{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 1, "text": "473\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - SEPTEMBER 1, 2020-7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:33 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella, and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted\nvia Zoom]\nAbsent:None.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(20-557) Councilmember Oddie requested the Coronavirus Relief Funds [paragraph no. 20-580] and\nthe Grant Program [paragraph no. 20-581 matters be combined.\nThere was no objection from Councilmembers.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(20-558) Alexia Arocha, Alameda, expressed concern about the lack of transparency in the process\nrelated to the community led subcommittees; stated there has been no way to know the amount of\ncommunity input based on how entries were solicited; expressed concern about the lack of criteria;\ndiscussed Police shootings; urged Council to defund the Police and reroute funding to other\nservices.\n(20-559) Nexus, Alameda, discussed homeless encampments increasing in size, being\nenvironmentally unsanitary and being unsafe; urged Council to provide a plan to eliminate and\nreduce waste.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Daysog requested the on-call architectural services contracts [paragraph no. 20-\n571] be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Otis Drive safety improvement contract [paragraph no. 20-572\nbe removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\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 Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*20-560) Minutes of the Special Meeting Held on June 29, 2020; the Special and Regular City\nCouncil Meetings Held on July 7, 2020; and the Continued July 7, 2020 Special City Council Meeting\nand Special City Council Meeting Held on July 14, 2020. Approved.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 2, "text": "474\n(*20-561) Ratified bills in the amount of $20,570,705.69\n(*20-562) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Reporting Period\nEnding March 31, 2020 (Funds Collected During the Period October 1 to December 31, 2019).\nAccepted.\n(*20-563) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the\nAgreement with Avineon, Inc. Extending the Term of the Agreement by Thirteen Months and\nIncreasing the Compensation by an Amount Not to Exceed $40,840 for an Aggregate Compensation\nAmount Not to Exceed $135,740 to Provide Geographic Information System Curriculum\nDevelopment Support, Fiber Network Mapping, Geographic Information System Support for Future\nNeeds, and 911 Reporting Areas Enrichment. Accepted.\n(*20-564) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Valentine Corporation for Encinal Boat Launch\nFacility Project No. P.W. 04-19-19. Accepted.\n(*20-565) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a 12-Month Service Provider\nAgreement with Harris & Associates, a California Corporation, for Reimbursement Audit Services for\nInfrastructure Improvements to be Financed by Community Facilities District No. 13-1 (Alameda\nLanding Public Improvements) in an Amount Not to Exceed $134,900. Accepted.\n(*20-566) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a One Year Agreement with\nOperation Dignity to Provide Mobile Outreach Services for Alameda's Unsheltered Population in an\nAmount Not to Exceed $122,400. Accepted.\n(*20-567) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Make Overpayments to the State\nDepartment of Health Care Services Concerning the Ground Emergency Medical Transportation\nProgram. Accepted.\n(*20-568) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment\nto\nAgreement with Blue Flame Crew for Operation and Maintenance of the Doolittle Landfill for an\nAmount Not to Exceed $15,000 Annually for Fiscal Years 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23, for a\nTotal Three Year Expenditure Not to Exceed $91,443.81, Including Contingency, and for a Total\nFive-Year Expenditure Not to Exceed $472,070.75. Accepted.\n(*20-569) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Four Five-Year Agreements to\nInterface Engineering, Inc., Pragmatic PE, Inc., Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, and\nSyska Hennessy Group, Respectively, for On-Call Mechanical Engineering Services in an Amount\nNot to Exceed $100,000 Annually for Each Agreement, and for a Total Five-Year Cumulative\nAmount Not to Exceed $500,000 for Each Agreement. Accpted.\n(*20-570) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Four Five-Year Agreements to\nAdvance Design Consultants, Inc., Borrelli and Associates, Inc., Salas O'Brien Engineers, Inc., and\nTJC and Associates, Inc., Respectively, for On-Call Electrical Engineering Services in an Amount\nNot to Exceed $100,000 Annually for Each Agreement, and for a Total Cumulative Five-Year\nAmount Not to Exceed $500,000 for Each Agreement. Accepted.\n(20-571) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Six Five-Year Agreements to\nByrens Kim Design Works, Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc., Interactive Resources\nArchitects + Engineers, The KPA Group, RMW Architecture & Interiors, and Sally Swanson\nArchitects, Inc., Respectively, for On-Call Architectural Services, in an Amount Not to Exceed\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 3, "text": "475\n$150,000 Annually for Each Agreement, and for a Five-Year Total Cumulative Amount Not to\nExceed $750,000 for Each Agreement.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed concern about the cumulative cost; stated there are too many\npotential firms.\nThe Interim Public Works Director stated the contracts provide the most options for the Department\nand it is nice to have options; noted firms are used on-call, which allows staff to contact other firms\nshould one be busy; stated the intent is to quickly find resources needed to execute projects.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the maximum amount has ever been reached for proposed\ncontractors.\nThe Interim Public Works Director responded the amount appropriated has never been exceeded;\nstated the capital program is robust and demands the resources.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification for the reasoning behind multiple contracts.\nThe Interim Public Works Director stated the City maintains in-house engineers which provide\ndesign work; some resources need to be leveraged with specialized disciplines; some capital\nprojects require specialized disciplines on an on-call basis; going through the process now will allow\nthe resources to be available for projects when needed versus soliciting services for each project;\nthe matter allows staff to efficiently roll-out projects.\nThe City Manager stated the process is similar to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and provides\noptions to ensure qualified architects are available; the matter is contingent on projects being\nappropriately budgeted; current spending authority may not be exceeded.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City is not at a place where the luxury of options can be enjoyed;\nCouncil must be judicious in selecting service providers; there is no magic number of providers.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the selection method, the Interim Public\nWorks Director stated there are times where larger projects will require a mini-solicitation within the\ngroup of providers; stated quotes are requested from providers; noted some firms provide specific\nexpertise.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the mini solicitations help the City determine the best cost, to\nwhich the Interim Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Knox White's inquiry, the Interim Public Works Director stated the\ncontracts will not be encumbered until a project comes forth which needs service; the amount paid to\nthe provider comes from the project budget.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the RFQ specified the amount of firms intended to be\nselected, to which the Interim Public Works Director responded the City remained silent.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\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 Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 4, "text": "476\n(20-572) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Redgwick\nConstruction Company for Construction of the Otis Drive Safety Improvement Project, in an Amount\nNot to Exceed $854,117.50; and\n(20-572A) Resolution No. 15685, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Capital Improvement Budget\nby Allocating $100,000 in Local B/BB Paratransit Fund to Capital Improvement Program Fund 91818\nto Construct the Otis Drive Safety Improvement Project.\" Adopted.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the matter; stated that she recalls a proposed\nroundabout for the intersection at Grand Street and Otis Drive; noted the intersection has been the\nsite of a traffic fatality; stated the roundabout is too expensive; expressed support for providing\ndirection to staff to investigate the cost of building a roundabout on Otis Drive, which will return to\nCouncil as a follow-up action in the event additional funding can be found; noted there is less street\ntraffic due to the pandemic, a number of cars drive fast on City streets; stated a roundabout would\nhelp slow traffic.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the Central Avenue project consists of three\nroundabouts.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is optimistic in finding funding for the possibility of a roundabout\non Otis Drive.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the proposed conversion of Otis Drive from four lanes to three lanes\nis incorrect; the project is being converted from four equal lanes to two equally divided lanes; the\nthird lane is a left-turning lane; housing is being considered for part of South Shore; questioned the\neffect and impact of housing on Otis Drive west-bound traffic ; expressed support for more\ninformation related to the housing project proposal; expressed concern about the characterization of\nlane numbers.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether there is public comment, to which the City Clerk responded\nin the negative.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the east-bound traffic reports for Otis Drive show less\nthan 15,000 trips; the proposed road diets work well at 15,000 and up to 25,000; staff is confident\nthere is more than enough space for a road diet; the center turn lane allows for smoother traffic and\ndoes not impact operations; staff has not calculated the potential of a Shoreline Drive project.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a motion can include Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's comments.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she is happy to have her comments taken as direction to staff;\nstated that she does not want to condition her approval of the project on the roundabout aspect;\ninquired the best Council process to provide direction.\nThe Interim Public Works Director responded the direction has been noted.\nThe City Attorney stated Council may conduct two votes: the first on the main proposal and the\nsecond on direction to staff.\nThe City Manager noted regulations might not allow roundabouts to be within a specific distance of\ntraffic signals.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 5, "text": "477\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that his recollection of the Planning Board's approval for the project\ndesign includes direction for prioritizing a roundabout.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a letter was received from the City Engineer about a roundabout being\ntoo costly.\nThe Interim Public Works Director stated the roundabout is part of the subsequent construction and\nfunding phase.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the first phase of the project entails a restriping; noted\nthe project has received a $175,000 grant for interim protective features; stated the roundabout cost\nof $800,000 is not funded at this time; the consultant has analyzed the roundabout and found the\nfeature is feasible even with the 4th of July parade; a roundabout will still be considered as a long-\nterm goal.\nThe City Manager stated the details provided allow Council to make two motions.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the roundabout staying with the project.\nThe Interim Public Works Director stated the roundabout is part of the project and is part of the\nsubsequent funding and construction phase.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can emphasize the roundabout as something that should be\nsupported.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the\nresolution].\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of affirming Council's desire to eventually see a roundabout\nat the intersection of Grand Street and Otis Drive as funds become available.\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 Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\n(*20-573) Resolution No. 15686, \"Ratifying the Proclamations of the Director of Emergency Services\nand Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local Emergency in Response to the COVID-\n19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government Code Section 8630(c).' Adopted.\n(*20-574) Ordinance No. 3284, \"Amending Uncodified Ordinance No. 3275 to Extend the Time that\nTenants Must Repay \"Deferred Rent\" from 210 Days to 395 Days Following the City Council's\nRescission of the Local Emergency.\" Finally passed; and\n(*20-574A) Recommendation to Receive an Update Regarding City Council's Request for\nInformation on Status of Tenant Payment of Rent and Rent Relief Program and Outreach to Tenants\nRegarding Eviction Protections. Accepted.\n(*20-575) Ordinance No. 3285, \"Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Execute an\nAmendment to the Lease with Williams-Sonoma, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Acting for and on\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 6, "text": "478\nBehalf of Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., a California Corporation, for Building 169, Suite 102,\nLocated 1680 Viking Street at Alameda Point, Extending the Term for an Additional 12 Months with\nOne 12-Month Extension Option, Removing Overflow Parking from the Leased Premises, and\nProviding One (1) Month of Rent Abatement.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(20-576) Public Hearing to Consider COVID-19 Related Response and Enforcement Activities; and\n(20-576A) Urgency Ordinance No. 3286, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code By Adding a New\nArticle 24-13 (Public Health) Providing for Enforcement of Alameda County Health Officer Orders\nand Directives.\" Adopted.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director and Recreation and Parks Dierctor gave a Power\nPoint presentation.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether staff is assuming there will be people walking down the\nstreet administering citations for people not wearing masks.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated the next phase\nis focused on businesses within commercial areas and encroachment permits, not focused on\npeople walking down the street; businesses will not be cited at first sight, initial discussions will be\nconducted first.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated the same will be conducted for parks, with a focus on\nlarge groups rather than individuals.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the ordinance allows for the ability to enforce Public Health\nOrders from an administrative, versus criminal, process.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the ordinance provides that violations of\nCounty Health Orders generally would be a violation of the Municipal Code which opens\nenforcement opportunities as administrative citations and civil enforcement actions, which are\ndeemed as unlikely.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the beach and other larger commercial property areas\nwould be covered.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded all areas designated as commercial\nareas throughout the City will be covered.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated further conversation with East Bay Regional Parks District\n(EBRPD) is needed in order to flesh out the beach coverage details; stated the beach will fall under\nthe purview of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed concern about racially disparate reporting; inquired the level of\nintensity allowed for reporting.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff's current plan is to ensure a\nsecure containment system is in place in order to be permitted to cut hair outside; stated the\ncontainment system has not yet been defined; discussed use of mesh enclosure systems; stated\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 7, "text": "479\nwarnings will be issued if an enclosure system is not used until citation or permit revocation need to\nbe used for enforcement.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated COVID-19 is to be taken seriously; wearing a mask helps; the impact of\nCOVID-19 is extensive.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether issued citations will be tracked and made public.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded warnings will be tracked and record\nwill be kept of citations issued.\nThe City Attorney responded citations are likely public record; stated the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Department is free to track items regardless of public record.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether Council could require tracking.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated tracking is\ncritical as part of the three-strike game plan.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether Council can request the tracked information be shared in\norder to monitor any disparate impacts, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director stated citations are\nissued to individual people similar to business owners; Code Enforcement should request\nidentification or check names in order to cite individuals.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether cited individuals would go into the tracking system, to which\nthe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff is requesting direction from Council\nrelated to parameters; the situation is new and ever-changing; there will be challenges in citing\nindividuals.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated the threat of citation is a possible deterrent; hopefully,\ncitations will not need to be issued; the matter should be taken seriously.\nIn response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry regarding compliance, the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director stated staff is working on a handout that includes simple rules for\ncommercial business operation; rules must be clear enough so that anyone may understand;\nsolutions to violations will be clear; staff is set to educate and help people follow the rules; the\nhandout will be updated as the situation evolves.\nCouncilmember Daysog outlined a potential citation scenario; inquired whether citations can be\nissued at a moment's notice.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the issuance of on-site citations\nwould be a heavy-handed approach; stated staff is not recommending heavy-handed approaches.\nCouncilmember Daysog outlined a potential citation scenario within the Park Street business area;\ninquired whether a citation would be provided on-site.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 8, "text": "480\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff will focus on businesses in\ncommercial districts, not individuals.\nCouncilmember Daysog outlined a potential citation scenario within the business district; inquired\nwhether citations will be issued to restaurant owners.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated the tables\nmust meet placement guidelines and standards; there are instances where masks within groups are\nnot necessary; staff's focus will remain on business compliance, not individuals.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the focus will stay on businesses; the City is not having staff drive\naround in compliance enforcement cars looking to cite individuals.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director expressed concern about citing individuals;\nstated staff can take a more aggressive approach should Council desire.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he raised the scenarios to satisfy the understanding that staff will\napproach business sources that may attract instances of COVID-19; he is satisfied with the\napproach proposed by staff; inquired the threshold for large groups gathering.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded groups of more than 12; stated the Order allows\nsocial bubbles of up to 12 people; current park ambassadors are approaching large groups not\nwearing masks or being socially distant; utilizing staff with more presence may create a better\nresponse; warnings will be issued as the first step.\nStated citations or fines cannot be enforceable; businesses need to provide reasonable\naccommodations, especially for medical exemptions; discussed lawsuits as a result of businesses\nnot being accommodating; urged Council to support businesses; discussed Council's duties and\nmental harassment: Lisa Buena, Alameda.\nStated the circulations are not based in science; data has shown the virus is not transmittable\noutdoors; children under eight years old are not known to be vectors; urged regulations to be\ngrounded in science; discussed the increased rates of suicide and overdoses; stated it is important\nto show leadership: Katya Sedgwick, Alameda.\nExpressed concern for the fundamental premise of the ordinance; stated there has been no\ndiscussion of data, statistics or analysis which support such a drastic measure; many are\nquestioning the credibility of public health institutions; urged Council to consider the necessity of the\nmatter; discussed a statement from the Police Chief and County Sherriff: Elizabeth Adelstein,\nAlameda.\nStated the matter is a proposal in search of a problem and is a threat to people; there have been\napproximately 300 cases in Alameda over the course of six months; the public wants to get outside;\nthe focus on business is not included in the ordinance; the discussion is without foundation; the City\nwill be open to lawsuits: David Greene, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Mayors have been asked to provide messaging; expressed support for\nall members of the medical and public health profession; stated there is a real pandemic; Alameda's\nper capita infection rate is on the lower end of the County; other cities are looking to implement\nresponse and enforcement activities; expressed support for holding the COVID case numbers down;\nstated messaging has been consistent for mask efficacy from County Public Health and at the State\nlevel; Council must help stop the hard times by taking the virus seriously; the cost of compliance is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 9, "text": "481\nlow; staff handling enforcement will provide masks if needed; masks should be worn in public;\nexpressed support for Code Enforcement during lunch and dinner hours; expressed support for\npeople following rules to help not spread COVID-19; social distancing of six feet is scientifically\nbased on the distance the virus travels; the virus is very transmittable; outlined when to wear masks;\ntransmissions within the County has been a result of large gatherings and social groups of a\nparticular age; noted many people who contract COVID-19 are asymptomatic.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated many are weary of the pandemic; as more businesses open, more\npeople will be at risk; the matter is similar to debating helmets for motorcycle riders and bicycle\nriders; the line is drawn when individual freedoms infringe upon the health of other individuals; it is\nimportant to consider being flexible when dealing with citations; expressed concern about Code\nEnforcement Officers being called about people of Color living life within their social bubble at the\npark and using sprinklers to deter use of parks; expressed support for the general idea of keeping\nAlameda safe, for minimizing exposure and infections, and for businesses; stated businesses will not\nsurvive if the economy does not open.\nCouncilmember Vella stated it is difficult to conduct contact tracing, especially related to outdoor\nactivities; the goal is to keep per capita rates down; discussed relatives who have had COVID-19;\nstated her child cannot wear a mask due to age; young people are susceptible to the virus; noted\nthat she has an underlying condition; stated there is a lot to consider; expressed support for not\nusing a heavy hand relative to punishment; stated the goal is to maintain best practices; expressed\nsupport for helping people be compliant; expressed concern about enforcement in parks; stated\nproviding information is helpful; large gatherings have occurred multiple weekends in a row;\nexpressed concern about disparate effects on cultural groups that might be within their own social\nbubble which do not have access to an outdoor space and are using parks for outdoor activities;\nstated that she does not want Code Enforcement Officers to attempt to figure out difficult situations;\nproviding masks and discussing the situation would be a better approach; expressed concern about\nracial attacks; stated business districts are different; businesses owners should be informed of best\nways to be compliant; compliance should be enforced for businesses; there will be an imbalance if\nsome businesses flout regulations with no repercussions and other businesses are compliant;\nOfficers need to be able to provide guidance on how to be compliant; Council should be able to\ncheck-in to see which businesses are receiving multiple warnings and ensure proper protocol is\nfollowed; compliance is the crux of the goal; there are additional matters which Council has put forth\nin order to help businesses; Council has the right to ask businesses to be compliant and uphold\nCounty Health Orders; she has concerns about enforcement in parks, which should be looked into in\npartnership with EBRPD.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for issuing a warning first; stated refusal or ignorance\nshould not yield free passes and allow for continued violation; transmission can happen in larger\ngroups and messaging should be sensitive; allowing multiple warnings could help spread and\ntransmit COVID-19.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed support for signage at parks being displayed in multiple languages;\nexpressed concern about people from out of town using parks; stated the City Attorney's office\nshould review protocol to avoid civil rights violations.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about reports of groups of 40 people playing soccer most\nevenings; outlined an experience at Lincoln Middle School field; stated COVID-19 is not a political\nissue and affects everyone.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that his hope and expectation is to write zero citations; expressed\nsupport for the program not being a response to complaints; staff should have a program in place\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 10, "text": "482\nand address any disparate impacts; outlined outdoor activities which result in people not being\nsocially distant; stated closing activity courts could be more effective than citing 50 people; closures\nwould be unfortunate because people enjoy the exercise; activities must be done safely; expressed\nsupport for the ordinance as-written; stated that he would like to add a weekly report of citations\nissued with key demographic information and warning steps; expressed support for zero citations\nbeing issued and for working with people; stated this is an important tool which should be used when\nnecessary.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the ordinance language is too open-ended and should be targeted\ntoward non-compliant behaviors, especially within commercial areas; there is a case to be made to\ndeal with non-compliance among large groups and open spaces; expressed support for further\ndefinition and the ordinance being more targeted; stated that he will only support language to the\neffect of: \"penalties would only be triggered for non-compliance in defined commercial corridors and\napplicable only to business owners and/or their representatives who have repeated non-\ncompliance;\" the heart of the issue is repeated non-compliance on the part of commercial business\nowners; the initial reading of the ordinance focuses on individuals, which leaves the matter open-\nended; there is a natural trade-off in what City Hall has done in order to help businesses re-open;\nshould the City encourage re-opening with the possibility of putting some at-risk, it is fair to ask\nbusiness owners to be fully compliant in the task of ridding COVID-19; in the future, there may be a\ntime to cite individuals, but the success should be demonstrated on a more targeted approach first\nand then be expanded if needed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter is about personal responsibility and the virus is not only\ntransmitted by business owners.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the ordinance with modification to Section 24-13.3\n\"penalties\" to state: \"penalties triggered under this section are only for non-compliance in defined,\ncommercial corridors including Park Street, Webster Street, South Shore, Alameda Landing, Marina\nVillage, commercial area of Nob Hill, Harbor Bay Shopping Center, High Street and Encinal Avenue,\nand applicable only to business owners and/or their representatives who have demonstrated\nrepeated non-compliance.\"\nThe motion failed for lack of a second.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the\nurgency ordinance], with direction to report weekly on the use of the program and return with a\nConsent Calendar item on enforcement procedures.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired whether businesses, peoples' names or\ndemographic information will be public on citations.\nVice Mayor Knox White responded the information should remain anonymous; the goal is not to\nshame people; expressed support for demographic information, such as age and race being\nretained.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there will be issues if 90% of the citations issued be to people of Color;\ninquired whether the golf course is included in the motion.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated as a business, the golf\ncourse has to comply.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 11, "text": "483\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the golf course will be treated as a business or a park.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the golf course will be treated as a business.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4.\nNoes: 1.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:36 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m.\n***\n(20-577) Recommendation to Adopt the 2020 Alameda Point Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP)\nAmendment and Direct Staff to Work with the Recreation and Park Commission on\nRecommendations Regarding the Alameda Point Sports Complex;\n(20-577A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter\nXXVII (Development Fees) by Repealing Section 27-4 (Alameda Point Development Impact Fees) in\nIts Entirety. Introduced; and\n(20-577B) Resolution No. 15687, \"Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Fee.\"\nAdopted.\nThe Community Development Director made brief comments.\nAngelo Obertello, Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated a $5 million payment from Alameda Point Partners (APP) is going\ntowards the Sports Complex; inquired the outcome of the funding provided should the City decide to\nproceed with the Sports Complex differently.\nThe Community Development Director responded the City currently has $1 million on deposit from\nAPP for the Sports Complex; stated a portion of the funds could be used for a consultant and public\nengagement; if Council wishes to replace the Sports Complex with a smaller version or other\nregional amenity, funding would be directed towards the designated project.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the Main Street design will allow design changes to go\nforward more quickly to implement the lower road.\nMr. Obertello responded one objective is to allow for logical implementation of segments of Main\nStreet as development projects build frontages; stated the ultimate desired segment is complicated\nto deliver due to elevation and bike and trail facilities; interim conditions were being introduced that\nturned out to be concerning and potentially unsafe; the phase implementation allows a logical step in\ndelivering the ultimate improvement; the MIP amendment also relates to the Climate Action\nResiliency Plan (CARP) to protect Alameda Point which is more of a community-wide solution;\nAlameda Point could link into other flood protection measures along the northern shoreline; the City\nnow has the flexibility to capture those efficiencies.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated most of Site A Phase 1 infrastructure has been built; inquired whether\nthe costs have been removed for all of West Midway.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 12, "text": "484\nMr. Obertello responded in the negative; stated the West Midway costs are still within the MIP\namendment; the removal of the programs are related to relocating collaborative housing and\nagreements with RESHAP.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Site A will not pay for the update, to which Mr. Obertello\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether from now on, new benefits are apportioned to every acre.\nMr. Obertello responded the City will need to determine the process through evaluation or land sale\nvaluations; stated the cost per acre has been spread evenly across all remaining developable acres.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether new street designs have been consistent with lane width\nand road design policies.\nMr. Obertello responded in the affirmative; stated a fair amount of items integrated in the\namendment are in part due to the Transportation Commission's approval of the reuse cross-\nsections; planning for the recommendations has been included.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether developable acres include Northwest Territories De-Pave\nand Enterprise Parks, to which Mr. Obertello responded in the negative.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff is requesting direction to work with the Recreation\nand Parks Commission on the Sports Complex; noted there are four recommendations in the staff\nreport.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he understands costs change over time; expressed concern\nabout the Sports Complex; stated the discussion should not be limited to whether or not to continue\nwith the Sports Complex or a variation; the discussion should be in the context of other open space\nor recreational items; the Sports Complex had been one of the benefits the residents of Alameda\nsupport; the Sports Complex would be the result of sacrificed time during military base conversion;\nprevious Sports Complex groups are not as active as they once were; however, the interest does not\ndiminish the importance of the Sports Complex; noted De Pave Park has not had the same amount\nof interest as the Sports Complex; expressed concern about doing away with any significant part of\nthe Sports Complex; stated the developers will contribute to the Complex; the Bus Rapid Transit\n(BRT) and Ferry Terminal are not a community benefit even though categorized as such; there will\nbe substantial impacts, which require substantial mitigations; a lot of effort went into the Sports\nComplex and it is disheartening to see it on the chopping block.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of the four staff recommendations. including conversations\nnot centered around the pandemic and the Recreation and Parks Commission in the robust\ncommunity process; stated needs change over time; there is a lot more to Alameda Point than a\nSports Complex including affordable housing; expressed support for the work that has gone into\nensuring the backbone infrastructure is funded and projects are financially feasible; stated the goal is\na holistic development of Alameda Point, which meets the communities growing and changing\nneeds; expressed support for the work and guidance that has gone into each plan.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Sports Complex has been discussed as a community benefit; the\nprimary goal in redeveloping Alameda Point is to replace the 18,000 jobs lost when the Navy Base\nclosed, to provide housing and to agree to accommodate formerly homeless individuals; 25% of the\nhousing has been affordable; Council must recognize reality; the price tag has grown and sea level\nrise requires more focus and energy; expressed support for the advancements in infrastructure\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 13, "text": "485\nimprovements and for the Recreation and Parks Commission taking a look at the Sports Complex;\ndiscussed a recent Recreation and Parks Commission meeting; stated the process will be public;\ndevelopers will not be off the hook; getting projects to pencil out is a struggle; continuing to create\nhomes and employment centers is desired; expressed support for the motion.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for the MIP amendment; stated that he\nwould like the amendment to acknowledge flexibility around how things changing; approval should\ninclude the caveat that future cross-sections and lane widths will be insistent on the current lane\nwidth current and future policies to ensure projects move forward in the same direction; the City has\ndone a great job of getting affordable housing; the City is also approaching the housing cap;\nexpressed concern about adding costs to the MIP at a time when there is less housing to cover\ncosts; stated increasing backbone infrastructure is important; expressed support for focusing on\nopen space sections; stated that he has not been a fan of the Sports Complex; the Complex has\nbeen designed as a regional Sports Complex with the idea of regional sports teams being brought to\nthe complex; questioned whether Alameda is the place for such a complex; regional complexes\nshould be placed in areas that connect with retail areas, which allows for economic spin-off;\nexpressed support for the Recreation and Parks Commission looking into the Sports Complex; the\nquestion posed should be: \"what does the City not have and what is to be achieved in the space\nprovided;\" there are many additional unfunded costs; expressed concern about the $67 million in\nadditional park spending; stated many developments return because costs are too high and create\ndifficulties in moving forward; expressed support for amending the motion to have the matter return\nfor more conversation related to parks in general; he questions whether all parks must be funded by\nthe MIP; amendment has many good things; however, there are concerns related to costs.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Knox White supports having the Recreation and\nParks Commission consider the questions raised around how much park space is needed.\nVice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative; expressed concern about there being difficulty\nto say no to parks; stated part of the issue is the economic impacts of requiring parks and other\nitems, such as mitigations, sea level rise and traffic; providing a framework of things to think about in\nmoving forward would be fairer.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council would be asking the Recreation and Parks Commission to\nprovide input to assist Council in making a more informed decision; noted that she is intrigued by\nVice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember Daysog's comments.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is okay with three of the four issues; the fourth item, a\ndiscussion related to the Sports Complex, should be more global and involve other discussions\nrevolving around passive or active recreational uses for Alameda Point; it is possible the Recreation\nand Parks Commission will pose cost savings due to other projects.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed support for the matter going to the Recreation and Parks\nCommission; stated Council must look at the costs relative to all recreation and open space\nproposals at Alameda Point; expressed support for receiving the recommendations from Recreation\nand Parks Commission and looking at the cost relative to all recreation proposals; stated that she\naccepts the motion amendment to broaden the conversation to reflect the combination of costs\nrelative to recreation proposals.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the traffic flexibility amendment is also accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 14, "text": "486\nCouncilmember Vella responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he understands costs change; many people have been excited\nabout the Sports Complex; however, Site A has changed many times since construction began;\nexpressed support for the Recreation and Park Commission's input to evaluate alternatives;\nexpressed concern about using $1 million towards consultant fees; stated that he supports the\ninclusion of De Pave Park and will not support a plan which removes De Pave Park; noted De Pave\nPark is a CARP project; expressed support for the motion, as long as De Pave Park stays.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff agrees the MIP should be updated every three to\nfive years and should capture active transportation; the MIP is intended to be a living document,\nshould be updated and is conservative; stated De Pave Park is shown, as well as the Sports\nComplex, until Council decides otherwise; costs per acre are shown between backbone\ninfrastructure and community amenities; there will be time to run a parallel process between the\nRecreation and Parks Commission and the community to return to Council with staff negotiating\nminimum land purchase prices focusing on the costs of the backbone infrastructure; staff can then\nreturn to Council with proposals for development, including negotiating community amenities; the\nMIP has data needed to provide informed recommendations; should Council adopt the MIP\namendment and direct the Recreation and Parks Commission to look at all community amenities\naround parks and open space, staff can accommodate the process and be able to understand and\nmake informed recommendations to Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether sea level rise is the major mechanism driving the\nsignificant increase in costs for the Sports Complex.\nMr. Obertello responded the costs are more related to site-wide benefits; stated Sports Complex\ncost increases are more related to the planning of park contents and cost experiences the City has\nhad with implementing other park projects; costs are consistent with the amount included in the\nDevelopment Impact Fee (DIF) analysis provided last year.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he is unclear about the motion.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she supports moving forward with De Pave Park; the Recreation\nand Parks Commission should provide a recommendation to Council based on overall costs; De\nPave Park has needs related to the CARP and should be considered, but should be part of the\noverall conversation so that one park is not carved out with a separate pot of money.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he thought the conversation had previously been had with the\nRecreation and Parks Commission; that he will fight to ensure De Pave Park stays if the matter\nreturns with the Park removed.\nOn the call for the question, the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(20-578) Urgency Ordinance No. 3287, \"Amending Uncodified Ordinance No. 3275 to Provide that\nany Agreement Between a Landlord and a Tenant Concerning Repayment of \"Deferred Rent\" Must\nLimit a Landlord's Remedy for a Tenant's Breach of the Agreement to Money Damages and, as to a\nTenant's Failure to Pay the Deferred Rent in the Agreement, Expressly Waive the Landlord's Right\nto File an Unlawful Detainer Action to Recover Possession of a Tenant's Rental Unit or for Any\nUnpaid Rent that was the Subject of the Agreement.' Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 15, "text": "487\nThe City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the ordinance.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the matter does not\nnecessarily relate to the 13 month repayment period; outlined a landlord and tenant agreement\nrepayment process; stated a tenant may repay in advance of the 13 month period; the ordinance\nacts as a tenants' protection from eviction and the landlords' remedy would be money damages; the\nvoluntary agreements could potentially be longer or shorter than 13 months.\n***\n(20-579) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider additional items after 11:00\np.m.; noted the remaining items for consideration.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of Council continuing the meeting to consider all matters\nexcept the rules of order referral [paragraph no. 20-583] and Stopwaste briefing [paragraph no. 20-\n5841 and be finished by 11:55 p.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 Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there has been input provided from small \"mom and pop\"\nlandlords.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the direction provided from\nCouncil was to prepare an ordinance to provide protections to tenants entering into agreements to\nensure a level playing field; the matter was not brought to the landlord community.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether funding through small business grants has been made\navailable to landlords.\nThe Community Development Director responded residential landlords were not a category of\nbusinesses included in the small business grant relief program; property management companies\nwere included; the rent relief program is being paid directly to landlords to cover tenant rent.\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 Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM AND COUNCIL REFERRAL\n(20-580) Resolution No. 15688, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget to Accept $1,003,970 in\nState Coronavirus Relief Funds and Amend the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-21 Budget to Increase\nRevenue and Expenditures Appropriations by $903,970 in the General Fund and by $100,000 in the\nHuman Services Fund in Order to Offset Costs Associated with the City's Response to the COVID-\n19 Pandemic; and Recommendation to Approve a Report on City Activities and Expenditures\nRelated to the COVID-19 Emergency. (City Manager). Adopted.\n(20-581) Consider Creating a Grant Program for Park Street (Downtown Alameda Business\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 16, "text": "488\nAssociation-DABA) and Webster Street (West Alameda Business Association-WABA) to Adapt the\nConfiguration of Park and Webster Streets, including Potential Temporary Street Closures. (Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Oddie)\nFor the resolution, the Human Resources and Acting Finance Director gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nThe City Manager stated staff is comfortable with either approach; noted a full time Finance Director\nis set to begin work this month.\nFor the Referral, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Oddie gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether his recusal is needed for this matter.\nThe City Attorney responded Councilmember Daysog lives near one portion of Webster Street;\nstated the public generally exception likely applies to this discussion and Councilmember Daysog\nmay participate without recusal.\nVice Mayor Knox White expressed support for the matter; questioned the need to provide free\nparking to replace parking that is not free, which is counter to transportation goals; expressed\nsupport for the funding to fully go towards business districts and business grants; stated not enough\nmoney was raised during the previous round of business grants; the City has two goals in supporting\nthe commercial district: building foot traffic and ensuring full storefronts; now is the time to go further\nwith funding; the budget has brought in more money than predicted; Council should take advantage\nof the funding while possible.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for including an extension of the COVID-19 permit to\nOctober 2021, or earlier, if the pandemic ends and for allowing merchants who park in front of their\nstores to have an alternate parking location on open days; stated the discussion preempts concerns\nraised by merchants opposing street closure.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether merchants have allocated parking lots to ensure front of\nbusiness parking is available for customers; stated that her preference is to allocate some of the\nfunding to address homelessness similar to Oakland's Housed Program; addressing homeless\nconcerns does have an impact on the business community; discussed business town hall meetings;\nstated the Block by Block program provides safe and sanitary environments to support outdoor\nservices; the City is contracting with Village of Love; inquired whether the program would occur in\naddition to the contract.\nThe Community Development Director responded Block by Block is a different program; stated\nVillage of Love runs the day center, safe parking and Federal Emergency Management Agency\n(FEMA) trailers; Block by Block is an ambassador program which provides enhanced cleanup and\nmanages the interface between homeless and business communities; launching the pilot program\nwill be helpful as more business is being conducted outdoors and would reduce the friction of the\ninterface with ambassadors and extra cleaning; Block by Block is a different provider which operates\nin a number of cities throughout the country and would be something new.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands Village of Love to be more than just a day center;\nVillage of Love has an outreach van which provides transportation to the day center; more resources\ncould be used.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the Village of Love program is limited to Monday through Friday from\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 17, "text": "489\n9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; expressed support for the program expanding into the evening hours; stated\nthe hotline for the program is: (510) 522-HOME; people can call for resources for the unhoused;\nexpressed concern about the limited program hours, which do not capture the needs that occur on\nweekends and after-hours for businesses and restaurants, which provide service in evenings;\nexpressed concern about the cost of expanding services; stated that she supports the proposal;\nthere is nothing preventing Council from dipping into reserves in the future; other budget allocations\nare being presented in October; expressed support for knowing costs to expand the program; stated\nthe limited hours only allow the surface to be scratched; many issues and needs do not arise until\nthe weekend or after-hours; it is important to bring this matter forward; expressed support for a focus\non bike parking and not car parking; noted Bike Walk Alameda (BWA) provided suggestions; stated\nthat she would like staff to work closely with BWA to ensure business districts are as safe as\npossible in line with Vision Zero and goals for safe access for pedestrians and those on bicycles;\nfuture Council discussions will circle around pick-up and parking; expressed support for focusing on\ncompliance within business associations; stated as business associations provide funding,\ncompliance information and updates are provided to businesses; there is a focus on restaurants;\nhowever, there are a number of businesses within the districts; expressed concern about outside\nshared space being taken by neighboring businesses; as the program progresses, there needs to be\na\nfocus on enough communal space for all to operate; expressed concern about having a first come\nfirst served basis.\nCouncilmember Oddie noted the referral includes a suggestion which allows for parklets in front of\nvacant properties to allow space for retailers.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter requires two votes.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Council may vote on the staff recommendation\nfirst and the Council Referral second.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation allocations [adoption of the\nresolution]: $250,000 reimbursement [of the General Fund], $250,000 non-reimbursable, $300,000\neconomic development relief as grants to the [business] associations per the referral and taking out\nparking as deferred to another time and $203,970 for homeless assistance, etcetera.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Council is remaining silent on the $900,000 from reserves\nand is only considering State funds, to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White stated that Council is missing an opportunity to take\nmoney received and look at providing grants to businesses which are struggling; expressed support\nfor considering providing grants in the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is off to a good start; more data can be collected.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how much the Block by Block program would cost.\nThe Community Development Director responded running the pilot program between now and\nDecember would cost $100,000; requested clarification of whether the Block by Block program or\nVillage of Love program would be considered.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated $100,000 of the $250,000 General Fund reimbursement could be left\nopen until more information is provided regarding Block by Block and Village of Love; expressed\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 18, "text": "490\nsupport for placing $150,000 in the grant fund instead of reimbursing [the General Fund], while still\nsaving $100,000 for either Block by Block or Village of Love.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a portion of the proposed $503,000 funding would be used by\nthe Block by Block program.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated there is $203,000.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for more information being provided regarding the\nprograms.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she understands the designated funding will go towards homeless;\nexpressed support for staff returning with options for either the Block by Block program or a\ncombination of that and expanding the hours for homeless outreach.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like a framework provided; evenings and weekends need\nto be covered; Block by Block sounds like a good program; however, a place is needed for people to\ngo willingly; the day center will help as a place for people to go, but it is only open Monday through\nFriday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Block by Block could provide staffing for the off-hours; the two\nprograms could be compatible working together.\nCouncilmember Oddie amended his motion to move approval of $203,970 for a combination of\nadditional homeless assistance and have staff return with options on the best areas to spend the\nfunding; Council will allocate the funding, but staff will provide more information on programs with the\ngoal of providing service seven days a week.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed support for a report back on the status of applications for Alameda\nStrong, including both residential renters and small businesses; stated a discussion can be held if\nCouncil still sees a need to supply additional grant funding.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there is no reason not to place $250,000 into the small business relief\ngrant program if the General Fund will be reimbursed; more funding is needed for grants; funding\nshould not all be spent on day one.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated funding needs to be spent by the end of the year and there are needs\nwhich require funding; noted Councilmember Oddie modified his motion; inquired whether\nCouncilmember Vella seconds the modified motion.\nCouncilmember Vella responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the Council Referral includes important material, including extending\nthe permit expiration.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for more bike parking; inquired whether direction to staff\nmay be provided to look for areas to add more bike parking in downtown districts; stated more\npeople are out on bicycles; the goal is to have riders journey to businesses, which requires bike\nparking.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for adding free bike parking.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 19, "text": "491\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired where funding is being pulled from for free bike parking.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed support for staff working with BWA and all business districts to\ndiscuss locations for bike parking; stated the information and feedback can be used when designing\nparklets; some parklets take over original bike parking leaving less space for bike parking; the shift\nhas affected everybody.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has seen creative parklet solutions for bike parking; expressed\nsupport for hearing from experts in the area and being provided with cost estimates.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's comments; stated street closure\nis to be considered at the next meeting; inquired whether there is concern about the COVID-19\npermit expiration date.\nCouncilmember Vella responded the matter is included in the referral.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of the referral, adding consideration of adequate bike parking.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, with the following amendment: defer parking pass and\nloading zones to the upcoming discussion on street closures.\nCouncilmember Vella accepted the amendment to the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-582) The City Manager announced day centers and safe parking have gone up in the last week;\nstated 11 people are signed up for safe parking; the Posey Tube area, has been cleaned recently;\nthe property falls under Caltrans; Caltrans has policies about what will and will not be done related to\nhomeless encampments; the Public Works Department has been working on increasing trash\ncleanups in the areas; announced six Firefighters returned from wild land fires and four remain.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRAL\n(20-583) Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Section 6 of Resolution No. 15382, which\nAdopted Rules of Order Governing City Council Meetings. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and\nCouncilmember Oddie) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-584) Stopwaste June 2020 Topic Brief: Sustainable Landscapes. (Councilmember Oddie) Not\nheard.\n(20-585) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointments to the Civil Service Board,\nCommission on Persons with Disabilities, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Housing\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 20, "text": "492\nAuthority Board of Commissioners, Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board,\nSocial Service Human Relations Board and\nTransportation Commission.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft provided brief comments about the nominees and nomination process;\nnominated Thomas Saxby for reappointment to the Historical Advisory Board, Registered Architect\nseat; Adam Gillitt for reappointment and Tierney Sneeringer for appointment to the Public Art\nCommission; Gerald Serventi for reappointment to the Public Utilities Board and Samantha Soules\nfor reappointment to the Transportation Commission.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:52 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 21, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 1, 2020- 5:30 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:35 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via\nWebEx.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(20-550) Conference with Legal Counsel: Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode Section 54956.9); Case Name: City of Alameda V. Union Pacific; Court: Superior\nCourt of the State of California; Case Number: RG18920939\n(20-551) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Site A at Alameda Point; Persons Negotiating: Eric J. Levitt,\nCity Manager; Debbie Potter, Community Development Director; Michelle Giles,\nRedevelopment Project Manager; and Lisa Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney;\nNegotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners: Under Negotiation:\nPrice and Terms. Not heard.\n(20-552) Conference with Legal Counsel: Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode Section 54956.9); Requests for the City to participate as amicus in pending\nlitigations (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9); Case Name: Duncan V.\nBecerra; Court: State Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit; Case Number: 19-55376\n(20-553) Conference with Legal Counsel: Anticipated Litigation (Significant exposure to\nlitigation pursuant to paragraph (2) subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9); Number of\nCases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)\n(20-554) Conference with Legal Counsel: Potential Litigation (Initiation of litigation\npursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, Subsection (c); Number of Cases, One\n(As Plaintiff-City of Alameda Initiating Legal Action)\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Union Pacific, staff provided information and Council\napproved staff's recommendations by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye;\nAyes: 5: the case involves an ongoing eminent domain litigation against Union Pacific,\nwhere the City seeks to acquire approximately 1.56 acres of abandoned Union Pacific\nRailroad right-of-way on the northwest side of Tilden Way on either side of Blanding\nAvenue; the property will be used for the Cross Alameda Trail to the Miller-Sweeney\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 22, "text": "Bridge and into Oakland; the parties have reached a tentative agreement to finalize the\neminent domain process without trial, whereby the City would pay approximately\n$1,538,875, agree to release Union Pacific from future liability from the City, and to\ncertain use restrictions consistent with environment conditions of the site; the Council\nauthorized the City Attorney to resolve the litigation consistent with the tentative\nagreement; regarding Duncan V. Becerra, staff provided information and Council\nprovided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox\nWhite: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5: the City\nhas been asked to join numerous other local jurisdictions by authorizing and/or signing\non to an amicus briefs to be filed in the case to support the State of California's existing\nprohibition, codified at Government Code Section 313110, against the possession of\nlarge capacity magazines (LCM) that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition; a\ndivided panel of the 9th circuit held that Section 313110 violated the 2nd amendment; the\namicus brief seeks to support the State of California, in part, because the decision is\ncontrary to prior 9th Circuit precedent from six other Circuits all holding that various LCM\nrestrictions are constitutional; additionally, the Section 31310 prohibition against LCMs\ndoes not prevent the use of handguns or other weapons in self-defense and leaves\nopen alternative channels for self-defense in the home; the Council has authorized the\nCity Attorney to author and/or sign amicus briefs in the case, in any trial or appellate\ncourt of competent jurisdiction; and regarding Anticipated Litigation and Potential\nLitigation, staff provided information and Council provided direction with no vote taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:45\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-09-01", "page": 23, "text": "COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - 1, 2020--6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:32\np.m.\nand\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\nKnox\nWhite, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft -\n5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nOddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*20-555 CC/20-023 SACIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council and Successor Agency to\nthe Community Improvement Commission Meeting Held on July 7, 2020. Approved.\n(*20-556 CC/20-024 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Third Quarter Financial\nReport for the Period Ending March 31, 2020. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n7:33 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n1\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nSeptember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf"}