Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan, and Approve Alameda General Plan 2040.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
September 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-13,2,"Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, introduced the item
and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5124720&GUID=84471348-
D66-40D9-9D05-15A66C8383CC&FullText=1
President Saheba opened up the board clarifying questions on the Final EIR.
There were no questions at this time.
President Saheba opened public comment on the Final EIR.
There were no public comments on the EIR.
President Saheba closed the public comments and opened board discussions and
possible action on the Final EIR.
Board Member Teague made a motion to recommend that the City Council certify
the Final EIR and adopt the findings and the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan.
Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken, the
motion passed 6-0.
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions on the General Plan.
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros had questions about LU-15 and the RHNA language
that was missing. She asked questions about the current zoning at Harbor Bay Club.
Director Thomas explained that she was looking at the revisions document and LU-15
wasn't in there. He discussed the intent of LU-15. He explained that the current zoning at
Harbor Bay Club was C2 and that land use designation was different from zoning. He
expanded on what the goals were for the Housing Element.
Board Member Ron Curtis asked if Commercial Recreation was the original zoning at the
Harbor Bay Club.
Director Thomas said that was the General Plan designation, not the zoning. The zoning
was C2. The designation today was Commercial Recreation and this was a designation
they were not using anymore. If the board wanted to keep it they could, until they deal with
the Housing Element.
Board Member Hansom Hom asked about the language around Measure A and the
implications of deleting it. He then asked about different land use classifications and the
new classification for the Harbor Bay Club. He wanted to see the proposed wording on
this new classification.
Director Thomas did not believe there would be an implication in deleting the language
around Measure A but they would still need to have a conversation about their zoning and
the history around their zoning. He discussed how they had to analyze all areas of
Alameda for housing, which included Harbor Bay. The site now allowed housing and the
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
September 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-13,3,"owners were interested in pursuing housing options. He explained more about the new
classification for Harbor Bay Club.
Board Member Rothenberg asked about the zoning and designation of other community
centers in Alameda. She discussed the use to the public and how it was important to look
at the benefits the club brought.
Director Thomas explained the different community centers, from open spaces for parks
or residential if they were in a residential area. Harbor Bay Club is a private commercial
health club. He explained all the possibilities that had been discussed for the club.
Board Member Teague asked specific questions about language and the intent of the
wording on the addendum list. He gave suggestions on stronger wording, asked for
clarifications on some of the definitions, and asked about street classifications.
Director Thomas explained the intentions behind the wording and listened to suggestions.
He also discussed the work that the Transportation Commission had been doing on the
Street Classification Appendix that had not been presented yet.
Staff Member Tai clarified some language meanings and how some things could be
interpreted.
President Saheba asked for additional clarification on the Harbor Bay Club zoning. He
wanted to know if the property owner had submitted any designs for a potential design.
Director Thomas said no, the owners had always tried to change the zoning. They had
never submitted anything that worked with the current zoning.
Board Member Curtis discussed the history of the club and his involvement when it was
created in 1978-1979.
There was then a debate on the Commercial Recreation Land Use designation and what
was used for other health clubs.
President Saheba opened public comments.
Manish Singh, an Alameda resident, voiced his concern for the Harbor Bay Club and urged
that the land be designated as Recreational Space and should not be tied to the Housing
Element. He also voiced his frustration that the owners had not considered selling to
anyone who wished to maintain the site as a health facility.
Lesa Ross discussed why other clubs weren't succeeding while Harbor Bay Club was
since it did have outdoor space. She discussed the other ways that the Harbor Bay Club
supported the General Plan and its overall importance to the community.
Behrad Aria, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club to
the community on Bay Farm. He was concerned that the area could not support more
housing.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
September 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-13,4,"Chris Aria, an Alameda resident, asked that the Planning Board please consider zoning
the Harbor Bay Club as Recreational. He discussed the history of the space and how it
had been zoned wrong for years. He also wanted it made very clear what a new owner of
the club could or could not do.
Alex Wolfe, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club and
why it should be designated as Recreational. He discussed better places in Harbor Bay
for housing. He also discussed how it was purposely being mismanaged.
Tim Coffey, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club. He
also discussed its history and what homeowners were promised with the facility.
Neil Dandavati, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club
and its history and meaning to the community. He also discussed better community
outreach and did believe there was some potential in mixed-use zoning.
Jeff Petersen, an Alameda resident, discussed the golf course and how it was before it
was redeveloped as a recreational facility and talked about how much the club had
changed since the owners had been denied being able to develop it for housing. He
believed the owners were letting the club run down on purpose.
Bill Pai, Board President for the Primary Board for the Community of Harbor Bay, said he
supported the decision to defer the zoning decision for the Harbor Bay Club until the
Housing Element was resolved. He discussed how the Governing Documents of the
community stated that there would always be a recreational facility on that property. It was
part of the covenant that was made with the homeowners.
Josh Geyer, an Alameda resident, was very sympathetic to everyone's comments but he
reminded everyone that housing must be considered in all areas of Alameda. He thought
the idea that it had to be for housing or recreation was wrong, you could make both work.
Rohit Reddy, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of Harbor Bay Club and how
it was part of the reason he and his family came to live in Alameda. He discussed how
important it was to his family and the community. He added that he did support housing
but having green spaces and a liveable community was also important.
Rebekah Balboni, an Alameda resident, urged the board to rethink the zoning for the
Harbor Bay Club. She discussed how the club helped her maintain her mental health
during the pandemic and she was ready to fight for the pool's importance.
Jason Gerke, an Alameda resident, and a nurse discussed the importance of the Harbor
Bay Club for both mental and physical health.
Zac Bowling thought the General Plan was looking great and appreciated that his
comments were heard. He believed that they should defer the zoning for the Harbor Bay
Club until a later date. He applauded the staff for all their hard work.
Chris Buckley, AAPS (Alameda Architectural Preservation Society) discussed the
elements that the AAPS had liked and what elements needed more detail.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
September 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-13,5,"Michelle Russi wanted to know what research had been done to understand the
importance of health facilities. She discussed all the different ways the Harbor Bay Club
was valued.
Kyle Conner, an Alameda resident, agreed with previous speakers about the importance
of the Harbor Bay Club. He also believed that the owners had purposely mismanaged it.
Luke Szymanski, an Alameda resident, discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club
for the community. He also discussed better options for housing in Alameda.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Cisneros thanked everyone and thought it was fine to leave the
introductory language at the beginning of the General Plan, it was a fact that Measure A
was passed not long after the Fair Housing Act was approved. She saw the General Plan
as a reflection of the values of Alameda and suggested using the word balance instead of
character. She gave her thoughts on the land use designation for the Harbor Bay Club
and how the distribution of housing needed to be equitable. She was open to all creative
solutions for the club land.
Board Member Curtis thanked everyone for sharing their thoughts and comments. He
gave his opinion that Measure A was in response to the Fair Housing Act was untrue. He
discussed his experience with development in Alameda before Measure A. He believed
that language should be taken out of the introduction because it was not relevant and not
true. He then discussed his work with Harbor Bay Club and what the people of Harbor Bay
had been promised. He also discussed the problems with building on the club land and
discussed alternatives. He did not want politics in the introduction of the Housing Element.
Board Member Hom appreciated the great work done by the staff and thanked everyone
for their discussions. He supported deleting the language about Measure A. He also
appreciated revisions to Exhibit C with the new edit, and the revisions to LU-15 B. For the
Harbor Bay Club, he agreed with the staff's suggestion to maintain it as Community
Recreation. He noted that the question of housing at the Harbor Bay Club would be
something that would need to be further discussion in the future.
Board Member Rothenberg thanked everyone for their comments. She agreed if the
wording was not relevant it could be deleted and acknowledged that this should be treated
as a living document that could change over time. She believed the changes brought up
by the AAPS were relevant. For the Harbor Bay Club, she was in favor of the staff's
recommendation until she had heard about the background of the land use entitlements.
She gave her thoughts on the zoning and how they had a duty to find land in Bay Farm to
mixed-use.
Board Member Teague thanked everyone who had worked on this and all of the
community input they had received. He could not support recommending this to the City
Council until he had seen a final Planning Board revision. He discussed what he wanted
to see in that revision. He gave specific wording for page 2, he thought it was valid to think
about the word character and suggested diversity, for LU-3 ""Complete Streets' he wanted
to see language for people with mobility issues and he was all for changing the parking
requirements but not at the expense of housing. For LU-17 he wanted it stated that this
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
September 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-13,6,"was the cheapest way to get more housing. For LU-18 he wanted to see ""define a
Mainstreet"" for the Alameda Point Waterfront. For LU-31 he felt that the ferry gateways
had been left out and thought something should be there to welcome people when they
come in on the ferry. He appreciated the Special Needs Section that the staff had added
to the parking design. He discussed that what was in the legend and what they had
described should match and the importance of acknowledging proper terms from gender
and people experiencing homelessness, language matters. For CC-17 Zero Waste
Culture he discussed how composting and gardening should be made available to
residents. He was not in favor of adding bike boulevards at this time to the 15 mph zones.
He then gave his thoughts on transportation for 8-80 and parking fees and spaces. He
also gave his thoughts on the Infectious Disease Preparedness section. He was
supportive of leaving Harbor Bay Club as it was and explained how he viewed the site.
Director Thomas took notes on every board member's comments and asked questions
making sure understood what board members wanted to see in the final draft.
President Saheba thanked staff for their hard work on this plan. He believed a lot of his
thoughts had already been stated. He gave his thoughts on LU-31, he was in support that
ferries were also gateways. For the Harbor Bay Club, he knew that it was a community
asset but acknowledged how it had deteriorated over time. He saw an opportunity to really
look at it through the lens of the Housing Element.
Board Member Hom asked questions about the next steps and how the schedule would
be affected by asking for a final draft. He also asked for clarification on bike boulevards.
Director Thomas explained the staff's schedule and next steps.
Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, explained what a bike boulevard was.
Board Member Teague made a motion to request that the staff bring back a Final
Planning Board Draft for their approval to recommend to the City Council. Board
Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion
passed 6-0.
7-B 2021-1270
Amendment to the City Council Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets -
Citywide - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to review and comment on the City
Council-initiated revisions to the Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities, and Streets.
CEQA Determination: The proposed amendment is not a project under CEQA pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and Public Resources Code Section 21065. No further
environmental review is needed.
After a discussion and a vote, it was decided due to time to bring this item back at
a later date.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
September 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-13,7,"7-C 2021-1271
A Public Hearing to Review and Comment on the Draft Vision Zero Action Plan.
Staff Member Foster introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5124722&GUID=AAB39619-
4094-495F-9A9C-3B7FODDDB86E&FullText=1.
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Rothenberg asked if a member of the CalTrans Team had been on the
Vision Zero task force team. She also asked if they had presented it to the fire and police
departments.
Staff Member Foster said they did not have someone from CalTrans but that was a great
idea. She added that they did have the Fire Marshal and someone from the police
department on their task force.
Board Member Cisneros asked when the Socially Vulnerable Map was created.
Staff Member Foster answered that it had been created with the Climate Action Resiliency
Plan. She discussed how they would update it going forward.
President Saheba opened public comments.
There were no public comments.
President Saheba closed public comments and opened board discussions.
Board Member Cisneros agreed that this was a very thoughtful plan and very inclusive.
She thanked the staff for their hard work on this.
Board Member Curtis thought it was an excellent plan and was in full support.
Board Member Hom echoed his board members. He thought it was very ambitious and
had excellent data and detail. He wanted to see a more proactive point and wanted to see
how projects and future developments would impact areas. How could they improve these
areas? He also wanted to see before and after statistics of each of these improvements
and changes. This way they could see what was most effective.
Staff Member Foster discussed what before and after studies were in the works.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted staff to keep track of how much traffic was coming off
the freeway and how that contributed to the accidents here. She then discussed a letter
from the public that had suggestions about speed bumps and she believed those were
good suggestions.
Board Member Teague thought it was a great plan and he looked forward to seeing this
implemented and achieving their goals.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
September 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-13,8,"President Saheba believed it was important to get this plan implemented and was critical
due to the sobering facts he had learned. He wanted to know if there was a priority list for
the action items. He also wanted to know what the next steps would be. He did want to
see a prioritization of goals.
Staff Member Foster discussed budget concerns and how they would fund each project.
She then discussed the next steps, how they could incorporate feedback from this meeting
and how this would be treated as a living document.
8.
MINUTES
Staff Member Tai informed the board that after consulting the City's Attorney's Office they
would be opening the minutes to Public Comments.
Due to time (and extra time would have been needed for public comments) and after
a discussion and vote (Board Member Teague made the motion, President Saheba
seconded and all were in favor), approval of the minutes was pushed to the next
scheduled meeting.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2021-1267
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5124718&GUID=976FDCCC
F927-478A-B3AD-7B230F8458D0&FullText=1.
No items for called for review.
9-B 2021-1268
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai said that at the next meeting they would review and comment on the
City's Naming Policy, a workshop on the Housing Element Update, revisions of the
Parking Ordinance, and Climate Action Staff will have a presentation.
Board Member Hom asked for information on when the Housing Element Subcommittee
would be meeting.
Staff Member answered that it was this coming Thursday.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Rothenberg offered her services for a page turn on the General Plan.
12.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
September 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-13,9,"13.
ADJOURNMENT
President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 10:56 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
September 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-09-09,1,"ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, October 14, 2021
TIME:
7:00 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
A video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
The following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.
ROLL CALL
Present: (Teleconference via Zoom) Chair Alexander, Commissioner Navarro, Commissioner Jones
Absent: Vice Chair Robbins and Commissioner Nguyen
Staff: (Teleconference via Zoom) Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy
Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of September 9, 2021 Regular Meeting as
presented. M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones. All present in favor with 3 ayes via
roll call vote.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (For topics not on the agenda)
Written Communication: none
Oral Communication:
Speaker Clifton Linton, Member of Alameda Aquatic Masters Board of Directors
introduced himself and gave appreciation for the aquatics programs in the City of
Alameda as it is such a benefit to the community and additional pool time has increased
the number of people using the aquatics programs.
REPORT FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR - ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave
the report. See exhibit 1.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Navarro: Re-visited all the proposed East End dog sites and looked at the sites
again after hearing the public comments at the last Recreation and Park Commission meeting
in September.
Commissioner Jones: Attended a private event at the new Krusi Recreation Center and said the
center is beautiful. Gave a shout out to Chair Alexander for providing the history of Krusi Park to
the attendees.
Chair Alexander: The event in October was to celebrate the bench dedication to Bob Rhodes
and Barry Weiss. Great event and the turnout was a tribute to the importance to the parks in
Alameda. Visited Seaplane Lagoon to watch the progress of the new park, visited Lincoln Park
to see the impressive new fence and walked Jean Sweeney Park to get a sense of the land that
belongs to the park and complemented the ARPD staff for their creative fall programs.
1",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-09-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-09-09,2,"AGENDA ITEMS
6-A Review and Recommend the Recreation and Parks Department 2022 Annual User Fee
Schedule
ARPD Director Wooldridge gave the presentation on the 2022 User Fee Report which included the
ARPD Cost Recovery Model, current 2021 fees, proposed 2022 fees and Comparison Study.
6-A Public Comments
Speaker Clifton Linton, Alameda Resident: Thank you for clarifying the fee schedule. Everything
looks affordable. Question, why is there difference between the fees for renting Emma Hood and
Encinal High School pool? Answer from Director Wooldridge: Encinal High has been renovated
and is an improved facility.
Speaker Morgan Bellinger, Alameda Resident: Commented on the aquatics fees for access to
the pools and lessons and asked why ARPD wouldn't do a membership fee at the beginning of
the year similar to other private Alameda aquaticds programs? Answer from Director
Wooldridge: ARPD does not have a membership model and the goal is to keep the programs
equitable.
6-A Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Happy that ARPD is addressing and increasing non-resident tennis
lesson fees as our fees are much cheaper than other places.
Chair Alexander: Agrees with the User Fee changes. Asked if ARPD still has scholarships for
the programs? Answer from Director Wooldridge: Yes.
Commissioner Jones: Thanked Director Wooldridge for all her hard work.
6-A Motion
Commissioner Navarro moved to accept the Recreation and Park Department 2022 Annual User Fee
Schedule as presented to be adopted by City Council.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones
All present in favor with 3 ayes via roll call vote.
6-B Review and Recommend Chochenyo Park Play Area Final Design
ARPD Director Wooldridge gave the presentation on the final design for Chochenyo Park play area
which included the new location, nature based circular design by Tyler Velten with a community
gathering space. The design includes a concrete ramp to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) requirements.
6-B Public Comments
Speaker Meredith Hoskin, Alameda Resident: Thanked everyone for doing the play area project
and agrees with approving the final design.
2",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-09-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-09-09,3,"Speaker Morgan Bellinger, Alameda Resident: Excited to see the new play area and his 5-year-
old daughter would like to see the destination of the train to be Mexico or Unicorn Lane.
Speaker Amy L., Alameda Resident: Are the benches in the park that the City is providing a
possibility for bench sponsorship and can that money go to further playground build out? Answer
from Director Wooldridge: Yes, there is a possibility for bench sponsorship and no for the money
going to the playground build out as the bench sponsorship is at cost to purchase and install the
benches and not a money making revenue for ARPD.
6-B Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Excited to see the park become activated with the play area.
Chair Alexander: Excited to see the play area come to final fruition.
Commissioner Jones: Asked if the play area will be fenced in? Answer from Director Wooldridge:
There was a lot of discussion previously and ultimately settled on the proposed location without
a fence, however; a fence could always be added in the future if there are safety concerns.
6-B Motion
Commissioner Navarro moved to accept the Chochenyo Park Play Area Final Design as presented.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones
All present in favor with 3 ayes via roll call vote.
6-C Discuss Commissioner Assignments to Observe Parks and Programs
Director Amy Wooldridge proposed that item 6-C be tabled as there are two Commissioners not
present and would be best to have the discussion with all 5 Commissioners.
6-C Motion
Chair Alexander moved to table item 6-C
M/S Chair Alexander / Commissioner Navarro
All present in favor with 3 ayes via roll call vote.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA:
Athletic Facility Allocation Proposal
Interpretive Signage for Chochenyo Park
Review and Recommend Locations for Lawn Conversion to Drought Tolerant Landscape in
Parks
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: November 11, 2021
3",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-09-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-09-09,4,"ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones
Motion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 3 ayes via roll call vote.
Chair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 8:16PM.
4",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-09-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-09-09,5,"EXHIBIT 1
10/14/2021 ARPD Director's Report
Presented by Recreation and Park Director Amy Wooldridge
Recreation Services
Alameda Youth Committee (AYC) has successfully reimagined the Teen Haunted House this year
and will create and distribute Halloween goodie bags to local pre-schools, convalescent homes and
RAP sites on October 28. There 45 teens enrolled this year. They are also creating a new Teen
Club program since the drop-in Underground Teen Center is not yet open.
We completed fall and winter gym and field allocations for local non-profit sports organization and
schools. There is very high demand for these facilities.
ARPD Aquatics 2021 - swim lessons are completely filled for the Fall Session.
The Pool Pumpkin Party is on October 24 starting at 1:30pm. Already 350 people have registered to
receive a pumpkin, some crafts and some exercise.
All RAP sites will participate in the annual pumpkin decorating contest. Be ready to vote for your
favorite creation starting October 26. Voting will be available online.
Alameda Holiday Boutique is November 6 & 7 at the Officers' Club from 10:00am to 4:00pm.
Admission is free and it's a great way to support local artists and crafters, including Mastick Senior
Center artists.
Mastick Senior Center
Hybrid Lunch Program: Now serving approximately 9 people in our dining room with an additional
24 picking up a packaged ""grab and go"" lunch. The food is now being delivered in catering pans
and staff and volunteers are preparing the ""grab and go"" packaged lunches, as well as heating and
serving folks in the dining room. Lunch Program participation is greater now than before the
pandemic closure.
For the period of July - September 30, 2021, membership is at 2,235.
About 90% of classes/programs have returned at reduced capacity. More to return in January.
MSCAB approved funding for an additional two years for the case/care management (Senior
Connections) contract with Alameda Family Services.
Park Maintenance
Renovating sports fields at Lincoln, Godfrey, Tillman, and Harrington Parks
Encinal High School students are volunteering in parks picking up trash
Completed landscaping drought tolerant plants and drip irrigation at the Grand Street Boat
Ramp as well as replaced the boat dock and gangway on the southeast side. We've received
lots of positive feedback from the community. Working on BCDC permit for the dock
replacement on the northwest side. Big shout out to park maintenance staff who did all of the
landscape work.
Moving forward with hiring two gardeners to fill vacancies and promoted Cesar Venegas to
Maintenance Worker I. More staff will be hired when two new parks open to the public at
Alameda Landing and Alameda Point early next year
Installed smart irrigation clocks at Multipurpose Field, Woodstock Park and Lincoln Park.
Scheduling more locations at Franklin, Tillman and Littlejohn Parks. This will save
approximately 15% of water costs because it tracks weather and reduces irrigation when it's not
needed.
Conducting a safety training audit and implementing additional trainings as identified\.",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-09-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-09-09,6,"Administration / Projects
Alameda Point Gymnasium floor renovation is complete and includes a new center court ARPD
logo. In addition to basketball and volleyball lines, we added three pickleball courts for indoor play
during the winter with portable nets.
The Dog Park community survey is available on the website and social media. We are getting a
good response and it will be open for a couple more weeks.
There is a grand opening of the mosaic gateway columns at Jean Sweeney Open Space Park on
Friday, Oct. 22 at 5:30pm at the park near Constitution Ave.",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-09-09.pdf
LibraryBoard,2021-09-08,1,"CITY
OF
of
TERRA
ORATEL
MINUTES OF THE
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2021
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Amber Bales, President
Joyce McConeghey Vice President
Kathleen Kearney, Board Member (arrived 6:35 p.m.)
Cynthia Silva, Board Member
Absent:
Dorothy Wismar, Vice President
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Lori Amaya, Recording Secretary
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Public Comment)
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar
*A.
Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of July and August,
2021.
*B.
Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of July 14, 2021.
*C.
Modified Library Services Report for the Month of June and July, 2021.
*D.
Financial Report Reflecting FY21/22 Expenditures by Fund for July and August, 2021.
*E.
Bills for Ratification for the Months of July and August, 2021.
Director Chisaki reported that all three libraries are open at pre-COVID hours. Physical distancing
and masks are required. Adult and Teen programs are scheduled to start in September.
Children's programs are not starting yet, but there are plenty of virtual programs and story times.
The café will likely open in January. The LED lighting project is complete and paid for. The library",LibraryBoard/2021-09-08.pdf
LibraryBoard,2021-09-08,2,"Page 2 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
September 8, 2021 Meeting
is much brighter, especially in the copier alcove. The project will pay for itself in 3.5 years. The
National Park Service Grant is slowly moving forward. The Japantown Historical Marker Project
is ready to unveil the mockup of the markers. Rhythmix Cultural Works is scheduled to do an
artwalk event on Friday, September 17. There will be a celebration once the markers are finished
in Spring 2022. Alameda Reads has been moving forward with the literacy program while their
building is closed. Vice President McConeghey commented that the Japantown Historical Marker
artwalk event will be on the front page of the Alameda Sun that week.
There are no changes to the Draft Minutes of the July 14, 2021 Library Board meeting.
The library's WiFi has changed, so the numbers reported are lower, but more accurate. The
door count numbers are almost back to normal.
Vice President McConeghey moved to accept the Consent Calendar. President Bales seconded
the motion, which passed with a 3-0 vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Status of New Library Board Members (J. Chisaki)
Director Chisaki introduced the two nominees for the Library Board. They will be sworn in by the
November meeting. Board Member Nominees Strickler and Kanji shared that they are excited
and looking forward to working with the Board.
B.
Current and On-Going Library Activities (J. Chisaki)
Director Chisaki shared that the library is waiting to see what is happening with the Delta variant
before deciding to put the furniture back. It is not clear how long Zoom meetings will continue.
All boards and commissions will take the lead from the City Council. An extension to the Order
may be signed to extend the ability for boards and commissions to continue Zoom meetings.
C.
American Rescue Plan Funding - Hotspot Lending Program (J. Chisaki)
The library is looking at a couple vendors to get the Hotspots, and collecting policies to look at
what other libraries are doing for their hotspot lending programs. The program will start small
and expand if necessary.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Friends of the Library (J. Chisaki)
The Friends are continuing with virtual meeting until the end of December. They are considering
doing a hybrid format for some of their art docent programs. Their programs have been drawing
200-
300
people. The Friends have missed three of their big O'Club book sales. Two book sales",LibraryBoard/2021-09-08.pdf
LibraryBoard,2021-09-08,3,"Page 3 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
September 8, 2021 Meeting
usually bring in approximately $40,000-$45,000. Without the sales, the Library is asking for more
money than the Friends bring in. They are working on converting their book sorting room to a
bookstore. There are over 1,000 boxes of books waiting for the next book sale.
B.
Patron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response
The first was a compliment to two staff members, Brian and Peter. They were a great help to get
work done before computer system shut down for the day. They were very courteous and
professional.
The second was a compliment that said everyone is helpful and knows the library well. Especially
the Reference staff, and Rosemary is the best.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Vice President McConeghey attended many of the Friends Zoom programs and she is impressed.
Board Member Kearney agrees and continues to spread the word about all the good things the
Friends are doing. President Bales attended the Wangechi Mutu talk and is enjoying all the other
art docent talks. President Bales was surprised by the Friends' August 8 newsletter that included
a section about a local blogger that discussed repurposing the vacant Carnegie Library building
for housing. Director Chisaki explained that the building would not be suited for housing and would
take a lot of renovations to bring it up to today's standards.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
The City Manager gave shout out to the Library saying all three locations are open again. He
appreciates staff getting all three libraries open back to their pre-COVID hours. He also thanked
the staff for providing library services throughout the pandemic. Director Chisaki has conveyed
that to the staff.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",LibraryBoard/2021-09-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 7, 2021--5:00 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:
None.
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded, 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. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*21-515) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell,
Community Development Director, and Louis Liss, Base Reuse Manager, as
Designated Real Property Negotiators for the West Midway Project and Site A at
Alameda Point. Accepted.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-516) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9); Case Name: Howell V. City of Alameda; Court: Alameda
Superior Court, Hall of Justice, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA; Case Numbers:
RG20061693
(21-517) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: West Midway Parcel; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City
Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, and Louis Liss, Base Reuse
Manager; Negotiating Parties: City, Catellus, and Brookfield; Under Negotiation: Price
and Terms. Not heard.
(21-518) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9); Case Name: City of Alameda V. Union Pacific (Sweeney);
Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Numbers:
RG18921261
(21-519) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,2,"Manager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility
Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees Association
(ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and Alameda
Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA), International
Association of Firefighter, Local 689 (IAFF) Alameda Fire Managers Association
(AFMA), Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA) and Alameda Police Managers
Association (APMA), Executive Management Employees (EXME) and Alameda
Municipal Power Unrepresented Management Employees (AMPU); Under Negotiation:
Salaries, Benefits and Terms of Employment
(21-520) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: Grandview Pavilion; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City
Manager, Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Director of Base Reuse and Community
Development, Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director; Negotiating Parties:
City of Alameda and Alameda County and Greenway Golf; Under Negotiation: Price and
Terms. Not heard.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding Howell, the accident which forms the basis of this litigation
took place on December 11, 2019 at 2149 Central Avenue in the City of Alameda;
Donna Howell and her husband walked across the driveway/sidewalk apron with the
intention of entering Central Avenue midblock; Donna Howell fell, sustaining serious
injuries; she later suffered whole body organ failure and passed away on January 10,
2020; in order to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation, the City Council
authorized the City Attorney to settle this matter in an amount not to exceed $117,500
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 Union
Pacific, the case involves an ongoing eminent domain litigation against Union Pacific
(UP), where the City seeks to acquire portions of abandoned UP Railroad right-of-way
on the south side of Jean Sweeney Open Space Park; the property to be acquired will
be approximately 23,489 square feet, plus 2 easement acquisitions of approximately
7,532 square feet; the property will be used to provide public access to the southern
neighborhood, connect with critical infrastructure and properly route the Cross Alameda
Trail; the parties have reached a tentative agreement to finalize the eminent domain
process without trial, whereby the City would pay approximately $1.2 million for the
acquisition and agree to cooperate for the next three to six years with any application for
R-2 residential zoning on the remaining UP property; for clarity, the cooperation is not a
pre-commitment for approval; the Council authorized the City Attorney to resolve the
litigation consistent with the tentative agreement 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; regarding Labor Negotiators, staff provided
information and Council provided direction with no vote taken.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,3,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:45
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,4,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - 7, 2021 - -6:58 P.M.
Mayor/Chair
Ezzy
Ashcraft
convened
the
meeting
at
7:09
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.
Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by
the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera
Spencer: Aye; Knox White: 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.]
(*21-521 CC/21-17 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor
Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meetings Held on June 15, 2021
and July 6, 2021. Approved.
(*21-522 CC/21-18 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the
Quarter Ending June 30, 2021. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at
7:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
1
September 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,23,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the two items on the Planning Board agenda
were Consent Calendar items; noted the Penumbra matter did not received any
comment and was set to close the following day; the matter related to noise had
multiple hearings; the Wellness Center design review was the first and only hearing
related to design; she listened to the Planning Board meeting in real-time; a caller
indicated difficulty with the phone number listing error; the phone number error was
raised during the meeting; the Planning Board Chair noted all comments must be
related to design only; the matter is important to the community; the City has allowed
phone participation and has created agendas with the correct meeting ID for phone
participants; expressed support for open government and democracy; stated it is critical
for agendas to include the correct meeting ID to hear from public phone participants; it
is wrong not to have the correct meeting ID included on the agenda; phone participants
experienced problems trying to call-in.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the importance of open government and
democracy does not apply across the board.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded there is some discretion for Council to
allow the movement and progress of items; stated a delay would have resulted in the
hold up of a sale or transfer of property, which had received zero feedback from the
community in advance or during the meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how one would know whether or not a member of the
public had tried to comment on the matters pulled from the Call for Review due to
dialing the incorrect number.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded there has been zero communication
received to-date of someone attempting to call-in on either of the items pulled from the
Call for Review.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that her understanding from the correspondence attached
to the matter is that the two items had been pulled based on requests submitted from
proponents.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he does not buy the reasoning; there cannot be
the suggestion of a problem with one matter but not others; the matter is a clear,
targeted Call for Review; the matter is unfortunate and shameful; Council has heard a
lot of concerns about abuse of rules in open government complaints; noted people who
had issues accessing the Planning Board meeting have not called; the only complaint
received was from a caller who had an issue with the first meeting ID; the caller called in
a second time, broke protocol for engagement in public meetings and continued to
comment after speaking time h; the precedent being set is problematic; expressed
support for providing direction to staff to have discussions about when Calls for Review
are appropriate; the decision of the Planning Board is not part of the Call for Review; the
issue should have been filed as an open government complaint, not a Call for Review;
comments at this meeting are from the same participants at the Planning Board
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
15",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,24,"meeting; meetings are not being completed due to larding up a political show and tell;
he is frustrated and has worked hard to help move unsupported matters along in the
agenda; expressed concern about wasting time; stated there have been 18 hearings on
the project; the design for the project has not been addressed in any comments; it is
time to let projects, which conceptually have had support from voters, move forward.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like Council to direct the City Attorney's
office to work with Planning Department staff to consider limiting appeals on projects
which address homelessness; Council will never accomplish what is needed as a City to
address homelessness if there continues the approval process continues to be
stretched for projects; expressed support for comments indicating a calculated targeting
to stall the Wellness Center project again, which is morally wrong and costly; there is no
other reason the other two matters were pulled from the Call for Review and not the
Wellness Center; she would like City staff to look into whether the issue of design
review decisions should be appealable to the City Council; design review decisions
being appealable to City Council is not universal among cities; outlined a League of
California Cities Statewide Policy Committee meeting tour of Corsair Flats; noted some
of the veterans housed in the units had been on the street for ten years; some people
live and die on the street in the same period of time; it is morally wrong to throw
specious roadblocks in the way to appease a few disgruntled community members that
cannot get over the fact that the project has been approved time and time again;
ensuring the delay does not happen again will take some redesigning of process.
Councilmember Daysog stated the core of the issue and reason for Councilmember
Herrera Spencer and himself to bring the matter forth is not to target the facility, but due
to a mistake in the agendizing of the matter and the wrong telephone number being
listed; he does not know how many people might have called and decided not to follow
through due to the incorrect number; it is imperative that projects with high stakes have
City Hall to get the low hanging fruit correct; he believes that he is right to point the error
out and Call for Review; expressed support for seeing the facility moving forward; stated
the City must meet the minimum standards of getting information out correctly for a full
discussion and for democracy to work; expressed support for the enthusiasm the project
garners and for seeing the project built; stated the other items on the Planning Board
agenda were time sensitive and had to be reasonably decided not to be included in the
Call for Review; the matter is settled and the project will move forward.
Vice Mayor Vella stated shame on Council for having many hearings on the same
project and not streamlining the process; the project is in her backyard and she is proud
; all should be proud for the project which has currently withstood 18 public hearings;
expressed support for Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's comments related to looking at the City's
process and whether Calls for Review should be allowed or permitted for design review;
Council needs to get back to business; the project has been decided and has overcome
a lot of hurdles; the project is not high stakes; Council has made the project much more
difficult than it needs to be; she disagrees with her colleagues that time is not of the
essence for the project; the City does not have services for the most vulnerable
community members and does not have adequate housing with end of life care; said
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
16",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,25,"services will be provided by the Wellness Center; Council needs to not be the ones
causing issues relative to the project moving forward; arguments that have been made
for exempting other matters do not stand muster; other matters of particular concern on
the agenda need to be discussed; she hopes the Call for Review is the last political
stunts to try and stop or impede forward movement on the Wellness Center.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she disagrees with the comments made
about Councilmember Daysog and herself by her colleagues; she believes the matter is
appropriate to bring forth; the personal attacks against Councilmember Daysog and
herself from fellow Councilmembers are unfortunate; changes to the rules can come
before Council; Councilmembers currently have the ability to submit Calls for Review; it
is critical that phone numbers and the ability to participate in meetings is properly
noticed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for making changes in the rules; stated
direction has been given to staff to look into possible changes.
The Assistant City Attorney inquired whether two separate motions would be desired by
Council; one to approve the minutes and one to approve the resolution.
Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Knox White agreed to bifurcate the motion to
approve the minutes separate from the project and resolution.
On the call for the question regarding the minutes, the motion carried by the following
roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White:
Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstentions: 1.
On the call for the question regarding the project and resolution, the motion carried by
the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: No;
Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1.
Abstentions: 1.
(21-552) Recommendation to Provide Further Direction to Staff Regarding the
Allocation of $28.68 Million of Funding from the Federal Government Through the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to Assist with Recovery from the Impacts of the
COVID-19 Pandemic.
The Senior Management Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for City staff guiding Council through the
process; stated it is not every day that the Federal Government drops any amount of
money, let alone $28 million divided into two different tranches; expressed support for
the staff recommendation for the use of $15 million toward the ground-up build of the
hotel acquisition; stated the City has made incredible headway with regard to
implementing national leading homelessness prevention programs in Alameda; he sees
the possibility of building a new facility with the assistance of $15 million as continuing
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
17",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,26,"wireless hotspots for years in order to help people who do not have internet access;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
18",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,27,"COVID-19 has shown how important it is for families to have internet access; since
people are not able to participate at meetings in person, wireless hotspots continue to
be an important need; schools have tried to step up; however, not every family has
children attending schools offering assistance and not every family has children; seniors
have especially been left out during COVID-19; expressed concern about the hotel
acquisition; stated the hotel is a revenue generating asset which produces Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) for the City and is one of the few hotels in the City; TOT is
important to the City; the hotel is operating and generating revenue for the City; she has
concerns about removing one of the few hotels that produces a higher level of tax
dollars for the City as opposed to looking at other ways of housing those who are
unhoused and in need of transitional housing; taking away tax revenue defeats the
purpose; the City needs income in order to be able to provide services; she is not sure
the bottle parcel is the best use; she would like more information related to the fastest
timeline to provide housing; the AHA housing proposals could very well be the quickest
to get online; the AHA proposal will likely be the most effective use of any dollars and
meet the needs as opposed to the City working alone without the AHA; expressed
support for continuing the Feed Alameda program.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she strongly objects to any expenditure to AHA at this
time; she would like more information including how much ARPA money AHA has
received and why AHA would need the City's ARPA funding; there has been reference
to the possibility of AHA completing the North Housing project sooner if the City
provides ARPA funding; however, the North Housing project was conceived without
ARPA funding; she does not know whether the intent is for AHA to get cheaper money
due to zero finance charge from the City; if the funding is needed as supplemental
funds, the funding would become a loan; she strongly agrees with Vice Mayor Vella that
a community housing trust is something many cities have done; the trust allows the City
to purchase properties; the AHA accomplished one transactions recently; however, AHA
can find an apartment building for sale and guarantee a certain number of units will
remain affordable for a certain amount of time; there is no reason the City cannot do the
same; expressed support for the City working with a partner; expressed concern about
eviction protections offered by AHA; outlined AHA eviction cases; stated AHA has not
helped find alternative housing for some; she feels as though there are complexities
associated with AHA; there are enough important matters requiring funding from the first
tranche in Option 1 ; expressed support for not extending funds without safeguards in
place for AHA at this time, for allocating some ARPA funds to Alameda Sun as a
business which has been impacted by COVID-19 and for transitional housing; outlined
the supportive transitional housing program; inquired whether the location for the
program is the bottle parcel or an alternate location.
The Assistant City Manager responded the location could be the bottle parcel; stated
the idea is to put up temporary housing which can be put up quickly for fast services;
the site can move around; the bottle parcel is ideal as a location.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a visit to a transitional housing development in the City of
Mountain View; stated the units look like containers, are insulated and have Heating,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
19",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,28,"Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems; family housing is combined in
separate ends of the development; there is need for unites for single adults and for
couples; the Carnegie Library is not ideal for transitional housing; the ideal location for
transitional housing would include a little outdoor space; the Carnegie Library might be
better as a navigation center; expressed support for allocating money for transitional
housing; stated the bottle parcel is a great location and is close to many services; every
transitional housing unit must have its own bathroom as a matter of human dignity;
adding a bathroom does not indicate the addition of a kitchenette; staff is in the process
of working with people from the Marina Village Inn; the Marina Village Inn had not been
doing well related to TOT revenue generation; the owner of the Marina Village Inn was
willing to sign up for the Project Room Key program, which helped guarantee income
that did not produce TOT; price and terms must be negotiated; expressed support for
Option 1 and for UBI; stated the City might be able to utilize State grant money for UBI;
outlined a program called Keep Oakland Housed and a federal funding program; stated
calling 2-1-1 will provide information on how to apply for funding; Council may want to
set aside money in a fund in order to help keep people from falling through the cracks.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a Board of Commissioners appointed by the
Council has oversight over AHA; the AHA holds Board meetings; she is disheartened to
hear complaints raised about the AHA's services; the public is welcome to attend AHA
meetings and report to Council; she does not know the extenuating circumstances for
specific cases; however, AHA serves many people; expressed support for AHA.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a Council vote is needed or whether direction to
staff is sufficient, to which the Assistant City Manager responded direction to staff.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated majority of Council is in support of Option 1 with the
enhancements of keeping Alameda housed and a community land trust.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is losing interest in the Marina Village Inn
option for transitional housing; he is interested in looking at the bottle parcel option; he
would like to look at providing water and sewer infrastructure support options for the
Rebuilding the Existing Supportive Housing at Alameda Point (RESHAP).
(21-553) Adoption of Resolution Approving a Revision to the Public Safety Retiree
Medical Provision in the Executive Management Compensation Plan to Provide Up To
Five Years of Service Credit for Time Served as a Chief, Assistant Chief and/or Deputy
Chief in Another Agency. Not adopted.
The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification; inquired whether the benefit is
for lifetime medical coverage.
The Human Resources Director responded the coverage is a single party lifetime
medical benefit; stated the employee will transition to a Medicare supplement plan at
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
20",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,29,"some point.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the benefit is offered to all
employees of the City of Alameda, to which the Human Resources Director responded
the benefit has been negotiated and offered to Public Safety employees.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns about the proposal at
the policy level; bringing outside people in for the highest level positions, which works
for other agencies, chips away and somehow reduces the benefit of long-term
employees; the lifetime medical benefit is only offered to public safety and is extremely
expensive; there is a significant amount of other post-employment benefits (OPEB),
which the medical coverage falls under; she will not be supporting the matter; most
people do not receive lifetime medical benefits; continuing to lower the bar of who the
benefit is offered to is a problem.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he can understand making changes for the head
positions; he is not convinced the changes should be for the Assistant or Deputy
positions; the City should be encouraging people to grow through the ranks, rather than
slotting people from outside into the higher positions; he understands why the packages
are needed in order to recruit for top positions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter is for the Fire Chief.
The Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative; stated the matter provides
service credit for someone being hired at the top position; the benefit only applies to
someone coming from the outside to be the Fire or Police Chief in order to provide
credit for time served in another agency as an Assistant or Deputy.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the position would need to be equivalent, not lateral and is
a move up in position.
The City Manager stated the resolution needs to be changed in order to reflect the
recommendation of the credit only being provided if the employee had a similar type of
benefits from another agency; the City Manager recommendation includes the
employee only receiving credit if they had retiree health benefits in another organization.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the matter due to the clarification
provided by staff.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of adoption of the resolution.
The motion failed due to a lack of second.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for approving the matter with a sunset after
five years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
21",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,30,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the proposed sunset.
Councilmember Daysog stated the resolution would be adopted; however, a sunset
clause would be included in order to re-visit the matter in five years to determine
whether or not it should continue.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the proposed addition includes continuing
what has historically been done for each new Chief; stated the City has essentially
given each new Chief who has come from the outside over the last 10 to 15 years the
same benefit; the benefit is not new; expressed support for a timeline being added if the
addition result in a vote.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for sunset clause.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned how many Chiefs from the outside have been hired in
the City over the last 10 to 15 years; stated the City recently hired a Fire Chief from an
outside agency; other Fire Chiefs have all come from within Alameda Fire Department
(AFD); the last three Police Chiefs prior to the current Police Chief have all come from
Alameda Police Department (APD).
Councilmember Knox White stated the external candidates that have come in have
been offered the benefit due to the problem of hiring from outside agencies and losing a
major benefit; expressed support for having a wide pool of candidates.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the breakdown of promotions
within the Fire and Police Departments; stated the policy is not that old; the City has not
often had candidates from other organizations.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City has still had applicants despite the existing policy in
place; top candidates have still accepted the position; expressed concern about having
a policy if people arrive from other agencies and immediately negotiate; there have
been calls to limit or de-fund some positions and the expenditure is significant;
expressed support for a discussion relative to the City budget; stated that she is
concerned about existing negotiations with units; she would like to take into account the
executive compensation being applied to top positions relative to line staff; she will not
be supporting the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like a time limit on the matter due to a
historic growing through the ranks for positions; he is confident in the pipeline created;
outlined previous Police and Fire Chiefs moving through the ranks from within the
organization; stated that he understands the idea of encouraging people to come to the
organization from outside; he is biased towards the system which is in place; he is
willing to experiment if it makes for good staff, such as the incoming Fire Chief;
however, a time limit should be placed in order to revisit the matter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the benefit is not a condition of the prospective Fire Chief's
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
22",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,31,"employment; the benefit is being added on; she understands the service credit in the
department; expressed support for AFD; stated Firefighters are breathing harmful and
unhealthy air and deserve lifetime medical benefits; she can justify the service credit for
those working in AFD; however, she has a difficult time seeing the credit applied to
someone coming in from the outside; the City will have to grapple with how to pay its
unfunded OPEB liabilities.
Councilmember Daysog stated the time limit allows the City to experiment.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of resolution, with a caveat to have it sunset in
five years.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the City Manager stated that he recommends the motion be
consistent with the staff recommendation to amend the resolution to indicate the
benefits are only for similar benefits held at a previous organization, and will not exceed
said previous benefits.
Councilmembers Daysog and Knox White accepted the recommendation as an
amendment to the motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for training first responders in
order to allow for promotions; stated the City has historically tried to promote from
within; she will not be supporting the matter due to being concerned about the policy.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
(21-554) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second
Amendment to the Lease with Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability
Company to Extend the Term for Five Years for Building 29, Located at 1701 Monarch
Street, at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.
The City Attorney stated the title of the matter reads five years; the substance of the
staff recommendation is for 4 years and 11 months; he would like to clearly reflect that
the Council action will be for a 4 years and 11 month extension, not five years.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the title of the ordinance will need to be changed as well.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved introduction of the corrected ordinance.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
23",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,32,"Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated plans do not require the removal
of the building for DePave Park; noted the building exists on the maps for DePave Park;
he would like to clarify that no decision has been made that the building will go away.
(21-555) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider new items after
11:00 p.m.; stated that she is willing to continue the meeting until 12:00 a.m.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for continuing the meeting in order
to hear the Small Size Big Minds lease [paragraph no. 21- 1 and the contract for Legal
Notices [paragraph no. 21- ; however, she would not like to include the water
conservation measures [paragraph no. 21- 1 in the discussion; stated the matter is not
time sensitive and could take a while to hear; expressed support for continuing all
Council Referrals to the next meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not support a motion that does not finish the
regular agenda items.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of Council working through as much of the
agenda, in order until 12:00 a.m.
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.
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.
(21-556) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second
Amendment to the Lease with Small Size Big Mind, Inc., a California Corporation,
Substantially in the Form of Exhibit 4, to Extend the Term for One Year with One 12-
Month Extension Option for Building 35, Located at 2450 Pan Am Way in the Main
Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved introduction of the ordinance.
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.
(21-557) Recommendation to Implement Water Conservation Measures in Response to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
24",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,33,"Drought and Provide Direction on Further City of Alameda Water Reduction Efforts.
The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.
(21-558) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of providing an additional minute for the
presentation.
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.
The Public Works Director completed the presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many projects are needed to qualify for
the $15,000 rebate from East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD).
The Public Works Director responded each individual meter onsite is eligible for the
$15,000 rebate; staff can pursue all nine sites; the rebate is currently only valid through
the end of the calendar year; she does not know whether EBMUD will be extending the
program.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the projects have to be completed by
the end of the calendar year.
The Public Works Director responded that she has not been able to get clarification
from EBMUD.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will forward information from the EBMUD Manager
of Water Conservation; she hopes an application submitted by the end of the year will
suffice.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired where the $2.3 million will come from, to
which the Public Works Director responded staff is currently looking at the General
Fund.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter will be placed ahead of
other requests for General Fund.
The Public Works Director responded the matter of funding is up for discussion; stated
staff is recommending Council input on a standalone budget item; Council can consider
waiting until mid-year in order to consider multiple budget requests; the process is
imperfect; staff is seeking direction on whether to move forward with the matter and
return with a standalone budget amendment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
25",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,34,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the information related to
savings and changes; stated that she supports the smart irrigation at $100,000, which
pays for itself in a short amount of time; she has concerns over the $2.3 million budget
request.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the location of the 36,000 square feet of lawn being
replaced at Washington Park.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the area is a smattering of smaller
locations; stated the areas are landscaped areas not generally used by the public; small
areas near the front by the park sign, on Central Avenue, lower Washington near the
tennis courts and a mix of other decorative areas, which are mostly close to the street.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the reason Lincoln and Franklin Parks are not
included in the installation of rain sensitive smart irrigation clocks is due to already
having the existing technology.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated any parks not
listed for the rain sensitive clocks already have the clocks installed; staff has tried to
install a couple clocks each year in various parks.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she wants to make sure any vote or discussion related to
Washington Park occurs separately in order to allow for her recusal; she is happy to see
the matter come forward; the City has gone through several droughts in her time as
Councilmember; it is important for the City to do its part; expressed support for the City
Hall proposal; stated there is an opportunity for the City to do its part and lead by
example; the money is out there and the City has a lot it can do; she would like to
ensure the City is taking on only things that it can handle and not over-exerting itself in
order to meet the end-of-year deadline; the issue will be ongoing; she is sure funding
will continue; expressed support.
Councilmember Knox White inquired the reason for waiting on the matter until now;
stated Council about the drought in March; the drought will be continuing; expressed
support for performing significant long-term changes, such as swapping out lawns for
drought tolerant gardens and for the life cycle recoup numbers; stated the City needs to
save water; the earlier the City can perform the measures to do so, the better; City staff
has their hands full with many matters; expressed support for a meaningful timeline and
finding the funds to perform the proposed measures; stated the matter would be a good
use for one-time funds; expressed support for doing as much as possible, as fast as
possible without causing harm.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is in agreement with Councilmember Knox White
and Vice Mayor Vella; the time is now; the matter did not come to Council sooner due to
long agendas; she hopes the work put into identifying projects goes a long way in
completing the EBMUD application; the City needs to do all it can; expressed support
for the City Hall lawn conversion to drought friendly landscaping; stated the landscaping
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
26",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,35,"can be attractive and will be a great example; it is important for the City to practice what
it preaches; the City should be voluntarily conserving water; she supports the City
Manager's recommendation; inquired how much input the Historic Advisory Board
(HAB) should have in putting in drought-friendly landscaping; stated that she is having
trouble understanding the need for input from HAB if staff is running up against a
deadline to apply for funds; she understands landscaping can be part of a historic
property's character; expressed concern over delays since it is a time-sensitive matter.
The Public Works Director responded that she has consulted with HAB staff in the
Planning, Building and Transportation Department; stated staff recommended the
matter be heard by HAB; staff would like more direction on whether Council desires one
or many sites to be selected; there is value in hiring a single design contractor to design
multiple sites and provide the same EBMUD application; staff can move forward with
the design and return to Council to appropriate funds for design; by the construction is
ready to move forward, staff can return to Council by mid-year for approval of
construction on all or some sites.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed approach allows staff to still apply
for the $15,000 per project.
The Public Works Director responded staff will have to work with EBMUD partners;
should staff have designs and applications in by the end of the rebate, EBMUD will
likely be able to work with the City.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for more information being provided in relation
to the role played by HAB in the matter; inquired whether a vote from Council is needed
or whether direction to staff is sufficient.
The Public Works Director responded direction to staff is sufficient; stated staff will
move forward with the design for the lawn conversions; inquired whether
Councilmembers are on board for the smart irrigation products as well; stated the
products will include a budget amendment in order to appropriate the funding; staff will
include the budget amendment at the time the matter returns to Council.
The City Manager inquired whether the lawn conversions include all listed sites or only
design of 2 to 3 projects.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she supports the City Hall and City Hall West lawn
conversions.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for moving forward with all listed sites,
including having a timeline put together; stated staff can identify the sites; the City Hall
site makes sense.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether renting near a considered project
site is grounds for recusal on the matter, to which the City Attorney responded in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
27",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,36,"Alameda Sun.
The City Clerk and the Economic Development and Community Services Manager gave
a brief presentation.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Economic and Community Services
Manager stated qualified businesses could have received $7,500 from one grant or
another and staff evaluates the application in order to determine qualification.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether applicants were able to receive funds from either
grant source or both, to which the Economic and Community Services Manager
responded only one.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Alameda Sun has been able to receive funds
from the State or federal government, to which the Economic and Community Services
Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Alameda Sun received Paycheck
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
28",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,37,"Protection Plan (PPP) funds.
Urged Council reconsider the prior vote and award the contract for the publication of
legal notices to the Alameda Sun; stated the Alameda Sun is locally-owned and
operated and is a vital part of the community; outlined the Alameda spelling bee, which
is sponsored by the Alameda Sun; stated the Alameda Sun is engaged and active
within the City in ways which go beyond other publications; the Alameda Sun provides
an outlet for City government and is the most important outlet for informing Alamedans
about news; urged Council find other ways to financially support the Alameda Sun:
Chuck Kapelke, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for Council immediately considering
reversing the previous decision.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of terminating the contract with the Alameda
Journal and awarding the contract to the Alameda Sun and inviting the Alameda Sun to
obtain other sources of funding described in the three bullet points of the staff report,
with a cap of no more than an additional $19,200.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not think the City should
terminate the contract with the Alameda Journal; Alameda Journal has a more
extensive circulation, which is important in providing legal notices; she does not want to
pit one small newspaper against another; expressed concern about any punitive stance
towards any newspaper; stated that she thinks the City can provide some forms of
financial assistance to the Alameda Sun, including ARPA funds; outlined funding
received by Alameda Sun; stated the ability to apply for the City's COVID-19 relief or
Alameda Strong funds was by lottery; the City has since expended the funds and will
need to find other sources; expressed support for following the first bullet listed in the
alternatives to keep the contract with the Alameda Journal and provide direction on
funding to assist the Alameda Sun in any of the listed forms, including the General
Fund, ARPA funds, placing ads for Restaurant Week and sponsoring a City section;
stated the City Attorney's office, Public Information Officer and Recreation and Parks
Department all offer informational pieces; she wants to see the City assist the Alameda
Sun; the question remains of the amount to provide; the contract is not price specific; an
estimate is provided based on publication average of $46,000 per year; the amount is
not guaranteed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about the remaining meeting time;
stated a motion is on the floor; the matter of terminating the contract with the Alameda
Journal and awarding it to Alameda Sun is critical.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined that she will be moving future pulled Consent Calendar
items to the end of the agenda in the future.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
29",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,38,"Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is not related to two small, hometown
newspapers; the Alameda Journal is owned by a Denver hedge-fund with 100 papers
and 200 other publications nationwide; the Alameda Sun is a local newspaper;
expressed support for Alameda Sun; stated if Council wishes to continue running ads in
the Alameda Journal, the number in the original staff report listed $46,000 and Council
can commit to funding $46,000 for the Alameda Sun; he did not originally vote to move
the legal notices to the Alameda Journal; however, he can support a form of keeping
legal ads published in the Alameda Journal as well as providing funding for the Alameda
Sun; expressed support for the proposed motion.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about circulation, which remains the point of legal
notices; stated that she would like to see a way to expand circulation for Alameda Sun;
expressed support for looking at other options relative to grants and advertising; stated
her position has not changed; both newspapers are not hometown papers; the desire to
provide aid to Alameda Sun is separate from the desire to provide adequate legal
notices; she does not support moving legal notices to the Alameda Sun in addition to
providing financial aid; expressed support for adding the options proposed by staff.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter should be bifurcated; stated that she
does not support awarding the contract to the Alameda Sun and providing financial aid;
questioned whether the City would eventually be the major funder of the Alameda Sun;
expressed concern about the concept of the City majorly funding the newspaper.
Councilmember Daysog stated the cleanest approach is to terminate the contract with
Alameda Journal and award the contract to the Alameda Sun without providing
additional funding to Alameda Sun; the contract provides funding; expressed support for
the use of one legal notice provider; expressed support for selecting the Alameda Sun
to provide legal notices.
Councilmember Daysog amended his motion to approve termination of the contract with
the Alameda Journal and awarding the contract to the Alameda Sun.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter relates to supporting a local newspaper; inquired
whether the seconder of the motion is in agreement with the amended motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the amended motion.
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.
After the vote, Councilmember Knox White stated the reason for the matter is due to
City Charter requirement which is outdated and does not allow Council to utilize online
sources; questioned whether Council can provide direction to consider a 2022 general
election ballot measure to amend the City Charter section for legal notices.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
30",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,39,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the matter can be brought forth at a later time; stated the
consideration is a good point.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for providing broad direction to staff to figure out
whether there are alternatives for providing broader legal notices and the accompanying
details.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over a potential OGC complaint.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(21-560) The City Manager announced that all three Alameda Libraries have resumed
full service hours and masks are required at all times; discussed a City vaccine
milestone; stated 80% of residents 12 years and older have been fully vaccinated and
92% of residents have received at least the first vaccine shot; stated drop-in vaccine
clinics are available.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21-561) Resolution No. 15814, ""Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero Emission
Vehicle Sales in California by 2030."" Adopted. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft)
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she did not think the earlier motion to
continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. included hearing Council Referrals.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion from Councilmember Knox White included
continuing the meeting as agendized until 12:00 a.m.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Council Referral, including adoption
of related resolution.
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.
(21-562) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief
regarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer).
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Council Referral.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
31",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,40,"Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an upcoming agenda will
contain any related matters.
The City Manager responded the Police Chief is putting together a presentation for the
September 21st Council meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the time is now 12:00 a.m. and the meeting must be
adjourned.
(21-563) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.
(21-564) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational
Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.
(21-565) 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.
(21-566) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints
Limiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and
Councilmember Daysog). Not heard.
(21-567) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to
Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the
2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog). Not
heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
(21-568) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting
at 12:03 a.m. in memory of Beth Aney and former Councilmember Barbara Thomas.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
32",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,5,"MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED JULY 20, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 7, 2021-6:59 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:11 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.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
(21-523) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code, Including
Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) to Clarify Enforcement
Provisions and Provide for Other Updates and Enhancements to the Sunshine
Ordinance. Introduced.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Outlined the ""penalties"" section of the Sunshine Ordinance; stated that she finds the
section concerning; the penalty is harsh and unnecessary; the Open Government
Commission (OGC) has not heard many complaints; urged Council to amend the clause
and represent a fair process; noted San Francisco's Sunshine Task Force does not
have a similar penalty clause and Alameda should follow: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Expressed support for speaker Reid's comments; stated that he is concerned about
transparency; outlined a published agenda error change; stated changes are made to
matters on published agendas including updated correspondence; many items need
more transparency; urged Council create a Citizens Task Force which holds public
meetings; expressed support for changes to the ad hoc committee provision; outlined
previous updates made to the Sunshine Ordinance: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is considering specific provisions; requested
clarification on the penalties provision of the Sunshine Ordinance.
The City Attorney stated staff has not proposed any changes to the penalty section of
the ordinance; the section is a carryover and is intended to limit the amount of work for
City staff and Commissions related to unfounded complaints.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about correspondence being added to
agenda items.
The City Clerk stated any additional correspondence that comes in is attached to the
agenda item; as correspondence is received, the date updated; new correspondence
added at the top of the document.
Continued July 20, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
1",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,6,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether correspondence is often received up until the
time of the meeting, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to know whether it is
possible to have the OGC review the penalty provision; the provision is extreme; she
would like to know the procedure of having the provision reviewed; expressed concern
about the use of the term ""shall"" under Section 2-93.8.a.
The City Attorney stated the ordinance shows the originating body being required to
consider the Commission's recommendation with the use of the term ""shall.'
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is concerned by the use of the term
""shall;"" the term ""may"" should be used instead; she has concerns about the Commission
dictating that Council must consider a recommendation; the interim poses Council
keeping status quo; outlined an instance related to cannabis ordinances; stated the
language reads as though Council has to follow the lead of the OGC to void the original
decision, re-evaluate the matter and make another decision; it is not appropriate for a
Commission to dictate to Council what must be done; Commissions may make
recommendations.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification for the use of the term ""shall"" versus ""may""
in the ordinance.
The City Attorney stated if the Commission renders a decision that a Council decision
enacting an ordinance is unlawful, Council would be required to consider the
recommendation; the decision does not automatically mean that the previous Council
decision is void; however, the matter must be agendized as soon as possible to discuss
and consider the Commission's recommendation; the Council may accept or reject the
Commission's recommendation upon a majority vote; if Council wants to change the
term to ""may,"" Council may or may not consider the Commission's recommendation;
both approaches are lawful.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns over the use of the term
""shall"" throughout the section; Council must decide at the time whether or not to re-visit
an issue; Council may consider the OGC's recommendation; the City Charter is clear
about which body has the ultimate power which is City Council, not Boards and
Commissions; a vote of the people needs to give authority to the OGC; any use of the
term ""shall"" is a problem.
The City Attorney stated staff has met with the OGC many times; the OGC would like to
have gone much further than the proposed language; the proposed language seeks the
maximum compromise possible; there are no legal problems if Council wishes to
change ""shall"" to ""may;"" the changes can easily be made.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands the section as pertaining to a violation
Continued July 20, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,7,"in providing public information found by the Commission; noted the OGC may
recommend to the City, the steps necessary to cure or correct the violation; inquired
whether the section needs another section which discusses Council's process to cure or
correct.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the issue of public information is
typically administrative action; Council does not take action on administrative actions;
staff left the language included under the administrative section; the section for Brown
Act violations differs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is concerned about the time period
between the OGC making a recommendation and the matter being brought to Council;
inquired what happens to the decision made by Council in the meantime and whether
the decision continues moving forward or becomes stalled.
The City Attorney responded the language provides that the City is encouraged to
maintain the status quo; stated the action will largely depend on the situation; the
original Council action will be effective by operation of law; if a scenario were Council
directing staff to lobby for a particular bill that has a timeframe, staff will likely proceed,
notwithstanding a Commission decision; outlined a scenario related to planting trees
over a three year time period in which a two-month delay would likely cause no
difference; staff would likely delay action in said scenario.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the consideration given to the
matter; stated staff has worked to find a compromise that provides some accountability;
future OGC's might be a ruling body and might not necessarily have impact on the City
doing business; the changes meet the compromise admirably and provide flexibility to
the City whereby the harm from a finding is reduced; the proposed language gives the
public the ability to know that findings of violations will be re-heard and cured;
expressed support for the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Knox White moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to hash the matter
out even further; he is not convinced of the language being proposed; expressed
concern about maintaining the status quo pending final review by the Commission;
stated if Council makes a decision that the OGC subsequently finds troubling, the
current language leaves the decision of Council moving forward or not depending on the
immediacy of the issue as outlined by the City Attorney; noted the legislation matter
situation will allow Council to move forward even when the OGC has found the matter
troubling; City staff needs to factor in and vet the possibility of the OGC having
questions regarding certain matters; if the OGC finds a troubling matter, Council should
not want to move the matter forward even if it is time-sensitive; Council should re-visit
and hold off on executing matters deemed troubling by the OGC; the term should read:
Continued July 20, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
3",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,8,"""must encourage status quo;"" the matter is critical and gives the OGC process
effectiveness and power; he does not agree with the use of the term ""should;""
expressed concern about the five year penalty; stated that he does not think the
situation in government has been so troubling for someone to muck up the gears of the
government process; he is not convinced of imposing such a drastic penalty; it is the
right of the people to attend OGC and Council meetings; he does not think Council
should be so heavy handed in the penalty; the penalty is not fair or democratic.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter may return to the OGC.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has concerns over the Null and Void provision;
the OGC does not have the power to declare matters Null and Void; when the OGC
challenges a Council decision, the decisions must be put in abeyance.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for the recommendations; stated there have been
several lively conversations with the OGC; the ordinance has been in place for over one
decade; a number of things may need to be changed going forward; the OGC and
Sunshine Ordinance came about from large-scale community conversation; there have
been proposals and differences in opinion on what may or may not be within the
confines of the City Charter; if constituents are interested in seeing certain things
change, proposals to take action through amending the Charter or other alternatives
can occur via robust community conversation; it is a good time to make changes; a
tremendous amount of effort has been put forth in the proposed language before
Council; she is prepared to support the matter; expressed support for all members of
the OGC through the years; stated a substantial amount of time has been put into the
matter; an ordinance has been put forth which will ensure the City is as open and
transparent as possible; she would like to encourage Council, the OGC, staff and the
community to have a larger discussion on the meaning of open government.
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: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:47
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Continued July 20, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,9,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 7, 2021--7:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:47 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
(21-524) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to hear the nominations
[paragraph no. 21-525 next.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer proposed moving up the legal notices item [paragraph
no. 21-559], the referral on Alameda Point housing constraints [paragraph no. 21-566],
and the referral on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) [paragraph no. 21-
567]; stated the matters are important to provide direction to staff regarding the Housing
Element.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft encouraged all Councilmembers to be as economical with
comments in order to move expeditiously through the agenda; expressed concern about
moving up Council Referrals.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of moving up the nominations to the top of
the meeting and leaving the rest of the agenda in-tact.
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.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-525) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Golf Commission, Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners, and Library Board.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Robert Lattimore for appointment to the Golf
Commission and Dimple Kanji and Sara Strickler for appointment to the Library Board.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(21-526) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding Alameda Firefighters
being dispatched to various wild fires; acknowledged and thanked: Dave Port, Jacob
Zinn, Brock Liebhardt, Gustavo Lopez, Byong Kim, James Pagnini, Garret Indrebo,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
1",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,10,"Ryan Tunney, Dallas Andrews, Troy McNeil, Daniel Martin, Daniel Dias, Kyle Garcia,
Joshua Sanders and Timothy Elliott.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-527) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority (AHA), announced the opening of the
housing voucher waitlist for both the Housing Choice Voucher Program and the Project-
Based Voucher Program; stated the programs are for physical units in the City of
Alameda; urged all interested parties to apply; stated the waitlist will open at 8:30 a.m.
September 10th and will close 12:00 p.m. on September 20th; the waitlist application is
available online only; four application centers are available for those without access to
the internet or a mobile phone: Mastick Senior Center, Alameda Free Library, Alameda
Boys and Girls Club and the Alameda Point Collaborative; online and phone line
customer support is available in five multi-lingual options; reasonable accommodations
can be made for those with disabilities; outreach is being provided.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether those without internet access are at a
disadvantage.
Mr. Altieri responded AHA will work with people; stated reasonable accommodation
needs must be submitted; AHA staff will work to find a solution in order for people to
complete the application.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the method people will obtain information.
Mr. Altieri responded people can call the AHA; online and phone support is available for
12 hours per day beginning September 10th.
(21-528) Bradley King, Alameda, urged Council to end the Slow Street program; stated
that he thought the program would be temporary; the program is well-meaning;
however, has not served its purpose; the traffic barriers at the end of streets should be
used to indicate large holes and cause problems with the intersections; noted the right-
of-way is unknown at the intersections; less attention is being paid to pedestrians;
expressed concern about allowing recreation to occur in designated slow streets; traffic
does not seem to be significantly decreased on slow streets; urged Council rotate the
designated slow streets if the program is not ended.
(21-529) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, discussed flooding on the East Coast; stated areas
with improved maintenance experienced less basement flooding; discussed Harbor Bay
Isle development flooding; questioned whether ongoing activities are being held locally
to ensure the City is ahead of disasters; discussed publicity for adverse Police events
across the country; stated that he would like to hear the findings and details of the Mario
Gonzales autopsy.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
2",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,11,"The City Clerk announced the Resolution for Community Facilities District 13-1
[paragraph no. 21-548 was removed from the Consent Calendar.
Discussed the Bills for Ratification; questioned whether the vehicle replacements listed
in the Bills are all electric vehicles; discussed State all-electric vehicles sales by 2030;
questioned whether the City has considered purchasing all-electric only vehicles and
whether the approach fits with City goals; discussed cell phone bill amounts; questioned
high cell phone bill amounts: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced that she would like the Bills for Ratification
[paragraph no. 21-531], the Agreement with Eden Information & Referral, Inc.
[paragraph no. 21-534], the First Amendment with Akerman LLP [paragraph no. 21-
538], the Revised Vehicle Replacement Policy [paragraph no. 21-543], and the
American Rescue Plan 2021 [paragraph no. 21-544 ] matters pulled 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: 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.]
(*21-530) Minutes of the Continued June 15, 2021 Meeting, the Special City Council
Meeting and the Regular Meeting Held on July 6, 2021. Approved.
(21-531) Ratified bills in the amount of $17,856,432.45.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the vehicle replacements are all-
electric.
The City Manager responded several vehicles have been approved; stated the Public
Works Director is able to provide further information.
Councilmember Knox White stated that his understanding of the matter is to ratify that
the appropriate people have signed off on the bills; the matter is not a place for Council
to question each listed charge; if Councilmembers have questions about charges, the
questions can be asked outside of the meeting; discussing the matter is off-topic and
violates noticing requirements.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the memorandum included in the bills from the Finance
Director.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council has conflated different items; expressed concern over
noticing requirements.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
3",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,12,"Councilmember Daysog stated residents and Councilmembers are within their rights to
scrutinize the detailed payments and revenue items within the ledger; the point of the
Bills is for people to see how the City is spending money; it is good courtesy on the part
of Councilmembers to ensure a discussion on the matter occurs with staff prior to the
meeting; noted the ledger is detailed and contains many transactions; it is
understandable if staff is unable to respond to questions on the spot due to the detailed
nature of the report; staff can return with further details at a later time.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the vehicles are listed on page 3 of the check
register; inquired whether the listed vehicles are electric.
The Public Works Director responded the Bills list items which have already been
purchased and the expense incurred; outlined the vehicle purchase policy and
Administrative Policy 48; noted all sedan and compact vehicles are to be replaced with
alternative fuel vehicles when up for renewal; in certain cases a hybrid is purchased;
most of the compact and sedan vehicles to be replaced will be electric; the Electric
Vehicle (EV) market is not yet sufficient for the light and heavy duty and emergency
vehicle needs; each time staff renews a vehicle, research is completed to determine
suitability; the vehicles referenced in the Bills are for three maintenance service trucks,
which do not meet the EV purchasing requirements; purchase request were previously
brought to Council; the vehicles are not EV due to the market not allowing for such
purchase to be made.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the bills.
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.
(*21-532) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Reporting
Period Ending March 31, 2021 (Funds Collected During the Period October 1, 2020 to
December 31, 2020). Accepted.
(*21-533) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Reporting
Period Ending June 30, 2021 (Funds Collected During the Period January 1, 2021 to
March 31, 2021). Accepted.
(21-534) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Six-Year
Agreement with Eden Information & Referral, Inc. for an Amount Not to Exceed
$700,000 to Provide a Transportation Network Company (TNC) Concierge Service as
Part of the City's Paratransit Program.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is important for the public to understand the
matter; the matter speaks to using Uber and Lyft as TNC for the paratransit program;
inquired the vetting process used for Uber and Lyft drivers and whether special training
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
4",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,13,"will be provided; expressed support for the needs of the paratransit program
participants' being met.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded staff is providing a recommendation
for Eden Information and Referral, Inc. (Eden I&R) to provide a TNC concierge program;
stated Eden I&R will act as the third party provider that will book trips for community
members as well as providing monitoring and evaluation of trips; Eden I&R will help
users through the process from beginning to end; the program targets the most
vulnerable population; the program is replacing the former taxi subsidy program; the
program is risk-averse and is the right time to provide the service.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the work of Eden I&R.
Alison DeJung, Eden I&R, stated Eden I&R has been operating a similar TNC program
for the City of Hayward for a little over one year; most of the other cities in Alameda
County provide a similar program for profit called Go-Go Grandparent; the program is a
natural fit and provides the same callers with third party assistance and scheduling; the
approach is holistic; there are valid questions and concerns about liabilities with Lyft and
Uber; the City Attorney for the City of Hayward offered to connect with the City Attorney
for the City of Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not always had the best
experience in using Uber; she would like to know how the drivers are being vetted and
monitored; questioned whether there is a way to provide feedback from the consumer
after each ride if a bad ride is experienced; expressed concern about the term of the
contract.
Ms. DeJung responded the concern over the feedback loop has come up in City
Commission meetings; Eden I&R's goal for the transportation division is to implement a
more robust feedback loop from clients.
Lobsan Barrera, Eden I&R, stated the difference between Eden I&R and those using
Uber and Lyft on their own is the attention provided; the program provides extra security
for the client; the average pickup time in the transportation department is 12 seconds;
Eden I&R has special health accounts, which differ from normal accounts; Eden I&R is
only supplied with 4.0 out of 5.0 star rated drivers; any issues that occur during the ride
are reportable to Eden I&R by dialing 2-1-1; the issues are relayed to Uber and Lyft;
responses from Uber and Lyft are provided within 20 to 30 minutes; many success
stories over the year have been provided from the City of Hayward; Eden I&R staff does
not solely focus on patching rides, but also reviews and supervises the ride of each
client from beginning to end; any discrepancies or suspicious activities are revewied to
ensure and confirm the safety of riders.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated some jurisdictions do not use third party
providers and work directly with TNC's; staff is adding the extra layer of security for the
most vulnerable population.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
5",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,14,"Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the City working with Eden I&R; stated
Eden I&R has a long history of providing social and mental health referrals; outlined
United Way of the Bay Area utilizing Eden I&R as a resource; stated 2-1-1 provides a
position to deliver information to types of services needed; the information is not always
available in a one-stop area; the matter is a great opportunity and Alameda will put in
safeguards to avoid bad experiences.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the matter; stated
that he does not typically support TNC's; however, the use is something to support.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she will not be supporting the matter; she has a number of
concerns over liability issues and the TNC companies; the City needs to find a way to
partner and ensure that care is provided to vulnerable community members; she does
not want to provide the partnership at the expense of TNC workers not getting things
such as worker's compensation coverage; expressed support for the work and
partnership of Eden I&R.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff can confirm the drivers are not
being allotted worker's compensation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted a court decision has challenged Proposition 22; stated that
she would like to take a vote on the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer made a friendly amendment to the motion to include
an update after the first year, which includes feedback from the population being
served.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he will defer to staff on the annual report.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the annual report is included within the
staff report.
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: No; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(*21-535) Recommendation to Accept the Semi-Annual Report for the Period of January
1, 2021Through June 30, 2021, on 1) Litigation and Liability Claims Settlements, 2)
Workers' Compensation Settlements, 3) Personnel Settlement, and 4) Whether Any
Records Previously Withheld from Disclosure Have Now Become Available to the
Public. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
6",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,15,"(*21-536) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Two-Year
Agreement, in an Amount Not to Exceed $250,000, with Alameda Family Services for
Student and Family Mental Health Services. Accepted.
(*21-537) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a One-Year
Agreement with Terraphase Engineering for Environmental Consulting Services at
Alameda Point in an Amount Not to Exceed $147,458 for the First Year, with the Option
of Four One Year Extensions for a Total Five Year Agreement in an Amount Not to
Exceed $517,909. Accepted.
(21-538) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First
Amendment with Akerman LLP, Similar in Form to Exhibit 1 Attached, for Federal
Legislative Services for a Term of 13 Months with Two One-Year Options to Extend,
and Compensation for the First Amendment Not to Exceed $97,500 and Total Four-
Year Compensation Not to Exceed $367,500; and
(21-538 A) Recommendation to Execute a First Amendment with Clear Advocacy, LLC,
Similar in Form to Exhibit 2 Attached, for State Legislative Services for a Term of 12
Months with Two One-Year Options to Extend, and Compensation for the First
Amendment Not to Exceed $90,000 and Total Four-Year Compensation Not to Exceed
$322,500.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she pulled the matter from Consent in
order to bifurcate the matter and vote separately on the contracts.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the agreement with Akerman.
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.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the agreement with Clear Advocacy.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he believes a list of items were to
be included for the State advocate to look into; noted that he does not support several
matters listed; he will not support the motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about Clear Advocacy looking into
the Surplus Lands Act; stated the Surplus Lands Act should apply; the City should not
be contesting use of the Surplus Lands Act at Alameda Point; the Act goes to providing
affordable housing at Alameda Point.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
7",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,16,"Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(*21-539) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Remit Payment in the
Amounts of $910,525 and $655,752 to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
for Alameda Point's Adaptive Reuse Areas Phase 1 and Phase 2 Water Main
Extensions, Respectively. Accepted.
(*21-540) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Redgwick Construction for the Otis
Drive Traffic Calming and Safety Improvement Project, No. P.W.05-20-29. Accepted.
(*21-541) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second
Amendment to the Agreement with Coastland Civil Engineering for City Engineering
Services, in an Amount Not to Exceed $100,000 for an Aggregate Amount Not to
Exceed $249,500. Accepted.
(*21-542) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year
Agreement with NBS for Sewer Service Charge Tax Roll Administrative Services in an
Amount Not to Exceed $278,108.44. Accepted,
(21-543) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of Six Vehicles Consistent with
Revised Vehicle Replacement Policy in Amounts Not to Exceed $93,377 from Freeway
Toyota for Three Hybrid Vehicles, $74,984 from Cromer Material Handling for Two
Forklifts and $311,598 from Leader Industries for One Ambulance.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is concerned about the location of
Freeway Toyota; inquired whether there are local Toyota companies which can provide
vehicles.
The City Manager responded Freeway Toyota is the State bid winner for the vehicle
type.
The Fleet Supervisor stated the contracts are State contracts, specifically California
Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS), which is conducted by the Department of General
Services (DGS); the companies and dealerships are based in California; staff did not
reach out to local Toyota businesses; the State contract moves a high volume of
vehicles which have a better price reduction from the manufacturer.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted the vehicles are Toyotas; inquired whether
another local vendor would be able to sell the vehicles at the rate of roughly $31,000
per vehicle.
The Fleet supervisor responded most local dealerships are focused on selling vehicles
to the general public versus operating fleet sales; fleet operation sales make
substantially less on individual vehicle; the vendor is able to sell many vehicle units and
is therefore able to get a reduced price from Toyota; staff can reach out to a local
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
8",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,17,"vendor; however, the dealership will not likely want to sell a vehicle for far less than
what the general public would offer.
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: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(21-544) Resolution No. 15805, ""To Increase Expenditure Appropriations in the
American Rescue Plan 2021 Project (96034/C9930) in the Capital Projects Fund (310)
by $23,625 for the Feed Alameda Program to Provide Alameda's Most Vulnerable
Residents with Hot Meals and to Provide Support to Alameda Restaurants."" Adopted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated one restaurant provider was excluded from the
program due to not serving hot meals, only cold meals; noted that she consumes cold
meals; inquired whether the requirement to provide hot meals is included in the
program; questioned whether the City has discretion and flexibility to include offering
cold meals as part of the program.
The Economic and Community Services Manager responded the program called for hot
meals, which is the reason for the exclusion of one restaurant; stated staff can include
the restaurant if Council wishes to include the cold meal option; the restaurant indicated
does not have a hot meal option.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the guidelines are set forth by the State Department of
Agriculture and the Great Plates program; the criteria is similar in requiring fresh fruits,
vegetables and excluding sugary drinks; there are nutritional requirements for the
program.
The Economic and Community Services Manager stated the program started in the
middle of winter, indicating the need for hot meals.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated fresh fruits and vegetables can be included in
salads without being heated.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution, with the addition of
the restaurant that serves cold meals as long as the nutritional requirements are
satisfied.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes approval for any increase in
costs to provide the additional meals; questioned how many meals are being provided
at a time by restaurants.
The Economic and Community Services Manager responded 105 meals; stated the
amount has increased due to need.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
9",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,18,"the matter is Council approval of funding for the program; now is the time to increase or
decrease funding for the program.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the program is coming to its conclusion.
Vice Mayor Vella stated an increase in funds does not necessarily mean a change to
the program requirements; side direction to have the matter return to Council needs to
be provided; inquired whether the allocation of funds can be returned if the need arises
and whether the timeline has passed in order for staff to make changes to the program.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
10",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,19,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the change from hot to cold meals requires some
sort of permission from Council.
The Economic and Community Services Manager responded the change can be
discretionary; stated the increase falls under the City Manager's spending limit; the City
Manager can give direction for staff to follow up based on the concerns raised by
Council; if Council increases the budget to include an additional $2,625 for a program
total of $26,250, the matter can be settled.
Since there was no second to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's motion, Vice Mayor
Vella moved approval of adding the $2,625 to the program total [including adoption of
the resolution].
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White inquired the restaurant being added to
the program, to which the Economic and Community Services Manager responded
Jay's Coffee and Tea.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like staff to return to Council if direction for
program changes are needed.
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.
(*21-545) Resolution No. 15806, ""Amending Resolution No. 12121 Setting the Order of
Business for Continued Items of City of Alameda City Council Meetings."" Adopted.
(*21-546) Resolution No. 15807, ""Amending the Management and Confidential
Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule to Add the Classification of Principal
Financial Analyst; Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) Salary
Schedule to Retitle the Traffic Signal Maintenance Technician to Traffic Signal/Pump
Station Maintenance Technician; Upgrading One Senior Management Analyst to
Principal Financial Analyst; Upgrading One Public Works Maintenance Foreperson to
Traffic Signal/Pump Station Maintenance Technician; and Upgrading one Economic and
Community Services Manager to Development Services Division Manager, Effective
September 12, 2021."" Adopted.
Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the item carried by the
following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.
(*21-547) Resolution No. 15808, ""Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local
Emergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
11",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,20,"Code Section 8630(c). Adopted.
Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the item carried by the
following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.
(21-548) Resolution No. 15809, ""Authorizing the Issuance of City of Alameda
Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements)
2021 Special Tax Subordinate Bonds in an Amount Not to Exceed $24,585,000, and
Approve Related Documents and Actions."" Adopted.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
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.
(*21-549) Ordinance No. 3303, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending
Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Modify Public Art Requirements, as Recommended
by the Planning Board."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(21-550) Resolution No. 15810, ""Appointing Robert Ferguson as a Member of the Public
Art Commission."" Adopted;
(21-550 A) Resolution No. 15811, ""Appointing Jennifer Hoffecker as a Member of the
Public Art Commission."" Adopted; and
(21-550 B) Resolution No. 15812, ""Appointing Peter Platzgummer as a Member of the
Public Art Commission."" Adopted.
Vice Mayor Vella moved adoption of the resolutions.
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.
Ms. Hoffecker and Mr. Platzgummer made brief comments and the City Clerk
administered the Oath of the Office.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:02 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:18
p.m.
***
(21-551) Public Hearing to Consider a Call for Review of the Planning Board's Final
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
12",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,21,"Decisions at the July 26, 2021 Meeting to Approve (1) Design Review Application No.
PLN21-0077 for an Approximately 29,810-square-foot Medical Respite Facility at 1245
McKay Avenue and (2) Draft Meeting Minutes from the June 14, 2021 Planning Board
Meeting; and
(21-551A) Resolution No. 15813, ""Approving Design Review Application No. PLN21-
-
0077 to Allow the Construction of an Approximately 29,810-Square-Foot Medical
Respite Facility at 1245 McKay Avenue. Adopted.
Stated that she is outraged about the calculated targeting of the Wellness Center
project; she understands a small matter related to the Zoom meeting will be brought up;
the call for review is morally wrong and will cost the City another $5,000; the attempt to
stall the project is inane: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Stated it is evident that the Planning Board meeting agenda listed a non-functioning
telephone identification (ID) number; the incorrect number precluded full public
participation; public participation is protected under State laws; outlined alterations to
the agenda, meeting ID and the Ralph M. Brown Act; stated the public shall not be
required to register as a condition of attendance; urged Council to direct the Planning
Board meeting be re-agenized: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Discussed the project facility being detailed as reuse versus demolished; outlined
financial incentives for demolition, development fees and construction costs; stated new
construction costs are more than reuse costs; expressed concern over tax payer dollars
going towards a County facility and the future sale of buildings; stated future owners of
the facility will not have an obligation to provide homeless services; expressed concern
about public land being in private hands providing only temporary homeless services;
discussed conflict of interests and Alameda veterans' priority at the facility; stated a
significant portion of the site is in the tsunami zone; asbestos removal will be time
consuming and costly; destruction of historic structures will delay construction; the
facility can be built faster in another location: Harvey Rosenthal, Alameda.
Stated the people of Alameda voted to approve the Wellness Center a long time ago;
the delays are shameful and need to stop: Jennifer Taggart, Alameda.
Stated there is a flaw in the noticing; the issue is complicated and controversial; people
are asking for a remedy and for the meeting to be rescheduled; expressed support for
those requesting that the meeting be re-heard to allow those that were not given the
chance to speak the opportunity to do so: Apple Strudel, Alameda.
Stated the matter is an obvious delay tactic; the approach is cruel; members of the
public have had many opportunities to weigh in on the matter including the vote to pass
Measure A; the Wellness Center will eventually be built; discussed deaths due to project
delays: Josh Geyer, Alameda.
Stated his comment is his 18th appearance before the City Council, a Board or a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
13",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,22,"Commission to discuss the Wellness Center; the decision is easy; Council cannot claim
a meeting was not properly noticed and only impacted one item on the agenda; the
numerous letters and comments received from the public speak volumes about the
attempt to deny services for unhoused neighbors; it is irresponsible to force the costs of
a call for review onto taxpayers instead of the appellants; announced that he has signed
a lease extension with the United States Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) which will take the project through financing and conveyance; urged the delays
be stopped; stated the project has support at the federal level; urged Council to work
with him to create a center of excellence: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.
Stated the matter is not a complicated issue; the City does not need to re-litigate every
delay tactic and obstruction to the project; the matter has been voted on and debated;
urged Council to do its job and let the Wellness Center happen; stated delays present
more harm to the community: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Discussed a letter from Yes in my Backyard (YIMBY) law; stated Council could be
violating the five cap limit on having public meetings concerning related matters: Zac
Bowling, Alameda.
Vice Mayor moved approval of upholding the Planning Board decision.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is a de novo hearing;
Council is re-hearing the matter which has been noticed accordingly; the matter is an
opportunity for anyone that had been unable to attend the Planning Board meeting, to
raise any concerns; he would like to hear reasons for the incorrect noticing of the
meeting only affecting specific items.
Councilmember Daysog stated there are residents supportive of the proposed facility;
he understands the necessity of the facility; there is a clear indication of support for the
facility; facilities coming to fruition requires a process and democracy in which residents
are made aware of and able to participate in actions; the core is a necessity of making
information available about upcoming meetings; the notices must have the proper
information that allows people to participate; a mistake in the noticing of the agenda
precluded participation for some members of the public; he joined Councilmember
Herrera Spencer in ensuring a re-publishing of the agenda to allow full participation; the
Planning Board meeting included other matters on the agenda, which were designated
as time-sensitive and not included in the Call for Review; the Wellness Center matter
could be delayed without changing the substance of the matter; the delay is not an
attempt to stop the project; he believes the matter has been settled by the people in the
recent vote of Measure A; the people are supportive of the project; expressed concern
about the topic of reuse versus demolition; noted that he voted against demolition of the
facility site; state the City should go forth with one more step in re-agendizing the matter
for public input; tonight is an opportunity for the public to weigh-in on the matter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
14",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-09-02,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2021
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Due to Governor Executive Order N-08-21, Citizens can attend the meeting via
teleconference.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2021-1256
Draft meeting Minutes - May 6, 2021
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the minutes as it. Vice-Chair Norman
Sanchez seconded the motion and the motion passed 5-0.
3-B 2021-1235
Draft Meeting Minutes for June 14, 2021, Joint Planning Board and Historical Advisory
Board Meeting.
Chair Saxby clarified that he denied ever saying that the McKay Ave location was not
appropriate for a homeless shelter. The public speaker who said that had quoted him
incorrectly.
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Vice-Chair
Sanchez seconded the motion and the motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
  https://alameda.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9779192&GUID=2623B268
2B32-4F69-84EB-CBB324E684AD
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes September 2, 2021
Page 1 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-09-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-09-02,2,"7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-1252
Review and Comment on Revisions to the City Council Policy for Naming City Property,
Facilities, and Streets (Naming Policy). The proposed amendment is not a project under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15378 and Public Resources Code Section 21065. No further environmental review is
needed.
Allen Tai, Secretary to the board and City Planner introduced this item and gave a
presentation. Staff Report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5117355&GUID=9C4598DE
58DA-4094-B823-55D94647D869&FullText=1.
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Jenn Wit asked if someone on the city staff would be tasked with keeping
a list of historically relevant indigenous names, Alamedians of note, or would they just let
the community bring names forward.
Staff Member Tai the idea would be to let the community bring names forward. This helped
get the community more involved. This board could give feedback about keeping a list
though.
Chair Saxby added that the Alameda Museum and places like that would have a deep
knowledge of historical names.
Staff Member Tai clarified no list would be destroyed, it would live on in the public record.
Vice-Chair Saxby discussed some of the problems about only letting residents of the street
have a say in its renaming. He wanted to find a way to let all residents of Alameda
participate in the process.
Staff Member Tai discussed why residents on streets that were being renamed only could
decide instead of letting everyone weigh in. Changing a street name can really impact
people.
Board Member Alvin Lau asked about renters and how to get the information about who
actually lived on the streets in question.
Staff Member Tai discussed privacy laws and what information the staff could get access
to. These would be questions for the City Attorney's Office.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes September 2, 2021
Page 2 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-09-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-09-02,3,"Board Member Lau asked how long they would allow the public to make comments about
a name change.
Staff Member Tai said the policy did not specify but they would want to give it a proper
amount of time to take advantage of the ways to reach people. The staff did not want to
rush this process.
Chair Saxby wanted to know how often this had come up.
Staff Member Tai said this was the first time it was addressed by the City Council. The city
had never really had an open discussion about renaming streets and facilities.
Board Member Lynn Jones asked how citizens could access information on street names
such as pronunciation and where names came from.
Staff Member Tai thought that was an interesting question. He believed that most street
names were chosen by engineers. In more recent history there had been a more
conscious effort of why certain names were chosen and city records would be a great
place to look for more information.
Chair Saxby opened public comments.
Rasheed Shabazz, an Alameda resident, had worked to rename Haight School as well as
Jackson Park. He discussed the social importance of being able to rename public areas
as people become more aware of how White Supremacy had woven itself into our daily
lives. He discussed his own background and gave a brief history of some of the
problematic names in Alameda today.
Chair Saxby closed public comments and opened board discussions and comments.
Board Member Wit discussed the importance of having a list of people who citizens could
contact when these issues come up.
Vice-Chair Sanchez hoped that Mr. Shabazz would be in contact with the Alameda
Museum, Library, and AAPS so he could share his information. It would be a great way to
start that record.
Chair Saxby agreed and added that the vetting situation would be the most difficult.
However, it was more important to make things more equitable.
7-B 2021-1257
Board Elections
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes September 2, 2021
Page 3 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-09-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-09-02,4,"Board Member Sanchez nominated Chair Saxby for another term as Chair. Board
Member Jones seconded the nomination. A vote was taken and the nomination
passed 5-0.
Vice-Chair Sanchez nominated Board Member Jones for Vice-Chair and Board
Member Wit seconded the nomination. Board Member Lau nominated Vice-Chair
Sanchez for another term of Vice-Chair and Chair Saxby seconded the nomination.
A vote was taken and Board Member Jones won the nomination 3-2.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2021-1258
Alameda Marina Update
Staff Member Tai gave the update.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:04 pm.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes September 2, 2021
Page 4 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-09-02.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-08-26,1,"City of Alameda, California
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THURSDAY, August 26, 2021
Approved MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
Board member Kristin Furuichi Fong called the meeting to order at approximately 7:01pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Board members Dianne Yamashiro-Omi, Kristin Furuichi Fong, Priya
Jagannathan, Samantha Green, Scott Means, and Tony Lewis.
Absent: Vice President Sarah Lewis (excused).
City staff: Lois Butler, Amanda Gehrke, and Eric Fonstein (Secretary to the Board).
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3-A 2021-1238 Review and Approve July 22, 2021 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes of July 22, 2021 was made by Board member Means
and seconded by Board member Yamashiro-Omi. Ayes: Vice President Kristin Furuichi
Fong, Board members Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, Means, and T. Lewis. Nays:
none. Motion passed 6-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Joshua Altieri, Community Relations Manager with the Alameda Housing Authority (AHA)
announced the opening of a housing voucher program waitlist for both the Housing Choice
Voucher Program as well as the Project-Based Voucher Program for projects located
within the City of Alameda. The waitlist opens on September 10 at 8:30am, and will close
September 20, 2021 at 12pm. Staffed application centers will be located at the Mastic
Senior Center, the Alameda Library on Oak St., Alameda Boys and Girls Club, and the
Alameda Point Collaborative, as well as informational sessions and community outreach.
For more info on the Wait List, including answers to frequently asked questions, please
visit http://www.alamedahsg.org/housing services/2021 housing wait list.
5. AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-1239 Recommendation to City Council that City Council, Board and
Commission Meetings Are Scheduled to Ensure Maximum Public Participation
without Special Accommodations for Specific Religious Holidays
Staff member Eric Fonstein informed the Board of the July 20, 2021 City Council direction
to SSHRB to consider a policy recommendation regarding the scheduling of public
meetings on religious holidays. Mr. Fonstein reported that no other neighboring
governments have formal policies, except for Christmas, as it is a national holiday, and
that public rely on the regularity of scheduled meetings. Staff recommended a policy where",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-08-26.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-08-26,2,"public meetings are scheduled to ensure maximum public participation without special
accommodations for specific religious holiday. Mr. Fonstein introduced Deputy City
Attorney Stephanie Vollmer, who answered clarifying questions, and invited discussion.
Board members expressed the difficulty of making a recommendation that would impact
all public meetings without understanding the needs of the public. Three options were
discussed: 1) surveying each Board and Commission at the beginning of each year to
determine potential scheduling conflicts, 2) each Board or Commission surveying their
attendees separately to determine the potential conflicts of each group, or 3) a general
survey that is shared with the individual Boards and Commissions surveying thereby
maximizing public participation.
Board member Means put forth a motion to recommend to City Council that City Council
and other Boards and Commissions who hold regular meetings survey themselves to
determine the greatest level of public participation, seconded by Board member T. Lewis.
Ayes: Vice President Kristin Furuichi Fong, Board members Yamashiro-Omi,
Jagannathan, Green, Means, and T. Lewis. Nays: none. Motion passed 6-0.
5-B 2021-1240 Recommendation to Review and Provide Feedback on a Draft of The
Road Home: A 5 Year Plan to Prevent and Respond to Homelessness in Alameda.
Staff member Amanda Gehrke provided a status report on the Homelessness Strategic
Plan (HSP) and introduced consultants Amanda Wehrman, Director of Strategy and
Evaluation at Homebase, and Aram Hauslaib, Senior Staff Attorney for Homebase, who
presented an update on the strategic planning process. Homebase consultants are
seeking feedback from the Board and expect to present a revised draft to SSHRB in
September, then to City Council in October, 2021. Ms. Wehrman presented the current
draft, highlighting the following key segments:
The data in Alameda show a 13% increase in homeless count from 2017-2019,
and highlight that certain demographic segments of the population are
disproportionately at-risk for housing instability or homelessness.
Identified needs informed the three overarching goals and supporting strategies
that aim to secure a housing future for all Alamedans, increase access to homeless
emergency response services, and mobilize the citywide response to
homelessness. Strategies include short and long term housing solutions, flexible
resources for diversion, prevention, and housing retention, a strengthened
homeless response infrastructure, and community engagement and education.
Ms. Wehrman thanked the Board for their time, answered clarifying questions, and sought
feedback on the presentation.
Board members expressed appreciation for the thoroughness and quality of the
presentation. Following is a summary of recommendations:
Gather more specific data on Alameda's unhoused seniors, families with children,
and if they are Alameda natives/long term residents, as it will directly inform the
housing and other services needed;
Have the City request specific data points on future Point in Time counts;
Provide more specific and thorough mental health support recommendations as it
relates to homelessness prevention. Ms. Wehrman clarified that references to
support in the report include whatever support each individual may need, including
mental health services. Mr. Hauslaib added that the housing first model, is a low",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-08-26.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-08-26,3,"barrier model, inviting all unhoused into the system, followed by support for
disabilities, mental health, substance abuse, and other services;
Support for the recommendations around public Wi-Fi;
Encourage a prioritization of transitional housing facilities;
Suggest pursuing Targeted Case Management, a MediCal billing system through
the county;
Suggest defining short-term, medium-term, and long-term action steps;
Suggest more public notification of the existing Homeless Hotline;
Suggest changing language to focus services on the ""population with the greatest
representation"" instead of specifically stating ""single, adult males"", to allow for the
possibility of this group shifting in the future;
Suggest providing a two-page summary of the report, and hyperlink the key points
within the executive summary to supporting sections;
Integrate more quotes from community members with lived experience;
Have translations of the executive summary available;
Consider moving strategic plan details to an appendix while keeping the full
background within the body of the report.
Public member Sister Patricia Nagel's email comments were read into the record. The
comments suggested including Article 25 of the Declaration of Human Rights (""everyone
has a right to adequate housing"") in the introduction to this report, as well as a request to
define ""affordable housing"" in the report. Further, Sister Nagel suggested including
landlords as responsible parties along with property owners, and prioritizing landlord and
property owner non-discrimination education early on in the implementation of the
strategic plan.
Ms. Wehrman appreciated the Board's feedback, and will return at the September SSHRB
meeting with a revised draft before the anticipated October presentation to City Council.
5-C 2021-1241 Election of Officers
Board member Yamashiro-Omi put forward a motion to elect board member Sarah Lewis
as President of SSHRB, seconded by Board member Means. Ayes: Board members
Furuichi Fong, Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, Means, and T. Lewis. Nays: none.
Motion passed 6-0.
Board member T. Lewis put forward a motion to elect board member Kristin Furuichi Fong
as Vice President of SSHRB, seconded by Board member Yamashiro-Omi. Ayes: Board
members Kristin Furuichi Fong, Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, Means, and T.
Lewis. Nays: none. Motion passed 6-0.
5-D 2021-1242 Review and Approve Changes to the SSHRB Rules and Procedures
Section C-2 Regarding Election of Officers
Staff member Fonstein presented a review of proposed changes to the SSHRB rules and
procedures, section C-2, to simplify the election of officers. Mr. Fonstein answered
clarifying questions.
Board member Green put forth a motion to approve the proposed changes to the existing
SSHRB rules and procedures section C-2 regarding election of officers, seconded by",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-08-26.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-08-26,4,"Board member Means. Ayes: Vice President Kristin Furuichi Fong, Board members
Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, Means, and T. Lewis. Nays: none. Motion passed
6-0.
5-E 2021-1243 Review and Revise the Draft 2022 Work Plan for the Social Service
Human Relations Board
Staff member Fonstein presented revisions of the draft 2022 Work Plan for SSHRB based
on the Board's comments at the July 22 SSHRB meeting, and invited discussion, with the
goal to approve the work plan at the Board's October retreat.
5-F Workgroup Reports
Homeless Action Plan Workgroup: No updates to report aside from item 5-B.
Youth Mental Health: No updates to report, due to quarterly meetings.
Domestic Violence: Staff member Fonstein informed that reported incident
statistics for June - August are higher than last year. Repeat DV offenders continue
to represent a significant portion of the DV statistics. Men Creating Peace is
collaborating with local agencies to create a proposal for a pilot program that
provides outreach to offenders and victims, partially to repeat offenders.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Homelessness Updates and Initiatives
Staff member Butler provided the following updates:
Feed Alameda - The program, which had run out of funding on August 11, was
extended by the City Manager through September 8, and a request for extension
will be brought to the City Council on September 7 to extend the program through
mid-October.
Transitional Housing Program - Staff received direction from the City Council at
its July 20 meeting, to pursue research on transitional housing. Staff expect to
present recommendations to the City Council this fall.
Encampments - Cleanup at Jean Sweeney Park and Civic Center Garage are
scheduled for August 31. Cleanup and outreach efforts continue, particularly at the
Main Street encampment and the Encinal boat ramp area. The City is continuing
to relocate residents, offer outreach services, and clean up encampment areas.
Homeless Housing Assistance Program (HHAP) Funding - No updates to report.
6-B Community Service Awards
Staff member Fonstein provided information on the virtual 2021 Community Service
Awards, notified the Board that nominations are now open, and sought volunteers from
SSHRB to assist with planning.
6-C SSHRB Retreat in October
Staff member Fonstein provided updates on the October Board retreat.
7. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-08-26.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-08-26,5,"None.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Vice President Furuichi Fong adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Fonstein, Board Secretary",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-08-26.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-08-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY AUGUST 2, 2021 7:00 P.M.
Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid and Chair Tilos -
4. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
Vice Chair Shabazz - 1.
[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie;
City Clerk Lara Weisiger]
Oral Communications
None.
Regular Agenda Items
3-A. Review of the Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Form and Procedure
Commissioner LoPilato gave a Power Point presentation.
Commissioner Reid thanked Commissioner LoPilato for the excellent presentation;
suggested the Commission consider an online complaint form process as well; stated the
most streamlined approach is something as simple as possible for the average member
of the community to be able to reach out to file a complaint; another important issue is
what independent outside counsel would look like and who would decide; suggested
considering a provisional approach such as having outside counsel for the next six
months or for specific number of complaints; noted that she has questions regarding what
a prehearing process and an informal complaint process would look like.
Chair Tilos summarized Commissioner Reid's questions and comments.
Commissioner Chen stated reading Commissioner LoPilato's report and seeing the visual
presentation was very helpful; she compared it to having jury instructions, receiving a
neutral presentation of the parameters and being able to decide whether or not a
complaint matches up with the Commission's duties under the Sunshine Ordinance; she
would really value having ""jury"" instructions as the Commission is the jury and not the
judge.
Chair Tilos thanked Commissioner LoPilato for the hard work; stated he is leaning
towards having an impartial and neutral outside attorney guide the Open Government
Commission (OGC), rather than someone from the City Attorney's office.
Commissioner Chen stated she would like to test out having a neutral memo to see if it
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
August 2, 2021
1",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-08-02,2,"works; she is not convinced either way whether outside legal counsel is needed or
whether it could be done in-house with City Attorney staff; if the Commission is not
satisfied with the product, then the alternative could be tried; all attorneys are trained to
argue multiple sides of any issue; she would like to see a neutral memo first.
Commissioner Reid stated the Commission's task is to ask what is the best way for the
OGC to serve the public; the OGC needs to ensure that someone who is bringing forward
a complaint receives the best chance of being heard and understood; suggested having
outside, independent counsel for the next few meetings to see what that would look like;
stated the complaints heard this year already took the other approach with the City
Attorney's office drafting resolutions, which had a lot of confusion; she would like to try
the outside counsel approach, but would like to know a cost estimate first.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she does see the two paths as the most desirable; she
is leaning towards the option of what the City Attorney's office proposed because it is an
incremental step; there has actually never been a neutral memo come from the City
Attorney's office; everything has always been viewed by everyone writing it as an
advocacy piece; the City Attorney's office prefers to structure it with the Chief Assistant
City Attorney providing advice to the Commission and having outside counsel when
necessary; suggested leaning into trust and seeing what that looks like; the memos would
be put forth publicly; the Commission would be very aware if they are not neutral; she
would also like more guardrails in place and a commitment that the OGC would be
receiving an instructional memo.
Chair Tilos stated that he would be supportive of trying out a restructured process of
having a walled-off Chief Assistant City Attorney, along with providing a neutral memo; it
would be a marginal step towards building trust between the OGC and City Attorney's
office.
Commissioner LoPilato stated it is also possible to do both options, which would be a
good trust exercise and be improvement to the support of the Commission.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she appreciates all the comments; she
echoes Commissioner LoPilato's comment that the City Attorney's office has never
provided a neutral statement, summary, memo or jury instructions; she understands the
Commission's point about wanting some explanation of the case; concurred with
Commission Chen's comments that attorneys are trained to both write advocacy pieces
and to frame issues neutrally; she can definitely do both and it is something her office
would entertain in the context of supporting the Commission in its adjudicatory capacity;
she envisions that there would be support in terms of a neutral statement of the cases;
generally speaking, the City Attorney's office is in charge of handling legal advice and
representation in house; from time to time, outside counsel is hired for a variety of
reasons; she does not know what the cost would be to use outside counsel.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated it sounds like everyone,
including the Chief Assistant City Attorney, is in alignment for the first piece regarding the
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
August 2, 2021
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-08-02,3,"possible vision of what a statement of the case would look like; inquired whether the plan
to represent City departments in complaints before the OGC extends to any policy body.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that she does not see any difference
between policy bodies versus City departments in terms of how the City Attorney's office
would represent them.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the Chief Assistant City Attorney, as the advisor
to the OGC, would be staffing any policy bodies in terms of advising them on Brown Act
issues or stepping back from those duties.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the City Attorney's office has not determined
exactly what her role would be other than she would be stepping back from handling
Public Records Act (PRA) requests, which is due to recognition of the fact that at some
point one of the productions could be the subject of a Sunshine Ordinance complaint.
Commissioner Reid stated that she has concerns about the ethical wall; she is not
convinced that the City Attorney's office would be able to truly be a fair and neutral
advisor; she wonders if there are other options to explore; suggested considering both
outside counsel and a neutral advisor to have a comparison.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the idea of an ethical wall is not a new one; case
law has been reviewed to support past practices and anticipated future practices in terms
of maintaining an ethical wall so that decisions that come out of the Commission would
be legally solid; the concept of an ethical wall is used currently in Civil Service Board
matters and in adjudicatory appeals to the City Council; the City Attorney's office is
comfortable with the process and suggests the format going forward.
Commissioner Chen moved approval of accepting Option 2 [Chief Assistant City Attorney
with formalized parameters for ethical wall guardrails and commitment to providing
transparent, written instructional memo as resource for the OGC] on a provisional basis.
Commissioner LoPilato seconded the motion.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding the appropriate procedural
process, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated Option 2 is relatively consistent with the
City Attorney's office proposal for staffing, except for the part about formalizing
parameters for ethical wall guardrails and commitment to providing a transparent, written
instructional memo.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated
her initial reaction would be that any sort of request dealing with allocation of resources
needs to go through the Council; however, given that the Commission is deciding on
Option 2, a formal request to the City Attorney's office would be the most logical since the
City Council would not need to take any action.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
August 2, 2021
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-08-02,4,"The City Clerk concurred with the Chief Assistant City Attorney; stated the matter is going
to come back anyway; staff could flesh out any additional details which could be brought
back at the same time; selecting the option tonight gives staff the understanding direction
that can be looked at further.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1.
[Absent: Vice Chair Shabazz - 1]
Under discussion, Commissioner LoPilato stated the next item would be to decide
whether the Commission wants to draft a request letter with bullet points to be voted on
by the entire Commission; the City Attorney's office could come with any concerns about
the requests; the Commission could then submit something formally.
Chair Tilos stated the City Attorney's office already knows what the OGC wants and he
would rather have them draft the letter to present to the OGC.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she would be happy to commit to doing what
Chair Tilos outlined; she could flesh out with her colleagues to make the commitments
that Option 2 outlines to the extent they are able to with their resources; her office is also
very mindful of the City Council's desire for both parties to work collaboratively so that is
a priority for her as well; she will have something for the September meeting that is more
fleshed out from her July 19th email.
Commissioner LoPilato continued her presentation with Review Area 2 and modifications
to the complaint form; suggested revisions return at the next meeting.
Chair Tilos stated he is satisfied with the simplicity of the current complaint form and can
live with how it is.
Commissioner Reid stated that she thinks the complaint form needs some revision; it
would be a great idea to include members of the public; suggested proposing a
subcommittee, which includes the public, to work on revisions for just the form or also
include the complaint procedure; since it is going out to the public, they would be the best
people to test it.
Commissioner Chen stated since Alameda's complaint form was written many years ago,
she would be interested to see what other cities' complaint form looks like; the most logical
people to have input are people who file complaints; they are the ones who have to
struggle with the form; it would be helpful to know whether they were satisfied with the
form part of the process; Commissioner LoPilato has already done all of the heavy lifting
for the process part and included a lot of detail in her memo to the Commission; another
question for the Commissioners who had to review the forms is whether it provided the
information needed; if the form is going to be revised, the Commission needs to talk to
the people who created and touched it.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
August 2, 2021
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-08-02,5,"Commissioner Chen responded in the negative; stated she thought the form was very
simple and even hand-wrote hers.
Chair Tilos stated that he does not want to over-complicate the form; the form is really
just the first step; subsequent steps in the process get more complex.
Commissioner LoPilato concurred with Chair Tilos, stated the form should continue to be
simple; the only concern she had was the physical address requirement; complainants
should be made aware that the complaint form is made public.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether a member of the public could make an anonymous
complaint, if it had been done in the past and if it could be included in the process.
Chair Tilos stated he would not want to accept anonymous complaints; if someone is filing
a complaint, they should step up; it also opens up the door for more complaints.
Commissioner Reid stated the City of San Francisco's Sunshine Task Force hears
anonymous complaints; she would like the process to be more open and comfortable for
people; there are some details on the form that seem inconsistent, including how to file
the complaint; the consideration of an online form would be beneficial and bring Alameda
into the 21st century.
Commissioner Chen stated she finds it difficult to see how the Commission could take an
anonymous complaint and yet have the person present their complaint to the OGC.
The City Clerk noted the Sunshine Ordinance requires that the complainant attend the
hearing.
Commissioner Chen stated unless the City Council changes the Sunshine Ordinance,
anonymous complaints are not accepted; concurred with Commissioner Reid regarding
the inconsistencies in the documents; stated that she will rely on Commissioner Reid's
eagle eyes to point out what needs to be fixed.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated there are digital
options at the City's disposal that are easy to use; many forms have been converted to
an online submission; the form has not been changed since 2012 and not everyone was
emailing back then; all the comments on revising the submission options are possible.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated that she has heard all the
comments from tonight and offered to synthesize the form; if Commission members think
of additional things, they can be given to her without violating the Brown Act; she could
present the revised form back to the Commission; she would also research what other
cities' forms look like and include some options.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
August 2, 2021
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-08-02,6,"Commissioner Reid stated she would be happy to work with the City Clerk if it is
appropriate; she would also gather suggestions from the public.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated that she was
envisioning revisions to just the form, rather than the complaint procedure which would
be a heavier lift.
Commissioner LoPilato continued her presentation with Review Area 3; stated it is the
meatier section of the complaint procedure; she took a stab at identifying quite a few
areas for revision that could be significant improvements and having more clarity around
what the process will entail; inquired whether there is interest in revising the procedures,
what should be included and who should do it.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry regarding a pre-hearing conference,
Commissioner LoPilato stated her term pre-hearing meant written submissions; stated
there are various procedural aspects of the complaint procedure, including the complaint
committee hearing, that just has not occurred or been implemented.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, the City Clerk stated some complaints have
been withdrawn because staff has worked with the complainant; they have not
necessarily been called pre-hearing conferences, but it is an example of how complaints
are withdrawn.
Commissioner Reid stated it would be helpful to include the specific language in the
document regarding the willingness of staff to work with the complainant; the timing is
also important to clarify on the form.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the 15 day deadline to
file a complaint is in the Sunshine Ordinance and is 15 calendar days.
In response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the number of days is
a confusing issue; the 15 calendar days is the timeline required to submit a complaint; the
Public Records Act timeline differs regarding falling on holidays.
Commissioner Reid requested clarification about the PRA timeline, to which the City Clerk
responded the issue is not on the agenda, but the deadline for PRAs is 10 days.
Commissioner LoPilato stated as long as there are no concerns about a subcommittee of
one, moved approval of appointing herself as a subcommittee to revise the complaint
procedures.
Chair Tilos stated he has no objections to a single person subcommittee.
Commissioner Reid stated she would be happy to work with Commissioner LoPilato on
the subcommittee if it would be helpful.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
August 2, 2021
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-08-02,7,"Commissioner Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1.
[Absent: Vice Chair Shabazz - 1]
Under discussion, Commissioner LoPilato stated any feedback from Commissioner Reid
would be welcome.
Commissioner Reid stated if the Commission is taking a collaborative approach,
members should work together; if Commissioners are willing to work on a certain topic,
the Commission should welcome it.
Chair Tilos stated Commissioners are welcome to share their thoughts.
3-B. Staff Update
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the OGC proposals for the Sunshine Ordinance
revisions submitted to the City Council for the July 20th meeting has been continued to
the September 7th meeting.
The City Clerk announced that Next Request, the City's new PRA system, went live today;
staff will be given a little bit of adjustment time before going out with a full press release.
3-C. Determine Next Meeting Date (Due to September Holiday)
The City Clerk stated the first Monday in September is the Labor Day holiday; inquired
whether Commissioners wanted to select a date tonight, or have her do offline individual
polling; the proposed dates are: 9/1, 9/8, 9/15, 9/20, or 9/28.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she would like a date as far away from the holiday as
possible.
Chair Tilos stated his concern is if the OGC meets on September 28th, they would have
to come back in a few days for the October 4th meeting.
The City Clerk stated the September and October meetings could be combined as one
meeting.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney noted she is not available on September 28th, although
another attorney in her office could fill in.
Chair Tilos stated it seems like people would like more time to think about the date.
The City Clerk stated she will conduct offline polling; she just wanted to make it publicly
known that there will be no meeting on September 6th since it is a holiday.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
August 2, 2021
7",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-08-02,8,"COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner LoPilato suggested receiving updates from Commissioners at subsequent
meetings of correspondence any member has sent to Council; she would like to be aware
of what is going out under the Commission's name.
The City Clerk stated she forwarded correspondence to the Council and can also forward
it to the Commission offline; there is no need to wait until the next meeting.
Commissioner Chen stated the Commission should think ahead about what the table of
contents should be on the Annual Report; she would like both Commissioners and staff
to begin thinking about it; she feels some members would like to see a more robust annual
report; she would like to agendize brainstorming the table of contents.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Commission should not
express any consensus under this issue because it is not agendized.
Adjournment
Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
August 2, 2021
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf