{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE MAYOR'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY PANEL\nREGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2019\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 6:00 PM\n1. CALL TO ORDER\nChairperson David Mik called the meeting to order at approximately 6:03pm.\n1-A. Roll Call\nPresent: Gia Schneider, Tim Karas, Mike Rose, David Mik, Adam Elsesser, Debi Stebbins, Brock\nGrunt, Madlen Saddik (via teleconference), Warren DeSouza.\nAbsent: Remy Monteko (excused).\nLois Butler (secretary) and Eric Fonstein are present as staff to the Commission.\n1-B. Panel Introductions and Introduction of City Manager\nTim Karas - President at College of Alameda, Gia Schneider - President and CEO of Natel Energy,\nDavid Mik - Power Engineering Construction, Adam Elsesser - Chairman and CEO at Penumbra,\nBrock Grunt - Operations Manager for McGuire and Hester, Debi Stebbins - Executive Director\nof City of Alameda Health Care District, Madlen Saddik - President and CEO of Alameda\nChamber of Commerce, Michael Rose - \"Mad Scientist\" at Semifreddi's Bakery, Warren DeSouza\n- CFO at Sila Nanotechnologies, Eric Levitt - City Manager.\n1-C. Welcome to New Members and Brief Review of Panel History and Purpose. Key points:\npurpose is to improve business climate, and provide strategic policy and tactical advice for\nbusiness attraction and retention, ambassadors to potential businesses, network, advise on\npolicy issues, and to report key issues and support special projects/requests from City Council\nfor a variety of industries. Meets 1-2x/yr as needed. Members serve a two-year term.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PUBLIC\nNone.\n3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS\nNone.\n4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n4-A. 2019-7520 Discuss and Provide Guidance for a Citywide Economic Development Branding\nCampaign\nStaff Member Butler presented staff report on developing a Citywide Economic\nDevelopment Branding campaign. Key points: logo outdated; need for cohesive overall\nbranding messages; requesting input on important points for branding RFP to be\nsubmitted to City Council; business parks Marina Village and Harbor Bay both currently\nrebranding; purpose of rebranding to update messaging, encourage and retain\nbusinesses, use for tourism, use for Econ Dev communication (mixers, supporting", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2019-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 2, "text": "Minutes of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel\nRegular Meeting\nThursday, December 5, 2019\nbusiness districts), request that Panel advise on general city branding vs. economic\ndevelopment-focused branding.\nSpeaker Joe Ernst with Harbor Bay Business Park. Key points: history of park; rebranding\nprocess included identifying target market (STEM, hard-tech, S.SFO companies),\nlocation's key amenities, capturing key message (interviewed tenants) \"in an important\nplace doing important work\"; redeveloping logo, aim to produce focused 12-mo\ncampaign, and correct challenges of park (transportation).\nClarifying questions: focus of campaign - brokers and CEOs (facilitators and decision\nmakers). Demonstrate key assets - space, modern facilities, and improved\ntransportation.\nSpeakers Dan McGill and David Ferrell with Marina Village. Key Points: rebranding to\nfocus on research, Life-Science and innovation, collaborative \"University feel\";\ntransportation challenges (identifying and supporting alternatives to tunnel); rebranding\naims are to focus on plentiful space, collaborating w/ other businesses, increasing\ncontainer amenities (food/coffee like Bay Meadows), and invest in tenant base\nengagement and retention (kayaks, gym, mixers, etc).\nDiscussion. Key points:\nBranding purpose to represent business parks, municipality, tourism, small business\nand retail businesses in scope of branding;\nRFP Ideas/Suggestions: develop tags/key words for RFP so that RFP proposals can be\nproperly assessed and to guide branding process, include in branding RFP (duration of\ncontract, be specific in type of branding consultants/agencies- - general vs. specialized,\nclarify scope of RFP (overall city vs. variety of specific segments), specify who target\naudience is (branding for business, hospitality, and community all very different);\ngood branding consultant will evoke key words; specify branding focus (living,\nworking, hospitality/tourism, etc); identify metrics for quantifying successful branding,\nidentify channels of distribution (brochures vs. social media), identify target audience,\nshould branding firm capture both B2B and B2C (Business to Business and Business to\nConsumer) message; identifying attraction for existing companies (locational benefit\nfor existing employees); contemplate intersection of EDSP and branding and express\naesthetic that is modern and exciting, successful branding captures and sells what\ndifferentiates Alameda from other cities, tie-in hospitality (the outlier) to existing\nfeatures; branding could weight certain aspects/tags from EDSP that drive other\neconomic strategic aims (i.e. business activities require adequate hotel amenities,\nchoice foods, etc); suggest Harbor Bay's concept/logo/themes could be starting point\nfor City's branding (effective and attractive branding).\nAlameda's distinguishing features: hidden gem, ease of permitting process, full\nconcierge service from city, quality of life, reduced business costs, ample undeveloped\nspace and parking, variety of transportation options, ability to grow/scale, ability to\nmake products/things onsite, innovation and applied innovation, oasis in Bay Area,\nsurrounded by natural resources, beauty of views, educated community, Alameda\ncould be seen as innovation district, \"where innovation meets tradition\", historic\nbuildings, restoration/preservation (new-wave innovation versus preservation/reuse).\n2", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2019-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 3, "text": "Minutes of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel\nRegular Meeting\nThursday, December 5, 2019\nNaval Base feel - authenticity that is attractive, approachability of community, ribbon\ncuttings for new businesses, and assistance w/ maintenance issues.\nLogo: anchor perceived as logo although not, Logo ideas - variety of icons with shared\ntheme (i.e. color) allowing for departmental differentiation but shared overall brand.\nStaff Member Butler summary: Harbor Bay Business Park rebranding appealing:\ninspiration for City's branding process, RFP must have good metrics to measure\nsuccessful branding, where innovation meets tradition, \"come to work, stay to live\", can\nhave foundational/overall (business, residents, visitors = overall branding) idea with\nseparate ideas branching off (like economic development), and full concierge service.\n4-B. 2019-7521 Progress Report on the Implementation of the Economic Development\nStrategic Plan (EDSP)\nStaff Member Fonstein presented staff report addressing the progress report on items\nidentified in the 5-10 yr roadmap for business attraction/retention/workforce\ndevelopment to support Life Sciences, Clean/Green/High Tech, Blue Tech/Marine,\nTourism/Hospitality, Artists/Small Manufacturers, Transportation, Housing, Workforce\nDevelopment, City Services/Policy.\nCommissioners had no clarifying questions.\nDiscussion: pedestrian and bicycle bridge between Alameda and Oakland (Jack London)\nstill in conceptual phase; the City's Vision-Zero pedestrian and bicyclist safety initiative,\nthe benefits of small business Saturday, City Manager Eric Levitt highlighted unique\nchallenges of small businesses and restaurants adjusting to the increase in minimum\nwage and requested input from EDAP on how to support businesses (to be agendized\nfor next meeting), Madlen advised EDAP of small business networking event, Cocktails\nand Commerce, on April 30, and of Junior Chamber activities where businesses are\ninvited to participate.\n4-C. 2019-7522 Election of Officers\nStaff Member Butler asked for nominations for the Chairperson position: Panel Member\nElsesser nominated current Chairperson Mik, seconded by Panel Member Rose. Panel\nMember Stebbins moved to close nominations, seconded by Panel Member DeSouza.\nNominations closed. Nomination for additional term accepted by Chairperson Mik.\nMotion passed unanimously.\nStaff Member Butler asked for nominations for the Vice Chairperson position: Panel\nMember Grunt nominated Panel Member Schneider, seconded by Panel Member\nStebbins. Panel Member Stebbins moved that nominations be closed, seconded by\nRose. Panel Member Schneider accepted nomination for Vice Chairperson. Motion\npassed unanimously.\n5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PANEL MEMBERS AND STAFF\nStaff Member Butler clarified that schedule for the RFP is by June 30, 2020.\n3", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2019-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 4, "text": "Minutes of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel\nRegular Meeting\nThursday, December 5, 2019\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nChairperson Mik adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:08pm.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLois Butler, Economic Development Manager\nSecretary\nMayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel\n4", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2019-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nMAYOR'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY PANEL\nWEDNESDAY JULY 20, 2016\n1. CALL TO ORDER:\n6:13 p.m.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent:\nChubb, Elsesser, Grunt, Laguerre (arrived at 6:17),\nMik, Monteko, Winters.\nAbsent:\nPanlasigui, Sorensen\n2. MINUTES:\nCity of Alameda's Development Manager, Eric Fonstein, stated that this is the initial meeting\nof the panel. There are no minutes of previous meetings.\n3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS--PUBLIC: None\n4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None\n5. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS:\n5-A. Welcome and Introductions\nMayor Trish Herrera Spencer welcomed the Advisory Panel to its first meeting. Each Panel\nmember made introductions.\nErik Chubb, representing high-tech industries, works for Makani Power/Google X,\nwhich builds a new kind of wind turbine. He formerly worked for Ford Motor\nCompany.\nAdam Elsesser, CEO and President of Penumbra, a medical device company in\nHarbor Bay, with approximately 1,400 employee.\nBrock Grunt, Area Manager for McGuire and Hester, a civic engineering contractor.\nMcGuire and Hester are about to move into its recently built offices in Harbor Bay.\nJowel Laguerre, Chancellor at Peralta Community College District. He oversees\nthe entire district, which includes four community colleges. The District started a\nnew unit for workforce development to partner directly with businesses to ensure\nthat the colleges provide the right kind of support for career development.\nDavid Mik, co-owner of Power Engineering, a contractor in the marine construction\nindustry, located at Alameda Point.\nRemy Monteko, asset manager for Jamestown Properties, which owns the South\nShore Shopping Center. She has a background in urban planning and worked in\nreal estate economics consulting before joining Jamestown.\nLance Winters, owner of St. George Spirits, at Alameda Point, anchor for Spirits\nAlley\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 2, "text": "5-B Overview of Economic Development Advisory Panel's Proposed Role and\nActivities.\nEconomic Development Manager Lois Butler provided a brief overview. The purpose of\nthe Advisory Panel is to advise the City Council and staff on important economic\ndevelopment issues and initiatives. The City may ask individual panel members to help\nwith specific, high-leve business attraction or retention activities related to his or her\nindustry sector. This may include such activities as talking with an important business\nconsidering relocating to Alameda.\n5-C\nReview Rules and Procedures\nMs. Butler introduced the item. The staff report and attachment can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2781414&GUID=15CD7565-\nC4B1-4F4F-85D9-31ADDEBA4138&Options=&Search=\nMs. Butler recommended proceeding with the rest of the agenda and after the Chair and\nVice Chair are elected, revisit the draft Rules and Procedures, consider any revisions, and\nformally adopt the Rules and Procedures.\nPanel member Laguerre asked for clarification of which sector he represents.\nMs. Butler said workforce development.\nPanel member Monteko asked about the frequency of the meetings.\nMs. Butler said normally the Panel will meet at least once per year. However, this year\nthe City will be asking the Panel to have two or three additional meetings to assist with the\npreparation of the citywide Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP).\n5-D\nCity Attorney's Office to Provide Instructions on Compliance with the Brown\nAct and the Sunshine Ordinance -\nSenior Assistant City Attorney Farimah Brown gave a briefing on the Brown Act and the\nSunshine Ordinance.\nPanel member Mik asked for clarification regarding the prohibition on emailing one another\nabout the business that they are doing.\nMs. Brown answered that outside of the public meeting, if a majority of the panel emails one\nanother, they are essentially conducting a meeting, which is prohibited by the Brown Act.\nPanel member Grunt asked if this is prohibited even if the email gets forwarded from one\nmember to another.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Brown said yes, even if there was no intention for this to happen. The intention is\nirrelevant. It is easy to lose control of the email.\nPanel member Winters inquired if these prohibitions are also for looking for information from\nother board members and not planning to discuss any ongoing strategy or issue before the\nPanel.\nMs. Brown answer yes, this is a problem area.\nPanel member Winters commented that this is going to be a slow process.\nMs. Brown agreed that it is slow, but the intent is for the public to be part of the process.\nThe greater benefit is public participation.\nPanel member Elsesser brought up the subject of telephone conversations.\nMs. Brown stated that a quorum cannot be part of a conference call. Also, if one member\ncalls the next person and shares information from the previous call, this is a serial\nconversation and is prohibited.\nPanel member Elsesser asked even if the Panel member is just looking for information?\nMs. Brown said yes.\nMr. Fonstein asked if they can direct their information request to staff, who can email a\nresponse to the entire Panel.\nMs. Brown answered that this may be the way to do it, or the item can be agendized for a\nfuture meeting.\nPanel member Elsesser raised the scenario of running into each other by chance, and\neconomic development issues come up during casual conversation.\nMs. Brown responded that small talk and social gatherings are okay. The problem is a\nmajority discussing City business, such as if five Panel members happen to be at Peet's and\ndiscuss last night's meeting.\nPanel member Elsesser asked for some clarification. He mentioned that the topic of this\npanel is business. Having a conversation with another Panel member about his or her\nspecific business is fine. But if the conversation steers to what this Panel is doing, such as\nwhat do you think about the strategic plan, that is a different topic.\nMs. Brown said yes, she meant City business.\nPanel member Monteko asked if emails to City staff are sunshine-able.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Brown said that this is a good question, and that they haven't covered the Public\nRecords Act, which is the California version of the federal Freedom of Information Act. Staff\nwill need to decide about issuing City email addresses to Panel members, which is done for\nCity Council and some boards and commissions. If we get a request for emails of public\nofficials, their emails get sent to the public. Staff will discuss this and get back to the\nAdvisory Panel.\nPanel member Laguerre wondered about using blind copy on emails.\nMs. Brown answered that this is tricky because it depends on the content of the email. It is\nbest to stay away.\nPanel member Winters commented that this will force the Panel to keep tighter notes to bring\ntopics up in a public forum. The Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance make a lot of\nsense for transparent government and keep people engaged in local democracy. From a\nbusiness sense, it is tough to swallow.\nPanel member Grunt added if we are meeting only two or three times a year and this is the\nonly time we can brainstorm, it doesn't seem really productive.\nMs. Butler pointed out that the Panel can meet as often as they want.\nPanel member Laguerre asked if it is okay if only three members got together to talk.\nMs. Brown answered yes, but this also is a slippery slope: if one of the three then goes and\ntalks with another Panel member about the same subject it could be a violation of the Brown\nAct.\nPanel member Mik suggested talking in subgroups (e.g. Alameda Point) that report back to\nthe panel in a public forum. That way the Panel can continue as it is used to doing in the\nprivate sector while still complying with the law. Is that fair?\nMs. Brown said other bodies have successfully used ad hoc subcommittees. Still, there are\nsome precautions, but she can work with the Panel to set something up.\nMr. Grunt brought up socializing events to get to know one another, though there would be\na tendency to discuss Alameda.\nMs. Brown said socializing is fine, but advised that the panel members keep in mind the\npurview of this body (see the purpose section in the Rules and Procedures document).\nCommunity Development Director Debbie Potter noted that the Brown Act and the Sunshine\nOrdinance applies to this setting (e.g. a public meeting of the Panel). The City intends to use\nthe Panel in a lot of different ways, such as business visitations, where the Brown Act would\nnot apply.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 5, "text": "5-E\nProvide Direction for the Preparation of a Citywide Economic Development\nStrategic Plan (EDSP) -\nMr. Fonstein made the staff presentation. The staff report and attachment can be found\nat:\n  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2781416&GUID=0D44D571-29E3-\n4C96-B700-7294F6D6337F&Options=&Search=\nMr. Fonstein introduced Sujata Srivastava and Derek Braun of Strategic Economics to guide\nthe discussion.\nMs. Srivastava suggested starting with questions about the perception of the community in\nthe business world and from a resident's perspective.\nPanel member Chubb talked about some of the assets at Alameda Point, particularly\nspace. It's edgy and weird.\nPanel member Winters pointed out that this is also one of the biggest challenges for\nAlameda Point, because as it gets developed, it runs the risk of this edginess going away.\nThe land represents a lot of opportunity, but the there is a risk of turning it into a\nhomogenous every-town. We want to keep populating the island with unique businesses,\nwhich maintains a reason for coming to Alameda.\nPanel member Elsesser remarked that from the other end of the City (Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park), for a lot of folks who run businesses in San Francisco, and uniformly over\nthe years, the biggest reaction to Alameda is, where? Alameda is as close as you can be\nto San Francisco, and people have no idea. There is a lack of awareness of where\nAlameda is and how to get there. For more traditional businesses, they have found it\nremarkable because there is easy access, lots of space, space is cheaper, and there are\ngreat expansion opportunities. Mr. Elsesser said he is not sure if he wants people to\nknow, because it will mean more competition for space.\nPanel member Monteko added on the flip side, there are a lot of success stories of\nAlameda being a destination: Trader Joe's, the Antique Fair, and Spirits Alley. There\ncould be better story telling about the destination factor that already exists. People don't\nknow what a strong market this is.\nPanel member Mik considered that part of the confusion is that the County shares the\nname. From a marine perspective, the geography in the middle of the Bay is the best\naspect. The waterfront property is beautiful. It's got great access to the Oakland Airport.\nAnd it's a very short distance by water to almost anywhere. It was a very easy choice for\nthem to locate their business here. The development of Alameda Point brings a bit of\nconcern about the gentrification on the waterfront and the loss of working waterfront to\nsomething more attractive to a residential population. Maritime has a long history in\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 6, "text": "Alameda and he hopes that history continues, at least in some parts of the island. The\nwaterfront is commercially a very valuable product. The Navy gifted us with large hangars\nand piers. It's a capital good; no one today would want to build all that infrastructure.\nPeople don't appreciate where we are until they are on the island and look back at San\nFrancisco.\nPanel member Chubb asked where are marine industries going? What are the big\nindustries in marine that we could attract?\nPanel member Mik responded that Alameda has a maritime industry. The constant\nchallenge is truck access. All of the maritime industries agree that one of the difficulties is\nthe success of the island. It is crowded and there's a lot of traffic for large scale trucks\ngetting on and off the island.\nPanel member Chubb then asked if a small port in Alameda is needed to support the\nindustry.\nPanel member Mik said possibly, or perhaps a dedicated trucking lane. What is needed,\nhe said, is a recognition that this is a requirement to keep these industries going.\nPanel member Grunt remarked that access is always going to be a problem. He thinks\nthe future is more about niche maritime industries, that don't necessarily rely on moving\nlarge amounts of things onto or off of the island. The maritime history is really important\nto preserve in some manner and to build on economies around that or to enhance existing\neconomies that are meaningful.\nHe also pointed out that Alameda probably has the most private marina slips in the Bay\nArea. People who own slips come to Alameda from all over the place. The island is one\nof the few places you can keep a boat in the Bay Area, and consequently has more of a\ndraw than it otherwise would.\nPanel member Monteko said that there is a lot of underutilized land that can take some of\nthe commercial load. Rather than competing directly with industry, we should focus on\ngrowing commercial on other locations. In answering the question of what key issues we\nwould like to see the EDSP address, two come to mind: 1) under-utilized land and 2)\ntransportation/accessibility to the island is also a serious issue, that will need to be fixed,\naccess and transportation for workers, mass transit. Retailers are looking at drive time,\nand workers are looking for transit. Right now, neither of these are great.\nPanel member Elsesser commented that Harbor Bay is this weird location in the Bay Area\nthat doesn't exist anywhere else. They draw from the furthest extents in every direction.\nIt is an appealing, reverse commute in most directions. This is one of the very few\nlocations where one can grow and scale a business. A lot of businesses in his industry\nhave moved out to Pleasanton, which brings other issues for its employment base. If\nin\nthe Peninsula or Silicon Valley, one cannot attract the hourly workforce like he can.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 7, "text": "Panel member Grunt agreed. They chose to build their new office on Harbor Bay, after an\ninitial decision to grow in Pleasanton. They rethought the decision during the recession,\nwhen Alameda become more competitive in price. Harbor Bay makes sense to pull\nemployees from a lot of directions in the Bay Area. Alameda Point has a lot of potential to\noffer the same thing.\nPanel member Laguerre commented as a non-islander, the island has a very nice friendly\nfeel, which can be attractive to some businesses. One does not hear of crime and the\nschools are considered good. There is an excellent community college, which has land to\ngrow. The faculty and staff of Alameda are different from other faculties-in that they care\na lot about Alameda and what happens on Alameda. There is a sense of family, when\nlooking at Alameda from a distance.\nThe college draws from the region to a certain extent and draws other people to Alameda.\nThe recruiters go out of the way to draw people from outside the island. The college has\na workforce development center in partnership with the County Workforce Development\nBoard. They have training centers that could be attractive to industries, such as\nautomotive, maritime, and other industries. They work with Bay Ship & Yacht.\nMs. Srivastava asked the Panel, what are the key priorities or pressing concerns that the\nEDSP should address?\nPanel member Chubb answered that he is interested in living and working in close\nproximity. Also, Alameda is a very bikeable community. The City just put in a beautiful\nbike path down by the beach.\nPanel member Elsesser said that the concept of living in Alameda is pretty magical.\nThere are very few communities left that have the same current feel (warm, welcoming\nsmall town, quirky beach town feel) that the residential part of Alameda has. As you add\nbusinesses, it is critical to add them in a way that doesn't mess this part up. At the same\ntime, we want a thriving business environment, and that brings with it the challenges of\ngetting people on and off the island. An increasing number of employees are living in\nAlameda. The economics of living here are still accessible at least for part of its\nemployment base. He emphasized doing economic development in the right places and\nin the right ways, not just for the sake of economic growth. He would like to know why\nthere are a lot of shuttered retail spaces in the neighborhood stations. There are\nopportunities there.\nPanel member Grunt commented that Alameda is not on the path to anywhere. You only\ncome here if something brings you here. It is pretty unique, cut off from the rest of the\nworld and you know that you are in a different place. It has been incredible to watch\nAlameda blossom over the past twenty years. It is like a shrub or tree: cut the dead\nbranches and it comes back stronger. We need to look for the dead branches and trim\nthem to allow new things to happen. We can be selective. We have a hugely diverse\ncommunity and lot going for ourselves.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 8, "text": "Panel member Laguerre remarked from an education standpoint, it would be great to have\nbusinesses getting together to discuss their workforce and training needs through the\ncollege. This would provide greater numbers to build programs around. The community\ncollege is here to meet the needs of the community.\nPanel member Mik reflected that maybe we're going back in time to where people lived\nnear where they worked. We do need to address the balance of employment and\nresidential. The uniqueness of Alameda is its character. It would be a tragedy to lose\nthat. The EDSP should be a discussion about the types of businesses the City wants that\nwould also support the ability to live and work here. More of our employees are moving\ncloser to Alameda. But not everyone is going to live here. We should also talk about a\nmass transit or transportation solution. We are going to be talking about the types of\nbusinesses the City wants, where to put them, and the transportation solutions. Those\nare the things I would want to see in the EDSP.\nPanel member Monteko echoed the need to address the job-housing balance. The South\nShore Shopping Center is a large employer. Many of the people who work there would\nlike to live on the island but can't. They would love to see more housing near their center.\nAlso, retail leakage is part of the scope of work. It is a story that can be told. All these\npeople are leaving the island to shop, when those dollars can be spent here. It would be\nreally great to understand where people are going instead of Alameda and how to capture\nthat sales leakage. Underutilized land is an issue in other parts of the City besides\nAlameda Point, such as neighborhood and community shopping centers. Permit time for\nsmall businesses is challenging everywhere. Making it as easy as possible will bring\nmore business to Alameda.\nPanel member Winters said that awareness is a big problem. Alameda Point is a great\narea of opportunity to create other things that are unique to draw people and get them\ntalking about Alameda. On the flip side to sales leakage, we want inflow traffic from off of\nthe island and have people shop and stay here. The idea of putting a small artists'\ncommunity at Alameda Point would be great, such as turning the Bachelors Enlisted\nQuarters into live/work artists space would create a unique experience. By their natures,\nartists will create things that can only be found in Alameda. It will bring life to a dead area\nand maintains the fun and weirdness factor. There are grants to help facilitate that.\nPanel member Elsesser wanted to highlight this as a brilliant idea. Hunter's Point open\nstudios would draw thousands of visitors. The cost of doing this would be relatively little in\nthe scheme of things and the potential benefit would be kind of cool.\n5-F\nProvide Feedback on the City of Alameda's Approach to Attracting\nDevelopment to the Enterprise District at Alameda Point\nJennifer Ott, the City of Alameda's Base Reuse Director, introduced the item. The staff\nreport and attachments can be found at:\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 9, "text": "  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2781417&GUID=16211D8D-2D63-\n4E9A-8531-6366B3DB8COD&Options=&Search=\nPanel member Grunt asked about the ferry terminal.\nMs. Ott said that the new Seaplane Lagoon terminal will be right in the heart of the\ndevelopment in the Enterprise District. This is the number one issue for developers:\nwhen is the ferry terminal coming? It will operate as a joint consolidated service with the\nMain Street Terminal. Most likely, the Seaplane Terminal will be the commute ferry with\nMain Street/Oakland supplying mid-day and weekend service. We did look at the\nrelocating the Main Street Terminal, but it would undermine the Oakland service. The\nOakland line cannot sustain itself and depends on Alameda ridership.\nPanel member Mik commented that Main Street is the most popular ferry terminal and is at\ncapacity. They are selling out their boats. They are really adding capacity with the new\nterminal.\nMs. Ott added that ferry ridership has grown 60 percent since 2012, which is unheard of\nfor public transit.\nPanel member Chubb asked about the maker space cluster.\nMs. Ott said that the buildings are being redeveloped by master developers. They will\nsubdivide them into smaller spaces for specialty manufacturing, artist spaces and some\noffice. One floor will most likely become work/live, with tight restrictions on the residential\ncomponent.\nPanel member Monteko asked who pays for the infrastructure in Site B.\nMs. Ott said the developer or end user through a negotiated land deal with the City.\nAlameda Point's infrastructure costs are approximately $600 million, or $1 million per acre.\nPanel member Elsesser asked about the square footage of entitled space and height\nlimits.\nMs. Ott answered that there is approximately 5.5 million square feet for all of Alameda\nPoint, which is a lot of entitlement. We do not want low intensity development; we want\njobs or catalyst benefit. The height limit is 100 feet. It is a very permissive, a big\nenvelope to create a lot of flexibility. We do not know who the end user(s) will be. We\nwant to create an opportunistic envelope to take advantage of each businesses' vision.\nIdeally, we want a diversified base and not just one end user.\nPanel member Monteko asked how is Cushman Wakefield advising on the commercial\nmarket for companies being pushed out of San Francisco and moving to Oakland. On the\none hand, it is someone who wants the flexibility to expand quickly but they want it\nyesterday. How are you going to address that?\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 10, "text": "John McManus of Cushman Wakefield, said, historically, companies that have grown up\nlike Genentech or Facebook start very small, incubate and then expand somewhere else.\nIn the last cycle, companies like Sun and Cisco moved out and tried to get geographic\ndiversity, grow as much in the South Bay and then buy another campus in Pleasanton.\nWe are not seeing that now. Many companies want to stay together in one place, like\nApple. Google X is an exception. We had hoped to see users that wanted that diversity\nof locations, but it has not happened that way in this cycle. We believe that there will be\ncompanies wanting to expand. In this awareness phase of the marketing, in addition to\ncontacting these companies directly, we are going around to brokerage houses in San\nFrancisco and on the peninsula that represent these companies. Cushman's message in\nthe weekly and monthly meetings is when you have a large campus requirement that\ncannot go into an adaptive, existing building-typically bio-tech that requires building from\nthe ground up-we have 82 acres, through CEQA, you just need site plan, elevations, and\na design that works. The CEQA process is all done. We could also take incubators,\nmuch like TheraSense in Harbor Bay that became Abbott Diabetes Care. They started at\n5,000 square feet and has expanded to nearby buildings. So when the technology hits,\nthey go.\nPanel member Monteko inquired why no one is biting now.\nMr. McManus said that there is no infrastructure; plus the City is picky. You can have a\nwarehouse distribution center now. Interest from warehouse users in short term, but they\nare high traffic and low intensity. There is precedence with VF Outdoor. They moved\nfrom San Leandro and picked up more land as they grew. As we get the infrastructure in\nplace with 9 to 15 acre projects that make it feasible, we can go down to four acre parcels\nand start to look at Semifreddi's and Peet's Coffee that have come out of Emeryville and\nBerkeley to Harbor Bay. It is not practical now to leapfrog Site A.\n5-G Elect Chair and Vice Chair\nMs. Butler introduced the item.\nPanel member Laguerre nominated Mr. Mik as Chair, quickly seconded by Mr. Winters.\nThe Panel unanimously voted in favor. The meeting was turnover to the newly elected\nchair.\nPanel member Elsesser nominated Mr. Winters as Vice Chair, seconded by Ms. Monteko.\nThe Panel unanimously voted in favor.\n5-H\nAdopt Rules and Procedures\nThe Chair asked if there was any discussion. There was none.\nThe Vice Chair moved to adopt the Rules and Procedures; seconded by Dr. Laguerre.\nThe Panel unanimously voted in favor.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 10 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 11, "text": "5-I\nNext Meeting\nMr. Fonstein said that the next meeting is anticipated to be in September to report on the\ninitial research for the EDSP.\n6.\nWritten Communications: None.\n7.\nOral Communications - Panel Members and Staff: None.\n8.\nAdjournment\nMeeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 11 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE MAYOR'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY PANEL\nSPECIAL MEETING OF THURSDAY, May 14, 2020\nVIRTUAL MEETING VIA ZOOM\n6:00 PM\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nPresident David Mik called the meeting to order at approximately 6:03pm.\nRoll Call\nAttendance: Gia Schneider, Tim Karas, David Mik, Adam Elsesser, Debi Stebbins, Brock Grunt,\nMadlen Saddik, Remy Monteko, and Warren DeSouza.\nAbsent: Mike Rose.\nCity Staff: Lois Butler (secretary), Eric Fonstein, and Amanda Gehrke.\nHonored Guests: Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers Jim Oddie, Malia Vella,\nand John Knox White.\n2. MINUTES\n2-A. 2020-7939 Review and Approve Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel Minutes\nfrom December 5, 2019 A motion to approve the December 5, 2019 minutes was made by Panel\nmember Stebbins, and seconded by Panel member Schneider. Ayes: President Mik, Vice\nPresident Schneider, Panel Members Karas, Elsesser, Stebbins, Grunt, Saddik, and Monteko\n(NOTE: DeSouza vote was not recorded due to muted mic). Nays: none. The motion passed 8-0.\n3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PUBLIC\nNone.\n4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS\nCity branding has been put on hold. Discussions were tabled for a future meeting.\n5. NEW BUSINESS\n5-A. 2020-7940 Provide Direction for Creating a COVID-19 Economic Recovery Task Force; and\nRecommendation to the City Manager regarding which Economic Development Advisory Panel\nmembers, and business/business association representatives, should sit on the Task Force\nStaff Member Fonstein presented a report on the creation of an Economic Recovery\nTask Force. City staff sought input on proposed task force objectives and goals for short-\nterm, mid-term, and long-term recovery, and recommendations on Task Force\ncomposition including business sectors/key stakeholders, and for EDAP members who\nare interested in participating in the Task Force.\nFonstein welcomed comments and answered clarifying questions.\nPanel members discussed and provided input on the presented topics. In addition to\nsupporting the proposed goals, objectives and timeline, Panel Members suggested the\nTask Force develop a guide for businesses that offers best practices/protocols which", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2020-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 2, "text": "Minutes of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel\nSpecial Meeting\nThursday, May 14, 2020\nencourage employee safety and reassure customers. Additionally, members\nrecommended the task force develop or synthesize materials that help businesses pivot\nand adapt to the current situation, to serve as a starting point for businesses in their\nresiliency plans. Suggested task force nominees included Panel Member Saddik,\nDowntown Alameda Business Association Executive Director Kathy Weber, West\nAlameda Business Association Executive Director Linda Asbury, Giuseppe Naccarelli of\nTrabocco Restaurant, Dhruv Patel of Ridgemont Hospitality, and representatives from\nMerlon Geier or Bank of Marin. Panel Members suggested representation from\nrestaurant/beverage, public health, urban planning, academia, county health,\nhospitality, property owners, real estate, non-profit, childcare, business associations,\nretail, and finance on the task force. Members recommended the task force be limited\nto 8-10 members.\nPresident Mik made a motion to approve a recommendation to develop a task force\ncomposed of 8-10 representatives from identified key sectors (restaurant/beverage,\nretail/property owners, public health/academia, city planning, childcare, banking,\nhospitality, and Alameda Business Associations), and put forward several names\nmentioned above to the City Manager as suggested task force members. Seconded by\nPanel Member Grunt. Ayes: President Mik, Vice President Schneider, Panel Members\nKaras, Elsesser, Stebbins, Grunt, Saddik, DeSouza, and Monteko. Nays: none. The motion\npassed 9-0.\n6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PANEL MEMBERS AND STAFF\nPanel Member Saddik informed the panel of the Alameda Strong Community Grant\nfund, a collaborative effort between the Downtown Alameda Business Association, the\nWest Alameda Business Association, The Chamber of Commerce, and the City, with an\naim of fundraising $200,000 plus to provide relief funding to Small Businesses, Sole\nProprietors, and other Alamedans who have been impacted by the COVID-19 crisis.\n8. ADJOURNMENT\nPanel Member Karas made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Panel Member\nDeSouza. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:09pm.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLois Butler, Economic Development Manager\nSecretary\nMayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel\n2", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2020-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2022-06-27", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) SPECIAL\nMEETING Monday, June 27, 2022\n1. CALL TO ORDER\nChairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03pm and because the\nrecording was not started, staff started the recording, and Chairperson Gillitt\nstarted the meeting over and called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.\n2. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners\nJennifer Hoffecker, Peter Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson.\nAbsent: none.\nLois Butler and Walker Toma present as staff to the Commission.\n3. MINUTES\n2022-2158 Review and Approve Draft May 16, 2022 PAC Minutes\nChairperson Gillitt requested a motion to approve the minutes. After discussion the\nmotion was postponed to the next meeting to allow additional time for\ncommissioners to review the draft minutes.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENTS\nNone.\n5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A. 2022-2159 Presentation by Forecast Public Art on Public Art Master Plan\nProcess\nStaff member Walker Toma welcomed Forecast Public Art (Forecast), a consultant\nfirm hired through an RFP process to produce Alameda's Public Art Master Plan\nand explained to the Commission and the public that there would be multiple\nopportunities for public comment during the presentation.\nJen Krava, Director of Programming and New Initiatives at Forecast, shared\nForecast's mission to activate, inspire, and advocate for public art that advance\njustice, health and human dignity by 1) supporting, funding, and training artists who\nwork in the public realm, 2) partnering and consulting on public art and creative\nplacemaking projects, and 3) building local capacity, gathering stories, and sharing\nresearch.\nThe Forecast team members facilitating the Public Art Master Plan process for the\nCity of Alameda introduced themselves as:", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2022-06-27", "page": 2, "text": "Minutes of the Public Art Commission\nMonday, June 27, 2022\nJen Krava, Director of Programming\nMark Salinas, Senior Project Manager\nYarlyn Rosario, Project Manager\nMallory Rukhsana Nezam, Consultant\nYolanda Cotton Turner, Local Artist\nConsultant Rukhsana Nezam explained the Group Agreements for the evening's\nfacilitation process, and shared Forecast's Master Plan timeline and engagement\nplan.\nAfter defining Public Art in general, including common locations, sample funding\nmodels, and a presentation of the wide variety of existing public art, Forecast\nfacilitated an exercise to gather input for the definition of Public Art specific to the\nprocess of developing the Public Art Master plan for the City of Alameda.\nQuestions and a summary of responses are as follows:\nWhere should Public Art be located (concentrated or spread out)? Throughout\nAlameda; very publicly accessible; the diversity of opportunities within a variety\nof neighborhoods; art is missing from shoreline and other high-traffic key\ndestination areas: difficult to locate existing public art; continue to expand\nartwork beyond nautical-theme; historical challenges has been finding sites\nand working with City to get approval for public art sites; and the importance of\nequitable distribution.\nHow long should Public Art be installed? Program should support both\nperformance and temporary physical art (temporary) as well as permanent\npieces like sculpture (permanent); allow artwork to be deaccessioned so that\nartwork can represent a diversity of artists instead of the historical precedent of\nwhite male artists; increased cost of maintaining long term art pieces takes\nfunding away from new artwork; temporary art can be placed in more locations;\nset term limits for art which allows a living-gallery feel and fresh art; civic\nbuildings and garages might be a good fit for murals or light installations;\nAlameda has had no audio installations; and keep art permanently, but move\nart from key places to allow new art.\nShould the aesthetics and content of public art be more symbolic or literal?\nPolitical or heavily messaged art can be challenging in a public setting; support\nfor a variety of art; the community is the final arbiter of what fits; value of having\nartwork that challenges people; performance art has been better able to\ncapture more political/challenging topics.\nShould the aesthetics and content focus on the historic or contemporary?\nExisting artwork is mostly contemporary; Alameda is quite nostalgic yet\nconstantly changing; encourage a focus on new art; and too much nostalgic\nartwork doesn't capture the full history (e.g. Alameda is missing artwork about\nshellmounds and Japanese internment camps).\n2", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2022-06-27", "page": 3, "text": "Minutes of the Public Art Commission\nMonday, June 27, 2022\nTo what extent should the public art be static or interactive? Important to have\nsome art that can be experienced by all senses and allows people to be\ninvolved in the art; Alameda has too much static art; interactive art is more\nmemorable, permanent interactive installations can have higher maintenance\nexpenses depending on the material.\nShould the artwork be created by local or global artists? Currently preference\nis given to local artists, however certain sites would be best served by artists\noutside of the area; miss talent of regional/national/global artists if only\nsupporting local artists; local cost of living prohibits many artists from living\nlocally; the rich diversity of artists attempting to stay local should be supported;\nhas been difficult to reach all local artists with RFP information as well as inform\npublic about public art; private art galleries support regional/national/globa\nartist of notoriety - save Public Art funds for local artists, however preference\nto ex-local artists too; multiple factors (like artists availability, marketing of\nRFP/RFQ, cost of materials, site specific needs) contribute to which artist might\nbest fit - so it's a balance of attracting artists from outside the area and\nsupporting local artists.\nStaff member Toma opened the floor for public comment:\nResident Pat Atkinson offered that location does not need to be either completely\nspread out or totally concentrated, temporary art allows more community\ninvolvement, a sculpture garden by the Seaplane Lagoon ferry terminal would\nwelcome visitors, popup art installations could be placed throughout the city and\nin public parks, Rhythmix Cultural Works has been very successful at producing\nart experiences that are a combination of visual and performing arts, mapping\nexisting public art would be helpful in driving the Public Art Master Plan.\nTina Blaine, Executive Director of Rhythimix Cultural Works, made the suggestion\nto perform a survey of existing public art curated on a website, including a list of\nprevious performance and cultural arts.\nJennifer Radakovich, Associate Director at Rhythimix Cultural Works, shared that\nthere is a mural and a Healing Garden on Webster Street, and also that Rhythmix\nhas offered several public art installations.\nStaff member Toma closed public comment.\nForecast facilitated an activity to define success for the Public Art Master Plan.\nCommissioners provided the following responses: a framework that ensures Public\nArt will be available in Alameda for generations to come; art that attracts visitors\nspecifically for public art; maps the future of Public Art in Alameda; has simple,\nunderstandable guidelines for art and measurable goals with a focus on cultural\n3", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2022-06-27", "page": 4, "text": "Minutes of the Public Art Commission\nMonday, June 27, 2022\nequity that fits the community of Alameda; and that demonstrates that art is\nAlameda's long-term priority.\nForecast shared next steps, including planned surveys, community engagement\npop-ups, presentations, one-on-one interviews, focus groups, and facilitated\nworkshops, with the goal of creating an visionary plan that contains actionable,\nimmediately implementable, and modifiable processes, and includes creative input\nfrom the a diversity of voices within the larger community.\nLocal artist and consultant with Forecast, Yolanda Cotton Turner, informed the\nPAC and public that she will be facilitating the first pop-up event at the Alameda\nSummer Art Fair, on July 3, 2022 from 11am-3pm. More information is available\nat www.alamedaartfair.com.\nMs. Krava shared that the one-on-one interviews are designed to focus on\nunderstanding and improving City processes for public art approval, and Mr.\nSalinas shared that the focus groups aim to gather insight from those within the\narts and culture community as well as the larger community.\nChairperson Gillitt expressed his appreciation for Forecast's presentation.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff member Toma provided the following updates:\nthe Alameda Marina LandSea Homes recently fulfilled their contribution to\nPublic Art via an approximately $250,000 in lieu contribution to the Public Art\nFund;\nfabrication has been completed for the \"Beken\" sculpture, with an estimated\ninstallation of August 2022 at the Waterfront Park sculpture; and\nthe July PAC Special Meeting will be postponed to allow time to prepare and\npresent RFP Cultural Art applications to the PAC. Chairperson Gillett asked\nhow many submissions have been received to date. Secretary Butler advised\nthat sharing submission information before the close of the RFP may not be\nallowed, and offered to research and provide clarification on this at the next\nPAC meeting.\n7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nChairperson Gillett shared that Tina Blaine is retiring from her role as Executive\nDirector of Rhythmix Cultural Works, and expressed appreciation for her many\nyears of service and contributions the art community.\n4", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2022-06-27", "page": 5, "text": "Minutes of the Public Art Commission\nMonday, June 27, 2022\nCommissioner Ferguson asked for clarification about receiving requests from the\npublic to notify the PAC and public about upcoming public art, which Ms. Butler\noffered to provide.\n9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n10. ADJOURNMENT:\nChairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 8:12p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLois Butler\nEconomic Development Manager\nSecretary, Public Art Commission\n5", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-06-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -JUNE 7, 2022- -5:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:05 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella\narrived at 5:28 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(22-361) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode Section 54956.9); Case Name: Unspecified to Protect Service of Process; Court:\nSuperior Court of the County of Alameda; Case Number: Unspecified to Protect Service\nof Process; Number of Cases: 2\n(22-362) Conference with Legal Counsel Workers' Compensation Claim (Pursuant to\nGovernment Code Section 54956.95); Claimant: Employee - Fire Department; Claims:\n149550063, 1895500067, 0695500047; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda\n(22-363) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section: 54957.6); City\nNegotiators: Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Nico Procos, General\nManager, Alameda Municipal Power; Jessica Romeo, Human Resources Manager; and\nSteve Woo, Senior Human Resources Analyst; Employee Organizations: Alameda City\nEmployees Association (ACEA); Management and Confidential Employees Association\n(MCEA); Electric Utility Professionals Association (EUPA); International Brotherhood of\nElectrical Workers (IBEW); Alameda Police Officers Non-Sworn (PANS); Alameda\nMunicipal Power Unrepresented Employees (AMPU); Alameda Police Management\nAssociation (APMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of\nEmployment\n(22-364) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54957); Position Evaluated: City Attorney - Yibin Shen\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the Workers' Compensation, the case involves three workers'\ncompensation claims by a former employee with the Fire Department; Applicant\nsustained injuries to his knee, hips and heart as a result of his work duties; he retired via\nindustrial disability retirement on July 7, 2020; the Council authorized the City Attorney\nto settle the pending workers' compensation claim in an amount not to exceed\n$132,480.80, resulting in a combined complete case payout of $293,645 which includes\npast payments for statutory permanent disability, by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Absent: 1; regarding Existing Litigation, staff\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-06-07", "page": 2, "text": "provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2; and regarding Labor Negotiators, staff\nprovided information and Council provided direction by the following two roll call votes:\nVote 1: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1 and Vote 2: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 6:59 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:30\np.m.\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced regarding Performance Evaluation, Council conducted the City Attorney\nperformance evaluation and gave direction to staff by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:17\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-06-07", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - JUNE 7, 2022--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Councilmember Herrera Spencer led\nthe Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting\nwas conducted via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(22-365) Proclamation Declaring June 11, 2022 as Doug Siden Day.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\n(22-366) Proclamation Declaring June 2022 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and\nQueer or Questioning Pride Month.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\n(22-367) Proclamation Declaring June 19, 2022 as Juneteenth Day.\n(22-368) Proclamation Declaring June 2022 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nThe City Clerk announced the Public Hearing [paragraph no. 22-378 and called for speakers.\nCouncilmember Daysog recorded a no vote on the teleconference findings [paragraph no. 22-\n371] and the CSI Mini Storage lease [paragraph no. 22-377]. .\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer recoded a no vote on the teleconference findings [paragraph\nno. 22-371].\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Home Together Plan [paragraph no. 22-375 be withdrawn\nfrom the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2022\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-06-07", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*22-369) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held on April 28, 2022 and the Special\nand Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 3, 2022. Approved.\n(*22-370) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,812,822.49.\n(22-371) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via\nTeleconference. Accepted.\nSince Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, the motion carried by\nthe following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White:\nAye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(*22-372) Resolution No. 15910, \"Approving the City of Alameda Climate Adaptation and\nHazard Mitigation Plan as the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Including Incorporation into\nthe City of Alameda General Plan Safety Element by References and Adopting a General Plan\nAmendment Amending the Health and Safety Element and Conservation and Climate Action\nElement of the Alameda General Plan 2040 to Align with the Climate Adaptation and Hazard\nMitigation Plan, 2022.\" Adopted.\n(*22-373) Resolution No. 15911, \"(a) Amending Resolution No. 9460 to Reflect Current\nPositions and Entities to be Included in the City of Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and (b)\nRescinding Resolution No. 15661.' Adopted.\n(*22-374) Resolution No. 15912, \"Amending the Salary Schedule for Part-Time Classifications\nEffective June 5, 2022 to Reflect Changes to the City of Alameda Minimum Wage and to\nMaintain Adequate Differentials Between Part-Time Job Categories.' Adopted.\n(22-375) Resolution No. 15913, \"Endorse the Alameda County Home Together 2026\nCommunity Plan: A 5-Year Strategic Framework Centering Racial Equity to End Homelessness\nin Alameda County.\" Adopted.\nThe Homelessness Area Manager gave a brief presentation and shared a video.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Herrera Spencer participated in the\nFebruary Point and Time Count; Council has seen what homelessness in Alameda looks like\nfirst-hand.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2022\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-06-07", "page": 5, "text": "(*22-376) Ordinance No. 3322, \"Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter Four to Comply\nwith Assembly Bill 1276 Regarding Single Use Foodware Accessories and Standard\nCondiments.\" Finally passed.\n(22-377) Ordinance No. 3323, \"Ordinance Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute a\nLease with Rhoads Property Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, dba CSI\nMini Storage for Thirty Six Months for Buildings 338, 608, and 608A C, Located at 50 and 51\nWest Hornet Avenue, at Alameda Point.' Finally passed.\nSince Councilmembers Daysog recorded a no vote, the motion carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(*22-378) Public Hearing to Consider Collecting of the Water Quality and Flood Protection Fees\non the Property Tax Bills; and\n(*22-378A) Resolution No. 15914, \"Finding [No] Majority Protest and Approving the Continuation\nand Collection of the Existing 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee on the Property Tax\nBills for Fiscal Year 2022-23.\" Adopted.\nCONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(22-379) Recommendation to Authorize City Attorney to Effectuate the Transition for the\nAdministration of the Rent Program from the Alameda Housing Authority, who Currently Acts as\nthe City's Contract Program Administrator, Back In-house to the City of Alameda's City\nAttorney's Office; and\n(22-379A) Resolution No. 15915, \"Amending the Salary Schedule for: the Alameda City\nEmployees Association (ACEA) to Reinstate the Classification of Housing Specialist Il and\nApproving Workforce Changes in the City Attorney's Office to Add Six New Positions: Three\nHousing Specialists, One Administrative Management Analyst, One Administrative Technician Il\nPosition, and One Director of Rent Program; and Authorize the City Attorney to Fill the Six New\nPositions Consistent with All Applicable Laws and Regulations.\" Adopted.\nThe City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nExpressed support for the timing; stated renters have been confused about overlapping roles\nand complexities; the proposed structure improves efficiency; correspondence being from the\nCity Attorney's office will receive proper attention: Catherine Pauling, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about the housing program being managed by the Alameda Housing\nAuthority (AHA); stated the City rent program is controlled by City law and enforcement is\nhandled by the City Attorney's office; urged Council approve the staff recommendation: Toni\nGrimm, Alameda.\nStated there has been confusion about the rent program being under AHA; expressed support\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2022\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-06-07", "page": 6, "text": "for the program being moved to the City Attorney's office; stated the switch will be clean: Laura\nWoodard, Alameda Renters Coalition.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the rent program should be under the AHA; the program subject\nmatter is a natural fit for AHA; he is confident that the City Attorney's office will perform well;\nhowever, he feels AHA is a better fit for the rent program.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of\nthe resolution].\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns about moving\nthe program from AHA; noted that she is a renter; inquired whether the City staff handling the\nprogram will be located at City Hall West.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated there is not enough space to house the\nprogram and staff at City Hall.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the hours of business for City Hall West.\nThe City Attorney responded that his intent is to have the rent program staff operate on Friday's\nfor critical matters; stated that he will work with the Human Resources Director to ensure intake\nopportunities on Fridays.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for services being offered on Fridays;\nexpressed concern about the process being adversarial since attorneys will be involved; stated\nmoving away from mediation will be more adversarial between tenants and landlords; the City\nAttorney currently takes action against landlords; inquired whether the City Attorney offers\nserves both sides, representing landlords and tenants.\nThe City Attorney responded that he does not represent landlords or tenants; stated\nenforcement actions are on behalf of the State of California; the City Attorney's office represents\nthe people of the State of California; mediation services have been taken over from Centro\nLegal de la Raza at half the cost; staff is engaging in mediation and question and answer\nsessions; staff looks forward to expanding the area of work in collaboration with the rent team;\nmediation is an important part of the landlord and tenant relationship; enforcement actions are\nviewed as a last resort; the goal is to provide education and mediation efforts first and take\nenforcement actions only when necessary.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be any change to salaries or\nbenefits for employees.\nThe City Attorney responded staff has found parallel tracks for compensation and\nclassifications; stated the goal is to keep things the same.\nThe Human Resources Director stated staff obtained employment information from the AHA and\naligned the positions with City salaries and job descriptions; Human Resources will do\nrecruitments; the goal is to bring employees over.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2022\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-06-07", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the employees are currently employed by\nAHA, to which the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be any negative effects on\npensions.\nThe Human Resources Director responded the employees are members of California Public\nEmployees' Retirement System (CalPERS); stated there is reciprocity; the change will not\nimpact pensions; staff will receive the same benefit under the City.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Attorney's office has taken proactive steps towards\neducation; requested staff to provide information on mediation and education.\nThe City Attorney stated since taking over operations from Centro Legal in January, staff has\nprovided counselling to 227 different landlords and tenants; staff has completed 10 mediations\nand conducted two remote conferences in coordination with fair housing month; both\nconferences were well-attended; staff is looking forward to engaging with landlords and tenants\nin order to educate, mediate and inform.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.\nAyes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(22-380) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Community Development Block\nGrant/HOME Investment Partnerships Program Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 Action Plan; Authorize\nthe Interim City Manager to Use Affordable Housing Unit Fee and Permanent Local Housing\nAllocation Funds; and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related\nDocuments, Agreements, and Modifications at Funding Levels Approved by Congress.\nThe Program Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any of the funding will go towards bottle\nparcel housing or transitional homes at Alameda Point.\nThe Program Manager responded the proposed funds for the upcoming fiscal year will not go\ntowards the bottle parcel or transitional housing; Council previously approved community\ncabins, known as Dignity Village; approximately $175,000 of unspent funds are being carried\nforward into the upcoming fiscal year.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is any new funding for the bottle parcel\nor transitional homes at Alameda Point.\nThe Program Manager responded there is no proposed funding.\nExpressed appreciation for the City supporting services; discussed small funding amounts;\nurged Council to consider allocating General Fund money for services; stated Family Violence\nLaw Center receives funding from the County; residents would benefit from more robust\nservices: Erin Scott, Family Violence Law Center.\nStated the funding supports high schools and delivers mental health services to students in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2022\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-06-07", "page": 8, "text": "need; the well-being of the community is important to the City; encouraged Council approval:\nKatherine Schwartz, Alameda Family Services.\nExpressed support for the funding; stated the partnership is critical to support programs for older\nadults, such as legal services, Medicare counseling and education: James Treggiari, Legal\nAssistance for Seniors.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the grants are critical and go towards services which\nare otherwise unfunded; the programs cover a breadth of services; the City will see more need\nfor services in the future; expressed support for using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)\nfunding for mental health programs.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(22-381) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15916, \"Summarily Vacate an Excess\nPortion of Everett Street Approximately 116-feet Northeasterly of Blanding Avenue in the City of\nAlameda Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code, Sections 8330, et seq.' Adopted.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired who owns the right-of-way of the parcel being vacated.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded the two parcels are owned by the same\ncorporation; stated that he has been working with Ross Stackhouse of Tidewater Capital.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the owners of the parcel were allowed to close off\naccess to the street.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded the gate was in place prior to ownership.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there is requirement for the gate to be open as a\npublic right-of-way.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded during when the parking lot was constructed, a\nsoil cap remediation project was completed; stated the City gave the owner the option to either\nrelocate the gate or prepare the vacation as part of the permit; the owner chose to vacate.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the request is from a private entity, to which the\nDeputy Public Works Director responded the request is from the City.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how many years the gate had been closed.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded that he understands the gate has been in place\nsince 2015, but could be as far back as 2011.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2022\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-06-07", "page": 9, "text": "the resolution].\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired why the gate was in place and why\nthe City waited until now to decide to take action.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded the actions were triggered by the permit pulled for\nsoil remediation; stated the condition had been present for a long time.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the owner could make a formal request to remove the\ngate and roadway if the right-of-way continues.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded after Council takes action, the gate will be part of\nthe property; stated the owners will be responsible for maintenance of the gates and roadway\narea; the City will still be allowed to access the area if maintenance needs arise.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired the current General Plan designation for the site.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded there are no changes to the General Maritime\nzoning.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(22-382) The Interim City Manager made brief comments on his background.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(22-383) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer)\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of having the referral come back to Council\nfor discussion.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he will not support the referral; noted\nafter the referral was filed, Council discussed the issue and provided direction to staff to address\nthe issue as part of the Housing Element and zoning changes happening across the City; he\ndoes not see a reason to re-hash the previous Council discussion; the matter is problematic to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2022\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-06-07", "page": 10, "text": "reconsider since an application has been filed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are a series of public forums where people can hear from the\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Director; stated forums have been well attended and\ndiscussions have been robust; discussed upcoming forums.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has been able to attend meetings and hear\ncomments from members of the public; having hundreds of people attend meetings supports\nhaving a separate hearing for zoning to give Council the opportunity to clarify and take actions\nseparate from the Housing Element.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.\nAyes: 2. Noes: 3.\n(22-384) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department\nCommunity Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of bringing the matter back for Council\ndiscussion on the regular agenda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the amount of meetings a referral has been on can be seen on the\nagenda; pending Council referrals could have been heard at the Council priority workshop.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Council workshop was not a regular meeting where\nnormal business was heard; expressed concern about Council referrals and lack of public\ncomment at the workshop; stated referrals should be heard at regular Council meetings;\ndiscussed public comment.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about statements made\nrelated to public comment; stated that he will not support the motion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer discussed members of the public attending Council meetings;\nexpressed support for hybrid meetings.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.\nAyes: 2. Noes: 3.\n(22-385) Consider Directing Staff to Develop an Ordinance Setting Fines for Injury-Collisions\nInvolving Non-Commercial Vehicles that Do Not Meet Federal Design Standards or Have Been\nLifted/Altered in a Manner that Increases the Likelihood of Severe Injury or Death in Collisions\nwith Pedestrians and Bicyclists. (Councilmember Knox White)\nCouncilmember Knox White gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2022\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-06-07", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the referenced letter falls under the\nlegislative agenda.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded the letter is not a part of the referral; stated the letter\naligns with the City's Vision Zero safety legislation.\nThe City Attorney stated Council may provide brief direction for staff to look at its legislative\npolicy and consider whether or not to act with existing Council authority without debating\nwhether or not to provide staff direction.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the content of the letter of support.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the letter addresses safe vehicle design; vehicles are being\ndesigned for higher speeds than legal on City streets; the letter is three pages long.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the letter will be directed at auto manufacturers or federal\nlaw makers.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded the letter will be submitted as part of the rule-making\ncall for comments, which closes tomorrow; the letter will go directly to the National Highway\nSafety Transportation Agency.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is being asked to develop a City ordinance\nversus supporting State or federal legislation; how the process works due to federal preemption\nfor commercial vehicles not meeting federal design standards; stated that she would like to\nknow where the City fits into the matter.\nThe City Attorney responded there are a number of preemption concerns; stated staff will need\nto perform significant legal analysis to see whether there is a way to get around the\npreemptions; staff will devote significant effort if Council so directs.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the referral; the matter is\npreemptive and there are more pressing City issues for Council to address.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the matter is worth looking into; expressed support for staff looking into\nlegislation or other options; stated the City is preempted from taking actions; Council can direct\nstaff to perform brief legal research and provide legislative alternatives; the issue should be\nlooked into; vehicles are causing serious injuries.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed meetings lobbying for federal funding; stated lobbying includes\nsafety matters; the referral is relevant; she has concerns about how to approach the matter at a\nlocal level; questioned whether the topic can be brought to the Alameda County Transportation\nCommission (ACTC); stated the topic seems like more than a quick review of federal law.\nVice Mayor Vella questioned whether Council can limit the research performed; stated the City\ncould raise the matter with lobbyists and obtain feedback to see whether pending legislation\nexists versus legislating at a local level; expressed support for bringing the matter to ACTC and\nother representatives.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the topic is already part of the City's legislative agenda;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2022\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-06-07", "page": 12, "text": "Washington, D.C. found a way to take action on the issue.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the situation in Washington, D.C. is unique.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council can have staff review whatever Washington, D.C. passes and\nraise the issue with lobbyists.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the proposed request would require significant staff research;\nquestioned whether staff can look into actions taken by Washington, D.C.\nThe City Attorney stated staff is happy to follow Council direction; the Washington, D.C. law\ninvolves vehicle registration; Washington, D.C. acts as a State, similar to the State of California,\nwhich could impose registration regulations on vehicles of certain sizes and weights; the\nauthority does not lie with local jurisdictions; staff is happy to look further if Council desires;\nWashington, D.C. has significantly more authority acting as a State than local jurisdiction.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Council referral.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes direction to have ACTC and lobbyists\nlook into the matter at the State and federal level, to which Councilmember Knox White\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the matter is part of the City's legislative package; Washington, D.C.\nnewly passed regulations; bringing the matter to ACTC is worthwhile; she would like to raise the\nissue with State elected representatives.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the referral could be unnecessary; the Municipal Code has\nstandards related to vehicle types; the standards cover the type of vehicles raised by the\nreferral; the matter is duplicative; expressed concern about the City not enforcing the standards\nin Municipal Code Section 8-6.1; stated the City would be enforcing the standard on many\nvehicles; many vehicles come to Alameda from off-Island; questioned whether the vehicles will\nbe tracked and fined; stated the matter is handled at a higher level in order to create\nconsistency across localities; there is virtue in working with State and federal leaders; the City\ndoes not enforce the standard similar to other cities across the United States; the practical\napproach is to have the matter dealt with at the State or federal level.\nCouncilmember Knox White withdrew his referral.\n(22-386) Consider Supporting Assembly Bill 1445. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the Assembly Bill language provided.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the Bill is worth supporting; expressed support for t\nAssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) being used as an example for considering\nclimate change; stated the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process used by ABAG\naligns with the Bill; the matter is an great way to ensure other housing and planning\norganizations across the State consider climate.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2022\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-06-07", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Council referral.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would prefer to see the matter continued\nand return to Council with the Bill language.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the language quoted in the staff report comes from the\nBill; the referral process is to have the matter return to Council on a future agenda for\ndiscussion; inquired whether the letter of support can be submitted without returning to Council.\nThe City Attorney responded Council rules and process for referrals include directing staff to\nhave the matter return for further Council discussion.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that staff should check for any relevant amendments to the Bill\ndue to the amount of time the matter has been agendized; staff can check with lobbyists and\nreturn to Council if approved.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would support the matter returning; the report can return\nwith basic analysis; requested clarification about process from the City Clerk.\nThe City Clerk stated the one exception to not returning for further Council discussion is any\nurgent or time-sensitive matter; this matter was not presented as time-sensitive or urgent and\nreturning for further Council discussion would be the route to follow.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern over RHNA reform; stated that she values analysis; noted\none of the supporters of the Bill is the Alameda Citizens Task Force.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated support should be registered without waiting a month for a\nstaff report; Council has taken action on legislation; expressed support for moving the matter\nforward.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the referral includes the terms \"urgent\" and \"important;\"\nthe language is clear; the matter has been on the agenda for a while; the Bill could have been\nlooked up.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for attaching Bill language; inquired the actions to be\ntaken if the referral is approved, to which the City Clerk responded Council typically sends a\nletter of support.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the letter would be sent before Council has had a chance\nto read the language of the Bill, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is possible to have the matter return to Council with the\nBill language attached at the next Council meeting under continued agenda items section.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated Council may create a substitute motion and\nvote to continue the matter to the continued agenda items section of the next Council meeting\nwith the Bill and additional information attached.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2022\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-06-07", "page": 14, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a substitute motion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated her motion is to proceed with the letter of support from\nCouncil; the language is provided in the Council referral.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.\nAyes: 3. Noes: 2.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(22-387) Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about towing fees.\n(22-388) Councilmember Herrera Spencer made announcements regarding a free paper\nshredding event, a walk, the sand castle contest, a fundraiser at the skate park, and the\ndedication of the Doug Siden Visitors' Center; discussed the Memorial Day celebration at\nVeterans Park.\n(22-389) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed her time in Washington, D.C.; announced Alameda\nCounty received $25 million for rail safety programs; discussed a Zoom meeting with the United\nStates Coast Guard and a meeting with Veterans Affairs (VA); stated the VA Medical Clinic and\nColumbarium at Alameda Point is fully funded; discussed the \"Everyone Belongs Here\" poster\nand poetry contest, the Asian American Pacific Islander heritage celebration, the Memorial Day\ncelebration, the Change of Command ceremony and a press conference with Congresswoman\nBarbara Lee about funding brought to the district; announced the upcoming graduation for\nAlameda Unified School District.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2022\n12", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2022-05-26", "page": 1, "text": "City of Alameda, California\nSOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD\nTHURSDAY, MAY 26, 2022\nAPPROVED MINUTES\n1. CALL TO ORDER\nPresident Sarah Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.\n2. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Sarah Lewis, Vice President Kristin Furuichi Fong, Board members\nDianne Yamashiro-Omi, Samantha Green, Scott Means and Priya Jagannathan.\nCity staff: Eric Fonstein, Lois Butler, Veronika Cole, and Marcie Johnson\n3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES\n3-A Review and Approve April 28, 2022 Draft Minutes\nA motion to approve the minutes of April 28, 2022 was made by Board member Green and\nseconded by Board member Yamashiro-Omi. Ayes: President S. Lewis, Vice President\nFuruichi Fong, Board members Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, and Means. Nays:\nnone. Motion passed 6-0.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENTS\nNone.\n5. AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A Continued Discussion of the Development and Implementation of the 2022\nCommunity Needs Assessment\nPresident Lewis introduced Angela Irvine, consultant, president of CERES Policy\nResearch. Ms. Irvine shared her background and goals for working with the City on the\nupcoming focus groups.\nBoard member Green and Jagannathan presented the list of indicators. SSHRB reviewed\nthe spreadsheet, and discussed suggested indicators. The following is a summary of\ndiscussion points and questions:\nBoard member Yamashiro-Omi asked if the indicators would reflect disaggregated\ndata. Board member Jagannathan clarified that the indicators will be listed tables,\nand not interactive.\nStaff member Butler mentioned that the reported population for the City of\nAlameda may not be accurate, as the Census count was cut off early. Board\nmember Green mentioned an adjusted Census population count, which did not\ninclude Alameda. Staff member Butler confirmed she will look into this. Board\nmember Green modified the source for population.", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2022-05-26", "page": 2, "text": "Ms. Irvine stated that there is a lack of data from COVID-19 years, and wanted to\nknow if SSHRB has experienced the same. Board Member Green confirmed that\nshe has run into the same issue and plans to use the most recent data available.\nMs. Irvine responded to Board member Yamashiro-Omi concern surrounding the\nimmigration population, stating it is difficult to get data past 2018. She will share\navailable data on Alameda County, which lists country of origin.\nBoard member Means said that the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) indicator\nmay be problematic, as the number of children is merely a total, and does not\naccount for the severity of each learning disability.\nBoard member Yamashiro-Omi asked if there is a data source for number of\nminority-owned, woman-owned businesses. Stating it will be difficult to have a\nconversation/develop a strategy about inequity without having relevant data.\nBoard member Green stated that SSHRB will be looking to the City to assist with\nthis indicator.\nPresident Lewis stated that she is hesitant to remove indicators as they are all\nimportant, and tell their own story. Emphasizing that SSHRB is setting the stage\nand the overall goal is to understand the context.\nPresident Lewis suggested replacing the officer per capita with another indicator\nregarding overall safety.\nBoard member Means suggested consolidating some of the homeless information\nand adding accessible housing stock availability.\nPresident Lewis asked the Board if there was anything missing. Board member\nYamashiro-Omi highlighted the community concern surround transportation and\nasked if there is a data source which would help show the lack of public transit.\nBoard member Green shared some of the reports which provide transportation\ndata and agreed it would be an essential indicator to add.\nBoard member Yamashiro-Omi mentioned her concern regarding the lack of\nindicators within the social connection category. Board member Green stated\nthere is a very little data available and suggests this is a topic for the focus\ngroups.\nPresident Lewis addressed the Board, asking for input on the potential next steps.\nBoard member Green stated the next step is to gather all of the data collected, put\ninto charts and graphs for SSHRB to review, and review at the next SSHRB\nmeeting.\nMs. Irvine suggested the Board reviews what other cities have determined to be\nthe most important measuring indicators. Board member Means and Jagannathan\nrecommended looking at Portland's eight domains for age-friendly cities; and A\nLife Course Framework by Andrew Chandler.\nBoard members confirmed aiming for July timeline.\n5-B Continue the Discussion of SSHRB'S Homelessness Activities\nPresident Lewis opened the discussion by sharing her thoughts regarding SSHRB's role\nas \"public educator,\" highlighting the need to correct misinformation about what it means\nto be homeless - focusing on humanizing the issue so people are not afraid.\nBoard member Green asked if the Point-In-Time (PIT) count has been released, and if\nthere are any upcoming public events or activities around the released information. Staff\nmember Butler stated that the PIT data was released by Everyone Home on May 16,\n2022. The City does not have any planned events.", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2022-05-26", "page": 3, "text": "Vice President Furuichi Fong and Board member Yamashiro-Omi support the idea of\nhighlighting community members and their lived experiences, specifically around their\ninteractions with social service providers.\nBoard members discussed a community press release and kick-off event with shared\nstories from the community. Possible collaboration with the College of Alameda, high\nschool students and Shaun Daniels with Castaway.\nBoard member Yamashiro-Omi suggested mirroring some of the material presented by\nAlameda Point Collaborative.\nPresident Lewis summarized SSHRB consensus, confirming that it will remain on the\nagenda for next month's SSHRB meeting.\n5-C Workgroup Reports\nDomestic Violence (DV) Task Force (Furuichi Fong): Board member Furuichi\nFong attended the May 19 meeting. Discussion included, DV Awareness Month\n(October) and the need to provide additional resources to the public prior to. With\nthe assistance of DABA & WABA, the Task Force plans to post resource flyers\naround Alameda, specifically in restrooms at bars and restaurants.\nAlamedans Together Against Hate (Yamashiro-Omi, Furuichi Fong): Board\nmember Yamashiro-Omi confirmed they are still reviewing consultant proposals.\nInfrastructure Workgroup (Lewis, Means): President Lewis shared that they will\npresent four (4) options/recommendations for the Community Service Awards, at\nnext month's SSHRB meeting.\n5-D Presentation on City of Alameda's Funding for Social Service Initiatives and\nActivities\nStaff member Butler presented a detailed spreadsheet of the funding sources for Social\nServices. The following six (6) sources, fund a total amount of $2,080,054:\nCommunity Development Block Grant (CDBG)\nAlameda County\nFleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC)\nGeneral Fund\nHomeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP)\nPermanent Local Housing Assistance (PLHA)\nBoard member Jagannathan asked what percentage of the General Fund is spent on\nsocial services; how much is being invested into social services? Staff member Butler\nsaid she did not know the exact percentage, nor did she think she would be able to pull\nthat information. She directed Board member Jagannathan to the City website, where the\nFinance Department published the budget.\nStaff member Butler noted that staff time was not included in the spreadsheet, however it\nis included in the budget, published on the City website.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2022-05-26", "page": 4, "text": "6-A Status Report on Homeless Services\nStaff member Johnson provided the following update:\nWinter Warming Shelter: Services have concluded.\nDine and Connect: Hosted a volunteer appreciation event, which was well attended.\nEmergency Housing at Alameda Point: City Council passed the rehab/outfitting of\nthree homes.\nApproval of Site A: City Council passed the building of 600 housing units (market &\nBMR mixed).\nHomeless Encampments: Monthly clean-up with Planning & Building and Alameda\nPolice Department are happening on second and fourth Tuesdays of the month.\nVillage of Love: Currently looking for a new location.\n7. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\n8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n9. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Lewis adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nEric Fonstein, Board Secretary", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2022-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - MAY 17, 2022--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor\nVella arrived at 7:18 p.m. The meeting was conducted via\nZoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(22-334) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that City Manager Communications would be heard\nnext.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(22-335) The Interim City Manager discussed the Fourth of July parade and pre-parade 5K\nbenefitting the Midway Shelter; announced new parking enforcement service starting on May 23\nand National Public Works Week; noted the COVID-19 case numbers are increasing; urged\npeople to wear high quality masks; expressed his appreciation for the ability to serve Alameda.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(22-336) Proclamation Declaring May 2022 as Jewish American Heritage Month.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(22-337) Paul Foreman, Alameda, expressed concerns over the draft Housing Element (HE)\ndocument; discussed Assembly Bill (AB) 215's requirement for Council consideration of all\npublic comment before submission of the draft HE.\n(22-338) Zac Bowling, Alameda, expressed support for the HE work being done.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nExpressed concern about the proposed Interim City Manager: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about the proposed Interim City Manager: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.\nThe Human Resources director stated the comments were not identified during background\nprocess.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether anyone from the public reached out with concerns, to\nwhich the Human Resources Director responded in the negative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote on the teleconference findings [paragraph\nno. 22-341 and the resolution continuing the emergency declaration [paragraph no. 22-349\nand requested the Interim City Manager contract [paragraph no. 22-342], homeless housing\nassistance and prevention grant [paragraph no. 22-350 and Metropolitan Transportation\nCommission grant [paragraph no. 22-351 be withdrawn for discussion.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote on the teleconference findings.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*22-339) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting and the Continued April 5, 2022 Meeting\nHeld on April 12, 2022, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on April 19,\n2022. Approved.\n(*22-340) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,647,168.48.\n(22-341) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via\nTeleconference.\nNote: Since Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer recorded note votes, the matter\ncarried by the following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White:\nAye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(22-342) Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing Dirk Brazil as Interim City\nManager for a Term of No More Than 960 Hours in a Fiscal Year at a Salary of $133.85 Hourly,\nCommencing on May 23, 2022, and Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Agreement on Behalf of\nthe City.\nThe City Attorney briefly announced and summarized the terms and employment agreement.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like guidance on appropriate public\ndiscussion topics.\nThe City Attorney stated Council is able to speak about anything which is not confidential closed\nsession material; anything received solely through closed session remains confidential; anything\nwithin public record, comments raised or staff report is permissible to discuss.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is permissible to allow the proposed\nInterim City Manager to respond to Council publically.\nThe City Attorney responded Council may ask the candidate to respond to questions; stated the\nresponses are voluntary and the candidate does not have to respond.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated his vote on the matter does not reflect the candidate; the City\nshould have had a number of candidates and more time should be spent on finding more\ncandidates; expressed concern over the process.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is uncomfortable with starting a dialogue with the\nproposed Interim City Manager in a public forum; allegations have been brought forth which\nhave not yet been a part of any discussion; expressed support for the proposed Interim City\nManager being able to address the issue which has been raised; stated that it is unfair to ask\nopen up an additional discussion with the candidate.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Knox White; stated that she finds it\ntroubling for individuals to come forward with unsubstantiated allegations; expressed support for\nallowing an opportunity to address allegations.\nTo allow time, Council addressed other pulled Consent Calendar items.\n(*22-343) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Accept the Work of G & G\nBuilders, Inc. for Godfrey Park Recreation Building Renovations, No. P.W. 02-21-08. Accepted.\n(*22-344) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Accept the Work of G & G\nBuilders, Inc. for the Maintenance Service Center Interior Improvements, No. P.W. 02-21-10.\nAccepted.\n(*22-345) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Partially Accept the\nImprovements Completed by Alameda Point Partners for Tract 8336, Site A, Phase 1, at\nAlameda Point. Accepted.\n(*22-346) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute an Agreement\nwith Suarez & Munoz Construction Inc. for Alameda City Hall Lawn Conversion, Project No.\nP.W. 02-22-05, for a Not to Exceed Amount of $204,445. Accepted.\n(*22-347) Resolution No. 15904, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the City\nof Alameda's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for\nNotice of Public Hearing on June 21, 2022 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina\nCove).' Adopted.\n(*22-348) Resolution No. 15905, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the City\nof Alameda's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for\nNotice of Public Hearing on June 21, 2022 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2\n(Various Locations). Adopted.\n(22-349) Resolution No. 15906, \"Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local\nEmergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government Code\nSection 8630(c). Adopted.\nNote: Since Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, the motion carried by the\nfollowing vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to know the number of units; people\nin the community use the facility for storage; expressed concern about where current customers\nwill store items after the three year term is up; inquired whether staff will be offering storage\nspace at another facility.\nThe Management Analyst responded currently, staff does not plans to do so; stated the timeline\nhas not been determined; staff can take direction from Council to consider alternatives.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would have liked to know how many\nAlamedans are being impacted and the plan for the future; there is a need for storage facilities;\nexpressed concern about terminating the tenancy; stated some customers might have been\nrenting storage space for almost 20 years.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the matter is a lease extension recommendation; the use has\nbeen in place since 2005; staff is providing additional time; redevelopment at Alameda Point\ncomes with twists and turns; staff would like to preserve flexibility as the landlord; the intent is\nnot to terminate the tenancy, but to extend the term by three years.\nVice Mayor Vella stated a new storage facility is being constructed not far from the facility; the\nunits could be factored into the nearby, new, storage facility; Council tries to grapple with job\ncreation and building adequate housing; neither job creation or adequate housing are\naccomplished with using the space as a storage facility; expressed support for direction being\nprovided, while keeping larger goals in mind.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the new storage facility is near Mariner's Square, to\nwhich Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council balances many interests and desires to ensure properties\nhave the highest and best use; the area is currently suitable for storage; however, the lease\nextension has been structured to allow for another use when the opportunity arises; the storage\nfacility nearby is a larger, multi-level alternative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated it is time to begin planning the Enterprise District; he will not\nsupport the matter.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for Council being briefed in advance;\nstated similar items in the future should not exclude briefings; the number of units and alternate\nlocations should have been considered; questioned whether the owner of both storage facilities\nis the same; stated that she will support the matter because she would like the tenants to have\nthree years versus no extension; expressed support for exploring alternate sites for the tenant.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about Council briefings.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff generally provides an overview or briefing for Council to\naddress any questions; the matter relates to the City acting as landlord; any negotiation related\nto price and terms is heard in closed session; the lease extends a pre-existing use of a facility\npaying market rate rents; staff can provide more in-depth discussions; staff provides as much\ninformation as possible while acting as both the landlord and land use authority.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she often has questions about staff reports and reaches out to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 20, "text": "staff for clarification; inquired whether Councilmembers can reach out to staff for additional\nclarifying information.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff is available to answer\nquestions and will typically review the agenda with Councilmembers the week of the meeting;\nnot every Councilmember has the availability for a briefing prior to each meeting.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the matter requires four affirmative votes; expressed\nsupport for Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about unit amounts being answered prior\nto approval.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded Councilmember Herrera Spencer has indicated that she will\nvote in favor of the lease extension.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the matter has been agendized for almost a month and\nquestions could have been made prior to the meeting; Council can request a briefing prior to the\nmeeting.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated Council has been discussing the Enterprise District\nfor some time; the City needs to make the most of the property and not displace tenants while\nthe City is working on the Enterprise District plan; she will support the motion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about whether the matter needs three\nor four affirmative votes.\nThe City Attorney stated the lease requires four affirmative votes.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what would happen to the tenant if the matter does\nnot pass.\nThe Management Analyst responded the existing lease has expired; stated the tenant is being\nheld over on a month-to-month tenancy; if the lease is not passed, staff will continue the month-\nto-month tenancy and could renegotiate further if Council desires; if renegotiation do not occur,\nstaff would make considerations to remove the tenant.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the tenant is paying the lower rent amount during month-\nto-month tenancy.\nThe Community Development Director responded the language provided in the holdover lease\ndictates the rent; stated holdover rent is typically 150% to 200% of the initial rent.\nThe Management Analyst stated the lease allows the City to charge 200% of the current rent\nduring the holdover period; staff has opted to maintain the current rate due to scheduling issues.\nThe City Attorney stated the City should charge the set amount of rent shown in the lease; staff\ncan implement the letter of the lease if Council does not approve the matter.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 21, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the holdover amount is more than amount proposed in\nthe lease amendment.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the holdover amount\nis double the existing rent as opposed to a 10% increase.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council could have met in closed session to\ndiscuss options for extending the lease and finding and alternate location.\nThe City Attorney responded the matter is a real property transaction and Council could direct\nstaff to agendize a closed session item at a future meeting in order to discuss price and terms.\nThe Interim City Manager stated agendas have become congested; staff is trying to move\nmatters through; closed session agendas have been lengthy due to labor negotiations; the lease\nextension is relatively straight forward; there is opportunity to see lease extensions in closed\nsession; the approach creates a backlog since the City owns a lot of land and has many\ntenants; expressed support for clear Council direction on which matters staff should bring to\nclosed session versus open session; stated the extension provides continued flexibility; the\nEnterprise District is not ready to be built yet; the lease language provides flexibility for the City\nin the future.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is not supportive of having every lease extension come before\nCouncil for consideration; the City should not negotiate alternative space for the tenant; stated\nthat she would like to be reasonable and go with the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the lease is an extension as well as a termination; the\ntenant has three years at most; the termination aspect is different from other lease extensions\nwhich often include multiple options; she plans to support the extension to keep the tenant as\nlong as possible; expressed support for consideration of alternate locations.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNot heard.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(22-357) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(22-358) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department\nCommunity Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(22-359) Consider Directing Staff to Develop an Ordinance Setting Fines for Injury-Collisions\nInvolving Non-Commercial Vehicles that Do Not Meet Federal Design Standards or Have Been\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 22, "text": "Lifted/Altered in a Manner that Increases the Likelihood of Severe Injury or Death in Collisions\nwith Pedestrians and Bicyclists. (Councilmember Knox White) Not heard.\n(22-360) Consider Supporting Assembly Bill 1445. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not\nheard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNot heard.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n22", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 23, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - MAY 17, 2022- -5:15 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:16 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Herrera Spencer, Knox White, and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: Councilmember Daysog was\nabsent. The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nConsent Calendar\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]\n(22-329) Recommendation to Approve Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director,\nLen Aslanian, Assistant City Attorney, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community\nDevelopment Director, as Real Property Negotiators for 950 West Tower Avenue,\nAlameda, CA. Accepted.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(22-330) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: 950 West Tower Avenue (Building 39, Alameda Point,\nAlameda, CA; City Negotiators: Community Development Director Lisa Maxwell,\nAssistant Community Development Director Nanette Mocanu, and Assistant City\nAttorney Len Aslanian.\n(22-331) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City\nNegotiators: Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director, Nico Procos, General\nManager Alameda Municipal Power, Jessica Romeo, Human Resources Manager, and\nSteve Woo, Senior Human Resources Analyst; Employee Organizations: Alameda City\nEmployees Association (ACEA), Management and Confidential Employees Association\n(MCEA), Electric Utility Professionals Association (EUPA), International Brotherhood of\nElectrical Workers (IBEW), Alameda Police Officers Non-Sworn (PANS), Alameda\nMunicipal Power Unrepresented Employees (AMPU), Alameda Police Management\nAssociation (APMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of\nEmployment.\n(22-332) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring (Pursuant to Government Code Section\n54957); Title/Description of Positions to be Filled: City Manager.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 24, "text": "Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the Labor Negotiators, staff provided information and Council\nprovided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye;\nKnox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. [Absent:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.]; regarding Property Negotiators, staff provided information\nand Council provided direction by the following Councilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye;\nKnox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. [Absent:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1]; regarding Employee Appointment/Hiring staff provided\ninformation and Council provided direction, including forming a subcommittee of Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft and Vide Mayor Vella with no vote taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:00\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 25, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY-MAY 17, 2022- -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair\nEzzy\nAshcraft\nconvened\nthe\nmeeting\nat\n7:04\np.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog,\nHerrera\nSpencer, Knox White, and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft\n- 4. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella - 1.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nSpencer: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella\n- 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*22-07 SACIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting Held on May 3,\n2022. Approved.\n(*22-333 CC/22-08 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Transactions\nReport for the Period Ending March 31, 2022. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n7:06 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\n1\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nMay 17, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 4, "text": "(22-350) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a $285,767 Grant\nAgreement with Alameda County for Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Grant, and\nAuthorize the City Manager, in the Future, to Extend the Term of the Contract up to December\n31, 2023; and\n(22-350 A) Resolution No. 15907, \"Amending the Grants Fund (222) Budget to Appropriate\n$285,767 for the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Grant Project.\" Adopted.\nThe Economic Development made brief comments.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated some of the funds requested were not approved; the\nCounty has not approved using funds to support outreach, mental health support or flexible\nfunds; inquired how much funding is needed or whether alternate funding can be allocated.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded $50,000 is for the flexible funds; stated\n$85,000 is for the mental health funds; staff has put all funding towards the overnight day\ncenter; staff is able to house the unhoused for a longer period of time.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City could consider alternate funding for the\nprograms; inquired the cost for outreach.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the $50,000 for flexible funds includes\noutreach.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the discussion remains within the agendized parameters.\nThe City Attorney responded that he believes Councilmember Herrera Spencer is trying to\nestablish whether or not the grant should move forward; stated\nthe wisdom of the underlying action is not being debated; members of Council may ask\nquestions in order to understand whether or not a grant should be pursued.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is not currently directing staff to explore other\nfunding opportunities, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated her inquiry appropriately falls under the grant;\ndiscussed using parking spaces for the overnight day center; inquired how many parking spaces\nare being used.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded that she does not have the exact count; stated\nthere are only few remaining spaces not being used at the day center when she last checked;\nthe count is up from the past.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the spaces were not being fully utilized in the past;\nexpressed support for the increase in count.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of\nthe resolution].\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 5, "text": "Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted against the matter in 2019; he is\nwilling to be flexible and will support the matter; however, putting people in cars is not the best\nidea; if the City combats homelessness, available funding should be used to find shelter.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\n(22-351) Resolution No. 15908, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Submit a Request to\nthe Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of $126,618 in Fiscal Year 2022-\n23 for Two Grand Street Transportation Safety Projects per Transportation Development Act\nArticle 3 for Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding, and to Execute All Necessary Documents.\"\nAdopted.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter includes two projects; the Grand Street\nbicycle and pedestrian safety improvements have not come to Council for approval yet; inquired\nwhether the matter will be heard by the Transportation Commission later in May.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated there have been two\npublic workshops on the project.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the funds will be flexible to meet needs; inquired\nwhether other approved projects could have been submitted.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator responded staff considered other projects; stated the\nscope has expanded as the project has moved forward; originally, the project was solely for\npaving; rectangular flashing beacons have been added.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is happy to support the first project, but not the\nsecond project until it has been approved.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of bifurcating the two projects to allow her to\nsupport the first project.\nCouncilmember Knox White made a substitute motion to approve the staff recommendation\n[including adoption of the resolution].\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer's\nmotion is to bifurcate the vote, to which Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded Councilmember Herrera Spencer's motion to bifurcate the\nvote.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 6, "text": "On the call for the question, Councilmember Herrera Spencer's motion failed by the following\nroll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of\nthe resolution].\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated there is virtue in understanding the plan; it is\npossible that the Shoreline Drive project will be fine; however, it is good to know the details and\nunderstand the public first; noted that he will abstain from the vote.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she feels Council will have ample time to weigh in on the two\nproposed projects; expressed support for the proposed motion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the second project could be changed entirely; inquired\nwhether the motion is to fund the Grand Street bicycle project.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated approval would go\ntowards the $2.5 million that has already been allocated to the project; the project has an\n$827,000 grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as well as local paving\nfunds; approval will supplement the project.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is a reason the project could not have\nbeen brought to Council after being approved by the Planning Board.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator responded the grant application must be submitted to\nthe County in June prior to the next Council meeting.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not support the motion; expressed concern\nabout the motion not being bifurcated.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. Abstentions: 1.\n(22-342 CONTINUED) Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing Dirk Brazil as\nInterim City Manager for a Term of No More Than 960 Hours in a Fiscal Year at a Salary of\n$133.85 Hourly, Commencing on May 23, 2022, and Authorize the Mayor to Sign the\nAgreement on Behalf of the City.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the statements made during public comment.\nDirk Brazil discussed an incident at an annual Picnic Day; stated undercover Officers pulled\nover individuals in a van; a confrontation occurred causing people to leave the scene; an\ninvestigator was hired; shortly after the investigator's hiring, reports about concerning comments\narose; the contract was severed with the investigator; McGregor Scott was hired to take over\nthe investigation; the result of the investigative report was the creation of a larger, more robust\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 7, "text": "Police Oversight Operation, Auditor and Commission; the switch was made quickly once\nconcerns arose.\nIn response to Councilmember Knox White's inquiry, Mr. Brazil stated the City of Davis has an\nexcellent Police Chief; he relied on the Police Chief in selecting the initial investigator.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether changing course would be a problem if an issue or cause for\nconcern is raised.\nMr. Brazil responded in the negative; stated the investigator had been recommended by the\nPolice Chief who is still working with the City of Davis and is highly respected; the\nrecommendation was the wrong call.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the hiring would have still occurred if the concerning\ncomments had been known.\nMr. Brazil responded in the negative; stated the field is specialized; he relied on law\nenforcement for recommendations; staff quickly figured the recommendation was not proper;\nstaff brought in a credible replacement to produce the report.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the allegations being made; expressed support\nfor the clarification provided.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not plan to support the matter; expressed\nsupport for the public comments.\nCouncilmember Knox White discussed a link to an op-ed being shared with select\nCouncilmembers; stated mistakes made were quickly identified and corrected.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the contract as presented.\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 Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(*22-352) Ordinance No. 3321, Concerning Rent Control and Limitations on Evictions Applicable\nto Maritime Residential Tenancies including Floating Homes. Finally passed.\nCONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(22-353) Recommendation to Approve Proposed Term Sheet for Development of Alameda\nPoint Site A and Direct Staff to Negotiate a Sixth Amendment to the Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement with Alameda Point Partners (APP) Based Substantially on the Term\nSheet, as well as Directing Staff to Negotiate Amendments to Ancillary Project Agreements.\nThe Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Knox White stated the plan proposes a significant increase in the number of\ntownhomes; inquired the percentage of units, which are visitability and universal design\ncompliant.\nThe Planning Building and Transportation Director responded staff has been discussing the plan\nwith APP; stated City ordinances require 30% of every project to have universally designed\nunits where someone with a disability could live; 100% of the units must be visitable where\nsomeone with disabilities can comfortably visit the units; City ordinances recognize the\nrequirement and establishes a process by which Council and the City can grant waivers;\ntownhomes are particularly difficult and are a product type that does not lend itself to universal\ndesign or visitability due to the amount of stairs; there are ways to modify townhome units to\nmeet the visitability standard; Site A has a lot of multi-family housing that is elevator served and\nis doing well with universal design standards; APP will be able to meet and exceed the universal\ndesign standard by 100%; Site A has almost doubled the requirement for universal design; the\nvisitability standard has been a problem for every project with a large number of townhomes;\nAPP believes a 70% compliance rate can be reached by modifying the townhome design;\nCouncil may choose to include terms in the Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA).\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how Council will know the affordable housing will be\nbuilt; and whether the cost for affordable housing is significantly higher than $50,000.\nThe Community Development Director responded one of the milestone schedule requires is that\nthe affordable housing provider has to be identified fairly early in the planning process; the\nprovider will be able to work with the development partner to plan for the affordable housing\nproject; $50,000 will be paid by APP incrementally throughout the project and will not be paid as\na lump sum; the incremental payments help assure investment in the affordable housing project;\nthe provider will be in a position to apply for and raise funding; the $50,000 provides great\nassistance.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the cost per unit.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the cost varies from site to site;\nstated the affordable units are part of land and infrastructure that had been provided for free; the\ndeveloper is providing a finished pad; the site has many advantages; discussed a housing\nproject near Eagle Avenue and Everett Street with separate buildings and lower density with a\nhigher cost per unit; stated building the units cost $900,000 each.\nThe Community Development Director stated the Eden Housing project cost was approximately\n$700,000 per unit.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City previously tethered the affordable housing\nunits to ensure affordable units were built before market rate units; inquired whether Site A was\nthe first project to untether the affordable housing units from the market rate units, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nDavid Doezema, Keyser Marston Associates, stated the $700,000 per unit cost is a good\nnumber; a portion of the cost would be paid by the project's operating income; the cost does not\nnecessarily need to be covered by a subsidy source; rents can cover some of the costs for\namortizing a mortgage; tax credits are generally able to help offset a portion of the costs; the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 9, "text": "cost gap can be reduced to roughly $300,000.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated except for the affordable housing, the units being built\nare not rentals; the market rate units are for sale; inquired about the rental income.\nThe Community Development Director responded a final determination has not yet been made;\nstated the units for sale and for rent will be established by the market condition at the time the\nunits come online; the developer is committed to putting a condominium map on every parcel to\nallow for either option; a final determination will be made as the market shows itself.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the determination contradicts an earlier meeting held\nwith staff; rentals would be provided for affordable housing units and market rate units would be\navailable for purchase.\nThe Community Development Director stated that she was referring to the market rate units; the\naffordable housing units are planned to be for rent.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether all market rate units will be for sale and not\nfor rent, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the plan could change; discussed rental income from\naffordable housing; inquired the financial guarantee for the affordable housing to be built.\nThe Community Development Director responded there is not a guarantee; stated the terms set\na pot of money to supplement associated costs; Phase 1 project has the affordable housing on\nBlock 8 come online first; an experienced developer will be selected with enough time to secure\nfunds; the free land and $50,000 will provide enough to get the project started.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is a reason the proceeds from the\nmarket rate units will not be put into a trust that can be used for affordable housing.\nThe Project Manager stated the developer contributed approximately $30,000 per unit for the\nfirst phase; $50,000 per unit is an increase from past contributions; the expectation is the\nconstruction of affordable housing units will not be fully funded; the contribution helps the\naffordable housing developer secure future financing in the form of tax credits.\nThe Community Development Director responded the proceeds from market rate being put into\na trust would create an impractical environment to proceed with the balance of development;\nstated funds will need to flow out of the project to the developer as the project moves forward.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether a contribution of more than $50,000 per unit\nhas been considered; stated the City used to require affordable housing units to be built before\nany market rate units could be sold; she is surprised that the City is not recommending money\nto be set aside or another form of guarantee.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated Alameda Point is different from the\nrest of the City; Alameda Point has a 25% affordable housing requirement, the rest of the City\nhas a 15% requirement; projects are structured differently between Alameda Point and the rest\nof the City; the City is the property owner and project partner at Alameda Point; staff is satisfied\nand believes the project will work for the reasons outlined by the Project Manager; staff has\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 10, "text": "successfully built 128 units of affordable housing with the partner and a lower subsidy per unit;\nstaff is confident the City has been set up to meet the 25% affordable housing requirement; APP\nwill not be building the affordable housing units; an affordable housing developer will be brought\nin to partner with the City and APP to build the affordable housing; the term sheet has a high\nlikelihood of success; the 25% affordable housing units is a City requirement; staff cannot\nguarantee the success; however, the term sheet puts the City in the best possible position to\nmeet the requirement.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired why the City does not put money from the sale of\nmarket rate units into a trust until the affordable housing units are built; expressed support for\ncovering 15%.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the investors for the project need\nto invest millions of dollars to make the project move forward and build infrastructure to prepare\nthe property for vertical developers; investors need to have a return; if the City requires a trust,\nthe project will no longer be financially viable.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether for sale units might end up being rentals.\nThe Community Development Director responded the determination has not yet been made;\nstated a mix of market rate and affordable housing units is the current plan; the developer could\nreconsider if there is a dramatic shift in the market.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the for sale market rate units could end up\nbeing market rate units for rent.\nThe Community Development Director responded that the approach is not the current plan.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter provides a sixth amendment to the DDA;\ninquired the reason the developer has been unable to perform the prior amendments.\nKaren Tiedemann, Goldfarb and Lipman, responded it is not accurate to state the developer has\nbeen unable to perform the various amendments; stated the developer has performed on most\nof the amendments; previous amendments revised the agreement, but have not released the\ndeveloper from obligations; the fourth and fifth amendments related to affordable housing and\ntiming; the amendments related to performance of obligations and schedules needed to be\nrevised; a project of significant size and multi-phases typically has a variety of amendments;\nchanges occur over time, many things cannot be predicted and adjustments must be made.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated inflation is at a current 40-year high; inquired how the\nhigh inflation rates will impact the ability to complete the project and perform the sixth\namendment.\nMr. Doezema responded inflation is not a favorable factor and does not help the project;\ninflation can drive interest rates up placing downward pressure on sales prices; the project is\nfeasible at this time; a guarantee cannot be made about changes to future conditions.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired why staff is not recommending tethering the\naffordable housing units to market rate units.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 11, "text": "Mr. Doezema responded staff pursued the concept with the developer and was met with strong\nconcerns; stated tethering the units would result in the inability to finance the project; the\ndeveloper is investing millions into infrastructure; tethering the affordable housing to an\nuncontrollable aspect would prevent financing of the larger project due to unpredictability.\nThe Interim City Manager requested staff to expand on the complications associated with\nfinancing affordable housing projects and tethering concepts.\nMr. Doezema stated getting funding for affordable housing projects is a process; tax credits\nmust be obtained; there are different layers of funding from the County, State or other\nopportunities; time is needed to make the project work.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the market is competitive; many projects in different\njurisdictions are competing for the same affordable housing funding; the competitiveness adds\nto the uncertainty; projects must be competitive; affordable housing is tricky; tethering in the\ncurrent environment becomes challenging; staff is recommending the amendment since seeding\nthe project with $50,000 will allow the affordable housing developer to move forward.\nThe Project Manager stated the goal is to have the developer identify a potential affordable\nhousing developer to work with and begin the process of finding affordable housing project\nfunding.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the current market rate housing units for purchase are\nup to 3,300 square feet; expensive monthly rentals exist; inquired whether market rate prices\nare similar and the proposed square footage.\nThe Community Development responded APP indicated the current proposal is in the 1,900 to\n2,200 square foot range; 2,200 square foot units would be the universal design townhomes.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired if staff has an idea of the purchase price.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the price will vary\nbased on the unit's finishes and details; the price will be available later in the planning.\nMr. Doezema stated although it is not a figure from the developer, the average cost of\ntownhomes in the area is $1 to $1.4 million.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested clarification of Phase 1B; stated the City is planning to build\nan additional 199 housing units; inquired the original land use that is being replaced with\nhousing and the community facility; noted the community facility sounds exciting.\nThe Community Development Director responded APP will complete the infrastructure and\ndevelopment pad for the community facility; stated staff will put out a request for proposals\n(RFP) to make a determination of what will be placed on the pad.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated that he does not have the exact\nnumbers; Block 10 is being proposed for residential and is currently planned for three existing,\nsmall, Navy buildings to be adaptively reused for commercial space with the construction of a\nfourth building to be used for commercial; the four buildings add up to less than 100,000 square\nfeet; the plan has become a non-viable option; Phase 2 has approximately 400,000 square feet\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 12, "text": "of adaptive reuse for commercial purposes in existing warehouses; a 2018 amendment included\nthe remaining commercial and 128 housing units; the amendment replaced commercial with\nhousing to support the Housing Element.\nStated that he is proud of the work the APP team has achieved; the partnership with the City\nhas achieved progress around a comprehensive scope and $90 million investment; a lot has\nbeen delivered to-date; decisions for the proposal are critical to maintain momentum and\ncomplete Site A: Joe Ernst, APP.\nStated Eden Housing has worked with APP to deliver the Starling and Corsair flats; many units\nare rented at affordable rates; expressed support for the proposed term sheet; stated Eden\nHousing considers APP a great partner; urged Council approve the term sheet: Louis Liss, Eden\nHousing.\nStated that he has championed a performing arts center at Alameda Point for many years;\nexpressed support for the new phase of the project and the performing arts center; stated\nputting in the infrastructure will help; discussed parking and traffic concerns: Christopher\nSeiwald, Alameda.\nStated MidPen Housing is working with partners to expand existing supportive housing at\nAlameda Point; expressed support for Council approving the proposed term sheet: Sarah\nMclntire, MidPen Housing.\nExpressed support for the amended term sheet; stated the additional units will be vital for\nAlameda to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); discussed access to new\ntransit; expressed concern over the maximum amount of parking spaces; discussed impacts on\nlow-income residents: Zac Bowling, East Bay YIMBY.\nDiscussed difficulties hosting the first Animate Dance Festival (ADF) event; stated the recent\nADF event was fantastic and successful due to infrastructure and density brought by\nconstruction; supporting the project continues the development and potential for performing arts:\nTara Pilbrow, West End Arts District.\nUrged Council to approve the term sheet; stated that she has been working towards a\nperforming arts center in the area; a performing arts center would serve as an important\nentertainment anchor; expressed support for increasing the density of the area: Rachel Campos\nde Ivanov, Alameda.\nUrged Council to approve the development plan and term sheet for Site A in order to continue\nredevelopment; stated APP is the right developer for Alameda Point and have installed critical\ninfrastructure to allow future development; development at Alameda Point is challenging; APP\nunderstands the challenges and constraints of Alameda Point: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nStated there is dire need for housing at the low-income level; urged Council to support the\nproject; expressed concern about the term sheet containing a waiver of universal design without\nconsultation from the Commission on Persons with Disabilities as required; stated Council is\nmaking decisions for persons with disabilities without consulting the Commission on Persons\nwith Disabilities: Beth Kenny, Commission on Persons with Disabilities.\nStated housing is a tremendous need in the community for employers and employees; urged\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n12", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 13, "text": "Council to support the Site A project and approve the term sheet: Madlen Saddik, Chamber of\nCommerce.\nExpressed support for the Phase 1B and Phase 2 proposals; stated the work has been\nimpressive; the proposed phases will build on the success to-date and infrastructure will be\nexpanded; the affordable housing requirements across the site will be met; noted the units will\naid the City's RHNA; urged Council to approve the term sheet: Bill Pai, Alameda.\nStated the developments made to-date have provided a vastly improved quality of life for\nAlameda Point residents; expressed support for Waterfront Park being a resource for refugees;\ndiscussed access to transportation and parks; stated infrastructure remains the biggest threat;\nexpressed support for the completion of West Tower Avenue infrastructure: Doug Biggs,\nAlameda Point Collaborative.\nExpressed support for the proposal and for keeping momentum; stated the proposed housing\nunits are key to the City meeting its RHNA numbers; urged Council to move ahead with the\nproposal: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.\nStated approving Site A is important for positive economic growth; urged Council to approve the\nproposal for Site A; discussed infrastructure further supporting master developments; expressed\nsupport for continuing the reuse of Alameda Point: Joann Guitarte, Caf\u00e9 Jolie, Alameda.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry about universal design, the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director stated the matter relates to a term sheet which sets forth the basic\nparameters upon which the City will negotiate a final DDA; the DDA will come before Council for\napproval at a later date; staff is laying out a road map; staff understands the project will require\nwaivers; it is important to bring the discussion early and create awareness; the project will need\nto go to the Commission on Persons with Disabilities for input prior to staff returning to Council\nfor any final approvals; if Council moves forward with the term sheet, staff will have a lot of work\nto do with APP to negotiate the final DDA amendments; before returning to Council, staff will\nmeet with both the Planning Board and the Commission on Persons with Disabilities.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:14 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:27 p.m.\n***\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the journey has been long and arduous; he hopes the term\nsheet will include a commitment for universal design and visitability; expressed support for the\ncommitment being developed with input from the Commission on Persons with Disabilities;\nstated that he supports the comments provided by Ms. Tiedemann related to the project\namendments; expressed support for the matter moving forward.\nCouncilmember Daysog discussed Jimmy Doolittle and Pearl Harbor; stated that he is\nconvinced that the accomplishments at Alameda Point and Site A proudly protect the military\npast of the former Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS); the amended project continues to honor\nthe military past and helps to build inclusive neighborhoods; some of the proposed sites would\nbe job generating commercial space; the City will need to remain flexible; the City is receiving a\ncommitment to help with the community facility; expressed support for the community facility\nbeing a performing arts center and for people enjoying the area; stated the City is fulfilling the\nobjectives of the former NAS Alameda; expressed support for the matter; stated staff has\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 14, "text": "worked through details to provide a good deal for Alameda.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated the City has worked hard to get where it is today; the\nCity has gone through several renditions of the DDA and has had to amend it over the years in\norder to adjust to changing conditions and the market; expressed support for the work that has\nbrought the project to its current state; stated that she will be supporting the matter.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supported the project in 2015; expressed\nconcern about the project building units for the middle class to purchase; stated the possibility\ncontinues not to occur; affordable housing units being offered are rentals, not for purchase;\nhousing units for sale are very expensive; homes will cost over $1 million and will not provide\nhousing for the middle; discussed the cost of rental units at Alameda Point; stated inflation is the\nhighest it has been in 40 years; Council is being asked to trust that staff will confirm affordable\nhousing units will be built since the units are not being tethered to market rate or requiring a\nfinancial investment; the approach is wrong; expressed concern about aspects of the project;\nstated members of the armed forces will not be able to afford the housing units; the middle class\nwill not be able to rent or purchase at Alameda Point; affordability is a problem; the City needs\nto offer housing for the middle to purchase; expressed concern about the units lacking rent\ncontrol; stated rents will increase; the City continues to leave the middle behind, which is\na\nproblem; expressed support for a public arts center; stated the matter is related to finding ways\nto house the middle; she will not continue to support the matter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the former Alameda NAS being active, operating military base;\nstated people who were not active military did not visit the base; Alameda Point did not feel like\na part of the rest of the City; an important part of redeveloping Alameda Point is making it a\nplace that seamlessly feels like a part of Alameda; the opening of Waterfront Park joined\nhundreds of Alameda residents at a place with potential; the City has been able to accomplish\nso much; discussed the ribbon cutting for Corsair Flats and Starling; stated APP has worked\nwith the City to accomplish so much; she has every faith APP will move forward and reach the\nfinish line; discussed a meeting with the Veterans Administration (VA) related to the Alameda\nColumbarium; stated that she has been able to share the developments at Alameda Point and\nthe progress made to help veterans; the stakes are high; the City would lose much if it does not\nmove forward in keeping the project alive; changes to conditions and demands are occurring;\nprojects must adapt; expressed support for the project.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(22-354) Recommendation to Provide Direction on a Proposal to Develop a Guaranteed Basic\nIncome Pilot Program; and\n(22-354 A) Resolution No. 15909, \"Appropriate $4,600,000 of American Rescue Plan Act of\n2021 Funds for a Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program.\" Adopted.\nThe Development Managers gave a Power Point Presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the recommendation is to serve 150 low income\nhouseholds; inquired how many low income households exist in Alameda.\nThe Development Manager responded the amount depends on the definition of low income;\nstated staff has performed preliminary estimates based on median area income; the amount is\nconsiderable.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like a range of information provided in order to\ndefine low income.\nThe Development Manager stated that he does not currently have the numbers, but can provide\nthem after public comment.\nUrged enactment of a pilot Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) program; stated pilot program test\ngroups of single mothers with school aged children have been performed elsewhere: Marilyn\nRothman, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the proposed program; stated GBI is an important step in a transition the\nCity can make towards justice and meeting basic needs; GBI ensures the City makes a\ncommitment to high quality and standards of living for everyone; urged Council to approve the\nprogram: Savanna Cheer, Alameda.\nDiscussed her Native American Tribe's basic income program; stated the pilot program will be a\ngreat start in providing for basic needs; the program can change people's lives; urged Council to\nfollow through with the program and fund it as fully as possible; expressed support for a higher\ndistribution amount: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the proposed program; stated GBI works and moves beyond old patterns\nof paternalism and outdated anti-poverty programs; the program provides autonomy to people\nto\nmeet their needs and have stability; urged Council to pursue the program and staff\nrecommendations: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nStated the program is a wonderful idea; the goal is for people to sustain themselves; the\nprogram could mean self-sufficiency; urged Council to approve the program: Melodye\nMontgomery, Alameda.\nThe Development Manager stated based on data from 2019 American Community Survey\n(ACS) approximately 11,000 households in Alameda are under $75,000 in household income;\ndepending on how the City decides to define low income, the number of households can vary; a\nsignificant number of households are eligible for the program.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he appreciates how much work went into the proposed\nprogram; expressed support for GBI; stated City staff have performed outstanding work; he is\nconfident in following the recommendations; expressed support for the program being\nmeaningful and providing the necessary data and for program efficiency; stated that he is\nconfident staff will keep administration costs down; the subcommittee requested a meaningful\nprogram evaluation; the pilot should not be short term and forgotten; the program should add to\nthe volume of knowledge that is being developed and collected; the program can change over\nthe years and is a way to provide some of the money received to families struggling through the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 16, "text": "pandemic; expressed support for the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is a lot of work still to be done; expressed\nconcern about offering aid to 150 homes when 11,000 homes qualify under the identified\ncriteria; inquired how the 150 homes will be chosen.\nThe Development Manager responded staff will work with a research partner to develop a\nlottery or pool; staff will promote and publicize the program and allocation process.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not plan to support the matter; she has\nconcerns; the program helps 1.5% of eligible people; she would be comfortable providing less\nfunding to more people in order to help people get to and from work; $1,000 per month for 150\npeople is not the type of program that meets the needs of Alamedans; expressed concern about\nthe program funding not continuing in the future; stated the City would never have the money to\nserve 11,000 people at the proposed rate; the pool will need to be changed; the funds could be\nused better; expressed support for funding being put towards mental health services; expressed\nconcern about serving only 1.5% of the eligible population; stated it is important for Council to\ncome up with a better way to serve people with needs; mental health and other needs matter as\nwell; the City can go farther with the amount of funding to serve more people than the proposed\n150 people.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the program process and research\ncomponents.\nThe Development Manager stated the pilot program will allow impacts to be felt locally; the\nfindings from the research component will help support policy design and implementation.\nThe Development Manager stated the research also provides a narrative which illustrates how\nthe programs work and impact people's lives in providing resources; the program is developing\nand changing the narrative of how to fund poverty.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated it is not proper for City Hall to throw $4.6 million at a limited\nhandful of 150 households; he will not be supporting the matter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a need to establish an amount that is meaningful to help lift\npeople out of poverty and make a difference; more people could receive a lower amount; she\nwould like more details on how staff arrived at the proposed recommendation.\nThe Development Manager stated pilot programs range in the number of participants; staff\ndebated internally over smaller payments for more recipients versus larger payments to a\nsmaller number of recipients; staff's recommendation reflects a belief that providing larger\nbenefits, given the high cost of living in Alameda, may allow for more transformational impacts\nthan a smaller monthly payment; the group of participants would be smaller; however, the\nimpacts would be profound.\nThe Development Manager stated the bottom number of $400 was based off of Federal\nReserve information that 40% of the population could have trouble paying an unexpected\nexpense of $400 or more in one month; staff moved just above due to the Bay Area's high cost\nof living.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 17, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports the matter; a number of cities are piloting GBI for\ngood reason; the cost of living is extremely high; child care facilities have closed during the\npandemic; child care and living costs are increasing; the amount is an investment in members of\nthe community to ensure that people are able to stay in Alameda and meet rising costs.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated tax payer dollars come from the same families; the\n11,000 low income households struggle and have to buy necessities, which include sales tax;\ntaxes have been placed on homes that are rented; low income households pay taxes; it is\ninappropriate to ask people paying taxes to give funding to 150 people out of 11,000; the\nfunding may be transformational to the 150; however, many people do not have money for\nnecessities; she is saddened that the City will be taking money from other families to provide\nmoney to 150 households; many families are struggling and will be left behind.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has been excited about the concept of GBI since the City\nof Stockton's Mayor spoke at an Alameda County Mayor's conference; staff has put together an\nexcellent report; expressed support for the program having a chance to make a direct impact on\npeople's lives; stated the program can be leveraged to provide more or similar benefits to more\npeople; there is a time to be bold and transformative; expressed support for doing something\nthat creates happiness for other people; stated GBI allows people opportunities; Alameda has\nbeen moving forward with a lot of transformative programs; inquired whether the proposed\ntimeline is realistic; stated the program has been discussed with Alameda Housing Authority\n(AHA); expressed support for AHA residents being eligible to participate in the program; the\nprogram is new to Alameda, but not new to the state; discussed GBI programs in Canada being\nlong-standing with positive results.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff is juggling quite a bit; the Development\nManagers has done an admirable job of getting the complicated research and reporting\ncompleted; the program will take a bit to implement with the help of consultants; there is\npossibility for a longer timeline due to unknown variables; staff will return to Council with any\ndelays; as staff determines the complexity of the project, there could be a need for part-time\nstaff; staff will return to Council if it is determined that the program is more time consuming.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation, with understanding\nthat staff may return to Council and amend the timeline; stated the program is another value\nstatement made by the City.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the program is a value statement;\nthe City is stating that it values taking money from people that cannot afford and are being\npushed out of the City in order to provide funding to 150 people; she does not support the\nmatter.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.\nAyes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(22-355) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter Four to Comply\nwith Assembly Bill 1276 Regarding Single-Use Foodware Accessories and Standard\nCondiments. Introduced.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 18, "text": "The Program Specialist gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether an establishment can provide items without\npenalty if a customer makes the request, to which the Program Specialist responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the establishment can advertise the\nprovision.\nThe Program Specialist responded in the affirmative; stated the law allows food facilities to put\nitems out on a counter in a single use dispenser so customers can have access without having\nto make a request.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether online orders can have a check box to\nrequest single use items, to which the Program Specialist responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer further inquired whether enforcement would occur only due to\ncomplaints.\nThe Program Specialist responded in the affirmative; stated the City currently enforces the\ndisposable food serve law via complaints; staff recommends utilizing the same strategy.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer noted complaints should not be made against an\nestablishment if a person has requested the permitted items.\nExpressed support for amending the City's foodware ordinance; stated the business districts'\nsupport for the ordinance; compliance has been delayed due to COVID-19; stated communities\nin the area are beginning to comply; expressed support for SeeClickFix being used for\ncompliance; discussed reasonable foodware projects: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a\nSustainable Alameda.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(22-356) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute a Lease\nwith Rhoads Property Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, dba CSI Mini-\nStorage for Thirty-Six Months for Buildings 338, 608, and 608A-C, Located at 50 and 51 West\nHornet Avenue, at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many storage units are at the property.\nThe Management Analyst responded the storage facility has a diverse offering with smaller and\nlarger warehouse units and additional outside space.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n18", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2022-05-16", "page": 1, "text": "ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nMINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING\nDATE:\nMonday, May 16, 2022\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m. Called to Order\nPLACE:\nCity Hall Council Chambers\nA video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx\nThe following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: (Teleconference via Zoom), Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner Navarro and Commissioner\nJones\nAbsent: Chair Alexander and Commissioner Nguyen\nStaff: (Teleconference via Zoom) Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy\nWooldridge\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nVice Chair Robbins moved to accept the minutes of April 14, 2022 Regular Meeting as presented.\nM/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones. All present in favor with 3 ayes via roll call vote.\nWRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (For topics not on the agenda)\nWritten Communication - Director Wooldridge read an email from Leslie Ooi regarding the tennis\ncourt lights at Leydecker Park. See Exhibit 1.\nOral Communication - none\nREPORT FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR - ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave\nthe report. See Exhibit 2.\nREPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS\nCommissioner Navarro: Visited Tillman Park and Godfrey Park said the upgrades and repairs\nlook fantastic. Saw a glimpse of the Alameda Landing Waterfront Park's playground and said it\nlooks great; her children are looking forward to playing on it when the park is open. Excited to\nhear the public's choice for park names at the next meeting.\nCommissioner Jones: Planning to volunteer to help ARPD with the 4th of July Parade. Visited\nKrusi Park for a softball playoff and said the backstops on field 1 and 2 need to be repaired.\nVice Chair Robbins: Happy to hear more shade structures are going up in parks and will be\nincluded in the new park plans. Gave accolades the ARPD staff for the successful Spring Shindig\nevent as it was a lot of fun.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n6-A Solar Walk panel and cost review and approval\nRyan Liu, Eagle Scout Troop 2 gave presentation which included the trail layout and each planet's sign\nwith the general information and fun facts. Fundraising for the project has been through Go Fund Me\n1", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2022-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2022-05-16", "page": 2, "text": "and Community outreach. The total estimated project cost is $5,700. Ryan has presently has raised\n$3,000. The installation work will be done by troop members and Ryan's father who is a structural\nengineer.\nPublic Comments - none\nCommissioner Comments\nCommissioner Jones: What are the stands and signs made of? Answer by Ryan Liu: Both sign\nand post are made of aluminum.\nCommissioner Navarro: Great project. Asked if there could be a marker on each sign showing\nthe distance in miles between signs. Answer by Director Wooldridge: It is a possibility to stencil\nthe mileage on each sign.\nVice Chair Robbins: Project looks fantastic. Asked what the inspiration for the project was.\nAnswer by Ryan Liu: Inspired by a similar project at a park in Utah and his passion of the\noutdoors as he hopes it would get a few more people outdoors.\n6-A Motion\nCommissioner Navarro motioned to approve the plan as submitted.\nM/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones.\nAll present in favor with 3 ayes via roll call vote.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA\nDog Park, Park names in June and Commissioner tour of the parks in July.\nSET NEXT MEETING DATE: June 9, 2022 - Regular RPC Meeting\nADJOURNMENT\nMotion to adjourn\nM/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Jones.\nMotion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 3 ayes via roll call vote.\nVice Chair Robbins adjourned the meeting at 7:50 PM.\n2", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2022-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2022-05-16", "page": 3, "text": "EXHIBIT 1\nFrom:\nMatt Nowlen\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nFwd: [EXTERNAL] Re: Leydecker tennis court light time adjustment\nDate:\nMonday, May 2, 2022 2:02:19 PM\nAmy please see attached for next Recreation commison.\nThanks\nMatt\nFrom: Leslie Ooi <leslieooienglee@yahoo.com>\nSent: Monday, May 2, 2022, 12:29 PM\nTo: Matt Nowlen <MNowlen@alamedaca.gov>\nCc: Eric Vlnar <evlnar@alamedaca.gov>\nSubject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Leydecker tennis court light time adjustment\nHello Matt,\nHere's the message for the Recreation commission. Thanks.\nTo the Alameda Recreation Commission,\nWe had been enjoying the health benefits of being able to play tennis in the night hours at Leydecker\nPark until 10.40. This allows for a few parents and older folks to enjoy their favorite exercise sport, as this\nis the only hour that is workable for some working people.\nRecently the shut off time for the lights have been reduced to 10 p.m. This severely cuts our time on the\ncourt, and we are asking that the time be brought back to what it used to be, which is 10.40 p.m.\nThe lights are on auto off, and therefore are not a waste of electrical use when no one is using the court.\nAlso, there is no observed public disturbance brought on by the courts being on till 10.40. p.m.\nWe hope that this request can be answered, as it is definitely a good health benefit for the residents who\nutilize the courts at this time.\nThank you very much for your consideration.\nBest,\nLeslie Ooi", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2022-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2022-05-16", "page": 4, "text": "EXHIBIT 2\n05/16/2022 ARPD Director's Report\nPresented by Recreation and Park Director Amy Wooldridge\nRecreation Services\nRegistration for the next school year (2022-23) is available soon:\na. Recreation After School Program (RAP) on June 22 at 10:00am\nb. Tiny Tots on July 6\nStill in need of more people to apply as Recreation Leaders. We have been doing significant outreach\nat the high schools and elsewhere. We have an ongoing staffing issue in after school and need more\nstaff for summer programs.\nRegistration is open for the Fourth of July Parade entries. We are also seeking volunteers to be\ndrivers for the VIPs, particularly convertibles.\nAdult basketball league starting this summer\nThis is the 70th year of our free Summer Park Baseball League (T-Shirt League), sponsored by\nAlameda Elk's Lodge #1015, available for all kids who have completed Kindergarten through 5th\ngrade.\nThe 54th Annual Sand Castle and Sand Sculpture Contest will take place on Saturday, June 11 at\nRobert Crown Memorial State Beach Park. Registration begins at 9 am and last until 11 am.\nBuilding will take place from 9 to 12 Noon and judging will take place between 12 and 1 pm. There\nare three divisions in each category: Under 12, 13 & over, and Family.\nWe are dealing with issues at the O'Club due to both old pipes and security problems. Working on\nsolutions.\nMastick Senior Center\nThe Mastick Organic Garden irrigation replacement project was completed on April 27th, 2022. We\nare committed to planting fruits, vegetables, and herbs in the next few weeks.\nMastick Senior Center is continuing to see growth in the following groups: Creative Writing, Hula,\nChair Yoga, Line Dancing, Zumba, and Table Tennis.\nOn May 13th, 2022 Mastick collaborated with Seaplane Lagoon Kayaking Tours to offer 10 of our\nmembers a wonderful experience on the water.\nThe AARP tax program began on January 27 and ended on April 26, 2022. The AARP volunteers\nlogged 1,303 hours and assisted 491 taxpayers with the free tax preparation service.\nSPARKL reusable containers: The reusable container program started on May 2nd, 2022 with the\npurpose of reducing waste and implementing a sustainable zero waste culture at Mastick Senior\nCenter. We hand out 40 containers a day and we have a successful return rate of 100% containers\ndaily. Our dine-in service has increased from 8 to 12 people daily.\nOn May 10th, 2022, The Alameda Community Band utilized the Social Hall for a friend and family\nperformance. 70 people attended the event.\nMercy Brown Bag continues to distribute food bags on the 1st and 3rd of every month at Mastick Senior\nCenter. The program is currently averaging 45 people every two weeks.\nOn Tuesday, June 7, from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM, St. Barnabas Catholic Church in Alameda will be\ndistributing free food to all Mastick Center visitors. There will be pasta, along with cans of soup,\nvegetables, fruit, tuna, chicken, and an assortment of other items free for the taking. The food will be\navailable at tables under the awning in the parking lot.\nPark Maintenance\nConverted the sand at the Tillman Park playground to wood chips which is ADA accessible and an\nimprovement to sanitation and public health", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2022-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2022-05-16", "page": 5, "text": "Placed logs from the two downed oak trees throughout Lincoln Park\nRe-installed the merry-go-round at Franklin Park\nHeld a volunteer tree planting at Tillman Park and planted 20 trees\nWe have hired three new full-time Gardeners\nContinuing to improve sports field maintenance such as pitching mounds, aeration, top dressing, and\nre-seeding\nWe installed three picnic tables at Bayport Park with a shade structure to follow. Benches were\ninstalled inside the playground fenced area.\nGodfrey Recreation Center renovation is now complete and open to the public\nAdministration/Projects\nCo-sponsored the Alameda Unified School District End of Year BBQ for Families of Color on Sun,\nMay 15 at Washington Park. Many thanks also to Fire Chief Luby and firefighters who took care of\ndoing the BBQ and handing out food.\nUpdate on Recreation Facilities approved project list:\nStarting resurfacing project soon and will do Lincoln Park pickleball courts first.\nStarting design work for shade structures, such as at the Sweeney Park sand area, with a\ngoal toward developing a standard that can easily be permitted and adapted to different park\nareas.\nAt the FY 22-23 Budget Workshop, City Council approved all recommended ARPD budget items\nincluding $250,000 for asphalt pathway paving in parks and adding the Recreation Services Manager.\nFinal approval is at a June City Council meeting.\nCity Council also directed staff to identify $7.5 million to fund 50% of the Alameda High School (Emma\nHood) Swim Center renovation and include it in the final budget presented to City Council in June.\nStaff is also working with Alameda Unified School District staff on the Joint Use Agreement for\noperation and maintenance of both Alameda and Encinal High School swim centers. High level points\nregarding the AHS renovation will be included in this agreement. Anticipate bringing it to City Council\nin June or July.", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2022-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2022-05-16", "page": 1, "text": "FINAL\nMINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) MEETING\nMonday, May 16, 2022\n1. CALL TO ORDER\nChairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.\n2. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners\nJennifer Hoffecker, Peter Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson.\nAbsent: none.\nLois Butler and Walker Toma present as staff to the Commission.\n3. MINUTES\n2022-2012 Review and Approve Draft April 18, 2022 PAC Minutes\nA motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and\nseconded by Commissioner Ferguson. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson\nRush, Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer and Ferguson. Nays: none. Motion\ncarried 5-0.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENTS\nNone.\n5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A. 2022-2014 Rhythmix Cultural Works Presentation of Island City\nWaterways\nJennifer Radakovich, Associate Director, and Janet Koike, Artistic Director and\nFounder at Rhythmix Cultural Works, presented information for an upcoming\ncultural art event that is funded, in part, through the Public Art Fund. The event,\n\"Island City Waterways,\" is taking place on May 21-23 at Alameda Point's West\nMall. Ms. Radakovich and Ms. Koike shared two video clips of previous\nperformances of this site-specific, immersive art event, described recent\nproduction challenges resulting from COVID and road closure permit issues, and\ninvited PAC members and members of the public to register to attend this free\nevent by going to www.rhythmix.org.\nThere were no public comments.\nChairperson Gillitt expressed his appreciation for the presentation.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2022-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2022-05-16", "page": 2, "text": "Minutes of the Public Art Commission\nMonday, May 16, 2022\n5-B. 2022-2013 Recommendation to Approve the Attached Resolution and\nConditions Approving the Revised \"Neptune Beach Roller Coaster\" Public\nArt Proposal for Subpar Miniature Golf at 1600 Park Street\nStaff member Toma presented the revised public art proposal for the new Subpar\nMiniature Golf project, located at 1600 Park Street, titled \"Neptune Beach Roller\nCoaster.\" In response to feedback from the PAC, illumination lighting, signage, and\ninformation tags, and a descriptive plackard have been added to the proposal to\nbetter showcase and describe the artwork to the public. Staff find the proposed\nartwork meets the Public Art requirement evaluation criteria, and recommends the\nproposal for approval. From last minutes: Mr. Toma introduced artist Jon Altemus\nand project applicant Michael Taft. Artist Jon Altemus who answered clarifying\nquestions.\nThere were no public comments.\nCommissioners discussed the proposal, and determined that the revised public art\nproposal meets all criteria, and expressed appreciation for the additional lighting\nand signage in response to the PAC's recommendations. A motion to approve the\nattached resolution and conditions approving the revised \"Neptune Beach Roller\nCoaster\" public art proposal was made by Chairperson Gillitt and seconded by\nVice Chairperson Rush. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,\nCommissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion\ncarried 5-0.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff member Toma provided the following updates:\na Cultural Art and Arts Programming RFP was issued on March 10, 2022. An\norientation session will be held on March 24 at 5pm; and\nthe June 20 PAC meeting will be a working session for the Public Art Master\nPlan facilitated by the consultant Forecast Public Art.\n7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nCommissioner Hoffecker asked if arts organizations can apply for Cultural Arts and\nArts Programming grants if a member of the PAC serves on their board. Secretary\nButler offered to get clarification from City counsel and provide clarification at the\nnext PAC meeting.\nCommissioner Ferguson expressed the desire to meet in person. Ms. Butler\nresponded that returning to in-person meetings may possible in the near future;\nhowever, the decision depends on emergency orders being lifted and additional\ntechnical infrastructure allowing for hybrid meetings.\n2", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2022-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2022-05-16", "page": 3, "text": "Minutes of the Public Art Commission\nMonday, May 16, 2022\n9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nChairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 6:51 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLois Butler\nEconomic Development Manager\nSecretary, Public Art Commission\n3", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2022-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-12", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTHURSDAY--MAY 12, 2022--6:00 P.M.\n(22-328) The special meeting was cancelled.\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 12, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2022-05-11", "page": 1, "text": "CITY\nOF\nof\nTERRA\nMINUTES OF THE\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nWEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2022\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:03 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nAmber Bales, President\nJoyce McConeghey Vice President\nDimple Kanji, Board Member\nKathleen Kearney, Board Member\nSara Strickler, Board Member\nAbsent:\nNone\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nLori Amaya, Recording Secretary\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Public Comment)\nLisa Foster, Senior Transportation Coordinator for the City of Alameda, informed the board that a\nnew parking enforcement service will begin on May 23, 2022. This service includes improved\nparking enforcement at the meters and of time limits in the Park Street and Webster Street areas,\nwhich includes Oak Street near the Main Library. Once the program is expanded, enforcement of\ntime limits in the Main Library parking lot will be included. Director Chisaki asked Lisa for the\nname of the of the appropriate contact in the Public Works Department to inquire about the size\nof parking spaces in the main library parking lot. Lisa responded that Alan Ta is appropriate\ncontact.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar\n*A.\nReport from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of March and April,\n2022.\n*B.\nDraft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of March 9, 2022.\n*C.\nModified Library Services Report for the Months of February and March, 2022.\n*D.\nFinancial Report Reflecting FY21/22 Expenditures by Fund for March and April, 2022.\n*E.\nBills for Ratification for the Months of March and April, 2022.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2022-05-11.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2022-05-11", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2 of 4\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nMay 11, 2022 Meeting\nDirector Chisaki reported that Assistant City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, was appointed Acting City\nManager on May 2, 2022 and will be leaving on May 17, 2022 to become the City Manager for the\nCity of Pleasanton. City Council will discuss in closed session on May 17, a contract for Dirk Brazil\nto become Interim City Manager. If approved, he will start on May 23, 2022. The budget workshop\nwent well. The library asked to add a full-time position, but it was not recommended to move\nforward, although increases for contracts, supplies, and services were approved. A request to\nadd a full-time position will be made in the next round. The Peeps Diorama contest brought in\nmore entries than expected which is believed to be due to the Library providing free kits. The Hot\nSpot program is going well with 22 of 30 being checked out. Karen Butter, President of the Friends\nof the Library, spoke at the budget workshop and thanked the City Council for giving the Library\nsome of the federal money received to launch the Hot Spot program, and requested if there is any\nmore money to give, it should be given to the library to expand the program. The State Library\nand the California State Parks gave the Library free day use vehicle passes to use at California\nState Parks. They can be checked out for three weeks. The Library may receive another six\npasses in the next two weeks because the program is going so well. The historical marker project\nis inching forward. The first unveiling of one of the markers is hoped to be held before Council\nmember John Knox White's term ends as he was one of the driving forces to move the project\nforward. The digital history project is coming along. Some of the library's information is now live\non Densho's digital repository. The library has asked for a one year extension on the project, but\nmay not need that long.\nThe City completed a survey to test the community's temperature for revenue generating\nmeasures that may be added to the ballot. Director Chisaki was sent one page of the survey\nwhich showed that there was a 16% decrease in satisfaction with Library customer service.\nDirector Chisaki learned that the time frame of the survey was 2020 when the library was closed.\nAt that time, the Library pivoted to online programs and databases, which some patrons did not\nhave access to which explains why there would be a decrease in satisfaction of customer service.\nThe Red Cross presented Director Chisaki with a certificate thanking her for continuing to hold\nblood drives through 2020. Because the library hosted blood drives through the pandemic, they\nwere able to collect 194 units of blood at those drives. Board Member Strickler asked if the City\nis planning to resurvey. Director Chisaki doesn't think so because the City Council couldn't agree\nto move forward to pursue any kind of revenue measure. Some Council members didn't want\nto\nspend money for a consultant to redo the survey, and after a lengthy discussion, it didn't move\nforward. If the City Council decides later to do a revenue measure, there will be new surveying\ninvolved.\nThere are no changes to the Draft Minutes of the March 9, 2022 Library Board Meeting.\nVice President McConeghey moved to accept the Consent Calendar. Board Member Kearney\nseconded the motion, which passed with a 5-0 vote.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2022-05-11.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2022-05-11", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3 of 4\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nMay 11, 2022 Meeting\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nCurrent and On-Going Library Activities (J. Chisaki)\nDirector Chisaki presented the new proposed schedule of library hours with 5 additional hours.\nThis would allow for more children's programing in the morning, and for staff to have a dedicated\ntime for committee meetings. The new schedule would add only an additional $600 per month\nin staff time. The new schedule will be implemented with the start of the new fiscal year in July.\nThe Library Board will be voting for the positions of President and Vice President at the July\nmeeting.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nFriends of the Library (J. Chisaki)\nThe Friends are working on a formal grand opening plan for their bookstore. The Caf\u00e9 is now\nopen five days per week. Friends are hoping for the concert series to be held in September,\nOctober and November, but they are waiting for room occupancy limits to be lifted. Virtual\nprograms continue to be very successful. With permission, the recordings are uploaded to the\nFriends YouTube channel. There are more views on the YouTube channel than the number of\nattendees of virtual programs. The book sale at the O'Club will be held on October 21, 22, and\n23.\nB.\nPatron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response\nA patron complained that the Library's bathrooms do not have accessible door buttons. Director\nChisaki was informed by the City Attorney's office that restroom doors do not require automatic\ndoors to open the restroom for access and the director will reply as such.\nA patron complained that the parking spaces in the Library parking lot are too small and suggested\nremoving one space to make each space 6\" wider. Director Chisaki explained that the spaces are\nof legal size and there are a required number of spaces to comply with the grant used when the\nlibrary was being built. Director Chisaki will pass the information along to the patron.\nDirector Chisaki informed the board that yesterday morning there was a small fire was set in the\ncorner of the parking lot and burned a portion of the fence. Public Works will repair the damaged\nsection of the fence.\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nVice President McConeghey asked if there is any book banning going on at the Library and\nwhether there is a policy in place. Director Chisaki replied that there has not been a book", "path": "LibraryBoard/2022-05-11.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2022-05-11", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4 of 4\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nMay 11, 2022 Meeting\nchallenge in many years. There is a collection development policy which includes requests to\nremove materials from the collection. If someone objects to an item, they can submit a request\nfor reconsideration. The policy can be found on the library's website. Board Member Kearney\nasked what started the Lucy Day collection. Director Chisaki responded that Rosemary Van Lare,\nSenior Librarian, loved the idea when she was in San Jose and volunteered to start and maintain\nthe collection. Board Member Kearney added that she has been working at the Friends' bookstore\nand at the last two pop-up book sales. President Bales will be joining the Friends' virtual program\nas soon as the Library Board meeting ends.\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane Chisaki, Library Director and\nSecretary to the Alameda Free Library Board", "path": "LibraryBoard/2022-05-11.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-MAY 10, 2022--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:20 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: The meeting was\nconducted via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nWORKSHOP\n(22-327) Budget Workshop for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Cycle Budget Update to Provide\nDirection on Funding Changes that will be Incorporated into Budget Adoption Hearing Materials\nfor City Council Consideration in June 2022.\nThe Principal Financial Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.\nThe Interim City Manager responded to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the\nLibrarian position.\nExpressed support for reliable broadband on the Island; suggested that Council consider\nexpanding the pilot program in the Library with any remaining funding from the federal\ngovernment: Karen Butter, Friends of the Alameda Library.\nDiscussed racial equity, people struggling to pay a parking ticket or overdue library fines, the\nPolice Lieutenant position and the CARE Team; expressed support for the budget changes:\nJennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Library Director discussed the Library not\ncollecting fines.\nThe Interim City Manager suggested Council approve the following budget proposals: Finance,\nHuman Resources, Library, Information Technology, Planning Building and Transportation, and\nCity Clerk.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Interim City Manager's suggestion.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer made brief comments\nexpressed opposition.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.\nAyes: 3. Noes: 2.\nThe City Attorney's budget was reviewed.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the City Attorney budget proposal.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the City Attorney responded to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiries\nregarding the Prosecutor position and unit.\nCouncilmember Daysog made comments expressing his support.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the City Manager budget proposal.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Community Development budget proposal.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Interim City Manager and Community Development Director responded to\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the Program Manager position.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Fire budget proposal.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Interim City Manager and Finance Director responded to Councilmember\nHerrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the Fireboat.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\nThe Interim City Manager and Police Chief made brief comments on the Police Department\nbudget.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Police budget proposal.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 3, "text": "The Public Works Director made brief comments regarding the Public Works Budget.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Public Works budget proposal.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Interim City Manager responded to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's\ninquiry regarding parking garage and Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested information.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Recreation and Parks proposal with\ndirection for staff to come back in June with a solution for Emma Hood.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed interest in directing staff to look\nat its own pool, Council discussed the funding amount and the motion was discussed.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of staff returning to Council with information\non a City pool.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Recreation and Parks Director noted the matter would return in July and\nCouncil discussed the matter.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.\nAyes: 2. Noes: 3.\nThe Interim City Manager made brief comments regarding interdepartmental changes.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the interdepartmental changes.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Interim City Manager outlined the changes in response to Councilmember\nHerrera Spencer's and Daysog's inquiries.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 4, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - MAY 10, 2022- -5:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:03 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held\nvia Zoom.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n(22-324) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City\nNegotiators: Gerry Beaudin, Interim City Manager; Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources\nDirector; Nico Procos, General Manager Alameda Municipal Power; Jessica Romeo,\nHuman Resources Manager; and Steve Woo, Senior Human Resources Analyst;\nEmployee Organizations: Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA); Management\nand Confidential Employees Association (MCEA); Electric Utility Professionals\nAssociation (EUPA); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); Alameda\nPolice Officers Non-Sworn (PANS); Alameda Municipal Power Unrepresented\nEmployees (AMPU); Alameda Police Management Association (APMA); Under\nNegotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that staff provided information and Council provided direction by the\nfollowing two roll call votes: Vote 1: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer:\nAye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; Vote 2:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 5:59\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\nMay 10, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the workforce changes.\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 Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nThe Interim City Manager discussed the options to balance the General Fund budget.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the using funds that would have been set aside\nfor pension.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Interim City Manager responded to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry and\nthe pension reserve transfer policy and specific amount was discussed.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.\nAyes: 3. Noes: 2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:14 p.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\nMay 10, 2022\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 6, "text": "MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED MAY 3, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 10, 2022- -5:59 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:15 p.m. Councilmember Herrera\nSpencer led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: The\nmeeting was conducted via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONTINUED ITEM\n(22-325) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Potential Revenue Measures to\nSubmit to Voters for the November 8, 2022 Election.\nThe Interim City Manager, Miranda Everitt, FM3, and Jeremy Hauser, TBWTH Props &\nMeasures, gave a Power Point presentation.\n(22-326) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing 5 more minutes for\nthe presentation.\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.\n***\nMr. Hauser and the Public Works Coordinator completed the presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed her experience working on a library parcel tax measure;\ninquired about concern over the polling for the infrastructure bond.\nMs. Everitt responded a two-thirds threshold is very challenging; stated from February\nto now it has become even more challenging due to war abroad and concern about gas\nprices and cost of living; the approach is conservative so the City does not go to the\nballot with something the voters would ultimately reject; negatives would come from\nFacebook, Nextdoor and the whisper network of communities; a two-thirds measures is\ntough in any kind of environment, let alone, one where cost of living is such a concern.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a sliding scale of the bond amount was tested.\nMs. Everitt responded numbers had to be picked and stuck with since it was a 20\nminute survey; stated more time could be spent flushing out amounts with a narrower\nset of mechanisms.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how much money FM3 received to do the\nsurvey.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the $37,000 contract amount was approved by\nCouncil and includes the polling, analysis, summary and presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the questions, the\nInterim City Manager stated Council received a summary of all of the questions; the\nspecific, detailed question language was not attached to the staff report.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is possible to get a complete copy\nof the survey questions and responses.\nThe Interim City Manager responded it is not considered best practice; stated it is\ntypical to summarize survey questions and provide the analysis; the document can be\nprovide if Council desires.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired is it public information.\nThe Interim City Manager responded staff has not published the survey in detail; it is not\nproprietary; standard questions were asked so it would not be a privacy issue.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she requested the survey at the beginning\nof May and did not receive it; she would like to know if the questions and answers are\npublic information.\nMs. Everitt stated it can be shared, but the context provided by the consultant team is\nreally important in interpreting the results; an opposition campaign could use the\ninformation; ultimately, the decision is up to legal counsel.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to hear from the City\nAttorney.\nThe City Attorney stated the survey is not subject to attorney client privilege; in some\nways, up to Council discretion; two potential Public Records Act exceptions could be\nused; one is a balancing test whether public interest in disclosure is outweighed by\nother considerations; it might also qualify for deliberative process.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer noted some pages have truncated questions.\nMs. Everitt stated that was a formatting mistake.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer noted demographic data was not provided.\nMs. Everitt responded the data was collected.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated she thinks the data should be provided.\nMs. Everitt noted the data includes party registration, location in the City, age, gender\nand other demographic information.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would be interested in the\ndemographic data being shared.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, Ms. Everitt reviewed the infrastructure bond\nresponses; stated the highest priorities were response times, bridge upgrades and flood\nprevention; some questions were regarding housing and some were general purpose.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiries, the Interim City Manager\nreviewed the survey results, revenue generation, two-thirds voting threshold and\naffordable housing.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, Ms. Everitt reviewed the\nvarious yes percentages needed to meet the two-third threshold.\nMr. Hauser noted the percentages fall within the margin of error.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the survey was done in February; inquired\nwhether inflation going up would have an impact.\nMs. Everitt responded her conservative assumption would be that the numbers would\nbe lower with increased concerns about cost of living.\nThe Interim City Manager stated if Council is interested in in pursuing the infrastructure\nbond, more detailed questions could be asked; there could be a deeper conversation\nwith voters about infrastructure things that matter, such as sea level rise.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed her library bond experience and the importance of the\nballot measure giving voters what they want; expressed support for taking a deeper\ndive.\nUrged Council not to move forward with the cannabis tax; discussed jobs and taxation\nof cannabis businesses: Steven Chow, Stiiizy Alameda.\nExpressed opposition to the cannabis tax and business tax; stated businesses are just\nrecovering from the pandemic; infrastructure funding is needed: Ron Mooney,\nDowntown Alameda Business Association.\nDiscussed his cannabis business; urged Council not to move forward with the local\ncannabis tax, which would be a burden to local businesses; stated there has not been\nany outreach to local operators: John Ngu, Embarca.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 9, "text": "Outlined his cannabis company's formation and plans to move the headquarters to\nAlameda; stated the proposed tax would put the plans in doubt; urged the Council to\nvote no on the tax proposal: Scott Palmer, Kiva Confections.\nStated that she took the survey and was fairly cautious in what she would and would not\nsupport because she was not sure where the information was going; the emphasis\nseemed to be on the funding mechanism; she is a values voter; showing things will help\nwith sea level rise and climate change is critical; encouraged more community\nengagement: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nStated that she was priced out of Alameda; discussed the market collapse in the\ncannabis industry; stated the industry cannot absorb an additional tax; the tax would be\npaid by patients and consumers: encouraged having stakeholder lead process and a\nvoluntary tax agreement: Nara Dahlbacka.\nStated agencies throughout California are currently reducing or eliminating local excise\ncannabis taxes, including Humboldt, Lake, Monterey and Sonoma counties and the\ncities of Bellflower, Berkeley, Desert Hot Springs, Long Beach, Oakland, Palm Springs,\nSan Diego, San Francisco, San Jose and many others; the tax being proposed would\nonly further harm the viability of cannabis businesses and drive more people to the\nblack market; discussed his business: Aaron Kraw, Park Social.\nStated that he is a cannabis union worker and opposes the cannabis tax; discussed\njobs being jeopardized: Zachery Gilmore, United Food and Commercial Workers Union.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is very unsupportive of the cannabis tax,\nwhich would be problematic at this point in time; after the cannabis industry has\nmatured and stabilized, some form of tax can be considered, but it probably will not be\nin the next five years; the research is pretty clear; there would be a negative impact on\nbusinesses; the business license tax is similar with everything businesses are going\nthrough; the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is probably a little premature given that\nthe travel industry has not rebounded in any meaningful way; the TOT could come back\nin a few years when the economy has shifted; he shares concerns about how razor thin\nthe two-thirds support is for an infrastructure bond, but thinks it should be probed a little\nbit further; the poll found that people were concerned about traffic safety, traffic\ncongestion, homelessness and housing costs; he hopes Council could make some kind\nof minimum commitment to looking at supporting replacement of Emma Hood, which is\nprobably going to be shutting down sometime this summer or fall; he would be very\nopen to staff coming back with alternative funding suggestions if the pool is not a good\nfit for an infrastructure bond.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Knox White; stated a measure is\njeopardized if voters are not given what they say they would support; there are other\nways to support Emma Hood; the public needs a better understanding of what an\ninfrastructure bond would look like; she would like to see TOT explored; Alameda's TOT\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 10, "text": "is less than surrounding communities, including San Leandro, Oakland and Emeryville;\nthere is no reason the City should not at least be equal to said cities.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is interested in exploring both the TOT and\ninfrastructure bond; Alameda has huge infrastructure needs; the influx of federal funding\nalso requires local investment; the Climate Action Resiliency Plan (CARP) and traffic\nsafety response times need to be prioritized; the infrastructure bond has been put off for\nmany, many years; more detailed questions should be asked; the timeline is quick;\nsince it is the greatest need, exploring an infrastructure bond would be of interest; the\nbond would only cover a fraction of the overall need; she has zero interest in cannabis\nor business license taxes; the cannabis tax is incredibly regressive; a fledgling industry\nis competing against the black market; the business license tax should not be increased\ncoming out COVID when the City had to help businesses.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she strongly opposes the cannabis tax; discussed\ncannabis being sold on the black market; stated it is not the time to increase the\nbusiness license tax.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated when it comes to infrastructure, the issue is not a\nrevenue problem; the problem comes down to spending priorities; in the past five years,\n$46 million has been spent because of the unfunded liabilities policy; all of the City's\nleggs have gone into one basket with regard to excess reserves; before going after new\nrevenues, the City needs fiscal priorities and does not deserve to ask taxpayers to\nshore up inadequacies; he does not see how $95 million can be figured out in two\nmonths; the wiser course of action is to spend more time researching needs; since the\nproblem lies with prioritizing revenue, he would oppose the measure.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she agrees with Vice Mayor Vella in\nregards to cannabis; she strongly supports businesses; continued support is critical;\nrequested the TOT information be displayed again and outlined rates; stated the\naverage is 10.27%; Alameda is in the middle; she does not support the business license\ntax; she has serious concerns about an infrastructure bond; residents and the business\ncommunity are struggling right now; imposing more taxes goes in the wrong direction\nduring a high inflation period; $95 million would not stretch as far; revenue generating\nassets have been flipped to become expenditures, such as homes at Alameda Point\nbeing used for transitional housing and the bottle parcel not being sold; discussed high\ninflation; stated the City should help businesses and residents stay in town.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the budget presentation up next mentions the pension\npolicy; discussed the unfunded accrued pension liability; stated a few years ago, there\nwas $200 million in deferred maintenance across the City, not including Alameda Point;\nthe commercial construction index is going up by 14% per year; deferred maintenance\njust gets more and more expensive; whether or not infrastructure needs should try to be\ntackled through a bond is a policy decision; discussed TOT rates; stated immediate\nneighbors are all up around 14%; there could be a phased approach or tie to economic\nconditions, so the increase does not hit while hotels might be struggling.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he brought up the TOT years ago; Union City has a\nrange with the amount determined by the City Council.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is in favor of staff\nlooking into the TOT.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; stated it probably only results in\n$200,000 to $300,000, which is better than nothing; visitors pays the tax, not local\nresidents.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated people pay a higher TOT in neighboring cities; it is time to\naddress climate change; bond funds could be leveraged to get even more money;\nfederal grants are available, but require some matching funds; she would like staff to\nbring back a more detailed plan for further polling on the infrastructure bond.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would not necessarily want to move forward\nwith the infrastructure bond if there are two very hard noes since four votes are required\nto put a bond measure on the ballot.\nThe Interim City Manager confirm the infrastructure bond requires four votes; stated\nother items, such as TOT, have a three vote threshold.\nCouncilmember Knox White suggested the motion be bifurcated.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of exploration of a TOT tax, including\ndirection to staff to do additional outreach to identify what hotel owners see as a\npotential impacts.\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.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would only move approval of giving direction\nto do additional exploration on the infrastructure bond if there are four votes; he does\nnot want staff to spend time on something that would not get four votes in the future.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated perhaps, with additional information, some might take a\ndifferent position.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated two Councilmember expressed that they\nideologically have a problem with moving forward; he is a strong supporter of the\ninfrastructure bond, but does not want to have staff spend time unless there are four\nvotes to move forward with additional research.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 12, "text": "The Interim City Manager stated if there is an openness to gathering more information,\nstaff is willing to do the work; a significant amount of infrastructure needs to be\naddressed.\nVice Mayor Vella stated being one vote short of putting the measure before the people\nof Alameda is disappointing; allowing voters to make a decision is direct democracy;\nwhile Councilmembers may individually disagree philosophically, she would hope that\nher colleagues would put it to a vote of the people.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated his grave concern is the reserve policy that has been in\nplace since 2017 without the vote of the people; $46 million has been spent on\nunfunded liabilities; the policy needs to be fixed, as well as other spending priorities.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred the policy needs to be revisited, which the Interim City\nManager indicated would be done; Alameda has an existential climate change threat;\nmore information is need.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated there is a commitment to bring back and revise the\nreserve policy; infrastructure funding will not be fixed from said discussion; the issues\nare separate; addressing concerns about the reserve policy will not fix the infrastructure\nproblem; the City will still have an unfunded infrastructure need as well; inquired\nwhether Councilmember Daysog is open to having a conversation with staff in the next\nfour weeks; stated the conversation would not be committing to support a measure\ngoing on the ballot, but would be to see if there might be pieces of a supportable\ninfrastructure bond; he understands nothing will change Councilmember Spencer's\nopinion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he does not see how a $95 million infrastructure\nbond could be addressed between now and late July; educating people previously for\nthe library bond required a lot of legwork; doing a $95 million infrastructure bond\nbetween now and August is not practical; the City should revisit the matter in 2024; for\nphilosophical and practical reasons, he does not see it.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Vice Mayor has a motion.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the votes not being there.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is an opportunity to inform the voters better than they\nwere informed by the first round of polling.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council colleagues have indicated it does not matter what the\nvoters think; they do not want to put the matter to a vote of the people; discussed\npercentages and other measures; stated there is an opportunity to put a measure on the\nballot, which is worth exploring, but the point is moot since other Councilmembers do\nnot support putting it to a vote of the people.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he opposes putting a measure on the ballot\nbecause the City has the wrong reserve policy in place; a lot of money that that has\ngone towards pensions could have gone towards infrastructure.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would have liked more survey\ninformation; the full questions and demographic data was not provided; she has serious\nconcerns that bonds do not have opt outs for people on fixed incomes, seniors or those\nwho are disabled, which can be done with a parcel tax.\nVice Mayor Vella stated unfunded liabilities need to be funded one way or another;\ninfrastructure needs are not being met; the matter should be put to a vote of the people;\nclimate change and sea level rise are real and are happening; emergency services\nresponse times impact lives; many Armenians live in a Federal Emergency\nManagement Agency (FEMA) flood zone and are paying thousands of dollars extra in\ninsurance.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the pension policy conversation came up as part of the\nmidyear budget; a revision to the policy will be coming to Council in June; discussed the\nCapital Improvement Program; stated the City is trying to keep up with deferred\nmaintenance, sea level rise, climate change and redevelopment of Alameda Point.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Mr. Hauser stated the first step would be additional\ntargeted polling to zero in on one specific proposal; at a two thirds level, it is really\nimportant to test the 75 word question and specific projects; the second step would be\npublic information outreach on behalf of the City, including outlining the infrastructure\nneeds and how a bond might be able to address the needs; additional feedback would\ncome from a voter opinion survey of 500 residents; once a measure is placed on the\nballot, the City cannot advocate for or against its passage; an independent campaign\ncommittee would have to be formed in order to advocate either for or against the\nmeasure.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether there is a motion to go forward with additional\npolling.\nVice Mayor Vella stated she is not hearing Council colleagues are interested in a\nmeasure; she does not know if a motion will pass, but is happy to make one.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of additional polling with the intent of putting the\nmeasure through.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City should give the public a little\nmore time to be informed and bring back information.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Knox White stated that he does not think the consultant should be\nasked to go and do polling; it is not about finding out what happens when voters are\neducated; he will not support the motion; the City has a lot of work to do; he does not\nsupport directing staff to go do additional work with consultants and spend funding on\nconsultants for an item that has no path to actual enactment.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: No; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:02\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- MAY 3, 2022--5:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:04 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella\narrived at 5:19 p.m. and left at 6:50 p.m. The meeting was\nheld via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment Read into the Record:\nExpressed support for Greenway Golf: Chris Iglesias, Unity Council; Mark Swartz,\nAlameda; Nick Wolf, Alameda High School; and Christ Tam, All Good Living\nFoundation.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(22-285) Conference With Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation, Initiation of Litigation\n(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4)); Number of Cases:\nOne (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendant(s): Greenway Golf\nAssociates, Inc.\n(22-286) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring (Pursuant to Government Code Section\n54957); Title/Description of Positions to be Filled: City Manager\n(22-287) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode Section 54956.9); Case Name: Mario Gonzalez et. al. V. City of Alameda et. al.;\nCourt: United States District Court, Northern District of California; Case Number: 4:21-\nCV-09733-DMR; and Case Name: Edith Arenales V. City of Alameda et. al.; Court:\nUnited States District Court, Northern District of California; Case Number: e 4:22-cv-\n00718.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the Potential Litigation, staff provided information and Council\nprovided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera\nSpencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5;\nregarding Employee Appointment/Hiring, Council provided direction to staff to return\nwith an Interim City Manager agreement at the next regular Council Meeting on May 17,\n2022 by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No;\nKnox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2; and\nregarding Existing Litigation, Council provided direction to staff by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1].\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 2, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:56\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY-MAY 3, 2022- -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair\nEzzy\nAshcraft\nconvened\nthe\nmeeting\nat\n7:15\np.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Herrera\nSpencer, Knox White, and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft\n- 4. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella - 1.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCommissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll\ncall vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer:\nAye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or\nadopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*22-05 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council/SACIC Meeting Held on\nMarch 1, 2022. Approved.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(22-06\nSACIC) Adoption of Resolution Declaring That the Property Located at 2350\nFifth Street is Exempt Surplus Land Pursuant to Government Code Section\n54221(f)(1)(D);\n(22-06 SACIC A) Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Conveyance of the Property\nLocated at 2350 Fifth Street to the City of Alameda in Accordance with the Terms of a\nPurchase and Sale Agreement Between the City and the Successor Agency; and\nAuthorizing the Interim City Manager, as Executive Director of the Successor Agency, to\nExecute the Purchase and Sale Agreement and to Take Other Actions Necessary to\nComplete Conveyance of the Property;\n(22-288 ( CC) Amending the General Fund Budget to Appropriate an Additional $250,000\nfor Purchase of 2350 Fifth Street; and\n(22-289 CC) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing Acceptance of the Property Located\nat 2350 Fifth Street from the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement\nCommission of City of Alameda in Accordance with the Terms of a Purchase and Sale\nAgreement Between the City and the Successor Agency; and Authorizing the Interim\nCity Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the Successor Agency\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n1\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nMay 3, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 4, "text": "and to Take Such Other Actions Necessary to Complete the Conveyance of the\nProperty. Not heard.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n7:16 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\n2\nMay 3, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 5, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - - MAY 3, 2022--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:16 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nVice Mayor Vella arrived at 7:29 p.m. and left the\nmeeting at 11:39 p.m. The meeting was conducted\nvia Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(22-290) Proclamation in Support of the People of Ukraine.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\n(22-291) Proclamation Declaring May 2022 as Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage\nMonth.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\n(22-292) Proclamation Declaring May 2022 as East Bay Affordable Housing Month.\n(22-293) Proclamation Declaring May 2022 as Older American's Month.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(22-294) Zac Bowling, Alameda Democratic Club, made an announcement regarding an\nupcoming meeting.\n(22-295) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority, provided an update on the Housing\nAuthority.\n(22-296) Rosalinda Fortuna Corvi, Alameda, expressed concern over the Maritime\nMarine Officers Training Center being pulled from the State Historical Resources\nCommission agenda.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 24, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the term by right is used multiple times\nthroughout the HE, including low barrier navigation centers; inquired whether the City's\nlegal counsel believes Council is required to include low barrier navigation centers.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded State law requires the City to identify locations\nfor low barrier navigation centers; stated staff has identified various locations.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated every place shown by right is\nrequired by State law; the only exception to the requirement is the R-5 district; the\nrequirement is unclear due to how the R-5 district is structured.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated all projects have used density bonus due to the\nCity's zoning; inquired whether density bonus is not something that can be automatically\ngranted, must be requested and a case has to be made.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nState density bonus is structured if a developer voluntarily offers to provide a certain\namount of affordable housing, the developer is eligible for a density bonus and waivers;\nsince the City's existing zoning has a multi-family prohibition, the only way to produce\nmore than two units in a building is by offering additional affordable housing; the offer\ncreates eligibility for waivers to the multi-family prohibition.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the requirement to have developers show\na financial reason for the density bonus has been removed from density bonus law.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded State density bonus law\nhas been amended over the years; stated the law has become more lenient over the\nyears; there are two aspects to the law; one is the waiver of things, such as height\nlimits; a more rigid requirement used to relate to financial incentives; a developer had to\nshow the financial unviability in order to qualify for a waiver; the burden now falls on the\nCity.\nUrged Council be respectful of the will of the voters; stated upzoning density in\nneighborhoods and increasing heights is clearly counter to the Measure Z vote;\nexpressed support for Alameda complying with State housing law; stated the proposed\nHE is an extreme interpretation; expressed concern about taller buildings; urged Council\ncontinue the hearing to after May 9th: Elizabeth Greene, Alameda.\nStated the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) created a plan to protect the\nintegrity of Webster Street and restrict heights; the plan is viable and speaks to\nprotecting the historical value: Sandra Pilon, WABA\nStated that she has continued to try and be involved with proposals to meet the\nRegional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); the HE does not include allocations\nwithout undue density increases and by right upzoning; expressed concern about\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 25, "text": "residential and commercial zones; urged the matter be seriously considered: Dolores\nKelleher, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS).\nStated her neighborhood is dense and diverse; discussed the capability for more units\nin existing areas; expressed concern about building heights taller than three stories;\nstated the HE has more than enough places to provide housing throughout the City;\nurged Council to decide where new housing should go; questioned why the Bridgeside\nShopping Center is off the list: Betsy Mathison, Alameda.\nDiscussed RHNA numbers; stated any buffer is unnecessary; urged Council to focus on\nthe 5,353 housing units; the amount is attainable through the current Accessory\nDwelling Unit (ADU) process; there is no need to upzone R-2 through R-6 areas; urged\nCouncil to build to the requirement: Matt Reid, Alameda.\nExpressed support for height limits; stated that she supports smaller units in transit\nareas and the request to remove unnecessary blanket upzoning across residential\nneighborhoods; she disagrees with the proposal to include either Lum School or\nThompson Field for future housing; urged Council to consider continuing public\nhearings: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nDiscussed the HCD letter attached to the staff report; stated the letter provides for a\ncompliant HE which meets the RHNA obligation and fair housing without upzoning the\nR-2 through R-6 areas; questioned whether deletion of upzoning is not in compliance\nwith fair housing law; stated upzoning all districts is overkill and manipulates the HE\nwithout voter approval: Paul Foreman, Alameda.\nQuestioned why staff was not directed to =object to the RHNA numbers while 70 other\ncities submitted letters of objection; expressed support for an initiative prohibiting out of\nState developers from funding campaigns and building new infrastructure before RHNA\nunits; discussed a bike and car bridge and spending State funds on infrastructure:\nRosalinda Fortuna Corvi, Alameda.\nUrged Council to upzone Central Avenue and Webster Street; stated Webster Street is\nfull of parking lots and one story buildings; expressed support for encouraging fa\u00e7ade\nreuse; expressed concern about shopping centers being limited to five stories; stated\nnot building high equals building out: Alex Spher, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the AAPS letter; stated more housing will be built and Alameda\nwill be more dense; questioned how the City will go about adding more housing; stated\nthe current HE overreaches with upzoning residential areas; expressed support for\nadding units, while keeping a livable City and the three story height limit; stated that she\nwould add units to her property to help: Joyce Boyd, AAPS.\nDiscussed Alameda Point; stated that she would like to challenge the position of\nAlameda Point's role in RHNA and urge staff and the Fair Housing Task Force to\nauthenticate the methodology and update where needed; expressed concern about the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 26, "text": "methodology being out of date: Donna Fletcher, Alameda.\nDiscussed collective knowledge on the HE being shared; stated many people believe\nthe HE is moving in the right direction and the City is being set up for success;\nexpressed concern about correspondence; stated the City cannot risk entertaining the\nproposed concerns; the State will go after noncompliant cities: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the work being done on the HE; stated the City needs the\nnumbers and distribution of housing units across the Island; Article 26 stands out like a\nsore thumb; cities have tried to get out of requirements; doubling down on Article 26 will\nlikely not be effective: Josh Geyer, Alameda.\nExpressed support for a good faith effort in submitting a compliant HE; questioned how\nR-1 through R-6 zones can contribute more; urged Council to modify base zoning;\nexpressed support for tall, modern buildings on Park and Webster Streets: Drew Dara-\nAbrams, Alameda.\n***\n(22-315) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of continuing the current\nitem and not hearing any more items.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is not needed to hear the current item.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer withdrew her motion.\nCouncilmember Knox White noted Council has two budget hearings in next week;\nquestioned whether the revenue measures matter [paragraph no 22- ] can be\ncontinued to the budget session; expressed concern about discussing another item.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval the revenue measures matter beginning\ncontinued to the May 10th budget session meeting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the required vote to move the matter, to which the City\nClerk responded three affirmative votes are needed.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry the City Clerk stated the Rules require a\nvote to consider new matters after 11:00 p.m.; Council can complete the current\ndiscussion and address the agenda sections, including Oral Communications, City\nManager Communications, and Council Communications without a vote; there is no\ntime limit for hearing said agenda sections.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is not feeling well and supports only hearing the\ncurrent matter.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n22", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}