{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 1, 2022--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:24 p.m. and wished everyone a Happy\nLunar New Year. Councilmember Herrera Spencer led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nVice Mayor Vella arrived at 7:29 p.m. The meeting\nwas conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(22-069) Proclamation Declaring February 2022 as Black History Month.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\n(22-070) Vice Mayor Vella did a reading for the Season of Nonviolence: Courage.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(22-071) Marilyn Rothman, Alameda, discussed the Alameda Police Department (APD)\nquadrant meetings; expressed concern about noticing of quadrant meetings and the\nlack of mention for the Community Assessment Response & Engagement (CARE);\nurged notices be corrected for future meetings; stated the meetings are a good place to\nprovide information.\n(22-072) Linda Gilchrist, Alameda, urged Council to correct an issue related to stop\nsigns on Clement Avenue; discussed changes to Buena Vista Avenue and Chestnut\nStreet; stated the improvements made to the neighborhood have been dramatic;\nexpressed concern about diversion of traffic; urged Council to consider traffic calming\ndevices; stated that she would like APD to patrol and ticket trucks.\n(22-073) Kristi Black, Alameda, discussed the level of participation in remote City\nmeetings; expressed concern about the duration of City Council meetings and Consent\nCalendar discussions; urged Council to consider efficiency and the length of meetings\nnegatively affecting public participation.\n(22-074) Laura Gamble, Alameda, discussed the removal of public trash cans near her\nhome; stated dumping has increased due to trash can removal; dumping in areas\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 2, "text": "suggests the need for more trash services; expressed concern about quality of life and\neffects to the neighborhood; urged Council to consider addressing how dumping\nmatters are handled.\n(22-075) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority, announced that applications are still\nbeing accepted for Rosefield Village; discussed available units at Rosefield Village;\nstated the State of California awarded the Housing Authority $2.5 million to build more\naffordable housing; discussed upcoming events and landlord-tenant guides for rent\nprograms.\n(22-076) Carmen Reid, Alameda, discussed an initiative related to city and county land-\nuse, zoning and local housing laws; stated the initiative would return decision making\nability to local communities.\n(22-077) Zac Bowling, Alameda Democratic Club, stated the Club is hosting State\nSuperintendent Tony Thurmond to discuss California's response to the COVID-19\npandemic.\n(22-078) Brian Kennedy, Alameda, expressed concern about the SEED Collaborative\ncontract approved at the last Council meeting.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nExpressed concern about abandoned boats and the Police grant [paragraph no. 22-082]\nnot being utilized last year when there is great demand: Brock de Lappe, Oakland\nMarina.\nEncouraged the City to apply for the Police grant: Sandra Coong, Marina Village Yacht\nHarbor.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote on the teleconference findings\n[paragraph no. 22-081 and requested final passage of the Encinal Terminals\nordinances [paragraph nos. 22-083, 22-083A, and 22-083B] be removed from the\nConsent Calendar for discussion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff provide comments on the Police grant.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff has applied for the grant in previous years; the\ncost per boat is $7,500 and the grant will provide enough funding for the removal of 10\nvessels; Bay Area Conservation District Commission has authorized its staff to move\nforward with a regional effort related to abandoned boats and the City will participate in\nthe effort as well.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of the reminder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 3, "text": "vote: 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(*22-079) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council\nand Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the\nRegular City Council Meeting Held on January 4, 2022. Approved.\n(*22-080) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,250,242.47.\n(22-081) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted\nvia Teleconference.\n[Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the item carried by the\nfollowing vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.]\n(*22-082) Resolution No. 15861, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and\nExecute a Grant Agreement Between the State of California Department of Parks and\nRecreation, Division of Boating and Waterways and the City of Alameda by and through\nthe Alameda Police Department.\" Adopted; and\n(*22-082A) Resolution No. 15862, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Police Grants\nFund Estimated Revenue and Expenditures by $75,000 Each for the Surrendered and\nAbandoned Vessel Exchange Grant.\" Adopted.\n(22-083) Ordinance No. 3311, \"Approving a Disposition and Development Agreement\n(DDA) for the Encinal Terminals Project By and Between the City of Alameda and North\nWaterfront Cove, LLC (\"Developer\") Governing the Encinal Terminals Project for Real\nProperty Located at 1521 Buena Vista Avenue and Approving and Authorizing the City\nManager, or Designee, to Execute a Land Exchange and Title Settlement Agreement\nfor the Encinal Terminals Project By and Among the State of California Acting By and\nThrough the State Lands Commission, the City and Developer Substantially in the Form\nAttached Hereto.\" Finally passed;\n(22-083A) Ordinance No. 3312, \"Approving the Amended Encinal Terminals Tidelands\nExchange Master Plan and Density Bonus Application for Redevelopment of Real\nProperty Located at 1521 Buena Vista Avenue (APN 072-0382-001, 072-0382-002,\n072-0383-003 and 072-0382-009). Finally passed; and\n(22-084B) Ordinance No. 3313, \"Approving Development Agreement (DA) (Encinal\nTerminals Project) By and Between the City of Alameda and North Waterfront Cove,\nLLC Governing the Encinal Terminals Project for Real Property Located at 1521 Buena\nVista Avenue.\" Finally passed.\nThe City Manager recused himself from the matter and left the meeting.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed appraisals for the project; stated that she\nreceived emails about the value of the property being unfair; the City has been trustee\nof the property, but the property belongs to the State; the process will continue;\nmembers of the public will have an opportunity to voice concerns at the State Lands\nCommission (SLC) level; expressed support for staff providing clarification on the\nproject appraisals.\nBill White, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, stated the SLC is required to approve any\nexchange of public trust property; the SLC will need to review and make a decision\nabout the agreement at a public meeting; the SLC is required to make certain findings,\nincluding that the value of the lands that are coming into the public trust are equal or\ngreater than the lands coming out of the trust; the City has made similar findings in the\nresolution; however, the City findings are not required by law; the legal requirement lies\nwith the SLC; the SLC will be reviewing the appraisal; the SLC may request changes or\nprovide comments on the appraisal and will be the ultimate entity responsible for looking\nat evidence and conducting a confidential legal analysis; the SLC will decide whether\nthe lands coming in have greater value than the lands coming out; the public will have\nthe opportunity to participate in the hearing.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the public can visit the SLC website:\nwww.slc.ca.gov in order to communicate and follow up on the public hearing; the land\nbelongs to the public, not the City; the City is the trustee; the public has not had access\nor benefits of the land; she supports the project providing access to the land; Council\nworked hard to develop the best compromise and solution; the SLC will check the City's\nwork to see whether it is fair; she is looking forward to the completion of the project and\naccess to the land.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved final passage of the ordinances.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nCONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(22-085) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Use of Fixed and\nMobile Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR).\nThe Police Chief gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands businesses and private\nresidents may register cameras with the City; requested clarification about the program.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 5, "text": "The Police Chief stated the City has a camera registry program that allows people with\nprivate camera systems to register with the City; in the event an incident or crime\noccurs, the APD is able to look at the camera list for possible footage.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated there is acknowledgement that the cameras capture\nphotos which will sometimes have people's faces; questioned whether the information\nwill be shared with law enforcement throughout the rest of the region and nation.\nThe Police Chief responded the details are vendor-specific; stated some vendors\nprioritize taking a picture of the rear of the vehicle; it is possible that the back of\nsomeone's head could be captured in a picture; staff would recommend considering\nvendors that prioritize the rear of the vehicle.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Council should provide direction that staff not use\nsystems which capture that type of information; if the City uses a system that captures\nthe information, the information should not be shared with other law enforcement;\nAlameda is one of the few cities with a facial recognition ban; photos should not be\nshared with other agencies that do not have facial recognition bans.\nThe Police Chief stated staff can include Council direction in vendor selection.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the previous vendor shared information with Immigration and\nCustoms Enforcement (ICE); inquired whether vendors which share information with\nICE would not be considered.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated some vendors include information\nsharing; some vendors allow the agency to decide who the information can be shared\nwith; staff would have to select an agency to share information; staff would not share\ninformation with ICE.\nStated that she has not had her privacy threatened in her almost 60 years of residence;\nshe is alarmed and upset at the matter being considered; there is no data showing\nALPRs work to prevent or solve crime or that more policing prevents crimes; expressed\nconcern about spying on people accessing Alameda: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.\nStated APD used to be the envy of surrounding cities; the past two years have caused a\nlack in patrols throughout Alameda and has led to an increase in crime; ALPRs would\nallow APD to be alerted of stolen vehicles; discussed people being intent on committing\ncrime; stated APD needs a head start to catch people in the act; urged Council to vote\nyes on ALPRs: Barry Parker, Alameda.\nStated that she opposes any expansion of ALPRs in Alameda; discussed lack of trust in\npolice departments; expressed support for APD regaining the trust of herself and the\ncommunity; stated increasing surveillance is less likely to regain trust; if the expansion\nbe approved, general trust of APD will go down: Anna Smalley, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 6, "text": "Stated the impacts of ALPRs will largely be felt by marginalized people in Alameda;\ndiscussed the history of law enforcement abusing surveillance technology; stated the\nproposed policy does little to attempt to prevent or detect abuse of the technology;\nquestioned whether data shows APD's existing ALPRs have been effective; stated the\nreport indicates data is lacking; inquired about audits; urged Council to reject the\nproposal; expressed support for a comprehensive surveillance ordinance: Mike Katz-\nLacabe, Research for Oakland Privacy.\nDiscussed the lack of data and anecdotal accounts; stated more research is needed to\nshow that ALPRs are worth the investment and possible lawsuits resulting from\nsurveillance; expressed concern about the community being a test case; stated misuse\nof the system is not impossible; discussed crime statistics; expressed support for the\nmatter being funded by APD's current budget and for the City matching any funds on\nother projects: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nExpressed support for Alameda being a Sanctuary City; stated that he is glad the City is\ntaking steps to ensure social justice; discussed fears of random hate crimes occurring\ndue to the color of his skin and families installing cameras on their properties; stated\npeople are strategic in order to stay safe; APD is having difficulty responding to a rise in\ncrime and response times are abysmal; the installation of ALPRs is a no-brainer\ndecision; expressed concern about providing political correctness over public safety;\nurged Council to vote yes on ALPR's: Michael Robles-Wong, Alameda.\nDiscussed his experience being a victim of vehicle theft; stated ALPRs are a waste of\nmoney and are a surveillance tool that will provide APD a pretext to monitor citizens and\npossibly cause an increase in Police violence; expressed concern about Police violence\nand death being repeated in Alameda: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nStated his neighborhood has frequently had both property and auto-related crime;\nexpressed support for the proposed installation and use of both fixed and mobile\nALPRs; stated ALPR usage under the authorized use guidelines will be a valuable\ncrime-fighting and investigative tool; Council has a duty to provide a safe and secure\nenvironment; urged Council support APD's request to use ALPRs: Bill Garvine,\nAlameda.\nStated that she strongly opposes the installation of stationary or mobile ALPRs; there is\nno evidence that the technology will prevent crime; the collection of data is a violation of\nprivacy; ALPRs will not reduce the footprint of policing; discussed APD's use of facial\nrecognition software; stated APD cannot be trusted to operate additional surveillance\ntechnology; the cost adds to an already high Police budget and does not include\nmaintenance or replacement of broken readers; urged Council not to approve the use of\nALPRs: Isabel Sullivan, Alameda.\nStated that she strongly opposes ALPRs; expressed support for protecting residents\nand neighbors of Color by not installing the devices; discussed ALPR reports from the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 7, "text": "Brennan Center for Justice; stated those that harbor views about ALPRs being neutral\nare not the ones being profiled; urged Alameda to do better: Laura Cutrona, Alameda.\nStated that she strongly opposes the matter; urged Council oppose the use of ALPRs;\nstated ALPRs do not work; there is no data showing ALPRs are worth their cost or\npossible risks; ALPRs would be a step backwards; Alameda has worked toward social\njustice through the Steering Committee; questioned how residents are to trust APD;\ndiscussed APD not following protocol; stated there are many unknowns; expressed\nsupport for more stop signs and a better mechanism for ticketing that does not target\npeople of Color; urged Council to vote against the matter: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.\nUrged Council to vote no on ALPRs; stated implementing ALPRs is a knee-jerk reaction\nto a small group of people's fears of crime and personal safety; it is reasonable for\npeople to express fear; however, honesty around the fear should be clarified; it is not\nthe City's obligation to spend money on efforts to blindly comfort fearful groups;\nexpressed support for the possibility of other solutions; stated Alameda should not be\nimplementing harmful surveillance technologies with no safeguard for personal privacy;\nthe program does not hold up as a good solution: Savanna Cheer, Alameda.\nUrged Council vote against ALPRs; stated ALPRs are a waste of money and resources\nwhich can be better used elsewhere; ALPRs do not work as-described and will not\nachieve the desired results; the City is working hard to right the wrongs of social justice\nand approving ALPRs would be a step backwards: James Bergquist, Alameda.\nStated that she is strongly opposed to the proposed use of ALPRs in Alameda; Council\nneeds to do more to ensure proper safeguards of the technology; she is distrustful of\nAPD after their misuse of facial recognition software; currently, there is not an oversight\nbody; without such a body in place, the City should not trust that APD will not misuse\nthe technology; expressed concern about the waste of taxpayer funds; stated the funds\ncan be used in more effective ways: Carly Stadum-Liang, Alameda.\nStated that she supports those that oppose the use of ALPRs; discussed her work and\nrecommendations on the Subcommittee for Racial Equity and Policing; stated a\nrecommendation was made to hire a Data Analyst; expressed concern about the Data\nAnalyst work being diverted to review ALPR data and about using ALPRs for missing\npersons: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the full expansion of ALPRs; stated the presentation has been\neffective; it is important to consider ALPRs as another tool for investigations; ALPRs\ncan be used to support APD initiatives; APD can significantly increase its investigative\nefficiency while reducing delays in leads; the use of ALPRs would mitigate the\nunintended consequences associated with over-policing; urged Council to direct staff to\ntake the next steps to implement fixed ALPRs and expand mobile ALPRs: Jeff\nWasserman, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 8, "text": "Stated that she does not support the addition of funds to APD's budget for ALPRs;\nurged Council to vote no on the matter; stated proof has not been presented that the\nsystem prevents crimes or clears cases; cameras do not prevent crime; it is\nirresponsible for the City to have a reactionary response to a sense of fear; expressed\nsupport for waiting for Berkeley's program data; discussed subcommittee\nrecommendations; stated the recommendations did not include ALPRs; APD funds\nshould be spent on social services that prevent poverty and desperation, which leads\nindividuals to resort to crime: Jackie Zipkin, Alameda.\nStated showing crime statistics in the presentation was not material and appeared to be\nused as a scare tactic; there is no correlation to solving crimes since the crimes solved\nby ALPRs is unknown; discussed the Electronic Frontier Foundation data drive; noted\nthe results of the data showed 99.9% of data collected is never used in an investigation;\nexpressed concern about mass data collection and 90-day data retention; stated no\nsolution should be considered without a full audit of an outside vendor; expressed\nsupport for separate, ongoing security access audits and a better approach to not over-\npolice certain areas of Alameda: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated a reference to Piedmont's statistics without context is misleading and cherry-\npicking; ALPRs are not an effective crime fighting tool; providing ALPRs blindly without\njustification is not leadership; ALPR technology lends no greater effectiveness;\nstatistical evaluations show 0% success; urged Council to table the matter to address\nmissing components or vote no: Brian Hofer, Secure Justice.\nStated that he opposes ALPRs; there is no evidence that ALPRs work; if the technology\nworks, data would be brought forth; recent increases in crime are likely due to the\nCOVID-19 pandemic; noted victims often knows perpetrators; being scared should not\ncompel a response; urged a reasoned approach: Josh Geyer, Alameda.\nStated City government exists to provide vital services to the public it represents;\nALPRs have been proven to be an effective and unobtrusive tool; violent street crime\nhas increased in the City; part of the reason for the rise in crime is due to APD being\nunderstaffed; urged Council to provide APD with state of the art equipment, including\nALPRs: Burny Matthews, Alameda.\nUrged Council to vote no on the matter; stated that she understands people are worried\nabout their safety; there is little research that ALPRs effectively address crime; the City\nshould look at solutions that will not compromise people's freedom to privacy or risk\nmisuse of data; the matter would be an irresponsible waste of money; urged Council\ncontinue to focus on methods that work: Meredith Hoskin, Alameda.\nDiscussed recent crimes; stated people are angry and scared; a number of people want\nALPRs; privacy concerns can be addressed; costs are reduced; Alameda is a unique\ncommunity as an Island with limited access; urged Council to support APD with ALPRs:\nNeil Wilson, Garden Isle Homeowners Association.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 9, "text": "Stated ALPRs are not the correct way to move forward; ALPRs are the wrong system\nfor the City; the proposal concedes that no studies have been able to show ALPRs help\nreduce crime; the system is a data collection for all who enter and exit Alameda;\nexpressed concern about sensitive location data being shared with other agencies;\nstated if Alameda continues, strong protections and policies with community review\nshould be included prior to purchase and implementation; urged Council vote no:\nRebecca Jaschke, Alameda.\nStated if the City uses the largest vendor in California, Vigilant Solutions, the sharing of\ninformation is turned on automatically by default; the information sharing feature must\nbe manually turned off; discussed other California departments misusing features and\nlicense plate swapping; stated ALPRs do nothing regarding catalytic converter thefts or\nbreak-ins; the ALPR technology is not the answer: Tracy Rosenberg, Alameda.\nStated that he shares concerns about rising crimes in Alameda; it is Council's duty to\nensure the safety of residents; fixed ALPRs will be security theatre and will not reduce\ncrime; there is evidence that ALPRs do not help; questioned whether Council is\ncomfortable installing a tool that any future Alameda Police Chief could misuse: Jeremy\nGillula, Alameda.\nStated some people see ALPRs as part of the solution for safety; it is important to\naddress objective safety as well as feelings around safety; however, she is not\nconvinced ALPRs will address either; questioned whether people coming to Alameda to\ncommit crimes will be dissuaded by ALPRs or whether license plates will be removed\nprior; noted ALPRs will not indicate where a stolen car is taken after leaving the Island;\ndata does not show that ALPRs reduce crime: Kristi Black, Alameda.\nStated that she does not support funding ALPRs; there is no data or studies which show\nthat ALPRs make streets or the community safer; expressed support for a fact based\napproach; discussed costs for street improvements and Vision Zero; stated the funding\ncould be used towards safety improvements in high injury corridors; urged Council to\nspend limited resources where it is known to create more safety; expressed support for\npursuing other proven automated enforcement, such as guard rails and speed\nenforcement cameras: Denyse Trepanier, BikeWalk Alameda.\nStated that she is unsure whether the matter will stop anyone from feeling afraid or\nscared; discussed being followed across the Island by APD; stated ALPRs will not make\nher feel any safer; instead, she will feel more surveilled; urged Council to say no to\nALPRs: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.\nStated the technology does not reduce crime or increase clearance rates; urged Council\nto make data informed choices to improve the City; discussed the death of Mario\nGonzales and data presented; expressed concern about being constantly surveilled:\nLaura Gamble, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 10, "text": "Discussed recommendations provided by the Police Reform and Racial Equity\nSubcommittee; stated the Crime Analyst position came about from APD's commitment\nto evidence based policing; ALPRs are not evidence based; Council has taken action to\nboost and strengthen APD in the past year; urged Council not to vote in favor of ALPRs:\nBeth Kenny, Alameda.\nStated there are relevant ALPR documents, studies and articles; discussed a 2004\nUnited Kingdom home office report; stated studies highlight the efficiency of the tool:\nJoe Van Winkle, Alameda.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:18 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:32\np.m.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there has been a freeze on Police hiring.\nThe Police Chief responded there is not a freeze; stated APD is hiring; three Officers\nfinished field training; six Officers are currently completing field training; eight people are\nin the academy and two are graduating; three recent academy graduates will be hired\nsoon; APD is actively hiring sworn staff, as well as professional staff.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry about the Crime Analyst being used to\nreview ALPR data, the Police Chief stated the Crime Analyst will be used to analyze\ncrime; the hiring process is still underway.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like clarification about the data collection\nprocess; some public comments referenced the location tracking where people live,\nworship and gather; inquired the relationship of data and ALPRs.\nThe Police Chief responded the ALPR system will capture visuals of license plates;\nstated license plates exist to identify vehicles; ALPRs are a camera system which\nidentifies a license plate and take a picture; the only time the system would be accessed\nfor data would be in response to a crime; Officers would not be able to access or\nmonitor data; Officers would be required to obtain supervisor approval with a case\nnumber associated with the search; all information is purged and removed after the 90\nday retention period; the system would provide a location mark of the vehicle passing in\nfront of a camera; the recommendation is for 13 to 14 camera locations to be set up;\nvehicles will be marked at the time they pass the camera; the information will only be\naccessed in response to a follow-up investigation.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry about New York Police Department\nsurveilling people coming and going from a mosque, the Police Chief stated that he is\nnot familiar with the incident; he will not tolerate misuse; the camera system will not be\nused to surveil anyone in their place of worship or used as a surveillance tool; the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 11, "text": "system will be used to follow up on investigative leads; he will not tolerate staff using the\ntechnology to make people feel uncomfortable.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted staff changes; inquired whether a policy can guarantee how\nthe system would and would not be used.\nThe Police Chief responded policies should be created and exist no matter who is in\nplace; stated clear policies will be created to reference how the technology can and will\nbe used; the policy creation process includes getting all stakeholders involved.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City is looking at Vigilant Solutions as a\nvendor.\nThe Police Chief responded in the negative; stated the current mobile ALPRs are\nprovided by Vigilant Solutions; however, the contract has not been renewed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who will be able to access deleted data and whether the\ndata will be accessible.\nThe Police Chief responded the data will not be accessible and is purged; stated\nvarious vendors have a digital print of the data; if the matter moves forward, staff will\nensure information is gone and inaccessible once purged.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for speed cameras; stated the State of\nCalifornia needs to pass legislation which will allow use.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Police Chief has expressed concern about Vigilant\nSolutions; requested clarification of the vendor selection process; inquired the process\nto be used for vendor selection.\nThe Police Chief responded the selection process should be clear; stated the process\nrelates to how the information works with existing technology; the retention period\nshould allow for information to be purged; vendor track records related to efficacy\nshould be considered; expressed support for a vendor that is compatible with\nevidence.com; stated cost is an important factor; he would like a system which allows\ncontrol over who has access to the information; expressed support for the information\nnot being open for anyone to access; expressed support for a vendor that does not tie\ninto a third party database; stated privacy is a concern and should be a priority.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the Police Chief envisions working with the\nCity Manager to involve the City Council and the public in the Request for Proposal\n(RFP) processes to select a vendor.\nThe Police Chief responded that he is open; stated that he take direction from the City\nManager.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the data will not be shared with Northern\nCalifornia Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC).\nThe Police Chief responded the type of vendor desired is one where the City can select\nwho information is shared with.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the City will house the information locally,\nnot in a regional database, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the last speaker pointed out studies showing there\ncan be some investigative benefit; however, sources were unable to be cited; studies do\nnot show ALPRs have led to a reduction in crime; inquired which shootings would have\nbeen helped with the use of ALPR technology.\nThe Police Chief responded that he does not have the specific details on each shooting;\nstated anytime a vehicle is used in any type of crime, including shootings, ALPRs\nlicense plate information can be used; the technology can be leveraged to try and help\nidentify vehicles involved.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the technology is useful after-the-fact; inquired\nwhether ALPR technology is helpful before-the-fact to stop shootings.\nThe Police Chief responded by providing an example of a possible shooting from a\nstolen vehicle; stated an alert would be made when the stolen vehicle enters the Island\nand Officers in the area might locate the vehicle [prior to the shooting]; it is difficult to\nquantify deterrent and show how many incidents are interrupted; the choice not to\ncommit a crime can be difficult to show.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the three studies he looked at have not found\ndeterrent occurs; expressed concern about a discussion addressing ALPRs being\nuseful after a crime has occurred and helping APD catch criminals and possibly return\nvehicles; stated many people are discussing fear for safety and ALPRs helping stop\ncrime from occurring; past Police Chiefs have not made the case and the data does not\nsupport a decrease in crime due to ALPRs; discussed hoping for an effect on crime\nrates; stated if the matter passes, ALPRs might help APD solve crimes; however, there\nis no reason to believe crime will decrease; crime has gone up in every surrounding\ncommunity with ALPRs; ALPRs have not kept crime from increasing; there are many\npolicy issues; Council is the City's policy body and should set and approve policies;\nexpressed support for strong direction being provided to ensure the policies come back\nto Council ahead of the actual request to purchase.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether specific policies are desired to be included.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded that he would like the policy to include\nevaluation and who data is shared with under which circumstances; expressed support\nfor retention being included; stated 30 to 60 days of retention seems to be a normal\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n12", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 13, "text": "rate; he is not looking for a report that shows a single case of ALPR usefulness;\nexpressed support for knowing the impact on crime and safety and that the evaluation\nperforms a comparison to make the case.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the technology being presented is a traditional ALPR; inquired\nwhether technology has been considered which would not retain all data while scanning\nlicense plates, similar to FasTrak and retain data relative to hits against a hot list with an\nestablished criminal predicate or at-risk alert.\nThe Police Chief responded the retention period comes into play for the circumstance;\nstated when someone is planning on committing a crime using a vehicle, the person\nmay scan the area and establish exit routes; the process is quick; there is value in\nholding the returns for a short period of time; he is open to reducing the retention period;\nsix months is a bit long; returns of hits on vehicles associated with a crime will be\nretained and saved for evidence; 90 days provides a sufficient window to locate vehicles\nand follow up on cases.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the cost-benefit analysis; stated there are\ncosts to civil liberties and the toll on civil liberties versus the benefit of ideally preventing\nand solving crime; there is value in crime solving; inquired whether studies are looking\nat efficacy based off solving crimes.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated one metric relates to solving\ncrimes; another benefit reduces the APD footprint; ALPRs allow APD to know which\nvehicle is involved in a crime without misunderstanding; ALPR technology helps narrow\ndown the vehicle; the technology allows efficient deployment of resources.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for the openness to a policy discussion; stated that\nshe still has many concerns about the program cost; she would feel most comfortable\nwith a system that scans license plates, looks for hits and provides alerts; discussed UK\nefficacy and the inclusion of fast monitoring helping to close in on offenders, rather than\nan overall data retention; expressed support for a Council policy providing direction;\nstated the policy can insulate the City; she would like to see the policy include: some\nform of annual reporting, how the City gauges efficacy to ensure best use, evidence of\nhow many crimes the system produced evidence for that led to crime solving, and\nvetting within the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) framework related to\nacquisition; the policies should be included in the RFP process; the policy should limit\nand articulate the limited authorized use so not just anyone can use or access data;\nspecific categories, such as Amber and silver alerts, should be predicated before\nsomeone can access the system; she would like the policy to articulate who within APD\nhas access to data and the process for accessing data; the policy should indicate the\nrequirements for access prior to access and use; expressed support for data protection\nlanguage being included, such as safeguards to protect the acquisition or access of\ninformation and encryption in place where the information is housed; the policy should\nensure the City is storing and controlling the information; the policy should include any\nprocesses for releasing data and needed disclosures; she would like to see the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 14, "text": "retention language be reduced to 30 or 60 days; she is opposed to mass surveillance;\nthe retention limitation is needed in the policy; expressed support for processes outlined\nfor deletion, conditions for extended retention, such as evidence in a crime, and the\nextent of extended retention and future deletion; stated public access to data should be\ndefined in the policy; expressed support for auditing and oversight being included in the\npolicy, as well as internal record keeping to index who has access to data and when;\nstated that she would like the legal sanctions for violation included in the policy, as well\nas\nlanguage related to ensuring deletion of data by other agencies, so that no\nautomatic sharing occurs.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated many important issues and concerns have\nbeen raised; requested the Police Chief to provide his background.\nThe Police Chief outlined his law enforcement experience of 24 years, with most of his\ntime at Oakland Police Department.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about the Police Chief's\nformal education, the Police Chief outlined his education and training.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how long the Police Chief has been with the\nCity of Alameda, to which the Police Chief responded 8 months.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what has been done in the 8 months' time to\nyield the staff recommendation.\nThe Police Chief responded that he has met with APD staff to try and understand the\norganization, including strengths and weaknesses; APD is a good Department and the\nstaff is committed to public safety and service; the position is more than just\nprofessional since he lives in Alameda; he has lived in Alameda for almost 8 years;\nbased on his review, he has been able to identify challenging staffing areas; the\nDepartment has performed mass hiring and has been selective in hiring; some\ncandidates have not been selected due to not fitting the APD operation; the technology\nwill help APD with the staffing deficit as a force multiplier; ALPRs are a tool that can\nhelp APD in several areas; APD has been restructured, has initiated public community\nmeetings and has begun a data-driven approach to crime fighting by instituting\nCompStat where Commanders are responsible for specific shifts and areas within the\nCity; a Captain performs crime review every two weeks; APD questions why crime is up\nor down to best deploy resources; several policies have been approved and team-\nbuilding workshops have been held.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the former Police Chief recommended installing\nfixed cameras at the places to enter and leave the Island; questioned the current Police\nChief's recommendation.\nThe Police Chief stated that he recommends having the cameras installed at several\nstrategic locations throughout the City.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the recommendation for mobile ALPRS.\nThe Police Chief responded that he recommends expanding the existing mobile ALPR\nsystem; stated mobile ALPRs would augment the fixed systems and help with Officers\nbeing readily alerted any time a vehicle stop is conducted.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated questions have been raised about the system\nbeing the best use of money; the City has limited funds; inquired the Police Chief's\nresponse to the cost of the program.\nThe Police Chief responded the system is a good use of funds; stated that he assumes\nthe responsibility of consistently looking at outcomes to see whether the system should\ncontinue to be invested in.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many vehicles would have mobile\nALPRs, to which the Police Chief responded 30 vehicles.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been comments related to the City\nof Berkeley; noted Berkeley's system is similar to a security camera or closed circuit\nsurveillance system; requested clarification on the similarities between systems.\nThe Police Chief stated that he needs to look at the matter further; many cities are\nmoving in a similar direction as Berkeley; the system is a little too new and he would like\nto see how other agencies implement the system; he will look further into the system if it\nis something worth pursuing.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the desired system is considered\nmass surveillance.\nThe Police Chief responded in the negative; stated the technology takes pictures of\nvehicle license plates that pass before the camera.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether anything else should be included in\nthe recommendation\nThe Police Chief responded in the negative; stated that he feels as though he has been\nclear on his recommendations.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation in\nsupport of the fixed cameras at the points of entrance and exit of the City as well as the\ncameras for the 30 vehicles.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she listens carefully to all public comments\nprovided to evaluate the best decisions for the City; the City has had multiple Police\nChiefs recommend the system; other cities have implemented an ALPR system; she\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 16, "text": "disagrees that ALPRs are frittering away money; crime is difficult to address, reduce\nand solve; the Police Chief has made it clear that the system is one of the tools to help\nthe City; the Police Chief is the City's law enforcement expert; she is a person of color\nand has been assaulted in the City; discussed other people being victims of crime in the\nCity; stated that she agrees with speakers and is looking to the Police Chief to do his\nbest to serve the community; she is aware of racist Police; the City cannot have racist\nOfficers; cameras are not racist and do not see color; cameras are one of the least\nracist ways of policing; expressed her supports; stated a previous Council worked on\npolicy in 2014; the policy can be improved; the process is a balancing act; the issue has\nbeen delayed too long; other cities are ahead of Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not ready to support the motion; expressed\nsupport for including recommendations from other Councilmembers related to policy\nand other considerations.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the way in which the\nPolice Chief has reached out and worked with the broader Alameda community; stated\nadmiration for the Police Chief from those who do not support the current matter says a\nlot; he is thankful that the Police Chief is making headway in strengthening the trust\nbetween City Hall, APD and the broader community; the presentation and staff report\nclearly bring professional experience in the recommendation to move forward with\nALPRs; the recommendation is not made lightly; the Police Chief understands the\nenvironment across the nation, as well as Alameda; the Police Chief making a\nrecommendation in such a charged atmosphere is because the City needs a tool, such\nas ALPRs, for solving crimes; he is going to support the Police Chief's recommendation;\nhe is confident the City can manage the ALPRs in a professional, culturally sensitive\nmanner; the Police Chief is ensuring reform and allowing for mental health professionals\nto deal with certain situations that Police previously dealt with; the actions taken\ndemonstrate a Police Chief who truly cares about different ways of policing; he is\nconfident that when the ALPR system is implemented, APD will use it in a professional,\nculturally competent and sensitive manner; he understands that Council might want to\nmodify policies for implementation and management of ALPRs; however, there is\nenough information included in the staff report to cover the issues that have been\nraised; Council has an existing basis for coming forward; he is confident that the City\ncan move forward with the recommendation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she heard more speakers against than for ALPRs; the\nemail correspondence was evenly divided; there are ideological differences; she wants\nto move forward with actions that will protect and provide APD tools needed to help\nkeep the community safe; Council needs to stay involved in setting standards;\nrequested clarification about the reference to community forum noticing.\nThe Police Chief stated the City has been divided into 12 beats, breaking the City down\ninto smaller areas where APD can have neighborhoods get together at monthly\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 17, "text": "community meetings; staff makes a presentation on crime trends and solicits feedback\nfrom community members; the meetings are advertised on the City and APD's website;\na Community Resources Unit will be created as the department grows; each beat will\nhave a specifically assigned, full-time Officer to handle long-term problems; the Officers\nwill not be handling 911 calls and will be focused on specific beats; the program is new;\nurged the public visit the City and APD website to find upcoming community meetings.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated ALPRs provide Police another tool at a time when policing\nis complicated; departments are dealing with reduced staffing; there is a need and\ndesire to focus on reducing policing footprints; discussed a Statewide League of\nCalifornia Cities webinar related to organized retail crime; the consensus of the webinar\nis that ALPRs can provide an additional tool; ALPRs are not a panacea; APD will need\nto manage the public's expectations; installing ALPRs will not solve all crimes; ALPRs\nhelp with investigations and solving crimes; Police resources can be freed up to ensure\nthe City has Officers out on traffic patrol; ALPRs are an important tool that APD could\nuse; however, it is important to have a policy in place that governs the retention of data;\nexpressed support for waiting until the City has its Crime Analyst position filled;\nquestioned how long it takes to open and close a case using ALPR data; she would like\ninformation about what the vendor does with the data; the Council comments related to\ndata sharing should be incorporated in the vendor selection process; inquired about the\npublic-facing transparency portal.\nThe Police Chief responded the portal is based on Piedmont's Police Department;\nstated the portal is a way for anyone to look at the way technology is being used;\nreferenced a spreadsheet showing database access, Officer identifiers and reasons for\naccess; stated some vendors can customize report fields.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would favor a system which only captures the rear-\nfacing license plate; expressed support for the comments provided by Vice Mayor Vella\nbeing incorporated into the ALPR policy; stated privacy is important; however, FasTrak\ncameras capture similar information; she would like the City to start with fixed ALPRs,\nother vendors should be researched for mobile ALPRs.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understood the Police Chief will come\nback with information regarding vendors and rear-facing cameras; she is unsure\nwhether the details are decided at this point.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about how the matter will move forward.\nThe Police Chief stated staff will go through the RFP process and see which vendors\nrespond; staff will determine whether the vendors fit the details being requested; APD\ncan find a vendor that fits the City's needs.\nThe City Manager stated that he is hearing the policies Council wishes to have\nconsidered; when the matter returns, proposed policies will also come forth for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 18, "text": "consideration; policy details include: retention of data, ensuring facial recognition does\nnot occur, who data is shared with and who has access to the data.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether cameras are different for fixed\nversus mobile ALPRs; questioned whether the same vendor can be used for both fixed\nand mobile ALPRs.\nThe Police Chief responded ideally, a vendor that can provide both systems in\ncooperation is desired.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether an RFP for both fixed and mobile\nALPRs would make sense in order to move forward with the fixed ALPR now and add\nmobile at a later time.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to start with one aspect of the\ntechnology to see how it works and determine what might need to change and what to\nadd-on later; expressed support for moving forward cautiously.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to hear from the Police\nChief; expressed concern over only putting out an RFP for fixed ALPRs; stated the best\nvendor might not be selected in order to provide compatible fixed and mobile ALPRs.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for starting with fixed ALPRs; stated the City\ncan later add on from the same company.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would like to recommend that the RFP and\npolicies come back to Council prior to releasing the RFP; the program is complicated\nwith a lot of moving parts; expressed concern about putting out the RFP, selecting a\nvendor and realizing that questions were not addressed in the desired way; stated the\ndelay will be a couple of weeks; however, the delay ensures Council approved policies\nare put in place before the RFP moves forward.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that the recommendation can be added as a\nfriendly amendment to her motion.\nCouncilmember Knox White concurred with Councilmember Herrera Spencer [providing\nthe friendly amendment to motion].\n***\n(22-086) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of giving Councilmembers that\nhave run out of time an additional three minutes of speaking time.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog expressed support for all Councilmembers\nreceiving an additional three minutes of speaking time.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n18", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember Knox White amended his motion to include all Councilmembers.\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***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the timeline for Council approving the\nRFP prior to release.\nThe City Manager stated he does not know the timeline; noted the RFP has not been\nput together yet.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned why Council cannot currently provide policy direction;\ninquired whether the motion includes the comments being placed in the RFP or whether\nthe entire RFP will be brought back.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she is fine with providing the policy if\nstaff finds it appropriate; expressed support for the RFP including both fixed and mobile\nALPRs to find a vendor that provides both; stated the City can introduce one [fixed\nALPRs] and then the other; expressed concern about breaking up the matter and not\nfinding a vendor that can provide both.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Councilmember Herrera Spencer's\ncomments.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there is question regarding rear-facing cameras, as well\nas starting with fixed ALPRs; inquired whether any of the proposed recommendations\ndegrade the effectiveness of ALPRs.\nThe Police Chief responded his recommendation is to find a vendor which prioritizes\nrear license plates; stated the system should exclude the front view of a vehicle if the\nrear view is captured.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there is an issue with timing or effectiveness\nby only pursuing fixed ALPRs and moving to mobile ALPRs in the future.\nThe Police Chief responded mobile ALPRs are different; stated that he has not come\nacross mobile ALPR technology that excludes the front of the vehicle; vendors that\nprovide fixed ALPRs have a focus on rear-license plate reading; the benefit of mobile\nALPRs is assisting with traffic enforcement; video evidence is powerful; systems have a\n30 to 60 second buffer to indicate what violation an Officer has seen; staff can do a lot\nwith a fixed ALPR system.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 20, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog accepts the friendly\namendment as seconder to the motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; stated the other issues related to\nthe RFP are process driven and can be figured out.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated her understanding of the matter is Council is\nproviding direction, so that the matter [RFP] does not have to return in the future.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she does not plan to support the motion; expressed\nsupport for a second motion to provide clarifying direction on desired policy elements.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for an additional motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he thinks the motion had been amended to include\nseveral things, which implies staff will come back with a policy; inquired whether the\npolicy is included in the current motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands Council is articulating desired\nelements of the RFP; the RFP will not come back to Council; however, the policy will\nreturn to Council for further consideration.\nVice Mayor Vella concurred with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft.\nThe City Clerk noted comments related to the Crime Analyst position would also be\nincluded in the second motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council should vote on one motion which covers\neverything; noted supporting an RFP for an ALPR system can include direction for the\nALPR policy to return; the matter is not a political issue; the City will either issue an RFP\nfor an ALPR system with a policy or not; he is not understanding the reasoning for a\nsecond vote.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Vice Mayor Vella can make the motion she desires and\nCouncil has the right to vote accordingly; noted policy returning to Council is not part of\nthe current motion on the floor.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the motion related to policy would\ninclude Council deciding on the actual policy; expressed concern about not being\nupfront with vendors in the RFP process by not deciding the policy at this time.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that her motion would be to provide direction on what will be\nincluded in the policy; the policy itself is not currently agendized and has not been\nnoticed; the details matter; she has heard many colleagues express concerns; there\ncould be agreement about some policy areas; Council previously bifurcated votes on\npolicy matters; expressed support for providing staff with clear policy direction.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 21, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he is ready to move forward with the motion and\nsubsequent discussion on the policy.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(22-087) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting until 11:30\np.m. hearing Council Referrals until the stop time.\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.\n***\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of directing staff to come back with a policy regarding\nALPRs, including a statement of intended use, data protection provisions, a limit for\ndata retention, process for deletion, conditions for extended retention, data protection\nsafeguards, limitations and processes for use and access, limitations and processes for\nwho uses or would have access, auditing and oversight provision potentially including\nthings like record keeping, indexing, access, and provisions for sanctions for violations,\npotentially add language which limits the type of technology used or would prioritize\ncertain things like rear license plates, requirements for data sharing, processes for\nrequesting public access provisions and processes, clear articulation that agencies and\nthe City would not be sharing the information with ICE, and language regarding how the\nCrime Analyst would evaluate efficacy regarding retention.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not see everything that\nhad been proposed as significantly different from what had been presented by the\nPolice Chief; the motion only requests the Police Chief to clarify many of the things\nlisted; he is supportive of the motion; however, he does not see the point.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion acts as a protection for the future; the policies\nwill be known and will continue.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to see how the new policy\ndiffers from the current policy; she does not want the policy discussion to slow down the\nRFP process and moving forward with ALPRs; inquired whether the policy discussion\nwill delay physically getting ALPRs.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands that the policy discussion will not\nneed to be done before the RFP goes out.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 22, "text": "days.\nOn the call for the question, the motion passed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(22-088) The City Manager announced CARE team has received 44 calls for service in\nthe first month of operation; stated the CARE team can be reached by 911 or 510-337-\n8340; the City is tentatively planning on holding the Fourth of July parade while staff\ncontinues to monitor the COVID-19 situation; there is a high wind watch alert for the Bay\nArea through Thursday.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(22-089) 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)\nCouncilmember Daysog gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n22", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 23, "text": "Councilmember Daysog moved approval of directing staff to address identifying new\nareas at Alameda Point to develop a number of housing units above the originally\nagreed upon amount.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she agrees with the\nreferral; the matter is something Council has tried to get more information about;\nexpressed concern about waiting for the Housing Element; noted Alameda Point is\nroughly one third of the entire Island; it makes sense to focus on the area of Alameda\nPoint.\nVice Mayor Vella stated some of Alameda Point will be a wetlands preserve; she\nassumes the City will not build housing on the preserve; noted the Navy cap still exists;\nstaff is in the process of negotiating with the Navy; she has heard concerns about job\ncreation; expressed support for clarification on where staff will be looking to add\nhousing; questioned whether the direction is to reduce parkland or the enterprise zone.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about duplicative efforts; stated City staff are\ndoing a lot and are stretched thin; the City is building houses and opening businesses;\nthe challenges are not that the City has more area than discovered, it is trying to make\nprojects pencil out and get built; she does not support the referral.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the point of the referral is to have staff indicate where\nhousing could occur; the referral is not to say whether housing should occur on wetland\nareas or natural preserves; staff may report back that housing can be placed in the\nEnterprise District and provide the necessary regulatory steps; some of the steps will\nsync with the RHNA process and some will not; there is value to the public in\nunderstanding the steps needed to be taken for more housing at Alameda Point.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated one of the things the RHNA process is looking for is that a\ncity not concentrate all new housing in one place and that the housing is dispersed\nthroughout the city; Council recently voted on the Encinal Terminals project, which\nadded housing in the Northern Waterfront area; the RHNA obligation needs to be met;\nstaff has presented various housing sites throughout the City; expressed concern about\nresidents being misled by thinking all housing can be placed at Alameda Point; plans\nprovide a balance of jobs and housing at Alameda Point to replace the 18,000 jobs lost\nwhen the Navy Base closed; the jobs and housing balance is desired to not over burden\none area of the City; she is concerned about the idea of trying to meet the RHNA\nobligation solely at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the referral contemplates the fact that additional housing\ncould not be a part of the 2023 to 2031 RHNA process based on the time it takes to\nchange regulations and perform an RFP, developer selection and Exclusive Negotiating\nAgreement (ENA) going beyond the timeline; the referral recommends staff gather\ninformation on the process for increasing housing at Alameda Point.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n23", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 24, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is important to educate the community on\noptions; the referral speaks to the ability of housing at Alameda Point; she would like to\nhear from staff on reasonable housing numbers that can be added and locations for\nhousing; the Navy cap considered the balance of housing and jobs; however, with the\nneed for more housing, she is not sure the balance will be held to; it is important for\nCouncil to make informed decisions; Council cannot make the decision without staff\nproviding information.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 3.\n(22-090) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing.\n(Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog)\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she discussed the matter with the Recreation and\nParks Director; the area where the fence is being considered is hazardous and not\nready for the public due to safety.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of supporting the referral with direction to\nstaff that the fence be moved to the new easements as safety allows.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern over not understanding the safety issues present;\nstated different portions of the park have had issues; she agrees with allowing public\naccess; however, she would like to understand the safety issues and any associated\ncosts; expressed support for the direction including the matter being heard by the\nRecreation and Parks Commission (RPC) for input and prioritization of funding; the\nmatter can return to Council with budget information.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Vice Mayor Vella; stated the last thing Council\nshould do is take away money from other prioritized park projects; expressed support\nfor the motion; however, Vice Mayor Vella makes a good point about having the matter\ngo to the RPC for review.\nThe City Clerk stated Council is limited to three actions for referrals: take no action,\nrefer the matter to staff to schedule at a future City Council item or dispositive action\nwhich is limited to legislative matters of urgency.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council can modify the direction or whether the\nlanguage has to remain as shown in the referral.\nThe City Clerk stated the recent process adopted yielded a two-step process to allow a\nreferral to come back on a Council agenda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n24", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 25, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella stated Councilmember Knox White's recommendation of having the\nRecreation and Parks Director bring the matter back to Council would suffice; she would\nlike to note that Council has recommended the matter go through whichever processes\nseen fit prior to coming back before Council.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he has proposed a motion with direction to staff,\nnot a motion to take action; the direction indicates Council's wish that when the\neasements go forward, staff can see fit to move the fence when safety allows; Council is\nnot taking action.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is to have the matter return to Council\nat a future agenda date.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded in the negative; stated that he does not want to\nsee the matter return; Council has given direction on matters which are within the\ngeneral scope of an item; the motion is general direction that Council would like to see\nthe fence get moved when the easements are complete and safety permits; the motion\nkeeps Council from getting into the administrative actions of the City.\nThe City Attorney stated Council may always provide general direction on any agenda\nitem; Council may give general direction; the referral rules are clear in that should\nCouncil wish to give specific direction, there are three choices; Council may direct staff\nto bring the matter back, take no further action or reject the referral; Council may\nprovide general direction on any item.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be re-stated.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the motion is to approve the Council's wish that the\nfence be moved at such a time that the fence is setup for when the new easements are\nput in place and that those fences are erected as safety allows.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether budget is included in the motion, to which\nCouncilmember Knox White responded in the negative.\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(22-091) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a\nRegular City Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n25", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 26, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Council Priority Setting\nWorkshop being held on a regular Council meeting date.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\n(22-092) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of adding ten more minutes to\nthe meeting in order to finish the discussion; stated that he is not ready to vote on the\nmatter; if time is not extended, the matter should be continued to another meeting; he\nwill not provide any additional dates for the priority setting workshop until the discussion\noccurs.\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.\n***\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he was enthusiastic about\ntrying to have regular Council workshops; he understands Councilmembers have\nrefused to consider dates on the weekends or other times; he is a the point where now\nhe does not see value in holding a workshop; the current priorities still represent the\npriorities of the majority of Council; it is disappointing that a time could not be found due\nto inflexibility; he does not see any point in holding a workshop eight months prior to an\nelection; he will not support the matter and will no longer submit times for workshops;\nthere will not be any benefit to holding a workshop.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she shares frustrations about the scheduling difficulties\nexperienced; some members have refused to meet on weekends, which causes\ndisadvantages for those working jobs during the day; noted having a date where only\nfour out of five Councilmembers meet defeats the purpose of the workshop.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he has agreed to all but two of the proposed\ndates presented and attempted to be as flexible as possible.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for comments; stated Councilmembers are\nvolunteers and are not full-time; it is difficult for those with jobs to meet during the day\non a weekday; workshops are publically agendized and open to the public; workshops\nset in the middle of the day disadvantages the public; workshops should be set at times\nwhich are accessible to the broader public; it is unfortunate; many Councilmembers\nhave worked to set a date; her priorities have not shifted and housing is still a top\npriority.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated multiple dates have been suggested; she is not\nprivy as to who accepted which dates; some Councilmembers do not fill out charts; she\nhas provided her availability multiple times and has been available; the current\ndiscussion does not address the referral topic; her referral speaks to setting the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n26", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 27, "text": "workshop during a regular Council meeting; it is untrue that Council must discuss\npriorities at a workshop retreat; Council can start by reviewing prior Council priorities\nand set the matter as a regular agenda item; all Councilmembers are available the first\nand third Tuesday of the month.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that Council discusses priorities at workshops in order to allow\nfor a focus and deliberation on only the priorities; workshops have previously lasted\nseveral hours; expressed concern about having full agendas; stated taking away from\nthe business of the City or ensuring the discussion does not occur at 11:00 p.m. is the\nreason to have a separate workshop; she will not be supporting the motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he found the referral reasonable; the idea of having\na workshop during a Council meeting starting at 5:00 p.m. is reasonable; Council has\nheld workshops in areas which were not accessible or generally open to the public.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested the motion be re-stated.\nThe City Clerk stated the motion is to approve the referral to have the priority setting\nworkshop held at a regular City Council meeting.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(22-093) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(22-094) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department\nCommunity Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(22-095) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the Vaccine Task Force's booster clinic at\nMastic Senior Center.\n(22-096) Councilmember Daysog discussed the City Council/School Board\nSubcommittee meeting; stated the School District will be placing a bond measure on the\nJune ballot.\n(22-097) Councilmember Knox White discussed the AC Transit Interagency Liaison\nCommittee meeting; stated AC Transit Line 78 to the Seaplane Lagoon for the 1 year\npilot program is coming to the end; the pilot program cannot be extended; public\nhearings will be held.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted AC Transit is also working with the City on a bus pass for\nlow income senior citizens and those with disabilities.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n27", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 28, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:45\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\nFebruary 1, 2022\n28", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 29, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2022- -5:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:02 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella\narrived at 5:34 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nConsent Calendar:\n(22-037) Recommendation to approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Nico Procos, Alameda\nMunicipal Power General Manager, Erin Smith, Public Works Director, Alan Cohen,\nAssistant City Attorney, and Alan Harbottle, Senior Energy Resources Analyst, as\nDesignated Negotiators with NextEra Energy Resources Related to Doolittle Landfill.\nNot heard.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(22-038) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\n54956.8); Property: 11-Acre Portion of the 33.2-Acre Doolittle Landfill Sire Located\nNorthwest of the Intersection of Doolittle Drive and Harbor Bay Parkway. Not heard.\n(22-039) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code\nSection 54956.9); Case Name: City of Alameda V. All Persons Interested in the Matter\nof the Issuance and Sale of One or More Series of Pension Obligation Bonds to\nRefinance Outstanding Obligations of the City of Alameda to the California Public\nEmployees' Retirement Law, and All Proceedings Leading Thereto, Including the\nAdoption of a Resolution and Sale of Such Bonds, Alameda County Taxpayers'\nAssociation, Steve Slauson, and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Court: Superior\nCourt of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: 21CV001157.\n(22-040) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation, Initiation of Litigation\n(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4)); Number of Cases:\nOne (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendant(s): Alameda Point\nPartners, LLC.\n(22-041) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Alameda Point, Site A, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric\nLevitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, and Louis Liss,\nBase Reuse Manager; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Point\nPartners, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 30, "text": "(22-042) 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 Organizations: Alameda Police\nManagers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire Chief's Association (AFCA); Under\nNegotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the Existing Litigation, staff provided information and Council\nprovided direction, by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera\nSpencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye;\nAyes: 3. Abstain: 1. Absent: 1; regarding Potential Litigation and Real Property, staff\nprovided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1; and regarding Labor, staff provided\ninformation and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:28\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\nJanuary 18, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}