{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -FEBRUARY - 19, 2019--5:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:12 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(19-086) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section\n54956.8); Property: 120 W. Oriskany, Building 530, Alameda, CA 94501; City\nNegotiators: Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director, and Ted\nAnderson, Cushman & Wakefield; Negotiating Parties: Nautilus Data Technologies, Inc.\nand Hot Rod Shop Inc.; Issue Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment\n(19-087) Conference with Legal Counsel-Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to\nlitigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9; Number of\ncases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)\n(19-088) Conference with Legal Counsel-Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation\npursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, Subsection (c) Number of Cases: One\n(As Plaintiff- City of Alameda Initiating Legal Action)\n(19-089) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section\n54956.8); Property: Ballena Isle Upland Parcel APN 74-1025-3; City Negotiators: David\nL. Rudat, Interim City Manager; Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community\nDevelopment Director; Lois Butler, Economic Development Manager; Lisa Maxwell,\nAssistant City Attorney; Maurice Robinson, Maurice Robinson & Associates LLC;\nPotential Tenant: West River, Inc.; Current Tenant: SHM Ballena Isle, LLC Issue Under\nNegotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms\n(19-090) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code section 54957.6); City\nNegotiators: David L. Rudat, Interim City Manager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human\nResources Director; Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical\nWorkers, Local 1245 (IBEW), and Executive Management Employees (EXME); Under\nNegotiation: Salaries and Terms of Employment\n(19-091) Conference with Legal Counsel - Liability Claim; (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.95); Claimant: Jeffrey DelBono; Agency claimed against: City of Alameda\n[Note: Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft recused herself from the Liability Claim and left the meeting\nfrom 11:08 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.]\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 5, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 2, "text": "Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the Acting City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Building 530 and Significant exposure to litigation, the\nCouncil gave direction to staff with no vote taken; and regarding Initiation of Litigation,\ndirection was given to staff by unanimous voice vote.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 6:58 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:39\np.m.\nFollowing the reconvened Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the Acting\nCity Clerk regarding Ballena Isle Upland Parcel, the Council gave direction to staff by\nthe following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie Vella and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft - 4; Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1; regarding Labor, direction was\ngiven to staff with no vote taken; and regarding the Liability Claim, the Council voted to\napprove a settlement of the claim for $21,535, by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie and Vella - 4; Absent: Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft - 1.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:30\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nActing City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 5, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nCITY COUNCIL TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 19, 2019- -6:59 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. and Councilmember Oddie led\nthe Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(19-092) Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing Eric J. Levitt as City\nManager Effective April 12, 2019.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of the agreement appointing the new City\nManager.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nMr. Levitt made brief comments.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft briefly outlined Mr. Levitt's background.\nThe Council made brief comments welcoming Mr. Levitt.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:15\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nActing City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 19, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 4, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 19, 2019- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:16 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(19-093) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft the Nautilus lease [paragraph no. 19-111 was withdrawn\nfrom the agenda.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(19-094) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft did a reading for the Season of Non-Violence on\nforgiveness.\n(19-095) Proclamation Declaring February 2019 as Black History Month.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\n(19-096) Presentation by the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District.\nRyan Clausnitzer, Mosquito Abatement District, gave a Power Point presentation.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(19-097) Eric Strimling, Alameda Renters Coalition, outlined the last Rent Review\nAdvisory Committee meeting; noted more tenants are fighting back against 5%\nincreases.\n(19-098) Catherine Pauling, Alameda, Renters Coalition, stated March 31st is the 3rd\nanniversary of Ordinance No. 3148 and she has had an increase of $610 per month; the\nhousing crisis is getting worse from no-cause evictions; urged Council to conduct a\nreview and make changes.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is recusing himself from the Island City\nLandscaping and Lighting District resolution [paragraph no. 19-104].\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of the Island City Landscaping and Lighting\nDistrict resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 19, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Absent\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.]\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*19-099) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on January\n15, 2019; the Special Meetings Held on January 21, 2019, January 31, 2019 and\nFebruary 1, 2019; and the Continued January 31, 2019 Special City Council Meeting\nHeld on February 1, 2019. Approved.\n(*19-100) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,399,789.29.\n(*19-101) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Fourth\nAmendment with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., to Increase Compensation by\n$40,000, for a Total Aggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $134,999, to Continue\nProviding Technical and Strategic Engineering Support for Major Transportation\nProjects. Accepted.\n(*19-102) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Report for the Period Beginning\nJuly 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, on 1) Litigation and Liability Claims\nSettlements, and 2) Whether Any Records Previously Withheld from Disclosure Have\nNow Become Available to the Public. Accepted.\n(*19-103) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a One-\nYear Agreement, with the Option of Four One-Year Extensions, for an Amount,\nIncluding Contingency, not to Exceed $366,178, for a Total Five-Year Expenditure not\nto Exceed $1,905,604.88 to Schaaf & Wheeler for Engineering Design Services for\nStorm Drain Pump Station Electrical Upgrades. Accepted.\n(*19-104) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a First\nAmendment in the Amount of $9,500 with NBS for a Total Expenditure Under the\nAgreement, as Awarded, of $28,000 for Phase 2 of the Process to Ballot Property\nOwners for Assessment Increases in the Island City Landscaping and Lighting District\n84-2, Zone 4; and\n(*19-104A) Resolution No. 15490, \"Amending Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating Budget for\nthe Island City Landscape and Lighting District Zone 4 Fund.\" Adopted.\n(19-105) Resolution No. 15491, \"Appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-\nRecord for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 19, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 6, "text": "[Note: Councilmember Daysog recused himself.]\n(*19-106) Resolution No. 15492, \"Appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-\nRecord for Maintenance Assessment District 01-1 (Marina Cove).' Adopted.\n(*19-107) Resolution No. 15493, \"Approving a Compensation Plan Between Alameda\nMunicipal Power Unrepresented Management (AMPU) Employees and the City of\nAlameda for the Period Commencing December 27, 2018 through June 30, 2022.'\nAdopted.\n(*19-108) Resolution No. 15494, \"Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)\nBetween the City of Alameda and the Electric Utility Professionals Association of\nAlameda (EUPA) for a Forty-Two Month Term Commencing December 27, 2018, and\nEnding June 30, 2022.\" Adopted.\n(*19-109) Resolution No. 15495, \"Approving Parcel Map No. 10924 - A Parcel Map for\nthe Proposed Subdivision on a 2.81 Acre Parcel at 2175 North Loop Road into Two\nCommercial Condominium Units and to Create One Common Area Parcel for\nAssociated Parking and Landscaping.' Adopted.\n(*19-110) Resolution No. 15496, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute the\nLanding Rights Agreement License to Land at Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal by and\nBetween San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority and\nTideline Marine Group.\" Adopted.\n(19-111) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Negotiate\nand Execute a Fifteen-Year Lease with Ten- and Five-Year Options to Extend,\nSubstantially in the Form of the Attached, with Nautilus Data Technologies, Inc., a\nDelaware Corporation, for Building 530, an 82,251-Square Foot Building Located at 120\nWest Oriskany Avenue, and the Adjacent Building 600, an 343-Square Foot Building, at\nAlameda Point. Not heard.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(19-112) Public Hearing to Consider the Formation of the Otis/Broadway Underground\nUtility District (UUD); and\n(19-112 A) Resolution No. 15497, \"Establishing the Otis/Broadway Underground Utility\nDistrict.\" Adopted.\nThe Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) Project Manager gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is other value added to undergrounding\nutilities besides aesthetic.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 19, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 7, "text": "The Project Manager responded in the affirmative; outlined the safety benefits of\nundergrounding.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether underground wiring could be damaged due to\nseismic shifting from an earthquake.\nThe Project Manager stated damage is possible based on the earthquake magnitude.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated property owners are concerned about the cost of\nmaintenance for underground wiring; inquired whether the homeowner is responsible for\nthe cost.\nThe Project Manager responded current service laterals are owned by the property\nowner; outlined accessibility differences between above-ground utilities and\nunderground utilities; stated encountering a failure of service laterals is rare.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated AMP will cover the cost of undergrounding except in\ninstances where the service lateral exceeds 100 feet; requested an example of when\nthe service lateral would exceed 100 feet.\nThe Project Manager stated the exception would be very rare in Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the property owner would bear the entire cost of\nundergrounding or just a portion if the service lateral exceeds 100 feet.\nThe Project Manager responded the property owner would pay for the amount beyond\n100 feet.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there has been report of damage to a home\nfoundation from undergrounding utilities, to which the Project Manager responded in the\nnegative.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired about increases to insurance costs.\nThe Project Manager responded AMP has been contemplating having insurance for\nservice laterals, but is not moving forward at this time.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the service area is specific to Otis Drive and Broadway.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the survey responses from the staff report only\nincluded responses from Webster Street.\nThe Project Manager stated responses should have included both Webster Street and\nBroadway.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 19, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the response rate of 10 to 15% is common.\nThe Project Manager responded the previous program was suspended in 2012; stated\nthe response rate is consistent for the year.\nDiscussed working with policy established by Council to get an underground district;\noutlined Public Utilities Board (PUB) meetings; urged support from Council; Jerry\nServenti, PUB.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(19-113) Resolution No. 15498, \"Approving a Change in Dental Benefits for Public\nSafety Retirees Who Currently Receive Dental Benefits Through Memorandas of\nUnderstanding with the City of Alameda's Four Public Safety Bargaining Units\n(International Association of Firefighters, Alameda Fire Chiefs Association, Alameda\nPolice Officers Association and Alameda Police Management Association) Effective\nJanuary 1, 2019.' Adopted.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a liability cost to the City's Other Post-Employment\nBenefits (OPEB) of roughly $630,000 for 2019 that will continue to grow if not funded;\nthe goal is to help the City remain solvent.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the Actuary is present to answer questions.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the $600,000 liability figure is annual or over\ntime.\nLuis Murillo, Nyhart Consulting, responded the figure is over time.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the amount is cumulative over the long-term\nand over how many years.\nMr. Murillo responded in the affirmative; stated approximately 30 years at roughly\n$25,000 per year.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the amount continues to increase over time if not regularly\npaid.\nMr. Murillo stated the figure is an estimate; the actual figure will vary based on how\nmany retirees take the dental benefit; assets will offset the $630,000 liability if funded.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted $630,000 over 30 years is roughly $21,000 annually.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 19, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(19-114) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending: (1) Section 2-17 of Chapter Il (Administration) to Revise the Housing and\nBuilding Code Hearing and Appeals Commission; (2) Section 1-7.9 of Chapter\nI\n(General) to Revise Hearing Procedures for General Municipal Code Violations; and (3)\nSection 2-44.1 of Chapter Il to Change the Title Chief Building Inspector to Building\nOfficial. Not heard.\n(19-115) Recommendation to Discuss and Potentially Take Action Concerning the Open\nGovernment Commission's (OGC) Decision Directing that Ordinance Nos. 3227 and\n3228 (Relating to Cannabis Businesses) are \"Null and Void\", including Without\nLimitation Any Combination of the Following: (1) Take No Action, thereby Confirming\nthat Ordinance Nos. 3227 and 3228 Remain in Full Force and Effect, (2) Adopt a Motion\nto Implement the Open Government Commission's Null-and-Void Decision, thereby\nExpressing Council's Concurrence that the Ordinances are Null and Void, (3) Direct\nStaff to Notice a Public Hearing Concerning the Repeal (if necessary) of Ordinance\nNos. 3227 and 3228 and/or the Replacement of Such Ordinances With the Same or\nSimilar Provisions, (4) Direct Staff to Prepare Amendments to the Sunshine Ordinance\nto Address Concerns Noted in this Agenda Report, including the Exhibit Files, or Raised\nat the Meeting, or (5) Any Other Related Actions Proposed by Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog recused himself; requested the Interim City Attorney explain\nwhy he does not have to recuse himself.\nThe Interim City Attorney stated while Councilmember Daysog had been previously\nadvised to recuse himself from the item due to the location of a specific applicant\nrelative to Councilmember Daysog's personal residence, an exception to that from the\nCalifornia Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), called a Public Generally\nException, allows participation; outlined the Public Generally Exception.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the phrase \"Public Generally\" conflicts with the Request\nfor Proposals (RFP) process; the situation is unique, with a limited number of cannabis\noperations selected in the City of Alameda falling below the FPPC 25% Public Generally\nthreshold, he should recuse himself; left the dais.\nThe Interim City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether Councilmember Daysog's recusal is not\nmandated and would be treated as an effective abstention; what is the impact on the\noverall vote.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded it is considered an abstention.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 19, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Vella inquired whether three votes are needed to affirmatively take\naction, to which the Interim City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like an explanation of the complaint filed.\nThe Interim City Attorney outlined the previous complaint filed and the Open\nGovernment Commission (OGC) meeting discussion.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the staff report contains pertinent information related to\nthe agenda topic.\nThe Interim City Attorney stated the Sunshine Ordinance outlines the required agenda\ntitle, as opposed to the content of the staff report.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how Council will ensure the decision is \"bulletproof\" for\nthe next agenda.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded there is no guarantee of being \"bulletproof.\"\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the agenda item itself is not about cannabis; inquired\nwhether staff's opinion is if no action is taken, which is Option 1, the October 16th\nCouncil action continues to stand, to which the Interim City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Knox White outlined the history of the Sunshine Ordinance and the OGC;\nstated that he is unclear of staff's legal authority to decide that the null and void\nprovision in the Sunshine Ordinance did not happen; inquired whether staff may\narbitrarily decide that an action did not happen.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded this is the first time since adoption of the ordinance\nthat the null and void remedy was used by the Commission; stated the City Attorney's\noffice is obligated to provide the best legal advice at the given time.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the agenda requirements do not state \"title\" under the\nSunshine Ordinance; outlined Alameda Municipal Code Section 2-95.5 of the Sunshine\nOrdinance; stated the reason for enacting the Sunshine Ordinance was to help alleviate\noverly legalese agenda titles; inquired why agenda titles should be listed in long-hand\nform in order to be compliant.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded it is a matter of interpretation; stated staff advised\nthe OGC that the title did satisfy the Sunshine Ordinance, but the Commission\nconcluded differently; titles should be brief and concise that people with average\nintelligence can comprehend.\nCouncilmember Vella stated there is a disconnect between what is being conveyed from\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 19, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 11, "text": "the OGC versus what is being said at Council; outlined the OGC's decision and staff\nreport exhibit provided; inquired where in the 450 page exhibit the conversation of title\nrequirement comes up.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded the decision of the OGC related to title is shown on\npages 452-455.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the OGC's upholding of the complaint was not because\nthe title was not specific enough, it was due to the title being so specific that a\nreasonable reader would not expect that the decision would consist of additional items;\nthe idea of having more specific agenda items is the opposite of what is being\nrequested.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the issue is being too specific or not specific\nenough; discussed the February 4th and December 17th OGC meeting agenda titles.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded that his understanding is that the agenda title was\nnot specific enough; concerning the first complaint, it did not adequately describe the\naction Council eventually took; the lack of specificity also related to the second\ncomplaint, because the agenda did not indicate that if Council took no action, the\nordinances in question would remain in full force and effect.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he recalls asking the City Attorney for an opinion on\nwhether or not the discussion points being reviewed were compliant with the Brown Act.\nThe Interim City Attorney stated the City Attorney responded and Council proceeded.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how disputes are resolved.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded if the violation falls under the Brown Act, a\ncomplaint may be filed asking Council to reconsider its action; if Council does not\nreconsider, there is a judicial proceeding that follows, and if the court finds there was\nnot substantial compliance with the Brown Act, the court can set aside the action.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Interim City Attorney stated it is a\njudicial court proceeding.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired the basis of the opinion for the repeal of the null and\nvoid being not authorized.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded the State constitution and the City Charter vest in\nthe City Council the authority to both adopt and repeal ordinances.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated nothing could stop Council from putting something in an\nordinance that violates either the City Charter or the Constitution and would not be\nrepealed until brought to attention.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 19, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 12, "text": "The Interim City Attorney stated that is where Council is today.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated just because something is passed, it does not make it\nlegal and legitimate.\nDiscussed being an advocate of the Sunshine Task Force; expressed concern that the\nruling on the ordinance is premature; urged Council to separate the items and have\nindependent counsel review to avoid a conflict of interest: Karen Butter, League of\nWomen Voters.\nUrged Council to reaffirm the ordinances as written to avoid litigation: Mark Hersman,\nPortman Enterprises.\nExpressed a desire to file a complaint against the Sunshine Ordinance; stated the issue\nis a political attack on cannabis: Phil Redd, Alameda.\nStated Council must keep things straight; there has been confusion created by Council\nand staff; urged Council to solve the problem, gain clarity and move forward: Don\nSherratt, Alameda.\nDiscussed facing more delays and uncertainty; urged Council to take no action to keep\nOrdinances 3227 and 3228 in effect: Tyler Champlain, CN Holdings.\nStated the item is not about cannabis; it is most important for Council to make the item\nseparate from cannabis; urged Council to table item and make it solely about the\nSunshine Ordinance: Irene Dieter, Alameda.\nStated the issue came about when a second reading was not re-made to be a first vote;\nthe item would be resolved had that occurred; discussed the importance of open\ngovernment and transparency: Serena Chen, Alameda.\nStated it is not right to give the OGC authority to question City Attorney decisions and\ndirections: Ryan Agabao, Alamedans for Safe Cannabis Access (ASCA).\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with the public comment related to\ndiscussing items separately.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the item does not direct what Council can do with the OGC\ncomplaint itself; there is the active issue of the complaint and the ordinances in\nquestion; the discussion should occur; the City Charter has given the power to enact\nordinances to the Council, with no provision included that the Council can delegate that\nto a body; staff should return at a separate meeting to discuss the OGC item.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will be appointing a subcommittee of the Council to\nwork with City staff to look at the Sunshine Ordinance and possible changes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 19, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Vella stated a public workshop should be held instead; expressed\nconcern about the OGC being held to a different standard and a lack of transparency;\noutlined OGC agenda items and titles which were unclear about the topic to be\ndiscussed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a priority setting workshop scheduled in less than\none month; the issue should be included in the workshop.\nCouncilmember Vella stated many different issues have been raised by both Council\nand the public; having a workshop would be worthwhile.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is looking to expedite the process; a workshop will\ntake longer to schedule; a subcommittee would be a quicker option, but she is open to a\nworkshop; inquired the next steps.\nCouncilmember Vella responded that she would like staff to notice a public hearing\nconcerning the replacement and/or repeal of the ordinances with the same or similar\nprovisions to be heard at a future meeting; re-agendizing the item as a first reading will\nallow for public comment; requested holding off on any RFP until direction is clarified\nthrough direction of the Council; stated Council can repeal any ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated a workshop is needed; finding a remedy is key and a\ndecision needs to be made whether Council has authority to perform the remedy;\ninquired what Council may do at the workshop; stated if the guidance from the OGC is\nto not stray from the agenda content and title, then Council does not have authority to\nmake any changes; expressed concern about setting a precedent for an unelected body\nto designate items as null and void and create political issues; outlined potential future\nconflicts; expressed concern about confusion related to Council's authority; expressed\nsupport of Option 1 and 3, respectively.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the structure of the upcoming workshop\nthought out.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the issue is difficult; applicants have invested time and\nmoney and should have a response from Council as soon as possible; the OGC is\nappointed and empowered by Council to oversee decisions as a citizen voice; figuring\nout rules and process is key to ensure every issue is agendized appropriately and in the\nsame way; suggested the City Clerk and City Attorney offices reach out to the OGC to\nfind out how the Commission interprets the Sunshine Ordinance; inquired whether the\nrisk of litigation is still present if no action is taken.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated if Council takes no action\nto implement the OGC's decision of last year, Ordinances 3227 and 3228 remain in full\nforce and effect, leaving to the validity of the ordinances open to legal challenges.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 19, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 14, "text": "Vice Mayor Knox White stated a decision must be made to move the item forward;\ninquired whether staff has enough direction to come back with a repeal and replace\noption.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded that staff will bring back Ordinances 3227 and\n3228 as well as incorporate any amendments made since that time, as part of what\nCouncil will review to decide what to do with the ordinances in question.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he agrees with Councilmember Vella, but does not\nwant to give direction on the RFP process.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Option 3, to agendize as quick as possible,\nrepeal and replace to move the item forward and have it on the agenda, and to get to a\nfinal copy that everyone agrees has been passed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see staff look at a bifurcated definition\nof youth centers, depending on whether it is denoted by activity, and run by the City or a\nprivate entity.\nThe Interim City Attorney stated said issue may be added as a topic in the agenda title\nas well as in the agenda materials if Council so directs.\nCouncilmembers Oddie and Vella stated that is not Council direction.\nVice Mayor Knox White repeated his motion: to direct staff to notice a public hearing at\nthe next possible meeting concerning the repeal and replacement of Ordinance Nos.\n3227 and 3228 with the same or similar provisions, noticed in such a way that Council\nmay have a discussion.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Vella stated that she does not want to undo the item;\nshe would like a clean process, and to re-agendize for first hearing in accordance with\ntransparency that the Sunshine Ordinance requires; she would like to move forward with\na second reading at some point.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for the motion; stated if Council moves\nforward with a first and second reading, the spirit of the Sunshine Ordinance is\nrecognized without agreeing with the remedy; steps should be taken to re-notice the\nitem in a way critical to the motion.\nOn the call for the question the motion passed by the unanimous voice vote: 4 [Absent -\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.]\nCouncilmember Vella stated having the issue agendized at the priority setting meeting,\nnot to give direction, but to weigh in on what points or portions of the Sunshine\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 19, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 15, "text": "Ordinance Council wants to discuss, would be acceptable.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff needs direction.\nCouncilmember Vella directed staff to include the topic at the priority setting workshop.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated a new City Attorney is to be hired soon; with this being\nthe first time a Sunshine Ordinance complaint has come forward, it is not expected to be\nseen again; if it does occur again, the item should come to Council immediately; there is\nno rush to fix things; waiting for the new City Attorney to be on the same page with\nCouncil's intentions might make sense.\nCouncilmember Vella stated Council should do both: openly speak about where\nconcerns may lie, not necessarily what the conclusions are or what the solution should\nbe\nand, then, a workshop should be held at a point in time where the new City Attorney\nis present to have a more robust conversation.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with the idea of a workshop; the discussion\nshould include all five Councilmembers; he is happy to work with Councilmember Vella\nas part of a subcommittee, but is also open to a group workshop; guidance is needed\nfrom staff to ensure items are agendized correctly; expressed concern over Sunshine\nOrdinance violations being used as a tool or weapon.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the workshop could be a joint meeting with the OGC.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated there is a memo related to null and void that was issued;\nthere have been requests for the memo to be made public; the legal risk is low, but he\nwould like to agendize discussion of the memo ahead of the meeting in closed session\nto discuss what the OGC can and cannot do.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(19-116) Consider Establishing a Finance Commission and an Infrastructure\nCommission. (Councilmember Daysog)\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is amenable to placing his referral on the Priority\nSetting workshop in March.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 19, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-02-19", "page": 16, "text": "COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(19-117) Vice Mayor Knox White announced that he and Councilmember Daysog met\nwith Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) Board Members Daley and Williams at the\nCity Council/School Board subcommittee; discussed Emma Hood pool closure,\nappointing subcommittee members, use of Homeless Emergency Aid Program's\n(HEAP) funding, partnering on the homeless outreach team Community and Regional\nEconomic Support (CARES) and Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB),\nuse of Park and Recreation facilities, and AUSD annual capital work plan.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated serving on the Subcommittee is a pleasure; the pool\nissue is a huge upcoming issue.\n(19-118) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Recreation and\nParks Commission, Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) and\nTransportation Commission.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Aimee Barnes to the Recreation and Parks\nCommission, Pravda Wright to the Social Service Human Relations Board, and\nRebecca Kohlstrand Parsons and Tina Yuen to the Transportation Commission.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:32\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nActing City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nFebruary 19, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf"}