{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED MARCH 16, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--MARCH 30, 2021 - -5:30 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:32 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The\nmeeting was conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-184) Recommendation to Consider Options for the Alameda Police Department's\nEmergency Response Vehicle.\nThe Interim Police Chief gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the estimated time of arrival if the City borrows\nan armored vehicle from another city.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded the soonest a vehicle could arrive under ideal\ncircumstances would be 20 minutes from the City of Oakland; stated the amount of time to\nmake the operator request with no central system must be considered and time may\nincrease due to traffic.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City of Alameda has borrowed an\narmored vehicle from another City.\nThe Police Captain responded in the affirmative; stated prior to the City having its own\narmored vehicle, the City borrowed an armored vehicle for pre-planned events with ample\ntime to reach out to local agencies.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City of Alameda has not borrowed\nan armored vehicle for an emergency, to which the Police Captain responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is considered a pre-planned event.\nThe Police Captain responded a pre-planned event would be a Police incident prepared for\nat least 14 days in advance; stated arrest warrants considered high-risk use the vehicle for\nmore control over serving the warrant and handling the incident.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what staff thinks about the proposed policy in the\nMayor's correspondence, as opposed to the City's policy and proposed alternative shown in\nthe staff report.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 2, "text": "The Interim Police Chief responded staff believes the policy shown in the correspondence is\nconsistent with use of the vehicle; stated staff has no problem expanding the policy to the\nproposed Berkeley policy.\nDiscussed the Council meeting of June 2020 referencing selling the armored vehicle; stated\nthat he is surprised to see the matter come up nine months later; discussed the staff report\nand vehicle use; stated the vehicle has only been used three times in Alameda with two of\nthe three times using it as a loud speaker; the matter reads as mildly deceptive; noted\nBerkeley has purchased a bullet-proof van: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated the three vehicle uses in Alameda were for protection or cover instances and none\nwere related to active shooter incidents; that she does not see using the vehicle for de-\nescalation; noted two incidents from 2016 are missing from the detailed report; the vehicle\nhas been overwhelmingly used in other cities; questioned the training costs for medics;\nstated medically trained professionals should respond to mental health situations; discussed\na recent shooting in Colorado: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nDiscussed his experience as a Berkeley Police Reserve Officer during a shooting at Henry's\nPub; stated law enforcement tactics have had to adjust to lessons learned from several\nmass shootings; an Officer has to go out and engage to reports of an active shooter; if an\nOfficer fails, Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team and Ballistic Armored Tactica\nTransport (BATT) are deployed to end the shooting; expressed concern about giving up\nlocal control of the equipment; stated taking away the equipment sends the wrong\nmessage; urged Council to tighten up the use policy: Michael Robles-Wong, Alameda.\nDiscussed the June 24, 2020 Council meeting; stated the decision to sell the vehicle has\nbeen tested; urged Council to have the integrity to do what is right and stand up for racial\njustice; stated the Alameda Police Department (APD) has used the vehicle three times in\neight years; discussed the three vehicle uses; stated the choice is clear: Erin Fraser,\nAlameda.\nStated that she is confused why the vehicle is still present and questioned how APD is able\nto push to keep the vehicle; the vehicle is unnecessary, is a waste of taxpayer dollars and is\nnot used as intended; discussed vehicle incident reports; stated the arguments to keep the\nvehicle are irrelevant due to previous Council discussion, debate and vote; discussed the\nrecent event of a man waiving a gun at protestors; stated the vehicle is subjectively used;\nurged Council to keep its word and ensure the vehicle is sold: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.\nUrged Council to follow through on the unanimous recommendation from June 2020 to sell\nthe armored vehicle; stated the vehicle is a symbol and is not used often; outlined an\nincident of a man with a gun during the Martin Luther King (MLK) Day protest; urged the\nCity to have actions speak louder than words and follow through on the previous promise:\nLaura Cutrona, Alameda.\nUrged Council to retain the vehicle, not sell; stated the lives of Officers and citizens can be\nsaved in extraordinary situations and conditions; discussed the example of an Officer or\ncitizen being shot during an active shooter situation; stated the vehicle is the only and safest\nway to attempt rescuing injured victims; the vehicle is not used often; however, it is handy\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 3, "text": "recommended selling the vehicle; every other Bay Area city Police Department has an\nemergency response vehicle; she takes very seriously the health and safety of residents\nand those who work and visit the City; she pays special heed to the head of the Department\nof Homeland Security who has outlined the heightened risk of domestic terror; several e-\nmails received from residents have used the analogy of an insurance policy; the analogies\nare apt; she reached out to Mayor Jesse Arreguin about the City of Berkeley's emergency\nresponse vehicle policy; stated that she is impressed with the policy and requested the\npolicy be attached to the staff report; strongly urged Council to move forward with retaining\nthe vehicle and requiring a use policy similar to the City of Berkeley; the purpose of the\npolicy is to provide direction about usage, training and storage of the vehicle; the goal is to\nsafely resolve incidents where an objective risk to the safety of civilians or Officers exists\nfrom a person or persons who may be considered armed and dangerous; use of the vehicle\nwill only be authorized by the Special Response Team, Commander or team leader, unless\nexigent circumstances exist; the policy outlines when the vehicle shall not be used; the\npolicy will require a usage log, which would be provided to Council on an annual basis or\nany time requested by Council; provisions for operator training will be included; as part of\nthe rescue team, supervisors should consider hostage negotiators, special response, medic\nor tactical emergency support personnel; the vehicle must always have an operator and\nsomeone from APD; expressed support for a robust Council conversation; considering what\nmakes Alameda different from every other Bay Area city to not allow this tool; stated the\nvehicle is not for militaristic use or use on peaceful protests; having the vehicle helps in the\ninstance where lives could be saved.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 4, "text": "In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's request about the history, the City\nManager stated Council previously approved the budget with different considerations\nincluding reductions in the Police Department due to protests after last Memorial Day; the\nvehicle became a component of the motion in passing the budget; the Police Department\nbelieved that not all information had been considered since the focus was on the budget; he\nwanted to come back and have Council review the matter by itself; the delay is partially due\nto staff and other agenda items.\nThe Police Captain stated the matter was brought to his attention mid-August 2020; he felt\nthat he owed it to APD to present the other side; a Council report was drafted to explain the\nimportance of the vehicle to the Department and Alameda citizens; he would like to ensure\nthe City is prepared to handle any incident as quickly and safely as possible.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been public comments related to the 33\ninstances of use; 30 uses were for mutual aid and three uses were within the City of\nAlameda; inquired whether the use of the vehicle impacts the recommendation to retain the\nvehicle.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded APD is similar to the Fire Department; stated cities\nneed each other to supply aid whether it be a canine, motorcycle Officers or other\nequipment, such as the vehicle; exchange of equipment and personnel between cities\nis\ngoodwill between communities and also acts as a force multiplier when an adequate\namount of Officers or equipment is not available; being able to loan the vehicle out is\nbuilding goodwill in knowing Alameda can call on other cities if need be; he is thankful the\nvehicle is not used often within the City of Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer's question is whether the use\nimpacts the recommendation to retain.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded in the negative; outlined terms of the emergency nature\nof deploying the vehicle; stated seconds count and the ability to deploy in a hurry is needed;\nthe metaphor of an insurance policy is apt.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been comments related to racial equity,\nsubjective use, racial justice and militarization; inquired whether APD staff can provide\nresponse to the comments.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded the vehicle is not used based on race; that he\nquestioned whether the vehicle should have been deployed at the MLK Day incident; stated\nthe incident evolved so rapidly that the vehicle was not deployed; use of the vehicle is not\nbased on race or any other protected class; the vehicle is used based on the need to\nprovide public safety.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated regarding the Police and Equity Committees not\naddressing the vehicle, a recommendation would have been odd due to Council's\nunanimous decision to sell; if the City moves forward with maintaining the vehicle based on\nthe compelling argument that the vehicle may be the point between life and death in the\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 5, "text": "case of an active shooter, Council should ensure the policy limits the vehicle to\noccurrences with an active shooter; Berkeley has staging off-site for quick deployment in\nthe event of an active shooter situation; there is a reason the vehicle is not painted in the\nCity's colors; the vehicle is intimidating and does not look like any other City vehicle; the\nCity of Emeryville has an armored Ford Transit vehicle that looks like an average vehicle;\nthe City's vehicle is designed to intimidate and scare people; there is an impact when the\nvehicle drives into the community; discussed an eviction in West Oakland utilizing an\narmored vehicle; stated that he would like to see use of the vehicle limited to address\nspecific issues and not loan it out as backup for pre-planned events in other cities; one of\nthe incidents in deploying the vehicle consisted of directing traffic during a parade and\ndemonstration; the vehicle has been used in places where the there was no threat of\nshooting; noted the former Police Chief spoke about using the vehicle in a number of local\nprotests; expressed support for narrowing the scope to meet the community's need for the\nvehicle.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the staff report says it all in the Executive Summary: \"the\nemergency response vehicle is a critical tool to assist the Police Department in keeping the\ncitizens of Alameda safe;\" he hopes there will never be a tragic situation in Alameda which\nrequires the use of such a vehicle; should a tragic situation unfold, the City must be sure to\nuse the vehicle and help safeguard residents and the Police force; Council should\nreconsider the June 2020 vote; the City should keep the vehicle; it is unknown what will\nhappen; the ability to act swiftly is imperative during a crisis; expressed concern about\npolicies which amount to checklists that require the Police to wait a certain amount of time\nin order to satisfy checklist review; stated that he likes the way the current policy reads:\n\"permission to utilize the vehicle will come from the CERT commander during SWAT\noperations or a supervisor in high risk incidents falling outside of the scope of a CERT\noperations the City is depending on the professional judgement of staff to interpret the\ncircumstances; Council needs to provide the discretion to act quickly; expressed support for\nsending the vehicle out even if it is not used; noted in situations of active shooters, the\npreference is not to wait.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Berkeley policy is three pages long and is not as much a\nchecklist, rather it provides criteria for objective risk and situation assessment; the use is left\nto professionals; expressed support for a more spelled out policy; noted the Interim Police\nChief has expressed support for the Berkeley policy and said the policy could easily be\nimplemented in Alameda.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she shares Councilmember Knox White's concerns; Council\npreviously voted on the matter; she understands there is confusion on matters returning to\nCouncil when a unanimous vote of Council has occurred; Council should not be so cavalier\nwith deploying a vehicle when not needed; a message is sent having the vehicle deployed\nin any neighborhood and driving around town; Council has received e-mails when\nOakland's tactical vehicle was parked on Park Street; Council needs to be careful due to the\nsymbolism; the vehicle is not normal, is not an armored van, which other cities have, and is\nnot inconspicuous; discretion is a tricky thing; while it is nice to have discretion, there will be\ntimes where a disagreement occurs on whether or not the vehicle should have been\ndeployed; there is an issue with the existing policy showing a lot of discretion should\nCouncil desire to reverse course from previous direction; Council needs to curtail the\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 6, "text": "amount of available discretion when deploying such a different vehicle; Council must be\nclear about when the vehicle should be deployed as well as placing a limit on use;\nexpressed concern about fear mongering; stated the intent is not to deploy the vehicle at\nany given event; Council must be critical of when the vehicle is deployed and ensure the\nvehicle is not being used for crowd control measures or intimidation of free speech; Council\ncannot curtail free speech as part of the Code of Conduct; expressed support for Council\nbeing thoughtful in putting checks on the use of the vehicle.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read from the Berkeley vehicle policy: \"the vehicle shall not be\ndeployed during non-violent demonstrations, including for crowd control and management\nabsent specific articulable objective facts demonstrating a risk of injury or death to Police\nOfficers and or the public;\" stated Council needs to limit the discretion; the limits are well\nspelled out in the Berkeley policy; inquired whether Councilmember Knox White would\nconsider supporting painting the vehicle.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded that he does not want to spend a lot of money on\nthe vehicle if it is kept; stated that he would prefer the vehicle not be out and active to\nreduce the impact; it is okay if the vehicle needs to be repainted; however, spending\n$15,000 to paint the vehicle is not desired.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of retaining the vehicle and adopting an Emergency\nResponse Vehicle Policy similar or identical to the City of Berkeley policy.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would second the motion with leaving out the\nreference to Berkeley; staff returning with a policy similar to Berkeley would be okay;\nreversing the decision is important; the existing policy is fine; he does not buy-off on City of\nBerkeley's policy at this time.\n(21-185) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested two additional minutes of speaking time.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of giving two more minutes for everyone.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which required four affirmative votes and failed\nby the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox\nWhite: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of giving the Mayor two more minutes.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she wants to see a policy similar to the current City of\nBerkeley Police Department policy.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of reversing the June 2020 Council decision to sell\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 7, "text": "the armored vehicle.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she wants to come back to\nthe paint and intimidation issue; she agrees with Councilmembers and members of the\npublic who have concerns; inquired whether images of the vehicle can be displayed; stated\nthe vehicle is smaller than some Alameda Fire Department (AFD) vehicles; inquired the\nreason the vehicle is painted the existing color, whether APD is agreeable to painting the\nvehicle and whether there are recommendations to addressing the issue of matching City\nvehicles.\nThe City Clerk displayed photos of the vehicle.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded the vehicle does not need to be green; stated the color\nis not important from a Department standpoint; he understands the concerns.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he will provide another motion related to policy after a\nvote is taken on the current motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nNo. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of retaining the vehicle and temporarily\nkeeping the current policy until staff can return with a recommendation looking at both the\nAlameda and Berkeley policy for Council to decide.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the City Clerk re-read the motion.\nThe City Clerk stated the motion is to approve retaining the vehicle and keeping the current\npolicy until staff comes back looking at Alameda and Berkeley's policy to decide at that time\nwhether the vehicle will be retained.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated when the matter returns, Council can focus on the\npolicy; noted that she has not had a chance to hone in on the policy as much as she would\nlike; Council can decide to reverse the decision and not retain the vehicle; stated that she\nwould like to look at the policies; staff and other Councilmembers can look into other cities\npolicies and propose alternates.\nCouncilmember Daysog confirmed his second of the motion.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he cannot support the motion; there has been\nenough unanimous Council direction for policies to come back that have been sitting out for\nup to 18 months; this is a recipe for never seeing the policy again; the matter has had nine\nmonths; he is not sure the reason the proposed policies were not presented with the matter;\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 8, "text": "if the June 2020 Council direction is reversed, clarity of intentions must be provided, even if\nthe clarity is to provide guidance about the policy and a date certain for the policy to return\nto Council.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated an Attorney may need to weigh-in; a motion had\nbeen made that she was not in support of; staff is able to return with a policy proposal for\nCouncil consideration and community input.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer amended her motion to approve retaining the vehicle and\nutilizing the Berkeley policy until another policy can be recommended by staff and return to\nCouncil for consideration and changes.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a date certain needs to be included.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded Councilmember Herrera Spencer's motion is\ncleaner in adopting Berkeley's policy and allowing for changes to be made when the matter\nreturns.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her preference is to have the policy come back\nin the next couple of meetings to ensure the public and Council can focus on the policy.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the best of both worlds would be to retain the vehicle, adopt the\nBerkeley policy but have the policy return to Council in one month for further review and\nmodification.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog withdrew his second.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is willing to second the motion; offered a friendly\namendment to add direction to staff to come back with some form of active shooter focus;\nnoted Berkeley's policy does not change the existing policy much.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the reference to the Berkeley policy remains, to\nwhich Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would like staff to return with proposed language\nfor narrowing down to active shooter; Council can choose whether or not to adopt when it\nreturns.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer agrees to the\nmodification to the motion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the modification is in addition to the\nproposed language of the Berkeley policy, to which Councilmember Knox White responded\nin the affirmative.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the modification to the motion.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Interim Police Chief stated that staff is comfortable with the Berkeley\npolicy being the policy adopted by Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated it is important that the Interim Police Chief feels that his\njudgement is satisfied with the Berkeley Police policy; he is not going to second guess\nprofessionals; the Interim Police Chief is going to put the life of his men and women on the\nline; expressed concern about the Police force being bogged down with process questions\nduring an emergency situation; stated if the Police are satisfied with the Berkeley policy, he\nwill not second guess staff.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has accepted the friendly amendments;\npart of the reason to have the policy return is to allow the public an opportunity to look at\nother policies and provide edits.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 6:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 6:55 p.m.\n***\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-186) The City Manager announced the League of Women Voters and Communication\nAction for a Sustainable Alameda are holding an event on building electrification on April 8th;\nstaff is addressing a continuation of the Alameda Swimming Pool Association Lease.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-187) Puttichai Butsangde, Alameda, discussed hate crimes against Asians; stated there\nhas been an 150% increase in Asian hate crimes the past two years; discussed crime\nstatistics and incidents from January 28, 2021, March 9, 2021 and March 18, 2021; stated\nan increase in Police presence creates a conflict in the community; it is important to improve\nthe relationship between the community and Police.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATION\n(21-188) Councilmember Knox White announced the Youth Activists of Alameda have been\norganizing a rally on Zoom for tomorrow at 5:15 p.m. followed by an in-person rally at\nChochenyo\nPark\nat\n7:00\np.m.\nand\ninformation\nis\nhoused\nat:\nhttps://www.alamedaca.gov/Shortcut-Content/Events-Activities/Community-Event-Vigil-for-\nAsian-Lives.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 10, "text": "(21-189) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced there are 38 participants on Zoom.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-190) Consider Establishing a New Methodology by which the Number of Housing Units\nare Calculated for Parcels Zoned C-2-PD (Central Business District with Planned\nDevelopment Overlay). (Councilmember Daysog)\nCouncilmember Daysog gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the successful No on Z campaign came from the\nunderstanding the need for more housing and modern apartments which are not consistent\nwith the historic Measure A however, the need to balance the amount of new housing in a\nway supported by the island structure is also understood; many of the sites noted are within\nthe historic built-out areas within the Otis Drive, South Shore and Fernside Drive areas.\nStated the proposed methodology change would violate the State Housing Crisis Act:\nSenate Bill (SB) 330; discussed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and\nMeasure Z; stated Council needs to consider how these types of changes are going to\nprevent meeting the needs allocation; the zoned areas in Alameda are going to be critical\nfor the City's attempt to have a Housing Element that conforms to State law; the task will be\nmade even harder for Planning staff; urged Council not to take action on the referral: Zac\nBowling, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City is in the process of a General Plan update, which\nincludes an update to the Housing Element; inquired how the update meshes with the\nCouncil Referral.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the City is in the midst of a\nHousing Element update; stated under State Law, the City is required to update the General\nPlan and Zoning Code to accommodate the RHNA, which has been established at\napproximately 5,400 units; the City needs to up-zone large areas of Alameda to\naccommodate the State mandate; changing the way the City calculates density to reduce\nthe number of units on shopping centers will only increase the need to increase housing\nunits in other places within the City; the effort is currently underway and will take roughly\none year; matters will go to the Planning Board in the Spring/Summer of 2022 and will come\nbefore Council in the Fall; staff can integrate proposed ideas into the broad range of\nconcepts being reviewed; a Planning Board subcommittee has been set up to help make\nrecommendations to the full Planning Board and Council; the City cannot downzone\nproperty without up-zoning other property; the State and the City are in the midst of a\nhousing crisis; a State Law on the books notes that cities cannot downzone without up-\nzoning elsewhere; the City is looking at an up-zone now and can integrate ideas into the\nplanning process; the City will eventually have to find land and zone appropriately for 5,400\nunits; the City will determine how many units to place on each site over the next 12 months.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter is part of an ongoing public process, to\nwhich the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated comments from the Planning, Building and Transportation\nDirector are spot on; if Council allows for a lower amount of housing on shopping centers,\nthe City might have to look elsewhere to make up the difference in housing units; there are\nplaces to look into, which would make better sense; noted Alameda Point has space in the\nEnterprise District; stated there will be transportation options for the area; expressed\nsupport for lower housing at South Shore by placing excess at Alameda Point; stated\ninfrastructure is being put in to support additional housing at Alameda Point; he is making a\ncase to change the methodology since the amount of new housing is unsustainable; stated\nthat he does not know the overall number; he does not support 5,400 being the allocation\nnumber; recommended Council engage in the discussion to determine where to put the\namount of housing in a place that makes the most sense; changing the Enterprise District to\nallow housing will not be easy; however, there are opportunities.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff needs to look at the best\nplaces to put housing first; the Housing Element schedule makes the same argument;\nAlameda Point and Encinal Terminals are great places to put housing; the sites and\nentitlements will be brought to Council early in the process; the two sites equate for up to\n2,000 of the 5,4000 housing units; however, the sites require a supermajority Council\napproval; without a supermajority vote, staff will not know whether the City can afford to\ndownzone or reduce the capacity at shopping centers; staff would have to include\nsignificantly more units at shopping centers.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many votes are needed to amend the Zoning Code.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded three votes for the Zoning\nCode and four votes to approve housing at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of rejecting the referral while providing no\ndirection for discussion; if the matter is included as part of something that stems from\ncommunity discussions with the Planning Board and is recommended to Council, the\ndiscussion can occur; the community and Planning Board should do their work before\nCouncil begins to spot zone specific pieces of property.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the issues can be raised during\nthe process, which is already in the works; it is important that the matter is discussed;\nquestioned how the process will work.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he has extended an\ninvitation to Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT) and Paul Foreman via e-mail; noted a\nPlanning Board subcommittee is working with City staff; staff is encouraging all members of\nthe community and interest groups to participate and provide good ideas; staff will be\nnotifying ACT and Mr. Foreman when public meetings will occur; staff can currently\nintegrate the proposal.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the outreach.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the topics should be discussed; however, it is premature to\ndiscuss it now; the process should be public; a number of pieces of State legislation are\nbeing contemplated; outlined an upcoming meeting where many housing topics will be\nconsidered, including measures which will make building housing on shopping centers\neasier for a number of reasons; expressed support for a more public discussion of the\nmatter.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that his objective in bringing the referral was to: 1) lessen\nthe amount of new housing on shopping center zones largely because many of the sites are\nwithin historic neighborhoods, which have already been built-out, and 2) recognize that\nCouncil must also have a conversation that lessening new housing units at shopping\ncenters requires the amount to be made up elsewhere; Alameda Point is a natural place\ndue to the infrastructure being put in place to support it; he is not against housing; Alameda\nis an Island with a limited number of ingress and egress.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed concern about staff meeting with the same anti-\nhousing group; stated that he would like a broad outreach plan; the direction is not to\ninclude the referral in the discussion; stated Council is not providing any direction on the\nmatter; there is not a lot of support for integrating the matter into existing work unless there\nis broad community support.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(21-191) Consider Directing Staff to Provide an Update on a Previously Approved Referral\nregarding Free Public WiFi throughout the City. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nStated that he would like having access to free WiFi; he is not able to get WiFi at certain\ntimes; noted Peets Coffee, Taco Bell and McDonalds have WiFi typically accessible from\nthe parking lot; providing WiFi in the City would affect the education of people across the\nCity and will be worth the cost: Benhamish Allen, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting the Council Referral, and\nhaving staff return with an update on the status of getting free WiFi in parts of the\ncommunity which will be accessible from outside of buildings and to incorporate alternative\nways of connecting to the internet.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the information sought is valuable, valid and\ntimely; the request could have been put into an e-mail to staff for a quicker response; noted\nmany Council Referrals could have been handled as an inquiry to staff; stated there might\nbe more effective ways to provide information; announced that she will be reviving the\nRules of Order subcommittee of herself and Councilmember Knox White to look into how to\nstreamline and improve the Council Referral process; expressed concern about matters\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 13, "text": "waiting a long time.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is not looking to send an e-mail; she would\nlike to have a substantive discussion on the merits when staff returns and allow for public\nand Council interaction; she understands staff does not have the information at this time.\nVice Mayor Vella requested clarification from staff; expressed concern about the associated\ncosts and implementation timeline; the budget is upcoming; she is concerned about voting\none-offs, which could prove costly outside of the budget.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether Vice Mayor Vella would prefer to have a motion\ninclude a referral to the budget for consideration.\nVice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; stated the matter could be part of the budget\nconsiderations.\nCouncilmember Knox White noted that he and the Information Technologies Director had\npreviously met with the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) and Common Networks to\ndetermine a process; stated the process is significantly less easy than initially\ncontemplated; expressed concern about turning Council Referrals into calls for staff reports\nwhere staff is present at meetings; Council Referrals are a time for Council to discuss\nwhether staff resources are to be used; a presentation has been made on the Smart Cities\nProgram; he will not be supporting the motion, not because the matter is not useful; the City\nhas a lot of work underway and what is currently being done is easily answered by e-mail.\nThe Information Technology Director stated staff went to Council last December to move\nforward with the Smart City Master Plan, which includes a Communications Master Plan,\nwith the idea that consultants will work together with internal departments and focus groups\nthroughout the community; staff launched the project in December and has met with\nAlameda County (AC) Transit, Alameda business districts, AUSD, College of Alameda and\nmany other focus groups; staff has determined the need to target specific areas of the City\nto provide Smart City solutions, including public WiFi; staff is hoping to bring the matter to\nCouncil in May.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer is noting a specific\nproblem and wants to stand on behalf of constituents that are often left out of the equation;\na lens is being brought to the topic that is worthy of having; expressed support for the lens\nof equity; stated it is nice to hear about the areas considered; public WiFi should be mindful\nof serving often forgotten constituents; the matter would be a missed opportunity and\nCouncil should not lose the special communities in the shuffle of the communication\nstrategy.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated everything done by the City is done looking through a lens of\nequity; the Information Technologies Director has done many things to help families in the\nSchool District; noted focus groups are being included as part of the discussion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated it has been over a year that people have been\nexcluded from any means of communicating via online access; expressed support for the\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 14, "text": "City having a plan to look at providing WiFi across the City; stated that she hopes there is a\nway to have certain places with WiFi accessible outside in the meantime; questioned\nwhether there are members of the business districts willing to step up and help people; the\nproblem is serious; the School District is helping families with children; senior citizens and\nunemployed people cannot continue to wait for the most grandiose plan offered; she is\ndisappointed that she does not hear urgency other than Councilmember Daysog; she is\nshocked that anyone would think the Council is serving the community by taking this long to\ncome up with a place for people; people often go to Mastick Senior Center, Starbucks and\nPeets, which are not available; expressed support for a drive-up or walk-up access point\nsooner rather than later; urged Council to recognize the seriousness of the matter; stated\nthat she is waiting for Council to step up.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Information Technology Direct came to Council back in\nDecember; requested the motion be restated.\nThe City Clerk stated the motion is to adopt the Referral and have staff come back with\nalternative connections being considered.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nNo. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\n(21-192) Consider Directing Staff to Extend Webster Street Physical Improvements/\nBeautification. (Councilmember Daysog)\nCouncilmember Daysog gave a brief presentation.\nStated that he likes Webster Street's lights; he has noticed quite a few broken lights in the\npast few months and people sleeping on park and bus benches; expressed support for the\nspeed limit being lowered to 15 miles per hour on Webster Street due to jaywalking:\nBenhamish Allen, Alameda.\nStated that she supports the Referral; the matter is a wonderful idea and benefits all citizens\nand visitors; urged Council support the restoration of historic facades: Carmen Reid,\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of directing the City Manager and Economic\nDevelopment Department to engage the Webster Street stakeholders about what kind of\nbeautification landscaping might be done north of Webster Street; stated there are cost\nimplications for the matter; however, the initial reconnaissance can be conducted; once the\ninitial stage is completed, specific strategies can be formed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella questioned whether the area discussed is more than\n500 feet away from Councilmember Daysog's home, to which Councilmember Daysog\nresponded in the affirmative.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he really enjoys the new building at the College of\nAlameda; now is the time to start engaging.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether anyone has requested the matter be brought\nforth.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded no one; stated that he would like the City Manager to\nuse his professional expertise to sound out stakeholders.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the City has an active Transportation Program Plan that\nlooks at how to encourage people to walk and bike within business districts; this matter\nlikely belongs within the Transportation Program Plan; expressed concern about jumping\nanother transportation and business improvement project to the top of the line when Council\nhas already given much direction on similar projects; he will not be supporting the motion;\nhe would not be against the business districts making a request or it coming out in process.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the points raised are valid; there are active Transportation\nPlans; however, the plans are transit related; the current matter is focused on other\nfeatures, such as landscaping and light features; if stakeholders ask to move forward with\nthe active transportation components faster, that is okay.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she likes the renovations done to Webster Street; she\nwould like to see a list of Council priorities shown during Council Referrals; there is no point\nin setting priorities in order of importance if they are not going to be achieved by directing\nstaff time and City resources towards the goals; matters do come along at times and should\nbe addressed; however, it is difficult to know where this particular matter would fit into the\npriority list.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Referral is appropriate and is exactly what\nReferrals are supposed to be; there appears to be an effort to discourage Referrals; Council\nhas a process for Referrals; she plans to support the matter; Council can provide feedback;\nthe matter does not appear to be extraordinary; she does not expect Commissions to be the\nonly ones allowed to raise issues; Council is elected by the people; it is appropriate for a\nCouncilmember to make a recommendation; Council is not dependent on Commissioners\nas the only ones to weigh-in on important issues.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the report has listed the matter as important and urgent.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the matter is appropriate as a Referral; the Referral\nprocess is to see whether or not there are at least three votes to prioritize and expend staff\ntime on the issue; the process had been developed specifically due to a prior\nCouncilmember giving direction to staff outside of Council discussions; Council has done a\nlot of work to set priorities and has set Boards and Commissions in a direction to work on\nsaid priorities; Boards and Commissions collect community input to provide\nrecommendations to Council; Council has the final say; he thinks there is enough going on\nand projects are having a hard enough time continuing to move forward due to staff being\ninundated; expressed support for deeming the matter not a priority, while not making a\nstatement on whether or not the project is good; the project may come out of one of the\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he would be disappointed in Council if there not be\nthree votes for the matter; the recommendation should be a no-brainer; the rest of Webster\nStreet has been waiting quite a while; expressed support for the Cross-Alameda Trail and\nJean Sweeney Park; questioned how to counter-balance the many liquor stores of the area\nwith beautification that is welcoming.\nVice Mayor Vella stated it is one thing to look through an equity lens; questioned the\nimportance of transit equity and ensuring safe, multimodal access; hardscapes are being\nworked on; the beautification portion follows the hardscaping; hardscaping and safe street\ndesign must be complete and landscape follows; expressed concern about jumping the gun\non the matter and spending money planting trees at intersections that might need other\nthings; her intent is not to say the City should not make Webster Street as nice looking as\npossible, it is to say there is a clear and laid out process that takes into account a number of\ndifferent things.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmember\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nNo. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\n(21-193) Consider Directing Staff to Review an \"Adopt a Spot\" Traffic Triangle, Traffic Circle\nand Traffic Corners Program. (Councilmember Daysog)\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Daysog gave a brief presentation.\nStated that he likes traffic triangles; discussed fairy doors in Alameda and a mural on\nWebster Street; questioned the ways in which someone would be allowed to artistically\nexpress themselves within the traffic triangle: Benhamish Allen, Alameda.\nStated that she appreciates the efforts to beautify the City; the idea is great and would have\nan overall positive effect on Alameda and will help build community: Carmen Reid,\nAlameda.\nStated that he does not have strong feelings on the issue; the matter raises a question\nwhether there is a problem which needs solving; if people wish to beautify the City, there is\nan existing process to go through; he does not understand why an additional process is\nneeded; expressed support for beautification of his street: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of having the City Manager and City Attorney staff\nreview and evaluate Berkeley and Oakland's \"Adopt a Spot\" program to see how Alameda\ncan have a similar program to encourage resident volunteers to help beautify certain spots\nof Alameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the legal implications.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the City Attorney's Office would need to do\nreconnaissance and speak with colleagues in both Berkeley and Oakland if directed by\nCouncil; staff will need to review ordinances to see which need revision as well as look at\nliability policies due to potential significant liability in having a formal process.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has reviewed the article; noted Oakland\nhas been doing this for 30 years; she is confident that Oakland has figured out the legality\nof the matter so the City is not liable; the matter is a great idea; the City does not always\nhave the funds to address beautification throughout the City or equitably; the approach\nwould encourage an opportunity all across town to help beautify the community.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the priority ranking should change to not urgent and not\nimportant; giving direction to staff to find ways to include a matter like this into current\nprojects and plans would be good; the City has had a number of times where communities\nhave balked after being asked to accept long term maintenance agreements such as this;\ndiscussed efforts of Alamedans for Responsible Transit Shelters; stated there are spaces\nstill waiting for the community-led transit infrastructure promised through fundraising;\nexpressed concern about sending staff off and prioritizing work that has benefits, but little\npayoff; stated the matter could be turned into direction to staff included in transportation\nplans.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry about the rating, Councilmember Knox White\nstated not urgent and important.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated the characterization sounds right; the matter is not urgent\nand is important.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the interpretation means the Referral will not bump\nup to the top of the staff's to-do list; stated that she would like a more substantive review for\nthe matter.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is not asking the City Manager and City Attorney's\nOffice to put something together in three months; he does not want to wait 18 months or 2\nyears; it is an opportunity to engage residents in a well-articulated manner to beautify areas\nsimilar to Berkeley and Oakland.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about not having a legal analysis; stated that she\nwould like a legal analysis and cost implication to accompany the matter if it returns.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Councilmember Knox White's points are valid; expressed\nsupport for the City Manager and City Attorney providing a professional assessment relative\nto the comments raised Councilmember Knox White.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he will not support the current motion; expressed\nconcern about sending staff off to start yet another program; there are already existing\nplans that would fit this type of program.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a way to meld the concerns with the\nproposed motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that his interpretation of the motion is that the points raised\nby Councilmember Knox White are valid and should be evaluated along with the City\nManager and City Attorney evaluating the Berkeley and Oakland's plans; the idea is to get\nvolunteers to do things in a well thought-out manner, taking into account the legal issues.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thinks Councilmember Knox White is stating that some\nof the proposal falls under the things the City is working on already.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that is true; expressed concern about directing the\ncreation of a new program; stated that he would be willing to support the motion if it\nchanges from the Referral to incorporating the matter into other programs and plans which\nare already being developed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the motion would include Councilmember Knox White's\nview, but also directs the City Manager to evaluate a program on a standalone basis as\nwell; he trusts the City Manager can evaluate both things and come up with his\nrecommendations and the City Attorney can come up with analyses as well; the original\nmotion is separate from Councilmember Knox White's idea; however, he is still willing to\nhave the City Manager evaluate the beautification recommendation through the lens raised\nby Councilmember Knox White; expressed support for ways to engage volunteers and for\nthe City Manager to evaluate the possibility of a program similar to the City of Berkeley.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 19, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City would need the legal analysis; expressed concern\nabout volunteers out in the middle of busy intersections; stated there was a previous effort\nwith daffodil bulbs on Park Street years ago.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would frame the discussion as Berkeley's \"Adopt a\nSpot\" program has given the City Council a starting point to figure out how to involve\nresidents on a volunteer basis to beautify certain spots in Alameda; some spots would not\nbe beautified; however, the process will vet acceptable locations; as the process begins, the\nCity Manager may recommend not copying Berkeley's program and to instead have the\nprogram in conjunction with the City's Active Transportation Plan.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(21-194) Consider Directing Staff to Provide a Public Analysis of: 1) When the Brown Act\nApplies to Commissions and Committees, 2) Documents and Information Released\nPursuant to the Public Records Act, and 3) What is Privileged and How to Waive Privilege.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer)\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff does periodic trainings for all Commission\nmembers; if Council directs staff to incorporate additional factors or topics into the training,\nstaff is happy to do so.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether training is completed every two years.\nThe City Attorney responded the City Attorney's Office and City Clerk's Department\nengages in bi-annual training with all members of Boards, Commissions and Council; stated\nif Council be interested in having staff emphasize particular aspects of training, staff is\nhappy to do so; trainings are taped and will be widely available to the public.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the public is very engaged in the community;\nexpressed support for the public being included; stated that she would like the public to\nhave the opportunity to ask questions, not just listen; she is unsure whether the trainings\nare publically noticed; trainings being taped are not the same as being able to ask questions\nlive.\nThe City Attorney stated that he defers to the City Clerk.\nThe City Clerk stated training is typically conducted in-person, in Council Chambers;\nBoards, Commissions and Council are invited because they are required to take the training\nunder the Sunshine Ordinance; training is recorded and posted on the City's website; the\nlast training provided was pre-COVID-19 and in-person; training has yet to be conducted\nduring the COVID-19 pandemic via Zoom.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 20, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the next session is anticipated.\nThe City Clerk responded the training has not yet been scheduled; stated training is\ntypically scheduled in August.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the Open Government Commission (OGC)\nhas been discussing the matter; stated a Public Records Act workshop training was recently\nheld by a member of the OGC; inquired the result of the Commissions discussion on public\noutreach for the issues.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded a training did occur; stated the training was not\noverseen by City staff; she is unsure the outcome of the training; there have been\ndiscussions about topics raised during OGC meetings; however, no specific direction has\nbeen given about additional trainings for the public.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she was surprised to see a Press Release about a member\nof the OGC, not City staff, providing training about Public Records Act requests; inquired\nhow the training came about.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that her understanding is the training first\ncame up sometime last year; stated there had been discussion at an OGC meeting and a\ndecision was made.\nThe City Clerk stated the training was raised at a couple of Commission meetings; the\nCommission supported having the outreach; the City Zoom account was used to conduct\nthe training; the training had been delayed due to COVID-19 and was initially supposed to\nbe at the Library; the Zoom was hosted based off direction provided over a year ago.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she did hear about the Commission providing\noutreach; the outreach is not what she is looking for; the matter is an important legal issue;\nthere is confusion within the community; it is appropriate to have the City Attorney's Office\nconduct the training; she is asking to somehow include the public to ensure there is public\nparticipation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of staff looking into including the public\nthe next time the City Attorney's Office provides training.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:48 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m.\n(21-195) Consider Addressing the Process for Potential Changes to the Jean Sweeney\nOpen Space Park Design Development Plan, including Public Input. (Councilmembers\nHerrera Spencer and Daysog)\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 21, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated the public process conducted included high level\nconcepts; outlined the grant application process; stated the opportunity was key in applying\nfor funding to build out the western portion; the grant requires a public process; previous\noutreach was conducted prior to 2018; the grant process requires more current outreach to\nincrease chances of qualifying with higher scores on the application; once a more detailed\ndesign is complete, the design will be brought forward for additional public process to the\nRecreation and Parks Commission and ultimately the City Council; the primary components\nin the plan remain the same from the original Master Plan; the primary components will still\nbe funded by the grant regardless of the park arrangement.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about discussion parameters related to ongoing\nlitigation.\nThe City Attorney stated any matter being litigated is scheduled for Closed Session in front\nof the Council; Council cannot have conversations about what has happened in Closed\nSession unless otherwise directed in rare circumstances; staff is happy to take direction and\nprovide information where needed; staff will continue to caution Council to not discuss\nanything from Closed Session.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested a map of Jean Sweeney Park be displayed;\nstated after her Council Referral, the map was removed and replaced with a different map;\nnoted the map conflicts with the Council approved plan.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the discussion is related to pieces of land\nwhich the City does not currently own.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the grant application\nrequires staff to go after funding for title held, developable land.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether all planning for the park was done through the\nCity Council; stated that he remembers the Recreation and Parks Commission working with\nsubcommittees and the community on most of the planning; the matter did come to Council\na couple times for final approval; inquired whether the same process is currently being\nfollowed.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the bulk of the work\nfor the original Master Plan was the done at the community level, then, Boards and\nCommissions and finally Council approval.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether there are two standing subcommittees.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated there was an overall\nsteering committee and a community garden committee for the earlier phase; for the current\nprocess, a meeting was hold with the community garden committee.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 22, "text": "The City Clerk presented the Park map.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the map was attached to the Recreation and Parks\nCommission agenda; there is no reference to the grant excluding the areas shown; there\nhave been numerous meetings led by the Recreation and Parks Commission; the matter\nalso came before Council and Council has discretion over changing the plan; the plan\ncannot be changed without Council approval; she strongly believes any discussion to\nchange the plan should be held at the Council level to allow for public information.\nDiscussed Union Pacific land being used as part of the Jean Sweeney Park; stated there\nhave been many Closed Session agendas regarding Union Pacific; a report should be\nmade to the public as to why the plans have been changed; she hopes there would be\nopportunity for public input on any Council decision before public participation of a redesign;\nit is unfortunate a decision has been made without public comment; many volunteers help in\nthe Jean Sweeney Park: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.\nStated that he likes the Jean Sweeney Park; having different sections of the Park is good;\nexpressed support for space for adults to exercise expressed concern about the end of\nstreets not connecting to the Park: Benhamish Allen, Alameda.\nInquired about a stimulus windfall of approximately $28 million and whether the City can use\nfunds to acquire the remaining; the section has been included in the original plan;\nexpressed support for seeking grant funds and using one area of the Park for pickle ball\ncourts: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that his understanding is the project encompass a lot of the\ngreen and orange areas of the map presented; the north side of the Jean Sweeney Park is\ncontiguous to the Marina Village light industrial business park; the original vision of Jean\nSweeney Park on the south side would be contiguous to the neighborhoods; the intent of\nthe Referral is to take pause and involve the public about what might be happening on the\nsouth side and to understand what is to come with financial implications.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated too much has been said; expressed concern about\nCouncilmembers disclosing conversations which cause jumping to conclusions; stated the\nmatter has been unfortunate and causes distrust; this is the second time since he has been\non Council that Closed Session discussions have shown up in public comment; no land use\ndecisions or changes have been made; Council cannot make said decisions behind closed\ndoors; Council is in litigation; it is easy for some people to make allegations and bring\nmatters forward which are inappropriate and illegal; Council needs to be careful.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of stopping the discussion and making a\ncommitment to the public that when matters are available to discuss and deliberate on,\nCouncil will provide an opportunity to both have discussion about any conversations made\nin Closed Session and have conversations that can lead to future discussions about the\npark.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 23, "text": "Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer started the information she has shared\nis public information; the map is information shared as an attachment to an agenda item;\nmembers of the public have had a Zoom conversation; Council makes and votes on plans;\nany changes to the plan need to go to Council in open session; all information shared is\npublic information and is not illegal; she is disappointed to have a Councilmember make\nsuch a statement; expressed support for educating the public on matters shared as public\ninformation; stated a plan for Jean Sweeney Park was voted on by City Council; discussions\nare taking place via Zoom as well as at the Recreation and Parks Commission; the map is\nshown as revised park boundaries; input is being sought for less park area, which\ncontradicts the plan approved by Council; she opposes the motion.\nOn the call for the question the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether any actions have been reported out regarding\nthe matter.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated all report outs from Council have been\nthat staff has provided information and Council has provided direction.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether there have been reports out about changes to\npark boundaries or uses, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated it is fair to assume that until such report is made, no\ndecisions have been made.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-196) Mayor's Nominations for Appointments to the Housing Authority Board of\nCommissioners and Recreation and Park Commission. Not heard.\n(21-197) Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced a vigil is held tomorrow; the vigil is\ntwo parts: a Zoom meeting at 5:15 p.m. and an in-person vigil at Chochenyo Park.\n(21-198) Vice Mayor Vella made an announcement regarding the Alameda County Healthy\nHomes meeting; stated that she forwarded the meeting Power Point presentation to the City\nManager; discussed a Hospital Liaison Committee meeting.\n(21-199) Councilmember Knox White stated the City Council and School Board\nSubcommittee met last week; outlined the issues which were discussed: a joint program is\nbeing put together to start education in schools and within the community around\nindigenous ancestors and the impacts of colonialism; ideas will be brought back to the\nsubcommittee, which will be brought back to the School Board and Council; discussed an\nupdate on mental health services.\n(21-200) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a funding request for mental health services will be\nreviewed in the budget presentation in May; made an announcement regarding a meeting\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 24, "text": "with the Alameda Health Care District; stated there is a proactive tone in keeping Alameda\nHospital open; the Board of Alameda Health Care District has voted to allocate $250,000 for\nthe upcoming fiscal year for community paramedicine; discussed an update from Dr. Mini\nSwift.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}