{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY--JANUARY 5, 2021 - -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair\nEzzy\nAshcraft\nconvened\nthe\nmeeting\nat\n7:01\np.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\nKnox\nWhite, Spencer, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft\n- 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nSpencer: Abstain; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4.\nAbstention: 1. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*21-001 CC/21-01 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC\nMeetings Held on October 6, 2020 and December 1, 2020. Approved.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(21-002 CC/21-02 SACIC) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15732/SACIC No.\n21-11, \"Approving the Development List of Affordable Housing Projects and Funding\nRequest for Such Projects as Requested by the Alameda Unified School District\n(AUSD). \" Adopted; and\n(21-002 A CC/21-02A SACIC) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to\nSubmit the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) and Administrative\nBudget for the Period from July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022 to the Countywide Oversight\nBoard.\nThe Community Development Program Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of the additional units included in the\nrecommendation as well as the connection to Alameda Unified School District (AUSD).\nThe Community Development Program Manager stated Rosefield Village is owned by\nthe Housing Authority and contains modular built units which have been demolished;\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n1\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 2, "text": "construction is currently ongoing at the site and will result in a total of 90 units on-site;\nsome of the buildings will remain and be rehabilitated; AUSD receives ROPS money,\nwhich may be used for development of housing for AUSD employees; the Housing\nAuthority has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with AUSD and expertise in\naffordable housing development; the Housing Authority will either set aside or provide\npreference to AUSD employees in exchange for funds provided by AUSD to help build\nthe affordable housing.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the requirement includes income qualifying\nAUSD employees, to which the Community Development Program Manager responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation\n[including adoption of the resolution].\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll\ncall vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer:\nAye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n7:11 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\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 5, 2021--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:11 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Spencer,\nVella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The\nmeeting was conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-003) Paul Foreman, Alameda, discussed the campaign for Measure Z; urged\nCouncil apply similar rhetoric to the \"Yes on Z\" campaign as used on the \"No on Z\"\ncampaign; discussed ballot arguments and a UC Berkeley report from November 18th;\nstated there are contradictory elements to the 2014 Housing Element; the City can do\nbetter with integration and multi-family housing.\n(21-004) Jenice Anderson, Alameda, discussed meetings of the subcommittees on\nracism; stated that she is curious about the timeline for public participation with the\nsubcommittees; discussed the Alameda Police Department's (APD) armored vehicle;\ninquired about the ethics of APD's social media.\n(21-005) Alexia Arocha, Alameda, expressed concerns about the operation and\nformation tactics of the subcommittees; stated there appears to be bias in participation;\nthe steering committees represent only a fraction of the public population; discussed the\nhistory of policing negative interactions with Police and APD's armored vehicle.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the minutes [paragraph no. 21-006 and final passage of the\nordinance [paragraph no. 21-011] were removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(21-006) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on December\n1, 2020.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of the minutes.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Abstain; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1.\n(*21-007) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,242,593.08.\n(*21-008) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second\nAmendment to the Agreement with Kevin Harper CPA and Associates, in an Amount\nNot to Exceed $25,000 for a Total Compensation Not to Exceed $99,499, and to Extend\nthe Contract to October 31, 2021, for Financial Services in the Finance Department.\nApproved.\n(*21-009) Recommendation to Accept a Report on the Appointment of Members to the\nOpen Government Commission. Accepted.\n(*21-010) Resolution No. 15732, \"Ratifying the Proclamation of the Director of\nEmergency Services and Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local\nEmergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government\nCode Section 8630(c). Adopted.\n(21-011) Ordinance No. 3294, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Lease\nAmendments for Rent Relief Program with Pacific Pinball Museum and Wonky Kitchen\nvia the Non-Profit Spirits Alley Program for Rent Relief in Response to the Covid-19\nPandemic.\" Finally passed.\nCouncilmember Daysog recused himself and left the meeting.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated the language added in reference to one COVID-19\nviolation is too severe a penalty and that she would prefer either a three violation limit or\nan opportunity to cure.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the restriction is not limited to one violation; there is a three-\nlevel process a business would go through should a violation be found: 1) educate, 2)\nwarn and 3) citation; noted the goal is to help businesses as well as open businesses;\nstated citations are not to be given at the first violation; requested clarification of the City\nManager and City Attorney roles.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 5, "text": "The City Attorney stated any change made by Council that is not typographical will\nreturn for first reading based on the matter being final passage of an ordinance; noted\nthe matter does require four affirmative votes of the Council in order to pass; stated\nviolations must be substantial in order to enforce; there is difficulty and ambiguity in\nusing the term \"substantial;\" however, staff has been directed by Council not to take\naction on minimal or trivial violations.\nThe City Manager stated staff has included language on violations coming from the\nCounty or Code Enforcement; in order to create more protections, violations would have\nto be confirmed by both the City Attorney and City Manager.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated there is discretion; expressed concern about the City\nprocess conflicting with the County process; stated violations which may not be\negregious should be able to be cured; expressed support for language being included\nwithin the document, reflecting substantial violations versus an understanding between\nstaff and Council.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether Council has signed other lease\nextensions for other businesses containing the language and whether staff can return to\nCouncil with a written policy to address the issues raised by Councilmember Spencer;\nexpressed concern about multiple lease extensions on the same matter having different\nlanguage.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she does not want to address an interpretive issue relative\nto lease agreements; Council can provide direction separately should it be needed;\nexpressed support for a conversation being agendized at a future meeting; expressed\nconcern about the safety of workers and members of the public; stated a number of\ncompanies have taken directives not as seriously as necessary, resulting in a tightening\nof measures in response to the number of employers experiencing major outbreaks;\nAlameda should be addressing the issue when providing public funds and changing\nlease agreements to public parcels; the intent of the language is to ensure health safety\nissues are addressed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether Councilmembers Spencer and Knox White\nwould be willing to work as an ad hoc committee to put together advisory language;\nstated policy direction is needed to ensure Council's intent is carried out; a proposal\nmay be brought back for Council consideration; inquired whether an ad hoc committee\nis permissible.\nThe City Attorney responded there are no legal problems should Council wish to appoint\na subcommittee.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about delaying the matter by reverting back to\nfirst reading; stated the concerns raised are valid; urged the matter move forward.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated that her preference is to modify the language; she will\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 6, "text": "not be able to support the matter without more clarification; expressed support for\nCouncil working out the language to address the issue.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Spencer is requesting modified\nlanguage as direction to staff; noted should Council modify the language of the\nordinance the matter reverts to first reading with a second reading to follow.\nCouncilmember Spencer responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether Council is addressing a problem that has been\nraised by companies which are agreeing to the lease.\nThe City Manager responded that he has not received concerns from any businesses.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated staff could include that any\nrescinding of funds must be approved by Council; the Council would then weigh-in on\nthe severity of the violation and whether the violation warrants rescinding of funds; the\nagreement would not require modification.\nThe City Attorney stated as long as the direction remains direction to staff, the second\nreading may proceed; if Council wishes to modify the lease to reflect new language, the\nmatter will return for a first reading.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated that she would like more information; inquired whether\nthe proposal includes a separate document to be voted on by Council.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded a staff report could be\nbrought back to Council.\nThe City Attorney stated Councilmember Spencer's inquiry is related to the form\nmemorialized by Council's direction; the City Clerk will produce minutes and the Council\ndirection is memorialized within the document as formal Council direction.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated that she would prefer the language be included within\nthe agreement; another sentence should be added to instruct staff to return to Council\nfor direction.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the decision to modify the lease causing\nimpacts to businesses; stated businesses have agreed to sign the lease as-is; the issue\nis being raised on behalf of tenants but has not been raised by tenants; expressed\nsupport for input from Councilmembers or spokespeople that have heard concerns from\ntenants; stated that she would prefer to give direction to staff; noted Council meetings\nare public, concerns have been discussed and businesses have had the opportunity to\nreach out; stated the businesses she has spoken to have urged Council to approve the\nleases as-written; expressed concern about addressing a problem which has not been\nraised.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about Council performing actions that support\nserious violations of public health restrictions; stated there are competing interests.\nThe City Manager stated that he has heard three concerns: 1) the health of the\nemployees, as well as patrons to businesses, 2) actions which unintentionally hurt\nbusinesses by adding an extra provision causing a misinterpretation and subsequent\nrevocation by either the City Attorney or the City Manager, and 3) providing funds to aid\nbusinesses; stated his recommendation, based on the concerns raised, is for Council to\nconsider approving the leases at this meeting and should any business wish to revisit\ntheir lease, said lease can be brought back for Council consideration; in order to provide\naid as soon as possible, staff can bring back a policy and further protections for\nbusinesses that make a request.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated that she was not present for the first reading; from her\nperspective, the language included is too extreme; noted that she would not have\nsupported the first reading language nor the previous leases; stated it is important to\nhave a policy; it is not appropriate to place the burden of returning to Council on\nbusinesses; expressed support for finding a compromise.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has heard the need for policy directive; noted that\nshe has recommended an ad hoc committee of Councilmembers Knox White and\nSpencer to work with the City Manager and City Attorney to return with language which\nadds a safeguard to the lease agreements; stated doing so allows the matter to move\nforward, provides funds to businesses that have been waiting and creates a solution to\naddress concerns; inquired whether Councilmember Spencer would consider being part\nof the ad hoc committee.\nCouncilmember Spencer responded that she is not in a position to support the matter\nas-written; stated that she has recommended Council creating language and expedite\nthe process when the matter returns.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed concern about different language being\ncontained in different agreements; inquired whether Council direction can be provided to\nstaff not to implement the clause until a policy clarifying the process is created and\nadopted; stated the recommendation allows for all adopted contracts to have the same\nlanguage and protections giving clear Council-adopted direction about implementation;\nexpressed concern about wordsmithing contracts at the current meeting; questioned\nwhether Council can state that action will not be taken until a clear policy is in place.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is willing to put together any Councilmember-\ncombination ad hoc committee; Councilmember Spencer has been given the first\nopportunity based on concerns raised.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated that she will not be able to support the contract without\nmore information on the policy.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 8, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella stated failure to act at this meeting allows the perfect to get in the way\nof the good; Council is raising an issue on behalf of companies which have access to\ntheir own attorneys; expressed concern about actions and delays which do not help out\nbusinesses; stated the issue has not been raised by businesses publicly or privately;\nthat she has heard clear direction for potential policy ideas and directions to staff; other\nlease agreement amendments have been entered into in order to provide aid; Council\nwill be doing a disservice to businesses and the community by not voting on the matter;\nthe matter not passing at the current meeting would be unfortunate.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Knox White has recommended no\nenforcement of the provision until a policy is brought back and approved by the Council;\nthe policy will be voted on by the entire Council.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether a vote of three or four would be required for\nthe policy brought back to Council, to which the City Attorney responded a vote of three\nis required.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated the difference in votes needed is a critical difference;\nexpressed support for stipulating three violations instead of one.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has recommended Councilmembers Spencer and\nKnox White work with staff on a subcommittee.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would work toward ensuring four votes.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council cannot impose legal requirements to require\nsupermajority votes; requested clarification from Councilmember Knox White.\nThe City Attorney stated Council may provide direction to staff not to implement the\nsection and to bring back policy requiring Council approval; Council can be more\nspecific in providing staff direction stating a policy is to be brought back which includes\nCouncil approval as a future requirement.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed concern about some businesses having\ndifferent COVID-19 agreement triggers; stated the three violations could cause\nconfusion for different levels of violations; expressed concern about lacking a clear\npolicy.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated that her concern is not being addressed; as written, the\ndocument does not address the different types of violations; violations should be\naddressed within the document itself.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about acting on behalf of businesses and\napplicants by creating an issue that may not exist.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Knox White questioned whether the discussion should reflect how the\nCity Manager and City Attorney will determine violation types; stated it seems as though\nthe concern is the level of severity of violations.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter could be continued to the next Council\nmeeting where staff can bring forward a policy clarifying the implementation of lease\namendment violations.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded staff is willing to take\ndirection from Council.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether delaying the matter will impact businesses and\nwhether staff will be working with businesses based on proposed language.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she would like staff to work with a member or two\nof Council; inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Knox White would\nbe part of an ad hoc committee.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for Councilmember Spencer being part of the ad\nhoc committee; stated that she does not want to block businesses from receiving aid.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated there are eight agreements in\nvarious forms of process; the current matter is the last two agreements for the program;\nnoted the delay will likely be six weeks or longer; stated there will be first and second\nreading, plus a 30-day period.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is an option for Council provide staff direction to\nsuspend any implementation until a clarifying policy returns for consideration and\napproval; noted that she does not want to delay businesses receiving funds.\nCouncilmember Spencer expressed support for staff offering appropriate language;\nquestioned whether the changes would be material enough to warrant another first\nreading.\nThe City Attorney stated if Council provides staff with language direction, the lease\nagreements would not need to return for first reading; the direction can be concrete to\nthe effect of: \"Council is directing staff to bring all abatement to Council. Staff is directed\nnot to implement any abatement without Council approval;\" should Council wish to\nchange the lease form, the matter would need to return for first reading.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated that she is looking for the inclusion of \"substantial or\nsignificant violation\" as a qualifying term.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the contract [final passage of the\nordinance], with one minor stipulation that the term \"substantial violation\" is added to the\nagreement language.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 10, "text": "The City Attorney stated that he is assuming Councilmember Knox White is providing\ndirection to staff and not amending the contract; direction is being provided to treat\nqualifying violations as substantial and for staff to bring any such substantial qualifying\nviolation back to Council for approval.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether there is a reason the term \"substantial\"\ncannot be added to the agreement.\nThe City Attorney expressed concern about adding the term \"substantial\" to the\nagreement since the term is undefined; stated policy can be internally defined; however,\nallowing the term \"substantial\" to be included in the agreement makes for difficult\nenforcement; noted Council direction was provided at first reading; stated that he does\nnot recommend adding the term \"substantial\" to the lease agreement; the term should\nbe provided as policy direction to staff; should Council wish for something more\ndefinitive, a limit of three violations provides a countable interpretation; a recommended\nmotion could be to the effect of: \"staff shall not implement the revocation unless one\nviolation is substantial and, in such cases, staff must bring such violations to the Council\nfor approval before implementation\" as the policy direction while moving to approve the\nlease agreement as-is.\nThe City Manager stated it will be difficult to add \"substantive violation\" due to the way\nsubsection d. is written; staff will have to work on the language in order for it to make\nsense, which would require another first reading.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the City Attorney's recommendation helps\nCouncilmember Spencer's concerns.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether changes are being made to the lease\nagreement language or under a separate policy.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded that the policy will be separate from the lease\nagreement; stated the term \"substantial\" will be included in a policy outside of the lease\nagreement.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated the recommendation does not address her concerns;\nthe policy proposed can be changed by a vote of three Councilmembers.\n***\n(21-012) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of granting each Councilmember an\nadditional 5 minutes.\nCouncilmember Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 11, "text": "The City Attorney stated Council policy can be changed by a vote of three\nCouncilmembers; another recommendation is to for Council to approve the lease\nagreements as-is and provide direction for staff to bring all leases back for more\npermanent modifications.\nCouncilmember Spencer expressed support for the proposal of lease agreement\nmodifications, including substantial violations returning to Council.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the proposal resulting in the matter\nreturning for first reading.\nThe City Manager stated the matter is not related to money being provided to tenants, it\nis rent deferral; staff can administratively hold rent until the matter returns for another\nfirst reading.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about administrative decisions regarding public\nfunds; stated previous Council discussions on the matter have been published online;\nthree proposals have been recommended at the current meeting; expressed concern\nabout attempting to rewrite the language.\nCouncilmember Knox White questioned whether the matter can be bifurcated in order to\ninclude Councilmember Daysog for the discussion related to Wonky Kitchen.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for bifurcating the matter.\nCouncilmember Daysog returned to the meeting.\nCouncilmember Knox White outlined concerns raised; stated that he would like to\npropose bifurcating the matter into two separate votes, one for Wonky Kitchen and one\nfor Pacific Pinball.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated should Council begin to add language to the lease\nagreements, the matter will need to return for another second reading; noted there are\nconcerns for delaying the matter.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he believes he should recuse himself from the\nPacific Pinball matter due to proximity to his home.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether the location near Councilmember Daysog's home is\nvisitor-serving, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Attorney stated the test for recusal typically relates to personal impacts to\nfinances and whether the Council decision will have a material change of the use for the\nvisitor-serving location; noted the common law conflict falls under the belief of a\nCouncilmember to be fair given that there may or may not be financial impacts to said\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember's home with the existence of a visitor-serving use; should the\nCouncilmember believe there will be a financial impact to their home's value, up or\ndown, then recusal should be sought.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that that he can be a fair and impartial participant in the\ndiscussion.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated the location near\nCouncilmember Daysog's home is visitor-serving; however, the lease agreement being\nconsidered is for a warehouse location at Alameda Point; the location does not directly\nfeed the operations of the Webster Street location.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft started the City is only the landlord for the location at Alameda\nPoint.\nThe City Attorney stated given that the location near Councilmember Daysog's home is\nnot a concern, it is unlikely that his property value will be affected in a positive or\nnegative way; since Councilmember Daysog has stated that he can be fair and impartial\nunder Common Law, he is able to participate in the discussion; outlined concerns raised\nby Councilmember Spencer.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether policy guidance would guard against\noverreach on the part of staff or Council.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded businesses would have to be found in significant\nviolation of County Public Health Officer's orders; noted any violation first yields\neducation, warning, and then citation, unless a violation is egregious; protection for all is\nkey.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the concern is a Council-raised issue.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Pacific Pinball or Wonky Kitchen could use or\ntake advantage of the policy guidance should a violation occur.\nThe City Attorney responded any Council adopted policy could be used to protect\ntenants via their legal representation; stated staff would be remiss not to follow Council\ndirection.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated that her concern is a policy change requires three votes\nfrom Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed concern about an overreach from staff in enforcing\ntenant violations or penalties; expressed support for a form of due process.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated lease forfeiture is not part of the discussion; forfeiture of\nCity funds is being discussed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Knox White moved approval of both contracts as-written, with direction\nto staff not to enforce the COVID-19 enforcement violation section of the contract or any\nprevious and future approved contracts, until a policy returns to Council to address how\nviolations will be determined and a written process for enforcing violations has been\napproved by Council.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, with an amendment to have the policy come\nback to Council by a date-certain; stated that she does not want the provisions\nsuspended for a long period of time.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White accepted the amendment to the motion;\nexpressed support for the policy returning at the first meeting in February.\nThe City Manager stated the goal would be for the matter to return February 2, 2021\nand no later than February 16, 2021.\nVice Mayor Vella stated it is important to stay focused on the bigger issue of helping\nbusinesses financially and to have the same interpretation for all contracts, not just few.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for the motion including withholding\ninvoking the COVID-19 penalties until a time certain when a policy can be finalized;\nstated that he supports Councilmember Spencer working with the City Attorney to\nfinalize the policy.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated that she would like the inclusion of two violations\ninstead of one.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Spencer would be discuss the\npolicy formation with the City Attorney.\nCouncilmember Spencer responded that she is happy to work with Council or staff on\nlanguage; stated the current language is not addressing her concerns.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Abstain; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:57 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:12\np.m.\n***\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-013) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Lease\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 14, "text": "Amendments for Rent Relief Programs to Rock Wall Winery and St. George Spirits\nthrough the Loan Conversion Assistance Program for Rent Relief in Response to the\nCovid-19 Pandemic. Introduced.\nThe Interim Community Development Director and Assistant Community Development\nDirector gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the reference to hand sanitizer is in relation to St. George\nSpirits production; noted the business has been donating hand sanitizer.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the concerns from the previous matter apply; expressed\nconcern about adopting a policy after a program has been approved; inquired whether\nthere is anything which can deal with overreach and policy issues.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the main goal is to provide financial assistance to tenants;\nquestioned how the topic of overreach relates to the matter.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether tenants receive rent abatement at the front of\nthe program term.\nThe Interim Community Development Director responded as tenants meet a particular\nevent, the opportunity for abatement is available to be applied thereafter.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated there are two separate\nprograms; the current matter is related to loan conversion; ongoing goals must be met\nin order for St. George Spirits to receive abatement.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether St. George Spirits has already performed the\ngoal of providing hand sanitizer in order to receive three months of abated rent.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded St. George Spirits has an\napproximate goal of providing 3,500 units of hand sanitizer and is currently at 2,000.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated the goals appear to have already been negotiated and\nare now coming to Council for ratification.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated St. George Spirits is producing\nhand sanitizer and staff is urging continuation of production by setting the goal amount;\nthe program goal sets performance measures.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated $118,000 is being abated for 3,600 gallons of hand\nsanitizer; inquired whether valuation of hand sanitizer has been provided; noted many\nmembers of the community are providing services and not receiving the same amount\nof relief.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the value of hand sanitizer\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 15, "text": "was not calculated in relation to rent; stated the value is responsive to Council's\ndirection to help those that are helping the community; stated none of the performance\nmeasures equate a mathematical equation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the times are described as unprecedented for a reason;\nexpressed support for staff's efforts.\nCouncilmember Spencer questioned whether the lease is a three year term, with the\nability to abate six months total; noted the previous program allowed for three months to\nbe abated; stated the City is also landlords for residential spaces as well; inquired\nwhether programs are being offered to residential lessees.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the previous matter [final\npassage paragraph no. 20- allowed a total of nine months to be abated; noted the\ncurrent program is a shorter abatement period; stated the City has provided residential\ntenants the same programs provided Citywide.\nCouncilmember Spencer requested clarification of the rent programs.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated the previous matter program\nallows for a nine month deferral and three month payback within three years; if payback\noccurs early, an abatement of one month is allowed for each year paid early.\nIn response to Councilmember Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant Community\nDevelopment Director stated tenants can abate six months between March of 2020 and\nJune of 2021, with three years to meet the milestones; noted the program is not on a\nper year basis due to milestone timing; stated the previous matter's program\nrequirements differ.\nCouncilmember Spencer noted the programs differ in abatement and repayment.\nDiscussed the pandemic; stated staff at St. George Spirits felt the need to do\nsomething; an investment of thousands of dollars has been made in order to produce\nhand sanitizer; discussed distilleries producing hand sanitizer throughout the Country\nand hand sanitizer costs; stated there has been no intention of selling the hand\nsanitizer; people should be looking out for one another during these times; if the matter\nnot pass, hand sanitizer will continue to be produced and provided: Lance Winters, St.\nGeorge Spirits.\nCouncilmember Daysog outlined the process for ordinance approval; stated COVID-19\nenforcement provisions are new information; expressed support for guarding against\noverreach; stated Section 4 of the agreement relates to COVID-19 enforcement;\nquestioned whether Council should adopt policy guidance language offline prior to\nadopting the agreement; stated concerns raised about overreach should be hammered\nout first.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 16, "text": "afloat; the foundation has been laid and a conversation can be had if the hypothetical\nconcern is raised by tenants; expressed support for the matter as written; stated Council\nshould address the immediate hurdles coming before businesses.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated consistency needs to occur; different expectations in\ndifferent contracts is problematic; noted action has been taken related to COVID-19\nviolations; stated additional concerns can be addressed in a policy which will add\nadditional protections to an already agreed upon contract; expressed support for moving\nforward with staff's recommendation; expressed concern about delaying the matter.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated that her concern is for City monies not being balanced;\nthe matter is a big ask and it is important to be clear about what the ask is; outlined\nlanguage under Section 4 of the agreement; stated the language is precise, does not\nallow for discretion and is important to address.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft further outlined language in Section 4 of the agreement; stated the\nmatter is coming back to Council for further refinement of policy; there is a lot of\npermissive language; the goal of COVID-19 provisions is to stem the spread of the virus\nand allow businesses to re-open; requested clarification about impacts to the Base\nReuse fund.\nThe City Manager stated there will be short-term impacts to the Base Reuse fund; staff\nis looking at the long-term effects on businesses to ensure tenants are able to stay and\navoid the potential of long term losses.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the financial impact portion of the staff report; stated the\nend of the pandemic is unknown; it is important to ensure logical and sensible orders for\npublic health are being followed; Alameda has had very few businesses cited for\nviolations.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he does not see himself supporting the agreement\nuntil an overreach policy is in place.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council has twice heard from business owners asking for aid;\nrequested clarification why Councilmembers would support withholding financial aid to\nbusinesses due to a hypothetical issue which will be addressed prior to the contract\nbeing enforced; stated business owners have not raised concerns about overreach; due\nto the timeline of the ordinance, Council has the opportunity to address concerns;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 17, "text": "Council has time to enact the policy.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated there is a compromise to remove the paragraph\nregarding COVID-19 violations; the instance of violations is hypothetical and Alameda\nhas good businesses; adding the language to the agreement is an overreach;\nbusinesses can be trusted and worked with; stated that she will support the agreement\nwith the provision removed.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the provision is due to Council providing substantially higher\nfinancial help than other businesses; there is a give and take and agency on the part of\nthe businesses; the discussion is a distraction from the matter and is killing an agreed to\ndeal.\nThe City Manager stated there has been a net positive balance of $6 million in the Base\nReuse fund; capital expenses still exist for the fund; staff has recommended the lease\nagreements due to the long-term viability of the area and ability to strengthen the City.\nThe Interim Community Development Director stated staff does not anticipate further\napplications for the program; $1.5 million has been allocated for the program and only\nhalf of the allocation has been spent.\nCouncilmember Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation [introduction of\nthe ordinance], with striking the COVID-19 enforcement violations provision.\nThe motion failed for lack of a second.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated in political life, members rarely come to a perfect\nagreement; elected representatives are governing at precarious times for all; not\neveryone is impacted by COVID-19 equally; noted that she has recommended an ad\nhoc committee be formed to address policy language; urged consideration\nof\ncompromise.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the program was developed in November 2020; that\nhe feels Council has come up with a solution to address concerns raised by\nCouncilmembers; it seems odd and off-putting for Council to have agreements with\ndifferent terms for different tenants; expressed concern about the suggestion that three\nCouncilmembers would change policy in order to pull rent from businesses; stated that\nhe supports fixing the concerns through a policy; the issue does not relate to putting the\nCity at more risk; however, the protections added negotiate against the City and ensure\nclarity for tenants.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [introduction\nof the ordinance], with hope that Council can honor the negotiations and work staff has\ndone at the direction of a unanimous Council.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 18, "text": "COVID-19 provision; expressed support for language referencing COVID-19 health and\nsafety orders and any Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations\nrelated to COVID-19 or violations of County Health orders.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for language which articulates the opportunity\nto cure violations within a certain period of time.\nThe City Attorney stated one fix could be to change the decision makers to the City\nCouncil instead of the City Manager and City Attorney.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is an opportunity to cure, to which the City\nAttorney responded Section 4 of the lease allows the opportunity to cure; the edit will\nallow for Council consideration.\n***\n(21-014) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of granting each Councilmember an\nadditional 5 minutes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember Spencer seconded the motion, which required four affirmative voters so\nit failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Knox White: No; Spencer: Aye;\nVella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the recommendation from the City Attorney is an\nacceptable amendment to the motion made by Councilmember Knox White.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether Councilmember Daysog would support\nthe amended motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded the City Council is not playing an administrative role\nin managing a contract; stated there is no higher authority for overreach than the\nCouncil during a public meeting; Council is moving in the right direction; noted that he is\nnot supportive of creating policy language on the fly; stated that he would prefer the\npolicy be in place prior to approving the agreements.\nVice Mayor Vella proposed language which includes that the ultimate decision rests with\na vote of the City Council with a recommendation provided by staff; stated Council will\nhave a guiding policy developed prior to the decision to ratify.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the issue is staff overreach; there is room to say it is\nincumbent on Council to decide; noted businesses are feeling punished by government;\nexpressed concern about creating policy at the meeting.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is concerned about the notion of staff overreach if\nCouncil has the deciding vote; inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is agreeable to\nthe amendment.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that he will need to see the language.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the language could require a vote of four\nCouncilmembers.\nThe City Attorney responded that he advises against doing so; stated the Charter is\nclear about three votes.\nVice Mayor Vella proposed adding: \"\nthe City may, upon a vote of the majority of City\nCouncil, in their sole and complete discretion\n\"\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 10:33 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at\n10:40 p.m.\nThe City Clerk displayed amended language to the ordinance: \"\nthe City may, upon\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 20, "text": "the approval of the City Council, in its sole and complete discretion, impose some or all\nof the following remedies:\n\"\nCouncilmember Daysog proposed including: \"on a 4 to 1 vote,\" adding \"some\" to \"...all\nunpaid\" in Section 4(i), \"some\" to \" all previously\" in Section 4(ii) and \"some or all of\" to\n\"\nany further\" in Section 4(iii).\nThe City Attorney stated that he is concerned about increasing the voting threshold\nwhich is not authorized by the City Charter.\nCouncilmember Daysog withdrew the addition of: \"on a 4 to 1 vote.\"\nCouncilmember Knox White withdrew his motion\nCouncilmember Daysog moved introduction of ordinance with the amended lease\nlanguage.\nCouncilmember Knox White second the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Abstain; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1.\n(21-015) Presentation by Assemblymember Rob Bonta: State Legislative Update.\nAssemblymember Bonta made brief comments.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the pandemic has highlighted existing inequities, specifically\nthe lack of transitional housing; more transitional housing is needed in Alameda; there is\nan opportunity to work with the State for more transitional housing; expressed support\nfor streamline legislation related to the Employment Development Department (EDD);\nstated State funding for housing goals and schools is needed as well as for daycare\nproviders; expressed concern about Vons and Albertsons laying off full-time drivers;\nexpressed support for the continued fight on bail reform, the juvenile justice program\nand tenant protection programs.\n***\n(21-016) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of holding the public hearing\n[paragraph no. 21-017 and continuing the referral to another meeting [paragraph no.\n21-019].\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which required four votes so it failed by the\nfollowing roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nCouncilmember Spencer moved approval of extending the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m.\nto hear both the public hearing [paragraph no. 21-017 and the referral [paragraph no.\n21-019]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 21, "text": "Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she could support the motion only if\nthe meeting is finished before midnight.\nCouncilmember Spencer withdrew her motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether an unheard matter continues to the next\nmeeting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the meeting will end should a motion to continue not\npass.\nCouncilmember Daysog proposed the first motion be recreated with a date and time\ncertain for the referral.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of holding the public hearing and\ncontinuing the referral to January 19, 2021.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for a more strategic approach to Bay Area\nRapid Transit (BART) in Alameda; stated that he would like more discussion around\nflexibility of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) responsibilities and RHNA\ngenerally, based on changes due to COVID-19; expressed support for an accounting of\nsmall mom and pop landlords' concerns.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a call with the Alameda Chamber of Commerce; stated\nanother city is paying a consultant $10,000 per month to locate and identify grant\nopportunities for State funding to help small businesses; there is good representation at\nthe Federal and State government and contacts can be provided; expressed support for\nreceiving State representative input; discussed the COVID-19 vaccine rollout;\nquestioned how the State can help cities with the vaccine process; expressed support\nfor housing legislation to return after delays from COVID-19 stated the City has\nreceived support for the Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge project; that she would like strategic\nsupport and input related to the project.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated transportation is the backbone of the economy;\nexpressed support for receiving support in ways to make streets safer by implementing\nautomated safety cameras for speeding and supporting transit recovery for the region;\nstated that he would like to ensure transportation funding follows housing processes\nand infrastructure improvements; housing is desperately needed; noted support and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 22, "text": "State action is needed on Police accountability.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated there are transportation issues; noted mask\nenforcement for BART is low; expressed support for more data being provided from\nCounty Public Health related to COVID-19 case numbers and connecting regional shut\ndowns based on case numbers, and more information related to allowing outdoor dining\nfor businesses and opening outdoor areas; stated many people are sharing indoor\nspaces due to enough outdoor space not being provided for use; expressed concern\nabout reports of increased crime and addressing changes due to the unsheltered\npopulation.\nAssemblymember Bonta expressed gratitude for the comments provided; stated there\nare opportunities to work together and find partnership; some of the matters will require\nfollow-up meetings; part of the State legislature goals are to help cities navigate\navailable funding through grant processes or programs; information related to grant and\nloan programs can be shared with cities in order to support small businesses; funding\nhas been made available for the State and Alameda would be eligible for some; the fight\ncontinues to get rid of the unfair and unjust system of money bail; there is fast\nmovement and urgency for tenant protections; the overlay of both County and City\nsupport can provide stronger backbone for struggling tenants; there is progress and\nmomentum for the Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge; noted traffic safety cameras have been\ndiscussed at the district level as an area of interest and contain tricky political issues;\nstated the COVID-19 vaccine is accommodated by facts, science and data and some\ncounties can be more restrictive should they so desire; Alameda County has been\nconsistently more restrictive than the State; it is tricky finding a balance between public\nhealth and economic drivers; smart and important reforms have begun to build\ncommunity trust in police accountability; expressed gratitude for the opportunity to\naddress Council.\n(21-017) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15733, \"Adopting a Mitigated\nNegative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to Rezone the\nProperty at 2350 Fifth Street from M-X, Mixed Use to R-4, Neighborhood Residential\nDistrict to Facilitate Residential Use of the Property.\" Adopted; and\n(21-017A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map Designation for the\nProperty at 2350 Fifth Street (APN 74-1356-23) from M-X, Mixed Use to R-4,\nNeighborhood Residential District to Facilitate Residential Use of the Property, as\nRecommended by the City Planning Board. Introduced.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Spencer's inquiry, the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director stated the parking requirement in the existing and proposed\nzoning is two spaces per unit.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [adoption of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 23, "text": "the resolution and introduction of the ordinance].\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the location is ideal for commercial\nand should be zoned mixed use; discussed Bayport; expressed support for a smaller\nscale neighborhood serving commercial site.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether the matter requires three votes to pass with\nthe location being City property.\nThe City Attorney responded Council is not voting on property disposition; stated the\nactions being taken are to rezone, which requires three votes.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-018) The City Manager encouraged use of the vaccine as it becomes available;\ndiscussed an extension of time requested by the policing subcommittees due to the\nholidays; stated a report back to Council is due the week of January 20th; a public\nengagement process is anticipated; the matter is scheduled to be on a Council meeting\nin March to allow time for public engagement; three separate meetings are available for\npublic viewing; announced the APD armored vehicle matter will return for Council\ndiscussion.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-019) Consider Establishing a New Methodology by which the Number of Housing\nUnits are Calculated for Parcels Zoned C-2-PD (Central Business District with Planned\nDevelopment Overlay). (Councilmember Daysog). Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-020) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she and Councilmember Spencer\nattended the 100th anniversary celebration for the Alameda Rotary Club via Zoom;\ndiscussed the christening of Saildrone's Surveyor SD-1200.\n(21-021) Vice Mayor Vella announced that she attended an Alameda County Lead\nAbatement Board meeting; stated there is concern about delaying lead testing children\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-05", "page": 24, "text": "due to COVID-19; discussed high levels of lead in bulk spices; stated there is concern\nabout lead levels in home based daycare facilities; announced she attended a meeting\nfor Stopwaste; stated legislation implementation around compost and recyclables is\ndelayed; discussed an award received by Alameda Grocer.\n(21-022) Councilmember Spencer announced an upcoming blood drive at Temple\nIsrael.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:48\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\n22\nJanuary 5, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf"}