Loading...
1987-11-03 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY NOVEMBER 3, 1987 The meeting convened at 7:50 p.m. (at the conclusion of the the meeting of the Housing Authority Commission) with President Corica presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was given by Councilmember Thomas. Reverend Doug Henderson gave the invocation. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Camicia, Haugner, Monsef, Thomas, and President Corica - 5. Absent: None. MINUTES Councilmember Monsef made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 20, 1987. Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 87 -761 Joint Meeting between the City Council and Social Service Human Relations Board. President Corica noted that the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) had forwarded to Council its Needs Assessment Report, a comprehensive and ambitious program of goals and activities, including studies, works sessions and items they plan to address in the coming year; that the Board is doing work that is very helpful to the Council; inquired if there were specific issues they wanted to point out to Council, for, if there are not, the packet submitted is extensive. Paul Berger, President, SSHRB, introduced other Board members who were present (Jack Barlas; Susan G. Foulkes; Phyllis D. Marshall, Vice - President; William McConnell; and Student Representative John Libertori); stated the Board was holding its annual meeting with Council pursuant to the City Charter; that there is no urgent issue on which they request Council's assistance, other than approval of the work plan. Councilmember Camicia stated he made suggestions about a month ago regarding the SSHRB and the responsibilities of the Housing Authority, and inquired if the Board would look at those matters and if the issues could be addressed at the Housing Authority meeting in January. Mr. Berger stated the Board would, and prior to that the Board would agendize and review the matter. Councilmember Haugner thanked the Board for the work they have been doing. 45 Councilmember Thomas thanked the Board for what they have been doing, particularly concerning the Child Care problems. Mr. Berger stated that Child Care is one of the most important problems in Alameda; that comprehensive studies on a number of topics, including the Homeless Issues as addressed by the Committee Chairman Phyllis Marshall, will be presented. President Corica expressed appreciation to the Board for its efforts. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Thomas requested that Item No. 2 -D regarding Personal Service Agreement with a Contract Planner, be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda. Councilmember Camicia made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item No. 2 -D (See 87 -787). Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS *87 -762 From Finance Director regarding status of automated data processing system. Accepted. *87 -763 From Public Works Director recommending acceptance of work by Les McDonald Construction Company for repair and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 9, P.W. No. 6- 87 -15. Accepted. RESOLUTIONS *87 -764 Resolution No. 11328 "Authorizing execution of amendment to service agreement with Gates, McDonald & Company for Workers' Compensation Claims Administration." Adopted. *87 -765 Resolution No. 11329 "Authorizing submittal of a Grant Application for the Career Criminal Apprehension Program (C -CAP) Phase III, Managing Criminal Investigations (MCI) to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning, State of California, and authorizing execution of a Grant Award." Adopted. *87 -766 Resolution No. 11330 "Approving the destruction of certain City records." Adopted. *87 -767 Resolution No. 11331 "Authorizing establishment of Petty Cash Fund of Public Works Department." Adopted. 46 BILLS *87-768 A List of Claims certified by the City Manager as correct was approved in the amount of $1,907,675.86. RETURN TO REGULAR AGENDA RESOLUTIONS 87-769 Resolution No. 11332 "Appointing Raymond E. Anderson as a member of the Civil Service Board." Adopted. Councilmember Monsef made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87-770 Resolution No. 11333 "Appointing Michael Richards as a member of the Social Service Human Relations Board." Adopted. Councilmember Haugner made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 87-771 From Roberta Roberts, 221 Avington Road, concerning zoning regulations. President Corica stated the matter has been addressed by staff and inquired regarding the status. The Planning Director stated that an invitation has been extended to Mrs. Roberts to meet with staff, but there has not been a response yet. Councilmember Haugner made a motion to accept the communication. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87-772 From Suzanne Lindsey and Rosemary Perata, Alameda, requesting discontinuance of condemnation proceedings against the property located at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue. Suzanne Lindsey, 1245 Hawthorne Street, Co-owner of the business "Outback", an apparel outlet, stated that the business which has been open for two weeks, has been well-received; the building has been updated and repainted, the old sign has been removed and a new, more appropriate sign will be placed; and it is requested that Council discontinue the condemnation proceeding. President Corica commented that the area has been upgraded since the "Outback" has been at the subject location; and a communication has been received from the owner of the property stating his satisfaction with the tenant Outback. 47 In response to President Corica's inquiry regarding appropriate procedure in the matter, the City Attorney stated that Council may accept the communication and then consider the matter at a litigation session whenever Council wishes; that there is a year lease during which the Council may come to a decision. Councilmember Camicia made a motion to accept the communication and set a Closed Session to discuss the matter. Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. HEARINGS 87-773 Consideration of proposed Negative Declaration (IS-87-9) and Rezoning (R-87-3) from C-1, Neighborhood Business District to R-1, One Family Residence District of the property at the gore of Gibbons Drive and Fernside Boulevard. Applicant: City of Alameda. President Corica reviewed the background of the matter and noted the owners now would like to continue the Hearing; and stated he believed the Hearing should be held. Councilmember Thomas stated she agreed because they are asking that it be held until the buyer obtains all approvals and permits which could take a long time. Councilmember Haugner stated she would like the matter resolved tonight. Council, by consensus, agreed to proceed with the Hearing. President Corica explained the procedure of the Hearing. The Planning Director reviewed the background of the matter, commenting that the Planning Board, in reviewing the matter, did consider several zoning districts as being applicable, that the residence proposed for the property is very fine, should be good for the neighborhood, but may need some minor variances. President Corica opened the public portion of the meeting. On the call for proponents, the following spoke: Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street On the call for opponents, the following spoke: James Tsukamoto, 151 Callan Avenue, San Leandro Comments were made by Maureen Moriarty, 1904 Cornell Drive. The public portion of the Hearing was closed. Councilmember Thomas stated the resolution of the issue should be based on what is best for the neighborhood, not whether or not a 48 deal [to sell the property] will go through or fail; and if it is to be residential, it may as well be downzoned now; and it would be well for Planning Staff, the Planning Board, and the neighbors to work with the purchaser if he needs any variances, to put in the residence. Councilmember Monsef stated he agreed and the variances that may be necessary have been stated to be minor in nature. President Corica commented that citizens in the nighborhood have cooperated in the past to try to work things out; and believes this will now take care of their neighborhood. Councilmember Camicia made a motion to close the Hearing. Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Camicia moved to take the related ordinance out of order. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES 87 -774 Ordinance No. N.S. "Reclassifying and rezoning certain properties within the City of Alameda by amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S.; Applicant: City of Alameda, R -87 -3, the property located at 3126 Fernside Boulevard." Introduced. Councilmember Thomas made a motion to introduce the ordinance. Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. APPEALS 87 -775 Appeal of Planning Board's decision to approve Variance 87 -11. The property is located at 608 Waterview Isle and is zoned R -lYf5, One Family Residence District, with a special front yard depth of five feet. Applicant: Jay and Joy Davis. Appellant: Dan and Carmen Lasar, Walter and Camille Galyk. (Council "tabled" matter at October 20th Council Meeting to the November 3rd Council Meeting.) The City Attorney commented that Council heard testimony at the last meeting and cautioned that if Council intends to reopen the argument, no new evidence should be submitted at this time. Councilmember Camicia stated he made a motion [at the last meeting] to allow time for the neighbors to attempt to resolve the matter; and he would like to hear what progress had been made. President Corica stated that a message has been received that no progress has been made. Lance Russum, 2500 Santa Clara Avenue, reported that there had been a meeting; at the office of appellants' attorney, where they discussed whether appellants would approve reduction of the size 49 of the addition in width or depth but it was not approved, noted that there could be construction without a variance, and a second story without a variance but the response was that there would be no consent to anything that would require a variance; there could be a solid wall where the glass wall is, and other alternatives that would impact the neighbors more than current plans. Councilmember Haugner stated Council is limited and she does not know if Council is in a position to overrule the Planning Board. given the information in the records. Councilmember Thomas stated that there is evidence to support the findings and the findings support the granting of the variance and that is the scope of Council's review as she understands it; she also understands that the Davises could build a wall that is not transparent, the full length and width of the proposed addition, and she does not understand the disharmony in this matter. Councilmember Camicia stated the Davises could still build a structure that would impact upon the neighbors; he had hoped for a discussion to take place where the neighbors might have worked something out, but this was not the case; that the dilemma for the Council is: does Council overturn the Planning Board's decision and allow the Davises to build what they want that would upset the neighbors, or let the matter go and upset the neighbors more; and, it is a no-win situation. Camille Galyk, 604 Waterview Isle, stated that there are many neighbors who signed a petition against the Davises' addition, and she believes there are no extraordinary circumstances involved. Councilmember Camicia stated if Council does not uphold the Planning Board's decision, there might be something added that would cause the neigbors to be equally unhappy. Mrs. Galyk stated she did not believe that would happen. Councilmember Camicia requested there be clarification of the building possibilities on the subject property. The Planning Director responded that it is single family residential; it is possible to extend the building five feet more; and there can be second stories up to thirty feet in heighth, and as long as the building is within the setbacks, it can be done without a variance. President Corica stated there has been a great deal of work done by the Planning Board before reaching their decision, and it was a six to zero decision. Councilmember Thomas made a motion to sustain the Planning Board decision. Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion and the motion was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Camicia, Haugner, Thomas and President Corica - 4. Noes: Councilmember Monsef - 1. Absent: None. 87-775 Appeal of Planning Board's decision to approve Variance V-87-30. The property is located at 815 Paru Street and is zoned R-1, One Family Residence District. Applicant: Richard Burgess. Appellant: Roger and Bernice Lucero. President Corica noted that the Appellants wished to have the matter continued. He also commented that the Appeal was requesting an overturning of a Planning Board decision that was carried by a six to zero vote. Bernice Lucero, Appellant, 821 Paru Street, stated she received the packet Friday and the attorney told her today he cannot represent her, and she would like to have time to find a new attorney. Councilmember Thomas inquired if this would work a hardship on the Applicant. Mr. Burgess responded that it would, because the matter has been delayed for several weeks. President Corica stated that if the appellant did not get all the information, then time should be allowed to obtain it. Councilmember Camicia made a motion to continue the matter for two weeks. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion, and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Attorney stated the parties do not know what the record is until it is produced. Councilmember Camicia stated this would not prevent the appellants and applicant from getting together in the next two weeks and working this out. Mr. Burgess stated the information was available directly after the meeting. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 87-776 From City Manager on status of implementation of defibrillation and trauma triage procedures. Councilmember Camicia stated he would appreciate a procedure established whereby a brief overview of items would be given at the beginning of consideration of each item. Michael D'Orazi, President, Alameda Fire Fighters Association, stated there are misleading statements in the report regarding the Union's position; the fire fighters believe it would be irresponsible to undertake additional duties at this time which would further reduce the already depleted fire protection services to the community, is not seeking additional staffing levels, only to maintain a professionally justified level of service of 5 engines, 2 trucks and 2 ambulances on a daily basis, and is fighting attempts to decrease staffing levels; the filing of the grievance is intended to rectify the situation brought about by the City Manager's directive of September, 1987; believes it is time to rectify a dangerous situation; advice of firefighting professionals has been ignored; and he has made a survey of surrounding communities which reveals that each city has enough manpower to man every piece of its equipment in service every day. Chris Reilly, 463 Santa Clara Avenue, Secretary of Local 689, Alameda Firefighters, stated the two programs being reviewed constitutes a major change in the duties and responsibilities of firefighters; transporting causes apparatus to be out of service a longer period of time; were told in 1984, when ambulance system was added for no added compensation, there would be no major change in responsibilities; for cardiac patients, there will be responsibility and liability for a higher level of care, a new job scope under Alameda County authority; fire fighters want to implement the new program; but it should not be at the expense of the fire suppression force; bringing minimum wage people in will only require training they will use to get better pay elsewhere; it is a meet-and-confer item when it impacts safety; and the Union wants to provide pre-hospital care and a strong firefighting force. The City Manager gave an overview of defibrillation and trauma triage procedures; noting there is currently transport of some patients; pieces of modern equipment have been purchased; the County has implemented the Trauma program; new County standard requires Triage procedure with scoring; firefighters are being requested to be trained regarding scoring technique; defibrillation requirement recently has been allowed by State law; currently have Emergency Medical Technicians and this would be added to the skill level with additional responsibility, and requires four to eight hours of training, during working hours, regarding the machine to be used. Councilmember Monsef made a motion to accept the report. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87-777 From City Attorney regarding the Public Information Act. The City Attorney explained that, broadly defined, the Act requires that there must be disclosure of anything retained in the ordinary course of business that is not exempted to public inspection; and there are fairly common exemptions, such as litigation items, personnel files, memos and items that have not yet reached the stage of fruition, etc. Darlene Evans, 1215 Grand Street, stated that with regard to Housing Opportunities Provided Equally [H.O.P.E.], she believed that her case file was handled incorrectly. President Corica noted it appeared she was looking for personal information. The City Manager stated he would request the Community Development 2 Department check into the matter. James Spitzer, 450E Cola Ballena, Alamedans for Responsible Planning, stated he has had extensive experience obtaining information from the City offices and most were very good; that without free access, the group would not have been able to present a good argument to take care of the matter of the Ballena Bay Project; that, however, in reviewing files, he has noted there is a letter to the City Manager, distributed to Council; he attempted to obtain the letter, calls were not returned, and finally it was returned and he was informed that the City Attorney had stated the letter could be released; he is pleased the matter of disclosure has been brought to the attention of the City departments. Councilmember Thomas inquired if Mr. Spitzer had received the letter. Mr. Spitzer responded he has not. Councilmember Thomas inquired if the letter is covered under this and should be made available to Mr. Spitzer, to which the City Attorney responded if they have been retained in the ordinary course of business, they would be public record. Councilmember Thomas stated she believes they are in the City Manager's office and inquired if they could be made available to Mr. Spitzer, to which the City Manager stated that would be no problem. Councilmember Camicia stated Mr. Spitzer can see whatever he receives, when he is in his office on Friday afternoons, and Mr. Spitzer, in response, thanked Mr. Camicia, and commented that he did not believe it should be necessary for a citizen to approach Councilmembers or the Mayor to obtain records that are rightfully a part of the public records and belong to the community. Councilmember Camicia made a motion to accept the report. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87 -778 From Community Development Director concerning proposed Navy Housing, Alameda Naval Air Station. Councilmember Haugner made a motion to accept the report. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87 -779 From Public Works Director on determination of number of units in a structure. Don Patterson, 2424 Central Avenue, representing'the Alameda Board of Realtors, thanked the Public Works Director for his excellent job working with the committee, his understanding of the problem, and ability to resolve the matter; that basically the Board agrees with the report; discussed the length of time required to make the unit determination; stressed that the Board of Realtors should not be held responsible for any consequences that may arise from any transactions prior to the adoption of this report and procedure by the City Council. Christopher Hanson, 543 Palace Court, stated the Public Works Director's report to Council represents an eloquent compromise to a problem that has been a struggle for some time; the City record - keeping regarding houses is not adequate; and requested Council wholeheartedly support the proposed procedure. Joey Winters, 2233 Santa Clara Avenue, stated she called 25 times about 25 homes and was told they were all single family dwellings, that one of them has nine meters; that the County records are impeccable and they are free but the City will not accept them; a client was denied building permits because the City says his two units are a single- family residence; requests the City look into the appraisals done by the County in 1951. Nicole Byers, 2233 Santa Clara, agreed with what previous speakers had stated; that there is a problem putting people through a conflict between the City and the County; suggested approving the second alternative and work with alternative No 3 if everyone does not like it; the burden of proof has been placed on the wrong people; and all agree to support the report. Councilmember Thomas stated all know how bad this problem is; she hasn't been able to document a single family dwelling built in 1949 which appears to be on its own lot which County says is there; in the 1930s and 1940s the records were not kept well; every piece of work done on property must have had permit on it; the City records are not good but County records are; perhaps a cut -off date of 1973 when Measure A was implemented, would be feasible, perhaps amnesty could be given; and inquired if that matter was addressed. Mr. Patterson stated it was and added that the only viable record that could be found was the County survey of 1951, but the records of the City between 1951 and 1973 were not adequate so they believed the base date for their research should have been 1951, realizing that could create problems for persons who may have purchased since 1951. Councilmember Camicia stated he had no difficulty in getting a loan on the basis of the County records. Mr. Patterson noted it depends upon local financing institutions, as to whether they accept County records or records of the local municipality. President Corica stated that when the proposition 13 passed in 1978, possibly the City records were transferred over to the County, when the County started collecting the taxes. The City Manager stated he believed that was true. 54 Ms. Byers, stated that it is becoming more common that the local or the strictest records apply with lending institutions. Councilmember Monsef made a motion to accept the report and recommendation. Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion and it was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Haugner, Monsef, and President Corica 3. Noes: None. Abstentions: Councilmembers Camicia and Thomas - 2. RESOLUTIONS 87-780 Resolution No. 11334 "Opposing agreements for extensions outside Bay Area Rapid Transit District." Adopted. John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, stated he would not like to see the City of Alameda pay taxes for this. President Corica commented BART should be kept working in Alameda County before moving out to other Cities which have not yet been paying a fair share. Councilmember Haugner stated she believed Council should support the resolution as the people of Alameda County and Contra Costa County have been paying for BART. Councilmember Haugner made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87-781 Resolution No. 11335 "Supporting the Main Street Program in Alameda for Fiscal Year 1987-88." Adopted. Councilmember Camicia made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87-782 Resolution No. 11336 "Proposed Noise Abatement Procedures at Oakland International Airport." (Continued from 9/1, 9/15 and 10/6 Council Meetings) Adopted. President Corica commented that Council has been struggling with this matter for several weeks, have not made a lot of progress, and hopes this will attract some attention. Wayne Pearce, 1136 Fontana Drive, stated he agrees with all of the resolution except the paragraph regarding diversion of traffic to Runways 9L, 9R or 29 for nighttime flights; that "Scientific American" 1974, Vol. 30, pg.76, deals with weight turbulence which comes from large aircraft, and it is not a good idea to require inexperienced pilots to go into the same area as heavy aircraft and that is a safety problem; and that diverting flights from one area to another, simply moves the noise problem from one area to another. Councilmember Thomas stated that student pilots should not fly at night, and that can be restricted. 55 Mr. Pearce stated that if the Port forces the pilots to adhere to noise abatement procedures, disallows intersection takeoffs, and proper right turns on touch-and-gos, it is a much better way to proceed, and the traffic will be been separated; and would like student planes to be kept separate from commercial planes. Gordon Christopherson, 2807 Marina Drive, stated that materially he does not find any opposition to the resolution; moving planes to R29 is feasible; referred to the June draft of the FAR Part 150 Study just given to him; displayed a map from the FAA, stating the sound is transferred and goes over lagoons right near the hospital. Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, stated he does not understand why copies of resolutions and ordinances are not placed on the bulletin board with the copies of staff reports; if noise standards are set up and violators caught, the situation could change; perhaps records of the airport on takeoffs and landings could be coordinated with City records of violation to find out and trace who is making the noise; and suggested adding the following to the resolution: "and that the City urges that the airport establish procedures to aid in identifying violators of noise abatement requirements, and that they keep and make records available to the City upon request." President Corica stated that the City is now getting letters from people in Oakland; and the noise problem is not an easy issue to handle. Councilmember Monsef stated there has been work on the resolution for a long time; it is acceptable to him; and he made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion. The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87-783 Resolution No. 11337 "Authorizing execution of agreement with Alameda County for apportionment of the City's share of County Gas Tax Funds." Adopted. John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, stated he favors the agreement, and believes the City should have its fair share of the taxes. Councilmember Monsef made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87-784 Resolution No. "Authorizing open market purchase of various pieces of equipment for the Public Works Department." Adopted. Councilmember Camicia made a motion to adopt the resolution, and Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion. 56 President Corica stated he had a concern about the car designated for the City Manager; inquired why the City Manager should have a Police radio, or a telephone, if it is to sit in the parking lot for most of the day or in front of his residence; doesn't believe they are necessary, and previous City Managers have not had them. Councilmember Haugner inquired why the City Manager believes he should have them. The City Manager responded that the radio was suggested as a result of some of the exercises done in Civil Defense, was discussed with the Police Chief and the Fire Cheif, and the police radio also would enable him to monitor transmissions by the Police Department; that if Council would like it removed, if it seems to Council to be excessive or without sufficient justification, he will remove it. President Corica stated his concern is that the car is parked most of the time and the equipment could be more effectively used in a Police car. The City Manager stated he had no problem with taking it out. Councilmember Camicia stated he believed in an emergency, the City Manager should be able to communicate with City Hall and the Police Department. President Corica stated in an emergency, he would drive to City Hall in minutes. Councilmember Camicia stated when one is on site, it makes sense to communicate. The City Manager stated the radio link is to the dispatch function in the Police Department which involves both the Fire and Police Departments. The following votes were cast regarding the motion: Ayes: Councilmembers Camicia, Haugner, and Monsef - 3. Noes: Councilmember Thomas - 1. Councilmember Haugner stated the vote was with the radio, she thinks it is appropriate; if the car is only driven to work, there is no need to have a car; she assumes it is used for City business and when the City Manager is away, the radio is appropriate and therefore she voted affirmatively. President Corica voted no and the motion failed for lack of a four-fifths vote. Councilmember Monsef inquired if President Corica was opposed to both the telephone and the radio, or just the telephone, to which President Corica responded he objected more to the telephone than to the radio. Councilmember Monsef stated that perhaps the telephone should be removed and the radio allowed to remain. Councilmember Thomas stated she objects to the new car; would prefer to have a new fire fighter. 87 -785 Resolution No. 11339 "Authorizing execution of with First Interstate Leasing, Inc. for lease - purchase in connection with purchase of City vehicles." Adopted. Councilmember Camicia made a motion to adopt the resolution Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion and it was carried b the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Camicia, Haugner Monsef, and Thomas - 4. Noes: President Corica - 1. Absent None. 57 that she agreement agreement i y 87 -786 Resolution No. 11340 "Authorizing reprogramming of small business development funds to the Economic Development Corporation of Alameda for a business survey and market analysis of the Webster Street area." Adopted. Councilmember Camicia made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Thomas inquired if the traffic counts will be completed before the completion of Patton Way [Constitution Way] and Atlantic Avenue. Ron Gerber, Economic Development Corporation of Alameda stated he will look at the traffic count data. Ron Gerber said he believes there will be impact on Patton Way. The City Manager noted that Patton Way will be completed in March, and the program of traffic counts will be continued. President Corica questioned if efforts were being duplicated. The City Manager stated that traffic counts are done in the normal course of business. Councilmember Thomas inquired when the business survey and market analysis will be done. Mr. Gerber responded that the business survey would be started immediately and be completed, tabulated and written up in approximately four or five weeks, and in mid to late December the market analysis will begin, and should be completed approximately four to six weeks afterward; and stated an addendum could be added later. 87 -787 Resolution No. 11341 "Authorizing exectition of personal service agreement with a Contract Planner for a period of six months." Adopted. Councilmember Thomas questioned the payment of another contract 58 employee that appeared to be exorbitant, and the City Manager reviewed the matter, noting that was a different type of contract than the current one. Councilmember Thomas made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCES 87 -788 Ordinance No. 2364 N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Chapter 11 to Title XV thereof, regulating smoking in public places, restaurants, hotels, motels, and places of employment." Introduced. (Councilmember Monsef) James Hanacek, 2110 Eagle Avenue, inquired how many on Council smoke and what was the driving influence in proposing the ordinance. Councilmember Monsef replied that health was the influence. Mr. Hanacek questioned why there should be talk only about smoke, why not other things like drugs and nuclear energy; if doctors are so concerned about helping people because of smoking problems, they should get educated in operations to help the people breath better; smoking will hurt everybody but so do many other things. Councilmember Monsef commented smoking can be handled first and hopefully at some point other things can be addressed. David Rose, 3029 Bayo Vista, St. Philip Neri's Church, stated he would like clarification of this law on how will it affect bingo games, to which the City Attorney stated that churches are not exempted. The City Attorney stated that the ordinance is aimed at smoking, not the buildings; it should be reviewed according to the Code. Councilmember Haugner stated if someone is smoking at one end of the hall, the smoke extends to the other end; there cannot be constant bending of the ordinance. Councilmember Monsef stated he believes the ordinance is clear; if a building is used for the public, then it is public; if it is in a house, that is private. The City Attorney stated he would assist persons in his office and will answer very specific questions they may have. Anne Hulin, Chamber of Commerce, 2314 Central Avenue, stated the ordinance impacts on the small businesses which require a longer period of time in store, i.e., fitting of glasses, hobby classes, etc.; that the choice of business persons is being taken away; and that hotels and motels are required to keep ten percent of rooms to be non - smoking, and believed that percentage is too high. 9 John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, stated he is a smoker who has tried several times to quit but is in favor of - non - smokers; believes the restaurants should have areas for smokers; and there will be loss of revenue to the City if the restaurants lose business. Darlene Evans, 1215 Grand Street, stated the school had sections for smokers, little children on the street have chewing tobacco; 16- year -olds can purchase cigarettes with a note; and there needs to be enforcement by the police. Edward Clark, West Alameda Business Association stated all problems should have been discussed previously, that he understand the problems of bingo places, because the players smoke. The City Attorney clarified that the general proposition is that there cannot be smoking in enclosed areas that are open for anyone from the public, and it cannot be said that it does not apply to bingo players, pool shooters, etc. Mr. Clark questioned if there would be a variance to which the City Attorney responded no, that it is not a land use regulation, that smoking is as bad for bingo player as others and this is a health and safety ordinance. Mr. Clark stated he is against smoking but not sure it has been thought through for economic ramifications. Councilmember Monsef stated a number of years ago, there were shopping malls in Sacramento County where people were prohibited from smoking even though they shop for hours, and if they need to smoke, they step out and come back in again; and he believes the ordinance is fair and practical and made a motion for final passage. President Corica commented that if there are problems, Council can always amend the ordinance. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 87 -789 President Corica requested a report on the status of the Canine Program and when it will be implemented, to which the City Manager responded there would be a report at the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS 87 -790 Councilmember Thomas announced that Mr. ,D. K. Templeton will be substituted for Mr. John Barni, Jr. on the Charter Review Committee. 87 -791 Councilmember Haugner commented that she would like the matter of a retreat to be considered; that several cities in the area have had retreats; requested the City Manager to check on how a Retreat can be held within the confines of the Brown Act, and suggested the League of California Cities be contacted. 87-792 Councilmember Thomas suggested that the Sally Swanson & Associates contract, due to bankruptcy filing, be reviewed carefully in order to protect the City. (See attached verbatim for discussion.) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, , DIANE B. FELSCH City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. Verbatim of a portion of the November 3, 1987, Council Meeting regarding Sally Swanson & Associates. New Business (See Paragraph Number 87 -792 of the November 3rd Minutes). Vice Mayor Thomas: Last meeting we took a bill off, or a warrant, whatever they are called, for Sally Swanson. And I guess the reason we did it is because she had filed a bankruptcy and I am concerned about that contract. We have $187,000 with someone who may or may not be in bankruptcy, and I think that is something that -- we should review the contract and see if there is anything we need to do to protect ourselves as far as payment schedules, performance of work. I know that it is already being looked into, but I kind of feel bad that we didn't do it already. City Manager: I think, I think, since it is necessary for me to comment on that, and basically, there was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle which indicated that Sally Swanson and Associates have filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. And when it was brought to my attention, obviously, I was quite concerned about it because she had come highly recommended and well regarded and had a number of contracts with cities throughout the State of California, including the State, and a number of others, Veterans' Administration, and a number of other contracts. Very highly regarded for the work she has done, so I was quite concerned. We immediately contacted her and what we found out was, in fact, that during 1986 a number of contracts which she had executed were - -which did not have protection provisions in them -- were unilaterally cancelled. And interestingly enough, they were contracts primarily with public jurisdictions who, after entering into the contract, as I said for one reason or another, cancelled out. Either the appropriations were not made to fund the contract, because some of them were with the State and so forth. So she had based upon some of those contracts had a business plan. And as a result of that, she had to go to her creditors , and she had borrowed money to carry out the business plan. She went to creditors and asked them to reschedule. There happen to be one creditor that refused to reschedule her debts and she negotiated over an extended period of time with that creditor. Finally she was advised by her attorney that the best course of action would be to file bankruptcy. The day she filed bankruptcy that creditor realizing that - -by the way it was not Chapter 7 it was Chapter 13- -which is a partnerhship personal. It is equivalent - -I think you know what it is, so I won't be labor that- - and the minute she filed bankruptcy on the advice of her attorney, the creditor came in and said o.k. I guess we will negotiate with you. And , in a fact, she has withdrawn and she has not filed bankruptcy. So they have not gone through it, and she is, in effect, is not, her company, is not in bankruptcy at the current time. When we became aware of that, of course we met with her and we established criteria for performance. We also went back and checked with each one of the G2 people she indicated--we had checked previously on her references--we asked for a new list of clients; we went back and checked each one of those clients to make sure that she was actively engaged in the contract and so forth and we were satisfied at that time that there is no problem there. We have instituted administratively controls on this. Mr. Norton has done that, and met with her. We have points of time along throughout the contract where, before she is paid she is going to be required to provide the product, and the Council will be involved in what those products are. I think in the final analysis all the references indicate that the work she does is outstanding, and the experience we have had with her so far has been that she has done outstanding work for us; she, her firm, had some business problems in 1986, those problems are cleared up. She is not in bankruptcy. want to make that clear. She, her firm, has not filed bankruptcy, and when she did file--when she did submit an intent or notice to file bankruptcy--it was misprinted in the paper. So that is all we have to offer. We can put that in writing, if you would like a formal report on it, but we feel confident she can do the work. And her work-- and she continues to get excellent references.