2006-06-20 PacketTime:
Place:
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC),
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC)
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 20, 2006 - - - 5:30 P.M.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006, 5:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street
Agenda:
1. Roll Call
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only
Anyone wishing to speak on agenda items only, may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
CITY COUNCIL
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
CITY COUNCIL, CIC, ARRA, HABOC
3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of case: Operation Dignity v. Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, City of Alameda,
Community Improvement Commission and Housing
Authority
CIC
3 -C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property:
Negotiating parties:
Under negotiation:
Fleet Industrial Supply Center
Community Improvement Commission and
ProLogis
Price and terms
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any
5. Adjournment
Beverly J. n . ayor
Chair, Co •.•.. ty Improvement
Commission, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 20, 2006 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of 3
minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission.
Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish
to speak on an agenda item.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Alameda High School Baseball Team, North
Coast Section Championship
ROLL CALL
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 -A. Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
Meetings of June 7, 2006.
1 -B. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute
an amendment to the Master Consulting Agreement with Harris &
Associates for engineering and construction support services
for the remaining phases of the Bayport Project by adding
additional budget authority in an amount not to exceed
$265,000.00, of which $115,000.00 will be reimbursed by the
homebuilder for In -tract Plan Review and Inspection.
(Development Services)
REGULAR AGENDA
2 -A. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution, "Adopting
the Five -Year Implementation Plan: Fiscal Years 2005/06 -
2009/10 for the Alameda Point Improvement Project.
(Development Services)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment)
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Commissioners)
ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
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.
TUESDAY
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 20, 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 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, 5:30 P.M.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:25 P.M.
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA 7:31 P.M.
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Presentation of Certificates to the Alameda High School
Baseball Team members for winning the North Coast Section
Championship on June 3, 2006.
3 -B. Proclamation declaring June 2006 as Gay Pride Month.
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 City Council Meetings on May 30, 2006,
May 31, 2006, and the Special and Regular City Council
Meetings held on June 6, 2006. (City Clerk)
4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance)
4 -C. Recommendation to award Contract for Legal Advertising for
Fiscal Year 2006 -07. (City Clerk)
4 -D. Recommendation to reject the sole bid, value engineering and
re -bid revised bid documents for the construction of the
Bayport Community Building. (Development Services)
4 -E. Recommendation to authorize filing for a $2.3 million grant
application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to
implement the Webster Renaissance Project, Phase II.
(Development Services)
4 -F. Recommendation to accept the work of Republic Electric for the
Crosswalk In- Pavement Lights (SR2S) to serve Donald Lum
Elementary School, Haight Elementary School, Wood Middle
School, and Chipman Middle School Project No. P.W. 01- 04 -01.
(Public Works)
4 -G. Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize
Call for Bids for Modular Recreational Building and Site
Improvements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05- 06 -17. (Public
Works)
4 -H. Recommendation to accept the work of Zaccor Company for the
Bay Farm Island Dike - Emergency Repair, No. P.W. 01- 06 -02.
(Public Works)
4 -I. Adoption of Resolution Approving an Agreement for Funding from
the State of California Coastal Conservancy to Implement
Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures. (Public Works)
4 -J. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit
an Application for Measure B Paratransit Funding for Fiscal
Year 2006 -07. (Public Works)
4 -K. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Grant of a Non - Exclusive
Easement from the City of Alameda to Pacific Gas and Electric
Company within Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 4497. (Public Works)
4 -L. Adoption of Resolution Requesting and Authorizing the County
of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in
the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General
Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held
November 7, 2000. (Finance Department)
4 -M. Adoption of Resolution Establishing a Five -Day Workweek
Alternative with Corresponding Salary for the Classification
of Chief of Police. (Human Resources)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Acknowledging City Attorney Carol
Korade for Her Contributions to the City of Alameda.
5 -B. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution, "Approving
Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and
Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and
Lighting District 84 -2." (Public Works)
5 -C. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution, "Approving
Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and
Ordering Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District
01 -01 (Marina Cove)." (Public Works)
5 -D. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution,
"Authorizing Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste
Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills."
(Public Works)
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. Written communication from the League of California Cities
requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the League's
2006 Annual Conference.
7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the
Civil Service Board, Commission on Disability Issues, Economic
Development Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Housing and
Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board, Housing Commission,
Library Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, Social
Service Human Relations Board, and Transportation Commission.
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
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 20, 2006 - - - 7:31 P.M.
Location: City Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council /Board /Commission on agenda
items or business introduced by the Council /Board /Commission may
speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject
is before the Council /Board /Commission. Please file a speaker's
slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda
item.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
Minutes of the Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission
Meeting held on June 6, 2006. (City Clerk)
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Discussion of Fiscal Year 2006 -2007 and 2007 -2008 Citywide
budget and adoption of Resolution, "Approving Interim
Expenditures Prior to Adoption of the Operating Budget for
Fiscal Year 2006 - 2007." (Finance)
2. Discussion of City Attorney /General Counsel Legal Services and
staffing options. (City Attorney)
ADJOURNMENT
Beverly Joh so , Matlor
Chair, Al e a Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JUNE 7, 2006- -5:31 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:35 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: Community Improvement Commission v. Cocores Development
Company.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission received a briefing
from its legal counsel and gave direction and settlement
parameters.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JUNE 7, 2006- -7:01 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Johnson announced that both Consent Calendar items were
withdrawn for discussion.
(06- ) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
execute a First Amendment, adding $96,225 and extending the term
six months, to Agreement with ERM -West, Inc. to evaluate PAH
Contamination on a portion of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center
property.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager gave a
brief presentation.
Commissioner deHaan stated the game plan was to provide a report;
inquired when the report was to be provided and whether the funding
is being requested for said report, including the Human Health Risk
Assessment (HHRA) and Feasibility Study (FS).
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
the HHRA is a new request from the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) toxicology department; stated money from the initial
contract will be spent to write the report for the FS; the report
cannot be written until additional sampling is completed.
Commissioner deHaan stated remaining funds would be used to prepare
the HHRA and FS, which he thought were in the initial allocation;
inquired whether all the [original] funding has been spent.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
all funding has not been used; stated there is money for the FS;
over 65% of the additional work in the amended contract amount is
for fieldwork; the remaining funds are for the HHRA and the
meetings with the Navy and DTSC.
Commissioner deHaan inquired how many additional samplings would be
done, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Division
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
1
Manager responded 45.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether 300 samplings were already
done, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Division
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the sampling would be a
different type.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
the samplings are the step -outs from the twenty hot spots;
clarified three samples are taken at each location; stated there
will be three depths at some locations; sampling will be done at
twenty locations, for a total of 45 samples.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan stated he would not support
the motion and did not support the motion in the past; his concern
is the property use is not finalized.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese and
Chair Johnson - 4. Noes: Commissioner deHaan - 1.
(06- ) Recommendation to approve a Contract with Strategy
Research Institute, Inc. for $14,500 to conduct a survey of local
residents for the update of the City of Alameda Economic
Development Strategic Plan.
The Development Manager gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Daysog stated the sample size is 300: 150 community at
large participants and 150 registered voters; the staff report
indicates the survey would be statistically valid with a confidence
level of 95 %; inquired whether 300 participants are needed to have
a statistically valid survey of either registered voters or
community at large participants.
George Manross, Ph.D., Strategic Research Institute, Inc.,
responded in the affirmative; using two separate groups increases
the sampling error.
Chair Johnson and Commissioner Daysog noted just having community
at large participants would make the survey more statistically
valid.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
2
Dr. Manross outlined sampling and accuracy levels.
Chair Johnson inquired the reason for having both community at
large and registered voters.
Dr. Manross responded the groups represent two distinct
populations; the community at large has one set of core values and
collective wishes; the electorate has a different set of core
values; if a funding mechanism were entertained, the City would
want to know where the electorate stands and where the electorate
agrees with and differs from the community at large.
In response to Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding whether a survey
done today would be relevant in a couple of years, Dr. Manross
stated core values do not change; there can be shifts; however,
benchmarks would be established.
Commissioner Daysog stated if the sample is increased from 300 to
400, the cost increases from $14,500 to $15,500; suggested a sample
size of 600, 300 community at large and 300 registered voters.
Dr. Manross stated the recommendation was proposed in order not to
exceed a $15,000 budget; the proposed study typically takes 15 to
17 minutes; a 12 minute study would be restrictive as to the amount
of information that can be secured; keeping the sample at 300 and
increasing the time from 12 to 15 minutes, would cost $16,000, but
additional information would be gathered; increasing the sample to
400 and the time to 15 minutes would cost $17,000; suggested the
Commission consider a higher sample amount or longer survey.
Commissioner Daysog stated the survey should be as accurate as
possible.
Dr. Manross stated an economic development and redevelopment study
is typically 400 participants and 15 to 17 minutes, which would be
his recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan stated the City is trying to update the
visioning process and the Economic Development Strategic Plan
(EDSP); the City did not use a questionnaire last time; inquired
why a survey should be used now and whether future funding
mechanisms would be included.
The Development Manager responded the budget was over $100,000 for
the EDSP and downtown visioning plan in 2000; there was a 25 member
task force and an extensive community process; there is not funding
or need for something as extensive; the survey is intended to be a
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
3
periodic review, is a more formal way to supplement the community
workshops and stakeholder interviews, and to get a read of the
community to help Development Services direct resources.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the information from the last
two meeting has been summarized and is available, to which the
Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan requested said information.
The Development Manager noted the information has been provided to
Dr. Manross to assist him with developing questions.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he would like to see the questions
once developed.
The Development Manager stated an Economic Development Commission
(EDC) subcommittee would assist with drafting the questionnaire.
Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be done with the data.
The Development Manager responded the data with be reviewed,
analyzed and presented to the EDC.
Dr. Manross stated the information gathered would be tested in the
community; there would be a return on the investment.
The Development Services Director stated the survey would be an
update to the EDSP, which provides the foundation; the survey would
ensure the EDSP stays valid.
Commissioner deHaan stated results should be presented to the
community; his concerns are ensuring results of meetings held are
included and the crafting of the questions; there is no hidden
agenda for funding streams.
Ani Dimusheva, Alameda, stated the best way to get the opinion of
the community at large is to talk to the community; suggested
holding a town hall meeting once a month at cafes throughout town;
stated a study is not needed.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation,
with the change to cap the budget at $17,000 to allow staff and the
consultant to determine how to proceed; stated that he would hope
for a higher sample size; however, increasing the time is
acceptable.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
4
Under discussion, Commissioner Gilmore inquired how authorizing
additional funds would affect the Development Services or general
fund budgets.
The Development Services Director responded additional funding
would not affect the General Fund budget; stated the Development
Services budget can accommodate the funding out of the regular
operating budget for supplies and general services.
Chair Johnson stated the motion allows Development Services to
decide to spend less.
Commissioner deHaan stated some preliminary work has been
completed; requested to see the findings and the questions after
EDC review.
Commissioner Matarrese stated an expert is being hired to work with
a subcommittee of the EDC to craft the questions.
Commissioner Daysog stated the consultant indicated the questions
would be provided to the Commission.
Chair Johnson clarified the process would be to have the contract
go forward in order have questions prepared.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(06- ) Recommendation to reject the Sole Bid and authorize a 60-
day negotiation with Qualified Contractors for the Restoration and
Rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater.
The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.
Commissioner Daysog inquired what Option 2, revise the bid
document, means.
The Development Services Director responded staff would have to .
look for a way to make the bid document more enticing to
contractors; stated revising the bid document could involve
additional engineering or architectural work to have a finite
process for the least costly approach and could take a significant
amount of time.
Speakers in support of Option 5 (Reject the bid, terminate the
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
5
project Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and re -scope
the project): Rosemary McNally, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Pat
Bail, Alameda; Ani Dimusheva, Alameda (submitted comments); Richard
Rutter, Alameda; Robert Gavrich, Alameda; Kristianne Koenen,
Alameda; Kevin Frederick; and Nancy Kerns, Alameda.
Speaker in support of staff recommendation (Option 1, Reject the
bid and negotiate with Overaa Construction): Lars Hansson, Park
Street Business Association.
Chair Johnson closed the public comment.
The Development Services Director responded to comments.
Commissioner deHaan provided a handout; inquired whether using the
parking contractor as an alternate is legally acceptable.
Legal Counsel responded Option 1, contracting with the parking
garage contractor low bidder who has not been selected, would be
legal under the facts of the situation; stated economy of scale is
possible, making the option legally permissible.
Commissioner deHaan stated the displaced contractor has done an
admirable job on the library; inquired whether the parking
structure budget would be close to $900,000 with contingency.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has provided
information on the cineplex portion, to which the Development
Services Director responded the developer has a project estimate in
excess of $5 million; he has been getting estimates; his formal
cost estimates will be in next week.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has seen a major
increase.
The Development Services Director responded the developer is fairly
confident; four contractors are sharing preliminary estimates.
In response to Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding project
costs to date, the Development Services Director stated $3,378,500
has been spent, including acquisition of two properties.
Commissioner deHaan outlined cost increases since 2002; stated cost
estimates were $17.6 million in 2004; today's costs are around
$33.6 million; there has been growth.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
6
The Development Services Director stated construction costs could
not be estimated until the design plans were developed; previous
estimates did not include land acquisition or architectural
engineering; outlined the project phases; stated project costs are
unknown until bid documents are prepared.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the handout from Commissioner deHaan
outlining budgets shows the large increase has been for the
historic theater, which is the most complex part of the project
filled with the most unknowns; the other two pieces are new
construction.
Commissioner deHaan stated another option would be to decrease the
theater project to a single floor and take two floors off the
parking structure; the cost would decrease from $33.7 million down
to $28.8 million.
The Development Services Director noted disabled access would have
to be added to the historic theater.
Commissioner deHaan stated Option 5 could be considered, with
caveats, such as satellite parking areas and using the entire Video
Maniacs site for the cineplex and retail.
The Development Services Director stated most cost overruns are
with the historic theater; noted satellite parking would involve
dealing with land acquisition again.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he appreciates the information
from Commissioner deHaan and speakers; there seems to be support to
tone down the parking garage and cineplex in favor of funding the
renovation of the historic theater; $11 million is not the best
bid; the bid should be rejected and the City should negotiate a
lower price; he would entertain the idea of a better price being
obtained through modification of the other two components [garage
and cineplex]; 60 days would give staff an opportunity to review; a
different project would probably result with Option 1.
Commissioner Daysog stated there seems to be a cafeteria approach
to the project; bonds have been issued on the entire project; $17
million was identified for the project with $9 million slated for
rehabilitation of the historic theater; $17 million was part of the
$42 million bond total; the total bond will cost $100 million with
interest; his question is how the project ties into the total bond
issuance; he is not convinced that a cafeteria approach will work;
most of the cost overruns are with the historic theater; if the
historic theater is not going to be rehabilitated, there is no
reason to do the garage and Cineplex if the historic theater is not
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission 7
June 7, 2006
going to be rehabilitated; however, bonds have already been issued;
the focus should be on rehabilitation of the historic theater;
suggested the City consider operating the renovated historic
theater.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the City bonded for a project that
included the theater, off street parking and some retail; everyone
is looking to accomplish the project; the look will have to be
adjusted; the cost of the historic theater has led to tonight;
Development Services has come up with a way to handle costs; money
will have to be taken from elsewhere to fund the renovation project
if the 60 days do not prove successful; that he would not support
general fund money for the project or lowering the contingency
budget; he does not support Option 5 because he does not want to
can the project.
Commissioner Daysog stated that he voted against the bonds because
it was putting the cart before the horse and the true cost of the
project were not understood; now the City is trying to pick up the
pieces and realizes there are no funds; perhaps everyone could be
happy with just having the historic theater.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the project has to have a contingency
fund to go forward; staff has included a contingency fund; she
would not support a project without a healthy contingency fund of
15 to 20 %; that she is in favor of the 60 day negotiation period
because the City will have learned valuable information about the
historic theater even if there is no contract at the end of the
period; gathering additional information is a good thing;
negotiating does not commit the City to go forward; she has a
problem with Option 5 because she would not support acquiring the
historic theater without having a plan; the City should not be
stuck with a piece of property without the knowledge of whether the
property can be developed economically; the timeframe for acquiring
the theater is sooner than alternatives could be created if the
project is rejected.
Chair Johnson stated the 60 -day time period is reasonable after the
time and effort that has been spent; that she supports the staff
recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan stated his concern is that an opportunity to
review other options would be missed by allowing 60 -days to
negotiate; a 15% contingency might not be enough for the historic
theater project; value engineering might not work and other options
should be reviewed to determine how existing funding can complete
the entire project; all of the funding might have to go to
renovating the theater; a $7 million loan is included because
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
8
enough money was not bonded; other options should be reviewed
quickly.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
to reject the bid and negotiate for 60 days with the caveat that
options for the current configuration of the project be outlined in
parallel to allow the City to reach the end of the 60 days with a
full pallet of information; the two months would not be lost if the
results are not favorable.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese and
Chair Johnson - 3. Noes: Commissioners Daysog and deHaan - 2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
9
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: June 20, 2006
Re: Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to the Master
Consulting Agreement with Harris & Associates for Engineering and
Construction Support Services for the Remaining Phases of the Bayport Project
by Adding Additional Budget Authority in an Amount Not to Exceed $265,000
(of which $115,000 will be Reimbursed by the Homebuilder for In -Tract Plan
Review and Inspection)
BACKGROUND
On March 31, 2004, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) approved the third
amendment to the Harris & Associates Master Consulting Agreement adding $567,557 to the
budget for the continued implementation of the Catellus Mixed Use Development, for a total
contract amount of approximately $2.47 million. The fourth, fifth and sixth amendments to the
Agreement were term extensions.
Harris & Associates ( "Harris ") was selected in 2001, through a formal competitive selection
process and has been retained as the City Engineer for the FISC Catellus Project. As the
designated City Engineer for the Project, Harris is responsible for plan review development
approvals, and ensuring compliance with all City Public Works standards. Harris is also tasked
with resolving any non - standard issues or exemptions with Public Works as required and serves
as the City's construction inspector for both in -tract and backbone improvements on the Project.
The proposed seventh amendment to the Agreement will extend the term of the contract to June
7, 2007, and add additional budget authority in an amount not to exceed $265,000, of which
$115,000 will be reimbursed by the Bayport homebuilder for in -tract plan review and
inspections.
Report 1 -B
CIC Meeting
6 -20 -06
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
DISCUSSION
June 20, 2006
Page 2 of 3
The existing Agreement expires June 30, 2006. A twelve -month term extension provides for
Harris & Associates continuation as the City Engineer for the Bayport project through its
anticipated completion date of June 30, 2007.
Under the terms of the Agreement, Harris is compensated pursuant to costs estimated based on
the Project schedule for various activities. These include: program management, technical
reviews for public improvements and construction services, technical reviews for in -tract
improvements, and construction services, and special assignments. It is important to note that as
the Project progresses, Harris' role on the Project will decrease significantly as major
infrastructure improvements and mitigation projects are completed.
In accordance with the Disposition and Development Agreement ( "DDA "), as amended,
consultant services related to the CIC's Project obligations are paid from revenues generated
from the Project. Consultant services related to in -tract improvements are paid for by the
Developer. Services that Harris will perform for in -tract improvements are estimated at
approximately $115,000. The CIC's portion of the contract is approximately $150,000.
The seventh Amendment to the Agreement will increase the total Harris contract by $150,000
from $2.47 million to approximately $2.62 million, which represents 3.7 percent of the CIC's
$71.4 million Residential Infrastructure Project Budget. As a percentage of the total Residential
Infrastructure Project Budget, the proposed Harris contract amendment amount is within the
three to four percent city administration assessment added to projects funded through citywide
development fees.
POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This request is in conformance with the City's Fiscal Neutrality Policy.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed Amendment will be funded from Bayport project revenues pursuant to the
Disposition and Development Agreement. As directed, no general fund monies will be used for
implementation of the Project.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
RECOMMENDATION
June 20, 2006
Page 3 of 3
Authorize the Executive Director to execute a Seventh Amendment to the Master Consulting
Agreement with Harris & Associates for engineering and construction support services for the
remaining phases of the Bayport Project by adding additional budget authority in an amount not
to exceed $265,000 and extending the term of the Agreement to June 7, 2007.
DK/LAL /DC: dc
Attachment
Respec lly submitted,
11,
Leslie A. Littl
Development Services Director
Douglas Cole
Redevelopment Manager
SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO MASTER AGREEMENT
This Amendment of the Agreement, entered into this 20th day of June 2006, by and between
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (hereinafter referred to as "CIC ") of the CITY
OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and HARRIS &
ASSOCIATES, a California corporation, whose address is 120 Mason Circle, Concord, CA 94520,
(hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. On June 1, 2001, an agreement was entered into by and between CIC and Consultant
(hereinafter "Agreement ").
B. On June 1, 2002, an amendment to this agreement was entered into by and between
CIC and Consultant.
C. On December 1, 2003, a second amendment to this agreement was entered into by
and between CIC and Consultant.
D. On April 4, 2004, a third amendment to this agreement was entered into by and
between CIC and Consultant.
E. On November 30, 2004, a fourth amendment to this agreement was entered into by
and between CIC and Consultant.
F. On June 13, 2005, a fifth amendment to this agreement was entered into by and
between CIC and Consultant.
G. On December 20, 2005, a sixth amendment to this agreement was entered into by and
between CIC and Consultant.
H. CIC and Consultant desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and conditions set
forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as
follows:
1. Paragraph 1 ( "Term ") of the Agreement is modified to read as follows:
"The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 1st day of May 2001, and shall terminate
on the 30th day of June 2007, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein."
2. Paragraph 3 ( "Compensation to Consultant ") of the Agreement is modified to read as
follows:
"Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the
amount set forth in each Task Order. Consultant may invoice CIC monthly for work completed, and
CIC shall pay for work satisfactorily completed within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice.
Total compensation for all Task Orders issued under this Seventh Amendment to Master Agreement
shall not exceed $265,000.00 (Exhibit "A -1 "). Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the
treasury of the CIC, to be taken out of the FISC /Catellus fund."
3. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the
Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect.
Harris & Associates
June 2006
Page lof 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to
be executed on the day and year first above written.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
HARRIS & ASSOCIATES COMMISSION
Y: K -10 e,
itle: v?
/-i /o (o
Harris & Associates
June 2006
Debra Kurita
Executive Director
RECOMM I ED OR APPROVAL:
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
-.ie Potter, Manager
Base Reuse & Community Development
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Teresa Highsmith
City Attorney
Page loft
Exhibit "A -1"
Harris & Associates
CO N 00) N N M
a- 000 N —CO NI-
N CE) C N a- CO- N
wI CO I,- NI' cl' I,- r CO
O 69 E9 fA '- 6969 N
0 EA EA EA
I1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
•ct 69 at CO
EA EA EN9 69 ER 6699
oI V_�� CO V �� CO 0 0 0 0
Q EA EA 69 EA EA EA
O
CD
CO c0 � a:1-_ M NI* �''a'
N ,- Cn
EA EA 69 EA EA EA
0000
0 c0 69 •:1-'Cr N
O
669 69
1
O
CO
i
CO
O
V
co
O
O
0 O 0 0
V
iA 69. 69
c0007_N 000N CO
N CO (O O 0)
69 EA EA EA 69 ER
En. 69
CO CO Tr COO CO ) CO C Or-
00 CO NI CO O CO CO 0
N n r V C- r M
EA 69691- 6. EA.- N
EA EA 69
N r CCOO CO 110
N CO
M CO V' a at CO CO 0)
N ,_ M tO I. N id
EA 69 EA.- 69 EA a- N
EA 69 EA
co 0 N CO 0 N O) LO
O N CO h lO
0 ti CO N Cn 00
E9 EA 69 EA EA M
EA EA 69
tocli O O O O O O O 0
O V CO0 N O m
C0 N_ CO • CO N CO-
Qs.
69 N EA
64 Eli EA EA EA
01 0 000 V0' P (00 000 (O�) O
O Cf) 070 000O) O
N V' 00 0 tt O) CO
69 EA VT EA 69 EA 669
O
0 0 0 0 N CO M ON 0 (0 0
N O
r- � O 00 CO
O O) 00 V' N
_ CV
EA N ER N (1)
C 69 69 EA O EA EA 69
O C
CO
BUDGET ESTIMATES
PHASE 1 - BAYPORT
oe m
v c 1+
C•1 E rte)
C
In c
d y O G) N
° E .0 Q 12 E
O CO N U O OY CO
N C c N In C
CO CU t 2 0cnci) Hg
V 0
W Q
0
CC
~
O. ?
Phase 1 Subtotal
2006 Contract Amendment Scope of Services_1
Harris & Associates
IC
The following are tasks previously identified and will be continued through the conclusion of the project.
Description (Full Task Description)
Provide "steady state activities, not related to specific Tract submittals, which assist City in managing program, including: participate in meetings (eg. Steering Committee,
subgroups, utilities, USCG); evaluate alternatives; budget analysis; schedule assistance; document prep and review; coordination between City departments; attendance at
DRC, Planning Board and other forums; generally represent PW Dept. on Catellus Project. Oversee Harris services, providing progress reports, invoices, and budget
monitoring. Serve under the direction of Doug Cole, City project manager.
(Portion of TO#3 charged to Project
'Portion of TO#3 that is in -tract cost
Technical review of "project" improvement plans (demolition and backbone infrastructure defined per MDIGP); review /recommend design exceptions; review of engineering
calculations and reports (soils, storm, sewer, etc); set design criteria; City ordinance compliance; coordination with City Engineer and other departments; assist in issues
resolution and mitigation compliance; review contract documents; provide compliance check list; attend DRC if needed; account for each project separately.
Technical review of in -tract Bayport improvement plans; review /recommend design exceptions; review of engineering calculations and reports (soils, storm, sewer. etc); set
design criteria; check for compliance with City ordinances and conditions of approval; assist in issues resolution; review contract documents; provide compliance check list
attend DRC and Planning Board if needed; account for each Tract separately; coordinate with City Engineer and other departments. These costs are to be reimbursed to
the City by Warmington.
Review of Bayport phased final tract maps; check for compliance with City ordinances, State Map Act, and conditions of approval; check closure calculations; review
CC &Rs and easements for completeness and accuracy; draft the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; coordination with City Engineer and other departments; provide
compliance check list; prepare staff report and resolution for City Council; account for each Tract separately. These costs are to be reimbursed to the City by Warmington.
Work Complete. '
Review grading and backbone infrastructure construction documents (constructability review) for MDIGP projects; provide bid period assistance (attend bid meetings,
review bids, assist with negotiations); review and approve recommendation from Catellus on contractor selection; provide inspection services that would normally be
provided by the PW Dept.; review contractor submittals related to public facilities; maintain inspection logs regarding public facilities inspected; assist CM with conflict
resolution; refer engineering decisions to design engineer, clearly define and document responsibilities between Catellus and Hams; serve as construction liaison between
(City and Catellus (Catellus serves as Construction Manager; roles are further described in Construction Reimbursement Agreement).
Review in -tract construction documents with respect to public and private infrastructure systems. Provide inspection services that would normally be provided by the PW
Dept, such as (a) streets and other improvements to be dedicated to the City, and (b) private facilities such as alleys and storm drains that tie into public systems or affect
the health and safety of residents. Review submittals affecting such facilities. Assist CM with conflict resolution; maintain inspection logs; serve as construction liaison
between City and Catellus. These costs are to be reimbursed to the City by Catellus. Hams will coordinate and arrange for City's on-call surveying firm to perform
independent verification surveys of pad elevations, monuments, and Tract perimeter comers (Catellus will be billed directly by the surveyor).
Allowance for assignments from City beyond the "steady state" activities represented by other Task Orders. Past and future examples include: Oakland Traffic Mitigation
cost impacts; USCG coordination; 115kv electrical relocation; Main Street Linear Park maintenance; Catellus Tern Sheet cost input; MDIGP and infrastructure CIP - peer
review and matrix for capital costs, maintenance costs, and responsibilities; EBMUD environmental issue resolution; FEMA CLOMR; compliance with settlement agreement
for 39 unit housing; Right of Entry agreement; Alameda Belt Line easement; PG &E gas line relocation negotiations; tuming radius resolutions; chlordane removal strategies,
inspection, and cost accounting; activities related to ACET or other projects outside the residential Bayport area; UPRR right of way / easement activities; Mariner Square
Loop relocation analysis; TinkerNVebster project services.
Provide technical support for the Phase 2 re- entitlement process.
Provide design review, front end specifciation preparation, bidding services, construction management and inspection of the Bayport Park.
al
P
Program Mnanagment
Technical Review
"In -tract" Plan Technical
Review:
"In- tract" Final Map
Assessment Engineering
"Backbone" Construction
Service
"In- tract" Construction
Services
Special Assignments
Phase 2 Project (Alameda
Landing) Technical Support
Bayport Park Project
Management
TO#
c
' 3b
r,
co
June 2, 20Q6
2006 Contract Amendment Scope of Services
Harris & Associates
RANGE OF HOURLY RATES:
ALL EMPLOYEES
Effective January 1 - December 31, 2006
ENGINEERING DESIGN AND
MUNICIPAL SERVICES GROUPS HOURLY RATE
Project Directors $190 -270
Project Managers 125 -240
Project Engineers 100 -210
Technical Support 75 -140
Administration 65 -120
CONSTRUCTION / PROGRAM MANAGEMENT HOURLY RATE
Project Director $190 -270
Project Managers 125 -240
Construction Managers 100 -200
Resident Engineers 150 -200
Construction Engineers 110 -170
Scheduling Engineers 110 -200
Cost Engineers 110 -200
Inspectors 100 -170
Technicians 90 -150
Administration 65 -120
'Notes: Rates are subject to adjustment due to promotions during the effective period of this schedule. A new
rate schedule will become effective January 1, 2007. Unless otherwise indicated in the cost proposal, hourly
rates include most direct costs such as vehicles, mileage, equipment, computers, communications and
reproduction (except large quantities such as construction documents for bidding purposes).
Rev 1 Jan06
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: June 20, 2006
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Adopting the Five -Year Implementation
Plan: Fiscal Years 2005/06 — 2009/10 for the Alameda Point Improvement Project
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to California Redevelopment Law, Section 33490 of the California Health and Safety
Code requires that redevelopment project areas adopted after January 1, 1994, prepare a Five -
Year Implementation Plan as part of approving the initial redevelopment plan. Implementation
Plans are then re- adopted, following a public hearing, every five years. Implementation Plans
contain specific goals and objectives for the project area, specific programs, including potential
projects, and estimated expenditures over the five -year period covered by the Plan.
In 1998, the CIC established the Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP) and, as a part of
that process, adopted its first Five -Year Implementation Plan. A subsequent APIP Five -Year
Implementation Plan was not prepared in 2003, as scheduled, due to stalled negotiations with the
Navy for relinquishment of the Alameda Naval Air Station. Redevelopment efforts to date have
been limited because the Navy still owns the property and the tax increment received is
constrained to possessory interest tax only (i.e., no property tax increment is generated because
the Federal government still owns the property). However, in December 2003, in an effort to re-
energize property conveyance negotiations with the Navy, the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) initiated an ARRA- funded pre - development planning
process. City staff and consultants prepared a Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for
Alameda Point and continued to negotiate and plan a schedule for the conveyance of the property
from the Navy to the ARRA during this period. With the assistance of the Alameda Point
Advisory Committee, six well - attended public workshops were held to receive community
recommendations on the PDC. Following presentations to the Planning Board, Transportation
Commission and Economic Development Commission, the PDC was accepted by the ARRA
Board in February 2006. The updated goals and objectives from the PDC are reflected
throughout the Implementation Plan for FY 2005/06 -FY 2009/10.
Notification of the public hearing for the proposed FY2005/06- FY2009 /10 APIP Implementation
Plan was done in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code and included publishing
Agenda Item #2 -A
CIC Meeting
6 -20 -06
Chair and Members of the
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006
Page 2
a public notice weekly for three weeks in a local newspaper, and posting a notice in four
locations in the project area. Notification was also mailed to the Navy, all commercial and
residential tenants at Alameda Point and other interested parties. In addition, the draft FY
2005/06- 2009 /10 APIP Implementation Plan was presented at the June 15th Economic
Development Commission meeting. The EDC did not have any suggested changes to the Plan.
The purpose of the public hearing at the CIC meeting is to provide an opportunity for the general
public to review and comment on the proposed Implementation Plan. Following the public
comment period, the Commission can consider the Resolution approving the FY 2005/06-
2009/10 Implementation Plan for the APIP.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The proposed APIP Implementation Plan for FY 2005/06 — FY 2009/10 contains the same broad
program goals as the initial Implementation Plan, as well as a record of completed projects, on-
going projects, and proposed projects. The Implementation Plan reflects the goals contained in
the newly adopted PDC and remains consistent with other City policy documents including: the
City's General Plan, City -Wide Retail Policy, and the Alameda West Strategic Retail
Implementation Recommendations.
The following is a summary of the FY 2005/06- 2009 /10 APIP Implementation Plan:
• Goals and Objectives
o Eliminate blighting influences and correct environmental deficiencies.
o Assemble land into parcels suitable for modern, integrated development with
improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation and open space.
o Replan, redesign, and develop portions of the Project Area, which are stagnant or
improperly utilized.
o Strengthen the economic base of the Project Area and the community by installing
site improvements to stimulate new residential, commercial, and light industrial
expansion, employment, and social and economic growth.
o Expand, improve, and preserve the community's supply of housing available to
low- and moderate - income persons and families.
o Implement high site design standards and environmental quality and other design
elements.
Chair and Members of the
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006
Page 3
• Non - Housing Programs, Potential Projects and Estimated Revenue and Expenditures.
Annual APIP revenues for non - housing projects are projected to be approximately
$325,000 annually through the end of the Implementation Plan period. These funds will
be used to support the following programs:
o Complete legal negotiations with the Navy and develop the Disposition and
Development Agreement with the Master Developer.
o Facilitate high priority private or public- sponsored catalyst projects.
o Support ongoing activities aimed at business attraction and retention and
enhancement of the economic mix in the APIP area.
o Design and construct streetscape improvements.
o Improve traffic circulation and regional access to the City.
o Make improvements to public infrastructure and facilities.
• Housing Programs, Potential Projects And Estimated Revenue and Expenditures. Annual
APIP revenues for housing projects are projected to be approximately $135,000 through
the end of the Implementation Plan. APIP 20% funds will be made available to projects
at Alameda Point consistent with State Redevelopment Law. Twenty -five percent of new
units constructed at Alameda Point will be inclusionary units serving families earning up
to the area median income. The Implementation Plan projects that approximately 150
inclusionary units will be built by December 2010.
• Blighting Conditions in the APIP. The major blighting conditions of the APIP, as
defined under the special legislation established for decommissioned military bases in
Section 33492.11 of the CRL, are as follows: buildings unsafe or unhealthy for persons
to live and work, factors inhibiting economically viable reuse of buildings or areas
including environmental contamination, existing incompatible uses, buildings that will
not comply with subdivision, zoning, or planning regulations, and infrastructure that does
not meet current standards.
• Alleviation of Blight in the APIP. The Implementation Plan describes how projects are
intended to alleviate physical, social and/or economic blight including: catalyst private
sector residential and commercial projects, business retention and attraction efforts,
preservation of historic structures, construction of infrastructure improvements, open
space and recreational facilities and environmental remediation,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Adoption of an Implementation Plan does not constitute a project as defined in Section 21000 of
the California Public Resources Code. Under SB 732, adoption of an Implementation Plan does
not constitute the approval of any specific program, project, or expenditure. Thus, each specific
project, program or expenditure in the Implementation Plan will be subject to the standard
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review otherwise required at the time of its
approval.
Chair and Members of the
Community Improvement Commission
FINANCIAL IMPACT
June 20, 2006
Page 4
Implementation Plans do not imply a financial commitment to specific projects. Funding for
specific activities are reviewed annually at the time the CIC budget is adopted or upon separate
presentation to and consideration by the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct the public hearing and consider approving the attached Resolution adopting the Five -
Year Implementation Plan: Fiscal Years 2005/06 — 2009/10 for the Alameda Point Improvement
Project.
Respect ly submitte
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: s bie Potter
Base Reuse & Community Development
Manager
Attachment: FY 2005/06 - 2009 /10 APIP Implementation Plan
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
of the
CITY OF ALAMEDA
FIVE -YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:
Fiscal Years 2005/06 — 2009/10
ALAMEDA POINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
As Required By
California Health & Safety Code Section 33490
City of Alameda
Development Services Department
950 West Mall Square, Second Floor
Alameda, CA 94501
510- 749 -5800
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
I -1. Scope of the Implementation Plan for APIP 1
I -2. Implementation Plan Requirements 1
I -3. Background Documents 2
II. Goals and Objectives
II -1. APIP Goals and Objectives 4
III. Programs, Potential Projects and Estimated Expenditures
III-1. Estimated APIP Revenue and Expenditure 7
III-2. APIP Non - Housing Programs 8
III -3. APIP Housing Programs 14
III -4. Plan for Replacement of Demolished Existing Affordable Housing 17
III-5. Expenditure Targeting Statutory Requirements for Housing ... 17
IV. APIP Blighting Conditions
IV -1 APIP Blighting Conditions 21
V. Alleviation of Blight
V -2. Alleviation of Structural Blight 22
V -3. Alleviation of Physical Non - Structural Blight 22
V -4 Alleviation of Social Non - Structural Blight 22
V -5 Alleviation of Economic Non - Structural Blight 23
VI. Exhibits
Map of APIP Project Area 24
ii
I. INTRODUCTION
I -1 Scope of the Implementation Plan for the APIP
The Five -Year Implementation Plan is an important component of the compliance requirements
for Project Areas under California Redevelopment Law (CRL). This FY 05/06 — FY09 /10
Implementation Plan for the Alameda Point Implement Project (APIP) Area outlines on -going
efforts in economic and housing redevelopment and refers to applicable policy documents in
place, such as the General Plan and the Preliminary Development Concept.
The Implementation Plan is intended to identify programs and goals in the APIP Redevelopment
Area, and is not intended to address specific projects. Any specific projects that are listed are
provided as typical examples, only. Additionally, programs and projects listed do not limit the
CIC from modifying the Plan as need or opportunities arise.
I -2 Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 33490 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Redevelopment Law requires
that for each five -year period following the APIP adoption, the CIC prepare an Implementation
Plan for the APIP area. In 1998, the CIC adopted its first Five -Year Implementation Plan. The
CIC did not adopt the second Five -Year Implementation Plan in 2003, as scheduled due to an on-
going community participation -based planning process and stalled negotiations with the Navy
for relinquishment of the property. Redevelopment efforts from 2003 to present were limited to
maintaining the status quo at Alameda Point. Negotiations with the Navy are now nearing
completion and the planning process concluded with the acceptance of the Alameda Point
Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) in February 2006. Therefore, this second Five -Year
Implementation Plan will address FY 05/06 through FY 09/10. In addition, because the Navy
still owns the property the tax increment received has been very limited and therefore has
constrained activities.
California Redevelopment Law, Section 33352 of the Health and Safety Code, requires that an
Implementation Plan contain the following elements:
a. Specific goals and objectives of the CIC for the APIP (see Section II)
b. Specific programs, potential projects and estimated expenditures proposed to be made
during the next five years (see Section III)
c. Implementation of the low- and moderate - income housing requirements per Section
33333.10 if applicable, and Sections 33334.2, 33334.4, 33334.6, and 33413 (see Section
HI), with specific CIC responsibilities set forth therein (see Section III) including:
1
• The tax increment available in the low- and moderate - income housing fund and
for each of the five years, the estimated amounts which will be deposited and
expended;
• Estimates of the number of new, substantially rehabilitated or price- restricted
units to be developed or purchased both over the life of the plan and during the
next ten years;
• Estimates of the number of units of very -low, low -, and moderate - income
households which have been developed or are required to be developed in order to
meet California Health and Safety Code Section 33413(b)(2); and,
• Estimates of the number of CIC- developed residential units that will be developed
during the next ten years, including units for very -low, low- and moderate - income
households that will be governed by California Health and Safety Code Section
33413(b)(1).
• An explanation of how the CIC is meeting the Housing Fund targeting
requirements set forth in Section 33334.4 of the Health & Safety Code.
• Identification of CIC projects that will result in destruction of existing affordable
housing, and, if any, the identification of proposed locations suitable for
replacement housing required pursuant to Section 33413
d. An explanation of how the goals and objectives, programs, and expenditures will
eliminate blight within the project area and implement the requirements of Sections
33334.2, 33334.4, 33334.6 and 33413 (see Section V)
The CIC must hold a noticed public hearing prior to adoption of each Implementation Plan. The
adoption of the Implementation Plan does not constitute a project as defined in section 21000 of
the California Public Resources Code, nor does the adoption of an Implementation Plan
constitute the approval of any specific program, project, or expenditure. Thus, each specific
project, program or expenditure in an Implementation Plan will be subject, if necessary, to
standard California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.
In addition, the CIC must hold a public hearing to review the progress of the Implementation
Plan no earlier than two years and no later than three years after adoption of the Implementation
Plan. In 2002, the CIC held a public hearing to review progress of the first Implementation Plan
for the APIP.
I -3. Background Documents
This Implementation Plan is a compendium of and hereby incorporates by reference a variety of
documents and research efforts that have been or will be prepared to provide guidance in
achieving the objectives of the CIC. Key documents at present include:
2
• The CIC Budget for FY 2005/06;
• The "Community Improvement Plan for the Alameda Point Improvement Project ";
• The "Survey of the Alameda Point Improvement Project Area ";
The City of Alameda General Plan;
• The City of Alameda General Plan Amendment;
• The NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan;
• The Alameda Citywide Retail Policy;
• The Alameda West Strategic Retail Implementation Recommendations;
• The Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept.
If consistent with this Plan, additional studies, reports, strategies, and programs may be prepared
and implemented.
3
II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
II -1 APIP Goals and Objectives
Building upon the broad principles in the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda Community Reuse
Plan that was drafted in 1996 prior to the decommissioning of the NAS, the Community
Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP) was adopted in
1998 to provide a critical tool for eliminating blighting conditions by promoting economic
development through the provision of new public improvements, commercial development and
affordable housing. These goals and objectives were prepared by the CIC at the time of the
adoption of the Project Area and reflect State law requirements currently in place. The CIP
established a process and basic framework within which specific plans would later be developed,
thereby retaining the CIC's ability to respond to development constraints, changing market
conditions and unanticipated circumstances such as the protracted negotiations with the U.S.
Department of the Navy for the transfer of land ownership to the City of Alameda. The major
goals of the 1998 CIP are:
• The elimination of blighting influences and the correction of environmental deficiencies
in the Project Area, including, among others, buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy
for persons to live or work, small and irregular lots, faulty exterior spacing, obsolete and
aged building types, mixed character or shifting uses or vacancies, incompatible and
uneconomic land uses, substandard alleys, and inadequate or deteriorated public
improvements, facilities, and utilities.
• The assembly of land into parcels suitable for modern, integrated development with
improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Project Area.
• The replanning, redesign, and development of portions of the Project Area, which are
stagnant or improperly utilized.
• The provision of opportunities for participation by owners and tenants in the
revitalization of their properties.
• The strengthening of the economic base of the Project Area and the community by the
installation of needed site improvements to stimulate new residential, commercial, and
light industrial expansion, employment, and social and economic growth.
• The provision of adequate land for parking and open spaces.
• The establishment and implementation of performance criteria to assure high site design
standards and environmental quality and other design elements, which provide unity and
integrity to the entire Project.
• The expansion, improvement, and preservation of the community's supply of housing
available to low- and moderate - income persons and families.
4
The goals and objective for the APIP were incorporated into various key City of Alameda
planning documents since 1998:
• In 2003, a Housing Element was adopted which reflected the housing development goals
for the APIP.
• In 2003, 123 acres in the APIP area (the "Exchange Area ") were transferred to the
Business and Waterfront Improvement Project Area (BWIP) through an amendment
process.
• The City's General Plan was also amended in 2003 to address the reuse and
redevelopment of the NAS. The CIC had adopted the APIP under special provisions
regarding closed military facilities. At that time, the General Plan designation for the
majority of the project area was Federal Facilities. California Redevelopment Law
requires that the CIP and General Plan be consistent in order for tax increment to be
spent. Therefore, until 2003, redevelopment activities were funded with a loan from the
City of Alameda General Fund. The General Plan policy direction was presented in a set
of development objectives, which include:
• Seamlessly integrate Alameda Point with the rest of the City of Alameda
• Foster a vibrant new neighborhood
• Maximize waterfront accessibility
• De- emphasize the automobile and make new development compatible with
transportation capacity
■ Ensure economic development
• Create a mixed -use environment
■ Establish neighborhood centers
In addition to incorporating policies and diagrams from the Reuse Plan, the General Plan
Amendment included updated information about the development plans for Alameda Point, the
Golf Course and the Wildlife Refuge.
In December 2003, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) initiated an 18-
month, ARRA- funded pre - development planning effort during which city staff and consultants
would prepare a Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point and negotiate and
plan a schedule for the conveyance of the property from the Navy to the ARRA. With the
assistance of the Alameda Point Advisory Committee, six well- attended public workshops were
held to receive community recommendations on the PDC. Following presentations to and
feedback from the Planning Board, Transportation Commission and Economic Development
Commission, the PDC was accepted by the ARRA Board in February 2006.
Taking into account land use constraints, physical constraints, institutional and contractual
constraints, guiding principals were adopted to ensure consistency with the APIP CIP and
General Plan. The PDC is now the primary document for the redevelopment of Alameda Point
and its specific goals and objectives are reflected throughout this Five -Year Implementation
5
Plan. The CIC's ability to implement the goals and objectives of the APIP remain contingent
upon two key contractual relationships.
■ The ARRA is involved in lengthy negotiations with the U.S. Department of the Navy
regarding the timing and financial terms of the conveyance of Alameda Point. Staff
continues to meet at least monthly with the Navy to discuss disposition timelines and
other administrative activities related to conveyance. Staff also continues to negotiate
with the Navy regarding environmental remediation activities, including privatized clean
up. Staff is attending Navy- sponsored BCT and RAB meetings to monitor remediation
activities and working closely with DTSC and EPA. Conveyance, including resolution of
environmental clean up efforts, is estimated by December 2007.
• The CIC /ARRA/City also maintain a contractual relationship with the selected master
developer, Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP). APCP, a partnership of Shea
Homes, Centex Homes and Shea Properties works closely with the ARRA staff, per the
terms of a Conditional Acquisition Agreement (CAA), to assess the feasibility of various
development scenarios, including those outlined in the PDC. It is anticipated that a
Disposition and Development Agreement will be executed following the conveyance of
land from the Navy to the ARRA in December 2007.
6
III. PROGRAMS, POTENTIAL PROJECTS AND ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
This section of the Implementation Plan reviews specific programs, proposed projects,
anticipated revenues and estimated expenditures for the next five years. Estimated expenditures
are based on current and potential activities that achieve the Plan's goals and objectives. These
expenses include, but are not limited to, the CIC's senior obligations for long -term debt such as
bond payments, fiscal agreements, and ongoing subordinate payments for contracts,
reimbursements to other agencies, and operational and administrative costs incurred when
carrying out the Redevelopment Plan.
The following program and project descriptions include specific activities for illustrative
purposes. The examples are intended to reflect the PDC and to help clarify the range of potential
programs, projects, or expenditures, and are not intended to represent an inclusive listing of
potential activities. Details will be reviewed annually at the time of adoption of the CIC budget.
III —1. Estimated APIP Revenues and Expenditures
Table 1 details projected APIP revenues by fiscal year. The projection is based on the fiscal
consultant report, which uses a 2% growth rate to determine property valuations. State law
requires that 20% of APIP revenues be set -aside for affordable housing projects and those
revenues are detailed in Section III-3. The remaining 80% of APIP revenues will be used for
non - housing related projects intended to alleviate blighted conditions in the APIP area, and are
discussed in Section III -2.
Table 1
Estimated APIP Revenues
(Values in Thousands of Dollars)
FY
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Housing Projects
120
135
136
137
138
Non - Housing Projects
482
325
332
544
547
TOTAL
602
461
468
681
685
' The balance is subject to County, local and other statutory pass -thru obligations for APIP established under CRL.
7
III — 2. APIP Non - Housing Programs
Estimated expenditures on APIP non - housing programs and summary program descriptions are
provided below. As projected revenue increases annually, the expenditures are anticipated to
deplete resources at the same level. Timing and level of expenditures involve collaborative
efforts with private sector entities and other government agencies. Actual expenditures are
established annually as part of the CIC budget process. Section III -3 details housing programs,
projects and estimated expenditures on an individual project basis.
Table 2
Estimated APIP Non - Housing Expenditures
(Values in Thousands of Dollars)
FY
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Non - Housing
482
325
332
544
547
Expenditures
Program: "Implementation of recommendations in the Community Reuse Plan. Examples of
specific projects include regulatory changes (revisions to the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance), fiscal impact analyses, etc., necessary for high quality development within the
APIP."
Status:
• Completed Project: Housing Element updated to include Alameda Point in 2000.
• Completed Project: General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) was certified by the City in 2003.
■ Completed Project: General Plan Amendment for Alameda Point and new
Housing Element adopted in 2003.
• Completed Project: ARRA has accepted the Preliminary Development Concept to
guide reuse and redevelopment activities. The PDC anticipates development
informed by the following seven principles:
o Each phase of the development should support and contribute to the
creation of a balanced mix of land uses at Alameda Point to build
community and create a pedestrian friendly environment.
o Development at Alameda Point should be transit - oriented and facilitate
convenient access to multiple modes of transportation in close proximity to
homes and businesses.
o Alameda Point development must be well integrated into surrounding
existing neighborhoods.
o The development of Alameda Point should support creation of a diverse
community with a variety of housing types, income groups, employment
8
and recreational opportunities.
o The development at Alameda Point must be an economically viable project
that will not require or rely upon General Fund subsidies.
o The development at Alameda Point should support and facilitate the
environmental remediation program and facilitate conveyance of the
property from the U.S Navy.
o Alameda Point should be a sustainable, environmentally sound community.
Site planning, building orientation, landscape design and materials,
construction techniques, choice of transit vehicles, and opportunities for
partnerships with Alameda Power and Telecom and the use of solar power
must all be carefully considered throughout the initial design, construction,
and maintenance phases of the project.
■ On -going Project: Conveyance negotiations on -going with Navy. EDC MOA
amendment to be complete by December 2007.
• On -going Project: Master Developer for AP selected in 2001. Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement completed in 2002. Conditional Acquisition Agreement
approved in November 2003. Cooperative efforts to complete pre - development
tasks and related negotiations are on- going. An 18 -month EIR and entitlement
process to begin in July 2006. A Disposition and Development Agreement
(DDA) anticipated to be complete in December 2007.
Redevelopment of Alameda Point will be phased over 15 years, with Phase I activities occurring
from 2008 — 2013. With the completion of the General Plan Amendment in 2003, the
Community Reuse Plan goals and objectives were folded into the City's General Plan. The
Reuse Plan has been further refined through the PDC. Therefore, this "Program" has been
replaced, for redevelopment purposes, by these updated documents.
Program: "Facilitation of high priority privately or publicly sponsored catalyst development
ro'ects in the form of financial /en ineerin /architectural/ environmental anal ses site •lannin
and project development, etc. Possible projects include adaptive reuse of existing industrial or
commercial sites or buildings on the former base, including, but not limited to, non - traditional
residential activities such as live /work spaces, and acquisition, disposition or reuse of
underutilized public or privately owned properties.
Status:
• On -going Project: Environmental Remediation — The Navy is actively working with
the USEPA and the California EPA to evaluate and clean up environmental
contamination throughout Alameda Point. The environmental regulatory agencies
have approved closure of many fuel storage tanks and other petroleum facilities. For
9
other sites investigation and cleanup are in progress. All of the sites with non -
petroleum contamination are being investigated and some are in the active clean -up
phase. A few non - petroleum sites have achieved closure sign -off from the
environmental regulators, e.g., the Skeet Range and the Former Transformer Storage
Area. By the end of 2010, the Navy's cleanup is expected to be complete or to have
progressed to a long -term monitoring phase for most areas, but not the West Beach
Landfill (IR -02), the Northwestern Ordinance Storage Area (IR -32), and the most
industrialized areas (OU -2) north and east of the Seaplane Lagoon.
• On -going Project: Ploughshares Nursery, an economic development endeavor of the
Alameda Point Collaborative, is open for business on four acres of open space
fronting Main Street. During the next several years, permanent improvements will
include an indoor retail and classroom facility as well as propagation and outdoor
sales areas.
■ On -going Project: In accordance with the Stuart B. McKinney Act of 1987 the
ARRA subleased over 178,000 square feet of existing buildings to the Alameda Point
Collaborative for use in providing supportive services and economic development
opportunities. $330,000 of Community Development Block Grant funds have been
invested in upgrades to these facilities as well as in technical assistance to enhance
the capacity of Alameda Point Collaborative staff to provide services to the residents
of 200 very -low income housing units at Alameda Point.
According to the PDC, between 2008 -2013, only Phase I of the plan will be
implemented. Phase I is proposed to include 107,000 square feet of
Community /Civic/Institutional uses, 512,000 square feet of office and
research/development uses, and 115,000 square feet of town - center retail space. At the
completion of Phase I redevelopment in 2013, the following physical improvements will
be in place:
• Potential Project: A Town Center on the Seaplane Lagoon with up to 115,000 square
feet of community retail shops and services.
• Potential Project: Several new neighborhoods with parks, pedestrian pathways and
neighborhood centers will be built. These new neighborhoods will add up to 1,100
new housing units. A minimum of 25% of the new housing will be affordable to very
low -, low -, and moderate - income households. Neighborhood- serving, small -scale
retail centers will offer commercial services, day care centers, places of worship etc.
■ Potential Project: Approximately 500,000 square feet of job generating non-
residential uses, including industrial and manufacturing businesses, maritime related
businesses, research and development businesses, office uses and other commercial
enterprises.
10
• Potential Project: 50 -acre regional sports complex to be located at Alameda Point.
The complex will include soccer fields, baseball fields, swimming facilities and a
gymnasium.
• Potential Project: Approximately 44 contributing structures in the historic district will
be preserved and adaptively reuse consistent with the Secretary of the Interior
Standards for the Preservation and Rehabilitation of Historic Structures.
• Potential Project: 215 -acre Alameda Point Golf Course/Resort Development/Public
Access project to be located in the northwest comer of Alameda Point. The proposed
new development will include public access lands along the water's edge consisting
of two public parks, a hiking and biking trail, parking and restrooms. The 2002
Request for Qualifications did not result in the selection of a golf course /resort hotel
developer. The Golf Course project Draft EIR has been released and will be
presented at a Public Hearing in June 2006.
Program: "Support for ongoing activities aimed at business attraction/retention, business
promotion, and enhancement of the economic mix in the APIP area. Potential projects
include contracting with local and regional business associations for design, promotional
business retention and attraction activities. Possible projects include financial assistance for
facade improvements of commercial buildings, seismic upgrading and the adaptive reuse of
key landmark buildings. This will help achieve the goal of strengthening commercial and
industrial business districts in the APIP."
Status:
• Completed Project: Electrical System conveyed by ARRA to Alameda Power &
Telecom.
• Completed Project: Alameda Power & Telecom completed installation of
underground high -speed fiber optic system at Alameda Point that serves the entire
island.
• Completed Project: Electrical services were relocated and upgraded for Pier 2 and
Pier 3 to accommodate a 20 -year sublease to MARAD.
• Completed Project: Electrical, plumbing and structural upgrades have been completed
with $10 million grant from the EDA to Hanger 11, 23 and 39 and Building 77, 400A
and 530, to attract several key business tenants.
11
• On -going Project: The ARRA has an active interim leasing program with more than
90 businesses, with 2000 employees, occupying 2 millions square feet of existing
space at Alameda Point.
Program: "Design and construction of streetscape improvements. Possible projects include
feasibility studies to carry out the recommendations contained in the NAS Alameda Street
Improvement Plan."
Status:
Completed Project: Main Street Linear Greenway property acquired and
improvements complete.
• Potential Project: The ARRA approved a Streetscape Beautification Agreement with
the Master Developer in September 2002. No funding has been identified for this
project to date.
• Potential Project: Main Street will be reconfigured to include one lane for cars in each
direction, a center turning lane, 5 -foot bike lanes and on- street parking. Landscaping
will complement the improvements made along the Main Street Linear Greenway.
Program: "Improvements to traffic circulation and regional access to the City. An example is the
determination of an alignment for the proposed Mitchell - Mosley and/or Tinker Extension,
which will guide development on FISC properties. Establishment of the alignment will improve
circulation to presently underutilized properties, making them suitable for private development."
Status:
• Ongoing Project: The Mitchell - Moseley and Tinker Improvements are both in the
BWIP area following the 2003 boundary adjustment. Therefore, the status of these
projects is tracked in the BWIP Five -Year Implementation Plan. However, the
importance of the improvements to the redevelopment of the APIP remain significant.
The Tinker Extension is scheduled to be completed in 2009. The Mitchell - Moseley
improvements will provide major access point to Alameda Point but will be
configured as a neighborhood boulevard west of the intersection at Main Street. The
Mitchell - Moseley improvements are scheduled to be completed in 2015. A portion of
Mitchell - Moseley will be constructed as part of the Phase I AP improvements.
• Ongoing Project: ARRA received a $250,000 MTC grant in 2005 to prepare a
specific plan for the proposed multi -modal transit center at Alameda Point. The
specific plan will be completed in early 2007.
• Potential Project: A multi -modal transportation program designed to attract new
homeowners and businesses that are willing to pay for, support and use transit and
other alternatives to the automobile is planned for Alameda Point. The program
12
includes frequent bus and ferry services, use of zero or low emission transit vehicles,
car -share and bicycle facilities etc.
Program: "Improvements to public infrastructure and facilities that are of benefit to the APIP and
allowed by Community Redevelopment Law. Possible improvement projects include
transportation, parking, public safety, storm drains, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, sewer lines and
laterals. Examples of possible projects include developing more public parking; developing new
park and recreational open spaces; and improving existing open spaces."
Status:
■ Completed Project: Public Works completed a water separation project to segregate
the fire suppression system from the domestic water system.
■ On -going Project: PM Realty Group, on behalf of the ARRA, has replaced and/or
repaired raised sidewalks throughout Alameda Point, with emphasis on areas
experiencing the greatest pedestrian traffic. Annual assessments and repairs are done
utilizing non - redevelopment funds.
■ On -going Project: A 565 acre national wildlife refuge currently managed by the US
Fish and Wildlife Service to protect migratory birds, endangered species and other
wildlife habitat. The US Navy intends to transfer the ownership of the land to the US
Fish and Wildlife Service in the future.
■ Potential Project: A key component of the golf course /conference center will be
development of a shoreline trail along the Estuary. Looping through the golf course, it
will connect to the Wildlife Refuge trail, or return to the Main Street portion of the
Bay Trail. The conceptual golf course plan provides three park areas along the trail,
with a waterfront promenade, esplanade, observation points, and picnic facilities.
Approximately 14,000 feet, or almost three miles, of new trail would be provided by
the project.
■ Potential Project: Seaplane Lagoon: The PDC recommends a major new park on the
north side of the Seaplane Lagoon. The park may include areas for passive
recreation, water access, and organized community gatherings and still preserve bay
views.
■ Potential Project: Water System/Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drain and Dry Utility System:
The existing systems at Alameda Point are not built to current City or utility company
standards so the PDC recommends the systems be replaced with new pipes and
structures on a phased basis as each phase of the development is constructed.
13
Program: "Development of design improvements and coordinated design standards for the
Atlantic Avenue entrance to APIP. Possible projects include preparation of streetscape
improvements."
Status:
■ Potential Project: The PDC recommends that the existing Atlantic Avenue be
straightened by extending Ralph J. Appezzato Memorial Parkway directly west to and
along the north side of the Seaplane Lagoon and San Francisco Bay. This broad
boulevard could accommodate rail or bus ways in the future. Implementation is
anticipated as part of the Phase I AP redevelopment (2008 -13).
Program: "The current basis of calculating State's Education Revenue Augmentation Fund
(ERAF) payments is subject to change, but the CIC does make annual payments."
Status:
• On -going Project_ State Legislature re- established a requirement for redevelopment
agencies to make ERAF payments during FY 2002/03. Through FY 04/05 the CIC
has made $1,638,247 in ERAF payments.
Program: "Administrative and personnel costs associated with carrying out all of the above
programs, projects and expenditures."
Status:
• On -going Project: Both the CIC and ARRA budgets support on -going administrative
and personnel costs. During ,FY 2003/04, the ARRA budgeted $3.5 million toward
the 18 -month pre - development planning period that resulted in the PDC.
III -3. APIP Housing Programs
The Community Improvement Commission is committed to meeting its requirements for
affordable housing under Community Redevelopment Law.
Section 33413(b) of the Health and Safety Code (Community Redevelopment Law) requires that
(a) "at least 30 percent of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units developed by an Agency shall
be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low- moderate - income" with
not less than 50 percent of such units to be occupied by very low- income households and (b) "at
least 15 percent of all new or rehabilitation units developed by public or private entities or
persons other than the Agency shall be available to persons of low- or moderate - income" with
not less than 40 percent of such units to be available at affordable housing cost to very low -
income households. The housing units referred to in this paragraph must remain affordable for
not less than 55 years for rental units and 45 years for homeownership units.
Section 33413 was amended, effective January 1, 1992, to require the CIC, as a redevelopment
agency, to adopt an inclusionary housing compliance plan to insure that such requirements will
14
be met every ten years. Every five years the plan must be reviewed in conjunction with the City
of Alameda Housing Element cycle and, if necessary, amended. If the 30/15 percent housing
requirements are not met by the end of the ten -year period, then the CIC must meet these goals
on an annual basis until the requirements for the ten -year period are met. If the CIC has exceeded
the housing requirements for the ten -year period, the CIC may count the excess units toward
compliance in the next period.
Ten -Year Production
Special legislation affords Alameda the option of counting housing units given over for housing
the homeless against state - mandated inclusionary housing units, required at a rate of 15 percent
of new units built. A legal settlement with Renewed Hope and Arc Ecology requires that 25% of
the new units built at Alameda Point be available to and occupied by, very low -, low -, and
moderate - income families. Two hundred units have already been rehabilitated and converted
for very -low income housing units and are managed by the Alameda Point Collaborative under
several 59 -year long -term leases. This conveyance is the result of negotiations with the
Homeless Collaborative in compliance with the Stuart B. McKinney Act of 1987 and subsequent
federal legislation.
The FY 1997 -2003 CIP approved by the CIC assumed the development of 157 new units in the
first ten years of the APIP CIP. It is anticipated that none of these units will be developed by the
CIC, acting as the developer. The CIC may, however, acquire parcels or provide other financial
contribution based on demonstrated need to assist developers in the provision of these affordable
units. Consistent with the Housing Element adopted on May 6, 2003, it is the policy of the CIC
to require developers to construct housing units for low and moderate - income households within
their projects. Furthermore, a minimum of six percent of the total units in each residential
development must be affordable to very low- income households.
Since the inception of the APIP in 1997, there have been no new units developed by the CIC.
Two hundred forty -six (246) substantially rehabilitated units were developed by other public or
private developers in the five -year period 1997 -2002. Of these, one hundred seventy -eight (178)
are affordable to very -low income households. Not included in these production numbers is the
Spirit of Hope ]I development located in the Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP), which
utilized BWIP funding to produce 22 units of housing affordable to very low- income households.
California Redevelopment Law allows the aggregation of units, and a finding has been made
that, based on substantial evidence, aggregation of these APIP units with the BWIP will not
cause or exacerbate racial, ethnic, or economic segregation. These units were aggregated to meet
the inclusionary requirement for the BWIP for the 10 -year period 1994 -2004. Given delays in
the conveyance of land to the ARRA no new housing units have been constructed in the APIP.
Inclusionary housing production developed in the APIP during the last period exceeded the CRL
15% inclusionary requirement and will be carried forward into the current period.
15
Table 3 shows the historical production of housing in the APIP (The calculation of inclusionary
housing units reflects the established City policy of rounding to the nearest whole unit.)
Table 3
APIP Historical Housing Development (1997 — 2006)
FY
Total Units
Very Low
Low/Mod
Market
Total Units Developed
246
178
0
68
Inclusionary %
(CRL requires 15 %)
300
72%
600
Total Inclusionary
Housing Units
It should be noted that a policy to increase the inclusionary requirement to 25% in all
redevelopment areas has also been adopted in the City's Housing Element and by the CIC.
Therefore, the CIC anticipates it will continue to exceed inclusionary requirements within the
APIP for the remainder of the ten -year period.
Table 4 details the number of units projected to be completed during the ten -year plan period
covering 7/1/05 — 6/30/10. According to the PDC, between 2008 -2013 only Phase I of the plan
will be implemented. Phase I is proposed to include the 200 affordable housing units already
occupied and 1148 newly constructed housing units built primarily by private developers in a
range of housing types that will serve a diversity of household sizes, incomes and ages. It is not
anticipated that the CIC will develop new units during this current period. 25% of new units
built will be inclusionary units with 6% affordable to very-low income households. For the
remainder of the plan, the CIC anticipates that an additional 587 units will be constructed with
25% inclusionary units. It should be noted that, as predicted in the Housing Element, any Navy
delay in completing environmental remediation and conveyance related activities would impact
the housing production schedule at the APIP.
Table 4
Projected APIP Housing Development
FY
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Total
New Housing Units
Developed
0
0
0
300
300
600
Total Inclusionary
Housing Units
0
0
0
75
75
150
Very Low - Income
Units
0
0
0
18
18
36
Low/Moderate-
Income Units
0
0
0
57
57
114
Table 5 details the Housing Fund balance and projected Revenue and Expenditures for the APIP
project area. It is anticipated that during the five -year period covering 7/1/05 — 6/30/10, the
ARRA will provide $3.6 million of Housing Funds to satisfy the Alameda Point Collaborative's
contribution to infrastructure for its existing 200 very -low income units. By agreement, the
16
ARRA will provide. The use of any remaining APIP 20% funds will be made available to
projects at Alameda Point consistent with State Redevelopment Law.
Table 5
Estimated Revenues and Expenditures of APIP Housing Fund
(Values in Thousands of Dollars)
FY
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Total
Est.
Revenue
120
135
136
137
138
621
Est.
Expend.
120
135
136
137
138
621
Ending
Balance
0
0
0
0
0
0
It is anticipated that no excess surplus will exist for the duration of this Implementation Plan.
Once the $3.6 million APIP housing funds obligation to infrastructure noted above is met, future
funds will be accumulated until sufficient funds exist to assist the Alameda Housing Authority in
the development of an affordable project or to assist a private developer in completing a larger
project with a significant number of affordable units. It is anticipated that the units noted above
would be both owner- and tenant - occupied. A variety of financial tools are available to assist
affordable housing development. In addition to the 20 percent housing set -aside (Housing Fund),
federal HOME funds, City Affordable Housing fees and tax - increment financing could be
utilized to assist such development.
III -4 Plan for Replacement of Demolished Existing Affordable Housing
No demolition of occupied affordable housing which would require replacement (Per Section
33413(a) of CRL) is anticipated in the APIP, and no replacement housing is expected to be
required. If replacement housing is required, it would be provided consistent with CRL
requirements, including those related to location. Replacement housing could be provided in
residentially - designated areas within the APIP or, following adoption of a resolution beneficial
to the Project Area, units could be acquired or developed on a scattered basis outside of the
Project Area at a rate of two units for every one unit of affordable housing removed.
III -5 Expenditure Targeting Statutory Requirements for Housing
CRL requires agencies to set aside, in a separate low and moderate income housing fund, at least
20% of all tax increment revenue generated from their project areas for the purpose of
increasing, improving and preserving the community's supply of low and moderate income
housing. Revisions adopted under AB 637, effective January 1, 2002, and SB 701, effective
17
January 1, 2003, require agencies to address how their Housing Fund expenditures will meet the
newly instituted Housing Fund Targeting requirements. Section 33334.4 of the Health and
Safety Code has been amended to include the following:
Income Targeting
Each agency shall expend over each 10 year period the monies in the Low and Moderate
Income Housing Fund to assist with housing for persons of low income and housing for
persons of very low income in at least the same proportion as the total number of housing
units needed for each of those income groups to the total number of units needed for persons
of moderate, low, and very low income within the community, as those needs have been
determined for the community.
The number of units needed for low and very low income households relative to the total
number of units needed for persons of moderate, low, and very low income within the
community is determined by the Regional Housing Need Determination (RHND), also called
the "fair share" determination. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
calculates this every five years. Based on the current regional fair share allocation, 34% of
the CIC Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for each project area must be targeted to
very -low income households and 20% to low income households. According to the RHND,
the City of Alameda will need to develop 443 units affordable to very-low income
households and 265 units affordable to low income households in order to meet its regional
fair share goals. The legislation requires agencies to account for Low and Moderate Income
Housing Funds spent by income levels in both the "past period ", which is defined to be from
July 1, 1997, to June 30, 2005, and for the "current period ", defined to be from July 1, 2005
to June 30, 2010. Table 6 lists past and current period expenditures by income affordability
of units produced in the APIP.
All of the projected APIP expenditures in the current period will be used in support of very
low- income units through the $3.6 million contribution to be made by the CIC on behalf of
the APC. Therefore, the planned CIC contributions exceed CRL income targeting
requirements for very -low income households in the current period. Over the lifetime of the
redevelopment project area, the income targeting requirements will be met via projects
funded by the CIC, as well as those private developers construct for low income households.
All units will be restricted by a recorded covenant in accordance with the requirements of
CRL. The CIC will work closely with APCP during the current period to ensure that a
detailed production schedule, that meets the RHND targeting requirements, is developed and
implemented when new housing development begins at Alameda Point.
18
Table 6
Estimated APIP Income Targeted Fund Expenditure
(Values in thousands of dollars)
Estimated Income Targeting Expenditure
Past Period:
FY 1997 -98 to FY 2004 -05
Current Period:
FY 2005 -06 to FY 2010 -11
2005/06
2006/07
Funds
Expended
% Total
Funds
Expended
Funds
Expended
% Total Funds
Expended
RHND
Targeting
Requirement
Very Low Income (VLI)
Low Income (LI)
Moderate Income (Mod)
126
100%
1325
100%
0%
0%
34%
20%
46%
TOTAL APIP
126
100%
1325
100%
120
Table 7
Estimated Income Targeting Expenditure
(Values in thousands of dollars)
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Very Low Income (VLI)
120
135
136
137
138
Low Income (LI)
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL APIP
120
135
136
137
138
Targeting for Persons Regardless of Age
Each agency shall expend over the duration of each Implementation Plan, the monies in
the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund to assist housing that is available to all
persons regardless of age in at least the same proportion as the population under age 65
bears to the total population of the community as reported in the most recent census of
the United States Census Bureau.
As of January 2002, the Agency is required to target unit production to persons regardless
of age in at least the proportion of the population under sixty -five to the total population,
as listed in the latest Census. According to the 2000 Census, the City of Alameda's
population of 72,259 persons consists of eighty -seven (87 %) percent persons under the
age of sixty -five, and thirteen percent (13 %) over the age of sixty -five. As with the
income targeting requirement, the legislation requires that funds targeted by age levels
report expenditures in the "past period" (FY 1997/98 to FY 2004/05) and the "current
period" (FY 2005/06 to FY 2009/10). Table 8 shows the status of the APIP in meeting
this requirement.
In the past period, 100 percent of APIP funds have been spent on housing for persons
regardless of age. In the current period, 100 percent of APIP funds will be targeted for
19
housing for persons regardless of age. The CIC is therefore, exceeding CRL
requirements.
Table 8
APIP Fund Expenditure Targeting on Persons Regardless of Age
(Values in thousands of dollars)
Past Period:
FY 1997 -98 to FY 2004 -05
Current Period:
FY 2005 -06 to FY 2014/2015
% Total
Funds
Funds Expended Expended
Funds % Total Funds
Expended Expended
RHND
Targeting
Require -
ment
Senior Housing
Non Senior Housing
0 0%
126 100%
0 0%
1325 100%
Less than
13%
At least 87%
TOTAL APIP
126 100%
1325 100%
20
IV. APIP BLIGHTING CONDITIONS
The APIP OP identifies the existing conditions of blight as defined under the special legislation
established for decommissioned military bases in Section 33492.11 of the CRL. The major
blighting conditions of the APIP are as follows:
• Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live and work - The NAS
facility consists of many old, deteriorated and functionally obsolete buildings, many
of which must be demolished due to a lack of maintenance by the Navy, resulting
from a lack of funds and the anticipated closure.
• Factors inhibiting economically viable reuse of buildings or areas - In many cases, the
cost of a total building upgrade would exceed the replacement value of the structures
and would require enormous initial capital investment.
• Incompatible uses - The large scale maintenance and repair work performed at the
base has resulted in many adjacent uses that would be incompatible in civilian
communities. Many heavy industrial uses are located near residential areas, with large
warehouse structures inappropriately located in residential neighborhoods.
• Buildings that will not comply with subdivision, zoning, or planning regulations -
Alameda Point land use patterns differ from traditional, private industrial
developments. Buildings on the base are distributed in clusters of warehouses and
industrial buildings for which legal parcels have not been created, points of entry and
vehicle access are limited, and there is minimal landscaping on APIP properties.
• Infrastructure that does not meet current standards - Then need for new infrastructure,
which is necessary to revitalize the 1,700 plus acre complex, is overwhelming to a
city the size of Alameda. Specifically, the cost for infrastructure improvements is
estimated to be $300 million.
21
V. ALLEVIATION OF BLIGHT
This section of the Implementation Plan describes how the planned projects are intended to
alleviate the physical, social or economic blight in the Project Area. As set forth in Section III -3
the CIC' s housing goals, objectives, programs and expenditures will implement the affordable
housing requirements of Sections 33334.2, 33334.4, 33334.6 and 33413. Provided below is a
summary of the major existing blighting conditions observed in the APIP and the projects and
expenditures proposed to alleviate the blight. The table on the following page correlates to the
proposed projects.
V -1 Alleviation of Structural Blight
Structures that are unfit or unsafe to occupy because of: defective design or age, obsolescence,
deterioration, dilapidation, toxic contamination, mixed character or shifting uses. In the APIP,
catalyst private- sector residential and commercial projects and development of design
improvements and design standards will help alleviate structural blight by facilitating projects
that spur an increase in economic activity and private sector investment in nearby properties.
Investment has begun in the existing buildings at Alameda Point that are part of the interim
leasing program. Only those buildings and grounds that do not require environmental
remediation are involved in the interim leasing program. The PDC identifies particular historic
structures that will receive significant investment and remain part of the historic district as well
as others that are functionally obsolete and will be replaced with new development.
V -2 Alleviation of Physical Non - Structural Blight
Non - structural blight is characterized by properties that suffer from economic dislocation,
deterioration, or disuse because of various physical, social, and economic conditions. Blighting
physical conditions present in the Project Area include: inadequate public improvements,
facilities, and utilities and major environmental contamination. Catalyst residential and
commercial projects, design and construction of streetscape improvements and development of
coordinated design standards are all intended to help improve inadequate physical conditions by
directly providing public improvements, facilities, and utilities or by providing revenues for
public improvements, facilities, and utilities. The PDC includes extensive plans for
infrastructure improvements that will support reinvestment as well as environmental remediation
strategies that will enable residential, commercial and public uses at Alameda Point.
V -3 Alleviation of Social Non - Structural Blight
Social conditions that result in non - structural blight include inadequate open spaces and
recreational facilities, and the prevalence of social maladjustment. Many recreational facilities
are available at Alameda Point including the O'Club facility, skateboard park, soccer fields and
open spaces. Social non - structural blight will be addressed by providing open space and
recreational facilities and mitigating burden and detriment to other taxing entities that provide
recreational and educational facilities. The extensive public infrastructure improvements
identified in the PDC will also help alleviate these social conditions. The PDC includes plans for
a new Golf Course, Sports Complex, and extensive bike and pedestrian routes.
22
V -4 Alleviation of Economic Non - Structural Blight
Depreciated values, impaired investments, and economic maladjustments are economic
conditions that lead to non - structural blight. In the APIP the support for business retention and
attraction efforts has the primary objective of easing these conditions by increasing the demand
for existing commercial, industrial and residential structures within the Project Area. In addition,
future commercial, industrial and residential development will help alleviate the economic non-
structural blight, as will the removal of existing environmental and other development
constraints.
Table 8
APIP: Alleviation of Blight
Structural
Blight
Non - Structural Blight
Physical
Social
Economic
Recommended Regulatory
Refinements
*
*
Catalyst Projects
**
**
*
Business Retention/
Attraction
**
Streetscape Improvements
**
*
Traffic Circulation/
Access
*
*
Public
Infrastructure/Facilities
**
**
Design Improvements
**
*
Administrative/
Personnel Costs
*
*
*
*
Primary Linkage
Secondary Linkage
23
w
MAP OF THE ALAMEDA POINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AREA
17Z
U
d)
O
4'
N
O :tS
o
+, 0 0
cri
a)
cts
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
RESOLUTION NO.
ADOPTING THE FIVE -YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:
FISCAL YEARS 2005/06 - 2009/10 FOR THE ALAMEDA
W POINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
o WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda originally approved
co ON and and adopted the Community Improvement Plan for the Alameda Point
Improvement Project ("APIP") on March 3, 1998, by Ordinance No. 2754, as
subsequently amended;
N
Q N4
2
Z
W
WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of
Alameda ( "CIC ") has been designated as the official redevelopment agency to
carry out in the City of Alameda the functions and requirements of the
Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety
Code Section 33000 et seq.) and to implement the Community Improvement
Plan for the APIP;
WHEREAS, Section 33490 of the Health and Safety Code requires that
redevelopment agencies adopt five -year implementation plans for each of their
redevelopment projects;
WHEREAS, the CIC prepared and adopted the first Five -Year
Implementation Plan for the APIP in 1998;
WHEREAS, due to a lengthy community participation -based planning
process and delays in negotiations with the U.S. Navy over relinquishing
property within the APIP to the CIC, which resulted in very limited tax increment
revenue, activities within the APIP were stalled during fiscal years 2003/04 and
2004/05;
WHEREAS, the community participation -based planning process
recently concluded with the acceptance of the Alameda Point Preliminary
Development Concept and negotiations with the U.S. Navy for the transfer of
property within the APIP to the CIC are nearing completion;
WHEREAS, the CIC has now prepared the Five -Year Implementation
Plan for fiscal years 2005/06 through 2009/10 ( "Implementation Plan ");
WHEREAS, a public hearing was noticed and held by the CIC on June
20, 2006, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33490, for the
purpose of reviewing the Implementation Plan and evaluating the progress of
Resolution #2 -A
CIC Meeting
6 -20 -06
the APIP and the testimony of all persons interested in the matter was heard;
and
WHEREAS, the CIC has reviewed and considered the Implementation
Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The CIC hereby adopts the Five -Year Implementation Plan:
Fiscal Years 2005/06 - 2009/10 for the Alameda Point Improvement Project, in
substantially the form currently on file with the CIC Secretary and presented to
the CIC at the public hearing held on June 20, 2006, subject to any further
minor, technical or clarifying changes that may be approved by CIC Counsel.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission
of the City of Alameda at a meeting assembled on the 20th day of June, 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 Commission this day of , 2006.
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Community Improvement Commission
WAOr
A
tka
AS
V`:
Iii. ° -f II� Iii�..f'.�1 Vs 0 eV
•�t Ist
�� �V�l: /-� .mil i�l� %� �•vQl.� .�.��! 1.�..a�.'������ -��•
f1i /� art f'mo p �� y fmm .� y fvs. t 1 t Vim. ;.; ' ♦ V a ;•;�.
.Ir �Y•�C \V 11 ►�� ��Nt mm Y my tII► •• � �� �� ���� b r ••• i d Ii r .•• � 0
Att�ftf ♦a A►Of�ff�r �OCV my ��t��f�1 ♦tit f�O�f�f�If�i fii"\O
rvp
With
'l
low
uS
t
12•10,
or
Algo
:.r
...
WA WA MI ki WIN A.W MWA =kW
ni • i ayt p•? ws laV'. imm Isuf -t :iii n /s i* 4:e o �1va%:l • yl f . _ j_\ .'
o.:._! a:". 5`!I::���ii ► %i: ►�i,5::;::: ►";;:
4 ,.,.,. hVW. a Vol. a fee.. 4 •�•�P Wee a����f�f► a(MI 4 •'9 . .�•��f1f.
a■�..:.•.:.;�4 r■�...•.:..r■■ a■•.:..,e..;s, a ■..:•. ..;�. a ■�..:er..... a ■..:r..•..r.� a■�.:•.s.:.r�� a■:.:. ,.,.•1� a ■�...,. ,.1. a■�.:•.• .•tea
nm .e �... ..� a� :•• o4 ►... „s •� N .. ;.� tw! -Aam ►. aggg ►...•, �.;.� 0.1.1.42.4 � hem j•' :r.
: • �♦ i'�t• �♦ %r\ ♦♦ � :•rte � ►_����`� ��♦ � • ♦ ♦o � �♦ ♦ ►_!e•,rz . •.�
�-.% �`�. � ��• l_„_� :an, i l,.._% ►�� :t t 'w ►iii �o, hwii �...f t � •.
�►. e. �p�ior._•_• �■�iiC.•.•..�o�isE..•. Va�irl... �■■�i.r..�.• �■irr.. n �■��i�r.•.•L.�u�in.m..�■■� i i� ix
Vkigg iiG 1`G7a• iir- '�'i1� •ice►• iw�: i �a :. ��G: •ia•;.:
r .-:f .► O af f�fr % i ►.. tWZO ►iA *WAP ►i.. M ..O ►i0: w ; 1i:� i r ►i ►. �nr Lpf i�ff •�� .i.O ►i:: f f-.is ► i�i Im"; t"; WA►M�R11r ►.rp1■►■�■ .�r,41■■a#, 46W � `■■ 11404r 4f4 a aeto. .vp. .
°-r::e
��.. rte•.- .,� ^::
.-
lit.e.:iiIMSEntag:110.12Eiiiiv.,41410gRafili6AiitiOlg4tate04:40-igatimiiimaWitakvairAVEgadivatitINEVelwalm,,-Aweik.,As.
air "la
1011riC4 AIWA: Set#4,4°,4107L Alkat ffl.14104 0.514gle% oltlk,R0.42% 11.1. v , „ _
44"th 48°11° A.°444°Pb ."143h4 40114 4Enit 45111tUnkidellIk
1. _
11■111111111=WILIWAILIIII.ALMWAILIIILL
zawamomorawataamiskiketwamar.,.-_---eagatiagaza
16,44
04.4
IRS
■411.
Pol■
loOk
keit
R:140lir
ntit0
.21.00
.441m,
PP
Maw
Polk
klet
04
IFS
Mr
■
71.
,....
.!.....::**.
lb.
iAlli
Alle
,9:'
40,
,•••
a....
•Igy.
13■141
4110
PO'
ht.
v..
...0.4
.A.v
oil
p•
Rt.
0,1174
4 7:14
a:4*.
...a.
%
)
Ihis,
*L..
oil
both
...,
:tsar
OP
N.....
.
ri. t.
m.4.,...tap
7,....,
wr
14,
,v,...c...,
44-tp
b...
wr
0.1.
ft...
"rf. .4
"
el of
.ag.
,z.....
oza.
,...'
Rm.
Mt,
IN4,4
g 44,4
lite
OP
A 1111. .......;,.... ....:..,;... .....••.t:;... .1114■. • MI %bA:..... ...,.e•..•.• ...•....,.... .111100..:... 411.04.4;.11
\N ri/ \O••n i/ ��� - ; q1 \2� v: �1 llk fii4s�..ri/ \�, $. rij \lt• ig-L rE/ \` �• :i1. 0 �i�e.lir: �.._ le'.rr en .4 / • OOP � • e:.;r_ �s::tar � A �: rraeei �. � / ► e �s:::� •.•� � � tee•: -'� 'ems � 1_ � "� -- � � � 1_��_:.r�.'.- '11-11- ��•,'.�'. i� iY.'�--
-- " - -- M■ MW/ M/ff M N=
aOa : . AO � it *•. RA U p ; �; � . �,
, ,� . i;
_� o &. _M e : *l w � :: _ . : k.� � %! , : ! _ . . i. m � « _
= .. .. % .. 2 .. 9 :.::,— . tom:.: 1 ..: 4 •0
AIL
AIL AIL / 2 %< . 31
All Ai& AIL AIL AilL 41111.
i■ .. d� vii■ .•nvi��ro c _ 0..��wmi■ c.. iiwm: �m■ n. rile rairi�"o ♦ nry rm■ .:7 vI� �:r■ o
■ ��r■ i��
c
,..... .- _.•,..;: fir■ ,..... :^ r ��r .i�r _ ..n� ....,. •i r. �':' -:�.: ��:
"ti==-Wav6
..CEO.
rit:4,4. C:4••.,` �4i1•►• .4* •,�. .4'fe" .. .i�..,��i. ..iffeab. ..1.9Di. .i�•�1�iQ1 .Qp• 1. .,"Alt. .i **,.. .�'','.. .1��• 042 . sitri 4§01,01
i ...•:tq A∎ :•44012. 0� .... . . .w.,..01. ,„ ib q •�:' ?•' ,„„ *maw ...ft ....mow,. w,. ..o► *•ii1 ,.::'•. • %:i1 A•::�' er. nut*e *.;Ap .•.tem...A.1 ..t....::i... .•.b...!.....1 ..�:� �:i p
••••: 1 1 ►9•• !! • .4 •• • •/ ►'v 1 ?mow •o
. - t , 6!:::::::��, � .�`.in ..ii ... � . Ir �.. a .��i. .. •n'.'.�• s i:� :+ :1� . ,0:;dittb:ai i ..i .. . .._. ...... ter.♦ Y ' _ � :�� : %
„tet,"4- "sof
ni D))) j i t
OP hi&
,SItt 4 5,1
. e � q 0 -:.,•0
(
(I' •n1
14 op
.��
ent\I`lul 'b
...... [/it" i
•iii 411 ►':kit
ntre (lul • 0.
® . es*, . . t cg:
,,.
..„,,, _ .
a,„„,,, .
. .
• ..:. .o:e •.., i : jai.
y: 2OO6EYY. s!�l✓ L� C/WC�iW •.• ►;e .•
M ,.. ki.
dB b :0 01,
0'1:04
k VA
■
WIN it qi Os'
tit or
:; 01
ARO di
146: lig14
q 0 :y:...4
oi, ....:: * 10 :VA
W '145i0
'S41 p.,- ._
ii 011ik� �: • 20, 2006 :. itiv,
, vow. ..,...
avi
(i. :; V P l.
.� "I" \4 rati �::.'...7::i�1:: �i�• r e :::ice �:a •ro::i �::` a g- Irfi► o..T. .. • !A. •.� ;imi ^air :A♦�.m.- ..;�i♦�r- • ^•.• oa_ •r►••,�s is i--0. we '�/ , •
•• •• •4 t is*i i i6::.• ♦.i1p• ♦.i�;e.• ♦iiy� • ♦.:•..• t. ..t vi nill �• o..pvv An.•q r v iet;:§,4 n.. • �. .....i • pivuu, h..Va .i ilett �1 I03. ; ..p .Q. ij0 Avow
110:11:
W"WM WA I "OrMiWiM 1/ IgA MIWA.1 ME FA
'
tei,\ Yikwcir swam* swim T-0rig= woofs •ffiver •01,vv-at-
• ' ••=4:0- nutb 26. -0$04)=.
. .
10!11iil I, �bl�:1 �iil I�it4l�irli e�►l�ii l.1,49, , MIRT itI CO* i/��1�I/� .44 So. /;�1.1•�j/�
'•..._.__..Vi a•.. , r •..... A 1 ICI. ,.;III I� \. , 1 . , .O �� ► Ix
.., �� ..ice a.:. ii ��� ,..... ���.:' i��• .ii ��:: .iii•. s��•. � �• ' •'i
,_.fir i� . • %.: �••� ^�•�• ^ .��• �� �� �!_ � r-� v:J�!�a a. r •. - %. i
.o• ov • e. .mow• .���..,. .��
i0 :o•Oh o: `I4�O�O�i1�i i ':i•WV: �:/i0i *:ii0�r1�i i i� V:oa�ai WGo'i�Ni �.i0�i i0b �v` °4i:�
a�ae a :i 41 r i i�4
4 Br 4 • i
a�a��a
4 AV. •.011. Wee eeip. (A feAo. •0•.
444 0 4SW.
Ataks. AMA, •aOhn. AttAtat, Allaw,1„aletto, . ,a,4012. ,IbAr.„0,,04.114
gozlakisat. exedittv.f_ar. exUraftat. ezatA&V,.0. erat/1akse. AlegtAVAPA 02:121112N el caftan% eack0.7A etratAlffir•
A I VMS. WA MI WA V. 1 Li LW WA I Li I WA Li Will 1
jazrazwtgmwssatiawikvgitws:\vozitwfataitur---v--ifik-,ea,:at.w.ikaa---=w--:-zwamw:uax
. !"��.� .- i��•_.e. /1.•��, • •�����r'�•���vJ"�r tea...%`\__ �� !:`•.re_ -��-�.
Ii: ; :.d Iii • lr Ate ; .ter Ii: �1 IT • Ii. icy IiL / W, f1i. • .��0 f•y �• r�fr� fvs •
fri�,���1.0 hr�i.��q f�.�:•0• °���sr tsrr.�p,•�:v f�.�;�y,��r fay „y���ar f�.1,y•��.��r t�••,,.��.ur fn►,••V•��r f�i.....��r
Proclamation
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community
recognize June as their international month of pride and
celebration; and
Whereas, members of our gay and lesbian community contribute to
and participate in activities beneficial to the City of Alameda;
and
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community share
in and contribute to our collective culture of strong, loving,
and enduring friendships and families; and
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community have
and continue to dedicate their lives to our country in every
capacity, including the military and military reserves, in times
of peace and war; and
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community have
made numerous material and financial contributions in
support of various city -wide activities and projects; and
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community have
and continue to serve on various City boards, commissions,
and committees, such as the Social Service Human
Relations Board, Cable Television Oversight Committee,
Restoration Advisory Board, Police Department Community
Advisory Committee, and Library Board.
Wow therefore, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, hereby
recognize the contributions to our city by our gay and lesbian citizens and
encourage the community to recognize these contributions, particularly
during the month of June; Gay Pride Month.
Beverly J. Johnson
Mayor
Proclamation 3 -B
6 -20 -06
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MAY 30, 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:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council received a briefing
from its Labor Negotiators regarding the City Attorney position.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:00 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
May 30, 2006
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MAY 30, 2006- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
(06- ) Study Session to consider the City's Two -year Financial
Plan and Capital Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2006 -08.
The City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
During review of the Public Works budget, Councilmember Matarrese
requested the structure of the Public Works budget be reviewed to
ensure the infrastructure hole is not being dug deeper.
During review of the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) budget,
Mayor Johnson requested the fund balances for funds, such as the
sewer fund.
Councilmember Daysog requested the list of streets that are being
considered for resurfacing.
Councilmember deHaan requested the list and amount for the
renovations under the "other building renovations" category.
Mayor Johnson requested information on the condition and amount of
repair needed at the Alameda Point gym.
In response to Vice Mayor Gilmore's question regarding
prioritization, the City Engineer stated that she would provide the
criteria used to select CIPs.
Councilmember Daysog requested information on the Veterans'
building kitchen.
During review of the Library budget, Councilmember Matarrese
requested the projected amount of Measure 0 funds that would be
available for branch library improvements.
During review of Challenges, Councilmember deHaan requested a
monetary value be placed on the items listed.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 30, 2006
1
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would caution listing items,
such as the Webster Street garage and park and ride, prior to
obtaining community consensus; the policy discussion should take
place prior to reviewing funding.
Councilmember deHaan requested that centralizing City Hall be added
to the list of Challenges.
The City Manager concluded her presentation.
Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer, discussed deferred maintenance,
staffing levels and the 10 -year financial model tool.
Kevin Kearney, City Auditor, raised questions about un- funded staff
positions and discussed the 10 -year plan.
Councilmember Daysog stated where the funds for infrastructure
would come from should be clear; streets ratings do not need to be
A or A +.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that a disproportionate amount of
new funding for Fiscal Year 2006 -2007 go to Public Works.
Mayor Johnson requested that the figure showing how much additional
funding is available for each fiscal year be provided.
Mayor Johnson requested that the numbers be provided for the chart
showing the number of full time employees.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a new ground rule should be
established to not call department head positions un- funded;
further suggested that any un- funded positions, other than
department heads, be eliminated.
Councilmember deHaan requested the job descriptions of the
positions currently not funded.
Vice Mayor Gilmore suggested that discussion on the positions take
place when the de- authorization of the positions is brought back to
Council.
Mayor Johnson requested the numbers be added to pie charts; further
requested review of the City Charter regarding Council's ability to
approve AP &T's budget.
Councilmember deHaan requested that the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) budget be revisited.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
May 30, 2006
Councilmember Daysog requested the rating sheets for CIPs; further
requested copies of all CIP proposals submitted.
Mayor Johnson requested the website include more historic
information in order to allow the public to conduct research on-
line; requested the reserve be included in pie chart; further
requested a goal be set to allow Alameda residents to purchase what
they want in Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan requested a more defined golf budget; further
requested a side -by -side comparison with the last two -year budget.
David Kirwin, Alameda, suggested the information be put on the
website with figures attached; suggested the 10 -year tool be placed
on the website, too.
In response to Mr. Kirwin's comments regarding redevelopment
funding, the Development Services Director provided a brief
overview.
Councilmember Matarrese requested the explanation of redevelopment
funding be posted on the website.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:40 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
May 30, 2006
3
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -MAY 31, 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 Organizations:
Alameda City Employees Association, International Association of
Fire Fighters, International Brotherhood of Electrical Works, and
Management and Confidential Employees Association.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council received an update
from labor negotiator and direction was given to labor negotiator
regarding efforts to various bargaining units in the City.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:15 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
May 31, 2006
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 6, 2006 - - - 6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Note: Mayor Johnson was present via teleconference from the Paris
Hotel, 3655 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of
case: Jose Ricabal v. Yu, City of Alameda, et al.
(06- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency negotiators: Craig
Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations and
employees: Alameda City Employees Association, Chief of Police,
Executive Management Group, Fire Chief, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Works, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
(06- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency negotiators: Marie
Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney.
(06- ) Public Employment; Title: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and
Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal Counsel,
Council gave direction to Legal Counsel regarding settlement
parameters; regarding Employee organizations and employees: Alameda
City Employees Association, Chief of Police, Executive Management
Group, Fire Chief, International Brotherhood of Electrical Works, and
Management and Confidential Employees Association, Council received
briefing from labor negotiators and gave direction; regarding City
Attorney, Council received a briefing from Labor Negotiators regarding
the City Attorney position.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special
Meeting at 7:45 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
June 6, 2006
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 6, 2006- -7:30 P.M.
Vice Mayor Gilmore convened the Regular Meeting at 7:52 p.m.
Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
and Matarrese - 4.
Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.
AGENDA CHANGES
Vice Mayor Gilmore announced that the recommendation to approve
Employment Agreement [paragraph no. 06- ] would be heard prior to
Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM
(06- ) Recommendation to approve Employment Agreement for City
Attorney.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council spent
a lot of time reviewing the position and making the Contract
understandable; Ms. Highsmith will be a great City Attorney; he
appreciates arriving at a straight forward Contract which will be
easier for Council and the public to understand.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the City is very fortunate to have
Ms. Highsmith take the position; the City will have continuity.
Councilmember deHaan stated the transition would be easy; Council
feels confident that Ms. Highsmith can fulfill the commitments.
Councilmember Daysog stated residents should feel confident; stated
Ms. Highsmith will be a great City Attorney.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.]
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that Mayor Johnson wished to convey her
gratitude and excitement on Ms. Highsmith becoming the new City
Attorney.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2006
1
Ms. Highsmith stated she has been very happy working in Alameda for
the past ten years; she enjoys working with the. Council; introduced
her family.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06- ) Library project update.
The Project Manager provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Alameda Journal had a great article
on the Library project; the article highlights the value
engineering efforts which have paid big dividends.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor Gilmore announced that the recommendation to set Hearing
date [paragraph no. 06- ], and the Resolutions Authorizing the
Filing of Applications for Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program Funding [paragraph nos. 06- and 06-
A] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.] Note:
Councilmember Matarrese abstained from voting on the recommendation
to authorize the execution of Landscape Maintenance Management
Contract [paragraph no. 06- ].
[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 May 16, 2006. Approved.
( *06- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,399,404.21.
( *06- ) Recommendation to award Contracts in the amount of
$979,847.26 for Furnishings in the New Main Library. Accepted.
( *06- ) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$2,968,704, including contingencies, to Gallagher & Burk for repair
and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 26, No. P.W. 03- 06 -08.
Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2006
2
( *06- ) Recommendation to authorize the execution of Landscape
Maintenance Management Contract for the City of Alameda Island City
Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2 - Marina Village. Accepted.
[Note: Councilmember Matarrese abstained from voting on the
recommendation to authorize the execution of Landscape Maintenance
Management Contract.]
( *06- ) Recommendation to appropriate $155,300 in Urban Runoff
Funds and award a Contract in the amount of $643,779, including
contingencies, to Ghilotti Brothers for the Fernside Boulevard
Pedestrian Access Improvements near Lincoln Middle School (Safe
Routes to School), No. P.W. 11- 02 -15. Accepted.
(06- ) Recommendation to set Hearing date for delinquent
integrated Waste Management charges.
Councilmember deHaan stated he is concerned about how collection
would impact individuals; requested clarification prior to the
Hearing date on how last year's collection issues were resolved;
stated rates were changed and individuals did not think the process
was fair.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.]
(06- ) Resolution No. 13967, "Authorizing the Filing of an
Application for Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program Funding for Electric Fleet Vehicles and
Charging Stations, Committing the Necessary Non - Federal Match for
the Project and Stating the Assurance of the City of Alameda to
Complete the Project." Adopted; and
(06- A) Resolution No. 13968, "Authorizing the Filing of an
Application for Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program Funding for Otis Drive /Doolittle Drive /Island
Drive Signal Coordination, Committing the Necessary Non - Federal
Match for the Project and Stating the Assurance of the City of
Alameda to Complete the Project." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he requested that the item be pulled
from the Consent Calendar to focus the public on the issue;
applauded the Public Works Director for pursuing electric vehicles;
stated the vehicles would replace polluting cars driven by City
employees and would be fueled by Alameda Power and Telecom; traffic
signal timing is critical and is a good use of funds.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2006
3
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that adopting the
resolutions sets the right tone for residents and businesses.
Councilmember deHaan stated there were many inroads to establish
Alameda as an electric City in 1997 and 1998; he hopes the City can
build on the direction given; inquired whether there are vehicles
made in the United States that are purely electrical that the City
could purchase through normal governmental channels.
The Public Works Director responded all electric vehicles are not
available through the State procurement process; Requests for
Proposals would be sent out after the grant funds are received;
there are vendors for electric vehicles.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she has received several letters
regarding cities joining a Plug -In Initiative; requested more
information on the matter.
Councilmember Matarrese stated complaints have been received
regarding the traffic signal timing along Otis Drive near Regent
Street; suggested painting "Keep Clear" on the street at the
intersection.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.]
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06- ) Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution 13969,
"Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year
2006 -07 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business
Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2006 -07."
Adopted.
The Business Development Division Manager provided a brief report.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.]
(06- ) Recommendation to approve Alameda Ferry Service actions:
(06- A) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
June 6, 2006
First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Ferry Services
Agreement with the Port of Oakland;
(06- B) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute
extension of Operating Agreement with Blue and Gold Fleet for the
Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and adopt associated budgets;
(06- C) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute
extension of Operating Agreement with Harbor Bay Maritime for the
Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry and adopt associated budgets;
(06- D) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter
into negotiations with the Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA)
for transfer of the City's Ferry Service to the WTA; and
(06- E) Resolution No. 13970, "Authorizing the City Manager to
Apply for Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll Funds, including Five
Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll
Reserve Funds, for Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for City
of Alameda Ferry Services and to Enter into All Agreements
Necessary to Secure These Funds for FY 2006 -07." Adopted.
The Ferry Services Manager provided a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore commended staff for being proactive in
soliciting public input on the WTA negotiations; stated that she
assumes that public concerns would be addressed through the course
of negotiations.
Councilmember Matarrese congratulated staff and the Harbor Bay
Maritime operational group for maintaining service levels; stated
he hopes the marketing can be taken to the next level outside of
Alameda; he is in favor of negotiations with WTA with the condition
that a baseline is set for the current service and there is a
guarantee that the service would not drop.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Matarrese;
inquired what the fare box was for the Alameda Oakland Ferry
Service.
The Ferry Services Manager responded 52 %; stated he projects next
year would be approximately 49% due to fuel increases.
Councilmember deHaan stated safeguards should be used throughout
negotiations; services are hard to get back once they are
relinquished; requested more information on WTA's future goals and
services; stated jeopardizing the present service level would be
unsatisfactory.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Port of Oakland's contribution has
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
June 6, 2006
declined significantly; he is not ready to relinquish local
control; more information is needed prior to entering into
negotiations; he attended one of two public meetings in which ten
people attended; questioned whether the attendance was
representative of the true passions for the Harbor Bay Maritime
Service; stated he is not ready to enter into negotiations.
Councilmember deHaan stated past meetings had high attendance
regarding fare box issues; the same individuals need to provide
strong input.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he draws a line between
relinquishing the service and the negotiating process; the
negotiating process is timely and provides an opportunity to
explore conditions and guarantees.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated proceeding with negotiations is the first
step in the process and would involve a lot of public input.
Councilmember Daysog stated he would like to see plans regarding
the ferry service from Harbor Bay to Alameda Point and on to San
Francisco; he is concerned that a regional agency, such as WTA,
relies on regional, State or federal money that is not guaranteed;
pressures to rationalize operations could develop; basic, general
discussions are needed before negotiations.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendations
excluding the recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter
into negotiations with (WTA).
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.]
Councilmember deHaan requested the motion include the caveat that
there is a certain threshold of anticipation for guarantees that
the City wants, and that concerns raised would be discussed and
fulfilled.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how said information would come
back to Council; stated negotiations are timely because funding
streams are available; inquired whether the reporting back could be
structured around timeframes and milestones.
The City Manager responded the Council would be informed throughout
the process; timeframes and milestones would be provided to
Council.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether negotiation starting
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
June 6, 2006
points have been established; stated the points should be discussed
prior to starting negotiations.
The Public Works Director responded some talking points have been
established; stated a date has not been set for negotiations with
WTA.
Councilmember Daysog stated he does not recall receiving any input
after Closed Session discussions; concerns were raised regarding
guarantees for both services; requested feedback regarding concerns
before direction is given to negotiate.
The Public Works Director stated a baseline needs to be established
within a certain period of time; WTA needs a chance to respond.
Councilmember Daysog stated negotiations could be set up by
providing WTA with some broad conceptual points.
The City Manager stated the Council would be updated in terms of
the talking points.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would prefer to authorize the
City Manager to set up negotiating dates, but not enter into
negotiations until after Council discussions.
Councilmember deHaan stated he would like to have WTA provide a
full business plan as part of the Council discussions.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with direction to bring the matter to the Council prior to the
initiation of negotiations in order to allow discussion of the
City's position and to obtain background information and plans from
WTA.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated he was more
comfortable with Council direction but would abstain from voting on
the matter.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember deHaan, Matarrese, and Vice Mayor
Gilmore - 3. Abstentions: Councilmember Daysog -1. [Absent: Mayor
Johnson - 1.1
(06- ) Review of Policies regarding the Naming of City
Facilities.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2006
7
The Acting Recreation and Park Director provided a brief
presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation on how the Historical
Advisory Board (HAB) continually adds to the pool of suggested
names available for City property; inquired whether the HAB was the
only means for names to get on the list; stated residents and
citizen groups have proposed names in the past; inquired whether
there was a specific period of time for recommendations.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded names are taken
on an on -going basis; stated requests are dealt with individually.
The Planning and Building Director stated the HAB has not suggested
any new names since she has been with the City; the original list
went to the HAB to review the historical validity of the names.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how a citizen's request for recognizing
a relative in the street naming process is handled; to which the
Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the names are
presented to a specific board or commission, depending on the area
of interest.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who updated the Official Naming List
in 2003, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded
the Planning Department.
Councilmember deHaan stated the list was not used for Bayport
street naming; the gaps need to be closed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated existing streets should not continue
with a different name is another issue, such as Santa Clara Avenue
continuing to the Naval Air Station.
The Planning and Building Director stated the policy clarifies that
the street name is to continue.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Bayport streets would
be renamed, to which the Planning and Building Director responded
there are no plans to change the names.
Councilmember Daysog requested that Willie Stargell's name be
forwarded to the HAB.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he supports Councilmember Daysog's
request; an open season is needed to update the list; he would
prefer to address Councilmember Daysog's request separately.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2006
8
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she would like to have the process
straightened out before the open season; street naming is becoming
more clear; she is unclear on how facilities are named; inquired
how the process was established for naming facilities within parks
with different names than the park.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the process was
recommended by the community at the time.
The City Manager stated staff would provide recommendations to
Council in the next couple of meetings.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that flow charts be provided.
Councilmember deHaan stated Council needs to discuss how far the
naming policy should extend.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should be consistency between
commissions.
The City Manager stated a policy would be provided to Council while
moving forward with adding Willie Stargell to the current street
naming list.
Councilmember Daysog noted an Alameda resident mentioned naming the
Dog Park after a resident who was instrumental in getting the Dog
Park up and running.
(06- ) Resolution No. 13971, "Opposing State Legislation to
Permit the Towing of Triple Tractor Trailers on State Highways in
California." Adopted.
The Assistant to the City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated previously the City Attorney pointed out
that some roads in Alameda are designated as State Highways;
potentially triple tractor trailers could move within the City
limits; the City would have no jurisdiction or authority to
regulate or ban the triple tractor trailers if the legislation
passes.
Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated his position on the matter is
neutral; suggested Council ensure that adoption of the resolution
does not curtail progress in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would prefer to see the industry
remove tractor trailers from the streets and onto rails; he
supports the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
June 6, 2006
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other cities have adopted
resolutions opposing the State legislation.
The Assistant to the City Manager listed cities that have adopted
similar resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated truck drivers are not in favor of the
legislation.
Councilmember Daysog stated the operative clause "...oppose any
proposal or legislation at any level of government which would
allow increases in the size and weight of trucks and number of
tractor trailers permitted on State Highways" seems to be more
general than the issue of the triple tractor trailers; the language
should be tightened to the issue at hand.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports the resolution as
written; the resolution speaks to the infrastructure issue; safety
factors would not be better with bigger and longer trailers.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the resolution does not state
opposition to truck -only lanes as noted in the staff report; some
areas of the State have reasons for truck -only lanes.
The City Attorney stated currently the State occupies the field
regarding the weight and size of trucks permitted to travel on
State Highways; the resolution does not oppose a truck -only lane
but opposes any legislation to increase the current State
restrictions; the staff report describes a way around the issue by
seeking legislation that would permit private or public
partnerships with CalTrans to receive funding for truck -only lanes
from somewhere else.
Councilmember deHaan stated further deterioration would occur with
increased weight; roads deteriorate quickly enough.
Councilmember Daysog stated goods needs to be moved by rail, ships
and trucks; large trucks are not wanted in Alameda; moving goods by
truck is an economic reality; the resolution should speak to triple
tractor trailers.
Councilmember deHaan stated weight per axel is a concerning factor.
Councilmember Daysog noted Sports Utility Vehicles exceed the
weight restrictions outlined in the City's ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
June 6, 2006
Councilmember Matarrese stated many things have been done for the
sake of economy in the past; the language sets a stake in the
ground, addresses concerns regarding size and potential damage, and
forces innovative change.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that triple tractor
trailers probably would not be seen in Alameda; hopefully other
means of transportation would be used to move goods.
Councilmember Daysog stated triple tractor trailers are a potential
hazard that needs to be nipped in the bud; the resolution should be
more specific to the problem, not broad and opened- ended; he would
abstain from voting on the matter.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese, and Vice Mayor
Gilmore - 3. Abstentions: Councilmember Daysog - 1. [Absent: Mayor
Johnson - 1.]
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA
(06- ) Jennifer Soloman, Alameda, stated that on January 28,
2006, her daughter and husband were struck by a motorist in the
crosswalk at the intersection of Park Street and Otis Drive; it
took twenty minutes for the Police to arrive; the officer asked if
she wanted a police report; the paramedic got lost on the way to
Children's Hospital; today's Alameda Journal stated that a three
year old was struck on Webster Street; drivers were not cited in
either case.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there are reasons for the 25 mile per
hour speed limit; the Public Works Department recently installed
solar speed limit signs; the Chief of Police and the City Manager
will review the matter; speeders will be more diligently pursued.
Ms. Solomon stated that the driver was not speeding but was making
a right -hand turn from Otis Drive onto Park Street.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the loop needs to be closed on the
matter; every ambulance driver should know hospital locations off
the island; he is concerned with a twenty minute response time;
requested a review of the twenty minute response time and protocol
when a pedestrian is struck.
Ms. Solomon stated she understood that the reason for the delay was
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 11
June 6, 2006
due to the call being made on a cell phone and the caller did not
indicate the accident involved a pedestrian.
Councilmember Matarrese requested information on the status of
calling 911 from cell phones.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Police Department has been
vigilant on traffic injuries and fatalities in the past several
years; traffic related deaths have occurred on Constitution Way.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Ms. Solomon addressed the
matter with City staff.
Ms. Soloman responded she spoke to the Fire Department Duty Chief
regarding the matter.
(06- ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated the Federal
Communications Commission and the American Radio Relay League have
declared the week of June 18 through the 25 as Amateur Radio Week.
(06- ) Duane Rutledge, Dublin, stated he received a
disqualification letter from Alameda Development Corporation (ADC);
all statements in the letter are incorrect; no written policy was
presented regarding the appeal process.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired when Mr. Rutledge received the letter,
to which Mr. Rutledge responded approximately a week ago.
The Assistant City Manager stated ADC disqualified Mr. Rutledge's
application; the letter should outline the appeal process.
Mr. Rutledge stated he received no response to his inquires
regarding details of the appeal process.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired who would adjudicate the appeal.
The Assistant City Manager responded first the appeal would go to
the ADC Board and then the Community Improvement Commission.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Mr. Rutledge asked the ADC
specific questions, to which Mr. Rutledge responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who is the ADC point of contact, to
which the Assistant City Manager responded the Executive Director.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who would respond to Mr. Rutledge, to
which the Assistant City Manager responded the ADC Board.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
June 6, 2006
Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter will end up with the
Community Improvement Commission; requested that the appeal process
be placed on an agenda and that staff ensures that the appeal is
presented to the CIC; the matter needs to be addressed sooner
rather than later.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the issue needs to be addressed
quickly.
The City Manager stated that the Executive Director would be
contacted.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06- ) Councilmember deHaan stated that the lights are not
repaired in the Tube; urged moving forward on the matter.
(06- ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has received
letters stating that the speed limit is not being enforced in the
Tube.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:41 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
June 6, 2006
13
June 15, 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
149023 - 149428
E15142 - E15264
EFT 217
EFT 218
EFT 219
Void Checks:
Amount
1,210,669.90
76,626.86
40,916.98
23,503.00
25,603.50
148462 (2,240.00)
148867 (1,548.19)
147900 (59.41)
140561 (15.00)
136101 (134.00)
105052 (220.00)
108917 (110.00)
96341 (90.21)
108004 (24.95)
107162 (300.00)
96695 (32.00)
149173 (1,388.68)
128876 (1,888.00)
141034 (20.00)
137794 (360.00)
GRAND TOTAL 1,368,889.80
Respectfully submitted,
q)1CM.elet S. S hAAA
Pamela J. Sibley
Council Warrants 06/20/06
BILLS #4 -B
06/20/06.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: June 20, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
From: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Re: Award of Contract for Legal Advertising for Fiscal Year 2006 -07
Background
The City Charter requires the City Council to annually award a contract for publication of all legal
advertising of the City to the responsible bidder who submits the lowest and best bid. The
newspaper published by the successful bidder is known as the Official Newspaper of the City.
At the Regular Council Meeting held on May 2, 2006, Council authorized the City Clerk to advertise
for bids for legal advertising.
Discussion /Analysis
Bids were due in the Office of the City Clerk on June 5, 2006. Bid results were as follows:
Newspaper Rate Per Column Inch
1st insertion 2nd insertion 3rd & subsequent insertion
Alameda Journal $3.50 $3.36 $3.36
The proposed contract is attached.
Budget Consideration
Budget appropriations for legal advertising are approved by the City Council during the budget
process. The City spends approximately $12,000 annually for legal notices.
Recommendation
Award Legal Advertising Contract for Fiscal Year 2006 -07 to the Alameda Journal.
Respectfully submitted,
L\J\L OJQ-
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Attachment — 1 (Contract)
Report 4 -C
6 -20 -06
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of June,
2006, by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation of the State of
California, hereinafter called the City, and the ALAMEDA JOURNAL, a published
daily newspaper, hereinafter called Publisher,
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Alameda Journal submitted its bid, in writing, for the
publication, of all legal advertising of the City for the period ending June 30, 2007,
whereupon the Council of said City, on the 20th day of June 2006, duly accepted said bid
and awarded the contract for such legal advertising to said Publisher;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the
undersigned parties as follows:
1. Publisher agrees that during that fiscal year the said Alameda Journal
shall be maintained as a newspaper of general circulation as that term is defined in Title
I, Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 1, of the Government Code of the State of California.
2. Publisher, hereby agrees to publish and advertise in said Alameda
Journal, for and during the period from July 1, 2006 and ending June 30, 2007, such
legal advertisements and notices and such other matters as the Council and other officers
of the City deliver to Publisher for publication.
Said Publisher further agrees that it will make all of such publications in
the manner and form required by law and that on the completion of publication it will
promptly file with the City Clerk an affidavit of publication as required by law.
Said advertising shall be in accordance with the following specifications:
All advertisements shall be set in six -point capitals, except that by
request of the officer authorizing the same such advertisement may be set in such larger
type and with such spacing between lines as such officer may direct.
Title and sub - heading shall be set in six -point type or in such larger type
as may be specified by the officer authorizing the advertisement.
In consideration of the faithful performance by the Publisher of the
agreements hereinabove set forth, the City hereby agrees to pay for said advertising and
publication at the following rates, to wit:
1
Per column inch, 5.4 -point type
Price per column inch for 1st insertion $ 3.50
Price per column inch for 2nd insertion 3.36
Price per column inch for subsequent insertions 3.36
The submission deadline for ads shall not exceed 4 days from date of
publication (excluding holiday periods).
The withdrawal deadline for ads shall be up to 1 day from date of
publication (excluding holiday periods).
3. HOLD HARMLESS:
Publisher shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its City Council,
boards, commissions, officials, and employees ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any
and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including
reasonable attorneys' fees ( "Claims "), arising from or in any manner connected to
Publisher's negligent act or omission, whether alleged or actual, regarding performance
of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. If Claims are
filed against Indemnitees which allege negligence on behalf of the Publisher, Publisher
shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if
negligence is not found on the part of Publisher. However, Publisher shall not be
obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active
negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees.
For those advertisements printed in conformity with copy submitted by
City, the City agrees to protect and indemnify the publisher against all liability, losses
and expenses arising from claims of libel, unfair competition and trade practices,
infringement, property rights, and right of privacy and misrepresentation, except to the
extent of the cost of the advertisement.
4. COMPLIANCES:
Publisher shall comply with all State or federal laws and all ordinances,
rules and regulations enacted or issued by City.
5. NOTICES:
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this
Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when
delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United
States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided.
2
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Publisher to City shall
be sent to the attention of the City Department requesting publication at the following
address:
City of Alameda
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Publisher shall
be addressed to Publisher at:
Alameda Journal
1516 Oak Street
Alameda, CA 94501
6. WAIVER:
A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition herein
shall not be deemed to be a waiver or any subsequent breach of the same or any other
term, covenant, or condition contained herein whether of the same or a different
character.
7. TERMINATION:
In the event Publisher hereto fails or refuses to perform any of the
provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Publisher shall be
deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured
within a period of seven (7) days after receipt by Publisher from City of written notice of
default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such
default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Publisher written
notice thereof.
8. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every
kind of nature whatsoever between the parties hereto and all preliminary negotiations
and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement
or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of
this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and
Publisher.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this contract to be
executed, the day and year first above written, the City by its City Manager under
3
authority heretofore given by its City Council.
Approved as to form
`City Attorney i-
4
CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal
corporation,
By
City Manager
ALAMEDA JOURNAL
By.
City of Alameda
Interoffice Memorandum
June 20, 2006
To: The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From:
Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Reject the Sole Bid, Value Engineer and Re -Bid Revised Bid
Documents for the Construction of the Bayport Community Building
Background
On January 17, 2006, the City Council authorized the solicitation of bids for Bayport Alameda
Community Building and Park Project No. 83140100. 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 so that the community building component of the
project became an additive alternate.
The three contractors that responded to the original solicitation for construction of the park submitted
an additive alternate bid component for the community building, which ranged from $753,000 to
$1,059,390. Following a bid protest on the park base bid on April 4, 2007, the City Council
authorized staff to separately re -bid both components of the park and community building project.
Solicitation for the re -bid of the community building began on April Stn and was advertised for a 30-
day period. To solicit the maximum number of bids, specifications were provided to 18 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.
A total of six contractors attended the mandatory pre -bid meeting, which was held on April 13, 2006,
with a bid due date of May 4, 2006. Chapot Construction Company of Alameda was the sole bidder
on the community building project. Chapot's bid, in the amount of $839,000, was approximately
$200,000 over the construction cost estimate.
Discussion
The base bid for the community building included an allowance for permits and the construction of a
1,700 square foot multipurpose building with a post tension slab, wood frame, stucco exterior
including fixtures, appliances and landscaping. The bid received from Chapot Construction
Company equates to a unit construction cost of approximately $500.00 per square foot. For purposes
Report 4 -D
6 -20 -06
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 20, 2006
Page 2
of comparison, unit construction costs for the adjoining new K -8 school are on average
approximately $380 per square foot based on approximately 50,000 square feet of similar
construction.
Possible reasons that bids received during the past two solicitations have exceeded the
construction estimate may include to the following factors:
1. Bidding the project just prior to the start of a busy construction season and higher
material costs;
2. Small building square footage, higher, less efficient mobilization costs;
3. Higher building standards due to the building's location on the AUSD school site, which
makes it subject to Department of the State Architect requirements, reviews and
approvals; and
4. Post tension slab requirements due to local soil conditions.
As a result of the above factors, staff is recommending rejecting the sole bid, undertaking value
engineering and revising the bid documents as necessary during the summer months and re-
bidding during the lower demand construction season.
Value engineering would include reviewing the plans and specifications to identify areas where
the possibility of providing lower priced acceptable alternatives exist. The potential savings from
value engineering are unknown at this time. Also, if the project can be re -bid when more
contractors may be available, with the prospect of obtaining at least four to five competitive bids,
bids may come in closer to the construction cost estimate.
Budget Consideration /Financial Impact
Pursuant to the Fiscal Neutrality Policy, this project will not have any fiscal impact on the City's
General Fund. Expenditures for the project are generated from the Bayport Project.
Municipal Code /Policy Document Cross Reference
The requested actions will not affect the Municipal Code.
Environmental Review
No additional CEQA review is required. The new community building, which is a component of the
new four -acre park and school, was included in the original environmental review for the Catellus
Mixed -Use Project and is in compliance with the approved Catellus Alameda Project Master Plan
and Site -wide Landscape Development Plan.
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Recommendation
June 20, 2006
Page 3
Authorization to reject the sole bid, value engineer and revise bid documents as necessary in
order to re -bid construction of the Bayport Community Building.
LAL\DC: dc
Respec lly submitted,
Leslie A. Little
Develosment Services Director
ouglas H. Cole
Redevelopment Manager
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: June 20, 2006
Re: Authorization to File a $2.3 Million Grant Application to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission to Implement the Webster Renaissance Project,
Phase II
BACKGROUND
In 2000, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) awarded the City $881,000 in
Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) grant funds for Phase I of the Webster
Renaissance Project. These funds, coupled with additional funding from the CIC, enabled
the implementation of Phase I of the Webster Renaissance Project. Spanning Central to
Pacific, the streetscape project is helping to assist in the revitalization of the Webster
Street Business District.
DISCUSSION
The MTC has recently announced a call for a new round of grant applications due June 23.
An application could be prepared to implement Phase II of the Webster Renaissance
Project. The application would be prepared utilizing the results from the community
planning process the first grant application was built upon. Existing conceptual drawings
from that process could also be used in a second application. The cost of implementing
Phase II (three blocks from Pacific to Atlantic) is estimated at $2.6 million. An 11.5 percent
match from the City of $299,000 would also be required. The source of the match is tax
increment from the City's redevelopment funds.
If Phase I I of the Streetscape Project is completed, the whole of Webster Street would be
unified in appearance. Matching vintage street lights, trees and street furniture in the final
three blocks will do much to assure the continued revitalization of the Webster Business
District. In addition, finishing the final three blocks will help create a stronger physical link
between Webster Street and the proposed Catellus project, Alameda Landing.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
• West Alameda Business Association, Vision 2000.
Report 4 -E
6 -20 -06
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
June 20, 2006
Page 2 of 2
• The Economic Development Strategic Plan (2000), specifically, Strategy #2B,
Increase the Availability and Quality of Retail Goods and Services, Initiative "Pursue
MTC Planning and construction grants for both Park and Webster Streets."
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the General Fund. Funding for the match can be secured from
redevelopment tax increment.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the filing of a $2.3 million grant application to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission to implement the Webster Renaissance Project, Phase II.
DK/LAL /DES /SGR:ry
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business
ent Division
Development Coordinator
cc: Economic Development Commission
West Alameda Business Association
G: \BUSASSOC \Web Ren Phase II \staff reports\Authorization to file app_1.doc
F: Webster Renaissance Project Phase II
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 20, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Accept the Work of Republic Electric for the Crosswalk In-
Pavement Lights (SR2S) to Serve Donald Lum Elementary School, Haight Elementary
School, Wood Middle School and Chipman Middle School Project No. P.W. 01 -04 -01
BACKGROUND
On September 7, 2004, the City Council authorized the award of a construction contract to
Republic Electric for the installation of crosswalk in- pavement lights in the amount of $174,000.
The in- pavement lights have been installed at crosswalks located at Otis Drive west of Sandcreek
Way, Pacific Street at Fourth Street, and Santa Clara Avenue at Willow Street.
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 $171,375.82.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The work was budgeted under CIP# 03 -69 with funds from Safe Route to School Grant and
Measure B funds.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the work of Republic Electric for the Crosswalk In- Pavement Lights (SR2S) to Serve
Donald Lum Elementary School, Haight Elementary School, Wood Middle School and Chipman
Middle School Project No. P.W. 01 -04 -01
Respectful bmitted, Prepared by,
7.k"-e(-(7` "----BakbetAIL -1-1-_43 44',1,3
atthew T. Naclerio Barbara Hawkins
Public Works Director City Engineer
MTN:BH:gc
cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee
G:\pubworks\pwadmin\COUNCIL\2006\062006\accept4schoollights.doc
Report 4 -F
6 -20 -06
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 20, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for Bids for Modular
Recreational Building and Site Improvements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05 -06 -17
BACKGROUND
This project will install a 1,920 square foot modular recreational building at upper Washington Park
located at Central and Eight Street. Several years ago the former recreational building burned down
and was replaced with a temporary 960 square foot structure. The temporary structure has since
deteriorated and become unusable so the building was removed in February to make room for the
proposed new building. The new building will at the same location as the former building. The
Recreation & Parks Commission reviewed the proposed facility at their September 15, 2005 meeting
and voted unanimously to approve the design. On February 27, 2006 the Planning Board approved
Major Design Review DR06 -0007 and Use Permit UP06 -0002 per Resolution No. PB -06 -10 subject
to condition that the exterior building face and adjoining site improvements be enhanced to the
Planning Director's approval.
DISCUSSION
The 1,920 square foot modular building will consist of a 1,440 square foot recreation room, 88
square foot office room, 88 square foot storage room, 152 square foot kitchen and 152 square foot
unisex restroom. As a condition of approval, the Planning Board required the exterior stucco walls
to be enhanced with stucco trim edging along the top and bottom walls, the addition of window sills
and decorative arch moldings above the tops of the windows and doors, brick accent lines and corner
relieves similar to those at the historic restroom building located opposite the basketball courts and
tot lot area. These requirements have been added to the project design. The building will have a low
pitched peak roof constructed of formed steel with a tile appearance and will have an overhang of
approximately five feet on the north and south sides. Adjoining site improvements include concrete
walkways, a brick seawall sitting area, wood trellises, maintenance driveway access, and landscaping
and irrigation. A copy of the plans and specifications for the proposed work is on file in the City
Clerk's Office.
Report 4 -G
6 -20 -06
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
June 20, 2006
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
The project is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act
Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The work will be funded under CIP# 02 -11 using Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air
and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 (Proposition 12).
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt plans and specifications and authorize a call for bids for Modular Recreational Building and
Site Improvements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05- 06 -17.
Respectfully submitted,
atthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Prepared by,
Barbara Hawkins
City Engineer
MTN:BH:gc
G: \pubworks \pwadmin \COUNC IU2006 \062006 \washingtontrailer. d oc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 20, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Accept the Work of Zaccor Company for Bay Farm Island Dike —
Emergency Repair, No. P.W. 01 -06 -02
BACKGROUND
On January 17, 2006, the City Council authorized an Open Market Purchase Pursuant to Section
3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter for the repair of the Bay Farm Island Seawall Dike along
Shoreline Park and authorized the City Manager to enter into such an agreement. Damage to the
dike and the jogging path were repaired and the armour protection along the seawall was
restored. The undermined section of the promenade was underpinned to prevent collapse and
damage to the underlying storm drain line. Debris was removed and partially clogged storm
drain outfalls were cleaned.
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 $412,788.77. The City is pursuing
funding from FEMA to reimburse the City for the emergency repair work.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The work was budgeted under CIP# 06 -34 with funds from Bay Farm Island Dike Maintenance
Assessment District funds and Urban Runoff funds.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the work of Zaccor Company for Bay Farm Island Dike — Emergency Repair, No. P.W.
01- 06 -02.
Respect ft lylsubitt�d,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
MTN:BH:gc
G: \pubworks \pwadmi n \COUNCIL\2006 \062006 \acceptdike.doc
Prepared by, j
n0.tz)
Barbara Hawkins r, ,
City Engineer
Report 4 -H
6 -20 -06
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 20, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Approve an Agreement for Funding from the State California Coastal
Conservancy to Implement Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures
BACKGROUND
In 2003, a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report
(EIS /EIR) was adopted by the California State Coastal Conservancy (Conservancy) to allow for the
treatment and control non - native Spartina in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. This programmatic
document required the preparation of site - specific control plans. The San Francisco Estuary Invasive
Spartina Project (ISP), administered by the California State Coastal Conservancy (Conservancy), has
prepared control plans for 22 locations, including three along the City of Alameda's shoreline.
DISCUSSION
In 2005, the City successfully implemented the first of a three -year plan to eradicate 28 acres of non-
native Spartina along the Alameda shoreline. The City and Conservancy are initiating the second
year of the project which includes treating 29 acres in Alameda. Treatment methods at the site will
include application of aquatic herbicide via spray truck, backpack sprayer, amphibious tracked
vehicles, boat and helicopter. Potentially significant, unavoidable short-term impacts to the
endangered California clapper rail were identified at some sub - sites.
Consistent with last year's program, the Conservancy will fund the work and requests the City to
enter into a contract to implement the local control plans and public outreach efforts. The City will
be responsible for public outreach and providing control efforts either using City resources or
through subcontractors. The City has tentatively scheduled a public meeting on July 19, 2006, to
reintroduce the proposed Spartina control efforts to the public. A copy of the Agreement for
Funding from the State California Coastal Conservancy is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
Re: Reso 4 -1
6 -20 -06
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Page 2
June 20, 2006
The Conservancy will provide $39,080 in funding for Spartina eradication and mitigation effort
enhancement work during 2006. These funds are earmarked for the City to undertake Spartina
treatment and eradication activities and public outreach. The City is required to make in -kind
contribution to these efforts through staff time covered by the urban runoff fund. There will be no
impact to the City's General Fund for these staffing efforts. The City staffing in -kind contribution
for the 2006 control season is estimated at $10,000 and includes: holding public meetings and
managing the design, bidding, construction and inspection of the field work.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed Resolution is consistent with several implemented policies of the Open Space and
Conservation Element of the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve an Agreement for Funding from the State California Coastal Conservancy to Implement
Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures.
Respectfully submitted, Prepared by,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
MTN:BH:gc
G: \pubworks \pwad min \COUNCIU2006\062006\Spartina. doc
Barbara Hawkins
City Engineer
92
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY TO
IMPLEMENT SPARTINA ERADICATION AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
WHEREAS, the Conservancy authorized the disbursement of an amount
not to exceed thirty -nine thousand eighty dollars ($39,080) to the City of
Alameda (grantee) for implementation of invasive Spartina treatment and
eradication projects under the Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) Spartina Control
Program (second phase); and
WHEREAS, the Invasive Spartina Project and implementation of the
Spartina Control Program remain consistent with Public Resources Code
Sections 31160- 31164; and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2005, a public meeting was held to inform the
public about the proposed spartina control efforts. Attendees were supportive
of the proposed project but did express concerns about herbicide usage and the
residual habitat effects though overall attendees were in favor of the proposed
action plans. Staff will hold another public meeting on July 19, 2006 to
reintroduce the impacts of herbicide usage and the control efforts to be
completed in this phase; and
WHEREAS, the funds ($39,080) shall be used by the grantee to
undertake Spartina treatment, eradication activities and public outreach related
to these activities along the shoreline of Alameda Island within the
Alameda /San Leandro Bay Complex for 2006 -2007; and
WHEREAS, the grantee shall carry out the project in accordance with the
agreement, site - specific plans and a work program to be approved by the
Executive Officer of the Conservancy pursuant to the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the grantee shall provide any funds beyond those granted
under the agreement which are needed to complete the project; and
WHEREAS, the Conditions Precedent to Commencement of Project and
Disbursement and Additional Grant Conditions shall be met before the grantee
shall commence the project and the Conservancy shall not be obligated to
disburse any funds under the agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Alameda
approves an agreement for funding from the State California Coastal
Conservancy to implement Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures.
Resolution #4 -I CC
6 -20 -06
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 20th day of June, 2006, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this 20th day of June 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 20, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an
Application for Measure B Paratransit Funding for Fiscal Year 2006/2007
BACKGROUND
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requires transit agencies to offer equivalent
paratransit service for persons certified as unable to drive or take public transit. Paratransit
services must be made available to eligible users within 3/4 mile of the existing fixed route transit
during the normal operating hours of the fixed route services. In Alameda, this mandated service
is provided by East Bay Paratransit. While most of Alameda is within 3/4 mile of AC Transit
routes, there are some service gaps, including locations that are without bus service on weekends
or at certain times of day.
Measure B Sales Tax funds provide a dedicated funding source for non - mandated, locally -based
paratransit services for people with disabilities and non - disabled seniors in Alameda County.
The City of Alameda has used these funds to provide supplemental paratransit services to
address the service gaps as well as to provide additional non - mandated services. To receive
these funds, the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority ( ACTIA), which
administers Measure B funds, requires each jurisdiction submit a resolution to authorizing the
City to apply for these funds along with its application.
DISCUSSION
The City's paratransit funding application for Fiscal Year 2006/2007 proposes to continue
providing current paratransit services as well as adding additional services. Staff incorporated
input contributed by the Commission on Disability Issues and from a community meeting. On
May 22, the City's proposal was presented to ACTIA's Paratransit Advisory and Planning
Committee (PAPCO), which recommended approval to the ACTIA board. One of the main
goals underlying the proposal was to continue to rely on East Bay Paratransit as the primary
provider of paratransit services in Alameda.
The funding application includes recommended spending for the City's base paratransit program,
enhancements to the base program, and several one -time projects:
1) Base Program: All elements of the existing program would be retained, and a new
expanded taxi program would be implemented, as described below:
Re: Reso 4 -J
6 -20 -06
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
June 20, 2006
a. Taxi service during 21 -day certification period: East Bay Paratransit may take up
to 21 days to certify program participants, so the program would offer taxi service
for medical trips during this time period.
b. Supplemental taxi service: For those Alameda residents who live beyond 3/4 mile
from regular AC Transit routes or who need service at times of day when the
service does not operate.
c. Group trips: Trips for seniors through the Mastick Senior Center, subscription
group trips from convalescent homes, Alameda Recreation & Park Department
(ARPD) cultural event class trips, and the Annual Nursing Home Picnic Group
Trip.
d. East Bay Paratransit tickets: Alameda residents who are certified East Bay
Paratransit users are eligible to receive up to two free books of coupons (10
coupons per book).
e. Customer service and outreach: Mastick Senior Center staff provides 15 hours of
staff time per week to assist with applications for paratransit services, answer
questions and resolve complaints.
f. Scholarship program: Individuals at very low income levels (as defined by the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development) are eligible to
receive a 50 percent subsidy for East Bay Paratransit tickets, in addition to the
free tickets that all program participants may receive.
g. Expanded taxi program: This program would serve East Bay Paratransit certified
users as well as Alameda residents age 75 and older. Residents age 70 and older
without a driver's license or with a restricted license would also be eligible. The
program would provide 50 percent of the taxi fare, within a maximum trip
distance of 20 miles. Beyond this distance, riders would have to pay the
additional fare amount. This subsidy level is recommended to encourage most
people to rely on East Bay Paratransit as their primary service option. If the City -
provided services were subsidized too heavily, the resources could be depleted
quickly.
2) Enhancements to Base Program: The following program elements may be incorporated
into the base program in future years, depending on funding availability.
a. Medical Return Trip Improvement Program (MRTIP): Provides free taxi return
trip to home from medical appointments. Since East Bay Paratransit requires
reservations a day in advance, it does not serve these trips well. The MRTIP has
been very well- received by the community, and feedback from both the
community meeting and the Commission on Disability Issues supported making
medical trips a priority for the paratransit program. It is anticipated that in future
years MRTIP would be incorporated into the base program.
b. Taxi coupons: The draft program includes the purchase of coupons from Friendly
Transportation, the City's taxi service provider. The coupons would have a
specific dollar value, and could be given to taxi drivers in lieu of cash.
Participants in the expanded taxi program, described above, would be eligible
Honorable Mayor and Page 3
Councilmembers June 20, 2006
users of the coupons. The coupons would not have an expiration date, and would
be distributed over a five -year period.
c. East Bay Paratransit tickets: These tickets would be in addition to the two free
coupon books purchased and distributed to program participants through the base
program, as described above. As with the purchase of taxi coupons, the tickets
have no expiration date, and would be distributed over a five -year period.
d. Group trips: Approximately six additional group trips would be provided in
addition to those in the base program, described above.
e. Shoppers' shuttle service: A van service would be offered for three two -week
periods during the year to those residents eligible for the expanded taxi program.
3) One -time projects:
a. Intersection accessibility improvements: As indicated in ACTIA's Expenditure
Plan, paratransit funds may be used for services or to improve access of seniors
and people with disabilities to fixed route transit. This program element would
install audible signals at 18 locations and detectable warnings (truncated domes)
at 10 of these locations, primarily in the vicinity of Park and Webster Streets.
b. Consultants: The City would hire a consultant to produce and print a marketing
brochure to inform residents about the paratransit program. A consultant would
also be used to conduct outreach activities in a variety of community settings to
help raise awareness about the availability of these services.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
ACTIA requires the City Council's approval of the accompanying resolution to receive the
estimated Measure B Paratransit funding of $157,288 for Fiscal Year 2006/2007. Applying for
these funds does not affect the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The City's Paratransit Program is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element
Guiding Policy 4.3.h, "Work toward integrating a Citywide demand response of shuttle service,
which incorporates paratransit, BART, AC Transit, Dial -A -Ride, and shopper needs."
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit an application to ACTIA for fiscal
year 2006/2007 Measure B paratransit funding.
Respec
atthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
MTN:BH:gc
cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee
G : \pubworks \pwadmin\COUNCIL\2006 \062006 \paratransit2.doc
Prepared by,
I�QnbMa kvL J o�
Barbara Hawkins
City Engineer
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN
APPLICATION FOR MEASURE B PARATRANSIT FUNDING
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007
WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that
equivalent paratransit service be provided within 3/ mile and during the regular
z operating hours of fixed route transit services for those who are determined
. eligible for such services; and
O
•
1—
WHEREAS, there are parts of the City of Alameda that are not served by
the ADA- mandated paratransit services for at least part of the week; and
WHEREAS, Alameda residents who are senior citizens or who have
disabilities have transportation needs that are not easily met by the existing
fixed route transit services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda receives an allocation from Measure B
sales tax revenue, administered by the Alameda County Transportation
Improvement Authority (ACTIA), to provide paratransit services for seniors and
people with disabilities to supplement ADA- mandated services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda's allocation of Measure B Paratransit
funds for fiscal year 2006/2007 is estimated to be $157,288; and
WHEREAS, the City will continue to implement the 2004/2005 adopted
Measure B Paratransit Service Plan developed via a community involved needs
assessment process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby
authorized to submit an application with the ACTIA for an allocation of Measure
B Paratransit funds for Fiscal Year 2006/2007.
Resolution #4 -J CC
6 -20 -06
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 20th day of June 2006, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 20th day of June 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 20, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Granting a Non - Exclusive Utility Easement
from the City of Alameda to Pacific Gas and Electric Company within Parcel 3 of Parcel
Map No. 4497
BACKGROUND
The proposed Peet's Coffee roasting facility at 2001 Harbor Bay Parkway requires the
installation of a high- pressure gas pipeline. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG &E) will
install the high pressure gas service pipe to the new Peet's Coffee facility located along Harbor
Bay Parkway and is requesting a non - exclusive 10 -foot wide easement for the right to install,
inspect, maintain, replace, remove and use the gas service pipes across a City -owned parcel. The
parcel is part of Shoreline Park and the City will retain public access and use of the park.
DISCUSSION
City staff has reviewed and accepted the plat map for the easement. The City may revoke the
easement at any time by public meeting, if PG &E fails to operate, maintain or repair the facilities
or breach any other terms as set forth in the grant of easement. The easement restricts the City
from erecting any building or other structure or to drill or operate any well under or within the
strip of land. A copy of the easement document and map are attached. The easement document
and plat map are on file in the City Clerk's Office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
All costs associated with the operation, maintenance and repair of the facilities in a safe, sanitary
and fully operational conditions will be by PG &E or their successors. There will be no impact to
the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
Re: Reso 4 -K
6 -20 -06
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
June 20, 2006
Page 2
Grant a Non - Exclusive 10 -foot wide Utility Easement from the City of Alameda to Pacific Gas
and Electric Company within Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 4497.
Respectfully su. .tted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Prepared by,
bara Hawkins
City Engineer
MTN:BH:gc
attachment
G : \pubworks \pwadmin \COUNCIL\2006 \062006 \pge.doc
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
Land Services Office
3480 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 150
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Location: City/Uninc
Recording Fee
Document Transfer Tax $
[ ] This is a conveyance where the consideration and
value is less than $100.00 (R &T 11911).
[ ] Computed on Full Value of Property Conveyed, or
[ ] Computed on Full Value Less Liars & Encumbrances
Remaining at Time of Sale.
Signature of declarant or agent detennin ng tax
(SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDERS USE ONLY)
EASEMENT
CITY OF ALAMEDA, a public body of the State of California,
hereinafter called first party, hereby grants to PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a
California corporation, hereinafter called second party, the right from time to time to construct,
reconstruct, install, inspect, maintain, replace, remove, and use facilities of the type hereinafter
specified, together with a right of way therefor, within a strip or parcel of land or along a route as
hereinafter set forth, and also ingress thereto and egress therefrom, over and across the lands of first
party situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows:
(APN 074 - 1337 -035)
The parcel of land described and designated Parcel 1 in the deed from Harbor Bay Isle
Associates to the City of Alameda, dated October 14, 1986 and recorded as Official
Records Series No. 87- 067209, Alameda County Records.
Said facilities shall consist of:
One or more underground pipes with suitable high pressure service pipes and connections, as Pacific
Gas and Electric Company from time to time deems necessary, for the conveyance by it of gas to be
installed within the strip of land of the uniform width of 10.0 feet, the center line of which is
delineated by the heavy dashed line shown upon the print of second party's Drawing No. 30462321 -6
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
First party shall not erect or construct any building or other structure or drill or operate any well under
or within said strip of land.
The legal description herein, or the map attached hereto, defining the location of this utility
distribution easement, was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company pursuant to Section 8730 (c)
of the Business and Professions Code.
The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective
parties hereto.
Dated
CITY OF ALAMEDA
By
By
E. Go,
COPY
************************************************************ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
State of
County of
On before me, (here insert name and title of the
officer), personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his/her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary's Signature
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER: ( ) Individual(s) signing for oneself/themselves
( ) Corporate Officer(s) of the above named corporation
( ) Guardian of the above named individual(s)
( ) Partner(s) of the above named partnership(s)
( ) Attorney(s) -in -Fact of the above named principal(s)
( ) Trustee(s) of the above named trust(s)
( ) Other
************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
P.G.& E. CO.
COPY
•■ranipmar sob
62-338
Right of Way Map p GAS LINE EASEMENT
OWNER.
CITY
deed
O.R.SERIES
ALAMEDA
PARCEL
(Bk: Prtion
UNLESS OTHERWISE
ALL COURSES
ALONG ALL BOUNDARIES
\ ��N.49'35'E. 8' +/ -
00
ND
off,
'•� ` \ �96-
N.17'13'W. 38.1' \� A
It
ti> 9�
ON
NtI�
o.\ •
`
�6
�4 V'i-.
SOD
10.0' WIDE STRIP
LINE EASEMENT
fir•
�e TIE:
/
O V. 4. ♦0
V Z
28.6'
C/L
GAS
\ •P♦♦
''A9
�'o•
4 ■ %,
ti�Ory ti ^/`
.ti ts' r<v
CO
.00P O
OF ALAMEDA
dated OCTOBER 14, 1986
No. 87- 067209
COUNTY RECORDS ,�ti�
1 4'
of PARCEL 3) fie,
152 P.M. Pg: 21/
SHOWN
EXTEND TO OR
OR LINES
CITY,RANCHO,SUBDIVISION,ETC.
PEET'S COFFEE GAS LINE EXTENSION
SCALE
NONE
DATE
1 -17 -2006
SECTION
30
TOWNSHIP
2 S.
RANGE
3 W.
MERIDIAN
MDB &M
NW /4 of SW /4
DR.BY: MJG6 CH.BY: GPY1
CHG
DATE
DESCRIPTION
AUTH
BY
CH
REFERENCES APN. 074 -1337 -035
I P G 8c E
ALAMEDA
130P462321 1
304 AWING 321 -2
I CHG.
E
0
L8.
0
CO
a)
0
Ct..
CL
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING GRANT OF A NON - EXCLUSIVE UTILITY EASEMENT
FROM THE CITY OF ALAMEDA TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY WITHIN PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 4497
■
W
ccc WHEREAS, on October 14, 1986 Harbor Bay Isle Associates offered for
4 FO dedication to the City of Alameda 4.5 acres of Shoreline Park for public access
V6., and park purposes, and
■
WHEREAS, on March 4, 1987 per City of Alameda Resolution No.
11126, City accepted dedication of the 4.5 acres of Shoreline Park from Harbor
Bay Isle Associates, and recorded as Official Records Series No. 87- 067209,
Alameda County Records, and
WHEREAS, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG &E) proposes
installation of one high pressure service pipe to serve the facility located at
2001 Harbor Bay Parkway, and
WHEREAS, PG &E has requested a ten -foot (10') wide easement along a
portion of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 4497, recorded January 24, 1985 in Book
152 of Parcel Maps at Pages 3 and 4, County of Alameda Records, to facilitate
installation and maintenance of the proposed service pipes, and
WHEREAS, the easement restricts the City from erecting any building or
other structure or drill or operate any well under or within the strip of land.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City
Clerk, be, and each hereby is, authorized and directed td execute and attest to,
respectively, on behalf of the City of Alameda, a grant of said easement to
PG &E Company, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified
copies of this resolution, attested under seal, to be recorded in the County
Recorder's Office.
Resolution #4 -K CC
6 -20 -06
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 20th day of June, 2006, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this 20th day of June 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 20, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Adoption of Resolution Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to
Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a
Voter Approved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a
General Election held November 7, 2000
BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2000, the voters of Alameda passed Measure "0" which authorized the
issuance of bonds in the amount not to exceed $10,600,000 (the "Bonds ") to finance the
acquisition, construction and completion of a new Main Library facility and improvements to
two branch library facilities in the City of Alameda (the "Project "). The City received the final
grant award in December 2002 in the amount of $15,487,952. In March, 2003 the City sold
$10,600,000 in general obligation bonds.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Measure "0" set the maximum tax rate at $15/$100,000 of assessed valuation over 30 years.
The required tax rate for 2006 -2007 is $8.00/$100,000 of assessed valuation down from the
$8.72/$100,000 levied for the 2005 -2006 fiscal year.
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the general fund. Debt service for the $10,600,000 general
obligation bonds will be paid from this tax levy on all real and personal property in
Alameda.
ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT REFERENCE
This action is in conformance with the Alameda Municipal Code and all policy
documents.
Re: Reso 4 -L
6 -20 -06
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
June 20, 2006
Page 2
Adopt a resolution requesting and authorizing the County of Alameda to levy a tax on all
real and personal property in the City of Alameda as a voter approved levy for the
General Obligation Bonds issued pursuant to a general election held November 7,
2000.
JB:dI
Ily submitted
Ile -Ann B.' er
Chief Financial Officer
Attachment: Tax Rate Per Assessed Valuation
Annual Tax Rate 07
Tax Per
$100,000
$ 14.26
$ 9.80
$ 8.78
$ 8.00
$ 7.89
$ 7.75
CO
O
K
69
$ 7.28
$ 7.08
$ 6.93
$ 6.77
N O)
CO CO
0 0
69 69
N O
N CO
0 (c;
69 69
0
0
69
$ 5.60
$ 5.41
$ 5.27
$ 5.15
R
CON
R
69
CO
O
V R
69 69
f, CO
e{ CO
R R
69 69.
0)
NC)
R R
69 69
N
3
C
C
Q
Tax
Rate
00960000'0
L9Z46000'0
0.00008782
0.00008004
0.00007893
0.00007749
0.00007583
0.00007406
0.00007279
0.00007084
0.00006928
0.00006766
0.00006325
0.00006386
0.00006217
0.00006046
0.00005914
0.00005736
0.00005596
0.00005413
0.00005266
0.00005153
0.00004710
0.00004577
0.00004471
0.00004327
Net
Debt
Service
$ 803,127
$ 583,866
$ 596,244
$ 602,178
$ 610,414
$ 617,285
$ 622,168
$ 625,851
$ 633,619
$ 635,155
$ 639,716
$ 643,554
$ 619,644
$ 644,421
$ 646,209
$ 647,264
$ 652,153
$ 651,474
$ 654,627
$ 652,181
$ 653,585
$ 658,652
$ 657,890
$ 658,515
$ 662,586
$ 660,499
$ 686,750
Less
Unsecured
Portion
1
69
1
69
$ 55,206
$ 56,072
$ 54,436
$ 53,040
$ 51,482
$
49,799
$ 48,531
$ 46,845
$ 45,409
$ 43,946
$ 42,481
$
40,704
$ 39,291
$ 37,861
$
36,722
$ 35,276
$ 34,123
$ 32,694
$ 31,540
$ 30,598
$ 27,235
$ 26,235
$ 25,414
$ 24,376
R
CO
(0
N
N
69
N
7
F.
c
O
'Alameda General Obligation Bond Issue
Tax Rate Per Assessed Valuation
$10.6Million
Annual
Debt
Service
$ -
$ 803,127
$ 653,000
$ 651,450
$ 658,250
$ 664,850
$ 670,325
$ 673,650
$ 675,650
$ 682,150
$ 682,000
$ 685,125
$ 687,500
$ 662,125
$ 685,125
$ 685,500
$ 685,125
$ 688,875
$ 686,750
$ 688,750
$ 684,875
$ 685,125
$ 689,250
$ 688,250
$ 684,250
$ 685,125
$ 684,750
$ 688,000
$ 684,875
$ 685,375
$ 684,375
$ 686,750
Total
Assessed Valuation
5,416,544,864
6,340,913,693
6,397,923,840
6,789,608,739
7,523,903,448
7, 733, 702, 358
7,965, 713,429
8,204,684,832
8,450,825,377
8, 704, 350,138
8, 965, 480, 642
9, 234, 445, 061
9, 511, 478, 413
9, 796, 822, 766
10,090,727,448
10,393,449,272
10, 705, 252, 750
11,026,410,333
11, 357, 202, 643
11,697,918,722
12, 048, 856, 284
12,410,321,972
12, 782, 631, 631
13,166,110, 580
CO v
0) .-
CO n
0) C0
0) 0
O 0)
)O CO
CO CO
O 0)
Ci Ci
14, 386, 964, 516
14,818,573,451
15, 263,130, 655
15, 721, 024, 575
16,192, 655, 312
16,678,434,971
17,178, 788, 020
N
a,
I
0
0000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000
N N
0) o
O) 0
rn O
N
N CO 7
N N N
(� cn
0 0 0
o 0 0
N N N
L)) (0 N- CO
N N N N
0) O.— N
N N N N
CO ch O CO
N N N N
N- co
N N
0) O
N- N
N N
N
N N
N N
CO V
N N
N N
O CO
N NN
N N
h CO
N
N N
0) 0 N
N C) M C)
N N N N
CO , V O
C) C) C)
N N N
Annual Tax Rate 07
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
REQUESTING AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
TO LEVY A TAX ON ALL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY IN
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AS A VOTER APPROVED LEVY FOR
THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ISSUED PURSUANT TO A
GENERAL ELECTION HELD NOVEMBER 7, 2000
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2000, voters of Alameda overwhelmingly
passed Measure "0 ", authorizing the issuance of bonds in the amount not to
exceed $10,600,000 (the "Bonds ") to finance the acquisition, construction and
completion of a new Main Library facility and improvements to two branch
facilities in the City of Alameda (the "project "; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda received a final grant award in
December, 2002 in the amount of $15,487,952; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 13563, adopted by the City Council on
March 4, 2003, authorized and directed the sale of not to exceed $10,600,000
aggregate principal amount of City of Alameda, California General Obligation
Bonds; and levying an ad valorem tax; and
WHEREAS, for the purpose of paying the principal of and interest on the
Bonds, the City of Alameda must authorize the County of Alameda to levy and
collect annually each year an ad valorem tax in an amount sufficient to pay
principal and interest on the bonds; and
WHEREAS,' Measure "0" set the maximum tax rate at $15/$100,000 of
assessed valuation over 30 years; and
WHEREAS, the required tax rate for Fiscal Year 2006 -2007 is
$8.00/$100,000 of assessed valuation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda hereby authorizes the County of Alameda to levy a tax on all real
and personal property in the County of Alameda as a voter - approved levy for
the General Obligation Bonds issued pursuant to the General Election held
November 7, 2000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda
that the debt service for the $10,600,000 general obligation bonds will be paid
from a tax levy on all real and personal property in Alameda of $8.00 per
$100,000 of assessed value for 2005 -06.
Resolution #4 -L CC
6 -20 -06
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 of the City Council on the 20th day of June 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 June 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: June 20, 2006
Re: Resolution Establishing a Five -Day Workweek Alternative with Corresponding
Salary for the Classification of Chief of Police
BACKGROUND
The Chief of Police is an unrepresented classification not included in any bargaining group or
union.
DISCUSSION
The existing compensation for Chief of Police includes base salary effective December 29,
2003, Management Incentive Pay equivalent to three weeks salary, Holiday -in -Lieu Pay of
7.502 %, Deferred Compensation of 1%, and Uniform Allowance. The proposed resolution
establishes the Chief of Police as a 40 -hour, 5 -day per week position; establishes and
maintains a salary that provides five percent differential in total earnings between the Chief of
Police and subordinate Alameda Police Managers Association position classifications through
the remainder of the term of the current Alameda Police Managers Association Memorandum
of Understanding effective January 1, 2000 and ending January 5, 2008; and eliminates
Management Incentive Pay and Holiday -in -Lieu Pay. The Chief of Police would still be
awarded Deferred Compensation and Uniform Allowance.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund as a result of implementing the proposed salary for
Chief of Police.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolution Establishing a Five -Day Workweek Alternative with Corresponding Salary for
the Classification of Chief of Police.
Respectful! submitte,� ..
Karen Willis Re: Reso 4 -M
Human Resources Director 6 -20 -06
E
0
LI-
0
0
ca
a)
0
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ESTABLISHING A FIVE -DAY WORKWEEK ALTERNATIVE WITH
CORRESPONDING SALARY FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CHIEF OF POLICE
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police is an unrepresented classification not
included in any bargaining group or union, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda will establish a five -day
workweek alternative with corresponding salary for the classification of Chief of
Police, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda will establish and
maintain five percent differential in total earnings between the Chief of Police and
subordinate Alameda Police Managers Association position classifications through
the remainder of the term of the current Alameda Police Managers Association
Memorandum of Understanding effective January 1, 2000 and ending January 5,
2008, and incorporate Management Incentive Pay and Holiday -in -Lieu Pay into the
regular base salary of the Chief of Police, and
WHEREAS, changes to operational standards call for provisions to grant
appropriate salary for the five -day workweek as an alternative to the existing salary
for the Chief of Police position.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA,
DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
1. Effective July 5, 2006, the Council hereby grants appropriate
compensation for the five -day workweek as an alternative to the
existing salary for the Chief of Police position.
2. That the position classification, salary rates, salary range, and salary
steps are hereby designated as those applicable to the respective
classification in the service of the City of Alameda:
Code
Classification
EXEMPT
BI- WEEKLY
Step
1
Step
2
Step
3
Step
4
Step
5
1111
Chief of Police
$6401
$6721
$7057
$7410
$7780
orty -hour workweek.
3. That the salary rates, salary range, and salary steps for Chief of Police
shall be adjusted as necessary to maintain five percent differential in
total earnings to subordinate Alameda Police Managers Association
position classifications through the remainder of the term of the
current Alameda Police Managers Association Memorandum of
Understanding effective January 1, 2000 and ending January 5, 2008.
Resolution #4 -M CC
6 -20 -06
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
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ACKNOWLEDGING CITY ATTORNEY
CAROL KORADE
FOR HER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA records its
appreciation for the extraordinary service faithfully rendered by CAROL
KORADE to the City of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, CAROL KORADE served as City Attorney from July
1989 until June 2006, a period of some 17 years; and
WHEREAS, CAROL KORADE made significant contributions to
the City of Alameda during these years, among those being:
• Prior to Ms. Korade's service, Alameda experienced
significant litigation management problems, including the
threat of being expelled from its risk pool, the California
Joint Powers Risk Management Association. Within a year
of Ms. Korade's assumption of office as City Attorney, the
California Joint Powers Risk Management Association
audit found a "dramatic reversal ... in the area of litigation
management" attributed to Ms. Korade.
• Under Ms. Korade's.firm litigation management, Alameda
closed 96 cases between 1989 and 1992 without any
payment by the City. The City's active litigation cases have
averaged only 16 a year since 1991, the City's litigation
budget has remained consistently at least 40% below its
1989 level, and claims and settlements have also averaged
30% of the 1989 level, saving the City of Alameda millions
of dollars.
• As City Attorney, Ms. Korade had overall responsibility to
serve the complex legal needs of the entire. City, including
the Mayor and City Council; the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, the Community Improvement
Commission, the Housing Authority, and some 26 other
Boards, Committees, and Commissions, as well as the City
Manager's Office and the City's 13 operational
departments.
• During her tenure, Ms. Korade served during a time of
tremendous expansion in Alameda interests and complex
Resolution #5 -A
6 -20 -06
projects, with the closure of the former Naval Air Station
Alameda in 1997 and resulting City efforts to acquire and
redevelop this property, Alameda Power & Telecom's
expansion from an electrical supplier to a
telecommunications provider, and increased
redevelopment in the City.
• Ms. Korade also oversaw the legal services related to the
construction of various new housing developments in the
City, including the Bayport project at Alameda Point.
• Ms. Korade oversaw the legal services underlying many
redevelopment projects in the City, including the Bridgeside
Shopping Center, Park Street Marketplace, and
revitalization of Park and Webster Streets.
• Ms. Korade assisted the City with the development and
construction of the new Main Library building, Alameda
Power & Telecom telecommunications infrastructure
projects, City ferry operation contracts, and many other
public works initiatives.
WHEREAS, the City Council deeply appreciates the past valuable
services provided by City Attorney Carol Korade and her staff and wish her
much success in her future endeavors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the
City of Alameda does hereby congratulate CAROL KORADE for her service to
the residents of Alameda and extends its deepest gratitude to her for her many
labors on behalf of 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 the
regular meeting of the Council on the th day of June, 2006, by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have set hereunto my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this th day of June, 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 20, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram
and Assessment and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Lighting
District 84 -2
BACKGROUND
In accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, on February 7, 2006 City Council
appointed an engineer and an attorney for the annual proceedings associated with District 84 -2.
Council also preliminarily approved the Engineer's Report, declared an intention to order levy and
collection of assessment, and set a hearing for June 20, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers at Alameda City Hall.
DISCUSSION
The Engineer's Report provides an estimate of cost by each of the seven zones (see attached maps) to
be addressed for fiscal year 2006 -2007. The zones are as follows:
Zone 1: Lincoln Avenue between Sherman and St. Charles Streets.
Zone 2: Webster Street between Central and Lincoln Avenues.
Zone 3: Webster Street between Lincoln and Atlantic Avenues.
Zone 4: Park Street from the bridge to San Jose Avenue, including areas of Webb
Street, Santa Clara Avenue, Lincoln Avenue and Central Avenue.
Zone 5: Harbor Bay Business Park.
Zone 6: Alameda Marina Village commercial areas.
Zone 7: Bay Street: 1100 and 1200 blocks.
The purpose of the assessment district is to provide for enhanced maintenance not regularly
performed by the City. A copy of the Engineer's Report is on file in the City Clerk's Office and at all
Public Library branches.
Enhanced maintenance or special projects contained in this budget are:
Zone 1: Maintenance of landscaped median in the 1100 and 1200 blocks of Lincoln
Avenue. Utilities for operating the irrigation. No increase in assessment is
proposed for this Zone.
Re: Public Hearing 5 -B
6 -20 -06
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
June 20, 2006
Zones 2 and 3:These two zones work together on their projects. Together they pay for
general litter and clean up of the public areas. The maintenance costs
associated with landscaping have increased. However, due to several years of
savings realized prior to and during construction, no increase in assessments
will be required. The proposed budget was developed in association with the
West Alameda Business Association and, depending on external maintenance
costs, the reserve funds are expected to cover the increased costs for two
more years. No increase in assessment is proposed for this budget year. This
zone will be requesting a rate increase in the next two budget cycles.
Zone 4: Staff met with the Park Street Business Association to develop the proposed
budget. The budget for this zone covers general litter and clean up of the
sidewalk and public areas. The maintenance costs associated with the new
landscaping have increased. However the district has been able to hold funds
in reserve while in construction so that the increased costs may be
accommodated without an increase in assessments. Sidewalk cleaning, and
general daily litter control managed by the Association, will continue in the
present budget. No increase in assessment is proposed for this budget year.
This zone will be requesting a rate increase in the next two budget cycles.
Zone 5:
Zone 6:
The budget for this zone is developed in conjunction with the Harbor Bay
Business Park Association. The budget covers all irrigation costs and
landscape maintenance costs. All tree trimming, sidewalk and pathway
repairs, and streetlight repairs are also included. There is a CPI adjustment in
the budget as allowed by previous vote of the property owners.
The budget for this zone is developed in conjunction with the Marina Village
Management group. Budget for this district covers all irrigation costs and
landscape maintenance costs. It also covers all street lighting maintenance
and energy costs. All tree trimming, sidewalk repair and pathway repair are
included. This district is under new ownership. In discussions with current
representatives of the current owners, City staff has been assured that the
owners will be concentrating on landscape revitalization, particularly for the
street tree population. No increase is proposed for this budget year.
Zone 7: The property owners have cooperatively developed a maintenance schedule
for the elm trees. Maintenance work which began in spring of 2000
continues. As the elm population has been reduced, so has the assessment,
which is currently proposed at $250, per year, per property. No increase in
assessment is proposed for this zone.
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
June 20, 2006
Balloting: For the 2006/2007 tax year, there is no requirement for a Proposition 218 ballot.
Copies of the area maps for each zone are attached. A copy of the Engineer's Report is on file in the
City Clerk's Office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The maintenance costs for the various zones are described in the Engineer's Report. Costs incurred
by the City for the Engineer of Work and Attorney of Record, are paid by the Districts under the
budget item incidental expense.
Maintenance costs for landscaping along Harbor Bay Parkway, from Doolittle Drive to Maitland
Drive, are shared between the City and the property owners within the business park, via the
assessment district. The split is one third City, two- thirds assessment district. The City's one -third
share is split between the Public Works Department and the Golf Course. The total cost for City's
off -site maintenance for fiscal year 2006/2007 is $21,233 requiring a payment of $10,616.50 each
from Public Works and Golf. Funds for this expense have been budgeted in the proposed FY
2006/2007 budget. Additionally, the costs to maintain Shoreline Park within the Harbor Bay
Business Park are shared equally between Zone 5 and the City, as provided for in a settlement
agreement. The City's share has been estimated at $15,000, which is included in the Recreation and
Park Department budget for FY 2006/2007.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing, approve the Engineer's Report confirming diagram and assessment, and
order the levying of assessments for the Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2.
Respectfully submitted, Plepared by,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
MTN:MM:gc
Attachments
G:\ pubworks\ pwadmin \COUNCIL\2006\062006\Final LTC for 06 -07 AD.doc
Margarr t . McLean
Public : ks Coordinator
is
A/ VW .51_71Y. J1Y.
OG f+'
00 -5101
t
.217- JO
;f
k
N
1
• S.7 76,
gy p la C
7 O
_ ' T w
1
p ° O O
O▪ •
047C-L10
!?�dJ1
. - p p
h '
0 0 °
O p ,
vc70 -3,40
11.1 /air
p
p
0
0
tq
..I 1 O' T. N.'. ,y
7. 9. O ? A r O ,:,
j w V
T ,
0 O p O 0
calf V.
�1 a.117 r
gltal ;t
=I .ii -.
tl 11-l.
R1 •Oi
K 1-.01
altai�l
J111
_I.4
1' 1
cZi'O -L[0
j
O
"v�M
• o CI 0 Cr
k
7 ?r0- r_a
V
k
r
V
c`
li
2
of
'71
01
'71
as -too
00 -COO
/a -■00
.r,rRE£
3nNs,11Y
• _ i zn-cZa
,0 ■roc
zo -cco
CO -tor,
00 -000
00-F00
1nN3AS'
0'N y'n c
i r
.71:1: rd
N 7 0 .7 NI 7
N
*ode fi /.r , Ciiy C/rr t
i co
▪ z
• =
S .1
LJj
G ;
u �
Owl
�.
ale.
y1C
al Ulx
aI .
Z1di
1141
11
I I
11.
Irr'
II
I It
1
P
0
O
0
00 -010
00 -L/O
3/7N1,1''
017-S/0
I
1N3iv177
1 /v -tro
•
ynNYA
10 -s/0
00:171-17
1_10 re/ . /0 -SEO
I`
7 1e
A, 7 J Nr 7.—. —:
.I
C0,00I G o OI ' J
1 tl 1
D A Cf J 1
OFL.OI , I I
co- 20 1 Ob :O - 0L9
E17�OZ0,
•
03Aw,L /+071
Y
(7• 'VMS mg 03/1Ni(N07)
%OGO- /40
69/Q- OLO
b7 /a-OLO
J/7NJAY B97�.M
. 9
I V •y i1-,1�, •
° I °oi o° of
in a
c I. 1111
OO -0/0
oo -Q
00.1707
00 -LOQ
00 =0•.
00 -4a0
00 -010
00 -11a
• Cc
00 -Z/0 1
00•C/0
Y 1 1v - r
.2
a'�.,a
O
IT
R,Otl0
-o
07
aIC!;o�
1
Ct IO1-
1J
a
OI C .
�
i
/0 -210 11
I
1a -a0
OO-0 /O 1 •
r
17O_01
oo -fool
•O -Cool
7C•LM1
JO -0001
70•.0Ot
00 -r,01
O/NOlN! NYr
ro01
70 -L0•
70 -7001
70•.00
II 70 -0,0
70 -uO I
oO•420
l
A 1Z
•c
+.. eO•7Z17 • !1
- 0 .
o'
of
,0 -1rrO
C17-SZO
n -■20
7rN /.2iv
[O•rcO
3S.Jr NY:
^9F0 -0. 2
N
I 1 Is
11 z.
LLI
z
7
O!1
,.r
AFZ
;a.trztt aaaaa; era
a °
°
0.40.11 • ,,,
Lj
N
l
•
c =1 a
'.
a
a
:o-
\ =_ tl,. _
a
S4 64.,.3r3 r�
m tl -•
11
•1 .6. a
a
• L
• -
: 1 -
•1 .
. �' -'-
v .- .-_-
41 0 -- °aeo
--- Faa2∎:200
.. mr ..
-- �.•I ..i -..
. o- eaeeo-ou
e
i1 -> .4..4-0,4 .>_' _>_> .4.464.4 ->
•10 a- - ---e
• 6'•60 a'ti.-_ -r
• is '
r'
-t o
1• C
a. el - -.. ..7 .... -Y
a
II'jRT
1 I T.
ui�
I 1 It
3
3.
I I It
Z3
td.
• t
7/'>' -V P'
•
to, rOgi
•••07,
3
-1! • 7Z:.'t.
;
• ;-7:7
7.7
- • -
:•r•
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM
AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING LEVY OF
ASSESSMENTS, ISLAND CITY LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING
DISTRICT 84 -2
w WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 13815 a resolution directing
cc preparation of Annual Report for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District
84 -2, this Council designated the City Engineer, as Engineer of Work and
ordered said Engineer of Work to make and file a report in writing in accordance
with and pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the report was duly made and filed with the City Clerk and
duly considered by this Council and found to be sufficient in every particular,
whereupon it was determined that the report should stand as the Engineer's
Report for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to the aforesaid
resolution, and that on Tuesday, June 20, 2006, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock
p.m., in the regular meeting place of this Council, Council Chambers, Alameda
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, was appointed as the
time and place for a hearing by this Council on the question of the levy of the
proposed assessment, notice of which hearing was duly and regularly
published; and
App
WHEREAS, at the appointed time and place the hearing was duly and
regularly held, and all persons interested, desiring to be heard, were given an
opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to the levy were
fully heard and considered by this Council, and all oral statements and all
written protests or communications were duly heard, considered and overruled,
and this Council thereby acquired jurisdiction to order the levy and the
confirmation of the diagram and assessment prepared by and made a part of
the Engineer's Report to pay the costs and expenses thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that:
1. No vote of the property owners is required because proposed
increases are allowed based on previous approval of the property owners
owning more than fifty percent (50 %) of the area of assessable lands within the
District.
2. The public interest, convenience and necessity require that the
levy be made.
3. The District benefited by the improvements are to be assessed to
pay the costs and expenses thereof, and the exterior boundaries thereof, are as
Resolution #5 -B
6 -20 -06
shown by a map thereof filed in the office of the City Clerk, which map is made
a part hereof by reference thereto.
4. The Engineer's Report as a whole and each part thereof to whit:
(a) the Engineer of Work's estimate of the itemized and total
costs and expenses of maintaining the improvements and of the incidental
expenses in connection therewith;
(b) the diagram showing the assessment district, plans and
specification for the improvements to be maintained and the boundaries and
dimensions of the respective lots and parcels of land within the District; and
(c) the assessment of the total amount of the cost and
expenses of the proposed maintenance of the improvements upon the several
Tots and parcels of land in the District in proportion to the estimated benefits to
be received by such lots and parcels, respectively, from the maintenance, and
of the expenses incidental thereto; is finally approved and confirmed.
5. Final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole,
and of the plans and specifications, the estimate of the costs and expenses, the
diagram and the assessment, as contained in the report, as hereinabove
determined and ordered, shall refer and apply to the report, or any portion
thereof, as amended, modified, or revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in
accordance with, any resolution or order, if any, heretofore duly adopted or
made by this Council.
6. The assessment to pay the costs and expenses of the
maintenance of the improvements is hereby levied. For further particulars
pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972,
reference is hereby made to the Resolution directing preparation of Annual
Report.
7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, including the
Engineer's Report, offered and received at the hearing, this Council expressly
finds and determines (a) that each of the several Tots and parcels of land will be
specially benefited by the maintenance of the improvements at least in the
amount, if not more than the amount, of the assessment apportioned against
the lots and parcels of land, respectively, and (b) that there is substantial
evidence to support, and the weight of the evidence preponderates in favor of,
the aforesaid findings and determination as to special benefits.
8. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, but in no event
later than the third Monday in August following such adoption, the City Clerk
shall file a certified copy of the diagram and assessment and a certified copy of
this resolution with the Auditor of the County of Alameda. Upon such filing, the
County Auditor shall enter on the County assessment roll opposite each lot or
parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown in the
assessment roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of assessment
thereupon as shown in the assessment. The assessments shall be collected at
the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected, and all
laws providing for the collection and enforcement of County taxes shall apply to
the collection and enforcement of the assessments. After collection by the
County of Alameda, the net amount of the assessments, after deduction of any
compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the Director of
Finance of this City.
9. Upon receipt of moneys representing assessments collected by
the County, the Director of Finance of this City of Alameda shall deposit the
moneys in the City Treasury to the credit of an improvement fund, which
improvement fund the Director of Finance of this City is hereby directed to
establish under the distinctive designation of the District. Moneys in the
improvement fund shall be expended upon for the maintenance of the
improvements.
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 20th day of June, 2006, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this 20th day of June 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 20, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram
and Assessment and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01
(Marina Cove)
BACKGROUND
In accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, on February 7, 2006 City Council
appointed an engineer and an attorney for the annual proceedings associated with District 01 -01.
Council also preliminarily approved the Engineer's Report, declared an intention to order levy and
collection of assessment, and set a hearing for June 20, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers at Alameda City Hall.
DISCUSSION
The Engineer's Report provides the district budget for maintaining all improvements within the
public right -of -way and park area for the Marina Cove subdivision (see attached map). The
maintenance costs for the improvements were initially determined in conjunction with the developer,
utilizing standard costs for work. Costs are spread to the parcels by a per square foot basis. A copy
of the Engineer's Report is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The total annual operating budget for this district is proposed at $81,017.61, which includes a reserve
of $23,119.62 to be set aside for long term maintenance of the sea wall, streets, sidewalks and other
facilities. City costs associated with the management of the District and assessments are estimated at
$2,500 which will be reimbursed by the District. There is no impact to the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
Re: Public Hearing 5 -C
6 -20 -06
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
June 20, 2006
Open the public hearing, approve the Engineer's Report confirming diagram and assessment, and
order the levying of assessments for the Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01 (Marina Cove).
Respectfully, submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Prepared by,
?a/(- h/r6L--
Margaret McLean
Public W s Coordinator
MTN:MAM:gc
attachment
G:\ pubworks\ pwadmin \COUNCIL\2006\062006\Final MAD for 06 -07.doc
—H— a ..'
ID Teat, +;'t''3E1':i i 1 �� ti2iM88�F'1
m r.1 _ 1 � 1 I
r s ? .∎ 1 I
; 1 ._ 'r Y 1 ' I
r� O1 1 t — 1
E� C1 .1 Q _,:LJS- L -�Y.i �{
.$ _ l 1.. 1 1 _ �_ raj J.
1. ( a ;mil I- I 1 i t i T1
t °nJn 1:41,,m .ri;.5pjn!n n1 A.; PiMin ;Pi ?.
- i 1i i ■ 1, a.. '1
1 ! :mac•.,. .Ii�. 1 l _'s
I
■ L... Lt.
r n ` t . n i se
\..-1-1.10 -ciak-o-uo l =
'-i a
E
0
0
0
CC
0
0
L
0.
CL
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM
AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS,
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 01 -01 (MARINA COVE)
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 13816, a resolution directing preparation
of an Annual Report for Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01 (Marina Cove),
this Council designated the City Engineer, as Engineer of Work and ordered said
Engineer of Work to make and file a report in writing in accordance with and
pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the City Clerk and
was presented to the City Council for consideration; and
WHEREAS, said Council considered said report and each and every part
hereof and found that it contained all the matters and things called for by the
provisions of said Code and said Resolution No. 13816, including (1) plans and
specifications of the existing improvements and proposed improvements, (2)
estimate of costs (3) diagram of the district, and (4) an assessment according to
the benefits, all of which was done in the form and manner required by such Code;
and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the report should stand as the
Engineer's Report for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to the
aforesaid resolution, and that on Tuesday, June 20, 2006, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m., in the regular meeting place of this Council, Council Chambers,
Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, was appointed
as the time and place for a hearing of protests in relation to the formation of a
maintenance assessment district pursuant to the City of Alameda Maintenance
Procedure Code, to said proposed improvements and the levy of the proposed
assessment; and
WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearings were duly and regularly
published and mailed in the time, form and manner required by said Code, as
evidence by the affidavits and certificates on file with said City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, persons interested in objecting to the formation of said
maintenance assessment district, or of said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the maintenance
assessment district, or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or
diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, were given an opportunity
to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to the levy were fully heard and
considered by this Council, and all oral statements and all written protests or
communications were duly heard, considered and overruled, and this Council
thereby acquired jurisdiction to order the levy and the confirmation of the diagram
Resolution #5 -C
6 -20 -06
and assessment prepared by and made a part of the Engineer's Report to pay the
costs and expenses thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that:
1. The property owners owning more than fifty percent (50 %) of the
area of assessable lands within the District had not, at the conclusion of the
hearing, filed written protests against the proposed levy, as a whole or as to any
part thereof, or against the District or the extent thereof to be assessed for the
costs and expenses of the levy as a whole, or as to any part thereof, or against the
Engineer of Work's estimate of costs and expenses, in whole or in part, or against
the maps and description, in whole or in part, or against the diagram or the
assessment to pay for the costs and expenses thereof, in whole or in part.
2. The public interest, convenience and necessity require that the levy
be made.
3. The District benefited by the improvements is to be assessed for said
costs for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are situated in the City of Alameda,
California, the exterior boundaries thereof, are as shown by a map thereof filed in
the office of the City Clerk, which map is made a part hereof by reference thereto.
4. That said district be, and is hereby designated as "City of Alameda
Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01" by which name it shall hereafter be
referred to in all subsequent proceedings, including proceedings for the levy and
collection of assessments.
5. The Engineer's Report as a whole and each part thereof, to whit:
(a) the Engineer of Work's estimate of the itemized and total
costs and expenses of maintaining the improvements and of the incidental
expenses in connection therewith;
(b) the diagram showing the assessment district, plans and
specification for the improvements to be maintained and the boundaries
and dimensions of the respective Tots and parcels of land within the District;
and
(c) the assessment of the total amount of the cost and expenses
of the proposed maintenance of the improvements upon the several lots or
parcels of land in the District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be
received by such lots and parcels, respectively, from said improvements,
including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of the
expenses incidental thereto, is finally approved and confirmed.
6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, including the
Engineer's Report, offered and received at the hearing, this Council expressly finds
and determines (a) that each of the several Tots and parcels of land will be
specially benefited by the maintenance of the improvements at least in the
amount, if not more than the amount, of the assessment apportioned against the
lots and parcels of land, respectively, and (b) that there is substantial evidence to
support, and the weight of the evidence preponderates in favor of, the aforesaid
findings and determination as to special benefits.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, but in no event later than the
third Monday in August following such adoption, the City Clerk shall file a certified
copy of the diagram and assessment and a certified copy of this resolution with the
Auditor of the County of Alameda. Upon such filing, the County Auditor shall enter
on the County assessment roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of
assessment thereupon as shown in the assessment roll opposite each lot or parcel
of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown in the assessment. The
assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as
County taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and
enforcement of County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the
assessments. After collection by the County of Alameda, the net amount of the
assessments, after deduction of any compensation due the County for collection,
shall be paid to the Director of Finance of this City.
8. Upon receipt of moneys representing assessments collected by the
County, the Director of Finance of this City of Alameda shall deposit the moneys in
the City Treasury to the credit of an improvement fund, which improvement fund
the Director of Finance of this City is hereby directed to establish under the
distinctive designation of the District. Moneys in the improvement fund shall be
expended upon for the maintenance of the improvements.
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 20th day of June, 2006, by the following vote to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this 20th day of June 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 20, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Collection of Delinquent
Integrated Waste Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills
BACKGROUND
The State Public Resources Code and Health and Safety Code requires proper disposal of all refuse
and discarded material. To maintain these required public health standards, the City of Alameda's
Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance requires all residential and commercial properties to receive
and pay for Integrated Waste Management (IWM) services, as provided by the City's Franchise
Hauler, Alameda County Industries (ACI). Collection services may be paid by the property owner or
a tenant; however, since 1996, the City has held property owners responsible for delinquent accounts
that are unpaid by their tenant.
In accordance with Chapter XXI, Solid Waste and Recycling, of the Alameda Municipal Code
(AMC) and the Franchise Agreement between the City of Alameda and Alameda County Industries
(ACI), ACI may assign delinquent integrated waste management (IWM) accounts to the City for
collection through the property tax. Prior to assigning their rights to the City, ACI is obligated to
make at least four attempts to collect the delinquent accounts. The City Council is required to hold a
public hearing prior to collecting through the property tax bills. On June 6, 2006, the City Council
set June 20, 2006 as the date for this public hearing.
DISCUSSION
On April 24, 2006, ACI assigned a list of 52 delinquent IWM accounts to the City for collection. In
accordance with the AMC, the City sent letters to each assigned account requesting immediate
payment of the delinquent account by 5:00 p.m., June 20, 2006, and stating that if payment was not
promptly received, the City would consider collecting delinquent accounts by means of the property
tax bills at a public hearing that evening. A cover sheet stating "Important Notice" and providing
contact information was included with each letter, and was written in the six languages most
commonly spoken within the City. Last year, ACI assigned 73 accounts to the City. There are 12
customers that are included on both last year's and this year's list. None of the property owners on
this year's list receives a senior or low income discount.
The City is obligated to pay ACI for all delinquent accounts. Accounts that remain delinquent and
are not approved for collection through the property tax bills are considered "bad debt" and will be
included in the next rate review (commencing July 1, 2007), potentially resulting in an increase in
the rates. Re: Public Hearing 5 -D
6 -20 -06
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
June 20, 2006
With adoption of the Resolution by the City Council, delinquent charges shall constitute a lien
against the property. The total sum of unpaid delinquent charges consisting of the unpaid charges,
penalties, simple interest, and any fees to recover staff costs will be forwarded to the County Auditor
and placed on the property tax bills.
The 52 delinquent accounts include 20 rental unit properties, 28 single - family residences, 2 multi-
family services and 2 commercial/business accounts. The total amount due for this group of non -
paid accounts, not including Collection Fees, is $25,133.06. ACI has provided all requisite
documentation so the City Council may conduct the public hearing. A list of delinquent accounts
and corresponding properties is attached and also on file in the City Clerk's Office.
Since 1996, the City has held property owners responsible for delinquent accounts that are unpaid by
their tenant. There are 22 accounts associated with rental unit properties that are delinquent. In each
case, the property owner was directly notified by ACI when the tenant became delinquent after 60
days and was specifically advised that they are ultimately responsible for payment of the IWM
account.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City receives a 10% franchise fee from ACI. This revenue is deposited in the General Fund.
Unpaid IWM fees, therefore, result in a loss in General Fund revenues. The total amount due for this
group of non -paid accounts, not including City fees, is $25,133.06. The loss in General Fund
revenue is $2,513.30.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. The City's Integrated Waste
Management Program is consistent with the General Plan Health & Safety Element Guiding Policy
8.4.k.
RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing and adopt the resolution authorizing collection of delinquent Integrated
Waste Management accounts by means of the property tax bills.
Respectfull submitted, Prepared by,
d/C)a, - - - M OA ka:10 I
atthew T. Naclerio Maria DiMeglio
Public Works Director Program Specialist iI
MTN:MD:gc
Attachment
G:\ pubworks\ pwadmin\ COUNCIU2006 \062006\hearingwaste.doc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
>
—
WHO WE BILLED
ORIGINALLY
BUSINESS 'OWNER
MULTI- FAMILYIOWNER
zzw
0
OWNER
GARD DONALD (tenant)
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
SHEILA RTACH (tenant)
GARDNER, THOMAS (tenant)
DORSEY, JOHNNIE MAE (tenant)
KEVIN JOHNSON (tenant)
CLOVER, KNIEQUELL (tenant)
ROSS, LYLA (tenant)
OWNER
a
u
w
z
z
a
0
a
zwz¢
0
OWNER - -- - °-
SINATO. CRYSTAL. (tenant)
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
ALLEN ARTHUR (tenant)
OWNER
CABRERA, PETRA (tenant)
OWNER
OWNER
ON
OWNER
RICHARD T GOMEZ (tenant)
CAMILLE B WELPTON (tenant)
OWNER
JEFFERSON, REGINA (tenant)
OWNER
ALLAN BROWN (tenant)
OWNER
MEDCALFE, TRACEY (tenant)
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
PHUNG, KIEN P. (tenant)
x
PLEX
PLEX
PLEX
PLEX
PLEX
PLEX
xx
PLEX
PLEX
PLEX
PLEX
PLEX
PLEX
PLEX
PLEX
PLEX
PLEX
PLEX
SINGLE FAMIL')
ww
ww
��
SINGLE FAMILS
SINGLE FAMILI
w
w
SINGLE FAMILI
SINGLE FAMILS
SINGLE FAMIL7
SINGLE FAMIL`
SINGLE FAMIL``yyII
SINGLE FAMILS�
SINGLE FAMILS
SINGLE FAMIL
SINGLE FAMILS
SINGLE FAMILS
SINGLE FAMILS
SINGLE FAMILS
SINGLE FAMILS
SINGLE FAMIL)
SINGLE FAMILS
SINGLE FAMILS
SINGLE FAMILS
SINGLE FAMILS 1
SINGLE FAMILS
SINGLE FAMILS
SINGLE FAMILSI
A F I G I H I 1 I N I 0 I P I Q I R I s I T
000
a:aaaaaaaaaaaxaaaaxaa
a 'a
<a¢aa¢aa¢a<
U 0
U U
U U
U U
U V
<a<¢¢
U U U 0
U U
<¢
PWWWWW
0 0
aa¢¢a¢<aa¢
0 0000000000000000000000o
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
<¢aaa
<<¢<a<¢¢a<¢<
¢aaa<¢aaaa¢<a¢¢5465<a
aaaa¢a¢a
<65aa
<<aa<¢¢¢aa
<a¢¢¢
0
'
- 45
Q N
67 O,
, N
O
M,
, N
1
O O
O
,
C
, N
, O
N O N ,
O O
O O
,-.M
- N
O ,
N
N
h
M
O,
h O
M b
N N
N O,
M
N O
M
M M
O,
r N
b-
O O
N h rb
M N N v1
N N
N
N O O
N
- N N
O r M
O\ g r M
,, O,
a N vR O__
f
b M■
b
O, O
0
¢ 0
0 0
U U U
U 0
O D
U U
U 0 0
0 0
0 0
V O
U W
U iJ
0 0
0 U
U U
(..1 U
U U (.1 U
U U (.% U
U i, U
a
A
aw<aaaa¢
¢.<aaa¢a
aaaa
A A
a<¢¢a
A A
<P
A A „;
<a
A
¢¢zz
as
<ati
A,
za¢a¢¢
U
0<<<<<
ifl
cnaaaa¢
A A A A
<<a
A
¢aaa
A A
¢aa¢¢
a.aaaa
a <aaa�a<aa¢w¢aa
A 12 1
A
<‹‹‹‹
A A
¢<¢a¢za¢a<a<¢¢
<.
A A
<.
A¢¢
apwaaaa
¢¢a¢¢¢aaµµ"11a¢¢a¢
A A
A A
A A A A
.J<<
z A AAA
a¢ <¢a¢
<.<<.
A
<
OWNER ADDRESS
11813 PARK ST
P.O. BOX 3716
2 MCMURTY CT
2525 EAGLE AVE
2040 ENCINAL AVE
2121 ENCINAL AVE
1514 MINTURN ST
1661 FOOTHILL PARK CI:
1038 RICH ST
6 SHANNON CIRCLE
1038 HIGH ST
0
0
O
0.
2341 CLIPPER LANE
905 TAYLOR AVE C
1414 COURT ST
1611 WALNUT ST A
1611 WALNUT ST A
1038 HIGH ST
1038 HIGH ST
147 BANISTER
49 BAY PARK TERRACE
3275 BRIGGS AVE
779 BUENA VISTA AVE '
1594 BUENA VISTA AVE
1722 BUENA VISTA AVE
1119 CAMINO DEL VALL
849 CEDAR ST
227 CENTRAL AVE
1001 CENTRAL AVE
1823 CENTRAL AVE
1239 COLLEGE
24199 APPALOOSA WAY
1538 FOUNTAIN
630 HAIGHT AVE
138 MAITLAND DR
1816 MINTURN ST
1809 NINTH ST
134 OAK PARK
836 PACIFIC AVE
392 POST
09195 SANTA DOMINGO
1408 SAN JOSE AVE
5 SHANNON
1505 SIXTH ST
1512 UNION ST
1712 WASHINGTON ST
5 WHIMBREL
OWNER
THORNTON, JOHN P.
CORTEZ, ANTHONY
1400 EVERETT LCC
MILLER, ERIK
CURRAN, DANIEL
MACDONNELL, ELEANOR
WATTS, SHERYL
STONE, TERRY
SARASPI, MARCIANO
WILLIAMS, STUART
HEIRS OF HELEN ARMSTI
BRADFOPO, BAS0N
GUTLEBEN, VIOLET
LIENG, LYNN
JACOPETTI, LOUIS
SKILLING, SHAWNA
SKILLING, SHAWNA
WILLIAMS, STUART S.
CHUNG, KAREN L
FIELDING, FRED
GOMEZ, ELBIA
GHALON, PARAMJEET
PENA, NAPOLEAN T
IIINTON, MICHAEL
SANCHEZ, CARMEN
RAMIREZ, NICKOLAS
BRADAS, LOUIS R
LIU, CYNTHIA
ARADA, CARL
GOMEZ, GENERO
BLAKEMORE, CAMILLE B
ANDERSON, COLLEEN
VARGAS, EARL
VARGAS, RICHARD P
LOUGH, PATRICK
BURESH, HELEN
AGADIER, ALBERT
STANG, JEAN L
MARTINEZ, RAY
GREEN, TSUIAKO
SARASPI, LISA D.
RODRIGUEZ, DANA R
EARLYWINE, RAYMOND
CLARK, JOHN W.
YU, CHEUK
SERVICE ADDRESS
'PARK ST> 01813
SAN ANTONIO AVE> 01421
CEDAR ST> 00840 -00842
MORTON ST> 01509
BUENA VISTA AVE> 01715
BUENA VISTA AVE> 01731 A
CENTRAL AVE> 02431 A
EAGLE AVE> 02525
ENCINAL AVE> 02040 B
ENCINAL AVE> 02121
MINTURN ST> 01514
OAK ST> 01700
OAK ST> 01707
PACIFIC AVE> 00541 FR
PACIFIC AVE> 02269
PARK AVE> 01100
Pa n
STANFORD ST> 01919 B
TAYLOR AVE> 00905
WALNUT ST> 01422 _
WALNUT ST> 01611
WALNUT ST> 01611 A
WASHINGTON ST> 03204 LO
WASHINGTON ST> 03206
BANNISTER WAY> 00147
BAY PARK TERRACE> 00125
BRIGGS AVE> 03275
BUENA VISTA AVE> 00779
BUENA VISTA AVE> 01594
BUENA VISTA AVE> 01722
CAMINO DEL VALLE> 01 1 19
CEDAR ST> 00849
CENTRAL AVE> 00227
CENTRAL AVE> 01001
CENTRAL AVE> 01823
COLLEGE> 01239
COURAGEOUS CT> 00012
FOUNTAIN> 01538
HAIGHT AVE> 00630
MAITLAND DR> 00138
MINTURN ST> 01816
NINTH ST> 01809
OAK PARK> 00134
PACIFIC AVE> 00836
POST> 00992
RAVENS COVE> 03258
SAN JOSE AVE> 01408
SHANNON> 00006
SIXTH ST> 01505
UNION ST> 01512
WASHINGTON ST> 02712
WHIMBREL> 00005
31 APN NUMBER
071-0198-011
072 - 0335- 003 -03
074-1225-002
072 0316 016
072-0295-007
072 - 0294 -010
070 - 0187 -009
070 - 0166 -017
071- 0245 -037
071- 0237 -019
072 - 0301 -019
071- 0200 -022
071 0221 005
074 - 0436 -006
071 - 0221 -005
070 - 0182 -050
07- 1--0207 -006
071- 0256- 008 -02
073 - 0391 -046
071- 0218 -020
071 - 0233 -004
071- 0233 -004
069 - 0036 -001
069 - 0036 -001
074 - 1345 -012
074 - 1336 -188
069 - 0085 - 011 -02
073 - 0412 -019
072- 0329 -029
1072- 0297 -001
1074 1068 023
074 - 1230 -059
074 - 0468 -004
073 - 0392 -017
071- 0277 -016
069 - 0134 -005
074 - 1341 -045
069- 0097 -027
074 - 0428 -028
074 -1036 -011
072 - 0294 - 015 -01
073 - 0410 -050
074-1336-045
073 - 0407 -031
069 - 0019- 009 -01
074 - 0955 -025
072- 0337 -002
074 - 1326 -112
074 - 0441 -010
071 - 0279 -015
070 - 0146 -006
074 - 1352 -037
o r r r
T c1,Q
e W
Q Q , r
00 00 0\ 6
M M
,,
r r o r
Q 6 66
W al
$44.14
$208.41
$139.91
STOPPED
S69.47
$69.47
$69.47
SERVICE
569.47
$69.47
$69.471
$69.47
569.47
569.47
$69.47
$69.47
$69.47
STOPPED
569.47
$69.47
$69.47
$69.47
$69.47
$69.47
569.47
$37.50
$69.47
$69.47
569.47
$69.47
$69.47
$69.47
$69.47
$44.14
569.47
o ° 5061., M ∎M
o vino oco M
Q ooh o
5 W sv vv v1w W Z4 Z;
∎- �,N,054.,:,,- 01W,Q . m,W=r M, ^'QmN Q Q Q Q Q Q O,. , Ol vbi m.bn
-rn Q ...mvbi Q
vi.: v rorio:. -.- a 'vvn- ,,..: rr". N,ri -� 7 ...:� v . v .o
-o rnM 1010000 I'^i avlo 0 0 -0 0000045 No MO M n 0
65 aV Nw w,- w 1.a a ZQV w'a. c`^s w ww w Z4 w w Z4 ss»4 u9 a wQ a Z4 Z4 w w 69 W 669 65 61 w ss
W
PLEX
187199
187983
1884685
2251886
4490601
508668
2292325
5177486
Ann=a
rn� °e �n
rnoQQ
vb1 V O W r V -
r Q b r O O
b
yAI, Qp� �ryry�.b
b N -
Q Q
r�naa Q oom- mNOaQa}oM
M 0 �. Ut b N O q vQi OOi C h oo N 01 N
O O .- .. Q .-. 0 V
N
A
<
N
Vv.1.n.01„,m
O
r-
o-Nnernz∎Domo,Nngn:O∎Domo
'- r,.rr.. o-NNNNNNNNNN)
M17:h:7nm
NngnmNDomo:
:n:hvvvvvvvagvnnnnnnnnnn:o
nl- n:o�aDmo,— ncrn:o∎mao
:o
n
:fl:I,
O
_O
y Occ
ca + 1h
a.
.o
CL
CL
a
W
Z
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT INTEGRATED WASTE
MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS BY MEANS OF THE PROPERTY TAX BILLS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code subsection 21 -20.6b
(Ordinance #2886, Solid Waste and Recycling, Failure to Pay) which states that the
amount of charges, penalty, and interest imposed is assessed against the property
and, if not paid when due, shall constitute an assessment against the property and
shall be a lien against the property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code subsection 3 -58.16 (Notice of
Hearing on Lien), the Public Works Director shall file with the Acting City Manager a
written notice of those persons on whom the City will file liens; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of such notice, the Acting City Manager shall present
same to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council shall hold a public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Alameda and pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code subsections 21- 20.6b:
1. The City's Franchise Hauler, Alameda County Industries (ACI), has submitted a
list of delinquent accounts and corresponding properties. ACI has established
that each delinquent account is at least 60 days late in payment.
2. ACI has established that it sought collection for one year from the invoice date
and has made at least four efforts to collect on the delinquent account.
3. On April 24, 2006, ACI assigned its right to the unpaid accounts to the City in
writing.
4. City staff provided Council with a report and filed said report with the City Clerk
listing each property and the amount due in unpaid charges, plus any penalties,
interest, and other collection fees.
5. On May 11, 2006 and June 5, 2006, the City Clerk mailed a letter to each
property owner requesting payment and stating that if payment was not
received by 5 p.m. on June 20, 2006, the City will hold a public hearing at 7:30
p.m. in City Council Chambers to consider placing a lien on the property in
order to collect the delinquent amount with the property tax bill.
6. On June 2, 2006, the City Clerk published Notice of the filing of the report as
well as the time, date and place for the public hearing to be held on June 20,
2006.
7. On June 20, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing and confirmed the
staff report and directed the Clerk to forward to the County Auditor the total sum
of unpaid delinquent charges including any penalties, interest and other
collection fees.
Resolution #5 -D
6 -20 -06
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 20th day of June 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 20th day of June 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Note: Letter has been typed as written (attached) by its author.
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is concerning the account #508668 at 2121 Encincal Ave, Alameda,
California.
The property at 2121 Encinal Avenue is listed as a duplex and was so used for fifteen
years. The house was purchased in 1955 but has been used as a single dwelling since 1970.
I am requesting that I be billed for a single home instead of a duplex.
Yours truly,
Eleanor MacDonnell
Re: Agenda Item #5 -D
06 -20 -06
1
‘\,
1400 K STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PH: (916) 658 -8200
Fx: (916) 658 -8240
June 7, 2006
TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks
_, L OLFECALIFORNIEA
RE: Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for 2006 League
Annual Conference — September 6 -9, San Diego
• 1.. r
CITIES
WWW.CACITIES.ORG
Please review this memo carefully, as new procedures have been adopted regarding
designation of voting delegates and alternates and voting at the Annual Conference.
The League's 2006 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 6 -9 in San Diego. An
important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting, scheduled for Saturday
morning, September 9. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on
resolutions that establish League policy.
In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting your city council must designate a voting
delegate and may designate a voting delegate alternate.
Please complete the attached voting delegate form and return it to the League's office no
later than August 15 so that voting delegate /alternate records may be established prior to
the conference. At the conference, voting delegate forms may be returned to the Voting
Delegate desk located in the conference registration area.
Please note the following procedures that are intended to ensure the integrity of the voting
process at the Annual Business Meeting.
• Action by Council Required. Consistent with League bylaws, a city's voting delegate
and alternate must be designated by the city council. When completing the attached
voting delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the
council action taken, or, have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the
names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that designating the
voting delegate and alternate must be done by city council action and cannot be
accomplished by individual action of the mayor alone.
• Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternate must be
registered to attend the conference. At least one must be present at the Business Meeting
and in possession of voting card in order to cast a vote.
• Transferring Voting Card to Non - Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting
card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternate, but only
between the voting delegate and alternate. If the voting delegate and alternate find
themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card
to another city official.
-over -
Council Communication #7 -A
6 -20 -06
LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
Annual Conference Voting Procedures
2006 Annual Conference
1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to
League policy.
2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city
council designates a voting delegate and an alternate; these individuals are identified in the
Voting Delegate Form provided to the League Credentials Committee.
3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternate, may pick
up the city's voting card at the voting card desk in the conference registration area.
4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals registered and with
signatures on file with the Credentials Committee may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.
5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's
voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee.
6. New Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the
voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a
special stamp on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the
voting delegate and alternate wish to sit together, both should sign in at the Voting Delegate
desk and obtain the special stamps on their badges.
7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the
validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the
Business Meeting.
LEA.uGUE
CITIES
CITY:
2006 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
VOTING DELEGATE /ALTERNATE FORM
Please complete this form and return it to the League office by August 15, 2006. Forms not
sent by this deadline may be returned to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual
Conference Registration Area.
In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, voting delegates and alternates must be
designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As
an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects
the action taken by the council.
Please note: At this year's conference, voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a
separate area at the Annual Business Meeting. Admission to this special area will be limited to
individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special stamp on their
conference badge. If your city's voting delegate and alternate wish to sit together at the Business
Meeting, they are both encouraged to register at the Voting Desk in order to obtain the
identifying stamp that will admit them to the special voting area.
1. VOTING DELEGATE 2. VOTING DELEGATE ALTERNATE
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
ATTEST (I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to
designate the voting delegate and alternate.)
Name: Phone:
Title: Date:
Please complete and return by August 15 to:
League of California Cities
ATTN: Debbie Kinsey FAX: (916) 658 -8240
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
AC2006 V otingDelegateLetter.doc
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD
TWO VACANCIES
Lydia L. Chan
Karen Green
Dr. Jerome D. Healy
Linda M. McHugh
Roberto Rocha, Incumbent
Michael E. Soderberg
Re: Agenda Item #7 -B
06 -20 -06
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
TWO VACANCIES
DuWayne A. Crone
Paulina Kirola
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
ONE VACANCIES
Real Estate /Land Development Seat
Arshad A. Ahmed
Michael R. Fassler
Claire Candace Fitzgerald
Frederic F. Hollister
Janet W. Iverson
Kirk H. Knight
William C. Russell
Brad C. Shook
Karen M. Stefonek
Jay G. Townley
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
TWO VACANCIES
Community -at -large Seat and Contractor Seat
Community -at -large
Claire Candace Fitzgerald X
Mark L. Irons
Thomas H. Jasper X
Judith A. Lynch, Incumbent X
Contractor
X
X
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HOUSING AND BUILDING CODE HEARING AND APPEALS BOARD
TWO VACANCIES
Jeff Cambra, Incumbent
Jacob M. Chapman
Harold J. Holmes
Ronald H. Kahn
David A. Solis
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HOUSING COMMISSION
THREE VACANCIES
Billie Trujillo, Incumbent
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
LIBRARY BOARD
ONE VACANCY
Karen A. Butter, Incumbent
Claire Candace Fitzgerald
Rebacca A. Kozak
Thomas G. Lewellyn
Jessica Lindsey
Dian McPherson
Gail A. Wetzork
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
PLANNING BOARD
TWO VACANCIES
Robert A. Bonta
Jeff Cambra
Jacob M. Chapman
Todd E. Clapp
Anne Cook, Incumbent
Andrew J. Cunningham, Incumbent
Gregg D. deHaan
Jonas H. Dupuich
Dian McPherson
Roderick L. Smith II
Normajean C. Washingtonpalmer
Noel Wise
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
ONE VACANCY
Engineer Seat
Ann McCormick, Incumbent
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
ONE VACANCY
Dr. Jerry B. Healy
Reginald L. James
Richard A. Lagesse
Linda J. Marcello
Henry B. Villareal
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
THREE VACANCIES
Michael J. Kreuger, Incumbent
Paul F. Mahler
Robert L. McFarland, Incumbent
Elizabeth Tuckwell
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 6, 2006- -7:31 P.M.
Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore convened the Special
Joint Meeting at 9:41 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers, Board Members,
Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
and Matarrese 4.
Absent: Mayor /Chair Johnson - 1.
MINUTES
(06- CC /06- CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement
Commission (CIC) Meeting, and the Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, CIC and Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners Meeting held on May 16, 2006. Approved.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor /Chair Johnson -
1.]
AGENDA ITEM
(06- CC /06- CIC) Discussion of City Attorney /General Counsel
Legal Services and staffing options. Continued.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of
continuing the item.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor /Chair
Johnson - 1.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Vice Mayor /Board
Member /Commissioner Gilmore adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at
9:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
June 6, 2006
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 20, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita
City Manager
RE: Discussion of Fiscal Year 2006 -2007 and 2007 -2008 Citywide Budget and
adoption of Resolutions Approving Interim Expenditures Prior to Adoption of
the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2006 -2007
BACKGROUND
State law requires the adoption of an annual budget. In order to have authorization for
expenditure of funds until adoption of the budget, it is necessary to have interim
authorization resolutions of the City, Community Improvement Commission and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The City Council received and reviewed the 2 -year financial plan. Based upon detailed
responses provided earlier and any further direction to the City Manager provided at
this meeting, a final budget will be presented for adoption at the July 5, 2006 joint
meeting of the Council, Commission and Authority Board.
In the interim, the attached resolutions are required to be adopted to provide spending
authorization in that interim period.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed resolution would authorize payment of city obligations prior to the
adoption of the 2006 -07 budget.
Re: Resos 1
Special Joint Meeting
6 -20 -06
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
Honorable Chair and Commission Members
Honorable Chair and ARRA Members
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolutions approving interim expenditures.
Respectfully submitted
elle -Ann yer
Chief Financial Officer
JAB:di
June 20, 2006
Page 2
Approved as to Fo
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING INTERIM EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF
THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -2007
WHEREAS, State law requires that the City of Alameda adopt an annual
w budget representing a financial plan for conducting the affairs of the City of
Z Alameda for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006 and ending June 30, 2007;
and
WHEREAS, there will be submitted to the City Council at the meeting of
July 5, 2006, the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for fiscal year
2006 -07; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Operating Budget and Capital Improvements
for Fiscal Year 2006 -07 includes several expenditures prior to the adoption of
the City of Alameda Operating Budget and Capital Improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda hereby approves interim expenditures of the City of Alameda prior
to the approval of the City of Alameda Operating Budget and Capital
Improvements for Fiscal Year 2006 -07 at the levels set by the City Operating
and Capital Improvement Budget for 2005 -06 to allow payment of routine
expenses including payroll and vendor expenses at prior year's level.
Resolution #1 (CC)
Joint CC, ARRA, CIC Meeting
6 -20 -06
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
E
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING INTERIM EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF
THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -2007
J
Cf) WHEREAS, State law requires that the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority adopt an annual budget representing a financial plan
for conducting the affairs of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006 and ending June 30, 2007; and
2
WHEREAS, there will be submitted to the Alameda Reuse and
Recevelopment Authority at a future meeting the Operating Budget and Capital
Improvements for fiscal year 2006 -07; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Operating Budget and Capital Improvements
for Fiscal Year 2006 -07 includes several expenditures prior to the adoption of
the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Operating Budget and
Capital Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority hereby approves interim expenditures of the Alameda
Reuse and Revevelopment Authority prior to the approval of the Operating
Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal Year 2006 -07 at the levels set by
the City Operating and Capital Improvement Budget for 2005 -06 to allow
payment of routine expenses including payroll and vendor expenses at prior
year's level.
Resolution #1 (ARRA)
Joint CC, ARRA, CIC Meeting
6 -20 -06
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority 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 Authority this day of , 2006.
Irma Frankel, Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING INTERIM EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF
THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -2007
WHEREAS, State law requires that the Community Improvement
t j Commission of the City of Alameda adopt an annual budget representing a
�financial plan for conducting the affairs of the Community Improvement
Commission for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006 and ending June 30,
�` 2007; and
WHEREAS, there will be submitted to the Community Improvement
Commission at a future meeting the Operating Budget and Capital
Improvements for fiscal year 2006 -07; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Operating Budget and Capital Improvements
for Fiscal Year 2006 -07 includes several expenditures prior to the adoption of
the Community Improvement Commission Operating Budget and Capital
Improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community
Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda hereby approves interim
expenditures of the Community Improvement Commission prior to the approval
of the Community Improvement Commission Operating Budget and Capital
Improvements for Fiscal Year 2006 -07 at the levels set by the City Operating
and Capital Improvement Budget for 2005 -06 to allow payment of routine
expenses including payroll and vendor expenses at prior year's level.
Resolution #1 (CIC)
Joint CC, ARRA, CIC Meeting
6 -20 -06
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission
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 Commission this day of , 2006.
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Community Improvement Commission
vv 1 ■ vi AL.111YIGVH
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 2, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Chair and Members of Community Improvement Commission
Chair and Members of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Carol A. Korade
City Attorney /General Counsel
Re: Legal Services Provided by City Attorney and
General Counsel and Discussion of Staffing Options
Background
Alamede's legal needs are unique among the 438 cities In California. It is the only city
under 100,000 population, in which ail of the following are true:
• It has a closed military base in its jurisdiction for disposition and redevelopment
• It has a Housing Authority, providing affordable housing opportunities _
• It has an active redevelopment agency, with ongoing development projects
• It owns a public utility company2
• It has lands held in the Tidelands Trust for the public interest
• It owns a municipal (public) golf course
• It has a full- service police, fire and paramedic service
The City's complex legal needs are provided by and through the City Attorneys In this
capacity, the City Attorney's Office provides over 10,000 formal and informal legal
opinions, contracts, transactional work and prepares all the legislation for each
legislative body each year. The City Attorney defends the City entities against claims
and lawsuits and initiates litigation on behalf of the City entities when directed to do so
by the legislative body. The City receives an average of 126 claims a year and has
averaged 16 active litigation cases per year for the past 15 years. The City is self -
insured for all claims and lawsuits and workers' compensation matters. Since 1997,
with the closure of the Naval Air Station Alameda, expansion of AP &T, and increased
City redevelopment, the City's demand for legal services has more than doubled.
1 There are only nine other cities in the state, including, San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Vallejo,
Long Beach, Oxnard and Fairfield, which Include most of these criteria.
2 Alameda is the only city in California which provides electric, Internet and cable television services to its citizens.
3 In addition to serving as legal advisor to the City Council, 26 City Boards, Commissions and Committees, the City Manager and
City's Clerk's Offices and 13 City Departments, the City Attorney is also General Counsel to Alameda Power & Telecom, Community
Improvement Commission ( "C1C "), Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ( "ARRA ") and the Housing Authority.
No changes to report. Report 2
Held over from 6/6/06
City Council meeting. Special Joint Meeting
6 -20 -06
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Members of Community Improvement Commission
Members of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 2, 2006
Page 2
Current Organizational Model and Staffing Pattern for City Attorney's Office
The present composition of the City Attorney's Office is the City Attorney plus four full -
time in -house assistants and /or deputies, supplemented with various outside counsel
support. Even with City Attorney staffing of five full -time attorneys, the workload of each
attorney has increased more than 30% since 1997, due to the increased demand for
legal services. All in -house attomeys work 40 -50 hours each week. The current b.udget
for the five attorney staff of the City Attorney's Office is $894,170 (including cost of
benefits). This budget reflects an average hourly rate of $76.00 (which includes the
cost of benefits) based on a 45 hour work week for the five full -time municipal attorney
staff.' The City Attorney staff supervises the work of all outside counsel and no staff
attorney has Tess than 10 years experience. By comparison, the average hourly rate of
outside counsel is $276—over three and 1/2 times more expensive than a staff attorneys
The organizational model of permanent in -house attorney staffing, supplemented by
discrete outside counsel services, is a model which is used by many cities. Attachment
1, a comparison of East Bay city attorney costs and staffing patterns, reflects that
Alameda's City Attorney budget is on par with .comparable cities.
In addition to the City Attorney's in -house staffing, the City Attorney has access to an
outside counsel budget for the various City entities it represents. The outside counsel
budgets function Tike a reserve or "contingency fund for each entity, and is used to fund
litigation and discrete areas of transactional expertise. Attachment 2 summarizes the
City's current outside counsel budgets, and also shows expenditures to date. The
existing outside counsel budgets were approved for FY 05/06 by the legislative body, as
recommended by the City Manager. The City Council and other legislative bodies also
adopted procedures and limitations on the City Attorney's expenditures from all outside
counsel budgets, the imposition of monthly financial reporting requirements and
restrictions on use of outside counsel from an outside counsel panel, chosen through an
RFQ process. The outside counsel budgets for the City, ARRA and the Housing
Authority have remained relatively constant for 10 -15 years. Historically, the City
Attorney's Office has expended less than 88% of its outside counsel funds, with an
average annual cost savings of more than 12 %.
With my departure on June 30, 2006, the City Attorney's Office will be operating with
only two of its budgeted attorney positions,
which
loss of two staff attorneys last month), and 28 % of its FY 04/05 professio al staff (loss
of two staff attorneys plus a laid off Management Analyst). Five in -house attorneys
have been working at least 45 hours per week in order to meet the legal demands of the
4 Based upon a 36 hour work week, the average hourly rate is $95 (includes cost of benefits).
5 Based on average of hourly rates of outside legal services panel established in December 2005, through RFQ process.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Members of Community Improvement Commission
Members of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 2, 2006
Page 3
City (approximately 1,000 total working hours a month each month). With
only
attorneys in place, the City would suffer a loss of over 600 working hours a month two
provide necessary legal services. It is not possible for the City Attorney's Office to
provide necessary legal services with only an Acting City Attorney and sta
one o
attorney starting July 1. Additionally, two in -house attorneys are insuffici ff
supervise this level of back -fill work by outside counsel. ent to
In order to avoid the Toss of significant legal services on July 1St, We are currently eligible lists from which to choose replacement of two vacant staff attorney
positions, subject to Council direction on the staffing options.• As part of the budget
attorney
process for FY 06/07, the City Attorney's office analyzed the legal needs of the City
based on input from the 13 City Departments and the City Manager's Office Y
the projects anticipated for the upcoming fiscal year. This information hasardien
previously provided to the Council.?
been
Staffin O tions for the Ci Attome 's Office
Attachment 3 is a chart reflecting four staffing options for the City Attorney's Offic
a comparison of function and cost for each Option summarized below: e, with
Option One, is the existing staffing pattern of one City Attorney and four staff attor
The total budgeted personnel costs for this option is $894,1470. Option One • Heys.
retaining the outside counsel budgets at their existing reserve levels, as shown ein
Attachment 2. Option One provides sufficient staffing to:
• Provide experienced and high level in -house attorney work at a
($76 /hour) good value
• Provide necessary supervision to outside counsel litigation and transactional
work to continue to keep outside counsel costs controlled
• Maintain synergy between City departments through in -house attorne
consistency and institutional knowledge Y
• Provide maximum risk shifting and risk avoidance through proactive legal work
6 Recruitment is likely to be made more difficult due to a professional perception of instability in the City Attorneys Office, with my
departure on June 30th and lack of a permanent City Attomey appointment (It is important for professional personnel to know who
their boss will be, when deciding on a career move which will. include a period of probationary employment.)
7 The past few years have seen an unprecedented request for legal services outside the municipal area. A portion of these
include
the Navy negotiations/base transfer issues; litigation and transactional issues on the Bridgeside condemnation and transfer and
Alameda Theater, the new main library; legal support for growth of AP &T and significant litigation; ferry issues; the Alameda Beltline
litigation; Harbor Island Apartments litigation; Measure A Issues and litigation; transactional and tion services to
Navy transfer of the FM site and the Catellus development; environmental /remedlation issues, lifi name only a few complete the
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Members of Community Improvement Commission
Members of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 2, 2006
Page 4
Option Two shows a reduced attorney staff pattern of one City Attorney and three staff
attorneys. It is recommended that with the Option Two reduced attorney staffing, that
the remaining staff attorneys be high level and capable of complex legal work. This
Option shows a $143,298 or 16% salary/benefit savings over Option One. Outside
counsel budgets would be maintained at their existing reserve levels. Option Two
provides in -house attorney staffing to:
• Provide experienced and high level in -house attorney work at a good value
($76 /hour)
• Provide supervision to outside counsel litigation and transactional work, but
increase expenditures from outside counsel budget or limit legal services
• Maintain synergy between City Departments through in -house attorney
consistency and institutional knowledge
• Provide some risk shifting /risk avoidance, but less p roactive legal work and more
"triage" in approach
Option Three shows a reduced attorney staff pattern, plus the addition of a
Management Analyst. Management of claims and resulting litigation must be
coordinated with and supervised by the City Attorney's Office. In the FY 05/06 budget
cycle, the City Attorney's Office had to lay -off. a Management Analyst as part of an
overall budget cut of $330,000. "Option Three" is the same staffing
but includes restoring a full -time Management Analyst. .This Option shows a $32,965,
or 4% salary savings over Option One. Option Three compares with Option Two above,
but permits better risk shifting /risk avoidance and proactive legal work with
reinstatement of personnel to provide in -house claims management.
•
Option Four is the retention of existing attorney staff only —one City Attorney and two
staff attorneys, and providing the additional legal work required by the City, ARRA, CIC
and Housing Authority through the use of outside counsel resources. The existing
outside counsel budget would be insufficient to provide necessary legal services for this
Option, given the cost differential between in -house attomey staffing ($76 /hour average)
and outside counsel staffing ($276 /hour average). We are sensitive to the fact that
outside counsel costs have been a source of public discussion and that the City Council
has expressed a desire to keep these outside counsel costs controlled. Option Four is
the least cost effective and least efficient model:
• Provides a salary/benefit savings of approximately $331,577, but increases the
outside counsel budget by the same amount for no net cost savings
• Outside counsel costs are over 3 %Z times higher than in -house staffing, and
therefore, only 30% as efficient
• In house attorneys work at least 45 hours a week (equivalent to 35 "billable"
hours a week), with an annual billable rate of 1,820 hours each (times two
attorneys). At an average outside counsel billable rate of $276 times 3,640
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Members of Community Improvement Commission
Members of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 2, 2006
Page 5
hours, the potential cost of outside counsel to replace the work of two staff
attorneys is over $1,000,000; even if the outside counsel budget was enhanced
by the $331,557 salary savings of two unfilled attorney positions, there would still
be a deficit of over $600,000 in costs necessary to fund this option.
• Provides insufficient in -house attorney staffing to maintain synergy and legal
continuity between departments man City departments, such as affordable housing projects have implications for
Services, Housing Authority and Planning an Bu ld ng,bor development and
redevelopment projects between Development Services and Public Works)
• Provides insufficient in -house attorney staffing to supervise outside counsel work,
therefore likely to lead to error and inconsistency in the legal product
• Provides less access to legal support by departments, given the "pay as you go"
model of outside counsel services
• Increases costs by paying outside counsel to "learn Alameda" repeatedly (lack of
continuity)
• increases risks of litigation costs, where same outside counsel firm . providing
transactional advice also provides resulting litigation services
Fiscal Impact
There would be no fiscal impact by maintaining the current City Attorney staffing
pattern. This budget was approved in July 2005. A FY 06/07 budget based on the
current City Attorney staffing pattern will not result in any overall budget increase from
FY 05/06.
Option Two — reduced staffing pattern of one City Attorney and three staff attorneys.
The salary/benefit cost for this attorney staffing pattern is $750,880, which is a savings
of $143,290 in salary/benefits over the current budget.
Option Three—reduced staffing pattern of one City Attorney and three staff attorneys,
but restoring a Management Analyst. The salary/benefit cost for this staffing patterns is
$861,205, which is a savings of $32,965 in salary/benefits over the current budget.
Option Four — reduced staffing pattern of one City Attorney and two staff attorneys with
a corresponding increase in outside counsel budget to back -fill legal services _would
not result in any cost savings over FY 05/06 budget and could potentially, be more
expensive (up to an additional $600,000 in outside counsel costs, even with a transfer
of $331,557 in salary savings to the current outside counsel budget), due to the three -
to -one expense comparison of outside counsel /contract attorney costs vs. in -house
attorney costs.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Members of Community Improvement Commission
Members of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 2, 2006
Page 6
Recommendation
Option One is recommended as the optimum City Attorney staffing pattern;
• However, with greater risk assumption by the City, Options Three or Two
can be recommended, in increased order of risk assumption
• Option Four is not recommended, due to its high cost, inherent
inefficiencies and increased risk exposure
Attachment
Qkc@ 14111.L
Carol A. Korade
City Attorney /General Counsel
0
V
8
0
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
x
•
t
14
K
•
N
0
V
0
O
y
>4:
8
91 4
9 9
>4
V
8.
>4
8
•
F
A„
O
>4
x
x.
x
ae
N
y
8
o-
i
6
m -1 Q •.
J
SUMMARY OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL BUDGET
AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2006
Approved Maximum
Legal Fees /Costs
Legal Fees /Costs
Expenditure Paid thru
2/28/06
Remaining Available
Balance as of 2/28/06
City Legal* 1 $
465,000.00
AP&T Electric **
AP &T Telecom * **
ARRA * * **
HA * * ***
200,000.00
200,000.00
484,000.00
41,520.00
$ 1,390,520.00
$ 189,032.00 I $ 275,968.00
35,057.21
12,268.30
108,671.75
2,660.50
347,689.76
25%
$ 164,942.79
$ 187,731.70
$ 375,328.25
$ 38,859.50
1,042,830.24
75%
*City's Outside Legal budget funds City initiation of litigation and litigation defense and specialty
transactional work This budget has remained relatively constant for 15 years.
**AP &T Electric Outside Legal budget funds AP &T litigation and specialty transactional work pertaining
to electric utility distribution and regulation. This budget varies from year to year, depending on
projected project or litigation needs of the AP &T electric.
***AP &T Telecom Outside Legal budget funds AP &T litigation and specialty transactional work
pertaining to telecommunications. This budget varies from year to year, depending on projected
project or litigation needs of AP &T telecom.
* * * *ARRA Outside Legal budget funds ARRA litigation and specialty transactional work pertaining to
federal regulations (BRAC process), environmental remediation, negotiation of specialty environmental
insurance products and leasing /redevelopment. This budget has remained relatively constant for 10
years.
* * ** *Housing Authority Outside Legal budget funds Housing Authority litigation, such as unlawful
detainer actions and disputes with HUD. This budget has remained relatively constant for many years.
There is no CIC outside counsel legal budget reserve. Legal costs of various redevelopment projects
are part of the "project costs," largely funded by the project development (e.g., the Alameda Theater
project and litigation costs flowing from the Alameda Theater project.)
1
O . tlon 1
O ' tlon 2
Reduced Attorney Staffln
ACA 11
ACA II
DCA II
DCA 11
231,008
183,624
183,624
147,957
147,967
894,170
Savings
143,290
Option 3
Reduced Attorne Staffing/
Restored Risk Professional
O ' tion 4
Further Reduced Attorney Staffing
with Increased Outside Counsel Budget
ACA II
231,008
183,620
168,126
168,126
110,325
861,205
ACAII
Outside Counsel
231,008
183,620
168,126
Savings
32,965