{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -JUNE 2, 2020- 5:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:06 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via\nWebEx.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(20-359) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Alameda Theatre, Located at 2317 Central Avenue,\nAlameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric J. Levitt, City Manager; Lisa Maxwell, Assistant City\nAttorney; Debbie Potter, Community Development Director; and Nanette Mocanu,\nAssistant Community Development Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and\nAlameda Entertainment L.P.: Under Negotiation: Price and Terms.\n(20-360) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: 300 Island Drive, Alameda 94502; City Negotiators: Eric J.\nLevitt, City Manager; and Michael Roush, Chief Assistant City Attorney; Negotiating\nParties: City of Alameda and Greenway Golf: Under Negotiation: Price and terms of\nlease.\n(20-361) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54957); Position Evaluated: City Manager - Eric Levitt.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Alameda Theatre, and 300 Island Drive, staff provided\ninformation and Council provided direction and no vote was taken; regarding\nPerformance Evaluation, Council conducted performance evaluation and no vote was\ntaken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:01\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 02, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 2, 2020- -6:59 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:14 p.m. and led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmember Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was\nconducted via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(20-362) Urgency Ordinance No. 3281, \"(A) Declaring the Existence of a Local\nEmergency in Response to Civil Unrest; (B) Ratifying the City Manager's Decision to\nOrder a Curfew on June 1 and 2, 2020 (Ending at 5 a.m. on June 3); (C) Provide\nDirection Extending, Modifying, or Discontinuing the Curfew; and (D) Authorize Staff to\nTake Further Action to Implement This Declaration.' Adopted.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nThe City Manager stated the issue is difficult; restricted rights cause serious issues that\nneed to be looked at carefully; he recommends Council provide narrow direction.\nThe City Attorney stated that he has reviewed the legality of the City Manager's\ndeclaration and that it is fully compliant with all applicable laws.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he received a letter; inquired the City's response to\npeople who can only shop after 8:00 p.m.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether businesses are also covered by the curfew.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated businesses will not be open after\n8:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired the interplay of the City's curfew expiring while still\nunder the County curfew.\nThe City Attorney responded unless the County order changes or a judicial decision\nalters the order, the County order purports to apply to all incorporated cities and\nunincorporated County areas; stated the County order would still apply within the City of\nAlameda; an 8:00 p.m. curfew would still apply even if Council discontinues the local\ncurfew.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 2, 2020\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Council would be forfeiting the authority of the\nCity Manager and Police Chief without a curfew.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the City Manager will remain the\nDirector of emergency services; any California officer could enforce the curfew within\nthe County; law enforcement decisions are made by the Police Chief, which allows\ndiscretion of resource deployment; noted, pursuant to mutual aid, Alameda County\nSheriffs will also have jurisdiction of enforcement of the order.\nCouncilmember Vella stated Alameda is not the only City grappling with the inquiries\nraised by Councilmember Oddie; inquired whether other cities are challenging the\nauthority of the County ordinance; expressed concern about overall enforcement of the\ncurfew and for those confused about the City versus County curfew.\nThe Police Chief responded the more restrictive order would rule; stated there is a\nsignificant public safety concern occurring related to looting and burglaries; should\nCouncil not extend the local curfew order, the Police Department would continue to\noperate under the County order until its expires on June 5th.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council could delegate to have staff figure out\nthe best course of action.\nThe City Attorney responded Council may provide direction to authorize staff to take\nnecessary actions to further and implement the declaration of local emergency with a\nreport back to Council.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether staff will follow up on the implications of other\ncities which are challenging the County order.\nThe City Attorney responded that he is not aware of any cities being prepared to file\nlegal challenge; stated certain local jurisdictions and officials believe the order does not\napply and the matter is being monitored; continuing dialogue is happening with the\nCounty on the topic.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated Council is in an awkward position; that he has struggled\nwith the matter; expressed concern about the County Sherriff implementing a curfew on\nthe County level with little input for such a long period of time; expressed support for\nreceiving a report of any Police action in Alameda related to the curfew order by\ntomorrow morning; stated a significant action being taken.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether Council could adopt the emergency declaration\nand not continue the curfew; requested clarification of how long the emergency\ndeclaration would be in effect.\nThe City Attorney responded the emergency declaration does not currently contain an\nend date; stated Council may set an end date or allow staff to bring back a\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 4, "text": "recommended end date; noted should Council adopt the emergency declaration and\ndirect staff to discontinue the curfew, Council must decide whether to allow staff to\nreinstitute a curfew in the future, if needed, or direct staff not to institute a curfew in all\ncircumstances.\nThe City Manager stated that he recommends the longest period for a declaration of\nemergency for this event to be through June 16th, the next scheduled Council meeting.\nStated there is not enough data to make an informed decision; there are concerns about\nburglaries and looting; expressed concern about decisions being made without data;\nstated that she does not support extending the curfew: Elizabeth Douglas, Alameda.\nStated that he does not support extending the curfew; there is no basis of fact for any\nemergency in the City; the community should be encouraged to come together and\nheal; urged being better; discussed defunding and demilitarizing the Police Department:\nJosh Wyen, Alameda.\nPublic Comment Read into the Record:\nUrged Council to consider reflecting the curfew through June 5th. Linda Asbury, West\nAlameda Business Association (WABA).\nUrged Council to rescind the curfew order immediately; stated curfew orders do not\nkeep people safer; discussed opposing Police violence; urged Council to oppose the\ncurfew: Rob Szykowny, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he appreciates understanding the reasoning behind\nthe declaration; inquired whether the incidents with Alameda Police Department could\nbe discussed.\nThe Police Chief responded the Department did not know of any upcoming violence,\ncrime or looting within the City; stated concerns were raised; outlined incidents of\nlooting Sunday evening, including arrests; stated the Department is determined to keep\nthe City safe; incidents from the previous night were significantly lower; many\nsurrounding cities are still experiencing incidents.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether mutual aid is available.\nThe Police Chief responded cities in need make a request through the Office of\nEmergency Services of Alameda County and authorization for deployment of mutual aid\nresources are provided; stated an Oakland request made within the County resulted in\n14 Alameda Officers sent on Friday night, and 12 on Saturday; no officers were\nprovided Sunday night due to activity in Alameda.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Alameda was unable to provide or receive aid\non Sunday.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 2, 2020\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 5, "text": "The Police Chief responded a request was made for mutual aid; stated Berkeley briefly\nprovided Police for about an hour.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated curfews are a significant event and should not be taken\nlightly; the Alameda Police Department has been stretched, like surrounding cities;\nexpressed support for extending the state of emergency through June 16th, allowing the\nCity Manager to declare a curfew on a day-by-day basis based on significant upcoming\ndates, and a report being submitted in the morning following any curfew related actions;\nstated that he hopes actions will not be necessary; Council not extending to match the\nCounty curfew is a signal to not over-enforce the County curfew; the curfew decision\nwas made too quickly with little input; more input and notification is needed prior to\nCounty actions.\nCouncilmember Oddie quoted Benjamin Franklin: \"those who give up essential liberty to\npurchase little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety;\" noted New York\nimplemented curfew for the first time since 1943; stated curfew decisions are not taken\nlightly; outlined a Supreme Court decision related to Governor Newsom's limitation on\nchurches; stated Alameda has ceded the authority of a public health department to the\nCounty; the City has not ceded its authority to the County on public safety; expressed\nconcern for the Sheriff exerting authority over the City of Alameda; stated Alameda is a\nsovereign and Charter City, which is not subject to the County; that he is not supportive\nof giving up any authority to the County Sheriff; the Sheriff has a history of being heavy\nhanded; expressed support for giving the City Manager and Police Chief temporary\nauthority to keep the City safe; expressed concern about the matter being prone to\nlitigation; stated Alameda only has five ways on and off the Island and is not inundated\nby access; expressed concern about a two-week duration; stated there will be upcoming\ndays of protest and unrest and the declaration being extended until Sunday morning is\nunderstandable; expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated that he trusts\nCity Officials and he is an Alamedan.\nCouncilmember Vella stated a number of other cities are considering various curfews\nand whether or not the County should have jurisdiction over cities; actions being taken\nare a fast-slide into fascist scenarios; expressed support for the City Manager's\nimplementation of the curfew; however, she is opposed to curfews; stated that there has\nbeen no explanation of why curfews are viewed as effective; the shelter in place order\nconflates the issue and fewer people are out; expressed concern about the number of\nexemptions under the curfew, namely people going to and from work; stated many\npeople of color are terrified of being pulled over; tensions are heightened; curfew may\ngive cause to specifically pull over people of color; a number of business owners have\nsecured their business due to fears; Council should move from a place of data; should a\ncurfew be imposed, it needs to be data-based with actual information; that she is\nfrustrated Council is taking extreme steps to protect property when the conversation\nshould be about Black Lives Matter; noted much of the unrest is due to governments\nfailing to hold people accountable for police brutality and actions that are not just;\nexpressed support for the declaration of emergency; stated that she does not support\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 6, "text": "further curfews; more direction and guidance needs to be provided; expressed support\nfor knowing which factors will be looked at for enforcing curfew and for more information\non how the curfew will be helpful in deterring crime; stated that she does not condone\nvandalism or looting; her number one concern is the safety and protection of human life;\nthat she does not want to spend Police resources on enforcing the County Sheriff's\ncurfew order; noted that she would like to know about citations being given and\nresources spent.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated these are historic times; the looting and mayhem in\nneighboring cities indicates that the City needs to be safe; expressed support for the\nemergency declaration until June 16th and the curfew; stated there is an opportunity to\nlook at the curfew on a case-by-case basis; many business owners around Webster\nStreet have concerns about activities occurring in neighboring cities and Alameda\nshould have the flexibility to respond at a moment's notice; a curfew is a resource; the\nevent in Minneapolis is tragic; Alameda's Police force understands how to respond to\nsituations in a culturally appropriate manner as possible; Council owes residents the\naction of being as proactive as possible in allowing the curfew; noted that he would like\neveryone to be safe; stated the curfew can be implemented on a case-by-case basis for\nthe right reasons.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated personal liberties are being balanced; that she has zero\ninterest in protecting looters; that she does support peaceful protests; there have been\nburglaries at cannabis dispensaries in neighboring cities with one involving an armed\ncarjacking; citizens could be hurt; personal safety of residents and local businesses\nmust be considered; businesses and merchandise has not been prioritized over\npersonal safety; the City is looking at allowing businesses to open again; Council is\nensuring the City is safe for residents, visitors, workers and business owners; noted that\nshe received correspondence inquiring about getting tough; stated that the City has\nbeen working very hard to keep everyone safe during the COVID-19 crisis; City officials\nhave implored for Federal aid, but it has not been received; the decision to implement a\ncurfew was not taken lightly; expressed support for the curfew being as brief as\npossible; expressed support for Vice Mayor Knox White's comments and for peaceful\nprotests.\nThe City Manager stated the factors considered in deciding the curfew were: 1) Council\nwas set to meet in two days, 2) vandalism was occurring in surrounding cities, Targets\nin Alameda was a potential site for looting, and 3) other surrounding cities were\nimplementing curfews; the decision was difficult to make; liberties are the foundation of\nthe country; the declaration of emergency is needed in the event more public safety\nresources are needed and allows the City to document needs for reimbursement from\nthe federal government through the County; the Council could not provide authority to\nimplement curfew or limit the City Manager to implement a curfew for more than two\ndays.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired how the curfew will create more safety and how those\ntravelling under the exemption will be encountered safely; stated that she would like\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 2, 2020\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 7, "text": "actions taken to ensure no hassle, detainment, or citations occur; the decision to cede\nauthority to three unelected people is a major decision; inquired whether a special City\nCouncil meeting may be held in one week to discuss extending the declaration\nof\nemergency.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a Council Referral on the agenda for the regular\nmeeting related to special meetings; inquired who is likely to be pulled over during\na\ncurfew order.\nThe Police Chief responded matters encountered in the past couple months have been\nuncharted territory; stated the current matter is also uncharted territory; this is the first\noccurrence of a curfew in his 31 year career; everyone is still learning how to handle\nsituations; civil unrest has occurred prior, but not to the current extent; much of the\nactivity dropped when the curfew was implemented; his role is to provide public safety\nfor people and property in Alameda, which will continue with or without curfew orders;\nthe Police Department always tries to do the right thing and practice constitutionally\nsound policing, which includes not profiling and not violating civil rights; noted tickets\nhave not been written since the curfew has been issued; only a couple of citations have\nbeen issued based on the County Health Order; stated education and compliance with\nthe order is the primary goal; fewer calls and fewer cars on the road assists with\nresponse times, but does not prevent crimes; stated a curfew will not prevent crime, but\ncrime may be reduced due to the curfew.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether an emergency urgency ordinance meeting\nwould require 24-hour notice.\nThe City Attorney responded there are two ways to discuss an emergency ordinance: 1)\na 24-hour notice, or 2) a one-hour notice with enough severity; stated both instances\nmust be found to have serious public health and safety concerns which require Council\nto meet under the circumstances.\nVice Mayor Knox White expressed support for adding special meetings later in the week\non\nThursday and possibly Friday to have an hour of space reserved to discuss\na\npotential curfew; stated the meetings can be cancelled if needed; noted Thursday is the\nnext likely day for a curfew order; stated that he is not confident the County has\nauthority and would prefer the City of Alameda and Council to take action; Council\nshould proactively solve concerns.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what would be accomplished by a special meeting should\nthe County curfew order remain in effect until Friday at 5:00 a.m.\nThe City Attorney responded Council could call an emergency meeting with 24-hour or\none-hour notice; stated should Council wish to schedule an emergency meeting, it will\nbe helpful for staff to provide emergency basis to justify the calling of an emergency\nmeeting; time may be reserved if there is not enough factual basis at this time to call an\nemergency meeting within 48-hours.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 8, "text": "Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the discussion of the curfew could be\ncontinued to a date and time specific, on Thursday.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the item may be continued to a\ntime certain.\n***\n(20- ) Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of adding an extra minute of speaking\ntime.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nCouncilmember Vella inquired the actions Council may take to challenge the authority of\nthe County Sherriff to implement a curfew.\nThe City Attorney responded Council could agendize the item as soon as possible for\nCouncil to direct the Attorney's office to take legal action.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification whether the inquiry is in relation to the\ncurfew in place until Friday morning, or an extended curfew.\nCouncilmember Vella responded if Council votes not to extend the curfew and not\nrecognize the existing curfew.\nThe City Attorney stated Council may take a vote to convene in closed session and\ndiscuss the potential initiation of litigation.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support; stated there is still fear among people of\ncolor doing day-to-day things; expressed concern about what can be relayed to people\nto help the fear of untoward thing happening; stated emotions are heightened and a\nstrong law enforcement policy is being implemented; questioned what he should tell\npeople of color driving in the City after 8:00 p.m. to help navigate being pulled over.\nThe Police Chief responded valid concerns can be discussed; stated it does not matter\nwhat is said, what matters is what is done; the Alameda Police Department has not\nbeen involved in a shooting in 15 years; outlined calls and arrests made per year; stated\nthere has been less than 1% of excessive use of force per year; the Department is not\nperfect and mistakes will be made, but things are being done right; things that are\nwrong, will be fixed.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated people need to stop calling police on people of color for\nengaging in regular activities.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 2, 2020\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council would like to call a special meeting to\npossibly bring litigation and should the City Manager have narrow direction; stated\nThursday and possibly Friday will be pivotal days; noted the County curfew extends until\nFriday morning; inquired whether a special meeting could be considered if the current\ncurfew is extended.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the curfew is for five days, with the discretion to\ngo to seven days.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the County curfew is in effect until 5:00 a.m. Friday,\nJune 5th unless rescinded earlier.\nThe City Manager stated that he understands the order to be in effect until 5:00 a.m.\nFriday; other cities have a curfew through June 8th.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the curfew order has been attached to the staff\nreport; outlined the order: \"the order shall remain in effect until June 5th at 5:00 a.m. or\nunless rescinded earlier due to restoration of public order and safety.'\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the County Sheriff took the authority and used it; noted\nthe order could be extended at the Sheriff's will.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council could state a special meeting would be\ncalled if the County order is extended.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of declaring a state of emergency for the next\ntwo weeks; granting staff the ability to identify two additional days for curfews; should\nmore than two days be engaged, an emergency Council meeting would be called;\ndeprioritizing enforcement of the County's curfew unless the City has declared a curfew\nin the City; stated the state of emergency allows the City to collect needed funds from\ncosts incurred.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the additional two days, Vice\nMayor Knox White stated the memorial service is on Thursday and the funeral is in\nHouston on June 9th; City and regional Officers have stretched resources; the end goal\nis not to prove the City should have done something; expressed support for the City\nManager and Police Chief taking the decision seriously.\nThe City Manager requested clarification that the extension would be no more than two\ndays cumulatively, to which Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council consideration would not be needed, to\nwhich the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the motion means that the current curfew\nends Friday morning at 5:00 a.m. and could be extended for two cumulative days.\nThe City Manager stated the City's curfew ends Wednesday morning at 5:00 a.m.;\nshould a curfew be ordered Wednesday and Thursday, the authority to enact another\ncurfew would cease until returning back to Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for the motion.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion and requested a friendly amendment of the\ncurfew being until Thursday or Friday morning when the County order expires to give\nthe City Manager discretion; stated that he would want Council to discuss any actions\ntaken after Friday morning; expressed concern about an \"open season\" on Alameda\nwith no curfew while the County curfew is still in effect.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Vella requested the motion be bifurcated; expressed\nsupport for deprioritizing stops when a curfew is not active in Alameda and the\nemergency declaration.\nVice Mayor Knox White accepted the request to bifurcate the motion.\nThe City Clerk stated the urgency ordinance both declares the emergency and has\ncurfew language; noted the curfew language is in the ordinance, which requires one\nmotion.\nCouncilmember Vella stated enforcement should be deprioritized only if under a County\ncurfew with no City curfew.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed concern about the need to coordinate with the\nCounty on a variety of items related to public safety and for things not being easy;\nstated that he would support a positive phrase.\nThe City Manager stated that he understands the direction on the emergency\ndeclaration, but that is unclear on the number of allowed curfew days.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated Council is ratifying Section 4: \"The City Manager's June\n1st curfew order is ratified, Council extends the curfew until June 3rd 5:00 a.m.;' inquired\nwhether there can be a separate vote on Council giving authority as a second\nordinance.\nThe City Attorney responded the curfew language should be voted on first to indicate\nconsensus on curfew details, followed by an overall vote on the ordinance with curfew\nlanguage removed should there not be consensus.\nThe City Manager stated two Councilmembers are questioning whether the vote could\nbe split by taking the curfew out of the ordinance to vote, and then a vote to amend the\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 2, 2020\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 11, "text": "ordinance without the curfew language allowing a second vote adding the curfew\nlanguage.\nVice Mayor Knox White amended the motion to approve the emergency declaration as-\nwritten, allowing the current curfew to extend through 5:00 a.m. tomorrow.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Section 4 of the ordinance will have a period\nafter \"City Council,\" to which Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of amending the ordinance to provide the City\nManager with the authority to institute no more than two nights of curfew from 8:00 p.m.\nto 5:00 a.m. during the extent of the state of emergency.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the two days are consecutive\nor any, to which Vice Mayor Knox White responded any two days, consecutive or not.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested the motion be amended adding the following: unless\nthere is further authorization from the Council.\nVice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember Daysog accepted the amendment.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of Police prioritizing and enforcing non-curfew\nrelated incidents and reports when there is no City of Alameda curfew in place.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is within the\nauthority of Council.\nThe City Attorney responded Council provides overall policy direction and the Police\nChief undertakes his enforcement duties consistent with his obligations under State and\nlocal law; recommended Council's policy preference would be that the City prioritizes\nuse of resources to enforce laws other than the County's curfew order to the extent\nreasonable; use of resources would allow for that, consistent with the Police Chief's law\nenforcement discretion.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Vella and Vice Mayor Knox White amended the motion to the City\nAttorney's recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested a friendly amendment to the motion as follows:\nunless there is a call for mutual aid, when Alameda Police will travel outside of\nAlameda; stated the current motion does not allow for mutual aid to be given.\nCouncilmember Vella stated a call for mutual aid could still be responded to; expressed\nsupport for prioritization of responding to non-curfew related calls in Alameda and for\nresources being spent on responding to other reports; the motion does not include a\nrequest for mutual aid.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of scheduling a special closed session to\ndiscuss legal issues regarding the County Sheriff's order.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the City Attorney stated Council may direct staff to initiate litigation;\nhowever, the soonest staff can initiate is tomorrow; the curfew order expires on Friday;\nthe timing for the special closed session meeting is unclear.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he hopes the order is removed by next week; it is\npossible the City can join in other cities challenges.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to remain mindful of the amount of work\nCity staff is juggling; the motion is significant; preparing for a special closed session\ntomorrow would create a lot of work.\nCouncilmember Oddie amended the motion to approve the special closed session be\nscheduled Thursday.\nCouncilmember Vella accepted the motion amendment.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated now is not the time to go after the County Sheriff;\nCouncil must work with the Sheriff through mutual aid and the motion counters said\napproach; he does not support the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to wait and see what happens after the\nsignificant dates occur; expressed concern about blanket orders; having a closed\nsession this week is too soon.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 2, 2020\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 13, "text": "Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he is willing to schedule a closed session should the\ncurrent curfew go beyond Friday at 5:00 a.m. with the idea that the meeting could be\ncancelled should the curfew not be extended; staff resources should not be strained into\na conversation at the time of significant events; expressed support for discussing the\nitem in two weeks at the next closed session.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is willing to agree to schedule the closed session\nThursday if the Sheriff order is extended for any length of time; this is a constitutional\nissue; conducting the discussion will be good.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:11\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - - JUNE 2, 2020 - -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 9:21 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting\nwas conducted via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(20-363) Proclamation Declaring the Month of June 2020 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,\nTransgender, and Queer Pride Month.\n(20-364) Proclamation Declaring the Month of June 2020 as Elder Abuse Awareness\nMonth.\n(20-365) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read a proclamation declaring June 2, 2020 as Rosemary\nCarol Riley Day.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(20-366) The Police Chief discussed a social media post with a video depicting\nAlameda Police Officers attempting to detain an African American citizen;.\nThe following public comment was read into the record:\n(20-367) Janet Gibson, Alameda, discussed the Great Plates Delivered program\noperations in Alameda and Alameda County.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nThe City Clerk announced the resolution amending the salary schedule for part-time\nclassifications [paragraph no. 20-371 has been removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 15, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*20-368) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 5,\n2020. Approved.\n(*20-369) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,742,928.36.\n(*20-370) Resolution No. 15655, \"Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to\nLevy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter\nApproved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election\nHeld November 7, 2000 for the Alameda Library.\" Adopted.\n(20-371) Resolution No. 15656, \"Amending the Salary Schedule for Part-Time\nClassifications Effective June 7, 2020 to Reflect Changes to the City of Alameda\nMinimum Wage and to Maintain Adequate Differentials Between Part-Time Job\nCategories.\" Adopted.\nUrged an understanding of consequences of the resolution based on the City's treasury;\nstated raising the minimum salary to $15 has become an opportunity to raise all salaries\nfor City employees: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nThe Human Resources Director stated the majority of costs, $150,000, comes from\nraising the minimum wage; compaction with other positions has been reviewed; some\nsalaries are being moved and adjusted; not all positions will receive a salary increase;\nthere have been adjustments to salary bands; the increases to Recreation and Parks\nDepartment positions will only occur should work be available.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the compaction impacts seem high;\ninquired whether the increases were calculated on a pro-rated basis and how the\ndifferential has been calculated.\nThe Human Resources Director responded staff looked at keeping the salary ranges\naligned; stated staff has performed several minimum wage increases without many\nadjustments to other salary ranges; there needed to be adjustments; there is an\nexpense should all increases be provided.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 16, "text": "(*20-372) Resolution No. 15657, \"Authorizing the Commencement of Proceedings for\nthe Formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD), Designating Consultants,\nApproving a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement, and Authorizing and Directing Certain\nRelated Actions For the Alameda Marina Project.' Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(20-373) Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2019-20\nCommunity Development Block Grant Action Plan and Authorize the City Manager to\nNegotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements and Modifications.\nThe Housing Authority Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.\nThe Community Development Director noted proposed providers from Building Futures,\nFamily Law Center and the Food Bank are available.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired what assumes an impact has been made to an\napplicant's salary; stated that he is unclear whether the salary is being used to\ndetermine whether an applicant is above or under the Area Median Income (AMI) due to\nCOVID-19; requested clarification of the intention.\nThe Housing Authority Management Analyst responded for CDBG purposes, the\nincome is at the time of receiving the benefit, which is post-COVID; stated pre-COVID\nstatus will be reviewed to verify there is a significant change or substantial loss of\nincome.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the funds for rent relief work with the funds being\nraised and allocated in the community fund, Alameda Strong; stated the rent money will\nbe paid directly to the landlord up to $3,500; inquired whether the programs are parallel.\nThe Housing Authority Management Analyst responded rather than advertising two\nseparate programs, consistent messaging will be used with a single portal and\napplication, which will be processed and administered on the back-end; stated those\nthat do not qualify for CDBG funds can be referred to the Alameda Strong program; the\nprocess for applicants will be seamless and the end goal is to ensure the tenant gets\ntheir rent paid.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether or not there would be duplications in payment\nfrom both Alameda Strong and rent relief, to which the Housing Authority Management\nAnalyst responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the number of domestic violence calls for the month of April\n2020 had increased 41.5% over April 2019; noted those booked for domestic violence\nare not detained due to COVID shelter in place orders and are allowed to return to the\nsame residence; stated the emergency shelter program is important.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 17, "text": "The Community Development Director stated that she would like to ensure the motion\nincludes the request for Council to appropriate funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 to\nallow funds to be spent.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation, with the\nappropriation of the money in FY 2019-20.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(20-374) Recommendation to Consider Providing Direction to City Staff to Draft Charter\nAmendment Related to Article 26 (Measure A). (City Council Subcommittee)\n(20-375) Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of not counting the minutes of the\nsubcommittee presentation time against the 9 minutes of Council speaking time.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Oddie gave a presentation.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff supports the\nSubcommittee recommendation; it is time for the voters of Alameda to be given the\nopportunity to answer the question about building multi-family housing; the State density\nbonus has allowed for multi-family housing to be built; based on Council's affordable\nhousing, climate action, and transportation goals, staff has found the portion of the\nCharter to run contrary to everything attempting to be accomplished; given the\nchallenges faced in 2020 and the challenges needing to be addressed going forward,\nthe question posed should ask whether this is good for Alameda; the issue has been\ndiscussed as part of every housing project that comes through the system.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired the practical impacts on affordable housing and other\nneighborhoods of repealing Section 26-1.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded Section 26-1 is in the\nCity Charter; stated the multi-family prohibition is also throughout the zoning ordinance;\nif Alameda voters agree to remove the Section from the Charter, then, from a practical\nperspective, nothing changes until the Planning Board and City Council take action to\namend the zoning code where necessary to allow multi-family housing; large property in\nAlameda can use State law to circumvent Measure A through a waiver that provides a\ndensity bonus; a parcel of 10,000 square feet or less in Alameda, within a multi-family\nzoning district, does not allow for anything larger than a duplex to be built; staff will\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 18, "text": "begin to look at multi-family zoning districts and allowing people to create a second or\nthird unit; staff anticipates fewer density bonus projects moving forward should the\nrepeal occur; currently, every major project has used the density bonus process as a\nway to get around multi-family prohibitions; every project has additional market-rate\nunits and the percentage of affordable units goes down as a result; developers are\ninvoking State density bonus to get a waiver for the multi-family prohibition and\ndefaulting into a 20% larger project; the City has been unable to get a Housing Element\ncertified for 20 years due to Measure A; the first Housing Element was certified in 2012\ndue to great effort by the Planning Board and City Council; there are new guidelines for\nhousing in 2020; the repeal will help the City in the long-run.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the ability to gain more grant funds; stated\nAlameda is trying to do the right thing.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired how much time is needed for the Environmental Impact\nReview (EIR).\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the EIR is required when\nzoning amendments are conducted; stated zoning amendments allow changes to\nindividual pieces of property; zoning is already in place the removal of Measure A from\nthe Charter does not change environmental conditions; should the voters remove\nMeasure A from the Charter, there is no change to what can be done on the property,\nthe subsequent zoning amendments are what will change actions; multi-family housing\nwill not be allowed everywhere in the City; appropriate places will be chosen; a typical\nEIR takes six to nine months.\nUrged Council to place a full repeal of Article 26 on the November ballot; stated Article\n26 and the ban on multi-family housing has a racist impact; discussed a letter submitted\noutlining the history of Article 26; stated the policy is important in creating racial and\neconomic equity in the community: Grover Wehman-Brown, East Bay Housing\nOrganizations.\nDiscussed his experience as a member of the Alameda Planning Board; stated that he\nis familiar with Article 26 and its impacts on residential development; urged Council to\nplace an amendment striking Article 26 from the Charter on the November ballot;\nprovided three reasons to strike the Article: 1) it is inappropriate to codify something\nmore appropriately placed in the zoning ordinance, 2) Alameda and the State are in the\nmidst of a housing crisis, and 3) the nation is in the midst of tremendous turmoil,\nspecifically around the issues of State violence against black citizens: David Burton,\nAlameda.\nUrged Council to support the delay of Section 26-3 until 2022; stated any revision of\nArticle 26 should be part of a larger, well-analyzed planning process to determine the\nchanges needed to the City's development rules; expressed support for repeal of\nSection 26-1; stated the General Plan revision and Housing Element update needs to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 19, "text": "occur before any ballot measure: Chris Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation\nSociety (AAPS).\nThe following public comment was read into the record:\nUrged Council to defer any further consideration of repeal or modification of Article 26\nuntil after the restrictions related to COVID-19 are reduced; stated any consideration of\nchanges to Measure A should be deferred until part of the City's comprehensive\nplanning process: Dolores Kelleher and Floyd Brown, Alameda.\nUrged Council to reschedule the discussion of changes to Measure A to allow citizens\nto address Council in person; discussed the pandemic; noted there is a County-wide\ncurfew in place; stated discussion and input should precede any City Council action\nregarding Measure A: Elizabeth Tuckwell, Alameda.\nUrged Council to support the delay of Section 26-3 until 2022; stated the delay will allow\nthe Council and community to complete a planning and environmental review process\nprior to crafting a ballot measure; placing the repeal of Section 26-1 on the November\n2020 ballot is premature: Karen Lithgow, AAPS.\nUrged Council to delay an election on a Charter Amendment eliminating Article 26;\nstated now is not the time to alter Article 26 due to pandemic, civil unrest, and economic\ndownturn; the matter is significant and should not be considered without public attention\nand open discussion: Elizabeth Greene, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about the focus on removing Measure A; discussed population\ndensity and quality of life; stated Alameda is an Island; urged Council to keep Measure\nA: Maria Perales, Alameda.\nUrged Council to not take action to revise Article 26; stated the issues are complex and\nthe process is not democratic at this time due to shelter in place and other issues; the\nHousing Element has been certified by the State to meet housing needs until 2023; a\nrevision to Article 26 is not time-sensitive: Pat Lamborn, Alameda.\nStated now is a time to exercise patience; involving members of the community in\ndiscussion is part of public duty; urged Council to be prudent, thoughtful and\ndemocratic; stated the matter is too important to rush a conclusion: Gretchen Lipow,\nAlameda.\nStated it is inappropriate to ask citizens to consider changes to the development\nguidelines without presenting a thorough review and public discussion related to the\nimpact and consequences of the changes; consideration of changes does not need to\nhappen immediately; urged Council to postpone any decision on the matter until in-\nperson attendance of Council meetings: Steve Aced, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 20, "text": "Stated removal of Article 26 is long overdue; discussed institutionalized racism in\nhousing; urged Council to consider putting both Sections 26-1 and 26-3 before voters in\nNovember 2020: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.\nStated there is no need to rush the matter; expressed concern about changes to\nMeasure A; stated Mare Island is beautiful; urged no changes to Measure A and not\nhaving the matter on the November 2020 ballot: Ann Quintell, Alameda.\nUrged Council to delay discussions on Article 26 until the 2022 election; stated voters\ncannot engage with the public and the matter is important; the City has met the State\nhousing quota until 2023; there should be no rush to make a permanent decision: Patsy\nBaer, Alameda.\nUrged Council to postpone an election to eliminate Article 26 until a full and robust\ndiscussion can be openly conducted; discussed the impacts of the pandemic affecting\nhousing; stated there are projects which a carbon negative: Birgitt Evans, Alameda.\nExpressed support for removal of Article 26 being placed on the November 2020 ballot;\nstated Article 26 is in conflict with State law and regional housing objectives; historic\nhomes are protected; urged real solutions to the housing crisis be found; stated all\nhousing policies should exist in the Alameda Municipal Code, not the City Charter: Zac\nBowling, Alameda.\nUrged Council to draft ballot measures to repeal Sections 26-1 and 26-3; stated there\nhas been economic uncertainty and a housing crisis; racial injustice cannot be remedied\nwithout creating more affordable housing; bringing the matter to the voters will be\ndemocratic and allow public participation; COVID-19 is not a reason to postpone: Jono\nSoglin, Alameda.\nStated businesses will not move to Alameda if jobs are in nearby cities; urged Council to\nmake Alameda business friendly; changing Measure A will not achieve a desired end\ngoal: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.\n(20-376) Councilmember Oddie moved approval of discussing the remaining items on\nthe agenda and concluding by 11:55 p.m.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Measure A, especially Sections 26-1 and 26-3, is urban\nplanning by sledgehammer; Measure A is still needed; outlined the history of Measure\nA; noted Measure A was put together by residents to preserve the built environment;\nstated the City of Alameda has become a more diverse place than before Measure A\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 21, "text": "was put into place; African Americans were 2.6% of Alameda in 1970, 4.2% in 1980,\n6.7% in 1990, 6.2% in 2000 due to the closure of the Base; 6.4% in 2010, and 7.1% in\n2020; the amount of African Americans has increased since Measure A; Measure A has\nnot stopped the increase of racial and ethnic minorities; noted Alameda has a higher\npercentage of African American population than San Francisco; stated apartments are\nstill being built with Measure A; the Housing Element had finally been approved by the\nState; expressed support for keeping Sections 26-1 and 26-3 as an effort to preserve\nAlameda history and to build wisely in the future; stated the matter is not simple;\nprevious effort by the people put Section 26-1 on the ballot; any changes to either\nSection should be processed at the same level of effort and not as an abuse of power\nby the Council; even with Measure A, the City has become a stronger and more diverse\nplace than before; there is no reason to undo Measure A; Alameda has limited space\nand inadequate street infrastructure; the discussion is valuable.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated it is important to not impugn motives; it is impossible to\ncirculate petitions at this time; preserving heritage is the battle cry of the confederacy;\nexpressed concern about meeting noticing due to COVID; stated the matter was placed\non a regular meeting in order to have adequate notice; he has learned to empathize and\ndiscovered a lack of trust; the proposal allows Council to build more trust; noted a long\nplanning process would be needed if Council could be allowed to repeal Section 26-3;\nexpressed support for going through the planning process, building Council trust,\nresulting in an item placed on the ballot that passes; stated there is still time; the current\nmeeting allows Council to request staff bring back ballot language; expressed support\nfor hearing arguments for repealing Section 26-1; stated there is a fundamental\nunfairness for properties purchased before and after Measure A; the affordable housing\npercentage will increase without Section 26-1; expressed support for guidelines with the\nplanning process; stated the matter has had a disparate racial impact and the intent was\nto reduce economic diversity; economic diversity has been lost with the rent crisis;\nexpressed support for discussing the item in an open, fair and civil way to engender\ntrust and reduce division.\n(20-377) Due to technical difficulties, the meeting was recessed at 11:01 p.m. and\nreconvened at 11:10 p.m.\n***\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she would like to know the plan for meaningful\ncommunity engagement; there have been a number of difficulties with technology and a\nnumber of residents are part of the digital divide and do not receive information; many\ncommunity members do not know when meetings occur; she does not think Section 26-\n1 is controversial; there are many people on both sides of the matter that see no issue\nwith Section 26-1; a lot of work needs to be done on Section 26-3; expressed support\nfor any work being done in a manner that is engaging, welcoming and informational;\nmany people of color do not know about meetings and their voices are not being heard;\nexpressed support for having a process for meetings and conversations about an EIR\nand any legal challenges which may arise; stated that she would like to understand the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 22, "text": "costs of legal challenges to City-sponsored ballot measures and to ensure the matter\nstands up to superficial legal challenges; expressed concern about having Charter\namendment conversations at special meetings with less notice; stated that she is the\none Councilmember that was not able to participate in a subcommittee; expressed\nsupport for clarifying motions; stated that she is not trusting of the process; that she\nwould like to know the plan, when meetings will occur, who will be involved and how\ngroups are being informed of the process and decisions; changes to the Charter are\nimportant; in the midst of a pandemic, most decisions should follow a process and\ntimeline.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he has been engaged in the matter for 18 years and\nhas heard from both sides; the pandemic is a public health crisis that has a housing\nconnection; a number of letters received suggest a pause until housing is an issue\nagain; many housing issues need to be addressed and fixed; there is an opportunity to\nplace the matter before the largest voting blocks in Alameda history; allowing as many\npeople as possible to weigh-in on the issue is transparent; many important decisions will\nbe voted on in the November 2020 election; stated one of the highlights from the Color\nof Law is related to density and use of density to impact housing; should Section 26-1\nbe repealed and Section 26-3 not be repealed, the piece of the law put in place to make\nit difficult to build housing would remain; it is more important to repeal Section 26-3 than\nSection 26-1 to impact housing; that he is not willing to support spot zoning; expressed\nsupport for removing zoning sledgehammers from the Charter, engaging the public in\nthe planning process, considering a full repeal of Article 26on the November ballot.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like full Council support to move forward in\nremoving Section 26-1; an outright ban on multi-family housing does not belong in the\nCharter; expressed support for needing a robust discussion; noted the discussion has\nbeen persistent for 20 years; stated the pandemic has shown how horrendous the\nhousing crisis is; expressed concern about the abuse of power statement; stated as a\nmatter of perception, use of power could be dereliction of duty; she takes her role as\nMayor very seriously; this is a pivotal time in history; Council has the power to do\nsomething better; people do have the chance to engage in the public process; the\nmatter is time-sensitive; housing is a human right; the previous vote for Measure A had\nbeen misguided and has had an impact on the City; expressed support for not letting\nperfect be the enemy of good; stated modifications should be bifurcated; messages\nneed to be made simple and straightforward; the opportunity to vote on the matter\nshould be provided; outside walking tours with social distancing will eventually be\navailable; expressed support for taking Section 26-3 out of the Charter; questioned what\nSection 26-3 will be replaced with in zoning ordinances; stated the process will not\nhappen overnight; stated Section 26-1 does not belong in the Charter; Council will be\ndirecting staff to return to Council with potential ballot language; expressed support for a\nmeasure repealing Section 26-1.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of adding a measure to repeal of Section 26-1\nto the November 2020 ballot.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 23, "text": "Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of directing staff to remove Sections 26-2 and\n26-3 from the City Charter.\nThere being no second, Vice Mayor Knox White rescinded the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has directed staff to place ballot language repealing\nSection 26-1 before the people in November 2020.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Section 26-2 is needed if Article 26-1 be\nrepealed; stated that he understood Section 26-2 relates to Section 26-1 not Section 26-\n3; Section 26-2 exempts the Housing Authority from Section 26-1.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff will return and\nadvise Council whether or not Section 26-2 should stay; further analysis will be\nconducted to understand whether Section 26-2 should remain if Section 26-3 be kept.\n(20-378) Recommendation to Consider Providing Direction to Staff to Prepare Charter\nAmendment Ballot Measure(s) and Potentially Determine the Election Dates when the\nMeasure(s) will be on the Ballot.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Council is able to place items on the 2022\nballot or would the matter fall under another Council purview.\nThe City Clerk responded the provided elections date options are for information and to\nrelay timing; stated if the Council pay item is placed on the 2022 ballot, the\nimplementation date would change.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he wants to ensure clarity for the current Council's\nability to place things on the 2020 ballot; inquired whether changing his or her to\nthey/their has been considered for Section 2-16 under gender neutral references to\nallow the descriptors to be fully de-gendered.\nThe City Attorney responded Council could direct a measure be placed on a future\nelection date; however, any future Council would have the right to withdraw the\nmeasure; staff in the Attorney's office is willing to take direction related to terms used in\nde-gendering.\nThe City Clerk responded the language in the staff report is language that is currently in\nthe Charter, not proposed language.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 24, "text": "Councilmember Vella inquired whether a hold for an agenda item will be placed for\nfuture Council to either affirm, amend or deny the ballot measure, should any be placed\non future election dates.\nThe City Attorney responded there is no legal requirement to offer an agenda item to a\nnew Council; staff can perform the request if desired or the new Council can direct staff\nto bring an item forward.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether Council can indicate the item is currently being\ndeclined, but request to have the item return.\nThe City Attorney responded Council may choose to not take action and direct staff to\nbring the item back at a date specific.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired the reason Section 22-7 and 22-8 are included;\nquestioned whether the item is related to Council pay.\nThe City Clerk responded the Sections were selected as general cleanup; noted per-\ndiem amounts are set by the State and hours listed in Section 22-8 are not what the set\nCity hours have been.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed support for bifurcating the discussion; expressed\nsupport for moving cleanup language forward; suggestion Council to take a vote on\neach item.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether each item could be taken as: A [Cleanup], B [City\nProsecutor], C [Council pay], D [Section 7-3], and E [Article 26], to which the City Clerk\nresponded in the affirmative; stated E was the previous agenda item and has been\naddressed.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of directing staff to return with language for\nsection A, cleanup language, for the November 2020 ballot, with the direction to use\n\"they and their.\"\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Vella stated that she would like to ensure to include\nremoval of \"his/her\" terms.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for staff to use the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,\nTransgender, and Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) caucus at the League of Cities' model\nlanguage for gender neutral language samples.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 25, "text": "Councilmember Oddie moved approval of directing staff to bring back ballot language\nfor the City Prosecutor and to add language related to the discretion of the City\nProsecutor.\nThe City Attorney stated the correspondence indicates the current language requires\nthe City Attorney to prosecute all local law violations; noted proposed language would\nadd State Law violations; stated the correspondence suggests adding the phrase:\n\"exercise the prosecutorial discretion\" due to the requirement of federal and State\nconstitutional law.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Vella stated it would be helpful for the public to have\nclarity related to the change; she would like clarification whether additional funding for\nthe position will be needed; she has received questions asking why the City would\nprosecute versus the District Attorney.\nThe City Attorney stated the existing City Charter can be read as authorizing or\nrequiring the City Attorney to prosecute all local law violations; the proposed language\nwould authorize the City Attorney to prosecute State law violations; earlier last year,\nCouncil authorized the City Attorney's Office to engage in the activity with the consent of\nthe District Attorney; the intent of the ballot language is to memorialize the authorization\nto the extent the consent of the District Attorney is withdrawn; staff does not anticipate a\nneed for additional staffing to do work which is already being undertaken.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the item will need a robust communication plan with the\ncommunity; many people do not understand the matter; engaging and informing the\ncommunity will be difficult.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the Council should also decide which items will\nbe put together.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative; provided an example of combining the\ncleanup language, with Council pay or City Prosecutor.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nRegarding Council pay, Councilmember Daysog stated the Subcommittee\nrecommended staff return to Council with a discreet number; there have been concerns\nfrom residents; that he would not benefit from this matter and would only accept the\ncurrent rate of pay; Council pay is earned based on the amount of work; expressed\nconcern about the November 2020 ballot being loaded.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 26, "text": "The City Clerk stated Council has provided previous direction to add the Mayor into the\nlanguage related to Council interference.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of placing the item on the 2020 ballot.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Vella inquired whether Councilmember Daysog's\nrequest for a discreet number on Council pay was been part of the motion or whether\nstaff will provide alternatives.\nVice Mayor Knox White responded staff may present alternatives.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he will support the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nThe City Attorney requested direction be provided whether Council desires each ballot\nitem to remain separate or combined specifically.\n***\n(20-379) Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of allowing 15 more minutes for\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Section 7-3 and the City Prosecutor matters\nto stand alone as a ballot items.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of keeping the items separate on the ballot.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 27, "text": "Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, with the following amendment that A\n[cleanup] and B [City prosecutor] be combined, and D [Section 7-3] and E [Article 26] be\nstand alone.\nCouncilmember Daysog accepted the amendment to the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Vella requested clarification of each item being\ncombined and the letters represented.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be restated.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of combining A and B as one set of ballot\nmeasures, and D and E will standalone.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated that he supports combining all as long\nas E is standalone.\nVice Mayor Knox White expressed support for the proposal.\nCouncilmember Vella stated all should be separate if not combined.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for having two initiatives; stated the items are\ncleanup.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated A, B and D are all cleanup language; E should not be\nconnected with anything else and should be standalone.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed support.\nCouncilmember Daysog made a substitute motion to move approval of items A, B and D\nbeing combined and E being separate.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(20-380) Resolution No. 15658, \"Approving a City Council Handbook and Code of\nConduct.\" Adopted.\nThe City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the City Clerk has traditionally been the Parliamentarian.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 28, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Clerk is willing to continue the role, to\nwhich the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a Section on page 6 related to effective\nproblem solving.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion includes Council comments, to\nwhich Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-381) The City Manager stated the Slow Streets program has expanded into Phase\n2; COVID testing sites are being looked into for Alameda; the current activity level is low\nwith no incidents.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(20-382) Katherine Allen, Alameda, inquired about laws giving citizens the ability to\nprotect themselves and their property against those in violation of the law.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(20-383) Consider Amending Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-91.4 (f) Pertaining to\nSpecial Meetings. (Councilmember Vella)\nCouncilmember Vella made brief comments on the referral.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staff or the City Attorney to look into the\nitem and bring back information for Council consideration; stated that she is unclear\nwhat is being asked of the Open Government Commission (OGC).\nCouncilmember Vella stated the OGC is looking at the Sunshine Ordinance; expressed\nsupport for staff looking into different possible noticing requirements; direction provided\ncould be simple; Charter discussions would either require 10 day notice or be\nannounced at a regularly agendized meeting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated more nuances need to be addressed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-06-02", "page": 29, "text": "The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff can either have the discussion with the\nOGC first or staff can bring proposed language back to Council to address\nCouncilmember Vella's concerns.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the allotted time for Council discussion has passed.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of continuing the matter to the next Council\nmeeting.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for the item being placed at the beginning of\nthe next meeting.\nVice Mayor Knox White expressed support.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a Council Referral may be\nplaced at the beginning of an agenda.\nThe City Attorney stated Council may continue the item to 6:59 p.m. at the next Council\nmeeting.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:15\na.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJune 2, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf"}