2004-04-20 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - APRIL 20, 2004 - - - 6:40 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, April 20, 2004, 6:40 p.m.
Place:
Agenda:
City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
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:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of
Section 54956.9.
Number of cases: One.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
Beverl J. 1.0 Mayor
CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TUESDAY - - - APRIL 20, 2004 - - - 6:50 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, April 20, 2004, 6:50 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 /Authority on agenda
items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of case: Alameda Unified School District v. City of
Alameda
3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: Alameda Point, 2200 Central Avenue
and Encinal Terminals.
Negotiating Parties:
City of Alameda, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, Alameda
Unified School District.
Under Negotiation: Price and terms.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
►... % ,
verly • �n, Mayor
Chair, 1l .da Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority
AGENDA
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 391
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
1. ROLL CALL
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Meeting will begin at 7:25 p.m.
City Hall will open at 7:20 p.m.
Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items only, may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
3 -A. Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Governing Body authorize
the Executive Director to award a 14 -month contract to Barnes and Company in the amount
of $264,000 for real estate advisory services at Alameda Point.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Notes:
Please contact ARRA Secretary, Lucretia Akil at 749 -5800 or 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to
the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting.
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Lucretia Akil, ARRA
Secretary, or Development Services at 749 -5800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request
an interpreter.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
• Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
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
APRIL 20, 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 6:40 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Conference Room
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 6:50 P.M.
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Conference Room
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND 7:25 P.M.
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Recognition of the City of Alameda's 150th Anniversary of
incorporation, April 19, 1854.
3 -B. Proclamation declaring May 3 -9, 2004 as Mosquito and Vector
Control and West Nile Virus Awareness Week.
3 -C. Proclamation declaring May 10 -14, 2004 as Girls' Rights Week.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public.
4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held
on April 6, 2004.
4 -B. Recommendation to name the ball field in Upper Washington Park
after A.J. "Lil" Arnerich, former City Vice Mayor,
Councilmember, and Recreation and Park Department employee.
[Recreation and Parks Commission]
4 -C. Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to
State Legislators in opposition to Assembly Bill 3007
(Plescia). [Councilmember Kerr]
4 -D. Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for
period ending March 31, 2004 for sales transactions in the
fourth calendar quarter of 2003.
4 -E. Recommendation to accept the work of San Francisco Dry Dock,
Inc. for Encinal Re -Power and Refurbishment Project, No. P.W.
04- 02 -05.
4 -F. Recommendation to amend Agreement with SpenCon Construction,
Inc. for the Annual.Sidewalk Repair Project, No. P.W. 07 -03-
15.
4 -G. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $331,236 to
Textron Financial Corporation for the lease of one hundred
fifty (150) electric golf carts for rental use at the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex.
4 -H. Recommendation to approve Contract with MV Student
Transportation in the amount of $237,270 and elevation of
Program Specialist I position to Program Specialist II in
conjunction with Alameda Kids Coach Program.
4 -I. Adoption of Resolution to Preliminarily Approve Annual Report
Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of June 15, 2004 Hearing
Thereof - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2.
4 -J. Adoption of Resolution to Preliminarily Approve Annual Report
Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of June 15, 2004 Hearing
Thereof - Marina Cove Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01.
4 -K. Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing First
Amendment to the Multiple Site Lease Agreement between City of
Alameda and American Tower Corporation for Development and
Operation of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities on City
Property at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex and at Fire Station
#3. [Requires four (4) affirmative votes]
4 -L. Bills for ratification.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. 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.
[Continued from March 16, 2004]
5 -B. Recommendation to approve bus shelter locations.
5 -C. Public Hearing to consider recommendation to adopt FY 2004 -05
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan, amend
FY2003 -04 CDBG Action Plan and authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and
modifications; and,
• Recommendation regarding CDBG public service allocations
[Social Service Human Relations Board].
5 -D. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a
Relinquishment Agreement with the California Department of
Transportation for the Webster Street Right -of -Way (State
Highway 260) between Central Avenue and Ralph J. Appezzato
Parkway (Atlantic Avenue); and
• Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Webster Renaissance Project No.
P.W. 07- 02 -07.
5 -E. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Section 1 -7 (Administrative Citations) of Chapter
I (General) pertaining to code enforcement.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter
over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may
take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.
7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council)
7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's appointment to the Paratransit
Advisory Committee.
7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Housing Commission.
7 -C. Discussion on requiring a competitive bid process for all
bonds /debts issued by the City. [Vice Mayor Daysog]
8. ADJOURNMENT
• For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a written
statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk at the meeting or e-
mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the
City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the
Meeting to request an interpreter.
• Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For
assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538
either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using
wheelchairs, is available.
• Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print.
• Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
• Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48
hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative
format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to
participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: April 12, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor
And Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Regular and Special City Council Meetings, Special Joint Meeting of the City
Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Special
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of April 20, 2004
Transmitted herewith are the agendas and supporting information for the Regular and
Special City Council Meetings, Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Special Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting of April 20, 2004.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE
AND REDEVELOMENT AUTHORITY
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 -A Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA
Government Body authorize the Executive Director to award a
13 -month contract to Barnes and company in the amount of
$264,000 for real estate advisory services at Alameda Point.
It is recommended that the ARRA Board authorize a 14 -month agreement with
Barnes & Company for real estate advisory services related to Alameda Point.
These services will be paid from the Alameda Point Refunding Bond 2003 and will
not impact the City's General Fund.
COUNCIL AGENDA
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Recongition of the City of Alameda's 150th Anniversary of
Incorporation, April 19, 1854.
The Council wishes to publicly recognize the City's 150th Anniversary of
Incorporation.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers April 12, 2004
3 -B. Proclamation declaring May 3 -9, 2004 as Mosquito and Vector
Control and West Nile Virus Awareness Week.
At this time the Mayor will present a Proclamation declaring May 3 -9, 2004 as
Mosquito and Vector Control and West Nile Virus Awareness Week.
3 -C. Proclamation declaring May 10 -14, 2004 as Girls' Rights Week.
At this time the Mayor will present a proclamation declaring May 10 — 14, 2004 as
Girls' Rights Week.
CONSENT CALENDAR
4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held
on April 6, 2004.
The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special and Regular
City Council Meetings held on April 6, 2004.
4 -B. Recommendation to rename the Ball
Park after A.J. "Lil" Arnerich,
Councilmember, and Recreation and
[Recreation and Parks Commission]
Field in Upper Washington
former City Vice Mayor,
Park Department employee.
The Recreation and Park Commission recommends naming the ball field at Upper
Washington Park for former Vice Mayor /Councilmember /Recreation Supervisor Lil
Arnerich.
4 -C. Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to
State Legislators in opposition to Assembly Bill 3007.
(Plescia) [ Councilmember Kerr]
It is recommended that Council authorize sending a letter to State Legislators urging
their opposition to AB 3007. This bill, if approved as written, would preclude the
Council from having closed session meetings to discuss real estate negotiations,
receive legal advice on matters of anticipated litigation and liability claims.
4 -D. Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for
period ending March 31, 2004 for sales transactions in the
fourth calendar quarter of 2003.
Transmitted is the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending March 31, 2004
for the sales transactions which occurred between October and December of 2003
indicating a decrease of 7.4% from the same quarter of the prior year. Key declines
were in the categories of business services, service station sales and miscellaneous
retail. The current two -year financial plan assumed that a decrease in sales tax
would occur and the revenue estimates were adjusted accordingly.
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
April 12, 2004
4 -E. Recommendation to accept the work of San Francisco Dry Dock,
Inc. for Encinal Re -Power and Refurbishment Project, No. P.W.
04- 02 -05.
It is recommended to accept the work of San Francisco Dry Dock Inc. to re -power
and refurbish the Encinal Ferry should be accepted as complete.
4 -F. Recommendation to amend agreement with SpenCon Construction,
Inc. for the Annual Sidewalk Repair Project, No. P.W. 07 -03-
15
It is recommended that the contract with SpenCon Construction for sidewalk repair
be amended to provide for additional sidewalk repair over and above the original
contract. As noted, these funds will come from an excess liability pool refund,
homeowner - funded repairs and Measure B funds.
4 -G. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $331,236 to
Textron Financial Corporation for the lease of one hundred
fifty (150) electric golf carts for rental use at the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex.
It is recommended that Council authorizes a 3 -year lease with Textron Financial
Corporation to lease 150 golf carts for the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
4 -H. Recommendation to approve Contract with MV Student
Transportation in the amount of $237,270 and elevation of
Program Specialist I position to Program Specialist II in
conjunction with Kids Coach Shuttle Services.
It is recommended that Council approve a contract with MV Student Transportation
to implement a safe transport service for students to travel to and from quality child
development and after - school programs. It is proposed to commence partial service
now and work into full service as of September 1, 2004. It is also recommended to
convert and elevate an existing vacant position to run this program. As noted, no
additional General Fund money is requested.
4 -I. Adoption of Resolution to Preliminarily Approve Annual Report
Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of June 15, 2004 Hearing
Thereof - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2.
This resolution preliminarily approves the annual report, declares intention to order
levy and collection of assessments and provides for a public hearing to be held
June 15, 2004 for the Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2.
4 -J. Adoption of Resolution to Preliminarily Approve Annual Report
Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of June 15, 2004 Hearing
Thereof - Marina Cove Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01.
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 4
April 12, 2004
This resolution preliminarily approves the annual report, declares intention to order
levy and collection of assessments and provides for a public hearing to be held
June 15, 2004 for the Marina Cove Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01.
4 -K. Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing First
Amendment to the Multiple Site Lease Agreement between the
City of Alameda and American Tower Corporation for Development
and Operation of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities on City
Property at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex and at Fire Station
#3. [Requires four (4) affirmative votes]
Introduction of this ordinance will amend the lease with American Tower
Corporation to eliminate a requirement for assignment of existing Sprint Leases. No
other changes are proposed. Four votes are required to introduce this ordinance.
4 -L. Bills for ratification.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. 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.
[Continued from March 16, 2004]
This hearing has been scheduled to receive public comments on various
improvements proposed to the residence at 3241 Garfield. Since the original
submission to the City, and after several meetings and mediations with the
neighbors, the applicant has amended their plan to include a 150 square foot
expansion of the existing residence which was approved by the Planning Board. It
is recommended at after the public hearing has been closed and the facts and
testimony considered, that the Planning Board's decision be upheld.
5 -B. Recommendation to approve bus shelter locations.
It is recommended that the Council approve the recommended locations for future
location of bus shelters. As noted, this does not commit the City to install
advertising bus shelters.
5 -C. Public Hearing to consider recommendation to adopt FY 2004 -05
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan, amend
FY2003 -04 CDBG Action Plan and authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and
modifications.
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 5
April 12, 2004
Recommendation regarding CDBG public service allocations
[Social Service Human Relations Board]
This hearing has been scheduled to receive public comments on the proposed
Action Plan for fiscal year 2004 -05. After the hearing has been closed it is
recommended that Council adopt the CDBG Action Plan, amend the prior year's
Plan, and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute grant agreements
and modifications and any other document required to implement the Action Plan
projects. As noted, the SSHRB supports these recommendations.
5 -D. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a
Relinquishment Agreement with the California Department of
Transportation for the Webster Street Right -of -Way (State
Highway 260) between Central Avenue and Ralph M. Appezzato
Parkway (Atlantic Avenue); and
It is recommended that Council approve a Relinquishment Agreement for a portion
of Webster Street. The estimated $52,000 in annual maintenance costs can be
funded through a future assessment district or existing maintenance funds.
• Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize
Calls for Bids for Webster Renaissance Project No. P.W. 07 -02-
07
It is recommended that Council approve Plans and Specifications and call for bids
to implement the Webster Street Renaissance Project.
5 -E. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Section 1 -7 (Administrative Citations) of Chapter
I (General) pertaining to code enforcement.
Final passage of this ordinance amends the Municipal Code to allow administrative
citations to be served by first class mail with delivery confirmation provided by the
Postal Service.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's appointment to the Paratransit
Advisory Committee.
At this time the Mayor will make an appointment to the Paratransit Advisory
Committee.
7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Housing Commission.
At this time the Mayor will make a nomination to fill the current vacancy on the
Housing Commission.
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 6
April 12, 2004
7 -C. Discussion of Charter amendment regarding bond issuance [Vice
Mayor Daysog]
This item was agendized at the request of Vice Mayor Daysog.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
April 6, 2004
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: James M. Flint
Executive Director
3 -A
SUBJ: Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Governing
Body Authorize the Executive Director to Award a 14 -month Contract to
Barnes and Company in the Amount of $264,000 for Real Estate Advisory
Services at Alameda Point
Background
On November 13, 2003, Barnes and Company entered into an agreement with ARRA to
provide advisory services and serve as interim Project Manager to the Alameda Point
Project. This Agreement expires on April 15, 2004. A new agreement to provide
professional assistance in support of the conveyance and land planning work at Alameda
Point over the next 14 months is attached for ARRA Board consideration.
Discussion
The proposed new agreement with Barnes and Company runs from April, 2004 through
June 30, 2005. Under this new contract, the initial month is a transitional period, in
which both Mr. Barnes and Mr. Pflaum will provide orientation and special support for
the new Project Manager. Following that transitional period, the Barnes team will reduce
its services as the new Project Manager becomes fully familiarized with the project.
Once the intensive Navy negotiation period is near completion, which is anticipated to
happen after September 30, 2004, Mr. Pflaum's services are planned to be discontinued
from the Barnes team.
The Barnes team will work closely with the Alameda Point Project Manager, City staff,
and key consultants to develop a plan and strategy for advancing negotiations with the
Navy to accomplish a workable conveyance of Alameda Point to the City of Alameda.
Barnes will assist with both formulation of strategy and implementation, as well as
participate in the creation of an updated land use plan for Alameda Point, consistent with
the goals described in the Conditional Acquisition Agreement (CAA) with Alameda Point
Community Partners (APCP). Barnes will further support the Project Manager in
carrying out his responsibility for managing the $3.5 million Alameda Point budget.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Services
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Fiscal Impact
April 6, 2004
Page 2
The funding source for this agreement, in the amount of $264,000, is the Alameda Point
Refunding Bond 2003 (for predevelopment). Therefore, there is no fiscal impact to the
general fund.
Recommendation
The Executive Director recommends that the ARRA Governing Board authorize the
Executive Director to award a 14 -month contract to Barnes and Company in the amount
of $264,000 for real estate advisory services at Alameda Point.
JF/PB /SP/DP/LA
Respectfully submitted,
aul Benoit
Deputy Exec t
e D rector
By: Stephen Proud
AP Project Manager
Attachment: Consultant Agreement — Barnes and Company
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Services
C:\ DOCUME- 1 \cdd_user\LOCALS- 1 \Temp\Barnes & Co.NewContract_042004.DOC
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of April 2004, by and between
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (hereinafter referred to as
"ARRA") of the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"City "), and William A. Barnes, a sole proprietor, DBA Barnes and Company, whose address
is 650 Delancey Street #204 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to
the following:
RECITALS:
A. ARRA is a Joint Powers Authority organized and validly existing under the laws
of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted
under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City.
B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special
services which will be required by this Agreement; and
C. Consultant possess the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions
described herein.
D. ARRA and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for services upon the terms
and conditions herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. TERM:
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the day of April 2004, and shall
terminate on the 30th day of June 2005, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED:
Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A ", which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT:
Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the
amount not to exceed $264,400.00, as set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:
Consultant and ARRA agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this
Agreement.
5. STANDARD OF CARE:
Consultant agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the
prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all
William A. Barnes
April 2004
Page 1
services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City
nor have any contractual relationship with City.
6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:
ARRA and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement
is that of employer - independent Consultant. The manner and means of conducting the work are
under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation
and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment will
be acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by City to its
employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans,
vacation and sick leave are available from City to Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions
shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other
purposes normally associated with an employer - employee relationship from any fees due
Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant.
7. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):
Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment
authorization of all of its employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA
or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and hold ARRA
harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any
noncompliance of this provision by Consultant.
8. NON - DISCRIMINATION:
Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable
employer /employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward
a job applicant, a City /ARRA employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee on
the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital
status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Consultant agrees that any
and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
9. HOLD HARMLESS:
• Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless ARRA, City, its City Council, boards,
commissions, officials, employees and volunteers ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any and all loss,
damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees
( "Claims "), arising from or in any manner connected to Consultant's negligent act or omission,
whether alleged or actual, regarding performance of services or work conducted or performed
pursuant to this Agreement. If Claims are filed against Indemnitees which allege negligence on
behalf of the Consultant, Consultant shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for
the costs of defense even if negligence is not found on the part of Consultant. However, Consultant
shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active
negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees.
As to Claims for professional liability only, Consultant's obligation to defend Indemnitees
(as set forth above) is limited to the extent to which its professional liability insurance policy will
provide such defense costs.
William A. Barnes
April2004
Page 2
10. INSURANCE:
On or before the commencement of the terms of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish
ARRA with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and
dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B, C and D. Such
certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the
following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled
or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall
provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the ARRA by certified mail, "Attention: Risk
Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance
of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an
insurance company that is acceptable to ARRA and licensed to do insurance business in the State
of California. Endorsements naming ARRA, City of Alameda, its City Council, boards,
commissions, officials, employees and volunteers as additional insured shall be submitted with the
insurance certificates.
A. COVERAGE:
Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage:
(1) Workers' Compensation:
Statutory coverage as required by the State of California.
(2) Liability:
Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits:
Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence
$1,000,000 aggregate - all other
Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence
$250,000 aggregate
If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of
$1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above.
(3) Automotive:
Comprehensive automobile liability coverage in the
following minimum limits:
Bodily injury: $500,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence
or
Combined Single Limit: $500,000 each occurrence
(4) Professional Liability:
Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for the professional
acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount of at least $1,000,000.
B. SUBROGATION WAIVER:
Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed
to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely
to its insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to ARRA, on behalf of any insurer
providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or ARRA
with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any
such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against ARRA by virtue of the payment of any loss
under such insurance.
William A. Barnes
April 2004 Page3
C. FAILURE TO SECURE:
If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the
foregoing insurance, ARRA shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name
or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the
insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written
notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.
D. ADDITIONAL INSURED:
ARRA, City of Alameda, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees and
volunteers shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except worker's
compensation insurance. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which
such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured.
An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of
any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held
by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense
covered by the insurance provided by this policy.
E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE:
The insurance limits required by ARRA are not represented as being sufficient to protect
Consultant. Consultant is advised to consult Consultant's insurance broker to determine adequate
coverage for Consultant.
11. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the services
required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict of interest form if the
services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain governmental decisions
or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 18700 of the California Code
of Regulations.
12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS:
Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest
therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of
ARRA. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee,
sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted
assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant from ARRA under
this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior
written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to ARRA by
Consultant.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding
capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate
member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which
shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this
Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power of the corporation.
13. SUBCONSULTANT APPROVAL:
Unless prior written consent from ARRA is obtained, only those people and subconsultants
whose names are listed in Consultant's bid shall be used in the performance of this Agreement.
Wiliam A. Barnes
April 2004 Page 4
Requests for additional subcontracting shall be submitted in writing, describing the scope of
work to be subcontracted and the name of the proposed subconsultant. Such request shall set forth
the total price or hourly rates used in preparing estimated costs for the subconsultant's services.
Approval of the subconsultant may, at the option of ARRA, be issued in the form of a Work Order.
In the event that Consultant employs subconsultants, such subconsultants shall be required
to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general and
automobile liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Consultant. In
addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this
Agreement.
14. PERMITS AND LICENSES:
Consultant, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement,
all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses, including a City of Alameda Business License, that
may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder.
15. REPORTS:
Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document reproduced,
prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement
shall be the exclusive property of ARRA.
No report, information nor other data given to or prepared or assembled by Consultant
pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization by Consultant
without prior approval by ARRA.
Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as ARRA may require, furnish reports
concerning the status of services required under this Agreement.
16. RECORDS:
Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs,
expenses, receipts and other such information required by ARRA that relate to the performance of
services under this Agreement.
Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit
an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall
provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of ARRA or its designees at all
proper times, and gives ARRA the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts
therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and
activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept
separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years
after receipt of fmal payment.
If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raised by
ARRA's preliminary examination or audit of records, and ARRA's supplemental examination or
audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other
breach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then consultant shall reimburse ARRA for all
reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.
William A. Barnes
April 2004
Page 5
17. NOTICES:
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given
in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second
business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or
certified, addressed as hereinafter provided.
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to ARRA shall be addressed
to ARRA at:
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
City of Alameda
950 West Mall Square, 211d Floor
Alameda, CA 94501
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from ARRA to Consultant shall be addressed
to Consultant at:
William A. Barnes
Barnes and Company
650 Delaney Street #204
San Francisco, CA 94107
18. TERMINATION:
In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time
and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance of
this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of seven (7) days after receipt by
Consultant from ARRA of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the
steps necessary to cure such default, ARRA may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the
Consultant written notice thereof.
ARRA shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this
Agreement by giving thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon
termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation
specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination.
19. COMPLIANCE WITH MARSH CRUST ORDINANCE:
Contractor shall perform all excavation work in compliance with the City's Marsh Crust
Ordinance as set forth at Section 13 -56 of the Municipal Code. Prior to performing any
excavation work, Contractor shall verify with the Building Official whether the excavation work
is subject to the Marsh Crust Ordinance. Contractor shall apply for and obtain permits from
Building Services on projects deemed to be subject to the Marsh Crust Ordinance.
20. COST OF LITIGATION:
If any legal action is necessary to enforce any provision hereof or for damages by reason of
an alleged breach of any provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
receive from the losing party all costs and expenses in such amount as the Court may adjudge to be
reasonable, including attorneys' fees.
William A. Barnes
Apri12004 Page 6
21. COMPLIANCES:
Consultant shall comply with all laws, state or federal and all ordinances, rules and
regulations enacted or issued by ARRA.
22. CONFLICT OF LAW:
This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of
California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another
jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules,
and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those
authorities.)
Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of
Alameda, State of California.
23. ADVERTISEMENT:
Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any
signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the services
performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from ARRA to do
otherwise.
24. WAIVER:
A waiver by ARRA of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein, shall
not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or
condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
25. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature
whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of
whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held
to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written
execution signed by both ARRA and Consultant.
26. INSERTED PROVISIONS:
Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be deemed
to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were included
herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly
inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party.
27. CAPTIONS:
The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and
in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement.
William A. Barnes
April 2004 Page 7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the day
and year first above written.
ALAMEDA REUSE AND
Barnes and Company REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(3.00/0-g---
William A. Baries /
Date- 3 i 30/ Ol''
William A. Barnes
April 2004
James M. Flint
City Manager
Date:
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
aul Benoit
Assistant City anager
Date: 't '(c{ I Q y
Stephen • . Proud
Alamed Pont Project Manager
Date: £(a( : oq
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Teresa Highsmith
Assistant City Attorney
Page 8
Exhibit A — SCOPE OF WORK
The Request for Service
The City of Alameda, through its Redevelopment Agency, has asked for professional
assistance in supporting the work of its project manager, assistant city manager, city
manager (ARRA executive director) and ARRA board in making strategic decisions and
carrying forward the programs of Alameda Point. William A. Barnes, having provided
interim project management services and other real estate advisory services for Alameda
in the past, has been asked to provide real estate advisory services during the period of
the ARRA -led development period (through June, 2005). This contract covers those
additional services and is separate from and in addition to the prior Agreement between
the City and Barnes.
Scope of Services
Barnes proposes to provide the requested professional advisory services to City staff and
assist the City in implementing new programs described in its CAA agreement with
APCP, for which the City is now responsible. Barnes proposes to provide expertise,
support and advisory services in association with his colleague, Bruce Pflaum (dba:
Barnes and Company) to address the following City priorities:
The Barnes team ( "Barnes "), working closely with the project manager, City staff and
key consultants, will help pull together a plan and strategy for advancing negotiations
with the Navy to accomplish a workable conveyance of Navy property to the City of
Alameda at Alameda Point. Barnes will assist with both formulation of strategy and
implementation. Every effort will be made to make use of existing information and work
already completed by the City, APCP, and the. Navy. Barnes will provide appropriate
levels of initiative and participation in problem - solving sessions to assist the City in
making progress in this area.
Barnes working closely with City staff and key consultants, will participate in the
creation of an updated land use plan for Alameda Point, consistent with the goals
described in the CAA agreement with APCP. The updated plan will be developed with
the professional assistance of a respected planning firm, ROMA. Barnes will provide
expertise in helping the ARRA team to set the priorities and scope of services to be
required of the planning consultants. The planning effort will be designed to resolve
certain program deficiencies and incongruities inherent in the present APCP land use
plan, closely tie the land planning use designations to environmental constraints and
Navy conveyance realities, and develop an overall plan that enhances economic
feasibility. It should also respect, as much as possible, APCP's priorities and core
requirements while also respecting the City's same core interests. This will require an
iterative approach and the management of some fairly complex five -way discussions
between the City, APCP, the planners, the environmental experts and the Navy experts.
Barnes will participate in working sessions to address the complex issues and tasks
associated with generating an updated land use plan.
Barnes, working closely with the project manager and other senior City staff will help
maintain and enhance the working relationship with APCP. The team will schedule
regular meetings and channels of communication with APCP's key representatives to
provide opportunity for both groups to coordinate their work, share key information,
engage in joint problem - solving, and resolve differences, wherever possible.
Barnes will assist with facilitation and coordination of communications regarding critical
project issues and augment the means for achieving timely decision - making among City
staff involved in the Alameda Point project Barnes will participate in regular meetings of
work groups focused on addressing the principle issues most important to the success of
Alameda Point. The attached organization chart identifies the various working groups in
which Barnes is expected to participate and graphically shows his roles on the Alameda
Point team, as a senior real estate advisor.
Barnes will assist City staff, as needed, with special issues pertaining to Alameda Point
such as issuance of new taxable bonds, updating budgets, key property management
matters, etc. Barnes will support the project manager in carrying out his responsibility for
controlling the $3.8 million Alameda Point budget. During the transition period, Barnes
will provide orientation and special support for the new project manager.
Terms of Engagement:
The term of this contract commences April 1, 2004 and ends on June 30, 2005.
Consistent with paragraph six of this Agreement titled "Independent Parties ", Barnes
and Pflaum will operate as independent contractors, as Barnes has operated in the past in
his rendering of professional services to the City of Alameda. As such, the Barnes team
will be acting as advisors but not agents or temporary employees or administrators of the
City of Alameda. As such they will not be making decisions or taking executive actions
in behalf of the City, though they expect to work closely with and provide advice to City
senior staff, who will play these roles, assisted and supported by the Barnes team.
Compensation:
Under this new contract, the month of April, 2004 is a transitional period, and during this
period, Barnes and Pflaum will provide full advisory and support services approximately
2 and 1/2 days per week (each), similar to their previous contract to assist the new project
manager to become fully familiarized with the project as soon as possible. Commencing
May 1St, Barnes and Pflaum will reduce their services to 2 days per week (each), with
Pflaum's services discontinuing after September 30, 2004, once the intensive Navy
negotiation period is mostly completed. Compensation will be calculated in the same
manner as the last contract, using a set retainer amount for each month's work, assuming
a standard four week month and a work commitment that averages 2 %z days per week in
April, and approximately 2 days per week thereafter. Barnes' hourly compensation rate is
$228 per hour and Pflaum's hourly compensation rate is $84 per hour. In addition, out of
pocket expenses will be reimbursed. Hourly rates are adjusted once a year on January 1st
It is understood that some weeks may involve somewhat more or less time than the
contract amount but the Barnes team will work to stay within the contract amounts each
month. Accordingly, it is understood and agreed that Barnes is not supervising personnel,
making contractual commitments in behalf of the City, signing documents that obligate
the City legally, but instead, is focusing on the priority tasks described above with the
goal of facilitating positive results.
Miscellaneous Provisions:
Barnes has been assigned office space at Alameda West and occasional use of a
secretary, as needed. It is understood that Barnes will work at Alameda some of each
week and some at the offices in San Francisco. Barnes will endeavor to establish regular
times each week for being at Alameda, with open office availability and regular meeting
schedules.
A
1
0
•
....,.' 1ViQ11Qs•3 r, (As needed)
_ ARRAlAPCP Core Team. APCP Team
Aidan +2, Project Manager,, _. Aidan, Phil, Tom
►' Greg, David, Andy
ARRACore Team (monthly) E -__..._... ._.._.............,......__._,g
• ;Jim Paul, Mark/ Leslie, David, Debbie, Greg,
Andy
g, Yr, :Sr":l • • 1
Economic Consultant Project Manager Estaif?fliv®a' € > < >:<:::
�MA), J g
•
..:::::::qua .,:Babes « gip,:..: ::: ,,
sil
R l le
;::: Jnte ' ':.
Res trri
Internal Project Coordinating Team (weekly) e
- ° ► Paul, Debbie, David, Ellen, Andy
Greg, Andrew, Project Manager
• Land Use Team
Convevartce 1'earm Greg *, Andrew, Andy, Debbie, Land Planner
► Dave *, Ellen; °Diebbie Andreys, peter, Andy; Technical Consultants, Stag: infrastructure &
y,
Protect lager* , Aare Cd public works S.M.E., - - -
Project Manager*., Aidan & Co.
d
0
o, oo
:3a •
a.--4
0.
tUll
a S
o
o
-bn
ji
4,3
'00
gam
v 4
O Vl
" O
4
8U
A 8 .ca
z°*
Proc amation
Whereas, the City of Alameda recognizes that West Nile virus is a mosquito
borne disease that can result in debilitating cases of meningitis and
encephalitis and death to humans, horses, avian species, and other
wildlife as early as this spring and in the foreseeable future; and
Whereas, in 2003, the virus killed 246 people throughout the country and
sickened nearly 10,000 individuals; and
Whereas, the first three human West Nile virus cases due to exposure within
our state were reported in southern California in 2003 and based on
surveillance we know that the virus is now present throughout
southern California (Imperial, San Diego, Riverside, Orange, Los
Angeles and San Bernardino counties); and
Whereas, Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District works with mosquito
and vector control districts throughout California, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, and the State Department of
Health Services to reduce pesticide risks to humans, animals, and
the environment while protecting human health from mosquito and
vector -borne diseases and nuisance attacks; and
Whereas, the public's awareness of the health benefits associated with safe,
professionally applied mosquito and vector control methods will
encourage the appropriation of adequate funding to support these
efforts, as well as motivate the public to eliminate mosquito and
vector breeding sites; and
Whereas, "Mosquito and Vector Control and West Nile Virus Awareness Week"
will increase the public's awareness of the threat of West Nile virus
and other diseases and the activities of the various mosquito and
vector research and control agencies working to minimize the health
threat within California, and will highlight the public education
programs currently available.
Now, therefore, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby
declare the week of May 3, 2004 as "Mosquito and Vector Control and West.wiT
virus Awareness Week" in the City of - meda.
Proclamation #3 -13
4 -20 -04
Proclamation
Whereas, 9irfslncorporated'is a research, education and advocacy
organization that inspires all girls to be strong, smart and bold;
to have confidence and be safe in the world; and
Whereas, Girls Incorporate/encourages young women to be themselves
and resist gender stereotypes, to take risks, to strive freely,
and to take pride in their successes; and
Whereas, Girls Incotporatedteaches young women to prepare for
interesting work and economic independence; and
Whereas, since 1964, Girls Incorporated of the Island City has provided
the only quality program in Alameda designed specifically for
girls and is a local affiliate of the national nonprofit
organization, Girls Incorporated; and
Whereas, Girls Incorporated of the Island City is building girls' capacities
for responsible and confident adulthood, economic independ-
ence, and personal fulfillment through engaging girls in
learning opportunities that are hands -on and interactive; and
Whereas, Ora Incorporated of the Island City continues to promote
positive goal setting and recognizes the strengths, talents and
diversity of girls within our county. The contributions that Girls
Incorporated of the Island City makes toward making lives
more satisfying is clearly an asset to all of us; and
Whereas, Girls Incorporated of the Island City is celebrating their 5th
Annual Celebration of Excellence Luncheon on May 1, 2004.
Now, therefore, I Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda do hereby
proclaim the week of May 10 through 14, 2004 to be Orls fights Weekin the City
of Alameda and extend congratulations to Girls Inc of the Island City on their 40th
anniversary of inspiring strong, smart and bold girls to become women who dare
and in recognition of the future of young women, their rights, dreams and endless
opportunities.
ever
Proclamation #3 -C,
4 -20 -04
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 6, 2004- - 6:10 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
(04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9.
Number of cases: One.
(04- ) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Negotiators: Human
Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations: Alameda City
Employee Association (ACEA) and Police Association Non -Sworn (PANS).
(04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
54956.9. Number of cases: Two.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and
Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Initiation of litigation, the
Council obtained briefing from Legal Counsel; regarding Conference with
Labor Negotiator, the Council obtained briefing and gave direction to
Labor Negotiators; regarding Significant exposure, Legal Councel gave
briefing.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special
Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 6, 2004
1
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - APRIL 6, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:07 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- )Proclamation declaring April 24, 2004 as Earth Day in
Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Bill
Dolbert of ACI.
Mr. Dolbert thanked the Council; invited everyone to Washington
Park on April 24 for the Earth Day celebration.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to award Contract
in the amount of $119,040 to Linear Options [paragraph no. 04-
was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Kerr 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 and Regular City Council Meetings
held on March 16, 2004. Approved.
( *04- )Recommendation to waive Payment in Lieu of Taxes for
Esperanza complex for Fiscal Years 2004 -2005 and 2005 -06. Approved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 6, 2004
1
( *04- )Recommendation to accept Annual Report on the Library
Construction Project and Uses of the General Obligation Bond
Proceeds for period ending February 28, 2004. Accepted.
( *04- )Recommendation to authorize installation of an All -Way
Stop Control at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Chestnut
Street. Accepted.
( *04- )Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
Authorize Call for Bids for annual fuel delivery to various
locations within the City of Alameda for the Fiscal Year ending
June 30, 2005, No. P.W. 03- 04 -04. Accepted.
(04- )Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $119,040,
including contingencies, to Linear Options, Inc. for Traffic
Striping Program, No. P.W. 12- 03 -19. Accepted.
Mr. Neveln, Alameda, stated that when exiting Alameda on Clement
Avenue, the wide center section tapers down to a double stripe
without a left turn lane which creates a traffic problem.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to review the traffic situation
presented by Mr. Neveln.
Councilmember Kerr stated when driving eastbound on Buena Vista
Avenue approaching Grand Avenue, the yellow stripe shifts to the
right; both straight traffic and traffic turning right on Grand
Avenue backs; requested staff to review at the intersection.
The City Manager stated truck traffic has to make wide turns on
Clement Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue.
Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
( *04- ) Resolution No. 13695, "Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing the Salary Ranges for the Classifications of
Administrative Services Manager and Senior Utility Analyst."
Adopted.
( *04- ) Resolution No.13696, "Acknowledging that the City of
Alameda is Acting through the City Council Regarding Membership in
the Northern California Power Agency and Other Utility Joint Powers
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 6, 2004
2
Agreements." Adopted.
( *04- ) Resolution No. 13697, "Ordering Vacation of an Existing
Public Easement within Assessor's Parcel Number 074 - 0955 -6 -12 and
Recordation of Quitclaim Deed." Adopted.
( *04- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,668,242.36.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(04- )Public Hearing to consider introduction of an ordinance
"Amending Alameda Municipal Code Subsection 1- 7.14(a), (Notices) of
Section 1 -7 (Administrative Citations) of Chapter I (General) to
Delete Certified, Return - Receipt Request Requirement. Introduced.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether notices could be sent certified
with no return receipt requested since some people are not willing
to sign for receipt of mail.
The Chief Building Official responded when certified mail was sent
and no one was home to receive it, the Post Office takes the mail
back and the recipient would need to pick it up; there was a
problem with absentee landlords not accepting the mailing.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether notices could be sent with the
new 50 cent postage proof of mailing.
The City Attorney stated that the Chief Building Official could
investigate options; that options could be brought back to Council
at final passage.
Councilmember Kerr requested an alternate postal method be reviewed
prior to final passage.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved introduction of Ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote. Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Councilmember Kerr -
1
(04- )Recommendation to approve Bus Shelter Site Selection
Criteria.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.
The following speakers spoke in favor of adoption of the Bus
Shelter Site Selection Criteria: Richard Neveln, Alameda; Thomas
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 6, 2004
3
Jordan, Community of Harbor Bay Isle; Anthony Majors, Alameda;
Richard Davis, Alameda; Christopher Buckley, Alameda; Betsy Elgar,
National Association of Social Workers; Jon Spangler, Alameda
Transit Advocates; John Knox White, Transportation Commission;
Michael Krueger, Alameda; Valerie Ruma, Alameda; Michael Torrey,
Alameda; and, Susan Decker, Alameda
The following speakers spoke in opposition to advertising at bus
shelters: Susan Duperret, Alameda; Norma Wall, Alamedans for
Responsible Transit Shelters (ARTS); Patricia Gannon, ARTS, Dave
Graber, Alameda; Joe Cloren, Alameda;; Reyla Graber, ARTS; and Walt
Jacobs, COHIBA.
The following speaker spoke in opposition to adoption of the Bus
Shelter Site Selection Criteria: Ida Wilkinson, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the meeting.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether a contract had been signed
between the bus shelter Joint Powers of Agreement (JPA) and Lamar;
and whether Alameda was a party to that contract.
The Public Works Director responded that the City authorized the
City Manager to enter into a JPA with AC Transit; AC Transit has an
agreement with Lamar for the installation of bus shelters with
advertising; the City has not entered into an agreement with Lamar
and would not be compelled to install bus shelters through Lamar.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the contract guarantees that
Lamar could have a 6 foot by 4 foot advertisement.
The Public Works Director responded that the maximum size of the ad
would be 6 feet by 4 feet; staff could negotiate a smaller ad size;
AC Transit has indicated that no other jurisdiction has negotiated
a smaller ad.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired what mechanism would fund bus shelters.
The Public Works Director responded that Lamar would be responsible
for the purchase, installation and the ongoing maintenance of all
the bus shelters; the City would received approximately $30 a month
for each shelter; for every four advertising shelters, Lamar would
be required to install one non - advertising shelter.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired what was the capital cost for a shelter,
to which the Public Works Director responded cost would depend on
the style; the standard Lamar bus shelter was approximately $4500;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 6, 2004
4
the Park Street Business Association's (PSBA) shelters are
approximately $8000.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the City could pay a portion of
the cost using bond money.
The City Manager responded $7 million of the allocation bonds would
not be available due to redevelopment projects approved by the City
Council; bond money can only be spent in project areas.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated money could be spent on eligible
activities in project areas that would have been funded by the
General Fund to free up General Fund money for bus shelters.
Mayor Johnson inquired how long Lamar would provide maintenance, to
which the Public Works Director responded seven years.
Mayor Johnson requested Council be provided information on removal
costs, to which the Public Works Director stated he would advise
Council.
Mayor Johnson stated criteria need to be adopted to determine what
Lamar's proposal would be in terms of number of shelters.
The Public Works Director stated that the relative ridership of the
bus stops are approximately the same as 1998.
Mayor Johnson stated that everyone needs to support non - advertising
shelters; that there would be conflict every time an advertised bus
shelter was installed.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there are any controls over
types of ads on bus shelters.
The Public Works Director responded that there was control and that
information would be provided to Council.
Mayor Johnson stated that other companies should be contacted to
review other types of shelters, to which the Public Works Director
stated staff would follow up.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how many shelters would not need
ads if the City did not receive $30 per month per shelter, to which
the Public Works Director responded that with 20 shelters, said
money might keep one shelter from having ads.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Council is trying to do best
possible job for the City; that City tries to resolve traffic
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 6, 2004
5
issues; applauded ARTS in fund raising efforts; stated bus shelters
should be in place before rainy season.
Councilmember Gilmore requested periodic funding updates from ARTS.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested a report detailing the amount available
from the $7 million in bond money.
Councilmember Kerr stated that she does not want to move forward
with siting criteria until type of bus shelter was decided; better
public transit reduces traffic, not bus shelters; that she would
not vote for advertising.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he was concerned with 6 foot by 4
foot advertisement size.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether advertisement size was part of the
criteria, to which the City Manager responded criteria was for
siting.
The Public Works Director stated that proposed locations would be
addressed at the April 20 City Council Meeting; once final
locations are established, size could be discussed with vendor.
Mayor Johnson inquired when design criteria would be addressed; to
which the Public Works Director responded design criteria would be
considered by the Planning Board on April 26 and then would be
brought back to Council for approval.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council's concern regarding 6 foot
by 4 foot ads could be added to the criteria, to which the Public
Works Director responded that direction could be taken now; staff
could address the matter in negotiations with Lamar.
Councilmember Matarrese requesting review of how the 6 foot by 4
foot ad size compares to bus bench ad size; inquired whether bench
ads are allowed at any bus stop.
The Public Works Director responded that currently all bus benches
currently can have advertising.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a calendar, funding available
from the CIC bond, and the nature of funding from ARTS; questioned
whether ARTS would cover maintenance costs; that he would oppose
installing bus shelters without funding maintenance.
The Public Works Director noted that donations to the City on the
bus shelter maintenance are 100% tax deductible.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 6, 2004
6
Councilmember Gilmore stated that triangle ads would be preferable
in addition to reduced size of ads.
Councilmember Gilmore stated approval of criteria does not approve
advertising; ARTS was working to come up with funding; moving
forward with the siting criteria would make identifying funding and
design for sites easier.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the siting criteria.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese recognized the hard work
of ARTS and the Transportation Commission.
Mayor Johnson stated that approval of criteria would apply to
advertised or non - advertised shelters.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that approval would not be proposing
change to any existing shelters in Harbor Bay Isle.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he would abstain pending the outcome
of negotiations with Lamar.
Councilmember Kerr stated that visual impact was causing a lot of
concern; that she would vote no.
On call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice
vote. Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson -
3. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. Abstentions: Vice Mayor Daysog -
1.
* **
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 9:43 p.m. and reconvened the
regular meeting at 10:02 p.m.
* **
(04- )Recommendation regarding proposals received to operate
Alameda ferry services.
Joe O'Flanagan, Alameda, expressed support of continuing with
Harbor Bay Maritime as operators of Harbor Bay Ferry.
Karen Forsgard, Alameda, urged Council to renew contract with
Harbor Bay Maritime.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 6, 2004
7
Councilmember Kerr stated that Blue and Gold responded to the
combined Request for Proposal (RFP) without any overhead savings;
Harbor Bay Maritime did not submit a bid; there was not a good
handle on the costs proposed by Harbor Bay Maritime; expressed that
she was frustrated with the outcome of the bidding process; the
east -end ferry requires a much greater subsidy per passenger trip
than the west -end ferry.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether Blue and Gold expressed
misgivings regarding the bidding process.
The Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that Blue
and Gold was appraised of Harbor Bay Maritime's interest in
continuing the service and submitted letter expressing concern
about the City entertaining an approach outside the RFP process.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired to what extent the City was
contractually limited by the RFP.
The City Attorney responded that the RFP was a voluntary action;
the City could have negotiated directly with either provider; the
City was free at any time to go outside of the voluntary RFP
process.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that Blue and Gold was upset that
considerable time, money and effort was put into responding to the
RFP; inquired whether Blue and Gold could sue the City to recover
funds.
The City Attorney responded that Blue and Gold does not have a
legal basis for a lawsuit; Blue and Gold requested that the City
not continue to bind them to their bid and allow them to negotiate
freely.
Councilmember Kerr stated that Harbor Bay Maritime's performa
operating costs are possibly less than Blue and Gold's bid to run
the east -end ferry; that she was concerned that more public money
would be needed for the east -end ferry.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City could negotiate
with Blue and Gold and Harbor Bay Maritime at the same time, to
which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether Blue and Gold's proposal
included a cost plus fixed -fee formula and whether the City would
bare increases in gas prices.
The Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative; as fuel prices
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 6, 2004
8
increase, expenses are passed through the City.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether how fuel prices have changed in
the last three months, to which the Ferry Manager responded there
has been an increase of approximately 20 cents per gallon.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested that the Council be provided the
aggregate sum of the increased fuel charges.
The Ferry Manager stated there was a possibility of obtaining
approval for a fuel surcharge; Blue and Gold could get permission
from the Public Utility Commission to raise rates; increased rates
would only be implemented with Council approval.
Vice Mayor inquired whether there was a transportation fund that
pays the difference, to which the Ferry Manager responded that
funds are from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and
Measure B reauthorization.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Harbor Bay Maritime
indicated interest in running only the Harbor Bay operation and
Blue and Gold indicated some interest in running both services, to
which the Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr stated that Blue and Gold may not wish to
negotiate with the City; the City would be cornered if the Harbor
Bay Maritime was the only negotiating operator.
Mayor Johnson stated that the staff recommendation makes sense;
Council does not have a lot of choice.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that the outcome was market driven.
The City Manager stated that contracts can continue to run in
parallel; if conditions change, the City would not have to worry
about synchronizing the contracts.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether Blue and Gold would want to
negotiate for Harbor Bay service as a single service, to which the
Ferry Manager 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- ) Ordinance No. 2919, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding a New Subsection 2 -61.8 (Design Build) to Section 2 -61
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 6, 2004
9
(Bidding Procedures on Public Projects and Goods and Supplies) of
Chapter II (Administration)." Finally passed.
Councilmember Gilmore moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(04 -) Ordinance No. 2920, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations)." Finally passed.
Councilmember Kerr stated that State law allows landlords to ask
for proof of insurance from individuals who operate daycare
centers; inquired whether the City could require proof of
insurance.
The City Attorney stated that she would research the Health and
Safety Code to determine whether or not providing insurance was an
allowable governmental restriction.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether an information packet on
insurance requirements could be provided to landlords, to which the
City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the City could implement such a
process; to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA
(04- )Chad Moore, Alameda, discussed the lack of Police
enforcement of shopping cart theft.
(04- )Michael Torrey, Alameda, discussed lighting in bus
shelters.
(04- )Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed alternate energy.
7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(04- )Consideration of Mayor's appointment to the Paratransit
Advisory Committee. Held over.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 6, 2004
10
(04- )Discussion on requiring a competitive bid process for all
bonds /debt issued by the City.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated bonds need to be bid on a competitive
basis because of high fees; the City Charter should be revised to
recognize the importance of the process; Council needs all
information when reviewing potential bond underwriters.
The City Manager stated there are a series of management practices
that guide the City's operations; that some additional direction
has been provided to staff for future bond issuance to ensure
competitiveness.
Mayor Johnson requested information on other significant items that
are not done by a competitive bidding process.
The Finance Director stated that financial consultants and bond
counsel go through a pre - qualification process; the process is
competitive; proposals are sought from multiple service providers;
a list is created based upon qualifications.
The Mayor inquired whether the competitive process would be based
on qualifications and fees.
The Finance Director responded that qualifications and fees are
taken into consideration in selecting the financing team.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that there are instances when Council may
not want to make selections on a competitive basis, but that
Council still needs to approve the process prior to staff action.
The City Manager stated that Council could adopt a policy versus a
Charter amendment; flexibility is needed.
Mayor Johnson repeated her request for information on other areas
where Council may not be making selection on a competitive basis.
The City Manager responded that the Council approves almost all
items through competitive process.
(04- )Written communication from Olivia Garcia regarding
strengthening laws against sex offenders.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that San Jose City officials have raised
concerns regarding the Cary Verse process and the way in which sex
offenders are transferred into cities; it is important to alert the
public that the City of Alameda is proactive; thanked Olivia Garcia
for passing along the information.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 6, 2004
11
The City Manager stated that the Police Chief could provide an off -
agenda report; the City has a special duty unit responsible for
working with parolees as well as sex offenders.
Mayor Johnson stated that she received information on Megan's Law
from the Police Chief; requested that the Council receive a copy.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the concern in Oakland was that the
individual being transferred appeared without notice; that the
State Department of Corrections contracts with an organization that
provides release and placement services; inquired how Alameda would
be notified of such action.
The City Manager stated that the Police Chief would respond to the
inquiry in his report to Council.
Councilmember Kerr stated that Alameda has the highest percentage
of accurate reporting of sex offenders.
Mayor Johnson stated that Sacramento has information available over
the Internet; currently, information is obtained through the
Alameda Police Department; inquired whether there would be another
way to make information available.
The City Manager stated that the Police Chief would investigate and
advise.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:50 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
April 6, 2004
12
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
April 1, 2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
RE:
Background
Recommendation to Rename the Ball Field in Upper Washington Park
After A.J. "Lil" Arnerich - Former City Vice Mayor, Councilmember, and
Recreation and. Park Department Employee
The Recreation and Park Commission received a request to consider renaming the ball
field in Upper Washington Park in honor of former City Councilmember and long time
Recreation and Park Department employee A.J. "Lil" Arnerich. The request was placed
on the Recreation and Park Commission agenda for March and was unanimously
approved.
Discussion /Analysis
Mr. Arnerich worked in the Alameda Recreation and Park Department as the Supervisor
of Athletics from 1950 until 1986. During his tenure with the Department he instituted a
number of successful sporting activities and programs including the very popular
Summer Youth Baseball League. These programs provided thousands of Alameda
youth with the opportunity to acquire basic skills, sportsmanship, teamwork, and to
develop a sense of fair play.
Mr. Arnerich served two terms on the City Council from 1988 - 1996 and was appointed
as Vice -Mayor from 1989 - 1992. During his time on the Council a number of significant
park and recreation projects were completed including the design and construction of
the College of Alameda Hardball Field, Harrington Park, and Towata Park.
He has also been a long time member of the Alameda Elks Lodge #1015 where he has
chaired and served on a number of committees and projects to benefit local youth. Mr.
Arnerich has been an outspoken advocate for the benefits of recreation and parks for a
number of years.
Attached are the City Council and Recreation and Park Commission guidelines for the
naming and renaming of facilities.
Report #4 -B CC
4 -20 -04
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Honorable Mayor and Page -2-
Councilmembers
Budget Consideration /Financial Impact
The renaming of the field in Upper Washington Park to honor A.J. "Lil" Arnerich would
result in a minimal financial impact to the City. The purchase and placement of a sign
denoting the change would result in an expenditure of approximately $200. This cost
can be absorbed in the current Recreation and Park Department Budget.
Recommendation
The Recreation and Park Commission recommends that Council approve the renaming
of the ball field in Upper Washington Park in honor of A.J. Arnerich.
SO:bf
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne Ota, Director
Ala .-da Recreatio
By
Dale Lillard, Recreation Svs. Mgr.
Alameda Recreation & Parks
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
CITY OF ALAMEDA
C A L 1 i o a N I A
POLICY POR NAMING CITY PROPERTY
INTRODUCTION:
It is the City of Alameda's• desire to establish a uniform
policy to name City facilities and portions thereof, including
but not limited to: Parks.and Park facilities, Golf Complex,
Bureau of Electricity facilities, Libraries Housing Authority
facilities, fire stations, City Hall,. 'Police. Departien;`" '
facilities, parking lots,'ferry terminals, City streets and .
entryways to the City..
PURPOSE:
It is the City of Alameda's desire to honor persons.
*and/or events in the history of the City by naming City
facilities after then. This process acknowledges and
• memorializes a specific person or event and enhances the
value and heritage of the City. A
PROCED(REB :
•
•
•
Boards and Commissions represent the community, and have
direct responsibility for various City • faoilitier as.'
prescribed in the City Charter. and Alameda Municipal Code.- =>
The Boards /Commissions• most closely related to these':
facilities will make the name•recomsendation . to the Council:
It shall be the responsibility of the following
Boards /Commissions to make recommendations to the City Council,
on naming these City facilities:
Recreation Commission - City Parks,•Svim Centers, Boat Ramps
Golf Commission - Golf Complex and Associated Facilities
Public Utilities Board.- Bureau•of Electricity Facilities
Library Board - Libraries ;•.
Housing Commission - Housing. Authority Facilities
Planning Board - Streets and all other City Facilities
Groups from wit,...n the community
recommendations to the Board Commissionvidat lsthey time
consideration is given to naming a facility, and may initiate
such action. The Board /Commission will than forward their
recommendation to the City Council.
If a facility does 'not have a connection to
Board /Commission, the Planning Board will be the body which
makes a name recommendation to the City Council. The Planning
Board will continue to be responsible for making street name
recommendations to the City Council using the existing Street
Naming Policy, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The Historical Advisory Board will continue to add to the.pool
of suggested names available for selection to name City
property.
The City Council will make the final•deoision to name a City
facility. Recommendations may cane from Boards and
commissions. The City Council will oonsider,a recommendation
for naming a City facility,
receive comments in an -o y' at a public meeting in order to
pen toruw. •
CRITERIA:
In selecting the name for a City faoility;, the following"'
criteria will be used:
A name which reflects the location •-
geographic area; .
A name which reflects the history of a faoility ouch as the
family name of the builder, developer or person who may have
donated the land; . •
•
A name which recognizes a significant contributor to. the..
advancement of the •City, such as •a former Mayor,'-: .
councilmember, Hoard /Commission Member, officers or employees •
of the
helyjity,. -excluding a person holding the position
A name which is listed on the Street Naming Policy of the City .
of Alameda. • •
RE-NAMING CITY PROPERTY:
Should the City contemplate renaming a City property which is
named, research will be done to determine how the existing
name was conceived,. and consideration• will be given to the
impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. At that time, it will
be at the discretion of the Council-whether or not to rename
a City property or-facility.
hdopted 10 -1 -91
_tlameda Recreation and Park Department
PROCEDURES FOR THE RECREATION COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR NAMING OR RENAMING OF PARK AND
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
(Facilities include, but are not limited to, City parks, swim centers, boat ramps, etc.)
RENAMING OF EXISTING FACILITIES
Existing facilities will not be renamed after the original naming and/or dedication. It matters not
whether the facility is named after an individual or for a geographic location.
NAMING A FACILITY WITHIN A FACILITY
NOTE:Possible named areas within a park could be: A park name, recreation center, play lot,
picnic area, park maintenance building, fields, courts, horseshoe pits and rose
gardens, etc.
Components within a park site may be identified as having special significance for an individual
and could be recognized by a special one -time program or event. The installation of a lasting
marker or plaque will be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Applications for recognition events will be accepted on an annual basis. These will be limited to
no more than two events per year to be determined by the Recreation and Park Commission.
Donations of trees, park benches, water fountains, etc., in recognition of individuals are
permitted but without commemorative markings. Appropriate ceremonies are arranged through
the Recreation and Park Department.
NAMING OF NEW FACILITIES
The Recreation Commission will accept applications from the public to review potential names
for new facilities based on the criteria listed below.
National or State prominence or service to the City.
Selected individuals may be alive or deceased.
And according to the established City criteria:
A name which reflects the location of the facility by geographic area.
- A name which reflects the history of a facility such as the family name of the builder,
developer, or person who may have donated the land.
- A name which recognizes a significant contributor to the advancement of the City, such
as a former Mayor, Councilmember, Board/Commission Member, officers or employees
of the City (excluding a person currently holding the position).
- A name which is listed on the Street Naming Policy of the City of Alameda.
Revised: 10/4/2001
Adopted: 11/10/94
bfh/recom/nameplcy.doc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To:
From: Ja T . Flint
C' ager
Date: April 14. - 004
Honorable M - or and
Councilm - • ers
Re: Recom - ndation to Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter to State
ors in O.. osition to Assembl Bill 3007
Background
This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Kerr.
On February 20, 2004 Assembly Member Plescia introduced Assembly Bill 3007.
(Attachment A) AB 3007 would repeal local governments' authority to meet in
closed session to meet with real estate negotiators or to meet with legal counsel
to receive confidential legal advice on matters of anticipated litigation and liability
claims. The bill will be considered by the Assembly Committee on Local
Government on April 28, 2004.
Discussion
Alameda is in the midst of redeveloping the Alameda Naval Air Station (ANAS). This
is a complex project that involves negotiations with the U.S. Navy, remediation of
environmental conditions on the base, and complex negotiations with real estate
developers. These discussions cannot succeed if the City's position is fully known to
the City's potential private partners before reaching the negotiating table. Nor is it
appropriate to attain confidentiality at the expense of City Council involvement by
having staff negotiate the deal in confidence and only reveal a completed proposal to
the Council when the proposal is ready for public discussion. The Brown Act strikes
a balance among the competing goals of public participation, control of local
governments by elected decision- makers, and allowing the City to strike good
bargains for the benefit of the public treasury and the people we serve.
Similar concerns arise regarding litigation matters. The private actors that sue the
City of Alameda, whether it be a sidewalk trip and fall or a commercial dispute arising
out of the ANAS redevelopment, have access to lawyers and the right to confidential
advice. The City should not be required to defend the public treasury without the
same access to qualified counsel. AB 3007, if passed in its current form, would
require the City Council to forego legal advice, to receive that advice only in writing,
Report #4 -C CC
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service 4 -20 -04
or to delegate important matters of public policy to the City Manager. Again, the
Brown Act's current language strikes a better balance among the competing
concerns.
Lastly, the League of California Cities has formally opposed AB 3007 and has
asked cities to send letters to state legislators urging their opposition. A draft
letter of opposition is provided here as Attachment B.
Budget/Financial Impact
None
Recommendation
The City Manager recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to send
a letter to state legislators urging them to oppose Assembly Bill 3007.
Attachment A
Attachment B
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
AB 3007 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 1 of 7
BILL NUMBER: AB 3007 AMENDED
f"ILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 23, 2004
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Plescia
FEBRUARY 20, 2004
An act to amend S cti n 54954.1 f
Sections 54954.1, 54954.5, 54956.9, and 54957.1 of, and to repeal
Sections 54956.8 and 54956.95 of, the Government Code, relating
to open meetings.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 3007, as amended, Plescia. Ralph M. Brown Act: notice of
meetings.
Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, any person may request that a copy
of the agenda, or a copy of the agenda packet of documents, of any
meeting or any regular meeting of a legislative body of a local
agency be mailed to that person and the legislative body is permitted
to charge a fee not to exceed the cost of providing the service.
This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes in those
provisions.
Under the act, specified subjects may be discussed by the
legislative body in closed session if the agenda states certain
information about the item of business to be discussed in closed
session and the legislative body subsequently reports any action
taken in closed session and the vote or abstention of every member
present on the action.
This bill would delete from the subjects that may be discussed in
closed session real property negotiations, discussion with legal
counsel about anticipated litigation, and liability claims, and would
make related changes.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State - mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 54954.1 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
54954.1. Any person may request that a copy of the agenda, or a
copy of all the documents constituting the agenda packet, of any
meeting of a legislative body be mailed to that person. If
requested, the agenda and documents in the agenda packet shall be
made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a
disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal
rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Upon
receipt of the written request, the legislative body or its designee
shall cause the requested materials to be mailed at the time the
agenda is posted pursuant to Sections 54954.2 and 54956 or upon
distribution to all, or a majority of all, of the members of a
legislative body, whichever occurs first. Any request for mailed
copies of agendas or agenda packets shall be valid for the calendar
year in which it is filed, and must be renewed following January 1 of
each year. The legislative body may establish a fee for mailing the
agenda or agenda packet, which fee may not exceed the cost of
http: / /www.leginfo.ca.gov/ pub / bill /asm/ab_3001-3050/ab_3007_bill_20040323_amended_asm.html 4/5/2004
AB 3007 Assembly Bill - AMENDED
providing the service. Failure of the requesting person to receive
the agenda or agenda packet pursuant to this section may not
constitute grounds for invalidation of the actions of the legislative
body taken at the meeting for which the agenda or agenda packet was
not received.
SEC. 2. Section 54954.5 of the Government Code is amended to read:
54954.5. For purposes of describing closed session items pursuant
to Section 54954.2, the agenda may describe closed sessions as
provided below. No legislative body or elected official shall be in
violation of Section 54954.2 or 54956 if the closed session items
were described in substantial compliance with this section.
Substantial compliance is satisfied by including the information
provided below, irrespective of its format.
(a) With respect to a closed session held pursuant to Section
54956.7:
LICENSE /PERMIT DETERMINATION
Applicant(s): (Specify number of applicants)
(b) With r cp ct t v ry it m f busin sc t b
- - ...-
_A • AP
Pr party: (Specify street addr ss, r if n str et addr cs, th
parc 1 numb r r ther unique refer nce, o. t the real 1arelae�
n g tiati n)
l\g ncy n g tiat r: (Sp cify nam s f n g tiat rs att nding th
N g tiating parti s: (Sp cify nam f party (n t ag nt))
t ' - . - - (4geri' '-F ^ter - c+ ructi n t n g ti at r
will c nc rn pric , t rms f paym nt, r b th)
(c) With respect to every item of business to be
discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.9:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9)
Name of case: (Specify by reference to claimant's name, names of
parties, case or claim numbers)
or
Case name unspecified: (Specify whether disclosure would
jeopardize service of process or existing settlement negotiations)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL C UNSEL -- ANTICIPATED LITICATI N
oral stat m nt pri r t th cl c d c ssi n pursuant t cu paragraphc
(B) t (E), inclusiv , f paragraph (3) f su divisi n ( ) f S cti n
54956.9.)
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
54956.9: (Specify number of potential cases)
(d) With r sp ct to a° °ery itom of businosc to be discucc d in
cl s d s csi n pursuant t S cti n 51956.95:
LIABILITY CLAIMS
Claimant: (Sp cify nam unl ss unsp cifi d purcuant t S cti n
Page 2 of 7
http: / /www.leginfo.ca.gov/ pub / bill /asm/ab_3001-3050/ab_3007_bill_20040323_amended_asm.html 4/5/2004
AB 3007 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 3 of 7
(c) With respect to every item of business to be discussed
in closed session pursuant to 'Section 54957:
THREAT TO PUBLIC SERVICES OR FACILITIES
Consultation with: (Specify name of law enforcement agency and
title of officer, or name of applicable agency representative and
title)
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Title: (Specify description of position to be filled)
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
Title: (Specify description of position to be filled)
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Title: (Specify position title of employee being reviewed)
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE /DISMISSAL /RELEASE
(No additional information is required in connection with a closed
session to consider discipline, dismissal, or release of a public
employee. Discipline includes potential reduction of compensation.)
(f)
(d) With respect to every item of business to be discussed
in closed session pursuant to Section 54957.6:
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency designated representatives: (Specify names of designated
representatives attending the closed session) (If circumstances
necessitate the absence of a specified designated representative, an
agent or designee may participate in place of the absent
representative so long as the name of the agent or designee is
announced at an open session held prior to the closed session.)
Employee organization: (Specify name of organization representing
employee or employees in question)
or
Unrepresented employee: (Specify position title of unrepresented
employee who is the subject of the negotiations)
(Q)
(e) With respect to closed sessions called pursuant to
Section 54957.8:
CASE REVIEW /PLANNING
(No additional information is required in connection with a closed
session to consider case review or planning.)
(h)
(f) With respect to every item of business to be discussed
in closed session pursuant to Sections 1461, 32106, and 32155 of the
Health and Safety Code or Sections 37606 and 37624.3 of the
Government Code:
REPORT INVOLVING TRADE SECRET
Discussion will concern: (Specify whether discussion will concern
proposed new service, program, or facility)
Estimated date of public disclosure: (Specify month and year)
HEARINGS
Subject matter: (Specify whether testimony /deliberation will
concern staff privileges, report of medical audit committee, or
report of quality assurance committee)
(g) With respect to every item of business to be discussed
in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.86:
http: / /www.leginfo.ca.gov/ pub /bill/asm/ab_3001- 3050/ab_3007 bill 20040323_amended_asm.html 4/5/2004
AB 3007 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 4 of 7
CHARGE OR COMPLAINT INVOLVING INFORMATION PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW
(No additional information is required in connection with a closed
session to discuss a charge or complaint pursuant to Section
54956.86.)
SEC. 3. Section 54956.8 of the Government Code is repealed.
51956.8. N twithctanding any th r pr vici n f thic chapt r, a
tt
n g tiat r pri r t th purchac , sal , xchang , r 1 ace f real
n g tiat r r garding th pric and t rms f payment f r th purchas ,
cal , xchang , r 1 as .
H w v r, pri r t th cl s c ssi n, th 1 giclativ b dy f th
wh m its n g tiat rs may n g tiat
F r purp c c f this c cti n, n g tiat rs may b m mb rc f th
1 giclativ b dy f th 1 cal ag ncy.
F r purp r s f thic c cti n, "1 ace" includ c r n wal r
✓ n g tiati n f a t ac
N thing in this s cti n shall preclud a 1 cal agency fr m h lding
a cl s d c sci n f r discucci nc r garding min nt d main
SEC. 4. Section 54956.9 of the Government Code is amended to read:
54956.9. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a
legislative body of a local agency, based on advice of its legal
counsel, from holding a closed session to confer with, or receive
advice from, its legal counsel regarding pending litigation when
discussion in open session concerning those matters would prejudice
the position of the local agency in the litigation.
For purposes of this chapter, all expressions of the lawyer - client
privilege other than those provided in this section are hereby
abrogated. This section is the exclusive expression of the
lawyer - client privilege for purposes of conducting closed - session
meetings pursuant to this chapter.
For purposes of this section, "litigation" includes any
adjudicatory proceeding, including eminent domain, before a court,
administrative body exercising its adjudicatory authority, hearing
officer, or arbitrator.
For purposes of this section, litigation shall be considered
pending when any of the following circumstances exist:
(a) Litigation, to which the local agency is a party, has been
initiated formally.
(b) (1) A p int has n r ach d wh r , in th pini n f
significant exp sur t litigati n against the 1 cal ag ncy.
(2) Bac d n xicting facts and eircxastal4ce.s, t- i ^^; c t • ^
b dy f th 1 cal ag ncy ic m ting my t cids -ih th r a cl s
s cci n ic auth riz d pursuant t paragraph (1) f this subdivisi n.
(3) F r purp sos f paragraphs (1) and (2), "existing facts and
IT
(A) Facts and ^ircum- tances that might r suit in litigati n
against th 1 cal ag ncy ut which th 1 cal ag ncy b li v s ar n t
y t kn wn t a p t ntial plaintiff r plaintiffs, which facts an
(B) Facts and circumstanc s, including, but n t limit d t , an
http: / /www.leginfo.ca.gov/ pub /bill/asm/ab_3001- 3050/ab_3007 bill_20040323_amended asm.html 4/5/2004
AB 3007 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 5 of 7
pct ntial plainti -ff r plaintiffs, which facts r circumstanc c shall
(D) A stat m nt mad by a pars n in an p n and public meeting
of th 1 giclativ b dy.
--(B) A ctatem nt thr at ning litiga
pursuant t S cti n 5 1 9 5 7 . 5 . Th r c rdc s cr at d o d n t
identify th all g d victim f unlawful r t rti us sexual c nduct r
i ntity f th rc n hac b n publicly iccl c d.
(F) N thing in this c cti n shall r quir diccl sur f writt n
(c mm ncing with S cti n 6250) f Divici n 7 f Titl 1).
(e) Based on existing facts and circumstances, the
legislative body of the local agency has decided to initiate or is
deciding whether to initiate litigation.
Prior to holding a closed session pursuant to this section, the
legislative body of the local agency shall state on the agenda or
publicly announce the subdivision of this section that authorizes the
closed session. If the session is closed pursuant to subdivision
(a), the body shall state the title of or otherwise specifically
identify the litigation to be discussed, unless the body states that
to do so would jeopardize the agency's ability to effectuate service
of process upon one or more unserved parties, or that to do so would
jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations
to its advantage.
A local agency shall be considered to be a "party" or to have a
"significant exposure to litigation" if an officer or employee of the
local agency is a party or has significant exposure to litigation
concerning prior or prospective activities or alleged activities
during the course and scope of that office or employment, including
litigation in which it is an issue whether an activity is outside the
course and scope of the office or employment.
SEC. 5. Section 54956.95 of the Government Code is repealed.
-'1956.95. (a) N thing in this chapt r shall c nstru t
f r purp s s f insuranc p ling, r a t cal agency m mbar f th
f r th paym nt f t rt liability 1 ss s, public liability 1 EC s,
or 'i rk rc' c mp nsati n lia ility incurr d y th j int p w rc
(c mm 1-1,-44.g with S.octi n 6599 01) 'f Piste '-ion 7 of Titlo 1, or a
t discuss a claim f r th paym nt f t rt liability 1 cc s, public
liability 1 ss s, r w rk rs' c mp nsati n liability incurre y th
(c) N thing in this s cti n shall c nstru d t aff ct S cti n
http: / /www.leginfo.ca.gov/ pub / bill /asm/ab_3001- 3050/ab_3007 bill 20040323_amended asm.html 4/5/2004
AB 3007 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 6 of 7
SEC. 6. Section 54957.1 of the Government Code is amended to read:
54957.1. (a) The legislative body of any local agency shall
publicly report any action taken in closed session and the vote or
abstention of every member present thereon, as follows:
(1) -- -
agr m nt ie final, ae sp cifi d b 1 w:
hh.
(B) If final appr val r etc with th th r party t th
p re n, ac s n ac the th r part
1 cal ag ncy f its appr val.
(2) Approval given to its legal counsel to defend, or
seek or refrain from seeking appellate review or relief, or to enter
as an amicus curiae in any form of litigation as the result of a
consultation under Section 54956.9 shall be reported in open session
at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. The
report shall identify, if known, the adverse party or parties and the
substance of the litigation. In the case of approval given to
initiate or intervene in an action, the announcement need not
identify the action, the defendants, or other particulars, but shall
specify that the direction to initiate or intervene in an action has
been given and that the action, the defendants, and the other
particulars shall, once formally commenced, be disclosed to any
person upon inquiry, unless to do so would jeopardize the agency's
ability to effectuate service of process on one or more unserved
parties, or that to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude
existing settlement negotiations to its advantage.
(3)
(2) Approval given to its legal counsel of a settlement of
pending litigation, as defined in Section 54956.9, at any stage prior
to or during a judicial or quasi - judicial proceeding shall be
reported after the settlement is final, as specified below:
(A) If the legislative body accepts a settlement offer signed by
the opposing party, the body shall report its acceptance and identify
the substance of the agreement in open session at the public meeting
during which the closed session is held.
(B) If final approval rests with some other party to the
litigation or with the court, then as soon as the settlement becomes
final, and upon inquiry by any person, the local agency shall
disclose the fact of that approval, and identify the substance of the
agreement.
(5)
(3) Action taken to appoint, employ, dismiss, accept the
resignation of, or otherwise affect the employment status of a public
employee in closed session pursuant to Section 54957 shall be
reported at the public meeting during which the closed session is
held. Any report required by this paragraph shall identify the title
of the position. The general requirement of this paragraph
notwithstanding, the report of a dismissal or of the nonrenewal of an
employment contract shall be deferred until the first public meeting
following the exhaustion of administrative remedies, if any.
http: / /www.leginfo.ca.gov/ pub / bill /asm/ab_3001- 3050/ab_3007_bill 20040323_amended asm.html 4/5/2004
AB 3007 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 7 of 7
(6)
(4) Approval of an agreement concluding labor negotiations
with represented employees pursuant to Section 54957.6 shall be
reported after the agreement is final and has been accepted or
ratified by the other party. The report shall identify the item
approved and the other party or parties to the negotiation.
(b) Reports that are required to be made pursuant to this section
may be made orally or in writing. The legislative body shall provide
to any person who has submitted a written request to the legislative
body within 24 hours of the posting of the agenda, or to any person
who has made a standing request for all documentation as part of a
request for notice of meetings pursuant to Section 54954.1 or 54956,
if the requester is present at the time the closed session ends,
copies of any contracts, settlement agreements, or other documents
that were finally approved or adopted in the closed session. If the
action taken results in one or more substantive amendments to the
related documents requiring retyping, the documents need not be
released until the retyping is completed during normal business
hours, provided that the presiding officer of the legislative body or
his or her designee orally summarizes the substance of the
amendments for the benefit of the document requester or any other
person present and requesting the information.
(c) The documentation referred to in paragraph (b) shall be
available to any person on the next business day following the
meeting in which the action referred to is taken or, in the case of
substantial amendments, when any necessary retyping is complete.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require that the
legislative body approve actions not otherwise subject to
legislative body approval.
(e) No action for injury to a reputational, liberty, or other
personal interest may be commenced by or on behalf of any employee or
former employee with respect to whom a disclosure is made by a
legislative body in an effort to comply with this section.
http: / /www.leginfo.ca.gov/ pub / bill /asm/ab_3001- 3050/ab_3007 bill 20040323_amended asm.html 4/5/2004
DRAFT
April 14, 2004
Chairman Salinas and Members of the Assembly Local Government Committee
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA
94249 -0000
Re: Opposition of the City of Alameda to A.B. 3007 (Plescia, R -San Diego)
Hearing Date April 28, 2004
Honorable Chairman Salinas and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of the City of Alameda and the residents and property owners it serves, I write to
express the City's opposition to Assembly Bill 3007, as amended on March 23, 2004. The
measure would repeal local governments' authority to meet in closed session to meet with real
estate negotiators or to meet with legal counsel to receive confidential legal advice on matters
of anticipated litigation and liability claims. While the City is sympathetic to Assemblyman
Salinas' goal to ensure public information about, access to, and participation in local
government affairs, this proposal cuts too broad a swath through the long - established authority
for appropriate confidential discussion of real estate and litigation matters.
Alameda is in the midst of redeveloping an area one -third the size of our City, which lies in
the heart of the East Bay, that was once the Alameda Naval Air Station, and is now known as
Alameda Point. This project is of regional importance and not only promises to be a
meaningful engine for jobs and economic development for Northern California, it is already
providing much needed housing, including affordable housing. This is a complex project that
involves negotiations with the U.S. Navy, remediation of environmental conditions on the
base, and complex negotiations with real estate developers. These discussions cannot succeed
if the City's position is fully known to the City's potential private partners before we reach the
negotiating table. Nor is it appropriate to attain confidentiality at the expense of City Council
involvement by having staff negotiate the deal in confidence and only reveal a completed
proposal to the Council when the proposal is ready for public discussion. The Brown Act
strikes a balance among the competing goals of public participation, control of local
governments by elected decision - makers, and allowing the City to strike good bargains for the
benefit of the public treasury and the people we serve.
Similar concerns arise regarding litigation matters. The private actors that sue our City,
whether it be a sidewalk trip and fall or a commercial dispute arising out of the ANAS
redevelopment, have access to lawyers and the right to confidential advice. The City should
not be required to defend the public treasury without the same access to qualified counsel.
The bill, if passed in its current form, would require the City Council to forego legal advice, to
receive that advice only in writing, or to delegate important matters of public policy to City
staff. Again, the Brown Act's current language strikes a better balance among the competing
concerns.
We understand that the League of California Cities, the California Newspapers Publishers
Association and other stakeholders are willing and able to work with Assemblyman Plescia to
address his concerns arising from recent events in San Diego in a constructive way. We urge
your committee to reject his current proposal and to encourage those discussions instead.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Beverly Johnson
Mayor
c: Senator Perata
Assemblymember Chan
City Council
League of California Cities
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: James Flint
City Manager
DATE: April 8, 2004
RE: QUARTERLY SALES TAX REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31,
2004 FOR SALES TRANSACTIONS IN THE FOURTH CALENDAR
QUARTER OF 2003
BACKGROUND
This sales tax report and the accompanying charts relate to sales tax receipts for the
period ending March 31, 2004 and are for sales transactions occurring October -
December, 2003 (fourth calendar quarter).
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Quarterly sales tax revenues decreased by 7.4% as compared to the quarter of the prior
year after adjusting for one -time payments.
Key declines came from business services, service station sales and miscellaneous retail.
The four economic areas vital to the City's sales tax revenue are: transportation (29.7% of
total), general retail (23.1%), food products (23.8 %) and business to business (18.3 %).
These four categories produced 94.9% of the City's sales tax revenue for the fourth
calendar quarter.
A comparison of the major business groups is as follows:
"Dedicated to &ceOEence, Committed to Service"
Report #4 -D CC
4 -20 -04
2003
2002
Percent
Percent
Percent
Change
Economic Category
Total
of Total
Total
of Total
-1.73%
General Retail
$334,153
27.66%
$340,047
26.08%
7.38%
Food Products
313,487
25.95%
291,933
22.39%
- 12.60%
Transportation
302,085
25.00%
345,627
26.50%
- 26.42%
Business to Business
195,822
16.21%
266,144
20.41%
7.31%
Construction
52,806
4.37%
49,208
3.77%
- 11.90%
Miscellaneous
9,803
0.81%
11,127
0.85%
- 7.36%
Total
$1,208,156
100.00%
$ 1,304,086
100.00%
"Dedicated to &ceOEence, Committed to Service"
Report #4 -D CC
4 -20 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
April 8, 2004
Page 2 of 3
As can be seen from the preceding chart, local sales tax from business to business is down
26.42% or $70,322 from the same quarter in 2002 a decline of over $7 million in taxable
sales.
A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the quarter just ended as
compared to the same period in 2002 follows. Note that majority of the sections posted
declines for the quarter.
On a quarterly basis, the top 5 sales tax generators generated 24.11% of the 2003 citywide
sales tax revenues, and if we add the next block of 5, these 10 businesses generated
33.63% of the total quarterly sales tax revenues for the City. The top 100 sales tax
generators contributed 73.98% of the total.
The sales tax digest attached (see page 2) lists the top sales tax producers for the quarter.
"Dedicated to Exce1Cence, Committed to Service"
Current Year
Prior Year
Percent
4th Qtr 2003
Percent
4th Qtr 2002
Percent
Change
Geographic Areas
Total
of Total
Total
of Total
-3.95%
South Shore Center
$ 287,885
23.36%
$ 299,734
22.46%
1.19%
Park — North of Lincoln
277,778
22.54%
274,510
20.57%
-5.24%
Park - South of Lincoln
123,415
10.02%
130,242
9.76%
- 38.69%
Marina Village Business Park
73,221
5.94%
119,430
8.95%
-4.45%
Neighborhood Commercial
65,303
5.30%
68,344
5.12%
- 14.18%
Webster -North of Lincoln
56,243
4.56%
65,534
4.91%
-9.15%
Harbor Bay Landing
55,692
4.52%
61,300
4.59%
0.34%
Harbor Bay Business Park
51,000
4.14%
50,825
3.81%
10.27%
North Waterfront
47,897
3.89%
43,437
3.26%
21.85%
Balance of City
33,696
3.61%
42,858
2.74%
3.68%
Marina Village Shopping Center
40,886
3.32%
39,434
2.96%
- 21.38%
Ballena
10,446
2.73%
6,307
3.21%
-4.15%
Webster — South of Lincoln
26,732
2.17%
27,890
2.09%
- 45.92%
Alameda Point
30,288
1.65%
37,517
2.81%
- 37.97%
Mariner Square
15,041
1.22%
24,247
1.82%
1.55%
Fernside Center
12,607
1.02%
12,415
0.93%
0.00%
Heritage Bay
26
0.00%
63
0.00%
-7.65%
TOTAL - QUARTER
$1,208,156
100.00%
$ 1,304,287
100.00%
On a quarterly basis, the top 5 sales tax generators generated 24.11% of the 2003 citywide
sales tax revenues, and if we add the next block of 5, these 10 businesses generated
33.63% of the total quarterly sales tax revenues for the City. The top 100 sales tax
generators contributed 73.98% of the total.
The sales tax digest attached (see page 2) lists the top sales tax producers for the quarter.
"Dedicated to Exce1Cence, Committed to Service"
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
April 8, 2004
Page 3 of 3
An annual comparison by business class as compared to the same reporting period for
2002 is as follows:
Percent
2003
Percent
2002
Percent
Change
Economic Segment
of Total
of Total
-3.07%
Transportation
$ 1,487,209
29.70%
$ 1,534,371
30.16%
6.83%
Food Products
1,190,497
23.77%
1,114,403
21.91%
-2.84%
General Retail
1,156,385
23.09%
1,190,151
23.40%
-9.45%
Business to Business
918,880
18.35%
1,014,723
19.95%
3.22%
Construction
197,624
3.95%
191,459
3.76%
36.48%
Miscellaneous
57,263
1.14%
41,957
0.82%
-1.56%
TOTAL - QUARTER
$ 5,007,858
100.00%
$ 5,087,064
100.00%
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT
Sales tax revenues amount to 10% of total general fund revenues. On an annual basis,
revenues reflect a 1.56% decline over 4 quarters in 2002. The sales tax estimates for
2003 -04 were reduced at budget time and we continue to monitor the receipts for the
balance of the fiscal year.
RECOMMENDATION
None. This is provided for informational purposes only and requires no action from the City
Council.
ZJ /fl
Attachment
g: counci1/042004/SALES TAX. doc
cc: Rob Ratto, PSBA
Respectfully submitted,
James M. Flint
City Manager
By: Zenda James
Finance Director
"Dedicated to ExceOCence, Committed to Service"
City of Alameda
Sales Tax Digest Summary
FIRST Quarter Collection of FOURTH Quarter Sales
11/15/2003 — 02/13/2004
Quarter 4, 2003
Reconciliation
SBE Collections Analysis
$1,292,669 Local Collections
155,065 Share of County Pool (2.48 %)
3,652
1,451,386
(72,569)
(10,765)
1,368,052
1,370,965
-.2%
Share of State Pool (.12 %)
SBE Net Collections
Less: Amount Due County 5.00%
Less: Cost of Administration
Net 4Q2003 Receipts
Net 402002 Receipts
Actual Percentage Change
MBIA
MBIA MuniServices Company
FOURTH Quarter Economic Performance Analysis
$1,292,669
(130,187)
1,162,482
45,670
1,208,152
1,304,088
-7.4%
Local Collections
Less: Payments for Previous Periods
Preliminary 402003 Collections
Projected 402003 Late Payments
Projected 402003 Final Results
Actual 4Q2002 Results
Projected Percentage Change
Historical Cash Collections Analysis by Quarter
ti
o._
o
o
a,
a:
Z
$1,800
$1,600
(in thousands of $)
m
�
r-
w
in
a!
ai
°
d
$90
$80
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
_
jiA'
.
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
. . . . . . . . . ,
• • • • • • • • • •
. . . . . .
$400
$200
$0
. . . . . . . . . ,
IIII
'Amor
302001 4Q2001
• "
1 111
102002 202002 302002
lto.. ._.,;
1 111
4Q2002 102003 2Q2003 302003 402003
Illli•Net Receipts I�JState & County Pool Receipts - SBOE Admin Fees Due County Sharing Due
4th Quarter 2003 Sales Tax Primer
Statewide sales tax grew 4.3% during the third quarter of 2003 compared to 0.8% in the same quarter of the
previous year. As sales tax revenue improves, cities and counties face uncertain state decisions directly affecting
the health of those sales tax revenue streams.
New auto sales, restaurants, department stores, and building materials economic segments were key drivers of the
sales tax growth this quarter. The Central Valley, Northern California, San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento Valley,
Inland Empire, South Coast, and Southern California experienced positive increases.
Notwithstanding the positive growth in sales tax revenue, cities, counties, and special districts face the
implementation of propositions 57 and 58 passed by the California voters in March 2004. MMC is working with the
League of California Cities and clients to assure the best possible implementation process.
Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 1
City of Alameda
Top 25 Sales /Use Tax Contributors
The following are the City of Alameda's top sales /use tax contributors in alphabetical order for the most recent four
quarters. The top 25 sales /use tax contributors generate 49.1% of the jurisdiction's total sales /use tax revenue.
ALAMEDA ELECTRICAL
ALBERTSON'S FOOD CENTERS
ARCO AM /PM MINI MART
CARGILL SALT
CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
DATA 911
FUTURE COMPUTING SOLUTIONS
GOOD CHEVROLET
LONGS DRUG STORES
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT
MERVYN'S DEPARTMENT STORE
METROPCS WIRELESS INC.
OFFICEMAX
PAGANO'S ACE HARDWARE
PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES
PITNEY -BOWES INC.
RITE AID DRUG STORES
RON GOODE TOYOTA
ROSS STORES
SAFEWAY STORES
SVENDSEN'S BOAT WORKS
TRADER JOE'S COMPANY
WALGREENS DRUG STORE
WIND RIVER SYSTEMS
XTRA OIL COMPANY
Historical Sales Tax Amounts
Year End FOURTH Quarter 2001 to Year End FOURTH Quarter 2003
Economic Segment Analysis by Benchmark Year
Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company
Which segments are u
which are down n
2
(in thousands of $)
■4Q2003
O High
■Low
$1,000
$900
$800
$700'
MO
$aoo'
$1!.■..
$1001
$ol
'��
,�
rim
1 ■
•
�r
i
■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ �l
■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1
4.`'0 ,c� �,.4� %5a9� °ay 4' 4*0 - e O� �S1
�� ¢�`� 40 4¢
Economic Segment Analysis by Benchmark Year
Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company
Which segments are u
which are down n
2
City of Alameda
Sales Tax Composition
Key Economic Annual Changes
Miscellaneous
Closed Acct - Adjustmt
Health & Government
Business To Business
Energy Sales
Light Industry
Food Products
Food Processing Eqp
Food Markets
Construction
BIdg.Matls- Retail
BIdg.Matls -Whsle
% Chg $ (000) Chg
36.5
-9.4
6.8
3.2
-100.0
45.4
-100.0
-44.9
106.6
6.1
6.8
0.5
Quarterly Key Gains and Declines for FOURTH Quarter 2003
Light Industry
Service Stations
Business Services
Leasing
Heavy Industry
Miscellaneous Other
Florist/Nursery
Closed Acct- Adjustmt
Health & Government
Bldg.Matls-Whsle
Recreation Products
Food Processing Eqp
(in thousands of $)
-62
-42
(in thousands of $)
-5
1,487 I
1,531 - nr
-3
1,540 DI 1
- 1,541 � "i- �
-2 1
-1,334. _ El
-21
1 ,559 �j i;:
1,620
-11
1,625 I
. 1,624 - -3
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
1[11 General Retail ■Food Products OTransportation 8lConstruction ®Business To Business •Miscellaneous
0
11
3
■3
14
-$70 -$60 -$50 -$40 -$30 -$20 -$10 $0 $10
$20
Annual Sales Tax by Business Category
4Q2003
3Q2003
2Q2003
1Q2003
4Q2002
3Q2002
2Q2002
1Q2002
4Q2001..
3Q2001
(in thousands of $)
1,487 I
1,531 - nr
1,540 DI 1
- 1,541 � "i- �
-1,334. _ El
1,603 D 1 )
i
1 ,559 �j i;:
1,620
1,625 I
. 1,624 - -3
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
1[11 General Retail ■Food Products OTransportation 8lConstruction ®Business To Business •Miscellaneous
Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 3
City of Alameda
THIRD Quarter 2003 Final Results
• $1,261,106 Local net cash collections
• $59,189 Less pool amounts
• $17,414 Less prior quarter payments
• $65,066 Add late payments
• $1,249,569 Local net economic collections
after adjustments
• DOWN BY 3.7% compared to THIRD Quarter
2002
MMC Audit Results
MMC performs an on -going audit for the City of Alameda. This quarter, the City received $37,428 in sales tax from MMC audit
efforts, bringing the total sales tax revenue produced by MMC to $1,306,569. The net return to the City on MMC fees is
currently 722.0 %.
(in thousands of 5)
$450
$400
Auto Sales - New
Restaurants
Office Equipment
Service Stations
Food Markets
Miscellaneous Retail
Drug Stores
Misc. Vehicle Sales
Department Stores
Apparel Stores
Light Industry
Auto Parts/Repair
BIdg.Matls -Whsle
ALL OTHERS
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
8100
$50
$0
PI n n I I n n PI n w—n
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
a
a a a a a N I N A° 8° S E 8° 0 8° S°
:a a a a a a a a S a a a a a a a a a a a
,6 N fi Q N t7 7 N f7 R N t7 7 N t7 Q
Per Capita by
Business Segment
Benchmark Year Ending
FOURTH Quarter 2003
Five Year
Economic Trend:
General Retail
Per Capita by Business Segment
Auto Sales - New
Restaurants
Office Equipment
Service Stations
Food Markets
Miscellaneous Retail
Drug Stores
Misc. Vehicle Sales
Department Stores
Apparel Stores
Light Industry
Auto Parts/Repair
BIdg.Matls -Whsle
ALL OTHERS
$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12
Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company
4
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 7, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Accept the work of San Francisco Dry Dock, Inc., for Encinal Re -Power
and Refurbishment Project (No. P.W.04- 02 -05).
BACKGROUND
In December 2002, Council awarded a contract for $1,080,200 to San Francisco Drydock Inc.
(SFDD) for the refurbishment and re- powering of the Encinal. The $1,080,200 included a
contingency of $98,200. At that time, Council approved adjusting the project scope by eliminating
three items totaling $249,885 to bring it in line with the available funds. The approved project
allocation for the shipyard work was $855,913, including a 17% contingency of $123,798. Work
consisted of engine replacement, mid -life habitability improvements, and propulsion modifications.
In addition to shipyard work, the project included design, construction management, and City -
supplied materials. Total project funding was $1,626,802. The Encinal is now in operation for the
Alameda Oakland Ferry Service.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Shipyard work was completed on August 18, 2003. Shortly after entering service on October 9, 2003,
the Encinal's starboard engine failed and the boat was sent to Bay Ship and Yacht for repairs. The
Encinal returned to service on February 27, 2004. Although the Encinal had returned to service, staff
deferred recommending acceptance of the boat for two reasons. First, staff wanted to determine the
cause of the starboard engine failure. It has been determined that the failure was not related to any
work performed by SFDD. Second, staff wanted to review and evaluate a Request for Equitable
Adjustment (REA) submitted by SFDD. The REA is a request for additional funds to cover work
performed beyond the scope of the original specifications. Staff and SFDD are in negotiations on the
REA and staff believes that sufficient Encinal refurbishment funding exists to cover REA resolution.
The City Attorney has determined that the City's acceptance of work by SFDD will not prejudice the
City in the REA negotiations. Bob Hartsock, the City's project engineer, recommends that the City
accept the work of SFDD on the vessel.
GlyofNameda
uublicWorks
Department
Public Works Nfrkvfor You!
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #4 -E CC
4 -20 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
April 7, 2004
Page 2
This project is budgeted under CIP 01 -26 and is funded with grants from the Carl Moyer Program
and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Measure M1-2% program. Additional
funding is from new Measure B and Federal Highway Administration.
Shipyard costs - The original shipyard contract price was $982,000, without contingency. Staff
adjusted the contract by eliminating three (3) items totaling $249,885. This left a base contract
amount of $732,115. In addition to $732,115 there is a shipyard contingency of $123,798. This
brought total funding available for shipyard work to $855,913. There were three (3) additional
deductive change orders totaling $151,652. There were three (3) extra work orders totaling $222,683.
The net cost of the contract to date is $803,146.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, accept the work of San Francisco
Drydock, Inc., for the Encinal Re -power and Refurbishment project, No. P.W. 04- 02 -05.
Respectfu » submitted,
•
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Ernest Sanchez
Ferry Manager
MTN/CS :d!
cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee
G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004\042004`encinal Accept.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
�U sofa
Impartment
Public wofks WorkTfir r,,!
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 6, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Amend Agreement With SpenCon Construction, Inc. for the Annual
Sidewalk Repair Project, No. P.W. 07 -03 -15
BACKGROUND
The City contracts for the permanent repair of sidewalks, curbs, gutters and driveway approaches
in Alameda on an annual basis. Locations for repair are identified by citizen call -ins and by an
annual inspection program. On November 18, 2003, Council awarded a contract to SpenCon
Construction, Inc. (SpenCon) for the annual repair and replacement of sidewalks, No. P.W. 07-
03-15. The City recently approved an additional $150,000 for sidewalk repairs as part of the
interim Fiscal Year 2003 -2004 Capital Improvement Program. The additional funds will allow
the completion of approximately 230 additional locations in this fiscal year.
DISCUSSION
To provide for the additional repairs in a timely manner staff proposes to amend the contract
with SpenCon in the amounts of $150,000 for the additional locations and $20,000 for
anticipated homeowner - funded locations for a total contract authorization of $170,000. This
amount includes a 10% construction contingency. The SpenCon contract provides for additional
work as requested by the City and mutually agreed by the Contractor within the next five years
with an automatic adjustment for inflation. To date, the work of SpenCon has been high quality
and staff recommends using this contractor for the additional work. The staff report and City
Council action awarding the initial contract did not, however, specifically authorize the City
Manager to execute subsequent amendments to the construction agreement. Staff now requests
authorization for the City Manager to amend the agreement with SpenCon to include the
additional funds and list of locations for repair. A copy of the Amendment to the Agreement is
on file in the City Clerk's office.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtroUllanwda
QublitWorks
apartment
Public Works Worksfork"!
Report #4 -F CC
4 -20 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Page 2
April 6, 2004
The Annual Sidewalk Repair Project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental
Quality Act in accordance with CEQA section 15301, minor alterations to existing facilities.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Funding in the amount of $150,000 is provided by a Risk Management excess liability pool
refund. In addition, homeowner - funded repairs in the estimated amount of $20,000 can be
constructed by SpenCon and administered by City Staff. An additional $30,000 of Measure B
funds is also available to cover the cost of staff time for management and inspection.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council by motion authorize the City Manager to
amend the agreement with SpenCon Construction, Inc. for the Annual Sidewalk Repair Project,
No. P.W. 07- 03 -15.
Respectfuly submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Vrf
By: /%John V. Wankum
Supervising Civil Engineer
MN /JVW:di
cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee
G:\PUBWORKS\PWADMIN\COUNCIL\2004\042004\SpenconAmendl
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtvofAlameda
bbblicWoil s
Departrnent
PuNlcWad V *vfw You!
City of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
April 5, 2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
RE:
Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $331,236.00 to Textron
Financial Corporation for the Lease of One Hundred Fifty (150) Electric Golf Carts
for Rental Use at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex
BACKGROUND
The Chuck Corica Golf Complex has a fleet of One Hundred Fifty (150) rental golf carts. The golf
carts are more than three (3) years old and need to be replaced.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The City Council approved a request for bids at the December 16, 2003 regular meeting. Three bids
were received from the following golf cart companies, Yamaha, Inc., Club Car and E -Z -GO/
Textron, Inc. After reviewing the lease terms and comparing the warranties, service and quality the
proposal presented by E- Z- GO/Textron, Inc. (copy on file in the City Clerk's Office) was the
superior proposal. The Golf Commission recommends City Council approve the lease to E -Z-
GO/Textron, Inc.
BUDGET
The cost to lease the One Hundred Fifty (150) electric golf carts has been approved in the 2003/2004
fiscal year budget. The estimated annual lease rate will be $110,412.00, for a total of $331,236.00
over the three -year term. Estimated gross revenue from golf cart rentals is $600,000.00 per fiscal
year.
Report #4 -G CC
1 4 -20 -04
Honorable Mayor and Page -2-
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends the City Council authorize the execution of a three -year lease for
One Hundred Fifty (150) electric golf carts with Textron Financial Corporation, in the amount
$331,236.00.
DVB:nmc
xc: Golf Commission
Respectfully submitted,
. Banke
General Manager, Golf
2
OPINION OF COUNSEL
To: Textron Financial Corporation
Re: EQUIPMENT LEASE # 01 -00006 dated A-Qr 1 'S , 20 04
Gentlemen :
I am a member of the bar of the State of , and
have acted as counsel to the CITY OF ALAMEDA, State of CALIFORNIA, (the "Lessee ") with
respect to that certain Equipment Lease (the "Lease ") dated , 20_, by
and between the Lessor named therein and the Lessee. I have reviewed the Lease and such other
documents, records and certificates of Lessee and appropriate public officials as I have deemed
relevant and am of the opinion that :
1. The Lessee is a of the State of CALIFORNIA and qualifies as such
within the meaning of Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;
2. The execution, delivery and performance by the Lessee of the Lease have been duly authorized
by all necessary action on the part of the Lessee; and
3. The Lease constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Lessee enforceable in
accordance with its terms, except as may be limited by the laws of bankruptcy and insolvency, and
laws of general application involving the rights of creditors, and except that the term
"enforceable" shall not be deemed to include the availability of specific performance or any other
equitable remedy in respect of any provision of the Lease to the extent there is available an
adequate remedy at law.
Very truly yours,
001- 0080559-01 -006 -00006
7593 Opinion of Counsel
APR -14 -2004 15:37
TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORP
TEXTRON FINANCIAL
Lending help beyond expectations.
INCUMBENCY CERTIFICATE
7067725975 P.05
Lease No. 01 -00006
1, , do hereby certify that 1 am the duly elected or
appointed and acting Secretary/Clerk of , a political subdivision or
agency of the State of CALIFORNIA, that I have custody of the records of such entity, and that,
as of the date hereof, the individuals named below are the duly elected or appointed officers of
such entity holding the offices set forth opposite their respective names. I further certify that (i)
the signatures set opposite their respective names and titles are their true and authentic signatures
and (ii) such officers have the authority on behalf of such entity to enter into that certain
equipment lease dated Apr 'd 5 , 200'1., between such entity and the Lessor named
therein, and to do all things which they deem necessary on behalf of such entity in order to more
completely effectuate the purposes of said Equipment Lease.
NAME
TITLE SIGNATURE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed this certificate and affixed the seal of such entity
hereto this day of , 20
601- 0080559 -01 -006 -00006
7592- Incumbency Certificate
Secretary /Clerk
By:
Approved as to Form
CITY ATTORNEY
AssistafeCit v torney
APR -14 -2004 15:38
TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORP
TEXTRON FINANCIAL
7067725975 P.06
Lending help beyond expectations.
TAX - EXEMPT EQUIPMENT LEASE Lease No. TEJ - 01 -00006
This Lease is entered into as of the date set forth below by the parties identified below.
I . LEASE - Subject to the terms hereof, Lessor leases to Lessee, and Lessee leases from Lessor the equipment and other personal property together with all repairs,
accessions, replacements and accessories (collectively "EQUIPMENT ") set forth on any Schedule or Schedule(s) which may be executed from time to time by the
parties hereto and identified as a Schedule of this Lease (individually a "Schedule" and collectively the "Schedule(s) "). All Schedules shall be incorporated by
reference herein and this Lease and all Schedules which may he executed pursuant hereto shall constitute a Single (ease of Equipment.
2. SELECTION, DELIVERY AND ACCEPTANCE Lessee will select and take delivery of all EQUIPMENT leased hereunder directly from
the EQUIPMENT'S vendor, and at locations agreed upon by the Vendor and Lessee. Lessee shall inspect the EQUIPMENT at the place of delivery, and upon
acceptance execute and deliver to Lessor a Certificate of Acceptance with respect to each shipment of EQUIPMENT. for all purposes under this Lease,
EQUIPMENT will be considered accepted upon execution of the Certificate of Acceptance.
3. TERMS AND RENTALS - The rental term of the EQUIPMENT shall be as provided in the applicable Schedule and shall commence on the date Lesaci
executes the Certificate of Acceptance the+ctor, and except as set tbrth m Section 6, below. shall terminate upon payment of all of the rent specified in Section 11 t0
any Schedule to this Lease. Lessee agrees to pay rent in the amount and at the times set forth in Section 11 to any Schedule 10 this Lease. Rent shall be paid to
Lessor, but if this Lease or rentals due hereunder shall be assigned, then rent shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 below. Interest shall be
paid on each delinquent installment of rent end other sums from the due date until paid at the rate of Lessor's then prevailing late payment charge, or the highest
rate legally permissible, whichever is lees. Lessee agrees that except us set forth in Section 4 below, its obligation to pay rent and any other sums payable
hereunder, and the rights of Lessor thereto are absolute and unconditional and arc not subject to any abatement, reduction. setoff, defense, counterclaim, or
recouptnent (collectively ''Abatements'-) for any reason whatsoever. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein. this Lease shall not terminate nor shall the
respective obligations of Lessor or Lessee be affected by reason of any defect in, or damage to, or any loss or destruction of the EQUIPMENT from any cause
whatsoever, or the interference with the use thereof for any reason whatsoever.
4. NON - APPROPRIATION- i the event no funds or ineufficient funds are appropriated and budgeted or are otherwise unavailable by any means
whatsoever in any fiscal period for rent due hereunder, Lessee will immediately notify Lessor or its assignee of such occurrence and this Lease shall terminate on
the last day of the fiscal period for which appropriations were received without penalty or expense to Lessee of any kind whatsoever, except as to the portions °f lit(
rental payments herein agreed upon for which funds shall have been appropriated and budgeted or are otherwise available. In the event of such termination, Lessee
agrees to peaceably surrender possession of the EQUIPMENT to Lessor on the date of termination and that Lessor shall have all legal and equitable rights and
remedies m take possession of the EQUIPMENT. Upon such termination. and at anytime thereafter, Lessor may enter any premises with or without legal process
where the EQUIPMENT may be and take possession thereof. (Lessee agrees that; (i) any funds authorized or appropriated to it for the rental or acquisition of this
Equipment or functionally similar equipment in any fiscal appropriation period shall be applied to the payments of rent hereunder until such fonds are exhausted;
(ii) it has not to date and will not in the future agree to give priority or parity to the application of such funds CO the lease, hire, of acquisition of other functionally
similar equipment; and (iii) it will use its best efforts to obtain authorization and appropriation of such funds including. without limitation, the inclusion in its
budget for each fiscal appropriation period during the term hereof, a request for adequate funds to meet its obligations under this Lease in full. This provision shall
not be construed to an to permit Lessee to terminate thin Lease in order to acquire similar or competitive equipment from another party or manuteceurce or to
alIocate funds to directly or indirectly perform essentially the same functions for which this EQUIPMENT is intended. Lessee warrants that it has adequate funds
to meet its obligations hcreurider during its current fiscal appropriation period.)
5. AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZATION - Lessee represents, covenants and warrants, and if requested by Lessor will deliver an opinion of
counsel to the effect that: (i) Lessee is u fully constituted political subdivision or agency of the State indicated below; (ii) the execution, delivery and performance
by Lessee of this Lease have been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of the Lessee: and (iii) this Lease constitutes a legal valid and binding
obligation of the Lessee enforceable in accordance with its terms. Lessee agrees that; (x) it will do or cause to be done all things necessary to preserve and keep the
Lease in full force and effect; (y) it has complied with all bidding requirements where necessary and by due notification presented this Lease for approval and
adoption as a valid obligation on its pan; and (z) it has sufficient appropriation or other funds available to pay all amounts due hereunder for the current fiscal
period.
6. PURCHASE OPTION - Upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice from Lessee to Lessor, and provided the Lessee at such time or at anytime
thereafter, is not in default hereunder, Lessee shall hove the right to purchase all but not less than all the EQUIPMENT on the Lease Payment dates set forth it
Section II to the applicable Schedule by paying to Lessor on such date, the Lease Payment then due together with the Concluding Payment amount set forth
opposite such date, Upon sadefaction by Lessee of such purchase conditions, Lessor will release its scarily interest in the EQUIPMENT re Lessee and will
warrant to Lessee that the EQUIPMENT is free and clear of any liens created by Lessor.
7. NATURE OF THIS AGREEMENT - Lessor and Lessee agree that it is their intention that the interest of Lessor in the EQUIPMENT is as a
secured party, and that Lessor neither has nor will have any equity in the EQUIPMENT. The partice agree that the aggregate rent due hereunder constitutes the
purchase price of the EQUIPMENT together with the interest 011 the una mortized amount thereof over the term of this Lease, that the installments of rent constitute
principal and interest, an set forth on Section 11 of the applicable Schedule over the term of the Lease, that the concluding payment amounts shown thereon
represent the unpaid principal amount of the purchase price of the EQUIPMENT together with applicable premium on the payment dates 10 which they relate and
that upon the due and punctual payment of the installments of rent and other umounts due hereunder and the performance of Lessee's obligations under this Lease
Lessor'a security interest in the EQUIPMENT shall be released. Lessee will at all times protect and defend, at Its own cost and expense. Lessor's interest in the
EQUIPMENT against all claims, liens and legal processes of creditors of Lessee and other persons, and keep the EQUIPMENT free and clear of all such claims.
liens and processes. Lessee shall not, without Lessor's prior written consent, part with possession or control of the EQUIPMENT or sell. pledge. mortgage or
otherwise encumber the EQUIPMENT or any part thereof or assign or encumber any interest under Ole Lease.
8. DISCLAIMER OI? WARRANTY - Lessor may, or may not, be the manufacturer or vendor of the Equipment. Without affecting Lessor's
liability, if any. as manufacturer or vendor of the Equipment, the parties agree that LESSOR IN ITS CAPACITY OF LESSOR MAKES NO
REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE DESIGN OR CONDITION OF THE EQUIPMENT, ITS
001 -0080559 -01- 006 -00006
7590 Tax Exempt Equipment Lease
Page 1 of3
APR -14 -2004 15:38 TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORP
7067725975 P.07
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR ANY OTHER REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
NATURE OR DESCRIPTION WiTH RESPECT TO THE EQUIPMENT.
9. INSURANCE - During the term of this Lease, Lessee shall, at its expense, effect an "All Risk" Property insurance policy covering the
EQUIPMENT, Such policy shall be in fort and amount and with insurers acceptable to Lessor, The All Risk Property insurance policy shall name the Lessor us
Loss Payee and shall provide (i) for no less than thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of non - renewal to Lessor; (ii) that such policy shall not be
invalidated against Lessor or its assigns for any violation of any term of the policy or Lessee's application therefore, and (iii) such insurance primary insurance and
any other insurance covering Lessor Or ita assigns shall be secondary and excess of such policy. The policy shall be maintained and in amount not less than the
current replacement Cost of the EQUIPMENT.
10. LOSS OR DAMAGE TO EQUIPMENT -
a. Lessee hereby ussu Inca the entire risk of any lose, theft, damage t0 or destruction of the EQUIPMENT, or any part thereof, from any cause (hereinafter "Loss or
Damage "). In the event of Loss to the EQUIPMENT, Lessee Shall promptly report same to the appropriate insurance companies, so Lessor, and to all concerned
governmental ugencies. Lessee shall not be relieved from its obligations to pay rent or to perform any other of its obligations under this Lease by reason of any
Loss or Damage; all of Lessee's obligations shall continue in full tbrce and effect notwithstanding such Loss or Damage.
b. In the event of any Loss or Damage, Lessee, at the sole option of Lessor, shall either:
(i) promptly repair the EQUIPMENT and place it in good repair and working condition in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 15, below; or
(ii) pay Lessor the Stipulated Loss Value, as hereinafter defined, within sixty (60) days of notification by Lessor that Lessor has elected to receive the
Stipulted Lose Value rather than require repair of the EQUIPMENT.
c. "Stipulated Loss Value" ahnll be (i) an amount equal to the total of all rent and any other amounts, if any, dae with respect to the lease of the EQUIPMENT
as of the date of payment of the Stipulated Loss Value plus (ii) the concluding payment amount shown on Schedule II for such payment date.
d. Lessor shall pay any insurance proceeds received pursuant to Section 9, above, to satisfy any obligation of Lessee to Lessor hereunder and remit the balance_
if any, t0 Lessee.
11, PAYMENT OF TAXES BY LESSEE - In addition to rent, Lessee shall pay promptly all taxes_ assessments and other governmental charges
levied or assessed upon Lessee's interest in the EQUIPMENT, upon the use or operation thereof, or or the earnings arising therefrom, and as additional sums due,
shall promptly pay or reimburse the Lessor for all taxes, assessments and other governmental charges (including fees for titling and registration of the
EQUIPMENT) levied or assessed against and paid by the Lessor on account of its interest in the EQUIPMENT or levied or assessed against the EQUIPMENT or
any part thereof. for the use or operation thereof, or the Ieosing thereof. to the Lessee, or the rent herein provided for. or the earnings arising therefrom, exclusive
however of any taxes based on net income of Lessor.
12. POSSESSION AND USE OF EQUIPMENT - Lessor covenants to Lessee that as long as Lessee shall not be in default under this Lease,
Lcasee may possess and use the EQUIPMENT in accordance with this Lease.
13. PERFORMANCE OF OBLIGATIONS OF LESSEE BY LESSOR - If Lcasee shall fail to promptly pertbrrn any of its obligations under this
Lease. Lessor may, at any time thereafter_ perform the same without thereby waiving the default, and any expense or liability incurred by Lessor, together with
Lessee's then prevailing late payment charge or the highest lawful rate, whichever is less, shall be payable by Lessee as additional rent hereunder.
14, INSPECTION - Lessor or its agents shall have the right from time to time during reasonable business hours to enter upon Lessee's premises. or
elsewhere. for the purpose of confirming the existence, condition, and proper maintenance of the EQUIPMENT.
15, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND MODIFICATION - Lessee shall operate, possess, and maintain the EQUIPMENT and any records
opertaining thereto in compliance with all applicable Federal. state and local laws and regulations. Lessee shall not make any material alterations to the
EQUIPMENT without the prior written consent of Lessor, Lessee, shall at its our expense, maintain and keep the EQUIPMENT in good order and repair in
accordance with the manufacturer's published manuols and other instructions. All parrs, accessories and other personal property which are added or become
attached to the EQUIPMENT shall immediately become the property of Lessor at no cost. and shall be deemed incorporated in the EQUIPMENT and subject to
the terms of this Lease.
16. INDEMNITY - Lessee shun indemnify Lessor and save, protect. defend, and hold Lessor harmless from any and all liability, lose, damage,
expense (including legal expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees), causes of action. Suits, claims or judgments arising from injury to person or property or resulting
from or based upon Lessor's interest in the EQUIPMENT, or the actual or alleged selection. control, use, operation, maintenance, possession, delivery or
transportation of any or all of the EQUIPMENT or their location or condition or from Lessee's failure to qualify as an agency or political subdivision of the Sum
identified below within the meaning of Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; Lind shall, at Lessee's awn cost and expense, defend any
and all suits which may be brought against Lessor, either alone or in conjunction with others, upon any such liability or claim(s).
17. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLEASE - Lessee shall not sell, transfer, assign, pledge or sublease. its interest in the Lease or the EQUIPMENT, without
without the prior written consent of Lessor. Lessor may assign this Lease and its rights hereunder in whole or in part, without Lessee's consent.
18. EVENTS OF DEFAULT - The occurrence of any of the following shall, at the option of Lessor and without any notice other than provided
herein. constitute an event of default under this Lease:
a. Lessee fails to pay any rent or other sums due hereunder and such failure shall continue for ten (10) days.
b. Lessee fails to perform any other covenant herein and such failure continues fbr fifteen (15) days ufter written notice thereof by Lessor or Lessee,
c. Lessee files a petition in bankruptcy or for reorganization or for an arrangement pursuant to the U.S. Federal Bankruptcy Act, or any similar Law.
d. A receiver. trustee or liquidator (or other similar official) is appointed for or takes possession or charge of Lessee, substantially all of its assets, or any
EQUIPMENT.
e. Lessee's interest an any EQUIPMENT is levied upon or attached in any proceeding, and such process is not vacated or discharged within ninety (90) day:
thereafter.
f. Lessee attempts to sell, transfer. encumber_ sublet or part with possession of any EQUIPMENT without Lessor's prior written consent.
19 REMEOIES OF LESSOR -
a. Upon the occurrence of any event of default, or ut any time thereafter, Lessor, at its sole option may exercise one or more of the following remedies.
(i) Lessor may terminate this Lease upon written notice to Lessee, without prejudice to any other remedies hereunder.
(ii) Lessor ar any time may enter any premises with or without legal process where the EQUIPMENT may be and take possession thereof without such action
constituting a termination of the Lease unless Lessor notifies Lessee in writing of such effect; or
(iii) Proceed by appropriate action either at law or in equity to enforce performance by Lessee of the applicable covenants of this Lease or to recover damages
for breach thereof.
001 -0080559 -01 -006 -00006
7590 Tux Exempt Equipment Lease
Pagc 2 of 3
APR -14 -2004 15:39 TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORP
7067725975 P.08
b. Lessor upon default hereunder, shall also be entitled to recover as liquidated damages for the loss of the bargain and not as a penalty an amount equal to
the Stipulated Loss Value of the EQUIPMENT, as defined in Section 10 above, as of the date of the event of default plus interest at Lessor's then current
late payment charge from the date of default to the date of payment. Aftcr repossession of the EQUIPMENT by Lessor. Lessor shall attempt to mitigate
Lessee's damages as hereinafter provided. Lessor. in its sole discretion, shall sell or release the EQUIPMENT in a public or private transaction at which
Lessor may be the Purchaser and Lessor may use Lessee's premises for the foregoing without liability for rents, costs, damages, or otherwise. The proceeds
of such sale or lease. if any, shall be applied first:
(1) to all of the Lessor's costs, charges and expenses incuned in taking, removing, holding, repairing and selling or leasing the EQUIPMENT; then
(ii) to the event not previously paid by Lessee, to pay Lessor any damages then retraining unpaid hereunder; then
(iii) to reimburse Lessee any such stuns previously paid by Lessee as damages hereunder.
(iv) Any surplus shall be retained by Lessor. Lessee shall pay Lessor any deficiency in (i) and (ii) within ten (10) days of written request for same.
c. No remedy of Lessor hereunder- shall be exclusive of any other remedy provided herein or by law. Each shall be cumulative and in addition to every
other remedy. A waiver of default shall not be a waiver of any other or subsequent default.
d. Any default on the tcnns of any other agreement executed between the parties (including any entity controlled by, controlling or under Common control
with Lessee) may be declared by Lessor to be a default under the teens of this Lease or under the terms of any other agreement between Lessee and Lessor.
Anv default under the terms of this Lease may be declared by Lessor to be a default under thc terms of any other uereement between Lessee and Lessor.
20. FURTHER ASSURANCE - Lessee shall during the tenn hereunder hereof execute and deliver to Lessor such instruments and assurances as
Lessor reasonably deems necessary for the protection of Lessor's rights hereunder.
21. NOTICES - All notices shall be in writing and deemed delivered when posted in thc U.S. Mails registered or certified, return receipt requested.
to Lessor or Lessee at their respective address shown above or at any later address last known to the sender.
22. SEVERABILITY - If any provision herein is invalid under any applicable law, such provision shall be inapplicable and deemed omitted, but
the remaining provisions hereof, including default remedies, shall be given effect in accordance with the manifest intent thereof.
23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT, NO AGENCY, TITLES - This instrument, including all appendices, constitutes the entire Agreement between the
parties. No term or provision of this Lease may be changed, waived, amended or terminated except by a written agreement signed by both parties. it is
expressly agreed that no manufacturer or other third patty is authorized to act as an agent or on behalf of the Lessor. The titles of the Sections of this Lease
are for convenience only and shall not define or limit any of the terms or provisions hereof.
24. FINANCING STATEMENTS - At Lessor's request. Lcnsee will join Lesor in executing any necessary or appropriate Financing Statements.
A photographic copy of this Lease may be filed as a financing statement under the Uniform Commercial Code.
25. JURISDICTION, APPLICABLE LAW - Any dispute arising out of this Lease not otherwise settled amicably shall be adjudicated in the
courts of general jurisdiction and the laws of the State indicated below.
26. TITLE -Title to the EQUIPMENT shall pass to and vest in Lessee upon the commencement of the term of the Lease- Lessor. however, shall
retain a security interest in the EQUIPMENT until Lessee shall have made all the payments required hereunder and shall have kept and performed all the
agreements it has madc herein, notwithstanding the possession and use of the EQUIPMENT by Lessee as herein provided. Lessee hereby grants a security
interest in the Equipment described in the Schedutas hereto and its proceeds to secure the performance and payment of all obligations and indebtedness of
whatever kind and whenever created. tither direct or indirect, absolute or contingent, primary or secondary, due or to become due and whether now existing
or hereafter arising and howsoever evidenced or acquired, whether joint or several, or joint and several, of Lessee owing to Lessor (including but not limited
to all of Lessee's obligations under this Lease) or any other affiliate of Lessor (all of which may be hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Obligations "):
and Lessee hereby agrees that the extent to which Lessor is entitled to purchase money priority for its security interest in such Equipment shall be
determined by reference to the total rental amount owing, if any, with respect to such Equipment under the relevant Schedule at the time of any such
determination.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Lessor and Lessee have each caused this Lease to be duly executed.
This Lease is executed as of t ) 5 20Qq •
LESSOR:
Name: Textron Financial Corporation
By: f""
Namc; BJ WIL IAMS
Title:
U P dt` d �fdc�ioT1�
Address: 1451 Marvin Griffin Road
Augusta GA 30906
001 - 0060559.01- 006 -00006
7590 Tax Exempt Equipment Lease
Page 3 of 3
LESSEE:
Name: CITY OF ALAMMIEDA
By: x
Name:
Title:
An Agency or Political Subdivision of
the State of CALIFORNIA
Address: # 1 CLUBHOUSE MEMORIAL R(
ALAMFDA„ CA 94502
BY
Approved as to Form
CITY ATTOft EY
Assistant
1
tt02 ney
APR -14 -2004 15:40
TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORP
TEXTRON FINANCIAL
Lending help beyond expectations.
TAX - EXEMPT EQUIPMENT LEASE
X. Description of Leased Equipment( "Equipment "):
150 E -Z -GO TXT- ELECTRIC Top. Windshield, Tow Bar, Scuff Guards
Lease No.
Schedule No. 01 -00006
Purchase Order No.
Vendor Reference No.
7067725975 P.09
01 -00006
2. Location of Equipment:
CHUCK CORICA GOLF COMPLEX ALAMEDA CA 94502
3. This Schedule is subject to the following addendums:
The rentalpayments include state of California use tax.;
Payment Schedule
Special Instructions
SECTION II TO SCHEDULE NO. 01 -.00006
Total Principal: $ 444,077.00
Total Interest: $ 52,213.00
Total Payments: $ 496,290.00
Monthly Payment Date: fifteenth
See Attached Addendum A
LESSOR:
LESSEE:
TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION CITY OF ALAMEDA
By:
Name: SJ WILLIAMS
Title: _ u p Q; Cwra .+t o�5
001 - 0080559 -01 -006 -00006
7591 -Tax Exempt Equipment Lease Schedule (numburcd)
By: )(
Naive:
Title:
APR -14 -2004 15:40
TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORP
TEXTRON FINANCIAL
7067725975 P.10
Lending help beyond expectations.
RIDER NO. 1
Re: Tax - Exempt Equipment Lease dated the date hereof (the "Lease "), between Textron Financial
Corporation ( "Lessor ") and CITY OF ALAMEDA ( "Lessee ").
The following are added as additional terms and agreements of the above-identified Lease.
TAX INDEMNITY.
Lessor and Lessee acknowledge and agree that the Lease terms offered by Lessor to Lessee
hereunder contemplate certain tax benefits consisting of the exemption from income of interest on
state and local bonds described in Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
from time to time (the "Code ") being available to Lessor or its assigns over the term of the Lease
(the "Tax Benefits "). Lessee shall indemnify Lessor in the event (a "Disallowance ") that the Tax
Benefits are disallowed, disqualified, recaptured or reduced for any reason by the Internal Revenue
Service (the "IRS "), including failure to file the appropriate informational returns concerning the
Lease or to otherwise satisfy the reporting requirements of Section 149(e) of the Code. Such
indemnification shall be accomplished by an adjustment to the scheduled payments under the
Lease to an amount equal to $ per month to be effected as follows: (a) the
adjusted payments shall be payable monthly beginning with the first payment date scheduled 15
days after Lessor's notice to Lessee of the Disallowance, and (b) with respect to all interest and
penalties, if any, incurred by Lessor with respect to a Disallowance, and the aggregate amount of
the difference between the adjusted payments stated above and all payments previously made
under the Lease, Lessee shall have the option of paying such amounts in a lump sum payment to
Lessor (which shall be paid within 30 days after notice of the Disallowance) or having such
amounts financed over the remaining term of the Lease at Lessor's then current rates.
Lessee represents and warrants that attached hereto is an executed original of IRS Form Number
8038 -0 which accurately describes the terms of the Lease, and (i) if the amount financed under the
Lease is $100,000 or more, Lessee hereby authorizes to Lessor to submit the attached form to the
appropriate IRS servicing centers, or (ii) if the amount financed under the Lease is less than
$100,000, Lessee agrees that the information described in the attached form shall be appropriately
incorporated into an annual consolidated informational return or other reports required by the IRS
which shall be filed by the Lessee in a timely manner.
Lessor and Lessee have caused this Rider No. 1 to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives as of , 20.,
LESSOR:
LESSEE:
TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION CITY OF ALAMEDA
By- By :2(
Name : BJ ILLIAMS Name
Title : Title :
001 - 0080559,01. 006 -00006
7594 Rider No. 1
APR -14 -2004 15:41 TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORP
/d.e14 et. dcun% Pk
epared by Decision Systems, Inc.
stomer: Alameda
terest Rate: 5.5000% (Monthly)
7067725975 P.11
InfoAnalysi s 4/5/04a3:22pm
Payment Amortization Report File Name: CSC.IAD
Principal Accrued Accrued
'er Mo /Da Payment Principal Interest Balance Interest It Balance Net Balance
0 5/15 0.00 0.00 0.00 444,076.58 0.00 0.00 444,076.58
1 6/15 9,202.50 7,167.15 2,035.35 436,909.43 2,035.35 0.00 436,909.43
2 7/15 9,202.50 7,200.00 2,002.50 429,709.43 2,002.50 0.00 429,709.43
3 8/15 9,202.50 7,233.00 1,969.50 422,476.43 1,969.50 0.00 422,476.43
4 9/15 9,202.50 7,266.15 1,936.35 415,210.28 1,936.35 0.00 415,210.28
5 10/15 9,202.50 7,299.45 1,903.05 407,910.83 1,903.05 0.00 407,910.83
6 11/15 9,202.50 7,332.91 1,869.59 400,577.92 1,869.59 0.00 400,577.92
7 12/15 9,202.50 7,366.52 1,835.98 393,211.40 1,835.98 0.00 393,211.40
004 12/04 64,417.50 50,865.18 13,552.32 13,552.32
8 1/15 9,202.50 7,400.28 1,802.22 385,811.12 1,802.22 0.00 385,811.12
9 2/15 9,202.50 7,434.20 1,768.50 378,376.92 1,768.30 0.00 378,376.92
10 3/15 9,202.50 7,468.27 1,734.23 370,908.65 1,734.23 0.00 370,908.65
11 4/15 9,202.50 7,502.50 1,700.00 363,406.15 1,700.00 0.00 363,406.15
12 5/15 9,202.50 7,536.89 1,665.61 355,869.26 1,665.61 0.00 355,869.26
13 6/15 9,202.50 7,571.43 1,631.07 348,297.82 1,631.07 0.00 348,297.82
14 7/15 9,202.50 7,606.13 1,596.37 340,691.69 1,596.37 0 -00 340,691.69
15 8/15 9,202.50 7,641.00 1,561.50 333,050.69 1,561.50 0.00 333,050.69
16 9/15 9,202.50 7,676.02 1,526.48 325,374.68 1,526.48 0.00 325,374.68
17 10/15 9,202.50 7,711.20 1,491.30 317,663.48 1,491.30 0.00 317,663.48
18 11/15 9,202.50 7,746.54 1,455.96 309,916 -93 1,455.96 0.00 309,916.93
19 12/15 9,202.50 7,782.05 1,420.45 302,134.89 - 1,420.45 0.00 302,134.89
?005 12/05 110,430.00 91,076.51 19,353.49 19,353.49
20 1/15 9,202.50 7,817.72 1,384.78 294,317.17 1,384.78 0.00 294,317.17
21 2/15 9,202.50 7,853.55 1,348.95 286,463.62 1,348 -95 0.00 286,463.62
22 3/15 9,202.50 7,889.54 1,312.96 278,574.08 1,312.96 0.00 278,574.08
23 4/15 9,202.50 7,925.70 1,276.80 270,648.38 1,276.80 0.00 270,648.38
24 5/15 9,202.50 7,962.03 1,240.47 262,686.35 1,240.47 0.00 262,686.35
25 6/15 9,202.50 7,998.52 1,203.98 254,687.83 1,203.98 0.00 254,687.83
26 7/15 9,202.50 8,035.18 1,167.32 246,652.65 1,167.32 0.00 246,652.65
27 8/15 9,202.50 8,072.01 1,130.49 238,580.64 1,130.49 0.00 238,580.64
28 9/15 9,202.50 8,109.01 1,093.49 230,471.64 1,093.49 0.00 230,471.64
29 10/15 9,202.50 8,146.17 1,056.33 222,325.47 1,056.33 0.00 222,325.47
30 11/15 9,202.50 8,183.51 1,018.99 214,141.96 1,018.99 0.00 214,141.96
31 12/15 9,202.50 8,221.02 981.48 205,920.94 981.48 0.00 205,920.94
2006 12/06 110,430.00 96,213.95 14,216.05 14,216.05
32 1/15 9,202.50 8,258.70 943.80 197,662.25 943.80 0.00 197,662.25
33 2/15 9,202.50 8,296.55 905.95 189,365.70 905.95 0.00 189,365.70
34 3/15 9,202.50 8,334.57 $67.93 181,031.12 867.93 0.00 181,031.12
35 4/15 9,202.50 8,372.77 829.73 172,658.35 829.73 0.00 172,658.35
36 5/15 9,202.50 8,411.15 791.35 164,247.20 791.35 0.00 164,247.20
37 6/15 165,000.00 164,247.20 752.80 -0.00 752.80 0.00 -0.00
2007 6/07 211,012.50 205,920.94 5,091.56 5,091.56
Totals 496,290 -00 444,076.58 52,213.42 52,213.42
Version 6.3d Page 3
Serial #: 000-0C
APR -14 -2004 15:41
TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORP
TEXTRON FINANCIAL
Lending help beyond expectations.
DATED AS OF
SELLER/LESSEE: CITY OF ALAMEDA
PUCHASER: Textron Inc.
E -Z -GO Division
EQUIPMENT:
BILL OF SALE
7067725975 P.12
PURCHASE PRICE: $217500.00
Seller hereby transfers to Purchaser all of Seller's right, title and interest in and to the Equipment described
above. Seller acknowledges receipt of the Purchase Price stated above. Seller represents, warrants and
covenants to Purchaser that Purchaser is receiving title to the Equipment free and clear of ail liens,
encumbrances or claims of any party whatsoever
SELLER: CITY OF ALAMEDA
By: X
Date:
Print Name:
Print Title:
001 - 0080559 -01 -006 -00006
Bill Of Salo-(02 /03)
APR -14 -2004 15:41
i<art5, 8038-G
I)2t1v_ NN'rtr'obet 20009
tiiytnr•'e r.4 -.A r' ^a�et'x
TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORP
information Return for Tax-Exempt Governmental Obligations
P- tinder' Wesel Revenue C xle Slican 149(0
► Sc ae separate hum/aims.
C414*ign i/ Oze'0`4 t' oni,• a fr VOX $ i•100- fYA, USt? Farm etua -Gfi
FJ Tt , �..+^''_,ai:.- A.adwit
L�uar's mimic CITY OF ALAMEDA
7067725975 P.13
0444 7,545,4721
Ir Amended Return, Ocek. fkX'@ 10
ttxrrtor Rind sttott fur P.0 awx of rnait IS not (*Igoe td w ,treat ar- the'atsl
#1 CLUBHOUSE MEMORIAL ROAD
5 Celt'. Zama or ovsz oIlil:ir. sue. zt4i ZIP tnae
ALAMEDA„ CA 94502
i wpm cf eaa+ct
9 ltsraa ortrj TWA. ui taiCe r kap:t traprv+jettlnr,ra u+rvrn vter MS- nai rat far rrume ititartaatbn
2 israuces easy! ac metier
946000288
Rotetroaucr, 4 ikspors
3
6 r3aac of %haw
, S CUSIP mirribm
10 Ta°lplr•4 G TJJTT#ter al affRr a Ptr.Nralat
1 i
e e+i (same tc31�k ii t�oat4a�� and enter the issue twice) Sea Morticians and teach scieduta-
11 1
12',
12
11 0 (,dula+ticwf ,
12 0 t iedith kind htr--.pilni
13 0 it ansOormuces , , .
14 0 Prude .atey, , . . . > . . . . . ..
15 0 t.rrrt1cnfll1rat I:rclute2r9) r wac9c. Aandtil
16 0 t tlsr,t'..ut!d . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17 0 Lnilitie6
is cg! othee Des.cnibi, f► 1S g Recxeation
19 If at`ilija ones, :nr1 1/411s at 13.PWa, chile -sr t.y.t 10 0 IT arr'ivaat1a1'rt bat E3i5NS C.hfick boli
20 If bUfi atinn?, arc in the fofrrn of a icaser. Ttr in5t2lUmert etdfi. 4 xx.* box -
Ekts P 4 b ,dons. % tCr or j* e tlrla r.5,1e: Which thaS ha,___fot s; art Rod.
wi ego rnmwty arm- im Wu* pram, (el srr4«'r rarrttarfa,.ah 1 IA `tk 5.146 1 let 1'�a+a
{ fs ,:o Jet rr'ard,,r ry gala; :xy... INF .,'a,y
! `3 444,077.00 S 0 3.08 years '
21 `6/1572007
t15eS 4sf "roceeds of Bond 155u0 (tndudl inderra.Nr� tens' discount)
Pre ctedt$ towed 101 ;acts Lows enriatt r ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
23 ., 444 077770-17)
i59rt1e priCo in eniliot 1SSIst1 kknr it:n4, 1ra4 TRIM PI'tU ?1. ,CtliiLac. A.) . . - . - - . ''.,,n.-::
_
I�at ,12101'. Ike WV! %su.$1s rYSvru..nt+nsj onclitrwlkrar. 4.ei�vxt t,1 2d 0 �' !
Procoel % owl Sat cledi! *fha,'r0&rsar'lY , kr ,
Plocie*::Or-wed 'io rt:ratl$$$ y r mtd r va a( r r netts'[ fund '1,.
AaGr6rl. ane1! 41 an rdlrty 4ilAdC1 Wt' a:slaai5 - f.
oOditiK1 . ise d Tra *Vance %u1tt c'tet aSSa r , :
1°�
Tow iarl t Iii 7AI thfour 2.. . . , . . . . ,- • . • . . . . . . • 444 077_00
Nor rohz,d n + or.,$eds of issue • tititrazt rig aK 29 ficn- line 23 and enter amount hoe1- . 30 t
DerscriptiOn or eIuntded Bontlf$ (Complet[f t1. ti3 rt .or. r4r relaPt bonds.
yrr�x
31 I. ow flu renlaiTti3tly vr6tr�f 14nl anrrra.tfx nv�+tu4+ry a1 MO: txyrxt5 Itt tc - cLt're!ndy eetarldo.d - _ Oi.f r
32 Eyrie du- itina.l4at4 waiagta4. ; averaue e`fixiirlly a1 rhl� t'txxI re, tae va;taenrtr d4unoo - - . 0 ------Mr?,
33 l:ruLw Ole tris t' tle�te w wnirt'c rite 1a4ILi d b rods. w$ l 1 .CR114 d . . . . _ . . . .
34 Ent161 lilt' '4'7° 4�') r'C1tr %1+Td txueCJ,, wx.* 111 ;11.6,1 !►
10809[IVH11IDOUS - -- —
MS
IS rata the orrw4nit or the stab,: voii rl•►4s i:8p :hlifr ftteKJ ter rrtif tTisue ur$dlr Srfncxl 1410)K51 . . .
3044 Lao test rmuaww .:4 akrl. pa.k*ibi ar.l tif4 l( V? * )01'600M aS pang rrer�l(ak•.eII 3a1tr11c-1 , tat OM ibt'S g4
b I, wirfr r rrs t eml rilau,rity l' atil of the t,juftr dactyl d Invb*3Pn ent rt tt1Th' i 0
37 Pcx+terf Met 344,.: 4 K�t'CtCfloxIS a t1 [SSW Oa( yliai to til ilidtct 10 makk loam tO cnh ar 9^^� oenfrietual ORS
37a
b If 411S iv,;d6T i• a loan matte from l i proccods of nrIc hr;1 lax.extgTpt is6e4 darn; box 0 0 kurtii 10010s tht. rsttrnrr al [r
vik,sser i .�.- -r - - ..,, -. - ,--- -, sand Etie milt.• of It* tbctra* D.
3a IF it* tateAr M6 rte!tiegrlated She r:S: i'-r tinder Se.- inierr 2ii.5+311 ri ij UH (smaa WSr..rti itsICr:}tt:cuy, awl( tOg
39 It ft* I:,,uc 1 tlaos etemktl tti ply 3 fisniaffy in ti0u cat tlrlairine (*Wait, dieek 1:;04 , • 0
40 If thej. .ssuer has itkne iect 4 twice. cheek box . ,
�t1CW' pwAkke, a $ 1j 4 t'kawa T1 r 1 ham gur.]K "Owl WWWY. 1L1t'J'A MO 4k:Y,�'rtlaYpf/r "rrrM41i1e. J'Mi1 tr.YriCirigr ,, der/ iV.rip* 0.):1 a' rtl aseco kediew
arc :OW, 7A1II) AAA-due, i ;t11140, 41: ,'iteviaa`o
Q U g y A w1 P W !d
Sign
Here
j+ir ,.,aA'N *MO:rarer] ogr .• r� r!aaa
For Papsrwoftt Reduction Act Notice, see page Z of the Inst%UC1)onS.
IRS Porm 8035 -C
Typ.■ 0 pri n.f.r4s, 444 le* —
"Na 43r 13$ 4 rrr 13038-G
TOTAL P.13
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Date: April 7, 2004
Re: Authorizing Execution of Contract with MV Student Transportation in the
Amount of $237,270 and Elevation of Program Specialist I Position to
Program Specialist II in Conjunction with Implementation of Alameda Kids
Coach Program
Background
Alameda Kids Coach is a new City -led Program to provide safe, supervised transportation
for children traveling to and from childcare and after - school care. The purpose of the
program is to enable parents to participate more fully in the workforce or in job readiness
activities and to provide a safe way for children to travel to and from quality child
development and after - school programs while their parents are at work. The Program will
kick off a summer schedule on June 21, providing morning pick -up and transportation to
childcare and recreation programs. Full operation, including before- and after - school
transportation, will start when school resumes in the Fall.
An inter - departmental City team and a group of parents, childcare providers, community -
based organizations, after - school programs, and transportation planning consultants have
worked collaboratively since November of 2002 to design the Kids Coach Program.
Authorization is now sought to take the final steps necessary to implement the Kids Coach
program, including authorization to execute a contract with a transportation service provider
and authorization to create a Kids Coach Coordinator position to oversee the program.
Discussion /Analysis
The Development Services Department issued an RFP in December 2003 to locate a
qualified transportation service provider. The City received three bids and invited two
applicants to interview with a team of representatives from the Development Services,
Public Works and Recreation and Parks Departments, the Alameda Point Collaborative
and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The interview team agreed that MV
Student Transportation has a solid background in providing comparable transportation
services and is the best provider to meet the Program's needs. Three local cities and two
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #4 -H CC
4 -20 -04
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
April 7, 2004
Page 2
Head Start agencies that are served by MV Student Transportation have given excellent
references for the proposed provider.
The proposed contract with MV Student Transportation (Attachment A) covers the period
from April 21, 2004 through June 30, 2005. It will provide Kids Coach with the use of four
new 16- passenger vehicles, screened and trained drivers, full program insurance, member
billing, customer service and dispatch. The contract includes a detailed Scope of Work for
Program procedures and operations, imposes strict performance standards, requires on-
going reporting and monitoring by Program staff and allows termination at any time for
cause or convenience of the City.
At full capacity (after September 1) the shuttles will have a maximum daily passenger load
of 205. The rides of low- income residents will be subsidized by a LIFT (Low Income Fund
for Transportation) grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), while
the rides of other residents will be offered on a sliding scale up to market -rate prices.
Volunteer attendants' children will ride for free as compensation for time donated to the
Kids Coach Program.
Development Services currently has a vacant Program Specialist I (PSI) position in the
Community Programs and Housing Division responsible for administering CDBG programs.
In order to work within existing resources while increasing program service delivery, this
report is seeking authorization to convert the existing PSI position to a Program Specialist
II to assume both Kids Coach and CDBG program responsibilities. The Kids Coach portion,
which is estimated at .55 FTE, will be responsible for Program coordination, including
marketing, enrolling and income - qualifying riders, recruiting and training volunteer
attendants, monitoring and processing performance and financial reports, ensuring
compliance with MTC grant requirements, and maintaining rider, partner and provider
relations.
Fiscal Impact
There is no impact on the General Fund and no new position being added. Attachment B
summarizes the Program budget for start-up through June 30, 2005. MV Student
Transportation will bill the Program the rate of $69.40 per hour of transportation service
provided (hours when children are on the shuttles). Based on the anticipated service
hours, the MV contract is projected to cost $230,270. The MV contract provides for
renegotiation if revenues or service hours vary from projections by more than five percent.
It also provides for termination with 7 days notice at any time for cause or convenience of
the City. In addtion, the City will reimburse MV up to $7,000 for its Workers Compensation
costs to cover the volunteer attendants.
The MV contract will be paid from grants and rider membership fees, which MV will collect
and deduct from their monthly Program bill. It is anticipated that MV will collect $108,840 in
rider membership fees from residents above 60% of the median income and $25,740 in
rider membership fees from residents below 60% of the median income. The Program is
further supported by in -kind services and donations valued at approximately $80,000.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
April 7, 2004
Page 3
Kids Coach program funds will finance $41,125 of the proposed Program Specialist II
position, while currently- budgeted salary from the vacant Program Specialist I position will
make up the balance of the funding for the position.
Recommendation
The City Manager recommends that the City Council authorize the execution of the
Contract with MV Student Transportation in the amount of $237,270 for the period from
June 21, 2004 through June 30, 2005.
The City Manager further recommends that the City Council authorize the elevation of a
Program Specialist II position by converting a vacant Program Specialist I position in the
Community Programs and Housing Division to the higher classification recommended by
Human Resources.
Resp1' ully subm
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By:
Carol Beaver
Community Development Manager
LUCB /EH /sb
Attachment A: MV Student Transportation Contract
Attachment B: Program Budget
G: \TECHASST\Transport\Kids Coach Implementation Plan \Council Report3CB.doc
F: P /MV Contract 04 -05 /general
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this _ day of 200_, by and between CITY
OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and MV Student
Transportation, Inc., a subsidiary of MV Transportation, Inc., a California corporation, whose
address is 10275 Shadow Ridge Drive, Suite 102, Olathe, Kansas 66061, (hereinafter referred to as
"Contractor "), is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of
the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the
statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City.
B. Contractor is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special
services which will be required by this Agreement; and
C. Contractor possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described
herein.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into an agreement for
start-up and operation of the Alameda Kids Coach shuttle service, upon the terms and conditions
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. TERM:
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 21st day of April 2004, and shall
terminate on the 30th day of June 2005, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED:
Contractor shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
3. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR:
Contractor shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the
amount set forth in Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:
Contractor and City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this
Agreement. It is agreed by the parties to the Agreement that in case all the work called for under the
Agreement is not completed within the time limits as set forth below, damage will be sustained by
Page 1
the City, and that it is and will be impracticable to determine the actual damage which the City will
sustain in the event of and by reason of such delay. It is therefore agreed that the Contractor will pay
to the City the amounts described below:
A. Contractor's vehicles must arrive within ten (10) minutes of elementary school bell times
and thirty (30) minutes of middle school bell times. The City will review the Contractor's on -time
record after a six -month period. If the Contractor is late more than two times in one calendar month,
the Contractor will pay $300.
B. The Contractor will provide an appropriate replacement vehicle within sixty (60) minutes of
a service disruption resulting from a vehicle breakdown or an accident. The Contractor will pay
$500 for each incident whereby the Contractor is unable to provide an appropriate replacement
vehicle within sixty (60) minutes of a service disruption resulting from vehicle breakdowns or
accident.
C. The contractor will report all accidents and incidents involving property damage or personal
injury, illegal or threatening actions, and unacceptable passenger, volunteer and/or staff behavior to
the City immediately upon knowledge of such accidents or incidents. The Contractor will pay $500
for each accident or incident not reported to the City within one (1) hour of knowledge of
occurrence, or as soon thereafter as reasonably practical.
The Contractor agrees to pay such liquidated damages as herein provided, and in case the
same are not paid, agrees that the City may deduct the amount thereof from any money due or that
may become due the Contractor under the Agreement.
The Contractor shall not be assessed with liquidated damages during any delay in the
completion of the work caused by an act of God or of the public enemy, acts of the City, fire, flood,
epidemic, quarantine restriction, strikes, freight embargoes, and unusually severe weather or delays
of subcontractors due to such causes; provided that the Contractor shall, within one (1) day from the
beginning of such delay, notify the City in writing of the causes of delay. The City shall ascertain the
facts and the extent of the delay, and its findings of the facts thereon shall be final and conclusive.
5. STANDARD OF CARE:
Contractor agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the
prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services
shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City nor
have any contractual relationship with City.
6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:
City and Contractor intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement is
that of employer- independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under
the control of Contractor, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the
express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment will be
acquired by virtue of Contractor's services. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees,
including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and
Page 2
sick leave are available from City to Contractor, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be
made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally
associated with an employer - employee relationship from any fees due Contractor. Payments of the
above items, if required, are the responsibility of Contractor.
7. CROSS- HIRING:
Contractor and City agree that during the term of this Agreement, and for a period of one year
following the termination thereof, neither party shall hire an employee or former employee of the
other party without the written approval of the other party. The term "former employee" used in this
provision shall mean employees who have separated their employment within the prior twelve
months.
8. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):
Contractor assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment
authorization of all of his/her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable
IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Contractor shall indemnify and hold City
harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any
noncompliance of this provision by Contractor.
9. NON- DISCRIMINATION:
Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable
employer /employee conduct, Contractor agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a
job applicant, a City employee, or a citizen by Contractor or Contractor's employee or subcontractor
on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital
status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Contractor agrees that any and
all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
Contractor certifies and agrees that he /she will not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, or
condition or physical or mental handicap (as defined in 41 C.F.R. Section 60 -741, et. seq.), in
accordance with requirement of state or federal law. Contractor shall take affirmative action to
ensure that qualified applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment
without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, or condition of physical or
mental handicap in accordance with requirements of state and federal law. Such shall include, but
not be limited to, the following:
A. Employment upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising,
layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation.
B. Selection for training, including interns and apprentices.
Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places in each of Contractor's facilities providing
services hereunder, available and open to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting
forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
Contractor shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of
Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without
Page 3
regard to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, or condition of physical or mental
handicap, in accordance with requirements of state and federal law.
Contractor shall send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he /she has
a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding a notice advising the labor
union or workers' representative of Contractor's commitments under this paragraph.
Contractor certifies and agrees that he /she will deal with his/her subcontractors, bidders, or
vendors without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, or condition of
physical or mental handicap, in accordance with requirement of state and federal law.
In accordance with applicable state and federal law, Contractor shall allow duly authorized
county, state and federal representatives access to his/her employment records during regular
business hours in order to verify compliance with the anti - discrimination provisions of this
paragraph. Contractor shall provide such other information and records as such representatives may
require in order to verify compliance with the anti - discrimination provisions of this paragraph.
If the City finds that any of the provisions of this paragraph have been violated, the same
shall constitute a material breach of Agreement upon which City may determine to cancel, terminate,
or suspend this Agreement. City reserves the right to determine independently that the anti-
discrimination provisions of this Agreement have been violated. In addition, a determination by the
California Fair Employment Practices Commission or the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission that Contractor has violated state and federal anti - discrimination laws shall constitute a
finding by City that Contractor has violated the anti- discrimination provisions of this Agreement.
The parties agree that in the event Contractor violates any of the anti - discrimination
provisions of this paragraph, City shall be entitled, at its option, to the sum of $500.00 pursuant to
California Civil Code Section 1671 as liquidated damages in lieu of canceling, terminating, or
suspending this Agreement.
Contractor hereby agrees that he /she will comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. Section 794), all requirements imposed by the applicable regulations
(45 C.F.R.), and all guidelines and interpretations issued pursuant thereto, to the end that no qualified
handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity of Contractor
receiving Federal Financial Assistance. In addition, Contractor shall comply with the Uniform
Federal Accessibility Standards, and Contractor, Engineer, or Architect responsible for any design,
construction or alteration shall certify compliance with those Standards.
Contractor's attention is directed to laws, including but not limited to:
A. CIVIL RIGHTS/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
(1) Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, no
person shall, on the grounds of race, sex, religion, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
(2) Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. No
person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program
or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this title.
Section 109 of the Act further provides that any prohibition against discrimination on the
Page 4
basis of age under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.) or with respect to an
otherwise qualified handicapped individual as provided in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) shall also apply to any program or activity funded in whole or in part with
funds made available pursuant to the Act.
B. PROGRAM ACCESSIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
This Agreement is subject to laws and regulations concerning the rights of otherwise
qualified individuals with handicaps for equal participation in, and benefit from federally assisted
programs and activities, including but not limited to:
(1) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (28 CFR 35). Title II, Subpart A
of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 applies to all publicly funded activities and programs.
Contractor shall also comply with the public accommodations requirements of Title III of the ADA,
as applicable.
(2) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap (24 CFR 8). These regulations,
which implement Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and as cited in Section
109 of the Housing and Community Development Act, apply to all federally assisted activities and
programs and are implemented through the regulations at 24 CFR 8.
(3) Architectural Barrier Act of 1968. Any building or facility, excluding privately
owned residential structures, designed, constructed, or altered with federal funds, shall comply with
the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, 1984 (41 CFR 3) and the Handicapped Accessibility
Requirements of the State of California Title 24. The Contractor, Engineer or Architect responsible
for such design, construction or alteration shall certify compliance with the above standards.
(4) In resolving any conflict between the accessibility standards cited in paragraphs
(1), (2) and (3) above, the more stringent standard shall apply.
10. HOLD HARMLESS:
Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless U.S. Navy, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Agency (ARRA), City, its City Council, and its boards, commissions, officers,
employees and volunteers ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any and all loss, damages, liability,
claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees ( "Claims "), arising
from or in any manner connected to Contractor's negligent act or omission, whether alleged or
actual, regarding performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this
Agreement. If Claims are filed against Indemnitees which allege negligence on behalf of the
Contractor, Contractor shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of
defense even if negligence is not found on the part of Contractor. However, Contractor shall not be
obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or willful
misconduct of Indemnitees.
As to Claims for professional liability only, Contractor's obligation to defend Indemnitees (as
set forth above) is limited to the extent to which its professional liability insurance policy will
provide such defense costs.
11. INSURANCE:
On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish City
with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of
expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B, C, D and E. Such
Page 5
certificates, which do not limit Contractor's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the
following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or
coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide
thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City of Alameda by certified mail, Attention: Risk
Manager." It is agreed that Contractor shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of
this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance
company that is acceptable to City and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California.
Endorsements naming the City as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance
certificates.
A. COVERAGE:
Contractor shall maintain the following insurance coverage:
(1) Workers' Compensation:
Statutory coverage as required by the State of California.
(2) Liability:
Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits:
Bodily Injury:
$2,000,000
each occurrence
$2,000,000
aggregate - all other
Property Damage: $2,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate
Sexual Abuse and Child Molestation endorsement as part of general liability
insurance or as a stand -alone policy of $2,000,000.
If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of
$2,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above.
(3) Automotive:
Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following minimum limits:
Bodily Injury:
Property Damage:
or
Combined Single Limit:
$2,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 each occurrence
B. SUBROGATION WAIVER:
Contractor agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he /she has agreed
to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Contractor shall look solely to
his/her insurance for recovery. Contractor hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing
comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Contractor or City with respect to
the services of Contractor herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said
Contractor may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.
C. FAILURE TO SECURE:
Page 6
If Contractor at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the
foregoing insurance, City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Contractor's name or as
an agent of the Contractor and shall be compensated by the Contractor for the costs of the insurance
premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is
received that the premiums have not been paid.
D. ADDITIONAL INSURED:
City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees and volunteers shall be
named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any professional liability
insurance, required by this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any
recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such
additional insured. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium,
deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any
other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any
loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy.
E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE:
The insurance limits required by City are not represented as being sufficient to protect
Contractor. Contractor is advised to confer with Contractor's insurance broker to determine adequate
coverage for Contractor.
12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Contractor warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Contractor to perform the services
required by this Agreement. Contractor may be required to fill out a conflict of interest form if the
services provided under this Agreement require Contractor to make certain governmental decisions
or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 18700 of the California Code of
Regulations.
13. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS:
Contractor shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest
therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of City.
Any attempt to .do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee,
hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment,
hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Contractor from City under this
Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior
written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to City by Contractor.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital
stock of Contractor, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or
cotenant, if Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result
in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement.
Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power of the corporation.
14. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL:
Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, only those people and subcontractors
Page 7
whose names and resumes are attached to this Agreement shall be used in the performance of this
Agreement.
In the event that Contractor employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be required to
furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general,
automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by
Contractor. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each
provision of this Agreement.
15. PERMITS AND LICENSES:.
Contractor, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this
Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City
Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder.
16. REPORTS:
A. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document,
hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report", reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by
Contractor pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive property of City.
Contractor shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall execute appropriate
documents to assign to City the copyright to Reports created pursuant to this Agreement. Any
Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall become the property of
City, and all publication rights are reserved to City.
B. All Reports prepared by Contractor may be used by City in execution or
implementation of:
(1) The original Project for which Contractor was hired;
(2) Completion of the original Project by others;
(3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and/or
(4) Other City projects as appropriate.
C. Contractor shall, at such time and in such form as City may require, furnish reports
concerning the status of services required under this Agreement.
D. All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on recycled
paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one original, which shall be
single sided.
E. No Report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Contractor
pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization by Contractor
without prior approval by City.
17. RECORDS:
Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs,
expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of
services under this Agreement.
Contractor shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit
an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall
provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of City or its designees at all
Page 8
proper times, and gives City the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts therefrom
as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related
to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from
other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years after receipt of
final payment.
If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raised by
City's preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City's supplemental examination or audit
of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach
of contract or failure to act in good faith, then Contractor shall reimburse City for all reasonable costs
and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.
18. NOTICES:
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given
in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second
business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or
certified, addressed as hereinafter provided.
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Contractor to City shall be addressed to
City at:
City of Alameda
Development Services Department
950 West Mall Square, 2 "d Floor
Alameda CA 94501
Attention: Carol Beaver
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to
Contractor at:
MV Student Transportation, Inc.
10275 Shadow Ridge Drive, Suite 102
Olathe, Kansas 66061
Attn: Kirk Wilkie
19. RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING:
This Agreement is subject to 24 CFR 87 which prohibits the payment of Federal funds to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence, any public officer or employee in connection with
the award, making, entering into, extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of
any Federal contract, grant, loan, or agreement.
20. TERMINATION:
In the event Contractor fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and
in the manner required hereunder, Contractor shall be deemed in default in the performance of this
Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by Contractor
from City of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to
cure such default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Contractor written
Page 9
notice thereof.
City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this
Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Contractor as provided herein. Upon
termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation
specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination.
21. COMPLIANCES:
Contractor shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and regulations
enacted or issued by City.
A. Contractor shall comply with any and all laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations
or requirements of the federal, state or local government, and any agency thereof, which relate to or
in any manner affect the performance of this Agreement. Circular 4220.1D of the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), 49 CFR Part 18, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments," and the Federal Transit Administration
Master Agreement (Form FTA MA (9), October 1, 2002) are each incorporated herein by reference
as though set forth in full, and shall govern this Agreement except as otherwise provided herein.
Those requirements imposed upon City as "Recipient" are hereby imposed upon Contractor, and
those rights reserved by DOT, FTA or Government are hereby reserved by City.
B. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of the California code of Regulations,
Title 21, Chapter 3. Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Subchapter 2.5, State Transit
Assistance Program. Contractor shall also comply with the provisions of Subchapter 2.
Transportation Development (commencing with Section 6600), except for Article 3 (commencing
with Section 6620) and those other provisions that are, by their terms, applicable only to local
transportation funds or are superseded by the provisions of Subchapter 2.5, State Transit Assistance
Program.
22. CONFLICT OF LAW:
This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California
excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction.
The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and
regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those
authorities.)
Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of
Alameda, State of California.
23. ADVERTISEMENT:
Contractor shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any
signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the services
performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from City to do
otherwise.
24. WAIVER:
A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not
be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or
Page 10
condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
25. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature
whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of
whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held
to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written
execution signed by both City and Contractor.
26. INSERTED PROVISIONS:
Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be deemed
to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were included
herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly
inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party.
27. CAPTIONS:
The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and
in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement.
Page 11
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the day
and year first above written.
CONTRACTOR CITY OF ALAMEDA
MV Student Transportation, Inc. A Municipal Corporation
Kirk Wi
President
Date: 4'601'o if
•
G:TechAsst \Transport\MV Contract\Agreement.doc
James M. Flint
City Manager
Date:
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
ul Benoit
evelopment Services Director
Date: (t , ( • Ott
Carol Beaver
Co nity Development Manager
Date: a, q.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Page 12
Teresa Highsmit
Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A
SCOPE OF WORK
The Contractor will provide program administration and operations for the Alameda Kids Coach
( "Program ") through its existing site in San Leandro, CA, whose General Manager will assist in the
on -site operations of this Agreement. Direct operations support, general oversight, monitoring, and
primary responsibility for this Agreement will reside with Contractor President, Kirk Wilkie.
Additional oversight will be provided by local representatives of Contractor's parent corporation,
MV Transportation, Inc. based in Fairfield, CA.
Contractor will appoint a "Lead Driver" for program coordination and dispatch activities. All job
titles are understood to be as described in Contractor's proposal submitted February 16, 2004
( "Proposal "), which is incorporated herein by reference. Additional support for the Program will be
provided by existing Contractor staff including but not limited to: Vice President of Human
Resources, Vice President of Maintenance, Director of Safety, Division Manager, Safety & Training
Supervisor, and Maintenance Supervisor.
The specifications detailed in the City's December 10, 2004 Request for Proposal ( "RFP ") are
incorporated herein by reference. Nothing in this Scope of Work is intended to imply a lower
standard than that presented in the RFP as to the Contractor's responsibilities under this contract.
Min imum Responsibilities of the Contractor
• Operating Program shuttles according to the scheduling demands outlined by City.
• Supplying, maintaining and fueling all vehicles, including the Alameda Point Collaborative
vehicle, in accordance with specified City requirements.
• Processing all service change requests of enrolled families and revising the routes
accordingly.
• Providing the volunteer attendants and the Program Coordinator with copies of the daily
attendance sheets.
• Service monitoring, investigating complaints, and supervising road operations.
• Maintaining completed daily driver manifests. The Contractor will maintain a set of
completed, readable driver manifests for a three (3) year period, and upon request make them
available to the city for planning and auditing purposes.
• Recording daily ridership totals by route (including origin and destination). Report both
daily and monthly ridership totals by route on a monthly basis.
• Providing monthly breakdowns of cancellations, no shows and completed trips; total revenue
hours and miles operated; complaints; and the number of in- service vehicle breakdowns and
accidents.
• Providing the City with input on scheduling, service planning, and policy issues.
• Providing for the safety and supervision of the children on the vehicles and during drop -off
and pick -up times.
• Verifying that children are being received by facilities that are authorized to accept them.
(The driver will not proceed on route until the children dropped off have safely entered the
childcare building and are under the supervision of a facility worker.)
• Providing a first -line response to customer service complaints about the Program.
• Invoice subscribers monthly and collect payments, prior to the start of the service month,
1
Exhibit A
based on the City's fee structure. Membership fees shall be itemized in a monthly report
to the City. Subscription revenues shall be retained by the contractor and subtracted from
monthly contractor invoices.
Program Start -Up
Contractor will work with City to plan and implement a strategy that addresses key areas such as
personnel, budget, equipment, technology and logistics needed for the June 21, 2004 initiation of
shuttle services. Key milestones will be established, reviewed and met as required to achieve the
Program's target start date.
The City will provide Contractor with information on concept routes, including anticipated pick -up
and drop -off locations. These routes will vary depending on demand from families. The City will
identify the schools to be served and provide the list of enrolled Program subscribers. The Contractor
is responsible for designing routes so that that no child will remain on a vehicle for more than 40
minutes.
Contractor's responsibilities will include, but will not be limited to: hiring, training, testing, and
supervising all operating and administrative staff including bus operators, dispatch and office staff,
mechanics and vehicle service staff. The Contractor must list all job openings related to the Program
with East Bay Works.
Volunteer attendants will be identified, screened and trained by the City and its partners but will
ultimately be selected, scheduled for service, and otherwise supervised by the Contractor. All drivers
must complete drug testing, license -pull notification, fingerprinting, health screening, California
Child Abuse index checks, and mandated child abuse reporter training. All driver training must meet
California Highway Patrol requirements. The Contractor must present documentation to the
Program Coordinator that all of the above tests and safety procedures have been completed.
The City and its program partners will provide a 5- hour training to all Contractor staff and volunteer
attendants on child behavior and developmentally - appropriate responses to behavior 'problems on the
busses. The training will include information on mandatory reporting requirements for suspected
child abuse and/or neglect.
Reservations, dispatch and communications center operations will be in accordance with the RFP, as
will the handling of customer service and complaints. Driver selection, supervision and training
standards will meet or exceed those specified in the RFP, as will vehicle safety and maintenance. The
cost of any driver certificates or licenses shall be borne entirely by the Contractor.
The Program Rules and Regulations ( "Rules "), which appeared as Attachment F to City's December
10, 2003 Request for Proposal, outline enrollment procedures and is incorporated herein by
reference. City, Contractor's IT staff and City's IT consultant will coordinate an automated
enrollment system for use with Contractor's record - keeping systems. Initial enrollment is scheduled
to begin April 1, 2004.
Contractor will provide, fuel and maintain fleet vehicles as needed to service the routes and run-
2
Exhibit A
times described in Phases I and II below. One 12- passenger shuttle owned by the Alameda Point
Collaborative will be available for Contractor's use. In addition, Contractor will provide 2000 or
newer Blue Bird Micro Bird 16 passenger school buses as specified in Section VIII of its Proposal.
A generic, one color vehicle is preferred, but not required. The City will provide the contractor with
a logo wrap for the exterior of each in- service vehicle. The City will make available to Contractor
four parking spaces in the Alameda Point Collaborative parking lot located in the primary program
service area.
Contractor will be responsible for installing appropriate carseats in the vehicles, according to the
height and weight information, provided by parents / guardians, on the children who require carseats.
City will provide the carseats, which must be maintained and cleaned and stored by Contractor.
The Rules outline the projected service hours and miles for both Phase I and Phase II, and is
incorporated herein by reference. Actual mileage may vary. The Rules also describe pick -up and
drop -off procedures.
Contractor's dispatcher will provide volunteer attendants with attendance sheets. The volunteer
attendants and the drivers will share responsibility for maintaining the safety of the children on the
bus.
Parents will have been provided with, and agreed that they and their children will observe the Rules,
as incorporated in a Parent Handbook. If students repeatedly violate safety rules, the attendant will
contact Contractor to address the problem with the child and his or her parents.
Phase I — Morning Transportation Service
Beginning June 21, 2004, the Program will offer a morning service, Monday — Friday, to transport
children from their homes to childcare and before school care. The service will be provided between
6:30 am and 9:30am. During the morning hours, two shuttles will operate. School and childcare
times may change slightly during the course of the contract period. It is the Contractor's
responsibility to modify routes and schedules to address these changes.
Phase II — Morning and Afternoon Service
During the month of July 2004, the City will begin accepting reservations for the Program's after -
school service, which will supplement and not replace the morning transportation program.
Afternoon service will operate on all days when Alameda Public Schools are in session. The
Alameda Unified School District FY 2004/05 schedule appears as Exhibit Al. The list of School
Bell Times, which appeared as Attachment D to City's December 10, 2003 Request for Proposal, is
incorporated herein by reference, and Contractor is responsible for planning pick -ups in accordance
with these times and the Rules.
3
Exhibit A
Compliance with Local, State and Federal Regulations
Contractors must comply with all regulations outlined in the RFP. Local, state and federal
regulations governing the transportation of children may change over the course of the contract
period. The contractor is responsible for maintaining compliance with both existing regulations, and
any new regulations that are implemented during the contract period.
In addition, contractors are responsible for following all regulations outlined in the Federal Transit
Administration Master Agreement. A full copy of the Master Agreement may be viewed online at
hap : / /www. fta. dot. goy /library /legal/agreements /2003 /ma. html.
G:TechAsst\ Transport\MVContract\ScopeofWork.doc
4
Exhibit Al
ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
2004 -2005 Calendar (adopted 1127/04)
MONTH M T W TH F
AUGUST Aug 26 Teacher Work Day
2004 23 24 25 26 27 Aug 27,30,31 Staff Development
SEPTEMBER 30 31 1 2 3 Sept 1 First Day of School
6* 7 8 9 10 Sept 6 Labor Day Holiday
13 14 15 16 17
20 21 22 23 24
27 28 29 30
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
JANUARY
2005
1
4 5 6 7 8
11 12 13 14 15
18 19 20 21 22
25 26 27 28 29
1 2 3 4 5
8 9 10 11 12 Nov 11 Veterans Holiday
15 16 17 18 19
22 23 24 25* 26 Fall Recess Nov 22 -26
29 30
1 2 3
6 7 8 9 10
13 14 15 16 17
20 21 22 23 24 Dec 20- Jan 2 Holiday Break
27 28 29 30 31
3 4 5 6 7
10 11 12 13 14
17 18 19 20 21 Jan 17 Martin Luther King Day
24 25 26 27 28 Jan 28 Non - Student Day
31
FEBRUARY 1 2 3 4
7 8 9 10 11
14 15 16 17 18 Feb 18 Lincoln Day
21 22 23 24 25 Feb 21 Presidents Day
28
MARCH
1 2 3 4
7 8 9 10 11
14 15 16 17 18
21 22 23 24 25
28 29 30 31 Spring Recess March 28 -April 1
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
1 Spring Recess March 28 -April 1
4 5 6 7 8
11 12 13 14 15
18 19 20 21 22
25 26 27 28 29
2 3 4 5 6
9 10 11 12 13
16 17 18 19 20
23 24 25 26 27 Non - Student Day
30 31 May 30 Memorial Day
1 2 3
6 7 8 9 10
13 14 15 16 17 June 17 - Last Student Day
G: \TECHASST\Transport \MV Contract'AUSD04- 05Calendar.doc
Exhibit B
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
Rate of Compensation
Contractor will be paid $69.40 /hour for the sum of service hours (otherwise known as
"live hours," revenue service hours or vehicle service hours) provided each month. Total
service hours for the contract period are estimated at 3,318, for total estimated
compensation of $230,269.20. This hourly rate of $69.40 is subject to renegotiation if
service hours or miles, or Program revenues, vary +/- 5% from City's estimates in the
RFP. The City will also reimburse Contractor up to $7,000 for its Workers Compensation
costs related to coverage of the volunteer attendants.
Billing Procedures
Contractor will invoice the City on a monthly basis by the 15th of the month for total
service hours provided in the previous month. The invoice will include a summary of all
subscriber revenue collected, which will be retained by Contractor and will be shown as a
credit towards Contractor's compensation for that month. In addition, Contractor will bill
City quarterly for Workers Compensation reimbursement. City will pay all net invoice
amounts within 21 days following Contractor's submittal of agreed -upon documentation
of service hours and subscriber revenues.
Liquidated Damages
The Contractor agrees to pay such liquidated damages as provided in Section 4 of this
Agreement, and in case the same are not paid, agrees that the City may deduct the amount
thereof from any amounts due or that may become due the Contractor under the
Agreement.
G: \TECHASST \Transport\MV Contract \Compensation.doc
Attachment B
ALAMEDA KIDS COACH
Program Budget
3/1/04 - 6/30/05
LIFT GRANT
SIN - (IN?W'
MEMBERSHIP DONATIONS4&
.(;RANTS
F < =3
5$�� M >
Contractual Services
MV Student Services Contract
$93,190
$134,580
$2,500
$230,270
Consultant Services
$40,000
$4,000
$44,000
Marketing and Outreach
$2,500
$1,000
$3,500
Volunteer Background & TB Screening
$4,350
$4,350
Volunteer Training
$2,100
$2,100
Vehicle Storage
$3,000
$3,000
Subtotal
$135,6900
$134,5800
$16,950
$287,220
Personnel
Kids Coach Coordinator Salary/Benefits
$41,125
$41,125
DSD Staff oversight and support
$12,384
$1,054
$13,438
Partner Agencies Staff
$7,488
$7,488
Volunteer Attendants + Workers Comp Coverage
$7,000
$51,778
$58,778
Subtotal
$60,509
$0
$60,320
$120,829
Other
$1,000
$1,000
Carseats
$0
Copies and Office Supplies
$2,200
$1,000
$3,200
Telephone Service
$420
$420
Travel
$500
$500
Subtotal
$3,120
$0
$2,000
$5,120
TOTAL
$199,3191
$134,580
$79,270
$413,169
g; \TechAsst\ Transport\KidsCoach lmplementation \CouncilReportBudget -4 -20
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 5, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Re: Resolution to Preliminarily Approve Annual Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and
Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of June 15, 2004 Hearing Thereof -
Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2
BACKGROUND
The City Council has previously appointed an Engineer and Attorney for the Landscaping and
Lighting Assessment District 84 -2 and authorized the preparation of the annual budget report per
the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to that Resolution, the Engineer has prepared a report in accordance with Section 22565 et
seq. of the California Streets and Highway Code. The report provides an annual budget of the cost
to maintain the improvements within Zones 1 through 7 of the Assessment District.
This year, the proposed budgets have no increases greater than a cost of living allowance for those
districts that have previously authorized such increases, nor any changes that would require a vote
of the property owners. A copy of the Engineer's report is on file with the City Clerk.
Staff has worked with the district representatives to develop the budget requirements. Meetings
have been held with the Park Street and Webster Street business associations as well as Harbor Bay
Business Park and Marina Village Parkway Associates.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Each Zone develops their individual budgets and pays for their own expenses through the property
assessment procedure. The City, through the budgets of Public Works, Golf and Recreation and
Parks, does share costs for maintaining shoreline and median area within Zone 5. These costs are
accounted for within the departmental budgets.
GlyofAlimeda
D�eblicieon
Public Woks Works for You!
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Resolution #4 -I CC
4 -20 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
April 6, 2004
The City Manager recommends that the Council pass a resolution preliminarily approving the
annual report, declaring intention to order levy and collection of assessments and providing for
notice of June 15, 2004 hearing thereof — Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2.
Respec lly submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Marge M
Acting Pub is Works Manager
MTM:MM/dl
G :\PUBWORKS\PWADMIN\COUNCIL\2004 \042004 \Prelim Approve LLAD.LTC.doc
lug
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
�I1 GNofMamda
vepart lent
Public Works Works.* You!
0
L � w Alameda that:
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
PRELIMINARILY APPROVING ANNUAL REPORT DECLARING
INTENTION TO ORDER LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF JUNE 15, 2004 HEARING THEREOF -
ISLAND CITY LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT 84 -2
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda (the "City ") has duly created the Island City
Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2 (the "District ") under the Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972 (Sections 22500 and following of the Streets and Highways Code of California) (the
"Act ") to install and maintain certain landscaping and lighting improvements (the
"Improvements "); and
WHEREAS, the City has directed the City Engineer, as engineer of work for the
District, to file an annual report in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972,
and that report is on file with the City and shows the proposed improvements and the estimated
costs and assessments, all for the fiscal year 2004 -05.
1)
7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
1. The report of the engineer of work on file with the City is hereby preliminarily
F- approved and the City intends to levy assessments on the properties shown in the report for the
fiscal year 2004 -05, subject to any changes that may be ordered by the Council.
2. On June 15, 2004, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock P.M., the Council will hold a
C.) public hearing 011 the proposed Improvements and the proposed assessments for the fiscal year
2004 -05. The hearing will be held at the meeting place of the City Council, in the Alameda City
Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, 94501.
3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the hearing required
by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 by publishing a copy of this resolution twice in the
Alameda Journal, a newspaper published and circulated in the City. The first publication shall be
not later than 45 days before the date of said hearing.
4. Interested persons should contact Marge McLean of the City of Alameda
Public Works Department, 950 West Mall Square, Alameda, California 94501, telephone number
(510 749 -5896, regarding this hearing, the assessments and the report.
Resolution #4 -I CC
4 -20 -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
Date: April 6, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Resolution to Preliminarily Approve Annual Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy
and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of June 15, 2004, Hearing
Thereof — Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01 (Marina Cove)
BACKGROUND
The City Council previously appointed an Engineer and Attorney for the Maintenance Assessment
District 01 -01 (MAD 01 -01) and authorized the preparation of the annual budget report pursuant to
Chapter 3, Article V of the Alameda Municipal Code.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Chapter 3, Article V of the Alameda Municipal Code, under which the MAD 01 -01 was
established, an annual public hearing and noticing are required prior to the levy of assessments. The
Engineer has prepared a report in accordance with Section 22565 et seq. of the California Streets
and Highway Code. The report provides an annual budget of the cost to maintain the
improvements.
The only proposed increase for this year is a CPI adjustment of 1.9 %. As annual CPI increases have
been pre- approved, a vote of the property owners is not required. A copy of the Engineer's Report
is on file with the City Clerk. The base budget requirements were originally developed by the
developer.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund. The Maintenance Assessment District was formed to
maintain public improvements associated with the Marina Cove Development. Funds not yet
expended remain within this assessment district for use against future expenses.
Otvofffirneda
bll(Works
Public • %daft, You!
Re: Resolution #4 -J CC
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service 4 -20 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
April 6, 2004
Page 2
The City Manager recommends that the Council pass a resolution to preliminarily approve the
annual report declaring intention to order levy and collection of assessments and providing for
notice of June 15, 2004 hearing thereof - Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01 (Marina Cove).
MTM/MAM:dl
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By. '' Marge Lean
Actin ' blic Works Coordinator
G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \042004\PRELIM APPROVE MAD.DOC
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GCVO A a.
EublicWotl s
Qpa biient
PublicWMa Wmiafw You!
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
PRELIMINARILY APPROVING ANNUAL REPORT DECLARING
INTENTION TO ORDER LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF JUNE 15, 2004 HEARING THEREOF —
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 01 -01
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda (the "City ") has duly created the Maintenance
Assessment District 01 -01 (the "District ") under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972
(Sections 22500 and following of the Streets and Highways Code of California) (the "Act ") and
the Alameda Municipal Code to install and maintain certain public improvements (the
"Improvements "); and
WHEREAS, the City has directed the City Engineer, as engineer of work for the
District, to file an annual report in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972,
and that report is on file with the City and shows the proposed improvements and the estimated
costs and assessments, all for the fiscal year 2004 -05.
- us
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
r. Alameda that:
c
3
1. The report of the engineer of work on file with the City is hereby preliminarily
approved 'and the City intends to levy assessments on the properties shown in the report for the
- fiscal year 2004 -05, subject to any changes that may be ordered by the Council.
0
2. On June 15, 2004, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock P.M., the Council will hold a
public hearing on the proposed Improvements and the proposed assessments for the fiscal year
2004 -05. The hearing will be held at the meeting place of the City Council, in the Alameda City
Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, 94501.
3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the hearing required
by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 by publishing a copy of this resolution twice in the
Alameda Journal, a newspaper published and circulated in the City. The first publication shall be
not later than 45 days before the date of said hearing.
4. Interested persons should contact Marge McLean of the City of Alameda
Public Works Department, 950 West Mall Square, Alameda, California 94501, telephone number
(510 749 -5840, regarding this hearing, the assessments and the report.
* * * * * *
Resolution #4 -J CC
4 -20 -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: The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Date: April 7, 2004
Re: Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing First Amendment to the Multiple
Site Lease Agreement Between City of Alameda and American Tower Corporation for
Development and Operation of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities on City Property
at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex and at Fire Station #4 (four votes required)
BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2001, City Council adopted Ordinance 2870, approving and authorizing
execution of a Multiple Site Lease Agreement (MLA) between City of Alameda and American
Tower Corporation for development and operation of wireless telecommunication facilities on
City property at various sites, including the Chuck Corica Golf Complex and Fire Station #4. At
American Tower's request, the MLA was drafted to include a provision whereby the City would
assign the two existing Sprint Ground Leases to American Tower, with American Tower passing
through all Sprint payments to the City. Since execution of the MLA and pursuant to discussions
about how to implement the assignment requirement, American Tower has concluded that there
is no need for the City to assign the existing City /Sprint Leases to American Tower, and
American Tower has requested that the City amend the MLA to remove the assignment
provision.
DISCUSSION
At the time of approval of Ordinance #2870 authorizing the MLA, Sprint was already an existing
carrier who leased space from the City and was operating wireless telecomm sites at both the
Chuck Corica Golf Complex and at Fire Station #4. American Tower's plan was to relocate
Sprint equipment, at no cost to the City, from existing City towers to the new towers to be
constructed by American Tower. American Tower agreed to pass existing Sprint rents through to
the City. In May 2002, the City presented a draft Assignment Agreement to American Tower for
their review. Due to staffing layoffs and consolidation, American Tower did not respond until
March 26, 2003.
The existing City /Sprint Leases contain a provision allowing the City to request that Sprint
relocate their facilities, provided that there is no cost to Sprint and provided that Sprint approves
the new location. On April 2, 2003, the City formally notified Sprint requesting that Sprint
facilities be relocated to and consolidated with the new monopole and tower to be built by
American Tower. On April 30, 2003, Sprint agreed in writing to relocate their antennas to the
new location. Throughout this time, we were conducting three -way discussions with Sprint and
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Intro of Ordinance #4 -K
4 -20 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
April 7, 2004
Page 2
American Tower. As discussions progressed, it became apparent that American Tower intended
to negotiate new agreements directly with Sprint and that they had intended to enter into those
new agreements simultaneous with the execution of the assignment documents. This was not the
City's understanding, nor did Sprint agree to voluntarily terminate the existing City /Sprint Lease.
American Tower subsequently dropped the independent agreement approach.
As an alternative to assigning the Sprint leases, American Tower proposed to provide the City
and its Tenant (Sprint) with space on the new towers at no cost to either the City or to Sprint, and
to eliminate the requirement for assignment of the existing Sprint Leases. This is agreeable to
Sprint.
The attached draft First Amendment to the MLA would eliminate the requirement for assignment
of existing Sprint Leases. All other business terms remain unchanged.
MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE
There is no change to the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed action to approve an amendment to the Lease does not constitute a project under
the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to the meaning of section 15378.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the General Fund. None of the business terms of the MLA will change.
Under the MLA, American Tower was to have passed Sprint rents through to the City after
assignment of the Sprint Leases, and American Tower was to have paid additional rent based on
the number of tenants on site. At present, Sprint continues to pay rent directly to the City. The
proposed Amendment removes the pass through rent requirement. There is no other change to
the rent structure of the MLA.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that City Council introduce an Ordinance approving and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Multiple Site Lease
Agreement Between City of Alameda and American Tower Corporation for Development and
Operation of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities on City Property at the Chuck Corica Golf
Complex and Fire Station #4 (four votes required).
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \CITYOFAL \CITYPROP\American Tower Corp \COUNCIL \CC 4- 01- 04.doc
F: City of Alameda/American Tower Corp /Lease
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
JMF /LL /BJMK:ry
Attachment:
cc:
Susan Fisher - Stevens, Sprint
Marty Cohen, American Tower Inc.
April 7, 2004
Page 3
she At e
Development Services Di
By: Bruce J. M.
Redevelop ' ent Zl ager
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \CITYOFAL \CITYPROP\American Tower Corp \COUNCIL \CC 4- 01- 04.doc
F: City of Alameda/American Tower Corp /Lease
FIRST AMENDMENT TO MULTIPLE SITE LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO MULTIPLE SITE LEASE AGREEMENT ( "First
Amendment ") is entered into as of the day of 2004 by and between the
City of Alameda, a municipal corporation of the State of California with an address of c/o
Development Services Department, 950 West Mall Square, Second Floor, Alameda, CA
94501 -7552 ( "City "), and American Tower LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
with a business address of 116 Huntington Ave. Boston, Ma 02116, Attention: Legal
Department ( "ATC ").
WHEREAS, City and ATC entered into that certain Multiple Site Lease Agreement
dated December 19, 2001 ( "Agreement "), wherein, inter alia, ATC leases ground space on a
total of three properties from the City, two of which are identified as Chuck Corica Golf
Complex and Fire Station #4, more particularly described in Exhibit B to Schedule One of
the Agreement;
WHEREAS, City and Sprint Spectrum L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
( "Sprint "), entered into a certain PCS Site Agreement dated January 2, 2000, for the purpose
of leasing equipment ground space and tower space on City's communications tower on a
property identified as Bay Farm Island, Sprint Site # SF33XC747 -A;
WHEREAS, City and Sprint also entered into a certain PCS Site Agreement dated
October 22, 2000, for the purpose of leasing equipment ground space and tower space on
City's communications tower on a property identified as Bay Farm Golf Course, Sprint Site #
SF36XC018 -B;
WHEREAS, the Agreement now identifies Bay Farm Golf Course as Chuck Corica
Golf Complex and Bay Farm Island as Fire Station #4;
WHEREAS, the existing City owned Bay Farm Island and Bay Farm Golf Course
towers are each being razed and replaced by towers constructed by ATC ( "ATC Towers "),
and various Sprint equipment is to be relocated from these towers onto the Chuck Corica
Golf Complex Tower and the Fire Station #4 Tower being constructed by ATC pursuant to
the Agreement;
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that the City is not to bear any of the cost of
relocation of such Sprint equipment;
WHEREAS, at the time of execution of the Agreement, City and ATC agreed that
City would assign its interest in the Sprint Leases to ATC, and it was contemplated that such
assignment would have been completed prior to construction of ATC Towers whereby ATC
would have been managing a Sprint equipment relocation directly with Sprint and with no
City involvement;
FIRST AMENDMENT TO MULTIPLE SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, with respect to relocating Sprint equipment from existing City owned
towers to ATC Towers and with respect to Sprint occupying space on ATC Towers, City and
ATC now find it undesirable for City to assign its interest in the Sprint leases to. ATC;
WHEREAS, ATC will provide City and/or its tenant, Sprint, with tower space on
both the Chuck Corica Golf Complex Tower and the Fire Station #4 Tower pursuant to the
Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into this First Amendment to the
Agreement to define each party's rights and obligations with respect to the relocation of the
afore referenced equipment and with respect to tower space to be provided by ATC,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties agree as follows:
1. Section 4(d) of the Agreement is hereby amended to clarify that it is the intent of the
parties that the Base Rent for the Golf Complex and the Fire Station #4 Site Leases be
adjusted annually by changes in the Consumer Price Index, as is the Base Rent for any
Site Lease under the Agreement.
2. Section 7(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended such that ATC's forty -five (45) day
period to remove all above grade improvements and restore the Premises is hereby
amended to be one - hundred and twenty (120) days.
3. Section 1 of Schedule One of the Agreement for Chuck Corica Golf Complex is hereby
stricken in its entirety and the following substituted in lieu thereof:
"1. Rent: Pursuant to paragraph 4(e) of the Multiple Site Lease, the base rent shall be
as follows and payable monthly in advance.
Total Rent for Golf Complex Site, per month, and Thresholds Triggering
Rent Increases
Rent with up to Four (4)
Tenants
Rent with Five (5) or
More Tenants
Years 1 -5
$400 per Tenant.
$400 per Tenant.
Years 6 -10
When the 4th Tenant is added,
the amount per Tenant for the
2nd, 3 =d, and 4th Tenant is
increased from $400 each to
$500 each.
$500 per Tenant.
Rent for any fractional month at the beginning or end of the original term or
extension (said term and any extension periods hereinafter referred to as "Term ")
shall be prorated based on the actual number of days in such month.
G: \CITYOFAL \CITYPROP\American Tower Corp\lease(s)\MLA Amendmentl\First MLA Amendment Rvsd v.3.doc
F: \cityofala \cityprop\American Tower \Lease \First Amendment
AT Site I.D.: Alameda Golf Course /41642 & Fire Station #4 McCartney /41263
FIRST AMENDMENT TO MULTIPLE SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page 3 of 6
For purposes of this section, neither Sprint nor City will be counted as a Tenant in the
event that either or both locate equipment on the tower built by ATC at this location."
4. Section 1 of Schedule One of the Agreement for Fire Station #4 is hereby stricken in its
entirety and the following substituted in lieu thereof:
"1. Rent: Pursuant to paragraph 4(e) of the Multiple Site Lease, the base rent shall be
as follows and payable monthly in advance.
Total Rent for Fire Station #4, per month, and Thresholds Triggering Rent
Increases
Rent with up to Three (3)
Tenants
Rent with Four (4) or more
Tenants
Years
1 -5
$400 per Tenant
$400 per Tenant
Years
6 -10
When the 3rd Tenant is added,
the amount per Tenant is
increased from $400 each to
$500 each.
$500 per Tenant
Rent for any fractional month at the beginning or end of the original term or
extension shall be prorated based on the actual number of days in such month.
For purposes of this section, neither Sprint nor City will be counted as a Tenant in the
event that either or both locate equipment on the tower built by ATC at this location."
5. Section 4(ii) of Schedule One of the Agreement for Fire Station #4 and Section 4(iv) of
Schedule One of the Agreement for Chuck Corica Golf Complex are each hereby stricken
in their entirety.
6. Exhibit B of Schedule One of the Agreement for Chuck Corica Golf Complex is hereby
stricken in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part
hereof. In the event that Exhibit B is not finalized prior to the execution of this
Amendment, City and ATC agree that Exhibit B shall be attached to and made a part of
this Amendment once finalized.
7. The following sections are hereby added to and made a part of the Agreement:
31. Relationship of Sprint to City and ATC. At all times during the Term of this
Agreement, Sprint shall be considered a sub - tenant of City. Sprint's right to place
equipment upon both the Chuck Corica Golf Complex Tower and/or the Fire Station
#4 Tower are governed by the agreements entered into between City and Sprint dated
January 2, 2000 and October 22, 2000, respectively, for those sites.
G: \CITYOFAL \CITYPROP\American Tower Corp\lease(s)\MLA Amendmentl\First MLA Amendment Rvsd v.3.doc
F: \cityofala \cityprop\American Tower\Lease\First Amendment
AT Site I.D.: Alameda Golf Course /41642 & Fire Station #4 McCartney /41263
FIRST AMENDMENT TO MULTIPLE SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page 4 of 6
32. Relocation of Sprint's Equipment ( "Relocation "). Notwithstanding Section 31,
ATC shall pay for all costs of City, pursuant to certain PCS Site Agreement dated
October 22, 2000, Sprint Site # SF36XC018 -B, associated with the removal and
relocation of Sprint's equipment from the Bay Farm Golf Course Tower to the ATC
Chuck Corica Golf Complex Tower pursuant to the Agreement as amended.
Similarly, ATC shall pay for all costs of City, pursuant to certain PCS Site Agreement
dated January 2, 2000, Sprint Site # SF33XC747 -A, associated with the removal and
relocation of Sprint's equipment from the Bay Farm Tower and relocation to the ATC
Fire Station #4 Tower pursuant to the Agreement as amended.
33. ATC shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards,
commissions, officials, and employees ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any and all
loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including
reasonable attorneys' fees ( "Claims "), arising from or in any manner connected to
ATC's negligent act or omission, whether alleged or actual, regarding performance of
relocation services conducted or performed. If Claims are filed against Indemnitees
which allege negligence on behalf of ATC, ATC shall have no right of reimbursement
against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence is not found on the
part of ATC. However, ATC shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from
Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of
Indemnitees.
34. Removal of ATC's Improvements. Subject to the City's Option to Purchase the
Golf Complex Tower and/or the Fire Station #4 Tower per "Section 36" of this
Amendment, ATC shall, within one hundred twenty (120) days of the end of the
Term, remove all equipment shelters, pads, antennas and other communications
equipment installed by ATC or any of its Tenants on the Chuck Corica Golf complex
Tower site and the Fire Station #4 Tower site. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ATC
shall have no obligation to remove any equipment installed by City or Sprint on either
tower site or the towers themselves if City exercises its rights pursuant to "Section
36" of this Amendment.
35. Access to the Towers by City and Sprint. ATC agrees that City and Sprint shall
have access to the Sites for the purposes of maintaining and/or replacing their
equipment at all times during this Lease and shall enjoy unimpeded access, twenty -
four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week.
36. Option to Purchase Towers. Upon the expiration of the Term of this Agreement,
City shall have an irrevocable option to purchase the Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Tower site and the Fire Station #4 Tower site on an as -is basis for the sum of One
Dollar ($1.00) each. In the event City exercises its option hereunder, ATC and City
agree to execute a bill of sale evidencing the sale of the tower sites. The bill of sale
shall include the following language:
G: \CITYOFAL \CITYPROP\American Tower Corp\lease(s)\MLA Amendmentl\First MLA Amendment Rvsd v.3.doc
F: \cityofala \cityprop\American Tower \Lease\First Amendment
AT Site I.D.: Alameda Golf Course /41642 & Fire Station #4 McCartney /41263
FIRST AMENDMENT TO MULTIPLE SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page 5 of 6
"SELLER HAS NOT MADE, DOES NOT MAKE AND HEREBY EXPRESSLY
DISCLAIMS ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OR
REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO
MANUFACTURE OF THE TOWER OR ITS SUPPORT STRUCTURE
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, THE DESIGN OR CONDITION THEREOF,
WORKMANSHIP OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ANY
LAW, RULE, SPECIFICATION OR CONTRACT PERTAINING THERETO,
PATENT INFRINGEMENT OR LATENT DEFECTS."
The parties hereby agree to perform, execute and/or deliver or cause to be performed,
executed and/or delivered any and all such further agreements and assurances as the
parties hereto may reasonably require to consummate the transactions contemplated
hereunder."
SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS
REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
G: \CITYOFAL \CITYPROP\American Tower Corp\lease(s)\MLA Amendmentl\First MLA Amendment Rvsd v.3.doc
F: \cityofala \cityprop\American Tower \Lease \First Amendment
AT Site I.D.: Alameda Golf Course /41642 & Fire Station #4 McCartney /41263
FIRST AMENDMENT TO MULTIPLE SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page 6 of 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and ATC have executed this First Amendment as of the
date first above written.
CITY:
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA,
A Municipal Corporation
By:
James M. Flint
City Manager
RECOMMEND 1 FOR APP' 0 AL:
By:
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
By:
Donna Mooney
Deputy City Attorney
ATC:
American Tower LLC
By American Tower Corporation, its Manager
Yannis Macheras
Director
G: \CITYOFAL \CITYPROP\American Tower Corp\lease(s)\MLA Amendmentl\First MLA Amendment Rvsd v.3.doc
F: \cityofala \cityprop \American Tower\Lease\First Amendment
AT Site I.D.: Alameda Golf Course /41642 & Fire Station #4 McCartney /41263
FIRST AMENDMENT TO MULTIPLE SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page 6 of 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and ATC have executed this First Amendment as of the
date first above written.
CITY:
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA,
A Municipal Corporation
By:
James M. Flint
City Manager
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By:
Paul Benoit
Development Services Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
By:
Teresa L. Highsmith
Assistant City Attorney
ATC:
Ante/` 4, ~Cower LLC
by A-me.ri c A ti 1 0 4 ) . 1 6 C4) rip o r6ct t' ° ^/
iT s Not o(,tct%et-
G: \CITY0FAL\CITYPROPIAmerican Tower Corp \lease(s)\MLA Amendmentl\First MLA Amendmentv3.doc
FAcityofala\cltyprop\American Tower\lease\First Amendment
AT Site I.D.: Alameda Golf Course/41642 & Fire Station #4 McCartney /41263
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING FIRST AMENDMENT TO
MULTIPLE SITE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA AND AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION FOR
DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES ON CITY PROPERTY, AT
THE CHUCK CORICA GOLF COMPLEX, AND AT FIRE STATION #4
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda owns and holds easements and other rights or
interests in real property in the City of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, American Tower Corporation is a communication site development,
leasing and management company engaged in the business of constructing, marketing,
managing, operating and maintaining telecommunication sites; and
WHEREAS, City and American Tower Corporation entered into that certain
Multiple Site Lease Agreement dated December 19, 2001 ( "Agreement "), wherein,
American Tower Corporation leases ground space on a total of three properties from the
City, two of which are identified as Chuck Corica Golf Complex and Fire Station #4,
more particularly described in Exhibit B to Schedule One of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, City and Sprint Spectrum L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
( "Sprint "), entered into a certain PCS Site Agreement dated January 2, 2000, for the
purpose of leasing equipment ground space and tower space on City's communications
tower on a property identified as Bay Farm Island, Sprint Site # SF33XC747 -A; and
WHEREAS, City and Sprint also entered into a certain PCS Site Agreement dated
October 22, 2000, for the purpose of leasing equipment ground space and tower space on
City's communications tower on a property identified as Bay Farm Golf Course, Sprint
Site # SF36XC018 -B; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement now identifies Bay Farm Golf Course as Chuck
Corica Golf Complex and Bay Farm Island as Fire Station #4; and
WHEREAS, the existing City owned Bay Farm Island and Bay Farm Golf Course
towers are each being razed and replaced by towers constructed by American Tower
Corporation ( "ATC Towers "), and various Sprint equipment is to be relocated from these
towers onto the Chuck Corica Golf Complex Tower and the Fire Station #4 Tower being
constructed by American Tower Corporation pursuant to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that the City is not to bear any of the cost of
relocation of such Sprint equipment; and
Introduction of Ordinance #4 -KCC
4 -20 -04
WHEREAS, at the time of execution of the Agreement, City and American Tower
Corporation agreed that City would assign its interest in the Sprint Leases to American
Tower Corporation, and it was contemplated that such assignment would have been
completed prior to construction of American Tower Corporation Towers whereby
American Tower Corporation would have been managing a Sprint equipment relocation
directly with Sprint and with no City involvement; and
WHEREAS, with respect to relocating Sprint equipment from existing City
owned towers to American Tower Corporation Towers and with respect to Sprint
occupying space on American Tower Corporation Towers, City and American Tower
Corporation now find it undesirable for City to assign its interest in the Sprint leases to
American Tower Corporation; and
WHEREAS, American Tower Corporation will provide City and/or its tenant,
Sprint, with tower space on both the Chuck Corica Golf Complex Tower and the Fire
Station #4 Tower pursuant to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into this First Amendment to the
Agreement to define each party's rights and obligations with respect to the relocation of
the afore referenced equipment and with respect to tower space to be provided by
American Tower Corporation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter section 3 -10, no real property of the City
shall be leased for a period in excess of one year or sold, except upon the affirmation vote
of four members of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda,
by four affirmative votes:
Section 1 That the form of First Amendment to Multiple Site Lease Agreement,
presented to the City Council on April 20, 2004, and the terms, conditions and covenants
contained therein be, and the same are hereby approved.
Section 2. That the City Manager of the City of Alameda, be, and he is hereby
authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City of Alameda, a First Amendment to
Multiple Site Lease Agreement substantially in the form and containing the terms and
conditions and covenants as set out in the First Amendment to Multiple Site Lease
Agreement referred to in the preamble hereof, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to attest to the same.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the
expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Presiding Officer of the City Council
Attest:
City Clerk
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting
assembled on the day of , 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, Acting City Clerk
City of Alameda
April 15, 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
122586 - 123084 1,468,660.70
Void Checks:
114289
($732.58)
GRAND TOTAL
Allowed in open session:
Date:
City Clerk
Approved for payment:
Date: �=
Finance Director
Council Warrants 04/20/04
1,467,928.12
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela J. Sibley
BILLS #4 -L
4/20/2004
City of Alameda
Memorandum
DATE: April 13, 2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
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 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 District.
BACKGROUND
The project is located on Garfield Avenue at a site that was divided into two 3,400 square -foot
parcels through a Planned Development (PD) approved by the City Council in 1997. The Planned
Development was approved with the understanding that future owners will have the opportunity to
modify the homes subject to a Planned Development Amendment process. As a result, the current
property owners applied for a Planned Development Amendment (PDA) and Major Design Review
(DR) to allow a 150 square -foot rear addition to replace a laundry shed in the rear yard and add
utility space to their house. A new fence, deck and hot tub were also proposed within the rear yard
area. On January 12, 2004, the Planning Board voted 5 -0 -0 (Boardmember Marian absent) to
conditionally approve the project.
Basis of appeal:
The appellants are adjacent left and rear neighbors of the project site. They are appealing the
Planning Board's decision because they believe that insufficient time was provided to present facts in
opposition to the project before the Planning Board hearing. The neighbors on the left side of the
property are concerned about shading, privacy, and size of the addition. The neighbor at the rear of
the property (the second homeowner in this PD) claims that the project will result in a loss of privacy
and a reduction of open space between the applicant's home and her own home.
Mediation meetings:
Planning staff scheduled a meeting on February 12, 2004 for the appellants and applicants to discuss
the project. Two subsequent meetings were held on February 17 and February 25 to review
alternatives suggested by the appellants. Consequently, the applicants decided to remove the deck,
hot tub, and fence from their current plans. The remaining issue of disagreement is the location and
size of the rear addition, and all parties have agreed to proceed with the Council hearing on this
matter.
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Re: Hearing and Resolution #5 -A
4 -20 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Concilmembers
Page 2
April 7, 2004
Since the mediation meetings, the applicants submitted plans showing an alterative location for the
addition in response to the appellants' concerns. Meanwhile, the appellants indicated that they
would compromise on a smaller addition.
DISCUSSION
Analysis of the Planning Board's approval:
The Planning Board's action to approve the project was made on the basis that all elements of the
project will comply with zoning requirements and that it will have no adverse effects on neighboring
properties. No special exceptions to zoning standards were granted in the approval.
The addition extends 5'4" towards the rear and 27' across the width of the house. In a standard R -1
district, such an addition would require an administrative DR approval process, which typically
would not require a public hearing. A Planned Development Amendment and public hearing is
required in this case because the PD approval in 1997 specifically requires a PDA for all building
expansions that increase living area.
The original proposal complies with setback requirements to the reduced setbacks established by the
PD and the underlying R -1 district standards for this neighborhood except the 1'6" side yard setback.
The proposed 1'6" side yard is less than the standard requirement of five feet in the R -1 district, but
is consistent with the reduced setback established by the PD along that side of the property given the
location of the existing residence. In reviewing this issue, the Planning Board concluded that the
rationale in AMC Subsection 30.5 -7 (k) & (1) is applicable because no adverse effects such as
shading or view blockage would occur on adjoining properties. The shade from the addition is not
sufficient to cause significant shading impacts to the side property. Furthermore, no substantial
views exist that would be impacted, and the privacy of the adjacent side property will not be affected
since no new windows are proposed along the side. The distance between the addition and the side
neighbor's house will remain at nine feet, while the distance to the neighbor at the rear will be
reduced from thirty feet to twenty -five feet. The Planning Board also determined that a 150 square -
foot expansion to a 950 square -foot home is a reasonable request since the majority of homes in the
neighborhood are significantly larger. The design of the addition is also compatible with the
surrounding homes.
The Planning Board's approval of the deck, hot tub, and fence also stipulated that they would be
constructed in compliance with the standard zoning regulations. These elements have now been
removed from the current project as a result of the subsequent meetings between the owners and
appellants.
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 Planned
Development Amendment, PDA03 -0006 and Major Design Review, DR03 -0096, as provided in the
draft City Council Resolution.
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Honorable Mayor and
Concilmembers
By:
Allen Tai
Planner I
Page 3
April 7, 2004
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory Fuz
Planning and Building Director
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report and attachments for January 12, 2004 Planning Board Public
Hearing.
2. Planning Board Resolution PB -04 -09 approving PDA03 -0006 and DR03-
0096
3. Planning Board Minutes from Public Hearing of January 12, 2004
4. Petition for Appeal and attached correspondence dated January, 22, 2004
from Appellants Ayala and Tony Lonzisero and Thea Mixon.
5. Letter from Appellants dated February 25, 2004.
6. Memorandum to the City Council dated March 9, 2004 requesting
continuance to April 20 meeting.
7. Letter received April 7, 2004 from Peter Burrows and Wendy Moorhouse
of 3242 Garfield Avenue in support of the project.
8. Letter received April 7, 2004 from David and Jennifer Harding of 3245
Garfield Avenue in support of the project.
9. Photographs of the project site submitted by Applicants, received April 7,
2004
10. Alternative proposal submitted by the Applicants, received April 7, 2004
11. Photographs of the project site submitted by Appellant Thea Mixon,
received April 7, 2004
12. Letter and attachments submitted by Appellant Ayala Lonzisero, received
April 7, 2004.
CC: Ayala and Tony Lonzisero, 3237 Garfield Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501
Derek Pavlik, 762 Stewart Court, Alameda, CA 94501
Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett, 3241 Garfield Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501
Thea Mixon, 3243 Garfield Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501
G: \PLANNING\CC\REPORT5\2004\h -April 2C'Garjeeld3241 appealrevised3. doc
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
CITY OF ALAMEDA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
ITEM NO.:
APPLICATION:
GENERAL PLAN:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
STAFF PLANNER:
RECOMMENDATION:
ACRONYMS:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF REPORT
8 -B
Application No. PDA03 -0006; DR03 -0096 Applicants
Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett — 3241 Garfield
Avenue. The applicants request a Planned Development
Amendment and Major Design Review approval to allow the
construction of a 150 square -foot single -story addition and a 190
square -foot deck with hot tub, approximately 24- inches high, in the
rear yard. The 18 -foot height of the building will remain
unchanged. This project is located in a R -1 PD, One Family
Residence Planned Development District.
Low - Density Residential
Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section
15301(e) — Existing Facilities
Allen Tai, Planner I
Approve Planned Development Amendment and Major Design
Review with conditions.
AMC — Alameda Municipal Code
PD — Planned Development
PDA — Planned Development Amendment
PL — Property Line
1. Draft Resolution
2. Planning Board Resolution PB -97 -38 approving Planned
Development PD -97 -1
3. Project Plans and Photographs
I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicants at 3241 Garfield Avenue request a Planned Development Amendment and a
Major Design Review approval to construct: 1) A 150 square -foot single -story addition at the
rear of an existing single- family house. The addition will provide for expansion of the existing
kitchen and the creation of a bathroom and storage room on the first floor. 2) .A 190 square foot
deck, approximately 24- inches high, will be located three feet from the side and rear property
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of January 12, 2004
Attachment #1
lines in the rear yard. However, a proposed hot tub that is attached to the rear corner of the deck
will follow the 1'6" setback line of the main building and abut the rear property line with no
setbacks, where 3' side and rear setbacks are required when the hot tub is attached to the deck. 3)
An eight -foot tall barrier composed of a six -foot solid fence with two feet of open lattice at the
top, around the proposed deck and hot tub.
A Planned Development Amendment (PDA) process and Major Design Review approval is
required for this project because the previous Planned Development approval established the
existing building footprint and site configuration as the standards for development on this
property. Also, Condition # 3 of Planning Board Resolution PB- 97 -38, which approved the
subject Planned Development, requires a PDA approval for alterations to the property involving
expansion of the building.
In regards to the hot tub, the Planning Director in 1997 made the following interpretation to
AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(4) - Decks:
"A spa or hot tub is not a structure and is not subject to setbacks for accessory
structures. However, a deck or gazebo over a spa or hot tub continues to be
subject to setback standards for accessory buildings and where applicable,
Design Review."
Please note that while the proposed addition and eight -foot fence requires a PDA approval and a
Building Permit, decks that are under 30" in height and individual stand alone hot tubs do not
require Design Review or Building Permits, although setback standards for decks, and the hot
tub- if it is attached to the deck, are still applicable.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Establishment of the Small Lot Planned Development
The project is located on Garfield Avenue within a neighborhood of single - family homes in the
East end of Alameda. The property was originally developed as one rectangular, 60 feet wide by
115 feet deep (6,900 sq. ft.) parcel. Two detached dwellings were constructed in 1922 in the
style of the Craftsman Cottage or bungalow, similar to other homes in the neighborhood.
On May 6, 1992, the Alameda Municipal Code was amended to provide for a Planned
Development Overlay Zone for small parcels (under two acres) developed with two or more
existing single- family dwellings. In order to qualify as a Planned Development, a proposal must
be consistent with the General Plan and must contain a minimum of two (2) acres unless the
Planning Board finds that a lesser area is suitable by virtue of its location adjacent to other
planned developments, unique historical or architectural character, topography, natural landscape
features, parks or water areas, or other features requiring special treatment or protection (AMC §
30- 4.13(c)(2)). This action was taken with the understanding that these types of subdivisions
would create affordable home ownership opportunities, particularly for first time buyers, because
the parcels would be small and developed with smaller, older homes.
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of January 12, 2004 2
Subsequently, previous owners of this property applied and received approval for the rezoning of
this property in 1997 to add a Planned Development overlay (PD- 97 -01) to the underlying R -1
zoning designation. The. Planned Development approval also allowed the subdivision of the site
into two parcels —the subject property fronting Garfield Avenue (3241 Garfield) and the other at
the rear of the parcel (3243 Garfield). Both parcels are approximately 3,400 square feet in size.
B. Existing Site Conditions
The existing house at 3241 Garfield is a single story,
two - bedroom house with interior stairway access to a
small attic loft space for storage. Its total habitable
floor area is approximately 920 square feet. The size of
this floor area is significantly smaller when compared
to single - family homes in the neighborhood.
An existing driveway beginning at the front, right
corner of this property leads to a two -car garage at the
opposite corner in the rear neighbor's yard. The
property line separating the two parcels follows the centerline of the driveway. Because of this
arrangement, the rear property has an easement in the rear yard of the front property for
driveway access. As a result, a portion of the rear neighbor's driveway easement occupies 303
square feet of 3241 Garfield's rear yard. However, the proposed alterations to the property will
not encroach into the easement area.
The size of the existing rear yard is approximately 805 sq. ft., of which the driveway occupies
303 sq. ft. Therefore, the actual usable rear yard space is 502 sq. ft. However, the existing rear
yard is not entirely open space. At the time of the PD approval in 1997, a six -foot tall solid
wood fence enclosed the 502 sq. ft. area and a small utility shed existed in the proposed deck and
hot tub location. This fence and shed was removed recently due to disrepair and weather
damage.
Driveway
DEC 16 2003
C. Surrounding Land Use
North (left) — Neighbor's driveway /single story, one family residences
West(right) — Shared driveway /single story, one family residences
South(across Garfield Ave) - Single story, one family residences
East(rear) - Single story, one family residence (3243 Garfield)
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of January 12, 2004
3
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project qualifies for the Class 1 Categorical Exemption from CEQA Guidelines -under
Section 15301(e) — Existing Facilities, which exempts additions to existing structures that are
less than 10,000 square feet and are located in areas where public services and facilities are
available.
IV. STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposed 150 square foot addition will create a bathroom in one of the existing bedrooms
and allow for the expansion of the existing kitchen and dining area. A remainder of the addition
will provide a small storage closet with exterior access from the proposed rear deck. When
completed, the existing 900 square foot home will gain sufficient space for a laundry area storage
room, utility spaces that provides improved practicality in the use of space.
Currently, open space in the rear yard is located in close proximity to the driveway and vehicle
backup area that serves the rear property, which is an unsafe environment for recreational use.
The new deck and fence enclosure will provide a safe and private environment while maintaining
a more useable area for the residents.
A. Design Review
Discussion:
Zoning Standards: The Planned Development overlay in 1997 legalized and established the
existing conditions as standards for the property. As a result, any expansion to the existing
building footprint would result in the creation of conditions that do not comply with those
standards.
The following table compares the standards between the underlying R -1 District, the existing PD
standards, and the proposed changes to current PD standards:
Table 1: Development Standards Com
DESCRIPTION
R -1 ,
PD APPROVED
PROPOSED
COMPARISON
Front Setback
13 Feet*
11 Feet
11 Feet
No Changes
Side Setback
5 Feet
21 '(right) / 1'6 "(left)
1'6" (left)
Complies
Rear Setback
12 Feet **
18 Feet
13 Feet
Complies
Lot Coverage
Max. 40%
32%
37%
Complies
Building Height
30 Feet
18 Feet
18 Feet
Complies
Decks 24" high
3 Feet from PL
N/A
3' side/ 3' rear
Complies
Hot tub * **
3 Feet from PL
N/A
No setbacks
Not Comply.
* The front yard setback for lots with substandard deaths is the ave,-asre of fl,P cetbarkc of t1,• a∎i; , ,;,,.. ,,,•...,o,r:o,.
** Minimum rear yard setback is 12 feet for lots with substandard depth.
** *Hot tubs that are attached to a deck are subject to standards for the deck it is attached to.
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of January 12, 2004
4
•
Addition: While the proposed addition will reduce the PD approved rear yard setback from 18
feet to 13 feet, it would still comply with the standards in the underlying R -1 district, which
requires a minimum setback of 12 feet for lots with a substandard depth. Otherwise, the
proposed addition complies with all the other setback standards established through the Planned
Development overlay process in 1997.
Because no new windows are proposed along the side of the building, and the addition will
continue the existing low - pitched roof line at 18 feet tall, no adverse effects such as shading or
reduction of privacy would occur on the adjoining side property.
Deck and Hot Tub: According to the Planning Director's
determination in 1997 (referenced on page 2), a spa or hot
tub is not a structure and therefore not subject to setback
requirements for accessory structures. However, if a hot
tub were attached to a deck, it would be subject to the
setbacks for the deck. In this case, the hot tub is tied to the
24" high deck, where AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(c) requires
3' side and rear yard setbacks. While the proposed deck
meets this requirement, the proposed hot tub at the corner
of the property does not comply because it is located along
the rear property line and only 1 '6" from the side property
line.
Tin elk)
Area of proposed addition and deck.
Staffs evaluation of this request finds that the proposed deck is a more effective use of the rear
yard area, because the deck enclosure would provide a safe and useable open space area for the
residents of the property compared to the existing area adjacent to the vehicular backup area and
driveway. The literal enforcement of the 3 -foot side and rear yard setback for the hot tub would
result in the creation of a deck that would not have continuous open space that is useable.
Therefore, the proposed location of the hot tub would provide the most effective use of the open
space in the rear yard.
Noise: Staff's review of the project did not find elements that will create excessive noise
impacts to the side adjacent neighbor at 3237 Garfield. The construction of a deck and hot tub in
the rear yard does not change the use of the rear yard as a recreation area. In addition, the
proposed eight -foot fence surrounding the rear yard would likely screen any potential noise
sources.
Architecture: The subject property and existing structures in the neighborhood are Craftsman
style bungalows. The proposed addition intends to extend the entire rear elevation and roof, and
is in keeping with the Craftsman style appearance of the building. The new building materials
would also match the original materials on the rest of the building. This building is not listed on
the City's Historical Building Study List.
Parking: This property has one parking space located in the side yard next to the driveway,
which was created as a condition of approval during the creation of the PD in 1997. Since the
proposed addition does not create additional bedrooms or increase living density on the property,
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of January 12, 2004 5
parking demand on this property will not change. Also, according to the parking provisions in
AMC § 30 -7.2, no additional parking spaces are required for additions to existing residential
structures.
B. Planned Development Amendment Findings
Findings: Staff believes that the following findings can be made for approval of this Planned
Development Amendment application:
1. The proposed Planned Development Amendment is consistent with the General
Plan, which specifies low - density residential uses for this site, because the project
does not alter the, residential density of the development.
2. The proposed project is compatible with the Planned Development, PD- 97 -01,
because it does not change the use or density of the property nor the intent of
providing affordable home ownership opportunities through the creation of small
subdivisions on older properties with small homes.
3. The Planned Development Amendment would allow for a more effective use of the
site than is possible under the regulations of the Planned Development and the
underlying district with which the Planned Development District is combined,
because it creates a more useable floor plan and rear yard open space for the
residential use without adversely affecting persons or property in the vicinity.
Planned Development Amendment Conclusion: The Planning and Building Director
recommends approval of the Planned Development Amendment to allow the proposed 150
square foot addition and the 190 square foot deck and hot tub. If approved, the project would
enhance the property by allowing the interior floor plan and rear yard to be more useable than the
existing. Approval of the PDA would also maintain consistency with the intent of the original
PD approval of providing affordable home ownership on older, smaller properties in Alameda.
C. Design Review Findings
Findings: Staff believes that the following findings can be made for approval of this Design
Review application:
1. The project will have no adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity.
This finding can be made because the project is an attempt to improve the use of space on
the property. Keeping the existing low - pitched roofline is a measure to avoid shading
impacts on adjoining properties. The proposal to restore the side and rear fence will also
provide additional privacy for adjacent neighbors. Therefore, the project will have
minimal adverse effects on persons or property if it complies with all conditions upon
which approval is made contingent.
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of January 12, 2004 6
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of
surrounding properties.
This finding can be made because the design of the addition utilizes architectural
elements that are in keeping with the original style and appearance of the building. Since
the neighborhood consists of buildings belonging to the same style, the project is
preserving a building that is compatible and harmonious with the surrounding neighbors.
3. The 'project will be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines.
This finding can be made because the project will improve the existing residential use on
the property, and it preserves the character of the neighborhood as recommended in the
City's Design Review Guidelines.
Design Review Conclusion: The Planning and Building Director recommends approval of the
Major Design Review because all Design Review findings can be made and the project meets the
City's Design Review criteria for approval.
V. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Building Director recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing,
consider all pertinent testimony and information, and then act to approve Planned Development
• Amendment no.: PDA03 -0096 and Major Design Review no.: DR03 -0096 at 3241 Garfield
Avenue, based upon the findings contained in the attached Draft Resolution.
G:\PLANNING\PB\REPORTS \2004 \January 12\ 88Garfield3241 _PDA03- 0006rpt.doc
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of January 12, 2004
7
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT
APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PDA03 -0006 AND MAJOR DESIGN
REVIEW DR03 -0096 TO ALLOW A 150 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE -STORY ADDITION, DECK
AND HOT TUB AT THE REAR OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN A R -1 PD, ONE
FAMILY RESIDENCE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AT 3241 GARFIELD AVENUE.
WHEREAS, an application was made on August 1, 2003, by Thomas Means, Inc. for
Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett, requesting a Planned Development Amendment and Major
Design Review to construct a single -story addition and deck at the rear of an existing single family
residence at 3241 Garfield Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on September 1, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Low - Density Residential on the General
Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R -1 PD, One Family Residence Planned
Development District; and
WHEREAS, additions to residential structures that are greater than eighty (80) square feet
requires Major Design Review pursuant to AMC Subsection 30 -37.2 (a); and
WHEREAS, a Planned Development Amendment is required for additions to the building,
pursuant to Condition #3 of Planning Board Resolution PB -97 -38 that created the Planned
Development overlay on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on January 12, 2004
and has made the following findings relevant to the Planned Development Amendment:
1. The proposed Planned Development Amendment is consistent with the General
Plan, which specifies low- density residential uses for this site, because the project
does not alter the residential density of the development.
The proposed project is compatible with the Planned Development, PD- 97 -01,
because it does not change the use or density of the property nor the intent of
providing affordable home ownership opportunities through the creation of small
subdivisions on older properties with small homes.
3. The Planned Development Amendment would allow for a more effective use of the
site than is possible under the regulations of the Planned Development and the
underlying district with which the Planned Development District is combined,
because it creates a more useable floor plan and rear yard open space for the
residential use without adversely affecting persons or property in the vicinity.
1
Attachment #1
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on January 12, 2004
• and has made the following findings relevant to the Major Design Review application:
1. The project will have no adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity.
This finding can be made because the project is an attempt to improve the use of space on the
property. Keeping the existing low - pitched roofline is a measure to avoid shading impacts on
adjoining properties. The proposal to restore the side and rear fence will also provide
additional privacy for adjacent neighbors. Therefore, the project will have minimal adverse
effects on persons or property if it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made
contingent.
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of surrounding
properties.
This finding can be made because the design of the addition utilizes architectural elements
that are in keeping with the original style and appearance of the building. Since the
neighborhood consists of buildings belonging to the same style, the project is preserving a
building that is compatible and harmonious with the surrounding neighbors.
3. The project will be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines.
This finding can be made because the project will improve the existing residential use on the
property, and it preserves the character of the neighborhood as recommended in the City's
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
Guidelines, Section 15301 — Existing Facilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby
approves Planned Development Amendment no.: PDA03 -0006 and Major Design Review DR03-
0096 to construct a single -story addition and deck at the rear of an existing single family residence at
3241 Garfield Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. The plans submitted for the Building Permit shall be in substantial compliance with the plans
prepared by Thomas Means, Inc., dated October 15, 2003 consisting of four (4) sheets,
marked "Exhibit A ", on file in the office of the Planning and Building Department.
2. This property at 3241 Garfield shall confonn to the following setbacks:
a. Minimum one foot six inch (1'6 ") side yard setback along the left side of the property.
b. Minimum twenty -one foot (21') side yard setback along the right side of the property.
c. Minimum twelve -foot (12') rear yard setback.
d. Minimum eleven -foot (11') front yard setback.
e. Minimum three -foot (3') side and rear yard setbacks for a 24" high deck.
f. The hot tub shall observe a minimum setback of one -foot six - inches (1'6 ") along the left
property line and none along the rear property line.
g. Standards not specified in the Planned Development overlay or this Planned Development
Amendment shall be the standards specified in the underlying R -1 Zoning District.
3. Alterations to the property, which involve the addition of living space or building expansion,
shall be subject to a Planned Development Amendment approval.
4. The maximum height for this building shall be'eighteen feet (18').
5. The addition shall not exceed 150 square feet in size, and the deck shall not exceed 190
square feet in size. The maximum height of the deck shall not exceed twenty -four inches
(24 "), measured from grade to the top of the platform.
6. The existing attic loft space shall be limited to unconditioned space for storage only.
7. The parking space along the right side of the house and next to the driveway shall be
maintained and used for the parking of one full sized vehicle.
8. Noise generated from the hot tub or spa equipment may not exceed provisions specified in
Noise Regulations of the Alameda Municipal Code.
9. All Time and Material charges. shall be paid in full prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
10. The property owner shall request a Final Site Inspection by Planning Staff prior to Final
Building Inspection. The applicant shall request the inspection two (2) business days in
advance.
11. Pursuant to Section 30- 84.12, of the Alameda Municipal Code, new construction must not
cause storm runoff to be diverted to any adjacent parcel. Please provide spot elevations or
show directional arrows on Final Plans to verify that stonn runoff will be properly channeled
to Garfield Avenue (i.e. City right -of -way). Storm runoff may not be tied to the sanitary
sewer system.
12. VESTING. The Planned Development Amendment approval shall expire one (1) year after
the date of approval or by January 12, 2005, and the Major Design Review approval shall
expire six (6) months after the date of approval or by July 12, 2004, unless all of the above
conditions have been met to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director prior to the
date of expiration or, alternatively, an extension request is filed and approved by the Planning
Board prior to the date of expiration.
13. HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this Use Permit
approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or
annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property, which action is brought within
the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Alameda
3
shall cooperate 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 the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant
shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, -or hold harmless the City.
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all
of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with
full awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in
order for this approval to be exercised.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this
decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
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.
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 filing with the Planning and Building Department
a written notice of appeal stating the basis of appeal and paying the required fees.
G: \PLANNING\PB \RESO \2004\ 88Garfield3241 PDA03- 0006RESO.doc
4
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING 3OkRD
RESOLUTION NO. _•3 -77 -33
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD Or THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APPROVING
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD -97 -1, AT 3241/3243 GARFIELD'AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application was made on February 10, 1997, by
Dennis and Natalie Fay requesting a Rezoning, R -97 -2, to change the
zoning classification of one parcel, from a R -1, (One Family
Residence) Zoning D= Strict to a R-1-PD, (One Family Residence
Planned Development) Zoning District. classification, which would
allow special development standards for the property to allow the
division of a 6,900 square foot lot into two parcels, each with an
existing, detached, single family dwelling unit; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on March 10,
1997; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Medium Density
Residential on the General Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R -1, One Family
Residence Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have made an application to rezone the
property from R -1, One Family Residence District to R -1 -PD, One
Family Residence Planned Development District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommended that the City Council
approve the requested rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the approved Planned Development shall constitute the
Preliminary Plan for the lot division pursuant to Alameda Municipal
Code, Subsection 30- 77.1(b); and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on this application
on May 12, 1997, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and
documents; and
WHEREAS, the Board has made the following findings relative to
the Planned Development application:
A Planned Development overlay is allowed under section 30-
4.13(c)(2) permits these overlays in cases where a parcel
contains "...unique historical or architectural character...
requiring special treatment or protection," and the buildings
at 3241/3243 Garfield Avenue consist of architectural
characteristics worthy of special treatment or protection.
Attachment #2
2. The proposed Planned Development would nom a"=-- . he dens_
standards of the ne ghborhood which is located in
Density Genera_ Plan Classifi cat_`_. because :he rote- =c
fully developed.
3. The Planned Development is a more effective use of the site
than is possible under the regulations for the district with
which the Planned Development District will be combined
because it provides the opportunity to create a small
subdivision which is already deveioped•with two small older
homes and provide affordable home ownership opportunities
particularly for first time buyers, without changing the
architectural character or scale of the neighborhood.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City
of Alameda determines that the project is Categorically Exempt from
CEQA, Guidelines, section 15305 - Minor Alterations to Land Use
Limitations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of
Alameda hereby approves Planned Development, PD -97 -1, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The Planned - Development approval shall not be in force and
effect unless and until the City Council has approved the
Rezoning of the property from R -1 to R -1 -PD and the rezoning
is in effect.
2. The approved development standards for the property shall be
as shown on the plans titled "Preliminary Plan, 3241 & 3243
Garfield Avenue ", prepared by DPA. Inc, for Dennis Fay, dated
'February 4, 1997, and marked "Exhibit A" on file in the
offices of the City of Alameda Planning Department.
3. Alterations to the property which involve the addition of
living space or building expansion shall be subject to a
Planned Development Amendment approval. Standards not
specified by the Planned Development overlay shall be the
standards specified in the underlying R -1 Zoning District.
' 4. The applicants shall install a parking space at the north /east
corner of the front residence and the driveway, approximately
twenty -seven feet behind the front property line. The design
of this parking space shall be to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director. This would require approval under a Minor
Design Review application process, including landscaping to
the satisfaction of the Planning. Director.
5. The existing garage shall be maintained and used for the
parking of two full sized vehicles.
2
6. In the event of the destruction or demolition of e. ''_e'"
res_d..ce a: 7,241 3243 Avenue prior
recordation of the Parcel Map im^'emer n^ the
:his Planned Development shall be null and void.
7 T_ ^-°_ following shall be shown on the Parcel Map submitted for
the lot split:
a. Provide an access easement contingent with the existing
driveway for ingress and egress by both 3241 and 3243
Ga- ;Ala
b. Utility easements shall be required for underground gas,
water, and sewer lines and the overhead electric,
telephone, and cable television lines which cross 3241
Garfield and serve 3243 Garfield.
8. A condition of the Parcel Map shall require the preparation
and recordation of a maintenance and repair agreement for the
driveway to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the
Planning Director.
9. Prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map the applicants
shall install all required improvements or enter into a
performance agreement, with financial security, to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director. These improvements are
outlined in condition #4, and as follows:
a Reconstruct part of the sanitary sewer lines and
separate clean -outs for each line.
b.
c.
install
Cable television lines which are attached to 3241
Garfield shall be relocated overhead
underground.
Utility meters shall require
they serve.
relocation
or
placed
to the property
10. The Planned Development shall terminate one (1) year from May
12, 1997, unless actual construction or alteration under valid
permits has begun and the Parcel Map is recorded. The
applicants may apply for up to a one (1) year extension prior
to the expiration of the period within which the Planned
Development must be exercised. The time required to approve
the Parcel Map on the Planned Development shall extend the
time to begin construction if the Parcel Map is filed within
one (1) year.
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 paying
the required fee.
3
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure Sec:ion 1094.5 may
more than ninety (90) days following the date of _! ec' s_on
is d �� :..
final action on any appeals plus extensions authorized~
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Board of the City
Alameda on the 12th day of May, 1997 by the following vote:
AYES: (6)
NOES: (1)
ABSENT: (0)
G:\PB\RES0\4PD9701
file: PD- 97- 1/R- 97- 2/PP -97 -2
Fee, Gilmore, =ottstein, :arris, Rossi,
Thomas
Johnson
ATTEST:
4
L2t.2--
Colette Meunier, Secretary
City Planning Board
"'d
7
N
In '1'
(v/
1-9 1,1
In
ui
.4! •1.1
6 d
6'7 0
<E
E- L
ILv.•
••••7'1
• )11 \T:
let D
C11
=
.r.
.c,
IA.
17, ...,
,
:c•
v .4.1
4. kJ
4
...,-,W
r:
I
L.I .•
- L
it
d: •
1\!:!;:•11\r-.'
, : • .j.„
,..
L=I LJ
Li
< 0
LI.
L.1
LI
LJ
I-0
1
<
<
0
I-
I—
I '1
-I.
'";
Id
:. " - IF
LI I-
.
f-;
0
X 0
LJIJ
4.1
LT'lirlr F.DDM
4. r
L .
BEDROOM R2
1!
0
I— 0
9
1
; i•
1
L1.:Iri Foots
0
.•=--- ----1 0
.I,
II. LI
ui
: rsl
I
0
0
9
.0-,01. .1 ,37V3S
1.09113S03
01-10 3alh
r. I
V1]1'1\'!\/
I I -J.1:tIC)::1 V!.1.;1■!:, ftIN:,:v 1
'3AV 0 13138VD
'
.0111-0 0 011n3 1.113
.;' dldiS 2ii1i,1tcl
>113MS ,l1I3 ;
1
1031.13SV3 r'
61VM mr,
/-
AVA3A1811 , 4
1110-1c0 EINVHS
(S213AVd) ;
33V4S
1 91,111,120d 1
133010-.40 1
IDNI1SIf3
49-,02
111118,11.00J J. 00U
'3AV 11131ANV9 162£
(-
1 ••
330d0
lAV83
1
331/dS
1,11213
T----3SV3
3310,101S
33040 310011000
1111/1- 01140
3014:1010 31110 00
••
09C
330d0
111V03
L
06111000 90 001 A30
01330 j'S 061 A30
000 313634013
90110103
NO,,0111 1011
-1;
1.3AV 0131JaVO CV2E
>I33G
INI11d1103d
9N1,9130H913N
S01IA3Nd 3301d30 01
3313J -1101 ,0 630
•■
AWA3Areffl . „
17VHdSV ; 33N3_1 000/A 31NIV,i
7-10i .40/1 LS ONI_LSIX3
301MV9
.0-,09
▪ r 1; :ijrI 'D
p • . ';
cr,
ciir
• 6 6
L.1 111 11]1d071 .IVf] 9 3:-.)t-EldMV1
"?'
11.1 < /LI <
R]
• :
•
CO
Id
L
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. PB -04 -09
APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PDA03 -0006 AND MAJOR DESIGN
REVIEW DR03 -0096 TO ALLOW A 150 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE -STORY ADDITION, DECK
AND HOT TUB AT THE REAR OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN A R -1 PD, ONE
FAMILY RESIDENCE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AT 3241 GARFIELD AVENUE.
WHEREAS, an application was made on August 1, 2003, by Thomas Means, Inc. for
Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett, requesting a Planned Development Amendment and Major
Design Review to construct a single -story addition and deck at the rear of an existing single family
residence at 3241 Garfield Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on September 1, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Low - Density Residential on the General
Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R -1 PD, One Family Residence Planned
Development District; and
WHEREAS, additions to residential structures that are greater than eighty (80) square feet
requires Major Design Review pursuant to AMC Subsection 30 -37.2 (a); and
WHEREAS, a Planned Development Amendment is required for additions to the building,
pursuant to Condition #3 of Planning Board Resolution PB -97 -38 that created the Planned
Development overlay on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on January 12, 2004
and has made the following findings relevant to the Planned Development Amendment:
1. The proposed Planned Development Amendment is consistent with the General
Plan, which specifies low- density residential uses for this site, because the project
does not alter the residential density of the development.
2. The proposed project is compatible with the Planned Development, PD- 97 -01,
because it does not change the use or density of the property nor the intent of
providing affordable home ownership opportunities through the creation of small
subdivisions on older properties with small homes. The proposed addition also
complies with provisions in the underlying R -1 District, and the findings pursuant to
Subsection 30 -5.7 (k) & (1) can be made.
3. The Planned Development Amendment would allow for a more effective use of the
site than is possible under the regulations of the Planned Development and the
underlying district with which the Planned Development District is combined,
1
Attachment #2
because it creates a more usable floor plan and rear yard open space for the
residential use without adversely affecting persons or property in the vicinity.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on January 12, 2004
and has made the following findings relevant to the Major Design Review application:
1. The project will have no adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity.
This finding can be made because the project is an attempt to improve the use of space on the
property. Keeping the existing low- pitched roofline is a measure to avoid shading impacts on
adjoining properties. The proposed addition also complies with provisions in the underlying
R -1 District, and the findings pursuant to Subsection 30 -5.7 (k) & (1) can be made. Therefore,
the project will have minimal adverse effects on persons or property if it complies with all
conditions upon which approval is made contingent.
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of surrounding
properties.
This finding can be made because the design of the addition utilizes architectural elements
that are in keeping with the original style and appearance of the building. Since the
neighborhood consists of buildings belonging to the same style, the project is preserving a
building that is compatible and harmonious with the surrounding neighbors.
3. The project will be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines.
This finding can be made because the project will improve the existing residential use on the
property, and it preserves the character of the neighborhood as recommended in the City's
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
Guidelines, Section 15301 — Existing Facilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby
approves Planned Development Amendment no.: PDA03 -0006 and Major Design Review DRO3-
0096 to construct a single -story addition and deck at the rear of an existing single family residence at
3241 Garfield Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. The plans submitted for the Building Permit shall be in substantial compliance with the plans
prepared by Thomas Means, Inc., dated October 15, 2003 consisting of four (4) sheets,
marked "Exhibit A ", on file in the office of the Planning and Building Department.
2. This property at 3241 Garfield shall conform to the following setbacks:
a. Minimum one foot six inch (1'6 ") side yard setback along the left side of the property.
b. Minimum twenty -one foot (21') side yard setback along the right side of the property.
c. Minimum twelve -foot (12') rear yard setback.
d. Minimum eleven -foot (11') front yard setback.
2
e. Decks and decks with hot tubs shall conform to setback standards specified in AMC
Subsection 30- 5.7(c) Decks. The maximum height of the deck shall not exceed twenty -
four inches (24 "), measured from grade to the platform surface.
f. Standards not specified in the Planned Development overlay or this Planned Development
Amendment shall be the standards specified in the underlying R -1 Zoning District.
3. Alterations to the property, which involve the addition of living space or building expansion,
shall be subject to a Planned Development Amendment approval.
4. The maximum height for this building shall be eighteen feet (18').
5. The addition shall not exceed 150 square feet in size, and the deck shall not exceed 190
square feet in size.
6. The existing attic loft space shall be limited to unconditioned space for storage only.
7. The parking space along the right side of the house and next to the driveway shall be
maintained and used for the parking of one full sized vehicle.
8. The hot tub /spa shall be located such that the all noise emitting motors and mechanical
devices are directed away from the adjacent properties. Noise generated from the hot tub or
spa equipment may not exceed provisions specified in Noise Regulations of the Alameda
Municipal Code.
9. The maximum height of fences in the rear yard of the property shall not exceed six (6) feet
total, measured from grade to the top of the fence. Fences may be up to four feet tall solid,
and fences above four feet in height shall be lattice material or similar 50% see - through style
fencing on the top one or two feet.
10. A screened area shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director,
along the East (right) side of the existing front porch for the location of trash receptacles.
This said area shall not obstruct access to the existing parking space located on that same side
of the house.
11. All Time and Material charges shall be paid in full prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
12. The property owner shall request a Final Site Inspection by Planning Staff prior to Final
Building Inspection. The applicant shall request the inspection two (2) business days in
advance.
13. Pursuant to Section 30- 84.12, of the Alameda Municipal Code, new construction must not
cause storm runoff to be diverted to any adjacent parcel. Please provide spot elevations or
show directional arrows on Final Plans to verify that storm nmoff will be properly channeled
to Garfield Avenue (i.e. City right -of -way). Storm runoff may not be tied to the sanitary
sewer system.
3
14. VESTING. The Planned Development Amendment approval shall expire one (1) year after
the date of approval or by January 12, 2005, and the Major Design Review approval shall
expire six (6) months after the date of approval or by July 12, 2004, unless all of the above
conditions have been met to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director prior to the
date of expiration or, alternatively, an extension request is filed and approved by the Planning
Board prior to the date of expiration.
15. HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the
applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against
the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval
of the City concerning the subject property, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Alameda shall cooperate
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 the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter
be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
16. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all
of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with
full awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in
order for this approval to be exercised.
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 plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
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.
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 filing with the Planning and Building Department
a written notice of appeal stating the basis of appeal and paying the required fees.
4
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of January, 2004 by the Planning Board of the
City of Alameda by the following vote:
AYES: (5) Bard, Cook, Cunningham, Lynch, Piziali
NOES: (0)
ABSENT: (1) Mariani
ATTEST:
G
eg Fuz, Secretary_,
City Planning Board
Acknowledgment of Conditions:
I hereby acknowledge receipt of Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -09 for, the Planning Board's
approval of Planned Development Amendment /Design Review, PDA03- 0006/DR03 -0096, approved on
January 12, 2004, and in accordance with Conditions herein, I hereby verify that I understand and agree to
comply with the Conditions of Approval of said Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -09 and the
applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance).
Executed at: By:
City Applicant
On:
Date Title
APPLICANT MUST FILL OUT AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT.
G:\PLANNING\PB \RESO \2004 \88Garfield3241 PDA03- 0006RESOrevised.doc
5
8 -B. PDA03- 0006 /DR03 -0096 — Lawrence Henderson /Susan Corlett — 3241
Garfield Avenue (AT). Applicants request a Planned Development Amendment
and M ajor D esign R eview a pproval t o a llow t he c onstruction o f a 150 square
foot single -story addition and a 190 square foot deck with hot tub, approximately
24- inches high, in the rear yard. The 18 -foot height of the building will remain
unchanged. The project is located within the R -1 /PD, One - Family
Residence/Planned Development Zoning District.
Mr. Tai p resented the s taff r eport. H e noted t hat d ecks under 3 0 inches i n h eight and
stand -alone hot tubs do not generally require Design Review or building permits. While
the deck met the three -foot side and rear yard setbacks, the proposed hot tub maintains 1'
6" along the side, and none along the rear. Staff recommended approval of the Planned
Development Amendment and Major Design Review with conditions.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Elaine Leadlove - Plant, Leadlove -Plant Law Office, 909 Marina Village Parkway,
#339, attorney representing Ayala Lonzisero and Tony Vesta, owners of the property at
3237 Garfield Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that this property
would be most impacted by the project. As a result of the May 1997 resolution, her
clients understood that as the lot division created two substandard lots, there would be no
further development on those lots would be permitted. The density for the neighborhood
had been reached with the lot split. She believed that the light and air along the length of
the LonziseroNesta property would be reduced by the project. Her clients did not object
to the deck, but did object to the noise impacts that the hot tub and its use would produce.
Ms. Leadlove -Plant noted that while the proposed renovations to the applicants' property
were well within their rights as homeowners, her clients believed they could be
accomplished within the extension of the rear portion of the property. There had previous
been an accessory building on the property that was used for laundry and storage, and she
believed that building could be replaced. In reviewing the footprint of the house, it would
appear that there were other areas where expansion could occur. She noted that the plan
contained an error concerning the driveway, and stated that to the left of the house, it
showed a driveway extending to the rear. She noted that the driveway did, not extend all
the way back. Her clients were concerned that the project would reduce the value of their
property. Because her clients believed that other avenues were available to improve the
property, they requested that the application be denied, and that the intent and terms of
the May 1997 resolution remain in force.
Ms. Ayala Lonzisero, 3237 Garfield Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She
believed that this project would negatively impact their property and quality of life. She
believed that the structures would further reduce the light in a dark area of their home.
She noted that there was less than 10 feet between their homes, and that their view,
privacy and feeling of open space would be drastically reduced. She noted that the
increased proximity to their house and the reduced air flow would leave them vulnerable
Planning Board Minutes
January 12, 2004
Attachment #3
to mold and mildew, requiring more maintenance. The hot tub itself and planned
entertainment would increase the noise level, particularly after they retire for the night.
She believed that the smell of chlorine and other chemicals would intrude on the
enjoyment of their property. They had agreed to the May 1997 planned development
based on the understanding that the properties were fully developed.
Ms. Thea Mixon, 3243 Garfield Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that
she lived directly behind the subject property. She submitted pictures of her property, and
noted that she had no space behind or beside her home. She was concerned that the
addition would further reduce the space and privacy between the houses. She believed the
noise of the hot tub and its users would be unreasonable, and believed this was an
inappropriate location to place a hot tub.
Mr. Tony Vesta, 818 E. Angela Street, Pleasanton, noted that as Ms. Lonzisero's ex-
husband, he was half -owner in the property at 3237 Garfield Avenue. He spoke in
opposition to this item, and agreed with her statements. He noted that the morning sun
would be blocked by the eight -foot fence, and believed that the property's value would be
negatively impacted by the addition. He noted that the air circulation would be greatly
reduced by the fence. He expressed concern about the potential of mold and mildew
development between the homes.
Mr. L awrence H enderson, applicant, 3241 Garfield Avenue, noted that they w ished to
have their laundry inside the housed, rather than in an exterior shed. They would like to
have a s afe, p rivate r ecreation area w here t hey would n of i nfringe o n t heir n eighbors'
privacy, and he believed the fence would provide that privacy. He noted that the addition
would allow them to invite people for dinner without rearranging the furniture inside the
dining area. They intended to keep the Craftsman style of the house, and the roof line
would stay the same. He believed the appearance of the back area of the house would be
improved.
Mr. Henderson w ished to address his neighbors' concerns, and noted that the addition
would not cover the neighbors' bedroom windows at all. He noted that his architect
would display the shading impacts. With respect to noise, he noted that the back yard was
their normal recreation area. They had not received any complaints in the four years of
owning the home, and did not expect to have any in the future. He noted that they would
not increase the density of the house; and that the number of bedrooms would remain the
same. They hoped to increase the usability of their house. He believed the addition would
improve the appearance of the house, and that the shed was removed because of termites
and rot. He believed the addition would increase their privacy, and the privacy of their
neighbors.
Ms. S usan Corlett, applicant, 3 241 Garfield A venue, noted t hat the project would add
five feet to their house, which she did not believe to be significant. She noted that it
would significantly improve the usability of their very small house. She noted that it
would be a major benefit to have an indoor laundry facility. She believed it would
dramatically increase their home's appearance and would increase its value, which would
Planning Board Minutes Page 12
January 12, 2004
also increase the value of the neighboring houses. She noted that they intended to build a
waist -high lattice fence with planting to hide the garbage cans on their property.
Mr. Derek Pavlik, Thomas Means Design & Construction, project architect/builder, 1412
Park Avenue, noted that the project was spurred by the removal of the shed. He noted that
the neighbors' suggestion that the addition could be located elsewhere on the property
was not feasible. He noted that they were up against the front yard setback, and that the
side yard was effectively used up by the one off - street parking space. With respect to the
density concern, they could build a 149 square foot shed on the property without Design
Review, as long as the setbacks were obeyed. He noted that he did a light study in the
middle of winter, and stated that the addition would be of most concern during that time.
During the rest of the year, the ridge would be of concern, and the neighbors' trees would
also create a canopy of shade from spring to fall. He noted that the 5- foot -4 -inch addition
did not overlap the neighbors' bedroom, and did not break up any sight lines to the
morning sun.
Mr. Pavlik noted that modern hot tubs could be 'fitted with a chlorine -less filter system,
and believed that the car traffic in the driveway would be far more intrusive than a
chlorine -less hot tub. He requested that the Planning Board approve the item, and enable
the applicants to exercise their property rights.
Mr. David Harding, 3245 Garfield Avenue, spoke in support of this item. He noted that
the applicants had been very considerate and reasonable in their discussions with the
neighbors. He noted that the applicants had very limited space, and that they were
attempting to make the best, most reasonable use of that space. He believed the project
would improve the appearance of their house from the side and back, and believed that
improvement would increase the surrounding property values.
Mr. Joseph Baca, 3233 Garfield Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that
he originally opposed the division of the lot in 1997, and added that the City set
precedent for the rest of Alameda by splitting the lot. He supported affordable housing,
but believed that the City Council's adamant support of affordable housing led to the
infill housing on this lot. He urged the applicants to explore other options, and noted that
they had a very large front porch. He suggested that the floor plan may be moved
forward, and was not sure that adding another structure in the back of the house was a
wise move.
Ms. Dana Baca, 3233 Garfield Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that
her husband had made the salient points, and agreed with his assessment.
The public hearing for closed for Board discussion.
In response to Mr. Lynch's question, Ms. Harryman noted that the relevant portion of the
1997 resolution was on page 2, Item 3, which stated:
Planning Board Minutes Page 13
January 12, 2004
"Alterations to the property which involve the addition of living space or building
expansion shall be subject to a Planned Development Amendment approval.
Standards not specified by the Planned Development overlay shall be the
standards specified in the underlying R -1 Zoning District."
Ms. Harryman noted that staff did a good job in crystallizing the issues in the Planned
Development Amendment, and added that this item was properly before the Board for a
PDA. She confirmed that the resolution anticipated this possibility, and detailed the
mechanism in the event someone wanted to build an expansion.
Mr. Cunningham noted that the subject property was defined in the resolution as a
Medium Density Residential on the General Plan diagram. In addition, page 2, Item 2,
stated that, "The proposed Planned Development would not affect the density standards
of the neighborhood which is located in the Low Density General Plan Classification
because the property is fully developed."
In response to Mr. Cunningham's question, Mr. Tai advised that the correct General Plan
designation for that property is Low Density Residential. The Low Density designation
allows for a number of single family uses, and a certain number of bedrooms were
specified; he could research that number and follow up with the Planning Board.
Ms. Cook understood the neighbors' perspective, and believed that the size of the
addition was very reasonable. She generally opposed hot tubs on the property line
because of the noise potential. She noted that if the fence height was a concern to the
neighbors, that may be an area of possible compromise. She added that an eight -foot
fence would provide privacy from a second floor deck.
Vice President Bard agreed with Ms. Cook's assessment. He was not concerned about the
five feet of addition in the rear yard, because it was completely compliant with the R -1
overlay. He inquired why a two -foot deck was necessary in the yard, and would rather
see a six -foot fence with a trellis and no deck. He believed that the two -foot deck was
driving some of the other issues that were of concern. He expressed some concern about
the hot tub, and believed that it could be relocated further away from the property line.
He suggested that some planting and a different use of the space in the corner could
mitigate the neighbors' concerns. He noted that placing the motor for the hot tub away
from the property line would help reduce noise impacts.
Mr. Cunningham inquired whether there was a space set aside for the trashcans. He
suggested softening the fence with landscaping.
In response to Vice President Bard's question about the two -foot deck, Mr. Tai replied
that it was intended to level it with the existing entrances of the back door. He had
suggested lowering it to one foot, where the setback requirements would not be in force.
President Piziali noted that those were valid concerns, and added that a tradeoff with the
neighbors should be considered. He noted that Alameda's residents lived in an urban
Planning Board Minutes
January 12, 2004
Page 14
environment, and that extra effort was necessary to adapt. He did not believe that
property values in Alameda would go down. He believed that the room addition
improved the look and functionality of the house. He believed that an outdoor barbecue
could generate as much noise as a hot tub, and added that courtesy towards neighbors was
a necessity in an urban environment. He agreed with Vice President Bard's suggestion of
lowering the deck and the fence.
In response to an inquiry by President Piziali, Mr. Pavlik noted that the hot tub would be
self - contained. The storage closet was intended to reclaim the storage capabilities of the
now- demolished shed. He noted that the hot tub was an electric unit.
Mr. Lynch noted that there were pros and cons with respect to hot tubs, and generally
deferred to staff's recommendations. He noted that the deck was a nice architecture
feature, but was not wedded to a two -foot deck.
Mr. Lynch supported a solution for the location of the six garbage cans.
In r esponse to an i nquiry by P resident P iziali, Mr. T ai r eplied t hat the 1 ocation o f t he
parking spot on the side of the house was closer to the centerline of the house. He noted
that the garbage cans could be accommodated in the side yard.
In response to an inquiry by President Piziali, Mr. Pavlik noted that the deck was
intended to prevent tracking dirt into the house. He noted that they were not wedded to
the two -foot height of the deck.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Mr. Pavlik noted that if the deck were lowered,
they could lower the fence. He noted that the fence provided two -way privacy.
Mr. Cunningham suggested that the fence be reduced to six feet high.
Ms. Christina Lonzisero, 3237 Garfield Avenue, wished to address an earlier inaccurate
statement about the view corridor from the bedroom. She noted that there were two
bedrooms on the side of the house at 3237 Garfield Avenue, and that the bedroom not
addressed by the architect would be impacted by the five -foot addition.
Mr. Tai advised that when the hot tub was attached to the deck, it should meet the setback
requirements for the deck. A two -foot deck should have a three -foot side and rear yard
setback. A one -foot high deck had no setback requirement.
M/S Bard/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -09 to
approve a Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review approval to
allow the construction of a 150 square foot single -story addition and a 190 square foot
deck with hot tub, approximately 24- inches high, in the rear yard. The 18 -foot height of
the building will remain unchanged. The following modifications would be included:
Planning Board Minutes Page 15
January 12, 2004
1. The 5- foot -4 -inch addition to the house would be approved, primarily
because it was Code - compliant with the R -1 Zoning requirements in
terms of setbacks and that the finding pursuant to AMC subsection 30-
5.7 (k) & (1) can be made.
2. The fence height along the western property line would be reduced to a
total of six feet, with five feet of solid fence and one foot of lattice or
four feet of solid fence and two feet of lattice.
3. The deck shall not exceed two -feet tall, and the setbacks for the deck
and hot tub shall conform to requirements of the Alameda Municipal
Code. The hot tub installation should be made with the motor located
away from adjoining properties.
4. A screened area for trash receptacles next to the front porch on the
driveway side.
AYES — 5 (Marian absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0
President Piziali called for a ten - minute recess.
9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10. BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee
APAC (Vice President Bard).
Vice President Bard advised that there had been no meeting in December, and that the
next meeting would be held on January 21, 2004.
b. Oral Status Report regarding the Downtown Vision Taskforce (Board
Member Cunningham).
Mr. Cunningham advised that at the meeting in the beginning of January, they reviewed
the top ten items to be included for the Downtown Vision. They came to no
determination at that meeting, and that the February meeting would address each
member's top five items.
c. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Board
Member Cook).
Ms. Cook advised that there had been no meeting since her last report.
Planning Board Minutes Page 16
January 12, 2004
i
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 of the
(Planning Director /Zoning
Board)
AdministratoPlanning Board /Historical Advisory
which granted
(Denied /Granted /Established Conditions)
PDA03 -0006 at 3241 Garfield Avenue
(Application Number) (Street Address)
Design Review Use Permit
Subdivision Map Rezoning
x Planned Development /Amendment
on January 12. 2004
(Specify Date)
The basis of the appeal is:
See attached statement.
for
for a
Variance
Plannned Development
Other
(Specify)
(If more space is needed, continue on the reverse side or attach additional
sheets.)
(Name) Ayala Lonzisero
3237 Garfield Avenue
and Tony Vesta
(Address)
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 749 -5899
(City /State)
(510) 865 -0863
Thea Mixon
3243 Garfield Avenue
(Telephone - Work) (510) 444 -3322.
(Telephone - Home) (510) 337 -0991
************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
(For Office Use Only)
Received By:
Receipt No.:
G: \PLANNING \FORMS \APPEAL01.WPD
Date Received Stamp
RECEIVED
JAN Z 7 2004
RICRIvirr CENTeR
LAt DA CA 945C
Attachment #4
Petition for Appeal
Planning Board Decision re: PDA03 -0006
January 12, 2004
The basis of the appeal is:
Appellants Ayala Lonzisero and Tony Vesta at 3237 Garfield Avenue did not receive the
required mailed Notice of Public Hearing (nor did their immediate neighbors, Joe and Dana
Baca at 3233 Garfield Avenue), which resulted in insufficient time to meet with their counsel
and prepare their presentation for timely submission to the Planning Board. Only when
Mr. Baca observed the hearing notice attached to a utility pole were they made aware of the
hearing. Ayala Lonzisero then obtained a copy of the notice from the Planning Department
on December 31, 2003. As a result of being unable to submit their written materials for
delivery to Board members prior to the hearing, they do not believe their objections were
given serious and due consideration.
In addition, the Planning Board meeting was conducted in such a manner as to preclude
correcting any misinformation or addressing pertinent points that had arisen during the
meeting. Consequently, appellants are also requesting this appeal to correct misinformation
and/or assumptions we believe the Planning Board to have been laboring under in making
their decision.
RECHVED
JAN Z 2 2004
PERMIT CENTER
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
LEADLOYE&PLANTLAW OFFICE
909 Marina Village Parkway, PMB 339, Alameda, CA 94501
Telephone : 510 - 523 -4586
e -mail: LeadloveLaw @earthlink.net
January 12, 2004
President Piziali
Vice President Bard
Members of the Planning Board
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara, Room 190
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Proposed Planning Amendment To Planned Resolution No. PB -97 -38
3241 Garfield Avenue
Dear President Piziali and Members of the Board:
I am counsel for Ayala Lonzisero and Tony Vesta, owners of the property located at
3237 Garfield Avenue. I apologize for not presenting our arguments in written format prior to the
inception of this meeting as required by the Notice of Public Hearing. However,
Ms. Lonzisero and Mr. Vesta did not receive a mailed copy of the Notice of Public Hearing as required.
Upon being informed by Mr. Baca, a neighbor who also had not received the notice by mail and had
observed the hearing notice attached to a utility pole, Ms. Lonzisero then obtained a copy of the notice on
Thursday, December 31, 2003 from Planner Allen Tai. Consequently, this resulted in insufficient time to
provide the written response which was required to be submitted by the close of business Monday,
January 5, 2004, pursuant to the terms of that Notice.
The 1997 Planned Resolution No. PB -97 -38 was passed for the purpose of creating two "affordable
housing units." Based upon the City's representations, my clients, like many of the adjoining property
owners, did not object to this Resolution. It was their understanding that the Resolution defined the new
standards for the property and would not be subject to future amendment as the division resulted in
substandard lots. The Resolution adopted in 1997 states that "the proposed Planned Development would
not affect the density standards of the neighborhood which is located in the Low Density Plan
Classification because the property is fully developed." We ask the City to honor and comply with that
Resolution and protect neighboring property owners by abiding by the agreement under which that parcel
was divided and the conditions under which Mr. Henderson and Ms. Corlett purchased the property at
3241 Garfield Avenue.
My clients, Ayala and Tony, as do other neighbors appearing here tonight, understand
Mr. Henderson and Ms. Corlett's desire to improve their property; however, this improvement should not
be to the detriment of the property of others. Furthermore, these homes were intended to be "affordable
housing units." The proposed changes enhance the interior living space by improving the kitchen, adding
a bathroom and laundry room. These types of improvements significantly increase the value of a home.
Further, "affordable housing" does not usually include outdoor decking and hot tubs. Consequently, it
would appear that these improvements are designed more to enhance the future resale value of the
property and the current living environment of the owners than in maintaining it as an "affordable unit."
The property previously had an accessory building which complied with the setback requirements and
was used for laundry and storage. This building has been removed. In maintaining the property as an
"affordable housing unit" while also providing certain amenities, the building could be replaced with a
Planning Board Hearing 3241 Garfield Avenue
Page 1
new accessory building. Further, the safety of the rear recreational area could easily be re- established by
restoring the portion of the side fence which was removed by Mr. Henderson at the time the original
accessory building was demolished. Should Mr. Henderson and Ms. Corlett wish to expand the interior
living space of their home, we believe that other options are available.
My clients cannot support a project that would negatively impact their quality of living and diminish their
property value by making these adjoining properties more congested than they already are. After
reviewing the written responses and hearing everyone concerned and affected by this project, we ask that
if the Board is still considering approval of the project, they delay any decision until the full Board has an
opportunity to visit and inspect the property in order to fully understand the impact this project will have
on neighboring properties. After the review, should the Board decide to approve the project, we request
that as a condition of approval a light and shadow study be conducted.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you
should have additional questions or concerns.
Respectfully,
(Ms) Elaine F.B. Leadlove -Plant
Planning Board Hearing 3241 Garfield Avenue
Page 2
January 11, 2004
President Piziali
Vice President Bard
Members of the Planning Board
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara, Room 190
Alameda, CA 94501
Re: Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review — 3241 Garfield Avenue
Dear President Piziali and Members of the Board:
As homeowners and responsible citizens we did not oppose the 1997 resolution which
subdivided the neighboring property into two substandard lots. We agreed then and we agree
now with the City's goal to create affordable housing whenever the opportunity arises.
However, just as we relied on the City's representations then and made our decision accordingly,
we now expect that the City will continue to honor it's prior commitment both to us and to our
other neighbors that there would be no further development to 3241 Garfield Avenue. We are
here to oppose this project because we feel it will both negatively impact our quality of living
and be detrimental to the property value of neighboring properties.
When I met with the Planner for this project, Allen Tai, on December 31, he went over the
project and explained the reasons Planning was recommending approval of this project. We are
not in agreement with Planning's assessment that this project will not have a negative impact on
neighboring properties. We feel the project will both have a negative impact on our quality of
living and be detrimental to our property value based on the following reasons.
• An increase in building coverage density on a substandard lot, approximately two - thirds
the size of a standard lot, and where there is already crowding and congestion among lots
with minimal lot lines, will make our property less desirable thereby detracting from our
property value. The density of building coverage on all sides, neighboring Garfield lots
and abutting Thompson lots, already results in reduced aesthetics.
• Reduces light on an already dark side of our home and adversely impacts our view
corridor. There is less than ten feet between homes and adding another five feet of
building coverage to the back of the existing structure, which is within one foot six inches
of the property line, even if it is in harmony with the architecture of the neighborhood,
will further reduce the light. Natural light is very important to us. First thing I do upon
waking in the morning is open our blinds. The only rooms that look upon any open space
and skyline on that side of our home are the bathroom and the bedrooms. The view
corridor for one bedroom and our bathroom will be obscured — instead of looking upon
open space, the skyline and morning sunrises, we will have a view of solid wall. Realtors
have advised us natural light is a crucial issue in a home to the majority of people.
Having less natural light will detract from our property value.
President Piziali and Members of the Planning Board
Planned Development Amendment/Major Design Review -- 3241 Garfield Avenue
January 11, 2004
Page 2
• Reduces our privacy, particularly as our bedroom window is less than ten feet from the
proposed deck and hot tub. Privacy is also important to the majority of people investing
in homes and reducing our privacy will detract from our property value.
• Increases shade in our side yard. A five foot -four inch addition with the same eighteen
foot roof line and an eight foot fence will make this area darker, giving it a feeling of
confinement, making it less inviting, and detracting from our property value.
• Increases dampness by interfering with current airflow between existing buildings,
leaving us more vulnerable to mold and mildew and requiring more maintenance.
• Increase in noise from the hot tub itself, from the planned entertainment on the deck, and
from the increase in building coverage area. Due to the close proximity of the homes, we
already hear living noises, particularly after we have gone to bed, such as our neighbors
opening their back door and moving about in their rear yard to take out the trash.
• There will be an odor of chlorine and related chemicals.
• Interferes with our right as property owners to the uiet enjoyment
diminishes our property value. q j yment of our property, which
Site Visit
We believe if the full Board were to have an opportunity to visit the property they would
understand our reasons for believing this proposal will have a negative impact on our quality of
living and be detrimental to our property value.
Should the Board still consider approving the project, we request the following as conditions of
approval: a light and shadow impact study, a noise impact study and an assessment by an
independent realtor to fully evaluate the project's impact on neighboring properties.
Sincerely,
Ayala Lonzisero and Tony Vesta
By: Ayala Lonzisero
3237 Garfield Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
February 25, 2004
Planning Department
Attention: Jerry Cormack and Allen Tai
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190
Alameda, CA 94501
Re: 3241 Garfield Avenue — PDA 03 -0006
Dear Mr. Cormack and Mr. Tai:
This is to clarify our position as discussed at the February 18, 2004 meeting. We are
willing to compromise on a smaller rear addition with a lower roofline, enabling the
applicants to have an indoor laundry facility and additional storage, while reducing the
impact on neighboring properties in terms of crowding, privacy, light and views. In
discussions with architects and Jane Powell, author of several books on
Craftsman/Bungalow style homes, we have been advised an addition less than the width
of the home, with a lower height roofline, will not diminish the architectural integrity of
the applicants' home.
Sincerely,
Ayala Lonzisero
for Ayala Lonzisero and Tony Vesta
3237 Garfield Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
cc: Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett
Thea Mixon
3243 Garfield Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Attachment #5
• •
City of Alameda
Memorandum
March 9, 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 Plaruled Development Amendment and 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 District.
To be continued to the meeting of April 20, 2004.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Board unanimously approved the project on January 12, 2004, and the adjacent side
and rear neighbors subsequently filed an appeal. A request to continue the Council hearing from the
originally scheduled March 2 " hearing date to March 16th was filed by the applicants and appellants
to provide additional time to conduct mediation meetings. However, after three meetings, the
applicants and appellants were unable to reach an agreement on the rear addition portion of the
project and are now willing to proceed with the public hearing process. The applicants and
appellants have requested another continuance to April 20, 2004 so that all parties can be present at
the public hearing.
Mediation meetings:
Planning staff scheduled a meeting on February 12, 2004 for the appellants and applicants to discuss
the project. Two subsequent meetings were held on February 17 and February 25 to resolve issues
and discuss potential alternatives. As a result of these discussions, the applicants have agreed to
remove the deck, hot tub, and fence from their proposal if the proposed rear addition can be
approved. The remaining issue of disagreement is the location and size of the rear addition.
DISCUSSION
Alternatives discussed at the meetings:
Various alternatives for the addition were discussed during the meetings. These alternatives include
the following.
1. Narrowing the addition and lowering the height of the proposed roof
Attachment #6
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
2. Requiring increased yard setbacks for the addition.
3. Relocate the addition to the front of the building.
4. Revising the project to only include a storage shed along the side of the building.
5. Excavation of a partial basement for laundry and storage.
6. Revising the project to only include space necessary for two laundry machines.
7. Reconstruction of the previous 54 sq. ft. laundry shed in the rear yard.
In summary, the applicants noted that their primary need was to replace the laundry and storage
space that the previous shed provided, and the 150 square foot addition would accomplish that goal
while adding the convenience of an interior laundry area and space for storage and a second
bathroom. The appellants suggested that the applicants' needs for laundry and storage areas may be
achieved through a substantially smaller addition and without continuation of the roofline at eighteen
feet tall. However, the discussion of the alternatives raised questions of design and architectural
integrity if the addition was located on the side or on the front of the building. Planning staff
suggested the use of story poles on site to outline the addition, but no consensus was reached on
which alternative the story poles should be established for.
RECOMMENDATION
This is provided for your information only. The item will be continued to the meeting of April 20,
2004.
Respectfully submitted,
-- -- - - ----
Gregory Fuz
Planning and Building Director
By:
Allen Tai
Planner I
Cc: Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett, Applicants
Ayala Lonzisero and Tony Vesta, Appellant
Thea Mixon, Appellant
G: \PLANNING \CC \REPORTS \2004 \War 16 \Gartield324I appeal continue2.doc
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Peter Burrows
Wendy Moorhouse
3242 Garfield Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
510 -523 -6345
April 3, 2004
Mayor Beverly Johnson
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Mayor Johnson:
We are writing in regards to the effort of our neighbors, Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett, to
secure City Council approval for improvements they want to make to their home at 3241 Garfield Ave.
We hope the Council will grant its okay, as the changes they want to make will clearly improve their
home, both as a place for them to live and in terms of long -term property value.
Susan has shown us the plans, which would enable them to add a laundry room, expand the kitchen
and create a far more usable dining room, not to mention a more appealing back yard. These seem to
us to be very tangible improvements. Judging from the many tasteful, high - quality, and significant
improvements Lawrence and Susan have already made to their home, I think the Council should stand
by its unanimous approval of the proposed changes at its Jan 12 meeting.
It is apparent to us that Lawrence and Susan are trying to proceed with all of their neighbors' concerns
in mind. They tell us that they have already offered to make many concessions to their original plan.
And in discussing the situation with us, they continue to express consideration for the concems of the
neighbors who oppose their plans. Lawrence and Susan have been, and continue to be, wonderful
neighbors – always friendly, considerate and ready to do a favor. We value having them in the
neighborhood. If they're unable to act on their desire to improve their home —and in the process, the
neighborhood -- I don't think it's reasonable to think they will stay.
This approval process has already been a lengthy one and we hope it will be resolved soon and to
Lawrence and Susan's satisfaction.
Most respectfully –
jaikA/1/11A
/1/47.2- Gt_6(Z(L d _
Peter Burrows ind Wendy Moorhouse
Attachment #7
6 April 2004
Mayor Beverly Johnson
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, California 94501
Dear Mayor Johnson
We would like to express our strong support for the project planned by our neighbors Lawrence Henderson and
Susan Corlett at 3241 Garfield Avenue. Despite their best efforts in planning, design and neighbor involvement
this compact project has somehow ended up being appealed to the Council as if it were an infill apartment
block being built on the property line.
In our view the proposed addition is modest in size. This is borne out by the fact that it conforms to code
guidelines even on a small lot. Five and a half feet on the end of a house is not large by anyone's standards.
The kitchen remodel and added bathroom, laundry and storage facilities will dramatically increase the utility and
enjoyment of their property. Somehow their architect has fit all of this into a 150 square foot addition.
The project is pleasingly designed and fits the bungalow style. It avoids the pitfalls of a "what- were -they-
thinking" poorly planned remodel. The unanimous approval in the planning department design review confirms
this.
Zoning, code guidelines, design review, and planning boards all exist to prevent standards from being applied
arbitrarily and unevenly. In this case the project was carefully planned to meet zoning guidelines, design
standards, setbacks, etc. Planning department staff and process confirmed this.
However neighbors have appealed the project up to city council level. Council meetings conceivably carry
some risk, one can only hope the case gets presented properly. (Anyway the council has bigger issues on its
plate than standards - compliant 150 square foot additions.)
As a property owner this causes concern: If you design within guidelines yet meet with this kind of opposition
and resultant delay, one wonders if the only strategy is to wildly exceed the guidelines and then compromise
down to your desired plan. Clearly that would be a bad process, with no reward for those who pay attention to
the rules, and would further distort the process of considering exceptional cases on their merits.
Instead of being able to proceed, Lawrence and Susan have endured meetings where a somewhat antagonistic
design -by- committee process produced unrealistic, unworkable or wildly expensive design suggestions
(including don't add, closets popped out of kitchen walls, 50- square foot additions, basements, second stories
and laundries in the attic and or the front porch). Susan and Lawrence sincerely agreed to consider some of
these suggestions but in the final analysis decided that the suggestions did not meet their needs or would have
resulted in poor design. Meanwhile they currently have a proposed restriction on the height of fence they
might use, while we have that very fence at the normally allowed height adjacent to their lot.
We ask that the council approve Lawrence and Susan's plan as it stood at the beginning, including the originally
proposed 6 foot fence with lattice above. As the planning board noted while considering the initial appeal, the
addition is modest and ordinarily would be granted without much discussion. The fence became a sacrificial
Iamb, when in fact it was proposed to provide privacy for neighbors on both sides, a sense of separation of
space between close neighbors, and a degree of tidiness between properties.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kind regards
David and Jennifer Harding
3245 Garfield Avenue
510/337 -0913
Attachment #8
To: Alameda City Council
From: Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett
Date: April 7, 2004
Regarding: Enclosure for April 20, 2004 City Council Meeting
View from the street of the front of Thea Mixon's house. Note that the back of our house
where the addition is proposed is directly in front of her garage, not the front of her
house.
Attachment #9
Z
To: Alameda City Council
From: Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett
Date: April 7, 2004
Regarding: Enclosure for April 20, 2004 City Council Meeting
View from theback of our house of Thea Mixon's garage and where she parks her cars.
Note that the back of our house where the addition is proposed is directly in front of her
garage, not the front of her house.
.3
To: Alameda City Council
From: Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett
Date: April 7, 2004
Regarding: Enclosure for April 20, 2004 City Council Meeting
Several views of the back of our house where the addition is proposed. Please note that
the wooden boards on the ground indicate the 5' 6" depth of the addition.
To: Alameda City Council
From: Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett
Date: April 7, 2004
Regarding: Enclosure for April 20, 2004 City Council Meeting
This is a picture of the back of Ayala Lonzisero's house. Ms. Lonzisero has expressed
concerns about the addition obstructing her view, and light. This back section of the
house, which is itself an addition on her house, is surrounded by windows that would not
have any light or view obstruction. The addition would extend past her bathroom
window.
Ms. Lonzisero has also expressed concerns about privacy. We do not believe privacy
would be reduced and may, in fact, be enhanced. This is because currently our bedroom
window is the closest window to Ms. Lonzisero's house. Under our original design
submission, this window is replaced by a door to a storage area, and then a bathroom
window that will have a curtain.
5
To: Alameda City Council
From: Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett
Date: April 7, 2004
Regarding: Enclosure for April 20, 2004 City Council Meeting
Please note: On March 31 the addition would not shade Ayala Lonzisero's bathroom
window at all because the sun is too high in the sky. A similar shade study done in
December determined that maximum shading during the year would be a total of 30
minutes.
These pictures show the shade at 6:30am, 7:15am, 7:45am, 8:OOam, 8:45am, and 9:OOam
on March 31, 2004. The darkened areas indicate the shade that would be created by the
addition.
To: Alameda City Council
From: Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett
Date: April 7, 2004
Regarding: Enclosure for April 20, 2004 City Council Meeting
Please note: On March 31 the addition would not shade Ayala Lonzisero's bathroom
window at all because the sun is too high in the sky. A similar shade study done in
December determined that maximum shading during the year would be a total of 30
minutes.
These pictures show the shade at 6:30am, 7:15am, 7:45am, 8:OOam, 8:45am, and 9:OOam
on March 31, 2004. The darkened areas indicate the shade that would be created by the
addition.
from additi+
To: Alameda City Council
From: Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett
Date: April 7, 2004
Regarding: Enclosure for April 20, 2004 City Council Meeting
Please note: On March 31 the addition would not shade Ayala Lonzisero's bathroom
window at all because the sun is too high in the sky. A similar shade study done in
December determined that maximum shading during the year would be a total of 30
minutes.
These pictures show the shade at 6:30am, 7: l5am, 7:45am, 8:OOam, 8:45am, and 9:OOam
on March 31, 2004. The darkened areas indicate the shade that would be created by the
addition.
rom addition
4- Shadow
from addition
THOMAS MEANS
i n c o r p o r a t e d
design & construction
Allen Tai
City of Alameda Planning
Submittal Sheet
7 April 2004
Per open letter to the City Council from Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett, dated
April 5, 2004, please find attached fifteen (15) copies of revised design review drawings
reflecting changes in said letter, "Element #1, #2, & #3 Current Status."
Sincerely
Derek Pavlik
Thomas Means Design & Construction
762 STEWART COURT ALAMEDA, CA 94501
CSLB 41738437
Attachment #10
— TEL 510.865.3350 FAx 510.865.3349
0
0
0
EXISTING 57 1/2' TALL
PAINTED WOOD FENCE
N
a y
KU
a
qm
W w
ry
0 T
v
NEIGHBORING
FOOTPRINT -
D
U
83811fN 133HS
GARAGE
DECK
L
ASPHALT
DRIVEWAY
33' -5
3243 GARFIELD AVE.
NEV 150 S.F ADDITION
7' -1'
ATTIC MIRAGE
IN_Y - ICT
IMITABLE SPACE
MIRAGE
CASE
CRAWL
SPACE
E ISTINGI
- STREET
PARKING)
SPACE
(RAVERS)
3241 GARFIELD AVE.
1105 S.F. FOOTPRINT
I' I
CITY SIDEWALK
I I
PLANTER STRIP
N
SHARED ASPHALT
DRIVEVAY
4' -0' VIDE WATER
EASEMENT
5'-0' VIDE GAS
EASEMENT
M31A3e1 NOIS3a
Sf11d1S ONIMd210
-0
-
- n 7
r r
O n
O Z
-o
r n
z
CITY CURB & GUTTER
GARFIELD AVE.
ADDITION & KITCHEN REMODEL
LAWRENCE HENDERSON & SUSAN CORLETT
3241 GARFIELD AVE. ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
2i38 f1N 133HS
M3IA32:1 NOIS3a
SfLLV.S ONIMVaa
ADDITION & KITCHEN REMODEL
LAWRENCE HENDERSON & SUSAN CORLETT
3241 GARFIELD AVE. ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
m
N
O
838141fN 133HS
M31A3N NOIS30
SIUVIS 9NIMVN4
m m
r
=I O
CD
N
.0 —.t = .B /t 01V3S
II
x
tr, N
m
A Z
m
of
n 0
a0
-I b
m
e1 E
z
0
D
1
n
AINO 39VdOIS
EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED
ADDITION & KITCHEN REMODEL
LAWRENCE HENDERSON & SUSAN CORLETT
3241 GARFIELD AVE. ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
mom
m- <
x D H
0 A -1
m�Z
0 D Ll
z
b A
0A
0 Z
-i
r-<
0 m "'1 m V1 m
X Dx 2x
- n zw
z-4 ....0 -I G1 -I
r,-+
-C om m0
n n
D E -1 0
m m0 00
0 A -r1X
0 ZO
n V Z Ll H
= z0 .-..
P1 m n 0z
0
TI-4
x r
�(n
PP
co T
(J 0
A (wll
sp
uoI }Dndlsu03
A1NO 39Vd01S 3I11V
April 6, 2004
Re: Appeal of PDA 03- 0006/DR03 -0096
Dear Mayor Johnson and Council Members,
My name is Thea Mixon and I own and live at 3243 Garfield
Avenue; the adjoining substandard lot to 3241.
Applicants Lawrence Henderson/Susan Corlett of 3241 Garfield
Avenue have been approved to build a 150 square foot addition
onto the rear of their house.
I would like to illustrate with the following photos that
considering our unique layout(s), the proposed addition requires
a significant amount of space relative to the small amount that
now seperates our homes.
Because both lots are substandard, they both have a few
characteristics that are undesireable. I am concerned that this
addition will intensify the unfortunate conditions of my home
while improving theirs. We currently live with minimal privacy,
over - crowding, and noise/light issues.
I am, however, empathetic to their desires to improve and
inlarge their property even though I do not have the same spacial
luxuries: Included are some alternative building ideas that would
accomplish their goals without crowding any of their neighbors.
Attachment #1'1
Cn
CI;
t__, N
et
0
Cn
U
Cg
.� U 411
O 1 cd Q
cu m 0▪ 0
U .,
• ° -d -
O O >, 8 U
O , g
N p e'd
cj
O
Oh 4 -
:C c�
p.
a) c°' •
• • A" ¢+ 0
The previous two pictures were taken from where the proposed addition would
begin and end. The shade that already darkens my house is due to the surrounding
neighbors' trees; being further hemmed in by the forward neighbors when they have
alternative space to utilize is unreasonable.
This photo was taken from inside my living room. Currently, their upstairs window is so close
that if they use the room at night, my living room is illuminated by the light. You can see that
they have replaced thier kitchen window with a stained glass design so that we are not
inadvertantly looking into each others' homes. Advancing their house 5 1/2 feet towards mine
would amplify our already troublesome noise, light, and privacy issues.
If the setback is on the n/w corner, the corner of their house will come within
8 inches of the driveway, right at the curve. It would create a blind spot for
the cars backing out of driveway. I am also concerned about the safety of
pedestrians walking around that corner of the building as cars are pulling in
towards their garage.
Unexplored Alternative Building plans:
1) The front of their house affords them ample space to satisfy four of
their five goals:
•
adding a master bathroom
adding laundry facilities
enlarging dining area and kitchen space
enlarging interior storage space
By pulling the front bedroom wall out flush with the large porch, a
generous bath/laundry facility could be installed. Because the porch is
more than 5 1/2 feet from the front wall (and even deeper on the inside
of the porch to the front door)this remodel would give them more than
150 square feet!
By developing the extremely large front porch, their living space inside
could be
moved forward, allowing plenty of room for a larger dining
room/kitchen area.
The above attic area could also be pulled out as well, creating a huge
interior storage area.
This type of remodel would not be unprecedented as the lower photo of
3246 Garfield demonstrates.
The photo on the next page is a shot of the s/w comer, which is at the
front of the house. This is dead space that is almost ten feet long and
two feet deep that could be incorported into the remodel of the front
bedroom wall. This alone, could house an indoor laundry facility.
A huge exterior storage structure with a shed roof could be built onto the east side
of their house. It could be tucked neatly below the windows and still stand four feet
high, at least two feet deep without effect the legal off - street parking spot, and it
could run the length of the house.
Thank you very much for your consideration in this unique situation,
Thea Mixon
3243 Garfield Avenue
Alameda
April 5, 2004
Council Member Barbara Kerr
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
RECEIVED
APR - 7 2004
PERMIT CENTER
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
Re: Appeal of Planning Board's Approval of Planned Development Amendment
for 3241 Garfield Avenue
Dear Council Member Kerr:
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Council. We are the neighbors to the west of
3241 Garfield Avenue. When 3241 Garfield came before you in 1997 to split the parcel into two
substandard lots, we supported the City's effort to provide affordable housing. We recognize the
difficulty Council faces in fostering affordable housing and balancing the needs of the
community. Yet we feel the need to provide sufficient setbacks is paramount to maintaining the
quality of life in Alameda.
Background
The applicants' substandard front lot, less than 67 feet deep with a one foot six inch setback from
the side lot line, was brought to the Planning Board for amendment to allow for more expansion.
The proposed 150 square foot rear building addition with 18 -foot roofline, would significantly
increase crowding in an already congested area, encroach upon the privacy of neighboring
properties, block light and obscure view corridors. Enclosed are photographs taken from our
home showing the close proximity of the applicants' home to ours and to that of the rear
neighbor, Thea Mixon.
We would like to bring to your attention information that differs from what was presented
to the Planning Board.
• Sheet A101 and the photo from Planning Staff Report of January 12, 2004 show not the
applicants' original and now demolished rear yard laundry shed slab, but a new
unpermitted slab, which applicants laid for a larger accessory building that did not meet
required setbacks and was not approved by the Planning Department. The original
54 square foot laundry shed met required setbacks, was approximately one third the size of
the proposed building addition, and unlike the proposed building addition, had a much
lower roofline, no windows, and afforded privacy while leaving open space and a view
corridor between the home and the shed.
• The proposed rear building addition will break up a direct sight line to the morning sun and
obscure view corridors by walling off both a bedroom and bathroom in our two bedroom,
one bath home.
• Sheet AS 101 shows the driveway of our home extending to the rear of the property. The
driveway extends only to the front wall of our home; the area behind the driveway is our
side yard, which provides a small buffer between properties.
Attachment #12
Council Member Kerr
Re: Appeal of Planning Board Approval — 3241 Garfield Avenue
April 5, 2004
Page 2
Alternatives With Less Adverse Impact
• During mediation meetings, we agreed to an alternative smaller rear addition, with
setbacks on both sides, and a lower roofline, to accommodate applicants' "primary
needs" of an interior laundry and storage space.
• As demonstrated by the enclosed letter and attachments from Jane Powell, Restoration
Consultant and Author, a 60 to 70 square foot addition with lower roofline would meet
both the "primary needs" of interior laundry and storage space as well as the applicants'
goal of a second bathroom, while maintaining the architectural integrity of their home.
• There are other alternatives to address the applicants "non- primary' needs to improve the
usability of their home, such as enclosing the covered front porch or extending the front
of the home next to the porch, which would not have an adverse impact on adjoining
properties.
Summary
Given the limited useable rear year space of the applicants' substandard lot, and the already close
proximity to two neighboring properties, careful scrutiny is required to ensure the size and placement of
the proposed rear building addition does not occur at the expense of neighboring properties. We
remaining willing to support a smaller rear addition at 3241 Garfield Avenue and encourage you to
recommend the applicants consider the options we have proposed.
Very truly yours,
tJ
Ayala onzisero and 'I ony Vesta
3237 Garfield Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
enc.
The "existing concrete pad" shown on Sheet No. A101 is not the slab of
the original and now demolished rear yard laundry shed slab, but a new
unpermitted slab, which applicants laid for a larger accessory building
that did not meet required setbacks and was not approved by the
Planning Department.
D
C
8381^111N 133HS
M31A3J . NOIS3a.
s111d1s SN1M•2aa• •
ADDITION & KITCHEN REMODEL
LAWRENCE HENDERSON& SUSAN CORLETT
u1.5u07 ' u6isap
3241 GARFIELD AVE. ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
The Planning Staff Report Photo dated December 16, 2003 shows our
2"d bedroom window on the left, our bathroom window in the center
and our master bedroom on the right. The proposed addition will wall
off our 2 "d bedroom, wall off our bathroom, and end directly outside
our master bedroom window, eliminating privacy, blocking light and
obscuring view corridors. The following photographs were taken from
our 2nd bedroom, our bathroom and our master bedroom showing the
close proximity of the homes and the minimal open space among the
three lots.
„
t
prolcjiNE 4.4),14
1-
;? • •
PA
�h
f'�
As shown on the following photographs, the applicants' Architect was
mistaken when he told the Planning Board the addition did not break
up any sight lines to the morning sun. The addition will wall off this
window and obscure this view corridor.
Sheet AS101 shows our driveway extending to the rear of the property.
The driveway extends only to the front wall of our home; the area
behind the driveway is our side yard, which provides a small buffer
between properties.
THOMAS MEANS
incorporated
3243 GARFIELD AVE.
J
LJ
H
U,
PLANTER STRIP
sT�L—iOV ,0 -,0L
CITY CURB & GUTTER
GARFIELD AVE.
design & construction
762 STEWART COURT
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
TEL 510.865.3350
FAX 510,865.3349
LAWRENCE HENDERSON & SUSAN CORLETT
ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
GARFIELD AVE.
N)
PLOT PLAN /
ATTIC FLOOR PLAN
DRAWING STATUS
DESIGN D\EVIEW
SHEET NUMBER
AS 0/
Letter and Attachments from Jane Powell,
Restoration Consultant and Author
1-12V5F IRF55ING
P.O. IZOX 31483
OFIK�FIND, CFILIF2RNIF1 74404
(.610) 532 -4704 WWW.BVNGF11- 21411TCNFN9.K2it
April 2, 2004
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been asked by the neighbors of the project to comment on the proposed
addition at 3241 Garfield, in my capacity as an expert on bungalows. I have been
restoring bungalows since 1987, consulting on bungalows since 1999, and am also
the author of four books about craftsman bungalows: Bungalow Kitchens, Bungalow
Bathrooms, Bungalow Details Exterior (to be released in June), and The Big Book of
Bungalows (to be released in October- all published by Gibbs - Smith).
I have visited the site and also looked at the plans, and it is my understanding that
the primary goal of the addition is to provide an indoor laundry and storage space
that was lost when the shed in the back yard was removed. It is also my
understanding that the architect for the project, in response to requests from the
neighbors to decrease the size of the addition and lower the roofline, has said that
the addition must have a gable roof which matches the existing roof in pitch, and
that the addition must run the full width of the house, because this would be in
keeping with the architectural style of the house, and to do otherwise would damage
the architectural integrity of the house.
I do not think this is the case. Essentially what is proposed is a utility porch.
Although a utility porch could be included within the footprint of the house, it was
just as often tacked onto the back and built like a porch- that is to say, on piers
rather than continuous foundation, and in California, often only screened rather than
fully enclosed. A utility porch running the full width of the back was the exception
rather than the rule- usually they were just big enough for the laundry tubs and the
icebox (about 6 ft. by 8 ft.). The roof was generally a shed roof, although flat roofs,
hip roofs, and gable roofs were also used. (see photos)
Sometimes a half bath or water closet (toilet) would be included as part of the porch,
although usually a two bedroom bungalow like this one would have only one
bathroom. The average size of a (full) bungalow bathroom is 5 feet by 7 ft. (35 s.f.).
A half bath, which would be more appropriate, would be maybe 3 ft. by 5 ft. (15
s.f.).
A side by side washer /dryer requires 4 ft. by 6 ft. (24 s.f.) a stacking washer /dryer
about a square yard (9 s.f.). So a side by side washer plus a full bath would require
59 s.f. The proposed addition is 150 s.f.- that leaves 91 s.f. for storage, which is the
size of a small bedroom. This seems a bit large for storing garden tools.
A stacking washer /dryer and a half bath would use only 24 s.f.
I have included some photos showing additions with various rooflines, both from my
own bungalows and some taken from period house plan or pre -cut house catalogs. I
have also included some bungalow floor plans from Wilson's California Bungalows,
showing various utility porches.
I believe that a smaller addition (60 to 70 s.f.) with a shed roof, set back from either
side of the house, would be perfectly appropriate to the architecture of the house,
while still allowing for the laundry, storage, and full bath which the owners have
requested.
1
1D R�
$t;.D RC)oM
zx12
1
/l
•p/� IWYi�s,��wi //�
,:ti
L1 AFz`1r
),ED ROOM
12X12
n n r
F ��
I II II •
1 I l 1TE IMCTci'ILi 1 1 I
1 11 F II II
I II 11 11 11 1 II l
S."IVft
20x 16
• 3CRE£.C-1
pC?RCI1
8X5
1-iITt1•1~M
14X14
1
1
1 I ; s
0
it 0'4
IIMIR MIMI ;I O j y
MIKA ,.o /
� �., i s i
r r w, i ,
Pc��CM
20 x z'
y
D1Nli- itr�coii
{2X1G
1
BED ROOM
13,X1"41
1 Th R
7,X9,
HALL
4-, X9,
CL09
HALL
3`•,X 19,
ZED ROOM
12.0> 14,
i
0
0
0
/
afAliZeirt
PORCH
1�,
0
1
KITCHEN
13.X i°1..
11
D1NIHCo- ROOM
12,.X 1Z,
PARLOR
1111111111111111111111a4
OtLE1 Sant N
`032CP'1
7X5-6
/ c,LOS /
sx2 =a'
y..7/A7iii4/1/p
%��
KITCHEN
10Y12
BED .1:t09 r1
14X14
mei= ma
paT2C'�
12X8-6
b.IP 'MON
10-6X11:0"
is O
SC.E►v
DOQC
B -O)0 -o
OE 1 Q .OIL : •
0 V. Cup a. P /
/tAT
41®, X7-6 1
,fiiiiiii
Gas
bW ROOM
10 -0).(1
dIONENIV
rI ER
tir
Kira -tEN
b-oxu -
Cuors
i
1J
1
D! N «G R °off
LIVING DOOM
f5OJ046..
PORCH
(7-oX 7-C?
r1 GI
The first of these photographs shows the applicants' front porch, which
extends out from the main house and has a lower roofline. A smaller
rear addition with a lower roofline would be consistent with the design
of the applicants' home.
The second photograph shows the interior space of the front porch,
which could be utilized to improve the usability of the applicants' home
to meet their "non- primary" needs, without adversely affecting persons
or property in the vicinity.
The third photograph shows front and side areas of the applicants'
home, which could be used to maximize the use of space on the
property.
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT PDA03 -0006 AND MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR03 -0096 TO ALLOW A 150
SQUARE FOOT ADDITION AT 3241 GARFIELD AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application was made on August 1, 2003, by Thomas Means, Inc. for
Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett of 3241 Garfield Avenue, requesting a Planned Development
Amendment, PDA03 -0006 and Major Design Review DR03 -0096, to allow a 150 square foot single
story rear addition; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on September 1, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Low Density Residential on the General Plan
Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R -1 PD (One Family Residence Planned
Development District; and
WHEREAS, additions to residential structures that are greater than eighty (80) square feet
requires Major Design Review pursuant to AMC Subsection 30 -37.2 (a); and
o WHEREAS, a Planned Development Amendment is required for additions to the building,
pursuant to Condition #3 of Planning Board Resolution PB- 97 -38, which approved the Planned
Q Development overlay on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda held a public hearing on this
0 application on January 12, 2004, and examined pertinent documents and conditionally approved the
application; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2004, the City Council of the City of Alameda held a public
hearing for the appeal of the Planning Board's prior approval and examined pertinent documents as
well as the record of the Planning Board hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered responses to the bases of the appellants' appeal and
finds that there are no merits in the bases of appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings with respect to the appellant's
bases of appeal and relative to the Planned Development Amendment application:
1. The proposed Planned Development Amendment is consistent with the General
Plan, which specifies low- density residential uses for this site, because the project
does not alter the residential density of the development.
Resolution #5 -A
4 -20 -04
2. The proposed project is compatible with the Planned Development, PD- 97 -01,
because it does not change the use or density of the property, nor the intent of
providing affordable home ownership opportunities through the creation of small
subdivisions on older properties with small homes. The proposed addition also
complies with provisions in the underlying R -1 District, and the findings pursuant
to Subsection 30 -5.7 (k) & (1) can be made.
3. The Planned Development Amendment would allow for a more effective use of the
site than is possible under the regulations of the Planned Development and the
underlying district with which the Planned Development District is combined.
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings with respect to the appellant's
bases of appeal and relative to the Major Design Review application:
1. The project will have no adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity. This
finding can be made because the project is an attempt to improve the use of space on the
property. The shade from the addition is not significant to cause adverse impacts to
surrounding properties. The proposed addition also complies with provisions in the
underlying R -1 District, and the findings pursuant to Subsection 30 -5.7 (k) & (1) can be
made. Therefore, the project will have minimal adverse effects on persons or property if
it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made contingent.
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of
surrounding properties. This finding can be made because the design of the addition
utilizes architectural elements that are in keeping with the original style and appearance
of the building. Since the neighborhood consists of buildings belonging to the same
style, the project is preserving a building that is compatible and harmonious with the
surrounding neighbors.
3. The project will be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines. This
finding can be made because the project improves the existing residential use on the
property, and it preserves the character of the neighborhood as recommended in the
City's Design Review Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the project is
Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, under Section 15301 of the
CEQA Guidelines - Existing Facilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council denies the appeal and upholds the
Planning Board's approval of Planned Development Amendment PDA03 -0006 and Major Design
Review DR03 -0096 to allow a 150 square foot single story rear addition.
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 plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
* * * * **
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
Date: April 15, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Approve List of Bus Shelter Locations
BACKGROUND
Over the past 6 months, the City Council has been considering the best way to provide for the
purchase, installation and on -going maintenance of bus shelters in Alameda. The City Council has
directed the City Manager to ensure the installation of bus shelters by "the next rainy season"
(October/November 2004).
Alamedans for Responsible Transit Shelters (ARTS) have presented a proposal to Council for the
purchase and installation of non - advertising bus shelters sponsored by the local community through
private donations. It is uncertain if the on -going maintenance of these shelters will also be funded
through private donations. While the City has entered into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to join
AC Transit's bus shelter advertising program, this agreement does not obligate the City to install
advertising bus shelters. The City is required to execute an Implementation Agreement with AC
Transit's contractor for bus shelters, prior to advertising shelters being installed.
On January 28, 2004, the Transportation Commission recommended a set of siting criteria
(Attachment 1) for advertising and non - advertising shelters. The criteria was adopted by Council on
April 6, 2004.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Based on the siting criteria, staff identified a list of 44 potential sites for locating bus shelters
throughout the City. This list includes locations for both non - advertising shelters and advertising
shelters. Although the Transportation Commission has identified a goal of 25 shelters, an expanded
list of 44 locations was presented for the following reasons:
1. The list includes locations for both non - advertising shelters and advertising shelters. Since
the criteria for non - advertising shelters and advertising shelters are not the same, the list of
the top 25 non - advertising shelter locations and the list of the top 25 advertising shelter
locations will not be exactly the same. When the two lists are combined into one list, more
than 25 locations are identified.
cn orumda
PubhicWorks
apartment
Public Woks Rbrks for You!
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
REPORT #5 -B
4 -20 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
April 15, 2004
2. Based on physical site constraints, such as sidewalk width, some locations included on the
potential candidate list will be deemed unsuitable for a bus shelter;
3. The adopted criteria allows for bus shelters to be located at a site with an existing historic
monument, which Council may determine, at its sole discretion, is or is not acceptable for a
bus shelter. The list provides additional locations should Council determine a shelter is not
appropriate at an existing historic monument; and
4. Staff determined it would be beneficial and more efficient to bring all of the potential
locations to Council for one public hearing, rather than having to revisit it at a later date.
Should a stop be displaced from the list, either because of physical constraint or TTT /Council
decision, we would want to have the back -up locations identified from the outset.
The Transportation Technical Team (TTT) held a public hearing on the list of 44 potential bus
shelter locations on April 14, 2004. Twenty -three members of the public spoke on this issue. The
TTT eliminated 2 locations (High Street at Fairview Avenue and Encinal Avenue at Park Avenue)
from consideration because of site constraints. In addition, the TTT received testimony from the
Park Street Business Association (PSBA) stating that the 2 locations at Santa Clara Avenue and Oak
Street (in front of City Hall and the Carnegie Building) will be funded (including maintenance) by
PSBA. Staff has removed these locations from the list and added them to the list of locations
considered within the PSBA district.
The list of shelter locations as reviewed by the TTT and recommended for approval by the City
Manager is included as Attachment 1 and provided in ranked order. Priority One locations have
more than 25 historic boarding (based on 1998 and 2003 rideship data), Priority 2 locations have
approximately 25 boardings, and Priority 3 currently have lower than 25 boardings but are
anticipated to reach or exceed 25 boardings in the near future. The full list of Council adopted bus
siting criteria is included as Attachment 2. This list also identifies locations that serve transit -
dependent populations (Siting Criteria 2) or are a major transfer point between bus lines (Siting
Criteria 3).
All locations on the list are identified as appropriate for non - advertising shelters. The list also
identifies which locations the TTT and City Manager recommend as suitable for advertising shelters,
if Council were to approve entering into a contract with AC Transit's bus shelter contractor.
Approval of the list of locations does not commit the City Council to installing advertising bus
shelters.
Having a list of approved shelter locations will allow ARTS to more efficiently direct their fund
raising activities because donors will be able to identify a location that their money will be
contributed toward. In addition, this list would allow staff to consult with AC Transit's bus shelter
contractor as well as address one of Council's on -going questions — What is the total number of
shelters that would be installed if the City were to enter into an agreement with this contractor? The
list of shelter locations will also assist staff when we contact other bus shelter contractors to
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
ayafAhr wdi
tublicWorks
Uepart rent
Public Wads f,You!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
determine their interest in providing shelters in Alameda.
Page 3
April 15, 2004
The Transportation Commission has expressed a goal of installing 25 bus shelters throughout the
City, exclusive of the Park Street and Webster Street Business Districts. The final 25 shelter
locations will be selected from the approved list of bus shelter locations. Shelters will be sited,
whenever possible, to minimize impacts to the adjoining property owner. For example, not in front
of picture windows, away from the front door of a store, etc.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Action on this item would have no effect on the General Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, approve the bus shelter locations.
MTN /dl:
Attachment 1— List of Shelter Locations
Attachment 2 — Bus Shelter Siting Criteria
Respe lly submitte
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
/1/tca
By: Michael Margulies
Program Specialist II
cc: Representatives from ARTS,
Representatives from TC sub - committee
G:\PUBWORKS\PWADM N \COUNCIL\2004 \042004\Potential shelter locations- draft.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
arotu
bliCWorks
Public FMs for Wad
Site Constraints for Potential Bus Shelter Locations
O
ij
C
0 0
H O.
Site Conditions/Constraints
Cross Street
6
0
z
0
zy}
No
No
Z
ZZ
0
z
Yes
Yes
0
z}
Yes
Yes
y
>-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
}
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z}
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z>-
Z
Z
Z
Z Z
Z
Z
Z}
Z Z
o
S
c
W
c
0
v
Q
Not Advertising Eligible
0
;O
a
W
a
N
'
j
Q
5
Z
Advertising Eligible
Advertising Eligible
Advertising Eligible
Advertising Eligible
Advertisino Eligible
Not Advertising Eligible
Advertising Eligible
Advertising Eligible
Not Advertising Eliaible
Advertising Eligible
Advertising Eligible
Advertising Eliaible
0
.0
'o
W
c
,y
r
v
Q
Advertisina Eligible
0 0
a n
o'oi'6
W W
CO C
2 ,N
t C
vv
Q Q
Advertising Eligible
Advertising Eligible
Existing Shelter
10'8' Sidewalk; Remove existing bench and trash can; consider
Narrow Shelter, Does not qualify for ad shelter
13' 11' Sidewalk; Remove existing bench; Does not qualify for ad
shelter
10' Sidewalk; Existing Shefter - cut -out may be too small for New
Shelter, consider Narrow Shelter
10'11' Sidewalk; Remove existing bench and trash can; Tree and
EBMUD pull box; consider Narrow Shelter
6' Sidewalk; 9' Planter strip (shrubs) abutting Bridgeside parking lot
14'10' Sidewalk; Existing Shelter
1410' Sidewalk; Relocate trash can and news rack; Water meter pull
box
10'3' Sidewalk; consider Narrow Shelter
12' Sidewalk; Tree
147' Sidewalk; Existing Shelter
11' Sidewalk; Does not quality for ad shelter
47' Planter strip (bench and tree); 5' Sidewalk; 47' shrubs abutting
City building
No constraints
Existing shelter, No constraints
New stop location; 5' planter strip and 5' sidewalk abutting grass field;
Bus pads
New stop location; 6' planter strip (shrubs and trees) and 8' multi -use
path; Bus pads
Existing Shelter, No constraints
12' Sidewalk; Existing Shelter
Existing shelter, No constraints
8' Sidewalk abutting Beltline (requires easement); Bike/Ped Path
North -East Comer
North -East Comer
North -East Comer
North -East Comer
North -East Comer
North -East Comer
North -West Comer
South -West Comer
North -East Comer
North -West Comer
South -West Comer
South -West Comer
North -West Comer
South -West Comer
South -East Comer
South -West Comer
South -East Comer
South -West Comer
North -East Comer
South -East Comer
South -East Comer
Northbound
Westbound
Westbound
Westbound
Westbound
Westbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound I
Southbound
Eastbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Eastbound
Eastbound
Atlantic
0
3
Chestnut
C
cE7
L
Z
C
3
Broadway
Bay
.....
W
«
z
0
C
1 Encinal
Bay
C
3
O
Pan Am
West Midway
Marina Village
Pky
Marina Village
Pky
O N
is
C O1
a.
Webster
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Blanding
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
High
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Atlantic
West Midway
Pan Am
Constitution
Constitution
Main
Park
Ralph Appezzato Mem. Pkwy
Ralph Appezzato Mem. Pkwy
N
M
•t
U)
CO
C. 00W
O.-
NMI
1O
tO
P CO
CO
N¢¢
NNNNN
N
O
0
0)
0
a
Site Constraints for Potential Bus Shelter Locations
CA
O
ij
EaO
Site Conditions/Constraints
V
ci
0
L
0
Cross Street
O
z
z
z
z
z
z°
z°
0
z
z
co
Y
a
w
rn
0
a
w
c
a
0
a
w
c
0
a
a
w
✓
O
z
N
8
.01
w
c
LN
10'10' Sidewalk; Fence at property line; consider Narrow Shelter
0
m
0
0-
0
N
8
0
se
-8
N
N
11' Sidewalk; Tree 35' from x -walk
South -West Comer
0
0
N
0
0
pE
0
z
0
E
0
E
0
°
c
w
c
co
w
c
c
2
C
0
0
C
0
01
0
0
c
0)
N
0
0
co
N
8
0
r
L
co
N
n
co
w
N
0
0
co
a
C
N
i
1
1
1
v
0
0
N
0
2
2
a
60
0
8
a
0
a
0
m�
Q N
C
CO a-C
of0
•$
$ o
S g
0 0
O L
N In
0
ID
•
:zz>
N
-z}
N
N
>-z
z>-
g z
. z° z°
z° -
z
z°
z°
-
zz >-
Advertising Eligible
Advertising FIInible
Advertising Eligible
Adverthcinn Flinihla
Advertising Eligible
Advertising Eligible
Advertisin Eli ible
Advertisin Eli ible
Sufficient space for shelter, but requires wheelchair ramps and
crosswalks connecting island to the sidewalks
5' Planter strip; 5' Sidewalk; consider Narrow Shelter
4' Planter strip (tree); 6' Sidewalk; 2'4' shrubs abutting wall
11' Sidewalk; Relocate trashcan
12' Sidewalk; Tree
10' sidewalk; 20' between 2 driveways at bus stop location; consider)
Narrow Shelter
t 0' sidewalk abutting large gas station planter strip (may require
easement); Narrow Shelter or Regular Shelter if easement acquired
v
co
w
South -East Comer
South -West Comer
South-West Comer
North -East Comer
North -West Comer
South -West Comer I
South -East Comer
Mid -Block
Southbound
Eastbound.
Eastbound
Eastbound
Northbound
Westbound
Southbound
Eastbound
m
C .
Belmont
MIIMMEM
Encinal
Grand
§
6
Webster
Mecartney
Femside
Santa Clara
High
Otis
0
N >
S m
m'
.
a .
Sco%2c`litg
Rm
a°Oi
0
0
co
a
C
N
i
1
1
1
v
0
0
N
0
2
2
a
60
0
8
a
0
a
0
m�
Q N
C
CO a-C
of0
•$
$ o
S g
0 0
O L
N In
0
ID
•
Attachment 2
Bus Shelter Siting Criteria
1) Highest priority locations for all bus shelters shall be bus stops with the highest passenger
boardings.
2) Highest priority locations for all bus shelters shall be those that serve origins and destinations
for transit - dependent populations.
3) Highest priority locations for all bus shelters shall be those that are major bus transfer points
between bus lines.
4) Highest priority locations for all bus shelters shall be those that provide access to commercial
and mixed use areas.
5) No advertising shelters shall be located in the R -1 (One - Family Residence), R -2 (Two -
Family Residence), R -3 (Garden Residential) R -4 (Neighborhood Residential), and R -5
(General Residential) zoning districts unless the location is immediately adjacent to or across
the street from a nonresidential use or the proposed location is on a street with more than two
travel lanes.
6) Advertising shelters may be installed at locations that would otherwise not be permitted
under criteria (5) above if approved by 67 percent of the residential property owners within
300 feet of the proposed location.
7) Advertising shelters shall be permitted in the R -6 and all non - residential zones with the
exception of locations within PSBA and WABA boundaries if those entities have adopted a
plan for installing and financing bus shelters. In the event no plans are adopted by September
2004, the exemption shall no longer apply.
8) All advertising shelter locations must be within the top 100 bus stops in Alameda based on
boardings, using the best available data.
9) No advertising shelters shall be located in front of buildings on the City's or state's list of
historic monuments unless the City Council finds the advertising shelters is necessary based
on boardings and would not be detrimental to the character of the historic monument.
10) Advertising shelters shall be permitted in front of schools, but the City must approve
advertisements at these locations prior to installation.
11) No bus shelters shall be placed between a roadway and water on those roads with shoreline
access or which abut public parks.
12) In lieu of bus shelters provided through the bus shelter advertising program, private funds
may be used to purchase, install and maintain non - advertising shelters at specified locations,
pending City approval of shelter locations, shelter design, and the funding strategy.
G: \PUBWORKS \LANDTRN \TRANSPORTATION \COMMITTEES \TTT \2004 \041404 \Exhibit 2A- criteria.doc
%A
bliCrttlerek
Public Work Rbr*sJ6rY
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Date: April 7, 2004
Re: Public Hearing to Consider a Recommendation to Adopt FY 2004/05 CDBG
Action Plan, Amend FY 2003/04 CDBG Action Plan and Authorize the City
Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements and
Modifications
Background
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) finance programs and activities that benefit low-
and moderate - income persons and help prevent or eliminate slums and blight. The
2004/05 CDBG Action Plan, describing the proposed use of CDBG funds in the coming
year, must be approved by Council and submitted to HUD by May 15, 2004. All citizen
participation requirements have been met. Concurrently, the FY 2003 -04 Action Plan will
be amended to allow program income from loan repayments and unobligated current year
funds to be put to immediate use.
Discussion /Analysis
Attachments A and B summarize the activities recommended for FY 2004/05 funding and
revised FY 2003/04 funding. Activities selected for funding through the Amendment are
those that can be implemented prior to June 30. The draft Action Plan is on file in the City
Clerk's office. These recommendations are based on needs identified through a variety of
community engagement activities, including the Social Service Human Relations Board's
(SSHRB's) community needs assessment and survey, media and website notices inviting
citizen comments, and the Council's January 2004 public hearing on housing and
community development needs. Two themes have emerged: the critical need for "safety
net" services and the great importance of service diversity and integration, particularly for
high levels of unmet need in west Alameda.
Public Facilities & Improvements: Community engagement and design are underway for
public improvements in the West End neighborhood bounded by Webster /Lincoln/
Main /Appezzato (Census Tract 4276), which includes Harbor Island and other large
apartments, Housing Authority —owned Esperanza and China Clipper complexes,
Woodstock Park and Woodstock Cooperative homes, and three public schools. Additional
funds are proposed to bring the total to approximately $400,000 for priority public
improvements to be constructed /installed following presentation of a neighborhood design
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing #5 -C
4 -20 -04
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
April 7, 2004
Page 2
plan later in 2004. Installation of a fire safety system in Mastick Senior Center is also
proposed.
The "Blight Busters" Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) will help eliminate blight and improve
public safety by demolishing abandoned and deteriorated buildings and /or improvements. It
is anticipated that initial clearance activities would remove abandoned buildings adjacent to
the Alameda Point Collaborative housing, improving safety and environmental conditions in
this newer west Alameda neighborhood. Guidelines for the "Blight Buster" program appear
as Attachment C.
Public Services: FY 2004/05 will be the second year in the two -year cycle adopted last year
to enhance program stability and optimize resources for direct services. Current and
proposed funding for community -based organizations (CBO's) is listed in Attachment D.
The Program Description column includes proposed outcomes, which have been adjusted
to reflect proposed funding levels, and 2003 -04 performance to date.
The recommendations allocate 100% of available public service funding. In April 2003, the
FY 2004/05 public service cap was estimated at $268,630, based on 15% of the grant plus
projected FY 2003/04 program income, and reduced funding levels were planned.
However, the City has received an unprecedented amount of program income during FY
2003/04, bringing the actual amount available for public services to $314,267. This has
allowed proposed funding to be: 1) Maintained at FY 2003/04 levels for all public services,
and 2) Increased for "safety net" services, including the Alameda Food Bank, Alameda Red
Cross, Midway Shelter, and Sentinel Fair Housing. Allocation of the increase pays the
Food Bank's rent at its Alameda Point facility, with the remainder pro -rated based on each
of these agencies' current funding levels.
Rehabilitation: The Substantial Rehabilitation program is funded in accordance with the
requirements of the Guyton agreement to develop new units in vacant or underutilized
space in existing residential and mixed -use structures. Additional funds are recommended
for the Rental Rehabilitation Program to continue this previously approved program. Carry-
forward funds in these and other RLF activities also will be available.
Support of HOME - funded Activities: CDBG funds are proposed for the operation of HOME -
(federally- funded) housing assistance programs: Security Deposit Assistance and Down
Payment Assistance (DPA) Programs. HOME funding for DPA was authorized by Council
in May 2003 and will carry forward into FY 2004/05. In addition, Congress has approved a
new HUD program, the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI), which will be
used in conjunction with HOME and other funds to assist first -time homebuyers.
Sma11Business Assistance: Proposed funding represents anticipated loan repayments to
augment the Small Business Assistance Revolving Loan Fund. This Program, which
became fully operational in 2003 -04, assists low- and moderate - income entrepreneurs to
start, stabilize and grow their businesses.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
April 7, 2004
Page 3
Technical Assistance: Technical Assistance activities build on existing collaboration and
community engagement, leading to possible formation of a community -based development
organization and broader neighborhood strategy area designation, which will increase
flexibility in the future use of CDBG funds. Several activities are proposed for neighborhood
revitalization in west Alameda. Alameda Point Collaborative Technical Assistance will fund
property management and leadership training for the staff and key residents of this
supportive housing complex. West End Neighborhood Capacity Building will help
community -based non - profits and grass roots organizations develop systems and
leadership skills for work in this low- income neighborhood. Family Resources Coordination
will help existing service providers coordinate and publicize programs and activities,
thereby enhancing service delivery to youth and family in the West End and Alameda Point
neighborhoods. Demand - Response Transportation is proposed to continue and expand
community -based organizations' capacity to serve west Alameda residents through
improved transit and other transportation alternatives. The Alameda Kids Coach will begin
implementation in June 2004 and is an example of the type of non -CDBG grant activity to
be supported with these technical assistance funds.
Planning /Administration /Program Delivery: The Plan includes allocations for program
delivery, planning, and administration related to the development and implementation of all
CDBG - eligible and CDBG- funded projects. During FY 2004 -05, a series of community
engagement activities will lead to the development of a new Five -Year Strategic Plan
required by HUD for all CDBG grantees. Also, in furtherance of the CDBG objective of
assistance to lower- income residents, staff researches and applies for other funding
sources to meet community needs and provides support to the Rent Review Advisory
Committee, the SSHRB, the Hate and Intolerance Response Team, and similar activities.
Following approval of and in accordance with the FY 2004/05 CDBG Action Plan and
Amended FY 2003/04 CDBG Action Plan, Grant Agreements or Modifications will be
negotiated to fulfill Federal and City requirements. The form of Agreements and
Modifications are the same as those previously approved by the Council and City Attorney.
Fiscal Impact
There is no impact on the General Fund. With CDBG funds, the City is able to provide a
higher level of service and improvements to its low- and moderate - income residents and
neighborhoods. CDBG funds are also used to leverage millions of dollars of private,
foundation, and other public funds for Alameda through investment and matching grants.
Adopting the FY 2004/05 Action Plan will allocate $1,561,000 in new CDBG Entitlement
funds and $187,014 in projected Program Income, and amending the FY 2003/04 Action
Plan will reallocate $211,006 in Entitlement funds and allocate $396,160 in Program
Income received during FY 2003/04, for a total of $2,355,180.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
Other Considerations
April 7, 2004
Page 4
At Council's request, the SSHRB reviewed staff's public service recommendations and
submitted its comments in a separate report . These are the only comments received thus
far in the 30 -day public review period, which concludes with the public hearing before
Council on April 20.
Recommendation
The City Manager recommends that the City Council receive citizens' comments in a public
hearing and then, by motion, adopt the FY 2004/05 CDBG Action Plan, amend the FY
2003/04 CDBG Action Plan and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Grant
Agreements, Grant Modifications, and other related documents.
,ully submitted
slie A. Little
Development Services Dire
cue
By: Carol Beaver
Community Development Manager
CB \GP:sb
Attachment A: CDBG FY 2004/05 Action Plan Summary
Attachment B: Amended CDBG FY 2003/04 Action Plan Summary
Attachment C: Blight Busters Revolving Loan Fund Program Guidelines
Attachment D: Proposed Public Service Funding and Performance Summary
cc: All FY 2003/04 CDBG Subgrantees
Social Services Human Relations Board
G:\CDBG\CounRpt\AP2004\ReportFinal.doc
F: \30.1(h)
F \P \General 04/05\fin
F: \City of Alameda\Agendas, Minutes, & SR
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Attachment A
CDBG 2004/05 Funding Plan Summary
The activities below are funded specifically with FY 2004/05 CDBG Funds. Other ongoing activities may be
implemented in program year 2004/05 using prior years' CDBG funding.
Activity & Description
LOCATION/
ELIGIBILITY
OUT-
COMES'
CDBG
FUNDING
Implementing Agency
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
Non - Profit /Public Facility Revolving Loan Fund
Community -wide
570.201(c) or
570.202
570.208(a)(2)
1 -2 facilities
$8,137
Financial and technical assistance to non - profit
organizations and public agencies providing CDBG-
eligible activities to acquire, install and/or improve
facilities, including disabled access retrofit
City Development Services Department
West End Neighborhood Improvements Install and/or
Census Tract
4276
570.201(c)
570.208(a)(1)
1 project
$84,345
'
construct public improvements for area bounded by
Webster / Lincoln / Main / Appezzato
City Development Services Department
Public Facilities and Improvements Program
570.201(c)
570.208(a)(2)
$190,667
Delivery .
PUBLIC SERVICES
Alameda Continuum of Community Emergency and
451 Stardust
Place
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
1,000
households
$71,800
Social Services (A.C.C.E.S.S)
Case management, referrals, and direct services
including limited -term housing assistance for
individuals and families at risk of homelessness
Alameda Red Cross
Alameda Kids Coach Partnership for networked
Community -wide
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
40
households
$2,500
shuttle to transport children to /from child care,
childhood development and after - school programs and
facilitate parents' workforce participation
City Development Services Department
Child Care Vouchers
Community -wide
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
23 children
$50,000
Limited -term vouchers for children of working parents
BANANAS, Inc.
Family Violence Prevention Services
Community -wide
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
125
individuals
$15,000
Enhanced prevention and information, referrals, legal
counseling for victims of family violence
Family Violence Law Center
Food Bank Rent, Insurance and Utilities
1900 Thau Way &
AP Bldg 92
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
1,200
households
$22,000
'
Rent, insurance and utility costs for facilities that
house emergency food programs.
Alameda Emergency Food, Inc.
Four Brid . es
1912 Central Ave.
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
55
individuals
$25,767
Support group for mentally and emotionally disabled
adults
Bay Area Community Services
Projected annual outcomes also reflect prior years' CDBG funding for some activities.
Program Delivery also supports activities funded with prior years' CDBG funds.
Activity & Description
LOCATION/
ELIGIBILITY
OUT-
COMES*
CDBG
FUNDING
Implementing Agency
Housing Counseling
Community-wide
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
390
households
$15,500
Tenant/Landlord counseling, mediation, information
and referral
Sentinel Fair Housing
Midway Shelter
Confidential
location
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
8,200
bed nights
$46,200
Service - enriched, 24 -hour emergency homeless shelter
for women and children
Building Futures with Women and Children
RAP Program Scholarships Subsidies for youth to
Community-wide
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
10 -12 youths
$6,000
participate in RAP after - school program
City Recreation & Parks Department
Senior Services Expansion of information and referrals
1155 Santa Clara
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
200
individuals
$7,500
and service coordination through Mastick Senior
Center
City Recreation & Parks Department
West Alameda Teen Club and Esperanza Afterschool
401 Pacific Ave.
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
100
youths
$22,000
Pro2ram Youth recreation and leadership
development
Alameda Boys & Girls Club
Woodchip After- School Program
Woodstock &
Chipman Schools
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
160
youths
$15,000
Extended day academic, arts and recreation program
for low- performing and at -risk students
Alameda Unified School District
Public Service Program Delivery **
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
$15,000
REHABILITATION
Rental Rehabilitation
Community-wide
570.202
570.208(a)(3)
10 units
$5,000
Financial and technical assistance for rehabilitation of
renter - occupied units
City Development Services Department
Substantial Rehabilitation Financial and technical
Community-wide
570.202
570.208(a)(3)
2-4 units
$238,833
assistance to restore and/or create affordable rental
units in existing vacant or underutilized structures
City Development Services Department
Rehabilitation Program Delivery **
570.202
570.208(a)(1)
$271,680
SUPPORT OF HOME - FUNDED ACTIVITIES
Down Payment Assistance Pro2ram Management
Community-wide
570.201(k)
570.208(a)(3)
1 -2
households
$10,000
Program delivery of HOME- funded homeownership
assistance activities
City Development Services Department
Security Deposit Assistance Program Management
Community —
wide
570.201(k)
570.208(a)(3)
75
households
$10,000
Program delivery of HOME- funded tenant -based
rental assistance activities
Alameda Housing Authority
Projected annual outcomes also reflect prior years' CDBG funding for some activities.
Program Delivery also supports activities funded with prior years' CDBG funds.
Page 2
Activity & Description
LOCATION/
ELIGIBILITY
OUT-
COMES`
CDBG
FUNDING
Implementing Agency
SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE
Small Business Revolving Loan Fund
Community-wide
570.201(o)
570.208(a)(2)
1-3
businesses
$3,877
Financial assistance for low- income entrepreneurs
City Development Services Department
Small Business Pro2ram Delivery **
570.201(o)
570.208(a)(2)
$28,662
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Demand - Response Transportation
Community-wide
570.201(p)
570.208(a)(2)
Resident
workforce
participation
$10,000
Assist community -based organizations to develop and
implement public transit options to /from west
Alameda, including Alameda Point
City Development Services Department
West End Family Resources Coordination
Census Tracts
4274/4275/4276
570.201(p)
570.208(a)(1)
Enhanced
service
delivery
$20,000
Build community organizations' capacity to coordinate
existing CDBG - eligible services and conduct outreach to
enhance delivery of youth and family services.
City of Alameda, Development Services Department
West End Neighborhood Capacity Building
Census Tract
4276
570.201(p)
570.208(a)(1)
Neighbor-
hood
revitalization
$25,000
Technical assistance to build residents' and community
organizations' capacity to provide CDBG - eligible
neighborhood revitalization activities, possibly leading to
community-based development organization.
City of Alameda, Development Services Department
Technical Assistance Pro2ram Delivery **
570.201(p)
570.208(a)(1)
$21,883
PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION
Continuum of Care Coordinator to develop funding
Community-wide
570.206
Enhanced
Federal/State
homeless
resources
$3,077
resources for homeless providers on behalf of City of
Alameda and other participating jurisdictions
Alameda County Housing and Community Development
Fair Housing Services Participate in proactive landlord
Community-wide
570.206
25
households,
25 landlords
$12,500
outreach and education and housing discrimination
testing and counseling
Sentinel Fair Housing
General Administration
570.206
$334,026
FUNDS FOR COST OVERRUNS
Funds for Cost Overruns
1
$156,100
TOTAL FY 2004/05 CDBG FUNDS
$1,748,014
• Projected annual outcomes also reflect prior years' CDBG funding for some activities.
• Program Delivery also supports activities funded with prior years' CDBG funds.
Page 3
ATTACHMENT B
CDBG 2003/04 Funding Plan Summary
Adopted 4/16/03; Proposed Amendment #1 4/20/04
Activity & Description
LOCATION/
ELIGIBILITY
OUT-
COMES*
CDBG
FUNDING
Implementing Agency
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
Bus Stop ADA Improvements Enlarge and retrofit bus
Community-wide
570.201(c)
570.208(a)(2)
20 bus stops
$50,584
stop zones to accommodate individuals with physical
disabilities
City Public Works Department
West En'd or land Nei2hborhood Improvements
Census Tract
4276
570.201(c)
570.208(a)(1)
1 project
$497,099
11 3
Design and install and/or construct public improve-
ments for Webster / Lincoln / Main /Appezzato area
City Development Services Department
Mastick Senior Center
1155 Santa Clara
570.201(c)
570.208(a)(2)
1 facility
g
Vin. o a o o;o'
Replace deteriorated flooring in Social Hall and install
k aaNe S Sxstetn
City Public Works Department
Non - Profit /Public Facility Revolving Loan Fund
Community-wide
570.201(c) or
570.202
570.208(a)(2)
1 -2 facilities
$142,274
Financial and technical assistance to non - profit and
public agencies providing CDBG-eligible activities to
acquire, install and/or improve facilities, including
disabled access retrofit
City Development Services Department
Public Facilities and Improvements Program
570.201(c)
570.208(a)(2)
$167,474
Delivery
CLEARANCE
Bhiht Busters Revolving Loan Fund
APIS & BWIP
Areas
szo 2o1(a)
-_
57 208(b)
1 2 sites
auc a and ,technical assistance to public agencies
aq ur pablic /priv�aie.partnersl ips to clear.blighted
�
rpe�ry sties �
1.ty,I y10p�,nen _$ervtees Department
PUBLIC SERVICES
Alameda Continuum of Community Emergency and
451 Stardust
Place
570.2O1(e)
570.208(a)(2)
750
households
$57,500
Social Services (A.C.C.E.S.S) Case management,
referrals, and direct services including limited -term
housing assistance for individuals and families at risk
of homelessness
Alameda Red Cross
Alameda Kids Coach Shuttle to transport children
Community-wide
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
40
households
$10,750
to /from child care, childhood development and after-
school programs
City Development Services Department
Child Care Vouchers
Community-wide
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
23 children
$50,000
Limited -term vouchers for children of working parents
BANANAS, Inc.
Family Violence Prevention Services
Community-wide
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
125
individuals
$15,000
Enhanced prevention and information, referrals, legal
counseling for victims of family violence
Family Violence Law Center
Projected annual outcomes also reflect prior years' CDBG funding for some activities.
Program Delivery also supports activities funded with prior years' CDBG funds.
Activity & Description
LOCATION/
ELIGIBILITY
OUT-
COMES*
CDBG
FUNDING
Implementing Agency
Food Bank Insurance and Utilities
1900 Thau Way &
AP Bldg 92
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
750
households
$12,500
Insurance and utility costs for facility that houses an
emergency food program
Alameda Emergency Food, Inc.
Four Brid . es
1912 Central Ave.
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
55
individuals
$25,767
Support group for mentally and emotionally disabled
adults
Bay Area Community Services
Housing Counseling
Community-wide
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
360
households
$12,500
Tenant/Landlord counseling, mediation, information
and referral
Sentinel Fair Housing
Midway Shelter
Confidential
location
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
250
individuals
$37,500
Service - enriched, 24 -hour emergency homeless shelter
for women and children
Building Futures with Women and Children
RAP Program Scholarships Subsidies for youth to
Community-wide
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
10 -12 youths
$6,000
participate in RAP after - school program
City Recreation & Parks Department
Senior Services Expansion of information and referrals
1155 Santa Clara
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
200
individuals
$7,500
and service coordination through Mastick Senior
Center
City Recreation & Parks Department
West Alameda Teen Club
401 Pacific Ave.
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
100
youths
$22,000
Youth recreation and leadership development
Alameda Boys & Girls Club
Woodchip After - School Program
Woodstock &
Chipman Schools
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
160
youths
$15,000
Extended day academic, arts and recreation program
for low- performing and at -risk students
Alameda Unified School District
Public Service Program Delivery **
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
$15,000
Independent Living Support Support groups for the
Community-wide
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
10
individuals
$2,500
visually impaired to maintain independent living
Lions Center for the Blind
REHABILITATION
Rental Rehabilitation
Community-wide
570.202
570.208 a 3
OO
-1-0 units
20
e00
54Q
Financial and technical assistance for rehabilitation of
renter - occupied units
City Development Services Department
Substantial Rehabilitation Financial and technical
Community-wide
570.202
570.208(a)(3)
2-4 units
$241,740
assistance to restore and/or create affordable rental
units in existing vacant or underutilized structures
City Development Services Department
Rehabilitation Program Delivery **
570.202
570.208(a)(3)
$264,311
SUPPORT OF HOME - FUNDED ACTIVITIES
Down Payment Assistance Program Management
Community-wide
570.201(k)
570.208(a)(3)
1 -2
households
$10,000
Program delivery of HOME- funded homeownership
assistance activities
City Development Services Department
Action Plan — FY 2003/04
City of Alameda
Page 2
Activity & Description
LOCATION/
ELIGIBILITY
OUT-
COMES*
CDBG
FUNDING
Implementing Agency
Housing -Jobs Scholarship Program Management
Community —
wide
570.201(k)
570.208(a)(3)
10
households
$10,000
'
Program delivery of HOME- funded tenant -based
rental assistance activities
Allied Housing, Inc.
Security Deposit Assistance Program Management
Community —
wide
570.201(k)
570.208(a)(3)
75
households
$10,000
Program delivery of HOME - funded tenant -based
rental assistance activities
Alameda Housing Authority
HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE
Down Payment Assistance Program
Community-wide
570.201(n)
570.208(a)(3)
1 -2
households
$100,010
Shared appreciation second mortgage for first -time
homebuyers, deferred until sale or transfer or for 15
years.
City Development Services Department
SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE
Small Business Revolving Loan Fund
Community-wide
570.201(o)
570.208(a)(2)
1-3
businesses
$2,160
Financial assistance for low- income entrepreneurs
City Development Services Department
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
A iineda Point Collaborative.Capacitv Building
677 W ltinger Av
57 Ol.
570.208(a)(2)
$oftware and
several_
tra`
sessions
$4�,Op0
c l A,41 V x I geeut atsd l aderslup _training for the
gyres Hsu 0 v housing coin lex
oa _ , ora Agil Inc
Demand - Response Transportation
Community-wide
570.201(p)
570.208(a)(2)
Resident
workforce
participation
$10,000
Assist community -based organizations to develop and
implement public transit options to /from west
Alameda, including Alameda Point
City Development Services Department
PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION
Continuum of Care Develop funding resources for
Community-wide
570.206
Enhanced
Federal/State
homeless
resources
$3,077
homeless providers on behalf of City of Alameda and
other participating jurisdictions
Alameda County Housing and Community Development
Fair Housing Services Participate in proactive landlord
Community-wide
570.206(c)
25
households,
25 landlords
$12,500
outreach and education and housing discrimination
testing and counseling
Sentinel Fair Housing
General Administration
570.206
$340,782
FUNDS FOR COST OVERRUNS
Funds for Cost Overruns
$158,000
TOTAL FY 2003/04 CDBG FUNDS
$2,058,827
$2,475,194
• Projected annual outcomes also reflect prior years' CDBG funding for some activities.
Program Delivery also supports activities funded with prior years' CDBG funds.
G:\ CD8G \CounRpt\AP2004\AttachmentB.doc
04/08/2004
Action Plan — FY 2003/04
City of Alameda
Page 2
ATTACHMENT C
BLIGHT BUSTERS
REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM
The Blight Busters Revolving Loan Fund Program (Program) provides financial and technical
assistance to public agencies and /or public /private partnerships (Recipients) to clear blighted property
sites (Site) by demolishing and removing abandoned and deteriorated buildings and /or improvements
(Project). The Program may be subject to administrative review and revision periodically in response to
updated information.
The Program will assist Recipients to assess clearance needs, pay "soft costs" including but not limited
to title and credit reports, and Permit fees. Funding May be provided to contract with:
• Specialized professionals to conduct environmental and /or National Register review;
• Consultant/Engineering services to:
o assess and plan remediation of hazardous materials, if any;
o prepare plans and specifications which comply with state /local planning and building
codes and requirements for federally- assisted construction;
o conduct formal bidding of the Project; and
o administer the Project ;
and /or
• Licensed contractor(s) to conduct hazard remediation, demolition and debris removal to ready
the site for productive reuse.
As appropriate, such contracts shall be in compliance with Davis -Bacon wage rates and related
requirements.
ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
Applications are available from the Development Services Department (DSD). To be eligible for the
Program, the application must meet all criteria below.
The Site shall be:
• located in one of the Project Improvement (redevelopment) Areas designated by Community
Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda;
• controlled by the Recipient, whether by ownership or written agreement granting site control
appropriate to the proposed clearance activity;
• substandard under local codes and /or deteriorated, resulting in significant public health and
safety hazards; and
• vacant for a period of at least 12 months.
If the building to be demolished served a residential purpose prior to its dilapidated condition, it shall be
determined to be both substandard and not suitable for rehabilitation.
The Recipient shall:
• be in compliance with any and all federal /state /local licensing, reporting and tax requirements
and, if applicable, in good standing with California Department of Corporations;
• describe how the Site qualifies as substandard and how the Project will eliminate the blighted
conditions;
• attach an audited financial statement for its prior fiscal year;
• demonstrate sufficient management capacity and intent to continue operations throughout term
of loan repayment; and
• agree to refrain from any demolition, installation and /or construction or remodeling during
application review.
Applications WILL NOT be accepted for clearance activities that are underway or completed.
Properties containing both eligible and ineligible uses may apply but additional qualifying criteria will be
considered.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Eligible applications will be reviewed by a panel. Priority for funding will be based on availability of
funding and a combination of the following factors:
• Recipient ownership of Site.
• Extent of health and safety hazards.
• Proximity to residential areas.
• Extent to which project can be funded in discrete phases.
• Resources available to leverage the assistance (if clearance immediately follows Site
acquisition, or other financing is secured for planned improvements post - clearance, such
funding can be considered as a part of the total financial commitment of the Recipient).
• Financial underwriting criteria.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Financial assistance will be in the form of interest subsidies for market -rate loans and /or below market -
rate loans tailored to the specifics of each Project. Assistance is not to exceed $150,000. (A waiver of
up to two times the assistance may be granted for complex projects, e.g. remediation of toxic
materials, heavily regulated uses, or sites with historic or pre- historic implications.) Loans for pre -
demolition services may be zero - interest and forgivable. Funded Projects will result in an agreement
between the City and Recipient, including one or more promissory notes and recorded Deed of Trust or
other appropriate security document.
For further information or an application please call (510) 749 -5812.
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
G:\ CDBG \CounRpt\AP2004\AttachmentC.doc
ATTACHMENT D
PROJECTED CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDING
July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2005
Project Name / Organization
TWO -YEAR FUNDING CYCLE
Program Description and Proposed Service Levels
Current
Performance
50% FY03 /04
Comparison
Focus
Areas
3 4
5
_,
FY 03 -04 FY 04 -05 TOTAL
1 2
Alameda Continuum of
Community, Emergency, & Social
Services (ACCESS) / American
Red Cross - Alameda Service
Center
$58,500
$71,800
$130,300
Safety net services to prevent homelessness, including
coordinated case management, referrals, and direct services
such as food programs, emergency rental /utility assistance,
housing deposit assistance, and emergency food and baby
supplies. 750 hh to be served. Increased funding will be
used for rental assistance, coordination of City -wide
client referral system, VITA/EITC tax assistance and
similar safety net services. Goal Increased to 1,000 hh.
119%
x
Alameda Kids Coach /
Development Services
Department
$9,750
$2,500
$12,250
Partnership for networked shuttle to transport children
to /from child care, childhood development and after - school
programs and facilitate parents' workforce
participation.Match to $432k MTC grant.
Moming service to
begin in June
2004;after- school
service in August
2004.
x
Childcare Vouchers / BANANAS
$50,000
$50,000
$100,000
Subsidy and administrative costs for childcare subsidy
program providing $200 /month voucher for a minimum of 22
children of low- income working parents for up to 9 months
each.
118%
x
Family Violence Prevention
Services / Family Violence Law
Center
$15,000
$15,000
$30,000
Emergency hotline, information and referrals for 125
Alamedans. Legal counseling and/or court accompaniment
for temporary restraining orders for 32 Alamedans.
63% referrals; 25%
legal counseling
x
Food Bank / Alameda Emergency
Food Bank, Inc.
$15,000
$22,000
$37,000
Emergency food program. 1000 hh to be served. Increased
funding will pay AP facility rent, allowing more funding
for food. Goal increased to 1,200 hh.
100%
x
Four Bridges Creative Living
Center Program / Bay Area
Community Services
$25,767
$25,767
$51,534
Day rehabilitation program to serve 55 individuals with
mental/emotional illness, providing socialization,
prevocational training, and skills - building.
51%
x
Housing Counseling / Sentinel Fair
Housing
$12,500
$15,500
$28,000
Tenant/landlord information and referral, counseling and/or
mediation for 360 households. Increased funding will be
used for more extensive services to tenants and
landlords. Goal increased to 390 hh and 20 landlords.
64%
x
Midway Shelter / Building Futures
with Women and Children
$37,500
$46,200
$83,700
Provide 8,200 bednights of 24 -hour shelter, along with
emergency food and supportive services, to homeless
women and children. Increased funding will allow for
increased support groups, resulting in greater percent of
clients with Increased self - sufficiency.
52%
x
RAP Program Scholarships /
Recreation and Parks Department
$6,000
$6,000
$12,000
Subsidies for 9 -10 youths to participate in after - school
recreation program.
69%
x
Senior Services / Recreation and
Parks Department
$7,500
$7,500
$15,000
Provide intensive assistance efforts (negotiating, mediating,
advocating) on behalf of at least 100 seniors to gain
resolution with specific problems in areas such as public
assistance eligibility, finance and health. Expand information
and referral program to 500 seniors.
55% intensive,
165% referrals
x
West Alameda Teen Club /
Alameda Boys & Girls Club
$22,000
$22,000
$44,000
Recreational and educational activities for 100 teenage
youth, including skill building. leadership and character
development.
112%
x
Woodchip After - School Program /
Alameda Unified School District
$15,000
$15,000
$30,000
Academic enrichment and recreation after - school program
for 100 low - performing and at -risk students.
162%
x
Program Delivery / Development
Services Department
$15,000
$15,000
$30,000
„ s
$289,517 $314,267
Focus Areas
1. Improve access to rental housing, including rental or utility assistance, fair housing, landlord/tenant mediation, or independent living support
2. Maintain or expand the safety net of supportive services (shelter, food, basic needs, health access)
3. Improve access to child care, after - school programs, or parenting assistance
4. Strengthen neighborhood cooperation and /or multi - cultural communication and understanding in Alameda
5. Reduce or prevent violence, aggression or conflict among Alamedans
G:\ CDBG \CounRpt1AP20041AttachmentDW /8/2004
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
From: Stewart Chen, Vice President
Social Service Human Relations Board
Date: April 12, 2004
Re: Recommending FY 2004/05 CDBG Public Service Allocations
Background
At City Council's request, each year the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB)
reviews and comments upon the Development Service Department's recommendations for
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) public services funding.
Discussion /Analysis
At its December 11, 2003 Special Meeting, the SSHRB considered priority need areas for
public service funding as part of the annual public comment period on housing and community
development needs. Based upon its previous studies and this discussion, the SSHRB
affirmed the five focus areas identified in the FY 2003/04 — 2004/05 Request for Proposals,
issued in January 2003. The Board also highlighted the critical need for safety net services,
including food, shelter, and access to health care and other basic needs and suggested that
any additional public service funding available in FY 2004/05 be directed to programs such as
those noted above.
At its March meeting, the SSHRB reviewed staff's published funding recommendations and
noted the increased funding levels for four safety net programs. The Board also heard public
comments from representatives of numerous organizations proposed for funding. All spoke in
favor of the recommended funding levels. The SSHRB voted unanimously to recommend
acceptance the proposed public service funding for FY 2004 -05.
Recommendation
The SSHRB recommends that City Council approve the CDBG public services funding
allocations as published for FY 2004 -05.
Respectfully submitted,
Stewart
- resident, Social Service Human Relations Board
cc: Social Service Human Relations Board
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \SSH RB \COUNCIL \RECOMM E N \PSaIIoc04.doc
F: \SSHRB \Council Relations 2004
Re: Hearing #5 -C
4 -20 -04
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 12, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Authorize the Mayor to Execute a Relinquishment Agreement with
the California Department of Transportation for the Webster Street Right -of -Way (State
Highway 260) Between Central Avenue and Atlantic Avenue/Ralph M. Appezzato
Memorial Parkway
BACKGROUND
Webster Street is designated as State Route 260 (SR260) and is currently under the operation and
maintenance of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). On January 6, 2004,
Council reviewed seven options to allow the project to proceed and approved the relinquishment
of SR260 to the City for future operation and maintenance as the preferred option. The State
Legislature is currently considering the relinquishment, designated as Assembly Bill 2027 and
sponsored by Assembly Member Wilma Chan. The relinquishment is expected to be passed by
the Legislature and Governor this year and ratified by the California Transportation Commission
in January 2005. Passage of the bill is considered routine; there were thirteen similar
relinquishments approved by the Legislature and Governor in 2003.
In July 2003, staff, working with the West Alameda Business Association (WABA), submitted
plans and specifications to Caltrans for review and approval. Despite previous indications from
Caltrans that the design was acceptable, staff was advised that the plans would not be approved
based on Caltrans' requirement that plazas and curb extensions have a minimum 1.2 -meter
(approximately four feet) clearance from the face of the curb extensions to the edge of the travel
way.
DISCUSSION
Alameda and the State must complete a Relinquishment Agreement to obtain the State's
approval of an encroachment permit to construct the Webster Renaissance project. It is desirable
to begin construction of the project now in order to meet grant requirements and satisfy WABA's
desire to begin the project this year. The attached Relinquishment Agreement has been
completed to the satisfaction of City and State staff.
Upon approval of the Relinquishment Agreement by Council, staff and Caltrans will meet to
draft an agreement for the ongoing and future maintenance of Webster Street. The maintenance
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GlyofAlametla
PpublicWorks
Department
Public Work llfrl f Yu!
Report #5 -D
4 -20 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
April 12, 2004
agreement will provide for the transfer of maintenance and responsibility to the City, while the
State retains responsibility for any liability and claims that occur or occurred prior to the
relinquishment effective date. Maintenance of the route is presently done by City forces except
pavement maintenance under a current maintenance agreement with Caltrans. In 2002, Caltrans
provided an asphalt concrete overlay of the existing street, which appears to be in very good
condition.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL ANALYSIS,
There is no direct cost associated with the relinquishment of Webster Street by Caltrans to the
City of Alameda. There will be additional yearly maintenance costs estimated at $52,400 that
can be funded through a future assessment district, existing maintenance funds, or a combination
of sources.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, authorize the Mayor to execute
a relinquishment agreement with the California Department of Transportation for the Webster
Street right -of -way (State Route 260) between Central Avenue and Atlantic Avenue/Ralph M
Appezzato Memorial Parkway.
Respect submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
ai,xr
By: John V. Wankum
Supervising Civil Engineer
MN:JVW:dl
Attachment 1: Draft Relinquishment Agreement
cc: WABA
G:\PUB W ORKS\P W ADM IN \COUNCIL \2004 \042004\Rel inq uishment
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtyofName&
uub!icWorks
?parbnent
Public Work NbrMfw ku!
Mod. G -1 04 -Ala -260 KP 0.0/1.0 (PM 0.0/0.6)
DRAFT 3/30/04 Webster Street Relinquishment
EH 04250- 1A4501
District Agreement No. 4 -2009
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON , 2004,
is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of
Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE ", and
CITY OF ALAMEDA, a body politic and a
municipal corporation of the State of
California, referred to herein as "CITY ".
RECITALS
1. STATE and CITY, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 73, are authorized to
enter into a Cooperative Agreement in order to relinquish to CITY a portion of a state
highway within CITY's jurisdiction.
2. CITY requests that STATE relinquish to CITY that portion of State Route 260 (SR 260)
between Central Avenue and Atlantic Avenue in the City of Alameda in Alameda
County, including, but not limited to, roadway improvements within the existing SR
260 right of way that are currently maintained and operated by STATE.
3. STATE desires to relinquish to CITY that portion of SR 260 described above.
4. STATE and CITY agree that said portion of SR 260 is currently in a state of good repair.
5. CITY desires to design and construct improvements (Improvements) within the limits of
proposed relinquishment, certain elements of which will not meet STATE standards.
Those Improvements consist of lighting, landscaping, provisions for future utility
undergrounding, storm drains, street furniture, bus shelters, plazas, curbs, and
sidewalks, collectively referred to herein as "PROJECT ". CITY is willing to fund
through grants and CITY funds one hundred percent (100 %) of all PROJECT capital
outlay and staffing costs.
6. The final actual relinquishment to CITY will occur upon approval by the California
Transportation Commission (CTC) of a Resolution of Relinquishment and the recording
of said resolution in the County Recorder's Office.
7. CITY desires to design and construct PROJECT prior to the approval by the CTC of a
Resolution of Relinquishment.
8. The parties hereto desire to define herein the terms and conditions under which CITY
may proceed with PROJECT to construct those Improvements prior to relinquishment
and under which terms said relinquishment is to be accomplished.
1
SECTION I
CITY AGREES:
DRAFT District Agreement No. 4 -2009
1. Execution of this Agreement constitutes CITY's waiver of STATE's ninety (90) days'
prior notice of "Intention to Relinquish" requirement contained in section 73 of the
Streets and Highways Code.
2. Effective upon the execution of this Agreement, CITY agrees to accept the total
responsibility and liability for the operation and maintenance for said portion of SR
260 described in Article 2 of Recitals, and to operate, maintain and be liable for said
Improvements, the PROJECT and this portion of the SR 260 facility without any
liability or additional cost to STATE, with the exception of any claims pending against
the STATE which arose due to an incident occurring prior to the effective date of this
Agreement.
3. Upon recordation of the CTC's Resolution of Relinquishment in the County Recorder's
Office, CITY agrees to accept ownership, including all rights, title and interest in said
portion of SR 260 described in Article 2 of Recitals, and to thereafter continue to
operate, maintain and be liable for said relinquished facility without any additional
cost to STATE.
4. To accept any and all financial obligations related to CITY's control over SR 260
excluding claims arising from the gross negligence and willful misconduct of STATE,
it's elected officials, officers, directors and employees and to represent and indemnify
STATE in any legal actions and/ or lawsuits involving all incidents alleged to have
occurred on and along SR 260, between Central Avenue and Atlantic Avenue, and
involving SR 260, between Central Avenue and Atlantic Avenue, effective from the date
of this Agreement through, including and following such time the CTC's Resolution of
Relinquishment is recorded in the County Recorder's Office.
SECTION II
STATE AGREES:
1. To support CITY's request for relinquishment by the CTC as being in the best interests
of the public.
2. To transfer to CITY, within sixty (60) days of the recordation of the CTC's Resolution of
Relinquishment, copies of all available STATE records and files for the relinquished
section of SR 260 right of way, including, but not limited to, plans, survey data and
right of way information.
3. To execute a subsequent Maintenance Agreement for the shared cost of signs, safety
lighting and traffic control devices and signals at the intersections of the termini of the
state highway connections with the route being relinquished.
2
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
DRAFT District Agreement No. 4 -2009
1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the
appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the allocation of those resources by
the CTC.
2. To issue, at no cost to CITY, upon proper application by CITY, an encroachment permit
to CITY authorizing entry onto SR 260 right of way to perform survey and other
investigative activities required for preparation of the Environmental Documents and
the Adoption and Relinquishment Reports and for the design and construction of the
PROJECT which CITY will thereafter operate and maintain, even should SR 260
remain a state highway. If CITY uses consultants rather than its own staff to perform
required work, these consultants will also be required to obtain an encroachment
permit. Said permits will be issued at no cost upon proper, application by the
consultants and by CITY's construction contractor.
3. A Maintenance Agreement will be executed between CITY and STATE prior to the CTC's
approval of Resolution of Relinquishment. This Maintenance Agreement shall specify
long -term maintenance responsibilities delegated to CITY for local PROJECT facilities
and shared signals. Generally, CITY shall assume responsibility for the intersections
at Central Avenue and Atlantic Avenue commencing with the beginning of curb returns
at approaches to the intersection or the beginning of CITY - constructed Improvements,
whichever occurs first. The Maintenance Agreement shall be consistent with proposed
Improvements to the Central Avenue and Atlantic Avenue by the CITY.
4. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or
liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or
in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this
Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code section
895.4, CITY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of California, all
officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and
description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code section
810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this
Agreement once the Resolution of Relinquishment is filed for recordation. STATE shall
remain responsible and /or liable for any claims made against the STATE and arising
from an event occurring prior to the effective date of this Agreement.
This indemnification by CITY shall include, but is not limited to, any claim or suit
arising out of construction of the PROJECT and the traffic and maintenance operations
performed by CITY on SR 260, between Central Avenue and Atlantic Avenue, until and
after such time the CTC's Resolution of Relinquishment is recorded in the County
Recorder's Office. CITY will cause its PROJECT construction contractor to name
STATE and its officers and employees as additional insureds on the contractor's
liability insurance policies for that PROJECT work between Central Avenue and
Atlantic Avenue, and will provide acceptable Certificates of Insurance issued by that
carrier to STATE conforming to the provisions of Section 7 -1.12B (3) or (5) of State's
Standard Specifications dated July 1999.
5. No alteration of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and
signed by the parties hereto and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated
herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto.
3
District Agreement No. 4 -2009
6. STATE shall no longer be required to operate and maintain this portion of SR 260
following the execution of this Agreement allowing CITY to construct the PROJECT.
Should STATE ever be required to accept and operate said route as a state highway
again subsequent to the execution of this Agreement and after the issuance of a
Resolution of Relinquishment by the CTC, CITY will modify or remove all non-
conforming portions of those Improvements at CITY's sole cost as STATE shall direct.
7. This Agreement shall terminate upon the recording in the County Recorder's Office of
the Relinquishment Resolution for this portion of SR 260, or on June 30, 2005,
whichever is earlier in time except for those provisions which relate to indemnification,
ownership, operation, and maintenance which shall remain in effect until terminated
or modified in writing by mutual agreement. In the event that the CTC does not issue
a Resolution of Relinquishment to be filed transferring STATE's ownership of the
PROJECT portion of SR 260 as constructed to CITY, this Agreement shall not
terminate until the parties mutually agree to such termination by an amendment to
this Agreement.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
TONY V. HARRIS
Acting Director of Transportation
CITY OF ALAMEDA
By: By:
Deputy District Director Mayor
Approved as to form and procedure:
Attorney
Department of Transportation
Attest:
City Clerk
Certified as to budgeting of funds: Recomme2 . ed for approval:
District Budget Manager
Public Works Director
J)
Certified as to financial terms and
conditions: Approved as to form:
Accounting Administrator A /orney
4
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 8, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for Bids for
the Webster Renaissance Project, No. 07 -02 -07
BACKGROUND
In October 2001, the City received a federal Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC)
Grant for $881,000 from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The grant is
administered by Caltrans and will be used for construction of the Webster Street Renaissance
Project (Project) along State Route 260 (Webster Street) from Central Avenue (State Route 61)
to Pacific Avenue. The project consists of streetscape improvements including curb and
sidewalk extensions for transit plazas, pedestrian amenity plazas and corner curb extensions for
greater pedestrian safety. The project also provides new street lighting, landscaping, an
irrigation system, street furniture, undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines and conduits
for future utility extensions. Staff worked with the West Alameda Business Association
(WABA) to formulate a design that fits the needs of the neighboring community. Later phases
of the project are contingent on funding and would extend the improvements to Atlantic
Avenue/Ralph M. Appezzato Parkway.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
In July 2003, staff substantially completed project plans and specifications. In order to receive
an encroachment permit from Caltrans to construct the project it is necessary for the City to enter
into a relinquishment agreement with Caltrans to transfer control and maintenance of Webster
Street to the City of Alameda. The relinquishment will be considered as a separate Council
agenda item.
Staff will hold a community meeting on April 15, 2004 to discuss the construction activities
associated with the project. The project specifications provide that the contractor shall not work
on both sides of Webster Street at the same time and there will be a maximum length of
construction operations of three blocks. Also, night work will not be permitted. The plans and
specifications for the Webster Renaissance Project, No. 07- 02 -07, are complete and available for
review at the City Clerk's office.
aid Alameda
Ppublic Works
apartment
Public Works Wo,ksfor You!
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Report #5 -D
4 -20 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Page 2
April 8, 2004
The Webster Renaissance Project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA section 15301, minor
alterations to existing facilities. Caltrans has also determined that the relinquishment of the
right -of -way is not subject to CEQA.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The project is budgeted as part of CEP # 00 -15 with funds available from the Transportation for
Livable Community grant, Redevelopment funds, and funds from Alameda Power and Telecom
to provide for the work of undergrounding existing electrical facilities within the project area.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt plans and specifications
and authorize a call for bids for the Webster Renaissance Project, No. P.W. 07- 02 -07.
MN:JVW:dl
cc: WABA
Respec ly submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
dkiKIPir0,
By: `John V. Wankum
Supervising Civil Engineer
G: \PUB WORKS\P WADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \042004 \Websteradopt
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CrtvefAlarnedi
PublicWOtks
Department
PublicWorks Wilda for You!
City of Alameda
Date:
Memorandum
April 12, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From:
James M. Flint,
City Manager
Re: Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending Section 1 -7 (Administrative Citations) in Chapter I (General)
BACKGROUND
On April 6, 2004 Council considered the introduction of an ordinance amending AMC
Section 1 -7 to allow administrative citations to be served by first class mail rather than
first class mail, certified, return - receipt requested. During discussion Councilmember
Barbara Kerr suggested that the City look into providing some proof of delivery or
attempted delivery along with the first class mail.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The U. S. Postal Service provides a service on first class mail called Delivery
Confirmation. For an additional $0.55 per letter the U. S. Postal Service will provide the
sender the date and time of delivery or attempted delivery. Between introduction and
final passage the requirement to use Delivery Confirmation has been added to the
proposed ordinance when first class mail is used for service of administrative citations.
MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE
All other sections of the Municipal Code dealing with this subject matter have been
thoroughly analyzed and found to be compatible with the proposed amendment to the
Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council pass the subject ordinance
amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 1 -7 (Administrative
Citations) in Chapter I (General),
Re: Final Passage
Ordinance #5 -E
4 -20 -04
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Respectfully submitted,
By:
G:\PLANNING\CCORHPORTS \2004\h-April 20 Admin Cite Adoption Revision doc
Page 2
April 12, 2004
Gregory Fuz
Planning and Building Director
Gregory J
Building
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE SUBSECTION 1- 7.14(a), (NOTICES)
OF SECTION 1 -7 (ADMINISTRATION CITATIONS) OF CHAPTER 1 (GENERAL)
TO DELETE CERTIFIED, RETURN - RECEIPT REQUEST REQUIREMENT
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
subsection 1- 7.14(a), (Notices) of Section 1 -7 (Administrative Citations) of Chapter I
(General) thereof to read:
1 -7.14 Notices.
a. The administrative citations and all notices required to be given under this section
may be served personally or by depositing in the United States Mail, first class,
delivery confirmation, addressed to the person responsible, as such address is
determined by the Enforcement Official.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the
expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Presiding Officer of the City Council
Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -E
4 -20 -04
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted
and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 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
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY
PARATRANSIT ADVISORY PLANNING COMMITTEE (PAPCO)
Ed Cooney
Robert Frazer
Marjorie B. Lunceford
Re: Council Communications #7 -A
4 -20 -04
Lou R. Baca
Arthur A. Kurrasch
Wendy R. Moorhouse
Cookie Robles -Wong
Patricia S. Rose
Timothy K. Swischuk
Heather A. Tremain
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HOUSING COMMISSION
ONE (1) VACANCY
Partial term expiring 6/30/2006
Council Communications # 7 -B
4 -20 -04
Lara Weisiger - On amending the City Charter to require a competitive bidding process for all bonds (continued from Apn144 1
From: <TDaysog @aol.com>
To: <Iweisiger @ci.alameda.ca.us>
Date: 4/15/2004 10:34:07 AM
Subject: On amending the City Charter to require a competitive bidding process for all bonds
(continued from April 6, 2004)
"(DRAFT) On amending the City Charter to require a competitive bidding process for all bonds \debt issued
by Alameda City Council, the Community Improvement Commission, the Alameda Public Finance
Authority, the Alameda Re -use and Redevelopment Authority, and the Alameda Power and Telecom, with
the proviso that, on a case by case basis, allows the legislative bodies to allow staff to issue bonds
non - competitively (example: negotiated sales) under specified circumstances agreed to by a majority of
governing board and Council members, as well as other provisos on including detailed financial
information as part of public information packet prior to selection of bond underwriter on a competitive or
non - competitive basis. (DRAFT)"
Plain English Translation: Councilmembers must put out to competitive bid all issuance of bonds and debt,
and, in specific instances where staff and bond counsel recommend a negotiated sale, Council must, on a
majority vote, approve that recommendation prior to execution of the negotiated sale or other forms of
non - competitive bond issuance. And, prior to making its decisions regarding issuance of bonds, Council
and the public must have detailed information regarding interest rates, principal and debt repayment
schedule, sources of repayment, detailed breakdown of project costs, etc.
Automatic message to all e-mail
recipients: please excuse
any mis- spellings or grammatical
errors, as I use e-mail primarily
as an informal means of communication.
Thank you for your consideration.
- Tony Daysog
Re: Council Communications #7 -C
4 -20 -04