pages: CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2020-09-01 | 14 | 486 Councilmember Vella responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated that he understands costs change; many people have been excited about the Sports Complex; however, Site A has changed many times since construction began; expressed support for the Recreation and Park Commission's input to evaluate alternatives; expressed concern about using $1 million towards consultant fees; stated that he supports the inclusion of De Pave Park and will not support a plan which removes De Pave Park; noted De Pave Park is a CARP project; expressed support for the motion, as long as De Pave Park stays. The Community Development Director stated staff agrees the MIP should be updated every three to five years and should capture active transportation; the MIP is intended to be a living document, should be updated and is conservative; stated De Pave Park is shown, as well as the Sports Complex, until Council decides otherwise; costs per acre are shown between backbone infrastructure and community amenities; there will be time to run a parallel process between the Recreation and Parks Commission and the community to return to Council with staff negotiating minimum land purchase prices focusing on the costs of the backbone infrastructure; staff can then return to Council with proposals for development, including negotiating community amenities; the MIP has data needed to provide informed recommendations; should Council adopt the MIP amendment and direct the Recreation and Parks Commission to look at all community amenities around parks and open space, staff can accommodate the process and be able to understand and make informed recommendations to Council. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether sea level rise is the major mechanism driving the significant increase in costs for the Sports Complex. Mr. Obertello responded the costs are more related to site-wide benefits; stated Sports Complex cost increases are more related to the planning of park contents and cost experiences the City has had with implementing other park projects; costs are consistent with the amount included in the Development Impact Fee (DIF) analysis provided last year. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he is unclear about the motion. Councilmember Vella stated that she supports moving forward with De Pave Park; the Recreation and Parks Commission should provide a recommendation to Council based on overall costs; De Pave Park has needs related to the CARP and should be considered, but should be part of the overall conversation so that one park is not carved out with a separate pot of money. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support. Councilmember Oddie stated that he thought the conversation had previously been had with the Recreation and Parks Commission; that he will fight to ensure De Pave Park stays if the matter returns with the Park removed. On the call for the question, the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (20-578) Urgency Ordinance No. 3287, "Amending Uncodified Ordinance No. 3275 to Provide that any Agreement Between a Landlord and a Tenant Concerning Repayment of "Deferred Rent" Must Limit a Landlord's Remedy for a Tenant's Breach of the Agreement to Money Damages and, as to a Tenant's Failure to Pay the Deferred Rent in the Agreement, Expressly Waive the Landlord's Right to File an Unlawful Detainer Action to Recover Possession of a Tenant's Rental Unit or for Any Unpaid Rent that was the Subject of the Agreement.' Adopted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf |