{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 4, 2020--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.\n[Note: Councilmembers Daysog and Vella arrived at 6:03 p.m.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nConsent Calendar\n(20-050) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell,\nAssistant City Attorney, and Debbie Potter, Community Development Director, as Real\nProperty Negotiators for the Potential Sale or Lease of the Carnegie Library Building at\n2264 Santa Clara Avenue and the Foster House at 1429 Oak Street. Accepted.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Attorney responded State law\nrequires local agencies to appoint negotiators prior to commencing negotiations to allow\nthe public to understand who would be stepping into closed session with the City\nCouncil to discuss the negotiations; the open session item is being approved prior to the\nclosed session being held.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(20-051) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: 2264 Santa Clara Avenue (the Carnegie Building) and 1429\nOak Street (Foster House); City Negotiators: Eric J. Levitt, City Manager, Lisa N.\nMaxwell, Assistant City Attorney, and Debbie Potter, Community Development Director;\nNegotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Carnegie Innovation Hall; Under Negotiation:\nReal property negotiations price and terms\n(20-052) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.9); Case Name: Boatworks V City of Alameda, et al.; Court: Superior\nCourt of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Numbers: RG16823346,\nRG16841240, RG19041531\n***\nCouncilmember Daysog left the closed session at 6:12 p.m. and returned at 6:15 p.m.\n***\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 2, "text": "(20-053) Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft held a moment of silence in memory of Wansiri Panyapong.\nThe City Clerk announced that regarding Real Property and Existing Litigation staff\nprovided information and Council provided direction with no vote taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:41\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 4, 2020- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Boy Scout Troup 3 led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(20-054) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft did a reading for the Season for Non-Violence:\nConnection.\n(20-055) Proclamation Declaring February 2020 as Black History Month.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation and presented it to Reverend Betty\nWilliams.\nMs. Williams made brief comments.\n(20-056) Proclamation Declaring February 14, 2020 as the League of Women Voters'\n100th Anniversary Day.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation and presented it to Susan Hauser, League\nof Women Voters (LWV).\nMs. Hauser introduced other LWV members made brief comments.\nAnne McKereghan, LWV, invited everyone to attend an upcoming social at Tuckers Ice\nCream.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(20-057) Eric Grunseth, Alameda, expressed concern over the rent registry.\n(20-058) Kurt Peterson, Alameda, stated that he would comment on the proposed\namendments to the Sunshine Ordinance [paragraph no. 20-067].\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the comments need to be given when the item is called.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 4, "text": "CONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor Knox White requested the vehicle purchase [paragraph no. 20-061 be\nremoved from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*20-059) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on January 7,\n2020. Approved.\n(*20-060) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,739,647.57.\n(20-061) Recommendation to Authorize Purchase of Vehicles, Consistent with Revised\nVehicle Replacement Policy, in an Amount Not to Exceed $227,404 from Folsom Lake\nFord, $1,175,165, from Downtown Ford Sales, and $123,099 from National Auto Fleet\nGroup.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated a number of vehicle providers have chosen to fight the\nState of California over fuel economy standards, including Nissan; expressed support\nfor the three Nissan Leaf vehicles being electronic vehicles (EV); stated that he cannot\nsupport the company Nissan; requested the Ford and Nissan purchases be bifurcated.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether emissions restrictions are still in place.\nThe City Attorney responded that he does not know; stated the restrictions are being\nchallenged by the federal government.\nThe Public Works Fleet Supervisor outlined the restrictions on liquid fuel vehicles and\ninternal combustion engines; stated the restrictions are not related to EVs.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired why the report does not mention climate impacts.\nThe City Manager responded the Nissan Leaf is not part of the prohibition and does not\nimpact the Climate Action Plan.\nThe Public Works Fleet Supervisor stated the goal is to move forward with EVs in place\nof liquid fuel vehicles.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Ford also makes EVs.\nThe Public Works Fleet Supervisor responded in the negative; stated Chevrolet does\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 5, "text": "not make EVs either; large corporate manufacturers are anticipated to come to market\nin 2023 with more EVs.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the Nissan Leaf is available for fleet use, to\nwhich the Public Works Fleet Supervisor responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(*20-062) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment\nto\nan Agreement with ENGEO, Incorporated to Increase the Compensation by an Amount\nNot to Exceed $23,800 for a Total Contract Amount of $98,500 for Geotechnical\nServices Related to the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal. Accepted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(20-063) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager or Designee to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a\nOne-Year Lease With Four One-Year Extension Options, Each Subject to Reasonable\nDiscretionary Approval of the City Manager, with Shelter In Peace, Inc., a California\nNon-Profit Corporation, for 2815 San Diego Road Located at Alameda Point to Operate\nTransitional Housing for Refugees; and Recommendation to Approve the Finding that\nthe Short-Term Lease Transaction with Shelter in Peace, Inc. is Exempt from the\nSurplus Lands Act, as Amended. Introduced.\nThe Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nAnna Rossi, Shelter in Peace, thanked Council and members of Shelter in Peace\nintroduced themselves.\n(20-064) Recommendation to Accept Update on Recently Installed and Ongoing Traffic\nSafety and Traffic Calming Activities.\nThe City Engineer and Principal Engineer gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the presentation can be made available since it\nwas not included in the packet, to which the Principal Engineer responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe City Engineer concluded the presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 6, "text": "Discussed accidents at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Walnut Street: Jeff Knoth,\nAlameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated this is a big issue for the City.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested clarification on the accidents reported by Mr. Knoth.\nThe Principal Engineer stated plans for Walnut Street and Lincoln Avenue have been\nreceived and work needs to be scheduled; the work is expected to begin in spring.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired the long-term plan; stated all of Lincoln Avenue is a\nspeedway.\nThe Principal Engineer responded Lincoln Avenue needs a full corridor analysis; stated\ncommunity outreach is required and expected; additional funding and design are also\nneeded to move forward; narrowing four lanes to two lanes with bulb-outs is a\npossibility; stated the lane-shift option would offset some of the traffic signal heads;\nmodifications are needed along the corridor; each signal modification costs a few\nhundred thousand dollars; the goal is to review and determine what is needed for the\nfull Lincoln Avenue corridor.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether things can be done to lower the speed limit on\nan emergency basis due to child collisions.\nThe Principal Engineer responded a Request for Proposals (RFP) is being put together\nto conduct a Citywide speed survey; stated the Police Department is determining street\nsegments to be surveyed; once the data is obtained, the agency can lower speed limits\naround school zones; noted Sacramento has completed the task; stated the speed\nsurvey must be completed prior to moving forward.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether it is possible to time lights and crosswalks for\npedestrians.\nThe Principle Engineer responded the concept is being considered; stated timing is not\npossible for some intersections with obsolete technology; outlined equipment purchases\nrequired to install the desired features; stated additional pedestrian timing\nadvancements are being considered in certain business districts, such as Park Street\nand Webster Street.\nCouncilmember Oddie noted the urgency of the item; stated that he is intrigued by the\nHarbor Bay roundabout concept; a number of streets in the City could benefit from\nroundabouts; roundabouts are a safer way to handle intersections; expressed support\nfor continuing to prioritize the item.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated all identified areas need ample data to compare\nsignificant approaches for improvements; the public needs to know that the tools being\nadopted are going to be effective; expressed concern for actions that divert traffic to\nparts of town that do not exhibit high traffic incidents; stated the data needs context and\nstatistical analysis; once techniques are put into place, there will be no way to truly\nmeasure the significant impact for three to four years; expressed support for effective\nremedies being put into place.\nVice Mayor Knox White discussed a neighbor feeling unsafe while riding a bike in\nAlameda; stated there is desire for all to feel safe while riding in Alameda; decades of\ndecisions have left many feeling unsafe; the decisions must be fixed; the word of the\nyear is transformational; repaving projects are transforming City streets; he witnessed\nthe first protected intersection with bollards in Alameda; bollards are not being used to\nupdate Lincoln Avenue; some people park in red zones and obstruct bikeways with\nimpunity; through Vision Zero, all traffic fatalities are avoidable; it is not a shock that\nmany fatalities happen on the fastest City streets; expressed support for Citywide speed\nlimit of 25 miles per hour (mph) with lowered speeds at schools; Alameda's population\nis aging quickly and a slower pedestrian crossing time will be beneficial; expressed\nsupport for Councilmember Daysog's call for evaluation; stated that he would like to\nensure the correct metrics are being used and behaviors are changed; noted there is\nthe possibility of reducing, but not eliminating, collisions; stated emergency measures\nbeing implemented may not be enough for the long-term; there is strong support from\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed support; stated staff turnaround has been quick; noted\nshe witnessed multiple vehicle collisions at her previous residence; stated many\nchanges are a long time coming; Council policy is changing how vehicle collisions are\nlooked at from a problem-solving standpoint; many pedestrians tend to walk against the\npedestrian light due to not activating the crossing signal; expressed support for crossing\nsignals that do not have to be activated by pressing a button, and for looking at zones\nnear major parks and thoroughfares; inquired whether areas near parks are being\nconsidered.\nThe City Engineer responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired the plan for the intersection of Central Avenue, Encinal\nAvenue, and Sherman Street.\nThe City Engineer responded the intersection does not have long term plans; stated the\nactive Transportation Plan will be presented to Council in the next month which\ndiscusses longer corridor projects; the specified intersection is being addressed at the\nend of the Central Avenue project; a roundabout solution has been proposed and is to\nbe evaluated.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she witnesses many people illegally double parking\nwhich causes bicyclists to maneuver around in an unsafe manner; expressed support\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 8, "text": "for evaluating and addressing double parking and ample parking in the business\ndistricts to allow deliveries without double parking; stated business districts do not have\nshort term parking spaces for deliveries.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are plans for the intersections of Central\nAvenue and 9th Street and Central Avenue and Page Street; whether it is possible to\ninstall a scramble intersection in the downtown area of Park Street and Central Avenue;\nstated staff must ensure there is funding for the changes and improvements when the\nbudget is presented to Council; safety is the top Council priority.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the item coming to Council in March will be the\nresponse to the Council direction from September 2019, to bring back an intersection\nequity access policy and street lane widths for traffic calming.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded not all topics will be returning; stated several\ntopics are currently being addressed, including lane widths; the Active Transportation\nPlan Annual Report will be presented at the March 17th Council meeting.\nCouncilmember Vella left the dais at 8:31 p.m. and returned at 8:49 p.m.\n(20-065) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested hearing the Sunshine item next [paragraph no.\n20-067 since it has the most speakers.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Councilmember Vella - 1.]\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:33 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:02\np.m.\n(20-066) Recommendation to: 1) Direct Staff to Conduct a Four-Week Request For\nQualification (RFQ) Solicitation Process for the Development of the West Midway\nProject; 2) Approve Debbie Potter, Community Development Director; Michelle Giles,\nBase Reuse Manager; Lisa N. Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; and Eric Levitt, City\nManager, as Designated Real Property Negotiators for the West Midway Project; 3)\nApprove the Finding Related to the Surplus Lands Act that the Property Constitutes\nExempt Surplus Land; and 4) Direct Staff to Include a $350,000 Appropriation for the\nRESHAP Project Backbone Infrastructure Design in the Mid-Year Budget. Not heard.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council wants to proceed with the item.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to hear the item.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he supports continuing the matter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to continue the item to a date certain.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he would like to hear the item.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of continuing the matter; inquired whether there\nis a date certain.\nThe City Manager stated that he suggests March 3rd.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the motion is to continue the item to March 3rd.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 3. Noes:\nCouncilmembers Knox White and Oddie - 2.\n(20-067) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Various Provisions of Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter II\n(Administration), including Provisions Related to Public Access to Public Meetings and\nPublic Records, and Sunshine Ordinance Enforcement, Including Recommendations to\nEliminate the \"Null and Void\" or \"Order to Cure\" Remedies and Replace Such Remedies\nWith the Authority for the Open Government Commission to Issue Recommendations to\nCure and Correct. Introduced.\nThe Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired who recommended the null and void provision be added\nto the ordinance and how the provision came to be.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he tried to research the issue, but does not\nknow the definitive answer; stated he has heard City Attorney department staff drafted\nthe provision.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether other Charter cities have a similar commission\nor body with the same type of power.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded research has been conducted; stated the First\nAmendment Coalition keeps record of all Sunshine cities; a survey conducted six\nmonths ago of the 14 jurisdictions yielded no null and void provisions.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Vella inquired whether the meeting minutes from when the ordinance\nwas enacted have been reviewed.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the meeting video was\nalso reviewed.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the concept of null and void was included in\nthe original ordinance resulting in the creation of the Open Government Commission\n(OGC).\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he was not here when the Sunshine\nOrdinance was adopted; stated the Sunshine Ordinance was adopted at the same time\nas the duties and powers of the OGC.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired the harm in keeping the null and void provision.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded it is difficult to tell; stated should the null and void\nremedy be used again, there will be a risk of incongruence with the City Attorney's\noffice.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification be provided on the precedence set.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the null and void remedy was only used recently;\ngeneral rule states that a policy making body, vested with various legislative powers to\nmake local law, cannot delegate its authority; the basis for the rule is to ensure the\npolicy making body makes the fundamental policy decisions; the refinements of the\ngeneral rule discusses delegation; the delegation authority is separate from the general\nrule; where null and void falls is a question; outlined the refinement process; the Council\nmay make regulations, similar to rent and cannabis, where a decision is made and staff\nfills in the blanks; the null and void remedy does not fall into the area of filling in blanks,\nit\nis a fundamental policy decision; the power to make local law includes the power to\nrepeal the law.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Charter Section 3-2 contains language that allows policy\nmaking boards to establish concepts such as null and void; noted Section states: the\nCouncil may confer upon any board or officer powers and duties additional to those set\nforth in this Charter; the Council may confer powers and duties upon boards and policy\nmaking bodies, but it must be consistent with the City Charter; noted Section 3-1 says\nthe ultimate power making authority rests with the City Council.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the Housing Authority Board falls under Section\n1, part D beginning: \"Policy bodies shall mean the following \" of the draft ordinance.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the Board would not due to the lack of the Board\ncreating policy; stated the Board is subject to the Brown Act and the parallel\nrequirements of the Sunshine Ordinance related to agenda posting.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired what Government Code Section 54952 states.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded it is the portion of the Brown Act that defines a\nlegislative body.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated a policy body that is subject to the Brown Act should be\nsubject to the Sunshine Ordinance as well.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the connection is sensible, yet has not previously\nbeen made.\nThe City Attorney stated the Housing Authority is a separate legal entity from the City,\nsimilar to the School District, and is not subject to the Sunshine Ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for recommending the Housing Authority\nadopt the Sunshine Ordinance; inquired whether Section 2-91.5 requires all documents\nmaterial to an item accompany the agenda; noted a previous item lacked the\npresentation, which is material to the item; questioned whether the presentation is\nexempt from being included; inquired where the presentation fits under Section 2-91.5.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he is unsure; stated the intent of the\namendment is to not have the language ensure general materiality, but more related to\nthe action of the item.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the OGC determines the materiality of the item.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the OGC would make a determination should\nthere be an alleged violation.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed concern about the language being unclear and\npotentially causing open interpretation.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the OGC is staffed by the City Attorney's office and\nhas resources to determine whether or not a violation has occurred.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Resolution 15382 prohibits ceding time and\nSection 2-93.7 states that all local laws inconsistent with the ordinance are superseded;\nstated the Sunshine Ordinance allows time to be ceded and a spokesperson appointed;\nResolution 15382 removed the option of ceding of time; the Sunshine Ordinance states\nit takes precedence causing a conflict.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he is not aware of any other conflicts; stated\nany subsequent areas of conflict may be addressed in an amendment; the goal is\nconsistency with the Council adopted resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 12, "text": "The City Attorney stated the Sunshine Ordinance allows speakers to cede time and\nResolution 15382 does not; since Council adopted Resolution 15382 after adopting the\nSunshine Ordinance, the resolution is the policy Council wants to effectuate; the\nproposed amendment allows consistency between the Sunshine Ordinance and\nCouncil's will; additional changes can be made if so desired.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Section 2-93.7 will be applied prospectively or\nretrospectively only.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded prospectively; stated unless a provision specifies\nretrospectively, the general rule is against applying retrospectively.\nCouncilmember Oddie noted the process seems retrospective.\nRead a letter submitted by the League of Women Voters; urged Council to reject\namendments to Section 2-93.8: Susan Hauser, League of Women Voters.\nUrged the amendments be tabled: Steve Slauson, Alameda.\nStated Council should earn back trust by keeping the Open Government Commission's\nenforcement provision; outlined other options: Bill Smith, Alameda.\nDiscussed the Open Government Commission adoption of its bylaws; stated the Council\nis taking the teeth away from the Open Government Commission: Kurt Peterson,\nAlameda.\nStated the October 18, 2011 minutes on page 4 state the Council should not police its\nown process; suggested a task force be formed to address the matter: Paul Foreman,\nAlameda Citizens Task Force\nStated that she supports the City Attorney's opinion, which is correct: Former Mayor\nTrish Spencer, Alameda.\nDiscussed her Sunshine Ordinance complaint; outlined her experience as a public\nadvocate for tobacco control laws: Serena Chen, Alameda.\nExpressed support for civic engagement; discussed the Open Government Commission\nposition; outlined potential harm from the change: Bryan Schwartz, Open Government\nCommission.\nCouncilmember Vella stated Section 9 notes a timeline that begins when a complaint is\nfiled of 30-business days, which is roughly six weeks to schedule a hearing; a formal\nwritten decision on the matter may be placed on a continued meeting within 30 business\ndays of the conclusion of the hearing; expressed concern for due process and extended\ntimelines; inquired whether the timeline makes sense for ordinances.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 13, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded by discussion the staff report drafting process.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed concern for not having a meeting date similar to other\nboards and commissions; inquired whether it is possible to establish a regular meeting\ndate; stated not having a regular meeting date is not transparent and both parties may\nnot understand when meetings may be held.\nThe City Clerk responded meetings are typically scheduled on the first Monday based\non past practice; sometimes the complainant, who is required to attend, cannot make\nthe hearing date, therefore flexibility in scheduling is needed to accommodate all\nparties.\nCouncilmember Vella noted a date held on the calendar could assist the complainant in\nhearing preparation; stated the process is similar to the Rent Review Advisory\nCommittee (RRAC) or Planning Board; expressed concern for allowing delays in\nhearing matters; expressed support for a more expeditious process; inquired about the\nremedy and process if null and void is removed; questioned why someone would go the\nOGC as opposed to filing a case in court.\nThe City Attorney responded the process will still allow the OGC to hear the matter;\nshould the OGC find a violation, a recommendation would be issued to the originating\nbody detailing OGC findings; stated the recommendation being issued serves a number\nof purposes, including an open and transparent process in which the original policy\nbody can reconsider the decision made; in the unfortunate event a decision is ignored,\nthere would be significant accord for judicial review.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the City Attorney's office represents the City, but also\noversees and advises the OGC; inquired the result and outcome should the OGC make\na recommendation against the City or process.\nThe City Attorney responded there are well established judicial precedence which\nallows a government office to establish ethical walls when appropriate should conflicting\nbodies be represented; outlined an example regarding an appeal to a personnel board.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed concern about the transparency of the process; stated\nemergency ordinances have been passed; questioned whether there could have been\ndelays in passing emergency ordinances; stated some of the issues are process issues;\nthere should be procedural ways to streamline and reagendize an item sooner;\nexpressed concern for removing the ability to have the decision to call the question on\nthe Council without going to court; stated the null and void provision allows a decision to\nbe made and hold the Council's feet to the fire without having to go through a long court\nprocess; expressed concern for future Council's not abiding by the OGC's\nrecommendations.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated a tool is needed for Council to catch instances where\ndecisions are made without proper notice; public noticing is key to ensure the public can\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 14, "text": "weigh-in on matters and provide opinions on issues; the null and void provision is meant\nto be said tool; null and void can supersede Council decisions and represents a power\nthat is above the Council; noted the problem with null and void is that there is no basis\nin the City Charter; stated Section 3-1 of the Charter vests all power in the City Council;\nSection 3-2 states Council may delegate powers to commissions in a manner only\nconsistent with the Charter; expressed support for being consistent with the Charter and\nfor understanding the basis of how the null and void provision aligns; stated the City\nCharter Sections 3-1, 3-2 and 1-2(D) are vested in Council making rules and having\npowers; Council can delegate rules to commissions and boards; the rules cannot be\ndelegated in a way that places the Council in an inferior position; the City should come\nup with a tool to address situations in which the public has not properly been noticed;\nnull and void is not the only tool available; members of the public and the OGC can\ncome up with a variety of other tools that checks the City Council if a decision is made\nthat was not properly noticed; noted Council can create an ordinance which allows the\nOGC to flag situations that clearly show a decision being made which has not been\nadequately noticed; stated penalties could require a 4-1 Council vote in order to move\nthe item forward; there will be times when the Council makes a mistake; when checks\nare created, it should align with the City Charter; there are many ways to create\nremedies similar to null and void.\nVice Mayor Knox White expressed support for Councilmember Daysog's comments;\nnoted that he was previously on the Sunshine Task Force; discussed meetings\ndeveloping the Sunshine Ordinance; stated each member of the Task Force desired the\nOGC to have teeth, not just alerts; the one violation yielded a battle-mode response\nfrom the City and prompted reconsideration of the null and void provision; stated there\nshould have been an easy cure to the issue; that he agrees with Councilmember\nDaysog's, as well as staff's, comments; null and void is not a legal finding and is\nproblematic; there will always be a legal implication; expressed concern for removing\nthe provision in hopes that OGC findings are considered; stated actions of Council take\ntime to implement; should violations be found, the Sunshine Ordinance should dictate\nthe violation be agendized on the next reasonable agenda for consideration of either\nconcurrence or non-concurrence with the OGC's findings; there should be a reasonable\nway to cure the issue; the simplest path would be to re-hear the item and cure; the\npublic is given an opportunity to come back to the policy making body, at a properly\nnoticed meeting and weigh in on the topic; outlined his experience related to the\nTransportation Commission improperly noticing an item; expressed concern about the\nfinding being perfunctory; expressed support for something that replaces null and void\nwith an acceptable alternative; stated that he does not support staff's recommendation\nof removing null and void.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for Councilmember Daysog's comments;\nnoted there are restraints at the State level; stated the City can pass any law; however,\nif the law is unconstitutional, it should not be passed; expressed support for replacing\nnull and void with something that allows for the ability to call out Council in the event an\nitem is passed which violates the Sunshine Ordinance; stated the opinion of the OGC\nwill have weight; expressed concern for someone using null and void to try and overturn\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 15, "text": "particular items; discussed his first meeting addressing the Del Monte project; stated\ndiscussions have yielded decisions that are different from agenda titles and caution\nshould be taken; stated the change in housing units for the Del Monte project was a\nworse violation than the change in the cannabis item; expressed support for a\nsafeguard being put in place and for providing direction to staff and the OGC to develop\na replacement that meets the needs discussed by Council.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft quoted the adage: \"bad facts make bad law;\" stated that she\nrecalls the item which generated Ms. Chen's complaint; Council must follow the law and\nrespect the authority that has been delegated; the order to cure remedy is adequate and\nsufficient; the OGC should come up with something that incorporates Council's\nsuggestions; stated the City Attorney's office takes great pride in doing good legal work\nin advising the City and its boards and commissions; all are capable of making mistakes\ntrue to human nature; the particular item has been heavily scrutinized; the harm in\nleaving null and void as-is, allows someone to apply the provision to a law that someone\ndoes not like; Councilmembers were elected into positions; those elected must have\nthick skin, a sense of humor and a backbone; all Councilmembers come from different\nbackgrounds and disagree at times, but also work hard for those represented; quoted\nformer President Barak Obama; stated that she wished more people would serve on\nboards and commissions as a stepping stone to elected office; there is great\nrepresentative government in the City; expressed support for all recommended\namendments; stated that she would entertain a further remedy to ensure the intent of\nnull and void is honored; expressed concern about the Commission stating that it would\nnot support any similar amendment; stated that she expects boards and commissions to\nwork cooperatively and collaboratively with the City Attorney's office and vice versa;\nadditional guidelines should be taken seriously for those that have a complaint; any\norder to cure should be taken seriously and not buried under the rug.\nCouncilmember Vella stated a task force has been suggested, similar to the original\nSunshine Task Force, as well as the item returning to the OGC for input, options and\nrecommendations; there should be a process for holding meetings on regular dates;\nstated a quick turnaround may not always be possible; a clause should be in place to\nexpedite reagendizing.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether staff is proposing language.\nThe City Attorney responded staff has drafted language to address Council comments;\nstated the item should return to the Commission or Council as soon as practical; the\namendment requires the originating body to make a decision based on the OGC\nrecommendation, which may involve agreeing or disagreeing and curing; the\namendment provides that the City would take all necessary actions, to the extent\nauthorized by law, to maintain the status quo.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed concern for maintaining status quo; expressed\nsupport for regularly scheduled OGC meetings; stated the OGC is the best body to\ncome up with alternate ideas to effectively enforce violations; inquired whether the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 16, "text": "Sunshine Ordinance supersedes any ordinance prior or in the future.\nThe City Attorney responded laws cannot anticipate future Council actions nor bind\nfuture Councils; the ordinance supersedes laws that were in existence at the time of\nadoption; when an ordinance is adopted, there is always a provision included called\n\"implied repeal;\" new law will always take precedence.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like the information clarified.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that it is difficult for him to tell whether the proposed\nlanguage has teeth; expressed support for input from the OGC.\n(20-068) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of giving Councilmembers an additional\n5 minutes time.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n***\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the OGC understands Council's broad parameters;\nexpressed support for input from the OGC members consistent with the Charter\nparameters, which is not the null and void provision.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the item to be heard by OGC members.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed support for the item to be heard by the OGC at a\nproperly noticed meeting; expressed concern for drafting an ordinance at the current\nmeeting; stated a process for call to review will be helpful, while keeping in mind the\nSunshine Ordinance agenda posting requirements; discussed an instance of passing an\nemergency ordinance; stated it is possible for the OGC to suspend certain rules for\nnoticing and still comply with the Brown Act.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated tonight is the first reading of the proposed ordinance and\nthe amendments may be beyond what was first contemplated; another first reading will\nbe needed; expressed support for sending the item back to the OGC for consideration;\nstated the OGC should work with the City Attorney's office; questioned whether the draft\nlanguage is a good starting point.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he does not support the inclusion of status quo.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the item to be heard by the OGC;\ndirection to staff can be provided to change the sentence beginning with: \"The City shall\ntake all necessary action\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the item can be adopted as-is with direction to staff\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 17, "text": "provided from the current discussion.\nThe City Attorney stated that Councilmember Oddie may move to adopt the staff\nrecommendation with direction to review.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation [introduction of the\nordinance], with direction for staff to work with the OGC to find an effective replacement\nto the null and void remedy based on Council discussion.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he will not support the motion;\nexpressed support for removing null and void, but only in the event where the remedy is\nknown; stated removing null and void with no remedy removes any remaining teeth; the\nfine for violation will be laughable and will have no real impact.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Knox White would like staff direction\nto include fines and penalties provision be revisited.\nVice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated that he would like to ensure\ndirection provided includes accepting the City Attorney's position on the item; a balance\nshould be maintained without repealing maintaining the status quo; in order for him to\nsupport repeal, there should be a remedy in place.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not support any motion which keeps the null\nand void remedy; the remedy is not valid, given the Charter and Council authority.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she will not be supporting the motion for reasons\nsimilar to Vice Mayor Knox White; the issue has been known; there has been legal\nresearch; there is no harm in waiting another month or 60 days for the OGC to weigh-in\nand provide a remedy recommendation.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the remedy is not authorized under the Charter or the\nconstitution.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the items raised by Vice Mayor Knox White and\nCouncilmember Vella are valid; taking a vote risks removing leverage; expressed\nsupport for Councilmember Oddie's motion; stated a contradiction to a higher role\nshould not be left unaddressed; expressed support for the City Attorney to work in good\nfaith with the OGC and the public in creating the language that is akin to null and void\nthat provides some teeth but is aligned with how the City Charter is interpreted.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Oddie and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 3. Noes: Councilmembers\nKnox White and Vella - 2.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 18, "text": "(20-069) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by: (1)\nAdding New Section 23-9 (Personal Wireless Service Facilities in the Public Right-Of-\nWay); and (2) Amending Section 2-59.3 (Limitation and Power to Make Contracts) to\nExempt Master License Agreements for Use of Public Assets for Personal Wireless\nService Facility Installation. Introduced; and\n(20-069A) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Negotiate\nand Execute Master License Agreements for Use of Public Assets Consistent with Local\nLaw.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a legal challenge to Senate Bill (SB) 649\nmoving through the courts.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City\nAttorney's office can provide further information; stated there is a legal challenge to the\n2018 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how a ruling in favor of cities would impact current\ndecisions and discussions.\nThe City Attorney responded the legal challenge is still working through the court\nsystem; stated there is no current pending injunction against the particular federal\nlegislation; staff has proposed the best comprehensive local regulation that a local\nagency is able to implement at this time; should a judicial ruling be received overturning\nthe federal regulation, staff would return in cooperation with the Public Works\nDepartment to provide additional local control to the maximum extent possible.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted cell towers were proposed in 2015 at the corners of\nLincoln Avenue and Saint Charles Street, and Shore Line Drive and Grand Avenue;\nstated there was much involvement from Planning Department staff at the time; inquired\nwhether the Planning Department is still involved or if the responsibility has shifted to\nthe Public Works Department.\nThe City Attorney responded local regulation of cell towers originate from two places:\nregulation of the local right of way and regulation of private property cell towers; stated\nin both instances, local control is significantly circumscribed by federal legislation; the\nitem presented relates to the public right of way regulations; should Council desire for\nthe City to implement further review of the zoning regulations on private property very\nbrief direction may be provided to staff.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he does not recall seeing references to the\nRecreation and Parks Commission in the report; many cell towers are being placed in\nparks; inquired about involving the Recreation and Parks Commission.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 19, "text": "The Deputy Public Works Director responded the ordinance is strictly related to items\nwithin the public right of way; stated the City has more discretion when a tower is\nlocated on private or City-owned property; the Recreation and Parks Department is\nopen to the possibility of placing wireless facilities, such as antennas.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated public right of way is in reference to streets and\nsidewalks.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director stated the item does not include City buildings.\nStated Verizon is interested in entering into a partnership with the City and is interested\nin proposed changes that were outlined in a letter: Cris Villegas, Verizon Wireless.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there was a reason for the delay in submitting a\nletter to Council.\nMr. Villegas responded part of the delay was due, in part, to awaiting documents from\nCity staff.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the draft ordinance is attached to the staff report and is\navailable 12 days prior to the meeting.\nMr. Villegas stated comments provided are strictly related to the design and permitting\nguidelines; both are referenced in the draft ordinance, but not specifically called out in\ndetail; design and permitting elements will determine the deployment.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director stated the design and permit submittal guidelines\nwere discussed by the Planning Board in April 2019; the guidelines have remained\nrelatively unchanged, with the exception of needing to update a carriers need to consult\nwith XG Communities for a sublicense agreement; the design and permit submittal\nguidelines have been available on the City's website since April 2019; the item\npresented relates just to the ordinance, which vests the authority to update the\nadministrative documents as needed with the Public Works Director.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for working with the industry.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation [including\nintroduction of the ordinance].\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the proposed ordinance has many\nmoving parts; inquired whether Council would be willing to include a sunset to the\nordinance after five years.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the item is possible to sunset.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 20, "text": "The City Attorney responded if the item sunsets, the City would lose local control due to\nnot having local regulation guidelines governing the deployment of small cells on the\npublic right of way.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the regulation would fall to the federal\ngovernment for enforcement.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated there would be default rules and\nno further local control or ability to enter into licenses and authorize or charge fees; the\noption is not recommended by staff.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-070) The City Manager provided an update on the coronavirus.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(20-071) Consider Requiring Paid Parking at Any Future City Owned or Operated\nParking Lots, Including the Main Street Ferry Terminal. (Councilmember Vella).\nCouncilmember Vella made brief comments regarding the referral.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Vella stated the request\nis to direct staff to come back to Council to have any projects that include City parking\nprovide options for how to charge and include options and a cost analysis.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the parking lot located at the Seaplane Lagoon\nFerry Terminal has already included such analysis, to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft\nresponded in the affirmative.\nStated encouraging people to get out of their cars is not enough; people should be\ndiscouraged by charging for parking; free parking is not a right: Denyse Trepanier, Bike\nWalk Alameda.\nStated Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA) submitted a letter and is in\nsupport; discussed the Climate Action Resiliency Plan (CARP) requirements and paid\nparking reducing greenhouse gas emissions: Debi Ryan, Community Action for a\nSustainable Alameda (CASA).\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 21, "text": "Stated CASA supports putting the matter on a future agenda; staff should look at a\nblanket policy: Ruth Abbe, CASA.\nStated not charging for parking is a subsidy; people have to pay to ride bus: Bill Smith,\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the parking lot near the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry\nTerminal will be paid parking.\nThe City Manager responded the intent is to have parking be paid at the opening; stated\ncomments can be provided; a parking staff report will be brought forth for consideration\nin March.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for the item; stated the item could be\nexpanded to neighborhood parking permits; outlined neighborhood parking generating\nrevenue; questioned whether there is a street parking charge solution; stated there are\ntoo many cars in Alameda; public transit is an option when priced out by parking;\ncharging for parking can help subsidize bus rates, similar to Line 19.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated paid parking requires enforcement; parking enforcement will\nbe up for Council consideration in the coming month.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated single occupancy vehicle drivers are not bad people;\ntrends are pointing to moving away from gas powered vehicles; encouraged residents to\navoid rhetoric that depicts single occupancy vehicle drivers as bad people.\nCouncilmember Vella stated any new parking or changes to the parking at Main Street\nFerry Terminal should be included; expressed support for considering paving the Main\nStreet Ferry Terminal.\nVice Mayor Knox White expressed support for the item; stated paid parking policies is\nalready in all upcoming projects; the Main Street Ferry Terminal use will likely fade\nsignificantly; expressed concern for encouraging spending of money on paid parking\ninfrastructure at a place with diminished use; expressed support for paid parking if the\nMain Street Ferry Terminal is upgraded; stated a parking policy for street parking is\nunder development; questioned giving direction to staff; stated there are many current\ntransportation projects; requesting the item to return quickly will not have a huge impact;\nexpressed support for providing direction when issues arise related to City owned lots;\nstated residential parking permits cause privatized streets for neighborhoods, barely pay\nfor themselves, and State law does not allow for higher rates.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes people will still continue to use the Main\nStreet Ferry Terminal; there is a matter of prioritizing staff time and funding for projects;\nthe Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal should have a big push for paid parking;\nexpressed support for the item and for incentivizing people to move away from single-\noccupancy vehicles; stated all must strive to do better.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-02-04", "page": 22, "text": "COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-072) Councilmember Vella discussed the League of California Cities (LCC) Housing\nPolicy Committee meeting; announced that she attended a dinner with students from\nYeongdong.\n(20-073) Councilmember Oddie expressed gratitude for the City Manager's report on\nthe coronavirus; expressed concern for targeted violence against Asian Pacific Island\npeople; discussed two dinner events; announced Stopwaste's food container ordinance\nwill yield a pilot program.\n(20-074) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the LCC Housing Policy Committee;\nannounced that she attended the following meetings: the City and County task force on\nhomelessness, the LCC East Bay Division dinner, the Korean exchange student\ndelegation, Alameda Academy students' homelessness discussion and with the BART\nGeneral Manager.\nADJOURNMENT\n(20-075) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting\nand had each Councilmember make brief comment about Barbara Kahn's contributions\nat 11:28 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\n20\nFebruary 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf"}