2005-08-02 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - AUGUST 2, 2005 - - - 5:30 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, August 2, 2005, 5:30 P.M.
Place: Departing from City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue,
Alameda, California.
Agenda Item
A Special Meeting has been called to allow the Council to attend an
electric bus demonstration.
Adjournment
Beverly J(hn' i, ayor
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TUESDAY - - - AUGUST 2, 2005 - - - 7:05 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, August 2, 2005, 7:05 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call.
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Council /Commission /Authority/
Board on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3
minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of case: Operation Dignity, Inc. v. City of Alameda,
Community Improvement Commission, Alameda
Reuse and Development Authority and Housing
Authority.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
Beverly J ns I'yor
Chair, Community Improvement
Commission, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners
Housing
Authority of the City of Alameda
701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - TEL: (510) 747 -4300 - FAX: (510) 522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Executive Director, and
upon recognition by the. Chair, approach the rostrum and
state your name, speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a
summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Board of
Commissioners meetings.
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
DATE & TIME Tuesday, August 2, 2005, 7:25 PM
LOCATION City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 390, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA
Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
meeting. Regular Board of Commissioners meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each
quarter in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by
Commissioners may speak for a maximum of three minutes per agenda item when the
subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Housing Authority Executive
Director if you wish to address the Board of Commissioners.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL - Board of Commissioners
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
• Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved or accepted
by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is
received from the Board of Commissioners or a member of the public.
2 -A. Minutes of the Regular Board of Commissioner meeting held July 5, 2005.
Acceptance is recommended.
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service."
Special Meeting of the Board of Commissioners
August 2, 2005 Page 2
2 -B. Proclaiming Housing Choice Voucher Rental Property Owners of the Year 2004. The
Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend to the Board of
Commissioners that the Mayor proclaim:
• Brad Kruck, owner of a unit at 1604 Sherman Street, 2004 Housing Choice
Voucher Program Rental Property Owner of the Year for three or fewer units.
• Irene Hanson, owner of units on 2249 Central Avenue, 2004 Housing Choice
Voucher Program Rental Property Owner of the Year for four or more units.
3. AGENDA
3 -A. Awarding Budget and Awarding of Contract for Roof Replacement. The Housing
Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend that the Board of
Commissioners:
1. Increase the Extraordinary Maintenance Projects line item of the FY2006 budget
by $27,500 to cover the cost of the proposed contract;
2. Award a contract to MNJ Roofing to replace roofs at Eagle and Parrot Villages for
$155,000, plus an additional 10 percent of that amount for any needed change
orders, for an amount not to exceed $170,500; and
3. Authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, Non - Agenda (Public Comment)
5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, (Communications from the Commissioners)
6. ADJOURNMENT
Note:
* Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Carol Weaver,
Executive Assistant, at 747 -4325 voice or 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours before the
meeting to request an interpreter.
* Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is
available.
* Minutes of the meeting are available in large print.
* Audiotapes of the meeting are available on request.
* Please contact Carol Weaver at 747 -4325 voice of 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours
prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other
reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the
benefits of the meeting.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service.
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the
podium and state your name; speakers are limited to
three (3) minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Commission meetings.
SPECIAL MEETING OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - AUGUST 2, 2005 - - - 7:27 P.M.
Location: City Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by Council may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission. Please
file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to
speak on an agenda item.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) meeting of June 21, 2005; the
Special Joint CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority meeting of June 28, 2005; and the Special Joint City
Council and CIC Meeting of July 19, 2005.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing the Contract
amount an additional $307,414 to provide additional pre-
planning and construction administration services for the
rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater.
ADJOURNMENT
Beverly Joh nV Clair
Community Improvement Commission
AGENDA
TUESDAY
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the
podium and state your name; speakers are limited to
three (3) minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented
verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 2, 2005, 2004 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City
Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St.]
The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
4. Consent Calendar
5. Agenda Items
6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment)
7. Council Communications (Communications from Council)
8. Adjournment
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business
introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address
the City Council.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 5:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, 7:05 P.M.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD 7:25 P.M.
OF COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:27 P.M.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Presentation to the Fourth of July Committee recognizing their
efforts for a successful Mayor's Fourth of July Parade.
3 -B. Proclamation declaring Brad Kruck to be Alameda's 2004
Housing Choice Voucher Program Rental Property Owner of the
Year in the three or fewer rental unit category.
3 -C. Proclamation declaring Irene Hanson to be Alameda's 2004
Housing Choice Voucher Program Rental Property Owner of the
Year in the four or more rental unit category.
3 -D. Library Project update.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public.
4 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) meeting held on June 21, 2005;
and the Special, Special Joint City Council and CIC, and
Regular City Council meetings held on July 19, 2005.
4 -B. Bills for ratification.
4 -C. Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the
United States Postal Service regarding the City's interest to
relocate the distribution function of the Alameda Post Office
from Shoreline Drive to another site in Alameda. [Mayor
Johnson]
4 -D. Recommendation to adopt specifications for Vehicle Tow
Contract for abandoned vehicles for the Police Department.
4 -E. Recommendation to amend the Consultant Contract with Signet
Testing Labs, Inc., modifying the scope of work and increasing
the Contract price in the amount of $54,000 for the New Main
Library Project, No. P.W. 01- 03 -01.
4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Empowering the City Attorney to Employ
Special Legal Counsel.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations).
5 -B. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Declaring Boutique Theaters to be Uses Permitted by Use
Permit within the C -1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District
of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations).
5 -C. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board
approval of Parking Garage Use Permit (UP05 -0008) and Design
(DR05- 0028); and adoption of related resolution. [To be
continued to August 16, 2005]
5 -D. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board
approval of Cineplex Design (DR05- 0041); and adoption of
related resolution. [To be continued to August 16, 2005]
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter
over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may
take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.
7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council)
7 -A. Written communication from the League of California Cities
requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the League's
2005 Annual Conference.
7 -B. Discussion regarding the placement of proposed federal
legislation that would amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
to limit casino expansion on the August 16, 2005 City Council
agenda for formal action. [Mayor Johnson]
8. ADJOURNMENT
• For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a
written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk
at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please
contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at
least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter.
• Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use.
For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD
number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including
those using wheelchairs, is available.
• Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print.
• Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
• Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538
at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda
materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy
the benefits of the meeting.
Housing
Authority of the City of Alameda
City Alameda
701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - TEL: (510) 747 -4300 FAX: (510) 522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY, JULY 5, 2005
The Board of Commissioners was called to order at 7:46 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioner Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Torrey and Chair
Johnson.
Absent: None.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Torrey moved acceptance of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Matarrese seconded except for item 2 -E which was pulled. Motion carried
unanimously. Items accepted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk.
*2 -A. Minutes of the Regular Board of Commissioner meeting held April 5, 2005. Minutes
were accepted.
*2 -B. Minutes of the Special Joint Board of Commissioners and the Alameda Public
Financing Authority Meeting held April 19, 2005. Minutes were accepted.
*2 -C. Awarding Landscape Maintenance Services Contract. The Board of Commissioners:
1. Awarded the landscape maintenance services contract to Tree Sculpture for an
amount not to exceed $149,000 for FY2006, with an option to renew the contract
for up to two additional one -year terms if service is found to be satisfactory and the
Board of Commissioners adopts FY2007 and FY2008 budgets providing adequate
funding; and
2. Authorized the Executive Director to execute the contract.
*2 -D. Recommending Award of Contract for Furnace Replacement. The Board of
Commissioners:
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Minutes 2 -A HABOC CC
8 -2 -05
Minutes of July 5, 2005
Regular Board of Commissioners Meeting Page 2
1. Awarded a contract to Atlas Heating and Air Conditioning to replace furnaces at
Eagle and Parrot Villages for $96,880 plus an additional 10 percent of that amount
for any needed change orders, for an amount not to exceed $106,568; and
2. Authorized the Executive Director to execute the contract.
2 -E. Budget Revision for the Fiscal Year FY2006. Commissioner Gilmore pulled this item
from the Consent Calendar. She requested a brief recap of the Section 8 funding
crisis and where the Housing Authority stands currently. Executive Director Michael
Pucci responded that there has been a complete turnaround. Commissioner Gilmore
thanked Mr. Pucci and the Housing Authority staff for doing an outstanding job.
Chair Johnson asked whether the program will be voucher or budget based. Mr. Pucci
responded that the voucher program is budget based and we were informed of the
budget amount in January for the entire calendar year. She also asked how many
households can be helped. Mr. Pucci responded that 1,675 households can be
assisted.
Commissioner Daysog asked if there is any virtue in not fully leasing up. Mr. Pucci
responded affirmative and that the Housing Authority wants a cushion (surplus).
Commissioner deHaan asked Mr. Pucci if he sees any changes in the rental market.
Mr. Pucci responded that the rental market is stable and the Housing Authority will be
conducting a rent survey in the next couple of months.
Commissioner Daysog asked about the affect of the rental market on the program.
Mr. Pucci responded that increased rents could mean we would help fewer people.
We now have a fund surplus so that could help pay for increased rents until we can
reduce the program size through attrition.
Chair Gilmore moved adoption of:
1. The budget revision for FY2006;
2. The resolution for the Conventional Low —Rent Housing Program No. CA062
Esperanza).
Commissioner deHaan seconded. Motion adopted unanimously.
3. AGENDA
None.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service.
Minutes of July 5, 2005
Regular Board of Commissioners Meeting Page 3
Commissioner Torrey provided information to fellow Commissioners from conferences
he attended.
6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:59 p.m.
Attest: Beverly Johnson, Chair
Michael T. Pucci
Executive Director / Secretary
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service.
Housing
Authority of the City of Alameda
701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467
Date: July 21, 2005
To: Honorable Chair and Members
of the Board of Commissioners
From: Debra Kurita
Chief Executive Officer
RE: Proclaiming Housing Choice Voucher Rental Property Owners of the Year 2004
Background:
The Housing Authority, in an effort to increase participation from Alameda rental
property owners in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, has established an
award to recognize the Housing Choice Voucher Property Owners of the Year. This
award serves a public purpose by creating an incentive for landlords to participate in the
Housing Choice Voucher program. Ultimately, the goal is to assist new Housing Choice
Voucher holders to find a decent, safe place to live and to provide existing voucher
holders the security of continuing to live in their homes.
Discussion:
In February 2005, nomination forms were mailed to current Housing Choice Voucher
participants asking for input on their landlord /property owner. The criteria for
recommending property owners remained unchanged from when the incentive program
began in 2000. Again this year, awards will be given in two categories: property owners
with three or fewer rental units under the voucher program, and owners with four or
more rental units under the voucher program. Housing Authority staff believe the award
system is more inclusive of small property owners by making this distinction.
For the 2004 awards, 15 nominations were received. Staff members reviewed all the
nominations and selected a total of eight property owners, four for each category, that
best fit the selection criteria. These eight nominations, with supporting documentation,
were presented to a committee of the Housing Commission for a recommendation to
the full Commission. At prior Housing Commission meetings, the Commission selected
two property owners to recommend to the Board of Commissioners.
" Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report 2 -B HABOC CC
8 -2 -05
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Board of Commissioners
Fiscal Impact:
July 21, 2005
Page 2 of 2
The total cost for the program is approximately $570. This includes mailing nomination
forms to Housing Choice Voucher participants at bulk rate ($270) and the cost of
plaques and gift certificates for the winning landlords ($300). The six runners -up will
receive framed certificates.
Policy Document Reference:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend to the Board of
Commissioners that the Mayor proclaim:
• Brad Kruck, owner of a unit at 1604 Sherman Street, 2004 Housing Choice
Voucher Program Rental Property Owner of the Year for three or fewer units.
• Irene Hanson, owner of units on 2249 Central Avenue, 2004 Housing Choice
Voucher Program Rental Property Owner of the Year for four or more units.
MTP:kw
Respectfully submitted,
/ cd (% PU/eal.porf Michael T. Pucci
Executive Director
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 21, 2005- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the special meeting at 8:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
MINUTES
Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor/
Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
(05- CC /05- CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement
Commission Meeting held on April 5, 2005; and the Special Joint
City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on June 7, 2005.
Approved.
Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(05- CC /05- CIC) Joint Public Hearing to review and approve
concept of Affordable Rental Housing at Island High as an eligible
use of District Housing Fund.
Mayor /Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor /Chair Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
The Development Manager for Housing provided a briefing on the
proposed concept.
Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog inquired whether there would be a
targeted beneficiary for rental housing, to which the Development
Manager for Housing responded that the agreement allows the School
District to target beneficiaries to the extent allowable by law;
stated the School District would prefer to give priority to
District employees.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
June 21, 2005
1
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff
recommendation.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated there is an opportunity
to provide meaningful, affordable housing.
Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
June 21, 2005
2
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY- - - JUNE 28, 2005 - - - 6:45 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:22 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioner /Board Member Daysog, deHaan,
Gilmore, and Chair Johnson - 4.
Absent: Commissioner /Board Member Matarrese - 1.
Note: Chair Johnson announced that Commissioner /Board Member
would not be teleconferencing from El Salvador because the phone
connection was not working.
AGENDA ITEM
(05- CIC) Discussion /review of the City Charter and related
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) policy, procedures, and management
practices.
Chair Johnson stated that the City Attorney was requested to
provide thoughts on emergency spending for outside counsel; noted
that the hiring of outside counsel is approved by the Council and
that some slight revisions need to be made to the CIC and ARRA By-
laws, etc. in order to provide consistency between the City
Council, CIC and ARRA.
Commissioner /Board Member Daysog inquired whether the issue of
hiring outside counsel was related to determining what the
threshold would be.
Chair Johnson responded that the City Attorney was to provide
information on how much would be required to cover the interim
period before the matter was brought back to the Council.
Commissioner /Board Member Gilmore stated that she understood that
the matter would be addressed at a meeting in July.
Chair Johnson stated that a memo was received stating that an
outside attorney had been hired; the City Attorney indicated that
the issue regarding hiring of outside counsel applied to the
Council, not the CIC or ARRA.
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005
1
The City Attorney distributed the minutes of the June 7, 2005
Council Meeting; stated the Council requested a proposal from the
City Attorney's office for a future meeting; noted the hiring of
outside counsel was not part of the budget adoption.
Chair Johnson stated the matter could be brought back at the July 5
City Council Meeting if the Council action is not clear.
The City Attorney stated the matter is on the July 5 Council agenda
per Council's request for discussion in closed session; noted that
she was requested to provide a proposal at the last performance
evaluation.
Chair Johnson stated different interpretations of the Council's
actions at the June 7 Council Meeting are not necessary; the
Council can place the matter on the July 5 Council Meeting in open
session; that she does not believe the matter is a closed session
item.
Commissioner /Board Member Gilmore stated that she distinctly
remembers that there was a certain amount of concern in discussing
authorized amounts in open session because of litigation
strategies.
Chair Johnson stated that the concept needs to be adopted in open
session.
The City Attorney stated that she is proceeding to provide a
proposal at the July 5 Closed Session Meeting in order to not
reveal litigation strategies and to respond to the Council's
request for additional oversight and threshold identification; any
budget amendments should subsequently be placed on an open session
agenda; at the last performance evaluation, the Council requested
that the matter initially be addressed in closed session.
Chair Johnson stated there is also direction that action has to be
consistent with the Charter.
The City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson.
Chair Johnson stated that the Charter provides that the Council
consent to the hiring of outside counsel.
The City Attorney distributed an opinion by Robert Logan which
addressed budget appropriations and authorizations; stated that it
is appropriate for the Council to follow the pattern and practice
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005
2
that has been in place for over 16 years and which was adopted at
no less than five public meetings where a budget appropriation for
the City Attorney was authorized; stated that she did understand
the Mayor's request and would return with an oversight proposal.
Chair Johnson stated that the direction to operate consistently
with what the Charter provides has already been given to the City
Attorney.
The City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson; stated that the
attorney retained by the Council in 1989 provided an analysis of
the direction regarding retention of outside counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council also gave direction regarding
the Charter stating that the Council consent is required to hire
outside attorneys.
The City Attorney stated that the consent has been given through
the budget in the past 16 years; the policy can be changed and
would be discussed on July 5th
Commissioner /Board Member Daysog stated that the budget enables the
City Manager and department heads to hire individuals; the Council
does not need to be involved in the actual hiring but might want to
be involved in instances above or below certain thresholds; stated
that the Council is moving in the right direction.
Commissioner /Board Member deHaan stated the initial clarification
would be with the Charter; noted there is dispute between the City
Attorney and the Council; the Council feels that they have the
authority to consent to the hiring of outside legal counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that there is no need to hire an attorney to
provide an opinion on the language of the Charter; the language of
the Charter is very plain and clear.
Commissioner /Board Member deHaan stated the Council could move
forward if the language of the Charter has been determined.
Chair Johnson stated that there is a $470,000 litigation
contingency in Risk Management and an additional $350,000 for
Alameda Power & Telecom; noted that the City Attorney is stating
that the Council has consented to the hiring of outside counsel by
approving the line items in the budget over the past 16 years; the
Council has given a blanket authorization to the City Attorney to
hire outside counsel and that is not the level of oversight that
the Charter intends; the Charter was drafted to provide needed
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005
3
checks and balances; the City Attorney's office has five attorneys
and also spends a significant amount of money on outside counsel;
stated that the Council should have more of a role in the hiring of
outside counsel and needs to be more in line with the intention of
the Charter; changes can be made as time goes on and when the
Council feels more comfortable; a lot of money is being spent on
outside attorneys and the Council has an obligation to be more
aware of outside attorney costs.
Commissioner /Board Member Daysog stated that defining the
parameters of discretion and how the discretion relates to Section
8 -5 of the Charter is the issue; the Council is in the process of
defining discretionary parameters of "may empower "; the City
Attorney or any other City office meets Council expectations
through the establishment of the budget; threshold parameters need
to be established; the Council is moving in the direction that will
work for both sides but will not be established tonight.
Chair Johnson stated that clear direction was given to the City
Attorney to bring the matter of hiring of outside counsel back to
the Council at the last Closed Session Meeting.
Commissioner /Board Member Daysog stated that his interpretation of
the Charter is that because there was no specific ordinance or
resolution defining "may empower" the past practice is still in
effect.
Chair Johnson stated that is not what she heard at the last
meeting.
The City Attorney stated that she is working on a proposal to be
presented to the City Council on July 5; that she hears what the
Council is saying and understands that there is a desire for
additional oversight; the proposal will provide additional Council
involvement and discretion, and provide significantly less
discretion on the City Attorney's part.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is not asking for less
discretion on the City Attorney's part; stated that Council should
do what the Charter says; the interpretation of the Charter could
be that the Council gives consent to the City Attorney to spend
money on outside attorneys by putting a line item in the budget or
the interpretation of the Charter can be that the Council is not
going to give consent by a line item; the latter was made clear at
the June 7 Joint City Council, CIC, ARRA Meeting; the Council is
allocating $470,000 but the City Attorney does not have the
discretion to spend it without the Council's consent.
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005
4
The Acting City Manager stated that the [June 7] action of the
Council was to adopt the budget; Chair Johnson requested the City
Attorney to bring the hiring of outside counsel to Council but the
matter was not part of the motion; that he is not sure how many
other Councilmembers gave the direction to the City Attorney; staff
follows direction given by the Council; it is not necessary to have
a motion and vote; the City Attorney would provide a proposal to
determine the extent of Council overview; that he questions whether
the City Attorney should hire outside counsel or come to the
Council voluntarily to request consent of hiring outside counsel.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney could come to
Council when the hiring of outside counsel was necessary in the
interim, to which the City Attorney responded that she would not
hire outside counsel until July 5; noted that there are existing
counsel, bills and litigation.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is not addressing attorneys
that are already working for the City.
Commissioner /Board Member Daysog inquired whether the City Attorney
intended to hire new outside counsel in the next ten days, to which
the City Attorney responded in the negative.
Commissioner /Board Member deHaan stated the Council requested a
summary of existing litigation and hopes to have the information
provided at the next meeting; ARRA has a substantial amount of
litigation; noted there are fixed and variable portions of the
budget; Council would like to keep control of outside counsel
spending; the oversight philosophy is important.
Chair Johnson stated that all the Council agreed that there was a
need to provide some authority for emergency spending.
Commissioner /Board Member Gilmore stated that that it is important
to establish a policy that is consistent across all governing
bodies.
Commissioner /Board Member deHaan stated that the Council requested
to be involved in interim decisions and hopes to be receiving said
information.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council requested a list of
attorneys, including scope of service; the information should be
presented before the next Council meeting; inquired whether the
City Attorney's proposal would be in the agenda packet or presented
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005
5
in advance; stated she would prefer that the proposal was not
distributed to the Council on the night of the meeting.
The City Attorney stated the information would be provided to the
Council before the City Council Meeting; stated that she would
bring the proposal to the July 5 Closed Session Meeting with the
advanced copy of all information requested; she hears the Council
direction in terms of a desire for policy direction to provide the
additional thresholds and Council involvement and oversight for all
governing bodies; matters would be discussed and direction taken
from the Council.
Chair Johnson stated that she does not expect that any outside
counsel would need to be hired within the next week, inquired what
was decided on the interim.
The City Attorney responded that she would like the Council to keep
a reasonable, fair and equitable approach; all department heads are
authorized to spend monies when the budget is adopted; $75,000 or
less is the current amount without Council authorization.
Chair Johnson stated that no one else in the City has authorization
to spend over $800,000.
The City Attorney reiterated her request for a reasonable approach.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is always fair and
reasonable; stated that she made it clear at the budget meeting
that the Council is not changing the amount of the City Attorney's
budget but is exercising Council responsibility.
Commissioner /Board Member deHaan stated that the direction for
other City departments might change also; the City is in
extraordinary times in reviewing the budget, controlling staffing,
and developing needed services.
Commissioner /Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council does not
want to make it significantly more difficult for the City Attorney
to be able to do her job.
Commissioner /Board Member Daysog stated that delivery of successful
services to the residents is ultimately the end responsibility; the
question of reasonableness is not incidental; rapid responses are
necessary for the legal team; the City is shooting itself in the
foot if rules do not allow for rapid responses.
The City Attorney stated that she is fully confident that the
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005
6
proposal submitted on July 5 will be adequate for all purposes.
Chair Johnson requested that the City Attorney summarize her
understanding of the Council's direction.
The City Attorney stated that the direction from the Council was to
provide a proposal that addresses issues regarding the Charter,
Council oversight in order to provide a threshold to limitation of
the City Attorney's current budgeting authority, and to address
other issues discussed, i.e., an RFQ panel of attorneys.
Chair Johnson stated the Council does not intend to limit the
dollar amount; the Council could spend $800,000 on one case; the
focus is on hiring outside counsel.
The Acting City Manager stated that sometimes it is not known how
much money will be necessary for hiring outside attorneys in cases
where the City gets sued; usually there is a proposal from a
consultant advising what the cost will be when other departments
hire consultants; the Council would like to be advised who the
outside counsel would be.
Chair Johnson stated it is not necessary to have a dollar amount in
contracts; the Council needs to be advised who the attorney is that
would handle the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that it is not in the interest of the
public for the Council to be involved in every single hiring
decision; there should be a threshold.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council does not want to be
involved in every single hiring decision.
Chair Johnson stated there would be a greater awareness and
sensitivity to hiring outside counsel; there have been instances
where the Council has questioned why outside counsel was hired; the
issue is not a dollar limit; stated the Council could discuss the
type of issues that should involve the Council; the City Attorney
could address the matter in her proposal.
Councilmember deHaan requested a summary of litigation and the
estimates for finalization; requested that the Council receive
advanced notice when the amount of a consultant's contract is
anticipated to increase.
Councilmember deHaan stated that all managers should be able to
provide the Council with an on -going ledger.
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005
7
Chair Johnson stated that the task of providing the ledger to the
Council should not be burdensome; requested that the City Attorney
advise the Council if the task would be burdensome.
Commissioner /Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council would
rather have the City Attorney perform legal work than
administrative work; stated the City Attorney is obviously more
valued as a lawyer.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005
8
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 19, 2005- -6:55 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
(05- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: Alameda Belt Line v. City of Alameda, Alameda Belt Line
v. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda v. Alameda Belt Line.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that the Council /Commission
obtained briefing from the City Attorney /Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned
the Special Joint Meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for.this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
July 19, 2005
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: July 20, 2005
Re: Recommendation that the Community Improvement Commission Approve
the Amended Contract with Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by
Increasing the Contract Amount an Additional $307,414 to Provide
Additional Pre - Planning and Construction Administration Services for the
Rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater
BACKGROUND
Over the past two years, the City has been proceeding with planning activities for the
historic rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater, in conjunction with a multi- screen theater
and parking structure project. These activities included the City retaining historic
preservation architects, Architectural Resources Group (ARG), to provide feasibility and
cost estimates for the potential historic rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater.
In November 2003 the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) contracted with
ARG to prepare preliminary cost estimates, base drawings, code analysis, testing of
interior panels and finishes, and recommendations for interior rehabilitation. The cost of
that contract was $78,890.
Since then, the CIC has amended ARG's contract four times to authorize performance
of expanded services necessary to move the proposed Historic Theater project forward:
1. In June 2004, the CIC approved a $129,200 amendment to provide additional
testing and analysis of system improvements with complete cost estimates for
potential rehabilitation of the theater.
2. In October 2004, the CIC approved a $43,550 amendment to coordinate with the
preliminary designs for the cineplex and parking structure.
3. In December 2004, the CIC approved a $320,000 amendment to produce
construction documents.
4. In April 2005, the CIC approved a $44,275 amendment to provide documentation
for Section 106 requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and to
provide specifications for the ADA ramp and Exit Stair Enclosure.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #1 CIC
8 -2 -05
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 20, 2005
Page 2 of 3
The total amount allocated to date for ARG's scope of work is $615,915, not including
the proposed contract amendment. (The contract and all amendments are on file with
the City Clerk.)
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the contract amendment is for ARG to provide consulting services
through the final phases of the theater rehabilitation project. The amendment will enable
ARG to help resolve technical issues critical to the project. Perhaps the most important
unresolved issue is the viability of the tunnels beneath the auditorium for their original
use as a ventilation system. The Phase I Environmental Report found the tunnels
completely flooded and could not be inspected for asbestos. Further investigation is
required to determine the source of the flooding and the potential costs for
waterproofing and remediation. The amendment will also allow ARG to identify the costs
for repairing the historic curtain, implementing various fire sprinkler systems in the main
auditorium, and completing the acoustical analysis of the HVAC system to meet the
City's sound ordinance. Under this amendment, ARG's budget to complete these
remaining pre - planning tasks will not exceed $68,734.
Finally, ARG will be able to help the City with the contractor selection process, by
attending the bidders' conference, responding to bidders questions, and meeting with
the City as necessary. The contract amendment will also cover ARG's role as
construction administrator for the project. These responsibilities include on -site review
of historic theater construction and coordination with the cineplex and parking structure
construction. As the construction administrator, ARG will also review and approve pay
requests and change orders, if needed, and respond to requests for information or
clarification by the construction contractor. ARG's budget under this amendment to
provide construction administrator services will not exceed $238,680, for a total
amendment budget of $307,414.
Remaining Pre - Planning Tasks $68,734
Construction Administration $238,680
Total Contract Amendment Budget $307,414
City staff reviewed the contract amendment line item budget with ARG and the City's
internal construction expert and reduced costs where possible. The result is that the
total Architecture and Engineering (A &E) costs of $923,329 represents roughly 13
percent of the currently estimated construction budget. This is close to the industry
standard of 10 to 12 percent and the Library's A &E ratio, which falls within the industry
standard. It should be noted that ARG's A &E costs included intensive research and
testing (such as microscopic analysis of paint samples) required for design options and
construction documents, which explains why the project's A &E costs are slightly higher
than the industry standards. Staff is confident that ARG has presented a reasonable
cost proposal.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
C: \DOCUME- 1 \cm_user \LOCALS-1 \Temp \CIC 7 -19 -05 ARG Amendment.doc
F: CP /Alameda Theatre Project/Architectural Resources Group (ARG)
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
July 20, 2005
Page3of3
This project will be funded by the 2003 Merged Area Bonds and will not impact the
General Fund. Architectural fees for this phase of work will not exceed $307,414 for a
total contract amount of $923,329.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Community Improvement Commission approve the
amended contract with Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing the contract
amount an additional $307,414 to provide additional pre - planning and construction
administration services for the Alameda Theater Project.
WCN /LAL /DES /EF:ry
Resp submitt
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By:
Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development
Division
Eric Fonstein
Development Coordinator
cc: Architectural Resources Group, c/o Naomi Miroglio
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \econdev \Eric \Theatre \Contracts \CIC 7 -19 -05 ARG Amendment.doc
F: CP /Alameda Theatre Project/Architectural Resources Group (ARG)
Re: Presentation 3 -A
8 -2 -05
��9L �. �CC:��L��. �CC�c 7iL i'•
� .,:•$1//r,. �i \\\\fs 4f/• .. , i \\\th.; ., 11/ 0 I . g.$!�`,,2. ,,,,,A eiii,. .Aiif\s�'♦ ♦�t. Iiiliiri'. .•i:\�\�� ♦ ♦ \it. i/ifi/y:•. ..iC�i�r, ,'iiiii•. i��1r, viL i'.
:iii � i.:�:: � ��:::::/ I'i, '•�� \\ .: \:� i III• r•. i I. \ ,�. ♦ � \�� � •/ � N...�,. .1/ r i ,. ;.III rv. .•i� ♦�♦ "�
i• ' I r ... :Iff 1`;:t; . : IBS •`♦.'',.•••♦...,.,• •. :Ir /� `\tt� WA \ \♦♦ \:• r•' : ♦ \\ ::' /rfi ,,1%......:.::::•. :I f,' ��♦ \ ♦ �..
t� .i�� %i'. �. �; \ \\�..1, ,II / / % / /•r •. \• \ \ \ \ \,��� 11 I /i / %• . \ \ \ \ \\\�..ii11i / /•r, %. • •\ \ \�\, .iili%i•r, i' �`�` •• \ \��:�. ,il %i�i•r i. •` \ \ \ \\. .'�ilij�r�'r �.' `.;. •.�� \iii. .'i. %i %•r ��. \ ♦• �. \• ••,
ti ..•i: ':',1%��\\. 10.#rrilii! ..: ,1% �\\.,I•I,I•I./I.I!:.. ,`�\.�\ \\\,�'IA.j /�I.!•..' ��\.;�.,p: vtAt.11�.,' ::•• • \\\„Iii1i111f'.,' ::• ,: .�\;i., tvAtt.I /I /',::: ♦\,.\.\O„�III/ IR ;,'•. %; `''4',...1.,1
•
•. \...r \• \• //! . \ ♦.. III \,.i•• /./ \ \♦ /
tgs a:1
I
°=•: - The Mayor and City Council of the City of Alameda Present this
Certflcate o pp reci�tion
.___,,,i =
to
Del-Blaylock,
=" "`= In recognition of an extraordinary jo6 as part of the Mayor's Fourth of Jury Parade Committee. `'�•
•
•: =Y:.:' • Presented this 2" Day ofAugust 2005. .-
r
b . . : 6
N/ =v
•
Peverry Johnson °'�
i, , .- i i :: i- iiii --- — -,----:—.....---,,..,,,,,.- .
Ate.. qi � .i/ / ' . -\ \ ,g0, t r '/ • I1 1,„,i., �r i,:m11,..-,,,,,, " :, i ♦ \ ::�..♦♦, i � ..:,,,.':41;%:-...,', . :\ C:.. ... :,� :; // ,„ „ ... t,',:,:;.-: i %! V-:
.
•,1 I ;I(. . \. \' .. /i••. •/ i ...1i! , \. N \.. •�: :�. •• I /I In I'. .., i• . 'I 'r •..IiI•' . \\...\• :\ •` ii • '.I•iI11� ";\. i; ``.,%,..•.1.$0,0'.!W .\\ .' : I ••� :::;:::,:44116:
\ • \ � \ 6 j I .110 ... ;,..!:,%. \ � .r.,%'!.. ..♦ � !!i/..1'"�•.. \ \�% ;,' Ii / / / .i.: "\ \ \,V !i• .. .: !,.1...;\■:�. gi% .v1, 4,�`� i•iI'•.yI i•rgZS P\ I � •',t /•t/:.I'.. � •..$. 0\� •.ett(iI: \\' \\.• .t.��/�1�, \'.4. . : ;, ! !dtSY„ \. � \\P \. • ./III,i ',.. \\: \. ! .11.11Ii.. i 0\,. •!.r ./;
� I Wil-� .� :•;e$ \i• ;III••• /,/ . • .,•-;: : :,% i1 %I• ::. ..:40$0,. . %II•/r%•'. ..:,f \\\\\\;..',V4V -.;. .,;:g \\\\\;. ;1%11/1•.•. ..;;,;:::::e01;;. . illi. . ,;;;55.
1 • �� \• \• \ \��. \ \ \\ ��\•
4.16%%;:11%;: .1...t/ i .i\ %•....:.i� II I \ N:.,tI:ii i� / '. \ \\iii•'• ,.111•:1 //I %.; iii t !. \ .'I • .•, , ♦\t:
��.I.• • //i •. :, \ \i. / � \ ,,,4%%%. 111.::'.'. 'op \ ..... � /Ii • \ \.• � / • . \ \i :1�: \ ,\\ \ \' .:iii 1 .
�iq %ii'.. �` \ \ \ \ \ \1. .I /fir . \ \ \ \ \,\•1,ii1 %i1 /rr .1 \\;;\ \, 1. ,i111i / / / /., • .................. , ..., .` ,.,�.\ii, .iili j..r •�:�' s:‘‘..''.: ............. li j�•r .�� •fir •. •,� \i. ',",,..4%./1%;•;"•%"-; ..�. �,•
•1 %...�i: :3 ;1. VI :'/11./1 //i' : %: :•:` \ \ \.: .. I..•1�11///i ; :‘%;;.w1; ;1I,.444o :A..'�: "• \\..., ;,.. /i/ / „.•:i' : \ \\\� 11. . i1.i1 /.,,, •:i' ;.%w � II/. / /r. •.� '� \\; \\ \ \1. P .• \�.•.�
.� \�. .I //.. : •./ / /.. : \ ..... •.11�/.. . • \ \� \....1. r ..II / //. `` \,, �... ,1,/1/ // ,, �; ���. %/I ,• .. . \.” .I. •
The Mayor and City Counci(of the City ofA.Cameda Present this
:
41%74..1 • -.,.
.:5::,:s.,:: . i
Certflcate of-Appreciation
: {. t0
•
Karl and can Breit �o pf
,,
,,„..
...-.....
.....-.......,
In recognition of an e.�traordinary jo6 as part of the Mayor's Fourth of jury Parade Committee. •
i.. • Presented this 2 Day ofAugust 2005. •'
\e =c_..
4 v.
IiIi 69 u
y .
o :;
Beverty Johnson
Mayor r.s....t.....,
g,:::::. ,,..y.,_,.7?••;,..:,...
„:::.:::: \,__;,,.\4_,„_„.,-___;:ez:, ,..._ 7.:,„1! ,..
_•;,,,.,,,.‘ ..,.,_,• _ • .•.•
..
_,........
____
:: 171 //it,`
•III. i ;�:i _ \
\. ./ 11 \�,�� •/ // ♦ I.i \• ./ .IIII 1�• \. \ \ \• :i ///•1111.. \ \1 i. \ \. %,010-77,77,•:`,,,f,,, :j /�i�....� • .: :iN ./ /. \ / //I ' \ . . ..... II 1. \• / 1. W..; \ \. . ./ i . \ . / / •111 ' \'��i..t• „:;;;;;;;;;;7777,7;q:•„%;
0:::::::41i: \ .:a;;;::” j 1 1 \J •• / / /III•,. \ \1 \.• • 11•,.\\ \ \.. .•// III I, \\I . .1 ///III 11 \.♦ . / / /111'' \ \ \1 \• \\.. ./ // 1. �� 'df ���•
.• �;4' S ; ;•• • ..... .• \1‘J , 0; •.i.. ..:ii..:Z:I .rt:';••.iiii ...... •.\� \�� '%::; .•::i:!•.. ' �\ ',�irr.•.,III..)� ....... :.�i' •/ / %IIr!. .1\N \\ • ••i•• Z:
:Y���\�. /j11�e / is ".i1 \ \1�� \,�� I1.�:11•IIi`. ,:i ���,�!�� i1% / / / /IIII''�'1 \ \S.1�, \ \•� :i�1/ • ,,.1\ '1', \, \. i�II•• ,,;,, .••,� \��)� �•j % /•• r�i; �i •.•••� \1 \�� .i11I% ,�•;: :��i�r••7r. �i
IIII �• %'. .• \��. \ \ \ \ \�i, i %I��1 %'. ., :'�., \ \ \ \• II X111 �%. :;� \ \\ '::.1...1. II /'. ,q'. , :� \ \, \�. §1,:#.1-.1011,:: 1 .• ••,.: ::;,„g.0\� \ \ \ \� 'iI1 :'. \ : \� \' 'iII1� %•. : : \ \'t. :i ♦i 11 j.• •. \:�� \�.
/ I. .\ 1 .. .�... / I• • 1.♦ \\i.. I ♦/ \, .\\�`. ' 11 /, ♦ \\ II . \' `%/1141••. \:,l\\\ \i. iII11/ I \ 1 ,s, ..;":Si I • •\\
�� ••. Ii /• may:• •..�.. .. ,/,. • \\ \ \� \..��.:•.... ✓' i \` .::�'.:.: • /•' C•\ �. •' : \� •.. ?:.: II ,/ r �i . N\ / '. � �• / / \ � \:\
�4q J•'. �. • \ \N\I•:iI%% %/ r�!,:' •:V. •Q;\Ni••i/%: %•r .i •` 3 :sivi•:15%L r �;. . `.. •••i\CC.,,:,3,. r ;, '1�' . `•'� •..il,.iil:••r g fi:% •J.:••..`.•.i..7i::••,I. .,,b•,..•..." '', ,‘:00 ,.l;.'
,��i � .\ \•iii \i!�� iii, /ij /� /•: ' �: ::. \ \ \,� \ \. \.N •ii11i1i1i�::% •:;\ \�� \•1. rI1I :i / %•. .ii, .r.I1i /,• ; ; \ \. \.1. .III.i //. •. \ \\ \• /I • • \; \ \.�. :, , ,.'
.i• .A\.• .III .!,•!.•... I. \ \.. ,,... •.. /11 '.\.•\ •„ \\\i. \!!� .q /�• ✓ //' .\\\�i \!��: ;Iii iii /i1i4 • �. ,... 1��: �Ii�i..,■„, 1.:
fi Fil
The Mayor and City Counci(of the City ofACamed-a Present this
„,••:-.,,,:, ..:.-....,„:,
o reciatzon 1,..:0-,,,:-:-.).-
.......z.,
..........„..
......„..
..:::::::::1 .
1.:::::7 .•
• ..._...........
Certficate
.i::::::=4,,
�p
to
ss WI.
Jim Franz
1Z11. ZZ.ZZ:
Z-Latj In recognition of an extraordinary jo6 as part of the Mayor's Fourth of JuCy Parade Committee.
Presented this 2n Day ofAugust 2005.
;.
�''* Beverly Johnson
-,.._ Mayor i
•III •i I / \ `.\ .. �. \�
• .•. 1. . • • / /1111 •\\\• . • .• •I ♦II `.\ \\ i . •/ /III, ,. \ .. \: '• ♦ / •11 „c: \. \\\.; : ; / .................................. ;...y„ •.�i:,.:
.• �. :::: ;i'.' .�.�. .114 ,..,,\ .. .// •1 I,.. \\ \4 , .., r1.,... \. \., .,...♦II .. \.. \. •.., / •/. ,cc\• �. \.
.� •.• •Y .. '✓I �•`��� Vi r, \\� •�,�: � ✓ ✓• •.ia:� •::i:►• . •��: ai•. ..,i1i:. !;N \•• •:i �. :: j•• •/ /.III,'!. \ \N . • / IIII;� .. ♦ rol..,. y••
Sz\•••;\ \\ \. !1I, i•.•••• \ \,. :. I• •4 \\ : ;;; ;% rr•I•l:'! 4l\ : . 1� /' •IV .j1 /,•...... •• ..,, \`, ,I //r,;\ %• .,'",, .' y2::: i��•r.�: °i::: r�Y.
,Y \.������' C •I %���,�••••' \.. !��,� /I♦IIi'''•�..• ►�\ \' ��• /1•III; . , �� i //I.14IIIrv:7iQN ���� \. .111/ I,'Y, .... \ \ • r / .., 1I •
.!\ \ \ \,.��0. ••1 j11I,I11 ', \ \\ \.,.APP.' d.t$1,1��• �..�\ \ \.,.���p'• �1jve..0 i\\ \\ \ \,.OP. -tt 1,;. ...\ p... I : 0,,,e ,\\ �,�.. !!•t :4.43,.. ,:`x.0.0 �i�' !�•tt � /III�i: ':�\� \ :��� \. !Ij %..V,AV••
III i \ \ \♦ \ / • I, 1 � 1 •/4/11//
11,I, . \���. •.r;11,I,•• !l�� ••�QI ♦,I,I.• `.!�� \ \�. '.11111,•. `!! \ \ \� \��• 1 :QI ♦,I, ..
4-‘9."•?:.. ..if:$;',".■,:-. .;440ffi717,7,-A‘",;-.;. ..qeM,; 0,,Vccp.. .;0114; .,,,,VX,-,-... ..0:40 ,,:,',;#3:;-..; ;.:;:$0-i; ,,,,,,,y#4...; •,
tZ4tt11:1:t. $11: ............ ..... 4*, $%::&'::::" .4:6, :::: *11, •;t%I. ::::: :' ''. :::: .:01,, •:::;,•, •Ii,;,', ••‘*■', : CCCV,,,;:s%%;■ : :Iffi''' :41'..:•a 1.:
.•:14 .................... 1;.•.?'':: ...'IiI■111.ii .10#:11%,•' ‘Y.‘'ili:PAS■ '''..:#:"Iiii; ',"*;iiii.elPi '''''fillAili,;:::::: ..41001.`■ :::-.-44::1::: Y.AWPIP ''''''1•#•tli.::.'': .; ziA■eLl$1,111*•::':: z-`-',‘:`,t:Y4k.:.;
..... .f- ' ' • . . • • ' ' • • . •
.f•fiff;;;;: ,':::•:::.•-
:1:1::::::; ::3,1••• ZSS:.
If gil 1 ;:ff% _a:f
.:::: •:::. 1
0,..„.-.„.,:,.,:.)1:...4...:.„--:,.-„:..,1,:,5:,„•,:,,:, , „ :: , , 1
The Mayor an d City Council of he Cit y of Afam eda
Present this
Certi fcate ofAppreciation
,„f.:g.:- „,„:,- „ :-• i ..:,„-s ... -:..:.. .....I.-A
..A ... : .
, ..
to
:.. :.
t:„......., ...::.....1.
„..„...„.,
•
Diana andArt Yfelwig.
.....:::: . •..... v. A
.1'■ ZZ.... In recognition of an a7ctraordinaly jo6 as part of the Mayor's Fourth °fluty Parade Committee. lisilza,
ii,....i,
,,.,;..---.. ..._....
...i.7,-.... Presented this 2ne Day of August 2005.
e.
„. ..
...,:z.---
47.,..f....
:i 61 ,c -,,,, ,..2:.-2:
4-
-:.-.,-,- , . a■ la s•
%.:11:,', ' : ..,. '..-, s's:•Y.
. Oeverfy Johnson
, .
Mayor- -....r....
-.... .
...V ::.■ (Fir ••■••1
7-'') sri' 'i7'','•Vi- • r /---y.
i;- - -,?,,, . , •,. '•„,,ei, - /
4:2: ::::•.1 , ,.,„ , 1 ''Sii :ZZ,z;
....Si,:t.Z: 1 'f''', ..` - ../^ •;\_. \ ' :`'.• •Vs'
:.• .■ I
.?fl.:•;:„ - / tir - -. \ '
••%:■.:t1.•••
...•
; ;;P37:777.7.:iZZ '1 :''.. 1;:iri.:77.74ZZ' ''' :.'• :/!:rief."/, 4$ii . Z■i` ., ---: e4 .. ..;777777,0",„ „,Z„441sss: .'s, :.: ://101771777.$,„ ■„Zo4 ......... s`,, ;%, •:;01017=7:77.,„. „,,, i .......... ,,, -:'', ....:0;(1::•::::1";:::2:4
:Zs: n:1*..ts:`• ''';',1,:: ,V,Zs. ::•;',:: .. ;#0,';', ::::'.*•;,',..,, ;;;I::•te:Vt' ' ...... •,:;,•';,, ;;;;;.: ........ ,q;W...z.v, :;;;;.:: .... :,,,‘: ..... •,;;;,z,, .;;;;:: .... s,..,:,,,:•;g,s, .;;;;;;:e.ttiv.-: ..... ;;;;.,,• .;;;;;;:ruzz.
V4$11.50‘. ''';' —, qiii'3';‘ lqtat,v/A, .s$4itt:;• 10, , .s$ .... ;;;;. .,;;;;;,,,,v,, 1$,c.it . ts 't:::ow,,%. .. .::z,' '1:00:0,',....F:::::. . Y 'll:::tv,v,.-.i$$$§t:%!' ? . ..7,',7:j
N!'• • , .. . e ■ s 0.;:,,,:... .......1•AV, , , OS.P.:'• "11,40 0 ■ s Ok..1.0"1"...etev,” s ..0..2* • ' • "It!!! ' ” • . „.„..,....”- • • ••.....t.,..!•:....". " At.. ....
.,.iirt•Zi•it.:;i ,:; ,;slif6v$,...:„:•:'•:#:#•...9,■,•; .,1:44T:$.;...:;;;#?•U've;;. .; •,*N....,;,,MVIV.•;.. .,,i 4:104k ..:;714-0..e. .eliffs-,s4 e;fftr..,,. 4.01:$4;,..,;,,AVVVO... .,;;;#/$;:k
iii, 13);,1',,.' :?,:%1 ...... ;; -,,,,,•,,t;;::',f, ;V:. ........................... ',‘,`..1'. . .■■■:,:;;;;; . :frIk 's,':it'. ..... ::,'",%;; . :1%,%'' ?4It'. ............... . 'Illi,'' Vt' ........... ..... :If1;' •A'' ............ ...... 411,../.' All!...!';1-'1,11'
etri::-1,e, .-:',. ---, z'::;W.`'‘ ''ttt*if:•:-..'':. ..-zs. 0".` ''''Attl%gge: '-':.:. T.,'; 3,..t,w; 0.1.t.t. ............... .;:,,,,40,.„ „.,•,...; .......... ::‘,..,..4 . ppm ; ....................... ...:,::--,..41ippn: , ...."0,;,,,, :zif,••41;;;M: 0.'4.1 ............ -'‘i41-:-::1:::
... ......
-..'s•-:::::',Y.
4-21., rit
....::...zi; lz..-• -:--.
- - —
......- -,.....,
•:::••.-4-:.
..::::v:•■:
..7.i...-n:
The Mayor and City Councd of the
i City of Akm ecia Present this
Certffcate ofAppreciation ...::,.:::.;:?....:..,...,:..:..z..3,.....:..:.-.„:y...:.... .: .
. .
1...:,...„..:::-.
............,
re:•2t.7:g
to
%.....,,,.•
,:::S'.'..::
::.:Ir:•.;ti-z.
,:.::::-. Steve ffefwig . ........
?,41......i
••■••• ..,...1
,St• ...11.
..ii. :.' : ; P . . —: ;it: ••• ":::;,,,
, ...16 , ...
r a . r ■VZ: ::**"
In recognition of an e_vraorainaly jou as part of the Mayor's Fourth of Jury Parade Committee.
:•-v ..:-.--,:-. .
-. . Presented this 2"e Day ofAugust 2005.
...v. ...z.., .
... - - - 741',' •••1
'.-,c\.W---7--- ‘----- - I,j_.-
r:....47-.• :-.,:r.."
..;.--i.:: - • d, -
irZZ :-Zr;
*•..1..'.7: \ -'<-1 -V-..Z: .:Z
'fff:.',..4- --.,,•/: z. ---- ..-.0
- .
;.:;:::: •=4..1 ,_.- . _._,._
.■^"Vr:.:; ,Ev,.. .
-- ., •,?
Beverry Johnson
-,.....,...: ,___ 1--"' -„,-,-> e- 4,'• . ■-- '- .
-=:::::E;; -=7,7)., ',-:!..At-',/:. • •-33z.: ;,', . .
--::- ---;.,
Mayor
.......•
/,'-'.,,,;-,,-2,-."..-`-N,,,,,,,L. _-_,•-,,.,,,, .
r...„.. . ,
.:',':. -....':. .:3...:.,...,.. r< - ,--,,,-- ,, - , ;- - .'.'.;/..f..•::::.
- . .
:5;Sii ‘,.;,•;::: -..;;.;;:fgli.if.,$." ' . Attt.... .... ,.• ..,..„•,,,.... ... VA...0,, ... 0 ..,;, ,,,%,..••1 . :We...P;::: .. 0 ..$;„-,%;, •. .. Mo.'. :,0,,Z ... ;':;".,:',. •••;• 4.1; ;;.,.., ....... .,-„...,;,;,;•,0,.:,,, .. t.1•,..:; ,,..%.",:ort '4'1
'i.1....: • . i•%• %;Pi••::. 0, .,..,:: ` •• • :* ,ts; . ; .... ',.,..,.: ..... ;■%%•,, i:;;;;;;;;,.,....i, .... ;:%%s,, •,•;;;; ........ .:: .... •:%‘0,'. ",;10; ..... t,:..: ..... •41,;'• ',";;;;•:•tttt::.. ..... '.,g:,- .;;;;;;:::. :Z.::
.'$icZ%P.t. • .40:•,/, tqltIV,..04,. .:•....... . • ••!,..0,0,0,..,,,,,•001.• •••••••■ 0. .,, ■ .. .• . a. ..00.04*.',... ■ !.' '00•00.,■,..-..■ ..... i .. .... .. .... :,• .....■■ . ;11:0 fo . •••■••.:
.N1'.." Att.. % `..v.!'• • •••.0.0,•%,' s.%!•,- Ateeo.,., ,NW.,,-- Att',.....0.• ••■.OPP.,d." • -to.Ve.,#•.%!; -400.!!!'"16-4-$.t.#0!','; .',.■.V.ZO'. .A7*.%$.t.'•:Cf-
.:::f."4:1:. . \. ; :� fettp\, .•;';‘•:•.:;-.. .;01$(;i. '/IIIiIO ° '1,(. , IIIII �/ /. \\g\ \ ,. : i '% 1: 1.1 0• ' • 1( °
iII
I f • I \ ii,\ �$ .. -%II / / .\ .� . $$$: i';;'', •/ . .
ii \ \
• :�I• . : •i \ ., • . .•l r/II fir .$%2 , . 1rI•► • /ir \ �\,Q�•�'''. I / /' : ,\C, ,. • . • : • •... . - . t /• r,; �. iij .. ..:i:iiii i�i/ .•�
ZZ
. ;Zite:I, .: .-''',iii .iiq// /✓rS' '= . yye, �N. .iItltI •f.•:rt : . �`�.i§■,$i ;,VAtt, ✓M• . ; `\.i ;Z:2 .,iii/ii•p :`,W �__ ; ",;!; 45 J. :\.??0.t .iii:,/g/. . :� 1 iN \.... ,/II/iS %• .g :
; :.g
. 4 5
iii:: .Li:�::•
The Mayor and City Counci(of the City ofACameda Present this
Certflcate of A reciation :::::. :..:-..n.-
to . ;:,.
g,....
Diane Licfitenstein -.:::-.:?-:-.--,:.
2,. .7.,
•,.....
111
i,_._
....... .
_.... _
:::-..,z.t: ---.-
' == ='�' In recognition of an extraordinary job as part of the Mayor's Fourth ofjury Parade Committee.
cz...A.i-,..*
ffli: = Presented this 2'' TDay of August 2005• cc:
/ !skrs-fs,:!..i.:1;.1:
..,
%•�•, � � � � � � r BeverCy Johnson
_ -
.: -4,: Mayor
•�• ✓ / / /III. \. \.i . / /•III 1\ \ \\ .$ 'iI I• Ir ��.. ,. \. •./ /• /II /i �Qi . \ \: • II �� i %•i�
• �► / .1 . / � .,• ./ /11 \ \. ., ,I //I \ \ \\ � I 1. �1 . \� •,I / I . �
�: � •.�.�,� %I //► �`: :� /�►••..♦ •►•�,,,\i� : %j�� -•// ...... •.,``: i %�r• ••iir. \.\ �`�. .i /�r••.iiii!... \ ,` •�' • I. ,) .• �� �'.� /.. Il �r :$04:1?.',...,-, ',•. .r�j..I�/ /i
\\ �\ �. v1,0 • /III. ��ii ':;‘,;• • / �•
:��Ni:ht!' .i%•% •:i!' !t%• %////I� l.:i.AQ..-•...!} !1I / - :401•∎:∎!! 11 /:•,#,V l�N.:: \i!'• !C.00;1 '. �'•�QV� 1:0' .. \ •� :A��. • I •iv -'4-v• V :.. .� i / •Ii.
Vii :ht!' •�!••. / t//, -.4. . ,.,.,I. .. jlil.4' .� &,:. \. //�I.v.4o ‘,N&!.:••,' ..\ •.. ''....V.1".' %//• �1A,\���, \,.. ; tII• -∎. ...� • %•.///11�: .; \. •� •� ! •. /I %/ • '� \ \�� �.' � .. •. � .. •. � •. •./ Ii � ♦..• . • • /111. � \ \..••�!. /• // /III:
•:,111►/%/ %•. ���� \ \ \ \ \ \` I%;'40. gfill\• ..7 :- . \���\.. .... \� \�. 'III:•. Imo•• \� �. .'ilil��•, ��•
%..� / %�i i• \ \;�� \ \ \��� %,.•./ � ��� \- \. \ \� #: .74:- \,� \ \ \ \`. �111r / ► /•. ��� \ \ \1 VIII r % ► /•. �•� \• \, \• \� ' %/IIr •/ �� ♦ \ / � \'�. Ii'11 j•• \ \ \ \�.
\, : /�', `` \,!� ii: ii...• /�i \•\ 1 / ,. \..ii� \. .i iii i%/// .� \•, \ \ \•11. ':II/1 / / /// .• \ \�' \ \. 1•. .,III. /// .��,� \ \ \1•. 11II / / //. .' \ \� \ \ \ \.
I
�:1�, ►• iii- `�•i• ••� \ \. .iII� ► i \ . / \ � � Ij, „A* • � %, .� \. i�Il�,, �, \,�, •...::. :.:...., / i \ \�....::.: :.... �. /11 i
Z.2,...1.15,•, '� • ••� \i•\\a IIIr1i i•. � %� " ": i� \� \C \F .�� %�i•..:�: .`,• .•��•Ci.:i/ii�i•. i::� ,•�� ^..::.. , ►, ri. .�• .•�i�i <,. >Sii j•• �,. •: 1�• .•`�d. . >Si i•• •�:i!; ;. •;.� :/:� •� 1:•.��•••�
.'- 1 / Ia :;c :.. \ �P: 10.:A r ,I, . iPp.1..Lrrr / . .\.11. O.ii r % \ N / i \ic.;",,%,.0,11;;;;;!•5:- o
.. .. Ja.• ..,.,.:. - . •.,•;.:• . / �� \ N��,1• Ii�i;1r/'i;• '.. \\4.� }.t2 ;g61ii�/�if.•'�. .�i\ ,���,1t Siii��iJ.,'. .y` \�� \12. �IIIr� fi'.�' �� \� �i\ \i�' : i!�' •
/ .,. !.• •,.,. •. ap• , I,q. 4,,. • .. 0,, y, • '= .
:1:I
i:1 �',
"� , The Mayor and City Counci(of the City of ,Kameda present this '':'
:.:::::::: r:::.......4..
Itts::::::1 :,..,.„
Certficate o recidtion r:Iss-,:-.-::
to
pp
Billie TrujiOEo ,,,,,,/::::.
.,...,..:.-..„
.....::::.,
1_ ,
.... ...
;:,-:-.=::::-:-,
...:::?, al.,_.:,...,
4,...*, •==== '•" In recognition of an extraordinary jo6 as part of the Mayor s TFourth of JuCy Parade Committee. ,..:::.0.
- . - ,. Presented this 2n Day of August 2005. "�'`
if:::::::-",
g ✓
--"-:.d
~�
1 .,�,,YF Pever(yJohnson
• i, Mayor
A:::.:::; „,A.-.-----7.•:v.. .1 •CQ•■i ,,1.:... "°" ,,..•;:;y; i ,Vi.:. ..;t•:∎: •i” :•: •, ,.'.'.,
A•:.•i;•r :44 A•$$$A..; .r/ /11,,,1v.1...:. I4..ril;;c.v....1•: i
4'-'3�I11���•. .' \; \�, \ \ \ \ \�. iI11I /j %•. .'�����, \ \ \ \•` •I %II• /�•. \�� \ \ \ \ \ \•�. '%9.11%•• ��� \ \ \• ' % %11 �•. . ���� \'Cr '•iI1 ��'• • \� \ \ \'\• .. �•. �� \ \ \'\. 'ii11 ��•. �� \ \ \�.
%- �, \\••••• .:,, •II ;i ., \\ 11: :1 / //•;i. �\,\,��iii,\r II��• :fil%•i :ifii \i \�,�� �tii1. /.,,//i \� \���\ \\\.. ,i11// • �\ \ \1 iI1/ /
.�•I• ►• •I• �� .. �. .�..• • :. ��iiii /� /%• i•� \ \,i �i �:' '::iii�� /�i• ,i, \, �� \� \� \� \�� %I.i /:� %iii' ,� \ \ \� \\
• .,.. `. \\ \\..... ►• I. ``. \ \. \ \ - - \ \\ II ►►•r �. ` -\ \ ..:.III %�r�•ii�' `:�i• •- - \ \�' �••• i j:• \� \��i. .iII1 �j. \�•• - \ \�i. .'ri %I • �I�r. .�\ \\'•- \ \��. .ii11•►r /Ii. \�••�\ \•
1I .: i •\ \••... •••/ /•i. .� \ \ \• \: \ \ \ \i illllii /, /••'. \ \ \\� \ \r ii1,1 �I.∎ • , . \ \ \ \••� \\. r/,I,11•.,., • \ \ \ \�• \ \ \1� iII /ij /,., i-.. - \ \\ "�i.- . -fir•' \ \ \ \� \ \1 r I/ // / • \ \-
1,•►I••� ▪ \ \•.;
The Mayor and City Councitof the City of ACameda Present this
Certz icate o .A reciation
p.1�
to
•
lDom C. Dico en
In recognition of an extraordinary jo6 as part of the Mayor's Fourth of Jury Parade Committee.
o Presented this 2� lDay of August 2005.
7\ -
- \.1
lli .r :• %
r BeverCy Johnson
Mayor
i % j/ I ii•/ i•i/r r,'... \\\i` : j /;:..%r ., .... \,\�: : :
•....J./.:;. :. ,, •.;: : \\•\.\„, .,,I.. /,.,'..: zii : \............................ .i. ; s%:i ::.•:•:.\•,;;; ; ,'.:i %i•. `k•.•\\:;. P iii ii %s•. ••.::;s." sii1;•. .�.•::.,, ii% f.;:._•...'::: :..+....•: .. . .. .. . . .. . . . . . .
.,.:,......:3...F.
...vas..
ra...:....s ,..:e....z.v
::::/
may: ,::.. . The Mayor and City Counci(of the City ofACameda Present this ''' ="
-
Certflcate o Appreciation . OA. vgled,
to
LisaRossi
"' In recognition of an eftraordinary jo6 as part of the Mayor's Fourth of July Parade Committee. '��...
Presented this 2n Day of August 2005,
.'::'..:. , - . w
p.--A3.. • 0 (Beverly Johnson
, Mayor Litz zizt.
_..t.+.s \ T R if R -• / /'•.
•i
-0•Arvi- ..i.q$4■‘ ,i'X'4"0.:- . . • (.4:$0W, 4941:- . „,',."•:94-... ..:4;$4, ,,,W•VTo.. ......404,; ,,,,"';'3".;:-. ..0$4,; ,/,';',Vcv.;,. .44:$0,; ,/,'';'?:,-1.... .4,;;;W4:
;:--;.••.-,•1; qtti.:Si,?# '''' nlp :;:ti.::.k. ',, ''''' :Op :,;:tt '''' ei',.% op Att: '''' .Si, 'A ''''' •••., .%:::: ''''' ,..,. ''''''' •:, .;:ti.:,N. .v. ''''' :•:, slit ''''' N: ... ..... ••:, ..ot . ::■•::.-z.
...:211::::e':' "A`1.■: .... ?.. •Woni•:111;” "M'■ ..... ■■• ., ...... .11%;' '''‘I''..4■Ce■■• ” ...... :le''' "A`I': ...... ,..,', ..... :•',1%; •';`,■*', ..... :,..,', ...... :1,/,'; s':,,.',.;c::■,..,::•;#, .. .. ::f'„':,' s'A‘t';; ....... ,. . ...... :'',,'I,' '1,`,,1`;,e:ZZs:
■:".17.710,';''.%" -1,3% . :.4. 0...4%,fp,;:,:-:.:: .....3.1% . ppp: ,,,,..41.1 ............. :,;..,..,A ........ :',$.#4.1. ............ 1,:23*;p.o: ;#4.'•!..1.*;,.. ,-,,: 1,: ,,,A . ,:pp; ;',A-e•Alf,;;-, .',-: 1,' '',., ... • • ' vo•ct-•.111,‘,' --: ',,' ‘,;;;i.P: vAtt.:jefi,, .--,: 1.,‘ ,',.;:F...Ts
. .
:61 [,';'.4.:!::'
. _
•-•-_-- . —
-L.., .- ,..
The Mayor and City Counci C of the
g:..::„:.‘.-:.:v:-,-:,i-::.:...-:.-- .:„:: :.::-*:-,:.:-s-.• z.,, ,s- .. : . . 1
City ofAfilm ecia Present thi. s
Certffcate ofAppreciation
t
.• ., • . ,
1:.....::„,
to ..,......
...-,-,5y.. Kendra Williams
• •
t*. ZZZ. ISSS1 :1• .,
▪ , - ■ s
4., 4.;.•
'f 4: 'Zvi
...-....
i'24:le.F . . . . .
In recogmtion of an ek-traordinaly job as part of the Mayor's Eourth of jury Parade Committee.
Presented this 2ne Day ofAugust 2005
',..1,1 ••••= i ..„,
....1.7-,....... ••,,,,,,v,-- , t.,/
• - . -am.. , • e , . .
Oeverty Johnson
.
• .. ' _... llayor
. .
'...N.Z.',... rl.r...-7 - . ..=.:... . . . :
Am. .*C'....z ; iz.- ' :'.. %;;; ..e. -Ye, WC. .......... ie %.". V/A;Vore, s C:■$V,' 2e, :';', V;;P;Vorr, s ...... ...... ';', ' ---,' "A
ggiill.Vss':
,g, ',$' l';'1;,.. ......................... ...,,■:$: .;;;,;" .......... Vgie.,'...k,:`,. •-'1;:,!giStV'S' Vg3.:.;;,;,. ..;,.;:•1:1%,:;‘,'...qM .. ':V:, ''',";:.1 ......... ... 0,;,;:: :-,;,:. .. 1,0,::; ........ ..,;:, ',.:;,,:111;,:•%::
..174`..11A ••6.1.:.' '''.1.: .... 0,.. I:. .... 4 iv %,,t,•ii .... ii'..''i,% .... gir,p ',I:: to, • ••,;,.-.;,i. .... ,t,t, ,g, . • ,::.:,,,,,.,„gg:1,0S ',g,■• ;,,..; .. gt.,%,,, •,:p. .. 0.,..,4 .... 44%,,, ,,,;(0..,,,,,eAt.:
■,0,:p,- ' ' Attv,,.',., .00:■1. " A *4.0 ' 'N..4. • • '01:!•.0. 4.00.;P:' ' • OVA'," , ‘4,SIPP' ' Attoto,.#4v ‘'..$,S_$.,:;!,' ' • d.V;(0":.$.$,$,#, ?" .4.:!..#4,
..40.10::. .4.iiez.-!!;:1,g41-•0:. .:.igqiii,.....;.;,;::;;P.:. .:0(10:..#,Y,:t,..:. .4illikk_s;:!::::1•Iti:a :iiiffik's:$:0";#51:1te ,,iift,sk.,:;:0:1*, .;:'w$"'.:„.::;:",Y,:re'i. :iiffiN4
-kiii;',.'.'",.;": ,.:,.'"'e. s',;".•,':‘11.:11.iii:i;A•tv;;;;;,'/,:' ‘s3'.,':ii.i.i.s.i•Alllig',/::::: ;::;.!•;;011.1.ii :,:';'!,.%kliii:::: %.:‘,.•!:ii.i.i.Siii 4..kiii%r§ ‘;!;;•':':itiffj.i. AA; li:: f:.;',‘.'4; ...................
. . ..
g....-." :: .........
---.- .
;:z.z -4ii:::
....- . -.41
..."
'Vc,t,o.:-t:,r?■.Z:"..;■.,i• :: ...: -„. A:: a:. :; ::i, :iZ:„ -;T:,Z:- -.:. %‘: : . - :t
•,.1:_:. :„.. v„ ::..- .::::.:. :7g3.
The layor anI City Councilof the City ofArameda Present this
Certfcate olAppreciation .,.r/, .5„4.... ..4
....:, .1 .. • . ; :.'
. :
'0,•:...17:
PatrickRussi ,......
:•§V :F#
...I/1 ......
.... • .0,
....,.. 0. ,,,
In recognition of an alctraordinag jo6 as part of the [Mayor's T'ourth of Jury Parade Committee. ...-... .....
' -i--:•--;;,..-. .•:,,i.'.--.-.-:,'
• . .........
Presented this 2' (Day ofAugust 2005.
.... •■Nr,
P--: - s. / 7
••::”.:2, .."\t ' ' ' / ,
'...."......
:slt; ::•ZZ.,
,-.-&-• / . :SF:Z*9.:
, .
-,., . ....
•.:,,::,...:,,-
..,, - - _
.
-.: . ......., -Q__. •.'..:,:::::::: ...
• Ss al , ,,,,,f
-- •-.,:.::.- , . . .
Beverly Johnson
Wayor......... .........
• .•,;--,-..— - - - ,-- - - ./ ,--, .:::,;:.:::,''
•,.,-..s, -: - - ' - -
,,,. ,
"gqii--- --.., ,- --,-. ;ye,. -,....00,3 ,;:,.$1 .%,..,...;; „--,-.:44 . po,,,,,,, 4 ...... :•s,•••,, -,'''''0:41'1"‘' ......... .-$, --',..'4 .. mi,Inz,;;;:‘,$., ,,,„..‘fo .. .0,,,,,, s■NOtWo..$,- -,;;, 1: ...... ',, .■0; . Z:;■•••$.- -.%,-.107.7.4.
t*.•'g ,''';•:::1%. l;;A:atto,to.':::. ..... •,g,,, •.,,I;;;: ..... t'; :!: ..... :gi; ,,,A, ..... 1):::` .... ,,%•.vs,.• •,:.;i; ....... '::::: .... :,41.:,., ,,,f;;;. ..... :';', ',` ..... .4,4,, ..,?,,i;,::: .. :::::`.,,,, .. 4iv,,, ,,,,,:ip,::v ,::::
t.t.t■t.. . 1:V. 1,40.:
..Zr.$11:),!' Ittt• „t," "I'Ate,e0 Ill,* " •Igte0 1".4103 . 100.te!:!:# .1.4e);?. .1 • dlot•d:I$Z1VP ! . .1d.SASY.,;%%; V.Z.g.0. .11■11.0V,'.Olii.b. 14%1.'7"
�II� ... •'. � •\ . \ \\. �•. ., ii.Il.. . •\ . \.• \ : . ,1 •�I/I•. � � � \�• \ � 1 .I AlI l I �'. \ \ \•. i�:. :,,∎ .1• / / /: 1 1 ,. '. : \•• i i,: '
..:.;:-;•.-s-,1:.. % /�•. ti ,,� \\ \ %/ 1/�•I. ..'0 \.' .,s,w I.s; �/ . .. : f"\' . 'ii1 11/ 1 1 1 .■i\lli\\. . : 1II1 1�/• ,� $4.'. ;I/::1:i1 � / 1 i \ \ \\.$\.\ .\. ; .'1/I1I .11 /I ' , 4 ,\, � \ �.\ \ \.$. .•':IiIiI i. �•
/ • , g1
; 2 1 i `•.� :I:. 1oi• .4%,%1 ,,,,,,, ,....... t/Il iir .,1‘,4t, :..... ; 1 ' ,• \\ . \ t... . jt 1 : 1i : t •: . \..'• '; • , . I1 :\ \ :.1: .\..•'. l/1/1, \ :\` 0 / Ill :. \ \ \• :\:\:\: 1r '1• ‘;g11/4.
t.:•\ =,�:
� i = I%• s S! S` '•; \‘,\\\ \ ' %1;rr .r,: :• `: \ttg\$\. I%I SIII/, :ire . . • . s.\ \\�. 1II/1/ • ri "� '.\ � �"$ "/ 11/ /11'• .i, -.3\ \ % •: : :;. .1Ii1l1jI I1r r, . :% . . \ \ \ \ :i \ \ ,0IIi/%1 e '..: i' �A \1:\:• : :::Vi1 I11i.. . .:• •\,;:::\ \
�� ..� v Tr: ■
.SI
i
• °=' The Mayor and City Council- of the City ofACamecfa Present this'""
0.....,
...::::.:, Certflcate o A reciation :__
.,:.::::,:i
::..: :el
.::.... 1::::::::::,,
to
.=:•::::::".:sile,
.;...:,:::,::: .::::,....„.
Anc(yWong
i.:.:::
::::::::::
„,...,.,..,
,..„
.,...„:.:„:„..,-:
...............
s.1.1. ....,-..„
. •...... In recognition of an extraordinary job as part of the Mayor's Fourth of Jury parade Committee. ....:::...::
:'' �' - ' presented this 2 lay of August 2005. ---.:;:"=,r-t-•:%
r;-:-:-:- _: -- -- ,' :
..tz• t- tzzi .... -
- �� _ Oeverfy Johnson
... Mayor .
�' -'
rte'' i.-,,,---4.--\ r- ` _ ..
„ v.y
:•? ::.:`y; : ;,i ;I; ;. : ji�i��.. `��; : • ;�i�i�.•... i����; : • �i•iy..• �i`�`.:: 'i•i•.r.. ' .`. . 'i•i'....
�� :�1:: 11 / I •111/ I/ • y/ / 11II 7Ci \. t \� • •• .0,...,+,,, / 1I� �ih. \\ / III,,: •ii \ 1I .• 'i4,:...• it .V..:4i; • ,0:.
�� \ • 1// //Ie •• \ \���.z• 1//1111 �1 ,: \\t \ \t. .1 ,1.\t\ \ :� :;: • ri /II /VIII •: : :: : \ \.`;'. '. /11Ie,p, 4\ \\ 0., ∎••� •• ''.I /I //1, ‘4 \\ \\ \\: ••• • r / �.•'
gV \t••.,.$`. -;•;';::11:t ii;;• ::::: :. •). \ \: .... .„ •i/j.I::::: . .. \ \\ ,.\`: •,'ilj• .....'. ,..iii• . • •...... "..,. \ \ \\ • .,;. •I. /ri, i..),,,,,,.', ,;,,,,,,,• .1/II.I....., \.. \:•.:\Z„;;;., '.fj• .,,
�� ��•������� ! / .:� X11 %III /I1�.... \\t �t.t.. . ✓/I . ...... ..�\ \.. 00; I.... \.. \ . i �0..; (,......... .00.. '00; ' ..•i`....4.4q. 1 ;.11I1.r ut 4.4..• .:1r.'b .A•
/ i t!. I ...r V..l \t , 1!. .1•0• III I..... ∎N� 0 \ / / I . ■ \ I • .... 1 , . \ I / .. •` i. I
�:r� \�,����. �/��1 'I/ /11•1I�: '.�\ \ \ \����. lit 40., .�� \t \���. '. /�111I11i' . \� \ \ \ \���. . / /I /I /1Ii I�. '�� \ \ \t��.. .� /,1/I��. „ \ \t \�t'';t.' I. /.1.1�1� �.. ���� \,tt'',,'t�. .I�� 11/11
��••0 ���. 111• /, \OPP. III•4 \ \�� . /III, ���. . /III.. .`.0 . ..111• /,. \� \��• ./�11•I,r.
'III %;. 1�� \ \' ' %III �• �� \�\ ex l%%.,... ��� \ �I'1�• �� \ \� ' % %11' .\ \'„ ''%III .\0\' 'ir %I
Imo/ 1;;. .;;\\♦♦♦♦, \ \ \ \. ;if IrP.;. .; ;;♦♦♦♦♦♦, \\ i xl%% •. ;�;♦ 0$. I %I.1/ ;;; ;. .; ; ;♦♦ ♦♦\,\ ;;;..ir:; ;• ;•. '.•: \. , ,Ij ;•. \ ♦ \ iI1 11 %.;. ..,; �,�, \ \,•�. .' %IIt/% �� \ \. ∎.,
.
I1/ \ \i�:r /• ; ♦ \ 111
• \ \ .. .. I I � \ \ ....I..�/ / • \ ♦i••••,.'. 1j: //1 i \ 'I:..1.1i x.1/1 .• \, \�i'ii \' ':iiiil�� /,I� , \, :i �ii•��1 •/� '; '♦
4...4/. : ;' ',I% ,,, \\, *A,,,11•. ::• % %,,♦ ,,,, ./II., .,r, ... :'•'•.' ♦• \ \ \ \1, rr,,,,,0 . •. • t Att.... .111•. •: :A.W. \i '' ii1 %•r : \•:. :;: • 1 4.11%•, ! `�, \ \ ♦.: ,i,..iiil •IA', I:' „` :•- .•• � .�
4r.. , ...\\r,...4*.•'• .. .. • \, ;•�,\ \\I,I,II, %/.:' ' ••••�: \ \ }..I,I �II.0.,' � , \• \1 \ \. ,. ,�,,,,• \ \ \. ./, /,/IIi /i /�. '' \ \,��� \�� irlljl, /,.. .�, \,��1 i. i /I /.� /��., �' ., \.. •... •
t1.7 r�I• z:.I ..
•:.: • The Mayor and City Council of the City of Alameda Present this ''
:::::s. Certflcate o A reciation
pp _ ...
.„.„,
ifla 74
to
,....,...
Bruce Reeves -.....,....
liSZ :::::
' �'"� In recognition of an extraordinary jo6 as part of the Mayor's Fourth of July Parade Committee. ' `���
- - Presented this 2n Day ofAugust 2005.
liz2:.4:
�
'%.'. a ::
:::::::;:;:
r
•
w -,
. .'. / Beverly Johnson
..� c
. • kr - - , Mayor
NISI ,r,•: , \
1::::,..,..;;;- • ./ / y/ / $ :$404§Y;::-. ..... ;$$6,...14,';',-;: ,,: ',i•;r ..... v.:, .2. ..... ■.,'. r •iii.:!..: ... . ;V.' •. /II, r...r\ \ \ \. ..1 /I \ \\ , :, , . I..'. ;... ,; ;;`` • % •Ir
•r•i .� /•r 1111 1 `` �• / \
�•. .�i•: - i1i /.• ,`; ;� / .... ��� . f/1/' ..., . ;;, %fig. ,.,\, S��ij. 1.. •,,`; i /, /, .....!., :::• . \`�' ': •' •:..: /'. •�.♦ � `..; %j.; •:v ::�G
;�� \, ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦; ♦;,. .1, %�/ ♦:;.. .so.. �11/1,���..,\�,,,, ♦ ;.. ,, i/; :/ /111,..., ?�,� ♦� ♦�..v.,. .i•i /11..". '. \♦♦ ♦;%.• f'.d.:.#4.0',' �! :,\ \, ♦.00- !,r, ,.. ,.,..... 0• .1il• 111 .... \♦♦ ;\, -. r••
♦.• .% ♦.• .� . ♦. ♦. i 1• : i. , \.0 ♦;.. • tve..0•,�\ \�,�, ♦♦ ♦ ♦i; •• ,', ".ops.0- .'•11 - y.
4?.-0:10.; .< ii 4 � , .A rp • : ;. . i � g C\C. ; irA:i ►' • .40?-14.S. l:0:
4 ; • i 4 g \\`2.:i/i i:liIr i :. .: ON �: ;J;;;;; I• P:r . .10114:. ; iil:r: j % iI . , '.'ig\4 :. '.lir: i:
. i .::rri i •I , \ ii .`$4
►../i• .,.,,.'•.: \:,...iil1 % ►. 4I ;: %`'• �\ \:. ..:\.N •r•rrfri •,•`.\ \ . .....:; :i..► Ito i. % •,',%g! ;;• `•• • ►; �., „‘`\\ ! \\ : : \ ::. . .. :I1r1� . �\;\..••,.'. . �%A �s. `\\. \.,• . •'"i: •; 1Ir!. ;:% :\:"
=
,
�II • ►•� %/ '% .� • \ \ ,...,. 'i . , • . I :. . . :: i . \\;y__\i ,,',#!-•#P.1.%::;,.:,•-:-. . , , ,� \ \,; \ \\. :VII 1// //ri' ' i \ \\ :::1\ : \:i .iiill Ii// ��. �:.';‘.:.3:, � \1 }:: il %i1 �I�..' , ��i\ \i:; �i i ill %:1!i •i'.i : � ? 1• \. ,rIIl,Il I/iI .� I;. ., „,\:•::*
_
psi
I'
The Mayor ancfCity Council of the City ofACamecfa Present this ' " =” .,,,,,_..,,,
.._
Certflcate o r
A eciation . . ...,. Wraa.
pp =
.,..:..........
:
-...,..,,,,
to ::::,,,,::::;i1
...„.......,
.:t:::‘::- ::-:-:-:::::-,:
,,,,,......
,dean Sweeney ...........,.....
:::: :ZZZ: ••■•■■ , -..
44: VIt
* In recognition of an extraordinary job as part of the Mayor's Fourth of Jury (Parade Committee.
_ - - - Presented this 2� lay of August 2005 • ii • •• . 41r �._. .. I ICI
i
1- mot: '_
yJ
''S� c Beverly Johnson
�,,r .\ �l�layor
` ^ ° i :::
.tw.4 'i� 'ii' I•• `�` ii�i�� 'iiili'••yl •ii��t '�iS•• '�": •ii•. •i�.:
p� • 1.: : :...,1, i \ \ • r , / I rII , 4i,c \\ \..' 'd /r rih' K:Q:. ■\,, : . / Ir.,7• :•5•i•• i`P•: i ',Nee.- v„ .•G`p
�. 1�. :�.. ../ rIl ..\\\ \ • • I /rill ..\\\ \ ` •Ir rI ll',.� \\\ \, , '•,/ Ir IIl„�iC:� \\ \�.. .•1III•iil; �r:C:: \ ■, . • •rrll •e. •.. \ •C •:.
�.• i �. .'. :;:. •:.i•r • :III,!. 9N. \i•Ii �. %I I• :: :III!. r:: :: • :∎`. :i• ': :::::! !N\ \ \:• , s d /Irlrl,:•.., \...... . , •. /IIIII' 1............... 'd11/Illp N; : : ......... ; "i.p • y1.
♦...::, . ,% ...•� ..i ..• ..... , l:. ". ,..• • . '� .Ir ••• \,.. .- . •.... •► .4%. ,0 1. I•:i,. .t %0 :f;i.rl'::G'.. ,,� '':O...II //l ,NN • •�,�:y ����
'11,0 \�� \'. \\\ \ \\0, •I0..„.IIII• �'\ \ \ \�\\ • , /III/II/1 :��\ \ \ \ \AA\ \. .II 1 i.: :. \� !. ..1 111/1 li ., :: \ \\.. r111 I,�. ..,...... . '� II ; \., I I r
������. �� \���.' �I�1I,•l \ \���•' •A�IiI� ��� \ \ \���' '��IIIIi %�ji .��. \ \, \, \, \�. . %�1II �iI�i. .,,. \ \�� \�' ! :��IIIIIII II,,� \ \ \ \� \.' ! . %�I�I /I / / %��...,,,,, \ \ \ \, \' \�� �!I /II. ..
... •III•I, .. ..s. .IIIII'. \���y. • •.I..1... -
I%.s�/�•. if���.�\ \ \•�. i111Arp—. ..: ∎: ,�, \�, :•'. . 4;��\\: •- I,f,'. i?;•3 j., - '4\'4,— ' ?;',V. .. ,''%1113'. , %i %%;•. . : 4;;
;:: �. . / /'4 ,��\ •..\ � • . \ III/ / : ♦ \\ ' I1. / ..:q$4;• . / . \�. '%II., / ..0$4,-;. . iI11, / .;:g$4,-;. .III• / � • \\
• \ .• ., . /• ` \,\,....1 :,I /...� /° •• , 1.?.1 / .' . 1..•I I. /,//°/ .,.,....\,� . III., //°•. , /I.♦ / /• // /•. .• .
4:.'i ./I. •. /ir :� �••.�., \.��.r... �, �i ° /i� �' \j. '� .��.r.../ �i / /i .`� \ \�••��•...��. , ° /I, \, \,•."••... �.r/.• •i / / /�i \• \�i•. .... ,;:„..0 �.�j', ,\,,�,1 •.�.� %�/ ,,%%t. �i ���:: III. /,. /� %', `;,,..••,',•
4: r, .' ;; ; :: 4: • ',III /, :rr•., .� 1,.:\.:\\�i..r/I/ / /•.r.,/: :. ,.,..\ii..i/% /% ... •.,:• :�:',.,,i\.i. �./ II/%., .% �. ,.,..\i4.iW#.1 % ;. •%, `•: ',..••.. .ii..... '‘'':•.'.. .....i(..':. %i'r, .!,.. ,.\• ��
,,.. - �,, : .\.�.�w�, Attte.,I r •. ;•. : ;,.,........, ,....../�° /% ::- :.,N,, ”s: •�4Iii °/ °N. '::? !.�..:. .s Niii °/ °P,'::• P0.:,.. \�„•/I /I./p,'::• \.. N..., ,•.I/ .04,V,.':• ..,...\., d.I/i°/i,..: , .•„. y .. �
le.:;;;;;;;
*1.;;W•;/%; .....::::::::::..:::.•
!iii 1
4t4 :VS
Z
'.V.V. .Z1:.::
The Mayor and City Counci(of the City ofACamecfa present this
r.:II 1 . Certtflcate ofAppreciation 1..,),::::._,.„:
.,..„,,,,
::::,:::.
.....f..., to
..:: ,dim
...,
tIttiegi
Sweeney i;,... .: ...; ..‘.:: i ::: , : i i,::::::- . : ,,,,:- : :.,,- ; :: :
:,.....„,-„,...
- - --
,,,:::.i.3 :==:::::::•,
::,...,.....,. ..........,
, In recognition of an e. ,traordinaiy job as part of the Mayor's Fourth of Jury Parade Committee.
(1?:::= Presented this 2 Ida of August 2005.
rtzir • .,_„,..., -- - ,.....-_},
,1 , . ;,: „ Beverly Johnson
mod : Mayor
t• . : „ ; � %
Proclamation
Whereas, the Housing Choice Voucher Program provides housing
assistance to more than 1,600 Tower- income Alameda
families; and
Whereas, landlords who participate in the Housing Choice Voucher
Program provide a valuable service to the Alameda
community by helping these families; and
Whereas, Brad Kruck treats his tenants with respect, flexibility and
fairness; and
Whereas, Brad Kruck encourages his tenants to view their rental
unit as their home; and
Whereas, the City of Alameda and the Housing Authority wish to
honor Brad Kruck as an exemplary, dedicated landlord.
Now, Therefore, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do
proclaim:
Brad Kruck
to be Alameda's 2004 Housing Choice Voucher Program Rental Property
Owner of the Year in the three or fewer rental unit category and encourage
the community to recognize Brad Kruck for his service to Alameda as a
Housing Choice Voucher Program landlord.
Beverly Johnson
Mayor
Proclamation 3 -B
8 -2 -05
Proclamation
Whereas, the Housing Choice Voucher Program provides housing
assistance to more than 1,600 lower- income Alameda
families; and
Whereas, landlords who participate in the Housing Choice Voucher
Program provide a valuable service to the Alameda
community by helping these families; and
Whereas, Irene Hanson, owner of units at 2249 Central Avenue,
treat his tenants with respect, flexibility and fairness; and
Whereas, Irene Hanson, owner of units at 2249 Central Avenue,
encourage his tenants to view their rental units as their
homes; and
Whereas, the City of Alameda and the Housing Authority wish to
honor Irene Hanson, owner of units at 2249 Central
Avenue, as an exemplary, dedicated landlord.
Now, Therefore, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do
proclaim:
Irene Hanson
to be Alameda's 2004 Housing Choice Voucher Program Rental Property
Owner of the Year in the four or more rental unit category, and encourage the
community to recognize Irene Hanson for his service to Alameda as Housing
Choice Voucher Program landlord.
Beverly Johnson
Mayor
oittw Proclamation 3 -C
8 -2 -05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: July 21, 2005
Re: New Main Library Project Update
Attached to this memorandum is the August 1, 2005, Library Construction Report.
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Har. ie
Library Director
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Report 3 -D
8 -2 -05
Construction R
Status as of Library Project Timeline
August 1,
2005
2004 005 2006
/
Demoliti .
(Completed);;
Bid &Awaj,
(Cpmplete )
Plan Re iew
(Comple S' • )
/
Construction - 33%
/
Entitlements i�
(Completed) 1
Furnishings & Equipment
I I/
Library Move
1111 I 1 11111 1
Construction
CA
0
•..
CA
a)
0 —:
N
U `r'
o
a
a)b
.0 •
oCA•
00
0 = N
.. 'o + .0
'ad 0,,6
O N
O
.4 U A N
- i 0 �' $_
Z o ~ az
a CA 71 ›,rnQA
o i a = X)
0 o o
"0 -d ; >-d
czt
0- - 0 o 2 0
o
00cou09 .0
.- �' .o .0 0
3 0 y 8 0
a- 0 ..v' U 0 •
0 C8) 0 . .d • ^N' �
o it 3 a), ,, 0.) w
i� 0 ' p j
i.: 0 o 0 cd = 0 U
' 'a �, U o N 0■
Zaw v)
• • • • • • • •
ment Procurement
0
o ti
.0 0
0 c•
U =
cc
O cn
o .
w 0
0
b c/)
.0 oA
o CA •0
N 0) ti
•
0 +~+
0 E 0
O c• a)
2 04
0
• 00
o0 0
15
0 •-
� 0
a) w'
0 0
0 00 L.
OA 0 .b
O
0
GI
• Lnl •
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
0 0 0 000000
000 O00000 LO O MOO ° ° N O O O O
V IC)
d 0 CD 0 'C 'O° .-N-O(~C ~N
t' N m cn O N
.0 c 69
J
C.
CC 0
2_
c 0 co
"C' z o E
CD o
d (I) c� 3
L a) LL co Q.
.0
J
Un c E
e LO m v CO 0
S 4
i co ccia;c
a
R 4.0 c2
c 0 ca o as
d 0 c
c-N
c w�6
LL c CCi 0 0 0
Q 0 .. c o c`o o.• c
L f+ c 0 0 aci W m —° C d
t' v 4 C9 15 ra 0 2 a� a 0 >,
'v c m & OC'i) - cowQQce
CO
27,168,249.00
Sources Subtotal:
6,634,793.00
Expenditures to date:
20,533,456.00
Balance Available:
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 ° 0)) 0
O I•- N
O (0 M
NI- -
1
c
z
0
0 co
co CD >
>o 0a)
rn
rn C
C 12 0
c
c 0 0 V
y
0 c 4) N
L coo 0
0
a)
m
eo
.c
0
'Up to $95,000 in grant funding will be used to offset this change order
G: \Library\New Main Library FS 04- 05.xls
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 21, 2005- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the special meeting at 8:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor/
Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
MINUTES
(05- CC /05- CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement
Commission Meeting held on April 5, 2005; and the Special Joint
City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on June 7, 2005.
Approved.
Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(05- CC /05- CIC) Joint Public Hearing to review and approve
concept of Affordable Rental Housing at Island High as an eligible
use of District Housing Fund.
Mayor /Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor /Chair Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
The Development Manager for Housing provided a briefing on the
proposed concept.
Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog inquired whether there would be a
targeted beneficiary for rental housing, to which the Development
Manager for Housing responded that the agreement allows the School
District to target beneficiaries to the extent allowable by law;
stated the School District would prefer to give priority to
District employees.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
June 21, 2005
1
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff
recommendation.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated there is an opportunity
to provide meaningful, affordable housing.
Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
June 21, 2005
2
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 19, 2005- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05- ) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Attorney.
(05- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: Miraglia Enterprises v. City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Evaluation, the Council discussed the performance of the City
Attorney; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council gave
instructions to the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 19, 2005
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 19, 2005- -6:55 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
(05- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: Alameda Belt Line v. City of Alameda, Alameda Belt Line
v. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda v. Alameda Belt Line.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that the Council /Commission
obtained briefing from the City Attorney /Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned
the Special Joint Meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for.this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
July 19, 2005
UNAPPROVED MINUTE S
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - JULY 19, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05- ) Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Creating
Special Newsrack Districts [05- ] would not be heard.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05- ) Proclamation recognizing Alamedans for Responsible
Transit Shelters (ARTS) and volunteer efforts to install new bus
shelters.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Reyla Graber,
Pat Gannon, Jeannie Graham - Gilliat, Lee Harris, and Mel Sanderson;
stated that ARTS worked very hard to ensure that there would be
unadvertised bus shelters; thanked ARTS and supporters who
contributed money to buy the bus shelters.
Reyla Graber thanked the Council for the recognition.
Lee Harris thanked ARTS; stated that he was impressed with the hard
work and efforts of everyone involve.
Mel Sanderson, President of the Clara Barton Foundation, stated
being available for ARTS was a pleasure.
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, thanked the Council and
ARTS for working hard to get bus shelters in Alameda; stated she is
looking forward to new bus shelters on Park and Webster Streets.
(05- ) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association
(PSBA) on the 21st Annual Art and Wine Faire.
Blake Brydon, Chair of the Art and Wine Faire, invited the
community to attend the Faire on July 30 and July 31 and presented
wine glasses to the Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 19, 2005
1
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the
Acting City Manager to execute a Contract with Masayuki Nagase [05-
], the recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to accept the
$404,087 Awarding of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant [05- ],
and the recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize Call
for Bids [05- ] were removed from the consent calendar for
discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *05- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Social
Service Human Relations Board Meeting of June 23, 2005 and the
Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on July 5, 2005.
Approved.
Councilmember Daysog requested that the word "scheduling" be
inserted prior to "conflict" in the June 23, 2005 minutes [under
Roll Call].
( *05- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,960,630.82.
( *05- ) Recommendation to accept the work of Clyde G. Steagall,
Inc., for Alameda Point Pier 3 electrical upgrades, No. P.W. 08 -02-
08. Accepted.
(05- ) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute a Contract with Masayuki Nagase for fabrication and
installation of public art work, Cadence of Water, at the new Main
Library.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to see a better
representation of the artwork.
The Library Director introduced Masayuki Nagase; stated Mr. Nagase
has created dozens of public art installations and was the
unanimous choice of the Art and Recognition Team.
Mr. Nagase stated the artwork consists of eight medallions
measuring 4 feet to 7 feet high; the water element theme represents
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
July 19, 2005
the City's surrounding bay and beach areas.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the art would be done in limestone.
Mr. Nagase responded in the affirmative; stated the angle of the
forms would catch the morning and afternoon light.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05- ) Recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to accept the
$404,087 Awarding of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant for a
firefighting training trailer and authorizing funding for the
City's matching portion of $80,817 from the General Fund Reserves.
Mayor Johnson requested that future reports include on -going
maintenance and operating costs.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was an order of
magnitude for the maintenance and operating costs for comparison
purposes.
The Fire Chief responded that the maintenance costs are expected to
be low; the majority of the cost would be for propane gas; there
would be an additional cost for moving the trailer out of the area
because a diesel truck trailer would be needed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City has a tractor.
The Fire Chief responded that he has not checked with the Public
Works Department; using a City tractor would be the first choice.
Mayor Johnson stated training locally might provide a cost savings.
The Fire Chief stated the closest facility for live fire training
is Livermore, which is too far away for on -duty personnel; the
community was concerned with the smoke generated by the live fire
training at the LinOaks Motel.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05- ) Recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for replacement of three (3) marked police vehicles.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
July 19, 2005
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a police vehicle
replacement policy currently in place.
The Acting Police Captain responded there is not a standing policy;
the general practice is to replace four- to five -year old, higher
mileage vehicles; the three vehicles being replaced have higher
mileage; the vehicles are driven hard and begin to develop engine
problems.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the allotment for replacing
the three vehicles is in the budget, to which the Acting Police
Captain responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many additional vehicles would be
replaced during the balance of the fiscal year.
The Acting Police Chief responded none; stated that five marked
police vehicles are usually replaced every year; only three
vehicles are scheduled for replacement this year.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council requested a more
detailed Citywide vehicle inventory.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should be a written, Citywide
policy; noted Police Department needs would differ from Public
Works; stated the supplemental report indicates other cities
replace vehicles at higher mileage; requested that the policy
include mileage replacement comparisons with other cities and
explanation of why the City replaces vehicles with lower mileage.
The Acting Police Captain stated that a 65,000 to 75,000 mile
vehicle replacement is not abnormal; the City garage mechanic is
concerned with the idle hours.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the number of vehicles that are
replaced may not be the same as before because of tough budget
times; the City might need to go longer before replacing vehicles.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he looks forward to receiving a
policy with input from the Public Works Department; inquired what
would be the impact if a six -month deferral; inquired whether
vehicles have hour meters.
The Acting Police Captain responded that hour meters are not
installed; a six -month deferral would be difficult; the vehicles
take a beating.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 19, 2005
4
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the three vehicles are
currently in service, to which the Acting Police Captain responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Council should review vehicle
replacement in terms of protection and service to the residents;
the Police Department needs the best equipment or there could be
safety issues; six -month deferral is not an option.
Mayor Johnson stated more detailed information on vehicle
maintenance costs is needed; there is no explanation why the
vehicles are to be replaced.
The Acting City Manager stated that the matter would be brought
back to the Council in August with more information.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter should be brought to
Council with more justification on why the three vehicles need to
be replaced; inquired whether the vehicles have failed in the field
and whether there has been a lapse in service, other problems or
potential safety issues.
The Acting Police Captain responded there have not been
signification problems with the vehicles failing in the field;
history has shown that as mileage increases problems could arise.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested information on trade -in value; stated
the City might get a higher trade -in value now than in a year.
The Acting Police Captain stated that vehicles become inoperable
because of safety reasons; vehicles need to be available.
Councilmember deHaan inquired the number of vehicles and the number
of employees assigned to the vehicles, to which the Acting Police
Captain responded 23 vehicles are used by 43 officers.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much a police vehicle costs, to
which the Acting Police Captain responded $32,000.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog
regarding not deferring replacement for six months.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many hours per day vehicles are
used, to which the Acting Police Captain responded that the
majority of the vehicles are used 24 hours per day.
Mayor Johnson requested that a written policy be brought back to
the Council at the first or second City Council meeting in August.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
July 19, 2005
Councilmember deHaan requested that the policy address all vehicles
Citywide.
Mayor Johnson requested that the policy address all police
vehicles, not just patrol vehicles.
( *05 ) Recommendation to appoint Lee Perez as a representative
to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute an amendment to the Contract with MV Student
Transportation, increasing the budget by $8,000, and extending the
Contract to August 15, 2005. Accepted.
( *05 ) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Holland &
Knight, LLP in the amount of $40,000 for federal legislative
advocacy, and appropriate the $40,000 from the General Fund
reserves. Accepted.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13874, "Approving Parcel Map No. 8574.
(Harbor Bay Parkway and North Loop Road)." Adopted.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13875, "Adopting the Findings for the Non -
Native Spartina Eradication Program Contained in the Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact
report Prepared by California State Coastal Conservancy, Adopting a
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and Approving an Agreement for Funding from the
State of California Coastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina
Eradication and Mitigation Measures." Adopted.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13876, "Granting Another Designated Period
for Two Years Additional Service Credit as Provided for Under
Contract Amendment between the City and the Public Employees'
Retirement System and California Government Code Section 20903."
Adopted.
( *05- ) Adoption of Resolution Creating Special Newsrack
Districts in Both the Park Street Business and the West Alameda
Business Districts as Authorized in Alameda Municipal Code Section
22 -7, Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines of Article I
Streets), Chapter XXII (Streets and Sidewalks). Not heard.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13877, "Authorizing Filing of a Notice of
Exemption for Acquisition of the Alameda Belt Line." Adopted.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13878, "Accepting the Findings of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
July 19, 2005
Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study." Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05- ) Resolution No. 13879, "Appointing John W. KnoxWhite as a
Member of the Transportation Commission." Adopted; and
(05- A) Resolution No. 13880, "Appointing Eric Schatmeier as a
Member of the Transportation Commission." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented the
members of the Transportation Commission with Certificates of
Appointment.
(05- ) Public hearing to consider revisions to the Development
Regulations (ZA05 -0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda
Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning
Ordinance, with respect to building height limits and number of
stories; exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions
to existing residences, the definition for "replacement -in- kind ",
off - street parking regulations and reconstruction of non - conforming
residential structures; and
(05 A) Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations). Introduced.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief overview of the proposed
revisions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the "replacement -in- kind" definition
would apply to the design guidelines and solve problems that
residents are having at Harbor Bay when replacing aluminum - sliding
windows.
The Supervising Planner stated that the guidelines state that
materials that are appropriate for the style of the house should be
used.
Mayor Johnson stated residents should not have to go to the
Planning Board to replace windows because of staff's interpretation
of the guidelines; Harbor Bay residents are not getting permits
because they have been told aluminum - sliding windows are not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
July 19, 2005
allowed.
The Supervising Planner stated that she was not aware of staff
disallowing aluminum sliding windows as long as the windows were an
appropriate style for the house.
Mayor Johnson stated that "appropriate style" is a very subjective
term; muntins are prohibited; Council did not intend to have any
prohibitions when the guidelines were approved.
The Supervising Planner stated the guidelines include a one -year
trial period to iron out the bugs.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council adopted the guidelines with
the understanding that they would be reasonably applied; a Citywide
prohibition would require that the matter be brought back to the
Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the guidelines do not prohibit
anything, but provide direction.
Mayor Johnson stated that internal muntins between double -paned
windows are prohibited Citywide; the Council did not have any
expectation that there would be prohibitions in the guidelines.
The Acting City Manager stated that internal muntins are addressed
under a heading of what should be allowed; that staff has been
given direction to review each case individually.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City has a diverse housing type;
there cannot be one rule that applies to every house.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was concerned with changing
requirements for second story setbacks; noted there have been two
or three issues regarding blockage of sunlight in the past two
years; that he would like to have a separate vote on second story
setback regulations if the matter is voted on tonight.
The Supervising Planner inquired whether Councilmember Daysog was
referring to the three -foot setback which allows going straight up
or the additional two -foot setback required with an existing five -
foot setback.
Councilmember Daysog responded that he was referring to remaining
with the status quo in all instances; a process can be followed to
receive an exception.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether an existing roof pitch could
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
July 19, 2005
be replicated.
The Supervising Planner responded as long as the height limit is
not exceeded.
Councilmember deHaan stated that closing down the roof pitch to
stay within the height limit creates architectural problems.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponent: Ken Carvalho, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the Public
portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with the
direction to review roof pitch and window issues.
Councilmember Daysog requested to have a separate vote on second
story setbacks.
Councilmember deHaan amended his motion to exclude second story
setbacks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance provisions
on second story setbacks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(05- ) Public hearing to consider Zoning Text Amendment (ZA05-
0002), amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30- 4.8(c) to add
"Boutique Theater" as an allowable use in the C -1 zoning district,
subject to Use Permit approval. Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project
Inc. Address: All Neighborhood Business Districts (C -1);
(05- A) Resolution No. 13881, "Adopting a Negative Declaration
for ZA05- 0002." Adopted; and
(05- B) Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by Declaring Boutique Theaters to be Uses Permitted
by Use Permit within the C -1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning
District of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). Introduced.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 19, 2005
9
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents: David Hart, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Jon
Spangler, Alameda; Susan Older, Alameda; Peter MacDonald,
representing Mark Haskett; Blake Brydon, Alameda; Bernard Clark,
Alameda; Mark Haskett, Alameda; and Ami Dimusheva, Alameda.
Opponent: Former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to respond to the issue of providing
notice to C -2 zoning areas [raised by Ms. Thomas].
The Supervising Planner stated the C -2 Zoning District permits
theaters, including movie theaters, as a permitted use; theaters do
not have to go through the use permit process that the proposed
text amendment would require for the C -1 district.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the [movie theater] use is already
permitted in the C -2 district, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated speakers were surprised that the
matter was before the Council; the normal process is being
followed; nothing is being hidden; the process is completely open
and public; the public should be aware that the action is not
redundant and is the way business is conducted.
Mayor Johnson noted the Council had not considered the issue
before.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned that seventeen
areas could be affected; hopefully, there are enough safeguards;
not all [C -1] areas have the same attributes of the [theater]
location on Central Avenue; inquired whether there are outstanding
code issues at the cinema.
The Acting City Manager responded the one [outstanding] issue is
the projection booth; stated the Applicant has been working
cooperatively with the Building Department; the issue is clearance
around the projector.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the initial life safety
issues were resolved, to which the Acting City Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 19, 2005
10
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the outstanding [projector]
issue would be corrected.
Mr. MacDonald, the Applicant's attorney, responded that the
Applicant has all materials ready to be submitted tomorrow; the
Building Official cannot accept the application until after the
zoning change is approved.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Planning Board does not have the
authority to enact zoning changes and only makes recommendations to
the Council; therefore, the matter had to come before Council; the
matter before the Council is not approving the Central Cinema; the
change will affect seventeen zones in the City; other people might
consider a similar business if Mr. Haskett is successful; the
approval is not for just one theater in one location; that she is
concerned that there could be more than one boutique theater in a
neighborhood.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is interested in just rezoning the
one C -1 district [at Central Avenue and 9th Street]; noted the
Council was not approving just Mr. Haskett's operation; stated Mr.
Haskett could sell the business and neighbors might not like the
new owner or the types of movies the new owner shows; the Rocky
Horror Picture Show could be shown three times a day seven days a
week; the City can only regulate adult movies; the approval would
allow other cinemas in other areas with other operators; inquired
whether there could be a restriction that if Mr. Haskett sold his
operation, the Use Permit would not go to the next operator.
Mr. MacDonald stated that he was asked to respond publicly as to
whether they would consent to the request; the rule is that a Use
Permit runs with the land and cannot be personalized; the general
rule is that there are considerations built into the Use Permit to
allow the Use Permit to be revoked if things happen which are not
consistent with the Use Permit.
Mayor Johnson stated the City can only regulate adult movies; there
might be another type of operator that would want to take over the
business; the neighbors like Mr. Haskett and like what he is doing;
her concern is that he might sell the business.
Mr. MacDonald stated one reason people build up businesses is to
have something that can be sold; not being able to sell the
business means said effort could never be achieved; to regulate the
type of movies or operators are over and above the terms of
reasonably conditioned Use Permit and would destroy the value of
the business.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 19, 2005
11
Mayor Johnson stated the neighbors should understand that if Mr.
Haskett sells his business to someone else, they might not like the
types of movies the next operator shows.
Mr. Clark stated the issues being raised are valid; there should
not be concern over the type of movies showing, other than adult
movies; the use would be revoked if anything caused a public
nuisance, such as being too loud.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would not want a theater in her
neighborhood; that she has concerns with imposing the regulation on
the sixteen other C -1 zoning areas and is not convinced that the
zoning could not be changed for just the one area.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the permit runs with the land; basing a
decision on a particular owner is a bad policy; her decision will
be based on the merit of the use, not the owner.
Councilmember deHaan requested staff to address whether the use
could be limited to just one area.
The City Attorney stated the Mayor prefers to deal with the one
case, rather than Citywide; after analyzing the law carefully and
understanding said preference, she has to take responsibility for
the legal opinion that the issue must be dealt with Citywide.
Mayor Johnson inquired why two or three [C -1] districts in more
commercial areas could not be made a different zone; stated there
are C -1 zones in the Park Street and Webster Street areas adjacent
to more commercial areas; some C -1 zones are in very residential
areas; inquired why a few C -1 zones could not be called something
different and boutique theaters could be allowed in said areas,
without changing the existing geographic boundaries.
The Supervising Planner stated staff tried to create criteria for
the C -1 districts; finding a solution is very difficult because the
areas are so diverse; the amount of traffic was reviewed; all
districts have adjacent residential areas.
Mayor Johnson inquired why three districts in more commercial areas
could not be renamed and boutique theaters could be allowed in said
areas; stated the geographic area of the zoning district would not
be changed; only the name would be changed and boutique theaters
could be permitted.
The Supervising Planner stated if Council could direct which
districts and why, staff could review the matter; staff was having
difficulty with determining why [the reason for selecting said
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
July 19, 2005
districts].
Mayor Johnson stated the Council could not do so tonight.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether live theater with
unlimited seating is already allowed in all C -1 districts, to which
the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated putting a ceiling of 49 seats
restricts risk to and impact on the neighborhood; the same concerns
exist with live theater; some performances might not be wanted in
neighborhoods; allowing a movie theater has less impact than a live
theater; there is not a huge risk; the existing business would be
legalized; that he would be happy with only selecting several of
the areas as a trial; there is not a great impact on the other
sixteen districts since live theaters with unlimited seating are
permitted.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with Central
Cinema, but would like to restrict the regulation as much as
possible; if the use could be restricted to a small number of C -1
areas or if very residential C -1 areas could be eliminated, the
City should do so; although live theater has been allowed for a
long time, allowing boutique theaters now should be done in a more
restrictive way; that she supports the station business districts,
which are part of Alameda's history; the stations have to keep
going to create a walk -able community; however, the areas have
conflicts because residences are adjacent to businesses; that she
would like to go forward with Central Cinema, while restricting the
use to as few C -1 areas as possible; the matter of limiting the
areas has not been thoroughly reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there have been requests for
live theaters in other areas, to which the Supervising Planner
responded the only one she is aware of is the Altarena.
The Acting City Manager stated staff had multiple meetings on how
to reduce the number of areas; there was concern about spot zoning;
staff did extraordinary noticing to ensure residents around the
station areas were aware of the proposed change; the Council could
move forward tonight and staff could come back at a later date to
undo portions [limit number of districts].
Mayor Johnson stated her goal is to limit the use to as few areas
as possible; one idea is to name several areas a different zoning
district; people do not notice use until there is a problem.
Councilmember Daysog stated [Central Cinema's] start was high
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
July 19, 2005
drama, but has potential to be a feel good story; time will only
tell if the Cinema will be a one hit wonder or a movie for the
ages; the issues that the Mayor is bringing up can be tackled;
there is enough information to proceed with the action tonight;
issues raised can be addressed; that he doubts many people will
submit applications for theaters; there is a window of opportunity
to move forward with the theater.
Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to review making the
boutique theater regulations apply to all theaters, eliminating the
possibility of having a 200 seat live theater.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion;
stated that staff could review both issues.
The City Attorney stated the Council could direct that the zoning
text amendment be brought to the Planning Board for an additional
amendment in terms of applying restrictions on live theater.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a flood of people will not try to
get into the theater business; there is cap on the number of seats;
the risk is fairly low; the regulations provide definition for what
is already an unrestricted business; the two seem no different,
except for the fact that there would be a movie projector instead
of actors in front of the audience.
Mayor Johnson stated that she supports the suggestion to go forward
and bring back modifications; concurred with Councilmember
Matarrese's suggestion to restrict live theaters.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
[adoption of the resolution and introduction of the ordinance] with
the direction to come back with modifications to provide better
control and planning, including exploring limiting the number of
districts where the activity will be allowed.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she could not support the change
based on the merit of the operator instead of policy; the
modifications that will return might address her concerns.
(05- ) Recommendation to approve a revised Donor Recognition and
Named Gifts Policy for the Library.
The Acting City Manager noted that staff provided a new set of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
July 19, 2005
photographs.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether name plaques would be placed on
shelves, to which the Library Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the names would remain on shelves
forever; stated $100 does not seem high enough for having a name
remain forever.
The Library Director stated the names remain for the life of the
item, not the life of the library; the name would not remain if a
shelf is replaced.
Mayor Johnson stated $100 does not seem like a large amount.
The Library Director stated setting a reasonable amount could raise
a lot of money; $1 million was raised mostly from $100 shelves in
another library.
Councilmember Matarrese noted shelves, which only cost $100, might
last longer than chairs, which are $500; stated that the policy is
a good way to raise money.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is maintenance involved
with the plaques.
The Library Director responded possibly, but problems with plaques
are minimal.
Councilmember deHaan stated plastic plaques could be damaged.
The Library Director stated an inexpensive, but durable and
attractive, shelf tag would be used.
Dr. Jeptha Boone, Alameda Free Library Foundation President, stated
the foundation was formed 6 years ago to raise money for the
library; the foundation has raised $65,000 and is trying to raise
$600,000 for art, branches and collections; urged approval of the
policy.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05- ) Consideration of waiving attorney client privilege of
September 12, 2003 and April 10, 2001 legal opinions regarding
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 15
July 19, 2005
vehicle allowance for City Manager and City Attorney.
The City Attorney stated that she would step down during the agenda
item and the next agenda item [paragraph no. 05- ], which have to
do with her Contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has a copy of the legal
opinion; Council can vote to make it available to the public; there
is nothing in the opinion that needs to be confidential.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of waiving attorney client
privilege restrictions on the memos.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson stated the opinion is an interpretation of a Contract
provision; last year, she was informed that the City Manager's
vehicle allowance had increased; in November, she asked the City
Attorney to review whether the City Manager's vehicle allowance had
changed; the response she received back was it had not changed; a
Councilmember then learned that the vehicle allowance for the City
Manager was $372; Councilmembers questioned how the vehicle
allowance was increased because the Contract states that the
vehicle allowance is $250; Council asked the Human Resources
Director to check on the matter; last week, the response back from
the Human Resources Director was that a legal opinion was obtained
from outside counsel that indicated that the vehicle allowance
should be increased because of a change in tax; the reason the
matter is on the agenda is because her response to the Acting City
Manager was that the amount should stay the same and should remain
the $250 in the Contract until the Council agrees to change the
amount; that she requested that the Acting City Manager change the
amount back to $250 and he stated that the Council should give
direction on the matter, which is why she placed the matter on the
agenda; the Council should determine what happened and has wondered
why the amount is higher than the amount in the Contract; the
Council should decide whether the vehicle allowance stays the
higher amount or goes back to the Contract amount; there should be
a Contract amendment; that she is interested in other
Councilmembers' thoughts; that she does not recall seeing the legal
opinion; in 2001, the memo to the City Attorney from Linda Tripoli
states: "You have asked this office for a legal opinion relative to
an issue that has arisen with regard to the car allowance;" the
opinion is dated April 10, 2001; that she understands that the
change in amount did not go into effect until October, 2003; that
she does not recall seeing the opinion in 2001 or 2003; when she
asked in 2004, she was informed that there were no changes; that
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 16
July 19, 2005
she is sure the response meant there was no change in the net
amount of the vehicle allowance, but there had been a change in the
gross amount; noted the Human Resources Director was present if
anyone has questions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that when a salary is provided in a
Contract, Council does not have someone go back later and adjust
the salary so that the net after taxes is the amount stated in the
Contract; that he views the vehicle allowance in the same fashion;
upholding the Contract and putting the amount back to $250 is
simple.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the $250 was net when the
Contract was enacted and something happened, such as a change in
the IRS code, to make the amount no longer net.
Mayor Johnson stated the amount in the Contract is $250; there was
a change in the tax code; the amount became taxable; the benefit in
the Contract was not stated as a net amount; it is a question of
fact, not laws; the question [of increasing the amount] should have
been addressed to the Council, not an outside attorney.
The Human Resources Director stated that she does not know the tax
Code or if any changes were made to the tax Code; the benefit was
non - taxable when first provided and then became taxable, which is
why the legal opinion was given to the City Attorney; the opinion
was sent to the Finance Director who continued to provide the
benefit as a tax -free benefit for the next year to year and a half;
after said time, it was discovered that the benefit should be
taxable and put into the payroll system as a taxable benefit; the
additional memo came forward to state that if the vehicle allowance
is going to be a taxable benefit, the net amount needs to be $250
per month.
Councilmember deHaan stated the opinion was for the two Contracted
positions of City Attorney and City Manager; inquired how the legal
opinion would apply to the $250 allowance given to other Department
Heads; inquired whether other Department Heads were not entitled to
the adjustment since they are not under Contract.
The Human Resources Director responded that she does not know the
exact language of the Contracts for the City Manager and City
Attorney; that she cannot appropriately answer the question; auto
allowance for all other employees is through the payroll system and
is a taxable benefit.
Councilmember deHaan stated there could be a major impact if the
legal opinion was exercised all the way through the system; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 17
July 19, 2005
amount of the car allowance would depend on the amount of money a
person makes; the more an individual makes, the higher the car
allowance would be.
The Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative; stated
taxes are based upon income.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City Manager and City Attorney
received a check for $250 with no taxes taken out before 2001;
something happened, whether an IRS ruling or direction was to have
the car allowance go through payroll; the amount would be reduced
with taxes assessed; the issue then becomes a labor contract issue
of good faith; the $250 amount was negotiated on a good faith
basis; a staff member, such as the Finance Director or Human
Resources Director, with Linda Tripoli's letter from April, 2001,
opined that the amount would have to be increased in order to
remain whole at $250; in the highest tax rate, mathematically the
cost would be roughly $80 on the federal side and 11-12% on the
State side, which comes out to roughly $370; that he does not see
the problem.
Mayor Johnson stated that in her opinion, the problem is that the
matter should have come to the Council; when the Council approves a
Contract that states the person receives $250 per month, the amount
is $250 per month; if there is a subsequent tax change or ruling
that makes the amount taxable, the matter should come to Council to
ask if the amount should be $250 or increased now that taxes have
to be paid on the amount; the matter is not really a legal issue,
rather it is a matter of determining whether the Council wants to
change the amount now that there is a tax consequence.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Council's intent was always to keep
the amount at $250; that he cannot imagine that the Council wanted
the amount lowered in 2001; that he can only imagine that the memo
issued in 2001 and circulated to the City Council was consistent
with what the Council wanted.
Mayor Johnson stated the clearest way to know what the Council
intended would be to ask the Council; Council sets amounts for
salaries, vehicle allowances for other people, and all kinds of
things, which are always gross, not net; many benefits provided
have tax consequences.
Councilmember Matarrese stated it is a question of process, not
amount; the process should be that if there is a change that incurs
a higher dollar outlay than what was done before or if there is a
question of intent, the matter, under Contract or Memorandum Of
Understanding (MOU), should come to the Council; the issue is not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 18
July 19, 2005
hugely complicated; that [bring the matter to Council] should be
the rule now; before, the intent was interpreted by individuals.
Councilmember Daysog stated the memo was circulated to Council.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is not sure the memo was provided to
Council; the memo went to Finance in 2001 and indicated a copy went
to Council, but Finance never implemented the change; that she
questions whether the memo even went to Finance in.2001.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the policy that he is looking for is
that if there is a dollar figure in a contract, that the matter
should return as a Contract or MOU amendment.
Mayor Johnson stated sending a copy of a memo to the Council is not
a way of notifying the Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the question is not notification;
the question is approval; there is an easy fix: going forward, all
changes will come to Council for a vote.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with the suggestion; stated policy
should be set going forward; the Contract for the new City Manager
states that the amount is a fixed amount; a new Contract is being
negotiated with the City Attorney and the matter can be clarified;
inquired what will be done in the interim in the next five months;
stated putting the matter in the open to understand how the City
reached the current status is good; safeguards can be put in place.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council voted to make the legal opinion a
public document and should call the next agenda item to address the
policy.
(05- ) Discussion and recommendations regarding City Manager and
City Attorney contract provisions pertaining to vehicle allowance
limit.
Councilmember Matarrese stated his previous comments [under the
previous agenda item, paragraph no. 05- ] hold.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan concurred.
Councilmember Daysog that he does not have a problem with the
direction to have issues come back to the City Council; however,
when he received the legal opinion in 2001, he felt it was
consistent; going forward, Council's request for everything to come
before Council is acceptable.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 19, 2005
19
Councilmember deHaan stated actions should be done equitably among
the rest of the people who receive automobile allowances and;
adjustments should have been made accordingly after the opinion.
Councilmember Daysog stated the car allowance for others is taxable
and done through payroll.
Mayor Johnson stated the amount is a gross amount; if the car
allowance for other employees is $250, like the City Manager and
City Attorney, the amount is taxable and other employees receive
$160.
Councilmember deHaan stated a select two were isolated to receive
the adjustment, rather than reviewing how the law effects other
employees.
Mayor Johnson stated changes in the Contract should be done through
a vote of the Council; sending a carbon copy to the Council is not
a vote of the Council; the Council can only act by voting and
cannot act by non - response or consent by silence; concurred with
Councilmember Matarrese's comments that it is a process question;
the process that was used was not appropriate.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has a problem with stating that
something that happened in 2001 was inappropriate; any
Councilmember could have objected when the memo was received; no
one objected; things are being done differently in the new era.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council should have clear expectations of
how to handle Contract amendments.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Council is indicating how the matter
will be handled in the future.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council has to vote to change a Contract.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated that extra benefits always have to be
declared for tax purposes; Council seems to be putting the benefit
on payroll and covering the tax burden, which seems awkward.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council is trying to undo the past
practice [of covering the tax burden]; Council wants to have the
amount set as the amount the employee receives regardless of the
tax consequences.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a decision has not been made [about
setting the vehicle allowance amount]; that he was only requesting
that changes require a vote of the Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 20
July 19, 2005
Mayor Johnson stated that her preference would be to set the
[gross] amount at $250; the matter can be addressed when the new
Contract with the City Attorney is negotiated; inquired the
clearest way to make a record of the fact that any changes to
Contracts have to be brought to the Council for a vote; inquired
whether the action should be a resolution.
The Acting City Manager responded staff could bring the matter back
to Council.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter would return as a
resolution, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council would address the [vehicle
allowance] amounts later.
Vice Mayor Gilmore noted the item brought back would be a policy.
(05- ) Proposal for City Council Oversight on Expenditures from
Outside Counsel Appropriations.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter was on the Closed Session Agenda at
the last meeting; the matter was continued to tonight because the
preference was to address the matter in open session.
The City Attorney stated the proposal has limitations on spending,
settlement authority, additional reporting requirements and
limitations on the hiring of outside counsel through an RFP
process, creating four outside counsel panels.
Mayor Johnson stated that her intent is not to limit the amount of
money the City spends on outside counsel; costs cannot be known
ahead of time; the amount is not her concern; her concern is the
hiring of outside counsel; approving the hiring of outside counsel
can be brought to the Council without a dollar limit; there is
concern about litigation strategies and not setting dollar
parameters because the other side can be tipped off about how
committed the City is to the litigation; that she does not
understand why the matter cannot be brought to the Council stating
the attorney to be hired for the particular case; the Council
approval could have no dollar information included; the names of
counsel and how much is paid per month is in the bills for
ratification; who represents the City is not a secret; the amount
and budget need to be kept confidential; the Council has indicated
the City Attorney should be given authority to cover exigent
circumstances; the Council does not want a special meeting every
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 21
July 19, 2005
time the City is sued; inquired whether there would be a problem
with setting an amount to cover the interim period and bringing the
authority to hire outside counsel to the City Council, without
limitation on dollar amounts.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should not be a special meeting for
$3,000 if the City Attorney needs to hire a transactional attorney
or if there is a tax question that comes up through the Finance
Department.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that if a dollar amount were not set, the
Council would be involved in a $3,000 decision to hire a tax
attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated Council could discuss a dollar limit; if the
Council had known about hiring Linda Tripoli to give an opinion on
vehicle allowance, Council might have paid more attention to the
issue; the Council should know who is working for the City, what
people are being hired to do and why; that she does not have
problem with a limit if the issue is minor.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated, that if the Council wants to know who is
being hired, the question comes down to timing; inquired how
quickly the Council should be informed after legal counsel is
hired; stated there is a proposal for quarterly financial reports
on the cost of outside counsel, including who the outside counsel
is for each matter.
Mayor Johnson stated in a lot of cases the Council could give
approval before outside counsel is hired; a lot of the hiring does
not need to be immediate; regular Council meetings are twice a
month; the City Attorney can hire someone and bring the matter to
Council for approval at the next meeting in cases when there is not
time; the Council does not want to have special meetings all the
time; that she does not like the system that is in place now; the
Charter states that the Council consents to the hiring of outside
counsel; Council is currently consenting to hiring over $800,000.
worth of outside counsel through a line item budget allocation; the
Council needs to exercise more oversight; Council can discuss the
level of consent that should be set; it'is a change from what has
been done the past 16 years; the Council needs to exercise more
oversight than in the past.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated that she is
unclear of how the Mayor proposes to do so; the City Attorney
provided a proposal; inquired whether the proposal could be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 22
July 19, 2005
reviewed.
Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what the typical lead -time is from
the time the City Attorney knows outside counsel is needed to the
time outside counsel is hired.
The City Attorney responded usually the same day the City receives
a lawsuit; for example, in a recent lawsuit, the City had 30 days
to answer but in the interim the City had a motion for preliminary
injunction; within 24 hours of receiving the notice, the Council
would receive a paragraph describing the lawsuit received; the
immediate notification to the Council would include a description
as to what the City Attorney intends to do; a component would be
the discretion would be limited through the [counsel] panels, so .
the Council would know who the City Attorney's office would be
selecting; the panels would be reviewed annually; the reason for
the immediacy is due to the requirement to respond immediately;
there is a balance because when litigation is received, by the next
meeting, the Council could indicate that it does not approve of
what is being done and how it is being done; the practical reality
is that within the first two weeks, significant initial work would
be done, which is why the proposal might not be the perfect
solution; a lot of knowledge will be given to the Council; there
could be additional oversight and opportunities for change after
seeing how the proposal works.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether $35,000 would cover two
weeks.
The City Attorney responded $35,000 was picked as the average cost
of litigation; the City Attorney's office actually totaled up costs
and $35,000 was the average cost; 50% of the cases are more than
$35,000 and 50% are less; the Council will know about the matter
within 24 hours, get a report and budget within 30 days, and have
the opportunity to schedule the matter for closed session; anything
which is significant, such as a bigger case, will automatically go
to Council for approval in a closed session; Council will know
[about lawsuits] within 24 hours and always have the opportunity to
request the matter be placed on the agenda; the City Attorney's
discretion in the selection of outside counsel will be from the
competitively selected panels of attorneys.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Charter states: "The Council, or
any board with the consent of the Council, may empower the City
Attorney, at his request to employ special legal counsel;" what is
being discussed is how the Council empowers the City Attorney to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 23
July 19, 2005
make choices; a practical approach is to empower a certain dollar
amount to get the ball rolling since Council meets every two weeks;
the empowerment lasts only until the next Council meeting and the
matter is discussed if the amount would be higher, which is why he
was asking about the $35,000; using said amount is acceptable if
the amount can carry the day; the Council has to meet its Charter
obligation to empower the City Attorney based on the threshold if
there is a much larger case.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with said
suggestion; $35,000 [could be spent] until the next Council
meeting; at the next Council meeting, the Council would vote to
hire the outside counsel; inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese
was making said suggestion.
Councilmember Matarrese stated to use the language in the Charter,
it empowers the City Attorney to employ outside counsel.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City Attorney has $35,000
to spend; for example, a lawsuit comes in, the City Attorney can
spend $35,000, notifies the Council by e -mail, etc. and at the next
Council meeting, the Council gets a status report.
Mayor Johnson stated the hiring of the attorney that the City
Attorney is suggesting would be brought to Council at its next
meeting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the City Attorney could not do so when
the City is sued.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City could always change attorneys;
that she assumes the Council would approve the attorney that the
City Attorney suggests.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether said suggestion means that the
attorney has not started work yet.
Mayor Johnson responded in the negative; stated the City Attorney
can spend $35,000 until the next Council meeting, when the hiring
of outside counsel comes to the Council for approval.
Councilmember deHaan noted said suggestion differs from the City
Attorney's proposal in the staff report; stated if the reporting
segment is actively working, Council can monitor and get in the
middle of things right off the bat if something goes astray; that
he does not have enough questions to make drastic changes; the City
Attorney can be given $35,000, or the amount can be dropped down to
$20,000, to get started; Councilmembers will receive a report; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 24
July 19, 2005
threshold can be changed if two or three go astray.
Mayor Johnson stated said suggestion is greater micromanagement;
Council would have to keep up to date on all litigation matters;
the City Attorney is responsible for management once outside
counsel is hired; Council cannot be responsible for monitoring
litigation and bringing the matter to the Council if a
Councilmember does not like something; the Charter states the
Council is supposed to approve the hiring of outside counsel;
Council needs to make the approval; then, the City Attorney would
handle the matter.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested clarification of how the process would
work and an example be provided.
Mayor Johnson stated the main responsibility of the Council is the
Charter requirement to consent to hiring [of outside counsel]; read
Charter section; stated the issue is how the Council consents to
the employment of special legal counsel.
Councilmember Matarrese stated it is how the Council empowers the
City Attorney; the control is telling the City Attorney to go
forward with hiring outside; the tier is the City Attorney can hire
outside counsel for up to $35,000; $35,000 would take care of a
minor matter or accommodate [Council meetings] every two weeks;
once the [$35,000] threshold is met, then the empowerment has to
come back to the City Council for a vote.
The City Attorney stated that if the additional estimate is in
excess [of $35,000], the matter would always go to Council under
the proposal; anything $35,000 or less will go to Council, if the
Council desires; anything estimated to be $35,000 or more for the
total litigation cost will automatically go to Council for
approval.
Mayor Johnson inquired what would be done in the interim period for
larger cases, to which the City Attorney responded the matter would
be placed on the agenda as soon as possible.
Mayor Johnson inquired what if immediate action was needed.
The City Attorney responded the system is two tiered; stated the
City Attorney would be authorized to spend up to $35,000 without
prior Council approval; for matters estimated to cost less than
[$35,000] the City Attorney hires outside counsel through the RFQ
process.
Mayor Johnson stated the City Attorney's statement differs from
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 25
July 19, 2005
what the Council is saying; the City Attorney is stating that she
can spend $35,000 without Council approval; inquired whether the
City Attorney would bring the matter to the City Council if the
total estimate of the litigation expense is more than $35,000.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a large case
would have to go to Council; the proposal has a number of
additional restrictions for a smaller case, such as a sidewalk trip
and fall; that she could only pick from a pre - qualified panel; if
there is a slip and fall with a cost estimate of $15,000, the City
Attorney would review the matter and provide the Council notice,
financial reports, and cost estimates; outside counsel would be
selected from the panel.
Mayor Johnson stated there are small cases that should be handled
in house; the City has five attorneys and should not farm out a
$15,000 trip and fall case; insurance adjustors handle said cases
in the private sector; the City should not use outside counsel for
little cases that should be handled in house; the City has five
staff attorneys and spends a lot of money on outside counsel; the
staffing level should be reviewed if every $15,000 trip and fall is
farmed out.
The City Attorney stated the proposal is to deal with one issue;
there is a process in place for reviewing performance and
management goals for the utilization of outside counsel going
forward so that the Council establishes performance standards and
expectations of the City Attorney's office; that she hears the
Council; that the matter is a budget issue; the City Attorney's
office will do more with less, try to do more litigation in house
and work with the Council to establish the balance that the Council
wants between five attorneys.
Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want to address the balance
and how it would be established; further stated that she would
prefer $25,000 [as the threshold].
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $35,000 is for each matter.
Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated that [$35,000]
is what the City Attorney is proposing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a period of time.
The City Attorney responded there are lots of time periods: notice
within 24 hours, budget within 35 days, and quarterly financial
reports.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 19, 2005
26
Councilmember Matarrese stated for practical terms and Charter
interpretation, the special legal counsel is per matter, which is
reasonable; someone can 'get started on a case; legal matters go by
case; the City Attorney would not be hiring one person to do
multiple cases.
The City Attorney stated it is per matter or item, not per issue,
subject, attorney, etc.
Mayor Johnson stated reports must not just include litigation; the
report the City Attorney provided on outside counsel only included
litigation and not other non - litigation issues that outside counsel
handle for the City.
Councilmember deHaan inquired about the number of cases that hit
the $35,000 threshold per year, possibly ten to twelve.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated that she
estimates there are about 20 active litigation cases currently.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 20 cases would reach the
$35,000 threshold, to which the City Attorney responded less than
that [20 cases] .
Councilmember deHaan stated no more than eight to ten cases will
hit the $35,000 threshold over a year period of time; the vast
majority are in the $3,000 to $4,000 bracket; inquired whether the
numbers [that will reach $35,000] are low.
The City Attorney responded that in trying to get some rational
basis to come up with a number, $35,000 is the exact median of the
average cost of outside counsel, so half of the cases are below and
half are above.
Councilmember deHaan disagreed.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council received the report that
shows the actual amount spent on different litigation cases.
The City Attorney responded the report was provided last week.
Councilmember deHaan stated the report provided can be fine -tuned
and should work fine; that he does not see the number [of cases
$35,000 or over] being that great; the Council is allowing 70% of
the City Attorney's activity below the threshold; noted that he
used the data the City Attorney provided.
The City Attorney stated [$35,000] was found to be the median
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 27
July 19, 2005
number; one reason for the reporting to Council is that changes can
be made if desired.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that prior to today, the City Attorney's
office had a budget that the Council approved by a line item; the
City Attorney had utter discretion to spend the money any way she
saw fit; the Council is trying to be more cognizant of its Charter
responsibilities to provide oversight of spending said money;
having gone from over $500,000 of discretionary spending to the
limit of $35,000 is a more than a prudent place to begin; the
amount is not set in stone; nothing prevents the Council from
putting a policy in place, seeing how it works and making changes
if needed; unless there are more specific recommendations, the
policy is a good place to get started because it provides what the
Council is trying to move towards.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has no problem with it; the
Council still has the oversight; future changes could be made.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether approval should be via a resolution.
The City Attorney stated Council should adopt via motion, so it is
a formal Council action in terms of direction.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether any changes need to be made.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a way to put the
proposal in terms of the Charter responsibility, which is not City
Council oversight of outside legal counsel expense, but is City
Council rules of empowering the City Attorney to engage outside
counsel.
The City Attorney responded the motion could be that this is the
rule of empowering the City Attorney under [Charter Section] 8 -5.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether this is a policy.
The City Attorney responded it is a rule; it is a direction.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the action could not be done by
resolution.
The City Attorney responded a resolution could be brought back.
Mayor Johnson stated a resolution would be clearer; the issue of
Alameda Power and Telecom (AP &T) also needs to be brought back to
the Council; the Council needs to discuss approving counsel for
AP &T and should consider delegating authority to the Public
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 28
July 19, 2005
Utilities Board.
The City Attorney stated said matter could be included in the
resolution.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese stated Council should
discuss the matter first.
Mayor Johnson suggested the resolution discussed tonight be brought
back and a separate discussion be held on delegating AP &T's legal
counsel.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired as to the difference between acting by
resolution and by motion.
Mayor Johnson stated resolutions are easier for City staff to
track.
The City Clerk noted resolutions are permanent records of the City
Council.
Councilmember deHaan stated the proposal includes quarterly
reporting requirements; that he would prefer monthly reporting.
Mayor Johnson stated that monthly reporting was acceptable to her,
including the current budget on the status of the overall
litigation contingency budget for not only Risk Management, but
also AP &T.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Council needs all of the numbers for
all of the different entities that are part of legal budget the
Council appropriated.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City Attorney's office has always
delivered; the challenge is there is a desire to have more
involvement in oversight.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred; stated that the action is not due to
a deficiency in the City Attorney's office, rather it is the
Council following what the Charter sets out as its role and
bringing practices in line.
Mayor Johnson concurred; inquired whether the matter could return
at the next Council meeting.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 19, 2005
29
(05- ) Susan Potter, Alameda, requested guidance in procuring a
permit for a mobile vendor to do business in the City; stated many
companies do business without a permit.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the request was for a mobile
business at the dog park, to which Ms. Potter responded in the
affirmative.
The Acting City Manager stated the proposal is to utilize a space
at the dog park and other parks; the Recreation and Park Commission
is working on a comprehensive policy and did not want to address
the request as part of the policy; the section of the Municipal
Code dealing with rolling stores could be amended; if the Council
desires, staff could work with the Planning Board to draft an
ordinance making amendments to address the issue.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council has to direct that the
matter be referred to the Planning Board; noted issues are unknown,
for example merchants might oppose changes.
The Acting City Manager suggested the Planning Board consider the.
matter.
Mayor Johnson concurred with the suggestion.
Councilmember deHaan stated the issue of how long a business could
remain on pubic property would need to be addressed.
The Acting City Manager stated rolling stores can only use the
public right -of -way, not standing locations.
Councilmember deHaan noted Oakland allows rolling vendors on
private property.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Planning Board should review the
matter.
Ms. Potter noted nothing is being done about the rolling vendors
that are currently operating in the City without permits.
Mayor Johnson stated the City might need to start doing
enforcement.
(05- ) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed speeding vehicles.
(05- ) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated non -food services, such as
bicycle repair, should be considered when addressing mobile
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 30
July 19, 2005
businesses; noted market factors, such as demand, would not support
the establishment of seventeen movie theaters in town.
(05- ) David Kirwin, Alameda, expressed concern about the
megaplex theatre and parking structure project and funding;
questioned whether there would be a $1,000 parcel tax; stated
parking lots adjacent to businesses are sufficient; there is a need
for increased public awareness regarding the project.
Mayor Johnson responded there is not a parcel tax; requested staff
to inform Mr. Kirwin where he should go for information.
The Acting City Manager stated Mr. Kirwin, and others, could meet
with staff in the City Manager's Office or Development Services
Department.
Mayor Johnson stated information could also be mailed or e- mailed,
if preferred.
(05- ) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, stated
people opposed to the [theater and parking structure] project have
been providing misinformation; stated PSBA would have opposed the
project if a $1,000 parcel tax were involved; noted the Downtown
Vision plan from May, 2000 indicated that informal talks about a
mutli- screen theater were underway.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05- ) Councilmember deHaan stated that he visited the Bayport
site; the transit shelter on Tinker Avenue is less than adequate;
the size of the sidewalks at Bayport are extremely narrow, do not
match other sidewalks in Alameda, and are not pedestrian friendly;
said matters should be considered when other developments are
built.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 19, 2005
31
July 28, 2005
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the
City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers Amount
138651 - 139100
EFT 122
EFT 123
EFT 124
EFT 125
EFT 126
Void Checks:
138830
136628
139098
GRAND TOTAL
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela J. Sibl
Council Warrants 08/02/2005
2,375,138.17
185,295.72
987, 344.60
736,980.00
231,156.00
404,000.00
(831.87)
(613.60)
(4,747.05)
4,913,721.97
BILLS #4 -B
08/02/05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: July 20, 2005
Re: Recommendation to Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter to the United
States Postal Service Regarding the City's Interest to Relocate the
Distribution Function of the Alameda Post Office From Shoreline Drive to
Another Site in Alameda
BACKGROUND
South Shore Shopping Center has asked the City to send a letter to the US Postal
Service to follow up on a February 3, 2005 meeting that the City of Alameda and
Harsch Investment Properties had with the Postal Service regarding relocation of the
distribution function of the Alameda Post Office to another site in Alameda.
DISCUSSION
Since as long ago as 2001, the City has been working in concert with South Shore to
facilitate a decision by the U.S. Postal Service to relocate the Distribution Center to
another location in Alameda and to establish a modern retail post office at South Shore
(Attachment 1). On February 3, 2005, staff and representatives of Harsch met with Mr.
David W. Eales, Manager, Realty Asset Management, U.S. Postal Service to discuss a
proposal by Harsch to acquire the Alameda Post Office, build a U.S. Postal Service
retail outlet in South Shore Center and relocate the distribution function to another
location within the City of Alameda. As was discussed in this meeting, we have come to
learn that the Alameda Post Office (local manager) has been very slow to respond to
requests by Harsch to tour alternate locations. Based on what we heard at that meeting,
the Alameda Postal Facility currently does not have enough parking, and the current
building is too big for their needs. Furthermore, Harsch is making a $45 million
investment to upgrade the Center, and a postal distribution operation is not the most
compatible activity with the vision for the beachfront. The City and Harsch Investment
Properties are eager to explore a relocation of the Post Office distribution facility to
another location in Alameda.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report 4 -C Consent
8 -2 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
July 20, 2005
Page 2 of 2
There would be no impact on the General Fund from exploring alternative locations for
the Post Office Distribution Facility. Additional information regarding alternative
locations would be necessary to evaluate impact on the General Fund from such things
as property tax revenue.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that Council the Mayor to send a letter (Attachment 2)
to the United States Postal Service regarding the City's interest to relocate the
distribution function of the Alameda Post Office from Shoreline Drive to another site in
Alameda.
Re
pe
ully submitted,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development
Division
uce J.M.
Redevelo
DK/LAUDES /BJMK:ry
ager
Attachments
cc: Michael Corbett, Retail Portfolio Manager, Harsch Investment Properties
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \econdev \Comm Projects \south shore \Council \P07- 20- 2005.doc
f: \commercial projects \501 South Shore Center \Post Office Relocation
City of 1 (:.,aiirornia
e.
June 11, 2001
Mr. James Lazarus, State Director
Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein
One Post Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, California 94104
Dear Mr. Lazarus,
rw-g-c-er-gr-47„r)-
JUN 1 2 2001
We are considering some exciting changes in the City of Alameda, and State
Senator Don Perata and I would like to ask your help to urge the United States
Post Office to relocate the Alameda Main Post Office to a larger, more modern
facility in our community.
The Alameda Main Post Office Distribution and Retail Facility is presently located
within a functionally obsolete, leased building at 2201 Shoreline Drive. The post
office is next door to the Island's largest community shopping center, South Shore
Shopping Center, which is the single largest tax revenue generator for the City of
Alameda.. The property is owned by the Schnitzer family owners of Harsch
Investments. The family has owned the proprty for 30 years and is currently in
the process of investing $60,000,000 to renovate and expand the Center to better
suit the changing needs of the community.
We propose incorporating a new, larger retail post office inside the renovated
Shopping Center, while at the same time, relocating the post office trucking
facilities to Alameda Point. Not only will this provide the community with a
modern, more accessible postal facility, but it will also help rejuvenate the former
Naval Air Station and remove the unsightly distribution facility from the Town's
crucial retail location. Additionally, the relocation of the post office from its
existing beachfront location will allow South Shore Shopping Center to take
advantage of the Island's greatest attribute: its views of the San Francisco Bay.
This is obviously a "win -win" scenario for the US Postal Service, its postal
customers, the City of Alameda, the property owner, and the 80,000 residents who
depend upon South Shore Shopping Center for jobs, tax revenues and convenient
shopping to sustain the economic health and vitality of this community.
Office of the Mayor
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 320
Alameda, California 94501
510 748 -4545 Office - 510 748 -4504 Fax - TDD 510 522 -7538
Attachment 1
We are very pleased to be working with the full cooperation of State Senator Don
Perata as we work to bring this vision to reality. We believe that Senator Feinstein
will also share this vision, and I would like to ask for your personal assistance to
help make this plan happen as soon as possible. Since the Post Office lease has
a crucial real estate option that must be exercised by July 27th, Senator Don
Perata and I are eager to arrange a meeting with you, Mr. Peter Sotos of Harsch
Investments, and Jim Flint, Alameda City Manager, to discuss this matter at your
most immediate opportunity.
Thank you, Mr. Lazarus, for your personal attention to this exciting plan to improve
postal service, expand tax revenues, and enhance the quality of civic life in the
Town of Alameda. I will be personally calling you later today to follow up and
answer any questions you might have.
Very truly yours,
Ralph J. Appezz
Mayor
cc: Senator Don Perata, District 9
Peter Sotos; Harsch Investments
Jim Flint, City Manager
to
City of t . • (... a.._ ,rnia
June 11, 2001
Mr. Sam Chapman, Chief of Staff
Office of Senator Barbara Boxer
1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 240
San Francisco, California 94111
Dear Mr. Chapman:
RECEIVED
JUN 1 2 2001
BY:
We are considering some exciting changes in the City of Alameda, and State
Senator Don Perata and I would like to ask your help to urge the United States
Post Office to relocate the Alameda Main Post Office to a larger, more modern
facility in our community.
The Alameda Main Post Office Distribution and Retail Facility is presently located
within a functionally obsolete, leased building at 2201 Shoreline Drive. The post
office is next door to the Island's largest community shopping center, South Shore
Shopping Center, which is the single largest tax revenue generator for the City of
Alameda. The property is owned by the Schnitzer family owners of Harsch
Investments. The family has owned the property for 30 years and is currently in
the process of investing $60,000,000 to renovate and expand the Center to better
suit the changing needs of the community.
We propose incorporating a new, larger retail post office inside the renovated
Shopping Center, while at the same time, relocating the post office trucking
facilities to Alameda Point. Not only wiii this provide the community with a
modern, more accessible postal facility, but it will also help rejuvenate the former
Naval Air Station and remove the unsightly distribution facility from the Town's
crucial retail location. Additionally, the relocation of the post office from its
existing beachfront location will allow South Shore Shopping Center to take
advantage of the Island's greatest attribute: its views of the San Francisco Bay.
This is obviously a "win -win" scenario for the US Postal Service, its postal
customers, the City of Alameda, the property owner, and the 80,000 residents who
depend upon South Shore Shopping Center for jobs, tax revenues and convenient
shopping to sustain the economic health and vitality of this community.
Office of the Mayor
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 320
Alameda, California 94501
510 748 -4545 Office - 510 748 -4504 Fax - TDD 510 522 -7538
We are very pleased to be working with the full cooperation of State Senator Don
Perata as we work to bring this vision to reality. We believe that Senator Boxer
will also share this vision, and I would like to ask for your personal assistance to
help make this plan happen as soon as possible. Since the Post Office lease has
a crucial real estate option that must be exercised by July 27th, Senator Don
Perata and I are eager to arrange a meeting with you, Mr. Peter Sotos of Harsch
Investments, and Jim Flint, Alameda City Manager, to discuss this matter at your
most immediate opportunity.
Thank you, Mr. Chapman, for your personal attention to this exciting plan to
improve postal service, expand tax revenues, and enhance the quality of civic life
in the Town of Alameda. I will be personally calling you later today to follow up
and answer any questions you might have.
Very truly yours,
Ralp ppezzato
Mayor
cc: Senator Don Perata, District 9
Peter Sotos; Harsch Investments
Jim Flint, City Manager
Jun 26 01 09:55a Citj of Alameda Dey. Sys.
JU . 21.2031 5= 2SPM
G1ANi4', 'EINSTEIN
awprolataa
510 -749 -5808
WASHtNGTQN, DC 2Q510 -x504
June 21, 2001
Mar. Jack Potter
Postmaster General
United States Postal Service
415 L'Enfard Plaza SW
Washington, D.C. 20260-0004
Dear Postmaster General Potter:
p.2
NO.120 P.2
CaMMITTRE ON APPROPRIATIONS
coAmiliG494 Tng,jw :iCIAl4Y
Ganitim.PC ON RYLE9 AND MamINISTMYl411
•
I am writing you on behalf of Mayor Ralph Appezzato and the City of Alameda.
Mr. Appezzato recently met with my staff to express the City of Alameda.'s strong interest in
replacing the existing Alameda Post Office and Distribution Center with a smaller, modem retail
Post Office and relocating the retail and distribution Pmt Office to Alameda Point.
The Postal Center is currently located. adjacent to the South Shore Shopping Cer>,ter
(South. Shore), wvluth is prune commercial real estate arid the largest generator of Alameda jobs
and tax revenues. Mayor Appe nto has been wonting with the South Shore developer to expand
and optimize e the retail space for the benefit of the City and its resides. The developer bas
agrttd to cover all reasonable relocation coats involved in the proposed plan.
The proposed relocation plan requires the Aiaieda Post Office to assign the purchase
option contained is its existing lease to the owner of the shopping center, flarsch Investments, by
July 2782. With the deadline fast approaching, I am writing to request your timely attention to this
matter.
Thai* you for your consideration. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the
city's ,proposal further, please cornet Michele Senders in my San Francisco office at 415/393 -
0763.
With warmest personal regards.
ncerely yours,
Y
Diarua.e Fein in
United Mates Senator
cc: Mr. Peter Sotos, VP of liars& Investments (Via Fax)
Ms. Deborah Stein, President GCA Strategies (Via Fax)
Mayor Ralph Appezzato, Alameda, (Via Fax)
Mr. Tull Flint, Alameda City Manager (Via Fax)
February 23, 2004
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Senator from the State of California
One Post Street
Suite 2450
San Francisco, California 94104
Dear Senator Feinstein,
Your continued support with issues that arise in the City of Alameda is appreciated and recognized by
Alameda residents and businesses alike. It is my understanding that in the past, you have written to the
United States Postmaster General on behalf of my predecessor, the late Ralph Appezzato, regarding the
Postal Center currently located adjacent to South Shore Shopping Center.
South Shore Shopping Center ('South Shore ") is considered prime commercial real estate and the
shopping center alone is the largest generator of Alameda jobs and tax revenues in the City of Alameda.
During the late Mayor's term, he worked closely with the owners of South Shore, Harsch Investment
Properties (the Schnitzer family has owned the property for over 30 years), to redevelop, expand and
optimize the shopping center for the benefit of the City, its businesses and its residents. Currently
Harsch Investment Properties has initiated the redevelopment of South Shore and has already made a
significant investment in terms of design and construction. It's clear to the City the owner understands
that there is a need to be met and a shopping center to revitalize.
The Postal Center comes into play as Harsch Investment Properties begins their redevelopment process,
because the location of the Postal Center, as you are aware, is directly across from the beachfront. This
location would benefit South Shore as well as the residents of the Island and would enable us all to take
advantage of the Island's greatest attribute: the San Francisco Bay view. However, there is one problem,
the Postal Center has an existing long -term lease. Considering that the current Postal Center is a
distribution facility with only minimal retail, its location by the bay does not make physical or economic
sense. I am asking for your help once more to relocate the Postal Center to another area in Alameda
that also needs revitalization: Alameda Point.
We propose incorporating a new, larger retail Post Office inside the renovated South Shore Shopping
Center, and relocate the Post Office trucking facilities to Alameda Point. By doing so, South Shore would
benefit from expanded views of the bay and redevelopment opportunities and at the same time Post
Office users would not be affected, as they would continue to do their retail business at South Shore. As
you can see all parties win in this situation.
Thank you, Senator Feinstein, for your time and consideration. I am very excited in what Harsch
Investment Properties is planning to do with the City's cdmmunity shopping center and hope that you
would agree. On the same note, I look forward to your ongoing support to relocate the Postal Center
and I am eager to discuss opportunities with you. Our exciting plan improves postal service, expands tax
revenues and ultimately enhances the quality of civic life in the City of Alameda. I would like to set up a
meeting with you, Michael Corbitt & Randy Kyte with Harsch Investment Properties and our City
Manager, Jim Flint at your earliest opportunity.
Very truly yours,
Beverly Johnson, Mayor
HARSCH
INVESTMENT PROPERTIES
September 16, 2004
Ms. Laureen Yamakido
Contracting Officer
United States Postal Service .
Pacific Facilities Service Office
395 Oyster Point Blvd, Su 225 .
South San Francisco CA 94080 -0300
RE: Alameda Main Post Office
Dear Ms. Yamakido:
Harsch Investment Properties owns the Alameda South Shore Center, a 540,000 SF shopping center,
located immediately adjacent to the Alameda Main Post Office. Harsch would like to discuss how best to
facilitate relocation of the Main Office. Specifically, we want to discuss how Harsch might work with the
Postal Service to exercise the purchase option for the Main Office, relocate the carriers to a location more
compatible with such uses, and, if feasible, relocate the retail aspects of the Main Office to a storefront in
the redeveloped South Shore Center. The City of Alameda is also interested in working in partnership
with both parties to facilitate the process to achieve such an outcome.
I write this letter to indicate our interest in initiating these discussions, at the earliest possible opportunity.
Alameda South Shore is initiating a $50 million redevelopment of the Center. We are excited about the
new stores, architecture and overall upgrade of the Center and, by extension, the neighborhood. While we
have managed over the years to coexist fairly well with the Postal Service adjacency, Postal employee
encroachment into our parking areas continues to increase. This condition will become unacceptable
following redevelopment of the Center.
We are aware of the requirement to make the Postal Service whole in any relocation of operations. We
believe we can work cooperatively with USPS and the City to achieve that goal.
I appreciate your willingness to receive this letter and facilitate initiating discussions with key local and
Headquarters personnel. To that end, I will call you in the next week to schedule a meeting with Postal
Service staff and Harsch and City staff. I look forward to sitting down with Postal Service
representatives to work towards a positive result.
Yours
/L,1
Mi ael Corbitt
Retail Portfolio Manager
cc: Jim Pate, Senior Vice President, Retail
Randy Kyte, Vice President/Director of Development
Paul Benoit, Assistant City Manager, City of Alameda
South Shore Shopping Center, 523 South Shore Center West, Alameda, CA 94501 • Phone (510) 521.8100 • Fax (510) 521-3493 • www.southshorecenter.com
HARSCH
INVESTMENT PROPERTIES
February 14, 2005
Mr. Raymond Davis
Postmaster
Alameda Post Office
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
2201 Shoreline Drive
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Mr. Davis:
It was a pleasure speaking with you last week regarding the possible relocation
of the Shoreline Postal facility.
As we discussed, there was a meeting held with Harsch Investment Properties
and USPS on February 3, 2005 at the South Shore office. USPS had Asset
Manager, David Eales at the meeting along with several other key
representatives, but unfortunately you could not attend. During the meeting it
was recommended that I follow up with you and tour some of the potential sites
in Alameda for a possible relocation. I believe I mentioned to you that
incorporating a USPS retail facility into our newly redeveloped retail center may
make good economic sense for USPS and create a superb opportunity to
increase your revenues. The distribution facility could be moved to one of the
alternate sites that we have identified.
The Post Office could truly be in a "win -win" situation with not having to come out
of pocket for a new facility, and even increase revenues in their retail operation.
Based on what we discussed during our conversation, it sounded like you need
to speak with the USPS representatives that were present during the February
3rd meeting to get up to speed. You mentioned that you would contact me once
you had that information and we could potentially explore the relocation
alternatives.
I look forward to working with you in the near future.
As a quick side note, as you know we have had an ongoing problem with USPS
employees parking in our South Shore parking lot. This problem will only get
worse as we continue to redevelop the Center and barricades go up. I would
South Shore Shopping Center, 523 South Shore Center West, Alameda, CA 94501. • Phone (510) 521 -8100 • Fax (510) 521 -3493 • www.southshorecenter.com
kindly ask that you mention this issue to your employees and assist us with
resolving it.
ncerely,
\JJ
Of6
Michael Corbitt
Retail Portfolio Manager
cc: James Pate, Senior Vice President, Retail
Randy Kyte, Director of Development
David Eales, USPS Asset Manager
DRAFT
August 3, 2005
Mr. David W. Eales
Manager, Realty Asset Management
United States Postal Service
4301 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300
Arlington, VA 22203 -1861
Dear Mr. Eales:
We want to follow up on a February 3, 2005 meeting that the City of Alameda and
Harsch Investment Properties had with you with regards to acquiring the Alameda Post
Office and relocating it to another site on Alameda Island.
The City got involved over four years ago trying to help move this process along and we
learned just recently that the Alameda Post Office (local manager) has been very slow to
respond to numerous requests by Harsch to tour alternate locations, as was discussed in
your last meeting with the City and Harsch. We urge you to consider a permanent move,
as the City Council and the community are very eager to have the postal distribution
operation off of the beach front. That use is not compatible with our future vision for that
area and based on what we heard in the last meeting, you currently don't have enough
parking, and you also mentioned the current building was too big for your needs. Harsch
has informed us that they would be receptive to incorporate the retail division into the
South Shore shopping center. As you are aware, Harsch is undergoing a $45M
renovation and the post office (retail) could work very well in the shopping center.
We understand that the timing of your lease commitment is imminent, and in order for us
to make this a reality, we need to act quickly.
Please contact me to further discuss.
Thank you,
Beverly Johnson
Mayor of the City of Alameda
cc: Debbie Potter, City of Alameda
G: \econdev \Comm Projects\south shore \Council\P07 -20 -2005 Attachment 2.doc
f: \commercial projects \501 South Shore Center \Post Office Relocation
Attachment 2
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: July 25, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt Specifications for Vehicle Tow Contract for
Abandoned Vehicles for The Police Department
BACKGROUND
The current towing service contract with A & B Towing will expire September 30, 2005. We
propose to solicit formal bids for tow services for the period of October 1, 2005 through
September 30, 2010, a five -year contract for the towing of abandoned vehicles.
DISCUSSION
The Specifications and Provisions for the tow services have been updated and will be filed
with the City Clerk. They will be available for public view and will be available to potential
bidders upon request from the Office of the City Clerk. The specifications are identified
and numbered No. 9 -01 -2.
The schedule for the bid process is:
August 2, 2005 Council authorizes release of tow services specifications
August 3, 2005 Bid documents and specifications available for pickup by
potential bidders
September 2, 2005 Deadline for submitting bids, 2:00 P.M.
September 20, 2005 Council reviews recommendation and awards tow contract
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The costs associated with the Police Department ordered tows for vehicles abandoned,
dismantled, or inoperative on public streets are charged to the registered owner of the
vehicle. If not paid, the vehicle has a lien placed against it and is sold by the tow company
to recoup losses. Vehicles abated from private property under A.M.C. 8 -22 are by law
dismantled and not reconstructed or made operable. The tow company recoups the cost
of removal from the owner of the parcel of land pursuant to A.M.C. 8- 22.15.
Report 4 -D Consent
8 -2 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
July 25, 2005
Page 2of2
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion:
1, Approve the Specifications and Provisions, No. 9 -01 -2.
2. Authorize the City Clerk to advertise for formal bids for abandoned vehicle
towing services.
DK/CLO /mcn
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
Craig L. Ojala
Interim Chief of Police
"Dedicated' to Tceffence, Committed to Service"
CITY OF ALAMEDA
SPECIFICATIONS AND PROVISIONS
Proposals will be received until the hour of 2:00 PM on the 2nd day of September
2005. Proposals will be opened at 2:00 PM in the office of the City Clerk on
September 2, 2005.
1.
FOR PROPOSALS TO THE CITY OF ALAMEDA: For the towing and storage
of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled and inoperative vehicles from public and
private property as directed by authorized representatives of the Alameda
Police Department for a five (5) year period commencing October 1, 2005
through and including September 30, 2010, strictly in accordance with the
instructions, terms, conditions and specifications as herein described.
2. PROPOSALS FORM: All proposals must be made upon blank forms to be
obtained, upon application, from the City Clerk at her office at City Hall, 2263
Santa Clara Avenue Room 380, Alameda, CA 94501. Proposals and all riders
attached thereto or in support thereof, must be signed by the bidder, if the
proposal is made by an individual, his/her name and business address must be
shown. If made by a firm or partnership, the name and post office address of
each member of the firm or partnership must be shown. If made by a
corporation, the proposal must show the name of the state under the laws of
which the corporation was chartered and the name, titles, and business
addresses of the president, secretary and treasurer.
3. PRESENTATION AND MARKING: Proposals must be presented to the City
Clerk at City Hall under sealed cover and must be plainly marked on the
outside: "Proposal to Furnish Abandoned Vehicle Towing Services, to be
opened on September 2, 2005 at 2:00 PM ".
4. BIDDER'S GUARANTY: All proposals must be accompanied by a cashier's
check or a certified check, drawn on a responsible bank, or by a Bid Bond
furnished by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of
California and made payable to the City of Alameda for an amount of not less
than Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00), and no bid shall be considered
unless such check is enclosed therewith.
5. RETURN OF BIDDER'S GUARANTY: Within ten (10) days after the opening of
proposals, the City Clerk shall return the proposal guaranties accompanying
such of the proposals that are not to be considered in making the award. All
other proposal guaranties will be held until an award is made and a subsequent
contract shall have been finally executed, after which they will be returned to
the respective bidders, whose proposals they accompanied.
6. REJECTION OF PROPOSALS CONTAINING ALTERATIONS. ERASURES
OR IRREGULARITIES: Proposals may be rejected if they show any alterations
of form, additions not called far, conditional or altemative bids, incomplete bids,
erasures, or irregularities of any kind. Any statement or qualification in proposal
form or attached to, or included therewith, serving to qualify proposal, or
containing conflicting statements, or otherwise rendering the proposal
ambiguous or uncertain, will disqualify the bid. The right is reserved to reject any
or all proposals.
7
8.
10.
11.
AWARD OF CONTRACT: The award of the contract, if it is awarded, will be
made within thirty -five (35) days after the opening of the proposals. Proposal
may be withdrawn by the bidder if the award of contract is not made within
thirty -five (35) days after opening of bids.
DISCRETION IN AWARDING CONTRACT: The City of Alameda reserves the
right to accept or reject bids far any service or combination of services and to
award a contract to separate bidders far any service, or combination of services.
PENALTY FOR COLLUSION: If at any time it shall be found that the person,
firm or corporation to whom a contract has been awarded has, in presenting any
bid, colluded with any other party or parties, then the contract so awarded shall
be null and void and the bidder and his /her bondsmen shall be liable to the City
for all loss or damage which the City may suffer thereby, and the City Council
may advertise far a new contract for said services and materials. The foregoing
shall not be construed as prohibiting the formation of a legal entity by persons,
firms or corporations far the purpose of submitting a bid for the service herein
specified.
EXECUTION OF CONTRACT: The contract, in form and contents satisfactory
to the City, shall be executed by the successful bidder and returned to the City
with the necessary faithful performance bond within ten (10) working days after
the bidder has received notice that the contract has been awarded and is ready
for signature. No proposal shall be considered binding upon the City until the
execution of the contract.
The cashier's check or certified check enclosed with the proposal of the bidder
to whom the contract shall be awarded shall be retained as agreed as liquidated
damages to the City of Alameda in the event that such bidder shall fail to enter
into a contract and furnish the bond as herein required, time being of the
essence hereof.
CONTRACT FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND: Unless herein otherwise
specifically provided, the successful bidder shall furnish to the City, at the time
the contract is delivered, an approved faithful performance bond executed by a
Surety Company authorized to do business in the State of Califomia, County of
Alameda, City of Alameda and in form satisfactory to the City Attorney, in an
amount of not less than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), which bond shall
guarantee faithful performance of said contract by the successful bidder.
12. PAYMENT: Payment will be made by the City within forty -five (45) days after
aborted tow service Claims, as appropriate and their acceptance by the City or as
otherwise noted herein, in the same manner that claims of like character are paid
by the City, with warrants drawn on the Treasury of the City of Alameda.
13. GENERAL INFORMATION: All invitations to bid are offered subject to all terms,
conditions and specifications herein contained.
All bids shall be evaluated by the City and the recommended award, if it be
made, shall be made upon the basis of the lowest, responsive, responsible bid
submitted. Included in the evaluation will be the following factors: a) Local
facilities as required for performance including City Planning Department
approval for compliance with zoning requirements; b) Number of and quality of
all personnel employed; c) Adequacy and location of storage facilities, including
evaluation of storage facilities located within the City of Alameda; d) Inspection
of all equipment that the bidder proposes to use in the performance of this
contract; e) The City's past experience, if any, with the bidders and the general
reputation of the bidder.
The City will inspect bidder's facilities and equipment, prior to the
recommendation of the award and reserves the right to inspect facilities and
equipment at any time during the period of the contract. After the written
proposals have been examined and during the evaluation process, the City may
seek additional information from the bidders to clarify responses to aid in the
final selection process.
14. CONDITIONS INSTRUCTIONS AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
Proposals submitted by agents or by an attorney -in -fact of agent shall be
accompanied by a true copy of his /her Power of Attorney, or other evidence of
his /her authority to act on behalf of the principal. If the proposal is submitted by
a corporation the certificate of corporation submitting the proposal must be
executed. If the proposal is signed by the Secretary of the Corporation, the
certificate must be executed by some other officer of the corporation, under the
corporate seal. In lieu of the certificates of corporation submitting proposal, the
information required may be attached to the proposal, copies to include the
records of the corporation as will show the official character and authority of the
officer signing, duly certified by the Secretary or Assistant Secretary under the
corporate seal, to be true copies.
All proposals submitted shall be deemed to have been made with the full
acknowledgement of all terms, conditions and requirements herein contained.
Bidders may submit more than one proposal. Each proposal shall be submitted
separately with separate guaranties.
It shall be the responsibility of each individual or entity submitting proposals to
see that his /her proposal is delivered within the time and at the place prescribed
in these provisions and specifications. Proposals received prior to the time of
opening will be securely kept, unopened. No proposal or modification received
after the time set for opening shall be considered.
Proposals may be withdrawn by written or telegraphic request, which must be
received, from those submitting proposals prior to the time fixed for opening.
Proposals may be modified in the same manner and in compliance with the
same terms and conditions of this invitation. Negligence on the part of the
individual or entity submitting proposals in preparations of the proposal confers
no right for the withdrawal of the proposal after it has been opened.
15. INTERPRETATION OF SPECIFICATIONS AND ADDENDA THERETO:
Should it appear that the description of services to be furnished, or any matter
relative thereto, is not sufficiently detailed or explained in these specification, the
bidder may apply to the City Police Department, Bureau of Services Captain for
further explanation. Upon such application by any bidder, or in the event that it
appears expedient to the City Police Department, Bureau of Services Captain to
correct any ambiguity in these specifications, the City Police Department,
Bureau of Services Captain may issue addenda thereto not later than seventy -
two (72) hours prior to the time set for the opening of bids. Such addenda shall
be mailed to those prospective bidders holding these specifications in the
manner set forth in Section16 hereof.
16. NOTICE TO BIDDERS: Any notice or addenda required to be mailed to the
bidder or prospective bidders by the City of Alameda must be mailed by certified
mail to said bidder or bidders at the business address of said bidder filed with
the City of Alameda at the time that these specifications were delivered to said
prospective bidder or in lieu thereof at his /her last known business address. Any
such notice of addenda may be personally served. Evidence of such mailing
shall be deemed the equivalent of personal service of such notice of addenda.
17. GENERAL PROVISIONS:
Scope of Work:
A.
B.
C.
Successful bidder shall provide twenty -four (24) hour tow services, on call
as directed by the City of Alameda Police Department.
Successful bidder shall provide outdoor secure storage for towed vehicles
as explained later in this specification.
Successful bidder and his/her operators shall cooperate with and assist
Police Department representatives in removing hazards and vehicles as
directed by the Police Officer at the scene. The successful bidder will
assist in obtaining vehicle identification numbers, motor numbers or other
identifying information as requested.
Quantity of Work:
The City makes no guarantee whatsoever, expressed or implied as to the
number of tows, which the Police Department shall request during the contact
period. With the exception of aborted tows and services performed on City
owned vehicles, the City of Alameda shall not be liable for any charge or
charges for towing or any other allied service unless expressly agreed to in
written form by the Chief of Police and /or his representative. It being expressly
understood and agreed that the successful bidder /bidders shall make all
charges to the owner or owners of the vehicles to which the service is rendered.
Assignability:
Any assignment of this contract without the prior written consent of the City shall
be voided. Subcontractors:
The successful bidder shall perform all functions of this contract award without
the use of sub - contractors.
Inspections:
The City reserves the right to periodically inspect the successful bidder's storage
facilities, have vehicles towed and stored by the successful bidder at no charge
for the purpose of observing the conduct of the successful bidder's employees
towards the public, and to evaluate procedures to guard against theft or damage
to towed vehicles exercised by the successful bidder.
Charges for Services:
The rate structure will be established by competitive bid. The bidders must
complete Exhibit A for all cost elements. Exhibit A will become the rate structure
for the contract. Except as herein provided, the successful bidder shall not make
any other charge unless specifically authorized by the vehicle owner or his/her
authorized representative.
In addition, no charge will be made by the successful bidder if the vehicle to be
towed is removed, prior to the arrival of the towing truck.
If, however, the tow truck has arrived, the owner of the vehicle to be towed will
be subject to a service charge as described under the definition for an aborted
tow in lieu of the towing charge when the vehicle is not towed to the storage
area.
Aborted Tows:
A. An aborted tow is defined as a police tow where a tow truck is dispatched,
but no tow is made.
B.
In the event that a police tow is dispatched, but no tow is made (an
Aborted Tow), the successful bidder will be allowed to collect a service
charge in lieu of the towing charge from the vehicle owner or owners. If
the successful bidder is unable to collect the aborted tow service charge
from the vehicle owner or owners, the successful bidder may submit
billing to the City of Alameda, together with assignment of collection for
the charges. Such billing and assignment to the City must be made within
a maximum period of One Hundred Eighty (180) days from the date of the
aborted tow service, but in any case, the successful bidder is required to
make every effort to collect from the vehicle owner and the billing and
assignment to the City will follow only after a minimum of One Hundred
Twenty (120) day collection period effort by the successful bidder
computed from the date of the aborted tow service.
In addition, billing and assignment of collection to the City will be allowed
only after it is shown that the tow truck responded to the original call
within the minimum response time as shown in this specification. Where
the initial response time is longer than the minimum response time, no
billing or assignment to the City will be allowed.
Response Time:
Successful bidder shall dispatch equipment and personnel to arrive at the
location prescribed by the Police Department no later than twenty -four (24)
hours from receipt of order from the Police Department. Average response time
will be measured over time. The successful bidder will be evaluated periodically
and advised of the results.
Storage:
All vehicles, which are abandoned, wrecked, dismantled and inoperative, may be
stored in an outdoor facility that must be fenced and protected from unauthorized
entry. The fencing shall provide security and be of a type to provide adequate
screening so as to not present an unsightly appearance. The City will consider
bidders that have outdoor storage within a ten (10) mile driving radius from
central Alameda (Central Avenue and Grand Street).
24 -Hour Operation and Public Accessibility:
Successful bidder shall be required to have facilities available to the public for
removal of towed vehicles on a seven (7) day, normal work hours (8am to 6pm)
basis and the successful bidder shall post all the following information
conspicuously at all office locations open to the public:
A. Schedule of fees authorized by this contract.
B. Notice that copies of the contract and specifications are available
at the office of the tow contractor for public inspection by any
interested party.
C. Check cashing and credit card policy of the contractor.
Protection of Vehicle Contents:
A.
Successful bidder will, when assuming custody of a vehicle towed or
stored by Police Order, inventory the contents of the vehicle including
property in the unlocked storage compartments. This inventory will be
made by the successful bidder's operator and shall be on forms
approved by the Chief of Police. Notation will be made of any locked
compartment. By signature on this inventory, the successful bidder
acknowledges acceptance of legal responsibility through the action of
his /her employees, or him /herself for the safe and proper tow and
storage of the vehicle and for the security of the inventoried personal
property.
Release of Towed Vehicles:
The successful bidder shall have one telephone number that the public or
Police Department may call for information on vehicles towed pursuant to this
contract. Successful bidder's personnel answering such telephones shall be
courteous and provide complete information regarding the location of the
vehicle and method of obtaining its release, including directions to the location
to effect the release, documentation required, charges to be paid and terms of
payment. Sufficient telephone lines, equipment and personnel shall be
employed to provide public service without unreasonable delay.
The successful bidder will follow the guidelines for releasing stored vehicles as
stated below:
A.
Claimants shall be required to provide evidence satisfactory to the tow
firm representative that they are entitled to receive the vehicle. They
must have a copy of the release from the Alameda Police Department.
C.
Responsibility for release of the vehicle to a person without such
evidence devolves fully on the successful bidder. When necessary, the
Police Department will provide the successful bidder with reasonable
assistance in verifying vehicle registration information, except those
vehicles towed as abandoned during the normal course of performance
under this contract.
When the successful bidder's representative is satisfied that the
requester is entitled to the vehicle, the fees provided in this contract
award shall be collected and the requester promptly provided possession
of the vehicle. If the vehicle is stored at a location other than the one
where the fees are paid, transportation to the vehicle will be provided by
the successful bidder without any charge and in a reasonable length of
time. If transported in a tow truck, successful bidder shall take
reasonable precautions to avoid any inconvenience and /or soiling of the
customers garment.
PRIVATE PROPERTY ABATEMENT: In the event the towed vehicle has
been abated from private property under the sections 8 -22.1 through 8-
22.17 of the Alameda Municipal Code it shall not thereafter be
reconstructed or made operable as provided for in section 8 -22.13 of the
Alameda Municipal Code and 22661 (f) of the California Vehicle Code.
Repair or Alteration of Vehicles:
Successful bidder shall not make any repairs or alterations to any vehicle
without the express authorization of the registered or legal owner, and the
owner's insurance carrier. Contractor may make only emergency alterations in
order to tow the vehicle; however, no charge may be made to the owner of the
vehicle.
Two -Way Radio Communications Equipment:
Each tow truck shall be equipped with equipment capable of communications
between the successful bidder's dispatching office and the tow truck.
Error or Omissions:
A.
When any vehicle has been ordered towed by the Police Department and
it appears that the tow was in error through a mistake of fact, the
successful bidder shall release the vehicle to the owner at no cost to the
owner. In the event of a clerical error or oversight on the part of the
Police Department wherein a vehicle is stored for a period longer than it
should have been, the successful bidder shall release the vehicle to the
owner at no storage cost for such excess storage period.
B. In the above cases, if the tow or excess storage charges resulted from an
error of the Alameda Police through a mistake of fact or a clerical error,
the successful bidder may charge the City at the rate of 50% of the
towing and 50% of the storage charges per day of storage beyond the
owner's responsibility. Provided, however, that if the circumstances were
beyond the control of the Police Department, neither the City nor the
owner shall be liable for such charges.
The Chief of Police and /or his designee shall make the determination as
to errors or mistakes of fact and shall notify the successful bidder in
writing.
Administration of Contract:
The administration of this contract, after award, is assigned to the Police
Department.
Any appeals of decisions made by the Chief of Police may be made to the City
Manager of the City of Alameda within ten (10) days of the determination by the
Chief of Police. Any appeals of decisions made after this ten (10) day period
shall be deemed null and void. Any decision by the City Manager for the City of
Alameda shall be final and without further appeal.
18. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: On or before the commencement of the terms
of this agreement, the successful bidder shall furnish City with certificates
showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and
dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with the following
paragraphs. Such certificates, which do not limit the successful bidders
indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement: "Should
any of the above insurance covered by this certification be cancelled or
coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording
coverage shall provide thirty (30) days advance written notice to the City of
Alameda by certified mail, 'Attention: Risk Manager'." It is agreed that the
successful bidder shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of
this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this
Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to the City and
licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements
naming the City as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance
certificates.
A. COVERAGE:
Contractor shall maintain the following insurance
coverage:
1) Workers' Compensation:
Statutory coverage as required by the State of California.
2) Liability:
Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum
limits:
Bodily Injury:
Property Damage:
$500,000 each occurrence
$1,000,000 aggregate
all other
$100,000 each occurrence
$250,000 aggregate
If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the
amounts of $1, 000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required
minimum limits shown above.
3) Automotive:
Comprehensive automobile liability coverage in the following minimum
limits:
Bodily Injury:
$500,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence
OR
Combined Single Limit:
$1,000,000 each occurrence
4) Garage keeper's Legal Liability: $1,000,000 each occurrence
B. SUBROGATION WAIVER: The successful bidder agrees that in the event
of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide
comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance that the
successful bidder shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. The
successful bidder hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing
comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either the
successful bidder or City with respect to the services of the successful
bidder herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer
of said successful bidder may acquire against City by virtue of the
payment of any loss under such insurance.
C. FAILURE TO SECURE: If the successful bidder at any time during the
term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, City
shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the successful bidder's
name or as an agent of the successful bidder and shall be compensated
by the successful bidder for the cost of the insurance premiums at the
maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written
notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.
D.
E.
ADDITIONAL INSURED: City, its City Council, boards and commissions,
officers and employees shall be named as an additional insured under
all insurance coverage. The naming of an additional insured shall not
affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled
under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional
insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium,
deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or
any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured
shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense
covered by the insurance provided by this policy.
SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by the
City are not represented as being sufficient to protect the successful
bidder. The successful bidder is advised to consult the successful
bidder's insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for the
successful bidder.
All insurance shall be maintained at all times during the Agreement at the
expense of the successful bidder.
19. HOLD HARMLESS: The successful bidder shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers and
employees from and against any and all Toss, damages, liability, claims, suits,
cost and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
regardless of the merits or outcomes of any such claim or suit arising from or in
any manner connected to the successful bidder's negligent performance of
services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement.
The successful bidder shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City
Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against
any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, cost and expenses
whatsoever, including reasonable attorney's fees, accruing or resulting to any
and all persons, firms or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services,
materials, equipment or supplies arising from or in any manner connected to
the successful bidder's negligent performance of services or work conducted or
performed pursuant to this Agreement.
20. BIDDER: Shall be a corporation, partnership or individual of sound financial
responsibility and must offer proof of the same to the City's satisfaction by
submitting with any proposals either of the following:
A. A current business financial statement for the entity submitting a
proposal that has been prepared on a responsible bank's standard
financial statement form and that has been accepted by that bank for the
purpose of establishing a line of credit for entity submitting a proposal.
B.
C.
A notarized statement attesting to the financial ability of the organization
submitting a bid to fulfill the terms of the specifications. This may be
submitted either on the basis of existing operations within the City of
Alameda or a statement showing, under penalty of perjury the financial
capability required to operate a business which would meet the
specifications, and the ability to maintain such financing including
available assets and credit references. This notarized statement must
support a business statement for an existing corporation, partnership or
individual that is now qualified to operate as a tow contractor. Such
notarized statement must be complete and signed by an acceptable
financial institution.
In either case, the bidder must submit a separate listing of any and all
personal property and equipment either personally owned and /or
presently leased for the purpose of use to execute this contract award. If
such property is leased, proof of lease of said equipment must be
provided together with the true financial statement as indicated in
paragraph 20A or 20B.
21. FORCE MAJEURE: Neither party shall be liable for default or delay caused by
any occurrence beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to fires,
strikes, accidents, or acts of God.
22. CERTIFICATION: We hereby certify that the preceding comprises all the
Specifications and Provisions No. MSP 9 -01 -2 adopted by the City Council of
the City of Alameda on August 2, 2005 and are alike in reproduction to any and
all that will be issued to interested parties responding to the City's invitation to
bid for these services.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 26, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Amend the Consultant Contract with Signet Testing Labs, Inc.,
Modifying the Scope of Work and Increasing the Contract Limit, for the New Main
Library Project, No. P.W. 01- 03 -01, in the amount of $54,000
BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2002, the City was awarded a State Library Grant for $15,487,952 for
construction of a new library. Alameda voters previously approved Measure 0 in the amount of
$10,600,000, which will provide matching funds for the project and improvements to the branch
libraries. In addition, on December 21, 2004, the City Council authorized supplemental
construction funding of $1.74M to fully fund the contract with S. J. Amoroso.
Construction of the City's new main library commenced on March 14, 2005. On March 30,
2005, the City entered into an agreement with Signet Testing Labs, Inc. (Signet) to provide
construction observation, material testing services and special inspections during the
construction period of the new main library.
DISCUSSION
The scope of work for the original contract outlines the various types of services that Signet will
provide. Signet's proposal included the scope of work for the structural steel fabrication, but it
was not included in their current contract scope of work. At that time Signet had proposed
sending one of their employees to observe the structural steel fabrication that would take place in
Billings, Montana. In order to stay within budget, City staff proposed that it would be more cost
effective to have Signet hire a subconsultant in Montana to perform the testing. The attached
amendment describes the additional work, man- hours, and cost required for a subconsultant to
perform the testing and observation of double shifts during the structural steel fabrication in
Montana.
The current contract limit (including contingency) is $38,233 of which $27,221 is remaining.
The proposed cost for the additional services as outlined in Exhibit Al of the amendment is
$48,900. In addition, there is an approximate ten percent contingency of $5,100 included in this
amendment to cover any unforeseen conditions that may arise during structural steel fabrication,
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report 4 -E Consent
8 -2 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
July 26, 2005
resulting in a total not to exceed amount of $54,000. This will result in a revised contract limit
(including contingency) of $92,233.
Staff requests authorization for the City Manager to amend the agreement with Signet Testing
Labs, Inc.
Copy of Signet's original contract and the First Amendment to Agreement is on file with the City
Clerk's office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
This project is identified as CIP 02 -37 with a total budget of $17.4M (State Grant, Measure 0
Funds and Supplemental Funding) allocated for construction.
Funds to pay for this expected work is included in the "other professional fees" line item. There
will be no impact to the project's contingency funding by this amendment
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, amend the consultant contract
with Signet Testing Labs, Inc., modifying the scope of work and increasing the contract limit, for
the New Main Library Project, No. P.W. 01- 03 -01, in the amount of $54,000.
ectfully sub s itted,
P . ul Benoit
Assistant ity Manager
PB/RH:ms
enclosure
cc: Library Director
By: Robert G. Haun
Project Manager
O:\Library_Project\LIBRARY \ Council \ 080205\signet,amend l staffrpt.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 27, 2005
To: Mayor Beverly Johnson
Members of City Council
From: Carol A. Korade
City Attorney
Re: Resolution Empowering City Attorney To Employ Special Counsel
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On July 19, 2005, at City Council's request, the City Attorney presented a proposal for
new procedures which would provide: 1) greater Council oversight for expenditures on outside
counsel fees, 2) a competitive process for the hiring of outside counsel, and 3) monthly financial
reports on the status of expenditures on outside counsel fees. A copy of the City Attorney
Proposal is attached.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of this Resolution will have no impact on the budget or General Fund. The
outside counsel budget was appropriated by the Council on June 6, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution Empowering the City
Attorney to Employ Special Legal Counsel attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted:
Carol A. Korade
City Attorney
Attachments
REPORT 4-F
8 -2 -05
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
July 14, 2005
Mayor Beverly Johnson
Members of City Council
Carol A. Korade
City Attorney
Proposal for Council Oversight on
Expenditures from Outside Counsel Appropriations
The City Council has requested a proposal from the City Attorney which would provide
for more Council oversight for expenditures on outside counsel. In addition, Council has
requested a competitive process for the hiring of outside counsel. This memorandum addresses
these concerns.
Background and Current Procedure
The City Attorney's Office provides total legal services to the City of Alameda including
Alameda Power & Telecom, the Community Improvement Commission, the Housing Authority
of the City of Alameda, and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. These legal
services include both transactional and litigation, and are provided through a "hybrid" system of
five in -house attorneys employed by the City, and contracted outside counsel for some
specialized transactional work, such as tax and bond advice, and litigation services. By Charter,
all in -house attorneys and contracted outside counsel attorneys report to the City Attorney, and
the City Attorney reports to the Council.
The City Attorney's Office currently provides approximately 10,000 hours annually of
in -house legal services to the various City entities, through five full -time in house attorneys.
This work load is representative of that of a large private sector law- office. Because these legal
services are provided to the City entities by salaried employees, as opposed to paying for the
same legal services by the hour at market rates, currently approximately $250/hour, the City
realizes significant annual budgetary savings for in -house legal services.'
The City Attorney's office is co- counsel for all litigation matters involving the City and
all City entities, thus performing some litigation services in house, such as preparation of
discovery responses, additional research, investigation and co- preparation of some motions and
declarations, and court appearances. The City Attorney's Office does not employ sufficient in-
house attorney staff to provide dedicated litigation services for the approximately 20 cases the
City defends or initiates each year. Litigation is a full time commitment, with an average
a Given the daily legal work load, night meetings, weekend work and travel on behalf of the City entities, it is
estimated that each of the five attorneys in the City Attorney's Office work an average of 50 hours per week
(approximately 10,000 hours annually). The value of these legal services, if charged by the hour at an average
market rate of $250/hour is $2.5 million.
REPORT 5 -H
7.4 %As
Mayor Beverly Johnson and Members of the City Council
July 14, 2005
Page 2
expenditure of 140 hours per case for routine litigation matters. This 140 hours /case does not
include the hours spent in -house by the City Attorney's Office as co- counsel. Assuming 20
routine defense cases per year, this averages to a minimum of 2,800 hours of outside counsel
attorney time. Providing all litigation services in house would require the hiring of at least two
additional full -time attorneys who would be dedicated to litigation work, a law clerk or paralegal
and at least one additional legal secretary, including the provision of office space, equipment and
salary and benefits. The hiring of outside counsel on a case by case basis by the City Attorney is
the most cost effective means of providing City legal defense, given the number of suits the City
is served with each year."
The City Council annually appropriates an outside counsel budget for use by the City
Attorney's Office for each fiscal. year. The Council appropriated this funding on June 7, 2005
for fiscal year 05/06. This budget is used to fund litigation, both City- initiated and litigation
defense of the City, through the hiring by the City Attorney of outside co- counsel.
Currently, all City - initiated litigation is first authorized by the City Council, in closed
session, in accordance with the Brown Act (Govt. Code Section 54956.9(c)). Once authorized to
initiate litigation, the City Attorney hires appropriate outside co- counsel and then prepares a
confidential litigation summary and draft litigation budget within the first 30 days of the City -
initiated lawsuit. This information is presented to the Council in a confidential written report.
When the City is served with a new lawsuit (where City will be defending, not initiating
the matter), the City Council is notified by the City Attorney of the new suit within 24 -48 hours
of service. The confidential litigation notice also identifies the outside counsel to be employed
by the City Attorney as its co- counsel in the defense. Council receives periodic updates of the
progress of individual litigation and comprehensive litigation status reports bi- annually.
Proposed Changes to Litigation Procedures for City
Based on Council direction for additional oversight on expenditures from outside counsel
appropriations, the attached proposal has been prepared. This proposal contains a $35,000
spending limitation per matter, competitive bid process and other procedures. The median cost
b At a market rate of $250/hour, the cost of routine defense averages $525,000 to $700,000 (15 to 20 cases per year).
The City Attorney's Office currently provides routine and complex litigation defense, as well as significant City -
initiated litigation, through a "hybrid" of outside counsel and in -house co- counsel, on a budget of $465,000.
(e.g.,ABL and 15 Group). By contrast, providing all litigation defense services in house would be estimated to cost
in excess of $500,000 in personnel costs and equipment/supplies; the cost of providing additional office space where
none presently exists is an unknown additional expense.
The outside counsel budget has remained relatively constant for over 15 years, despite the rising cost of legal fees
($425,000 in FY 1991/92, $465,000 in FY 2005 /06). The City Attorney's Office has been able to continue to
provide high quality, cost effective legal defense to the City with this level budget by performing significant
litigation services in -house as co-counsel.. Additionally, amounts paid on all claims, settlements and judgments has
remained low, (i.e., $198,000 in FY 04/05).
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Mayor Beverly Johnson and Members of the City Council
July 14, 2005
Page 3
of litigation in the City of Alameda is currently $35,000. This means that 50% of cases will cost
less than $35,000 and 50% of cases will cost more. For expenditures over $35,000, prior
authorization from the legislative body would be required. A copy of the City Attorney Proposal
for Council Budgetary Oversight is attached.
These limitations will provide the City Council, including the various entities in which
they act, with additional budgetary oversight over outside counsel costs on a case by case basis,
without impairing the ability to provide high quality, cost effective legal services and timely
responsive pleadings and strategy for the City's defense. In litigation defense work, responsive
pleadings must be filed within 20 days in federal court, and within 30 days in state court, so it is
important to hire outside co- counsel as soon as possible. A spending limitation or threshold
equivalent to the median cost of $35,000 should be sufficient to avoid the "Catch -22" of being
unable to timely hire outside co- counsel without first requesting Council authorization to spend
any amount from the outside counsel budget—an amount which will be unknown until the matter
is discussed with the hired co- counsel. A lower spending limit will require either 1) an
immediate closed session every time a lawsuit is served, which will impair the City's ability to
timely hire co- counsel and file responsive pleadings, or 2) public meetings to request additional
spending authority, which will impair the City's ability to keep its legal advice regarding liability
matters and litigation strategy confidential.
Note, that while legal advice and strategy is an appropriate matter to be discussed in
closed session, budgetary matters and City expenditures are presented in open session. In order
to avoid the need to discuss confidential City legal matters in public session, which would
certainly disadvantage the City in both litigation and transactional matters, any spending
limitation should be sufficient to enable the City to receive confidential legal services on a case
by case basis. Fewer routine matters will cost more than $35,000 within a fiscal year, thus the
need to risk public disclosure of confidential legal advice and litigation strategy accompanying a
request for additional spending authority will arise less often.
Finally, the City Attorney's Office will be issuing Requests for Qualifications in the Fall
2005 for outside legal counsel in the various areas of specialty and litigation that the City and its
legal entities require, in order to have an available panel of outside counsel on an as needed
basis. This process will continue to provide the most cost effective outside counsel services to
the City by encouraging competition among qualified law firms. The City Attorney's Office will
limit its use of outside counsel to this legal panel, and as a result the City Council will know
which outside counsel are assigned to work on City matters. Any new attorney contracts can be
subject to a $35,000 limitation per matter, with any requests for expenditures to exceed this limit
being first presented to the City Council for approv
Attachment
Carol A. Korade
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY ATTORNEY PROPOSAL
FOR COUNCIL OVERSIGHT OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL EXPENSES
Limitations on Spending Outside Counsel Budget
• * City Attorney is authorized by Council to spend up to $35,000 per matter from
appropriated budget without prior Council approval
o $35,000 authorization protects the City from revealing confidential legal
advice regarding liability and/or litigation strategy in open session
o Protects the City's ability to hire outside counsel quickly in order to meet
Court deadlines:
• 20 days to file Answer /responsive pleading in federal court, plus
additional attorney meet and confer requirements
• 30 days to file Answer /responsive pleading in state court
o Protects the City from the "Catch -22" of not hiring outside counsel until
an initial outside counsel budget is approved by Council
• Outside counsel participates in the strategy of the City
defense /legal project in order to prepare a budget
• Outside counsel works with City staff/witnesses to prepare defense
• Changing outside counsel after initial work has begun is not cost
effective, and is problematic for witness preparation/investigation,
particularly for police defense matters
o Consistent with estimated legal fees for current open cases, $35,000 is the
median for litigation costs per case
• City - initiated litigation requires prior City Council authorization
o City Attorney presents matter, including proposed legal budget, to City
Council in closed session before hiring outside co- counsel
* For matters estimated to cost less than $35,000, City Attorney hires outside co-
counsel from legal panel selected through RFQ process
•
Page 1
*Proposed changes to current procedure
• * City Attorney meets with Council in closed session within 35 days and
provides an analysis of the litigation, including litigation costs, as a confidential
document if any of the following apply:
o Estimated to exceed $35,000 in defense costs
o Involving policy questions
o Having significant ramifications for the City
o If requested by City Council
Limitations on Settlement Authority
• City Attorney's settlement authority is limited to $15,000 for all matters;
settlement proposals exceeding $15,000 must be approved by City Council
Reporting Requirements
• The City Attorney keeps the Council apprised of the status of the litigation
through periodic confidential reports
• *Quarterly financial reports provided to City Council on costs of outside counsel
• City Attorney provides confidential bi- annual litigation status reports to Council
in January and July, with updated budget and analysis
o Litigation status reports identify outside co- counsel for each case
o Litigation status reports summarize the proceedings for each City initiated
and defense case, including all "closed" cases for the current fiscal year
and the preceding five (5) fiscal years
o Litigation status reports include more detailed, separate confidential
analysis provided for each litigation matter as attachments to the litigation
status report
o Litigation status report includes costs of litigation and any
settlements /payments made by the City
• City Attorney meets periodically in closed session with Council to discuss any
pending litigation matter
* Proposed change to current procedure
Page 2
Limitations on Hiring of Outside Counsel
• *City Attorney will seek Requests for Qualifications ( "RFQ ") for outside counsel
legal services for legal panel and City Attorney use of outside counsel will be
limited to legal panel
o Will advertise by RFQ in Fall 2005 to create the following four outside
counsel panels:
1) Bond Counsel
2) Litigation Defense (Tort, Public Safety, Construction Contract)
3) Real Property /Condemnation/Unlawful Detainer
4) Miscellaneous Specialty (such as Tax, Labor, Federal/BRAC,
Environmental /CEQA/land use, Airport)
o City Attorney selects most qualified attorneys for each legal panel, based
on qualifications, experience, specialization, references and competitive
rates
• *All new contracts for the outside counsel legal panel will be subject to the
$35,000 spending limitation, without express authority to exceed the budget; City
Attorney may not exceed this limitation on budgeted appropriations without
seeking Council authorization in open session
* Proposed change to current procedure
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
EMPOWERING CITY ATTORNEY
TO EMPLOY SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA that the City
p Attorney is hereby empowered to employ special legal counsel pursuant to Charter Section 8 -5 in
LS.. ccordance with the following:
0
pLimitations on Spending Outside Counsel Budget
e • City Attorney is authorized by Council to spend up to $35,000 per matter from
y, appropriated budget without prior Council approval.
• City - initiated litigation requires prior City Council authorization.
o City Attorney presents matter, including proposed legal bu to City
Council in closed session before hiring outside co- counsel.
• For matters estimated to cost less than $35,000, City Attorney hires outside co-
counsel from legal panel selected through RFQ process.
• City Attorney meets with Council in closed session within 35 days and provides
an analysis of the litigation, including litigation costs, as a confidential document
if any of the following apply:
o Estimated to exceed $35,000 in defense costs.
o Involving policy questions.
o Having significant ramifications for the City.
o If requested by City Council.
Limitations on Settlement Authority
• City Attorney's settlement authority is limited to $15,000 for all matters;
settlement proposals exceeding $15,000 must be approved by City Council.
Reporting Requirements
• The City Attorney keeps the Council apprised of the status of the litigation
through periodic confidential reports.
• Monthly financial reports provided to City Council on costs of outside counsel
(includes transactional matters as well as litigation).
• City Attorney provides confidential bi- annual litigation status reports to Council
in January and July, with updated budget and analysis.
Resolution # 4 -F CC
8 -2 -05
o Litigation status reports identify outside co- counsel for each case.
o Litigation status reports summarize the proceedings for each City initiated
and defense case, including all "closed" cases for the current fiscal year
and the preceding five (5) fiscal years.
o Litigation status reports include more detailed, separate confidential
analysis provided for each litigation matter as attachments to the litigation
status report.
o Litigation status report includes costs of litigation and any
settlements /payments made by the City.
• City Attorney meets periodically in closed session with Council to discuss any
pending litigation matter.
Limitations on Hiring of Outside Counsel
• City Attorney will seek Requests for Qualifications (RFQ) for outside legal
services for legal panel and City Attorney use of outside counsel will be limited to
legal panel.
o Will advertise by RFQ in Fall 2005 to create the following four outside
counsel panels:
1) Bond Counsel
2) Litigation Defense (Tort, Public Safety, Construction Contract)
3) Real Property /Condemnation/Unlawful Detainer
4) Miscellaneous Specialty (such as Tax, Labor, Federal/BRAC,
Environmental/CEQA/Municipal, Land Use, Airport)
o City Attorney selects most qualified attorneys for each legal panel, based
on qualifications, experience, specialization, references and competitive
rates.
• All new contracts for the outside counsel legal panel will be subject to the
$35,000 spending limitation, without express authority to exceed the budget; City
Attorney may not exceed this limitation on budgeted appropriations without
seeking Council authorization in open session.
Public Utilities Board
• The City Council hereby consents to the Public Utilities Board empowering the
City Attorney, at his/her request, to employ special legal counsel.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2005, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the said
City this day of , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY
AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER XXX
(DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1. Section 30 -2 (Definitions) of Article I (Zoning Districts and
O Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) are hereby amended by
LL. adding or revising the following definitions:
cc
0 Building Height (maximum), shall be established by an assumed plane, as
measured perpendicularly from the existing grade, and as prescribed by the
subject zoning district. Except as provided for under section 30 -5.8 (Height
>' Exceptions), no portion of the structure, including any part of the roof, may
project above the assumed plane.
Grade, Existing (Adjacent Ground Elevation) is the lowest point of elevation of
the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between
the building and the property line or, when the property line is more than 5 feet
from the building, between the building and a line 5 feet from the building.
Story is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any
floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story
shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the
topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the fmished floor level directly
above a usable or unused under -floor space is more than 6 feet above grade, as
defined in the Alameda Building Code, for more than 50 percent of the total
perimeter or is more than 12 feet above grade, as defined in the Alameda
Building Code, at any point, such usable or unused under floor space shall be
considered as a story.
Section 2. Section 30 -2 (Definitions) of Article I (Zoning Districts and
Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) are hereby amended by
repealing the following definition:
Basement shall mean a space partly or wholly underground and having more
than one -half (' /2) its height measured from its floor to its finished ceiling below
the average adjoining grade. If the finished floor level directly above a basement
is more than six (6') feet above grade at any point, such basement shall be
considered a story.
Section 3. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -4.1, (R -1, One - Family Residence District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses
Final Passage of Ordinance # 5 -A
8 -2 -05
and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30- 4.1(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
4. Building Height Limit: not to exceed thirty (30') feet.
6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty (20 %) percent of the
lot width (as defined in Section 30- 2-- Definitions), and no side yard may
either be less than five (5') feet or be required to be more than ten (10') feet.
The side yard on the street side of a corner lot shall not be less than ten (10')
feet.
Section 4. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -4.2 (R -2, Two - Family Residence District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses
and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30- 4.2(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
4. Building Height Limit: not to exceed thirty (30') feet.
6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty (20 %) percent of the
lot width as measured at the front yard (as defined in Section 30-2- -
Definitions), and no side yard may either be less than five (5') feet or be
required to be more than ten (10') feet. The side yard on the street side of a
corner lot shall not be less than ten (10') feet.
Section 5. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -4.3 (R -3 Garden Residential District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and
Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30- 4.3(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
4. Building Height Limit: not to exceed thirty five (35') feet.
6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty (20 %) percent of the
lot width as measured at the front yard (as defined in Section 30 -2 - -.
Definitions), and no side yard may either be less than five (5') feet or be
required to be more than ten (10') feet. The side yard on the street side of a
corner lot shall not be less than ten (10') feet.
Section 6. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -4.4 (R -4, Neighborhood Residential District) of Section 30 -4 (District
Uses and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30- 4.4(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
4. Building Height Limit: not to exceed thirty five (35') feet.
6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty (20 %) percent of the
lot width as measured at the front yard (as defined in Section 30-2- -
Defmitions), and no side yard may either be less than five (5') feet or be
required to be more than ten (10') feet. The side yard on the street side of a
corner lot shall not be less than ten (10') feet.
Section 7. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -5, (R -5, General Residential District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and
Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30- 4.5(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
4. Building Height Limit: not to exceed forty (40) feet.
6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty (20 %) percent of the
lot width as measured at the front yard (as defined in Section 30-2- -
Definitions), and no side yard may either be less than five (5') feet or be
required to be more than ten (10') feet. The side yard on the street side of a
corner lot shall not be less than ten (10') feet.
Section 8. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -4.6 (R -6, Hotel Residential District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and
Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30- 4.6(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
4. Building Height Limit: not to exceed fifty (50) feet.
6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty (20 %) percent of the
lot width as measured at the front yard (as defined in Section 30-2- -
Definitions), and no side yard may either be less than five (5') feet or be
required to be more than ten (10') feet. The side yard on the street side of a
corner lot shall not be less than ten (10') feet.
Section 9. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -4.7 (AP, Administrative- Professional District) of Section 30 -4 (District
Uses and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30- 4.7(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty (20 %) percent of the lot
width as measured at the front yard (as defined in Section 30 -2 --
Definitions), and no side yard may either be less than seven (7') feet or be
required to be more than twenty (20') feet. The side yard on the street side
of a corner lot shall not be less than ten (10') feet.
Section 10. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -4.8 (C -1, Neighborhood Business District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses
and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30- 4.8(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
4. Side Yard: No setback shall be required, except where the side yard of a lot
abuts an R District, then a minimum side yard of five (5') feet shall be
maintained.
Section 11. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -4.9 (C -2, Central Business District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and
Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30- 4.8(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
5. Side Yard: No setback shall be required, however if a setback is provided,
then it shall be a minimum of twelve (12') feet. As to lots with side yards
that abuts an R District, a minimum side yard of five (5') feet shall be
maintained.
Section 12. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -5.7 (k) of Subsection 30 -5.7 (Projections from buildings and Roof
Planes, Permitted Encroachments, and Treatments of Minimum Required Yards) of
Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations) to read as follows:
k. Exceptions to allow additions with less than the required minimum side
yards. If a main building has less than the required side yard setback,
additions may be approved with existing setbacks, or none, if none exist, if
the following finding can be made: No adverse effects such as shading or
view blockage will occur on adjoining properties.
1. New cantilevered projections above the first story which are to have the
same or less horizontal area as an existing first story projection, may be
approved with the existing projection's setbacks.
2. If necessary to make the finding in the section above, or to address Design
Review or building code concerns, the Director may require a setback
greater than those existing, but still allow a setback(s) that is less than the
minimum required side yard or street side yards of corner lots prescribed by
the subject zoning district.
Section 13. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -5.7 (1) of Subsection 30 -5.7 (Projections from buildings and Roof
Planes, Permitted Encroachments, and Treatments of Minimum Required Yards) of
Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations) to read as follows:
1. In exception to the setback requirements of this chapter for stories above the
ground floor, an addition at the second floor level may be approved with
exterior walls in the same plane as the walls of the existing building below if
the following finding can be made: No adverse effects such as shading or
view blockage will occur on adjoining properties.
1. If necessary to make the finding in the section above, or to address Design
Review or building code concerns, the Director may require a setback
greater than those existing, but still allow a setback(s) that is less than the
minimum required side yard or street side yard of corner lots prescribed by
the subject zoning district.
Section 14. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -7.8 (Location of Parking Spaces and Prohibited Parking Areas) of
Section 30 -7 (Off - Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations) of Article I (Zoning
Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as
follows:
30 -7.8 Location of Parking Spaces and Prohibited Parking Areas
All parking spaces, whether required or in excess of this section, shall be
provided on the same parcel as the use which is generating the parking demand.
A use permit shall be required if parking spaces, whether required or in excess
of this section, are proposed on a separate parcel than the use which is
generating the parking demand. Parking spaces provided in compliance with
this section are subject to the following additional requirements:
Residential Zones, and Residential Uses in Non - residential Zones:
1. No parking space may be located in any minimum required front yard, or in
any minimum required side yard on the street side of any corner lot.
Parking spaces may be located within minimum required side and rear
yards, subject to the requirements of subsection 30- 7.10.a: Perimeter
Landscaping Required.
2. The parking of vehicles within any minimum required front yard, or in any
minimum required side yard on the street side of any corner lot, is
prohibited.
(a) Exception to parking prohibition: Driveways used to provide access
to required parking spaces may be used to provide ancillary parking
provided the parking is not located in the required front yard or the street
side yard of any corner lot. Driveways used for such ancillary parking
may not exceed the maximum permitted widths as prescribed by
subsection 30-7.9.f. 1 .(a). Such ancillary parking shall not be considered
toward meeting the requirements of Subsection 30 -7.6; Schedule of
Required Minimum Off - Street Parking Spaces.
3. See subsection 30 -5.7.f for additional provisions related to the location of
garages.
b. Non - residential Uses in Non - residential Zones. Parking spaces may be
located between the main building(s) and the street frontage(s), subject to
the requirements of Subsection 30- 7.10.a: Perimeter Landscaping Required.
c. Non - residential Parking in Residential Zones. Parking for uses not allowed
in a residential zone shall not be located in that residential zone.
Section 15. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -37.1 (Definitions) of section 30 -37 (Design Review Regulations) of
Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) Article II (Structural Design Review
Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows:
e. Replacement -in -kind shall mean the replacement of any structure or
architectural element which is identical to the original structure in terms of
location, size, and shape; and is made of materials that outwardly have the
same dimensions, proportions, details and textures of the original and that
outwardly appear unchanged from the original.
Section 16. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing
Subsection 30 -20.3 (Changes Permitted) of Section 30 -20 (Nonconforming Buildings
and Uses) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) in its entirety.
Section 17. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a
new Subsection 30 -20.3 (Nonconforming Buildings with Conforming Residential Uses)
to Section 30 -20 (Nonconforming Buildings and Uses) of Article I (Zoning Districts
and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -20.3 Nonconforming Buildings with Conforming Residential Uses.
Nonconforming buildings, with conforming residential uses in Residential
zoning districts, may be reconstructed, with an equal or lesser nonconformity to
the Development Standards of this Chapter, subject to the approval process for
improvements, as outlined in Section 30 -37; Design Review Requirements.
Such reconstruction may occur to repair damage as defined by sub - section
30.20.4 below, or, as part of any duly permitted project to repair, remodel or
replace an existing non - conforming structure. For reconstruction of
nonconforming buildings with residential uses in Residential zoning districts,
the value limitations prescribed by subsection 30 -20.4 do not apply.
Section 18. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing
Subsection 30 -20.4 (Restoration of Damaged Buildings) of Section 30 -20
(Nonconforming Buildings and Uses) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of
Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) in its entirety
Section 19. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a
new Subsection 30 -20.3 (Nonconforming Buildings with Conforming Residential Uses)
to Section 30 -20 (Nonconforming Buildings and Uses) of Article I (Zoning Districts
and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -20.4 Changes to, and Restoration of Nonconforming Buildings and Uses.
Notwithstanding the provisions in 30.20.3 to allow reconstruction of
nonconforming buildings with residential uses in Residential zoning districts,
the following regulations apply to nonconforming uses and buildings:
a. Changes Permitted No nonconforming building or use shall be enlarged,
extended, reconstructed or structurally altered, unless it is changed to
conform to the regulations specified by this section, provided that routine
maintenance and repairs required by applicable health and safety codes shall
be permitted in an aggregate amount during a five (5) year period of not to
exceed one hundred (100 %) percent of the total appraised valuation as
verified by a certified appraiser selected by the City, and conducted at the
property owner's expense.
b. Restoration of Damaged Buildings. If at any time any nonconforming use
or building shall be destroyed by fire, explosion, or act of God to the extent
of more than seventy (70 %) percent of the value thereof, then, and without
further action by the City Council, the building and the land on which said
building was located or maintained shall from and after the date of such
destruction be subject to all the regulations of the district in which such land
and/or building are located. For the purposes of this section, the value of any
building shall be the estimated cost of the replacement of the building in
kind, as determined by the Building Official. Where any nonconforming
building shall have been destroyed less than seventy (70 %) percent, as
specified above, a building permit for its restoration shall be secured not
later than one (1) year from the date of such destruction and the restoration
shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of issuance of the
building permit.
Section 20. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final
passage.
Presiding Officer of the Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted
and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2005, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this day of , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
E
LL.
0
y..
CO
w
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY DECLARING
BOUTIQUE THEATERS TO BE USES PERMITTED BY USE
PERMIT WITHIN THE C -1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICT OF CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS)
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following
new definition to Section 30 -2 (Definitions):
Boutique Theater: A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live
performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one
screen in the theater.
Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding to Section 30-
4.8(c) (Uses Requiring Use Permits) Subsection 9 as follows:
9. Boutique Theater
Section 3. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City Council of
Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this ordinance is
held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining
provisions of this ordinance.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the
expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Presiding Officer of the Council
Final Passage of Ordinance # 5 -B
8 -2 -05
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted
and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2005, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this day of , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
The Public Hearing is to be continued to August 16, 2005.
Re: Public Hearing #5 -C
8 -2 -05
The Public Hearing is to be continued to August 16, 2005.
Re: Public Hearing #5 -D
8 -2 -05
Headquarters Southern California Office
1400 K STREET 602 East Huntington Dr., Ste. C
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 Monrovia, CA 91016
PH: (916) 658 -8200 PH: (626) 305 -1315
Fx: (916) 658 -8240 Fx: (626) 305 -1345
July 6, 2005
n t 1;
LEAGUE
COF CALIFORNIA
ITIES
WWW.CACITI ES. ORG
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Pat Eklund, League President, Council Member, Novato
Re: Designation of Voting Delegate for 2005 League Annual Conference
The League's 2005 Annual Conference is scheduled for Thursday, October 6 through
Saturday, October 8 in San Francisco. One very important aspect of the Annual
Conference is the Annual Business Meeting where the membership takes action on
conference resolutions. Annual conference resolutions guide cities and the League in
our efforts to improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of local government in
California. It is important that all cities be represented at the Annual Business
Meeting on Saturday, October 8th, at 10:30 a.m. at the San Francisco Moscone
Convention Center West.
To expedite the conduct of business at this important policy- making meeting, each city
council should designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be registered
at the conference and present at the Annual Business Meeting. A voting card will be
given to the city official that is designated and indicated on the enclosed "Voting
Delegate Form."
Please complete and return the enclosed form to the League's Sacramento office at the
earliest possible time (not later than Monday, September 6, 2005), so that proper
records may be established for the conference.
The city's designated voting delegate may pick up the city's voting card at the Voting
Card desk located in the League registration area. The Desk will be open on October 6,
7, and 8. Voting cards should be picked up before the Annual Business Meeting on
October 8th.
The voting procedures to be followed at this conference are printed on the reverse side
of this memo.
Your help in returning the attached "Voting Delegate Form" as soon as possible is
appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Lorraine Okabe at (916) 658 -8236.
Council Communication #7 -A
8 -2 -05
o E Aj oU E
CITIES
Annual Conference Voting Procedures
1. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League
policy.
2. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's
voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee.
3. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city should designate a voting delegate and
an alternate and return the Voting Delegate Form to the League Credentials
Committee.
4. The voting delegate, or alternate, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting
card desk in the conference registration area.
5. Free exchange of the voting card between the voting delegate and alternate is
permitted.
6. If neither the voting delegate nor alternate is able to attend the Business Meeting,
the voting delegate or alternate may pass the voting card to another official from
the same city by appearing in person before a representative of the Credentials
Committee to make the exchange. Prior to the Business Meeting, exchanges may
be made at the "Voting Card" table in the League Registration Area. At the
Business Meeting, exchanges may be made at the "Voting Card" table in the front
of the meeting room. Exchanges may not be made while a roll call vote is in
progress because the Credentials Committee will be conducting the roll call.
7. Qualification of an initiative resolution is judged in part by the validity of signatures.
Only the signatures of city officials who are authorized to use the city's voting
card, and who have left a sample of their signature on file for the Credentials
Committee, will be approved.
8. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the right of a city
official to vote at the Business Meeting.
CITY:
LEAGUE
CITIES
2005 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
VOTING DELEGATE FORM
1. VOTING DELEGATE:
(Name)
(Title)
2. VOTING ALTERNATE:
(Name)
(Title)
ATTEST:
(Name)
(Title)
PLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN TO:
League of California Cities
Attn: Lorraine Okabe
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: (916) 658 -8240
Deadline: Monday, September 6, 2005
F: \ M9 \ DENT \DENT_010.XML H.L.C.
109TH CONGRESS
1-1 1ST SESSION
• R.
(Original Signature of Member)
To amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to limit casino expansion.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. DENT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on
A BILL
To amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to limit casino
expansion.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON INDIAN LAND ELIGIBLE FOR
4 GAMING.
5 (a) SHORT TITLE. —This section may be cited as the
6 "Limitation of Tribal Gambling to Existing Tribal Lands
7 Act of 2005 ".
F: \V9 \062005 \062005.120 (32337513)
June 20, 2005 (1:53 PM)
Re: 7B Council Comm.
8 -2 -05
F: \M9 \DENT \DENT_010.XML H.L.C.
2
1 (b) REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS.— Section
2 20(b)(1) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C.
3 2719(b)(1)) is amended -
4 (1) by striking subparagraph (B);
5 (2) in subparagraph (A) by striking "; or" and
6 inserting a period; and
7 (3) by striking "Subsection (a) of this section"
8 and all that follows through "(A) the Secretary" and
9 inserting "Subsection (a) of this section will not
10 apply when the Secretary ".
11 (c) APPROVAL OF STATE LEGISLATURE.— Section
12 20(b)(1)(A) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25
13 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking "only if the
14 Governor" and inserting "only if the Governor and the leg -
15 islature ".
16 (d) APPLICABILITY. —The amendments made by this
17 section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of
18 this Act. Such amendments shall not apply to lands regu-
19 lated, on the date of the enactment of this Act, by a valid
20 Tribal -State compact that was entered into under the In-
21 dian Gaming Regulatory Act before the date of the enact-
22 ment of this Act.
F: \V9 \062005 \062005.120 (32337513)
June 20, 2005 (1:53 PM)