{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nUESDAY--NOVEMBER 7, 2017--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Roll Call was done during Agenda Changes.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(17-647) Councilmember Oddie expressed concern over the number of speakers for the\ncannabis [paragraph no. 17-669 and transportation [paragraph no. 17-666 items;\nsuggested moving the items up on the agenda.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would not support hearing the items above the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like the two items be moved to the top of\nthe regular agenda.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of hearing the cannabis item after the public\nhearing [paragraph no. 17-666 and the transportation plan.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is agreeable to hearing\nthe cannabis item after the pension item.\nOn 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.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(17-648) The Community Development Director introduced the new Rent Program\nDirector, Suzanne Warner.\nMs. Warner made brief comments.\n(17-649) Proclamation Declaring November 15, 2017 as America Recycles Day.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to John Lipp and Janet Davis,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 2, "text": "Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter; and Chris Valbusa and Kelli Pellegrini, Alameda\nCounty Industries.\nMr. Lipp made brief comments.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(17-650) Teresa Onoda, Town of Moraga Mayor; Bruce Burns, Moraga School District\nSuperintendent; Dave Trotter, Town of Moraga Councilmember; and Wendy Scheck,\nMoraga Chamber of Commerce President, submitted letters and expressed support for\nCity Manager Jill Keimach.\n(17-651) On behalf of the Department Heads, the Police Chief made a statement in\nsupport of the City Manager; listed the many accomplishments of the City under the\ndirection of the City Manager.\n(17-652) Nancy Hird, Save Alameda's Working Waterfront, discussed Alameda Marina;\nurged Council to revert zoning from mixed use back to industrial to encourage maritime\ndevelopment.\n(17-653) Mayor Spencer moved approval of hearing two more speakers.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n***\n(17-654) Eric Stimmling, Alameda, discussed a pedestrian being struck by a vehicle;\nurged Council to change streets to slow cars down and save lives.\n(17-655) Arnold Brillinger, Alameda, discussed the paratransit shuttle.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the Universal Design Ordinance [paragraph no. 17-662]\nwas removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Oddie 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(*17-656) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings Held on October 3, 2017.\nApproved.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 3, "text": "(*17-657) Ratified bills in the amount of $10,140,056.00.\n(*17-658) Resolution No. 15321, \"Reclassifying an Administrative Services Coordinator\nFull Time Equivalent Position to a Management Analyst Full Time Equivalent Position in\nthe Community Development Department.\" Adopted.\n(*17-659) Ordinance No. 3195, \"Amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-25\nAppeals of Calls for Review.\" Finally passed.\n(*17-660) Ordinance No. 3196, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Ground\nLease Agreement Between Eden Housing, Inc., and the City of Alameda for a 70-Unit\nFamily Affordable Housing Project on Block 8 within Site A at Alameda Point.\" Finally\npassed.\n(*17-661) Ordinance No. 3197, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Ground\nLease Agreement Between Eden Housing, Inc., and the City of Alameda for a 60-Unit\nSenior Affordable Housing Project on Block 8 within Site A at Alameda Point.\" Finally\npassed.\n(17-662) Ordinance No. 3198, \"Amending Alameda Municipal Code to Add Section 30-\n18 Universal Residential Design.\" Finally passed.\nThanked staff for the work on the Universal Design Ordinance: Beth Kenny, Alameda.\nStated universal design is not only for disabled people: Arnold Brillinger, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(*17-663) Ordinance No. 3199, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nChapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Update and Improve the Regulations Governing the\nPublic Art Ordinance.\" Finally passed.\n(*17-664) Ordinance No. 3200, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nSection 2-19 (Commission on Disability Issues) to Change the Name to Commission on\nDisability.' Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(17-665) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15322, \"Amending Master Fee\nResolution No. 12191 to Revise Fire Department Transport Fees.\" Adopted.\nThe Interim Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 4, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there would be any changes to the process and\ninsurance coverage, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(17-666) Public Hearing to Consider Adopting the Draft Transportation Choices Plan\nand Approve a Six-Month Extension to the CDM Smith Consultant Team Contract.\nThe Base Reuse Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Base Reuse Director explained the process\nof approval and input for the projects; continued the presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry about the proposal for an Island\nDrive bus lane, the Base Reuse Director stated there is a proposal for a dedicated bus\nlane on Island Drive for approximately 0.6 miles without taking any vehicular lanes.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the median or trees would be removed,\nto which the Base Reuse Director responded in the negative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff has reached out to the Homeowner\nAssociations (HOAs).\nThe Base Reuse Director responded HOAs have been included in emails.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff has informed HOAs that the trees would not be\nremoved, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired about the Uber pool and Lyft line programs.\nThe Transportation Coordinator responded the program is cutting edge and will be\nconsidered in the future.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether ride share programs utilizing the City's parking lots\nare being monitored.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the negative; stated staff can add the program\nto the plan.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what is the impact to the park and ride parking lots using\ndifferent shuttles and buses and whether staff addresses the issue in the plan.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 5, "text": "The Base Reuse Director responded park and ride lots are full and shuttles are not in\nthe plan.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff is monitoring or having companies pay for using\nthe City's resources as part of the plan.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded a parking management plan is reviewing the park\nand ride issue.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what is the timeline for safe bike and pedestrian access to the\nMain Street ferry terminal.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the Main Street gap project is not in the current\nbudget.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what the dedicated staff resources are to the\ntransportation plan.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded that she believes there is enough staff to\nimplement the projects; if there is a desire to move the projects along faster, funds\nwould need to be obtained for more staffing.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what is the status of the Water Emergency\nTransportation Authority (WETA) and clipper cards.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded people can use the clipper card for the free\ntransfer between the ferry and busses.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the clipper card can be used on the ferry.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded that if passengers transfer from the bus to the ferry\nusing a clipper card, the bus ride is free and will registers on the clipper card.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding funding cuts, the Base Reuse\nDirector responded budget cuts are less likely to occur when there are joint resources.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what is the cost of the interisland shuttle.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the cost is $10 to $11 million annually; stated a\nsmall residential parcel tax or congestion pricing could be options to pay for the cost.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the plan addresses bike access to Main Street and\nbike access to and across the Fruitvale Bridge.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the plan is to fund both projects in the next mid-\nyear budget cycle; the Fruitvale Bridge proposal makes the approach more multimodal.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 6, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella inquired what are the traffic calming project priorities.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded traffic calming is in the Capital Improvement\nProgram (CIP); stated staff anticipates bringing the initial traffic calming projects to the\nTransportation Commission in January.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the projects will be determined only by the\nTransportation Commission or whether they would need to come to Council, to which\nthe Base Reuse Director responded traffic calming typically only goes to the\nTransportation Commission.\nVice Mayor Vella requested information be provided regarding the timeline for the\nprojects.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether anything is being done at the\nintersection of Constitution Way and Eagle Avenue.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the intersection is on the traffic calming list.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the City does not support all transit\nproviders and provide a clipper card instead of easy passes.\nBill Hurrell, CDM Smith, responded using the clipper card requires cooperation from\nother transit agencies and the financial mechanism is more complicated; the easy pass\nis simple.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff to continue to review ways to have a\nprogram that utilizes multiple transit agencies.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the Council is being asked tonight.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the ask is to approve the plan with the\nTransportation Commission and Planning Board amendments; stated staff will be\ntransparent and engage the community prior to implementing any projects.\nMayor Spencer inquired what Council is approving tonight, to which the Base Reuse\nDirector responded Council is being asked to approve a plan that will be further\nevaluated through a community process.\nMayor Spencer inquired specifically what Council is being asked to approve.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded that Council is being asked whether staff should\nreview specific items in the plan.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 7, "text": "Mr. Hurrell responded that he has the data, but itis not in the report.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like the data prior to making a decision.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the data is not relevant to the plan.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether any change in the plan would return to Council, to\nwhich the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 8:51 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 8, "text": "(17-667) Mayor Spencer moved approval of moving the pension report to November\n21st\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which failed by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmember Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy\nAshcraft, Matarrese and Vella - 3.\nStated the AC Transit Board is supportive of the general outline of the plan: Chris\nPeeple, AC Transit Board.\nStated AC Transit is willing to operate the shuttle service provided the City of Alameda\nfunds the annual operating costs: Elsa Ortiz, AC Transit Board.\nExpressed concern over the cost challenges of the Greater Alameda Business\nAssociation (GABA) shuttle proposal: Robert Del Rosario, AC Transit.\nGave a Power Point presentation on aerial gondolas: Randy Woolwine.\nUrged Council to make the shuttle a priority: Tony Kuttner, GABA.\nStated that he supports a shuttle in Alameda: Ed Owens, GABA.\nGave a Power Point presentation on aerial tramways: Andrea Wuttke, Castro Valley.\nUrged Council to complete the shuttle proposal earlier rather than later: Dania Alvarez,\nGABA.\nStated that she would like staff to reach out to the community prior to implementing\nprojects: Dawn Jaeger, Community of Harbor Bay Isle.\nStated more people should be willing to ride Alameda transit options: Peter Fletcher,\nAlameda.\nSuggested a vehicle, ferry or another transit agency be able to compete against AC\nTransit: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.\nStated the Chamber supports GABA's plan; urged Council to make the Alameda free\nshuttle a priority: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.\nUrged Council to add more buses: Jeanne Nader, Alameda.\nUrged Council to make the shuttle more of a priority: Cheri Johansen, Alameda\nProgressives.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 9, "text": "Urged Council include a cross island bus service, increase and improve the frequency\nof rides and expand the easy pass: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda.\nExpressed concern with on and off Island access for bicyclists: Ani Dimusheva,\nAlameda.\nStated that she supports the plan and easy pass access for all Alamedans: Cheri\nCorfey, Alameda resident and GABA.\nUrged Council to make Alameda more bicycle friendly: Doug Bloch, Alameda resident\nand Teamsters Union.\nStated that she supports the Alameda shuttle; noted street light stickers were distributed\nto members of the audience in support of the Alameda shuttle: Lorre Zuppan, Alameda.\nSuggested staff decouple and emphasize interim bike lanes for ferry terminal access to\nMain Street; stated staff should evaluate access from the Fruitvale Bridge and prioritize\nmaking Alameda streets safer for bicyclists and pedestrians: Brian McGuire, Bike Walk\nAlameda.\nUrged Council to make transit more important; stated that he supports the plan: Jon\nSpangler, Alameda.\nUrged Council to support the shuttle program: Sam Hensley.\nStated that she supports the Alameda shuttle; suggested a transportation tax to fund the\nAlameda free shuttle: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nMayor Spencer stated that she did not vote to hire the consultant; she does not support\nthe entire plan; suggested having a team analyze how to make the free shuttle happen\nwhile still working on other transportation issues, like bicycle access on and off the\nIsland; stated that she supports a tax to make the shuttle a priority.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to make safer bicycle access\nto the ferry a priority; she would like more bike racks around town; she supports a\nbike/pedestrian bridge on the West End.\n(17-668) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items;\nmoved approval of hearing the cannabis item [paragraph no 17-669].\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not want to make\nimportant decisions late at night.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 10, "text": "prohibition can be placed on cannabis until it is done correctly; the pension item is very\nimportant to the long term stability of the City; the MARAD lease is important to\nAlameda Point.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would be in favor of hearing the cannabis item as well\nas the pension and MARAD items.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would support only hearing the cannabis\nand pension items.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmember Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft,\nMatarrese and Vella - 3.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the cannabis and pension items.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4.\nNoes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\n***\nVice Mayor Vella stated there were a lot of contradictory requests from speakers;\nstressed the importance of having another West End crossing; stated that she would\nlike a bus and carpool only crossing into Oakland from the West End; there should be a\ncharge for parking at the ferry lots; there needs to be a bike lane filling the gap to Main\nStreet; she supports the shuttle but would like to address the problems that keep people\nin single occupancy vehicles; more charging stations are needed; traffic calming\nmeasures need to be a priority for the safety of children and pedestrians; she would like\nthe Main Street gap and the West End crossing moved up in priority.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the bike paths and additional bus routes to the Main\nStreet ferry station need to be prioritized; he would like staff to prioritize the traffic\ncalming measures; staff, AC Transit and GABA should work together on the shuttle\nidea; the West End crossing should be a priority; he would like frequent updates on the\nplan; he would like the ferries to remain a priority.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like clarification on whether the\ndocument is a living document and how items are funded from the list; he would like\nawareness to be the number one priority; expressed concern with the assumptions\nbeing made regarding the traffic calming measures; stated that he would like the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 11, "text": "General Plan Transportation Element updated; he would like the speed limit on Main\nStreet and Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway to be 25 mph; he would like the shuttle\nto be put into the plan; he would like to elevate the role of the Transportation\nCommission; stressed the need to frequently evaluate and change the plan as needed.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether certain items can be eliminated; whether a motion\ncould be made with the addition of frequent reviews or if the item could return without\nhaving public comment.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he will not vote for the item as is; he would like\nthe item to return with explicit direction on how the plan will be used.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether having the item return to Council without public\ncomment is a possibility.\nVice Mayor Vella suggested a transportation workshop be held every year to receive an\nupdate on the plan.\nCouncilmember Matarrese expressed support for Vice Mayor Vella's suggestion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of adopting the draft Transportation\nChoices Plan with the addition of information from Councilmember Matarrese: to have a\nreport return to Council with a better description in the introduction, awareness being a\ntop priority, base data to support that adding a bus line on Island Drive is worth $2\nmillion to save 3 minutes, the General Plan Transportation Element be updated, Main\nStreet and Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway have a 25 mile an hour speed limit,\nreview of congestion pricing, adding a shuttle to the plan as an exploratory item and a\nreview every six months; stated that she supports holding a transportation workshop;\ninquired whether the workshop would be in conjunction with the review.\nVice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative, stated the workshop would allow for a\nmore in depth conversation.\nMayor Spencer inquired about adding the Oakland data.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she believes the data is already in the\nreport and can be highlighted.\nMayor Spencer stated the definition of congestion pricing needs to be clarified.\nThe City Manager responded language can be added.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion includes Vice Mayor Vella's\ncomment to hold a Transportation Workshop, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft\nresponded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 12, "text": "***\n(17-669) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nVice Mayor Vella requested a friendly amendment to the motion that the Main Street\ngap become a priority.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated all comments from Council should be incorporated\ninto the motion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the motion means the Transportation\nChoices Plan will not be approved as written tonight and that items will be added and\nthat will be what Council is approving.\nThe City Manager responded Council could make a conditional approval, staff would\nmake redline changes and bring the matter back on the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese agreed with doing so.\nThe City Manager stated if anything is missed by staff, Council can remove the item\nfrom the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether anything added will return to Council with\nredline and will return on Consent Calendar at the next Council meeting, to which the\nCity Manager responded the item will not return at the next Council meeting.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated staff will incorporate the changes with a redline version\nand bring the item back on the Consent Calendar.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification whether Council agrees to make GABA's idea of\nthe shuttle a first priority.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded the motion includes Councilmember\nMatarrese's proposal to add the proposed shuttle into the plan for exploratory purposes;\nstated phrasing does not mean the shuttle will definitely be done.\nThe City Manager stated the word exploratory means looking into funding.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is suggesting to have AC\nTransit partner with GABA, which is not GABA's proposal, to which Councilmember\nOddie responded the two agencies should have a discussion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 13, "text": "The Base Reuse Director noted GABA has not ruled out partnering with AC Transit.\nMayor Spencer requested other options be explores, not only working with AC Transit.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated AC Transit being open to cost sharing might be the\nperfect solution to eliminate a lot of single occupancy rides.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded that she heard a lot of different options; staff will\naddress the issues and speak with GABA and AC Transit before returning to Council.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer\n- 1.\nThe City Attorney noted a contract extension also needs to be approved.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the contract extension.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes:\nMayor Spencer - 1.\n(17-669) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding a\nNew Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses) to Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and\nIndustries). Introduced;\n(17-669A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Sections 24-11 (Smoking Prohibitions in Places of Employment and\nUnenclosed Public Places) and 24-12 (Smoking Prohibitions in Housing). Introduced;\nand\n(17-669B) Recommendation to Authorize Staff to Conduct a Fee Study to Determine the\nCost of Implementing the Cannabis Regulatory Program.\nThe Community Development Director provided revised ordinances.\nMayor Spencer expressed concern with the number of speakers and the time for each\nspeaker; suggested allowing two minutes per speaker.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of allowing 90 seconds for each speaker.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4.\nNoes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\nThe Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 14, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Where As clauses have been approved by the City\nAttorney, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the Where As clauses were drafted by the City Attorney's office.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Where As changes are substantive and whether\nCouncil could proceed with the first reading tonight.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that the substantive changes cannot be made at\na second reading.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the changes can be made tonight and the ordinance\ncan still have a first reading, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the other suggested amendments count as\nsubstantive changes.\nThe Community Development Director responded the presentation is only a summary of\nitems that are already in the smoking ordinance.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the only amendments are the Where As clauses, to\nwhich the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; continued the\npresentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether onsite consumption means you can only consume\nwhat you purchase at the dispensary.\nThe Community Development Director responded the meaning is items purchased at\nthe dispensary are then consumed at the dispensary.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council is in agreement, to which Council concurred.\nMayor Spencer inquired what off Island business means, to which the Community\nDevelopment Director responded that delivery services from outside the City of\nAlameda must apply for a permit and a business license.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether businesses outside of the City of Alameda can come\nto Alameda to make deliveries if they obtain a business license and permit, to which\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City of Alameda is allowing deliveries from\nbusinesses in the City of Alameda, to which the Community Development Director\nresponded in the negative; continued the presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 15, "text": "In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated the definition of a Recreation Center is to be determined by the Department\nDirector and can be changed.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed concern with allowing only one person to decide\nwhere a Recreation Center is located.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff can adjust the map if Council would\nlike to redefine Recreation Center.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether sending the ordinance to the Planning Board would\ndelay adoption.\nThe Community Development Director responded the ordinance will not be delayed; the\nland use piece will return to Council.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the land use piece refers to the 1,000 foot buffer and\nwhich areas can be used for cannabis.\nThe Community Development Director responded the land use only refers to the\npotential areas which can house cannabis businesses; stated the buffer zones are\nincluded in the ordinance regulating the business activities.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Recreation and Parks Director could articulate\nthe criteria for determining what is a Recreation Center; inquired whether the one mile\nseparation pertains to businesses in the same business district.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the one mile\nradius is intended to be between the two dispensaries permitted under the ordinance;\ncontinued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether dispensaries would be allowed on Bay Farm.\nThe Community Development Director responded land is not zoned on Bay Farm;\nstated staff is not recommending allowing the use except in the zones on the map.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why staff recommended dispensaries at\nAlameda Point due to the concern over federal property.\nThe Community Development Director responded the zones are being recommended\nonly on property that has been sold into private ownership.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thought staff was waiting until the federal\ngovernment transfers all the land at Alameda Point to not jeopardize the chance to\ncomplete conveyance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 16, "text": "The Community Development Director stated the ordinance prohibits any cannabis\nowned businesses on City owned property.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over allowing cannabis activity while\nstill negotiating with the U.S. Navy.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff's only concern is that the building is transferred to\nprivate ownership.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated currently, only zoning is\nbeing addressed.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated a private\ntransaction is separate from the City selling or leasing something.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the building is privately owned is staff willing to zone the\nproperty for a possible cannabis location without jeopardizing any future transaction with\nthe U.S. Navy.\nThe Assistant City Attorney requested clarification whether the question is that the City\nis jeopardizing the future sale of land by zoning the area for cannabis.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff has any concerns about the\nzoning.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the City has power to deal with land use matters.\nThe Community Development Director stated the land use issue is not before Council\ntonight; continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff has to return the zoning issue to the Planning\nBoard, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the requirement is in State law.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether Council can give direction to the Planning Board.\nThe City Attorney responded staff would make a recommendation to the Planning\nBoard.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff could skip addressing zoning since the matter\nhas to return to Council after the Planning Board.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the rest of Council agreed, to which Council\nconcurred.\nThe Community Development Director continued the presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 17, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff confirmed whether other cities have less than 20\nemployees for labor peace.\nThe Community Development Director responded the cities that she surveyed are all\nfollowing the State requirement of 20 employees.\nMayor Spencer inquired which cities were surveyed.\nThe Community Development Director responded Union City, San Leandro and\nBerkeley; continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the question regarding labor peace was put to\nHayward and San Francisco.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated she did not\nhear back from Hayward and did not pose the question to San Francisco.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired why the staff report has a different process for labs and\nan open Request for Proposal (RFP) for other businesses.\nThe Community Development Director responded testing labs are excluded from the\nRFP process because there was a request to have labs up and operating as soon as\npossible; starting January 1st, everything needs to be tested.\nMayor Spencer inquired what staff will do in the event six people drop off applications\nfor a lab on the same day.\nThe Community Development Director responded the applications will be processed in\nthe order received; stated an RFP could be done if Council directs doing so.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how long an RFP process has to be.\nThe Community Development Director responded the RFP process will take months;\nstated the RFP still has to be developed and issued.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the period of time for people to\napply, the Community Development Director stated possibly the time period would be\nfour to six weeks; staff will review what other jurisdictions are doing.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff could wait and see how many applications are\nreceived to determine whether an RFP process is appropriate for cannabis businesses\nother than dispensaries.\nThe Community Development Director responded the challenge would be how long\nCouncil wants to wait; continued the presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 18, "text": "Urged Council to approve the staff recommendation to prohibit cannabis dispensaries\nfrom locating within 1,000 feet from all Alameda schools, licensed day care centers and\nyouth centers: Katherine Tansey, Alameda High School Parent Teacher Student\nAssociation (AHS PTSA).\nStated that he would like to open a business in Alameda and has investors ready to go:\nKharis Stallworth, Kamala Corp.\nUrged Council to revisit the prohibition on having food at the cannabis businesses;\nrequested clarification on onsite consumption: Mark Hersman, Portman Enterprises.\nUrged Council to go slow and start small on the cannabis regulations: Peter Fletcher,\nAlameda.\nStated employees will be able to decide if they want union representation; urged\nCouncil to move forward with the ordinance: Doug Bloch, Alameda resident and\nTeamsters Joint Council 7.\nStated taking it slow will lead to more backyard grow houses: Phil Redd, Alameda.\nExpressed concerns with requiring a business with 2 or more employees be party to a\nlabor peace agreement; stated State regulations require businesses with 20 or more\nemployees: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.\nStated the labor peace issue is a small business issue, not a cannabis issue; urged\nCouncil to adhere to the State requirement of 20 or more employees for requiring labor\npeace: Dominiun Sims, MK McDonough LLC.\nExpressed concern over the labor peace agreement requirement for small businesses:\nPhillip Auerbach.\nStated the ordinance does not recognize the difference between dispensary and\ndelivery business models: Erika McCartna, Proper RX Collective.\nExpressed concerns with requiring a 2 person minimum for labor peace: Sandra Shupe,\nAlameda.\nUrged Council to adhere to the State legislation regarding a 20 employee level for labor\npeace: Cheri Corfey, Chamber of Commerce and GABA.\nUrged Council to vote no on the ordinance; stated money should not have been spent\non a consultant when staff could do the job: Don Sherratt, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 19, "text": "Stated by issuing only 4 or less business permits, Council is limiting the program to\nlarge, out of town operations and not supporting local businesses: Rich Moskowitz,\nAlameda for Safe Access.\nNoted a labor peace agreement just gives the employee the choice whether to belong to\na union: Augustin Ramirez, International Longshore and Warehouse Union.\nUrged Council to allow delivery only businesses in the City of Alameda: Debra\nMendoza, Alameda.\nStated Steephill Labs will bring jobs and revenue to the City of Alameda: Tim Cowart,\nSteephill Labs.\nStated there is no reason to have a 2 employee requirement for labor peace: Richard\nPoulson, West Alameda Business Association.\nUrged Council to keep the requirement for labor peace at 2 employees: Sharon Golden,\nIsland Alameda Cannabis Community.\nUrged Council to allow delivery businesses; stated businesses should not be capped at\n4 because it would cause small business owners to have to compete against large\nmanufacturers; the ordinance is a slap in the face to small business owners: Melody\nMontgomery, TendaHead Topical.\nExpressed concerns with the fee study; suggested staff review all businesses in the fee\nstudy: Beth Kenny, Alameda.\nSubmitted signatures of residents in support of local ownership for cannabis businesses\nin Alameda: Ryan Agabao, Alameda for Safe Cannabis Access.\nStated that she supports smart cannabis regulations which adequately protect youth;\nshe would like to see training required of staff handling cannabis: Serena Chen,\nAlameda.\nExpressed concern with onsite consumption; stated that she agrees with Mr.\nMcDonough regarding labor peace: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nStated that he supports the 1,000 foot buffer: Chuck Kapelke, PTA Council.\nStated being so restrictive will essentially eliminate dispensaries from the Island:\nStephen Cassidy, Bloom Innovations.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested when considering the zoning, that the 1 mile distance\nbe direction of travel; stated labor peace is not what is being characterized by some\nspeakers; labor peace is to protect workers; he does not like the first come first serve\nprocess and would like an open RFP process; he will support the ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 20, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella stated that she finds it odd to ban food at a dispensary when edibles\nare being sold at the dispensary and would like the ban to be stricken from the\nordinance; the language under Operational Rules should be changed from: \"The\ndistance shall be measured in a straight line from the property the closest facility to the\nclosest property line of the other facility;\" the second facility should be changed to\nschool or sensitive use, the wording \"path of travel\" should be used instead of \"straight\nline;\" a phrase should be added to Subsection 2 regarding all other cannabis\nbusinesses: \"measured via a path of travel from the nearest door of the cannabis\nbusiness to the nearest door of the sensitive use;\" stated other cities that have not listed\npath of travel have had difficulties in measuring the distance; labor peace agreement is\na public health and safety issue due to the nature of the industry; she would be\namenable to including language that the labor peace agreement is intended for\ncannabis businesses; deliveries are still being allowed, but will require a permit be\nobtained; she will support the ordinance with the suggested changes; expressed\nconcern with having a first come first serve process, which will not result in getting the\nbest business.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he will not support the ordinance; he is interested\nin seeing labs established in Alameda; Alameda is considering permitting commerce of\nan illegal substance and assuming a liability; he agrees with the 1,000 foot buffer and\nwould like to start small; expressed concern over the workload being placed on staff.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports testing labs; she would like a\nfair and objective process for every cannabis business; she would like to see what other\njurisdictions have done about the selection process; she would like to follow the State\nregulations for labor peace; having the consultant conduct the fee study is important;\nshe will vote for the ordinance if the labor peace is at least 10 employees, not 2.\nMayor Spencer stated it is critical to address the black market by legalizing cannabis;\nshe does not want to limit the number of businesses to one as it does not support small\nbusiness; she would like a minimum of two; she supports 10 employees for labor peace;\nexpressed concern with the ordinance benefitting big business; stated that she would\nnot like to limit the ordinance so much that it does not allow for local ownership; inquired\nwhether the language about no free samples is something that has always been in the\nindustry, to which the Community Development Director responded the language is\nState law.\nMayor Spencer expressed concern with the community benefit language; stated that\nshe thought community benefit was stricken; suggested striking the language; stated\nthat she believes it will hurt local businesses.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what Mayor Spencer means by local ownership.\nMayor Spencer stated local ownership is defined in the ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 21, "text": "The Community Development Director stated community benefit does not necessarily\nneed to mean money; the language can be stricken.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether other business applications post the\nquestion.\nThe Community Development Director responded the City does not typically cap the\nnumber of applicants.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether delivery services from out of town will\nbe required to have a business license permit, to which the Community Development\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the application for the business license\nasks what community benefit the applicant is providing.\nThe Community Development Director responded the language says if applicable;\nstated the language would not apply to offsite applicants coming in to obtain a business\nlicense.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with Mayor Spencer; he would like to\nrespect the integrity of the process; allowing for community benefit might affect the\nintegrity.\nMayor Spencer stated at least three Councilmembers agree with striking community\nbenefit.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the community benefit would affect local hire.\nThe Community Development Director stated Council's focus is on local hire and local\nownership for the RFP process, not community benefit.\nMayor Spencer stated the direction tonight and at the previous meeting was no\ncommunity benefit.\nVice Mayor Vella stated understanding how local hire and local ownership are defined is\ncritical.\nMayor Spencer stated community benefit is not a new conversation; it was addressed at\nthe previous meeting.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the provision for community benefit is intended to\nrequire implementation if the applicant makes a promise during the RFP process;\napplicants cannot get a leg up by saying they will do things and then not do them; the\nprovision does not prevent Council from striking the language when the RFP process is\naddressed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated local ownership is not clearly defined.\nThe City Attorney stated that the provision can be changed in the RFP process.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is an assumption made that local ownership\nis a criteria; she would like a reputable business with a track record; she does not\nbelieve there is agreement on the criteria.\nThe Community Development Director stated the ordinance puts the regulatory\nframework in place; staff will prepare an RFP process that is consistent with the\nregulatory framework.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Subsection h does not belong in the ordinance.\nThe Community Development Director stated the community benefit language can be\nremoved from the ordinance and transferred to the resolution.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there would be no reference to local hire or local\nownership in the ordinance.\nThe Community Development Director responded the local hire and local ownership\npolicy can be added to the Where As clauses.\nMayor Spencer stated that she will not support anything which does not support local\nhire; inquired whether the onsite operations manager and the onsite community\nrelations staff can be the same person, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded\nin the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated the language should in the ordinance should specifically state\nthat; inquired whether the nuisance abatement language regarding graffiti is required by\nState law, to which the Community Development Director responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether other businesses have the same clause.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded he will look into it.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether every business has to remove graffiti within 72 hours.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the deadline\nis 72 hours from the day the business receives a notice of violation from the City.\nMayor Spencer stated enforcement is critical; one industry should not be treated\ndifferently from another; requested clarification on the hours for operation and why the\nhour differ in time from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. for deliveries; stated distribution or pick up of\nsubstantial amounts of cash is prohibited from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 23, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated her notes read that the Vice Mayor's concern was\nemployee safety; hours of operation should be 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the extra hour was to allow for closing up shop, delivering\nor receiving product, or going to the bank.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether hours of operation means when a customer can come\ninto the store, to which the Community Development Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the language could be clarified; stated that she would\nlike the language to read: \"hours open to the public are 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.\nThe City Manager responded business hours is used because a lab does not have\ncustomers.\nMayor Spencer stated the language needs to be amended.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the hours of operation pertains to the business hours; the extra\nhour is to go to the bank, get shipments or conduct business.\nMayor Spencer stated the language needs to be clear.\nThe Community Development Director stated the only entity open to the public is\ndispensaries; the language will be clarified.\nThe City Manager stated three votes are needed to pass the ordinance tonight; if there\nare not three votes, Council needs to focus on a ban to meet the State regulations; if\nthere are enough changes or Council does not have the three votes, time should be\nspent focusing on the ban.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would accept two nurseries, to which Council\ndid not agree.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether food can be allowed by State law, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded State law only prohibits alcohol.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether allowing food is a different type of\npermit; stated a medicinal dispensary allows for edibles.\nThe Community Development Director responded food means non-cannabis infused\nfood.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the applicant can apply for the required permit; the ban would\neven restrict vending machines.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 24, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether food can be legally added, to which the Community\nDevelopment Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated a Council majority would like to add food.\nThe Community Development Director stated the word food could be stricken.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would support delivery only businesses.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like data on the number of permits issued for\ndelivery businesses.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would support one delivery business, Council\ndid not agree.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would be interested in having the matter return\nat the beginning of the year.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there will not be enough meaningful data.\nMayor Spencer expressed concern with having businesses outside of Alameda start\ndeliveries before local business owners have a chance to open; stated that she is not\nagreeable to the 2 employees on labor peace.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he thought the previous meeting was to provide\ndirection; he can support 10 employees for labor peace.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports 10 employees for labor peace;\nthe local ownership clause needs to be removed from the general conditions for local\nbusinesses.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like language on the distances clarified.\nThe Community Development Director stated she has a list and can recap the\nordinance.\nThe City Attorney stated staff needs to have the exact language if changes are going to\nbe made.\nThe Community Development Director stated the smoking ordinance language has\nbeen addressed and provided to Council.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved introduction of the smoking ordinance.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 25, "text": "The Community Development Director stated the ordinance regulating cannabis was\nalso distributed to Council.\nThe City Attorney stated there needs to be three votes on the entire ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated only several things need to be changed: labor peace,\nfood, provision about local ownership, the distance and redlines which staff provided to\nCouncil.\nThe City Attorney stated one cultivation permit is allowed and there was discussion\nabout changing it two permits.\nMayor Spencer stated there were not enough votes for two permits.\nThe City Attorney stated the next section is labor peace; inquired who is voting in favor\nof the requirement for labor peace being 10 employees, to which Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella raised their hands.\nThe Community Development Director stated the operational radius is the next\nprovision.\nVice Mayor Vella read the proposed language: \"The distance shall be measured via a\npath of travel from the nearest door of the nearest sensitive use to the nearest door of\nthe dispensary/retail/cultivation.\" and strike the rest of the sentence.\nThe Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the word foregoing can be added before\nsensitive use, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the second paragraph after sensitive uses should read:\n\"measured via a path of travel from the nearest door of the nearest foregoing sensitive\nuse to the nearest door of cannabis business.'\nMayor Spencer stated Section e does has already been addressed.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff will sync the onsite consumption\nlanguage to be consistent with the smoking ordinance.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council agrees with the proposed\nlanguage for Section f regarding onsite consumption, to which Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft Matarrese, Oddie and Vella concurred; Mayor Spencer stated that she will not\nvote.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would like to leave in the wording community\nbenefit; stated that she would prefer to strike the words.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 26, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella stated her notes say there would be an option for a community benefit\nfund; stated other communities have had issues with the requirement not being\nenforceable.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is okay with leaving the language.\nThe Community Development Director stated the language is in the ordinance for\nenforcement purposes; in the event someone volunteers to do something, it can be\nenforced.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the community benefit will be monitored\nand what the penalty will be if there is no follow through.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the applicant's operator permit could be revoked.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not support the local ownership and\nlocal hire provision.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft would be amenable to\nadding the wording \"if applicable.\"\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what does \"if applicable\" mean.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded \"if applicable\" means if the applicant does not\nsubmit a voluntary plan or if the RFP process does not include community benefit, it\nwould not be applicable.\nThe Community Development Director stated the sentence could be eliminated and\nincluded in the resolution adopting the policies and guidelines.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether that would mean to keep the language in now.\nThe Community Development Director stated the language can be deleted and the\nconcept included in the resolution.\nMayor Spencer stated her preference is to keep the language in because it is the only\nplace which mentions local hire and local ownership.\nVice Mayor Vella stated onsite consumption language allows the Community\nDevelopment Department (CDD) to promulgate guidelines, procedures and regulations;\ninquired whether language can be added after to have the RFP regulations approved by\nCouncil and developed by the CDD.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the language does not satisfy her request.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is any language which would satisfy\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 27, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's request; stated the language requires the matter to\nreturn to Council.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the concept does not belong in the ordinance.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether three Councilmembers support keeping the language\nin the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the intent is to say if you promise something\nthat you deliver.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated if Council would like to strike the language, it can be done; staff feels comfortable\nwith including the language in the ordinance.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether three Councilmembers would like to leave the\nlanguage in the ordinance, to which Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer requested that language be added to indicate that the onsite community\nrelations staff and the onsite operations manager can be the same person.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the decision to hire multiple people for\nthe position can be left up to the business.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to make it clear that there is not a requirement\nto hire two different people.\nThe Community Development Director stated the language will read the onsite\ncommunity relations staff can perform the duties of the onsite operations manager.\n(17-670) Council discussed whether not to hear the pension item [paragraph no. 17-\n673].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the pension item\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Abstention:\nCouncilmember Oddie - 1.\n***\nThe Community Development Director stated regarding the hours of operation, staff's\nintent between 9 p.m. versus 10 p.m. is to not conduct business after 10 p.m.\nThe City Attorney stated the language works because it says for all permitted facilities;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 28, "text": "delivery of a substantial amount of cash is prohibited.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council is okay with leaving the language as is, to\nwhich Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella\nagreed.\nThe Community Development Director inquired whether Council would like to strike the\nword food, to which Council responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved introduction of the cannabis ordinance with the\namendments.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion which carried by the following voice votes: Ayes:\nCouncilmember Oddie, Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella - 3.\nNoes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2.\nThe Community Development Director stated Council needs to vote on the authorization\nto do the fee study.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of authorizing staff to conduct the fee study.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella\n- 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\n***\n(17-671) The City Manager stated staff cannot address the pension item at the next\nmeeting; inquired whether Council would be willing to hear the matter tonight.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would agree to hearing the pension item.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the pension item.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion which carried with the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella -\n4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\n***\n***\n(17-672) Motion Spencer called a recess at 2:17 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at\n2:24 a.m.\n(17-673) Recommendation to Receive an Update on Pension Cost Savings Strategies\nand Invest General Fund Reserves Committed to Unfunded Pension Liabilities.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 29, "text": "The City Manager made brief comments.\nMike Meyer and Craig Hill, NHA Advisors, reviewed the recommendation in the Power\nPoint.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether surplus means reserves.\nThe City Manager responded the $2 million is a budget line item.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the $2 million being a budget line item means the $2\nmillion will not end up in reserves but will be spent.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City is reducing the cost, to which\nthe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated over time, there is a significant\nsavings from not having to pay CalPERS.\nMr. Meyer stated over 15 years, close to $60 million will be saved.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what will happen in the event of an economic downturn and\nthere is not $2 million in reserves; will there be layoffs.\nThe City Manager responded there is a mid-cycle and mid-year review of the budget;\nstated the Council could decide whether or not to include the $2 million in every budget.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired if the ask will occur with each budget cycle or is there a\nproposal to draft a resolution to make the decision now.\nThe City Manager responded the goal is to include the amount in the budget for Council\nconsideration.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the recommendation would be made if there is a\nsurplus.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated prepaying saves twice as much\nlong term.\nVice Mayor Vella stated $8 million is going to retiree costs, which are $265 million; there\nis $100 million in Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB); she understood the trust\nwas created to deal with both OPEB and retiree costs.\nMr. Meyer responded in the affirmative; stated the $8 million is dedicated to pension\ncosts.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired why the City decided not to put anything into OPEB.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 30, "text": "The Finance Director responded $3 million would be put towards OPEB and $8 million\nwould go to pension.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Finance Director stated the goal is\nto add $2 million as a line item in the budget; any excess over 50% would be set aside\nfor either pension or OPEB.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the City is on the hook for OPEB.\nThe Finance Director responded the City is obligated to pay the pay as you go amount\nand the annual bill for OPEB.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the City is still on the hook for the pension and\nwhether the City can just wash its hands of OPEB.\nThe Finance Director responded that she believes the City would still owe the money.\nThe City Manager stated the purpose of putting 25% into the 115 Trust every year is\nthat can be used in down years to pay the City's portion of CalPERS.\nThe Finance Director stated the goal is to assist with cash flow; should a downturn\nhappen, the City will have time to deal with a shortage rather than making it an\nemergency.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired why the City would commit to the proposal.\nThe City Manager responded the budget is approved by Council; stated the more the\nCity pays into the unfunded liability, the more the City can save.\nMayor Spencer stated if the item appears as a line item in future budgets, the Council\ncould remove it if desired; inquired whether the money could be left where it is and\nwhen the budget is addressed the current Council could review all the\nrecommendations and input from the community.\nThe City Manager responded the model saves the City and taxpayers significantly.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff is asking to have the money as a line item for\nfuture budgets, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the 30 year model is in the presentation to Council.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated every city is concerned about the\nnew CalPERS assumptions; in 3 years, the amount will increase dramatically; Council\ndirected staff to look at how to address the issue in the long term, proactively; the\nproposal is staff's recommendation, but Council can make changes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n30\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 31, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella inquired the base rate for the unfunded liability; is it based off current\nrates or a change and doe the employment numbers remain stagnate; how many\nemployees are classic versus PEPRA employees and does that change the modeling;\nis there a drop off eventually; when is the City predicting employees will be retiring;\ndoes the model assume the City will maintain the current number of employees getting\npaid the same rate.\nMr. Meyer responded the model is based off current number of employees in the classic\nversus PEPRA plans; slide 12 shows what is attributable to the unfunded liability and\nthe normal costs; the bulk of the cost is the unfunded liability, which will not change\nmuch over the next 30 years; stated other cities like Alameda with reserves are also\ntrying to pay down pension costs.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the recommendation.\nThe City Treasurer stated the recommendation is something the City needs to do; it\naddresses a short term need by keeping some money liquid and a long term problem by\nputting some money towards CalPERS; the increases in CalPERS is unavoidable and it\nis important to get ahead of it.\nMayor Spencer requested the $2 million to the 115 Trust and the $6 million to CalPERS\nbe bifurcated and discussed separately.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to see more go to OPEB; stated not all\ncities have the same OPEB liability; he is comfortable with the $8 million going to\npension.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Oddie stated that he\nunderstands OPEB can be dismissed in a city that declares bankruptcy, but the city is\nstill on the hook for the pensions no matter what.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is requesting that more money\ngo to pension.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded he is requesting that more money go to OPEB\nbecause he believes that there will be State action on pension; he would prefer to see\nthe City be more balanced with half to OPEB and half to pension.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie's concern is correct and\nbankrupt cities are only held to pay for pension.\nThe Finance Director responded cities have chosen not to pay CalPERS because they\nhave tried to retain good staff, which was the case in Stockton; stated Vallejo did not\ntouch CalPERS as a creditor; San Bernardino delayed payments but negotiated how to\npay CalPERS over time; OPEB costs in Stockton's bankruptcy were eliminated through\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 32, "text": "debt process.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to follow staff's recommendation.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern with the $2 million going into PARS because the\n$2 million is not going into a Section 115 Trust.\nThe Finance Director stated the Section 115 Trust and PARS is one in the same.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the $2 million is going towards the retirement and not\ntowards the OPEB, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe City is contributing $3 million to OPEB and contributions are done biweekly through\npayroll.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the total amount going into OPEB,\nthe Finance Director stated $10.7 million in the OPEB account.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would support the recommendation provided there is\nsomething that ensures the City is continuing the obligations relative to the OPEB\ncontribution; inquired where the $2 million is in the current budget.\nThe City Manager responded the $2 million would added to the budget going forward.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the City is in the middle of a two year budget cycle.\nThe City Manager responded that Council has a choice to add the $2 million to the\n2018-19 budget at mid-cycle or with the biannual 2020-22 budget.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired where the $2 million is going to come from in the current\nbudget; stated that she would prefer the 50/50 hybrid; she would like to discuss the\nmatter further at budget time.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to bifurcate the two requests.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with the City Treasurer and the\nFinance Director.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of the first recommendation [$6 million pay down].\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the second recommendation [$2 million\non going pay down].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n32\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 33, "text": "Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated that he is concerned with tying the\nhands of future Councils; he is in favor of setting aside 50% of the surplus.\nMayor Spencer stated that she will not support the motion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she does not believe future Council's hands will\nbe tied.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes: - 2\nCouncilmember's Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese. Noes - 3: Councilmember Oddie,\nMayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella.\n(17-674) Recommendation to Receive the Information Technology Strategic Plan\n(ITSP). Not heard.\n(17-675) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Third Amendment to the Long Term\nSublease between the City of Alameda and the US Department of Transportation\nMaritime Administration. Not heard.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(17-676) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(17-677) Bob Priebe, Town of Moraga City Manager, expressed his support for the City\nManager\n(17-678) Bob Nader, SAWW, gave a Power Point presentation on boat yards and yacht\nclubs.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(17-679) Consider Directing Staff to Provide a Public Update on Crime within the City.\n(Mayor Spencer) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(17-680) Vice Mayor Vella requested that the Council subcommittee meetings be\nagendized to allow Councilmembers to attend.\nMayor Spencer stated the meetings that Councilmembers are on can be added.\nThe City Clerk inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is requesting the subcommittees only,\nto which Vice Mayor Vella responded the sub liaison committees.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-11-07", "page": 34, "text": "The City Clerk inquired whether the request is to post the standard language to allow\nCouncil to attend, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer requested that the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) be included.\n(17-681) Councilmember Oddie stated the Alameda Hospital has settled with one\ninsurance company.\nMayor Spencer noted another insurance still is not being accepted.\n(17-682) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination to the Planning Board.\nMayor Spencer nominated Sylvia Gibson for appointment to the Planning Board.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 3:19 a.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\n34\nNovember 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf"}