{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -OCTOBER 5, 2021-6:30 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Spencer, Vella and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at\n6:36 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(21-607) Conference with Legal Counsel Workers' Compensation Claim (Pursuant to\nGovernment Code \u00a7 54956.95); Claimant: Employee - Fire Department; Claim: ALAY-\n005540; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that the case involves a workers' compensation claim by a former firefighter\n(\"Applicant\") who joined the City in 1995; the Applicant's injury was cumulative trauma\noccurring through their two decades plus of service to the City, potentially culminating\ninto cancer; the Applicant has retired from the City; the Council authorized the City\nAttorney to settle the pending workers' compensation claim in an amount not to exceed\n$90,000.00 by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera\nSpencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:38\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\nOctober 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER 5, 2021--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nThe meeting was conducted via Zoom.\nCouncilmember Knox White left the meeting at 11:01\np.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(21-608) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the nominations [paragraph\nno. 21-609 next.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nroll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-609) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing Authority Board of\nCommissioners (HABOC) and Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel\n(MEDAP).\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Christina Mun to HABOC and Eva Jennings and Dan\nPoritzky to the MEDAP.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(21-610) Proclamation Declaring October 2021 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,\nTransgender, Queer History Month.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-611) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, discussed actions related to Jean Sweeney Park\nbeing taken in closed session; stated the City is paying five times as much per acre.\n(21-612) Michael Devine, Alameda, discussed loud vehicle noise and health related\nconcerns; suggested noise traps, ticketing and addressing the matter on a future\nagenda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 3, "text": "(21-613) Casey Farmer, Alameda County, made an announcement regarding Alameda\nCounty redistricting; encouraged public participation.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-614) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Joint City Council and\nSuccessor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting, the Continued\nJuly 20, 2021 City Council Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on\nSeptember 7, 2021. Approved.\n(*21-615) Ratified bills in the amount of $7,186,584.01.\n(*21-616) Ordinance No. 3307, \"Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXIV\nPublic Health to Add Section 24-13 Prohibition on Gasoline-Powerec Leaf Blowers.\"\nFinally passed.\nCONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-617) Recommendation to Review, Comment and Provide Direction on Preliminary\nNeeds Assessment and Recommendations for Development of Smart City Master Plan.\nThe Information Technology Director and David Huynh and Monique Fuhrman, Iteris,\ngave a PowerPoint presentation.\n***\n(21-618) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing an additional five\nminutes for the presentation.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which 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.\nMs. Fuhrman and the Information Technology Director completed the presentation.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the City has spent over $1 million for both Park and\nWebster Streets Transit Signal Priority (TSP); inquired how the plan proposes to\nimplement signal priority at the same cost and whether the plan is addressing other\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 4, "text": "areas in the City.\nMr. Huynh responded Webster Street improvements were done; stated the Plan\nidentifies other corridors within Alameda with a concentration of AC Transit bus lines;\nthe intention is to address gaps on Park Street and Santa Clara Avenue.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has already spent $1 million on both Park and\nWebster Streets; inquired whether TSP has been implemented on Park Street.\nMs. Fuhrman responded in the affirmative; stated the Plan proposes expanding TSP on\nthe Island to enhance bus service; other lines go around the Island; additions would be\non Santa Clara Avenue, Otis Drive and Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Knox White requested clarification that TSP is not being proposed for\nPark Street since the City already has a smart corridor in existence there, to which Ms.\nFuhrman responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated $230,000 is being proposed to invest in a\nprivate company's fiber network; inquired whether the private company is known.\nThe Information Technology Director responded the City recently received a quote from\nComcast.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding partnering with an\nInfrastructure Service Provider (ISP), the Information Technology Director stated the\nCity does not want to be the ISP provider, but wants to look into opportunities to partner\nwith providers on the City's fiber network in order to offer free WiFi to residents;\nrequested Mr. Huynh provide examples from other cities.\nMr. Huynh stated leases or joint use agreements can be used to incentivize private\ncompanies to expand their networks in Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Alameda is not getting into the internet business; the\nprovider will be offering a free service to consumers, which he would like to better\nunderstand later, not tonight; expressed support for the goals.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Comcast cannot pay for the\ninfrastructure, which is why the City would pay.\nThe Information Technology Director responded the City contacted Comcast to request\nthe cost of bring fiber to the gym at Alameda Point, which would cost the City $230,000.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the main strategy is to build out a network; other\nthings, such as the TSP, would be used off of the network; inquired whether steps could\ncome back to Council later, if Council would not be making the decision tonight and if\ntonight is simply an agreement to move forward with the vision and strategy having\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 5, "text": "projects coming separately after the broadband backbone ring is done.\nThe Information Technology Director responded in the affirmative; stated the broadband\nbackbone is the key to other top 10 priorities and recommendations move forward.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed short, mid-term and long-term timeframes; stated that\nshe would like to move up internet availability being enhanced in public places to\ndecrease the digital divide; cyber security should also be at the top of the list; discussed\nransomware attacks; inquired whether and how cyber security could be accelerated.\nThe Information Technology Director responded priorities are still being planned; stated\nstaff is meeting with existing telecommunication carriers: Verizon and Comcast; the\ncompanies are aware of the Smart City Initiatives; in order to get more equitable\ninternet, Verizon is sending an engineer to areas with weak cellular service to boost\nsignals, which could be a good stop gap; Comcast has offered to work with the City to\nimplement its lift zone program and increase gig speed for free for three years in equity\npriority community locations; cyber security features would be included in the fiber core\nbuildout.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she, Vice Mayor Vella and the Information Technology\nDirector met with Comcast's Government Relations representative about equity issues.\nMr. Huynh stated cyber security has to be included as part of network buildout; phases\nwill be identified.\nDiscussed internet service and cyber security; expressed concern over increasing staff;\nstated funds would be better spent on roads: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the plan has options to address equity issues, which are a\nCouncil priority; phasing of cyber security makes sense; discussed the dig once policy;\nstated the issue has been discussed for several years; $230,000 is for one location;\ncosts add up quickly to have equitable access at other sites.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds;\ninquired when the Council will make final decisions about ARPA funds, to which the\nAssistant City Manager responded the first meeting in December.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she brought a referral in 2017 to have free\npublic WiFi throughout the City; the School District successfully created hot spots;\npeople have been left behind during the pandemic; her priority is closing the digital\ndivide as quickly as possible; inquired how quickly it can be done and how much money\nis needed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff address the limitations of hot spots.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the ARPA funding includes $50,000 for a hot\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 6, "text": "spot program that would be launched by the Library and could have quick\nimplementation; stated fiber network allows the City to build its own local system that\nwould support greater WiFi access for people across the community; the City has near-\nterm options and a longer-term plan to really enhance local capabilities and take away\nunstable hot spot network issues that could arise in different parts of the community.\nThe Information Technology Director stated the hot spot issue was discussed in the\nmeeting with Verizon; locations in the City without cellular signal require use of WiFi;\nVerizon will send an engineer to certain areas to boost the signal.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there was a discussion about the use of street\nlights to support cellular at a League of California Cities conference, she agrees weak\ncellular service is across the City; the plan includes more than she is ready to support;\nthe City has fallen short in providing WiFi; she is concerned it has been four years since\nher referral; the Library hot spots and connecting cellular service should be the priority;\nquestioned how much ARPA funding is needed to fill WiFi gaps across the City; stated\nthe entire Smart City Plan should not be funded by ARPA; discussed use of ARPA\nfunds; stated that she is interested in hearing about other possible funding sources for\nthe Smart City Plan.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated ARPA funds will allow the City to lay infrastructure to\nclose the digital divide, improve transit flow and provide free internet through ISPs; cost\nestimates should be adhered to; the business model of free internet needs to be\nunderstood; discussed Alameda's experience providing internet and cable; stated that\nhe is fine with the priorities; this is rare funding opportunity; the City should move\nforward.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he supports the concept in general; more\ndiscussion is needed; he is not aware of free citywide public WiFi programs that are\nworking exceedingly well; he would like more information; a lot of Department of\nTransportation program grants overpromised and under delivered; he is a little\nconcerned about jumping to a decision too quickly because the City has money;\ntransportation operation benefits beyond staff savings are being over promised;\ndiscussed traffic; stated time has not been saved from either of the two smart corridor\nprograms; expressed concern about outcomes not being met; stated that he would like\nto have further discussion of and information about San Leandro's program; the State\nand federal governments are providing a lot of cyber infrastructure funding, which he\nwould rather use to fund the Smart City program; he is not 100% clear on the strategy\nand would like more information, especially about programs in other cities; the City's\ninternet experience is a good example of why small cities should not get into technology\nsolutions early on since things change so quickly; broadband is a future the City needs\nto prepare for and the ring is one of the first steps; discussed prior meetings with the\nSchool District; expressed concern about relying on private providers.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is providing direction; inquired whether\nCouncilmember Knox White feels the transportation component should be referred back\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 7, "text": "to the Transportation Commission.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded a lot of transportation conversations are not\nfocused on the City's set goals; stated that he would rather the matter return to Council\nfor guidance before it goes to the Transportation Commission.\nVice Mayor Vella stated perhaps the direction on the transportation corridors could be\nremoved; there should be a broader conversation about goals and the efficacy of what\nhas been done; she would like to see the City exploring different infrastructure options;\nWiFi does not exist without infrastructure; where money comes from is separate; there\ncould be other grants; it could be difficult for staff to go after funding if there is not a\npolicy in place; staff needs to understand the direction from Council; she would like to\nhear more from her colleagues and understand how they want to address infrastructure.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff thinks more funding is needed\nto support the Library hot spots; stated that she would like to break the direction down\ninto parts; expressed support for WiFi across the Island.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded staff has the funding needed; the ARPA\ndiscussions will be back in December to get formal authorization to spend the funds;\nspecific amounts for projects are being fleshed out; $50,000 seems adequate for the\nprogram and timeframe; more information will return in December.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she looks forward to the conversation\nreturning in December; regarding the rest of the Plan, she agrees with Councilmember\nKnox White and thinks more time should be spent on the specific items; she is not ready\nto proceed with committing $6 million and does not see ARPA as the appropriate\nfunding source.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated staff put together and provided costs for 10\nrecommendations to meet Smart City goals; the Council is raising questions which will\ncome back; his question is about better understanding the ISP business model;\nCouncilmember Knox White is focused on transit; staff provided an envelope of\nrecommendations; Council has follow up question for certain areas; Councilmember\nHerrera Spencer raised questions about the digital divide; staff will come back, which\nmight result in some things falling off; staff provided a starting point for Council to have\na conversation and get the Smart City program going; having ARPA funds is great;\nperhaps other funds will be available in the future.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Daysog; discussed ARPA funds;\nstated the way people work has changed dramatically; a Chamber of Commerce\nspeaker indicated it will take a few years for people to return to offices; infrastructure is\nneeded to support people working from home; discussed telemedicine; stated that she\nhas questions about the additional staffing; she wants estimates and funding sources;\nARPA is for one-time expenditures; concurred with Councilmember Knox White's\nrequest for information on where programs have been used successfully; stated the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 8, "text": "Plan relates to the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP); getting traffic moving\nmore smoothly and efficiently without cars idling helps reduce greenhouse gas\nemissions; the Plan relates to the Council priorities; the City needs to move forward with\ngetting infrastructure in place; expressed support for dig once; stated the needs for\ncyber security should not be under estimated; requested staff to come back with\nanswers to questions raised with an eye towards getting the infrastructure in place.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-619) Resolution No. 15821, \"Appointing Kathryn Beehler as a Member of the\nCommission on Persons with Disabilities.' Adopted;\n(21-619A) Resolution No. 15822, \"Reappointing Lisa Hall as a Member of the\nCommission on Persons with Disabilities.\" Adopted; and\n(21-619B) Resolution No. 15823, \"Reappointing Jennifer Roloff as a Member of the\nCommission on Persons with Disabilities. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Vela seconded the motion, which 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.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments.\nMs. Beehler, Ms. Hall and Ms. Roloff made brief comments and the City Clerk\nadministered the Oath of Office.\n(21-620) Recommendation to Approve The Road Home: A 5 Year Plan to Prevent and\nRespond to Homelessness in Alameda.\nAmanda Wehrman, Homebase, gave a PowerPoint presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding Housing First and case\nmanagement, Ms. Wehrman stated the Housing First approach is highlighted in a\nnumber of the strategies; the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)\nand both national and local experts promote Housing First as the best practice to deliver\nhousing and services to people experiencing homelessness; the idea is about reducing\nbarriers to entry into programs, as well as reducing restrictions that might force people\nout of programs, which enables people to get into housing more quickly and be provided\ncase management and support to maintain housing stability over time; Continuum of\nCare (COC) refers to all of the housing and services available; HUD also uses the term\nto refer to a decision making body, typically at the county level, called the COC Board;\nthere is also a COC funding stream; COC is not meant to be in contrast with Housing\nFirst; COC is the overall approach and Housing First is delivering services within the\nContinuum; Housing First can be delivered within a COC setting.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether numbers might be higher since a count has not\nbeen able to be completed for two years; stated the number might not matter; there is a\nproblem and the City needs to start addressing it.\nMs. Wehrman responded there is an upward trend; stated steps have been taken during\nthe pandemic on eviction prevention; a lot of resources have come down from the State;\na comparative number will not be known until the next point in time count; additional\nanalysis done in the plan looks at other data from the County's Homeless Management\nInformation System (HMIS), which has higher numbers for the City; in 2019, there were\n736 people throughout the County who have a tie back to the City; the HMIS differs\nfrom a point in time count.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are now encampments in new parts of the City; noted\nthat she would like to share a screen about housing security at the end of the\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested the supplemental information from staff be\nadded to the agenda item; stated it has the data she requested at a prior meeting; the\nsafe parking program has capacity for 25 vehicles and serves 11 vehicles on average\nand 21 unduplicated people per quarter; inquired whether staff thinks there are more\nthan 11 people in the community who could use the service.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded there are more than 11 cars in the\nCity; stated the City is actively going out and letting people know about the safe parking\nlocation; people from Encinal Boat ramp were moved over; the number could be higher;\nthe data was older than last week.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether adopting Housing First means case\nmanagement would not be required as a condition of housing.\nMs. Wehrman responded the recommendations related to Housing First are about how\nto reduce barriers; stated it is about making the housing and programs as low barrier as\npossible; scenarios should not be created where people are cycling in and out of\nprograms; instead, space should be created for people to get into programs and be\noffered case management and other support service to help maintain housing stability;\nHousing First does not say put people in housing and let them be; the program is about\ncreating robust supports and structures through the design in order to help ensure the\nsuccess of program participants; it is about how to have trauma informed care,\nmotivational interviewing and other best practice approaches coupled with Housing\nFirst.\nStated Housing First is a HUD requirement for all permanent supportive housing\nprograms; case management services are voluntary for the client, but not the employee;\nthe process to create the Plan was inclusive; implementation should provide services\nthroughout Alameda with clear matrix to access success; urged the development of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 10, "text": "housing be streamlined, especially pertaining to opposition: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point\nCollaborative.\nStated the program goal is admirable; using available public and private land makes\nsense; the locations do not portray a Citywide program; only 1 of the 10 properties is\neast of Webster Street, which feels kind of like redlining; urged review of the map in the\ncorrespondence he submitted; suitable land is available elsewhere; urged Council to\nmore equally distribute the locations across all of Alameda: Ben Mickus, Alameda.\nStated one of the first items the Plan should focus on is the Fire Department family\nservices project; the pilot program seems like it fits in here and should be focused on;\nquestioned who would address large scale shelters during winter: Marilyn Rothman,\nAlameda.\nStated that she worked in affordable and supportive for over 30 years; she supports the\nCity addressing the matter; the locations are concentrated in the West End; going\nforward, a mechanism should be established for land and property purchases with\ncriteria for choosing the locations; requested distribution throughout the Island with\ncommunity involvement: Marilyn Alwan, Alameda.\nStated loss of a job was the top reported reason for homelessness; obtaining and\nretaining employment through skilled job programs should be a top priority; she would\nlike to see a substantial increase in support for higher paid workers; the City needs to\nsupport programs that pay a living wage well above the minimum wage; discussed the\nneed and availability of daily showers; stated focus should be on a data driven\napproach: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nStated sites for new housing can be identified as part of the Housing Element (HE)\nprocess; HE goals include furthering fair housing goals; project sites need to be more\nthan on the West End; the Plan looks good; input was solicited from the right people;\nurged speeding up production of new homes, especially affordable housing, and\nstreamlining: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated the process for building or renovating properties for these projects needs to be\nstreamlined; the East End needs to participate in serving unhoused neighbors: Jenice\nAnderson, Alameda.\nStated access should be barrier free and acknowledge what people are facing;\nexpressed appreciation for people with lived experience participating in the Plan: Alexia\nArocha, Alameda.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding shelter during the winter\nmonths, the Economic Development Manager stated the number of people sheltered\nlast year was reduced significantly because of COVID; normally 90 people are housed\nand the City only housed 7 continuously last year.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether hotel and motel rooms were used rather than\nChrist Episcopal Church, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in\nthe affirmative; stated 7 were housed in the hotel.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the site list mentioned in 1.1.a has been\ndeveloped, to which the Economic Development Manager responded a list has not been\ndeveloped.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated language should be added to 1.1.a that states: staff\nshould identify ways in which to ensure there is some form of equitable distribution of\nservices provided across the Island for the unhoused population and residents; it should\nnot be assumed everyone will go to Alameda Point; there are land use constraints on\nthe Island and there is vacant land because the Naval Air Station left; the list should\ninclude strategies that could be implemented in order to make sites available across the\nIsland and on Bay Farm Island as well; Council gave direction last July; the work kicked\noff in January; a well written and developed Plan has been presented tonight; the\nCouncil and community provided input.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how members were chosen to participate in\nthe process.\nThe Development Manager responded community outreach was multi-level, including a\nsteering committee, focus groups and individual interviews; stated a number of\nparticipants were identified by staff; staff also wanted a broader opportunity for the\ncommunity to participate; there were over 1,000 responses to a survey and 2\ncommunity meetings were held.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the community meetings were virtual, to which\nthe Development Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the staff report mentions 434 Central Avenue,\nSurfside Apartments; inquired whether the City owns the property, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded the City does not own the property; stated\nthe City assisted the owner with a Community Development Block Grant renovation\nloan.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's further inquiry, the Community\nDevelopment Director stated the City made the loan as an opportunity for the owner to\nprovide improved housing and offer affordable units.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the total and affordable number of units.\nThe Community Development Director responded there are 50 units; stated that she\ndoes not recall the number of affordable units.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether units are not for the unhoused, to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 12, "text": "which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nunits are part of an affordable project.\nThe Development Manager stated any affordable housing helps keep people housed\nand prevent homelessness, which is a key part of the Plan.\nMs. Wehrman stated a list was not created; action steps are to complete analysis;\nregarding locations, proximity to amenities is included for housing sites.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated lists being presented should be clear to the\npublic; data related to Alameda's unhoused population is useful; questioned whether the\ngoals are related to Alameda or would be recommended for any city; stated that she\nwould like to spend more time on what the goals mean for Alameda; everyone supports\nthe first goal, but she needs to know what it looks like and how it is going to apply to\nAlameda; the Plan is very general and should include more specific asks; she is\nconcerned about providing housing and services that is based on the data; the goals\nare vague; Council should be weighing in and making decision about specific\nproperties; inquired what Council is being asked to approve.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff has been exploring specific projects,\nincluding scattered sites, emergency transitional housing, the bottle parcel and the\nMarina Village Inn, and will come to Council in the near future; staff is gearing up for\nHomekey project and funds; a provider has to be selected; the City needs a partner to\ndo the projects.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated the specific action steps included in the\nPlan are generalized; staff will return with more specifics.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is a Housing Authority in Alameda;\ninquired whether the City is creating its own Housing Department, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded in the negative; stated State and County\nfunding is available to the City; staff is looking at opportunities available to the City.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Housing Authority used to be part of the\nCity and really still is since the Board is selected by Council; the Housing Authority was\nseparated to make it more efficient, able to apply for grants, streamline processes and\nend up with more money available for the cause; she would like the Plan to include\nworking with the Housing Authority; she supports the Housing Authority; she has\nconcerns about staff duplicating efforts; there should be increased conversations with\nthe Housing Authority to ensure as much money as possible goes to the cause; there\nshould not be more City Hall staff as opposed to the Housing Authority, which provides\nthe same service; her preference would be for the City to work with the Housing\nAuthority.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the objective is to have broad goals for staff to follow while\nexploring different solutions to the problems; issues, such as housing, do not have a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 13, "text": "one size fits all approach; detailed exploration will occur; staff will return to Council after\ndetermining what is feasible with the available funds; concurred with Councilmember\nKnox White's concerns about equitable access to housing and distribution throughout\nthe City regardless of convenience; stated staff is trying to look outside Alameda Point;\nthe City has an opportunity to make a concerted effort with the Regional Housing Needs\nAllocation (RHNA) and other housing discussions.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of supporting the Plan with the comments made by\nCouncilmembers about ensuring the Plan is inclusive and really looking throughout the\nIsland; discussed Council's priority related housing.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he will be supportive of specific\nprojects, such as the Marina Village Inn or bottle parcel; he has supported such projects\nsince he began serving on the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in 1995;\nhe does not have enough information on the overarching policies being implemented;\nhe does not know if Housing First is superior to the current way; discussed current\nrequirements to keep housing versus considering services voluntary and a barrier;\nstated that he thinks people need to be required to get services to access and stay in\nhousing; he will not support or oppose the Plan; he will support projects.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the goals are too broad and not particular to\nAlameda; she will not support the Plan because efforts will duplicate Housing Authority\nwork, which is not appropriate; she appreciates the data.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined her work on the League of California Cities Statewide\nPolicy Committee on Housing, Community and Economic Development and the\nAlameda County Mayor's Conference Homelessness Working Group; stated there is a\nStatewide housing crisis; there are innovative solutions and successes; magic starts to\noccur with wrap around services; action is needed; she completely agrees with the\nmotion and second; metrics and measurables are important; staff is in the process of\ninterviewing innovative, exciting service providers; she agrees that barriers and\nopposition to development of supportive housing need to be reduced; expressed her\nsupport.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the Plan is strategic and supposed to be the guiding\nprinciple; there are 51 specific actions to lead to desired outcomes; Housing First is not\nnew; it went away under Regan when requirements were implemented; until a person\nhas housing, they cannot be ready to go through drug or mental health treatment or job\ntraining; further discussed Housing First.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Abstention; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. Abstentions: 1.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n12", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 14, "text": "While a slide was shown with information about the Housing Secure program, Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want people to experience housing insecurity;\nurged people to call 211 or go online to www.ac-housingsecure.org; outlined program\ndetails.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:44 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:55\np.m.\n(21-621) Uncodified Urgency Ordinance No. 3308, \"Continuing the Suspension During\nthe Local Emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic of Certain Provisions of the City's\n\"Sunshine Ordinance\" to the Extent Inconsistent with Assembly Bill No. 361 and\nExecutive Order N-15-21 of the Governor of the State of California Arising from the\nState of Emergency Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic.\" Adopted; and\n(21-621A) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be\nConducted via Teleconference.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nRequested an explanation of uncodified ordinances; stated the action to comply with\nState law seems like a backdoor way to declare a State of Emergency in Alameda,\nwhich no longer exists; expressed concern about Charter ordinance adoption provisions\nand declaration of an emergency: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nUrged Council to support the recommendation; stated if not passed, she would be\nforced to resign from the Commission on Persons with Disabilities due to her\nautoimmune disease; the emergency is not behind us; urged meetings be made\naccessible for the public and Board/Commission members: Beth Kenny, Alameda.\nConcurred with Speaker Kenny's comments; urged meetings continue using the Zoom\nformat; stated the pandemic is not over: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nConcurred with Speakers Kenny and Anderson; urged Council to consider accessibility\nfor the public and continue Zoom meetings: Savanna Cheer, Alameda.\nStated that he supported Assembly Bills 361 339, which only pertains to large cities;\ndiscussed a letter sent to Council from the Open Government Commission; suggested\nlanguage be added to the Sunshine Ordinance to ensure remote access to meetings:\nZac Bowling, Alameda.\nExpressed support for accessibility through Zoom meetings: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the continuation of remote meetings forever; stated attending\nremotely is more manageable and convenient: Debra Mendoza, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 15, "text": "Expressed support for City Council meetings continuing to be hosted on Zoom; stated\nhaving meetings accessible is critical to having more involvement and engagement:\nLaura Cutrona, Alameda.\nExpressed support for remote meetings in the future; stated that she has chronic\nbronchitis and the pandemic is not over for her; she is not comfortable in large groups\nand would not be comfortable in the Council Chambers; urged Council to support\nremote meetings: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.\nStated Zoom is a great way for the public to access meetings and should continue;\nquestioned whether the urgency ordinance is required to continue Zoom meetings:\nCarmen Reid, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how the declaration and ordinance differs\nfrom or has an impact on the declaration of the Local Emergency under Government\nCode Section 8630(c).\nThe City Clerk responded the bill that was just passed pertains to the Brown Act, which\nis a different section of the Government Code; stated this item has to return every 30\ndays and the other item has to return to Council every 60 days; stated they are two\ncompletely separate actions.\nThe City Attorney stated at the beginning of the pandemic, the Council adopted an\nurgency ordinance suspending certain provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance; this\nordinance continues the same provisions with respect to AB 361; both ordinances\naddress Sunshine Ordinance requirements, such as City Hall being the meeting location\nand remote members having to provide public access; the ordinances are to be\nconsistent with State law and reduce the potential for Sunshine Ordinance complaints.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she voted no on the Declaration under\nGovernment Code Section 8630(c) and wants to ensure supporting this item does not\nconflict with her other votes; stated the two are very similar.\nThe City Attorney stated the findings the Council has to make are: 1) the Governor, not\nthe local agency, has declared a State of Emergency; and 2) public health officials\ncontinue to recommend social distancing and meetings would be a hindrance to the\npublic health emergency declared by the Governor; although similar, there are nuanced\ndifferences.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated hybrid meetings have been discussed; some\npeople have issues with Zoom and do not like doing meetings remote; hybrid would\nallow people to come in person or participate on Zoom.\nThe City Clerk stated the provisions outlined in the Assembly Bill pertain to the\nmembers on all City bodies, such as the City Council, Boards and Commissions; the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 16, "text": "action tonight allows members to continue remote without having to disclose locations\nand allow members of the public to participate in the remote location; if meetings\ncontinue in the same fashion, City Hall would remain closed and the public would have\nto participate via calling in or on Zoom.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when members of the public will be able to\nspeak in person.\nThe City Manager stated the hybrid proposal would be once the Council starts meeting\nin person.\nThe City Clerk concurred with the City Manager.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated Police Officers were recently sworn in at the\nLibrary inside; Councilmembers and the public attended; she would like a plan for in\nperson, socially distanced meetings; she would like a hybrid option considered if legally\npossible; some members of the public have difficulty doing Zoom; the digital divide has\nbeen discussed; she participates at City Hall because she would lose internet reception\nat her home.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the pandemic is not over; there is a marked difference between\nan outdoor, brief event versus meetings that are hours long; the decision is not just\nabout Council; Board and Commission volunteers should not have to put their health\nand safety at risk to serve; forcing members to disclose home addresses or explain not\nbeing in person is irresponsible and goes against equity and inclusion; people serving\nhave said it will impact their ability to volunteer; discussed vaccinations and impacts on\nfamily members; the action allows the Council to govern in a compassionate way and\nbe very inclusionary of Board and Commission members, which is why she will support\nthe recommendation; the matter will have to be reauthorized; COVID-19 cases spiked\nlast year at Halloween; she does not want people to be afraid to serve since they would\nhave to disclose their remote participation address.\nVice Mayor moved approval of the staff recommendation [adoption of the urgency\nordinance and approval of the findings].\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will support the\nmotion, but would like a hybrid model considered and would like to figure out how the\nCity could legally do a hybrid model at some point.\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(21-622) Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 17, "text": "Fees for Fire Department Services and Permits. Not adopted.\nThe Interim Fire Chief stated that he is available to answer questions.\nExpressed concern about the fees being applied to people receiving services through\nthe alternative response team based out of the Fire Department; stated fees would be a\nbarrier to service [dropped connection]: Beth Kenny, Alameda.\nConcurred with Speaker Kenny; stated fees and impacts of fees on the most vulnerable\nmembers of the community should be kept in mind as services are transitioned to the\nFire Department; urged a racial equity lens be used: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nContinued comments after dropping connection]; urged Council to review how fees are\ncollected, the portion passed onto individuals and income based considerations: Beth\nKenny, Alameda.\nStated that she is opposed to fees for individuals receiving services; she has seen\nvictims of crime charged for an ambulance; the most vulnerable members of the\ncommunity will be receiving services; the State just eliminated juvenile fees: Debra\nMendoza, Alameda.\nConcurred with Speakers Rakowski and Mendoza; urged Council to keep in mind\ncomments about the most vulnerable being charged in their most vulnerable moment:\nMelodye Montgomery, Alameda.\nExpressed support for previous comments; discussed paramedic versus fire services;\nstated that she hopes the City will not be charging for mental health services: Savanna\nCheer, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested an explanation of the charges discussed by\nmembers of the public.\nThe Interim Fire Chief stated the matter does not relate to the crisis mobile response\nunit; fees are not being recommended for said service; the fees are existing fees, which\nare being adjusted for Fire Prevention services inspections and ambulance transport.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Interim Fire Chief stated\na\nfee study was completed January 2019; the study recommended the fees be increased\nover a four year period to raise cost recovery from 28% to 57%; the first increase was\ndone; last year, staff did not recommended raising the fees; the City's fees were the\nlowest in the County.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether inspections are done by sworn Fire\nFighters, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Council previously discussed using non-\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 18, "text": "sworn; inquired whether other cities use non-sworn Fire Fighters.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded the Fire Department attempted to hire civilian\nInspectors; stated the City was unable to get qualified civilians after four different\noutreach efforts; other departments use civilian Inspectors; other cities were also having\ntrouble hiring civilians.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about businesses' ability to\npay the increase, the City Manager stated businesses ability to pay was considered; the\nfee increase was delayed in the summer 2020; he is open to discussing another delay.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is support from the business\nassociations, to which the City Manager responded that he does not believe the Fire\nDepartment has done specific outreach to business community; businesses are facing\nstresses; deferring another year is an option.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about how the City handles\nvictim's ambulance fees, the Fire Chief outlined costs for fire versus ambulance\nservices; stated the ambulance service is atypical for Fire Departments; discussed the\nambulance transport fee; stated the Department is mindful of a person's ability to pay;\npeople can request a hardship; the hardship policy is being updated and will come to\nCouncil.\nThe City Manager noted Alameda County sets the ambulance fee caps; the City keeps\nits fees consistent with the amount set by Alameda County.\nThe Interim Fire Chief stated Fire Departments charge what the County allows, which\ndoes not capture the cost of providing the service.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she looks forward to having the hardship\npolicy come back to Council.\nThe Interim Fire Chief stated a large number of transport patients have Medicare;\npatients under Medicare are not charged the maximum amount allowed by the County.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Medicare patients have to pay\nanything out of pocket, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded they typically do not\npay.\n***\n(21-623) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is be needed to consider new items after\n11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the remaining items up until\nmidnight.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 19, "text": "The motion failed due to a lack of a second.\n***\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of not adjusting the fees at this time\nand leaving them as is.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will support the motion;\ndiscussed the economic recovery and uncertainty.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the City's fees are low relative to the rest of the County; timing\nis important; staff should bring the fees back at the appropriate time after the pandemic\nand when there are signs of economic recovery.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred; stated small businesses should not be burdened more\nthan they are already.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he did not support the matter when it first came in\nMarch 2019 and will vote no.\nThe City Manager suggested the ambulance fees be considered separate and return to\nCouncil.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would welcome staff bringing the matter back with\nall the information needed to make an informed decision.\nVice Mayor Vella recommended amending the motion to bifurcate the vote tonight and\ngive staff direction to return with the ambulance fees.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated a motion is not needed to keep fees as is and\nstaff could return anytime; she does not know if Medicare could be increased at this\ntime.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the information should be in the staff report; the better\ncourse would be to bring the matter back.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she does not want the inspection fees to come back; no\naction could be taken on the ambulance fees and staff could return.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is happy to accept the amendment to\nthe motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the amended motion be restated.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the amended motion would be to not increase the fees for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n18", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 20, "text": "building inspections at this time.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it would be for both inspections and plan review,\nto which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; inquired whether the motion\nwould be to continue the ambulance fees to a future meeting or give direction to staff to\nbring it back with more information.\nThe City Manager stated Council can just make the first motion [regarding inspections\nand plan reviews] and staff can bring back approval of the ambulance fees without the\nitem being continued, which is what he is suggesting.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she agrees with the suggestion as long as it is acceptable\nto the original maker of the motion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the amendment to the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion is to not increase the permit plan review and\ninspection fees.\nOn the call for the question, the motion 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. No: 1.\nADJOURNMENT\n(21-624) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would adjourn the meeting in memory of\nAsh Jones.\nThe City Clerk noted the Council rules allow the Communications to be heard since a\nvote was not taken to stop at 11:00 p.m.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-625) The City Manager made announcements regarding free COVID-19 testing at\nAlameda Point, Walk and Roll to School day and Alameda County Halloween\nrecommendations.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-626) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, expressed support for continuing meetings online;\nsuggested the entire audience be shown on the screen.\n(21-627) Carmen Reid, Alameda, suggested the Council adopt a policy to show the\nnumber of people watching meetings on Zoom.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 21, "text": "(21-628) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-629) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational\nVehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-630) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate\nHomeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property\nManagement. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-631) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints\nLimiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and\nCouncilmember Daysog) Not heard.\n(21-632) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to\nDevelop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the\n2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog) Not\nheard.\n(21-633) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing.\n(Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-634) Councilmember Daysog announced that he attended the Economic Forum last\nweek and a walk on Saturday following the Supreme Court ruling on the Texas abortion\nlaw; encouraged the City Attorney's office to look into whether there is anything\nAlameda can do regarding the matter; stated a Councilmember might want to bring a\nreferral.\n(21-635) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding attending the League\nof California Cities conference; stated that she would be at Wood School for Walk and\nRoll to School day.\n(21-636) Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would be at Otis School for\nWalk and Roll to School day; made an announcement regarding attending the League\nof California Cities conference.\n(21-637) Vice Mayor Vella made an announcement about the City Council/Heath Care\nDistrict Subcommittee meeting that she and the Mayor attended; stated that she also\nattended the Women's March on Saturday.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Alameda Family Services Executive Director Katherine\nSchwartz would be included in future Subcommittee meetings; stated that she missed\nthe March because she was meeting with the Alameda Renters Coalition.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2021\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-05", "page": 22, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:15\np.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\nOctober 5, 2021\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf"}