{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY -NOVEMBER 27, 2018- -5:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:04 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment\nJohn Knox White, Alameda, expressed concern over the City Manager hiring process\nnot being publically discussed or announced; stated some of the process should be\nreconsidered due to the recent election; two City Attorney applicants expressed interest\nin applying after the change in leadership; suggested reopening the City Manager\napplication period through the end of the year without impacting the timeline, including\nnewly elected officials in discussion and providing a public announcement about the\nprocess tonight.\nKen Peterson, Alameda, discussed prior City Managers and urged Council to hire\nsomeone suited for the job.\nTony Daysog, Alameda, expressed support for involving the public in the City Manager\nhiring process, which should be extended to identify additional candidates.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(18-623) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Pursuant Government\nCode section 54956.9(a); Case Name: Campbell, Joseph V. City of Alameda, et al.;\nCourt: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number:\nRG18912595\n(18-624) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Pursuant Government\nCode section 54956.9(a) Case Name: Clyde Grossman et al V. City of Alameda, et al.;\nCourt; Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number:\nRG15777784\n(18-625) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring; Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7 54957;\nTitle/description of positions to be filled: City Manager\n(18-626) 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(18-627) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code section 54957.6); CITY\nNegotiators: David L. Rudat, Interim City Manager, Elizabeth D. Warmerdam, Assistant\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 27, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 2, "text": "City 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\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the Campbell litigation, direction was given to staff by\nunanimous vote; regarding Grossman litigation, direction was given to staff by\nunanimous vote; regarding the City Manager hiring, direction was given to staff by two\nunanimous votes; regarding the City Attorney hiring, direction was given to staff by\nunanimous vote; and regarding Labor, direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:03 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\nNovember 27, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 27, 2018- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:14 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\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(18-628) Proclamation Declaring November 27, 2018 as Janet C. Kern Day.\nMayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation.\nMs. Kern made brief comments.\nVice Mayor Vella, Councilmembers Oddie, Matarrese Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Spencer\nmade brief comments.\n(18-629) Proclamation Declaring November 2018 as National Native American Heritage\nMonth.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Nanette Deetz and Cathy\nDana, Alameda Island Poets, Frank Bette Center for the Arts and Artists Embassy\nInternational Arts Ambassadors.\nMs. Deetz made brief comments and read a poem.\n(18-630) The City Attorney introduced the new Assistant City Attorney.\nThe Assistant City Attorney made brief comments.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(18-631) Ken Peterson, Alameda, discussed the recent fire and a study proposing\nmitigations; expressed concern over roads being narrowed.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the tobacco ordinance [paragraph no. 18-641 was\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 27, 2018\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 4, "text": "removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder 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.]\n(*18-632) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on October\n16, 2018. Approved. [610-10]\n(*18-633) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,781,580.86.\n(*18-634) Recommendation to Approve Revisions to an Interfund Loan for the Financing\nof Fire Station #3 and to Transfer Remaining Balance of the Loan to the General Fund.\nAccepted.\n(*18-635) Recommendation to Accept the 2013 Local Library Bond Measure Annual\nReport. Accepted.\n(*18-636) Recommendation to Accept the Police and Fire Construction Impact Fee\nAnnual Report. Accepted.\n(*18-637) Recommendation to Accept the Development Impact Fee and Fleet Industrial\nSupply Center (FISC)/Catellus Traffic Fee Report. Accepted.\n(*18-638) SUMMARY: Recommendation to Accept and File Various Community\nFacilities Districts (CFD) Reports for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2018\nRecommendation to Accept and File CFD No. 03-1 (Bayport Municipal Services District)\nReport for the Fiscal Year (FY) Ending June 30, 2018; CFD No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing\nPublic Improvements) Report for FY Ending June 30, 2018; CFD No. 13-2 (Alameda\nLanding Municipal Services District) Report for FY Ending June 30, 2018; CFD District\nNo. 14-1 (Marina Cove II) Report for FY Ending June 30, 2018; and CFD No. 17-1\n(Alameda Point Public Services District) Report for FY Ending June 30, 2018. Accepted.\n(*18-639) Resolution No. 15455, \"Amending the Part-Time Classifications Salary\nSchedule Effective December 23, 2018, to Reflect Changes to the California State\nMinimum Wage and to Maintain Adequate Differentials Between Part-Time Job\nCategories.\" Adopted.\n(*18-640) Ordinance No. 3229, \"Approving a Lease Amendment with a Maximum\nThree-Year Extension of the Lease with CSI Mini-Storage, LLC, a California Limited\nLiability Company, for Buildings 338, 608, and 608A-C Located at 50 and 51 West\nHornet Avenue at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 27, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 5, "text": "(*18-641) Ordinance No.3230, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nArticle XVII (Tobacco Retailers) to Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and Industries)\nto Require Licensure of Tobacco Retailers and Prohibit the Sale of Flavored Tobacco\nProducts.' Finally passed.\nMayor Spencer stated there are 37 speakers for the item; those not in favor expressed\nconcern over the shortened time for public comment; inquired how Council would like to\nproceed and whether Council is agreeable to inquiring how many speakers are in favor\nversus not in favor.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the regulations and rules do not specify between support or\noppose; this is the second reading of the item; she is inclined to follow what the rules\nstipulate and shorten the time.\nMayor Spencer stated that a previous rent item was handled differently; inquired if\nCouncil would be okay with a one minute speaking time.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if it is possible to let the tobacco store\nproponents speak first.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of lowering the time to one minute.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer\n- 1.\nExpressed concern over losing businesses; suggested capping the number of retailers\nand the measurement distance be door to door: Jaime Rojas, Alameda.\nSuggested a 55 tobacco license cap and 300 feet door to door; stated 18 business will\nlose their life savings: Linda Asbury, West Alameda Business Association (WABA).\nExpressed concern over zoning and taking away licenses: Samir Saleh, Alameda.\nStated the proposal will not make a difference since youth make purchases online;\nsuggested State regulations rather than regulating businesses locally: Alex Korade\nFoster, Alameda.\nShowed a maps of businesses; suggested changes: Paul Sekhon, Alameda.\nUrged Council to put health before profits: Kimberly McGowan, Lincoln Parent Teachers\nAssociation.\nExpressed concern over high schoolers vaping, provided statistics related to youth\nvaping: Randy Uang, Breathe California Golden Gate Public Health Partnership.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 27, 2018\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 6, "text": "Urged the Council to keep the ordinance language as-is: Denise Zachariah, Alameda.\nStated the ordinance will reduce the chances of children vaping: Malia Zachariah,\nAlameda Girl Scout.\nExpressed concern over vaping on campus; stated school bathrooms doors are being\nlocked open to monitor vaping use: Seamus McGuinnis, Encinal High School.\nExpressed concern over tobacco companies targeting her friends: Karen Nguyen,\nEncinal High School.\nStated her friends are getting hooked on vaping products: Charlie Kleinman, Encinal\nHigh School.\nExpressed concern over tobacco companies targeting and marketing to youth: Sydney\nWilliams, Encinal High School.\nStated retailers work hard to keep products away from youth; expressed concern over\npunishing businesses: Matt Hussain, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the ordinance's deep flaws, which will lower 50 businesses to\n32: Debbie George, Alameda.\nStated that he does not sell to youth; expressed concern over street dealers selling to\nyouth: Antonio Neumann, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over losing his business without a cigarette license: Surinder Singh,\nAlameda.\nExpressed concern over not being able to sell his business; stated people should not be\nable to buy products online: Inderjit Sidhu, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the ordinance threatening small business owners: Timothy\nLankford, Alameda Business Consultant.\nExpressed support for the business community's concerns: Narinder Matharu, Alameda.\nStated taking away tobacco licenses does not keep the product out of kids' hands: Paul\nDhindsa, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over banning menthol and losing small businesses: Ali Quashasha,\nAlameda.\nOutlined the 49 existing stores; stated only 30 stores could be sold; distance should be\n300 feet door to door: Bob Sekhon, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nNovember 27, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 7, "text": "***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 8:14 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:21 p.m.\nStated taking away a tobacco licenses is killing businesses; stated his father's ability to\npays for his college will be impacted: Didar Bhullar, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the buffer zones; urged support of health over profit: Shea\nOverstreet, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the flavored tobacco ban and concern for small businesses;\nsuggested starting January 1, 2020: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.\nStated the issue comes down to money; expressed support: John F. Sykes, Alameda.\nStated taking away tobacco licenses will not solve the problem; suggested businesses\nbe given time to sell: Anil Pandey, Alameda.\nStated no one will lose their license; stated new owners purchasing businesses will be\naware: Lizzy Velton, American Heart Association.\nOutlined cities that have adopted similar measures; stated local measures are needed:\nPhilip Gardner, Alameda.\nStated city governments have reduced tobacco use; expressed sympathy for\nmerchants: Serena Chen, Alameda.\nStated tobacco companies cannot advertise, so marketing occurs in stores: Holly\nSchneider, Alameda County Public Health Department (ACPHD).\nExpressed support for changing the guidelines to door to door, exempting certain stores\nand meeting with businesses: Raed Abdulah, Alameda.\nExpressed concern for businesses: Robert Todd, Alameda.\nDiscussed marketing tactics of tobacco companies: Irene Nikka, American Cancer\nSociety Cancer Action Network.\nStated the ordinance has a big flaw; people selling stores will be impacted: Ann Sekhon,\nAlameda.\nDiscussed his business: Shapoor Zazai, Alameda.\nStated small businesses will be impacted; urged reconsideration; suggested the\neffective date change to 2020: Theresa James, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 27, 2018\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 8, "text": "Stated tobacco continues to be the leading cause of preventable death in the United\nStates: Paul Cummings, ACPHD.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed sympathy for the immigrant-owned small\nbusinesses; stated the reason tobacco sales are decreasing is due to effective\neducation causing people to stop smoking; inquired if other inventory can be procured\nby vendors instead of tobacco; stated public health will take precedence every time.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding data on City retailers selling to youth,\nthe Assistant City Attorney stated based off of 2013 data provided by the Alameda\nPolice Department, 2 out of 47 stores had violations of selling to minors; in 2012, 9 out\nof 45 stores had violations of selling to minors.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is more recent data, to which the Interim City\nManager responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether online sales are permitted to Alameda residents, to\nwhich the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance; stated the leading\ncause of preventable death in the United States is tobacco; the Food and Drug\nAdministration (FDA) has increased warning labels on tobacco related industries\ntargeting children; that there is no control over online sales, but there is control over\nsales Citywide.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated allowing the same number of tobacco\nlicenses to continue defeats the purpose of the ordinance; there is a difference in\nquantity between cannabis dispensaries and tobacco retail licenses; tobacco is\naddictive and kills; the solution is not to pass the burden of selling to the next small\nbusiness owner; part of flourishing as a small business or convenience store is to sell\nalternate products and having a solid business and marketing plan; expressed concern\nabout retailers with tobacco licenses being near schools.\nCouncilmember Oddie discussed a study by \"The Truth Initiative\" group; noted 74%\nyouth indicated they obtained Juuls from a physical retail location, 52% from a social\nsource, and 6% on the internet; stated many people who smoke might not be able to\nenjoy their retirements due to a tobacco related illness.\nMayor Spencer stated the data she reviewed indicated 75% of youth obtained smoking\ndevices from other social sources, not physical retailers; 95% of City retailers have not\nsold tobacco products to youths; the State recently increased the legal purchasing age\nof tobacco from 18 to 21, causing a difference in survey response ages; she strongly\nopposes smoking, but supports adults being capable of making their own decisions;\nexpressed concern over what might be banned next.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nNovember 27, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 9, "text": "On 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***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(18-642) Resolution No.15456, \"Appointing Joyce McConeghey as a Member of the\nLibrary Board. Adopted;\n(18-643A) Resolution No.15457, \"Appointing Simon Chiu as a Member of the Rent\nReview Advisory Committee.\" Adopted; and\n(18-643B) Resolution No.15458, \"Appointing Carolyn Johnson as a Member of the Rent\nReview Advisory Committee.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(18-644) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Section 30-5.15 of Chapter XXX (Zoning Ordinance) to Adopt New Bird-Safe\nBuilding Standards and Update Outdoor Lighting Regulations Consistent with Dark\nSkies Standards. [The proposed amendment is categorically exempt from the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3),\n15305, 15307, and 15183.] Introduced.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director stated the Audubon Society proposes new buildings over 35\nfeet in height with over 50% of the fa\u00e7ade glass would be subject to new standards; the\namendment requires replacement of existing windows over 12 feet to be subject to the\nordinance\nMayor Spencer inquired if the issue was presented at the Planning Board, to which the\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nPlanning Board's goal was not to impede homes from being rehabilitated.\nMayor Spencer inquired if multiple windows exist on one wall of a residence and one\nwindow must be changed due to damage, can the one window be replaced without\nmeeting the bird safe regulations, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 27, 2018\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 10, "text": "Alameda City Council\n8\nNovember 27, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated the Golden Gate Audubon Society has done\ngreat work in educating both Council and the community on the regulation's impacts;\ndiscussed impacts to affordable housing costs, and potential window treatments.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over the added cost to affordable\nhousing projects; inquired how enforcement would be done to ensure alternative\nwindow coverings are closed in the evening and the estimated added cost to affordable\nhousing projects.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded he does not have an\nestimated added cost; stated the ordinance has two exceptions as written: historic\nstructures and glazing on commercial storefronts; Council may add a third exemption for\naffordable housing projects, if desired.\nMayor Spencer stated that she has not heard a request from the affordable housing\ncommunity to be included as an exemption.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(18-645) Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Various Provisions of Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses) of Chapter VI\n(Businesses, Occupations and Industry), Including but not Limited to (a) Modify the\nDefinition of \"Youth Centers\" as a Sensitive Use, Including Specifically Excluding\nCertain Uses (Martial Arts/Combat Sports, Cultural or Similar Education, and Physical\nFitness); (b) Modify the Definition of \"Cannabis Business Owner\" to Conform with State\nLaw; and (c) Make Any Other Conforming Amendments. Introduced.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of keeping two minutes for speakers.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of changing the time to one minute.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which failed, due to requiring four\naffirmative votes, by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft,\nOddie and Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of 90 seconds.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 27, 2018\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 12, "text": "The Base Reuse and Economic Development Manager gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer inquiry regarding the change in the buffer zones\ndisplayed, the Economic Development Manger outlined the buffer zone.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how many square feet are left on the main island.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded she does not know; stated locating\nany dispensaries in the main districts would be virtually impossible.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested confirmation that keeping the buffer zones the same is\na de facto prohibition, to which the Economic Development Manager responded a few\nsmall opportunities may be available, but the opportunity diminishes if martial arts\nstudios are included as youth centers.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if any buildings are available in the miniscule areas left\noutside the buffer zones, to which the Economic Development Manager responded she\ndoes not know; stated the building she is aware of are within the buffer zones.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry about the State law regarding youth\ncenters, the Economic Development Manager stated the State allows each City to make\nthe determination.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if a State law mandates a buffer zone around youth\ncenters, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if State law defines youth centers, to which the\nEconomic Development Manager responded State law has a definition cities may use,\nbut also gives the option to change the definition to become more or less stringent.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney\nstated the State Law definition is in the Health and Safety Code and is the current\ndefinition the City has, which reads: \"any public or private facility that is primarily used to\nhost recreational or social activities for minors including but not limited to private youth\nmembership organizations or clubs, social service teenage club facilities, video arcades\nor similar amusement park facilities.\"\nVice Mayor Vella stated there is ambiguity in the State definition.\nThe Assistant City Attorney concurred; stated the State is aware; the reason behind the\nambiguity is to allow cities to make the decision.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquired regarding ambiguous language, the Assistant\nCity Attorney stated many cities are struggling over how to specifically quantify\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nNovember 27, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 13, "text": "\"primarily\" in \"primarily used to host.\"\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the Council would not treat the definition of\nyouth center the same for Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) recreation\ncenters and a martial arts studio on Webster Street.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded there is more clarity surrounding the definition of\nparks than a martial arts studio.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if ARPD requested their centers be left out of\nthe definition, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if ARPD's protection would be removed by\nteaching martial arts, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if staff modified the State definition of youth center to\ninclude ARPD centers, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if Council could eliminate youth center as a sensitive\nuse and keep the ARPD centers.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded doing so is an option; stated the City would want\nto ensure certain federal enforcement priorities are effectuated.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the definition could instead read: \"a youth center is a\nfacility determined by the ARPD to be a recreation center\".\nMayor Spencer inquired what the State's recommendation is regarding distance from\nschools, to which the Economic Development Manager responded the State's\nrecommendation is at 600 feet.\nMayor Spencer inquired what is the City's proposed distance, to which the Economic\nDevelopment Manager responded 1000 feet.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether having the language read: \"a facility exclusively used\nto host recreational or social activities for minors\" would apply to ARPD, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated almost all recreation facilities, park events and\nclasses are offered to minors and adults; inquired if the criteria is a facility exclusively\nused by youth.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative, stated ARPD centers would be\ncarved out as protected.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there was discussion at a previous\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 27, 2018\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 14, "text": "meeting addressing minor enrollment percentages when listing a business as a youth\ncenter.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded the ordinance\ndefinition states if ARPD makes the determination that a City facility is a recreation\ncenter, the City has control over determining whether the facility should be construed as\na youth center; it is not a requirement; the City controls the discretionary decision;\nexpressed concern over private businesses documenting youth participation and how to\nenforce documentation; stated the City has no way of controlling how private\nbusinesses keep records; expressed further concern over the City's staffing capacity to\nundertake such significant enforcement.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of lowering the speaker's time from 90 seconds to one\nminute.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nUrged Council to adopt the least restrictive language possible: Carrie Tillman, Cannabis\nHealth Advocates.\nOutlined cannabis regulations and requirements which protect children: Mark Hirsman,\nPortman Enterprises.\nUrged the Council to move forward: Linda Asbury, West Alameda Business Association.\nUrged dispensaries be away from children: Anita Ng, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over dispensaries being near youth: Barry Parker, Alameda.\nStated cannabis should not be near youth centers: John Montgomery, Alameda.\nExpressed support for safe access to cannabis; urged martial arts businesses not be\nconsidered youth centers: Elizabeth Henry, Alameda.\nExpressed support for safe access to cannabis: April Alvarez, Alameda.\nExpressed support for small business owners; stated not changing the definition is a\nban; urged approval of the revision: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.\nUrged Council to consider the amendment: Jennifer Tran, Alameda.\nDiscussed dispensary operations: Terry Miller, Alameda.\nOutlined dispensary good neighbor policy requirements: John Ngu, Alameda.\nUrged approval; discussed a University of California, Los Angeles study and provided\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nNovember 27, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 15, "text": "statistics: Ryan Agabao, Alameda Safe Cannabis Access.\nDiscussed benefits of cannabis, which should be sold in grocery stores: Howard\nHarawitz, Alameda.\nSubmitted petitions; expressed concern over cannabis being near youth: Joanna Lau,\nInternational Chi Institute.\nExpressed support for the ordinance: Christina Ramirez, Alameda.\nDiscussed an online petition to support cannabis businesses and the importance of\neducating youth: Vivian Vu, Alameda.\nStated that he opposes cannabis businesses near youth centers; suggested the\ndispensary be delivery only: Wally Beaver, Alameda.\nDiscussed giving out free cannabis: Phillip Redd, Alameda.\nStated that he opposes the ordinance; dispensaries should not be next to students: Don\nSharrat, Alameda.\nExpressed support for cannabis: John F. Sikes, Alameda.\nStated cities that have embraced cannabis are now stepping back buffer zones: Serena\nChen, Alameda.\nStated businesses can co-exist: Josh Von Trap, Alameda.\nDiscussed the ages of his students and other uses near the institute: Yanging Ding,\nInternational Chi Institute.\nStated that he opposes the ordinance; suggested considering mixed use zones: Ben\nMickus, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over smoking and protecting youth from addiction: Mohammad\nAlekozai, Quba Mosque.\nStated that he opposes the dispensary location: Maaz Khan, Quba Mosque.\nExpressed concern over placing cannabis businesses near youth: Amanda Naprawa,\nPublic Health Institute.\nStated that he opposes the definition change: Shanon Lee, Alameda.\nStated that he supports cannabis businesses; urged the City should to follow the State\ndefinition: Aaron Kraw, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 27, 2018\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 16, "text": "Stated that he supports cannabis businesses, which are safe: Miguel Rodriguez, The\nGreen Door.\nExpressed concern over allowing cannabis businesses in Alameda: Adnan, Quba\nMosque.\nExpressed concern over kids being affected by smelling cannabis: Nagi Mohson, Quba\nMosque.\nStated the proposal does not provide a consideration of compromise; expressed\nconcerns: Cross Creason, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the proposed cannabis store location: Michelle Wong,\nAlameda.\nStated that she opposes opening a cannabis store next to the martial arts center: Qiao\nFeng Chen, Alameda.\nExpressed support for cannabis businesses: Nick Portolese, Portman Enterprises.\nExpressed support for the ordinance: Tyler Champlin, CN Holdings.\nStated that he opposes opening a cannabis store on Webster Street: Vincent Wu,\nAlameda.\nExpressed concern over targeting the International Chi Center: Rasheed Shabaaz,\nAlameda.\nUrged the Council to move forward: Rich Moskowitz, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there is a permit application in process based on the\nordinance originally passed; once that permit was made public, the location became\nknown; the item being discussed is not directly related to a particular business\napplication; the application will go through the standard process; members of the public\ncan speak at the Planning Board meeting; Council stopping a specific applicant from\ncontinuing through the permit process is not on the agenda; discussed a back-door\nattempt to ban cannabis businesses based on additional buffer zones; expressed\nconcern over a de facto ban.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she does not believe in spot zoning; no child is going to be\nentering a dispensary as it is strictly prohibited; discussed the good neighbor policies\nthat can work with the Planning Board processes; safe access is being looked into on\nthe East End and Park Street Business District; the difference between schools and\nyouth centers is a place that solely serves youth; expressed concern over delivery only\ndispensary options; outlined the benefits of adult use in addition to medicinal use.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nNovember 27, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft disagreed with Councilmember Oddie's statement\nrelated to the discussion at hand not being about the current permit application for a\ncannabis dispensary on Webster Street; expressed concern over modifying the\ndefinition of youth centers to the carve out process to allow the dispensary applicant to\nproceed on Webster Street; discussed ways to audit businesses in order to prove youth\nenrollment; stated changing the definition of youth centers is effectively spot zoning.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated calling out martial arts studios specifically in the\ndefinition of youth centers makes the issue about the Webster Street application;\ncannabis is still illegal from a federal standpoint and has not been cleared by the Food\nand Drug Administration (FDA); expressed concern over spot zoning to allow two\ncannabis permit applications to move forward.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired if the current agenda item will legally impact the application\non Webster Street, to which The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired if there would be liability for the City if the language is\nchanged after the fact, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded it is hard to say\nwhat an individual party will do, but it is a possibility.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated the application was\ndeemed to be in an eligible location under the current definition and will continue to\nmove through the process, which prompted the discussion about whether or not\nadjacent uses are primarily serving youth; the amendment will provide clarity for City\nstaff and ensure the regulation and implementation of the ordinance is clear; the item\npresented is not solely about the proposed dispensary at Haight Street and Webster\nStreet; there are a number of martial arts studios on Park Street as well; staff wants to\nknow the Council's direction to be clear for future Requests For Proposals (RFP) and\nproper execution of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the 100% youth service requirement would still stand\nif Council strikes the caveat for martial arts and dance studios, to which the Base Reuse\nand Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired if there is evidence that facilities serve 100% youth, to which\nthe Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded there are two\nbusinesses believed to only serve youths; stated that neither of the businesses\nmentioned are martial arts or dance studios.\n; Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether ARPD carve-out could be removed from the\nlanguage as well and instead state the location must exclusively provide services to\nyouths, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded in\nthe affirmative; stated it is possible to remove the recreation centers under the youth\ncenter definition; documenting whether martial arts studios, which are the most\nnumerous, would pose a challenge for staff to document and verify whether or not youth\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 27, 2018\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 18, "text": "are primarily and exclusively served.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry whether or not marital arts would fall under the\ncultural education definition, the Assistant City Attorney stated the only caveat is some\nmartial arts uses are not considered cultural, such as modern mixed marital arts, which\nwould qualify as a martial arts studio, but not a cultural education center.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated when the Planning Board conditional use permit\nhearing occurs, members of the public will be able to convey how they truly feel.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the definition is currently subject to interpretation; he\nappreciates the inquiry posed by Mayor Spencer.\nMayor Spencer inquired if it is possible to strike the language causing a double standard\nfor ARPD recreation centers, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated the fastest growing demographic for cannabis use is senior\ncitizens; the current status quo is not working; illegal sales are currently happening;\nurged access to safe, legal, lab-tested cannabis.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, with a friendly amendment directing staff to look\nat the good neighbor policy and work with all of the public who expressed concerns, as\nwell as those who support the item, to see if good guidelines can be created to ensure\noperators have guidance.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie moved approval of giving Councilmembers an\nadditional 30 seconds time.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nVice Mayor Vella outlined policies which stipulate people cannot smoke outside of a\ndispensary; stated, different penalties can occur, including license revocation; license\nrevocation through the conditional use permit process can be expedited in the instance\nof certain violations, which gives the neighbors next door to dispensary facilities an\nopportunity to weigh-in and express concerns.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry if the good neighbor policy is\nsomething Council can work on crafting, Vice Mayor Vella stated the direction would be\nto have staff look into the policy and come back to Council.\nMayor Spencer inquired if there is interest in striking the language referencing ARPD in\nthe definition of youth centers, to which Councilmember Oddie stated not at this time.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nNovember 27, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 19, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy\nAshcraft and Matarrese - 2.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(18-646) The Interim City Manager made an announcement regarding a recent fire at a\nAlameda Housing Authority projects; stated the State of California has allocated several\nmillion dollars to California counties to help with homelessness; Alameda County will\nallocating $16 million to cities; based on a formula Alameda will receive $756,524 in\none-time funds to help with homeless issues; options will return to Council in January;\nacknowledged the work and donations from the community relative to protecting citizens\nfrom the harmful air the past several days due to the Butte County fires; read a\nstatement related to the fires and air quality and provided information for donations.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(18-647) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Library Board and\nRent Review Advisory Committee. Not heard.\n(18-648) Vice Mayor Vella expressed her appreciation for staff's response; discussed a\nlead abatement litigation award; stated the City should be aware and might want to join\nthe fight.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the litigation took nine years and cities are only\nbeing given five years to spend the settlement; discussed staff's response to the air\nquality; noted United Way was also accepting donations.\nCouncilmember Oddie added his appreciation of staff's response.\nCouncilmember Matarrese expressed his appreciation of staff's response.\n(18-649) Mayor Spencer thanked the City Manager for working to ensure the City\nreceives its share of homeless funding; announced the upcoming art in City Hall\nreception and Midway Shelter run.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 27, 2018\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 20, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:59 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\n18\nNovember 27, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 27, 2018\nMinutes of a Special Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, November 27, 2018\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:56 p.m.\nPresent were:\nVice Chair Murray; Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah\nAbsent:\nNone\nProgram staff:\nJennifer Kauffman, Samantha Columbus\nCity Attorney staff: None\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\nNone.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\nNone.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. CASE 1063 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A311\nTenants: Yosief Philipos\nLandlords: Andy King\nProposed rent increase: $119.00 (10.0%), effective September 1, 2018\nMr. King said that Vue Alameda was purchased by new ownership in October 2017. He\nsaid the new ownership intended to address the deferred maintenance concerns of the\nresidents to make the property safer, as well as provide new amenities. He said the new\nowners have spent $3 million on improvements and expect the improvements to be\ncompleted by 2019. He explained that the owners are requesting a rent increase above\n5% to compensate for the additional services that are being provided to residents and to\nhelp cover some of the renovation expenses. Some examples of improvements include\nnew pedestrian and vehicle gates, additional storage space, a fitness center, a child\ncenter, propane barbeque equipment, a new roof, a new pool, new roofing, and new\nPage 1 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 27,2018\nlandscaping. Additionally, safety upgrades were made to the units with balconies,\nincluding seismic retrofitting for earthquake safety.\nVice Chair Murray asked about a discrepancy in the rent increase history provided at the\nunit and asked if he had any information on when the rent increases occurred and what\nthe circumstances for the rent increases were. Mr. King replied that when they took over\nthe property in 2017 there were a number of lease files that were incomplete.\nMr. Philipos stated that he has seen changes to the outside of apartments but no changes\ninside. He said his carpet was more than 15 years old and when he asked his previous\nlandlord to fix it they just covered up the parts that needed fixing. He also stated that\nthere are water leaks in the bathroom that has caused the floor to bubble up. He stated\nthe requested increase of 10% would pose a financial hardship, explaining that he is the\nonly person working in his family and has to take care of his mother.\nMr. King responded that tenants were encouraged to come to management with\nmaintenance issues, and that things like water leaks were considered a priority to fix.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. King if there were procedures in-place for maintenance\nrequests.\nMr. King stated that there were several ways to request a maintenance work, including\nan online submission form.\nMr. Philipos stated that he did not know about the online submission form but would use\nit to request maintenance work.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Philipos about the rent increase history details at the\nunit and Mr. Philipos said he could not recall.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked if Mr. Philipos' wife was able to work, and Mr. Philipos\nstated that she is able to but has not found work yet. He asked if Mr. Philipos is the sole\ncaretaker for his mother and Mr. Philipos said that he supports her financially.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Philipos what percentage of his income would go\ntowards his rent if the 10% increase went into effect. Mr. Philipos stated that it would be\ntoo much, and he would have to make adjustments to his lifestyle and budget to\naccommodate.\nVice Chair Murray asked what Mr. Philipos' occupation was, and he said he is an engineer.\nShe asked the maximum increase he could afford and he said $55.00.\nThe parties took a seat and the Committee deliberated.\nMotion and second for a $0 increase from September 1, 2018 through November 30,\n2018, followed by an increase of $100.00 from December 1, 2018 through August 31,\n2019 (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.\nPage 2 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 27, 2018\n7-B. CASE 1107 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A309\nTenants: Brandon Isaacson\nLandlords: Andy King\nProposed rent increase: $175.00 (10.0%), effective October 1, 2018\nMr. Isaacson said that this is the 2nd rent increase at his apartment in the past three\nyears, adding the improvements were more cosmetic than structural. He stated that there\nhave been no changes made to the inside of the apartment, and voiced concern over a\npossible safety hazard with a gap in between cement floors and railing in his unit.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked about the tenant's prior rent increases, and Mr. Isaacson\nsaid the rent had been raised 5% every year that he has been a resident.\nVice Chair Murray asked what effect the increase would have on Mr. Isaacson, and he\nstated that it would strain their finances; for example, that they were already putting off\nhaving car repairs done due to shortage of money.\nMember Griffiths asked how much of an increase he could afford and Mr. Isaacson replied\nhe could afford an increase of about $52, which coincided with the 2-3% increase in his\nsalary.\nThe parties took a seat and the Committee deliberated.\nMotion and second for a $0 increase from October 1, 2018 through November 30, 2018,\nfollowed by an increase of $100.00 from December 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019\n(Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.\nAt 8:10 p.m. the Committee agreed to take a five-minute break.\nAt 8:14 p.m., Vice Chair Murray made an announcement that given the time remained\nthey could only hear two more cases for the night, so they are going to defer two cases\n- Agenda Items 7-G and 7-I - to the next meeting.\n7-C. CASE 1108 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A310\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent\nincrease as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.\n7-D. CASE 1109 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A313\nTenant: Naza Hojic\nLandlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi\nProposed rent increase: $126.00 (9.9%), effective October 1, 2018\nPage 3 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 27,2018\nMr. Hojic stated he has lived in the unit for about ten years, and there have been no\nchanges made to the inside of his apartment during that time. He presented to the\nCommittee a picture of his bathtub, which he believed was in need of repair. He shared\nthat he had been without work for two months, and his wife was disabled and worked\npart-time, as they tried to raise a 10 year old daughter. He noted that the landlords had\nmade improvements to the outside of the property, but reiterated that no improvements\nhave been made to his unit.\nMr. King withdrew the rent increase, stating that he was not aware of the tenants'\ncircumstances.\n7-E. CASE 1110 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B101\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent\nincrease as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.\n7-F. CASE 1111 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B103\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent\nincrease as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.\n7-G. CASE 1112 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B202\nNo Committee review. Review of this case was postponed to a future meeting due to time\nconstraints.\n7-H. CASE 1115 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B301\nNo Committee review. The tenant presented evidence that she had received a rent\nincrease within the last twelve months and the landlord withdrew the rent increase\nrequest.\n7-I. CASE 1116 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B304\nNo Committee review. Review of this case was postponed to a future meeting due to time\nconstraints.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\nPage 4 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 27,2018\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked staff why City Attorney staff had been absent for several\nmeetings. Staff replied that the absences were due to the fact that the increased and\nirregularly-scheduled RRAC meetings sometimes ran concurrently with other meetings\nthat City Attorney staff had to attend, such as City Council meetings.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\na. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on January 23, 2019\nPage 5 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf"}