{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nESDAY--NOVEMBER 2, 2021--5:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:03 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [The meeting was held\nvia Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment on Closed Session Items Read Into the Record:\nErnesto Montenero, Sustainable Technologies, discussed remediation and cleanup\nefforts at Alameda Point; stated Council should consider three issues prior to approving\na long-term lease and sale with Astra: 1) safety, 2) harmful emissions, and 3) an\nincrease in carbon dioxide emissions; he would like a long-term lease with the option to\npurchase; if Sustainable Technologies needs to relocate, the silver lining would be not\nworrying about potential catastrophic explosions and emissions.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(21-676) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: 1770 Viking Street, Alameda Point (Building 170), 1900\nSkyhawk Sreet Alameda Point (Building 360), and 1770 Orion Street, Alameda Point\n(Building 372); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community\nDevelopment Director, Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director,\nand Ted Anderson, Cushman and Wakefield; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and\nAstra Space, Inc.; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for the Potential\nSale of the Properties\n(21-677) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section\n54957.6); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City\nManager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:\nAlameda Police Managers Association (APMA) and Alameda Fire Managers\nAssociation (AFMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of\nEmployment\n(21-678) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Requests for the City to\nParticipate as Amicus in Pending Litigations: (Pursuant to Government Code Section\n54956.9); Case Names: Whole Woman's Health V. Jackson and United States V. Texas;\nCourt: United States District Court, W.D Texas, Austin Division; Case Numbers: 1:21-\nCV-616-RP and 1:21-CV-796\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 2, "text": "Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the Litigation, staff provided information with no vote taken;\nregarding Real Property, staff provided information and Council provided direction with\nno vote taken; and regarding Labor, 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.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:56\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\nNovember 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY- NOVEMBER 2, 2021- - - 6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Councilmember Herrera\nSpencer led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\nHerrera\nSpencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy\nAshcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye;\nKnox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted\nor adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-19 SACIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting Held on September 7,\n2021. Approved.\n(*21-679 CC/21-20 SACIC) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First\nAmendment, Substantially in the Form of the Attached, to the Reimbursement Agreement for\nEstuary Park Access between the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement\nCommission, City of Alameda and Catellus Alameda Development, LLC. Accepted; and\n(*21-679 A CC) Resolution No. 15830, \"Amending the Reimbursement Agreement for Estuary\nPark Access (\"Agreement\"), Substantially in the Form of the Attached, to Increase the\n$800,000.00 Budget by $85,000 for a Total of $885,000.00 as Authorized by Agreement\nSections 2(A) and (B); Said Increase Shall be Allocated by the City from Its Fleet Industrial\nSupply Center (FISC) Lease Revenue Budget.\" Adopted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\n1\nNovember 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 4, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 2, 2021--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:15 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting\nwas conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(21-680) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the referral regarding License\nPlate Readers [paragraph no. 21-706 after the continued agenda item.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer second the motion which failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(21-681) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read and presented a Proclamation to Ricci Zombeck.\nRicci Zombeck, former Interim Fire Chief, made brief comments.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-682) Brian Kennedy, Alameda, announced the National Day of Remembrance for Victims of\nIllegal Alien Crime; discussed Alameda being a Sanctuary City.\n(21-683) Marilyn Rothman, Alameda, questioned whether anything is being done about the\nPolice Oversight Commission; stated that she has heard nothing for months; she also has not\nheard anything about the death of Mario Gonzales; expressed support for a progress report.\n(21-684) Jenice Anderson, Alameda, stated that she agrees with Speaker Rothman; the City\ncould be a leader in the region; noted that no one is illegal on stolen land.\n(21-685) Carmen Reid, Alameda, stated that she is disappointed to learn that Councilmembers\nsupported redoing an appraisal from park land to housing in relation to Jean Sweeney Park; the\ndecisions should have been made in public; the matter was brought forth at the Open\nGovernment Commission and was denied; urged Council to do better going forward in being\nmore inclusive to neighbors and the community.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nUrged Council send the Centro Legal de la Raza item paragraph no. 21-690 back to staff;\nstated that she does not agree with going out with a new Requests for Proposals; she has no\nobjection to legal services for tenants being handled by the City Attorney's office; favorable\nfeedback has been received by those who have worked with the City Attorney's office; she does\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 5, "text": "not like the idea of a mediation program; the program does not offer a remedy for a tenant\nwhose landlord refuses to participate; expressed concern about enforcement; expressed\nsupport for a legal assistance program for tenants that is more tenant-friendly being housed in\nthe City Attorney's office and for continuing the local emergency [paragraph no. 21-692]: Toni\nGrimm, Alameda Renters Coalition.\nExpressed support for comments provided by Speaker Grimm; stated the problem with\nmediation is the program is non-binding, does not include enforcement, discourages tenants\nfrom seeking legal advice and has one legal right given up in exchange for another; a landlord\nrepresented by counsel knows their rights and benefits, while tenants do not; tenants do not\ntruly have the opportunity to fully negotiate on their own behalf; a mediator is not obligated to\ngive a tenant any legal advice; people benefitting from the service are typically of low-income,\nelderly, disabled and mothers with children; urged Council not yank the program away from\npeople in uncertain times: Lana Rishina, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the permanent continuation of conducting City Council meetings via\nteleconference; stated remote participation is easier for all: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the Centro Legal de la Raza matter; stated that she is not fully aware of\nthe impacts the services provide; discussed her experience answering questions for tenants\nthrough Alameda Renters Coalition; stated many tenants have benefitted from legal help; when\nfacing eviction, there is an imbalance between tenants and landlords; she has benefitted from\nservices provided by Centro Legal de la Raza; noted that her relationship with her landlord\nimproved due to better understanding: Laura Woodard, Alameda Renters Coalition.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested the resolution declaring an emergency [paragraph no. 21-\n692] be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he will support continuing the local\nemergency; critical pieces of local rules are linked to the continuation, such as the moratorium\non rent increases and evictions; he understands the difficulties many are facing; small mom and\npop landlords are also facing difficulties; he does not think anyone is interested in evictions;\nhowever, small mom and pop landlords should be able to get back into working within the rent\nregulation system in place; the rent regulation system does allow a small rent increase; while\nCouncil cannot adopt any changes to the moratorium on rent increases or evictions, he thinks\nCouncil should begin to have the discussion on behalf of smaller landlords.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer amended the motion to include adoption of the resolution\ndeclaring an emergency and recorded a no vote on the item.\nCouncilmember Knox White agreed with the amendment to the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 6, "text": "(*21-686) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on October 5, 2021.\nApproved.\n(*21-687) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,379,752.90.\n(*21-688) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to the\nAgreement with Chrisp Company Pavement Marking and Sign Replacement Project, in an\nAmount Not to Exceed $110,000 for an Aggregate Amount Not to Exceed $712,218.98; and\nRecommendation to Accept the Work of Chrisp Company for Fiscal Year 2017-19 Pavement\nMarking and Sign Replacement Project, No. P.W. 03-19-15. Accepted.\n(*21-689) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Accept the Work of NBC\nConstruction & Engineering, Inc. for Alameda Point Modular Restroom Building, No. P.W. 09-\n20-36. Accepted.\n(*21-690) Recommendation to Allow the Agreement with Centro Legal De La Raza to Expire\nand to Authorize the City Attorney's Office to Provide Housing Education and Mediation\nServices for Landlords and Tenants on a Pilot Basis Using Contracted Resources. Accepted.\n(*21-691) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via\nTeleconference. Accepted.\n(21-692) Resolution No. 15831, \"Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local\nEmergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government Code\nSection 8630(c). Adopted.\nNote: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the item carried by the following\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.\nCONTINUED AGENDA ITEM\n(21-693) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Sixth Amendment to the\nAgreement with Cultivate, LLC to Increase Compensation by $60,000, for a Total Aggregate\nCompensation Not to Exceed $354,000 to Continue Providing Technical Planning Support to\nthe City of Alameda General Plan Update through Housing Element Adoption.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the technical planning support being\nprovided includes creating a 3-dimensional video; stated that she thinks the support should\ninclude such video to show the potential changes; questioned what rezoning all residential\ndistricts and changing maximum heights would look like; stated that she has seen other cities\nutilizing video to help visualize projects; she hopes a video is part of the technical support being\nprovided.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff is working on the next\nHousing Element as part of the General Plan; stated there are plans for visual simulations; a\nvideo has not yet been considered; staff can look into video options; the Planning Board has\nalso expressed the need for graphics and visual representations of what the areas will look like;\nthe community needs to understand what the changes will look like; staff has three different\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 7, "text": "consultant contracts; the contract being considered presently helps with public outreach,\nwebsite, and documents; Cultivate is not a graphics firm; staff holds a contract with Urban\nDesign Associates, which provides drawings; staff can request more video and visual\nsimulations; the option to provide the visual graphics Citywide is interesting; there is a Housing\nElement workshop on November 16th and he can provide a recommendation at the workshop.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is happy that the Planning Board is also\nthinking about visual simulations; the visual aids help conceptualize projects as opposed to the\ndrawings; noted many times people lament the difference between actual project outcomes\nversus the drawings; Council should be doing the most to help be as transparent as possible in\nshowing impacts.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-694) Recommendation to Provide Direction on the Provision of Housing for the City's\nUnhoused Population, Including Emergency Housing, Transitional Supportive Housing,\nPermanent Supportive Housing and Prospective Homeless Housing Projects.\nThe Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there is a reason the hotel/motel site is not specified\nin option number three.\nThe Community Development Director responded staff has not yet identified a location; stated\nat Council's request, staff put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Marina Village Inn; no\nresponses were received; a Housing Authority proposal has been received for another property;\nhowever, a negotiated, written agreement is not yet pinned down; staff is continuing to\ninvestigate options and will return with more concrete options.\nExpressed concern about placing all of the Project Home Key projects on the West End; urged\na more equitable distribution of projects throughout the community; expressed support for\nchoosing Village of Love for the 30 families option, for funding a 90-unit north housing project\nand for developing the Rodeway Inn or Coral Reef Hotel as a mixed-use, mixed-community,\ngateway project using Project Home Key funding; urged the City look at other areas for projects:\nKaren Bey, Alameda.\nExpressed support for comments provided by Speaker Bey; stated staff continues to view the\nWest End as the area to be developed for homeless projects; urged Council to remember that\nequity has been brought up and agreed upon by the City Council as a goal; stated the Road\nHome includes counselors as a device to help the unhoused individuals transition into\npermanent housing; the solution is permanent housing, which does not exist; urged Council\nfocus on permanent housing going forward; expressed support for the permanent housing not\ncreating a concentration of poverty, and for the North Housing site; urged the City to partner\nwith the Housing Authority: Marilyn Alwan, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 8, "text": "[Did not comment on the agenda item]: Brian Kennedy, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he appreciates the prioritization of items which provide\nhousing and resources; expressed support for the bottle parcel project concept and the City-\nowned, available Alameda Point housing; stated that he will support a hotel project which works\nwhen found; noted the hotel project will take time; he would like to provide direction for staff not\nto focus just on the West End, but more on the East End and Bay Farm to the extent possible;\nthe direction will be difficult due to privately owned businesses; he looks forward to opportunities\nto discuss resilience centers and other services which would also access funds.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated any one of the three options provides Council with an\nopportunity to go really big in terms of delivering on the needs of persons and families who are\nhomeless; expressed support for the bottle parcel option and the Big Whites; stated that he\nsupports the hotel/motel site option if it is placed in an area which has community commercial\nzoning; Council must look at the matter as a realistic project for formerly homeless families and\nalso as part of the beautification for the area; expressed support for the hotel/motel option not\nbeing a simple housing conversion project, but also a project that can be made beautiful for the\narea; the matter is a great opportunity for the City to go big.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the projects will apply to homeless people\nthroughout the County or those currently in Alameda.\nThe Community Development Director responded emergency housing will focus on local\nresidents; stated the goal for emergency housing is to provide some opportunities for shelter\nand beds for those within Alameda in the short-term; emergency housing is not seen as a long-\nterm option and is able to get off the ground fairly quickly; a transitional housing project will be\nslightly different and needs to go through the County's Coordinated Care System; the City will\nhave Home Key and County funds involved for transitional housing and will pull from a larger\npool of funds; staff would love to house Alameda residents to the extent legally possible; the\nhotel project is envisioned as permanent supportive housing where the population could\npotentially be a larger County population.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated staff will try to get Alameda residents in and will\nwork with the County on preference.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification for the benefits of coordinated care and entry;\nstated there is a selection process for those well suited to a particular resource.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated staff tries to register each unhoused person in\nAlameda in a system; the County and State require staff to go through the system if the City\nuses Home Key funds; the bottle parcel option utilizes Home Key funding; the system provides\nindividuals confidential details and information, including how long someone has been on the\nstreet; many people in the system do not live in Alameda, but are from Alameda and would like\nto return; many of the unhoused population in Alameda have relational ties in the City; staff\nhopes the County allows the City to use the system and house Alameda residents; the process\nis moving quickly; staff needs to negotiate different options; the preference option continues to\nbe negotiated.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the scattered sites will be used for single\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 9, "text": "family homes and whether the sites will help families currently unhoused in Alameda.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the sites are the best\nopportunity for an expedient solution; there are three homes in varying states of repair and\ndisrepair; one of the sites could be available fairly quickly; the others will follow in sequence; the\ngoal is to have the sites up and running quickly for the colder months.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated since staff does not have funding from other\nagencies for the project, the target demographic can be Alameda residents.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands the City is limited in targeting\nAlameda residents; inquired the impacts to staff's ability to address those who are unhoused\nwithin the City.\nThe Community Development Director responded the sites will provide an opportunity to offer\nhousing to individuals on the streets; staff will have to decide on other solutions if someone is\nnot interested in the housing option; the solutions sought will be complicated and will require\ninput from the City Attorney's office, as well as the Alameda Police Department; the preference\nis to offer a bed and provide the opportunity for housing first.\nThe City Attorney stated the City's program is targeting volunteer individuals; the program does\nnot intend to compel anyone to be in a location.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the Boise case and how the case\nimpacts the City's options for unhoused individuals.\nThe City Attorney stated the Boise decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that\nlocal, federal and State agencies cannot criminalize the act of being homeless when there is not\nsufficient shelter space; the decision is groundbreaking due to various jurisdictions adopting\nlaws which precluded individuals from being out on the street and sleeping on the street at\ncertain nighttime hours; the Court held that the laws are a violation against the 8th Amendment\nrights related to cruel and unusual punishment; the decision currently remains good law.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does support the scattered sites; she is\nhopeful that the City can continue to look for additional sites to help house Alameda's homeless;\nthe bottle parcel is next to the College of Alameda; the College of Alameda has many programs\nwhich provide services to help people receive education; inquired whether the City is planning to\nfind providers to work with the College of Alameda to help the people housed at the bottle\nparcel; the location is great, especially if the City can partner with the College of Alameda to\nprovide services.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the services being sought for the bottle parcel\nlocation.\nThe Community Development Director stated the City will offer full, wrap-around services;\ncounselors will be available to assist with educational interests, job needs and driver's license\nretention; the direction to have a relationship with the College of Alameda is excellent in offering\nan educational pipeline to individuals; staff will begin cultivating a relationship for the project.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the College of Alameda has many services; the City is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 10, "text": "fortunate to have the College of Alameda; the relationship will provide a unique opportunity; her\nleast favorite option is the hotel/motel option due to Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT); staff\nhas recommended the need for hotels for many years due to TOT; she is not interested in giving\nup a revenue stream; the City would have to make-up the lost revenue in order to provide the\nservices being discussed; the City's financial forecast predicts exhausting reserves at some\npoint; it is critical to continue supporting revenue streams; expressed support for the City looking\nat apartments or other buildings instead of losing a TOT revenue stream and for partnering with\nthe Housing Authority; stated the Housing Authority does a good job and are the housing\nexperts; she agrees with the need for equity across the City; she supports opportunities across\nthe Island which the City can purchase through different revenue streams.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council gave many different directions and instructions in the last\nround; expressed support for the responses received on how to move forward; there is no\nreason for Council not to act on the matter; she is comfortable providing direction to staff to\nmove forward with the bottle parcel option; she would like to see more exploration into the\nhotel/motel option; there are opportunities throughout the City; this is the beginning of much\nlarger and longer conversations; expressed support for looking throughout the entire City in\nensuring the most is made of parcels; the need exists and continues to grow; Council should\nmove forward; she looks forward to supporting the options, while recognizing the actions are a\nfirst step; the proposal received by the Village of Love is worth exploring; expressed support for\nmoving forward with direction to staff to continue pursuing additional opportunities for the City to\nfund supportive housing.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has seen the life-changing impacts of transitional and\nemergency housing; discussed a navigation and residential stair center in Berkeley; stated that\nshe has had an opportunity to see considered providers bring wonderful and innovative projects;\nexpressed support for all options recommended; stated the emergency housing at Alameda\nPoint should be done; currently, Alameda does not have a place that is available 365 days per\nyear for someone to get out of the weather and sleep; a warming center at Christ Episcopal\nChurch has been an option for the City; the ability to provide services had been curtailed by the\npandemic; the City must do better; there is a silver lining in the American Recuse Plan Act\n(ARPA) funding availability; she would like to take the opportunity to help level the playing field;\nexpressed support for the bottle parcel; stated the hotel/motel option should continue to be\nlooked at; TOT revenue is lessened during the pandemic; the hotel providers willing to sell or\nenter into a deal have not done well; the City pays a lot to address homelessness; there is an\noption to partner with a provider for the hotel/motel option; the Housing Authority would be her\nlast choice; many more current and innovative providers are offering creative and quick\nsolutions for people to get employed and connected with needed services; expressed support\nfor a provider whose specialty is lifting someone out of homelessness; noted the matter will\nreturn to Council at the next meeting.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff will be bringing a full report on Alameda Point\nemergency housing and transitional housing at the bottle parcel.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for parking options being included in the staff\nreport for the bottle parcel; stated that his preference is more housing for people; there are other\nplaces to find parking and car storage.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated parking is needed; there is a lack of understanding of what\nhomelessness means; people can be working yet unable to maintain a roof over their head;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 11, "text": "parking is an important part of the discussion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated many people have been living in their car and develop\nan emotional attachment; expressed support for not requiring people to give up vehicles being\nlived in.\n(21-695) Recommendation to Approve a Commercial Streets Two-Year Work Program to\nImprove the Park Street and Webster Street Striping Plans; Improve the On-street Parklet\nProgram; Maintain the Alameda Avenue Street Closure; Resume Pre-COVID Parking\nManagement, Fee Collection, and Enforcement Activities;\n(21-695A) Resolution No. 15832, \"Approving Precast Concrete Traffic Control Safety Barricade\nStandards for Parklets.\" Adopted; and\n(21-695B) Resolution No. 15833, \"Amending the Capital Budget by Transferring $630,350\nin\nAmerican Rescue Plan Act Project Funds from Capital Improvement Project (CIP) C90300 to\nCommercial/Slow Streets CIP (C12100) and Increasing Appropriations for the Commercial/Slow\nStreets CIP (C12100) by $630,350.\" Adopted.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry related to recusal, the City Attorney stated the\nFair Political Practices Commission has loosened the public generally exception in recent years\nin favor of participation; in the event the City undertakes public safety, street improvement,\nnuisance abatement or any street work, where either 5% or more than 50 residences are being\naffected, the public generally exception applies; the Public Works Director indicated more than\n50 homes are adjacent to the proposed work; staff has advised Councilmember Daysog that he\nis not required to recuse himself.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director and the Senior Transportation Coordinator\ngave a PowerPoint presentation.\n***\n(21-696) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing five minutes for the Downtown\nAlameda Business Association (DABA) and West Alameda Business Association (WABA)\nrepresentative comments.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nStated the Business Districts previously requested the commercial streets program and hopes\nthe program continues; the street reconfiguration has provided positive benefits to the Business\nDistricts and an opportunity to rethink interactions with public space; the discussion is not solely\nabout parklets, it is about the vitality and vibrancy of the Business Districts; discussed benefits\nof the commercial streets program; noted the program has helped rebuild a sense of\ncommunity; expressed support for a long-term parklet program; stated safety is a shared\npriority; expressed support for the installation of concrete barricades which will add a level of\nsafety and create a unified design; urged Council to reconsider the increased insurance\ncoverage or create a fund to offset the increased insurance costs; stated increased costs for a\nprogram designed to help businesses is not the intent; the Business Districts are eager to look\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 12, "text": "at usage and signage to help the City reinstate a parking compliance program: Kathy Weber,\nDABA.\nStated parklets are important to the entire district; the mission is to keep Wester Street safe,\nclean and inviting; the proposed cement barriers will help with enhanced safety; expressed\nsupport for covering insurance costs; stated the insurance costs are doubled to meet the\nthreshold; many businesses are trying to recover from the previous 18 months of shutdown;\ncosts are important: Linda Asbury, WABA.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired the reason the City is requiring increased insurance after\nputting in safer concrete barriers.\nThe City Attorney stated staff consulted with the City's insurance carrier related to appropriate\nlevels of protections for outdoor dining spaces; there is a wide range of uses in the area;\noutlined the recommendations; noted carriers have polled a number of recent verdicts on\nsidewalk collisions not related to outdoor dining; verdicts cost between $1 million and $10\nmillion.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the recommendation to increase premiums is due to the\ninsurance company recommendation.\nThe Interim City Engineer stated concrete barriers are not an insurance policy and do not\nprevent injury; the concrete barriers are a step-up and provide more protection than water-filled\nbarricades; the goal is to elevate the safety along streets.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated other jurisdictions have required concrete k-rails;\ninquired whether the cement barriers connect with each other similar to k-rails and why the City\nis not using k-rails.\nThe Interim City Engineer responded the barriers are vehicular traffic barricades made for\nparklets; stated the barricades are decorative; the City could use k-rails similar to what is used\non freeways and construction projects; the recommended cement barriers have been used in\nother jurisdictions and have a more decorative appearance; the cost difference is not huge; the\nbarricades come in four-foot segments which are easier to manipulate into place.\nThe Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the four-foot barricades interlock; the appearance\nwould be a solid barrier.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to ensure the barricades provide\nsimilar protection to that of k-rails; the matter is being proposed for safety; she appreciates\ndecoration; however, she would like to know how the recommended barricades compare to k-\nrails for safety purposes.\nThe Interim City Engineer stated the barricades are made for the purpose of safety; staff has\nreviewed impacts of the barricades at the low speeds which exist along the street segments; the\nbarricades weigh 1,250 pounds each and are connected with an interlocking cable system; the\nbarriers are secure and staff is comfortable that the barricades are a suitable safety\nenhancement.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is data which shows the amount of\nforce the barricades can withstand versus k-rails; questioned whether data shows the force able\nto be withstood is the same.\nThe Interim City Engineer responded that he currently does not have the data to provide; stated\ndata does exist for the systems and has been reviewed by staff.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the data can be searched for during public comment.\nStated six lanes were previously dedicated to the automobile on Park Street before COVID-19;\ndiscussed the accessibility for automobiles on Park Street and the design of Park Street; stated\nthe design is relatively hostile to anyone not in an automobile; redesigning parklets and\nimproving the concept of Park Street is a good idea; urged Council to follow the staff\nrecommendations; expressed support for transforming Park Street into a park, for providing\nmore elaborate landscaping, trees, vegetation and fountains, for having first-class protected\nbike lanes with wider sidewalks and for allowing businesses to expand outdoors onto the street\nwith permanent dining and shopping facilities; expressed support for closing Park Street to\nprivate automobiles: James Johnston, Alameda.\nStated that she does not care for the current commercial streets; she no longer goes near Park\nStreet due to horrible traffic and narrow lanes; the only benefits of parklets is outdoor dining,\nwhich will likely decline during the winter; stated the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds\nwould be better spent on the Alameda Fire Department and Alameda Family Services pilot\nprogram: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.\nStated that he is a fan of road diets; the parklets on Webster Street and Park Street are great\nadditions to the City; expressed concern about biking infrastructure; stated there is no place to\nride safely in the Webster Street and Park Street areas; discussed shared spaces and\nconverting roads; stated that he is not a fan of the white barriers and is a fan of the k-72 barriers\non Otis Drive; questioned whether concrete barriers are needed when behavior modifications\ncan occur to get people to drive slower; expressed support for replacing barricade sections with\nother bollards: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated that she appreciates the staff report; expressed support for local businesses; expressed\nconcern about the land reduction on Park and Webster Streets affecting residents in the event\nof an emergency evacuation; questioned whether the City has considered the impact and has a\nplan to address emergency evacuations; expressed support for the closure of Alameda Avenue;\nstated more investment should be made into beautifying the area; discussed structures being\nadded for farmers markets: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nStated that she is frustrated with the City's response to cars; discussed accessibility; stated\nmany people will be driving electric cars due to a State mandate; the environmental emphasis\non cars is misplaced; she has not spoken to anyone in favor of the current design on Park and\nWebster Streets; she no longer visits Park Street; she is surprised local businesses support the\nrecommendation; she understands the use of parklets for restaurants; it is wrong to disrupt the\nmain business corridors: Karen Miller, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the quick action taken by the City and Business Districts; stated many\ncities around the area have conducted similar programs; Alameda is now in a position to\nconsider permanent items; his experience walking to Park Street is more pleasant; he\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 14, "text": "appreciates the ability to walk down Park Street and use a parklet; the experience for drivers\nhas changed; he hopes part of making the changes permanent includes work on improving\nsignal timing and signage, which will improve the experience; discussed bikepedinfo.org and\nnacto.org: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.\nStated not all businesses support the commercial streets program; the program picks and\nchooses winners; some businesses have lost parking spaces and visibility; some businesses\nhave been closed and cannot open doors due to County rules; businesses need delivery and\nshipments and disabled people need access; urged Council not restrict vehicle use; questioned\nwhether the County will increase tax rates for businesses that are taxed based on square\nfootage of usable space and whether the City will pay for increased County taxes: Jim Strehlow,\nAlameda.\nStated that she would like to see more buildout of Alameda Avenue; expressed support for the\nremoval of cars on Park Street in the future and for a trolley system in the area; discussed pre-\npandemic automobile conditions; stated that she would like to see areas more pedestrianized;\nexpressed support for comments from Speaker Bowling related to bike access; stated that she\nsupports keeping the parklets and safety for pedestrians: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the staff report; stated DABA members are looking to a long-term vision\nin improving parklets; noted businesses are not required to build a parklet; expressed support\nfor Park Street being slower and for the speed limit lowering to 20 miles per hour; urged Council\nto support the matter and put parking compliance in place; the parking garage is fantastic and\nalways has space available: Ron Mooney, DABA.\nExpressed support for the staff recommendation to continue the commercial streets program;\nstated the original program did not do much for biking and walking, but was needed for\nbusinesses to survive; the program provides a chance to reimagine Business Districts;\nexpressed support continuing discussions and analysis of the design; stated planning work\ntakes a lot of time; expressed concern over configuration changes: Denyse Trepanier, Bike\nWalk Alameda.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the matter is exciting; there were previous discussions about\nhow to start thinking about Business Districts, the resulting changes brought by the pandemic\nand rethinking public spaces; approving the matter and moving forward is important; increased\ninsurance premiums are due to jury awards for people jumping curbs, not running into k-rails;\nthe City is likely being exceedingly cautious and risk-adverse; the City should take on the\nburden of covering the delta between the current and future insurance costs; the City should\nlook at putting cement barriers along the length of all streets to create a permanent space; the\nincremental cost of building the areas along the full length is likely worth the cost and will lower\nhurdles to other businesses coming out of the pandemic; questioned whether Council is\napproving the improvement of the commercial streets program for two years; noted the\nresolution extends the temporary permits for two years; expressed support; stated that he\nappreciates the iterative nature of the program design and the opportunity to make changes\nalong the way; Council can make more permanent decisions at the two year mark; he would like\nstaff to come back to Council with the costs of putting uniform barriers the full length of the\nblocks.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the parklet program and street configuration has given a fighting\nchance to businesses on Webster Street especially; there is a liveliness to Webster Street that\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 15, "text": "expressed concern about the increased premiums being paid by businesses; questioned\nwhether ARPA funding would be used for two years; expressed support for using ARPA funding\nfor the additional $40,000 in increased insurance costs; expressed concern about not\naddressing all the safety issues and whether the barriers will work.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff has found the data related to barrier impact force.\nThe Interim City Engineer responded Caltrans has research available on k-rail and temporary\nconcrete traffic controls; stated the Federal Highway Administration has portable concrete\ntransition plans, research and barrier guides; there is a wide range of products; the\nrecommendation is an upgrade from the water filled barricades; a previous collision into a water\nfilled barricade caused the barricade to slide; putting up Caltrans' freeway style highway\nbarricades does not guarantee bad things will not happening; stated some cities do nothing and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n12", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 16, "text": "some cities require full Caltrans highway k-rails; Alameda is on the spectrum and toward the k-\nrail end; 20-foot k-rails would be safer than the recommendation; the recommendation is\nappropriate based on the low speed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not want to compromise the City's safety;\naccidents have occurred; expressed support for requiring k-rails.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is a fan of the reconfigurations; parking times might\nchange; the Civic Center Parking Garage is available near Park Street and typically has space\navailable; she rides her bicycle throughout the Island; parallel streets to both Webster and Park\nStreets allow people to safely ride bicycles; discussed Oak Street bicycle accessibility; stated\nWebster Street has rows of bicycle parking; Bike Walk Alameda collaborated on a map of the\nCity which includes bicycle routes; people have different abilities and comfort levels; the goal is\nto make the downtown districts welcoming for all; her two criteria are: safety first and aesthetics;\nshe does expect parklets to enhance the visibility of streetscapes; she does not want to see\nparklets that are an eyesore; expressed support for comments provided from retail shops in the\nBusiness District; stated some retailers have used parklets for outdoor pop up events and share\nthe space with restaurants for DoorDash and Uber Eats; a farmers market at Alameda Avenue\nis enticing; however, vendors need space to unload and park; ending the commercial streets\nprogram would be shameful; the City has gained insight on the program; she does not mind\nfunding the program for two years; expressed support for a check-in with Council at the one\nyear mark.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the commercial streets two year work plan with\ndirection to return to Council with the costs for the proposed concrete barriers in all locations, to\napprove the precast concrete traffic control barricade standards as the standard and hold off on\napproving the money.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Knox White stated Council\ncannot approve the money due to not having the cost; noted staff will need to return with a\ncapital budget plan for approval.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White would like his motion to be\ncosted out and included in the budget proposal.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded staff has provided a proposal and is recommending a\ntransfer of funds based on the cost; stated that he would like staff to come back with a slightly\ndifferent plan which uses modified k-rail on all of the striping to ensure each block is fully k-rail\nand has no spotty broken appearance along the Business Districts.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff can bring the matter back as a\nbudget request on the Consent Calendar.\nThe City Manager responded if Council decides to narrow the recommendation, staff can bring\nback a budget request on the consent calendar.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there is any question from staff on how the motion is\nframed, particularly around any costs which are above and beyond the current estimate.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 17, "text": "The Planning, Building, and Transportation Director responded staff has assumed costs for 30\nparklets; stated staff has figured the total amount of barricades needed; noted Councilmember\nKnox White's motion is to have a continuous line of barriers; staff will need to come up with a\nnew barrier plan for the blocks; the amount of barriers needed will be an incremental increase;\nhe does not think the cost will double; staff will need to configure gaps between barricades for\ntransit and pathways from parking to sidewalks.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the motion includes returning to Council; Council will approve\nthe concept; however, the final cost will be approved by Council at a later date.\nThe Interim City Engineer stated the price included in the staff report includes the existing\nparklets and protection in accordance with the parklet barricade detail; the recommendation\ndoes not include unoccupied parklet areas; the staff recommendation differs from the proposed\nmotion made by Councilmember Knox White.\nThe City Manager stated there is an alternate approach; Council can approve the ARPA funding\nto move forward and provide direction for staff to bring back the alternate approach; staff can\nreturn with the alternate approach relatively quickly; Council may appropriate the recommended\nfunding at this time.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to amend his motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for the City Manager's recommendation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she cannot support the proposed motion at this time;\nexpressed support for working with the current recommendation; stated an increase in cost\ncould be used to underwrite the increased insurance costs to ensure local businesses are not\nburdened; the process is more complicated than simply placing a long line of barricade down\nthe blocks with parklets; Council may add or make adjustments to the program in the future.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated if k-rails are not included, the resolution should be clear\na lower standard is being used; expressed concern about giving up more parking.\nCouncilmember Knox White amended his motion to approve the current funding [and adoption\nof related resolutions] and give direction to staff to return with the alternative and any additional\nfunding requests for further consideration.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the amended motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the City covering the differential in insurance\ncosts of what is currently being paid by businesses and the new insurance requirement by the\nCity.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 18, "text": "Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a group insurance rate can be done.\nVice Mayor Vella requested clarification for the motion on the table.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the motion approves the City covering the differential\nbetween the current insurance coverage rates and any additional coverage required by the City.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to ensure the motion includes staff being able to\nlook into the recommendation of an umbrella policy, to which Councilmember Knox White\nresponded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:54 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:16 p.m.\n(21-697) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing the ordinance\nimplementing Senate Bill 1383 [paragraph no. 21-698 next.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-698) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 21 (Solid\nWaste and Recycling) to Comply with Senate Bill 1383, Conform with Franchise Agreement,\nand Implement Strategy Four of Alameda's Zero Waste Implementation Plan Update.\nIntroduced.\nThe Program Specialist gave a PowerPoint presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter is important and must happen sooner rather\nthan later; the community is supportive of the work.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\n(21-699) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing the Police policy update\n[paragraph no. 21-702 next.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 19, "text": "Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\n(21-700) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal\nCode Chapter XXX to Comprehensively Update Citywide Off-Street Parking and Loading Space\nRegulations and Make Conforming Changes to Other Zoning Code Sections, as Recommended\nby the Planning Board. Introduced.\nThe Land Use and Transportation Planner gave a PowerPoint presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any analysis has been done for the City of\nAlameda's housing developments regarding parking and unit size.\nThe Land Use and Transportation Planner responded the City does not have academic studies\nof existing parking, but the Planning, Building and Transportation Director may have local\nanecdotes.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated a Bay Area group conducted a survey\nof Bay Area communities' existing residential projects which observed parking; a couple\nAlameda projects were included in the study; the results are similar to other cities; newer\nresidential projects were found to not have all parking used; the study indicates the City has\nbeen over-parking some residential projects; the Planning Board has been working to figure out\nthe correct amount of parking; the City has not been requiring the total amount of parking listed\nin the ordinance; the City has regularly been providing parking waivers to try and right-size the\nparking amounts; the ordinance uses the information as a maximum; the ordinance is not seen\nas something which will provide a large change in the amount of parking for each project; if a\nproject includes more parking than the maximum listed in the ordinance, the project will need to\nexplain the need; discussed the parking spaces for Park Street; stated a number of properties in\nAlameda cannot fit a single parking space.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the space is commercial or residential, to\nwhich the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the space is commercial.\nThe Land Use and Transportation Planner stated the space is a small mixed use building with a\nstorefront and residential space.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated many of the projects are not residential; the residential\nprojects have approved parking spaces; the City has been assigning parking spaces for\nresidential units; inquired whether more than one off-street parking space per unit requires a\nspecial permit.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded special permission would be\nneeded; the idea is to establish a maximum amount; in order for projects to go above the limit, a\ndiscussion is held in order to justify spaces above the maximum.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer discussed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); stated some of\nthe units have three bedrooms and can be 1,200 square feet.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 20, "text": "The City Planner stated State ADU prohibits cities from requiring any parking when the unit is\nwithin a half mile of transit; every property in Alameda with the exception of Creedon Circle\nmeets the State criteria and cannot require parking for ADUs.\n***\n(21-701) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing as many items as possible up\nto midnight.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification that Council Communications would\nstill be heard after the current matter.\nThe City Clerk stated a vote is needed to consider new regular matters after 11:00 p.m.;\nhowever, Council can hear the other sections past 11:00 p.m.; Council may vote to establish a\nhard stop time.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of only hearing the Police policy update [paragraph no. 21-\n702 and Council Communications and ending the meeting by midnight.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Daysog discussed the maximum number of parking spaces for an ADU based\non square footage; noted the proposed minimum off-street parking for a 3,000 square foot ADU\nis three spaces and one parking space per hotel/motel guest room; outlined the current\nordinance parking limits.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated all hotels approved in Alameda in the\npast 10 years have had 0.83 parking spaces per room; noted not many people bring more than\none car to a hotel per room.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there is an approach which can be taken to justify a reduction in\nthe number of parking spaces from the minimum.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the new ordinance allows less\nparking spaces to be used without any process; special permission will be needed in order to\nprovide more parking than allowed by the proposed ordinance.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned about projects not providing enough\nparking; setting a maximum lower than before implements an easier process to provide a lower\namount of spaces.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff has approved an amount close\nto the proposed demands from lenders which finance projects; bankers and lenders often\nrequire a certain amount of parking for projects in order to be financially feasible; staff does not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 21, "text": "often require more parking than the project is proposing; many of the minimum parking spaces\nfor projects are too high; outlined recommendations from the Planning Board for less parking\nspaces for projects.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated a system is already in place which is flexible to accommodate\nspaces below a lower standard.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the system forces every project to go\nthrough the waiver process; staff is trying to avoid the process and streamline for increased\nefficiency and less cost; the goal is to keep costs down, especially for housing projects.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for requiring charging infrastructure for Electric\nVehicles (EV); stated the current proposal has been through a number of different Boards and\nCommissions, however, the Public Utilities Board was not one of them; inquired the implications\nof expanded EV charging facilities and Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) infrastructure.\nThe Land Use and Transportation Planner responded staff has consulted with AMP staff; the\nordinance includes a load management system; parking structures cannot over-build the panel\nto handle everyone at full power, 24-hours per day; AMP indicates the costs to build are\ncomparable to recent projects; AMP is comfortable with the levels and is eager for customers.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether AMP is comfortable with the existing transmission lines\nand clean green sources of power and whether AMP is able to adequately accommodate the\nexpanded charging infrastructure.\nThe Land Use and Transportation Planner responded that he cannot answer directly for AMP;\nhowever, AMP has not expressed any concerns during discussions.\nThe City Planner stated the EV parking spaces and infrastructure would not happen\nautomatically; the ordinance would apply with new development or new construction of parking\nspaces which are typically reviewed by AMP.\nExpressed support for moving away from mandatory minimums and moving towards mandatory\nmaximums without forcing discretionary review on all projects; stated adding parking spaces to\na project increases the cost of a project by $80,000 per spot; the costs in relation to housing are\nespecially terrible for affordable housing; it makes sense to require less parking; the City can\ndiscourage car use near transit: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated that she opposes the proposal for maximum standards for parking; the matter seems to\nbe a workaround which does not adequately address the fact that parking is an issue in many\nareas of Alameda; new development should sufficiently accommodate parking needs; discussed\nincreased density from the General Plan; stated an increase in parking is reasonable; parking\nwill be an issue with an increase in population; unbundling parking will likely lead to those with\nless means not purchasing parking, creating an inequitable gap; discussed accessibility:\nCarmen Reid, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the matter; urged Council to move forward with the ordinance; stated\nprogress has been made in developing additional transit options; the City is providing more\noptions for those who want to get out of cars; there is a climate emergency; the proposed\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n18", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 22, "text": "changes need to be made in order to reach goals for reduction and vehicle miles traveled:\nDenyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda.\nDiscussed a space with zero on-site parking; stated the site works; not every commercial project\nshould have zero parking spaces; the example shows what can be built when the market has\nmore flexibility; the City will benefit from more direct influences by market forces; the City has\nprogrammatic means to make parking more available and easier to use; urged Council to adopt\nthe policy and consider other ways to improve access to existing parking; discussed parking\nequity and accessibility: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the presentation; discussed the presentation displaying improvements\nto residential properties spurring the need to install EV charging; stated the residential\nrequirements are not being provided clearly to the average citizen: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification for the residential EV requirements.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the information relates to off-street\nparking; the requirements are triggered when building a parking lot, not when putting an in-\nhome electric circuit; new buildings, new dwelling units, expansions of existing buildings are\neffected by Section 30-7 provisions; new parking will be required to install EV charging; the\naverage household in Alameda has 1.3 cars; many people use their garage for things other than\nparking, such as storage; if anyone wishes to provide more than 1.5 parking spaces, questions\nwill be raised; the spaces reflect the data of car ownership among Alameda households.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer noted the presentation has a typo in the listed addresses.\nThe Land Use and Transportation Planner stated the presentation should have listed 1820 Park\nStreet as the address.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the address corrected in the report; discussed parking\nfor Coffee Cultures; noted businesses can take advantage of other nearby business' parking\nduring off hours; however, the off-site parking cannot be counted on; many visitors to Coffee\nCultures are drivers; expressed concern about the staff recommendation; stated the examples\ndo not take into account the whole area; some residential areas do not currently have sufficient\nparking; discussed subdivided rentals do having sufficient parking; questioned where people in\nADUs will park; expressed concern about not taking into account the whole impact; discussed\nridership on AC Transit; stated transit ridership is not back to levels prior to COVID-19 car\nridership on the Bay Bridge is at the top 90%; people in the community are driving a car versus\npublic transportation; discussed parking availability at Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) facilities\nand the availability of finding used cars; stated parking is needed in the City; there has not been\nan adjustment for the trends resulting from COVID-19; the City must assume people are not\ngoing to get back to using public transit; expressed support for EV charging stations; stated that\nshe cannot support the dramatic changes.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [introduction of the\nordinance].\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated public transit has not come back to pre-COVID-\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 23, "text": "19 ridership numbers yet; the numbers are starting to bounce back slowly; she does not park at\nBART due to the ease of taking AC Transit directly to the Fruitvale Station; stated people are\ngood about wearing masks on BART and AC Transit; discussed parking and construction in the\narea of Coffee Cultures and the assisted living facility across the street.\nVice Mayor Vella stated many cases have ample parking lots and parking alternatives; there are\nmany ways to get to and from locations in the Park Street corridor; expressed support for the\nmatter.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the current ordinance has a system in place which forces\ndevelopers to come to the City and ask for lower parking standards; the current proposed\nordinance would make it easier for developers to reduce parking requirements; the current\nsystem is not burdensome on developers; there is no reason to change it; the current system\nallows for a lessening of parking requirements in an effort to make housing more affordable;\nmany developers of large projects have been accommodated; he does not see a compelling\nreason to change the current ordinance; the City should not make matters easier for developers.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.\nAyes: 3. Noes: 2.\nThe City Planner stated the work performed by staff is fully supported by the State Senate Bill 2\nPlanning Grant; the City will seek reimbursement.\n(21-702) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update Section 310 of the\nExisting Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to Conform to Existing Best Practices and\nStatutory Requirements Mandating Notification to the California Department of Justice in Certain\nOfficer Involved Shootings.\nThe Police Captain gave a brief presentation.\nStated that he is not a fan of Lexipol; the City should be defining its own police manual; the\ndrafts show fields at the bottom of the proposal which were not fully replaced: Zac Bowling,\nAlameda.\nStated the policy indicate death whether or not the method was from a shooting: Marilyn\nRothman, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the policy indicating shootings\nand deaths; stated that she understands there is an importance in keeping the language as-is.\nThe Police Captain stated the policy is a Department of Justice change and is directly related to\nofficer-involved shootings; the policy is specific to shootings; the policy is not related to any\nother type of death which may occur.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification that the policy language will reflect any\nneeded updates.\nThe Police Captain stated the language software includes a mask which allows the City to edit\nthe policy within the program; the fields will automatically repopulate to the proper language.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 24, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, with the stipulation that the \"Bureau Bureau\nCommander\" be typo corrected.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer agreed to include the amendment in the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-703)\nRecommendation to Reorganize the City's Parking Management Program and\nParking Fund;\n(21-703A) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Parking Fund Budget to\nRestructure the Parking Fund; and\n(21-703B) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Salary Schedule for the Alameda City\nEmployees Association (ACEA) and the Alameda Police Officers Association, Non-Sworn\n(PANS) to Move the Two Parking Enforcement Positions from PANS to ACEA and Reassign\nTwo Full-Time Parking Enforcement Position Allocations from the Police\nDepartment to Public Works. Not heard.\n(21-704) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease with\nRhoads Property Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Substantially in the\nForm of Exhibit 2, for Thirty-Six Months for Buildings 338, 608, and 608A-C, Located at 50 and\n51 West Hornet Avenue, at Alameda Point. Not heard.\n(21-705) Recommendation that City Council, Boards and Commissions Annually Review\nMeeting Schedules for Possible Conflicts that Inhibit Maximum Public Participation. Not heard.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNot heard.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNot heard.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-706) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\n(21-707) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational\nVehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\n(21-708) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate\nHomeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 25, "text": "(Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\n(21-709) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting\nHousing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember\nDaysog). Not heard.\n(21-710) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to\nDevelop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023-\n2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog). Not heard.\n(21-711) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers\nHerrera Spencer and Daysog). Not heard.\n(21-712) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular\nCity Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-713) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed her pin; announced a jewelry sale event\nhosted by the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter.\n(21-714) Councilmember Daysog discussed the unveiling of two art pieces in Jean Sweeney\nPark; announced that he attended a the School Board Subcommittee meeting with\nCouncilmember Knox White; stated there is a report which indicates traffic safety measures and\nshould come before Council.\n(21-715) Councilmember Knox White discussed the School Board Subcommittee meeting;\nnoted the matter related to traffic enforcement [paragraph no. 21- ] which was not\nheard\nis\npart of significant concerns voiced by parents; stated that he would like to see a public\nworkshop to discuss the Shuumi Land Tax.\n(21-716) Councilmember Daysog stated Council should discuss traffic impacts from the\nOakland Athletics stadium.\n(21-718) Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced that she attended the County Day of\nRemembrance with Councilmember Daysog.\n(21-719) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended an event called Here I Am and a\nworkshop put on by the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA); discussed a Diablo\nMagazine interview; noted Contra Costa County has recently developed a Countywide transit\nsafety plan; announced a fundraiser at Books Inc. for the Friends of the Alameda Library.\n(21-720) Vice Mayor Vella announced it is Family Literacy Month; discussed an East Bay\nRegional Park District Subcommittee meeting and a ribbon cutting for the anniversary of Alley\nand Vine.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the owners of Alley and Vine are happy to be in Alameda.\nADJOURNMENT\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n22", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-02", "page": 26, "text": "There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 2, 2021\n23", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf"}