{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nESDAY--OCTOBER 16, 2018- 5:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:15 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(18-561) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring; Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7 54957;\nTitle/description of positions to be filled: Acting/Interim City Attorney and City Attorney\n(18-562) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring; Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7 54957;\nTitle/description of positions to be filled: City Manager\n(18-563) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code section 54957.6); CITY\nNegotiators: David L. Rudat, Interim City Manager, Elizabeth D. Warmerdam, Assistant\nCity Manager and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee\nOrganizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW),\nElectric Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees\nAssociation (ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and\nAlameda Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA); Under\nNegotiation: Salaries and Terms of Employment\n(18-564) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section\n54956.8); Property: Northwest Territories, Alameda Point; City Negotiator: David L.\nRudat, Interim City Manager; Potential Tenant: East Bay Regional Park District; Issue\nUnder Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the City Attorney, direction was given to staff; regarding City\nManager, staff provided an update; regarding Labor, Council received a briefing and\ngave direction to staff; and regarding Real Property, direction was given to staff by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:46 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\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER 16, 2018- -6:45 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft,\nMatarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -\n5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(18-565) Proclamation Declaring October 21 through 27, 2018 as Childhood Lead\nPoisoning Prevention Week and October 8 through 14, 2018 as Code Enforcement\nOfficer Appreciation Week.\nLarry Brooks, Alameda County Healthy Homes Department/Lead Poisoning Prevention\nProgram, made brief comments.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Mr. Brooks.\nVice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments.\n(18-566) Proclamation Declaring October 2018 as Filipino American History Month.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to former Councilmembers Tony\nDaysog and Stewart Chen; Vice Mayor Vella; Bob Balandra, Phil Ableo and Marcelo\nDatuin, Bohol Circle; Benjamin Reyes, Senior, 2018 Veteran of the Year; Cynthia Bonta\nand Susan Reyes, Sister City Association; Max Baylosis, Knights of Columbus; Lita\nBaylosis and Janet Galera, United Pilipinos of Alameda; and Judge Benjamin Reyes, II.\nMs. Bonta made brief comments.\n(18-567) Proclamation Declaring October 16, 2018 as Friends of the Alameda Free\nLibrary Appreciation Week.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Karen Butter, President of the\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library Board, Marlon Romero, Supervising Librarian,\nCarole Robie, Friends of the Library Board Member; Amber Bales, Alameda Free\nLibrary Board Member, Kathleen Kearney, Alameda Free Library Board Member; and\nHonora Murphy, Library supporter.\nMs. Butter made brief comments.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 3, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:29 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\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 4, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nESDAY--OCTOBER - 16, 2018- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:29 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,\nVella, and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(18-568) Mayor Spencer announced the SpinLaunch ordinance [paragraph no. 18-588\nwas withdrawn.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested the Fire grant [paragraph no. 18-585 be heard after\nthe resolutions of appointment [paragraph no. 18-584].\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(18-569) Proclamation Declaring October 2018 as Italian American History Month.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Alessandro Bertoncello;\nAlessandro DeBellis Alpicella Club; and Bob Ratto and Mike Robles-Wong, Alameda\nSister City Association.\nMr. Ratto and Mr. Bertoncello made brief comments.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(18-570) Steve Slauson, Alameda, discussed his opposition to no-cash bail bonds.\n(18-571) Toni Grimm, Alameda, expressed concern over the use of the term Housing\nProvider.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer noted that she is voting no on the minimum wage ordinance. [paragraph\nno. 18-583\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 16, 2018\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 5, "text": "(*18-572) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on September\n18,2018. Approved.\n(*18-573) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,725,693.06.\n(*18-574) Recommendation to Receive a Report on the Continuation of the Art in City\nHall Program. Accepted.\n(*18-575) Recommendation to Approve the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to Reuse\nthe Alameda Carnegie Building. Accepted.\n(*18-576) Recommendation to Award a Contract to Oregon Romtec Inc. in the Amount\nof $970,613 for the Krusi Park Recreation Center Replacement Project. Accepted.\n(*18-577) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Second\nAmendment to the Agreement with Nute Engineering, to Extend the Term One Year and\nIncrease Compensation in an Amount Not to Exceed $394,390 for a Total Agreement\nCompensation Not to Exceed $727,459 for Engineering Design Services for Cyclic\nSewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 16. Accepted.\n(*18-578) Resolution No. 15439, \"Amending the General Fund and the Capital\nImprovement Program Budget for Fiscal Year 2018-19 for the Jean Sweeney Open\nSpace Park Project to Fund Immediate Possession of Four Remnant Parcels Totaling\nApproximately 2.8 Acres Owned by Union Pacific.\" Adopted; and\n(*18-578 A) Recommendation to Direct the City Attorney to Deposit the Sum of\n$1,098,000 with the Condemnation Deposits Fund and Seek an Order for Prejudgment\nPossession of the Subject Property. Accepted.\n(*18-579) Recommendation to Expand the Fa\u00e7ade Grant Program Boundaries; and\n(*18-579 A) Resolution No. 15440, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Base Reuse\nFund Budget to Appropriate $50,000 for the Fa\u00e7ade Grant Program.\"\n(*18-580) Resolution No. 15441, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Enter into a\nJoint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) Establishing and Governing Operation of the\nCollection System Technical Advisory Committee, and a Defendant's Side Agreement\nto Facilitate the Environmental Protection Agency Sewer Consent Decree Compliance.'\nAdopted.\n(*18-581) Resolution No. 15442, \"Opposing Proposition 6 on the November 2018 Ballot,\nwhich would Repeal the Recent Gas Tax Increase and Eliminate $15 Million in\nTransportation Funding for Alameda.\" Adopted.\n(*18-582) Resolution No. 15443, \"Supporting Proposition 2 on the November 2018\nBallot, which would Authorize the State of California to Use Revenue from Previously\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 6, "text": "Authorized Bonds to Fund Existing Housing Programs for Individuals with Mental\nIllness.\" Adopted.\n(18-583) Ordinance No. 3226, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code By Adding\nArticle 4-60 (Minimum Wage) to Chapter IX (Regulations Concerning Trade and\nCommerce) Concerning A Citywide Minimum Wage to Raise Alameda's Minimum Wage\nto $15.00 Per Hour by 2020.\" Finally passed.\n[Note: The ordinance was finally passed by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer\n- 1.]\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(18-584) Resolution No. 15444, \"Reappointing Audrey Hyman as a Member of the\nSocial Service Human Relations Board.' Adopted; and\n(18-584 A) Resolution No. 15445, \"Appointing Rona Rothenberg as a Member of the\nPlanning Board.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the vote be bifurcated.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution appointing Ms.\nRothenberg.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Abstentions: Councilmembers\nEzzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vella - 3.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution appointing Ms. Hyman.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 3.\nNoes: Councilmember Oddie - 1. Abstentions: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of reconsidering the motion on the resolution\nappointing Ms. Rothenberg.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Abstentions:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.\nMayor Spencer moved adoption of the resolution appointing Ms. Rothenberg.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 16, 2018\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 7, "text": "Abstentions: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.\n(18-585) Recommendation to Accept $1,876,823 Grant from the Staffing for Adequate\nFire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Program; and\n(18-585 A) Resolution No. 15446, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Fire Grants Fund\nRevenue and Expenditures Budget by $3,043,494, Each, and the General Fund\nExpenditures Budget by $1,166,671 to Allocate the Required Matching Funds per the\nGrant Requirement.\" Adopted.\nThe Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the City would be adding any new firefighters.\nThe Fire Chief responded that no additional firefighters would be added past the\nauthorized strength adopted by Council.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many active firefighters the City currently has, to which the\nFire Chief responded the authorized sworn positions is 92.\nMayor Spencer requested the Interim City Manager to address the current staffing\nnumbers.\nThe Interim City Manager requested the Fire Chief to address the number of present\nand planned vacancies and the turnover rate that the SAFER hires would cover.\nThe Fire Chief stated there are seven vacancies in the Fire Department; he anticipates\nan additional seven vacancies due to retirements by the end of the year; even though\n14 vacancies are anticipated, the Fire Department can only train ten personnel, at\nmaximum, from an academy at a time; six would be paid from SAFER and four would\nbe paid from the General Fund.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the length of the current vacancies,\nthe Fire Chief stated current vacancies are from July to two weeks ago.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many active firefighters the City had in 2016.\nThe Fire Chief responded he could not answer that question.\nMayor Spencer requested the Interim City Manager to address the certainty of the\nseven anticipated retirements.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the retirements are highly probable; the Fire Chief has\nreceived \"Intent to Retire\" notices; employees have reached the average age of\nretirement and there are two work-related injuries.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested confirmation that the six positions to be paid\nby the SAFER grant would be entry-level positions, including salary and benefits, to\nwhich the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested confirmation that the City would not be\nobligated to continue staffing the SAFER grant positions if the SAFER grant were to not\ncontinue, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the staff report\nidentifies the positions as temporary.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation and adoption\nof the resolution.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she appreciates the responses she\nreceived; if anyone has questions, she, along with the Fire Chief and Interim City\nManager, are available to meet.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(18-586) Presentation by Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) - Annual\nProgress Report.\nJohn Lipp, FFAS, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if there are options staff could review for replacing the\nFAAS facility, either through bonds or working with developers.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would support the suggestion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the award given to Joe Ernst of Alameda Point\nPartners be discussed.\nMr. Lipp stated the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH) award was given to Mr.\nErnst; Mr. Ernst's development partnership has donated one half acre of land to FAAS\nin the Bay Farm Island Business Park; FAAS is looking into creating a private facility to\nhouse either a community center or adoption center on the land.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed admiration for FAAS working with the Alameda Point\nCollaborative (APC).\n(18-587) Recommendation to Accept Informational Report on Activities, Quarterly\nMeetings and Issues Related to the Oakland International Airport.\nThe City Planner made brief comments.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 16, 2018\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 9, "text": "Ed Downing, Airport Operations Committee, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what happened between 2015 and 2016 that\ncaused such a steep increase in non-compliant corporate jet offenses.\nMr. Downing responded major sporting events were the potential cause of the increase;\nstated the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) did not impose limitations on corporate\njets during the major sporting events; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the planes on Runway 33 head off the East End of the\nIsland, to which Mr. Downing responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated many of the complaints he receives are from residents\nwho are not used to planes flying overhead.\nMr. Downing continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what kind of recourse the City has to help make\nchanges.\nMr. Downing suggested a letter be written to the Port of Oakland expressing concern\nover issues.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the suggestion.\nMr. Downing continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer noted the City sent letters and has been working with Congresswoman\nBarbara Lee, and lobbyists in Washington D.C.\nMr. Downing concluded the presentation.\nKristi McKenney, Port of Oakland, made brief comments.\nCouncilmember Oddie suggested that empirical data be included in the future, such as\nthe Super Bowl causing an increase in flights, to support the figures displayed in the\npresentation.\nMs. McKenney continued her comments.\nMatt Davis, Port of Oakland, continued the Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the Tower Chief has a role in deciding which\nrunway pilots use.\nMr. Davis responded upon call, Air Traffic Control reminds the pilot that there is a noise\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 10, "text": "abatement procedure with the Port of Oakland; stated the FAA provides notification, but\nthe pilot does have the authority to request a different runway; Air Traffic Control will\nprovide the runway specifically requested by the aircraft.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the pilot would be considering the situation;\nand if safety of approach, for example, is considered.\nMr. Davis responded the Port of Oakland advises pilots of the program if they violate the\nnoise abatement procedure; stated pilots receive letters and notifications from Port of\nOakland staff reminding them of the importance of the procedure; there are various\nreasons why an aircraft would chose not to follow the noise abatement procedure.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the procedure for departing aircrafts.\nMr. Davis responded his previous explanation is for departing aircrafts; clarified the\narriving aircraft procedures, which are very similar.\nThe Interim City Manager inquired if there are any noise curfews in place, to which Mr.\nDavis responded in the negative.\nThe Interim City Manager inquired if there is any noise reduction in place for commercial\naircrafts to cut back on engines in order to reduce sound until they get to a certain\naltitude, to which Mr. Davis responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he heard Runway 33 is unsafe; inquired why the\nissue was not addressed in the presentation, and what justification the Port of Oakland\nhas for allowing the runway to be used.\nMr. Davis responded the airports responsibility is to publish and maintain a runway\nlength safe for aircraft use; stated the pilot in command of the aircraft has to determine\nthe safety margin; each aircraft has published limitations by the manufacturer based on\nmultiple factors.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the response was not satisfactory; stated that he\nwould like the topic discussed.\nMayor Spencer requested response as to who makes the decision.\nMr. Davis responded the decision lies with the pilot in command; stated the pilot in\ncommand is using manufacturer published data approved by the FAA, which allows for\nsufficient use of Runway 33; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if sending a letter to non-compliant pilots is the\nextent of the Port of Oakland's reprimand.\nMr. Davis responded the Port will call and send a letter.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 16, 2018\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the letter says.\nMr. Davis responded the letter advises of the Noise Abatement Program and\nencourages individuals to follow that program in the future.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if there is consequence of any kind for not\nfollowing the guidelines.\nMr. Davis responded there are no economic consequences; stated the Port does not\nhave a fine-based program and is limited by the FAA and the Airport Noise and\nCapacity Act of 1990.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what the recourse is for the City.\nMr. Davis responded the City can also send individual letters if desired; stated the Port\nof Oakland provides information related to each incident publically; the program is\noutreach based.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired who the non-compliant pilots will listen to, if suing the\nFAA would be possible recourse, and what other options are available.\nMr. Davis responded the options available primarily include engagement with the\ncarriers; stated his presentation will address reasons why some carriers are non-\ncompliant; well over 90% of operators comply with the program.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired about the steps the Noise Abatement Forum has taken to\naddress the issues; stated many of the compliant flights generate noise; inquired if the\nupdate from the Forum includes all affected cities.\nMr. Davis responded the forum does include all cities involved.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired if there are items the Noise Abatement Forum is discussing\nrelative to compliance.\nMr. Davis responded additional resources discussed earlier have been agreed upon by\nthe Forum and the airport and are effective for the vast majority of pilots; pilots\nrepeatedly refusing would be the target of additional means to promote compliance;\ncontinued the presentation.\nMs. McKenney completed the Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired if Runway 33 can be examined to see if it is being\nused as it was designed; stated aircrafts have changed over the years; an experienced\npilot should speak about the best uses for the runway; the matter should be studied and\nthe Council should receive a response.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 12, "text": "Ms. McKenney responded the Port of Oakland would be happy to do so.\nMayor Spencer inquired what steps have been taken in the past or if any studies have\nbeen conducted on this issue.\nMs. McKenney responded the Port of Oakland is required to maintain surfaces in order\nto be operational, regardless of age; stated the runways are maintained to operational\nstandards; three inspections occur each day and the results are provided to the FAA on\nan annual basis; the Noise Abatement Program is voluntary.\nMayor Spencer inquired what analysis would be conducted by the Port of Oakland.\nMs. McKenney responded that she would provide more background and information to\nexplain the short-hand in the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the analysis would conclude the runway to be unsafe for use.\nMs. McKenney responded if she believed the runway was unsafe, she would shut it\ndown in an instant; stated the runway meets the minimum for aircrafts.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the runway should be checked to ensure the quality does not\nfall below the minimum compliance; the City works collectively with other cities and the\nForum since many people are affected by aircraft noise; suggested including any next\nsteps in future updates.\nMs. McKenney responded that she would do so.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what kind of coordination occurs with sports teams during\nmajor sporting events.\nMs. McKenney responded the Super Bowl is run internationally; stated Oakland\nInternational Airport saw the most air traffic out of the three bay area airports; she does\nnot anticipate the Super Bowl would come back to the bay area any time soon.\nMayor Spencer inquired if a history of efforts could be included in future reports; stated\nthe FAA has been challenging to work with.\nMs. McKenney responded that she has documents which can be prepared for each\nCouncilmember in order to review the history of efforts; stated NexGen has had impacts\nin the overall Bay Area and has changed the routes into a more compact area and flight\npattern; fewer people are impacted by flight noise; however those impacted, notice it\nmore than ever before; the next steps are to request Forum review, request the FAA to\nrespond, and plan a response to the FAA in an attempt to engage.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 16, 2018\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 13, "text": "(18-588) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute\nDocuments Necessary to Implement a Ten-Year Lease with SpinLaunch Inc., a\nCalifornia Corporation, for Building 530, Located at 120 West Oriskany Avenue at\nAlameda Point. Not heard.\n(18-589) SUMMARY: Public Hearing to Facilitate a Tax-Exempt Bond Financing for\nAcquisition, Construction, Improvement, and Equipping of the Site A Affordable Family\nand Senior Projects by Eden Housing\nPublic Hearing Under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) to Consider\nResolution No. 15447, \"Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California\nMunicipal Finance Authority in an Aggregate Principal Amount Not to Exceed\n$45,000,000 to Finance a 70-Unit Multifamily Rental Housing Facility for Low- and Very\nLow-Income Families for the Benefit of Eden Housing Inc., or a Limited Partnership to\nbe Established by Eden Housing Inc. (or an Affiliate). Adopted; and\n(18-589 A) Resolution No. 15448, \"Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the\nCalifornia Municipal Finance Authority in an Aggregate Principal Amount Not to Exceed\n$40,000,000 to Finance a 60-Unit Multifamily Rental Housing Facility for Low- and Very\nLow-Income Seniors for the Benefit of Eden Housing Inc., or a Limited Partnership to be\nEstablished by Eden Housing Inc. (or an Affiliate). These Revenue Bonds will provide\nfor the financing of the Site A Affordable Family and Senior Projects.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of both revenue bonds that are\nnecessary for the low and very-low income family housing adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(18-590) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15449, \"Calling a Special Election\nRegarding Alteration of the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes for\nCommunity Facilities District No. 17-1 (Alameda Point Public Services District).\n\"\nAdopted; and\n(18-590 A) Resolution No. 15450, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Budget for the\nCommunity Facilities District 17-1 Fund by Increasing Estimated Revenue by $174,051\nand Increasing the Expenditure Budget by $35,000.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:28 p.m.\n(18-591) Resolution No. 15451, \"Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise\nFees to Add New Cannabis Business Operator and Regulatory Fees.\" Adopted;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 14, "text": "(18-591 A) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the\nAlameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30-10 (Cannabis) to (1) Add Cannabis\nRetail Businesses as Conditionally Permitted Uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Business\nand C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing Zoning Districts; (2) Add Two Delivery-Only\nCannabis Retail Businesses as a Conditionally Permitted Use in the C-M, Commercial-\nManufacturing Zoning District; (3) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Enable\nCannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non-Medicinal or \"Adult Use\" Cannabis; and\n(4) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Eliminate the Dispersion\nRequirement for Delivery-Only Cannabis Businesses. Introduced;\n(18-591 B) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses) of Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations\nand Industries) to (1) Eliminate the Cap on Testing Laboratories; (2) Add Two Delivery-\nOnly Dispensaries; (3) Allow Adult Use; (4) Create a Two-Tier Buffer Zone from\nSensitive Uses for Dispensaries and Cultivation Businesses; and (5) Make Other\nClarifying Revisions. Introduced; and\n(18-5591 C) Recommendation to Confirm Continued Use of Request for Proposal (RFP)\nProcess to Administer Cannabis Retail Dispensary Business Operators' Permit\nSelection Process.\nThe Economic Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired how Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) regulations differ from\nthe ordinance.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he briefly looked up the regulations; 600 feet\nis discretionary and includes churches.\nThe Economic Development Manager continued the presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Economic Development Manager\nstated the regulation is only for the C1 zone based on the discussion from July.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if applicants, instead of the City, are required to\nnotify a 300-foot radius.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded either the City or application can do\nthe notification; stated an outside service would also be an option; continued the\npresentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the difference is between when the ABC denies a retail\nlicense as opposed to what the City has proposed for cannabis.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded ABC has the ability to deny a permit but not\nbased on the proximity or violation of the buffer; stated the City's ordinance is not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 16, 2018\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 15, "text": "discretionary and would not allow a cannabis business to locate inside the buffer zone;\nthe buffer related to residences differs; ABC's sensitive uses is also different; the 600-\nfoot buffer zone from schools, public playgrounds and youth facilities differs; the ABC\ncan impose conditions on permittees to expand the scope of sensitive uses; the primary\ndifferences are the distance and discretion to impose certain conditions, the City's buffer\nzone discretion is more rigid with no wiggle-room.\nMayor Spencer requested more information about the residence requirement.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated for ABC, there is an ability for the permittee to\ndemonstrate that they will not disrupt quiet enjoyment within 100 feet of a residence,\nwhich the City does not require.\nExpressed concern over local business being shut out of the process; urged raising the\nlimit to four storefronts; urged following the Planning Board recommendation: Michael\nMcDonough, Chamber of Commerce.\nExpressed support for cannabis sales and concern over alcohol sales: Phillip Redd,\nAlameda.\nExpressed concern over the ordinance not removing all dispersion as recommended by\nthe Planning Board; urged there be no dispersion: Rich Moskowitz, Alameda.\nStated that she is struggling to find a suitable location for her cannabis nursery, which\nshould have more flexibility: Sandra Square, Alameda.\nStated Harbor Bay and South Shore do not want the business; expressed concern over\ncannabis businesses being concentrated on the West End; suggested a cap for the\ndistrict and a survey be done: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the opening of a cannabis business by the Masjid; suggested\nplaces of worship be considered sensitive uses: Maaz Khan, Quba Masjid.\nExpressed support for additional dispensaries; urged adult use be approved tonight:\nRyan Agabao, Alameda for Safe Cannabis Access.\nRead a letter of support from the West Alameda Business Association (WABA): John\nNgu, WABA.\nStated children play in front of the mosque and church; urged the matter not proceed:\nOsman Ahmad.\nExpressed support for delivery businesses and removal of the dispersion requirement:\nMelody Montgomery.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 16, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired what steps and options the City has if the Council agrees to the\n600-foot radius provision.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification.\nMayor Spencer stated there is a permit in process for a specific location; a location is\nbelieved to be within 600-feet of the mosque; inquired what options the Council has\ngiven the current process.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the Council could edit the buffer zone and add\nadditional sensitive use; stated the original buffer zone considers a number of different\nsensitive uses that could be referenced and changed; the possibility of making a change\nwhile an application is pending may propose challenges; changes may be made up until\nthe land-use entitlements are obtained or locked-in by an applicant; it depends on the\ntiming of the current applicant obtaining entitlement versus the change to take place.\nMayor Spencer inquired expediting the process is an option.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the ordinance would go through the standard\nprocess; an urgency ordinance would not be possible.\nMayor Spencer requested confirmation the change would take 60 days.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that is roughly correct; stated the first reading\nmust occurs evening, then the second reading, then a 30-day referendum period.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the majority of Council agrees that the current meeting\nwould qualify as the first reading; requested the process be explained again.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the process depends on if the ordinance is\nadopted before the applicant receives land use entitlement; stated the discussion is\nfocused on vesting.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired if changes can be made after an applicant has moved\nforward.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded doing so would be a challenge; stated typically\nvesting of Council rights does not happen until after entitlements are obtained; if an\napplicant has already been issued a Use Permit, using caution would be urged to\nensure fairness.\nVice Mayor Vella stated what qualifies as a place of worship or a place where children\ngather has been discussed previously; inquired if the City would be going back to re-\nvisit the issue.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 16, 2018\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 17, "text": "The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded the discuss is\nwhether or not the City would amend the definition of sensitive uses to include churches\nand other places of worship; stated the Council has adopted a robust process for\napproving cannabis businesses; the process consists of applying for a Use Permit\nunder the regulatory ordinance as well as a land use application process which is\ngoverned by the ordinance that will extend use either by the Zoning Administrator or the\nPlanning Board; having sensitive uses defined is helpful, but it will not be the only\ndeciding factor that the Planning Board would take into account; the Board will also hear\npublic testimony ; if the Council leaves the definition of sensitive uses intact, there is still\nan opportunity to have public input; the Planning Board would act on the application and\nconsider criteria beyond the definition of sensitive uses; there is also the standard\nappeal or call for review process; the Council can look at amending the definition of\nsensitive uses to include places of worship or let the process play out for the current\napplication; under ABC regulations, proximity to a sensitive use are is not a sufficient\nreason to deny a permit; additional factors can be taken into account.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the members who spoke from the mosque\ncould appear before the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Board, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the potential for legal\nchallenge should be considered.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not support making a change to\nthe buffer zone; there needs to be a map indicating places of worship and impacts.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed concern; stated there is a process in place; inquired\nwhat would happen the next time the City approves an application and then makes\nchanges.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there is a process under the current rules; the\napplicant will go before the Planning Board or Administrator to determine whether or not\na Use Permit will be granted; inquired whether or not applications are required to be\ngranted and if the process is truly discretionary; requested clarification of the process.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the process would follow the same guidelines as\na Use Permit issuance; stated approval is discretionary; there is the ability to add\nadditional conditions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the process is no different from any other\nUse Permit, under the current law, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the Planning Board could add a condition to revoke the\npermit if someone smokes cannabis on the street three times; inquired what kind of\nconditions could be added.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 18, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded adding said condition is possible; stated some\nstock conditions would be reviewed on an annual basis; adding conditions is something\nthe Council may do, including nuisance control.\nMayor Spencer expressed concern with allowing Planning Board to not deny\napplications based off certain findings or lack of findings; inquired whether or not a\ndispensary near a mosque would could be a legal finding used to deny an application.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded conditions are meant to meet concerns, be\ninformed by public comment, and deliberated by the Planning Board.\nMayor Spencer stated the City does not currently allow smoking of cigarettes on streets;\na concern expressed was on site consumption near a mosque; the condition of not\nallowing smoking outside relates to the concerns.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated coming up with conditions on the spot is difficult;\nwhen a condition is considered, proof of breaking the condition is also considered as\nwell as the revocation processes.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the process needs to get back to a high level of\nconsideration; the items being discussed are related to the Planning Board decision.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the Planning Board process is both location and use specific;\nshe has heard the public comments and would urge participation in the Planning Board\nprocess; the regulations in place address some of the concerns mentioned; the\nCouncil's comments and concerns relative to conditions are better addressed during the\nPlanning Board process.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft cautioned the Council against jumping into the role of the\nPlanning Board; stated certain points of view should be taken into consideration;\nrequested clarification of the Planning Board's vote on dispersion distances.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded delivery-only businesses should have\nno dispersion requirement based on the Council direction.\nThe Base Reuse and Economic Development Director stated the Planning Board\nwanted to remove the dispersion requirement from the land use ordinance and asked\nthat the Council consider whether or not the dispersion requirement should go into the\nregulatory ordinance; the Planning Board did not feel that the dispersion requirement is\na land-use issue and recommended Council decide whether or not to have a dispersion\nrequirement, which should be included in the regulatory ordinance; staff included the\ndispersion requirement in the draft ordinance for discussion purposes; the Planning\nBoard agreed with staff's recommendation since the ordinances were drafted to not\ninclude a dispersion requirement for delivery-only dispensaries and suggested that the\ndispersion requirement be removed from the land-use ordinance with Council decided\nwhether or not it should be included in the regulatory ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 16, 2018\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested further clarification as to whether or not the\nPlanning Board voted to remove the dispersion for delivery services, but did not vote to\nremove the dispersion from retail businesses.\nThe Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded the Planning Board\nvoted to remove the dispersion requirement from the land-use ordinance; stated the\nPlanning Board did not have the discussion related to retail businesses; staff removed\nthe dispersion requirement from the land use ordinance and placed it in the regulatory\nordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired if it would be possible for Council to make Grand Street the\nboundary, having half of dispensaries west and half east of Grand Street.\nThe Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the Council approved a cap of two retail dispensaries when the dispersion\nrequirement was adopted; as soon as the Council started to look into two delivery only\ndispensaries, the one-mile dispersion requirement would no longer work.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if it would be possible to have two dispensaries next to\neach other as long all four were not next to each other, to which the Base Reuse and\nEconomic Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the idea of having\ntwo east of Grand Street and two west of Grand Street makes more sense than a one\nmile dispersion, which would be highly limiting and challenging.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the Council could require that at least half of\nthe dispensaries must have delivery.\nThe Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated under the current ordinances, the two retail dispensaries also have the ability to\nsecure a delivery license; the feedback from July was to look at two additional delivery-\nonly dispensaries; the Council could also require delivery to be included in conjunction\nwith all four of the retail dispensaries.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the City has to specifically say adult use is allowed or\nif striking medicinal use is sufficient, to which the Base Reuse and Economic\nDevelopment Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff has a solution regarding the comment related\nhaving nurseries.\nThe Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded staff has not made a\nchange; stated one nursery is allowed in the CM zone only; in July, staff did not receive\ndirection to revisit that issue; Council could direct the nursery be permitted in other\nzones.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 20, "text": "In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding CM zones, the Base Reuse and\nEconomic Development Director stated nurseries are permitted as long as they can\nsecure a location.\nMayor Spencer inquired if staff thinks there are places within the CM zones that will not\ndeny nursery applications.\nThe Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded staff does not know\nand has not surveyed the landowners in the CM zones regarding their willingness to\nrent to a nursery.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired if the reason a nursery is not being allowed in the\nCM zones is because a property owner does not want it there or if the individual\nproposing the business cannot afford it.\nThe Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded that she does not\nknow and is relying on what the speaker stated during public comment.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City's laws does not prohibit a nursery,\nto which the Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether State law requires delivery only businesses to do all\nthe things a brick and mortar dispensary has to do.\nThe Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated one difference is not having to meet the same parking standards; stated security\nand how product is handled is similar.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern over statements made about allowing for delivery\nas a business option; stated that she wants a requirement instead of an option as part\nof the application process to allow for those who are home-bound or have mobility\nissues to get product safely delivered in a way that is regulated.\nThe Base Reuse and Economic Development Director stated that she would defer to\nthe Assistant City Attorney.\nVice Mayor Vella stated even if applicants anticipate offering delivery, they could decide\nnot to offer delivery.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the easiest way to mandate the requirement is to\nhave a cap for each; the existing cap could be retained for retail dispensaries open to\nthe public, but two additional retail dispensaries that must offer delivery would also be\nallowed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 16, 2018\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 21, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over adult use versus medicinal use\ndispensaries; stated medicinal use dispensaries have not been given a chance to\noperate; requested clarification regarding the changes proposed in the petition being\ncirculated related to a medicinal dispensary.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated the previous Council direction was to\nprovide a robust discussion on adult use; the speaker indicated a high number of\npetition signatures have been obtained.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the harm would be in waiting until the\nrequisite number of signatures have been gathered; stated the current process should\nstill continue.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded the Council directed staff to bring the\nitem back; staff brought the item back with an inclusive ordinance which included adult\nuse, two dispensaries, and everything Council requested; the ordinance can be\nmodified at the current meeting, including the substitution of medicinal use for adult use.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested to go down the staff list.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated the first item on the list is approve the Fee\nStudy resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of accepting the fee study [adoption of the\nresolution].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired if staff wants a motion per item.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative for the fee study\nitem.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated the next item is adding cannabis retail\nbusinesses to C1.\nMayor Spencer inquired if there are at least three votes in support.\nCouncilmember Oddie and Mayor Spencer expressed support.\nCouncilmember Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft stated they would not support it.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what kind of retail dispensaries are assumed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 22, "text": "The Economic Development Manager responded retail dispensaries open to the public.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if they would be medicinal or adult use.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded question can be discussed first, but it\nmay be lengthy; stated the item currently being discussed is retail business\ndispensaries.\nMayor Spencer requested the question be asked.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired if the question is for adult use.\nMayor Spencer, Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Oddie expressed support.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired if retail dispensaries should include adult\nuse.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the area is within C1.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like retail and delivery; requested\nconsideration of delivery not being standalone.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is okay with having delivery only and dispensaries with\ndelivery; she is also okay with having four dispensaries plus two separate delivery\nbusinesses.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is not in support of said amount.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to support brick and mortar\ndispensaries with delivery before delivery only cannibalizes brick and mortar.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many and what type should be allowed.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded that he would be fine with four.\nMayor Spencer clarified four dispensaries with delivery.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated at least two should have delivery and can be delivery only\nor a dispensary with delivery.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired who would like all dispensaries to be\nretail only with the option of being delivery only for two.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded if the two brick and mortar do not offer delivery, then\ndelivery only can be considered.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 16, 2018\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 23, "text": "The Economic Development Manager stated the discussion is for four dispensaries.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she wants to make sure two would be required to have\ndelivery options.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired who supports four retail dispensaries,\ntwo of which can be delivery-only but two must offer delivery; inquired whether Vice\nMayor Vella means four dispensaries with a storefront.\nVice Mayor Vella responded four could be storefront, two of which must provide\ndelivery; stated that she wants to mandate the second dispensary that comes in must\nprovide delivery.\nMayor Spencer stated there could be four storefront dispensaries, with a minimum of\ntwo dispensaries providing delivery.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated Councilmember Oddie's request differs;\none dispensary could be delivery only or retail.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the City needs at least two, all four dispensaries could\nhave delivery.\nMayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Oddie is okay with four storefronts.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded the City should have four storefronts, at least two of\nthem need to have delivery.\nCouncilmember Matarrese expressed concern with processes; stated those in favor of\nthe item have a financial interest; he is in favor of having medicinal use, and labs; the\nprocess is not known until it actually occurs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of staying the two ordinances until one\nbusiness runs through the process.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of a substitute motion to move forward\nwith additional delivery services, testing labs and medicinal only.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated many people do not want to register to get\nmedicinal cannabis; the process is cumbersome; stated some people find it helpful to\ninteract and discuss product options with consultants.\nMayor Spencer suggested calling the question.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 24, "text": "Councilmember Oddie suggested tabling the motion.\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese expressed support.\nMayor Spencer stated she would not call the question.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired who is in favor of adding C1 to the\nzoning.\nMayor Spencer, Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Oddie stated aye,\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese stated no.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired who is in favor of adding CM,\nCommercial Manufacturing, to the zoning.\nThe Council expressed unanimous support.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired about eliminating the cap on testing\nlabs.\nThe Council expressed unanimous support.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired about removing the dispersion from the\nland use ordinance\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated if the dispersion is removed, it needs to be put\nsomewhere else.\nMayor Spencer concurred; revised the question to: remove dispersion from the land use\nand put it into the regulatory ordinance.\nThe Council expressed unanimous support.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired about modifying the dispersion of a mile\nto adopt different language.\nMayor Spencer inquired what language would be considered as the replacement.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated the language would read:\n\"overconcentration: in addition to the operational radius noted above, there should be\nno more than two.'\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the language presented mirrors Vice Mayor Vella's\nproposal; there would be no more than two dispensaries on either side of Grand\nAvenue; inquired the timing for dispensaries to open in specific locations; the language\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 16, 2018\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 25, "text": "proposed is: \"provided at least one such cannabis business is approved on either side\nbefore the second is approved.\"\nMayor Spencer stated that she is agreeable to having two dispensaries opening up on\neither side of Grand Avenue, as long as the City ends up with two dispensaries on\neither side of Grand Avenue; expressed concern over negotiations causing delay in\ndispensaries opening as well as causing a monopoly; further stated her preference is an\neven balance of dispensaries on either side of Grand Avenue.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not see a need to stipulate location\ntiming on either side of Grand Avenue; inquired whether there would be dispersion\nbetween the two on either side.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded there would be no dispersion; stated under the\nlanguage, two dispensaries could be next to each other.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is okay with the language and agrees with the Planning\nBoard's suggestion.\nThe Assistant City Attorney inquired if Vice Mayor Vella's proposal is to require two the\nfour dispensaries to have delivery.\nMayor Spencer responded at least two must have delivery.\nThe Assistant City Attorney inquired if there has to be a distribution on either side of\nGrand Avenue.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded that all four could have delivery.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if a dispensary applies to be next to an existing\ndispensary, would the process go through the Zoning Administrator and the Planning\nBoard, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired at least three agree to the change.\nMayor Spencer, Vice Mayor Vella, Councilmembers Oddie and Ezzy Ashcraft stated\nyes, Councilmember Matarrese stated no.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired whether a two-tier buffer system should\nbe created; stated the buffer would be 1,000 feet for dispensaries, nurseries and\ncultivation to be located away from public and private schools.\nMayor Spencer stated that she thought the buffer would only apply to dispensaries;\ninquired if the schools are grades kindergarten through -12th grade.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 26, "text": "The Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the buffer\nzone would only apply to dispensaries; cultivation would be taken out; all other sensitive\nuses would have a 600 foot buffer.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if there could just be the one potential nursery license,\nto which the Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about consideration of places of worship.\nMayor Spencer stated places of worship would be considered by the Planning Board.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested adding a definition to sensitive use.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the Planning Board could stipulate certain\ndates and times relevant to surrounding areas.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated the C1 would be added to the zoning for\ncannabis activities, the CM would be added to the zoning for cannabis activities, and\nadult use would be added to the zoning for cannabis activities.\nMayor Spencer moved introduction of the land use ordinance.\nThe Economic Development Manager noted dispersion would be removed from the land\nuse ordinance.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether or not the dispersion removal is part of the approval, to\nwhich the Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded the action is to\nvote on the land use ordinance and the dispersion requirement is not included.\nThe Assistant City Attorney inquired if the potential changes from pending operators\nshould be included as well, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative.\nThe Assistant City Attorney presented language for review.\nMayor Spencer included the language presented in her original motion.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers\nEzzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated Council voted to include dispersion, needs\nto specify how it will be modified.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the language is available for review.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 16, 2018\n23", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 27, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated the language was just presented.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the language being considered includes the cleanup\nlanguage.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded the cleanup language needs to be\napproved.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the cleanup language is part of this motion, to which the\nEconomic Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the motion\nincludes cleanup language and the buffer.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the alignment of labor peace with State law does not\nchange the number of employees the City requires before labor peace, to which the\nEconomic Development Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer moved approval [introduction of the regulatory ordinance].\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Matarrese - 1.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated the final item to address is the Request for\nProposals (RFP).\nMayor Spencer inquired if a motion is needed.\nThe Economic Development Director inquired if the Council wants the applicant to send\nout a 300-foot radius notice.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like it to be a pass/fail requirement; the\nrequirement would be to send the notice; part of the Use Permit process is to allow\npeople to weigh-in; the requirement is to certify that the applicant has notified people.\nMayor Spencer concurred with Vice Mayor Vella.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Use Permit process starts when neighbors in\nthe 300-foot radius are notified.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the requirement is fine; the notice just needs to be certified as\npass/fail and complete.\nThe Economic Development Director inquired if the 300-foot notice portion of the RFP\nwould be pass/fail.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 28, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella stated it does not matter if the applicant, the City or an outside\nconsultant performs the notice; the action needs to be certified.\nMayor Spencer stated that she understands there are two mailings: one early and\nanother by the City as the applicant is going through the normal process; inquired if the\nfirst mailing would be pass/fail, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the process seems redundant and he does not\nunderstand why it would be included in the RFP process.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to follow the same Planning\nBoard process used for any land use determination.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated the requirement could be dropped.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the neighbors need to be notified, but not twice.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated neighbors would be noticed twice in the\nprocess; if the RFP process is kept standard, the neighbors would only be noticed\nduring the Use Permit process.\nMayor Spencer inquired if a motion is needed to remove the process, to which the\nEconomic Development Manager responded in the negative.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated staff would incorporate the information\nfrom the ordinances being approved into the RFP; the last item is to issue a fee credit to\nthose submitting on the same location; requested general approval from Council for the\nprocess.\nThe Council unanimously agreed to the process.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(18-592) The Interim City Manager announced a proposed USS Hornet event was not\napproved after the Drake concert on October 26, 2018.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 16, 2018\n25", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-10-16", "page": 29, "text": "(18-593) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Library Board,\nPlanning Board and Social Service Human Relations Board. Not heard.\n(18-594) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she participated in two walk-and-roll-\nto-school days at both Wood Middle School and Franklin Elementary School.\nMayor Spencer stated she participated in one at Otis Elementary.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:22 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\n26\nOctober 16, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf"}