{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 7, 2020-7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:22 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.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(20-449) Proclamation Declaring July 7, 2020 as Reverend Michael Yoshii Day\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\nReverend Yoshii made brief comments.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(20-450) Danielle Mieler, Alameda, expressed concern for the selection of Alfonso\nEstrada to investigate police misconduct; urged Council to provide feedback to the City\nManager that the contract is unacceptable.\n(20-451) Ben Calica, Alameda, expressed concern for the rules governing public\ncomment; urged Council to adopt rules aimed at understanding what is being said for\nnuanced and new comments.\n(20-452) Former Mayor Trish Spencer, Alameda, discussed testing being made\navailable in Alameda, hand-free dispensers, face covering clarifications and oversight\ncommittees.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nThe City Clerk announced the Senate Bill 2 funding resolution [paragraph no. 20-459\nwas removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\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\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 2, "text": "Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*20-453) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on June 2,\n2020. Approved.\n(*20-454) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,192,015.63.\n(*20-455) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year\nContract in an Amount Not to Exceed $208,161.20 to Du-All Safety, LLC for Public\nWork's Safety Program Compliance Services. Accepted.\n(*20-456) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Remit Payment in the\nAmount of $476,737 to Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) for Material and Labor Costs\nRelated to Electric Utility Extension into Alameda Point's Adaptive Reuse Areas, Phase\n1. Accepted.\n(*20-457) Recommendation to Approve the Clement Avenue Safety Improvement\nProject Final Design Concept; and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second\nAmendment to the Service Provider Agreement with CDM Smith to Increase\nCompensation by $530,332, Including Contingencies, for a Total Aggregate\nCompensation Not to Exceed $1,130,633, to Complete the Plans, Specifications and\nEstimate for the Clement Avenue Safety Improvement Project. Accepted.\n(*20-458) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First\nAmendment to the Agreement with Lang, Hansen, O'Malley & Miller, a California\nGeneral Partnership, Extending the Term of the Agreement by Two Months and\nIncreasing the Compensation by $20,000, for an Aggregate Amount Not to Exceed\n$91,000, for Legislative Advocacy/Governmental Relations Services Relating to the\nSurplus Land Act. Accepted.\n(20-459) Resolution No. 15671, \"Authorizing the Submission of an Application for\nSenate Bill 2 Funding from the State Department of Housing and Community\nDevelopment Under the Permanent Local Housing Program (PLHA) and Affirming the\nCity Council's Adoption of a Five-Year Permanent Local Housing Allocation Plan; and\nRecommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related\nDocuments, Agreements, and Modifications.' Adopted.\nThe Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated goals are consistent with the Housing Element; providing\nhousing is one of the Council's top priorities.\nDiscussed a movie studio and amusement park proposal being built at Alameda Point:\nDarla Brown, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated there has been three attempts at getting Senate Bill (SB)\n2 out of legislature and it has finally come to fruition.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the fee for SB2; stated the fee will go towards affordable\nhousing.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution.\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(*20-460) Resolution No. 15672, \"Calling for a General Municipal Election to be\nConsolidated with the Statewide General Election to be Held in the City of Alameda on\nTuesday, November 3, 2020 for the Election of Certain Officers, and Requesting the\nAlameda County Board of Supervisors to Permit the Registrar of Voters to Render\nSpecified Services to the City Relating to the Conduct of Said Election Pursuant to\nSection 10403 of the California Elections Code.' Adopted.\n(*20-461) Ordinance No. 3284, \"Revising the City's Sewer Service Charges.\" Finally\npassed.\n(*20-462) Ordinance No. 3285, \"Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Execute a\nThird Amendment to the License with Amber Kinetics, Inc., a California Corporation, for\nthe Unimproved Lot Located at 641 West Red Line Avenue in Alameda to Extend the\nTerm for 12 Months and Provide One 12-Month Extension Option.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(20-463) Adoption of Resolution Calling for the Holding of a Consolidated Municipal\nElection in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, for the Submission of a\nProposed Charter Amendment to Repeal the Prohibition Against Building Multi-Family\nHousing in Alameda and Authorizing City Councilmembers to File Written Arguments\nFor or Against the Measure. Not Adopted.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired the parcels likely to be impacted by the repeal of\nMeasure A.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the City will need to\nidentify enough land to accommodate the lower-income portion of the Regional Housing\nNeeds Allocation (RHNA) which is estimated at roughly 2,000 units; stated the land will\nneed to be zoned at 30-units per acre; areas that are being looked at are the Northern\nWaterfront, Alameda Point and some shopping center sites.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Vella inquired which shopping center sites are being considered.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff has not completed\nthe Housing Element, and final numbers are not available; stated South Shore, Marina\nVillage and Harbor Bay are possible locations.\nCouncilmember Vella stated most of the listed locations are west of Park Street;\nexpressed concern about there being only one point of egress west of Park Street;\nexpressed support for Harbor Bay being included as one of the considered sites;\ninquired the process after the repeal of Measure A; stated once the language is\nrepealed, the repeal will have to be put into action; allowing the policy to be\nimplemented in an equitable way will need a process.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff has begun the process\ndue to the General Plan and Housing Element update; stated Council will need to adopt\nthe updates in 2022; the Land Use Element of the General Plan has identified the areas\nto be considered to accommodate housing over the next 20 years; sites that have been\ncalled out are: Alameda Point, Northern Waterfront, and shopping center sites, as well\nas some opportunities along Park Street and Webster Street; the planning process\nanticipates robust community discussion about general location ideas; final RHNA\nnumbers will be known in the spring of 2021; the anticipated RHNA numbers are around\n3,500 to 4,000 housing units; units will be placed in the locations over the next eight\nyears once there is consensus.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether Harbor Bay will be included.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nthere are four main locations being considered: South Shore, Harbor Bay, Marina\nVillage and Alameda Landing; stated looking at the future of the sites is obvious; there\nis very little to no vacant land in Alameda; available land must be used; Alameda Point,\nNorthern Waterfront and shopping centers are major areas to be considered; the vast\nmajority of vacant land is at Alameda Point; there are few real opportunities on Park\nStreet and Webster Street.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether there have been previous projects that would\nhave been able to provide more units had measuring not been an issue.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe State Density Bonus has been used to get multi-family housing built; discussed a\nhousing project on Webster Street; stated the project has nine housing units but could\nhave more due to the volume; noted the housing types for the project are not common;\nstated many people have requested to redevelop the CVS Pharmacy site at Oak Street\nand Santa Clara Avenue; however, the project is not viable.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether City-owned parcels will be included.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 5, "text": "The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nrepealing Measure A sets the City up to decide as a community which sites should be\nplanned to have higher density; the process must determine where and how needs will\nbe met; State law does not prohibit single-family housing, it does prohibit single-family\nhousing covering the entire City.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the current Housing Element and multi-family overlay sets\nthe density at 30-units per acre for low-income in order to comply with State law; the\nCity is not quite at that limit; inquired whether the repeal of Article 26 will allow Council\nto set higher density levels to accommodate multi-story structures or other alternatives.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe repeal allows a decision to be made about where to increase density and in which\nareas; RHNA needs must be met; however, the need can be met having many units on\na few sites or a little on many sites.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the removal of Measure A changes anything,\nto which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the removal of Measure A will increase the\nCity's RHNA number, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director\nresponded in the negative.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the RHNA numbers stay the same no matter what; the\nnumbers effect how the decision is made to accommodate.\nDiscussed the launch of a website called repeal26.com; urged Council to change the\nproposal on the ballot to strike all of Article 26 from the Charter; stated without removal,\nsystemic racism enabled by the Article will continue; Measure A was designed to keep\nlower income people out of Alameda: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nUrged Council to instruct City staff to draft ballot language to repeal Article 26 in-full;\nstated the Bay Area has suffered a housing shortage for years; the cost of living makes\nhousing impossible for lower income brackets; discussed essential workers living in the\ncommunities they serve; stated Article 26 is a racist stain on the City's history: Laura\nGamble, Alameda.\nExpressed support for repealing Article 26; discussed \"The Color of Law;\" stated\nAlameda is a wonderful community which has an opportunity to open the City to new\nneighbors; the community should be fully inclusive; the matter is related to zoning, not a\nmandate for developers to have high density buildings; smaller multi-family project sites\nare a very important form of housing; more flexibility is needed: Xiomara Cisneros,\nAlameda.\nExpressed support for a full repeal of Article 26; discussed her experience as a resident\nof Alameda; urged Council to support a full repeal: Susie Hufstader, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 6, "text": "Stated Article 26 has been laid out as racist by design; discussed his experience as a\nresident of Alameda; noted only 5% of the population is Black; stated housing should be\nmade affordable for all people: Josh Geyer, Alameda.\nUrged Council to fully repeal Article 26; stated Article 26 puts the City out of compliance\nwith State law; there are strong preservation and design review ordinances which did\nnot exist in 1973 or 1990; Article 26 is demonstrably racist in its impacts: Gaylon\nParsons, Alameda.\nUrged Council to place a full repeal of Article 26 on the November ballot; discussed a\nsponsored vigil; urged residents to consider the many ways Black lives are diminished\nand taken; discussed personal actions to be taken for an increase in accountability:\nCheri Johansen, Alameda Progressives.\nUrged Council to reconsider its June decision to divide the repeal into two parts and\ninstead put all parts of Article 26 on the November ballot; stated low-income Easy Bay\nresidents are overwhelmingly elders, children, people with disabilities, and Black, Brown\nand new immigrant residents; separating the Article will be confusing for voters and will\nincrease costs; many people have to wait an extended time for affordable units and\neach affordable unit counts: Grover Wehman-Brown, East Bay Housing Organization.\nUrged Council to place a full repeal of Article 26 on the November ballot; stated the\nArticle should have been removed years ago; Article 26 has been used as a battering\nram and a mockery of the City's aspirations to being a decent and welcoming\ncommunity; Alamedans can no longer ignore the discriminatory nature of Article 26;\ndiscussed supporters of repealing Article 26: Toni Grimm, Alameda Justice Alliance.\nExpressed support for a full appeal of Article 26 on the November ballot; discussed the\ndevastating effects on people kept out of housing: Liz Varela, Building Futures with\nWomen and Children.\nUrged Council to follow the staff recommendation and direct City staff to prepare a full\nrepeal of Measure A/Article 26; stated the repeal will help the City move past a\ndiscriminatory legacy; Measure A prevents the City from reaching RHNA obligations, is\nat cross-purposes with the General Plan and State law and has racially discriminatory\nimpacts and effects: Sophia DeWitt, Alameda.\nExpressed support for having the total repeal of Measure A on the ballot; stated the\nrepeal will partially help solve a critical need for housing throughout Alameda; there is\nstill much work to do; the repeal will help to clean out exclusionary provisions; Measure\nA has failed various claims related to traffic congestion and protection of Victorian\nhouses: Cynthia Bonta, Alameda.\nExpressed support for a full repeal of Article 26 being put on the November ballot;\nstated the repeal is good governance; Article 26 is a blunt instrument and does not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 7, "text": "belong in the Charter; refined tools are needed: Jono Soglin, Alameda.\nStated there is an affordable housing crisis; Article 26 is not the culprit; the shortfall lied\nwith past decisions made by City government; noted State law supersedes the City's\nlaw; Council has a legal obligation to produce a Housing Element since 1969, which is\nfour years prior to the adoption of Article 26; Alameda avoided compliance with the law\nuntil 2012 based on a legal demand letter; noted the inclusionary ordinance is also a\nshortfall for affordable housing: Paul Foreman, Alameda.\nDiscussed segregation and zoning being applied as a tool for exclusion since World\nWar I; discussed research he provided; stated zoning reduces housing stock and\naffordability; urged Council to support a full repeal of Article 26: Rasheed Shabazz,\nAlameda.\nExpressed support for a full repeal of Article 26; discussed her experience working with\nthose at risk of being homeless; stated the island of Alameda is segregated due to\nzoning; urged Council to fully repeal Article 26: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.\nComments read into the record:\nExpressed concern about repealing Article 26 and for trust in leadership: Patsy Baer,\nAlameda.\nUrged Council not to include repeal of Article 26-3 on the November ballot: Barbara\nJohnson, Alameda.\nUrged Council to direct staff to draft ballot language to repeal Article 26 in full; stated\nArticle 26 was designed to prevent Black and Brown people from living in Alameda;\nmulti-family housing is sorely needed; housing affordability will help the City meet RHNA\ntargets: Danielle Mieler, Alameda.\nStated a repeal of Article 26 is an underhanded move during the pandemic while people\nare confined inside homes and unable to attend meetings in person; discussed their\nexperience as residents of Alameda; urged Council to concentrate on traffic,\ninfrastructure, homelessness and to vote no on placing the repeal of Article 26 on the\nNovember ballot: Bob and Beth Cote, Alameda.\nStated Article 26-3 should not be put on the November ballot; urged Council not to\nreverse the June 2 decision and vote no; stated the City deserves better consideration\nand decision: Denine Keltner, Alameda.\nStated it is premature to schedule repeal of Measure A; there is plenty of housing; more\ngentrified housing is not needed; more housing is needed for those displaced by\ngentrification; the nation is in a state of flux due to the economic crash and COVID-19:\nMargie, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 8, "text": "Expressed strong opposition to the staff recommendation; stated the repeal of Article\n26-1 should be constrained; further modifications should be placed on the November\n2022 ballot; the pandemic has permanently changed lives and future housing and\ntransportation needs are not well understood: Therese Hall, Alameda.\nUrged Council to defer the removal or alteration of Article 26-3 until after the completion\nof the upcoming General Plan; stated density restrictions are necessary in certain parts\nof the City to protect the aesthetic; density restrictions shielded vintage homes: Karen\nLithgow, Alameda.\nStated allowing the matter to proceed is an infringement of rights and will reverse\nattempts at regaining public trust; expressed opposition to having the repeal of Article\n26-3 on the ballot: James Snider, Sharon Snider, and Cynthia La Croix, Alameda.\nStated Council conduct has been dishonest; discussed statistics of Alameda residents;\nstated the purpose of Article 26 is to protect the character and quality of life in the City\nby limiting building for density: Dan McDonald, Alameda.\nStated Article 26 has not been an impediment to the development of multi-family\nhousing in Alameda; State housing requirements partially supersede Article 26; urged\nCouncil to focus on how to bring more affordable housing the Alameda: Ed Sing,\nAlameda.\nExpressed concern for the repeal of Article 26; expressed support for accommodating\ndevelopers' transit solutions; stated low transportation scores impact the City's ability to\nqualify for affordable housing funds: M.D. Hall, Alameda.\nUrged Council not to include the repeal of Article 26-3 on the November ballot; stated\nthere is tremendous growth planned for the City and many new housing units are in the\nprocess of being built; initiating a vote during COVID-19 is the wrong time: Marel Grunt,\nAlameda.\nExpressed opposition to reversing the June 2 decision; urged Council not to place the\nfull repeal of Article 26 on the November ballot and to adhere to good faith agreements:\nRob Halford, Alameda.\nExpressed opposition to the repeal of Article 26; stated repeal will destroy the quality of\nlife in the City; urged Council to keep the City unique: David Bock, Alameda.\nStated it is the wrong time to take up an important issue such as Measure A; members\nof the public would like to engage in discussions; urged Council to uphold the highest\nstandards of political discourse: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nUrged Council not to include repeal of Article 26-3 on the November ballot: Andrea\nMedulan, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 9, "text": "Stated there are many proposals for additional housing but none for improving\ninfrastructure; more people equals more congestion; Article 26 was voted in by majority\nof voters in both 1973 and 1991: Maria Carballedo, Alameda.\nUrged Council to focus on reparations in the form of mortgage rate reductions or rent\nvouchers: Mike Van Dine, Alameda.\nProvided a flyer: Conchita Perales, Alameda.\nStated repeal of Article 26 removes an obstacle to development and does not fight\nagainst social injustice; Alameda is not obligated to follow the State's recommendations:\nresidents need Alameda's quality of life and unique character preserved: Michele Bock,\nAlameda.\nExpressed opposition to full repeal of Article 26 being placed on the November ballot;\nexpressed support for Article 26; stated Article 26 has helped deter development of\nmore apartment buildings and has saved historic buildings from demolition: Joan More,\nAlameda.\nUrged Council not to fulfil a \"sneak attack\" by including repeal of Measure A on the\nNovember ballot; stated there has been no opportunity for community input: Elizabeth\nTuckwell, Alameda.\nStated Article 26 has been a burdensome yoke around Alameda's neck; the Article is an\nimprecise planning tool, is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced; urged Council to\nplace a repeal of Article 26 in its entirety on the ballot: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nUrged Council to leave the City of Alameda and Bay Farm alone; discussed housing in\nrelation to transportation funds; expressed support for removing Article 26-1; urged\nCouncil to leave Article 26.3 in the City Charter: Robert Farrar, Alameda.\nStated housing will not increase by 200%; final RHNA numbers will not be published\nuntil the end of 2021; staff has identified land which can be used to satisfy State\nmandates; Article 26 cannot interfere with identified land; repealing Article 26 in its\nentirety will allow staff to proceed as they please without regard to preserving the\ncurrent ambience of the City: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nStated the egress issue must be addressed; discussed morning traffic issues; urged the\nissue not be political in nature; expressed support for building larger units versus\nnumerous smaller units; stated high rise buildings will impact the City; urged Council to\nprotect existing citizens of Alameda: Rosalinda Corvi, Alameda.\nAdditional comment via Zoom:\nUrged Council not to proceed with the staff recommendation to place full repeal of\nArticle 26 on the November ballot and to stick with the June 2 decision to repeal only\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 10, "text": "Sections 26-1 and 26-2; stated repeal of Article 26 should be proposed after completion\nof the General Plan revision; repeal of Article 26-1 is reasonable to place on the\nNovember ballot: Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Society.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:22 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:38\np.m.\n(20-464) Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of suspending the nine minute\nCouncil speaking time limit.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Abstain; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Abstain: 1. Noes: 1.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council is a body of elected officials; stated staff\nmembers are professional and provide informative reports; noted the amount of\nparticipation via Zoom; stated there are likely to be many additional people watching the\nmeeting as well; that she takes exception to ad hominem attacks via public comment;\nthe meeting should remain civil.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of Council directing staff to bring back ballot\nlanguage for the November 3, 2020 election to repeal Article 26 in its entirety.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the proponents of a full repeal of\nArticle 26 declare it as racist and meant to stifle diversity in Alameda; noted Census\ndata shows the African American population had grown immediately prior to the\nadoption of Measure A in 1973; stated the 1980 Census showed the African American\npopulation doubled in Alameda, as well as another growth in 1990; noted a drop in\nAfrican American population from the 2000 Census data and was largely due to the\nNaval base closure; stated there is a projected Census increase for the upcoming\nreport; there is a steady progression of African Americans in Alameda since 1970 with\nMeasure A intact; Census data puts to rest the argument that Measure A is a racist tool\nmeant to stifle diversity; noted African American populations have experienced\nsignificant declines in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco; stated Oakland lost\n10,500 African Americans between 1970 and 2018; Berkeley lost 15,200 between the\nsame time and San Francisco lost 38,400 African Americans; Alameda has performed\nbetter than Oakland, San Francisco, and Berkeley in terms of attracting and retaining\nAfrican Americans as residents; Alameda has changed drastically over the years; the\nargument of Measure A being a racist tool is tired; Measure A is urban planning by\nsledgehammer and is not a fine tool of precision; the Measure is still needed and\ncontinues to be the sledgehammer which keeps runaway growth in-check; an island\nsuch as Alameda needs to be thoughtful as to how the future is planned; removing\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 11, "text": "Measure A does not mean developers will self-regulate runaway growth; Measure A\nprovides extra protection and forces wise, thoughtful, well moderated growth; should\nMeasure A be repealed, runaway growth is likely to occur; State mandates can be met\neven with Measure A; the State recently certified the Housing Element and another is\ndue; apartments are being built while Measure A is in place; City legal experts found a\nway to keep Measure A intact while meeting State law; the City has become more\ndiverse even with Measure A; the City can continue to racially diversify and support\nthoughtful, well-planned and modulated growth.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the matter is being passed to the voters for decision;\nvoters will decide whether change is necessary; there is a difference between de facto\nand de jure racism; discussed literature which illustrates the impetus behind laws in the\nBay Area and population comparisons between San Leandro and Alameda; focusing on\nde jure racism is more important; noted racist laws have been placed in effect in the\nCountry, many in California, to keep African Americans out of white neighborhoods;\nstated pillars of white supremacy must come down and laws must be changed; Council\nmust take responsibility and steps towards removing the laws; the matter must be put\nforth for a vote on the November ballot; read a passage from \"The Color of Law;\" stated\nthat he would like to get rid of the badges of slavery in the City Charter; expressed\nsupport for placing repeal on the ballot.\nCouncilmember Vella stated prior to Measure A, her grandfather could not find a home\nto raise his family due to discrimination against Filipinos in Alameda; expressed concern\nabout many projects throughout Alameda being rejected due to density and multi-family\nunits, which are affiliated with the concept of lower income; stated Council must be\nthoughtful about the steps to follow; repealing Measure A can still yield disparate\nimpacts should Council not be careful and thoughtful with the process; the repeal is not\nthe end-all and people should think beyond repeal; a lot of stress is placed on the West\nEnd including inquiries related to transit; there is not a safe and clean way for people to\ncross into Oakland by bike or foot; the effort to provide a safe crossing must be\ncontinued and is an environmental equity issue; noted there are many parking lots that\ncan be part of a reimagining; stated smaller neighborhoods are part of what makes\nAlameda; expressed support for people being part of the process; stated people must\nfocus on the Alameda that is wanted; homeowner options are also needed; the focus\ncannot just be on rental properties; racial and economic diversity are important;\nexpressed support for placing full repeal on the November ballot.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated people may disagree, but should do so civilly; Alameda\ncan do better than being compared against cities known for gentrification; Alameda is\nan area where regional impacts have significant issues; every city is going to have to\nstep up and address the issues; a place must be created where people can network and\ngrow by placing roots down; expressed support for repeal being placed on the ballot;\nstated Measure A does not protect the number of households; Measure A ends up\nplacing housing where it does not make sense versus where infrastructure can\nmaintain.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has the opportunity to correct a 47 year-old mistake\nand allow the voters to use their voice; outlined issues around homelessness, COVID-\n19, and racial injustice, which are inter-related crises; Alameda is under housed and\nneeds to do a better job of housing people; discussed housing units at Alameda Point;\nstated the best way to address homelessness is not to let it happen; Council must\naddress the housing crisis; expressed support for putting Measure A repeal on the\nballot; stated times change; the City is no longer the same as it was in the 1970s; some\nlong-term residents would like to remain in Alameda and downsize; however, smaller\nunits have not been able to be built; the opportunity is exciting and meshes with the\nmoment; people are becoming more civically engaged and now is the time to give\nMeasure A another look.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the motion is drafted to state Council is providing\ndirection.\nVice Mayor Knox White requested clarification that the direction is to have staff draft the\nlanguage to bring back for Council to vote on the language being placed on the\nNovember ballot.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative; stated staff is confident they can\nbring back the report in time.\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.\nThe City Clerk announced the argument timeline will change due to Council not\nadopting the resolution tonight; stated should the resolution be adopted on July 21st,\nnew deadlines will be set; all related actions will be taken on July 21st and no further\naction is needed at this time.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to designate members to draft argument\nlanguage.\nThe City Attorney stated Council may begin designating members; staff will need to\nformally designate when the report is brought forth July 21st; an official timeline will run\nfrom July 21st as indicated by the City Clerk; Councilmembers may be designated\nauthors prior.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for option three: no more than two\nCouncilmembers to draft an argument and decide to have a combination of\nCouncilmembers and/or other signers; stated the option provides maximum leeway;\nexpressed support for Vice Mayor Knox White and herself being designated.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether a Councilmember may lead the \"no\"\nargument.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 13, "text": "The City Attorney responded Council has the right to appoint one or two of its members\nto draft the opposing arguments; should Council decide to appoint a Councilmember,\nthe priority will lie with the Councilmember(s) under the Elections Code.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the distinction\nbetween options two and three is whether the subcommittee or Council decides who will\nsign.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for option three, as proposed.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed support for option three as proposed and for\nCouncilmember Daysog being part of the alternative subcommittee.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether he may work with others.\nThe City Clerk responded Councilmember Daysog will have priority ranking should\nmore than one argument be submitted.\nThe City Attorney stated the two committees may designate others and have the same\npowers.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of creating two subcommittees, a committee\nfor yes on the repeal with members designated as himself and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft,\nand a committee for no on the repeal with Councilmember Daysog.\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(20-465) Resolution No. 15673, \"Calling for the Holding of a Consolidated Municipal\nElection in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, for the Submission of a\nProposed Charter Amendment to Clarify the Prohibition Against Members of the Council\nInterfering with Duties of the City Manager and Other Executive City Officials, Authorize\nthe City Attorney to Prosecute State Law Misdemeanors, and Amend Outdated\nProvisions including Utilizing Gender Neutral Language, and Authorizing City\nCouncilmembers to File Written Arguments For or Against the Measure.\" Adopted.\nThe City Attorney and City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation and adoption of the\nresolution.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White stated a member of the public has previously\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJanuary 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 14, "text": "requested the matter be bifurcated; the work being performed by the City Attorney is\nwork already being completed; noted Council will still decide whether or not the City\nengages in prosecutorial work; stated the matter provides a little more local control for\nimportant items.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to see Section 7-3\nhave specific provisions; noted that he will be abstaining from the vote.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he previously had reservations about the matter;\nnoted the Council is still having discussions about violations, which provides him more\ncomfort than before.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Abstain; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for herself and Vice Mayor Knox White draft\nargument language.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of Vice Mayor Knox White and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft as the subcommittee under option three on the argument in favor.\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.\n(20-466) Resolution No. 15674, \"Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Add\nand Revise Fees.\" Adopted.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Knox White expressed concern about appeal fees; outlined a previous\nappeal for Alameda Theatre; noted appeals on priority projects for Council and the City\nshould have a different fees; expressed support for directing staff to return in the future\nto address the issue.\nThe City Attorney stated field fees are user fees for use of public property; the City has\nmore latitude to set user fees; permit fees must be set at cost-recovery only; permit fees\nthat are governed by Proposition 26 and 218 do not authorize the City to charge one\ngroup of payers to subsidize permit fees for another group of payers; noted a smaller\nfee on solar projects is possible due to the project type being a Council priority; fees set\nbased on the appellant or applicant become legally problematic.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that Council may direct staff to return with the information at\na later date.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJuly 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation, including adoption\nof the resolution.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, with the following amendment: direct staff\nto identify how Council may increase the cap on affordable housing and homeless\nservice projects for appeals.\nCouncilmember Vella requested clarification; inquired whether the amendment is to look\nat ways to cover the cost of appeals, to which Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Vella accepted the amendment to the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the motion, but not\nnecessarily 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: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(20-467) Resolution No. 15675, \"Establishing Integrated Waste Collection Ceiling Rates\nand Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc. for Rate Period 19 (July 2020 to\nJune 2021). Adopted.\nThe Public Works Coordinator and Marva Sheehan, HF&H Consultants, gave a brief\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation, including adoption\nof the related resolution.\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(20-468) Recommendation to Provide an Update on Two-Step Procurement Process for\nAlameda's Integrated Waste Franchise; Authorize the City Manager to Execute an\nAmendment to the Franchise Agreement between the City of Alameda and Alameda\nCounty Industries (ACI) Providing to the City a Maximum 18 Month Extension Option,\nas Needed; and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to the\nService Provider Agreement with Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson Consultants, LLC (HF&H)\nfor Solid Waste Agreement and Procurement Consulting, in an Amount Not to Exceed\n$74,025, with the Option of Three One-Year Extensions, for a Total Five-Year\nCompensation Not to Exceed $403,200.\nThe Public Works Coordinator and Lauren Barbieri, HF&H Consultants, gave a brief\npresentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJanuary 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 16, "text": "(20-469) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced a motion is needed to hear new items past\n11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of hearing the remaining items under the Regular\nAgenda and the remainder of Public Comment, and to continue the Rules of Order\nreferral [paragraph no. 20-478] and sustainable landscapes brief [paragraph no. 20-479\nitems to the July 14th Special Meeting.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the City Attorney noted Council should set a time-specific for the\ncontinued items; stated staff recommends a start time of 5:59 p.m.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed support for the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Knox White requested the motion be amended to have the continued items\nstart at 7:01 p.m.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the 7:01 p.m. time.\nCouncilmember Vella accepted the amendment to the motion.\nVice Mayor Knox White agreed to still second the amended 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.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the matter empowers the City Manager to\nlock the City into a 10 or 20-year agreement with ACI or would Council have to vote on\na long-term agreement.\nMs. Barbieri responded the matter does not provide the City Manager with the ability to\nsign the next contract without coming back for Council approval; stated the process\nallows more time for negotiations; noted the action for Council is to authorize the City\nManager to execute the extension amendment.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\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.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJuly 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 17, "text": "(20-470) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Disburse Money Donated\nto the Fund-Wide Alameda Strong Community Relief Campaign as Follows: 60 Percent\nto Small Businesses, 20 Percent to Non-Profit Organizations, and 20 Percent to\nAlameda Renters.\nThe Economic Development Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the fund; stated funds will be available.\nThe City Manager stated there are four funds within the relief fund for: small\nbusinesses, renters, non-profits, and the fund currently being discussed is an allocation\nto the General Fund; there is little money that has been put in the General Fund and\nmost money donated is specifically to one of the three listed funds.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the current total amount donated.\nThe City Manager responded $30,000 for business relief, $6,000 for renters, about\n$2,000 for non-profits and less than $1,000 for General Fund allocation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether people are given a sheet or slip to allow for\ntax deduction when contributions are made to the East Bay Community Fund.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the funds are\ntax deductible and an electronic receipt is provided showing the amount donated.\nStated there has been little marketing specifically around the fund; noted more can be\ndone; stated more funds could be found with better marketing; discussed the website\nlayout being confusing; expressed support for the program: Zac Bowling, Alameda\nComments read into the record:\nDiscussed sole proprietors being part of the program; stated groups of retailers are\nlisted as least qualified and eligible for half the amount others could receive; many retail\nbusinesses are an important part of Alameda; noted it is the first job for many of his\nemployees: Ben Calica, Alameda.\nUrged Council to clarify the issue of sole proprietor businesses applying for funds;\nstated a brick and mortar sole proprietor with no employees should be eligible for the full\ngrant amount; a sole proprietor working from a residential property should be eligible for\n50% of the award amount: Ronald Mooney, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired the award breakdown for sole proprietors.\nThe Community Development Director responded sole proprietors working from a\nresidence would be eligible for 50% of the award and sole proprietors working out of a\nbrick and mortar store would be eligible for the full amount; stated Mr. Mooney's\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJanuary 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 18, "text": "breakdown of the funding eligibility is accurate.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of providing the City Manager authority to\ndisperse the general contributions, 60% to small businesses, 20% to non-profits and\n20% to Alameda renters.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded 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(20-471) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract with\nRedgwick Construction Co. for Chuck Corica Golf Course Parking Lot Improvements,\nNo. PW 02-20-12 in an Amount, Including Contingency, Not to Exceed $406,471.50; or\nin the Alternative, Reject All Bids for Chuck Corica Golf Course Parking Lot\nImprovements, No. PW 02-20-12 and Provide Direction for a Lease Amendment with\nGreenway Golf for a Rent Reduction and Requirement to Fund and Construct the\nChuck Corica Golf Course Parking Lot and Sewer Line.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.\nDiscussed training agreements with the State of California's Department of\nApprenticeship Standards; stated individuals that have completed the program are the\nmost productive construction workers; Council will be providing good paying jobs with\nbenefits: Michael Ginter, Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the process has been long and she is satisfied with\nawarding the Request for Proposals (RFP) and ready to move forward; expressed\nsupport for the staff recommendation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a motion to approve the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated there are good reasons to look at the\nGreenway approach for coordinating the parking infrastructure; noted Council could\ntake a time-out to look at how parking lot improvements can be coordinated and re-\nissue the RFP.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog's recommendation is a\nsubstitute motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; stated there is a question related\nto funding for other infrastructure improvements.\nThe motion failed for lack of a second.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJuly 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember Vella stated part of the reason for the timing of parking lot\nimprovements is due to negotiations related to timing for Greenway; part of the\nagreement requires the parking lot portion to be completed first; an attempt to\ncoordinate was made; funding needs to be found.\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.\n***\n(20-472) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the Closed Session evaluation of the City\nAttorney will need to be continued; stated the Special Meeting on July 14th is a possible\ndate.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of continuing the City Attorney's evaluation to the\nJuly 14th Special Meeting Closed Session.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, requested a friendly amendment to\nagendize the matter at the beginning of the meeting.\nThe City Attorney stated the matter must have a time-specific; staff recommends a start\ntime of 5:59 p.m.\nCouncilmember Vella and Vice Mayor Knox White accepted the start time and the\nmotion was amended accordingly.\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.\n***\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-473) The City Manager made an announcement related to the investigation\nparameters related to the incident with Mali Watkins and Police Officers.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nComments read into the record:\n(20-474) Barbara Walker, Alameda, expressed concern about the COVID-19 pandemic;\nstated that she would like to know who is making decisions about the response; the City\nneeds more testing; discussed transparency; stated it is difficult to follow rules and she\nwould like information about hospitals.\n(20-475) Debra Mendoza, Alameda, stated Council has the opportunity to radically\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJanuary 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 20, "text": "change how public safety is imagined, operated, and funded; the community is ready to\ndefund Police and reinvest in community; urged Council to stand on the right side of\njustice.\n(20-476) Frank, Alameda, discussed slow streets; stated the slow streets program\nshould be worked out better.\n(20-477) Amos White, Alameda, discussed protests for systemic racism and civil\nincidents; questioned whether an apology will be made to Mr. Watkins or the public;\nurged Council to act now, pass a resolution declaring racism as a Public Health\nEmergency, seat a Citizens Oversight Commission and convene a truth and\nreconciliation series of panels to address the years of systemic racism.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(20-478) Consider Adoption of Resolution_Amending Section 6 of Resolution No. 15382,\nwhich Adopted Rules of Order Governing City Council Meetings. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft\nand Councilmember Oddie)\" [Continued to July 14, 2020]\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-479) Stopwaste June 2020 Topic Brief: Sustainable Landscapes. (Councilmember\nOddie) [Informational only] [Continued to July 14, 2020]\n(20-480) Vice Mayor Knox White discussed public comment; stated e-mails received\nprior to the meeting should not be read during the meeting.\n(20-481) Councilmember Daysog noted many fireworks are being set off in\nconcentrated in areas.\n(20-482) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed gratitude toward Allen Michaan; stated there\nare many resources and information related to COVID-19; urged people to wear a\nmask, wash hands, and remain socially distant.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:44\np.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\n20\nJuly 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 21, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 7, 2020- -5:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:04 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(20-442) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Site A at Alameda Point; City Negotiators: Eric J. Levitt, City\nManager; Debbie Potter, Community Development Director; Michelle Giles,\nRedevelopment Project Manager; and Lisa Nelson Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney;\nNegotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners: Under Negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\n(20-443) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Greenway Golf, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda,\nCA; City Negotiators: Eric J. Levitt, City Manager; Michael Roush, Assistant City\nAttorney; Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director; Negotiating Parties: City of\nAlameda and Greenway Golf: Under Negotiation: Price and Terms\n(20-444) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Jim's on the Course, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road,\nAlameda, CA; City Negotiators: Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director; and\nMichael H Roush, Assistant City Attorney; Organizations Represented: Dialemi Inc., dba\nJim's on the Course, Tom Geanekos, Owner: Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property\nNegotiations Price and Terms of Payment\n(20-445) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54957); Position Evaluated: City Attorney - Yibin Shen [Continued to July 14,\n2020 at 5:59 p.m.]\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Site A, staff provided information and Council provided\ndirection by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nOddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; regarding Greenway\nGolf, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; regarding Jim's on the Course, staff provided\ninformation and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote:\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; and regarding Performance Evaluation, no action was\ntaken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:04\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\nJuly 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 23, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY--JULY 7, 2020- -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair\nEzzy\nAshcraft\nconvened\nthe\nmeeting\nat\n7:17\np.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Knox White,\nOddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The\nmeeting was held via WebEx.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye;", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-07", "page": 24, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n7:22 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\n2\nJuly 7, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf"}