{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 1, "text": "637\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nUESDAY--DECEMBEF 21, 2021-6:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:04 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella\narrived at 5:18 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(21-832) Conference With Legal Counsel Workers' Compensation Claim (Pursuant to\nGovernment Code 54956.95); Claimant: Employee - Police Department; Claims:\n2195500131, 2195500132, 2095500061, and 2095500048; Agency Claimed Against:\nCity of Alameda.\n(21-833) Conference With Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City\nNegotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, and\nNancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organization: Alameda Police\nOfficers Association (APOA), Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA), and\nAlameda Fire Managers Association (AFMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee\nBenefits and Terms of Employment.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the Workers' Compensation Claim, the case involves four\nworkers' compensation claims by a former employee with the Police Department;\nApplicant sustained injuries to their back and knees as a result of work duties; Applicant\nretired via industrial disability retirement on September 12, 2021; the Council\nunanimously authorized the City Attorney to settle the pending workers' compensation\nclaims in an amount not to exceed $170,000, by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; and regarding Labor Negotiators: staff provided\ninformation and Council provided direction with no vote taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:00\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\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--DECEMBEF 21, 2021--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:11 p.m. Councilmember Herrera Spencer led\nthe Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting\nwas conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(21-834) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the City Manager Communications be heard after\nSpecial Orders.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of moving up City Manager Communications\nand hearing the American Rescue Plan Act resolution [paragraph no. 21-851 before the Police\nwork plan [paragraph no. 21-854].\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for not moving up the item.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer withdrew her motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to move up the referral regarding recreational\nvehicles [paragraph no. 21-857 before the first agenda item.\nVice Mayor Vella approval of hearing City Manager Communications after Special Orders with\nkeeping the comments under 5 minutes.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(21-835) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read a proclamation commending Mastick Senior Center Director\nJackie Krause.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-836) The City Manager outlined the launch of the Alameda Community Assessment\nResponse and Engagement (CARE) team.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-837) Bill Ng expressed concern over landlords not being able to increase rent; questioned\nwhen landlords will be able to increase rent.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 3, "text": "(21-838) Donna Fletcher, Alameda, urged the public receive an update on negotiations with the\nNavy regarding Alameda Point.\n(21-839) Zac Bowling, Alameda, discussed the opening of the warming shelter; stated new\nsleeping bags are needed.\n(21-840) Marilyn Rothman, Alameda, urged the Police Commission be approved prior to\nadopting any new Police measures.\n(21-841) Jill Staten, Alameda, discussed safety training education for pedestrians and bicyclists.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nDiscussed her service on the Open Government Commission: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nThe City Clerk announced the appointment to the Open Government Commission matter\n[paragraph no. 21-844 was removed from the Consent Calendar to allow for Oath\nadministration.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer removed the local emergency resolution [paragraph no. 21-\n846 for discussion.\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; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-842) Minutes of the Special Meeting, the Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting and the Regular Meeting Held on November 16,\n2021. Approved.\n(*21-843) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,398,496.70.\n(21-844) Recommendation to Accept a Report on the Appointment of a Member to the Open\nGovernment Commission.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nMr. Cambra made brief comments.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office.\n(*21-845) Resolution No. 15851, \"Setting the 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Dates.\"\nAdopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 4, "text": "Section 8630(c). Adopted.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification from staff about a landlord's ability to\nincrease rent during the pandemic.\nThe City Attorney stated existing local law includes a moratorium on rent increases which\nremains in effect until 60 days after the City Council declares an end to the local emergency.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how often the matter comes before Council, to which\nthe City Attorney responded in the matter comes before Council every 60 days.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Alameda County currently has a rent freeze;\nnoted that she has received correspondence which indicates the City of Alameda is the only one\nwith a moratorium on rent increases.\nThe City Manager responded Alameda County also currently has a moratorium.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on how the matter works.\nThe City Attorney stated Council took a public position at the beginning of the pandemic that\nCounty ordinances do not apply to incorporated cities; the law on the matter is clear that outside\nof a public emergency, county ordinances do not operate within incorporated cities; the law is\nless clear during a public emergency; however, the law likely favors the former and county\nordinances do not operate within incorporated cities; there is not complete clarity.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether landlords would be able to continue\nadministering annual rent increases after 60 days if Council ends the local emergency.\nThe City Attorney responded when Council ends the moratorium, there will be no further local\nlaw in effect precluding landlords from raising rents; stated the argument about the county effect\non incorporated cities remains to be decided by a court.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter requires three of four affirmative\nvotes to pass, to which the City Attorney responded three affirmative votes are needed to pass.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like staff to look into other ways of providing relief to\nlandlords.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the emergence of the Omicron variant has\nprovided reason to continue the local emergency; the concerns of small landlords are valid and\nCouncil must find ways to help out; smaller mom and pop landlords do not have the same\nmeans that large landlords and owners have.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 5, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(*21-847) Resolution No. 15853, \"Endorsing the Bay Adapt Joint Platform, a Regional Strategy\nfor a Rising Bay.\" Adopted.\nCONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-848) Recommendation to Approve a One-Year Extension of the Slow Streets Program\nthrough December 2022.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether she needs to recuse herself from the matter\ndue to residing within 250 feet from a slow street location.\nThe City Attorney responded the matter affects more than 50 parcels and is covered under the\nlimited neighborhood effect exception to the public generally exception and Councilmember\nHerrera Spencer may participate.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Transportation Commission (TC) made a\nrecommendation.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated the TC asked staff to\nevaluate Pearl Street as a possible alternative to Versailles Avenue; the TC also recommended\nmore extensive community outreach be completed prior to final slow street recommendations.\nStated that she does not see a reason to do slow streets, which are used marginally; expressed\nsupport for changing to different streets or reducing the number: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the staff recommendation, improvements and the plan becoming\npermanent: Bill Garvine, Alameda.\nStated that she is walker, but does not use slow streets; expressed concern about including\nVersailles Avenue as a slow street and for increased traffic and speeds on surrounding streets;\ndiscussed a traffic study: Jill Staten, Alameda.\nExpressed support for slow streets and urged expansion; stated cars seem to go faster since\nthere are less cars on the roads; discussed barriers, deflection methods and speed bumps;\nurged Council support: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated BikeWalk Alameda supports the program; outlined collateral benefits; expressed support\nfor having 2 barricades at each intersection, an expansion of the network and increases in\nfunding: Cyndy Johnsen, BikeWalk Alameda.\nExpressed support for the staff recommendation and improved traffic solutions; outlined benefits\nof the program: Susie Hufstader, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 6, "text": "Expressed support for continuing the program and making improvements; stated the slow\nstreets program has benefitted pedestrians and bicyclists in the area: Nora Munoz, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about the surveys being statistically insignificant; discussed surveys: Jay\nGarfinkle, Alameda.\nStated that he is excited about extending slow streets; urged the program be improved by\nincluding more barricades; expressed support for a safe connection from the north to the south\narea of the Island: Michael Sullivan, Alameda.\nExpressed support for slow streets: Brian Kennedy, Alameda.\nStated that she is a huge fan of slow streets; discussed traffic diversion, increased traffic, use of\nroads and barriers: Denyse Trepanier, BikeWalk Alameda.\nUrged elimination of the slow street program; stated people are confused and walking on streets\nthat are not slow streets; discussed barriers and non-slow streets: Birgitt Evans, Alameda.\nDiscussed her positive experience living on a slow street; discussed safety and street\nbarricades: Paula Ojea, Alameda.\nDiscussed rotating slow streets, driving routes, traffic diversion, eliminating Versailles Avenue\nand Vision Zero; expressed concern about California laws not being followed: Jim Strehlow,\nAlameda.\nExpressed support for continuing slow streets and urged Council support; stated that she feels\nsafer on slow streets: Laura Curtrona, Alameda.\nOutlined using slow streets and feeling safer as a cyclist; urged Council support: Kristi Black,\nAlameda.\nExpressed support for slow streets, which make her feel safer biking to school: Hazel McGuire,\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the Versailles Avenue slow street is one of his favorites;\ndiscussed basketball events at slow streets; expressed support for continuation of the program\nwithout an end date; suggested extending the program until the implementation of the Active\nTransportation Plan (ATP), rather than having the matter return for another Council vote in 12\nmonths, which creates more unnecessary work; expressed support for expanding the slow\nstreets program; stated there has been recommendation to include a north-south connection at\n8th Street and Pacific Avenue and at 9th Street and San Antonio Avenue; he would like to look at\nways to connect Jean Sweeney Park and the southern portion of the West End of the Island to\naccommodate people who responded to the survey in favor of continuing the program.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she cannot support Versailles Avenue being\nincluded in the program; the street is dangerous; it is unfortunate to have cars being diverted to\nother streets which are narrow; many streets are only a single land in width; Otis Street is slow\nand backs up; there have been more accidents and deaths in the past two years; she thinks\nsome of the improvements made are contributing to the increase; cars are being diverted to\nnarrow streets, which are not designed for the amount of traffic; if Council wants to continue the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 7, "text": "program, it must look at the slow streets as well as the impacted streets nearby; discussed car\nand public transportation ridership numbers compared to pre-COVID-19; stated that she hopes\nthere is an alternative to Versailles Avenue; Versailles Avenue is the only street which is\ncontinuous from Otis Drive to Fernside Boulevard; she is a pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist;\nthere have been complaints about Pacific Avenue; traffic on Buena Vista Avenue is increased in\ncar traffic; proposed removing the portion east of Grand Avenue on Pacific Avenue; stated that\nshe has received questions about the choice of San Jose Avenue as a slow street; San Antonio\nAvenue could be considered; the West End of town has better selections for slow streets; slow\nstreets have not been created equally; noted portions of Versailles Avenue have been open due\nto school re-opening; cars are able to go closer to Edison School; inquired whether the entirety\nof Versailles Avenue is a slow street.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator responded Versailles Avenue from Fernside Boulevard\nto Calhoun Street is a slow street; stated staff worked with Edison School to move the barricade\nfrom the block of the school.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated car traffic is around the school; expressed support for\nVersailles Avenue no longer being a continuous slow street and for maintaining the slow streets\nwest of Grand Avenue; stated there is work to be done on the slow streets east of Grand\nAvenue.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is unsure the increase in accidents and deaths are related\nto slow streets and diverting traffic to smaller streets; she does not think there is evidence to\nsupport the assertion; a memorial bicycle ride went to all four sites of cyclist deaths; all deaths\noccurred on large streets that could benefit from traffic calming; one side of Franklin School is\nbordered by San Jose Avenue; there have been concerns about speeding in the area near the\nschool; expressed support for the staff recommendation without going beyond; stated that she\nwould like Pearl Street to be considered; Pearl Street has more apartment buildings than\nVersailles Avenue; expressed support for providing the benefit of slow streets on a street with\nmore apartment complexes; stated complications with Versailles Avenue include access to the\nsmall commercial district; the TC has recommended studying the area in the next year; she is a\nbicyclist, pedestrian and car driver; she loves riding her bike on slow streets and talking to\nneighbors; neighbors on Pacific Avenue have concerns related to speeding; she has received\nsuggestions about making non-slow streets into slow streets; slow streets have been a way to\nget people out and exercising during the pandemic; slow streets have helped build community;\ndiscussed Noe Valley's closed off slow streets; stated change is always difficult; expressed\nsupport for slow streets and the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council must remember that slow streets started at a time in the\npandemic where much uncertainty was present; many areas of activity were closed or limited in\nservice; many people were working from home and needed the ability to get out of the house to\nwalk; space was needed to facilitate the activity needed; the pandemic accelerated the slow\nstreets program; tennis courts and swimming have managed to come back, as well as\ndowntown areas; people are able to socially distance with facemasks; the overarching issues\nwhich required the City to put the slow streets program in place are not currently present; the\nbackdrop for the slow streets program is longer present; people are able to walk on streets while\nsocially distanced with facemasks; the current condition is different; the urgency for slow streets\nprogram is no longer present; people are not seeing slow streets as a mechanism to deal with\nsocial distancing; slow streets are being seen as a quasi-cul-de-sac; slow streets and cul-de-\nsacs are desirable due to lack of traffic; Council must discuss which streets are selected to be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 8, "text": "slow streets; less traffic is a benefit; he does not support the continuation of the slow streets\nprogram for one more year; encouraged City staff, Council, Boards and Commissions to figure\nout an equitable approach to select slow streets; slow streets provide some semblance of less\ntraffic; Council must decide the reasoning behind specific streets being selected for the slow\nstreets program; expressed support for staff coming back to figure out the reasoning behind\nstreet selection; questioned whether issues of equity should be considered.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the street selection process.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator stated there are a variety of reasons streets were\nselected for the slow streets program; some are already bicycle routes or being considered in\nthe ACT as future bicycle boulevards; the selected streets also already have a relatively higher\nnumber of people walking and biking; streets were selected for less traffic disruption; larger\nstreets would cause a disruption in traffic; slow streets were kept off of bus routes.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he understands; however, people on other streets also\ndeserve to live on a slow street.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the first survey asked the community about slow\nstreet locations; the streets selected were the most frequently mentioned in the survey\nresponses; staff indicated a need for providing equity across the Island as well.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the reasons provided are valid; as policymakers, Council must\nthink about neighborhoods and residents that may not self-select as wanting slow streets;\nothers are just as worthy of having slow streets; Council needs to figure out who gets the lottery\nof a slow street.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she appreciates the clarification about traffic deaths not being\nrelated to safety and calming efforts; there has been a lot of staff, Board and Commission work\nand discussion behind the slow streets selection process and locations; vehicles are slowing\ndown and being cautious while driving down slow streets; she is supportive of expanding traffic\ncalming measures on side streets if needed; Council has taken previous measures to ensure\nthe safety of streets as a priority; expressed support for seeing slow streets becoming\npermanent and expanded and for an expansion of traffic calming measures; stated that she\nwould like Council to ensure slow streets allow for safe routes to school and safe travel across\nthe entire City; using slow streets is appropriate and in line with the community and Council's\nvision; expressed support for equitable mobility opportunities; stated that she is hearing enough\nvotes to continue the program; she supports seeing expansion and discussion related to\nCouncilmember Knox White's comments; she is ready to move forward with staff's\nrecommendation at minimum; inquired whether Councilmember Knox White made a motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see the matter move forward; however, her\ncomfort level is at the staff recommendation; the staff recommendation is most respectful to time\nspent; she does not believe a motion has been made yet.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the [slow streets] program until the\nimplementation consistent with the completion of the upcoming ATP.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 9, "text": "Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is consistent with staff's\nrecommendation, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated with\na change to the timing.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the change to the timing.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded the program would not end in one year and come back\nto Council, instead it would extend until the ATP is implemented; the ATP is the planning\ndocument which will decide what to do about the slow streets program.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to hear from staff before deciding how to vote;\noutlined the staff recommendation.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the staff recommendation is to continue the slow\nstreets program through the end of December 2022; staff can also tie the matter in to the\nadoption of the ATP.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff's proposed extending the\nprogram for one year;, the ATP will likely be completed by said time; the ATP process will select\nthe permanent slow streets and bicycle boulevards; Councilmember Knox White's logic makes\nsense and makes direction clear to extend the slow streets until Council discusses the ATP;\nCouncilmember Knox White is trying to avoid the slow streets program expiring without the ATP\nbeing fully finished; the action avoids another Council action to be taken in order to extend the\nprogram prior to ATP completion; tying the slow streets program directly to the ATP makes\nsense.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the recommendation to tie slow streets to the ATP was not included\nin the staff report; she understands the approach; she does not think it too onerous to ask for\nanother extension; she is satisfied with the staff recommendation and wants to move the plan\nforward.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether it is possible to ensure the ATP will be ready in one year and\nwhether Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft is amenable to having Council provide direction to staff to have\nthe slow streets matter return with the ATP in one year.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would be satisfied with an evaluation or check-in from staff\nin one year's time, while still moving forward with the ATP finalization; expressed support for a\nreview in one year; inquired whether the check-in is possible.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff can\nperform either way and provide a check-in in one year with; if staff is close to completing the\nATP, Council can decide whether or not to extend the program.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is willing to go with Councilmember Knox White's motion;\nhowever, she would like the addition of a check-in in one year's time; inquired whether the\ncheck-in is acceptable.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is not supportive of staff spending time performing a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 10, "text": "review of a program which is already going through the ATP planning process; expressed\nconcern about staff spending time on a report to Council and staff's workload; stated the ATP\nwill include the desired review and staff's recommendation based on communication with the\ncommunity.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff has acknowledged the ability to provide a check-in; the report\nback to Council will not be that time consuming.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether there is a request for him to withdraw his motion;\nstated that he can withdraw the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella would like to make a motion; inquired\nwhen staff anticipates having the ATP ready.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator responded staff anticipating the ATP will be ready by the\nend of 2022.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:04 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:18 p.m.\n***\nCouncilmember Knox White amended his motion to include that if staff has not returned in 18\nmonths with a finalized ATP, staff will return with a review of the slow streets program for\nCouncil consideration and direction; stated the amendment allows staff to get to the ATP in the\nexpected timeline without having to stop and perform additional review of the slow streets\nprogram; if staff falls behind, there is the ability to provide review.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Senior Transportation Coordinator indicated that she anticipates\nreturning to Council with the ATP in December 2022.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated if staff is able to complete the ATP, a discussion on slow\nstreets will not be needed since it would be included in the ATP; the ATP supplants the slow\nstreets program plan; the plan is to have slow streets until the ATP is in place; if staff falls\nbehind, a review of the slow streets program will occur; he is supportive of having staff work on\nthe ATP to get past the slow streets era.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there will be 18 months prior to review, to which\nCouncilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella accepted the amendment to the motion; stated that she wants to see the slow\nstreets continue; inquired about the staff timeline; stated that she would like to avoid\nunnecessary items coming back to Council; she is open to hearing from staff.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can guarantee an ATP in 12\nmonths; the staff work to prepare an ATP is not the difficult part; working through the process\nwith the Transportation Commission and community is the difficult part; staff struggles to provide\na definitive date due to possible difficulties in the process; staff brings plans to Council after\ngoing through the public review process; staff is confident that the ATP will get to Council in 12\nmonths; Councilmember Knox White's concerns are valid; putting the ATP on hold to provide a\nreport back to Council on slow streets with only a month or two remaining on the ATP timeline\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 11, "text": "would be a shame.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does rely on staff recommendations.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated staff should be considering the equity aspect for the\nprogram; many suggestions have been provided about rotating slow streets; she has not heard\nof anyone volunteering for more car traffic; many people are happy to have less car traffic; the\nconcern of increased car traffic is legitimate; the issue of equity is valuable; expressed support\nfor staff taking the matter to heart.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated slow streets barriers prevent through traffic; some streets want\nthe barriers and have reasons just as valid as any other street.\nOn the call carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera\nSpencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(21-849) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to\nthe Agreement with Kittelson & Associates to Increase Compensation by $270,906, for a Total\nAggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $345,876 to Continue Providing Technical Services\nRelated to Roundabouts.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the work being performed includes rendering\nvideos.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the contract is currently trying to\nidentify where roundabouts can physically and practically work; stated the next step would be to\nnarrow down the limited locations and start conceptual designs for the specific locations; then,\nstaff can work on graphics and videos.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the contracted amount includes providing the\nrendering video or whether the contract includes more preliminary work, to which the Planning,\nBuilding and Transportation Director responded the work is more preliminary.\nMike Alston, Kittelson & Associates, stated that he has been working with staff on roundabout\nwork throughout 2021; advanced alternatives are included further down the line; a task for\nvisualization is included in the proposed scope of work.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the additional money covers visualization, to\nwhich Mr. Alston responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether visualization will be included for each\nroundabout.\nMr. Alston responded the visualization is included for certain locations where a roundabout\nwould be viable; once enough is known, the scope includes the task to visualize the proposed\nconcept; multiple videos for roundabouts will not be made; however, if a viable location be\nidentified, staff will develop a design for the location; if the location is presented to the\nTransportation Commission and Council, the visualization will be prepared.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the timeframe for the matter.\nMr. Alston responded the work is happening throughout 2022; stated staff will be kept in the\nloop as the work progresses; several tasks are included in the scope; all are to occur in 2022.\nExpressed support for roundabouts; discussed outreach and public education: Zac Bowling,\nAlameda.\n[Comment not regarding agenda item] : Brian Kennedy, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like three to four places\nidentified for evaluation with the additional supplement to the contract.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated one of the primary locations staff is\nreview is the Clement Avenue extension as it inter-connects with Tilden Way; staff has also\nbeen looking at Mecartney Road, Lincoln Avenue, Marshall Way and Pacific Avenue; staff is\ncontinuing to work on and evaluate Central Avenue and Sherman Street; grant fund can be\nsought for locations that make sense; Council approval is needed to competitively apply for\ngrant funding; Kittelson's expertise, knowledge, skills and visualization techniques put the City in\na position to be able to communicate, educate and ensure the community will support traffic\nroundabouts at a specific locations.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for visualizations; stated that she hopes\nthe visualizations include locations for pedestrians; a proposed location is near a school and\nhas a lot of new drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians; she would like the visualization to show\ndrop-off and pickup; expressed concern about roundabouts; stated the contract is an\neducational element; expressed support for education on roundabouts including an\nunderstanding of where each person will go without slowing down traffic without a signal or sign;\ninquired the source of funding for the contract.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded Measure B and Measure BB\nmoney has been budgeted.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether no General Fund money is being used, to\nwhich the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-850) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Installation and Use of\nAutomated License Plate Readers (ALPR), including Fixed and Mobile Equipment on Alameda\nPolice Department Vehicles.\nThe Police Chief gave a Power Point presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Knox White stated Council policy direction requires a personal privacy analysis\nreport; he does not see the report; inquired whether the evaluation has been done.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he has reviewed the privacy policy resolution, which\ndid not require an analysis; if Council wants to have a written analysis, it can be provided.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated there is Council direction which was used on a prior matter\ninvolving ALPRs for the Ferry Terminal parking; staff is aware of the policy.\nThe City Manager stated that he initially forwarded the email request from Councilmember Knox\nWhite to the Police Chief and the Assistant City Attorney; staff will look into the privacy policy\nfurther.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated part of the Council direction about bringing the ALPR matter\nback to Council included bringing studies of effectiveness; he does not see any studies which\nshow an effective drop in crime; inquired whether or not ALPRs have an impact on crime.\nThe Police Chief responded a study was attached; stated not many studies look at ALPRs;\ncases which have been cleared or closed do not indicate that the closure is directly due to\nALPR; ALPR is a tool; the study looked at any words associated with ALPR to see whether\nthere was a connection; similarly, solving a case is not due to the surveillance video itself, but to\nall evidence; many researchers have found challenges when looking for success rates\nassociated with ALPRs; he is looking at the matter as qualitative and quantitative; it has been\ndifficult to find quantitative data; qualitative data shows strong support from agencies utilizing\nALPRs; many agencies are looking to expand ALPR programs and find value in the equipment;\nhe has seen value in the technology and in the ability to identify specific vehicles, rather than\nhaving a vague description.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is unsure of when the direction for written\nanalysis of privacy was given; inquired whether the work done by City staff satisfies the prior\nCouncil's direction.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the privacy analysis.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he has reviewed the Council-adopted resolution from\nDecember 2019 that sets forth a number of overall privacy principles; the resolution contained\nthree components: a list of general principals, the internal or administrative rules adopted by the\nCity Manager regarding privacy of information technology that does not apply to uses consistent\nwith legitimate law enforcement purpose and a final component related to facial recognition\ntechnology; he did not see anything in his review that appeared inconsistent with Council's\ngeneral direction of allowing limited retention of certain materials that could impact privacy, as\nlong as it is used consistent with a law enforcement purpose and not in conjunction with facial\nrecognition technology.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City Attorney's opinion is that Council\nmay proceed with the matter.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 14, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated there appears to be no\ninconsistency; if Council wants a more in-depth, written analysis, the City Attorney's office is\nhappy to provide.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated it sounds like the actions are consistent with the former\nCouncil's resolution.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Council gave direction to use the San Francisco data privacy\npolicy until staff returns with an Alameda-specific policy; the policy requires the creation of a\npersonal privacy impact evaluation report; he is confused as to why the report was not included\nwith the staff report; questioned how staff found consistency with the Council policy direction.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he is not aware of Council's direction to perform a written\nanalysis; he reviewed the resolution.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the policy report is not included with the staff report.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the privacy analysis; stated a privacy policy was\nsupposed to have the fix of an analysis being provided when matters come before Council;\ninquired whether the matter can return to Council in the future with an analysis, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council decides whether or not to move the matter to a future date;\nthe matter was continued from a previous meeting; it is not clear that Council will implement\nanything at the current meeting; Council can provide direction for more information, including\nthe privacy analysis.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he was not aware of the Council direction related to\nproviding a written analysis; he will review the email and requirements; he will be happy to\nprovide an expedited written analysis if desired by Council.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for calling public speakers.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether the City Clerk could review the previous Council direction.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how much time would be needed for the information to be found;\nproposed the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) matter [paragraph no 21-851 be taken in the\nmeantime.\nThe City Clerk responded that she can search while public comment is taken; noted the staff for\nthe ARPA matter is different from the current agenda item.\nThe City Attorney stated that in his brief review of the email there is real confusion between staff\nabout whether or not a personal privacy policy was actually included in the Council direction; it\nwill be helpful for the City Clerk to confirm the Council direction.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Clerk would have enough time if Councils move\nahead to the ARPA matter, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 15, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called the ARPA item [paragraph no. 21-851 to allow staff to review prior\nCouncil direction.\n***\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-851) Resolution No. 15854, \"Amending the Capital Budget by Increasing Appropriations in\nthe 2021 American Rescue Plan Project (C99300) by $1,911,000 for Replacement of Three\nPortables and Decking at the Midway Shelter, Food Bank Facility Repairs, and Purchase of\nWireless Hotspots for Lending.\" Adopted.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nDiscussed non-profits and Building Futures Midway Shelter; urged Council to approve the\nfunding; stated people are thankful for the work of Midway Shelter: Kari Thompson, Alameda\nHomeless Network (AHN).\n[Comment not regarding agenda item]: Brian Kennedy, Alameda.\nStated that she supports those listed for funding; discussed her experience on the Board of\nDirectors for Midway Shelter; stated the physical structure of the shelter needs serious help;\ndiscussed the love provided by Midway Shelter; urged Council approve the funding for the\nproject: Gail Thomas, Alameda.\nStated that she supports Midway Shelter and the Food Bank as quality programs; urged the City\nto actively engage with its community members uses for ARPA funding: Jennifer Rakowski,\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution; expressed support for the\nhot spots being included; noted flooding is present at the Food Bank facility.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the staff recommendation; outlined the Feed\nAlameda program; stated City departments offered seed money to fund the program; proposed\na friendly amendment to the motion for Council to consider the ability to explore setting aside\nsome of the ARPA funds as a match for the Universal Basic Income (UBI) program; noted a\nState pilot program has $35 million allocated for local cities; the State funding will require a local\nmatch; expressed support for the City having the flexibility to allocate some of the ARPA funding\nas a match for the UBI program funds; proposed that Councilmember Knox White work with\nherself on exploring the potential program; discussed ARPA funding being used for storm water\nrepairs; inquired whether the funding would be reimbursed by a developer.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded staff has considered both ways; stated staff has\nconsidered it an investment in the community based on the allowed uses for ARPA funding;\nstaff has also considered a possible reimbursement from a developer based on the process at\nAlameda Point; water is included as an eligible use for ARPA funds.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council does not need to make the decision at the\ncurrent time, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the title and report do not include UBI; inquired whether\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 16, "text": "UBI has been noticed.\nThe City Attorney responded, generally, the Council is able to provide brief direction to staff on\nrelated matters; stated the Council is being asked to spend ARPA funds; the direction being\nprovided to staff is to look into it and not make final decisions or allocate funding; as long as the\ndirection remains brief and does not involve a lot of discussion, the direction is fine; staff will\nreturn with a related agenda item in the future after the direction provided.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the friendly amendment to the motion.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-850 CONTINUED) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Installation\nand Use of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR), including Fixed and Mobile Equipment\non Alameda Police Department Vehicles.\nThe City Manager stated there has been confusion and differences of opinion about the report\nback to Council related to the privacy portion of the resolution; if Council wants staff to bring\nback ALPRs, the privacy analysis can be brought as well.\nThe City Attorney stated the City Clerk pulled the previous Council motion; it is unclear in\nreading the motion that a personal privacy policy is required; if Council wants to move forward,\nstaff will need to prepare a statement; the City Manager's solution is elegant, responds to\nCouncil's needs and allows staff to move forward if Council so desires.\nMayor Ezzy Aschraft stated if the matter moves forward, the report will come back with the\npersonal privacy policy analysis.\nExpressed support for expanding the use of ALPRs; stated ALPRs are not a cure-all for crime.\nbut can be a valuable asset in helping to discourage crime; discussed access to Harbor Bay: Bill\nPai, Community of Harbor Bay Isle.\nExpressed support for the Police Chief's vision; urged the Alameda Police Department (APD)\nhave the technology and resources to address safety concerns; discussed crime in the City and\nreduced APD staff; stated ALPRs are an investigative tool and deterrent to crime; urged Council\napprove the installation and use of ALPRs: Richard Kim, East Shore Home Owners Association\n(HOA).\nStated there is no evidence that ALPRs prevent Police mistakes; the clearance rates would be\ntracked by the Department if the use of ALPRs is justified; many people have stolen license\nplates; the matter is a lot of money to promote more surveillance: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about privacy, secret subpoenas, rouge actors, cross-referencing,\nincremental data collection and misuse; discussed his experience with implementing systems\nwhich are secure by design and cannot be reversed; urged an in-depth analysis of any solution\nfrom vendors; stated there is less storage with mobile ALPR units as opposed to fixed units: Zac\nBowling, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 17, "text": "Stated that he is in favor of the installation and use of fixed and mobile ALPRs; Council's\nprimary responsibility is to provide for the safety and security of City residents; urged Council to\ngive APD a chance and to permit the Department to acquire ALPRs: Bill Garvine, Alameda.\nQuestioned why anyone would need to know whether or not a car belongs to a resident; stated\nthe information has nothing to do with crime; ALPRs are detrimental to public privacy and will\nincrease the Police footprint: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.\nDiscussed meetings with the Police Chief and HOAs; expressed support for the use of ALPR\ntechnology; stated people are at a tipping point due to auto-thefts; the shelf life and access of\ndata collected should be controlled as discussed by the Police Chief: Michael Robles-Wong,\nAlameda.\nStated Alameda is not at war with its neighbors; ALPRs give off an unwelcome message; the\nproposal is expensive and has questionable value; expressed concern about the program not\nbeing utilized as presented; stated that she is looking for a more complete analysis: Jennifer\nRakowski, Alameda.\nStated ALPRs do not stop crime; ALPRs make citizens feel as though they are being watched;\nquestioned the locations for the ALPRs; citizens do not need to be monitored; there is confusion\nabout how and where the data will be used; a deeper policy is needed; urged Council to say no\nto the matter: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.\nUrged Council vote no on ALPRs; discussed an article related to unauthorized use of Clearview\ntechnology; expressed concern about the use of ALPRs; stated data can paint an intimate\npicture of a driver's life and can be used to target someone; ALPRs will not change the\nclearance rate of cases APD is able to solve; the measure is reactive and not proactive: Laura\nCutrona, Alameda.\n***\n(21-852) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing all the remaining items up until\nmidnight and taking another vote at midnight if Council wants to progress further.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which required four affirmative votes and failed\nby the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White:\nAye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the Police work plan [paragraph no. 21-\n854].\nThe motion failed for a lack of second.\n***\nStated the agenda item is placing ALPRs on Police vehicles; discussed a car break-in: Jim\nStrehlow, Alameda.\nStated that she is disappointed in Council not taking action on the matter; the matter has been\naround for over three years; Council needs to make a decision; expressed support for Council\nvoting on the matter; stated Council needs to think about protecting Alameda residents;\ndiscussed a survey on Nextdoor: Reyla Graber, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 18, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella stated that she thought Council provided clear direction in December 2019\nabout the privacy issue and ensuring Council has a privacy policy in place while following the\nSan Francisco privacy policy in the interim; expressed concern about potentially undoing a\nCouncil action; stated the matter has nothing to do with whether or not she trusts the current\nPolice Chief; she will continue to trust the Police Chief until there is reason not to; she is\nphilosophically opposed to ALPRs due to data showing inefficiency and inefficacy against crime\nfighting; the units are costly; expressed concern about the placebo effect of spending money on\ntechnology which is not effective; she has been supportive of ensuring APD has funding to fill\nvacancies with quality Officers; the ALPR technology creates a lot of opportunities for abuse of\npower; there is no data to show that ALPRs are a deterrent other than anecdotal; her concerns\nabout privacy remain; expressed support for staff to begin movement on policies; stated that\nshe looks forward to the policy being finalized so the City is not stuck in limbo of using the San\nFrancisco policy model; the units are a large expenditure and she is unsure whether the City will\nget its money's worth or see the expected deterrence.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter is controversial; discussed the former Police\nChief's concerns about APD racially profiling people and ALPR technology; stated that she\nsupports the staff recommendation; she understands Alternative 1 to be the staff\nrecommendation; inquired whether Alternative 1 is the primary ask for Council, to which the\nPolice Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of Alternative 1.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on what it will look like to move forward\nwith Alternative 1; inquired the timeline and whether staff will be coming back at some point in\nthe near future.\nThe Police Chief responded that he will take direction from Council on next steps; stated that his\nrecommendation is to move forward with being able to install ALPR equipment at designated\nfixed locations.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether additional funding approval is needed; noted\nthere was a previous allocation of $500,000.\nThe Police Chief responded the cost will be significantly less; stated there are 13 locations to\ninstall cameras; each camera costs $2,750 for the first year and $2,500 each year following; the\ncost will roughly be $36,000.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about mobile ALPR units.\nThe Police Chief stated mobile units cost roughly $200 per vehicle, per month.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been concerns related to the privacy; she is\nhappy to include the report as part of a friendly amendment to her motion if desired.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not support the motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the necessity of ALPRs has been expressed by various\nCouncils, Police Chiefs and residents over a long period of time; discussed a previous Council\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 19, "text": "meeting discussion about the use of ALPRs; stated the time has come; the way in which crime\nis occurring throughout the area is vastly different and more sophisticated; crime is occurring;\ndiscussed a break-in at a cannabis dispensary; stated Officers need to be provided with proper\ntraining and be given the tools; ALPRs are tools to help APD improve the way in which they\neither deter crime or capture people who commit crime; the tools are not perfect; the City cannot\nwait another seven years in hopes of finding the perfect tool; the units are expensive; however,\nthe City must amp up its game in terms of deterring and solving crime; ALPRs are one tool that\ncan help; the issue of privacy is important; he has confidence in City staff that the City will be\nmindful of concerns related to privacy; Council needs to move forward and give a signal that the\nCity will provide APD a fighting chance in deterring and solving crime.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is mindful of concerns about increasing crime and privacy;\nthe way crime is taking place is changing; there is a need to get tougher on criminals; ALPR\ntechnology can be a valuable tool; however, based on the report provided, she is not ready to\nmove forward in approving the use of ALPR technology; she would like to give staff direction to\ncome back to Council; information has been presented which is not included in the staff report;\nshe would like the information included in the staff report if the matter returns to Council; the\ncost of the technology is listed between $500,000 and $700,000 in the staff report and she\nwould like an explanation for the difference; there is a question about the cost for installation\nand maintenance of ALPR cameras; many references to privacy concerns have been made;\nshe would like to know the proposed retention policy; the retention time needs to be included in\na policy; she would like more discussion about which approach, fixed or mobile ALPRs, would\nhave a more chilling effect on residents; the City of Berkeley recently approved the use of fixed\nsecurity cameras in various locations throughout the City; Berkeley staff are currently drafting\nthe use policy for the fixed security cameras; staff should communicate with Berkeley staff on\ntheir approach; she understands the need to free up Officers for patrolling and covering\nneighborhoods; she would like clarification about handling vehicles without license plates; some\ncrimes occur with vehicles that do not have license plates; questioned where the data collected\ngoes and who has access to retention; stated Council needs to have an explanation of the\nClearview use incident; expressed support for Council supporting Assembly Bill (AB) 550\nrelated to automated speed cameras; stated the Bill is part of what is being considered for\nVision Zero and she would like the City to consider the important tool; stated that she is willing\nto giving staff direction to come back to Council with more detail and information.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated Council has supported AB 550 and was\none of the few cities to send a letter; he is not against cameras; Council needs to have\nconfidence that the cameras are going to have an impact; he has not heard one comment which\naccurately describes the outcome of putting ALPRs in place; he understands the community has\nconcerns about safety and crime; Council needs to be doing as much as possible; he would be\nsupportive of ALPRs if they were a tool that helps address safety and crime; there is a reason\nfor the lack of studies which show that ALPRs do not deter or change crime; ALPRs do not\ndeter or change crime; anecdotal stories are due to there being no change in what happens with\ncrime when cameras are installed; outlined crime statistics for the City of Piedmont after\ninstallation of ALPR cameras; stated Council will be over-promising that putting in cameras will\nhave an impact on crime outcomes; installing ALPRs will not have an impact on crime\noutcomes; discussed incorrect license plate hits in the City of Vallejo; stated Officers will waste\ntime on going after people not involved with crimes; expressed concern about the shortage of\nAPD Officers; stated the use of ALPR will be taking away from Officer time being spent on the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 20, "text": "streets; he is unsure how to move forward with a new camera program until the City addresses\nthe Clearview issue; expressed support for a discussion on Clearview prior to moving forward;\nstated that he will not support the matter; the matter is security theatre and will pull away current\nresources with nothing to show for it in two to three years; dozens of agencies use ALPR\ntechnology; there is not one study that shows an impact on crime; he will not support ALPRs\nuntil the data shows an impact on crime.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated two to three Police Chiefs supporting ALPRs should amount to\nsomething; other agencies using ALPRs should amount for something; he has to balance data\nreports and recommendations from APD staff; ALPRs are not being installed for no reason;\nALPRs are recommended as a tool to help deter and solving crimes; Council owes APD and\nresidents ALPRs; it appears the City will be waiting another seven years to find a perfect tool.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is willing to consider moving forward after the questions\nshe has posed have been answered.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the City has four cameras with two in the shop due to\nmaintenance; the ALPRs were not deemed important enough to fix and put back on patrol; he is\nnot looking for the perfect tool, he is looking for a tool which shows impactful data; many studies\nshow speed cameras slow speeds and reduce crashes to increase safety.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to give the Police Chief the\nopportunity to respond to Council comments; expressed support for clarification about cameras\nin the shop and the best use of current Officers.\nThe Police Chief stated the current ALPRs in APD vehicles are not in use are due to the\nvehicles being out of commission; in order to move the ALPR equipment from the vehicles\nwhich are out of commission would require initiating another contract with the current vendor;\nthe City can work with other vendors.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the best use of APD Officers and ALPR equipment.\nThe Police Chief responded there is value in ALPRs; ALPRs are a tool; crimes are solved by\npeople; there is value in a tool which will help people solve crimes.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the matter is not about whether a tool can be useful; the matter is about\nhow effective the tool can be; Councilmembers have raised concerns about efficacy and\nefficiency; expressed support for creating limitations to protect members of the public without a\nchilling effect; part of Council's job as policymakers is to evaluate all aspects; Council can listen\nto staff recommendations; however, Council must ultimately make the policy decisions;\nexpressed concern about previous policy decisions around privacy parameters; stated certain\nthings should not be decided or responded to after-the-fact.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.\nAyes: 2. Noes: 3.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft has provided direction for staff\nto\nreturn to Council with information; inquired how much time staff needs to return and address the\npoints raised.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 21, "text": "The Police Chief requested the points be clarified.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like: the cost, the delta between the $500,000 and\n$700,000 amount, information on the City of Berkeley's fixed security cameras and use policy,\ninformation on data retention and storage, how ALPRs would deal with vehicles without license\nplates and an overview of the Clearview issue.\nThe Police Chief stated the points can be addressed fairly soon; the point that would take the\nlongest would be obtaining information on the City of Berkeley's security camera proposal\npolicy.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer will be making a\nmotion based on the topics raised by Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft.\nThe City Attorney expressed concern about including any information on what happens to\nPolice Officers on violations of policy related to Clearview; stated the information related to\nconfidential personnel and cannot be shared in open session; recommended the information not\nbe included in the report back to Council.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft withdrew the request for a report on results of Officer violations.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is happy to move approval; stated time is of\nthe essence; inquired when the matter can return to Council.\nThe City Manager responded the privacy policy report can be brought to Council by January\n18th at the earliest; stated that he will rely on the Police Chief to provide an accurate return date;\nthe first Council meeting in February will be a realistic scenario.\nCouncilmember Herrera moved approval of staff returning with information requested by Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft by January 18th since time is of the essence, but she leaves it up to staff.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n***\n(21-853) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of moving the police services [paragraph\nno. 21-854 to the next Council meeting under Continued Agenda Items as 6-A.\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 Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\n(21-854) Recommendation to Accept an Update and Approve a Work Plan Addressing Efforts to\nReimagine Police Services and Racial Equity. Continued to January 4, 2022.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 22, "text": "(21-855) Jim Strehlow, Alameda, discussed garbage cans on Alameda Avenue; expressed\nconcern about confusing motions at the previous meeting; stated that he would like clarification\nabout transit priorities and when Council will schedule a follow-up agenda item; noted AB 550 is\nno longer active.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-856) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-857) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational\nVehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-858) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate\nHomeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-859) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting\nHousing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember\nDaysog) Not heard.\n(21-860) 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 2023-\n2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.\n(21-861) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers\nHerrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard.\n(21-862) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular\nCity Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-863) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-864) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department\nCommunity Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-865) Consider Directing Staff to Immediately Agendize an Urgency Hearing on Senate Bill\n(SB) 9. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-866) Councilmember Knox White discussed a community workshop related to removing the\ntruck ban on Interstate 580; expressed wishes for 2022 to be low-key and good.\n(21-867) Vice Mayor Vella outlined information regarding the Lead Abatement meeting last\nweek; announced distribution of COVID-19 tests from California Department of Public Health\n(CDPH) for students returning to school.\n(21-868) Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the CARE program\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 23, "text": "information.\n(21-869) Councilmember Daysog discussed a hiring ceremony for three new APD Officers and\nthe memorial for Supervisor Wilma Chan; urged Alamedans to visit City Hall at night to see the\nholiday tree.\n(21-870) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined an Association for Bay Area Governments Regional\nPlanning Committee meeting; discussed ribbon cuttings for an art installation and the Little Ice\nRink at Alameda Point; outlined a joint meeting of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors\nand Mayors of Alameda County related to funding homelessness; discussed distribution of\nTarget gift cards for families in the Alameda Housing Authority Head Start program.\n(21-871) Councilmember Herrera Spencer made an announcement about the West End Arts\nDistrict's mural grand opening.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:01 a.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\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}