{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -OCTOBER - 20, 2020- 5:30 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:40 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(20-652) Conference with Legal Counsel-Anticipated Litigation; Significant Exposure\nto\nLitigation (Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Government Code Section\n54956.9); Number of Cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action);\nPotential Plaintiffs: Greenway Golf Associates, Inc.\n(20-653) Conference with Legal Counsel-Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of Litigation\n(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 Subsection (c)); Number of Cases:\nOne (As Plaintiff - City Exposure to Legal Action); Potential Defendants: Greenway Golf\nAssociates, Inc.\n(20-654) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54957); Positions Evaluated: City Attorney - Yibin Shen.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Exposure to Litigation, staff provided information and Council\nprovided direction with no vote taken; regarding Initiation of Litigation, staff provided\ninformation and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; and regarding Performance Evaluation, Council conducted\nthe City Attorney performance evaluation with no vote taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:49\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\nOctober 20, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - OCTOBER 20, 2020- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. and Councilmember Oddie led\nthe Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was\nconducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(20-655) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the resolutions of appointment [paragraph no.\n20-660 be heard before the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of moving the resolutions of appointment\nbefore 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\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(20-656) Proclamation Declaring October 2020 as Filipino American History Month.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(20-657) Former Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer, Alameda, discussed the Regional\nHousing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers; stated the Association of Bay Area\nGovernments (ABAG) is being urged to adopt a methodology which results in a lower\nnumber of units for some Bay Area cities; urged Council to participate in the ABAG\ncomment period and hearing on November 12th to reduce the amount of units for\nAlameda; discussed Alameda's susceptibility to liquefaction.\n(20-658) Paul Foreman, Alameda, discussed a letter he submitted related to ABAG's\nExecutive Board action from October 16th; stated the RHNA allocation methodology has\nbeen challenged and alternatives have been provided to reduce the allocation for\nsurrounding cities; stated the average return of low-income housing via private\ndevelopment density bonus has been under 15%; urged Council to challenge the ABAG\nBoard action at the November 4th Council meeting as an agendized item or Council\nReferral.\n(20-659) James Downey, Alameda, stated the Posey Tube cleanup on October 15th was\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nOctober 20, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 3, "text": "poorly implemented; discussed garbage at the Posey Tube encampment; read an\nexcerpt from the Boise decision; expressed concern about the current status of the\nPosey Tube encampment.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(20-660) Resolution No. 15709, \"Reappointing Troy Hosmer as a Member of the Civil\nService Board.\" Adopted;\n(20-660A) Resolution No. 15710, \"Appointing April Madison-Ramsey as a Member of\nthe Civil Service Board.\" Adopted;\n(20-660B) Resolution No. 15711, \"Reappointing Arnold Brillinger as a Member of the\nCommission on Persons with Disabilities.' Adopted;\n(20-660C) Resolution No. 15712, \"Reappointing Jennifer Linton as a Member of the\nCommission on Persons with Disabilities.\" Adopted;\n(20-660D) Resolution No. 15713, \"Appointing Allison Mullings as a Member of the\nCommission on Persons with Disabilities.\" Adopted;\n(20-660E) Resolution No. 15714, \"Reappointing Christine Chilcott as a Member of the\nSocial Service Human Relations Board.\" Adopted;\n(20-660F) Resolution No. 15715, \"Appointing Priya Jagannathan as a Member of the\nSocial Service Human Relations Board.' Adopted; and\n(20-660G) Resolution No. 15716, \"Appointing Anthony Lewis as a Member of the Social\nService Human Relations Board\". Adopted.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft introduced the nominees and the recent Planning Board appointee\nXiomara Cisneros.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nThe Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Hosmer, Ms. Madison-Ramsey, Ms.\nMullings, Ms. Jagannathan, Ms. Cisneros and Mr. Lewis.\nMs. Madison-Ramsey, Ms. Cisneros, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hosmer, Ms. Mullings, and Ms.\nJagannathan made brief comments.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nThe City Clerk announced the Updates to the Police Department Manual [paragraph no.\n20-664 and the Harbor Bay signal installation [paragraph no. 20-670] were removed\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 20, 2020\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 4, "text": "preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*20-661) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on September\n15, 2020 and the Continued September 15, 2020 Special Meeting Held on September\n22, 2020. Approved.\n(*20-662) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,985,604.60.\n(20-663) Recommendation to Review and Provide Feedback on the Community\nOutreach Effort for the Future De-Pave Park Master Planning Efforts.\nNote: The matter carried by the following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox\nWhite: No; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(20-664) Recommendation to Authorize Interim Chief of Police In Consultation with the\nCity Manager to Implement Pending and Future Updates to the Alameda Police\nDepartment Policy Manual to be Current with Best Practices and Statutory\nRequirements.\nThe Interim Police Chief gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether Alameda must be in compliance via\nimplementation, not just policy adoption, by January 1, 2021.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the policy must be\ndistributed, understood and followed by staff by the January 1, 2021 deadline.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether changes have been made to the training and\ntechniques policy for use of force.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded the Department has been engaged in training this\nmonth; stated the training addresses the recent changes from the California legislature,\nincluding Senate Bill 230; training has been occurring and implemented.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nOctober 20, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 5, "text": "Vice Mayor Knox White requested clarification on the changes made to policies related\nto shooting at moving vehicles and high speed pursuits in urban areas.\nThe Interim Police Chief stated that he shares the concern for shooting at moving\nvehicles; shooting at moving vehicles is rarely an effective Police tactic; there have\nbeen rare terrorist instances where vehicles have been used as weapons; the policy\nwould allow Police to attempt to stop the driver of the vehicle; training has indicated\nshooting at vehicles is not a tactic in general, but allows for a narrow application, if\nneeded; there has been significant language changes to bring Alameda in compliance\nconsistent with State Police Officer Standard Training (POST) for high speed pursuits;\nstaff has not loosed the rules and continues to have a narrow policy; room for\nsupervisor discretion is needed; pursuits are not preferred in Alameda.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding use of force, the Interim Police\nChief stated the elements are covered elsewhere in the policies; staff will not legally be\nallowed to use force against non-violent protestors or anyone not breaking the law.\nStated Police policies are coming before Council without subcommittee findings; many\npeople are concerned with the subcommittee formation method; chokeholds should be\nbanned without exception; many cities have banned chokeholds and strangleholds;\nnone of the best practices presented come close to the 8 Can't Wait policies; Officers\ncan be trained to not use chokeholds and strangleholds; questioned how many moving\nvehicles used as weapons have been stopped by shooting officers: Jenice A, Alameda.\nStated the policies presented are bypassing the subcommittees; issues required to be\nput in effect by law should be put in when necessary; questioned how policies will be\nenforced when Alameda Officers provide mutual aid or when mutual aid is provided to\nAlameda; discussed a high speed chase in Alameda; questioned how staff will interact\nwith the Sheriff, Oakland Police, and California Highway Patrol: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nStated the timing of the matter is bad; a subcommittee has been created to review\nspecific issues; making changes prior to subcommittee recommendations being\nprovided is a bad look and negates work being conducted; doing the bare minimum\nrelated to use of force is not what has been requested by residents; a more specific and\nprotective role for the policies is not being met; banning chokeholds and strangleholds is\nan obvious choice; none of the changes presented go far enough to protect people from\nPolice violence; urged Council to wait until the subcommittees report back; expressed\nconcern about the matter being placed on the Consent Calendar: Savanna Cheer,\nAlameda.\nExpressed concern about the matter moving forward while subcommittees are still\nmeeting; stated actions should pause until subcommittee recommendations return;\npolicy changes allow a great amount of discretion, which is problematic; urged language\nbe clear; stated Lexipol has been criticized for faulty policies; expressed concern about\nthe use of Lexipol; noted vehicles being used as weapons are primarily used by white\nsupremacists, which is not relevant to Alameda: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 20, 2020\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the item has been agendized since policy changes are\nrequired; the matter should have been placed on the Regular Agenda for discussion;\nCouncil meeting materials are published with a 12 day lead time; there are five\nsubcommittees; one is addressing Police policies and procedures; inquired the method\nof coexistence for Council discussion and the subcommittee.\nThe City Manager responded Council took several actions in June and July; stated as\nlaws are implemented, policy changes are brought to Council for approval; the\napprovals are unique as many Councils do not approve such policies; many of the\npolicies are narrower or more restrictive; the Police Department is giving multiple\npresentations to the subcommittees in November; some of the policies may come back\nthrough the subcommittees for further enhancements; the policies move in the same\ndirection as previous Council discussions and bring the City in compliance with State\nlaw.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council previously took out immigration status on Policy\n402.1.1 biased-based policing; inquired whether the fix and protection is shown\nelsewhere.\nLieutenant Foster responded the policy changes to rank-protected class language is in\nline with the remainder of policies; stated immigration status is not listed as one of the\nprotected classes; people who might be discriminated against, immigration status or\nothers fall under protection for various other protected classes.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether language in the presented policies affords\nprotection based on immigration status.\nLieutenant Foster responded not immigration status; stated race and sexual orientation\nare covered.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is a requirement to be consistent.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded there are policies within the Alameda Police\nDepartment (APD) Policy Manual related to not taking action based on immigration\nstatus; stated none of the policies related to immigration status are before Council at\nthis time; several provisions relate to not taking action based on a persons' immigration\nstatus; policies have been reviewed to ensure overall consistency with the City's\nsanctuary resolution.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed concern about the removal of immigration status;\nexpressed support for immigration status remaining in the policy if it is not required to be\nremoved; stated immigration status is a known target tactic.\nThe City Manager stated the policy may be taken out and deferred to allow for\nadditional research.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nOctober 20, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a means for the Police Policies and\nProcedures Subcommittee to review and comment on the policies.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated there will be multiple\npresentations provided to the subcommittees in November; any policies may be\nreviewed by the subcommittees.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated more discussion is needed related to use of force;\nrequested clarification about the inclusion of chokeholds and pain compliance\ntechniques within the policies.\nThe Interim Police Chief stated there has been an Assembly Bill which bans the use of\ncarotid and neck restraints, which have been removed from the policy and are not\ncovered; there is a protection tactic to keep someone from swallowing harmful items.\nLieutenant Foster stated the protection tactic causes momentary discomfort without\nresorting to strikes or other use of force tools; the tactics used have less risk of causing\ninjury to suspects and are important techniques used at a lower level of force to\naccomplish the goal of control and compliance in arrests.\nCouncilmember Vella stated Assembly Bill 392 was approved in the last year; there are\na handful of policies which require further discussion and review; inquired whether some\nof the policy changes can be prioritized over the more administrative changes;\nexpressed support for providing the prioritized policies to the subcommittees with a\ntimeline; expressed concern about training implementation being due by January 1,\n2021; stated tactics training needs to be reviewed by the chain of command to ensure\ncompliance; there will be Northwest Region Training Center (NRTC) updates; inquired\nwhether Alameda will be part of the NRTC update and whether the academy and tactics\ntrainings will be updated.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded trainees are sent to basic Police Academy, which\nmust be in compliance.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired how the City will address the issue of having policies\nwhich go beyond basic policy.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded academy graduates come to the City for two weeks\nof in-house training prior to field work; staff will work through basic training and then\nextend training in-house.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed concern about new trainees being factored into the\nupdates; questioned whether the input provided might end up as the policy reality due to\nlogistics in training; stated the use of force policy could benefit from a footnote or\ndefinition that the use of carotid holds is banned based off of State law; the questions\nreceived are due to ill-defined terms; cross-references will help; the pursuit of vehicles\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 20, 2020\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 8, "text": "policy discussion predated the Council discussion for subcommittees; expressed\nsupport for flagging policies being sent to the subcommittees for input and a timeline to\naid prioritization.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the subcommittees have been meeting, will continue to\nmeet and will provide an update in November; Council will make final decisions on the\nrecommendations presented in early 2021.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the practical consideration is to move forward with the\nstaff recommendation to incorporate State adopted policies; outlined State Police\npolicies and procedures; stated Alameda needs to move forward in adopting the\nproposed changes; residents with concerns about how to improve or clarify the policies\nshould not hold up adoption of the policies; the policies are State law; the policies can\nbe improved with the input of the subcommittees; the best option is to approve the\npolicies with ample time between now and December 31st; Council must be open to\nimproving some of the policies with input from the subcommittees; expressed concern\nabout holding off and closing the window for Police staff to be as best prepared as\npossible; expressed support for moving forward with the policies as recommended.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he is struggling with Policy #3 [APD Policy #300]; it\nis difficult to tell what has changed and what has not in some of the policies; Alameda\ntraining already bans chokeholds; policy changes can happen quickly; questioned\nwhether there is a way to bring back required changes at the next meeting on the\nConsent Calendar and have the remaining policies go to the community policy groups\nfor input before making changes; stated the staff report should consider the\nenvironment; noted the policies being provided are provided for 8,000 cities across the\ncountry and are problematic and unclear; the conversation is healthy; expressed\nsupport for a good, meaningful policy which will keep Officers and the community safe;\nstated that he will not support making policy changes for the sake of making changes;\nsmall and minor changes are okay; expressed support for moving forward the majority\nof the policy changes, which are small and minor text changes with no meaningful,\nactual changes; stated policies are often brought before Council for discussion and\nchange; Policy #3 should be changed due to the carotid chokehold; expressed concern\nabout the vehicle pursuit policy related to residential zones; stated the speeds of\nvehicles should be considered; when policies are loosened, courts make it more difficult\nto hold unacceptable behavior accountable; there are places in Alameda where driving\nfast is not wanted; some flexibility should be given to the policies; however, the policies\nshould remain tight with concerted decisions made; the City has communication\nchannels, which should be used to broadcast and discuss the policy changes coming\nforward; outlined a blog and social media post; stated the City should get back to being\nreasonable in talking to the community to ensure when policy changes are discussed\nand the public is engaged and able to participate; expressed support for sending the\nmajority of policies to the subcommittees for further refinement; stated requested the\nmotion be bifurcated if it includes removal of Council input on policies.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the City Attorney's Office and Police\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 20, 2020\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 9, "text": "Department staff's assistance in going through policies; stated some policies are time-\nsensitive and must be compliant by a certain date.\nThe City Manager stated staff has brought all changes to policies in an effort to be\ntransparent.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated majority of policies are ministerial; stated other policies\nneed further discussion; expressed support for moving forward the ministerial policies\nlisted as: 100, 220, 338, 1059, 804, 340, 320, 328, 1000, 1002, and 1044; stated 402\ncould be ministerial if immigration status was not taken out.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the policies left are: 300, 314, 468, and 402 due to\nimmigration status.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council decided the policies would come before Council\nfor review; Council discussion is not needed for the ministerial policies, which can be\nplaced on the Consent Calendar or communicated back to Council; three of the four\nremaining policies deal with issues Council has discussed the past few months;\nexpressed support for passing policies which comply with State law and the remaining\npolicies going before the subcommittees for discussion and refinement.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Councilmember Oddie's suggestion; stated\nCouncil must move forward to comply with State law; controversial policies can be sent\nto the subcommittees; the propositions are not mutually exclusive.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the subcommittees have asked for significant amount of\ndata in reviewing policies, notwithstanding the State law requirements; if Council\napproves the policies, the policies should be subject to review and input by the\nsubcommittees.\nThe City Manager stated the subcommittees are able to review any of the policies.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether the subcommittees have been made aware of\nthe timeline for changes and alerted that the proposals have been put on the agenda.\nThe City Manager responded the steering committee was informed that basic changes\nwere coming forth based on State law; stated the policy manuals are approximately 700\nto 800 pages long; the review process for manuals can take up to two years; the focus\non specific policies is helpful.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a return to Council by November 4th is not practical due to\nthe short turnaround time for staff reports; in order for the subcommittee to review, meet\nand convene with a report back to staff takes time.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of 11 policies [100, 220, 338, 1059, 804, 340,\n320, 328, 1000, 1002, and 1044], and Policy #402 without striking immigration status\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 20, 2020\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 10, "text": "from the policy, as well as Policies 300, 468 and 314, while referring those as high\npriority items for the task force/community subcommittees, with a note that Council will\nwant to see an amendment or footnote to Policy 300 noting the State ban on\nchokeholds.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether all policies are being moved for approval,\nincluding some with caveats, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the\naffirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated staff is happy to\nwork with the subcommittees and colleagues to provide legal advice at all levels.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested clarification that the motion moves all 15 policies\nforward.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated all policies are as-is, with the exception of not striking\nimmigration status from Policy #402 and putting a note in Policy #300 about the State\nban on chokeholds.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion; requested a friendly amendment that the\nmotion include the caveat that this is not the end, rather it is a step that does not mean\nCouncil will not be taking future action related to 8 Can't Wait.\nCouncilmember Oddie accepted the friendly amendment to the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council will take action once the subcommittee has\nreported back.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(*20-665) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year\nAgreement with Chrisp Company for On-Call Striping and Signage, No. P.W. 02-20-08,\nin a Total Not to Exceed Expenditure of $750,000. Accepted.\n(*20-666) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Three-Year\nAgreement with the Option of Two, One-Year Extensions, in the Amount of $150,000\nper Fiscal Year to NN Engineering Inc. for On-Call Transportation Planning and Traffic\nEngineering Consulting Services for a Total Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed\n$750,000. Accepted.\n(*20-667) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of Two Street Sweepers and\nOne Backhoe Consistent with Revised Vehicle Replacement Policy in Amounts Not to\nExceed $597,928.28 from Tymco, Inc. and $135,996.71 from PAPE Machinery.\nAccepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nOctober 20, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 11, "text": "(*20-668) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Light Emitting\nDiode Lamps and Fixtures from Wesco Distribution, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed\n$243,833.92. Accepted.\n(*20-669) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement\nwith Bayside Stripe & Seal, Inc. for the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Sign and Striping\nMaintenance Project, No. P.W. 02-20-13, in an Amount Not to Exceed Amount of\n$281,843. Accepted; and\n(*20-669A) Resolution No. 15717, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Capital Budget\nby Reducing Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in Capital Improvement Program\n91811 by $328,524 and Increasing Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations for Capital\nImprovement Program 96011 by $328,524.\" Adopted.\n(20-670) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract\nAmendment with Ray's Electric for the Signal Installation at Harbor Bay Parkway/North\nand South Loop Road and Harbor Bay Parkway/Penumbra Place and South Loop\nRoad, No. P.W.04-19-23, in an Amount Not to Exceed $280,890, for a Total Not to\nExceed Expenditure of $873,690; and\n(20-670A) Resolution No. 15718, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Capital\nImprovement Program Budget by Allocating $200,000 in Transportation Improvement\nFee Funds to the Capital Improvement Program 96012 to Construct Signal Installation\nat Harbor Bay Parkway/North and South Loop Road and Harbor Bay\nParkway/Penumbra Place and South Loop Road Project.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the City spent $592,800 and realized an\nadditional $280,890 was needed or has the City not yet spent the initial $592,800 and\nstill realized the need for an additional $280,890; stated that he has a problem with the\nCity initially spending $592,800 and realizing an additional $280,890 is needed; noted\nthe project may need to be re-bid if the calculations were incorrect.\nThe City Manager responded the additional $280,890 was needed due to unseen\nissues as the project was ending; stated the project has gone over-time and was initially\napproved in 2019.\nThe City Engineer stated a short while after the project began, the contractor\nencountered issues with sand, which were incorrectly characterized at the initial\nevaluation; the City has spent a significantly higher amount of money on foundations;\nmaterials have already been ordered and the project is too far along to turn back; power\nsource needs were not clearly communicated to Alameda Municipal Power (AMP),\nwhich requires significantly more trenching.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the staff report is unclear on the current spending of the\nproject; noted the clarification provided allows more understanding; stated staff will need\nto internally discuss procedures to take in order to catch these issues sooner rather\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 20, 2020\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 12, "text": "than later; while these issues do happen, the City should be careful with the public's\nmoney.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation and adoption of\nrelated resolution.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the thoroughfare on Harbor Bay Business Park is very busy\nand can be scary; construction brings unknown details when digging begins.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(20-671) Recommendation to Establish an Alameda Youth Council/Commission.\nThe Public Information Officer and Venecio Camarillo gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated many Councilmembers have attended youth\ndemonstrations; youth skills are apparent and demonstrations are well-run; outlined a\nsilent demonstration; some demonstrations are multi-generational; noted the Youth\nActivists of Alameda members come from across the Island and communicate well; it is\ntime for young people to be involved in the future of their community.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the Alameda Youth Commission is a great idea; Council\nhas engaged youth members outside of Council meetings; however, there is no\nmechanism for young people to provide an unfiltered opinion on issues in the City and\nthe Youth Commission will provide the opportunity; outlined his experience as a\nmember of youth in government; stated the Youth Commission will have an influence\nand a voice in policies; expressed support for the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the matter gives staff direction to explore options; a\nbalance is needed in order to have the right amount of members; meetings must be\naccessible to individuals and have a method of getting to and from City Hall; noted bus\npasses could be made available; expressed support for staff looking into barriers to\naccessibility, such as iPad's or other electronic devices and for staff creating meetings\nwhich as accessible as possible; outlined her experience watching youth staying late to\nspeak on City issues, such as rent and tenant protections; stated there are many issues\nwhich impact the youth community; the Youth Commission will invite the youth\nperspective; noted youth voices provided help in banning flavored tobacco; stated youth\nvoices are effective; expressed support for the staff recommendation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated youth voices have also provided short videos on wearing a\nmask.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nOctober 20, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Daysog expressed support for incorporating leadership council's from\neach school; stated the leadership council may nominate those to serve on the Youth\nCommission; student leadership councils tend to represent a breadth of the student\nbody and interact with students.\nStated that he did not have the opportunity as a young person to be involved in different\ncommittees and commissions; some committees and commissions did not exist;\noutlined past Police violence incidents toward youths and the lack of youth\ncommissions; discussed issues which impact young people; stated a youth-led venue\nmay also benefit from having voices on the Planning Board, Social Services Human\nRelations Board or other boards and commissions; expressed support for the work of\nyouth groups in Alameda: Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda\nVice Mayor Knox White expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated the\nprevious Youth Commission was de-commissioned due to lack of youth staff; expressed\nconcern about over formalizing the commission; stated a Brown Act body may not be\nthe best way to engage and gain input; outlined a speech given at Island High School;\nnoted youth groups are busy; stated Council and staff should identify a way to engage a\nyouth-led official Council; the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) has student\nschool board members; questioned whether there are ways to partner with AUSD;\nexpressed concern about Brown Act constraints being stifling and overly formal.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is excited for the possibility of a Youth\nCommission; expressed support for less input from Council; stated some young people\nwill not necessarily work within the framework of a youth leadership council; expressed\nsupport for information put out far and wide across the Island to allow many to apply;\nstated young people are serving on the policing subcommittees.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the scope should not be limited based off other elections;\nthere are different types of leadership and some students lead on issues, yet do not\nattend high schools in Alameda; Council and staff should create a space where different\nvoices can be heard.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a motion is needed.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded staff has received direction from Council\nand will meet with youth organizers to return with a clear framework.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to ensure the Council direction includes\nproviding members with transit and technology options.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft recessed the meeting at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at\n9:20 p.m.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 20, 2020\n12", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 14, "text": "(20-672) Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's Decision to\nApprove Use Permit No. PLN20-0160 to Allow the Operation of a Cannabis Retail\nDispensary at 2416 Lincoln Avenue; and\n(20-672A) Resolution No. 15719, \"Denying Appeal and Approving Use Permit\nApplication No. Pln20-0160, Subject to Modified Conditions of Approval, to Allow the\nOperation of a Cannabis Retail Dispensary at 2416 Lincoln Avenue.' Adopted.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a presentation.\n(20-673) The City Clerk announced Council will need to vote to suspend the rules to\nallow the Appellant and Applicant 5 minutes of speaking time.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of allowing the appellant and applicant 5\nminutes of speaking time.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director continued the presentation.\nGave a Power Point presentation: Enrico Meier, Project Appellant.\nStated there is a commitment to ensure the project is successful; discussed NUG's\nestablishments and City relations; stated NUG is currently in Oakland, San Leandro,\nSacramento and Redding; discussed letters of support; stated the presentation has a\ntypo; the correct math had been provided regarding the amount of customers per\nmonth; the discussed the anticipated volume of customers being similar to the\nSacramento location; stated the Sacramento location is similar in size and parking;\nNUG is able to handle the daily customer flow with no congestion; discussed images\ndepicting the 600 foot radius; stated actual measurements have been made by City\nstaff; double parking will not be allowed; the parking lot will be the primary parking\nlocation; alternative transit will be promoted at NUG; discussed local support; stated the\nproject site has been in a state of disrepair for years; NUG is prepared to put significant\ncapital investment into the building and improve the site; discussed illicit and regulated\nsales; stated illicit sales will continue unless people are able to obtain nice, high-end\nstores in accessible locations: Burch Greene, John Oram, and Robert Selna, Project\nApplicants, NUG Wellness.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how the applicant will prevent double parking.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nOctober 20, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 15, "text": "Mr. Oram responded the entrance to the facility is on Lincoln Avenue; stated one\nsecurity guard will be at the entrance; the site will have two security guards at all times;\nthe second security guard will be focused on traffic flow in the parking lot, monitoring\ndouble parking and the safety and security of the surrounding neighborhood; every\ncustomer must register with the NUG system, which includes a good neighbor policy\ncalling for no loud music, double parking, fast driving, or smoking on-site.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how NUG will prevent a person from reselling product\nto minors.\nMr. Oram responded the security guard responsible for walking the neighborhood and\nparking lot should be able to identify and monitor activity; stated should reselling be\nseen, the security guard will stop the transaction, report the name to management and\nthe reseller will be blocked from entering the facility again; noted the point of sale\nsystem tracks customer purchases; unusual behavior in customer purchases can be\nflagged for follow up.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a limit to the distance a security guard\ncan travel up the street.\nMr. Oram responded management requests the security guards use discretion; stated\nsomething down the block can be monitored; the primary objective is to monitor on-site;\nnoted the two security guards are in radio contact with each other and store\nmanagement.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the good neighbor policy and security plan is\nreviewed by the Police Department and whether the project falls within the approved\nzoning, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether any other businesses are required to have a\nplan to deal with double parking and whether other businesses are required to have\nsecurity follow people who purchase opioids, to which the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether cannabis is legal for adult and medicinal use in\nAlameda, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated this product is a medicine and is permitted in Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many parking spaces the Sacramento NUG location\nhas, to which Mr. Oram responded the peak volume of clients would be 400; stated the\nSacramento store is roughly the same square footage with six parking spaces and a\nbike rack.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 20, 2020\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 16, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff considered courier and delivery service\nparking; inquired how delivery parking is handled.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded NUG is not the first\ndispensary offering delivery in Alameda; stated delivery service did not change staff's\nanalysis; evaluating a use permit with no parking is not uncommon for staff; the site for\nNUG in Alameda has five spaces, which is unique for the project area; staff provided\nconditions for use of the parking spaces.\nThe City Planner stated staff's study of the project noted the neighboring restaurant\nprovides delivery services and is not unlike any other business on Park Street.\nDiscussed her experience working and living in Alameda; stated the project is a far\nbetter use of the building; the company is reputable; urged Council to continue the\nproject: Kathleen Prior, Alameda Meals on Wheels.\nExpressed support for the Alameda NUG project; stated the investment and confidence\nmade by NUG is appreciated; NUG has incorporated neighboring practices in their\nplanning; NUG is mitigating parking and traffic concerns; NUG is the only dispensary\nproviding off-street parking; urged Council to deny the appeal of the Planning Board's\nunanimous decision and approve the use permit for the Alameda NUG dispensary:\nKathy Webber, Downtown Alameda Business Association (DABA).\nExpressed support for working with NUG; stated NUG has promised to share profits\nwith Meals on Wheels; Meals on Wheels serves roughly 200 people per day at a cost of\n$17,000 per month; NUG is helping Meals on Wheels in lieu of regular fundraising.\nwhich has been curtailed by the pandemic; urged Council to approve the permit: William\nGibbs, Alameda Meals on Wheels.\nDiscussed support letters written for NUG; stated the dispensary will provide much\nneeded vitality to Lincoln Avenue; expressed support for the renovation of the project\nsite: Peter Kahl and Cindy, Spiesekammer.\nExpressed support for the NUG project; stated this is a great time to see a new\nbusiness come to the community and be a beacon of hope and inspiration: Madlen\nSaddick, Alameda Chamber of Commerce.\nStated that she is eager to see NUG open and beautify the block; the NUG building has\nbeen vacant for a long time; the renovations will be a tasteful improvement, leaving a\nlasting impression to all that visit the Island; NUG will provide increased security, foot\ntraffic, community involvement and charm; the Planning Board has given the project two\nunanimous votes; urged Council to deny the appeal and allow NUG to move forward:\nAudra Wright, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired the required annual report from NUG and the result of\nnot meeting standards within said report.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nOctober 20, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 17, "text": "The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded every operator and retail\ndispensary must have two valid permits: use permit and operators permit; stated the\noperators permit is issued by staff and the primary department is the Police Department;\nthe permits are reviewed and must be reissued each year; the reissuance allows the\nCity leverage and power to ensure operators are good neighbors.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the security guards are armed.\nThe Planner III responded cannabis business regulations allow, but do not mandate,\nsecurity guards to carry firearms; stated the Police Chief can require any type of\nconditions for public safety and welfare; the dispensary on Webster Street has unarmed\nguards during business hours and use an armored truck when receiving shipments.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about an armed guard pursuing a sales\ntransaction; stated the Police should be called regarding any illegal transactions.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated Council must follow the rules that have been set up; it is\nnot fair to ask people to jump through hoops just to have capricious decisions made at\nthe end; legal cannabis is a new thing and concerns are understandable; the previous\nCouncil set up rules and protections in a good way; outlined the one year operating\nlicense requirement; expressed support for denying the appeal and allowing the project\nto move forward.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of denying the appeal and approving the use\npermit application [adoption of the resolution]; stated Council spent time discussing and\nformulating the process for applications and locations; it would be unfair for the standard\nto be changed after many public meetings discussing the processes; the Planning\nBoard put in a lot of time and consideration to the project.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated nothing has bene presented that would\nmake him support overturning the unanimous decision by the Planning Board;\nexpressed concern about asking for more restrictions on different items that other\nbusinesses are not subject to; outlined security details of pharmacies; stated Council\nshould be careful about the words used to describe products; cannabis was legalized by\nthe voters of the State of California and is regulated by the State legislature; medicinal\nuse has been permitted for over 20 years; expressed concern about describing\ncannabis as a drug and reinforcing stereotypes; expressed support for the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that denying the appeal and approving the\nuse permit is subject to the modified conditions of approval; noted the closing hour is an\nhour later than the ordinance allows, to which Councilmember Vella responded in the\naffirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 20, 2020\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated the City has not properly characterized the built\nenvironment impacts of outfits such as medical marijuana dispensaries; the traffic\nimpacts of dispensaries are more than realized; outlined his experience with traffic\nimpacts of the Webster Street dispensary; stated the same traffic impacts could happen\nat the proposed project site on Lincoln Avenue; the project will be more of a burden to\nsurrounding residents and restaurants than anticipated; the City should reexamine high\nvehicle activity policies; noted dispensary patrols diminish over time; stated reselling\nhappens and the City should be aware; the project will not fit the neighborhood;\nexpressed support for residents.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she has not seen a single nefarious thing occur while\nwalking past the dispensary on Webster Street; expressed concern about statements\nmade regarding drug dealings without Police reports as backup; stated certain\nbehaviors can improve during COVID-19, especially double parking; Council should act\nbased off of data and policies set.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Abstain. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. Abstention: 1.\n(20-674) Recommendation to Receive an Update on Procurement Process for\nAlameda's Integrated Waste Franchise.\nThe Assistant City Manager and Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.\nCurtis Below, FM3 Research, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether a level of \"satisfied\" was included in the\nsurvey.\nMr. Below responded the question is structured to initially ask whether a customer is\nsatisfied or dissatisfied with service, and as a follow up, the survey asks whether the\nlevel is very or somewhat; stated the aggregate is a total satisfaction number.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is a location to drop-off used batteries\nshould the office location be closed.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded staff can explore alternative pickup resource\noptions as a contract component.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the drop-off is a benefit of an office location as well as bill-\npay options; inquired whether staff is working with StopWaste on helping achieve goals\nof improving diversion rates at multi-family units.\nRob Hilton, HF&H Consultants, responded a combination of solutions is being looked at\nfor multi-family generators, as well as commercial generators; stated a staff resource for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nOctober 20, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 19, "text": "technical assistance is included in the staff report; waste needs are more complicated\nfor commercial and multi-family environments.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated commercial and multi-family environments are new to\nsorting aspects; inquired whether StopWaste has been consulted for a camera system\nwithin bins as an enforcement aid.\nMr. Hilton responded a sister company to Alameda County Industries (ACI) conducted\nthe camera system pilot program; good data has been produced from the program and\ncan be introduced to the discussion; challenges with the program are related to costs;\nnoted each camera within bins has its own cellular service with a monthly fee which will\nimpact rates; there may be a targeted approach for using the program.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted customer education could be a less costly option; stated the\ncamera in the bin is intriguing.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether staff is requesting a sole source contract as\nopposed to issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP).\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the current matter provides an update; stated\nstaff has explored a sole source option with ACI; an RFP could be issued, if needed;\nhowever, sole source negotiations are going well with ACI; there have been delays in\nreporting figures due to nearby fires affecting ACI staff members and more time is\nneeded; the term for the contract will be shorter than 20 years; the rate structure is\nhelped by a longer amortization time frame; staff does not anticipate an RFP process\nwill be needed.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated bin placement does not always align with expectations;\nquestioned whether there will be a way to address bin placement; stated ACI is\nreceiving high approvals; noted the one section for improvement would be bin\nplacement.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted that her personal experience with ACI's customer service\nhas been top notch; stated many cities' providers are no longer accepting glass and are\nlimiting acceptable items.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that it is difficult for him to see a sole source contract\nprovided even at a 10 year term; ACI does a good job, but the market should be tested.\n(20-675) Recommendation to (1) Waive the Encroachment Permit Fees Through\nOctober 31, 2021 for the Commercial Streets Program; (2) Delay Short Term,\nTemporary, \"Special Event\" Street Closures Along Major Commercial and Side Streets;\nand (3) Accept the September 2020 Status Report on Transportation; and\n(20-675A) Resolution No. 15720, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for and\nReceive Up To Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) in Alameda County\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 20, 2020\n18", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 20, "text": "Transportation Commission (ACTC) COVID-19 Rapid Response Bicycle and Pedestrian\nGrant Program Funds to Enhance and Expand Alameda's Commercial and Slow\nStreets Programs; and Allocate up to $75,000 in funds from Local Measure B/BB\nBicycle and Pedestrian Funds (alternatively if more CARE funds are distributed, those\nfunds could be used) for the Required Matching Funds, Should the Grant be Awarded.'\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether his recusal on the matter is required.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the Fair Political Practices\nCommission (FPPC) recently revised regulations related to the public generally\nexceptions; noted the limited neighborhood effect states the City's decision affecting\nresidential property is limited to specific locations encompassing more than 50 homes;\nstated the program is more than 50 homes; the decision establishes, amends or\neliminates restrictions on parking, imposes traffic controls, or other measures to improve\npublic safety; Councilmember Oddie may participate in the discussion.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the roll out for slow streets has been\ncompleted.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator responded the map discussed in May by Council\nhas since been revised to add additional slow;.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired how the map from May compares to the current map.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator responded that she can look up the map details\nfrom May.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he remembers more streets than currently\nimplemented; noted 72% of people are in favor of slow streets, which should be\ncompleted as approved.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator stated Versailles Avenue, Pacific Avenue, and\nSan Jose Avenue have been completed; a little more still needs to be completed and\nmore streets will be proposed beyond what was presented in May.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) has noted there are\nno slow streets at Alameda Point; inquired the status of slow streets at Alameda Point.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator responded staff has received a request from\nAPC for slow streets on Orion Street at Alameda Point; stated there is a bus route on\nOrion Street; staff is not putting slow streets on transit streets; staff is looking into other\noptions for Alameda Point.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nOctober 20, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 21, "text": "Councilmember Vella inquired how the update, review and timeline is provided to\nCouncil when changes are made; stated the pandemic has lasted several months and\ntraffic is heavy for AUSD lunch pickup as well as for the Food Bank; expressed concern\nabout the timeliness and bus routes which may be inactive.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the direction he is receiving is\nCouncil is supportive of the Slow Streets program and would like to see expansions;\nstaff can provide an off-agenda report or provide a staff report for an upcoming agenda\nwith the most current update and plans for expansion of the program; the update will\ninclude streets being considered; the Public Works and Planning, Building and\nTransportation Departments are feeling over-extended; staff can re-group and provide\nupdates with a comparison to the main map provided in May.\nThe City Engineer stated there had been a concerted push in May and June to get the\nSlow Streets program rolled out; staff then diverted attention to commercial streets;\nexpansion opportunities are possible for Slow Streets.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Slow Streets; stated communication is key\nand goes a long way when installing Slow Streets; expressed support for the\nrecommendation to delay short-term, temporary, special event street closures along\nmajor commercial and side streets due to the County Public Health Officer prohibiting\nlarge gatherings; stated the City needs to keep COVID-19 numbers under control;\nresidents must continue to protect themselves; outlined a swap meet at Alameda Point\nand a karaoke party at a yacht club; stated gatherings should not be happening now.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he listened to the Transportation Commission\nmeeting status report; expressed support for the work done by City staff; Council\nprovided direction for Slow Streets based on a map provided in May; expressed support\nfor quicker communication to Council in the event decisions are made to delay Slow\nStreets.\nCouncilmember Vella stated communication improvements with Council and the public\nare needed during the pandemic; many people are excited for the reopening; there is\nstill misinformation about permitted and non-permitted matters; the City needs to\nprovide better communication for updates on permitted activities; activities are planned\nnot just within the commercial districts but residential as well; there is ample information\nprovided on the City's website; however, many people do not know to visit the City's\nwebsite for information; better communication is a larger issue and a strategy is needed\nfor the City as a whole; expressed support for an off-agenda update to Council; stated\nCouncil information is helpful and allows members to be on the same page, relaying the\nsame information and message.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for City staff; stated staff has been\nresponsive to Council and the community; outlined merchant input on commercial street\nclosures; expressed support for a pilot commercial street closure; stated there have\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 20, 2020\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 22, "text": "been concerns about Haight Avenue being a cut-through street and it could be a viable\nalternative for Slow Streets.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator stated that she has reviewed the Slow Streets\nmap from May; staff implemented two short segments of Versailles Avenue and Pacific\nAvenue; staff brought an expansion of Phase 2 which included extending Pacific\nAvenue and adding Santa Clara Avenue; staff has since added a Phase 3 which\ncompleted Versailles Avenue and added San Jose Avenue; the map brought to Council\nin May still shows areas that are planned for future or under consideration, which have\nnot yet been implemented; the City now has 4.5 miles of Slow Streets; future phases\nwill link Slow Streets to allow more of a network; staff has not completed everything\nlisted on the original map, but has moved forward significantly.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation, including\nadoption of resolution.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-676) The City Manager made an announcement regarding homeless and\ntransportation updates from the Council goal-setting retreat; stated the City continues to\nmeet with International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and staff will provide an\nupdate in November with a possible resolution brought to Council by December;\nannounced a community input survey has been provided for the Police Chief\nrecruitment; stated there will be a flu shot clinic at the Alameda Hospital parking lot; this\nis the last meeting before the election; a third ballot drop box location has been installed\nin front of the Bay Farm library; stated voting locations are listed on the City's website.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-677) Vice Mayor Knox White made an announcement regarding an Interagency\nLiaison Committee (ILC) meeting; stated AC Transit is managing service during COVID-\n19 with bus cuts to ensure remaining service is working for those with the greatest\nneed; the community may experience larger reductions in bus service; expressed\nsupport for AC Transit's efforts; discussed re-openings in San Francisco.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nOctober 20, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-10-20", "page": 23, "text": "(20-678) Councilmember Daysog stated AC Transit is trying to hold off on cutting\nservice to Alameda; made an announcement regarding an Oakland-Alameda Noise\nForum meeting.\n(20-679) Councilmember Oddie made an announcement regarding flu shots and a\nHealth Care District liaison meeting; stated seismic construction is underway at the\nHospital.\n(20-680) Councilmember Vella outlined a district-wide strike at Alameda Health\nSystems Hospital, Alameda Hospital, Highland Hospital and San Leandro Hospital;\nmade an announcement regarding a liaison meeting with East Bay Regional Parks\nDistrict (EBRPD) and a Lead Abatement meeting.\n(20-681) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding accessible voting\noptions and ballot drop boxes; stated City staff has been working hard under difficult\ncircumstances during the pandemic; announced the opening of 20 playgrounds in\nparks; stated there are guidelines for park use; made announcements regarding\nHalloween and social distancing protocols and a COVID-19 testing and flu vaccine site.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:35\np.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\nOctober 20, 2020\n22", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf"}