body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 2, 2020- 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:06 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via
WebEx.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(20-359) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: Alameda Theatre, Located at 2317 Central Avenue,
Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric J. Levitt, City Manager; Lisa Maxwell, Assistant City
Attorney; Debbie Potter, Community Development Director; and Nanette Mocanu,
Assistant Community Development Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and
Alameda Entertainment L.P.: Under Negotiation: Price and Terms.
(20-360) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: 300 Island Drive, Alameda 94502; City Negotiators: Eric J.
Levitt, City Manager; and Michael Roush, Chief Assistant City Attorney; Negotiating
Parties: City of Alameda and Greenway Golf: Under Negotiation: Price and terms of
lease.
(20-361) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957); Position Evaluated: City Manager - Eric Levitt.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding Alameda Theatre, and 300 Island Drive, staff provided
information and Council provided direction and no vote was taken; regarding
Performance Evaluation, Council conducted performance evaluation and no vote was
taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:01
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 02, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,2,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 2, 2020- -6:59 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:14 p.m. and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmember Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was
conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
(20-362) Urgency Ordinance No. 3281, ""(A) Declaring the Existence of a Local
Emergency in Response to Civil Unrest; (B) Ratifying the City Manager's Decision to
Order a Curfew on June 1 and 2, 2020 (Ending at 5 a.m. on June 3); (C) Provide
Direction Extending, Modifying, or Discontinuing the Curfew; and (D) Authorize Staff to
Take Further Action to Implement This Declaration.' Adopted.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
The City Manager stated the issue is difficult; restricted rights cause serious issues that
need to be looked at carefully; he recommends Council provide narrow direction.
The City Attorney stated that he has reviewed the legality of the City Manager's
declaration and that it is fully compliant with all applicable laws.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he received a letter; inquired the City's response to
people who can only shop after 8:00 p.m.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether businesses are also covered by the curfew.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated businesses will not be open after
8:00 p.m.
Councilmember Oddie inquired the interplay of the City's curfew expiring while still
under the County curfew.
The City Attorney responded unless the County order changes or a judicial decision
alters the order, the County order purports to apply to all incorporated cities and
unincorporated County areas; stated the County order would still apply within the City of
Alameda; an 8:00 p.m. curfew would still apply even if Council discontinues the local
curfew.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 2, 2020
1",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,3,"Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Council would be forfeiting the authority of the
City Manager and Police Chief without a curfew.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the City Manager will remain the
Director of emergency services; any California officer could enforce the curfew within
the County; law enforcement decisions are made by the Police Chief, which allows
discretion of resource deployment; noted, pursuant to mutual aid, Alameda County
Sheriffs will also have jurisdiction of enforcement of the order.
Councilmember Vella stated Alameda is not the only City grappling with the inquiries
raised by Councilmember Oddie; inquired whether other cities are challenging the
authority of the County ordinance; expressed concern about overall enforcement of the
curfew and for those confused about the City versus County curfew.
The Police Chief responded the more restrictive order would rule; stated there is a
significant public safety concern occurring related to looting and burglaries; should
Council not extend the local curfew order, the Police Department would continue to
operate under the County order until its expires on June 5th.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council could delegate to have staff figure out
the best course of action.
The City Attorney responded Council may provide direction to authorize staff to take
necessary actions to further and implement the declaration of local emergency with a
report back to Council.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether staff will follow up on the implications of other
cities which are challenging the County order.
The City Attorney responded that he is not aware of any cities being prepared to file
legal challenge; stated certain local jurisdictions and officials believe the order does not
apply and the matter is being monitored; continuing dialogue is happening with the
County on the topic.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated Council is in an awkward position; that he has struggled
with the matter; expressed concern about the County Sherriff implementing a curfew on
the County level with little input for such a long period of time; expressed support for
receiving a report of any Police action in Alameda related to the curfew order by
tomorrow morning; stated a significant action being taken.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether Council could adopt the emergency declaration
and not continue the curfew; requested clarification of how long the emergency
declaration would be in effect.
The City Attorney responded the emergency declaration does not currently contain an
end date; stated Council may set an end date or allow staff to bring back a
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,4,"recommended end date; noted should Council adopt the emergency declaration and
direct staff to discontinue the curfew, Council must decide whether to allow staff to
reinstitute a curfew in the future, if needed, or direct staff not to institute a curfew in all
circumstances.
The City Manager stated that he recommends the longest period for a declaration of
emergency for this event to be through June 16th, the next scheduled Council meeting.
Stated there is not enough data to make an informed decision; there are concerns about
burglaries and looting; expressed concern about decisions being made without data;
stated that she does not support extending the curfew: Elizabeth Douglas, Alameda.
Stated that he does not support extending the curfew; there is no basis of fact for any
emergency in the City; the community should be encouraged to come together and
heal; urged being better; discussed defunding and demilitarizing the Police Department:
Josh Wyen, Alameda.
Public Comment Read into the Record:
Urged Council to consider reflecting the curfew through June 5th. Linda Asbury, West
Alameda Business Association (WABA).
Urged Council to rescind the curfew order immediately; stated curfew orders do not
keep people safer; discussed opposing Police violence; urged Council to oppose the
curfew: Rob Szykowny, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he appreciates understanding the reasoning behind
the declaration; inquired whether the incidents with Alameda Police Department could
be discussed.
The Police Chief responded the Department did not know of any upcoming violence,
crime or looting within the City; stated concerns were raised; outlined incidents of
looting Sunday evening, including arrests; stated the Department is determined to keep
the City safe; incidents from the previous night were significantly lower; many
surrounding cities are still experiencing incidents.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether mutual aid is available.
The Police Chief responded cities in need make a request through the Office of
Emergency Services of Alameda County and authorization for deployment of mutual aid
resources are provided; stated an Oakland request made within the County resulted in
14 Alameda Officers sent on Friday night, and 12 on Saturday; no officers were
provided Sunday night due to activity in Alameda.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Alameda was unable to provide or receive aid
on Sunday.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 2, 2020
3",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,5,"The Police Chief responded a request was made for mutual aid; stated Berkeley briefly
provided Police for about an hour.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated curfews are a significant event and should not be taken
lightly; the Alameda Police Department has been stretched, like surrounding cities;
expressed support for extending the state of emergency through June 16th, allowing the
City Manager to declare a curfew on a day-by-day basis based on significant upcoming
dates, and a report being submitted in the morning following any curfew related actions;
stated that he hopes actions will not be necessary; Council not extending to match the
County curfew is a signal to not over-enforce the County curfew; the curfew decision
was made too quickly with little input; more input and notification is needed prior to
County actions.
Councilmember Oddie quoted Benjamin Franklin: ""those who give up essential liberty to
purchase little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety;"" noted New York
implemented curfew for the first time since 1943; stated curfew decisions are not taken
lightly; outlined a Supreme Court decision related to Governor Newsom's limitation on
churches; stated Alameda has ceded the authority of a public health department to the
County; the City has not ceded its authority to the County on public safety; expressed
concern for the Sheriff exerting authority over the City of Alameda; stated Alameda is a
sovereign and Charter City, which is not subject to the County; that he is not supportive
of giving up any authority to the County Sheriff; the Sheriff has a history of being heavy
handed; expressed support for giving the City Manager and Police Chief temporary
authority to keep the City safe; expressed concern about the matter being prone to
litigation; stated Alameda only has five ways on and off the Island and is not inundated
by access; expressed concern about a two-week duration; stated there will be upcoming
days of protest and unrest and the declaration being extended until Sunday morning is
understandable; expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated that he trusts
City Officials and he is an Alamedan.
Councilmember Vella stated a number of other cities are considering various curfews
and whether or not the County should have jurisdiction over cities; actions being taken
are a fast-slide into fascist scenarios; expressed support for the City Manager's
implementation of the curfew; however, she is opposed to curfews; stated that there has
been no explanation of why curfews are viewed as effective; the shelter in place order
conflates the issue and fewer people are out; expressed concern about the number of
exemptions under the curfew, namely people going to and from work; stated many
people of color are terrified of being pulled over; tensions are heightened; curfew may
give cause to specifically pull over people of color; a number of business owners have
secured their business due to fears; Council should move from a place of data; should a
curfew be imposed, it needs to be data-based with actual information; that she is
frustrated Council is taking extreme steps to protect property when the conversation
should be about Black Lives Matter; noted much of the unrest is due to governments
failing to hold people accountable for police brutality and actions that are not just;
expressed support for the declaration of emergency; stated that she does not support
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,6,"further curfews; more direction and guidance needs to be provided; expressed support
for knowing which factors will be looked at for enforcing curfew and for more information
on how the curfew will be helpful in deterring crime; stated that she does not condone
vandalism or looting; her number one concern is the safety and protection of human life;
that she does not want to spend Police resources on enforcing the County Sheriff's
curfew order; noted that she would like to know about citations being given and
resources spent.
Councilmember Daysog stated these are historic times; the looting and mayhem in
neighboring cities indicates that the City needs to be safe; expressed support for the
emergency declaration until June 16th and the curfew; stated there is an opportunity to
look at the curfew on a case-by-case basis; many business owners around Webster
Street have concerns about activities occurring in neighboring cities and Alameda
should have the flexibility to respond at a moment's notice; a curfew is a resource; the
event in Minneapolis is tragic; Alameda's Police force understands how to respond to
situations in a culturally appropriate manner as possible; Council owes residents the
action of being as proactive as possible in allowing the curfew; noted that he would like
everyone to be safe; stated the curfew can be implemented on a case-by-case basis for
the right reasons.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated personal liberties are being balanced; that she has zero
interest in protecting looters; that she does support peaceful protests; there have been
burglaries at cannabis dispensaries in neighboring cities with one involving an armed
carjacking; citizens could be hurt; personal safety of residents and local businesses
must be considered; businesses and merchandise has not been prioritized over
personal safety; the City is looking at allowing businesses to open again; Council is
ensuring the City is safe for residents, visitors, workers and business owners; noted that
she received correspondence inquiring about getting tough; stated that the City has
been working very hard to keep everyone safe during the COVID-19 crisis; City officials
have implored for Federal aid, but it has not been received; the decision to implement a
curfew was not taken lightly; expressed support for the curfew being as brief as
possible; expressed support for Vice Mayor Knox White's comments and for peaceful
protests.
The City Manager stated the factors considered in deciding the curfew were: 1) Council
was set to meet in two days, 2) vandalism was occurring in surrounding cities, Targets
in Alameda was a potential site for looting, and 3) other surrounding cities were
implementing curfews; the decision was difficult to make; liberties are the foundation of
the country; the declaration of emergency is needed in the event more public safety
resources are needed and allows the City to document needs for reimbursement from
the federal government through the County; the Council could not provide authority to
implement curfew or limit the City Manager to implement a curfew for more than two
days.
Councilmember Vella inquired how the curfew will create more safety and how those
travelling under the exemption will be encountered safely; stated that she would like
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 2, 2020
5",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,7,"actions taken to ensure no hassle, detainment, or citations occur; the decision to cede
authority to three unelected people is a major decision; inquired whether a special City
Council meeting may be held in one week to discuss extending the declaration
of
emergency.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a Council Referral on the agenda for the regular
meeting related to special meetings; inquired who is likely to be pulled over during
a
curfew order.
The Police Chief responded matters encountered in the past couple months have been
uncharted territory; stated the current matter is also uncharted territory; this is the first
occurrence of a curfew in his 31 year career; everyone is still learning how to handle
situations; civil unrest has occurred prior, but not to the current extent; much of the
activity dropped when the curfew was implemented; his role is to provide public safety
for people and property in Alameda, which will continue with or without curfew orders;
the Police Department always tries to do the right thing and practice constitutionally
sound policing, which includes not profiling and not violating civil rights; noted tickets
have not been written since the curfew has been issued; only a couple of citations have
been issued based on the County Health Order; stated education and compliance with
the order is the primary goal; fewer calls and fewer cars on the road assists with
response times, but does not prevent crimes; stated a curfew will not prevent crime, but
crime may be reduced due to the curfew.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether an emergency urgency ordinance meeting
would require 24-hour notice.
The City Attorney responded there are two ways to discuss an emergency ordinance: 1)
a 24-hour notice, or 2) a one-hour notice with enough severity; stated both instances
must be found to have serious public health and safety concerns which require Council
to meet under the circumstances.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for adding special meetings later in the week
on
Thursday and possibly Friday to have an hour of space reserved to discuss
a
potential curfew; stated the meetings can be cancelled if needed; noted Thursday is the
next likely day for a curfew order; stated that he is not confident the County has
authority and would prefer the City of Alameda and Council to take action; Council
should proactively solve concerns.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what would be accomplished by a special meeting should
the County curfew order remain in effect until Friday at 5:00 a.m.
The City Attorney responded Council could call an emergency meeting with 24-hour or
one-hour notice; stated should Council wish to schedule an emergency meeting, it will
be helpful for staff to provide emergency basis to justify the calling of an emergency
meeting; time may be reserved if there is not enough factual basis at this time to call an
emergency meeting within 48-hours.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,8,"Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the discussion of the curfew could be
continued to a date and time specific, on Thursday.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the item may be continued to a
time certain.
***
(20- ) Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of adding an extra minute of speaking
time.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Councilmember Vella inquired the actions Council may take to challenge the authority of
the County Sherriff to implement a curfew.
The City Attorney responded Council could agendize the item as soon as possible for
Council to direct the Attorney's office to take legal action.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification whether the inquiry is in relation to the
curfew in place until Friday morning, or an extended curfew.
Councilmember Vella responded if Council votes not to extend the curfew and not
recognize the existing curfew.
The City Attorney stated Council may take a vote to convene in closed session and
discuss the potential initiation of litigation.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support; stated there is still fear among people of
color doing day-to-day things; expressed concern about what can be relayed to people
to help the fear of untoward thing happening; stated emotions are heightened and a
strong law enforcement policy is being implemented; questioned what he should tell
people of color driving in the City after 8:00 p.m. to help navigate being pulled over.
The Police Chief responded valid concerns can be discussed; stated it does not matter
what is said, what matters is what is done; the Alameda Police Department has not
been involved in a shooting in 15 years; outlined calls and arrests made per year; stated
there has been less than 1% of excessive use of force per year; the Department is not
perfect and mistakes will be made, but things are being done right; things that are
wrong, will be fixed.
Councilmember Oddie stated people need to stop calling police on people of color for
engaging in regular activities.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 2, 2020
7",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,9,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council would like to call a special meeting to
possibly bring litigation and should the City Manager have narrow direction; stated
Thursday and possibly Friday will be pivotal days; noted the County curfew extends until
Friday morning; inquired whether a special meeting could be considered if the current
curfew is extended.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the curfew is for five days, with the discretion to
go to seven days.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the County curfew is in effect until 5:00 a.m. Friday,
June 5th unless rescinded earlier.
The City Manager stated that he understands the order to be in effect until 5:00 a.m.
Friday; other cities have a curfew through June 8th.
The Assistant City Manager stated the curfew order has been attached to the staff
report; outlined the order: ""the order shall remain in effect until June 5th at 5:00 a.m. or
unless rescinded earlier due to restoration of public order and safety.'
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the County Sheriff took the authority and used it; noted
the order could be extended at the Sheriff's will.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council could state a special meeting would be
called if the County order is extended.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of declaring a state of emergency for the next
two weeks; granting staff the ability to identify two additional days for curfews; should
more than two days be engaged, an emergency Council meeting would be called;
deprioritizing enforcement of the County's curfew unless the City has declared a curfew
in the City; stated the state of emergency allows the City to collect needed funds from
costs incurred.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the additional two days, Vice
Mayor Knox White stated the memorial service is on Thursday and the funeral is in
Houston on June 9th; City and regional Officers have stretched resources; the end goal
is not to prove the City should have done something; expressed support for the City
Manager and Police Chief taking the decision seriously.
The City Manager requested clarification that the extension would be no more than two
days cumulatively, to which Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council consideration would not be needed, to
which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,10,"Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the motion means that the current curfew
ends Friday morning at 5:00 a.m. and could be extended for two cumulative days.
The City Manager stated the City's curfew ends Wednesday morning at 5:00 a.m.;
should a curfew be ordered Wednesday and Thursday, the authority to enact another
curfew would cease until returning back to Council.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the motion.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion and requested a friendly amendment of the
curfew being until Thursday or Friday morning when the County order expires to give
the City Manager discretion; stated that he would want Council to discuss any actions
taken after Friday morning; expressed concern about an ""open season"" on Alameda
with no curfew while the County curfew is still in effect.
Under discussion, Councilmember Vella requested the motion be bifurcated; expressed
support for deprioritizing stops when a curfew is not active in Alameda and the
emergency declaration.
Vice Mayor Knox White accepted the request to bifurcate the motion.
The City Clerk stated the urgency ordinance both declares the emergency and has
curfew language; noted the curfew language is in the ordinance, which requires one
motion.
Councilmember Vella stated enforcement should be deprioritized only if under a County
curfew with no City curfew.
Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about the need to coordinate with the
County on a variety of items related to public safety and for things not being easy;
stated that he would support a positive phrase.
The City Manager stated that he understands the direction on the emergency
declaration, but that is unclear on the number of allowed curfew days.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated Council is ratifying Section 4: ""The City Manager's June
1st curfew order is ratified, Council extends the curfew until June 3rd 5:00 a.m.;' inquired
whether there can be a separate vote on Council giving authority as a second
ordinance.
The City Attorney responded the curfew language should be voted on first to indicate
consensus on curfew details, followed by an overall vote on the ordinance with curfew
language removed should there not be consensus.
The City Manager stated two Councilmembers are questioning whether the vote could
be split by taking the curfew out of the ordinance to vote, and then a vote to amend the
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 2, 2020
9",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,11,"ordinance without the curfew language allowing a second vote adding the curfew
language.
Vice Mayor Knox White amended the motion to approve the emergency declaration as-
written, allowing the current curfew to extend through 5:00 a.m. tomorrow.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Section 4 of the ordinance will have a period
after ""City Council,"" to which Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of amending the ordinance to provide the City
Manager with the authority to institute no more than two nights of curfew from 8:00 p.m.
to 5:00 a.m. during the extent of the state of emergency.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the two days are consecutive
or any, to which Vice Mayor Knox White responded any two days, consecutive or not.
Councilmember Oddie requested the motion be amended adding the following: unless
there is further authorization from the Council.
Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember Daysog accepted the amendment.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of Police prioritizing and enforcing non-curfew
related incidents and reports when there is no City of Alameda curfew in place.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is within the
authority of Council.
The City Attorney responded Council provides overall policy direction and the Police
Chief undertakes his enforcement duties consistent with his obligations under State and
local law; recommended Council's policy preference would be that the City prioritizes
use of resources to enforce laws other than the County's curfew order to the extent
reasonable; use of resources would allow for that, consistent with the Police Chief's law
enforcement discretion.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,12,"Councilmember Vella and Vice Mayor Knox White amended the motion to the City
Attorney's recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog requested a friendly amendment to the motion as follows:
unless there is a call for mutual aid, when Alameda Police will travel outside of
Alameda; stated the current motion does not allow for mutual aid to be given.
Councilmember Vella stated a call for mutual aid could still be responded to; expressed
support for prioritization of responding to non-curfew related calls in Alameda and for
resources being spent on responding to other reports; the motion does not include a
request for mutual aid.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of scheduling a special closed session to
discuss legal issues regarding the County Sheriff's order.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the City Attorney stated Council may direct staff to initiate litigation;
however, the soonest staff can initiate is tomorrow; the curfew order expires on Friday;
the timing for the special closed session meeting is unclear.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he hopes the order is removed by next week; it is
possible the City can join in other cities challenges.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to remain mindful of the amount of work
City staff is juggling; the motion is significant; preparing for a special closed session
tomorrow would create a lot of work.
Councilmember Oddie amended the motion to approve the special closed session be
scheduled Thursday.
Councilmember Vella accepted the motion amendment.
Councilmember Daysog stated now is not the time to go after the County Sheriff;
Council must work with the Sheriff through mutual aid and the motion counters said
approach; he does not support the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to wait and see what happens after the
significant dates occur; expressed concern about blanket orders; having a closed
session this week is too soon.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 2, 2020
11",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,13,"Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he is willing to schedule a closed session should the
current curfew go beyond Friday at 5:00 a.m. with the idea that the meeting could be
cancelled should the curfew not be extended; staff resources should not be strained into
a conversation at the time of significant events; expressed support for discussing the
item in two weeks at the next closed session.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is willing to agree to schedule the closed session
Thursday if the Sheriff order is extended for any length of time; this is a constitutional
issue; conducting the discussion will be good.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:11
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,14,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - JUNE 2, 2020 - -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 9:21 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting
was conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(20-363) Proclamation Declaring the Month of June 2020 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, and Queer Pride Month.
(20-364) Proclamation Declaring the Month of June 2020 as Elder Abuse Awareness
Month.
(20-365) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read a proclamation declaring June 2, 2020 as Rosemary
Carol Riley Day.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(20-366) The Police Chief discussed a social media post with a video depicting
Alameda Police Officers attempting to detain an African American citizen;.
The following public comment was read into the record:
(20-367) Janet Gibson, Alameda, discussed the Great Plates Delivered program
operations in Alameda and Alameda County.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Clerk announced the resolution amending the salary schedule for part-time
classifications [paragraph no. 20-371 has been removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,15,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*20-368) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 5,
2020. Approved.
(*20-369) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,742,928.36.
(*20-370) Resolution No. 15655, ""Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to
Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter
Approved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election
Held November 7, 2000 for the Alameda Library."" Adopted.
(20-371) Resolution No. 15656, ""Amending the Salary Schedule for Part-Time
Classifications Effective June 7, 2020 to Reflect Changes to the City of Alameda
Minimum Wage and to Maintain Adequate Differentials Between Part-Time Job
Categories."" Adopted.
Urged an understanding of consequences of the resolution based on the City's treasury;
stated raising the minimum salary to $15 has become an opportunity to raise all salaries
for City employees: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
The Human Resources Director stated the majority of costs, $150,000, comes from
raising the minimum wage; compaction with other positions has been reviewed; some
salaries are being moved and adjusted; not all positions will receive a salary increase;
there have been adjustments to salary bands; the increases to Recreation and Parks
Department positions will only occur should work be available.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the compaction impacts seem high;
inquired whether the increases were calculated on a pro-rated basis and how the
differential has been calculated.
The Human Resources Director responded staff looked at keeping the salary ranges
aligned; stated staff has performed several minimum wage increases without many
adjustments to other salary ranges; there needed to be adjustments; there is an
expense should all increases be provided.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,16,"(*20-372) Resolution No. 15657, ""Authorizing the Commencement of Proceedings for
the Formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD), Designating Consultants,
Approving a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement, and Authorizing and Directing Certain
Related Actions For the Alameda Marina Project.' Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(20-373) Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2019-20
Community Development Block Grant Action Plan and Authorize the City Manager to
Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements and Modifications.
The Housing Authority Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.
The Community Development Director noted proposed providers from Building Futures,
Family Law Center and the Food Bank are available.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired what assumes an impact has been made to an
applicant's salary; stated that he is unclear whether the salary is being used to
determine whether an applicant is above or under the Area Median Income (AMI) due to
COVID-19; requested clarification of the intention.
The Housing Authority Management Analyst responded for CDBG purposes, the
income is at the time of receiving the benefit, which is post-COVID; stated pre-COVID
status will be reviewed to verify there is a significant change or substantial loss of
income.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the funds for rent relief work with the funds being
raised and allocated in the community fund, Alameda Strong; stated the rent money will
be paid directly to the landlord up to $3,500; inquired whether the programs are parallel.
The Housing Authority Management Analyst responded rather than advertising two
separate programs, consistent messaging will be used with a single portal and
application, which will be processed and administered on the back-end; stated those
that do not qualify for CDBG funds can be referred to the Alameda Strong program; the
process for applicants will be seamless and the end goal is to ensure the tenant gets
their rent paid.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether or not there would be duplications in payment
from both Alameda Strong and rent relief, to which the Housing Authority Management
Analyst responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the number of domestic violence calls for the month of April
2020 had increased 41.5% over April 2019; noted those booked for domestic violence
are not detained due to COVID shelter in place orders and are allowed to return to the
same residence; stated the emergency shelter program is important.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,17,"The Community Development Director stated that she would like to ensure the motion
includes the request for Council to appropriate funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 to
allow funds to be spent.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation, with the
appropriation of the money in FY 2019-20.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(20-374) Recommendation to Consider Providing Direction to City Staff to Draft Charter
Amendment Related to Article 26 (Measure A). (City Council Subcommittee)
(20-375) Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of not counting the minutes of the
subcommittee presentation time against the 9 minutes of Council speaking time.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Oddie gave a presentation.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff supports the
Subcommittee recommendation; it is time for the voters of Alameda to be given the
opportunity to answer the question about building multi-family housing; the State density
bonus has allowed for multi-family housing to be built; based on Council's affordable
housing, climate action, and transportation goals, staff has found the portion of the
Charter to run contrary to everything attempting to be accomplished; given the
challenges faced in 2020 and the challenges needing to be addressed going forward,
the question posed should ask whether this is good for Alameda; the issue has been
discussed as part of every housing project that comes through the system.
Councilmember Oddie inquired the practical impacts on affordable housing and other
neighborhoods of repealing Section 26-1.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded Section 26-1 is in the
City Charter; stated the multi-family prohibition is also throughout the zoning ordinance;
if Alameda voters agree to remove the Section from the Charter, then, from a practical
perspective, nothing changes until the Planning Board and City Council take action to
amend the zoning code where necessary to allow multi-family housing; large property in
Alameda can use State law to circumvent Measure A through a waiver that provides a
density bonus; a parcel of 10,000 square feet or less in Alameda, within a multi-family
zoning district, does not allow for anything larger than a duplex to be built; staff will
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,18,"begin to look at multi-family zoning districts and allowing people to create a second or
third unit; staff anticipates fewer density bonus projects moving forward should the
repeal occur; currently, every major project has used the density bonus process as a
way to get around multi-family prohibitions; every project has additional market-rate
units and the percentage of affordable units goes down as a result; developers are
invoking State density bonus to get a waiver for the multi-family prohibition and
defaulting into a 20% larger project; the City has been unable to get a Housing Element
certified for 20 years due to Measure A; the first Housing Element was certified in 2012
due to great effort by the Planning Board and City Council; there are new guidelines for
housing in 2020; the repeal will help the City in the long-run.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the ability to gain more grant funds; stated
Alameda is trying to do the right thing.
Councilmember Vella inquired how much time is needed for the Environmental Impact
Review (EIR).
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the EIR is required when
zoning amendments are conducted; stated zoning amendments allow changes to
individual pieces of property; zoning is already in place the removal of Measure A from
the Charter does not change environmental conditions; should the voters remove
Measure A from the Charter, there is no change to what can be done on the property,
the subsequent zoning amendments are what will change actions; multi-family housing
will not be allowed everywhere in the City; appropriate places will be chosen; a typical
EIR takes six to nine months.
Urged Council to place a full repeal of Article 26 on the November ballot; stated Article
26 and the ban on multi-family housing has a racist impact; discussed a letter submitted
outlining the history of Article 26; stated the policy is important in creating racial and
economic equity in the community: Grover Wehman-Brown, East Bay Housing
Organizations.
Discussed his experience as a member of the Alameda Planning Board; stated that he
is familiar with Article 26 and its impacts on residential development; urged Council to
place an amendment striking Article 26 from the Charter on the November ballot;
provided three reasons to strike the Article: 1) it is inappropriate to codify something
more appropriately placed in the zoning ordinance, 2) Alameda and the State are in the
midst of a housing crisis, and 3) the nation is in the midst of tremendous turmoil,
specifically around the issues of State violence against black citizens: David Burton,
Alameda.
Urged Council to support the delay of Section 26-3 until 2022; stated any revision of
Article 26 should be part of a larger, well-analyzed planning process to determine the
changes needed to the City's development rules; expressed support for repeal of
Section 26-1; stated the General Plan revision and Housing Element update needs to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,19,"occur before any ballot measure: Chris Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society (AAPS).
The following public comment was read into the record:
Urged Council to defer any further consideration of repeal or modification of Article 26
until after the restrictions related to COVID-19 are reduced; stated any consideration of
changes to Measure A should be deferred until part of the City's comprehensive
planning process: Dolores Kelleher and Floyd Brown, Alameda.
Urged Council to reschedule the discussion of changes to Measure A to allow citizens
to address Council in person; discussed the pandemic; noted there is a County-wide
curfew in place; stated discussion and input should precede any City Council action
regarding Measure A: Elizabeth Tuckwell, Alameda.
Urged Council to support the delay of Section 26-3 until 2022; stated the delay will allow
the Council and community to complete a planning and environmental review process
prior to crafting a ballot measure; placing the repeal of Section 26-1 on the November
2020 ballot is premature: Karen Lithgow, AAPS.
Urged Council to delay an election on a Charter Amendment eliminating Article 26;
stated now is not the time to alter Article 26 due to pandemic, civil unrest, and economic
downturn; the matter is significant and should not be considered without public attention
and open discussion: Elizabeth Greene, Alameda.
Expressed concern about the focus on removing Measure A; discussed population
density and quality of life; stated Alameda is an Island; urged Council to keep Measure
A: Maria Perales, Alameda.
Urged Council to not take action to revise Article 26; stated the issues are complex and
the process is not democratic at this time due to shelter in place and other issues; the
Housing Element has been certified by the State to meet housing needs until 2023; a
revision to Article 26 is not time-sensitive: Pat Lamborn, Alameda.
Stated now is a time to exercise patience; involving members of the community in
discussion is part of public duty; urged Council to be prudent, thoughtful and
democratic; stated the matter is too important to rush a conclusion: Gretchen Lipow,
Alameda.
Stated it is inappropriate to ask citizens to consider changes to the development
guidelines without presenting a thorough review and public discussion related to the
impact and consequences of the changes; consideration of changes does not need to
happen immediately; urged Council to postpone any decision on the matter until in-
person attendance of Council meetings: Steve Aced, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,20,"Stated removal of Article 26 is long overdue; discussed institutionalized racism in
housing; urged Council to consider putting both Sections 26-1 and 26-3 before voters in
November 2020: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.
Stated there is no need to rush the matter; expressed concern about changes to
Measure A; stated Mare Island is beautiful; urged no changes to Measure A and not
having the matter on the November 2020 ballot: Ann Quintell, Alameda.
Urged Council to delay discussions on Article 26 until the 2022 election; stated voters
cannot engage with the public and the matter is important; the City has met the State
housing quota until 2023; there should be no rush to make a permanent decision: Patsy
Baer, Alameda.
Urged Council to postpone an election to eliminate Article 26 until a full and robust
discussion can be openly conducted; discussed the impacts of the pandemic affecting
housing; stated there are projects which a carbon negative: Birgitt Evans, Alameda.
Expressed support for removal of Article 26 being placed on the November 2020 ballot;
stated Article 26 is in conflict with State law and regional housing objectives; historic
homes are protected; urged real solutions to the housing crisis be found; stated all
housing policies should exist in the Alameda Municipal Code, not the City Charter: Zac
Bowling, Alameda.
Urged Council to draft ballot measures to repeal Sections 26-1 and 26-3; stated there
has been economic uncertainty and a housing crisis; racial injustice cannot be remedied
without creating more affordable housing; bringing the matter to the voters will be
democratic and allow public participation; COVID-19 is not a reason to postpone: Jono
Soglin, Alameda.
Stated businesses will not move to Alameda if jobs are in nearby cities; urged Council to
make Alameda business friendly; changing Measure A will not achieve a desired end
goal: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
(20-376) Councilmember Oddie moved approval of discussing the remaining items on
the agenda and concluding by 11:55 p.m.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Councilmember Daysog stated Measure A, especially Sections 26-1 and 26-3, is urban
planning by sledgehammer; Measure A is still needed; outlined the history of Measure
A; noted Measure A was put together by residents to preserve the built environment;
stated the City of Alameda has become a more diverse place than before Measure A
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,21,"was put into place; African Americans were 2.6% of Alameda in 1970, 4.2% in 1980,
6.7% in 1990, 6.2% in 2000 due to the closure of the Base; 6.4% in 2010, and 7.1% in
2020; the amount of African Americans has increased since Measure A; Measure A has
not stopped the increase of racial and ethnic minorities; noted Alameda has a higher
percentage of African American population than San Francisco; stated apartments are
still being built with Measure A; the Housing Element had finally been approved by the
State; expressed support for keeping Sections 26-1 and 26-3 as an effort to preserve
Alameda history and to build wisely in the future; stated the matter is not simple;
previous effort by the people put Section 26-1 on the ballot; any changes to either
Section should be processed at the same level of effort and not as an abuse of power
by the Council; even with Measure A, the City has become a stronger and more diverse
place than before; there is no reason to undo Measure A; Alameda has limited space
and inadequate street infrastructure; the discussion is valuable.
Councilmember Oddie stated it is important to not impugn motives; it is impossible to
circulate petitions at this time; preserving heritage is the battle cry of the confederacy;
expressed concern about meeting noticing due to COVID; stated the matter was placed
on a regular meeting in order to have adequate notice; he has learned to empathize and
discovered a lack of trust; the proposal allows Council to build more trust; noted a long
planning process would be needed if Council could be allowed to repeal Section 26-3;
expressed support for going through the planning process, building Council trust,
resulting in an item placed on the ballot that passes; stated there is still time; the current
meeting allows Council to request staff bring back ballot language; expressed support
for hearing arguments for repealing Section 26-1; stated there is a fundamental
unfairness for properties purchased before and after Measure A; the affordable housing
percentage will increase without Section 26-1; expressed support for guidelines with the
planning process; stated the matter has had a disparate racial impact and the intent was
to reduce economic diversity; economic diversity has been lost with the rent crisis;
expressed support for discussing the item in an open, fair and civil way to engender
trust and reduce division.
(20-377) Due to technical difficulties, the meeting was recessed at 11:01 p.m. and
reconvened at 11:10 p.m.
***
Councilmember Vella stated that she would like to know the plan for meaningful
community engagement; there have been a number of difficulties with technology and a
number of residents are part of the digital divide and do not receive information; many
community members do not know when meetings occur; she does not think Section 26-
1 is controversial; there are many people on both sides of the matter that see no issue
with Section 26-1; a lot of work needs to be done on Section 26-3; expressed support
for any work being done in a manner that is engaging, welcoming and informational;
many people of color do not know about meetings and their voices are not being heard;
expressed support for having a process for meetings and conversations about an EIR
and any legal challenges which may arise; stated that she would like to understand the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,22,"costs of legal challenges to City-sponsored ballot measures and to ensure the matter
stands up to superficial legal challenges; expressed concern about having Charter
amendment conversations at special meetings with less notice; stated that she is the
one Councilmember that was not able to participate in a subcommittee; expressed
support for clarifying motions; stated that she is not trusting of the process; that she
would like to know the plan, when meetings will occur, who will be involved and how
groups are being informed of the process and decisions; changes to the Charter are
important; in the midst of a pandemic, most decisions should follow a process and
timeline.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he has been engaged in the matter for 18 years and
has heard from both sides; the pandemic is a public health crisis that has a housing
connection; a number of letters received suggest a pause until housing is an issue
again; many housing issues need to be addressed and fixed; there is an opportunity to
place the matter before the largest voting blocks in Alameda history; allowing as many
people as possible to weigh-in on the issue is transparent; many important decisions will
be voted on in the November 2020 election; stated one of the highlights from the Color
of Law is related to density and use of density to impact housing; should Section 26-1
be repealed and Section 26-3 not be repealed, the piece of the law put in place to make
it difficult to build housing would remain; it is more important to repeal Section 26-3 than
Section 26-1 to impact housing; that he is not willing to support spot zoning; expressed
support for removing zoning sledgehammers from the Charter, engaging the public in
the planning process, considering a full repeal of Article 26on the November ballot.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like full Council support to move forward in
removing Section 26-1; an outright ban on multi-family housing does not belong in the
Charter; expressed support for needing a robust discussion; noted the discussion has
been persistent for 20 years; stated the pandemic has shown how horrendous the
housing crisis is; expressed concern about the abuse of power statement; stated as a
matter of perception, use of power could be dereliction of duty; she takes her role as
Mayor very seriously; this is a pivotal time in history; Council has the power to do
something better; people do have the chance to engage in the public process; the
matter is time-sensitive; housing is a human right; the previous vote for Measure A had
been misguided and has had an impact on the City; expressed support for not letting
perfect be the enemy of good; stated modifications should be bifurcated; messages
need to be made simple and straightforward; the opportunity to vote on the matter
should be provided; outside walking tours with social distancing will eventually be
available; expressed support for taking Section 26-3 out of the Charter; questioned what
Section 26-3 will be replaced with in zoning ordinances; stated the process will not
happen overnight; stated Section 26-1 does not belong in the Charter; Council will be
directing staff to return to Council with potential ballot language; expressed support for a
measure repealing Section 26-1.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of adding a measure to repeal of Section 26-1
to the November 2020 ballot.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,23,"Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of directing staff to remove Sections 26-2 and
26-3 from the City Charter.
There being no second, Vice Mayor Knox White rescinded the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has directed staff to place ballot language repealing
Section 26-1 before the people in November 2020.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Section 26-2 is needed if Article 26-1 be
repealed; stated that he understood Section 26-2 relates to Section 26-1 not Section 26-
3; Section 26-2 exempts the Housing Authority from Section 26-1.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff will return and
advise Council whether or not Section 26-2 should stay; further analysis will be
conducted to understand whether Section 26-2 should remain if Section 26-3 be kept.
(20-378) Recommendation to Consider Providing Direction to Staff to Prepare Charter
Amendment Ballot Measure(s) and Potentially Determine the Election Dates when the
Measure(s) will be on the Ballot.
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Council is able to place items on the 2022
ballot or would the matter fall under another Council purview.
The City Clerk responded the provided elections date options are for information and to
relay timing; stated if the Council pay item is placed on the 2022 ballot, the
implementation date would change.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he wants to ensure clarity for the current Council's
ability to place things on the 2020 ballot; inquired whether changing his or her to
they/their has been considered for Section 2-16 under gender neutral references to
allow the descriptors to be fully de-gendered.
The City Attorney responded Council could direct a measure be placed on a future
election date; however, any future Council would have the right to withdraw the
measure; staff in the Attorney's office is willing to take direction related to terms used in
de-gendering.
The City Clerk responded the language in the staff report is language that is currently in
the Charter, not proposed language.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,24,"Councilmember Vella inquired whether a hold for an agenda item will be placed for
future Council to either affirm, amend or deny the ballot measure, should any be placed
on future election dates.
The City Attorney responded there is no legal requirement to offer an agenda item to a
new Council; staff can perform the request if desired or the new Council can direct staff
to bring an item forward.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether Council can indicate the item is currently being
declined, but request to have the item return.
The City Attorney responded Council may choose to not take action and direct staff to
bring the item back at a date specific.
Councilmember Oddie inquired the reason Section 22-7 and 22-8 are included;
questioned whether the item is related to Council pay.
The City Clerk responded the Sections were selected as general cleanup; noted per-
diem amounts are set by the State and hours listed in Section 22-8 are not what the set
City hours have been.
Councilmember Vella expressed support for bifurcating the discussion; expressed
support for moving cleanup language forward; suggestion Council to take a vote on
each item.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether each item could be taken as: A [Cleanup], B [City
Prosecutor], C [Council pay], D [Section 7-3], and E [Article 26], to which the City Clerk
responded in the affirmative; stated E was the previous agenda item and has been
addressed.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of directing staff to return with language for
section A, cleanup language, for the November 2020 ballot, with the direction to use
""they and their.""
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Vella stated that she would like to ensure to include
removal of ""his/her"" terms.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for staff to use the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, and Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) caucus at the League of Cities' model
language for gender neutral language samples.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,25,"Councilmember Oddie moved approval of directing staff to bring back ballot language
for the City Prosecutor and to add language related to the discretion of the City
Prosecutor.
The City Attorney stated the correspondence indicates the current language requires
the City Attorney to prosecute all local law violations; noted proposed language would
add State Law violations; stated the correspondence suggests adding the phrase:
""exercise the prosecutorial discretion"" due to the requirement of federal and State
constitutional law.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Vella stated it would be helpful for the public to have
clarity related to the change; she would like clarification whether additional funding for
the position will be needed; she has received questions asking why the City would
prosecute versus the District Attorney.
The City Attorney stated the existing City Charter can be read as authorizing or
requiring the City Attorney to prosecute all local law violations; the proposed language
would authorize the City Attorney to prosecute State law violations; earlier last year,
Council authorized the City Attorney's Office to engage in the activity with the consent of
the District Attorney; the intent of the ballot language is to memorialize the authorization
to the extent the consent of the District Attorney is withdrawn; staff does not anticipate a
need for additional staffing to do work which is already being undertaken.
Councilmember Vella stated the item will need a robust communication plan with the
community; many people do not understand the matter; engaging and informing the
community will be difficult.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Council should also decide which items will
be put together.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; provided an example of combining the
cleanup language, with Council pay or City Prosecutor.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Regarding Council pay, Councilmember Daysog stated the Subcommittee
recommended staff return to Council with a discreet number; there have been concerns
from residents; that he would not benefit from this matter and would only accept the
current rate of pay; Council pay is earned based on the amount of work; expressed
concern about the November 2020 ballot being loaded.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,26,"The City Clerk stated Council has provided previous direction to add the Mayor into the
language related to Council interference.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of placing the item on the 2020 ballot.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Vella inquired whether Councilmember Daysog's
request for a discreet number on Council pay was been part of the motion or whether
staff will provide alternatives.
Vice Mayor Knox White responded staff may present alternatives.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he will support the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
The City Attorney requested direction be provided whether Council desires each ballot
item to remain separate or combined specifically.
***
(20-379) Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of allowing 15 more minutes for
discussion.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Section 7-3 and the City Prosecutor matters
to stand alone as a ballot items.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of keeping the items separate on the ballot.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,27,"Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, with the following amendment that A
[cleanup] and B [City prosecutor] be combined, and D [Section 7-3] and E [Article 26] be
stand alone.
Councilmember Daysog accepted the amendment to the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Vella requested clarification of each item being
combined and the letters represented.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be restated.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of combining A and B as one set of ballot
measures, and D and E will standalone.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated that he supports combining all as long
as E is standalone.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for the proposal.
Councilmember Vella stated all should be separate if not combined.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for having two initiatives; stated the items are
cleanup.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated A, B and D are all cleanup language; E should not be
connected with anything else and should be standalone.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support.
Councilmember Vella expressed support.
Councilmember Daysog made a substitute motion to move approval of items A, B and D
being combined and E being separate.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(20-380) Resolution No. 15658, ""Approving a City Council Handbook and Code of
Conduct."" Adopted.
The City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Oddie stated the City Clerk has traditionally been the Parliamentarian.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,28,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Clerk is willing to continue the role, to
which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a Section on page 6 related to effective
problem solving.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion includes Council comments, to
which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(20-381) The City Manager stated the Slow Streets program has expanded into Phase
2; COVID testing sites are being looked into for Alameda; the current activity level is low
with no incidents.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(20-382) Katherine Allen, Alameda, inquired about laws giving citizens the ability to
protect themselves and their property against those in violation of the law.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(20-383) Consider Amending Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-91.4 (f) Pertaining to
Special Meetings. (Councilmember Vella)
Councilmember Vella made brief comments on the referral.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staff or the City Attorney to look into the
item and bring back information for Council consideration; stated that she is unclear
what is being asked of the Open Government Commission (OGC).
Councilmember Vella stated the OGC is looking at the Sunshine Ordinance; expressed
support for staff looking into different possible noticing requirements; direction provided
could be simple; Charter discussions would either require 10 day notice or be
announced at a regularly agendized meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated more nuances need to be addressed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,29,"The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff can either have the discussion with the
OGC first or staff can bring proposed language back to Council to address
Councilmember Vella's concerns.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the allotted time for Council discussion has passed.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of continuing the matter to the next Council
meeting.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the item being placed at the beginning of
the next meeting.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a Council Referral may be
placed at the beginning of an agenda.
The City Attorney stated Council may continue the item to 6:59 p.m. at the next Council
meeting.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:15
a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf