pages: CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-01-05 | 11 | The City Attorney stated Council policy can be changed by a vote of three Councilmembers; another recommendation is to for Council to approve the lease agreements as-is and provide direction for staff to bring all leases back for more permanent modifications. Councilmember Spencer expressed support for the proposal of lease agreement modifications, including substantial violations returning to Council. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the proposal resulting in the matter returning for first reading. The City Manager stated the matter is not related to money being provided to tenants, it is rent deferral; staff can administratively hold rent until the matter returns for another first reading. Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about administrative decisions regarding public funds; stated previous Council discussions on the matter have been published online; three proposals have been recommended at the current meeting; expressed concern about attempting to rewrite the language. Councilmember Knox White questioned whether the matter can be bifurcated in order to include Councilmember Daysog for the discussion related to Wonky Kitchen. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for bifurcating the matter. Councilmember Daysog returned to the meeting. Councilmember Knox White outlined concerns raised; stated that he would like to propose bifurcating the matter into two separate votes, one for Wonky Kitchen and one for Pacific Pinball. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated should Council begin to add language to the lease agreements, the matter will need to return for another second reading; noted there are concerns for delaying the matter. Councilmember Daysog stated that he believes he should recuse himself from the Pacific Pinball matter due to proximity to his home. The City Attorney inquired whether the location near Councilmember Daysog's home is visitor-serving, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative. The City Attorney stated the test for recusal typically relates to personal impacts to finances and whether the Council decision will have a material change of the use for the visitor-serving location; noted the common law conflict falls under the belief of a Councilmember to be fair given that there may or may not be financial impacts to said Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 January 5, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf |