{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - - JULY 19, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:42 p.m.\nCouncilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(05-342) Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Creating\nSpecial Newsrack Districts [ 105-357] would not be heard.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(05-343) Proclamation recognizing Alamedans for Responsible\nTransit Shelters (ARTS) and volunteer efforts to install new bus\nshelters.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Reyla Graber,\nPat Gannon, Jeannie Graham-Gilliat, Lee Harris, and Mel Sanderson;\nstated that ARTS worked very hard to ensure that there would be\nunadvertised bus shelters; thanked ARTS and supporters who\ncontributed money to buy the bus shelters.\nReyla Graber thanked the Council for the recognition.\nLee Harris thanked ARTS; stated that he was impressed with the hard\nwork and efforts of everyone involved.\nMel Sanderson, President of the Clara Barton Foundation, stated\nbeing available for ARTS was a pleasure.\nSusan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, thanked the Council and\nARTS for working hard to get bus shelters in Alameda; stated she is\nlooking forward to new bus shelters on Park and Webster Streets.\n(05-344) - Presentation by the Park Street Business Association\n(PSBA) on the 21st Annual Art and Wine Faire.\nBlake Brydon, Chair of the Art and Wine Faire, invited the\ncommunity to attend the Faire on July 30 and July 31 and presented\nwine glasses to the Council.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 2, "text": "Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the\nActing City Manager to execute a Contract with Masayuki Nagase [05-\n348], the recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to accept the\n$404,087 Awarding of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant [05-349]\nand the recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize Call\nfor Bids [05-350] were removed from the consent calendar for\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. . ]\n(*05-345) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Social\nService Human Relations Board Meeting of June 23, 2005 and the\nSpecial and Regular City Council Meetings held on July 5, 2005.\nApproved.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested that the word \"scheduling\" be\ninserted prior to \"conflict\" in the June 23, 2005 minutes [under\nRoll Call] .\n(*05-346 ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,960,630.82.\n(*05-347) Recommendation to accept the work of Clyde G. Steagall,\nInc., for Alameda Point Pier 3 electrical upgrades, No. P.W. 08-02-\n08. Accepted.\n(05-348) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to\nexecute a Contract with Masayuki Nagase for fabrication and\ninstallation of public art work, Cadence of Water, at the new Main\nLibrary.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would like to see a better\nrepresentation of the artwork.\nThe Library Director introduced Masayuki Nagase; stated Mr. Nagase\nhas created dozens of public art installations and was the\nunanimous choice of the Art and Recognition Team.\nMr. Nagase stated the artwork consists of eight medallions\nmeasuring 4 feet to 7 feet high; the water element theme represents\nthe City's surrounding bay and beach areas.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 3, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the art would be done in limestone.\nMr. Nagase responded in the affirmative; stated the angle of the\nforms would catch the morning and afternoon light.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-349) Recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to accept the\n$404,087 Awarding of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant for a\nfirefighting training trailer and authorizing funding for the\nCity's matching portion of $80,817 from the General Fund Reserves.\nMayor Johnson requested that future reports include on-going\nmaintenance and operating costs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was an order of\nmagnitude for the maintenance and operating costs for comparison\npurposes.\nThe Fire Chief responded that the maintenance costs are expected to\nbe low; the majority of the cost would be for propane gasi there\nwould be an additional cost for moving the trailer out of the area\nbecause a diesel truck trailer would be needed.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City has a tractor.\nThe Fire Chief responded that he has not checked with the Public\nWorks Department; using a City tractor would be the first choice.\nMayor Johnson stated training locally might provide a cost savings.\nThe Fire Chief stated the closest facility for live fire training\nis Livermore, which is too far away for on-duty personnel: the\ncommunity was concerned with the smoke generated by the live fire\ntraining at the LinOaks Motel.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-350 - ) Recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize Call\nfor Bids for replacement of three (3) marked police vehicles.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council requested a more\ndetailed Citywide vehicle inventory.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated there should be a written, Citywide\npolicy; noted Police Department needs would differ from Public\nWorks; stated the supplemental report indicates other cities\nreplace vehicles at higher mileage; requested that the policy\ninclude mileage replacement comparisons with other cities and\nexplanation of why the City replaces vehicles with lower mileage.\nThe Acting Police Captain stated that a 65,000 to 75,000 mile\nvehicle replacement is not abnormal; the City garage mechanic is\nconcerned with the idle hours.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the number of vehicles that are\nreplaced may not be the same as before because of tough budget\ntimes; the City might need to go longer before replacing vehicles.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he looks forward to receiving a\npolicy with input from the Public Works Department i inquired what\nwould be the impact if a six-month deferral; inquired whether\nvehicles have hour meters.\nThe Acting Police Captain responded that hour meters are not\ninstalled; a six-month deferral would be difficult; the vehicles\ntake a beating.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the three vehicles are\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 5, "text": "currently in service, to which the Acting Police Captain responded\nin the affirmative\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Council should review vehicle\nreplacement in terms of protection and service to the residents;\nthe Police Department needs the best equipment or there could be\nsafety issues; six-month deferral is not an option.\nMayor Johnson stated more detailed information on vehicle\nmaintenance costs is needed; there is no explanation why the\nvehicles are to be replaced.\nThe Acting City Manager stated that the matter would be brought\nback to the Council in August with more information.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the matter should be brought to\nCouncil with more justification on why the three vehicles need to\nbe replaced; inquired whether the vehicles have failed in the field\nand whether there has been a lapse in service, other problems or\npotential safety issues.\nThe Acting Police Captain responded there have not been significant\nproblems with the vehicles failing in the field; history has shown\nthat as mileage increases problems could arise.\nVice Mayor Gilmore requested information on trade-in value; stated\nthe City might get a higher trade-in value now than in a year.\nThe Acting Police Captain stated that vehicles become inoperable\nbecause of safety reasons; vehicles need to be available.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired the number of vehicles and the number\nof employees assigned to the vehicles, to which the Acting Police\nCaptain responded 23 vehicles are used by 43 officers.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how much a police vehicle costs, to\nwhich the Acting Police Captain responded $32,000.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog\nregarding not deferring replacement for six months.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many hours per day vehicles are\nused, to which the Acting Police Captain responded that the\nmajority of the vehicles are used 24 hours per day.\nMayor Johnson requested that a written policy be brought back to\nthe Council at the first or second City Council meeting in August.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember deHaan requested that the policy address all vehicles\nCitywide.\nMayor Johnson requested that the policy address all police\nvehicles, not just patrol vehicles.\n(*05-351) - Recommendation to appoint Lee Perez as a representative\nto the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. Accepted.\n(*05-352) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to\nexecute an amendment to the Contract with MV Student\nTransportation, increasing the budget by $8,000, and extending the\nContract to August 15, 2005. Accepted.\n(\n(*05-353) - Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Holland &\nKnight, LLP in the amount of $40,000 for federal legislative\nadvocacy, and appropriate the $40,000 from the General Fund\nreserves. Accepted.\n( *05-354) Resolution No. 13874, \"Approving Parcel Map No. 8574\n(Harbor Bay Parkway and North Loop Road) . \" Adopted.\n(*05-355)\nResolution No. 13875, \"Adopting the Findings for the\nNon-Native Spartina Eradication Program Contained in the Final\nProgrammatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact\nReport Prepared by California State Coastal Conservancy, Adopting a\nMitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding\nConsiderations, and Approving an Agreement for Funding from the\nState of California Coastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina\nEradication and Mitigation Measures. \" Adopted.\n(*05-356) Resolution No. 13876, \"Granting Another Designated Period\nfor Two Years Additional Service Credit as Provided for Under\nContract Amendment between the City and the Public Employees'\nRetirement System and California Government Code Section 20903. \"\nAdopted.\n(*05-357) Adoption of Resolution Creating Special Newsrack\nDistricts in Both the Park Street Business and the West Alameda\nBusiness Districts as Authorized in Alameda Municipal Code Section\n22-7, Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines of Article I\nStreets) Chapter XXII (Streets and Sidewalks) Not heard.\n(*05-358) Resolution No. 13877, \"Authorizing Filing of a Notice of\nExemption for Acquisition of the Alameda Belt Line. Adopted.\n(*05-359) - Resolution No. 13878, \"Accepting the Findings of the\nCross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 7, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(05-360) - Resolution No. 13879, \"Appointing John W. KnoxWhite as a\nMember of the Transportation Commission. \" Adopted; and\n(05-360A) Resolution No. 13880, \"Appointing Eric Schatmeier as a\nMember of the Transportation Commission. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented the\nmembers of the Transportation Commission with Certificates of\nAppointment.\n(05-361) Public hearing to consider revisions to the Development\nRegulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda\nMunicipal Code (AMC) more commonly referred to as the Zoning\nOrdinance, with respect to building height limits and number of\nstories exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions\nto existing residences, the definition for replacement-in-kind\noff-street parking regulations and reconstruction of non-conforming\nresidential structures; and\n(05-361A) Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda\nMunicipal Code by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX\n(Development Regulations). Introduced.\nThe Supervising Planner gave a brief overview of the proposed\nrevisions.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the 'replacement-in-kin definition\nwould apply to the design guidelines and solve problems that\nresidents are having at Harbor Bay when replacing aluminum-sliding\nwindows.\nThe Supervising Planner stated that the guidelines state that\nmaterials that are appropriate for the style of the house should be\nused.\nMayor Johnson stated residents should not have to go to the\nPlanning Board to replace windows because of staff's interpretation\nof the guidelines; Harbor Bay residents are not getting permits\nbecause they have been told aluminum-sliding windows are not\nallowed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 8, "text": "The Supervising Planner stated that she was not aware of staff\ndisallowing aluminum sliding windows as long as the windows were an\nappropriate style for the house.\nMayor Johnson stated that \"appropriate style\" is a very subjective\nterm; muntins are prohibited; Council did not intend to have any\nprohibitions when the guidelines were approved.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the guidelines include a one-year\ntrial period to iron out the bugs.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Council adopted the guidelines with\nthe understanding that they would be reasonably applied; a Citywide\nprohibition would require that the matter be brought back to the\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the guidelines do not prohibit\nanything, but provide direction.\nMayor Johnson stated that internal muntins between double-paned\nwindows are prohibited Citywide; the Council did not have any\nexpectation that there would be prohibitions in the guidelines.\nThe Acting City Manager stated that internal muntins are addressed\nunder a heading of what should be allowed; that staff has been\ngiven direction to review each case individually.\nMayor Johnson stated that the City has a diverse housing type;\nthere cannot be one rule that applies to every house.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he was concerned with changing\nrequirements for second story setbacks. noted there have been two\nor three issues regarding blockage of sunlight in the past two\nyears; that he would like to have a separate vote on second story\nsetback regulations if the matter is voted on tonight.\nThe Supervising Planner inquired whether Councilmember Daysog was\nreferring to the three-foot setback which allows going straight up\nor the additional two-foot setback required with an existing five-\nfoot setback.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that he was referring to remaining\nwith the status quo in all instances; a process can be followed to\nreceive an exception.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether an existing roof pitch could\nbe replicated.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 9, "text": "The Supervising Planner responded as long as the height limit is\nnot exceeded.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that closing down the roof pitch to\nstay within the height limit creates architectural problems.\nMayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.\nProponent : Ken Carvalho, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the Public\nportion of the Hearing.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with the\ndirection to review roof pitch and window issues.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested to have a separate vote on second\nstory setbacks.\nCouncilmember deHaan amended his motion to exclude second story\nsetbacks.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance provisions\non second story setbacks.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes : Councilmember Daysog - 1.\n(05-362) Public hearing to consider Zoning Text Amendment ( ZA05 -\n0002) , amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to add\n\"Boutique Theater\" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district,\nsubject to Use Permit approval. Applicant : Alameda Theatre Project\nInc. Address All Neighborhood Business Districts (C-1) ;\n(05-362A) Resolution No. 13881, \"Adopting a Negative Declaration\nfor ZA05-0002. \" Adopted; and\n(05-362B) Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda\nMunicipal Code by Declaring Boutique Theaters to be Uses Permitted\nby Use Permit within the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning\nDistrict of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) . Introduced.\nMayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 10, "text": "Proponents : David Hart, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Jon\nSpangler, Alameda; Susan Older, Alameda: Peter MacDonald,\nrepresenting Mark Haskett Blake Brydon, Alameda; Bernard Clark,\nAlameda; Mark Haskett, Alameda: and Ami Dimusheva, Alameda.\nOpponent : Former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the Hearing.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to respond to the issue of providing\nnotice to C-2 zoning areas [raised by Ms. Thomas]\nThe Supervising Planner stated the C-2 Zoning District permits\ntheaters, including movie theaters, as a permitted use; theaters do\nnot have to go through the use permit process that the proposed\ntext amendment would require for the C-1 district.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the [movie theater ] use is already\npermitted in the C-2 district, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated speakers were surprised that the\nmatter was before the Council; the normal process is being\nfollowed; nothing is being hidden; the process is completely open\nand public; the public should be aware that the action is not\nredundant and is the way business is conducted.\nMayor Johnson noted the Council had not considered the issue\nbefore.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned that seventeen\nareas could be affected; hopefully, there are enough safeguards\nnot all [C-1] areas have the same attributes of the [theater]\nlocation on Central Avenue; inquired whether there are outstanding\ncode issues at the cinema.\nThe Acting City Manager responded the one [outstanding] issue is\nthe projection booth; stated the Applicant has been working\ncooperatively with the Building Department; the issue is clearance\naround the projector.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the initial life safety\nissues were resolved, to which the Acting City Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired when the outstanding [projector]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 11, "text": "issue would be corrected.\nMr. MacDonald, the Applicant's attorney, responded that the\nApplicant has all materials ready to be submitted tomorrow; the\nBuilding Official cannot accept the application until after the\nzoning change is approved.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the Planning Board does not have the\nauthority to enact zoning changes and only makes recommendations\nto\nthe Council therefore, the matter had to come before Council the\nmatter before the Council is not approving the Central Cinema; the\nchange will affect seventeen zones in the City; other people might\nconsider a similar business if Mr. Haskett is successful; the\napproval is not for just one theater in one location; that she is\nconcerned that there could be more than one boutique theater in a\nneighborhood.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is interested in just rezoning the\none C-1 district [at Central Avenue and 9th Street] noted the\nCouncil was not approving just Mr. Haskett's operation; stated Mr.\nHaskett could sell the business and neighbors might not like the\nnew owner or the types of movies the new owner shows; the Rocky\nHorror Picture Show could be shown three times a day seven days a\nweek; the City can only regulate adult movies; the approval would\nallow other cinemas in other areas with other operators; inquired\nwhether there could be a restriction that if Mr. Haskett sold his\noperation, the Use Permit would not go to the next operator.\nMr. MacDonald stated that he was asked to respond publicly as to\nwhether they would consent to the request; the rule is that a Use\nPermit runs with the land and cannot be personalized the general\nrule is that there are considerations built into the Use Permit to\nallow the Use Permit to be revoked if things happen which are not\nconsistent with the Use Permit.\nMayor Johnson stated the City can only regulate adult movies; there\nmight be another type of operator that would want to take over the\nbusiness; the neighbors like Mr. Haskett and like what he is doing;\nher concern is that he might sell the business.\nMr. MacDonald stated one reason people build up businesses is to\nhave something that can be sold; not being able to sell the\nbusiness means said effort could never be achieved; to regulate the\ntype of movies or operators are over and above the terms of\nreasonably conditioned Use Permit and would destroy the value of\nthe business.\nMayor Johnson stated the neighbors should understand that if Mr.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 12, "text": "Haskett sells his business to someone else, they might not like the\ntypes of movies the next operator shows.\nMr. Clark stated the issues being raised are valid; there should\nnot be concern over the type of movies showing, other than adult\nmovies the use would be revoked if anything caused a public\nnuisance, such as being too loud.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would not want a theater in her\nneighborhood; that she has concerns with imposing the regulation on\nthe sixteen other C-1 zoning areas and is not convinced that the\nzoning could not be changed for just the one area.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the permit runs with the land; basing a\ndecision on a particular owner is a bad policy; her decision will\nbe based on the merit of the use, not the owner.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested staff to address whether the use\ncould be limited to just one area.\nThe City Attorney stated the Mayor prefers to deal with the one\ncase, rather than Citywide; after analyzing the law carefully and\nunderstanding said preference, she has to take responsibility for\nthe legal opinion that the issue must be dealt with Citywide.\nMayor Johnson inquired why two or three [C-1] districts in more\ncommercial areas could not be made a different zone; stated there\nare C-1 zones in the Park Street and Webster Street areas adjacent\nto more commercial areas; some C-1 zones are in very residential\nareas; inquired why a few C-1 zones could not be called something\ndifferent and boutique theaters could be allowed in said areas,\nwithout changing the existing geographic boundaries.\nThe Supervising Planner stated staff tried to create criteria for\nthe C-1 districts; finding a solution is very difficult because the\nareas are so diverse; the amount of traffic was reviewed all\ndistricts have adjacent residential areas.\nMayor Johnson inquired why three districts in more commercial areas\ncould not be renamed and boutique theaters could be allowed in said\nareas; stated the geographic area of the zoning district would not\nbe changed; only the name would be changed and boutique theaters\ncould be permitted.\nThe Supervising Planner stated if Council could direct which\ndistricts and why, staff could review the matter; staff was having\ndifficulty with determining why [the reason for selecting said\ndistricts].\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 13, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the Council could not do so tonight.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether live theater with\nunlimited seating is already allowed in all C-1 districts, to which\nthe Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated putting a ceiling of 49 seats\nrestricts risk to and impact on the neighborhood; the same concerns\nexist with live theater; some performances might not be wanted in\nneighborhoods; allowing a movie theater has less impact than a live\ntheater ; there is not a huge risk; the existing business would be\nlegalized; that he would be happy with only selecting several of\nthe areas as a trial; there is not a great impact on the other\nsixteen districts since live theaters with unlimited seating are\npermitted.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with Central\nCinema, but would like to restrict the regulation as much as\npossible; if the use could be restricted to a small number of C-1\nareas or if very residential C-1 areas could be eliminated, the\nCity should do soi although live theater has been allowed for a\nlong time, allowing boutique theaters now should be done in a more\nrestrictive way; that she supports the station business districts,\nwhich are part of Alameda's historyi the stations have to keep\ngoing to create a walk-able community; however, the areas have\nconflicts because residences are adjacent to businesses; that she\nwould like to go forward with Central Cinema, while restricting the\nuse to as few C-1 areas as possible; the matter of limiting the\nareas has not been thoroughly reviewed.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there have been requests for\nlive theaters in other areas, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded the only one she is aware of is the Altarena.\nThe Acting City Manager stated staff had multiple meetings on how\nto reduce the number of areas; there was concern about spot zoning\nstaff did extraordinary noticing to ensure residents around the\nstation areas were aware of the proposed change the Council could\nmove forward tonight and staff could come back at a later date to\nundo portions [limit number of districts].\nMayor Johnson stated her goal is to limit the use to as few areas\nas possible; one idea is to name several areas a different zoning\ndistricti people do not notice use until there is a problem.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated [Central Cinema's ] start was high\ndrama, but has potential to be a feel good story; time will only\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 14, "text": "tell if the Cinema will be a one hit wonder or a movie for the\nages; the issues that the Mayor is bringing up can be tackled;\nthere is enough information to proceed with the action tonight;\nissues raised can be addressed; that he doubts many people will\nsubmit applications for theaters; there is a window of opportunity\nto move forward with the theater.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested staff to review making the\nboutique theater regulations apply to all theaters, eliminating the\npossibility of having a 200 seat live theater.\nMayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion;\nstated that staff could review both issues.\nThe City Attorney stated the Council could direct that the zoning\ntext amendment be brought to the Planning Board for an additional\namendment in terms of applying restrictions on live theater.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a flood of people will not try to\nget into the theater business; there is cap on the number of seats;\nthe risk is fairly low; the regulations provide definition for what\nis already an unrestricted business; the two seem no different,\nexcept for the fact that there would be a movie projector instead\nof actors in front of the audience.\nMayor Johnson stated that she supports the suggestion to go forward\nand bring back modifications; concurred with Councilmember\nMatarrese's suggestion to restrict live theaters.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\n[adoption of the resolution and introduction of the ordinance] with\nthe direction to come back with modifications to provide better\ncontrol and planning, including exploring limiting the number of\ndistricts where the activity will be allowed.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she could not support the change\nbased on the merit of the operator instead of policy the\nmodifications that will return might address her concerns.\n(05-363) Recommendation to approve a revised Donor Recognition and\nNamed Gifts Policy for the Library.\nThe Acting City Manager noted that staff provided a new set of\nphotographs.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 15, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether name plaques would be placed on\nshelves, to which the Library Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the names would remain on shelves\nforever; stated $100 does not seem high enough for having a name\nremain forever.\nThe Library Director stated the names remain for the life of the\nitem, not the life of the library; the name would not remain if a\nshelf is replaced.\nMayor Johnson stated $100 does not seem like a large amount.\nThe Library Director stated setting a reasonable amount could raise\na lot of money; $1 million was raised mostly from $100 shelves in\nanother library.\nCouncilmember Matarrese noted shelves, which only cost $100, might\nlast longer than chairs, which are $500; stated that the policy is\na good way to raise money.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is maintenance involved\nwith the plaques.\nThe Library Director responded possibly, but problems with plaques\nare minimal.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated plastic plaques could be damaged.\nThe Library Director stated an inexpensive, but durable and\nattractive, shelf tag would be used.\nDr. Jeptha Boone, Alameda Free Library Foundation President, stated\nthe foundation was formed 6\u00b9/\u00b2 years ago to raise money for the\nlibrary; the foundation has raised $65,000 and is trying to raise\n$600,000 for art, branches and collections; urged approval of the\npolicy.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-364) Consideration of waiving attorney client privilege of\nSeptember 12, 2003 and April 10, 2001 legal opinions regarding\nvehicle allowance for City Manager and City Attorney.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 16, "text": "The City Attorney stated that she would step down during the agenda\nitem and the next agenda item [paragraph no. 05-365], which have to\ndo with her Contract.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Council has a copy of the legal\nopinion; Council can vote to make it available to the public; there\nis nothing in the opinion that needs to be confidential.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of waiving attorney client\nprivilege restrictions on the memos.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nMayor Johnson stated the opinion is an interpretation of a Contract\nprovision; last year, she was informed that the City Manager's\nvehicle allowance had increased; in November, she asked the City\nAttorney to review whether the City Manager's vehicle allowance had\nchanged; the response she received back was it had not changed; a\nCouncilmember then learned that the vehicle allowance for the City\nManager was $372; Councilmembers questioned how the vehicle\nallowance was increased because the Contract states that the\nvehicle allowance is $250; Council asked the Human Resources\nDirector to check on the matter; last week, the response back from\nthe Human Resources Director was that a legal opinion was obtained\nfrom outside counsel that indicated that the vehicle allowance\nshould be increased because of a change in tax; the reason the\nmatter is on the agenda is because her response to the Acting City\nManager was that the amount should stay the same and should remain\nthe $250 in the Contract until the Council agrees to change the\namount; that she requested that the Acting City Manager change the\namount back to $250 and he stated that the Council should give\ndirection on the matter, which is why she placed the matter on the\nagenda; the Council should determine what happened and has wondered\nwhy the amount is higher than the amount in the Contract; the\nCouncil should decide whether the vehicle allowance stays the\nhigher amount or goes back to the Contract amount; there should be\na Contract amendment ; that she is interested in other\nCouncilmembers' thoughts that she does not recall seeing the legal\nopinion; in 2001, the memo to the City Attorney from Linda Tripoli\nstates \"You have asked this office for a legal opinion relative to\nan issue that has arisen with regard to the car allowance;' the\nopinion is dated April 10, 2001; that she understands that the\nchange in amount did not go into effect until October, 2003; that\nshe does not recall seeing the opinion in 2001 or 2003; when she\nasked in 2004, she was informed that there were no changes that\nshe is sure the response meant there was no change in the net\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 17, "text": "amount of the vehicle allowance, but there had been a change in the\ngross amount; noted the Human Resources Director was present if\nanyone has questions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that when a salary is provided in a\nContract, Council does not have someone go back later and adjust\nthe salary so that the net after taxes is the amount stated in the\nContract; that he views the vehicle allowance in the same fashion;\nupholding the Contract and putting the amount back to $250 is\nsimple.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the $250 was net when the\nContract was enacted and something happened, such as a change in\nthe IRS code, to make the amount no longer net.\nMayor Johnson stated the amount in the Contract is $250; there was\na change in the tax code; the amount became taxable; the benefit in\nthe Contract was not stated as a net amount ; it is a question of\nfact, not laws; the question [of increasing the amount) should have\nbeen addressed to the Council, not an outside attorney.\nThe Human Resources Director stated that she does not know the tax\nCode or if any changes were made to the tax Code; the benefit was\nnon-taxable when first provided and then became taxable, which is\nwhy the legal opinion was given to the City Attorney; the opinion\nwas sent to the Finance Director who continued to provide the\nbenefit as a tax-free benefit for the next year to year and a half;\nafter said time, it was discovered that the benefit should be\ntaxable and put into the payroll system as a taxable benefit; the\nadditional memo came forward to state that if the vehicle allowance\nis going to be a taxable benefit, the net amount needs to be $250\nper month.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the opinion was for the two Contracted\npositions of City Attorney and City Manager; inquired how the legal\nopinion would apply to the $250 allowance given to other Department\nHeads; inquired whether other Department Heads were not entitled to\nthe adjustment since they are not under Contract.\nThe Human Resources Director responded that she does not know the\nexact language of the Contracts for the City Manager and City\nAttorney that she cannot appropriately answer the question; auto\nallowance for all other employees is through the payroll system and\nis a taxable benefit.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there could be a major impact if the\nlegal opinion was exercised all the way through the system; the\namount of the car allowance would depend on the amount of money a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 18, "text": "person makes; the more an individual makes, the higher the car\nallowance would be.\nThe Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative ; stated\ntaxes are based upon income.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City Manager and City Attorney\nreceived a check for $250 with no taxes taken out before 2001\nsomething happened, whether an IRS ruling or direction was to have\nthe car allowance go through payroll; the amount would be reduced\nwith taxes assessed; the issue then becomes a labor contract issue\nof good faith; the $250 amount was negotiated on a good faith\nbasis; a staff member, such as the Finance Director or Human\nResources Director, with Linda Tripoli's letter from April, 2001,\nopined that the amount would have to be increased in order to\nremain whole at $250; in the highest tax rate, mathematically the\ncost would be roughly $80 on the federal side and 11-12% on the\nState side, which comes out to roughly $370; that he does not see\nthe problem.\nMayor Johnson stated that in her opinion, the problem is that the\nmatter should have come to the Council; when the Council approves a\nContract that states the person receives $250 per month, the amount\nis $250 per month; if there is a subsequent tax change or ruling\nthat makes the amount taxable, the matter should come to Council to\nask if the amount should be $250 or increased now that taxes have\nto be paid on the amount; the matter is not really a legal issue,\nrather it is a matter of determining whether the Council wants to\nchange the amount now that there is a tax consequence.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Council's intent was always to keep\nthe amount at $250; that he cannot imagine that the Council wanted\nthe amount lowered in 2001; that he can only imagine that the memo\nissued in 2001 and circulated to the City Council was consistent\nwith what the Council wanted.\nMayor Johnson stated the clearest way to know what the Council\nintended would be to ask the Council: Council sets amounts for\nsalaries, vehicle allowances for other people, and all kinds of\nthings, which are always gross, not net; many benefits provided\nhave tax consequences.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated it is a question of process, not\namount ; the process should be that if there is a change that incurs\na higher dollar outlay than what was done before or if there is a\nquestion of intent, the matter, under Contract or Memorandum Of\nUnderstanding (MOU) should come to the Council; the issue is not\nhugely complicated; that [bring the matter to Council] should be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 19, "text": "to Council, but Finance never implemented the change; that she\nquestions whether the memo even went to Finance in 2001.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the policy that he is looking for is\nthat if there is a dollar figure in a contract, that the matter\nshould return as a Contract or MOU amendment.\nMayor Johnson stated sending a copy of a memo to the Council is not\na way of notifying the Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the question is not notification;\nthe question is approval; there is an easy fix: going forward, all\nchanges will come to Council for a vote.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred with the suggestion; stated policy\nshould be set going forward; the Contract for the new City Manager\nstates that the amount is a fixed amount a new Contract is being\nnegotiated with the City Attorney and the matter can be clarified;\ninquired what will be done in the interim in the next five months;\nstated putting the matter in the open to understand how the City\nreached the current status is good; safeguards can be put in place.\nMayor Johnson stated the Council voted to make the legal opinion a\npublic document and should call the next agenda item to address the\npolicy.\n( 05-365) - Discussion and recommendations regarding City Manager and\nCity Attorney contract provisions pertaining to vehicle allowance\nlimit.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated his previous comments [ under the\nprevious agenda item, paragraph no. 05-364] hold.\nMayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan concurred.\nCouncilmember Daysog that he does not have a problem with the\ndirection to have issues come back to the City Council; however,\nwhen he received the legal opinion in 2001, he felt it was\nconsistent going forward, Council's request for everything to come\nbefore Council is acceptable.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated actions should be done equitably among\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 20, "text": "the rest of the people who receive automobile allowances and i\nadjustments should have been made accordingly after the opinion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the car allowance for others is taxable\nand done through payroll.\nMayor Johnson stated the amount is a gross amount; if the car\nallowance for other employees is $250, like the City Manager and\nCity Attorney, the amount is taxable and other employees receive\n$160.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a select two were isolated to receive\nthe adjustment, rather than reviewing how the law affects other\nemployees.\nMayor Johnson stated changes in the Contract should be done through\na vote of the Council; sending a carbon copy to the Council is not\na vote of the Council the Council can only act by voting and\ncannot act by non-response or consent by silence; concurred with\nCouncilmember Matarrese's comments that it is a process question;\nthe process that was used was not appropriate.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has a problem with stating that\nsomething that happened in 2001 was inappropriate; any\nCouncilmember could have objected when the memo was received; no\none objected; things are being done differently in the new era.\nMayor Johnson stated the Council should have clear expectations of\nhow to handle Contract amendments.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the Council is indicating how the matter\nwill be handled in the future.\nMayor Johnson stated the Council has to vote to change a Contract.\nDavid Kirwin, Alameda, stated that extra benefits always have to be\ndeclared for tax purposes Council seems to be putting the benefit\non payroll and covering the tax burden, which seems awkward.\nMayor Johnson stated the Council is trying to undo the past\npractice [of covering the tax burden]; Council wants to have the\namount set as the amount the employee receives regardless of the\ntax consequences.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a decision has not been made [ about\nsetting the vehicle allowance amount] ; that he was only requesting\nthat changes require a vote of the Council.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 21, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that her preference would be to set the\n[gross ] amount at $250; the matter can be addressed when the new\nContract with the City Attorney is negotiated; inquired the\nclearest way to make a record of the fact that any changes to\nContracts have to be brought to the Council for a vote; inquired\nwhether the action should be a resolution.\nThe Acting City Manager responded staff could bring the matter back\nto Council.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the matter would return as a\nresolution, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council would address the [vehicle\nallowance] amounts later.\nVice Mayor Gilmore noted the item brought back would be a policy.\n(05-366) Proposal for City Council Oversight on Expenditures from\nOutside Counsel Appropriations.\nMayor Johnson stated the matter was on the Closed Session Agenda at\nthe last meeting; the matter was continued to tonight because the\npreference was to address the matter in open session.\nThe City Attorney stated the proposal has limitations on spending,\nsettlement authority, additional reporting requirements and\nlimitations on the hiring of outside counsel through an RFP\nprocess, creating four outside counsel panels.\nMayor Johnson stated that her intent is not to limit the amount of\nmoney the City spends on outside counsel; costs cannot be known\nahead of time; the amount is not her concern; her concern is the\nhiring of outside counsel approving the hiring of outside counsel\ncan be brought to the Council without a dollar limit; there is\nconcern about litigation strategies and not setting dollar\nparameters because the other side can be tipped off about how\ncommitted the City is to the litigation; that she does not\nunderstand why the matter cannot be brought to the Council stating\nthe attorney to be hired for the particular case; the Council\napproval could have no dollar information included; the names of\ncounsel and how much is paid per month is in the bills for\nratification; who represents the City is not a secret; the amount\nand budget need to be kept confidential the Council has indicated\nthe City Attorney should be given authority to cover exigent\ncircumstances; the Council does not want a special meeting every\ntime the City is sued; inquired whether there would be a problem\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 22, "text": "with setting an amount to cover the interim period and bringing the\nauthority to hire outside counsel to the City Council, without\nlimitation on dollar amounts.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated there should not be a special meeting for\n$3,000 if the City Attorney needs to hire a transactional attorney\nor if there is a tax question that comes up through the Finance\nDepartment.\nMayor Johnson concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that if a dollar amount were not set, the\nCouncil would be involved in a $3,000 decision to hire a tax\nattorney.\nMayor Johnson stated Council could discuss a dollar limit; if the\nCouncil had known about hiring Linda Tripoli to give an opinion on\nvehicle allowance, Council might have paid more attention to the\nissue; the Council should know who is working for the City, what\npeople are being hired to do and why; that she does not have\nproblem with a limit if the issue is minor.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that, if the Council wants to know who is\nbeing hired, the question comes down to timing; inquired how\nquickly the Council should be informed after legal counsel is\nhired; stated there is a proposal for quarterly financial reports\non the cost of outside counsel, including who the outside counsel\nis for each matter.\nMayor Johnson stated in a lot of cases the Council could give\napproval before outside counsel is hired; a lot of the hiring does\nnot need to be immediate; regular Council meetings are twice a\nmonth; the City Attorney can hire someone and bring the matter to\nCouncil for approval at the next meeting in cases when there is not\ntime; the Council does not want to have special meetings all the\ntime; that she does not like the system that is in place now; the\nCharter states that the Council consents to the hiring of outside\ncounsel; Council is currently consenting to hiring over $800,000\nworth of outside counsel through a line item budget allocation; the\nCouncil needs to exercise more oversight Council can discuss the\nlevel of consent that should be set; it is a change from what has\nbeen done the past 16 years; the Council needs to exercise more\noversight than in the past.\nVice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated that she is\nunclear of how the Mayor proposes to do so; the City Attorney\nprovided a proposal inquired whether the proposal could be\nreviewed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 23, "text": "Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what the typical lead-time is from\nthe time the City Attorney knows outside counsel is needed to the\ntime outside counsel is hired.\nThe City Attorney responded usually the same day the City receives\na lawsuit; for example, in a recent lawsuit, the City had 30 days\nto answer but in the interim the City had a motion for preliminary\ninjunction; within 24 hours of receiving the notice, the Council\nwould receive a paragraph describing the lawsuit received: the\nimmediate notification to the Council would include a description\nas to what the City Attorney intends to do; a component would be\nthe discretion would be limited through the [counsel] panels, so\nthe Council would know who the City Attorney's office would be\nselecting; the panels would be reviewed annually; the reason for\nthe immediacy is due to the requirement to respond immediately;\nthere is a balance because when litigation is received, by the next\nmeeting, the Council could indicate that it does not approve of\nwhat is being done and how it is being done; the practical reality\nis that within the first two weeks, significant initial work would\nbe done, which is why the proposal might not be the perfect\nsolution; a lot of knowledge will be given to the Council; there\ncould be additional oversight and opportunities for change after\nseeing how the proposal works.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether $35,000 would cover two\nweeks.\nThe City Attorney responded $35,000 was picked as the average cost\nof litigation; the City Attorney's office actually totaled up costs\nand $35,000 was the average cost; 50% of the cases are more than\n$35,000 and 50% are less; the Council will know about the matter\nwithin 24 hours, get a report and budget within 30 days, and have\nthe opportunity to schedule the matter for closed session; anything\nwhich is significant, such as a bigger case, will automatically go\nto Council for approval in a closed session; Council will know\n[about lawsuits] within 24 hours and always have the opportunity to\nrequest the matter be placed on the agenda; the City Attorney's\ndiscretion in the selection of outside counsel will be from the\ncompetitively selected panels of attorneys.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Charter states : \"The Council, or\nany board with the consent of the Council, may empower the City\nAttorney, at his request to employ special legal counsel;\" what is\nbeing discussed is how the Council empowers the City Attorney to\nmake choices; a practical approach is to empower a certain dollar\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 24, "text": "amount to get the ball rolling since Council meets every two weeks ;\nthe empowerment lasts only until the next Council meeting and the\nmatter is discussed if the amount would be higher, which is why he\nwas asking about the $35,000; using said amount is acceptable if\nthe amount can carry the day; the Council has to meet its Charter\nobligation to empower the City Attorney based on the threshold if\nthere is a much larger case.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with said\nsuggestion; $35,000 [could be spent until the next Council\nmeeting; at the next Council meeting, the Council would vote to\nhire the outside counsel inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese\nwas making said suggestion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated to use the language in the Charter,\nit empowers the City Attorney to employ outside counsel.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City Attorney has $35,000\nto spend; for example, a lawsuit comes in, the City Attorney can\nspend $35,000, notifies the Council by e-mail, etc. and at the next\nCouncil meeting, the Council gets a status report.\nMayor Johnson stated the hiring of the attorney that the City\nAttorney is suggesting would be brought to Council at its next\nmeeting.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the City Attorney could not do so when\nthe City is sued.\nMayor Johnson stated that the City could always change attorneys;\nthat she assumes the Council would approve the attorney that the\nCity Attorney suggests.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether said suggestion means that the\nattorney has not started work yet.\nMayor Johnson responded in the negative; stated the City Attorney\ncan spend $35,000 until the next Council meeting, when the hiring\nof outside counsel comes to the Council for approval.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted said suggestion differs from the City\nAttorney's proposal in the staff report stated if the reporting\nsegment is actively working, Council can monitor and get in the\nmiddle of things right off the bat if something goes astray; that\nhe does not have enough questions to make drastic changes; the City\nAttorney can be given $35,000, or the amount can be dropped down to\n$20,000, to get started; Councilmembers will receive a report the\nthreshold can be changed if two or three go astray.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 25, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated said suggestion is greater micromanagement.\nCouncil would have to keep up to date on all litigation matters\nthe City Attorney is responsible for management once outside\ncounsel is hired; Council cannot be responsible for monitoring\nlitigation and bringing the matter to the Council if\na\nCouncilmember does not like something; the Charter states the\nCouncil is supposed to approve the hiring of outside counsel;\nCouncil needs to make the approval; then, the City Attorney would\nhandle the matter.\nVice Mayor Gilmore requested clarification of how the process would\nwork and an example be provided.\nMayor Johnson stated the main responsibility of the Council is the\nCharter requirement to consent to hiring [of outside counsel] ; read\nCharter section; stated the issue is how the Council consents to\nthe employment of special legal counsel.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated it is how the Council empowers the\nCity Attorney the control is telling the City Attorney to go\nforward with hiring outside; the tier is the City Attorney can hire\noutside counsel for up to $35,000; $35,000 would take care of a\nminor matter or accommodate [Council meetings) every two weeks ;\nonce the [$35,000] threshold is met , then the empowerment has to\ncome back to the City Council for a vote.\nThe City Attorney stated that if the additional estimate is in\nexcess [of $35,000] the matter would always go to Council under\nthe proposal; anything $35,000 or less will go to Council, if the\nCouncil desires; anything estimated to be $35,000 or more for the\ntotal litigation cost will automatically go to Council for\napproval.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would be done in the interim period for\nlarger cases, to which the City Attorney responded the matter would\nbe placed on the agenda as soon as possible.\nMayor Johnson inquired what if immediate action was needed.\nThe City Attorney responded the system is two tiered; stated the\nCity Attorney would be authorized to spend up to $35,000 without\nprior Council approval ; for matters estimated to cost less than\n[$35,000] the City Attorney hires outside counsel through the RFQ\nprocess.\nMayor Johnson stated the City Attorney's statement differs from\nwhat the Council is saying; the City Attorney is stating that she\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 26, "text": "can spend $35,000 without Council approval inquired whether the\nCity Attorney would bring the matter to the City Council if the\ntotal estimate of the litigation expense is more than $35,000.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a large case\nwould have to go to Council; the proposal has a number of\nadditional restrictions for a smaller case, such as a sidewalk trip\nand fall i that she could only pick from a pre-qualified panel; if\nthere is a slip and fall with a cost estimate of $15,000, the City\nAttorney would review the matter and provide the Council notice,\nfinancial reports, and cost estimates; outside counsel would be\nselected from the panel.\nMayor Johnson stated there are small cases that should be handled\nin house; the City has five attorneys and should not farm out\na\n$15,000 trip and fall case; insurance adjustors handle said cases\nin the private sector; the City should not use outside counsel for\nlittle cases that should be handled in house; the City has five\nstaff attorneys and spends a lot of money on outside counsel; the\nstaffing level should be reviewed if every $15,000 trip and fall is\nfarmed out.\nThe City Attorney stated the proposal is to deal with one issue;\nthere is a process in place for reviewing performance and\nmanagement goals for the utilization of outside counsel going\nforward so that the Council establishes performance standards and\nexpectations of the City Attorney's office; that she hears the\nCouncil; that the matter is a budget issue; the City Attorney's\noffice will do more with less, try to do more litigation in house\nand work with the Council to establish the balance that the Council\nwants between five attorneys.\nMayor Johnson stated that she did not want to address the balance\nand how it would be established; further stated that she would\nprefer $25,000 [as the threshold].\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether $35,000 is for each matter.\nMayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated that [$35,000]\nis what the City Attorney is proposing.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a period of time.\nThe City Attorney responded there are lots of time periods: notice\nwithin 24 hours, budget within 35 days, and quarterly financial\nreports.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated for practical terms and Charter\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 27, "text": "interpretation, the special legal counsel is per matter, which is\nreasonable; someone can get started on a case; legal matters go by\ncase; the City Attorney would not be hiring one person to do\nmultiple cases.\nThe City Attorney stated it is per matter or item, not per issue,\nsubject, attorney, etc.\nMayor Johnson stated reports must not just include litigation; the\nreport the City Attorney provided on outside counsel only included\nlitigation and not other non-litigation issues that outside counsel\nhandle for the City.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired about the number of cases that hit\nthe $35,000 threshold per year, possibly ten to twelve.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated that she\nestimates there are about 20 active litigation cases currently.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the 20 cases would reach the\n$35,000 threshold, to which the City Attorney responded less than\nthat [20 cases].\nCouncilmember deHaan stated no more than eight to ten cases will\nhit the $35,000 threshold over a year period of time the vast\nmajority are in the $3,000 to $4,000 bracket; inquired whether the\nnumbers [that will reach $35,000] are low.\nThe City Attorney responded that in trying to get some rational\nbasis to come up with a number, $35,000 is the exact median of the\naverage cost of outside counsel, so half of the cases are below and\nhalf are above.\nCouncilmember deHaan disagreed.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Council received the report that\nshows the actual amount spent on different litigation cases.\nThe City Attorney responded the report was provided last week.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the report provided can be fine-tuned\nand should work fine; that he does not see the number [of cases\n$35,000 or over] being that great; the Council is allowing 70% of\nthe City Attorney's activity below the threshold; noted that he\nused the data the City Attorney provided.\nThe City Attorney stated [$35,000] was found to be the median\nnumber ; one reason for the reporting to Council is that changes can\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 28, "text": "be made if desired.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that prior to today, the City Attorney's\noffice had a budget that the Council approved by a line item; the\nCity Attorney had utter discretion to spend the money any way she\nsaw fit; the Council is trying to be more cognizant of its Charter\nresponsibilities to provide oversight of spending said money\nhaving gone from over $500,000 of discretionary spending to the\nlimit of $35,000 is a more than a prudent place to begin; the\namount is not set in stone; nothing prevents the Council from\nputting a policy in place, seeing how it works and making changes\nif needed; unless there are more specific recommendations the\npolicy is a good place to get started because it provides what the\nCouncil is trying to move towards.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he has no problem with it; the\nCouncil still has the oversight; future changes could be made.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether approval should be via a resolution.\nThe City Attorney stated Council should adopt via motion, so it is\na formal Council action in terms of direction.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether any changes need to be made.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a way to put the\nproposal in terms of the Charter responsibility, which is not City\nCouncil oversight of outside legal counsel expense, but is City\nCouncil rules of empowering the City Attorney to engage outside\ncounsel.\nThe City Attorney responded the motion could be that this is the\nrule of empowering the City Attorney under [Charter Section] 8-5.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether this is a policy.\nThe City Attorney responded it is a rule; it is a direction.\nMayor Johnson inquired why the action could not be done by\nresolution.\nThe City Attorney responded a resolution could be brought back.\nMayor Johnson stated a resolution would be clearer; the issue of\nAlameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) also needs to be brought back to\nthe Council; the Council needs to discuss approving counsel for\nAP&T and should consider delegating authority to the Public\nUtilities Board.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 29, "text": "The City Attorney stated said matter could be included in the\nresolution.\nMayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese stated Council should\ndiscuss the matter first.\nMayor Johnson suggested the resolution discussed tonight be brought\nback and a separate discussion be held on delegating AP&T's legal\ncounsel.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired as to the difference between acting by\nresolution and by motion.\nMayor Johnson stated resolutions are easier for City staff to\ntrack.\nThe City Clerk noted resolutions are permanent records of the City\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the proposal includes quarterly\nreporting requirements; that he would prefer monthly reporting.\nMayor Johnson stated that monthly reporting was acceptable to her,\nincluding the current budget on the status of the overall\nlitigation contingency budget for not only Risk Management, but\nalso AP&T.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the Council needs all of the numbers for\nall of the different entities that are part of legal budget the\nCouncil appropriated.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City Attorney's office has always\ndelivered; the challenge is there is a desire to have more\ninvolvement in oversight.\nVice Mayor Gilmore concurred; stated that the action is not due to\na deficiency in the City Attorney's office, rather it is the\nCouncil following what the Charter sets out as its role and\nbringing practices in line.\nMayor Johnson concurred; inquired whether the matter could return\nat the next Council meeting.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n29\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 30, "text": "(05-367) -\nSusan Potter, Alameda, requested guidance in procuring a\npermit for a mobile vendor to do business in the City; stated many\ncompanies do business without a permit.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the request was for a mobile\nbusiness at the dog park, to which Ms. Potter responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the proposal is to utilize a space\nat the dog park and other parks; the Recreation and Park Commission\nis working on a comprehensive policy and did not want to address\nthe request as part of the policy; the section of the Municipal\nCode dealing with rolling stores could be amended; if the Council\ndesires, staff could work with the Planning Board to draft an\nordinance making amendments to address the issue.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Council has to direct that the\nmatter be referred to the Planning Board; noted issues are unknown,\nfor example merchants might oppose changes.\nThe Acting City Manager suggested the Planning Board consider the\nmatter.\nMayor Johnson concurred with the suggestion.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the issue of how long a business could\nremain on pubic property would need to be addressed.\nThe Acting City Manager stated rolling stores can only use the\npublic right-of-way, not standing locations.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted Oakland allows rolling vendors on\nprivate property.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the Planning Board should review the\nmatter.\nMs. Potter noted nothing is being done about the rolling vendors\nthat are currently operating in the City without permits.\nMayor Johnson stated the City might need to start doing\nenforcement.\n(05-368) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed speeding vehicles.\n(05-369) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated non-food services, such as\nbicycle repair, should be considered when addressing mobile\nbusinesses; noted market factors, such as demand, would not support\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n30\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 31, "text": "the establishment of seventeen movie theaters in town.\n(05-370) David Kirwin, Alameda, expressed concern about the\nmegaplex theatre and parking structure project and funding;\nquestioned whether there would be a $1,000 parcel tax; stated\nparking lots adjacent to businesses are sufficient; there is a need\nfor increased public awareness regarding the project.\nMayor Johnson responded there is not a parcel tax; requested staff\nto inform Mr. Kirwin where he should go for information.\nThe Acting City Manager stated Mr. Kirwin, and others, could meet\nwith staff in the City Manager's Office or Development Services\nDepartment.\nMayor Johnson stated information could also be mailed or e-mailed,\nif preferred.\n(05-371) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, stated\npeople opposed to the [theater and parking structure) project have\nbeen providing misinformation; stated PSBA would have opposed the\nproject if a $1,000 parcel tax were involved; noted the Downtown\nVision plan from May, 2000 indicated that informal talks about a\nmutli-screen - theater were underway\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-372) - Councilmember deHaan stated that he visited the Bayport\nsite; the transit shelter on Tinker Avenue is less than adequate;\nthe size of the sidewalks at Bayport are extremely narrow, do not\nmatch other sidewalks in Alameda, and are not pedestrian friendly;\nsaid matters should be considered when other developments are\nbuilt.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 11:17 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n31\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 32, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JULY 19, 2005- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(05-339) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City\nAttorney\n(05-340) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case: Miraglia Enterprises V. City of Alameda.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee\nEvaluation, the Council discussed the performance of the City\nAttorney; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council gave\ninstructions to the City Attorney.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 33, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JULY 19, 2005- -6:55 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese,\nand\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to\nconsider:\n(05-341/05-035CIC ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing\nLitigation; Name of case Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda,\nAlameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda V.\nAlameda Belt Line.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Commission\nobtained briefing from the City Attorney/Legal Counsel.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 7:38 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}