{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-JUNE 15, 2021--5:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:02 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was\nheld via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe following Public Comment was read into the record:\n(21-394) Mitzi Richardson, Alameda, urged Council to discontinue the lease with Astra\nSpace, Inc. and not sell property to Astra Space, Inc.; discussed impacts on the\nneighborhood; questioned whether testing has been conducted on materials released\ninto the air; expressed concern about the possible negative impacts to foundational\nstructures and the water supply systems.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(21-395) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Properties: 1770 Viking Street, Alameda Point (Building 170), 1900\nSkyhawk Street, Alameda Point (Building 360), and 1770 Orion Street, Alameda Point\n(Building 372); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager; Lisa Maxwell, Community\nDevelopment Director; Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director,\nand Ted Anderson, Cushman and Wakefield; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and\nAstra Space, Inc.; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for The Potential\nSale of The Property.\n(21-396) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54957; Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Eric Levitt.\n(21-397) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54957; Positions Evaluated: City Attorney - Yibin Shen.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Real Property, staff provided information and Council\nprovided direction with no vote taken; regarding City Manager, no action and no vote\nwas taken; regarding City Attorney, the City Council voted to authorize two changes to\nthe City Attorney employment agreement so that the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)\ndate and vacation accruals be consistent with the rest of the City's Executive\nManagement team; the agreement will be amended to allow 80 hours of unused\nvacation time; the Human Resources Director will return to Council with the contract\namendments in the near future; said direction was approved by the following roll call\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 2, "text": "vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:06\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY--JUNE 15, 2021 - -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair\nEzzy\nAshcraft\nconvened\nthe\nmeeting\nat\n7:23\np.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\nHerrera\nSpencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy\nAshcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll\ncall vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox\nWhite: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-398 CC/21-13 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC\nMeeting Held on June 1, 2021. Approved.\n(*21-399 CC/21-14 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the\nQuarter Ending March 31, 2021. Accepted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-400 CC) Public Hearing to Establish the Proposition 4 (Appropriations) Limit for\nFiscal Year 2021-22; and\n(21-400 A CC) Resolution No. 15781, \"Establishing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal\nYear 2021-22.\" Adopted.\nThe Senior Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the staff\nrecommendation [including adoption of the resolution].\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by\nthe following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera\nSpencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes:\n5.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\n1\nJune 15, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 4, "text": "(21-401 CC) Resolution No. 15782, \"Approving and Adopting the Operating and Capital\nBudget for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2021-22 and 2022-23.\" Adopted;\n(21-15 SACIC) Resolution No. 21-12, \"Approving and Adopting the Budget for FYs\n2021-22 and 2022-23\"; and\n(21-401 A CC) Resolution No. 15783, \"Approving Workforce Changes and Amending\nthe Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule in\nFYs 2021-22 and 2022-23 Effective July 1, 2021.' Adopted.\nThe Finance Director made brief comments.\nThe Senior Management Analyst and Supervising Senior Engineer gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nCouncilmember/Commissione Knox White requested confirmation that the staff\nrecommendation is consistent with direction given at the previous workshops, to which\nthe Finance Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the $200,000 park\nmaintenance budget is for the resurfacing of tennis and pickle ball courts and whether\nthe Recreation and Park Commission will weigh-in and provide recommendations.\nThe Supervising Senior Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated the increase in\nfunding is for park improvements, with specific projects to be determined at a later date.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Knox White stated that he would like to clarify the\nfunding is not specifically for tennis and pickle ball court resurfacing; the funding is for\nprojects identified by the Recreation and Park Commission, which could be beyond the\nresurfacing.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella expressed support for the clarification.\nUrged $250,000 in funding for the master planning of DePave Park; outlined benefits of\nthe Park: Linda Carloni, Golden Gate Audubon Society.\nStated there is a disconnect relative to direction previously provided by Council on\nPolice Reform and Equity; several important matters in an upcoming matter include\nbudget applications with no allocated funds, which is an important step in implementing\nthe Subcommittee recommendations; urged funding be allocated now: Jacqueline\nZipkin, Transform Alameda.\nStated there is lack of funding in the budget for the Police Accountability Committee; the\nrecommendations provided by the Steering Committee have been approved by Council;\nfunding should be included in the proposed budget; urged Council to amend the\nproposed budget: Lorin Laiacona Salem, Alameda.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n2\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJune 15, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 5, "text": "Stated that he would like to see the recommendations of the Steering Committees be\nfully funded; discussed the death of Mario Gonzalez; stated 42% of Police funding goes\ntoward incidents where Police are not needed; Police should be out of the way of\nMental Health responders when a public safety risk is not present; the City needs to\nmove faster in funding the programs to ensure no one else is hurt or killed: Josh Geyer,\nAlameda.\nDiscussed results from the Transform Alameda People's Budget survey: Laura Cutrona,\nAlameda.\nStated the budget has come back without Council direction included; she is unsure\nwhether there is a miscommunication: she is frustrated to see the budget come up with\nnone of the Subcommittees proposals; she has not seen anything implemented from the\nSteering Committee; the people have spoken and showed up to do the work: Melodye\nMontgomery, Alameda.\nStated spending shapes well-being, quality of life, and safety; the Nation has been\nushered into a new era where communities are forced to reckon with racism and Police\nviolence; Alameda is no different; discussed the death of Mario Gonzalez; stated over\nhalf of 911 calls are non-criminal in nature; Police calls which involve mental health,\nsubstance use or homelessness should be diverted to a community based mental\nhealth professional response; urged the Police budget be decreased: Debra Mendoza,\nAlameda.\nStated the proposed ideas and recommendations from Transform Alameda are not new;\nthe matters have been discussed for over a year; urged Council to take immediate\naction and prioritizes accordingly; stated there is a debate about how to spend money\ninstead of creating immediate change and impact: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.\nStated unbundling of Police means shifting resources and money out of the Police\nDepartment to other services in conjunction with law enforcement, not separately:\nMarilyn Rothman, Alameda.\nUrged Council to include funding in the current year to develop the Master Plan for\nDePave Park; stated the matter is important for the City and is forward-looking; the Park\nis a proactive approach to dealing with climate change and associated sea-level rise;\nthe park will be an important investment for the City: Henrich Albert, Alameda.\nStated that he is upset the Subcommittees work has not been reflected in the budget; it\nis upsetting to have worked many hours on the recommendations with nothing changed\nor reflected in the budget; questioned the reason for continuing to fund Policing when\nthe community has specifically mandated that mental health resources be funded;\nstated that he is upset to see Police funding go up: Vinny Camarillo, Alameda.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\n3\nJune 15, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 6, "text": "Stated that she is disappointed and confused by the budget proposal; the need for\ndramatic changes was made clear last year; changes are to ensure the safety and well-\nbeing for all; noted prior Council approvals; stated the budget does not convey a\nseriousness and is frustrating; expressed concern about only two options being\nproposed: the Felton Institute and Fire Department; stated that she does not think the\nCity should go with the Felton Institute at this time due to Police involvement: Eve\nGordon, Alameda.\nStated there is a lot of momentum for change; the budget falls short; discussed her\nfamily member being the victim of a crime; stated that she did not feel comforted or\nsupported by the response provided; there is deeper work to be done; urged Council\nlook deeper at the work of the Subcommittees: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nExpressed support for including the DePave Park Master Plan in the budget; stated the\nPark is envisioned to be a wetlands education park for impacts of sea-level rise; the\nPark will be a jewel of the City; discussed redevelopment of the area surrounding\nDePave Park; stated there is a unique opportunity for the Park to receive funding from\nthe San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority; previous funding attempts have been\ndenied since the City has not provided funding; urged Council to approve funding in\norder to demonstrate City support: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a Sustainable\nAlameda (CASA).\nExpressed gratitude towards the City Manager's Office for information on the budget\nprocess; stated the budget remains largely the same as the prior year; there were not\nmany changes to the budget; the budget is a two-year process; urged Council to make\nchanges: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nMayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft requested the City Manager address questions and\nconcerns raised by public comment.\nThe City Manager stated about $1.3 million has been added to alternative policing,\nmental health, and the Police audit function; recommendations from the Subcommittees\nhave been included in the budget; the money has not been specifically placed into\nprograms, but is available for access moving forward; staff has budgeted for the Crime\nAnalyst position and homeless programs; there will be access to American Rescue Plan\nAct (ARPA) funds, as well as contingency funds, that can be reallocated when needed;\nsavings within the Police Department fund can be reallocated when necessary.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella stated it is important to clarify in plain terms for those\nnot familiar with the budgeting process; if items are not included in the budget, Council\ncan always amend expenditures; upcoming matters may include direction to use City\nfunds from various funding streams; it is important to address questions directly;\nexpressed support for participation from the public in the upcoming agenda matters;\ninquired whether funding for DePave Park will be part of the discussion.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n4\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJune 15, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 7, "text": "The City Manager responded the $200,000, as well as grant funds, could be used for\nDePave Park.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated the intention for the $200,000 each year is for\nthe Recreation and Park Commission and staff to determine current facility and\nrecreation needs as requested by the community; she has presented matters such as\nthe tennis courts and skate parks; while she strongly supports DePave Park, it is not the\ncurrent intention; Council may direct staff to discuss the matter at the Recreation and\nPark Commission level; staff will apply for a grant for DePave park; allocating funding\ntowards DePave Park will help the grant process by showing the City's support;\nallocating funding is not required; however, the funding will create a more competitive\napplication; stated the Master Plan will not be completed prior to the grant application in\nOctober.\nMayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how much funding is needed in order to be\nconsidered competitive in the grant process for DePave Park.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the question is difficult to answer; stated\na six figure amount is helpful; however, it may not need to be as much as $250,000; a\nsmaller amount such as $50,000 to 100,000 could prove helpful; she does not have a\nstrong sense since matching funding are not a requirement; the grant program\nappreciates seeing committed funding.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated there are things to like and dislike about\nthe budget process; expressed support for the budget; stated that he appreciates the\nallocation of $200,000 per year for recreation facilities; the funding is an opportunity for\npeople to work with the Recreation and Park Commission and make a case for uses;\nexpressed support for continuing the process going forward; stated DePave Park is at\nthe master plan level; there are other immediate funding needs; he would like to work\nwith Council to find different ways of funding DePave Park; expressed support for\nsetting aside money for implementing alternatives to policing; stated Council is following\nthrough on the issues raised by Subcommittees in significant ways.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella moved approval of the budget [including adoption of\nthe resolutions] with clarity and direction for a community-led process relative to parks.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella; stated the Recreation and Parks Department is trying\nto facilitate the discussion with Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) residents and CASA;\nshe is supportive if the discussions yield a need to utilize funding towards DePave Park;\nexpressed support for adding clarity about allowing the Recreation and Parks Director to\nutilize Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funding.\nMayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the motion made clearly with\ndiscussion to follow.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\n5\nJune 15, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 8, "text": "Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella stated that she would like to clarify\nthe Recreation and Parks Director work with the Recreation and Park Commission,\nunderstanding that there is already an effort underway to involve and have community-\nled discussion regarding DePave Park; there is potential for additional allocation to the\nCIP if it is recommended through the discussion process.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer stated the budget is comprehensive;\nexpressed support for the community input; stated budget concerns have been\naddressed in the public comments; the budget is reflective of the City's priorities; there\nhave been many compromises on the proposed budget; she will not be supporting the\nbudget; she is not on the same page after the pandemic; funding mental health is\nimportant; she would have liked the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) and\nAlameda Family Services requests to be fully funded; she advocated for more funding\ntowards the Recreation and Parks Department; mental and physical health have been\ncompromised in the past 12 to 15 months; she expects to see more side effects moving\nforward; expressed support for $250,000 for DePave Park planning; stated there are not\nsufficient funds in the Recreation and Parks Department budget; expressed concern\nabout the Fire Department Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response\n(SAFER) grant positions being transferred to the General Fund; outlined the funding;\nstated reserves are being depleted; stated Council should spend more time looking at\npension contributions; a significant amount goes towards employees, benefits, pensions\nand unfunded pension liabilities; it would be more appropriate to use deficit spending\ntowards mental and physical health and recreation, including DePave Park; DePave\nPark is a priority; she thinks Council will come up with a way to fund the project; if\nCouncil is serious about climate action, it is appropriate to fund DePave Park; the\nRecreation and Parks Director has previously applied for a grant for DePave Park;\nstated the previous attempt was denied; the grant is critical; she does not expect the\ngrant to be successful until the City dedicates funding; she would have liked to have\nseen scholarships for Recreation and Parks activities; there is a greater demand for\nscholarships; the City is using reserves, which should be spent on community members,\nincluding Library and ambulatory services; discussed ambulance services; stated\nCouncil should look at the ambulance expenditures.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Knox White stated staff has done a good job of\ncoalescing everything into an agreed upon budget.\nMayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on fully funding the mental health\nservices request from AUSD and Alameda Family Services.\nThe City Manager stated the City has allocated $125,000.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n6\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJune 15, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the amount is what was requested.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and\nSchool District representatives raised $75,000 and needed $25,000 to fund a position;\nstated the remaining $100,000 will be used to support both the school and families; the\nprogram will help, not only AUSD, but other students across the community, plus family\nneeds; the PTA contribution is not necessarily in place for the second year; the funding\nfor the second year is still in question; $125,000 has been set aside in both years for\nmental health related items; staff will come before Council to address year two.\nMayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not see funding for Village of Love in\nthe second year; inquired the reason for not funding both years.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the funding is addressed under Police Reform item;\nfunding sources come from a number of different areas.\nMayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she respects and wants to honor the work of the\nCity Boards and Commissions; Boards and Commissions do important work on behalf\nof the City and Council; expressed support for the work of the Recreation and Parks\nDirector and the Recreation and Park Commission.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would want the $200,000 per year dedicated to\nimproving active recreational amenities and infrastructure, such as pickle ball or bicycle\nmotocross (BMX); Council must look at the bigger picture; using some of the money as\nmatching funds for grants would lessen the amount available for active recreational\nuses; expressed support for the compromise made and for the budget; outlined\nprevious discussions related to the SAFER grant and funding; stated the SAFER grant\nis exhausted and is now being back-filled with General Fund money; Council must make\nthe difficult decisions; the City is moving in the right direction and has larger issues to\ndeal with, such as revamping the pension funding policy.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n8:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\n7\nJune 15, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 10, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-JUNE 15,2021--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:40 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nThe meeting was conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(21-402) Proclamation Declaring the Month of June 2021 as Elder Abuse Awareness\nMonth.\n(21-403) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read a proclamation declaring June 19, 2021 as\nJuneteenth Day.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-404) Paul Foreman, Alameda, discussed a petition on change.org urging the\nopposition of Senate Bills 9, 10, and 478, and Assembly Bill 1322; stated 272\nAlamedans have signed the petition; outlined Senate Bill 9; stated Alameda is\nregistered as a supporter of the bill, while 63 cities and the League of California Cities\noppose the bill; outlined Senate Bills 10 and 478 and Assembly Bill 1322; urged Council\noppose the bills.\n(21-405) Ella Halisky, Alameda, discussed cat de-clawing practices being animal cruelty\nand a petition to end the procedure; urged Alameda Municipal Code Section 7-91 be\namended to add language stating: \"No one can remove healthy tissue, especially with\nbone, from an animals paw except a licensed veterinarian. It shall not be allowed for the\nsake of convenience or handling of an animal. A licensed veterinarian can only perform\nthe surgery for physical, therapeutic reasons such as a tumor, an uncontrollable\ninfection, or non-healing trauma. ; The enforcement penalty is a fine of $1,000 for the\nfirst offense, $1,500 for the second and $2,500 for the third offense.'\n(21-406) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, discussed challenging the Regional Housing Needs\nAllocation (RHNA) numbers; stated the deadline for challenging RHNA numbers is July\n9th; the Council and the Planning Board have not provided any challenge; Council has\nobjected to challenging the RHNA numbers; the timing has been misleading; urged\nCouncil put money towards acquiring affordable housing locations; discussed Assembly\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 11, "text": "Bill 1401 and Senate Bill 10.\n(21-407) Zac Bowling, Alameda, discussed Senate Bill 9 and the State budget for the\nHousing Accountability Act; stated Senate Bill 10 provisions do not count for Home\nOwners Associations; expressed support for Senate Bill 9; stated Assembly Bill 1401\nremoves mandatory parking minimums; the City needs to do its part within the State to\nhelp end the housing affordability crisis.\n(21-408) Josh Geyer, Alameda, expressed support for Senate Bills 9, 10, 478 and\nAssembly Bills 1322 and 1401; discussed vehicle carbon emissions in California and\nhousing accessibility to transit; expressed support for mitigating carbon emissions by\nbuilding housing in Alameda to allow people to get out of their cars and use transit.\n(21-409) Eve Gordon, Alameda, expressed support for new laws at the State level;\ndiscussed dividing, selling and developing her property; stated more housing and\nopportunities to become home owners should be created; expressed concern about\npeople clinging to the idea of keeping others out of the City; stated creating a\ncommunity is the way forward.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nStated tenant eviction protections are unreasonable; expressed concern about renters\nhaving higher income: Lily.\nExpressed support for Council enacting local emergency protections; stated the actions\nhave protected local residents from calamities; the COVID-19 emergency is nearing an\nend; however, there are virus variants; noted businesses have not gotten back to full\nstaffing and many people are still on unemployment; discussed frozen unemployment\npayments; urged Council extend the protections for a longer period: Toni Grimm,\nAlameda Renters Coalition.\nDiscussed questions submitted about the declaration of local emergency and COVID-19\nvaccines; read information on bioethics and human rights by the United Nations\nEducational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): Fey Adelstein, Alameda.\nQuestioned funding the Alameda-Oakland Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge; stated the project\nlists 6,000 pedestrian and bicycle crossings per-day for the new bridge; roughly 100\npeople currently walk or bike the current access-way per day; inquired about the\ndisaster recovery backup plan; stated the matter deserves more public scrutiny and\ndiscussion; stated the City has some of the lowest COVID-19 cases in the Bay Area;\nquestioned when City Hall, Council meetings and the Permit Center would be open to\nthe public: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.\nThe Agreement with Lang, Hansen, Giroux & Kidane [paragraph no. 21-412], the legal\nnotice contract [paragraph no. 21-414], the resolution for the Alameda-Oakland Bicycle-\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 12, "text": "Pedestrian Bridge project grant [paragraph no. 21-417 and the resolution declaring a\nlocal emergency [paragraph no. 21-418 were removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by\nan asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-410) Minutes of the Special Meetings Held on May 8, 2021 May 11, 2021, and May\n18, 2021, and the Regular Meeting Held on May 18, 2021. Approved.\n(*21-411) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,001, 199.84.\n(21-412) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Nine-Month\nService Provider Agreement with Lang, Hansen, Giroux & Kidane, a California General\nPartnership, Substantially the Same as Exhibit 1, in an Amount Not to Exceed $90,000\nfor Legislative Advocacy/Governmental Relations Services Relating to the Surplus Land\nAct.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the City Manager stated the\nprevious funding was for last fiscal year; the current funding is for the coming calendar\nyear.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the previous approved amount, to which the\nCity Manager responded $90,000.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been changes to the Surplus Lands\nAct; Alameda Point is considered surplus land; the City is hiring a consultant to\nadvocate that Alameda Point not be subject to the Surplus Lands Act; properties that\nare subject to the Surplus Lands Act prioritize the use for affordable housing; stated that\nshe will be voting no on the matter; she would like to see more affordable housing at\nAlameda Point and throughout the City; it is okay to have Alameda Point be subject to\nthe Surplus Lands Act; the City previously approved other properties at Alameda Point\nbeing subject to the Surplus Lands Act; expressed concern about continuing to spend\nmoney opposing the Surplus Lands Act.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 13, "text": "(*21-413) Recommendation to Authorize the City Attorney to Execute a Three Year\nAgreement With the Option to Extend for Two Additional Years, with LWP Claims\nSolutions, Inc. for Professional Services as the Third Party Administrator (TPA) of the\nCity of Alameda's Self-Insured Workers' Compensation Program in an Amount Not to\nExceed $1,145,879 for Five Years, Plus Related Charges, and Authorize Budget\nAmendments for the Fiscal Years (FYs) 2021-22 and 2022-23 Biennial Operating\nBudget by Increasing the Workers' Compensation Services Line Item by $25,000 for FY\n2021-22 and $30,450 for FY 2022-23. Accepted.\n(21-414) Recommendation to Award a Contract for the Publication of Legal Notices for\nFiscal Year 2021-22.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the Alameda Sun having higher rates\nacross the board versus Alameda Journal; stated Council has favored awarding the\ncontract to the Alameda Sun in previous years; she is not opposed to supporting local\nbusinesses; however, there is Council responsibility for expenditure of funds; there are\ngrants for small businesses; the circulation of Alameda Journal is greater than Alameda\nSun; the Alameda Sun has decreased circulation and increased online readership; she\ncannot support spending the money to get half the service; should could support the\nAlameda Sun if the contract amount was reduced.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council had the same discussion one year ago; he\npreviously requested the circulation numbers; there has been challenge in seeing\nAlameda Sun increase circulation numbers; the decision is difficult; the difference in\ncirculation is pronounced; legal notices have to get out to the public; the easy way out\nwould be to split the difference with 50% going to Alameda Sun and 50% going to\nAlameda Journal; Council must make the difficult choice and render a service to the\npublic; the Alameda Journal is delivered to his neighborhood once per week; he will join\nthe Mayor in not supporting the award of contract to Alameda Sun.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of awarding the contract to the\nAlameda Sun.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he understands the numbers\nare big; expressed concern about the numbers not telling who is reading; stated that his\nexperience is people keeping up with City business read the Alameda Sun versus\nAlameda Journal; the figures are not perfect coming out of a difficult year of COVID-19.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the year of COVID-19 has been difficult for many locally-\nowned businesses; she is not aware whether the Alameda Sun has been able to avail\nitself of any State or City grants; she wants to support local businesses in appropriate\nways.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 14, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the discrepancy in costs; stated the costs\nare rather large; questioned the potential alternative being proposed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated if the rates had been the same, she would be happy to\naward the local business entity the contract; she cannot vote in good conscience to\naward the contract for twice as much and half the service to the Alameda Sun.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff has inquired the reason for the large difference\nin overall costs even with lower circulation.\nThe City Clerk responded since adjudication, the Alameda Sun has consistently been\nthe higher bidder for the proposal; stated the rates submitted with the bid for Alameda\nSun have always exceeded the Alameda Journal; noted the bids are the same as the\nprevious year with no increase or decrease.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the comparison between the two companies is significant; the\nAlameda Sun costs twice as much as Alameda Journal; expressed concern about a\nsimilar discussion occurring last year; stated that she is concerned about such a large\ndifference in cost; the City is ultimately being asked to subsidize the local paper based\non the cost; noted the cost may not be due to service being provided.\nThe City Clerk stated Alameda Journal is part of a pool with legal ad serving multiple\npapers, whereas the Alameda Sun does not; there is a savings due to the Alameda\nJournal servicing more than one paper, versus the Alameda Sun being a standalone\npaper.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is concerned the Alameda Sun is not printing as often\nduring the pandemic; inquired whether lessened printing had impact on legal notices.\nThe City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the Alameda Sun printed each week;\nnoted the circulation number went down due to the pandemic.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is possible the cost are so high due to the City's previous\nwillingness to pay; if the costs were comparable, she would consider awarding the\ncontract to the local paper; she does not support a cost which is twice the amount at a\nlower circulation; legal notices serve an important purpose.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of awarding the contract to the Alameda\nJournal.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 15, "text": "Under discussion, Councilmember Vella expressed concern about the overall circulation\nnumbers; stated Council has not received a response to the reason for lower circulation;\nnoted circulation numbers have dropped in the last year.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to help the local publication; the\ndiscrepancies are too large.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: No; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(*21-415) Resolution No. 15784, \"Designating Consultants and Authorizing and\nDirecting Actions Related to the Issuance of Special Tax Bonds for Community Facilities\nDistrict No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements). Adopted.\n(*21-416) Resolution No. 15785, \"Approving Funding the Pavement Management\nProject Through the State of California's Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account\nfor Fiscal Year 2021-22.\" Adopted.\n(21-417) Resolution No. 15786, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute\nAgreements to Accept and Allocate $1,555,000 in Grant Funds from the Alameda\nCounty Transportation Commission to Complete a Project Initiation Document for the\nAlameda-Oakland Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge Project.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City is going out for funds to look at the feasibility of\nthe bike bridge; he has had concerns about the bike bridge for some time; Council\npreviously discussed looking into Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC)\nfunding for the study; the City has performed its own studies and posted information on\nthe website; the cost of the bicycle-pedestrian bridge is enormous and as large as the\nimprovements being made to the Posey Tube; the Posey Tube project is mostly for\nvehicles; expressed concern about the cost of the project being $200 million; stated the\ncost is too high for something which only benefits 5,000 to 6,000 users at most per day;\n4,400 vehicles travel through the Posey Tube during peak commute hours; the cost\ndoes not make sense when converted to a cost-per-user basis; he cannot support the\nmatter; it is time for Council to make the tough decision to say $200 million to serve\n5,000 to 6,000 users per day is not enough; there is desire to transition away from\nvehicle based improvements to a more environmentally friendly option; the concern is\nvalid; however, it must also be within the realm of reasonableness; the City will\neventually make the transition from predominately gas-based vehicles to alternative and\nelectric vehicles; he will not support the bicycle-pedestrian bridge over the estuary; the\ncost does not make sense.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the $1.5 million amount awarded\nACTC grant monies could have been used on other projects; requested background on\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 16, "text": "the funding; inquired the amount of City money for the project.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator responded there is no City match requirement\nfor the project; stated the City is receiving the full grant amount from ACTC; the money\nis in response to a letter submitted by Council in November 2020, which requested\nACTC fund the project initiation and project study report for the bicycle-pedestrian\nbridge.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City could have used the funding\nfor other projects; requested clarification about Bay Area entities supporting the project\nas a regional benefit.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the regional aspect of the project.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the ACTC Board approved\nthe funding as part of the Broadway-Jacksor project; the money being used may only\nbe used for the Broadway-Jackson project.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter is important; the project has an\nestimated cost of $200 million; inquired the current project cost estimate and the\nanticipated potential funding sources.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the project is not a City\nof Alameda project; stated the project is regional; the funding for the project will come\nfrom regional, State and federal sources; the City of Alameda cannot afford to build a\n$200 million bridge; the effort will be long-term in order to help build bicycle and\npedestrian improvement connections between the two cities; the region recognizes the\nneed for the effort, which is the reason funding is being provided by the region; the City\nof Alameda is acting as the project sponsor.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the estimate for the annual operation costs;\nquestioned whether regional monies will pay for the operating costs in the future.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the bridge will be owned\nby the region; the City will not own the bridge and does not own any of the current\nestuary crossings; either Caltrans or the County own the current crossings.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about whether the bridge will\nbe available 24 hours per day, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she plans to support the project.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the $200 million cost is not the correct use of funding\nrelative to the benefits.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including\nadoption of the resolution], with the caveat that the money being spent on the Oakland\nAlameda Access Project will not provide a benefit to the 40,000 people that travel\nthrough the Posey Tube; the funding will provide a new crossing which will provide\nsignificant beneficial time differences for the 5,000 to 6,000 users per day.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(21-418) Adoption of Resolution Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local\nEmergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government\nCode Section 8630(c).\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated staff submitted a letter to Council indicating\n85.1% of Alamedans which are eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine have received\nat least one vaccine; 71.4% of Alamedans are fully vaccinated; the numbers are\nexpected to increase in the next week; the City has one of the lowest case rates in the\ncountry; stated hospital bed occupancy for Alameda Hospital is at 33.2%.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to call the question on the matter;\nmoved approval of calling the question in order to move forward in the agenda should\nthe motion pass by majority.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which 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.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the\nresolution].\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.\n[Note: The motion to call the question/limit debate required a two-thirds vote to pass, so\nthe matter was reopened following the resolutions of appointment (paragraph no. 21-\n419].\n5-J. Ordinance No. 3301, \"Approving a Second Amendment to the Lease with\nGreenway Golf Associates, Inc., a California Corporation, for Chuck Corica Golf\nComplex.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 18, "text": "(21-419) Resolution No. 15787, \"Reappointing Kristin Furuichi Fong as a Member of the\nSocial Service Human Relations Board.' Adopted;\n(21-419A) Resolution No. 15788, \"Appointing Samantha Green as a Member of the\nSocial Service Human Relations Board.\" Adopted;\n(21-419B) Resolution No. 15789, \"Appointing Scott Means as a Member of the Social\nService Human Relations Board.\" Adopted; and\n(21-419C) Resolution No. 15790, \"Appointing Dianne Yamashiro-Omi as a Member of\nthe Social Service Human Relations Board.\" Adopted.\nVice Mayor Vella moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office.\nMs. Furuichi Fong, Ms. Green, Mr. Means, and Ms. Yamashiro-Omi made brief\ncomments.\n***\nThe City Clerk noted the procedural motion regarding the resolution declaring the\nemergency [paragraph no. 21-418 required four votes and therefore failed.\n***\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:57 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:15\np.m.\n***\n(21-420) The City Attorney stated that he recommends Council vote to reopen the\nprevious matter [resolution declaring a local emergency] due to the procedural motion\nnot passing.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of reopening the resolution declaring the\nemergency [paragraph no. 21-418].\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCONSENT CALENDAR CONTINUATION\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 19, "text": "(21-420A) Resolution No. 15791, \"Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a\nLocal Emergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with\nGovernment Code Section 8630(c).\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer read the proposed resolution terms; stated that she\nwill not be supportive of continuing the state of emergency in the City; prior to COVID-\n19, the State was under a state of emergency declaration due to a 2018 wildfire in\nParadise; things will happen when the City decides to lift the state of emergency; due to\ncooperation from community members, the numbers of vaccinated people should\nincrease; the matter will return to Council in 60 days; it is important for community\nmembers to be thinking about the appropriate time to lift the emergency declaration; the\nvaccination percentage will not reach 100%.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has previously asked the City Attorney's office to\ncompile bullet points on implications for renters and small landlords; the matter is\nimportant; as long as the state of emergency is in place, small landlords and renters are\ncaught in certain policies put into place within the City; small landlords are suffering\nfrom the effects of the pandemic; expressed support for extending the public health\nemergency; stated impacts continue; stated the bullet points compiled by the City\nAttorney's office indicate results of not extending the health emergency; concerns of\nrenters and small landlords will weigh heavily when the matter returns in 60 days.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog 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.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS CONTINUATION\n(21-421) Recommendation to Approve the City of Alameda's Investment Policy.\nThe City Treasurer and Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the recommendation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she agrees with streamlining the process\ngoing forward; Council received correspondence related to the social responsibility\naspects of the policy.\nThe City Treasurer stated the correspondence includes great suggestions about\nmodifications to consider for the environmental and social governance part of the\nInvestment Policy; he is open to the proposed ideas; recommended Council discuss the\nproposal and vet through outside managers to ensure implementation capabilities;\nstated Council can then develop a policy for annual reports; the priority this year was to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 20, "text": "ensure the Finance Department is able to accommodate the process; he is happy to\nreceive recommendations for next year's policy.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the matter can return\nsometime in the fall to start the discussion about Environmental, Social and Corporate\nGovernance (ESG) scores and ensure Council can provide direction for next year.\nThe City Treasurer responded in the affirmative; stated the process should begin in\norder to return with a finished product in time; the policy cannot be implemented\novernight; great ideas have been proposed and implementation in the next round can\nbe discussed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the correspondence as well as the matter\nreturning for Council discussion in the fall.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-422) Recommendation to Accept Update on Progress To Date Addressing Police\nReform and Racial Equity; Provide Direction on a Pilot Mental Health Response\nProgram; and Consideration of a Draft Work Plan for the Remaining Topics.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\n(21-423) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of allowing additional time to complete the\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nroll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nThe Assistant City Manager completed the Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the City is considering a no-bid process for\nthe Felton Institute option; questioned the process for considering an open-bid.\nThe City Manager responded the City spoke with several organizations; stated the\nFelton Institute has the desired type of alternative Police response; staff can submit a\nRequest for Qualifications (RFQ) in order to perform a pilot program and find\norganizations which have the capabilities.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 21, "text": "(21-424) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider remaining agenda\nitems past 11:00 p.m.; she is not supportive of continuing the meeting past 12:00 a.m.\nThe City Clerk stated public hearings will need to be continued to a date and time\ncertain.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the Call for Review [paragraph no. 21-430] is\nable to be continued to another date.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the matter needs to be heard by the first meeting in\nJuly; expressed support for continuing the matter to July 6th at 6:59 p.m.\nThe City Clerk stated Council may continue the matter to a date and time specific; the\ntiming for the Call for Review allows for the matter to be heard at the July 6th Council\nMeeting.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for continuing the matter to 5:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Know White moved approval of continuing the Call for Review\n[paragraph no. 21-430] to 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2021.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nroll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nStated the City needs to be thinking of its game plan for getting the Police budget down\nover the next several years; resources need to be redistributed in order to take care of\npeople rather than being exposed to violence: Josh Geyer, Transform Alameda.\nDiscussed feedback from the pilot mental health response models; stated none of the\noptions stress and emphasize moving away from Police response to mental health; the\ngoal may be insinuated by the two Fire Department options; however, the goal is not\nspecifically listed; the Felton Institute requires Alameda Police Department (APD) to\nrespond; Council has discussed not having Police respond to mental health crisis calls\nfor service; urged Council to consider whether the proposed programs align with\nCouncil direction from March 16th and whether the options proposed provide immediate\nharm reduction: Savanna Cheer, Alameda.\nUrged Council to reject the Felton Institute proposal as-written; stated the proposal\nrequires APD to respond and is directly contradictory to Council direction; it is important\nto select a pilot program which can be implemented quickly; the City cannot put off\nproviding non-Police response to mental health crises; urged Council address how to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n12", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 22, "text": "direct 911 calls for service away from APD; stated that she is hopeful one of the Fire\nDepartment proposals can be structured to redirect Police responses; urged Council to\nact decisively in selecting a pilot program and direct the City Manager to begin as soon\nas possible: Lorin Laiacona Salem, Alameda.\nStated the City needs to take responsibility for not making needed changes; Council is\nstill debating what to do or which idea is best; a man died while a decision was waiting\nto be made; compassionate care for vulnerable neighbors is needed now; discussed\ncorrespondence; stated none of the proposals are ideal; expressed support for a\ntemporary solution being implemented; stated Council could have and still can\ntemporarily authorize the Alameda Fire Department (AFD) to answer calls for services;\nexpressed concern about the Felton Institute options due to strong collaboration with\nlaw enforcement: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nStated many people have been calling for non-Police mental health response programs\nsince last July and a program is still not in-place; there is a pressing need for harm\nreduction; discussed the death of Mario Gonzalez; stated the Felton Institute requires\ntandem Police response; previous Council direction has been clear about not wanting\nPolice response; urged Council to reject the Felton Institute proposal; expressed\nsupport for the first AFD option; stated the second AFD option is unwise due to limited\nfunds; AFD does not have to be the sole solution to mental health crises calls: Carly\nStadum-Liang, Alameda.\nQuestioned how the proposals are consistent with actions taken May 8th and with the\ncommunity-led process; stated the proposals do not go far enough; discussed a letter\nsubmitted by the Unbundling Police Services Subcommittee; stated mental health\nresponse should include mental health professionals; mental health response should\nnot include a Police Officer; the City should be working with the Alameda County\nregarding 5150 holds and expand the credentialing process to include people other than\nPolice Officers: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nStated people have asked for no Police response; however, the recommendations\ninclude Police response; she is unsure whether the result is due to lack of\ncommunication or understanding; mental health should not be met with Police\nresponse; mental health response should be met with mental health providers; the\nrecommendations appear to add Police services and do not make sense: Melodye\nMontgomery, Alameda.\nExpressed support for budget changes which support mental health response: Sofia\nCoffin, Alameda High School.\nStated the work plan for a Citizen Oversight Board was not included in the budget;\nadditional funding for the work plan is necessary; urged Council to use American\nRescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to implement any unfunded priorities and to further\nbolster the pilot program and other Police reform efforts; stated there is a unique\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 23, "text": "opportunity to fund one-time setup costs to jump start innovative approaches to\ncommunity safety and support; changes may take time and adjustments can be made;\nthe public is happy to work with staff to further define matters: Jacqueline Zipkin,\nAlameda.\nStated the pilot programs do not sway away from Police response, which has been\ngreatly stressed by the community; Police do not need to be responding to mental\nhealth crises; pilot programs need to be available 24 hours, 7 days a week; mental\nhealth crises do not stop during nighttime periods or weekends; if the Fire First option\nhad been in place, Mario Gonzalez may still be alive; urged Council not make a decision\non the matter and have staff return with a better pilot program option, which does not\ninclude APD response; expressed support for the Fire First option: Vinny Camarillo,\nAlameda.\nStated Police should not be responding to mental health calls; the community has made\nrecommendations clear; mental health professionals should be responding to mental\nhealth emergencies for the health and safety of all; urged Council be bold: Seth Marbin,\nAlameda.\nDiscussed not calling the Police and calling the Fire Department instead; stated multiple\nfamily members have had mental health crises; she has feared Officers responding to\ncalls; Officers responding to calls with handcuffs needs to stop; mental health providers\nneed to show up first and be available 24 hours, 7 days a week; urged Council to\nprovide a response which is appropriate; stated the City should not trade safety for\nfinancial harm; urged Council look closely at response fees: Jennifer Rakowski,\nAlameda.\nDiscussed Council meeting Rules of Order: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated Police should not be responding to mental health calls; Council would respond\ndifferently and quickly had incidents occurred with white people and Police; a non-Police\nresponse is needed; urged Council to reject the Felton Institute program option; stated\nCouncil is setting a pattern of decisions and recommendations being ignored; harm\nneeds to be prevented now; urged Council to listen to requests being made; stated\nfunds are available through ARPA; change is needed now: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.\nDiscussed her experience needing help with a mental health emergency; stated Police\nhave been professional; however, Police needed to be educated; noted the cost for the\nambulance ride was roughly $2,500; stated Council needs to inform people about\nemergency costs: Janet Gibson, Alameda.\nUrged Council to vote for one of the first two options; stated perfect is the enemy of the\ngood; the City cannot delay; improvements and changes can be made to the pilot\nprogram as it progresses; noted support for community crisis care responders: Laura\nCutrona, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 24, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of program details.\nThe City Manager stated Council has instructed staff to have a pilot program in place by\nthe summer; noted both proposed programs can be in place within 30 to 60 days once\napproved; stated both proposed programs will have to operate and grow through the\nyear and are intended to have a non-Police response; County rules about clearing 911\ncalls; protocols will have to be developed and approved at the County level for matters\nsuch as 5150 holds; currently, only Police Officers can determine a 5150 hold; both\nprograms can eventually evolve and have less Police response; the pilot program is\nmoving the City towards an alternative; neither program states Police are required to\nrespond; however, Police might have to respond depending on protocols; both\nprograms can highlight abilities and alternatives; the two recommended programs are\nthe most viable options found for the timeline and capacity desired.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about Police response and program details\nfrom the Felton Institute.\nAl Gilbert, Felton Institute, stated the Felton Institute is one of the largest and most\nsuccessful mental health providers in the Bay Area operating over 60 programs in five\nNorthern California counties; Felton Institute offers specialty programs including:\nproviding mental health services for the deaf population and early psychosis and\nschizophrenia bipolar programs in five counties; the program has intensive case\nmanagement; all 5150 holds in San Francisco are released to the Felton Institute\nmental health staff; outlined the list of justice service programs; stated all four programs\ndeal with re-entry and keeping people out of the jail system; San Francisco Suicide\nPrevention merged with the Felton Institute two years ago; the Suicide Prevention\nprogram served over 50,000 people last year; the Felton Institute responds to all mental\nhealth and emergency crisis calls for people that are suicidal in San Francisco; the\nFelton Institute manages five emergency hotlines 24 hours, 7 days a week; the Felton\nInstitute is best prepared to respond to mental health issues and provides Police and\nFire Department training; the Felton Institute has over 30 mental health programs, eight\nof which are social justice programs.\nCurtis Penn, Felton Institute, stated the training in the Fire Department is uniquely\ndifferent from providing mental health services; the work currently performed in San\nFrancisco under the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program, helps train\nlaw enforcement around motivational interviewing, harm reduction modality, wellness\nrecovery action plan, and thinking for change, in order to change the organizational\nculture of the Police Department; noted many Officers can be heavy-handed or punitive\nwhen dealing with individuals with mental health attributes; the Felton Institute LEAD\nprogram addresses the issue of providing organizational change to Police and allows a\npre-booking process; the LEAD program diverts individuals to clinical case re-entry\nmanagement and connects people to services to address immediate and long-term\nneeds; the Felton Institute Felton Engagement Specialist Team (FEST) works with a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 25, "text": "healthy street operations center; stated the program helps homeless individuals who\nhave been criminalized due to behavioral mental health; FEST works closely with law\nenforcement for the healthy street operations center initiative and provides motivational\ninterviewing and harm reduction by giving people a social justice restorative justice lens;\nFEST goes out and operates proactively and reactively in the community, while\nengaging individuals where they are located and providing documentation when\nneeded; mental health is extremely important; however, efforts from the Felton Institute\ndo not stop at mental health; once a connection is made, mid-support and\ndocumentation is provided on a continuum level of care; outlined the supporting\ntreatment and reducing recidivism program that works with citizens being discharged by\nconnecting people with services around housing and mental health; stated the goal is to\nprovide sustainable housing, connection to mental health services and working with\nmedical clinicians in order to triage for the proper programs; mental health providers\nneed to be first responders.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the model being proposed requires a Police\nOfficer to go to a call.\nMr. Gilbert responded in the negative; stated the programs in San Francisco and\nAlameda County do not require Police to be present; the City would decide who would\ngo to 911 calls; the Felton Institute has hotlines it runs, which could receive any calls\ndirectly to respond to people in crisis; the program proposed is a 24 hour mental health\nservice program, not a crisis response program; the programs are staffed with a\nmajority of people of color, which is a majority of the people being served; the agency is\nextremely diverse; staff reflects the clients served.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Felton Institute has a vehicle, to which Mr.\nGilbert responded in the affirmative; stated two of the three agency vehicles are parked\nat the headquarters on Atlantic Avenue; an additional vehicle will be added and was\nincluded in the proposal.\nIn response to Councilmember Knox White's inquiry regarding a crisis response\nprogram not being proposed, Mr. Gilbert stated the program is not only a model to\nrespond when someone in crisis, but support provided will include people in the field\nworking with landlords, store owners, Police, training and constantly working with\npeople; the goal is to create more functionality, particularly around the homeless,\nmentally ill people and people with a drug addiction; people will not be served to remain\nin their current status; more functionality is needed; a movement system is needed to\neliminate or reduce the number of homeless people in Alameda County and make sure\npeople have access to mental health services.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the Felton Institute is offering the same\nprogram somewhere else.\nMr. Gilbert responded the approaches are new; stated the issues are everywhere;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 26, "text": "Oakland decided to go with the Fire Department due to social unrest and people not\nbeing satisfied with the options; the Felton Institute can provide the whole group of\nservices; the Felton Institute already does all of the services, just not in a single\nprogram; outlined services and staff service providers.\nCouncilmember Daysog provided a scenario of a woman yelling for 40 minutes at 1:15\na.m.; inquired how the Felton Institute would respond and interact with Police.\nMr. Penn responded immediately building a rapport with the individual is important;\nstated information would be gathered; the goal is to immediately deescalate the\nsituation; intake questions and an assessment would be done to create a plan of care\nwith a clinician.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the scenario is 1:15 a.m.\nMr. Penn stated the Felton Institute would have a clinician responding.\nMr. Gilbert stated the Felton Institute is very data driven, stays in contact with all clients\nand has client profiles; the person would be directed to support services.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what the Felton Institute would do if the Police also\nshow up.\nMr. Penn responded there are variables; everything is done on a case by case basis;\nlaw enforcement would be told: \"We got it; the situations has been deescalated; the\nperson is calm; law enforcement is no longer needed.\"\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the third bullet point for Option 1 says that\nuntil the Fire Department gets 5150 certification, the Police will still have to come out.\nThe City Manager responded the Fire Department is currently working with Alameda\nCounty regarding the 5150 requirement; stated if the programs started tomorrow\nmorning, both would require the Police Department to respond to a 5150 call because in\nAlameda County, only a Police Officer can make the 5150 determination.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Felton Institute is also working on the 5150\nrequirement, to which the City Manager responded the City would work towards it with\neither option; he does not know whether either option has a better chance; the Fire\nDepartment has had communication with Alameda County.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Felton Institute is not able to handle 5150.\nMr. Penn responded in the affirmative; stated the Felton Institute is working with\nindividuals reentering from correctional facilities and meets with them prior to being in a\nsituation where a 5150 is needed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 27, "text": "In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding San Francisco, Mr. Penn stated\nSan Francisco law enforcement handles 5150 calls.\nMr. Gilbert stated the Fire Department responds to situation requiring care.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how Dispatch and calls to the non-emergency line would work\nunder the Fire Forward model; requested the Fire Department to address how the\nmodel would address Police involvement.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded the Fire Forward model is designed to respond\nwithout Police in most instances; stated in a instance where there could be potential for\nviolence, the Police would be needed; many responses do not require Police; Fire is\nalready a first responder; the Fire Department has its own Dispatch Center; 911 calls\ninitially go through the Police Department Dispatch Center; calls for Fire response are\ntransferred.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who would make the determination about a non-violent,\nnon-combative, behavioral health emergency for a client that does not need to be\nrestrained or have a medical complaint.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded it is typically decided at the answer point; stated when\na call comes in, the Police Dispatch would decide whether to transfer the call to the Fire\nDispatch Center.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Fire Department would not be involved in the\ndecision since the Dispatch Center makes the determination, to which the Interim Fire\nChief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed appreciation; stated that she plans to\nsupport the first responders; the Fire Department already has relationships and is in the\ncommunity all the time.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of supporting Option 1 [Fire\nDepartment Fire Forward Response Pilot].\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she has a question about calls to the non-emergency line\nthat resulted in two high profile incidents; her frustration is Council has asked to know\nhow the Dispatch process is going to be addressed; the City can move to Option 1 or 2,\nbut she is very concerned about how Dispatch decisions will be made to ensure there is\na non-Police response; outside of whatever selection is made, she is looking for\nsomething from the City Manager relative to addressing the overall process for\ndispatching.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n18", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 28, "text": "Under discussion, the City Manager stated once an option is selected, the Police Chief\nwould work with Dispatch to create a system how to move certain calls.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council gave direction on May 8th to begin immediate\ntraining for Dispatchers not to have mismatched responses as before; inquired whether\nthe City Manager is waiting to do the training once an option is selected.\nThe City Manager responded the agency needs to be selected to allow Dispatch to\nmove the response.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is moving the response, but it is also training.\n***\n(21-425) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of extending the meeting until 12:30 a.m.;\nstated that she would like to finish the item tonight.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion was previously made about when the meeting\nwould end.\nOn the call for the question, the motion, which required four affirmative votes, failed by\nthe following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox\nWhite: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the item is important; Council should not rush to finish at\n12:30 a.m.; she agrees with a previous speaker that some rules might need to be\nchanged.\nThe Police Chief outlined the process for calls coming into Dispatch.\n***\n(21-426) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the matter being continued to a date\ncertain, July 6, 2021; stated that she would commit to putting the item after the Wellness\nCenter.\nThe City Clerk stated the motion should include the 5:00 p.m. time and order does not\nneed to be specified.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nroll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Note: Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft did not record a vote.]\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 29, "text": "Not heard.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-431) Consider Adoption of Resolution Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero\nEmission Vehicle Sales in California by 2030. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft) Not heard.\n(21-432) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief regarding\nStrategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-433) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-434) Consider Directing Staff to Publically Share Information on Parking Recreational\nVehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-435) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2021\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-15", "page": 30, "text": "Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-436) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Historical Advisory Board, Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners, Planning Board and Public Art Commission. Not heard.\nADJOURNMENT\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m. with items continued to July 6, 2021\nat 5:00 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\nJune 15, 2021\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf"}