The balcony is always ready.

Okay, staff is ready because the balcony's ready.

All right.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the city council meeting for the City of Alameda.

Tonight is Tuesday, April 21st, 2026.

But we're going to start with the roll call, Madame Clerk Flower Weissinger.

Would you please call the role?

Council members baller.

Oh, Jensen will be here for now.

We do not.

Right, everyone.

It is seven o'clock on the dot, and so we're gonna start on time.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the city council meeting for the City of Alameda.

The council actually not just, we gave ourselves a little break.

We finished closed session early, but we have returned from closed session, and I would like to ask our um city clerk Laura Weisiger to please announce any action taken in closed session.

Great.

Um so staff met um I mean the city council met regarding one item three A, which was existing litigation, and staff provided information, and council provided direction unanimously by five eyes.

Thank you for that.

With that, I'll adjourn this special meeting, the closed session, and I'll call to order the regular city council meeting.

Um and we will start with the pledge of allegiance.

Councilmember Daysong, could I ask you to lead us in the pledge?

Yes.

Uh please all rise as you're able.

Ready?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.

Are there any agenda changes?

I'm so sorry.

Jensen.

Uh prior here.

I am here.

Five present.

Okay.

So I have an agenda change I want to propose.

One is to hear seven B.

Um, which is um on the regular agenda item.

I believe do we have little people in the room from 7B the radium?

Um not here yet, but I was told there was young ballerinas who are gonna be here.

So here's the deal.

I will always yield to small people in two twos.

Um if um on item seven B, if indeed we have young people, little people, we're gonna hear I would like to propose that we hear that first on the regular agenda.

And then um your other one you can do under uh consent if you want.

And the other one, either way.

That's so that's the um that's the agenda change that um, do I need to we need to vote on that though, right?

On the hearing seven B.

Yeah, you can't.

Okay.

Okay, so um what I'd like is um and it's a little bit conditional.

Again, if we don't if it's just adults, seven B can stay where seven B is after seven A.

It's moved by Vice Mayor Prior, seconded by Council Member Jensen.

All those in favor signify by stating aye.

Aye aye.

All right.

Um okay, and so then we will move on to see I have a a request, a proposal for the I believe yours is on the consent calendar if I recall correctly.

Oh that's true.

Uh but I think he wanted to do it to withdraw it altogether, which is different than just removing it from the consent calendar from discussion.

Can we not wait till we get to the consent calendar?

That's an agenda change.

That's the difference between just pulling it and I'm sorry.

Okay, yeah.

All right.

So council member bowler.

Um thank you.

Um so I I have a proposal and it's a motion to continue um items 5C for open and closed session to May 5th.

Our uh recruiter actually informed me last week that she was preparing new and important information for us.

And she believed that uh the council could consider it in a future closed session.

We didn't actually receive this until after 10 a.m.

today.

And so now I think we need to notice a um a closed session.

And none of this reflects in any way on the the excellent candidate we have or in his uh merit or his credentials.

He's an impressive candidate given his broad experience, his expertise and its knowledge, particularly of Alameda.

So essentially we previously received incomplete information and as fiduciaries, we just need to discuss the item in the new information and closed session, and that's the only place this particular information can be discussed.

Okay, so I'm totally unaware of what you're speaking about, so I I'm not gonna second the motion, but um second it.

Okay, we have a second.

Any further discussion.

Okay, the motion's been moved by Councilmember Bowler, seconded by Councilmember Jensen.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

I questions yes.

Question regarding uh agenda changes.

Would now be a time to ask for item 5D to be placed after 7B.

I actually am um I'm going to address that and I'm the mayor's prerogative, I'm going first, but I will go next.

Okay.

I um I'm really confused by what council member bowler has just stated, and so if I don't understand something, I'm certainly not supporting it.

Um so that would be for a voted aye and one opposed.

Okay, and as long as we're talking about consent calendar items.

Okay.

Um so on item 5D, and this is the memorandum of understanding between the city and um Almeida Little League.

The only reason that I agreed to keep this on the consent calendar when we held our agenda meeting, which we do before the agenda is published, is because I asked at the time.

This has been a controversial issue.

I'm hearing a lot of feedback from the community.

And so shouldn't it be on the regular agenda?

And I was told that there had been robust outreach to the neighbors.

And I will take responsibility.

I'm a former litigator.

I should have asked the follow-up question, which would have been tell me what you mean by robust outreach, because there are different different interpretations apparently.

What I do know is I continue to be contacted by concerned residents.

I did a walkthrough last week in the park and half a dozen joined me.

I was on the ferry coming home from a meeting in San Francisco, and a resident approached me and said, Madam Mayor, I live on the park, I want to talk to you about something, which made me think there hadn't been enough public outreach, but it's never too late.

We have a public meeting here tonight.

My proposal to the council is that we pull this from the consent calendar.

That's not a big deal.

We do it all the time.

However, the council rules dictate that any item pulled from the consent calendar goes to the bottom of the regular agenda.

We have a meaty regular agenda tonight.

We have little people from little league in the room.

I do not like to keep little people waiting.

You adults, that's different.

No, I we try to move the meeting along.

But so this is my proposal.

I s I would like us to um remove item 5D from the consent calendar, put it at the top of the regular agenda.

If the little ballerinas and two-twos on the radium runaway item show up, they'll go first and then the little league will go second because I think we have more uh little league speakers.

But nonetheless, anything with young people we're gonna hear first.

But by also moving it to the regular agenda, I want us to allow ourselves the same nine minutes that we would have had if this was placed on the um regular agenda to begin with.

And if anyone has any questions, wants clarification from me, I'm happy to answer your questions.

Vice Mayor, you look quizzical.

Um I was just gonna move your recommendation.

Thank you.

And then okay, thank you.

We've got a motion for Vice Mayor Pryor.

Um second from Councilmember Daysog.

Um, Councilmember Jensen, is there anything you want to say?

Okay, well, I'll address that when the item comes to us then.

All right.

So all those in favor of the proposal that I made that's been moved and seconded, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

That um that passes unanimously.

Our city clerk keeps track of all these things and will tell me what I need to do when I need to do it.

And am I good to move on to proclamations and special orders?

We are.

All right.

Great.

So um we have two um not proclamations, you don't have to listen to me reading.

Um, but we have two um recognitions from our city that are both lovely.

And Madam Kirk, which one are we starting with?

Um I think we could start with um the one for our the uh Compass Ethics presentation for ethro ethical culture award to the police department, and it's uh Bradley Strasser and Lisa Strutz who are here to present.

They're here.

Okay, come on.

Come on up and tell us what this is all about.

I love starting with good news.

Yes, this is this is good news, and I'd love to invite the chief up.

Chief Joshi.

Uh so my name is uh Bradley Strasser.

I'm a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School down in Monterey, California.

Yeah.

Uh if you're familiar, come on down.

Come down and do some wine tasting with me.

But mayor, uh council members, uh clerk and deputy clerk, and great people of Alameda, uh, I come bearing good news, which is that uh Chief Joshi here has adopted a tremendous ethics program for law enforcement.

Uh it's a new program that we designed.

My researchers and other professors, we designed this program based off of evidence-based actual research that shows it works, it's effective at improving things like culture, improving things like ethical accountability, improving ethical decision making in law enforcement.

We're one of the we actually have data that shows this.

And I talked with Chief Joshi about this uh several months ago.

He loved the idea, loved the program, wanted to bring it into Alameda.

And so he's one of the first adopters to bring this program into his police department.

Uh he already is having really good responses from it.

And so what we want to present him with here today is just a certificate proclaiming uh Chief Joshi and the Alameda Police Department as a whole as what we call a compass ethical leader in this space.

So if you don't mind, I'll read it.

I don't mind at all.

And if you could read into the microphone, then it is captured because we're also making a record of the meeting.

I love it.

So be it hereby known that the Alameda Police Department, having fully demonstrated its voluntary commitment to law enforcement excellence by pursuing the innovative and research back ethics initiative, Compass Ethicards, thereby raising ethical awareness and outcomes for its officers and the community trust here in Alameda of the citizens it serves, and thus having exemplified the best professional practices to hold itself to the highest standards of moral clarity in service, is hereby recognized as a compass leader in ethical culture.

And this is effective of when they started the program at the beginning of February 2026.

Congratulations, Chief Joshi.

Yeah, and we've got Captain Jeff Emmett there too.

Okay, we need some photos.

All right.

You got a you have a great chief here and a great department.

Thank you.

We're proud of that.

Chief Joshi, do you want to do you want to say something?

Sure you do.

Sure, briefly.

Uh no, thank you so much for for this uh opportunity.

Appreciate the support from the city council, the mayor, uh, city manager for for helping us get this um this program in place.

Captain Emmett was um really critical and key in in spearheading the and getting this initiative to the Alameda Police Department.

And uh the feedback I've gotten is that uh our our department is actually using it at a very high rate at this at this point, um, much faster than what they normally expect.

So I'm really happy to have this as an opportunity, and we we live an inquiry and um we hope to grow as an agency and uh and uh as a profession.

Thank you so much, all of you.

We're we're proud of you.

Thank you.

All right, and it doesn't stop there.

Okay, I have to I I have to laugh a little bit because I haven't read my um uh meeting rules, operating rules, which would say we don't applaud, but you know, sometimes we make uh we make exceptions, and that was a good one to have an exception for.

And we've got one more um award.

We have um Alexandra Schulfiz from the Motor Vehicle Board to present a zero emissions vehicle readiness award.

Come on up.

Welcome.

Hello, hello.

I just have a few things to say about this award.

All right.

Well, tonight, the new motor vehicle board of California is proud to recognize the city of Alameda as a Zev Readiness Award recipient.

You as a city have demonstrated what it truly means to fight climate change and reduce harm to Californians and have embedded equity into decision making and infrastructure development for the transition to zero emission vehicles.

The new Motor Vehicle Board launched this award in July of 2025 to support the California Transportation Agency's core four priorities of safety, equity, climate action, and economic prosperity.

We recognize that nearly half of all climate changing pollution in California comes from the transportation sector and encourage action for a cleaner future for all Californians, regardless of where they live.

The shift to cleaner transportation is not simply about technology, it is about people.

It's about access and ensuring the benefits of innovation reach every household, neighborhood, and future generations.

You have shown that meaningful progress does not happen overnight.

It takes vision, but just as importantly, it takes commitment.

That looks like long city council meetings or planners who stay late reviewing community feedback.

It takes public works teams who adapt infrastructure in real time, and community partners who help build trust and ensure all voices are heard.

And finally, it takes leaders who understand that equity is not a single initiative, but an ongoing process behind every charging station installed, every fleet transition planned, and every policy adopted.

There are countless hours of collaboration, problem solving, and persistence.

Equity-centered infrastructure requires care.

It requires maintenance updates, evaluation, and the willingness to evolve as community needs change.

The City of Alameda has embraced that responsibility, recognizing that sustainability is not only environmental, but social.

You recognize the need for adequate charging solutions and accessible infrastructure for all residents, regardless of income or living situations.

By prioritizing access in underserved areas, considering affordability and usability and engaging community members as partners rather than recipients, you are helping to ensure that the transition to zero emission transportation is not just cleaner, but more just alameda has prioritized the expansion of EV charging by including it in your 2040 general plan, your climate action and resiliency plan, and your city council strategic plan.

By creating two public-private partnerships with EV charging providers and launching a multifamily EV charging technical assistance program.

Your efforts remind us that progress is built collectively.

It is powered not only by electricity, but by dedication, patience, and a shared belief in a better future.

On behalf of the new Motor Vehicle Board, thank you for your leadership, your persistence, and your commitment to fighting climate change and reducing harm to all Californians by making the City of Alameda Zev ready.

Congratulations on this well-deserved recognition.

Thank you so much.

And yeah, that's an applause line too.

And I'd like to call Danielle Miller, our sustainability and resilience manager up to receive the award.

Photo op again.

Thank you.

Danielle, do you want to say a few words?

Yeah.

Thank you so much for coming.

Thank you.

And I mean, I think everybody knows what ZEV is zero emission vehicle.

So Danielle, and I will share that earlier today, Danielle and I were in San Francisco.

It's climate week, and we were invited to a session and got a lot of well, we contributed some good feedback.

And Alameda is recognized as a leader in doing a lot of climate change preparation.

But we are so lucky to have Danielle.

So tell us a little bit about this or whatever you want.

Thank you.

So thank you to the new Motor Vehicle Board and to City Council for the support as well as the many different departments that are form our EV charging working group.

We have Public Works and the Parks Department planning and building many and the housing authority AMP, of course.

Huge partners in helping us to bring more accessible public EV charging to Alameda residents.

We have a growing number.

We have a growing number, um I think we're up to 12 percent of our registered vehicles are electric, and it's been growing rapidly every year.

Um and we have a challenges um accessing charging at home with um rentals and homes that don't have garages or driveways, and um so we've been looking for opportunities to bring uh charging into neighborhoods with curbside charging with our partner It's electric um to city-owned parking lots at parks and and public lots with our partner Blink.

Uh we recently deployed our first uh new charger at Bofold Circle uh Immigrant Park, so please check out that charger.

We have our first curb side charger at Alameda Housing Authority Everett Commons.

So please check out that charger, and we have more in the works, and we're looking forward to um deploying that and making EV charging more accessible to all Alameda residents.

So thank you.

Thank you so much, and thank you for all your good work.

All right.

So um with that, but um before we go on to our oral communication, I do just want to do my um ground rules for um city council meeting conduct.

I always like to remind people that this is a business meeting.

We are conducting the business of the city of Alameda, the people's business, that's all of you.

But because it's a business meeting, we um we don't applaud boo, cheer, jeer, do the wave, because it's a business meeting, not theater, not a sporting event.

And also um we want to just listen respectfully to all of our speakers.

And um, when you were the speaker, we want to listen to you, and we want you to stop when the timer uh says your time is up, or even before that.

And the reason I stress this every time we meet is that for many people public speaking is one of the most stressful things they can do.

It takes a lot of courage to get up to come to a microphone.

Some people might even decide they just can't do it because the audience was really raucous.

They booed the last speaker.

I don't want to be booed.

We don't want that here.

This is a safe space where everybody is entitled to express their opinion, and we want to hear from you.

I also give this reminder because we want to set a good civic example, not just for ourselves and each other, but for the young people in the room.

Hello, young people, it's lovely to see you.

But also some of them are watching.

I know because I talk to their parents.

And we want to set that example.

I mean, we could look around wider society, the state, national level, what have you, and see a lot of things that don't look so great.

But here in Alameda, we do it the Alameda way, which is to say everyone belongs, we respect everyone, we want to hear from all of you.

So we just ask that you treat people the way you would like to be treated.

And if you have signs, that's your first amendment right to hold them up.

I just ask that unless you're sitting in that very last row, you don't hold them over your head because we don't want you to block someone's view behind you, but it's not complicated.

And then I read this language, and we hopefully never have to use it.

But California Penal Code Section 403 states that it is a criminal offense for any person to, without authority of law, willfully disturb or break up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character, other than an assembly or meeting referred to in Penal Code Section 302 or Elections Code 18340.

First violations will receive a warning and continued violations will require additional action, which could include police intervention.

So having given the ground rules, you're all ready to go.

And Madam Clerk, and this is where we hear oral communication, which is public comment, but on items that are not on the agenda.

So, Madam Clerk, do we have public comment?

Um we do.

Uh first up is Chris Ells Ellsworth, then Rachel Compost Ivanov, and then uh Corinne Kirschbaum.

All right, and again, for items not on the agenda.

Okay, come on up and welcome.

Chris.

Hi, my name is Chris Ellsworth.

I live at 1414 Pacific Avenue across from Little John Park.

Um it's not about it's off the agenda.

It's not on the it's not that item if you're gonna ask about that.

Okay, all right.

Um I want to call attention to the to the street gutters along Buena Vista Avenue next to the park.

They're in serious need of cleaning.

In many places, the dirt and debris have come all the way up to the level of the curb.

And during storms, the water floods onto the curbs.

There is scheduled street sweeping there, but due to the number of cars that are parked, it has not been cleaned out in the 16 months that I've lived in that house.

I regularly go out and clean it out a little bit to try to keep it the water moving.

So because the city is the sole resident and manager of that block, I urge the city to take action to ensure the gutters are properly maintained, uh, reduce flooding and improve accessibility, prevent debris and garbage from running into the storms.

I yield my time.

Thank you so much.

All right, our next speaker.

Uh Rachel Kompostavanov.

Welcome, Speaker Campus Divinas.

Hi, I just wanted to draw attention to one quick thing.

First off, April is our arts, culture, and creativity month, which is sort of fitting for this this evening.

Um, and addition to many of the hats that I wear, one of them is I'm on the board of the Weston Arts District.

And we have a very exciting uh project that is just about to launch on Friday, which is Ocean Photographer of the Year.

I wanted to say a extra special thank you to our city staff, to Walker Toma, to our building official, to our fire official who have helped us transform an unusual place, which is an old airplane hangar.

It's now been confirmed transformed into what looks like a beautiful gallery space.

And so I certainly hope that people will come.

It's open through May 17th on the weekends, and it's just yet another example of how arts, culture, and creativity is transforming Alameda Point.

Thank you for that.

And our next speaker, uh, Kern Kirschbaum.

Welcome, Speaker Kirschbaum.

Here I am again.

Good evening.

I am here tonight because this city wants the public to believe there was oversight accountability and progress.

But the truth of the matter is simpler.

And I'm talking, you know, about the Village of Love and their reports.

There were no reports, none.

Not just no financial reports, no reports of any kind, no performance reports, no evaluations, no outcome data, no compliance records, no oversight records, nothing showing what Joey Harrison and Village of Love were actually doing, whether contract terms were being met or whether public money was being spent properly properly.

We're talking about 10 million dollars almost.

Right, Marilyn?

And when I demanded those records, the city attorney's office claimed the reporting was done verbally over Zoom, verbally.

Then where are amendments allowing that?

Where are the meeting minutes?

Where are the notes?

Where's the written record?

Where's the documentation proving those verbal report reports ever happened or were accepted?

There were no amendments, no meeting minutes, no notes, no documentation, no paper trail.

So let's be honest about what that means.

No real oversight.

And despite that, the city kept giving Joey Harrison millions of dollars for years.

When you knew there was nothing, no money trail, and nothing was happening.

Those contracts were all being breached, and you did nothing, but you did do one thing.

You all had a celebration.

You all patted each other on the backs for all the hard work that you didn't do.

People died.

Do you understand that?

People died waiting.

And what you've done to me, if you see something, say something, right, Marilyn.

That just means if it's not against you.

And your false transparency.

The city knew there were no actual reports, no meaningful documentation, and no real oversight, and it still continued to hand over public money.

Then after giving him more money, what changed?

Nothing.

Still no financial reports for five years.

They were to be turned in every month on the 7th.

And there's nothing.

But when people continued to complain, you did nothing.

And you should be held held accountable.

We should be charged with manslaughter, Maryland.

You will be.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker, Jennifer Radikovich.

Welcome, Speaker Radikovich.

Come on up.

Lies.

Every single thing is.

All right.

Thank you.

Your your time is up.

Thank you.

Bye-bye.

All right, welcome.

I don't lie.

I have no reason to lie.

All right.

But welcome.

Um, my name is Jennifer Radakovich.

I'm the executive director at Rhythmics Cultural Works, and I just wanted to say thank you to the City of Alameda and uh specifically to the city's base reuse and economic department for recommending rhythmics for an East Bay EDA award, which we received last month for community impact.

Thank you so much for all of your support.

We're also very, very pleased to partner once again with the City of Alameda and the Recreation and Park Department and the Public Art Commission to help present our summer rhythmics in the parks series, which will bring music, dance, and culture to parks across Alameda starting in June with the Unity Fest, which celebrates Arts from Africa and the African Diaspora.

We'll be at Chechenyo Park this year, at Franklin Park, at Jean Sweeney Park, and at Lincoln Park.

So I just wanted to say thank you to the City of Alameda for all you do in support of arts and culture for our community.

Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you for all you do.

Our next speaker.

That was it.

Okay.

So with that, we close um oral communication non-agenda items, and we move on to the consent calendar.

These are routine items that are approved by one motion, unless council members remove items for discussion.

We've already dealt with two of the consent calendar items.

So first up, are there any items the council wants to pull that we haven't already dealt with, pull from the consent?

Can I just note something on the consent calendar or recusal?

Just so it's clear for the Of course.

Okay, a recusal.

We got it.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Um any polls from the consent calendar?

Seeing no polls.

Um and do um did you say something?

Yes.

Councilmember Day Side.

Uh thank you.

I'm a recusal on 5K websistry.

Thank you.

That's how you do a recusal.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Okay.

And then City Clerk, did you need to make any announcements on the consent calendar before I look for any.

I give me one second.

The deputy city clerk noted that's J is the Webster Street.

K is Park Street.

We just wanted to correct that.

Sorry.

And now it's your question.

I'm sorry.

I have done city clerk announcements.

Is there something?

Oh no, that's okay.

Oh no, there is.

Yes.

Thank you.

You reminded me on my appreciation.

Only because it's in my script.

Very good.

There's a public hearing on the consent calendar, which is to consider an economic development subsidy to be provided to the Oakland Roots and Seoul and adoption of a related resolution.

And now is the time for public comment on that hearing.

Thank you.

Okay.

So we'll and I'm going to take the question from our colleague, Councilmember Jensen.

Oh, thank you.

Um, this question is regarding um several items, and it's kind of related to Councilmember Gesang's recusal.

I would give us a letter so we can see the remote.

Yes, I will.

I have a question about items 5J, 5K, and 5 M.

And this is for the city attorney.

I I understand that um Councilmember Gasaga is recusing himself because he has a relationship or a financial issue with one of these that um and my question goes to that.

I have relationships with people who are on the boards of Webster Street Business Improvement Area, the Park Street Business Improvement Area.

I actually have a close family friend who's the director of the WABA.

And um I also know board members from the um from the roots.

And so I wonder if you could give me some guidance whether I should be recusing myself.

Councilmember, generally personal relationships that are friendships are not alone, do not uh are not sufficient to require recusal.

So because I know people and I have conversations and relationships, I don't need to recuse myself.

Right.

And and council member did uh state law provides that there are financial reasons to recuse uh you know, for example, you know, if there was a campaign contribution on an item before the council in excess of $500 from a single source is one example.

Um of course, council members will, you know, outside the state law context, um, would uh need to be able to assess whether or not they're able to um judge and review each item in front of them with impartiality, and that's a question for each council member individually.

So if I uh for example, my husband's on the board of the Chamber of Commerce, and he actually used to be on a board with the director of WABA, but that's and so we have these relationships, but that's not sufficient.

And of course, I support economic development, so I might be biased towards economic development in Alameda.

Well, Councilmember did just to reiterate personal relationships alone, generally, it does not require recusal under state law.

Um whether or not uh a council member is able to impartially judge an item is a question that each council member would have to judge for themselves.

Thank you.

That's all I think.

Thank you.

The city attorney can't tell us everything.

All right, yes, sir.

Perhaps if I could clarify um my recusal, which I believe is a requirement as part of the state law.

Um so the reason why I have to recuse myself on 5J, thank you, is because my house is practically two buildings away from Webster Street.

Um so given the proximity, um, I have to recuse myself.

So thank you.

And did you want to add anything, Councilmember Bowl?

No, I'm I don't need to.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay, so we've answered your questions.

Have we, Councilmember Jensen?

All right.

Did you want to say something more?

Yes, Council membership.

City attorney.

Uh Councilmember Desog did give me a very good reminder.

Uh yes, it is state law does require that we stay very briefly the basis of recusal.

Um, and I've done this previous, that's why I didn't think of that.

But um basically I have an investment that relates to buildings in Alameda that are uh occupied by tenants.

So for potential possible financial recusal purposes.

I'm recusing myself.

Thank you for that.

Um did um okay, so we had council questions.

Madam Crook, do we have any public comment on the consent calendar?

There's none.

Okay, and you you told us about this hearing on the um the item involving the roots in Seoul.

Okay, and did anyone want to comment on that?

Seeing none.

Okay, and you said no public comment.

Right.

All right.

Um it's time for council discussion if there's any further discussion or a motion and a second to approve, noting all of the recusals and um every everything else that was said um in the course of this discussion.

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

Um I move that we uh approve the consent calendar um in consideration with the two recusals.

Right.

And was that a second?

And it's been seconded by Councilmember Jensen.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

All right.

Um that passes unanimously.

So then we go on.

Okay, I am not seeing little ballerinas, so we will then go on to the um the item five D that was um that was um uh uh move we voted to move it to the top of the regular agenda, and also to um to uh give ourselves nine minutes, which is what we have for regular agenda items as opposed to three minutes um, because I think this one merits a discussion.

So um come on up city staff who are gonna present.

And before we hear from our um recreation parks director, I just want to level set on this item.

And that is to say that this um issue, there's really two issues about two great programs, and it should not be divisive.

We are going to figure out a way forward.

Um we're gonna find a win-win because these are two very public, uh, they're public but very positive programs, which is to say public parks and youth sports and the volunteers that come along with them.

And I also want to remind everybody, I said as much earlier in my ground rules, but let's set a good example, a positive example.

That of course is a lot of what youth sports is about, but let's set a good example for the young people in the room for the way we can discuss something where we don't all start on the same page, but we're gonna end up with some sort of a consensus and a positive way to go forward.

So I ask a bit of grace from all of you and to just bring your best selves to um the table.

And welcome.

Um Director Long, you want to introduce yourself?

Um Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council members.

My name is Justin Long.

I'm the recreation and parks director here in Alameda.

And tonight we're here to present um an agreement with Alameda Little League for uh usage of one of our sports fields at Little John Park.

Um so I'll get started here.

Um our MOU goals were to create a successful situation for both youth sports and our surrounding neighborhoods.

Uh almost all of our parks in Alameda are neighborhood parks.

So they're all nestled in our community.

We wanted to establish timelines of usage and provide opportunities to address concerns as they arise, set expectations around maintenance and usage, and also establish responsibility around improvements to the park, specifically to support those activities.

So a little bit of background.

So Alameda Little League approached us in October, late October of 2025, seeking a field for their age to 12 age group, also called the majors.

This group had been traditionally playing at the Wood Metal School.

And during the renovation, one of those fields has not become available any longer due to the renovation.

The existing age the group has eight teams.

Currently, ARPD has 20 ball fields in their complement.

Alameda Little League utilizes 12 of those fields at a given time.

And then Alameda Girls Softball utilizes nine.

As you can tell with that number, there's overlap.

And then we have many other youth organizations that use our fields from soccer to Frisbee, La Cross, all sorts of sports that are sharing those same multi-sport spaces.

And we do this field allocation every spring and every fall, where there's a really delicate balance of meeting everyone's requests, needs, trying to balance out all those different components that we can try to have all of our fields occupied as much as possible, just meet as many one, as many people's needs as necessary to provide these sports for our youth in Alameda.

So when they approached us, staff sat down with Little League, figured out what the requirements were for this age group, and then we looked at potential fields that were available or potentially available due to the size that they were looking at.

We identified Tillman, the multi-purpose field on Alameda Point, Little John Godfrey Rittler, and Bayport.

And what we looked at was the field size and then the infield size, because there's a specific distance that has to be from the mound to the plate, improvements required to be able to support those activities, and then we also looked at how the complement and some of those fields get used.

Like, for example, Rittler has soccer, baseball, other activities.

Bayport has lots of soccer, baseball, softball, other practices that happen there.

They have frisbee groups, they also have sorry for fluttering, but mainly soccer and baseball and softball.

And then we also applied to Title IX.

So as part of that, we have to balance out our field rentals 50-50 between female and male sports.

And so it's a really delicate balance sometimes based on what people request from what we can actually provide.

So we looked at all of those as we were considering different options for utilizing and seeing if a field might work.

So when we looked at all of those to look at the minimization of impact, Little John was selected.

Part of that reason was because Alameda Little League already used that site six days a week, basically almost during the same time frames they were requesting for the majors group.

So we were trying to balance out the impact to the other user groups based on having to move their younger group into some other fields that they felt that they could accommodate because their younger T ball groups could actually play in the grassy areas, like at Bayport, for example, that didn't need an in field, so that we could accommodate them in other locations.

And then we also looked at the requirements to make those modifications.

Some of those fields like Rittler and Bayport, even multi-purpose fields, we would have to basically build a whole new ball field in order for those to exist.

And in doing so, would potentially eliminate the multi-use of those sports.

So by putting those in, we would eliminate being able to have soccer and other sports use those fields.

And then we also tried to look at the impact to Title IX.

Since they're already using it, it's the same complement that it wasn't going to impact our balance.

So here's an overview of the area in Little John.

So this is Little John Park, Buenosis to the north with Pacific on the bottom, and Ben and Sherman to the left.

The overall park size is just about four acres, and the baseball field acre is approximately one acre of the park.

So from the community engagement side, so in November 26, we sent out a blast email to all of our sports groups and user groups to let them know that these community meetings were going to be happening.

And then December 3rd, we had flyers placed at the park at all the entrances on A-frames.

They were posted to the barbecue areas.

These were laminated signs.

We also updated our social media.

It was placed on our website.

We also placed hangers on doors surrounding the park.

A lot of this was done because of the short time frame around the holidays and trying to make sure that notices would be actually at the houses.

And then we held a community meeting on December 17th at the park at 6 p.m.

And then we held a second meeting again at the park on January 28th, again at the park.

From the community feedback from the meetings that we received, there were three main categories that came up.

One was the safety of park users and worry about cars getting hit along Pacific.

There's offsite parking was one of the concerns as well because we knew there would be a lot of drop-off and turnover at games.

And so we tried to look at how we're going to balance that.

And then access to the park outside of Alameda Little League usage, and how could we try to accommodate that?

Those were the three major concerns that came up out of those meetings.

And it helped guide some of the improvements we were going to make to the park.

So with that, we looked at different opportunities of how we could provide that extra protection.

Installing fence netting that extended 20 feet in the air along the third and first baseline, extending temporary fencing even beyond that.

That was eight feet tall.

Those are completely removable, not permanent.

The dugouts that existed at Little John were identified in our ADA transition plan as non-compliant.

They were extremely narrow and they had no paved access to each of those dugouts.

So we replaced those, made them wider, and fenced them in for protection.

And then a temporary outfield fence for the perimeter at the 200 foot mark in order to support the age group was installed.

Now those are installed with temporary bases that can be inserted and pulled out and removed.

And with an agreement from Little League today, they're willing to remove that fencing every Friday, or sorry.

So that way that physical looking barrier will no longer be there.

In the interim, we've left two 40-foot openings between the end of the first base and third baseline so that people can access the grassy area even when little league's not using it.

So when did we get down to the MOU terms?

This is a trial.

They approached us.

We went to the community, we told them this is going to be a trial.

We're going to do it for a year, see how it works, evaluate it, and then collect all the feedback we can and determine whether or not this is a good fit.

We wanted to preserve the community access by making sure that it was only restricted to certain hours.

Parents to those different locations.

And then around the actual improvement costs.

So at the very beginning of this, Little League has agreed to reimburse the city for all of the improvements.

We've already received payment for those.

And so what we put into the MU was if there were any future safety improvements that come up that Little League would be responsible to those if they agreed to do so, and if they didn't agree to do so, that the agreement would terminate.

But then if they continue to violate it, that would lead up to termination of the agreement.

So we also are agreeing to a follow-up.

So we're going to do at the end of the spring season, we will do another community meeting and get that feedback.

We'll bring it to the parks and rec commission, and then any recommendations that we'll implement for the fall portion of the program, then we'll evaluate it again at the end of the year and bring it back to the commission.

So with that, I'll open it up to questions.

Sorry to rush there at the end.

Thank you for that.

Council, do we have and Madam Claire, do we have public comment?

We do.

How many?

So far we have just six.

Six and none online?

Well, it's none online.

Okay, so any clarifying questions, Council?

Council Member Day Saiga.

Sorry, I was looking at that one.

Thank you.

Uh section 2.II of the memo delineates set time periods or broadbands of time when baseball has priority and uh exclusive use of the field.

I believe even if no one is actually practicing or playing a game.

Um this section states Monday through Friday, 4 30 to 7, Saturday, 9 a.m.

to 7, and Sunday, 9 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

as needed for makeup games.

Um I believe forces the baseball community.

Uh well, have you given consideration to creating a schedule that delineates the precise time at which a specific team is allocated practice time instead of this broad um practice category uh uh times or broad game um times?

So uh Councilman Daysog, so we have not started to publish a schedule for actual team times.

Um in our experience with Little League over the last you know 10, 15 years, they occupy all of that time.

There's not often a time when they're not using them during those practices or those games.

They actually have struggled to find fields here in Alameda to even hold those games.

Like for example, the rain makeup days.

Um today we just received even a request for more alternate fields and locations to try to make them up because they're in a compacted period of time.

Um we will gladly publish the usage on the fences.

We can put that up so the community knows when the fence or when the field is rented.

We have no problem doing that.

I think it would be a way to communicate to the community or anyone who walks up whether it's reserved or not.

Um but in general, they're often occupied during those times.

The reason why I asked that question is a member of the public had raised concerns that people are being shooed off of the playing field when the it's a reserve time for baseball, but there's no teams whatsoever?

Um have you seen that comment?

And we received the comment, but I have not seen the experience.

I've not had them reach out to me specifically about that, but I did receive the comment in the same comments that you all have.

Um there was concern issued around um staff members or volunteers doing work during the day on the field itself, and there was interactions with members of the public from at least two times that I was communicated.

I reached out directly to Little League to have a conversation with them about that volunteer and to have them address that with that volunteer that how they approach community members and that the field is open during the day for everyone to use outside of those hours.

If if anyone wants to use it and the field is not being used, the public is allowed to use the field.

If they show up to come use the field, like with any of our other field rentals, the we're at we ask all of our folks to have their permits with them, they show them the permit, and they're asked to leave.

Last question.

Of course.

One last question.

Um, is there a physical need for the fence that goes in the outfield?

I mean, do is it because kids 12 and under hit beyond that?

So the kids don't uh in that age group do not hit beyond that fence, but it was an effort to keep a barrier for people walking into active games.

So we didn't want people just walking from the adjacent sidewalks on the the south and east side of the park to just walk into a game that's happening.

And so that's why the temporary fence is installed, and that's why it's the color that it is, so that people see that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um Vice Mayor Prayer, I think I heard.

Um yeah, I just have a quick question about the parking plan.

I was wondering what it looks like and if it is working.

Um Clerk, could you mind pulling up the PowerPoint again?

I've got one last slide here that shows the parking plan.

So this is the parking plan that we worked on in coordination with Little League that on your left image there, uh it's identifying a drop-off zone by the recenter, and then identifying for Alameda Little League parents and spectators, even coaches, to then go and park at Gene Sweeney and at Win River.

At the time when we had the uh the conversations with Blue Rise and Wind River, the parking lot to the east with the big P was available.

They have since closed that parking lot due to different vandalism trying to keep um uh negative aspects from happening.

And so we secured with them through a license agreement 35 spaces in the parking lot just adjacent um to the north there.

And so between Gene Sweeney and Wind River, that is where we've asked all Little League parents and spectators to park, especially after that drop-off zone, so that they would at least be able to drop off their equipment, people who have di disabilities who need to be dropped off have that ability.

And is it to the best of your knowledge?

Is it working or are the families of the Little League almost said students, little league players?

Um are they like for the most part complying with this?

So I would say it was a little bit rocky at the beginning, which is why I even personally was out there for a weekend trying to provide that information to folks.

Um but it has gotten uh far better and far more compliant.

There was issues at the very beginning where some driveways had gotten blocked, and we've since sent out multiple communications through Little League.

Um we've also worked with having staff and our park monitor go out there to make sure, and so that's what we've been doing in the meantime, and we've seen a lot better compliance.

Yes, there's a lot of turnover, so parents are coming and going between games.

So every hour and a half, there's a turnover of parents and kids, so there is an influx of traffic.

I'm not gonna deny that at all.

Um I have a a couple clarifying questions.

Um Director Long, why did this item never go to the Recreation Parks Commission?

So I will just say on in hindsight, I would have done that at the very beginning of this conversation.

It was Little Lee was already utilizing the field for six days a week, and I didn't think it was going to be that big of a change.

And that is on me, and I take full responsibility for that.

So acknowledging that, and I appreciate that.

Going forward, why would you not bring this item to the Recreation Parks Commission to decide how to move forward as opposed to giving them your feedback?

Why would you not let them hold a public hearing and themselves collect feedback from members of the public?

Well, the intent to bring it to the parks commission is to get feedback as well as bring feedback from the community meeting and then take those recommendations from what we hear at that commission meeting to adapt the MOU.

Okay, so I I may be misunderstanding or we may be misunderstanding each other, but rather than the recreation park staff convening another community meeting about the park, why don't you just make it an agenda item on the recreation parks commission?

I I do think, Madam Mayor, we may be misunderstanding each other.

I wanted to do both to hold a community meeting and then have bring it to the commission meeting so that we can have even more opportunity for feedback.

And I would suggest, and it'll be my recommendation when we deliberate that it's time for this to go directly to the recreation parks commission.

We have a very competent commission.

Um the um did I under I I did understand you to say that there were ADA improvements needed to the dugout.

So is it who did the work?

So all the work was performed by city licensed contractors.

Okay.

Um we utilize uh city dollars to do the work with the reimbursement from Little League.

All right.

Okay.

I I was just a little confused because when I did a site visit last week, there was clearly a little league volunteer doing something at the DECA, but maybe just some maintenance.

Um if someone wanted to reserve Little John Park for a birthday party with a bouncy house on the weekend, um, could they do that?

Right now we've sub we've suspended renting that facility and made it first come first serve.

What we didn't want to do is actively attract even more people to the park in order to limit congestion.

But we wanted to make it first come, first serve, and so that's what we've done.

Um but we've suspended doing the reservations.

Okay.

I don't know if I bet you have organized a kid's birthday party or two.

It's kind of hard not to know if you have a location until the day of but that brings me to my next question.

And we've emailed and we've talked about this item.

And I asked you what um other parks were considered, because in the recreation parks fire, we are well parked and we're adding more in the city.

And you listed some but not others, and my question to you is did you consider other parks with fields that wouldn't have um precluded other usage of the park, for instance, estuary park, Franklin Park for the little people, um, Cruzi Park, Ladecker Park, Lincoln Park, McKinley Park.

Because the um, and I don't want to get into discussion, this is still a question and answer, but what I see when I go to Little John is um I uh a park that has been precluded from other uses for a year, and I just looking at the map and and knowing um the parks in Alameda.

I once worked for your department.

Um I just wondered why um why we couldn't have found another uh location that didn't have quite as uh big an impact.

Sure, I'll gladly share with you part of the issue is that most of those fields are already used by Little League.

So they currently use Bayport, Rittler, Lidecker, Franklin Tillman, Woodstock, Little John Godfrey estuary with the Challenger Field, Lower Washington, and Cruzy sometimes.

So they're already currently using a lot of those fields already, and McKinley doesn't have a field big enough to support Little League games.

So and of course, you've told us earlier, and and it is known that Little John has for years been used for a younger age group with for Little League, and I heard nothing from the public about that.

And obviously you had to do some schedules and some changing.

And so I'm just wondering, and and again, this is something that perhaps the Recreation Parks Department uh commission might have debated why there might not have been or why there might still not be an opportunity to have the older age group someplace that didn't completely preclude weekend usage essentially for all summer and really the better part of a year.

So scheduling.

So we worked again, we worked on scheduling with not just Little League, but also we're balancing out soccer, uh a lot of other LMED uh youth groups that are sharing those other services, which would have required us to change those.

Like, for example, at Rittler, we would have had to put in another diamond, which would have made soccer non-usable at that facility.

Uh Bayport, we would have had to do the same thing.

Even at um Tillman, in order to put in the temporary fencing, it would have precluded both soccer, rugby, and other sports in that one.

So they all required some level of modification.

So it wasn't just a trade in one for the other, like for example, multi-purpose field.

It's the Where is multi-purpose?

It's right next to the Alameda Point, Jim.

Oh, okay.

So it's it's a big flexible space that can support both soccer, yeah.

But the baseball field is too large for little league.

It's meant for older individuals.

And so therefore that couldn't be utilized because it's actually dangerous for a lot of the kids to be playing on an in-field that's too big.

Okay, we can take some of this online because I do want to get to our public comment, but I will um the last thing I'll ask about, and this is information that I would have liked to have seen in the staff report.

Um we've had concerns expressed about there's no insurance agreement, there's no indemnification.

Well, there's not in the MOU, but I believe there is somewhere.

Do you want to address that?

Yes, so every year we have we operate with an approved field allocation policy.

So for anyone who rents a field or space from us has to have insurance and indemnify the city.

Um and those insurance requirements were established, you know, in conjunction with our um our uh what is it with the city attorney's office, our risk management, and so every year anyone who does that updates their insurance certificate to make sure that they can even operate on on our facilities.

And I understand that now, and I say this all the time around City Hall.

You can't over-communicate, you can undercommunicate, it usually doesn't go well.

That should have been in the staff report.

And so going forward, I would I mean, you know these things because that you live and read this work, but the greater public doesn't, and it doesn't lead to increased trust when we don't have all the information out there.

Okay, um let's um any other clarifying questions, council?

Let's was that your hand up or just your council member?

No, okay.

Okay, thank you, Director Long.

Um, Madam Clerk, let's go to our public comment.

Still six?

Still six in person.

Okay.

Only okay.

Uh first is Deborah Arbuckle, then Heather Little, then Jill Ingram.

Okay, and be ready to come on up when you hear your name, we'll keep this going and bring that microphone down to wherever you need it.

Welcome, Speaker Arbuckle.

Mayor, Council, my name's Deborah Arbuckle.

I'm a neighbor of the park.

I live one house away from the park.

I did not get notice.

The first I I think what happened maybe they didn't send anything to our house.

I can tell you that much.

Um the first time they had a meeting was around Thanksgiving, and I think a lot of people were gone.

So they had a second meeting, and we did see something on the walkway around.

So we went to the meeting.

And we told them we didn't like what they wanted to do, and they said, well, this is just going to be until May, the end of May, and it's a trial.

And I was like, well, okay, that's reasonable.

Um, but what I'm seeing is they are controlling that park.

They have total control.

I feel like the old boys club this came down and took it.

We did not have any input.

It is not it is not available to other people.

Taking the fence down is a good idea.

But when they're playing all the time, or they someone comes to use the park and they start throwing the ball near them.

So they leave.

Or I see little kids standing and with their little face pushed up to the net on the outside, going, Oh, I wish I could go there when nobody's using it.

So this is, I mean, what they're saying about what they let us know, what they told us, the size of where the fence was going to be, it's all false.

They did not.

They did not get the okay of any sort from the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

Heather Little, then Joe Ingram, then Ron Matthews.

Welcome, Speaker Little.

Uh, good evening, everyone.

Uh, you received a letter from me today.

I'm gonna try and keep it really brief.

Uh, I'm gonna say the same thing tonight.

I'm addressing you this evening as a homeowner and community member who's lived directly across from Little John for at least 21 years, and our family has fully welcomed and enjoyed and encouraged the use of Little John Park to its fullest extent possible.

Um, so when I first learned about ALL majors coming uh that they wanted to use the park, I approached it with an open mind and a supportive mindset, uh, especially they've used it for years with no issue at all.

Um so based on that, I welcomed the expanded use.

But unfortunately, as Director Long has also shared with you, uh, there were a lot of problems in the beginning for myself and my neighbors.

But thankfully I was able to be in regular communication with my contact at Little League as well as with Director Long and uh Ms.

Woolridge.

Um, and uh everybody was very responsive to those concerns and needs.

But while these issues tend to be have improving right now, um, I've got concerns that the problems will repeat themselves season after season as new families and staff rotate in.

The primary concern right now is the usage being uh restricted because of the perimeter fencing in the outfield, which as we know will now be up for eight months out of the year, effectively restricting access to what should otherwise be public space for much of the park's usable year.

Um the fence is up, it now often sits unused.

I've walked the park with Mr.

Daysog, I've walked the park with Ms.

Ashcroft.

Um, other people have come to visit, even when the hours on the weekend, it was a beautiful weekend this weekend.

Many hours of the day.

I took video completely empty, completely empty.

You've seen that.

Without the fencing, it would be used.

This is very unusual for this park.

Um I'm gonna leave this by saying this is not about opposing the use of the park by ALL, but it's about being good partners and creating a compromise where we can all use the space for our purposes and co-enjoy what our tax dollars are paying for.

We're asking for a more balanced approach that allows ALL to continue its programming while ensuring the broader community can still also enjoy the park, especially when it's not being used.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker, Jill Ingram, then Ron Matthews, then Chris Ellsworth.

Welcome, Speaker Ingram.

I'm Julian Graham, lifetime Alameda resident.

Tonight I ask you at a minimum to please postpone any sort of approval for the Alameda Little League MOU, as it has been fast-tracked towards approval.

Also, we need to go beyond this year, and we need to discuss what's going to happen in the future.

I attended both public meetings as I received an invitation tape to my house.

I will tell you, I felt very intimidated at the first meeting.

I had um in attendance were several little league board members and three to four ARPD staffers.

Only two people were introduced, one being Justin Long and the other Steve.

During this first meeting, two members of the public were rudely dismissed with their concerns throughout the meeting.

It was very clear that the little league was there to tell us that the majors would be using Little John Park for practices and games.

They weren't there just to listen to our concerns or even answer questions honestly.

I felt defeated and confused leaving the meeting.

A few things stick in my mind after the first meeting.

First, we were asked if there was any contact person from Little League that we could get in touch with, and uh if any issues came up.

We were not given any information except for the contact with the city of Justin Long.

We now have the president's email.

Second, we um they used the strong word of sabotage at the first meeting, as they did not want this project derailed.

I feel like I can't even discuss these issues with my neighbors because I will be told I help sabotage sabotage this project.

I hope this project is reviewed at the end of the season, and everyone's opinions in our neighborhood are considered and respected.

And the council members, Justin Long, and the police department, they're all well aware of the concerns we've had for the last few months.

Lastly, for the future meetings, please leaflet the neighborhood or mail the households.

Thank you.

And your time is up.

Our next speaker.

Ron Matthews, then Chris Ellworth Ellsworth, then Eric Embry.

Welcome, Speaker Matthews.

Hi, I'm Ron Matthews.

For the last 32 years, I've been involved in Little League, 26 of which I've been the president.

Every time I come in front of this board or any board, everyone knows that I'm acting on behalf of children age four through twelve.

We're all volunteer organization.

We're an international organization.

You've seen us on television.

This is the age group that you do see on television in August.

It is the major division.

The 11 and 12-year-olds have been in the program for seven or eight years, working their way up the ladder.

And they deserve a good field, which we were able to provide previously.

But due to the AUSD uh changes at Wood School, they got rid of a field, and then the other field, of course, it was maybe ten times the cost of a city field to use on an hourly basis.

So there are economics involved.

And we had to study those economics.

We are still using the AUSD field Monday through Thursday for this age group at a significant cost bearing uh to our nonprofit organization.

We've invested considerably.

Um Amy came to me back in 2014, 2000 with the Challenger field, and and she did a fantastic job.

We we donated $50,000 at that time.

That was uh a lot more than it is today.

And uh Amy was able to get significant funds to help build the Challenger field at Estuary Park.

Uh we've invested in many fields throughout the city.

Over the last 100%, thank you so much.

Your time is that our next speaker.

Thank you.

Chris Ellsworth, then Eric Embry, then we do have a remote speaker.

Welcome, Speaker Ellsworth.

Hi.

Hi.

Uh I live at 1414 Pacific Avenue, directly across from Little John.

I have three kids who play in the minor leagues, and I also manage a team.

Um regarding the usage of the park by Little League, I am generally supportive of it.

Noise levels have been reasonable, not much higher than when Little League wasn't playing there when there's birthday parties or other things.

Um parking has been better than I expected.

It hasn't been awesome, but I've always been able to find a parking spot on my block on the weekends, which is again for a park of that usage has been is par for that course.

Um there has been congestion during the drop-off uh windows, uh, but it's never been more than like 30 seconds, and given that Pacific is a slow street, um, it seems fair use of that street.

Um while I miss the picnics, the volleyball games I used to play there, and soccer pickup groups.

Uh I recognize that there's a lot of kids in Alameda who want to play organized sports, and that we as a city and the city council have to manage and balance the uses against each other.

Um I would like to point out that the MOU as posted on the agenda website contains defects in dates and times.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Eric Embry.

Welcome, Speaker Embry.

Thank you.

Hello, Council, Mayor.

Thanks for your time.

Um I live on Pacific Avenue, very close to Little John, so I've come today just to hear what everybody had to say and add something.

And fortunately, being the last person, I've heard a lot of things brought up already that I would have brought up.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilman Daysog.

Um I walk to the park every day with my dogs, and I've lived there for 12 years, and when the little guys used to practice there, it was an integral part of the activities of the park, and you would have the rest of the community and join the field alongside the little league practice.

With this new group that's come in, it's been a drastic change, I would say.

Um mainly due to the fence.

So I do appreciate that that's already been mentioned.

I think the fence changes the character of the park tremendously.

Um I think it's a fantastic idea if the fence is taken down, especially given that it's uh temporary or removable any time that there isn't an active use of the field by Little League.

Um not Monday morning so much as maybe Sunday at five or even Saturday night if there are no makeup games.

Um I think it's a great idea for Parks and Rec to bring this forward in front of the commission.

Uh community outreach-wise, I knew nothing of either of the meetings and like say I live a block and a half away and I walk the park every day with my dogs.

Uh it don't feel like the outreach was quite sufficient.

Um I've talked to some of the parents very recently in the last week who I've seen pulling up parking, getting out, going to the field, and I've asked them about their awareness of the parking plan.

Uh so far, 100% are not aware that they're supposed to park elsewhere at Sweeney.

I said you haven't seen the map.

No.

So I think Little League should do a little better job with the outreach with the administration.

Thank you so much for your comment.

And now we have two remote speakers.

All right.

The first is Wallace Beaver.

All right.

Welcome.

What was the name again?

Wallace Beaver.

Okay, welcome, Speaker Beaver.

Hello, Michael Bawally.

Nice to thank you for having me.

First of all, I want to thank um our ARPD staff and ALL volunteers for making the field playable for this year.

It was definitely a bit of a panic for a lot of families to know what we were going to do this year.

Um three things I just want to quickly address is that first of all, there's precedent for this arrangement in town, right?

There's large fields that are constantly consumed by single or multiple sports on any given weekend in their middle in the middle of neighborhoods.

And the local residents, as far as I know as a citizen, are not revolting against their presence, right?

They've accepted it as part of their day-to-day life.

And I, while I understand this sudden change in the neighborhood is hard for those folks uh at Little John.

Again, this is not unique.

And that's been a baseball field for my entire life.

I've been here 50 years.

It's a baseball field.

It's not for bouncy houses.

And so if we want to, if it's wants to be rented as a baseball field, it seems like that should be precedent.

Um as far as the fence goes, baseball fields have fences.

Um I appreciate that people want to use the park and run their dogs there, et cetera.

But again, it's a baseball field.

So in a perfect world, we have a place to play baseball.

Um for the person who said we consume most of the park, the footprint of the baseball field is probably 30% of the park, 40% of the park.

We don't use the basketball court, we don't use the building, we don't use the playground.

We, you know, we we hang out in the outfield and use the barbecues if they're available, and we want to, but that's what you know, there's nothing wrong with that.

Last thing I want to say is that you know, baseball continues to be part of the legacy of the city, and it seems like there's lack of support from certain people within the powers that be.

Um I understand the need for equality, but it's a shame to see something that's been so powerful in the city sort of diminished over the past couple of years.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker, Alison Green.

Welcome, Speaker Green.

Um, can you hear me?

I can't work.

We can.

Hi.

Hi.

Um I I just I want to address one thing the last speaker just said, which was no one is not in support of baseball or youth sports, and that has never been an issue with with the neighborhood.

It's been the communication and it has been driving out the diverse multicultural use of what is a general use field, as far as I understand from the city designation.

So, yes, there's a baseball field.

It's not exclusively a baseball field.

And also 30% is I don't know that that's accurate, but the de facto footprint of the baseball field makes pretty much the entire or most of the park, you know, dedicated to a baseball game while it's going on.

Also not necessarily a problem.

But I think the thing that bothers me is that there's a presumption or assumption of the right for Alameda Little League to have this park.

I've you know something was up that was very misleading and divisive, frankly, on Little League's site today saying that a friend one of the friendly city council people got them word that this would be pulled from the consent calendar and that the neighborhood is trying to stop Little League from using the park.

That it's false, it's inflammatory, and frankly, I think it is probably unfair to city council members to be characterized that way.

So I question whether or not there are sufficient city council members who are able to vote on this tonight because they have been characterized that way.

So thank you.

Thank you.

We have one more remote.

And our next speaker is Elaine Mendez.

Welcome, Speaker Mendez.

Hi, thank you so much for your time, City Council.

Um I just kind of wanted to.

I'm a mother of uh a little league baseball player.

And initially I was one of the guilty people, and I felt really bad that I didn't get the email.

I did get the email.

I was busy, I had three jobs, I didn't see it.

And as soon as I found out about it, I moved my car.

I volunteered whenever there was a baseball game to tell people, and people were really you know, coming together.

They want to be there.

They are so desperate to not take this away from the kids.

Um, especially seeing how because Alameda City has decided to raise the fees for the major field where we normally would play, and it would never have affected this other community.

Because you have raised it three times the amount, and we can't afford it, we can't play there.

So, you know, uh we're trying to work with the city to find something to find an equal ground that you know doesn't cost the parents who can't afford it, you know, um to be able to play, to be able to see their kids go out and play, to work with the community.

Um with the the building of school and the renovations that have gone on, things have kind of gone back and forth and not in our favor.

Things that said that were gonna happen and then they were taken away from us.

And so I will say we probably didn't react in the best, but we desperately want to try, and we desperately want to work with everybody and to make this effect.

So much your time is up.

That was our last and that is our last um our last um uh comment from the public.

So um we will close public comment.

And I just want to say, just for everyone to hear, I don't think there's a single council member up here that's against Little League and doesn't want kids to find a place to play youth sports are extremely important.

Um I think you know, we have a little work to do, but I think we can get there.

Um who would like to start with comments?

Councilmember Desak.

I just have a clarifying question in light of two comments regarding economics.

Um we heard the president indicate that the um economics regarding one of the fields that uh would school area had changed, and we had her the last speaker mentioned the raising of the fees had a major impact.

So the question is if um we basically went back to a lower fee, would that basically um uh change things in in such a that this fee this field would not be needed?

Director Long.

Um Councilmember Days to clarify the fee she referenced was in a USD fee that the school district is charging.

Um in our last fee schedule, ARPD fees are $11 an hour for uh field to be used.

And and thank you for that point because that was the other clarification I wanted to make.

This happens a lot.

It's the Alameda Unified School District and the City of Alameda, they share a word, but they are separate, they have different governing boards, different funding sources, different budgets.

We don't set those fees.

Thank you for that.

Thank you for another clarifying question.

Yeah, of course.

Uh another clarifying question.

Um, so we've heard um some uh we whether through email or through um presentations tonight, um, in fact, in fact, you pointed out that a volunteer had shoot-away um uh people at a not an appropriate time.

So it seems as though maybe there's some uh room for um proper signage, delineating, you know, when um the the baseball fields are to be used expressly for baseball purposes and when it's available um specifically for the public for whatever use that that that they want.

Have you considered you know placement of signage with clear clear directions as to the dates and the time periods when when baseball is is uh available used to be used and when the public can use it.

Large signs like you know 22 by really large poster signs with large fonts.

What's your communication strategy to inform the public when the public has a right to use the baseball fields?

Um Commissioner De Saiyaza said in my presentation that we'd be open to putting up signage.

Um as with our tennis courts, we often put up QR codes that people can check to see when a court is reserved or it's being used by a group.

We can do so in the same manner in order to make sure people are informed when uh there is being occupied by a rental group.

Thank you.

Um as long as we're on the topic of how to inform the public.

One of the last in-person speakers did suggest that it's great to take the fence down, I concur, but suggested that rather than waiting till Monday morning, because it stays light, late and all that.

If there is not a makeup game scheduled on Sunday, then to take it down at the end of the usage time Saturday evening.

If there is a makeup game to take it down at 5 p.m.

Um Sunday evening, that would I think go a long way toward um uh appeasing some of the neighbors' concerns.

Since this proposal came recently this afternoon, I think we can work out exactly those details about when it can be removed and when it can be put up.

But I will take your recommendation to do so.

Well, I think there might even be a council direction to staff to that effect.

But we'll see.

Just hold that thought.

Okay.

Back to you, Council Member Desal.

Did you think that's the one?

I do have one more clarifying question, but I think we are actually at the time where you can say whatever you want.

We're past clarifying questions, you can discuss, go for it.

One more clarifying question on the matter of the fence.

Have you contemplated instead of you um uh placing a fence there even on the weekends?

Have you contemplated putting pylons to delineate where the baseball field is and where the public, given that the fence really, as you had indicated earlier, isn't there for purposes of you know stopping rolling balls?

It's mainly to delineate public space versus baseball space.

Uh we we've not explored that because we're really more concerned about the general public just walking into a space and not knowing that a rolling ball or a potential ball could hit them.

And so that's why we have always put the temporary fences up, like at Bayport, we've used these at Lower Washington.

It's really to for the safety of the general public.

Couldn't signage indicate when people ought not to walk.

I I again I'm working in public for a long time, I would prefer the fence.

Uh it's a general nature of public kids can't read often when they're running around in little, and this is a way that we can protect everyone in the public.

Okay, and Councilmember Volley, did I see your hand up?

No, but I do have a question if that's go for it.

Okay.

Thank you.

And thank you, Director Long.

And um, you know, I just want to note for the record first that you know we've got a correspondence file that has 50 pages, because we've, as you know, we've received a lot of emails and you've been good about replying to a lot of those and trying to get good information to the community.

Um so definitely appreciate that.

And um the issue of the fence, what is your take on the suggestions in terms of can the fence just be removed for periods of time to help alleviate that problem of the perception and other some gaps in the FESN Raj, but the perception seems to be that they can't use the park as much as you'd like, and that we don't want that.

Yeah, I ARPD is happy to support that.

I I think that um in our original conversations we talked about the removal after games.

Um I think there was a lot of conversation around how much effort that would take after each specific game if they had to do it daily.

Um but I do think that as a rationale for being able to create open space Monday through Friday for the general public to not have that perception.

We are happy to support that and gladly support that.

And then you may have covered this before, so I apologize if you did, but I is there any brainstorming around the concept of you know the department's staff or department volunteers in this trial period being there to kind of monitor, keep an eye on things and help facilitate, you know, you had the caller that called in and talked about how there are people, of course, with Little League itself too that are very motivated to try to make this work.

But is it is it a good idea?

Have you thought about that?

And definitely, I mean, not only have I thought about it, I was like I said, I during the presentation, I was actually there.

I actually spoke to the last caller who was unaware of the issue and we talked about it, and then she immediately began began volunteering.

Um I spent the rest of the day there.

I got there at 8 o'clock and I was there until about two o'clock, you know, helping to direct people to the parking lot.

Um I also worked with El Mito Little League.

They attempted to put up signage.

I think there at that time there was a misunderstanding around the signage, but we worked with them on that one.

But we've talked to them with having their volunteers from a staffing perspective.

I've asked our park monitor who is around on the weekends to stop by to see how it's going.

Uh she spends time to double check to see if there's parking available on the street.

She stops.

So again, there's other avenues which I've attempted to do that.

I think having a permanent staff member there is difficult for us because we have so many things going on on the weekend.

But we are trying to put attention to that.

Uh I also hold weekly meetings with uh Alameda Little League to discuss anything that's happening.

So we're trying to make every effort we can in order to try to make this as smooth as possible for people.

Okay, thank you.

Um and just to follow up on Councilmember Bowler's point.

It's great to follow up after the fact with Little League, but it is more helpful to have things happen in real time.

And so trust me, I get staffing issues, but we do have our park monitors, and I wonder if there is a way that you might be able to schedule, because um, you know, I don't worry about the Monday through Friday or the whatever it is practice times, but on the weekends when there are possible competing uses for the park.

I just um and again that may come back in the form of a council um direction.

Anything from further from you?

Okay, Vice Mayor.

Um I just wanted to clarify this.

Um I thought you said there was like a 40 foot um like gap, I guess, like in the fence, so people could walk through there if there weren't games.

Yes.

So at the end of the third and first baseline before the temporary outfield fence, there is a approximately a 30 to 40 foot gap where people can walk in.

You'll often see people with their dogs there.

You'll see them using the field, they walk into the grass area pretty regularly.

I'm there during the week, I stop in, check it out, and so there is activity still on the the outfield of the field.

There's no physical fence gate or barrier that is required to enter the field.

Oh, okay.

Um yeah, because I and then the only thing I was thinking um at Riddler Park, you know, they didn't um they weren't using um I at Riddlerk Park before all the construction.

Um they have I I don't know if they're made of maybe plastic, but they're like barriers, but they were only like three feet or four feet.

Um I did I don't know is that an option to use and so I I'm not so now I'm not understanding why the big fence is an issue.

You can still go there, but I don't live there, so I don't know.

So the outfield fence is that temporary flexible fence that is about three and a half, four feet tall.

Oh, okay, thank you.

Councilmember Jensen?

No, that answered my question.

Thank you.

All right.

And you have nothing you want to add?

Um first of all, I want to say I appreciate everything you do, um, Director Long.

We've got a great park system.

Um, and it's it's great.

And the fact that it's so well used, I mean, that's a good thing, because we want kids to be involved in sports.

Um we want, I mean, people of all ages really.

Our parks are multi-generational.

You know, speaking of kids of all ages and abilities, I have heard it said, but only anecdotally, didn't have a chance to check up on it.

That there is that a la Costa Recreation group, which uses the Little John Community Center.

And this for those who might not know, is I'm a really nice program for um older teens and young adults with developmental um disabilities.

I am told that they are being limited from being able to use the field um during the week when their activities are going on.

Can you so to clarify, Mayor?

Um they are not being prohibited from using the field during the week.

Um when we held both community meetings, Alicosa was present at both of those community meetings.

We asked about uh any concerns they had.

We specifically talked to them about areas that they use, and they were primarily focusing on the hardscape area adjacent to the building in the playground at that time, but they did not think that they were going to be blocked from the field, which they're currently not being.

Um concern was more around drop-off and pickup and making sure they had ample space in order to pick up the kids.

And I think by having that temporary loading zone, we actually have that created.

Um regular communication with Alacosta and they've not brought it up as an issue to date.

Okay.

I'm glad to hear that.

I also heard that there had been some trash left in their planting beds along the side of the building.

So that's incumbent on Little League, right, to do the cleanup.

That is a comment on Little League to do the cleanup after their games.

If not, my staff still service the park regularly.

And so you shouldn't see a buildup of anything over any period of time.

Okay.

Well, I'm sure I'll hear if there is.

Um so um thank you for that.

And you can sit down.

What I would like to see, because I feel that this issue has been negatively impacted by a lack of transparency.

Um I actually wanted to ask the city attorney, is there something we might need to do?

Perhaps a change in the municipal code to specify who can and cannot um uh you know allocate park space.

Um, you know, whether it should be able to be done at a staff level.

Hold that thought.

But one of the things I would like to suggest is that um this item does come back to the Recreation and Parks Commission to explore, not you know, let's finish this season, whatever it is, but to explore if there aren't possibly other park fields and maybe some modifications would have to be made just like they were made at Little John, but other parks that wouldn't then foreclose the public's use of those parks.

Nobody is disputing the value of this little league program, but there's also a lot of value to having a neighborhood park.

And uh the fence changes are great, but I want to see them as expansive as possible rather than waiting till Monday morning.

But um I would like to um to give staff direction to um to bring it to the recreation parks commission to explore other alternatives.

Um, you know, maybe there are, maybe there aren't, but these would be public meetings, hearings, and it would notice which just addresses a lot of the transparency concerns.

Um those are my um in addition to everything else that I've said, um I would like to yeah, City Attorney Shen.

Uh Madam Mayor, I my suggestion on the council direction with respect to whether it's staff, council, or commissions that allocate park space is that similar to the direction you gave us earlier in the year about street improvements.

You give staff the opportunity to work together, maybe the city manager's office, my office, uh, and uh Director Along's team will work together to uh respond to the council's concern and ensure that um the council's concerns are adequately addressed.

Uh I I think we hear you loud and clear that the council would like us to take a closer look.

Okay, because I see it as a yes and we we want both of these things, but it just seems a shame to have one wonderful use, supplant another wonderful use, especially if there's an alternative location that would allow us to have both.

Okay.

Um anyone want to add to that or oh, I do have a question, sorry.

Um the construction um is done at Rittler Park, is this gonna positively impact the I I guess the usage for um little league?

Um is that a Justin Long or a Matt Nolan or come on up?

Sorry, this is city staff.

We finished public comment.

Um again, can you repeat the question?

Oh, when um the construction is is done, you it or I guess the impacts of Riddler Park are I don't know when that will be finished, but will the will there be more um space for little league teams?

Um there will won't be any additional space.

Actually, we gave up a portion of the park for the school to be constructed, so the park actually got smaller.

Got it.

Okay.

Oh well, thank you.

Um I was no, thank you.

This isn't for you.

This is for the council.

I was just reminded that I have run out of time, and so I do need a motion and a second to keep talking, at least to get this item closed.

Otherwise, we're gonna do that.

Three minutes or five minutes.

Um I'd like two more minutes.

Uh moved by Bowler, seconded by Jensen.

All those in favor signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Um who wants to come up with a motion?

For everyone, by the way.

Say it again.

Is that two minutes for everyone?

Um You want two additional minutes on top of everything?

Sure.

Yeah.

You can want a lot of things.

We have a whole agenda ahead of us.

Do you need nine minutes?

Oh, I'm going to have five minutes, so that would be seven minutes.

Just make a motion, council.

Move uh two minutes for every council member.

Uh all those in favor signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

I guess you got four.

You didn't get mine.

Okay.

So take it away with all that time.

Let's hear from you.

Even more clarifying questions.

What is the standard distance for 10 to 12 baseball age group from home plate to uh typical fences that in the outfield.

And and how does the distance compare with what we have here?

Is it less or more?

So Councilman Desog, the amount of space that is needed for this age group is approximately 200 feet from home plate.

And what the temporary fence is set at is the 200 feet.

It's 200 feet.

Okay.

Okay.

Great.

Have you given some thought to fencing that is not complete so that there might be gaps?

Because I think the part of the issue is people who live on Buena Vista north of Buena Vista and Benton, particularly to the east, that they, upon coming to Little John Park, are faced with basically a fence during the um during uh the weekends.

Um Councilman Day Sog, so uh again at the end of the third baseline, which is at uh No, no, but by a gap like in center field or a gap in center right field or center left field instead of having one complete seamless fence of a certain length.

So I'll again go back to my concern around safety.

So you have it.

Okay, sorry, thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Do you want to continue?

Council Member Design?

Oh, yeah um Yeah, I think my my concern is really the publicness of uh Little John Park, um, also what used to be known as Buena Vista Park.

Um I think the length of the fence is problematic.

I appreciate that I think it's forward progress the fact that the fence um will be removed um uh for Mondays through basically most of Fridays.

Um but I think for the residents there, I think the the presence of the fence um becomes not only uh a uh visual barrier, but it becomes a physical barrier that kind of um makes the baseball field completely read as only for baseball as opposed to something for the public at large.

I'm not convinced that our uh parks director had made a good enough case to have the fence in the first place.

Um I think I I we we heard testimony that the ball isn't typically hit all the way out there at a certain length when it falls down.

Um so if if the ball is coming out, it's probably most likely going to roll out there.

Of course, I haven't played baseball there since 1978.

Um I'm not convinced that that that there is a need for a fence uh to delineate because that's the point of the fence is to delineate public space, limited as it is, north of the fence from baseball field.

Um I think that that uh we should uh spend more time thinking about alternatives like pylons, if if no fence whatsoever, in an effort to make sure that Little John continues to read as a neighborhood park for the public.

Um I I I appreciate you know baseball, and I appreciate you know all the um all the things that that you've done in terms of you know uh not only um making great athletes of of of a lot of baseball players, but just you know getting kids energized in sports, but this is also a public neighborhood facility, and we ought not to lose track of that, and so I think we should try to strike a con an accommodation.

I think there's been ample testimony indicating that members of the public have been shooed away, have been scared off to make uh uh resulting in making Little John Park basically a baseball field as opposed to a public park.

And so I think um better noticing is needed uh to make sure that not just um Little John Park, but any park uh when it's available specifically for public use as opposed to when it's available for for baseball use.

Um I think you know we we need to improve on our noticing.

So to summarize, I'm not convinced that a fence is needed whatsoever, given its effect on making what is clearly a neighborhood park read as something specific to baseball when it's not, when it ought not to be.

Um and I do believe that um there has to be clear noticing so that the baseball community themselves obtain guidance as to when they can discourage people from walking on or using the facility, and also when the public itself um has a right to use you know their their community asset, their neighborhood asset.

Thank you.

I'm going to ask the city attorney to weigh in because fences, as the recreation parks director has stated, that are intended to protect the public, I think are a risk management and insurance issue.

City attorney I don't like to just put people on the spot.

Who you're the city attorney?

Well, I mean, in many ways we have to work collaboratively with our staff who has the on-the-ground experience, and I think we heard from our staff that without the fence, people can risk getting hit by a ball and sustain injuries.

And so given that, you know, we uh certainly defer to our colleagues' expertise there, and we understand why it needs to be there because we the last thing we want is people to be hit by a ball, which is hard and could cause very serious injuries.

Thank you for that.

Um want to come up with a motion with some direction to staff.

Um I would we've heard the one that we ask the staff to work collaboratively with the city manager's office and the city attorney in recreation and parks.

Um do we want to um advance that?

Of course.

Um thank you.

My question is for um it's in the report somewhat, so um if we could have Director Long As I understand it, the um season that we're discussing is for about another six weeks, is that correct?

That's correct.

And then they are looking at starting fall ball in from August 1st until November 1st.

So anything that we're discussing now would be uh impacting the next the upcoming season?

It would it would be for that span of time is what the MOU describes.

Which is beginning in August.

It's from March 15th until the end of May, and then from August 1st until November 1st.

Thank you.

So uh well, yeah, I guess my question or my point is that it would be good to clarify when any action or um is happening with this.

Yeah, so Councilmember Jensen, we can give staff whatever direction we want.

Those are the dates that were stated.

We can say we want to look at an alternative when this field when this usage stops and before August.

And I would certainly favor that.

Um Thank you.

So did you want to Vice Mayor, did you have any further?

Do you want to make a motion to give staff direction?

Anyone sure how to I just want to make sure to make one point with regard to safety.

I appreciate uh the city attorney's um uh comments regarding safety, and I also appreciate the mayor's question regarding um risk management, uh valid questions.

I just want to point out that it's been said uh this evening by believe uh our park director is that the 10 to 12-year-olds don't generally hit the ball at a going at a length in the sky that reaches the fence, resulting in some kind of injury to people.

They just don't hit that far.

A and B, if it's a ground ball, more than likely at some point in time the ground ball will lose momentum on the on the on the grass.

So I mean these are 10 to 12 year olds.

Great I I have no doubt really good 10 to 12-year-old baseball players.

But you know, we're not talking like you know, Jose Canseco shots screaming across the baseball field.

So I do believe that the um uh uh arguments about safety um and and the fencing, you know, need to be balanced with those in mind.

Uh Vice Mayor, I I was gonna say I would assume the bigger challenge were people walking aimlessly into an active game, not necessarily how strong children are, you know, while they're at bat.

Um I think we've all been guilty of aimlessly walking with our phones into places we shouldn't be.

So I think if you're at a park and you assume in your brain there's nothing going on, you're gonna walk.

I I would guess I I mean j like director long might elaborate, but I I think I think we could agree with that.

Okay.

Do you want to make a motion?

Um vice mayor.

Oh, Council Movents.

Are there any standards um with regard to risk management with regard to insurance coverage for sports fields that would establish that certain fields would have fencing in certain places?

Uh no, our our JPA's coverage is fairly uniform, and they leave it to the governing body, which is the city council to to make the ultimate decision on you know how to operate the city.

Councilmember Bowler.

Um if I understand correctly, there's been conversation about adopting the city attorney's um proposed direction to staff, and I for just for clarity.

I do.

But staff and the city manager's attorney, um, office and city attorney's office.

Okay, so you can't.

Okay.

All right.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Vice Mayor Parseconds.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none.

All those approval of the direction with uh also directing it to go to the uh recommend park commission, the city manager, and the city attorney.

Yeah, to come back to us.

And again before the August season begins with some alternatives.

City manager, city attorney.

Apologies.

Uh but just a quick question, Councilmember.

Does your motion include uh adopting this version or any version of the MOU?

Yeah.

No, it does not.

No.

Okay.

We'll start from scratch.

All right.

Okay.

It's been moved by Councilmember Bowler, seconded by council uh vice mayor prior.

All those in favor, please.

Clarify, so we are not adopting the MOU.

Not at this time.

We're going back to staff.

Would this would this result in the termination of the program immediately?

No.

Okay, council, unless the council directs that uh this motion is silent on how the program would proceed, and it would, you know, I think the city manager will have discretion and how to uh you know balance the competing uses on the field consistent with the council's direction.

And knows that he needs to come back before that season starts again in August.

So it doesn't impact the current season.

Okay.

But we still want those fence removal dates and all that, not yours, sorry.

Um all those okay.

Motion it's been moved, it's been seconded.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, any abstentions?

I'll abstain.

All right.

That motion passes with four ayes and one abstention.

Um good work.

Thank you all, and thank you for being a very civil, polite, courteous crowd.

I appreciate that.

Um it is I always set my timer for two hours when we start a meeting.

In nine minutes, it'll be two hours.

So rather than start our next item, I'm going to give us a break, but please come back by 9.05.

It's 851.

Please be back in your seats, ready to go at 9.05.

At least all the council members.

Thank you, everyone,

Vice Mayor Pryor, Councilmember Jensen, this meeting is is the balcony ready?

Okay.

This meeting is balcony ready?

Balcony's ready.

I need to see those thumbs, you guys.

Okay.

Uh, because as we say, if the balcony is ready, we're all ready.

Madam Clerk, where are we?

Did you want to call 7B next?

Uh the radium.

Yes.

Yes, thank you.

Yes.

Even without the two twos, I am disappointed.

Is there not a two-two in the chambers?

Okay.

Anyway.

Um, I Madam Plum.

I mean, you do say that in place.

Uh, approval of project agreements with radium presents for the Radium Performing Arts Center, consisting of the development of an approximately fifty-three thousand square foot performing arts center and approximately one acre plaza on one point eight seven acres of city owned land, referred to as site A blocks twelve and thirteen at Alameda Point, including adoption of a site-specific surplus land exemption.

Uh, this is a public hearing to consider adoption of resolution declaring one point eight seven acres of city owned land between seventy-seven building seventy-seven and seaplane lagoon promenade to be exempt surplus land under the surplus lands act and introduction of ordinance approving a lease option for three years with three one-year extensions in furtherance of a sixty-six-year ground lease with purchase option with radium presents for approximately one point eight seven acres of land located at Alameda Point and authorizing the city manager to execute a purchase and sale agreement consistent with the purchase option.

This uh ordinance requires four affirmative votes.

Anyway, welcome.

Hello, you want to introduce yourself?

Absolutely.

Okay, so we before you even get started.

Um, Council, this is a really important um I mean, everything's important, let's be clear.

But um, this has been a long time coming.

And so staff would like 15 minutes as opposed to the 10 that they are allocated um anyway.

So could I get a motion to add I would like to finish my sentence and then without speaking over the mayor, you may politely make your motion, thank you.

Um, I like a motion to add five minutes to the total speaking time for a total of 15 moved by Councilmember Jensen.

Yes.

And second by Vice Mayor Pryor.

All those in favor of seat of my saying.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

You have magically have 15 minutes.

Take it away.

Thank you very much.

And good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the city council, uh, Walker Toma, Base Reuse and Economic Development Department.

So I am here this evening to present for your consideration the real estate agreements.

I won't repeat all of those titles again.

Spear 15 minutes for the City of Alameda and Radium Presents to move forward with the funding, construction, and operation of a perfored performing arts center at Alameda Point.

Following my presentation, Christopher Seiwald of Radium Presents will give a short presentation to the council as well.

And I also want to note that in addition to my my city colleagues, we have available for questions David Dial, who is an expert in cultural facilities operations and has assisted the city throughout this negotiation process, as well as Jessica Lomakin of BBK, who's uh served as the city's outside council on the project agreements.

Uh there are also several consultants engaged by the developer who are available on Zoom to answer any questions you may have.

So uh again, I will not repeat all of it, but staff it recommends that uh council adopts a resolution declaring 1.87 acres of city owned land to be exempt surplus, land under the surplus lands act, and adopt an ordinance approving a lease option agreement that would lead to a ground lease with an option to purchase and authorize the interim city manager to sign a purchase and sale agreement if the purchase option is exercised.

The site in question is primarily comprised of uh blocks 12 and 13 of the site A development plan.

The proposed lease would include approximately 1.87 acres.

That was what would be exempt surplus of city owned land on the former taxiway.

This is part of Taxiway H as you often hear about it.

Uh this includes uh land to the west of blocks 12 and 13 to accommodate loading, utilities, and uh and bioretention, so that little kind of backwards P.

Uh the developer will also be completing improvements to the north and south of the lease premises, most notably the construction of a new pedestrian-oriented roadway connecting to Pan Am and running uh east-west.

Um between the the proposed theater and building 77, which is where the Alameda Naval Air Museum is located.

Consistent with the site A development plan amendments and the waterfront and town center precise plan, which envision the site activated with a catalytic cultural use.

Uh the proposed project is a 53,000 square foot performing arts center that features a main theater, studio theater, uh rehearsal rooms, lobby, gallery, cafe, and a rooftop bar.

Um the project also includes an approximately one acre public plaza that would be built and maintained by the developer.

Uh the developer estimates that the project will cost approximately 150 million dollars and will be funded entirely through philanthropic dollars.

The city would provide no operating subsidies for the project, and the facility would be operated as a as a nonprofit.

Um they estimate approximately 12-time full-time staff would operate the facility.

A little bit of background.

Uh back in 2023, end of 2023, the council approved an exclusive negotiating agreement or an ENA between the city and Little Opera House, which is now Radium Presents, uh, to negotiate a ground lease and a purchase option for for this site.

Uh the ENA was extended in 2024 and 2025 to give us additional time to complete negotiations.

And the ENA currently expires uh next week.

The ENA required the developer to complete initial planning entitlements before bringing the real estate agreements before you for consideration.

With part of that effort, uh the project was considered in two public workshops with the uh historical advisory board or the HAB and two uh public workshops with the planning board.

There was also a joint subcommittee formed comprised of members of these two boards that met three additional times.

Uh in short, the proposed project has undergone significant review and consideration before coming before you this evening.

Last month, the HAB unanimously approved a certificate of approval for the project, which also served to satisfy compliance with the applicable uh California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA requirements.

And also last month, uh the planning board unanimously approved an amendment to the site A development plan and concurred with the HAB CEQA findings.

Prior to selling or entering into a long-term lease on land owned by the city, the surplus land act requires the city to declare land surplus or surplus exempt, uh, which is why the recommended resolution before you this evening declares the 1.7 acre city-owned property as exempt surplus land under the Surplus Lands Act.

Before walking through the real estate agreement structure, I wanted to provide a bit of contextual framing that staff used in negotiating some of the key terms in this in this deal.

First and foremost, the goal is the creation of a community-serving performing arts center.

This is a this proposed project is ambitious and would be transformational for Alameda Point and for the city.

We also want to avoid a half-built project or a facility that can't sustain itself operationally.

And lastly, the city's participation in the project should be clearly defined, limited, but sustained, ensuring that this project can be enjoyed by generations to come.

Okay.

So the nuts and bolts of the agreements.

Wherein if the developer does everything that they're supposed to do in the allotted time, they have the option of exercising the ground lease and subsequently a purchase option.

The lease option period would be three years with three one-year extensions, during which time the developer does not yet have control of the land but must raise 100% of the project funds and fully entitled the property so that they're ready to begin construction shortly after the ground lease begins.

The ground lease itself is proposed to be 66 years at a dollar a year.

It's a good deal.

And following construction of the project and the first performance, the developer will need to sustainably operate the facility for a minimum of 10 years before having the option to purchase the land from the city.

A restrictive covenant will be placed on the land so that can only be operated by a nonprofit and used as a community serving facility.

And the city would have an option to buy back the facility through a right of first refusal.

This project will trigger circulation and infrastructure changes at Alameda Point.

Most notably the city is committing to spending approximately four and a half million dollars on a new north-south roadway connecting to West Tower between buildings 40 and 41.

That's that uh blue line number six there.

Uh this road is not currently included in the master infrastructure plan or the MIP as we refer to it.

The new roadway would be constructed when Seaplane North, which is in the MIP and is that uh east-west uh that would connect on to Monarch that's shown there, uh, would be ready to be constructed, which we anticipate to be a number of years in the future.

However, in the end term, the city will create a temporary north-south roadway, which along with the temporary parking lot shown west of the part of the project, will need to be completed by the city before the performing arts center receives its certificate of occupancy.

There are several community benefits that would be generated by this project, some of which are neighborhood or community scale community-wide in scale.

These include obviously the performing arts facility, the one-acre plaza, the new roadway.

There are also numerous programmatic community benefits that would be generated by the project.

Um these are benefits specific to the operations of the facility itself.

So those include a minimum level of activation, uh, public access to areas of the facility like the rooftop and the lobby, where it would be structured similar to the the viewing tower that the young museum, if any of you have ever frequented that, hiring of formerly homeless, discounted tickets to students, active military, and seniors, reduce rental rates for local nonprofits, and the ability for the city to use the facility at cost uh for its own events.

I will not read through these because we just talked about them.

Uh but staff sought to negotiate an agreement that achieves city goals and mitigates risk.

The terms of this agreement achieve these goals, incorporating a pragmatic development suspenders approach to fundraising to construction and to operations of the proposed project.

So again, staff is recommending the council approve the ordinance and resolution before you so that the city and rating presents can move forward with this ambitious project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nice job, Mr.

Chema.

And now, Mr.

Seibald would like to come in.

Comment, Mr.

Seiwald.

And that there's five minutes remaining.

I will talk fast.

Maybe not quite that fast.

That was quite impressive.

Um, my name is Christopher Seywell.

Thank you, Council uh Mayor for uh for having me.

Uh sorry about the lack of tutos, but if I show up again, I will I will wear one.

This is an idea that started almost 10 years ago as a good idea.

Uh when my daughter wore her two-two, she had to go down to a Hayward to perform uh for her the for her uh for her parents, and not that there's anything wrong with Hayward, but it is, as you know, off the island.

Um it went from a good idea to a better idea when we started looking around the Bay Area to realize that there was really no great performing arts uh destination of this size and caliber, a quality, relatively small performing arts center.

And um since then it really has evolved into a a great idea.

Um I think one thing that the the pandemic and now AI is teaching us is that we we like people and uh that we want to be around people and uh doing people things.

And uh so we put a lot of effort into this into this project.

We have a fantastic architect, designer, um, uh landscape architect and team, Alamedans and uh and others who have really put a lot of heart and soul into making something that uh really should should I hate to say it because I know that Alamedans uh don't want to be on the map, uh, but we'll put uh Alameda on the map as a as a as a as a destination.

Um the arts bring people together uh in uh in a way that they don't necessarily get together otherwise.

They don't have to talk about politics, they just get to enjoy each other's uh pleasant company, and I think that's a very important thing uh for us all going forward.

Um this is uh just one step in a very long process.

This is a very important step uh for fundraising and uh moving this forward.

So we're very appreciative of your consideration.

Uh I would also like to uh make a shout out to the city staff who has been so helpful in uh bringing this uh through over the last four years.

Um Walker, Abby, uh Nicole, and Brian in particular have uh worked with us tremendously and have been um been just great partners.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right.

Um there's three minutes remaining.

Do you need to like that?

No, you're good.

All right.

We'll take we'll take back the time.

Um so um do are there any clarifying questions before we have public comment?

And I'm assuming we have public comment.

I'm not seeing any clear council member Desak has clarified questions.

I I just have a clarifying question regarding uh one of the points that you made at the tail end regarding access to lobby and balcony viewing areas.

Um have you thought about the instrument by which you would memorialize slash institutionalize um access to the lobby and balcony viewing areas because I think from that vantage point, it'll be a breathtaking view of the San Francisco in the distance or in the direction of the Hornet uh that side of the bay.

So have you thought about you know the instruments by which you would memorialize public access to there?

Yeah, absolutely.

And and so just to clarify the you know, the the the intention is that these areas would be open to the public whenever the facility is open, and you know you don't have to have a ticket to the performance, but you could go up and be on the balcony.

Wonderful.

Yeah, and so the the idea is that this would run with the land, so it would be part of the restrictive covenant that would be established.

And so people could you know come off the street and walk in and enjoy the lobby whenever the doors were unlocked for for any kind of performance or you know, practice.

Wow, that's fabulous.

I mean to to uh uh repeat that phrase it would be run with the land as part of the restricted covenant.

That's that's amazing.

Okay, great.

Well, thank you.

Appreciate that.

Yeah.

And and if you haven't been up in the tower of the De Young Museum in Golden Gate Park.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, 360 degree view, right?

That's what we'll have.

Almost.

Yeah, thank you.

Um other clarifying questions, Councilmember Jensen.

Um Mr.

Toma.

Can you just please clarify um the surplus lands act requirements uh as I understand it establishes that lands would be available for housing or for other uses?

And so can you just clarify how this is um being made exempt?

Yeah, so the so Alameda has its own exemption under the surplus land act that is unique to Alameda Point.

Um it's it has a it was crafted uh in legislation by um assemblywoman Bonta.

And and so it it has certain criteria that you have to meet in order to uh to utilize this exemption, but uh the city of Alameda can we can use this specific exemption for properties that are located at Alameda Point.

And so that's that's what we would be using in this case.

Thank you.

And so to be clear, this site would not it is exempt and and it it wouldn't be a good site for housing anyway, being on the on the seaplane lagoon on the um the term the air airplane.

The former taxi lane.

Yes, the taxiway.

This this site in particular has has long been identified for mixed use, but specifically cultural serving uses.

Uh so it was identified in the site A development plan uh and was identified in the precise plan um for for much the same thing.

So it hasn't been contemplated as housing, and it's always it's always been contemplated as something you know catalytic and uh as a draw.

Great.

Thanks for your clarification.

Sure.

All right.

Any other clarifying questions, or we'll go to the public comment?

Let's go to public comment.

Madam Clerk, how many do we have?

Uh so far we have eight, seven in person and one remote.

Okay.

Uh Joe Ernst, Mitch Ball, and Nate Nathan Lash.

Okay, and in that order, just be ready to come on up.

And Madam Clerk, how long does everyone have to say?

Two minutes.

Two minutes.

Welcome.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the council.

Um I want to, my name is Joe Ernst.

I'm managing principal of Earnst Development Partners, and I want to encourage you to approve this proposal.

Um I can't think of many things that would have such a dramatic positive impact at Alameda Point, you know, on its placemaking, its culture for the community.

Um, you know, these are things businesses want too, and you know, we focus a lot on economic development, and again, I think this just be so catalytic and so beneficial.

And most importantly, the team that is assembled here, um, Mr.

Seywald.

I can't think of anyone who would you know care more about this and commit to this and see this through.

So I strongly encourage you to approve this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Mitch Ball, then Nathan Lash, then uh John Lan Nguyen and Jamie Martinez.

Okay.

We'll keep things moving if you're ready when you're the next speaker.

Welcome, Speaker Ball.

Thank you.

Many others have already spoken and written in about the many benefits of this project.

So I'm gonna be talking about something slightly different, uh, how this project affects the surrounding area.

This project is one piece of the bigger project to build Alameda Point into a walkable, bikeable, transitable neighborhood filled with jobs, destinations, and homes, like so much of the rest of Alameda.

We have plans to support new bus routes and build the ferry terminal into a major transit center that may include a future rail stop for the Link 21 project, which plans to construct a new trans bay tunnel for the purpose of expanding high-speed rail and regional rails, such as Caltrain to Alameda and elsewhere.

All of this won't happen overnight uh next year, or maybe not even the next 10 years, but it is very likely to happen within the next 66 years, which is the lease term of this project.

So while I support nearly every line of this lease for its obvious benefits, I do take issue with one clause.

The clause I take issue with is the city committing to 160 parking spots within a quarter mile of the project for the entire length of the 66 year lease.

It's easy to commit to providing this much parking today, but mass parking is the antithesis of the healthy density we need to build the point into the walkable, bikeable, transitable neighborhood we plan on it being.

I suggest we modify this clause to commit to providing 160 parking spots or a bus rapid transit stop or a rail stop within a quarter mile.

With the 15-minute high frequency and dedicated lanes of bus rapid transit and the high speeds and high speeds and major connectivity of regional rail, either of these other two options is going to be able to connect far more people to this theater than 160 parking spots ever could.

We've seen great success in the city by limiting parking minimums, but this clause, as it is currently written, will create a new de facto parking minimum, not by zoning, but by lease, which is arguably harder to adjust.

66 years is a long time.

I'm what you might consider to be a young person, but I might not be alive at this end the end of the 60 C year uh 66 year lease.

But that's okay because we're not doing this for ourselves, but for future generations so that they can live a better life than ours, which is the core tenant of the American tree.

Thank you so much in our next speaker.

Nathan Lash, then Jean Lon Yuen and Jamie Martinez, and then Jennifer Raddock.

Welcome, Speaker Lash.

Hello.

Um, I'm here on behalf of Radium, but also I'm being I'm here on behalf of just uh being a resident and uh and a parent here in Alameda.

Uh I moved Alameda about six years ago with my family, and we love it.

We cannot imagine a better place to to put down roots and uh you know Alameda has a great arts community already, but I really think that we can do even more uh as a city for our community as we grow as a city.

And uh, you know, and and that's something that I I care a lot about.

Uh I heard from I didn't even know that Chris Chris's children had to uh drive to Hayward for their performances, but my children, you know, and my wife um drive to Castro Valley for their their top dance performances.

Similarly, uh, you know, I have friends who who who constantly talk about how they would love to have touring musicians come to Alameda, and we don't have that many places that can support this type of uh of arts, and I really think that Radium can do that.

And that's why I got involved with the project because I really believe it can be transformational for Alameda, and I uh I think it's it's gonna be an amazing addition to our city.

So I hope you all support the project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Juan Lynn Nguyen and Jamie Martinez.

They're speaking together.

Okay.

Is this a duet?

Yes.

Okay, just bring that microphone down to where we can hear you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Hi, thank you, City Council members and mayor and Rachel.

Um we're here as Alameda Parents.

Uh, we're at PTA moms, and we are here to corroborate the value of arts programming, especially on Alameda Point.

We are organizing an event in its sixth year that's going to also be at Radium Presents this Sunday.

And it last year we welcomed 400 folks.

And it's something that we open to the entire community.

And I speak on behalf of parents and a lot of our peers that we believe in arts programming, especially in this moment in history.

Um, my daughters play sports where we see the ubiquity of athletics everywhere in Alameda, which we're grateful for.

But what we are lacking is a lot of strong arts programming, and I want my daughters to see that, and we go to Rhythmics, and we really appreciate that.

But if we could utilize more space in Alameda Point that our families already are, that would be wonderful.

Thank you.

And agreed, and I just want to echo everything that's already been said in favor of this proposal.

Um, I was born and raised in Alameda, West Alameda specifically, and I have never seen so much embracing of the arts as I do in this current moment.

Um it's just great that our children get to experience living in Alameda in a time that art is celebrated and embraced across cultures, across mediums, and everything that they're doing at Radium Presents, just promotes that and embraces that.

And I really feel fortunate that we've been able to have our event at Radium for the last two years and see that community um engagement and showing up.

Um, and so I urge you to um push forward with this proposal and make great things happen.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Good job.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Jennifer Radakovich and then Laura Billings, then Katie Connell.

Welcome, Speaker Radakovich.

Hello.

Uh my name's Jennifer Radakovich.

I'm the executive director at Rhythmics Cultural Works.

I'm speaking in support of this proposal tonight.

Um, Rhythmics Cultural Works is in its 19th year as an arts organization on the island of Alameda.

Next year will be two decades serving the community.

Um so we were around uh at when there weren't very many arts organizations and not a lot of arts happenings, and over the past two decades, we've been able to see just an incredible expansion and growth in arts and cultural spaces throughout Alameda, in part thanks to the support from the city.

Um and also thanks uh to the support from Mr.

Sidewall, who is spearheading this project, but he also supports so many other arts programs, projects, nonprofits in the community.

So he's not just doing this for himself, but he truly is a supporter of arts all across Alameda.

Um and I truly believe that Radium will be a good partner to all the arts organizations that are on the island.

Um work together in partnership with organizations that are already here to help bring even more arts to the community.

And this project will also help bring new types of art to the island that haven't yet been able to be supported because this um just because of the nature of the spaces that we have to produce the arts in.

So I think this project will help bring something new and exciting to the island.

Um I just want to speak in support of that.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Laura Billings, then Katie Connell.

Okay, welcome, Speaker Billings.

Hi, good evening, Council members and mayor.

My name is Laura Billings.

I'm the principal at SRM Earnst Development Partners.

Just briefly can echo a number of the sentiments you've heard already this evening.

That I just feel like this is such an important catalyst out at Alameda Point.

So far, we've got great momentum with housing development and with food and beverage, recreations, RD, blue tech, but arts and culture are the heart.

And to really create a multi-layered community, one that continues to attract and retain residents.

Um, you really need the arts and culture to pull it together.

So I really see this as uh catalysts can bring other nonprofits, which in turn will bring other residents, will support more RD, more restaurants, more food and beverage.

Will support more RD, more restaurants, more food and beverage.

I just think it plays such an important role in the continued placemaking, as Joe, my colleague mentioned, and the richness and fiber of a true community.

So I really speak in support of this project and urge you guys to support this proposal this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker, Katie Connell.

Welcome, Speaker Connelly.

Hi, good evening, everyone.

So my name is Katie Connell.

You've seen me here before.

I am spearheading an artist coalition in Alameda called the Alameda Arts Alliance.

So I want to speak in favor of this project as well.

Sounds like we really like it so far.

We we heard a lot of really heartwarming things.

I'm going to give you some numbers.

So arts really do drive revenue to local business.

Attendees spend over $38 per person on an average per event on average.

30% of attendees to larger functions, such as Radium will bring in, come from outside of the county, and those non-local attendees can average over $60 in spending beyond the admission that they spend, you know, to see the show.

There are also a lot of health and well-being benefits of art.

Just 45 minutes of art experiences can lower the stress hormone cortisol by 25%.

So I think that's a good thing for our citizens.

And the social impact is profound.

University of Pennsylvania research has demonstrated that a high concentration of arts in a city leads to greater civic engagement, more social cohesion, higher child welfare, and lower poverty rates.

So I think more arts and an arts venue of this size, which is something we do not have, is just a great thing for the city of Alameda all around.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Madeline Sadek.

Welcome is that our online speaker.

Yeah, okay.

Welcome, Speaker Sadek.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members and city staff.

Madeline Sadek, President and CEO of Alameda Chamber and Economic Alliance.

We are in so support of Radium Art Performing Center.

And I will also echo all the sentiments that we share.

From the chamber's perspective, this is about economic vitality.

The project transforms underutilized land at Alameda Point to a destination that will attract visitors, increase foot traffic, and gener and really generate revenue for all our local businesses.

This is not just a cultural investment, it is an economic one as well.

We urge you to approve this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

That was our last.

That was our last speaker.

Okay, with that, we will close public comment.

I kind of think this is going to be an easy one, but that might just be me.

Um gosh, counsel, anybody want to say anything or make a motion or whatever.

Why did I start on my left this time?

Because I always seem to turn to my right.

Councilmember Jensen, would you like to lead us off?

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you to all the presenters.

This is really very exciting.

I'm a um the wife and mother of a performing artist, but unfortunately, I don't have that skill myself, but I do appreciate their performing arts very much.

And I I've spent many, many lovely hours out at Radium Runway enjoying arts and enjoying um other events that take place at that side, and I think that this is just gonna be a tremendous asset, as we've heard from others.

I also want to mention there is a need here.

I earlier this month um I was at the library at our own library, and I saw a presentation, a performance by uh uh Emmy award-winning violinist named Mads Tolling, and it was sold out, it was a great event, and there was so much need for this type of thing.

The next night after that, I went to Alameda Theater for Fleetwood Macrame, which was another sold-out show, which was which was people were asking the owner of the theater what, or excuse me, the Lisi of the theater, what um was gonna be coming up next because they're really Alameda and other neighboring residents are just really looking for this type of activity, and I think that we have a real big opportunity to utilize our site at Alameda Point.

And not only do we have a great opportunity, but this is such uh a tremendous idea that there's an opportunity and there's potential, and we have a uh uh organization led by um Mr.

Seawald and with a lot of community support that's gonna make this happen.

So I'm very excited, and I would definitely be in support of this.

Thanks, Mayor Pryor, on to you.

Um I think everyone here tonight made amazing points.

Um I'm absolutely in favor of this project.

Um I'm I'm I can see the building and being able to walk down um along the water and you see the views.

Um and that alone is is just stunning, but just the art that we're gonna have here on the island.

Um I'm really excited.

I grew up in Los Angeles, so having something like this so close um to us, because we live here on the island.

I I feel like we're gonna be spoiled, and it's another reason why Alameda is going to be so amazing.

He does get better here every day.

Thank you for that.

Councilor Bowler.

I just I want to say first to how um really in awe I am of the community.

The different people that were here tonight that have come together and for several years really made something that's so profound in terms of its potential for this community um get to this place.

It's really impressive.

It's really impressive.

And that includes everyone from Radiant presents, everyone from the city staff and um the developer, the the various consultants, everyone and and the community people in the arts community.

Um when I was a kid, I remember watching my mom at city council meetings uh you know, being a proponent for the arts, showing up to make the pitch of how important the arts were in this town, and you know, she was here for most of her 80 years of life, she was working to make things happen in the arts.

And it was uh, you know, I I witnessed her getting a leadership award at the County Board of Supervisors for Arts and with uh this board of supervisors in the late Wilma Chan.

It's it's so important to make uh opportunities like this happen.

Um it's it's about people like her, and there's people who are represented some of the organizations that she was real supporters of or are represented here tonight, um, and the work in the schools.

And I you know, I knew about the impact of arts on children and how important that was and the work in the in Amastic Senior Center and more than a decade of teaching she did there.

Um and just being out in the community in general.

So we think about Alameda Point, this amazing opportunity as a city to develop approximately one-third of our of our land mass going forward, and we've been working on this for decades, but it's still this fantastic opportunity.

Like you change that much of a town, you change the whole town.

And it was said that you know decades ago, the arts were not as well represented as they are now.

But we're past the turning point.

We already have the support.

You can see that here.

We already have so much going on.

On uh Bonnie's website, after she talks about her experience in the art, she says this the following quote.

In all this time, I remain humble to the realization that art is about the process of creation more than the finished product.

I would submit to you, um, my neighbors and my friends that right now we're in the process of creation.

And we have this amazing ability to coalesce around this project and make this happen, and we should do whatever we can to support it.

Thank you.

And just for clarification, Bonnie's website was your mom Bonnie Bowler, correct?

Thank you, Councilmember Design.

Oh, well, thank you very much.

Um, you know, tonight uh the decision we make um will represent basically an important positive inflection point in supporting arts and culture in the city of Alameda.

Um and as important as it is, we need to bear in mind that um you know we still have many more um points and milestones to go.

Um but uh but until we support um the efforts tonight, you know, um we it's important to do that so as to give you know people like Mr.

Seywald um and also all of the his uh cohorts a fighting chance to make sure that that the arts um and culture succeed um at the level um that is contemplated here.

Um like many of my colleagues here in Alameda, you know, I grew up in town, um it is from the arts, um, my violin teacher over there on uh Clinton and um and Sherman Street, uh Mrs.

Poirier um many decades ago, and back in the days, you know, we had the Alameda Youth Symphony playing in uh uh in um the uh Alameda High School Theater.

We're talking, you know, late 70s, early 80s here.

Um so you know, not just me, but so many um youth had support had been supported by uh the arts.

Um but you now this is uh an effort to take it to another level.

And I know that this will just be one decision in a stream of decisions in the year coming years um to make this happen, but this is a good place to start.

On a final note, the thing that really um makes me enthused about this is um the uh vantage point that the uh building is contemplating with regard to views to San Francisco to the West and views to the peninsula in the direction of the Hornet to the South.

Yeah.

Um and and the way in which we're memorializing that as a as a uh permanent part of of this um uh uh asset so that for those you know who just want to you know enjoy the views, they can do that as well as enjoy whatever uh arts and cultural performances are there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'll just go last and say first, I want to thank staff for putting together an excellent um detailed comprehensive staff report.

There's a lot of moving parts.

I think you know, clearly you listen to the council to our concerns.

We need to build safeguards in.

We want this project to succeed, but we need to set forth the milestones and just you know take it one step at a time because we want to create success.

And so thank you so much for doing that.

It is excellent.

And uh and just to all the supporters, but especially Christopher Seywald, who I've known for decades now.

Um, you know, every community should have uh Christopher Sewald, but he's ours.

Um and although I think he leaves the island from time to time.

But uh every community needs champions who have vision, who believe, who say you know your your um reach should exceed your grasp.

And that's what we have in Chris to for Sewald.

I love hearing from the PTA moms who see the value for their kids.

And you know, wherever I go when people learn that I'm the mayor of Alameda, I get this chorus of I love Alameda, oh it's so it's so we we visit there, we go there, and but it's all of you who make this a special place, a community that is family-friendly, that is truly welcoming to all because you're so giving of your time and talent.

And and dollars will help too, but we're reaching outside the city for that, I do believe.

Um but so and to the arts community, to Jennifer, to Rachel.

I mean, you've just been such wonderful champions, artists yourself.

I am in awe of your talent and how you share and you bring to our island these multicultural performances that just open the eyes of children.

I've been lucky enough to be at Rhythmics when these cultural performances for school kids are going on, and it's just so expanding.

I too grew up in Alameda, and I thought it was a really big deal to go to the children's theater at the Alt Arena Theater.

I mean, I just thought that was the be all and end-all.

And to this day, I love live theater wherever I can find it.

And I did play cello growing up.

Um Councilmember Days I will give a duet sometime.

No, you you would pay not to hear that, probably at least me.

But um, but anyway, I am very excited for the potential that this brings our island.

We are taking the first important step this evening.

And um, thank you everybody, and let's just get in there and make this happen.

So thank you.

And with that, let's have a motion and a second and a unanimous approval.

Who wants to make that?

Councilmember Bowler, because you spoke so eloquently of your mom.

Want to make that motion to approve this?

Yes, please.

I would move to approve.

And Madam Clerk, City Attorney, we can do this all.

One motion to approve.

Okay.

It's been moved by Councilmember Bowler, seconded by Councilmember Jensen.

All those in favor signify by stating aye.

Aye.

That was unanimous.

Yay, thank you.

But remember, applaud in your heart.

We don't um applaud.

No, no, it's not performance.

We just yeah, we move on to the next one because the hour is moving on.

Okay, Madam Clerk, where are we?

Who's 7A?

We're gonna go back to that one first.

Recommendation.

7A.

Okay.

Recommendation to authorize the interim city manager to execute an agreement with Ruby's placing doing business as restorative pathways in an amount not to exceed 1.5,511,000 to operate the day center and safe parking program for the term May 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2020, with the option of a one-year extension for a total two-year amount not to exceed 3,022,000.

This project is statutorily case exempt from further environmental review, pursuant to public resources code section 21080.10, services for people experiencing homelessness and categorically exempt from further environmental review, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15301, existing facilities and 15061B3 common sense.

We've really given you some titles tonight, haven't we?

Sorry about that.

We'll try to plan carefully in our next agenda meeting.

Good evening and welcome.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayors, members of the city council.

My name is Simone Falls, Manager of Housing and Human Services Division.

I'm here today to recommend approval of restorative pathways to operate and manage the day center, Safe Park and Emergency Shelter site located at 431 Stardust Place.

As you all are aware, the center closed temporarily.

It's been closed a little over a month now.

And we just reopened the center yesterday.

So restorative pathways has a temporary six-week contract to operate the program, and we're asking now for them to have the full year term with an option to renew for one year.

We initially had an RFP process that included uh written proposals that agencies submitted.

The proposals were reviewed by outside raiders from the city of Berkeley, City of Oakland, and City of Hayward.

They selected the three top bidders, which included Urban Alchemy, Restorative Pathways, and Village of Love.

We then held inner in-person interviews with the agencies.

The top raiders were Urban Alchemy and Restorative Pathways.

The one reason restorative pathways was not selected originally for the day center was because of the other agencies' extensive experience operating that similar program type across the country.

Other than that, restorative pathways was the next ideal choice for this property.

We've done an additional vetting process for restorative pathways, which is included in your packet.

We've found that they have all positive reviews from their contractors.

We found no negative press around their experience and working with clients throughout the Bay Area.

They are responsible for general maintenance of the site, program administration, which includes case management services, ensuring meals are provided, ensuring overnight stay, security of the site, and safety of the grounds.

They will also transition to the future site located at 1041 West Midway Avenue.

That program site is slated to open late summer, early fall, and we are working with them now to plan for the accommodations at that site.

Sure, I covered everything.

Oh, just a little overview of restorative pathways.

Restorative pathways has been in business for over 50 years supporting the vulnerable population in the Bay Area.

They started off supporting domestic violence individuals.

They also work with those in recovery, justice involved.

They've transitioned to working with homeless individuals throughout the Bay Area.

So they have extensive experience working with vulnerable populations and supporting these populations with transitioning to the next steps in their lives, including acquiring permanent housing.

We have a resource fair I want to share with you all.

What month is this?

April 27th, 2026.

So that's this coming Monday from 11 a.m.

to 2 p.m.

We have a resource fair.

The purpose of the resource fair is to invite people back onto the site to have an opportunity for individuals to meet restorative pathways and also connect to resources in the in our communities.

So we have a lot of our Alameda partners coming.

We also have some county partners coming onto the site.

And everyone in the community is invited to also come and see the program site.

This is the original 431 Stardust place that we're having this fair at.

And we hope that people will be able to come back to the program, field safe, build trust, and again utilize this program site, which has been a support system for many of our residents here in Alameda.

Thank you.

Was there more?

No.

Thank you.

Thank you for that, Ms.

Falls.

And Council, do we have any co-find questions for Ms.

Falls?

And Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment?

There's none.

All right.

So with that, oh no, there's none.

There's none.

We thought we will put we will close public comment.

And so what we're looking for is this recommendation to authorize interim city manager to execute an agreement with Ruby's place.

DBA doing business as restorative pathways from May 1st, 2026 through June 30, 2027.

And the rest is has been read by the clerk.

So I'm looking for a motion and a second.

I'll make the motion.

It's been moved by Councilmember Jensen, seconded by Councilmember Bowler.

Any further questions or comments?

I just have I just wanted to comment.

Vice Mayor.

Yes.

I just wanted to say thank you to Smell Falls that the uh vetting results were very thorough.

Um we do not have any disruption from the audience.

That is a warning.

That is my warning.

Thank you so much.

And continue and I I do want to thank you for including this and being so diligent, and I am glad we can provide support to our vulnerable residents.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So we have had a motion by Councilmember Jensen, seconded by Councilmember Bowler.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Any opposed any abstention that passes unanimously.

Thank you so much.

And Madam Clerk.

Shame on you.

Shame on you.

And there is the door, my friend.

Let's just go to our next item, please.

7C is our next item.

Thank you.

And it's a recommendation to approve sale city owned property located at 650 West Ranger Avenue Building 92 at Alameda Point to Earnst Development Partners Inc.

And authorize the city manager to execute a purchase purchase and sale agreement and related documents.

This ordinance requires for affirmative votes.

Good evening.

Welcome.

Good evening.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council.

Once again, I'm Nicole Franklin, Base Reuse Manager for Alameda Point.

I am here and I can't do it as well as our city clerk.

So I won't try.

But we're here, as she mentioned, to um to uh with staff recommendation for the sale of building 650 West Ranger, which we commonly call building 92.

Um so I will figure out how to click this thing.

And that's the recommendation that City Clerk just read.

Uh I want to give a high-level overview of building 92 for folks who are not familiar with the asset or uh don't remember uh much about it.

Uh it's a 89,000 square foot single-story warehouse building uh sitting on the 3.56 acres in the adaptive reuse area.

And just to familiarize you, is on the other side of the what I call the Almanac building, built in 1942, historic World War II structure.

Property is currently uh vacant.

Um it is, like I mentioned, vacant, and so therefore it's not currently uh generating revenue for the city.

Nonetheless, the city has ongoing holding costs, you know, maintenance and other uh costs.

Uh it also has uh a need for significant uh renovation.

Uh capital improvements are required.

Uh and so um that's one of the reasons why we want to sell the building.

But more importantly, um there's a strategic reason.

Uh Director Thorn Lyman came before the council a couple of times with the disposition strategy where we talked about selling buildings in the phase one loop where we recently put new infrastructure to sell those buildings to fund the uh infrastructure to loop.

Uh and building 92 was one of the properties that was identified as one of the priority buildings to sale.

Uh and um as with the need to get this new phase two infrastructure loop uh completed, um, the highest prices um our priority.

Nonetheless, we did run a competitive solicitation process.

Uh we started off in December, worked with our uh broker, Cushman Wakefield to advertise uh far and wide this opportunity to purchase this building.

We did get about four um qualified proposals in the April 2025.

We evaluated those proposals based upon the selection criteria in the RP.

Uh and then um the remaining uh the four folks who uh submit it.

We did do a little more negotiating to kind of get the best and final offers from each uh respondent.

Then we came to the council um to discuss the the merit of the four uh proposers and then talked about price and term and then got direction from council to negotiate with the highest bidder.

Um here on the screen are the uh criteria again, most important purchase price.

We want to get that new infrastructure out there, uh the financial capacity of the buyer.

We want to make sure that the person can be successful in pulling this off.

Uh, and then also really important because this is in the adaptive reuse area of Alameda Point, uh an entity that had a relevant adaptive reuse experience, and then again, a um an entity that had a proven track record of being able to purchase the building, renovate it, and get it back to market.

Um we did are we always use our um uh land use economics consultant Kaiser Marsden to help us uh assess the financial capability of buyers.

We also had a structured evaluation uh of those proposals with base reuse staff, Director Thorne Lyman, myself, we had our real estate broker Kaiser Marston, and then two um respected business uh leaders in Alameda Point to evaluate the proposals, and that process led to what we are here to recommend as the highest value and most qualified proposer, uh and that is Ernst Development Partners.

Um here is kind of a synopsis of uh the submittal um by Mr.

Ernst.

7.25 million dollars, all cash offer, all of the proposers proposed all cash.

However, uh Earnst Development Partners had the strongest financial capacity, an extensive redevelopment uh re um readaptive use experience, not only uh here in Alameda with Building Nine, that's where Kairas Powers and Fire Brand is, but also 91 where uh almanac is and other property in Oakland.

Um also proposed a full uh rehabilitation of the building.

Uh and then again, this is a direct sale, so it's not a project because we're not uh proposing a use.

Um, however, whatever use that the buyer, if the transaction proceeds, uh, will have to do it in compliance with the city zoning and city regulations.

Um here are the uh basic terms or the key terms of the deal between the city and uh earnest development partners.

We talked about the purchase price.

We are selling this as is.

City doesn't have to put any money in it.

We're having no financial contributions to this transaction.

Um, and then as you can imagine, with any transaction, uh, we won't be getting the 7.825 million because we have to have some transaction and closing costs.

Another thing of note is that part of the reshape disposition and development agreement.

Um, we did agree to um pay Alameda Point Collaborative a half million dollars because they used to um be in this building and had sub tenants, and so it was to uh pay them for loss and um in uh revenue.

Um again, I mentioned the use.

Um it's gonna be uh in compliance with ever the zoning and city requirements are, and then whatever that use is after the buyer takes possession of the building, they would have to make sure they're in compliance with uh SEQA, which is uh environmental review process.

Lastly, I also want to talk about infrastructure.

In addition to the 7.825 million dollars purchase price, this buyer will also be required to put in any roadway uh frontage improvements on West Ranger, which is the northern uh boundary of the property, and that's gonna be in accordance with the master infrastructure plan for Alameda Point.

Um this is just big picture steps in the process.

If the council approves it today in the appropriate time, the city manager will sign the purchase and sell agreement.

Uh, then the buyer will uh engage in a due diligence process so they can find out all the good things about the property, and then at that point, they can determine if they want to move forward with um the transaction.

Uh concurrently, we will be working with the buyer and negotiating a public improvement agreement.

All that is is just here's the specific scope of the work you're gonna do on West Ranger, and then make sure that we bond for that uh and give them a deadline for getting that work done.

Then we'll close the transaction, we'll have a brand new buyer who will um guski up the building and uh make it a contributing uh asset to uh Alameda Point.

Um as my colleague Walker talked to you about a radium.

We do have to uh have you pass a resolution declaring the property exempt surplus land under the California Surplus Land Act, and so the resolution is also before you.

Uh, and then that concludes my presentation.

I have Director Thorne Lyman, Mr.

Toma, we have our outside council, we have David Dozemer for Kaiser Marsden as well as Ted Anderson with our commercial real estate broker and our uh steamed buyer here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Wow, and you had time left over.

Thank you so much.

Does anyone have any clarifying questions for Ms.

Franklin?

Councilmember Jensen.

Um thank you.

Thank you, Director Franklin.

My question is about one of the um provisions mentioned that um the buyers responsible for sequel review related to future uses.

And I just bring this up because uh about a year and a half ago there was um a SIPA suit regarding related to uh the sale of a property, the property that the food bank moved into.

And so I'm just wondering with regard to that provision whether there is any potential for any actions or litigation over this sale.

I will defer to the city attorney.

City attorney even gen.

Councilmember, we can never, of course, predict whether or not people will choose to commence litigation against the city.

This is a sale of a property, and as Ms.

Franklin presented, when the buyer takes possession of the property, the buyer will be able to present a project.

And at that time, significant SQL review may or some amount of SQL review will take place consistent with SEQA.

I will also add that there are public improvements that are proposed as part of the project.

And to the extent that they are, it is my understanding that they are consistent with the MIP.

And to the extent that there's any sequel review that needs to be undertaken as part of the infrastructure project, I believe that the infrastructure agreement will be coming to the council, and to the extent any SQL review needs to be conducted, it will be conducted then as well.

Thank you for the clarification and for the presentation.

This sounds like an excellent project.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Any other clarifying questions, Council?

Let's go to public comment.

We just have one.

Uh so we'll get three minutes.

Uh Christopher Silong.

Hello again.

I did not know he was speaking on my project, and he didn't know I'm speaking on his, but uh I cannot think of a better steward of commercial development out at Alameda Point other than Joe Ernst.

I strongly suggest you approve this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Talk about short and sweet.

Um that was it?

No, okay.

With that, we will um close public comment.

Um I think this is a great um a great um project proposal from someone we have known and worked with for years.

Um I was thinking the other day, Mr.

Ernst used to come before me when I was on the planning board, and that was before I ran for city council, and that was back in 2012.

So he's been doing um a lot of great work in our city and um outside the city for for years, so I certainly um am prepared to support this project.

But council questions, comments, motion, second.

Vice Mayor?

Um, I was gonna move that we um adopt all the staff recommendations.

And and Madam Clerk, we can do the surplus lands resume and all that following motion.

So we have a motion by Vice Mayor Pryor, second by Councilmember Jensen.

Any further comments or questions?

Seeing hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Okay, that was unanimous.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Another great project moving forward.

Okay, what's next, Madam Clerk?

5D introduction of ordinance, amending the out of Alameda Municipal Code by amending Article, I think that's 18.

Tobacco retailers of chapter 5, six businesses, occupations and industries prohibiting the sale and distribution of nitrous oxide by tobacco real estate retailers, convenience stores, and other retail establishments.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members.

I'm Sarah Henry, Communications and Legislative Affairs Director.

And today I have a brief presentation about a draft ordinance prohibiting the sale and distribution of nitrous oxide.

According to the CDC, nitrous oxide is a widely accessible recreational substance that induces rapid euphoric and hallucinogenic effects.

These products are being dangerously misused in Alameda and across the state and country.

Medical authorities report that nitrous oxide when missed use causes serious health problems, asphyxiation, pre paralysis, and death.

Recent reports show an increase in emergency room visits due to individuals misusing nitrous oxide.

These products are also a safety concern.

Recent reports show that car crashes caused by nitrous use are increasing, and last year Alameda police officers arrested a driver for DUI after observing the individual inhaling nitrous while driving.

While not related to nitrous oxide, in the past six months, Alameda code enforcement officers have issued citations to more than a dozen Alameda tobacco retail businesses for selling illegal products, which is where these nitrous products are being sold in Alameda.

As part of our legislative agenda, the city is currently supporting SB 936 and SB 758, which is proposed state legislation that will ban the sale of nitrous oxide products at retail stores.

If these bills are passed as they've been drafted, they would go into effect January 1, 2027.

The city's legislative response to this growing public health and safety threat mirrors its 2018 success, banning the sale of flavored tobacco in Alameda.

And that's where the state then followed cities like Alameda with a statewide ban of flavored tobacco that took place January 1, 2023.

So five years later.

The proposed Alameda ordinance has been reviewed and is supported by the League of California Cities and establishes a clear legal framework for prohibiting the sale or distribution of nitrous oxide and nitrous oxide devices, which include cartridges, balloons, and nozzles by retailers.

And I wanted to show you what these products look like, just so that you know, because not all of us are familiar.

So this is a product that I purchased at an Alameda tobacco retailer and um actually two products.

This is a uh this is a nozzle.

So this is a device that you attach onto a nitrous cartridge so that you can inhale it at small little cartridge so that you can inhale it.

And then this is a much larger canister that you can purchase if you're 18 or older, although I was not carded, but I don't take offense to that, but uh this is Miami Magic and um Miami Magic Infusions, and um and this comes with this nozzle which you would put on in order to inhale this device.

This container of nitrous is um is you have is trash, so it's do not refill, you can't you know, refill these.

This is not like a medical device, this is purely for recreational use.

Um if adopted, the city's um ban would go into place 30 days after the final reading, which would be um June 4th, 2026.

And then just a note that both the proposed state legislation and the city's ban on nitrous oxide would not apply when it's being used as it's intended.

So when it's contained in a food product, when it's used to provide medical or dental care, those uses would obviously still be um uh approved in in Alameda and elsewhere where these bans are being issued.

Um and just lastly, after adoption, the city will include nitrous oxide products in our existing flavored tobacco education and enforcement efforts.

So this isn't adding to any of the work that we're doing, it's just adding these products to the list of flavored tobacco products that are currently prohibited in the city of Alameda.

And having that enhanced enforcement will allow for consistent product seizures uh and the pursuit of misdemeanor charges or tobacco retail license suspensions for repeat offenders.

And that concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Any clarifying questions, counsel?

Yes, clarifying questions.

I think in your presentation, I heard you say that there was something illegal about nitrous oxide sales right now.

So what is it that our ordinance would do that's different from what's already illegal?

The only there are legal constraints to selling nitrous pro nitrous oxide products like this.

So, for example, you have to be 18 or older.

You they are supposed to be uh retailers are supposed to be taking your ID, checking your ID regardless of your age, um, and then they're supposed to be reporting those purchases to the state.

So in this case, none of those things happened when I purchased these uh these items.

And and what we're not sure, and this kind of goes back to when we did this, you know, the education on flavored tobacco, is it might be that our retailers just aren't aware, you know, because it's not part of our ordinance.

So we don't have that education that we're providing.

So by having this ordinance in effect, we'll be able to better educate our retailers on what is allowed and what's not allowed.

Okay, one more follow-up question.

Of course.

The floor is yours, Councilor Mercury.

Of the number of retailers who you had um hypothesizes having nitrous oxide selling nitrous oxide, how many actually sold them when you went out and did to do your uh so we have 42 tobacco retailers.

I went to three and two uh sold products and the one one did not.

Okay, two out of three.

So and the one inject a clarifying question.

You are over the age of 18, are you not?

I am over the age of eight.

So you could legally have purchased the product.

Oh, absolutely, 100%.

This is legal for purchase.

Um, we didn't try to use like a youth detail.

Oh, no, no, no.

No, it was this was I was just honestly I wasn't sure what these products were when I was doing my own research, and so I was curious.

And I had talked with my kids about them who are very familiar with what these products are.

Um the kids could refer to them as Whippets or Galaxy gas.

Um, and so they're they're very familiar with these items, but I was not, so I wanted to do that.

So I wanted to do that.

So just to be clear, it is irrelevant that you were able to buy them, correct?

Without being asked.

Well it I certainly am uh able to buy them, but they should have carded me.

I mean it is a you had it is le you have it is the law to to request the ID of the person purchasing uh this and then also to record this so that they can report it to the state.

So neither of those two things is thank you.

So is this becoming a growing trend among among like high school kids?

Yes, that's not the problem.

Absolutely.

And also adults.

I mean, this is when I was doing my research, you know, this is uh this ban has been passed by other California cities, but nationwide, uh the CDC and other uh folks report um significant increases in like I mentioned the car crashes, but also emergency room visits um due to the um effects of nitrous oxide.

And then some of these are similar to the flavored tobacco being marketed in a way that it's appealing to youth.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Yeah.

And I believe in the UK there's quite a an incidence as well.

So do we have public comment?

We do, we have one remote.

All right.

Oh, but maybe Oh, uh clarifying question, Council Member Jensen.

Um it's my understanding that the state also state law also requires that the retailer advise customers of the dangers of nitrous oxide.

Were you advised of any concerns or I was not.

Well, for clarification, is there a state law or is that the two-year bill?

No, no, no.

There is current state regulations, which is what makes it so that you do have to be 18, and it's what makes it so that you do have to report the sale when they're selling it.

So that state law has been in place since 2012.

Okay, but what's different about this?

Because there is a two-year legislation that we didn't want to wait until 2027, so it's different.

Well, this this the new legislation bans the sale.

So the old legislation allows the sale with certain parameters that may or may not be being followed, and then the new legislation would ban the sale out rate.

In tobacco retailers.

In tobacco retailers and convenience stores.

Okay.

Well, yes, the the state law now requires that you not only be carded or be have your but you also must be advised that you have to you have to use this nitrous oxide in a medical setting and that there are dangers associated with uses.

And that uh obviously isn't happening.

Yeah.

Um my qu other question is how much does that cost?

This was $30.

And this, I believe, was $2.

And then the other thing that I didn't purchase were the little cartridges because they didn't they were they were all out of the individual ones, so I would have had to have buy the bulk, and I decided not to for the sake of this presentation.

But the individual cartridges are a few dollars, whereas the the bulk is was more like 40 or 50 dollars.

Um is are are these being sold in cannabis establishments, do you know?

Not to my not to my knowledge, no.

Just tobacco retail stores and convenience stores.

They would be prohibited if they are being sold in cannabis establishments, it would be inappropriate.

And this ordinance that's being proposed wouldn't prohibit use in alameda of whippets or this or nitrous oxide or whatever it's called.

It would just prohibit the sale.

The sale, correct.

And distribution.

Yeah.

So and distribution.

And um those are oh my final question is if the laws, the state law, the bills that we're supporting, there's the Senate bill and uh and an assembly bill, if those were passed, what would would this ordinance that we're uh evaluating today be still be in place, or would it be over over um I think similar to our flavored tobacco, uh it would our ordinance would remain in place, but we would also be following state law.

So just like we do today with flavored tobacco, we follow both local and state law, and we would do the same thing.

So it's not conflicting.

It's not conflicting, no.

Thank you.

Is it possibly identical?

It's not necessarily identical.

And and it also depends on how the state laws are, you know, what what's amended, right?

And so like right now the two state laws that are being proposed are different.

One of them bans it outright, one of them bans anything over eight ounces.

And so it's just it depends on what lobbyists come in, what changes are made, if the law is ultimately passed all of those kind of details.

Um just in closing, I I would also advise my colleagues that the stop was board has also taken a position about um nitrous oxide canisters because they are environmentally they're not good for the environment, they're not able to be disposed of anywhere but landfill, and they are often um discarded in places where they could be uh used or or could be um toxic to young people.

Absolutely.

I can't um Vice Mayor Um Prior.

Um the little canister that were so sold in bulk.

Like it like you because you had mentioned that they are targeted to young people just like flavored tobacco.

So that's what I'm saying.

I think the targeting is is often in the the color, you know, there they're there's bright colors, the the the brand is called whip it, and it's you know, kind of got this like star around it, so it's very youthful looking.

I wouldn't say party favors, they actually look like uh like those CO2 containers.

Um that's what they look like.

And and when I went, they had the bulk, but normally they would have the individual, which is one of the reasons that this has become such a prolific um instance of people misusing this is because it's very inexpensive.

So you can buy the individual containers for just a few dollars, and then when you have this device for $2 or whatever, then you can you know have that substance at your hands for affordable.

But you could have a senior in high school who's 18 by anyway.

Or you could have a freshman who doesn't get carded.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, and so we have public comment.

Just one.

Okay.

Uh in the remote.

Uh Rachel Gratz Lasarius.

Welcome.

Welcome, Speaker.

Gratz Lazarius.

Yes.

Okay.

Um hi.

Good evening, Council.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Hello.

Okay, great.

Um, good evening, council.

My name is Rachel Graz Lazarus, and I'm a I'm speaking tonight as a tenure resident of Alameda and a parent of an elementary school student and a middle schooler.

Um I'm really proud to live in a city that consistently takes leadership in protecting the health of our youngest members, including banning the sale of flavored tobacco products and adopting a smoke-free multi-unit housing policy to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke.

I'm also grateful to see that Alameda Code Enforcement is being proactive and issuing citations to ensure that tobacco retailers in the city are not selling illegal products that are attractive to youth.

And tonight I'm here to support the introduction of the ordinance prohibiting the sale and distribution of nitrous oxide, which would make Alameda the first city in Alameda County to lead on this issue.

Nitrous oxide is a widely accessible and highly misused substance that can cause severe neurologic cardiovascular and psychiatric damage.

It's a growing public health concern, especially among young people.

In 2023, approximately 564,000 children ages 12 through 17 reported using nitrous oxide in the U.S.

Trends on social media platforms have glamorized and normalized the use of nitrous oxide, rebranding it to appear fun and harmless.

I've seen firsthand tobacco retailers in the city selling nitrous oxide along with other dangerous substances, including Kratum.

Many of the nitrous oxide products I am seeing for sale are flavored as well, which may be particularly enticing to teens and young adults who are unaware of the significant health risks.

There's no reason why nitrous oxide should be sold in retailers for recreational purposes.

City of Alameda can be a front runner in public health policy by ending the sale of all recreational nitrous oxide products citywide.

Please act now to move the needle in the right direction and inspire other cities in Alameda County to join this effort to protect the health of our next generation.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Wow.

Okay.

And I will just add that um I'm on the board of directors of League of California Cities, and I'm on a policy committee, although it's housing community economic development.

But whenever we go to our policy committee meetings, we always hear an overview of different legislation that the league is taking positions on.

And this is one that our um probably our health committee was following, but it was just frustrating that it was a two-year bill, and that's for a variety of reasons.

When clearly the need and the impact to our young people is now, it was yesterday and last year.

So I connected the energetic Ms.

Henry with our lobbyist for maybe it's public safety, actually, um committee was hearing it, and so that's our our um our ordinance is very well thought out, and I didn't realize that we would be the first city in Alameda County to adopt, but that's pretty cool.

Um so um let's see if that's what we're about to do.

Any other questions, comments, or a motion?

Um Councilmember Dayson.

Well, thank you.

Um, you know, uh, in looking over the ordinance, one of the things that we definitely want to take a look at are what are the penalties um if um caught selling it should this ordinance pass and in uh section 6-60.220.

Um there's penalties of a thousand dollars um uh not to exceed a thousand dollars or even uh worse, um people uh if caught uh could uh lose their business license.

So these are pretty stiff um uh penalties.

Um so uh appreciate that uh we've got an ordinance uh with TIFF.

Thank you.

Do you want to make a motion?

Uh move staff's recommendation regarding this.

And who would like to Vice Mayor, did you want to second?

I second.

All right.

We've had a motion by Councilmember Daisy seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

That was five.

That passes unanimously.

Thank you so much.

All right, good work, everyone.

Um and we have one more regular agenda item.

Um what do we have, Madam Click?

Seven E is introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Article 361, Transient Occupancy Tax of Chapter 3, Finance and Taxation to implement Senate Bill 346 authorizing cities to require short-term rental platforms to provide additional information to cities.

This action does not constitute its project as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 1578.

Welcome.

Would you like to introduce yourself?

Yeah, my name is Carlos Figaroa.

I'm the revenue supervisor in the Finance Department.

Welcome.

Um Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council.

Tonight I'll be providing a brief overview of Senate Bill 346, known as Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025, and explain why staff recommend that the City of Alameda opt into this new state law.

I forget which one moves forward.

Is it the right?

Yeah.

There you go.

What is SB 346?

Well, it's a recently enacted law that gives cities like Alameda additional tools to better oversee short-term rentals, specifically those listed on online platforms such as Airbnb and Verbo.

These online platforms are referred to as facilitators.

SB 346 is not creating new regulations, it's simply improving transparency so we can effectively enforce the rules we already have in place.

For some context, the city currently imposes a 14% transient occupancy tax or TOT on short-term rentals of 30 days or less.

However, over the past decade, the way people rent short-term lodging has changed.

Instead of staying primarily in hotels, more visitors are staying in residential properties that are listed online.

These platforms act as intermediaries, advertising properties, processing payments, and managing reservations for property owners.

Why was SB 346 introduced?

Well, while this has expanded lodging options, it has also made enforcement more difficult.

Short-term rentals are spread throughout our neighborhoods and operate largely online, making it hard for the city to know exactly which properties are being rented and whether or not they're complying with our licensing and tax requirements.

Currently, the city of Alameda receives limited information from these platforms.

We typically receive high-level data such as like aggregated totals of you know total revenue or total TOT collected, but not information tied to specific properties.

This makes it difficult to determine which homes are actively being rented, whether homes are properly licensed, uh, and or whether all required taxes are being collected and remitted.

Staff often have to rely on manual internet searches, residential or resident complaints, or self-reporting by hosts.

This approach is time consuming, inefficient, and not always fair because enforcement depends on what we happen to find rather than on accurate data.

This is the problem SB 346 was designed to solve.

So what does this mean for the city of Alameda?

Well, it means we can confirm the correct amount of TOT that is being collected and remitted.

We can verify that those properties are properly licensed, develop a clear and complete inventory of short-term rentals here in Alameda, and identify properties that may be operating without complying with city requirements.

In other words, it allows us to enforce our rules consistently and equitably across all operators.

SB 346 allows cities to require short-term rental platforms to provide basic property level information.

This includes things like APN or assessor parcel numbers, platform listing identification numbers, uh physical property addresses, TOT remittance amounts uh per property via audit and other rev relevant property information.

With this information, the city would uh finally be able to collect online or I'm sorry, connect online listings to actual physical property here on the island.

And there are also clear benefits to the community.

First off, uh revenue protection.

This ensures that the taxes owed to the city are collected, helping fund services our residents rely on.

Secondly, neighborhood protection with better visibility.

We can ensure short-term rentals operate responsibly.

Third, fairness and equity.

This ensures all operators follow the same rules.

And finally, efficiency.

It reduces the amount of staff time spent manually searching for listings by enabling us to use accurate data.

I also want to point out what SB 346 does not do.

It does not create a new tax.

It does not increase the TOT tax rate.

It does not ban short-term rentals, and it doesn't impose any new obligations on property owners.

In closing, SB 346 is about transparency, fairness, and accountability.

It gives the city the ability to obtain basic property information from online platforms who act as short-term rental facilitators.

It will help us enforce existing TOT rules and help us understand short-term rental activity occurring within the city.

It will not ban short-term rentals or impose any new obligations on property owners.

Opting in will still require the finance department to obtain city council approval before requesting information from these online platforms.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And very nice presentation.

Council, do we have any clarifying questions on this item?

Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment?

There's none.

Okay.

Let me just lead off and say that this was a bill that was sponsored by the League of California Cities.

And they are revenue and taxation committee because they wanted to make sure that cities were getting all of the general fund revenue that we have coming to us.

Some cities, I don't think so much, Alameda.

We certainly have our short-term rentals, but there are cities like Truckee, like some of the beach communities in in Santa Cl and Southern California that have huge sloths of their residential market or short-term rentals, which causes some other challenge.

But the right now the way the system works is the providers essentially say, trust us, we'll tell you cities what um what you have coming to you.

Here's your bag of cash, and no details, no accounting, and I will also note that those platforms strenuously oppose this legislation, but the legislature in Sam Sacramento saw fit to pass it.

And so certainly as a city, we um we endorsed this, and we even had our um revenue and taxation lobbyist Ben Trifo did a Zoom presentation with I think our planning department and finance and city attorney's office anyway, just helped us understand how we could go about this and what it would mean for the city.

And so what I want to make sure of is a time when cities are all keeping a close eye on our finances.

There's never enough money to do what we want.

This is money that goes directly to our general fund.

So it's just it's it's all coming to the general fund, and then the reducing the staff time that is already being used manually and checking the internet and that sort of thing is great.

And then you will also recall that this summer soon, the FIFA World Cup is coming to the Bay Area.

We are the team-based camp location for the Australians on the Sakaroos, and there will be people staying here in our hotels, in our short-term rentals.

We just want to make sure that we're positioned to capture all the revenue we have coming to us.

So I think this is a really smart fiscally sound measure that we should adopt.

Um anyone want to comment, ask more questions, make a motion.

No.

Oh, motion is welcome.

Well, I think you just said no, right?

Yeah, I heard that.

Okay.

Motion is welcome.

So you want to move to introduce this ordinance amending the municipal code?

Yes.

All right.

And I second.

All right.

We have on my left, we have a motion from Councilmember Jensen, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor.

Any further questions, comments?

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

That was unanimous.

Thank you.

Nice work staff.

All right.

We are moving right along.

We go next to item eight, City Manager Communications, City Manager Interim, City Manager Adam Potzer.

No items to report, Madam Mayor.

I think to report.

Okay.

And then any further oral communications, non-agenda items, Madam Clerk.

There's none.

All right.

And then we go to no council referrals.

Any council communications, Councilmember Jasag, anything from you?

Come back to me.

Come back to you.

Oh, just a reminder.

Last time we passed this, we skipped this, so we did.

So we go back to December.

Whatever.

So I have to remind myself.

All right.

I can start.

Sure, Councilmember Jensen.

We did skip it, and you know we are all very busy.

So here are the highlights of the last couple few weeks that I have.

And many of my colleagues on the dias have been at these meetings as well, but not this one.

As you all know, I chair the waste management authority and the energy council, both of those, and so there are two meetings a month with all of the elected representatives of Alameda County cities and um and public authorities.

So those meetings are really interesting, and I love to bring back things and talk to Sarah about what we're learning, especially with regard to legislation there.

The um the I joined the mayor and the vice mayor prior recently for the Oakland Alameda Access Project kickoff, which was a beautiful, lovely day with a lot of dignitaries, a lot of people in the neighborhood, and we could see very clearly why the project was necessary as we saw all the the busy traffic on 7th Street that didn't even slow down for for people in crosswalk.

So just looking forward to getting that moving.

Gave out um the trophies.

This was exciting.

I gave out trophies to seniors and women winners of the commuters at the Carica Golf Complex.

So join me this weekend.

This was two weeks ago that the first part of the tournament happened, and join me this weekend because Sunday will be the 98th commuters amateur championship at Cureca.

So 98 years this has been going on.

Pretty amazing.

I uh went to the ribbon cutting of the Alameda's newest newest restaurant called Linha.

It's a lovely Mexican restaurant.

After the ribbon cutting a few days later, we went in for dinner, and it's really good.

I would recommend everybody go there.

It's right um on Santa Clara between Park Avenue and uh and Park Street.

Um you heard earlier, we heard earlier about the East Bay EDA Innovation Awards.

That was a fun night with um my colleagues and with the mayor, and I think it was just the mayor and I actually at that event.

But Rhythmics was awarded as well as Astra local Alameda businesses.

The next day, I think it was the next day, that Friday was a women's history month event sponsored at the office of um Supervisor TAM, and it was honoring Ursula Jones Dixon, and that was really good to hear from her, and and so excited and proud of what the district attorney is doing in Alameda County.

And uh maybe before or after, I don't have all the dates, but I was invited by the Chamber of Commerce to be the star of Good Morning Alameda, and I think my colleague Greg knows how that is.

You get to present to businesses and residents and interested parties about what's going on in Alameda and lots of questions and lots of people who really love our city.

So that was fun.

Finally, um, as I mentioned earlier, the friends of the Alameda Library really kicked it out of the park with Live at the Library.

I would just urge everyone when this comes up again.

They have some great, great musicians, and this time the one that I attended was Matt Stolling, who lives in Albany, has been in Alameda several times before, especially during the pandemic, and um he's an Emmy Award-winning violinist that he does things on the violin that you would just never never see.

So that was a great event.

Thanks to the library, and thanks for letting me share that.

Great.

How about you, Vice Mayor?

Um I have not been as busy, so Tracy's a few weeks on amazing.

Um I guess I was also at the um Oakland Alameda Access Project.

Um and I just want to say that this project has been decades in the making, so it was just such an honor just to witness it.

Um so many people have been working so diligent um to make this happen, and it's so important.

They have higher rates of asthma, lung disease.

And in that 60, I'm sorry, in that eight-block uh radius around the freeway off ramps and on ramps.

Um 60% of pedestrian accidents happen of all of Oakland happened in that small eight-block space.

It it is dangerous.

We just for that presentation had three different crossing guards essentially, all wearing bright orange and big stop signs.

It was a beautiful day out, and I it still felt very risky.

And the residents who live there every day do not have this perfect weather with these, you know, bright colored crossing guards, essentially.

So it has been so necessary for so long.

Um everybody, when you are feeling very inconvenienced from this traffic, remember like you are saving a life.

Like, right?

Like your extra maybe 10 minutes that day.

Um it is you are literally saving lives.

So think about that while you're in traffic.

Um it will like you'll feel better.

Thank you.

Councilmember Bowlers.

Cool.

Um just I'll just highlight one thing.

Um on April 15, I was at the um I'm I'm one of two people that serve um through the appointment of the mayor on the Oakland Airport Oakland Airport Community Noise Management Forum, along with John Hamilton as the community representative, and I'm actually the co-chair, one of the co-chairs now, but just to let the community know, um, you know, some of the focus has been on thinking about things like FedEx planes, late it and late night hours, and particularly one particular aircraft that's uh particularly problematic for noise.

That's getting some attention from the forum, and also um, I don't know, southwest flights, early morning when they're diverted to the to a different field, which causes additional um additional aircraft to be closer and um closer to many of the residents.

So just just know that um that's an ongoing effort, and for you know decades really the community's been working on these, but that's ongoing.

Thank you.

Are you ready now, Councilmember James?

Uh yes.

Uh since we last reported, uh, which was the second March meeting in March, from then to now, uh the uh type of activities I attended was along with Councilmember Tracy Jensen, uh two sessions of the taste of Judaism uh at uh Temple Israel in a program led by Jason Harris, which was quite um informative and thoughtful um about uh Judaism, Israel, um anti-Semitism, et cetera.

So um that was very um uh um enjoyable, very um informative.

Uh in addition to that, um, you know, the Alameda Historical Museum was celebrating Al uh Alameda women's history, and I attended um the uh uh historical museum and what it was encompassed was walking through different um um stations of the Alameda Museum and there was information on different women who have contributed to the history of Alameda, so that was very nice.

Um let's see, I think there was also no kings.

Um that was a very nice um uh gathering.

Uh there are many Alamedans who had gathered there.

Um I think that that's about it that I um have on my list here.

So yes.

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

Um well I am going to actually um go backwards in time starting from today.

So um I on I guess going back to um March 26.

Um we um oh we go back to March 24th, that was after our last meeting.

I um I had fun for women's history month.

I got invited to um read stories at both of our um branch libraries the uh on different days, but the West End branch library and the Bay Farm branch library, and I just have to say the library is a wonderful resource, and it's so much fun to see children and their parents from all over the world.

We are community of immigrants, but just having a great time and learning um and just having fun.

And then so, but but I will say I was I was gonna start today.

So this week is climate week in San Francisco, and I got an invitation through an organization I belong to called Civic Well, which is for um you know environmental policy um legislators and policy makers.

And so I invited Danielle Miller, our amazing sustainability and resilience manager, and we were hearing from communities around the Bay Area, um, and there was even someone from out of state, but just talking about how they're dealing with their climate change challenges, including financing them.

We got some great ideas and contacts to follow up on yesterday.

Um Sarah Henry and I attended a um I uh round table discussion from the League of California Cities on veterans and military officials affairs, and we are using it to just keep looking for ways to address the fact that our Alameda Point Veterans uh Clinic and Columbarium have dropped off the VA list, and so we're just um hopefully I've got some meetings coming up when I'm in Sacramento at the end of the week in Washington DC soon.

Um I'll squeeze in some meetings.

Anyway, that was productive because we were with folks from all over the state, and I I didn't have a chance to tell you, Sarah, but I got a direct message from the city manager of Reedley, which is down near Fresno, and he said, I was stationed on the USS Lincoln, because I introduced myself as the mayor of Alameda, where we have a former neighborhood.

I was stationed in the in the 90s or something like that.

So that was kind of a fun connection.

I messaged him back.

Um on Saturday, this past Saturday, out at the Alameda Point Gym and the multi-use field ARPD and other committee groups for on the Spring Shindig, which was also for Earth Day celebrations, and that was very nice and well attended.

On April 16th, which I guess was last week, I started the morning welcoming participants to the city attorney's Fair Housing workshop, which is maybe the fourth year, sixth.

Sixth annual.

Oh my goodness.

Um really great lineup of speakers, and I loved seeing that we had both tenants and housing, rental housing providers.

It's just a wonderful opportunity to stay up to the minute on the latest changes in the law.

And um in that afternoon, I was invited to speak to a class at ASTE, our Alameda Science and Technology Institute out on the College of Alameda, and I had a great time.

They asked me the best questions.

It was about serving a public office, how to be involved.

They're so so engaged.

These are young people who they're high schoolers, but when they turn 16, they can also take classes at the College of Alameda.

So they graduate, they already have their college classes, and they are they are a sharp bunch.

Um April 14th, a week ago, I guess today, I was invited to this state of the San Francisco Bay Ferry presentation, which was held on a ferry on San Francisco Bay, and we went out almost to the Golden Gate.

It was a beautiful day, but just a lot of good information about the growing electrification of the fleet.

And um, oh, and that morning I had attended and spoken at APD's swearing in of two new officers, as was noted, and I couldn't have said it better than my colleague Vice Mayor Michelle Pryor.

I did speak at the Oakland Alameda Access Project Construction Kickoff event, and for all the reasons she said this is just such an important project.

It also is a project that was just talking to someone today that highlights the need for that bicycle pedestrian bridge that we will one day when I'm no longer in office, but we'll one day build because it is a matter of equity.

All four of our bridges in Alameda that get you on and off the island in an automobile are on the east end of the island.

On the west end of the island, we have one means of automobile ingress and egress, and that's called the tube.

We're about to go through a couple of years, as the Vice Mayor eloquently stated, of delays and some overnight closures, while some very important structural work is being done.

But if ever that access point was impeded, that's critical.

Whereas a bicycle pedestrian bridge is already engineered to accommodate emergency vehicles.

It will be for bicycles and pedestrians, but it will accommodate emergency vehicles.

So the folks on the west end of the island have another like a safety net in the event of an emergency.

But anyway, yeah, that was a great event.

And on April 9th, I went back to my old high school, Alameda High, to the little theater, which looks well, there's new chairs, I think, but looks a lot like I remembered it.

And I was a speaker on women in politics.

I had, I think, three high school, I think they were all seniors, maybe there was a junior women.

They're so poised, so sophisticated, great questions, great audience participation.

It was a lunchtime presentation, and the little theater was like half full.

And I think there were other events going on, but always lovely to be back in back in school.

On April 1st, I attended the 10th annual youth and youth career and summer job fair that was held at the Anson Al High Gym.

It was for all students from across the island, but it's just one of many things our city or economic development and other departments and employers participate in to give our youth a chance to find you know internships, summer jobs that lead to careers.

And yes, on March 28th, I spoke at the No Kings Rally in front of City Hall.

And on March 27, the day before I was in, I think Southern California at a League of California City's policy committee meeting.

And I'm going to be on an early ferry to an MTC meeting in the morning.

So I don't think we have anything else to add, and it is 10 49.

So at this point, I thank everybody staff, the members of the public who participated.

It's a very informative and almost 100% civil meeting.

Thank you all for that.

And with that, this meeting is adjourned.

Thanks, everybody, and travel safely home.