City Council - Regular Meeting

Balcony is always ready. Okay, staff is ready because the balcony is ready. All right, good evening everyone and welcome to the City Council meeting for the City Of Alameda. Tonight is Tuesday, 04/21/2026 and we are about to go into a special city council meeting that is closed session but we're going to start with the roll call Madam Clerk Flower Weisinger would you please call the roll.

Council members Bohler? Here. Day Sag? Here. Prior? Here. Mayor Ezvi Ashcroft? Here. Hopefully council member oh, Jensen will be here now.

And madam Clerk, do we have any public comment on closed session items only?

We do not.

Okay. Well, then we'll move on to adjourn to closed session to consider the following items which I'll ask the clerk to share with us.

Conference of legal counsel existing litigation pursuant to government code section five four nine five six point nine a. The case name is the City of Alameda versus Greenway Golf Associates Inc. The court is Alameda County Superior Court. The case number is 22CV011964.

All right. Thank you for that. And if we could have the council and all the staff, including our Public Works Director, Erin Smith, to come on back. We will start closed session. And for any members of the public watching, we intend to be back before you at 7PM.

Thank you. Right, everyone. It is 07:00 on the dot. And so, we're going to start on time. Good evening everyone and welcome to the City Council meeting for the City Of Alameda.

The council, actually not just, we gave ourselves a little break, we finished closed session early but we have returned from closed session. And I would like to ask our city clerk, Laura Weissiger, to please announce any action taken in closed session.

Great. So staff met mean, the City Council met regarding one item three a which was existing litigation and staff provided information and counsel provided direction unanimously by five ayes.

Thank you for that. With that, I'll adjourn this special meeting, the closed session and I'll call to order the regular city council meeting. And we will start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilmember Daysog, could I ask you to lead us in the pledge?

Yes. Please all rise as you're able. Ready, begin. 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 Daesag. Madam clerk, are there any agenda changes?

We'll really quickly note roll call.

I'm so sorry. Roll call. Madam clerk, I knew it madam clerk something.

Council members Bohler.

Here.

Daesag. Here. Jensen. Here. Pryor? Here. Mayor Eze Ashcroft?

I am here.

Five present.

Okay. So, I have an agenda change I want to propose and that is to, I guess I have two agenda changes I want to propose. One is to hear 7B which is on the regular agenda item. I believe, do we have little people in the room, front 7B, the radium?

I'm not here yet, but I was told there was young ballerinas who were going to be here.

Okay. So here's the deal. I will always yield to small people in tutus. If on item 7B, if indeed we have young people, little people, we're going to hear I would like to propose that we hear that first on the regular agenda. Then

And the other one you can do under consent if you

want. And the other one? Okay. Yeah, either way. Female So that's the agenda change that do I need to we need to vote on that though, right?

Female Hearing 7b Yeah, first?

You can.

Female Okay. So, what I'd like is, and it's a little bit conditional. Again, if we don't, if it's just adults, 7b can stay where 7b is after 7a. But, we'll see. So, what I would just like to say is if there are young people who show up for 7B, would like to hear that first on the regular agenda. Somebody want to make a motion and a second? So moved. Moved by Vice Mayor Pryor, seconded by Council Member Jensen. All those in favor signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Aye. All right. Okay. And so then we will move on

to I

see I have a request, a proposal

for I believe yours is on the consent calendar, if I recall correctly.

Oh, that's true. But think he wanted to do it to withdraw it altogether, which is different than just removing it calendar from discussion.

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

That's an agenda change. That's the difference between just pulling it and I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah.

All right. So, Councilmember Bowler.

Thank you. So, I have a proposal and it's a motion to continue items 5C for open and closed session to May 5. Our recruiter actually informed me last week that she was preparing new and important information for us. And she believed that the counsel could consider it in a future closed session. We didn't actually receive this until after 10AM today.

And so now I think we need to notice a closed session. And none of this reflects in any way on the excellent candidate we have or in his merit or his credentials. He's an impressive candidate given his broad experience, his expertise, and his knowledge, particularly of Alameda. So essentially, we previously received incomplete information. And as fiduciaries, we just need to discuss the item in the new information in closed session and that's the only place this particular information can be discussed.

Okay, so I'm totally unaware of what you're speaking about so I'm not going to second the motion but I'll second it. Okay, we have a second. Any further discussion? Okay, the motion has been moved by Councilmember Bowler, seconded by Councilmember Jensen. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Question? Yes. Question regarding agenda changes. Would now be a time to ask for item 5D to be placed after 7B?

I actually am going to address that. And I'm mayor's prerogative. I'm going first. I will go next. Okay, am really confused by what Councilmember Bowler has just stated and so if I don't understand something I'm certainly not supporting it.

So that would be four voted aye and one opposed. Okay, and as long as we're talking about consent calendar items. So, on item 5D, and this is the memorandum of understanding between the city and Alameda Little League, The only reason that I agreed to keep this on the consent calendar when we held our agenda meeting, which we do before the agenda is published, is because I asked at the time, this has been a controversial issue, I'm hearing a lot of feedback from the community and so shouldn't it be on the regular agenda? And, I was told that there had been robust outreach to the neighbors. And, I will take responsibility.

I'm a former litigator. I should have asked the follow-up question, which would have been, tell me what you mean by robust outreach because there are different interpretations, apparently. What I do know is I continue to be contacted by concerned residents. I did a walk through last week in the park and half a dozen joined me. I was on the ferry coming home from a meeting in San Francisco and a resident approached me and said, Madam Mayor, I live on the park.

I want to talk to you about something, which made me think there hadn't been enough public outreach but it's never too late. We have a public meeting here tonight. My proposal to the council is that we pull this from the consent calendar. That's not a big deal. We do it all the time. However, the council rules dictate that any item pulled from the consent calendar goes to the bottom of the regular agenda. We have a meaty regular agenda tonight. We have little people from Little League in the room. I do not like to keep little people waiting. You adults, that's different.

No, we try to move the meeting along. So, this is my proposal. I would like us to remove item 5D from the consent calendar, put it at the top of the regular agenda. If the little ballerinas and tutus on the radium runway item show up, they'll go first and then the little league will go second because I think we have more little league speakers. But, nonetheless, anything with young people we're going to hear first.

But, by also moving it to the regular agenda, I want us to allow ourselves the same nine minutes that we would have had if this was placed on the regular agenda to begin with. And, if anyone has any questions or wants clarification from me, I'm happy to answer your questions. Vice Mayor, you look quizzical.

I was just going to move your recommendation.

Thank you. And then, okay, thank you. We've got a motion for Vice Mayor Pryor. A second from Council Member Desaad. Council Member Jensen, is there anything you want to say? Okay, well I'll address that when the item comes to us then. Alright, So all those in favor of the proposal that I made that's been moved and seconded, please signify by stating aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. That passes unanimously. Our city clerk keeps track of all these things and will tell me what I need to do, when I need to do it. And am I good to move on to proclamations and special orders?

We are.

All right.

Great. Thanks.

So, we have two, not proclamations. You don't have to listen to me reading. But we have two recognitions from our city that are both lovely. And Madam Clerk, which one are we starting with?

I think we could start with the one for the Compass Ethics presentation for Ethical Culture Award to the police department, and it's Bradley Strausser and Lisa Strutz who are here to

present.

And they're here. Okay, come on up and tell us what this is all about. I love starting with good news.

This is good news. And I'd love to invite the chief up, Chief Joshi. So my name is Bradley Strawser. I'm a professor at the Naval Post Graduate School down in Monterey, California. You're familiar, come on down. Come down and do some wine tasting with me. But mayor, council members, clerk, deputy clerk, and great people of Alameda, I come bearing good news, which is that Chief Joshi here has adopted a tremendous ethics program for law enforcement. It's a new program that we designed. My researchers and other professors, we designed this program based off of evidence based actual research that shows it works. It's effective at improving things like culture, improving things like ethical accountability, improving ethical decision making in law enforcement.

We actually have data that shows this. And I talked with Chief Joshi about this several months ago. He loved the idea, loved the program, wanted to bring it into Alameda. And so he's one of the first adopters to bring this program into his police department. He already is having really good responses from it. And so what we want to present him with here today is just a certificate proclaiming Chief Joshi and the Alameda Police Department as a whole as what we call a compass ethical leader in this space. So if you don't mind, I'll read it.

I don't mind at all. And if you could read into the microphone, then it is captured because we're also making a record of the meeting.

I love it.

So be it hereby known that the Alameda Police Department, having fully demonstrated its voluntary commitment to law enforcement excellence by pursuing the innovative and research backed ethics initiative Compass Ethic Arts, thereby raising ethical awareness and outcomes for its officers and the community trust here in Alameda of the citizens it serves, and thus having exemplified the best professional practices to hold itself to the highest standards of moral clarity in service, is hereby recognized as a compass leader in ethical culture. And this is effective of when they started the program at the February 2026.

Congratulations, Steve Joshi. Yeah, and we've got Captain Jeff Emmett there too. Okay, we need some photos.

All right.

You have a great chief here and a great department.

Thank you. We're proud of that. Chief Joshi, do you want to say something? Sure you do.

Sure, briefly. No, thank you so much for this opportunity. Appreciate the support from the city council, the mayor, city manager for helping us get this program in place. Captain Emmett was really critical and key in spearheading and getting this initiative to the Alameda Police Department. And the feedback I've gotten is that our department is actually using it at a very high rate at this point, much faster than what they normally expect. So I'm really happy to have this as an opportunity. We live in inquiry. And we hope to grow as an agency and as a profession.

Thank you so much, all of you. We're proud of you. Thank you. All right. And it doesn't stop there. Okay. I have to laugh a little bit because I haven't read my meeting rules, operating rules, which would say we don't applaud. But, you know, sometimes we make exceptions, and that was a good one to have an exception for. And we've got one more We did.

We have Alexandra Schulffice from the Motor Vehicle Board to present a Zero Emissions Vehicle Readiness Award.

Come on up. Welcome.

Hello, hello. I just have a few things to say about this award. All right, well tonight, the new Motor Vehicle Board of California is proud to recognize the city of Alameda as a ZEV Readiness Award recipient. You, as a city, have demonstrated what it truly means to climate change and reduce harm to Californians and have embedded equity into decision making and infrastructure development for the transition to zero emission vehicles. The new motor vehicle board launched this award in July 2025 to support the California Transportation Agency's core four priorities of safety, equity, climate action, and economic prosperity.

We recognize that nearly half of all climate change and pollution in California comes from the transportation sector and encourage action for a cleaner future for all Californians, regardless of where they live. The shift to cleaner transportation is not simply about technology. It is about people. It's about access and ensuring the benefits of innovation reach every household, neighborhood, and future generations. You have shown that meaningful progress does not happen overnight.

It takes vision, but just as importantly, takes commitment. That looks like long city council meetings or planners who stay late reviewing community feedback. It takes public works teams who adapt infrastructure in real time and community partners who help build trust and ensure all voices are heard. And finally, it takes leaders who understand that equity is not a single initiative but an ongoing process. Behind every charging station installed, every fleet transition planned, and every policy adopted, there are countless hours of collaboration, problem solving, and persistence.

There are residents who share their experiences, staff who transform ideas into action, and advocates who keep the focus on fairness and inclusion. What makes this work truly impactful is the intention to make it last. Equity centered infrastructure requires care. It requires maintenance updates, evaluation, and the willingness to evolve as community needs change. The city of Alameda has embraced that responsibility, recognizing that sustainability is not only environmental but social.

You recognize the need for adequate charging solutions and accessible infrastructure for all residents, regardless of income or living situations. By prioritizing access in underserved areas, considering affordability and usability, and engaging community members as partners rather than recipients, you are helping to ensure that the transition to zero emission transportation is not just cleaner but more just. Alameda has prioritized the expansion of EV charging by including it in your 2040 general plan, your climate action and resiliency plan, and your city council strategic plan. By creating two public private partnerships with EV charging providers and launching a multifamily EV charging technical assistance program, your efforts remind us that progress is built collectively. It is powered not only by electricity, but by dedication, patience, and a shared belief in a better future.

On behalf of the New Motor Vehicle Board, thank you for your leadership, your persistence, and your commitment to fighting climate change and reducing harm to all Californians by making the city of Alameda ZEV ready. Congratulations on this well deserved recognition.

Thank you so much. And yeah, that's an applause line, too. And I'd like to call Danielle Mueller, our sustainability and resilience manager, up to receive the award photo op again. Thank you. Danielle, do you want to say a few words? Yeah. Thank you so much for coming. Thank you. And, I I think everybody knows that ZEV is zero emission vehicles. So Danielle and I will share that earlier today Danielle and I were in San Francisco.

It's Climate Week and we were invited to a session and got a lot of, well, contributed some good feedback. And Alameda is recognized as a leader in doing a lot of climate change preparation. But we are so lucky to have Danielle. So tell us a little bit about this, or whatever you want.

Thank you. So thank you to the new motor vehicle board and to city council for the support, as well as the many different departments that form our EV charging working group. We have public works and the Parks Department, planning and building, the housing authority. AMP, of course, huge partners in helping us to bring more accessible public EV charging to Alameda residents. We have a growing number.

I think we're up to 12% of our registered vehicles are electric. And it's been growing rapidly every year. And we have challenges accessing charging at home with rentals and homes that don't have garages or driveways. And so we've been looking for opportunities to bring charging into neighborhoods with curbside charging with our partner, It's Electric, to city owned parking lots at parks and public lots with our partner, Blink. We recently deployed our first new charger at Bohol Circle Immigrant Park.

So please check out that charger. We have our first curbside charger at Alameda Housing Authority, Everett Commons. So please check out that charger. And we have more in the works. And we're looking forward to deploying that and making EV charging more accessible to all Alameda residents. So thank you.

Thank you so much. And thank you for all your good work. All right. So with that, before we go on to our oral communication, I do just want to do my ground rules for city council meeting conduct. I always like to remind people that this is a business meeting.

We are conducting the business of the City of Alameda, the people's business, that's all of you. But because it's a business meeting, we don't applaud, boo, cheer, jeer, do the wave because it's a business meeting, not theater, not a sporting event. And also, we want to just listen respectfully to all of our speakers. And when you are the speaker, we want to listen to you. And we want you to stop when the timer says your time is up or even before that.

And the reason I stress this every time we meet is that for many people, public speaking is one of the most stressful things they can do. It takes a lot of courage to get up, to come to a microphone. Some people might even decide they just can't do it because the audience was really raucous. They booed the last speaker. I don't want to be booed. We don't want that here. This is a safe space where everybody is entitled to express their opinion and we want to hear from you. I also give this reminder because we want to set a good civic example, not just for ourselves and each other, but for the young people in the room. Hello, young people. It's lovely to see you.

But also, some of them are watching. I know because I talked to their parents. And, we want to set that example. I mean, we could look around wider society, the state, national level, what have you, and see a lot of things that don't look so great. But here in Alameda, we do it the Alameda way, which is to say everyone belongs, we respect everyone, we want to hear from all of you.

So, just ask that you treat people the way you would like to be treated. And if you have signs, that's your First Amendment right to hold them up. I just ask that unless you're sitting in that very last row, you don't hold them over your head because we don't want you to block someone's view behind you. But, it's not complicated. And then, I read this language and we hopefully never have to use it.

But, California Penal Code Section four zero three 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 three zero two or elections code 18,340. First violations will receive a warning and continued violations will require additional action which could include police intervention. So, having given the ground rules, you're all ready to go. And Madam Clerk, and this is where we hear oral communication, which is public comment but on items that are not on the agenda. So, Madam Clerk, do we have public comment?

We do. First up is Chris Ellsworth, then Rachel Campos de Ivanov, and then Corinne Kirschbaum.

All right. And again, for items not on the agenda. Okay, come on up. And welcome. Hi.

My name is Chris Ellsworth. I live at 1414 Pacific Avenue, across from Littlejohn Park. It's off the agenda. Not that item, if you're going to ask

Okay. About

All right.

I want to call attention to the street gutters along Buena Vista Avenue next to the park. They're in serious need of cleaning. In many places, the dirt and debris have come all the

way up to the level of

the curb. And during storms, the water floods onto the curbs. There is scheduled street sweeping there. But due to the number of cars that are parked, it has not been cleaned out in the sixteen months that I've lived in that house. I regularly go out and clean it out a little bit to try to keep the water moving. So because the city is the sole resident and manager of that block, I urge the city to take action to ensure the gutters are properly maintained, reduce flooding, and improve accessibility, prevent debris and garbage from running into the storms. I yield my time.

Thank you so much. All right. Our next speaker.

RACHELLE KAMPOSDAY AVANOV.

Welcome, Speaker KAMPOSDAY AVANOV.

Hi. I just wanted to draw attention to one quick thing. First off, April is our arts, culture, and creativity month, which is sort of fitting for this evening. In addition to many of the hats that I wear, one of them is I'm on the board of the Weston Arts District. And we have a very exciting project that is just about to launch on Friday, which is Ocean Photographer of the Year.

I wanted to say a extra special thank you to our city staff, to Walker Tomah, to our building official, to our fire official, who have helped us transform an unusual place, which is an old airplane hangar. It's now been transformed into what looks like a beautiful gallery space. And so I certainly hope that people will come. It's open through May 17 on the weekends. And it's just yet another example of how arts, culture, and creativity is transforming Alameda Point. Thank you for that.

And our next speaker?

Karen Kirschbaum.

Welcome, speaker Kirschbaum.

Here I am again.

Good evening. I am here tonight because this city wants the public to believe there was oversight accountability and progress, but the truth of the matter is simpler. And I'm talking, you know, about the village of love and their reports. There were no reports. None.

Not just no financial reports, no reports of any kind. No performance reports, no evaluations, no outcome data, no compliance records, no oversight records, nothing showing what Joey Harrison and Village of Love were actually doing, whether contract terms were being met or whether public money was being spent properly. We're talking about $10,000,000 almost. Right, Marilyn? And when I demanded those records, the city attorney's office claimed the reporting was done verbally over Zoom, verbally.

Then where where are amendments allowing that? Where are the meeting minutes? Where are the notes? Where is the written record? Where is the documentation proving those verbal reports ever happened or were accepted?

There were no amendments, no meeting minutes, no notes, no documentation, no paper trail. So let's be honest about what that means. No real oversight. And despite that, the city kept giving Joey Harrison millions of dollars for years when you knew there was nothing, no no money trail, and nothing was happening. Those contracts were all being breached, and you did nothing, but you did do one thing.

You all had a celebration. You all patted each other on the backs for all the hard work that you didn't do. People died. Do you understand that? People died waiting.

And what you've done to me, If you see something, say something. Right, Marilyn? That just means if it's not against you and your false transparency. The city knew there were no actual reports, no meaningful documentation, and no real oversight, and it still continued to hand over public money. Then after giving him more money, what changed?

Nothing. Still no financial reports for five years. They were to be turned in every month on the seventh. And there's nothing. But when people continued to complain, you did nothing. And you should be accountable. Should

be charged servants. To

Jennifer, you will be.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Our next speaker?

Jennifer Radikovich.

Welcome speaker Radikovich. Come on up. Alright. Thank you. Your your time is up. Thank you. Bye bye. Alright, welcome. Alright, 99% of the time we follow procedure but welcome. Hello,

my name is Jennifer Radikovich. I'm the executive director at Rhythmics Cultural Works and I just wanted to say thank you to the city of Alameda, and specifically to the city's Base Reuse and Economic Department for recommending Rhythmics for an East Bay EDA award, which we received last month for community impact. Thank you so much for all of your support. We're also very, very pleased to partner once again with the city of Alameda and the Recreation and Park Department and the Public Art Commission to help present our summer Rhythmics in the Park series, which will bring music, dance, and culture to parks across Alameda, starting in June with the Unity Fest, which celebrates arts from Africa and the African diaspora. We'll be at Chochenyo Park this year, at Franklin Park, at Jean Sweeney Park, and at Lincoln Park.

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

all you do. Our next speaker, Okay. That was So with that, we close oral communication non agenda items and we move on to the consent calendar. These are routine items that are approved by one motion unless council members remove items for discussion. We've already dealt with two of the consent calendar items. So, first up, are there any items the council wants to pull that we haven't already dealt with? Can I

just note something on the consent calendar or recusal? Just so it's clear for the

Of course.

For, you had 5L. Recusing myself Female on that item. Long as there's no discussion

Speaker: and more Okay, questions, we've let's it. Thank you so much. All right. Any polls from the consent calendar? I'm seeing no polls. And do did you say something? Council Member DeSoc.

Thank you. I'm a recusal on five ks.

Thank you.

Webster.

Thank you. That's how you do a recusal. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. And then city clerk, did you need to make any announcements on the consent calendar before I look for any give me one second.

The Deputy City Clerk noted that's J As the Webster Street, K As Park Street. Wait, I just wanted to correct that. Sorry. Now what's your question? I'm sorry.

I have done city clerk announcements. Is there something

Oh, no. That's okay. Oh, oh, no. There is. Yes. Thank you. You reminded me. I appreciate it. I need

it today. Script.

Very good. There's a public hearing on the consent calendar which is to consider an economic development subsidy to be provided to the Oakland Roots and Soul and adoption of a related resolution. And now is the time for public comment on that hearing.

Thank you. Okay. And I'm going take the question from our colleague, Councilmember Jensen.

Thank you. This question is regarding several items, and it's kind of related to Councilmember Daesang's recusal.

You gave us a letter

so we can Yes, I you have longer question about items five j, five ks, and five ms. And this is for the city attorney. I understand that councilmember DeSaga is recusing himself because he has a relationship or a financial issue with one of these. My question goes to that. I have relationships with people who are on the boards of Webster Street Business Improvement Area, the Park Street Business Improvement Area. I actually have a close family friend who's the director of the WABA. And I also know board members from the roots. And so I wonder if you could give me some KAUFMAN: guidance whether I should be recusing myself.

Council member, generally personal relationships that are friendships are not alone are not sufficient to require recusal.

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

Right. And council member, state law provides that there are financial reasons to recuse. For example, if there was a campaign contribution on an item before the council in excess of $500 from a single source is one example. Of course, council members will, outside the state law context, would need to be able to assess whether or not they're able to judge and review each item in front of them with impartiality. And that's a question for each council member individually.

So if I for example, my husband's on the board of the Chamber of Commerce, he actually used to be on a board with the director of WABA. And so we have these relationships, but that's not sufficient. And of course, I support economic development, so I might be biased towards economic development in Alameda.

Well, a council member just to reiterate, personal relationships alone generally does not require recusal under state law. Whether or not a council member is able to impartially judge an item is a question that each council member would have to judge for themselves.

Thank you.

That's all I have. Thank you. The city attorney can't tell us everything.

Madam May.

All right. Yes, sir.

Perhaps if I can clarify my recusal, which I believe is a requirement as part of the state law. So the reason why I have to recuse myself on 5J thank you is because my house is practically two buildings away from Webster Street. So given the proximity, I have to recuse myself. Thank you.

ANZIE, do you want to add anything, Councilmember Bullard?

No, don't need to. Thank you.

Okay, all right. Thank you. Okay, so we've answered your questions, have we, Councilmember Jensen? All right. Did you want to say something more?

Yes. Madam Chair, yes.

Councilmember Shed.

Councilmember Dae Sag did give me a very good reminder. Yes, state law does require that we state very briefly the basis of recusal.

Okay. And I've done this previous. That's why I didn't think of that. But basically, I have an investment that relates to buildings in Alameda that are occupied by tenants. So for potential possible financial recusal purposes, I'm recusing myself.

Thank you for that. Okay, Okay, so we had counsel questions. Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment on the consent calendar?

There's none.

Okay, and you told us about this hearing on the item involving the Roots and Okay, and did anyone want to comment on that? Seeing none, okay, and you said no public comment?

All

right, then it's time for council discussion if there's any further discussion or a motion and a second to approve noting all of the recusals and everything else that was said in the course of this discussion. Motion to approve the consent calendar?

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

Right. And was

that a second? And it's

been seconded by Council Member Jensen. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. All right. That passes unanimously. So, we go on okay, I am not seeing little ballerinas.

So, we will then go on to the item 5D that was moved we voted to move it to the top of the regular agenda and also to give ourselves nine minutes, which is what we have for regular agenda items as opposed to three minutes because I think this one merits a discussion. So, come on up, city staff, who are going to present. And before we hear from our recreation parks director, I just want to level set on this item. And that is to say that this issue, there's really two issues about two great programs and it should not be divisive. We are going to figure out a way forward.

We're going to find a win win because these are two very public they're public but very positive programs, which is to say public parks and youth sports and the volunteers that come along with them. And I also want to remind everybody, I said as much earlier in my ground rules, But let's set a good example, a positive example. That, of course, is a lot of what youth sports is about. But let's set a good example for the young people in the room for the way we can discuss something where we don't all start on the same page, but we're going to end up with some sort of a consensus and a positive way to go forward. So I ask a bit of grace from all of you and to just bring your best selves to the table.

Welcome. Director Long, you want to introduce yourself?

Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. My name is Justin Long. I'm the recreation and parks director here in Alameda. And tonight, we're here to present an agreement with Alameda Little League for usage of one of our sports fields at Littlejohn Park. So I'll get started here.

Our MOU goals were to create a successful situation for both youth sports and our surrounding neighborhoods. Almost all of our parks in Alameda are neighborhood parks. So they're all nestled in our community. We wanted to establish timelines of usage and provide opportunities to address concerns as they arise, set expectations around maintenance and usage, and also establish responsibility around improvements to the park, specifically to support those activities. So a little bit of background.

Alameda Little League approached us in October, October 2025, seeking a field for their age to 12 age group, also called the majors. This group had been traditionally playing at the Wood Middle School. And during the renovation, one of those fields has not become available any longer due to the renovation. The existing age, the group has eight teams. So there's about 96 kids.

They only play games against other Alameda Alameda Little League teams. And they were seeking games to be held on Saturdays and practices to be held Monday through Friday. Currently, ARPD has 20 ball fields in their complement. Alameda Little League utilizes 12 of those fields at a given time. And then Alameda Girls Softball utilizes nine.

As you can tell with that number, there's overlap. And then we have many other youth organizations that use our fields, from soccer to frisbee, lacrosse, all sorts of sports that are sharing those same multi sport spaces. And we do this field allocation every spring and every fall, where there's a really delicate balance of meeting everyone's requests, needs, trying to balance out all those different components that we can try to have all our fields occupied as much as possible, meet as people's needs as necessary to provide these supports for our youth in Alameda. So when they approached us, staff sat down with Little League, figured out what the requirements were for this age group. And then we looked at potential fields that were available or potentially available due to the size that they were looking at.

We identified Tillman, the multipurpose field on Alameda Point, Littlejohn, Godfrey, Rittler, and Bayport. And what we looked at was the field size and then the infield size, because there's a specific distance it has to be from the mound to the plate, improvements required to be able to support those activities. And then we also looked at how the complement in some of those fields get used. Like for example, Riddler has soccer, baseball, other activities. Bayport has lots of soccer, baseball, softball, other practices that happen there.

They have frisbee groups. They also have sorry for fluttering but mainly soccer and baseball and softball. And then we also applied to Title IX. So as part of that, we have to balance out our field rentals fiftyfifty between female and male sports. And so it's a really delicate balance sometimes based on what people request from what we can actually provide.

So we looked at all of those as we were considering different options for utilizing and seeing if a field might work. So when we looked at all of those to look at the minimization of impact, Littlejohn was selected. Part of that reason was because Alameda Little League already used that site six days a week, basically, almost during the same time frames they were requesting for the majors group. So we were trying to balance out the impact to the other user groups based on having to move their younger group into some other fields that they felt that they could accommodate. Because their younger t ball groups could actually play in the grassy areas, like at Bayport, for example, that didn't need an infield so that we could accommodate them in other locations.

And then we also looked at the requirements to make those modifications. Some of those fields, like Rittler and Bayport, even multipurpose field, we would have to basically build a whole new ball field in order for those to exist. And in doing so, would potentially eliminate the multi use of those sports. So by putting those in, we would eliminate being able to have soccer and other sports use those fields. And then we also tried to look at the impact to Title IX.

Since they were already using it, it's the same complement that it wasn't going to impact our balance. So here's an overview of the area in Littlejohn. So this Littlejohn Park, Buenavess is to the North with Pacific on the bottom and Ben And Sherman to the left. The overall park size is just about four acres. And the baseball field acre is approximately one acre of the park.

So from the community engagement side, so in November 26, we sent out a blast email to all of our sports groups and user groups to let them know that these community meetings were going to be happening. And then December 3, we had flyers placed at the park at all the entrances on A frames. They were posted on the bathroom. They were posted to the barbecue areas. These were laminated signs.

We also updated our social media. It was placed on our website. We also placed hangars on doors surrounding the park. A lot of this was done because of the short time frame around the holidays and trying to make sure that notices would be actually at the houses. And then we held a community meeting on December 17 at the park at 6PM.

And then we held a second meeting again at the park on January 28, again at the park. The community feedback from the meetings that we received, there was three main categories that came up. One was the safety of park users and worry about cars getting hit along Pacific. There's a playground nearby along the third baseline that we wanted to protect. Off-site parking was one of the concerns as well, because we knew there would be a lot of drop off and turnover at games.

And so we tried to look at how we're going to balance that. And then access to the park outside of Alameda Little League usage, and how could we try to accommodate that? Those were the three major concerns that came up out of those meetings. And it helped guide some of the improvements we were going to make to the park. So with that, we looked at different opportunities of how we could provide that extra protection, installing fence netting that extended 20 feet in the air along the third and first baseline, extending temporary fencing even beyond that.

That was eight feet tall. Those are completely removable, not permanent. The dugouts that existed at Littlejohn were identified in our ADA transition plan as noncompliant. They were extremely narrow, and they had no paved access to each of those dugouts. So we replaced those, made them wider, and fenced them in for protection.

And then a temporary outfield fence for the perimeter at the 200 foot mark in order to support the age group was installed. Now those are installed with temporary bases that can be inserted and pulled out and removed. And with an agreement from Little League today that they're willing to remove that fencing every Friday or sorry, they'll remove it Monday mornings and they'll leave it gone all week and only have it installed basically from Friday evening until Monday morning. So that way, that physical looking barrier will no longer be there. In the interim, we have left two forty foot openings between the end of the first base and third base line so that people can access the grassy area even when Little League's not using it.

So when we get down to the MOU terms, this is a trial. They approached us. We went to the community. We told them this is going to be a trial. We're going to do it for a year, see how it works, evaluate it, and then collect all the feedback we can and determine whether or not this is a good fit.

We wanted to preserve the community access by making sure that it was only restricted to certain hours. We've worked with the Alameda Little League volunteers, their organization leadership, to provide communication around the parking plan. We've had staff there on-site helping direct. I myself spent a Saturday out there helping direct parents to those different locations. And then around the actual improvement costs.

So at the very beginning of this, Little League has agreed to reimburse the city for all of the improvements. We've already received payment for those. And so what we put into the MOU is if there were any future safety improvements that come up, that Little League would be responsible to those if they agreed to do so. And if they didn't agree to do so, that the agreement would terminate. The hours are Monday through Friday, 04:30 to seven Saturdays, nine to seven And then Sunday would be makeup games.

Now, as we all know, it rained like this last weekend, but that would lead to those other things. The other component was there would be thresholds in there where if compliance didn't happen, that games would be suspended for a period of time. Maybe it's one weekend. But then if they continue to violate it, that would lead up to termination of the agreement. So we also are agreeing to a follow-up. So we're going to do at the end of the spring season, we will do another community meeting and get that feedback. We'll bring it to the Parks and Rec Commission. And then any recommendations now that we'll implement for the fall program, we'll evaluate it again at the end of the year and bring it back to the commission. So with that, I'll open it up to questions. Sorry to rush there at the end.

Thank you for that. Counsel, we have and Madam Clerk, do we have public comment on We do. How many?

So far, have just six.

Six. And none online?

None online. None online.

Okay. Any clarifying questions, counsel? Councilmember Day Sack? Sorry, I was looking that way.

Thank

you. Section II. III of the memo delineates set time periods or broad bands of time when baseball has priority and exclusive use of the field, I believe, even if no one is actually practicing or playing a game. This section states Monday through Friday, 04:30 to seven Saturday, 9AM to seven and Sunday, 9AM to 5PM, as needed, for makeup games. This, I believe, forces the baseball community well, have you given consideration to creating a schedule that delineates the precise time at which a specific team is allocated practice time instead of this broad practice times or broad game times?

Councilman Dahesong, so we have not started to publish a schedule for actual team times. In our experience with Little League over the last ten, fifteen years, they occupy all of that time. There's not often a time when they're not using them during those practices or those games. They actually struggle to find fields here in Alameda to even hold those games. Like, for example, the rain makeup days, Today, just received even a request for more alternate fields and locations to try to make them up because they're in a compacted period of time.

We will gladly publish the usage on the fences. We can put that up so the community knows when the fence or when the field is rented. We have no problem doing that. I think it'd be a way to communicate to the community or anyone who walks up, whether it's reserved or not. But in general, they're often occupied during those times.

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

We received the comment, but I have not seen the experience. I've not had them reach out to me specifically about that. But I did receive the comment and the same comments that you all have. There was concern issued around staff members or volunteers doing work during the day on the field itself. And there was interactions with members of the public from at least two times that I was communicated.

I reached out directly to Little League to have a conversation with them about that volunteer and to have them address that with that volunteer, how they approach community members and that the field is open during the day for everyone to use outside of those hours. If anyone wants to use it and the field is not being used, the public is allowed to use the field. If they show up to come use the field, like with any of our other field rentals, we ask all of our folks to have their permits with them. They show them the permit, and they're asked to leave.

Last question.

Of course.

One last question. Is there a physical need for the fence that goes into the outfield? I mean, is it because kids 12 and under hit beyond that?

So the kids in that age group do not hit beyond that fence, but it was an effort to keep a barrier for people walking into active games. So we didn't want people just walking from the adjacent sidewalks on the south and east side of the park to just walk into a game that's happening. And so that's why the temporary fence is installed. And that's why it's the color that it is, so that people see that.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor Pryor, think I heard

Yeah, I just have a quick question about the parking plan. I was wondering what it looks like and if it is working.

Clerk, could you mind pulling up the PowerPoint again? I've got one last slide here that shows the parking plan. So this is the parking plan that we worked coordination with Little League that on your left image there, it's identifying a drop off zone by the rec center and then identifying for Alameda Little League parents and spectators, even coaches, to then go and park at Gene Sweeney and at Wind River. At the time when we had the conversations with Blue Rise and Wind River, the parking lot to the east with the big P was available. They have since closed that parking lot due to different vandalism trying to keep negative aspects from happening.

And so we secured with them through a license agreement 35 spaces in the parking lot just adjacent to the north there. And so between Jean Sweeney and Wind River, that is where we've asked all Little League parents and spectators to park, especially after that drop off zone, so that they would at least be able to drop off their equipment, people who have disabilities who need to be dropped off, have that ability.

And to the best of your knowledge, is it working? Or are the families of the Little League, I almost said students, Little League players, are they, for the most part, complying with this?

So I'd say it was a little bit rocky at the beginning, which is why I even personally was out there for a weekend trying to provide that information to folks. But it has gotten far better and far more compliant. There was issues at the very beginning where some driveways had gotten blocked. And we've since sent out multiple communications through Little League. We've also worked with having staff in our park monitor go out there to make sure. And so that's what we've been doing in the meantime. And we've seen a lot better compliance. Yes, there's a lot of turnover. So parents are coming and going between games. So every hour and a half, there's a turnover of parents and kids. So there is an influx of traffic. Traffic. I'm not going to deny that at all.

I have a couple clarifying questions. Director Long, why did this item never go to the Recreation Parks Commission?

So I will just say, in hindsight, I would have done that at the very beginning of this conversation. Little League was already utilizing the field for six days a week, and I didn't think it was going to be that big of a change. And that is on me. And I take full responsibility for that.

So acknowledging that, and I appreciate that, going forward, why would you not bring this item to the Recreation Parks Commission to decide how to move forward as opposed to giving them your feedback? Why would you not let them hold a public hearing and themselves collect feedback from members of the public?

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

Okay. I may be misunderstanding we may be misunderstanding each other. But rather than the recreation park staff convening another community meeting about the park, why don't you just make it an agenda item on the Recreation Parks Commission?

I do think, Madam Mayor, we may be misunderstanding each other. Wanted to do both, to hold a community meeting and then bring it to the commission meeting so so that we can have even more opportunity for feedback.

And I would suggest, and it'll be my recommendation when we deliberate, that it's time for this to go directly to the Recreation and Parks Commission. We have a very competent commission. Did understand you just say that there were ADA improvements needed to the dugout. So who did the work?

So, all the work was performed by city licensed contractors. We utilized city dollars to do the work with the reimbursement from Little League.

All right. Okay. I was just a little confused because when I did a site visit last week, there was clearly a little league volunteer doing something at the DECA, but maybe just some maintenance. So, if someone wanted to reserve Little John Park for birthday party with a bouncy house on the weekend, could they do that?

Right now, we've suspended renting that facility and made it first come, first serve. What we didn't want to do is actively attract even more people to the park in order to limit congestion. But we wanted to make it first come, first serve. And so that's what we've done. But we've suspended doing the reservations.

Okay. I don't know if I bet you have organized a kid's birthday party or two. It's kind of hard not to know if you have a location until the day of. But that brings me to my next question. And we've emailed and we've talked about this item.

And I asked you what other parks were considered because in the recreation parks fire, we are well parked and we're adding more in the city. And you listed some but not others. And my question to you is, did you consider other parks with fields that wouldn't have precluded other usage of the park? For instance, Estuary Park, Franklin Park for the little people, Kruse Park, Ladecker Park, Lincoln Park, McKinley Park. Because the, and I don't want get into discussion, this is still a question and answer, but what I see when I go to Littlejohn is a park that has been precluded from other uses for a year.

And I just, looking at the map and knowing the parks in Alameda I once worked for your department I just wondered why we couldn't have found another location that didn't have quite as big an impact.

Sure. I'll gladly share with you. Part of the issue is that most of those fields are already used by Little League. So they currently use Bayport, Rutler, Lidecker, Franklin, Tillman, Woodstock, Littlejohn, Gottfried, Estuary with the Challenger Field, Lower Washington, and Cruze sometimes. So they're already currently using a lot of those fields already. And McKinley doesn't have a field big enough to support Little League games.

So, and of course, you've told us earlier and it is known that Littlejohn has for years been used for a younger age group for Little League. And, I heard nothing from the public about that. And obviously, you had to do some schedules and some changing. And so, I'm just wondering, and again, this is something that perhaps the Recreation Parks Commission might have debated why there might not have been or why there might still not be an opportunity to have the older age group someplace that didn't completely preclude weekend usage essentially for all summer and really the better part of a year. So scheduling?

So again, we worked on scheduling with not just Little League, but also we're balancing out soccer, a lot of other youth groups that are sharing those other services, which would have required us to change those. Like, for example, at Rittler, we would have had to put in another diamond, which would have made soccer non usable at that facility. At Bayport, we would have had to do the same thing. Even at Tillman, in order to put in the temporary fencing, it would have precluded both soccer, rugby, and other sports in that one. So they all required some level of modification. So it wasn't just a trade in one for the other. Like, for example, multi purpose field.

Where is multi

purpose It's right next

to the Alameda Point Gym. Oh, Okay. So it's a big flexible space that can support both Yes. The baseball field is too large for Little League. It's meant for older individuals. And so therefore, that couldn't be utilized because it's actually dangerous for a lot of the kids to be playing on an infield that's too big.

Okay, we can take some of this online because I do want to get to our public comment. But I will, the last thing I'll ask about, and this is information that I would have liked to have seen in the staff report. We've had concerns expressed about there's no insurance agreement, there's no indemnification. Well, there's not in the MOU, but I believe there is somewhere. Do you want to address that?

Yes. So every year, we operate with an approved field allocation policy. So for anyone who rents a field or space from us has to have insurance and indemnify the city. And those insurance requirements were established in conjunction with the city attorney's office, our risk management. And so every year, anyone who does that updates their insurance certificate to make sure that they can even operate on our facilities.

And I understand that now. And I say this all the time around city hall. You can't overcommunicate. You can undercommunicate. It usually doesn't go well. That should have been in the staff report. And so going forward, would, I mean, you know these things because you live and breathe this work. But the greater public doesn't and it doesn't lead to increased trust when we don't have all the information out there. Okay, let's any other clarifying questions, counsel? Let's was that your hand up or just your council member? No. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Director Long. Madam Clerk, let's go to our public comment. Still six?

Still six in person only.

Okay.

First is Deborah Arbuckle, then Heather Little, then Jill Ingram.

Okay. And be ready to come on up when you hear your name. We'll keep this going. And bring that microphone down to wherever you need it. Welcome, Speaker Arbuckle.

Mayor, counsel, my name is Deborah Arbuckle. I'm a neighbor of the park. I live one house away from the park. I did not get notice. I think what happened maybe they didn't send anything to our house. I can tell you that much. The first time they had a meeting was around Thanksgiving, and I think a lot of people were gone. So they had a second meeting, and we did see something on the walk way around. So we went to the meeting. And we told them we didn't like what they wanted to do.

And they said, well, this is just going to be until May, the end of May. It's a trial. And I was like, well, Okay, that's reasonable. But what I'm seeing is they are controlling that park. They have total control. I feel like the old boys club just came down and took it. We did not have any input. It is not available to other people. Taking the fence down is a good idea. But when they're playing all the time or someone comes to use the park and they start throwing the ball near them, So they leave.

Or I see little kids standing in with their little face pushed up to the net on the outside going, oh, I wish I could go there when nobody's using it. So what they're saying about what they let us know, what they told us, the size of where the fence was going to be, it's all false. They did not get the Okay of any sort from the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker?

Heather Little, then Jill Ingram, then Ron Matthews.

Welcome, Speaker Little.

Good evening, everyone. You received a letter from me today. I'm going to try and keep it really brief. I'm going to say the same thing tonight. I'm addressing you this evening as a homeowner and community member who's lived directly across from Littlejohn at least twenty one years. And our family has fully welcomed and enjoyed and encouraged the use of Littlejohn Park to its fullest extent possible. So when I first learned about ALL majors coming, that they wanted to use the park, I approached it with an open mind and a supportive mindset. Especially, they've used it for years with no issue at all. So based on that, welcome the expanded use. But unfortunately, as Director Long has also shared with you, there were a lot of problems in the beginning for myself and my neighbors.

But thankfully, was able to be in regular communication with my contact at Little League, as well as with Director Long and Ms. Woolridge. And everybody was very responsive to those concerns and needs. But while these issues tend to have improving right now, I've got concerns that the problems will repeat themselves season after season as new families and staff rotate in. The primary concern right now is the usage being restricted because of the perimeter fencing in the outfield, which, as we know, will now be up for eight months out of the year, effectively restricting access to what should otherwise be public space for much of the park's usable year. The fence is up. It now often sits unused. I've walked the park with Mr. Daysog. I've walked the park with Ms.

Ashcroft. Other people have come to visit, even when the hours on the weekend it was a beautiful weekend this weekend. Many hours of the day I took video completely empty, completely empty. You've seen that. Without the fencing, would be used. This is very unusual for this park. I'm going to leave this by saying this is not about opposing the use of the park by ALL, but it's about being good partners and creating a compromise where we can all use the space for our purposes and co enjoy what our tax dollars are paying for. We're asking for a more balanced approach that allows ALL to continue its programming while ensuring the broader community can still also enjoy the park, especially when it's not being used.

Thank you so much. Our next speaker.

Jill Ingram, then Ron Matthews, then Chris Ellsworth.

Welcome, Speaker Ingram.

I'm Jill Ingram, lifetime Alameda resident. Tonight, I ask you at a minimum to please postpone any sort of approval for the Alameda Little League MOU, as it has been fast tracked towards approval. Also, we need to go beyond this year, and we need to discuss what's going to happen in the future. I attended both public meetings as I received an invitation taped to my house. I will tell you I felt very intimidated at the first meeting.

In attendance were several Little League board members and three to four ARPD staffers. Only two people were introduced, one being Justin Long and the other Steve. During this first meeting, two members of the public were rudely dismissed with their concerns throughout the meeting. It was very clear that the Little League was there to tell us that the majors would be using Littlejoong Park for practices and games. They weren't there just to listen to our concerns or even answer questions honestly.

I felt defeated and confused leaving the meeting. A few things stick in my mind after the first meeting. First, we were asked if there was any contact person from Little League that we could get in touch with and if any issues came up. We were not given any information except for the contact with the city of Justin Long. We now have the president's email.

Second, they used the strong word of sabotage at the first meeting as they did not want this project derailed. I feel like I can't even discuss these issues with my neighbors because I will be told I helped sabotage this project. I hope this project is reviewed at the end of the season and everyone's opinions in our neighborhood are considered and respected. And the council members, Justin Long, and the police department, they're all well aware of the concerns we've had for the last few months. Lastly, for the future meetings, please leaflet the neighborhood or mail the households.

Thank you and your time is up. Our next speaker?

Ron Matthews, then Chris Ellsworth, Eric Embry.

Welcome speaker Matthews.

Hi. I'm Ron Matthews. For the last thirty two years, I've been involved in Little League, 26 of which I've been the president. Every time I come in front of this board or any board, everyone knows that I'm acting on behalf of children age four through 12. We're an all volunteer organization. We're an international organization. You've seen us on television. This is the age group that you do see on television in August. It is the major division. The 11 and 12 year olds have been in the program for seven or eight years, working their way up the ladder.

And they deserve a good field, which we were able to provide previously. But due to the AUSD changes at Wood School, they got rid of a field. And then the other field, of course, it was maybe 10 times the cost of a city field to use on an hourly basis. So there are economics involved. And we had to study those economics.

We are still using the AUSD Field Monday through Thursday for this age group at a significant cost bearing to our nonprofit organization. We've invested considerably. Amy came to me back in 2014, for the Challenger Field. And she did a fantastic job. We donated $50,000 at that time. That was a lot more than it is today. And Amy was able to get significant funds to help build the Challenger Field at Estuary Park. We've invested in many fields throughout the city over the last ten

Thank you so much. Your time is up. Our next speaker Thank you.

Chris Ellsworth and Eric Embree. Then we do have a remote

Welcome, Speaker Ellsworth.

Hi. CHRISTINE Hi. I live at 1414 Pacific Avenue directly across from Littlejohn. I have three kids who play in the minor leagues, and I also manage a team. Regarding the usage of the park by Little League, I am generally supportive of it.

Noise levels have been reasonable, not much higher than when Little League wasn't playing there, when there's birthday parties or other things. And parking has been better than I expected. It hasn't been awesome, but I've always been able to find a parking spot on my block on the weekends, which, again, for a park of that usage, is par for that course. There has been congestion during the drop off windows. But it's never been more than like thirty seconds.

And given that Pacific is a slow street, it seems fair use of that street. While I miss the picnics, the volleyball games I used to play there, and soccer pickup groups, I recognize that there's a lot of kids in Alameda who want to play organized sports. And that we, as the city and the city council, have to manage and balance the uses against each other. I would like to point out that the MOU, as posted on the agenda website, contains defects in dates and times. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Our next speaker. Dereck Embry. Welcome, Speaker Embry.

Thank you. Hello, council mayor. Thanks for your time. I live on Pacific Avenue, very close to Littlejohn. So I've come today just to hear what everybody had to say and add something. And fortunately, being the last person, I've heard a lot of things brought up already that I would have brought up. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, Councilman Daesang. I walk to the park every day with my dogs. And I've

lived

there for twelve years. And when the little guys used to practice there, it was an integral part of the activities of the park. And you would have the rest of the community enjoying the field alongside the Little League practice. With this new group that's come in, it's been a drastic change, I would say, mainly due to the fence. So I do appreciate that that's already been mentioned.

I think the fence changes the character of the park tremendously. I think it's a fantastic idea if the fence is taken down, especially given that it's temporary or removable, any time that there isn't an active use of the field by Little League. Not Monday morning so much as maybe Sunday at five or even Saturday night if there are no makeup games. I think it's a great idea for Parks and Rec to bring this in front of the commission. Community outreach wise, I knew nothing of either of the meetings.

Like, say, I live a block and a half away, I walk the park every day with my dogs. Don't feel like the outreach was quite sufficient. I've talked to some of the parents very recently in the last week who I've seen pulling up parking, getting out, going to the field. And I've asked them about their awareness of the parking plan. So far, 100% are not aware that they're supposed to park elsewhere at Sweeney. I said, you haven't seen the map? No. So I think Little League should do a little better job with the outreach, with the administration.

Thank you so much for your comments.

And now we have two remote speakers.

The first is Wallace Beaver.

All right. Welcome. What was the name again?

Wallace Beaver.

Okay. Welcome, speaker Beaver.

Hello. I go by Wally. Nice. Thank you for having me. First of all, I want to thank our ARPD staff and ALL volunteers for making the field playable for this year. It was definitely a bit of a panic for a lot of families to know what we were gonna do this year. Three things I just wanna quickly address is that, first of all, there's precedent for this arrangement in town. Right? There's large fields that are constantly consumed by single or multiple sports on any given weekend in their middle in

the middle of

neighborhoods. And the local residents, as far as I know, as a citizen, are not revolting against their presence. Right? They've accepted it as part of their day to day life. And I while I understand this sudden change in the neighborhood is hard for those folks at Littlejohn, again, this is not unique. And that's been a baseball field for my entire life. I've been here fifty years. It's a baseball field. It's not for bouncy houses. And so if we wanna if it's wants to be rented as a baseball field, it seems like that should be precedent.

As far as the fence goes, baseball fields have fences. I I appreciate that people wanna use the park and run their dogs there, etcetera. But again, it's a baseball field. So in a perfect world, we have a place to play baseball. For the person who said we consume most of the park, the footprint of the baseball field is probably 30% of the park, 40% of the park.

We don't use the basketball court. We don't use the building. We don't use the playground. We, you know, we we hang out in the outfield and use the barbecues if they're available and we want to, but that's what, you know, there's nothing wrong with that. Last thing I want to say is that, you know, baseball continues to be part of the legacy of this city, and it seems like there's lack of support from certain people within the powers that be. I understand the need for equality, but it's a shame to see something that's been so powerful in the city sort of diminished over the past couple years.

Thank Thank

you so much. Our next speaker?

Allison Green.

Welcome, Speaker Green. Hi. Can you hear me?

I can't work this We can. Hi. Hi. I want to address one thing the last speaker just said, which was no one is not in support of baseball or youth sports and that has never been an issue with the neighborhood. It's been the communication and it has been driving out the diverse multicultural use of what is a general use field as far as I understand from the city designation.

So yes, there's a baseball field. It's not exclusively a baseball field. And also 30% is I don't know that that's accurate, but the de facto footprint of the baseball field makes pretty much the entire or most of the park, you know, dedicated to a baseball game while it's going on. Also not necessarily a problem. But I think the thing that bothers me is that there's a presumption or assumption of, the right for Alameda Little League to have this park.

I've you know, something was up that was very misleading and divisive, frankly, on Little League's site today saying that one of the friendly city council people got them word that this would be pulled from the consent calendar and that the neighborhood is trying to stop Little League from using the park. That it's false, it's inflammatory, and frankly, I think it is probably unfair to city council members to be characterized that way. So I question whether or not there are sufficient city council members who are able to vote on this tonight because they have been characterized that way. So thank you.

Thank you.

We have one more remote.

And our next speaker is?

Elaine Mendez.

Welcome, speaker Mendez.

Hi. Thank you so much for your time, city council. I just kind of wanted to I'm a mother of a little league baseball player. And initially, I was one of the guilty people, and I felt really bad that I didn't get the email. I did get the email. I was busy. I had three jobs. I didn't see it. And as soon as I found out about it, I moved my car. I volunteered whenever there was a baseball game to tell people, and people were really, you know, coming together.

They want to be there. They are are so desperate to not take this away from the kids, especially seeing how because Alameda City has decided to raise the the fees for the major field where we normally would play and it would never have affected this other community because you have raised it three times the amount and we can't afford it, we can't play there. So, you know, we're trying to work with the city to find something, to find an equal ground that, you know, doesn't cost the parents who can afford it, you know, to be able to play, to be able to see their kids go out and play, to work with the community. And

with the the

building of the school and the renovations that have gone on, things have kind of gone back and forth and not in our favor. Things that said that were going to happen and then they were taken away from us. And so I will say we probably didn't react in the best, but we desperately want to try. And we desperately want to work with everybody and to make this

a Thank you

so much. Your time is up.

That was our last.

And that was our last comment from the public. So, we will close public comment. And I just want to say just for everyone to hear, I don't think there is a single council member up here that's against Little League and doesn't want kids to find a place to play. Youth sports are extremely important. I think we have a little work to do but I think we can get there. Who would like to start with comments? Councilmember Daysock.

I just have a clarifying question in light of two comments regarding economics. We heard the president indicate that the economics regarding one of the fields at Woods Gould area had changed. And we heard the last speaker mention the raising of the fees had a major impact. So the question is, if we basically went back to a lower fee, would that basically change things in such that this field would not be needed?

Director Law?

Council Member Deshak, to clarify, the fee she referenced was in a USD fee that the school district is charging. In our last fee schedule, ARPD fees are $11 an hour for field to be used.

And, thank you for that point because that was the other clarification I wanted to make. This happens a lot. It's the Alameda Unified School District and the City Of Alameda. They share a word but they are separate. They have different governing boards, different funding sources, different budgets. We don't set those fees. Thank you for that.

Thank you. Another clarifying question?

Yeah, of course.

SPEAKER Another clarifying question. So we've heard some, whether through email or through presentations tonight in fact, you pointed out that a volunteer had shooed away people at not an appropriate time. So it seemed as though maybe there's some room for proper signage delineating when the baseball fields are to be used expressly for baseball purposes and when it's available specifically for the public for whatever use that they want. Have you considered placement of signage with clear directions as to the dates and the time periods when baseball is to be used and when the public can use it. Large signs like 22 by really large poster signs with large fonts.

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

Commissioner Desai Jose said in my presentation that we'd be open to putting up signage. As with our tennis courts, we often put up QR codes that people can check to see when a court is reserved or it's being used by a group. We can do so in the same manner in order to make sure people are informed when it's being occupied by a rental group.

Thank you.

As long as we're on the topic of how to inform the public, one of the last in person speakers did suggest that it's great to take the fence down, I concur. But, suggested that rather than waiting till Monday morning because it stays light late and all that, if there is not a makeup game scheduled on Sunday then to take it down at the end of the usage time Saturday evening. If there is a makeup game, to take it down at 5PM Sunday evening. That would, I think, go a long way toward appeasing some of the neighbors' concerns.

Since this proposal came recently this afternoon, I think we can work out exactly those details about when it can be removed and when it can be put up. But I will take your recommendation to do so.

Well, I think there might even be a council direction to staff to that effect. But we'll see. Just hold that thought. Okay. Back to you, Council Member Desai.

Did you I do have one more clarifying

We are actually at the time where you can say whatever you want. We're past clarifying questions. You can discuss. Go for it.

One more clarifying question on the matter of the fence. Have you contemplated, instead of you placing a fence there, even on the weekends, have you contemplated putting pylons to delineate where the baseball field is and where the public, given that the fence, really, as you had indicated earlier, isn't there for purposes of stopping rolling balls. It's mainly to delineate public space versus baseball space.

We've not explored that because we're really more concerned about the general public just walking into a space and not knowing that a rolling ball or a potential ball could hit them. And so that's why we have always put the temporary fences up, like at Bayport. We view these at Lower Washington. It's really for the safety of the general public.

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

Again, I working in public for a long time, I'd prefer the fence. It's a general nature of public. Kids can't read often when they're running around in little. And this is a way that we can protect everyone in the public.

Okay. And Councilmember Bull, did I see your hand up?

No, but I do have questions.

Go for it.

Okay. Thank you. And thank you, Director Long. And I just want to note for the record first that we've got a correspondence file that has 50 pages because we've, as you know, received a lot of emails and you've been good about replying to a lot of those and trying to get good information to the community. So definitely appreciate that. And on the issue of the fence, what is your take on the suggestions in terms of can the fence just be removed for periods of time to help alleviate that problem of the perception? I know there's some gaps in the fence and rights, but the perception seems to be that they can't use the park as much as you'd like and that we don't want that.

ARPD is happy to support that. I think that in our original conversations, we talked about the removal after games. I think there was a lot of conversation around how much effort that would take after each specific game if they had to do it daily. But I do think that as a rationale for being able to create open space Monday through Friday for the general public to not have that perception, we are happy to support that and gladly support that.

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

Definitely. I mean, not only have I thought about it, like I said during the presentation, I was actually there. I actually spoke to the last caller who was unaware of the issue. And we had talked about it. And then she immediately began volunteering. I spent the rest of the day there. I got there at 08:00, and I was there until about 02:00 helping to direct people to the parking lot. I also worked with Alameda Little League. They attempted to put up signage. I think at that time there was a misunderstanding around the signage.

But we worked with them on that one. But we've talked to them with having their volunteers. From a staffing perspective, I've asked our park monitor, who is around on the weekends, to stop by to see how it's going. She spends time to double check to see if there's parking available on the street. She stops. So again, there's other avenues which I have attempted to do that. I think having a permanent staff member there is difficult for us because we have so many things going on in the weekend. But we are trying to put attention to that. I also hold weekly meetings with Alameda Little League to discuss anything that's happening. So we're trying to make every effort we can in order to try to make this as smooth as possible for people.

Okay. Thank you.

And just to follow-up on Councilmember Bowler's point, it's great to follow-up after the fact with Little League, but it is more helpful to have things happen in real time. And so trust me, I get staffing issues. But we do have our park monitors. And I wonder if there is a way that you might be able to schedule. Because I don't worry about the Monday through Friday or the whatever it is, practice times. But on the weekends when there are possible competing uses for the park, I just and again, that may come back in the form of a council direction. Anything further from you? Okay. Vice Mayor?

I just wanted to clarify this. Thought you said there was like a 40 foot gap, I guess, like in the fence so people could walk through there if there weren't games?

Yes. So at the end of the third and first baseline, before the temporary outfield fence, there is approximately a 30 to 40 foot gap where people can walk in. You'll often see people with their dogs there. You'll see them using the field. They walk into the grass area. Pretty regularly, I'm there during the week. I stop in, check it out. And so there is activity still on the outfield of the field. There's no physical fence gate or barrier that is required to enter the field.

Oh, Okay. And then the only thing I was thinking, at Rittler Park, you know, they didn't, they weren't using them at Ridler Park before all the construction. They have, I don't know if they're made of maybe plastic, but they're like barriers, but they were only like three feet or four feet. I don't know if that an option to use. So now I'm not understanding why the big fence is an issue. You can still go there, but I don't live there. Don't

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

Oh, Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Jensen?

No, that answered my question. Thank you.

All right. And you have nothing you want to add? First of all, I want to say I appreciate everything you do, Director Long. We've got a great park system and it's great. And the fact that it's so well used, I mean, that's a good thing because we want kids to be involved in sports. I mean, people of all ages, really. Our parks are multi generational. You know, speaking of kids of all ages and abilities, I have heard it said, but

only

anecdotally, didn't have a chance to check up on it, that there is that Ala Costa Recreation Group which uses the Littlejohn Community Center. And this, for those who might not know, is a really nice program for older teens and young adults with developmental disabilities. I am told that they are being limited from being able to use the field during the week when their activities are going on.

So, to clarify, Mayor, they are not being prohibited from using the field during the week. When we held both community meetings, Alacoasta was present at both of those community meetings. We asked about any concerns they had. We specifically talked to them about areas that they used. And they were primarily focusing on the hardscape area adjacent to the building and the playground at that time.

But they did not think that they were going to be blocked from the field, which they're currently not being. Concern was more around drop off and pick up and making sure they had ample space in order to pick up the kids. And I think by having that temporary loading zone, we actually have that created. I have regular communication with Alacosta, and they've not brought it up as an issue to date.

Okay. I'm glad to hear that. I also heard that there had been some trash left in their planting beds along the side of the building. So that's incumbent on Little League, right, to do the cleanup?

That is incumbent on Little League to do the cleanup after their games. If not, my staff still service the park regularly. DELL: And so you shouldn't see

a buildup of anything over any period of time. Okay. Well, I'm sure I'll hear if there is. So thank you for that. And you can sit down.

What I would like to see because I feel that this issue has been negatively impacted by a lack of transparency. I actually wanted to ask the city attorney, is there something we might need to do, perhaps a change in the municipal code to specify who can and cannot allocate park space, you know, it should be able to be done at a staff level, hold that thought. But one of the things I would like to suggest is that this item does come back to the Recreation Parks Commission to explore. Not, you know, let's finish this season, whatever it is, but to explore if there aren't possibly other park fields and maybe some modifications would have to be made just like they were made at Littlejohn, but other parks that wouldn't then foreclose the public's use of those parks. Nobody is disputing the value of this Little League program, but there's also a lot of value to having a neighborhood park.

And the fence changes are great, but I want to see them as expansive as possible rather than waiting till Monday morning. But, I would like to give staff direction to bring it to the Recreation Parks Commission to explore other alternatives. Know, maybe there are, maybe there aren't. But these would be public meetings, hearings and noticing which just addresses a lot of the transparency concerns. Those are my, in addition to everything else that I've said, would like to yeah, City Attorney Shen.

Madam Mayor, my suggestion on the council direction with respect to whether it's staff council or commissions that allocate park space is that similar to the direction you gave us earlier in the year about street improvements you give staff the opportunity to work together maybe the city manager's office my office and director along's team will work together to respond to the council's concern and ensure that the council's concerns are adequately addressed. I think we hear you loud and clear that the council would like us to take a closer look.

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

follow-up question. The construction is done at Rittler Park, is this going to positively impact I the, guess, usage for Liddly?

Is that a Justin Long or Matt Nolan or come on up. Sorry, this is city staff. We finished public comment.

Again, can you repeat the question?

Oh, when the construction is done, or I guess the impacts of Riddler Park are I don't know when that will be finished. But will there be more space for Little League teams?

There won't be any additional space. Actually, we gave up a portion of the park for the school to be constructed, so the park actually got smaller.

Got it. Okay. Oh, wow.

Thank you. Thank you. This isn't for you. This is for the council. I was just reminded that I have run out of time. And so I do need a motion in a second to keep talking, at least to get this item closed. Otherwise,

So, there's three minutes or

five minutes? Two. I'd like two more minutes. Second. Moved by Boehler, seconded by Jensen. All those in favor signify by stating aye. Aye. Okay, Who wants to come up with a motion?

A

motion is for everyone, by the way.

Say it again.

Is that two minutes for everyone?

You want two additional minutes on top of everything? Sure. Yeah. You can want a lot of things. We have a whole agenda ahead of us. Do you need nine minutes?

Oh I only have five minutes so that would be seven minutes.

Just make a motion. I

move two minutes for every council member.

All those in favor signify by stating aye.

Aye. Thank you.

I guess you got four. You didn't get mine. Okay, so take it away with all that time. Let's hear from you.

Even more clarifying questions. What is the standard distance for ten to twelve baseball age group from home plate to typical fences in the outfield? And how does the distance compare with what we have here? Is it less or more?

So I'm Councilman Erdai Sag. The amount of space that is needed for this age group is approximately 200 feet from home plate. And what the temporary fence is set at is the 200 feet.

It's 200 feet. Okay. Great. Have you given some thought to fencing that is not complete so that there might be gaps? Because I think part of the issue is people who live North of Buena Vista and Benton, particularly to the East, that they, upon coming to Littlejohn Park, are faced with basically a fence during the weekends.

Council Member Desog, so again, at the end of the third baseline, which is at

No, no, but a gap like in center field or a gap in center right field or center field instead of having one complete seamless fence of a certain length.

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

So you have. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Do you want to continue? Councilor Mardasek?

Oh, yeah. I think my concern is really the publicness of Little John Park, also what used to be known as Buena Vista Park. And I think the length of the fence is problematic. I appreciate I think it's forward progress, the fact that the fence will be removed for Mondays through basically most of Fridays. But I think for the residents there, I think the presence of the fence becomes not only a visual barrier, but it becomes a physical barrier that kind of makes the baseball field completely read as only for baseball as opposed to something for the public at large.

I'm not convinced that our parks director had made a good enough case to have the fence in the first place. We heard testimony that the ball isn't typically hit all the way out there at a certain length when the fall is down. So if the ball is coming out, it's probably most likely going to roll out there. Of course, I haven't played baseball there since 1978. So I'm not convinced that there is a need for a fence to delineate, because that's the point of the fence, is to delineate public space, limited as it is, north of the fence from baseball field.

And I think that we should spend more time thinking about alternatives like pylons, if no fence whatsoever, in an effort to make sure that Little John continues to read as a neighborhood park for the public. And I appreciate baseball. I appreciate all the things that you've done in terms of not only making great athletes of a lot of baseball players, but just getting kids energized in sports. But this is also a public neighborhood facility, and we ought not to lose track of that. And so I think we should try to strike an accommodation.

I think there's been ample testimony indicating that members of the public have been shooed away, have been scared off, resulting in making Littlejohn Park basically a baseball field as opposed to a public park. And so I think better noticing is needed to make sure that not just Little John Park, but any park, when it's available specifically for public use as opposed to when it's available for baseball use, I think we need to improve on our noticing. So to summarize, I'm not convinced that a fence is needed whatsoever, given its effect on making what is clearly a neighborhood park read as something specific to baseball when it's not, when it ought not to be. And I do believe that there has to be clear noticing so that the baseball community themselves obtain guidance as to when they can discourage people from walking on or using the facility, and also when the public itself has a right to use their community asset, their neighborhood asset. Thank you.

I'm going to ask the city attorney to weigh in because fences, as the recreation parks director has stated, that are intended to protect the public, I think are a risk management and insurance issue. City attorney? I don't like to just put people on this call. But you're the city attorney.

Well, I mean, in many ways, we have to work collaboratively with our staff who has the on the ground experience. And I think we heard from our staff that without the fence, people risk getting hit by a ball and sustain injuries. And so given that, we certainly defer to our colleagues' expertise there. And we understand why it needs to be there because the last thing we want is people to be hit by a ball, which is hard and could cause very serious injuries.

Thank you for that. Anyone want to come up with a motion with some direction to staff? We've heard the one that we ask the staff to work collaboratively with the city manager's office and the city attorney in recreation and parks. Do we want to advance that? Of course.

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

That's correct. And then they are looking at starting fall ball from August 1 until November 1.

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

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

Which is beginning in August?

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

Thank you. Well, yeah, I guess my question or my point is that it would be good to clarify when any action or anything is happening with this.

Yeah, so Councilmember Jensen, we can give staff whatever direction we want. Those are the dates that were stated. We can say we want to look at an alternative when this field, when this usage stops and before August and I would certainly favor that. You. Vice Mayor, did you have any further? Do you want to make a motion to give staff direction? Anybody?

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

I

appreciate the city attorney's comments regarding safety. And I also appreciate the mayor's question regarding risk management. Valid questions. I just want to point out that it's been said this evening by, I believe, our park director that the 10 year to 12 year olds don't generally hit the ball going at a length in the sky that reaches the fence, resulting in some kind of injury to people. They just don't hit that far, a.

And b, if it's a ground ball, more than likely, at some point in time, the ground ball will lose momentum on the grass. So these are 10 to 12 year olds. Great, I have no doubt, really good 10 to 12 year old baseball players. But we're not talking like Jose Canseco shots screaming across the baseball field. So I do believe that the arguments about safety and the fencing need to be balanced with those in mind.

Vice mayor. I was going to say I would assume the bigger challenge were people walking aimlessly into an active game, not necessarily how strong children are while they're at bat. I think we've all been guilty of aimlessly walking with our phones into places we shouldn't be. So I think if you're at a park and you assume in your brain there's nothing going on, you're going to walk I would guess. Mean, Director Long might elaborate.

I think we could agree with that. Okay. Do you want to make a motion, Vice Oh, Mayor, to Council Member Jensen. Ms. I calling

Singer, this management came up earlier. To Council Member Desuk's point, are there any standards with regard to risk management, with regard to insurance coverage for sports fields that would establish that certain fields would have fencing in certain places?

No. Our JPA's coverage is fairly uniform. And they leave it to the governing body, which is the city council, to make the ultimate decision on how to operate the city.

Councilmember Bowler.

If I understand correctly, there's been conversation about adopting the city attorney's proposed direction to staff. Just for clarity, I think the discussion was in lieu of going forward with an MOU today, would go to staff. And then I don't know if it also is intended to include something about going directly to the commission as well.

I want the Recreation Parks Commission involved as well. I do. But staff and the city manager's office and the attorney's office. Okay.

So you And including that I would make that motion.

Okay. All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Vice Mayor Pryor seconds. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those Repeat the motion again. Of course.

So it was approval of the direction with also directing it to go to the Brecken Park Commission, the city manager, and the city attorney.

Yeah, to come back to us. And again, before the August season begins with some alternatives. City manager, city attorney.

Apologies. Just a quick question, council member. Does your motion include adopting this version or any version of the MOU?

No, it does not. No.

Okay. Understood.

We'll start from scratch.

All

right. Okay. Been moved by Councilmember Bowler, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor. All those in favor, So please

we are not adopting the MOU.

Not at this time. We're going back to staff.

Would this result in the termination of the program immediately?

Yeah. Counsel, unless the council directs that, this motion is silent on how the program would proceed. And I think the city manager would have discretion on how to balance the competing uses on the field consistent with the council's direction.

And knows that he needs to come back before that season starts again in August. So it doesn't impact the current season. But we still want those fence removal dates and all that. Not yours, sorry. All those Okay, motion It's been moved. It's been seconded. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, any abstentions?

I'll abstain.

All right. That motion passes with four ayes and one abstention. Good work. Thank you all, and thank you for being a very civil, polite, courteous crowd. I appreciate that. I always set my timer for two hours when we start a meeting. In nine minutes, it'll be two hours. So rather than start our next item, I'm going to give us a break. But please come back by 09:05. It's 08:51.

Please be back in your seats, to go at 09:05, at least all the council members. Thank you, everyone. Vice mayor Pryor, Councilmember Jensen, this meeting is the balcony ready? Okay, this meeting is balcony ready? Balcony's ready.

Need to see those thumbs you guys. Okay, because as we say, if the balcony is ready, we're all ready. Madam Clerk, where are we?

Did you want to call 7B next? Is that Iridium? Yes,

thank you.

Even without the tutus, I am disappointed. Is there not a tutu in the chambers? Okay. Anyway, Madam Plymouth, would you introduce that item, please.

Approval of project agreements with Radian Presents for the Radian Performing Arts Center consisting of the development of an approximately 53,000 square foot performing arts center and approximately one acre plaza on 1.87 acres of city owned land referred to as Site A Blocks 12 And 13 at Alameda Point, including adoption of a site specific surplus land exemption. This is a public hearing to consider adoption resolution declaring 1.87 acres of city owned land between 77 Building 77 and the Seaplane Lagoon Promenade to be exempt surplus land under the Surplus Lands Act and introduction of ordinance approving a lease option for three years with three one year extensions and furtherance of a sixty six year ground lease with purchase option with Radian Presents for approximately 1.87 acres of land located at Alameda Point and authorizing the city manager to execute a purchase and sale agreement consistent with the purchase option. This ordinance requires four affirmative votes. This project is subject to the streaming provisions of public resources code section two one one six six and two one zero eight three point three and sections one five one six two and one five one eight three of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines.

Accordingly, a sequel checklist has been prepared and no further environmental review is required.

She does that well and that is not the longest title she's ever read. Anyway, welcome. Hello. You want to introduce yourself? Absolutely. Before you do, I believe that this is an item that needs fifteen minutes for the staff presentation. I have that under good authority. So before you even get started, counsel, this is a really important I mean, everything's important, let's be clear. But this has been a long time coming. And so staff would like fifteen minutes as opposed to the ten that they are allocated anyway.

So could I get a motion I to add would like to finish my sentence. And then without speaking over the mayor, you may politely make your motion. Thank you. I'd like a motion to add five minutes to the total speaking time for a total of fifteen moved by Councilwoman Jensen. Yes. And seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor. Those All in favor signify by stating aye. Aye. All right. You have majestly had fifteen minutes. Take it away.

Thank you very much. And good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the city council. Walker Tomah, base for use and economic development department. So I am here this evening to present for your consideration the real estate agreements I won't repeat all of those titles again that would make it

possible

It'll be your fifteen minutes.

For the city of Alameda and Radium Presents to move forward with the funding, construction, construction, and operation of a proposed performing arts center at Alameda Point. Following my presentation, Christopher Seiwald of Radium Presents will give a short presentation to the council as well. And I also want to note that in addition to my city colleagues, we have available for questions David Dial, who is an expert in cultural facilities operations and has assisted the city throughout this negotiation process, as well as Jessica Lomakin of BBK, who's served as the city's council on the project agreements. There are also several consultants engaged by the developer who are available on Zoom to answer any questions you may have. So again, I will not repeat all of it.

But staff recommends that council adopts a resolution declaring 1.87 acres of city owned land to be exempt surplus land under the Surplus Lands Act and adopt an ordinance approving a lease option agreement that would lead to a ground lease with an option to purchase and authorize the interim city manager to sign a purchase and sale agreement if the purchase option is exercised. The site in question is primarily comprised of Blocks 12 And 13 of the site A development plan. The proposed lease would include approximately 1.87 acres that's what would be exempt surplus of city owned land on the former taxiway. This is part of Taxiway H, you often hear about it. This includes land to the west of Blocks 12 And 13 to accommodate loading, utilities, and bioretention, so that little kind of backwards P.

The developer will also be completing improvements to the north and south of the leased premises, most notably the construction of a new pedestrian oriented roadway connecting to Pan Am and running east west between the proposed theater and Building 77, which is where the Alameda Naval Air Museum is located. Consistent with the Site A development plan amendments and the Waterfront and Town Center Precise Plan, which envision the site activated with a catalytic cultural use, The proposed project is a 53,000 square foot performing arts center that features a main theater, studio theater, rehearsal rooms, lobby, gallery, cafe, and a rooftop bar. The project also includes an approximately one acre public plaza that would be built and maintained by the developer. The developer estimates that the project will cost approximately $150,000,000 and will be funded entirely through philanthropic dollars. The city would provide no operating subsidies for the project, and the facility would be operated as a nonprofit.

And they estimate approximately 12 time full time staff would operate the facility. A little bit of background. Back in 2023, end of twenty twenty three, the council approved an exclusive negotiating agreement, or an ENA, between the city and Little Opera House, which is now Radian Presents, to negotiate a ground lease and a purchase option for this site. The ENA was extended in 2024 and 2025 to give us additional time to complete negotiations. And the ENA currently expires next week.

The ENA required the developer to complete initial planning entitlements before bringing the real estate agreements before you for consideration. As part of that effort, the project was considered in two public workshops with the Historical Advisory Board, or the HAB, and two public workshops with the planning board. There was also a joint subcommittee formed comprised of members of these two boards that met three additional times. In short, the proposed project has undergone significant review and consideration before coming before you this evening. Last month, the HAB unanimously approved a certificate of approval for the project, which also served to satisfy compliance with the applicable California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQUA, requirements.

And also last month, the planning board unanimously approved an amendment to the Site A development plan and concurred with the HAB CEQUA findings. Findings. Prior to selling or entering into a long term lease on land owned by the city, the Surplus Land Act requires the city to declare land surplus or surplus exempt, which why the recommended resolution before you this evening declares the 1.7 acre city owned property as exempt surplus land under the Surplus Lands Act. Before walking through the real estate agreement structure, wanted to provide a bit of contextual framing staff used in negotiating some of the key terms in this deal. First and foremost, the goal is the creation of a community serving performing arts center.

And this proposed project is ambitious and would be transformational for Alameda Point and for the city. We also want to avoid a half built project or a facility that can't sustain itself operationally. We see value in investing in infrastructure surrounding the project so that it's better integrated with and can catalyze Alameda Point. And lastly, the city's participation in the project should be clearly defined, limited but sustained, ensuring that this project can be enjoyed by generations to come. Okay, so the nuts and bolts of the agreements.

The agreement before you this evening is structured as a lease option with an attached ground lease and a purchase option. A lease option provides a binding agreement with the developer with rating presents wherein if the developer does everything that they're supposed to do in the allotted time, they have the option of exercising the ground lease and subsequently a purchase option. The lease option period would be three years with three one year extensions, during which time the developer does not yet have control of the land but must raise 100% of the project funds and fully entitle the property so that they're ready to begin construction shortly after the ground lease begins. The lease option extensions are tied to fundraising milestones to ensure that significant progress is being made. The ground lease itself is proposed to be sixty six years at $1 a year.

It's a good deal. And following construction of the project and the first performance, the developer will need to sustainably operate the facility for a minimum of ten years before having the option to purchase the land from the city. A restrictive covenant will be placed on the land so that it can only be operated by a nonprofit and used as a community serving facility. And the city would have an option to buy back the facility through a right of first refusal. This project will trigger circulation and infrastructure changes at Alameda Point.

Most notably, the city is committing to spending approximately $4,500,000 on a new North South roadway connecting the West Tower between Buildings 40 And 41. That's that blue line number six there. This road is not currently included in the master infrastructure plan or the MIP, as we refer to it. The new roadway would be constructed when Seaplane North, which is in the MIP and is that East West that would connect onto Monarch that's shown there, would be ready to be constructed, which we anticipate to be a number of years in the future. However, in the interim, the city will create a temporary North South Roadway, which along with the temporary parking lot shown west of the project, will need to be completed by the city before the performing arts center receives its certificate of occupancy.

There are several community benefits that will be generated by this project, some of which are neighborhood or community wide in scale. These include, obviously, the performing arts facility, the one acre plaza, the new roadway. There are also numerous programmatic community benefits that would be generated by the project. And these are benefits specific to the operations of the facility itself. Those include a minimum level of activation, public access to areas of the facility like the rooftop and the lobby, whether it would be structured similar to the viewing tower at the Young Museum, if any of you have ever frequented that, hiring of formerly homeless, discounted tickets to students, active military, and seniors, reduced rental rates for local nonprofits, and the ability for the city to use the facility at costs for its own events.

I will not read through these because we just talked about them. But staff sought to negotiate an agreement that achieves city goals and mitigates risk. The terms of this agreement achieve these goals, incorporating a pragmatic, fill the suspenders approach to fundraising, to construction, and to operations of the proposed project. So again, staff is recommending the council approve the ordinance and resolution before you so that the city and rating presents can move forward with this ambitious project. Thank you.

Thank you. Nice job, Mr. Thoma. And now Mr. Seiwald would like to come up. Would be great. Come on up, Mr. Seiwald. And there's five minutes remaining.

Will talk fast. Maybe not quite that fast. That was quite impressive. Hi, my name is Christopher Seiwell. Thank you, counsel mayor, for having me. Sorry about the lack of tutus, but if I show up again, I will wear one. This is an idea that started almost ten years ago as a good idea. When my daughter wore her tutu, she had to go down to Hayward to perform for her parents. And not that there's anything wrong with Hayward, but it is, as you know, off the island. Island.

And it went from a good idea to a better idea when we started looking around the Bay Area to realize that there was really no great performing arts destination of this size and caliber, a quality, relatively small performing arts center. Center. And since then, it really has evolved into a great idea. I think one thing that the pandemic and now AI is teaching us is that we like people and that we want to be around people and doing people things. And so we've put a lot of effort into this project.

We have a fantastic architect, designer, a landscape architect, and team, Alamedans and others, who have really put a lot of heart and soul into making something that really should I hate to say it because I know that Alamedans don't want to be on the map, but will put Alameda on the map as a destination. The arts bring people together in a way that they don't necessarily get together otherwise. They don't have to talk about politics. They just get to enjoy each other's pleasant company. And I think that's a very important thing for us all going forward.

This is just one step in a very long process. This is a very important step for fundraising and moving this forward. So we're very appreciative of your consideration. I would also like to make a shout out to the city staff who has been so helpful in bringing this through over the last four years. Walker, Abby, Nicole, and Brian in particular have worked with us tremendously and have been just great partners. So thank you very much.

Thank you. All right. There's three minutes remaining. Do you need to No, you're good. All right. We'll take back the time. Are there any clarifying questions before we have public comment? I'm assuming we have public comment. I'm not seeing any Council Member DeSoc has clarifying questions.

I just have a clarifying question regarding one of the points that you made at the tail end regarding access to lobby and balcony viewing areas. Have you thought about the instrument by which you would memorializeinstitutionalize access to the lobby and balcony viewing areas? Because I think from that vantage point, it will be a breathtaking view of the San Francisco in the distance or in the direction of the Hornet, that side of the bay. So have you thought about the instruments by which you would memorialize public access GREEN: to there?

Yeah, absolutely. And so just to clarify, the intention is that these areas MACHT: would be open to the public whenever the facility is open. And you don't have to have

a ticket to the performance, but you could go up and be on the

Wonderful. Yeah. And so the idea is that this would run with the land. So it would be part of the restrictive covenant that would be established. And so people could come off the street and walk in and enjoy the lobby whenever the doors were unlocked for any kind of performance or practice.

Wow, that's fabulous. I mean, to repeat that phrase, it would be run with the land as part of the restricted covenant. That's amazing. Okay, great. Well, thank you. Appreciate that.

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

Yeah, yeah.

Three sixty degree view, right? Definitely. This is what we'll have, almost. Yeah, thank you. Other clarifying questions? Councilmember Jensen.

Can you just please clarify the surplus lands act requirements? As I understand, it establishes that lands would be available for housing or for other uses. And so can you just clarify how this is being made exempt?

JOSEPH Yes. So Alameda has its own exemption under the Surplus Land Act that is unique to Alameda Point. It was crafted in legislation by Assemblywoman Bonta. And so it has certain criteria that you have to meet in order to utilize this exemption. But the city of Alameda can we can use this specific exemption for properties that are located at Alameda Point. And so that's what we would be using in this case.

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

The former taxiway?

Yes, the taxiway.

This site in particular has long been identified for mixed use, but specifically cultural serving uses. So it was identified in the development plan and was identified in the precise plan much the same thing. So it hasn't been contemplated as housing. And it's always been contemplated as something catalytic and as a draw.

Great. Thanks for your clarification.

Sure.

All right. Any other clarifying questions? Or we'll go to the public comment. Let's go to public comment. Madam Clerk, how many do we have?

So far we have eight. Seven in person and one remote.

Okay.

Joe Ernst, Mitch Ball, and Nathan Lash.

Okay. And in that order, just be ready to come on up. And Madam Clerk, how long does everyone have to stay?

Two minutes. Two minutes.

Welcome. Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the council. I want to my name is Joe Ernst. I'm managing principal of Ernst Development Partners. And I want to encourage you to approve this proposal. I can't think of many things that would have such a dramatic positive impact at Alameda Point on its place making, its culture for the community. These are things businesses want, too. And we focus a lot on economic development. And again, I think this just be so catalytic and so beneficial. And most importantly, the team that is assembled here, Mr.

Seiwald, I can't think of anyone who would care more about this and commit to this and see this through. So I strongly encourage you to approve this. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker?

Mitch Ball, then Nathan Lash, then John Lun Nguyen, and Jamie Martinez.

Okay. We'll keep things moving if you're ready when you're the next speaker. Welcome, Speaker Ball.

Thank you.

Many others have already spoken and written in about the many benefits of this project. So I'm going to be talking about something slightly different, how this project affects the surrounding area. This project is one piece of the bigger project to build Alameda Point into a walkable, bikeable, transitable neighborhood filled with jobs, destinations, and homes, like so much of the rest of Alameda. We have plans to support new bus routes and build the ferry terminal into a major transit center that may include a future rail stop for the Link 21 project, which plans to construct the new Trans Bay Tunnel for the purpose of expanding high speed rail and regional rail, such as Caltrain, to Alameda and elsewhere. All of this won't happen overnight, next year, or maybe not even the next ten years.

But it is very likely to happen within the next sixty six years, which is the lease term of this project. So while I support nearly every line of this lease for its obvious benefits, I do take issue with one clause. The clause I take issue with is the city committing to 160 parking spots within a quarter mile of the project for the entire length of the sixty six year lease. It's easy to commit to providing this much parking today, but mass parking is the antithesis of the healthy density we need to build the point into the walkable, bikeable, transitable neighborhood we plan on it being. I suggest we modify this clause to commit to providing 160 parking spots, or a bus rapid transit stop, or a rail stop within a quarter mile.

With the fifteen minute high frequency and dedicated lanes of bus rapid transit and the high speeds and major connectivity of regional rail, either of these other two options is going to be able to connect far more people to this theater than 160 parking spots ever could. We've seen great success in the city by eliminating parking minimums. But this clause, as it is currently written, will create a new de facto parking minimum, not by zoning, but by lease, which is arguably harder to adjust. Sixty six years is a long time. I'm what you might consider to be a young person, but I might not be alive at the end of

the

sixty six year lease. But that's Okay, because we're not doing ourselves, but for future generations so that they can live a better life than ours, which is the core tenet of the American dream.

Thank you so much. And our next speaker?

Nathan Lash, then Jean Mon Nguyen, and Jamie Martinez, and then Jennifer Radick.

Welcome, Speaker Lash.

Hello. I'm here on behalf of Radium, but also I'm here on behalf of just being a resident and a parent here in Alameda. I moved to Alameda about six years ago with my family, and we love it. We cannot imagine a better place to put down roots. And Alameda has a great arts community already, but I really think that we can do even more as a city for our community as we grow as a city.

And that's something that I care a lot about. I didn't even know that Chris's children had to drive to Hayward for their performances, but my children and my wife drive to Castro Valley for their tap dance performances. Similarly, I have friends who constantly talk about how they would love to have touring musicians come to Alameda. And we don't have that many places that can support this type of arts. And I really think that Radium can do that. And that's why I got involved with the project, because I really believe it can be transformational for Alameda. And I think it's going to be an amazing addition to our city. So I hope

you all support the project. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is

Johann Le Nguyen and Jamie Martinez. Speaking together.

Is this a duet? Yes.

We come as a team.

Okay, just bring that microphone down to where we can hear. Yeah. There we go.

Hi, thank you city council members and mayor and Rachel. We're here as Alameda parents. We're PTA moms. And we are here to corroborate the value of arts programming, especially on Alameda Point. We are organizing an event in its sixth year that's going to also be at Radium Presents this Sunday.

And last year, we welcomed 400 folks. And it's something that we open to the entire community. And I speak on behalf of parents and a lot of our peers that we believe in arts programming, especially in this moment in history. My daughters play sports where we see the ubiquity of athletics everywhere in Alameda, which we're grateful for. But what we are lacking is a lot of strong arts programming. And I want my daughters to see that. And we go to rhythmic, and we really appreciate that. But if we could utilize more space in Alameda Point that our families already are, that would be wonderful. Thank you. And?

Agreed. And I just want to echo everything that's already been said in favor of this proposal. I was born and raised specifically. And I have never seen so much embracing of the arts as I do in this current moment. It's just great that our children get to experience living in Alameda in a time that art is celebrated and embraced across cultures, across mediums.

And everything that they're doing at Radium Presents just promotes that and embraces that. And I really feel fortunate that we've been able to have our event at Radium for the last two years and see that community engagement and showing up. And so I urge you to push forward with this proposal and make great things happen.

Thank you. Thank you both. Good job. Next speaker.

Jennifer Radakovich, and then Laura Billings, then Katie Connell.

Welcome, Speaker Radakovich.

Hello. My name is Jennifer Radakovich. I'm the executive director at Rhythmics Cultural Works. I'm speaking in support of this proposal tonight. Rhythmics Cultural Works is in its nineteenth year as an arts organization on the island of Alameda.

Next year will be two decades serving the community. So we were around when there weren't very many arts organizations and not a lot of arts happenings. And over the past two decades, we've been able to see just an incredible expansion and growth in arts and cultural spaces throughout Alameda, in part thanks to the support from the city. And also thanks to the support from Mr. Sidewall, who is spearheading this project.

But he also supports so many other arts programs, projects, nonprofits in the community. So he's not just doing this for himself, but he truly is a supporter of arts all across Alameda. And I truly believe that Radium will be a good partner to all the arts organizations that are on the island and work together in partnership with organizations that are already here to help bring even more arts to the community. And this project will also help bring new types of art to the island that haven't yet been able to be supported just because of the nature of the spaces that we have to produce the arts in. So I think this project will help bring something new and exciting to the island.

And I just want to speak in support of that. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next speaker?

Laura Billings, then Katie Connell.

Welcome, Speaker Billings.

Hi. Good evening, council members and mayor. My name is Laura Billings. I'm a principal at SRM Ernst Development Partners. Just briefly going to echo a number of the sentiments you've heard already this evening that I just feel like this is such an important catalyst out at Alameda Point.

So far, we've got great momentum with housing development and with food and beverage, recreation, R and D, blue tech. But arts and culture are the heart. And to really create a multilayered community, one that continues to attract and retain residents, you really need the arts and cultures to pull it together. So I really see this as Catalyst can bring other nonprofits, which in turn will bring other residents, will support more R and D, more restaurants, more food and beverage. I just think it plays such an important role in the continued place making, as Joe, my colleague, mentioned, and the richness and fiber of a true community. So I really speak in support of this project and urge you guys to support this proposal this evening.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Our next speaker?

Katie Connell.

Welcome, Speaker Connell.

Hi. Good evening, everyone. So my name is Katie Connell. You've seen me here before. I am spearheading a artist coalition in Alameda called the Alameda Arts Alliance. So I want to speak in favor of this project as well. Sounds like we really like it so far. We heard a lot of really heartwarming things. I'm going give you some numbers. So arts really do drive revenue to local business.

Attendees spend over $38 per person per event, on average. 30% of attendees to larger functions, such as Radium will bring in, come from outside of the county. And those non local attendees can average over $60 in spending beyond the admission that they spend to see the show. There are also a lot of health and well-being benefits of art. Just forty five minutes of art experiences can lower the stress hormone cortisol by 25%.

So I think that's a good thing for our citizens. And the social impact is profound. University of Pennsylvania research has demonstrated that a high concentration of arts in a city leads to greater civic engagement, more social cohesion, higher child welfare, and lower poverty rates. So I think more arts and an arts venue of this size, which is something we do not have, is just a great thing for the city of Alameda all around. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker,

Madeline Sadik.

Is that our online speaker? Yeah. Okay. Welcome, speaker Sadek.

MADELINE Good evening, mayor, council members, and city staff. Madeline Sadek, president and CEO of Alameda Chamber and Economic Alliance. We are in strong support of Radium Art Performing Center. And I will also echo all the sentiment Dahua shared. From the chamber's perspective, this is about economic vitality. The project transforms underutilized land at Alameda Point to a destination that will attract visitors, increase foot traffic, and really generate revenue for all our local businesses. This is not just a cultural investment. It is an economic one as well. We urge you to approve this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker?

That was our last speaker.

That was our last speaker. Okay. With that, we will close public comment. I kind of think this is going be an easy one, but that might just be me. Gosh, counsel, anybody want to say anything or make a motion or whatever? Why don't I start on my left this time because I always seem to turn to my right. Councilmember Jensen, would you like to lead us off?

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you to all the presenters. This is really very exciting. I'm the wife and mother of a performing artist, but unfortunately, I don't have that skill myself. But I do appreciate the performing arts very much. I've spent many, many lovely hours out at Radium Runway enjoying arts and enjoying other events that take place at that site.

And I think that this is just going be a tremendous asset, as we've heard from others. I also want to mention there is a need here. Earlier this month, I was at the library, at our own library, and I saw a presentation, a performance by Emmy award winning violinist named Mads Tolling. And it was sold out. It was a great event, and there was so much need for this type of thing.