We're uh just waiting for the clock to run down.

It's four fifty nine, at least according to my iPad.

They're always correct.

Right.

Right.

I feel like iPads are.

Right.

And Tony, did we hear from Tony Laura?

No, nothing.

I don't know where my phone's even are.

Oh, that's what I might do that by now and put the other one away instead.

We're good.

If you watch the clock, it goes more slowly.

That was fun last night.

Okay.

No, I need her original one.

No, I need her original one.

I gotta get it.

All right.

It is five o'clock by my iPad.

So um good evening, everyone.

Today is Tuesday, May 19th, 2026, and I'm going to call the City of Alameda City Council meeting to order.

We are about to go into a special closed session.

But we will start with the roll call, Madam Clerk Laura Weissaker.

Would you please call the role?

Yes, Councilmember Zabler.

Here.

Jensen.

I'm here.

For present, and hopefully Council Member Jack will be here momentarily.

Speaking of rich, yeah.

If we're just going through the role, Councilmember, I'd count him.

I'd count him as um present.

Okay.

Um, Madam Clerk, would you please introduce our closed session items?

Um yes, and oh, sorry, Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment on closed session?

We have none.

All right, with that, going once, going twice, no public comment on closed session.

Because it could be in person or remote.

Okay, then we will close public comment on the closed session and only closed session items.

So then let's move on to item three.

We're about to adjourn to closed session to consider a couple of items.

Madam Clerk, would you introduce those items, please?

The court case name is the City of Alameda versus Greenway Golf Associates Inc.

Court is Alameda County Superior Court.

Case numbers two two C V 011964.

Three B is public employee performance evaluation pursuant to government code section five four nine five seven.

The physician evaluated is the city attorney and city clerk.

All right, thank you for that.

So if I could have all staff um and of course the council who were involved in item uh three A to please join us in three ninety-one behind the uh chambers and to members of the public who may be watching, we expect to be back before you at seven o'clock this same evening.

So we'll see you soon.

Thank you.

Okay, I don't know.

Come on, okay, okay, ore you all?

Come on.

Are we ready in the balcony?

All right, the balcony's always ready.

Thank you, Balcony.

We are beginning the meeting, so if everyone would please take their seats.

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

Today is Tuesday, May 19, 2026.

The council has just come back from closed session.

Um actually recess.

Sorry.

We are here now, but we've just recessed our closed session.

We will be going back to closed session after we complete the regular session.

So Madam Clerk, in that case, you don't do the announcement at this point because there's no announcement.

So we will move on to the um special joint meeting of the city council and successor agency to the community improvement commission, once known as the redevelopment agency.

We will start with the Pledge of Allegiance, Vice Mayor Pryor.

Would you lead us in the put?

Sure.

Oh, sorry.

All right, uh ready to begin.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Indivisible with liberty and justice draw.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Prior.

Um Madam Clerk would um, actually, yes, would you call the roll, please?

Council members bowler.

Jensen, prior here.

I am also here.

All right, thank you.

Um we have the consent calendar, these are routine items that can be approved by one motion, unless there is um a council member wants to remove it again.

This is just for the successor agency.

Um, um don't we ask for public comment on the successor agency?

Yes, and there is none.

No, no, no, just on the uh consent calendar.

Okay, yeah, just there's no other public comment section.

No.

Oh, there's not.

All right.

Well, so we what I do need though is um a motion to um approve uh to accept the investment transactions report.

Actually, let's let the city clerk please introduce item two A if you would.

Great.

It's a recommendation to accept the investment transaction report for the quarter ending March 31st, 2026.

Thank you.

Okay, so council, um, do I have a motion?

Uh unless someone wants to pull this.

Do I have a motion to approve in a second?

Okay, I heard moved approval by Councilmember Bowler, seconded by Councilmember Jensen.

Any council discussion seeing none?

Um, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, that motion passes unanimously, so we will then adjourn the um the successor, the joint meeting of the city council and the successor agency.

And I will call to order the regular city council meeting.

Roll call, madam clerk.

Roll call has been out of five present.

Thank you.

And do we have any agenda changes this evening?

We did not.

Okay.

So then we also don't have any proclamations or special orders of the day.

So we will go into oral communications, and these are non-agenda items that over which the council has jurisdiction, and speakers may address the um the council for um a total of 15 minutes now.

If we run out of time, there's another opportunity at the end of the regular agenda.

Madam Clerk, do we have speakers under oral communication?

We do, and they will get two minutes each.

Oh, you want to read your part first or um, yeah, I will read my little rules of the road.

These are just um, these are um uh uh rules of conduct for city council meetings, and I just remind people that this is a business meeting.

This is not theater, it's not a sporting event.

We are here to do the city's business, and therefore we don't applaud, we don't boo, cheer, jeer, do the wave.

We just listen respectfully to people who are speaking when it's your turn to speak.

Come on up to the podium.

I always say make the microphone yours about the you know level where your mouth is, and um, but when the timer um when the clerk says your time is up, please stop speaking, or before that even.

Um, but again, we don't applaud, we don't boo, cheer, jeer, do the wave, and we don't do those things A because it's a business meeting, but B and maybe it's even A.

Um, for many people public speaking is one of the most stressful things they can do.

And if they were to see someone being booed or laughed at when they're speaking, someone might decide not to get up and speak at all, and that would be a shame because this is democracy in action.

You have your allocated time to share your views in public like this at a council meeting.

We also have young people present.

We have some today, and we want to set that good civic example that's not always present everywhere we look these days, but here in Alameda, we try to do things the courteous way, and so just treat people the way you would like to be treated, and we'll have a great productive meeting because again we want this to be a safe place for you to speak and to be listened to.

If you have a sign to hold, that is certainly your first amendment right.

I only ask that if you're um sitting uh anywhere but the very last row, don't hold it over your head where you would block the view of someone behind you because everybody wants to see again.

That's just um treat people the way you would like to be treated.

And then I have to read this language just in case I need it, and I'm sure I won't, but um California Penal Code section 403 states that 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 section 18340.

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

And there I am done reading the rules of the road.

So let's call our first speaker.

Okay, it's uh Maria Henderson, followed by Rick Lewis and Alexandra Tesada.

Oh, welcome, speaker Henderson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Maria Henderson with AC Transit.

I'm here to share an important update about our bus service on Wednesday, June 10th at 5 p.m., the AC Transit Board will receive a report on potential service reductions due to ongoing budget challenges.

While a state loan has stabilized next fiscal year for us, we are facing a 200 million dollar deficit over the next four years.

Without new sustainable funding.

We may need to reduce service by more than 16 percent and also reduce up to 300 jobs.

No final decisions have been made, and no specific routes have been selected.

All of our bus lines are under review.

If additional funding is not secured, any service changes would likely begin in June 2027.

We remain committed to preserving service and being transparent about our fiscal challenges.

An open house will be held before the June 10th board meeting at our headquarters in downtown Oakland, 1600 Franklin Street.

And the community can learn more there and provide feedback on this contingency service plan.

I'll share additional details in the coming weeks and look forward to working with you all to share this news with the community.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

Welcome, speakers.

Lewis.

Hello, thank you for hearing me.

So I've lived in Bay Farm, Alameda for 32 years, and I'm an environmentalist and conservationist, and I'm the person who discovered the bald legal nest at Koreca Park.

And so I'm here today really just to say I wanted to make a note that Karika Park and Greenway Golf have been incredibly supportive of our birding activities.

I'm not a golfer.

I've lived by the golf course for many years, and I support any organization, management, administration, etc.

etc.

that supports biodiversity, conservation, and environmental concerns.

So I've been published many times in Audubon and Ducks Unlimited and Bay Nature, which is a local magazine.

I belong to many, many organizations.

And so that's really all I wanted to say is that when we first approached uh Kareca Park, we were very hesitant about how whether or not they would accept what we were uh intending to do, and that was to open up the park for other visitors other than golf.

And so uh the management team there has been very supportive of being inclusive and allowing us to do the birding activities, and we've taken hundreds of people on bird walks through Kareka Park.

Now, having lived across the street from the golf course for many years and being a birder, I used to look out off of my porch and see birds, but I didn't realize how many birds are there.

So, even though it's not a wild place, it is an open space, and my point is is that their acceptance, their support has really made it uh easy for us to walk the golf course and conduct bird walks, and so really appreciate that, and that's all I wanted to say.

Thank you very much for hearing me.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Alexandra Sasada, then Teresa Zekera, then Corinne Kirschbaum.

Hi, good evening.

My name is uh Alexandra, and I'm here today, not only as a community member, but as a woman of color and a small business owner who has personally experienced the impact Korea has on had on this community.

I operated a small commissary kitchen in Oakland called Corner.

It was a space built to help immigrant entrepreneurs, uh, local food vendors and help them grow and create opportunities for themselves and for their families.

Um a lot of people in our community have talent drive, but they don't always get access or opportunities.

That was something we deeply cared about changing.

When we started working with Cureca, it became more than just catering.

They welcomed local businesses like ours into the space and gave us opportunities to participate in events and community programs.

But what meant the most to us were the summer camps.

We were proud to donate food and support programs that gave kids a safe space and a positive environment during the summer.

A lot of families rely on programs like these, especially in communities where safe spaces and mentorship matter so much.

These camps give young people structure, confidence, discipline, and a sense of belonging.

Seeing kids outside active, learning golf, building friendships, and being surrounded by a positive role models was something that truly mattered to us.

A lot of organizations talk about supporting community, but Kareika actually invested in local people.

They created opportunities for small businesses, welcomed diverse communities, and supported programs that positively impacted local families and youth.

I'm here because I've seen that impact firsthand, and I believe it deserves to be recognized.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Teresa Zekera, then Corinne Kirschbaum.

Welcome, speakers and Kara.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council members.

I'm here this evening to express my strong support of Greenway Golf.

My son discovered and developed his love of golf thanks to the youth initiatives at Greenway.

But more importantly, it was because of volunteering at Greenway that he learned he could give back to others through the sport that he loves.

Over the past four years, he has volunteered in Korea summer camps, multiple Veterans Day tournaments, and even a tournament to benefit the victims of the LA fires.

He and his friends were on the course for nearly 12 hours playing over 70 holes of golf in order to raise money for youth who had lost their golf equipment and facilities in the fires.

He came home inspired to do more, and I could not have been prouder of that group of young people.

We should all be proud to have our young people engaged in this way and grateful to Greenway for creating a vibrant recreational space that promotes youth leadership, civic engagement, compassion, and inclusivity.

They have enriched our entire city with exciting and diverse offerings that bring people together across generations and backgrounds.

As a longtime public servant myself, I am very familiar with government requirements and processes.

As a resident, I respectfully request that you use your energies and resources to resolve any disputes and contract agreements and move forward in a manner that preserves Greenway Golf and all the valuable assets it brings our city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Corinne Kirschbaum.

Welcome, speaker to Kirschbaum.

Well, we all know why I'm here.

Tonight I'm asking one simple question.

What data did this city rely on and where did it come from?

Because the documents do not line up.

In 2018, the city's own homelessness report identified major gaps: lack of coordination, lack of local service access, lack of shelter options, and the need for documented outreach, case management, and accountability.

Then came the road home, a five-year plan promising measurable goals, coordination, data, annual review, and real outcomes.

However, people who are actually listed on the road home to qual to uh make sure that those goals are worked on have never even read the five-year plan.

Don't even know what the five-year plan was, but they have goals they need to work on.

Then came 2024 Progress Report, which that was only done because I asked for it.

We had a city council member sit there looking at that progress report saying, wow, this is great.

We should see this every year.

Well, I hate to tell you, but you were supposed to see one every year.

In fact, you were supposed to see one every six months, and you saw one progress report in five years.

Now we have a new action plan.

More staff reports, more approvals, more contracts, more public money, and still the same basic problem.

We're starting at from the very very beginning.

Oh, look, we have a case manager.

You don't even know what a case manager is.

Where are the records proving the work was done?

Where are the monthly reports, where the financial reports, where are the outreach logs, where are the evaluations?

Where are the meeting minutes documenting these so-called oral reports?

Where are the contracts and amendments authorizing written reports to be verbal zoom update?

Your time is up.

Thank you.

And our next speaker, that was our last speaker.

Okay, that was our last speaker.

So with that, we will close public comment.

And we will um we will move on.

We will move on to our single thing.

All right.

So we have um take just a moment for the door to close.

All right.

All right.

Um, so um with that we will close item for oral communications and we will move on to item five, which is the consent calendar.

These are routine items approved by one motion, unless council members remove items for discussion and removed items will be called after our regular agenda items are completed and council members may speak for up to I see a hand up.

Um did you mean to take out a speaker slip for oral communication?

Um, sorry, so we only all of these are how you can speak on about what we have, and I didn't make you a side question that I might need to work.

Okay, um, yes and yes.

Um, we um some people might be attending a council meeting for the first time.

So I'm gonna exercise a little extra latitude.

Is there anyone in this room that still wants to make comments about Greenway golf?

If there is, raise your hand so I can see who you are.

Okay, just this one person that is going once, going twice.

Um come on up.

Um we're gonna we um yeah, why don't you come on up and speak and then go see Miss Rosalina afterwards and she'll get the speaker slip.

We'll do it in a reverse order.

So come on up, come on up to the microphone, and um you saw how it was done before, so just um tell us what you'd like to tell us and make that microphone the right height for you.

Okay, thank you so much.

Hi.

Hi, so my name is Sofia Tejeda.

I do have prepared speech, but um I was first introduced to Corica Park two years ago through Calste Isbe.

I was a college athlete, and uh I'm from originally from Mexico, so Corica Park opened me uh with open arms.

Uh I always felt welcome there.

I've never felt like I didn't belong there.

And then I got up an opportunity to be part of the camps.

I was a coach and later on I'm currently an intern doing data analysis for them.

So I'm the one in charge of looking at all the data that all our programs are gathering, and honestly, like all the impact that these people are making to these kids' life, it's amazing.

Like coming from Mexico, I wish I had that opportunity to be able to enjoy free goal.

My parents are here right now with me.

They grind it to get me to where I am right now.

Um thank you that parents.

But this is about Greenway, and this place is just an amazing place where we give we give so many opportunities to kids to come not only learn about gold, but learn uh tools to that they're gonna keep for the rest of their lives because we all not only care about um golf bar, we also care about their development, how they develop us kids, not only them, also the coaches, because I was a coach myself, so I got to experience all of the tools that Greenway give us from uh how workshops on how to do our resumes on like just caring about our own well-being.

So I um I'm asking for all of you guys to take a look at all the work that is being done there because it's been in full and it's just like some of the things that we need more nowadays.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And just see Ms.

Rosalina, she'll get your speakers up.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

With that, we once again officially close the oral communication, non-agenda items.

Um, so um, we were on the consent calendar, were we not, madam clerk?

Okay, so um, so what I'm looking for, first of all, are there any items on the consent calendar the council wants to pull?

Council member bowler.

I just have a recusal for 5D for me.

All right, um, 5D um uh playground equipment at Laydecker Park.

Yeah, my home that I own is within a thousand feet of Eye Decker Park, so I'm just gonna recuse myself on that one.

Uh okay.

Did you consult with the city attorney's office?

Yeah.

Okay.

Alright, that's fine.

Um, any other that's not even a poll, you're just recusing, um, so you won't vote on that one.

Um any items the council wants to pull.

Any council questions about any consent calendar items?

Okay.

Um, madam clerk, do you have any public speakers on any consent calendar items?

No, we don't.

Okay, we will close public speakers on close public comment on the consent calendar.

Any comments that council wants to make on the consent calendar?

Councilmember Daysog.

Um, I'll be voting no on 5G, which is a budget.

5G is the um 5G is um fiscal year budget okay.

Um with that, I'm looking for a motion to approve and a second with the caveat that council member boulder is not going to vote on 5D as in dog and council member day side is registering a no vote on 5G.

Who's gonna make that motion and second it?

So move.

Vice Mayor prior move, seconded by councilmember Jensen.

All those in favor seeking by stating aye.

Aye, that motion passes with all the qualifications we previously stated.

So now we move on to item sixa with um apologies to the public works department because we kept you out late and then bumped you at the last meeting.

Ah, so welcome.

Come on up and um go ahead and introduce yourself and we're looking forward to the presentation.

Hi.

Good evening, madam mayor, vice mayor, and members of the council.

My name is Ricardo Delatoy, parking manager with the public works department.

So tonight, council is considering the introduction of an ordinance that makes two changes to the municipal code related to parking.

The first is a housekeeping update to remove an outdated reference to a city employee parking lot that no longer exists.

The second establishes authority for the city manager or their designee to set and modify the hours of operation for the civic center parking structure.

So tonight I'll cover a brief background on the civic center parking structure and what's driving this request.

Walk through two components of the proposed ordinance, touch on next steps if the ordinance is introduced tonight, and then close with staff's recommendation.

So, as you may know, the Civic Center parking structure is one of the main parking facilities serving downtown Alameda.

It provides parking to the general public, um, as well as city employees working here at City Hall and at nearby facilities.

Over time, the facility experienced repeated vandalism during the overnight hours, particularly in and around the elevator, which caused ongoing disruptions to service.

So to address this, city council approved funding for security enhancements and other improvements to that structure, including the ability to close the facility overnight.

Those improvements are now underway, and we will soon be ready to close the facility overnight.

If you haven't taken note already, as pictured in this uh in this slide, the facility is absolutely beautiful inside and out.

It is now painted aesthetically improved all over.

So the ordinance before you tonight would vest the authority to set and modify the operating hours with the city manager or their designee, giving the city the legal foundation it needs to manage and enforce those hours going forward.

So to inform the decision around these hours of operation, staff took several steps.

First, we surveyed garage users, more than 550 responses were received.

Most responses, respondents rather, indicated a preference for closing at midnight and reopening at 6 a.m.

We also looked at what comparable cities are doing.

Staff reviewed parking structures in Berkeley, San Leandro, and Emoryville, including Oakland.

These facilities generally close overnight with most closing at midnight.

Finally, staff conducted late night parking occupancy counts over a three-week period at the Civic Center structure and surrounding downtown locations.

Data was collected between 10 p.m.

and 2 a.m.

on both weekends and weekdays.

The results showed that the civic center structure was operating at an occupancy of approximately 3% during those hours, while the surrounding downtown area within a five-block radius had over 70% vacancy.

Taken together, the data supports closing the facility overnight in consistency with the survey results with those survey results and what comparable cities do, the hours we do plan to implement are midnight to 6 a.m.

So this ordinance has two components.

The first again is a housekeeping amendment to section 12-2.3 of the municipal code, which currently references 2216 Lincoln Avenue as a city employee parking lab.

That lot no longer exists and is site and that site rather has since been redeveloped.

It is housing.

This change simply removes that outdated reference.

Some of these key provisions include authorizing again the city manager or their designee to establish and modify hours as needed to support public safety, maintenance, and efficient operations.

Requires that the hours of operation be posted on site, establishes that it is unlawful to park or leave a vehicle in the facility outside of the posted hours unless authorized, and provides that vehicles left outside of the posted hours are subject to citation or other enforcement action.

If council introduces the ordinance this evening, the next step would be final passage on June 2nd.

If adopted, the ordinance would take uh take effect 30 days after that second reading on July 3rd, 2026.

Following the effective date, staff will align any changes to operating hours with the completion of the Civic Center parking structure improvements.

And before any new hours go into effect, staff will of course conduct outreach and educate the community to ensure that garage users know what's uh what's you know, so that they can rather be aware of this change.

Staff's recommending approving the first reading of the ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending section 12-2.3 location of Article 1 parking lots of chapter 12 designated parking, and by repealing and replacing current section 12-4.12 reserved of Article 1 parking lots of chapter 12 designated parking in its entirety to authorize the city manager or their designee to establish and modify hours of operation for the civic center parking structure.

Happy to answer any questions.

Nice job on the report, Mr.

DeLatray.

Thank you.

Um, okay, council, do we have any clarifying questions about the report before we go to public comment?

Madam Clerk, do we have public comment?

And when on this one, any clarifying questions?

Vice Mayor Pryor.

Hi.

So this seems very thorough and um very reasonable.

Um I do have a question though.

So because it is in a downtown area, and if there are people who decide to leave their car because they've had too much to drink, I'm they take a walk home or hire a car to get home.

Um, I don't, I mean, I don't know how often this happens, but I would, I guess I have been in my 20s once.

I have done this once, you know.

Um I do not drink and drive.

I I never have.

Um, so that's you know, I I just wouldn't want somebody to be like, oh no, I don't want to, I'm gonna drive because I don't want my car.

Um anyway, so that that's the only thing.

Just because it is a downtown area, there are quite a few bars.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Prior for the question.

Um, so staff anticipated that this could happen.

Speaking from experience, it is it is not a um a good feeling when you go to retrieve your vehicle and it's locked up.

What staff anticipate doing is um making it very clear with posted signage that the hours of operation are this and that the facility will be physically closed after hours, and if a vehicle is left in the facility, they will be able to retrieve it in the morning.

Okay, no, I know I'm I I meant that as you intentionally leave it so that you're not drinking and driving.

So I guess I was saying, so the odds that that person would get uh citation are slim, I guess that's yeah.

I think staff's practice is to uh not enforce and issue a citation, of course.

Uh things could change, but we want to make sure that the goers and users of this facility um fully understand what those operating hours are.

Uh we also plan to um incorporate some of this information onto the ticket uh that the person receives when they pay for parking.

Okay, yeah, and then I guess it's also to, I mean, we don't want people leaving their cars there for a week also, so I guess that's I was trying to figure out what the or is it more just safety, like um having it closed at night, people coming there because it's a big empty space, so just trying to avoid that.

Mayor, if I may.

Yeah, um, yes, assistant city manager Wildred.

Thank you.

Um, one thing as well is that sometimes we have people camp overnight uh in the parking garage, so we are also striking a balance because uh we have had instances where people become kind of entrenched and it's a little bit challenging to get them out.

Um, and so we're striking a balance of kind of everything you're talking about, and um, you know, someone could come get their vehicle in the morning, but also needing to strike, you know, they they could get a citation if it's left overnight, um, because we do need to strike a balance of safety and security in the garage overnight.

Right, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other clarifying questions, Council Council Member Jensen?

To follow up on that, um, what is the citation in the parking garage for uh looping your vehicle there up when it closes, is that the same as if you left your vehicle on the street or um or your meter expired.

What what would be the penalty?

So currently per our master fee schedule, we have a variety of uh citations that we could issue.

I would imagine that the citation that would be issued would be from the municipal code, not a vehicle code violation.

Um most of our uh municipal code violations range between 40 and 60 dollars depending on the circumstances and the type of violation currently uh in what's going to council June 2nd, there is not a citation that says um that excuse me that it there's no fine with the title or description that says leaving a vehicle in a facility overnight, but we'd make sure that we would use the best municipal code.

Thank you.

And then when the when the facility is closed, is that automatic, or is there a staff person that comes and closes it?

That's a great question.

So operationally, we wanted to make sure that we were best prepared.

Um, and some of the things that came to staff's mind is we have a facility.

Let's say that there's um uh five vehicles left in the facility.

It does not make operational sense for these overhead coiling doors to just close automatically.

So um we plan to have one of our parking operator um arrive at the facility about an hour before closing time, and they will flesh out the facility.

What that looks like uh in reality is a human being walking through the stairwells and down the uh the drive aisle to ensure that that facility is free of of life, if you will, um, or in vehicles, and then what they will do is um they will be able to manually close with the key switch the um the coiling doors at the stairwells and the drive aisle um from uh the stairwell near the theater.

So there is a potential that uh that uh that vehicles will be locked in overnight, and there's also a potential that there could be people uh not readily apparent in the vehicles, absolutely, and that's that is the common theme across all agencies.

I mean, vehicles will get left in, whether the um the the driver simply doesn't care or if they're preemptively ensuring that they're driving safely, but yeah, it does happen.

Thank you.

Wait, it does happen that people are left in the vehicles when the garage is closed overnight.

Is that what you're saying?

I cannot speak to that.

No, but what I'm what I'm referencing is that um vehicles could be in the facility after night.

So in the event just operationally, if our parking operator observes what appears to be a person in a vehicle during that that closing hour, the parking operator would try to make contact with that person and say, hey, we're shutting down.

Um, and if uh if there's any reason that the parking operator feels that they need additional support, then we would rely on some of our um other agency staff.

Okay, you're talking about calling the police.

Calling the police, we've got three members of APD in the audience.

Okay, so you would do everything possible to make sure no one is locked in inadvertently or even intentionally in the garage overnight.

Yes, that is correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilor Regents, was there anything further for you?

Okay, any clarifying questions?

Let's go to public comment.

Oh, was there more for you?

I just wanted to add one final comment that um of uh appreciation for Mr.

Delator that there's been quite a bit of collaboration leading up to this with um our office uh parking as well as APD, and there has been a lot of conversations of kind of if this then that so just for you all to know those conversations have happened, so both looking at best practices at other cities, as he mentioned, as well as we're in lockstep with our police department.

Yes, and if I could also give a shout out, if you will, to the housing and human services department.

You know, peeling back the years prior to COVID, um things were much different in the downtown area, and then cliche the pandemic happens.

Um the the types of uh behaviors have changed, started to change at the facility just naturally.

I think within our region we've all kind of figured that out.

Uh, ever at the since the inception of the housing and human services team, I will say, as someone that manages the manages that facility, there has been a dramatic decrease in the types of behaviors that we've uh been observing.

Why is that um uh important?

Well, because there's been services uh from housing and human services staff that have been uh making their way to that facility, and it's it's been great.

And I'm gonna just um add on to that, although it's not quite a question, I'll do a Jeopardy question of it.

But um so just this morning there was a press conference at the county courthouse in Oakland, and it was to announce the results of the 2026 point in time count that some of us helped with in January of this year.

It's done every two years, it's um ahead requirement housing and urban development in DC.

And I am very pleased to announce that the city of Alameda's um homelessness numbers decreased, and this is from two years ago 2024 was the last time we did the count decreased by 46.8%.

And assistant city manager Woldridge, I think we were the greatest decline in the county.

But when I was helping draft the press release, I didn't want to sound braggy, so I didn't put that in.

And I didn't calculate all, but I I think so.

But what I was gonna say is this year, this January and two years ago in January, I was assigned the same census tract.

Two years ago in 2024, Chief Joshi, who's back there, we were on his team, three of us, um, and in the civic center garage on almost in the and we go out at five in the morning, and but on almost every level in 2024, there were people camped in tents or in their cars or just in sleeping bags, and we interacted with as many as would talk to us.

And two years later, there was no one.

There was on the top level a vehicle that had shades down, and so we didn't disturb it.

It might have had someone, but it might not.

But and it was like that in the rest of the tract.

And so I was telling someone at the press conference today that I actually could sense.

I mean, it certainly seemed like we'd made improvements, but even when we were there in 2024, they were doing work.

They were they were cleaning, public works there was cleaning and and just repairing and things like that, and two years later, it is just so evident, and but and I'll talk more about this later in council comments.

It is because the teams like you're talking about, and and assistant city manager Woolridge oversees them, have been providing resources and services and places for people that come indoors and to be housed and be helped.

And um, but the work being done at the Civic Center Garage was for the civic center area a much better, safer, more humane way to deal with people who need someplace to stay, but that was not a not a good place.

Um, so anyway, huge kudos to public works and housing and human services for all the good work.

Thank you.

Okay, now we will go to our public comment.

Mitch Ball.

Welcome, Speaker Ball.

And you could go ahead and have a seat, Mr.

DeLatory.

Thank you.

Hello.

I visited the Spring Market on Central, right next to the parking garage the weekend before last city council meeting, and it was a lot of fun.

Uh, the music was great, the food was tasty, and all the little business kids were very adorable.

It did take up a small parking lot and some street parking to run this event, but because it was located immediately next to a parking garage, there was still plenty of available parking.

For this reason, the city should strongly consider expanding the permanent pedestrian only section of Alameda Avenue and making long-term plans for conversion of the parking lot between Alameda Avenue and Central Avenue into a park.

This would support local businesses with more foot traffic, provide more public space for the community to gather, and give high schoolers a safer walking route to Park Street.

It is after all named Park Street, not parking street.

Now, despite there being plenty of ample parking at the parking garage, there were still plenty of illegally parked cars getting parking citations at this event.

There's an important lesson to learn here.

Despite the city spending nine million dollars to build this parking garage, and now over one million dollars to renovate it, many people still ignore it to instead park illegally because the problem was never that there wasn't enough parking.

The problem was that there wasn't there isn't enough uh immediately available parking immediately next to the destinations people want to reach.

I've spoken about this before, but I believe it's worth reiterating.

This was proven by a study the city conducted in 2014 that showed that the parking garage is often mostly empty despite all adjacent street parking being nearly at full capacity during peak hours.

The solution here, as identified by this study, and within later resolutions to accept grant funding is demand-based parking, which means increasing the street parking rates until there are parking spots available.

Given that we've accepted grant funding for this purpose, and it appears through this ordinance that the parking garage renovations are making good progress.

I'm really excited and supportive of the city finally implementing demand-based parking and solving a problem that was identified over 10 years ago.

Once we do this, we will finally have available parking and parking Webster Street, better utilization of the expensive parking garage, and far less cars endangering cyclists' lives by double parking on bike lanes.

All this being said, it is possible that this may cause spillover in some nearby residential streets.

So I encourage the city to start looking at implementing residential parking permits.

The laws of supply and demand tell us something very important about artificial price fixing.

If a good or service is artificially priced lower than its actual market value, the good or service will eventually experience shortages.

This happened with food in Venezuela during the Great Recession, and it's happening with parking in Alameda today.

Free parking equals unavailable parking.

And each step the city takes that acknowledges this fact is a step in solving the single biggest complaint the city faces when it tries to do anything from building affordable housing to protecting pedestrians and cyclists to just letting kids play baseball.

The complaint we saw that we can solve that we often seem to hear is but what if there's not enough parking?

Thank you.

Thank you.

And that was our only speaker?

Correct.

Okay, we will close public comment on item 6A, and um we can open it up for council discussion and hopefully a motion and second and a vote to um approve this ordinance and move it forward.

We'd like to go or make a motion.

We have other items.

Council move staff's recommendation.

Thank you, Council.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Prior.

We've had a motion by Councilmember Desak, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, any abstentions?

Hearing none, that motion passed unanimously.

Thank you so much, Mr.

De La Torre, good work.

And we will move on now to our next item.

Madam Clerk, would you introduce item 78?

Yeah.

Is a public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance amending the Alabama Universal Code by amending section 30-16, inclusionary housing requirements for residential projects.

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, this action is categorically exempt from environmental review present to SQL Guidelines Section 15061B 3.

Welcome.

Hi.

Hi, thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and members of the city council.

My name is Abby Thorne Lyman, and I am here tonight in my capacity as interim co-director of the Planning Building and Transportation Department here with my colleague, uh Director Emeritus Andrew Thomas, to present on this item.

So tonight's staff are presenting the first reading of proposed amendments to municipal code section 30-16, the inclusionary housing requirements for new development.

Inclusionary housing policy requires developers of market rate housing under certain conditions to provide a minimum percentage of housing units that are affordable to households at different lower income levels.

This ordinance has not been updated in the city of Alameda since 2004, and as you may imagine, market conditions have changed a bit in the last 22 years.

Staff are recommending amendments tonight, which I will go over and are further recommending that staff continue to work on bringing back a policy and necessary studies to potentially allow for developers to pay an inLU fee, which I'll discuss.

The City Council adopted its current housing element in two 2022.

The state required plan identifies ways in which the city will meet its regional housing needs allocation of producing over 5,300 new housing units over the eight-year period of the plan.

Meeting this goal would require the city to build 669 new units per year, but unfortunately, due to a lack of construction, the city has only delivered 447 units total in the initial two and a half years of the cycle.

In addition, the housing element lays out programs that the city will implement to help catalyze new housing development.

One of these programs was amending the inclusionary housing ordinance to lessen or eliminate the number of moderate income units and increase the number of low and very low income units.

Staff commenced work on a new ordinance in 2024, pulling together an ad hoc working group of internal city staff and planning board members to work through the details and hiring a consultant to evaluate our policy options and conducting uh and as in addition, we conducted study sessions with the planning board and the city council in late 2025.

In April, staff brought forward a draft ordinance for the planning board to review, and the planning board recommended staff um uh recommended the draft ordinance to the city council with several revisions to ensure that developers had greater clarity.

Um and that approved projects would have a way to uh to take advantage of the change in the ordinance.

Um in addition, the planning board recommended that staff return within 12 months with an in-LU fee.

The major changes to the ordinance mostly modify, or sorry, the major changes to the ordinance modify the percentage requirements in order to meet the goals of the housing element and decrease the number of moderate income units while increasing low and very low income units.

This will address the fact that uh some income restricted moderate income units in Alameda are remaining vacant because rents are similar to market rate rents for apartments.

Currently, the ordinance requires that 15% of units in developments that are delivering more than four units be provided as affordable with 7% moderate, 4% low, and 4% very low.

Staff recommend providing options to offer flexibility for developers, including the options shown on the right of the screen: 15% low income, 5% very low, and 5% low, or 8% very low, or an economically equivalent option.

These options were derived through the analysis conducted by street level advisors, the city's consultant, which demonstrated that though you may see different percentages of units, these all equate to an economically equivalent cost to the developer.

The revised ordinance also recommends that the developer be allowed to propose something of equal, an economically equivalent option.

And MTC, which has published the transit-oriented communities policy, which this is consistent with, has actually published a tool as well so that we can calculate what economically equivalent percentages are.

Staff have found that homeownership is still, despite these income restrictions, often out of the reach of very low-income households who cannot afford the down payment requirements of owning a home.

However, we have well more than enough demand for moderate and low-income households to purchase a home.

So staff are recommending modifying this option to focus more greatly on moderate and low-income households and less on very low-income households within the three options shown on the right of the screen.

And as well, we are recommending that the ordinance include the ability for a developer to propose an economically equivalent option just to give as much flexibility as possible.

There are a couple of additional critical amendments in the proposed ordinance tonight.

The first is changing the term for the affordability of rental units from 59 to 99 years.

This is a fantastic way to ensure long-lasting affordability of these units, which while similarly simultaneously limiting the impact to developers who are looking at their financial terms for a shorter length of time.

And we are finding here in the Bay Area a lot of affordable housing units are reaching the end of their income restricted periods, and we are actually losing affordable housing units throughout the region.

The current ordinance discusses clustered development, but in the current ordinance, it states that cluster development is about provision of off-site affordable housing units, where what the city's practice has been in clustering the provision of inclusionary housing units has actually been a dedication of land adjacent to or within the same development as the market rate units.

So in the proposed ordinance language, we've clarified and codified the current city process that we have already been using, where clustered development is defined as a developer providing land dedication or money within their own development project for a 100% affordable building.

This cluster development is a great way to actually leverage outside affordable housing subsidies so you can actually deliver far more low and very low and even extremely low income units because you're bringing in that outside subsidy, and the developer's provision of land is actually counting as match.

And lastly per the planning board's recommendation, staff have clarified that there is a process for entitled projects that have not yet been built to come and apply for revisions to their inclusionary projects so that we can kickstart more housing development in the city.

Additionally, we've established a process for rental projects with vacant moderate units, so that already built projects to apply to convert their vacant moderate units to low income units, so that gives an option to address the vacant moderate income unit situation.

There are protections in the proposed draft ordinance to prevent developers from displacing current tenants.

The current draft ordinance retains the exemption for projects of four or fewer units and allows projects of five to nine units to pay an INLU fee instead.

We want to acknowledge that the planning board recommendation actually was to increase this exemption for projects with 11 units or fewer, and that is consistent with MPC's transit oriented communities policy.

Staff did not include that in the ordinance, but if that is a change that the council would like to make, staff could recommend that as well, and it is consistent with MTC's transit or communities policy.

On the INLU fee, staff recommend pursuing this study in the next 12 months.

And we do believe this is a national best practice to have an INLU fee.

And we think that this actually would be a very good practice because it does create a local funding source that the city could actually flexibly use as it wants to to achieve its own policies.

In conclusion, staff recommend these the amendment to the ordinance.

We believe that the amendments uh tailor our inclusionary requirements to both meet our housing element and align with MTC's transit oriented communities guidelines, which makes us more competitive for funds.

The amendments will have immediate benefits by uh stimulating at least one development project to move forward.

And we also would just recommend that we revisit this ordinance more frequently.

Let's not treat this ordinance as a static document.

Let's come back because the market will continually change.

So with that, our recommendation is approval of the first reading.

Uh direction to continue to work on the INLU fee provisions to come back within 12 months.

And if you would like to modify it to increase the exemption to 11 or fewer units per planning board recommendation, that is uh acceptable to staff.

Uh that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Nice job, Miss Thorn Lyman.

Any clarifying questions before we go to public comment?

Vice Mayor Prior.

Um, yeah, I have a couple for the rental housing project requirements.

I don't know what page it's on, but that's the title of the slide.

Um it's um from I so there are the three options.

Um the I think what I heard, so I guess um, and I did hear from you, so I've heard it just over the past you know few weeks are you know, talking about um this ordinance um sorry, rental housing, um, that there are people that might fit in the category, and that's why by the way, I do agree with the review of the ordinance, but currently the way low income is defined that um people that are very very low income might have access to more um more funds from different agencies or groups, but people that might qualify or be considered low income don't.

Is that is that is that correct or is that typical?

I guess is a better.

Are you referring to say section eight vouchers?

Um that I mean that would be an example.

Um I I just that's just the way what I was, you know, it was I don't want to say it was explained to me, but from my understanding of it, that's why I was just asking.

So if I were considered low income, um this would be really beneficial to me.

Um I guess as as we're discussing options, I guess.

Like, so like for example, option three is um to focus on people that are um very low income, and then it would be eight percent.

Um, there, you know, there'd be eight percent of available.

And I think and so I I guess what might my question is it's kind of a leading question, but is it is it your opinion um that choosing option one would statistically benefit more people, um, based on that they're gonna have people that are considered low income are gonna have less uh resources, I guess, to supplement their income or for housing.

So I guess I should just clarify, and I think that we've we've experienced some confusion over this matter a couple of times, so I just want to make sure everybody in the general public is clear.

We're not asking you to choose between the options.

You may not say that's what you're saying.

Oh, the intent is all four all four of these options are in the ordinance, and the that what the ordinance language says is the developer may choose and bring forward a package and mix of units in any of these four combinations.

The fourth combination, of course, they would have to prove to us that it's economically the same as the others, but we're not asking council to choose.

We're actually getting written into the ordinance is the provision that the developer can choose among these.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

That's critical.

Well, then I think that that clarifies my second question also.

So I'm I'm good with questions.

I will just throw in that on that point, and yes, that is correct.

What the ordinance says, um, at least one of us up here thinks that not just the developers should get to make the decision about the mix, but there should be input from the city.

So that's something when we do our discussion, we can talk about.

Um, other other clarifying questions, council.

I'll bet you we have public comment.

Do we, Madam Clerk?

We do.

Let's have our public comment.

Okay, we have four, so we got three minutes each, though.

Um, Sean Murphy followed by Tushan Amara Siri Wardena, and then Zach Thayer.

Um, Speaker Murphy.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Councilmember Sean Murphy Pacific Development.

Uh so Pacific Development was part of the Alamina Maria Master Plan.

We deliver that first project, which is called launch 368 units in 2023.

Uh, and we're here tonight to endorse what both the planning board and the staff uh are recommending for the inclusion and ordinance revision.

So the foundry project, which is the project which is truly shovel ready, represents 259 residential units and one work-live unit for 260 units in total.

All of those entitlements and building permits are completely approved and ready for for the final vertical phase.

Uh, with this project that completes uh that master plan that totals 801 units on the northern waterfront.

Uh every project is different on this island, and optionality is really important.

So that we can all navigate how best to deliver housing on the island.

Clearly, we have economic conditions ahead of us today that make housing essentially in unfeasible.

The foundry project is not a typical project, it sits on the waterfront.

Uh, it includes the development of significant bay trail improvements, sea level rise, environmental remediation, both of fee simple as well as tide land properties, deep soil mixing and stabilization because of its adjacency to the water.

Uh, and important adjacent commercial parking lots for the maritime core.

So those are the elements that make this particular project unique, and again, optionality for solving inclusionary housing ordinance, and that requirement is really important so that we can study what is financially feasible.

We plan to develop this project and build this project this summer and start construction immediately, utilizing option three, which will provide 21 very low income units to the island.

There's a great need today for very low income units to address one of the questions.

Yes, Section 8 can be used for both low and very low.

We have section eight uh residents in our launch project today.

Foundry is truly shovel ready, and we're committed to building this important project, which will develop 260 units, 20 of one of which will be very low.

We appreciate the city's partnership so that we can build more housing on the island.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

Um our next speaker is.

Well, we're also gonna go to two minutes because we now have five or more speakers because we have remote.

All right.

And um the next speaker is to Sean Amara Siri Wardena, then Zach Thayer, then Teresa Ruiz.

All right, come on up, Speaker Amara Siri Warden.

Um thank you for considering this uh really wonky uh material.

Uh just watching it over the moving through planning board and up to here, it's been one of the harder ones to to grab one's head around.

Uh but I I hope you uh move forward and approve this because I think it just at a singular level, it unlocks a large uh project that happens to be in my neighborhood.

Um the foundry is down on Clement Street, uh just a couple blocks from where I live, and I can say that the whole Northern Waterfront project is something that my family has enjoyed, but my whole neighborhood has enjoyed, and more importantly, we have new neighbors that enrich our neighborhood and our schools.

In fact, a couple of my kids' friends are some of those new families that moved in.

And while we are talking about metrics and numbers uh on a spreadsheet, I think what we really should also keep in mind is that these are doors that open up for people to live in our community uh and not you know in Mountain House and taking two hours to get out here.

And so I think it's really important that we move on this.

Um, and I just want to reiterate some things that I mentioned in the letter uh that I shared earlier today, too.

Is the New York Times had a great editorial uh yesterday about the housing crisis?

And you know, their conclusion was one of the best ways to solve this that we've seen in Raleigh when I went to school or and Austin, Texas, is that by building more uh it opens the supply to meet the demand.

I feel like this we we have a very clear link to opening up a project.

Um so yes, thank you so much uh for your consideration on this.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Zach Thayer, then Teresa Ruiz, then Corinne Kirschbach.

All right, welcome, Speaker Thayer.

Is that you, sir?

Speaker there.

Would you like us to have the next speaker go while you make your way up the aisle?

Do you mind speaker Ruiz?

Come on up.

Nice to see you.

Hi.

Madame Mayor, members of council, good evening.

My name is Teresa Ruiz, and I'm here speaking as a private citizen and not in my capacity as planning board member.

Um, I am here in support of the ordinance in front of you.

Um, as a private practitioner, I'm a licensed architect practicing in the multifamily space.

I see firsthand how um inflexibility in local ordinances can put stumbling blocks in to unlock the housing development.

And current ordinance in this current form doesn't work.

Uh as we can see, there hasn't been any development.

We have vacancies not being able to serve the population that's in need.

Is the proposal perfect?

No.

But it's progress towards the right direction.

Um we need to ask ourselves what is the role of government?

Is the government to regulate everything, or is our role to provide safety nets for the private sector and the market to do its thing, even in difficult economic times that we can still meet the needs of our residents?

And that's what I ask you to consider.

So tonight I ask you to support this ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, all right.

Our next speaker back there.

And so just for future speakers to make keep things moving along when you hear your name, just be ready to come on up.

Um, Audi.

Uh 5992.

Um domiciling doesn't show our quadric date.

Um if you have property abatement um applications, the DD uh filing, and instead of Roth IRAs based on S for C corp, as LLC self-employment based on uh square footage to tax abatement.

Um rational zoning um doesn't show qualified uh deviation and a credit approval is in an ISM assembly.

Uh um how that is wondered in housing um theoretical distribution efficiency standards are in a quadral application in CAT or CAD designs.

Uh you can't bid proposal, uh tax abatement um uh seven five uh seven nine eight three two uh uh dot two six uh changed HR 5794 versus uh 5798 in the uh state senate uh based on appraisal models efficiency standards um and LLP formats.

Um marriage isn't supposed to be a master limited partnership versus PLC based on appreciation.

Um duality.

Um if some symbolic application of demociling isn't there as credit card uh statement efficiency standards, um bond proposal efficiencies um would be wondered.

Uh 1593 7112 uh triathothelial hexos chloride um samples is uh in Hensley V the NRDC.

Um a question.

Um I wish to propose uh in view of this.

So I don't um I call it random uh in view of housing uh in GV Australia.

Um, thank you so much.

And your time is uh our next question, our next um speaker, Madam Clerk.

Karin Kirschbaum.

Welcome, Speaker Kirschbaum.

So the issue is no longer whether there were red flags because the city city's own records show there were the city's February 23rd uh 2023 monitoring report of village of love says the monitoring period covered 2019.

I'm going to stop you there, Miss Kirschbaum.

We are now on item 7A, which is um an ordinance to amend the um inclusionary housing requirements.

Okay, so then when do I come back up?

Uh for non-agenda items at the end of the regular calendar.

Okay, okay.

You can only speak once on our own locations on agenda.

Oh, that's true.

That's for people who didn't get a chance to speak during item four.

Yeah.

All right, and our next speaker, Andy Wang.

Welcome.

Is he remote because I don't see him in the room?

He's remote.

Yeah.

Welcome, Speaker Wang.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council members.

My name is Andy Wang.

I am a member of the planning board, which has participated in multiple deliberations on this ordinance already.

I'm speaking again tonight as a private resident who wants to see more housing in the Bay Area.

And I want to underscore the importance of this legislation as a small stepping stone to getting there.

The inclusionary housing ordinance that you have before you this evening is really, in my view, a modest and sensible update among other things.

It removes a problematic moderate income tier for rental units as a requirement for new developments.

This moderate tier has been well documented in the Bay Area as one that simply doesn't work.

It provides flexibility across a menu of affordable income tiers.

Given the many constraints facing developments in the current market, flexibility within a framework defined by the city is an important policy ingredient that could improve feasibility for future projects.

It aligns us better with state law.

It aligns us with regional policy benchmarks, which will give the city access to a huge pool of grants.

It formalizes a pathway for land dedication and satisfaction of affordable housing requirements.

Removing requirements from smaller projects is intended to support the type of small scale developments sponsored by mom and pop developers known as missing middle housing, an important piece of our housing puzzle.

Passing this ordinance would be a win on multiple policy fronts, including moving the needle on delivering more housing at a time when the city and region have produced vanishingly little.

Please vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

And that was our last.

That was our last speaker.

So with that, we will close public comment.

And I'm just gonna make a little commercial here, a PSA.

We heard from not one, but two of our very impressive, outstanding, talented planning board members.

Okay, I appointed both of them, but the full council approved them.

Um there are currently openings on some of our, I mean, all of our boards and commissions are important, but we have openings right now on the Planning Board, Transportation Commission, Social Service Human Relations Board, Historic Advisory Board, Civil Service Board.

Go to the city's website and check them out because I know we've got talented residents out there just wanting to serve their community, and it's just so impressive listening to the kind of expertise that we have serving us on our boards and commissions.

Okay, I will step down from my soapbox.

And do we have um now we've we're open for discussion?

Um, Councilmember Desag, you're looking at your notes.

Do you want to lead off?

Well, thank you very much for um bringing this back.

Um we had a spirited discussion last time, and I appreciate um the product that we're seeing before us, and to hear that one of the developers um with a major project um feels um confident enough to move ahead because of the changes, I think speaks volume of the work done by our staff and our executive team.

So I just want to express my appreciation and look forward to to this because we all know that Alameda as well as the Bay Area, we're all in a housing crisis, and um anything that uh each of us on the city council can do to um alleviate lessen um the difficulty that so many face when it comes to finding affordable housing, I think is a welcome step.

So I certainly join my council member, my colleagues and the mayor in supporting um this item.

Thank you.

Are you mind reading us?

Let's just go down the down the row.

Um, Councilmember Bowler, how about you?

Oh, thank you.

Could I start with a question actually?

Um, and this is no question, yes.

Thank you.

Um, slide number eight of 10 talks about um possibly going for the exemption being 11 or fewer units rather than four or fewer.

And I know you talked about that briefly, but maybe you could just comment a little bit more about that.

I know there's very few projects in that.

Yes, Ms.

Thank you so much.

And are we bringing that slide up, whatever it is?

I know what you're talking about.

And then I have another one that's an email.

I just was opening that one too, yeah.

Yeah, um, so this was a recommendation by planning board.

Um, and and just quite frankly, staff Steph overlooked the recommendation, but but part of the reason that we didn't feel that was a huge deal is we don't see projects in the five to eleven unit range in Alameda right now.

So it would be I would hope we would.

I would hope we would see these smaller, that that would be amazing to see these smaller, smaller unit projects, but they just they they're not a prevalent product type.

Um so I think it would be great to do that change, um, but it wasn't a really high priority.

So just why?

What's the rationale to do that change?

Um, well, you know, it just policy wise, in terms of like where the where the Bay Area has been been heading, there is um there's been a lot of dialogue about missing middle housing, which is this smaller housing product type.

If you're if you're getting a small building like this, it's more often wood frame, walk up, it's cheaper to build.

Um sometimes the rents can be cheaper, not always.

Um, and so there has been a lot of encouragement to have this kind of smaller product type, and it also can infill on small very small sites, right?

And you could have like small clustered housing.

I mean, a lot of Alameda's older rental housing stock actually has this this beautiful character of these, you know, very you know, eight plexes kind of kind of type building, they just aren't very commonly built, but it but you know, why not encourage them?

Why not why not remove the inclusionary requirement?

You could either choose to exempt them entirely um right now, as I as I mentioned, you know uh projects in the five to nine unit range uh in the in the draft ordinance would pay a fee instead.

Um, you could remove that.

So it's really how you all want to handle it.

I don't think you're gonna be um effectuating a massive sudden construction of the missing middle product type, but why not encourage it?

Um it's something we would love to see more of.

Oftentimes it's very small-scale developers, local developers who are doing this kind of stuff, often local to the specific town they're being built in.

And I just I just want to thank you for all the work that um the department's done, and yeah, Mr.

Thomas too, thank you both to you.

Um we had a conversation.

There's actually under the there's a staff communication from staff that's published under this agenda item, and it has an email exchange that we had.

And I'm just asking the city clerk, this is a paragraph that has some proposed changes to it in bold, and there's also a section that's underlined, which I added later after our email exchange.

Um, but basically, it kind of goes back to what Vice Mayor Pryor was saying, and that you know it was a little bit, it's a little bit confusing when you first grapple with this, but I think also in terms of legislation, it makes sense to make sure that the purposes are really clear if there's any type of interpretation later, and that this is I think if I understand it correctly, it's it's an intent to you know have really equivalent terms.

And so the additional phrase that I added there was rather than representing a reduction in the overall affordable housing obligation.

So that's not I don't understand that to be the intent that we're that we're making a change that would make less affordable housing.

In fact, we're just trying to get more to affordable housing by having more options to get to that to the goal.

So these sentences that are in bold, and then there's a few phrases in bold, are what I would propose as a um addition or modification of that particular paragraph.

And I don't know if you want to comment on the portion on any of this or and or the portion that I added with the underlying, if you have any thoughts.

Yeah, I um and I I'll ask Mr.

Thomas to fill in if I don't if I don't say it all.

But I what I would say is I think this really fits with the spirit of the the intent of having different affordability levels and and provides a record for posterity for those who didn't get to engage in this dialogue that we're not letting developers off the hook by choosing options two or three or even four.

They are all the same financial contribution.

Um so it it is um less units you're getting overall, affordable units, but you are getting the same amount of affordable housing contribution in terms of dollars, and you're serving lower income.

So I I would I would agree with the recommended change in the sense that you know it is it is tricky because um what we were trying to use MTCs uh, the phrase economically equivalent is a phrase MTC uses in their transit oriented communities guidelines.

That's something that we've pulled directly from what they have recommended that cities do, um, but it is a phrase that doesn't really impart the fact that by providing fewer units at at lower incomes with deeper subsidy, you are in fact making the same financial contribution, and you're just serving you're serving a household that maybe has more need.

So I don't think it changes the requirements in any way, but it maybe provides a little more context to the ordinance.

Thank you so much.

That's all I have right now.

Um I have a question about that, and then I'd like to have our um legal counsel Carl Silver way in, but I'm maybe reading this differently, but that phrase rather than representing a reduction in the overall affordable housing obligation.

Are we referring to the RENA numbers?

Because the that is our affordable housing obligation, and that is a set number.

So regardless of how we do, we look at equivalency, we don't have the ability to modify our RENA obligations.

So I'm just wondering, other than sort of a philosophical view, what does that really add?

And then I'm just gonna ask um Ms.

Silver if you would weigh in.

Sure.

So the added phrase, I I think perhaps instead of obligation, the term uh requirement um could be used, and so I think the intent of that phrase is to say that the requirement of the um um affordable, the inclusionary housing uh requirement in the ordinance uh can be met in several different ways that we're the RENA obligation is is obviously a separate um issue that's an obligation but it's is it I mean is it more than um is it more than virtue signaling I mean what's the help me understand your reasoning for including well I mean the additional phrase is probably not absolutely necessary it just puts more of an emphasis on the intent here is to the the intent of the legislation is to um fulfill that requirement right in these different ways but I was just trying to add a little extra emphasis to it I don't know if it's absolutely necessary that I I don't know if the mayor's comments do I don't know if you're referring specifically only to the part that's underlined as opposed to anything else because everything that's in bold is what I'm thinking would be helpful to add um or amend this paragraph and then the portion that's an underlined and also bolded is the part that I added after the exchange by email with staff.

You know me I tend to think that lesson is more and I like simplicity and directness of language but that's my opinion.

Mr.

Thomas do I see you with something you want to add no I just I'm sensing he's trying to coach from behind.

Bring it on we we think the language in general is good so many people have made the same you know didn't understand this paragraph.

So when talking and emailing with council member um Bowler we okay we need to explain what's going on here a little bit more so people future staff developers understand you get a choice of options and the public understands and but and they're of equal value to us the city so that was the intent um I think in terms of Mr.

Bowler's addition um underlined I think as um uh the attorney was um suggesting cara instead of affordable housing obligation which does immediately bring to mind the RENA it's the inclusionary housing requirement that you're I think you're referring to um just because one is eight percent and the other is 15% doesn't mean the eight percent is an a reduction in the inclusionary housing um obligation so I mean from staff's perspective we're comfortable for um with with it but the intent here is to be clear so if there's anything in this language that you think is just adding more confusion then the purpose of adding the language is is it's not working.

So we want to try to make it understandable to future users of the ordinance future councils future planning board members.

Can I just say you may yeah thanks I I don't have a strong feeling about the underlying language I I don't necessarily have a credibly strong feeling about any of it but it I do think it makes it more clear in general if other council members don't want to do the portion that's underlined I I don't think that's a problem.

My problem with the underlined portion is it's not quite accurate what the words on the page I I think you meant something but it means something else and that I I do have trouble with.

But I one of the speakers made a really good point about that this just provides flexibility um that is gonna help launch this um project um it's not perfect but it's definitely a step in the right direction um there's a huge need um and also too, just for clarification, just for the community.

Um the were uh there are units right now that are considered moderate that are not um that are vacant because people aren't tend to not apply for them.

Um there it's a lot of work and people were like well just pay market rate.

Um I I'm I'm I'm being very, you know, I'm very I'm being um generalizing a lot, but the point is there are vacant um units and we need we we need every possible space.

So I I really um excited to have um to fill this you know with low income or very low income or you know uh and to provide the flexibility for however that looks um and uh to director uh Lyman's point is um uh sorry I'm my lost my train of thought, but back to Director Lyman.

I do like that I do like the suggestion that we revisit this ordinance regularly.

Um it I don't think that we're gonna this probably could be tweaked or things change and it would there the it we might need to change or net you know we might need to change things um and now I'm gonna jump to uh the housing project requirement um so the way you know it's currently um written um you know four percent very low four percent low and seven percent moderate um but there were homes not being I don't know if sold is the right term but that were um um because people uh that might be considered very low uh very low or sometimes low were having uh difficulty coming up with the down payment and so like we but um but in the meantime you know we want people to own homes it just builds equity um and uh generational wealth etc.

So anything that's gonna get us closer to that I'm in favor of and then again to Abby Thorn Lyman's point.

Um you know we should definitely revisit this so um overall I'm very supportive of this um the um and I do and I I do think it's something to consider doing the projects with 11 um or fewer units because you know it might incentivize somebody to build here um and we need every home we can get so thank you um and council member Jensen.

Oh thank you um I have actually would like to ask Mr.

Thomas some questions.

Welcome back.

My questions are related to um when you were the the planning building and transportation director in 2022 and the and the region the regional housing needs assessment was passed.

So uh my question is why wasn't the ordinance changed when the housing element was redrafted um we um there was it this uh represents a fair amount of work and as you might remember in 2022 we um had a lot of work on our plate adopting the housing element required identifying all the sites there was also as you may remember a zoning text amendment that went along with that which was over a hundred pages long so we had our hands full and it's not unusual for a housing element no matter what city Alameda cities around California to identify and it's in a requirement of the housing element to identify any future actions that are necessary that to that might help facilitate.

So this was one of those actions that um through our public workshops on the housing element with our planning board hearings it was identified we started hearing these issues back then about the moderate about the very low ownership the moderate rentals so we knew we had a problem we knew it would take some work but it wasn't something that you know three planners could sit around a table for a couple hours and figure out the solution it it we knew it would require a fair amount of effort so we're in action.

Thank you and it sounds like you didn't know that what the impact of the ratios and and of the um the the original um ordinance would be right on when the arena was adopted.

And so in your opinion, in your expert opinion, which I know is that if if the inclusionary ordinance had been updated in 2022, do you think Alameda would be further along now in our um meeting the the arena targets?

Well, I think we I think this um we might be.

I mean, I'll be honest.

I I mean I think regional national economic conditions are the biggest single issue that is slowing housing development.

Um you know it would have been great to have these amendments done two years ago.

Maybe one or two other projects would have moved forward in the meantime.

Maybe Alameda Marino would be have broken ground a year and a half ago, not this summer.

So yes, I wish we had, um, but better late than never, I guess.

Well, and I want to ask you one more thing.

I I do support Councilmember Bowler's um language because I I want it to be really clear that these are options, but they're not options to eliminate inclusionary housing.

That the the goal is still to have inclusionary units throughout our city.

And um with regard to that though, I uh section 30-16.6b of the um ordinance for clustered development, that's the clustered development.

I I want to appreciate first that it it is very uh extensive.

It does kind of especially the last sentence, the proposal locates the affordable housing in a transit rich high opportunity neighborhood that provides access to jobs, transit schools, and services.

So my concern initially with clustered housing with having a clustered housing option was that perhaps it would be incompatible with inclusionary goals because by distributing low-income units um in one area uh areas that might be tend to concentrate it.

So can you comment on that, please?

Yeah, uh we as um Director Thorn Lyman mentioned.

We've done a number of these clustered developments in Alameda.

The Del Monte project has the affordable housing clustered in a single building, and not all but much of the big building is market rate.

There are moderates in that um the site A, there's the market rate town home buildings, and then there's the affordable right next door.

So with the cluster development we've been doing all the way back to Bay Port, 20 years ago, was technically a cluster development.

Um we have found that it's worked well in Alameda, um, where as Abby described, a portion of the site is dedicated for the affordable.

It's dedicated the land is dedicated in perpetuity to affordable, not 99 years, but the land is conveyed to either the housing authority or the nonprofit that provides affordable housing.

So there's been a lot of benefits.

What is interesting is in 2004 when we wrote the ordinance, um, you know, that wasn't on our mind.

So for 20 years we've been doing this type of development without it being codified in an ordinance.

So that I think is the first and foremost the the thing that we um wanted to update to really put those requirements and standards into an ordinance.

Um it's gone well in the past, but we want to have it for the future.

Um, this also covers though the possibility, which has always sort of been in the ordinance for what we would I would most of us would refer to as off-site, where the market rate is in one neighborhood and the affordable is in the other neighborhood, and that is where some of those standards that you read come into play.

Right, like you know, it's if you're going to put the affordable in a location that's not where you're building your market rate, it better meet these standards.

I appreciate that.

And I um I'll also say that in 2004, when the first inclusionary housing ordinance was written, there were clusters because half of Alameda or more than half of Alameda wasn't available for any expanded housing.

So that's right.

Um I I really I appreciate this.

I also want to appreciate the in LU fees, um, because that was I know a big discussion of the planning board and and in our last meeting here to have the in LU fees um right now between five and nine units.

Maybe that would change at some point, but but uh give some options at least.

And so um I'm just very supportive of all the work that's been done.

I know this has been been a big project, and I appreciate uh everyone's contributions, especially the planning board and staff, and um it is clear that moderate income units are not are not adding value to development in Alameda and so hopefully with these changes we can move forward with some of these important projects.

Thank you and I'll go last and just for clarification we actually aren't discussing in LU fees this evening right because they're gonna come back after there's been a fee study is that correct that's one of the alternatives.

So that that is correct but I think that there is a question about whether you want to um adopt the planning board's uh recommendation to exempt all projects um under 11 units or keep the in LU fee to exempt them from the fees yeah we aren't making yes okay um thank you for that clarification and let me just start in no particular order but because we were talking about clustered the cluster option to perhaps have 100% affordable buildings or all the units um I think it's really important to acknowledge that there should be no stigma attached to affordable housing I know that sometimes that term causes you know strikes fear in the heart of some it is irrational and the the quality of housing these days you can look around the island and be hard pressed to tell which is the affordable and which is the market rate in places like Bay port they did um combine them and other examples so I I think that that flexibility is so important and if that is the tool that helps that developer build and this came up in the context of transit oriented communities and I'm on MTC and we've spent a bit of time on that.

So if we can get folks who are at the affordable income level also bear in mind that in the Bay Area the very high cost of living Bay Area that's a pretty significant income you'd have to be making anyway but if we can get them living near transit stops it just helps them get to their jobs and back faster um it's it's a benefit for for communities so I think you know we should be fine with that I um did want to talk a little bit about the um the optionality I think we heard the term to give the developer the um the choice of which of the categories or combinations of affordability they want to pursue I do not want to leave that solely in the hands of the developer that they are building in our city we know better I'm also on the board of directors of League of California cities local control we know what is best for our cities and so I just want something I think um Mr.

Thomas we were um communicating this afternoon and you mentioned that it could be it doesn't have to be the city manager it could be with consultation from the planning director and that might be more appropriate because the planning director is more of a subject matter expert you want to come up and talk about how that what that might look like the conversation that we had this afternoon with the mayor um was about these the three options and you've heard the argument for giving the developer the choice and what we tried to create was choices with the sort of the philosophy that from the city's perspective it doesn't matter which one you pick it they're they're all equally good for us so go ahead pick the one that works best for the project whatever that issue is doesn't really matter to us you're gonna build the project and you pick one of those we're good to go and what we liked about that was also from the developer when they're first coming in their first decision to explore the possibility of doing a housing project in Alameda, they can start doing the math on that that day with certainty.

They don't have to wait till the final planning board hearing or the final city council meeting to know uh-oh, what do I need to do?

Like, does it get changed in the process?

The issue that was brought to my attention um by the mayor and also by others um there might be a scenario where everything is works great, but we're getting close to the end of the eight-year housing term.

So, if for those of you who remember the housing element details, there's a total number of units, but there's also an obligation within the total number to have a certain number of very low and a certain number of low and a certain so the scenario might be, and this is theoretical, but it's it's possible.

Let's say over the course of the next five years, all the developers say, We're we want to do the low.

We like that option.

It works great for us, and we end up getting very few very low units, and we get to the near the end, it's year seven of the RENA period, and now we're worried like are we gonna meet Arena or not?

We're super close, but we're way low on one category.

So the thought was, and we provided some language.

Um, if you want to consider it, where we say these are up to the developer, developer gets to choose, unless the planning director makes a recommendation to the planning board or city council that the city really needs one of the other options.

So I think for that purpose.

And it's not just so we can fulfill the formula, it's because that formula was developed to begin with to address the needs that we had for these different housing types.

But I also agree with you that we would do this from the very beginning.

We do not want to delay developers, we don't want to come in at the 11th hour, but it makes me very uncomfortable to say we will give the developer all the all the cards and they can decide how to play them.

Um not that long ago.

It's a little different situation because it involved the density bonus law, but we had a developer come in and say, Yeah, I've I'm gonna exercise my rights under the density bonus and tear down for everyone who's listening from Harbor Bay, it's not happening, but it he'd made a proposal to tear down the whole shopping center, including the grocery store, and build only housing.

And so I just I always want someone from the city and the planning director would be great, but I I do think we need to build that in to the ordinance.

And if I if I may just add please the reason we thought we could add it in and with the sort of the it's your choice developer of these three, pick which one you like, and you get to do that unless the planning director makes this kind of recommendation to the city council.

What in practice, how could that work, given what I just said about the need for certainty?

The developer comes in on day one and says, I want to do option one.

Mr.

Planning Director, are you or Mrs.

Planning Director?

Are you gonna have a problem with that?

You know, and you have that conversation on day one.

Hope like today, if somebody came in, we'd be like, No, we don't have a problem.

We need all those units, so we're not in that scenario.

Um, maybe there's some other strange scenario that we're not thinking about, but this kind of little caveat, this little exception would give the city the ability to go, whoa, I'm sorry.

I think it's an important safety net, so I would like that in there.

And let me just ask you don't go away, Mr.

Thomas, come back.

Um, in the previous report to the city council, so last year I guess there was discussion about the very low income category, and the statement was made that there's less need for that because the housing authority tends to build those units.

Is that not correct?

No, we um I wasn't here for that conversation, so I'm speaking out of context here.

We need very low units.

Our housing authority does do a great job of providing them.

But we need more.

But yes, okay, I'm I'm fine with that.

But speaking of housing authorities, um, I can't remember if I talked to you about this or not.

Um, there's a documentary called Under the Bridge that we're gonna try and bring to the Alameda Theater, but it is amazing about what cities like Milwaukee and others have done.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin has the lowest per capita number of homeless individuals in the nation.

Um, but among the things that they do in Milwaukee is they um their housing authority puts folks who are unsheltered, puts their applications at the top of the list whenever Section 8 housing becomes available.

That's something I'd like us to look at here.

So just keep that in mind.

Um and then I also just want to add that not tonight because it's not within this report, but we do need to do everything we can, and there's certainly that this ordinance addresses that, but we need to do as much as we can to enable ownership opportunities for those first-time buyers.

You remember what that was like once upon a time, Vice Mayor.

And one of the things that a webinar I recently attended suggested was that cities need to revisit their accessory dwelling, their ADU ordinances to allow the ADU to be sold separately from the main house.

Right now it has to be owned um by the owner of the main house, but I think I've heard something might be coming to us soon.

Ms.

Silver, it just came to the planning board at the last meeting, so it will be coming to the council shortly.

That sounds great.

Um and so then, and I am fine with removing the um in LU fee requirement for those units that might provide the missing middle, because who knows?

Even though we haven't seen a lot of demand, maybe if that requirement wasn't there, we would, and um, anyway, and yes, um, echoing my colleagues' huge thanks for all the the work that went into it.

On the language change, um, I I wouldn't want to see the underlined portion of um that I couldn't approve that, but if you wanted to exercise that, um I would be okay with that.

Generally speaking, I'd rather leave drafting to staff, because they um they consult with our boards and their subject matter experts, but I mean I like the language, except the um that second phrase after the comic is a bit ambiguous just given housing laws.

What about if it said um rather than representing a reduction in the inclusionary housing requirement?

I'm not even sure why it has to be spelled out.

I think I think um recips eloquitor, but uh the thing speaks for itself.

Uh but I also don't want to spend too much time on this, but um the the the phrase after the comma just isn't accurate.

So say it again, what you were proposing.

For the underlying portion instead of what you see now, rather than representing a reduction in the inclusionary housing requirement.

We can always ask staff to weigh in.

Uh staff either um Ms.

Silver or Mr.

Shen uh or Miss Thorne Lyman.

You all have to this professional.

So from a legal standpoint, um we don't have a problem with that um particular edit.

But it has restated.

That was the phrasing we were sidebaring on that might be a good recommendation, actually, was using inclusionary uh inclusionary requirement, since this is the inclusionary requirement ordinance.

Okay, okay.

All right, that works for me.

I know that's how I type.

Okay, I could live with that.

I think it would be as a.

Thank you.

In the yeah, all right.

That's better.

Do we want to put the language that you were suggesting here as well?

I don't know what the I wasn't suggesting language.

I leave it to staff to draft.

I agree with that.

I don't think that's necessary, and I would I since staff has brought it said that they'll be bringing back the ordinance, um, and we have another four years and we're trying to build more housing.

I would give more flexibility since it's not gonna reduce the, it's not gonna reduce the burden.

It's gonna it's going to maintain the requirements that there be low and very low-income housing.

And so I it it we we allow for um in all of our decisions with regard to housing, we don't we don't have a small box that we put developers in it to say you have to build it three-story with three bathrooms and two bedrooms.

We have flexibility.

We have ordinances that to maintain um continuity, but we also leave it up to the financer and the developer to make certain decisions.

And I think this is a good compromise, and I don't think that we should tie the hands of developers as um Mr.

Thomas pointed out.

We get this when we have a developer come in and want to break ground and do a project, we should give them this flexibility since we're we're looking at the the big picture right now.

So I disagree um respectfully with your suggestion, Madam Mayor.

Actually, I don't quite understand what it is you're objecting to.

Okay.

Well then I'll move approval of the or the recommendations from staff with um Councilmore Bowler's uh amendment.

Yeah, we just he changed the language and I said I agreed with the change language.

You might have missed that when I said it.

I think we're on the same page.

All right.

Uh Madam Clerk, did you get all those many changes?

All right.

Did you want to add something?

I just wanted to make one minor but important clarification.

We reviewed the MTC's TOC policy guidelines, and it is actually fewer than eleven units, not 11 units or fewer.

So it's 10 units can be exempted, but the TOC policy to be consistent, it's please make it consistent with the TOC policy.

That would be important.

Okay, all right.

Madam Clerk, did you have any questions?

Uh no, I think that's that's the only language council wants to add to the ordinance that'll come back at final passage for just that addition.

I was fine the way it was changed.

So that's fine.

So who would like to make so I apologize if please?

So um just to clarify.

So you you you do want to accept the recommendation of a planning board to ex to include the exemption for um 11.

Yes, and that would be um in the inlit section uh in section 30 point 16 point five uh B.

And then we would also uh delete section 30 point sixteen point six A, which allows an in LU fee option, but since the regroup being exempted, we would eliminate that, and then we have Mr.

Fuller's uh language, yeah, as amended.

Okay, um is that the uh motion?

I think it was that's the motion to approve made by Councilmember Jensen, right?

She made a motion, yes.

I was just trying to declare these.

What was 13.6 point six Air Point 13 30-16.6, it's alternatives and paragraph A is in LU fees.

Oh, so we're deleting that?

Yes.

Okay.

Because we're not gonna require NLU fees for 10 or less or fewer units, but we are maintaining the and it's 16.6, that's what it was a little confusing.

16 point six.

So we're not gonna allow an alternative for in LU fees, but we will allow our cluster development alternative.

Exactly.

Thank you.

Yes, I'll make that motion.

Uh second.

All right, we've had a motion by council member Jensen, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor.

But to just to clarify, sorry, just let me finish my sentence if you would please.

I like to finish sentences because otherwise I lose my train of thought.

Staff, is there anything we should know before we take a vote?

When I see those heads together, I just wanted to get it back to you.

It was a little confusing.

So we're not adding any additional requirements for uh approval of the options, correct?

Um, that what Mr.

Thomas explained about the consultation with the planning director.

For that isn't in the recommendations.

That's not what is being recommended.

So that was not in in the motion, but if you want to add that, I do include that.

Yeah.

Well, you want to make a substitute?

I don't think that's necessary.

I do.

I think that there needs to be um input from the city in that very respectful in the very beginning of a project.

And so I would just like to add that.

And Mr.

Thomas, I thought laid it out very succinctly, and he has decades of experience on this, so I would modify the motion.

I'll make that substitute motion.

Would you second that?

I'm thinking yes.

Is that how is that worded?

Come on, Mr.

Thomas.

And let's see.

We we communicated about this earlier.

Could you would you mind putting up Mr.

Bowler's language?

Cause we would I think we would insert this if you if the council would this is about the consultation with the planning director.

Okay.

Oh, it's there.

Okay, good.

So this is the section that says you get to pick the three options, and then Mr.

Bowler's language explains what we're thinking there.

So the first sentence reads inclusionary housing and it shall be provided at one of the following ratios as chosen by the developer and approved by the affordable housing plan, then, unless the planning director determines that a particular option is essential to the city's efforts to meet its regional housing need or other policy.

Oh, are you are you typing this in?

Yes.

Oh, okay.

Unless the planning determines, um, that a particular option is essential to the city's efforts to meet its regional housing needs allocation, or other policy objective, in which case the planning director may recommend, and the approving body may require an option that is different than the developer's requested option.

Yes.

It was much longer than I expected.

I thought I would be able to do it really quick.

I know.

That's what I sorry.

Yeah.

I think this is, I mean, yeah.

The the point is this is where we say developer, you get to choose.

So if we're gonna put in this little exception, um, this is I think probably the right place to put it, although it sounds very wordy, but um, but this is does not establish any requirement unless there is a planning director need for it.

That's what I was sort of thinking.

How do we set this up?

So we say developer, you get you get to choose, right?

But check with the planning director to make sure there's not some unusual situation where the planning director is gonna go to the planning board and say, hey, we don't think you should let the that the developer have this option.

Thank you.

And so if I could ask legal staff, I do you would you expect that this wording would establish that there'd be the planning board would have to do a review of every uh uh development option to determine if the the request is okay or ask the planning director or city council to right.

Under this particular wording, this um decision would be made at a director level.

So it would not go to the planning board or the city council.

And this would not be this would be different from a uh, for example, for a planning um staff recommendation to adopt uh and approve uh an inclusionary housing option in general.

So i I mean, I guess my question is would each each um each time a developer came in and said, for example, when the foundry starts, oh well, we're gonna want to do it this way.

Is that gonna be a setback?

Are they gonna be uh is planning staff gonna have to say, well, gee, do we have enough low and moderate and and very low units?

Maybe you want to clarify that it's just at the end of the RENA cycle when this would kick in.

Do you?

Yeah, if you want to put it in to start in 2028, that's another option of 2029 or the only scenario that I can think of where a planning director would want to say, Hey, planning board and planning board council, I think we should mandate option one, even though the developer wants option three.

Is this end of RENA cycle where we're very short on a particular kind of affordable housing units?

Okay.

Now didn't um Ms.

Silver just say the planning director could make that decision.

They don't have to go to work a per director would be working with the developer, right?

Well, yes, but almost all of our projects need planning board or city council approval.

Um there are may there are some of all affordable projects that have ministerial review, but I mean all the projects we've been talking about have going, you know, have to go to planning board and council.

So that's why I was thinking at the end of the day, it's going to be the planning board of council that needs to approve the project.

But there might be exceptions where it would just be at the staff level.

We've been through a couple of housing elements.

It is really important to meet your arena numbers.

So that's why I'm suggesting this.

But what were we saying, Ms.

Sylvan?

I apologize.

As I was answering that question, there were some additional typing, and the additional verbiage said that it goes to the play to the approving to the approving body.

So it is not accurate to say under the existing language that this is approved at a staff level.

It actually under the language does go to the approving body, whether it's the planning board or council.

May I be here?

Um, oh thank you.

Um I had offered at the beginning to maybe insert the language that I as I understand it, but the more I hear this, and I'm looking at it seems pretty broad.

I know the intent is to be pretty narrow in a very unusual scenario down the line that hopefully we get to where that close to the that sounds like a great problem to have.

But I've also heard that we have also an intent to revisit this on occasion over time, which takes care of this problem too, right?

Because then the city council, the staff can massage or change it.

So I'm actually convinced by Councilmember Jensen, it's not this isn't necessary.

I think that Mr.

Thomas basically in some ways talks us out of it too.

So I I don't think this particular language, it just creates a too much of a barrier for developers, too much uncertainty and too much process.

Um you know what we need to do a motion because I need a few more minutes to close out this vote.

Um I need a motion and a second to give me two more minutes essentially.

All right, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Um, you know, um, good point, uh, Councilmember Bowler about the um more frequent review.

So I think this could be looked at almost like a pilot to see how it's working, and then as time goes by, we'll see.

Are we getting the kinds of housing product that we need?

And if we find that we aren't, then there's always something that can be done.

It's an ordinance, it can be amended.

So I think that's fine.

So we'll go back.

Um I will accept your the the language now that it's been uh neatened up a bit, and um we've already had a motion and the second.

So we just without original language, great.

Yeah, so um well, not the original language.

I mean Greg's additional without the other addition.

Yeah, exactly.

Without the misleading step.

Okay, so all those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

All right, um, that was unanimous, I believe the uh motion passes.

We have now been um meeting for um almost two hours, so we need to take a break.

It is nine oh nine.

We will come back at nine um twenty, everybody.

So see you back here at 920.

All right.

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

Is the balcony ready?

Okay, the balcony is ready.

All right, Madam Clerk.

Would you please introduce our next item?

Seven B is a recommendation to receive an informational report on the status of City of Alameda vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts as mandated by government code section three five zero two point three.

Hello and welcome.

Yes, good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the council.

My name is Noel White, Human Resources Director for the City of Alameda.

And tonight I'll be presenting on the status of the City of Alameda vacancies, recruitment and retention efforts.

So a little background, AB 2651, was passed into legislation in late 2024, which amended the government code requiring all public agencies to present annually on the status of their vacancies, recruitment and retention efforts, and then any necessary changes.

That did increase to 608 by the end of the calendar year.

These positions cover all city departments as you can see before your screen, providing a variety of services to the city of Alameda and internally as well.

2025 average vacancy rate sat at 10.44%, which by professional standards that's well within a healthy healthy range, a very slight increase from 2024, but less than a quarter of a percent.

Part of this analysis too is looking at a breakdown by groups.

So this uh the screen before you or the slide before you shows all of our represented units.

We have nine of them and the vacancy rates for the 2025 calendar year.

Um the only uh represented unit that did exceed that 20% threshold was the Alameda Police Man, uh sorry, Alameda Police Officers Association, APOA for short, at 27.05%.

All of these units were contacted, and um APOA did request additional information, which will be presented later uh this this uh in this presentation.

And then also this slide shows our unrepresented units um and their uh corresponding vacancy rates.

So a little um uh information on recruitment.

So a core function of the human resources department is recruiting, right?

Working with our department partners, looking at their staffing needs, um, maybe even projecting out so that we can really bridge that gap and minimize disruptions uh to services and making sure we fill those positions efficiently, thoroughly, and getting high quality individuals.

Uh the city, like most public agencies, follows a civil service process when it does its recruitments, which means that we're engaging in a competitive recruitment process, right?

We are utilizing various testing tools to make sure that we are looking for the applicable knowledge skills and abilities and creating a very effective candidate pool from which we hire from.

So we filled a total of 101 vacancies in 2025 through various means, either a new recruitment, we engage in that civil service process, some promotions.

We had 30, which is a number I love to see.

Um, and then existing eligible lists, which means we've completed that competitive process.

We have this wonderful pool of candidates that classification has a vacancy.

We can do a pretty quick hire.

Average time to hire 85 days, um, which according to our applicant tracking system makes us about 50 days faster than our comparator agencies, which is fantastic.

I'm very proud of that and very proud of the team, particularly because the civil service process can take time, and especially compared to the private sector who can make a hire like that, 85 days is pretty effective.

Uh retention statistics.

So retention or attrition, rather, when someone separates from the agency can happen for a variety of reasons, right?

We can have uh retention triggered by an internal promotion, thus creating that vacancy, right?

We could have voluntary separations because there's a promotional opportunity elsewhere, or retirements, that person entering into their next phase of their career or really their life.

Um we have newly budgeted positions.

We added nine this year.

Um you can see up there we added uh the vacancies created by internal promotions, um, retirements and voluntary separations.

Overall, the annual staffing turnover rate sits at 12.4%.

Again, we're still within that healthy range uh per professional standards.

Great.

So as I mentioned earlier, APOA was the one represented unit that did exceed that 20% threshold and requested additional information be presented to you tonight.

Uh for 2025, the average uh vacancies within the unit is 21.

Um, slight dip actually from 2024, which that was at 22.

Number of applicants for vacant positions uh was 571 for the 2025 calendar year.

And you can see the breakdown by recruits, graduates, and laterals, laterals meaning that it's an individual from a law enforcement agency within California.

They're moving over to us.

Number of calendar days to hire, 224 days.

Now, this is from the time the application is submitted all the way to that conditional offer is made, and it is a pretty lengthy process between going through that competitive process, entering backgrounds, and starting uh that recruit that recruit into the academy.

So, as always, you know, we are working collaboratively with our departments and our bargaining partners to address uh vacancies, right?

Especially of that magnitude.

Um retention was a huge theme for negotiations with APOA, particularly addressing um retention of officers between five and ten years.

So within that successor agreement, many of those provisions and extra benefits really targeted that group, and we're hoping to see the fruits of that collaborative labor between us and the POA.

Labor relations, always maintaining those positive relationships with the groups.

HR cannot be successful without effective relationships between the department and the bargaining groups.

You know, we rely on them heavily to come with us to job fairs.

Some of the strategies that we use to really start showing the amazing Alameda culture is with um uh uh ride-alongs, right?

Right having a candidate sit with a current officer, getting to see a day in their life and getting to experience what it would be like should they join um APD.

Um another great example of maintaining positive relationships is working with the department on how can we be more efficient, right?

We're taking a look at uh implementing a program called vetted.

One of the most laborious pieces of the background starts with the submission of the personal history form.

Vetted allows us to make it more of an electronic user-friendly um process, alleviate some administrative burden, and hopefully we'll help speed up that process as well.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you for that presentation.

Um I have questions.

Um I will call on council member Jensen.

Thank you.

With regard to the um the discussion and the numbers for uh for APD and um APOA.

It you mentioned that in 2025 there was a vacance rate of 21, or there were 21 vacancies.

That was the average number of vacancies within the unit, correct.

So 21 positions.

And the budgeted number is 88, is that correct?

So um to clarify, the budgeted number of 88 is total sworn positions at APD.

So when I say total sworn, that includes police officers, police sergeants, which those two classifications are under APOA, as well as and then we have police lieutenants and police captains, which is our police managers.

So that's what the eighty-eight um encompasses.

What is APOA budgeted number?

So we have uh it's budgeted 65 police officers and uh 13 sergeants.

So if I do my math, 78, right?

12 sergeants, thank you.

I'm sorry.

Um so I stand corrected.

So that would be 76, 77, excuse me.

There we go.

So 77 officers and there was an average vacancy.

So it's it's 65 police officers and 12 police sergeants.

Okay.

Thank you.

That was my question.

Okay.

Um Vice Mayor Prayer.

Um, on page five, um, there are the um vacancy information by labor group.

Um, I just have a question for the two for um electric, utility, professionals of Alameda, and then also um IBEW.

Um the their vacancy rates each are about 14%.

Is this similar to what it was the year before?

And is this typical?

It did increase from the prior year by a couple percentage points.

Um we did have um we did have quite a few individuals leave for um a competitor agency.

I am happy to report though that as of within a span of six months and um as of uh January of those 13 vacancy positions, we've filled about 10, 10, 11 of them.

So we're well on our way to to addressing that gap.

As to whether or not it's it's normal, umtrishion happens for a variety of reasons, right?

So to label it as uh either normal or abnormal is is a is a little hard to really um identify now.

You do have cycles where yes, there's an increased amount of turnover, whether it's going to competitor agencies, you have an abnormal amount of retirements, which we saw quite a bit after the pandemic.

Um, you know, that can trigger a sudden increase that may seem very abnormal compared to prior years.

I've got it.

Thank you.

Any other clarifying questions?

Councilmember Gaeside.

Thank you.

Um, uh, I believe you sent an email with three tables indicating the distribution of filled positions today, and positions when there's 76 at 76 positions and the distribution thereof.

And then the last column is the 88 sworn officer, should we get there?

Um the thing that caught my eye, and I think this is a positive thing, is um, it looks like the sergeants are going are increasing from the current authorized um 12 um positions to what I I counted it to 14.

So um uh so if that's the case, then that's good, because that means that hopefully people who are street police officers when they're ready to go up.

Oh, I see.

Um so the sorry, not to interrupt you, um, Councilmember Daysog.

I so the number of allocated police sergeants is not increasing.

It's remaining at 12.

So what you're seeing in the email that was sent earlier is a breakdown of where we plan on being of filling positions within the next month or so and projecting out all the way to December of 2020 uh six.

We are anticipating some potential retirements, particularly at the police sergeant level.

Um there's also some anticipated, uh it's not confirmed, but you know, we we do try to anticipate potential resignations and plan for it accordingly.

So the breakdown was um to show and to illustrate how uh APD is looking ahead, trying to be proactive, knowing that the onboarding process can be a long time, um, and again trying to not only fill right but anticipate those future staffing gaps.

Okay.

Um all right.

Well then if if you're not um increasing the um sergeant positions from 12 to 14, at least you're still staying at 12, so that's good.

Um and I guess the same would hold for captains then, because I, you know, the way that I was taking a look at the um uh the way that I was taking a look at the um uh the table that was sent to us is it looks like historically we have two captains, but that if you count the last column that amounts to 88 positions, that we would have three captains.

And I'm just saying this as a positive thing because you want you know positions in the middle ranks and the higher middle ranks, so that people who are street officers can stay in Alameda because then they could, you know, go up in the ranks.

But but so let me find out.

Is it the same thing then?

We are not increasing the police captains from two to three.

That that is accurate.

So the the number of allocated positions at police captain is three.

Oh, so it is three.

It is three currently, correct.

Yes.

Okay, good, good, good.

Could because historically it's two.

Yes, historically, um it was two, and then I I'm I want to say in either 2024, 2025, actually, I think it's 2024, um, an additional captain um classification was added.

And that's good because then you know the sergeants who want to move up, you know, they can move up to a a new captain position.

Absolutely.

Um the thing that does catch my eye, and you know, something that I had uh mentioned previously, while the focus is certainly on the top line of eighty-eight sworn officers, um, when you look at the street police officers, I'm gonna call them police officers on the street.

Um, historically, as we indicated, you know, the numbers that we're looking at is 65.

Um, but counting again the the three tables that was provided us.

Um so currently um with regard to police officers on the street, um because of the uh freeze at hiring no more than 76 sworn officers, that translates to, I believe, 53 police officers on the street.

That would be the maximum.

I believe that's correct, yes.

So that's 12 less than or historic numbers.

So that's still a concern.

I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Any more clarifying questions?

And Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment on this item?

Let me double check that.

No, we do not.

Okay.

So council, this is just a recommendation, and thank you very much, Ms.

White, for the for the report.

This is just a recommendation that we receive this informational report.

It's now required by state statute.

So if there's no further discussion, I'm looking for a motion and a second.

So move.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Alright, that motion passes unanimously.

Thank you all.

Um Madam Clerk, are you um oh you have to ask for seven C.

I'll give you we'll give you a moment to transition.

Okay, it's adoption of resolution establishing a city council meeting technology disruption pause.

Um this is where you need your clone.

Yes.

Um, so uh basically, Senate Bill 707 amended many provisions of the Brown Act.

It was kind of a big overhaul uh by the state legislator.

Some of the requirements became effective January 1st, uh, others will become effective July 1st.

Um one of the things that's required to be done before July 1st is establishing this technology disruptions policy, and it had to be done on a regular agenda on a rig as a regular item, couldn't be on consent, like we had to draw a lot of attention to this.

And I will point out that the um currently the new provisions sunset January 1st of 2030.

So the good news is is the city clerks and statewide, a lot of people worked on this, and there was kind of a sample policy to draw from.

So the policy uh is before you tonight to adopt as a resolution, and it applies to most city council meetings except emergency situations, and then there's a few narrow exemptions outlined under the Brown Act.

So what has to happen if this disruption occurs is the clerk or the mayor has to immediately announce the disruption, the mayor has to call a recess, and then staff has to work to try and restore the services.

And um there is a requirement that that lasts an hour.

So staff has to work for an hour to try and restore the services.

Hopefully, it would never take us an hour, knock on all the wood.

I am very superstitious about it, but um that that is a part of the the requirement is that you have to wait that whole hour.

Then after the hour passes, um, if the disruption has not been resolved and you know you haven't been able to reconnect, basically the council has two options.

You can adjourn the meeting, or you can take a roll call vote and state, you know, that you're gonna continue the meeting and that the public interest outweighs, you know, continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest of not allowing remote participation.

One of the good things in Alameda is if we do have one of these service disruptions and people were watching at home, hopefully, they could find a way to come in or send somebody in, or you know, send something in to let us know, you know, their opinion, and we could still continue it.

But but and then the other thing council can do is also decide to continue some of the items to other meetings.

Like, oh, that wasn't time sensitive.

Oh, we can do that.

But like say you were, you know, had a we're in the middle of a big agenda and you had a big important time deadline item coming up next, you could kind of make that finding.

Um, so and then there's future additional requirements in the policy that talk about how the minutes have to include the nature of the disruption, the efforts taken to restore it, the time the meeting was reconvened, and then that finding that the council was made.

If you continue the meeting without being uh, you know, service being um restored.

So um the it another requirement is that the policy uh there has to be reference on the agenda about where people can have the policy, it'll be online, and uh we've also included in the policy that if the legit legislator doesn't extend the provisions, the policy policy will also sunset.

Um so that is the whole policy.

We didn't reinvent the wheel, we kind of borrowed and you know, made it our own, but it's pretty straightforward, and I am available to answer any questions.

Um I have a question.

So do you know the rationale for the 2030 sunset date?

I you know what?

I never understood why they did it.

I think they kind of maybe just were trying to say because the other provision of COVID had a sunset date in it.

I think they kind of just maybe kept that going or I I mean I think they'll extend it, right?

Like everyone will figure out the technology disruptions by 2030.

Yeah, and I'm sorry, Madam Mayer, if I might add one more thing.

The City of Alameda really did a great job because we never stopped this remote public participation, right?

Most other cities did, or a lot a lot did, yeah.

And so we're really ahead of the curve because a lot of them are scrambling to get it back up and running again and figure out how to do it.

And then the other unfortunate thing is like areas that could be subject to rolling blackouts.

Thankfully, we're a little more urban, that could interrupt their just you know, their service, and that could occur.

And so other cities are facing a little more complex issues than hopefully we are, but I'm very superstitious.

I'm like it on all the way, but yeah, just to add a little bit more.

Well, I just want to say we really appreciate all the effort that you and your staff have put into this, and you're absolutely right.

Cause we live through the pandemic together, and it was amazing all the new things we learned to do and meetings, um remote meetings and all those good things.

Um, any clarifying questions, council?

Do we have any public comment on this?

Back to anybody, talk about multitasking.

No, none.

No, no, okay.

Well, we'll close public comment.

Um, so um, shall we um?

I mean, we just we need to um we need to adopt this resolution.

Uh, council member bowler.

I would move to um adopt the resolution.

Thank you.

Establishing a city council meeting technology disruption policy, right?

Yep, that's what I did.

And it's been moved by Councilmember Bowler, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor.

All those in favor, please signify by stating I.

And um, thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

That was awesome.

All right, we are um at the end of our regular agenda items.

I don't believe we have any city count city manager communications this evening.

And um, I don't see anybody who wants to make oral communications, and you have to be in the chambers to do that.

No council referrals this evening.

Um, so why don't we do council communications?

Because um we, if you might remember, we skipped it last time because we went kind of we did it last time.

Did we do it last time?

No.

Oh, we're gonna report out of time.

We were here until past.

Oh, you're right.

Yeah.

I totally forgot.

You know, it was two meetings ago.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

No, you remember, I remember that.

Um, anything to report, Councilmember Desay?

No, nothing to report.

Okay.

Um, how about you, Council Member Bowler?

Uh no, thank you.

Okay.

Um, Vice Mayor Pryor.

I did on April 24th.

I attended the um Alameda Alliance for Health.

Um, it was their 30th anniversary.

Um, and so I got to represent the city and provide them uh, you know, I I did a nice resolution and give them a little thing.

Um I was very humbled because the two speakers before me were incredible.

There's no way I should have followed them.

Um it was Barbara Lee and uh Mayor Barbara Lee and and Congress uh woman Latifa Simon and then Michelle Pryor.

I was like, oh.

Perfect triumph.

What do you mean?

Yeah, I was like, I can't top that.

They were great, it was a wonderful 30 years.

I mean, they've done so many amazing things.

Um it was it was really an honor to represent the city and be there.

Um, and then I went to a ribbon cutting um for uh skin and uh so skin and strand.

I hope I wrote that right, but it was a really lovely grand opening.

Uh they had a feast, it was like a wedding, it was really nice.

Um, sorry, and then I was like, sorry, I'm just going through stuff.

Dink dink dink.

Oh, we went to the um ribbon cutting for the Walmart Center.

That was amazing.

Yeah, Craig, you were there, weren't you?

Yeah.

That was incredible.

Um I think, you know, I I was such a tiny little cog, and and you know, just had campaigned for that, so to see it come to fruition.

What and it was just a stunning place, and it's just I went in there, I I didn't even feel tense, but I went in there and I was so relaxed.

I was like, I didn't even know I had tension in me.

It was just um so many people that um thought there were dozens and hundreds of people that made it happen.

Um it was really wonderful, and what a beautiful building and a wonderful place for people, just giving them dignity and um and a nice level of place to recover.

Um, okay.

Where are we?

That was an um, and I think that's yeah, I think that's it.

All right, um, Council Member Jensen.

Yes, thank you.

I um just had this up here inbox.

And I um wanted to mention that.

Oh, sorry, let me find it.

Would you like me to go on your random?

Thank you very much.

Happy to do so.

Um, so I um I was um I'm gonna just go backwards from the most recent.

So this morning I was um one of quite a few of Alameda County mayors and all the supervisors attended this press conference to announce the point in time um count results for 2026, and it was it was impressive.

Um, yesterday I um joined our the district directors for our two U.S.

senators, Senator Schiff and Senator Padia's district directors.

We've been wanting to do this with them for a while.

We took them on a walking and driving tour of Alameda Point because then um Director Abby Thorne Lyman and Danielle Mueller, our sustainability and resilience director manager were with us, and um it was just a really nice opportunity to show them these projects and sites that we talk about and we're seeking federal funding for.

It's very competitive um process.

So I just feel that seeing's believing, and uh we had a great day.

On last week, I think it was Thursday evening, maybe May 14th, um, there was an Innovation Island awards that the chamber put on at Almanac out at um Alameda Point, and um different businesses and nonprofits um were awarded, got awards in various categories, and I am pleased to report that our own Abby Laurent Thorne Lyman received the president's award for just her outstanding service to she does so much.

Um and um she was and it was a surprise she didn't know that was coming.

Um earlier that day on the 14th, it was bike to where every day and also bike to school day.

So I started out at Edison School, which was where I started out in school, so it was pretty sweet to be there, and then when you know we were on the schoolyard with the kids and teachers and the principal, but then when the bell rang and the kids went to class, a group of Edison parents and I rode to City Hall where there was an energizer station out front, um, so that was nice uh nice to see.

And the week before, um, on May 7th, you know that um it's gonna be a big deal when when FIFO World Cup comes to the Bay Area next month, and we are hosting um the we are the team-based camp city for the Australian Sakaroos.

They're gonna be practicing out at the um Roots Practice Facility at Harbor Bay Business Park.

So there's a lot of security um uh considerations that go into it as you might imagine.

So there was a meeting over in Mayor Lee's office, Mayor Barber Lee in Oakland with my goodness, the Secret Service, TSA, FBI, Federal Air Marshals, and the police command from both Alameda and Oakland PDs.

So lots of lots of security considerations, but it's also gonna be really fun and exciting to host the Australians.

The press pool will be staying in Alameda at the Harbor Bay Business Park, and they think families and and just traveling fans will as well.

So stay tuned.

We're gonna host a big party.

And you probably saw the press release yesterday that we've announced our honorary grand marshal for the 4th of July parade in which we support, we celebrate the nation's 250th birthday.

Our honorary grand marshal is our own um Congresswoman Latifa Simon, and she will lead the parade, followed by our fire chief Nick Luby and the men and women of the Alameda Fire Department because AFD is celebrating 150 years of service.

I said that's a lot of candles on a birthday cake, but we'll have the fire marshal there.

Anyway, it's gonna be a great parade, so I'm gonna ready for that.

Did I give you enough time?

Councilmember Jensen.

Thank you.

Umor, last week I attended Bike to Anywhere Day, and I was at Otis Elementary School.

And while I was there, I heard the concerns of Otis parents who will be transporting their students to LUM school starting in September.

Lum School is up to two miles away for some families, and almost all the students will now have to cross one of Alameda's busiest streets on their way to school.

So I'm gonna be working with APD and AUSD to identify ways to ensure safety during the year-long relocation of those 550 Otis students.

And I chair the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, and it's a it's great, it's a great organization.

And at our recent meeting, the board heard about the stop waste reusable foodware programs.

Alameda Public School participation is higher than anywhere else in Alameda County, with 22 schools reusing serving wear and utensils.

And I'm so excited about this because reducing plastic waste and teaching students to care for the environment is so important, and it's what Stop Waste is doing and what we're doing here in Alameda.

Recently, I also attended the Buena Vista Methodist Church Spring Bazaar.

Always a lovely community event and a great place to meet my neighbors and friends.

And after watching my ukulele playing friends perform, I had the chance to speak with a representative from Wadi Faquin in the West Bank about the proposed sister city relationship between Alameda and Wadi Faquin.

And as we spoke, we shared our frustration about the status of the proposal, which has been on hold since March 2025, when the city council directed staff to work with the Alameda Sister City Association to respond to a few questions.

That report has been complete for some time as I understand it, and although I've repeatedly asked for the item to be agendized, there's been no action.

City leaders are sitting on the Wadi Faquin Sister City decision without explanation.

And this is exactly the problem that has grown more common since the departures of City Manager Jennifer Ott and Public Information Officer Sarah Henry.

Unfortunately, transparency and accountability have suffered in Alameda.

So I hope that incoming City Manager Jerry Budin, who I met with recently, will be able to reduce some of the friction in City Hall and stop the exodus of talented and effective leaders.

We must restore public confidence in Alameda's government.

And I think a good first step would be scheduling of the report and the vote on the Wadi Faquin Sister City proposal as directed by the City Council.

That's my report.

Thanks.

Gosh, I have to just jump in and comment.

I'm I'm stunned because that proposal has come before this council before, and I recall you not supporting it, but but it's always good for human minds to expand and consider new possibilities.

Um I would take exception to the suggestion that it was some shortcoming on the part or departure on the part of city staff as an elected official.

I take responsibility for my own actions.

Thank you.

So now we will move on to um actually adjournment.

We are going to um adjourn the regular council meeting, but we are going to continue our closed session about item um seven, um, item three A.

Um, and so do you want to remind um everyone what that was, madam clerk?

Yes, sorry.

That was conference of legal counsel on existing litigation for the city of Alameda versus Greenway case.

All right, and so um, you know what?

Let's just give ourselves a little break.

It's um five to it's nine fifty-five.

Um, would it be okay if we came back in 10 minutes?

Just everybody can kind of shift gears and maybe put away your things for the regular meeting.

Is that okay?

That we come back at the call right now.

Oh, all right.

It might take more than 10 minutes.

Okay, that's long.

We will we will give you the back room.

Don't yeah, could can everyone leave leave three ninety-one to city attorney?

Yeah, that's fine.

No, it's all yours.

And the cookies, although most of the cookies, the recordings for that.

Okay, tell me when okay.

All right, um, good evening, and it is still evening.

Um, everyone, we are back from our closed session.

We needed to finish up an item, some discussion on item three A.

And so, um I would like to report that by a vote of five to nothing, City Council gave staff that is um city attorney Ibn Chan direction.

And and there was two votes, two unanimous votes on three A, one earlier.

Oh, okay, yes.

Yes, we have and we held a total of two votes on three A, and both of them were unanimous.

Okay, with that, this meeting is adjourned.

Good night, everyone.