2004-03-02 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 2, 2004 - - - 5:35 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, March 2, 2004, 5:35 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call.
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of cases: City of Oakland v. City of Alameda; and Asian
Health Services and Oakland Chinatown Chamber
of Commerce v. City of Alameda.
3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director and Craig Jory.
Employee Organizations: Alameda City Employee Association
(ACEA), Management and Confidential Employees Association
(MCEA), Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA), Alameda
Police Managers Association (APMA), Police Association Non -
Sworn (PANS), Alameda Fire Managers Association (AFMA),
International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW).
3 -C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of
Section 54956.9.
Number of cases: One.
3 -D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Signification exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision
(b) of Section 54946.9.
Number of cases: One.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 2, 2004 - - - 7:00 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, March 2, 2004, 7:00 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call.
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items only,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: 2329 Eagle Avenue.
Negotiating parties: Community Improvement Commission and
Gregory Barron.
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
AGENDA
TUESDAY
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy
City Clerk, and upon recognition by the Mayor,
approach the rostrum and state your name;
speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing
and only a summary of pertinent points presented
verbally.
3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited
during Council meetings.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 2, 2004 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City
Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St.]
The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
4. Consent Calendar
5. Agenda Items
6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment)
7. Council Communications (Communications from Council)
8. Adjournment
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business
introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per
agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's
slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 5:35 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Conference Room
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:00 P.M.
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Conference Room
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Cultural Arts Presentation by Poet Laureate Mary Rudge and
Alameda City Arts Council.
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 Meeting, the Special Joint
City Council, Alameda Public Improvement Corporation and
Alameda Public Financing Authority Meeting, and the Regular
City Council Meeting held on February 17, 2004.
4 -B. Recommendation to accept report on banning investments in
Corporations that derive any portion of revenues from alcohol,
tobacco or gambling. [City Treasurer]
4 -C. Recommendation to endorse revised Legislative Policy Positions
and to authorize the City Manager to direct the preparation of
letters of support or opposition consistent with policies.
4 -D. Recommendation to accept the work of Buestad Construction for
City Hall West Elevator Project, No. P.W. 06 -01 -18 and
allocate an additional $35,000 in Community Development Block
Grant Funds.
4 -E. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a
Construction Agreement for the demolition of 2310 Lincoln
Avenue (LinOaks), No. P.W. 08- 03 -16.
4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Application for Federal
FY 2005 Office of Traffic Safety Funds to Purchase Six Pole -
Mounted Radar Speed Displays.
4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Amending Exhibit A - Compensation Plan
Established by Resolution No. 13545 to Adjust Benefits
Provided to Deputy City Manager Classification Assigned to the
Alameda Point Project Manager Position.
4 -H. Bills for ratification.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Margaret McNamara as a
Member of the Planning Board.
5 -B. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board
decision to approve Minor Design Review MDR03 -0256 to allow
construction of an approximately 360- square -foot, second -story
room addition; and adoption of related Resolution. The
property is located at 116 Brunswick Road. Applicant: Todd
Meagher. Appellant: Paula Kindrachuk.
5 -C. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board
conditioned approval of Planned Development Amendment and a
Major Design Review for 3241 Garfield Avenue to allow: 1) the
construction of a 150 square -foot single -story rear addition;
2) the construction of as maximum 24 -inch tall deck with an
attached hot tub; and 3) the construction of a six -foot fence
around the side and rear property lines; and adoption of
related Resolution. This site is located within the R -1 -PD,
One Family Residence Planned Development Zoning District.
[Public Hearing to be continued to March 16, 2004.]
5 -D. Recommendation to approve final design for the Main Library
Building.
5 -E. Recommendation to approve strategy to prepare a Citywide
Transportation Master Plan.
5 -F. Recommendation to approve Enhanced Public Notification
Procedures.
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)
8. ADJOURNMENT
• 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
Memorandum
Date: February 23, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor
And Councilmembers
From:
James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Regular and Special City Council Meetings, and Special Community
Improvement Commission Meeting of March 2, 2004
Transmitted are the agendas and related materials for the Regular and Special City
Council Meetings, and Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of March 2,
2004.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Cultural Arts Presentation by Poet Laureate Mary Rudge and
Alameda City Arts Council.
At this time Mary Rudge and the Alameda Arts Council will make a presentation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
4 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Public
Improvement Corporation and Alameda Public Financing Authority
Meeting, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on February 17, 2004.
The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special Joint City
Council, Alameda Public Improvement Corporation and Alameda Public Financing
Authority Meeting, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on
February 17, 2004.
4 -B. Recommendation to accept report on banning investments in
Corporations that derive any portion of revenues from alcohol,
tobacco or gambling.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers February 23, 2004
The City Treasurer recommends against adding overly restrictive constraints on the
City's Investment Policy as these restrictions could adversely impact the City's
investment portfolio and future earnings.
4 -C. Recommendation to endorse revised Legislative Policy Positions
and authorize the City Manager to direct the preparation of
letters of support or opposition consistent with policies.
It is recommended that Council approve an amended Legislative Policy Positions for
purposes of contacting our legislative representatives within limited time constraints.
Issues outside these policies will be brought before the Council for
support/opposition.
4 -D. Recommendation to accept the work of Buestad Construction for
City Hall West Elevator Project, No. P.W. 06 -01 -18 and
allocate an additional $35,000 in Community Development Block
Grant Funds.
It is recommended that Council approve the installation of the elevator at Building 1,
Alameda Point as completed by Buestad Construction. As noted, due to
unforeseen demolition work, utility relocation costs, design, inspection and
construction management, it is further recommended that $35,000 be allocated from
CDBG funds.
4 -E. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a
Construction Agreement for the demolition of 2310 Lincoln
Avenue, No. P.W. 08- 03 -16.
It is recommended that the City Manager be authorized to enter into an agreement
with a contractor to demolish the Linoaks Motel, 2310 Lincoln Avenue. This
alternate method of awarding a contract will allow a shorter timeline due to the time
lost when the contract with Thomas Eychner was terminated.
4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Application for Federal
FY 2005 Office of Traffic Safety Funds to Purchase Six Pole -
Mounted Radar Speed Displays.
This resolution authorizes an application to the Office of Traffic Safety Grant for six
pole mounted radar speed displays. The City's portion is $10,000 which is available
from Measure B funds.
4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Amending Exhibit A - Compensation Plan
Established by Resolution No. 13545 to Adjust Benefits
Provided to Deputy City Manager Classification Assigned to the
Alameda Point Project Manager Position.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 3
Councilmembers February 23, 2004
This resolution amends the current compensation package for the Deputy City
Manager assigned to the Alameda Point Project, due to' staffing changes and
organization needs in the Development Services Department.
4 -H. Bills for ratification.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Margaret McNamara as a
Member of the Planning Board.
This resolution appoints Margaret McNamara to the Planning Board.
5 -B. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board
decision to approve Minor Design Review MDR03 -0256 to allow
construction of an approximately 360- square -foot, second -story
room addition; and adoption of related Resolution. The
property is located at 116 Brunswick Road. Applicant: Todd
Meagher. Appellant: Paula Kindrachuk.
This public hearing has been scheduled to receive comments from the public on the
appeal to approve a minor design review project to construct a 360 square -foot,
second -story addition to the residence at 116 Brunswick Road. After the hearing is
closed, it is recommended that the Council support the Planning Board's decision to
approve this project.
5 -C. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board
conditioned approval of Planned Development Amendment and a
Major Design Review for 3241 Garfield Avenue to allow: 1) the
construction of a 150 square -foot single -story rear addition;
2) the construction of as Maximum 24 -inch tall deck with an
attached hot tub; and 3) the construction of a six -foot fence
around the side and rear property lines. This site is located
within the R -2 -PD, One Family Residence Planned Development
Zoning District. Applicant: Appellant:
In response to a request from the Appellant, it is recommended that this hearing be
continued to the Regular Council Meeting of March 16, 2004.
5 -D. Recommendation to approve final design for the Main Library
Building.
It is recommended that Council approve the final design of the new library building
as presented.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 4
Councilmembers February 23, 2004
5 -E. Recommendation to approve strategy to prepare a Citywide
Transportation Master Plan.
It is recommended that Council approve the strategy presented for creating the
Citywide Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The top ten priorities have been
identified and reflect the priorities established by the Transportation Commission in
2003. This project is anticipated to take approximately four years to complete and
can be done in part without impacting the general fund. Consultants may be
required for specialty work at which time funding requests would be presented to
Council.
5 -F. Recommendation to approve Enhanced Public Notification
Procedures.
After a 12 -month trial period of an increased notification process, it is recommended
that the Council approve a 10 -day notification process for Class I projects, combine
Class I I I and Class I I projects with a 20 -day notification to owners within 300 feet of
a project. Also, in cases where State law is established where a City procedure is in
place, the State will prevail. In an attempt to notify renters, currently not possible,
the City Manager could be directed to communicate to Alameda County requesting
them to modify their data base to include site mailing address information.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 17, 2004- - 6:35 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Absent:
Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
None.
The Special Meeting was adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
(04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litgiation; Name
of case: Kozinchik v. City of Alameda.
(04- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: 2200A
Central Avenue; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda, Alameda
Unified School District; Under negotiation: Price and terms of
payment.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal
Counsel, the Council gave settlement directions to the City
Attorney; and regarding Conference with Real Property Negotiator,
the Council gave directions to Real Property Negotiators regarding
lease negotiations.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:10 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
February 17, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION AND
ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 17, 2004- -7:27 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 8:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Board Members Daysog,
Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA ITEM
(04- CC) City Council Resolution No. 13680, "Approving Public
Utilities Board Action and Authorizing Negotiation, Execution, Sale
and Delivery of Certain Revenue Bond Anticipation Installment Sale
Financing Documents to Be Delivered in Connection with Amendments
and Agreements Related to the Continued Development, Construction,
Financing and Operation of the Citywide Hybrid Fiber Optic- Coaxial
Broadband Telecom System, and Authorizing, Ratifying and Directing
Certain Actions with Respect Thereto." Adopted.
(04- APIC) APIC Resolution No. 04 -11, "Approving, Authorizing and
Directing the Negotiation, Execution, Sale and Delivery of Certain
Revenue Bond Anticipation Installment Sale Financing Documents with
Alameda Power & Telecom (As the Bureau of Electricity Acting By and
For the City of Alameda) to Be Delivered in Connection with
Amendments and Agreements Related to the Continued Development,
Construction, Financing and Operation of the Citywide Hybrid Fiber
Optic - Coaxial Broadband Telecom System and Authorizing and
Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto." Adopted.
(04- APFA) APFA Resolution No. 04 -15, "Approving, Authorizing and
Directing the Negotiation, Issuance, Execution, Sale and Delivery
of Series 2004 Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes (Alameda Power &
Telecom) and Related Agreements and Instruments to Be Delivered in
Connection with Amendments and Agreements Related to the Continued
Development, Construction, Financing and Operation of the Citywide
Hybrid Fiber Optic- Coaxial Broadband Telecom System and
Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto."
Adopted.
Vice Mayor /Board Member Daysog stated the $16 million bond
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Public Improvement Corporation and
Alameda Public Financing Authority
February 17, 2004
1
previously issued must be repaid; in addition, $7 million is needed
to complete the [telecommunications] project at Bay Farm and Harbor
Bay Island, which totals $23 million; $33 million is being
requested; inquired why there is a $10 million differential.
The AP &T General Manager responded that the $33 million consists of
the $16 million certificates of participation, $4.8 million of "new
money" and the remaining $12.2 million would be capitalized
interest expense.
Vice Mayor /Board Member Daysog inquired whether the $12.2 million
in interest was previously capitalized or future interest.
The AP &T General Manager responded that capitalized interest was on
the combination of the $16 million and $4.8 million.
Councilmember /Board Member Matarrese moved adoption of the
Resolutions.
Councilmember /Board Member Matarrese stated completing the project
is important.
Councilmember /Board Member Gilmore seconded the motion, which
carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers /Board
Members Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 3. Noes:
Councilmembers /Board Members Daysog and Kerr - 2.
Councilmembers /Board Members Daysog and Kerr noted that their
reasons for voting against the bonds were stated at a previous
meeting [December 16, 2003 Regular City Council Meeting].
ADJOURNMENT
Chair /Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:38
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Secretary, Alameda Public Financing
Authority and Alameda Public
Improvement Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Public Improvement Corporation and
Alameda Public Financing Authority
February 17, 2004
2
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 8:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(04- ) Presentation by the Bay Area Commuters for Transportation
Solutions on the Regional Measure 2, which will be on the March 2,
2004 ballot.
Steve Castleberry, Water Transit Authority, gave a Power Point
presentation.
Dolores Jaquez, AC Transit, outlined the benefits Measure 2
provides for AC Transit.
(04- ) Proclamation recognizing Toastmasters International's 80th
anniversary and declaring the week of February 21 -28, 2004 as
Toastmasters Week in the City of Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Mike
Sheppard, Toastmasters.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to terminate the
contract of Thomas D. Eychner Company, Inc. [paragraph no. 04- ];
the recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment Policy
[paragraph no. 04- ], and the recommendation to authorize the
City Manager to execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with
Ballena Isle Marina and Mission Valley Properties [paragraph no.
04- ] were removed from the consent calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 17, 2004
1
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *04- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Public
Utilities Board Meeting held on January 27, 2004; the Special City
Council Meeting held on January 28, 2004; the Special and Regular
City Council Meetings held on February 3, 2004. Approved.
( *04- ) Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher and Burk
for repair and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 24, No. P.W.
07- 03 -14, and allocate $185,000 from Traffic Congestion Relief
Funds for the project. Accepted.
(04- ) Recommendation to terminate the Contract of Thomas D.
Eychner Company, Inc., approve the Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for the demolition of 2310 Lincoln Avenue,
No. P.W. 08- 03 -16.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has concerns with: 1) the
additional testing resulting in a $250,000 to $300,000 overage; 2)
project delay; 3) re- bidding costs; 4) who would be accountable for
costs; and 5) the impact of additional costs on the overall budget.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that cost savings was one of the main
reasons for having a separate contractor for demolition; inquired
whether the cost savings potential has changed.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded having demolition
completed as a separate contract shortens the construction schedule
by approximately 2 months; separate contracts make coordination and
administration easier; the original test in 2002 was completed for
the grant application and was limited to six rooms because other
rooms were occupied; after the Linoaks was vacated, additional
testing was considered; the City's consultant felt that sufficient
samples of the stucco, sheetrock and interiors of the rooms were
not completed; the overall schedule should not be affected by re-
bidding; the ground breaking scheduled for late July should be met;
demotion should take place in June; the project budget has a
contingency of approximately $1,050,000; $150,000 of the
contingency has been committed for additional professional
liability insurance for the architect and appraisal cost;
approximately $900,000 remains in contingency for the project.
Mayor Johnson inquired what could be done to keep the project on
track, to which the Supervising Civil Engineer responded that the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
February 17, 2004
advertising period could be shortened to the State minimum of two
weeks.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the overall project would remain on
track, to which the Supervising Civil Engineer responded 70% of the
construction drawings have been completed; the architect was on
schedule with production of drawings; submittals to the State have
been scheduled to obtain the building permit; that he does not
foresee any delays.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a schedule could be provided to
Council, to which the Supervising Civil Engineer responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what the benefits would be in having
a separate demolition and construction contract, to which the
Supervising Civil Engineer responded benefits would be in the
scheduling.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether any redress would be
pursued from the original testing and certification.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded that discussion with the
City Attorney would be needed; that he does not feel the overall
construction costs have been affected because abatement was
necessary regardless of the original survey's thoroughness.
Mayor Johnson stated the project's time would be impacted.
Councilmember Gilmore stated if everything goes perfectly,
demolition would be completed about the time of groundbreaking;
that she does not have confidence and would have preferred some
lead -time before groundbreaking.
The City Manager stated that staff would provide a report on
possible recourse from the first test and potential penalties that
could be included in future contracts; that monthly reports would
be provided to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would like to set a threshold for
problems; notification should be warranted when drawing down on
close to half of contingency; that he wants to be kept abreast of
problems.
The City Manager stated that most issues would be sorted out on a
daily basis with the construction manager and the project manager;
major problems would be brought to Council's attention immediately.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 17, 2004
3
Mayor Johnson stated that it would be good for Council to be able
to tract the budget on a regular basis.
The City Manager stated that he would provide a copy of the adopted
budget as an attachment to the monthly report.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the new demolition and
construction contracts would have penalty clauses for failure to
meet deadlines, to which the City Manager responded that staff
would provide an off - agenda report on the matter.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council could provide direction to
include a penalty clause in the contract, to which the City
Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *04- ) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial Report for
period ending December 31, 2003, including approval of midyear
adjustments. Accepted; and
( *04- A) Recommendation to amend Fiscal Year 2003 -2004 Capital
Improvement Program to include additional projects. Accepted.
( *04- ) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for
period ending December 31, 2003. Accepted.
(04- ) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment
Policy.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the policy could state
that no investment would be made in a company that receives any
revenue from production or manufacturing of cigarettes and alcohol.
The Finance Director responded changes would need to be brought
back to Council after City Treasurer's approval.
The City Manager stated that the City has funds invested in the
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), which has investments in said
types of firms; LAIF is a good, safe investment.
The Finance Director noted the City's policy mirrors the State's.
The City Manager stated that if change were suggested, the total
investment policy would need to be reviewed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
February 17, 2004
Mayor Johnson inquired whether requesting the policy change would
prevent investments through LAIF, to which the City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson questioned whether anything could be done to
influence the policy of the firms in which the City invests.
The City Manager stated options would be reviewed and brought back
to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with a request that the City investigate a way of extricating
itself or influencing vehicles of investment to eliminate
supporting companies that receive revenues from production or
manufacturing of cigarettes, alcohol or gambling.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
( *04- ) Recommendation to name the Ball Field in Lower Washington
Park in memory of former Recreation and Parks Commissioner, Toby
Chavez. Accepted.
(04- ) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to Execute
an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Ballena Isle Marina and
Mission Valley Properties.
Ed Rorke, Alameda, stated that he has concerns about traffic
impacts; curged Council to leave land undeveloped.
Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed waterfront property.
Marti Buxton, Mission Valley Properties, urged approval of the
staff recommendation; stated a geotechnical study is needed to
determine whether development would move forward; many meetings
with neighbors and the City would be held throughout the process.
Councilmember Kerr stated the land should be tidelands trust;
shorelines should not be treated as expendable space; the Marina
operator has 25 years remaining on the current lease; requested
staff to review the lease to determine whether there are
maintenance requirements; stated that she cannot support moving
forward with the parties involved.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that any decision would be subject to the
final design, setbacks and available open space; the site has a
history of blight; the current property has not been improved;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
February 17, 2004
improvements could benefit residents; the challenge would be in
good design.
Councilmember Kerr concurred with Vice Mayor Daysog on the present
condition of the site; stated the City has not protested the
management of the site; that she does not have confidence in the
current Marina operators.
Mayor Johnson noted the operator of the Marina would not be the
developer.
The City Attorney stated that staff would address the
enforceability of maintenance under the current contract.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether there are any enforcement
clauses in the current contract with the Marina operator, to which
the Redevelopment Manager. responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether maintenance would be required
in the future since there has not been enforcement.
The City Manager stated improvements need to be made to the Marina;
that he would review possible recourses with the City Attorney.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement (ENA) was with Mission Valley Properties or Ballena Isle
Marina.
The City Attorney responded Mission Valley Properties; stated
Ballena Isle Marina has an ENA through the current lease.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether authorization of the ENA
changes anything with Ballena Isle Marina, to which the City
Manager responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated a contract with substance should be
established; the City should ensure compliance; the process should
move forward.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the ENA was a preliminary step for
development of almost 10 acres of shoreline; removal of blight is
an incentive to move forward; in a parallel path, the City can
enforce the Marina contract; the City Attorney would work on said
matter.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
February 17, 2004
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1.
Councilmember Matarrese noted that there would be numerous
opportunities for public input.
( *04- ) Resolution No. 13681, "Support of Regional Measure 2,
Regional Traffic Relief Plan." Adopted.
( *04- ) Resolution No. 13682, "Authorizing the Purchase of Four
(4) Vehicles Using the State of California Department of General
Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award." Adopted.
( *04- ) Resolution No. 13683, "Appointing an Engineer and an
Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting Assessment
District 84 -2." Adopted.
( *04- ) Resolution No. 13684, "Appointing an Engineer and an
Attorney for City of Alameda Maintenance District 01 -1." Adopted.
( *04- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,148,909.29.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(04- ) Resolution No 13685, "Appointing Nancy Gormley as a
Member of the Housing Commission." Adopted.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
' voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented Ms. Gormley with
a Certificate of Appointment.
Ms. Gormley thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve as a
member of the Housing Commission.
(04- ) Recommendation to send a letter in opposition to Senate
Bill 744.
Councilmember Kerr stated the Bill allows developers to appeal
local governments' land -use decisions to the State; authority would
be taken away from cities that do not have certified Housing
Elements and given to the non - elected State body responsible for
approving Housing Elements; developers would have greater latitude
in proposing housing, not only in zoned residential areas, but also
in areas zoned for commercial use; potentially, the Fleet
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
February 17, 2004
Industrial Supply Center and Alameda Point projects could be taken
completely out of the City Council's purview.
The City Manager stated Senate Bill 744 is a very bad piece of
legislation, which erodes the Council's control to govern and
determine the community's future.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that the Bill was a complicated issue;
that he respects concerns raised but would abstain; that he needs
more information.
Councilmember Kerr stated that information on the Bill could be
obtained on the State's Web site.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the Bill's status in Sacramento, to
which Councilmember Kerr responded that the Bill passed the Senate
and was currently on the Assembly floor, making the matter urgent.
Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Vice Mayor Daysog -
1
(04- ) Resolution No. 13686, "Declaring Support for Measure C -
Alameda Unified School District Bond Measure for Alameda School
Repair - March 2, 2004." Adopted.
Bob Reeves, Board of Education, stated that the Proposition was a
win -win for everyone; urged Council support.
Don Sherratt, Alamedans for Better Schools 2004, stated that the
public school system needs support; Measure C would repair Alameda
schools up to current legal standards without raising taxes; urged
support.
David Forbes, Alamedans for Better Schools 2004, stated property
taxes would not be raised; Measure C would allow the School
District to access $17 million in State matching funds; money would
go to other communities if the Measure does not pass; urged
support.
Councilmember Kerr stated that the existing tax exempts senior home
owners; the exemption was not included in Measure C; the Measure
states that there would be no increase in existing tax rates; the
School District advised her that senior homeowners would not be
exempt from Measure C; the ballot argument states Measure C would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
February 17, 2004
not increase property taxes, which is not true.
Mr. Forbes stated there is confusion between the 1989 bond, which
did not exempt seniors, and the school parcel tax of November,
2001, which included a senior exemption; Government Code allows a
senior exemption in parcel tax measures; however, seniors cannot be
exempted from bond measures; the bond would extend the current
level of taxation and would not increase taxes.
Mayor Johnson stated that there are two separate issues a parcel
tax and a bond; the [1987] bond would be extended through Measure
C; payment of the bond would simply continue.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Measure C was an extremely important
and creative way of improving the infrastructure of schools.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Gilmore urged support of the bond; stated children
need to be educated in a safe environment; property values increase
in premium school districts.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that good schools are the foundation of
great communities; schools sell communities; urged support of
Measure C.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Councilmember Kerr -
1.
(04- ) Resolution No. 13687, "Supporting a Statewide Ballot
Initiative to Require Voter Approval Before State Government May
Take Local Tax Funds." Adopted.
The City Manager stated the statewide initiative would help protect
the future of cities in the State; urged support.
Councilmember Kerr stated the initiative would demonstrate that
cities are capable to passing a statewide issue; tax seizure keeps
becoming more critical; the initiative protects the City's future.
Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 17, 2004
9
(04- ) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed weather.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(04- ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to
the Planning Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Margaret McNamara to the Planning Board.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 10:25 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
February 17, 2004
10
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Kevin Kennedy
City Treasurer
Date: February 23, 2004
Re: Report on the Impact of City Council Recommendation to Ban Investments
in Corporations That Derive Any Portion of its Revenue From Alcohol,
Tobacco and Gambling
BACKGROUND
This memo serves to address the issues impacting the City's portfolio if the City
recommends the Investment Policy prohibit the purchase of securities that derive any
portion of their revenues from tobacco, alcohol, or gambling.
The purpose of any governmental investment policy is to provide a framework for the
investment of funds in a manner that is consistent with the risk tolerances of the entity
while ensuring consistency with an established investment strategy. The City of
Alameda has a very sound investment policy that provides sufficient flexibility among
the various investment sectors to maximize return while providing specific objectives
that ensure funds are invested in a safe and prudent manner.
DISCUSSION
The City has addressed the concern of its citizens regarding the purchase of obligations
from corporations whose revenues are derived from manufacture or production of
alcohol, tobacco, or gambling. Specifically, the City has provisions in its Policy that:
• Prohibit the purchase of investments in companies that receive 15% or more of
its revenue from cigarettes, alcohol, or gambling.
• Provide consideration for all investments that "encourage the betterment of the
human condition..." and prohibit those investments "which serve to only enrich a
few to the detriment of the people."
With regards to the State Code, the City's Investment Policy is actually more restrictive
than the Code in the following areas:
• The City has placed percent per issuer limits to encourage diversification in the
portfolio and to prevent over - concentration in one area.
"Dedicated to ExceOEence, Committed to Service"
Report #4 -B CC
3 -2 -04
Honorable Mayor February 23, 2004
and Councilmembers Page 2 of 4
• The City's policy contains downgrade provisions for its corporate holdings so that
in the event an existing holding suffers from a decline in creditworthiness beyond
a predetermined level, it must be eliminated from the portfolio.
Clearly, the citizens of Alameda deserve and expect a progressive and
responsible Investment Policy. As City Treasurer, I have worked diligently to
deliver an Investment Policy that balances the desires of the citizens with prudent
financial management.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Identifying a specific list of corporate obligations that would be affected by the proposed
provision would be a time - consuming and arduous task. Even then, the City would
have to consider disallowing the purchase of all corporate obligations and would have to
consider withdrawing its funds from the State pool, Local Agency Investment Fund
(LAIF), because the pool invests in a broad range of corporate obligations of which the
City has no control.
The City would experience a sizable decline in earnings by withdrawing its funds from
LAIF and using other short-term investment vehicles. For example, the City currently
invests $23.5 million in LAIF at 1.49 %. The funds in LAIF are primarily used to satisfy
short-term operational needs. If the City is no longer allowed to invest in the State pool,
the only other viable investment alternative is a governmental money market fund,
which has daily liquidity. Money market funds are currently yielding 0.68 %, which is
less than half the rate of LAIF. The chart on the following page quantifies this
difference, graphing the difference in portfolio growth of a $25 million portfolio invested
in LAIF versus $25 million invested in a Treasury money market fund. The difference
over the past year was $232,000, which is considerable given that the City's budget
implications. Additionally, the City would lose the implicit guarantee of the State if its
funds were moved from the Pool to another vehicle. The above analysis does not
include the earnings the City would forego by shifting funds away from corporate
obligations and into governmental notes.
RECOMMENDATION
I strongly recommend against adding overly restrictive constraints designed to address
social issues into the City's Investment Policy, especially when the changes will have a
severe impact on the way the City can manage the investment portfolio and safely
generate substantial earnings for the City to use for projects, programs, and other
budgetary needs.
Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers Page 3 of 4
February 23, 2004
KK/fl
G: \FINANCE \COUNCIL \030204 \I nvestmentBan.doc
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
vin Ke edy
City Trey . urer
$25,500,000
525,450,000
525,400,000
525,350,000
$25,300,000
P
'E $25,250,000
m
W
$25,200,000
525,150,000
525,100,000
$25,050,000
$25,000,000
01/03
Comparison of Growth of Portfolio
LAIF and Treasury Money Market Fund
January 31, 2003 - January 31, 2004
02/03
03/03
04/03
Dreyfus Treasury Cash Management Fund
05/03
06/03
07/03
08/03
09/03
Money Market Fund
$25,190,911
10/03
11/03
12/03
01/04
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
February 19, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From:
Subject:
Background
James M. Flint
City Manager
Recommendation to Endorse the Revised City of Alameda Legislative Policy
Positions and to Authorize the City Manager to Direct the Preparation of Letters
of Support or Opposition Consistent to Stated Policies
City staff has historically maintained an awareness of pending state and federal legislation with
an impact on municipal issues through the League of California Cities and other professional
associations such as the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers.
It has become evident that there is a greater need to have letters of support or opposition to
pending legislation signed by the Mayor for the City Council. When these opportunities have
arisen, the City Manager has recommended the City Council send letters of support or opposition
over the Mayor's signature. This procedure often exceeds the window of opportunity to
influence the outcome of the state and federal legislative processes.
Discussion
Advocating policies which effect the City organization with federal and state legislative
representatives is beneficial. It is important to convey the position of the City of Alameda
through the office of the Mayor. To expedite the process of issuing these letters of
support/opposition, staff recommends that the City Council endorse, by motion, "City of
Alameda Legislative Policy Positions" Exhibit 1. Endorsement by the City Council of these
policy positions shows Council support and provides the framework for letters signed by the
Mayor without returning to the Council for each separate letter.
With the establishment of policy positions, letters of support or opposition need only be drafted
for the Mayor's signature. Subjects outside the policy positions, however, would still need to be
recommended to the City Council for the Mayor's signature.
Fiscal Impact
None.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #4 -C CC
3 -2 -04
Honorable Mayor and February 19, 2004
Members of the City Council Page 2
Recommendation
The City Manager recommends that the City Council endorse the revised City of Alameda
Legislative Policy Positions (Exhibit 1) and authorize the City Manager to direct the preparation
of letters for the Mayor's signature in support or opposition to legislation consistent with stated
policies.
Respectfu
submitted,
JF:LA
James . Flint
City anager
Attachment: Exhibit'A- Legislative Policy Positions
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
C: \Lucretia's Docs\ CouncilReports\ LegislativePolicypositions .StafReprt_Mar 2_2004.doc
Exhibit A
CITY OF ALAMEDA — 2004
UPDATED LEGISLATIVE POLICY POSITIONS
Administrative Services
Tort Reform
• Support measures to reform California's tort system to curtail unreasonable liability exposure
for public agencies and restore the ability of public agencies to obtain affordable insurance.
• Support legislation to extend the protections of Section 337.15 of the Civil Code limiting
local government liability for property damage caused by hill slides and mudslides.
Labor Relations
• Oppose legislation which would increase Labor Code 4850, benefits from one year, to two
years for public safety officers.
• Support Workers' Compensation reform that mandates return-to -work programs and controls
medical costs to make workers compensation insurance affordable.
• Support the inclusion of BMX bicycles into the existing legislation on skate parks, that
includes the riding of BMX bicycles as a hazardous recreational activity, that prohibits mixed
use of skateboards and skateboarding and riding BMX bicycles, from age 14 to age 7.
Libraries
• Support full funding of Public Library Foundation (PLF) per capita funding, for example:
PLF is a per capita state aid fund, which fluctuates and adversely affects the amount of
funding per year. Several years ago the City received $122,000 annually, whereas the current
annual amount is $30,000. The PLF is proposed to be zeroed out in FY 2004/05.
Utilities
• Support local public power communities in their stranded asset claims against the
Department of Defense under the Public Claims Act.
• Preserve and protect Public Power; preserve Local Control elements for Public Power in
connection with restructuring of the electric utility industry.
• Support the Power Marketing Administration's (PMAs) ability to purchase and deliver
power.
• Support Congressional appropriations necessary to allow the federal power marketing
administrations to meet their contractual obligations (e.g., the purchase and wheeling of
power).
CITY OF ALAMEDA - 2004
UPDATED LEGISLATIVE POLICY POSITIONS
• Oppose the imposition of standard market design (SMD) in all regions as currently proposed
and urge the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to work with stakeholders to develop
alternative models, while ensuring rates remain just and reasonable.
• Support legislation requiring the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to protect
consumers by ensuring the public power systems access to firm transmission rights.
• Support incentives to promote energy efficiency, including tiered approaches for awarding
tax incentives that meet International Energy Conservation Code standards.
• Support use of tax - exempt bonds for the prepayment for electricity and electric capacity.
Energy
• Adopt legislation that promotes fuel diversity, encourages infrastructure investment,
streamlines regulatory review and ensures regulatory oversight to protect customers, for
example:
• Support an accelerated pace of development for power generation.
• Oppose subjecting municipal utilities to "rolling blackouts" if they have provided sufficient
power supplies for their customers.
• Support requiring investor -owned utilities (IOUs) to pay municipal utilities for the energy
they purchased.
Finance and Local Control
• Protect and enhance Alameda's revenue base and oppose mandates (unfunded or funded) that
further erode local control, for example:
• Support legislation that creates a level playing field for Internet sales of products and
services.
• Support shifting gas sales tax from the state general fund to the transportation investment
fund.
• Support freezing the property tax shift for the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund
(ERAF) at last year's level or any measure that reduces it further.
• Oppose legislation that withholds state funding or imposes fines on communities whose
housing element is not in compliance with state law where special circumstances can be
demonstrated.
• Oppose the implementation of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) staffing
levels and response times as mandatory standards for local fire departments.
2
CITY OF ALAMEDA - 2004
UPDATED LEGISLATIVE POLICY POSITIONS
Transportation
• Increase funding that balances and supports all modes of transportation, for example:
• Support more funding for the operation of ferry systems.
• Support an increase in funding for bus systems.
• Support the funding of an engineering study to construct a new estuary crossing.
Housing
• Encourage the development of housing, for example:
• Support low- income housing tax credits.
• Support low- income home ownership programs.
• Support funding the construction, preservation, rehabilitation and acquisition of housing for
seniors, the disabled and families.
School Funding
• Increase funding for the Alameda Unified School District.
• Support the resolution of the inequitable funding of AUSD versus other school districts in
Alameda County.
• Support legislation that provides meaningful financial relief to school districts which
experience a decrease in federal aid as the result of a military base closure.
• Support additional funding for school district sponsored child care programs and remove
restrictions to charge for and retain the income for market -based child care.
3
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 25, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Accept the Work of Buestad Construction for City Hall West
Elevator Project, No. P.W. 06 -01 -18 and Allocate an Additional $35,000 in CDBG Funds
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 2002, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized call for
bids for the City Hall West Elevator Project, No. P.W. 06- 01 -18. On March 18, 2003, the City
Council awarded a contract in the amount of $203,401, plus contingencies, to Buestad
Construction for a total award of $255,000.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The project has been completed in accordance with the Plans and Specifications and is
acceptable to the Public Works Department.
On May 8, 2003, staff prepared an off - agenda report advising Council of possible cost over -runs
for the project due to the large and unforeseen amount of utility relocation. At that time, staff
advised that the approved contract amount would not be sufficient to cover the additional and un-
foreseen demolition and utility relocation costs. The contract amount, including contingencies,
was revised from $255,000 to $274,802.20 to address these issues. The final project cost,
including extra work orders, was $270,119.41. Twelve (12) extra work orders totaling
approximately $68,000 were issued. All extra work orders were necessary to relocate utilities
located in and around the elevator pit and for additional electrical and mechanical work. In
addition, the utility relocation required a significant amount of staff time for inspection and
construction management.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funding for the project is budgeted under CIP #98 -18. Forms for compliance with GASB34
requirements have been completed for this project. The original budget for design, construction,
inspection, and construction management was $500,000: $300,000 in CDBG funds, approved by
Council in April 2002, and $200,000 in 1999 Alameda Point Bonds. Final project costs total
$535,000 and Development Services staff has transferred $35,000 from CDBG contingency
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
PublicWorks
D rhnent for Yon,
ks
Report #4 -D CC
3 -2 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers February 25, 2004
Page 2
funds to cover these cost overruns. Prior Council approval is not required for this administrative
transfer of CDBG funds because the amount is less than 25% of the original budget and does not
otherwise constitute a substantial change to the CDBG program.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that City Council, by motion, accept the work of Buestad
Construction for the City Hall West Elevator Project, No. P.W. 06 -01 -18 and allocate an
additional $35,000 in CDBG funds.
Respect lly submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By. 7/ John V. Wankum,
Supervising Civil Engineer
MTN /JW: gc /dl
G:\PUB WORKS\PWADmin\ Council\2004 \030204\Beustad_acceptdoc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Depar rment
Public RfrisforYoul
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 19, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement
for the Demolition of 2310 Lincoln Avenue. No. P.W. 08 -03 -16
BACKGROUND
On October 21, 2003, Council approved plans and specifications and authorized a call for bids
for the demolition of the LinOaks Motel, Project No. P.W. 08- 03 -16. On December 16, 2003,
Council awarded the project to the firm of Thomas D. Eychner, Inc. of Oakland in the total
amount of $189,420, which included a 15% allowance for contingencies. On February 17, 2004,
City Council approved a staff recommendation to terminate the contract with Thomas D.
Eychner, Inc. and instructed staff to re -bid the project due to a recent determination that
extensive additional asbestos removal from the LinOaks was needed. The additional cost was
estimated at $250,000 to $300,000.
The purpose of the project is to demolish the existing structure in advance of the new Main
Library construction at the same site. At the February 17 meeting City Council also directed
staff to complete the demolition project advertisement, award, and construction as soon as
possible to avoid any possible delays to the library construction project.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
In order to expedite the LinOaks Motel demolition, staff proposes to compress the time between
the authorization to advertise the project and the project award, as outlined below. The first
action is to shorten the advertising period prior to receiving bids from the normal thirty (30) days
to ten (10) days as allowed by the City's charter. Staff also wishes to authorize the City Manager
or his designee to award the project to the lowest responsible bidder in lieu of the usual Council
action to award bids. This action could save an additional one to two weeks from the usual
award of bid period. The award of the bid would receive the same scrutiny by staff, including
conformance to project budget, as a normal public works project. The above changes would,
therefore, save approximately three to four weeks on the demolition schedule. In addition, an
incentive clause for early completion of the contract has been added which provides for a $500
per working day bonus, not to exceed $7000. The changes are compatible with State law and
have been recommended by the City's construction management firm. Staff would inform
�U ayaar�aa
Department
Public Wilda Works for Yw,!
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #4 -E CC
3 -2 -04
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers February 19, 2004
Council of the award and related information, probably through an off - agenda report or similar
communication.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Funds for the demolition project are available in the New Main Library Project, CIP # 02 -37,
with 65% of the cost from the State of California Office of Library Construction grant and the
remaining 35% from Measure 0 funds. There are sufficient contingency funds in the New Main
Library project budget for the additional demolition costs.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
The entire library project, including demolition work, has been reviewed for environmental
compliance in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In 1990 City
Council certified the "New Alameda Free Library Draft Environmental Impact Report." A
technical update and initial study for the project were prepared in April 2002.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, authorize the City Manager or
his designee to execute a contract for the demolition of 2310 Lincoln Avenue. No. P.W. 08 -03-
16.
Respy lly submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: /1 ohn V. Wankum
Supervising Civil Engineer
MTN/JVW:dl
G:\PUBWORKS\PWADMIN\ COUNCIL\ 2004 \03020404\Demolition terminate2doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GiyofAbmedi
QUblicWorks
eWrtment
PubIKWaia Wafts forKul!
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 19, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution to Apply for an Office of Traffic Safety Grant for
Six (6) Pole Mounted Radar Speed Displays
BACKGROUND
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) administers a competitive grant program for safety
projects. Statewide funding is approximately $50 million. For federal fiscal year 2005, Public
Works proposes to submit a grant to purchase six (6) pole- mounted radar speed displays.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
On February 18 2003, City Council adopted a City -wide traffic calming program to enhance
pedestrian safety and reduce speeding on residential streets. The traffic calming program included a
"tool -box" which identified numerous strategies and devices for consideration when implementing
traffic calming in residential neighborhoods. Public Works has held several traffic calming
workshops since the program was adopted and received favorable feedback on radar speed display
signs. These signs are smaller versions of the speed radar trailers used by the Alameda Police
Department (APD) to alert drivers of their vehicle speed and the posted speed limit. Research has
shown these devices to be effective, especially when accompanied by enforcement. APD supports
using these displays and will provide enforcement at the display locations to maximize the benefits.
The grant application proposes to place the sign displays along Lincoln Avenue and Otis Drive
because they are 4 -lane facilities, which typically have higher average speeds than 2 -lane facilities.
Whenever possible we will locate these signs near schools. The locations are:
• Lincoln Avenue near Willow Street — westbound
• Lincoln Avenue west of Sherman Street — westbound
• Lincoln Avenue near Ninth Street — eastbound
• Lincoln Avenue east of Grand Street — eastbound
• Otis Drive west of Grand Street — eastbound
• Otis Drive west of Willow Street — westbound
A photograph of a pole mounted radar speed display sign is provided below.
GiyaflUmneda
publcWorks
apartment
Public Works w� forr,r
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Resolution #4 -F CC
3 -2 -04
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Concilmembers
BUDGET ANALYSIS/FISCAL IMPACT
February 19, 2004
OTS funds will pay only for equipment, not installation costs or staff costs to administer the grant.
The total amount being requested from OTS is $51,000. The contribution required from the City
will be approximately $10,000. These funds are available from the City's Measure B allocation.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by resolution, authorize application of an
Office of Traffic Safety Grant for six (6) pole mounted radar speed displays.
Respe .- lly submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: B
Pr i gr. ' Special
MTN:BB /dl
cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee
GAPUBWGRKS\ PWADMIN\COUNCIL\2004\030204\OTS Grant AP.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Gtvefillametla
tublicWoiks
apartment
Public Works Works for You!
E
0
u_
0
w
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL FY 2005
OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY FUNDS TO PURCHASE
SIX POLE - MOUNTED RADAR SPEED DISPLAYS
WHEREAS, the City intends to enhance motor vehicle and pedestrian safety,
especially in proximity to schools; and
WHEREAS, excessive speeds have been documented at numerous locations
throughout Alameda; and
WHEREAS, the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) administers a
competitive grant program for safety projects; and
cc
WHEREAS, the OTS has allocated funds for federal fiscal year 2005; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda wishes to apply to OTS for the funding the
purchase of six pole - mounted radar speed displays; and
WHEREAS, the City has $10,000 in funds needed for installation, data collection
and analysis, and project administration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda hereby authorizes the filing of an application with OTS for allocation of funds for the
project described above, authorizes the use of Measure B funds required to implement the
project, and authorizes the Public Works Director to execute any necessary documents.
Resolution 4 -F CC
03 -02 -04
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 , 2004, 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 , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
Date: February 18, 2004
RE: Resolution amending Exhibit A = Compensation Plan established by Council
Resolution 13545 to adjust benefits provided to the Deputy City Manager
classification assigned to the Alameda Point Project Manager position and amend
exhibit A -1 to reestablish the salary range for the Deputy City Manager
classification assigned to the Alameda Point Project Manager position.
BACKGROUND
Resolution 13545 approving salary and benefit adjustments for executive management
employees was approved in 2002 and covers the period November 1, 2002 through June 30,
2004.
The proposed resolution amends Resolution 13545, Exhibit A — Compensation Plan, Section 13.
Separability of Provisions, to exempt the Deputy City Manager assigned to the Alameda Point
Project Manager position from Section 3.2. Money Purchase Plan (IRC 401(a)) and Section 7.1
Vacation Benefits, paragraph 4, and modifies Section 2. Management Incentive Pay.
DISCUSSION
Staffing vacancies and changes in the organizational needs of Development Services and
Alameda Point activities and functions, call for adjustment to previous administrative and
reporting relationships, and thus for modifying the salary and certain benefit provisions to grant
appropriate compensation for the Deputy City Manager assigned to the Alameda Point Project
Manager position.
No new positions are being added.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to the General Fund.
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Re: Resolution #4 -G CC
3 -2 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, approve the resolution
amending Exhibit A — Compensation Plan established by Council Resolution 13545 to amend
Section 13. Separability of Provisions, to exempt the Deputy City Manager assigned to the
Alameda Point Project Manager position from Section 3.2. Money Purchase Plan (IRC 401(a))
and Section 7.1 Vacation Benefits, paragraph 4, and modifies Section 2. Management Incentive
Pay.
KW:mm
Respectfully,submitted,
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AMENDING EXHIBIT A — COMPENSATION PLAN ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 13545 TO ADJUST BENEFITS PROVIDED TO DEPUTY CITY
MANAGER CLASSIFICATION ASSIGNED TO THE ALAMEDA POINT PROJECT
MANAGER POSITION AND AMEND EXHIBIT A -1 TO REESTABLISH THE
SALARY RANGE FOR THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER CLASSIFICATION
ASSIGNED TO THE ALAMEDA POINT PROJECT MANAGER POSITION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda previously adopted City of
Alameda Resolution No. 13545 establishing the salary and benefits for the City Clerk,
Assistant City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Human Resources Director and Executive
Management Team Members (who include Public Works Director, Finance Director,
Planning Director, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, Recreation & Park
Director, General Manager of Golf Complex, IT Director, Library Director and General
Manager, Alameda Power and Telecom) for the period commencing November 1, 2002
and ending June 30, 2004; and
WHEREAS, staffing vacancies and changes in the organizational needs of
Development Services and Alameda Point activities and functions call for adjustment to
previous administrative and reporting relationships, and thus for modifying the salary and
certain benefit provisions to grant appropriate compensation for the Deputy City Manager
assigned to the Alameda Point Project Manager position.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA,
DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
1. Effective March 4, 2004, the Council hereby amends Exhibit A —
Compensation Plan to City of Alameda Resolution 13545 as set forth in
the Compensation Plan attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution to grant
appropriate compensation for the Deputy City Manager assigned to the
Alameda Point Project Manager position by providing for the provision of
the salary and benefits to that position in accordance with Exhibit A, as
amended, with the exception of Section 3.2 (Money Purchase Plan (IRC
401(a)) and Section 7.1 (Vacation Benefits) paragraph 4, and with
modification to Section 2 (Management Incentive Pay).
Resolution 4 -G CC
03 -02 -04
2. That the position classifications, salary rates, salary ranges, and salary
steps set out in Exhibit A to this Resolution are hereby designated as those
applicable to the respective classifications in the service of the City of
Alameda, originally effective November 1, 2002, as amended on March 3,
2004 and ending June 30, 2004.
Code
Classification
EXEMPT
BI- WEEKLY
Step
1
Step
2
Step
3
Step
4
Step
5
1055*
Deputy City Manager
$5298
*Indicates classification within thirty-seven and one -half (37 %z) or forty (40) hour
original work week.
EXHIBIT A — COMPENSATION PLAN
(As Amended)
Section 1. At -Will and Exempt FLSA Status
All employees covered under this Resolution are at -will, serving at the discretion of the City Manager (except
that the City Clerk serves at the pleasure of the City Council), and are exempt from FLSA coverage. The job
titles of the positions covered by this Compensation Plan are:
City Clerk
Assistant City Manager
Deputy City Manager
Human Resources Director
Public Works Director
Finance Director
Planning Director
Executive Director of the Housing Authority
Recreation and Park Director
General Manager of Golf Complex
Information Technologies Director
Library Director
Development Services Director
General Manager, Alameda Power and Telecom
Section 2. Management Incentive Pay
Fifteen (15) days per fiscal year of Management Incentive Pay is available for employees covered by this
Resolution.
Section 3. Salaries
3.1 Rates of Pay
The bi- weekly salary range for each classification shall be as set forth in Exhibit A -1, which is attached hereto.
3.2 Money Purchase Plan (IRC 401(a))
One per cent (1 %) deferred compensation will be paid by the City and two per cent (2 %) paid by the employee
towards an IRC 401(a) money purchase plan for employees covered by this Resolution.
Section 4. Health and Welfare
4.1 Flexible Benefit Plan
The City has contracted with the Public Employee's Retirement System (PERS) for the purpose of providing
medical insurance benefits for employees covered by this Resolution, eligible retired employees and eligible
survivors of retired employees. Eligibility of retired employees and survivors of retired employees to
participate in this program shall be in accordance with regulations promulgated by PERS.
The City has established a Flexible Benefits Account for each full-time employee who is eligible to enroll in one
of the PERS medical insurance plans offered by the City. The City will contribute Sixteen Dollars ($16.00) per
month per current eligible employee who subscribes for coverage in one of the PERS medical insurance plans
offered by the City. In the event PERS requires a minimum employer payment in excess of $16.00 per month,
the City shall pay such additional amounts only during the term of this Resolution.
1
The City shall make the following contributions per month per eligible employee toward the Flexible Benefits
Plan for Medical, Dental and Life Insurance (includes $16.00 City contribution if enrolled in PERS medical
insurance):
Effective Effective
1/1/02 1/1/03
Employee with no PERS Medical $663.84 $762.22
Employee only $649.84 $778.22
Employee and one dependant 649.84 778.22
Employee and two or more dependents 649.84 778.22
The balance of the cost incurred to provide medical care benefits for the employee and eligible dependents shall
be paid by the employee, provided, however, that should there be any increases in the PERS Kaiser premium
rates, the City shall adjust the above rates in each category by eighty-five (85 %) of such increases when such
increases exceed the Kaiser rate structure as of 1992 -93 (at that time 1 party was $162.82, 2 party was $325.64
and Family was $433.11).
For the purpose of this section, a dependent is defined as a person who satisfies the definition of dependent in
the PERS medical insurance plan in which the employee is enrolled. Such dependents must also be enrolled in
and covered by the plan.
In the event the above listed amounts plus the City payment towards medical insurance premium specified in
paragraph 2 above are insufficient to pay 100% of the premiums required of employees enrolled in any one of
the PERS medical insurance plans listed below, the City shall make a payroll deduction from the employee's
pay to cover the difference in cost.
The City's current practice to retum the unused portion of the flexible benefit monies to the employee as a
taxable case payment shall be continued.
4.2 Dental Insurance
The City shall provide dental insurance coverage on or after November 1, 2002 for full-time employees and
their eligible dependents. This coverage will be mandatory for all employees. Any increase in premium shall
cause a like increase in the flexible benefit account.
Effective the first day of the month following the date of the adoption of Resolution by the City Council, the
dental plan will be the $2,500/$2,500 plan per employee and eligible dependents for annual dental care and
lifetime orthodontic care.
4.3 Life Insurance
The City shall provide each employee with a One Hundred Thousand Dollar ($100,000.00) life insurance
program. This coverage will be mandatory for all employees covered by this Resolution. Any increase in
premium shall cause a like increase in the flexible benefit account.
The City shall provide each employee with the opportunity to purchase, at their own cost, additional optional
life insurance up to the maximum amount provided by and subject to the conditions of the carrier.
4.4 IRC Section 125
In conjunction with the Flexible Benefits Plan, the City agrees to implement an IRC Section 125 plan to redirect
the employees' pre - selected amount of salary to pay employee paid insurance premiums and other approved
expenses with "pre -tax" instead of "after tax" dollars.
4.5 Employee Assistance Program
The City shall continue to provide for all employees an employee assistance program. The cost of such program
shall continue to be paid by the City only during the term of this Resolution.
2
4.6 Long Term Disability Insurance
The City will provide a paid for LTD insurance plan equal to benefits provided for in the current plan which is
66.6667% of monthly earnings up to a maximum benefit of $8,000 per month for the number of months
according to the terms and conditions of the plan. If benefits are improved, such improvement shall be
incorporated in the Long Term Disability Plan at no cost to all employees covered under this Resolution.
Section 5. Retirement Plan
5.1 The present Retirement Plan between the City and Public Employees Retirement System shall be maintained at
the current benefit level for the duration of this Resolution.
1. 2 %at55.
2 The City provides the PERS single highest year retirement benefit.
3. Employees pay their own seven (7 %) percent contribution.
4. The City amended its contract with PERS during 1991 to provide for additional service credit for
unused sick leave. Those employees eligible for sick leave payoff may select to use eligible payoff
days for either payoff or prior service credit. There will be no maximum sick leave accrual.
5. The City will allow any employee retired under the PERS Retirement plan a one time only election to
participate permanently in the City's medical plans at his or her own expense. Participation in this
program shall be in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by PERS.
5.2 In lieu of a 4.0% of salary adjustment to be effective July 1, 2003, the City Manager and employees covered by-
this Compensation Plan agree to implement a .5% retirement enhancement through a stackable PARS Plan
subject to the following conditions:
Receipt of retirement enhancement benefits under the PARS Plan shall be subject to
the terms and conditions of the Plan. The incremental cost of the PARS actuarial
study shall be paid for by the employees. The actual cost of City contributions to
the PARS Plan during the period covered by this Resolution shall not exceed the
cost of the July 1, 2003 4% salary adjustment during the period covered by this
Resolution. Should the cost of the PARS Plan be less than the cost of the 4% salary
adjustment, the remaining amount of salary adjustment shall be effective July 1,
2003.
In the event that no agreement is reached regarding the PARS Plan, the employees covered by this
resolution shall receive the 4% salary increase effective July 1, 2003.
Section 6. Holidays
Employees covered by this Resolution shall be entitled to take all authorized holidays at full pay, not to exceed
7.5 hours pay for any one (1) day.
The authorized holidays for the City are:
(1) New Year's Day
(2) Martin Luther King's Birthday
(3) Washington's Birthday
(4) Memorial Day
(5) Independence Day
3
(6) Labor Day
(7) Veterans Day
(8) Thanksgiving Day
(9) Day after Thanksgiving Day
(10) Christmas Day
(11)(12) and (13 'A2) Three and one -half (3 ' /2) Floating Holidays (to be taken each year during the period
January 1 through December 31)
Section 7. Vacation
7.1 Vacation Benefits
Every employee who, on the most recent anniversary date of his or her employment, shall have been in the
service of the City for a period of one (1) year or more shall be entitled to a vacation as follows:
For the purposes of this section a work week is 37 -1/2 hours and a working day is 7 -1/2 hours.
Upon the discretion of the City Manager, employees covered by this Resolution, including incumbents, may
receive up to twenty (20) working days of vacation with pay annually upon employment to recognize previous
applicable experience_
An employee shall receive one additional working day of paid vacation for each additional year of service on
their anniversary date up to a total of 25 vacation days.
7.2 Vacation Accumulation
No employee may accumulate more than one hundred fifty (150) hours of vacation at any one time in addition
to the employee's annual vacation entitlement. Any vacation benefits conferred by this Resolution in excess of
that amount shall be paid to the employee at the time of receipt.
7.3 Vacation Pav at Termination
Upon termination of employment, an employee covered by this Resolution shall be paid cash value of his or her
accrued vacation leave. Vacation leave shall not be credited to any employee whose employment is terminated
prior to the completion of the initial twelve (12) months of employment with the City.
Section 8. Sick Leave
8.1 Benefits
Employees covered by this Resolution shall accrue sick leave at the rate of one (1) day (a day being based 7 -1/2
hours) per month. There shall be no limit on sick leave accrual.. In no event shall sick leave be converted into
a cash bonus. Charge for sick leave used shall be on the basis of one (1) hour for each hour used. Sick leave
may not be used before it is earned.
Section 9. Leaves of Absence
9.1 Funeral Leave
In the event of a death in the immediate family of an employee who has one (1) or more years of uninterrupted
service with the City, the employee shall, upon request, be granted such time off with pay as is necessary to
make arrangements for the funeral and attend same, not to exceed four (4) regularly scheduled working days.
This provision does not apply if the death occurs while the employee is on leave of absence, layoff, or sick
leave.
For the purpose of this provision, the immediate family shall be restricted to father, mother, brother, sister,
spouse, child, mother -in -law, father -in -law, grandparents, grandchildren, step - parents or stepchildren where
4
there is a child- rearing relationship. At request of the City, the employee will furnish a death certificate and
proof of relationship.
Funeral leave applies only in instances in which the employee attends the funeral, or is required to make funeral
arrangements, but is not applicable for other purposes such as settling the estate of the deceased.
9.2 Jury Duty
An employee summoned to jury duty shall inform the City Manager and, if required to serve, may be absent
from duty with full pay for that time required to serve.
Section 10. Auto Allowance
Employees covered by this Resolution shall be provided with an auto allowance of $250 per month. This
allowance shall be treated as taxable income but shall not be considered as salary for PERS purposes.
Section 11. Outside Employment
No full -time employee shall engage in employment that constitutes a conflict for the employee or the City. No
employee shall engage in outside employment during his/her regular working hours. No uniform, emblem,
badge or other employee identification shall be wom by any person while in the employment of someone other
than the City. All requests by the employee for permission to engage in outside employment shall be made on a
form provided by the City. No employee shall accept or continue employment other than with the City of
Alameda without the approval of the City Manager, which may be' withheld only if such employment constitutes
a conflict for the employee or the City or which would interfere with the employee's ability to perform his or her
City job.
Section 12. Miscellaneous
Drug Free Work Place
The parties agree to the City's Drug Free Work Place Policy and. Testing Procedure.
Section 13. Separability of Provisions
The following provisions do not apply to the City Clerk:
Section 11. Outside Employment
The following provisions do not apply to the Deputy City Manager:
Section 2. Management Incentive Pay
Instead, ten (10) standard work -week days of Management Incentive Pay is available for
employees assigned to the Deputy City Manager classification.
Section 3.2 Money Purchase Plan (IRC 401 (a))
Section 7.1, Vacation Benefits, paragraph 4
5
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 , 2004 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this day of , 2004.
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
February 26, 2004
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the
City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers Amount
120639 - 121115 3,140,083.26
EFT081 45,000.00
Void Checks:-
117195 ($119.00)
119557 ($145.00)
119583 ($892.55)
119661 ($112.00)
120572 ($225.00)
GRAND TOTAL
Allowed in open session:
Date:
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk Pamela J. Sible
Approved for payment:
Date:
Finance Director
Council Warrants 03 -02 -04
3,183,589.71
BILLS #4 -H
3/2/2004
E
0
i
w
Zoo cc
® I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING MARGARET McNAMARA AS A MEMBER OF THE
CITY PLANNING BOARD
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the provisions of
Article X of the Charter of the City of Alameda, and upon nomination of the Mayor, MARGARET
McNAMARA is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Planning Board of the City of
Alameda to fill the unexpired term of Ronald Rossi for the term commencing March 2, 2004 and
expiring on June 30, 2005 and to serve until her successor is appointed and qualified.
4 adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit:
'
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this day of , 2004
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolution 5 -A
03 -02 -04
City of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
DATE February 11, 2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
RE:
Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's approval of Minor
Design Review, MDR03 -0256 for 116 Brunswick Road, which permits the
construction of an approximately 360 - square foot, second story room addition. This
addition would be located above the attached garage and would extend an additional
14 -feet forward from the original location of the 2n' story. The appellant is
requesting a compromise that would require that the scope of the project be revised to
provide the second story addition with an additional setback from the adjoining
property line. The site is located within an R -1 -PD, Single - Family Residence Zoning
District. Applicant: Todd Meagher. Appellant: Paula Kindrachuk of 32 Cheshire
Court.
Background
The appellant is appealing the Planning Board's January 12, 2004 conditional approval of this Minor
Design Review, MDR03 -0256. This item was submitted to the Planning Board under an appeal of
the Planning and Building Director's conditional approval. The appellant claims that the proposed
project would block sunlight and view from a cluster of windows within a side -yard atrium and
create a building mass that is inconsistent with the other homes in the immediate neighborhood. The
appellant is proposing an alternative plan that would require that the second story bedroom addition
maintain an additional 5 -foot setback from the southerly wall surface. The appellant's proposal
would reduce the width of the proposed bedroom addition from 20 -feet in width to 15 -feet in width.
The appellant provided a shading study prepared by a consultant at the time of the public hearing in
order to provide details on impacts to their home. In taking its action to approve this project, the
Planning Board found the impacts from shading and view reduction associated with the applicant's
proposal to have minimal impact on the adjacent residence.
In this appeal to the City Council, the appellant provides no new information or analysis regarding
the shading issue than what was presented to the Planning Board, but restricts her argument to the
review and actions of the Harbor Bay Isle Owners' Association.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing and
Resolution #5 -B
3 -2 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Discussion / Analysis
February 9, 2004
Page 2
The Planning and Building Director's and Planning Board's decisions to approve this project is
based upon the fact that the project was approved by the homeowners' association, the project
conforms with the design standards of the Planned Development, the level of building massing is
consistent with other structures within the development, the proposal maintains building articulation,
and the level of shading and view impact is minimal as supported by the appellant's own shading
study. This study outlined the limited shading impacts as follows:
"...analysis of the proposed addition shade patterns on the appellant's home would create
some loss of light currently available to the appellants home. There would be 123 days of
the year between April 18 and August 24 in which more shade would occur. The daily
duration of the new shade pattern would be from 10 to a bit more than 60 minutes on each
day. The time of occurrence would be after 5:30 pm."
The action of the Harbor Bay Isle Owners' Association was considered by the Planning and Building
Director and the Planning Board in each of their decisions of approval, but was not the sole reason
for these decisions. The City's actions are not bound by any of the homeowners' associations
actions, nor does the City enforce the development's "Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions"
(CC &R's).
Budget Considerations/ Fiscal Impact
There will be no additional funding in the Planning & Building Department budget necessary
relating to Planning activities for this project.
Recommendation
The City Manager recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, review all pertinent
testimony and information and then act to uphold the Planning Board approval of Minor Design
Review, MDR03 -0256, as provided in the draft City Council Resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory L. uz
Planning and Building Director
By:
Dennis Brighton, P1 •a er II
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
ATTACHMENTS:
February 9, 2004
Page 3
1. Petition of Appeal and Letter from Robert and Paula Kindrachuk, January 20, 2004
2. Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -08
3. Planning Board Minutes, January 12, 2004
4. Planning Board Staff Report, January 12, 2004 (without attachments)
5. Sun Accessibility Study and Window Hemisphere Study, November 13, 2003
6. Applicant's Site Plan and Elevation Plans
cc: Robert & Paula Kindrachuk, Appellant
Todd Meagher, Property Owner /Applicant
President, Planning Board
G:\ PLANNING\ CC \REPORTS\2004 \4MDR030256CC..doc
MDR03 -0256
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
PETITION FOR APPEAL
TO: CITY OF ALAMEDA
City Hall (Planning Board or City Council)
2263 Santa Clara Avenue #190
Alameda CA 94501
This petition is hereby filed as an appeal of the decision
Planning\
Board)
which
• bu n i m hpcLrd
Director /Zoning Administrator /Planning
Cat X r T�.!
of the
Board /Historical Advisory
(Denied /Granted /Established Conditions)
i nP-C1;5- 02.6b
(Application Number)
Design Review
on
at
(Street Address)
Use Permit
Subdivision Map Rezoning
Planned Development /Amendment
l i?)oL1
(Specify Date)
The basis of the appeal is:
(;- di.GCChECi , 0.nd Encibe.(1.fe
Rod
for
for a
Variance
P1annned Development
Other
(Specify)
(If more space is needed, continue on the reverse side or attach additional
sheets.)
(Name)
;)her \t rk,u„lk f 6, rot Lh L
(Address)
(...he Q -,1 s (-t- AU-troth, (A
(City /State)
/5- la 5- -,;2„r (016qd
(Telephone -/Work
(Telephone - ,Home)
****************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ***�* * * * * * ** * * * * *' *�1E��
(For Office Use Only)
Received By:
Receipt No.:
f'.
G: \PLANNING \FORMS \APPEAL01.WPD
Date Received Stamp
Attachment #1
January 20, 2004
Alameda City Council
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara, CA 94501
Re: Application # MDR03 -0256 at 116 Brunswick
Dear City Council,
My husband Robert and I wish to appeal the Planning Board approval of Application # MDR03 -02556 at
116 Brunswick. The Planning Board was not aware of some key issues with this application when they
considered this application for approval, and that there are still unresolved legal issues at the level of the
approval by the Community of Harbor Bay Isle.
The applicant submitted an architectural application to the Community Architectural Committee (CAC) of
Harbor Bay Isle. We appealed this application on June 23, 2003 because of three concerns, 1) loss of
Tight to three bedrooms and two bathrooms in our home, 2) the Toss of the view for one of the bedrooms,
and 3) the bulk of the addition.
Our home is next to the applicant's home. This addition is planned to be constructed on the side of the
house that is our zero lot line. The homes in Lantern Bay were designed by the architects to have
articulated construction with an "urban forest" look. These homes were carefully constructed with floor
plans that are set to take advantage of the view and light from each window. Additionally, no single
story home in Lantern Bay can add a second story to further protect this look. The "Architectural Rules
and Standards" of Harbor Bay Isle state that "an addition to an existing dwelling shall not be permitted
when, in the judgment of the CAC, the addition will result in excessive bulk, insufficient back or front yard
space, insufficient setbacks, or other negative impact on neighboring properties such as significant
obstruction to views, infringement on privacy, or blockage of sunlight. Additional attention shall be given
to setback conditions on zero lot line properties."
Our appeal was heard by Harbor Bay Isle Board of Directors on July 26, 2003. Robert and I were given
the opportunity to present our concerns and the applicant was given that same opportunity. The HB
Board of Directors (BOD) in closed session, ruled in our favor and sustained the appeal in a letter dated
August 7, 2003 (enclosed letter of August 7). We expected to "to work cooperatively to design an
addition that has less impact on sunlight patterns ", as had been mandated in this ruling.
Instead of working towards this goal, we were surprised when we were sent a letter, dated 9/8/03, by
the CAC informing us that the applicant had resubmitted the same application withoutany changes.
This was in clear disregard of the ruling by the Board of Directors on July 26, 2003. We later learned
that there had been ex parte communication between the applicant and the Board.
The applicant had made no attempt to follow the directive of the BOD, but rather had produced a video
that was to "prove" no impact to our sunlight patterns. We were not given an opportunity to view this
videotape. We questioned the application and the resubmission of the same plans without change.
There is no procedure set in our CCR's allowing a resubmission of a previously denied application, and
completely disregarded the directive by the BOD from July 26. We sought informal legal advice and were
informed that this action was probably illegal. Despite this, Thomas Jordan, CHBI Executive Director said
they would allow this resubmission.
August 7, 2003
Mr. & Mrs. Todd Meagher
116 Brunswick Road
Alameda CA 94502
Community of Harbor Bay Isle
Owners' Association, Inc.
3195 Mecartney Road
Alameda, California 94502 -6912
(510) 865 -3363
RE: Architectural Application A00120030406 —116 Brunswick Road
Mr. & Mrs. Meagher,
The purpose of this letter is to confirm in writing the decision of the Community of Harbor Bay Isle's
Board of Directors relative your appeal of the above referenced architectural application as approved
by the Community Architectural Committee (CAC).
The Community Board of Directors held an appeal hearing on Thursday, July 26, 2003. Mr.
Meagher's attendance as applicant and owner of 116 Brunswick, the appellants Dr & Mrs. Kindrachuk
owners of 32 Cheshire Court were noted. In addition to accepting staffs report the Board accepted a
written report from Dr. Kindrachuk, photos from Mr. Meagher, reviewed plans of the proposed
addition prepared by Design Planning and took testimony from the appellants and applicant.
The Board found that the proposed second story addition would not have a significant impact on the
view as seen from the home at 32 Cheshire Court through the corridor between the two properties,
i.e., between 116 Brunswick Road and 32 Cheshire Court. However, the Board found that the
addition would have an impact on the current sunlight patterns within this corridor, which ultimately
would reduce the amount of Tight that entered into the Kindrachuk's home.
Accordingly, the Board of Directors ruled to sustain the appeal, thereby overturning the Community
Architectural Committee's action to approve the addition; and, requested the applicant, Mr. Meagher,
Design Planning, and the appellants, Dr. & Mrs. Kindrachuk to work cooperatively to design an
addition that has less impact on the sunlight patterns currently enjoyed by the appellants.
If a redesign is done, it must be resubmitted to the CAC for review and action following the review
and recommendation of Lantern Bay's Project Architectural Committee. The Community Board is
requesting that both the CAC and the PAC act on the resubmitted application without delay.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY OF HARBOR BAY ISLE
Thomas Jordan
Executive Director
cc: Dr. & Mrs. Kindrachuk, 32 Cheshire Court
CHBI Board of Directors
Lantern Bay Board of Directors & Project Architectural Committee
Community Architectural Committee
property file
• :t
October 9, 2003
Dr. & Mrs. Robert Kindrachuk
32 Cheshire Court
Alameda CA 94502
Community of Harbor Bay Isle
Owners' Association, Inc.
3195 Mecartney Road
Alameda, California 94502 -6912
(510) 865 -3363
RE: Architectural Application A00120030406- Resubmission
116 Brunswick Road — Second Story Addition
Dr. & Mrs. Kindrachuk,
In accordance with the Community Board's established appeal policy and procedure, your
request for a hearing to appeal the Architectural Committees' action relative to architectural
application A00120030406 has been reviewed by the Community Board's President and Village
III Representative. They determined the Community Board of Directors should hear this appeal.
The President and Village Representative have both indicated the hearing is to be schedule for
the next Community Board meeting, Thursday, October 30, 2003 at 7:OOpm. They were in
receipt of copies of your letter requesting the appeal, but indicating you would not be available
the end of October. You may authorize a representative to present your evidence at the appeal
hearing. The Board feels it would create undo delays to postpone the hearing until the end of
November.
If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please feel free to call upon me.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY OF HARBOR BAY ISLE
Thomas Jo
Executive ecd
cc: CHBI Board of Directors
Lantern Bay Board of Directors
Community Architectural Committee
property file
LAW OFFICES OF
RODNEY A. MARIAN!
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1 325 HIGH STREET
ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA 9450
(51 0) 521 -2230
FAX (51 0) 521 -0 174
RODNEYMARIANI@AOL.COM
October 23, 2003
Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail
(925) 820 -5592
Paul W. Windust, Esq.
BERDING & WEIL LLP
3240 Stone Valley Road West
. Alamo, CA 94507 -1558
Re: Kindrachuk and CIIBIA
Dear Mr. Windust:
Last night during our telephone conversation, I made a proposal that we agreed would be an
efficient means by which to address the issues of our clients. The proposal is as follows: On
November 13, 2003, 6:30 p.m. my clients will raise their procedural objection to the Board going
forward with the resubmission by the property owner at 116 Brunswick Road. If the Board rules
in my client's favor, the natter is over. If, however, the Board rules that they are satisfied with
tllb procedure they established allowing the applicant to resubmit unchanged plans without
complying with its July 26, 2003 order, then the Board shall proceed to hear the appeal on its
merits. If it rules in my clients' favor, once again the matte is over. 11 it rules in favor of the
applicant property owner at 116 Brunswick Road, then the Board will stay ruling until the
parties, Kindrachuck and CI -IBIA, have the proccdul al issue decided by Al)R.
If your client's accept this proposal, we should immediately begin to pick a person to hear the
matter. Please let me know as soon as possible.
Since
Rbfiney I ariani
RA.M /ll-j
cc: Dr. & Mrs. Kindrachuk
LAW OFFICES OF
RODNEY A. MARIAN!
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1325 HIGH STREET
ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA 94501
(510) 521 -2230
FAX (510) 521 -0174
ROD N EYMAR IAN I @AOL.COM
November 12, 2003
Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail
(510) 522 -1436
Community of Harbor Bay Isle
Board of Directors
3195 Mecartney Road
Alameda. CA 94502
Re: Kindrachuck vs. CI IBIA Board of Directors
Dear Board Members:
Pursuant to an agreement that I made with Paul Windust, Esq., this letter addresses several issues
that I brought up on behalf of my clients in two prior letters, one addressed to you on October 16,
2003 and one addressed to Mr. Windust on October 23, 2003.
The letter to Mr. Windust sets forth what I thought was an agreement on the manner by which
you would proceed at the meeting set for November 13, 2003 on the issues presented by my
clients and the Meaghers' re- submission. 1 have attached my letter to Mr. Windust and ask that
you first decide the matters set forth therein before proceeding, if necessary, with a hearing on
the appeal.
With respect to the "re- submission" of the unchanged application of the Meaghers, my clients
are requesting that you invalidate the action of the Architectural Committee and that you
reinstate your ruling of July 26, 2003. Though courts don't like to interfere with Homeowner's
Associations, an architectural committee "owes a duty to homeowners to exercise its powers in
good faith, and its decisions cannot be arbitrary. Judicial relief is available where its action is
arbitrary or unreasonable." (9 Cal Real Estate 3d, Subdivisions, 23.115; Cohen V. Kite Hill
Community Assn 142 CA 3d 642, 650, 651, 191 CR 209) The combined action of the
Community Architectural Committee and Board was patently unfair and unreasonable in that the
Rules.. and. Standards did not allow for such a procedure, in fact, the heading of the paragraph
dealing with the appeal boldly states: Final Decision of the Community Board. What makes
this action even more egregious is that if the decision of July 26 had been unfavorable to my
clients, they would not have had another bite out of the apple that you unilaterally provided for
the unsuccessful applicant.
In addition to owing a duty to act reasonably, the law requires that you follow your rules and
standards and that you do not change these rules and standards except in the manner provided for
in the CC &R's and bylaws. In Ironwood Owners Assn. IA' n. So1o111o1n 178 Cal.App.3d 766, 772
Community of Harbor Bay Isle
Re: Kindrachucic
November 12, 2003
224 CR 18 the court of appeal reversed a lower court that had issued a mandatory
against a homeowner to remove six palm trees planted in violation of the =
The court of appeal held that though the homeowner was in vi injunction
governing
not follow its rules and standards, so the injunction was invalidated b documents.
not see that there rul is adifference between what violation and the rules, the Board did
allowing a "re-submission" is any ny
after a between
decision disapproving nd the trees at you did I by
tat the Ironwood Board did and what you did by
pprovin of the plans previously submitted.
Thomas Jordan's letter of September 16 on the above issue is offensive to the
against
&R regulations from which the
unreasonableness. His position, and presamabl y yours, that "[a]ny lnprohibition resubmission of plans would have to be adopted into the CC law and embodies
Community considers applications" is unfair to applicants, especially when the during an ongoing application process. The institution of this procedure procedure is first
unfair and unreasonable if it were adopted by the Board pursuant to the CC&R's and /or bylaws
and homeowners were given notice of the change before its im le mentatioR would not be
p n.
I have no idea why you modified your rules and standards in the manner that
some suggestion by Mr. Jordan that it had to do with a video made by reason, the argument above is equally applicable because the video ) you did, there is
the
issues e argument
presented at the hearing. y 1VIrt ostensibly e. if this was
g A final decision should be just that, finalbly relates to the
My clients strongly feel that the applicant is required to comply with your ruling
2003, and want to avoid a protracted legal battle, so, once again, I encourage you to of itivnalidatc
v 26,
the re- submission of the Meaghers and require that they comply with your ruling.
Sincerely,
odney Mariaii
RAM /Ilj
cc: Mr. & Mrs. Kindrachuck
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. PPB -04 -08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DENYING AN
APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF
MINOR DESIGN REVIEW, MDR03 -0256 AT 116 BRUNSWICK ROAD
WHEREAS, Todd Meagher of 116 Brunswick Road made an application on September 24,
2003, requesting Minor Design Review approval to permit the constriction of an approximately 360 -
square foot, second story room addition. This addition would be located above the attached garage and
would extend an additional 14 -feet forward fi-om the original Location of the 2nd story; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on October 22, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Low Density Residential on the General Plan
Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R -1 -PD, Single - Family, Planned Development
Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners' Association reviewed and
conditionally approved the project on appeal on November 13, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director conditionally approved this Minor Design Review on
November 17, 2003; and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2003, Paula Kindrachuk filed an appeal, of the Planning
Director's decision, to the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on this application on January 12, 2004, and
examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board considered staff responses to the bases of the appellant's
appeal as set out in the staff report, which is hereby incorporated by reference, and finds that there are
no merits to the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is finds that there is no merit in the appeal and makes the
following findings relative to the approval of the Minor Design Review application:
1. The project will have no significant adverse impacts on the persons or property in the
vicinity.
This finding can be made. The proposed second -story addition complies with all standards of the
Planned Development and will not impact adjacent properties in regards to causing excessive
shading or privacy reduction, as stipulated by the approval of the homeowners' association. There
would be only 123 days of the year where there would be from 10 to 60 minutes of shading after 5:30
1
Attachment #2
p.m., therefore, there is no significant adverse impacts associated with shading impacts on adjacent
properties.
The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the
surrounding area.
This finding can be made. The proposal is consistent with the level of development, including
building massing, setback standards, number of stories, and building height of the other residential
buildings within this development and the proposal conforms with the design standards of this
planned development. The proposal will also utilize matching surface materials and will match the
architectural character of the residence and adjacent structures. The proposed expansion will not
change the use of the single - family dwelling.
3. The project is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines.
This finding can be made. The proposed expansion is consistent with the development standards of
this planned development and therefore, is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review
Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda
hereby determines that the proposal is Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines, Section 15301 - Minor Expansion of Existing Structures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby
denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Director's approval of Minor Design Review, MDR03-
0256, subject to the following conditions:
1. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans prepared by Design
Planning Associates, Inc., dated May 22, 2003, marked "Exhibit A ", on file in the office of the
City of Alameda Planning Department, subject to and as modified by the following conditions:
Exterior materials for the addition shall match the existing structure, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning and Building.
3. Design approval is valid for six months after the date of this approval. Final Design Review
approval shall be obtained prior to June 16, 2004, unless the applicant applies for and is
granted a six (6) months extension by Design Review Staff prior to said expiration. Only one
(1) extension may be granted.
5. Planning Staff site inspection is required prior to final building inspection.
6. No windows shall be installed facing the abutting property to the south (32 Cheshire Court).
7. Compliance with Codes: All work related to the proposal shall comply with the applicable
Zoning, Uniform Building, and Uniform Fire Codes.
2
8. Acknowledgment of Conditions. The permittee shall acknowledge and accept in writing the
conditions of approval set out in this Resolution in order for this Minor Design Review to be
exercised.
9. Hold Harmless. The City of Alameda requires that the applicant; or its successors in interest,
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning this Design
Review approval, which action is brought within the time period provide for in Government
Code Section 66499.37. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant ofany claim,
action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to
promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
The decision of the Planning Board shall be final unless appealed to the City Council, in writing
and within ten (10) days of the decision by completing and submitting an appeal form and paying the
required fee.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this
decision or final action on any appeals plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.6.
NOTICE. The Conditions ofProject Approval set forth herein include certain fees and other
exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these Conditions constitute written
notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications; reservations
and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day appeal period in which you may
protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a) has begun. If
you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all the requirements of Section
66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th of January 2004 by the Planning Board of the City of
Alameda by the following vote:
AYES: (5) Cunningham, Bard, Cook, Lynch, Piziali
NOES: (0)
ABSENT: (1) Mariani
ATTEST:
re •,.ry Fuz, Secreta /
6i Planning Boar
3
8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8 -A. MDR03 -0256 — Applicant: Todd Meagher /Appellant: Paula Kindrachuk --
116 Brunswick Road (DB). Mrs. Kindrachuk is appealing staff's conditional
approval of this minor design review which permits the construction of an
approximately 360 square foot, second story room addition to the adjacent
residence. This addition would be located above the attached garage and would
extend an additional 14 -feet forward from the original location of the second
story. The appellant is requesting a compromise that would require that the scope
of the project be revised to provide the second story addition with an additional
setback from the adjoining property line. The site is located within the R -1/PD,
Single - Family Residence/Planned Development Zoning District.
Mr. Brighton presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Board deny the
appeal, and that the Planning and Building Director's Decision be upheld.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Todd Meagher, 116 Brunswick Road, applicant, noted that he had appeared before
three different boards to get approval for this addition. He added that he had hired a
contractor who had performed similar work in his area, and received guidance whether
this project would meet all the requirements. He had appeared before the homeowners
association or the Appeal Board four times, and they had approved the project. He noted
that the dispute from the neighbors was that one bedroom window on the side of their
home with a partial view would be affected by the addition. The appellants claimed that
the 1 ight w ould b e i mpacted o n t hat w indow, and a 1 ight c onsultant h ad p resented t he
light study before the Appeal Board.
Mr. Meagher noted that there was no impact on light, but that there was a partial impact
on sunlight at the very end of the day for a few minutes to an hour. He noted that there
would be no impact on light if the sun was not out. He believed the impact to be minimal,
and the appellants' requests would result in a complete redesign of the project and
financial impacts from paying the architect additional fees. The appellants' proposed
addition would make his house asymmetrical and aesthetically unpleasant. He believed
that he was not able to exercise his rights as a homeowner.
Mr. Bob Kindrachuk, appellant, 32 Cheshire Court, noted that their appeal was based on
three issues:
1. Effective view, which affected only his house;
2. Effective lighting, which also affected only his house; and
3. Building mass, which he believed affected the entire neighborhood.
Mr. Kindrachuk believed that their alternative design would be a reasonable remedy to all
the issues and still allow the applicant to build. He noted that the addition would front
Planning Board Minutes
January 12, 2004
Page 7
Attachment #3
their north - facing atrium, which provided all the light and view for one side of their
home, including two bedrooms, two baths, and half the light and view for a third
bedroom. He noted that it also involved a landscaping space, and that the landscaping
would not be able to thrive without the light. He noted that the small affect on the light
would have a dramatic effect on the light within their house. He displayed the existing
and proposed elevations, as well as his suggested remedy to the massing. He suggested
moving the south wall by five feet, which would maintain 90 percent of their light and
most of their view corridor, reduce the bulk of the project, and maintain space for a one -
bedroom addition. He displayed their suggested remodel.
Ms. Paula Kindrachuk, appellant, noted that the lighting study addressed the view and
light from one window which affected the entire atrium. She noted that the time of day
when the light would be impacted occurred when they would be home.
Mr. Paul LaBerge, 2507 24th Avenue, Oakland, daylighting consultant, displayed the
study on the daylighting impact on the appellants' house by the proposed addition.
Ms. Marcia Hoyt, 12 Cheshire Court, noted that the addition did not directly affect her
property. She expressed concern about the integrity of the Lantern Bay property and the
way it was originally designed. She did not realize the residents could build additions to
their homes. She noted that as a homeowner, she would want to work in harmony with
her neighbors, and that if there was a concern, she would compromise with them. She
was concerned about the precedent that might be set if the current plans were allowed to
go forward.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Bard noted that this issue had come up in Harbor Bay, and inquired
whether there were other planned developments that allowed for additional stories.
Mr. Brighton noted that this planned development did not allow for additional stories, but
did allow for minor expansions. He noted that most of the limitations occurred on the
ground floor, and addressed the patio and open space. He stated that staff had examined
those issues before. He noted that this particular project did not change the ground floor
or the footprint of the house, and that it conformed to the original design guidelines for
this particular development.
Vice President Bard expressed concern about planned developments with limited space
between the buildings, and that they were designed to be in harmony with one another.
He believed that in planned developments, the concessions regarding additions had
already been made.
Mr. Brighton noted that was not the case in this project, and that the development had
limitations only on the ground floor with expansion into the open space and patios. The
project called for articulation on second stories in relation to the ground floor, regardless
of whether the project was appealed or changed.
Planning Board Minutes Page 8
January 12, 2004
President P iziali b elieved t hese i ssues c ould b e handled b etter w ithin t he h omeowners
associations if the CC &Rs addressed them.
Mr. Brighton noted that different developments had different design guidelines. He noted
that planned development amendments were open to anyone, regardless of how strict the
development standard may be in prohibiting an expansion. In this particular case, the
guidelines for expansions were more flexible; the homeowner proposed to expand into an
allowed area. Staff's position was that if the applicant receives approval from the
homeowners association, it was typically treated like a Minor Design Review and was
generally approved. In this case, however, the project initially received homeowners
association approval and was then appealed to the architecture body, resulting in a denial.
The p roj ect w as r esubmitted a nd e ventually approved b y t he h omeowners a ssociation.
After that process, staff handled the project like a Major Design Review, and noticed it
publicly. After waiting for the homeowners association's final action, staff followed the
homeowners association's direction and processed it as any other case.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Cook regarding the difference between the first
submittal to the homeowners association and the approval plan, Mr. Brighton replied that
there had been no difference, and that the plan had simply been resubmitted.
Mr. Cunningham sympathized with the applicant, given that the project was within his
rights a s a homeowner. H e did not believe that t he scope of shading on the neighbor,
which ranged from one minute to one hour, could be construed as a major impact. He
suggested that rather than moving the front wall back, that the pitch of the gable be
modified to reflect the main slope of the roof to improve the shading issue. He also
suggested t hat t he s emicircular w indow o n t he top b e r emoved. H e s uggested t hat t he
apex of the roof caused the main shadow line on the neighbors' house.
Mr. LaBerge advised that the shading effect for the second floor occurred close to sunset,
and that the atrium on the first floor was affected earlier in the afternoon. He noted that
the shadow from the gable would fall on the Meagher house, rather than to the atrium. At
certain times, it would also affect the south gable. He noted that the effects of the vertical
edge had been described most completely in the report.
Mr. Lynch noted that he was reluctant to interfere with the project, given that it had been
approved by the homeowners association, a design review board, and had been otherwise
vetted through the community process. He believed that at some point, a determination
about the projects must be made. He noted that he would need a compelling reason to
overturn the community process that was set up at Harbor Bay.
President P iziali b elieved t hat a relatively m inor a mount o f tight w as a t i ssue, a nd h e
hoped that similar projects were not subject to the same fine distinctions. He agreed with
Mr. Lynch's assessment of the project.
Planning Board Minutes Page 9
January 12, 2004
Vice President Bard expressed sympathy for the neighbors because he was experiencing
construction in his neighborhood. He noted that in terms of setbacks, stories, and overall
height of the building, the project was in total compliance with City ordinances. In
addition, it was in compliance with the CC &Rs, and had been through the community
process with the homeowners association. He believed the light reduction on the
appellants' house was very minor.
M/S Cunningham/Bard and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04-
08 to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning and Building Director's Decision for the
minor design review which permits the construction of an approximately 360 square foot,
second story room addition to the adjacent residence. This addition would be located
above the attached garage and would extend an additional 14 -feet forward from the
original location of the second story.
AYES — 5 (Mariani absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0
Planning Board Minutes Page 10
January 12, 2004
ITEM NO.:
APPLICATION:
GENERAL PLAN:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
STAFF PLANNER:
RECOMMENDATION:
ACRONYMS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of January 12, 2004
CITY OF ALAMEDA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
8 -A
Minor Design Review, MDR03 -0256 Todd Meagher for 116
Brunswick Road: Appellant: Paula Kindrachuk of 32 Cheshire
Court. Mrs. Kindrachuk is appealing staff's conditional approval of
this minor design review which permits the construction of an
approximately 360- square foot, second story room addition. This
addition would be located above the attached garage and would
extend an additional 14 -feet forward from the original location of
the 2nd story. The appellant is requesting a compromise that would
require that the scope of the project be revised to provide the
second story addition with an additional setback from the adjoining
property line. The site is located within an R -1 -PD, Single - Family
Residence Zoning District.
Low Density Residence
Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section
[15301] — [Minor Alteration of Existing Structures]
Dennis Brighton, Planner II
Deny Appeal and Uphold the Planning and Building Director's
Decision.
AMC — Alameda Municipal Code
1. Draft Resolution
2. Application and Letter of Appeal, November 24, 2003
3. Approval Notice of the Community of Harbor Bay Isle
Owners Association, November 18, 2003
4. Draft Minutes of the Board of Directors, Community of
Harbor Bay Isle Owners' Association, November 13, 2003
5. Sun Accessibility Study and Window Hemisphere Study,
November 13, 2003
6. Appellant's Alternate floor plan proposal
7. Proposed Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations, for Minor
Design Review, MDR03 -0256, September 24, 2003
Attachment #4.
I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The appellant is appealing the Planning and Building Director's conditional approval of this Minor
Design Review, MDR03 -0256. Appellant claims that the proposed project would block sunlight and
view from a cluster of windows within a side -yard atrium and create a building mass that is
inconsistent with the other homes in the immediate neighborhood. The appellant is proposing an
alternative plan that would require that the second story bedroom addition maintain an additional 5-
foot setback from the southerly wall surface. The appellant's proposal would reduce the width of the
proposed bedroom addition from 20 -feet in width to 15 -feet in width.
The applicant's request to add a 5`h bedroom was processed as a Minor Design Review, pursuant to
AMC, 30- 37.2(b)(2), because the project received homeowners' association approval. The proposed
new bedroom would have interior dimensions of approximately 1 1.5 -feet deep and 20 -feet wide. In
its entirety, the proposed project would involve the construction of an approximately 360- square
foot, second story addition. This addition would be located above the attached garage and would
extend an additional 14 -feet forward from the original location of the 2nd story. This bedroom
addition would not alter the existing yard setbacks or lot coverage of this single - family
residential site. However, the addition would increase the height of the residence by
approximately 2 -feet, to a maximum height of approximately 27 feet (at the highest ridge of the
roof).
II. BACKGROUND
A. Existing Conditions
The 5,140 square foot site contains a two -story single - family residence. This residence contains
approximately 2,231 square feet of conditioned living area, with four bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, and
an interior utility room. The structure maintains 5 -foot side yard setbacks, a minimum 22 -foot rear
yard setback, a 23 -foot front yard setback, and a maximum building height of 25 -feet.
The appellant's property abuts this site at its southerly side property line and her house is located
approximately 10 -feet from the southerly sidewall of the applicant's residence at 116 Brunswick
Road. The Appellant through an easement uses the 5 -foot wide side yard of 116 Brunswick. This
use of side yards is typical of all of the residences in this development. Therefore, this development
reflects the appearance of residences with one "0" side yard setback.
Similar single - family residences surround the site.
III. STAFF ANALYSIS
The Planning and Building Director's decision is based upon the fact that the project was approved
by the homeowners' association, the project conforms with the design standards of the Planned
Development, the level of building massing is consistent with other structures within the
development, the proposal maintains building articulation, and the level of shading and view impact
is minimal.
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of January 12, 2004
A. Review by the Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners' Association
This project was approved by the homeowners' association on appeal (see attachment #3). The
association denied the appeal and approved the project, finding that the project would not have a
significant impact on the abutting properties, including the appellant's property in the following
issues:
a. "The blockage of sunlight ";
b. "A reduction in the current view as seen from the second story bedroom window "; and
c. "A reduction in property values ".
Based upon homeowners' association review of the appellant's shading study (attachment #4)
the following points were made:
a. "...analysis of the proposed addition shade patterns on the appellant's home would create
some loss of light currently available to the appellants home. There would be • 123 days
of the year between April 18 and August 24 in which more shade would occur. The daily
duration of the new shade pattern would be from 10 to a bit more than 60 minutes on
each day. The time of occurrence would be after 5:30 pm."
b. "The window most affected by the new shade pattern would be a second floor bedroom
window."
c. "The new addition would create some reduction in current view from this second floor
bedroom window as demonstrated by Mr. LaBerge's visual rendering."
d. "Mr. Meagher accepted Mr. LaBerge's light analysis study as a more accurate
representation of the proposed addition's shade pattern than his video report
demonstrated."
e. Mr. Meagher did not believe the affects of his addition to the appellant's home warranted
a modification of the design such as proposed by the appellant."
f. "Additions of this nature have not contributed to a reduction of property values for
neighboring properties in Harbor Bay Isle."
B. Compliance with Development Standards for Height, Lot Coverage, and Setbacks
for Village III of the Planned Development (Summary Table)
Description
AMC Standard
Project Measure
Comparison
Front Setback
PD standard 15 feet
Approx. 20 feet
Complies
Side Setbacks
5 feet
18 feet
Complies
Rear Yard Setback
15 feet
22 feet/No Change
Complies
Building Height /Stories
30 feet /2 stories
27 feet /2 stories
Complies
Lot Coverage
(proposed)*
N/A
No Change
Complies
Usable Open Space
N/A
No Change.
2 stories
Complies
Complies
No. Stories
PD standard 2-
stories maximum
Building Height
30 feet maximum
27 feet
Complies
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of January 12, 2004
3
C. Design Review Findings:
The following findings are required for approval of the Major Design Review application:
1. The project will have no significant adverse impacts on the persons or property in
the vicinity.
This finding can be made. The proposed second -story addition complies with all standards of the
Planned Development and will not impact adjacent properties in regards to causing excessive
shading or privacy reduction, as stipulated by the approval of the homeowners' association.
There would be only 123 days of the year where there would be from 10 to 60 minutes of
shading after 5:30 p.m., therefore, there is no significant adverse impacts associated with shading
impacts on adjacent properties.
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the
surrounding area.
This finding can be made. The proposal is consistent with the level of development, including
building massing, setback standards, number of stories, and building height of the other
residential buildings within this development and the proposal conforms with the design
standards of this planned development. The proposal will also utilize matching surface materials
and will match the architectural character of the residence and adjacent structures. The proposed
expansion will not change the use of the single- family dwelling.
3. The project is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines.
This finding can be made. The proposed expansion is consistent with the development standards
of this planned development and therefore, is consistent with the City of Alameda Design
Review Guidelines.
Design Review Conclusion:
The Planning and Building Director recommends approval of the Minor Design Review because
of the ability to make all required findings.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all available testimony and
information, review the administrative record, and act to uphold the decision of the Planning
Director's conditional approval of Minor Design Review, MDR03 -0256 for the second -story
expansion, based upon required findings and conditions set out in the draft Resolution.
G:\ PLANNING \PB \REPORTS\2003 \4MDR030256.APL
F: MDR03 -0256
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of January 12, 2004
4
Sun Accessibility Study
and
Window Hemisphere Study
Prepared For
Robert & Paula Kindrachuk
32 Cheshire Court
Alameda, California 94502
Prepared By
Paul LaBerge
LaBerge Daylight
2507 24th Avenue
Oakland, California 94601
RECEIVED 1
NOV 13 1Uu3
PERM'? CENTER
AL
AMEDA, CA 9450 1
Attachment #5
Kindrachuk Sun Availability Study November 13, 2003
Contents
Study Report 32 Cheshire Court Page 1
Appendix A Model Aerial View Rendering Page 4
Appendix B Window Medium Wide Angle Photograph Page 5
Appendix C Window Hemisphere Photograph Page 6
Appendix D April 21st Shadow Renderings Page 7
Appendix E May 21st Shadow Renderings Page 9
Appendix F June 21st Shadow Renderings Page 11
LaBerge Daylight
Kindrachuk Sun Availability Study November 13, 2003
Overview
This report describes a sun accessibility study and a window hemisphere study of the impact upon the
home of Robert and Paula Kindrachuk, located at 32 Cheshire Court, by a proposed addition to the
home of Mr.. & Mrs. Meagher, located adjacent, at 116 Brunswick Road, in the Harbor Bay Isle Com-
munity, in Alameda, California, 94502.
The studies were conducted to determine the change in the sunlight availability to and the extent of
shadow upon the Kindrachuk home as a result of a proposed addition to the Meagher home. Both
houses currently consist of one story garages and two story living spaces. The buildings are oriented
3° counterclockwise from true North. The proposed addition to the Meagher house is to add a second
story above the existing garage, increasing the roof peak for this portion of the house by 8.5 feet, and
by raising the main roof peak of the house by 2 feet, to accommodate interior redesign. The portion
of the addition above the existing garage and the associated roof changes to the southern half of the
Meagher house are the portions of the addition affecting the Kindrachuk home.
Existing Design of Atrium and Houses
The original design of each house and the choice of their placement in relation to each other provides
privacy and light. The north elevation of the Kindrachuk home is designed with a re- entrant atrium
12.5 foot wide and 6.5 foot deep. The design creates a ground level enclosed garden and provides
light to 5 rooms, a family room with sliding glass doors and a bathroom on the ground level, and 2
bedrooms and a bathroom on the second floor. The south elevation of the Meagher home is a single
plane without windows. The use of a re- entrant atrium opposite a 9 foot 9 inch side yard setback pro-
vides lateral views from living space windows. The design provides views to near and distant horizons
that would not be available for windows facing onto the side yard.
Study Methodology
The study was performed with a computer model of the shadow casting edges of relevant portions of
the two buildings. The model was built from a site survey and from drawings. It contains the north
elevation of the Kindrachuk home and the southern half of the Meagher home. The model of the Kin -
drachuk home includes the atrium, the atrium exterior wall, windows facing onto the atrium, and roof
overhang. The windows are modeled to the extent of glazed area.
The model of the Meagher home includes the shadow casting edges of the existing home and of the
proposed addition. The model of the existing building includes the garage and its roof, and the south
elevation two story sections and its roof. The model of the proposed addition includes the addition
above the garage and the new roof line for the southern portion of the house.
In the computer model the existing houses are modeled as opaque objects. The proposed addition is
modeled as a semi- transparent object. This creates different shadow colors for the existing and the
proposed pieces of the buildings. The shadow from the existing building is dark gray. The shadow
LaBerge Daylight 1
Kindrachuk Sun Availability Study November 13, 2003
from the proposed building is light gray. A single image shows the existing and proposed sunlight and
shadow conditions.
Sun Availability & Window Hemisphere Study
Two studies were performed to determine the impact of the proposed addition on the Kindrachuk
home, a sun availability study and a window hemisphere study. The sun availability study determines
when a surface or plane is in sunlight or shade. The window hemisphere study determines the view
conditions of a window and the change in view extents. The sun availability study focused on the west
facing window of the second floor bedroom and on the horizontal opening of the atrium. These are the
areas directly affected by the proposed addition.
The sun availability study was performed by casting sunlight onto the model at various times of the
year to determine when the proposed addition would reduce the sunlight reaching the Kindrachuk
home. The study focused on the period from March 21st to September 21st since this is the time when
sunlight will reach the north elevation and on the afternoon since this is the period of the day when
direct sunlight would be occluded by the proposed addition.
The shadowing effects of the Meagher existing house and proposed addition were studied in an aerial
view from above the Meagher house, looking south into the Kindrachuk atrium. The Meagher house
is along the lower edge of the image. The Kindrachuk house is image center and above. Shadows were
cast at 30 minute intervals from 1:00 p.m. until sunset on study days. Shadows were cast to determine
the first day of shadow incursion upon the second floor bedroom window or the atrium and then on the
21st of each month until June 21st, summer solstice, the day of maximum incursion. After June 21st
the daily pattern is reversed, decreasing until proposed addition shadow no longer reaches the west
facing window nor the atrium.
The window hemisphere study assessed sky view conditions and view impacts with a hemisphere
photograph encompassing 180° vertically by 180° horizontally taken from the second floor west
facing bedroom window. This window will be directly affected by the proposed addition. The hemi-
sphere photograph shows the full view out of the window. A medium wide angle photograph was
taken in the direction of the proposed addition showing a representative view as would be seen by
someone looking out this window. A drawing of the proposed addition is overlaid on the image to
show the view change from this window.
Findings
The atrium space is complexly shaded. It is enclosed on 3 sides with the open fourth side facing 3°
west of north. It receives direct sunlight from spring through summer, principally at higher solar
angles or northerly solar angles. It is shaded by the atrium walls and by the Meagher house at various
times of the year. The north facing windows do not receive direct sunlight. The east facing windows
only receive direct sunlight in the morning. The west facing windows only receive direct sunlight in
the afternoon. The west facing bedroom window and the atrium garden are directly affected by the
LaBerge Daylight 2
Kindrachuk Sun Availability Study November 13, 2003
proposed addition and are the focus of the study.
The first day when shadow from the proposed addition reaches the Kindrachuk atrium or west facing
window is April 18th, at sunset. The last day of new shadow is August 24th. Shadowing of the atrium
and west facing window increases until June 21st, the summer solstice, and then decreases until Au-
gust 24th. Days studied are April 21st-August 21st, May 21st -July 21st, and June 21st.
On April 21st and August 21st the west facing window first receives direct sunlight, partially and
briefly, at 3:30 p.m. At 5:45 p.m. it begins receiving direct sunlight until 6:45 p.m. when new shadow
from the proposed addition reaches the window, and the atrium garden, just before sunset at 6:51 p.m.
On May 21st and July 21st the west facing window receives varying amounts of direct sunlight from
1:00 p.m. until4:30 p.m. and again, beginning at 5:00 p.m., until 6:15 p.m. when shadow from the
proposed addition reaches the window, covering it completely by 6:45 p.m. and lasting until sunset at
7:18 p.m. Atrium garden new shadowing begins at 5:45 p.m. and completely blocks existing garden
sunlight by 6:45 p.m. Existing shadow from the Meagher house reaches the atrium garden at 6:45 p.m.
and the west facing window at 7:00 p.m., 18 minutes before sunset.
On June 21st the west facing window receives varying amounts of direct sunlight from 1:00 p.m. until
6:30 p.m. when new shadowing begins. New shadowing begins at 6:30 p.m. covers the window com-
pletely by 7:00 p.m. and lasts until sunset at 7:35 p.m. Existing window shading from the Meagher
house begins at 6:30 p.m., covers one third of the window at 7:00 p.m. and a little more than three -
quarters of the window at 7:35 p.m.
New shadow reaches the atrium garden at 5:45 p.m. and blocks existing garden sunlight by 6:15 p.m.
Existing shadow reaches the atrium garden at 7:00 p.m.
Summary
New shadow from the proposed addition will the affect the Kindrachuk atrium 123 days, one third
of the year. New shadow first reaches the atrium and the west facing window on April 18th, reaches
its maximum extent on June 21st, and no longer reaches the atrium nor the west facing window on
August 24th.
On April 21st and August 21st the proposed addition casts new shadow on the west facing window
and atrium garden for the last few minutes of the day.
On May 21st and July 21st new shadow reaches the west facing window 45 minutes before existing
shadow reaches the window. The atrium garden receives new shadow one hour earlier than existing.
On June 21st the west facing window new shadow overtakes existing shadow from mutual onset, 6:30
p.m., until 7:00 p.m. when new shadow completely covers the window, whereas existing shadow cov-
ers one third of the window at this time. Existing shadow never completely covers the window on this
day. New shadow reaches the atrium garden by 5:45 p.m. and blocks available sunlight by 6:15 p.m.,
45 minutes earlier than the existing condition.
LaBerge Daylight 3
Kindrachuk Sun Availability Study
November 13, 2003
Aerial view rendering of study model;
The northern portion of the Kindrachuk house is blue. The southern portion of Meagher existing house
is brown and of the proposed addition, yellow.
LaBerge Daylight 4
Kindrachuk Sun Availability Study
November 13, 2003
Existing west view from Kindrachuk second floor bedroom window.
View looking west showing Meagher proposed addition on the right.
LaBerge Daylight 5
Kindrachuk Sun Availability Study November 13, 2003
Window Hemisphere
photographs from Kind -
rachuk second floor west
facing bedroom window.
The view is looking
west with the atrium
below and the Meagher
house to the right.
The upper photograph is
properly exposed for the
atrium.
The lower photograph is
properly exposed for the
sky.
LaBerge Daylight 6
Kindrachuk Sun Availability Study
April 21, 1:00 pm
April 21, 1:30 pm
LaBerge Daylight
November 13, 2003
April 21st shadow renderings.
7
Kindrachuk Sun Availability Study
November 13, 2003
April 21st shadow renderings.
LaBerge Daylight 8
Kindrachuk Sun Availability Study
May21, 1:OOpm
May 21, 1:30 pm
LaBerge Daylight
November 13, 2003
May 21st shadow renderings.
9
Kindrachuk Sun Availability Study
LaBerge Daylight
November 13, 2003
May 21st shadow renderings.
10
Kindrachuk Sun Availability Study
June 21, 1:00 pm
June 21, 1:30 pm
LaBerge Daylight
November 13, 2003
June 21st shadow renderings
11
Kindrachuk Sun Availability Study
LaBerge Daylight
November 13, 2003
June 21st shadow renderings.
12
Chestii �e
Propose c1 O c*itlon
IR° w rte nS L U i c ic_
-faVe n ,-►(v rn n cr
5i d e b u ) C
I;l) I nd 0 ( l tib�e Vi ou
Ch-esh.) re
(40 P_Drt,t_A5Lditk
uJ
z
cc WHEREAS, the Planning Director conditionally approved this Minor Design Review on
November 17, 2003; and
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPROVAL
OF MINOR DESIGN REVIEW, MDR03 -0256 AT 116 BRUNSWICK ROAD
WHEREAS, Todd Meagher of 116 Brunswick Road made an application on September 24,
2003, requesting Minor Design Review approval to permit the construction of an approximately 360 -
square foot, second story room addition. This addition would be located above the attached garage and
would extend an additional 14 -feet forward from the original location of the 2" a story; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on October 22, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Low Density Residential on the General Plan
Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R -1 -PD, Single - Family, Planned Development
Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners' Association reviewed and
conditionally approved the project on appeal on November 13, 2003; and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2003, Paula Kindrachuk filed an appeal, of the Planning
Director's decision, to the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on this application on January 12, 2004, and
examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board found no merit in the appeal and conditionally approved the
Minor Design Review application; and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2004, Robert and Paula Kindrachuck filed an appeal to the action
of the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2004, the City Council held a public hearing and examined
pertinent documents as well as the record of the Planning Board hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered staff responses to the bases of the appellants'
appeal as set out in the staff report, which is hereby incorporated by reference, and finds that there is
no merit to the basis of appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda makes the following findings with
respect to the appellant's bases of appeal and relative to the Minor Design Review application:
1
Resolution 5 -B
03 -02 -04
1. The project will have no significant adverse impacts on the persons or property in the
vicinity.
This finding can be made. The proposed second -story addition complies with all standards of the
Planned Development and will not impact adjacent properties in regards to causing excessive
shading or privacy reduction, as stipulated by the approval of the homeowners' association. There
would be only 123 days of the year where there would be from 10 to 60 minutes of shading after 5:30
p.m., therefore, there is no significant adverse impacts associated with shading impacts on adjacent
properties.
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the
surrounding area.
This fmding can be made. The proposal is consistent with the level of development, including
building massing, setback standards, number of stories, and building height of the other residential
buildings within this development and the proposal conforms with the design standards of this
planned development. The proposal will also utilize matching surface materials and will match the
architectural character of the residence and adjacent structures. The proposed expansion will not
change the use of the single - family dwelling.
3. The project is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines.
This finding can be made. The proposed expansion is consistent with the development standards of
this planned development and therefore, is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review
Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Alameda
hereby determines that the proposal is Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines, Section 15301 - Minor Expansion of Existing Structures.
NOW THEREFORE BE FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council denies the appeal
and approves Minor Design Review, MDR03 -0256, subject to the following conditions:
1. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans prepared by Design
Planning Associates, Inc., dated May 22, 2003, marked "Exhibit N', on file in the office of the
City of Alameda Planning Department, subject to and as modified by the following conditions:
2. The applicant/property owner shall pay all required City fees prior to Building Permit approval
and all required staff time and materials fees accrued through the final inspections.
3. Exterior materials for the addition shall match the existing structure, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning and Building.
2
4. Design approval is valid for six months after the date of this approval. Final Design Review
approval shall be obtained prior to September 2, 2004, unless the applicant applies for and is
granted a six (6) months extension by Design Review Staff prior to said expiration. Only one
(1) extension may be granted.
5. Planning Staff site inspection is required prior to final building inspection.
6. No windows shall be installed facing the abutting property to the south (32 Cheshire Court).
7. Compliance with Codes: All work related to the proposal shall comply with the applicable
Zoning, Uniform Building, and Uniform Fire Codes.
8. Acknowledgment of Conditions. The permittee shall acknowledge and accept in writing the
conditions of approval set out in this Resolution in order for this Minor Design Review to be
exercised.
9. Hold Harmless. The City of Alameda requires that the applicant, or its successors in interest,
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning this Design
Review approval, which action is brought within the time period provide for in Government
Code Section 66499.37. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim,
action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to
promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
NOTICE. The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein include certain fees and other
exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these Conditions constitute written
notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and
other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day appeal period in which you may protest
these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a) has begun. If you fail
to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, you
will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions.
NOTICE. The time in which to seek judicial review of the appeal of this resolution is
governed by the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6 and Government Code, Section
65009 (c).
G:\ PLANNING \CC\RESO\2004 \4MDR030256CRA
3
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 , 2004, 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 , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
City of Alameda
Memorandum
February 26, 2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
RE:
Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's conditioned approval
of Planned Development Amendment and a Major Design Review for 3241 Garfield
Avenue to allow: 1) the construction of a 150 square -foot single -story rear addition;
2) the construction of a maximum 24 -inch tall deck with an attached hot tub; and 3)
the construction of a six -foot fence around the side and rear property lines. This site
is located within the R -1 -PD, One Family Residence Planned Development Zoning
District.
BACKGROUND
The project is located on a site along Garfield Avenue that was divided into two 3,200 square -foot
parcels through a Planned Development overlay process approved by the City Council in 1997. The
property owners of the street - fronting parcel applied for a Planned Development Amendment and
Major Design Review to allow a 150 square -foot addition to add utility space at the rear of their
house. On January 12, 2004, the Planning Board voted 5 -0 -0 (Boardmember Mariani absent) to
conditionally approve their proposal.
Two adjacent neighbors, one on the north and one on the east of the project, are appealing the
Planning Board's decision because they believe that insufficient time was provided for them to
thoroughly review the project and present facts to contest the proposal prior to the Planning Board
hearing. The appellants are also appealing the decision on the basis that it will decrease property
values by increasing shade, noise, and crowdedness around their homes.
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
In response to neighbor concerns about the project, Planning staff organized a meeting between
the appellants and applicants to discuss possible resolution of the project issues on February 12
and February 18, 2004. In order to provide sufficient time to discuss project alternatives, the
appellants have requested a continuance for this item to a later date. If the Council concurs, the
public hearing for this project will be continued to the next City Council meeting on March 16,
2004.
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Re: Public Hearing and
Resolution #5 -C
3 -2 -04
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve continuance of this item to the City
Council meeting of March 16, 2004.
Respectfully submitted,
James M. Flint
City Manager
By
Gregory Fuz
Planning and Building Director
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Appellants' request for continuance, dated February 16, 2004
G:\PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2004\e -Mar 02 \Garfield3241 appeal_continuance.doc
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
FROM : LOPIZ I SERO
February 16. 2004
FflX HO. :5109650963 Fcb. 16 2004 02:40PM P1
Faxed to: (510) 747 -6553
Planning Department
Attention, Jerry Cormack and Allen Tai
City of Alanieda
7.263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190
Alameda, CA 94501
Re: Request for Continuance March 2 Council Heating
3241 Garfield Avenue — PDA 03 -0006
Dear Mr. Cormack and Mr. Tai:
This is to formally request to continue the Council hearing to a later datc so that all
parties may meet to continue discussing acceptable alternatives. We will therefore not be
submitting our materials for the Planning Board packet by noon on Tuesday,
February 17, 2004. Should this matter have to go to Council, it is our underylauding we
can submit these materials at a later date.
Sincerely,
Ayala Lonzis
fnr Ayala i.onzisero and Tony Vesla
3237 Garfield Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Thea Mixon
3243 Garfield Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Attachment #1
MEMORANDUM
City of Alameda
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Date: February 23, 2004
Re: Approval of Final Design for New Main Library Building
BACKGROUND
The Library design as a whole was developed and gained acceptance through a
comprehensive public participation process over a period of more than one year. In
addition, the building design has been reviewed, considered and recommended at each
stage by the Library Board and the Library Building Team. On January 26, 2004,
Alameda's Planning Board approved the Final Design of the building.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The item before the City Council is the approval of the Final Design of the new Main
Library building only. Approval of the parking design will be sought as soon as the
matter of property acquisition has been fully resolved.
Construction work on the new Main Library is scheduled to begin this summer. Design
work has been completed, and construction drawings are being prepared. The Library
design has previously come before the City Council for approval at the final conceptual
and schematic phases.
The Library Director and Library Building Team Chair will be present at the City
Council meeting to review the drawings and answer your questions.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The funds for the project are in place through a combination of the Library Construction
Act grant from the State of California, and the Alameda Measure 0 General Obligation
Bond. The project is within its budget of $23,992,681.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #5 -D
3 -2 -04
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers February 23, 2004
RECOMMENDATON
The City Manager and the Planning Board recommend that the City Council approve the
Final Design of the new Main Library building.
Respectfully submitted,
14 • AO -1
attachment
Susan Hardie
Library Director
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
1•%1.- I 1)11
I i11,1
:
1292:11S >IVO
1
Qu
<
4- -
------- =MM..
I J I I I I I J
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
all 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(b 1 1 1 I I I I
1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11:)
CW
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
I I I I I I I Iko)
_ CO ®o ® ®®
nn I I X1 1
_ 41
II
!QI
j LE - -' _ i - - -
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
FEBRUARY 24, 2004
THOMAS HACKER
ARCHITECTS INC.
> -
- J
W
LLJ
L.L
LL
0
LJ J
—J
CI•11111111IIIIIIG 1.
111111111
IIIIIIIC'I
�
THOMAS HACKBA
AACHITIICTS INC.
..,...w n•IF PIPinulUIUIJIUl •mi•i•i•mi•IUmisn =
rimunawm
` ' VEDA FREE LIB•;:
0
x
r
I III,it
1111111011111
ri. INE.II ■
MieltallalleiteMOZION
IA A M E DA F' :: _ : 1
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 19, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Consideration of City Manager's Strategy to Prepare a Citywide Transportation Master
Plan (TMP)
BACKGROUND
Since its establishment, the Transportation Commission (TC) has considered a number of
contentious issues on a case -by case basis because a uniform City -wide transportation policy did
not exist or the current policy did not fully address existing conditions. These include the
appropriate location . of bus and truck routes, changing a street's existing classification and
acceptable ways to reduce vehicular speeds. The TC expressed concern that solving
transportation issues on a case -by -case basis does not allow for a review of potential impacts to
adjoining neighborhoods, parallel streets and other transportation modes and could potentially
relocate the concern elsewhere. At its June 2003 meeting, the TC discussed the need for a
Citywide Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to strategically address transportation issues and
proactively develop transportation solutions on a community -wide basis. The TC indicated that
a comprehensive, multi -modal approach to the City's transportation issues would provide a
framework for evaluating such issues, and would enable the TC and City staff to avoid
addressing problems on a case -by -case basis. The Planning Board indicated their support for
preparing the TMP at its February 9, 2004 meeting.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The TMP will consist of the following individual plans: 1) overall multi -modal circulation, 2)
motor vehicle, 3) bicycle, 4) pedestrian, 5) transit, and 6) transportation systems management/
transportation demand management (TSM /TDM). An overview of each plan is in Table 1
(attached), and the work scope is included as Attachment 1. The completion of all six plans is
expected to take several years.
There are numerous advantages to adopting this comprehensive approach. The TMP will:
1) Consolidate the City's transportation policies and plans into a single document, thereby
eliminating inconsistencies between existing policies /plans;
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Glyofillarneda
tubIicWorks
Deparbnent
Public Wmla Wiwkefor You!
Report #5 -E
3 -2 -04
Honorable Mayor and February 19, 2004
Councilmembers
Page 2
2) Provide the basis for the Transportation Element of the General Plan;
3) Improve the City's ability to better implement a citywide transportation vision rather than
making policy - related decisions on a case -by -case basis;
4) Ensure planned developments and improvements will meet the current and future
transportation needs of the City for all modes;
5) Enhance transportation coordination activities with regional transportation agencies such
as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Congestion Management
Agency; and
6) Develop a project priority list (for each mode), which the City can use to compete for
regional, state and federal grants.
Organization of the TMP — Each component of the TMP will be organized into three sections:
policies, strategies, and implementation. The result would be a list of proposed CIP projects,
each of which can be traced back to a particular strategy, which in turn is derived from a policy.
An example for the motor vehicle plan is as follows:
Section
Example
Policies
Extension of grid system
Strategies
Interconnect all major streets where feasible
Implementation
Extend Clement from Broadway to Tilden
Input and Review Process — Each modal plan of the TMP would be overseen by a TC
subcommittee supported by Public Works staff. To achieve a balanced perspective, appointed
boards and commissions that deal with issues affected by transportation (Planning Board,
Economic Development Commission, Recreation and Parks Commission, Mayor's Committee
on Disability Issues, Housing Commission, Alameda Point Core Team or Advisory Committee,
the School Board, and the Historical Advisory Board) would be asked to designate a
representative to participate in a task force to review and comment on the draft policies. Staff
input from City departments will be collected through the Design Review Team (DRT) and the
review of an administrative draft document, which will be circulated before the approval process.
Input from the general public will be elicited through public workshops (three workshops for
each plan), public comment opportunities at TC, Planning Board, and City Council meetings,
and through the City's web site. Once the initial work on the overall multi -modal circulation
plan is completed staff will evaluate the process and make appropriate modifications to ensure
effective development of the remaining portions of the TMP.
Impacts to existing projects - The TC acknowledged that much of its agenda for the next several
years would be devoted to preparing the TMP. The proposed TMP would not require the use of
General Fund resources, as it would be completed using staff time previously allocated toward
supporting TC activities.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Glyralamede
blkWorks
rtment
Public Woks Woksfo, You!
Honorable Mayor and February 19, 2004
Councilmembers Page 3
The TMP closely reflects the priorities established by the TC in 2003. Other than project
updates and tasks that have been or are being addressed, the top 10 items on the priority list are:
1) transit plan update, 2) bicycle plan update, 3) ferry plan, 4) consistency between plans, 5)
transportation policies for the General Plan update, 6) policies regarding transportation safety for
all modes, 7) traffic calming policies, 8) pedestrian plan, 9) implementation of the bike plan, and
10) truck routes. All of these activities would be included in the proposed TMP. The primary
impetus for the TMP is that these activities could be undertaken as part of a comprehensive
approach to transportation, rather than as stand -alone initiatives. Therefore it is anticipated that
the completion of current projects will not be impacted.
TMP Priorities for FY 2003/04 — The TMP priorities identified by the TC for fiscal year 2003/04
are proposed as part of the multi -modal circulation plan. This plan will focus on the interaction
of all transportation modes that utilize the street network — motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians,
trucks, and transit. The priority activities for the plan are:
1. identify and resolve policy inconsistencies among existing transportation - related plans
2. develop new circulation policies with consideration for all modes
3. review /revise the City's street classification system and street designations with
consideration for all modes.
Once the overall multi -modal circulation plan is completed, it will be forwarded to the TC,
Planning Board, and City Council for recommendation/review /approval as a General Plan
Amendment (GPA). This GPA will form the foundation for the TMP's individual modal plans —
for example, by determining where particular types of traffic calming are appropriate as well as
optimal locations for bicycle and transit routes.
This process will be closely coordinated with transportation review efforts currently under way
for the redevelopment of Alameda Point. In particular, the street designations will have a
significant impact on access to any new transit project — e.g. aerial tramway, light rail, or shuttle
system — which connects to the regional network.
BUDGET
Staff recommends that the TMP be developed using in -house staff and current Measure B staff
allocations earmarked to support the TC over the next several years. Public Works estimates this
approach will cost approximately $400,000 over the next four years. There is no impact to the
General Fund. As the TMP moves to future phases, feedback and support from other
departments will be required. This may also include hiring consultants for specialty work such
as preparation of the environmental documents for the plan. The City Manager will submit these
funding requests to Council for review and approval.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Gtvof Alamedi
tub' icWorks
Uepar ment
WhlicWak Wart fart I
Honorable Mayor and February 19, 2004
Councilmembers Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the Council review the proposed strategy for the preparation
of a Transportation Master Plan (TMP).
Respe lly submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
ed/p4ipa1��
By: Barbara Hawkins (//
Supervising Civil Engineer
Attachments:
Table 1: Elements of the Alameda Transportation Master Plan
Attachment 1: Scope of Work Alameda Transportation Master Plan
G:\PUBWORKS\PWADMIN\COUNCIL \Citywide TMP.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
cayoruarneda
yybIicWoiks
Department
Publie Wale W W You!
Honorable Mayor and February 19, 2004
Councilmembers Page 5
Alternatives for staff work program and funding options — It is proposed that staff carry out the
majority of TMP work tasks. Below is a description of other options for using available funding:
Option 1 — TMP conducted by staff — STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. No general fund contributions as currently proposed.
2. Use in -house staff with projected Measure B allocations earmarked to support TC
over next several years. Public Works staff is available and included in current
budget to support effort.
3. For the current fiscal year, the only outside contract work is to use the City's
existing consultant for the Web site. Funding is available through Measure B.
4. In future fiscal years, the TMP will need feedback and support from other
departments, and funding for staff time or consultants will be included in budget
at that time. This will cover tasks such as environmental review.
Option 2 — no TMP
1. Do not undertake the TMP.
2. Continue to use Measure B funds earmarked for staff time to implement
previously - identified priorities on a piecemeal basis.
Option 3 — conduct TMP using consultant
1. Develop the TMP using consultant. Without going out to bid, it is estimated that
this will cost $600,000 from the General Fund over the next four years.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GNofNa medal
Pubes cWoiks
epatiment
Public Walt Workrfor You!
Elements of the Alameda Transportation Master Plan
Congestion
Management and
TS
Policies re: reducing
congestion and
requiring new
development to
adopt strategies to
mitigate traffic
impacts
Recommended
TSM/TDM programs
and projects (in
progress)
o N
c CD
c.
E U t
OO N u) N co
U O O O
E N al .O O a)
O � p
Q 0 0 V •
� O
o d H U ac) c°) m co
Pedestrian
Element*
c
w a)
a) U
O O
d a
Pedestrian
network and
projects
c
CD cZ
N c o
i a) a)
•L O
a a a
Bicycle
Element*
u)
a)
'U
O
O
_U
m
Bicycle network
and projects
O
o
N.O
O
N i
a a
•,_ Y
d :a
Transit Element
N
a)
U
O
0.
r_
co
ce
1-•
Transit networks -
AC Transit, Tight
rail, paratransit (in
progress), ferry
co
i�
-0
N
+ N
U
O O
.— L
d a
Motor Vehicle
Element
Policies re: automobile
circulation, travel
demand forecasting,
Level of Service
measurement, traffic
calming, and parking.
Regional access, local
streets; truck routes,
traffic calming, parking
Prioritized roadway
projects
Multimodal
Circulation*
Policies re: corridors
by mode, circulation,
mobility, safety and
environment impacts
of transportation and
multi -modal policies.
Functional
classification of city
'streets, accounting for
needs of all modes
Transportation
Master Plan Elements
Phase 1 -
Transportation Policy
Document:
Phase 2 - Circulation/
Network
Recommendations:
Phase 3-
Implementation/
Capital Improvement
Plan
ATTACHMENT 1
Scope of Work
Transportation Master Plan
The task descriptions are not in chronological order. The Overall Multimodal Circulation Plan
will be undertaken first, followed by the development of policies for each mode. To maximize
efficient use of staff, background data analysis will be concurrent with the Multimodal
Circulation Tasks. The highest priority tasks, due to be completed by June 2005, are all
indicated in bold.
Time needed to process documents though the various boards and the City Council was
accounted for in developing the time frame, but is not included in the task list below.
PLAN AND TASK
Time
Frame
Overall Multimodal Circulation Plan
Task 1.1 Review of the General Plan, Transit Plan, Bicycle Plan, Economic Development Plan, Retail
4/04 -
5/04
Strategy Plan, the Alameda Municipal Code and other City documents to identify and resolve
inconsistencies between the various policies and recommendations.
Task 1.2 Update goals, policies & strategies pertaining to address issues of or multimodal
5/04 -
9/04
general
concern, use of streets and corridors as well as policies on safety and environmental impacts of
transportation modes.
Task 2 Review Alameda's major /minor street classification and make recommendations for revised
5/04 -
9/04
system.
Task 3 Develop strategies to implement revised system, if needed.
10/04-
11/04
Motor Vehicle Plan
Task 1.1 Update and revise as necessary goals, policies & strategies pertaining to vehicle and truck
3/05 -
6/05
circulation, intra -city circulation, and local neighborhood traffic management issues.
Task 1.2 Develop new goals for regional access, commercial and residential as well as above
parking
issues as needed.
Task 2.1.1 Regional Circulation — Identify the major regional issues affecting access to and from
5/06 -
9/06
Alameda, and develop preferred options for improvements. This includes the four bridges, the two
tubes and access to /from regional freeways and BART stations.
Task 2.1.2 Citywide Circulation — Identify the issues regarding intra -city circulation, opportunities and
constraints for future roadway improvements. Identify the opportunities and constraints of extending
the existing grid system.
Task 2.1.3 Neighborhood Traffic Management / Traffic Calming — Identify issues that relate to
livability rather than to capacity for neighborhood streets and the characteristics that make certain
traffic calming measures more appropriate for certain streets in the context of citywide circulation
impacts.
Task 2.1.4 Truck Circulation — Evaluate existing truck routes to assess if they are meeting the
goods
movements needs of the community, prepare a revised map identifying recommended truck routes, if
needed.
Task 2.2.1 Future Traffic Projections — Revise future traffic projections for Alameda's major streets if
4/04 -
8/04
needed to reflect latest development plans and to reflect the revised street functional classification
system developed in the Multimodal Circulation Plan. The future roadway extensions assumed to have
been implemented in the future will be described.
Task 2.2.2 LOS Standards and Methodology — Review existing policies of other cities for acceptable
peak hour Levels of Service as compared to Alameda. Assess how the City's existing LOS standards
impact other modes. Develop revised LOS standards and methodologies to incorporate consideration of
non - motorized and transit modes.
Task 2.2.3 Future LOS, Recommended Mitigation Projects — Based on the revised build out traffic
projections (Task 2.2.1) and the assumed roadway extensions and improvements, analyze future traffic
conditions at major intersections, the tubes, and bridges. Develop additional improvements and
mitigations to accommodate future traffic projections.
Task 2.3 Parking Recommendations — Assess short- and long -term parking needs for Park Street and
4/04 -
8/04
Webster Street business districts and Alameda Point based on recent studies and supplementary
analysis. Identify and address parking issues and needs for neighborhood business districts, planned
developments districts and multi -unit residential. Evaluate on -street parking management methods for
commercial and business districts including those for short-term parking (green curb), loading zones
(yellow - curb), handicapped parking (blue curb) and time - limited parking.
Task 3.1 Categorize the street network recommendations into short-range and long -range
10/06 -
2/07
projects.
Prepare conceptual cost estimates.
Task 3.2 Prioritize capital projects using the City's established CIP and list
procedures prepare a of
projects in priority order.
Task 3.3 Develop a phased implementation plan that would match projects with funding
potential grant
sources so that the City would be better poised to submit applications to various grant programs.
Bicycle Plan
Task 1.1 Re- evaluate the goals and objectives established by the 1999 Bicycle Master Plan with respect
3/05 -
6/05
to new City policies and also the regional and county bike plans.
Task 1.2 Develop new policies as needed.
Task 2.1 Existing Conditions — Review existing facilities and prepare inventory of Class I, II, and III
7/05 -
11/05
bikeways, all bicycle- sensitive loop detectors, and bicycle parking. Recommend locations for new
bicycle parking. Identify locations with high numbers of bicycle collisions; analyze data to determine
characteristics of affected bicyclists.
Task 2.2 Review and revise as necessary City procedures and programs including enforcement, safety
and education initiatives, and programs to encourage bicycling. Recommend locations for new bicycle
parking and revisions to the AMC
Task 2.3 Identify needed improvements to the bikeway infrastructure so that all major attractors and
generators are served.
Task 3.1 Stratify bikeway network into short and long -range projects.
12/05 -
3/06
Task 3.2 Develop cost estimates and identify cost savings by coordinating with other City and
projects
initiatives.
Task 3.3 Prioritize projects and identify roles and responsibilities of various City departments, state and
regional agencies, and other potential partners and potential funding sources.
Pedestrian Plan
Task 1.1 Develop goals and policies that will guide the City of Alameda in retaining its historic
3/05 -
6/05
character as a walkable city. These goals and policies would address engineering and infrastructure
regarding streets and intersections, transit, schools and ADA issues as well as education, enforcement,
and encouragement.
Task 2.1 Inventory- Existing Conditions in School Zones — Review the signage and markings at the 12
6/04 -
1/05
public and three private elementary schools, three middle schools, and three public and one private high
schools. Identify faded or damaged markings and signs and needed improvements.
Task 2.2 Review of Existing Suggested Routes to School — Review pedestrian collision history in
school zones and at school crosswalks. Review existing Suggested Routes to School; evaluate
appropriateness given changed traffic conditions, new development, etc. since these routes were
developed. Identify needed changes to routes to school and associated improvements (e.g. traffic
control devices, sidewalk maintenance or repair, etc.) along these routes.
C:\DOCUME-1 \cm user\LOCALS -1 \Temp \CC scope of work TMP.doc
Task 2.3 — Review of Pedestrian Facilities in Business Districts and Alameda Point — Review and
assess all existing sidewalks and crosswalks within the City's business districts and at Alameda Point.
Recommend additional crossings or modifications considering pedestrian demand, collision history and
other factors.
Task 3.1 Stratify pedestrian recommendations into short and long -range projects.
7/05 -
1/06
Task 3.2 Develop cost estimates and identify cost savings by coordinating with other City
projects and
initiatives.
Task 3.3 Prioritize projects and identify roles and responsibilities of various City departments, state
and
regional agencies, and other potential partners, and potential funding sources.
Transit Plan
Task 1.1 Re- evaluate the goals and objectives established by the 2001 Long Range Transit Plan.
3/05-
6/05
Scope of work to be determined. Plan would update and revise the 1999 long range transit plan.
2007
TSM/TDM
Task 1.1 Using the Transportation System Management/ Transportation Demand Management
3/05 -
6/05
(TSM/TDM) plan for the West End as a guide, goals and policies will be developed for use citywide.
Scope of work to be determined.
2007
C:\DOCUME-1 \cm user\LOCALS-1 \Temp\CC scope of work TMP.doc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
February 19, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From:
James M. Flint
City Manager
Subject: Enhanced Public Notification Procedures
Background
On November 27, 2002, the City Council accepted the City Manager's four recommended initial
approaches to enhancing the public notification process. Council directed staff to proceed with a
12 -month trial period of the enhanced public noticing process. The majority of City Boards and
Commissions submitted these recommendations based on agendized discussion of financial
impact, previous noticing practices and recommendations from those representatives involved.
In particular, the Council approved the Planning Board's recommendation of expanded public
notification for the following three types of applications:
• Class I — over the counter and minor and major design (excluding cellular antenna facilities
on public property). Requires City staff action.
• Class II — major design review, new commercial /industrial/office structures; new dwelling
units (5 or fewer); use permits; HAB; parcel maps and lot line adjustment (excluding Class
III and cellular antenna facilities on public properties). Requires Planning Board action.
• Class III — General Plan Amendment, rezoning, Alameda Municipal Code Amendment, new
commercial /industrial/office; new dwelling units (5 or more); tract maps, rezoning and
development on publicly owned property (excluding cellular sites on public property).
Further, Council directed that the City Manager improve the overall clarity of public notices,
increase outreach for non - mandated noticing by using traditional and creative methods of
advertising as well as the implementation of new technologies to enhance and expedite public
noticing procedures in general.
Discussion
Based on Council approval of the Planning Board's twelve month trial period of expanded and
enhanced public notice as well as additional implementation and analysis by the different
departments, staff has assessed the impacts and best procedures for the public notification
process, based on specific outcomes.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #5 -F
3 -2 -04
Honorable Mayor and February 19, 2004
Members of the City Council Page 2
The Business Development Division in the Development Services Department prepared the
attached 2003 Public Noticing Stats (Exhibit A). An example of the extensive public noticing
procedure and the financial impact involved, required that 687 Economic Development Strategic
Plan Quarterly Forum notices be mailed out for an April 17 quarterly update. The total cost
involved was approximately $1,102. An estimated attendance of 40 people showed up out of the
687 public notices sent out.
During the APAC Townhall meeting, Development Services Department required 25 hours of
staff time spent on articles for newsletters, review copy, producing of flyers, development of
presentations, press releases and inserts into the Alameda Journal for total circulation to
approximately 40,000 people. The total cost to develop and distribute everything was
approximately $6,000. Over 100 people attended the event and positive feedback has been
received.
The Information Technology Department continues utilizing opportunities as they become
available and will implement them in a timely and cost effective manner. The primary tool to
reach our constituents is through the Internet and staff continually is working to improve the
content of the City's website enhancement noticing.
Public Works does not have a statutory notification requirement, but has been notifying residents
on within 300 to 600 feet, depending on the project being contemplated. We have also
broadened notification efforts of city -wide issues by the utilization of the Cable TV channel 15
bulletin board. We have also developed a stamp for the outside of the mailing envelope,
advising the recipient that inside is important information regarding an action that may affect
their neighborhood. Staff reports that public attendance at the Transportation Committee and
Transportation Technical Team does not appear to be affected by the number of mailers that are
sent. However, we have not received any complaints regarding lack of notice.
The impact to Recreation and Parks Department regarding the expanded public noticing process
was the staff time (Recreation Leader) involved to canvas a 600 ft. neighborhood area with fliers
regarding the meeting, as opposed to only doing 300 ft. There was not a noticeable increase in
neighborhood participation when noticing out to 600 ft. The meeting attendance remained
consistent with previous meetings (see Exhibit B).
The Planning & Building Department cannot meet the City Council's recommended 30 -day
notification procedures and meet the required State time lines for General Plan Amendments and
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. Instead, they recommend that the City follow the State
required 10 -day notice to property owners with the expanded notification to be used when not in
conflict with State statute. The Planning Board Government Code Section 65402 requires prior
to the purchase or sale of property that the planning agency (in this case, the Planning Board)
report and conclusively find that the action is in conformance with the City's General Plan. The
State statute requires the determination to be made within forty (40) days of receipt. The 30 -day
notice further causes conflicts with the Council agenda, as once a meeting is publicly noticed, it
remains on the agenda until action is taken. In addition, the 30 -day notice may be too long
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
C:\Lucretia's Docs\ CouncilReports\ PublicNotification.StaftReprt Jan 2l_2004.doc
Honorable Mayor and February 19, 2004
Members of the City Council Page 3
because the public may not retain information about the meeting and project for that amount of
time. Planning & Building staff suggest that the Class III expanded notice be eliminated and
combined with Class II; this results in a 20 -day notification for property owners within 300 feet
of any project. The Class I 10 -day notification would be retained for the smaller projects
identified.
Expanded Public Notice To Non - Owners
The general consensus of the Planning Board, Development Services, Information Technology
and Alameda Power and Telecom staff is that the ability to easily provide expanded public
noticing to renters (that is, to non - property owners) was constrained by the fact that Alameda
County Assessors Office, unlike many other counties, does not incorporate' site mailing address
information within their database. Therefore, unless Alameda County changes the way in which
they keep assessors office property tax records, there is no readily available, reliable database
that can be used to send public notice to both property owners and to tenants of property within a
given distance of a proposed project.
Fiscal Impact
The combined postage costs between the various departments involved in the enhanced public
notification process during this 12 -month trial period for FY02/2003 and a portion of
FY03/2004, was in excess of $36,000. As the City confronts current budget shortfalls and future
increases in postage, advertising and mailings, increased costs would further adversely effect
department budgets City -wide, escalated by additional state -wide cuts in funding for various
programs, grants and alternative funding sources.
Recommendation
1. The City Manager recommends that the City Council retain the 10 -day public notification
for Class I projects and combine the Class III notification process with the 20 -day public
notification for Class II projects. This recommendation would result in Class II and Class
III projects being subject to 20 -day notices to property owners within 300 feet of the
project. This expanded notification procedure would be used for all projects, however,
the current notification process of 10 -days within 300 feet of the project would be
retained in the AMC as the legal requirement of the City. This approach would allow
flexibility when the expanded notice cannot be met due to meeting schedules. It should
also be noted that where a State statute establishes notification procedures that may be in
conflict with City practice, the State statute will prevail.
2. The City Council could direct the City Manager to send communication to Alameda
County requesting the County to consider modifying their database system to include site
mailing address information. Meanwhile, the City does not have a reliable database by
which to notify renters.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
C:\L.ucretia's Docs\ CouncilReports\ PublicNotification .StaffReprt_Jan 21_2004.doc
Honorable Mayor and February 19, 2004
Members of the City Council Page 4
JF:LA
Respect ' submitted,
City i i anager
Attachment: January 1, 2003 Administrative Instruction
Exhibit A — Development Services Department 2003 Public Noticing Stats
Exhibit B — Recreation and Park Department 2003 Public Noticing Stats
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
C:\Lucretia's Docs\ EnhancedPublicNoticing\ PublicNotification.StaffReprt_]an 21_2004.doc
Exhibit A
oed lus wp p_ ® {eg
Estimated attendance of
13 people.
'46
0
v
c
c
a)
y.l
R
.a
°'a
0 O
E a
W .4
r
�O a
�
9
None that we are aware of.
0
CO
ca
ac
0
3
cv
c
0
Z
.�.t
; �•
r
Rosemary Valeska
prepared database,
printed labels, and
copied and mailed
notices (2 hours).
Mailing costs: $32.56.
ii
CO ^ O i U)
Y
cn Q O - 0) CO) y C N O c t O U c
03 O N c.>+ A d N L. y N A L.
co v R D .O 0. V • U •
E d d f W 'C > a' O C O R 11 -a ti
G1 �C . d N L d c O __ M �co yy.. _N
O C.'i O'O a O O c y c.RN W O= op
CC 7 CL U al O .0 Q O .E G1 E *A- Ce 007,
1
0
z
br
88 notices mailed on
3/25/03.
i
`-
4—
Os
O
zF of
a
o L 'a
C O ta
u.cc
0
Y.` >
O
p Rai Y
0
C13
C V L
N
o.0�
4 5 a c
4/17/03 — Economic
Development
Strategic Plan
Quarterly Update
presentation to the
EDC
Exhibit A
0
()
z
0
cn
cnw
w
z_
m
U
O
a)
0
O
a)
0
U)
a)
m
VJ
Z
O "'
N
a)Z
0)
cu
J
CO
0
C)
O
O
o_
o
73 I—
U N
N r
u)
O) Q
c0
' 5 0
▪ J
z°a)
U
I
• E
a U
M 1-
O
D
▪ ,,
50
0
dI
dV-
c
dk
S 4
O cc
a)
••
OA.�\
V Wii-
ni CD
tr. 0
N r
W r
y
B
••l
•111 O
�o
;_' '"
g
O
3
ea
O
L..
ca
s
A,
c
1 Q A
+...
YI
0 .... r
O N' O N 1
CO a) 'O }, d ta 7 -0 • 'O -0 Q. N L
. '= Y R c O .. i m O . a = a ct a) y 'rn • RI
rg � d M • Q N O O C O O . N >+ N N to o N O m e r •
o
.0 te im E yet O O 0 O ta O El -a a) a d ' CO .'O Nti O
N o = O O _ o w, -0 r c M t 7 ca
Ts R R , c Q N 'C = O O c i 0 f c.) N ,a- ' C r a) ca V
' L Om ._ 0 O0, = N O K E a O '� W a 0 �
aca a) 'O CO j _ i" a) , co -A U c • >+ • • W ) Q. w L a) ca V F, _o (..) >, — L L L - in co ,y L
y,, L ` r `" O 'L O -O z O N —o O o N O s r O N O O >d Ce aa�camac7.a=cso�w .c=c C t2�C)ce c.)y v)iQu-
a �
3
a
�
v1 r '
.
•►�b
:�< F
xA
m
a) cA -a 'O CC
N s- c�i a) c __ o N
., _
i • V V N M R C) •O E C
-NOZ Op0.Om ON C °a 0.0 CD
O O 10 'O 0.13 d a) N t\ O M N
.2 S O N a) c N O +r 0- 0 co
C�OelOa)NC3dpcucaNi
0,.. a) a_'L a) c L a, L_�a • ate)
ca 0
M 'ca N N .0 ` C >, N o •ia O= CO
>,,,,-
= *k •co a,
= E O>
E i ce •o
E ° W c
OLL2 i
>>O C d .., .
O r., ♦ .>
M O L 0
as
U
O
a)
0
O
a)
0
U)
a)
m
VJ
Z
O "'
N
a)Z
0)
cu
J
CO
0
C)
O
O
o_
o
73 I—
U N
N r
u)
O) Q
c0
' 5 0
▪ J
z°a)
U
I
• E
a U
M 1-
O
D
▪ ,,
50
0
X MAY
4-
O
ca
Ts
•a aa;
• CL
M
a)
E O
Wco o
o0
Estimated attendance of
60 people.
�••�
t� ^!
i Jim
crd�
p'i4
..
r � f 3a ?�.
3C%'
5,5.
9-
Ao
3 co
co
i
ca
ai
3
vial
O
Z
None that we are aware of.
w+
�C)
$310.91 to ship flyer
inserts via Fed Ex
Express Freight to
newspaper
distribution facility in
Concord.
O
"a> — c to•�^ ti
a1 y o0
Y y 0 -a 'C .-. O Q L° L
to CU a to 41 Ti 5. y tQ i,, L 2 O A o to c
N V e%1 a.+
d N O O .Q G y m
y � O Ri to
d d �c
O Q •4; '2 (a L V m y+ >' N O = ti >'ta •y
_
ce o_ Q c.) td L t~ a. 5. V W R ca a) 2 ER C.) Ce t)
Rosemary Valeska
prepared database;
printed labels;
riktintroWiLagari
L c.i tQ y
L co
O >, L ai L
.E o >, Li O • 0 -o to •- d C =
d v a Q •p 7
i a) d N ra •= a) to \ a) c y
CD to +r c— O= y V Q •O
• M 0-0‹.0 7 O U) CUM to
3 o 'La>Q.oc�-
= cD e- i m C tQ V G L E tQ
et) _c y N 'G 13 d Q y L y M 7 co a)
do -oncaa35•13 ot�acn -,Q
824 flyers mailed or
otherwise
distributed on
•M
�
N L
c L) Oaci 'w 0 as
to L
el O .- . V `W d
o
7 L c y E
O O O
8/4/03 Community
Outreach Forum #3
for Citywide Retail
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
"5
ti
� • � O
.5 a .r7 ca C � C .E O 7,) �
c .y O p V c4 Q'V C. v 0-
tE N N .v /3 N .a O O O c(0 C) ca
O • a >+7 3 o C = C�N�O1tea LL /) O
L
O ra r—. Q. O Q.O. Q. O .- a) G co V (.)
Y d) — �.Q i
r/1 ar ( rT 7 C •- 0
O
N L c •5+ A N C L • .0 In
>>+ 'Q ow .W O 7 v) c N 0
ca a)— c .: N a) ca Q .a a cm
_ a) cm
N v ▪ d
0 co O O -51) O R C N CC •cC
O L L
Q. Q. c) on Q.a).__ m2
M
N
a)
.76 Ac
O 0) OL
C p) 0- Q d
W 13 Le)
r L = w (fl
✓ " o
dca m
+-' r-
0 CC C
Z CO > v 0)
0
O
+.
a)
E
Q
O
4)
a)
0
co
0)
a)
N
m
U)
ti Z
d
O Z
a)
C6
J
CO
0_
co
0.
U E
O I,
'O
0
U) J
CD a
U
•O
i
Z
U �
I
• E
O
M �
C
-0O
0 U
0
z
2
0
w
G
co
z
N
N a
d
CO co CO _ 0 p :F+ -C
• .Q CO co _c — O
CO G) Q. > C �.
o
a
E • a
E a O N O
cp
Q w; •_I '— > •0 . •i=00 �Ca)
0.0.0tre co
None that we are aware of.
a C eQ
a) a 0))
63(0°E
E?1co C
Qcv
V M (1) M a co
03 CO 2 -a
co
d _a
tiL��
0 Q
U
O
a
a)
E
O
U)
N
0
N
N
4)
.(7)
m
0)
Q
0)
0
Z
y— O
O
Lo
O
Z
co
0.. J
m
c,
0
0
O CD
O
2
• cn
U)
• UC
'FS 0
Z O
0 =
a_ • U
M
O t
c) L1.1
C
U
o
0 (.)
z
0
H
z
2
0
-J
W
W
co
A
w ot
c • 0.
O 0,-0w
N
O w
R
d 0. g C) .0
EQCZtg
7
N O = Q 0
W 'd' Ci (0 O 4-
None that we are aware of.
u)
11
Y N 'a C L a) N
E • V 2 73 E W R'— O u) C Q N = N O y
_ > O
c o :g O v- M O V 'O CO co co -
CEmc" adma °1P.aII
O"ofa O Ct y
o Q 's= O V m— C C N O O r�
W z au ca o o.o.E d2c�,a c)O�r
.o
yt��XLm
L
o .=•7)7:09-0-12>? c"
C- -.. ca m=
yc�� E mX
C) O D r cC E H Q
z
O
>
z
w
2
O
cn
cnW
w
m
H
/1w
- I
Z
U
1-
0
Z
MJ
0
0
N
�IIg
- N
L4fIEflhU
.. )
N
-Op O
a) L
d Y 41
0 7) O u- L
Q C O 1 d Q
• 0 u) 0)
^ W c , V d R
,-- ' 2 = -ID
W W •W C E ^
d C.) Qp > L 2, =
Z
fl 3 -pia.
.E
fA
L
tf3.n.>
Lf)
N
N C
as w
,2 .' di i ...
N .g.
du °
� a a
.mO
— 4- L co
Q
N d ��
E3Qv�
i 0 0 0 .V -
'G c V -0 G1 Q
•
.
,
• ,
a
r
N
d
z.
I K
ea o° O fl.
- cu R
-0 0
' O
43 c
d O0 U) r
.4 .
'C
-0 o
.L C cG
V 2 (i to
3
} ii}
cn 42
CD c
Ri O
75 cg 2
6
0 1) (
�0 c
'L-- CD
it a Q z
it ` yYy
4FQ
M
O
c)
To CV
0 •
< W
CL CD
G:Wdmin\2003 Public Noticing Stats.doc
RECREATION & PARKS 2003 PUBLIC NOTICING STATS
4 attended
30 -35 attended
10 -12 attended
Franklin Park — 25
attended
Littlejohn Park — 3
attended
0
0
0
0
Director 2 /hrs
RSM 1 /hr
Sr. Clk. 1 /hr
PT Wkr 3 /hrs
Supplies
$275
Director 3 /hrs
RSM 5 /hr
PM 2 /hrs
Sr. Clk. 1 /hr
PT Wkr 3 /hrs
Supplies
$650
Director 3 /hrs
RSM 3 /hrs
PM 6 /hrs
Sr. Clk. 1 /hr
PT Wkr 3 /hrs
Supplies
$750
Director 3 /hrs
RSM 4 /hrs
PM 2 /hrs
Sr. Clk. 1 /hr
PT Wkr 5 /hrs
Supplies
$555
• Flyers hand
delivered to
neighbors
• Newpaper
• Website
• Flyers hand
delivered to
neighbors
• Newspaper
• Flyers hand
delivered to
neighbors
• Newspaper
• Website
• Flyers hand
delivered to
neighbors
• Newspaper
• Website
Washington Park
Playground Renovation
Longfellow Park
Security Issues
Rittler Park Field
Renovation /Redesign by
Alameda Little League
Franklin & Littlejohn
Park Playground
Renovation
12/19/02
0
0
N
CO
N
N-
CO
0
CO
.-
CO
0
0
N
N
ti
ibit B