{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 5, 2017--5:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:33 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,\nVella and Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 5:35 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(17-493) Workshop on a Proposed Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Repealing Section 30-5.15 (Medical Dispensaries and Cultivation) of the Alameda\nMunicipal Code in its Entirety; Adding a New Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses); Adding\na New Section 30-10 (Cannabis); and Amending Sections 24-11 (Smoking Prohibitions\nin Places of Employment and Unenclosed Public Places) and 24-12 (Smoking\nProhibitions in Housing).\nThe City Manager and the Community Development Director made introductory\nremarks.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council would not be voting on the\nordinance tonight.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the purpose of the workshop is\nfor Council to provide direction.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the workshop is a first reading of the\nordinance, to which the City Manager responded in the negative.\nNeil Hall, SCI Consulting Group, and the Community Development Director gave a\nPower Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what vertical integration means.\nMr. Hall responded vertical integration means a cultivator can also be a manufacturer\nand can hold a license for everything but testing.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether testing is a standalone license, to which\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Hall responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why there is a 600 foot buffer.\nMr. Hall responded the 600 feet is the State regulation and the minimum that is required\nin other cities.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the 600 feet regulation is only from a\nschool or daycare center, and does not include public parks.\nMr. Hall responded the regulation has also been used for public parks; stated including\nparks is at the preference of the city.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft how the City would know how much time a license would\ntake when doing the license for the first time.\nMr. Hall responded there is a learning curve with the industry; stated there is no real\nway to know the time but an estimate is given.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether vaping is included in the smoking ordinance.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated part of the\ndraft ordinance before Council would update the smoking ordinance to prohibit cannabis\nsmoking.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether tobacco vaping is in the ordinance.\nThe Community Development Director responded tobacco vaping was not around when\nthe smoking ordinance was adopted.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what is the significance of the January 1st deadline.\nThe Community Development Director responded January 2nd is the date the State will\nstart issuing temporary licenses; stated a local jurisdiction needs to affirmatively\nregulate the industry or ban it outright ahead of the January 2nd deadline; if the City\ndoes not have regulations or a ban, the State will presume the uses are permitted solely\nbased on the State requirements; if there is no consensus by the deadline, staff would\nrecommend banning cannabis activity to allow time to work through the regulatory\nframework.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Alameda has a ban on medicinal use but\nnothing in place for recreational use.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nordinance needs updating.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired how local ownership could be encouraged.\nMr. Hall responded there are programs for local hiring.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the 600 foot regulation can be changed.\nMr. Hall responded there is conflict regarding the regulation, which states both a\nminimum of 600 feet and 600 feet or whatever a local jurisdiction determines; stated he\nis unsure how the matter will be reconciled.\nThe Community Development Director continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether dispensaries can be both medical and recreational\nunder State Law.\nThe Community Development Director responded currently the regulations do not allow\nfor co-locations; stated staff is inquiring whether or not Council would like to allow co-\nlocations.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City is risking forfeiture of the building if a cannabis\nbusiness is on City owned land.\nThe Community Development Director responded there is risk of forfeiture of the\nbuilding or land; stated it is unchartered territory; staff would recommend reviewing how\nthings evolve at the federal level.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether any cities allow cannabis businesses on city owned\nland.\nThe Community Development Director responded there was a plant in Coalinga, but it\nwas sold; stated a unique attribute of Alameda is the former Navy Base is still owned by\nthe federal government; cannabis is illegal at the federal level; continued the\npresentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired what is the definition of a youth center.\nThe Community Development Director responded the State definition is contained in the\nordinance; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Council could include a larger\nradius to include parks as a restricted area.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nordinance contains the State minimums.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the map provided in the exhibit reflects the State\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 4, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella inquired how is the square footage measured.\nThe Community Development Director responded door to door; continued the\npresentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a map that includes the parks in Alameda.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the negative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff considered parks.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated staff took into\naccount the States definition of sensitive use; parks are not considered sensitive use\nunder State law; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the square foot buffer or parks issues should return to\nthe Planning Board.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 5, "text": "The Community Development Director responded the Planning Board will have to\nconduct more in depth work regarding the zoning districts.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the matter would return to Council after the Planning\nBoard, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether inserting a Planning Board meeting will\naffect the timeline and what the timeline would be.\nThe Community Development Director responded if direction is given to go to the\nPlanning Board, the Board would hear the matter in October.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a possibility to have the questions posed to\nCouncil, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative;\ncontinued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Council were to approve only one type of\ncannabis business now, could the ordinance be revised at a later date, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative, continued the\npresentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many people participated in the survey.\nThe City Manager responded 600 people; stated the survey is a random sample of\nvoters.\nMayor Spencer inquired how the voters are chosen.\nThe City Manager responded the random sample is selected from registered voters;\nstated a quality of life survey is done every four years and four questions were added at\nthe end of the existing survey.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the four questions were the only ones asked regarding\nthe topic, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nThe Community Development Director continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether other work would not be done because\nstaff is busy hurrying to get the cannabis issues resolved.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification whether Councilmember Matarrese is referring to\nother City work Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Planning Department, City Manager and staff will\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 6, "text": "be rushing to a specific date; the rush to get something in place will cause other items to\nbe delayed.\nExpressed support for establishing marijuana businesses: Debra Mendoza, Alameda.\nUrged Council not to overregulate or over tax the industry; stated cannabis is not toxic:\nMike Rafton, Alameda.\nDiscussed how the revenue can help other programs in Alameda, such as Meals on\nWheels: Sharon Golden, Alameda Island Cannabis Community (AICC).\nDiscussed workers, including local hires, health, safety, benefits, and unions: Augustus\nRodriguez, International Longshore and Warehouse Union.\nGave a Power Point presentation; discussed the benefits of cannabis: Rich Mozkowitz,\nAlameda for Safe Cannabis Access Group.\nUrged adopting local preference regulations: Linda Ashbury, West Alameda Business\nAssociation.\nOutlined his proposed business plan; urged Council to reconsider the proposed ban on\nonsite consumption: Mark Humburg, Alameda.\nExpressed opposition to the regulations; suggested gathering input: Don Sherat,\nAlameda.\nExpressed support for the ordinance; stated cannabis use for palliative reasons is on\nthe rise: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nExpressed support for three local dispensaries; suggested uses for revenue from\ncannabis businesses: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.\nStated that he does not support the regulations; expressed concern over the businesses\nbeing cash based: Scott Stockton, Alameda.\nDiscussed her medical marijuana use; expressed support for local preference and\nonsite consumption: Mallory Penny, Alameda.\nExpressed support for cannabis businesses in Alameda: Sasha Stallworth, Alameda.\nStated her sole concern is location; urged a 1,000 foot restrictions from schools and\nparks; suggested edible and advertising regulations and using some revenue for\neducations at schools: Jennifer Williams, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over locating near schools; urged a thoughtful, slow rollout:\nPoasseu Obot, Alameda.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 7, "text": "able deal with a major incident; she would like retail sales to enter at a later phase and\nwould like to see a more detailed map; 1,000 feet from schools should be considered;\nshe would like to know what types of spaces are available and wants a more robust\nzoning conversation; initially, she would like the cap to be small to not inundate staff;\nthere should be a labor peace agreement; retail should be limited to one type per\ndistrict; flavored tobacco should be banned and the smoking ordinance should be\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 8, "text": "reviewed; there is value in reviewing onsite consumption to keep smoking out of parks;\nshe would like a town hall meeting to keep community members informed before the\nfinal issuing of a permit to an applicant.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he believes the City needs to start small in a\nphased in approach; he is concerned with the locations; the Planning Board should help\nwith the land use issue; the requirement should be 1,000 feet buffer due to federal\nissues; he would like parks entered into the equation; onsite use still needs to be\ndebated; the City should ensure the Police Department is paid and expanded to handle\nthe issues that cannabis brings to a city; questioned how the City could mitigate the\nliability of having a heist at one of the locations; how to ensure workers are paying into\nSocial Security or being paid overtime if paid in cash; stated that he agrees with no City\nor federal property; he would like to start with a pilot to see what the issues are first.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to go slow; she would like to\nbring in stakeholders like the School District and Parks and Recreation Commission;\nshe would like the 1,000 foot buffer, and to ensure well paid jobs are created with\nbenefits in a cash economy; she does not want too many cannabis businesses in one\narea; she would favor starting slow with laboratory testing or manufacturing; she would\nlike the buffer to include parks; she would rather have an operator with experience and\na track record; she would like another town hall meeting; under the ordinance, someone\ncannot be denied a permit for a previous conviction under California Health and Safety\nSections 11350 or 11357; inquired whether the Sections includes recreational use.\nThe Police Chief responded Section 11357(b) is the one the Police Department uses for\ninfraction citation for less than 1 ounce of marijuana; Section 11350 pertains to sales.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City cannot deny a permit for someone with a\nprevious conviction based on said statutes; the City needs to ensure the applicant has a\ncurrent business license; questioned how long before a license would be revoked if\nsomeone does not pay the business license fees, and who pays for the hearing officer\nin the event of a hearing; stated certain shopping centers are family friendly, which are\nnot good places for retail cannabis sales; questioned how deliveries are kept out of the\nhands of a minor; stated that she does not feel Alameda Point is a good location due to\nthe families in the area and the infrastructure; she is not in favor of cultivation anywhere\nin the City at the current time; she would like to be proactive, but conservative.\nMayor Spencer requested the Police Chief to provide records on disproportionate\ncitations for cannabis related offenses related to the skin color of the people cited, or if\nthere is a particular area of town that received more citations; stated that she does not\nbelieve the issue is being rushed; she supports a preference for local ownership and\nemployees; she would like a 600 foot buffer to be the requirement; a lot of medical\nconditions have relief from medical cannabis; she would like to work with the School\nDistrict; she supports having a medical dispensary on each side of the Island and one\non Bay Farm; she supports onsite consumption; she would prefer having regulations on\ndeliveries from Alameda; the business permit should go through the Economic\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 9, "text": "Development Department; she does not feel the Police Chief should be in charge of the\nissue because it is not illegal; oversight should be through Police and Fire; she supports\nlocal ownership, a commercial benefit fund to support local causes, and community\neducation; she would oppose advertising; she supports manufacturing; she is unsure\nabout adding vaping to the smoking ordinance; the community should weigh in on said\nissue; she supports commercial cultivation; she would defer to the State regarding labor\npeace; she does not support people going off Island to go to dispensaries and is less\ncomfortable with having deliveries from locations off the Island; she supports onsite\nconsumption.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to depoliticize the selection process; he\ndoes not want the matter to linger; he would like to have the Economic Development\nDepartment handle the issue because it is a health issue, not a legal issue; he is\ncognizant of the park issue, but he does not want to make it impossible for businesses\nto be permitted.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stressed the importance of having background checks\nconducted.\nMayor Spencer stated background checks will be done; that she would like Council\nprovide direction to staff.\nThe City Manager stated staff has been taking notes.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to give direction and review the list to ensure\nthe public is aware of the issues.\nThe Community Development Director stated that she understood a majority of\nCouncilmembers would like to go slow and start with manufacturing and testing.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated his comment to go slow did not mean phasing; he means\ndrafting an ordinance that is not rushed; other cities already have ordinances in place.\nMayor Spencer inquired what go slow means to staff.\nThe Community Development Director responded she understood there is a desire to\nhear feedback from the community and other stakeholders; inquired whether Council\nwants to have community outreach before an ordinance is drafted.\nMayor Spencer responded there has been time for input; stated more meetings will\noccur when staff returns with the ordinance; a School Board Member has attended the\nmeetings.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the current Council meeting is the first public\nmeeting that the City has held; the City is drafting the ordinance; the School Board\nMember who attended the meetings emphasized that she is not speaking in her\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 10, "text": "capacity as a School Board Member; she would like to hear from the community and\nstakeholders.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she does not want to go slow; she would like to do things in\na considerate and thoughtful manner and take action with purpose; inquired if Council\ncould bifurcate the conversation to look at manufacturing first.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many Councilmembers support phasing.\nVice Mayor Vella responded that she would be open to having a date certain to return.\nMayor Spencer stated the phasing, which should be sooner rather than later, would be\nlab testing, manufacturing, distribution, deliveries, which is not brick and mortar\ndispensaries, and cultivation.\nThe City Manager inquired whether staff could start with manufacturing and testing first.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification from Vice Mayor Vella on her request.\nVice Mayor Vella stated what she heard from her colleagues is to deal with lab testing\nand manufacturing.\nMayor Spencer requested staff to call out the different categories and have Council\nrespond.\nThe Community Development Director stated lab testing is one item to address.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated people want a location to purchase cannabis in\nAlameda, which is the main issue; the easiest site to control, without a lot of cash\naround, is a lab; the Police Chief should not be responsible for administrating a land use\nand permit process; he is hoping staff can synthesize direction and provide a timeframe.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese is requesting staff to return\nonly with labs and brick and mortar dispensaries.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded said direction is what he is hearing from\nconstituents and colleagues; stated a phased in approach can include several options.\nVice Mayor Vella stated she would like staff to clarify the priorities moving forward.\nThe Community Development Director stated that she heard a majority consensus on a\ndesire to update the smoking ordinance and review vaping and flavored tobacco; a\nphased in approach with manufacturing and testing in the beginning; she heard at least\nthree votes to support a 1,000 foot buffer; there should be more community outreach;\nthe land use decisions should be taken to the Planning Board; there is a desire to\nseriously review onsite consumption and to not have the Police Department head up the\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 11, "text": "operator permit or the land use permit and have permits administered by Community\nDevelopment; she heard a majority in support of said items; she took a lot of notes;\nsuggested Council consider a ban.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council has four votes for medicinal dispensaries, to\nwhich Councilmember Matarrese, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like more information on the public\nsafety regarding onsite consumption; she believes Council is sending staff out in a lot of\ndifferent directions.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a majority vote to include distribution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what has happened in other jurisdictions with the\nbusiness being all cash and what type of risks exists; stated piles of cash put people at\nrisk and he would like to discuss the issue.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether employees pay into Social Security.\nMr. Hall responded one owner's solution was to hire a temporary firm that is in charge of\nallocating money for Social Security; there are a variety of solutions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated temporary agency do not give benefits; she is\nconcerned about allowing dispensaries without knowing how to handle the cash;\nlaboratory and manufacturing have less cash; she cannot support something that has\nemployees brought in from a temporary agency.\nThe City Manager stated staff can return with options for the Council to consider; staff\nhas noted the Council direction.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not believe there should be a lot of work for staff;\nstaff has an expert and examples from other cities; inquired whether there are three\nCouncilmembers in support of manufacturing, testing and medicinal dispensaries.\nVice Mayor Vella stressed the importance of bifurcating manufacturing and testing from\nmedicinal dispensaries due to the outstanding questions related to dispensaries.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the issues can be on parallel tracks.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how many other pending items will not be dealt with due to\nstaff allocating time to cannabis.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether distribution can be included and if there are three\nvotes for distribution.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the City Manager to respond to Vice Mayor\nVella's question.\nThe City Manager responded there are a number of matters that staff, legal and the City\nManager's Office are involved in, such as rent stabilization, inclusionary housing and\ndevelopment projects.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Council has already prioritized the cannabis issue\nand the matter is lower than inclusionary housing and homelessness.\nMayor Spencer stated the priority was determined prior to her bringing another referral.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to synthesize the list of\ncommonalities with the majority votes and notes from the community and return with the\nnext step, in a time that meets the Council priorities.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer requested clarification on the timeframe.\nThe Community Development Director responded the matter will return at the first\nCouncil meeting in November, but will not be the final product; stated since many\nmeetings will need to be held, an ordinance will cannot be adopted prior to January 2nd:\nCouncil might want to give direction to have a ban with a sunset.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there can be a stand-alone meeting to\nbe able to knock out the first draft of the ordinance.\nThe City Manager suggested coming back with an ordinance that addresses\nmanufacturing and testing and prohibits everything else until Council reviews the issues.\nThe Community Development Director stated said approach allows for a first and\nsecond reading and the ordinance would be effective in 30 days prior to January 2nd.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated it seems to him staff is trying to find a way to say no,\ninstead of trying to find a way to say yes.\nThe City Manager stated staff is saying yes.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated staff is only saying yes to a piece of the matter, which was\nalready rejected earlier; he is open to the hard ban but does not want to go much past\nthe end of the first quarter of next year.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Managers proposal is reasonable; there\ncould be a roadmap outlining the next items to add to the ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated staff has suggested the same proposal twice and Council\nhas already said no; three Councilmembers support moving forward with dispensaries\nand staff has said no twice.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she believes it is fine to start with manufacturing and\ntesting; she would like a more robust conversation on dispensaries; she would like to lay\nout a date for staff to return; a first and second reading can still be done in December;\nshe would like to be realistic and have staff return with questions answered, all options\nand another opportunity for the community to weigh in; inquired whether there is a date\ncertain that Councilmember Oddie would like to hear back from staff.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired when staff could bring the matter back to Council.\nThe Community Development Director responded six months is a reasonable\ntimeframe; if there is a willingness, having a special meeting would expedite the\ndirection and discussion.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification that only direction is being given, a motion does\nnot need to be made.\nThe City Attorney responded Council is giving direction; stated with Council being all\nover the map, she would suggest staff be allowed to do a little synthesizing and return\nto Council for a check-ir first and then return with a phased timeline.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the suggestion is to have a special meeting.\nThe City Attorney responded an ordinance cannot be introduced at a special meeting.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether a motion is inappropriate.\nThe City Attorney responded a motion can be done to give direction.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether his motion was out of line, which the City\nAttorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City Clerk could repeat the motion, to\nwhich the City Clerk responded she had stepped out of the room and asked\nCouncilmember Matarrese to repeat the motion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese repeated his motion to have staff take the list of consensus\nand input from the community, and return with a second draft of the current draft\nordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made a friendly amendment to\nhave a special meeting added to the calendar.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese accepted the friendly amendment.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is still a December 31st deadline.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the answer is unknown until staff returns to Council.\nThe Community Development Director responded staff would still endeavor to make the\ndeadline.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the motion is to move forward with the lab testing and\nmanufacturing only.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the motion includes.\nThe Community Development Director responded the motion includes taking\neverything, synthesizing it into a new draft ordinance, presenting the new draft\nordinance at a special meeting where there will be opportunity for input and further\ndirection.\nMayor Spencer inquired on which items.\nThe Community Development Director responded on the new draft ordinance.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether every type of cannabis business would be included, to\nwhich the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development\nDirector stated dispensaries, with analysis of the cash business, the cap, and medical\nversus recreational would all be part of the synthesis; after the feedback at a special\nmeeting, there would be potential for staff to return an ordinance for a first and second\nreading within 30 days; if new issues arise or staff has missed the mark, staff can be\nsent back to do more work; at that point, Council may want to reevaluate direction about\nthe January 1st deadline.\nMayor Spencer inquired when the special meeting would take place.\nThe City Clerk responded not within the next four weeks.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of calling the question.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested to ask one additional\nquestion.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Oddie withdrew the motion to call the question.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff is going to review the caps on\nmanufacturing and testing as part of the draft ordinance, to which the Community\nDevelopment Director responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion passed by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 9:29 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 16, "text": "MNIUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE\nCITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO\nTHE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY--SEPTEMBER 5 5, 2017-6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 9:42 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nEzzy\nAshcraft,\nOddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer - 4.\n[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 9:43 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nCouncilmember/Commission Matarrese - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese - 1.] [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*17-494CC/17-011SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the\nQuarter Ending March 31, 2017. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 9:43\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk and Secretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency to\nthe Community Improvement Commission\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 17, "text": "381\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 5, 2017--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 9:43 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(17-495) Mayor Spencer discussed changes to the Consent Calendar.\nThe City Attorney stated if the Councilmember is voting no on a Consent item, the vote\ncan be recorded without pulling the item.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the Anti-Semitism referral [paragraph no. 17-523\ncould be heard before the referendum item [paragraph no. 17-515].\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not support moving up referrals.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the referendum item could be heard first on in the\nRegular Agenda since it needs to be voted on tonight.\nMayor Spencer stated she is not in favor of the request.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie concurred with the request.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(17-496) Proclamation Declaring September 16, 2017 as Coastal Cleanup Day.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to the Public Works Program\nSpecialist, who showed a photograph of the beach.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(17-497) Gaby Dolphin, Alameda, submitted information; read a statement and\nsuggested renaming Calhoun Street after Heather Hyer who was killed in\nCharlottesville, South Carolina.\n(17-498) Angela Hockabout, Alameda, urged doing more to develop housing.\n(17-499) Jennifer Geema, Alameda, discussed her rental situation.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 18, "text": "382\nMayor Spencer stated that she would vote no on final passage of the ordinance\n[paragraph no. *17-514].\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would vote no on the 5 Bars resolution [paragraph\nno. *17-511].\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5, with\nthe two exceptions noted above. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*17-500) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings Held on June 20, 2017 and July\n5, 2017, and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on July 5, 2017. Approved.\n(*17-501) Ratified bills in the amount of $14,213,204.80.\n(*17-502) Recommendation to Award a Five-Year Contract for an Amount not to Exceed\na Total Five-Year Expenditure of $250,000, Subject to Budget Approvals, to Hinderliter\nde Llamas (HdL) for Review and Analysis of Sales and Use Tax Revenues. Accepted.\n(*17-503) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period\nEnding June 30, 2017 Collected During the Period January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017.\nAccepted.\n(*17-504) Recommendation to Accept Report on the Appointment of Bryan Schwartz as\na Member of the Open Government Commission. Accepted.\n(*17-505) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract, with the Option of Four\nOne-Year Extensions, for an Amount not to Exceed $93,319.86, for a Total Five Year\nExpenditure not to Exceed $485,640.33, to Clean Lakes, Inc. for Vegetation\nManagement, Debris Management, and Water Quality Monitoring for the South Shore\nLagoons. Accepted.\n(*17-506) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract, with the Option of Four\nOne-Year Extensions, for an Amount not to Exceed $20,698.92, for a Total Five-Year\nExpenditure not to Exceed $107,718.02, Subject to Budget Approval, to Dream Ride\nElevator for Full Service Elevator Maintenance and Repairs in City Buildings (Various\nLocations). Accepted.\n(*17-507) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract, with the Option of Four\nOne-Year Extensions, for an Amount not to Exceed $105,600, for a Total Five-Year\nExpenditure not to Exceed $549,546.65, Subject to Budget Approval, to Prime\nMechanical for Annual Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning System Maintenance\nat City Facilities. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 19, "text": "383\n(*17-508) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Rosas Brothers Construction for the\nRepair of Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal\nYear (FY) 2016-17, Phase 17, No. P.W. 05-16-18. Accepted.\n(*17-509) Recommendation to Amend the Contract with Ranger Pipeline Inc. to\nIncrease the Contract Amount by $4,048,544.03, which Includes a 10% Contingency,\nfor Cyclic Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 14, No. P.W. 05-17-27, for a Total\nAuthorized Amount of $17,375,030, for Cyclic Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phases 11,\n12,13 and 14. Accepted.\n(*17-510) Recommendation to Enter into an Agreement Between the City of Alameda\nand Waste Management of Alameda County Inc. for Solid Waste Transfer and Disposal\nServices for a Ten-Year Period (Ending June 30, 2027); and Adoption of Resolution\nSetting Per Ton Rates for Solid Waste Transfer and Disposal Services with Waste\nManagement of Alameda County, Inc. Accepted.\n(*17-511) Resolution No. 15301, \"Authorizing the City Manager to: (1) Execute a\nProfessional Services Agreement and a License Agreement (the \"Agreements\") With\nXG Communities, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company DBA 5 BARS\nCommunities (\"5 BARS\") Each for a Term of Five Years with Four Five-Year Extensions\nfor Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Consulting, Marketing and Management and\nServices for City Assets in Exchange for a Thirty-Five Percent (35%) Share of\nGenerated Revenue\" and (2) Execute Auxiliary Documents and to Perform Any and All\nActs Necessary or Desirable to Permit 5 BARS to Perform the Services.\" Adopted.\n[Note: Councilmember Oddie voted no, so the motion carried by the following vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Oddie - 1.]\n(*17-512) Resolution No. 15302, \"Approving the City of Alameda's Continued\nParticipation in the Alameda County HOME Consortium, Authorizing the City Manager\nto Execute the Revised HOME Consortium Cooperative Agreement with Alameda\nCounty and Rescinding Resolution No. 15287. Adopted.\n(*17-513) Resolution No. 15303, \"Authorizing the City Treasurer, the City Finance\nDirector and the City Finance Services Manager to Order the Deposit or Withdrawal of\nMonies in the State Local Agency Investment Fund on Behalf of the City and Repealing\nResolution No. 14776.\" Adopted.\n(*17-514) Ordinance No. 3188, \"Approving Master Plan Amendment to Include a\nMaritime Commercial and Residential Variant for Approximately 39 Acres of Land with\nthe Bayport/Alameda Landing City of Master Plan. [A Final Supplemental Environmental\nImpact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project was Certified\nin Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (State\nClearinghouse #2006012091) in 2006. An Environmental Assessment for the Proposed\nActions has been Prepared.] Finally passed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 20, "text": "384\n[Note: Mayor Spencer voted no, so the motion carried by the following vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer\n- 1.]\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(17-515) Recommendation to Accept the Certificate of Sufficiency for Referendum\nPetition Against Ordinance No. 3180; and Select One of the Following Options: 1)\nIntroduction of Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 3180 in Its Entirety. Introduced; or\n2) Adoption of Resolution Calling an Election in the City of Alameda for the Purpose of\nSubmitting to the Electors Ordinance No. 3180 Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Amending Various Sections of Article XV of Chapter VI Concerning (a) Review of\nRent Increases Applicable to All Rental Units and Rent Stabilization Applicable to\nCertain Rental Units and (b) Limitations on Evictions and the Payment of Relocation\nFees Applicable to all Rental Units (Eliminating \"No Cause\" Ground for Eviction and\nRequiring Landlords to Pay Relocation Fees at the Expiration of Certain Fixed Term\nLeases). Not adopted.\nStated the ordinance should be rescinded to work on a better ordinance: Eric\nStrimmling, Alameda Renters Coalition.\nStated the rent ordinance needs to be amended; urged Council to push through the\npetition against Ordinance 3180: Lester Cabral, Alameda.\nThe City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City Attorney could review the implications of\nwhat happens if Council rescinds versus putting the matter on the ballot.\nThe City Attorney responded the Council can place the ordinance on the ballot in April,\nJune or November of 2018 at different costs; Ordinance 3180 would be not in effect;\nOrdinance 3148 continues to be in effect; the voters would decide if Ordinance 3180\nwould go into effect; if the Council decides to rescind the ordinance, there would be a\nfirst reading tonight; the referendum prohibits the Council from doing an action\nsubstantially similar to the provisions in Ordinance 3180 for one year; if Council puts the\nmatter on the ballot and the people decide to rescind Ordinance 3180, then, the year\nperiod starts.\nMayor Spencer inquired if Ordinance 3180 is rescinded, is Ordinance 3148 still in effect,\nto which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Ordinance 3148 is\nunaffected by Ordinance 3180.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what defines substantially similar.\nThe City Attorney responded the Elections Code prohibits Council from doing anything\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 21, "text": "385\nsubstantially similar; any provisions in Ordinance 3180 cannot be amended for one full\nyear.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested staff to provide Council case law so that Council does\nnot come up with changes that are not allowed.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired if there are any impacts to the fee.\nThe City Attorney responded that the fee is not included in the ordinance, so the fee is\nunaffected.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the provision to pass on part of the fee to renters is\nnow withdrawn, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the landlords can withdraw the ballot\nmeasure if an agreement with the renters is reached.\nThe City Attorney responded the signatures for the referendum have been certified and\ncannot be modified.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of accepting the Certificate of Sufficiency for\nReferendum Petition against Ordinance No. 3180.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a motion for the second part of the item.\nVice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated they would like to have\nmore discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would still like to make changes to\nOrdinance 3148; not allowing no cause evictions protects residents; Alameda needs\nmore housing and the City needs to help the people who are in their homes now; she\nwill not support the rescission.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated an eviction in the Bay Area today is the equivalent of\nbeing homeless; he stands by Ordinance 3180.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like landlords and tenants to sit down and have\na conversation on possible solutions for everyone involved; she is saddened that\nfamilies are being displaced.\nMayor Spencer stated that she supports having more conversations with the landlords\nand tenants.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance rescinding Ordinance\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 22, "text": "386\n3180.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired if the two groups come to an\nagreement to put something on the ballot would be permissible.\nThe City Attorney responded she will have to get back to Council on the answer.\nThe City Clerk stated Elections Code Section 9241 states: \"the ordinance shall not\nagain be enacted by the legislative body for a period of one year,' which might allow the\nCouncil could put the matter on the ballot.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is anything the City could do to assist the\ntenants at 470 Central Avenue.\nThe City Attorney responded no cause eviction entitles tenants to relocation benefits,\nwhich is the case in some instances at 470 Central Avenue; there have been some for\ncause eviction notices at 470 Central Avenue where the landlord claims breach of the\nlease; it is not within the purview of the City to determine the accuracy of those claims;\nthe Housing Authority does monitor that the landlord is conducting business properly\naccording to Ordinance 3148.\n***\n(17-516) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the two encroachment\nordinances [paragraph no. 17-519].\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion which FAILED by the following vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 3. Noes:\nCouncilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of hearing the balance of the agenda, minus the WiFi\nreferral [paragraph no. 17-522].\n.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he will second the motion only if it is amended to not\nhear both referrals.\nMayor Spencer accepted the friendly amendment to the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 3.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of hearing the resolutions of appointment and the two\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 23, "text": "387\nencroachment ordinances.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmember\nEzzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 3.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she hopes the landlords and tenants get\ntogether to come to a solution.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what is the City's involvement because the matter is a\nreferendum of a City ordinance.\nThe City Manager responded cost.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what the cost is to the City.\nThe City Manager responded that is dependent on which election the Council decides to\nput on the item; the June election would be more expensive than placing the item on the\ngeneral election in November.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the specific cost would be.\nThe City Clerk responded it would depend on how many other items are on the June\nballot; worse case would be around $700,000; if the item is added to the November\nballot, the cost would be approximately $25,000 for printing and typesetting costs.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.\n(17-517) Adoption of Resolution Appointing Patricia Lamborn as a Member of the\nPlanning Board; and\n(17-517A) Adoption of Resolution Appointing Alan Teague as a Member of the Planning\nBoard. Not heard.\n(17-518) Recommendation to Appoint Gene Kahane and Cathy Dana as Alameda's\nPoet Laureates. Not heard.\n(17-519) SUMMARY: Introduce Two Ordinances that Resolve Two Encroachment\nIssues on City Property in Order to Facilitate the Start of Construction of the Cross\nAlameda Trail Project along Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, Between Main and\nWebster Streets.\nIntroduction of Ordinance Approving an Amended and Restated Lease and Authorizing\nthe City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of an\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 24, "text": "388\nAmended and Restated Lease Agreement with Mr. Hi Chi Chen and Mrs. Lena Muy\nChiv, a Married Couple, dba Hometown Donuts for 1930 Main Street; and\n(17-519A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement and\nAuthorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the\nTerms of Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement to Alameda Boys & Girls Club (ABGC) and\nAlameda Unified School District (AUSD) for Access and Maintenance. Not heard.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(17-520) Update on Tracking of Council Referrals. Not heard.\n(17-521) The City Manager stated one Firefighter and one Police Officer from the City of\nAlameda have gone to assist with Hurricane Harvey; the City did not apply for the\nJustice Assistance Grant for funds for Police Department equipment due to the\napplication having requirements to give information about immigrant citizens to the\nfederal government; items that are going on at the federal level which might impact the\nCity: the Executive Order that prohibited military equipment to be sold to local Police\nDepartments has been rescinded; the federal regulations to manage flood control have\nbeen revoked; a bill has been designed to drastically cut illegal immigration and revise\nthe Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to allow immigrant children to have\ncitizen status in the future.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(17-522) Consider Directing Staff to Explore Offering Free Public WiFi Throughout the\nCity. Not heard. (Mayor Spencer)\n(17-523) Consider: 1) Adoption of Resolution Condemning the Increased Incidents of\nBias, Prejudice, Discrimination, Violence and Anti-Semitism; and 2) Direct Staff to\nProvide a Status Update on Hate Crime Training and Possible Training of Community\nMembers; and Direct the City Manager to Provide Periodic Reports to Council on Hate\nCrimes. Not heard. (Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Oddie)\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(17-524) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Historical Advisory Board (HAB)\nand Public Art Commission (PAC).\nMayor Spencer nominated Lynn Jones and Norman Sanchez to the Historical Advisory\nBoard and Mark Farrell to the Public Art Commission.\n(17-525) Mayor Spencer stated that she signed a letter against bias, discrimination and\nanti-Semitism with the U.S. Mayor's Conference; the Temple has an open house on\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-09-05", "page": 25, "text": "389\nSeptember 17th, , from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.; the Alameda Running Festival is also on\nSeptember 17th.\n(17-526) Report Out from Stop Waste on the Fix It Clinic. (Councilmember Oddie)\nCouncilmember Oddie encouraged having a Fix It Clinic in Alameda.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Alameda Library will have an event like the Fix It\nClinic.\nJane Chisaki, Library Director, responded the Alameda Library does not do fix it clinics\ndue to possible damage to carpeting; Mastic Center has expressed an interest in\nholding a fix it clinic.\n(17-527) Vice Mayor Vella stated that she that received emails regarding trying to\ndiversify the Economic Development Strategic Plan Board; she also received emails\nquestioning why cannabis is not included in the plan.\nThe City Manager responded that she understood the direction for the Economic\nDevelopment Strategic Plan is to be grassroots; additional citizens have been invited to\nparticipate to make the group more diverse.\n(17-528) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he and Mayor Spencer represented the\nCity at the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) liaison committee; EBRPD is\nputting a lot of money into Alameda.\n(17-529) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the lead poisoning\nprevention commission meeting; noted that she is grateful that Alameda did not cede\nlocal control over cell phone towers to the telecommunications industry.\n(17-530) Mayor Spencer announced the Alameda Theater is showing the film Fallen,\nsponsored by the Police Officers Association, on Monday, September 11th.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:52 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf"}