2021-03-02 Regular CC MinutesRegular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 2, 2021- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:31 p.m. Councilmember Herrera
Spencer led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox
White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft – 5. [Note:
The meeting was conducted via Zoom]
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(21-121) Season for Non-Violence Word of the Day: Justice
Vice Mayor Vella read a quote.
(21-122) Proclamation Declaring March 2021 as American Red Cross Month.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-123) Marilyn Rothman, Alameda, discussed an article related to the Alameda
community paramedics; stated the use of community paramedics is a better use of
funds.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*21-124) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency t o the
Community Improvement Commission Meeting, the January 19, 2021 Continued
Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on February 2, 2021. Approved.
(*21-125) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,394,083.00.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 2
(*21-126) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Three-Year
Agreement, with the Option of Two One-Year Extensions for a Total Five-Year
Compensation Amount Not to Exceed $110,000 and No More Than $35,000 in a Single
Fiscal Year, with Resource Consultants to Provide CDBG and HOME Compliance and
Program Management Services to the City of Alameda. Accepted.
(*21-127) Recommendation to Accept the Work of McGuire and Hester for Cyclic Sewer
Replacement Project, Phase 15, No. PW 03-18-10. Accepted.
(*21-128) Recommendation to Accept the Semi-Annual Report for the Period of May 1,
2020 Through December 31, 2020, on 1) Litigation and Liability Claims Settlements, 2)
Workers’ Compensation Settlements, 3) Personnel Settlement, and 4) Whether Any
Records Previously Withheld from Disclosure Have Now Become Available to the
Public. Accepted.
(*21-129) Resolution No. 15748, “Authorizing Staff to Submit an Application for the
Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program Grant for
Construction of Jean Sweeney Open Space Park - Western Phase.” Adopted.
(*21-130) Resolution No. 15749,” Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local
Emergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government
Code Section 8630(c).” Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(21-131) Mayor’s State of the City Address.
***
(21-132) The City Clerk stated a motion is needed to suspend the Rules of Order to
allow the presentation to be longer than 10 minutes.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft gave the State of the City address.
(21-133) Resolution No. 15750, “Amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-21 Budget and
Authorizing the City Manager to Redistribute Budget Appropriations between Similar
Capital Projects.” Adopted; and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 3
(21-133A) Resolution No. 15751, “Amending the Salary Schedules for the Managem ent
and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) and for Executive Management
Employees (EXME) and Approving Workforce Changes for FY 2020-21.” Adopted.
The Senior Management Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there are matters which preclude Council
from altering the proposed amount of reserves set aside for the Other Post -Employment
Benefit (OPEB) liability.
The City Manager responded Council approval of any change to the proposed OPEB
amount should be contingent on the matter returning for final approval during the
Council Study Sessions in May; stated nothing limits Council from reducing the
proposed amount.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the assets seized as referenced in the report.
The City Manager responded the matter is defined in the mid-year budget adjustments
as an exhibit; stated the funds came from an Alameda County Regional Narcotics Task
Force; the funds go into a fund balance; Alameda Police Department (APD) requested
further funds than initially appropriated; the request for $21,000 is to increase the
appropriation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether specific assets had been seized
providing specific reimbursement.
The City Manager responded in the negative; stated the seizure of assets occurred prior
to 2020; the funds are placed into the fund balance from the Regional Task Force.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the assets seized were under narcotics
enforcement.
The City Manager responded the assets came from the Alameda County Regional
Narcotics Task Force; stated APD no longer has a member on the Task Force.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the assets seized are known, to which the City
Manager responded in the negative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether changes or modifications from staff
occurred.
The City Manager responded there are no adjustments in the mid -year budget; stated
adjustments are being evaluated for the annual budget process; recommendations will
be presented based on reports to be provided.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 4
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the pay scale is different for the
workforce reclassification from Senior Fire Code Compliance Officer to Fire Apparatus
Officer.
The Human Resources Director responded in the af firmative; stated the Fire Code
Compliance Officer is not a public safety position; the funds for the change were
approved as part of the budget; staff is not asking for additional funding, just the
workforce change.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the workforce change eventually
results in the higher wage being paid, to which the Human Resources Director
responded in the affirmative.
Discussed Steering Committee hours of work; expressed concern about the budget not
anticipating costs related to implementing the Police Reform and Racial Equity
Committees recommendations; stated final recommendations are forthcoming: Erin
Fraser, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated that his focus is on the policy which Council adopted in
2017 related to a certain portion of the [General Fund] reserves being set aside for
unfunded and OPEB liability payment obligations; the City has an incredible amount of
unfunded liabilities which need to be paid down; Council needs to review the policy in
an effort to ensure the payment strategy is reasonable; noted the formula for payment is
set at $14,000,000; stated the amount is on top of the amounts proposed by California
Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS); the City needs to pay more than
what has been proposed; however, the formula being used has the City pay
$14,000,000; the policy is insane; many times a payment amount of the size is placed to
a vote of the people; outlined previous years’ payments; expressed concern about the
amount paid not being voted on; stated payments toward unfunded liabilities must be
made within the context of other matters; some people would like to expand Recreation
and Parks; the City has spent $40,000,000 cumulatively since 2017 without a vote of
the people; the policy should be revisited and a top limit should be established; noted
that he will not support the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the Financial Impact section of the staff
report; stated the report indicates a deficit increase in Fiscal Year 2020-2021;
expressed concern that expenditures exceed revenues; stated the reserves are being
decreased over time; noted that she would like to see biennial forecasts each time the
budget is presented; expressed concern about the Fire Apparatus Officer position;
stated budgeting performance has not always aligned with values and community
needs; that she is not supportive of increasing pay until reports from the Subcommittees
are presented.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the formula used to ca lculate OPEB
payments.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 5
The City Manager stated last March, economic matters related to COVID-19 were
discussed with Council; there were uncertainties related to the budget and conservative
yearend projections were provided; noted an $11 million surplus had been reported due
to an excess in projections; the $2 million deficit shown is due to budgeting
conservatively; the actual budget is likely to have less deficit.
The Senior Management Analyst briefly presented calculations.
Councilmember Knox White stated the policy sets aside an amount over the reserve;
half is used toward paying off costs that must be paid; paying pension costs now saves
millions of dollars per year, which can go toward ongoing budget needs; previous
Councils did not provide adequate pension payments and the current Council is
currently stuck paying the unfunded pension liabilities over the next 30 years; Council
has tried to lower the impact on the budget; outlined upcoming budget workshop
sessions; noted the timing appears weird; stated the matter is a backward looking
discussion.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [adoption of
the resolutions], with the City Manager’s recommendation that Council hold a second
vote once the real numbers are known on the pension pay down.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about taking a fiscally irresponsible stance; stated
the reason a surplus exists is due to thoughtful budgeting and priorities; a pandemic is
not the time to consider cutting emergency services; the [unfunded liability] costs are
not going away; the more that can be paid down earlier, the more that will be saved in
the long-run; changing the policy is a one-off; the policy has been adopted by Council
and should be agendized separately in order to be changed; the impact of Federal aid is
still unknown; expressed support for the proposed budget recommendation; stated
Council will be making budget and priority decisions and budgets can be amended
when needed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is excited projections were higher than anticipated;
questioned whether transient occupancy taxes (TOT) will increase; outlined the origin of
the [unfunded liability] formula; stated the City has already saved millions on finance
charges for the balance owed; expressed support for the current formula; noted the
policy may return for Council consideration; outlined staff’s recommendation to contract
with a firm that will help build a financial model; stated a deeper dive will be taken into
what is needed to manage the pension and OPEB obligations; the actions taken thus far
have been smart; noted the Block by Block program has been successful; stated that
she would like the City Manager to recommend additional funding in order to continue
the Block by Block program.
Councilmember Daysog stated the budget information has been provided in an open
and easily understood manner; noted that his lack of support is not due to information
provided by staff; stated roughly $35 million has gone toward unfunded liabilities o ver
the past four years; the choice is not between spending zero dollars or $35 million;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 6
however, the formula could provide an amount somewhere in the middle to allow the
funding to be used for other services; noted the Police Department is understaffed,
parks are underfunded, and the Alameda Library should be open more; expressed
concern about the current formula.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
The City Manager stated the Block by Block program was not included in the proposed
funding; Council would need to amend the resolution to include it.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for including Block by Block.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the alternatives section from the staff report;
noted the amount provided in the report is different than presented.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the amount proposed to fund Block
by Block program; inquired whether the funding covers the remainder of the Fiscal Year,
to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
The Senior Management Analyst stated the amount is for the remainder of the Fiscal
Year; the $498,000 shown in the report did not include Block by Block; to include Block
by Block, an additional $178,000 is needed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that since she did not support the budget
motion, she should not support a single additional funding request; requested
clarification about the vote.
The City Clerk stated the amounts are listed in the resolution; the resolution would need
to be amended in order to approve the amount.
The City Attorney stated due to the matter being an amen dment to the budget
resolution, Councilmember Herrera Spencer will likely vote no on the Block by Block
program to remain consistent; the ability to change her vote is still possible ; however,
the vote will be for the entire budget resolution.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of including the Block by Block program in the budget
resolution.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White inquired the reason staff has not
recommended funding for the Block by Block program.
The City Manager responded due to a projected deficit, choices needed to be made and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 7
other homeless programs were selected as a higher priority; the amount paid for Block
by Block compared to other programs, caused the other programs to be a hig her
priority.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important to get those who have recently become
homeless in contact with services and Block by Block helps provide contact; more
money is often spent when certain problems are not able to be solved in an expe ditious
manner; great results have been seen and many have been moved into transitional
housing while Block by Block has operated; expressed support for adding Block by
Block to the resolution.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter goes hand -in-hand with helping the business
districts and providing the alternative to people outside of calling the Police; expressed
support for extending the program to the end of the Fiscal Year; stated the matter will be
revisited in June; noted Council will hear from the Pol icing Subcommittees in the
meantime and will provide recommendations which could impact the upcoming budget
cycle.
The City Manager stated the program is important , which is the reason it is an
alternative in the staff report.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: No; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
(21-134) Recommendation to Review and Accept the Annual Reports on the General
Plan, Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP), and the Transportation Choices Plan.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director and Assistant City Manager gave a
brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like two to thre e bullet points which
illustrate the equity portion of the CARP.
The Assistant City Manager stated the social vulnerability assessment has been
included in the CARP and looks at people’s socioeconomic conditions, making sure that
the City is putting capital improvements in areas where people are less likely to adapt
on their own to get the help needed; staff is looking at resiliency hubs that allow for
community groups to be more resilient in areas by working together; research from an
internship collaboration with Community Action for Sustainable Alameda (CASA) has
been posted to the City’s website.
Commended the City’s efforts to implement the CARP; encouraged continued efforts to
require all electric for construction on City-owned lands, further research and support for
de-carbonization of existing buildings through incentives and new requirements, and
investment in the urban forest: Ruth Abbe, CASA.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 8
Councilmember Daysog move approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated all three reports show not just a
commitment to the subject matter, but also the commitment to actually do the significant
work; the commitment is strong; expressed support for continuing to focus heavily and
quickly on the issue of groundwater; stated the City has a Green Team of staff and the
public; expressed support for encouraging staff to ensure the team is built of community
members which represent people in the social vulnerability analysis; noted paying
people for efforts is plausible; stated there has not been a pause on the Transportation
Plan; a tremendous amount of work has been done in the past year; the City needs to
keep pushing to achieve climate and transportation goals; questioned the pri mary
policies of the City for the coming year; stated the first priorities are Vision Zero and
safety; climate and greenhouse gas reductions are an existential need; economic
development should also be considered; there is no policy allowing a program to stop if
disliked; Council must listen to the community; Council has guiding polic ies which show
priorities for active transportation planning; staff should continue to bring matters of the
highest level; expressed support for mutually beneficial scenarios.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there has been a significant decrease in the number of socially
vulnerable constituents taking advantage of weatherization assistance due to COVID -
19; inquired the steps taken by the City to address the issue in Alameda; noted the
Alameda County Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is working to extend funding and allow
more qualifying assistance; stated many in-home projects could not happen due to
COVID-19; the matter is concerning as a parent; expressed concern about instances of
people choosing between clean air and lowering the temperature of their homes.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director expressed appreciation for the
matter being brought to staff’s attention; stated staff will be looking into the matter; the
timing is right; the matter will be considered during the Housing Element update; now is
the time to be addressing these issues.
Vice Mayor Vella stated many people are not aware of the resources available;
landlords and tenants can utilize services; Alameda is one of the cities of the JPA and
qualifies for services; noted the Healthy Homes Department has also indicated a
number of people are turning down services due to COVID-19; the information is worth
tracking.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Alameda County Mayor’s Conference can be draft a
letter of support.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff has discussed equity issues with the Public
Utilities Board (PUB) members; the PUB is performing strategic planning work.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 9
On the call for the question, the mot ion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(21-135) Recommendation to Endorse Commercial Streets, Slow Streets, and Paid
Parking COVID-19 Program Next Steps.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.
Stated the direction and guidance to prioritize safety and climate change has continued;
some projects have pivoted; the public is supportive of the programs; a comprehensive
parking policy is needed prior to Seaplane Lagoon opening; commercial and slow
streets will be part of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP); discussions about how to
morph the current configuration need to happen: Denyse Trepanier, Alameda.
Expressed support of expanding slow streets to include Orion Street, which is used by a
lot of children and has speeding traffic; stated the inclusion would be a step towards
equity; discussed car show activities at Alameda Point: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point
Collaborative.
Expressed support for Mr. Biggs statement; stated the request has been pending for 7
months, which is concerning; stated the matter is an equity and safety issue; a further
traffic calming measure will be presented to the Transportation Commission: Heather
Reed, Systemic and Community Racism Subcommittee.
Expressed support for continuing the commercial streets program : Kathy Weber,
Downtown Alameda Bossiness Association.
Stated walking in the middle of designated slow streets containing many residents is not
safe; many people are not utilizing the extra space due to safety concerns; urged the
block of Chestnut Street and Park Street slow streets be removed from the program;
expressed concern about the turn at San Jose Avenue and Willow Street intersection:
Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Expressed support for Mr. Biggs and Ms. Reed’s comments; discussed his experience
living near Orion Street; stated there has been dangerous racing and high speeds in the
area; the area should be a slow street due to children and education centers being
present: Vinny Camarillo, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she previously inquired whether staff has
had a City Engineer sign-off on the commercial and slow streets programs; noted safety
concerns have been raised by the public and by her personal experience; stated the
response provided by staff related to parklets is that encroachment requests do not
require an engineer-signed plan; encroachment permits requires the applicant to
indemnify the City and name the City as an additional insured on insurance policies;
there have been accidents at the parklets; expressed support for the business district
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 10
communities; expressed concern about not requiring an engineer-stamped plan and for
slow streets not having engineer-stamped or signed temporary traffic control plans;
stated the slow streets are not consistent with California traffic control devices design
standards; that she would like more information about the lack of a need for engine er
approvals for road modifications; expressed concern about safety and collisions.
The Public Works Director stated the striping plans for commercial streets at Park Street
and Webster Street have design plans; parklets require an encroachment permit; e ach
applicant for an encroachment permit is required to submit their design; the design is
not an engineer-designed plan; the City Attorney’s office provided Council information
related to risks and concerns; slow streets have temporary traffic control pla ns, which
are not signed by the City Engineer; as staff moves toward consideration of permanent
measures, the plans will become engineer-designed and stamped.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated each parklet goes through an approval
process by getting an encroachment permit; the permits list items that are allowed and
not allowed, which are reviewed by Public Work’s engineering staff prior to permit
issuance; staff has recently received interest from businesses for roofs over permits;
any overhead structure is also reviewed by the Building Official and required to be
designed and stamped by an engineer.
The City Engineer stated the Public Works Department reviews each parklet request for
an encroachment permit; the temporary nature is the differ ence between having a
registered Civil Engineer approval; should a permanent public improvement be
designed, a Civil Engineer’s design and review would be needed; the structures have
been viewed as temporary and were needed in an expeditious manner.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s inquiry, the City Engineer stated that
he is a registered Civil Engineer in the state of California.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is a reason for him not to
stamp the designs.
The City Engineer responded that he has not been presented with a design to approve;
stated that he would have no problem providing his stamp after reviewing the permits
and plans for the parklets.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about not requiring an engineers’
stamp of approval; expressed support for engineers’ stamps of approval sooner rather
than later; stated placing roofs on parklets might impact airflow during COVID -19;
inquired whether parklets receiving an engineer’s stamp of approval are d eemed safe to
be in the street near moving vehicles.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated roofs can be placed on
parklets; the goal is to ensure structures do not have too many walls; as long as there is
good airflow, a roof may be placed on a parklet; the purpose of the program is to help
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 11
the business community survive the COVID-19 pandemic; staff is trying to be as flexible
as possible, while keeping everyone as safe as possible.
The City Engineer responded there are varying degrees of safety; stated structures can
be built to be completely bulletproof; however, that is not the expectation; noted there is
risk involved anytime one is in a public space; stated the Public Works Department
takes safety extremely seriously; the reduction of roads, addition of barricades,
reflectors, striping, and signage all naturally slows down cars; the plan is reasonable
due to how slow streets are; there should be constant review of the plans in place.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whethe r the stamp speaks to the safety of the
entire area or just the roof; stated there are multiple levels of safety; noted that she is
confident when an engineer places a stamp on a design it is safe.
The City Engineer responded when a roof is involved, the parklet must go through a
building permit review process to look at the structure, supports and roofing material to
ensure safety; the sides are not required to be traffic barriers ; however, as part of the
encroachment permit review, staff is looking at b arrier positioning and other safety
devices on a case-by-case basis.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about the safety aspect of a car
hitting the parklets; questioned whether the City is making any statement on the safety
of the parklets once a stamp is placed on the design.
The City Engineer responded the question is tricky to answer; stated there is inherent
risk in putting people in the street adjacent to cars; the reasonableness of the parklet is
a judgement call; it is important to implement reflective surfaces and barricades; there is
not a need for building reinforced concrete railings; there is not a guarantee of a
problem never occurring; however, it is not likely; the level of acceptable risk is up to
community decision makers; there is no national standard for parklet design which
ensures traffic safety under all conditions; should a higher level of security be desired, a
discussion from City decision makers needs to take place.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not heard an assurance of any
safety; it is important for the community to know; expressed support for post ing signs
that structures have not been approved by an engineer; stated that she has had
concerns about slow streets; some streets are not being used; noted staff has ordered
signs about slow streets being used in a COVID-19 compliant manner; discussion
closing Alameda Avenue to through traffic; stated that she would like to see safe
designs; proposed having staff look into parking at night on Webster Street.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the City has installed water -filled barriers
to protect the parklets as a safety measure.
Councilmember Knox White questioned whether he heard the City Engineer state the
parklets are deemed relatively safe, however, paperwork has not been signed, to which
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 12
the City Engineer responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for slow streets continuing; stated
getting Alameda Point up and running is important; the City has a small staff with very
little time and where time is spent is where values are shown; he would like to ensure
the City is challenging itself to ensure equity needs are being met; if slow streets are
implemented in April at Alameda Point, removal of said streets may be slated for
October; he would like to avoid discussions about extending the slow streets program in
October and would like to decide which matters will remain permanent earlier; many
people are grateful to have these spaces available; the City shou ld be designing streets
for safety and for people to use; expressed support for speed humps and roundabouts
being explored using pilot money.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he shares concerns about slow street strategies
deployment at Alameda Point; expressed support for temporary measures which will
encourage people to slow down as they drive around Alameda Point, such as temporary
speed lumps; many people living near Alameda Point are sending e-mails with concerns
about loudness and the volume of cars speeding; stated the slow streets strategies for
the long-term should involve resident input; outlined resident concerns about slow
streets on San Jose Avenue; stated slow streets are positive and provide a level of
comfort; outlined people using slow streets; stated the pandemic does require the City
to deploy some kind of slow street strategies; long term plans should receive input from
residents; concerns raised by San Jose Avenue residents are due to the streets being
dense; some areas and streets are less dense and work better than others; the
concerns for safety of the parklets are spot-on; the City is trying to balance many things
during this time in providing vital businesses aid, while maintaining safety; expressed
support for an ongoing effort to improve safety; stated the safety solutions are not
perfect; judgement calls must be made; expressed support for parklets; stated that he
would encourage staff to continue looking at ways to improve the defense of the
parklets.
Vice Mayor Vella stated people have gotten used to accessing slow streets in many
ways; the City should codify the program in a way which shows intent; there has been
enough time to think about improvements and safety for the long-term; noted that she
has heard safety concerns; stated the City wants to ensure safety; there are trade -offs;
discussions for short, medium and long term goals have occurred , in addition to staff
capabilities; Council direction helps staff achieve safety implementations; it is not
possible to create a 100% safe parklet without erecting permanent structures or semi-
permanent barricades; the City has implemented a number of different safety
mechanisms; road diets automatically help calm traffic; expressed concern about
reckless driving by residents at slow street intersections; stated that she would like to
see options which curtail unsafe behavior; expressed support for informational
campaigns to promote expected safety behavior; stated streets need to be made for
everyone; expressed support for urgently implementing the slow streets on Orion Street;
noted original concerns about Alameda Point slow streets related to bus route access.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 13
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City looks at ways to mitigate risks; expressed support
for implementation mitigating risks moving forward; stated cities around the Bay Area
are providing the same programs as a way to help support businesses and provide a
place to safely congregate; outlined a presentation from the Alameda Point
Collaborative; stated Orion Street is part of the Alameda County (AC) Transit Line 96
bus route; AC Transit has requested the City not divert the bus route; the solution will
not be simple; however, staff is working toward slow streets at Alameda Point; noted
many e-mails have been received in relation to an auto event at Alameda Point;
expressed support for stopping auto-centric events at Alameda Point; stated San Jose
Avenue slow street is one of her favorite slow streets; noted there are fewer cars on
San Jose Avenue due to slow streets; expressed concer n about removing portions of
slow streets; stated more must be done to ensure slow streets are not misused;
additional signage is being planned moving forward; slow streets have been well-used
in Alameda and other cities; City streets are being made safer and more user friendly
for all modes of transportation; expressed concern about increasing the 15-minute
limited parking spaces; expressed support for more signage directing people to parking
lots; stated that she would like to continue outdoor dining with parklets in as safe a
manner as possible.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted the staff report notates linked concrete barriers.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of accepting staff’s recommendation on
parking, slow streets, and commercial streets next steps.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes parking
space limitations.
Councilmember Knox White responded that he trusts staff has heard and will implement
Council direction.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer questioned whether overnight parking should be
reconsidered.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 10:21 and reconvened the meeting at 10:35
p.m.
***
(21-136) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda
Municipal Code Chapter 30 (Development Regulations) to Delete Section 30-12.2
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 14
Requiring a Distance Separation of 1,000 Feet Between Bars in Alameda, as
Recommended by the Planning Board. Introduced.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there are other ways to address the
matter without completely getting rid of the 1,000 -foot ordinance; expressed support for
allowing three bars within the 1,000-foot limit.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded Council can revise the
ordinance; stated the 1,000-foot radius can be removed with a reliance on the use
permit process; the ordinance can be amended to allow one bar within 1,000 foot of
another bar, but not two, which would disallow three bars from coinciding within 1,000
feet; staff recommends a simpler approach of relying on the permit process; the permit
process provides Council with the needed discretion in the event many bars try to co -
locate; Council has the ability to deny and cite negative impacts; staff considered
Alameda as a whole and decided not to spread bars out every 1,000 feet across the
Island; there is a desire to concentrate bars on Park Street and Webster Street ; limiting
the bars to a 1,000-foot distance seems counterintuitive.
Expressed support for the change; stated The Hunter has to move and is already
located within 1,000 feet of Fireside; business associations are supportive of the
change: Former Councilmember Jim Oddie, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is not supportive of encouraging any more bars;
residents on the West End have been concerned about the proliferation of bars; a
number of bars are nice-looking and inviting; however, some bars could use more work;
a strategy for Webster Street is needed; there has not been a discussion of co -locating
or concentrating bars on Webster Street; that he will not support the recommendation;
an alternative should be considered and the approach should be more tailored to the
illustrative issue at hand; Webster Street has come a long way; there are many
restaurants that make an effort to be a community watering hole inviting to people of all
ages; noted a new bar is slated for Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street; expressed
concern about opening the floodgates to more bars on Webster Street; stated the
recommendation should be tailored to keep the 1,000-foot limit and allow the existing
bar to move into a space that used to be a bar is acceptable and will allow for no net
increase in the number of bars.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about whether concerns are strictly for
Webster Street.
Councilmember Daysog stated the same applies to Park Street.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of allowing Hunter to move into the
space of a prior bar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 15
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Councilmember Knox White stated the discussion appears to be changing the rules for
a specific business and seems problematic from a policy standpoint; expressed support
for the concept of no more than a certain number of bars within 1,000 feet; stated the
concept provides guardrails; both business districts are supportive; food and drink
establishments are the future of retail; inquired whether a requirement for annual
reporting can be added as a condition to the permit.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director expressed concern about bending
the rules for existing businesses, but not new businesses; stated staff can create a
provision of no more than three bars in the 1,000 foot distance; responded staff could
track the request should Council desire a report on nuisances or complaints generated
by bars in Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like to ensure the conditional use
permit requires for a revocation of the license should nuisance problems occur.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the condition is standard
operating procedure for a use permit of a bar; the City always has the ability to revoke a
use permit through an annual review process.
Councilmember Knox White stated the concerns raised can be addressed; noted that
he cannot support the motion as proposed ; however, he could support a no more than
three bars within a 1,000-foot distance.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether applying the waiver or suspension of the rule for
a single business is lawful.
The City Attorney responded Council is not legislating for single, particular businesses;
stated the proposed motion has to do with existing businesses versus new; should
Council adopt the motion, a first reading is not recommended; staff will return with a
new first reading that will effectuate Council’s direction.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about adding time to the process for the applicant and
whether second reading would not happen at the next Council meeting.
The City Attorney responded the matter will return sometime in April for first or second
reading with the 30-day period following second reading.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer withdrew her initial motion and moved approval of
having two bars within 1,000 feet [introduction of the amended ordinance] and adding
annual reporting; stated Council can revisit and look at increasing to three bars in the
future.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion allows for a first reading.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 16
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the change is minimal and is
allowable for first reading.
***
(21-137) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to proceed past 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the meeting until 12:00 a.m.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of completing only the regular
agenda by 12:00 a.m.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the rest of the agenda, ending
at 11:59 p.m. and any matter not hea rd will be placed on a special meeting agenda on
March 9th at 7:00 p.m.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Yes; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
***
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like the more restrictive
motion proposed earlier; the current motion is an alternative and poses less concerns ,
but is not ideal; Council can consider adding a third bar in the future with a potentially
larger strategy for business districts; expressed support for the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for looking to strategies which help business
districts develop; stated the use permits provide a good safeguard; noted the motion
adds an additional requirement of annual reporting; stated Hunter has received rave
reviews and has great amenities which helps attract people to Webster Street.
Councilmember Knox White stated there are non-compliant bars on Webster Street;
inquired whether the City will run into a problem where other locations have more than
two bars within 1,000 feet of each other.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in th e negative; stated
staff will look into the matter; the 1,000-foot distance only addresses bars, not taverns or
restaurants; staff has not received an application for a bar in a long time; should a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 17
problem arise from review, staff will not bring the matter back for second reading.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support; stated three bars could be the magic
number; however, two is fine; expressed support for a future broader conversation
including cannabis.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the other bar is loc ated at Lincoln Avenue and Webster Street;
the location should be looked into; inquired whether the same assessment is to be
performed on Park Street as well to ensure compliance.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff is not looking to
changing the location of existing bars; stated there are currently bars within 1,000 feet
of each other; the restriction applies to new bars; noted the limit of two bars within 1,000
feet will not work based on input from staff; stated Wally’s C orner, Fireside and Hunter
will all be within 1,000 feet of each other.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is willing to modify her motion;
expressed concern about allowing three bars within the space creating a total of five
bars on the block of Webster Street.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded a motion for three bars
will solve the distance issue and allow all three businesses to remain.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer modified her motion to approve no more than t hree
[bars] within 1,000 feet of each other [introduction of an amended ordinance] and
annual review of the use permit.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the annual reporting will be a
requirement of all new bars.
Councilmember Daysog stated the distance between Wally’s and Fireside needs to be
evaluated.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director expressed concern about the
turnaround time.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted the distance between
Fireside and Wally’s.
Vice Mayor Vella noted Fireside is between Wally’s and Hunter causing the distance
issue.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 18
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(21-138) Recommendation to Consider Options for the Alameda Police Department's
Emergency Response Vehicle. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(21-139) The City Manager announced the upcoming one-year anniversary of the
COVID-19 pandemic; stated the March 16th Council meeting will include the report from
the community-led committees; staff will provide perspective and Council will provide
direction on moving forward.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-140) Vinny Camarillo, Alameda, discussed his concerns about violence against
Asian Americans and being verbally attacked; stated more attention is needed
regarding the matter.
(21-141) Melodye Montgomery, Alameda, expressed concern about releasing the
names of people interested in serving on the Park Renaming and Police Reform
subcommittees; stated the location where the names were released is concerning;
expressed concern about the release of youth names; stated the City Council is
responsible for protecting citizens.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21-142) Consider Establishing a New Methodology by which the Number of Housing
Units are Calculated for Parcels Zoned C-2-PD (Central Business District with Planned
Development Overlay). Not heard. (Councilmember Daysog)
(21-143) Consider Directing Staff to Provide an Update on a Previously Approved
Referral regarding Free Public WiFi throughout the City. Not heard. (Councilmember
Spencer)
(21-144) Consider Directing Staff to Extend Webster Street Physical Improvements/
Beautification. Not heard. (Councilmember Daysog)
(21-145) Consider Directing Staff to Review an “Adopt a Spot” Traffic Triangle, Traffic
Circle and Traffic Corners Program. Not heard. (Councilmember Daysog)
(21-146) Consider Adoption of Urgency Ordinance or Introduction of Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 4 -61 (Grocery Worker
Hazard Pay) to Require Large Grocery Stores in Alameda to Pay Employees an
Additional Five Dollars ($5.00) per Hour in Hazard Pay during the Novel Coronavirus
(COVID-19) Pandemic and to Include Enforcement of Emergency Hazard Pay to
Grocery Employees. Not heard. (Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Knox White)
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021 19
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-147) Mayor’s Nominations for Appointments to the Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners and Recreation and Park Commission. Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:20
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.