{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 17, 2020- 5:45 P.M.\n(20-700) This meeting was cancelled.\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 17, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - NOVEMBER 17, 2020- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. and Councilmember Oddie led\nthe Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella, and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.]\nAbsent: None.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(20-701) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the resolution rezoning 2350 Fifth Street\n[paragraph no. 20-722\nwould be continued to January 5, 2021.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(20-702) Paul Foreman, Alameda, discussed statements made at the November 4th\nCouncil meeting and violations of the Code of Conduct; urged Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft to\nenforce the Code of Conduct and to not allow citizens to be intimidated from advocating\nfor Council action.\n(20-703) Eva Stephens and Tim Anderson, Alameda Maker Farm (AMF), discussed the\nAMF community; stated their land has been sold; the farm would like to rent a half acre\nof City land to continue providing services to the City; discussed chicken and duck\nrehabilitation; encouraged people visit the AMF website: www.themaker.farm.\n(20-704) Michelle Diaz, AMF, discussed the AMF space being used for \"Make Me\nPersonal Protective Equipment (PPE) Bay Area\" collective efforts and resources; stated\nthe AMF would like to continue providing assistance to the community; spaces, such as\nthe AMF, are vital to the community.\n(20-705) Imma DeLaCruz, AMF, discussed AMF impacts and activities as a community\non sustainability; stated AMF has been key to support local, mutual aid efforts; discussed\npartnership with the Loyalton Pig Farm and food waste recovery efforts.\n(20-706) Christina Cole, AMF, stated the AMF space has been an incredible resource;\ndiscussed repairs, upcycling efforts and PPE distribution; urged Council to assist\nin\nfinding new space for AMF.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 3, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the Clark Services agreement [paragraph no. 20-709],\nthe Shallow Groundwater Layer Report [paragraph no. 20-710], and the Tract 8500 Final\nMap [paragraph no. 20-714 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*20-707) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on October 20,\n2020. Approved.\n(*20-708) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,554,397.64.\n(20-709) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year\nAgreement with Clark Services for Cleaning and Maintenance of Park Street, Webster\nStreet and Marina Village, in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,264,323.\nCouncilmember Daysog recused himself and left the meeting.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]\n(20-710) Recommendation to Accept the September 2020 Report Titled, \"City of\nAlameda, the Response of the Shallow Groundwater Layer and Contaminants to Sea\nLevel Rise.\"\nVice Mayor Knox White stated Alameda is one of the first cities to be looking into the\nissue; the matter has been placed in the Climate Action Plan based on input from the\ncommunity; issues related to old contaminated soil arise earlier than sea level rise\nimpacts; expressed support for providing next steps for the project.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 4, "text": "(*20-711) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment\nto Agreement with Tri-Signal Integration, Inc. for Fire and Intrusion Alarm Monitoring,\nMaintenance and Repair for a Total Compensation Not to Exceed $488,263.48.\nAccepted.\n(*20-712) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second\nAmendment to Agreement with Imperial Maintenance Services, Inc. for Janitorial Services\nfor Various City Facilities, Adding Three Years to the Term for a Total Five Year\nCompensation not to Exceed $2,063,608.13. Accepted.\n(*20-713) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year\nAgreement with IPS Group, Inc. for Maintenance and Management of Single Space\nParking Meters in the City of Alameda, in an Amount Not to Exceed $927,835. Accepted.\n(20-714) Resolution No.15722, \"Approving a Final Map and Authorizing Execution of A\nSubdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 8500, Alameda Marina As A Condition to\nFinal Map Approval.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has not supported this matter in the past and will\nremain consistent in voting no.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the matter is ministerial in nature and Council may approve\nor remand; inquired the consequence should Council reject the matter and not remand.\nThe City Engineer responded Final Maps are typically ministerial actions; stated Council\ntakes a discretionary action of approving the Master Plan subsequent Tentative Map\napplication and associated conditions of approval; staff has processed the Final Map and\nassured the pertinent conditions of approval have been met; Council does not have the\noption to reject the map; however, questions may be asked or details may be provided\nabout whether or not the developer has complied with all conditions of approval to the\nCity's satisfaction.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired the legal consequences should Council decide to not\napprove the matter.\nThe City Attorney responded it is difficult to speculate the outcome; stated should Council\ndisagree, Council may send the matter back to the City Engineer for further review; should\nCouncil vote no on a final map, there is a possibility of a court ordering the City to change\nits mind; Council is able to review staff's work and decide on the final analysis.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated many times Council is provided with ministerial acts which\nare voted against without knowing the legal consequences; Council is being asked to\neither remand the matter back to staff with suggestions for changes or note that staff has\ncomplied with what has been asked; discussions on ministerial acts are strange;\nexpressed support for the Public Works department doing its job.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Oddie moved approval of adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(20-715) Recommendation Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a Letter of Support for the\nOakland Alameda Access Project (OAAP).\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a PowerPoint presentation.\nTess Lengyel, Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), gave a brief\npresentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter set to come before ACTC is to include the West\nEnd crossing in the 2020 Countywide Transportation Plan for the 10-year Investment\nPlan; the letter includes other routes as well.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what the 10-year Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list\nprovides.\nMs. Lengyel responded ACTC is responsible for developing the long-range Countywide\nTransportation Plan; stated the Plan feeds into the Regional Transportation Plan and\nprojects must be in the Regional Transportation Plan in order to receive State or federal\nfunds; ACTC requires projects to come through a comprehensive Investment Plan for\nfunding to be listed in the Countywide Transportation Plan; there is a pathway which\nallows projects to move forward from a funding perspective.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is no guarantee of funding in moving from\nthe 30-year plan to the 10-year plan; stated the intention of the original letters was to\nprovide a funding commitment.\nMs. Lengyel responded in the affirmative; stated the Countywide Transportation Plan is\nnot a programming document; it is a document which enables cities to pursue funding;\ntypical long-range, Countywide Transportation Plans compile projects of interest and\nimportance to cities and transit operators throughout Alameda County; ACTC has worked\nwith cities and transit operators to identify projected 10-year accomplishments, in terms\nof priorities; ACTC established a 10-year priority list based on local jurisdictions, project\nreadiness and funding ability; both a 30-year and 10-year project list have been\nestablished; the OAAP is on the 10-year list and any funding for the project would have\nto come as a specific action to the full Commission; staff is not able to commit to funding.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Ms. Lengyel stated ACTC developed a\nCountywide Transportation Plan to go before voters and seek approval of a half-cent\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 6, "text": "transportation sales tax augmentation and extension; ACTC went to each city within\nAlameda County to seek support; discussions with the City of Alameda included\nquestions about including enough Alameda projects within the Transportation Plan; at the\ntime, Alameda wanted assurances that should the project not move forward, enough\nfunding would be provided to support the needed multimodal access to the City; a letter\nwas written by the ACTC Chair and Vice Chair considering programming enough money\nto the City of Alameda; there are two pathways for Alameda to pursue funding: 1) the City\ncan go through the application process for discretionary funding for the Comprehensive\nInvestment Plan (ACTC-CIP) and 2) ask the Commission for consideration of the 2014\nletter and any applicable funding.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director stated the horseshoe and the Broadway off-ramp are both\nincluded in the core project.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the horseshoe includes a speed limit slow-down\nfor the tube.\nRodney Pimentel, HNTB Corporation, responded due to design, traffic needs to be\nslowed to 20 miles per hour by the first curve; stated the speed limit will be lowered to 35\nmiles per hour in the Posey Tube; 1,000 feet prior to the exit of the tube, the speed limit\nwill be further lowered to 25 miles per hour; reducing the speed limit is a key component\nfor safety; signage will be updated as well as lane narrowing to aid in traffic calming.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated true multimodal access is needed; expressed concern\nabout there being no actual commitments to fund the next steps of the project and no\naction taken on past requests; inquired the commitments being provided besides\nconsideration of the project being put into the ACTC-CIP.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she has solid support from fellow Commissioners;\nstated every city in the county has a representative from the Council on the ACTC; noted\nthe City of Oakland has two representatives due to its large size; stated that she has\nrequested moving the West End Crossing project from the 30-year ACTC-CIP to the 10-\nyear ACTC-CIP list; the project is important to Alameda and the region in reducing the\nnumber of single-occupant automobiles.\nMs. Lengyel stated funding matters go before the full Commission and staff is not able to\nmake commitments; ACTC could receive a letter from the City of Alameda regarding its\ninterest the 2014 letter being considered; noted that she will commit to bringing\nconsideration to the ACTC at the January 11, 2021 meeting; meetings will be set with City\nstaff related to approaches on moving forward with the project; the ACTC-CIP will be a\ncompetitive call for projects released in December as an opportunity for the City to pursue\ndiscretionary funding for bicycle-pedestrian facilities through the ACTC-CIP; any actions\ntaken will be done by the full Commission.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not recall a proposal for funding being brought\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 7, "text": "forth other than the funding already received; the draft letter serves different purposes;\nfunding matters need approval from the full Commission; everyone needs to work on\neffective communication; noted ACTC staff was unaware about how much Coast Guard\nengagement has occurred; stated a letter is expected from the Coast Guard soon.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether the policy committees will provide a\nrecommendation supporting the project.\nMs. Lengyel responded in the affirmative; stated there are subcommittees of the full\nBoard; the Board is made up of 22 elected officials in Alameda County; the committees\nhear items and make recommendations to the full Commission.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether the matter will have to be provided with some sort\nof recommendation in order for the matter to go to the full Commission, to which Ms.\nLengyel responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she is lobbying her committee.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there is an option not to have the horseshoe.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded there is an option; stated\nthe option will not be as fast due to the bicycle and pedestrian improvements.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is curious about the process; noted that the letter\nwas reviewed by the Transportation Commission at a public hearing and modifications\nwere made; the letter was then agendized for the current meeting for Council review;\nstated a non-Council discussion occurred and a revised letter has been provided in a non-\ntransparent process.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the letter submitted in the Council packet was updated in a\nmanner not intended to not be transparent; an urgent request was submitted with\nconcerns about asking the Commission for funding with ACTC being the lead agency for\nthe estuary crossing project; Council could have provided wordsmithing at the meeting;\nstated that she wanted the updated language to be provided to Council and members of\nthe public; technical points needed to be corrected for a more accurate letter.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed concern about the changes not coming before Council\nto be made rather than a unilateral decision to change the letter; stated many people in\nthe community have raised concerns in correspondence and part of Council's role is to\nevaluate the concerns and decide together as a Council; noted that he is unsure whether\nthe letter update follows the spirit of the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter could have been continued to another date and\ntime; the matter is time-sensitive in order to make the January 2021 meeting; Council will\nbe able to discuss the matter after public comments are made.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 8, "text": "Expressed support for the project; stated the project is overdue and travel times have\nincreased; urged Council to consider motorized skateboards or other personal motorized\nelectronic devices be able to use the bridge: Michael Moon, Alameda.\nStated recent protests and the pandemic's anti-Asian sentiment have affected Chinatown;\nthe freeway destroyed 2,000 units of housing in Chinatown; expressed support for the\nproject moving forward and the change in the letter; stated the bridge will help everyone:\nSerena Chen, Alameda.\nDiscussed her experience as a commuter; stated that she is glad the problem is being\naddressed with forethought; traffic will only get worse; the plan is very complicated and\nhas many moving parts; the Chinese Garden Park is underutilized due to traffic; removing\nthe Broadway off-ramp will create more tourist opportunities; urged Council to move\nforward with the project: Doris Gee, Alameda.\nStated Bike East Bay supports the project for its safety benefits; expressed concern about\nthe failure of the project to provide true multimodal access across the estuary; stated\nthere is a question about funding commitments; inquired about the implication of ACTC's\ncommitment to multimodal projects as promised to voters; urged support and commitment\nfrom ACTC staff leadership to partner with the City of Alameda and present the project to\nthe Commission in a way that will earn success: Susie Hufstader, Bike East Bay.\nStated that she is taken aback by the change in the letter; staff's original letter conditioned\nsupport for OAAP on identifying committed funding sources for the next two phases of\nthe bridge; expressed concern about supporting the project in exchange for a promise of\nbeing added to the 10-year plan with no committed funding; expressed support for a true\nmultimodal solution: Denyse Trepanier, BikeWalk Alameda.\nStated Chinatown has been taking the brunt of traffic for many years; the Chinese Garden\nPark cannot be used by residents due to safety conditions; expressed support for the\nproject; urged Council to approve the project; stated the project is likely to reduce traffic\nand will improve the community: Sugiarto Loni, Oakland Chinatown Chamber and\nAlameda resident.\nExpressed support for the staff recommendation as described in the original and updated\nletter; stated the updated letter should be refined further to ensure funding promised will\nbe funding delivered; OAAP is a good project, but needs to fulfil its multimodal promise\nto users; progress seems dependent on votes and applications, which may be denied; a\ncompetitive funding process is a step backward; urged Council to further refine the letter\nto ensure funding is committed with greater certainty: Cyndy Johnsen, BikeWalk\nAlameda.\nExpressed support for the original draft of the letter; stated support should be conditioned\non having commitment to a pedestrian bridge; outlined petitions in support of a pedestrian\nbridge; stated the project is vital and should be moved forward as soon as possible with\na better solution to bike and pedestrian access across the estuary: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 9, "text": "Discussed her experience with the OAAP project; stated the City has rejected the solution\nsince the 2009 estuary crossing study; the project is not a net gain; there is no data to\nsuggest new users; the path would be a waste of taxpayer dollars; urged Council to reject\nthe Webster Tube path and find a way to include a meaningful multimodal solution: Lucy\nGigli, BikeWalk Alameda.\nDiscussed poor air quality due to traffic; stated infrastructure changes have been needed\nfor two decades; creating ease for car drivers during a climate crisis is unconscionable;\nany fundraising making the project easier for drivers is akin to climate denial; discussed\nthe impacts of cars on the climate crisis; urged Council to reprioritize infrastructure\nprojects; stated Oakland is the victim of Alameda's commuting and infrastructure choices:\nTommaso Boggia, Oakland.\nDiscussed his experience bicycling through the Posey Tube; stated the new bicycle\npedestrian lane is needed and will be used; expressed support for Alameda requesting\nCaltrans to have monthly maintenance cleaning of the walls and to upgrade the air\ncirculating technology of both Tubes; stated that he supports the OAAP; there would be\nmore favorable opinions with another vehicle bridge access on and off the Island: Jim\nStrehlow, Alameda.\nDiscussed his experience bicycling through the Posey Tube; stated a second bike path\nwill not improve the overall experience and is a bad option; discussed bicycle and\npedestrian interfaces; stated there will be multiple conflicts between bicyclists and\npedestrians; the goal of improvements is to increase the number of people biking and\nwalking through the Tubes; expressed support for spending funds on a real solution:\nMichael Sullivan, Alameda.\nStated that he believes the project is designed exclusively for drivers of private\nautomobiles, which does nothing for multimodal access or long-term sustainability; the\nbike and pedestrian components of the plan are laughable and have been provided as\na\nsop; the project will do nothing to further the City's goals of reducing automobile trips,\ngreenhouse gas emissions and traffic will likely exacerbate the issues; Alameda has an\nopportunity to encourage more bicycle transit with the estuary bike pedestrian bridge;\nurged Council to condition support on a firm commitment to fund the estuary bike\npedestrian bridge: Doug Letterman, Alameda.\nExpressed support for ACTC committing funding to the bike pedestrian bridge; stated\nthere has not been clarity on money from the OAAP funding the Environmental Impact\nReport (EIR) for the bike pedestrian bridge; expressed support for having clarity and\nincluding it in the letter: Dave Campbell, Bike Easy Bay.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about Council conditioning support of the\nOAAP funding the estuary crossing.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff prepared a first draft letter\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 10, "text": "that conditioned support on getting funding; however, funding was never conditioned on\nthe OAAP funding being used for the estuary crossing; building a bridge is a $200 million\neffort; the bridge was conditioned on the next $5 million study; the bridge is a huge project\nand will require a large effort from the region for many years; the bridge will need regional\nsupport and will serve a purpose; the bridge has brought regional attention to the project\nfor the first time; many regional members have expressed support for the project; the\nOAAP is a good project and will take care of long standing problems in the Oakland\nChinatown area caused by the current design; the solution is safer for the area; the OAAP\ndoes not solve the bike pedestrian access issues; the City Transportation Commission\nexpressed support for not allowing the estuary crossing money be used on the next phase\nof OAAP; the OAAP and estuary crossing are good projects; however, neither are at the\nfinish line and both are short on funding resources; the region will have to work together\nin order for both projects to be fulfilled; holding another project back contingent on funding\nfrom another project did not seem the proper stance for Alameda; outlined the change in\nthe updated letter.\n***\n(20-716) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of resetting Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's\nspeaking time.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about using OAAP money to fund the estuary\ncrossing bridge.\nMs. Lengyel stated the determination is made with the ACTC full Commission and is not\ndone at a the staff level.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the OAAP money could be used to fund the estuary\ncrossing bridge.\nMs. Lengyel responded in the affirmative; stated the City has two options; one option is\nto bring forth the 2014 letter for ACTC consideration of funding for the estuary crossing\nbridge; the letter commits bringing the matter to the ACTC board in January if the City\nsubmits a request letter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the funding amount requested in the letter is $75\nmillion.\nMs. Lengyel responded in the affirmative; stated the letter also notes that should the\nproject become infeasible, the Commission would consider reallocation; the amounts will\nbe part of the discussion at the ACTC meeting; there is a strong commitment to\nmultimodal access and improvements; the Commission is expected to be open to\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 11, "text": "multimodal access considerations.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are geographical limitations.\nMs. Lengyel responded the environmental document for the OAAP does not have the\nestuary crossing as part of its project study area; stated the 2014 expenditure plan did\nnot have specific project delineation and is the difference between the two options.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the difference would impact funding.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the OAAP EIR cannot\ncover the estuary crossing bridge.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated there is history with this project; outlined past\nTransportation Commission discussion about a horseshoe; stated previous\nCouncilmembers urged Public Works to keep the option of a horseshoe design alive; the\nhorseshoe is what makes the [OAAP] project worth consideration; the decision before\nCouncil is difficult; the project being delivered is not what voters expect; the OAAP is not\nan Alameda Point serving, multimodal project; the situation occurring in Oakland\nChinatown is unacceptable; Alameda traffic is impacting the community; expressed\nsupport for the original letter; expressed concern about the delay in the process when\ndetails have been known for years; he would like ACTC staff to make a recommendation\nwith the City of Alameda to support funding; he understands ACTC staff cannot make a\ncommitment to funding; however, making the recommendation is a show of good faith\nand understanding of priority; outlined his past discussions related to the need for linking\nmultimodal connections in order to reduce traffic through Oakland Chinatown; expressed\nsupport for signing onto the new letter with the condition of ACTC staff making a\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember Vella stated Alameda's traffic impacts to Oakland Chinatown need to be\naddressed; expressed support for the buy-in from Oakland Chinatown and the\nimprovements to the project; expressed concern about negotiations surrounding support\nfor the project; stated leverage is lost for a separate project in supporting the OAAP; both\nprojects are behind and in need of more funding; expressed support for a commitment\nfrom ACTC staff to recommend support for next steps in the Alameda estuary crossing\nbike pedestrian bridge; outlined her experience using the Posey Tube via bicycle; stated\nthere is importance is discussing equitable access across the estuary for the West End;\nmany people need the crossing; the West End bike pedestrian crossing access is a\npriority for Council and a personal top priority; the matter is about equity and\nenvironmental issues and should be non-negotiable; the timing is tight; commitments are\nbeing asked for in writing; expressed support for the bike pedestrian estuary crossing.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he has been critical of Sunshine Ordinance blocking\nsupporting matters; however, it is hypocritical that he ignore the Sunshine Ordinance for\nmatters of support; expressed concern about transparency; stated the letter had been\npublished; advocates noted an opportunity to leverage the bike pedestrian bridge for next\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 12, "text": "steps on OAAP; the letter went to the Transportation Commission and had been changed\nto not give away portions of the deal; then, the letter came to Council as an agenda item\nwanting to secure funding for the bike pedestrian bridge; noted the concerns for Oakland\nChinatown are legitimate, that he supports the OAAP; outlined letters provided by the City\nof Oakland and ACTC; stated the concerns from bike pedestrian bridge advocates and\nthe OAAP should be fleshed out in public versus private; expressed support for a win-win\nsituation where one project is not put at-risk; the revised letter provides a win for one\nproject, but not the other; funding is not guaranteed; expressed support for a funding\nrecommendation from ACTC staff; stated the current Tube design is not multimodal; the\nproject must be a collaboration with regional support; expressed support for engaging\nState representatives and for ACTC alternate Vice Mayor Knox White to be included in\nthe process.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the project is a long-time coming; the historic initial project\nwas to improve Alameda resident's access to Interstate-880; the project will help\nresidents get off the Island and deal with concerns raised by residents; his goal is to help\nimprove vehicular traffic out of the Posey Tube based off data; vehicle traffic is a primary\ncomponent in morning traffic; outlined morning vehicle traffic statistics; stated\ninfrastructure is needed to facilitate the goals; expressed concern about the proposed\nspeed limit decrease; outlined data showing time savings even with the speed decrease;\nexpressed support for the OAAP; stated the bike pedestrian bridge should be considered\nseparate from the OAAP.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the possible commitments ACTC staff could make to\nrecommending funding as a condition of OAAP approval.\nMs. Lengyel responded ACTC has previously committed to funding; stated should she\nreceive a letter from the City of Alameda, she can commit to bringing consideration of the\nnext phase forward to the Commission; noted the Commission funds in phases; projects\nare not funded through feasibility and construction; there is a lot of work to complete\nbetween now and when the consideration is brought to the Commission to ensure an\nappropriate level of funding is being recommended; discussions with City staff will be\nimportant to provide a clear consideration for the Commission.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes it is important and essential that the City\napproves the OAAP; the current design has not been fair to Oakland Chinatown; the\nsolution is auto-centric; cars will not stop travelling through the Posey Tube; Council has\nthe opportunity to stop the impacts on Oakland Chinatown; some matters require trust;\nwhile funding is not guaranteed, there are good assurances that funding is present; noted\nthat she has received enthusiastic support from other Commissioners; stated there have\nbeen obstacles with the Coast Guard in showing a navigable bridge over waterways\noutside of the Coast Guard Base.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether ACTC staff will bring forward the City's request\nand commit to bringing the matter forward as a staff recommendation to the Commission.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 13, "text": "Ms. Lengyel responded that she would not be able to bring a ACTC-CIP recommendation\nin January; stated that should she receive a letter from the City of Alameda requesting\nconsideration based on the 2014 letter, a recommendation can be brought by ACTC staff\nto the Commission for consideration; noted ACTC only funds by phase, with distinct\nproject phases; expressed support for discussing appropriate approaches to bring the\nnext phase to ACTC; stated more vetting needs to happen and is encouraged.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the next logical phases, the\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Director responded the next logical steps include\ncontinuation of the design process; stated there is a feasibility study with ACTC to\ndetermine whether it is feasible to build a bridge; staff needs to sit down with the City of\nOakland to determine the exact location; steps to follow are the environmental, permitting\nand funding processes; questioned whether ACTC staff will recommend the project to the\nCommission after the next steps are determined.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the comments from the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director describe the Project Study Report.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe process may go by a different name; the process includes coming up with a final\ndesign to get to the environmental review process.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether ACTC staff will recommend the project for action\nto the Commission or will ACTC staff simply bring it forward as a consideration.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether enough specificity and direction has been\nprovided.\nMs. Lengyel responded many technical questions need to be addressed in order to\nposition the project to go after funding; stated there is a large funding need for the project;\nthe project needs to be developed in a way which provides the right kind of studies to\nopen the pathway for funding; she has committed to bringing the matter to the\nCommission for the next phase; she would like to bring the appropriate information for\nconsideration; ACTC staff will make recommendations to ACTC Committees, which in\nturn make recommendations to the full Commission.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval sending the letter to ACTC with direction to staff\nto start the process [on the bicycle-pedestrian bridge].\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that the motion includes approval of both the\nletter from herself and a letter sent from City staff, to which Vice Mayor Knox White\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, inquired whether the motion includes the\ntwo pathways included in the letter from Ms. Lengyel, to which the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director responded in the affirmative.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 14, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the propositions are not mutually exclusive; these are the\nearly steps in the next phases.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft recessed the meeting at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at\n10:11 p.m.\n***\n(20-717) Resolution No. 15723 \"Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise\nand Add Recreation and Park Fees for Calendar Year 2021. Adopted.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a PowerPoint presentation.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he would like to consider freezing the fees for 2021;\nnoted the use at facilities will be lower in 2021; non-profits are being hit hard and\nstruggling financially; the City can spend money to provide services.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for adopting the new categories but deferring\nthe actual increases until 2022 for the same reasons listed by Vice Mayor Knox White;\nstated the trajectory of the pandemic causes uncertainty.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the fee increases are meant to cover costs stemming from\nuse; facilities are maintained and activities are staffed; the proposed fee increases appear\nreasonable for the demand for service and not out of line.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she has asked the City Manager the quantity of people\nusing facilities or rentals; the demand is not the same for facilities or rentals; significant\nchanges have been made and many families are struggling financially; many sports\nprograms cover costs by tournaments; expressed concern about encouraging mass\ngatherings in order to make money; many local leagues are taking financial losses;\nexpressed support for adopting the fees and freezing the increases.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the implications of the Recreation and Parks fund not\nhaving the anticipated revenue.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the impacts would return at the mid-year\nbudget adjustments for a greater General Fund transfer; stated the expenditures do not\nchange much; rental facilities are closed yet are the biggest revenue generator; there is\na lower staff-to-child ratio due to COVID-19, which yields higher costs to revenue ratios;\nthe swim lesson costs are being shifted to half-hour lessons; requested Council review\nand consider the swim lesson adjustments.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 15, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether funding is available for the increase in lifeguards.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded lifeguards are only available when swim\nlessons or user groups occur; stated the lifeguard fee is new and costs will be covered\nunder the new fee.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the City Manager's alternative proposal\n[adoption of the resolution] with all 2020 fees held through 2021, with the exception of the\nproposed reduction in swim fees and accepting the proposed new fees.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(20-718) Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Community Development Block\nGrant Action Plans for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21; and Authorize the City\nManager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements and Modifications.\nThe Program Manager gave a PowerPoint presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether thought has been given to transitioning persons\nusing the safe parking program into the community cabins and whether thought given\nabout who is eligible for community cabins.\nThe Program Manager responded the matter includes allocating funds for the potential\npurchase of community cabins; stated steps will be taken, including contracting with a\nsocial service agency to provide services; staff expects cabins to be potential shelter for\nthose living in cars.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how many cabins can be purchased for $200,000, to\nwhich the Program Manager responded 12 to 15 units.\nQuestioned the proposed location for the community cabins: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nThe Development Manager stated identifying a location is part of the steps to take once\nfunding is approved; a location has not yet been identified.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the matter shows how much government can do to help\nand serve people.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Vella stated there are many moving parts to the\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 16, "text": "matter; Council has shown a clear desire to fund these programs.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated County Measure W passed; outlined a Mayors' Conference\nmeeting; stated Mayors of Alameda County have signed a letter to the County Board of\nSupervisors requesting that the Mayors have a seat at the table when the County is\ndetermining expenditure and allocation of Measure W funds to ensure needs are met.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(20-719) Recommendation to Accept the Status Report of the City's Economic Recovery\nTask Force Activities.\nThe Management Analyst gave a PowerPoint presentation.\n***\n(20-720) Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval considering the remaining items and\ncontinuing the meeting until 12:00 a.m.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nThe Management Analyst continued the presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a County Public Health briefing; stated the City needs to\nremain proactive.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like more information provided for the County\nbusiness assistance program; noted the application period is set to close soon.\nThe Management Analyst stated Alameda County announced the Alameda County Cares\nGrant program yesterday; the grant provides a $5,000 one-time grant to businesses\nlocated in Alameda County; stated the program closes at the end of the month; the\ninformation is posted on the City's website and has been sent out.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the outreach is being provided in multiple\nlanguages, to which the Management Analyst responded the application is provided in\nmultiple languages and all language options are shared.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the City has considered surveying local\nbusinesses for a status and needs update; stated costs are compounding.\nThe Management Analyst responded the early processes provided many surveys and\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 17, "text": "respondents indicated survey fatigue; stated focus groups have been formed, as well as\nreceiving comments from Town Halls; ongoing outreach will be important to the strategy\ngoing forward; incorporating a survey into the matter is a good idea for the future.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the grant program is administered by the East Bay Economic\nDevelopment Alliance (EDA) and the website can be found at: eastbayeda.org/grants/\nnoted reduced instructor to youth ratios are required due to COVID-19 inquired how the\nCity will respond to employee limit restrictions for grant eligibility.\nThe Interim Community Development Director responded the Alameda Strong grant\nallows for two locations and up to 50 employees; stated the criteria for the East Bay EDA\nCounty grant was compiled without input from cities; noted an agenda item for matching\ngrants will come to Council for consideration on December 1st; City staff must follow the\nCounty criteria; staff will follow-up with the County to see if the criteria can be shifted.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired the approach to businesses not located within business\ndistricts.\nThe Interim Community Development Director responded staff has used the business\nlicense list in order to reach as many businesses as possible; stated some businesses\nexclude e-mail addresses and are not able to be contacted; the business with email\naddresses are informed when announcements are made; focus groups have allowed staff\nto reach additional businesses and have helped relay information.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the majority of businesses provide an e-mail\naddress, to which the Interim Community Development Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of accepting the status report.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(20-721) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Third\nAmendment to Development Agreement By and Among the City of Alameda, TL Partners\nI, LP, and Alta Buena Vista Owner, LLC Governing the Del Monte Warehouse Project\nLocated at the Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Sherman Street and Buena Vista\nAvenue to Extend the Completion Deadline for the Clement Extension Improvements by\nOne Year and Authorizing the City Manager to Grant an Additional One Year Extension\nWithout Further Action by the City Council or Planning Board.\nThe City Manager recused himself from the matter and left the meeting.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the provision for authorizing the City Manager\nneeds to change due to his recusal.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff will make the change;\nstated the adjustment will show on the second reading.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation, including\nintroduction of the ordinance.\nIn\nresponse to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director stated the entire project will not be completed, just Clement\nAvenue; there are multiple outside agencies involved in the project; it is better to ask for\nthe time needed once versus return to the Planning Board and City Council for an\nadditional extension should it be needed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the one-year extension.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(20-722) Adoption of Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation\nMonitoring and Reporting Program to Rezone the Property at 2350 Fifth Street from M-\nX, Mixed Use to R-4, Neighborhood Residential District to Facilitate Residential Use of\nthe Property; and\n(20-722A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map Designation for the\nProperty at 2350 Fifth Street (APN 74-1356-23) from M-X, Mixed Use to R-4,\nNeighborhood Residential District to Facilitate Residential Use of the Property, as\nRecommended by the City Planning Board. [Continued to January 5, 2021]\nThe City Clerk announced a motion is needed to continue the matter to January 5, 2021.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of continuing the matter to January 5, 2021.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Abstain; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstain: 1.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-723) The City Manager announced NextGen COVID-19 testing located at Alameda\nPoint; stated the County has moved into the Purple Tier and adjustments to restrictions\nare being noticed to businesses; announced the annual Alameda Firefighters Toy\nprogram has switched from a toy drive to raising funds through GoFundMe; announced\nPosey Tube closures.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 19, "text": "ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(20-724) Ashley Gremel, AMF, discussed AMF PPE production work, food distribution\nand remote work hub; stated there are many collaborative projects in the works for AMF;\ndiscussed the sale of land used by AMF; stated AMF is looking for a half acre to one full\nacre of City land to be rented to AMF.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(20-725) Consider Directing Staff to Address Zoning and General Plan Alignment with\nCity Charter Article 26 as Part of the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG)\nRegional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Agenda Item. (Vice Mayor Knox White)\nVice Mayor Knox White gave a brief presentation.\nExpressed support for Option 2; stated it is important to note the citizens' wish to keep\nArticle 26 and for Council to discuss how to move forward: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nExpressed support for Option 2; stated every jurisdiction in the Bay Area has ambitious\ntargets to meet; the City must determine how to reach RHNA goals; urged Council to face\nthe issue head-on and aggressively schedule staff to report back as soon as possible;\nstated the housing crisis affects everyone and cities should coordinate: Adam\nBuchbinder, Campbell.\nAfter Councilmember Daysog's interruption, Mr. Buchbinder completed his comments.\nStated it is important for the City Council to uphold the will of the voters; discussed the\npossibility of Alameda joining Tri-County neighbors in proposing a reduction of RHNA;\nstated Alameda is an island and its geography should be taken into account: Carmen\nReid, Alameda.\nExpressed support for Option 2; stated the matter is urgent; Measure Z was a decisive\nvote and Council must decide how to move forward: Doug Letterman, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated on November 3rd, the people of Alameda clearly stated\nthey would like to keep growth control measures, such as Article 26; Measure A is being\nkept as-is and is embedded in the City's zoning; noted there are circumstances which\noverwrite Measure A: State Density Bonus law or housing overlay; following through on\nthe matter is to undo the vote of November 3rd; it is not the role of City Council to undo\nthe outcome of the vote; the City is working within the parameters of Measure A and is\nmeeting State housing law in building multi-family housing through Density Bonus and\nmulti-family housing overlay; a new RHNA number will be provided; the Housing Element\nis still certified; the City Council will need to find a way to meet the RHNA number; the\nvote on Measure Z indicates Council should pursue the lesser of the two choices;\nAlameda is an Island with limited constraints; tools, such as Article 26, are needed.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 20, "text": "Vice Mayor Knox White stated a discussion is needed on how to move forward;\nquestioned whether the City can use overlays and whether the City can accommodate if\noverlays are not used; how many housing units can be accommodated and should the\nnumber be used in ABAG discussions about proposing a lower RHNA number; stated the\nvoters were decisive and Council should honor the results.\nCouncilmember Vella discussed the Code of Conduct; stated actions taken during this\ndiscussion have been counter to the Code of Conduct; Council should welcome public\ncomment openly; the voting results are public and have been decisive; however, there\nhas been much misinformation and misguidance; expressed support for discussing how\nto move forward with limitations; noted that she takes Council fiduciary obligations\nseriously; stated there has been difficulty in Council not having conversations with\nexecutive staff to discuss pros and cons moving forward from a fiduciary standpoint;\nexpressed support for an established timeline for discussions and for the matter to be first\nagendized at a Closed Session to allow Council to hear input from the City Attorney;\nstated there is value to Council meeting in Closed Session for an honest discussion; noted\nthat she is not concerned about a lawsuit from a developer per se, but potentially from\nconstituents; stated lawsuits come at a cost to the City; Council should be moving forward\nin a proactive way; expressed support for discussing what the election results mean for\nthe City, for a presentation from ABAG, and for a publicly agendized meeting; stated it is\ninsulting to refer to Alameda as \"the Island City\" as it ignores an entire portion of the City\nwhich exists outside of the Island as a peninsula and is exclusionary to a vast majority of\nthe population that resides on Bay Farm Island; it is important to recognize all of the City.\nCouncilmember Oddie outlined the Code of Conduct; stated it should be possible to\ncombine a Closed Session hearing legal risks and taking a vote on waiving Council\nprivilege, then, hold an open session on said waived rights; he has advocated for Measure\nZ yet it convincingly lost; it is imperative to discuss what the results mean for the City and\nhow to move forward with conflicting ordinances, which have been passed; outlined City\nCharter provisions and constitutional rights; noted Council has passed laws which get\naround Measure A; outlined election results; stated Council cannot ignore the results\nwhether agreed upon or not and must learn how to deal with them; conflicts with the City\nCharter must be addressed; expressed support for Option 2, with the caveat of adding a\nClosed Session to discuss waived privileges.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Code of Conduct applies to all Councilmembers; Council\nconducts its best work when members listen to each other, especially when matters are\ndisagreed upon; outlined the theme of communication and misinformation; stated Council\nstrives to treat people the way they would like to be treated; noted a presentation will be\nbrought forth on the RHNA methodology for determining the allocation of housing\nnumbers; expressed concern about waiving attorney-client privilege; stated a slippery\nslope can evolve through waiving certain privileges.\nThe City Attorney stated staff plans to prepare a confidential memorandum outlining\nvarious legal implications to the Council; the memo will be provided within the month in\nadvance of future Council meetings; Council can digest the memo and consider whether\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 21, "text": "any portion of the memo should be waived and shown to the public; the desired Closed\nSession will be agendized as \"Anticipated Litigation - City Initiation of Anticipated\nLitigation\" and staff will need additional factual development before bringing the matter to\nCouncil.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Council receiving a presentation from ABAG\nstaff on RHNA numbers at the first meeting in December, Council receiving a confidential\nmemo from legal staff, and agendizing a Closed Session as soon as reasonable for legal\nstaff.\nVice Mayor Knox White expressed concern about the ABAG six-month comment window\nwhich ends in June; stated members of the public have interest in discussing the RHNA\nnumbers; expressed support for discussions in January including options for moving\nforward; stated the sooner Council is able to talk through matters, the calmer interactions\nwill be with the public for participation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he was the campaign manager for Measure Z and\nthat he wrote and designed the political mail.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the time as 12:00 a.m.; stated the previous motion to\nextend the meeting has been met; inquired whether staff has received sufficient direction,\nto which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director and City Attorney responded\nin the affirmative.\n***\n(20-726) Councilmember Oddie moved approval of extending the meeting five minutes to\n12:05 a.m.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has interacted with media and radio outlets; noted\nthe campaign message never indicated that building multi-family housing was not desired;\nstated the campaign committee understood the density bonus and housing overlay\nfactors have to be lived with.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of adopting Option 2 of the Council Referral and\ndirecting staff to return at the December 1st Council meeting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the discussion at the December 1st meeting could\ntake place under the RHNA methodology matter, to which Councilmember Oddie\nresponded in the affirmative.\nThe City Attorney requested clarification that the direction to staff is not to bring a Closed\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-11-17", "page": 22, "text": "Session item to the December 1st meeting, to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether December 1st discussion will not have any Council\nprivileges waived, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-727) Stopwaste October 2020 Topic Brief: Re: Source. (Councilmember Oddie). Not\nheard.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:05\na.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 4, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf"}