05 - Laserfiche WebLink

there are not of consequences for non-compliance today but the City needs to do its part to get there for the greater good. Councilmember Testa expressed support for CAP 2.0. She expressed concern about preserving open spaces while there is legislation like SB 9 that will allow denser housing that will remove yards, green space, and trees. She noted CAP 2.0 identifies the importance of CEQA. She expressed support for housing affordability but does not believe the problem should be resolved by creating an even greater program by destroying the environment, eliminating CEQA, and eliminating the urban forest. She requested staff to consider hybrid vehicles when purchasing new fleet vehicles. In response to Mayor Brown, Ms. Campbell explained CAP 2.0 is suggesting the City move towards all- electric for new construction which is referred to as the reach code. She explained over 50 jurisdictions have some form of reach code in the Bay Area and they have all conducted an evaluation that looks at cost- effectiveness. She clarified that for existing building electrification it is voluntary only. Staff would not request upgrades outside of remodeling. Mayor Brown advised she received feedback from some businesses who want to ensure technology is available and economically feasible before being forced to comply. She expressed support for the Draft CAP 2.0. Councilmember Narum believes the City can have a good partnership with EBCE regarding electrification. She advised they have a test building in downtown Oakland where people can look at different things such as induction cooking which would replace the gas and tankless water heaters. Mayor Brown recessed the meeting at 9:05 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 9:18 p.m. 19. Review and consider approving a long-term downtown parklet program Ms. Campbell reported the City allowed businesses to expand dining and other activities outdoors into pop-ups on sidewalks and parking areas during the pandemic. She advised the City permitted these with little oversight over design and operational standards. They have been well-received by residents and added vitality to the streetscape, provided a community connection, and expanded dining opportunities for patrons. There have been negative components including appearance, visibility of adjacent businesses, obstruction of utilities, and traffic interference. Ms. Campbell reported the City Council has previously indicated pop-ups need to be removed by January 7, 2022, and directed staff to prepare a formal parklet program for consideration. Staff recommends building parameters for location and size of parklets to account for emergency access, utilities, sightlines, and traffic. She advised staff identified 106 downtown parking spots which would not qualify for a parklet and several side streets would be fully ineligible due to characteristics such as width. For design standards, staff recommends a platform and barrier to account for Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, safety, aesthetics, and maintenance such as drainage. Staff recommends creating a pre-approved parklet structure to streamline the process and provide cost savings for businesses. Pre-approved designs would have some options for businesses to customize their parklet with things like planters. Other considerations including hours of operation, lighting consideration, and electrical power connections. Provisions are included in the proposed parklet agreement for businesses to address City concerns over utilities, streets, and trees. She noted there is a provision stating the parklets would have to vacate for one month a year to allow for the City's annual tree pruning. A proposed Parklet Permit similar to an Outdoor Dining Permit would also include an Encroachment Permit and Parklet Agreement. She explained proof of insurance would be required of applicants and City Council Minutes Page 10 of 18 December 21, 2021