City Council - Regular Meeting

Is staff ready? Is the balcony ready? The balcony is always ready. OK. It is 5.30 on the dot. So I am going to call this meeting of the City of Alameda City Council to order. Good evening, everyone. It is Tuesday, September 1, 2026. And we are about to go into closed session. But we will start with the roll call. Madam Clerk, Laura Weisiger, would you please call the roll?

Council Members Bowler? Here. Vice Mayor Pryor?

Here.

Mayor Ezzie Ashcroft? Here. Three present. And hopefully Council Members Dasog and Jensen will be here shortly.

OK. Have you heard from any of them? Neither of them.

But I will check in with them quickly.

Right. So we go next to the consent calendar, and that's for the consent calendar for the closed session. These are routine items that will be approved by one motion unless removed by council members. Madam Clerk, we've got two consent calendar items. Could you introduce them to us?

Yes, they are designating negotiators. The first is designating negotiators for 4A, which is Building 24 at 2301 Marek, and 2B is designating negotiators for Piers 2 and 3, which is 4B.

OK, and do we have any public comment on the consent calendar? Not on the consent calendar. OK, so I'm looking for a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar for the closed session. So moved.

Second.

It's been moved by Vice Mayor Michelle Pryor, seconded by Council Member Greg Bowler. All those in favor, we're approving the consent calendar for the closed session. Please signify by stating aye. Aye. Did I have five eyes? It'd be great if we spoke into the microphone. Thank you. So then we will move on to the item. And then, Madam Clerk, do we have public comment on closed session items?

We do. And she submitted two speaker slips, but you just get to speak once under public comment. So it's Marianne Morgan.

Right come on up and I like to say make the microphone come on up and make the microphone yours at mouth level And we'll be able to hear you welcome.

Okay. Thank you I just received this afternoon late this afternoon a notice that this was happening and I wanted to come down and say that there is concern in the community about some of the Companies that the city will be arranging to negotiate with. Some of them are military involved, and especially AI. There's concern about data centers and anything that supports AI without further community input as to what the range of that negotiation might be and what we're talking about here. So I just wanted to come in and speak for the community that we are concerned.

Thank you. Thank you so much. And is that the last of our public comment?

Yeah, nobody remote has their hand up, so I think we're good.

All right. So then with that, I will close public comment on the closed session items. And we are about to adjourn to closed session to consider two items, the following two items that I'll ask the city clerk to please introduce.

Item 4A is conference with real property negotiators pursuant to government code section 54956.8. The property is 2301 Monarch Street, building 24. City negotiators are the city manager, base reuse and economic development director, base reuse manager, acting city attorney, and the managing JLL Managing Director Christy Childers. Negotiating parties are the City of Alameda, American Rail Inc., Adeleware Corp., Apollo Atomics, Adeleware Corp., Bulk Work Dynamics, Adeleware Corp., Gig Energy Inc., Adeleware Corp., Marquee Ventures Management, LLC, Adeleware, LLC, MRP Menlo Equities LLC, and PaceLine Investors LLC, a California LLC. Under negotiation are price in terms of lease or sale. 4B is compensated with real property negotiators pursuant to government code section 54956.8. The property is peers 2 and 3, an adjacent property at Alameda Point. Negotiators are the city manager, base reuse and economic development director, base reuse manager, Jones, Lang, LaSalle, Christie, Chillers, and acting city attorney, Len Aslanian, and negotiating parties are the City of Alameda and Water Emergency Transportation Authority and Manson Construction Company. Under negotiation are price and terms of lease.

Thank you. And just for the record, Madam Clerk, under item 4A, I believe it's giga energy as opposed to gig energy. Oh, thank you. So with that, and thank you for introducing those items. With that, we will all, staff and the council, staff who's involved in this item and council, will all adjourn to room 391. It is our intention to be back before the council at 7 PM this evening. So we'll see you then. OK, thank you. OK, everyone, nice to see you. We'll be starting in five minutes. Five minutes. All right, Ryan and Truong, are you ready in the balcony? I see two thumbs up. If the balcony is ready, we're all ready. So good evening, everyone, and welcome to the city council meeting, the Alameda City Council meeting. This is Tuesday, September 1, 2026. It's like the first day of school because we just returned from summer break. And the council has just returned from closed session. So I'd like to call the meeting to order and start with roll call. Is that what I'm starting with, Madam Clerk?

We can do the closed session announcement really quickly. Sorry, sorry.

Let's do the, we've just returned. See, we've just returned from summer break. How do we run a meeting? We announce actions, if any, taken in closed session. Madam Clerk, would you announce actions, if any, taken in closed session?

Yes, regarding 4A, which was real property negotiators for building 24, staff provided information and council provided direction with no vote taken. Regarding item 4B, which was also real property negotiations, but for peers two and three, staff provided information and council provided direction by unanimous voice vote, five ayes.

Perfect. Thank you. And with that, we will adjourn the closed session city council meeting. And I will call to order the special joint meeting of the city council and the successor agency to the Community Improvement Commission. That used to be called the Redevelopment Agency. And we will start with the Pledge of Allegiance. I'd like to ask my colleague, Council Member Tracy Jensen, to lead us in the pledge. Please rise.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Jensen. Madam Clerk, would you call the roll, please?

Council members, Bowler? Here. Dasag? Here. Jensen? Here. Pryor? Here. Mayor Eziashcraft? I'm here. Five present.

Thank you. And next, we go to the consent calendar. But this, again, is the consent calendar just for the special meeting of the city council and the successor agency. These are routine items that will be approved by one motion unless council members slash commissioners remove items for discussion and those items will be called after the agenda items. Do you have a motion? Was that you, Council Member Jensen? Okay, I have a motion to approve the special joint meeting consent calendar by Council Member Jensen, seconded by... Yeah, it's a member bowler. We're gonna move this along all those in favor. Please signify by stating aye aye aye Okay, we've passed the consent calendar Unanimously and that was all we had on that agenda. So we adjourn the Special joint meeting and I call to order the regular City Council meeting madam clerk roll call roll call has been noted five present and Thank you. And Madam Clerk, do we have any agenda changes this evening?

We do not.

All right. So then I am scanning the room because the next item is a proclamation. It's not a proclamation. Hello. It's the first day back. This is a presentation of a domestic violence prevention video by Alameda Family Services Youth Advisory Board. And I'm looking around the room. Catherine Schwartz, are you here? Anyone from Youth Advisory Board?

She's remote. She just raised her hand remote, so I can.

OK. That works. Do I have anybody from the Youth Advisory Board in the room? Any students? No? OK. That's OK. Madam Clerk, why don't you, if you would. So what this is, everybody. Actually, does Catherine want to speak?

She does have her hand up. Do you want me to?

OK. Let's go on. Catherine Schwartz is the executive director of Alameda Family Services, which provides counseling and assistance to individuals, families, youth, and I would love her to introduce this item. Great. Are you there, Catherine?

Yep, she is. Hi, I'm here. Can you hear me? I can hear you. Hi, good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council members. I apologize I'm not able to be there in person. I wanted to let you know that Kyle Sinkoff, the School-Based Services Division Director, is also with you remotely. And we had hoped that maybe one or two of the teens from the Youth Advisory Committee would join us, but I'm not certain if they have. In any case, I am happy to share with you that we finally were able to complete our video. This has been a year-long project, which has been a really amazing collaboration between Alameda Family Services and the City of Alameda. it originated the idea for it originated and madam mayor you you may of course want to speak more to this but it originated out of the tragedy that occurred um when the the family was murdered by the father i think this was maybe even two years ago now and um At that time, Madam Mayor spoke with myself and several other members of the community who were involved in behavioral health services to see if there was, you know, if there would be the capacity to create a video that would raise awareness around just signs and things to look out for with regards to domestic violence. and what we decided to do was to bring this project to the youth advisory board which is um which is a board made up of teens in the various high schools here in the district and we had a lovely group we had about eight students that worked on it for you know over the year many of them have actually graduated are now off at college or at various other things so aren't available but um This video is really in every way of the vision of the teens who helped craft it. We started off having it have words and then they really decided they wanted it to be as accessible as possible to as many different people and they thought And you'll see it soon. But anyway, this was their vision. And we feel that it came out, you know, really well. All the teams that we have been able to show it to were really pleased with it. So I don't know if there's anything else you want me to say.

I'll just thank you so much. You did a great job explaining. And I'll just add, it was such a pleasure to work with Katherine Schwartz, the high school students. And they were very busy with their classes, with their exams, with college visits. And as Katherine noted, some of them have gone off to college now. Some are still in high school. And then we had wonderful assistance from a videographer whose last name some of you will recognize if you've been around the city. And that is Phil Mattarese. Phil's dad, Frank Mattarese, and I first met when we co-chaired the library campaign. Well, probably even a little before that. But we co-chaired the library campaign to build the new main library that's turning 20 this year. And that was in the year 2000. But Frank had twin sons. And I had a son and a daughter. His kids are a little older than mine. And both twins became independent filmmakers. And so this one of them, Phil ,, who lives in Alameda and now has two young kids of his own, he assisted the kids on putting this all together. And then before we show it, I'm just going to ask our city clerk, Laura Weisinger, to read a bit of a disclaimer, because this is very serious topic matter. So city clerk.

This is a short video on the topic of domestic violence designed to raise awareness about the importance of social support in combating the stigma and silence surrounding abuse. It may bring up difficult feelings for some viewers. Please take care of yourself and feel free to step out at any time during the video.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, and with that, if we're ready to roll, let's do it.

Are you okay? you

And that is the video that the students produced. And I think they did an excellent job. And I do just want to say to everyone who's listening here in chambers and listening remotely that if you are in a difficult and abusive and dangerous relationship, no matter what your age is, there is always help. You're not alone. Alameda Police Department is available 24-7. Alameda Family Services. Building futures and even the city of Alameda has a victim services Coordinator, so I'm don't hesitate and reach out Thank you so much Okay, so then we are moving on to item 3b and 3b is San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority presentation of a resolution of appreciation for mayor is

Thank you, Mayor Ashcraft, city council members. I'm really glad to be here, to be able to present this resolution acknowledging your career of public service here in Alameda. Look, it feels very early to be doing this. I'll be the first one to say that. We know it's barely even September.

But our board- By the way, I know who you are, but the rest of the room might not.

I'm sorry, Seamus Murphy, executive director of San Francisco Bay Ferry. Our board wanted to make sure that we were the first or among the first to be able to congratulate you on an amazing career here in Alameda, doing everything that you can, so many accomplishments that have made Alamedans' lives better, especially Alamedan ferry riders. I think you took office the same year we took over operating the ferry service in Alameda. And we've just seen things go so well for this service. We've seen it become really a community-defining benefit, we think, for the residents of Alameda. We couldn't have done that without your help. We've been able to open a brand new maintenance facility, obviously, with your leadership, employees, 100 folks at that maintenance facility. It's made our services much more efficient and allowed us to operate more service for Alameda residents. We were able to launch our newest route at Seaplane Lagoon, our newest Transbay route, and it's quickly become one of the more popular routes on our system. I think it has the highest ridership of any of our East Bay routes, and we definitely need to operate more service. It's a good problem to have. We wouldn't have been able to do that without your help. and then the Woodstock Alameda Oakland estuary service has been just a pleasure to operate obviously you led the effort to make that happen and I remember the first day when we started operating that service and we had so many riders it was really high ridership right from the beginning. The first week was stellar ridership. And I remember thinking, I wonder if this is going to tail off. And I remember you saying, no, it won't. And you were right, because it's just continued to be one of the higher ridership routes in our system. And we are at a point where we need to figure out keep it around permanently, how to expand the service so that it's everyday service, and we look forward to working with the city to find ways to do that. So thank you for all of that, everything that you've done, and wish you all the best in your next job.

Thank you so much. I'll come down and receive that. Thank you very much.

Good.

In Alameda, we love all forms of transit. But I have to say, ferry riders are the happiest campers out there. I'm on the ferry at least twice a month, usually more for my MTC meetings. And someone once said to me, Mayor, doesn't it seem like this commute is too short? And I said, no one's ever said that about a commute before. But she said, you know what I mean. It's just so pleasant on a beautiful day. And they're all beautiful days, right? So thank you very much. I'm honored to receive that proclamation. So then moving along, we come to item four, oral communications. But before we start with oral communications, let me just take a minute to remind everyone of the ground rules for conducting a city council meeting. since it's been a while since we've done one of these. I'd like to remind everyone that this is a business meeting. It's not theater. It's not a sporting event. We are conducting the business of the city of Alameda, your business, the people's business. So that's why I ask, please, no applause, no boos, cheers, jeers. We don't do the wave. We just listen respectfully when others are speaking. And when it's our turn to speak, we get up. And when the timer goes off, or before, we sit down. And the reason I ask for this respect is that public speaking is one of the most stressful things for many people to do. Maybe not some people like me who've tried a few cases in my day, and Greg Bowler, who I'm sitting next to. But it can be very stressful. And we never want anyone to feel so intimidated that maybe somebody was booed or jeered that they're not even going to get up and express themselves. That would be terrible, because we all have a First Amendment right to free speech. And also, we want to set a good civic example for young people. And hello, young people. I see you in the audience. Thanks for coming. So let's set a good civic example of how we conduct the people's business. We don't have to all agree, but we can do whatever communicating we do civilly. And I just want this to be a safe place for people to share their views. And again, we don't all have to think alike, but we should respect each other. And finally, if you want to hold up signs, that's also your First Amendment right. And I just ask, unless you're sitting in that far back row, don't hold them up over your head where they might block someone else's view, because everybody wants to see. Then I also have to read this magic language that I hope I don't need to rely on. California Penal Code Section 403 states that it is a criminal offense for any person to, without authority of law, willfully disturb or break up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character other than an assembly or meeting referred to in penal code section 302 or elections code 18340. First violations will receive a warning, and continued violations will require additional action, which could include police intervention. But we won't need that tonight. And so with all that in mind, Madam Clerk, do we have speakers under oral communication? And these are, again, oral communication items not on the agenda. We'll get to the agenda items next.

We just got our ninth speaker slip, so we are over the 15-minute time limit, and we'll have to do a random drawing to pick who gets to speak. And we have two remote as well, so I will give you two slips of paper.

So I should have probably added that, that we take 15 minutes now at the top of the agenda for speakers, and because the speakers will get two minutes each, Madam Clerk?

Yes, they'll get two minutes each, and so we can do... Seven or eight if they speak.

Yeah, sometimes people might not take the whole two minutes, but they might. So, okay. So then you'll just start picking by... Yeah, random names.

And we'll have to do quick splits for the remote people just so we can draw from all of them.

Okay, so if you're in the chambers when your name is called, come on up quickly so we'll keep things moving. And who's our first name, Madam Clerk?

Sorry. We got one more. Okay. We haven't had to do this in a while. All right. I'll have Rosalina pick.

You don't have the trick-or-treat bowl to draw from?

No, I didn't bring the trick-or-treat bowl. I wasn't prepared. It's the first day back.

Yes, it is indeed.

Okay.

All right.

First up is Josh Altieri, followed by, I'm sorry, this person from the Marina Shores HOA, I think it's Levens maybe is the last name, and then Sid. Okay.

Welcome, Speaker Altieri.

Good evening, council members. Thank you all for your service. I'm Josh Altieri with the Housing Authority City of Alameda Communications and Community Programs Manager, here to do a quarterly update. Housing Authority is busy operating our Housing Choice Voucher programs, over 3,000 low-income residents and 1,800 voucher households. We also partner with 350 City of Alameda landlords to create more affordable housing opportunities for our Housing Choice Voucher holders. And I invite any rental property owner here in the city to contact us to learn more about the benefits of our Housing Choice Voucher Landlord Program. And I'm also here to acknowledge and thank the council, city leadership, and city staff for their partnership throughout the years, a partnership that started in August 1940 and continues to this day. And I wanted to quickly highlight several active community partnerships that are occurring. Tomorrow, we're going to be hosting a tour from the city's Housing and Human Services team. We'll do a property tour and share information about our housing programs. That information and knowledge will be transferred on to the populations that the Housing and Human Services team serves on a daily basis. I look forward to that. We also happen to call with the Alameda free library staff to explore outreach efforts to our properties, could possibly include book donations at our family and senior properties, as well as them tabling at the same properties to register our residents for library cards and find out more information about library programming. The Zero Waste Program from the Public Works Department, they visited 12 Housing Authority properties distributing compost bins, compost bins, recycle totes, and outreach materials to promote landfill diversion. We've been able to significantly reduce some of our Alameda County industry trash pickups at those properties. And Alameda Rec and Parks coming out to our largest family property as well. Mastic Senior Center coming to our senior properties. We're going to host another series of dates later this year. Alameda Municipal Power auto-enrolled 600 housing Authority households into their energy assistance program 25% discount, which is a great benefit Our next speaker is Levins from Marina Shores HOA.

Sorry, mr. First name Sid and then a remote speaker. Okay

Good evening, mayor and council members. Ken Levins, Alameda Shores HOA president. Thank you for your time this evening. I would like to respectfully remind the council that the staff recommendation to modify Clement Avenue between Peru and entrance to allow for two-way traffic is likely to move forward in September, unless the council refers that decision for review. Now, I know that there was some great outreach by city staff back in July. and a lot of feedback was received. And I think even since then, we've had some discussions with Scott Wickstrom where we made another proposal to establish a two-way traffic pattern with westbound trucks on Clement and eastbound trucks on Buena Vista, which would allow for that truck traffic to pass without modification of either road and, in fact, would be beneficial in both cases. It would actually allow narrowing of both streets and implementation of better traffic coming on both streets without removing parking or trees or pedestrian crossing bulb outs. While no option is without impacts, this alternative appears to offer the possibility of balancing and reducing impacts on the various local neighborhoods and residents on both corridors, rather than concentrating impacts on a single street. Given the significance of the overall issue to the neighborhood, I believe a council referral would be very beneficial. A referral would allow transparent evaluation of all viable alternatives and ensure that any final decision reflects the most complete information available. Accordingly, I respectfully ask the council to provide a referral in a timely manner so that these alternatives can be fully considered before the September implementation proceeds. Thank you very much for your time this evening.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sid and then Amos White.

All right. And Sid is in person? Yeah. Yes. Hi. Come on up.

I would like to start off by thanking you, Madam Mayor, members of the council, and the members of the public for the opportunity to speak and your time and attention. So as many of you may have noticed, there have been quite a few new Flock cameras popping up in recent months. So I want to take some time to address some of the main arguments for Flock. Let's start with the big one. It stops criminals. While I admit that these cameras do hold the potential to reduce crime, that has never before been a valid excuse for an assault on citizens' rights. In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Fourth Amendment, police require a warrant to access someone's phone location history. Flock cameras do the exact same thing, tracking where you go at all times, except without your consent and without requiring a warrant. I and many other Alamedans feel less safe being surveilled by the government 24-7. The second main argument for Flock is that there is a low potential for abuse. This could not be further from the truth. The Institute for Justice has cataloged over 100 incidents of misuse of Flock cameras going back all the way to 22. However, it took up until just recently for Flock to implement safeguards against this. No matter how the cameras are being used now, their very existence puts Americans' rights in jeopardy. The third main argument for Flock, and the most abhorrent of all, is that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. This has been used throughout history by authoritarian regimes to justify crackdowns and surveillance. They start by implementing the systems to catch wrongdoers. In our case, this is Flock. And then they slowly change the definition of what is considered wrong, going after dissidents and the opposition. I would like to finish off by reading a quote from Benjamin Franklin, one of our founding fathers and one of the most important men in the history of our nation. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. We cannot call ourselves a free country if we allow mass surveillance. They are mutually exclusive ideas. Flock betrays every value of freedom that we hold as Americans. I urge this council, in the strongest possible terms, to end this contract with Flock and end the surveillance state. Do your duty and protect Alameda's rights.

Thank you. Our next speaker?

Amos White, then we have a remote speaker, then Chris Blair.

Welcome, Speaker White.

Thank you. And good evening. I'm here to urge caution on any proposal to site an AI data center in or near our neighborhoods or the city of Alameda. Research on data center impacts nationwide point to five recurring harms. First, water consumption. A single facility can use up to 1 to 5 million gallons of water per day for cooling, straining our island's limited fresh water supply. The Western states, as many of you may know, just most recently have received a cutback and are currently facing a drastic cutback, I should say, in our water allocation. Second, electricity demand. A typical AI data center uses as much electricity as 100,000 households, risking rate hikes and grid strain for residents. Third, air quality and public health. The sheer number of backup generators that they have emit pollutants linked to asthma, respiratory illness, and drive up, if you will, our climate emissions or our carbon emissions. Fourth, noise pollution for cooling systems. and generators, a documented source of resident opposition in cities like Naperville and Santa Clara. Fifth, inequitable community burden. Data centers are often built near communities less equipped to push back while benefits accrue elsewhere. Again, the West End of Alameda. Given our quality of life and the fact that we are an island facing the real threats of climate change, I ask council to reject all proposals to consider the location of an AI data center in our city limits. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is remote, Anna Mayer.

Welcome, Speaker Mayer.

yes hello i'm here hello thank you for um thank you for calling on me my name is anna mayor i am a resident of the marina shores hoa i live on buena vista avenue and stanton street So I've been directly on the truck route on Buena Vista since I moved here. I'm also the parent of two young children and I have a dog and I just wanted to share a bit of context about the waterfront property that's been built out with the Cross Island Bike Trail with a playground which is used extensively by local families and especially the youngest children in the neighborhood because it's a smaller and calmer playground than the other bigger ones nearby. um volunteers from the humane society are walking their dogs um you know there's many it's just a very well used and well-loved area and so i really urge the council to take a step back think about all of the different options that would not involve narrowing the bike trail reducing pedestrian reducing pedestrian safety and widening the streets. I think that's going to lead to speeding. It's going to make it harder to cross the street. And I would urge the council to think about our priorities around Vision Zero and around bike access, which is part of what makes Alameda so special. So thank you for considering our request to refer the issue back to city planning for more consideration.

Thank you. Our next speaker?

Is Chris Blair, then Katya Marthy?

And is in person? OK, yes. Hello.

Mayor, council members, thank you. I was alerted this afternoon that there was a meeting being held here, a closed door session, and it was to address negotiations with some of the property out on the West End. I read into it a little bit more and I see one company that seems to be an umbrella corporation and that is Delaware Corporation. I'm just wondering as far as citizens of Alameda, when do we get to know what the city is doing negotiating in our name? And who are these people? And what are they doing here? So I just wanted to get on record as to saying I'm opposed to having Apollo Atomics, Giga Energy, Bulwark Dynamics. and American Rail. They're all Delaware companies. And I'm kind of surprised that the city is up to this without us being aware of it as citizens. Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Katya Marthy, then Doyle Saylor.

Welcome. And go ahead and bring that microphone where you'd like it to be, to be down a little.

Hello, Council Mayor.

Hello.

I've been a resident of a homeowner for 35 years, very close to the base. And I'm a retired earth and environmental science teacher, so I'm very concerned about the transparency of your closed-door meetings today with what I would consider some pretty nefarious companies that might not have residents or the island's residents in any of their considerations. I agree with Amos and Chris. And I hope that you can represent us as a community with transparency. I appreciate you. Thank you in advance.

Thank you. Our next speaker?

Doyle Saylor.

Hello.

Hi there. Hello, Madam Mayor and Alameda City Council. I'm Doyle Saylor. And just quickly, I just wanted to thank the city clerk for their help. I thought they were doing an outstanding job, so I just wanted to bring it to your attention. I object to permitting a data center being created at Alameda Point. This AI industry is a financial bubble generating an unnecessary monopolistic need for a bad data center technology. In Pittsburgh, California, further, the city council signed a nondisclosure agreement for an unnecessary data center there, and that NDA is completely unacceptable for a public body to do. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker? Yeah, this will be the last one.

And it is .

And then we'll continue the oral communication non-agenda items at the end of the regular agenda. Hello.

Hello, and thank you, Mayor Ashcraft and members of the city council for giving me a platform to speak. My name is Meilani Sheehan, and I'm here to tell you that Shelby Sheehan killed my grandmother and she killed my pets. When her mother got sick, she got power of attorney, canceled her treatment, and increased her morphine to make her die faster. And then she took my pets to the pound and had them all destroyed. Three cats, three dogs, and two birds. Excuse me.

Oh, dear.

That was the time of the 50s.

Yeah. Is anyone on staff able to go out and check on her, please? Thank you. Did we use up all the time, madam? Yes, the time is up. Alyssa, the chief, will get it. OK, all right. OK, so we move on to the consent calendar. And these are routine items that will be approved by one motion unless council members remove items for discussion. Removed items are called after the agenda items after the regular agenda and council members may speak for up to three minutes on the consent calendar. So first off, council are there any consent calendar items that council wants to pull? Seeing none. Does council have any questions on, just clarifying questions that don't require pulling an item on any of the consent calendar? Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have speakers on the consent calendar? We have none. Council, do we have any comments or a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar?

Can I make a comment? Please. And a motion. I'll make the motion to approve the consent calendar with a comment just appreciating that we will have increased authority to cite vehicles in our bike lanes. I think that's a great thing. So with that, I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

All right. Second. OK. And were there any other comments? OK. We've had a motion by Council Member Jensen, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor to approve the consent calendar. With the comments noted by Council Member Jensen, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. OK. That passes unanimously. All right, Madam Clerk, with that, we move on to a regular agenda. And this is agenda item 7A. Council, before we get started and staff are going to come forward who are presenting, the staff has asked for additional time. This is long. complex issue we're about to consider. So rather than the usual 10 minutes for staff presentation, I'm asking us to allow 20 minutes for the staff. There's several different staff who are going to present. So I need four affirmative votes. in order to add the time. Do I have a motion to grant 20 minutes for staff? Is that you, Council Member Daszak? OK. It's been moved by Council Member Daszak, seconded by Council Member Boulder. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. OK. That passes unanimously. So I'm going to turn to City Manager Jerry Bowden to start. Y'all have 20 minutes to divvy up any way you like. All right.

Thank you. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council members. Tonight's staff recommends providing a commitment letter to Midpen Housing for the Stardust Gardens project. As you know, Stardust Gardens is the first phase of the city's long-planned, rebuilding existing supportive housing at Alameda Point project, also known simply as ReShape. I appreciate the opportunity to share some introductory remarks before I turn the main presentation over to the city's base reuse and economic development director, Abby Thorne Lyman, and our financial advisor, David Vargas. I'm going to start with some things that are obvious tonight. The world of affordable housing is extremely complicated. These projects require a myriad of funding sources. The regulations are like a web, and they often take years and require agencies at all levels of government to work collaboratively. At the same time, affordable housing and large-scale redevelopment projects are achievable. What does that look like? It takes leaders and collaborators who are rowing together, looking for ways to make it happen, not finding reasons to stop it. The city and its public sector partners, including County HCD, State HCD, SF Bay Ferry, the Navy, and the federal government more broadly, along with our affordable and supportive housing partners, Mid-Penn Housing, Alameda Point Collaborative, Operation Dignity, Building Futures, And our market rate development partners, Catelis and Brookfield, are all solidly behind Stardust Gardens and the city's larger efforts to provide much needed mixed income housing and new infrastructure investment to revitalize Alameda Point. The Housing Authority should be on this list in support of Stardust Gardens. Yet, after nearly a decade of work on reshape, and after three years, or it's been three years since the city approved the project, Stardust is still not a part of the Housing Authority's project pipeline. How does that happen? It turns out when you're not looking for solutions, you can find a lot of reasons. The housing authority has suggested that it didn't know that MidPenn would need vouchers for Stardust, something the historical record just doesn't show to be true. The housing authority has suggested that the city and MidPenn are asking it to break rules, also not true, particularly when we see other housing authorities in the region working collaboratively with housing entities like MidPenn to achieve successful outcomes for projects like this one. The housing authority has suggested that it cannot issue a commitment letter because it may have budget constraints. And yet, there are voucher commitments and other funding earmarked for undeveloped housing authority projects that are less ready than Stardust Gardens. And to evaluate the budget concerns that have been raised, the city has invited our consultant David Vargas, former senior federal executive who now consults and advises on these topics, to join us tonight. And he'll share more later in the presentation and in the Q&A portion. There was also a supplemental memo that went out today on the topic. The Housing Authority has also stated that this project wasn't ready. However, the state has independently demonstrated its confidence in Stardust Gardens and its readiness to move forward. In December of 2025, the state ranked Stardust Gardens the highest scoring project in the state of California in that round of affordable housing and sustainable communities grant applications, and it awarded funding. I'm going to conclude my introductory remarks by noting a few really important points. This is about people. Some of the lowest income in our community are living in housing that is at the end of its useful life. And Stardust Gardens and Reshape will fix that. Federal vouchers are designed for exactly this need. The housing authority's leadership and priorities need to recognize broader city priorities. Tens of millions of dollars in grant funding and private money is being put at risk. Thousands of housing units and significant infrastructure investment, including new utilities and roads, are being held up because the housing authority so far has not looked for solutions and ways to support Stardust or to make room for it in its development program. I truly appreciate working with the innovative team that are here tonight. We've been able to create an option before the council to keep Stardust and so much more going at Alameda Point. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Director Thorne-Lyman. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. Abby Thorne-Lyman, Director of Base Reuse and Economic Development, here tonight to discuss the possibility of issuing a commitment letter to provide an operating subsidy to Stardust Gardens. Stardust Gardens is the first phase of the Reshape Project, also known as Rebuilding Existing Supportive Housing, at Alameda Point. This, together with the Market Rate and Mixed Income Project next door, which is known as West Midway, being built by Catullus and Brookfield, will comprise 810 units of new housing at Alameda Point, bounded by Main Street, Pan Am Way, West Tower, and West Midway Avenue. This is a huge commitment on the city's part. 41% of the project is supportive housing. It's an incredibly complex and interdependent set of projects. These are two separate projects, Reshape and West Midway, with two separate DDAs with the city. But they rely on each other to get done. The Alameda Point Collaborative's current outdated Navy era housing sits within the footprint of both the Reshape and West Midway developments. In order to build those projects, the Alameda Point collaborative residents, who we intend to retain and relocate into the first phase Stardust Gardens, the 80-unit project, will need to be moved so that that dilapidated Navy-era housing you see on the right can be demolished. Catullus and Brookfield have stated they cannot start the first phase of their project, which is at the corner of Main Street and West Midway, unless they have a date certain by which they can complete the third phase of the project, which is where these residents live. So it is critical that we get all of the pieces moving in the same direction. OK. I want to just step back and talk about supportive housing. At Alameda Point, we have a requirement under the conveyance agreements to serve formerly unhoused individuals and families or those at risk of experiencing homelessness. We serve them with supportive housing, which is a combination of housing with wraparound services to help families and individuals who are dealing with complex challenges to live with stability and dignity. There are two kinds of subsidies needed for these kinds of projects. One is development and construction subsidy. Let's get the building built. The second is operating subsidy. Supportive housing residents often do not make enough money to pay enough rent to actually fund the operations of the building. So they need some kind of ongoing source of subsidy to keep the building operational. In the case of Stardust Gardens, they have almost completed their development subsidy. They've raised over $60 million to get this project done. And the last phase is the application due for the tax credits on September 8, which would secure them the final $27 million to get the project built. But what they lack is the operating subsidy. And without the operating subsidy, they cannot serve Alameda Point Collaborative's residents. There's simply not enough money to operate the building. So what form does this operating subsidy take? It takes the form usually of project-based vouchers. These are federally funded vouchers that provide the difference between the regulated rent amount by HUD and 30% of the resident's actual income. The one that most people know is Section 8, but there's lots of different kinds of vouchers, but just to give you a point of reference. The Alameda Point Collaborative already has project-based vouchers. In the footprint of this project, they have 25 project-based vouchers. And what we, MidPenn, and the city are looking to ask the housing authority to do is terminate those 25 project-based vouchers and reissue them to Stardust Gardens and add an additional five vouchers. That is what we were asking. And what we were asking specifically, or what we were asking was for the September 8 deadline, was for the housing authority to issue a letter of commitment stating that when the time came, they would do that. They would make that commitment to cancel and reissue those vouchers. This, from city's perspective, is a nominal cost. Vouchers already exist. APC already secures $785,000 in operating revenue annually. So we believe it's a nominal cost. Now, those residents do have the option to go wherever they like. We give them the choice, and some may choose to leave. But it is very unlikely that they will choose to leave. And in addition, because Alameda is such a desirable place to live, other voucher holders could come to Stardust Gardens, backfilling that gap. This is a long history, and the city manager gave a little bit of it. This project has been in the works for over 10 years. MidPenn was selected as the developer for the project more than 10 years ago. And we have taken a lot of twists and turns and made a lot of creative decisions over those 10 years to make this project happen, including the city loaning the developer $9.5 million to do the infrastructure for the reshaped campus. So we have done our part to try to make this happen. Over the course of that decade, MidPenn has had numerous conversations with the housing authority that have not resulted in vouchers. I want to talk about the timeline moving forward, which is critical. This September 8 tax credit application is instrumental to keeping this project and the West Midway development on track. If we successfully submit this application and show these vouchers, the project could be under construction by next June. We could have residents moving in early 2029. So we are recommending today that council consider issuing a commitment letter only. No funds would be expended until fiscal year 28-29 when the project is actually operational. This is also really critical in terms of interdependencies because we actually have a legally binding agreement recorded to the property that we're talking about that is a three-party agreement between the county the city, an APC requiring that we provide the housing for these households that are at risk of homelessness. We cannot have that agreement released from the land unless we can prove that we have replacement housing for those residents. The Housing Authority has stated the rationale for delaying vouchers is that they anticipate a future budget shortfall. I will cut this slide short because we do have a financial expert, a CPA on Zoom, who will speak to this. We'll just say that, again, this commitment is for future years, and we do think the cost is nominal. We also learned last week that the San Francisco Housing Authority just took an action on Thursday night identical to what we are asking for from the Housing Authority. the San Francisco Housing Authority agreed to issue a commitment letter for 60 project-based vouchers with the understanding that 60 project-based vouchers currently providing subsidy for use of the Navy-era housing on Treasure Island would be terminated. In their staff report, they state this action does not present a significant financial exposure for the authority. Further, they used the AHSC competition, which our housing authority has stated they are unable to use because they showed project-based vouchers, as the competition for issuing this award. They've done exactly what we've asked the housing authority to do that the housing authority has said we can't do. So with that, staff recommend that council authorize the city manager to sign a commitment letter for $1 million annually over 20 years with a 2.5% escalation for a total of $25.5 million starting in 2029. We would ask the council further amend the motion from what was in the staff report to state the letter will be substantially similar to what is in Exhibit 1 in case we have some minor legal tweaks to make between now and Friday when it is due. Again, we think that this will really enable us to deliver the 810 units, keep both projects on track, and hopefully act as a stopgap measure over the next two years while the city and the housing authority work through their differences, hoping the housing authority will come to the table and issue the project-based vouchers, at which point the city would not expend any money. The source for the $25.5 million would be the Alameda Point Fund. There would be no impact to the city's regular operating budget. However, there are trade-offs to us allocating this money. As you know, we have over $800 million in infrastructure needs at Alameda Point. So what we would end up doing is we are currently trying to sell properties to generate money for the phase two reuse area infrastructure. shown in the deferred box on the right-hand graphic, we would probably end up delaying the reuse area infrastructure improvement because we would need to raise an additional $25 million for that. We would set that money aside for this commitment. However, We would not delay the infrastructure improvements of West Midway and Main Street, Orion Street, and West Tower Avenue, all of which the developer is obligated to improve when they build their project. So we are getting some infrastructure but trading off other. If we do not make this commitment, there is a trade-off as well. The AHSC application included a commitment to seaplane ferry electrification of over $7 million. And if we fail to deliver the Stardust Gardens project on time, we would be potentially sacrificing that commitment to WIDA, or the city would end up having to incur it. So with that, I will turn it over to David Vargas, our CPA and HUD consultant, to present on his budget analysis.

Thank you, Ms. Thornlyman. You ready?

Yeah, David should be able to speak. Great.

So thank you, and good evening, distinguished mayor and council members. My name is Dave Vargas. I am the CEO for Vargas Premier Corporate Consultants, and together with our president, Manal Asinic, we bring over 60 years of technical and executive experience in assisted housing programs, specifically the Housing Choice Voucher Program. I also want you to know that I'm a former tenant who understands the importance of these programs. This is more than a job for Melinda and I, but this mission has been a passion for us. for close to 30 years. Prior to my retirement from HUD, I was tasked with the development and implementation of the Emergency Housing Voucher Program, EHV. This was under the American Rescue Plan Act, which assists 100,000 homeless families nationwide with both housing and supportive services. Milan and I were responsible for the revival of a somewhat dormant voucher program that helped provide housing and supportive services to our homeless veterans in partnership with the Department of Veterans Affairs. We also, Milana and I, led the HUD's response to hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Ike, and Gustav to provide housing and supportive services to over 100,000 families displaced throughout the United States. Now, I wish I could find the words to convey the difficulty I have seen with housing homeless families in the private real estate market. What you have before you is a development project with most of its funding already in place with the exception of the 4% tax credits. What this project needs is a low risk commitment, either PVVs or a city commitment to get the necessary points that are most likely given the edge in receiving the 4% tax credits from the state. At the other end of the rainbow is an 80 unit affordable housing development with 30 units already set aside for homeless families with supportive services right there to help them succeed. Now, generally, these project-based voucher commitments are given by a housing authority specifically to assist extremely low-income families gain access to quality housing. Now, the financial and other issues raised by AHA for not providing a commitment that has been associated with this development are now just taking too long to resolve. So it is now to the point where a commitment is needed now to make the September 8th deadline for tax credits. I can tell you as a former director of the Section 8 program, I have calculated and provided funding calculations for over 23 Section 8 agencies nationwide. I understand the nuances of funding and have helped clients with shortfalls, calculations, and management of those shortfalls. I have reviewed AHA's fiscal year 2025 audits, spent quite a bit of time on that, their budget board presentations, and other publicly available information. I can tell you this is really not about shortfalls but about potential risk, which I believe to be minimal based on our review of AHS finances. The risk, as we see it, is that the 25 families that are currently living in all of Eric Stiles' units will not want to move next door to this new development and avail themselves of the supportive services. The risk is that these 30 new units with supportive services can find voucher holders willing to move to Stardust Gardens. And then the risk is that with hundreds, if not thousands, of veterans and previously homeless families or the risk of homelessness in the metropolitan area will not find these units desirable enough to bring their vouchers to that development. The risk is just low. Milan and I have talked at length about the risk and why AHA keeps raising funding concerns. As a financially healthy agency with over $22 million in unrestricted cash and nicely cash-filled properties, we're just struggling with the reasoning. They're a moving-to-work agency, which means that AHA has substantial more flexibility in how it manages its programs and its finances. Based on our review of the financial information and our background with housing authorities, in our opinion, the risk to AHAs of issuing this commitment is minimal. I hope to get a chance to discuss that in more detail during their next AHA board or directors meeting. Now, I would like to urge the City of Alameda to not let this opportunity pass. I understand any potential concerns over the financial risk to the city, of this particular commitment, right? But as we see it, based on our 60 plus years of experience, the risk of the commitment before you is low and the reward too great. We have provided our analysis of the available financial information and issued a report to the city. At a later point, we can work with the city and AHA to address their concerns or the issuance of a PVV commitment and work towards replacing the city commitment with a PVV commitment. I want to thank you for your time And I am now available for questions.

Thank you so much. And is that the completion of the staff report? It is. Thank you, Mayor. All right. So, Council, I know we have a lot of public speakers, at least I'm surmising we do. So are there any clarifying questions you would like to ask now, or should we take our public comments first? Vice Mayor Pryor?

OK, just from what I understood, part of what we are asking is to transfer 25 current vouchers. And then we're also asking for an additional five vouchers. So financially, are we really just asking for five additional vouchers?

So in technical terms, we are not allowed to transfer. So I'll just start with that. That was part of the confusion we've had over the last few months. The vouchers would be terminated. The residents would be allowed and notified that they have been notified that they are allowed to leave. They can go wherever they want, or they can go to Stardust Gardens. If they leave, they take their voucher with them. So there is a risk that we wouldn't then reissue 25 vouchers because some residents may not choose to stay at Alameda Point. So we are asking for the termination of the vouchers, the reissuance of them to Stardust Gardens, as well as five additional vouchers. And I apologize, I would have to go back to my seat, but the numbers of the dollar amounts that we're talking about, the net difference of terminating and issuing 25 and then adding those five is in the supplementals. So I'll go find that.

Okay, thank you. Any other clarifying questions before we go to public comment?

Councilor Ridgeside. Yeah. So on the 25 vouchers, so we're starting off by first, let me just clarify, the 25 vouchers that you're referring to are right now 25 project-based vouchers. Is that correct?

Yeah, I believe they are all project-based, but I'm, yes.

And so the 25 project-based vouchers, is it correct to say, are tied to specific units somewhere at Alameda Point?

Would you mind, Mayor, if I have Midpen come up and answer this question? Yeah.

Thank you. I just want to make sure I get the details correct.

And just before you speak, if you would just introduce yourself.

Yeah, good evening. I'm Abby Goldberg-Putlery with MidPenn Housing. The answer is yes. This is a project-based contract that is attached to certain units at Alameda Point Collaborative and kind of spread out throughout. So it's not just one single building. It's in a lot of different areas. As you know, the housing is in

So one of the virtues of project-based vouchers relative to housing choice vouchers is that you can leverage that for financing. So has the housing authority done that such that that might be a reason why it's difficult for them?

No, that's not my understanding. I know we have representatives from the Housing Authority here. So the contract is with Alameda Point Collaborative, and Andrea Erton, Executive Director, is here today as well. The way that the vouchers are really used at Alameda Point Collaborative is to cover operating expenses. As we've talked about, residents are paying very little. So I don't believe there's any debt being leveraged from the project-based voucher.

But you're aware that that is the difference between PVVs and HCVs, right? That's correct. Okay. So... Are you then contemplating that the PVVs would then be ended at wherever they are now, and then they would become project-based vouchers at Stardust Gardens? Is that what you're contemplating?

That is correct. Yeah, a new award. So terminated and a new award made, that would be in the form of a project-based contract. That's a 20-year term.

OK, so whatever financing that the housing authority wanted to obtain via the PBVs at the original place, they're not going to be in a position because they're

The housing authority is not. The housing authority issues the contract. They provide the funding to Alameda Point Collaborative right now. They are not currently leveraging those vouchers for their own benefit. It's all a transaction via a contract with Alameda Point Collaborative.

So what you're saying is it's a PBV, but they're treating it more like an HCV.

It's just for operations. I'm going to just stop you there. Two things for all of us to remember. Please don't start speaking when the speaker is still speaking. And if you're going to use acronyms, please say what the acronyms stand for. So back to you, Councilmember. You threw out some acronyms. Why don't you tell us what they mean?

Section 8 is broken down into at least what I'm aware of, two different types. There's housing choice vouchers, which is the classic Section 8 that we're aware of, where the subsidy goes with a tenant, and the tenant can go wherever housing is available that receives Section 8. Section 8 is also project-based, so the subsidy is attached to the unit. And oftentimes, housing providers or developers like the PDVs because they can leverage it for financing.

So this is clarifying questions. And which is your clarifying question?

Oh, I was just clarifying the ACBP. OK, OK, yeah. So I think that's enough. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

All right. Other clarifying questions before we go to public comment? Council? OK, let's go to public comment, Madam Clerk.

OK, I'll call three at a time so that they can get ready to go. And how many do we have, so how much time? 16 currently.

OK, 16, so they'll each get? Two minutes. Two minutes. Yeah.

OK. They're more raising hands remotely, so. I'll call three at a time. Abby Goldware-Potlory, Matt Franklin, and Andrea Ertin.

All right, in that order, come on up.

Hello again. Hello. I'm going to shorten my comments a bit because of a little less time. So I just want to introduce myself, Abby Goldler-Potlory, senior vice president and co-head of the housing development team at MidPenn. I've had the privilege of working with our partners at Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures, Operation Dignity, and the city of Alameda over the last 10 and 1 half years. Personally have been involved in it since the start. And many of you know this new community as Reshape, and we're literally doing just that, as you've heard today in the presentation. Housing development is not always linear, and we've definitely had twists and turns to arrive at this moment. That being said, there are definitely facts about this new community that have not changed from day one. From our earliest months to this very evening, we knew that permanent supportive housing serving extremely low-income households would require a rental operating subsidy. As was described today in the presentation, this is because the homes we're building will serve people with little or no income, and an operating subsidy is required to operate and maintain the community. This expectation was communicated early to the Alameda Housing Authority. And as is the case in other cities where we work, we often have early conversations with key partners, like the Housing Authority, and expect opportunities to collaborate and coordinate as a development proceeds. Over the years, I was often told that the project's schedule and projected start date would not make it possible to receive vouchers. And in fact, we were unsuccessful in an earlier competition for vouchers because of project readiness. I was recently asked why we applied for critical state funding without a commitment of vouchers, and what exactly was our plan? I want to be clear here tonight. Our plan was to secure as many competitive funding resources for Reshape and the city of Alameda as possible and advance Stardust Gardens. And in total, MidPenn, together with the city, secured $48 million in upfront funding, $4.5 million for bike pedestrian infrastructure, and $7 million for SF Payfair.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Matt Franklin, then Andrea Erton, then Keith McCoy. Good evening.

All right, thank you very much. I'm Matt Franklin. I'm the president and CEO of Midpen Housing. Thank you for considering this item. As Abby said, we were lucky enough 10, 11 years ago to be selected by our incredible partners to be their development partner. And it began this journey that we feel so fortunate to be part of, to be part of this ambitious reuse of the base. It's been a pretty incredible journey that the four of us, along with you and your staff, have gone through. You can see in the staff presentation that we negotiated a very complex land swap. We together exerted a lot of patience while the market was kind of coming and going a little bit. We've, over the last several years, observed really incredible entrepreneurism and agility and responsiveness and measured but important critical risk taking by the city that has advanced this plan. And it's just been wonderful to be part of it. Throughout the entire 11 years, we've had the privilege of a firsthand observation of the incredible work that our partners do providing housing to 201 households. under tough conditions, but they're providing very high quality housing, top in class resident services to a population of clients that have very high needs. It's incredible life changing work that they're doing, and we feel super fortunate to have been part of the work with them. We've also worked together to plan and to entitle 332 units and a campus to be developed in four phases. Mid-Penn has invested, in addition to the 11 years of work, we've invested $2 million in all of the planning and pre-development of Stardust Gardens and another million in the pre-planning and design of the subsequent three phases. We are committed to this work. We are going to be committed to see it through.

Thank you so much. And this critical funding can make the difference. Our next speaker is Andrea Erton, then Keith McCoy, then Lisa Maxwell.

Welcome, Speaker Erden. Go ahead and make that microphone yours.

Good evening.

You might want to lower the microphone a little.

I'm a little bit shorter than he is. You are who you are. Good evening, Madam Mayor and city council members. Thank you for being here this evening and for considering this item. I'm going to switch up my talking points because you're going to hear from a lot of people. So of course, we are here to ask you say yes to the staff recommendation for this commitment letter to MidPenn tonight. One of the reasons why this is so important right now and not later on is that many of you have been to the base recently, and you've seen the state of the housing. You could clearly see that in some of those photos from the staff report. So I want to be clear just some of the basic costs. It costs us on average between $8,000 and $11,000 to turn one unit. And that's a normal turn. So if it's an excessive turn with a lot of damage, it can be $50,000. Last year alone, Alameda Point Collaborative, as a nonprofit, spent $168,000 to upgrade our plumbing infrastructure. And we didn't even do it all. So the extreme cost to operate this housing just speaks to the need to have it torn down and new housing built. We also look at what's best for our residents. So clean, dignified housing. Clearly, safe housing. And finally, we also look at what our residents want and need, and that's to stay here where their home is in the city of Alameda. If you look at the numbers, 79% of our current residents have been living here in Alameda for over 10 years. They are Alameda citizens, and they matter. So thank you for your consideration to this matter. Thank you. Our next speaker?

Keith McCoy, then Lisa Maxwell, then Timothy Evans.

Welcome, Speaker McCoy.

Hi. Good evening. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and council members, thank you for having me today. And just thank you for everything you're doing with regards to Alameda Point Collaborative. You have been a longtime supporter of this project, of our community. I've been a board member for... almost 15 years now I came on even before this project started so it's been a journey as Matt said but just to echo a few things that your city manager said before he started this is all about people you know there's it's very complicated real estate project there's lots of intricate in financing issues there's issues with the housing authority, which I'm not sure what has happened there, but hopefully we can get that back on track with your assistance. But this is about people that live in dilapidated housing here in Alameda. And I'm just ashamed that they're still living in that situation. As a board member, we've been pushing very hard to get this project moved forward. Now we're finally at the precipice of making it happen. We need just a little bit of assistance from the city, which hopefully we can figure out how to change that so you don't have to spend any more money on us. But we just need this commitment letter to move it forward. And I just plead with you to make it happen tonight. So thank you again.

Thank you. Our next speaker.

Lisa Mackwell, Timothy Evans, and Lauren Goularty. Hello.

Madam Mayor, city council member, thank you for letting me speak tonight on this really important item. I'm Lisa Maxwell. I'm the current board president for Alameda Point Collaborative. And I'm here to encourage you to support the housing commitment that has been requested by staff. As you have heard, and I'm not going to repeat all the other important things you've learned this evening, We were pretty surprised to learn that the Alameda Housing Authority was not interested in sharing these vouchers with the brand new construction Stardust Gardens. This came as a surprise to us, and now we're here before you asking if you can assist with filling that funding gap. We are on a short deadline so that we can get that tax credit application in and not lose the opportunity for further funding. And we're simply here so that we can keep our Alameda residents housed and continue to provide supportive, dignified housing for those in our community. They've been longstanding members of our community, and that's why we're here to discuss this with you. Thanks for everything you do for Alameda Point Collaborative. We really appreciate it and for all of your support over the years, and we're hoping for a little more support tonight.

Thank you. Our next speaker? Timothy Evans, Lauren Gilarti, then Teal Harden. Welcome, Speaker Evans. Hi.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council. Thank you so much. My name is Timothy Evans. I am the Executive Director of Operation Dignity. I'm here with my colleague, Laura Ross, who is a current Alamedian on the coast. And so Operation Dignity has provided low income housing for the city of Alameda since since we acquired the Navy base about 20 years ago. Since then, we are committed to the difference in West Alameda. We continue to partner with our organizations to develop and operate affordable housing with the Midpen Reshape Project. We are in collaboration with all of my great, fine colleagues behind me. The former housing has served an important purpose. It has given people shelter, safety, and a place to begin rebuilding their lives. But these buildings have never been meant for final housing. And now, we are pushing to ensure that mid-pen housing and the reshape program continues to move forward. And we have the assets and resources needed to ensure that all families are stable in the living environments. The residents that we serve currently are in commitment to the Reshape program. My colleagues and I are pushing to ensure that all residents receive a safe, dignified, affordable housing that would welcome them long term. I am not here to point fingers. I am here because the residents need leadership, partnership, and a clear path forward. Projects like this are complex. They require coordination, compromise, and persistence. So tonight, I respectfully ask the City Council and Alameda County, sorry, Alameda Housing Authority to continue working together to provide a solution for Stardust Guardian moving forward and to support the next phases of housing for those in need within Alameda.

Thank you. Perfect timing. Welcome, Speaker Gularte.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Lauren Gallardi. I'm with San Francisco Bay Ferry. San Francisco Bay Ferry strongly supports the city's recommendation to authorize a city manager to provide mid-pen housing and the Alameda Point Collaborative with a temporary operating subsidy for this project. We recognize that the proposed subsidy is a significant commitment for the city, and that a lot is connected to this decision. San Francisco Bay Ferry was awarded a $7 million grant for the electrification of the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal, and that is connected to the provision of these federal vouchers. The Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Service is supported by the development of new housing that is long overdue. It is critical to keep making progress on the first of several developments that will add 2,300 units to Alameda Point, housing that will support the success of the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Service. We thank the city for making the hard call to consider this, to consider providing this operating subsidy to ensure the development of these housing units proceed on schedule and urge the city council to authorize the city manager to sign the commitment letter for this critical operating subsidy. And we look forward to making progress on our transformative project to electrify the Seaplane Lagoon ferry terminal and develop the first high speed, zero emission ferry service in North America. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker.

Teal Harden, then Josh Roden, then Joe Ernst.

Good evening, Council and Mayor. My name is Teal Harden. I am the executive director of the Alameda Food Bank. At Alameda Food Bank, we see that every week food insecurity doesn't happen in isolation. Today we're seeing about 1,700 families come in to access food from us each week. And those families are navigating the interconnected challenges of food, housing, and transportation and other basic needs. For households that are living on a limited income, housing and food are deeply connected. When housing is unaffordable or uncertain, families have fewer resources left for groceries. And when families are displaced from their homes and their community, that instability can have consequences that extend far beyond housing. The residents of Alameda Point Collaborative are members of the same community that we serve at Alameda Food Bank. So when we talk about replacement housing, I think it's important to remember that we're talking about real Alameda residents and families who deserve the opportunity to remain rooted in the community while moving into safe, permanent housing. What's especially important to me about this proposal is the sequencing. Stardust Gardens is not just one housing development. It's an important first step in a much larger vision for Alameda Point, one that includes replacement housing, infrastructure, new streets, and public spaces. And housing doesn't exist in isolation from infrastructure and services. As more businesses and residents move into Alameda Point, we create critical mass when supporting stronger public transportation and other neighborhood serving resources. That matters not only for people who live at Alameda Point but the broader Alameda community as well. Alameda Point is home to the important services and destinations including Alameda Food Bank that people rely on and need ways to access those services a More connected and populated. I don't need a point can help sustain transportation commerce and neighbor neighborhood services. Thank you for considering Thank you.

Our next speaker Josh Rodin Joe Ernst Carly grove.

All right. Welcome speaker Rodin. I

Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers. I'm Josh Roden with Brookfield Residential speaking on behalf of our West Midway partnership with Catelis. I'd like to first thank and compliment the city staff for their leadership, persistence, and creativity in bringing forward action to keep Stardust Gardens moving. We strongly support 7A as it keeps Stardust Gardens on track and preserves momentum for a series of interconnected and public benefits at Alameda Point. Approval tonight helps secure critical financing, advances replacement housing for existing residents, and supports the infrastructure investments needed to deliver both Reshape and West Midway. We respectfully urge your approval for 7A. Thank you.

Thank you. And Joe Ernst.

And then Carly Grubb. And then Vanessa Cooper.

Great.

Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft, members of the council. My name is Joe Ernst. I'm a resident of Alameda and have been active in Alameda Point development for many years. We've heard tonight how critical this housing, much needed housing is, but I want to talk about the consequences for Alameda Point with this decision. It's been 12 to 15 years since this council has approved foundational plans for Alameda Point. It's been that amount of time since the original RFPs for Site A and Enterprise District were issued. We've made progress, but it's been very challenging. For the last five, six years, we've had major disruptions. Infrastructure costs continue to go up. The cost of development continues to go up. I think it's really admirable that these developers had the courage and the ability to go forward during this environment. But I think we've heard loud and clear tonight what will happen is delay and more deferral. That is expensive, very expensive. We are actively in the capital markets every day talking about Alameda. The perception amongst many institutional capital markets in Alameda Point is, can they earn a risk-adjusted return at Alameda Point? That conclusion is still to be determined. And so I just think I can't speak fully to the relationship between the housing authority and the city. But for such a consequential project, this feels like a self-inflicted wound if this can't be supported. So I urge you to support this, hoping that it's a stopgap and that we can continue to make progress at Alameda Point. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker.

Carly Grob, then Vanessa Cooper, then Sylvia Martinez.

Welcome, Speaker Grobe. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Carly Grobe. I'm the current board chair of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, and I'm speaking on my own behalf tonight. I'm not speaking on behalf of the board. Tonight, city staff have presented incorrect and incomplete information to scapegoat the Housing Authority. I support the city committing funding for operations, but I'm disappointed how the city has approached the Stardust Gardens project spending months making demands and threats instead of using time and resources to figure out a backup plan to find operating subsidies. For months, AHA has communicated the same message to the city and the developer regarding their inability to provide PBVs to the project. HUD has confirmed that if AHA were to commit vouchers at this time, we would be in violation of HUD regulations governing project-based vouchers. Over the past several weeks, the city has pressured AHA staff to sign a commitment letter that would provide vouchers to the Stardust Gardens project before September 8. I would characterize many of these communications as bullying, harassment, and threats, including one persistent threat that the city will take back the housing authority. This leads me to one of the stated alternatives in the staff report, which recommends directing staff to explore structural modifications to the city's relationship to the housing authority. I respectfully request that you do not take this recommendation. This project has demonstrated how the city council can politicize the housing authority in a way that may be actually damaging in the long run. When it comes to Sardis Gardens, it's not clear how the city's management of the housing authority would result in a different scenario than we're in today, assuming the city wanted to follow the law. If the city did sign a commitment letter for vouchers they couldn't issue, then we may never see those vouchers. And in a worst case scenario, we leave mid-Penn in a lurch that they don't have it if they don't have them in the future. And we deteriorate our standing and our reputation with HUD regulators. If we break the rules, we politicize the process, it only makes it harder to deliver functional, affordable projects in the future. I appreciate all of the collaboration that the city and AHA have completed in the past, and I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker.

Vanessa Cooper, then Sylvia Martinez, then Tushant Amarasiri-Wardana.

Welcome, Speaker Cooper.

Good evening. Good evening, Mayor Ashcroft and council. Thank you for your time. I want to begin with what matters most. The Housing Authority, the city, and MidPenn are aligned in wanting to see Stardust Gardens built and deeply affordable housing delivered at Alameda Point. I'm here tonight to confirm AHA's commitment to work with MidPenn and the city to get this project across the finish line. But we must do that in a way that complies with federal law and protects the approximately 1,800 Alamedans who are already subsidized under our program. We submitted a detailed memo as part of public record, and we brought paper copies for you tonight. I would briefly like to clarify the board's August 19 decision and then focus a little on next steps. So on August 19, at very short notice, the AHA board considered a request to commit 30 project-based vouchers to Stardust Gardens. The board could not approve the request at that time for two reasons. First, federal regulations require PBVs to be awarded through a qualifying competitive process or other HUD-approved process. No qualifying PBV competition had been conducted. Similarly, we need to have available funding. AHA could not confirm that sufficient funding would be available for the new vouchers, and it must protect those 1,800 Alamedans who are currently subsidized by the housing authority. When we look at our two-year tool through HUD, our current projections show a deficit for 2027, which is when these vouchers would be realized, when they're committed under HUD. And that's even without the vouchers. We're already facing a deficit. But the board did not close the door. It directed staff to return at the September 16 board meeting with updated financial projections and information about whether the housing authority could run a competition. So moving forward, the board's decision does not reflect a difference in priorities between AHA and the city. It reflects an obligation to comply with the law. Thank you so much.

And we have your written comments. Our next speaker is Sylvia Martinez and Tushan Amar. Welcome, Speaker Martinez.

Hello, good evening, Mayor and Honorable City Council of Alameda. My name is Sylvia Martinez. I'm the Housing Development Director of the AHA, and my family are residents of Alameda. I'd like to congratulate Reshape and their team on solving the problem of funding the construction costs of this important project to bring in over $50 million in awards over the last nine months. The team now has the gift of time, nearly three years, to fund these operating costs. And we all need to be creative in this current environment. And in my three, almost four decades of affordable housing experience, you always need several backup plans. Given the current state and particularly the constrained federal funding environment that we are in, many affordable housing developers these days are relying on a combination of operating subsidies and rental subsidies. These could include various sources such as the VA, Proposition W funding from the County of Alameda, the city's proposed operating subsidy. The state has a new financing agency that commits to fully fund projects, especially those with AHSC and other state funding. All of these can be brought together to lower rents and support operations. Yes, it will be challenging to get these funds, but being in construction actually makes your project more viable and more attractive to many of these. of these sources. In the meantime, the team can focus on the existing residents, all of whom will get a housing choice voucher. Vouchers are not canceled on these residents. These residents are able to get a voucher that allows them to make real choices under the protection of the voucher program. And I just want to make that out there in case any tenants are listening. They're not being canceled. They're being extended a housing choice voucher, which will allow them to move back into Stardust Gardens or another appropriate place as they choose.

We also think that, thank you. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Dijana Morris or Rodina.

Good evening, mayor and city council members. You are facing a very difficult challenge. It's significant amount of money or enabling a project that has been long in the works. And I hope you consider one main thing, which is the people that we enable to stay here. That is, at least to me, the most critical factor of any of these decisions. And I want to just reiterate how right now, Stardust Governance is a real project with real plans, real timelines, and a lot of real funding that will positively improve AD families. Now, I also want to raise one other big issue. The city put out a survey earlier this year asking what Alamedans really value. 71% said that housing is their biggest concern. The cost of housing is their biggest concern by far. And I think this is a chance for us to, tackle that very directly by not only enabling this project, but enabling the domino of other positive projects including up to 2,300 market rate and moderate income housing that can follow on. Lastly, I think it's clear from just observing from the seats back there that there are structural issues at play with how the Alameda Housing Authority and the city of Alameda are communicating and collaborating. And I hope we use this moment to figure out how we can ease those connections and make them more productive. And I hope we also use this as a moment to push upstream towards our representatives in Congress and state agencies to fix these funding streams. These are complex, and it is wildly concerning that one little thing can ripple into lots of projects, including a ferry terminal. So I hope you move forward with this subsidy, and thank you.

Thank you so much. Our next speaker. Vadim Sedelnikov.

Welcome, Speaker Sedelnikov.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor Pryor, members of the city council. My name is Vadim Sidonikov. I'm vice chair of the Alameda Housing Authority. I speak today as a resident. But I will remind you that you appointed me to this board, to the Alameda Housing Authority board, six years ago, and I have served in that capacity. I support the continued development of affordable housing and particularly supportive affordable housing on the base and throughout the city of Alameda. I do not think the record supports the suggestion that the city staff have made that the housing authority have fundamental differences and priorities when it comes to housing, in particular affordable housing. The Housing Authority's position has been consistent, and its staff have been telling the city staff for quite some time, as you heard tonight, that the Housing Authority is operating close to its available voucher funding, and that new project-based vouchers award must comply with HUD requirements. As you heard earlier tonight, our staff, myself, have spoken with HUD regulators, and they have told us that some of the things that city staff have requested are clearly prohibited had regulations and we could not make action that is contrary to that, that would put the housing authority at risk. Nor do I think he would want us to do that. The last few weeks have also demonstrated why the two agencies need to work together for the same information. We were repeatedly told by the city staff and MidPenn that MidPenn could not accept its MHP award without a housing authority commitment by August 21. MidPenn then accepted on August 20 without the commitment of the housing authority the MHP award. Before a deadline is used to drive a major public decision, we should know precisely what it requires, and so should you. In conclusion, I urge you to approve this item tonight. And I also urge you to encourage city staff, the housing authority staff, and Midpen to use this time to work directly through the remaining issues and find a solution moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker. Now we'll go to remote speakers. Joshua Hung.

Welcome, Speaker Hung. Welcome.

Thank you, city staff and city council. My name is Joshua Hahn. I'm a resident here at Alameda Point. I'm speaking remotely in support of the staff recommendation to support the reshape project with the stopgap funding. I know it's significant funds to commit, but I don't think the housing authority is being malicious here. And I appreciate them being thorough because it sounds to me like there are some complex requirements on how determining and issuing these vouchers should be done, which sounds really difficult to navigate. And I'm confident that the city housing authority and and city staff will be able to secure the project-based vouchers when the time comes. But even in the worst-case scenario where that doesn't come to pass, I still think this makes a lot of sense for the city financially. For example, here where I live at Alameda Point site A, there are about 130 recently constructed homes on just two blocks that bring in about $2.5 million per year in property taxes for various jurisdictions. And the West Midway redevelopment project at Field Buildout will have nearly $480 million. new homes that could bring in over $8 million, I think, in new property tax revenue for the city, the county, school districts, et cetera. The development of these homes will also demonstrate the viability for actual housing construction at Alameda Point in 2027, hopefully, that could unlock the stalled development at Site A over here where I live, where there are many planned developments that are on pause because of macroeconomic force majeure clauses in the development agreements. And I'm hoping that we can point to the West Midway development and then ask the Site A developers, like, hey, what's your excuse? Get a building, you know? So we can continue the infrastructure redevelopment at Alameda Point and meet our housing element goals for producing as much needed housing as we do. But none of this is going to happen unless the Stardust Gardens project begins construction. That's the domino that must fall to put all this in motion. So I ask the council to please approve the staff recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker. Sophia DeWitt. Welcome, Reverend Sophia DeWitt.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. Reverend Sophia DeWitt, Chief Program Officer at East Bay Housing Organizations and also proud resident in the city of Alameda. You have heard from many of our member organizations tonight already, as they've talked about the Reshape Project and this item. I'm almost sorry that I'm not there for the party in person, but I wanted to add my voice and say that we at EBHO support the city stepping in with this bridge financing for the operating expenses for the Stardust Gardens development. so that this project with this badly needed permanent supportive housing can move forward. And we hope that during the extra time afforded by this bridge financing, the city and the Alameda Housing Authority can finally come to an agreement over the use of project-based vouchers to help finance this important project. This project is important to the city, it's important to the people who badly need the housing, and as has been stated, the affordable part of the project and the market rate and commercial part of the project are linked together. So unless this can be resolved, All parts of the project are in jeopardy, and some of the funding that has already been secured for Stardust Gardens would also be in jeopardy. So please move this forward tonight, and I hope a final agreement can be reached soon. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Our next speaker. Zepeda Kilmarcy. If you recognize your name, welcome. and help us with pronunciation if that wasn't spot on.

Good evening, this is Sepideh Kimersi, Senior Management Analyst at the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority has regularly communicated with the city in Reshape across the last decade regarding different possibilities for this project. The Housing Authority has reviewed federal regulation and confirmed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development that the current PBV contract with Alameda Point Collaborative cannot be transferred to the new development. And the Housing Authority also cannot use the project's multifamily housing programs application to commit to a PBV award because of its reliance on PBV. The federal government has not changed its stance on these regulations in the last decade, and the Housing Authority has informed the city and Reshape of its inability to pursue these avenues several times. Since 2015, the Housing Authority has held five competitions for PBVs and Reshape has applied twice to these competitions. The proposals were scored by both Housing Authority staff and staff members from other Housing Authorities, and each time Reshape scored the lowest amongst competitors and was not awarded PBVs. Due to budget concerns and the lack of available funding, the Housing Authority has not held a PBV competition since 2022. The Housing Authority has been reviewing its current and projected financial position and more information about the agency's financial position will be presented during its September 2026 board meeting. The Housing Authority has also provided council and the city with a statement that provides additional information and has presented this information and more to its own board of commissioners during the August 2026 meeting. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker? Douglas Guerin. And is that remote or in-person? They're all remote. Oh, OK. Douglas?

Garen?

Garen? Welcome.

Yeah, it's Garen. Thank you. I just want to give a perspective of a normal citizen in Alameda. I moved here with my family in March of this year. And I'm very supportive of the plan. I hope that the city passes this. I also hope that city and the various entities and the housing authority can figure this out because i do think uh the funds that the city would have to give can be better spent in other ways if possible um but i think this is the uh the best possible way to to spend funds right now so i just want to give a normal citizen's perspective and i hope the the council passes this thank you

Thank you. Our next speaker.

Malia Vela, former council member and vice mayor. Welcome.

Speaker Vela.

Thank you and good evening. I wanna first start by thanking staff and coming up with the solution to keep Stardust Commons and help ensure reshape becomes a reality. I'm asking council to support the staff recommendation and to urge and work with the Alameda Housing Authority to ensure that we can get vouchers, project-based vouchers assigned to this project. This project has been discussed and worked on for close to a decade. And it is an essential part in meeting our arena goals that cannot be delayed. With 2031 just around the corner, we cannot afford to put a project this critical and tied to this many units at risk. Nearly a decade ago and over the years, we worked closely with our partners at Alameda Point Collaboratives as we were determining the need to offer some of these units to impacted residents. And my hope is that we can see this come to fruition. This project has not been a secret. AHA has had four years to run a competitive process, but it did not. And as recently as July, the board canceled its meeting rather than address the voucher issue while deadlines loomed. We had similar issues back in 2017 when there was a referral before the council to consider governance changes that may help in expediting and streamlining the process for our meetings to allow for more transparency and more direct involvement by an elected council. Alameda residents expect the City Council to resolve housing issues which have continued to grow and residents are best served by having clear access to and influence over the policy makers for operations. The elected council acting as the AHA board provides well-known and familiar access and direct accountability to the residents of Alameda and this was something that we had prior to 2011. My hope is that we perhaps look both at the short term and the long term as we address these issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker. Zach Bolling. Welcome, Speaker Bolling.

Evening, Councilor Mayer. Tonight I'm speaking on behalf of East Bay Yimby. And first off, I just want to say thank you to staff. Whatever failures got us to this last minute funding problem, we can't let it hold us up with these thousands of desperately needed homes. And I say that because We strongly urge council to approve this funding tonight. The Stardust is 80 deeply affordable homes, but then it's the first domino in a much bigger housing pipeline. 478 at West Midnight and potentially 2,300 at Alameda Point. And I can't stress this enough, how far behind Alameda is with facing our RENA obligations that we can't afford to lose or delay any housing that is already this far along in the pipeline. So I'll keep it brief. I'm traveling. I wish I could be there because of how important this issue is. But I wanted to call in quickly to reiterate our support as an organization for making sure that these homes get built as soon as possible. So thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker. Sorry about that. Michael Pucci in person.

Welcome, Speaker Pucci.

Thank you, Mayor Ashcraft and members of the City Council. This is bringing back some very bad memories of 2004 when the Housing Authority experienced a great shortfall in Section 8 funding due to the way HUD recalculated our funding formula. I sat in several meetings in this room, and city clerk may recall those, as well as former Housing Authority Commissioner Michael Torrey, where the room was full of people chanting, no peace, no justice, not only here, but in front of City Hall, in city parks, also picketing in front of my own home, because we had to terminate tenants from the Section 8 program. Now, the housing authority director mentioned that she did a two-year projection, which shows a shortfall of funding in 2027. That's a very dangerous place to go. We don't want to be there. So you have to be very careful. You have to listen to her. about funding for the future of the Section A program, because you don't want to be there. I was there, and I'll tell you, it's a nightmare. But one of the causes of that nightmare was a person that was hired by the city. And I wasn't planning on speaking here tonight, but I had to come and speak at the podium because One of the obstacles, the greatest obstacles that we experienced was through a HUD representative by the name of David Vargas, who the city unfortunately hired to look at the housing authority's, I guess, their Section 8 funding, which I'll tell you, the guy has no credibility. He thinks he knows more than he does. And but again, what I'd like to do is just say, yes, support this project. I think it's very well needed. But on the other hand, you need to listen to the housing authority and what their calculations are for the Section 8 program in the future. Thank you.

And at this moment, I am going to just interject to say that what I just heard was a slanderous statement. And it was made about someone who is not present to defend himself. And we are asked to believe, if you will, what was just said. This is not a court of law. If it were, that testimony wouldn't be. But again, you have First Amendment rights to say within reason what you choose to say. But as with anything else the city council hears, we can assign a particular weight to what we hear. Do we have further speakers? All right. So with that, we're almost at the two-hour point of the meeting, where I always take a break because staff needs it, everybody needs it. The psychiatrists at UCSF say a meeting shouldn't go longer than two hours without a break. So it's 8.53. Let's come back at 9.10 to get started again. Thank you, everyone. All right, Ryan and Chong, are we ready? We are ready. All right, everyone, please take your seats. This meeting is starting. All right. Please take your seats or stop talking. This meeting is going on. Thank you. So, counsel, I just want to take a minute. We don't often have an issue that is this contentious. But I do want to commend 99% of you for keeping your comments civil and courteous. It just goes to show that we can express different points of view without maligning one another. And nor do we need to, because it If you think your strongest argument is attacking someone else, you don't have a very strong argument. But I do understand that emotions are running high. I have taken the time to meet with two of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners who were willing to meet with me. At this point, after eight years as being mayor, I have appointed literally every one of them. And they're all very accomplished individuals. I also met with Vanessa Cooper, whom I've known for many years, last week in her office with Carly Grob, the board chair. And just to be clear, we are not trying to demonize anyone. I think that there has certainly been a significant level of frustration that has been reached because of deadlines. But here we are now, and we have a significant decision to make under a short time frame. And the questions that I would like answered and batted around maybe among the council, although I think some of them need to come, well, that we just need to consider, is we have heard it said that we'll all wait to see what happens at the September 16th Housing Authority Board of Commissioners meeting. As we were told, the board gave direction to staff to return in September with the possibility of a competitive process. When I asked the housing authority executive director, Ms. Cooper, if it was possible that the housing authority would also enter that competition for vouchers, she said yes. So it's just something to consider how level is the playing field. And then I was very intrigued. I've told the city manager more than once in the last week or so that it's just like unpeeling an onion. The more we dig, the more we learn, the more twists and turns there are. But just last week on Treasure Island, as we heard in the staff presentation, the housing authority of the city and county of San Francisco did this very transaction that we're seeking from the city of Alameda housing authority. I haven't heard anyone suggest that perhaps the housing authority of the city and county of San Francisco is violating federal law, violating HUD regulations. That was able to be done. And that's what I believe that people of goodwill can do. I do not pretend to have the level of expertise and knowledge. Actually, I have none when it comes to HUD. I read up and try to learn. But there are so many HUD regulations out there. So many. And then oftentimes there's a way forward. I want to just pause for a minute and note that the environment we find ourselves in with this particular administration certainly adds to the complexity. This is not an administration that has been friendly to affordable housing. And so that's certainly something to take into consideration, and yet The city also has been mindful of financial challenges the housing authority might face and has offered ways to alleviate that. And to the suggestion that we're asking or we're doing something illegal, Just knock it off, please. Let's just try to have a rational discussion. That's just not helpful. No one at this dais is asking for anything illegal to be done. If I didn't have such a thick skin, I would be offended by the inference. But after 14 years in elected office, there's very little that really offends me. However, I would be horrified to think that well-needed, badly-needing housing doesn't move forward. And to that end, let me just say that housing should not be weaponized, that those who hold vouchers now should not be threatened that they might somehow lose those vouchers. I'm just asking that we move forward as rational people, people of goodwill. We may see things differently, but we're all coming from a place of just wanting to problem solve, I believe. But we also have to look at what this commitment means to the city, especially, I mean, the part that just stops my heart, it doesn't really, but gives me heartburn, let's say, is it's not just a million dollars. It's funny these days, you know, a million dollars here, a million dollars there. No, I'm not making light of that. But we could come up with a million dollars. But this letter says 20 years, although I did hear Abby Thorn-Lyman. We have Abby squared there in the front. I call them. I'm in the front row. Mentioned that we might be asked to approve a modified letter. And so I do, because as it's made very clear in the staff report, There's a lot of things we will not do that are needed to be done at Alameda Point. None of this comes from the general fund. This is all from revenues we're receiving from Alameda Point. But if you read the staff report, it's like balance. We bring in this much, and we spend that same amount. So something's got to give. Something's not going to get done. Some maintenance is going to get deferred. It's not good. So I want to feel that we've got a partner in the Housing Authority. I meet with them quarterly. I applaud all the projects they've been able to do. I want to see them bring that same level of dedication and competence to helping this project, even though it didn't originate as a Housing Authority project. At the end of the day, we've all got the same goal. Let's house people who need housing, especially the ones who badly need housing. And that's what Stardust Gardens is supposed to do. So council, what are we going to do? Who's got thoughts, ideas they'd like to share? Who wants to start? Council Member Daszak, I'm trying to read that expression. Is that a yes, I'll go next?

Yes. Happy to go. Let me just begin by saying, honestly, I think this matter just involves far too much drama to see what's going on, read about this in the San Francisco Chronicle, to see the different official documents being sent. Far too much drama, so I really encourage I really encourage us to dial down the temperature in the room between city hall staff and the housing authority staff. I think we should just simply keep our eyes on really what's the most important prize, and that's building Stardust Gardens as soon as possible. And if that means bridge financing, stopgap financing of $1 million this year, I think that's what we need to do. Yes, the staff report does indicate that the base reuse fund is operating on thin margins, $14 million coming in and then $14 million expended each year. But we don't come into this without resources, though. The base reuse fund has approximately $28 million in reserves. So there is flexibility. But the flexibility can't go on forever. This stopgap financing, the bridge financing, really is meant for us to really sit down, our staff and the housing authority staff, to buy time for them to sit down and figure out the permanent solution. And in terms of the $28 million in reserves that the base reuse fund has, let's bear in mind that the base reuse fund often is subject to immense amounts of swings in expenditures such that the base reuse reserves goes down dramatically from one year to the next now and then. But over the past 10 years, it's gone from $3.7 million to $7.9 million to $41.2 million to $41.2 million to $20.3 million. So it dipped. And then up to $53.4 million and then to $56.3 million in 2022. and then down again to $46.2 million in 2023, and then $43.4 million in the end of fiscal year 2024. And so when we closed the books last year, it went from $43.4 million to the amount of today, which is roughly $28.4 million. So we have reserves that gives us time to play, but we can't rely on those reserves forever. So let's move ahead with bridge financing and whatever stopgap financing. so that the Stardust Gardens project can move ahead. But let's definitely dial down the temperature in the room. Let's not be threatening the Alameda Housing Authority of a city council takeover. For me, that's not on the table. I had the pleasure of serving as the housing commissioner as a city council member way back way back when, and I enjoyed it very much. But I also like having the quasi-independent housing authority that we have now. I think it's a great approach that we're doing. And the reason why I think it's important for us to move ahead with bridge financing and stopgap financing, I first supported the homeless collaborative, now called the Alameda Point Collaborative, way back in 1995. It's 29 years old. And it's a commitment that I've made, and it will continue to make. And I think building housing for the most vulnerable makes Alameda Point such an exciting place, that we're not just building housing for people who can afford Bayport, as welcome as Bayport residents are. Thank you very much. But we need to continue with our commitment, not just to the military when it comes to base closure, but our commitment to making a new society where we're building modern new housing for people of all incomes and backgrounds. Let's dial down the temperature. Let's just focus on bridge financing and stopgap financing. But we make our decisions with eyes wide open. So that would be my support. And I really encourage us not to threaten takeover of the Housing Authority. I like their quasi-independent nature. Thank you.

Thank you. Should we just go down the road? You ready to go? Sure. I'll go.

So tomorrow, I walk across the street. I go to the Alameda Free Library. I find 20 people randomly. I bring them into a conference room. And I say, hey, I want to tell you a story. And I tell them a story about some residents, future residents, potentially, of a place called Stardust Gardens. And I talk to them about the fact that there's this whole world out there in the regulatory world where we have these different types of voucher programs. What should we do with these vouchers? And they hear about the story about the collaboration between the various partners that have been involved over the years in this, the timeline of how much effort's gone into it. And it's been by the efforts of lots of communications with the housing authority, with the city. But the nonprofit partners, the developer, the Alameda Point Collaborative, Operation Dignity, the different people that have put a lot of investment into these residents. And you hear their stories. You hear their life stories in this meeting in the library. 20 random people, right? And say, what should we do? If we had the vouchers, what should we do with these vouchers? And you tell them further about the grant applications that have been made over the years and the fact that this project has gotten, through one of the grants, the number one ranking in all of California. And you tell them about the environmental side of this project and how there's going to be this collaboration with electrification for the ferry and this infrastructure and how we're trying to create a more walkable community that is honoring the dignity that we want to give to all Alameda residents, including those who are extremely in need. And I think you're going to find that I could probably get everyone to agree that these vouchers, to the extent that vouchers are out there, without even mentioning the fact that they already have vouchers, should go to these residents. And it would just be wonderful, wouldn't it, if everyone in the room who was part of that conversation would just say, we're going to make this happen. And I know there's limits to what you can say, and there's rules, and there's reasonable differences on all those. I completely agree with the comments of the mayor, the council member as well on this. We can work together and make this happen. That needs to be the spirit of the conversation going forward. One of the things I do want to make sure as part of this is that if there are subsidies, because there was some talk in the conversation today about other potential subsidies that could be applied. If anything like that happens, I want to make sure that the city gets credit to that. Because the city is going out on the line. This is a bit of really strong leadership on the part of our new city manager and his staff to get here today. This was not an easy path to follow. And I want to make sure that our commitment as a city is very much restricted to exactly what the intent is. So for example, if alternative funding sources can reduce the city's commitment proportionally, it doesn't have to be that the entire amount has to be duplicated elsewhere in a different way. that if there's like, for example, instead of tenant based vouchers, if there's project based, I mean, instead of project based vouchers, if there's tenant based vouchers that can be applied, that those would be an offset for us. If there's any, it was mentioned, veterans type voucher funds like HUD VASH, which is Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing. Or if there's Alameda County Measure W funds that we've heard a lot about in terms of where the county is going to be spending on this type of resources, grants, rental assistance, anything about that deals with the project income count, any things like that. So I have some proposed language to add to the mix that we could put up at some point. But I just want to make sure that there's some guardrails and it's really clear that this commitment. And I fully expect in the spirit of that meeting that could take place.

I don't want to see that yet. We haven't even had all of our council comments.

Thank you, Ms. Weisinger. the spirit of you know that meeting happening at the library right i i just i just want to make it clear that um the city wants to do its part but ultimately we don't think we're going to need to spend any money on this we want the federal funds to go to this purpose that is why we're here tonight uh vice mayor prayer okay um

All right, so I'm choosing not to opine about some of the comments I heard here tonight, because my biting remarks will change no hearts or minds. But I do want to stress my trust and respect for Abby Thorne Lyman. and our city manager, Jerry Bodine, and our community partners, and I could go on and on. Because so many people have been working diligently to get our Alameda residents into new homes. And just like Councilmember Bullard just said, we can work together. and find a way forward. And part of that is tonight, this vote. I just want to say that I completely support staff recommendation. High quality and safe homes. Tell these families who will move into Stardust Gardens that you matter, you are important, and you belong here. Yeah.

That's it. Thank you, Council Member Pryor. I'm sorry, Council Member Jensen.

I could also pose many questions to city staff and housing authority leaders. And I could ask what happened. I could ask why their positions are so far apart. And I could ask what we and the housing authority could have done better, how we could have communicated better. I'd probably get very different answers, as we've heard tonight, very different answers on all of those things. But if I asked both parties, both the Housing Authority and city staff and city leaders and anyone on this council about their commitment to expanding housing opportunities for vulnerable Alameda residents, I would get agreement, I'm sure. We would agree that that is what we are committed to doing. And so that's my focus too. And tonight I'm going to support the interim funding recommendation with that in mind and with the intent and objective to make sure that reshape housing continues, that this project continues, and that all of the housing that's been planned comes to fruition. And so that those residents currently at Alameda Point Collaborative and other residents can receive the necessary housing that they deserve. From there, what I can hope for and what I trust will also happen is that city staff and the housing authority will work together. We'll turn the page and work together and make sure that this doesn't happen in the future and that we can all address and recognize that we have the same commitment, we have the same goals, and we can work together. So that's my hope, and I appreciate staff for bringing this forward to make sure that the reshape project does not get stalled.

So I have a question for whomever on staff wants to answer. I am concerned that if we make this commitment to fund a million dollars a year and then with an accelerator or for the percentage increase over the years, then the housing authority will just say they don't need any stopgap funding. The city can cover it. What's our protection from that?

There isn't any direct protection from the Housing Authority deciding not to move forward with vouchers. We do have two years to work through those details. And in reality, we have until the end of the year. I'll just be really candid. At the point in time when MidPen accepts the funding, should they be the successful 4% tax credit recipients, a recipient, that project is off and running. And that commitment is now a real thing, because when the project is complete, those operating dollars are necessary. What I would say is that the housing authority exists at the pleasure of the city council, and that council priorities and pipeline planning needs to be more cohesive and collaborative. And so there is no guarantee that the housing authority will what they're authorized to do through the federal voucher program. And we have offered to backstop financially. There is no guarantee. But again, the housing authority exists at the pleasure of the city council. And ultimately, if we're not able to get, if the project vouchers are going directly to Alameda Housing Authority projects and not being offered to these kinds of projects, then I think we're going to have an alignment issue because we're on phase one of four of the reshape project, and every cycle is going to need vouchers.

OK, and Abby Thorn-Lyman, was there anything you wanted to add? You're good? OK. So I would suggest we take things one step at a time, maybe not get too far out ahead of ourselves. I think all eyes or many eyes will be on the Housing Authority meeting, which will be the 16th of September and so that's that's actually the day after our next City Council meeting so Keep an eye and what would we hope for from that? What would be the best possible outcome from that meeting? I

a commitment to run a competitive process or to decide to use the previously approved ASIC grant as the competitive process, like the San Francisco Housing Authority had done, one of those two alternatives would work for MidPenn Housing and for the city.

OK. And I think we've heard from some source we talked to that a competitive process can be initiated rather quickly.

Correct. Yeah. Ideally, we'll have a response again by the, I believe it's December 8th, is when the mid-PEN would have to accept the 4% tax credit.

And So Ms. Thorne-Lyman, you had indicated in the beginning of your staff report that we might be asked to approve a modified version of the letter. Do you have any thoughts about that at this point?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. We really just, per Council Member Baller's comments and concerns regarding ensuring that the letter provides the ability to have other sources come in and that our commitment reduces when those other operating subsidies come in, we just want to try to work collectively with our acting city attorney to just try to finesse those words in the letter to make it very clear that we will be We are the safety net for if there is no operating subsidy besides ours, if that makes sense.

So with all due respect to my colleague, who I know as an attorney, but a district, a deputy district attorney, I'm going to ask that we let the legal staff of the city of Alameda and our base for use in economic development department, I'm sure they will take your suggestions into consideration. I really don't want to do the wordsmithing tonight on the dais.

Sure. I mean, as long as it's some language that gives them flexibility, I think that's

I think that's what I just heard Ms. Thorne-Lyman say. Are you in agreement with that? Mr. Acting City Attorney?

Yes, Madam Mayor. The council could direct staff to move forward with the commitment letter in substantial conformance with what has been presented tonight. So adding the additional layer of flexibility.

And taking into account the remarks Ms. Thornlyman just made.

Yes, Madam Mayor.

Okay.

Would you like to make a motion with that direction? No, that sounds great. And just for everyone's information, I shared some language with the acting city attorney, the city manager, the clerk, and... So I think it's all understood. That sounds like, based on those comments.

I think that's great. I prefer not to do the wordsmithing on the dais. Council Member Desai.

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to accept staff's recommendation as expressed in paragraph 1 under staff recommendation of the staff report. with the proviso regarding making sure that the commitment letter is in, I think you said substantial. Substantial conformance, Council Member. Yes, substantial conformance with what was expressed this evening. And I think if I could add one more minor amendment and just have the city manager regularly report back to us on what's going on.

Oh.

That's it.

That's the motion. Let's just hear from Ms. Thorne-Lyman quickly about anything you would add to that language of the motion.

I think that sounds fantastic.

OK. Anything you want to read to us? Do you have a paper with you?

Oh, no, I just pulled up the slide where, yeah. Substantial conformance is exactly what we were aiming for here. Thank you.

And incorporating the concerns expressed by Councilmember Boehler as well, correct? Yes. All right.

And if I can make a comment. I made a motion. Is there a second?

Yes, you can make a comment. Oh, let's get a second to the motion, then you make a comment. Seconded by Council Member Bowler. Make your comment, Council Member Desai.

My quick comment is, so in the SAS recommendation, paragraph three is an alternative that indicates that city council wishes to explore the possibility of making changes to the housing. So the reason why I made emphasis on paragraph one is to de-emphasize paragraph three. Thank you. So appreciate it.

Yeah, I would say that's part of the let's take one step at a time. We'll get there. OK, we've had a motion. We've had a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. Any opposed or abstentions? That measure passes unanimously. Thank you to staff Especially the city manager Abby Thorne Lyman city attorney's office all of our partners for working so hard And let's keep working to get to yes because this is just not something Cities should be squabbling over and all we need to do is look across the bay It's a short ferry ride to Treasure Island and see what? they're able to do with their development, with their housing authority. And I think that's a great model to emulate. And one of my favorite mayors around the country is Mayor Lurie in San Francisco. So let's do a San Francisco model. All right, everybody. Let's move on to item 7B. Madam Clerk, would you introduce that item for us, please?

Recommendation to provide direction on and authorize the city manager to finalize and transmit the city of Alameda's response to findings and recommendations contained in the 2526 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, A Call for Readiness Improving the City of Alameda's Emergency Preparedness.

Thank you. And are you taking that? Let's give just a minute for the group to leave. Okay. Okay. Let's go on. Mr. City Manager.

Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members. The recommendation on this item this evening is to provide any feedback that you may have on the draft. response to the grand jury's report. That report is called A Call for Readiness, Improving the City of Alameda's Emergency Preparedness, and then ultimately authorized me, the city manager, to finalize and transmit the response to the presiding judge. Council adopted an updated emergency operations plan in April of 2026, the first update that had happened in about seven years, and that was following a consultant-led process that began in May of 2025 which was before the grand jury convened on this topic. Multiple items in the grand jury report were flagged as already being addressed through the EOP update. So I want to just call that out to start off our presentation this evening. Staff agree with several aspects of the report and have already acted on a number of things, like the EOP is flexible and the update was overdue. We agree that a five-year update cycle is something that we'll move forward with. We agree that we don't have an outdoor siren system in the city and that social media messaging during 2024 and 2025 tsunami events did have room for improvement. There are some areas that we did not agree, like the grand jury recommendation to discontinue having a disaster registry. This is essentially a list of people who may need some additional help during an emergency. Cal OES doesn't prohibit these registries. They only flag the challenges that may come with them. And they have published guidance for maintaining these kinds of lists. And we believe it adds value for post-disaster welfare checks and for resource allocation, maybe not instead of community partnerships. We'll also note that the grand jury said that the EOP doesn't require after action reports for actual emergencies. We disagree with that. There is a section in our EOP that explicitly requires after action reports, and those after action reports were completed after the COVID-19 pandemic emergency operations center and the 2024 tsunami warning. We partially agree with the finding related to a lack of training and exercises. Our EOC last specific exercise was in June of 2024. But we're not starting from zero here. There are four scenario-based EOC trainings that were already built into the 2026 EOP. And we'll be beginning those training sessions this fall. Moving forward, we intend to make training and preparedness part of our work. We will be looking into the feasibility of a siren system and we'll be reporting back on those findings. We do intend to have citywide preparedness work for the community starting to happen in October of 2026 when we'll be doing some direct mail. communications manager having that position filled permanently will be helpful and we'll be coordinating additional social media protocol for informing our community about emergency preparedness and particularly during an emergency and then the EOC roster and training sessions again starting this fall our goal is to have about two tabletop exercises per year improve coordination with our ADA coordinator and our Commission on persons with disability to make sure that we're being inclusive in our emergency planning efforts and then emergency Management staff are developing in-person emergency preparedness training for the community not just for staff I'm gonna I'm just gonna close by by know appreciating the grand jury's review it gave us an outside perspective on our program this is something that we will take very seriously the community does rely on the city as a as a resource and as a primary responder but not just to the emergency itself but any recovery efforts that are necessary and so we want to be as prepared as we need to be to best meet the needs of the community and with that i'll conclude staff's presentation and Myself and our fire chief, Nick Luby, are here this evening to handle questions on this item. Thank you.

And Chief Luby, was there anything you wanted to add? Come on up.

good evening madam mayor fellow council members Nick Luby fire chief for the city of Alameda I will just echo what the city manager just shared with everyone that we are always open to feedback the grand jury's efforts and time and was a year-long process we do value that we put a lot of thought into the response and working with city manager in the response. And I will say, personally, there is always going to be room for improvement. We're never going to be perfect. And we're going to take what we agree with and what we feel that we can make improvements. And we're going to move forward with it and act on them and make this community that much better.

That sounds good. All right. Thank you. Council, any clarifying questions from either Chief Lubbe or the city manager? And Council Member Boller?

Thank you. Just a point of clarification with the technical requirement in terms of if a recommendation has been implemented, will be implemented, or requires further analysis. If you look at the number 29 and 30, if we're getting hyper-technical on that, I don't think I see that exact language. So we might want to consider adding that. I'm sorry. One more time. So it's a question if we should consider adding that.

What was the reference? What paragraph?

29 and 30, the last two.

The recommendation?

And the recommendations, right, for the last two.

And I apologize. What should we consider?

I think I have it, Chief. I'll start. OK. So 30 is regarding requiring after action reports. And that is one where we disagree. We actually already require that in our emergency operations plan. And regarding recommendation 29, It's also related to after action reports. And so I think there was a miscommunication with the grand jury in terms of what the city's updated emergency operation plan required with respect to after action reports. We do that. It is a requirement of the plan. And we've actually had recent after action reports that were not acknowledged in the report.

Thank you. And I'm probably getting too technical, but I just I'm just wondering whether or not the language, this precise language, has been implemented, needs to be in there to satisfy the penal code section.

I see. We can do that as part of our, we can talk about the fact that it has been implemented, if that's helpful.

Now I get what you're saying. Yeah, that's all. Yes. The language criteria given by the grand jury of the three different, got it. Okay.

I understand now, too. Okay. Anything further, counsel? And, Council Member Jensen?

Thank you. It's with regard to one of the responses. I will ask this. It's not actually a technical question, so I could hold off. It's not my opinion either, so I'm just trying to.

What is it you want to ask?

With regard to the finding 2645 regarding the in-person disaster preparedness training, and I don't have the I see that we're responding that outreach, with regard to the outreach that's been done, but is there additional information about actual training?

What number are you on? Sorry, I apologize.

You understand what I'm saying? Which number?

It's 2645. 2645. Thank you. The discussion is about outreach, the response, partial agreement.

yes please I'm still looking for it okay so finding 2645 city of Alameda has failed to conduct any in-person disaster preparedness training since 2019 our response to that and there's also a recommendation I believe correlates with that we took we looked at it two different ways one city staff EOC staff that we as Manager Bowden said you know we already have built that into the EOP EOP project and we have upcoming training that we're working on scheduling and we're actually going to be expanding that training for city staff On the other side, for outreach into the community, we already do that. We do use our CERT team. Our CERT team was out this Saturday. Our CERT volunteers are out in the community at the Art and Wine Festival, Alameda Hospital events, providing that. But we are committed to taking it to the next level. And EOC, or emergency management staff, is developing basically a workshop format that we will take to the community. We're looking at using some kind of format, Eventbrite, to register for it. And so we'll keep it as a small group, and we will offer those to the community, like a four-hour workshop. Because we do a lot with CERT, and we get people CERT trained, but Part of this, we did realize there is a gap where someone may just want to come and get four hours of instruction on how to prepare, how to build a disaster kit, what to do in a disaster, how to communicate during a disaster. So that is being developed right now, and that will be rolling out this coming fall for the community. Does that help?

That answers much of my question. That's for the community. And as I read the response, though, I wanted you to add, I know that CERT is mentioned as active engagement. But it seems to me that CERT is actually an in-person disaster preparedness program that we've offered for quite a number of years.

That is correct. It is a disaster preparedness program, shall we say, on steroids. You've got to go through the eight modules online. And as some of you have already completed it, thank you very much for participating. And then you do the weekend commitment. Where we think we may have a gap and where we think the grand jury was saying is, In case someone doesn't want to do eight online modules and commit two days on a weekend, we're trying to find a smaller module of four hours where you can just come. And trust me, when they come, we'll be encouraging them to go through cert. But just trying to give another option so you don't have to do such a lengthy process to get certified.

Thank you. Although I'll just interject that I do encourage people to do the CERT training. It is both online, as the chief said, and you can't move from one module to the next. You pass all your tests. But it was really thorough. Would this be a good place, a good time to mention what is coming up on October 17 in conjunction with Supervisor Tam's office?

I would love to mention October 17th. So in conjunction with Supervisor Tam's office, we will be co-hosting a disaster preparedness workshop. We will be doing it for 300 residents. We'll be capped at 300 residents, and the sign-ups for that will be starting soon. We're working closely with the supervisor's staff to coordinate that, and that will be I like to call it kind of like a back to school night. It will have four different modules that will take place during a four to five hour session, 30 to 45 minutes in each module, and then you get up and you move to the next presentation. Disaster preparedness will be probably emergency medical, stop the bleed. We're still developing the curriculum, but yes. And October 17th is also the anniversary of a big earthquake, if you all remember. So it just happened that way that we are landing on an anniversary date. So what better time to come out and learn more about making sure you're prepared.

And for every household that completes the four modules, and lunch will be included, but for every household that completes the four modules, you will get a disaster preparedness backpack all packed with supplies. So anyone listening, keep an eye on, is it the city's website? Is that where we're going to have signups?

We'll work with their staff and we will get it. We will get the information out.

Thank you. It was sort of a Jeopardy style question. What is? OK. Any more clarifying questions? And then Madam Clerk, do we have public comment? We have none. We have none. OK. With that, we will close item 7B and move on to item 7C.

Both.

Oh, a motion. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Yes. I'm trying to be efficient here, people. Could I have a motion? Thank you. It's been moved by Council Member Jensen, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor to authorize City Manager to finalize and transmit City of Alameda's response to the findings and recommendations contained in the 526 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled A Call for Readiness, Improving the City of Alameda's Emergency Preparedness. So we have a motion and a second. No comment by the city manager.

I will add 26 29 and 26 30 will add some clearer language to meet the grand jury language in that motion. It's okay with the sure Thank you.

Clear is always better so with that Motion second all those in favor, please signify by stating aye Okay, that was unanimous. Thank you. Now we can move on to item 7 C madam clerk. Would you introduce that item, please?

Introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a second lease amendment for a portion of building 41 with Dora Marine Corp operations located at 650 West Mall Tower Avenue at Alameda Point, Alameda, California, for an additional term of six months with two six-month extension options. This item requires four affirmative votes. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, this action is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301, existing facilities, and 1506. 1-5-0-6-1-B-3, Common Sense.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, mayor and city council. My name's Alicia Strauch. I am one of your base reuse managers here for the city of Alameda. I am presenting for you tonight a second lease amendment with an existing tenant of the city's Dewar Marine Operations for their continued occupancy in building 41 on Alameda Point. I don't know if I'm close enough. There we go. So building 41 There we go. Building 41 was constructed in 1945 by the Navy. It is a contributing historic structure. It is a very highly desirable building. It's located near the entrance to our adaptive reuse area at Alameda Point, right on the corner of West Tower and Pan Am. The building has a beautiful open interior layout, really great clear height. It has two hanger doors, one facing east and west. It's also serviced by a new infrastructure, which was installed under the city's master infrastructure plan, or MIP. Council direction, as part of our overall strategic disposition plan, has been to continue to lease building 41 until it is fully conveyed by the Navy. Right now, it is kind of sitting in that PFAST remediation limbo. And really, our end goal is to be able to sell this building. So Deep Ocean Exploration and Research, or DUER, Marine Operations, they're a marine consulting firm. They've been located in Alameda Point for over a decade in this portion of building 41. It really houses their office space, some workshop a big workshop area that they use for engineering, assembly, and testing of undersea marine vehicles and technology. The premises also provides them space where they host educational offerings. And they also have a retail dive shop in the front that is open to the public. So Dewar's current lease agreement, it recently expired. And I'm here today to recommend to council to approve a second amendment to that lease. What it's going to do is it's going to add a six-month extension. And it's also going to offer up two six-month renewal options after that. So there is a total of 18 months in duration that's possible. But it's really important for the council to understand that the two renewal options will require mutual approval. So Dewar could exercise it, and we asked that the city manager would have the authority to mutually agree to it. So we think that this is really going to give us the flexibility that we need to kind of see how the conveyance works out with the Navy and also continue to move forward with our plan, which is to continue to market this for a long-term lease and perhaps a purchase option. Because our goal, as I said before, really is to sell this building. The monthly rent for the first six months will stay consistent with what DOOR has been paying now, but each extension option will have a 5% escalator on it. And so with that, I am asking that the city council consider approval of the ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute this lease amendment. And it's really supported by the reasons that I've discussed here. And there's a lot more detail that is in the staff report. So with that, I will take any questions.

Thank you for that. Nice report. Does anyone have any questions, clarifying questions? No, okay. We have a public speaker. Yes.

Elizabeth Taylor?

Yes. Welcome, Speaker Taylor. Got your email. Hello. I'm here. Thank you so much.

I just really wanted to convey my gratitude to the council and to city staff for working with us on this lease. As many of you have been to visit us and know that we... We really have these multi-year projects that go on and are very committed to staying in Alameda and particularly as long as we can possibly stay where we are and continuing to grow our educational elements and community outreach. We've been working very hard to bring the BCAP program to Northern California, which is the Blue-Green Economic Development Partnerships with the community colleges and Really, again, extreme gratitude for your consideration. And I'll just keep it short there. And I know it's been a long night for you guys. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker? That was the oldest speaker. That was it. OK. Was that a motion from you, Council Member? OK, Council Member Daszak moves staff recommendation. And we have a second by Council Member Boehler. Any further comments? Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. And that was unanimous. Thank you. Okay, and then we move on to 7D.

Introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a third lease amendment with Faction Brewing Company, LLC, a California limited liability company for building 22, suite 200, located at 2501 Monarch Street at Alameda Point. This item requires four affirmative votes.

All right.

welcome good evening madam mayor vice mayor and members of the city council my name is annie cox i'm an analyst with the base reuse and economic development department and i'm here tonight to seek your consideration for a third lease amendment with an existing tenant faction brewing for a portion of 2501 monarch street which is also called building 22. Constructed in 1941 by the Navy as a maintenance hangar, building 22 is approximately 65,000 square feet. It also is a historic contributing structure. It has those beautiful 50-foot clear height spans. It is divided into two bays and fully occupied. So currently, Gold Bar Spirits is in one suite, and Faction Brewing is in another suite. Both tenants have exclusive patio and yard space that's abutting federally owned property. And due to their proximity to the nesting site of the protected California lease turn colony, there are outdoor use restrictions in place. Since its opening in 2012, Faction has established itself as a well-known Bay Area brewery, drawing visitors from across the region to enjoy the tasting room and events. The current rent is $25,525 a month, approximately $0.79 per square foot, and the current initial term of the lease expires in 2028. So a little history on the amendments. In October of 2020, Faction and seven other Spirits Alley tenants received COVID-era rent deferral. Faction was able to repay all deferred rent early, meeting the obligations of Amendment 1. In April of 2024, Council approved a second amendment for a retroactive three-month rent deferral after Faction proactively approached city staff with financial concerns. Some of these concerns stemmed from the brewery industry's sluggish recovery from the pandemic, particularly for in-person tasting room sales and events, coupled with road closures at Alameda Point for infrastructure improvements and severe inclement weather. In late 2024, Faction became unable to make their payments per the Second Amendment and proactively again reached out to city staff. Over the last two years, staff have worked closely with FACTION and twice engaged City Council in closed session. Direction from City Council was for staff to continue to work collaboratively with FACTION on certain required actions to support FACTION's effort to develop a feasible business plan and for FACTION to make specific improvements to their space. And these would be conditions of consideration of a third amendment. Faction has met all those required actions. In summary, at the time of the publication of the staff report, the tenant owed a total of $222,036 in a combination of deferred rent, unpaid rent, and assessed late fees. So concurrent to the negotiations over the past two years, staff and economic development have also made efforts to support Alameda Point businesses as a whole, developing a website to promote food, drink, and recreation activities at Alameda Point. Additionally, staff worked with the biological consultant and structural engineer to get approval for the installation of shade structures on the western portion of Spirits Alley buildings, which is the portion that faces the lease turn colony. The approval they received from the US Fish and Wildlife Service allowed Spirits Alley tenants to apply for a facade grant to assist with exterior improvements such as shade structures and signage. The proposed Third Amendment extends the initial term by three years, plus replaces the two-year renewal options with one two-year renewal option. It memorializes a repayment schedule, providing a mechanism to recover unpaid past due rent. It issues a one-time conditional credit if the tenant successfully completes the installation of the new shade structure and exterior signage. And it maintains the same monthly rent and 3% annual escalator. The amended term with option generates $1.8 million in revenue. So while negotiating this lease amendment, I would like to report that the tenant has begun paying the full rent, and that's since February of 2026. They've made changes to their business model, increased product distribution, expanded marketing, and increased hosted events. Additionally, they have designed and received permit approval for a permanent shade structure for the back patio and updated signage. The installation of the patio is pending the end of the lease turn nesting season. However, you can see in this photo here that the updated signage has been completed. Staff recommend approval of the first reading of the ordinance for a third lease amendment with faction on the terms described in both the staff report and the proposed third amendment. Thank you so much for the opportunity to present this item to you. I'm available to answer any clarifying questions.

Thank you. Nice job. Any clarifying questions? Council? Council Member Jensen?

Thank you for the presentation. So you mentioned that Faction had recently begun paying the full amount of rent?

Correct, February of 2026. And that was per closed session direction given by city council.

So but they're still in arrears by $222,000. That's correct. And so given that outstanding rent, did staff consider a shorter term lease? Or would that be feasible?

So the adjusted extending the initial term by three years gives us a full five-year runway for the repayments to be scheduled out for that amount of time, which makes it a low enough payment that was amenable to the tenant.

And do we have any, what's our ability to terminate if a faction is unable to continue to pay the outstanding balance or meet the current lease terms?

This amendment does not change or reduce our ability to terminate or seek a UD if they were unable to meet the payments.

Thank you. That was an unlawful detainer. Thank you. Well, I want to commend staff for working with this longtime Alameda business. They have gone through economic hard times, but they are such a vibrant part of the Spirits Alley complex. And so I'm glad to see them. forging ahead. So no further council comments. Madam Clerk, do we have public comment? We have none. No public comments. So then what I'm looking for is a motion and a second to approve this ordinance authorizing city manager to execute the third lease amendment with Faction Brewing Company, et cetera, et cetera. Is that you, Vice Mayor Pryor? Yes. So moved. All right. So moved by Vice Mayor Pryor, seconded by Council Member Bowler. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. Aye. That was unanimous. All right, then we move on to item eight, city manager communications.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to keep it really short tonight. I want to thank everyone who came out to Alameda Fire Department's 150th celebration last Saturday. It was fun, family friendly, and I know that the fire team put a ton of work into that, and it looked like a good time was had by all. So I want to appreciate that and acknowledge the 150 years of service. Also, for those who haven't had a chance yet to meet our new library director, I just want to call out Mary Abler. Mary started on August 3rd, and since we had the August break, this is the first time that we're able to call it out. Yeah, Alameda Free Library has a new director, and we're excited to welcome Mary. And if you see her in the halls of City Hall or here at a meeting sometime soon, please make sure you say hi. With that, it's been a busy night, and I'm going to conclude my comments. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And I'll just tag on to that, that if you read my September newspaper article in the East Bay Times and the Alameda Post, I do a feature on the new library director, who's also very photogenic. We had Maurice Ramirez take some photos. And one of them, I just sent the photos to the editors and said, I can't choose. You choose. But yeah, she's a very exciting new addition to city staff. Madam Clerk, we have number nine is oral communications.

We still have a speaker, Katie Connell.

Welcome. OK. A long, patient, you get the prize for the longest waiting. Welcome.

Thank you. Yeah, I always end up speaking in the middle of the night here somehow. Hi. Good evening. It's Megan. I am speaking to you tonight because I want to talk about the decision of who's going to occupy that fabulous waterfront building that Rockwall was once in. And I think it's more than just about filling a building. I think that that's such an amazing spot. Who we choose for these kinds of spaces is really a decision about Alameda's identity. So this place, it's on the beautiful waterfront. It's a site with history. And it has a connection to the space that Alameda occupies in the Bay. Rockwall really understood that it was an important location. People want to be here. They want to gather, experience, drink, celebrate, create, and connect. So I feel that that kind of placemaking really matters when we think about who our tenants are going to be in all of these waterfront spaces. A city is not defined by its buildings, but it's the places where people come together, really tell us about who we are. So I think there's a real opportunity. Just as homemaking makes a house a home, placemaking really makes a space a place. And people want a reason to leave their homes and connect with people in their community. Arts, culture, restaurants, small businesses, creative enterprises, those are all reasons for people to come out and be together in the community. These are destinations and experiences that make this city feel like our city. So a data center, a defense contractor, these kinds of things, they might serve economic purposes. But it really fundamentally changes the potential of what could be in those waterfront spaces. And it doesn't require or inspire people to come there to gather, connect at all. So I hope the council will ask themselves, what is it that Alameda wants that West End waterfront to be? And it's not just choosing a tenant. It's choosing on behalf of us, the residents of Alameda, what kind of city we're going to be. So are our beautiful spaces gonna be utilitarian buildings or are they gonna be destinations where people are connecting and experiencing and making memories? We don't have infinite opportunities to shape places like this, and this is one of those opportunities. So I hope you think about choosing a tenant that can recognize the value of the location, the value of people connecting with other people, and having that be at the center of what happens there.

Thank you. Thank you. That was all? Yeah. OK. Oh, wait.

I'm sorry. One more person remote. Just so they can miss it. Yes. Welcome. Yes. Remote is allowed. Yep. Leo Escalando. Wait.

Not on oral communication, not agenda. Oh, it's changed the law. Do you want to explain?

So starting July 1st. Yep. Yeah. OK. OK. Leo Escalando.

Welcome, speaker. Yeah.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, good evening, Mayor, City, Council, and staff. My name is Leo Eslamado. I live on Clement Avenue, an entrance in front of the Fortman Marina, and I'm a homeowner in the Marina Shores neighborhood where there is a proposed truck route planned by the City Engineer, Strome. I cannot support the truck route proposed by city engineer on Clement Avenue, and we hope the city can study safer alternatives. The community meeting that the city hosted had over 30 concerned residents like myself, really talking about the safety of this truck route. As a father of a five-year-old daughter, I'm really concerned about child safety, especially at the park. Earlier speaker mentioned earlier tonight, the city's general plan was drafted in the 90s before a thriving neighborhood was developed. And now 4,000 families call this area home. The city developed the Marina Water Park. It's really a toddler playground, and there's a new crosswalk warning. We have at least 500 young children in our area. A lot of our kids are younger than five years old. So I think nearby speeding 65-foot commercial-sized trucks would pose a considerable threat to child safety in crossing Clement Ave. I believe the truck route puts the city directly in conflict with the priorities as Vision Zero in reducing traffic deaths and injuries, and we need the city to look at safer alternative routes to avoid harm. Yes, as HOA members, we signed a truck route disclosure, but we did not agree to narrowing the bike lane of the Cross Alameda Trail and widening the street. So public taxes were used to build the waterfront park and the trail, but now we're being asked to use additional public resources to undo these improvements in response to conflicting city planning priorities over the past decades. So it feels like we're really undoing public city investment. Our neighborhood, we're willing to continue conversations and have more engagement with everyone and staff, especially from Clement Abb and Buena Vista Abb on keeping Buena Vista a possible truck route. So respectfully, I ask the city council and city manager of referral to consider alternatives to the truck route designation between Sherman and Grand before any staff recommendation happens in September. We hope we can continue to meet with the staff and you all, and please work with us as residents to explore safer alternatives and consider a limited general plan amendment. Thank you for listening. I know it's a late night. Take care.

Thank you. Not that late. OK. So then, yes, that is a change in state law that we now can have oral communication on agenda item from remote speakers. So we don't have any council referrals, but we can go on to council communications. I'll start on the left, Councilmember Jensen. I meant to say 11 is council communications. Oh, and then I'll do my nominations after. Yeah, so let's take council's communications, and then I'll do 11A communications.

We're falling apart. Thank you. Thank you. I want to make one comment, first of all, before I talk about what I've been doing during the recess. But I want to talk a little bit about Alameda's economic infrastructure tonight. We made some decisions this evening to extend leases and support expanded housing. But unfortunately, there are still places in Alameda in need of support. And I'm talking about the Harbor Bay Landing Shopping Center. The three restaurants at the site have been closed for some time now due to code violations. And I just learned that LaValle's Pizza won't be reopening. It's closed for good. So depending on what happens with the other two restaurants there, it may be that just Safeway and the UPS store are remaining. appreciate the city manager and economic development staff for reaching out and working hard, as well as code compliance and code development staff for ensuring that safety for staff at the sites, people who work there, and patrons. This is just unacceptable. And I want to urge the city manager and staff to keep working hard to working with the owner of Harbor Bay Landing and working with other potential potential buyers of the site, and whatever we can do. Because this is a resource for the community, especially for Bay Farm Island, but for all of our community. And hopefully we can get something done to bring it back to provide support in the retail that our community needs. So that's my editorializing. I also wanted to mention that I returned this afternoon from the California Resource Association conference in San Diego, where I participated as part of Stop Waste, the group from Stop Waste. And there were other Alameda participants, including Ruth Abbey from CASA, who did a great presentation about resource hubs. So I learned a lot, and I'll spend some time talking to our ZWIP staff and Public Works to identify ways that Alameda can keep moving forward and keep reusing, recycling, and diverting as much as we can from the landfill. Thank you.

Vice Mayor Pryor. Oh, hello.

OK. So I don't have the date, but I went to a Burger King grand opening. And it was huge. There were firefighters there and Alameda police officers there. And a DJ. I thought it was going to be this little thing. And I was like, oh my gosh. It was pretty big. Thank you. Yeah, it was kind of fun. And this is great. For the second time, second year in a row, the mayor was out of town doing other important things. And I got to introduce Representative Latifa Simon. She spoke at one of our Alameda schools. She did her town hall. And she is fantastic. She did mention, she said, your great mayor calls me every week to talk about getting the vet building complete.

The VA at the clinic in Columbar. Yes. I sure do. Yes.

And so she's like, I'm working on it. And don't worry, Alameda. She's like, your mayor calls me every week. But yeah, it was great. It's always great to have.

Hear her speak, but also that she gets things done for our community Thank you I just want to echo what councilmember Jensen was saying and if there's anything I can do to help support city staff I live in Harbor Bay I've been talking to people about the concerns about Harbor Bay landing and Even at one point had a meeting there where, with the help of city staff, 300 people showed up and were concerned about at the time when there was an application. There's no application now to do development there. But hopefully there are plans coming. And anything I can do to help, I would like to offer my help.

Council Member Daszak?

Yes. July 28, I attended the All-Island Community Meeting put on by the Alameda Police Department at Mastic Senior Center. That was a very well-attended meeting after our police officers answered questions from members of the public. I believe our mayor was there as well, by the way. The police then displayed a range of equipment and one of the equipment that was fascinating was the aerial drone and the live video it was taking and how from such a height up above it can take a very nice picture down below. So that was July 28. And August 4, like many others, that was National Night Out. So I attended West End sites. So that was fun, especially to see the electric bicycles used by police, quiet and fast. So that was nice. And oh, yes, this past weekend. The August 29th was the 150th anniversary of the Alameda Fire Department. That was very fun to attend. Saw the mayor there as well as Supervisor Lena Tam, former council member. So that was nice. And I appreciate the medal that they gave out. It was very beautiful on both sides. So that was the things that I recall over the past August.

Thank you. So I'll go last. And yes, I was. And I think my daughter was visiting. So we were both there for a little bit. And then we had to go someplace else. But did you also remember the gun detection dog? One of our officers. has a German shepherd who is specially trained to detect, I guess, the smell of guns. So if someone has thrown a gun while they're running through a park, like to get rid of evidence of a crime, that dog can go and detect it. Or in buildings, it's pretty slick. And it just adores its owner or handler, Officer Fetzer. And yes, I did. August 4th was Coast Guard Day, so I was at a Coast Guard base, Alameda, and spoke to the group, met the new commanding officer, and helped cut the very large cake. And then that evening was National Night Out, and I made stops at... three different locations across the city. And August the 7th was the ribbon cutting for Wood Middle School. The new middle school is just beyond gorgeous. Some of us had a little tour of it. They did manage to unpack everything. And I think they're still putting some finishing touches on it. A lovely space for the students and also for the special needs students. They've really done a nice job in just putting them right in the center of the campus so they're not off and away from the other kids, but right in the middle. And on August 12, I was up in Sacramento lobbying with the East Bay Division of the League of California Cities, but getting a lot of lobbying for measures get through the legislature and up to the governor's desk for signing. And then August 25th, it was last week, I guess, I attended a very nice Alameda Police Department swearing-in and awards ceremony. And then August 29th, Council Member Daszak and I both attended the 150th birthday party at Alameda Fire Department. I think a lot was going on back in those days because next year, in 2027, the Alameda Free Library turns 150. So look for another party and huge cake and all that. And next... no, in November or October or something. Next month would be October. The library that I have to stop calling the new main library, because it's turning 20. We have to call it something besides the newer main library. So yes, lots of things going on, even during break. And then I'm just going to segue right into item 11a, which I'm just announcing nominees for three different boards and commissions, which you all will then meet either in person or on screen at our next meeting and vote to hopefully approve them. So for the Civil Service Board, because one of our Civil Service Board members, Celia Warren, is about to be sworn in as a Superior Court judge in Alameda County. So she's got to step down off the Civil Service Board. But I have appointed Alec Chavez to take her place. planning board, we had two of our great planning board members were termed out. They'd served two consecutive terms. But we had great applicants. It's always challenging for me to choose these. And I always interview with whoever staffs the board or commission, because we have such qualified people. But I chose Jimmy Lee and Katie Freed. You will meet them next time. And then on the Transportation Commission, we had several incumbents were eligible to be reappointed. And I did reappoint Saravana Sussanthira. I first met Saravana when she was a transportation planner with Alameda County Transportation Commission. Also, Jason Kim, who actually works for, I want to say it's VTA, Valley Transportation Authority in the South Bay, is an incumbent we're reappointing. And Jeffrey Johnson also. Jeffrey now works for Caltrans. But we have a new member I'm appointing, and she's a strong bicycle advocate and mother of elementary school kids, and that is Maria Piper. So again, we will meet all of them, and hopefully you will vote to confirm them at our next meeting. And so we come to the adjournment of the city council meeting. If I could have everyone's attention for just a minute. We're going to end on a somber note, because our colleague Tony Dasog lost his mom this past Saturday evening. And her name was Sutako Dasog. She met Tony's dad in Japan, where she came from and where you were born. No, my sisters were both sisters. I was born in Hawaii. You were born in Hawaii, OK. But military family, right? Military family.

My brother was born in Virginia. That's obvious, right?

No, those are all military locations. Anyway, I had the pleasure of meeting Tony's mom before. And devoted mother, I believe she was still living in the home where you grew up in the West End, correct? And so we are going to just take a moment of silence and remember and send our condolences to the Daszak family on the loss of their beloved mother, Sitako Daszak.

Thank you. Appreciate it. All right.

All right, so take care, Tony. And with that, this meeting is adjourned. Thanks, everyone, for all your good work. Travel home safely. We'll see you soon. Thank you.