{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 16, 2020- 5:45 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:46 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was\nheld via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nConsent Calendar\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-082) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Interim\nCommunity Development Director, Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community\nDevelopment Director, and Aaron Duffy, Staff Counsel, as Real Property Negotiators for\nthe Alameda Theatre, Located at 2317 Central Avenue, Alameda, CA. Accepted.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(21-083) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Alameda Theatre, Located at 2317 Central Avenue,\nAlameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager; Lisa Maxwell, Interim\nCommunity Development Director; Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community\nDevelopment Director; and Aaron Duffy, Staff Counsel; Negotiating Parties: City of\nAlameda and Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P.; Under Negotiation: Price and\nTerms. Not heard.\n(21-084) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Alameda Point, Site A, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric\nLevitt, City Manager; Lisa Maxwell, Interim Community Development Director; and\nDebbie Potter, Special Project Analyst; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and\nAlameda Point Partners, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the Alameda Theatre, the matter was not heard; regarding\nAlameda Point, Site A, staff provided information and Council provided direction and\ncontinued the matter to the March 2, 2021 Closed Session by the following roll call vote:\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5.\nAdjournment\nAt 7:21 p.m., the meeting was continued to March 2, 2021 Closed Session.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 16,2021--7:00 P.M. -\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:33 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led\nthe Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nThe meeting was conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(21-085) Season for Nonviolence Word of the Day: Freedom\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read a quote.\n(21-086) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read a commendation for Officer Cameron Leahy.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-087) Erin Fraser, Alameda, outlined an incident involving a woman named Amy\nCooper of New York City; stated Jonathan Gee has been accused locally of threatening\npeaceful protestors with a deadly weapon; the District Attorney has charged Mr. Gee\nwith disturbing the peace; noted the charge is minor given the racial nature of the crime;\nstated there are injustices in Alameda and everyone must break apart systemic racism;\ndiscussed Alameda Police Department's armored vehicle.\n(21-088) Vinny Camarillo, Alameda, expressed concerns about a rise in crimes against\nAsian people; stated that he has been a victim of harassment and racial aggressions in\nAlameda; outlined responses from Councilmembers to e-mail correspondence; stated\nthat it is not okay to normalize racism and xenophobia; noted that he is having to focus\non protecting his family from attacks; stated racism against Asian people has been\nnormalized; more police is not what is needed, reinvestment into the community is\nneeded.\n(21-089) Laura Curtona, Alameda, urged Council to think critically about not paying\nAlameda residents doing work on the Police Reform and Racial Equity Steering\nCommittee and Subcommittees; discussed a Special City Council meeting which\ndiscussed racism as a public health emergency; noted many Alamedans called to voice\nsupport for the matter; stated part of what perpetuates systemic racism is the systemic\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 4, "text": "inequality resulting from the racial wealth gap; Black people have historically been\ndeprived of economic stability and basic dignity; outlined wealth distribution and\neducation levels; urged a propulsion to action, especially due to the upcoming budget\ncycle, and compensating to the Steering Committee members for their time and efforts.\n(21-090) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, discussed the Open Government Commission;\noutlined a Commissioner making a recommendation to increase transparency; stated\nother Commissioners did not support the recommendation; urged Council to take the\nmatter seriously and direct the Open Government Commission to work out processes\nthat increase transparency for all.\n(21-091) Jenice Anderson, Alameda, expressed support for paying Subcommittee and\nCouncilmembers; stated the wage is a disservice to current members and those who\nmay wish to run in the future; low wages are not conducive; the members of the Police\nReform Committee are performing a tremendous amount of work; paying members\nshould be a top priority when the budget is presented in order to provide a more\ninclusive City.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nThe bills [paragraph no. 21-093 and legislative agenda [paragraph no. 21-096 were\nremoved from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted that he would recuse himself from voting on the\nLandscaping and Lighting District resolution [paragraph no. 21-098].\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by\nan asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-092) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on January\n19, 2021. Approved.\n(21-093) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,189,469.90.\nStated that he previously questioned whether the bills presented were able to be\ncertified as in compliance with the City Council's prior actions; the current bills\npresented show vehicle maintenance charges; expressed support for the charges to be\nin compliance with Council's strict and clear direction that no City funds should be spent\non maintaining the armored vehicle: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification for the matter discussed in\npublic comment.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 5, "text": "The City Manager stated the matter was raised at the January 19th meeting and the bills\nin question came back at the February 2nd meeting; the bills presented confirmed that all\nbills complied; noted that he has not reviewed the current bills presented; however, he\nis confident the bills are in compliance as well.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council direction was provided\nJanuary 19th to stop all funding from the armored vehicle.\nThe City Manager responded in the negative; stated a question arose in relation to the\ncompliance of the bills on January 19th; noted the Finance Director reviewed the bills\nfrom January 19th and confirmed compliance.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the response sounds fuzzy; that she would like\na specific response provided to the question: were funds used for the maintenance of\nthe armored vehicle and did all funding for the armored vehicle comply with Council\npolicy.\nThe City Manager responded that he has not checked all specific vendors listed; noted\nall vendors are listed for every bill paid; stated that he assumes all bills presented today\nare not for the armored vehicle.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether direction has been provided that no further\nexpenditures shall be made toward the armored vehicle.\nThe City Manager responded the direction stated no further expenditures; there may\nhave been oil changes performed within the Public Works' workshop; however, nothing\nbeyond; stated the bills attached to the matter do not contain charges for maintenance\nof the armored vehicle.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like review of the bills prior to the next\nmeeting, in anticipation of a similar question being posed.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of ratifying the bills.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(*21-094) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Reporting\nPeriod Ending September 30, 2020 (Funds Collected During the Period April 1, 2020 to\nJune 30, 2020). Accepted.\n(*21-095) Recommendation to Accept the Public Utilities Board's Recommendation to\nApprove a 30-Year Renewal of the Base Resource Contract with Western Area Power\nAdministration for Alameda Municipal Power's Allocation of Carbon-Free Hydroelectric\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 6, "text": "Power from the Central Valley Project, Beginning Calendar year 2025; and Authorize\nthe General Manager of Alameda Municipal Power to Execute the Base Resource\nContract. Accepted.\n(21-096) Recommendation to Approve the 2021-22 Legislative Agenda for the City of\nAlameda.\nVice Mayor Vella questioned whether it is possible to add support for Senate Bill (SB)\n271; stated the legislation is being carried to remove the requirement of Sheriffs having\na law enforcement background prior to running for office; noted the process is public\nand the voters should decide on candidates.\nUrged Council to add SB 271 to the priority list; stated that he submitted a resolution for\nsupport; there is a large organization of over 41 organizations representing thousands\nof Alameda residents; the matter is about local control; noted the State mandate\nnarrows the pool of Sherriff candidates; noted many elections go uncontested; stated\n49 out of 50 Sheriffs are white males; expressed support for a more broad pool of\ncandidates; the bill does not preclude people with a law enforcement background from\nrunning; however, it does allow for those without the law enforcement background to\nadd a different perspective: Brian Hofer, Alameda, Secure Justice.\nVice Mayor Vella stated draft letters have been sent and she confirmed Council may\ntake action on the addition.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for SB 271 bring added to the priority\nlist; stated that he would also like to add SB 314, which would allow for maintaining\nsome of the COVID-19 rules which have loosened Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) in\nrestaurants to continue to provide alcoholic beverages in parklets; the addition would\nallow for economic strength and support in the business districts; noted Alameda's\nbusiness districts are supportive of the matter; stated there is no economic development\nlegislative agenda, which he would support staff reviewing; stated finding bills\nsupporting economic rebound will be important.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for not using the term Island in\nreference to Alameda; stated that she would prefer to use across the City instead.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the Brown Act allows the two legislative items\nto be added; whether a vote can occur for SB 271 separately; expressed support for the\nstatus quo in relation to SB 271.\nThe City Attorney responded the matter has been broadly agendized to allow for\nCouncil discussion and support of a wide range of bills and is intended for the ability to\nadd or subtract as necessary.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like more specificity under the infrastructure\nand transportation section of the draft legislative agenda; expressed support for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 7, "text": "changing the language to: \"seek funding and programmatic support for a\nbike/pedestrian bridge between Alameda and Oakland;\" stated Council should always\nspecify that the bridge will not go between Park Street and Webster Street, the bridge\nwill be regional transportation infrastructure; expressed support for the elimination of\ncash bail.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for consistency in using the term\nunhoused in reference to homeless individuals.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated SB 271 had been modeled after San Francisco Sherriff\nMichael Hennessey.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of including SB 271 in the legislative agenda.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the legislative agenda with the inclusion\nof SB 314 and direction for staff to return in the future with an economic development\nlegislative recommendation and the typographical corrections provided by\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not be\nsupporting the matter.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(*21-097) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement\nwith NEMA Construction for the Shoreline Park Pathway Lighting Project, No. P.W. 10-\n20-38, in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $653,400. Accepted.\n(21-098) Resolution No. 15743, \"Appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-\nRecord for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2 (Various Locations\nthroughout the City). Adopted.\nNote: Councilmember Daysog recused himself; the resolution carried by the following\nroll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White:\nAye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstain: 1.\n(*21-099) Resolution No. 15744, \"Appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-\nRecord for Maintenance Assessment District 01-1 (Marina Cove). Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 8, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-100) Resolution No. 15745, \"Appointing Randy Rentschler as a Member of the\nTransportation Commission.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired how Mr. Rentschler will deal with\npotential conflicts of interest.\nThe City Attorney responded that he has had a conversation with both Mr. Rentschler\nand the General Counsel for Association of Bay Area Governments Metropolitan\nTransportation Commission (ABAG MTC) related to potential appointment; stated that\nhe shares the same view as MTC's General Counsel; under State law, Mr. Rentschler\nwould not be holding incompatible offices; the appointment is lawful and the body is\nadvisory in nature; the General Counsel noted Mr. Rentschler is two levels down from\nthe top Executive Director and further assures that Mr. Rentschler would not be\nconsidered an officer of ABAG MTC; noted day-to-day conflicts may require recusal\nfrom a small number of items; stated Mr. Rentschler has assured the ability to\ndetermine the need for recusal.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated Mr. Rentschler is the Director of Legislation\nand Public Affairs for MTC; noted Council often receives direction from MTC; stated the\nappointment is not appropriate and that she will not be supporting the nomination.\nStated Mr. Rentschler appears to be an inappropriate choice for the Transportation\nCommission due to being employed by another transportation agency, which has the\npotential to create a conflict of interest while making decisions for Alameda citizens; the\nmatter is important to consider while the City considers its ABAG allocation; an impartial\nCommissioner is needed; urged Council to consider other candidates: Carmen Reid,\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Mr. Rentschler brings many strengths which can add to\nthe Transportation Commission; his position in MTC is a plus; Mr. Rentschler can be\ndepended on to make proper decisions and recuse himself when needed; expressed\nsupport for the nomination.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nMr. Rentschler made brief comments.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 9, "text": "The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office.\n(21-101) Recommendation to Provide Feedback on City Facility Naming Policy and\nProcedures.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether each listed Commission provided input.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded not yet; stated staff decided to begin with\nCouncil's overall high-level feedback; the Council feedback will be taken to Boards and\nCommissions for input and further feedback in order to return to Council on the final\npolicy decision.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the Historic Advisory Board (HAB) has the\nresponsibility for establishing the City's street name list.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded that she does not quite have the answer;\nstated the background is unknown; the decision falls under City Council; the matter can\nbe considered; noted the current list is focused on historical names.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the provision for at least 1,000 Alameda resident\nsignatories applies to determine broad-based community support.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the Council will determine the provision\nand process.\nStated there are so many options and potential changes; urged historical context be\nconsidered; expressed concern about committees and petitions; stated that he would\nprefer to see new committees for each proposed renaming; urged the public be better\ninformed: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nStated a different approach should be used following comments about recent\ncommittees; ad hoc committees have generated a lot of skepticism; committees should\nbe open and governed by the Brown Act: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nStated the same standard should be used for all facilities, including parks and streets;\nhistorical figures whose names should be removed should not be subject to requiring\n50% of homeowners to change the street name; action needs to be taken without\nneeding to beg: Josh Geyer, Alameda.\nStated additional input sounds wonderful; renters should be able to vote on street\nnames: Jennifer Taggart, Alameda.\nStated that she was involved with Rename Jackson Park from the beginning; the City\nCouncil and Recreation and Parks Commission should provide a statement which\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 10, "text": "bakes anti-racism, diversity and inclusion into all future renaming efforts; renters should\nprovide input on renaming; a researcher or professional should be hired to handle\nsituations where the community is asked to provide input; expressed concern about\npolling issues; expressed support for community members being involved, allowing an\napplication process for each renaming effort and overarching consistencies among all\nrenaming efforts: Amelia Eichel, Alameda.\nStated starting a petition is not easy; the petition to rename Jackson Park began in 2018\nand never had more than 200 signatures until 2020; renaming processes are an\nopportunity to define community values, create inclusive public spaces and access\npublic government to feel empowered; there is an opportunity to build relationships\nshould people engage authentically; the rename Jackson Park committee worked to\nremain transparent and inclusive; processes can be powerful; discussed renaming\nfatique: Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated any process should be fully compliant with the Brown\nAct due in part to renaming being of Citywide significance; expressed support for\nrespecting different Commissions and processes; stated Council may provide a\nframework for expectations; expectations may include Brown Act compliance and a set\nof two to three criteria; expressed support for the current process; stated that he would\nhave preferred the process to rename Jackson Park to Chochenyo Park process to\nhave come to Council for guidance and criteria; that he is confident the process will fix\nitself in remaining within the status quo.\nVice Mayor Vella stated it is time to look at overarching policy regardless of process; the\nstarting point should ask which questions are to be considered; the process has been\nmulti-year with many dedicated volunteers; meaningful changes will help ensure policy\ngoals are followed; expressed support for reflecting diversity, equity and inclusion in\nstanding criteria and for having an expanded scope; outlined discussions about\nhistorical timelines during her time on the Historical Advisory Board (HAB); stated that\nher interpretation of inclusion and equity is to have a broad historical scope; some local\nfacilities may require a local name or narrower viewpoint; expressed support for\nallowing flexibility, providing guidance, maintaining that an individual be deceased for a\nperiod of time, consulting affected groups, and having a level of defined professional\nresearch; stated that she is open to the process; there are existing Committees; that\nshe would like to find a way to allow Committees to establish subcommittees or groups\nto work on renaming; new projects differ from renaming; the existing process for\nconsideration of new items is fine; however, Council needs to provide a directive and\nguidelines for Boards and Commissions to review lists frequently; the HAB did not have\na specific review timeframe.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for creating a Committee or task force\nto identify criteria for when renaming should happen or be considered; stated these\nmatters become difficult very easily; having a broad community group consider\nthresholds would be valuable; the renaming process is part of thinking through history;\nthe community reflects the people of the community; Council needs to ensure there is a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 11, "text": "criteria which says new names should broaden the representation of people in the\ncommunity; direction should not be given to focus on people, values, parks or history\nand should have an overarching guidepost of broadening how people see themselves\nwithin the community; 1,000 signatures is very high for petitions; 500 should suffice;\npetitions coming in should not automatically start the renaming process; matters can be\nbrought to Council's attention and Council may recommend action; expressed support\nfor the three years deceased provision; stated renaming should be intentional;\nexpressed concern about the professional research provision; stated Council needs to\nhave a vetting provision; the process for renaming and naming should be the same and\nnames should be given with the same interest and intentionality; expressed support for\nnot naming parks after people; stated Council should question whether the HAB should\nhave any guiding role in naming; renaming should not be in the hands of those\npreserving a specific type of history; questioned whether a streets name list is needed;\noutlined the current list and naming process developer use; stated the current naming\nprocess is not working well; expressed support for a more intentional process when new\nnames are needed; for identifying a Committee structure and a more holistic approach.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for a Brown Act public process\nwith noticed meetings; stated government represents the public and the public has a\nright to be involved; expressed support for a broad group; stated that she is concerned\nabout the same group of people being involved; expressed support for matters being\nreviewed by Council at some point with a lower petition threshold of 500 names; stated\nCouncil must determine the pacing of renaming; expressed support for having one\nrenaming process at a time, having different people serve on different renaming\nCommittees and the option to randomly draw names to compile Committees; stated\npark renaming should start with the Recreation and Parks Commission; noted that she\ndoes not like staff choosing people for Committees; expressed support for being\ninclusive and representative of diversity in naming; stated it is important for people of\ndifferent backgrounds to be represented in the community; outlined concerns for people\nliving on renamed street; expressed support for a fund being developed to help those\nwho incur costs due to deed changes; stated there is rationale behind the 50% plus one\nstipulation; expressed support for the three years deceased provision, and names which\nreflect Alameda-specific history and honor people from Alameda; stated the most\nimportant part is including as many people as possible in the process.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the process should be uniform between naming and\nrenaming; expressed support for the inclusion of combating religious bigotry; stated that\nhe prefers to not prescribe criteria; criteria should come out of the Board review\nprocess; once a process is in place, said process will make a judicious situation of all\ninformation and provide a recommendation based on a broad view of a widely cast net\nregardless of the amount of signatures, Council has the ultimate say.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a clear scoring system; stated Brown Act\nbodies are preferable; stated the Chochenyo Park scoring system was not clearly\ndescribed; expressed support for a process involving the community under the concept\nof broad based community support and different Committees each time there is a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 12, "text": "renaming; stated that she would not favor drawing names out of a hat; a quest for\nrenaming is not needed; expressed support for an emphasis on building community,\nrather than creating divisiveness; noted the public comment related to disturbing acts of\nviolence toward Asian Americans; stated the present history should also be reflected;\nthat she would like to revisit the reason the HAB oversees street names; noted\nchanging a street name is different from changing a park name due to involving\nresidents and businesses; 50% plus one residents should be in agreement and should\ninclude renters.\nVice Mayor Vella stated notification about costs needs to be provided; many questions\narise related to costs passed through to renters; noted there seemed to be no\nintentionality through the HAB naming process; stated Council desires to be intentional\nwith the process and criteria; the goal is not to have to rename things in the future.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the feedback from Council is sufficient and the\ntimeline for returning to Council.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated that she needs\nto work with team members to present to various Boards and Commissions; the matter\ncould return within four to six months to allow enough time for community input.\n***\n(21-102) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:27 p.m. and reconvened the meeting\nat 9:43 p.m.\n(21-103) - Resolution No. 15746, \"Amending Various Sections of Resolution Nos. 15382\nand 15697 to Amend the Rules of Order Governing City Council Meetings.\" Adopted.\nVice Mayor Knox White gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is a plan to have the matter\npresented to the Open Government Commission.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded in the negative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a previous rules committee of herself and former\nCouncilmember Oddie.\nExpressed concern about a lack of transparency and accessibility for the public;\ndiscussed the magnitude of items on the Consent Calendar; questioned how matters\nare placed on the Consent Calendar; discussed ceding public comment time; expressed\nconcern about the public comment speaking limit; urged the time limit not be reduced\nonce there are seven speakers Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nSuggested adjustments to speaker time be reviewed by the Open Government\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 13, "text": "Commission; stated it is important for the public to have maximum participation and\ntransparency in government: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nStated the Brown Act does not submit a minimum time; expressed concern about\nlowering speaking time to one minute; expressed support for following Oakland's lead\nsetting a minimum of two minutes speaking time; discussed cases regarding time limits:\nZac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated one minute seems too short; suggested allowing ceding of time with a maximum\namount of time to be ceded: Josh Hawn, Alameda.\nStated the one minute time limit is too harsh; expressed support for a one minute thirty\nsecond time limit: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a balance to be achieved; discussed Council\nmeetings Consent Calendar discussions extending to 9:00 p.m.; stated Council\nReferrals have not yet been reached this year due to not extending a meeting past\nmidnight; late meetings do not serve the public and are hard on Councilmembers and\nstaff; noted there are many ways to communicate with Councilmembers; Council can be\nreached by e-mail, phone call, or via a meeting request; speaking at a public meeting is\nnot the only opportunity; discussed previous public comments for large groups; stated\nceding time is not before Council; that she is balancing time to hear presentations,\npublic comment and allow Council deliberation.\nVice Mayor Vella stated there are a number of ways to register a public comment; the\nCity Clerk is able to place correspondence on record and distribute to all\nCouncilmembers; Council does read e-mails; however, it is difficult to respond to all; a\nbalance is to be struck in covering many heavy topics and generally running the City;\nexpressed concern about getting in the way of ensuring the basic needs and regular\nfunctions of the City are met; stated that she does not want to create a system where\nCouncil is unable to cover everyday matters; one minute is a tight period of time;\nexpressed support for 90 seconds to two minutes; stated that she would like to have a\ncall for speakers to get a true sense of who is speaking; Council needs time to\ndeliberate; however, not all matters may require nine minutes of speaking time;\nexpressed support for combining speaking time on the Consent Calendar; stated the\nmatter is Council rules and having Council decide is appropriate; changes can be made;\nthe guidelines being adopted do not mean votes to extend speaking time cannot\nhappen; expressed support for limiting presentation times; noted requirements for\nmeeting start times; stated the matter is related to making meetings as accessible as\npossible.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about treating Consent Calendar\nmatters differently than other matters; stated spending extended time on the Consent\nCalendar means matters should not have been placed on Consent; Consent Calendar\nmatters are to be routine; expressed support for not limiting speaker time for everyone\nonce there are seven speakers; stated the minimum speaking time should be at three\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 14, "text": "and two minutes; one minute is not sufficient; expressed support for looking at Council\nspeaking time and lowering it where necessary; stated the majority of time is spent on\nCouncil comments; Council should try to minimize comments; expressed support for ten\nminute limits on staff presentations.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined staff having uninterrupted presentations; stated Council\nspeaks longer than the public due to being the policy making body, which requires\ndeliberation.\nCouncilmember Daysog discussed a Norman Rockwell painting \"Town Hall;\" stated\npublic comment is a moment for individuals to express their ideas; City Hall churns out\npolicies and programs and Council has opportunities to work with City staff; Council\nmeetings provide the opportunity for members of the public to weigh-in on matters; the\ndesire for an efficient Council meeting should not trump the freedoms and liberties\nresidents enjoy; Council has made enough changes to the process; one minute of\nspeaking time is not enough; sometimes three minutes is needed to convey comments;\nexpressed support for reviewing how agendas are set; stated staff needs to estimate\nthe amount of time each matter will take to plan agendas accordingly; expressed\nconcern about incorrect matters being placed on the Consent Calendar; stated the\nfocus and management should be spent on the Council meeting packet.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated when Council is unable to finish an agenda by midnight,\nremaining matters are carried over to the next meeting agenda; matters add up when\ncarried over; noted Council has yet to reach the end of the regular agenda before\nmidnight; Council is trying to achieve balance, not curtail public comment; stated many\nCouncilmembers had one minute of response time during public forums while running\nfor office; inquired about the amount of public speakers being unknown causing\ninconsistent time limits.\nThe City Clerk responded a placeholder was noted in the staff report so the matter\ncould return for further consideration; noted other cities do call for speakers and set cut-\noff times; stated there is concern for cutting off those attempting to join a meeting\nquickly; people do raise and lower hands in an attempt to be the last speaker or to keep\nspeaking time high.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of limiting presentations to ten\nminutes, uninterrupted, and for seven minutes of Council speaking time.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated there has been a lot of focus on the Brown\nAct; the Brown Act limits the ability for Councilmembers to discuss matters as a\ndeliberative body to Council meetings; having a decent amount of time to ask questions\nof staff and discuss among Councilmembers is important; Councilmembers cannot\nlegally discuss matters with more than one other member; expressed concern about\ncreating further problems in the future by suppressing the ability to publically deliberate;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 15, "text": "stated significant amounts of time are used to allocate additional speaking time for\nCouncilmembers.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the public has the right to hear Council deliberate and vote;\nnoted Council has been doing better staying within speaking time limits; stated rules\nmay be suspended by four affirmative votes.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for the ten minute presentation limit;\nstated seven minutes of Council speaking time tends to work fine; he recommends and\nproposes keeping the nine minute speaking time while trying to keep speaking time to\nseven minutes; stated the matter can return for further consideration should the full nine\nminutes be used on average; lowering Council speaking to seven minutes is not likely to\nimpact the length of meetings; the Brown Act allows people to hear Council make\ndecisions and understand the reason behind decisions; the Brown Act is not designed\nto allow for unlimited public comment with limited Council discussion; expressed\nconcern for cramping Council ability to have discussions.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated a big part of the Brown Act is hearing from the\npublic and the public gets to hear Council; noted that she will not support a one minute\npublic comment time limit; stated the limit needs to be a two minute minimum; there is a\ndifference between Council comments and public comments; it is unfair to request\nconcise public comments be condensed into one minute; pressure should be placed on\nCouncil to make points within the time.\nVice Mayor Vella stated members of the public are at liberty to e-mail Councilmembers\nand share thoughts publically ahead of the meeting; some Councilmembers will not take\ncertain meetings with members of the public or interested parties ahead of Council\nmeetings; the first time she hears from colleagues is at the Council meeting, after\nhearing from members of the public; Councilmember free speech is limited by the\nBrown Act where members of the public are not curtailed; Council is attempting to\ncreate a succinct as possible process for a functional meeting; noted there have been\ndysfunctional Council meetings; stated rules have been put in place to provide\nexpectations for working through the agenda; expressed concern about creating a false\nequivalent.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 1. Noes: 4.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval Staff Report Items 1 [under Oral\nCommunications, speakers would have two minutes to comment], 2-A [members of the\npublic would comment once on the entire Consent Calendar and not be able to\nwithdraw items for discussion], 2-C [Councilmembers would not pull items simply to\nrecord a non-affirmative vote and would have up to five minutes to speak on each item\npulled for discussion] and 4 [all presentations would be limited to 10 minutes].\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Knox White stated many meetings are not intended to be public\nhearings and are the end of a process; outlined the Density Bonus process; stated\nprocess problems can be addressed; many matters are significantly less deliberative\ndue to being at the end of the process.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Regular Agenda public comment speaking\ntime is being reduced to two minutes.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded the time is reduced at seven or more speakers;\nnoted that he is getting rid of Staff Report Item 3 [12 or more speakers having one\nminute on Regular items] and 2B [twelve or more speakers having one minute on\nConsent Calendar items]\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested a friendly amendment to the motion to have 90 seconds\nfor 12 or more speakers; stated there have been numerous matters with many\nspeakers.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would like to have the discussion separately.\nThe City Clerk stated the changes are encompassed within one resolution; adoption of\nthe resolution would include the complete set of changes, not an itemized list.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of the matters being approved.\nThe City Clerk stated Councilmember Knox White has moved approval of lowering the\nOral Communications speaker time to two minutes, having the public comment once on\nthe entire Consent Calendar, Councilmembers can record a non-affirmative vote on\nConsent Calendar matters without pulling the matter, and presentations are limited to\nten minutes.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion; stated that she is open to trying 90 seconds of\nspeaker time; changes can be made in the future.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he would prefer to straw poll\nthe 90 second speaker time.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council would like to consider 90 minutes.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would like to hold off at this time.\nThe City Clerk stated the resolution would be amended to eliminate reducing the time to\none minute.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 17, "text": "(21-104) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15747, \"Calling Special Election\nRegarding Alteration of the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes for\nCommunity Facilities District No. 17-1 (Alameda Point Public Services District).\n\"\nAdopted.\nThe Base Reuse Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the proposed fees are on top of the 1% ad\nvalorem property tax and any other add-on property tax, to which the Base Reuse\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Base Reuse Manager\nstated the five acres of apartments are within the Site A property; the calculation is per\nacre; however, most Community Facilities Districts (CFD) within the City are per unit;\ncalculations in the future will be per unit.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the property within Site A will ever\nbe taxed on a per unit basis or whether the area will always be taxed on a per acre\nbasis, to which the Base Reuse Manager responded areas [that already have land use\nentitlements] will stay at a per acre basis.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the reasoning to not be taxed on a per unit\nbasis.\nThe Base Reuse Manager responded calculations are not to be retroactive; stated the\noriginal tax method is to stay.\nThe Interim Community Development Director stated the original expectation for\napartment owners is per acre and the expectation should not be modified; staff is\nresetting the calculation for the future.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether all units will eventually have the\nsame calculation and whether per acre calculation will provide less tax dollars overall.\nSara Mares, NBS, responded the calculation depends on the number of units develop\nand the acreage; the math will determine whether the rate per acre ends up being less\nor more than a rate per unit on the same property.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted part of the report shows a conversion from per acre to\nper unit; stated it is possible the apartments could pay as much in a per unit basis\ndepending on the square footage of apartments.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the number of units on the site is known;\nexpressed concern about different tax schedules in different areas.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 18, "text": "The Interim Community Development Director stated staff was incorrectly informed to\nnot go retroactive.\nPaul Thimmig, Bond Counsel, Quint & Thimmig, stated his legal opinion is a change\ncannot occur once a special tax is applied; people purchase property assuming a\nspecific tax; staff recommends changing the tax to per unit [for new construction]\nmoving forward; it is unfair to change a methodology for a current owner; outlined the\nprocess and analysis; stated the changes are subject to two-thirds voter approval.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is approving the matter be sent to voters,\nto which Mr. Thimmig responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated it is important to have add-on fees;\nmany new developments at Alameda Point will be in a position for the City to collect ad\nvalorem property tax and add-on property tax; outlined a 1999 CFD development pass-\nthrough process; noted Alameda is in a great position in receiving property tax;\nexpressed support for the matter.\nOn the call for the questions, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-105) Public Hearing to Consider Approving the Housing and Community\nDevelopment Needs Statement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)\nAnnual Plan for Fiscal Year 2021-22.\nThe Community Development Program Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nDiscussed the importance of uplifting gender equity and gender based violence\nparticularly during and in the aftermath of a pandemic; expressed support for the Social\nServices Human Relations Board (SSHRB) for featuring domestic violence and the\nimportance of gender equity issues in the needs statement; outlined reports related to\ngender based violence and legal problems; urged Council to look at intersecting issues\nof gender and race equity and impacts to the community: Erin Scott, Family Violence\nLaw Center.\nGave a Power Point presentation outlining 2-1-1 calls for Alameda County: Alison\nDeJung, Eden Information and Referrals.\n***\n(21-106) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council would consider providing Ms.\nDeJung an additional one to two minutes of speaking time to finish her presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember Daysog moved approval of allowing Ms. DeJung two minutes to finish\nher presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nMs. DeJung concluded her Power Point presentation.\n***\n(21-107) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced a vote is required to consider new items after\n11:00 p.m.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the budget resolution [paragraph no. 21-\n108] and then stopping the meeting.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes the\nstopping time of 12:00 a.m., to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nExpressed support for the needs statement; stated issues which have previously been\nseen are now exacerbated; expressed support for the addition of housing security and\nhomeless prevention; stated communication and support can be worked on in the\ncoming year; people are hungry for information and support through this difficult time:\nLiz Varela, Building Futures for Women and Children.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-108) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-21 Budget and\nAuthorizing the City Manager to Redistribute Budget Appropriations between Similar\nCapital Projects; and\n(21-108 A) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Salary Schedules for the Management\nand Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) and for Executive Management\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 20, "text": "Employees (EXME) and Approving Workforce Changes for FY 2020-21. Not heard.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-109) The City Manager announced COVID-19 vaccinations are being made\navailable.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-110) 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.\n(21-111) Consider Directing Staff to Provide an Update on a Previously Approved\nReferral regarding Free Public WiFi throughout the City. (Councilmember Spencer) Not\nheard.\n(21-112) Consider Directing Staff to Extend Webster Street Physical Improvements/\nBeautification. (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-113) Mayor's Nominations for Appointments to the Housing Authority Board of\nCommissioners and Recreation and Park Commission. Not heard.\n(21-114) Councilmember Daysog discussed an AC Transit Interagency Liaison\nCommittee (ILC) meeting that he attended with Councilmember Knox White.\n(21-115) Vice Mayor Vella discussed a report about baby food contents being high in\nheavy metal contents; stated that she has requested the matter be agendized at the\nLead Abatement Joint Powers Authority; noted the agenda for the meeting is posted on\nthe Alameda County website and the meeting will be held remotely; announced Alta\nBates' Summit Medical Center Hospital closure.\n(21-116) Councilmember Knox White discussed Zoom procedures for Council meetings;\nrecommended members using the \"raise hand\" feature to indicate the desire to speak.\n(21-117) Councilmember Daysog discussed a Zoom theatre production about Brown\nV.\nBoard of Education by Alamedan Dr. Cindy Acker.\n(21-118) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the Alameda County Transportation\nCommission (ACTC) unanimously decided to award the City of Alameda $1.55 million\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-16", "page": 21, "text": "for the Bicycle-Pedestriar Bridge project study report; discussed COVID-19 vaccines;\nstated information is available at the state website: myturn.ca.gov; announced a\nCOVID-19 Vaccine Task Force has been formed.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:14\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\n19\nFebruary 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf"}