{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- MARCH 2, 2021--5:30 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was\nheld via Zoom. Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 5:36 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(21-119) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode Section 54956.9); Case Name: City of Alameda V. Union Pacific (Sweeney);\nCourt: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Numbers:\nRG18921261.\n(21-120) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Alameda Point, Site A, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric\nLevitt, City Manager; Lisa Maxwell, Interim Community Development Director; and\nDebbie Potter, Special Project Analyst; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and\nAlameda Point Partners, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms. [Continued from\nFebruary 16, 2021].\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Union Pacific, staff provided information and Council provided\ndirection by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer:\nNo; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2;\nregarding Alameda Point, Site A, staff provided information and Council provided\ndirection.\nAdjournment\nAt 7:15 p.m., Council continued Alameda Point, Site A to Tuesday, March 9th, 2021 at\n5:00 p.m. by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera\nSpencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 16, 2021\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- MARCH 2, 2021--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:31 p.m. Councilmember Herrera\nSpencer led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nThe meeting was conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(21-121) Season for Non-Violence Word of the Day: Justice\nVice Mayor Vella read a quote.\n(21-122) Proclamation Declaring March 2021 as American Red Cross Month.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-123) Marilyn Rothman, Alameda, discussed an article related to the Alameda\ncommunity paramedics; stated the use of community paramedics is a better use\nof\nfunds.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-124) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting, the January 19, 2021 Continued\nMeeting and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on February 2, 2021. Approved.\n(*21-125) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,394,083.00.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 2, 2021\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 3, "text": "(*21-126) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Three-Year\nAgreement, with the Option of Two One-Year Extensions for a Total Five-Year\nCompensation Amount Not to Exceed $110,000 and No More Than $35,000 in a Single\nFiscal Year, with Resource Consultants to Provide CDBG and HOME Compliance and\nProgram Management Services to the City of Alameda. Accepted.\n(*21-127) Recommendation to Accept the Work of McGuire and Hester for Cyclic Sewer\nReplacement Project, Phase 15, No. PW 03-18-10. Accepted.\n(*21-128) Recommendation to Accept the Semi-Annual Report for the Period of May 1,\n2020 Through December 31, 2020, on 1) Litigation and Liability Claims Settlements, 2)\nWorkers' Compensation Settlements, 3) Personnel Settlement, and 4) Whether Any\nRecords Previously Withheld from Disclosure Have Now Become Available to the\nPublic. Accepted.\n(*21-129) Resolution No. 15748, \"Authorizing Staff to Submit an Application for the\nStatewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program Grant for\nConstruction of Jean Sweeney Open Space Park - Western Phase.' Adopted.\n(*21-130) Resolution No. 15749,\" Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local\nEmergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government\nCode Section 8630(c). Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-131) Mayor's State of the City Address.\n(21-132) The City Clerk stated a motion is needed to suspend the Rules of Order to\nallow the presentation to be longer than 10 minutes.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft gave the State of the City address.\n(21-133) Resolution No. 15750, \"Amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-21 Budget and\nAuthorizing the City Manager to Redistribute Budget Appropriations between Similar\nCapital Projects.\" Adopted; and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMarch 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 4, "text": "(21-133A) Resolution No. 15751, \"Amending the Salary Schedules for the Management\nand Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) and for Executive Management\nEmployees (EXME) and Approving Workforce Changes for FY 2020-21.' Adopted.\nThe Senior Management Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there are matters which preclude Council\nfrom altering the proposed amount of reserves set aside for the Other Post-Employment\nBenefit (OPEB) liability.\nThe City Manager responded Council approval of any change to the proposed OPEB\namount should be contingent on the matter returning for final approval during the\nCouncil Study Sessions in May; stated nothing limits Council from reducing the\nproposed amount.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the assets seized as referenced in the report.\nThe City Manager responded the matter is defined in the mid-year budget adjustments\nas an exhibit; stated the funds came from an Alameda County Regional Narcotics Task\nForce; the funds go into a fund balance; Alameda Police Department (APD) requested\nfurther funds than initially appropriated; the request for $21,000 is to increase the\nappropriation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether specific assets had been seized\nproviding specific reimbursement.\nThe City Manager responded in the negative; stated the seizure of assets occurred prior\nto 2020; the funds are placed into the fund balance from the Regional Task Force.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the assets seized were under narcotics\nenforcement.\nThe City Manager responded the assets came from the Alameda County Regional\nNarcotics Task Force; stated APD no longer has a member on the Task Force.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the assets seized are known, to which the City\nManager responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether changes or modifications from staff\noccurred.\nThe City Manager responded there are no adjustments in the mid-year budget; stated\nadjustments are being evaluated for the annual budget process; recommendations will\nbe presented based on reports to be provided.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 2, 2021\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the pay scale is different for the\nworkforce reclassification from Senior Fire Code Compliance Officer to Fire Apparatus\nOfficer.\nThe Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative; stated the Fire Code\nCompliance Officer is not a public safety position; the funds for the change were\napproved as part of the budget; staff is not asking for additional funding, just the\nworkforce change.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the workforce change eventually\nresults in the higher wage being paid, to which the Human Resources Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nDiscussed Steering Committee hours of work; expressed concern about the budget not\nanticipating costs related to implementing the Police Reform and Racial Equity\nCommittees recommendations; stated final recommendations are forthcoming: Erin\nFraser, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that his focus is on the policy which Council adopted in\n2017 related to a certain portion of the [General Fund] reserves being set aside for\nunfunded and OPEB liability payment obligations; the City has an incredible amount of\nunfunded liabilities which need to be paid down; Council needs to review the policy in\nan effort to ensure the payment strategy is reasonable; noted the formula for payment is\nset at $14,000,000; stated the amount is on top of the amounts proposed by California\nPublic Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS); the City needs to pay more than\nwhat has been proposed; however, the formula being used has the City pay\n$14,000,000; the policy is insane; many times a payment amount of the size is placed to\na vote of the people; outlined previous years' payments; expressed concern about the\namount paid not being voted on; stated payments toward unfunded liabilities must be\nmade within the context of other matters; some people would like to expand Recreation\nand Parks; the City has spent $40,000,000 cumulatively since 2017 without a vote of\nthe people; the policy should be revisited and a top limit should be established; noted\nthat he will not support the matter.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the Financial Impact section of the staff\nreport; stated the report indicates a deficit increase in Fiscal Year 2020-2021;\nexpressed concern that expenditures exceed revenues; stated the reserves are being\ndecreased over time; noted that she would like to see biennial forecasts each time the\nbudget is presented; expressed concern about the Fire Apparatus Officer position;\nstated budgeting performance has not always aligned with values and community\nneeds; that she is not supportive of increasing pay until reports from the Subcommittees\nare presented.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the formula used to calculate OPEB\npayments.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMarch 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 6, "text": "The City Manager stated last March, economic matters related to COVID-19 were\ndiscussed with Council; there were uncertainties related to the budget and conservative\nyearend projections were provided; noted an $11 million surplus had been reported due\nto an excess in projections; the $2 million deficit shown is due to budgeting\nconservatively; the actual budget is likely to have less deficit.\nThe Senior Management Analyst briefly presented calculations.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the policy sets aside an amount over the reserve;\nhalf is used toward paying off costs that must be paid; paying pension costs now saves\nmillions of dollars per year, which can go toward ongoing budget needs; previous\nCouncils did not provide adequate pension payments and the current Council is\ncurrently stuck paying the unfunded pension liabilities over the next 30 years; Council\nhas tried to lower the impact on the budget; outlined upcoming budget workshop\nsessions; noted the timing appears weird; stated the matter is a backward looking\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [adoption of\nthe resolutions], with the City Manager's recommendation that Council hold a second\nvote once the real numbers are known on the pension pay down.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about taking a fiscally irresponsible stance; stated\nthe reason a surplus exists is due to thoughtful budgeting and priorities; a pandemic is\nnot the time to consider cutting emergency services; the [unfunded liability] costs are\nnot going away; the more that can be paid down earlier, the more that will be saved in\nthe long-run; changing the policy is a one-off; the policy has been adopted by Council\nand should be agendized separately in order to be changed; the impact of Federal aid is\nstill unknown; expressed support for the proposed budget recommendation; stated\nCouncil will be making budget and priority decisions and budgets can be amended\nwhen needed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is excited projections were higher than anticipated;\nquestioned whether transient occupancy taxes (TOT) will increase; outlined the origin of\nthe [unfunded liability] formula; stated the City has already saved millions on finance\ncharges for the balance owed; expressed support for the current formula; noted the\npolicy may return for Council consideration; outlined staff's recommendation to contract\nwith a firm that will help build a financial model; stated a deeper dive will be taken into\nwhat is needed to manage the pension and OPEB obligations; the actions taken thus far\nhave been smart; noted the Block by Block program has been successful; stated that\nshe would like the City Manager to recommend additional funding in order to continue\nthe Block by Block program.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the budget information has been provided in an open\nand easily understood manner; noted that his lack of support is not due to information\nprovided by staff; stated roughly $35 million has gone toward unfunded liabilities over\nthe past four years; the choice is not between spending zero dollars or $35 million;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 2, 2021\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 7, "text": "however, the formula could provide an amount somewhere in the middle to allow the\nfunding to be used for other services; noted the Police Department is understaffed,\nparks are underfunded, and the Alameda Library should be open more; expressed\nconcern about the current formula.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nThe City Manager stated the Block by Block program was not included in the proposed\nfunding; Council would need to amend the resolution to include it.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for including Block by Block.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the alternatives section from the staff report;\nnoted the amount provided in the report is different than presented.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the amount proposed to fund Block\nby Block program; inquired whether the funding covers the remainder of the Fiscal Year,\nto which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated the amount is for the remainder of the Fiscal\nYear; the $498,000 shown in the report did not include Block by Block; to include Block\nby Block, an additional $178,000 is needed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that since she did not support the budget\nmotion, she should not support a single additional funding request; requested\nclarification about the vote.\nThe City Clerk stated the amounts are listed in the resolution; the resolution would need\nto be amended in order to approve the amount.\nThe City Attorney stated due to the matter being an amendment to the budget\nresolution, Councilmember Herrera Spencer will likely vote no on the Block by Block\nprogram to remain consistent; the ability to change her vote is still possible; however,\nthe vote will be for the entire budget resolution.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of including the Block by Block program in the budget\nresolution.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White inquired the reason staff has not\nrecommended funding for the Block by Block program.\nThe City Manager responded due to a projected deficit, choices needed to be made and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMarch 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 8, "text": "other homeless programs were selected as a higher priority; the amount paid for Block\nby Block compared to other programs, caused the other programs to be a higher\npriority.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important to get those who have recently become\nhomeless in contact with services and Block by Block helps provide contact; more\nmoney is often spent when certain problems are not able to be solved in an expeditious\nmanner; great results have been seen and many have been moved into transitional\nhousing while Block by Block has operated; expressed support for adding Block by\nBlock to the resolution.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the matter goes hand-in-hand with helping the business\ndistricts and providing the alternative to people outside of calling the Police; expressed\nsupport for extending the program to the end of the Fiscal Year; stated the matter will be\nrevisited in June; noted Council will hear from the Policing Subcommittees in the\nmeantime and will provide recommendations which could impact the upcoming budget\ncycle.\nThe City Manager stated the program is important, which is the reason it is an\nalternative in the staff report.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: No; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\n(21-134) Recommendation to Review and Accept the Annual Reports on the General\nPlan, Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP), and the Transportation Choices Plan.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director and Assistant City Manager gave a\nbrief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like two to three bullet points which\nillustrate the equity portion of the CARP.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the social vulnerability assessment has been\nincluded in the CARP and looks at people's socioeconomic conditions, making sure that\nthe City is putting capital improvements in areas where people are less likely to adapt\non their own to get the help needed; staff is looking at resiliency hubs that allow for\ncommunity groups to be more resilient in areas by working together; research from an\ninternship collaboration with Community Action for Sustainable Alameda (CASA) has\nbeen posted to the City's website.\nCommended the City's efforts to implement the CARP; encouraged continued efforts to\nrequire all electric for construction on City-owned lands, further research and support for\nde-carbonization of existing buildings through incentives and new requirements, and\ninvestment in the urban forest: Ruth Abbe, CASA.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 2, 2021\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Daysog move approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated all three reports show not just a\ncommitment to the subject matter, but also the commitment to actually do the significant\nwork; the commitment is strong; expressed support for continuing to focus heavily and\nquickly on the issue of groundwater; stated the City has a Green Team of staff and the\npublic; expressed support for encouraging staff to ensure the team is built of community\nmembers which represent people in the social vulnerability analysis; noted paying\npeople for efforts is plausible; stated there has not been a pause on the Transportation\nPlan; a tremendous amount of work has been done in the past year; the City needs to\nkeep pushing to achieve climate and transportation goals; questioned the primary\npolicies of the City for the coming year; stated the first priorities are Vision Zero and\nsafety; climate and greenhouse gas reductions are an existential need; economic\ndevelopment should also be considered; there is no policy allowing a program to stop if\ndisliked; Council must listen to the community; Council has guiding policies which show\npriorities for active transportation planning; staff should continue to bring matters of the\nhighest level; expressed support for mutually beneficial scenarios.\nVice Mayor Vella stated there has been a significant decrease in the number of socially\nvulnerable constituents taking advantage of weatherization assistance due to COVID-\n19; inquired the steps taken by the City to address the issue in Alameda; noted the\nAlameda County Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is working to extend funding and allow\nmore qualifying assistance; stated many in-home projects could not happen due to\nCOVID-19; the matter is concerning as a parent; expressed concern about instances of\npeople choosing between clean air and lowering the temperature of their homes.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director expressed appreciation for the\nmatter being brought to staff's attention; stated staff will be looking into the matter; the\ntiming is right; the matter will be considered during the Housing Element update; now is\nthe time to be addressing these issues.\nVice Mayor Vella stated many people are not aware of the resources available;\nlandlords and tenants can utilize services; Alameda is one of the cities of the JPA and\nqualifies for services; noted the Healthy Homes Department has also indicated a\nnumber of people are turning down services due to COVID-19; the information is worth\ntracking.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Alameda County Mayor's Conference can be draft a\nletter of support.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff has discussed equity issues with the Public\nUtilities Board (PUB) members; the PUB is performing strategic planning work.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMarch 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 10, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(21-135) Recommendation to Endorse Commercial Streets, Slow Streets, and Paid\nParking COVID-19 Program Next Steps.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.\nStated the direction and guidance to prioritize safety and climate change has continued;\nsome projects have pivoted; the public is supportive of the programs; a comprehensive\nparking policy is needed prior to Seaplane Lagoon opening; commercial and slow\nstreets will be part of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP); discussions about how to\nmorph the current configuration need to happen: Denyse Trepanier, Alameda.\nExpressed support of expanding slow streets to include Orion Street, which is used by a\nlot of children and has speeding traffic; stated the inclusion would be a step towards\nequity; discussed car show activities at Alameda Point: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point\nCollaborative.\nExpressed support for Mr. Biggs statement; stated the request has been pending for 7\nmonths, which is concerning; stated the matter is an equity and safety issue; a further\ntraffic calming measure will be presented to the Transportation Commission: Heather\nReed, Systemic and Community Racism Subcommittee.\nExpressed support for continuing the commercial streets program: Kathy Weber,\nDowntown Alameda Bossiness Association.\nStated walking in the middle of designated slow streets containing many residents is not\nsafe; many people are not utilizing the extra space due to safety concerns; urged the\nblock of Chestnut Street and Park Street slow streets be removed from the program;\nexpressed concern about the turn at San Jose Avenue and Willow Street intersection:\nCarmen Reid, Alameda.\nExpressed support for Mr. Biggs and Ms. Reed's comments; discussed his experience\nliving near Orion Street; stated there has been dangerous racing and high speeds in the\narea; the area should be a slow street due to children and education centers being\npresent: Vinny Camarillo, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she previously inquired whether staff has\nhad a City Engineer sign-off on the commercial and slow streets programs; noted safety\nconcerns have been raised by the public and by her personal experience; stated the\nresponse provided by staff related to parklets is that encroachment requests do not\nrequire an engineer-signed plan; encroachment permits requires the applicant to\nindemnify the City and name the City as an additional insured on insurance policies;\nthere have been accidents at the parklets; expressed support for the business district\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 2, 2021\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 11, "text": "communities; expressed concern about not requiring an engineer-stamped plan and for\nslow streets not having engineer-stamped or signed temporary traffic control plans;\nstated the slow streets are not consistent with California traffic control devices design\nstandards; that she would like more information about the lack of a need for engineer\napprovals for road modifications; expressed concern about safety and collisions.\nThe Public Works Director stated the striping plans for commercial streets at Park Street\nand Webster Street have design plans; parklets require an encroachment permit; each\napplicant for an encroachment permit is required to submit their design; the design is\nnot an engineer-designed plan; the City Attorney's office provided Council information\nrelated to risks and concerns; slow streets have temporary traffic control plans, which\nare not signed by the City Engineer; as staff moves toward consideration of permanent\nmeasures, the plans will become engineer-designed and stamped.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator stated each parklet goes through an approval\nprocess by getting an encroachment permit; the permits list items that are allowed and\nnot allowed, which are reviewed by Public Work's engineering staff prior to permit\nissuance; staff has recently received interest from businesses for roofs over permits;\nany overhead structure is also reviewed by the Building Official and required to be\ndesigned and stamped by an engineer.\nThe City Engineer stated the Public Works Department reviews each parklet request for\nan encroachment permit; the temporary nature is the difference between having a\nregistered Civil Engineer approval; should a permanent public improvement be\ndesigned, a Civil Engineer's design and review would be needed; the structures have\nbeen viewed as temporary and were needed in an expeditious manner.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the City Engineer stated that\nhe is a registered Civil Engineer in the state of California.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is a reason for him not to\nstamp the designs.\nThe City Engineer responded that he has not been presented with a design to approve;\nstated that he would have no problem providing his stamp after reviewing the permits\nand plans for the parklets.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about not requiring an engineers'\nstamp of approval; expressed support for engineers' stamps of approval sooner rather\nthan later; stated placing roofs on parklets might impact airflow during COVID-19;\ninquired whether parklets receiving an engineer's stamp of approval are deemed safe to\nbe in the street near moving vehicles.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated roofs can be placed on\nparklets; the goal is to ensure structures do not have too many walls; as long as there is\ngood airflow, a roof may be placed on a parklet; the purpose of the program is to help\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMarch 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 12, "text": "the business community survive the COVID-19 pandemic; staff is trying to be as flexible\nas possible, while keeping everyone as safe as possible.\nThe City Engineer responded there are varying degrees of safety; stated structures can\nbe built to be completely bulletproof; however, that is not the expectation; noted there is\nrisk involved anytime one is in a public space; stated the Public Works Department\ntakes safety extremely seriously; the reduction of roads, addition of barricades,\nreflectors, striping, and signage all naturally slows down cars; the plan is reasonable\ndue to how slow streets are; there should be constant review of the plans in place.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the stamp speaks to the safety of the\nentire area or just the roof; stated there are multiple levels of safety; noted that she is\nconfident when an engineer places a stamp on a design it is safe.\nThe City Engineer responded when a roof is involved, the parklet must go through a\nbuilding permit review process to look at the structure, supports and roofing material to\nensure safety; the sides are not required to be traffic barriers; however, as part of the\nencroachment permit review, staff is looking at barrier positioning and other safety\ndevices on a case-by-case basis.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about the safety aspect of a car\nhitting the parklets; questioned whether the City is making any statement on the safety\nof the parklets once a stamp is placed on the design.\nThe City Engineer responded the question is tricky to answer; stated there is inherent\nrisk in putting people in the street adjacent to cars; the reasonableness of the parklet is\na judgement call; it is important to implement reflective surfaces and barricades; there is\nnot a need for building reinforced concrete railings; there is not a guarantee of a\nproblem never occurring; however, it is not likely; the level of acceptable risk is up to\ncommunity decision makers; there is no national standard for parklet design which\nensures traffic safety under all conditions; should a higher level of security be desired, a\ndiscussion from City decision makers needs to take place.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not heard an assurance of any\nsafety; it is important for the community to know; expressed support for posting signs\nthat structures have not been approved by an engineer; stated that she has had\nconcerns about slow streets; some streets are not being used; noted staff has ordered\nsigns about slow streets being used in a COVID-19 compliant manner; discussion\nclosing Alameda Avenue to through traffic; stated that she would like to see safe\ndesigns; proposed having staff look into parking at night on Webster Street.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the City has installed water-filled barriers\nto protect the parklets as a safety measure.\nCouncilmember Knox White questioned whether he heard the City Engineer state the\nparklets are deemed relatively safe, however, paperwork has not been signed, to which\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 2, 2021\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 13, "text": "the City Engineer responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for slow streets continuing; stated\ngetting Alameda Point up and running is important; the City has a small staff with very\nlittle time and where time is spent is where values are shown; he would like to ensure\nthe City is challenging itself to ensure equity needs are being met; if slow streets are\nimplemented in April at Alameda Point, removal of said streets may be slated for\nOctober; he would like to avoid discussions about extending the slow streets program in\nOctober and would like to decide which matters will remain permanent earlier; many\npeople are grateful to have these spaces available; the City should be designing streets\nfor safety and for people to use; expressed support for speed humps and roundabouts\nbeing explored using pilot money.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he shares concerns about slow street strategies\ndeployment at Alameda Point; expressed support for temporary measures which will\nencourage people to slow down as they drive around Alameda Point, such as temporary\nspeed lumps; many people living near Alameda Point are sending e-mails with concerns\nabout loudness and the volume of cars speeding; stated the slow streets strategies for\nthe long-term should involve resident input; outlined resident concerns about slow\nstreets on San Jose Avenue; stated slow streets are positive and provide a level of\ncomfort; outlined people using slow streets; stated the pandemic does require the City\nto deploy some kind of slow street strategies; long term plans should receive input from\nresidents; concerns raised by San Jose Avenue residents are due to the streets being\ndense; some areas and streets are less dense and work better than others; the\nconcerns for safety of the parklets are spot-on; the City is trying to balance many things\nduring this time in providing vital businesses aid, while maintaining safety; expressed\nsupport for an ongoing effort to improve safety; stated the safety solutions are not\nperfect; judgement calls must be made; expressed support for parklets; stated that he\nwould encourage staff to continue looking at ways to improve the defense of the\nparklets.\nVice Mayor Vella stated people have gotten used to accessing slow streets in many\nways; the City should codify the program in a way which shows intent; there has been\nenough time to think about improvements and safety for the long-term; noted that she\nhas heard safety concerns; stated the City wants to ensure safety; there are trade-offs;\ndiscussions for short, medium and long term goals have occurred, in addition to staff\ncapabilities; Council direction helps staff achieve safety implementations; it is not\npossible to create a 100% safe parklet without erecting permanent structures or semi-\npermanent barricades; the City has implemented a number of different safety\nmechanisms; road diets automatically help calm traffic; expressed concern about\nreckless driving by residents at slow street intersections; stated that she would like to\nsee options which curtail unsafe behavior; expressed support for informational\ncampaigns to promote expected safety behavior; stated streets need to be made for\neveryone; expressed support for urgently implementing the slow streets on Orion Street;\nnoted original concerns about Alameda Point slow streets related to bus route access.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMarch 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 14, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City looks at ways to mitigate risks; expressed support\nfor implementation mitigating risks moving forward; stated cities around the Bay Area\nare providing the same programs as a way to help support businesses and provide a\nplace to safely congregate; outlined a presentation from the Alameda Point\nCollaborative; stated Orion Street is part of the Alameda County (AC) Transit Line 96\nbus route; AC Transit has requested the City not divert the bus route; the solution will\nnot be simple; however, staff is working toward slow streets at Alameda Point; noted\nmany e-mails have been received in relation to an auto event at Alameda Point;\nexpressed support for stopping auto-centric events at Alameda Point; stated San Jose\nAvenue slow street is one of her favorite slow streets; noted there are fewer cars on\nSan Jose Avenue due to slow streets; expressed concern about removing portions of\nslow streets; stated more must be done to ensure slow streets are not misused;\nadditional signage is being planned moving forward; slow streets have been well-used\nin Alameda and other cities; City streets are being made safer and more user friendly\nfor all modes of transportation; expressed concern about increasing the 15-minute\nlimited parking spaces; expressed support for more signage directing people to parking\nlots; stated that she would like to continue outdoor dining with parklets in as safe a\nmanner as possible.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer noted the staff report notates linked concrete barriers.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of accepting staff's recommendation on\nparking, slow streets, and commercial streets next steps.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes parking\nspace limitations.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded that he trusts staff has heard and will implement\nCouncil direction.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer questioned whether overnight parking should be\nreconsidered.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 10:21 and reconvened the meeting at 10:35\np.m.\n***\n(21-136) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda\nMunicipal Code Chapter 30 (Development Regulations) to Delete Section 30-12.2\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 2, 2021\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 15, "text": "Requiring a Distance Separation of 1,000 Feet Between Bars in Alameda, as\nRecommended by the Planning Board. Introduced.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there are other ways to address the\nmatter without completely getting rid of the 1,000-foot ordinance; expressed support for\nallowing three bars within the 1,000-foot limit.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded Council can revise the\nordinance; stated the 1,000-foot radius can be removed with a reliance on the use\npermit process; the ordinance can be amended to allow one bar within 1,000 foot of\nanother bar, but not two, which would disallow three bars from coinciding within 1,000\nfeet; staff recommends a simpler approach of relying on the permit process; the permit\nprocess provides Council with the needed discretion in the event many bars try to co-\nlocate; Council has the ability to deny and cite negative impacts; staff considered\nAlameda as a whole and decided not to spread bars out every 1,000 feet across the\nIsland; there is a desire to concentrate bars on Park Street and Webster Street; limiting\nthe bars to a 1,000-foot distance seems counterintuitive.\nExpressed support for the change; stated The Hunter has to move and is already\nlocated within 1,000 feet of Fireside; business associations are supportive of the\nchange: Former Councilmember Jim Oddie, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is not supportive of encouraging any more bars;\nresidents on the West End have been concerned about the proliferation of bars; a\nnumber of bars are nice-looking and inviting; however, some bars could use more work;\na strategy for Webster Street is needed; there has not been a discussion of co-locating\nor concentrating bars on Webster Street; that he will not support the recommendation;\nan alternative should be considered and the approach should be more tailored to the\nillustrative issue at hand; Webster Street has come a long way; there are many\nrestaurants that make an effort to be a community watering hole inviting to people of all\nages; noted a new bar is slated for Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street; expressed\nconcern about opening the floodgates to more bars on Webster Street; stated the\nrecommendation should be tailored to keep the 1,000-foot limit and allow the existing\nbar to move into a space that used to be a bar is acceptable and will allow for no net\nincrease in the number of bars.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about whether concerns are strictly for\nWebster Street.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the same applies to Park Street.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of allowing Hunter to move into the\nspace of a prior bar.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMarch 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the discussion appears to be changing the rules for\na specific business and seems problematic from a policy standpoint; expressed support\nfor the concept of no more than a certain number of bars within 1,000 feet; stated the\nconcept provides guardrails; both business districts are supportive; food and drink\nestablishments are the future of retail; inquired whether a requirement for annual\nreporting can be added as a condition to the permit.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director expressed concern about bending\nthe rules for existing businesses, but not new businesses; stated staff can create a\nprovision of no more than three bars in the 1,000 foot distance; responded staff could\ntrack the request should Council desire a report on nuisances or complaints generated\nby bars in Alameda.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would like to ensure the conditional use\npermit requires for a revocation of the license should nuisance problems occur.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the condition is standard\noperating procedure for a use permit of a bar; the City always has the ability to revoke a\nuse permit through an annual review process.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the concerns raised can be addressed; noted that\nhe cannot support the motion as proposed; however, he could support a no more than\nthree bars within a 1,000-foot distance.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether applying the waiver or suspension of the rule for\na single business is lawful.\nThe City Attorney responded Council is not legislating for single, particular businesses;\nstated the proposed motion has to do with existing businesses versus new; should\nCouncil adopt the motion, a first reading is not recommended; staff will return with a\nnew first reading that will effectuate Council's direction.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about adding time to the process for the applicant and\nwhether second reading would not happen at the next Council meeting.\nThe City Attorney responded the matter will return sometime in April for first or second\nreading with the 30-day period following second reading.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer withdrew her initial motion and moved approval of\nhaving two bars within 1,000 feet [introduction of the amended ordinance] and adding\nannual reporting; stated Council can revisit and look at increasing to three bars in the\nfuture.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion allows for a first reading.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 2, 2021\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 17, "text": "The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the change is minimal and is\nallowable for first reading.\n***\n(21-137) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to proceed past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the meeting until 12:00 a.m.\nThe motion failed for lack of a second.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of completing only the regular\nagenda by 12:00 a.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the rest of the agenda, ending\nat 11:59 p.m. and any matter not heard will be placed on a special meeting agenda on\nMarch 9th at 7:00 p.m.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Yes; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like the more restrictive\nmotion proposed earlier; the current motion is an alternative and poses less concerns,\nbut is not ideal; Council can consider adding a third bar in the future with a potentially\nlarger strategy for business districts; expressed support for the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for looking to strategies which help business\ndistricts develop; stated the use permits provide a good safeguard; noted the motion\nadds an additional requirement of annual reporting; stated Hunter has received rave\nreviews and has great amenities which helps attract people to Webster Street.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated there are non-compliant bars on Webster Street;\ninquired whether the City will run into a problem where other locations have more than\ntwo bars within 1,000 feet of each other.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated\nstaff will look into the matter; the 1,000-foot distance only addresses bars, not taverns or\nrestaurants; staff has not received an application for a bar in a long time; should a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMarch 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 18, "text": "problem arise from review, staff will not bring the matter back for second reading.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support; stated three bars could be the magic\nnumber; however, two is fine; expressed support for a future broader conversation\nincluding cannabis.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the other bar is located at Lincoln Avenue and Webster Street;\nthe location should be looked into; inquired whether the same assessment is to be\nperformed on Park Street as well to ensure compliance.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff is not looking to\nchanging the location of existing bars; stated there are currently bars within 1,000 feet\nof each other; the restriction applies to new bars; noted the limit of two bars within 1,000\nfeet will not work based on input from staff; stated Wally's Corner, Fireside and Hunter\nwill all be within 1,000 feet of each other.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is willing to modify her motion;\nexpressed concern about allowing three bars within the space creating a total of five\nbars on the block of Webster Street.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded a motion for three bars\nwill solve the distance issue and allow all three businesses to remain.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer modified her motion to approve no more than three\n[bars] within 1,000 feet of each other [introduction of an amended ordinance] and\nannual review of the use permit.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the annual reporting will be a\nrequirement of all new bars.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the distance between Wally's and Fireside needs to be\nevaluated.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director expressed concern about the\nturnaround time.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted the distance between\nFireside and Wally's.\nVice Mayor Vella noted Fireside is between Wally's and Hunter causing the distance\nissue.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 2, 2021\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 19, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(21-138) Recommendation to Consider Options for the Alameda Police Department's\nEmergency Response Vehicle. Not heard.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-139) The City Manager announced the upcoming one-year anniversary of the\nCOVID-19 pandemic; stated the March 16th Council meeting will include the report from\nthe community-led committees; staff will provide perspective and Council will provide\ndirection on moving forward.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-140) Vinny Camarillo, Alameda, discussed his concerns about violence against\nAsian Americans and being verbally attacked; stated more attention is needed\nregarding the matter.\n(21-141) Melodye Montgomery, Alameda, expressed concern about releasing the\nnames of people interested in serving on the Park Renaming and Police Reform\nsubcommittees; stated the location where the names were released is concerning;\nexpressed concern about the release of youth names; stated the City Council is\nresponsible for protecting citizens.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-142) Consider Establishing a New Methodology by which the Number of Housing\nUnits are Calculated for Parcels Zoned C-2-PD (Central Business District with Planned\nDevelopment Overlay). Not heard. (Councilmember Daysog)\n(21-143) Consider Directing Staff to Provide an Update on a Previously Approved\nReferral regarding Free Public WiFi throughout the City. Not heard. (Councilmember\nSpencer)\n(21-144) Consider Directing Staff to Extend Webster Street Physical Improvements/\nBeautification. Not heard. (Councilmember Daysog)\n(21-145) Consider Directing Staff to Review an \"Adopt a Spot\" Traffic Triangle, Traffic\nCircle and Traffic Corners Program. Not heard. (Councilmember Daysog)\n(21-146) Consider Adoption of Urgency Ordinance or Introduction of Ordinance\nAmending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 4-61 (Grocery Worker\nHazard Pay) to Require Large Grocery Stores in Alameda to Pay Employees an\nAdditional Five Dollars ($5.00) per Hour in Hazard Pay during the Novel Coronavirus\n(COVID-19) Pandemic and to Include Enforcement of Emergency Hazard Pay to\nGrocery Employees. Not heard. (Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Knox White)\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nMarch 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-02", "page": 20, "text": "COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-147) Mayor's Nominations for Appointments to the Housing Authority Board of\nCommissioners and Recreation and Park Commission. Not heard.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:20\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\nMarch 2, 2021\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf"}