{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 24, 2018- -4:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 4:03 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment\nBriefly outlined what Nautilus Data Technologies does: Jim Connaughton, Nautilus Data\nTechnologies.\nGave a Power Point presentation outlining what SpinLaunch does: Ryan Hampton,\nSpinLaunch.\nContinued the Power Point presentation outlining what SpinLaunch does: Jonathan\nYaney, SpinLaunch.\nUrge Council to indemnify Councilmembers against spurious changes: Eric Strimling,\nAlameda Renters Coalition.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(18-415) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation (1)\npursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of\ncases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action)\n(18-416) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7 54957;\nTitle/description of positions to be filled: Acting City Manager and City Manager\n(18-417) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section\n54956.8); Property: 120 W. Oriskany, Building 530, Alameda, CA 94501; City\nNegotiator: Nanette Mocanu; Potential Tenant: Nautilus Data Technologies, Inc. or\nSpinLaunch Inc.; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms\nof Payment\n(18-418) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation (2)\npursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of\ncases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action)\n(18-419) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Pursuant to subdivision\n(a) of Government Code \u00a7 54956.9; Case Name: Daysog, Tony, et al. V. City of\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 2, "text": "Alameda; Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case\nNumber: RG18907888\n(18-420) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54957; Position Evaluated: City Attorney - Janet Kern\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Initiation of litigation (1), the City Council unanimously voted\ntwice to give direction to staff; regarding Appointment/Hiring, Council gave direction to\nstaff; regarding Real Property, Council voted unanimously to give direction to staff;\nregarding Initiation of litigation (2) , Council voted against giving direction to staff by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2; Noes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 3; and regarding\nExisting Litigation, a status update was provided.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 7:01 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:25 a.m.\n***\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Performance Evaluation, the Council gave direction to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:45 a.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\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL\nTUESDAY- -JULY 24, 2018--6:59 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft,\nMatarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -\n5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT ITEM\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the item be removed from the Consent\nCalendar for discussion.\n(18-421) Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing David Rudat as Interim\nCity Manager for a Term of No More Than 960 Hours at a Salary of $123.75 Hourly; and\nAuthorize Acting City Manager Pay for Elizabeth D. Warmerdam at an Amount of\n$123.75 Hourly for the Period of July 16 Through August 5, 2018.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Assistant City Manager has provided\ncapable leadership; the City has been through a lot of turmoil and she does not feel it is\nthe right time to add more uncertainty by bringing a new City Manager from Southern\nCalifornia through the end of the year; time and energy would be best spent focusing on\nfinding the best City Manager to lead the City; she cannot support the appointment.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he thinks it is in the best interest of the City to\nhave the current team and leadership continue the work plan, rather than hiring an\ninterim who has to come up to speed.\nMayor Spencer stated the City is short one high level staff member; the City has a\nstrong City Manager form of government, which makes hiring an interim important; the\nCity is moving forward with hiring a long-term City Manager; that she is looking forward\nto working with David Rudat.\nVice Mayor Vella stated part of the concern is that CalPERS restrictions could trigger\npenalties if employees work outside of their class; the City Manager recruitment will take\nseveral months; the City should not incur fiscal penalties while recruiting.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he wants the hiring of a permanent City Manager to\nattract the best possible candidates, which can be achieved by hiring an interim for the\nlimited 960 hours allowed.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of the matter.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 4, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy\nAshcraft and Matarrese - 2.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:13 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\n2\nJuly 10, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 5, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 24, 2018- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,\nVella, and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(18-422) Councilmember Oddie requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of\nBART victim Nia Wilson.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(18-423) Councilmember Oddie made an announcement that he finished his last\nradiation treatment for skin cancer; urged everyone to have lumps or spots checked.\nMayor Spencer made brief comments.\n(18-424) Proclamation Declaring June through August as Play Ball Summer 2018.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Recreation and Parks\nDepartment coaching staff.\n(18-425) Presentation of Certificates to Economic Development Strategic Plan Task\nForce Members.\nThe Development Manager made brief comments.\nMayor Spencer presented the certificates to the Task Force members.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(18-426) Toni Grimm, Alameda, discussed a potential recall effort against Vice Mayor\nVella; stated Vice Mayor Vella was cleared by the investigation; noted a recall signer\nhas also targeted Assemblymember Bonta; expressed concern over ethnicity being the\ncrux of the issue.\n(18-427) Mark Hersman, Alameda, discussed the Jill Keimach investigation; urged\nCouncilmembers Vella and Oddie be indemnified against the unfounded charges and\ntheir legal expenses be reimbursed.\n(18-428) Steve Slauson, Alameda, stated that he wrote a letter to the City on behalf of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 6, "text": "concerned citizens who are furious about the settlement agreement reached with the\nformer City Manager, requesting money be taken from the Fire Department budget, two\nFire Stations be closed, and half of the Fire Department be laid off.\n(18-429) Denyse Trepanier, Alameda, stated the Council received a letter signed by\nmany Alameda residents asking the Council not to indemnify Vice Mayor Vella for her\nexpenses incurred defending herself against the charges levied by the former City\nManager; Vice Mayor Vella was cleared of any wrong doing; not indemnifying the\nwrongly accused would have a very chilling effect on potential candidates.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nThe City Clerk clarified the All City Management Services agreement [paragraph no. 18-\n432] amount is corrected to $305,820 for a total of $829,371 and announced there are\nspeakers on the Park Engineering contract [paragraph no. 18-433]; the grant funding\nresolution [paragraph no. 18-437]; the resolution regarding the federal bills for the\nChinese American World War Il Veterans Congressional Gold Medal Act [paragraph no.\n18-439]; and final passage of the ordinance [paragraph no. 18-440].\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*18-430) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings and Joint City\nCouncil and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting\nHeld on June 19, 2018; and the Special City Council Meeting Held on July 5, 2018.\nApproved.\n(*18-431) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,890,560.02.\n(*18-432) Recommendation to Authorize the Acting City Manager to Enter into a\nMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Alameda Unified School District\n(AUSD) to Accept $86,970 for Crossing Guard Services; and Approve a Second\nAmendment to All City Management Services Incorporated Extending the Term 12\nMonths and Adding the Amount of $284,000 for a Total Contract Amount of $807,501\nfor Crossing Guard Services. Accepted.\n[Note: The amount was corrected to $305,820 for a total contract of $829,371]\n(18-433) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract in the Amount Not to Exceed\n$261,544, including Contingency, to Park Engineering for Construction Management\nServices during the Construction Phase for the Cross Alameda Trail Project (Main\nStreet to Constitution Way), No. P.W. 03-18-11; and Receive an Update on the Status\nof Completion of the Cross Alameda Trail (Main Street to Constitution Way).\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 7, "text": "Stated the component is critical to the Cross Alameda Trail; Bike Walk Alameda\nsupports the project: Densye Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(*18-434) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract, with the Option for Three\nOne-Year Extensions, for an Amount Not to Exceed $71,971, Including a 20%\nContingency, for a Total Four-Year Expenditure not to Exceed $296,640 to Blue Flame\nCrew West for the Operation and Maintenance of Doolittle Landfill. Accepted.\n(*18-435) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract, with the Option for Four\nOne-Year Extensions, for an Amount Not to Exceed $363,354, for a Total Five-Year\nExpenditure Not to Exceed $1,890,911, to Imperial Maintenance for Janitorial Services\nfor Various City Facilities. Accepted.\n(*18-436) Resolution No. 15414, \"Granting Three Water Line Easements to East Bay\nMunicipal Utility District Across City-Owned Property Within Alameda Point; and\nRecommendation to Authorize the Acting City Manager to Execute Any and All Ancillary\nDocuments and Directing the Recording of the Grant of Easements for Installation of\nNew Water Main Service.\" Adopted.\n(18-437) Resolution No. 15415, \"Authorizing the Acting City Manager to Execute\nDocuments Necessary to Accept Grant Funding from the Alameda County\nTransportation Commission (ACTC) for the Clement Avenue East Extension and Tilden\nWay Project; and Increasing the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Capital Projects Fund Budget for\nClement Avenue and Tilden Way Complete Streets Project (91820) by $445,000\nFunded by the Gas Tax Fund and Construction Improvement Tax Fund.\" Adopted.\nThe public speaker decided not to comment.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*18-438) Resolution No. 15416, \"Authorizing the Acting City Manager, or Her\nDesignee, to Negotiate and Execute Purchase Agreements Not to Exceed $268,000 for\nthe Replacement of Six Police Department Vehicles and One Police Motorcycle.\"\nAdopted.\n(18-439) Resolution No. 15417, \"Supporting House of Representatives Bill 2358 and\nSenate Bill 1050 the Chinese American World War Il Veterans Congressional Gold\nMedal Act.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 8, "text": "Urged Council to support the bill to remember and honor the Chinese Americans who\nserved in World War II; provided background information: Roger Dong, American\nLegion Post 384.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer urged people to reach out to elected representatives\nto urge support.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(18-440) Ordinance No. 3221, \"Approving the Alameda Marina Master Plan and Density\nBonus Application for the Redevelopment of the Alameda Marina Properties Located at\n1815 Clement Avenue (APN 071-0288-003 and 071-0257-004). Finally passed.\nExpressed concern over the Alameda Marina dry boat storage going from 300 to 60;\nstated numbers do not reflect the demand; providing 120 versa docks would be at the\nexpense of wet slips in the Marina; dry storage is not in the Encinal Terminals Master\nPlan and should be added: Nancy Hird, Save Alamedas Working Waterfront.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer stated there have been years of community input;\neveryone wants a strong marina; the community, developer, Planning Board and\nCouncil did the best possible work to figure out the balance of housing; the developer\ndid not seek the maximum housing number allowed under State law; the developer\nmade great accommodations; urged the community to continue to be involved; stated\nhousing for sale and for rent will be available at different price points.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(18-441) Resolution No. 15418, \"Appointing Jeffrey Gould as a Member of the Public\nUtilities Board.' Adopted;\n(18-441A) Resolution No. 15419, \"Appointing Michael Hans as a Member of the\nTransportation Commission.\" Adopted;\n(18-441B) Resolution No. 15420, \"Appointing David Johnson as a Member of the\nTransportation Commission.\" Adopted;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 9, "text": "(18-441C) Resolution No. 15421, \"Appointing Alysha Nachtigall as a Member of the\nTransportation Commission.\" Adopted; and\n(18-441D) Resolution No. 15422; \"Appointing Sharon Nearn as a Member of the\nTransportation Commission.\" Adopted.\nStated that he would like to serve to support Alameda Municipal Power's climate\nchange efforts: Jeffrey Gould, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented certificates of\nappointment to Mr. Gould, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Nachtigall and Ms. Nearn.\n(18-442) Presentation on Role of TetraTech EC in the Environmental Clean-Up of\nAlameda Point by the United States Navy.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager made brief comments.\n***\nMayor Spencer left the dais at 7:42 p.m. and returned at 7:43 p.m. and left at 7:51 p.m.\nand returned at 7:52 p.m.\nAnthony Megliola, Navy Base Closure Manager, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why finding the anomaly took two years and\nwhether Alameda could expect something similar.\nMr. Megliola responded the Navy learned a lot from the experience at Hunters Point;\nstated fraud was not expected initially; a considerable amount of time was spent\nworking with the contractor in good faith, getting new samples and re-doing field work,\nwhich took a significant amount of time.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether getting information today would take\nless than two years, to which Mr. Megliola responded the Navy is confident something\nsimilar will not occur today at Alameda Point or other Navy installations; stated the Navy\nhas created protections to ensure it will not happen again, which include having an\nindependent third party contractor to oversee radiological work.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the third party contractor is doing\nrepeat soil testing, not just reviewing data.\nMatt Slack, Navy Radiological Affairs Support Office, responded on an as needed basis,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 10, "text": "the third party contactor performs confirmation sampling; stated the Navy also works\nwith the regulator agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California\nDepartment of Public Health (CDPH), who also collect confirmation sampling.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether confirmation sampling has been done\nat Alameda Point following the TetraTech Hunters Point story, to which Mr. Slack\nresponded that he cannot say sampling has been done since the story broke; stated the\nState of California has done confirmation sampling.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the confirmation sampling was at\nAlameda Point, to which Mr. Slack responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a scanner van was used at Alameda\nPoint, to which Mr. Slack responded in the negative; stated in 2002 or 2003, the EPA\nhad a van with a very sensitive gamma detector, which could give general area\nradiation levels; the van was used to analyze the residential part of Hunters Point; the\npiece of equipment has not been used in Alameda.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the two sentenced TetraTech employees, Stephen\nRolfe and Justin Hubbard, ever worked at Alameda Point.\nMr. Megliola responded the Navy did a detailed analysis and determined one of the\nemployees worked at Alameda Point in the 2007 to 2008 timeframe; stated the work\nbeing done was a non-supervisory Radiological Control Technician (RCT) with a\ndifferent team than the team working at Hunters Point.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the third party contractor goes on site and takes\nsamples, to which Mr. Megliola responded the CDPH does its own, independent\nsampling on certain projects.\nMr. Slack stated data is not being collected today; going forward, on an as needed\nbasis, the contract will have independent third party samples.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what would be considered as needed, to which Mr. Slack\nresponded that he is not in a position to respond; stated the sampling is to address\nconcerns and ensure independent data is collected.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether soil has been moved by TetraTech and, if so, has it\nbeen tested.\nMr. Megliola responded soil has been moved off of Alameda from different construction\nprojects; stated the majority has been reused at various landfill sites for soil cover; the\nsoil that was moved was scanned on site before leaving; the soil was taken to Idaho\nand Utah.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the job duties of a RCT and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 11, "text": "whether the work been reviewed, Mr. Slack stated a RCT would be responsible for\ncollecting electronic data in the field or doing field sampling; the activities at Hunters\nPoint were a group, team effort covering each other; operations were not independent;\nthe employee would not have had an impact [in Alameda]; data was being gathered to\ncharacterize, not clear sites; the areas have several feet of clean soil on top of the site;\neven if the employee collected data, the site was never cleared and still has institutional\ncontrols.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether someone checked the work back then, to which\nMr. Slack responded a deep analysis was done to determine where the employee did\nthe work; the conclusion was drawn that the work done did not have an impact on\nanything that was cleared.\nStated the presentation is disturbing; read from a July 2001 Bay Guardian article;\nexpressed concern over the Fleet Industrial Supply Center annex having a drum of\ndepleted uranium ballast overflowing, everything TetraTech did before 2002 being\nunreliable, and Shinsei Gardens: Anonymous Speaker, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about a new nuclear research and development company on the\nformer Base; stated the Navy should admit it cannot clean the site: Robert Todd,\nAlameda.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Shinsei Gardens, the Acting Assistant\nCity Manager stated environmental work was done in the area, which has protections\nand engineering controls; the land has been through the regulatory process and is safe\nfor residents.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether or not regulations allow digging, to which the Acting\nAssistant City Manager responded that she does now know.\nThe Acting City Manager stated staff would review the matter.\nMr. Megliola stated that he would be happy to provide details; his recollection is indoor\nair testing was done and a sub-slab depressurization system was installed to ensure\nsafety.\nMayor Spencer requested the information be shared with the public; stated the City is\nnot leasing to the nuclear power company, Kairos Power; requested staff to provide\ninformation.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager stated Kairos Power is a perspective tenant of a\nmaster lessor in Building 9; the City has restrictions which prohibit nuclear material from\nbeing on the site; the zoning and regulatory process do not allow nuclear material.\nMayor Spencer requested information be shared with the public; stated the building is\nnot owned by the City; the owner has leased space to a tenant that has to meet the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 12, "text": "City's zoning requirements, which is why the City added conditions.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the public is concerned that any accessible land has been\nchecked; her concern is that the individual was working on soil that has been moved;\nexpressed support for additional confirmation sampling; stated remediation firms have\nlearned from what occurred; there is a value in having an independent third party take\nsamples and do testing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated work of the individual convicted of falsifying data has\nto be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Oddie concurred that the individual's work should be validated.\nMayor Spencer briefly discussed the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB).\nStated that she has served on RAB since 2010; expressed concern over the Council not\nreporting on RAB activity: Carol Gottstein, Alameda.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:34 p.m.\n***\n(18-443) Recommendation to Adopt the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP).\nThe Development Manager made brief comments.\nSujata Srivastava, Strategic Economics, gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer stated the 2001 Plan was revised in 2008; inquired whether the 2008\ndocument was reviewed or if the new EDSP was drafted from scratch.\nThe Development Manager responded a lot of the 2008 goals have been accomplished;\nstated conditions have changed, so a lot of the background research and information\nwas a new effort.\nTask Force members John Knox White, Karen Bey and Debi Ryan made brief\ncomments.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the locations of zoning\ninadequacies, the Development Manager stated along the waterfront there are industrial\nuses, such as Stone Boat Yard and Bay, Ship and Yacht; the areas should be reviewed\nto ensure the right regulations are in place.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the Committee suggested review of any of the\nMixed Use (MX) zoning sites; stated the Council direction was clear not to do so.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 13, "text": "The Development Manager responded in the negative.\nUrged Council to approve the EDSP; expressed support for Vice Mayor Vella serving\nout her term: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.\nStated the document will be useful going forward; expressed support for data collection:\nCatherine Pauling, Alameda Renters Coalition.\nStated assumptions were made at the first meeting, which did not allow opportunity for\nother ideas; discussed diversity: Ken Peterson, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the EDSP as presented.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated the report is well done; housing and\nworkforce development are important; expressed support for data collection on rents;\ndiscussed the housing crisis and workforce development.\nVice Mayor Vella noted that the process changed based on community feedback, which\ncreated a better, more comprehensive Plan; stated adaptive reuse is going on in\nAlameda and the region to find better, more efficient use of spaces and resources;\nbusinesses coming to Alameda need to work with the City and community on\ntransportation and housing; pressure is put on developers, but the conversation needs\nto continue with businesses; the Plan should be revisited and adapted as needed.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the need for transportation solutions; stated\nthe timeframe to address transportation should be reduced from 15 years; a timeline\noutlining steps should be provided; everyone needs to support housing solutions.\nMayor Spencer expressed concern over the Plan not addressing that Alameda is an\nIsland and peninsula and referencing only Park Street, not Webster Street; stated the\nreport discusses that the City has lost and needs to replenish jobs; the City's population\nis closer to 80,000, not 75,000 stated in the report; tourism is improving; discussed\nSchool District and Hospital partnerships, job fairs, airport noise, Port of Oakland and\nFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) partnerships, the internet, shuttles and last mile\naccess; stated Site A affordable housing is short around $40 million; expressed concern\nover the use of the word \"young\" to describe workers walking and riding to work; stated\nthe historic districts are important assets which should be called out; expressed support\nfor experiential retail.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Plan should not be put on a shelf; the first Plan\nwas done in 2000 and was measured until the Economic Development Commission\nwas disbanded in 2012; the City took its hands off the steering wheel; tracking the Plan\nis important.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 14, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether her comments would be incorporated in the motion, to\nwhich Councilmember Matarrese responded the comments are considerations going\nforward.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether changes would not be made in response to the\ncomments, to which Councilmember Oddie responded the comments could be\nincorporated in the background and the Plan could be adopted as written.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he has no problem with the comments, especially\nbeing used a measurement tool; the Plan is written and has been vetted; the\nbackground report would be informative as the Plan is tracked.\nMayor Spencer stated that she will not support the Plan; she does not think it is\nappropriate that the Council does not get to provide input.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer\n- 1.\n(18-444) Recommendation to Receive a Progress Report on the Public Access\nPathways on Fernside Boulevard and East Shore Drive.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Council input, the Recreation and\nParks Director stated the matter would come to Council after the Recreation and Parks\nCommission.\nMayor Spencer suggested the matter be on the Council agenda twice; the first time for\nfeedback, followed by a decision; stated that she would like the City to consider doing\nbusiness in such manner to allow Council to modify documents.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director completed her presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what is being done about safety, to which the\nRecreation and Parks Director responded the Police Department has increased patrol;\nstated a person was apprehended after a recent incident; neighbors should call the\nPolice as often as needed.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the neighbors are being subject to problems the longer\nthe matter drags out.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director noted the report includes some safety\nrecommendations, which can be implemented prior to the full construction.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to see action sooner.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 15, "text": "Discussed a man entering her dock from the water tonight; stated a similar incident\noccurred two weeks ago; security is an issue; she would like a locking gate: Dona\nFisher, Alameda.\nStated that he has never observed any crime; the waterfront access points are a\nwonderful community asset; urged crime data be gathered and the space be kept\npublic: Jeff Wasserman, Alameda.\nStated that he questions whether the areas were intended for public access and were\nactually for disasters; the areas lend themselves to problems; urged a solution be found\nto address the neighborhood problem: Kevin Peterson, Waterfront Homeowners\nAssociation.\nMayor Spencer inquired when the Police Department information she requested would\nbe provided, to which the Acting City Manager responded that she is not familiar with\nthe request; stated she would be happy to follow up with the Police Chief.\nMayor Spencer stated the information should be made public; that she has heard some\nof the access point have no crime and others have significant crime; the data will show\nthe activity; if an area is not safe, the Police and Councilmembers need to ensure the\nsafety of the community; the locations are different and might not have a one size fits all\nsolution; data needs to be part of the discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated different people experience different things; that\nshe looks forward to the community meetings, but wants the issue to move along as\nexpeditiously as possible; having many governing agencies weigh in stretches out the\ntimeline; the Recreation and Parks Commission should do its work, then the matter\nshould come to the City Council once; anything more would be outside procedure,\nusurps the role of the Commission and would take longer.\nMayor Spencer inquired when the Police data would be provided; stated that she does\nnot want to wait two or four months.\nThe Acting City Manager inquired whether Mayor Spencer is requesting the data come\nback to Council, to which Mayor Spencer responded the information needs to be shared\nwith the public; stated staff needs to figure out a way to address the issue; the matter\ndoes not have to come back to Council, but something needs to be done.\nThe Acting City Manager stated gating off the areas would be the way to stop problems,\nwhich is not necessarily the best solution.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not know if said statement is true; she does not\nknow when issues are occurring; if problems are occurring later, the area could be\nclosed, similar to Crab Cove; she does not know until data is received; staff should be\nreviewing the issue and looking at closures.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 16, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella stated many parks in Alameda are against private property; a gate\nwould stop pedestrian access, but does not stop water access; people launch vessels\non both sides of the Estuary, which the City cannot control; getting information out is\nimportant; inquired whether signs are on the water side as well as the land, and whether\nsigns are in multiple languages, similar to Alameda Point; stated that she is not of the\nmindset that everybody be considered a criminal because of being in the wrong place at\nthe wrong time; individuals doing something they should not be doing should be\nseparated from someone who misunderstands; people should not be asked to\njeopardize their safety because the City does something that creates a nuisance;\ndiscussed gates; stated data is needed; property lines need to be clear; the space\nneeds to be safe and accessible for everyone; working with homeowners should be\ndone on a parallel track.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated neighborhood security is not mutually exclusive with\nmoving forward to figure out the best use, including keeping the areas open as parks;\nthat he would like to see options other than just a gate; instances are occurring; people\ncan be kept safe, while providing access.\nMayor Spencer noted that she has walked her dog in public parks at all hours and has\nnever run into the behaviors occurring.\n(18-445) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease with Small Size Big Mind, Inc. for\nTwo Years with a One-Year Option for Building 35, a 2,764-Square-Foot Building\nLocated at 2450 Pan Am Way in the Main Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point.\nIntroduced.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director gave a presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the item [introduction of the ordinance].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer stated there are 20 speakers.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated the speakers would probably be\nwilling to pass on commenting.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether anyone has concerns or if everyone is in support, to\nwhich the audience indicated support.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the school has the wherewithal to deal with\nany lead paint or asbestos, to which the Assistant Community Development Director\nresponded the school has done its due diligence; stated there are no asbestos tiles; the\nCity has provided reports; lead based paint will be covered.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 17, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff would consider an extension if development does\nnot occur, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded staff is\nalways flexible with tenants; stated if the development does not move forward, staff\nwould entertain an extension; the school is encouraged to find a long-term home.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant Community Development Director\nstated staff is working with brokers and trying to be as creative as possible with the\nCity's dwindling stock.\nVice Mayor Vella stated having early childhood education is essential.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the current location seems like such a happy\nplace; stated the school is needed on the West End.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:18 p.m.\n(18-446) Recommendation to: 1) Receive a Semi-Annual Report on Cannabis, including\nan Update on the Request for Proposals (RFP) Process (Outcomes and Lessons\nLearned); 2) Provide Direction Regarding Potential Amendments to Local Law\nConcerning Cannabis, including (a) Maintain Cap on Testing Laboratories, (b) Allow\nProcessing of Applications for Nursery Cultivation and Manufacturing on a First-Come,\nFirst-Served Basis, (c) Amendments Affecting Dispensaries and Nursery Cultivation\nBusinesses, including Modify Buffer Zones, Dispersion Requirement, Zoning, and Adult\nUse, and (d) Confirmation of Use of RFP Process to Administer Cap; and 3) Receive\nUpdate Concerning Other Areas Relating to Cannabis, Including Regulation of\nCannabis Delivery, and Cannabis Tax.\nThe Economic Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired why the cannabis retail area on Park Street\ndisappeared.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded a new business, Mathanasium, went\nin and the address for Ruby's Tumbling was corrected.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether either business qualifies as sensitive under the State\nregulations, to which the Economic Development Manager responded Ruby's Tumbling\nqualifies; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff has reached out to the districts regarding\nchanges, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the negative;\ncontinued the presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated at the State level, people can withdraw initiative petitions\nand negotiate legislation; inquired whether doing so is not available at the City level, to\nwhich the City Clerk responded the ordinance either has to be adopted as is or sent to\nthe voters.\nCouncilmember Oddie noted a bill is proposed, which would give municipalities the\nsame right.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council could amend the ordinance to allow adult use,\nto which the Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated the initiative would not need to proceed if Council makes the\nchange.\nThe Economic Development Manager completed the presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Economic Development Manager stated\nthat she informed potential businesses a tax is not on the November ballot.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the business would be happier if the City had a tax, to\nwhich the Economic Development Manager responded maybe; stated having a tax\nwould allow businesses to project costs.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding certainty, the Economic\nDevelopment Manager stated other jurisdictions planned on creating a tax then ended\nup with a lower amount.\nThe City Attorney stated the Council could not provide certainty; the tax could always be\nchanged by going to the voters.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's further inquiry, the City Attorney stated the\nCouncil could withdraw the measure until it goes on the ballot.\nVice Mayor Vella stated a current Council action to place the matter on the ballot could\nbe withdrawn by a future Council.\nSuggested the following ordinance amendments: expand the two zones beyond Park\nand Webster Streets; maintain the 1,000 buffer zone for schools and City recreation\nareas: Nick Portolese, Portman Enterprises.\n***\n(18-447) Councilmember Oddie moved approval of allowing speakers to have three\nminutes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 19, "text": "vote - 5.\n***\nContinued his comments; suggested maintaining the one mile dispersion requirement\nand allowing a third retail dispensary and adult use: Nick Portolese, Portman\nEnterprises.\nDiscussed destigmatizing the use of cannabis; urged Council to create a working\nordinance: Andrew Huntoon, Alameda.\nStated marijuana is safer than alcohol: Phillip Redd, Alameda.\nSubmitted information; stated Coastal Dispensary learned about Ruby's Tumbling being\n750 feet away after responding to the RFP; suggested the buffer zone be reduced to\n600 feet and the number of licenses be increased; stated the State made a change to\nallow deliveries in any jurisdiction: Elisa Stewart, Coastal Dispensary.\nStated that he is the author of the initiative; he is glad the City has learned from the\nprocess; 9 businesses were interested in setting up manufacturing in Alameda; outlined\nhis concerns with the RFP process; urged allowing adult use and minimizing the one\nmile dispersion: Rich Moskowitz, Alameda.\n(18-448) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items [the\nreferral and closed session].\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of considering the remaining items.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n***\nExpressed concern over the potential hazard to young people and revising the\nordinance provisions; stated the provisions were set up to protect youth; questioned\nwhat data has changed in six months: Serena Chen, Alameda.\nUrged the Council to modify the RFP to allow adult use retail sales, raise the cap to\nthree dispensaries and remove the one mile dispersion: Ryan Agabao, Alameda Safe\nCannabis Access.\nStated that he applied for a retail cannabis operation permit on the East side of town\nalong the Park Street corridor; expressed support for the proposed amendments and\nspecifically lowering the buffer zones for sensitive uses to 600 feet: Tyler Champlin, CN\nHoldings.\nMayor Spencer stated everyone supports reducing tobacco use, which does not have\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 20, "text": "would like to allow the use in the Commercial-Manufacturing (CM) zoning district; adult\nuse should be brought back to Council; discussed the initiative; suggested a tax be\naddressed; stated the manufacturing RFP should be rolling; the cap on the labs should\nbe lifted; there could be four or five smaller labs, rather than one or two large labs; the\napplication on cultivation could also be rolling; business licenses should be required for\ndelivery services, which may be the way of the future.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is okay with reducing the 1,000 foot\nbuffer zone to 650 feet in certain circumstances, such as Ruby's Tumbling and\nMathanasium, because children would not be unattended; the buffer zone should\nremain for all schools, recreation centers at parks and the Boys and Girls Club; she\nwould consider amending the CM zoning to allow dispensaries, manufacturing and labs;\noutreach should be done to business parks; Alameda Point should not be included; she\nwould not support expanding into C-1 at this time; the one mile dispersion should\nremain; she would not add recreational use without robust public input; expressed\nsupport for delivery services; inquired how staff would know and regulate businesses\noutside Alameda doing deliveries.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded the honor system would be used;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 21, "text": "stated the City could get information from the State after there are more regulations;\ntracking would be hard; Google searches come up with delivery businesses, many of\nwhich are not legal.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Economic Development\nManager stated delivery service has to be associated with a brick and mortar location.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a delivery only service could be\nallowed, to which the Economic Development Manager responded Council could\nchoose to allow a delivery only service.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the idea should be considered; State regulations\nare making it cheaper for people to use dealers; the initiative should be addressed when\nthe signatures are gathered; she would lift the cap on the number of labs; however, the\nCity did not receive applications from any labs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council is just directing staff tonight; the matter would\ncome back for a public hearing; a good distinction has been made between tumbling for\ntoddlers and a school where children come and leave on their own; changes being\nproposed do not address the lack of interest and unwillingness to rent spaces; federal\ngovernment enforcement is unclear, which goes for operators and the City's liability;\none applicant is in the process of opening an business; he is curious to see how the\nbusiness runs; exploring and bringing back the issues for public debate does not hurt;\nhe would like to hear the public debate before he supports or opposes changes; he\ndoes not see a reason to change his previous view at this time.\nMayor Spencer stated the City created so many barriers, which made it unfriendly; other\ncities do not have caps; barriers should be reduced; expressed support for and\ndiscussed adult use; suggested going through staff's list; stated that she does not think\ninitiative signatures should continue to be gathered if the Council is serious about\nhaving cannabis in the community.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired whether the cap on testing labs should\nremain.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for a higher cap or no cap.\nVice Mayor Vella and Mayor Spencer expressed support for no cap.\nCouncilmember Matarrese expressed support for a higher cap.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for going from two to at least four.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would change to no cap.\nMayor Spencer stated three Councilmembers support having no cap on labs.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is fine with allowing the permits as long\nas the number of businesses remains the same.\nCouncilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Vella, Mayor Spencer and Councilmember\nMatarrese expressed support for allowing the permits on a first come first serve basis.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would be interested in increasing the cap on both;\ninquired whether there is interest in changing the caps, to which Councilmembers\nresponded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer stated the caps remain at 1 and 4.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired whether the buffer zone should remain\nfor the nursery and dispensary.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for keeping 1,000 feet for public and private\nschools and 600 feet for others, pursuant to the School Board resolution.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie wants to include Alameda\nRecreation and Parks Department (ARPD) sites, to which Councilmember Oddie\nresponded the School Board resolution did not address ARPD sites.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is fine with the two tiers.\nMayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella.\nCouncilmember Matarrese opposed the recommendation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would propose a different two tiers: 1,000\nfeet from schools and parks with recreation centers, including the Boys and Girls Club\nand 600 feet from after school programs, Ruby's tumbling and maybe even pre-schools;\nshe would want to see outreach.\nMayor Spencer stated a majority supports the two tiers.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 23, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated the Boys and Girls Club is on the map; having it either\nway does not cause anything to change since there is not a Commercial (C) zone.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Acting City Manager stated the charter\nschools next to the Boys and Girls club causes an automatic 1,000 foot buffer.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired whether off-campus after-school\nprograms and tutorial/learning centers should not be considered schools.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated the buffer should be 600 feet and the uses should not be\nconsidered a school.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the uses are not a school; she is fine with a 600 foot buffer.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated businesses can change; places where\nunaccompanied children go should have a 1,000 foot buffer; areas where children are\nsupervised could have 600 feet or no buffer.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated said issue would be addressed next.\nMayor Spencer stated some Councilmembers are out of time; answers should be kept\nas short as possible.\nThe Economic Development Director inquired whether learning centers should be\nconsidered a sensitive use; stated there would be no buffer zone if learning centers are\nnot considered a sensitive use.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how after-school program is defined, to which the Economic\nDevelopment Director responded the matter is complicated; stated there is not a State\nregistry.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for not having a buffer zone.\nVice Mayor Vella stated an after-school program differs from tutorial/learning centers;\nshe does not want to create more gray areas.\nMayor Spencer inquired how far dispensaries have to be from libraries, grocery stores\nand fast food restaurants, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded currently,\nthere is no buffer.\nMayor Spencer stated children walk to libraries, grocery stores and fast food restaurants\nby themselves all the time; encouraged parents to educate their children.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated there should be no\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 24, "text": "buffer zone for after school programs and 600 feet for learning centers; expressed\nconcern over shifting the areas for every RFP.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the sensitive use should be reviewed when the RFP\nis published to allow people submitting proposals to research the sensitive uses.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry whether sensitive uses could be from the last\nRFP, the Assistant City Attorney stated the uses should be identified the next time an\nRFP is issued since the last RFP has already passed.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees tutorial/learning centers could be\n600 feet and others could not have a buffer; inquired whether or not Ruby's would be\nincluded.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded that she would look into the matter\nand provide a response.\nMayor Spencer stated a definition of tutorial/learning center should be provided when\nthe matter returns.\nVice Mayor Vella concurred.\nMayor Spencer noted there are not three votes to eliminate the buffer zone.\nVice Mayor Vella stated after the definition of tutorial center is clarified, she might be\nwilling to eliminate the buffer zone.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired whether the current zoning districts\nshould be maintained or expanded.\nCouncilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Spencer expressed support for\nallowing the use in C-1 and C-M, not Alameda Point (AP).\nCouncilmember Matarrese expressed support for maintaining the current zoning\ndistricts.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for adding the C-M zoning district, but\nnot C-1 or AP.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft would consider C-1 if\nthe use had to be cleared with the neighborhood, to which Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft responded that she would consider a process that includes a neighborhood\nmeeting; noted parking is a consideration.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry about the type of process legally allowed for C-\n1, the Assistant City Attorney stated typically noticing happens at the Use Permit level;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 25, "text": "that he would consult with staff and report back.\nCouncilmember Oddie noted Community Commercial (C-C) abuts neighborhoods as\nwell.\nThe Economic Development Manager noted any zoning change would go to the\nPlanning Board prior to coming to Council; inquired whether the dispersion requirement\nshould be modified for dispensaries.\nMayor Spencer responded that she thinks the dispersion requirement needs to be\nmodified.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would be okay with modifying the requirement\nonce there is a dispensary on both ends of town.\nMayor Spencer stated Councilmember Oddie does not want a modification at this time.\nVice Mayor Vella and Councilmembers Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support\nfor not making any modifications at this time.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired whether adult use should be allowed.\nMayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like staff to bring back a proposal for\ndiscussion.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is a tentative yes, to which\nCouncilmember Oddie responded that he thinks it needs to be done sooner rather than\nlater, so that is a yes.\nCouncilmembers Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for not allowing adult\nuse at this time.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired whether the cap on the number of\ndispensaries should be increased.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the current cap is two, to which the Economic\nDevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated the cap of two is a deterrent; stated that she would support\nallowing four dispensaries\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would support four dispensaries with the\ndispersion to require one on both ends of town.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 26, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmembers Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support\nfor not changing the cap at this time.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff is going to ask about deliveries.\nThe Economic Development responded that she could do so; stated a delivery only\ndispensary, without a retail location, could be one of the two dispensaries.\nVice Mayor Vella suggested that two delivery only licenses be allowed in addition to the\ntwo dispensaries, separate from the existing dispensary cap.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the dispersion requirement would not apply to delivery\nonly, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated said suggestion is responsive to residents in need\nof medicinal marijuana who cannot get to dispensaries.\nVice Mayor Vella stated allowing the use would attempt to get people to have a legal\ndelivery service.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft is agreeable to have\ntwo delivery only businesses, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese is agreeable, to which\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would be agreeable; he would also like the City to\nrequire a license for delivery services.\nMayor Spencer stated four Councilmembers support two delivery only businesses;\ninquired whether delivery businesses outside the City should be required to get a\nlicense.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired whether Council is okay not having a\ndispersion requirement for the delivery only businesses, to which Mayor Spencer, Vice\nMayor Vella, Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested staff review having delivery only businesses\nlocated in a business park.\nMayor Spencer stated the matter would be addressed when it returns to Council.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated regarding delivery licenses, staff is looking\ninto allowing anyone with a legitimate business to get a business license in Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 27, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether businesses in different cities would have to obtain an\nAlameda license, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative; stated staff has not put the requirement in place, but is currently working on\ndoing so.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council is agreeable, to which Council responded in\nthe affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Economic Development\nManager stated if a business with a State license and a brick and mortar location in\nanother city delivers to Alameda, an Alameda business license would be required to do\ndeliveries; expressed concern over enforcement.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated staff would go out for a new RFP following\nthe changes requested; inquired whether the same evaluation process should be used.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded a business that has already submitted and failed due\nto the boundaries should not be required to do another RFP; stated the RFP could be\nfor new businesses; making someone re-do the RFP is costly if just the boundary has\nchanged and the same evaluation would be used.\nThe Acting City Manager inquired what if the business wants to submit a new RFP, to\nwhich Councilmember Oddie responded if a business wants to submit a new one, it can.\nMayor Spencer stated someone rejected could reapply.\nVice Mayor Vella noted the business might want to apply to have adult use.\nThe Acting City Attorney expressed concern over treating groups differently and the fee.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the fee, the Economic Development\nManager stated the fee is $1,000.\nVice Mayor Vella stated perhaps a discount can be offered if the application is for the\nsame location since the work is done.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated staff would return with a recommendation.\nMayor Spencer stated it sounds like everyone is fine with said suggestion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the tax should be addressed in the staff\nreport when the matter returns, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the\nmatter could be addressed in the staff report; stated staff also has cleanup amendments\nto the ordinance; the intention is to bring back both together, but the amount of changes\nmight require the actions be separate.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 28, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated the cleanup should be kept separate; cleanup to the rent\nordinance was lost.\nIn response to the Assistant City Manager's inquiry regarding timing, the Economic\nDevelopment Manager stated staff was planning to come back on September 4th, but\nshe would prefer to make it the first meeting in October due to the amount of work.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the second meeting in September,\nthe Economic Development Manager stated staff is working on arts and minimum wage\nitems for said date.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the ordinance would require two readings, to which the\nActing City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the cleanup can be presented at the first meeting in\nSeptember, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; noted\nzoning changes would have to go to the Planning Board.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like the matter expedited; the cleanup is not as\ncritical; her preference would be to do the substantive work.\nVice Mayor Vella stated some of the substantive work, such as adult use, would not go\nto the Planning Board; only the zoning has to go to the Planning Board.\nThe Acting City Manager stated everything needs to be approved to go out with RFP.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated staff would shoot for the October meeting\nto allow time to go to the Planning Board.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(18-449) The Acting City Manager announced information would be posted on the\nwebsite regarding signature gatherers misrepresenting the McKay property initiative.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(18-450) Consider Drafting a Letter to Federal Representatives Supporting\nCongressional Bill S. 3036, the \"Keep Families Together Act.\" (Councilmember Oddie)\nCouncilmember Oddie made brief comments regarding the referral.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval [of drafting a letter].\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 29, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(18-451) Michael Moon, CCA East Bay, discussed diversity and suggested there be\ngreater diversity on Boards and Commissions.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(18-452) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Historical\nAdvisory Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, Social Service Human Relations\nBoard and Transportation Commission.\nMayor Spencer nominated Jennifer Wit for appointment to the HAB and Marsha\nBroquedis and Asheshh Saheba for appointment to the Planning Board.\n(18-453) Councilmember Oddie expressed concern over some of the reprehensible\nrhetoric being heard, which Councilmembers have a duty to denounce; no one asks him\nwhere he was born and how long he has lived here, which they ask Vice Mayor Vella;\ndiscussed micro-aggression, which is a sign of racism.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is the first Hispanic Mayor of the City; googling her name\ncomes up with derogatory comments; she supports the reduction of derogatory\ncomments against all Councilmembers.\n(18-454) Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council has discussed other means of\nhelping people stay housed; Kamala Harris has introduced a Rent Relief Act for\nCalifornians; hopefully, the City will follow up and provide support; someone paying\nmore than 30% of their taxable income on rent, including utilities, would be eligible.\nMayor Spencer stated the City might have already supported the Act.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated if the matter does not fall under the legislative agenda, it\nshould be brought back.\nADJOURNMENT\n(18-455) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at\n12:24 a.m. in memory of Nia Wilson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 30, "text": "The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}