body,date,page,text,path
LibraryBoard,2018-11-14,1,"CITY
OF
of
of
$
ORATEIO
MINUTES OF THE
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2018
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Cynthia Silva, President
Dorothy Wismar, Vice President
Amber Bales, Board Member
Kathleen Kearney, Board Member
Absent:
None
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Lori Amaya, Recording Secretary
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar
*A.
Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of July August,
September and October, 2018.
*B.
Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of July 11, 2018.
*C.
Library Services Report for the Months of June, July, August and September, 2018.
*D.
Financial Report Reflecting FY17/18 Expenditures by Fund for July, August, September and
October, 2018.
*E.
Bills for Ratification for the Months of July, August, September and October, 2018.
Director Chisaki explained to the board that the Alameda Reads statistics look different because they are
changing the way they report which will give a better snapshot of what they are doing. Data base use is
expected to trend up due to the Connect Code project. New borrower counts in August went up because
all Connect Codes are counted as new borrowers. The director wants to ask for two new staff positions as
the new two-year budget process is expected to begin in February. President Silva asked if a new board
member has been nominated. Director Chisaki responded that the mayor nominated Joyce McConeghey",LibraryBoard/2018-11-14.pdf
LibraryBoard,2018-11-14,2,"Page 2 of 4
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
November 14, 2018 Meeting
and she should be sworn in at the November 27, 2018 City Council meeting. Her first meeting should be
January 9, 2019.
There were no changes to the Draft Minutes of the July 11, 2018. Library Board meeting. Board Member
Kearney moved to accept the Consent Calendar. Board Member Bales seconded the motion, which passed
with a 4-0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
None.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Discussion. Moving forward in 2019. (J. Chisaki)
Director Chisaki stated we will start the year with a new board member. As previously mentioned, Ms.
McConeghey worked for the Park Street Business Association and is excited to work with the community.
Her relationship with the business community may help during the Strategic Planning process.
At the All Staff meeting in October, Luis Herrera, retired City Librarian of the San Francisco Library,
came and spoke to staff about libraries and their role in the community, and how to stay relevant. After
his presentation, staff broke in to small groups and brainstormed on what things they are proud of and
what they would like to do if money was no object. They came up with interesting ideas and there are a
few things we may be able to implement. This will get us ready for the Strategic Plan. We need
representation from the library board, library staff, school district, other city departments, the business
community, different areas of Alameda, parents of children of different age groups, seniors, millennials
and different ethnic groups. The library will interview the consultant that completed the previous Strategic
Plan, Management Partners in San Jose, and a third consultant recommended by the Library Board, or
local libraries that have completed plans in the last year. Director Chisaki would like to complete the plan
by the end of the fiscal year and plans to put the completed plan on the library's new website, which will
launch in January.
The State Library recently announced that they will supply naloxone (aka Narcan) to public libraries at no
cost. Director Chisaki attended a session at the California Library Association Conference on this topic.
The speaker represents Alameda and Contra Costa County, and will come train staff and provide kits,
which includes an open subscription to replace supplies as needed. It is another tool in your first aid kit.
Director Chisaki will see if other city departments, and possibly community organizations are interested in
participating.
Director Chisaki is researching eliminating overdue fines, which does not include fees for lost and
damaged materials or fees for lost library cards. The plan is to collect three months of data to compare the
amount of revenue collected and the cost of staff time to process collecting the fines. It is estimated the
cost of staff time is greater than the amount collected in fines. Other local libraries have implemented this
policy and it is becoming the norm. Board Member Kearney asked what the dollar amount for a patron's",LibraryBoard/2018-11-14.pdf
LibraryBoard,2018-11-14,3,"Page 3 of 4
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
November 14, 2018 Meeting
account to be blocked and Director Chisaki answered $10. With elimination of fines, patrons that were
blocked will be able to use their cards again, increasing circulation numbers.
B.
Friends of the Library. (J. Chisaki)
The Friends held their appreciation event, which included the library volunteers this year. They will do
another event again next year. The Fall Book sale was held at the O'Club in October. The Wi-Fi was not
working so, they were not able to use credit cards at the sale. IT has confirmed that it is currently working
now and should be available for the next sale. There was $17,000 in gross sales, which is normal.
Director Chisaki asked the board to look out for storage space for the book sale. The current space is
frequently broken into and items are often stolen.
The Friends are working on a Strategic Plan and will do visioning on their meeting on November 26. The
library is withdrawing the request from the Friends for funding of digital subscription services for Hoopla
and Kanopy. The library will pay for those services and add Mango Languages.
C.
Patron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response
A patron disagrees with the $5 processing charge for lost items. The fees make using the library
restrictive. Library staff spoke with the patron and she understands why the library is charging the fee, but
does not agree with it, and wants to voice her disagreement with the policy.
A patron complained that the owner of the black van that parks in the library parking lot harassed her
when she tried to park next to him by the curb. He said she couldn't park there and will hit her car with
the door if he opens the door. She said he had plenty of room and he said it was a handicapped space. He
said he'd call the police because he's harassing him. The library responded that the gentleman has a
disabled placard and can park anywhere he chooses. He parks in one of the disabled spaces and has been
asked to move to one of the other spaces in the lot, but he has a cat in the van with him and he feels the
large tree provides shade for his van and his cat. If you are speaking about the space between the van and
the curb, he is correct. It is not a parking space. The space between the disable space and the curb are
cross hatched to allow for doors to open or ramps to be lowered and wheelchairs to have access. He has a
valid placard and can park in that space legally.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
President Silva shared that she attended a Pacific Library Partnership event with Supervising Librarian,
Marlon Romero. She learned that San Francisco has a full-time social worker assigned to the library. She
added that she attended the End of Summer Reading program and worked at the Live @ the Library
concert, and at the Friends of the Library Book Sale.
Board Member Kearney shared that she went to a memorial for a friend in Walnut Creek and she had been
active in her library program equivalent to Alameda Reads. At the reception, the emcee read a letter how
she changed her life by learning the language, receiving training, and getting a job. It made you realize
that what you do as a volunteer makes a difference in people's lives.",LibraryBoard/2018-11-14.pdf
LibraryBoard,2018-11-14,4,"Page 4 of 4
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
November 14, 2018 Meeting
Board Member Bales shared that she was impressed at Karen Butter's acceptance speech at the Friends
appreciation. She mentioned they are looking forward to a library at Alameda Point, which will keep it on
people's minds.
President Silva asked if there is anything planned for the Jean Sweeney Park grand opening on December
15, 2018. Director Chisaki informed the board that the seed library is in phase two, but there's no funding
for phase two, so she predicts it is three to four years out.
President Silva mentioned Alameda Police Department has a warehouse at Alameda Point that they use
for evidence and there may be space in it available for the Friends to use to store materials. Director
Chisaki will speak with Chief Rolleri about use of the space.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Carol Roth is retiring and her last work day is December 6, 2018. There will be a cake and coffee
reception at 3:00pm and the Library Board is invited to attend. The Mayor will present her with a
proclamation. Circulation Coordinator, Kevin Tam is planning to put together a photo book as a gift.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",LibraryBoard/2018-11-14.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-11-14,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY
NOVEMBER 14, 2018 - 7:00 P.M.
Chair Little convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Dieter, Foreman, Henneberry,
Schwartz and Chair Little - 5.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Minutes of the October 1, 2018 Meeting
Commissioner Dieter noted a change to Council Communication to clarify that she had
two follow up items and the third item was reporting out; stated that she would also
provide the Clerk correct typographical corrections.
Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of minutes with the changes.
Commissioner Dieter seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
3-B. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed October 30, 2018
Serena Chen, Complainant, gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether there were copies of the original agendas,
to which Commissioner Schwartz responded copies were included in the packet.
Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether Ms. Chen attended and spoke at the
November 7th City Council meeting.
Ms. Chen responded in the affirmative; stated the basis of her complaint was that when
a meeting is noticed and Council radically changes something on the agenda, it does
not seem fair.
Commissioner Dieter inquired whether anything in the staff report indicated removing
the cap.
Ms. Chen responded in the negative; stated that she was clear what the changes were
going to be since she attended the July City Council meeting; when she saw the
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
1
November 14, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-11-14,2,"October 16th agenda, it was a reflection of what was discussed in July and she decided
not to attend.
Commissioner Foreman stated the staff report reinforces his understanding about the
delivery-only dispensary.
Ms. Chen concurred with Commissioner Foreman; stated after she read the October
16th staff report, she was satisfied with the terms of the ordinance and felt confident of
the vote; however, she has a problem with the number of dispensaries being doubled
without any public notice.
Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether there was any consideration by the Council of
Ms. Chen's views after her public comment at the November 7th meeting, to which Ms.
Chen responded in the negative; stated the item was pulled from the Consent Calendar
so she could speak; she had already sent a letter to Council regarding her concerns, but
the issue was not addressed further.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether Council discussed the item further and
provided rationale or just voted on the matter at the November 7th meeting.
Ms. Chen responded that she did not feel her questioning caused a quandary; stated
she respects Council and staff's professionalism but disagrees with the City's position.
Commissioner Henneberry stated that he understands Ms. Chen's complaint; inquired
what, in her view, would resolve the issue.
Ms. Chen responded the resolution she has experienced before any other board is that
if there are any changes to the language that has been proposed, staff is directed to
come back to Council with changes for Council to introduce the ordinance, have a first
reading and vote; there should be adequate notification for the public and an opportunity
for people to be involved.
Commissioner Dieter inquired whether Ms. Chen's remedy would be that the matter be
re-noticed and come back to the Council, to which Ms. Chen responded in the
affirmative; stated that she understands marijuana has been legalized in the State, but
cities are responsible for their own regulations.
Commissioner Dieter stated the Commission takes Ms. Chen's complaint seriously and
will do their best to consider her points.
The Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired what would have been the harm of waiting one
more meeting and re-noticing the item.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 14, 2018
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-11-14,3,"The Assistant City Attorney responded he did not think there would be any harm; stated
the Council asked whether or not the Ordinance would comply and if they could
proceed; since the answer was affirmative, Council chose to move forward.
In response to Commissioner Schwartz inquiry on who answered affirmatively, the
Assistant City Attorney stated the Acting City Attorney.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether the Acting City Attorney explained the
basis of his opinion.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the Acting City Attorney explained that the
attorneys had opined on the matter and communicated to Council that proceeding with
a
second reading was okay; the Acting City Attorney further stated the opinion has not
changed.
Commissioner Henneberry stated the ordinance talked about delivery-only and was
completely flipped on its head at the October 16th meeting by adding two full-service
dispensaries with deliveries; inquired how doing so works with the strict and exact
standards of agenda noticing.
The Assistant City Attorney responded staff's position is that the change was delivery-
only to delivery-required; stated the agenda was noticed for an increase in the number
of dispensaries; the agenda language did state delivery-only, the Council has authority
to modify the ordinance in part because State law does not regulate the businesses any
differently and does not have a distinction for delivery-only; the distinction is a local
consideration, therefore, the Council has authority; conversely, the Council could decide
not to make the distinction and still be compliant, which is precisely what the Council did
in this instance.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he did not see the term ""delivery-required"" in either
the regulatory or zoning ordinance that came before Council on October 16th
The Assistant City Attorney stated Commissioner Foreman is correct; Council was
amending the ordinances to allow the change to happen and directed staff to do so.
Commissioner Foreman stated the change was not only delivery-only to delivery-
required, it was also changed from ""closed to the public"" to ""open to the public.""
The Assistant City Attorney agreed with Commissioner Foreman's statement; stated the
ordinance language from November 7th defined the change.
Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney would agree with
Ms. Chen that the difference between delivery-only and delivery-required is a facility
that is just a warehouse versus a facility that has public interaction.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
3
November 14, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-11-14,4,"The Assistant City Attorney responded not exactly; stated the difference between the
two is that although they are functionally the same, one does not allow public access;
he would not characterize a delivery-only dispensary as a warehouse as it would still
have to go through all of the State and local legal requirements.
Chair Little stated there was better public notice for the November 7th meeting; inquired
whether it is normal circumstance to allow a significant distinction or change in the
agenda item between the first reading and second reading.
The Assistant City Attorney responded legal counsel's position is that re-setting the first
reading due to changes is not an accurate statement of the law, as Ms. Chen asserts;
stated it is typical and permissible for Council to give staff direction to make changes
and come back; what is not permissible is making substantive modifications at the
second reading; in this case, however, resetting does not apply when an agenda is
published but Council decides to move in a different direction; Ms. Chen is arguing the
meaningful description as opposed to when a Council needs to reset the first reading
and start over; the separate issues are conflated because of the remedy Ms. Chen is
seeking; the issue before the Commission tonight is to determine whether or not the
agenda description is a meaningful description.
Chair Little stated it is difficult to know for certain the direction of Council conversation;
therefore, it is impossible to predict by way of an agenda description to name everything
and cover all of the minutia details that may come up; the intention of the discussion
was to have a meaningful conversation about delivery-only dispensaries; the
conversation did take place, but then deviated and language was changed; inquired
whether public awareness of the change took place in time for the Council to then vote
on the item and allow for public comment on November 7th
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Chair Little's statement
of events is accurate.
Commissioner Dieter requested clarification regarding whether a first reading and a
second reading can be entirely different as long as nothing substantive has changed; if
so, the first reading needs to be reset.
The Assistant City Attorney stated Commissioner Dieter's statement is accurate; in this
case, the change happened before the Council did its first reading.
In response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the
Council suspended the first reading until they actually got their comments in on how
they wanted it modified; said practice is actually central to what Council does with
respect to ordinances; the Council would be hamstringed if they did not have said
ability.
The Assistant City Attorney read an unpublished court of appeals case analogous to the
issue; stated the notice was sufficient to provide a member of the public to know that
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 14, 2018
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-11-14,5,"there would be an increase in the number of dispensaries, whether it is delivery-only or
delivery-required.
Commissioner Dieter stated that she understands that the Assistant City Attorney is in a
position of defending the City and that he believes there were no substantive changes;
the Commission's role is to defend the public to what a reasonable person would
understand; she would consider the changes substantive because a cap on retail
businesses was removed; the changes were not included in the staff report or agenda
title.
The Assistant City Attorney clarified that the legal standard Commissioner Dieter refers
to does not apply to the general agenda description because the changes happened
before the first reading and before Council introduced the ordinance.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he understands substantive or non-substantive is
not the issue; inquired whether the City's position would be the same if Council changed
the retail cap to eight, as long as they corrected it by the second reading.
The Assistant City Attorney responded he does not like to opine on hypotheticals, but
responded in the affirmative; stated the standard that applies is the notion that there is a
description for the members of the public to decide whether or not they should appear.
Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether there was a basis to dispute Ms. Chen's
claims that community advocates might have attended the meeting had they been
aware of the changes.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that it would be speculative to speak to that;
stated that he has attended every meeting regarding the cannabis issue and is
surprised by the amount of support versus the amount of opposition to the issue.
Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney was aware of a
vocal minority of public health advocates who are opposed to the additional public
dispensaries, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded Ms. Chen and one other
speaker are the only ones he is aware of that attended and spoke at the November 7th
meeting.
Commissioner Dieter stated the public did not know that more retail businesses were
going to be open; at the beginning of the process, there was a lot of concern about the
amount of retail, but the public was relieved and reassured by the City Council that
there would be a cap; the Council directed staff to bring back a report which included
the cap; the cap was then removed; Ms. Chen's complaint is not about what happened
at the November 7th meeting, it is about the first notice and whether members of the
public were alerted to changes made before the second notice.
Chair Little clarified that the ordinance clearly states ""add two cannabis retail
businesses.""
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
5
November 14, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-11-14,6,"The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Little; stated regarding Commissioner
Dieter's comments, that he cannot speculate on whether or not the public was
concerned about the issue.
Commissioner Dieter stated that she looked at the July meeting and no one on the
Council suggested adding the two retail businesses; Council requested staff bring back
a staff report with a cap; the staff report brought at the October meeting reiterated and
reaffirmed what Council directed regarding the cap; inquired why the first clause adding
two retail business was even included.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the report in July provided a status report on the
cannabis request for proposals issued in April; Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice
Mayor Vella suggested adding ""delivery only"" at that meeting.
In response to Commissioner Dieter, the Assistant City Attorney stated the subsequent
staff report did not include only the Council direction; additional items were included.
Commissioner Dieter inquired what prompted the first clause to add two cannabis
businesses.
The Assistant City Attorney responded he does not recall; stated that he just
remembers it was mentioned.
Commissioner Dieter stated as a member of the public reading the ordinance, she
would interpret the additional two cannabis businesses as delivery-only businesses
since there is nothing in the staff report to suggest otherwise.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the staff report was designed to report on outcomes,
as opposed to creating a recommendation; staff was seeking direction from Council.
Commissioner Dieter inquired whether there would have been any harm to postpone
the second reading until after the complaint was heard.
The Assistant City Attorney responded there is a current application that is pending and
changes in the ordinance may impact the applicant.
Commissioner Dieter inquired what happens now if the Commission determines there
was a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance.
The Assistant City Attorney staffing the Commission responded pursuant to the
Sunshine Ordinance, if the Open Government Commission determines there is a
violation of Section 2.91, the Commission may order the action of the body null and void
and/or may issue an order to cure or correct, and may also impose a fine on the City for
a subsequent similar violation.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 14, 2018
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-11-14,7,"Commissioner Dieter stated it did not make sense to her that the ordinance proceeded
to a second reading when a complaint was filed with no opportunity for remedy.
In response to Chair Little's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated staff reached out
to Ms. Chen after his email to her stating that she could still provide comment; Ms.
Chen's response to the email was that providing comment would not resolve her
complaint.
Chair Little stated that she understands the item was pulled; inquired how doing so
plays into the process.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the item was pulled for discussion but the
second reading did take place; stated a further amendment is going forward to clarify
definitions.
Commissioner Dieter stated the complaint is about the October 16th meeting, not about
anything that happened after.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether a motion should be put on the floor, to which
the City Clerk responded the Commission is not required to follow Rosenberg's Rules
even though the Council does.
Chair Little stated the Commission pushed following Rosenberg's Rules; called for a
motion.
Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Commission should deliberate before
making a motion, to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the negative.
Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of sustaining the complaint and that Council
be ordered to re-notice the meeting so that community advocates can be heard on the
issue of two additional dispensaries.
Commissioner Dieter seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Foreman stated there are two cannabis ordinances;
the zoning ordinance was not impacted by the complaint; suggested an amendment.
The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Foreman, stated the changes
were confined to the business ordinance which contains the definition of ""delivery-only.""
Commissioner Schwartz stated that he does not think the ordinance needs to be
amended as long as it is clear when re-noticed that the conversion of delivery-only to
delivery-required deserves a public hearing; commended the speakers for thorough
presentations; stated that he agrees with Ms. Chen that the November 7th final vote did
not give the impression that there would be any meaningful debate; to the extent that
there are people in the community that want to be heard on this, it should be heard; it
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
7
November 14, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-11-14,8,"a longer delay; nothing may change in the end; there could have been a two week delay
instead of another first reading and second reading; it is important to do the right thing.
The Assistant City Attorney for the Commission stated there was not a time savings as
a practical matter; the issue would have been delayed and would have to be re-noticed
anyway in the event of the Commission sustaining the complaint.
Commissioner Dieter stated the City moving forward even though a complaint was filed
looks bad to the public.
The Assistant City Attorney for the Commission stated just because a complaint is filed
does not mean the decision made at the October 16th meeting was not in order; the
opinion did not changed by November 7th. the Commission could have reached a
different conclusion; there was not a compelling reason to change the opinion at the
November 7th meeting.
Chair Little stated the 267 pages of information was confusing; assumptions cannot be
made about the decision; comparing what was originally proposed to the eventual
outcome of adding the two businesses has a greater weight; she supports the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice votes - 5.
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Dieter stated that she has enjoyed being on the Commission; sitting at
the dais is harder than it looks; commends the people who volunteer to sit on the
Commission.
The Assistant City Attorney for the Commission noted that he will draft a written
decision for the Commission to review and edit so a final version can be completed.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 14, 2018
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-11-14,9,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Little adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
9
November 14, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf