Title
Minutes of the Continued March 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Held on March 30, 2021 and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on April 6, 2021. (City Clerk)
Body
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED MARCH 16, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -MARCH 30, 2021- -5:30 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:32 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom]
Absent: None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(21- ) Recommendation to Consider Options for the Alameda Police Department's Emergency Response Vehicle.
The Interim Police Chief gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the estimated time of arrival if the City borrows an armored vehicle from another city.
The Interim Police Chief responded the soonest a vehicle could arrive under ideal circumstances would be 20 minutes from the City of Oakland; stated the amount of time to make the operator request with no central system must be considered and time may increase due to traffic.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City of Alameda has borrowed an armored vehicle from another City.
The Police Captain responded in the affirmative; stated prior to the City having its own armored vehicle, the City borrowed an armored vehicle for pre-planned events with ample time to reach out to local agencies.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City of Alameda has not borrowed an armored vehicle for an emergency, to which the Police Captain responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is considered a pre-planned event.
The Police Captain responded a pre-planned event would be a Police incident prepared for at least 14 days in advance; stated arrest warrants considered high-risk use the vehicle for more control over serving the warrant and handling the incident.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what staff thinks about the proposed policy in the Mayor’s correspondence, as opposed to the City’s policy and proposed alternative shown in the staff report.
The Interim Police Chief responded staff believes the policy shown in the correspondence is consistent with use of the vehicle; stated staff has no problem expanding the policy to the proposed Berkeley policy.
Discussed the Council meeting of June 2020 referencing selling the armored vehicle; stated that he is surprised to see the matter come up nine months later; discussed the staff report and vehicle use; stated the vehicle has only been used three times in Alameda with two of the three times using it as a loud speaker; the matter reads as mildly deceptive; noted Berkeley has purchased a bullet-proof van: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Stated the three vehicle uses in Alameda were for protection or cover instances and none were related to active shooter incidents; that she does not see using the vehicle for de-escalation; noted two incidents from 2016 are missing from the detailed report; the vehicle has been overwhelmingly used in other cities; questioned the training costs for medics; stated medically trained professionals should respond to mental health situations; discussed a recent shooting in Colorado: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Discussed his experience as a Berkeley Police Reserve Officer during a shooting at Henry’s Pub; stated law enforcement tactics have had to adjust to lessons learned from several mass shootings; an Officer has to go out and engage to reports of an active shooter; if an Officer fails, Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team and Ballistic Armored Tactical Transport (BATT) are deployed to end the shooting; expressed concern about giving up local control of the equipment; stated taking away the equipment sends the wrong message; urged Council to tighten up the use policy: Michael Robles-Wong, Alameda.
Discussed the June 24, 2020 Council meeting; stated the decision to sell the vehicle has been tested; urged Council to have the integrity to do what is right and stand up for racial justice; stated the Alameda Police Department (APD) has used the vehicle three times in eight years; discussed the three vehicle uses; stated the choice is clear: Erin Fraser, Alameda.
Stated that she is confused why the vehicle is still present and questioned how APD is able to push to keep the vehicle; the vehicle is unnecessary, is a waste of taxpayer dollars and is not used as intended; discussed vehicle incident reports; stated the arguments to keep the vehicle are irrelevant due to previous Council discussion, debate and vote; discussed the recent event of a man waiving a gun at protestors; stated the vehicle is subjectively used; urged Council to keep its word and ensure the vehicle is sold: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.
Urged Council to follow through on the unanimous recommendation from June 2020 to sell the armored vehicle; stated the vehicle is a symbol and is not used often; outlined an incident of a man with a gun during the Martin Luther King (MLK) Day protest; urged the City to have actions speak louder than words and follow through on the previous promise: Laura Cutrona, Alameda.
Urged Council to retain the vehicle, not sell; stated the lives of Officers and citizens can be saved in extraordinary situations and conditions; discussed the example of an Officer or citizen being shot during an active shooter situation; stated the vehicle is the only and safest way to attempt rescuing injured victims; the vehicle is not used often; however, it is handy when tragedy occurs; the vehicle is fully paid for and the maintenance costs are minimal; the vehicle is not military surplus equipment and is not indicative of APD militarization; the vehicle is a tool to be used in violent confrontations to help maximize Officer and citizen safety: Burny Matthews, Alameda.
Urged Council to keep the vehicle; stated previous Council discussion around selling the vehicle occurred when crime was not as high; there have been a number of shootings and members of the community have been held at gunpoint; discussed incidents in Colorado and Georgia; stated APD needs to understand that the City backs them 100% and wants to keep them safe; selling the vehicle sends a message that the City does not care about APD and their safety; discussed APD hiring difficulties: Colleen Arnerich, Alameda.
Discussed the budget and funding being used for training purposes and for the vehicle; stated there are issues for people experiencing mental health crises more frequently than matters requiring the vehicle; the matter is about putting priorities and funding where best served to keep the entire community safe; urged Council sell the vehicle and put the training and funding for maintenance into ways which can serve the community: Beth Kenny, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has an important decision to make; Council must ensure decisions are well-reasoned, well thought out and rational; decisions are not made for symbolism and are based on facts and data; noted modification to the staff report was at her request to the City Manager; the decision before Council is whether Council should direct the City Manager to sell the emergency response vehicle; there have been no allegations of misuse of the vehicle; Council recently heard recommendations and a lengthy report from the Police Reform and Racial Justice Subcommittees; none of the committees recommended selling the vehicle; every other Bay Area city Police Department has an emergency response vehicle; she takes very seriously the health and safety of residents and those who work and visit the City; she pays special heed to the head of the Department of Homeland Security who has outlined the heightened risk of domestic terror; several e-mails received from residents have used the analogy of an insurance policy; the analogies are apt; she reached out to Mayor Jesse Arreguin about the City of Berkeley’s emergency response vehicle policy; stated that she is impressed with the policy and requested the policy be attached to the staff report; strongly urged Council to move forward with retaining the vehicle and requiring a use policy similar to the City of Berkeley; the purpose of the policy is to provide direction about usage, training and storage of the vehicle; the goal is to safely resolve incidents where an objective risk to the safety of civilians or Officers exists from a person or persons who may be considered armed and dangerous; use of the vehicle will only be authorized by the Special Response Team, Commander or team leader, unless exigent circumstances exist; the policy outlines when the vehicle shall not be used; the policy will require a usage log, which would be provided to Council on an annual basis or any time requested by Council; provisions for operator training will be included; as part of the rescue team, supervisors should consider hostage negotiators, special response, medic or tactical emergency support personnel; the vehicle must always have an operator and someone from APD; expressed support for a robust Council conversation; considering what makes Alameda different from every other Bay Area city to not allow this tool; stated the vehicle is not for militaristic use or use on peaceful protests; having the vehicle helps in the instance where lives could be saved.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s request about the history, the City Manager stated Council previously approved the budget with different considerations including reductions in the Police Department due to protests after last Memorial Day; the vehicle became a component of the motion in passing the budget; the Police Department believed that not all information had been considered since the focus was on the budget; he wanted to come back and have Council review the matter by itself; the delay is partially due to staff and other agenda items.
The Police Captain stated the matter was brought to his attention mid-August 2020; he felt that he owed it to APD to present the other side; a Council report was drafted to explain the importance of the vehicle to the Department and Alameda citizens; he would like to ensure the City is prepared to handle any incident as quickly and safely as possible.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been public comments related to the 33 instances of use; 30 uses were for mutual aid and three uses were within the City of Alameda; inquired whether the use of the vehicle impacts the recommendation to retain the vehicle.
The Interim Police Chief responded APD is similar to the Fire Department; stated cities need each other to supply aid whether it be a canine, motorcycle Officers or other equipment, such as the vehicle; exchange of equipment and personnel between cities is goodwill between communities and also acts as a force multiplier when an adequate amount of Officers or equipment is not available; being able to loan the vehicle out is building goodwill in knowing Alameda can call on other cities if need be; he is thankful the vehicle is not used often within the City of Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s question is whether the use impacts the recommendation to retain.
The Interim Police Chief responded in the negative; outlined terms of the emergency nature of deploying the vehicle; stated seconds count and the ability to deploy in a hurry is needed; the metaphor of an insurance policy is apt.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been comments related to racial equity, subjective use, racial justice and militarization; inquired whether APD staff can provide response to the comments.
The Interim Police Chief responded the vehicle is not used based on race; that he questioned whether the vehicle should have been deployed at the MLK Day incident; stated the incident evolved so rapidly that the vehicle was not deployed; use of the vehicle is not based on race or any other protected class; the vehicle is used based on the need to provide public safety.
Councilmember Knox White stated regarding the Police and Equity Committees not addressing the vehicle, a recommendation would have been odd due to Council’s unanimous decision to sell; if the City moves forward with maintaining the vehicle based on the compelling argument that the vehicle may be the point between life and death in the case of an active shooter, Council should ensure the policy limits the vehicle to occurrences with an active shooter; Berkeley has staging off-site for quick deployment in the event of an active shooter situation; there is a reason the vehicle is not painted in the City’s colors; the vehicle is intimidating and does not look like any other City vehicle; the City of Emeryville has an armored Ford Transit vehicle that looks like an average vehicle; the City’s vehicle is designed to intimidate and scare people; there is an impact when the vehicle drives into the community; discussed an eviction in West Oakland utilizing an armored vehicle; stated that he would like to see use of the vehicle limited to address specific issues and not loan it out as backup for pre-planned events in other cities; one of the incidents in deploying the vehicle consisted of directing traffic during a parade and demonstration; the vehicle has been used in places where the there was no threat of shooting; noted the former Police Chief spoke about using the vehicle in a number of local protests; expressed support for narrowing the scope to meet the community’s need for the vehicle.
Councilmember Daysog stated the staff report says it all in the Executive Summary: “the emergency response vehicle is a critical tool to assist the Police Department in keeping the citizens of Alameda safe;” he hopes there will never be a tragic situation in Alameda which requires the use of such a vehicle; should a tragic situation unfold, the City must be sure to use the vehicle and help safeguard residents and the Police force; Council should reconsider the June 2020 vote; the City should keep the vehicle; it is unknown what will happen; the ability to act swiftly is imperative during a crisis; expressed concern about policies which amount to checklists that require the Police to wait a certain amount of time in order to satisfy checklist review; stated that he likes the way the current policy reads: “permission to utilize the vehicle will come from the CERT commander during SWAT operations or a supervisor in high risk incidents falling outside of the scope of a CERT operations…;” the City is depending on the professional judgement of staff to interpret the circumstances; Council needs to provide the discretion to act quickly; expressed support for sending the vehicle out even if it is not used; noted in situations of active shooters, the preference is not to wait.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Berkeley policy is three pages long and is not as much a checklist, rather it provides criteria for objective risk and situation assessment; the use is left to professionals; expressed support for a more spelled out policy; noted the Interim Police Chief has expressed support for the Berkeley policy and said the policy could easily be implemented in Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she shares Councilmember Knox White’s concerns; Council previously voted on the matter; she understands there is confusion on matters returning to Council when a unanimous vote of Council has occurred; Council should not be so cavalier with deploying a vehicle when not needed; a message is sent having the vehicle deployed in any neighborhood and driving around town; Council has received e-mails when Oakland’s tactical vehicle was parked on Park Street; Council needs to be careful due to the symbolism; the vehicle is not normal, is not an armored van, which other cities have, and is not inconspicuous; discretion is a tricky thing; while it is nice to have discretion, there will be times where a disagreement occurs on whether or not the vehicle should have been deployed; there is an issue with the existing policy showing a lot of discretion should Council desire to reverse course from previous direction; Council needs to curtail the amount of available discretion when deploying such a different vehicle; Council must be clear about when the vehicle should be deployed as well as placing a limit on use; expressed concern about fear mongering; stated the intent is not to deploy the vehicle at any given event; Council must be critical of when the vehicle is deployed and ensure the vehicle is not being used for crowd control measures or intimidation of free speech; Council cannot curtail free speech as part of the Code of Conduct; expressed support for Council being thoughtful in putting checks on the use of the vehicle.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read from the Berkeley vehicle policy: “the vehicle shall not be deployed during non-violent demonstrations, including for crowd control and management absent specific articulable objective facts demonstrating a risk of injury or death to Police Officers and or the public;” stated Council needs to limit the discretion; the limits are well spelled out in the Berkeley policy; inquired whether Councilmember Knox White would consider supporting painting the vehicle.
Councilmember Knox White responded that he does not want to spend a lot of money on the vehicle if it is kept; stated that he would prefer the vehicle not be out and active to reduce the impact; it is okay if the vehicle needs to be repainted; however, spending $15,000 to paint the vehicle is not desired.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of retaining the vehicle and adopting an Emergency Response Vehicle Policy similar or identical to the City of Berkeley policy.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would second the motion with leaving out the reference to Berkeley; staff returning with a policy similar to Berkeley would be okay; reversing the decision is important; the existing policy is fine; he does not buy-off on City of Berkeley’s policy at this time.
***
(21- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested two additional minutes of speaking time.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of giving two more minutes for everyone.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which required four affirmative votes and failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of giving the Mayor two more minutes.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she wants to see a policy similar to the current City of Berkeley Police Department policy.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of reversing the June 2020 Council decision to sell the armored vehicle.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she wants to come back to the paint and intimidation issue; she agrees with Councilmembers and members of the public who have concerns; inquired whether images of the vehicle can be displayed; stated the vehicle is smaller than some Alameda Fire Department (AFD) vehicles; inquired the reason the vehicle is painted the existing color, whether APD is agreeable to painting the vehicle and whether there are recommendations to addressing the issue of matching City vehicles.
The City Clerk displayed photos of the vehicle.
The Interim Police Chief responded the vehicle does not need to be green; stated the color is not important from a Department standpoint; he understands the concerns.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he will provide another motion related to policy after a vote is taken on the current motion.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of retaining the vehicle and temporarily keeping the current policy until staff can return with a recommendation looking at both the Alameda and Berkeley policy for Council to decide.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the City Clerk re-read the motion.
The City Clerk stated the motion is to approve retaining the vehicle and keeping the current policy until staff comes back looking at Alameda and Berkeley’s policy to decide at that time whether the vehicle will be retained.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated when the matter returns, Council can focus on the policy; noted that she has not had a chance to zone in on the policy as much as she would like; Council can decide to reverse the decision and not retain the vehicle; stated that she would like to look at the policies; staff and other Councilmembers can look into other cities policies and propose alternates.
Councilmember Daysog confirmed his second of the motion.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he cannot support the motion; there has been enough unanimous Council direction for policies to come back that have been sitting out for up to 18 months; this is a recipe for never seeing the policy again; the matter has had nine months; he is not sure the reason the proposed policies were not presented with the matter; if the June 2020 Council direction is reversed, clarity of intentions must be provided, even if the clarity is to provide guidance about the policy and a date certain for the policy to return to Council.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated an Attorney may need to weigh-in; a motion had been made that she was not in support of; staff is able to return with a policy proposal for Council consideration and community input.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer amended her motion to approve retaining the vehicle and utilizing the Berkeley policy until another policy can be recommended by staff and return to Council for consideration and changes.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a date certain needs to be included.
Councilmember Knox White responded Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s motion is cleaner in adopting Berkeley’s policy and allowing for changes to be made when the matter returns.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her preference is to have the policy come back in the next couple of meetings to ensure the public and Council can focus on the policy.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the best of both worlds would be to retain the vehicle, adopt the Berkeley policy but have the policy return to Council in one month for further review and modification.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog withdrew his second.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is willing to second the motion; offered a friendly amendment to add direction to staff to come back with some form of active shooter focus; noted Berkeley’s policy does not change the existing policy much.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the reference to the Berkeley policy remains, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like staff to return with proposed language for narrowing down to active shooter; Council can choose whether or not to adopt when it returns.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer agrees to the modification to the motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the modification is in addition to the proposed language of the Berkeley policy, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the modification to the motion.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Interim Police Chief stated that staff is comfortable with the Berkeley policy being the policy adopted by Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated it is important that the Interim Police Chief feels that his judgement is satisfied with the Berkeley Police policy; he is not going to second guess professionals; the Interim Police Chief is going to put the life of his men and women on the line; expressed concern about the Police force being bogged down with process questions during an emergency situation; stated if the Police are satisfied with the Berkeley policy, he will not second guess staff.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has accepted the friendly amendments; part of the reason to have the policy return is to allow the public an opportunity to look at other policies and provide edits.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 6:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 6:55 p.m.
***
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(21- ) The City Manager announced the League of Women Voters and Communication Action for a Sustainable Alameda are holding an event on building electrification on April 8th; staff is addressing a continuation of the Alameda Swimming Pool Association Lease.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21- ) Puttichai Butsangde, Alameda, discussed hate crimes against Asians; stated there has been an 150% increase in Asian hate crimes the past two years; discussed crime statistics and incidents from January 28, 2021, March 9, 2021 and March 18, 2021; stated an increase in Police presence creates a conflict in the community; it is important to improve the relationship between the community and Police.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
(21- ) Councilmember Knox White announced the Youth Activists of Alameda have been organizing a rally on Zoom for tomorrow at 5:15 p.m. followed by an in-person rally at Chochenyo Park at 7:00 p.m. and information is housed at: https://www.alamedaca.gov/Shortcut-Content/Events-Activities/Community-Event-Vigil-for-Asian-Lives.
(21- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced there are 38 participants on Zoom.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21- ) Consider Establishing a New Methodology by which the Number of Housing Units are Calculated for Parcels Zoned C-2-PD (Central Business District with Planned Development Overlay). (Councilmember Daysog)
Councilmember Daysog gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated the successful No on Z campaign came from the understanding the need for more housing and modern apartments which are not consistent with the historic Measure A however, the need to balance the amount of new housing in a way supported by the island structure is also understood; many of the sites noted are within the historic built-out areas within the Otis Drive, South Shore and Fernside Drive areas.
Stated the proposed methodology change would violate the State Housing Crisis Act: Senate Bill (SB) 330; discussed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and Measure Z; stated Council needs to consider how these types of changes are going to prevent meeting the needs allocation; the zoned areas in Alameda are going to be critical for the City’s attempt to have a Housing Element that conforms to State law; the task will be made even harder for Planning staff; urged Council not to take action on the referral: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City is in the process of a General Plan update, which includes an update to the Housing Element; inquired how the update meshes with the Council Referral.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the City is in the midst of a Housing Element update; stated under State Law, the City is required to update the General Plan and Zoning Code to accommodate the RHNA, which has been established at approximately 5,400 units; the City needs to up-zone large areas of Alameda to accommodate the State mandate; changing the way the City calculates density to reduce the number of units on shopping centers will only increase the need to increase housing units in other places within the City; the effort is currently underway and will take roughly one year; matters will go to the Planning Board in the Spring/Summer of 2022 and will come before Council in the Fall; staff can integrate proposed ideas into the broad range of concepts being reviewed; a Planning Board subcommittee has been set up to help make recommendations to the full Planning Board and Council; the City cannot downzone property without up-zoning other property; the State and the City are in the midst of a housing crisis; a State Law on the books notes that cities cannot downzone without up-zoning elsewhere; the City is looking at an up-zone now and can integrate ideas into the planning process; the City will eventually have to find land and zone appropriately for 5,400 units; the City will determine how many units to place on each site over the next 12 months.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter is part of an ongoing public process, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated comments from the Planning, Building and Transportation Director are spot on; if Council allows for a lower amount of housing on shopping centers, the City might have to look elsewhere to make up the difference in housing units; there are places to look into, which would make better sense; noted Alameda Point has space in the Enterprise District; stated there will be transportation options for the area; expressed support for lower housing at South Shore by placing excess at Alameda Point; stated infrastructure is being put in to support additional housing at Alameda Point; he is making a case to change the methodology since the amount of new housing is unsustainable; stated that he does not know the overall number; he does not support 5,400 being the allocation number; recommended Council engage in the discussion to determine where to put the amount of housing in a place that makes the most sense; changing the Enterprise District to allow housing will not be easy; however, there are opportunities.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff needs to look at the best places to put housing first; the Housing Element schedule makes the same argument; Alameda Point and Encinal Terminals are great places to put housing; the sites and entitlements will be brought to Council early in the process; the two sites equate for up to 2,000 of the 5,4000 housing units; however, the sites require a supermajority Council approval; without a supermajority vote, staff will not know whether the City can afford to downzone or reduce the capacity at shopping centers; staff would have to include significantly more units at shopping centers.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many votes are needed to amend the Zoning Code.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded three votes for the Zoning Code and four votes to approve housing at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of rejecting the referral while providing no direction for discussion; if the matter is included as part of something that stems from community discussions with the Planning Board and is recommended to Council, the discussion can occur; the community and Planning Board should do their work before Council begins to spot zone specific pieces of property.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the issues can be raised during the process, which is already in the works; it is important that the matter is discussed; questioned how the process will work.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he has extended an invitation to Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT) and Paul Foreman via e-mail; noted a Planning Board subcommittee is working with City staff; staff is encouraging all members of the community and interest groups to participate and provide good ideas; staff will be notifying ACT and Mr. Foreman when public meetings will occur; staff can currently integrate the proposal.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the outreach.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the topics should be discussed; however, it is premature to discuss it now; the process should be public; a number of pieces of State legislation are being contemplated; outlined an upcoming meeting where many housing topics will be considered, including measures which will make building housing on shopping centers easier for a number of reasons; expressed support for a more public discussion of the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that his objective in bringing the referral was to: 1) lessen the amount of new housing on shopping center zones largely because many of the sites are within historic neighborhoods, which have already been built-out, and 2) recognize that Council must also have a conversation that lessening new housing units at shopping centers requires the amount to be made up elsewhere; Alameda Point is a natural place due to the infrastructure being put in place to support it; he is not against housing; Alameda is an Island with a limited number of ingress and egress.
Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about staff meeting with the same anti-housing group; stated that he would like a broad outreach plan; the direction is not to include the referral in the discussion; stated Council is not providing any direction on the matter; there is not a lot of support for integrating the matter into existing work unless there is broad community support.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(21- ) Consider Directing Staff to Provide an Update on a Previously Approved Referral regarding Free Public WiFi throughout the City. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Stated that he would like having access to free WiFi; he is not able to get WiFi at certain times; noted Peets Coffee, Taco Bell and McDonalds have WiFi typically accessible from the parking lot; providing WiFi in the City would affect the education of people across the City and will be worth the cost: Benhamish Allen, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting the Council Referral, and having staff return with an update on the status of getting free WiFi in parts of the community which will be accessible from outside of buildings and to incorporate alternative ways of connecting to the internet.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the information sought is valuable, valid and timely; the request could have been put into an e-mail to staff for a quicker response; noted many Council Referrals could have been handled as an inquiry to staff; stated there might be more effective ways to provide information; announced that she will be reviving the Rules of Order subcommittee of herself and Councilmember Knox White to look into how to streamline and improve the Council Referral process; expressed concern about matters waiting a long time.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is not looking to send an e-mail; she would like to have a substantive discussion on the merits when staff returns and allow for public and Council interaction; she understands staff does not have the information at this time.
Vice Mayor Vella requested clarification from staff; expressed concern about the associated costs and implementation timeline; the budget is upcoming; she is concerned about voting one-offs, which could prove costly outside of the budget.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether Vice Mayor Vella would prefer to have a motion include a referral to the budget for consideration.
Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; stated the matter could be part of the budget considerations.
Councilmember Knox White noted that he and the Information Technologies Director had previously met with the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) and Common Networks to determine a process; stated the process is significantly less easy than initially contemplated; expressed concern about turning Council Referrals into calls for staff reports where staff is present at meetings; Council Referrals are a time for Council to discuss whether staff resources are to be used; a presentation has been made on the Smart Cities Program; he will not be supporting the motion, not because the matter is not useful; the City has a lot of work underway and what is currently being done is easily answered by e-mail.
The Information Technology Director stated staff went to Council last December to move forward with the Smart City Master Plan, which includes a Communications Master Plan, with the idea that consultants will work together with internal departments and focus groups throughout the community; staff launched the project in December and has met with Alameda County (AC) Transit, Alameda business districts, AUSD, College of Alameda and many other focus groups; staff has determined the need to target specific areas of the City to provide Smart City solutions, including public WiFi; staff is hoping to bring the matter to Council in May.
Councilmember Daysog stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer is noting a specific problem and wants to stand on behalf of constituents that are often left out of the equation; a lens is being brought to the topic that is worthy of having; expressed support for the lens of equity; stated it is nice to hear about the areas considered; public WiFi should be mindful of serving often forgotten constituents; the matter would be a missed opportunity and Council should not lose the special communities in the shuffle of the communication strategy.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated everything done by the City is done looking through a lens of equity; the Information Technologies Director has done many things to help families in the School District; noted focus groups are being included as part of the discussion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it has been over a year that people have been excluded from any means of communicating via online access; expressed support for the City having a plan to look at providing WiFi across the City; stated that she hopes there is a way to have certain places with WiFi accessible outside in the meantime; questioned whether there are members of the business districts willing to step up and help people; the problem is serious; the School District is helping families with children; senior citizens and unemployed people cannot continue to wait for the most grandiose plan offered; she is disappointed that she does not hear urgency other than Councilmember Daysog; she is shocked that anyone would think the Council is serving the community by taking this long to come up with a place for people; people often go to Mastick Senior Center, Starbucks and Peets, which are not available; expressed support for a drive-up or walk-up access point sooner rather than later; urged Council to recognize the seriousness of the matter; stated that she is waiting for Council to step up.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Information Technology Direct came to Council back in December; requested the motion be restated.
The City Clerk stated the motion is to adopt the Referral and have staff come back with alternative connections being considered.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
(21- ) Consider Directing Staff to Extend Webster Street Physical Improvements/ Beautification. (Councilmember Daysog)
Councilmember Daysog gave a brief presentation.
Stated that he likes Webster Street’s lights; he has noticed quite a few broken lights in the past few months and people sleeping on park and bus benches; expressed support for the speed limit being lowered to 15 miles per hour on Webster Street due to jaywalking: Benhamish Allen, Alameda.
Stated that she supports the Referral; the matter is a wonderful idea and benefits all citizens and visitors; urged Council support the restoration of historic facades: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of directing the City Manager and Economic Development Department to engage the Webster Street stakeholders about what kind of beautification landscaping might be done north of Webster Street; stated there are cost implications for the matter; however, the initial reconnaissance can be conducted; once the initial stage is completed, specific strategies can be formed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella questioned whether the area discussed is more than 500 feet away from Councilmember Daysog’s home, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he really enjoys the new building at the College of Alameda; now is the time to start engaging.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether anyone has requested the matter be brought forth.
Councilmember Daysog responded no one; stated that he would like the City Manager to use his professional expertise to sound out stakeholders.
Councilmember Knox White stated the City has an active Transportation Program Plan that looks at how to encourage people to walk and bike within business districts; this matter likely belongs within the Transportation Program Plan; expressed concern about jumping another transportation and business improvement project to the top of the line when Council has already given much direction on similar projects; he will not be supporting the motion; he would not be against the business districts making a request or it coming out in process.
Councilmember Daysog stated the points raised are valid; there are active Transportation Plans; however, the plans are transit related; the current matter is focused on other features, such as landscaping and light features; if stakeholders ask to move forward with the active transportation components faster, that is okay.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she likes the renovations done to Webster Street; she would like to see a list of Council priorities shown during Council Referrals; there is no point in setting priorities in order of importance if they are not going to be achieved by directing staff time and City resources towards the goals; matters do come along at times and should be addressed; however, it is difficult to know where this particular matter would fit into the priority list.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Referral is appropriate and is exactly what Referrals are supposed to be; there appears to be an effort to discourage Referrals; Council has a process for Referrals; she plans to support the matter; Council can provide feedback; the matter does not appear to be extraordinary; she does not expect Commissions to be the only ones allowed to raise issues; Council is elected by the people; it is appropriate for a Councilmember to make a recommendation; Council is not dependent on Commissioners as the only ones to weigh-in on important issues.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the report has listed the matter as important and urgent.
Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is appropriate as a Referral; the Referral process is to see whether or not there are at least three votes to prioritize and expend staff time on the issue; the process had been developed specifically due to a prior Councilmember giving direction to staff outside of Council discussions; Council has done a lot of work to set priorities and has set Boards and Commissions in a direction to work on said priorities; Boards and Commissions collect community input to provide recommendations to Council; Council has the final say; he thinks there is enough going on and projects are having a hard enough time continuing to move forward due to staff being inundated; expressed support for deeming the matter not a priority, while not making a statement on whether or not the project is good; the project may come out of one of the plans already underway.
Councilmember Daysog stated the matter is being brought forward because Webster Street beautification stopped at Pacific Avenue; Webster Street, north of Pacific Avenue, has been waiting a long time; with much excitement in the area, it is time to stop treating the area as the ugly step child; the area is full of potential; in putting together a landscaping beautification strategy, Council will be having the City Manager work with stakeholders so the area can realize its potential.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City has expended a significant amount of money on Webster Street between the Cross Alameda Trail improvements and some of the other bulb outs and platforms; other beautification options is a question of the bigger plan relative to multimodal transit review, including pedestrian access and other safety measures; a premium needs to be placed on making all modes of transit safer; safety should come before expenditures of staff time and money to prioritize making something look nice; the first step is to ensure the safety and functionality for pedestrians and cyclists, which is part of the ongoing process; Council must let the process play out; there are expenditures all over the City, including for Webster Street; she is not prepared to support the motion at this time.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the way an area looks matters to people; there are long stretches of Webster Street without any trees that need maintenance; safety is appreciated; the environment and respect for the area and the people in the area should be considered; the neglect of the area has gone on for many years; outline inequities between Park Street and Webster Street; stated Council can do more; community members would be happy to pay for tree planting; however, the City does need to step up; expressed support for staff working with the community and those who left behind.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would be disappointed in Council if there not be three votes for the matter; the recommendation should be a no-brainer; the rest of Webster Street has been waiting quite a while; expressed support for the Cross-Alameda Trail and Jean Sweeney Park; questioned how to counter-balance the many liquor stores of the area with beautification that is welcoming.
Vice Mayor Vella stated it is one thing to look through an equity lens; questioned the importance of transit equity and ensuring safe, multimodal access; hardscapes are being worked on; the beautification portion follows the hardscaping; hardscaping and safe street design must be complete and landscape follows; expressed concern about jumping the gun on the matter and spending money planting trees at intersections that might need other things; her intent is not to say the City should not make Webster Street as nice looking as possible, it is to say there is a clear and laid out process that takes into account a number of different things.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
(21- ) Consider Directing Staff to Review an “Adopt a Spot” Traffic Triangle, Traffic Circle and Traffic Corners Program. (Councilmember Daysog)
Councilmember Daysog gave a brief presentation.
Stated that he likes traffic triangles; discussed fairy doors in Alameda and a mural on Webster Street; questioned the ways in which someone would be allowed to artistically express themselves within the traffic triangle: Benhamish Allen, Alameda.
Stated that she appreciates the efforts to beautify the City; the idea is great and would have an overall positive effect on Alameda and will help build community: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Stated that he does not have strong feelings on the issue; the matter raises a question whether there is a problem which needs solving; if people wish to beautify the City, there is an existing process to go through; he does not understand why an additional process is needed; expressed support for beautification of his street: Erin Fraser, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of having the City Manager and City Attorney staff review and evaluate Berkeley and Oakland’s “Adopt a Spot” program to see how Alameda can have a similar program to encourage resident volunteers to help beautify certain spots of Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the legal implications.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the City Attorney’s Office would need to do reconnaissance and speak with colleagues in both Berkeley and Oakland if directed by Council; staff will need to review ordinances to see which need revision as well as look at liability policies due to potential significant liability in having a formal process.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has reviewed the article; noted Oakland has been doing this for 30 years; she is confident that Oakland has figured out the legality of the matter so the City is not liable; the matter is a great idea; the City does not always have the funds to address beautification throughout the City or equitably; the approach would encourage an opportunity all across town to help beautify the community.
Councilmember Knox White stated the priority ranking should change to not urgent and not important; giving direction to staff to find ways to include a matter like this into current projects and plans would be good; the City has had a number of times where communities have balked after being asked to accept long term maintenance agreements such as this; discussed efforts of Alamedans for Responsible Transit Shelters; stated there are spaces still waiting for the community-led transit infrastructure promised through fundraising; expressed concern about sending staff off and prioritizing work that has benefits, but little payoff; stated the matter could be turned into direction to staff included in transportation plans.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry about the rating, Councilmember Knox White stated not urgent and important.
Councilmember Daysog stated the characterization sounds right; the matter is not urgent and is important.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the interpretation means the Referral will not bump up to the top of the staff’s to-do list; stated that she would like a more substantive review for the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is not asking the City Manager and City Attorney’s Office to put something together in three months; he does not want to wait 18 months or 2 years; it is an opportunity to engage residents in a well-articulated manner to beautify areas similar to Berkeley and Oakland.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about not having a legal analysis; stated that she would like a legal analysis and cost implication to accompany the matter if it returns.
Councilmember Daysog stated Councilmember Knox White’s points are valid; expressed support for the City Manager and City Attorney providing a professional assessment relative to the comments raised Councilmember Knox White.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he will not support the current motion; expressed concern about sending staff off to start yet another program; there are already existing plans that would fit this type of program.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a way to meld the concerns with the proposed motion.
Councilmember Daysog stated that his interpretation of the motion is that the points raised by Councilmember Knox White are valid and should be evaluated along with the City Manager and City Attorney evaluating the Berkeley and Oakland’s plans; the idea is to get volunteers to do things in a well thought-out manner, taking into account the legal issues.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thinks Councilmember Knox White is stating that some of the proposal falls under the things the City is working on already.
Councilmember Knox White stated that is true; expressed concern about directing the creation of a new program; stated that he would be willing to support the motion if it changes from the Referral to incorporating the matter into other programs and plans which are already being developed.
Councilmember Daysog stated the motion would include Councilmember Knox White’s view, but also directs the City Manager to evaluate a program on a standalone basis as well; he trusts the City Manager can evaluate both things and come up with his recommendations and the City Attorney can come up with analyses as well; the original motion is separate from Councilmember Knox White’s idea; however, he is still willing to have the City Manager evaluate the beautification recommendation through the lens raised by Councilmember Knox White; expressed support for ways to engage volunteers and for the City Manager to evaluate the possibility of a program similar to the City of Berkeley.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City would need the legal analysis; expressed concern about volunteers out in the middle of busy intersections; stated there was a previous effort with daffodil bulbs on Park Street years ago.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would frame the discussion as Berkeley’s “Adopt a Spot” program has given the City Council a starting point to figure out how to involve residents on a volunteer basis to beautify certain spots in Alameda; some spots would not be beautified; however, the process will vet acceptable locations; as the process begins, the City Manager may recommend not copying Berkeley’s program and to instead have the program in conjunction with the City’s Active Transportation Plan.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(21- ) Consider Directing Staff to Provide a Public Analysis of: 1) When the Brown Act Applies to Commissions and Committees, 2) Documents and Information Released Pursuant to the Public Records Act, and 3) What is Privileged and How to Waive Privilege. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff does periodic trainings for all Commission members; if Council directs staff to incorporate additional factors or topics into the training, staff is happy to do so.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether training is completed every two years.
The City Attorney responded the City Attorney’s Office and City Clerk’s Department engages in bi-annual training with all members of Boards, Commissions and Council; stated if Council be interested in having staff emphasize particular aspects of training, staff is happy to do so; trainings are taped and will be widely available to the public.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the public is very engaged in the community; expressed support for the public being included; stated that she would like the public to have the opportunity to ask questions, not just listen; she is unsure whether the trainings are publically noticed; trainings being taped are not the same as being able to ask questions live.
The City Attorney stated that he defers to the City Clerk.
The City Clerk stated training is typically conducted in-person, in Council Chambers; Boards, Commissions and Council are invited because they are required to take the training under the Sunshine Ordinance; training is recorded and posted on the City’s website; the last training provided was pre-COVID-19 and in-person; training has yet to be conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic via Zoom.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the next session is anticipated.
The City Clerk responded the training has not yet been scheduled; stated training is typically scheduled in August.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the Open Government Commission (OGC) has been discussing the matter; stated a Public Records Act workshop training was recently held by a member of the OGC; inquired the result of the Commissions discussion on public outreach for the issues.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded a training did occur; stated the training was not overseen by City staff; she is unsure the outcome of the training; there have been discussions about topics raised during OGC meetings; however, no specific direction has been given about additional trainings for the public.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she was surprised to see a Press Release about a member of the OGC, not City staff, providing training about Public Records Act requests; inquired how the training came about.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that her understanding is the training first came up sometime last year; stated there had been discussion at an OGC meeting and a decision was made.
The City Clerk stated the training was raised at a couple of Commission meetings; the Commission supported having the outreach; the City Zoom account was used to conduct the training; the training had been delayed due to COVID-19 and was initially supposed to be at the Library; the Zoom was hosted based off direction provided over a year ago.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she did hear about the Commission providing outreach; the outreach is not what she is looking for; the matter is an important legal issue; there is confusion within the community; it is appropriate to have the City Attorney’s Office conduct the training; she is asking to somehow include the public to ensure there is public participation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of staff looking into including the public the next time the City Attorney’s Office provides training.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:48 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
***
(21- ) Consider Addressing the Process for Potential Changes to the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Design Development Plan, including Public Input. (Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the public process conducted included high level concepts; outlined the grant application process; stated the opportunity was key in applying for funding to build out the western portion; the grant requires a public process; previous outreach was conducted prior to 2018; the grant process requires more current outreach to increase chances of qualifying with higher scores on the application; once a more detailed design is complete, the design will be brought forward for additional public process to the Recreation and Parks Commission and ultimately the City Council; the primary components in the plan remain the same from the original Master Plan; the primary components will still be funded by the grant regardless of the park arrangement.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about discussion parameters related to ongoing litigation.
The City Attorney stated any matter being litigated is scheduled for Closed Session in front of the Council; Council cannot have conversations about what has happened in Closed Session unless otherwise directed in rare circumstances; staff is happy to take direction and provide information where needed; staff will continue to caution Council to not discuss anything from Closed Session.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested a map of Jean Sweeney Park be displayed; stated after her Council Referral, the map was removed and replaced with a different map; noted the map conflicts with the Council approved plan.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the discussion is related to pieces of land which the City does not currently own.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the grant application requires staff to go after funding for title held, developable land.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether all planning for the park was done through the City Council; stated that he remembers the Recreation and Parks Commission working with subcommittees and the community on most of the planning; the matter did come to Council a couple times for final approval; inquired whether the same process is currently being followed.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the bulk of the work for the original Master Plan was the done at the community level, then, Boards and Commissions and finally Council approval.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether there are two standing subcommittees.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated there was an overall steering committee and a community garden committee for the earlier phase; for the current process, a meeting was hold with the community garden committee.
The City Clerk presented the Park map.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the map was attached to the Recreation and Parks Commission agenda; there is no reference to the grant excluding the areas shown; there have been numerous meetings led by the Recreation and Parks Commission; the matter also came before Council and Council has discretion over changing the plan; the plan cannot be changed without Council approval; she strongly believes any discussion to change the plan should be held at the Council level to allow for public information.
Discussed Union Pacific land being used as part of the Jean Sweeney Park; stated there have been many Closed Session agendas regarding Union Pacific; a report should be made to the public as to why the plans have been changed; she hopes there would be opportunity for public input on any Council decision before public participation of a redesign; it is unfortunate a decision has been made without public comment; many volunteers help in the Jean Sweeney Park: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.
Stated that he likes the Jean Sweeney Park; having different sections of the Park is good; expressed support for space for adults to exercise expressed concern about the end of streets not connecting to the Park: Benhamish Allen, Alameda.
Inquired about a stimulus windfall of approximately $28 million and whether the City can use funds to acquire the remaining; the section has been included in the original plan; expressed support for seeking grant funds and using one area of the Park for pickle ball courts: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated that his understanding is the project encompass a lot of the green and orange areas of the map presented; the north side of the Jean Sweeney Park is contiguous to the Marina Village light industrial business park; the original vision of Jean Sweeney Park on the south side would be contiguous to the neighborhoods; the intent of the Referral is to take pause and involve the public about what might be happening on the south side and to understand what is to come with financial implications.
Councilmember Knox White stated too much has been said; expressed concern about Councilmembers disclosing conversations which cause jumping to conclusions; stated the matter has been unfortunate and causes distrust; this is the second time since he has been on Council that Closed Session discussions have shown up in public comment; no land use decisions or changes have been made; Council cannot make said decisions behind closed doors; Council is in litigation; it is easy for some people to make allegations and bring matters forward which are inappropriate and illegal; Council needs to be careful.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of stopping the discussion and making a commitment to the public that when matters are available to discuss and deliberate on, Council will provide an opportunity to both have discussion about any conversations made in Closed Session and have conversations that can lead to future discussions about the park.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer started the information she has shared is public information; the map is information shared as an attachment to an agenda item; members of the public have had a Zoom conversation; Council makes and votes on plans; any changes to the plan need to go to Council in open session; all information shared is public information and is not illegal; she is disappointed to have a Councilmember make such a statement; expressed support for educating the public on matters shared as public information; stated a plan for Jean Sweeney Park was voted on by City Council; discussions are taking place via Zoom as well as at the Recreation and Parks Commission; the map is shown as revised park boundaries; input is being sought for less park area, which contradicts the plan approved by Council; she opposes the motion.
On the call for the question the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether any actions have been reported out regarding the matter.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated all report outs from Council have been that staff has provided information and Council has provided direction.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether there have been reports out about changes to park boundaries or uses, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Knox White stated it is fair to assume that until such report is made, no decisions have been made.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21- ) Mayor’s Nominations for Appointments to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Recreation and Park Commission. Not heard.
(21- ) Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced a vigil is held tomorrow; the vigil is two parts: a Zoom meeting at 5:15 p.m. and an in-person vigil at Chochenyo Park.
(21- ) Vice Mayor Vella made an announcement regarding the Alameda County Healthy Homes meeting; stated that she forwarded the meeting Power Point presentation to the City Manager; discussed a Hospital Liaison Committee meeting.
(21- ) Councilmember Knox White stated the City Council and School Board Subcommittee met last week; outlined the issues which were discussed: a joint program is being put together to start education in schools and within the community around indigenous ancestors and the impacts of colonialism; ideas will be brought back to the subcommittee, which will be brought back to the School Board and Council; discussed an update on mental health services.
(21- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a funding request for mental health services will be reviewed in the budget presentation in May; made an announcement regarding a meeting with the Alameda Health Care District; stated there is a proactive tone in keeping Alameda Hospital open; the Board of Alameda Health Care District has voted to allocate $250,000 for the upcoming fiscal year for community paramedicine; discussed an update from Dr. Mini Swift.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:42 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- -APRIL 6, 2021- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(21- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding closed captioning and vaccine appointments for Alameda residents over 65 years old or persons with disabilities.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom]
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(21- ) The City Manager noted the Youth Council ordinance [paragraph no. 21- ] would not be heard and would return at a later date.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(21- ) Proclamation Denouncing Xenophobia and Anti-Asian American Pacific Islander Sentiment and Condemns Harmful Rhetoric and Racist Acts Arising Due to the Fears of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation and made brief comments.
(21- ) Proclamation Declaring April 18-24, 2021 as Alameda County Victims’ Rights Week.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21- ) Sheryl Walton, East Oakland Stadium Alliance, inquired whether the City Council is aware of a draft Environmental Impact Report regarding the ballpark; discussed potential impacts.
(21- ) Dorothy Freeman, Alameda, discussed comments from a previous meeting; stated it was implied that Closed Session matters being disclosed; no one discussed Closed Session decisions; apologized to Councilmember Herrera Spencer for suspicions being directed at her; discussed the Zoom meetings regarding park land; stated the public has a right to speak out on any item which appears on the Closed Session agenda; Council decision should be made in public view.
(21- ) Matt Reid, Alameda, discussed the potential de-listing of 620 McKay Avenue; stated the language in Measure A permits reuse of vacant, Federal buildings; the facility was one of two training facilities for the United States Merchant Marines during World War II; the facility was the only training facility during the Korean War; discussed maritime use for the facility; stated the site has historical significance; urged historical integrity be respected.
(21- ) Erin Fraser, Alameda, discussed the dangers of allowing the sale of the armored vehicle and an article published in BuzzFeed News.
(21- ) Grover Wehman-Brown, Alameda, discussed a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) complaint filed by a reporter; stated the matter is consistent with others attempting to obtain information from the Alameda Police Department (APD); discussed an article published in BuzzFeed News; urged Council to make stronger direction to the City Manager to enforce transparency in APD policing, data and accountability and let people know how Council will be holding staff accountable; expressed concern about the decision to keep the armored vehicle.
(21- ) Jenice Anderson, Alameda, expressed concern over the revelations that APD is using facial recognition technology after Council voted against allowing it; questioned who is holding the Police accountable for their actions; discussed viewpoints held by a recently retired Officer; stated working with the subcommittees is not a substitute for an outside investigation; the incidents are a prime example of why the City should adopt a Citizens Oversight Commission; the Charter needs to be amended to give citizen oversight enforcement capabilities.
(21- ) Alexia Arocha, Alameda, discussed an article published in BuzzFeed News; questioned the message being sent with no accountability; stated APD had been told to sell the vehicle and did not; APD was told not to use facial recognition software and did; urged Council begin to hold APD and the City Manager accountable.
(21- ) Lynn O’Conner, Alameda, discussed Jean Sweeney Park; outlined a newspaper article; stated without being publicized, the border is being diminished from what was originally approved; the Park is being used; the parking lot is often full; the Park is a wonderful resource; she would like information to be publicized, with an opportunity for public comment; the City has the opportunity to purchase the land and increase the Park land to the original plan.
(21- ) Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda, stated it was disturbing to read on national news of a disregard for Council direction to not use Clearview Artificial Intelligence (AI) by APD; expressed concern about the use of free trials and equipment deteriorating the command structure of the City and basic civil rights; urged Council to look into the matter and provide a public report; stated all department should be expected to follow City Council policy direction.
(21- ) Mike Katz-Lacabe, Oakland Privacy, discussed APD’s use of facial recognition software; stated Council approved a policy that banned the use of such software; the matter is a good argument using ordinances, which have the force of law; questioned the measures taken in order to hold APD accountable for its violations of policy; stated many policies can be violated at any time without Council knowledge; noted many APD policies are at the discretion of the Police Chief; urged Council to hold APD accountable and to pursue an ordinance in the future.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Discussed the bills for ratification; suggested more detail be provided on Housing Authority invoices: Matt Reid, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that should would be voting no on final passage of the grocery worker hazard pay ordinance [paragraph no. 21- ] and would have preferred it not be on the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Knox White moved final passage of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*21- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on March 2, 2021 and the Continued March 2, 2021 Special Meeting Held on March 9, 2021. Approved.
(*21- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,886,073.15.
(*21- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of a Floating Dock for the Grand Street Boat Ramp Replacement Project - Phase 2 in an Amount Not to Exceed $90,785 from Topper Industries, Inc. Accepted.
(*21- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment in an Amount Not to Exceed $50,000 with ECS Imaging, Inc., for Total Compensation Not to Exceed $220,000, for Scanning and Archiving of Planning and Building Permit Documents. Accepted.
(*21- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Two-Year Agreement in the Amount Not to Exceed $168,619 for a Period of Two Years with Accela, Inc. for Accela Automation Land Management, and Enhanced Reporting Database. Accepted.
(*21- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Third Amendment to the Agreement with Avineon, Inc. Extending the Term of the Agreement by Thirteen Months and Increasing the Compensation by an Amount Not to Exceed $24,900 for an Aggregate Compensation Amount Not to Exceed $160,640 to Develop an Integrated Highly Detailed Fiber Network Strand Database within the City’s Fiber Network Mapping and Support Geodatabase Model. Accepted.
(*21- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Ten Traffic Signal Controllers from Econolite Control Products, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $41,940 and Authorize Future Purchases of Up to 30 Additional Traffic Signal Controllers by the End of Calendar Year 2023, for a Total Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $146,790. Accepted.
(*21- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Eleven (11) Traffic Signal Controller Cabinets from Econolite Control Products, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $123,495 and Authorize Future Purchases of Up to an Additional Twenty (20) Traffic Signal Controller Cabinets by the End of Calendar Year 2023, for a Total Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $348,495. Accepted.
(*21- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Ten (10) Battery Backup Systems for Traffic Signals from JAM Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $107,555 and Authorize Future Purchases of Up to Twenty (20) Additional Battery Backup Systems by the End of Calendar Year 2023, for a Total Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $322,665. Accepted.
(*21- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Ten (10) Video Detection Systems for Traffic Signals from Econolite Control Products, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $199,950 and Authorize Future Purchases of Up to Twenty (20) Additional Video Detection Systems by the End of Calendar Year 2023, for a Total Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $599,850; Accepted and
(*21- A) Resolution No. 15754, “Amending the Fiscal Year 2019-21 Capital Budget by Reducing Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in Capital Improvement Program 91812 by $779,448 and Increasing Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations for Capital Improvement Program 96012 by $779,448.” Adopted.
(*21- ) Resolution No. 15755, “Clarifying the Definition of Below Market Rate Units in Connection with Proceedings to Alter the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes for Community Facilities District No. 17-1 (Alameda Point Public Services District).” Adopted.
(21- ) Ordinance No. 3298, “Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 4-61 (Grocery Worker Hazard Pay) to Require Large Grocery Stores in Alameda to Pay Employees an Additional Five Dollars ($5.00) per Hour in Hazard Pay during the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic and to Include Enforcement of Emergency Hazard Pay to Grocery Employees.” Finally passed.
[Note: The ordinance was approved by the following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.]
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(21- ) Presentation by Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) - Annual Progress Report.
John Lipp, FAAS, gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the program represents an important body of work.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether FAAS has any asks or a wish list for the thrift store opening on Webster Street.
Mr. Lipp responded a wish list has been put out and includes things such as a washing machine, dryer, refrigerator and a safe; stated the community is very generous; the items will be listed on the FAAS Facebook page and website; noted many people have sent e-mails asking to donate.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for FAAS and its volunteers.
(21- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2-14 (Youth Council) to Article II (Boards and Commissions) of Chapter II (Administration), Establishing a Youth Council and Prescribing Membership and Duties of Said Commission. Not heard.
(21- ) Recommendation to Review and Provide Feedback on Preliminary Goals and Strategies for the Homelessness Strategic Plan.
The Development Manager made brief introductions.
Amanda Wehrman and Aram Hauslaib from Homebase gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like more data presented regarding the unsheltered population pre-COVID-19 and current; questioned how much the parking lot is utilized at Alameda Point, who is utilizing it and whether people are being connected to services; stated the lack of data provided looks like the City is starting from zero, when the City is not; the City has had many programs; she wants to know the results of the current programs in place; expressed support for the responses to her inquiries be attached to the staff report; stated not having data is a problem; the community deserves an update about the effectiveness of the current policies as well as Steering Committee meeting information; expressed concern about members of the Steering Committee; stated many members are from agencies that receive money from the City, which is a conflict; expressed concern about the report’s lack of data.
Discussed his experience with homelessness; stated the Safe Parking facility and individuals running the facility provided invaluable psychological support and kept him going; many individuals at the facility are in the same situation and have not previously been homeless; all participants want to be on a trajectory to get back to being self-sufficient; it is difficult to rely on social services; expressed gratitude for the services provided; urged Council continue to fund the services, which provide safe harbor for individuals; discussed finding a temporary place to live; expressed concern about the scattered set of resources: George Perkins, Alameda.
Suggested the City consider establishing an independent citizen led committee; stated the committee could seek input from non-profit organizations while organizations remain independent from potential financial conflicts of interest; questioned the data compiled by the City regarding the number of individuals currently receiving assistance from local programs; further questioned how the City is evaluating the programs; discussed a Public Records Act request that she submitted; urged the City to seek the information and make it available to the public: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Expressed support for the City’s efforts; stated that he is concerned about the potential conflict by the stakeholders receiving public money from the process; urged the City to carefully look into the matter; stated there needs to be an independent group; optics are important; he is not concerned about the County; Council can only focus on City issues; having data is critical; without data, informed decisions cannot be made; expressed support for effectively supporting the homeless and helping those with mental health issues: John Healy, Alameda.
Stated that she appreciates the thoughtful planning going into both homelessness and preventing homelessness; urged the plan flesh out more housing, security and the prevention of homelessness; stated there has been unprecedented job loss under COVID-19; many who are homeless have lost over half of their income, are burdened with high rent, are people of color and are have families; urged Council to keep the population in mind and look into things such as credit counseling and leveraging Federal dollars around rental subsidies to prevent homelessness and building stronger housing security: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Stated that she was surprised to learn Jean Sweeney Park is a cause of homelessness; there were many unhoused individuals living on Jean Sweeney Park land prior to construction; many unhoused did not have services, such as washing or bathing facilities; she is curious about how the Park created homelessness: Lynn O’Conner, Alameda.
Discussed his experience using the Safe Parking facility; stated the facility has been a Godsend and the people present are supportive; the resources and comradery provided is helpful; that he does not know where he would be without the services provided; discussed his experience as a single dad; stated that he has been hired to provide daycare services; expressed support for the positive treatment at the facility: Vincent Perrault, Alameda.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s request, the Interim Community Development Director stated staff previously issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for an organization to help with the plan; Homebase was selected as the provider and proposed the idea of a Steering Committee; noted the Steering Committee was not intended to bring community members together; instead, the Steering Committee was intended to bring together those with particular expertise; stated some of the members are service providers and some do business with Alameda; staff considered members part of an elite group advising on best practices; staff went along with the consultants proposal due to best practices from a number of different cities and agencies; the approach has been successful.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns about the City creating a Steering Committee with service providers that are receiving money from the City; the problem is serious, especially when data is being received about the effectiveness of the programs; she strongly believes the City is well-intended in trying to address the problem; data and impartial analysis is needed; impartial analysis is not possible when half of the Steering Committee members are from agencies that receive money from the City; expressed concern about the Committee’s composition; stated it is a problem that there is no data evaluating the programs’ services.
Councilmember Knox White stated staff is off to a good start; staff has done a lot of outreach and work; he appreciates the key goals looking at housing first and bringing the community into programs; he has no recommended changes to the report; the guiding principles are good for the conversation ahead; there will be time to evaluate programs in the future; however, the data is not what is before Council and not where the process is currently; it is not necessary for Council to say which strategies are moving in the right direction; expressed support for ensuring a tight connection to the County plan and showing said connection; stated the County plan is solid and multi-tiered; some of the services provided by the County are only offered in Alameda as part of a larger and broader network; the City needs to look at how the systems are being built out to help residents and provide support for the region.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for Councilmember Knox White’s comments; stated the program is a great start and is high level; questioned how the program fits into the regional strategy for the County and neighboring cities and how the program fits into all other services provided; stated homeless counts are performed Countywide and cities work together due to people moving; expressed support for addressing how the program fits into the regional strategy; stated it is important to collect data; the City should not get bogged down in collecting very specific types of data; expressed support for spending funds on services; stated the ultimate strategy and goal is providing services; efficacy is difficult to determine and is dependent on the definition; she wants to be cautious in ensuring funding is going to direct services and housing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for City staff; stated the personal testimony shared from lived experience at City facilities is a testament; the City needs to address and prevent homelessness; it is especially important now coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic; eviction protections will expire at some point; the City should provide assistance with back-utility payments; a homeless count was not conducted last year due to COVID-19; the numbers are surely higher; she wants to ensure a discussion of funding sources for proposed programs will occur around the time for the budget; expressed support for information shared by individuals with lived experience; stated that she has no qualms over the individuals and organizations represented; measurable objectives are important; she is satisfied hearing how the Steering Committee was put together; many Mayors in the area are working with the County to address homelessness on a regional basis; it is a success when housing is able to be found for an individual living in an encampment; regional solutions have are important; expressed support for more information about the form of the public education campaign; stated that she supports the idea of matching local employers with individuals experiencing housing instability to find jobs and strengthen the housing navigation process; expressed support for the efforts to look out for seniors; stated that she wants to ensure seniors are kept from sliding into homelessness and housing insecurity; non-congregate type housing is important during the COVID-19 era; many unsheltered individuals prefer non-congregate housing; expressed support for Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) considering adding a voluntary fee for a low-income assistance fund.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how much money the City is spending per month on the Safe Parking program.
The Community Development Manager responded the contract with Village of Love/Creative Build is $150,000 for 9 and a half months.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the cost includes payment for Safe Parking staff.
The Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the provider leverages existing services and contributions from other groups; faith based programs and food banks provide meals; there is a lot of leveraging from existing programs, including outreach and case management.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the data that she received being shared for public benefit; stated there are 28 adults and 10 children; 38 people have been served in six months through the program; it is important to share the information; the Safe Parking program offers 25 spaces each evening; 10 to 12 of the available spaces are used nightly; there are concerns about people sleeping in their cars throughout Alameda as opposed to using the Safe Parking spaces; she would like to know what efforts are being made to communicate the availability of space; people need to be encouraged to use the available space and services; expressed support for the personal testimony about services which are working; stated Council needs data in order to know what is working and how to make improvements; there is an opportunity to help; expressed support for WiFi being offered at the Safe Parking site; stated the goal is to ensure services are available and known; expressed concern about public meetings without data; stated it is government’s job to come up with data and do the utmost to help those in need; expressed support for data analysis of the program; stated there must be a way to evaluate what is working and what is not; she does not want to continue funding agencies that do not show results.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is pleased the City is providing Safe Parking for people who have to sleep in their cars; the situation is not ideal and housing needs to be provided; more housing must be built especially for low-income people; the City does not operate in a silo; everything is connected.
The Community Development Manager stated outreach is a continuing effort; the homeless hotline phone number: 510-522-4663 being provided to those who need it is a great start; people can be instantly enrolled in the Safe Parking program; providers continue to promote the program; staff would like to collect more data; roughly 14 different programs have started because of the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP); prior to HEAP, very few programs were offered in Alameda for those experiencing homelessness; the contract with Operation Dignity was the longest City contract due to displacement of homeless people living in the Jean Sweeney Park; the majority of Alameda programs began when HEAP started; data can now be collected from HEAP funded programs; staff will collect and tabulate data to provide to the public; she would like to get more testimonies from people using the program; staff has more work to do related to connecting the dots in the outcomes and successes of programs; staff will include the information in the final strategic plan report.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the ways the strategic plan aligns with the Housing Element and General Plan update process.
The Development Manager responded staff has been working closely with the Planning Department to ensure goals are considered; stated there is a proposed strategy in the preliminary goals and strategies related to looking at zoning policies and ensuring removal of as many barriers as possible to the construction of housing for the formerly homeless and other facilities for unsheltered neighbors.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what happens if there is any conflict between the underlying zoning and the Housing Element.
The Development Manager responded the goal is to make sure staff is working together now to avoid any potential conflict; stated staff will have to work with the Planning Department if any conflicts arise.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there are conflicts due to particular zoning of an area; questioned whether the General Plan Housing Element would take precedence.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of Councilmember Daysog’s inquiry.
The City Attorney stated under State law, the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan cannot be in conflict with each other for long; generally, the Zoning Ordinance will have to be brought into conformance with the General Plan; State law allows for time in order to conform.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for coordinating with the Alameda Housing Authority to assist with the problem long-term and for adding homeless services information to the home page of the City’s website.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she appreciates the connection that providing housing keeps people housed; one of the data points known is that it is more expensive to get people the services needed after the trauma of losing housing occurs; Council will be looking at the information already collected and will review outcomes; many more services are required after someone becomes unhoused; many viewpoints will be represented; Council has done a lot to provide relief through programs; expressed support for knowing the demand for needs as well as how much money has been provided for rent relief to-date and for hearing from AMP about how many accounts are past-due or falling behind.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is proud of the City for undertaking the initiative; the matter is important and there is a role for the public to understand and be part of the solution; inquired the plan for public education.
The Development Manager responded the plan is still in development; stated the community is interested in learning about homelessness in Alameda; a webinar will be hosted Thursday, April 8th at 6:30 p.m. to address the root causes of homelessness, discuss what the City is doing to help and provide resources; staff recognizes the effort will not be a one-time event and will request topics for future webinars.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the webinar is listed on the City’s website, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:52 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
***
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(21- ) The City Manager announced Alameda County entered into the Orange Tier last week allowing businesses to further open; stated there is a slight increase in COVID-19 cases in the Bay Area; discussed vaccines; stated approximately 55% of people 16 and older and have received at least their first shot; Oakland Coliseum vaccine site continues to remain open with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) support; announced a Webster Street Tube closure; discussed an upcoming webinar for “unsheltered in Alameda.”
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21- ) Consider Directing Staff to: 1) Provide an Update on Alameda Police Department (APD) Social Media Protocols and Communication Goals and Resume APD Social Media; 2) Resume Use of Crime Mapping or a Comparable Alternative; and 3) Provide Any Necessary Direction on the Issues. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a motion is desired.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she is happy to make a motion; stated that she would appreciate an update for APD’s plan.
Discussed a training bulletin posted with a policy; stated the policy is lacking and reads like a social media strategy instead of a policy; the default Lexipol policy is also lacking; however, it goes into more detail than what is proposed; the policy does not get into the depth of what is expected to be covered for the content being created; the policy reads as though the strategy is to obtain more followers; expressed support for the creation of a policy: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Stated that she understands the need for APD to post on social media; she does not follow APD on social media for a number of reasons; she has no knowledge of emergencies or local incidents unless the City sends out a Nixle alert or posts on a local Facebook group; she should not have to follow APD specifically in order to be updated about supposed safety issues in the City; she hopes Cold Pro media advisors is getting its money worth for suggestions, such as using emojis; much of the policy content reads like having fun: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Stated the policy lacks teeth; the purpose of the policy is to stop specific types of posting and to be more real about the types of posts made; the policy is more of a guide about how to get more followers and be a great Instagrammer or social media poster; she is sure the policy is not the type of social policy desired; urged Council to dig deeper and do better; this policy is not good enough: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Stated the policy lacks teeth and reads as though there is an attempt to gain followers; the discussions around policing, equity and justice make the policy seem tone deaf; the community is calling for a more robust policy; urged Council take a second pass at the matter; stated this type of policy should be run through a Police Oversight Committee; APD cannot be trusted to be accountable even based on Council recommendations, which is concerning: Laura Cutrona, Alameda.
The City Manager stated crime mapping, which is different from APD social media, was taken down due to a software update; APD is moving to a different system; APD is in the middle of converting data to the new system and the new map is projected to be up by next week.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it would be nice to have an update on the status of Nixle; she agrees that people should not have to follow APD’s social media to receive alerts; there are multiple concerns about the rigor of the proposed social media policy; expressed support for encouraging specific language being submitted for staff review; she will defer to staff about when the matter can be updated; she will no longer move forward with the Council Referral.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is unsure how the proposed bulletin interacts with the other policies currently in place; it is clear that more than one person will be posting to social media; it is unclear what will be communicated; the City social media speaks on behalf of the City and Council; expressed support for looking at communications goals to ensure topics being communicated are helping to inform the public; stated there are good examples about people needing to be located; however, the matter becomes unclear when talking about posts related to specific crimes that have already occurred; there needs to be clarity as to the reason things are being posted; due to posts, residents think assaults are up this year; however, they are down from the previous year; car theft has gone up; Council should be discussing how to prevent car thefts; the communications goals as-written are mostly great; he does not know how staff members can be expected to know what the City is asking to have communicated; expressed support for providing direction that communications goals be fleshed out more in alignment with public comments and Council priorities.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council can depend on the professional judgement of the Police Chief and Command staff, as well as the City Manager; he does not think it is a role of City Council to micromanage social media posts; expressed support for Councilmember Herrera Spencer putting on the pressure for APD to have the social media account up; noted there had been an indeterminate amount of time when APD’s social media posts would be down; many residents have shared their opinions about the matter; APD is paid a lot of money to do their jobs; Council needs to focus on policy instead of telling the City Manager and Police Chief how to post to social media.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about how long APD social media posts were down and why posts returned.
The City Manager stated the policy direction was approved by the City Manager’s Office and authorization was given to put APD’s social media back up last week.
Vice Mayor Vella stated data and oversight was just requested for people providing essential services to prevent homelessness; she is shocked to hear a desire for extensive oversight for homeless services and no oversight for APD; expressed concern about the type of information being shared and to whom; stated posts impact public perception and can cause people to become worried about things unnecessarily; Council should be careful about the information shared to ensure fear is not being caused when there is no reason to raise alarm; it is Council’s job to weigh-in and create policies to ensure people are not misusing social media or following accounts that are propagating misinformation; there could be more to the proposed policy; the policy is a step in the right direction; sections of the proposed policy are a huge improvement from what existed before; there is no clear direction about which accounts to follow or which posts to like and retweet; it is difficult to develop concise social media policies due to constantly changing platforms; Council needs to have a more coherent overall structure City-wide for all social media.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the APD social media posts related to crimes because assaults are up 9.7% according to the Interim Police Chief; robberies are up 19%; auto thefts are at a 35 year high up 16% over the previous year; shootings are up dramatically; APD tips are helpful for the public to be aware of robberies, shootings and violent crimes; numbers are significantly up and the data from the Interim Police Chief should be used.
Councilmember Knox White stated data is important when contextualized; in the previous year, assaults were the second lowest in 35 years; a year to year increase can occur; it is possible for increases from the lowest point; trends should be tracked; trends differ from posting about 14 assaults, which makes Alameda appear to be under a siege of assaults; Council can agree that people need to be informed about what is happening; having the context to understand the information is important; he would rely heavily on the Police Chief and APD staff to provide both; currently, APD does not put out the information and context; outlined his push to have crime reports included on the City’s website; questioned how to provide information in a way which is useful.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees in part with her Councilmembers; there are valid points about the need to inform residents of crimes and how people can protect themselves; only a fraction of attacks on Asian and Pacific Islander (API) are reported; expressed support for a framework on reporting; stated there is a place for all good suggestions; Council has provided direction to staff and that she looks forward to an updated policy coming back for further review.
(21- ) Consider Directing Staff to: 1) Obtain All Emails Sent to apdreforms@gmail.com; 2) Create Protocols for the Website, Email and Social Media; and 3) Provide Training to All Employees who Post on the Website or Social Media or Staff City Bodies. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the City Clerk stated that her office has experienced a higher than regular volume of Public Record Act (PRA) requests; many requests have an extremely high volume of documents to produce; noted the City Clerk’s Department performs e-mail searches; stated there were under 40 email searches last year and are already over 20 this year; e-mail searches are one of the most involved record requests received.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is any hope on the horizon for PRA requests.
The City Clerk responded new PRA software is being reviewed to help streamline the PRA process; rolling out the software will take a little time; the software is used by the City of Oakland and City of Berkeley.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the software will help with duplicative requests.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the software has many features such a keyword search, which will help the public search for information as a request is being submitted.
The City Attorney stated the number of PRA requests received by the City Attorney’s office are astronomically high; there has been an increase from an average of 50 requests per year to over 100; this years’ request are already at 100 with 25 pending requests, each containing thousands, if not tens of thousands of documents to review; staff is doing the best they can with the limited resources available; requests will be responded to in a timely manner to the extent possible on a first come, first served basis; the requests will take a lot of time, especially due to multiple requests each day containing thousands of documents; he asks for the public’s patience in the process.
Discussed the Open Government Commission (OGC) meeting; stated the balancing test for PRA requests determine whether or not releasing the records contributes to the overall public discussion; there has been discussion about redacting records pertaining to minors; urged the City to be cautious in releasing records that can potentially make people in the community targets or more vulnerable to Police harm, especially minors: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Stated that she understood the subcommittees would report directly to the City Manager or to the Steering Committee; the subcommittees did not fall under the Brown Act; a continued request for e-mails is questionable: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Discussed his experience as part of the Jackson Park Renaming Committee; stated that he was surprised to see his name and other names on a Next Door thread post related to crime; the post indicated the park renaming and crime were related; discussed a threatening sign posted at the park directed at him; stated that his understanding of the PRA requests is not so much about what is shared, but how; he is disappointed that a Councilmember posted names; he is curious to know the intention behind the actions; urged people be safe and balancing is done with people’s privacy and safety; expressed support for effective government without making voluminous requests to slow down processes: Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated it seems there are two separate motions embedded in the Council Referral; one has to do with e-mails to a gmail account; the second is having a policy going forward; expressed support for having two motions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is making a motion, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the negative; stated that he will defer to Councilmember Herrera Spencer.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of creating training and a protocol for the City’s website, e-mails and social media; stated it is important to use a City e-mail for City business.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated it is still his position that Council should not dig into the weeds of the website; the matter is similar to the social media item; he will not oppose the motion; however, he will need to remain consistent.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 1. Noes: 3. Abstention: 1.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her understanding is staff is making efforts to get e-mails compiled; she wants to ensure that all e-mails are included in the request.
Councilmember Knox White requested clarification about the e-mail production; noted the City received the e-mail account information.
The City Manager stated staff has received the e-mail information and downloaded all e-mails from the gmail account; the e-mails are going through the PRA review process in the City Attorney’s Office; there are e-mails to staff for information requests; staff e-mails are already going through the PRA review process; the gmail account was used in order to have a centralized place; most of the City Boards and Commissions do not have a City e-mail and use a personal e-mail; staff recommended a centralized account due to the sensitivity of the Committee; the e-mail copied the City Manager e-mail account in correspondence.
The City Attorney stated staff has received over 2,000 e-mails plus innumerable attachments; the matter is in line to be reviewed and is in the back of the queue due to the amount of documents; it will be quite some time before staff is able to get to the request.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has informed Councilmember Herrera Spencer about having the e-mails.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated he communicated to both Councilmember Herrera Spencer and the other PRA request after the Council Referral was submitted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it has not been confirmed whether or not e-mails have been deleted; she would like e-mails retrieved if emails were deleted; staff has not addressed the point about deleted e-mails, which is a concern; a gmail account is not a City e-mail account; when PRA requests are made, the City needs access to all records; there has been no statement from the City about whether or not e-mails have been deleted.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about where the matter is leading; stated members of various Boards and Commissions are volunteers; questioned whether there will be PRA requests for members’ private e-mail accounts; discussed members deleting personal e-mails; questioned whether a member of the public has a right to file a PRA request for access to information from personal e-mail accounts related to matters presented at the OGC, Planning Board or any other Board or Commission; questioned how to go about verifying whether or not e-mails have been deleted from personal accounts; stated the matter seems to be a slippery slope; requested clarification from the City Attorney about where the matter is leading Council; stated there are many volunteers working in civil engagement on Boards and Commissions that are not given a City e-mail address and documents are received by said volunteers at times; inquired the implications.
The City Attorney responded staff’s recommendation for conducting City business is to use a City e-mail address; stated a City e-mail is the easiest way for the Information Technology (IT) Department to download information; staff recognizes there are times where City officials end up using private e-mails; outlined a City of San Jose case; stated when City officials receive City information on private e-mails, the Supreme Court made clear that the City may make a request to the private individuals private e-mail for information asking the public official to certify that they have provided all information to the City; the subcommittee gmail address is a novel issue of law; the gmail address is not associated with any individual and was created for one purpose: City communications; the City has requested the password so that all e-mails may be downloaded; the City Attorney’s office is happy to review all information received.
Councilmember Daysog stated the gmail address was posted on the City’s website; the issue raised by Councilmember Herrera Spencer is unique to the situation; the issue raised by Vice Mayor Vella is separate; the City Attorney has reflected that City officials may have to provide private e-mail transmittals to the extent that the transmittals have public aspects; the information is valuable; expressed support for providing the e-mails; Council is depending on the City Manager and staff to properly vet certain situations; he prefers not to tell people website protocols or how the website should look; the case being raised is valid; the account created should not have been a gmail account; a City e-mail account should have been created with clear rules regarding the public’s ability to access information and should have been an obvious choice.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a process ongoing to obtain the e-mails; PRA requests are also voluminous and records will not be produced instantaneously.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is looking forward to staff ensuring the issue does not happen again and fulfilling the PRA request.
(21- ) Consider Directing Staff to Provide an Update on the Status of Banning Gas Leaf Blowers in Alameda. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
The Assistant City Manager stated the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP) includes banning gas powered leaf blowers as a one to two year priority, which implementation of the ban in years three and four; the matter is on the list of things to do; however, it has fallen down the list for a number of reasons; staff is working on building electrification; the General Plan update is happening; staff is also working on a number of Transportation Planning objectives; with respect to climate action and the greenhouse gas impacts coming from different topic areas, the ban is quite small; however, it does not mean the matter is non-consequential; there are quality of life and air quality matters; staff could move the matter up the list after building electrification; building electrification work will come before Council in May or June.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the matter is under the CARP, which was voted on by Council in the previous month.
The Assistant City Manager responded the CARP annual report was presented; however, the ban is not prioritized in the annual report; staff is going after bigger greenhouse gas emission areas; the CARP has multiple phases; staff members are working on a range of climate related items; phasing was designed around a different staff level; staff is trying to take big bites where possible in order to make larger impacts; the matter is a quality of life issue for many people and comes with equity and small business impacts as well; the process will require significant outreach and communication with a phased approach to manage impacts over a period of time.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City uses gas powered leaf blowers.
The Assistant City Manager responded that he does not know; stated City contracts with some private landscapers.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he has spoken with the Recreation and Parks Director and has been told the City does not use gas powered leaf blowers; the City does use gas powered lawn mowers; use was discontinued roughly a year and a half ago; the matter was part of the conversation about the CARP work plan last month; he is not inclined to re-order Council priorities; he has spoken numerous times with the Assistant City Manager and understands Council will see something near the end of the year, unless Council finds other things a higher priority; expressed support for moving forward sticking with the already outlined priorities.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he regularly hears from residents about gas powered leaf blowers, which is a concern for residents; there is an issue about when leaf blowing begins in the morning; expressed support for proceeding however Councilmember Herrera Spencer would like.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when the City of Alameda anticipates the start of a ban.
The Assistant City Manager responded staff is trying to get new building electrification work completed, which will allow staff to turn to the next priority; if Council takes action on new building electrification this Summer, staff can move onto gas powered leaf blowers and other priorities in the CARP.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the ban will begin in fall.
The Assistant City Manager responded staff can start the process later in the year; the matter will come down to how Council wants to proceed in terms of timing; staff will work with the Planning, Building and Transportation Department; there will be a lot of community concerns; he does not want to put a date on the matter; however, the process will start later this year and move forward as efficiently as possible.
Councilmember Daysog stated after the building electrification work is complete, Council should direct staff to focus efforts on the leaf blower issue.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council is now trying to place the leaf blower ban ahead of the Active Transportation Plan, the General Plan update and parking ordinance amendments; Council discussed the matter last month and came up with an ordering of priorities; she understands Council is hearing from people; however, Council is also hearing about issues related to safe, multimodal transit and the need for housing; she is not inclined to change the order of priorities Council set last month.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like clarification; noted Council might be discussing responsibilities of different departments; inquired whether the matter cuts across departments; stated Council will have to take a vote in order to reorder Council-set priorities.
The Assistant City Manager responded the matter falls under the Planning, Building and Transportation Department; stated the matter will come through as an ordinance and will need to be regulated by Code Enforcement going forward; Vice Mayor Vella is correct; the annual report prioritized other topics ahead of gas powered leaf blowers; noted due to staff time and efficiency, staff prioritized gas powered leaf blowers lower; staff hears the Council concerns; placing gas powered leaf blowers higher as a priority would take away from other priorities being handled by the Department.
Councilmember Daysog stated the matter was originally raised and approved in 2018; the matter has not been followed up on; looking at the matter from said vantage point shows other matters cut ahead in priority.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council must look at the matter from a number of different vantage points; there is more to consider than just chronological order; Council must consider what is known about global warming and climate change; buildings are a larger source of greenhouse gas emissions; significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions can occur the sooner building electrification begins; the Department is not as large as they could be and does a lot; Council will make smart choices.
Councilmember Knox White stated some things take longer because they are a lower priority; Council sets priorities; four Councilmembers placed the matter in the CARP in 2019; Councilmember Herrera Spencer voted against the annual report; however, four Councilmembers approved the work plan the Planning, Building and Transportation Department has a lot on its plate with big projects that have been worked on for years; Council needs to respect the timelines put forth by staff; the matter is in the CARP; there is a commitment to have the work start by the end of the year; there will be workshops in the coming months to allow priorities to shift if needed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has heard that staff hopes to look at the matter by the end of the year; some Councilmembers have concerns; she hopes Council will support the Assistant City Manager’s comments about starting the process by the end of the year and providing an update.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the matter returning to Council sometime in the fall with an update on implementation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21- ) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed the Coast Guard and National Guard helping to provide vaccinations at the Oakland Coliseum; announced that she is eligible to receive the vaccine and used the myturn.ca.gov website to make an appointment.
(21- ) Councilmember Knox White stated the BuzzFeed article raises significant and continuing concerns that Council and the City need to address; discussed staff leaving the City; stated that he would like to see a plan or report come back in the next month about how the City and Council are going to address clear, repeated and continuing concerns of staff not following City policy, not honoring City values and things which are troubling that have happened in the last year; Council has a good opportunity with the new Police Chief hire to be chosen in the near future to reset and refresh; discussed problems with former Command staff posting troubling content on social media, facial recognition software being used after Council passed a policy not to use it and Council unanimously deciding to sell an armored vehicle while the vehicle continued to be used; stated a former Police Chief changed protocols for responses to community concerns; stated there needs to be a stand down to get everyone on the same page; Council cannot continue to allow policy to be ignored; the issue is big and needs to be addressed.
(21- ) Councilmember Daysog stated that he hopes City staff does not move forward on anything until a Council Referral is brought; a lot of things might be incorrect and some things might be correct; the comments made have been an explosive and point a damning finger at APD; it would be incorrect for the City Manager or staff to move forward on the comments made; if a Councilmember wants to do anything about matters discussed, a Council Referral should be brought forth; discussed former President Roosevelt and congress in the years leading up to World War II.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Council is getting into Brown Act territory if three Councilmembers discuss the same topic.
(21- ) Vice Mayor Vella discussed Youth Activists of Alameda and others who helped address the rise in hate crimes and violence against the Asian-American Pacific Islander (API) community during a vigil; stated community members do not feel comfortable or safe moving throughout the community and all over the Country due to being targeted; outlined her experience with micro and direct aggressions relative to her race; expressed support for response from the City related to comments made at the meeting.
(21- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft displayed posters from the Alameda County District Attorney’s special hate crimes task force; stated the head of the task force came to the first rally in front of City Hall; posters are available in Chinese, English and Spanish and are available by e-mailing: shenry@alamedaca.gov; made an announcement about a vaccine clinic on April 17th at Mastick Senior Center.
(21- ) Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed gratitude for City staff in efforts to serve the community; stated it is important to thank staff for their work.
(21- ) Mayor’s Nominations for Appointments to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Recreation and Park Commission.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Philly Jones and Alice Nguyen for appointment to the Recreation and Park Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.