The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-04-04 PacketTime: CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - APRIL 4, 2006 - - - 5:20 P.M. REVISED Tuesday, April 4, 2006, 5:20 p.m. Place: Cif. Hall Conference Room 360, 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 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 LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency Negotiators: Employee Organizations: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director. Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees Association. 3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency Negotiators: Employee: Lisa Mills. City Manager. 3 -C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Property: 1041 W. Midway and Various Easements in Alameda, California. Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Power and Telecom. Under negotiation: Price and terms. 3 -D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Ballena Isle Marina. City of Alameda and Ballena Isle Marina LLP. Price and terms. 3 -E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: Alameda Belt Line v. City of Alameda Alameda Belt Line v. City of Alameda City of Alameda v. Alameda Belt Line. 3 -F. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: Citizens for a Megaplex -Free Alameda v. City of Alameda, Community Improvement Commision, Planning Board, and City Council. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment Revised: 3/31/06 Beverly Johnson, Mayor 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 AGENDA DATE & TIME LOCATION REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Tuesday, April 4, 2006, 7:25 PM 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 January 3, 2006. Acceptance is recommended. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service." Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners April 4, 2006 Page 2 2 -B. Minutes of the Special Board of Commissioner meeting held January 3, 2006. Acceptance is recommended. 3. AGENDA 3 -A. Adopting Housing Authority Budget for Fiscal Years FY2007 and FY2008. The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend that the Board of Commissioners: 1. Adopt the proposed budget, including the Extraordinary Maintenance Projects line item, for fiscal years 2006 -07 and 2007 -2008; for FY2007 and FY2008. 2. Adopt the proposed resolution for both budget years for the Conventional Low - Rent Housing Program No. CA062 (Esperanza); and 3. Recommend to the City Council to waive the Payment in Lieu of Taxes for both fiscal years. 3 -B. Resolving to Reappoint of Michael Torrey as the Tenant Commissioner of the Board of Commissioners. Resolve to reappoint Michael Torrey as the Tenant Commissioner of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. 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, Secretary, 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 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. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY APRIL 4, 2006 - - - - 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 CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) REGULAR MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD 7:25 p.m. OF COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL a City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation declaring April 2 through 8, 2006 as Boys and Girls Club Week in Alameda. 3 -B. Proclamation declaring April 4, 2006 as "Video Station" Owners Appreciation Day. 3 -C. 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 and Regular City Council Meetings held on March 21, 2006. (City Clerk) 4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recommendation to accept the Interstate 880 /Broadway- Jackson Interchange Feasibility Study. (Public Works) 4 -D. Recommendation to accept the work of SpenCon Construction, Inc. for the Fiscal Year 2005 -2006 repair of concrete sidewalks, No. P.W. 07- 05 -06. (Public Works) 4 -E. Recommendation to authorize the City of Alameda's continued participation in the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program for Fiscal Year 2007 -2010. (Development Services) 4 -F. Recommendation to release Request for Proposals for Thin Client Public Access System for the Alameda Free Library. (Library) 4 -G. Recommendation to release Request for Proposals for equipment, software, and services for a computer laboratory for the Alameda Free Library. (Library) 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Arthur A. Autorino as a Member of the Economic Development Commission; and • Adoption of Resolution Appointing Irene Balde as a Member of the Housing Commission. 5 -B. Final Passage of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., from R -4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District to R -4 -PD (Neighborhood Residential Planned Development) Zoning District for that Property Located at 1810 and 1812 Clinton Avenue. (Planning and Building) 5 -C. Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Board's failed motion regarding Final Development Plan FDP05 -003, Major Design Review DR05 -0127, and Tentative Parcel Map TM05- 003 for three new commercial buildings; and adoption of related Resolutions. The property is located at 2201 Harbor Bay Parkway. Applicant: Venture Corporation. (Planning and Building) 5 -D. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $1,246,200.00 to East Bay Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of the 4 -acre Bayport Park. (Development Services /Recreation and Park) 5 -E. Adoption of Resolution Maintaining the City of Alameda's Authority in Negotiating Franchise Agreements for Telecommunications Services and Adopting the Principles for Federal Consideration of a New Telecommunications Regulatory Framework. (Finance) 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) Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended. 7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Film Commission. 7 -B. Report on AC Transit Inter - agency Liaison Committee meeting and discussion of AC Transit's use of the High Street Bridge. [ Councilmember Matarrese] 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 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, JANUARY 3, 2006 The Board of Commissioners was called to order at 7:38 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Torrey and Chair Johnson. Absent: None. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Gilmore moved acceptance of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Torrey seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Items accepted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. *2 -A. Minutes of the Special Board of Commissioner meeting held August 2, 2005. Minutes accepted. *2 -B. Budget Revision for the Fiscal Year FY2006. The Board of Commissioners: 1. Adopted the proposed budget revision for FY2006; and 2. Approved the resolution amending the budget for Esperanza. *2 -C. Award of Contract for Playground Rehabilitation at Parrot Village and Eagle Village to Kids Play. The Board of Commissioners: 1. Approved a contract with Kids Play to rehabilitate the playgrounds at Eagle Village and Parrot Village for $139,677.38, allowing up to $13,322.60 in change orders, for a total not to exceed $153,000 for both projects; and 2. Authorized the Executive Director to execute the contract. Minutes 2 -A 4 -4 -06 "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service." Minutes of January 3, 2006 Regular Board of Commissioners Meeting Page 2 *2 -D. Approve Award of Contract for Kitchen and Bath Cabinets and Countertops to Lowest Bidder. The Board of Commissioners: 1. Approved awarding a contract to Bay Cities for an amount not to exceed $321,700, which includes up to 10 percent for change orders at Esperanza and 5 percent for change orders at Parrot Village and Eagle Village to replace kitchen and bath cabinets and countertops at these three complexes; and 2. Authorized the Executive Director to execute the contract. *2 -E. Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2005. The Board of Commissioners accepted the audit report for the year ending June 30, 2005. 3. AGENDA 3 -A. Resolving to Revise the Rules and Procedures of the Housing Authority to Include Provisions for the Tenant Commissioner. Chair Johnson suggested, under Article II, Section 8, General Counsel, to make this language match the language on hiring outside attorneys recently adopted for the City Council. Chair Johnson also said the Rules (Article III, Section 1, Regular Meetings) should be amended to include "other designated locations." Commissioner Daysog moved to resolve to revise the Rules and Procedures of the Housing Authority to provide for the qualifications, appointment, term, and duties of the Tenant Commissioner and to add "other designated locations" for meetings. Commissioner Torrey seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. None. 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Torrey wished everyone a Happy New Year. Commissioner deHaan asked about the mini -park and the land swap. Mr. Pucci advised there was a set -back with the General Services Administration and National Park Services regarding a substitution of the Parrot mini -park. He said the Housing Authority is submitting more information on the Parrot mini -park site to allow for transfer of the deed restriction from the Neptune Park site. This has been a long process which he hopes to have resolved in the summer. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:43 p.m. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Minutes of January 3, 2006 Regular Board of Commissioners Meeting Page 3 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 54501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TOO: (510) 522 -8467 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA HOUSING AUTHORITY TUESDAY - - - JANUARY 3, 2006 - - - 7:10 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Torrey and Chair Johnson — 6. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Govt. C. Sect. 54956.8). Property: 1450 Broadway Negotiating Parties: Housing Authority Executive Director and Dr. Gousius Under Negotiation: Price and terms Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced that regarding the Real Property Negotiations on 1450 Broadway, the Board obtained a briefing by real property negotiators. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Beverly Johnson, Chair Minutes 2 -B 4 -4 -06 Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94507 -2161 -Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522- 7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 April 4, 2006 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners FROM: Debra Kurita Chief Executive Officer RE: Adopting Housing Authority Budget for Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008 BACKGROUND The Housing Authority has traditionally submitted its budget to the Board of Commissioners in April for adoption. This was done because the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had required submission 90 days prior to the beginning of the new fiscal year. HUD now has changed to requiring submission of a budget on a calendar year basis. The Housing Commission had the opportunity to review the proposed budget for the two upcoming fiscal years on March 22, 2006. DISCUSSION The Housing Authority's budget for housing program activities is consolidated into six funds. Exhibit A is the proposed budget for the next two fiscal years, July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007 (FY2007) and July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008 (FY2008). The comparison pages show both years next to the current fiscal year. The proposed FY2007 budget totals $27,451,311, a 1.3 percent decrease from the current fiscal year. For FY2008, the proposed budget totals $27,975,159, a 1.9 percent increase over FY2007. This modest increase is an assumption of the rate of inflation anticipated for most expenses. OPERATING INCOME Operating income is derived from a variety of sources, including: o Housing Assistance Payments for Playa del Alameda (General Fund) and the Section 8 Program, an operating subsidy and federal grant funding (Capital Fund Program) for Esperanza. o Rental income from residents and commercial tenants Report 3 -A 4 -4 -06 Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners April 4, 2006 Page 2 of 9 o Interest income. o Other income, including a contribution from the Community Improvement Commission for Independence Plaza; fees from the Filipino- American Community Services Agency (FACSA) for managing two complexes; land trust rents for the Regent Street and Santa Clara Avenue properties; and miscellaneous income from late fees, maintenance charges, and laundry commissions. The following chart demonstrates that the Housing Authority's major funding source (86 %) is the federal government. Just over 11.0 percent Rents comes from rents and 2.6 percent 11% from refinancing, interest and other income. Revenues are down from FY2006 primarily due to lower Administrative Fees, a result of the increase in the ratio of Housing Choice Voucher holders who have ported out of Alameda to those that have remained. INCOME Bond Int. /Other Funds ncome 2% 1% Due to the continued uncertainty about the level of federal funding of the Housing Choice Voucher Program, the proposed budget anticipates little change in funding next fiscal year for this tenant -based Section 8 program. The Authority anticipates receiving $19,362,996 in Housing Assistance Payments that are offset, by payments to Alameda's property owners. An additional $1,415,183 in fees to administer this program also is expected. The operating subsidy for Esperanza ($161,481) is formula based. The Capital Fund grant is budgeted at $228,000, approximately the same amount being received this fiscal year. This grant funding helps to cover operating costs at Esperanza, freeing up income from other sources to make a few improvements. Federal funding is not adequate to meet Esperanza's needs. For instance, the buildings need to be painted but, with an expected deficit exceeding $67,000, an additional $350,000 expense could not be added. For all funds, rental income is expected to increase slightly. Interest income is expected to stay the same or increase slightly depending on the fund. Other miscellaneous sources of income are expected to increase slightly in most funds. ederal unding 86% Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners EXPENDITURES: April 4, 2006 Page 3 of 9 The majority of expenditures are for Housing Assistance Payments to property owners participating in the Housing Choice Voucher program. These payments subsidize the rents paid by their tenants that have vouchers. This public /private partnership works to house about 1600 families in Alameda and pumps more than $19 million into the local economy every year. Operating Expenses make up 21 percent of the total budget. This is the portion that enables the Authority to administer its managed housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs. No Capital Expenses, such as replacement vehicles, are proposed in the budget for FY2007 or FY2008. EXPENSES Operating Expenses Mortgage /Reserves 4% MPs 4% HAP 71% Mortgage payments and payments into equipment and building replacement reserves make up 4 percent of the budget. In the last budget, these costs made up 6 percent of total expenditures. The refinancing of Parrot Village, Eagle Village and China Clipper Plaza has produced a substantial savings. As previously mentioned, the vast majority (71%) of the budget is used to pay Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) to Alameda's landlords who participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. OPERATING BUDGET: Operating expenses are broken down into five broad categories. These include: 1. Administrative Expenses: Salaries, legal expenses, and sundry are included in this category. The schedule of Authorized Positions is shown on page 6 of the proposed budget (Exhibit A). No change in the number of employees is proposed; in addition, two positions that are unfunded this fiscal year remain unfunded in FY2007 and FY2008. The cost of employee benefits has risen, primarily the cost for the pension and health insurance plans. Legal expenses are expected to remain unchanged next year. The sundry line item includes office supplies and equipment (e.g., computers, printers), travel and training, audit fees, telephone expenses, publications, and administrative contract costs. The Housing Authority has replaced nearly all of its computer equipment over the last few years with equipment that is capable of running modern programs. As such, only a few computers or Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners April 4, 2006 Page 4of9 printers may need to be replaced on an as- needed basis over the next two fiscal years. Contract costs, such as, maintenance contracts on office equipment, contracts for services with the City Manager's Office, Information Technology and Human Resources Departments, temporary labor, software maintenance are also included in this line item. Travel and training includes attendance at National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) conferences as well as other training. The following shows the out -of -state training locations and the number of persons proposed to attend: Summer NAHRO Conference Denver, Colorado National NAHRO Conference Atlanta, Georgia Fall Regional NAHRO Conference Tuscon, Arizona NAHRO Legislative Conference Hsg. & Dev. Law Institute Annual Conference Washington, D.C. Housing Finance Workshop Labor Standards & Section 3 Workshop Location to be determined One Commissioner and one staff One Commissioner and one staff One Commissioner and one staff One Staff One Staff One Staff One Staff The last two training sessions are generally held in Las Vegas or Reno, Nevada, because of lower facilities cost. Occasionally, these sessions are held in California. 2. Tenant Services: The salaries for program staff, resident managers, resident custodians, the Esperanza Youth Program and other tenant - related activities are included in this category. No salary increases are anticipated. This budget proposes continuing the Esperanza Youth Program at a modest level. The Boys and Girls Club generally is able to supplement this budget with grant funding. This program provides a valuable service for children and youth at Esperanza. Other activities include the Outreach Program to Property Owners and Town Hall meetings. 3. Utilities: The amounts budgeted for utilities are based on actual utilities expenditures in the current fiscal year and anticipated changes. Electricity rates are expected to increase a modest three percent while gas rates are expected to increase by nearly twenty percent. Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners April 4, 2006 Page 5 of 9 4. Maintenance: Maintenance expenditures include salaries for maintenance employees, maintenance materials and contract costs. The projected cost for maintenance materials is based on actual expenditures this year, which have risen substantially because of the higher than usual number of vacant units to prepare for the next occupant. Based on this experience, a twenty percent increase is included for next fiscal year. If the number of vacant turnovers returns to a more normal rate, the cost may not be this high. The cost for maintenance contracts, which includes landscape maintenance and tree trimming, can be controlled. The lower dollar amount budgeted for next fiscal year is a reflection of reduced income and higher expense costs and will result in cut backs in the maintenance of Housing Authority properties, in areas that are not likely to affect safety, such as painting and replacing floor covering in units. 5. General: This line item includes the cost of the community - policing program, property, liability, and workers' compensation insurance , employee benefits, and collection losses. The cost for the community- policing program continues to rise, from $150,000 in FY2003, $160,000 in FY2004, $170,000 in FY2005, and $190,000 this year. The cost to continue this program next year will be $210,000. Insurance costs and collection losses are expected to increase slightly over the next two fiscal years. The three remaining expense categories are entitled Mortgage /HAP /Reserves, Capital Expenses and Other Expenses: Mortgage /HAP /Reserves: This category includes mortgage payments for the various complexes, Housing Assistance Payments (HAP), and reserves for equipment and buildings, which includes associated machinery, such as, roofs and boilers. As mentioned previously, the Housing Authority's mortgage payment costs are expected to decrease by more than $20,000 in each of the next two fiscal years. Generally, the mortgage holder has established the amounts to be deposited into building reserve accounts for each complex. The Housing Authority, however, has established reserve accounts for those buildings where there is no mortgage or the mortgage holder has not set the amount, such as, office building and some complexes under HA- Owned. The Section 8 HAP expense ($19,362,996), which is the most significant expenditure, is offset by HAP income from HUD. Capital Expenses: No capital items, defined as durable items with a value of $10,000 or more, are proposed in the budget for FY2005 or FY2006. Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners April 4, 2006 Page 6 of 9 Other Expenses: This category includes Extraordinary Maintenance Projects (EMPs) and Predevelopment Costs. The proposed budget includes an amount of $50,000 for pre - development for FY2007 to continue to explore potential projects. If any additional projects arise, an allocation may need to be made in FY2008. EMPs for FY2007 and FY2008 are shown on the Schedules of Extraordinary Maintenance Projects, pages 7 and 8 of the proposed budget (Exhibit A). A few projects are not expected to be completed this fiscal year and are included in the EMP Schedule for FY2007. These include two projects at Esperanza, installing gate valves and sewer cleanouts, which are proposed to be combined into one project (ESP1 -07). The projects to replace the windows and complete the siding project at Eagle Village also will not be completed this year. Some expenses are anticipated, but the majority is likely to fall in FY2007; therefore, the budget proposes adding EV1 -07 to next year's budget. Replacing the door hardware at Eagle Village and upgrading the landscaping at Parrot Village are two more projects that will likely not be completed this fiscal year; the budget proposes carrying them over to FY2007 (EV2 -07 and PV1 -07). The Housing Authority is continuing its negotiations with the National Park Service and General Services Administration to transfer the deed restriction for a portion of Neptune Park to a portion of land owned by the Authority. It is unlikely that this negotiation process will be completed this fiscal year; therefore, the budget proposes carrying over the project to building a parking area for Independence Plaza to FY2007 (IP1 -07). Recently, needs assessments were completed for all Housing Authority owned properties. The information received will allow the Authority or the City to develop a schedule of projects for the next 20 years. This budget includes several new projects that were identified as being needed in FY2007 and FY2008. Under the General Fund, a FY2007 project is to repair damaged /warped siding and paint the Housing Authority office building. The total cost is anticipated to be $35,000. New projects proposed for Esperanza for FY2007 include replacing the garbage /recycling bin enclosures, replacing the fencing along Main Street, and replacing approximately half of the exterior light fixtures with brighter, more energy- efficient fixtures. The total cost of these projects is projected to be $205,000. The total cost for projects not completed this year at Parrot Village and Eagle Village is anticipated to be $179,150 next fiscal year. In FY2007, the budget proposes installing a drainage system at the rear of Anne B. Diament Plaza, which flooded during the December rains. It also proposes replacing the gate on the Otis side of the complex, repairing or replacing the elevator emergency phone, and replacing the interior finishes of the elevator at Anne B. Diament Plaza. At China Clipper Plaza, the budget proposes replacing Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners April 4, 2006 Page 7 of 9 the exterior metal stair rail, replacing interior finishes of the elevator and adding an emergency phone in the elevator. At Parrot Gardens, the parking lot is in poor condition. Until a Tong -term solution is determined, stop gap measures to repair the damage requiring highest priority, such as, pot holes, is recommended at a cost of $5,000. At Stanford House, a handrail needs to be added to the basement laundry area at an estimated cost of $2,000. The total cost for all FY2007 Housing Authority -Owned projects would be $35,100. At Independence Plaza, this budget would paint/stain the exterior and repair damaged decks and trellises. These projects and the parking area project to be carried over from last fiscal year are expected to cost $550,000 in FY2007. For FY2008, the budget proposes seal coating parking lots at the Housing Authority office and Independence Plaza ($1,900 and $13,000), Anne B. Diament Plaza ($14,000), China Clipper Plaza ($10,000), and Rosefield Village ($11,000). At Esperanza, additional projects include replacing gutters, downspouts and diverters; replacing damaged concrete patios and playground surfacing; reseeding barren areas of the landscaping; and replacing combination bedroom lights /smoke alarms with separate light fixtures and hard -wired alarms. The total cost for these projects is projected to be $100,500. No new projects are proposed for Eagle Village in FY2008. At Parrot Village, the FY2008 budget proposes to replace the existing windows with double - paned, energy efficient replacement windows. The total cost for this project is expected to be $200,000. In FY2008, the budget also plans to replace the original kitchen cabinets and countertops at Anne B. Diament Plaza ($250,000). It also would replace bathtubs and surrounds ($120,000), and faucets and angle stops ($18,000), repair /replace loose shingles /siding ($55,000), and replace the roll -up garage door ($5,000). At China Clipper Plaza, the proposed budget would allow for the replacement of the entry doors and hardware to the units ($20,000), replace angle stops ($5,500), add drainage ($8,500), replace the fire protection system, such as, the alarm pulls and smoke detectors in common areas ($12,000), and rehabilitate the pool cabana ($5,700). At Lincoln/Willow, the budget provides for exterior painting ($14,000). Repairs or replacement of sewer pipes at Rosefield Village ($17,000) are included in the proposed budget. At Stanford House, dry rot repairs ($3,200) are anticipated, replacing galvanized pipe ($6,400) and replacing windows that were not replaced in the original rehabilitation project ($8,000). The total cost for FY2008 Housing Authority -Owned projects would be $583,300. The overall cost for EMPs next year is expected to be $1,004,250, a decrease of $450,349 over the current EMP budget. The EMP budget for FY2008 is about ten percent Tess, with a total of $898,700. Eagle Village and Parrot Village projects requested to be carried over to next fiscal year will be covered by the Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners April 4, 2006 Page 8 of 9 proceeds of the refinancing. The proceeds also will be used to cover up to $600,000 of the costs of other projects. Replacement reserves are available for most of the other projects. One exception is Esperanza, which has limited operating reserves and a small capital fund grant. At this time, the amount of this federal grant is unknown. If it is smaller and other expenses are greater than anticipated, some projects at this complex will have to be scaled back or postponed. TOTAL BUDGET If approved, the budget for FY2007 will be $27,451,311. Under the proposed budget, deficits would appear in the Housing Authority's General Fund, Esperanza, and Independence Plaza. The General Fund deficit of $80,064 will be covered by General Fund reserves, reducing the balance to $472,424. The Esperanza deficit will be funded by transferring $73,623 from the existing reserve leaving a balance of $219,878. Independence Plaza will require a transfer of $310,000 from the reserve, reducing its building replacement reserves to $365,147. Reserves are intended to be used for EMPs; therefore, the use of Esperanza and Independence Plaza reserves is as intended. A surplus would be realized in all other funds providing for an overall FY2007 budget surplus of $49,388. Overall, the budget for FY2008 anticipates a surplus of $24,270. PILOT The amount designated for PILOT in the Annual Contributions Contract for Esperanza is ten percent of rent collected, less utilities and collection losses. The estimated amount for fiscal year 2006 -2007 is $44,690, of which approximately $11,977 would go to the City of Alameda. For fiscal year 2007- 2008, PILOT is estimated to be $46,030, of which approximately $12,336 would go to the City of Alameda. The balance in each year would be distributed among local taxing agencies according to the same formula as property taxes. The City Council has the authority to waive PILOT. The savings estimated to be $90,720 for the upcoming two fiscal years would allow the Housing Authority to continue its contract with the City of Alameda Police Department for services. The amount budgeted for these services for FY2007 is $210,000, a $20,000 increase over the current year. The Housing Authority also pays the direct and indirect costs for other services provided by the City, such as services provided by the City Manager's Office, City Attorney's Office, Human Resources, and Information Technology Departments. The Board of Commissioners has traditionally approved recommending that the City Council waive PILOT. Based on current practice, the budget proposes that the Board of Commissioners recommend to the City Council to waive PILOT for FY2007 and FY2008. Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners April 4, 2006 Page 9 of 9 In prior years, HUD has required the Board of Commissioners to adopt a resolution to approve the budget for the Conventional Low -Rent Housing Program, Project No. CA062 (Esperanza). The Board adopted a resolution to cover calendar year 2006 in January 2006; therefore, a new resolution would need to be submitted to HUD for calendar year 2007. A copy of the proposed resolution is attached as Exhibit B. DEVELOPMENT FUND The Development Fund is not included on the detail pages of the attached budget. There is only a small balance in this fund. The only income to the fund will be interest. The budget proposes using $50,000 for development activities in FY2007. No other activity is anticipated and, therefore, no other expenses are expected or budgeted. Recommendation: The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend that the Board of Commissioners: 1. Adopt the proposed budget, including the Extraordinary Maintenance Projects line item, for fiscal years 2006 -2007 and 2007 -2008; 2. Adopt the proposed resolution for both budget years for the Conventional Low -Rent Housing Program No. CA062 (Esperanza); and 3. Recommend to the City Council to waive the Payment in Lieu of Taxes for both fiscal years. Respectfully submitted, Michael T. Pucci Executive Director MTP:ED Attachments Exhibit A HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 - 2007 AND FISCAL YEAR 2007 - 2008 FY2007 AND FY2008 BUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS Description of Budget Funds 1 Budget Comparison Spreadsheets (FY2006 vs. FY2007 and FY2008) General Fund 2 Esperanza 2 Parrot and Eagle Village 3 Housing Authority -Owned 3 Independence Plaza 4 Section 8 4 TOTAL OF ALL FUNDS 5 Schedule of Authorized Positions 6 Schedule of Extraordinary Maintenance Projects 7, 8 Page 1 General Fund DESCRIPTION OF BUDGET FUNDS This fund is for operations not otherwise chargeable to other funds, including expenses related to legal services and housing development services. It also includes income and expenses related to the FACSA -owned properties located on Sherman Street and Lincoln Avenue and management of the Housing Assistance Payments contracts for Playa del Alameda and the Shelter Plus Care Program. Esperanza This fund is for the operations of the Esperanza complex, a conventional public housing complex. Parrot Village and Eagle Village Housing Authority - Owned Independence Plaza This fund is for the operations of Parrot Village and Eagle Village, owned by the Housing Authority, where the majority of residents have Housing Choice Vouchers. This fund is maintained separately for the benefit of the mortgage holder. This fund includes complexes where the residents are Housing Choice Voucher holders, including Anne B. Diament Plaza, Rosefield Village, and Parrot Gardens. It also includes the operations of the condominiums, the Lincoln/Willow complex, Stanford House, China Clipper Plaza, where some residents may have Vouchers, and any expenses related to land ownership of the Regent Street and Santa Clara properties. This fund is for the operations of Independence Plaza. This fund receives tax increment funds under the Affordable Housing Agreement between the Authority and the Community Improvement Commission, which makes 128 of the 186 units available for very-low and low- income seniors. Housing Choice Voucher This fund is for the operations of the Housing Choice Program Voucher (Section 8) and Moderate Rehabilitation Programs. Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Budget For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2007 and June 30, 2008 Page 2 Budget Line Items General Fund Esperanza Approved 2006 Proposed 2007 Proposed 2008 Approved 2006 Proposed 2007 Proposed 2008 OPERATING INCOME: HAP /Operating Subsidy 416,148 416,148 428,632 121,481 161,481 206,325 Rents 0 0 0 571,440 571,956 589,115 Administrative Fees 36,154 36,832 37,937 0 0 0 PV & EV Bond Funds 0 35,000 1,900 15,080 205,000 0 Interest 4,000 4,000 4,120 3,220 3,220 3,317 Other Income 13,000 5,616 5,784 259,820 250,776 258,299 TOTAL INCOME 469,302 497,596 478,373 971,041 1,192,433 1,057,056 OPERATING EXPENSES: ADMINISTRATIVE: Total Admin. Salaries 31,726 31,624 31,624 123,987 140,724 140,724 Legal 0 0 0 6,180 6,180 6,365 Sundry 0 0 0 48,857 50,396 51,907 TOTAL 31,726 31,624 31,624 179,024 197,300 198,996 TENANT SERVICES Salaries 0 0 0 16,155 16,155 16,155 Tenant Activities 0 0 0 32,150 33,100 34,093 TOTAL 0 0 0 48,305 49,255 50,248 UTILITIES: Water & Sewer 0 0 0 96,150 96,150 99,035 Electricity 0 0 0 14,130 14,554 14,991 Gas 0 0 0 2,370 2,607 2,685 TOTAL 0 0 0 112,650 113,311 116,710 MAINTENANCE: Salaries 3,641 3,641 3,641 136,229 186,352 186,352 Materials 0 365 376 32,750 37,900 39,037 Contract Costs 0 0 0 249,915 255,549 263,216 TOTAL 3,641 4,006 4,017 418,894 479,801 488,605 GENERAL: Police Services 0 0 0 71,060 71,060 73,192 Insurance 2,459 2,533 2,609 15,688 16,159 16,643 Claims Account 15,450 15,450 15,914 0 0 0 Employee Benefits 10,875 11,700 12,051 84,984 113,881 117,298 Collection Losses 0 0 0 11,750 11,750 12,103 TOTAL 28,784 29,683 30,574 183,482 212,850 219,236 TOTAL OPER. EXPENSES 64,151 65,312 66,214 942,355 1,052,516 1,073,795 MORTGAGE/HAP/RESERVES HAP 416,148 416,148 428,632 0 0 0 Mortgage 0 0 0 0 0 0 Replacement Reserve(Equip.) 1,200 1,200 1,236 2,200 2,200 2,266 Replacement Reserve(BId.) 10,000 10,000 10,300 0 0 0 TOTAL 427,348 427,348 440,168 2,200 2,200 2,266 CAPITAL EXPENSES: Replacement Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Additions 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER EXPENSES: Extraordinary Maint. 0 35,000 1,900 200,382 205,000 100,500 Pre - development /Admin costs 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 50,000 85,000 1,900 200,382 205,000 100,500 TOTAL EXPENSES 541,499 577,660 508,282 1,144,937 1,259,716 1,176,561 TRANSFERS IN OUT (72,197) 80,064 (29,908) (173,896) (67,283) (119,505) Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Budget For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2007 and June 30, 2008 Page 3 Budget Line Items Parrot & Eagle Village HA Owned Approved 2006 Proposed 2007 Proposed 2008 Approved 2006 Proposed 2007 Proposed 2008 OPERATING INCOME: HAP /Operating Subsidy 1,080,408 1,032,132 1,063,096 1,016,676 957,828 986,563 Rents 445,404 433,200 446,196 728,472 794,556 818,393 Administrative Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 PV & EV Bond Funds 1,047,237 179,150 200,000 39,150 35,100 64,485 Interest 330 330 340 11,980 11,980 12,339 Other Income 7,680 5,220 5,377 40,380 14,592 15,030 TOTAL INCOME 2,581,059 1,650,032 1,715,008 1,836,658 1,814,056 1,896,810 OPERATING EXPENSES: ADMINISTRATIVE: Total Admin. Salaries 145,701 120,766 120,766 191,755 193,231 193,231 Legal 4,080 4,080 4,202 12,770 12,770 13,153 Sundry 46,047 50,708 52,230 105,780 136,715 140,816 TOTAL 195,828 175,554 177,198 310,305 342,716 347,200 TENANT SERVICES Salaries 5,520 2,470 2,470 20,214 17,891 17,891 Tenant Activities 100 100 103 100 100 103 TOTAL 5,620 2,570 2,573 20,314 17,991 17,994 UTILITIES: Water & Sewer 71,595 71,595 73,743 76,450 76,450 78,744 Electricity 14,280 14,708 15,150 40,030 41,231 42,468 Gas 489 5,200 5,356 29,870 32,857 33,843 TOTAL 86,364 91,503 94,249 146,350 150,538 155,054 MAINTENANCE: Salaries 256,745 181,816 181,816 233,409 211,862 211,862 Materials 37,210 47,800 49,234 40,140 56,415 58,107 Contract Costs 226,905 247,247 254,664 310,416 264,139 272,064 TOTAL 520,860 476,863 485,714 583,965 532,416 552,651 GENERAL: Police Services 41,420 41,420 42,663 55,670 75,670 77,940 Insurance 44,587 45,925 47,302 16,228 16,715 17,216 Claims Account 0 0 0 0 0 0 Employee Benefits 125,449 101,214 104,250 136,954 140,343 144,553 Collection Losses 13,600 13,600 14,008 2,650 2,650 2,730 TOTAL 225,056 202,196 208,223 211,502 235,378 242,439 TOTAL OPER. EXPENSES 1,033,728 948,687 967,957 1,272,436 1,279,039 1,304,721 MORTGAGE/HAP/RESERVES HAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mortgage 404,531 404,757 404,757 57,639 37,300 37,300 Replacement Reserve(Equip.) 0 0 0 5,600 5,600 5,768 Replacement Reserve(Bld.) 32,196 32,196 33,162 61,973 0 0 TOTAL 436,727 436,953 437,919 125,212 42,900 43,068 CAPITAL EXPENSES: Replacement Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Additions 0 0 0 3,795 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 3,795 0 0 OTHER EXPENSES: Extraordinary Maint. 1,028,367 179,150 200,000 36,000 35,100 583,300 Pre - development /Admin costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1,028,367 179,150 200,000 36,000 35,100 583,300 TOTAL EXPENSES 2,498,822 1,564,751 1,605,875 1,437,443 1,357,039 1,931,089 TRANSFERS (IN) /OUT 82,237 85,281 81,782 109,133 457,017 (34,279) Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Budget For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2007 and June 30, 2008 Page 4 Budget Line Items Independence Plaza Section 8 Voucher Approved 2006 Proposed 2007 Proposed 2008 Approved 2006 Proposed 2007 Proposed 2008 OPERATING INCOME: HAP /Operating Subsidy 489,342 749,847 607,543 18,945,576 18,946,848 19,515,253 Rents 1,209,096 1,242,864 1,280,150 0 0 0 Administrative Fees 0 0 0 1,473,191 1,378,351 1,419,702 PV & EV Bond Funds 22,800 0 0 4,700 0 0 Interest 1,400 1,400 1,442 0 0 0 Other Income 21,330 19,752 20,345 7,520 7,520 7,746 TOTAL INCOME 1,743,968 2,013,863 1,909,480 20,430,987 20,332,719 20,942,701 OPERATING EXPENSES: ADMINISTRATIVE: Total Admin. Salaries 172,678 192,732 192,732 865,184 872,331 872,331 Legal 7,460 7,460 7,684 11,030 11,030 11,361 Sundry 58,577 62,266 64,134 124,789 139,075 143,247 TOTAL 238,715 262,458 264,550 1,001,003 1,022,436 1,026,939 TENANT SERVICES Salaries 19,305 19,305 19,305 0 0 0 Tenant Activities 100 100 103 100 100 103 TOTAL 19,405 19,405 19,408 100 100 103 UTILITIES: Water & Sewer 57,380 57,380 59,101 350 350 361 Electricity 40,200 41,406 42,648 7,320 7,540 7,766 Gas 17,330 19,063 19,635 430 473 487 TOTAL 114,910 117,849 121,384 8,100 8,363 8,613 MAINTENANCE: Salaries 180,426 225,054 225,054 2,816 2,018 2,018 Materials 39,600 42,500 43,775 4,260 4,260 4,388 Contract Costs 202,218 222,015 228,676 15,720 8,891 9,158 TOTAL 422,244 489,569 497,505 22,796 15,169 15,564 GENERAL: Police Services 2,850 2,850 2,936 19,000 19,000 19,570 Insurance 60,578 61,034 62,865 7,059 7,059 7,270 Claims Account 0 0 0 0 0 0 Employee Benefits 114,516 145,023 149,374 266,910 290,102 298,805 Collection Losses 400 400 412 0 0 0 TOTAL 178,344 209,307 215,586 292,969 316,160 325,645 TOTAL OPER. EXPENSES 973,618 1,098,588 1,118,434 1,324,968 1,362,228 1,376,864 MORTGAGE/HAP/RESERVES HAP 0 0 0 18,945,576 18,946,848 19,515,253 Mortgage 680,460 680,460 680,460 0 0 0 Replacement Reserve(Equip.) 5,000 5,000 5,150 0 0 0 Replacement Reserve(Bld.) 49,020 49,020 50,491 0 0 0 TOTAL 734,480 734,480 736,101 18,945,576 18,946,848 19,515,253 CAPITAL EXPENSES: Replacement Equipment 0 0 0 4,000 0 0 Additions 7,205 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 7,205 0 0 4,000 0 0 OTHER EXPENSES: Extraordinary Maint. 189,300 550,000 13,000 0 0 0 Pre - development /Admin costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 189,300 550,000 13,000 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,904,603 2,383,069 1,867,534 20,274,544 20,309,076 20,892,118 TRANSFERS (IN) /OUT (160,635) (369,206) 41,946 156,443 23,643 50,583 Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Budget For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2007 and June 30, 2008 Page 5 Budget Line Items Total All Programs Approved 2006 Proposed 2007 Proposed 2008 OPERATING INCOME: HAP /Operating Subsidy 22,069,631 22,264,284 22,807,414 Rents 2,954,412 3,042,576 3,133,853 Administrative Fees 1,509,345 1,415,183 1,457,638 PV & EV Bond Funds 1,128,967 454,250 266,385 Interest 20,930 20,930 21,558 Other Income 349,730 303,476 312,580 TOTAL INCOME 28,033,015 27,500,699 27,999,428 OPERATING EXPENSES: ADMINISTRATIVE: Total Admin. Salaries 1,531,031 1,551,407 1,551,407 Legal 41,520 41,520 42,766 Sundry 384,050 439,160 452,334 TOTAL 1,956,601 2,032,087 2,046,507 TENANT SERVICES Salaries 61,194 55,821 55,821 Tenant Activities 32,550 33,500 34,505 TOTAL 93,744 89,321 90,326 UTILITIES: Water & Sewer 301,925 301,925 310,983 Electricity 115,960 119,439 123,022 Gas 50,489 60,200 62,006 TOTAL 468,374 481,564 496,011 MAINTENANCE: Salaries 813,266 810,743 810,743 Materials 153,960 189,240 194,917 Contract Costs 1,005,174 997,842 1,027,777 TOTAL 1,972,400 1,997,825 2,033,437 GENERAL: Police Services 190,000 210,000 210,000 Insurance 146,599 149,423 153,906 Claims Account 15,450 15,450 15,914 Employee Benefits 739,688 802,263 826,331 Collection Losses 28,400 28,400 29,252 TOTAL 1,120,137 1,205,536 1,235,402 TOTAL OPER. EXPENSES 5,611,256 5,806,332 5,901,683 MORTGAGE/HAP/RESERVES HAP 19,361,724 19,362,996 19,943,886 Mortgage 1,142,630 1,122,517 1,122,517 Replacement Reserve(Equip.) 14,000 14,000 14,420 Replacement Reserve(BId.) 153,189 91,216 93,952 TOTAL 20,671,543 20,590,729 21,174,775 CAPITAL EXPENSES: Replacement Equipment 4,000 0 0 Additions 11,000 0 0 TOTAL 15,000 0 0 OTHER EXPENSES: Extraordinary Maint. 1,454,049 1,004,250 898,700 Pre - development /Admin costs 50,000 50,000 0 TOTAL 1,504,049 1,054,250 898,700 TOTAL EXPENSES 27,801,848 27,451,311 27,975,159 TRANSFERS (IN) /OUT 231,167 49,388 24,270 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AUTHORIZED POSITIONS -- FY2007 and FY2008 ADMINISTRATION Executive Director Housing Authority Manager for Admin. Operations Executive Assistant Sub -total CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT DIVISON Housing Authority Manager for Admin. Operations Reconstruction Specialist I Senior Clerk FINANCE DIVISION Finance Manager Accounting Officer Senior Account Clerk Account Clerk Intermediate Typist Clerk HOUSING ASSISTANCE DIVISION Housing Assistance Manager Housing Specialist III Housing Specialist II Housing Specialist I Intermediate Clerk Sub -total Sub -total Sub -total HOUSING MANAGEMENT DIVISION Housing Authority Manager for Housing Management Housing Manager Intermediate Clerk Independence Plaza Resident Manager Independence Plaza Assistant Resident Manager Anne B. Diament Resident Manager Anne B. Diament Assistant Resident Manager Esperanza Resident Manager Esperanza Assistant Resident Manager Eagle Village /Rosefield Village Resident Custodian Parrot Village Resident Custodian China Clipper Resident Custodian Maintenance Services Coordinator Maintenance Worker II Maintenance Worker I Laborer Senior Clerk Custodian Sub -total TOTAL ADMINISTRATION TOTAL TENANT SERVICES TOTAL MAINTENANCE TOTAL APPROVED FY2006 1.00 0.50 1.00 2.50 Page 6 PROPOSED FY2007 AND FY2008 1.00 0.50 1.00 2.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.50 2.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 * 4.00 * 6.50 * 6.50 * 15.50 15.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.46 0.46 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 19.72 19.72 27.00 4.72 13.50 45.22 27.00 4.72 13.50 45.22 * One position in this category is unfunded. Page 7 PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE PROJECTS JULY 1, 2006 - JUNE 30, 2007 (FY2007) GF1 -07 Repair siding damage and paint exterior 35,000 TOTAL ESPERANZA $ 35,000 ESP1 -07* ESP2 -07 ESP3 -07 .......................... ESP4 -07 Install gate valves (to shut off water) and sewer cleanouts Replace dumpster enclosures Replace 200 ft. of fencing along Main Street Replace approximately half of the exterior light fixtures TOTAL EAGL E, YELI EV1 07* EV2 -07* PV1 -07* $ 200,382 GE AIL}„PARROT VILLAGE Complete residing project and replace all windows Replace door hardware (doors as needed) Upgrade landscaping $ 40,000 140,000 5,000 20,000 $ 205,000 TOTAL HOLMNG_A AB D 1-07 ABD2 -07 .......... .............................. ABD3 -07 ABD4 -07 C C 1- 07...... CC2-07 PG1-07 $ 1,028,367 129,150 20,000 30,000 $ 179,150 THQ�21T1( AWNED s,.. Install drainage system rear of building ............................................... ............................... Replace gate (Otis) and key for tenants Repair/replace elevator ......... ............. ...................... .... ............................... ..........................phone system Replace interior finishes of elevator Replace metal stair rail and extend handrails at landings Replace interior finishes of elevator and add emergency phone Repairpotholes in parking lot ....................................................................................................................... ......................,,,.,,,.. Add handrail to laundry (basement) area 3,500 1,500 3,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 16,100 2,000 ............................... 5, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 TOTAL INDEPENDE $ 36,000 $ 35,100 IP1 -07* IP2 -07 I P3 -07 Build new parking area for 20 cars Repair, paint/stain exterior Repair damaged decks and trellises $ 150,000 $ 320,000 80,000 TOTAL $ 189,300 $ 550,000 * Projects to be carried over from current fiscal year (FY2006) for completion in FY2007. ,049 104,250'` Page 8 PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE PROJECTS JULY 1, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008 (FY2008) HOUSING AUT PROPOSED 0)1067 PROPOSED FY2008 ENE GF1-08 !Seal coat parking lot (proportion of IP parking lot project) 1,900 PROPOSED TOTALS 35,000 1,900 Espx ESP1-08 ESP2-08 ESP3-08 ESP4-08 ESP5-08 Replace gutters, downspouts, add diverters Replace damaged concrete patios Replace playground surfacing Reseed barren landscaping Replace light fixtures and hard-wired smoke detectors (separate) 29,000 17,000 26,000 3,500 25,000 PROPOSED TOTALS 205,000 EAGLE VILLAGE EV1-08 PARROT VILLAGE None PV1-08 Replace windows and sliding glass doors PROPOSED TOTALS 179,150 $ 100,500 200,000 $ 200,000 HOUSIN ABD1-08 ABD2-08 ABD3-08 ABD4-08 ABD5-08 ABD6-08 CC1-08 CC2-08 CC3-08 CC4-08 CC5-08 CC6-08 CC7-08 CC8-08 LW1-08 RV1-08 RV2-08 SH1-08 SH2-08 SH3-08 Repair asphalt and seal coat parking lot Replace kitchen cabinets and countertops Replace bathtubs and surrounds Replace faucets and angle stops Repair/replace damaged and loose shingles/siding (repair dry rot) Replace roll-up garage door Replace unit entry doors and door hardware Replace angle stops Add drainage outside unit 101 Cut/patch and seal coat deteriorated asphalt paving in parking lot Replace fire protection system (alarm, pulls, smoke detectors) in common areas Replace window and door of cabana Repair/replace finishes cabana interior Repair and paint cabana exterior Repair and paint exterior Seal coat parking lot Repair/replace sewer pipe Repair exterior dry rot Replace galvanized piping Replace remaining windows 14,000 250,000 120,000 18,000 55,000 5,000 20,000 5,500 8,500 10,000 12,000 3,000 1,600 1,100 14,000 11,000 17,000 3,200 6,400 8,000 PROPOSED TOTALS 49,400 $ 583,300 INDEPENDEN IP1-08 'Seal coat parking lot 13,000 PROPOSED TOTALS 550,000 $ 13,000 PROPOSED GRAND TOTALS $ 1,018,550 $ 898,700 PHA/IHA Board Resolution Approving Operating Budget or Calculation of Performance Funding System Operating Subsidy U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Public and Indian Housing OMB Approval No. 2577 -0026 (Exp. 6/30/2001) Exhibit B Resolution No. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless that collecton displays a valid OMB control number. This information is required by Section 6(c)(4) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The information is the operating budget for the low- income housing program and provides a summary of proposed /budgeted receipts and expenditures, approval of budgeted receipts and expenditures, and justification of certain specified amounts. HUD reviews the information to determine if the operating plan adopted by the PHA and the amounts are reasonable and that the PHA is in compliance with procedures prescribed by HUD. Responses are required to obtain benefits. This information does not lend itself to confidentiality. Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the below -named Public Housing Agency (PHA) /Indian Housing Authority (IHA), as its Chairman, I make the following certifications and agreements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding the Board's approval of (check one or more as applicable): (date) Operating Budget Submitted on: 04/04/2006 Operating Budget Revision Submitted on: Calculation of Performance Funding System Submitted on: Revised Calculation of Performance Funding System Submitted on: I certify on behalf of the: (PHA /IHA Name) Housing Authority of the City of Alameda that: 1. All regulatory and statutory requirements have been met; 2. The PHA has sufficient operating reserves to meet the working capital needs of its developments; 3. Proposed budget expenditures are necessary in the efficient and economical operation of the housing for the purpose of serving low- income residents; 4. The budget indicates a source of funds adequate to cover all proposed expenditures; 5. The calculation of eligibility for Federal funding is in accordance with the provisions of the regulations; 6. All proposed rental charges and expenditures will be consistent with provisions of law; 7. The PHA /IHA will comply with the wage rate requirements under 24 CFR 968.110(e) and (f) or 24 CFR 905.120(c) and (d); 8. The PHA /IHA will comply with the requirements for access to records and audits under 24 CFR 968.110(i) or 24 CFR 905.120(g); and 9. The PHA /IHA will comply with the requirements for the reexamination of family income and composition under 24 CFR 960.209, 990.115 and 905.315. I hereby certify that all the information stated within, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and /or civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3802) Board Chairman's Name (type) Beverly Johnson, Chair Signature Date Previous edition is obsolete form HUD -52574 (10/95) ref. Handbook 7575.1 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: April 4, 2006 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners From: Debra Kurita Chief Executive Officer Re: Resolving to Reappoint Michael Torrey as the Tenant Commissioner of the Board of Commissioners BACKGROUND At its January 2006 meeting, the Board of Commissioners adopted revised Housing Authority Rules and Procedures, outlining the qualifications, terms, and conditions under which the tenant commissioner will serve. DISCUSSION The revised Rules and Procedures of the Housing Authority allow for a tenant commissioner to serve two full terms. Michael Torrey has served one full term and has continued to serve pending his replacement. This report recommends that Mr. Torrey be reappointed for one additional four -year term on the Board of Commissioners. POLICY DOCUMENT REFERENCE Article V, Section 9, of the Rules and Procedures of the Housing Authority outline the qualifications, terms and conditions for serving as a tenant commissioner on the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority. RECOMMENDATION Resolve to reappoint Michael Torrey as the Tenant Commissioner of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. Respectfully submitted, Michael T. Pucci Executive Director MTP:ED Attachment Report 3 -B 4 -4 -06 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA Resolution No. REAPPOINTING MICHAEL TORREY AS THE TENANT MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, pursuant to provisions of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act and the Rules and Procedures of the Housing Authority, that MICHAEL TORREY is hereby reappointed to the office of Tenant Member of the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda for a term of four years commencing on April 4, 2006, and expiring on April 6, 2010, and to serve until his successor is appointed and is qualified. ATTEST: Beverly Johnson, Chair Board of Commissioners Michael T. Pucci Executive Director / Secretary Adopted: caw (u: Iboc. Ireso for reappointing Michael Torrey Proclamation WHEREAS, the young people of Alameda, California are tomorrow's leaders; and WHEREAS, many such young people need professional youth services to help them cope with a wide range of social and financial hardships; and WHEREAS, there is one Boys & Girls Club organization in Alameda, providing services to more than 200 young people annually; and WHEREAS, the Boys & Girls Clubs are at the forefront of efforts in Character & Leadership Development; Education & Career Development; Health & Life Skills; the Arts; Sports, Fitness & Recreation; Substance Abuse Prevention; Delinquency Prevention and Literacy Programs; and WHEREAS, the Boys & Girls Club organizations in our state help ensure that our young people keep off the streets, offering them a safe and supportive place to go and providing them with quality programs; and WHEREAS, the Boys & Girls Clubs of Alameda will celebrate National Boys & Girls Club Week along with some 3,700 clubs, serving over4.5 million kids nationwide. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim April 2, 2006 through April 8, 2006 as: Boys & Girls Club Week in the City of Alameda and call on the citizens of Alameda to join me in recognizing and commending the Boys & Girls Club organizations in our state for providing comprehensive, effective services to the young people in our communities. Beverly J. Johnson Mayor Proclamation 3 -A 4-4 -06 nr =1111rh Proclamation WHEREAS, twenty -five years ago in April of 1981, Ken and Peggie Dorrance had the great foresight to open the first video store in Alameda known as the "Video Station;" and WHEREAS, their business has consistently offered Alamedans a comprehensive array of video - related products including films, television shows, documentaries, and foreign films to name a few; and WHEREAS, in addition to the commerce side of their business, the Dorrances have had a commitment to their community and its young people which they have demonstrated through the continual hiring and training of young people thereby providing them with their first real job experience and have also consistently participated in fund- raising activities for various schools and civic groups; and WHEREAS, Ken Dorrance has also participated in national professional association work related to the video sales industry, helping his business and his fellow video sellers aspire to and achieve high business standards; and WHEREAS, Alameda has benefited greatly from having a twenty -five year relationship with a business that has been run by Ken and Peggie Dorrance by virtue of their business proficiency and also their contribution to their community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Alameda, do hereby express our thanks to Ken and Peggie Dorrance and do hereby proclaim the 4th day of April, 2006 as: "Video Station" Owners Appreciation Day in the City of Alameda and urge the citizens of Alameda to join us in thanking Ken and Peggie Dorrance for their great contribution to the quality of life enjoyed by all Alamedans. Vice Mayor Marie Gilmore Councilmember Tony Daysog Mayor Beverly Johnson Councilmember Doug deHaan Councilmember Frank Matarrese Proclamation 3 -B 4 -4 -06 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: April 4, 2006 Re: New Main Library Project Update Attached to this memorandum is the April 1, 2006 Library Construction Report. Attachment Respectfully submitted, Jane Chisaki Acting Library Director Report 3 -C 4 -4 -06 Construction R CC: 40 •- CD CD N Construction U O .b U N rzL U o 0 0 cn cn • N N 0 cz; 0 - U O bA 0 0 0 O 0 U b O U U U O ar • U • c 0 — •1 3 E O '~ O U .b o g 0 �H • • • • • • • ment Procurement 4-1 0 • aas • -0 a) "O cn 0 -0 U 'd O cri 3 •� N E N F.1.4 o 0 W � VD 0 P, cn • • .- w o ° o °• N O �p O° N U a .O O U Z 0 • 'd 'd 0 N U O O cn g • Z W O4-i O � z 0 x, 007 IRE- . .. • • -d U U vD 0 U 0 0A b 3 bn O sat OA 0 H Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Iii 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 N O O oi ti 0 0 0 0 0 CO LO O O 00 CA 0 0 0 0 0 .� O) O O N. N O O O o 0 d N r� 00 LO LC) 000 L1i6 CO O- N. j 0 0 I- r- N 'a d O CO I- 0 0 CO M L1) 00 c m Ea co co L J C LL co 3 c u) • C - Z I_ O c >, d c U N N 'U t 7 L 0 E � _ C)0_ ..I a) O O CD C E A\ L 0) c C LL t N acLLa) C 0 (o co C C V) O - C 7 7 co E N C ▪ C u) r.+ N 7 -O (DC C N c co 0 - c a E E 2 o • 0 Q 2 (o a) a a U U C W CO 0 0 TD,_ a o O () +• a CU O 'O N O r L m E :EL)) o a>i ° m A CU +�+ N C 'C C E U d d 'a N c a (U () -C • 4) ci) 7 C 00 v) O v) CO Sources of 27,383,438.00 Sources Subtotal: 15,582,407.00 Expenditures to date: 11,801,031.00 Balance Available: 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O N N Ld O) O O) O O CO M O I- CO CD O 00 0 CO N 1` N L1) ti LO co r r c O E U O C *k *k *k C7 C) (� L L L a) (U N L 4) C -a -a T2 a o C O O O O U O (1) 4) ) N 0 0) C) C) 0) a) C N C C C ,U 03 co G) O 4 L L L Q) 15 I— UUUUcc O m CD c t 0 'Up to $95,000 in grant funding will be used to offset this change order G: \Library\New Main Library FS 05- 06.xls UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTE OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -MARCH 21, 2006- -5:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:40 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: (06- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organization: Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees Association. Al Fortier, Journey Lineworker, Local 1245, stated he was concerned with the lack of progress made; negotiations have been going on since December 2004; one tentative agreement was reached and was rejected by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); two meetings have been held since January 26 for a total of four hours; strike sanction has been granted by the local union, the Alameda Central Labor Council and the International Office of IBEW; a table agreement would be in the best interest of the City and IBEW; requested that the Council give the City's negotiating team the direction necessary to provide an acceptable table agreement. Gary Fenton, Journey Lineworker, Local 1245, stated he has been in the electrical trade for thirty years; IBEW is asking for a fair contract; IBEW's wages and medical benefits did not put the City in the current financial position. (06- ) Conference with Property Negotiator - Property: Ballena Isle Marina; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and Ballena Isle Marina LLP; Under negotiation: Price and terms. (06- ) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957) - Title: City Attorney. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the Council obtained briefing and gave instructions to labor negotiators; regarding Conference with Property Negotiator, the Council obtained briefing and gave instructions to real Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 21, 2006 1 property negotiator; regarding Public Employee Performance Evaluation, the Council discussed 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 March 21, 2006 2 UNAPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY MARCH 21, 2006 - - - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. [Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 9:05 p.m.] Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ( -06 ) Presentation by Rear Admiral Kevin Eldridge, U.S. Coast Guard District 11, recognizing the City of Alameda for becoming a Coast Guard City. Rear Admiral Kevin Eldridge gave a brief presentation, read a statement from the Commandant, and read and presented the proclamation. Mayor Johnson presented Alameda flags to Rear Admiral Eldridge. Barbara Price, Navy League, thanked everyone involved in the two - year process. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember deHaan noted the Fernside Boulevard pedestrian access improvements [paragraph no. 06- ]are a part of a phasing process; Lincoln Middle School improved a portion of the parking lot; additional improvements would take care of the front area of the school; the City would be requesting additional grants. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.] [Note: Accepting the work of Richard Heals Electric [paragraph no. 06- ] was reopened and addressed by the Council at the end of the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 21, 2006 1 meeting.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *06- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on March 7, 2006. Approved. ( *06 ) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,993,920.94. ( *06 ) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for furnishings in the New Main Library. Accepted. ( *06- ) Recommendation to release Request for Proposal for network equipment and services for the Alameda Free Library. Accepted. ( *06- ) Recommendation to accept the work of Richard Heaps Electric, Inc. for the Pole - Mounted Radar Speed Display Signs Project, No. P.W. 06- 05 -05. Accepted. Mayor Johnson requested staff to review areas for additional sign locations; stated the speed signs are a preventative measure. The City Manager stated that the Pubic Works Department is working with the Police Department on some type of monitoring that would measure the signs' effectiveness. Mayor Johnson inquired whether speeds could be monitored mechanically; inquired how much the signs cost. Councilmember deHaan responded the costs are noted in the ledger. Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated he hopes that more signs are installed; the pedestrian right -of -way enforcement works; more education is needed. Mayor Johnson stated the area is safer if signs help to reduce speed. ( *06- ) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Fernside Boulevard pedestrian access improvements near Lincoln Middle School (Safe Routes to School), No. P.W. 11- 02 -15. Accepted. ( *06- ) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for the Fiscal Year 2005 -2006 repair of Portland Cement concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway and minor Regular Meeting 2 Alameda City Council March 21, 2006 street patching, No. P. W. 03- 06 -06. Accepted. ( *06- ) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for installation of rubberized sidewalks, No. P.W. 02- 06 -05. Accepted; and ( *06- A) Resolution No. 13935, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter for Rubberized Sidewalks." Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (06- ) Ordinance No. 2947, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding a New Subsection 30 -5.7 (M) (Extensions of Roof Pitch and Roof Ridges) to Section 30 -5.7 (Projections from Buildings and Roof Planes, Permitted Encroachments and Treatments of Minimum Required Yards) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations), to Add a Process for Allowing Additions to Existing Dwellings with Nonconforming Height." Finally passed. Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that the ordinance recognizes the work of the Task Force. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.] (06- ) Public Hearing to consider Zoning Amendment R 05 -0002 to add a Planned Development overlay to a property located within the R -4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District and to consider Parcel Map, PM 06 -0001, to allow the division of an existing 14,602 square foot residential lot into two parcels, each with an existing detached duplex. The project site is located at 1810 and 1812 Clinton Avenue; (06- A) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., from R -4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District to R -4 -PD (Neighborhood Residential Planned Development) Zoning District for that Property Located at 1810 and 1812 Clinton Avenue. Introduced; and (06- B) Resolution No. 19336, "Approving Parcel Map PM 06 -0001 to Allow the Division of a 14,602 Square Foot Parcel into Two Lots at 1810/1812 Clinton Avenue." Adopted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 21, 2006 3 Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired why not all Parcel A parking spaces are contained on Parcel A, and why there was an easement. The Supervising Planner responded the parking spaces are existing spaces; the line was drawn in order to meet the 5,000 square -foot lot size. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated nothing appears to prevent the parking spaces from moving onto Parcel A; inquired why the parking spaces were not moved onto Parcel A. The Supervising Planner responded she did not know; the project was not her project; she believes that the reason was because of existing parking. Councilmember deHaan stated that a seawall appears to be at the backside of the parcel. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated some room appears to be between the existing parking and the building; noted an easement would be needed for the driveway anyway. Janice Graham, owner, stated open space was needed; two massive trees are on the property. Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance and adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.1 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. * ** Mayor Johnson called a recess at 8:01 p.m. and reconvened the Regular Meeting at 10:57 p.m. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 21, 2006 * ** 4 (06- ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination(s) for appointment to the Economic Development, Film and Housing Commissions. Councilmember deHaan stated the vacated Economic Development Commission position would allow a person to serve a three and a half year term and then two more terms. Mayor Johnson stated she would not want to appoint someone for a three and a half year term and then two four -year terms; stated some positions are covered by commission By -laws and some are set by the Charter. Councilmember deHaan stated that he hopes the Council would have a chance to review the Film Commission applications and provide some recommendations. Mayor Johnson stated that she would be happy to receive input from the Council; the City Clerk's office has all of the applications on file for review. Councilmember Daysog noted that he has never missed a regular Tuesday night City Council Meeting. Mayor Johnson congratulated Councilmember Daysog on an impressive attendance record. Mayor Johnson nominated Arthur A. Autorino to the Economic Development Commission and Irene Balde to the Housing Commission; stated that the Film Commission nominations would be held over. (06- ) Councilmember Matarrese requested that the next Library Project update or an Off Agenda Report address treatment to be used along the edge of the Library parking lot. (06- ) Councilmember Matarrese requested a review of potential ride share locations at the Webster Street outbound tube; requested the review be accelerated due to Enterprise Landing [Catellus project]; stated ride share could be potential mitigation for anything [development] west of Webster Street; addressing the matter could include fixing flooding that occurs. (06- ) Councilmember deHaan stated there has been increased criminal activity at the Alameda Town Centre; a police officer was sponsored two years ago; he would like to revisit the issue to ensure an orderly buildout. (06- ) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Alameda Town Centre Walgreen's would be open 24 hours; requested information on whether Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 21, 2006 5 a permit was issued for the 24 -hour operation. (06- ) Councilmember deHaan stated that the sidewalk on the Park Street side of the Alameda Towne Centre was only three feet; five feet would be more appropriate. (06- ) Councilmember deHaan stated that he attended AC Transit's hydrogen fuel cell demonstration on March 13; the bus has already been operating in Alameda. Mayor Johnson noted that the bus seems to be very quiet. (06- ) Mayor Johnson inquired whether anyone attended the AP &T electric partnership groundbreaking. Councilmember deHaan responded that he attended; stated the environment would be impacted if the gas was not captured. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 11:15 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 March 21, 2006 6 March 30, 2006 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 146483 - 147097 EFT 196 EFT 197 EFT 198 EFT 199 Void Checks: Amount 2,336,297.34 1,176, 355.00 25,610.00 11,330.89 175,409.69 144754 (48,217.50) GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, Sib Pam ela J. y Council Warrants 04/04/06 3,676,785.42 BILLS #4 -B 04/04/06 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: April 4, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Accept the Interstate 880/Broadway-Jackson Feasibility Study BACKGROUND In November 2000, Alameda County voters approved the reauthorization of Measure B, thereby continuing the existing County -wide half -cent sales tax for transportation projects until March 2022. Improvements to Interstate 880/Broadway-Jackson were identified as one of the projects to be funded from Measure B. Since the project affects several agencies, a Primary Stakeholders Group (PSG) consisting of the City of Alameda, the City of Oakland, Caltrans, and Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) was established to develop a Feasibility Study to identify a range of creative, feasible, and cost - effective alternatives for improving the north Interstate -880 corridor, between Oak Street and Union Street. To advise the PSG, a Stakeholder Working Group (SWG), comprised of the Alameda West End Business Association (WABA), Alameda Point Community Partners /Catellus, Port of Oakland, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA), Oakland Chinatown, and Jack London Village was also formed. The Feasibility Study is the culmination of the collaborative work of these groups. The overall goal of the Feasibility Study is to develop a set of feasible solutions that could be further analyzed in a Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR). A PSR is a Project Initiation Document (PID) that, "is the initial engineering document that provides the transition between the system plan and the proposed project" per Caltrans' Project Development Procedures. Caltrans policy is "to evaluate alternative solutions that avoid or reduce significant adverse environmental impacts." Therefore, PSRs generally include consideration of multiple alternatives. As this was a feasibility study, the objective was not to develop a single preferred alternative, but rather to generate a range of feasible solutions that could be evaluated in more detail in a PSR. DISCUSSION Over the past several years, planning studies for redevelopment of Alameda Point, the Fleet Industrial Service Center (FISC), Jack London Square, Port of Oakland facilities and downtown Oakland have been the drivers for identifying alternative improvements for the north I -880 corridor. In addition to improving freeway access for redevelopment, the studies included improved access to downtown Oakland and reduced pedestrian - vehicle conflicts within Oakland Chinatown. While these studies have recommended specific solutions, none has received support from all affected stakeholders and no project has moved forward to address the transportation needs of the redevelopment projects. Report 4 -C 4 -4 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 April 4, 2006 To ensure that the Feasibility Study would develop alternatives that could be supported by the stakeholders, the first step of the PSG was to identify evaluation criteria that would be used to assess alternatives. The evaluation framework developed by the stakeholders included mainline freeway and ramp operations, surface street operations, access and connectivity, environmental impacts, right -of -way impacts, constructability, cost, and technical feasibility. A preliminary set of 16 improvement concepts was developed, evaluated and screened based on using the evaluation framework. After several iterations, Alternative Package B was selected as best at addressing the issues within the project area as it provides acceptable traffic operations in terms of improved freeway access and reduced traffic on local streets. However, as part of the last round of evaluation, the stakeholders identified variations to Alternative B and requested that these be evaluated further. The following three options were assessed based on the stakeholders input: • Alternative B1 - Retain the northbound off -ramp to provide access to only Broadway at $82,449,968; ■ Alternative B2 - Replace the Broadway off -ramp with a new Harrison Street off -ramp at $66,839,230; and • Alternative B3 - Retain the Broadway off -ramp and add a new Harrison Street off -ramp at $88,670,910. A design assessment of the three variations determined that all three were technically feasible based on the preliminary design and cost analysis, and a qualitative assessment of traffic and environmental impacts. Since there are tradeoffs between the three packages for operations, access, and right -of -way, additional analysis needs to be conducted as part of the PSR process. As indicated above, preliminary construction costs range from $67 to $89 million in 2005 dollars. The construction can be divided up into smaller packages of $10 to $30 million each to accommodate phasing and available funding. These cost opinions do not include project development costs, environmental mitigation, or an inflation factor. Once the Feasibility Study is accepted, the next step will be the preparation of a Caltrans PSR. PSRs require more detailed traffic analysis, engineering and cost estimates, as well as a preliminary environmental analysis. The PSR will provide more detailed information on the specific impacts of each option and develop a recommended alternative. This recommended alternative would most likely be a series of phased projects that are eligible for programming and funding. The findings of the Feasibility Study have been part of an ongoing public information process. City staff made presentations to the City of Alameda Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters. ACTIA staff made presentations to the Oakland Waterfront Coalition, County Supervisor Lai - Bitker, and to City of Oakland Council members tasked with transportation oversight, Oakland Council Members Henry Chang and Pat Kernighan. A final SWG meeting is scheduled for March 27, 2006 at which time it is expected the SWG will accept the Feasibility Study findings and Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 3 April 4, 2006 recommend further analysis of Alternatives B 1, B2, and B3 through a PSR. The PSR process will be an additional opportunity for public participation and a chance for both Oakland and Alameda constituents to partner in identifying solutions. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The Study was funded by $200,000 in Regional Measure B funds. There is an additional $1.8 million in Regional Measure B funds allocated to the project for the PSR study. There is no impact to the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Accept the Interstate 880/Broadway- Jackson Feasibility Study. Resp M. thew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Prepared by, *_n Barbara Hawkins City Engineer MTN:BH:gc Attachment: Interstate 880, Broadway- Jackson Feasibility Study - On file in the City Clerk's Office G:\ pubworks\ pwadmin \COUNCIL\2006\040406\BJI880.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: April 4, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Accept the Work of SpenCon Construction, Inc., for the Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Repair of Concrete Sidewalk, No. P.W. 07 -05 -06 BACKGROUND On August 25, 2005, the City Council authorized a Third Amendment to the construction contract with SpenCon Construction, Inc., for the annual repair and replacement of sidewalks in the amount of $185,000. The contract allows for a total of four extensions, based the mutual agreement of the City and the contractor. Each extension is adjusted by the Construction Price Index, to account for inflation. DISCUSSION The project has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications and is acceptable to the Public Works Department. The final project cost is $184,998.55. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The work was budgeted under CIP# 82 -02, with Measure B funds. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Accept the work of SpenCon Construction, Inc., for Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Repair of Concrete Sidewalk, No. P.W. 07- 05 -06. Prepared By: r(ir (j'' C-r) Matthew T. Naclerio CW Chung Public Works Director MTN:CWC:gc cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee G:\pubworks\pwadmin\COUNCIL\2006\040406\sidewalkaccept.doc Associate Civil Engineer Report 4 -D 4 -4 -06 City of Alameda Inter - department Memorandum Date: To: From: Re: BACKGROUND April 4, 2006 The Honorable Mayor And Members of the City Council Debra Kurita City Manager Authorization of City of Alameda's Continued Participation in the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program for FY 2007 -2010 The Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (ACLPPP) is a Joint Powers Authority among the cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville and Oakland. The Joint Powers Authority was formed in 1991 to deal with what public health officials say is the number one environmental threat to children. It is estimated that one out of nine children under age six has enough lead in his /her blood to be considered at risk. The Joint Powers Authority is governed by a Board of Directors, which is comprised of representatives of the four cities and meets three times a month. Mayor Johnson serves as the City of Alameda's representative to the Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors. The ACLPPP's primary mission is to prevent childhood lead poisoning by educating the public, identifying and assisting lead poisoned children and reducing and abating lead hazards. The program is funded by an annual fee of $10 per residential unit constructed before 1978; the ACLPPP received approximately $639,059 in fees from City of Alameda property owners during the last three fiscal years. These funds have been leveraged into the receipt of more than $855,767 in State and Federal funding for Alameda projects over the same period. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS In the attached report ACLPPP highlights a number of activities that occurred during the past three fiscal years, and addresses potential areas for continued collaboration in the coming period. Last year, as part of ACLPPP's HUD Round 10 Primary Prevention effort, the City of Alameda was able to safely renovate eleven residential units. An additional twenty units were rehabilitated during the 2003 -04 fiscal year using HUD lead hazard control and CDBG funds. ACLPPP implemented activities that served a greater number of property owners and assisted them in the reduction of lead hazards and the prevention of childhood lead poisoning. The ACLPPP provides consultations, and property owner awareness and education activities. These activities included 110 on -site evaluations and /or distribution of lead test sampling kits; 33 lead -safe painting starter kits; lead -safe home renovation Report 4 -E 4-4 -06 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2006 Page 2 classes; eight homeowner awareness presentations /events; hardware store outreach; and, media related outreach. In promoting these services, staff from ACLPPP successfully collaborated with many City of Alameda neighborhood associations, hardware stores, libraries and various city departments. During the last fiscal year, approximately 110 Alamedans utilized the ACLPPP's Information Line and 24 households have used the loaner HEPA vacuums to do lead -safe clean -up projects. In becoming part of the Joint Powers Authority, the City committed itself to participation for three years. In May, 1997, 2000 and again in 2003 the City renewed its participation for an additional three years. FISCAL IMPACT The program is funded by a fee from pre -1978 built homes and by State and Federal grants. No City General Fund monies are used by this program. RECOMMENDATION Continued participation in the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program for the next three fiscal years 2007 -2010. Respe tf,��% submitted, __Development Services Director By: Dorene Soto Business Deve ent Manager Miriam Delagrange Reconstruction Specialist II MD /DS:sb Attachment Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program LA''Y City of Alameda Report °Table of Contents 1. Overview Page 1 Page 1 Page 2 Page 2 Page 3 Page 3 Page 4 Page 4 'Page 5 2. Program Accomplishments 3. County Service Area 4. Education & Outreach 5. In -Home Consultations 6. City of Alameda Accomplishments 7. Training 8. Medical Case Management 9. Program Management OVERVIEW Approximately 22,367 Alameda residential units, or 70% of Alameda's housing stock (31,644), were built before 1978, the year lead was banned for use in household paint by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Of these, an estimated 47% were built before 1939, when lead -based paint was used almost exclusively. An estimated 5,813 of Alameda's children under the age of six, the age most at -risk for lead poisoning, live in the City of Alameda. On October 15, 1991, the Alameda City Council formally joined the County Service Area (CSA) of the Lead Abatement District. Other participating cities in the CSA include Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland. Since its inclusion in the CSA, and solely unique to the City of Alameda, the Alameda City Council has voted eight times to continue its participation in the CSA, with the latest occurrence being in March 2003. The decision for continued participation transpired on a yearly basis until 1997, when an extended participation of three years was effected by City Council. In 1992, the City of Alameda played a critical role in initiating the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (ACLPPP), and the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that governs the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (ACLPPP). Mayor Beverly Johnson represents the City of Alameda on the JPA Board of Directors, with Councilmember Doug deHaan as the alternate. PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS Since the 2003 City Council's decision to continue as part of the CSA, the ACLPPP has provided property owners of pre -1978 residential properties with 116 risk assessments, 55 In -Home Consultations, 439 lead -safe painting kits, addressed 37 calls dealing with unsafe work practices, provided six lead -safe painting and remodeling classes and responded to 247 information line calls. The ACLPPP has also provided Title X support for the City of Alameda Development Services Department personnel in the implementation of Sections 1012 & 1013 of the Title X of the Residential Lead -Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. During the previous three fiscal years, the Program has collected from pre -1978 residential units approximately $639,059 in fees, which is used to leverage an additional $855,767, for a total of $1,494,826. This has been accomplished through the assistance of federal, state and private foundations such as HUD, DHS and Kaiser Permanente. As described in the last report presented to City Council on March 2002, the Lead Program received its fifth lead grant from the HUD (Round X). The grant period was from February 1, 2003 through July 31, 2005. This project, titled Partnerships for Affordable Lead -Safe Housing, built upon the existing relationships established with your local housing departments, health agencies, community organizations and residential property owners, while working closely with local Housing Authorities, to maintain and expand lead -safe Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program rental units 1 in Alameda. In Partnerships for Affordable Lead -Safe Housing, the Lead Program, working in conjunction with the City of Alameda Development Services Department, financed the remediation of lead hazards in 32 low- income City of Alameda residential units, at a cost of $160,000. On September 21, 2005, the Program garnered its sixth Lead Hazard Control grant from the HUD (Round XIII). This extension of the Round X Partnerships for Affordable Lead -Safe Housing Project will provide lead hazard reduction services, while increasing local capacity to address lead hazards and promoting lead -safe practices. As part of these activities, a contract was negotiated, in the amount of $125,000, with the City of Alameda Development Services Department to address lead hazards, with up to $32,912 to reimburse the city for the lead evaluations and clearances it provides. Over the three year grant period, the ACLPPP will subsidize 38 risk assessment paint inspections, and finance lead hazard control in 25 low - income housing units in the City of Alameda. COUNTY SERVICE AREA Due to budget cuts effected July 1, 2005, the JPA Board of Directors modified Program objectives in response to reduced revenues and increased costs. One such objective is Risk Assessments. The Program is no longer able to provide free risk assessments or clearances by a certified lead inspector /assessor to every pre -1978 property owner in Alameda. Instead, the Program will provide visual inspections, consultations, and lead sampling kits, known as In -Home Consultations, a less expensive but nonetheless extremely valuable service. ACLPPP staff maintains excellent collaborative relationships with numerous organizations in the City of Alameda, and will coordinate ongoing events, presentations and partnerships to further educate residents about childhood lead poisoning prevention. Education and Outreach Many Alameda organizations and agencies distribute lead educational materials that Program staff restocks and maintains. These groups include: the City of Alameda Permit Office, the City of Alameda Housing Authority, the Alameda Public Libraries, Pagano's Ace Hardware Mart, Encinal True Value Hardware and Mark's Paint Mart. Program staff provides in- service training on lead to hardware and paint stores staff as well. Staff also participates in numerous community events to educate the City of Alameda residents. These events include: the annual City of Alameda Earth Day, the Alameda Hospital Annual Fall Community Health Fair, the City of Alameda Landlord Information Night, Multi- Cultural Center Fair, South Shore Health Fair, the Stand for Children Health and Safety, Baby Wellness Fair, and Woodstock Jump Start Family Day, to name a few. Currently, there are two Program displays depicting lead poisoning prevention awareness at stores. 2 During the National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week, October 23 -29, 2005, special assistance was provided by Mayor Beverly Johnson and Lena Tam, Alameda Hospital Board Director, to facilitate a collaboration between the Lead Program and Alameda Hospital to commemorate this event at this site. In -Home Consultation Services The ACLPPP is providing In -Home Consultations (IBC) to property owners of pre -1978 residential properties. An ACLPPP staff person, trained in conducting visual inspections for potential lead hazards, will provide primary prevention lead education and make recommendations to property owners concerned about potential lead risks to their children or tenants, or who are planning to undertake repairs. Program staff will also refer owners to the Program's lead -safe painting classes and other services. In addition, the owner will be provided with a kit for taking samples of paint, dust and soil in the home, complete with video and written instructions. The kit will also be available for pick -up for those owners who do not want the in -home consultation. As part of this service, partnering agencies who serve CSA property owners will also be eligible for commensurate services to support their lead testing of eligible properties under HUD Round XIII grant funding. The owner will be able to mail up to ten samples to an accredited lab and receive free lab analysis of the samples for lead content. The owner will receive a report from the lab of the results and the Program will be available to provide additional phone consultation including assistance with interpreting the test results as needed. City of Alameda Accomplishments During the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006, the following accomplishments in the City of Alameda will have occurred: • 110 environmental lead consultation site visits and/or environmental lead testing kits to identify lead hazards in the home. • 33 lead -safe painting kits will have been distributed to property owners. • 110 InfoLine calls from residents regarding Title X, home renovations, abatement and contractor inquiries, testing paint and other lead sources will have been responded to by staff. • Eight educational events will have taken place to inform the general population of the potential sources of lead and its dangers. 3 • 550 EPA booklets titled "Protect Your Family From lead in Your Home" in three languages, English, Chinese and Spanish in order to assist property owners to be in compliance with Title X, Section 1018 requirements will have been provided to rental property owners. • 24 HEPA vacuum cleaners will have been loaned to property owners to assist them with lead -safe clean -up projects. Self - renovations continue to represent a high percentage of all renovations of pre -1978 residences. For those property owners who seek to personally conduct lead -safe renovations, the ACLPPP will provide them with a lead -safe painting kit. These kits will include lead - specific cleaning supplies, a comprehensive lead resource manual, which will include a list of certified contractors, and a "How To Do It Right" section. Thirty - three kits will be made available free to property owners at an estimated value of $80 each. Training The ACLPPP continues to offer property owner education in the City of Alameda, and will continue to expand its seminars to realtors, property managers, and neighborhood or homeowner associations, with the goal of reducing family exposures, in particular children under six years of age, to lead hazards. Property owners also need to be aware of changing Federal and State regulations mandating disclosure of lead hazards, distribution of lead hazard information prior to renovations, and containment of lead dust during renovations to prevent lead exposure, avoid fines and potential liability. Medical Case Management Under the Department of Health Services /Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch (CLPPB) grant, funds are utilized to support comprehensive health program services. Core functions of CLPPB - funded activities include direct case management services to lead poisoned children and their families, advocacy for blood lead screening via collaboration with other public health programs, and consultations to the medical provider community, including Medi -Cal Managed Care Organizations. Environmental Investigations (EI), designed to identify the source of lead poisoning, are conducted in the homes of children w -with elevated blood lead levels (EBLLs) throughout Alameda County. ACLPPP's Registered Environmental Health Specialist (REHS) provides property owners with a risk assessment report detailing the environmental test results and recommendations for safely addressing the lead hazards at the property. An on -site technical consultation with a Lead Project Designer is scheduled with the owner to discuss safe methods of lead hazard reduction, emergency measures, and program services such as the lead -safe renovation classes, painting preparation supplies, HEPA vacuum cleaner lending program and possible financial assistance under HUD Round XIII grant funding. 4 Program Management It is important to note that ACLPPP's ability to generate national recognition and receive funding from a myriad of sources, enables the Program to maintain the most comprehensive lead poisoning prevention program in the country. Therefore, a significant number of lead hazard reduction projects provided to CSA residents have, and will, continue to be funded through outside grants secured by the Program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), when available. ACLPPP believes the above proposal is cost effective, while providing important services to a greater number of property owners. The proposed services and activities, contained herein, represent a sound comprehensive public health approach that focuses on preventing the exposure of children to the adverse effects of lead poisoning. 5 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Debra Kurita City Manager RE: Recommendation to Release Request for Proposal for Thin Client Public Access System for the Alameda Free Library BACKGROUND On December 2, 2002, the City was awarded a State Library Grant for $15,487,952 for the construction of a new main library. Alameda voters previously approved Measure 0 in the amount of $10,600,000, which will provide the matching funds for the project and improvements to the Branch Libraries. Construction of the New Main Library began on March 14, 2005. Construction completion is expected in September 2006, installation of the new and increased technologies begin in mid - September. The current Thin Client public computer access system will require additional equipment and services to accommodate the expanded public access. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The current library network hosts 19 public access computer stations and 11 printers. When the new main library opens, the network will be expanded to an estimated 68 public access computer stations. Thin Client technology will provide a cost effective, low maintenance solution for public access to both internal and external digital resources such as library catalogs, specialized databases, and the Internet. The system will also improve public service through a responsive time management and booking system for library customers and include an integrated public printing capability. In order to accommodate the expanded Thin Client network, a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Thin Client Public Access System has been prepared and is on file in the Clerk's Office. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The estimated cost of the contract and associated equipment is $250,000, including shipping, installation and applicable taxes. The money will be taken from the Library Construction Fund 317. Report 4 -F 4 -4 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 April 4, 2006 RECOMMENDATION Approve the release of the Request for Proposal for Thin Client Public Access System for the Alameda Free Library. Respectfully submitted, me Chisaki Acting Library Director CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Debra Kurita City Manager RE: Recommendation to Release Request for Proposal for Equipment, Software and Services for a Computer Laboratory for the Alameda Free Library BACKGROUND On December 2, 2002, the City was awarded a State Library Grant for $15,487,952 for the construction of a new main library. Alameda voters previously approved Measure 0 in the amount of $10,600,000, which will provide the matching funds for the project and improvements to the Branch Libraries. Construction of the New Main Library began on March 14, 2005. Construction completion is expected in September 2006, installation of the new and increased technologies begin in mid - September. One of the amenities to be offered in the new main library will be a computer laboratory with classroom and word processing capabilities. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The planning process for the new main library included Community Needs Assessment meetings. Input regarding the uses of the public spaces were carefully considered in the designing of the building. Creating a computer laboratory in the new main library was priority to the citizens of Alameda. The new main library will have a computer laboratory with 20 PCs and an instructor's workstation. This space will be suitable for computer classes hosted by the library, can provide additional computer training space for other city departments, and will play a role in the after school homework assistance as outlined in the Joint Use Agreement with the Alameda Unified School District. In order to accommodate the public's desire to have a computer laboratory, a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Equipment, Software and Services for a Computer Laboratory has been prepared and is on file in the Clerk's Office. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. Report 4 -G 4 -4 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 April 4, 2006 BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The estimated cost of the contract and associated equipment is $50,000, including shipping, installation and applicable taxes. The money will be taken from the Library Construction Fund 317. RECOMMENDATION Approve the release of the Request for Proposal for Equipment, Software and Services for a Computer Laboratory for the Alameda Free Library. Respectfully submitted} ane Chisaki Acting Library Director CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING ARTHUR A. AUTORINO AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (COMMUNITY -AT -LARGE SEAT) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2 -14.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code and Resolution No. 12149, and upon nomination of the Mayor, ARTHUR A. AUTORINO is hereby appointed to the office of Community -At -Large Member of the Economic Development Commission of the City of Alameda to fill the unexpired term of Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft for the term commencing April 4, 2006 and expiring on August 31, 2009 and to serve until his successor is appointed and qualified. 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 , 2004, 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 , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolutions #5 -A 4 -4 -06 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING IRENE BALDE AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY HOUSING COMMISSION (TENANT SEAT) BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 2 -12.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, IRENE BALDE is hereby appointed to the office of Tenant seat member of the Housing Commission of the City of Alameda to fill the unexpired term of Franklin Rash for the term commencing on April 4, 2006 and expiring on June 30, 2008 and to serve until her successor is appointed and qualified. 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 , 2006 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 , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series RECLASSIFYING AND REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA BY AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1277, N.S., FROM R -4 (NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO R -4 -PD (NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONING DISTRICT, FOR THAT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1810 AND 1812 CLINTON AVENUE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. Section 11 -116 of Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., is hereby amended by reclassifying from R -4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District to R -4 -PD (Neighborhood Residential- Planned Development) Zoning District all the real property situated within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, bounded by Clinton Avenue on the north, the lagoon on the south and private property boundaries on the east and west, described as follows: Gross Square Feet Assessor's Parcel/ Existing Zoning Rezoned To Address 14,602 074 - 1255 -092 R -4 1810/1812 Clinton Avenue R -4 -PD Section 2. The above amendment shall be known as and referenced to as Reclassification and Rezoning Amendment No. 198 to Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. Section 3. 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 4 -4 -06 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 , 2006, 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 , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: April 4, 2006 Re: Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's Deemed Denial of Final Development Plan FDP05 -0003, Major Design Review DR05 -0127 and Tentative Parcel Map TM05 -0003 by Venture Corporation, for the Development of Three New Commercial Buildings Located at 2201 Harbor Bay Parkway. BACKGROUND On February 13, 2006 the Planning Board held a public hearing and requested that the applicant evaluate other site layout options that would reduce the amount of parking area located in front of the proposed buildings. The applicant requested that the hearing be continued to February 27, 2006, to allow time to respond to this request. At the February 27, 2006 hearing, the applicant presented additional information concerning alternative site layouts and concluded that the original design was the best alternative as it provided the maximum number of bay views and the least visual impacts. Staff recommended approval of the original design with enhanced landscaping along the street frontages to ensure screening of the parking areas. A motion was introduced to approve the project, but the motion failed for lack of a majority vote with two in favor and three against. On March 8, 2006, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Board's decision. DISCUSSION The Planning Board did not object to the proposed uses or to condominium ownership of these commercial buildings, but found that the site layout did not maximize the relationship to the water as required in the City Design Review Manual (DRM). The primary issue was the placement of parking areas towards the front of the lot. It should be noted that there were some differences of opinion among board members on this subject. Some Board members favored setting the buildings back from the street frontages since this would be more consistent with existing development in the business park and the extensive landscaped buffer along the street frontages would provide a more open transition zone between the project and public open space areas. Other Board members favored locating buildings closer to the street frontages to create a more dynamic interface between public and private areas. These Board members also found that the placement of parking areas Re: Public Hearing and Reso 5 -C 4 -4 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers April 4, 2006 Page 2 of 3 in front of the buildings, although screened from public viewing areas, would not be the optimal layout because the parking areas may detract from the bay views of project tenants /owners. The proposed project would be located on a lot facing the San Francisco Bay. The project includes two parking lots located on the two front corners of the lot. One lot also fronts onto North Loop Road. The project is separated from the bay by Harbor Bay Parkway and a narrow band of public open space. Buildings located on Harbor Bay Parkway are required to maintain a minimum setback of 50 feet. This area is required to be landscaped to provide a transition zone between the parkway, nearby public shoreline areas and office park buildings. City regulations and design guidelines do not specifically prohibit locating parking areas in front of commercial buildings. The City's DRM and Resolution No. 1203, which approved the Harbor Bay Business Park, do provide guidance. The DRM does state that parking areas should "generally" be located on the rear or side of lots. However, Condition No. 47 of Resolution No. 1203 states that parking areas, when located in front of buildings, are to be screened with berms and vegetation along street frontages. The DRM also requires that waterfront development "maximize the orientation to and visual relationship with the water." The project plans show that all units, except for the two flex spaces in the two buildings located on the rear of the lot, would potentially have shoreline views and parking areas will be effectively screened from public viewing areas. Staff reviewed the project for consistency with the DRM and Harbor Bay Business Park design standards and determined that the project meets the requirements established by the City for development within the Harbor Bay Business Park and therefore recommended approval of the application before the Planning Board. The Charter requires that a majority of the Planning Board must cast an affirmative vote on a motion for the Board to take an action. As a result any motion which fails to receive four votes fails. A project is deemed denied if a motion to approve fails for lack of majority vote. The Planning Board motion to approve the project failed by a vote of 2 to 3 with 2 members absent and consequently the project was deemed denied. The Board did not formally move to deny the project so there are no negative findings before the City Council on this appeal. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT No additional funding is necessary relating to Planning & Building activities for this project. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Actions taken on this subject does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW April 4, 2006 Page 3 of 3 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 there have been no significant changes in circumstances that require revisions to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report. The project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Building Director recommends that the City Council: 1. Uphold the applicant's appeal and approve Final Development Plan FDP05 -0003, Major Design Review DR05 -0127 and Tentative Parcel Map 8891 (File No.TM05- 0003); and 2. Adopt Resolutions based on the findings and conditions therein. By: ATTACHMENTS: Respectfully submitted, ,.d G) Cathy /oodbury Planning and Building Director Douglas Garrison Planner III 1. February 13, 2006 Planning Board Report (without resolutions) 2. February 27, 2006 Planning Board Report (without resolutions) cc: Applicant: VCC Alameda North LP. G:\ PLANNING \CC \REPORTS\2006 \04 -04.06 \Harbor Bay_2201 Venture Appeal v2.doc ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ACRONYMS: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF REPORT 8 -B FDP05- 0003/DR05- 0127/TM05 -0003 – Venture Corporation – 2201 Harbor Bay Parkway. The applicant requests approval of Final Development Plan and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of three new two -story commercial buildings. The buildings would range in size from 13,946 to 16,952 sq. ft. in size, with a maximum height of 34 ft. The proposed use of these buildings is a mix of research and development facilities and professional offices. The three buildings would contain up to 24 separate units. Specific businesses that would occupy the buildings have not been identified at this time. The applicant also requests approval of a one -lot Tentative Parcel Map / Condominium Plan allowing the conveyance of the 24 units to separate owners. Business Park Potential impacts are covered by the environmental determination contained in Resolution No. 1055 for the original Harbor Bay Business Park entitlements. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, no further environmental review is necessary. Douglas Garrison, Planner III Approve the Final Development Plan and Design Review and recommend approval to the City Council of the Tentative Parcel Map / Condominium Plan EIR —Environmental Impact Report FDP —Final Development Plan PDA — Planned Development Amendment AMC— Alameda Municipal Code CC&R —Codes Covenants and Restrictions 1. Draft Resolution for FDP05 -0003 and DR05 -0127 2. Draft Resolution for TM05 -0003 3. Final Development, Architectural and .Parcel Map / Condominium Plans Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 13, 2006 CC Attachment #1 Page 1 I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant proposes to construct three new two -story commercial buildings on a 3.41 acre parcel, located on the northeast corner of North Loop Road and Harbor Bay Parkway. The buildings would range in size from 13,946 to 16,952 sq. ft. in size, with a maximum height of 34 ft. Cumulatively, the three buildings include approximately 44, 844 sq. ft. of floor area. The proposed use of these buildings is a mix of research and development facilities and professional offices. The three mixed -use condominium buildings would contain up to 24 separate units. The project includes 170 parking spaces. Specific businesses that would occupy the buildings have not been identified at this time. H. BACKGROUND A. Existing Site Conditions and Vicinity Existing land uses in this business park include professional offices, research facilities, warehouse and distribution, light manufacturing and private school and daycare facilities. The project site is approximately eight- hundred feet away from the nearest residential district. The Metropolitan Oakland International Airport is approximately one mile to the south. Currently undeveloped land within the business park and the San Francisco Bay are to the west. B. Previous Approvals The site is within the Harbor Bay Business Park, a mixed use planned development that was originally approved by Planning Board Resolution No. 1203. The City and Harbor Bay have entered into a Development Agreement. Under this Development Agreement and earlier entitlements, a relatively broad range of commercial and manufacturing uses are allowed within the business park. New projects do, however, require Final Development Plan (FDP) and Major Design Review approvals by the Planning Board III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The parcel is located in an existing business park. The business park was evaluated previously in the 1974 Environmental Impact Report prepared by A. D. Little, certified in March 1974 and the 1988 Addendum to the EIR certified in 1989. Both documents are on file in the Planning and Building Department. The draft Resolution for this project contains findings pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. Under Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, no additional environmental review is required at this time. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Final Development Plan Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 13, 2006 Page 2 The development plan for. Harbor Bay Industrial Park was approved on December 1, 1981 with conditions by Planning Board Resolution No..1203. These conditions set minimum development standards for the Harbor Bay Business Park, including setbacks, landscaping, building coverage, and employee open space. Table 1 summarizes project compliance with applicable development standards. In addition to the summary table, a more detailed discussion concerning landscaping, parking and employee open space is provided below. Table 1. Final Development Plan Compliance Summary Factor City Standard Project Compliance Complies Setbacks Side (Interior) Side (N. Loop Rd.) Rear (Interior) Front (Harbor Bay Parkway) 15 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 50 ft. 15.25 23 ft. 26 ft. 58.25 ft. Landscaping 30% lot coverage 30% Complies Parking Office (1 per 250 sq. ft.) Manufacturing: (1 per 800 sq. ft.) If 100% office: 179 If 95% Office: 170 If 75% Office: 135 If 50% Office: 118 170 Full Size Spaces Complies Lot Coverage 40 % maximum 19% Complies Floor Area Ratio 0.5 to 1 0.3 to 1 Complies Building Height 35 feet 34 ft. Complies Parking: This project is proposed as a professional office and research and development mixed -use project. Actual tenants / condominium owners are not known at this time. Thus, the final mix of uses is also not known. Recent experience, with a similar project (the Venture I Project, located across the street) indicates that demand for office space may be higher than for light manufacturing or warehouse uses. The AMC provides different parking ratios, depending on the type of use. The proposed parking plan provides 170 full-size parking spaces. This is a conservative approach that will allow for a broad range of uses. As shown above in Table 1, under the conservative assumption that up to 95 percent of the project were to be used for professional offices the project would comply with AMC standards. Additionally, the AMC allows up to 50 percent of the spaces to be compact size. By redesignating some of the proposed full-size spaces as compact spaces the applicant could meet current AMC requirements, even in the event that 100 percent of the floor area were to be used as professional office space. Employee Open Space: Projects located within the Harbor Bay Business park are required to provide a pleasant employee Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 13, 2006 Page 3 open space area. Specific standards such as size or location have not been established. The only guidance provided is that these areas must be pleasant, integrated into the overall landscaping plan and provide shelter from wind and traffic. The project site plans designate landscaped areas for employee use that meet these requirements. Landscaping: The project landscape plan includes a mix of trees, shrubs, grasses and other low -lying ground cover vegetation. Trees proposed for the two street frontages include a mix of Holly Oak (Quercus ilex) and White Alder (Alnus rhombifolia). Twenty -four inch box size trees will be used. This planting palette will match the existing landscaping on the opposite side of North Loop Road. The existing mix of White Alder and Cajeput (Melaleuca leucadendra) trees on the Harbor Bay Parkway frontage will be left in place and supplemented with additional tree planting. Within the parking area, a mix of Carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides) and Holly Oak trees will be planted. Building and employee open space areas will include Magnolia trees (Magnolia g. St. Mary's). A complete listing of trees, shrubs and other landscaping plants is provided on the landscape plan. Condition No. 48 of Planning Board Resolution No. 1203 provides landscaping guidance for development throughout this business park. Landscape plants are to be hardy and drought resistant. Projects are required to use a mixture of appropriately scaled setbacks, incorporating berms, planted with trees, shrubs and other ground cover, that result in a strong unifying theme along arterial streets. Parking areas, when located in front of buildings are to be screened with berms and vegetation along street frontages. Landscaping is to be incorporated in employee open space areas to provide shelter from wind and automobile traffic. The street frontage plantings are consistent with existing landscaping and provide a seamless continuation of this landscape. The combination of dense linear plantings ofmultiple rows oftrees and shrubs along the street frontages provide effective screening of parking areas. Earlier plantings ofthe same species, on nearby properties have been successful and, therefore are anticipated to also do well on this site. The Alameda Municipal Code requires one tree per four parking spaces, to create a shade canopy. Under the Development Agreement, the applicant may implement a landscape plan that provides varying densities of trees within the parking lot as long as the overall ratio of one tree per four spaces is maintained. Based on the proposed 170 parking spaces, this project will require 43 trees in the parking area. The landscape plan shows 46 trees in the parking area. Conclusion: The proposed project complies with setback, height, lot coverage, landscaping and parking requirements. It is therefore consistent with the conditions contained in Planning Board Resolution No. 1203, the approved Development Plan for the Harbor Bay Business Park and the AMC. B. Design Review In addition to City design review requirements, the project is also subject to approval by the Harbor Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 13, 2006 Page 4 Bay Business Park Architectural Review Committee. The project has been reviewed and approved by the Harbor Bay Business Park Architectural Review Committee (Attachment 4). The proposed concrete, glass and steel buildings will have medium - height horizontal profiles similar to other Harbor Bay Business Park buildings. The designs are modern, simple and straightforward. The proposal relates well to the original design concept for Harbor Bay Business Park and nearby buildings. Proposed exterior building colors are earth tones consisting primarily of different shades of beige with brown accents. Over 50 percent of the front facade area will consist of green tinted glass. Anodized aluminum arches accent the entryways. The buildings' 34 -foot height includes parapet screens for mechanical equipment. Conclusion: The proposed buildings are similar in scale and design to other nearby buildings in the Business Park. The design complies with design guidelines for landscaping and architecture contained in the Harbor Bay Master Plan and Resolution No. 1203. The project has been reviewed and approved by the Harbor Bay Business Park Architectural Review Committee. C. Tentative Parcel Map / Commercial Condominium Plan The project consists of three new buildings on an existing legal lot. The applicant has submitted an application for a one -lot parcel map to allow future conveyance of individual units within these buildings. This is a commercial condominium project. Individual ownership of the 24 units, within these three buildings would not convey any additional rights for land uses beyond those established in earlier entitlements. No residential uses are proposed. Tentative Map 8891 has been reviewed by City staff and determined to meet the requirements contained in the City of Alameda Subdivision Ordinance and the California Subdivision Map Act. Common area maintenance and distribution of parking spaces will be addressed in the condominium C. C. & R's. These C. C. & R's are subject to review and approval by City staff. V. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Building Director recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, review pertinent information and documents, then act to approve Final Development Plan FDP05- 0003, and Design Review, DR05 -0127; and, to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 8891(File No. TM05 -0003) based on the findings and with the conditions contained in the draft resolutions. G:\ PLANNING \PB\Reports\2006 \02 -13- 06\2201 Harbor Bay_FDP05 -0003 DR05 -0127 TM05- 0003.doc Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 13, 2006 Page 5 eaeme Ma nn.= =∎ aka., m OW .P#Ie gym. •Malp. 3YETOY'IVIAI22IVM � VINTIOtIIZVD evaawv'IV iVAANRIVd AVG 110131111H NOLLVII0d210D NH 1 _ — _ WILMS manna e eo 1 ■ 1 E 1 � a arvim uw r m 4 uaiv �� NVId 311S w u` J L J ' ■ ■ ■ { { { ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ . 'yam L v aVW _ .4111 Dr4fr l aE i ZAT ice: fs,:4 71r leeall?',i I TV.ir ;AEI_ 0 1111111 1 ■. ■ z¢ 5. CL= 1 co TOTAL BUILDING AREA z co z PROJECT DATA: 0) w z z a 1- z w w J w 0 m z 0 5 O BRE MEM] II 0 0 0 9 PtSfeeld s,:c soovrrt S IME09NlromaaOW41n eryuew • no1CPesMonspaMSNWn,. 90-130 -Z0 1VilhI l ns 9N ,m.,. ®.,m,. - MN,�.e ®— 0•= �ODZV ��Vn�i vixuovo `vaaviv AvM VIAvg IOE WH I�IOII.V2IOd2I0D i1 C11 1LL1 �Li 11 1 3 �3b I 3gk bl µ iir on F can m 9sJ8 :LOSURE PLAN (119110o) 11 i 1 w i it q i i SS d O 3 aka 11 iQ 3 $' s �: igi 3 ��a 3a it ail . tt! b N _ y , ��` 1 ti En W ' Q �. DM -I -II • SlIV134 7 11 1 3 �3b I 3gk bl µ iir on F can m 9sJ8 :LOSURE PLAN (119110o) 11 i 1 w i it q i i SS d O 3 aka 11 iQ 3 $' s �: igi 3 ��a 3a it ail . tt! b pi y , ��` 1 ti En W ' L ENCLOSE L _: .. Q 2§ CO wi, 2. 1— g aru�w : CO _ ,._ ,A-, %Y11 A .0-A t d .0-A •� + a t p'{yg �$$ a 111 81 y J 44i !L �3 H W / ef g , 8 w J ygy! 5$¢S i!I!!1 Li @e a ❑ 6 1tlk ITIL _4X'11011=i 1 _ HY bil SIOLEIDGEM ENCLOSURE REV GATE JAMB) rillillimMi 111111111111E1111 lErm III JI 1! N g 2, i—; ____ 511/11 Ai .0- a � .0-u MI (Mr %Mt • .0-0) J-o x a g n N e -.r . ° I .Ulc J p :I rI I 0 b Li I\ `,\ (CLOSURE R —I,_ I. 6 —I_I m ° O W• 4 W p Z: MI � N- 0 0) OO'fV.lOd'•d orEr{ so00/!K'a'VL ISG)innsEh mnirldWQ10v\o N<•ry Oil• 0o-r01101...n1s0 on :w 90-90 -ZO 1V.LU 8f1S ONINNV1d alloo s minemi mdmme am,. 01+e,4. -some... _� ds.e.•da.dw�eom sw.w ENi0 TWIN TTIVMA V1INzIOdflVO `VQmWV IV AVM}RIVdAVE(No VH NOI.LVUIOd2IOD a a 0 .0-.R sal �, i y v is m i ti wa 1 'd: ssumsens OIMMIld 01.08 e0 -110-=o [l.Vllllllllllll 'e S om6. AIM fo.2 -11 Ma Nirneddld ld ilOOlj :Ni tl JNlallfl9 • ow Jammams. Ea ga Isse men. me AO MIN DIL OL AMINO MI nen uswom me a. 1113,{ 081:1■ • TIM OW Nose arks ume 10.2/1111111W,IIM 11011111M.111/1= yawn ma nu* Imo men mow. a= awn Ma aor dram. tra..., um.. awe Am.. as so mom... exe lama a.sa iv 0 8 BUILDING A - SUMMARY Edo qbq ih bgbb 3f CF lioi kiR C7 Z 0 m g a 0 0 LL H k F•Sd•10d Wd LSSLZ 900l /UL'4'NRIRIZADOlN 14001VOlIIWe.•NV]A• Oo-lE0i50N1°A 56•11:1 a a 0 .0-.R sal .0-R G® i y v is m i ti wa 1 'd: r � [l.Vllllllllllll 'e °iiAIIIIIImillli ■ , ii Ps NI re <a co ›- 1 N co ) • : I �U— co I AI=D 1 I ' Ilk�� oo 5 m I -' ' -- -- -- -- Illlllllll.11 _ f c .r■glllllllllll 11 _J d ___,,4 0 Nu I re a NNm N r CL i 1 Ilk Sia N a' F,m ■ C7 Z 0 m g a 0 0 LL H k F•Sd•10d Wd LSSLZ 900l /UL'4'NRIRIZADOlN 14001VOlIIWe.•NV]A• Oo-lE0i50N1°A 56•11:1 90-90- O 1V.LI.IW811S ONINNVId UN003S ...,..., m,..... — .�-m- = VxOd 1W D 'tramway AV/WWI AIM 1IOSxvI1 NOILVUOdUO3 n T �T /� i . 111 1� . J IH 1. $ N I csi EINO3'lVJ/� 3 1VM aopio. r � I g 1 Q mm WO r ssw MOM 03-12-11 Mt Ntlld dOO1A :9 mama Ten IMMO. LW 2,1 •1011. Thla 0011 am@ 10.11.0MION 0 0 0111110110 11101110■11 YOKO. IA 400 =0 Mb MI 10 011110 00 00 1 1100 01,11101 00 1000 INV 10110 0 a. 0 0 8 09 ° ° ° ° BUILDING B - SUMMARY 0 zp Z- [C Z 0 a re 0 0 —J LL Z N bbd a °- ih 41:P a :BF b bbb akh i zUe 1�A11111111111 1111111111111 A111111111111 1 .'usw tum9aeswuden,LInco1nxuamnamaoAu an- ..-KmymwnWspoN. 80-80 -ZO Tr /1101911S ONINNVld ONO03S morrm. '-R 1...P: ,,�,- .4:1� .4.1.1 IWO D IV HIIVM VIN2IOen'IV0 'VQgvcv -V AVM IBVJ AVg IOH11VH NOLLV IOd'IOD a 1NaA PDX b bbb kO N :114 °� O110 flidli i b gbh as E b I y b _ M b r qbq ik" a al b 311II iAi bbb il0100 li b bqb §0.t!.119 d b i bbb dli b bqb as ,-k 00 ail Q O n ED e Q : r m . 4 e rand 1,1OO1d0 eNwiine o-ao • P. libillIOZZaaa la mu own." am as imam as ta moms 'On. hamslezi la/ 7■11 /N1 ansa, SI Time sesieW WKS -worm mho Daillax Asia sem MO Any eln • Loa Infle an maw A Larlefa 7■0 .21.021.• alia.1102.1 co o i 2 z al 11 i co U ilre 3 111 � c� O 0 of LL © ©o0000oa m bb �� as � b c PDX b bbb kO N :114 °� O110 flidli i b gbh as E b I PO Ss! 40! Ole dii b _ bbb Isar E ti b r qbq ik" a al b 311II iAi bbb il0100 li b bqb §0.t!.119 d b i bbb dli b bqb as ,-k 00 ail Q O n ED e Q : Ax U 1 AAC i Ax� o-ao .o-g r _____gyL Ana __ _ -_B _ __ Ax �C i. I -a k "c' m - -- == - I"__ m� ■ v G - onI il 114 n l 17i< p EEE do an �..� —i _):1 ---i_ii<r)i OIN o - � J 7 P J O : 1 A.. .0-0 I • ♦Aa 1 0 r +- -� __..- ... Ax °_.e , S-AC r sSL , l .0-x __ il, _r J o h 11 m --.--� N M' = -1 N m -- -- 11 I niiiilii -El lin° 4m r` iii 0 gun ip, _ .Ind& nn, viii NE iii' Ti N O` I �I uuiffinn re h �uu, re a a a 1. ch re El - - - - -- - - -- -z - - - -- - -� -- --1._ - -- y - — fia's661nd'W1[14149004(/2 s'rrmRMxmairkno loom oponmy An• on. wro naman tl:w 90 -90-ZO 1V111IN8f1S ONINNHId ON003S ®011,011 011„nm,a b„, UMTN. -�� LL ill O o ri vhi wink V1 RIOeIr1VO VcI P1v'IV LVAORIVdAVLIIOHiIVH 1!`�L0��TO�T�O/"�� EQI 1J N E[ , . $ V �" 1s a u . g V 1 Q mna� SNOLLvA3l3 nm NOINILX3 .I.71.1 :v ONialln imva ailltl■ 211TM fitr 1•7000•1 GOMA CYO TIONO.1211•111VM •••=7•0 WALK 'ROM NM PM Ye/ Of 1.072 ■I171 COW ON OD MIDI IN !al 111.11 ONI /COIN d 1.111.00 04■14:01 MO. am Igew.mcpal 1004/611 MOS 0 ce 0 U 1- z a 000000 _ I, =I_ o Q i ,.m a- ti" 0 I 111111E �■I MIMI CI rc X7 1 0 0 o britA radii o w ,Iiiirmt.;:te: I ffli Llins of o 0 0 i1 1.111 I C LI Et. mil Ir(11111 1 111W 0 5 m Er I' z' I I Oi rit Er r i ii O— 00 — .Mt0 OM MAIM :s1iiIi NMI CI iia'M l�i %WA u i�� M rMid gin :Aran 0® C Ai shim was i i • ii_me► rF O- KOM p 1 .7. OHM NIP1117 NM MIMI NMI NMI .��. 0/1_111 NMI INES —I 0- IMRE EMI NMI u MINo N NMI MN NNE BUILDING A: WEST ELE cb' seuaa' 4dw. -nzaom/N.711n011900rvu1aalv0l11q msn- .T.,,ok Mmw.A.H 9O-9O-ZO 1V111W9f1S ONINNV1d aNOOJS .,,,a a, �.,�. ...IV Y .�-�� .... • 3 O Y 7 1L C l J 1 e •• VIN�IOHIIVO ` CDDIV'IV AVM) VJAVBIoanIVH NOLL�'2IOd2i00 j �j �T� /� Ql 1�1 .111 . N d' „ 0i0mne a03ax xuars awxva MU 03-60-m ■ loss -u E q 06060 SNOLLVM1 uw LIORJ31X3 mrvxa 9 ONI0n1(19 w MOlidligi ° ° ° ° ° ° w 0 J cc 0 0 U z r 0 i ii i :1 I rit: : EL.P11131Mil ran 0 ling LINEN ° I: nN11► o o ammo i • 3:11 ° o Mal LIII- -I ° �sl- 7� iM mll =NE °� =till f0,5� 17 0 kid 9'> I- — -. O- 0— 0 U MIME E °� o E_® 0 MIME riln : IIIM R o MN --I : 0 0t BUILDING B: SOUTH EL BUILDING B: NORTH EL 0 I` x` I' 5 ii �M WAt o . 0 ziii WAR ° aim alma o ° z I% • Eii ;iii■ i NNE ;wawa –Km -Km o Nam ° war I 1 1� iZ n l° o, 0 0 '� 0E ° C - ii EMI 0 ' WM liali : IM- -MIK e o MK/ iii i ° s -i Ili %ii e liall iii All Mil o .! „� a 0 0 — l-o� ° 114!= 'aim el 1i ; M El I 11M CM. i -n ''m 777 MIN 7.min Ism !ININ tMN NM iMI NMI lo me 7'7 7'e km mum =g o Zr — J W N W z to O•Yfi99a.19d DMZ 9007 /1/L'M1.YLY360lMLNYYM00109IQ.1... an• aPtro.so .v.ntspo :u 9O-80-ZO Td1LIW811S ONINNHId ONO03S ®!11=101 4MM.. pVIARIOzUTVD .�. --_ ...7". p — E1NOD'IVL1t H2IVt1A tVG NI 1Y AVISORIVci AYH ?IOMPTH NOIJX IIOdT IOD l 1►Ll �L�1 1 Y CO 111 00,10-‘1/ a a Q a� m ,ew SIFIIIL -u • SNOUNA313 L10Rf31X3 :O maws OA alibi MAWR AYR 10 MOM al 0.11*Vle • TIM VIMILIN• MB ,10.. 13100. 71,111111 16MIOLOA SOO IT. 11110•■■••■121310. W.I.. WM ma 4■707/00 SO gam um wan WI RIM% 2I1a 1.111111.4:0 MOO/ M. WILIMaill ca. warnms Mae I 11 i l i d 1 ®1 a I Bo 013 :G000 010 g 0 z W cw J a0 0 Z a hUN ERt; OCCIONI 0 I I NI. w al 2011 0 00 lama alma alma rm.0Eau gall 7 L •• alma um. lama ..ml lama MI .1 iel 0, I 0E L t,. a `ir . p 17� I- st► .►7 .7.7.7 .r7 r7r7►7 EIM RAII M IME ,7, MB imililli 0 MI Will /MB ( -Gi! I.= ail ..a. I maw Ago IIRS bu ME 11.1 IIMS11 mama lanai all SMI 1r mama .►i. mama .a• alma mmom 9 mmilm Paumm 00 0 F 00 ZIPAZ MIMS _gin inn CNN 11 MIN M PAPArni minim wPam kmrais 11,41M E•36610d Y1199:51:i 900Uat d'Y6Y[[UIQIlll4WIAUQIDOIQ ft - 00SE0-1601•IWR1\SP•11:M mmMm; mnwwe •• ,wane�m IIAIO D1VW H21VM �"" VII1�IOarivo �VU 1V'IV AVAMTVdXVff2IOHfIVH MOLD/110010D I1 ,Lmat1 y y _ _ _ _ i In MLA Q SNOLMS ONIOlIf1S 1111111111 Wsss�m'�aare�z smuai.VI& O wxWWOa\o\o Ma.. - oo-c11,i50 \aaroMsmvon:w v v v v v v v v v v 31,11,311 E959-69LEROOJ 99S/E wb1BO'w�EBOI1 ifEPIIE(EEO Et ISIS•.. MAMA, EELI '3NI 'S110A3Aaf15 9 5933NI9N311AID 1H71NM'8 b31)1 VINNOirM VmwVlV dIHStl3NLLVd O311WI1 HlliON VO3wVIV - ODA )103 • (b w Up bLZS dVw 1371Nd ZE 9 IE'OE S13DEVd JO A]Allf1S DIHdVRIDOdO1 1 $ ! LyR�+S�d @g <tay y� §g h��S �j�if taf(a��ey }pg3a $Cygggkyya�� CJ , ISd Ad 9f 9fl 900E /[ /L 6.90d-19990I \199EOO\Eooz \2 v v v v v v v v MGM 1,1 MOWN moi 1111.41■MOI.I wumq 4..nsey SW-MEM DImVCM.trnt 'DM ‘STIOA3A1111S SIERNION311AK) JJ-IDIIIM 101)1 VIMICHITf) VC1311V1 d d11-15113N1Vdd aainn ftLON VC1311VIV - 110A ta 9L I) IrLZS dIfIN 13DIRed ZE IF 'oe 7130)Nd AO Wind 3DVNIVJO aNV ONIGVIla INVNINI11311d 1 ° Ofa ip .1 1:11/1 .11.1 oil. . h. I =lir 41121 &MAME:11N MN • • w iI I7D 69 / - 4 n1111-11-ral..,. rsi gr.gp.‘ 900z/44 0,,,,,ggov\,gpsoo\go.W v v v v v v V v ON u WWI w 1069 {K WO NN NOS 11111000101001.11 9699-60 N[q 01 NpMS'.N16.00 rnl 7NI'SNO..atomS 9 Stl33NION3 lIAI0 11-10111M 8 1f31)I VINNOiINJ VG3INV1V dIHSK3NLNVd 03LWIl HLMON V03INV Y - D A Io3 V 130Wd OVOU 4001 HLaON 30 1688 dVI1 13D21Vd 3AI.VIN31 W 7 k 1Ge�a Y y E �1 $ lig ill $ it i - {ig a ill 1 lii g u 11' IP f a a 1 4 - " -... 831-435 `\ —6r0E V71 .d 03,1-G1 w \ II I o ■I:uC uai w il.1. � I ,rigs araaillmm g ■ . • vl ION ■I ■ •■r:i■\Ii•■ craw it s - gum 1 1112` -EF a Nip .�1IV ark' F61 `Iii i • 10 Xd 1,460 :11 9000/1/11 6.P111- ,9950Y \19950^\000Z \:I — 1 �": •• •®'°°' m °,." NOI,LVIIOd2IOD i1 J NI: ■ l v s J i II Q MTH OM CONIMI MO NVId3dV3SONFIIAUVNIWIl3Md 6/1731 NIM111011■1 IT 101.1.10 1•19/III ma& l r� I a i II ) .. r Mill '4 411101M ri 14 'Q! HARBOR —:B -AY -R-Aj .KW_AY__ CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: From: Date: Re: 8 -A President Cunningham and Members of the Planning Board Douglas Garrison Planner III February 27, 2006 Supplemental Staff Report for FDP05 -0003, DR05 -0127 and TM05 -0003 2201 Harbor Bay Parkway BACKGROUND This project was originally considered by the Planning Board on February 13, 2005. In response to the Planning Board's request for additional information, the applicant requested that this item be continued. The project is located at the intersection of Harbor Bay Parkway and North Loop Road and is in close proximity to the shoreline. The site layout includes three rectangular buildings laid out in the shape of a T. This layout places two parking lots along the two street frontages and places the buildings in the center and rear of the lot. At the February 13 meeting, the Planning Board requested that the applicant consider alternative designs that would reduce the amount of parking along the street frontages. DISCUSSION The Planning Board and Staff suggested alternatives. These included moving buildings from the rear of the lot forward to the street frontage, rearranging buildings into a U- shaped configuration, and increasing the heights of some buildings. The applicant has reviewed design alternatives suggested by the Planning Board and Staff and determined that these are not feasible for the following reasons: All three buildings are two -story designs. Each building includes first and second floor units on both sides of the building. The proposed design provides shoreline views for the maximum number of units within these three buildings. Reorienting the buildings would result in the occupants of some units losing their shoreline views. Increasing the height of some buildings to three stories would provide some additional flexibility, however, the Alameda Planning Board Staff Report CC Attachment #2 Meeting of February 27, 2005 Page 1 applicant notes that previous experience with three story buildings indicates that buyers prefer one or two -story spaces. To ensure the viability of the project the applicant proposes the original two -story design. ANALYSIS Design Standards AMC Section 30- 37.5(a) requires that projects be compatible and harmonious with the site, adjacent or neighboring buildings and surroundings and promote harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between designated land use areas. AMC Section 30- 37.5(c) notes that City staff may rely on the principles and standards of the City Design Review Manual (DRM) in determining project consistency with AMC Design Review requirements. Additionally, Resolution No. 1203, which approved the Harbor Bay Business Park, established specific requirements as conditions of approval for the Harbor Bay Business Park. The DRM notes that project design should take into consideration the project's effect on adjacent properties and neighborhoods. The DRM provides the following guidance in achieving this objective. • Site Plan: Major design considerations are the location of open space and connection to the existing circulation system. Loading areas, maintenance facilities, trash collection equipment should be located to minimize effects to nearby buildings. The project design provides open space along the Harbor Bay Parkway frontage which also faces the shoreline. Public Works and Planning staff have reviewed project access and determined that proposed connections to the existing circulation system are adequate. Proposed loading areas are located at the rear of the lot. Trash collection facilities and utility equipment are located along the rear or interior side of the lot, where they are generally not visible from public viewing areas. • Architectural Design: Buildings should be of an appropriate design theme, sense of scale, compatible roof line and harmonious colors and materials. Proposed buildings are comparable to other nearby buildings in style, scale, materials and colors. Most of the structures in the vicinity are either two -story structures; or, are one- story warehousing and manufacturing facilities that are of similar height. • Waterfront Development: Project design should take full advantage of this feature by maximizing the orientation to and visual relationship with the water. The proposed project would be located on a lot facing the San Francisco Bay. It is separated from the bay by Harbor Bay Parkway and a narrow band of public open space Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 27, 2005 Page 2 that separates Harbor Bay Parkway from the bay. Plans show that all units, except for the two flex spaces in the two buildings located on the rear of the lot, would potentially have shoreline views and that this layout. The proposed design does achieve the requirement to maximize the orientation to and visual relationship with the water. It should be noted that required landscaping will block some first floor office views of the bay and potentially some bay views from nearby buildings. Constructing taller buildings would increase the number of bay views. However, the applicant has stated that this is not an economically feasible alternative. • Landscaping: Design should be integrated into the project and provide an appropriate transition between properties. Buildings located on Harbor Bay Parkway are required to maintain a minimum setback of 50 feet. This area is required to be landscaped to provide a transition zone between the parkway, nearby public shoreline areas and office park buildings. • Parking: In general, off - street parking should be located at the rear or side of the property and should be screened from the public right of way. The project includes two parking lots located on the two front corners of the lot. The parking layout includes berms and landscaping to screen the parking lots from public viewing areas, however, the parking. Condition No. 8, of the attached Draft Resolution, ensures that parking areas will be adequately screened. Resolution 1203 contains the following requirements: • Condition 47: Parking areas, when located in front of buildings are to be screened with berms and vegetation along street frontages. The project includes two primary parking lots. One faces the North Loop and Harbor Bay frontages. The other one is on the interior side and faces Harbor bay Parkway also. The project includes berms and landscaping to screen the parking lots from public viewing areas. Condition No. 47, of Resolution No. 1203, recognizes front yard parking in the business park, even though the DRM does not. Condition No. 8, of the attached Draft Resolution, ensures that parking areas will be adequately screened and that landscaping will be installed and maintained. The parking layout includes berms and landscaping to screen the parking lots from public viewing areas and Condition No. 8, of the attached Draft Resolution, ensures that, however, the parking areas are not in the rear of the lot. • Condition No. 48: Provides landscaping guidance for development throughout this business park. Landscape plants are to be hardy and drought resistant. Projects are required to use a mixture of appropriately scaled setbacks, incorporating berms, planted with trees, shrubs and other ground cover, that result Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 27, 2005 Page 3 in a strong unifying theme along arterial streets. Landscaping is to be incorporated in employee open space areas to provide shelter from wind and automobile traffic. The preliminary landscape plan meets these requirements as shown on the attached plans. The plan includes bermed lawn panels, shrubs and trees between the parking areas and the street. An employee patio, located on the front of the lot provides bay views and is incorporated into the site landscaping. CONCLUSION The project meets the minimum requirements established by the City for development within the Harbor Bay Business Park. The DRM does state that parking areas should "generally" be located on the rear or side of lots. However, Condition No. 47 of Resolution No. 1203, states that parking areas, when located in front of buildings, are to be screened with berms and vegetation along street frontages. As conditioned, project parking areas will be effectively screened from public viewing areas. Given the proposed number of units the proposed design does achieve the requirement to maximize the orientation to and visual relationship with the water. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Building Director recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, review pertinent information and documents, then act to approve Final Development Plan FDP05 -0003, and Design Review, DR05 -0127; and, to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 8891(File No. TM05 -0003) based on the findings and with the conditions contained in the draft resolutions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution for FDP05 -0003 and DR05 -0127 2. Draft Resolution for TM05 -0003 3. Landscape Plans G:\ PLANNING \PB\Reports\2005\02- 27 -06\ FDP05 -0003 DR05 -0127 supplemental.doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 27, 2005 Page 4 Ld 6 HINODIVIAI MIVAk VINITOJITVO VaalArly AVM311fIrd ANT 110ERAM NOLLIra0cD100 90-80-Z0 1i.1110,1811S ONINNVld ON003S NOLLOBS 3.LIS (\! ) Attachment #3 ima's,c•., .u+.stsia ocM.dn n.,ra•x" oaa�..jv aseR.• ea sw ...ew w.. va 0 i. ` .I' 1. 311ViVi . «.« y . YI IQ ff1V3 `' icV.'Y'V`Ll✓ {� r 'A V Olja V Gd' 4 i'.'./ (" �ra v r ,, r u g �R && k �, J i�. 40.1011(1111L;1" MINI �Y .. s G ��l U iu111Y1y1%i}I{ twv 3dvosoNVl A4VNIW114Nd pAr. ....................... • - :HARBOR— BAY -R4OFWAS CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. UPHOLDING THE APPEAL BY VENTURE CORPORATION OF THE FEBRUARY 27, 2006 PLANNING BOARD DECISION TO NOT APPROVE TENTATIVE MAP 8891 (File No. TM05 -0003) WHEREAS, an application, TM05 -0003, was made on December 6, 2005 E by Kier and Wright Engineers for Venture Corporation requesting approval of ® Tentative Parcel Map 8891, to permit the conversion of approximately 44,844 w square feet of research and development and office space with associated .o z parking and landscaped areas on a 3.41 acre parcel from a single ownership to CC CO ® up to 24 fee simple ownerships; and co 1— WHEREAS, the Tentative Parcel Map was accepted as complete on January 17, 2006; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Business Park on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a C -M -PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on February 27, 2006 for this application and failed to reach a majority vote required for either approval or denial; a project is "deemed denied" if a motion fails for lack of four votes; and WHEREAS, On March 8, 2006 the applicant appealed the Planning Board's "deemed denial "; and WHEREAS, On April 4, 2006 the City Council held a public hearing and made the following findings relative to the Final Development Plan: WHEREAS, the Council made the following findings relative to the Tentative Parcel Map: Finding 1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan. The subdivision only permits a conversion from single ownership to divided ownership and does not include any physical alterations to the site or other entitlements. Finding 2. The site is physically suitable for this type and density of development. Resolution #5 -C 4 -4 -06 Site design has been evaluated and approved by the City Council (FDP05 -0003 and DR05- 0127). A change in ownership pattern will have no effect on the approved site development. Finding 3. The subdivision will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the subdivision. All easements are required to be retained and additional necessary access and other easements are being provided. Finding 4. The subdivision will not cause serious public health problems. Site design has been evaluated and approved by the City Council (FDP05 -0003 and DR05- 0127). A change in ownership pattern will have no effect on the approved site development. The change in ownership pattern will not affect public health. Finding 5. Conformity with the Planned Development is achieved. The project has been evaluated and approved by the Harbor Bay Business Park Architectural Review Committee the City Council (FDP05 -0003 and DR05- 0127). A change in ownership pattern will have no effect on the approved site development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby finds that no further environmental review is required for the proposed project as provided by Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines because: Finding 1. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 there have been no significant changes in circumstances that require revisions to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby upholds the applicant's appeal and approves Tentative Parcel Map 8891 (File No.TM05 -0003) subject to the following conditions: Prior to approval of the Parcel Map By the City Council 1. The parcel map shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City's consultant surveyor. 2. The subdivider shall pay for all reasonable office and engineering costs expended by the City Engineer's office, including overhead, in conjunction with reviewing the Parcel Map and in obtaining the map signature of the City's consulting surveyor. 3. The subdivider shall post a refundable cashier's check in the amount of $400 to guarantee a mylar copy of the recorded Parcel Map. After approval of the Parcel Map by the City Council 4. The Applicant shall provide a mylar copy of the recorded parcel maps. 5. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's) including estimated condominium owner's fees shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to recording with the Department of Real Estate. Copies of the condominium plan shall be provided. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 6. Improvement and landscape plans for site and right -of -way improvement plans shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and may be submitted as part of the building permit plans or separately. Geotechnical reports, drainage calculations, and additional materials as required by staff shall also be provided for review as part of the permitting process. Cost for staff review time of the improvement/landscape plans and associated documents shall be paid for by the applicant. 7. Prior to the granting of a certificate of occupancy, an operation and maintenance (O &M) agreement and plan for all post- construction (permanent) stormwater treatment controls shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval. The O &M plan shall include: treatment type, location(s), of treatment measures, maintenance requirements, maintenance schedule, assurances of party responsible for O &M, and assurances of access to inspect and verify treatment system O &M for the life of the project. Other Conditions 8. The Tentative Parcel Map shall expire two (2) years from the date of approval unless vested by the recordation of the Final Parcel Map. Alternatively, the applicant may seek an extension by the City Council prior to the end of the two (2) year period. 9. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 10. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all conditions of approval and accept this permit subject to conditions, with full awareness of applicable provisions of the Alameda Municipal Code for this Tentative Parcel Map to be exercised. 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 a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda O IJ- 0 te:C ' General Plan Diagram; and ATTORNEY CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. UPHOLDING THE APPEAL BY VENTURE CORPORATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THREE NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AT 2201 HARBOR BAY PARKWAY WHEREAS, an application for Final Development Plan FDP05 -0003 and Major Design Review DR05 -0129 was made on November 23, 2005 by Venture Corporation, consisting of three new two -story mixed use research and development and professional office buildings with a combined area of 44,844 square feet, and associated parking and landscaping on an approximately 3.1 acre site, located at 2201 Harbor Bay Parkway; and WHEREAS, FDP05 -0003, DR05 -0129 was accepted as complete on January 17, 2006; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Business Park on the WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a C -M -PD, Commercial, Manufacturing, Planned Development, Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Harbor Bay Business Park was approved as a Planned Development by PD -81 -2, and subsequently amended by PDA -85 -4; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on February 27, 2006 for this application and failed to reach a majority vote required for either approval or denial; a project is "deemed denied" if a motion fails for lack of four votes; and WHEREAS, On March 8, 2006 the applicant appealed the Planning Board's "deemed denial "; and WHEREAS, On April 4, 2006 the City Council held a public hearing and made the following findings relative to the Final Development Plan: Finding 1. Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. 1203 which approved the Business Park requires that for each development proposal within the Business Park a Final Development Plan be reviewed by Planning and Building Staff for compliance with the conditions of Resolution No.1203 and then be brought before the Planning Board. This requirement has been fulfilled for this project. Finding 2. The project complies with Condition No. 44 of Resolution No. 1203, which provides development standards including building setbacks, Finding 3. building coverage, landscaping coverage, floor area ratio, building height. The proposal complies with the development standards contained in Resolution No. 1203 as demonstrated in the discussion contained in the Staff Reports. The project complies with AMC development standards including parking requirements and allowed uses within the C -M Zoning District. The project complies with City parking requirements as demonstrated in the discussion contained in Staff Reports. Professional offices and light industrial uses are allowed in C -M Zoning District. Additionally, Condition No. 3 of this resolution requires a zoning compliance determination prior to occupancy or change in use. Finding 4. The project complies with City noise standards. Condition No. 60 of Resolution No. 1203 requires that an acoustical analysis be submitted with the building permit submittal. Table 8 of General Plan section 8.7 (Noise) provides that office and industrial buildings located in areas exceeding the CNEL 65dB as is the case with the subject site are conditionally acceptable so long as a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements to a level of less than 65dB is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. The maximum 65dB noise level is set by the AMC. Compliance with this condition will be ensured through the building permit process. WHEREAS, the Council made the following findings relative to the Major Design Review approval: Finding 1. As conditioned, the project will be compatible and harmonious with the site, adjacent or neighboring buildings and surroundings and promote harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between designated land use areas as required by AMC Section 30- 37.5(a), the City Design Review Manual and Resolution 1203. The proposed buildings are similar in design and scale to other nearby buildings in the Business Park. The primary architectural features provide a modern, straightforward design that is consistent with other buildings in the business park. The buildings proposed for the site will be constructed with the most detailed facades facing street frontages as required. Appropriate screening has been provided for all mechanical and electrical equipment as part of the building design. Finding 2. The project includes an extensive landscaped buffer between the structures and Harbor Bay Parkway. This provides a transition zone between the project and the adjacent public area which includes Harbor Bay Parkway and the open space corridor between Harbor Bay Parkway and the San Francisco Bay. Visual impacts are further reduced by locating dumpsters and loading bays along the sides and rear of the property. Landscape materials are consistent with existing vegetation in the business park and consist of hardy, drought resistant species. Finding 3. Building orientation maximizes the visual orientation with the water. The project includes three two -story buildings. The majority of second -floor offices will have bay views. Site layout will preserve second -floor views from the existing building located across North Loop Road. When viewed from the bay, the wide landscaped buffer along Harbor Bay Parkway will provide effective screening of the parking areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby finds that no further environmental review is required for the proposed project as provided by Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines because: Finding 1. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 there have been no significant changes in circumstances that require revisions to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report. The project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby upholds the applicant's appeal and approves Final Development Plan FDP05 -0003 and Major Design Review DR05 -0127 subject to the following conditions. Planning and Building Department 1. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans prepared by Ware Malcomb Architects, dated February 8, 2006. 2. Theses approvals will expire on February 27, 2007 unless construction under valid permits has been commenced or the applicant applies for and receives a single twelve- -month extension. 3. Prior to initial occupancy or any subsequent change in use, the applicant shall request a Zoning Compliance Determination from the Planning and Building Director. The applicant / owner shall provide all information required by the Planning Director to determine zoning compliance and shall pay standard fees as established by the City of Alameda to cover the cost of the determination. Allocation of parking spaces shall be confirmed in the project C. C. & R's based on floor area and type of use. Any future modification of parking space allocation shall be addressed through the owner's association. 4. The applicant shall record a deed restriction on the parcel to disclose the requirements of Condition #3 to any successor in interest of the property. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a detailed acoustical analysis which shows how an interior noise level of less than 65dB will be achieved, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director and Building Official. 6. Signage shall be subject to a separate permit. All signage shall be consistent with the requirements of the approved signage program for Harbor Bay Business Park. The applicant shall submit application(s) to the Planning and Building Department for approval prior to construction or modification of any signs. 7. All conditions of Planning Board Resolution No. 1203 are hereby incorporated by reference. 8. All landscaping shall be in compliance with the approved preliminary landscaping plan prepared by Ridge Landscape Architects, dated February 6, 2006 and Ware Malcolm February 27, 2006. Landscaping along Harbor Bay Parkway and North Loop Road shall incorporate berms, trees and shrubs to screen the parking areas from public viewing areas. Final occupancy for any buildings on this site shall not be issued until the Planning and Building Director determines that project landscaping as designed and implemented will effectively screen the parking areas from public viewing areas. The Planning and Building Director may require additional monitoring to ensure proper maintenance and care of landscaping. The owner(s) of this property shall be responsible for maintaining project landscaping. Prior to the issuance building permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction, on the parcel to disclose these landscaping requirements to any successor in interest of the property. 9. There shall be no outdoor storage unless approved by the Planning and Building Director, and any outdoor storage permitted shall be temporary for in- transit materials. Federal Aviation Administration 10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Federal Aviation Administration a Form (currently designated 7460 although FAA may designate a substitute form), completed to FAA satisfaction, which describes the electronic and light emissions and reflections from the facility toward Port of Oakland runways and related information. The FAA Form 7460or the equivalent regulates both building external elements and construction elements including temporary use of cranes. The applicant shall conform to FAA requirements in the Form 7460 or FAA - approved equivalent process. The applicant shall conform to any process of the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission and shall provide verification to the Planning and Building Director of compliance efforts. Public Works Dept. 11. Bicycle Racks: The applicant shall provide bicycle racks at a ratio of 1 bike space per 10 vehicle parking spaces. Bike racks shall be located at each building. Location and capacity of bike racks shall be included on building permit application plans. 12. The proposed new median cut opening on Harbor Bay Parkway opposite the Harbor Bay Parkway driveway entrance to the site is acceptable with the condition that the existing Harbor Bay Parkway median opening located approximately 300 ft. to the west be closed off and relocated westerly approximately 490 ft. from the Venture II opening. Closure of the existing median opening and construction of the new median opening shall coincide with the development of these parcels. 13. Final improvement and landscape plans shall be reviewed by Public Works. The applicant shall pay for all costs associated with the review of improvement plans and related documents by the Public Works department. 14. Applicant shall retain a design engineering firm to design stormwater treatment measure(s) that meet the Provision C3 hydraulic sizing criteria. Independent engineering certification by an outside consultant not related to the design engineering firm will be required to verify that the hydraulic sizing criteria meets or exceeds the C3 requirements, all costs to be paid by the applicant. 15. The applicant shall execute a stormwater treatment measure Operations & Maintenance (0 & M) agreement, O &M plan and provide financial security for performance as required by the Public Works Director. 16. The applicant or contractor shall be responsible for obtaining all required permits which include abut are not limited to encroachment, excavation, concrete, electrical, and plumbing prior to beginning construction. 17. The Contractor shall have a superintendent or representative on site at all times during construction. 18. The Contractor shall notify the Public Works Survey /Construction /Inspection Supervisor 48 hours prior to beginning of any work within the City right -of -way. Work performed or covered without adequate notice will be subject to rejection. 19. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Noise - generating construction activities shall be limited between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. All construction vehicles shall adhere to City of Alameda truck routes. Storage of construction material and equipment on city streets will not be permitted. 20. Construction equipment shall be properly muffled. Unnecessary idling of grading construction equipment is prohibited. 21. Stationary noise - generating construction equipment such as compressors shall be located as far as practical from occupied residential housing units. 22. Contractor shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. 23. Construction equipment, tools, etc. shall not be cleaned or rinsed into a street, gutter or storm drain. 24. A contained and covered area on -site shall be used for storage of cement bags, paints, flammables, oils, fertilizers, pesticides, or any other materials that have potential for being discharged to the storm drain system by wind or in the event of a material spill. 25. All construction debris shall be gathered on a regular basis and placed in a dumpster which is emptied or removed weekly. When feasible, tarps shall be used on the ground to collect fallen debris or splatters that could contribute to stormwater pollution. 26. Any temporary on -site construction piles shall be securely covered with a tarp or other device to contain debris. 27. Concrete trucks and concrete finishing operations shall not discharge wash water into the street gutters or drains. 28. Trash and debris shall be cleaned up daily on all public streets in the project vicinity and along haul routes. Sweep as needed and as directed by the Public Works inspector. 29. Best management practices for control of storm water runoff shall be used during construction (e.g. straw waddles at catch basin inlets). Other Conditions 30. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 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 a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda City of Alameda Interoffice Memorandum April 4, 2006 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $1,246,200.00 to East Bay Construction Company, Inc., for the Construction of the 4 -acre Bayport Park Background On January 17, 2006, the City Council authorized the solicitation of bids for the Bayport Alameda Community Building and Park Project No. 83140100. The project includes the construction of a park and related improvements, as well as a community building as a bid alternative. The project was advertised January 27, 2006, for 30 days and a mandatory pre -bid meeting was held on February 9, 2006. Subsequent to the mandatory pre -bid meeting, five Bid Addenda were issued: ■ Bid Addendum No. 1 (issued on February 17, 2006): Responded to Department of the State Architect comments. ■ Bid Addendum No. 2 (issued on February 22, 2006): Addressed modifications to earthwork, grading, water systems and drainage. • Bid Addendum No. 3 (issued on February 24, 2006): Addressed modifications to soil amendments and alternate for placement of sod vs. seed. • Bid Addendum No. 4 (issued on February 24, 2006): Responded to questions from bidders and extended the bid opening date from March 1, 2006 to March 9, 2006. • Bid Addendum No. 5 (issued on March 3, 2006): Modified playground equipment and structures. Additionally, in order to allow schedule and development flexibility and to ensure that the park grounds will be completed and available for school use in Fall 2006, the base bid for the project was modified whereby the community building was changed to an additive alternate. Discussion To solicit the maximum number of bids and the most competitive price, specifications were provided to 1.8 separate Building Exchanges throughout the Bay Area (Building Exchanges provide construction reporting, online databases, education, resources and other services for the construction industry). In addition, a notice of bid was published in the Alameda Journal, and a link to ebidboard.com through the City's website was established. Report 5 -D 4 -4 -06 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2006 Page 2 Bids were opened on March 9, 2006. Three contractors submitted bids. The list of bidders from the apparent lowest to the highest Base Bid for the 4 -acre park is as follows: Bidder Location Total Base Bid 4- Acre Park 1, 700SF Community Building Alternate Total Base Bid with Deductive and Additive Alternates East Bay Construction Company, Inc. Livermore $1, 132,856.00 $830,000.00 $1,749,242.00 Goodland Landscape Construction, Inc. Tracy $1,177,550.00 $1,059,390.00 $2,033,888.00 McGuire & Hester Oakland $1,337,050.00 $753,000.00 $1,822,050.00 The engineer's construction estimate for the 4 -acre park and related improvements ranged between $1,150,850.00 and $1,268,800.00. Major components of the 4 -acre park base bid construction include ball fields, youth play area, picnic area, restrooms, and off - street parking. The engineer's construction estimate for the community building and related site work ranged between $635,284 and $658,813. East Bay Construction Company is the apparent lowest bidder for the project —both in its base bid for the park improvements, and in its overall bid, which included the additive alternate of the community building. However, because all three bidders proposed costs for the community building which exceed the engineer's construction estimate, staff is not recommending acceptance of any of these bids for the additive alternate community building. Staff is developing a recommendation on how to proceed with construction for the community building for consideration at the next Council meeting. Bid Protest On March 13, 2006, four days after bids were opened, the City Clerk's Office received a formal bid protest from Goodland Landscape Construction, Inc. Goodland asserted that the apparent low bidder, East Bay Construction Company's bid proposal was non- responsive, and requested award of the contract to its firm. Copies of letters dated March 9, 2006 and March 13, 2006 are on file with the City Clerk's office, as is the response to these letters from the Development Services Department. After discussing the two bid protest letters submitted by Goodland Landscape Construction, Inc. and East Bay Construction Company's bid information with the City Attorney's office, staff determined that East Bay Construction's bid was in substantial compliance with the City's bid requirements, and that any deviation from the form requirements did not create a competitive advantage for one bidder over another. As a result, staff is recommending that the contract be awarded to East Bay Construction Company, the apparent lowest bidder for construction of the park and related improvements. (The contract is on file in the City Clerks Office.) The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Budget Consideration /Financial Impact April 4, 2006 Page 3 The project budget for the park and community building are included in the Catellus / Bayport Project Budget approved by the CIC and City Council in April 2005, and will be funded with CIC project revenues generated from the Catellus / Bayport Project. The maintenance of the park will be paid from funds collected through the "Supplemental Community Facilities District Special Tax" established for the Bayport residential project. This project will not require any supplemental appropriations or have any fiscal impact on the City's General Fund. Municipal Code /Policy Document Cross Reference The Project Plans and Specifications and the call for bids have been prepared in accordance with the Alameda Municipal Code. Environmental Review The new park and school were included in the original environmental review for the Catellus Mixed - Use Project and are in compliance with the approved Catellus Alameda Project Master Plan and Site - wide Landscape Development Plan. No additional CEQA review is required. Recommendation Award the contract in the amount of $1,246,200.00, which includes a 10% contingency, to East Bay Construction Company, Inc. for the Bayport Alameda Park Project and authorize the City Manager to execute the Contract for Construction and related documents. LAL \DC: dc Re pd y submitt IP I/ eslie A. Little ment Services Director Douglas H. Cole edevelopment Manager On File with the City Clerk's Office: Attachment A: Goodland Protest Letters (March 9, 2006 and March 13, 2006) Attachment B: DSD Response to Protest Letters (March 16, 2006) Attachment C: Contractor Agreement, Insurance & Bonds CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: April 4, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Approve Resolution Maintaining the City of Alameda's Authority in Negotiating Franchise Agreements for Telecommunications Services and Adopting the Principles for Federal Consideration of a New Telecommunications Regulatory Framework BACKGROUND Legislation has been introduced to amend the Federal 1996 Telecommunications Act relating to broadband internet transmission services (BITS). Currently, cable television and internet services providers, such as Comcast, AT& T and Verizon Wireless, gain access to local residents through franchise agreements negotiated with the City. The proposed legislation would change the structure of this process, in that cable and internet providers would work directly with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Regulator, bypassing both the State and local jurisdictions. The proposed legislation will directly impact Alameda and all California cities that have franchise agreements for telecommunications services, by eliminating the authority to collect a franchise fee as well as the ability to control public rights -of -ways. DISCUSSION The League of California Cities (LCC) has drafted a resolution outlining guiding policies and principles of its proposed telecommunications reform policy for Federal and State consideration. The LCC has requested that California cities adopt the proposed resolution and transmit it to Congress and the State Legislature to consider in its debate over a new telecommunications regulatory framework. The LCC wants local government participation in the legislative process to ensure that consumers benefit from any federal telecommunications reform policy. The proposed resolution also calls for local governments to maintain the ability to work with providers through franchise agreements to uphold the provision of key services, such as public, education and government channels that local emergency alerts and institutional networks are tailored to meet specific local needs. Re: Reso 5 -E 4 -4 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT Page 2 April 4, 2006 The financial impact to the State and local municipalities would result in the loss of control to collect revenues from telecommunications providers through franchise agreements, which would result in a potential loss of $8.8 million dollars to the general fund MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action will not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Approve a Resolution Maintaining the City of Alameda Authority in Negotiating Franchise Agreements for Telecommunications Services by Adopting the Principles for Federal Consideration of a new Telecommunications Regulatory Framework. Respectfully submitted, DK/JAB /LA elle Ann B: er Chief Financial Officer CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. MAINTAINING THE CITY OF ALAMEDA'S AUTHORITY IN NEGOTIATING FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND ADOPTING THE PRINCIPLES FOR FEDERAL CONSIDERATION OF A NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY FRAMEWORK WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda strongly supports local involvement in the negotiation and maintenance of franchise agreements; and WHEREAS, franchise agreements provide up to $8.8 million into the City of Alameda's General fund; and WHEREAS, Congress and the California state legislature are beginning a serious debate on a new regulatory framework for telecommunications services in the 2006 legislative session; and WHEREAS, financial resources that cities receive under the current regulatory framework for telecommunications services are vital to support local public services such as public safety and transportation; and WHEREAS, elimination of franchise agreements would place a heavy burden on California local government's ability to provide critical services to residents, including emergency response and law enforcement; and WHEREAS, the taxpayers have a financial interest in protecting the public's right -of -way; and WHEREAS, fair, level playing -field competition among telecommunications providers is important to delivering telecommunications services at the best price for our citizens, the consumers; and WHEREAS, telecommunications industry services to a local community such as Public, Education and Government (PEG) channels, INET services to local schools and E911 and 911 public safety services to local citizens are important services to maintain. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Alameda expresses its support for maintaining its authority in negotiating Franchise Agreements for Telecommunications Services and does hereby adopt the following principles for Congress and the State Legislature to consider in its debate over a new telecommunications regulatory framework: Resolution #5 -E 4 -4 -06 REVENUE PROTECTIONS • Protect the authority of local governments to collect revenues from telecommunications providers and ensure that any future changes are revenue neutral for local governments. • Regulatory fees and /or taxes should apply equitably to all telecommunications service providers. • A guarantee that all existing and any new fees /taxes remain with local governments to support local public services and mitigate impacts on local rights -of -way. • Oppose any state or federal legislation that would pre -empt or threaten local taxation authority RIGHTS -OF -WAY • To protect the public's investment, the control of public rights -of -way must remain local. • Local government must retain full control over the time, place and manner for the use of the public right -of -way in providing telecommunications services, including the appearance and aesthetics of equipment placed within it. ACCESS • All local community residents should be provided access to all available telecommunications services. • Telecommunications providers should be required to specify a reasonable timeframe for deployment of telecommunications services that includes a clear plan for the sequencing of the build -out of these facilities within the entire franchise area. PUBLIC, EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT (PEG) SUPPORT • The resources required of new entrants should be used to meet PEG support requirements in a balanced manner in partnership with incumbent providers. For cities currently without PEG support revenues, a minimum percentage of required support needs to be determined. INSTITUTIONAL OR FIBER NETWORK (INET) • The authority for interested communities to establish INET services and support for educational and local government facilities should remain at the local level. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES • The authority for E -911 and 911 services should remain with local government, including any compensation for the use of the rights -of -way. All E -911 and 911 calls made by voice over Internet protocol shall be routed to local public safety answering points (PSAPs); i.e., local dispatch centers. • All video providers must provide local emergency notification service. CUSTOMER SERVICE PROTECTION • State consumer protection laws should continue to apply as a minimum standard and should be enforced at the local level. Local governments should retain the authority to assess penalties to improve customer service OTHER ISSUES • Existing telecommunications providers and new entrants shall adhere to local city policies on public utility undergrounding. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Congressional Representative and all State Legislative Representatives for the City of Alameda as well as all appropriate local media outlets. 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 a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda an cn Gq g 0 O Film/Video Ind. 0 0 U Arts /Cultural John L. Abrate k X X X X X X X X< >< X X X X X Marie Alison Geoffrey R. Alman 0 al MI 4E1' cd E ti Q E a Michael C. Carey k < < < Mark R. Chandler Sanford L. Clark Robert A. Clendenen Jeannette L. Copperwaite Michael P. Corbitt Harry W. Dahlberg Michelle L. Daniels Shaun P. Daniels Michael A. Dean Kenneth I. Dorrance David J. Duffin Richard E. Foregger Mi'chelle Fredrick N E E 1Z CD o? U4 b an En czt G1 ct • cd cd Film/Video Ind. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ct tii X X 0 0 U Arts /Cultural David S. Freeman X X X Garcia - Sinclair Rose F. Goodrich Orin D. Green Patricia A. Grey Leslie J. Hawksbee Bruce D. Hood Karen A. Jine John G. Kabasakalis X X X X X k < X X X X X X X X X Kelly M. Kearney Anders H. Lee Stanley C. Lichtenstein Jessica Lindsey Gerald C. Long Maricel T. Loyola Cynthia J. Marsh Kathy L. Moehring Historic Ex rd 4 0 a) b w o cs cs E E U Arts /Cultural X X X k X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Richard D. Moore Emil Radloff Nancy Reed - Marzolf Roberto A. Rocha John T. Rohowits Dale T. Rosen Michael C. Schiess David G. Skaff Timothy Robert Smith X Theatte (Teddy) B. Tarbor Patrick A. Tracey Michael Jay Williams Edwin F. Winberg Matthew L. Wolfe