{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-11-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nESDAY--NOVEMBER - - 1, 2011--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:31 p.m. Councilmember Tam led the Pledge\nof Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(11-518) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Resolution Proclaiming that Any Open\nSpace Eventually Created from the Alameda Belt Line Property be Named the \"Jean\nSweeney Open Space Preserve\" [paragraph number 11-519 would be addressed first\nand the Certificates of Appreciation [paragraph number 11-520 would be addressed on\nNovember 15, 2011.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(11-519) Resolution No. 14631, \"Proclaiming that Any Open Space Eventually Created\nfrom the Alameda Belt Line Property be Named the \"Jean Sweeney Open Space\nPreserve\" and Naming November 1, 2011 as Jean Sweeney Day in the City of\nAlameda.\" Adopted.\nMayor Gilmore read the resolution.\nProponents: Michael John Torrey, Alameda; former Councilmember Lil Arnerich,\nAlameda (submitted correspondence) Norma Arnerich, Alameda; James Leach, Global\nPerspectives; Lorre Zuppan, Alameda Rotary; and Gretchen Lipow, Alameda (submitted\ndrawing).\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nJim Sweeney expressed his appreciation.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(11-520) Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to the Mayor's Fourth of July\nParade Committee Members. Continued to November 15, 2011.\n(11-521) Proclamation Declaring November 5, 2011 as Customer Appreciation Day in\nthe Park Street Business District.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nNovember 1, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-11-01", "page": 2, "text": "Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Vicky Lapp, Bead Inspirations,\nand Kate Pryor, Tucker's Ice Cream.\n(11-522) Public Utilities Board (PUB) Update on Alameda Municipal Power (AMP)\nStrategic Issues.\nGreg Hamm, PUB President, gave a brief presentation.\nThe City Manager stated that he is impressed with AMP's and the PUB's flexibility and\nwillingness to listen to public concerns.\nVice Mayor Bonta thanked the PUB for the outstanding work.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she has the utmost admiration for complexities involved in\nrunning a utility; thanked the PUB for steering AMP in a direction that the City can be\nproud of moving forward.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON-AGENDA\n(11-523) Scott Mathieson, Alameda, discussed the School District budget and salaries.\n*\nCouncilmember Johnson left the dais at 8:09 p.m. and returned at 8:10 p.m.\n(11-524) Mary Anderson, Alameda, discussed the proposed golf land swap.\n(11-525) Michael Harris, Alameda, discussed trees in the Park Street Business District.\nMayor Gilmore noted a meeting would be held on November 9, 2011.\n(11-526) Joseph Cloren, Alameda, read and submitted comments and used his time as\na moment of silence for Raymond Zack.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the minutes [paragraph no. 11-527 were removed from\nthe Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5,\nwith the exception of the introduction of the Ordinance [paragraph no. 11-534], which\nVice Mayor Bonta recused himself from voting on due to his children attending the\npreschool. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 1, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-11-01", "page": 3, "text": "paragraph number.]\n(11-527) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on October 4, 2011 and the\nSpecial City Council Meetings held on October 11, 2011.\nCarol Gottstein, Alameda, discussed the October 11, 2011 minutes.\nThe City Clerk stated the revised minutes provided reflect the changes Ms. Gottstein\nrequested; Rosemary McNally's comments have been made part of the record and will\nbe part of tonight's record because comments have been resubmitted tonight.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Ms. McNally's information should be included in the\nreport, if accurate and discarded otherwise; questioned whether Mr. Grijalva,\nFireChiefs.com.LLC could provide feedback.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated the report is the report; the integrity of the report should remain\nthe same; community views or perspectives that may shed additional light on the report\ncould be added as part of the record; the report should not be amended.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated information was provided but not verified; that he would\nlike to receive feedback regarding the report.\nCouncilmember Tam stated concerns and data presented by Ms. McNally would be\nmade part of the record twice; Ms. Gottstein's comments have been reflected in the\nrecord; Councilmember deHaan is asking for something that is beyond the scope of the\nagenda item.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the report has omissions or incorrect data and has been\naccepted.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the minutes reflect that the report was accepted; inquired\nwhether the minutes are inaccurate, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in the\nnegative.\nThe City Manager stated the issue is not agendized for discussion at this stage;\nreopening the content of the report is not appropriate; that he listened very closely to\nMs. McNally's questions; he thought many of the questions were rhetorical; he\nspecifically asked Mr. Grijalva what the impact might have been had Ms. McNally's data\n[on water temperature] been correct; he would retain Mr. Grijalva to do additional work if\nCouncil instructs him to readdress specific questions; he does not believe that is\nnecessary; however, it would be Council's decision; reopening the report would require\nnoticing.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the minutes with Ms. Gottstein's revisions.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nNovember 1, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-11-01", "page": 4, "text": "- 5.\n(*11-528) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,236,355.23.\n(*11-529) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Investment Report for Fiscal Year\n2010-2011. Accepted.\n(*11-530) Recommendation to Approve a One-Year Contract with ECS Imaging, Inc. in\nthe Amount Not to Exceed $32,859 for Laserfiche Services and Maintenance. Accepted.\n(*11-531) Resolution No. 14632, \"Approving the Third Amended and Restated Northern\nCalifornia Power Agency Metered Subsystem Aggregator Agreement.\" Adopted.\n(*11-532) Resolution No. 14633, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application\nto the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of $2.5 Million in\nFunding from the 2012 Regional Transportation Improvement Program for the\nBroadway/Jacksor Project and to Execute All Necessary Documents.\" Adopted.\n(*11-533) Resolution No. 14634, \"Approving Final Parcel Map No. 10006 (2601-2901\nHarbor Bay Parkway.\" Adopted.\n(*11-534) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the Execution of Lease of Real Property\nLocated at 1525 Bay Street Between City, as Lessor, and Karen Zimmerman and\nKenneth Edgerly, as Lessee, for Operation of ABC Preschool. Introduced.\nNote: Vice Mayor Bonta recused himself from voting on the item.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-535) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the City of Alameda Municipal Code by\nRepealing Section 24-5 (Smoking Control) of Section XXIV (Public Health) and By\nAdding Section 24-11, (Smoking Prohibitions in Places of Employment and Public\nUnenclosed Places), and Section 24-12 (Smoking Prohibitions in Multi-Use Housing).\nIntroduced.\nThe Senior Management Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of limiting public speaker comments to two\nminutes.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nProponents: Amanda Khoo, Youth Advisory Commission (YAC) (submitted comments);\nDanielle McGuinness, YAC; Carrie Huang, YAC (submitted comments); Jeanette Mei,\nAlameda; Amy Raffle, Alameda (submitted comments); Michael John Torrey, Alameda;\nBeth Hoch, Alameda; Gayle Thomas, Alameda; Joyce Carol, Alameda; Janice Louie,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nNovember 1, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-11-01", "page": 5, "text": "Alameda County Public Health Department; Rosalyn Moya, Alameda; Nayeli Cerpas,\nAlameda; Zalman Sher, Alameda (submitted photo).\nUrged revision to prohibit smoking in condominiums: Judith Fruge, Alameda (submitted\ncomments); Michael Robles Wong, Alameda; Adrian Blakely, Alameda; Bruce Fiedler,\nDublin (submitted comments); and Serena Chen, American Lung Association.\nUrged revision to exclude e-cigarettes: Andrew Webre, Berkeley (submitted comments);\nChris Gaskill, Alameda; and Geoffrey Braithwaite, Tasty Vapor.\nUrged revision to allow smoking at bar patios: Joe Churchward, Alameda; Dan Nichols,\nAlameda; Samantha Beran, Alameda (submitted petition); Robb Ratto, Park Street\nBusiness Association (PSBA); Jon Spangler, Alameda; and Jake Thompson, Alameda.\nUrged revision to allow smoking cannabis: Lauren Vasquez, Alameda.\nUrged revision to allow smoking in rental units: Ron Salsig, Alameda.\nOpponent: Lola Brown, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she strongly encourages including condominiums;\nmost condominiums are old and do not have good ventilation systems; second units\nand multi-unit structures should be included; questioned why the proposed ordinance\nwould not apply to beaches; stated some type of exception should be given for outdoor\nseating in back areas of bars; requested further information on electronic cigarettes.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated the Federal Drug Administration (FDA)\nregulates electronic cigarettes like tobacco; people use electronic cigarettes to try to\nstop smoking; various groups are recommending prohibition of electronic cigarettes.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether people would not be able to use electronic\ncigarettes in apartments, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated people should be able to use electronic cigarettes in\napartments if it helps them quit smoking.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated that the FDA has determined that electronic\ncigarettes should be regulated like tobacco.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how electronic cigarettes would be regulated in apartments if no\none can smell or see anything.\nThe Senior Management Analyst responded electronic cigarettes have toxicity but are\nconsidered lower risk than smoking.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nNovember 1, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-11-01", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Johnson inquired whether there is any evidence that electronic\ncigarettes permeate into other units.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded staff has relied on subject matter experts and\nmodel ordinances through the Technical Assistance Legal Center which is funded by\nthe California Department of Health Services and other groups; staff is not as wedded to\nthe [electronic cigarette] provision as other provisions; removing electronic cigarettes\nfrom the proposed ordinance would not receive a lot of argument.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated the issue is a policy call.\nCouncilmember Johnson suggested removing electronic cigarettes from the ordinance\nuntil more information is received.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he is looking at the ordinance from a public health\nprospective; more information is needed regarding impacts before a decision is made\non electronic cigarettes.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff would do more research on the matter.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's initial comments, the Senior Management\nAnalyst stated the second units were excluded to be consistent with individual property\nrights; the housing portion of the ordinance applies to rental complexes defined as multi-\nunit residences where 51% or more of the units are owned by the same landlord\nCoucilmember Johnson inquired whether other jurisdictions have applied similar bans,\nto which the Senior Management Analyst responded some have.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether there have been lawsuits or challenges, to\nwhich the Senior Management Analyst responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the same rules should apply if a second unit is rented\nout.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated that nothing would preclude an owner of a single\nfamily home with an in-law unit from making the in-law unit smoke free.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding addressing beaches in the\nordinance, the Senior Management Analyst stated that she did not do a lot of research\nregarding beaches because the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) regulates the\nbeaches.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City has agreements with EBRPD; agreements\nshould be researched; the City owns the beaches.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated amendments could be brought back; Hirmosa Beach\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nNovember 1, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-11-01", "page": 7, "text": "just banned smoking.\nCouncilmember Johnson noted that she has never seen a police officer smoking on\nduty [as referenced by a speaker].\nMayor Gilmore questioned whether EBRPD has a smoking policy.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated that she would look into the matter.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there are beaches not under EBRPD\nMayor Gilmore stated Council is not trying to force people to quit smoking but is trying to\nprotect the public health and non-smokers from second-hand smoke.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated drinking and smoking go together; that he is concerned\nwith prohibiting smoking in tavern outdoor patio areas; the housing portion needs to be\nmore precise.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how many taverns are in town, to which Mr. Ratto responded\napproximately 40 or 50.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated Oakland does not have a prohibition for outdoor\npatio areas; twelve neighboring cities have smoke free outdoor dining provisions; ten\nneighboring cities have smoke free entryway provisions.\nMayor Gilmore stated a lot of back patio areas abut a street with just a fence separating\nthe smoking patio from the sidewalk; rear patios are often surrounded by residences\nabove the area; smoke drifts up and neighbors cannot open windows.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the issue should be further explored; smokers would be\ngiven the impression that they are not welcome in taverns; something needs to be\ncrafted that would have the least impact on people who are not smoking.\nMayor Gilmore stated bars and taverns are unique; that she is doubtful that an\nordinance could be crafted that would fit all.\nBrad Wick, South Shore Shopping District General Manager, stated tavern owners\nwould take a direct hit; a lot of issues have been left on the table; suggested that the\nmatter be tabled for further discussion; stated the Shopping Center would incur\nadditional costs via signage and enforcement; the issue should be circulated within the\nbusiness community.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated employees smoke outside establishments; that he does\nnot like walking through smoke when patronizing the Shopping Center.\nMr. Wick stated that he has spoken to tenants regarding the matter; employees will not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nNovember 1, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-11-01", "page": 8, "text": "walk 200 yards to a common smoking area; that he cannot enforce something that he\ndoes not have control over.\nThe Police Chief stated the ordinance would be complaint driven; that he has no desire\nto be proactive in citing people; the ordinance would be self policing; the Police\nDepartment would work with landlords, tenants, and business owners to help mediate\nissues; the Police Department prioritizes calls on a one to four scale; smoking violations\nwould be a four.\nMayor Gilmore stated Police Officers would not come into an establishment looking for\nviolations; complaints would come from residents, customers, and people affected by\nsidewalk smoke or smoke coming over a six-foot fence.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired what the response would be if a Police Officer is on patrol\nand notices a smoking violation.\nThe Police Chief responded it would depend upon calls for service and how busy the\nPolice Department is; stated that he would expect a Police Officer to request the\ncigarette be put out.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the Police Chief stated Police Officers would try to\nmediate complaints; the Police Department might receive numerous complaints for a\nparticular establishment; an ordinance should not be adopted that Council would not\nwant the Police Department to enforce.\nThe Police Chief stated a lot of discretion would be used; a Police Officer would be\nassigned to work with bar owners and residents; the Police Department would not\nignore a nuisance.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the outdoor patio bar area needs further consideration.\nMayor Gilmore stated bar owners have been responsible and have worked well with the\nPolice Department; the ordinance could be changed if things do not work out.\nVice Mayor Bonta concurred with Councilmember Johnson regarding further\nconsideration for outdoor patio bar areas and electronic cigarettes; stated that he can\nenvision having certain specifications for outdoor patio bar areas so that public health\ninterests would be harmonized with business interests.\nMayor Gilmore stated each business is different; that she would be okay with having\nsome type of opt out permit system; businesses would need to meet certain criteria.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff could bring back San Francisco's hybrid\nrestriction for review.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is not in favor of holding up the entire ordinance because\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nNovember 1, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-11-01", "page": 9, "text": "of one provision.\nThe Assistant City Manager suggested the [outdoor patio area] provision be brought\nback later, to which Mayor Gilmore concurred.\nMayor Gilmore summarized that Council wants the tavern issue and electronic\ncigarettes to come back to Council and to have condominium restrictions added.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is troubled by comments regarding businesses not\nbeing part of the process; she is supportive of including condominiums, reviewing\nbeaches, providing an opt out permit system to deal with tavern patios, and allowing\nsome flexibility for good business management through Police Department involvement.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated the ordinance should include existing condominiums; that he is\nnot in favor of the 10% opt out for apartments; the public nuisance component should\nbe included.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council could go forward with the ordinance tonight with changes\nto electronic cigarettes, condominiums, beaches, and an opt out for bars and taverns;\nthe public nuisance issue and 10% opt out have not been discussed.\nThe Assistant City Manager inquired whether Council wants the non-smoking provision\napplied when condominiums turn over or straight across the board, to which Vice Mayor\nBonta and Councilmember Johnson responded across the board.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she is surprised that business associations are not\nin attendance tonight; suggested seeking comments from the various business\nassociations.\nThe City Manager stated staff would contact business associations tomorrow and\nremind them that there will be a second reading of the ordinance on November 15th\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff would not be able to address all issues\ndiscussed because of the twelve-day noticing period; however, condominiums can be\nincluded.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether people are okay with putting in the public nuisance\ndefinition, to which Councilmember Johnson stated that she has no objection.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated staff would need to review policy\nconsiderations; including the public nuisance definition would be difficult.\nMayor Gilmore stated the public nuisance definition could be brought back at a future\ndate.\nIn response to the Assistant City Manager's inquiry, Council agreed to include public\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nNovember 1, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-11-01", "page": 10, "text": "events.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is comfortable with the Police Chief's statement\nthat the Police Department would do everything possible to mediate violations.\nThe Assistant City Manager noted the ordinance is silent on medical marijuana.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether a decision has been made on a single family home\nwith an attached rental, to which Mayor Gilmore responded the issue should be left as\nproposed by staff.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated single family homes with attached rentals share walls.\nThe City Manager stated a person can chose or not chose to rent; that he takes\nresponsibility for staff's viewpoint on ownership situations.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated much of the language pertaining to common\ninterest complexes has been drafted so that homeowner associations would have to\ntake a proactive approach for a 100% smoke free unit; typically, the Covenants,\nConditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) address the percentage for smoke free units.\nThe City Manager stated that he understands that Council wants to cover all\ncondominiums and apartments; the issue at stake is what to do about the shared wall\nowner-occupied duplex; inconsistencies would exist unless everything is banned from\nsmoking.\nMayor Gilmore stated the issue could go forward as written and could be tweaked down\nthe line.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she is willing to go forward with the ordinance; the\ndistinction would be if a homeowner decides to have a second unit with a shared wall.\nMayor Gilmore stated a homeowner could make the choice to smoke or not and a\ntenant could choose to rent or not.\nThe Assistant City Manager summarized direction as: take out provisions related to\noutdoor patios and electronic cigarettes; add existing condominiums across the board;\nreview beaches and bring the matter back; study the public nuisance issue and provide\nmore information at a future time; reject the 10% opt out for apartments; keep in the\npublic events language; leave single family in-law units as is and address the matter in\nthe future if necessary.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved introduction of the ordinance with amendments.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nNovember 1, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-11-01", "page": 11, "text": "Under discussion, Vice Mayor Bonta inquired how the 10% exception works for hotels.\nThe Senior Management Analyst responded smoking areas are placed at a certain\nlocation; stated hotels could choose to be 100% smoke free.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry, the Senior Management Analyst stated\nBelmont's ordinance has more to do with housing and outdoor air.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-536) Ordinance No. 3036, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nArticle VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) to Chapter Il (Administration) Establishing Local\nStandards to Ensure Public Access to Public Meetings and Public Records.\" Finally\npassed.\nProponents: John Knox White, Alameda; and Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore stated having a redline document is very helpful.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated that she redlined the first reading of the ordinance\nbecause she wanted the public to see what the Sunshine Task Force presented to the\nCouncil versus what staff suggested as changes; changes from the first reading and\nsecond reading could be redlined if Council wishes; typically, ordinances are short and\nchanges are not highlighted from the first and second reading.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's comments, the City Manager stated staff could provide\nredline changes to existing ordinances or redline staff's changes in what is introduced to\nCouncil.\nMayor Gilmore stated redlining would be good for long ordinances.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated redlining would be good if there are changes between the first\nand second reading; inquired whether there could have been a redline version that\nwould have shown the changes.\nThe Acting City Attorney responded in the affirmative; highlighted the following changes:\nSection 2-91.5 matches the language of the ordinance with the new practice already in\nplace for twelve day noticing for City Council meetings; Section 2-91.7 and 2-91.10\nprovide harmony between the ordinance and Brown Act; Section 2-91.7 changes the\nclosed session title of Conference with Negotiator-Collective Bargaining to Conference\nwith Labor Negotiators; Section 2-91.9 includes cost recovery for records duplication;\nSection 2-91.13 addresses end time for meetings; Section 2-92 includes electronic\nformatting language; Section 2-92.8 includes individual employees salaries as non-\nexempt information; Section 2-92.10 broadens what types of records must be\nimmediately disclosed; Section 2-93.2 clarifies that complaints would be resolved at the\nOpen Government Commission level and deletes references to appeals from the Open\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nNovember 1, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-11-01", "page": 12, "text": "Government Commission; Section 2-93.8 specifies that fines would go toward records\nretention technology and/or Sunshine Ordinance training and education.\nCouncilmember Tam moved final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Tam thanked everyone for all the hard work; stated underlying\neverything is the duty to provide information to the public.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-537) The City Manager announced the website survey ends November 16, 2011;\nurged everyone to email comments to him; a Park Street tree meeting would be held on\nNovember 9th; changes to future noticing and types of trees will be discussed; a golf\nwebsite has been created and appraisals have been posted.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(11-538) John Knox White, Alameda, suggested Council form a public input policy.\n(11-539) Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated that he and the tavern owners present would like to\nparticipate in any follow up on the smoking regulations.\n(11-540) Jon Spangler, Alameda, discussed air filtration systems.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-541) Councilmember deHaan stated the City should address water temperature\ndistinction [in the Grijalva report]\nMayor Gilmore noted the Council couldn't take action under Council Communications.\n(11-542) Councilmember deHaan stated the campaign reform ordinance should be\nbrought to Council.\n(11-543) Councilmember Tam requested an off agenda report on existing outreach\npolicies to determine whether a Council Referral on the matter would be needed.\n(11-544) Vice Mayor Bonta stated that he would host two Town Hall meetings regarding\nthe golf course and land swap on Thursday, November 15, and Monday, November 28.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nNovember 1, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-11-01", "page": 13, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:12 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\n13\nNovember 1, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-11-01", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--NOVEMBER 1, 2011-6:30 - P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:\n(11-516) Liability Claims (54956.95) - Workers' Compensation Claim; Claimant: Sean\nMcMenamin; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda.\n(11-517) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:\nDonald Sipple, et al V. City of Alameda, et al Los Angeles County Superior Court Case\nNumber: BC4622704.\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Workers' Compensation Claim, Council provided direction\ntoward settlement of the claim; and regarding Existing Litigation, Council provided\ndirection.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the special meeting at 7:25\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-11-01.pdf"}