{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- APRIL 5, 2011--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:18 p.m. Vice Mayor Bonta led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(11-146) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners\n(HABOC) agenda would be addressed after Oral Communications.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(11-147) Proclamation Declaring the Month of March \"Women's History Month\"\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Anne Spanier, League of\nWomen Voters.\n(11-148) Proclamation Congratulating College of Alameda on its 40 Years of Service to\nthe Community.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Dr. Jannette Jackson, College\nof Alameda President.\nDr. Jackson introduced Dr. Wise E. Allen Peralta Community College District\nChancellor; former Mayor Bill Withrow and Abel Guillen from the Peralta Board of\nTrustees; and College staff members and students; provided a handout.\nMr. Withrow commented on constraints and difficulties facing the College of Alameda.\n(11-149) Proclamation Declaring April as Autism Awareness Month.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Jodi Moore, Commission on\nDisability Issues (CID).\nMs. Moore recognized the members of the CDI and audience members present with\nloved ones affected by Autism, announced upcoming Autism awareness events and\nprovided a handout.\n(11-150) Proclamation Declaring April 16, 2011, as Earth Day.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nApril 5, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 2, "text": "Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Ruth Abbe, Community Action\nfor a Sustainable Alameda; and Sharyl Nelson-Embry, East Bay Regional Park District.\nMs. Nelson-Embry and Ms. Abbe announced upcoming activities.\n(11-151) Proclamation Declaring May 2011 as Asian Pacific Heritage Month.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Judy Gong, Benny Chin, and\nAustin Tam.\nMs. Gong invited everyone to attend the Spring Festival on May 1st and submitted a\nflyer.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-152) Provide Direction on Improving the City of Alameda's Secondhand Smoke and\nTobacco Control Policies\nSpeakers: Jonathan Wong, Alameda High School Student; and Elizabeth Wong,\nAlameda High School Student.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(11-153) Hunter Stern, International Brotherhood of Electric Workers Local 1245; Dave\nConnolly, Alameda resident and Sailors' Union of the Pacific (SUP) Union; Jeff\nDelBono, International Association of Fire Fighters Local 689; Mike Henneberry,\nAlameda resident and United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5; and Cindy\nZecher, Alameda resident and California School Employees Association, discussed\nunions not being responsible for budget issues.\n(11-154) Jenny Lee, Oakland, discussed a complaint she submitted about the Library\nand submitted a handout.\n(11-155) Roderick Coleman, Alameda, discussed problems with staff at Operation\nDignity.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam, the Housing Authority Executive Director stated\nthat he would be meeting with Mr. Coleman.\n(11-156) Randolph Belle, RBA Creative, discussed the opening of an art studio and\ngallery; and submitted a handout.\n(11-157) Nancy Hird, Alameda; Corrine Lambden, Alameda; Adam Gillitt, Alameda; and\nJim Oddie, Alameda, discussed budget issues facing Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 5, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 3, "text": "Mayor Gilmore called a recess to hold the HABOC meeting at 8:36 p.m. and\nreconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*11-158) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on March 15, 2011; and the\nSpecial City Council Meeting Held on March 26, 2011. Approved.\n(*11-159) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,194,923.45.\n(*11-160) Recommendation to Authorize the Public Works Director to Enter into a Letter\nof Agreement between the City of Alameda and the West Alameda Business\nAssociation for the Administration of a Monthly Parking Permit Program in City Owned\nLot W. Accepted.\n(*11-161) Recommendation to Authorize the Public Works Director to Enter into a Letter\nof Agreement between the City of Alameda and the Park Street Business Association\nfor the Administration of a Monthly Parking Permit Administration in City Owned Lots A\nand C. Accepted.\n(*11-162) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Mountain Cascade to Pipeburst\nExisting 14 Inch VCP Storm Drain Pipe and Replace with 16 Inch HDPE Pipe on Eighth\nStreet, between Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. Accepted.\n(*11-163) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 30, No. P.W. 10-10-26.\nAccepted.\n(*11-164) Recommendation to Receive an Update on the City's Green Initiatives.\nAccepted.\n(*11-165) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of Two Marked Ford Crown\nVictoria Police Vehicles through the Los Angeles County Vehicle Bid Contract at a Cost\nNot to Exceed $50,000.00. Accepted.\n(*11-166) Resolution No. 14559, \"Approving Amendment to the Memorandum of\nUnderstanding Between the City of Alameda and the Alameda Police Officers\nAssociation Non-Sworn Unit for the Period Commencing December 20, 2009 and\nEnding December 18, 2010, and Extended through March 26, 2011. Adopted;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nApril 5, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 4, "text": "(*11-166A) Resolution No. 14560, \"Approving Amendment to the Memorandum of\nUnderstanding Between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245\nfor the Period Commencing January 1, 2009, and Ending December 18, 2010, and\nExtended through March 26, 2011.' Adopted;\n(*11-166B) Resolution No. 14561, \"Approving Amendment to the Memorandum of\nUnderstanding Between the Management and Confidential Employees Association for\nthe Period Commencing January 1, 2005 and Ending December 20, 2008, Extended\nthrough December 12, 2009, Extended Again through December 18, 2010 and\nExtended Again through March 26, 2011. Adopted.\n(*11-167) Ordinance No. 3028, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to Amend\nChapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Repealing Article I (Uniform Codes Relating to\nBuilding, Housing and Technical Codes) in its Entirety and Adding a New Article\nI\n(Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing and Technical Codes) to Adopt the 2010\nCalifornia Building Code, the 2010 California Residential Code, the 2010 California\nHistorical Building Code, the 2010 California Electrical Code, the 2010 California\nPlumbing Code, the 2010 California Mechanical Code, the 2010 California Energy\nCode, the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code, the 1997 Uniform Housing\nCode, and the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous\nBuildings, and Amend Chapter XV (Fire Prevention) by Repealing Section 15-1 in its\nEntirety and by Adding a New Section 15-1 to Adopt the 2010 California Fire Code.\nFinally passed.\n(*11-168) Ordinance No. 3029, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing\nArticle Il (Boards and Commissions) of Chapter Il (Administration) in Its Entirety and by\nRepealing Subsection 30-65.7 (Public Art Commission) of Chapter XXX (Development\nRegulations) in Its Entirety and Adding a New Article II (Boards and Commissions).\nFinally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-169) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Section 30-7\nof the Alameda Municipal Code Related to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Space\nRegulations. Amended and introduced.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired what \"unbundling parking costs from leases\" means.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded a person would have the option of\npurchasing a condominium without purchasing the associated parking spaces.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Services Manager means existing parking\nspaces.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 5, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 5, "text": "The Planning Services Manager responded the issue is on the menu for future projects.\nMayor Gilmore inquired what would be the concept for reassigning spaces.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded reassigning spaces would work on a\nproject-by-project basis and would have to be managed by the landlord or property\nowner; stated a person would not have to buy parking if parking is not needed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the property would be encumbered forever; leasing\nwould be a different story.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated a person could request a reduction in the\nparking requirement; unbundling is a concept many cities are considering.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated approximately eighteen months ago, an effort was made\nto establish parking requirements by retail type.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated retail has been broken down into one or two\ncategories; a restaurant is separate from non-restaurant retail uses; an art gallery would\nrequire a huge amount of parking.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Alameda Hospital ran into a similar issue and implemented\ntandem and free, valet parking because of residential spillovers.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether feedback has been received from the business\nassociations.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Park Street Business Association\n(PSBA) and West Alameda Business Association (WABA) are supportive and involved;\nprivate parking lots in commercial areas are underutilized, while on-street parking\nspaces are often full.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether more can be done on the maximization and\noptimization of existing parking spaces.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded on-street and off-street pricing require\nconstant monitoring; stated everyone would benefit from sharing private lots.\nMayor Gilmore requested clarification on parking in driveways.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the provision prohibiting parking in driveways\nhas been eliminated; a different section of the Municipal Code addresses where a\nperson can and cannot leave a car.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is happy that parking in driveways is permissible.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nApril 5, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated increasing parking fees to $1 per hour for Lot C and\nkeeping fees low for the parking garage encourages short-term parking in business\nareas; inquired whether the fees have been effective in terms of competition for short-\nterm parking and on-street parking, to which the Public Works Director responded\npeople still prefer street parking.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated alleyways should be available for businesses and\nrestaurants; PSBA and WABA parking should be reviewed; sometimes, the City waits\ntoo long and opportunities go away; currently, Webster Street does not have a parking\nproblem; inquired whether parking across a sidewalk is not allowed, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Alameda High School has an ongoing request for\ndesignated spots for school use.\nThe Public Works Director stated the School District has a draft letter of agreement for\ntwenty spots for teachers.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated student monthly passes should be considered for\nstudents.\nThe Public Works Director stated monthly parking rates have been reduced significantly\nto encourage parking at the parking structure; the rates are 50% lower than for parking\nat a meter.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated parking structure rates should be more than 50% lower.\nMayor Gilmore stated most of the morning traffic is generated by people going back and\nforth to school; traffic jams do not occur in the summer months; students should not be\nencouraged to drive.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated students drive; the difficulty is that students park in\nneighborhoods all day; the problem cannot be solved for all neighborhoods; students\nwould more likely park in monthly pass spaces instead of [School District] staff.\nMayor Gilmore suggested tabling the issue to the next item on the agenda.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding businesses offering\nadditional spaces to other merchants or personnel, the Planning Services Manager\nstated the issue would be studied on a case-by-case basis.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Council has been very gun shy regarding the matter in\nthe past.\nThe Public Works Director stated City approval would be needed; Napa offers additional\nspaces; staff is encouraging new businesses to partner with existing parking lots to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nApril 5, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 7, "text": "meet parking needs.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated theater-parking requirements were overstated and are\nnot needed.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated parking is very well utilized\nduring peak hours and on weekends.\nSpeaker: Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nIn response to Mr. Ratto's comments, the Public Works Director stated a ten-year term\n[for the shared parking agreement] has been suggested because of the concern of\nwhether parking lots would be available for other customers long term; noted five years\nwould be too short; stated seven years might be appropriate.\nMayor Gilmore stated the number of years could always be adjusted later.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved introduction of the ordinance with a revision to change\nthe shared parking agreement to seven years.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Bonta requested clarification on the timing of the\nordinance.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the ordinance would go into effect thirty days\nafter the second reading [final passage].\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether an existing business could request a change under\nthe new ordinance, to which the Planning Services Manager responded absolutely.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated a streamline process should be developed.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the zoning administrative process could be\nused.\nMayor Gilmore stated the process would only be used for parking.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-170) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nRepealing Section 12-17 (Preferential Parking Zones) of Article III (Permit Parking) of\nChapter XII (Designated Parking) in Its Entirety, and by Adding a New Section 12-17\n(Preferential Parking Zones) to Modify the Procedures Relating to the Designation of\nPreferential Parking Zones. Amended and introduced.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nApril 5, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 8, "text": "The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired what a permit would cost, to which the Public Works\nDirector responded $40 per year.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether neighborhood meetings have been held.\nThe Pubic Works Director responded in the negative; stated a public workshop would\nbe held before establishing a parking permit zone.\nMayor Gilmore requested clarification of the conceptual process.\nThe Public Works Director stated a Parking Permit Program (PPP) zone would need to\nbe located in close proximity to a C-C zoning district or major parking generator; a\nminimum of 600 housing units would be needed; the zone would need to be comprised\nof a minimum of 85% residential properties and have at least an 85% parking demand\nfor any three-hour period between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.; residents would need to\nsubmit a petition signed by a minimum of 55% of property owners; only one signature\nper dwelling unit or business would be counted; the City would conduct a parking study;\na public workshop would be held; recommendations would be provided; staff would then\ncome back to Council with a recommendation to establish a PPP zone.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the process would be resident initiated, to which the\nPublic Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether permits would be for Monday through Friday, to which\nthe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether a resident would be charged $80 per year for two cars,\nto which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated [eligible]\nareas would be limited; communities would need to buy into the program; staff receives\ncomplaints from Jackson Park and Alameda High School area residents on a regular\nbasis.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether only residents can initiate a PPP request, not\ninstitutions.\nThe Public Works Director responded staff has not addressed who would be able to\ninitiate the request, only how many people could sign the petition.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the 600 housing unit threshold is huge; that he is not\nsure whether said threshold could be met; getting 55% of the residents to sign a petition\nwould be tough.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nApril 5, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 9, "text": "The Public Works Director stated the threshold is standard; people would park the next\nblock over if the threshold were for one block.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether other cities require a minimum of 600 housing units\nand a 55% threshold.\nThe Public Works Director responded thresholds vary; one city has a 51% threshold.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer stated Alameda County and Oakland have a 33%\nthreshold; other cities range from one-third to one-half.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether Alameda would be on the high end of the threshold\nbut a high threshold would be needed for fiscal neutrality of the General Fund.\nThe Public Works Director responded looking to the General Fund would be necessary\nwithout the recommended threshold.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the start up process would need to be\n[periodically] reviewed because of turnover.\nThe Public Works Director responded permit fees would be adjusted annually to ensure\ncosts are covered; stated the proposed ordinance has a provision that would allow\nCouncil to dissolve a PPP zone if the zone is not self-supporting.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the PPP zone would not be a bad thing to have in\nplace; stated the Jackson Park, Hospital, and High School areas would not be able\nto\nmeet the 600 housing unit threshold.\nThe Public Works Director stated the threshold would be six contiguous blocks or 600\nhousing units.\nMayor Gilmore stated a lot of Bay Area cities have a 33% threshold but are subsidized\nby the General Fund; the City's General Fund would not subsidize the PPP.\nSpeaker: Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's comment, the Public Works Director stated no\none within the commercial district would be able to be part of the PPP; businesses\nwithin a residential area would be allowed to get a permit if the business does not have\noff-street parking; commercial fees within the new zone would be $40 per year; other\ncities charge a higher rate for businesses.\nThe Acting City Manager stated visitor permits would not be provided for businesses\nwithin the area.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many permits a residence could have.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nApril 5, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 10, "text": "The Public Works Director responded the number of permits is not established in the\nproposed ordinance; but would be addressed in the resolution establishing the zone;\nstated some cities allow up to three permits.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated two-hour parking is the most difficult to enforce; tires\nneed to be marked and rechecked to do an effective job.\nThe Public Works Director stated the Police Department is aware of the proposed\nordinance; the Police Department would need to hire new staff; the cost would be\ncovered by the permit costs.\nThe Acting City Manager stated some days people would get a free ride; the Public\nWorks Department has worked with the Police Department to establish something that\nis doable.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated enforcement in the downtown area should not be\nreduced; inquired how start up costs would be paid if permits are never issued, to which\nthe Public Works Director responded in-lieu parking fees would be used.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how the PPP would work if Jackson Park residents could not\nget the 55% minimum but could get 35% to 40% and be willing to pay $55.\nThe Public Works Director responded residents should cover upfront costs in case the\ndistrict is not established.\nMayor Johnson inquired what the upfront costs would be, to which the Public Works\nDirector responded $4,500 [excluding purchasing a vehicle].\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the Jackson Park area would have the required\n600 dwelling units, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Johnson suggested installing parking meter boxes at the Jackson Park\narea and selling parking permits to residents; stated revenue would be generated every\nday.\nThe Public Works Director stated a residential permit-parking ordinance would still be\nneeded; that he is not sure whether the spillover problem would be eliminated.\nCouncilmember Tam stated 40% of 600 dwelling units divided by $4,500 would be\n$18.75 per resident.\nMayor Gilmore stated [an $18.75] credit could be given for the first year permit fee;\nnoted that parking meter boxes are expensive; stated residents would not be motivated\n[to initiate a petition] if parking is not considered a problem.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nApril 5, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated having an ordinance would provide options to address\ncomplaints.\nMayor Gilmore clarified that Council direction is to reduce the threshold to 40%, which\nequates to approximately $19 per dwelling unit up front that would be credited to the\nfirst year permit [if a PPP zone were established]; any unspent money would be given\nback if the PPP zone failed.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired what the annual permit fee would be, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded $40; stated larger zones might have a smaller fee and\ncommercial fees could be higher.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the fee would still work with a lower threshold, to\nwhich the Public Works Director responded the assumption would be that 60% of\nresidents would participate.\nIn response to Councilmember Tams inquiry, the Acting City Manager stated everything\noutlined in Exhibit 1 is start up costs except for the $26,500 vehicle purchase; the\nannualized cost would be $45,150\nCouncilmember Johnson moved introduction of the ordinance with the revision to add a\nstart up cost [and revise the threshold to 40%].\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-171) Provide Direction on Improving the City of Alameda's Secondhand Smoke and\nTobacco Control Policies\nCouncilmember Tam left the dias at 10:33 p.m. and returned at 10:34 p.m.\nThe Senior Management Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether tobacco retailers are prohibited within a certain number\nof feet of schools, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Senior Management Analyst continued the presentation.\nSpeakers: Adrian Blakey, Alameda; Judith Fruge, Alameda; Nancy Issel-Mayes,\nAlameda; Michael Robles-Wong, Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda; Janice\nLouie, Alameda County Health Department (submitted handout); Dr. Thomas Charron,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nApril 5, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 12, "text": "*\nCouncilmember deHaan left the dais and returned at 11:18 p.m.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated all loopholes should be closed; that the City should be very\naggressive on the issue; all four policy areas should be addressed; he does not see an\noutright prohibition for condominiums.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated condominiums could be 100% smoking\nprohibitive.\nCouncilmember Tam stated fourteen cities within the County have already addressed\nthe issue; suggested using Union City's ordinance as a model.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated Union City staff was directed to do whatever\nnecessary to get an A.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that her direction is the same.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated Council should give direction to get an A+; Union City is not\ndoing anything regarding sidewalks.\nMayor Gilmore stated dining areas would be one of the seven areas targeted for\nprotection; inquired whether smoking on an outdoor patio would be prohibited or would\nbe extended to the front sidewalk, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded\nwhatever Council wants.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the Senior Management Analyst stated\nsecondhand smoke is not considered a nuisance at the State level; declaring\nsecondhand smoke at the local level would lower the threshold for proof of injury.\nMayor Gilmore stated only two cities have declared secondhand smoke a nuisance.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated the issue is an emerging issue for cities;\nRichmond has stated that it would be easier to enforce a misdemeanor than an\ninfraction.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether cities are shying away because of legal\nissues.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nApril 5, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 13, "text": "The Senior Management Analyst responded the issue has not been reviewed as closely\nas needed to make a legal determination.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired where a person would go to smoke, to which Vice\nMayor Bonta responded a single family home.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated a person could also smoke in a car.\nMayor Gilmore stated one place to start would be to address non-smoking in common\nareas, disclosure, and the nuisance versus misdemeanor issue; staff could come back\nfor a deeper discussion on non-smoking units.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated the Technical Assistance and Legal Center\n(TALC) drafts ordinances for cities to follow; TALC's secondhand ordinance covers\nsmoke-free workplace areas and outdoor air provisions; housing provisions could be\nincluded.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City should be as aggressive as possible; the\nmatter is a public health issue; that she supports as many prohibitions as possible,\nespecially in housing; suggested that staff come back to address whether there are any\nweaknesses or areas of interest that would keep smoking out of multi-family units.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Johnson.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether smoking at all outdoor recreational areas\nwould be prohibited.\nThe Senior Management Analyst responded in the affirmative, except for the beach\nbecause the beach belongs to the East Bay Regional Park District.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Senior Management Analyst\nstated the percentage of smokers in Alameda County is 10%.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he feels for smokers; he does not know how\nsmokers will get their fix.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she likes the idea of licensing.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City has received complaints regarding advertising,\nespecially adjacent to schools.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated enforcement of nuisance issues could be outsourced to a\nprivate party.\nCouncilmember Tam requested that staff come back with an ordinance that TALC has\nreviewed; stated staff should start with Union City's ordinance and include the City's\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nApril 5, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 14, "text": "Housing Authority policy, a provision for nuisances, prohibitions on sidewalk smoking\nand licensing; information on the impact of Union City's enforcement should be\nprovided.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated staff should come back with information on legal exposure in\nareas ahead of the curve.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated staff should look outside of Alameda County also.\nThe Acting City Manager stated staff has looked at areas outside Alameda County.\nMayor Gilmore stated there would be a lot of discussion around banning smoking in\nmulti-family units and condominiums.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated a number of cities have banned smoking in condominiums.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nApril 5, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-04-05", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY APRIL 5, 2011 - - - 6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(11-144) Conference with Legal Counsel--Anticipated Litigation (Gov. Code Section\n54956.9(b)); Number of cases: Two.\n(11-145) Liability Claims (54956.95) - Workers' Compensation Claim; Claimant: Robert\nVilla; Agency claimed against: City of Alameda.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the special meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Legal, Council provided direction to staff; reported that on\nApril 1, 2011, City Attorney Terri Highsmith provided the City with formal written notice\nof her retirement from and separation of service from the City effective May 3, 2011; in\nClosed Session, the Council unanimously confirmed and accepted her retirement and\nresignation from the City effective May 3, 2011; regarding Liability, Council provided\ndirection.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-04-05.pdf"}