{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY--JUNE 1, 2021 - -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair\nEzzy\nAshcraft\nconvened\nthe\nmeeting\nat\n7:02\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\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll\ncall vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox\nWhite: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-11 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting Held on April 20, 2021. Approved.\n(*21-363 CC/21-12 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Second Quarter Financial\nReport for the Period Ending December 31, 2020. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n7:05 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\n1\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 1, 2021 - -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.\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(21-364) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments about a Proclamation recognizing\nAna Bagtas.\n(21-365) Proclamation Declaring the Month of June 2021 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,\nTransgender, and Queer Pride Month.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-366) Mich Levy, Alameda Education Association (AEA), read an AEA motion\nregarding the death of Mario Gonzales.\n(21-367) Melissa Milam, Alameda, requested the West Alameda Business Association\n(WABA) special event permit for the Healing Garden Summer Series be modified;\nexpressed concern about noise issues caused by the concerts; stated amplified noise is\nnot appropriate.\n(21-368) Marie Milam, Alameda, expressed concern about weekend noise issues\nrelated to the WABA events.\n(21-369) Art Thoms, Alameda, discussed parking issues related to the WABA events;\nurged Council reduce the events to one weekend per month.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer noted that she would vote no on final passage of the\nordinance [paragraph no. 21-378].\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 1, 2021\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nroll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-370) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 4,\n2021. Approved.\n(*21-371) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,263,780.43 Accepted.\n(*21-372) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Ranger Pipelines, Inc. for Cyclic\nSewer Replacement Project, Phase 16, No. PW 05-19-26. Accepted.\n(*21-373) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Support\nServices Agreement with Sable Computer Inc. dba KIS Computer Company for an\nAdditional Three Years for Two IntelliFlash Storage Area Networks (SAN) in the Amount\nof $59,699. Accepted.\n(*21-374) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase a Three Year\nMaintenance Support Agreement with SHI International Corp, a Reseller of Mimecast,\nto Secure the City's Email Platform and Facilitate the Email Archival Process in the\nAmount of $120,398 Bringing the Total Purchase Order Price with Mimecast to\n$166,147. Accepted.\n(*21-375) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five Year\nAgreement with Avineon, Inc., in an Amount Not to Exceed $78,000, to Assist the City in\nDeveloping a Five Year Geospatial Information System (GIS) Strategic Plan Including\nan Initial Deployment and Configuration of ArcGIS Enterprise. Accepted.\n(*21-376) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Third\nAmendment to the Agreement with Digital Map Products to Extend the Term by Two\nYears, for an Amount Not to Exceed $36,000 per Year, for a Total Seven-Year\nExpenditure Not to Exceed $252,000 for Government Data Mapping Services.\nAccepted.\n(*21-377) Resolution No. 15778, \"Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to\nLevy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter\nApproved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election\nHeld November 7, 2000 for the Alameda Library.' Adopted.\n(21-378) Ordinance No. 3300, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nArticle I (Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing and Technical Codes) of Chapter\nXIII (Building and Housing) to Adopt Local Amendments to the 2019 California Energy\nCode to Require Newly Constructed Buildings to be All-Electric.\" Finally passed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 1, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 4, "text": "Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer voted no on the ordinance, which carried by the\nfollowing vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-379) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Approving the Engineer's\nReport, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments,\nIsland City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, All Zones. Not adopted.\nCouncilmember Daysog recused himself and left the meeting.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of continuing the hearing to the July\n6, 2021 meeting.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]\n(21-380) Resolution No. 15779, Approving the Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram\nand Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment\nDistrict 01-1 (Marina Cove).' Adopted.\nThe Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation [including\nadoption of the resolution].\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nroll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-381) Public Hearing to Consider the Collecting of the Water Quality and Flood\nProtection Fees on the Property Tax Bills; and\n(21-381 A) Resolution No. 15780, \"Finding [No] Majority Protest and Approving the\nContinuation and Collection of the Existing 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection\nFee on the Property Tax Bills for Fiscal Year 2021-22.\" Adopted.\nThe Program Specialist Il gave a Power Point presentation.\nThe City Clerk announced a majority protest was not received.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including\nadoption of the resolution].\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 1, 2021\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-382) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Second Amendment to the Lease with\nGreenway Golf Associates, Inc., a California Corporation, for Chuck Corica Golf\nComplex to Adjust Lease Area to Include the Old Fire Training Tower. Introduced.\nThe Recreation and Park Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the additional language for housing\nconstitutes a waiver of the City's obligations under City Charter Section 22-12;\nrequested clarification of the process related to obligations; stated whether or not part of\nthe property would be determined as park land is unclear; requested clarification about\nwhether staff made a determination and how to ensure the matter is not considered a\nwaiver.\nThe City Attorney responded the provision included in the lease is not a waiver of rights\nfor the City or public under Charter Section 22-12; stated staff has shared a confidential\nmemorandum to the Council regarding how Section 22-12 potentially applies to the site;\nif Council desires the matter be further discussed in public session, a vote will need to\nbe taken.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to know how the language\nrelated to protection would fit into the agreement in order to ensure the process in\nwriting versus verbally.\nThe City Attorney stated Council can achieve the result in a couple of ways; the motion\ncould clarify the language is not a waiver of any rights for the City or public; if Council\nwants to be more clear, direction may be given to staff to insert language to the effect\nwithin the lease agreement; the insertion would be unusual; however, staff is happy to\ndo so if Council so chooses.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired which improvements the City would have to reimburse\nGreenway Golf for if the City takes the property back; questioned the limits on\nimprovements Greenway Golf could make.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded all improvements are to be\nrecommended by the Golf Commission, staff, and the Planning Board; stated any\nimprovements from existing conditions would be reimbursed.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the Board and Commission approvals are\nmeant to act as a buttress against exorbitant renovation costs.\nThe City Manager stated Greenway Golf is open to language which states\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 1, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 6, "text": ".reasonable improvements subject to Planning Board approval. \" in order to provide\nlimitations on any potential future reimbursement costs.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired the risks associated with releasing the information\ncontained in the confidential memorandum.\nThe City Attorney responded staff is sharing the risks with Council; stated the\ninformation is generally for Council to make decisions and determinations; any time\nattorney-client privileged information is released, there is the risk of providing\ninformation to outside entities wishing to bring potential litigation to the City; Council is\nnot being asked to make a determination about whether Charter Section 22-12 applies;\nCouncil may not need to address said question in deciding whether or not to enter into\nthe lease.\nDiscussed her experience as a real estate agent and resident in Alameda; urged\nCouncil to support the matter; stated the Golf Course is an asset to the community;\nurged Council approve Greenway Golf's request; stated the derelict tower reflects\npoorly on Corica Park and the City and is an eyesore; the proposed project would\nrevitalize the neighborhood and attract visitors: Catherine Bierworth, Alameda.\nStated the beautification project will benefit patrons, neighbors, and the community at-\nlarge; Greenway Golf wants to improve the fire tower space in order to create an\nentrance which represents the evolution of Corica Park over the years; the project will\nfoster a sense of civic pride and be a draw for citizens; the project will give the right first\nimpression; the Fire supports the project; the project is an opportunity for collaboration\nand is designed for inclusivity; the proposed mural is intended to honor first responders;\nGreenway Golf has collected over 1,000 signatures in support for the proposed\nrenovation and has worked with staff to address Council's valid concerns; urged Council\nto support the second lease amendment: Umesh Patel, Greenway Golf.\nStated the ownership of Greenway Golf has high integrity; the Golf Course design has\nbeen nationally recognized; urged Council to consider the improvements already made\nto the Golf Course; stated the project will be great for the community: Patrick Harris,\nAlameda.\nStated the fire tower is a nice landmark; expressed support for Greenway Golf's efforts\nto enhance the appeal of Island Drive; urged Council to approve the staff\nrecommendation: Mark Swartz, Alameda.\nStated the proposed improvements will be great for the community, City, and Golf\nCourse; many customers have expressed support for the project: Shawn Shelby,\nAlameda Golfworks.\nStated Alameda Chamber of Commerce is working on a \"Visit Alameda\" project in\npartnership with the City; Corica Park Golf Course is one of the main attractions; the\nGolf Course is important for visitors, is one of the top courses in California and is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 1, 2021\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 7, "text": "frequently included in lists for legendary courses; expressed support for beautifying the\nGolf Course entrance: Madlen Saddik, Chamber of Commerce.\nExpressed support for the recommendation; stated that he was struck by the Golf\nCourse current entrance; the City's partnership with Greenway Golf has developed one\nof the nicest courses in the Bay Area; the Course is environmentally sustainable; a\nrobust entrance is needed for the many Golf Course visitors: Chris Iglesias, The Unity\nCouncil.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support staff's work; stated staff incorporated Council's\nprevious comments and changes.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any art proposals will be brought to\nthe Public Art Commission (PAC).\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded not currently; stated that she has\nchecked with the PAC staff; staff can add the requirement if Council so desires.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the reasons behind not\nsending the proposed art to the PAC when art in Jean Sweeney Park was sent to the\nPAC for consideration.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded since the art at Jean Sweeney Park was\nfunded by the City, it needed to be taken to the PAC; stated the proposed art will not be\nfunded by the City.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there have been many tweaks to the agreement in order\nto move the matter forward; he is supportive of 99% of the changes made; expressed\nconcern about the housing reversion language muddying the waters; stated there\nappears to be community support for the matter; citizens understand that the area\nneeds to be beautified; expressed support for moving the matter forward.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to include language which\nclarifies the agreement is not a waiver of City obligations under Charter Section 22-12;\nsuggested adding \" or other park related uses. noted the lease is long-term and\nthe\nspace is approximately one half-acre; the drawings show trees and an open area which\nis not being used; questioned whether the City may use the open space for a park;\nexpressed support for language being added to the housing section reflecting the use of\nspace for parks or other park related uses.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is unsure there are enough votes for the proposed\namendment; noted the matter requires four affirmative votes to pass; outlined Section 8\nof the second amendment; inquired where the language for parks would apply within the\nsection related to housing.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she is proposing adding: \"or other\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 1, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 8, "text": "park related uses\" within the section after \" desires to construct housing. noted the\narea is not currently used by the City, not the Golf Course; stated that she would also\nlike to add language indicating the agreement is not a waiver of the City's obligations\nunder Charter Section 22-12.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated housing is a need which has been deemed critical and\nessential; the State has noted every city has an obligation to contribute to housing\nneeds; parks are wonderful; however, she does not see a need for the inclusion of the\nparks language; inquired whether any substantive changes will require another first\nreading.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the proposed changes are minor\nand will require four votes.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he does not see any harm in the proposed\namendments; if the choice is between housing or parks; an agreement for how to\nunwind matters with Greenway Golf is needed; including the waiver language is\nimportant.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the waiver language makes him nervous; the\nlanguage suggests Council is making a statement; if the proposed language states\nthere is no finding related to Charter Section 22-12, he would be supportive.\nThe City Attorney stated if Council wishes to insert language, there is draft language\navailable: \"This section shall not be construed as a determination on whether or how\nCity Charter Section 22-12 would apply to any future disposition of the fire tower\nproperty.\"\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for the draft language.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether \"fire tower property\" reflects the\nearlier description of the premises; stated an earlier description was noted as \"fire tower\npremises,\" to which the City Attorney responded that he will make the correction.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the draft language.\nThe City Attorney stated the other addition proposed by Councilmember Herrera\nSpencer included \"...or related park uses;\" in the event the City wishes to construct\nother park uses, the City could reimburse the developer and obtain the parcel back from\nthe developer for other park uses; the City Manager suggested adding the term\n\"reasonable\" in front of costs; the modification can be included at the same time as\nother proposed edits.\nThe City Manager recommended that the language for other park uses be consistent\nwith development completed by Greenway Golf.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 1, 2021\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is trying to understand the reason for including\npark use language into the agreement; questioned whether the City is prepared to pay\nGreenway Golf for costs incurred to create another park in the space; inquired whether\nthe location is a logical place for a park.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated that she would not\nlook to extend park related usage in the location aside from being part of Corica Park;\nthe uses are already park related; however, if a non-golf related facility is considered,\nthe costs would increase significantly for any park facility placed in the location; the\ncosts for reimbursement would equate another park facility.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the City Manager stated that he recommends\nadding: \"all reasonable costs and expenses. \" to the language proposed under Section\n8.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated Greenway Golf is willing to place a cap of\n$350,000 on the reimbursement clause; the amount is reasonable for improvements to\nthe area.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the lease is for 20 years with an option to\nextend another 5 years; if the City wants to place housing in the space in ten years, the\nGolf Course will have received the benefit of the improvements for ten years; expressed\nsupport for a pro-rated formula for the reimbursement cap.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for the reimbursement cap; stated that she is less\nconcerned with Planning Board approval unless the approval is limiting in nature and\ndoes not bear upon the reasonableness; expressed concern about a future Council\ngrappling with reimbursements and the term \"reasonable\" being included in the\nproposed language; inquired whether the City would be responsible for any\nmaintenance or upkeep costs.\nThe City Manager responded Greenway Golf only intends on reimbursement for\nimprovements, not maintenance; stated Greenway Golf is amenable to having a smaller\nreimbursement cap of roughly $250,000 after a ten year period.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted there appears to be support for a reimbursement cap; stated\nlanguage should specify the reimbursement is not to include maintenance and\noperations.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the reimbursement cap\nlowering after ten years; stated that she would prefer the reimbursement cap be\ncalculated on a pro-rated basis; she will not be able to support the housing reversion\nwithout the pro-rated reimbursement; the City will pay $350,000 for the housing\nreversion; the amount is a lot for both housing and parks; the only way the cost makes\nsense is to include pro-rated reimbursement language; another option is to strike the\nparagraph within Section 8.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 1, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated members of the community have articulated goals very well;\nthe approach from Greenway Golf is also considered and understood; the benefits\ninclude improving the appearance of the Golf Course, attracting more visitors, allowing\nmore uses and increasing Golf Course revenue; some of the revenue generated goes to\nthe City; the facility will be expanding to include a more robust youth golf program.\nCouncilmember Knox White outlined reimbursement costs; inquired whether the\nreimbursement amount could be considered as pro-rated at the ten-year mark.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated Greenway Golf is agreeable to a pro-rated\nreimbursement cost.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the pro-rated reimbursement is after the ten year\nperiod, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded the reimbursement cost\nwill be pro-rated for the entire duration once improvements are completed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the reimbursement cost cap is still $350,000, to\nwhich the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager proposed the reimbursement cost language read: \"all reasonable\nactual costs with a cap of $350,000\" in the event that the costs are less than $350,000.\nThe City Attorney inquired the denominator year where the reimbursement cost equals\nzero.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded the remaining years in the contract from the\npoint of completion in the project, without the extension; if the extension is reached, the\nlikelihood of the space not used for another park or housing is high.\nThe City Attorney stated the remaining years on the lease will be built into the\nagreement amendment to allow for no ambiguity; the agreement will now include\n$350,000 upon completion, amortized over the remaining number of years on the lease.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated there are 32 years remaining on the base\nlease.\nCouncilmember Knox White proposed using 30 years as the base denominator; stated\nthe construction time will likely take a year and a half to two years for completion; it\nwould not be fair to include the construction years.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting the staff\nrecommendation [including introduction of the ordinance] with striking Section 8 of the\nlease amendment.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 1, 2021\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 11, "text": "vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation [including\nintroduction of the ordinance].\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion with amendments including language\nfrom the City Attorney regarding no determination made under Section 8 of Charter\nSection 22-12, and the amendment of the payback cap of reasonable costs amounting\nto no more than $350,000 pro-rated over a 30-year period.\nUnder discussion, the City Manager stated the amendment should also include adding\nlanguage specifying using a structural engineer.\nCouncilmembers Knox White agreed to include the amendment.\nCouncilmember Daysog agreed to amend the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion 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.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the project is positive; she is looking forward to seeing the\ndevelopment; expressed support for the matter going before the PAC.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is possible to make a motion to\nhave the matter be heard by the PAC.\nThe City Attorney responded Council may always make a motion to reconsider.\nThe City Manager stated Greenway Golf would be fine with bringing the matter to the\nPAC; staff can provide a supplemental letter administratively for Greenway Golf to\ncommit to consideration by the PAC.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council needs to provide direction to\nstaff regarding the PAC provision.\nThe City Manager responded many Councilmembers expressed support for the matter\ngoing to the PAC; the proposal was taken as informal direction to staff.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:34 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:51\np.m.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJune 1, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 12, "text": "(21-383) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code, Including\nSection 2-22 (Open Government Commission) and Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of\nChapter Il (Administration) to Establish a Hearing Officer Form of Adjudication of\nSunshine Ordinance Complaints, Clarifying Enforcement Provisions, and Providing for\nOther Updates and Enhancements to the Sunshine Ordinance. Not introduced.\nThe City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nStated that he has been honored to work with residents committed to the objectives of\nthe Sunshine Ordinance; outlined his experience on the Open Government Commission\n(OGC); stated the OGC is capable of performing its functions; OGC cases have been\nadjudicated efficiently; outlined the OGC being tasked with putting teeth into the null and\nvoid provision; urged Council to adopt an interim measure recommended by the OGC:\nBryan Schwartz, Alameda.\nStated that she is surprised the matter is coming directly to the City Council without an\nopen public hearing first; expressed support for strong principles of good government,\nincluding transparency and public trust; stated the proposed matter seeks to diminish\nthe role of appointed Commissioners from the review process and weakens the role of\nthe Commission; urged Council to consider options other than moving the functions to\na\nHearing Officer; outlined options for Council and staff; expressed support for the OGC\nhaving independent legal counsel; outlined issues brought forth to the Rent Review\nAdvisory Committee (RRAC) : Karen Butter, League of Women Voters.\nOutlined the genesis of the Brown Act; stated it is up to a City to decide how to enforce\nthe Brown Act; the Sunshine Ordinance is patently flawed in how it is used by the City;\nthere have been more complaints due to more recent violations; expressed concern\nover manipulation of the OGC; stated the arguments to justify the proposed changes\nare absurd; it is inappropriate to have a Hearing Officer; people in Alameda should be\nable to make their own decisions: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nStated that she is surprised to see the proposal on the Council agenda; she outlined\nconcerns in correspondence submitted; there are trust and communication issues\nbetween the OGC and City Attorney's Office; a collaborative dynamic path is being\ncreated; if Council desires the insight of the OGC, clearer guidance needs to be\nprovided; it is presumed that Council would like to receive unfiltered recommendations\nfrom the OGC to avoid miscommunication; it is prudent for Council to consider a hybrid\nor bifurcated model for adjudication rather than a Hearing Officer model; there is merit\nto creating an avenue for legally nuanced complaints; Commissioners bring a lived\nexperience as community members engaged with local government; expressed concern\nabout multiple aspects of the OCG proposed revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance being\nomitted; urged Council consider additional recommendations: Krystal LoPilato, OGC.\nExpressed concern about the recommended changes to the OGC duties without\nseeking comments from Commissioners; stated an open and honest conversation could\nhave led to a greater understanding of concerns; the central focus of the Commission is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 1, 2021\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 13, "text": "to serve the public and create avenues of transparency, so that complaints are fairly\nevaluated and heard in a timely manner; she disagrees with the City Attorney's Office\nthat three complaints this year indicates an unreasonable uptick; the current status of\nthe Commission falls short of reaching reasonable goals; outlined her proposal for\nlessening the proposed five year complaint restriction; stated citizens voices should not\nbe silenced; expressed concern about political undertones; urged a focus on the goal of\nserving Alamedans; outlined the City Attorney's role for the OGC; expressed support for\na goal setting strategy: Carmen Reid, OGC.\nStated that he strongly opposes the changes proposed; there have been\ndemonstrations for the need of a strong OGC and Public Records Act (PRA)\nenforcement mechanism; urged Council to gain a sense of the issues the OGC faces;\nstated the City's loss at a recent hearing appears to be behind the proposed changes;\nthe City wins most cases heard by the OGC; the City should not get to change the rules\ndue to a loss; expressed support for the independent and citizen-led nature of the OGC;\nstated a Hearing Officer model will gut the PRA process; the City has languished at\nPRA's; a strong enforcement mechanism is needed; the fines under the Sunshine\nOrdinance are minimal; eliminating fines is strategic in order to reduce or eliminate\npossible remedies to OGC complaints in court; urged Council to reject the staff\nrecommendation: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nStated recent trends are disturbing; City staff has aggressively been promoting its\nagenda to Board and Commission members; expressed support for staff pursuing a\nmore agreeable and collaborative relationship with Boards and Commissions; stated\nthere have been recent steps taken to gut the OGC; expressed concern about ad hoc\ncommittees being exempt from Brown Act requirements; urged Council help remedy the\nsituation: Matt Reid, Alameda.\nStated that he opposes the proposed changes; those who have taken the time to submit\ncorrespondence and speak publically oppose the changes; he is familiar with the RRAC\noperations; the argument that potential violations of the Sunshine Ordinance should be\nbrought before the rent control Hearing Officers is not correct; issues and violations of\nthe Sunshine Ordinance affect all Alamedans; outlined policies set and enforced by\nPlanning Boards; discussed appeals: William Smith, Alameda.\nUrged Council to consider other options and effects on trust in government; stated that\nshe has experience as a resident looking to participate in local government; now, more\nthan ever, it is important to have accessibility in order to address issues; it is clear that\nthe proposed matter is restricting accountability and ability to be involved in local\ngovernment: Ashley Lorden, Alameda.\nStated that he is surprised by some of the proposal; the staff report mischaracterizes\nsome of the recent OGC discussions; the Sunshine Ordinance and OGC are in the 10 th\nyear of existence; it is a good time to evaluate the last 10 years; expressed support for a\nprocess for access, and Council giving direction to the OGC and staff regarding the\npurpose of the OGC; stated an understanding of the role and any expansion or focus\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJune 1, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 14, "text": "should be formed; the matter has not come forth in the spirit of collaboration: Rasheed\nShabazz, OGC.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is not ready to support the staff\nrecommendation; if Council wants to change the way adjudicating is performed, the\nmatter should be sent to staff with direction to meet with the OGC over the coming year;\nhe has heard good feedback from the current proposal; comments from OGC members\nhave provided useful feedback; it is difficult to bifurcate the issues within the proposal;\nthe null and void provision was requested from Council over a year ago; expressed\nsupport to direct staff to bring back the null and void replacement provision language\nwithin the next month and to include the OGC's recommendations; stated in the future,\nhe expects recommendations from Boards and Commissions to be presented to Council\nin full; expressed support for staff making alternative recommendations; however, the\nfull recommendation from Boards and Commissions should be included; expressed\nconcern about Commissioners and Board members spending hours working on\nlanguage to not have the material reflected when presented to Council.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's request for clarification on the\nbackground of the changes, the City Attorney stated most of the changes to the null and\nvoid remedy relate to one of the positions unanimously supported by the OGC; staff is\nbringing one change to Council; a change was made in order to provide the Council and\nCity reasonable flexibility to continue to operate; there is an understanding that the\nstatus quo should be maintained to the extent possible.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested context be provided to the language outlined.\nThe City Attorney stated the language would provide that when a complaint is filed, the\nCity would be encouraged to maintain the status quo; outlined a hypothetical Brown Act\nviolation with little prejudice; stated in a different instance, the City would proceed\nnotwithstanding a pending complaint; for posting and noticing, staff is committed to\nperforming the work; posting and noticing is administrative and need not be included in\nthe ordinance; for adjudications, staff saw complaints being brought with complicated\nlegal issues which required serious parsing of court of appeal decisions; three members\nof the OGC indicated a lack of comfort in doing so; the lack of comfort indicated an\nindependent Hearing Officer, with a trained legal background, would be a better fit to\nhear adjudicating cases; OGC members have indicated the cases are an opportunity for\nthe Commission's main role to provide recommendations to the Council; any\nindependent Hearing Officer decision would provide helpful feedback; the Commission\nwould be relieved of the arduous task of having to parse difficult case law and will be\nable to receive a well-reasoned decision that is independent and fair; the City Attorney's\nOffice acts upon direction from Council; Council directed staff to bring null and void\nchanges to the OGC and staff did so for 18 months; Council did not provide other\nspecific direction to bring other recommendations; changes to the RRAC were run\nrecommendations through Commissions and were brought directly to Council.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the Hearing Officers are private attorneys serving on\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 1, 2021\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 15, "text": "a rotational basis and are not supervised by the City Attorney's Office; Hearing Officers\nare commonly used in other cities.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated Section 6 under Penalties references the status\nquo.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Hearing Officer may be an appropriate usage at some\npoint; expressed support for comments made by Ms. LoPilato; stated the Commission is\nhard working and receives no training while being tasked with heavy lifts for the City;\nexperienced litigators are at times stumped; training, guidance and assistance is\nimportant; an effort is currently underway to update the OGC bylaws; outlined her\ninvolvement in updating the RRAC hearing model; stated the determination to move to a\nHearing Officer was largely due to renters having to share personal financial and\nmedical information, which was not appropriate information to share in a public setting;\nCommissioners were not necessarily trained in order to provide the most neutral\ndecision; certain instances of complex legal questions may require a Hearing Officer;\nexpressed support for providing direction to have training for OGC members; stated\nthere should not be a strained relationship between the OGC and the City Attorney's\nOffice; communication is important; expressed support for sending the matter to the\nOGC in order to work out some of the recommendations with staff under a consensus\nmodel, and for a more streamlined OGC meeting process; stated there is opportunity to\nmake matters better.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what will happen in the interim if Council sends the matter\nback to the OGC; questioned whether the default will be status quo; expressed support\nfor providing direction related to training for OGC members, and for a timeline of said\ntraining and onboarding; stated that she would like to know the process for any changes\nto ensure the training is continuous and not a set-time training; training should occur\nwithin a set time of appointment to the OGC; inquired how many times legal issues have\narisen; questioned whether the system switch is based off of a unique set of situations;\nstated there is a saying bad facts create bad law; she likes the suggestion of looking\ninto a facilitated look back on the Sunshine Ordinance and its purpose; there have been\na number of new laws implemented since the enactment of the Sunshine Ordinance; it\nis not the task of the City Attorney's Office to ensure an improvement of relationship; the\nsolution to hearings might be a hybrid model; a number of unanimous previous\nCommission recommendations on how to move forward were not brought to Council;\nshe wants to understand how the previous OGC conversations and recommendations\nwork together; if Council sends the matter back to the OGC, she would like to\nunderstand any changes to the recommendation; inquired whether there have been two\nprior recommendations from the OGC.\nThe City Attorney responded one major recommendation had been made and is\nincluded in the staff report; stated the report indicates the reasons why staff does not\nrecommend it.\nVice Mayor Vella stated if the OGC is asked to look at the City Attorney's new request,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJune 1, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 16, "text": "which has not yet been analyzed, she would like to include all recommendations made.\nThe City Attorney stated the prior recommendation from the OGC of 2020, was brought\nto the OGC of 2021.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what would occur in the interim, to which the City Attorney\nresponded if Council does not adopt the proposed ordinance, staff would operate in\nstatus quo.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he believes the Sunshine Ordinance and OGC have\nbeen one of the most important legislations to come out of City Hall; outlined those who\nspearheaded the legislation; previously meeting materials were delivered the Thursday\nprior to the Tuesday meeting; the Sunshine Ordinance assures the public is served by\nunderstanding how City Hall can operate in a transparent manner; the goal is to put\nreasonable rules in place to allow for meaningful community input; he is not convinced\nthe OGC process is broken; there have been 17 OGC complaints since 2013; three of\nthe complaints have been in 2021 alone; of the 17 complaints, the OGC has made a\ndetermination on seven with the remaining 10 being withdrawn; there does not appear\nto be an inundation of work requiring Council to transfer the OGC responsibilities to a\nHearing Officer; expressed support for staff's analysis of a Hearing Officer being\nrequired; stated staff is making a professional judgement; he is satisfied with the current\nstatus of the OGC; the structure of OGC meetings is a separate issue; there is a\nbalance between an imperfect process, which is citizen-led and slower, and a faster,\nmore accurate process which is led by City staff; expressed support for the citizen-led\nprocess; stated people can raise issues regarding government transparency through the\nOGC, which is not just a court of appeals; the OGC is a place where residents' issues\ncan be tried by peers within the OGC; the City should keep what it currently has; if the\nOGC is improved, the improvement should be at the margins.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was not on the Council when the\ndecision for null and void was made; requested clarification about the current status and\nstatus quo for the OGC.\nThe City Attorney stated the OGC may adjudicate a complaint filed by any member of\nthe public under existing law; the provisions of the OGC are advisory and Council may\nchoose whether or not to follow the advice provided by the OGC.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the advisory nature of the\nOGC; expressed concern about Section 6 related to findings of unfounded complaints;\nstated the five year period is an extreme and draconian penalty; the definition of\nunfounded is broad; a complaint being deemed unfounded does not indicate a frivolous\nintent or that the complaint does not have merit; outlined court filing processes not\nindicating a frivolous intent; the matter should return to the OGC; expressed support for\nthe OGC's review of the penalty period; stated there appears to be a consensus of\nCouncil wanting to hear from community members; the penalty conflicts with the desire\nto hear from community members; five years is a long time; training should be offered to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 1, 2021\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 17, "text": "any of the Boards and Commissions; expressed support for members serving on\nBoards and Commissions; stated meetings can go long; recently, more complaints have\nbeen heard by the OGC; expressed support for allocating more money in order to\nensure PRA documents are produced in a timely manner; stated timeliness has been a\nlegitimate complaint brought to the OGC.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she previously spent six years' time on the Planning\nBoard; she attended training from the League of California Cities and annual specialized\ntraining for Planning Board members; the OGC is more specialized and requires\neffective training to help the Commission operate at its maximum capability; it is prudent\nto send the proposals back to the OGC for discussion with the City Attorney's Office.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the work of the City Attorney's\nOffice; stated that she is concerned about OGC members comments related to the City\nAttorney's Office; she would like OGC members to reach out to the City Attorney's\nOffice with concerns.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of sending the matter back to the\nOGC for review of the proposed recommendations and set forth any proposed changes\nto Council in consultation with the City Attorney's Office as needed.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, with an addition to direct that the null\nand void recommendations be brought back to Council.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the included list\nfrom the motion; noted staff has indicated a need for clear direction provided in motions;\nstated motions need to be as succinct as possible.\nCouncilmember Knox White noted Councilmember Herrera Spencer has made a motion\nto send the recommendations back to the OGC for discussion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of the proposed motion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was not part of Council when direction\nwas previously given; inquired whether the amendment is appropriate to include in her\nmotion; stated her motion allows the OGC to give direction on redline changes and the\nordinance.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the assumption to have the OGC meet with the\nCity Attorney's Office is implied.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded the OGC can choose to meet with the City\nAttorney's Office if they wish.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a separate motion is needed in order to bring the\nnull and void recommendations back to Council.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJune 1, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 18, "text": "The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated if Council desires the null and\nvoid matter return before the other recommendations, feedback from Council related to\nwhether or not the proposed changes presented are generally acceptable will be\nhelpful.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would like to see the null and void remedy to\nreturn with language similar to Commissioner LoPilato; he is okay if staff wants to make\nrecommendations for matters not to be included in the ordinance and adopted instead\nas policy; however, the full language from the Commission needs to be included along\nwith any changes to the recommendation.\nThe City Attorney stated staff can bring the matter back to Council within two to three\nmonths.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would like for the matter to return before the\nsummer months due to the matter being 15 months out already.\nThe City Attorney stated staff can bring the null and void remedy back as soon as\npossible.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the reference to the language supplied by\nCommissioner LoPilato is understood by staff\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the comments provided are\nattached to the staff report and is similar to the language recommended by staff.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how staff envisions moving forward in working with the\nOGC.\nThe City Attorney responded staff would like to get through the null and void remedy\nfirst; stated once concluded, staff will return to the OGC to seek feedback and return to\nCouncil.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is proposing a\nseparate vote on the null and void remedy.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she is happy to accept the inclusion\nas a friendly amendment to the motion; expressed support for the null and void remedy\nbeing brought back first.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion with the friendly amendment.\nVice Mayor Vella proposed a friendly amendment of attaching the recommendations by\nthe OGC in full in order to satisfy some of the concerns coming from the OGC.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 1, 2021\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Knox White accepted the friendly amendment.\nOn the call for the question, the motion 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.\n(21-384) Presentation by the City Auditor on the Audit Report Approved April 20, 2021.\nThe City Auditor gave a presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is critical for the community to understand\nhow the audits show material deficiencies; expressed support for the work of the City\nAuditor; stated the presentation indicates impacts from not changing course and other\nrelated consequences; having a clean audit matters.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated staff hires auditors to go through the books and ensure\nthe City is following basic governmental accounting standards; the City Auditor is\nelected by the people and provides review of the hired auditors report; the purpose of\nthe presentation is to adhere to the City Charter provision reporting on the adequacy of\nthe audit.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-385) The City Manager announced an Alameda County update to the vaccine\ndashboard; stated 82.9% of residents 12 and older have received at least one dose of\nthe COVID-19 vaccine; information for obtaining the vaccine is available on the City\nwebsite; discussed an upcoming vaccine clinic at Esperanza Plaza on June 12th;\nannounced the Flavors of Alameda campaign continues until June 15th; stated a\ncommunity discussion on the Homeless Strategic Plan will be held via Zoom on June\n10th.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-386) Consider Directing Staff to Return to Council with Solutions to Address\nAutomobile-Related Events at Alameda Point. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and\nCouncilmember Knox White)\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Knox White gave a presentation.\nExpressed support for the matter: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there have been unsanctioned events announced via social\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJune 1, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 20, "text": "media; some auto events have been hosted; Alameda Point is a place with wide open\nspaces; outlined recent, non-hosted, automobile-related events at Alameda Point; noted\nOakland is having similar problems and is cracking down; she does not want Alameda\nPoint to be the place where people can get away with un-hosted automobile events;\ninquired whether enforcement actions will change or become easier.\nThe City Attorney responded if Council adopts an ordinance prohibiting certain\nactivities, the method of enforcement from Police will become easier; stated clear laws\nare easier to enforce; staff will return with a variety of recommendations which may\ninclude infrastructure, signage and laws.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about automobile-related\nshows and events and whether the recommendation is to make the direction broader;\nstated the Council Referral is narrow; inquired whether the Referral is to address\nspeeding at Alameda Point; stated that she would like input from the City Attorney\nwhether broadening the terms is allowed under the Brown Act.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Referral explains residents have reported a large\nnumber of speeding vehicles, especially during automobile-related events held at\nAlameda Point.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for clarification of the term events;\nstated the term broadly captures the intent as indicated in the Referral.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the Council Referral title; stated if the motion\nis broader than the title, she would like clarification whether the direction will include\nautomobile-related shows, such as sideshows and speeding; her understanding is the\nrecommendation will be broader than described.\nVice Mayor Vella stated a determination must be made whether or not the events are\nofficial and permitted; there is concern about the creation or draw of a nuisance; the\nReferral captures and conveys the intention; there have been unofficial and non-\npermitted events, which are drawing reckless behaviors and endangering those at\nAlameda Point, especially children.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are laws which enforce speeding; however, Alameda\nPoint appears to be attracting more drivers in larger numbers through events that are\nboth sanctioned and unsanctioned; Council needs to take a look at whether or not the\ndirection is appropriate for the City; the area has been relatively safe during the\npandemic due to large gatherings not being allowed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is unsure whether or not there is\nmention of single vehicles or whether the intent involved multiple vehicles; the City does\nhave a large car show that takes place on Park Street along with other activities at\nAlameda Point; she would like to ensure that Council considers certain massive car\nshows might attract a certain type of car; expressed support for caution in banning\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 1, 2021\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 21, "text": "certain cars.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is directing staff to look into the issues in order\nto\nnot be overly prescriptive.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated members of the public have been clamoring for\nenforcement of traffic safety laws; violations have been happening in a fairly\nconcentrated fashion at Alameda Point; expressed support for Alameda Point being the\nfirst location for mobilizing enforcement; stated loud cars are heard across Alameda and\nappear to be speeding; the City needs to heighten traffic safety enforcement; there are\nnow three traffic safety enforcement Officers; noted resources will need to be part of the\nstaffing discussion; Alameda Point could benefit from road diet types of procedures\nwhich could be considered first due to present vulnerable communities; expressed\nsupport for the Referral.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Council Referral, with the\nunderstanding the need to broaden the identification of the issue and returning with\nsolutions.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-387) Consider Scheduling a Performance Evaluation for the City Manager as Soon\nas Possible. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer withdrew the referral.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-388) Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has received complaints\nabout sideshows and cars speeding across Alameda; expressed gratitude to Joe\nLoparo for organizing a Memorial Day event.\n(21-389) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the Memorial Day event and a ceremony held\nat Coast Guard Island; outlined volunteering at a vaccine clinic at Encinal High School;\ndiscussed vaccines for those 12 years of age and older and upcoming vaccine events\nfor second shots.\n(21-390) Councilmember Daysog expressed gratitude toward Sal Castaneda for\nemceeing the Memorial Day event.\n(21-391) Vice Mayor Vella discussed a Subcommittee of the City Council and East Bay\nRegional Parks District meeting and a Lead Abatement Joint Powers Association\nmeeting.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJune 1, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-06-01", "page": 22, "text": "(21-392) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing Authority Board of\nCommissioners and Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB).\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Kristin Furuichi Fong, Dianne Yamashiro-Omi,\nSamantha Green and Scott Means for appointment to the SSHRB.\nADJOURNMENT\n(21-393) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting\nin memory of Arnold Brillinger and the nine employees of the Valley Transportation\nAuthority Transit Workers killed in San Jose at 10:54 p.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\nJune 1, 2021\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf"}