{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -OCTOBER 1, 2019- 5:30 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Vella arrived at 5:34 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment\nClay Fry, Studio FCF, submitted a letter and urged Council to approve the lease of the\nCarnegie Building.\nPatricia Dedekian, Carnegie Innovation Hall, discussed her experience restoring historic\nbuildings.\nMichael Sturtz, Carnegie Innovation Hall, discussed the process and the efforts to make\nthe project.\n***\nCouncilmembers Oddie and Vella recused themselves and left the dais at 5:41 p.m.\n***\nFormer Mayor Trish Spencer, Alameda, commended Councilmember Oddie for\nrecusing himself; stated that she opposed the settlement with the former City Manager\nalong with Councilmember Vella, which was wrong in the Grand Jury report; stated that\nshe opposes payment of any attorney fees; suggested any approval include release of\nthe audio tape, which the community wants.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(19-526) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54957; Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Eric Levitt. Not heard.\n(19-527) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Pathway D, between 3335 Liberty Avenue & 1450\nEastshore Drive, Alameda, CA 94501; City Negotiator: Amy Wooldridge, Recreation\nand Parks Director, City of Alameda; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Mr. &\nMrs. Delaney; Under Negotiation: Price and terms for easement\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 2, "text": "(19-528) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to\nlitigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9; Number of\ncases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)\n(19-529) 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 Negotiator: Debbie Potter, Community Development\nDirector; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Carnegie Innovation Hall; Under\nNegotiation: Price and terms of payment of property lease\n(19-530) Conference with Legal Counsel - Liability Claims (Pursuant to Government\nCode, Section 54956.9 (e)(3)); Claimant: Malia Vella; Agency claimed against: City of\nAlameda\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Pathway D and Anticipated Litigation, the Council staff\nprovided information and Council gave direction with no vote taken.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 7:02 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:54\np.m.\n***\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the Carnegie Building, staff provided information and Council\nprovided direction with no vote taken; and regarding the Liability Claim, staff provided\ninformation to Council; no action was taken and no direction was given.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 1:06\na.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\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -OCTOBER 1, 2019- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led\nthe Pledge 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(19-531) Proclamation Declaring October 2019 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,\nTransgender, Queer History Month.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\nCouncilmember Oddie made brief comments.\n(19-532) Proclamation Declaring October 2019 as Domestic Violence Awareness\nMonth.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation and presented it to Liz Varela and Jessica\nRogers, Building Futures.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(19-533) Jim Meyers, 2100 Block of San Antonio Avenue, thanked various the City for\nhelp with street repairs.\n(19-534) Howard Harawitz, Alameda, discussed the Carnegie Innovation Hall\nrenovation and his involvement with unions; expressed concern over union\nrequirements.\nThe City Attorney stated contract negotiations are ongoing and confidential; the\nconversation is intended to be private; closed session is held to consider the various\nproposals put forth; contract negotiations should remain private until a contract is\nsigned.\n(19-535) Bob DuBow, Alameda, stated that he is a Carnegie volunteer; expressed\nconcern over contract negotiations; urged approval of the contract as-is.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 4, "text": "(19-536) Minoo Hamzavi, Carnegie Innovation Hall, discussed the importance of art;\nurged approval of the lease.\n(19-537) Kelly Saturno expressed support for the Carnegie Innovation Hall.\n(19-538) Arminda Graca, Alameda, outlined issues with her Housing Authority rental.\n(19-539) Jan Schlesinger, Alameda, expressed support for the Carnegie Innovation\nHall.\n(19-540) Catherine Pauling, Seniors and Disabled Renters Committee, urged Council to\nsupport each other; stated something needs to be done about the Housing Authority.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nThe City Attorney office staffing resolution [paragraph no. 19-545 was removed from\nthe Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*19-541) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on September\n3,2019. Approved.\n(*19-542) Ratified bills in the amount of $961,382.03.\n(*19-543) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Reporting\nPeriod Ending June 30, 2019 (Funds Collected During the Period January 1 to March\n31, 2019). Accepted.\n(*19-544) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First\nAmendment to an Agreement with Avineon, Inc., to Add the Amount of $69,900 to\nProvide Analysis, Enhancement, and Refinement of 911 Geographic Information\nSystem (GIS) Addressing Data for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $95,000. Accepted.\n(19-545) Resolution No. 15589, \"Approving a Workforce Change in the City Attorney's\nOffice to Create a New Classification, Chief Assistant City Attorney; Add One Position,\nChief Assistant City Attorney; and Amend the Executive Management (EXME) Salary\nSchedule to Add the Classification of Chief Assistant City Attorney, Effective October\n13, 2019.\" Adopted.\nUrged Council to table the matter and economic justification be provided: Steve\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 5, "text": "Slauson, Alameda.\nDiscussed City Attorney office staffing and the budget: Ken Peterson, Alameda.\nThe City Attorney stated the request will save the City a significant cost in the short and\nlong term; outlined current City Attorney department staffing; stated the hourly rates for\ncontract attorneys are extensive; bringing the position in-house will be budget neutral or\nprovide a budget savings; the request is not to add staff, but to reorganize current staff.\nThe City Manager stated the new position will be a half-time position.\nThe City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office intends to under fill the position at a\nhalf-time level.\nThe City Manager stated there will be a budget savings in the near term; in the next two\nyears, there is a balanced budget for the General Fund in particular; future financial\nprojections are being reviewed.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the issue was regularly agendized at a previous meeting\nand was subject to Council discussion and public comment.\nCouncilmember Vella moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(19-546) Resolution No. 15590, \"Appointing Adam Elsesser as a Member of the Mayor's\nEconomic Development Advisory Panel.\" Adopted;\n(19-546 A) Resolution No. 15591, \"Appointing Brock Grunt as a Member of the Mayor's\nEconomic Development Advisory Panel.\" Adopted;\n(19-546 B) Resolution No. 15592, \"Appointing Tim Karos as a Member of the Mayor's\nEconomic Development Advisory Panel.\" Adopted;\n(19-546 C) Resolution No. 15593, \"Appointing David Mik, as a Member of the Mayor's\nEconomic Development Advisory Panel.\" Adopted;\n(19-546 D) Resolution No. 15594, \"Appointing Remy Moteko, as a Member of the\nMayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel.' Adopted;\n(19-546 E) Resolution No. 15595, \"Appointing Mike Rose, as a Member of the Mayor's\nEconomic Development Advisory Panel.\" Adopted;\n(19-546 F) Resolution No. 15596, \"Appointing Madlen Saddik, as a Member of the\nMayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel.' Adopted; and\n(19-546 G) Resolution No. 15597, \"Appointing Debi Stebbins as Members of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented certificates of\nappointment to Mr. Karos, Ms. Saddik and Ms. Stebbins.\n(19-547) Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed 2019 Water Quality and Flood\nProtection Initiative;\n(19-547A) Resolution No. 15598, \"Finding that a Majority Protest Does Not Exist,\nDirecting a Property Owner Ballot Proceeding for the City's 2019 Water Quality and\nFlood Protection Fee and Directing the City Manager to Vote \"Yes\" for City Owned\nParcels.\" Adopted; and\n(19-547B) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nArticle IV to Chapter 18 to Establish the Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee.\nIntroduced.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft provided a procedural overview.\nThe Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment factor is set\nat 3%; inquired whether there should be a difference from the index set forth by\nProposition 13.\nThe Public Works Director responded there is a cap on the annual adjustment of 3%;\nstated construction costs are escalating above 3% above CPI every year.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the monies will be put toward the Stormwater\nfund.\nThe Public Works Director responded there is a new fund called the Clean Water and\nFlood Protection fund which will receive revenue.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired the purpose of the fund.\nThe Public Works Director responded the existing stormwater fee has been flat for more\nthan fifteen years because there had been no cost escalator or CPI increase to apply;\nstated the fee was not originally designed to capture the capital improvements of the\nstormwater system nor climate change and sea level rise.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether no payment is required if the fee is protested,\nto which the Public Works Director responded in the negative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the City will pass on the fees to tenants.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated a fee applied to an\naverage sized apartment building would be one tenth of one percent of an increase,\nwhich is within the annual general adjustment.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a reoccurring question has been why only property owners\nand not renters are charged the fee.\nThe Public Works Director stated property related fees, under Proposition 218, only\nrequire property owners to be balloted to decide whether the fee may be applied.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the requirement is due to law; inquired whether the City is\nable to divert funds for other uses.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated revenue and expenses\nrelated to the fee must remain within the Clean Water and Flood Protection fund and\ncannot be moved or appropriated by staff, Council, State, County or federal government\nfor other uses.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification over the lack of a sunset clause.\nThe Public Works Director stated the needs of the stormwater system will not diminish\nover time; with the impacts of sea level rise and climate change the needs of the\nstormwater system will grow and caused the lack of a sunset provision; a protection is\nincluded for property owners and Council is bound to set the fee at a rate which will only\nrecover revenue for the stormwater system needs; outlined a scenario without climate\nchange or sea level rise impacts and the resulting fees lowering.\nCouncilmember Vella requested clarification related to protest correspondence which\nreferenced a requirement that the program fee expenses be fairly distributed amongst\nproperty owners and outlined concerns related to definitions of multi-family residential\nunits.\nThe Public Works Director stated the fee proposes to fairly apportion all stormwater\nsystems revenue needs based on a property's contribution to the stormwater system;\ndifferent land uses and parcel groupings were used to make assumptions related to\nimpervious surfaces; perfection is not required in the calculation, but the goal is to be\nclose; in the result of an error, a protest of fees may be submitted on an annual basis\nunder the \"disputed fees provision\" to make warranted changes.\nJerry Bradshaw, SCI Consulting Group, stated the apportionment of the fee across\ndifferent parcels is based on the contribution to the [stormwater] system; unlike the\nwater system, is it difficult to measure how much water will run off, similar to garbage\nfees; available data must be used to reasonably administer the model; typically land use\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 8, "text": "categories are used; most groups tend to have similar characteristics; the model is not\nperfect but comes close.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the protection under Proposition 218 is the\nmoney cannot be used if not needed, to which the Public Works Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nVice Mayor Knox White questioned whether future Council has the option to reduce the\nfee if desired.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated should stormwater needs\ndiminish over time, the revenue and fee must diminish as well.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether thought was given to a door tax approach\nversus the impervious approach.\nMr. Bradshaw responded rain falls on whatever is below; the height of the building does\nnot matter; the amount of impervious surface is to be calculated; a 10-story building on\nthe same size parcel as a 15-story building with more units would incur the same fee.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated regardless of the land use type, a per-square foot basis\nshould have a relatively similar area of impervious surface.\nMr. Bradshaw stated the average point of each rate class comes out to 2/4 cents per\nsquare foot regardless of class; said information is not included in the rate study; the\ncharge is based on a per parcel or per acre basis for convenience.\nCouncilmember Daysog provided an example of a property with a larger impervious\nsurface.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft opened the Public Hearing.\nExpressed support; urged Council to continue to address sea level rise: Paul Medved,\nAlameda.\nSubmitted information; expressed concern over calculations; stated that he is in favor of\npaying his fair share for the project: Alan Teague, Alameda.\nDiscussed debris being from storm drains being dumped on properties: Edward Payne,\nWaterfront Homeowners Association.\nDiscussed plastics going into waterways; expressed concern over the containment\nelements using plastic: Ken Peterson, Alameda.\nUrged the Council to move forward with the ballot and educate the public on the\nessential nature of the fee: Ruth Abbe, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public hearing.\nCouncilmember Vella stated questions have been raised by public speakers.\nMr. Bradshaw stated Mr. Teague brought interesting points and provided materials\nrelated to 10% of parcels, which are non-residential, paying 58% of the revenue; the\nacreage information is missing; 49% of acreage is non-residential; apartments and\nshopping centers are more covered in impervious surfaces; the core element is 2/4\ncents per square foot of impervious surface, which is universal for all classes; a\nstatistical approach is durable; outlined payment calculations for Mr. Teague's property.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the stormwater system is the first system in the City that\nwill be impacted by climate change; there is no funding for the system; the fee is\nneeded to address the issue.\nThe Public Works Director stated there will be more frequent and more intense storms;\nthe stormwater system will need to increase; the Island perimeter will be faced with sea\nlevel rise; perimeter improvements will be funded by the fee.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated there are 138 parcels under City control that Council will\ndiscuss; the total of 20,600 parcels makes City owned parcels less than 0.5%.\nCouncilmember Daysog questioned whether part of the fee will be put toward fixing the\nlagoons; inquired whether the cost is borne by homeowners.\nThe Public Works Director responded there are maintenance agreements for both\nSouth Shore and Bay Farm lagoons that involve the affected homeowners associations\nand the City; the agreements delineate different maintenance responsibilities and\npayment percentages; the lagoons are part of the stormwater system; the fee could\nfund some of the capital maintenance; the adjacent homeowners associations are still\nresponsible for their portions under the maintenance agreements.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City is still paying a portion, which lessens the\noverall fee.\nThe Public Works Director stated whether or not the fee is approved will not change the\nportion adjacent homeowners association are responsible for paying under the current\nmaintenance agreement.\nThe City Clerk announced there is not a majority protest and the resolution and\nordinance can be considered.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 10, "text": "***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:45\np.m.\n(19-548) Recommendation to Approve the Design Concepts for Up to Six Public Access\nPathways Along Fernside Boulevard and Eastshore Drive.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation reviewing staff report\nExhibit 2.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether maintenance will be included.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated details have not\nbeen finalized for the submerged land; the goal is to provide ownership to the area\naround property owners' existing docks; when ownership occurs, permits through the\nCity may be obtained for improvements.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether restrictions have been added; outlined property\nowners' potential dock repair scenarios.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the intention is not to impede repairs and\nmaintenance, but to maintain the views of the water from the viewing areas; outlined\nrestrictions for dock repairs.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired other City options for Pathway C.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded another option is signage; stated signage\nhas limited capacity, but does provide legal coverage; there is also the option of a view\ncorridor; other potential options have not been reviewed and would need to be creative.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether there is a way to maintain the City easement\nwithout actively improving or encouraging use at this time.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded her initial conversations with legal\ncounsel suggest the pathway should be closed off if the City does not make\nimprovements.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether it is possible for the property owner to still use\nthe pathway in the event of closure and whether it is possible for the City to decide a\nuse at a later date.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the option is possible; stated a gate will\nneed to be installed beyond the driveways.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 11, "text": "Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the Towata Park recommendation includes a\ndock.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the funding\nsource will be through the State Division of Boating and Waterways; the Division does\nnot receive enough applications to spend the money, which presents it has; a funding\nopportunity.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the area has dangerous mud at low tide; inquired\nwhether the current proposal allows for informal access to the water, to which the\nRecreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated launches still must\nbe timed with the tide.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Council could decide to see a more formal\nplan knowing there is no funding, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Council is affirmatively encouraging activities,\nsuch as paddle boarding, at the end of any of the pathways, including adding signage\nthat paddle boarding is allowed; expressed concern over liability issues.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the intention is to leave the pathways,\nbut to make them more appealing with easier access; stated the pathways would not be\nadvertised as a kayak launch; stated there are informal kayak launches all over the\nisland.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether legal counsel has been sought for liability\nimplications of a formal kayak launch.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded that she does not see legal implications\nfor a formal kayak launch; a formal launch must go through San Francisco Bay\nConservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permits, must be Americans with\nDisabilities Act (ADA) compliant and suffices the City's safety needs.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Attorney would like to add anything.\nThe City Attorney stated the proposal is likely to reduce the City's liability due to\nownership of easements the ability to make easements ADA accessible and remove\nhazards which will produce a positive benefit to the City.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the approximate sales costs of the remaining portions of\nthe bulb outs and submerged lands.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded final costs have not yet been determined;\ncosts will be based on other parcels, which were $10,000 per parcel; there will be an\nadditional nominal cost for the landside areas.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether some revenue will be recognized.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated the funds will go back into the project the\nsame as the sale of the other submerged lands.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what happens if a property owner does not want to\npurchase the submerged or additional land around their property.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded there is high incentive for homeowners to\npurchase the submerged land due to the dock proximity and needed maintenance;\nstated where there is no desire to purchase the land, a City fence around the area\nwould be recommended.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City may install security cameras through the Crime\nPrevention Environmental Design; inquired the reason for not incorporating the option.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the option can and should be done;\nstated there are times of sensitivity; the cameras would be on a 24 to 48 hour loop and\nspecifically target the pathway, not the neighborhood.\n***\nFollowing the recess, Councilmember Vella returned at 9:12 p.m.\n***\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there is a 10 foot wide path that goes to 35 feet wide;\ninquired the need for the addition of 12.5 feet on either side of the 10 foot wide path.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the theory is to not feel as though the\narea is a tunnel; stated landscaping on either side would be more pleasant and open,\nallowing for a better experience.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired the amount of natural surveillance and design factored\ninto the staff recommendations; stated the staff report considered access creation,\nvisibility and natural surveillance including the design for bi-directional visibility.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded Crime Prevention Through\nEnvironmental Design (CPTED) guidelines ensure the landscape has a visible corridor\nof 3 feet above shrubs and 3 feet below trees; there is less visibility on Fernside\nBoulevard than on Eastshore Drive; the goal is to put in surveillance cameras and\nlighting in those areas to assist with security in the pathways.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed concern for what to do when a crime is in progress\nversus after-the-fact investigation; inquired whether there is a plan for investigating and\nensuring enforcement occurs in real-time.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 13, "text": "The Recreation and Parks Director responded the Police Department has the project on\nits radar; stated once the project is further built-out patrol will occur whenever possible;\nregulations are similar to parks; people should not be in the area after-dark; reporting is\nencouraged.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how many people use the easements.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded there is no current figure.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated visibility is low within the amount of space; inquired\nwhether keeping the pathways at 10 feet wide was considered.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded Council may choose any width desired;\nstated the goal is to compromise and address survey responses.\nStated East Shore is the number one location for sea level rise; discussed the need to\nhave walls done in conjunction with Public Works to address sea level rise; expressed\nconcern over Liberty and Central Avenues access: Bob Shannon, East Shore\nHomeowners Association.\nUrged all the areas be used for small parks; offered to donate three benches in memory\nof his mother: Kevin Padway.\nExpressed support for the parks, concern over neighbor claims about crime and support\nfor formal access at Towata Park: Jeff Wasserman, Alameda.\nStated the development should not create a public nuisance; expressed concern over\ncreating hiding spaces: Rob Barics, Alameda.\nDiscussed indemnification; expressed concern over parties at the end of pathways;\ndiscussed encroachments: Dona Fisher, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the wing areas should be less than 10 feet; the center is\nthe place of attention; the edges should not be greater than the center width; the\npathways are neighborhood passive parks where people go to enjoy the area; data\nshows average online responders visited the areas once per year and residents nearby\nvisited more, which proves the area being a passive neighborhood park; the edges\nshould be subordinate to the middle 10 feet.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the project has come a long way; expressed support for\neach pathway being considered; stated the Pathway A recommendation is good; grants\nshould be obtained sooner rather than later if possible; expressed support for cutting\nPathway B down to 10 feet; stated having a gate on Pathway C maintains the view;\nPathways D and E have minor improvements; expressed concern for deteriorating\ndocks and restricting or impeding any maintenance or improvements; expressed\nsupport for Pathway B being smaller and a view gate on Pathway C.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 14, "text": "Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Council discussion related to the water-side\nparcels will come back at a later date, to which the City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the project is progressing as it should; expressed support\nfor bringing the 35 feet down in size; stated the goal is for people to pay $10,000 to\nprotect their water access; stated there is an opportunity to provide the neighborhood\naccess to the water as well; the design does not have to be gold plated, but still should\nbe nice; a smaller area is not very compelling; expressed support for planted or\nlandscaped wings but a width no less than 10 feet; stated public access to the water\nshould be protected; giving up easements would be a mistake; mud flats are dangerous;\naccess to the water should not be foreclosed; the boat launch should be considered at a\nlater date; expressed support for the Towata Park plan in relation to Pathway A.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the project has been evolving; clear direction and\ninformation needs to be provided; the goal is for the spaces to be useable for the public\nto enjoy; clear direction must be provided related to landscaping; larger areas intended\nfor water access should be preserved and cautioned with good signage; expressed\nsupport for narrowing Pathway B but not to 10 feet; the path should not have hidden\nareas; discussed areas unsafe for walking; stated pathways should be inviting; Pathway\nB\nshould be designed in a unique way; expressed support for future adaptive reuse.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter has been reviewed a number of times;\ncompromise can be achieved; noted bench donations will have a place; stated these\nare public easements and the waterfront should be open to the public; safety and\naccess must be balanced; expressed support for the recommended design concepts;\ninquired the different steps of the design approval process.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded past projects have utilized architectural\ndesign options for each pathway which would be presented to the Recreation and Parks\nCommission; then, Council would approval the general design concepts; stated there is\na chance for Council to review the pathway widths.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the design would be reviewed by the Planning\nBoard, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated\nPlanning Board review typically has not happened in the past, but can be done if\ndesired.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there has been differing opinions related to pathway widths;\nthe goal is to find the best compromise possible.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of any wings be planted with defensive plants\nto keep people out; approval of Pathway A approved as proposed; approval of Site B\nbut shrinking the cone to 22 feet; maintaining the Pathway C easement, but not actively\npursuing use; approval of Pathway D, keeping the option to have future onsite\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 15, "text": "waterfront access; approval of Pathway E staff recommendation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over having specificity prior to consideration by\nan architect; discussed Vice Mayor Knox White's defensive plant options; stated the\nconcept versus specificity should be considered.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the footage is specified in the staff recommendation; the\nchange is from 35 feet to 22 feet.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for the majority of the motion; stated that he\nis comfortable with 18 feet for Pathway B; the title for the properties must be resolved\nand a number must be selected; expressed support for keeping options open for\nPathway D; questioned why closure of Pathway C is not an option; expressed support\nfor maintaining Pathway C to keep the view available.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for a 4 foot-10 foot and 4 foot width for\nPathway B; outlined reasoning behind width preferences; stated if the same width\nshould be selected for Pathways A and B; expressed support for vacating Pathway C\nand for staff's recommendation on Pathways D, E and F.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether the item should be discussed pathway by\npathway; stated Council must provide direction.\nCouncilmember Vella stated there is agreement on many portions of the motion.\nVice Mayor Knox White withdrew his motion.\nPathway A\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is agreement for Pathway A.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed concern over the 35 foot width; stated the widths\nshould be the same for Pathways A and B.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the Pathway A staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\nPathway B\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the staff recommendation for Pathway B.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Pathway B as recommended by staff, with\nthe change of 35 feet wide to 20 feet wide.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Daysog made a substitute motion to approve 18 feet wide.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the substitute motion, which carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Daysog, Oddie and Vella - 1. Noes: Vice Mayor\nKnox White and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 2.\nPathway C\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Pathway C.\nCouncilmember Vella stated there is opportunity to allow for public viewing of the area;\nexpressed support for not vacating the easement; moved approval of Pathway C being\nmaintained by the City and not vacated.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how conflicts related to Pathway C can\nbe resolved.\nVice Mayor Knox White responded there are driveways throughout the City which enter\nsidewalks; stated there is no concern for the safety of potential collisions on the\npathway.\nCouncilmember Oddie made a friendly amendment for narrowing the cone of the\npathway to 18 feet.\nCouncilmember Vella and Vice Mayor Knox White accepted the amendment to the\nmotion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Knox White, Oddie and Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmember Daysog and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 2.\nPathway D\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the pathway details.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of staff recommendation with the addition of\nidentifying the site for future on-water access.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nPathway E\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the pathway details.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Vella moved approval of staff recommendation for Pathway E.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nReconsider Pathway C\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of reconsidering of Pathway C.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Oddie and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 3. Abstentions:\nCouncilmembers Know White and Vella - 2.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated his decision is on the fence.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staff's recommendation; stated that she has\nwalked the pathway; noted the area is not the same as walking down a driveway; stated\nthe photos shown indicate pedestrians could not know a moving car is in the area; there\nare driveways on both sides; as much of the waterfront should be opened up; safety is\nmost important; expressed concern for the safety of people along the pathway.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of staff recommendation with instruction to\nmaintain the view corridor.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated that she has consulted with the Assistant City\nAttorney who confirmed the easement may be vacated to relieve City of liability with the\naddition of placing a restriction which requires a view corridor.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the idea would be comparable to a covenant or\nrecord of easement; outlined a procedure for limiting the easement.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Vella questioned whether staff's recommendation is\nto completely vacate; requested clarification that adopting the covenant is the\nrecommendation, not vacating.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated vacating the existing easement would not accomplish\ncurrent goals; noted working with adjacent property owners to record an easement\nagainst the property would accomplish the purposes currently discussed related to\nmaintaining the view.\nThe City Manager stated the City should negotiate the alternative view corridor\neasement prior to vacating the first easement.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he is not in support of the motion; expressed\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 18, "text": "concern for vacating the public easement; stated there is not much of a view at the\npathway.\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.\nPathway F\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the pathway details.\nThe City Attorney stated that it would be helpful for Council to affirm staff's\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved affirmation of staff's recommendation on pathway F.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers, Daysog, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4.\nAbstention: Vice Mayor Knox White - 1.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an increase in budget is needed for additional\nmaintenance.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated a budget adjustment will be brought forth at\nthe mid-year budget cycle.\n(19-549) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nSection 13-12 Use and Occupancy of Damaged Buildings and Structures/Use of\nPlacard or Signs to Chapter XIII Article I. Introduced.\nThe Fire Captain gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Vella moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the actual signs are being approved.\nThe Fire Captain responded in the negative; stated the signs are already in use; the\nonly addition will be the City seal, address and ordinance number.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated there is a typo in the spelling of \"demolition.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(19-550) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or His Designee to\nExecute a 66-Month Lease with One Option to Extend the Term for 60 Months with Park\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 19, "text": "Street Wine Cellars, Inc. for the Premises at 2315 Central Avenue, Suite 122 (Historic\nAlameda Theatre Building). Introduced.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the staff report information is sparse; questioned who the\ntenant is and why they think a wine shop will be successful in the area; requested more\ninformation be provided in future staff reports for Council and public knowledge; outlined\nprospective tenant details.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there are many regions that specialize in great wine.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Vella stated providing contextual background is\nhelpful for Council discussion; noted having prospective tenants write letters is a way to\nhelp Council gather more information.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated more information will be\nprovided in the future.\nChristopher Massie, Park Street Wine Cellars, made brief comments.\nVice Mayor Knox White expressed support for the lease.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(19-551) The City Manager made an announcement regarding Fleet Week and Art in\nCity Hall open house events; urged residents to sign up for the City's AC Alert system.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(19-552) Councilmember Vella made an announcement regarding the Lead Abatement\nmeetings and code enforcement issues.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nOctober 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-10-01", "page": 20, "text": "October 1, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf"}