{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 7, 2021--5:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:04 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nThe meeting\nwas held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nConsent Calendar\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4; Noes: 1. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-515) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell,\nCommunity Development Director, and Louis Liss, Base Reuse Manager, as\nDesignated Real Property Negotiators for the West Midway Project and Site A at\nAlameda Point. Accepted.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(21-516) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode Section 54956.9); Case Name: Howell V. City of Alameda; Court: Alameda\nSuperior Court, Hall of Justice, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA; Case Numbers:\nRG20061693\n(21-517) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: West Midway Parcel; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City\nManager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, and Louis Liss, Base Reuse\nManager; Negotiating Parties: City, Catellus, and Brookfield; Under Negotiation: Price\nand Terms. Not heard.\n(21-518) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode Section 54956.9); Case Name: City of Alameda V. Union Pacific (Sweeney);\nCourt: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Numbers:\nRG18921261\n(21-519) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section\n54957.6); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 2, "text": "Manager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:\nInternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility\nProfessional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees Association\n(ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and Alameda\nManagement and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA), International\nAssociation of Firefighter, Local 689 (IAFF) Alameda Fire Managers Association\n(AFMA), Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA) and Alameda Police Managers\nAssociation (APMA), Executive Management Employees (EXME) and Alameda\nMunicipal Power Unrepresented Management Employees (AMPU); Under Negotiation:\nSalaries, Benefits and Terms of Employment\n(21-520) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Grandview Pavilion; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City\nManager, Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Director of Base Reuse and Community\nDevelopment, Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director; Negotiating Parties:\nCity of Alameda and Alameda County and Greenway Golf; Under Negotiation: Price and\nTerms. Not heard.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Howell, the accident which forms the basis of this litigation\ntook place on December 11, 2019 at 2149 Central Avenue in the City of Alameda;\nDonna Howell and her husband walked across the driveway/sidewalk apron with the\nintention of entering Central Avenue midblock; Donna Howell fell, sustaining serious\ninjuries; she later suffered whole body organ failure and passed away on January 10,\n2020; in order to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation, the City Council\nauthorized the City Attorney to settle this matter in an amount not to exceed $117,500\nby the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye;\nKnox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; regarding Union\nPacific, the case involves an ongoing eminent domain litigation against Union Pacific\n(UP), where the City seeks to acquire portions of abandoned UP Railroad right-of-way\non the south side of Jean Sweeney Open Space Park; the property to be acquired will\nbe approximately 23,489 square feet, plus 2 easement acquisitions of approximately\n7,532 square feet; the property will be used to provide public access to the southern\nneighborhood, connect with critical infrastructure and properly route the Cross Alameda\nTrail; the parties have reached a tentative agreement to finalize the eminent domain\nprocess without trial, whereby the City would pay approximately $1.2 million for the\nacquisition and agree to cooperate for the next three to six years with any application for\nR-2 residential zoning on the remaining UP property; for clarity, the cooperation is not a\npre-commitment for approval; the Council authorized the City Attorney to resolve the\nlitigation consistent with the tentative agreement 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; regarding Labor Negotiators, staff provided\ninformation and Council provided direction with no vote taken.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 3, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:45\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\nSeptember 7, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 4, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - 7, 2021 - -6:58 P.M.\nMayor/Chair\nEzzy\nAshcraft\nconvened\nthe\nmeeting\nat\n7:09\np.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\nHerrera\nSpencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy\nAshcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by\nthe following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera\nSpencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes:\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*21-521 CC/21-17 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor\nAgency to the Community Improvement Commission Meetings Held on June 15, 2021\nand July 6, 2021. Approved.\n(*21-522 CC/21-18 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the\nQuarter Ending June 30, 2021. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n7:11 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\n1\nSeptember 7, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 5, "text": "MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED JULY 20, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 7, 2021-6:59 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:11 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nThe meeting was conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-523) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code, Including\nArticle VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) to Clarify Enforcement\nProvisions and Provide for Other Updates and Enhancements to the Sunshine\nOrdinance. Introduced.\nThe City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nOutlined the \"penalties\" section of the Sunshine Ordinance; stated that she finds the\nsection concerning; the penalty is harsh and unnecessary; the Open Government\nCommission (OGC) has not heard many complaints; urged Council to amend the clause\nand represent a fair process; noted San Francisco's Sunshine Task Force does not\nhave a similar penalty clause and Alameda should follow: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nExpressed support for speaker Reid's comments; stated that he is concerned about\ntransparency; outlined a published agenda error change; stated changes are made to\nmatters on published agendas including updated correspondence; many items need\nmore transparency; urged Council create a Citizens Task Force which holds public\nmeetings; expressed support for changes to the ad hoc committee provision; outlined\nprevious updates made to the Sunshine Ordinance: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is considering specific provisions; requested\nclarification on the penalties provision of the Sunshine Ordinance.\nThe City Attorney stated staff has not proposed any changes to the penalty section of\nthe ordinance; the section is a carryover and is intended to limit the amount of work for\nCity staff and Commissions related to unfounded complaints.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about correspondence being added to\nagenda items.\nThe City Clerk stated any additional correspondence that comes in is attached to the\nagenda item; as correspondence is received, the date updated; new correspondence\nadded at the top of the document.\nContinued July 20, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether correspondence is often received up until the\ntime of the meeting, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to know whether it is\npossible to have the OGC review the penalty provision; the provision is extreme; she\nwould like to know the procedure of having the provision reviewed; expressed concern\nabout the use of the term \"shall\" under Section 2-93.8.a.\nThe City Attorney stated the ordinance shows the originating body being required to\nconsider the Commission's recommendation with the use of the term \"shall.'\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is concerned by the use of the term\n\"shall;\" the term \"may\" should be used instead; she has concerns about the Commission\ndictating that Council must consider a recommendation; the interim poses Council\nkeeping status quo; outlined an instance related to cannabis ordinances; stated the\nlanguage reads as though Council has to follow the lead of the OGC to void the original\ndecision, re-evaluate the matter and make another decision; it is not appropriate for a\nCommission to dictate to Council what must be done; Commissions may make\nrecommendations.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification for the use of the term \"shall\" versus \"may\"\nin the ordinance.\nThe City Attorney stated if the Commission renders a decision that a Council decision\nenacting an ordinance is unlawful, Council would be required to consider the\nrecommendation; the decision does not automatically mean that the previous Council\ndecision is void; however, the matter must be agendized as soon as possible to discuss\nand consider the Commission's recommendation; the Council may accept or reject the\nCommission's recommendation upon a majority vote; if Council wants to change the\nterm to \"may,\" Council may or may not consider the Commission's recommendation;\nboth approaches are lawful.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns over the use of the term\n\"shall\" throughout the section; Council must decide at the time whether or not to re-visit\nan issue; Council may consider the OGC's recommendation; the City Charter is clear\nabout which body has the ultimate power which is City Council, not Boards and\nCommissions; a vote of the people needs to give authority to the OGC; any use of the\nterm \"shall\" is a problem.\nThe City Attorney stated staff has met with the OGC many times; the OGC would like to\nhave gone much further than the proposed language; the proposed language seeks the\nmaximum compromise possible; there are no legal problems if Council wishes to\nchange \"shall\" to \"may;\" the changes can easily be made.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands the section as pertaining to a violation\nContinued July 20, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nSeptember 7, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 7, "text": "in providing public information found by the Commission; noted the OGC may\nrecommend to the City, the steps necessary to cure or correct the violation; inquired\nwhether the section needs another section which discusses Council's process to cure or\ncorrect.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the issue of public information is\ntypically administrative action; Council does not take action on administrative actions;\nstaff left the language included under the administrative section; the section for Brown\nAct violations differs.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is concerned about the time period\nbetween the OGC making a recommendation and the matter being brought to Council;\ninquired what happens to the decision made by Council in the meantime and whether\nthe decision continues moving forward or becomes stalled.\nThe City Attorney responded the language provides that the City is encouraged to\nmaintain the status quo; stated the action will largely depend on the situation; the\noriginal Council action will be effective by operation of law; if a scenario were Council\ndirecting staff to lobby for a particular bill that has a timeframe, staff will likely proceed,\nnotwithstanding a Commission decision; outlined a scenario related to planting trees\nover a three year time period in which a two-month delay would likely cause no\ndifference; staff would likely delay action in said scenario.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for the consideration given to the\nmatter; stated staff has worked to find a compromise that provides some accountability;\nfuture OGC's might be a ruling body and might not necessarily have impact on the City\ndoing business; the changes meet the compromise admirably and provide flexibility to\nthe City whereby the harm from a finding is reduced; the proposed language gives the\npublic the ability to know that findings of violations will be re-heard and cured;\nexpressed support for the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to hash the matter\nout even further; he is not convinced of the language being proposed; expressed\nconcern about maintaining the status quo pending final review by the Commission;\nstated if Council makes a decision that the OGC subsequently finds troubling, the\ncurrent language leaves the decision of Council moving forward or not depending on the\nimmediacy of the issue as outlined by the City Attorney; noted the legislation matter\nsituation will allow Council to move forward even when the OGC has found the matter\ntroubling; City staff needs to factor in and vet the possibility of the OGC having\nquestions regarding certain matters; if the OGC finds a troubling matter, Council should\nnot want to move the matter forward even if it is time-sensitive; Council should re-visit\nand hold off on executing matters deemed troubling by the OGC; the term should read:\nContinued July 20, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 8, "text": "\"must encourage status quo;\" the matter is critical and gives the OGC process\neffectiveness and power; he does not agree with the use of the term \"should;\"\nexpressed concern about the five year penalty; stated that he does not think the\nsituation in government has been so troubling for someone to muck up the gears of the\ngovernment process; he is not convinced of imposing such a drastic penalty; it is the\nright of the people to attend OGC and Council meetings; he does not think Council\nshould be so heavy handed in the penalty; the penalty is not fair or democratic.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter may return to the OGC.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has concerns over the Null and Void provision;\nthe OGC does not have the power to declare matters Null and Void; when the OGC\nchallenges a Council decision, the decisions must be put in abeyance.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for the recommendations; stated there have been\nseveral lively conversations with the OGC; the ordinance has been in place for over one\ndecade; a number of things may need to be changed going forward; the OGC and\nSunshine Ordinance came about from large-scale community conversation; there have\nbeen proposals and differences in opinion on what may or may not be within the\nconfines of the City Charter; if constituents are interested in seeing certain things\nchange, proposals to take action through amending the Charter or other alternatives\ncan occur via robust community conversation; it is a good time to make changes; a\ntremendous amount of effort has been put forth in the proposed language before\nCouncil; she is prepared to support the matter; expressed support for all members of\nthe OGC through the years; stated a substantial amount of time has been put into the\nmatter; an ordinance has been put forth which will ensure the City is as open and\ntransparent as possible; she would like to encourage Council, the OGC, staff and the\ncommunity to have a larger discussion on the meaning of open government.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:47\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nContinued July 20, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nSeptember 7, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 9, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 7, 2021--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:47 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nThe meeting was conducted via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(21-524) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to hear the nominations\n[paragraph no. 21-525 next.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer proposed moving up the legal notices item [paragraph\nno. 21-559], the referral on Alameda Point housing constraints [paragraph no. 21-566],\nand the referral on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) [paragraph no. 21-\n567]; stated the matters are important to provide direction to staff regarding the Housing\nElement.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft encouraged all Councilmembers to be as economical with\ncomments in order to move expeditiously through the agenda; expressed concern about\nmoving up Council Referrals.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of moving up the nominations to the top of\nthe meeting and leaving the rest of the agenda in-tact.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-525) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Golf Commission, Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners, and Library Board.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Robert Lattimore for appointment to the Golf\nCommission and Dimple Kanji and Sara Strickler for appointment to the Library Board.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(21-526) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding Alameda Firefighters\nbeing dispatched to various wild fires; acknowledged and thanked: Dave Port, Jacob\nZinn, Brock Liebhardt, Gustavo Lopez, Byong Kim, James Pagnini, Garret Indrebo,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 10, "text": "Ryan Tunney, Dallas Andrews, Troy McNeil, Daniel Martin, Daniel Dias, Kyle Garcia,\nJoshua Sanders and Timothy Elliott.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-527) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority (AHA), announced the opening of the\nhousing voucher waitlist for both the Housing Choice Voucher Program and the Project-\nBased Voucher Program; stated the programs are for physical units in the City of\nAlameda; urged all interested parties to apply; stated the waitlist will open at 8:30 a.m.\nSeptember 10th and will close 12:00 p.m. on September 20th; the waitlist application is\navailable online only; four application centers are available for those without access to\nthe internet or a mobile phone: Mastick Senior Center, Alameda Free Library, Alameda\nBoys and Girls Club and the Alameda Point Collaborative; online and phone line\ncustomer support is available in five multi-lingual options; reasonable accommodations\ncan be made for those with disabilities; outreach is being provided.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether those without internet access are at a\ndisadvantage.\nMr. Altieri responded AHA will work with people; stated reasonable accommodation\nneeds must be submitted; AHA staff will work to find a solution in order for people to\ncomplete the application.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the method people will obtain information.\nMr. Altieri responded people can call the AHA; online and phone support is available for\n12 hours per day beginning September 10th.\n(21-528) Bradley King, Alameda, urged Council to end the Slow Street program; stated\nthat he thought the program would be temporary; the program is well-meaning;\nhowever, has not served its purpose; the traffic barriers at the end of streets should be\nused to indicate large holes and cause problems with the intersections; noted the right-\nof-way is unknown at the intersections; less attention is being paid to pedestrians;\nexpressed concern about allowing recreation to occur in designated slow streets; traffic\ndoes not seem to be significantly decreased on slow streets; urged Council rotate the\ndesignated slow streets if the program is not ended.\n(21-529) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, discussed flooding on the East Coast; stated areas\nwith improved maintenance experienced less basement flooding; discussed Harbor Bay\nIsle development flooding; questioned whether ongoing activities are being held locally\nto ensure the City is ahead of disasters; discussed publicity for adverse Police events\nacross the country; stated that he would like to hear the findings and details of the Mario\nGonzales autopsy.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 11, "text": "The City Clerk announced the Resolution for Community Facilities District 13-1\n[paragraph no. 21-548 was removed from the Consent Calendar.\nDiscussed the Bills for Ratification; questioned whether the vehicle replacements listed\nin the Bills are all electric vehicles; discussed State all-electric vehicles sales by 2030;\nquestioned whether the City has considered purchasing all-electric only vehicles and\nwhether the approach fits with City goals; discussed cell phone bill amounts; questioned\nhigh cell phone bill amounts: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer announced that she would like the Bills for Ratification\n[paragraph no. 21-531], the Agreement with Eden Information & Referral, Inc.\n[paragraph no. 21-534], the First Amendment with Akerman LLP [paragraph no. 21-\n538], the Revised Vehicle Replacement Policy [paragraph no. 21-543], and the\nAmerican Rescue Plan 2021 [paragraph no. 21-544 ] matters pulled from the Consent\nCalendar 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;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by\nan asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-530) Minutes of the Continued June 15, 2021 Meeting, the Special City Council\nMeeting and the Regular Meeting Held on July 6, 2021. Approved.\n(21-531) Ratified bills in the amount of $17,856,432.45.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the vehicle replacements are all-\nelectric.\nThe City Manager responded several vehicles have been approved; stated the Public\nWorks Director is able to provide further information.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that his understanding of the matter is to ratify that\nthe appropriate people have signed off on the bills; the matter is not a place for Council\nto question each listed charge; if Councilmembers have questions about charges, the\nquestions can be asked outside of the meeting; discussing the matter is off-topic and\nviolates noticing requirements.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the memorandum included in the bills from the Finance\nDirector.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council has conflated different items; expressed concern over\nnoticing requirements.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated residents and Councilmembers are within their rights to\nscrutinize the detailed payments and revenue items within the ledger; the point of the\nBills is for people to see how the City is spending money; it is good courtesy on the part\nof Councilmembers to ensure a discussion on the matter occurs with staff prior to the\nmeeting; noted the ledger is detailed and contains many transactions; it is\nunderstandable if staff is unable to respond to questions on the spot due to the detailed\nnature of the report; staff can return with further details at a later time.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the vehicles are listed on page 3 of the check\nregister; inquired whether the listed vehicles are electric.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Bills list items which have already been\npurchased and the expense incurred; outlined the vehicle purchase policy and\nAdministrative Policy 48; noted all sedan and compact vehicles are to be replaced with\nalternative fuel vehicles when up for renewal; in certain cases a hybrid is purchased;\nmost of the compact and sedan vehicles to be replaced will be electric; the Electric\nVehicle (EV) market is not yet sufficient for the light and heavy duty and emergency\nvehicle needs; each time staff renews a vehicle, research is completed to determine\nsuitability; the vehicles referenced in the Bills are for three maintenance service trucks,\nwhich do not meet the EV purchasing requirements; purchase request were previously\nbrought to Council; the vehicles are not EV due to the market not allowing for such\npurchase to be made.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the bills.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nroll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(*21-532) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Reporting\nPeriod Ending March 31, 2021 (Funds Collected During the Period October 1, 2020 to\nDecember 31, 2020). Accepted.\n(*21-533) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Reporting\nPeriod Ending June 30, 2021 (Funds Collected During the Period January 1, 2021 to\nMarch 31, 2021). Accepted.\n(21-534) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Six-Year\nAgreement with Eden Information & Referral, Inc. for an Amount Not to Exceed\n$700,000 to Provide a Transportation Network Company (TNC) Concierge Service as\nPart of the City's Paratransit Program.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is important for the public to understand the\nmatter; the matter speaks to using Uber and Lyft as TNC for the paratransit program;\ninquired the vetting process used for Uber and Lyft drivers and whether special training\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 13, "text": "will be provided; expressed support for the needs of the paratransit program\nparticipants' being met.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator responded staff is providing a recommendation\nfor Eden Information and Referral, Inc. (Eden I&R) to provide a TNC concierge program;\nstated Eden I&R will act as the third party provider that will book trips for community\nmembers as well as providing monitoring and evaluation of trips; Eden I&R will help\nusers through the process from beginning to end; the program targets the most\nvulnerable population; the program is replacing the former taxi subsidy program; the\nprogram is risk-averse and is the right time to provide the service.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the work of Eden I&R.\nAlison DeJung, Eden I&R, stated Eden I&R has been operating a similar TNC program\nfor the City of Hayward for a little over one year; most of the other cities in Alameda\nCounty provide a similar program for profit called Go-Go Grandparent; the program is a\nnatural fit and provides the same callers with third party assistance and scheduling; the\napproach is holistic; there are valid questions and concerns about liabilities with Lyft and\nUber; the City Attorney for the City of Hayward offered to connect with the City Attorney\nfor the City of Alameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not always had the best\nexperience in using Uber; she would like to know how the drivers are being vetted and\nmonitored; questioned whether there is a way to provide feedback from the consumer\nafter each ride if a bad ride is experienced; expressed concern about the term of the\ncontract.\nMs. DeJung responded the concern over the feedback loop has come up in City\nCommission meetings; Eden I&R's goal for the transportation division is to implement a\nmore robust feedback loop from clients.\nLobsan Barrera, Eden I&R, stated the difference between Eden I&R and those using\nUber and Lyft on their own is the attention provided; the program provides extra security\nfor the client; the average pickup time in the transportation department is 12 seconds;\nEden I&R has special health accounts, which differ from normal accounts; Eden I&R is\nonly supplied with 4.0 out of 5.0 star rated drivers; any issues that occur during the ride\nare reportable to Eden I&R by dialing 2-1-1; the issues are relayed to Uber and Lyft;\nresponses from Uber and Lyft are provided within 20 to 30 minutes; many success\nstories over the year have been provided from the City of Hayward; Eden I&R staff does\nnot solely focus on patching rides, but also reviews and supervises the ride of each\nclient from beginning to end; any discrepancies or suspicious activities are revewied to\nensure and confirm the safety of riders.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator stated some jurisdictions do not use third party\nproviders and work directly with TNC's; staff is adding the extra layer of security for the\nmost vulnerable population.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the City working with Eden I&R; stated\nEden I&R has a long history of providing social and mental health referrals; outlined\nUnited Way of the Bay Area utilizing Eden I&R as a resource; stated 2-1-1 provides a\nposition to deliver information to types of services needed; the information is not always\navailable in a one-stop area; the matter is a great opportunity and Alameda will put in\nsafeguards to avoid bad experiences.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the matter; stated\nthat he does not typically support TNC's; however, the use is something to support.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she will not be supporting the matter; she has a number of\nconcerns over liability issues and the TNC companies; the City needs to find a way to\npartner and ensure that care is provided to vulnerable community members; she does\nnot want to provide the partnership at the expense of TNC workers not getting things\nsuch as worker's compensation coverage; expressed support for the work and\npartnership of Eden I&R.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff can confirm the drivers are not\nbeing allotted worker's compensation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted a court decision has challenged Proposition 22; stated that\nshe would like to take a vote on the matter.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer made a friendly amendment to the motion to include\nan update after the first year, which includes feedback from the population being\nserved.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he will defer to staff on the annual report.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the annual report is included within the\nstaff report.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(*21-535) Recommendation to Accept the Semi-Annual Report for the Period of January\n1, 2021Through June 30, 2021, on 1) Litigation and Liability Claims Settlements, 2)\nWorkers' Compensation Settlements, 3) Personnel Settlement, and 4) Whether Any\nRecords Previously Withheld from Disclosure Have Now Become Available to the\nPublic. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 15, "text": "(*21-536) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Two-Year\nAgreement, in an Amount Not to Exceed $250,000, with Alameda Family Services for\nStudent and Family Mental Health Services. Accepted.\n(*21-537) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a One-Year\nAgreement with Terraphase Engineering for Environmental Consulting Services at\nAlameda Point in an Amount Not to Exceed $147,458 for the First Year, with the Option\nof Four One Year Extensions for a Total Five Year Agreement in an Amount Not to\nExceed $517,909. Accepted.\n(21-538) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First\nAmendment with Akerman LLP, Similar in Form to Exhibit 1 Attached, for Federal\nLegislative Services for a Term of 13 Months with Two One-Year Options to Extend,\nand Compensation for the First Amendment Not to Exceed $97,500 and Total Four-\nYear Compensation Not to Exceed $367,500; and\n(21-538 A) Recommendation to Execute a First Amendment with Clear Advocacy, LLC,\nSimilar in Form to Exhibit 2 Attached, for State Legislative Services for a Term of 12\nMonths with Two One-Year Options to Extend, and Compensation for the First\nAmendment Not to Exceed $90,000 and Total Four-Year Compensation Not to Exceed\n$322,500.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she pulled the matter from Consent in\norder to bifurcate the matter and vote separately on the contracts.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of the agreement with Akerman.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the agreement with Clear Advocacy.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he believes a list of items were to\nbe included for the State advocate to look into; noted that he does not support several\nmatters listed; he will not support the motion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about Clear Advocacy looking into\nthe Surplus Lands Act; stated the Surplus Lands Act should apply; the City should not\nbe contesting use of the Surplus Lands Act at Alameda Point; the Act goes to providing\naffordable housing at Alameda Point.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(*21-539) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Remit Payment in the\nAmounts of $910,525 and $655,752 to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)\nfor Alameda Point's Adaptive Reuse Areas Phase 1 and Phase 2 Water Main\nExtensions, Respectively. Accepted.\n(*21-540) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Redgwick Construction for the Otis\nDrive Traffic Calming and Safety Improvement Project, No. P.W.05-20-29. Accepted.\n(*21-541) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second\nAmendment to the Agreement with Coastland Civil Engineering for City Engineering\nServices, in an Amount Not to Exceed $100,000 for an Aggregate Amount Not to\nExceed $249,500. Accepted.\n(*21-542) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year\nAgreement with NBS for Sewer Service Charge Tax Roll Administrative Services in an\nAmount Not to Exceed $278,108.44. Accepted,\n(21-543) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of Six Vehicles Consistent with\nRevised Vehicle Replacement Policy in Amounts Not to Exceed $93,377 from Freeway\nToyota for Three Hybrid Vehicles, $74,984 from Cromer Material Handling for Two\nForklifts and $311,598 from Leader Industries for One Ambulance.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is concerned about the location of\nFreeway Toyota; inquired whether there are local Toyota companies which can provide\nvehicles.\nThe City Manager responded Freeway Toyota is the State bid winner for the vehicle\ntype.\nThe Fleet Supervisor stated the contracts are State contracts, specifically California\nMultiple Award Schedule (CMAS), which is conducted by the Department of General\nServices (DGS); the companies and dealerships are based in California; staff did not\nreach out to local Toyota businesses; the State contract moves a high volume of\nvehicles which have a better price reduction from the manufacturer.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer noted the vehicles are Toyotas; inquired whether\nanother local vendor would be able to sell the vehicles at the rate of roughly $31,000\nper vehicle.\nThe Fleet supervisor responded most local dealerships are focused on selling vehicles\nto the general public versus operating fleet sales; fleet operation sales make\nsubstantially less on individual vehicle; the vendor is able to sell many vehicle units and\nis therefore able to get a reduced price from Toyota; staff can reach out to a local\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 17, "text": "vendor; however, the dealership will not likely want to sell a vehicle for far less than\nwhat the general public would offer.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(21-544) Resolution No. 15805, \"To Increase Expenditure Appropriations in the\nAmerican Rescue Plan 2021 Project (96034/C9930) in the Capital Projects Fund (310)\nby $23,625 for the Feed Alameda Program to Provide Alameda's Most Vulnerable\nResidents with Hot Meals and to Provide Support to Alameda Restaurants.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated one restaurant provider was excluded from the\nprogram due to not serving hot meals, only cold meals; noted that she consumes cold\nmeals; inquired whether the requirement to provide hot meals is included in the\nprogram; questioned whether the City has discretion and flexibility to include offering\ncold meals as part of the program.\nThe Economic and Community Services Manager responded the program called for hot\nmeals, which is the reason for the exclusion of one restaurant; stated staff can include\nthe restaurant if Council wishes to include the cold meal option; the restaurant indicated\ndoes not have a hot meal option.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the guidelines are set forth by the State Department of\nAgriculture and the Great Plates program; the criteria is similar in requiring fresh fruits,\nvegetables and excluding sugary drinks; there are nutritional requirements for the\nprogram.\nThe Economic and Community Services Manager stated the program started in the\nmiddle of winter, indicating the need for hot meals.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated fresh fruits and vegetables can be included in\nsalads without being heated.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution, with the addition of\nthe restaurant that serves cold meals as long as the nutritional requirements are\nsatisfied.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes approval for any increase in\ncosts to provide the additional meals; questioned how many meals are being provided\nat a time by restaurants.\nThe Economic and Community Services Manager responded 105 meals; stated the\namount has increased due to need.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 18, "text": "the matter is Council approval of funding for the program; now is the time to increase or\ndecrease funding for the program.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the program is coming to its conclusion.\nVice Mayor Vella stated an increase in funds does not necessarily mean a change to\nthe program requirements; side direction to have the matter return to Council needs to\nbe provided; inquired whether the allocation of funds can be returned if the need arises\nand whether the timeline has passed in order for staff to make changes to the program.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 19, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the change from hot to cold meals requires some\nsort of permission from Council.\nThe Economic and Community Services Manager responded the change can be\ndiscretionary; stated the increase falls under the City Manager's spending limit; the City\nManager can give direction for staff to follow up based on the concerns raised by\nCouncil; if Council increases the budget to include an additional $2,625 for a program\ntotal of $26,250, the matter can be settled.\nSince there was no second to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's motion, Vice Mayor\nVella moved approval of adding the $2,625 to the program total [including adoption of\nthe resolution].\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White inquired the restaurant being added to\nthe program, to which the Economic and Community Services Manager responded\nJay's Coffee and Tea.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like staff to return to Council if direction for\nprogram changes are needed.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(*21-545) Resolution No. 15806, \"Amending Resolution No. 12121 Setting the Order of\nBusiness for Continued Items of City of Alameda City Council Meetings.\" Adopted.\n(*21-546) Resolution No. 15807, \"Amending the Management and Confidential\nEmployees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule to Add the Classification of Principal\nFinancial Analyst; Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) Salary\nSchedule to Retitle the Traffic Signal Maintenance Technician to Traffic Signal/Pump\nStation Maintenance Technician; Upgrading One Senior Management Analyst to\nPrincipal Financial Analyst; Upgrading One Public Works Maintenance Foreperson to\nTraffic Signal/Pump Station Maintenance Technician; and Upgrading one Economic and\nCommunity Services Manager to Development Services Division Manager, Effective\nSeptember 12, 2021.\" Adopted.\nNote: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the item carried by the\nfollowing vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.\n(*21-547) Resolution No. 15808, \"Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local\nEmergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 20, "text": "Code Section 8630(c). Adopted.\nNote: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the item carried by the\nfollowing vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.\n(21-548) Resolution No. 15809, \"Authorizing the Issuance of City of Alameda\nCommunity Facilities District (CFD) No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements)\n2021 Special Tax Subordinate Bonds in an Amount Not to Exceed $24,585,000, and\nApprove Related Documents and Actions.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(*21-549) Ordinance No. 3303, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nChapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Modify Public Art Requirements, as Recommended\nby the Planning Board.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-550) Resolution No. 15810, \"Appointing Robert Ferguson as a Member of the Public\nArt Commission.\" Adopted;\n(21-550 A) Resolution No. 15811, \"Appointing Jennifer Hoffecker as a Member of the\nPublic Art Commission.\" Adopted; and\n(21-550 B) Resolution No. 15812, \"Appointing Peter Platzgummer as a Member of the\nPublic Art Commission.\" Adopted.\nVice Mayor Vella moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nMs. Hoffecker and Mr. Platzgummer made brief comments and the City Clerk\nadministered the Oath of the Office.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:02 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:18\np.m.\n***\n(21-551) Public Hearing to Consider a Call for Review of the Planning Board's Final\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n12", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 21, "text": "Decisions at the July 26, 2021 Meeting to Approve (1) Design Review Application No.\nPLN21-0077 for an Approximately 29,810-square-foot Medical Respite Facility at 1245\nMcKay Avenue and (2) Draft Meeting Minutes from the June 14, 2021 Planning Board\nMeeting; and\n(21-551A) Resolution No. 15813, \"Approving Design Review Application No. PLN21-\n-\n0077 to Allow the Construction of an Approximately 29,810-Square-Foot Medical\nRespite Facility at 1245 McKay Avenue. Adopted.\nStated that she is outraged about the calculated targeting of the Wellness Center\nproject; she understands a small matter related to the Zoom meeting will be brought up;\nthe call for review is morally wrong and will cost the City another $5,000; the attempt to\nstall the project is inane: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.\nStated it is evident that the Planning Board meeting agenda listed a non-functioning\ntelephone identification (ID) number; the incorrect number precluded full public\nparticipation; public participation is protected under State laws; outlined alterations to\nthe agenda, meeting ID and the Ralph M. Brown Act; stated the public shall not be\nrequired to register as a condition of attendance; urged Council to direct the Planning\nBoard meeting be re-agenized: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nDiscussed the project facility being detailed as reuse versus demolished; outlined\nfinancial incentives for demolition, development fees and construction costs; stated new\nconstruction costs are more than reuse costs; expressed concern over tax payer dollars\ngoing towards a County facility and the future sale of buildings; stated future owners of\nthe facility will not have an obligation to provide homeless services; expressed concern\nabout public land being in private hands providing only temporary homeless services;\ndiscussed conflict of interests and Alameda veterans' priority at the facility; stated a\nsignificant portion of the site is in the tsunami zone; asbestos removal will be time\nconsuming and costly; destruction of historic structures will delay construction; the\nfacility can be built faster in another location: Harvey Rosenthal, Alameda.\nStated the people of Alameda voted to approve the Wellness Center a long time ago;\nthe delays are shameful and need to stop: Jennifer Taggart, Alameda.\nStated there is a flaw in the noticing; the issue is complicated and controversial; people\nare asking for a remedy and for the meeting to be rescheduled; expressed support for\nthose requesting that the meeting be re-heard to allow those that were not given the\nchance to speak the opportunity to do so: Apple Strudel, Alameda.\nStated the matter is an obvious delay tactic; the approach is cruel; members of the\npublic have had many opportunities to weigh in on the matter including the vote to pass\nMeasure A; the Wellness Center will eventually be built; discussed deaths due to project\ndelays: Josh Geyer, Alameda.\nStated his comment is his 18th appearance before the City Council, a Board or a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 22, "text": "Commission to discuss the Wellness Center; the decision is easy; Council cannot claim\na meeting was not properly noticed and only impacted one item on the agenda; the\nnumerous letters and comments received from the public speak volumes about the\nattempt to deny services for unhoused neighbors; it is irresponsible to force the costs of\na call for review onto taxpayers instead of the appellants; announced that he has signed\na lease extension with the United States Department of Health and Human Services\n(HHS) which will take the project through financing and conveyance; urged the delays\nbe stopped; stated the project has support at the federal level; urged Council to work\nwith him to create a center of excellence: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.\nStated the matter is not a complicated issue; the City does not need to re-litigate every\ndelay tactic and obstruction to the project; the matter has been voted on and debated;\nurged Council to do its job and let the Wellness Center happen; stated delays present\nmore harm to the community: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nDiscussed a letter from Yes in my Backyard (YIMBY) law; stated Council could be\nviolating the five cap limit on having public meetings concerning related matters: Zac\nBowling, Alameda.\nVice Mayor moved approval of upholding the Planning Board decision.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is a de novo hearing;\nCouncil is re-hearing the matter which has been noticed accordingly; the matter is an\nopportunity for anyone that had been unable to attend the Planning Board meeting, to\nraise any concerns; he would like to hear reasons for the incorrect noticing of the\nmeeting only affecting specific items.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there are residents supportive of the proposed facility;\nhe understands the necessity of the facility; there is a clear indication of support for the\nfacility; facilities coming to fruition requires a process and democracy in which residents\nare made aware of and able to participate in actions; the core is a necessity of making\ninformation available about upcoming meetings; the notices must have the proper\ninformation that allows people to participate; a mistake in the noticing of the agenda\nprecluded participation for some members of the public; he joined Councilmember\nHerrera Spencer in ensuring a re-publishing of the agenda to allow full participation; the\nPlanning Board meeting included other matters on the agenda, which were designated\nas time-sensitive and not included in the Call for Review; the Wellness Center matter\ncould be delayed without changing the substance of the matter; the delay is not an\nattempt to stop the project; he believes the matter has been settled by the people in the\nrecent vote of Measure A; the people are supportive of the project; expressed concern\nabout the topic of reuse versus demolition; noted that he voted against demolition of the\nfacility site; state the City should go forth with one more step in re-agendizing the matter\nfor public input; tonight is an opportunity for the public to weigh-in on the matter.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 23, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the two items on the Planning Board agenda\nwere Consent Calendar items; noted the Penumbra matter did not received any\ncomment and was set to close the following day; the matter related to noise had\nmultiple hearings; the Wellness Center design review was the first and only hearing\nrelated to design; she listened to the Planning Board meeting in real-time; a caller\nindicated difficulty with the phone number listing error; the phone number error was\nraised during the meeting; the Planning Board Chair noted all comments must be\nrelated to design only; the matter is important to the community; the City has allowed\nphone participation and has created agendas with the correct meeting ID for phone\nparticipants; expressed support for open government and democracy; stated it is critical\nfor agendas to include the correct meeting ID to hear from public phone participants; it\nis wrong not to have the correct meeting ID included on the agenda; phone participants\nexperienced problems trying to call-in.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the importance of open government and\ndemocracy does not apply across the board.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded there is some discretion for Council to\nallow the movement and progress of items; stated a delay would have resulted in the\nhold up of a sale or transfer of property, which had received zero feedback from the\ncommunity in advance or during the meeting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how one would know whether or not a member of the\npublic had tried to comment on the matters pulled from the Call for Review due to\ndialing the incorrect number.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded there has been zero communication\nreceived to-date of someone attempting to call-in on either of the items pulled from the\nCall for Review.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that her understanding from the correspondence attached\nto the matter is that the two items had been pulled based on requests submitted from\nproponents.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he does not buy the reasoning; there cannot be\nthe suggestion of a problem with one matter but not others; the matter is a clear,\ntargeted Call for Review; the matter is unfortunate and shameful; Council has heard a\nlot of concerns about abuse of rules in open government complaints; noted people who\nhad issues accessing the Planning Board meeting have not called; the only complaint\nreceived was from a caller who had an issue with the first meeting ID; the caller called in\na second time, broke protocol for engagement in public meetings and continued to\ncomment after speaking time h; the precedent being set is problematic; expressed\nsupport for providing direction to staff to have discussions about when Calls for Review\nare appropriate; the decision of the Planning Board is not part of the Call for Review; the\nissue should have been filed as an open government complaint, not a Call for Review;\ncomments at this meeting are from the same participants at the Planning Board\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 24, "text": "meeting; meetings are not being completed due to larding up a political show and tell;\nhe is frustrated and has worked hard to help move unsupported matters along in the\nagenda; expressed concern about wasting time; stated there have been 18 hearings on\nthe project; the design for the project has not been addressed in any comments; it is\ntime to let projects, which conceptually have had support from voters, move forward.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like Council to direct the City Attorney's\noffice to work with Planning Department staff to consider limiting appeals on projects\nwhich address homelessness; Council will never accomplish what is needed as a City to\naddress homelessness if there continues the approval process continues to be\nstretched for projects; expressed support for comments indicating a calculated targeting\nto stall the Wellness Center project again, which is morally wrong and costly; there is no\nother reason the other two matters were pulled from the Call for Review and not the\nWellness Center; she would like City staff to look into whether the issue of design\nreview decisions should be appealable to the City Council; design review decisions\nbeing appealable to City Council is not universal among cities; outlined a League of\nCalifornia Cities Statewide Policy Committee meeting tour of Corsair Flats; noted some\nof the veterans housed in the units had been on the street for ten years; some people\nlive and die on the street in the same period of time; it is morally wrong to throw\nspecious roadblocks in the way to appease a few disgruntled community members that\ncannot get over the fact that the project has been approved time and time again;\nensuring the delay does not happen again will take some redesigning of process.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the core of the issue and reason for Councilmember\nHerrera Spencer and himself to bring the matter forth is not to target the facility, but due\nto a mistake in the agendizing of the matter and the wrong telephone number being\nlisted; he does not know how many people might have called and decided not to follow\nthrough due to the incorrect number; it is imperative that projects with high stakes have\nCity Hall to get the low hanging fruit correct; he believes that he is right to point the error\nout and Call for Review; expressed support for seeing the facility moving forward; stated\nthe City must meet the minimum standards of getting information out correctly for a full\ndiscussion and for democracy to work; expressed support for the enthusiasm the project\ngarners and for seeing the project built; stated the other items on the Planning Board\nagenda were time sensitive and had to be reasonably decided not to be included in the\nCall for Review; the matter is settled and the project will move forward.\nVice Mayor Vella stated shame on Council for having many hearings on the same\nproject and not streamlining the process; the project is in her backyard and she is proud\n; all should be proud for the project which has currently withstood 18 public hearings;\nexpressed support for Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's comments related to looking at the City's\nprocess and whether Calls for Review should be allowed or permitted for design review;\nCouncil needs to get back to business; the project has been decided and has overcome\na lot of hurdles; the project is not high stakes; Council has made the project much more\ndifficult than it needs to be; she disagrees with her colleagues that time is not of the\nessence for the project; the City does not have services for the most vulnerable\ncommunity members and does not have adequate housing with end of life care; said\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 25, "text": "services will be provided by the Wellness Center; Council needs to not be the ones\ncausing issues relative to the project moving forward; arguments that have been made\nfor exempting other matters do not stand muster; other matters of particular concern on\nthe agenda need to be discussed; she hopes the Call for Review is the last political\nstunts to try and stop or impede forward movement on the Wellness Center.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she disagrees with the comments made\nabout Councilmember Daysog and herself by her colleagues; she believes the matter is\nappropriate to bring forth; the personal attacks against Councilmember Daysog and\nherself from fellow Councilmembers are unfortunate; changes to the rules can come\nbefore Council; Councilmembers currently have the ability to submit Calls for Review; it\nis critical that phone numbers and the ability to participate in meetings is properly\nnoticed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for making changes in the rules; stated\ndirection has been given to staff to look into possible changes.\nThe Assistant City Attorney inquired whether two separate motions would be desired by\nCouncil; one to approve the minutes and one to approve the resolution.\nVice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Knox White agreed to bifurcate the motion to\napprove the minutes separate from the project and resolution.\nOn the call for the question regarding the minutes, the motion carried by the following\nroll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White:\nAye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstentions: 1.\nOn the call for the question regarding the project and resolution, the motion carried by\nthe following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: No;\nKnox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1.\nAbstentions: 1.\n(21-552) Recommendation to Provide Further Direction to Staff Regarding the\nAllocation of $28.68 Million of Funding from the Federal Government Through the\nAmerican Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to Assist with Recovery from the Impacts of the\nCOVID-19 Pandemic.\nThe Senior Management Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for City staff guiding Council through the\nprocess; stated it is not every day that the Federal Government drops any amount of\nmoney, let alone $28 million divided into two different tranches; expressed support for\nthe staff recommendation for the use of $15 million toward the ground-up build of the\nhotel acquisition; stated the City has made incredible headway with regard to\nimplementing national leading homelessness prevention programs in Alameda; he sees\nthe possibility of building a new facility with the assistance of $15 million as continuing\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 26, "text": "wireless hotspots for years in order to help people who do not have internet access;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n18", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 27, "text": "COVID-19 has shown how important it is for families to have internet access; since\npeople are not able to participate at meetings in person, wireless hotspots continue to\nbe an important need; schools have tried to step up; however, not every family has\nchildren attending schools offering assistance and not every family has children; seniors\nhave especially been left out during COVID-19; expressed concern about the hotel\nacquisition; stated the hotel is a revenue generating asset which produces Transient\nOccupancy Tax (TOT) for the City and is one of the few hotels in the City; TOT is\nimportant to the City; the hotel is operating and generating revenue for the City; she has\nconcerns about removing one of the few hotels that produces a higher level of tax\ndollars for the City as opposed to looking at other ways of housing those who are\nunhoused and in need of transitional housing; taking away tax revenue defeats the\npurpose; the City needs income in order to be able to provide services; she is not sure\nthe bottle parcel is the best use; she would like more information related to the fastest\ntimeline to provide housing; the AHA housing proposals could very well be the quickest\nto get online; the AHA proposal will likely be the most effective use of any dollars and\nmeet the needs as opposed to the City working alone without the AHA; expressed\nsupport for continuing the Feed Alameda program.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she strongly objects to any expenditure to AHA at this\ntime; she would like more information including how much ARPA money AHA has\nreceived and why AHA would need the City's ARPA funding; there has been reference\nto the possibility of AHA completing the North Housing project sooner if the City\nprovides ARPA funding; however, the North Housing project was conceived without\nARPA funding; she does not know whether the intent is for AHA to get cheaper money\ndue to zero finance charge from the City; if the funding is needed as supplemental\nfunds, the funding would become a loan; she strongly agrees with Vice Mayor Vella that\na community housing trust is something many cities have done; the trust allows the City\nto purchase properties; the AHA accomplished one transactions recently; however, AHA\ncan find an apartment building for sale and guarantee a certain number of units will\nremain affordable for a certain amount of time; there is no reason the City cannot do the\nsame; expressed support for the City working with a partner; expressed concern about\neviction protections offered by AHA; outlined AHA eviction cases; stated AHA has not\nhelped find alternative housing for some; she feels as though there are complexities\nassociated with AHA; there are enough important matters requiring funding from the first\ntranche in Option 1 ; expressed support for not extending funds without safeguards in\nplace for AHA at this time, for allocating some ARPA funds to Alameda Sun as a\nbusiness which has been impacted by COVID-19 and for transitional housing; outlined\nthe supportive transitional housing program; inquired whether the location for the\nprogram is the bottle parcel or an alternate location.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the location could be the bottle parcel; stated\nthe idea is to put up temporary housing which can be put up quickly for fast services;\nthe site can move around; the bottle parcel is ideal as a location.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a visit to a transitional housing development in the City of\nMountain View; stated the units look like containers, are insulated and have Heating,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 28, "text": "Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems; family housing is combined in\nseparate ends of the development; there is need for unites for single adults and for\ncouples; the Carnegie Library is not ideal for transitional housing; the ideal location for\ntransitional housing would include a little outdoor space; the Carnegie Library might be\nbetter as a navigation center; expressed support for allocating money for transitional\nhousing; stated the bottle parcel is a great location and is close to many services; every\ntransitional housing unit must have its own bathroom as a matter of human dignity;\nadding a bathroom does not indicate the addition of a kitchenette; staff is in the process\nof working with people from the Marina Village Inn; the Marina Village Inn had not been\ndoing well related to TOT revenue generation; the owner of the Marina Village Inn was\nwilling to sign up for the Project Room Key program, which helped guarantee income\nthat did not produce TOT; price and terms must be negotiated; expressed support for\nOption 1 and for UBI; stated the City might be able to utilize State grant money for UBI;\noutlined a program called Keep Oakland Housed and a federal funding program; stated\ncalling 2-1-1 will provide information on how to apply for funding; Council may want to\nset aside money in a fund in order to help keep people from falling through the cracks.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated a Board of Commissioners appointed by the\nCouncil has oversight over AHA; the AHA holds Board meetings; she is disheartened to\nhear complaints raised about the AHA's services; the public is welcome to attend AHA\nmeetings and report to Council; she does not know the extenuating circumstances for\nspecific cases; however, AHA serves many people; expressed support for AHA.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a Council vote is needed or whether direction to\nstaff is sufficient, to which the Assistant City Manager responded direction to staff.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated majority of Council is in support of Option 1 with the\nenhancements of keeping Alameda housed and a community land trust.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is losing interest in the Marina Village Inn\noption for transitional housing; he is interested in looking at the bottle parcel option; he\nwould like to look at providing water and sewer infrastructure support options for the\nRebuilding the Existing Supportive Housing at Alameda Point (RESHAP).\n(21-553) Adoption of Resolution Approving a Revision to the Public Safety Retiree\nMedical Provision in the Executive Management Compensation Plan to Provide Up To\nFive Years of Service Credit for Time Served as a Chief, Assistant Chief and/or Deputy\nChief in Another Agency. Not adopted.\nThe Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification; inquired whether the benefit is\nfor lifetime medical coverage.\nThe Human Resources Director responded the coverage is a single party lifetime\nmedical benefit; stated the employee will transition to a Medicare supplement plan at\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 29, "text": "some point.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the benefit is offered to all\nemployees of the City of Alameda, to which the Human Resources Director responded\nthe benefit has been negotiated and offered to Public Safety employees.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns about the proposal at\nthe policy level; bringing outside people in for the highest level positions, which works\nfor other agencies, chips away and somehow reduces the benefit of long-term\nemployees; the lifetime medical benefit is only offered to public safety and is extremely\nexpensive; there is a significant amount of other post-employment benefits (OPEB),\nwhich the medical coverage falls under; she will not be supporting the matter; most\npeople do not receive lifetime medical benefits; continuing to lower the bar of who the\nbenefit is offered to is a problem.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he can understand making changes for the head\npositions; he is not convinced the changes should be for the Assistant or Deputy\npositions; the City should be encouraging people to grow through the ranks, rather than\nslotting people from outside into the higher positions; he understands why the packages\nare needed in order to recruit for top positions.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter is for the Fire Chief.\nThe Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative; stated the matter provides\nservice credit for someone being hired at the top position; the benefit only applies to\nsomeone coming from the outside to be the Fire or Police Chief in order to provide\ncredit for time served in another agency as an Assistant or Deputy.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the position would need to be equivalent, not lateral and is\na move up in position.\nThe City Manager stated the resolution needs to be changed in order to reflect the\nrecommendation of the credit only being provided if the employee had a similar type of\nbenefits from another agency; the City Manager recommendation includes the\nemployee only receiving credit if they had retiree health benefits in another organization.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for the matter due to the clarification\nprovided by staff.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of adoption of the resolution.\nThe motion failed due to a lack of second.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for approving the matter with a sunset after\nfive years.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 30, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the proposed sunset.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the resolution would be adopted; however, a sunset\nclause would be included in order to re-visit the matter in five years to determine\nwhether or not it should continue.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the proposed addition includes continuing\nwhat has historically been done for each new Chief; stated the City has essentially\ngiven each new Chief who has come from the outside over the last 10 to 15 years the\nsame benefit; the benefit is not new; expressed support for a timeline being added if the\naddition result in a vote.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for sunset clause.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned how many Chiefs from the outside have been hired in\nthe City over the last 10 to 15 years; stated the City recently hired a Fire Chief from an\noutside agency; other Fire Chiefs have all come from within Alameda Fire Department\n(AFD); the last three Police Chiefs prior to the current Police Chief have all come from\nAlameda Police Department (APD).\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the external candidates that have come in have\nbeen offered the benefit due to the problem of hiring from outside agencies and losing a\nmajor benefit; expressed support for having a wide pool of candidates.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the breakdown of promotions\nwithin the Fire and Police Departments; stated the policy is not that old; the City has not\noften had candidates from other organizations.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the City has still had applicants despite the existing policy in\nplace; top candidates have still accepted the position; expressed concern about having\na policy if people arrive from other agencies and immediately negotiate; there have\nbeen calls to limit or de-fund some positions and the expenditure is significant;\nexpressed support for a discussion relative to the City budget; stated that she is\nconcerned about existing negotiations with units; she would like to take into account the\nexecutive compensation being applied to top positions relative to line staff; she will not\nbe supporting the matter.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like a time limit on the matter due to a\nhistoric growing through the ranks for positions; he is confident in the pipeline created;\noutlined previous Police and Fire Chiefs moving through the ranks from within the\norganization; stated that he understands the idea of encouraging people to come to the\norganization from outside; he is biased towards the system which is in place; he is\nwilling to experiment if it makes for good staff, such as the incoming Fire Chief;\nhowever, a time limit should be placed in order to revisit the matter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the benefit is not a condition of the prospective Fire Chief's\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n22", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 31, "text": "employment; the benefit is being added on; she understands the service credit in the\ndepartment; expressed support for AFD; stated Firefighters are breathing harmful and\nunhealthy air and deserve lifetime medical benefits; she can justify the service credit for\nthose working in AFD; however, she has a difficult time seeing the credit applied to\nsomeone coming in from the outside; the City will have to grapple with how to pay its\nunfunded OPEB liabilities.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the time limit allows the City to experiment.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of resolution, with a caveat to have it sunset in\nfive years.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the City Manager stated that he recommends the motion be\nconsistent with the staff recommendation to amend the resolution to indicate the\nbenefits are only for similar benefits held at a previous organization, and will not exceed\nsaid previous benefits.\nCouncilmembers Daysog and Knox White accepted the recommendation as an\namendment to the motion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for training first responders in\norder to allow for promotions; stated the City has historically tried to promote from\nwithin; she will not be supporting the matter due to being concerned about the policy.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\n(21-554) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second\nAmendment to the Lease with Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability\nCompany to Extend the Term for Five Years for Building 29, Located at 1701 Monarch\nStreet, at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.\nThe City Attorney stated the title of the matter reads five years; the substance of the\nstaff recommendation is for 4 years and 11 months; he would like to clearly reflect that\nthe Council action will be for a 4 years and 11 month extension, not five years.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the title of the ordinance will need to be changed as well.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved introduction of the corrected ordinance.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n23", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 32, "text": "Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated plans do not require the removal\nof the building for DePave Park; noted the building exists on the maps for DePave Park;\nhe would like to clarify that no decision has been made that the building will go away.\n(21-555) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider new items after\n11:00 p.m.; stated that she is willing to continue the meeting until 12:00 a.m.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for continuing the meeting in order\nto hear the Small Size Big Minds lease [paragraph no. 21- 1 and the contract for Legal\nNotices [paragraph no. 21- ; however, she would not like to include the water\nconservation measures [paragraph no. 21- 1 in the discussion; stated the matter is not\ntime sensitive and could take a while to hear; expressed support for continuing all\nCouncil Referrals to the next meeting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not support a motion that does not finish the\nregular agenda items.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of Council working through as much of the\nagenda, in order until 12:00 a.m.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-556) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second\nAmendment to the Lease with Small Size Big Mind, Inc., a California Corporation,\nSubstantially in the Form of Exhibit 4, to Extend the Term for One Year with One 12-\nMonth Extension Option for Building 35, Located at 2450 Pan Am Way in the Main\nStreet Neighborhood at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-557) Recommendation to Implement Water Conservation Measures in Response to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n24", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 33, "text": "Drought and Provide Direction on Further City of Alameda Water Reduction Efforts.\nThe Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.\n(21-558) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of providing an additional minute for the\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nThe Public Works Director completed the presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many projects are needed to qualify for\nthe $15,000 rebate from East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD).\nThe Public Works Director responded each individual meter onsite is eligible for the\n$15,000 rebate; staff can pursue all nine sites; the rebate is currently only valid through\nthe end of the calendar year; she does not know whether EBMUD will be extending the\nprogram.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the projects have to be completed by\nthe end of the calendar year.\nThe Public Works Director responded that she has not been able to get clarification\nfrom EBMUD.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will forward information from the EBMUD Manager\nof Water Conservation; she hopes an application submitted by the end of the year will\nsuffice.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired where the $2.3 million will come from, to\nwhich the Public Works Director responded staff is currently looking at the General\nFund.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter will be placed ahead of\nother requests for General Fund.\nThe Public Works Director responded the matter of funding is up for discussion; stated\nstaff is recommending Council input on a standalone budget item; Council can consider\nwaiting until mid-year in order to consider multiple budget requests; the process is\nimperfect; staff is seeking direction on whether to move forward with the matter and\nreturn with a standalone budget amendment.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n25", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 34, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the information related to\nsavings and changes; stated that she supports the smart irrigation at $100,000, which\npays for itself in a short amount of time; she has concerns over the $2.3 million budget\nrequest.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired the location of the 36,000 square feet of lawn being\nreplaced at Washington Park.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the area is a smattering of smaller\nlocations; stated the areas are landscaped areas not generally used by the public; small\nareas near the front by the park sign, on Central Avenue, lower Washington near the\ntennis courts and a mix of other decorative areas, which are mostly close to the street.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the reason Lincoln and Franklin Parks are not\nincluded in the installation of rain sensitive smart irrigation clocks is due to already\nhaving the existing technology.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated any parks not\nlisted for the rain sensitive clocks already have the clocks installed; staff has tried to\ninstall a couple clocks each year in various parks.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she wants to make sure any vote or discussion related to\nWashington Park occurs separately in order to allow for her recusal; she is happy to see\nthe matter come forward; the City has gone through several droughts in her time as\nCouncilmember; it is important for the City to do its part; expressed support for the City\nHall proposal; stated there is an opportunity for the City to do its part and lead by\nexample; the money is out there and the City has a lot it can do; she would like to\nensure the City is taking on only things that it can handle and not over-exerting itself in\norder to meet the end-of-year deadline; the issue will be ongoing; she is sure funding\nwill continue; expressed support.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired the reason for waiting on the matter until now;\nstated Council about the drought in March; the drought will be continuing; expressed\nsupport for performing significant long-term changes, such as swapping out lawns for\ndrought tolerant gardens and for the life cycle recoup numbers; stated the City needs to\nsave water; the earlier the City can perform the measures to do so, the better; City staff\nhas their hands full with many matters; expressed support for a meaningful timeline and\nfinding the funds to perform the proposed measures; stated the matter would be a good\nuse for one-time funds; expressed support for doing as much as possible, as fast as\npossible without causing harm.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is in agreement with Councilmember Knox White\nand Vice Mayor Vella; the time is now; the matter did not come to Council sooner due to\nlong agendas; she hopes the work put into identifying projects goes a long way in\ncompleting the EBMUD application; the City needs to do all it can; expressed support\nfor the City Hall lawn conversion to drought friendly landscaping; stated the landscaping\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n26", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 35, "text": "can be attractive and will be a great example; it is important for the City to practice what\nit preaches; the City should be voluntarily conserving water; she supports the City\nManager's recommendation; inquired how much input the Historic Advisory Board\n(HAB) should have in putting in drought-friendly landscaping; stated that she is having\ntrouble understanding the need for input from HAB if staff is running up against a\ndeadline to apply for funds; she understands landscaping can be part of a historic\nproperty's character; expressed concern over delays since it is a time-sensitive matter.\nThe Public Works Director responded that she has consulted with HAB staff in the\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department; stated staff recommended the\nmatter be heard by HAB; staff would like more direction on whether Council desires one\nor many sites to be selected; there is value in hiring a single design contractor to design\nmultiple sites and provide the same EBMUD application; staff can move forward with\nthe design and return to Council to appropriate funds for design; by the construction is\nready to move forward, staff can return to Council by mid-year for approval of\nconstruction on all or some sites.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed approach allows staff to still apply\nfor the $15,000 per project.\nThe Public Works Director responded staff will have to work with EBMUD partners;\nshould staff have designs and applications in by the end of the rebate, EBMUD will\nlikely be able to work with the City.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for more information being provided in relation\nto the role played by HAB in the matter; inquired whether a vote from Council is needed\nor whether direction to staff is sufficient.\nThe Public Works Director responded direction to staff is sufficient; stated staff will\nmove forward with the design for the lawn conversions; inquired whether\nCouncilmembers are on board for the smart irrigation products as well; stated the\nproducts will include a budget amendment in order to appropriate the funding; staff will\ninclude the budget amendment at the time the matter returns to Council.\nThe City Manager inquired whether the lawn conversions include all listed sites or only\ndesign of 2 to 3 projects.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she supports the City Hall and City Hall West lawn\nconversions.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for moving forward with all listed sites,\nincluding having a timeline put together; stated staff can identify the sites; the City Hall\nsite makes sense.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether renting near a considered project\nsite is grounds for recusal on the matter, to which the City Attorney responded in the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n27", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 36, "text": "Alameda Sun.\nThe City Clerk and the Economic Development and Community Services Manager gave\na brief presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Economic and Community Services\nManager stated qualified businesses could have received $7,500 from one grant or\nanother and staff evaluates the application in order to determine qualification.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether applicants were able to receive funds from either\ngrant source or both, to which the Economic and Community Services Manager\nresponded only one.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Alameda Sun has been able to receive funds\nfrom the State or federal government, to which the Economic and Community Services\nManager responded in the affirmative; stated the Alameda Sun received Paycheck\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n28", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 37, "text": "Protection Plan (PPP) funds.\nUrged Council reconsider the prior vote and award the contract for the publication of\nlegal notices to the Alameda Sun; stated the Alameda Sun is locally-owned and\noperated and is a vital part of the community; outlined the Alameda spelling bee, which\nis sponsored by the Alameda Sun; stated the Alameda Sun is engaged and active\nwithin the City in ways which go beyond other publications; the Alameda Sun provides\nan outlet for City government and is the most important outlet for informing Alamedans\nabout news; urged Council find other ways to financially support the Alameda Sun:\nChuck Kapelke, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for Council immediately considering\nreversing the previous decision.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of terminating the contract with the Alameda\nJournal and awarding the contract to the Alameda Sun and inviting the Alameda Sun to\nobtain other sources of funding described in the three bullet points of the staff report,\nwith a cap of no more than an additional $19,200.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not think the City should\nterminate the contract with the Alameda Journal; Alameda Journal has a more\nextensive circulation, which is important in providing legal notices; she does not want to\npit one small newspaper against another; expressed concern about any punitive stance\ntowards any newspaper; stated that she thinks the City can provide some forms of\nfinancial assistance to the Alameda Sun, including ARPA funds; outlined funding\nreceived by Alameda Sun; stated the ability to apply for the City's COVID-19 relief or\nAlameda Strong funds was by lottery; the City has since expended the funds and will\nneed to find other sources; expressed support for following the first bullet listed in the\nalternatives to keep the contract with the Alameda Journal and provide direction on\nfunding to assist the Alameda Sun in any of the listed forms, including the General\nFund, ARPA funds, placing ads for Restaurant Week and sponsoring a City section;\nstated the City Attorney's office, Public Information Officer and Recreation and Parks\nDepartment all offer informational pieces; she wants to see the City assist the Alameda\nSun; the question remains of the amount to provide; the contract is not price specific; an\nestimate is provided based on publication average of $46,000 per year; the amount is\nnot guaranteed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about the remaining meeting time;\nstated a motion is on the floor; the matter of terminating the contract with the Alameda\nJournal and awarding it to Alameda Sun is critical.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined that she will be moving future pulled Consent Calendar\nitems to the end of the agenda in the future.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n29", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 38, "text": "Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is not related to two small, hometown\nnewspapers; the Alameda Journal is owned by a Denver hedge-fund with 100 papers\nand 200 other publications nationwide; the Alameda Sun is a local newspaper;\nexpressed support for Alameda Sun; stated if Council wishes to continue running ads in\nthe Alameda Journal, the number in the original staff report listed $46,000 and Council\ncan commit to funding $46,000 for the Alameda Sun; he did not originally vote to move\nthe legal notices to the Alameda Journal; however, he can support a form of keeping\nlegal ads published in the Alameda Journal as well as providing funding for the Alameda\nSun; expressed support for the proposed motion.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about circulation, which remains the point of legal\nnotices; stated that she would like to see a way to expand circulation for Alameda Sun;\nexpressed support for looking at other options relative to grants and advertising; stated\nher position has not changed; both newspapers are not hometown papers; the desire to\nprovide aid to Alameda Sun is separate from the desire to provide adequate legal\nnotices; she does not support moving legal notices to the Alameda Sun in addition to\nproviding financial aid; expressed support for adding the options proposed by staff.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter should be bifurcated; stated that she\ndoes not support awarding the contract to the Alameda Sun and providing financial aid;\nquestioned whether the City would eventually be the major funder of the Alameda Sun;\nexpressed concern about the concept of the City majorly funding the newspaper.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the cleanest approach is to terminate the contract with\nAlameda Journal and award the contract to the Alameda Sun without providing\nadditional funding to Alameda Sun; the contract provides funding; expressed support for\nthe use of one legal notice provider; expressed support for selecting the Alameda Sun\nto provide legal notices.\nCouncilmember Daysog amended his motion to approve termination of the contract with\nthe Alameda Journal and awarding the contract to the Alameda Sun.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter relates to supporting a local newspaper; inquired\nwhether the seconder of the motion is in agreement with the amended motion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the amended motion.\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.\nAfter the vote, Councilmember Knox White stated the reason for the matter is due to\nCity Charter requirement which is outdated and does not allow Council to utilize online\nsources; questioned whether Council can provide direction to consider a 2022 general\nelection ballot measure to amend the City Charter section for legal notices.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n30", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 39, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the matter can be brought forth at a later time; stated the\nconsideration is a good point.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for providing broad direction to staff to figure out\nwhether there are alternatives for providing broader legal notices and the accompanying\ndetails.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over a potential OGC complaint.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-560) The City Manager announced that all three Alameda Libraries have resumed\nfull service hours and masks are required at all times; discussed a City vaccine\nmilestone; stated 80% of residents 12 years and older have been fully vaccinated and\n92% of residents have received at least the first vaccine shot; stated drop-in vaccine\nclinics are available.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-561) Resolution No. 15814, \"Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero Emission\nVehicle Sales in California by 2030.\" Adopted. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft)\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she did not think the earlier motion to\ncontinue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. included hearing Council Referrals.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion from Councilmember Knox White included\ncontinuing the meeting as agendized until 12:00 a.m.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Council Referral, including adoption\nof related resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(21-562) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief\nregarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer).\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Council Referral.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n31", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 40, "text": "Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an upcoming agenda will\ncontain any related matters.\nThe City Manager responded the Police Chief is putting together a presentation for the\nSeptember 21st Council meeting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the time is now 12:00 a.m. and the meeting must be\nadjourned.\n(21-563) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\n(21-564) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational\nVehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\n(21-565) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate\nHomeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property\nManagement. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\n(21-566) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints\nLimiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and\nCouncilmember Daysog). Not heard.\n(21-567) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to\nDevelop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the\n2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog). Not\nheard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\n(21-568) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting\nat 12:03 a.m. in memory of Beth Aney and former Councilmember Barbara Thomas.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n32", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}