Tue, Feb 17, 2026·Alameda County, California·Board of Supervisors

Alameda County Reparations Commission Meeting (2026-02-17)

Discussion Breakdown

Community Engagement61%
Historic Preservation12%
Racial Equity10%
Procedural8%
Fiscal Sustainability4%
Youth Programs2%
Affordable Housing1%
Economic Development1%
Arts And Culture1%

Summary

Alameda County Reparations Commission Meeting (2026-02-17)

The Alameda County Reparations Commission convened with an initially delayed start due to lack of in-room quorum, then proceeded to hear extensive testimony and commission discussion regarding the removal of the historic “Willow Tree” connected to Russell City families. After quorum was established, the commission approved November and December minutes, heard planning updates for upcoming listening sessions/pop-ups and report-writing timelines, discussed outreach logistics (including coordination with libraries and vendors), and previewed the report outline and drafting process with consultant Informing Change.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Marion Johnson (Russell City; Johnson/Patterson family): Stated the family’s historically significant tree (planted by her great-grandfather as a marker of the family’s land) was intentionally cut down and the stump/root ground down. Expressed distress about informing her mother, and raised concerns about Russell City land taken via eminent domain and later held privately.
  • Carolyn Johnson (Russell City family descendant): Stated the tree was a key living vestige of Russell City history, featured in films and a museum exhibit, and argued its removal appeared targeted. Requested help determining who removed it and why, whether policies were violated, and urged permanent memorialization and easier public access at/near the site. Also alleged proceeds from the land sale were used to expand Santa Rita Jail.
  • Michael Johnson (Russell City family descendant): Expressed grief and anger, stating the tree removal was another attempt to erase Russell City history. Reported fences went up restricting access shortly after the City of Hayward apology.
  • Kristen Johnson (family descendant): Reported ABC7 coverage and interest by journalist Julian Glover in a broader reparations project; offered media as an outlet to highlight the issue.
  • CJ (Carolyn Johnson’s daughter; petition organizer): Stated she edited the petition to reflect that private owners (not the city) removed the tree; reported 262 signatures. Connected ongoing housing costs/rent increases to generational loss of land.
  • Additional family testimony (Patterson descendant): Emphasized the harm is ongoing (not only historical), sharing family impacts and urging the commission’s work to address systemic harms.

Discussion Items

Russell City “Willow Tree” removal

  • Commissioner Barry:
    • Expressed empathy and personal shock; said she visited the site.
    • Reported she contacted the City of Hayward and Alameda County staff (including RD2) in an official capacity.
    • Stated she learned the City of Hayward did not cut down the tree; the tree was on private property.
    • Reported the city has inquired with the property owner and is awaiting response.
    • Noted Hayward updated tree protections/ordinances in August; she was unsure whether the removal violated those protections.
    • Suggested possible commemoration options (e.g., planting a new tree, bench, or other memorial) while emphasizing it would not replace the original.
    • Reported Councilmember Angela Andrews was researching ownership records and Supervisor Marquez was looped in.
  • Commission deliberation:
    • Commissioners raised questions about whether a permit/public process is required for tree removal, whether there are development applications, and why this specific tree was removed.
    • The Chair and commissioners discussed leveraging commission influence through letters and public urgency, including sending correspondence to the Board of Supervisors and also directly to the City of Hayward.
    • Chair indicated interest in calling a special meeting focused on this topic and emphasized the need to incorporate the family’s recommendations on desired remedies/memorialization.
  • Rodney LaShay (District Director, Supervisor Nate Miley’s office):
    • Said Commissioner Barry brought the issue to their attention.
    • Confirmed Supervisor interest in helping determine next steps.
    • Noted a circulating petition included inaccurate information (claiming the city cut the tree), and the office wanted accuracy before signing/promoting.
    • Stated they contacted the City of Hayward for accurate information and were monitoring developments.

Commission administration (quorum, minutes, new commissioner)

  • Meeting began without quorum; minutes approval was deferred until quorum was later established.
  • New commissioner introduction: Jennifer Gayton (District 4, Oakland) introduced herself; described her work with the San Francisco African American Arts and Cultural District and her focus on real estate/asset ownership and generational wealth-building.
  • Minutes approved:
    • November minutes approved (with abstentions from commissioners not present at that meeting).
    • December minutes approved (with abstentions as applicable). A correction was noted regarding a commissioner’s first name.

Outreach planning: listening sessions, pop-ups, and calendar/process

  • Commission discussed the need for a clearer process/calendar for pop-up sessions and coordination needs with ECC and library staff.
  • Upcoming/outreach touchpoints reported:
    • Tri-City African American Cultural & Historical Society 50th anniversary event (Feb 14, Newark): Commissioner Sass to MC; commission to table and conduct outreach; requested website/social promotion.
    • Juvenile Hall and Camp Sweeney sessions: Commissioner Barry reported early planning/meetings with leadership; uncertainties remain about clearance protocols; commissioners expressed support for hearing from youth and potentially staff.
    • Black Joy Parade outreach: Commissioner McClendon reported negotiations for booth space (in partnership with libraries), plus vendor/business orientation and volunteer orientation touchpoints; noted volunteer orientation proposed for Feb 21 (conflict with a listening session time was discussed).
    • EOYDC youth event: Planning included abbreviated presentation and more interactive prompts; food plan to use pizza; emphasis on registration and sign-in sheet requirements.
    • Criminal justice pop-up(s): Chair reported work with UC Berkeley/LSPC, Underground Scholars, and Cal State East Bay; dates TBD.
    • Arts/creative space pop-up (via Randolph Bell / “980 project” connection): discussed as an intimate small event; date TBD.
    • Berkeley Unified School District partnership (education-focused): discussed; date TBD.
    • Chabot College event: Commissioner Varlack reported planning for March 14 or March 21 (Saturday), with Supervisor Marquez available 12–2; community partners being considered.
  • Cutoff discussion for pop-ups:
    • Chair proposed setting a deadline (initially suggested March 15) for in-person pop-ups/community engagement.
    • Commissioners expressed concern about setting a cutoff too soon given multiple events without dates and clearance timelines for detention facilities.
    • ECC suggested an alternative approach: continue engagement but pivot the purpose of sessions from harm-collection to stress-testing draft recommendations and report content.

Report drafting timeline and structure (ECC + Informing Change)

  • ECC presented a backward-planned timeline aimed at Board of Supervisors presentation around June 23 (board letter submission target around June 2), with multiple draft/review milestones between March and May.
  • Commissioners raised questions about:
    • survey totals and representativeness;
    • geographic spread of respondents;
    • how to frame limitations (time/resources) in the report.
  • Informing Change (Michael Arnold) presented:
    • a report/action plan outline, including front-loaded core recommendations, process narrative (“developing the recommendations”), context/background, findings, and recommendations organized by county domains;
    • the importance of tying qualitative/quantitative findings to recommendations;
    • a resource database (tagged research library) to support recommendation development;
    • noted the timeline is short and would benefit from having broad recommendations early, then building action steps.

Budget & operations (vendor/food logistics; website)

  • Staff emphasized food purchasing constraints:
    • vendors must follow a quote-to-invoice process and strict documentation requirements;
    • vendor cap described as $3,000 per vendor per year;
    • need for a two-week runway for food planning and advance ordering needs (e.g., Safeway trays require ~48 hours).
  • Budget update: commission reported significant funds remaining overall (a figure of approximately $288,903 remaining was stated), with some line-item adjustments needed (facilitator line item and swag/ordering overages).
  • Website update (Commissioner Barry): “collective action” page completed; commissioner bios/headshots were discussed but effectively tabled due to timing and lack of submitted materials.

Key Outcomes

  • Approved minutes: November and December minutes approved after quorum was achieved (with abstentions from non-attendees).
  • Russell City Willow Tree:
    • Commission discussed sending letters to the Board of Supervisors and the City of Hayward to request information and support accountability and memorialization options.
    • Chair proposed holding a special meeting focused on the tree removal and potential remedies.
    • Supervisor Miley’s office indicated willingness to engage, contingent on accurate public information.
  • Outreach coordination: Commission gathered updates on multiple planned outreach events and identified needs for promotion and staffing coordination, particularly with library schedules.
  • Report process: Informing Change provided an outline and reinforced the need to connect collected data to recommendations and action steps; ECC’s draft timeline was presented for further decision-making (with expectation to revisit/confirm at the retreat).

Meeting Transcript

So wait for a minute here. Okay, good evening, happy new year. Welcome to the uh Alameda County Reparations Commission meeting. We'll jump right into the agenda here. We have the uh health order and roll call. Commissioner Commissioner Bazil. Commissioner Barry excused. Commissioner Burleson, excused, Commissioner Jones excused. Commissioner. I'm here. Alan's here. So I let me remind the commissioners that you can be counted once we establish a physical quorum in the room. So until there's a quorum in the room, Commissioner Jones, uh we can't count you yet. My apology, okay. It might be a new commissioner Gardner here, Commissioner Hursken here. Commissioner Knowles, Commissioner McClendon, Commissioner Sass, excuse. Commissioner Small, excuse, Commissioner Varlack, excused. We do not have quorum. We do not have that this time. Are there any public comments? The agenda items. Any public home. Okay, since we have a lack of quorum, we will skip over the uh approval of the minutes for the months of November and December, and we will get to item number five, which is uh a discussion item regarding the uh Russell City, uh Willow Tree, and um the commissioner um was gonna be here to brief us, but would welcome the community to provide us with updates and information on what's happening. I will remind the commission that uh, you know, Russell City has been an integral part in the work that we've been doing. We had a listening session, our first listening session was um at the uh the name of the church. Uh and we have also um have their members from Russell City who are impacted speak. I think at all four of our our listening sessions eight. Uh so there's been an active engagement with um with this community. Uh so I would open up the floor to any public comments to help inform the the commission five. I have speaker cards, or is it just for the commission, or you want to hear from the I want to hear from the uh first the public because I don't think the commission is up to speed on what's happening in the community. We do want to hear what's going on in the first speaker Marion Johnson. Okay. Hello, my name is Marion Johnson. I'm member of Russell City. Um, I am also a member of the Johnson and Patterson family, and we have been doing lots of work in terms of the museum exhibit, uh and exhibit, the tree that we are talking about today is featured at the museum. Um so since the museum went into the exhibit stage. Um since then the tree, which is integral to our family because my great grandfather, my mother's grandfather, specifically planted that tree for her, and she has gone there year after year after year. I still have not told her that they chopped down the family tree, her tree. Um, this is very emotional for me because I know how much it's going to hurt her to find out that even though she's still alive, the tree is no longer there, and it was cut down intentionally, and they ground down the root of the tree so that it could whatever can grow over, so it was never there. Um, why did they cut it down? We have not found out the tree was not was not uh sick, the two was very healthy. Uh uh passed out uh information about the tree. Um, to see that it was a healthy tree, and I know there are ordinances in place for um trees that oh, that tree was planted in 1963. That's what we have to find out. Just someone just called us and I went over there and I was like, oh my. So I I have to figure out who owned the land, and that's the whole piece of it. It's like the way they took Russell City from the residents was through the use of imminent domain. And imminent domain, to my understanding, was so you can make the land public, right? Uh, but that didn't happen. They sold it to um cabin and forbes privately, and now if I go on that land, I can be arrested because it belongs is in private hands.