{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -APRIL 6, 2021--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and Councilmember Daysog led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(21-201) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding closed captioning and vaccine\nappointments for Alameda residents over 65 years old or persons with disabilities.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting\nwas conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(21-202) The City Manager noted the Youth Council ordinance [paragraph no. 21-228 would\nnot be heard and would return at a later date.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(21-203) Proclamation Denouncing Xenophobia and Anti-Asian American Pacific Islander\nSentiment and Condemns Harmful Rhetoric and Racist Acts Arising Due to the Fears of the\nCOVID-19 Pandemic.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation and made brief comments.\n(21-204) Proclamation Declaring April 18-24, 2021 as Alameda County Victims' Rights Week.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-205) Sheryl Walton, East Oakland Stadium Alliance, inquired whether the City Council is\naware of a draft Environmental Impact Report regarding the ballpark; discussed potential\nimpacts.\n(21-206) Dorothy Freeman, Alameda, discussed comments from a previous meeting; stated it\nwas implied that Closed Session matters being disclosed; no one discussed Closed Session\ndecisions; apologized to Councilmember Herrera Spencer for suspicions being directed at her;\ndiscussed the Zoom meetings regarding park land; stated the public has a right to speak out on\nany item which appears on the Closed Session agenda; Council decision should be made in\npublic view.\n(21-207) Matt Reid, Alameda, discussed the potential de-listing of 620 McKay Avenue; stated\nthe language in Measure A permits reuse of vacant, Federal buildings; the facility was one of\ntwo training facilities for the United States Merchant Marines during World War II; the facility\nwas the only training facility during the Korean War; discussed maritime use for the facility;\nstated the site has historical significance; urged historical integrity be respected.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 2, "text": "(21-208) Erin Fraser, Alameda, discussed the dangers of allowing the sale of the armored\nvehicle and an article published in BuzzFeed News.\n(21-209) Grover Wehman-Brown, Alameda, discussed a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)\ncomplaint filed by a reporter; stated the matter is consistent with others attempting to obtain\ninformation from the Alameda Police Department (APD); discussed an article published in\nBuzzFeed News; urged Council to make stronger direction to the City Manager to enforce\ntransparency in APD policing, data and accountability and let people know how Council will be\nholding staff accountable; expressed concern about the decision to keep the armored vehicle.\n(21-210) Jenice Anderson, Alameda, expressed concern over the revelations that APD is using\nfacial recognition technology after Council voted against allowing it; questioned who is holding\nthe Police accountable for their actions; discussed viewpoints held by a recently retired Officer;\nstated working with the subcommittees is not a substitute for an outside investigation; the\nincidents are a prime example of why the City should adopt a Citizens Oversight Commission;\nthe Charter needs to be amended to give citizen oversight enforcement capabilities.\n(21-211) Alexia Arocha, Alameda, discussed an article published in BuzzFeed News;\nquestioned the message being sent with no accountability; stated APD had been told to sell the\nvehicle and did not; APD was told not to use facial recognition software and did; urged Council\nbegin to hold APD and the City Manager accountable.\n(21-212) Lynn O'Conner, Alameda, discussed Jean Sweeney Park; outlined a newspaper\narticle; stated without being publicized, the border is being diminished from what was originally\napproved; the Park is being used; the parking lot is often full; the Park is a wonderful resource;\nshe would like information to be publicized, with an opportunity for public comment; the City has\nthe opportunity to purchase the land and increase the Park land to the original plan.\n(21-213) Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda, stated it was disturbing to read on national news of a\ndisregard for Council direction to not use Clearview Artificial Intelligence (AI) by APD; expressed\nconcern about the use of free trials and equipment deteriorating the command structure of the\nCity and basic civil rights; urged Council to look into the matter and provide a public report;\nstated all department should be expected to follow City Council policy direction.\n(21-214) Mike Katz-Lacabe, Oakland Privacy, discussed APD's use of facial recognition\nsoftware; stated Council approved a policy that banned the use of such software; the matter is a\ngood argument using ordinances, which have the force of law; questioned the measures taken\nin order to hold APD accountable for its violations of policy; stated many policies can be violated\nat any time without Council knowledge; noted many APD policies are at the discretion of the\nPolice Chief; urged Council to hold APD accountable and to pursue an ordinance in the future.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nDiscussed the bills for ratification; suggested more detail be provided on Housing Authority\ninvoices: Matt Reid, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that should would be voting no on final passage of the\ngrocery worker hazard pay ordinance [paragraph no. 21-226 and would have preferred it not be\non the Consent Calendar.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 3, "text": "Model. Accepted.\n(*21-221) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Ten Traffic Signal\nControllers from Econolite Control Products, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $41,940 and\nAuthorize Future Purchases of Up to 30 Additional Traffic Signal Controllers by the End of\nCalendar Year 2023, for a Total Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $146,790. Accepted.\n(*21-222) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Eleven (11) Traffic\nSignal Controller Cabinets from Econolite Control Products, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed\n$123,495 and Authorize Future Purchases of Up to an Additional Twenty (20) Traffic Signal\nController Cabinets by the End of Calendar Year 2023, for a Total Cumulative Amount Not to\nExceed $348,495. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 4, "text": "(*21-223) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Ten (10) Battery Backup\nSystems for Traffic Signals from JAM Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $107,555 and\nAuthorize Future Purchases of Up to Twenty (20) Additional Battery Backup Systems by the\nEnd of Calendar Year 2023, for a Total Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $322,665. Accepted.\n(*21-224) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Ten (10) Video\nDetection Systems for Traffic Signals from Econolite Control Products, Inc. in an Amount Not to\nExceed $199,950 and Authorize Future Purchases of Up to Twenty (20) Additional Video\nDetection Systems by the End of Calendar Year 2023, for a Total Cumulative Amount Not to\nExceed $599,850; Accepted and\n(*21-224A) Resolution No. 15754, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2019-21 Capital Budget by\nReducing Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in Capital Improvement Program 91812 by\n$779,448 and Increasing Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations for Capital Improvement\nProgram 96012 by $779,448.\" Adopted.\n(*21-225) Resolution No. 15755, \"Clarifying the Definition of Below Market Rate Units in\nConnection with Proceedings to Alter the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes\nfor Community Facilities District No. 17-1 (Alameda Point Public Services District). Adopted.\n(21-226) Ordinance No. 3298, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 4-61\n(Grocery Worker Hazard Pay) to Require Large Grocery Stores in Alameda to Pay Employees\nan Additional Five Dollars ($5.00) per Hour in Hazard Pay during the Novel Coronavirus\n(COVID-19) Pandemic and to Include Enforcement of Emergency Hazard Pay to Grocery\nEmployees.' Finally passed.\n[Note: The ordinance was approved by the following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No;\nHerrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3.\nNoes: 2.]\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-227) Presentation by Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) - Annual Progress\nReport.\nJohn Lipp, FAAS, gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the program represents an important body of work.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether FAAS has any asks or a wish list for the thrift store opening\non Webster Street.\nMr. Lipp responded a wish list has been put out and includes things such as a washing\nmachine, dryer, refrigerator and a safe; stated the community is very generous; the items will be\nlisted on the FAAS Facebook page and website; noted many people have sent e-mails asking to\ndonate.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for FAAS and its volunteers.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 5, "text": "(21-228) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section\n2-14 (Youth Council) to Article Il (Boards and Commissions) of Chapter Il (Administration),\nEstablishing a Youth Council and Prescribing Membership and Duties of Said Commission. Not\nheard.\n(21-229) Recommendation to Review and Provide Feedback on Preliminary Goals and\nStrategies for the Homelessness Strategic Plan.\nThe Development Manager made brief introductions.\nAmanda Wehrman and Aram Hauslaib from Homebase gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like more data presented regarding the\nunsheltered population pre-COVID-19 and current; questioned how much the parking lot is\nutilized at Alameda Point, who is utilizing it and whether people are being connected to services;\nstated the lack of data provided looks like the City is starting from zero, when the City is not; the\nCity has had many programs; she wants to know the results of the current programs in place;\nexpressed support for the responses to her inquiries be attached to the staff report; stated not\nhaving data is a problem; the community deserves an update about the effectiveness of the\ncurrent policies as well as Steering Committee meeting information; expressed concern about\nmembers of the Steering Committee; stated many members are from agencies that receive\nmoney from the City, which is a conflict; expressed concern about the report's lack of data.\nDiscussed his experience with homelessness; stated the Safe Parking facility and individuals\nrunning the facility provided invaluable psychological support and kept him going; many\nindividuals at the facility are in the same situation and have not previously been homeless; all\nparticipants want to be on a trajectory to get back to being self-sufficient; it is difficult to rely on\nsocial services; expressed gratitude for the services provided; urged Council continue to fund\nthe services, which provide safe harbor for individuals; discussed finding a temporary place to\nlive; expressed concern about the scattered set of resources: George Perkins, Alameda.\nSuggested the City consider establishing an independent citizen led committee; stated the\ncommittee could seek input from non-profit organizations while organizations remain\nindependent from potential financial conflicts of interest; questioned the data compiled by the\nCity regarding the number of individuals currently receiving assistance from local programs;\nfurther questioned how the City is evaluating the programs; discussed a Public Records Act\nrequest that she submitted; urged the City to seek the information and make it available to the\npublic: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the City's efforts; stated that he is concerned about the potential conflict\nby the stakeholders receiving public money from the process; urged the City to carefully look\ninto the matter; stated there needs to be an independent group; optics are important; he is not\nconcerned about the County; Council can only focus on City issues; having data is critical;\nwithout data, informed decisions cannot be made; expressed support for effectively supporting\nthe homeless and helping those with mental health issues: John Healy, Alameda.\nStated that she appreciates the thoughtful planning going into both homelessness and\npreventing homelessness; urged the plan flesh out more housing, security and the prevention of\nhomelessness; stated there has been unprecedented job loss under COVID-19; many who are\nhomeless have lost over half of their income, are burdened with high rent, are people of color\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 6, "text": "and are have families; urged Council to keep the population in mind and look into things such as\ncredit counseling and leveraging Federal dollars around rental subsidies to prevent\nhomelessness and building stronger housing security: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nStated that she was surprised to learn Jean Sweeney Park is a cause of homelessness; there\nwere many unhoused individuals living on Jean Sweeney Park land prior to construction; many\nunhoused did not have services, such as washing or bathing facilities; she is curious about how\nthe Park created homelessness: Lynn O'Conner, Alameda.\nDiscussed his experience using the Safe Parking facility; stated the facility has been a Godsend\nand the people present are supportive; the resources and comradery provided is helpful; that he\ndoes not know where he would be without the services provided; discussed his experience as a\nsingle dad; stated that he has been hired to provide daycare services; expressed support for the\npositive treatment at the facility: Vincent Perrault, Alameda.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's request, the Interim Community Development Director\nstated staff previously issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for an organization to help with the\nplan; Homebase was selected as the provider and proposed the idea of a Steering Committee;\nnoted the Steering Committee was not intended to bring community members together; instead,\nthe Steering Committee was intended to bring together those with particular expertise; stated\nsome of the members are service providers and some do business with Alameda; staff\nconsidered members part of an elite group advising on best practices; staff went along with the\nconsultants proposal due to best practices from a number of different cities and agencies; the\napproach has been successful.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns about the City creating a\nSteering Committee with service providers that are receiving money from the City; the problem\nis serious, especially when data is being received about the effectiveness of the programs; she\nstrongly believes the City is well-intended in trying to address the problem; data and impartial\nanalysis is needed; impartial analysis is not possible when half of the Steering Committee\nmembers are from agencies that receive money from the City; expressed concern about the\nCommittee's composition; stated it is a problem that there is no data evaluating the programs'\nservices.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated staff is off to a good start; staff has done a lot of outreach\nand work; he appreciates the key goals looking at housing first and bringing the community into\nprograms; he has no recommended changes to the report; the guiding principles are good for\nthe conversation ahead; there will be time to evaluate programs in the future; however, the data\nis not what is before Council and not where the process is currently; it is not necessary for\nCouncil to say which strategies are moving in the right direction; expressed support for ensuring\na tight connection to the County plan and showing said connection; stated the County plan is\nsolid and multi-tiered; some of the services provided by the County are only offered in Alameda\nas part of a larger and broader network; the City needs to look at how the systems are being\nbuilt out to help residents and provide support for the region.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for Councilmember Knox White's comments; stated the\nprogram is a great start and is high level; questioned how the program fits into the regional\nstrategy for the County and neighboring cities and how the program fits into all other services\nprovided; stated homeless counts are performed Countywide and cities work together due to\npeople moving; expressed support for addressing how the program fits into the regional\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 7, "text": "strategy; stated it is important to collect data; the City should not get bogged down in collecting\nvery specific types of data; expressed support for spending funds on services; stated the\nultimate strategy and goal is providing services; efficacy is difficult to determine and is\ndependent on the definition; she wants to be cautious in ensuring funding is going to direct\nservices and housing.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for City staff; stated the personal testimony shared from\nlived experience at City facilities is a testament; the City needs to address and prevent\nhomelessness; it is especially important now coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic; eviction\nprotections will expire at some point; the City should provide assistance with back-utility\npayments; a homeless count was not conducted last year due to COVID-19; the numbers are\nsurely higher; she wants to ensure a discussion of funding sources for proposed programs will\noccur around the time for the budget; expressed support for information shared by individuals\nwith lived experience; stated that she has no qualms over the individuals and organizations\nrepresented; measurable objectives are important; she is satisfied hearing how the Steering\nCommittee was put together; many Mayors in the area are working with the County to address\nhomelessness on a regional basis; it is a success when housing is able to be found for an\nindividual living in an encampment; regional solutions have are important; expressed support for\nmore information about the form of the public education campaign; stated that she supports the\nidea of matching local employers with individuals experiencing housing instability to find jobs\nand strengthen the housing navigation process; expressed support for the efforts to look out for\nseniors; stated that she wants to ensure seniors are kept from sliding into homelessness and\nhousing insecurity; non-congregate type housing is important during the COVID-19 era; many\nunsheltered individuals prefer non-congregate housing; expressed support for Alameda\nMunicipal Power (AMP) considering adding a voluntary fee for a low-income assistance fund.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how much money the City is spending per month on\nthe Safe Parking program.\nThe Community Development Manager responded the contract with Village of Love/Creative\nBuild is $150,000 for 9 and a half months.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the cost includes payment for Safe Parking\nstaff.\nThe Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the provider\nleverages existing services and contributions from other groups; faith based programs and food\nbanks provide meals; there is a lot of leveraging from existing programs, including outreach and\ncase management.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the data that she received being shared\nfor public benefit; stated there are 28 adults and 10 children; 38 people have been served in six\nmonths through the program; it is important to share the information; the Safe Parking program\noffers 25 spaces each evening; 10 to 12 of the available spaces are used nightly; there are\nconcerns about people sleeping in their cars throughout Alameda as opposed to using the Safe\nParking spaces; she would like to know what efforts are being made to communicate the\navailability of space; people need to be encouraged to use the available space and services;\nexpressed support for the personal testimony about services which are working; stated Council\nneeds data in order to know what is working and how to make improvements; there is an\nopportunity to help; expressed support for WiFi being offered at the Safe Parking site; stated the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 8, "text": "goal is to ensure services are available and known; expressed concern about public meetings\nwithout data; stated it is government's job to come up with data and do the utmost to help those\nin need; expressed support for data analysis of the program; stated there must be a way to\nevaluate what is working and what is not; she does not want to continue funding agencies that\ndo not show results.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is pleased the City is providing Safe Parking for people\nwho have to sleep in their cars; the situation is not ideal and housing needs to be provided;\nmore housing must be built especially for low-income people; the City does not operate in a silo;\neverything is connected.\nThe Community Development Manager stated outreach is a continuing effort; the homeless\nhotline phone number: 510-522-4663 being provided to those who need it is a great start;\npeople can be instantly enrolled in the Safe Parking program; providers continue to promote the\nprogram; staff would like to collect more data; roughly 14 different programs have started\nbecause of the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP); prior to HEAP, very few programs\nwere offered in Alameda for those experiencing homelessness; the contract with Operation\nDignity was the longest City contract due to displacement of homeless people living in the Jean\nSweeney Park; the majority of Alameda programs began when HEAP started; data can now be\ncollected from HEAP funded programs; staff will collect and tabulate data to provide to the\npublic; she would like to get more testimonies from people using the program; staff has more\nwork to do related to connecting the dots in the outcomes and successes of programs; staff will\ninclude the information in the final strategic plan report.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired the ways the strategic plan aligns with the Housing Element\nand General Plan update process.\nThe Development Manager responded staff has been working closely with the Planning\nDepartment to ensure goals are considered; stated there is a proposed strategy in the\npreliminary goals and strategies related to looking at zoning policies and ensuring removal of as\nmany barriers as possible to the construction of housing for the formerly homeless and other\nfacilities for unsheltered neighbors.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what happens if there is any conflict between the underlying\nzoning and the Housing Element.\nThe Development Manager responded the goal is to make sure staff is working together now to\navoid any potential conflict; stated staff will have to work with the Planning Department if any\nconflicts arise.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there are conflicts due to particular zoning of an area;\nquestioned whether the General Plan Housing Element would take precedence.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of Councilmember Daysog's inquiry.\nThe City Attorney stated under State law, the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan cannot be in\nconflict with each other for long; generally, the Zoning Ordinance will have to be brought into\nconformance with the General Plan; State law allows for time in order to conform.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for coordinating with the Alameda Housing\nAuthority to assist with the problem long-term and for adding homeless services information to\nthe home page of the City's website.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she appreciates the connection that providing housing keeps\npeople housed; one of the data points known is that it is more expensive to get people the\nservices needed after the trauma of losing housing occurs; Council will be looking at the\ninformation already collected and will review outcomes; many more services are required after\nsomeone becomes unhoused; many viewpoints will be represented; Council has done a lot to\nprovide relief through programs; expressed support for knowing the demand for needs as well\nas how much money has been provided for rent relief to-date and for hearing from AMP about\nhow many accounts are past-due or falling behind.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is proud of the City for undertaking the initiative; the matter\nis important and there is a role for the public to understand and be part of the solution; inquired\nthe plan for public education.\nThe Development Manager responded the plan is still in development; stated the community is\ninterested in learning about homelessness in Alameda; a webinar will be hosted Thursday, April\n8th at 6:30 p.m. to address the root causes of homelessness, discuss what the City is doing to\nhelp and provide resources; staff recognizes the effort will not be a one-time event and will\nrequest topics for future webinars.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the webinar is listed on the City's website, to which the\nDevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:52 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:05 p.m.\n***\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-230) The City Manager announced Alameda County entered into the Orange Tier last week\nallowing businesses to further open; stated there is a slight increase in COVID-19 cases in the\nBay Area; discussed vaccines; stated approximately 55% of people 16 and older and have\nreceived at least their first shot; Oakland Coliseum vaccine site continues to remain open with\nFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) support; announced a Webster Street Tube\nclosure; discussed an upcoming webinar for \"unsheltered in Alameda.\"\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-231) Consider Directing Staff to: 1) Provide an Update on Alameda Police Department\n(APD) Social Media Protocols and Communication Goals and Resume APD Social Media; 2)\nResume Use of Crime Mapping or a Comparable Alternative; and 3) Provide Any Necessary\nDirection on the Issues. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a motion is desired.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she is happy to make a motion; stated that\nshe would appreciate an update for APD's plan.\nDiscussed a training bulletin posted with a policy; stated the policy is lacking and reads like a\nsocial media strategy instead of a policy; the default Lexipol policy is also lacking; however, it\ngoes into more detail than what is proposed; the policy does not get into the depth of what is\nexpected to be covered for the content being created; the policy reads as though the strategy is\nto obtain more followers; expressed support for the creation of a policy: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated that she understands the need for APD to post on social media; she does not follow APD\non social media for a number of reasons; she has no knowledge of emergencies or local\nincidents unless the City sends out a Nixle alert or posts on a local Facebook group; she should\nnot have to follow APD specifically in order to be updated about supposed safety issues in the\nCity; she hopes Cold Pro media advisors is getting its money worth for suggestions, such as\nusing emojis; much of the policy content reads like having fun: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nStated the policy lacks teeth; the purpose of the policy is to stop specific types of posting and to\nbe more real about the types of posts made; the policy is more of a guide about how to get more\nfollowers and be a great Instagrammer or social media poster; she is sure the policy is not the\ntype of social policy desired; urged Council to dig deeper and do better; this policy is not good\nenough: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.\nStated the policy lacks teeth and reads as though there is an attempt to gain followers; the\ndiscussions around policing, equity and justice make the policy seem tone deaf; the community\nis calling for a more robust policy; urged Council take a second pass at the matter; stated this\ntype of policy should be run through a Police Oversight Committee; APD cannot be trusted to be\naccountable even based on Council recommendations, which is concerning: Laura Cutrona,\nAlameda.\nThe City Manager stated crime mapping, which is different from APD social media, was taken\ndown due to a software update; APD is moving to a different system; APD is in the middle of\nconverting data to the new system and the new map is projected to be up by next week.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated it would be nice to have an update on the status of\nNixle; she agrees that people should not have to follow APD's social media to receive alerts;\nthere are multiple concerns about the rigor of the proposed social media policy; expressed\nsupport for encouraging specific language being submitted for staff review; she will defer to staff\nabout when the matter can be updated; she will no longer move forward with the Council\nReferral.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is unsure how the proposed bulletin interacts with the\nother policies currently in place; it is clear that more than one person will be posting to social\nmedia; it is unclear what will be communicated; the City social media speaks on behalf of the\nCity and Council; expressed support for looking at communications goals to ensure topics being\ncommunicated are helping to inform the public; stated there are good examples about people\nneeding to be located; however, the matter becomes unclear when talking about posts related\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 11, "text": "to specific crimes that have already occurred; there needs to be clarity as to the reason things\nare being posted; due to posts, residents think assaults are up this year; however, they are\ndown from the previous year; car theft has gone up; Council should be discussing how to\nprevent car thefts; the communications goals as-written are mostly great; he does not know how\nstaff members can be expected to know what the City is asking to have communicated;\nexpressed support for providing direction that communications goals be fleshed out more in\nalignment with public comments and Council priorities.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council can depend on the professional judgement of the Police\nChief and Command staff, as well as the City Manager; he does not think it is a role of City\nCouncil to micromanage social media posts; expressed support for Councilmember Herrera\nSpencer putting on the pressure for APD to have the social media account up; noted there had\nbeen an indeterminate amount of time when APD's social media posts would be down; many\nresidents have shared their opinions about the matter; APD is paid a lot of money to do their\njobs; Council needs to focus on policy instead of telling the City Manager and Police Chief how\nto post to social media.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about how long APD social media posts were down\nand why posts returned.\nThe City Manager stated the policy direction was approved by the City Manager's Office and\nauthorization was given to put APD's social media back up last week.\nVice Mayor Vella stated data and oversight was just requested for people providing essential\nservices to prevent homelessness; she is shocked to hear a desire for extensive oversight for\nhomeless services and no oversight for APD; expressed concern about the type of information\nbeing shared and to whom; stated posts impact public perception and can cause people to\nbecome worried about things unnecessarily; Council should be careful about the information\nshared to ensure fear is not being caused when there is no reason to raise alarm; it is Council's\njob to weigh-in and create policies to ensure people are not misusing social media or following\naccounts that are propagating misinformation; there could be more to the proposed policy; the\npolicy is a step in the right direction; sections of the proposed policy are a huge improvement\nfrom what existed before; there is no clear direction about which accounts to follow or which\nposts to like and retweet; it is difficult to develop concise social media policies due to constantly\nchanging platforms; Council needs to have a more coherent overall structure City-wide for all\nsocial media.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the APD social media posts\nrelated to crimes because assaults are up 9.7% according to the Interim Police Chief; robberies\nare up 19%; auto thefts are at a 35 year high up 16% over the previous year; shootings are up\ndramatically; APD tips are helpful for the public to be aware of robberies, shootings and violent\ncrimes; numbers are significantly up and the data from the Interim Police Chief should be used.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated data is important when contextualized; in the previous year,\nassaults were the second lowest in 35 years; a year to year increase can occur; it is possible for\nincreases from the lowest point; trends should be tracked; trends differ from posting about 14\nassaults, which makes Alameda appear to be under a siege of assaults; Council can agree that\npeople need to be informed about what is happening; having the context to understand the\ninformation is important; he would rely heavily on the Police Chief and APD staff to provide both;\ncurrently, APD does not put out the information and context; outlined his push to have crime\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 12, "text": "reports included on the City's website; questioned how to provide information in a way which is\nuseful.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees in part with her Councilmembers; there are valid\npoints about the need to inform residents of crimes and how people can protect themselves;\nonly a fraction of attacks on Asian and Pacific Islander (API) are reported; expressed support for\na framework on reporting; stated there is a place for all good suggestions; Council has provided\ndirection to staff and that she looks forward to an updated policy coming back for further review.\n(21-232) Consider Directing Staff to: 1) Obtain All Emails Sent to apdreforms@gmail.com; 2)\nCreate Protocols for the Website, Email and Social Media; and 3) Provide Training to All\nEmployees who Post on the Website or Social Media or Staff City Bodies. (Councilmember\nHerrera Spencer)\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Clerk stated that her office has\nexperienced a higher than regular volume of Public Record Act (PRA) requests; many requests\nhave an extremely high volume of documents to produce; noted the City Clerk's Department\nperforms e-mail searches; stated there were under 40 email searches last year and are already\nover 20 this year; e-mail searches are one of the most involved record requests received.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is any hope on the horizon for PRA requests.\nThe City Clerk responded new PRA software is being reviewed to help streamline the PRA\nprocess; rolling out the software will take a little time; the software is used by the City of\nOakland and City of Berkeley.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the software will help with duplicative requests.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the software has many features such a\nkeyword search, which will help the public search for information as a request is being\nsubmitted.\nThe City Attorney stated the number of PRA requests received by the City Attorney's office are\nastronomically high; there has been an increase from an average of 50 requests per year to\nover 100; this years' request are already at 100 with 25 pending requests, each containing\nthousands, if not tens of thousands of documents to review; staff is doing the best they can with\nthe limited resources available; requests will be responded to in a timely manner to the extent\npossible on a first come, first served basis; the requests will take a lot of time, especially due to\nmultiple requests each day containing thousands of documents; he asks for the public's\npatience in the process.\nDiscussed the Open Government Commission (OGC) meeting; stated the balancing test for\nPRA requests determine whether or not releasing the records contributes to the overall public\ndiscussion; there has been discussion about redacting records pertaining to minors; urged the\nCity to be cautious in releasing records that can potentially make people in the community\ntargets or more vulnerable to Police harm, especially minors: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 13, "text": "Stated that she understood the subcommittees would report directly to the City Manager or to\nthe Steering Committee; the subcommittees did not fall under the Brown Act; a continued\nrequest for e-mails is questionable: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.\nDiscussed his experience as part of the Jackson Park Renaming Committee; stated that he was\nsurprised to see his name and other names on a Next Door thread post related to crime; the\npost indicated the park renaming and crime were related; discussed a threatening sign posted\nat the park directed at him; stated that his understanding of the PRA requests is not so much\nabout what is shared, but how; he is disappointed that a Councilmember posted names; he is\ncurious to know the intention behind the actions; urged people be safe and balancing is done\nwith people's privacy and safety; expressed support for effective government without making\nvoluminous requests to slow down processes: Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated it seems there are two separate motions embedded in the\nCouncil Referral; one has to do with e-mails to a gmail account; the second is having a policy\ngoing forward; expressed support for having two motions.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is making a motion, to which\nCouncilmember Daysog responded in the negative; stated that he will defer to Councilmember\nHerrera Spencer.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of creating training and a protocol for the\nCity's website, e-mails and social media; stated it is important to use a City e-mail for City\nbusiness.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated it is still his position that Council should not\ndig into the weeds of the website; the matter is similar to the social media item; he will not\noppose the motion; however, he will need to remain consistent.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nNo. Ayes: 1. Noes: 3. Abstention: 1.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her understanding is staff is making efforts to get\ne-mails compiled; she wants to ensure that all e-mails are included in the request.\nCouncilmember Knox White requested clarification about the e-mail production; noted the City\nreceived the e-mail account information.\nThe City Manager stated staff has received the e-mail information and downloaded all e-mails\nfrom the gmail account; the e-mails are going through the PRA review process in the City\nAttorney's Office; there are e-mails to staff for information requests; staff e-mails are already\ngoing through the PRA review process; the gmail account was used in order to have a\ncentralized place; most of the City Boards and Commissions do not have a City e-mail and use\na personal e-mail; staff recommended a centralized account due to the sensitivity of the\nCommittee; the e-mail copied the City Manager e-mail account in correspondence.\nThe City Attorney stated staff has received over 2,000 e-mails plus innumerable attachments;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 14, "text": "the matter is in line to be reviewed and is in the back of the queue due to the amount of\ndocuments; it will be quite some time before staff is able to get to the request.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has informed Councilmember Herrera Spencer\nabout having the e-mails.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated he communicated to both\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer and the other PRA request after the Council Referral was\nsubmitted.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated it has not been confirmed whether or not e-mails have\nbeen deleted; she would like e-mails retrieved if emails were deleted; staff has not addressed\nthe point about deleted e-mails, which is a concern; a gmail account is not a City e-mail\naccount; when PRA requests are made, the City needs access to all records; there has been no\nstatement from the City about whether or not e-mails have been deleted.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about where the matter is leading; stated members of\nvarious Boards and Commissions are volunteers; questioned whether there will be PRA\nrequests for members' private e-mail accounts; discussed members deleting personal e-mails;\nquestioned whether a member of the public has a right to file a PRA request for access to\ninformation from personal e-mail accounts related to matters presented at the OGC, Planning\nBoard or any other Board or Commission; questioned how to go about verifying whether or not\ne-mails have been deleted from personal accounts; stated the matter seems to be a slippery\nslope; requested clarification from the City Attorney about where the matter is leading Council;\nstated there are many volunteers working in civil engagement on Boards and Commissions that\nare not given a City e-mail address and documents are received by said volunteers at times;\ninquired the implications.\nThe City Attorney responded staff's recommendation for conducting City business is to use a\nCity e-mail address; stated a City e-mail is the easiest way for the Information Technology (IT)\nDepartment to download information; staff recognizes there are times where City officials end\nup using private e-mails; outlined a City of San Jose case; stated when City officials receive City\ninformation on private e-mails, the Supreme Court made clear that the City may make a request\nto the private individuals private e-mail for information asking the public official to certify that\nthey have provided all information to the City; the subcommittee gmail address is a novel issue\nof law; the gmail address is not associated with any individual and was created for one purpose:\nCity communications; the City has requested the password so that all e-mails may be\ndownloaded; the City Attorney's office is happy to review all information received.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the gmail address was posted on the City's website; the issue\nraised by Councilmember Herrera Spencer is unique to the situation; the issue raised by Vice\nMayor Vella is separate; the City Attorney has reflected that City officials may have to provide\nprivate e-mail transmittals to the extent that the transmittals have public aspects; the information\nis valuable; expressed support for providing the e-mails; Council is depending on the City\nManager and staff to properly vet certain situations; he prefers not to tell people website\nprotocols or how the website should look; the case being raised is valid; the account created\nshould not have been a gmail account; a City e-mail account should have been created with\nclear rules regarding the public's ability to access information and should have been an obvious\nchoice.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 15, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a process ongoing to obtain the e-mails; PRA requests are\nalso voluminous and records will not be produced instantaneously.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is looking forward to staff ensuring the issue\ndoes not happen again and fulfilling the PRA request.\n(21-233) Consider Directing Staff to Provide an Update on the Status of Banning Gas Leaf\nBlowers in Alameda. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP) includes\nbanning gas powered leaf blowers as a one to two year priority, which implementation of the\nban in years three and four; the matter is on the list of things to do; however, it has fallen down\nthe list for a number of reasons; staff is working on building electrification; the General Plan\nupdate is happening; staff is also working on a number of Transportation Planning objectives;\nwith respect to climate action and the greenhouse gas impacts coming from different topic\nareas, the ban is quite small; however, it does not mean the matter is non-consequential; there\nare quality of life and air quality matters; staff could move the matter up the list after building\nelectrification; building electrification work will come before Council in May or June.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the matter is under the CARP, which was voted on by\nCouncil in the previous month.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the CARP annual report was presented; however, the\nban is not prioritized in the annual report; staff is going after bigger greenhouse gas emission\nareas; the CARP has multiple phases; staff members are working on a range of climate related\nitems; phasing was designed around a different staff level; staff is trying to take big bites where\npossible in order to make larger impacts; the matter is a quality of life issue for many people and\ncomes with equity and small business impacts as well; the process will require significant\noutreach and communication with a phased approach to manage impacts over a period of time.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City uses gas powered leaf blowers.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded that he does not know; stated City contracts with some\nprivate landscapers.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he has spoken with the Recreation and Parks Director\nand has been told the City does not use gas powered leaf blowers; the City does use gas\npowered lawn mowers; use was discontinued roughly a year and a half ago; the matter was part\nof the conversation about the CARP work plan last month; he is not inclined to re-order Council\npriorities; he has spoken numerous times with the Assistant City Manager and understands\nCouncil will see something near the end of the year, unless Council finds other things a higher\npriority; expressed support for moving forward sticking with the already outlined priorities.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he regularly hears from residents about gas powered leaf\nblowers, which is a concern for residents; there is an issue about when leaf blowing begins in\nthe morning; expressed support for proceeding however Councilmember Herrera Spencer\nwould like.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when the City of Alameda anticipates the start of a\nban.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded staff is trying to get new building electrification work\ncompleted, which will allow staff to turn to the next priority; if Council takes action on new\nbuilding electrification this Summer, staff can move onto gas powered leaf blowers and other\npriorities in the CARP.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the ban will begin in fall.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded staff can start the process later in the year; the matter\nwill come down to how Council wants to proceed in terms of timing; staff will work with the\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department; there will be a lot of community concerns; he\ndoes not want to put a date on the matter; however, the process will start later this year and\nmove forward as efficiently as possible.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated after the building electrification work is complete, Council should\ndirect staff to focus efforts on the leaf blower issue.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council is now trying to place the leaf blower ban ahead of the Active\nTransportation Plan, the General Plan update and parking ordinance amendments; Council\ndiscussed the matter last month and came up with an ordering of priorities; she understands\nCouncil is hearing from people; however, Council is also hearing about issues related to safe,\nmultimodal transit and the need for housing; she is not inclined to change the order of priorities\nCouncil set last month.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like clarification; noted Council might be discussing\nresponsibilities of different departments; inquired whether the matter cuts across departments;\nstated Council will have to take a vote in order to reorder Council-set priorities.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the matter falls under the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Department; stated the matter will come through as an ordinance and will need\nto be regulated by Code Enforcement going forward; Vice Mayor Vella is correct; the annual\nreport prioritized other topics ahead of gas powered leaf blowers; noted due to staff time and\nefficiency, staff prioritized gas powered leaf blowers lower; staff hears the Council concerns;\nplacing gas powered leaf blowers higher as a priority would take away from other priorities\nbeing handled by the Department.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the matter was originally raised and approved in 2018; the\nmatter has not been followed up on; looking at the matter from said vantage point shows other\nmatters cut ahead in priority.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council must look at the matter from a number of different vantage\npoints; there is more to consider than just chronological order; Council must consider what is\nknown about global warming and climate change; buildings are a larger source of greenhouse\ngas emissions; significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions can occur the sooner\nbuilding electrification begins; the Department is not as large as they could be and does a lot;\nCouncil will make smart choices.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated some things take longer because they are a lower priority;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 17, "text": "Council sets priorities; four Councilmembers placed the matter in the CARP in 2019;\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer voted against the annual report; however, four\nCouncilmembers approved the work plan the Planning, Building and Transportation Department\nhas a lot on its plate with big projects that have been worked on for years; Council needs to\nrespect the timelines put forth by staff; the matter is in the CARP; there is a commitment to have\nthe work start by the end of the year; there will be workshops in the coming months to allow\npriorities to shift if needed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has heard that staff hopes to look at the matter\nby the end of the year; some Councilmembers have concerns; she hopes Council will support\nthe Assistant City Manager's comments about starting the process by the end of the year and\nproviding an update.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the matter returning to Council sometime\nin the fall with an update on implementation.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-234) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed the Coast Guard and National Guard\nhelping to provide vaccinations at the Oakland Coliseum; announced that she is eligible to\nreceive the vaccine and used the myturn.ca.gov website to make an appointment.\n(21-235) Councilmember Knox White stated the BuzzFeed article raises significant and\ncontinuing concerns that Council and the City need to address; discussed staff leaving the City;\nstated that he would like to see a plan or report come back in the next month about how the City\nand Council are going to address clear, repeated and continuing concerns of staff not following\nCity policy, not honoring City values and things which are troubling that have happened in the\nlast year; Council has a good opportunity with the new Police Chief hire to be chosen in the near\nfuture to reset and refresh; discussed problems with former Command staff posting troubling\ncontent on social media, facial recognition software being used after Council passed a policy not\nto use it and Council unanimously deciding to sell an armored vehicle while the vehicle\ncontinued to be used; stated a former Police Chief changed protocols for responses to\ncommunity concerns; stated there needs to be a stand down to get everyone on the same page;\nCouncil cannot continue to allow policy to be ignored; the issue is big and needs to be\naddressed.\n(21-236) Councilmember Daysog stated that he hopes City staff does not move forward on\nanything until a Council Referral is brought; a lot of things might be incorrect and some things\nmight be correct; the comments made have been an explosive and point a damning finger at\nAPD; it would be incorrect for the City Manager or staff to move forward on the comments\nmade; if a Councilmember wants to do anything about matters discussed, a Council Referral\nshould be brought forth; discussed former President Roosevelt and congress in the years\nleading up to World War II.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Council is getting into Brown Act territory if three Councilmembers\ndiscuss the same topic.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-04-06", "page": 18, "text": "(21-237) Vice Mayor Vella discussed Youth Activists of Alameda and others who helped\naddress the rise in hate crimes and violence against the Asian-American Pacific Islander (API)\ncommunity during a vigil; stated community members do not feel comfortable or safe moving\nthroughout the community and all over the Country due to being targeted; outlined her\nexperience with micro and direct aggressions relative to her race; expressed support for\nresponse from the City related to comments made at the meeting.\n(21-238) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft displayed posters from the Alameda County District Attorney's\nspecial hate crimes task force; stated the head of the task force came to the first rally in front of\nCity Hall; posters are available in Chinese, English and Spanish and are available by e-mailing:\nshenry@alamedaca.gov; made an announcement about a vaccine clinic on April 17th at Mastick\nSenior Center.\n(21-239) Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed gratitude for City staff in efforts to serve\nthe community; stated it is important to thank staff for their work.\n(21-240) Mayor's Nominations for Appointments to the Housing Authority Board of\nCommissioners and Recreation and Park Commission.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Philly Jones and Alice Nguyen for appointment to the\nRecreation and Park Commission.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nApril 06, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf"}