body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - JULY 19, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-342) Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Creating
Special Newsrack Districts [ 105-357] would not be heard.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-343) Proclamation recognizing Alamedans for Responsible
Transit Shelters (ARTS) and volunteer efforts to install new bus
shelters.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Reyla Graber,
Pat Gannon, Jeannie Graham-Gilliat, Lee Harris, and Mel Sanderson;
stated that ARTS worked very hard to ensure that there would be
unadvertised bus shelters; thanked ARTS and supporters who
contributed money to buy the bus shelters.
Reyla Graber thanked the Council for the recognition.
Lee Harris thanked ARTS; stated that he was impressed with the hard
work and efforts of everyone involved.
Mel Sanderson, President of the Clara Barton Foundation, stated
being available for ARTS was a pleasure.
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, thanked the Council and
ARTS for working hard to get bus shelters in Alameda; stated she is
looking forward to new bus shelters on Park and Webster Streets.
(05-344) - Presentation by the Park Street Business Association
(PSBA) on the 21st Annual Art and Wine Faire.
Blake Brydon, Chair of the Art and Wine Faire, invited the
community to attend the Faire on July 30 and July 31 and presented
wine glasses to the Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,2,"Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the
Acting City Manager to execute a Contract with Masayuki Nagase [05-
348], the recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to accept the
$404,087 Awarding of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant [05-349]
and the recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize Call
for Bids [05-350] were removed from the consent calendar for
discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
(*05-345) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Social
Service Human Relations Board Meeting of June 23, 2005 and the
Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on July 5, 2005.
Approved.
Councilmember Daysog requested that the word ""scheduling"" be
inserted prior to ""conflict"" in the June 23, 2005 minutes [under
Roll Call] .
(*05-346 ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,960,630.82.
(*05-347) Recommendation to accept the work of Clyde G. Steagall,
Inc., for Alameda Point Pier 3 electrical upgrades, No. P.W. 08-02-
08. Accepted.
(05-348) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute a Contract with Masayuki Nagase for fabrication and
installation of public art work, Cadence of Water, at the new Main
Library.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to see a better
representation of the artwork.
The Library Director introduced Masayuki Nagase; stated Mr. Nagase
has created dozens of public art installations and was the
unanimous choice of the Art and Recognition Team.
Mr. Nagase stated the artwork consists of eight medallions
measuring 4 feet to 7 feet high; the water element theme represents
the City's surrounding bay and beach areas.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,3,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the art would be done in limestone.
Mr. Nagase responded in the affirmative; stated the angle of the
forms would catch the morning and afternoon light.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-349) Recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to accept the
$404,087 Awarding of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant for a
firefighting training trailer and authorizing funding for the
City's matching portion of $80,817 from the General Fund Reserves.
Mayor Johnson requested that future reports include on-going
maintenance and operating costs.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was an order of
magnitude for the maintenance and operating costs for comparison
purposes.
The Fire Chief responded that the maintenance costs are expected to
be low; the majority of the cost would be for propane gasi there
would be an additional cost for moving the trailer out of the area
because a diesel truck trailer would be needed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City has a tractor.
The Fire Chief responded that he has not checked with the Public
Works Department; using a City tractor would be the first choice.
Mayor Johnson stated training locally might provide a cost savings.
The Fire Chief stated the closest facility for live fire training
is Livermore, which is too far away for on-duty personnel: the
community was concerned with the smoke generated by the live fire
training at the LinOaks Motel.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-350 - ) Recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for replacement of three (3) marked police vehicles.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,4,"Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council requested a more
detailed Citywide vehicle inventory.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should be a written, Citywide
policy; noted Police Department needs would differ from Public
Works; stated the supplemental report indicates other cities
replace vehicles at higher mileage; requested that the policy
include mileage replacement comparisons with other cities and
explanation of why the City replaces vehicles with lower mileage.
The Acting Police Captain stated that a 65,000 to 75,000 mile
vehicle replacement is not abnormal; the City garage mechanic is
concerned with the idle hours.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the number of vehicles that are
replaced may not be the same as before because of tough budget
times; the City might need to go longer before replacing vehicles.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he looks forward to receiving a
policy with input from the Public Works Department i inquired what
would be the impact if a six-month deferral; inquired whether
vehicles have hour meters.
The Acting Police Captain responded that hour meters are not
installed; a six-month deferral would be difficult; the vehicles
take a beating.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the three vehicles are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,5,"currently in service, to which the Acting Police Captain responded
in the affirmative
Councilmember Daysog stated the Council should review vehicle
replacement in terms of protection and service to the residents;
the Police Department needs the best equipment or there could be
safety issues; six-month deferral is not an option.
Mayor Johnson stated more detailed information on vehicle
maintenance costs is needed; there is no explanation why the
vehicles are to be replaced.
The Acting City Manager stated that the matter would be brought
back to the Council in August with more information.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter should be brought to
Council with more justification on why the three vehicles need to
be replaced; inquired whether the vehicles have failed in the field
and whether there has been a lapse in service, other problems or
potential safety issues.
The Acting Police Captain responded there have not been significant
problems with the vehicles failing in the field; history has shown
that as mileage increases problems could arise.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested information on trade-in value; stated
the City might get a higher trade-in value now than in a year.
The Acting Police Captain stated that vehicles become inoperable
because of safety reasons; vehicles need to be available.
Councilmember deHaan inquired the number of vehicles and the number
of employees assigned to the vehicles, to which the Acting Police
Captain responded 23 vehicles are used by 43 officers.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much a police vehicle costs, to
which the Acting Police Captain responded $32,000.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog
regarding not deferring replacement for six months.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many hours per day vehicles are
used, to which the Acting Police Captain responded that the
majority of the vehicles are used 24 hours per day.
Mayor Johnson requested that a written policy be brought back to
the Council at the first or second City Council meeting in August.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,6,"Councilmember deHaan requested that the policy address all vehicles
Citywide.
Mayor Johnson requested that the policy address all police
vehicles, not just patrol vehicles.
(*05-351) - Recommendation to appoint Lee Perez as a representative
to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. Accepted.
(*05-352) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute an amendment to the Contract with MV Student
Transportation, increasing the budget by $8,000, and extending the
Contract to August 15, 2005. Accepted.
(
(*05-353) - Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Holland &
Knight, LLP in the amount of $40,000 for federal legislative
advocacy, and appropriate the $40,000 from the General Fund
reserves. Accepted.
( *05-354) Resolution No. 13874, ""Approving Parcel Map No. 8574
(Harbor Bay Parkway and North Loop Road) . "" Adopted.
(*05-355)
Resolution No. 13875, ""Adopting the Findings for the
Non-Native Spartina Eradication Program Contained in the Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report Prepared by California State Coastal Conservancy, Adopting a
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and Approving an Agreement for Funding from the
State of California Coastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina
Eradication and Mitigation Measures. "" Adopted.
(*05-356) Resolution No. 13876, ""Granting Another Designated Period
for Two Years Additional Service Credit as Provided for Under
Contract Amendment between the City and the Public Employees'
Retirement System and California Government Code Section 20903. ""
Adopted.
(*05-357) Adoption of Resolution Creating Special Newsrack
Districts in Both the Park Street Business and the West Alameda
Business Districts as Authorized in Alameda Municipal Code Section
22-7, Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines of Article I
Streets) Chapter XXII (Streets and Sidewalks) Not heard.
(*05-358) Resolution No. 13877, ""Authorizing Filing of a Notice of
Exemption for Acquisition of the Alameda Belt Line. Adopted.
(*05-359) - Resolution No. 13878, ""Accepting the Findings of the
Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study."" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,7,"REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-360) - Resolution No. 13879, ""Appointing John W. KnoxWhite as a
Member of the Transportation Commission. "" Adopted; and
(05-360A) Resolution No. 13880, ""Appointing Eric Schatmeier as a
Member of the Transportation Commission. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented the
members of the Transportation Commission with Certificates of
Appointment.
(05-361) Public hearing to consider revisions to the Development
Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda
Municipal Code (AMC) more commonly referred to as the Zoning
Ordinance, with respect to building height limits and number of
stories exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions
to existing residences, the definition for replacement-in-kind
off-street parking regulations and reconstruction of non-conforming
residential structures; and
(05-361A) Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations). Introduced.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief overview of the proposed
revisions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the 'replacement-in-kin definition
would apply to the design guidelines and solve problems that
residents are having at Harbor Bay when replacing aluminum-sliding
windows.
The Supervising Planner stated that the guidelines state that
materials that are appropriate for the style of the house should be
used.
Mayor Johnson stated residents should not have to go to the
Planning Board to replace windows because of staff's interpretation
of the guidelines; Harbor Bay residents are not getting permits
because they have been told aluminum-sliding windows are not
allowed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,8,"The Supervising Planner stated that she was not aware of staff
disallowing aluminum sliding windows as long as the windows were an
appropriate style for the house.
Mayor Johnson stated that ""appropriate style"" is a very subjective
term; muntins are prohibited; Council did not intend to have any
prohibitions when the guidelines were approved.
The Supervising Planner stated the guidelines include a one-year
trial period to iron out the bugs.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council adopted the guidelines with
the understanding that they would be reasonably applied; a Citywide
prohibition would require that the matter be brought back to the
Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the guidelines do not prohibit
anything, but provide direction.
Mayor Johnson stated that internal muntins between double-paned
windows are prohibited Citywide; the Council did not have any
expectation that there would be prohibitions in the guidelines.
The Acting City Manager stated that internal muntins are addressed
under a heading of what should be allowed; that staff has been
given direction to review each case individually.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City has a diverse housing type;
there cannot be one rule that applies to every house.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was concerned with changing
requirements for second story setbacks. noted there have been two
or three issues regarding blockage of sunlight in the past two
years; that he would like to have a separate vote on second story
setback regulations if the matter is voted on tonight.
The Supervising Planner inquired whether Councilmember Daysog was
referring to the three-foot setback which allows going straight up
or the additional two-foot setback required with an existing five-
foot setback.
Councilmember Daysog responded that he was referring to remaining
with the status quo in all instances; a process can be followed to
receive an exception.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether an existing roof pitch could
be replicated.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,9,"The Supervising Planner responded as long as the height limit is
not exceeded.
Councilmember deHaan stated that closing down the roof pitch to
stay within the height limit creates architectural problems.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponent : Ken Carvalho, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the Public
portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with the
direction to review roof pitch and window issues.
Councilmember Daysog requested to have a separate vote on second
story setbacks.
Councilmember deHaan amended his motion to exclude second story
setbacks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance provisions
on second story setbacks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes : Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(05-362) Public hearing to consider Zoning Text Amendment ( ZA05 -
0002) , amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to add
""Boutique Theater"" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district,
subject to Use Permit approval. Applicant : Alameda Theatre Project
Inc. Address All Neighborhood Business Districts (C-1) ;
(05-362A) Resolution No. 13881, ""Adopting a Negative Declaration
for ZA05-0002. "" Adopted; and
(05-362B) Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by Declaring Boutique Theaters to be Uses Permitted
by Use Permit within the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning
District of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) . Introduced.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,10,"Proponents : David Hart, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Jon
Spangler, Alameda; Susan Older, Alameda: Peter MacDonald,
representing Mark Haskett Blake Brydon, Alameda; Bernard Clark,
Alameda; Mark Haskett, Alameda: and Ami Dimusheva, Alameda.
Opponent : Former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to respond to the issue of providing
notice to C-2 zoning areas [raised by Ms. Thomas]
The Supervising Planner stated the C-2 Zoning District permits
theaters, including movie theaters, as a permitted use; theaters do
not have to go through the use permit process that the proposed
text amendment would require for the C-1 district.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the [movie theater ] use is already
permitted in the C-2 district, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated speakers were surprised that the
matter was before the Council; the normal process is being
followed; nothing is being hidden; the process is completely open
and public; the public should be aware that the action is not
redundant and is the way business is conducted.
Mayor Johnson noted the Council had not considered the issue
before.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned that seventeen
areas could be affected; hopefully, there are enough safeguards
not all [C-1] areas have the same attributes of the [theater]
location on Central Avenue; inquired whether there are outstanding
code issues at the cinema.
The Acting City Manager responded the one [outstanding] issue is
the projection booth; stated the Applicant has been working
cooperatively with the Building Department; the issue is clearance
around the projector.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the initial life safety
issues were resolved, to which the Acting City Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the outstanding [projector]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,11,"issue would be corrected.
Mr. MacDonald, the Applicant's attorney, responded that the
Applicant has all materials ready to be submitted tomorrow; the
Building Official cannot accept the application until after the
zoning change is approved.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Planning Board does not have the
authority to enact zoning changes and only makes recommendations
to
the Council therefore, the matter had to come before Council the
matter before the Council is not approving the Central Cinema; the
change will affect seventeen zones in the City; other people might
consider a similar business if Mr. Haskett is successful; the
approval is not for just one theater in one location; that she is
concerned that there could be more than one boutique theater in a
neighborhood.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is interested in just rezoning the
one C-1 district [at Central Avenue and 9th Street] noted the
Council was not approving just Mr. Haskett's operation; stated Mr.
Haskett could sell the business and neighbors might not like the
new owner or the types of movies the new owner shows; the Rocky
Horror Picture Show could be shown three times a day seven days a
week; the City can only regulate adult movies; the approval would
allow other cinemas in other areas with other operators; inquired
whether there could be a restriction that if Mr. Haskett sold his
operation, the Use Permit would not go to the next operator.
Mr. MacDonald stated that he was asked to respond publicly as to
whether they would consent to the request; the rule is that a Use
Permit runs with the land and cannot be personalized the general
rule is that there are considerations built into the Use Permit to
allow the Use Permit to be revoked if things happen which are not
consistent with the Use Permit.
Mayor Johnson stated the City can only regulate adult movies; there
might be another type of operator that would want to take over the
business; the neighbors like Mr. Haskett and like what he is doing;
her concern is that he might sell the business.
Mr. MacDonald stated one reason people build up businesses is to
have something that can be sold; not being able to sell the
business means said effort could never be achieved; to regulate the
type of movies or operators are over and above the terms of
reasonably conditioned Use Permit and would destroy the value of
the business.
Mayor Johnson stated the neighbors should understand that if Mr.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,12,"Haskett sells his business to someone else, they might not like the
types of movies the next operator shows.
Mr. Clark stated the issues being raised are valid; there should
not be concern over the type of movies showing, other than adult
movies the use would be revoked if anything caused a public
nuisance, such as being too loud.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would not want a theater in her
neighborhood; that she has concerns with imposing the regulation on
the sixteen other C-1 zoning areas and is not convinced that the
zoning could not be changed for just the one area.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the permit runs with the land; basing a
decision on a particular owner is a bad policy; her decision will
be based on the merit of the use, not the owner.
Councilmember deHaan requested staff to address whether the use
could be limited to just one area.
The City Attorney stated the Mayor prefers to deal with the one
case, rather than Citywide; after analyzing the law carefully and
understanding said preference, she has to take responsibility for
the legal opinion that the issue must be dealt with Citywide.
Mayor Johnson inquired why two or three [C-1] districts in more
commercial areas could not be made a different zone; stated there
are C-1 zones in the Park Street and Webster Street areas adjacent
to more commercial areas; some C-1 zones are in very residential
areas; inquired why a few C-1 zones could not be called something
different and boutique theaters could be allowed in said areas,
without changing the existing geographic boundaries.
The Supervising Planner stated staff tried to create criteria for
the C-1 districts; finding a solution is very difficult because the
areas are so diverse; the amount of traffic was reviewed all
districts have adjacent residential areas.
Mayor Johnson inquired why three districts in more commercial areas
could not be renamed and boutique theaters could be allowed in said
areas; stated the geographic area of the zoning district would not
be changed; only the name would be changed and boutique theaters
could be permitted.
The Supervising Planner stated if Council could direct which
districts and why, staff could review the matter; staff was having
difficulty with determining why [the reason for selecting said
districts].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,13,"Mayor Johnson stated the Council could not do so tonight.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether live theater with
unlimited seating is already allowed in all C-1 districts, to which
the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated putting a ceiling of 49 seats
restricts risk to and impact on the neighborhood; the same concerns
exist with live theater; some performances might not be wanted in
neighborhoods; allowing a movie theater has less impact than a live
theater ; there is not a huge risk; the existing business would be
legalized; that he would be happy with only selecting several of
the areas as a trial; there is not a great impact on the other
sixteen districts since live theaters with unlimited seating are
permitted.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with Central
Cinema, but would like to restrict the regulation as much as
possible; if the use could be restricted to a small number of C-1
areas or if very residential C-1 areas could be eliminated, the
City should do soi although live theater has been allowed for a
long time, allowing boutique theaters now should be done in a more
restrictive way; that she supports the station business districts,
which are part of Alameda's historyi the stations have to keep
going to create a walk-able community; however, the areas have
conflicts because residences are adjacent to businesses; that she
would like to go forward with Central Cinema, while restricting the
use to as few C-1 areas as possible; the matter of limiting the
areas has not been thoroughly reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there have been requests for
live theaters in other areas, to which the Supervising Planner
responded the only one she is aware of is the Altarena.
The Acting City Manager stated staff had multiple meetings on how
to reduce the number of areas; there was concern about spot zoning
staff did extraordinary noticing to ensure residents around the
station areas were aware of the proposed change the Council could
move forward tonight and staff could come back at a later date to
undo portions [limit number of districts].
Mayor Johnson stated her goal is to limit the use to as few areas
as possible; one idea is to name several areas a different zoning
districti people do not notice use until there is a problem.
Councilmember Daysog stated [Central Cinema's ] start was high
drama, but has potential to be a feel good story; time will only
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,14,"tell if the Cinema will be a one hit wonder or a movie for the
ages; the issues that the Mayor is bringing up can be tackled;
there is enough information to proceed with the action tonight;
issues raised can be addressed; that he doubts many people will
submit applications for theaters; there is a window of opportunity
to move forward with the theater.
Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to review making the
boutique theater regulations apply to all theaters, eliminating the
possibility of having a 200 seat live theater.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion;
stated that staff could review both issues.
The City Attorney stated the Council could direct that the zoning
text amendment be brought to the Planning Board for an additional
amendment in terms of applying restrictions on live theater.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a flood of people will not try to
get into the theater business; there is cap on the number of seats;
the risk is fairly low; the regulations provide definition for what
is already an unrestricted business; the two seem no different,
except for the fact that there would be a movie projector instead
of actors in front of the audience.
Mayor Johnson stated that she supports the suggestion to go forward
and bring back modifications; concurred with Councilmember
Matarrese's suggestion to restrict live theaters.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
[adoption of the resolution and introduction of the ordinance] with
the direction to come back with modifications to provide better
control and planning, including exploring limiting the number of
districts where the activity will be allowed.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she could not support the change
based on the merit of the operator instead of policy the
modifications that will return might address her concerns.
(05-363) Recommendation to approve a revised Donor Recognition and
Named Gifts Policy for the Library.
The Acting City Manager noted that staff provided a new set of
photographs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,15,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether name plaques would be placed on
shelves, to which the Library Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the names would remain on shelves
forever; stated $100 does not seem high enough for having a name
remain forever.
The Library Director stated the names remain for the life of the
item, not the life of the library; the name would not remain if a
shelf is replaced.
Mayor Johnson stated $100 does not seem like a large amount.
The Library Director stated setting a reasonable amount could raise
a lot of money; $1 million was raised mostly from $100 shelves in
another library.
Councilmember Matarrese noted shelves, which only cost $100, might
last longer than chairs, which are $500; stated that the policy is
a good way to raise money.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is maintenance involved
with the plaques.
The Library Director responded possibly, but problems with plaques
are minimal.
Councilmember deHaan stated plastic plaques could be damaged.
The Library Director stated an inexpensive, but durable and
attractive, shelf tag would be used.
Dr. Jeptha Boone, Alameda Free Library Foundation President, stated
the foundation was formed 6¹/² years ago to raise money for the
library; the foundation has raised $65,000 and is trying to raise
$600,000 for art, branches and collections; urged approval of the
policy.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-364) Consideration of waiving attorney client privilege of
September 12, 2003 and April 10, 2001 legal opinions regarding
vehicle allowance for City Manager and City Attorney.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,16,"The City Attorney stated that she would step down during the agenda
item and the next agenda item [paragraph no. 05-365], which have to
do with her Contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has a copy of the legal
opinion; Council can vote to make it available to the public; there
is nothing in the opinion that needs to be confidential.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of waiving attorney client
privilege restrictions on the memos.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson stated the opinion is an interpretation of a Contract
provision; last year, she was informed that the City Manager's
vehicle allowance had increased; in November, she asked the City
Attorney to review whether the City Manager's vehicle allowance had
changed; the response she received back was it had not changed; a
Councilmember then learned that the vehicle allowance for the City
Manager was $372; Councilmembers questioned how the vehicle
allowance was increased because the Contract states that the
vehicle allowance is $250; Council asked the Human Resources
Director to check on the matter; last week, the response back from
the Human Resources Director was that a legal opinion was obtained
from outside counsel that indicated that the vehicle allowance
should be increased because of a change in tax; the reason the
matter is on the agenda is because her response to the Acting City
Manager was that the amount should stay the same and should remain
the $250 in the Contract until the Council agrees to change the
amount; that she requested that the Acting City Manager change the
amount back to $250 and he stated that the Council should give
direction on the matter, which is why she placed the matter on the
agenda; the Council should determine what happened and has wondered
why the amount is higher than the amount in the Contract; the
Council should decide whether the vehicle allowance stays the
higher amount or goes back to the Contract amount; there should be
a Contract amendment ; that she is interested in other
Councilmembers' thoughts that she does not recall seeing the legal
opinion; in 2001, the memo to the City Attorney from Linda Tripoli
states ""You have asked this office for a legal opinion relative to
an issue that has arisen with regard to the car allowance;' the
opinion is dated April 10, 2001; that she understands that the
change in amount did not go into effect until October, 2003; that
she does not recall seeing the opinion in 2001 or 2003; when she
asked in 2004, she was informed that there were no changes that
she is sure the response meant there was no change in the net
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,17,"amount of the vehicle allowance, but there had been a change in the
gross amount; noted the Human Resources Director was present if
anyone has questions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that when a salary is provided in a
Contract, Council does not have someone go back later and adjust
the salary so that the net after taxes is the amount stated in the
Contract; that he views the vehicle allowance in the same fashion;
upholding the Contract and putting the amount back to $250 is
simple.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the $250 was net when the
Contract was enacted and something happened, such as a change in
the IRS code, to make the amount no longer net.
Mayor Johnson stated the amount in the Contract is $250; there was
a change in the tax code; the amount became taxable; the benefit in
the Contract was not stated as a net amount ; it is a question of
fact, not laws; the question [of increasing the amount) should have
been addressed to the Council, not an outside attorney.
The Human Resources Director stated that she does not know the tax
Code or if any changes were made to the tax Code; the benefit was
non-taxable when first provided and then became taxable, which is
why the legal opinion was given to the City Attorney; the opinion
was sent to the Finance Director who continued to provide the
benefit as a tax-free benefit for the next year to year and a half;
after said time, it was discovered that the benefit should be
taxable and put into the payroll system as a taxable benefit; the
additional memo came forward to state that if the vehicle allowance
is going to be a taxable benefit, the net amount needs to be $250
per month.
Councilmember deHaan stated the opinion was for the two Contracted
positions of City Attorney and City Manager; inquired how the legal
opinion would apply to the $250 allowance given to other Department
Heads; inquired whether other Department Heads were not entitled to
the adjustment since they are not under Contract.
The Human Resources Director responded that she does not know the
exact language of the Contracts for the City Manager and City
Attorney that she cannot appropriately answer the question; auto
allowance for all other employees is through the payroll system and
is a taxable benefit.
Councilmember deHaan stated there could be a major impact if the
legal opinion was exercised all the way through the system; the
amount of the car allowance would depend on the amount of money a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,18,"person makes; the more an individual makes, the higher the car
allowance would be.
The Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative ; stated
taxes are based upon income.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City Manager and City Attorney
received a check for $250 with no taxes taken out before 2001
something happened, whether an IRS ruling or direction was to have
the car allowance go through payroll; the amount would be reduced
with taxes assessed; the issue then becomes a labor contract issue
of good faith; the $250 amount was negotiated on a good faith
basis; a staff member, such as the Finance Director or Human
Resources Director, with Linda Tripoli's letter from April, 2001,
opined that the amount would have to be increased in order to
remain whole at $250; in the highest tax rate, mathematically the
cost would be roughly $80 on the federal side and 11-12% on the
State side, which comes out to roughly $370; that he does not see
the problem.
Mayor Johnson stated that in her opinion, the problem is that the
matter should have come to the Council; when the Council approves a
Contract that states the person receives $250 per month, the amount
is $250 per month; if there is a subsequent tax change or ruling
that makes the amount taxable, the matter should come to Council to
ask if the amount should be $250 or increased now that taxes have
to be paid on the amount; the matter is not really a legal issue,
rather it is a matter of determining whether the Council wants to
change the amount now that there is a tax consequence.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Council's intent was always to keep
the amount at $250; that he cannot imagine that the Council wanted
the amount lowered in 2001; that he can only imagine that the memo
issued in 2001 and circulated to the City Council was consistent
with what the Council wanted.
Mayor Johnson stated the clearest way to know what the Council
intended would be to ask the Council: Council sets amounts for
salaries, vehicle allowances for other people, and all kinds of
things, which are always gross, not net; many benefits provided
have tax consequences.
Councilmember Matarrese stated it is a question of process, not
amount ; the process should be that if there is a change that incurs
a higher dollar outlay than what was done before or if there is a
question of intent, the matter, under Contract or Memorandum Of
Understanding (MOU) should come to the Council; the issue is not
hugely complicated; that [bring the matter to Council] should be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,19,"to Council, but Finance never implemented the change; that she
questions whether the memo even went to Finance in 2001.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the policy that he is looking for is
that if there is a dollar figure in a contract, that the matter
should return as a Contract or MOU amendment.
Mayor Johnson stated sending a copy of a memo to the Council is not
a way of notifying the Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the question is not notification;
the question is approval; there is an easy fix: going forward, all
changes will come to Council for a vote.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with the suggestion; stated policy
should be set going forward; the Contract for the new City Manager
states that the amount is a fixed amount a new Contract is being
negotiated with the City Attorney and the matter can be clarified;
inquired what will be done in the interim in the next five months;
stated putting the matter in the open to understand how the City
reached the current status is good; safeguards can be put in place.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council voted to make the legal opinion a
public document and should call the next agenda item to address the
policy.
( 05-365) - Discussion and recommendations regarding City Manager and
City Attorney contract provisions pertaining to vehicle allowance
limit.
Councilmember Matarrese stated his previous comments [ under the
previous agenda item, paragraph no. 05-364] hold.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan concurred.
Councilmember Daysog that he does not have a problem with the
direction to have issues come back to the City Council; however,
when he received the legal opinion in 2001, he felt it was
consistent going forward, Council's request for everything to come
before Council is acceptable.
Councilmember deHaan stated actions should be done equitably among
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,20,"the rest of the people who receive automobile allowances and i
adjustments should have been made accordingly after the opinion.
Councilmember Daysog stated the car allowance for others is taxable
and done through payroll.
Mayor Johnson stated the amount is a gross amount; if the car
allowance for other employees is $250, like the City Manager and
City Attorney, the amount is taxable and other employees receive
$160.
Councilmember deHaan stated a select two were isolated to receive
the adjustment, rather than reviewing how the law affects other
employees.
Mayor Johnson stated changes in the Contract should be done through
a vote of the Council; sending a carbon copy to the Council is not
a vote of the Council the Council can only act by voting and
cannot act by non-response or consent by silence; concurred with
Councilmember Matarrese's comments that it is a process question;
the process that was used was not appropriate.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has a problem with stating that
something that happened in 2001 was inappropriate; any
Councilmember could have objected when the memo was received; no
one objected; things are being done differently in the new era.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council should have clear expectations of
how to handle Contract amendments.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Council is indicating how the matter
will be handled in the future.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council has to vote to change a Contract.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated that extra benefits always have to be
declared for tax purposes Council seems to be putting the benefit
on payroll and covering the tax burden, which seems awkward.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council is trying to undo the past
practice [of covering the tax burden]; Council wants to have the
amount set as the amount the employee receives regardless of the
tax consequences.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a decision has not been made [ about
setting the vehicle allowance amount] ; that he was only requesting
that changes require a vote of the Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,21,"Mayor Johnson stated that her preference would be to set the
[gross ] amount at $250; the matter can be addressed when the new
Contract with the City Attorney is negotiated; inquired the
clearest way to make a record of the fact that any changes to
Contracts have to be brought to the Council for a vote; inquired
whether the action should be a resolution.
The Acting City Manager responded staff could bring the matter back
to Council.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter would return as a
resolution, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council would address the [vehicle
allowance] amounts later.
Vice Mayor Gilmore noted the item brought back would be a policy.
(05-366) Proposal for City Council Oversight on Expenditures from
Outside Counsel Appropriations.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter was on the Closed Session Agenda at
the last meeting; the matter was continued to tonight because the
preference was to address the matter in open session.
The City Attorney stated the proposal has limitations on spending,
settlement authority, additional reporting requirements and
limitations on the hiring of outside counsel through an RFP
process, creating four outside counsel panels.
Mayor Johnson stated that her intent is not to limit the amount of
money the City spends on outside counsel; costs cannot be known
ahead of time; the amount is not her concern; her concern is the
hiring of outside counsel approving the hiring of outside counsel
can be brought to the Council without a dollar limit; there is
concern about litigation strategies and not setting dollar
parameters because the other side can be tipped off about how
committed the City is to the litigation; that she does not
understand why the matter cannot be brought to the Council stating
the attorney to be hired for the particular case; the Council
approval could have no dollar information included; the names of
counsel and how much is paid per month is in the bills for
ratification; who represents the City is not a secret; the amount
and budget need to be kept confidential the Council has indicated
the City Attorney should be given authority to cover exigent
circumstances; the Council does not want a special meeting every
time the City is sued; inquired whether there would be a problem
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,22,"with setting an amount to cover the interim period and bringing the
authority to hire outside counsel to the City Council, without
limitation on dollar amounts.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should not be a special meeting for
$3,000 if the City Attorney needs to hire a transactional attorney
or if there is a tax question that comes up through the Finance
Department.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that if a dollar amount were not set, the
Council would be involved in a $3,000 decision to hire a tax
attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated Council could discuss a dollar limit; if the
Council had known about hiring Linda Tripoli to give an opinion on
vehicle allowance, Council might have paid more attention to the
issue; the Council should know who is working for the City, what
people are being hired to do and why; that she does not have
problem with a limit if the issue is minor.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that, if the Council wants to know who is
being hired, the question comes down to timing; inquired how
quickly the Council should be informed after legal counsel is
hired; stated there is a proposal for quarterly financial reports
on the cost of outside counsel, including who the outside counsel
is for each matter.
Mayor Johnson stated in a lot of cases the Council could give
approval before outside counsel is hired; a lot of the hiring does
not need to be immediate; regular Council meetings are twice a
month; the City Attorney can hire someone and bring the matter to
Council for approval at the next meeting in cases when there is not
time; the Council does not want to have special meetings all the
time; that she does not like the system that is in place now; the
Charter states that the Council consents to the hiring of outside
counsel; Council is currently consenting to hiring over $800,000
worth of outside counsel through a line item budget allocation; the
Council needs to exercise more oversight Council can discuss the
level of consent that should be set; it is a change from what has
been done the past 16 years; the Council needs to exercise more
oversight than in the past.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated that she is
unclear of how the Mayor proposes to do so; the City Attorney
provided a proposal inquired whether the proposal could be
reviewed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,23,"Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what the typical lead-time is from
the time the City Attorney knows outside counsel is needed to the
time outside counsel is hired.
The City Attorney responded usually the same day the City receives
a lawsuit; for example, in a recent lawsuit, the City had 30 days
to answer but in the interim the City had a motion for preliminary
injunction; within 24 hours of receiving the notice, the Council
would receive a paragraph describing the lawsuit received: the
immediate notification to the Council would include a description
as to what the City Attorney intends to do; a component would be
the discretion would be limited through the [counsel] panels, so
the Council would know who the City Attorney's office would be
selecting; the panels would be reviewed annually; the reason for
the immediacy is due to the requirement to respond immediately;
there is a balance because when litigation is received, by the next
meeting, the Council could indicate that it does not approve of
what is being done and how it is being done; the practical reality
is that within the first two weeks, significant initial work would
be done, which is why the proposal might not be the perfect
solution; a lot of knowledge will be given to the Council; there
could be additional oversight and opportunities for change after
seeing how the proposal works.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether $35,000 would cover two
weeks.
The City Attorney responded $35,000 was picked as the average cost
of litigation; the City Attorney's office actually totaled up costs
and $35,000 was the average cost; 50% of the cases are more than
$35,000 and 50% are less; the Council will know about the matter
within 24 hours, get a report and budget within 30 days, and have
the opportunity to schedule the matter for closed session; anything
which is significant, such as a bigger case, will automatically go
to Council for approval in a closed session; Council will know
[about lawsuits] within 24 hours and always have the opportunity to
request the matter be placed on the agenda; the City Attorney's
discretion in the selection of outside counsel will be from the
competitively selected panels of attorneys.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Charter states : ""The Council, or
any board with the consent of the Council, may empower the City
Attorney, at his request to employ special legal counsel;"" what is
being discussed is how the Council empowers the City Attorney to
make choices; a practical approach is to empower a certain dollar
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,24,"amount to get the ball rolling since Council meets every two weeks ;
the empowerment lasts only until the next Council meeting and the
matter is discussed if the amount would be higher, which is why he
was asking about the $35,000; using said amount is acceptable if
the amount can carry the day; the Council has to meet its Charter
obligation to empower the City Attorney based on the threshold if
there is a much larger case.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with said
suggestion; $35,000 [could be spent until the next Council
meeting; at the next Council meeting, the Council would vote to
hire the outside counsel inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese
was making said suggestion.
Councilmember Matarrese stated to use the language in the Charter,
it empowers the City Attorney to employ outside counsel.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City Attorney has $35,000
to spend; for example, a lawsuit comes in, the City Attorney can
spend $35,000, notifies the Council by e-mail, etc. and at the next
Council meeting, the Council gets a status report.
Mayor Johnson stated the hiring of the attorney that the City
Attorney is suggesting would be brought to Council at its next
meeting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the City Attorney could not do so when
the City is sued.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City could always change attorneys;
that she assumes the Council would approve the attorney that the
City Attorney suggests.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether said suggestion means that the
attorney has not started work yet.
Mayor Johnson responded in the negative; stated the City Attorney
can spend $35,000 until the next Council meeting, when the hiring
of outside counsel comes to the Council for approval.
Councilmember deHaan noted said suggestion differs from the City
Attorney's proposal in the staff report stated if the reporting
segment is actively working, Council can monitor and get in the
middle of things right off the bat if something goes astray; that
he does not have enough questions to make drastic changes; the City
Attorney can be given $35,000, or the amount can be dropped down to
$20,000, to get started; Councilmembers will receive a report the
threshold can be changed if two or three go astray.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,25,"Mayor Johnson stated said suggestion is greater micromanagement.
Council would have to keep up to date on all litigation matters
the City Attorney is responsible for management once outside
counsel is hired; Council cannot be responsible for monitoring
litigation and bringing the matter to the Council if
a
Councilmember does not like something; the Charter states the
Council is supposed to approve the hiring of outside counsel;
Council needs to make the approval; then, the City Attorney would
handle the matter.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested clarification of how the process would
work and an example be provided.
Mayor Johnson stated the main responsibility of the Council is the
Charter requirement to consent to hiring [of outside counsel] ; read
Charter section; stated the issue is how the Council consents to
the employment of special legal counsel.
Councilmember Matarrese stated it is how the Council empowers the
City Attorney the control is telling the City Attorney to go
forward with hiring outside; the tier is the City Attorney can hire
outside counsel for up to $35,000; $35,000 would take care of a
minor matter or accommodate [Council meetings) every two weeks ;
once the [$35,000] threshold is met , then the empowerment has to
come back to the City Council for a vote.
The City Attorney stated that if the additional estimate is in
excess [of $35,000] the matter would always go to Council under
the proposal; anything $35,000 or less will go to Council, if the
Council desires; anything estimated to be $35,000 or more for the
total litigation cost will automatically go to Council for
approval.
Mayor Johnson inquired what would be done in the interim period for
larger cases, to which the City Attorney responded the matter would
be placed on the agenda as soon as possible.
Mayor Johnson inquired what if immediate action was needed.
The City Attorney responded the system is two tiered; stated the
City Attorney would be authorized to spend up to $35,000 without
prior Council approval ; for matters estimated to cost less than
[$35,000] the City Attorney hires outside counsel through the RFQ
process.
Mayor Johnson stated the City Attorney's statement differs from
what the Council is saying; the City Attorney is stating that she
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,26,"can spend $35,000 without Council approval inquired whether the
City Attorney would bring the matter to the City Council if the
total estimate of the litigation expense is more than $35,000.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a large case
would have to go to Council; the proposal has a number of
additional restrictions for a smaller case, such as a sidewalk trip
and fall i that she could only pick from a pre-qualified panel; if
there is a slip and fall with a cost estimate of $15,000, the City
Attorney would review the matter and provide the Council notice,
financial reports, and cost estimates; outside counsel would be
selected from the panel.
Mayor Johnson stated there are small cases that should be handled
in house; the City has five attorneys and should not farm out
a
$15,000 trip and fall case; insurance adjustors handle said cases
in the private sector; the City should not use outside counsel for
little cases that should be handled in house; the City has five
staff attorneys and spends a lot of money on outside counsel; the
staffing level should be reviewed if every $15,000 trip and fall is
farmed out.
The City Attorney stated the proposal is to deal with one issue;
there is a process in place for reviewing performance and
management goals for the utilization of outside counsel going
forward so that the Council establishes performance standards and
expectations of the City Attorney's office; that she hears the
Council; that the matter is a budget issue; the City Attorney's
office will do more with less, try to do more litigation in house
and work with the Council to establish the balance that the Council
wants between five attorneys.
Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want to address the balance
and how it would be established; further stated that she would
prefer $25,000 [as the threshold].
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $35,000 is for each matter.
Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated that [$35,000]
is what the City Attorney is proposing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a period of time.
The City Attorney responded there are lots of time periods: notice
within 24 hours, budget within 35 days, and quarterly financial
reports.
Councilmember Matarrese stated for practical terms and Charter
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,27,"interpretation, the special legal counsel is per matter, which is
reasonable; someone can get started on a case; legal matters go by
case; the City Attorney would not be hiring one person to do
multiple cases.
The City Attorney stated it is per matter or item, not per issue,
subject, attorney, etc.
Mayor Johnson stated reports must not just include litigation; the
report the City Attorney provided on outside counsel only included
litigation and not other non-litigation issues that outside counsel
handle for the City.
Councilmember deHaan inquired about the number of cases that hit
the $35,000 threshold per year, possibly ten to twelve.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated that she
estimates there are about 20 active litigation cases currently.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 20 cases would reach the
$35,000 threshold, to which the City Attorney responded less than
that [20 cases].
Councilmember deHaan stated no more than eight to ten cases will
hit the $35,000 threshold over a year period of time the vast
majority are in the $3,000 to $4,000 bracket; inquired whether the
numbers [that will reach $35,000] are low.
The City Attorney responded that in trying to get some rational
basis to come up with a number, $35,000 is the exact median of the
average cost of outside counsel, so half of the cases are below and
half are above.
Councilmember deHaan disagreed.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council received the report that
shows the actual amount spent on different litigation cases.
The City Attorney responded the report was provided last week.
Councilmember deHaan stated the report provided can be fine-tuned
and should work fine; that he does not see the number [of cases
$35,000 or over] being that great; the Council is allowing 70% of
the City Attorney's activity below the threshold; noted that he
used the data the City Attorney provided.
The City Attorney stated [$35,000] was found to be the median
number ; one reason for the reporting to Council is that changes can
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
27
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,28,"be made if desired.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that prior to today, the City Attorney's
office had a budget that the Council approved by a line item; the
City Attorney had utter discretion to spend the money any way she
saw fit; the Council is trying to be more cognizant of its Charter
responsibilities to provide oversight of spending said money
having gone from over $500,000 of discretionary spending to the
limit of $35,000 is a more than a prudent place to begin; the
amount is not set in stone; nothing prevents the Council from
putting a policy in place, seeing how it works and making changes
if needed; unless there are more specific recommendations the
policy is a good place to get started because it provides what the
Council is trying to move towards.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has no problem with it; the
Council still has the oversight; future changes could be made.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether approval should be via a resolution.
The City Attorney stated Council should adopt via motion, so it is
a formal Council action in terms of direction.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether any changes need to be made.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a way to put the
proposal in terms of the Charter responsibility, which is not City
Council oversight of outside legal counsel expense, but is City
Council rules of empowering the City Attorney to engage outside
counsel.
The City Attorney responded the motion could be that this is the
rule of empowering the City Attorney under [Charter Section] 8-5.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether this is a policy.
The City Attorney responded it is a rule; it is a direction.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the action could not be done by
resolution.
The City Attorney responded a resolution could be brought back.
Mayor Johnson stated a resolution would be clearer; the issue of
Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) also needs to be brought back to
the Council; the Council needs to discuss approving counsel for
AP&T and should consider delegating authority to the Public
Utilities Board.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
28
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,29,"The City Attorney stated said matter could be included in the
resolution.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese stated Council should
discuss the matter first.
Mayor Johnson suggested the resolution discussed tonight be brought
back and a separate discussion be held on delegating AP&T's legal
counsel.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired as to the difference between acting by
resolution and by motion.
Mayor Johnson stated resolutions are easier for City staff to
track.
The City Clerk noted resolutions are permanent records of the City
Council.
Councilmember deHaan stated the proposal includes quarterly
reporting requirements; that he would prefer monthly reporting.
Mayor Johnson stated that monthly reporting was acceptable to her,
including the current budget on the status of the overall
litigation contingency budget for not only Risk Management, but
also AP&T.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Council needs all of the numbers for
all of the different entities that are part of legal budget the
Council appropriated.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City Attorney's office has always
delivered; the challenge is there is a desire to have more
involvement in oversight.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred; stated that the action is not due to
a deficiency in the City Attorney's office, rather it is the
Council following what the Charter sets out as its role and
bringing practices in line.
Mayor Johnson concurred; inquired whether the matter could return
at the next Council meeting.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
29
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,30,"(05-367) -
Susan Potter, Alameda, requested guidance in procuring a
permit for a mobile vendor to do business in the City; stated many
companies do business without a permit.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the request was for a mobile
business at the dog park, to which Ms. Potter responded in the
affirmative.
The Acting City Manager stated the proposal is to utilize a space
at the dog park and other parks; the Recreation and Park Commission
is working on a comprehensive policy and did not want to address
the request as part of the policy; the section of the Municipal
Code dealing with rolling stores could be amended; if the Council
desires, staff could work with the Planning Board to draft an
ordinance making amendments to address the issue.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council has to direct that the
matter be referred to the Planning Board; noted issues are unknown,
for example merchants might oppose changes.
The Acting City Manager suggested the Planning Board consider the
matter.
Mayor Johnson concurred with the suggestion.
Councilmember deHaan stated the issue of how long a business could
remain on pubic property would need to be addressed.
The Acting City Manager stated rolling stores can only use the
public right-of-way, not standing locations.
Councilmember deHaan noted Oakland allows rolling vendors on
private property.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Planning Board should review the
matter.
Ms. Potter noted nothing is being done about the rolling vendors
that are currently operating in the City without permits.
Mayor Johnson stated the City might need to start doing
enforcement.
(05-368) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed speeding vehicles.
(05-369) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated non-food services, such as
bicycle repair, should be considered when addressing mobile
businesses; noted market factors, such as demand, would not support
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
30
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,31,"the establishment of seventeen movie theaters in town.
(05-370) David Kirwin, Alameda, expressed concern about the
megaplex theatre and parking structure project and funding;
questioned whether there would be a $1,000 parcel tax; stated
parking lots adjacent to businesses are sufficient; there is a need
for increased public awareness regarding the project.
Mayor Johnson responded there is not a parcel tax; requested staff
to inform Mr. Kirwin where he should go for information.
The Acting City Manager stated Mr. Kirwin, and others, could meet
with staff in the City Manager's Office or Development Services
Department.
Mayor Johnson stated information could also be mailed or e-mailed,
if preferred.
(05-371) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, stated
people opposed to the [theater and parking structure) project have
been providing misinformation; stated PSBA would have opposed the
project if a $1,000 parcel tax were involved; noted the Downtown
Vision plan from May, 2000 indicated that informal talks about a
mutli-screen - theater were underway
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-372) - Councilmember deHaan stated that he visited the Bayport
site; the transit shelter on Tinker Avenue is less than adequate;
the size of the sidewalks at Bayport are extremely narrow, do not
match other sidewalks in Alameda, and are not pedestrian friendly;
said matters should be considered when other developments are
built.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
31
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,32,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JULY 19, 2005- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-339) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Attorney
(05-340) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: Miraglia Enterprises V. City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Evaluation, the Council discussed the performance of the City
Attorney; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council gave
instructions to the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,33,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -JULY 19, 2005- -6:55 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
(05-341/05-035CIC ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation; Name of case Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda,
Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda V.
Alameda Belt Line.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Commission
obtained briefing from the City Attorney/Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf