Title
Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 19, 2026. (City Clerk)
Body
UNAPPROVED
Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday- -May 19, 2026- -5:00 p.m.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Boller, Jensen, Pryor and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent: None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(26- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a); Case Name: City of Alameda v. Greenway Golf Associates, Inc.; Court: Alameda County Superior Court; Case No: 22CV011964.
(26- ) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957; Positions Evaluated: City Attorney - Yibin Shen and City Clerk - Lara Weisiger
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 6:24 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:18 p.m.
***
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that regarding Existing Litigation, Council provided direction to the City Attorney which carried by two separate votes that carried by unanimous voice vote - 5; and regarding Public Employee Performance Evaluation, no action was reported out.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday- -May 19, 2026- -7:00 p.m.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Boller, Daysog, Jensen, Pryor, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent: None.
Agenda Changes
None.
Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
None.
Oral Communications, Non-Agenda
(26- ) Maria Henderson, AC Transit, provided an update on bus services; outlined funding issues; stated all bus lines are being reviewed; noted service changes will take effect June 2027.
(26- ) Rick Lewis, Alameda, expressed support for Greenway Golf’s support for bird watchers and a biodiverse environment.
(26- ) Alexandra Tesada, Five10Preps, outlined her background and experience at the Corica Golf Complex.
(26- ) Theresa Zighera, Alameda, expressed support for Greenway Golf; outlined her son’s experience volunteering; urged Council to resolve any disputes with Greenway Golf.
(26- ) Karin Kirschbaum expressed concern about homeless data and goals, and the lack of progress reports.
(26- ) Sophia Tejeda, Corica Park, outlined her experience at Corica Park; expressed support.
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Boller announced that he needs to recuse himself from the Leydecker Park playground equipment purchase [paragraph no. 26- ] since it is close to his house.
Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote on the budget amendment [paragraph no. 26- ].
Vice Mayor Pryor moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Jensen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*26- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings Held on April 21, 2026 and the Special Meeting Held on April 29, 2026. Approved.
(*26- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,408,803.80.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to the Agreement with Blink Charging for up to $136,000 to Deploy a Public Electric Vehicle Fast Charger at Jean Sweeney Park. Accepted.
(26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase and Installation of Playground Equipment from Landscape Structures Inc. for Leydecker Park Playground Replacement in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $270,947.37.
Since Councilmember Boller recused himself, the item carried by unanimous vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Boller - 1.]
(*26- ) Resolution No. 16400, “Amending the Salary Schedule for Part-Time Classifications Effective May 31, 2026 to Reflect Changes to the City of Alameda Minimum Wage and to Maintain Adequate Differentials Between Part-Time Job Categories”. Adopted.
(*26- ) Resolution No. 16401, “Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held November 7, 2000 for the Alameda Library.” Adopted.
(26- ) Resolution No. 16402, “Amending the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget by Reducing Revenue and Appropriations in Capital Improvement Program C65200 by $185,000, Allocating $115,000 from Fund 305, Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) to Increase Revenue and Appropriations for Capital Improvement Program C65600 by $300,000 for the Central Avenue Safety Improvements Project.” Adopted.
Since Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote, the item carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Boller, Jensen, Pryor and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(*26- ) Resolution No. 16403, “Approving the Pavement Management Project be Funded Through the State of California’s Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account for Fiscal Year 2026-27.” Adopted.
(*26- ) Ordinance No. 3403, “Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute a Third Amendment to the Lease with Bayview Landing LP for Approximately 6.4 Acres of City-Owned Public Trust Tidelands Located at 1527 Buena Vista (Encinal Terminals).” Finally passed.
Continued Agenda Items
(26- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 12-2.3 (Location) of Article I (Parking Lots) of Chapter XII (Designated Parking) and by Repealing and Replacing current Section 12-4.12 (Reserved) of Article I (Parking Lots) in its Entirety to Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Establish and Modify Hours of Operation for the Civic Center Parking Structure. Introduced
The Parking Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Vice Mayor Pryor’s inquiry regarding cars left in the garage overnight, the Parking Manager stated staff has anticipated the scenario and will make the hours of garage operation clear with posted signage; the signage will indicate the facility will physically close at a certain time; if a vehicle is left at the facility, the owner will be able to retrieve it in the morning.
Vice Mayor Pryor inquired whether the odds of a vehicle owner receiving a citation for leaving a vehicle in the garage overnight are slim.
The Parking Manager responded staff’s practice is not to enforce and issue a citation; stated the practice could change but staff wants to ensure the users of the garage facility fully understand the operating hours; staff plans to incorporate information onto parking tickets.
Vice Mayor Pryor expressed concern over people leaving cars in the facility for an extended period of time; inquired whether closing the garage at night is centered around safety.
The Assistant City Manager responded people camp in the garage overnight at times; stated staff is trying to strike a balance of safety and security between the issues raised and the challenge of getting those who become entrenched in the garage, out of the facility; a citation could be issues for vehicles left overnight.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the citation penalty for leaving a vehicle in the garage overnight is the same as leaving a vehicle parked on the street or parked at an expired meter.
The Parking Manager responded currently, the City can use a variety of parking related citations; stated the fees are listed in the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) versus the City’s fee schedule; AMC violations typically range between $40 and $60 depending on the violation; the upcoming matter for Council consideration in June does not have a fine associated with leaving a vehicle in the facility overnight; staff will ensure the best suited fee is used.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the facility closure will occur automatically or manually by a staff member.
The Parking Manager responded staff plans to have one of its operators arrive at the facility about an hour before closing time; stated a staff member will walk around and through the stairwells to ensure the facility is free of life and vehicles; staff will be able to manually close the coiling doors at the stairwells and the drive aisle from the stairwell nearest the Alameda Theatre.
Councilmember Jensen stated there is the potential for vehicles to be locked inside the facility overnight; there is also the potential for people to be in vehicles.
The Parking Manager concurred with Councilmember Jensen; stated vehicles can be left inside.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the instance of people being left inside a vehicle could occur once the garage is closed overnight.
The Parking Manager responded that he cannot speak to the specific instance; stated that he is referencing the fact that vehicles could be left inside the facility; if the Parking Operator observes a person inside the vehicle during the closing hour, the Operator would try to make contact with the person, and let them know the facility is shutting down.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff would do everything possible to ensure no one is inadvertently left inside the facility, to which the Parking Manager responded in the affirmative.
The Assistant City Manager expressed support for City staff working collaboratively with all related departments on possible scenarios and finding the best practice responses to many circumstances.
The Parking Manager noted there has been a dramatic decrease in the types of behaviors previously observed due in large part to the services provided by Housing and Human Services.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the results of the 2026 Point in Time count; stated the City of Alameda’s homelessness count decreased by 46.8%, which is the largest decline within the County; the Civic Center Garage had people camped on almost every level in 2024; no one has been in the Civic Center Garage in 2026; she could sense the evident change due to staff and teams providing resources and services for people to come indoors and be housed; the work being done at the facility is a much better and more humane way to deal with people that need a place to stay.
Urged the Council to consider making the Alameda Avenue closure permanent; expressed concern over people not parking in the garage; expressed support for demand priced parking and residential parking permits: Mitch Ball, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation [introduction of the ordinance].
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Agenda Items
(26- ) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30-16 Inclusionary Housing Requirements for Residential Projects. Introduced.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director/Interim Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor Pryor stated there are three options for the rental housing projects; people that are very low income might have access to more funds from different agencies or groups; inquired whether the occurrence is typical.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the distinction is relative to Section 8 voucher holders.
Vice Mayor Pryor responded that is one example; stated if she were considered low income, the ordinance would be beneficial to her; Option 3 focuses on those that are very low income with 8% availability; inquired whether staff has the opinion of choosing Option 1 to benefit more people based on the understanding that people with low income will have less resources to supplement their income for housing.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director/Interim Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded there has been some confusion regarding the matter; stated staff is not asking Council to choose between the options; the intent is to provide all options within the ordinance for the developer to choose; noted Option 4 requires proof of economic similarity of other options.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated not just the developer should have the choice in option.
Expressed support for optionality; stated his Foundry project will be built utilizing Option 3: Sean Murphy, Pacific Development.
Expressed support for the ordinance and the Foundry project; outlined the letter he submitted: Thushan Amarasiriwardena, Alameda.
Discussed stumbling blocks to redevelopment; stated the proposal is progress in the right direction; urged Council to approve the ordinance: Teresa Ruiz, Alameda.
Made unrelated comments: Zac Thayer.
Made unrelated comments: Karin Kirschbaum.
Discussed the benefits of flexibility and small-scale developments; expressed support for the ordinance and urged approval: Andy Wang, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support; stated that he appreciates one of the developers is confident in their ability to move forward following the changes; Alameda and the Bay Area are in a housing crisis; anything the Council can do to alleviate the difficulty faced by so many in finding affordable housing is a welcome step.
Councilmember Boller stated the presentation references going for an exemption for 11 or fewer units rather than 4 or fewer; requested clarification on the exemption since so few projects qualify.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director/Interim Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated the exemption is a recommendation from the Planning Board that staff overlooked; staff does not see projects in the 5- to 11-unit range in Alameda; she is hopeful to see projects in the 5- to 11-unit range, however, they are not a prevalent product type; expressed support for the change being made even without the high priority.
Councilmember Boller inquired the reason for the change, to which the Base Reuse and Economic Development Director/Interim Planning, Building, and Transportation Director responded the result is due to policy and where the Bay Area is heading; stated there has been a lot of dialogue about missing middle housing and needing a smaller housing product that is cheaper to build; much of Alameda’s older housing stock has the same character that is not commonly built anymore; the housing product will be encouraged by addressing the inclusionary requirement to either make it fully exempt or remove the associated fee; the change will not likely effectuate a massive change or sudden construction of the missing middle housing product type but should still make it encouraged; small scale or local developers are constructing the middle housing product type.
Councilmember Boller displayed proposed language changes to Section 30-16.4(c); stated clarifying the language makes sense for any future interpretation; the intent is to provide equivalent terms; the additional phrase reads: “rather than representing a reduction in the overall affordable housing obligation;” noted that he does not understand the language to be an intent to make a change of less affordable housing, instead there will be a goal of more affordable housing; proposed the language modifications be added.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director/Interim Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated the proposed language fits with the spirit and intent of having different affordability levels; the language provides a record for posterity; the City is not letting developers off the hook by providing options; the options will require the same financial contribution; there will be less affordable overall units overall but the same affordable housing unit contribution will still be the result in terms of dollars and serving lower incomes; expressed support for the recommended change; stated the action is tricky due to using the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) term: economically equivalent, which is for transit-oriented community guidelines; the phrase does not impart providing fewer units at lower incomes with deeper subsidies, rather the same financial contribution is made which serves households with more needs; the requirements are not being changed, more context is being provided for the ordinance.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the phrase “representing a reduction in the overall affordable housing obligation” refers to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers; stated the RHNA amount is the City’s obligation; the amount is a set number; regardless of how the City looks at equivalency, there is not an ability to modify the RHNA obligation; questioned what the proposed language adds; requested clarification to be provided by the City Attorney’s Office.
Special Counsel stated the added phrase could be used; the intent is to say the inclusionary requirement in the ordinance can be met in several different ways; the RHNA obligation is separate.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the language is more than virtue signaling; requested clarification for the reasoning behind the proposed language.
Councilmember Boller responded the proposed language addition is not necessary; stated the language puts more emphasis on the intent of the legislation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for simplicity and directness of language.
The Assistant Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated staff supports the proposed language; understanding the paragraph has been difficult for many people; staff understands the need for further explanation to allow individuals to understand the choice in options in the future; the options are of equal value to the City; the proposed underlined text references the inclusionary housing requirement; the requirement does not indicate a reduction in the inclusionary housing obligation; staff’s intent is to be as clear as possible for future users of the ordinance.
Councilmember Boller stated that he does not have a strong feeling relative to the proposed language; the proposed language makes the paragraph generally clearer; the language does not need to be included if other Councilmembers do not agree.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not support the underlined language due to inaccuracy; the intent does not match the meaning.
Vice Mayor Pryor expressed support for the matter; stated the matter provides flexibility which helps launch projects; the language is not perfect but is a step in the right direction; there is a huge need; she is excited for low-income or very low-income projects and for providing the flexibility; expressed support for revisiting the ordinance on a regular basis; stated changes could be needed in the future; outlined the housing project requirement; stated homes were not being occupied due to residents being unable to provide the down payment; there is support for people to own homes; anything the City can do to provide the option should be supported; projects with 11 or fewer units should be considered due to the possible incentive to build.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry, the Assistant Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated the proposed language represents a fair amount of work; staff had a lot of existing work in 2022 including but not limited to adopting the Housing Element and a zoning text amendment over 100-pages long; it is not unusual for a Housing Element to identify any necessary future actions; the proposed language is part of identified issues resulting from workshops; staff knew there was a problem that would require efforted work to fix.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she understands staff did not know the impact of the ratios in the original ordinance, to which the Assistant Planning, Building, and Transportation Director concurred.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether Alameda would be further along in meeting its RHNA targets if the inclusionary ordinance been updated in 2022.
The Assistant Planning, Building, and Transportation Director responded regional, national, and economic conditions are the biggest issue slowing housing development; having the amendments completed four years prior would have been great and would have potentially allowed other projects to move forward during that time.
Councilmember Jensen expressed support for the language proposed by Councilmember Boller; stated that she would like the options to be clear and not eliminate inclusionary housing; the goal is to still have inclusionary housing units throughout the City; Section 30-16.6(b) of the ordinance relative to clustered developments is extensive; she initially had concerns regarding clustered housing being incompatible with inclusionary housing goals by distributing low-income units in concentrated areas; requested clarification for her understanding of clustered housing.
The Assistant Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated staff has done a number of clustered developments in Alameda; the Del Monte project has affordable housing clustered together with market rate housing in one building; Site A includes market rate townhome as well as the affordable units next door; clustered development has been found to work well in Alameda; a portion of development sites are dedicated in perpetuity to affordable units; when the ordinance was drafted in 2004, the affordable clusters were not an advanced thought; the City has been performing the same type of development without it being codified in the ordinance; staff would like to put the requirements and standards into the ordinance for future use; the ordinance also covers the possibility of offsite development standards.
Councilmember Jensen outlined the development conditions in 2004; noted much of Alameda was not able to be developed for expanded housing; expressed support for in lieu fees between 5 and 9 units; stated moderate income units are not adding value to development in Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the in-lieu fees are part of the current discussion or whether the matter will come before Council separately.
Councilmember Jensen noted the option is listed as an alternative.
Special Counsel stated the question is whether Council desires to adopt the Planning Board’s recommendation to exempt all projects under 11 units or keep the in-lieu fee.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important to acknowledge that there should be no stigma attached to affordable housing; the term can cause irrational fear for some; many people are hard pressed to find a difference in build quality between market rate and affordable housing; the flexibility of the matter is important and allows developers tools; the affordable housing units are listed at a high price due to the cost of living in the area; affordable housing units near transit stops help people in the units arrive to and from jobs faster; expressed support for not leaving the choice of affordable unit options solely in the hands of developers; stated the City knows best; she would like to include consultation from the Planning, Building, and Transportation Director.
The Assistant Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated there is an argument for allowing the developer to choose; staff tried to create choices with the philosophy that each choice is equally positive; staff understands developers exploring the possibility of pursuing a development project in Alameda need to begin math for the project with more certainty and not wait until the final Planning Board or City Council meeting; discussed a theoretical scenario and concern over not meeting the RHNA obligation close to the end of the cycle; the City might want the option of the Planning, Building, and Transportation Director indicating the City needs very low unit.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the option is not only to fulfil a formula; the formula was developed to address the need for different housing types; expressed support for the recommendation being provided in the beginning of the process so it does not cause a delay for the developer; expressed concern over the City providing the developer with all options and decision capabilities; discussed density bonus law options being utilized by developers; stated that she supports requiring review by the Planning, Building, and Transportation Director.
The Assistant Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated discussion of the option would occur on day one and allow for review; the exception would give the City the ability to pause and review.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the previous report to Council included discussion regarding the very low-income category; she recalls a statement indicating the need for less very low units due to the units being provided by the Alameda Housing Authority (AHA).
The Assistant Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated the City does need very low units; AHA does a great job of providing them, but more are needed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Milwaukee has the lowest number of homeless individuals per capita in the nation; stated Milwaukee’s Housing Authority puts unsheltered individual at the top of the list for Section 8 housing; expressed support for Alameda looking into providing the same approach and for the City doing as much as it can to enable ownership opportunities for first time home buyers; stated cities need to revisit accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinances to allow ADUs to be sold separately from the main house; currently, ADUs must be owned by the owner of the main property.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the matter just came before the Planning Board and will soon be coming to Council for consideration.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for removing the in-lieu fee requirement for units which might help fill the missing middle; stated removing the fee might increase demand for development; expressed concern over adding the underlined portion of Councilmember’s proposed language; stated that she would be okay with leaving the remainder as-is; she is generally okay with leaving draft language to staff’s discretion; expressed concern over the proposed language’s ambiguity.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether the proposed language could read: “…rather than representing a reduction in the inclusionary housing requirement…”
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not sure the additional language needs to be added; noted the phrase after the comma is not accurate.
Special Council stated the proposed edit does not pose an issue.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director/Interim Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated having the language state “inclusionary housing” would help clarify the requirement.
Councilmember Jensen expressed support for providing more flexibility since the proposed language will not reduce the burden and will maintain the requirements of low and very low-income housing; the City does not have a small box to place developers in with listed requirements; the City provides flexibility and has ordinances that typically maintain continuity; the matter is a good compromise; the City should not tie the hands of developers.
Councilmember Jensen moved approval of introduction of the ordinance with the additional language in Section 30-16.4.a: “The three options shown in the tables below are designed to require an equivalent subsidy. Therefore, an option with a lower percentage of affordable units requires a higher subsidy cost per unit than an option with a higher percentage of units, rather than representing a reduction in the inclusionary housing requirement. The developer may propose an economically equivalent ratio of affordable units in one or more affordability categories, which may be approved as part of the project entitlement based on a cost of subsidy analysis demonstrating rough equivalence to the basic requirement. Any such adjustment shall be approved by the Planning Board and may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 30-25.”
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Base Reuse and Economic Development Director/Interim Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated the MTC Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) policy guidelines indicates “fewer than 11 units” not “11 units or fewer;” stated 10 units can be exempted by the policy, which should be made consistent by revising the language in the ordinance.
Special Counsel inquired whether the City Council desires to accept the Planning Board recommendation to include the exemption for the MTC TOT compliance in Section 30-16.5(b); stated Section 30-16.6(a) regarding the in lieu fee option would be deleted, to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the removal of Section 30-16.6(a) still allows for the clustered development alternative, to which Special Counsel responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen further inquired whether the language does not add additional requirements for approval of the options.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the Assistant Planning, Building, and Transportation Director explained the initial consultation will be held between the Planning, Building, and Transportation Director and the developer.
Councilmember Jensen stated the initial meeting is not included as part of the staff recommendation.
Special Counsel stated the motion does not include adding at the discretion of the Planning, Building, and Transportation Director.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the addition being made.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she does not feel the addition is necessary.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there needs to be input from the City; staff has laid out the process succinctly; proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to include requiring initial consultation between the Planning, Building, and Transportation Director and the developer.
Vice Mayor Pryor inquired the new motion on the table.
The Assistant Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated staff has proposed language for Section 30-16.4(c); additional proposed language would read: “… , unless the Planning, Building, and Transportation Director determines that a particular option is essential to the City’s efforts to meet its RHNA or other policy objective, in which case the Planning, Building, and Transportation Director may recommend, and the approving Body may require an option that is different than the developer’s requested option…” staff provides the developer the option to choose.
Councilmember Jensen stated the proposed language does not establish any requirement unless there is an alternate need established by the Planning, Building, and Transportation Director.
The Assistant Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated the City provides the developer the option to choose, but the developer must check with the Planning, Building, and Transportation Director to ensure there is not currently an unusual situation where the Planning, Building, and Transportation Director would indicate that staff cannot support the developer’s desired choice.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the proposed language would require Planning Board review of every development project to determine whether the requested choice is permissible.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the proposed language indicates the decision falls at the discretion of the Planning, Building, and Transportation Director, not the Planning Board or City Council.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the approach is different than having a staff recommendation to adopt and approve an inclusionary housing option and whether each time a developer makes a selection, a setback could occur; expressed support for the proposed language beginning in 2028.
The Assistant Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated the only scenario where the Planning, Building, and Transportation Director would recommend a mandated option alternate to what the developer originally selected is during the end of the RHNA cycle where the City is very short on a particular kind of affordable housing.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the Assistant Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated almost all City development projects require Planning Board and/or City Council approval; some all-affordable projects only require ministerial review.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important for the City to meet its RHNA obligation.
Special Counsel stated the proposed language indicates the option is approved by the appropriate body.
Councilmember Boller stated the language is broad; the intent is to be narrow in a very unusual scenario down the line that hopefully is not a problem for the City; there is also intent to revisit the ordinance over time and make changes when needed; expressed support for Councilmember Jensen’s stance on the proposed language not being necessary; stated the proposed language creates too much of a barrier and uncertainty for developers.
***
(26- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she needs additional time; requested two more minutes.
Councilmember Boller moved approval of giving Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft two more minutes.
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter can almost be looked at as a pilot program; Council can revisit the ordinance in the future to check the status and review whether the types of housing products needed are being produced; ordinances can be amended; stated that she supports the motion made by Councilmember Jensen and rescinds her friendly amendment.
Following additional discussion, on the call for the question [including amending Section 30-16.4.a to change five to eleven, amending Section 30-16.4.c as stated, amending Section 30-16.5.b to change four units or less to less than eleven units, and deleting Section 30-16.6.a and renumbering subsequent sections], the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:21 p.m.
***
(26- ) Recommendation to Receive an Informational Report on the Status of City of Alameda Vacancies and Recruitment and Retention Efforts as Mandated by Government Code Section 3502.3.
The Human Resources Director gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry regarding Alameda Police Department (APD) vacancies, the Human Resources Director stated 21 positions is the average number of vacancies.
Councilmember Jensen further inquired whether the budgeted amount is for 88 positions.
The Human Resources Director responded the budgeted number of 88 positions is for total sworn positions at APD; stated total sworn positions includes Officers, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA), the Human Resources Director stated APOA includes 65 Police Officers and 12 Sergeants.
Vice Mayor Pryor stated the vacancy rates for Electric Utility Professionals Association (EUPA) and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) are roughly 14%; inquired whether the amount is typical and similar to the previous year.
The Human Resources Director responded the amount did increase from the prior year by a couple of percentage points; stated a few individuals left the City for a competing agency; of the 13 vacant positions, 10 have been filled; it is difficult to label the vacancies as normal or abnormal because attrition happens for a variety of reasons and is difficult to identify; increases in vacancies can result from excessive retirements which was seen post-pandemic and causes reported amounts to appear abnormal from prior years.
Councilmember Daysog stated staff provided a chart indicating the distribution of currently filled positions; the information shows an increase in Sergeant positions to 14; expressed support for the increase; stated some Police Officers are ready to take the next step to Sergeant.
The Human Resources Director stated the number of allocated Police Sergeants is not increasing and is remaining at 12; the information breakdown provided by staff includes a breakdown of where staff plans on being after filling positions within the next month and projecting out to December 2026; staff is anticipating some retirements at the Sergeant position level; staff tries to anticipate potential resignations and plans accordingly; the breakdown illustrates how APD is looking ahead and trying to be proactive knowing that the onboarding process can be lengthy.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the Sergeant positions staying at 12; discussed the Police Captain position; stated that he understands Police stay in Alameda; inquired whether the City is not increasing Police Captain positions from two to three.
The Human Resources Director responded the number of allocated Police Captain positions is three; historically, the position was at two, but an additional Captain classification was added in 2024.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the additional position allowing for Police staff to move up in positions; noted the top line of 88 sworn Police positions indicates the amount of street Police Officers is 65; stated the freeze of hiring no more than 76 sworn Officers translates to 53 street Police Officers maximum which is 12 less than historic staffing amounts which is concerning.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of accepting the report.
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(26- ) Resolution No. 16404, “Establishing a City Council Meeting Technology Disruption Policy.” Adopted.
The City Clerk gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the rationale for the sunset date of January 1, 2030.
The City Clerk responded that it is possible the legislature had been mimicking a similar sunset as the provisions set forth during the pandemic; stated there is the possibility the provision will be extended; noted the City has done a great job in continuing access to public meetings and never stopped remote access; many other cities stopped allowing remote participation; Alameda is ahead of the curve while other cities are scrambling to get remote participation back up and running; noted cities in areas with prevalent rolling blackouts are also susceptible to disruptions; stated hopefully, Alameda should have issues.
Councilmember Boller moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
City Manager Communications
None.
Oral Communications, Non-Agenda
None.
Council Referrals
None.
Council Communications
(26- ) Vice Mayor Pryor discussed attending the Alameda Alliance for Health 30th anniversary event, a Skin and Strand grand opening, and a ribbon cutting for the McKay Wellness Center.
(26- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed attending a press conference announcing the 2026 Point in Time count results, a walking and driving tour of Alameda Point for District Directors of Senators Padilla and Schiff, an Innovation Island awards ceremony put on by the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, and Bike to Wherever and Bike to School Day at Edison School followed by City Hall; announced the upcoming Soccer World Cup and Alameda hosting the Australian Soccerroos; discussed a meeting at Barbara Lee’s office regarding security efforts and considerations; announced the honorary Grand Marshall for the Fourth of July Parade would be Lateefah Simon, followed by the Alameda Fire Department Fire Chief since the Fire Department will be celebrating 150 years of service.
(26- ) Councilmember Jensen discussed attending Bike to Anywhere Day at Otis Elementary School; outlined the change in location from Otis Elementary to Lum School and working with APD to ensure safety during the relocation; discussed a recent Alameda Waste Authority StopWaste meeting regarding reusable food ware; stated that she attended Buena Vista Methodist Church’s Spring Bazaar and met with representatives from the Wadi Foquin Sister Cities foundation; expressed concerns over delays in bringing forth the matter forth and departures of City staff; expressed support for bringing forth the matter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Wadi Foquin proposal has come before the City Council and was not previously supported.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.