Loading...
2004-08-03 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - AUGUST 3, 2004 - - - 6:05 P.M. Time: Tuesday, August 3, 2004, 6:05 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT - (54957) Title: City Manager. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY - - - AUGUST 3, 2004 - - - 6:35 P.M. Time: Tuesday, August 3, 2004, 6:35 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council /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 REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: Alameda Point, 2200 Central Avenue and Encinal Terminals. Negotiating parties: City of Alameda, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Alameda Unified School District. Under negotiations: Price and terms. 3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: Alameda Unified School District v. City of Alameda. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment Beverly Jo yor Chair, Alameda Reuse Redevelopment Authority and CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the 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 Commission meetings. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - AUGUST 3, 2004 - - - 7:25 P.M. Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CONSENT CALENDAR 1 -A. Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission meetings of July 20, 2004. 1 -B. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing a Non - Exclusive Grant of Easement Over Approximately 0.98 Acres at the Former Fleet Industrial Supply Center to Alameda Power and Telecom for Operation and Maintenance of Electrical and Telecommunication Transmission Lines. AGENDA ITEM 2 -A. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute a Reimbursement Agreement with Alameda Marketplace for improvements in the public right -of -way in the amount of $65,000. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA TUESDAY CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk, and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Council meetings. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 3, 2004 - - - - 7:30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St.] The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. Agenda Items 6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 7. Council Communications (Communications from Council) 8. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 5:15 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 6:35 P.M. ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:25 P.M. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public. 4 -A. Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, and Regular City Council Meeting of July 20, 2004. 4 -B. Recommendation to accept the work of Priority Roofing Solutions for the City Hall West roof replacement, No. P.W. 12- 02 -19. 4 -C. Recommendation to approve Consultant Agreement in the amount of $180,000 to CH2MHi11 for Feasibility and Scoping Study of the I -880 Broadway- Jackson Street Interchange Improvements Project. 4 -D. Recommendation to approve $68,000 from the Commercial Revitalization Fund balance and authorize execution of a Commercial Revitalization Reimbursement Agreement with Alameda Marketplace in the amount of $68,000 for extraordinary utility upgrade costs. 4 -E. Recommendation to appoint Sherri Stieg and a Planning Board representative as the representatives to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee and to appoint a Planning Board representative as the alternate. 4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Approving a Parcel Map (PM 8321) and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Advancing California's Emerging Technologies (ACET) Parcel. 4 -G. Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2806 and Granting a Five -Year Extension of Non - Exclusive Cable Television Franchise to Alameda Bureau of Electricity DBA Alameda Power and Telecom. 4 -H. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2 -17 (Establishing a Commission on Disability Issues) to Chapter II (Administration); and • Recommendation to accept Amended Bylaws and dissolve the Mayor's Committee on Disability Issues. 4 -I. Bills for ratification. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Public Hearing to consider the formation of a new Underground District, Number 29, on Lincoln Avenue from Oak Street to Park Street; and • Adoption of Resolution Establishing a New Underground District, Number 29, on Lincoln Avenue from Oak Street to Park Street. 5 -B. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's denial of Variances, VO4 -0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and denial of Major Design Review, DR04 -0026, for all development projects at 3017 Marina Drive; and adoption of related resolution. The site is located within an R -1, Single- Family Residential Zoning District. The development project includes expansion of the residence into the estuary and installation of rear yard decks. Approval is being sought for the following: 1) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(3) (Maximum Main Building Coverage exceeding 48%); 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) and Section 30 -2 (Rear Yard) because the building extends across the rear property line into the estuary; 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(a) (Roof Eaves) and 30- 5.7(d) (Bay Windows) because the roof eaves above the bay windows encroach to within 3 feet from the side property line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into side yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(1) (Rear Yard), Subsection 30 -2 (Definitions) (Yard -Rear) and Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) (Rear Yard) because decks over 36- inches in height extend into the required side and rear yard setbacks; 5) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.14(c) (Barrier Heights) because the windscreens around the patios exceed the maximum permitted 8 -foot height. The Planning Board found that the Variance for the bay window encroachment be withdrawn because encroachment is in compliance, subject to Design Review approval. Applicant /Appellant: Rita Mohlen. [To be continued to August 17, 2004] 5 -C. Recommendation to authorize the Social Services and Human Relations Board to continue exploration of a Sister City /Friendship City organization and to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to officials of Wu Xi, China. 5 -D. New Main Library Project update. 5 -E. Recommendation to address financial support to Alameda Unified School District in the Fiscal Year 2004 -05 budget. 5 -F. Recommendation to authorize fuel surcharge on the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service. [Continued from July 20, 2004] 5 -G. Appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's Decision regarding abatement of cited vehicles and trailers at 1617 Central Avenue. [Continued from July 20, 2004] 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 7 -A. Discussion of the Work /Live Ordinance. [Vice Mayor Daysog] 7 -B. Consideration of placing the telephone fee for public safety on the November 2004 ballot. [Vice Mayor Daysog] 7 -C. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Historical Advisory Board. [Architect seat] 7 -D. Consideration of Mayor's nominations (4) for appointment to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. 7 -E. Consideration of Mayor's nominations (3) for appointment to the Housing Commission. [2 Member -at -large seats; 1 tenant seat] 8. ADJOURNMENT • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter. • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available. • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print. • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request. • Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: July 27, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Paul Benoit Acting City Manager Re: Regular and Special City Council Meetings; Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting; and Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of August 3, 2004 Transmitted are the agendas and related materials for the Regular and Special City Council Meetings; Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting; and Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of August 3, 2004. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR 1 -A. Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission meeting of July 20, 2004. It is recommended that the members of the Community Improvement Commission accept the minutes of the meeting of July 20, 2004. 1 -B. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing a Non - Exclusive Grant of Easement Over Approximately 0.98 Acres at the Former Fleet Industrial Supply Center to Alameda Power and Telecom for Operation and Maintenance of Electrical and Telecommunication Transmission Lines. The Executive Director recommends that the CIC approve this resolution which authorizes a non - exclusive grant of easement over approximately 0.98 acres at the former FISC to AP &T for operations and maintenance of electrical and telecommunications transmission lines. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers REGULAR AGENDA Page 2 May 10, 2004 2 -A. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute a Reimbursement Agreement with Alameda Marketplace for improvements in the public right -of -way in the amount of $65,000. The Executive Director recommends that the CIC authorize $65,000 from the BWIP fund balance to assist the Alameda Marketplace by providing reimbursement for $65,000 of the $185,000 extraordinary cost of electric utility upgrades performed in the public right -of -way as part of the conversion of this building from an auto dealership to an active retail use. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR 4 -A. Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, and Regular City Council Meeting of July 20, 2004. The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, and the Regular City Council Meeting of July 20, 2004. 4 -B. Recommendation to accept the work of Priority Roofing Solutions for the City Hall West roof replacement, No. P.W. 12- 02 -19. It is recommended that Council accept the work of Priority Roofing Solutions, Inc. for the City Hall West Roof Replacement Project. This project was funded by Alameda Point Bonds. 4 -C. Recommendation to approve Consultant Agreement in the amount of $180,000 to CH2MHill for Feasibility and Scoping Study of the I -880 Broadway- Jackson Street Interchange Improvements Project. It is recommended that Council award a consultant agreement in the amount of $180,000 to CH2M HILL for Feasibility and Scoping Study of the 1- 880 /Broadway /Jackson Street Interchange Improvement Project. This project is funded by Measure B. 4 -D. Recommendation to approve $68,000 from the Commercial Revitalization Fund balance and authorize execution of a Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers May 10, 2004 Commercial Revitalization Reimbursement Agreement with Alameda Marketplace in the amount of $68,000 for extraordinary utility upgrade costs. It is recommended that Council authorize $68,000 from the Commercial Revitalization Fund Balance and authorize the City Manager to execute a Commercial Revitalization Reimbursement Agreement with Alameda Marketplace in the amount of $68,000 for extraordinary utility upgrade costs. 4 -E. Recommendation to appoint Sherri Stieg and a Planning Board representative as the representatives to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee and to appoint a Planning Board representative as the alternate. It is recommended that Council make these appointments to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. 4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Approving a Parcel Map (PM 8321) and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Advancing California's Emerging Technologies (ACET) Parcel. It is recommended that Council approve a resolution approving Parcel Map 8321 and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for ACET parcel. This parcel will be for the construction of a 30,200 square foot bio -tech incubator building on the 3.4 acre site. 4 -G. Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2806 and Granting a Five -Year Extension of Non - Exclusive Cable Television Franchise to Alameda Bureau of Electricity DBA Alameda Power and Telecom. It is recommended that Council grant a five -year extension of non - exclusive cable television franchise to AP &T. 4 -H. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2 -17 (Establishing a Commission on Disability Issues) to Chapter II (Administration); and • Recommendation to accept Amended Bylaws and dissolve the Mayor's Committee on Disability Issues. It is recommended that Council introduce the proposed ordinance establishing a Commission on Disability Issues, accept amended bylaws and dissolve the Mayor's Committee on Disability Issues. 4 -I. Bills for ratification. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS Page 4 May 10, 2004 5 -A. Public Hearing to consider the formation of a new Underground District, Number 29, on Lincoln Avenue from Oak Street to Park Street; and Adoption of Resolution Establishing a New Underground District, Number 29, on Lincoln Avenue from Oak Street to Park Street. It is recommended that Council conduct the public hearing, review all pertinent testimony and information, and adopt a resolution establishing a new underground district, Number 29, on Lincoln Avenue from Oak Street to Park Street. The project architect for the New Main Library and the Library Building Team have requested that existing overhead utilities on Lincoln Avenue be placed underground and the City Manager has proposed the formation of a Utility Underground District for this purpose. 5 -B. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's denial of Variances, VO4 -0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and denial of Major Design Review, DR04 -0026, for all development projects at 3017 Marina Drive; and adoption of related resolution. The site is located within an R -1, Single- Family Residential Zoning District. The development project includes expansion of the residence into the estuary and installation of rear yard decks. Approval is being sought for the following: 1) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(3) (Maximum Main Building Coverage exceeding 48%); 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) and Section 30 -2 (Rear Yard) because the building extends across the rear property line into the estuary; 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(a) (Roof Eaves) and 30- 5.7(d) (Bay Windows) because the roof eaves above the bay windows encroach to within 3 feet from the side property line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into side yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(1) (Rear Yard), Subsection 30 -2 (Definitions) (Yard -Rear) and Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) (Rear Yard) because decks over 36- inches.in height extend into the required side and rear yard setbacks; 5) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.14(c) (Barrier Heights) because the windscreens around the patios exceed the maximum permitted 8 -foot height. The Planning Board found that the Variance for the bay window encroachment be withdrawn because encroachment is in compliance, subject to Design Review approval. Applicant /Appellant: Rita Mohlen. [To be continued to August 17, 2004] Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 5 Councilmembers May 10, 2004 It is recommended that Council open the public hearing, acknowledge the request for continuance, and continue the public hearing to the August 17, 2004 City Council meeting. Both the appellant and the neighbors are requesting this continuance. 5 -C. Recommendation to authorize the Social Services and Human Relations Board to continue exploration of a Sister City /Friendship City organization and to authorize the Mayor to send a letter regarding this issue to officials of Wu Xi, China. It is recommended that Council authorize the SSHRB to continue its exploration of a Sister City /Friendship City organization in Alameda as well as authorize the Mayor to send a letter on behalf of Council and residents of Alameda thanking Wu Xi officials for their gifts and welcoming the Wu Xi officials and residents who might travel to Alameda in the future. 5 -D. New Main Library Project Update At this time the Library Director will present information regarding the status of the New Main Library Project. 5 -E. Recommendation to address financial support to Alameda Unified School District in the Fiscal Year 2004 -05 budget. It is recommended that Council provide further direction regarding financial support provided to AUSD from the City's General Fund. 5 -F. Recommendation to authorize fuel surcharge on the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service. [Continued from July 20, 2004] It is recommended that Council authorize a fuel surcharge on the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service. This would be a fare increase of $0.25 one -way to be implemented on August 9, 2004. Extensive public outreach was performed to alert citizens of the proposed fuel surcharge. 5 -G. Appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's Decision regarding abatement of cited vehicles and trailers at 1617 Central Avenue. [Continued from July 20, 2004] It is recommended that Council deny the appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's decision regarding abatement of cited vehicles and trailers at 1617 Central Avenue. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Page 6 May 10, 2004 7 -A. Discussion of the Work /Live Ordinance. [Vice Mayor Daysog] This item was agendized at the request of Vice Mayor Daysog. 7 -B. Consideration of placing the telephone fee for public safety on the November 2004 ballot. [Vice Mayor Daysog] This item was agendized at the request of Vice Mayor Daysog. 7 -0. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Historical Advisory Board. [Architect seat] At this time the Mayor will make a nomination to fill the current vacancy on the Historical Advisory Board. 7 -D. Consideration of Mayor's nominations (4) for appointment to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. At this time the Mayor will make nominations to fill the current vacancies on the Housing and building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. . 7 -E. Consideration of Mayor's nominations (3) for appointment to the Housing Commission. [2 Member -at -large seats; 1 tenant seat] At this time the Mayor will make nominations to fill the current vacancies on the Housing Commission. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- -JULY 20, 2004- -5:55 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (04- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: 1650 Park Street; Negotiating Parties: HLM Development, Inc. and Alameda Community Improvement Commission; Under Negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission obtained briefing and gave instructions to Real Property Negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission This agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - - JULY 20, 2004 - - - 7:27 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Community Improvement Commission meeting at 8:17 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. MINUTES (04- ) Minutes of the Annual Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the Special Joint Community Improvement Commission and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting of June 15, 2004. Commissioner Gilmore noted that she was present at the June 15, 2004 meeting. By consensus, the minutes were approved by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEM (04- ) Recommendation to adopt the Community Improvement Commission budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -2005. Commissioner Daysog requested due diligence reporting on catalyst projects funded by bond proceeds. Mayor Johnson inquired whether using tax increment is better than using bond proceeds. The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Chair Johnson inquired why the employee well -being and productivity initiative and the customer service initiative are mentioned, to which the Executive Director responded that the initiatives provide guidelines on how business is conducted Citywide. Commissioner Matarrese stated that $711,213 in tax increment represents an 80% increase from prior payments; increased costs are emanating from the State in every area including development. Ed Clark, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) President, requested the Commission to ensure that the West End receives Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 1 July 20, 2004 sufficient funds to complete important projects; thanked the Commission for approving the strategic plan; encouraged the Commission do everything possible for the Webster Street Renaissance Project. Chair Johnson requested an update on the catalyst project and vision plan for Webster Street. The Development Services Director responded the strategic planning process is currently under way; process will identify short -, mid -, and long -term goals; the positioning study provides a focused review of what is unique and special about Webster Street and its future; the streetscape project received only one bid which was significantly higher than the estimate; specifications and a competitive construction market resulted in a higher bid; the project will go out to bid again. Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the specific plan was for the Webster Street project and the catalyst project. The Development Services Director responded a specific plan follows particular planning laws and is designed for a particular area. Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the positioning study addresses the sentiments of the businesses and stakeholders, to which the Development Services Director responded that the study is a combination of sentiments, business type assessment, and future niche analysis. Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the specific plan would result in a timetable, to which the Development Services Director responded a timetable could be accomplished without a specific plan. Commissioner Matarrese stated there seems to be an opportunity to draw people toward only one end of Webster Street; inquired what would be considered a catalyst project. The Development Services Director responded that there is a need to have a focal point that stimulates and increases Webster Street's growth. Commissioner Kerr stated that having focus on how new developments would benefit Webster Street is encouraging; new development benefits should come to existing business districts. Commissioner Daysog stated that Webster Street stakeholders have expressed interest in specific types of catellus projects such as Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2004 2 grocery stores; the City needs to think at said level. Donna Hitchens, The New Zealander business owner, urged funding for strategic planning. Chair Johnson inquired when implementation schedules would be available. Sherri Stieg, WABA, responded there should be something definite by September; the niche study would be completed in October. Doug DeHaan, Economic Development Commission (EDC), stated the EDC had concerns about whether there would be enough money for a catalyst project; keeping focus on Webster Street is important; there are opportunities to take care of many businesses at once. Commissioner Kerr moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special meeting at 8:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2004 3 City Of Alameda Memorandum July 21, 2004 To: Honorable Chair and Members Of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint Executive Director Re: Recommendation to Approve a Resolution Authorizing a Non - Exclusive Grant of Easement Over Approximately 0.98 Acres at the Former Fleet Industrial Supply Center to Alameda Power and Telecom for Operations and Maintenance of Electrical and Telecommunications Transmission Lines. Background On June 1, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution No. 13710 which authorized the vacation of an existing transmission line easement within the former East Housing and FISC property. Pursuant to the approved EIR and Master Plan for the FISC /Catellus Mixed -use Project, the existing overhead power lines that ran along the southern and eastern edge of the former East Housing and FISC property needed to be relocated in order to construct the 62 unit affordable housing, the second phase of the Catellus Bayport residential development and ACET projects. In conformance with the approved Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements, the second phase of the Catellus Bayport residential project called for the existing transmission lines to be relocated to a new overhead alignment which runs in an east -west direction, paralleling the FISC waterfront along the future Mitchell Mosley alignment. As required under the EIR, the temporary overhead alignment will ultimately be placed underground when future commercial development along Mitchell Mosley occurs. At this time, a new transmission line easement is required for the interim overhead alignment. Discussion Prior to vacating the existing transmission line easement, BKF Engineers of Pleasanton prepared the design and construction documents and specifications for the transmission line relocation project. BKF has also prepared the plat and legal description for the proposed Grant of Easement which will be used to convey a new easement from the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "CIC ") to Alameda Power and Telecom, a department of the City of Alameda ( "AP &T "). AP &T and Harris Associates, on behalf of the City's Public Works Department, have reviewed and approved the construction of the new system and the proposed plat and legal description attached to the Grant of Easement (Exhibit A). All other easements and license agreements required for the new temporary alignment have been acquired and recorded by the Development Re: Resolution #1 -B CIC 8 -3 -04 Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission July 21, 2004 Page 2 Services Department. The granting entities include Alameda Storage, Northern California Power Agency and the U.S. Navy. Now that construction on the new system has been completed and power switched from the existing to the new transmission lines, the CIC can grant a nonexclusive easement to AP &T for operation and maintenance of the transmission lines. Fiscal Impacts There are no financial impacts to the City as a result of granting the non - exclusive easement to AP &T. Recommendation The Executive Director recommends that the Community Improvement Commission Approve a Resolution Authorizing a Non - Exclusive Grant of Easement Over Approximately 0.98 Acres at the Former Fleet Industrial Supply Center to Alameda Power and Telecom for Operations and Maintenance of Electrical and Telecommunications Transmission Lines. JF/LL/DC: if Attachment: Grant of Easement Resp- • fully submitted, Development Services Director By: uglas H. Cole Redevelopment. Manager "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" G: \Comdev\Ease Reuse& Redevp\DougCole\EasementsWavy USCG 115 Kv Easement\115kV Grant of Easement 7 -21 -04 stfrpt.doc EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Electrical and Telecommunications Easement N:\A\Alamc\AC \Documents \w - Easement (Electrical) Transmission Line Easement APN: 074 - 0905 -11 and 074 - 0905 -004 -2 Exhibit "A" All that real property situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled TRACT 7387 — BAYPORT, recorded on June. 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1- 34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the general northerly line of said parcel, with the general northerly line of the parcel described in that certain deed recorded on August 10, 1966 in Reel 1821; Image 494 (AY 95418) and the easterly line of PARCEL NO. 9 as said parcel is described in that certain deed recorded on April 3, 1984 in Document Number 84- 064504, said county records; Thence along said easterly line, North 00°30'13" West, 14.33 feet; Thence leaving last said line, North 83 °44'32 " East, 572.66 feet; Thence North 03 °00'46" West, 2.03 feet to the northerly line of said Remainder Parcel, also being a point on the southerly right of way of the Southern Pacific Company, a varying width right of way; Thence along said northerly and southerly lines, North 87 °10'47" East, 15.00 feet; Thence leaving last said lines South 03 °00'46" East, 1.98 feet; Thence South 89 °46'04" East, 1172.95 feet; Thence South 89 °09'06" East, 329.61 feet Thence North 03 °32'28" East, 1.37 feet to the last said northerly and southerly lines; Thence along last said lines, South 88°07'13" East, 15.01 feet; Thence leaving last said lines South 03 °32'28" West, 1.81 feet; Thence South 83 °45'57" East, 661.41 feet to the northerly line of said Remainder Parcel, and said southerly right of way line; Thence along last said lines, South 82 °06'43" East, 127.37 feet; Thence leaving last said lines, South 06 °14'03" West, 11.32 feet; Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 5 Thence North 83 °45'57" West, 795.52 feet, parallel with and 15.00 feet measured perpendicular northerly to the previously described course bearing of South 83 °45'57" East; Thence North 89 °09'06" West, 336.33 feet parallel with and 15.00 feet measured perpendicular northerly to the previously described course bearing of South 89 °09'06" East; Thence North 89 °46'04" West, 1179.53 feet, parallel with and 15.00 feet measured perpendicular northerly to the previously described course bearing of South 89 °46'04" East; Thence South 83 °44'32" West, 530.55 feet, parallel and 15.00 feet measured perpendicular northerly to the previously described course bearing of North 83 °44'32" East to the general westerly line of said Remainder Parcel, also being the general easterly line of the parcel described in that certain deed recorded on August 10, 1966 in Reel 1821; Image 494 (AY 95418), said county records; Thence along last said general westerly and easterly lines, North 00 °30'07" West, 6.80 feet, to the general northerly line of said Remainder Parcel; Thence leaving said lines, and along last said line, South 76 °59'47" West, 51.25 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion thereof lying within PARCEL TWO as described in that certain GRANT OF EASEMENT recorded on March 26, 1984, Series No. 84- 057358, Official Records, Alameda County Records and as shown in the drawing entitled EASEMENTS FOR THE BUREAU OF ELECTRICITY, CITY OF ALAMEDA, WEST DIV No. C- 104205, dated January 1983, more particularly described as follows; COMMENCING at the southwestern corner of the 76.15 acre parcel of land described in the Declaration of Taking, U.S. Condemnation Suit No. 30735, recorded December 21, 1951 in Book 6618, Page 339, Official Records of Alameda County; THENCE along the most westerly line of said 76.15 acre parcel, North 0 °34'39" East, 10.35 feet; THENCE South 87 °51'51" East, parallel with the most southerly line of said 76.15 acre parcel, 2513.53 feet; THENCE North 86 °31'53" East, 202.27 feet to a line parallel with and 15.00 feet westerly at right angles from the westerly line of the land shown on Record of Survey 295 recorded April 12,1967, in Book 6 of Records of Survey, Page 42, Alameda County Records; Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 5 THENCE along said parallel line North 2 °05'05" East, 594.72 feet; THENCE North 87 °55'29" West, 50.00 feet; THENCE North 2 °05'05" East, 15.00 feet; THENCE South 87 °55'29" East, 50.00 feet; THENCE North 2 °05'05" East, 50.00 feet; THENCE South 87 °55'29" East, 15.00 feet; THENCE South 2 °05'05" West, 50.00 feet to a line parallel with and 15.00 feet northerly at right angles from the northern line of the land shown on the aforementioned Record of Survey 295; THENCE along said parallel line South 87 °55'29" East, 486.49 feet to a line parallel with and 15.00 feet westerly at right angles from the western line of the land shown on Parcel Map 3399 recorded October 2, 1981, in Book 131 of Parcel Maps at Pages 1 and 2, Alameda County Records; THENCE along said parallel line North 2 °04'31" East, 438.37 feet; THENCE South 56 °40'50" West, 50.00 feet; THENCE North 33 °19' 10" West, 15.00 feet; THENCE North 56 °40'50" East, 60.66 feet; THENCE North 2 °04'31" East, 82.66 feet; THENCE South 87 °55'29" East, 15.00 feet; THENCE South 2 °04'31" West, 72.00 feet; THENCE North 56 °40'50" East, 224.33 feet; THENCE North 2 °54'40" East, 1425.46 feet; THENCE North 87 °05'20" West, 3.00 feet; THENCE North 2 °54'40" East, 200.00 feet; THENCE North 87 °05'20" West, 21.50 feet; THENCE North 2 °54'40" East, 269.78 feet; Exhibit "A" Page 3 of 5 THENCE South 78 °00' East, 49.21 feet to a point designated as CC -2A located on the southern side of the Oakland Inner Harbor near U.S. Pierhead line in the U.S. Naval supply center, THENCE continuing South 78 °00' East, 15.60 feet; THENCE South 2 °54'40" West, 259.54 feet; THENCE North 87 °05'20" West, 21.50 feet; THENCE South 2 °54'40" West, 200.00 feet; THENCE North 87 °05'20" West, 3.00 feet; THENCE South 2 °54'40" West, 1414.47 feet; THENCE North 56 °40'50" East, 50.00 feet; THENCE South 33 °19'10" East, 15.00 feet; THENCE South 56 °40'50" West, 60.99 feet; THENCE South 2 °54'40" West, 28.19 feet; THENCE North 87 °05'20" West, 15.00 feet; THENCE North 2 °54'40" East, 17.20 feet; THENCE South 56 °40'50" West, 224.00 feet to the northwest corner of the land shown on the aforementioned Parcel Map 3399; THENCE along the western line of said Parcel Map South 2 °04'31" West, 464.03 feet to the northern line of the land shown on the aforementioned Record of Survey 295; THENCE along the said northern line and western line of said Record of Survey 295 North 87 °55'29" West, 501.49 feet and South 2 °05'05" West, 624.72 feet; THENCE North 87 °54'55" West, 155.23 feet; THENCE South 87 °48' 19" West, 61.28 feet; THENCE North 87 °51'51" West, 2513.13 feet to the aforementioned most westerly line of said 76.15 acre parcel; Exhibit "A" Page 4 of 5 THENCE along said line North 0 °34'39" East, 4.65 feet to the point of beginning. (said point of beginning being the point of COMMENCEMENT of Document 84- 057358) Being the same lands as PARCEL TWO as described in that certain GRANT OF EASEMENT recorded on March 26, 1984, Series No. 84- 057358, Official Records, Alameda County Records and as shown in the drawing entitled EASEMENTS FOR THE BUREAU OF ELECTRICITY, CITY OF ALAMEDA, WEST DIV No. C- 104205, dated January 1983. Containing a total area of 42,834 square feet or 0.98 acres more or Less. A plat showing the above description is attached herein and made a part hereof as Exhibit «B„ This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Land Surveyor's Act. Prepared By: Billy Martin, P.L.S. 5797 Expires: 6/30/2004 K:\M in \1998\98022I\Legals \TRANS_LIN6 FISC.doc LANG a BILLY MARTIN EXP.6 /30/2004 4 <J) No. 5797 op C O 0 Exhibit "A" Page 5 of 5 Dated: /1 ?.o7 / Zd APN - ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER POB - POINT OF BEGINNING 14 I nnn nnr'IILA P,IT - DnI 'kin A DV 1 IAIC TRANSMISSION LINE 3� 11 _ 1821 IMAGE 494 42,834 EASEME t TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT iI 0.98 acres ± APN: 074-0905-009-3 REMAINDER PARCEL II 4757 OR 138 - PARCEL 1 APN: 074-0905-002-3 `�� S 9'46'04" E 1172.95' ; ' =----- �r�..� - - -TN 89'46'04" W 1179.53' lT - -- CT 7387 - BAYPORT \\ ! APN: 074- 0905 -11 \ MAINDER PARCEL \\ f ■ \�\ VIEW 3 - EASTERLY END I ' SCALE 1" =100' 4652 OR 168 APN:074- 0905 -002 -3 SER /ES GRgNT N RE RCER 3� • \–______ '� •'O6" E PARCEL 1 N0, g4_05738g5 ARCENT ' 329.61 EL TWO 46$2 4757 OR PARCEL 68 - -/� -C i ... S 83'45 57 •4 4 LANDS OF SOU N PACIFIC 138 - PARCEL 2 ARCS 12 .......... SOUTH L CO. N 89'09'06" �W N 83'45 57� -T . \ W 795.52' S 82'06'4 `I \\ 336.337 SEE DETAIL D TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT " E .37 I \ ��� _ i SHEET 2 REMAINDER PARCEL �, T, - APN:074- 0905 -11 APN:074- 0905 -004 -2 APN: 074 -0905 -004 -2 \ \\ U SEE DETAIL E , SHEET 3 APN: 074-0905-004-2 `�` �_.r�'� 1. L1II LANDS OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. APN: 074 - 0905 - 027 -00 572.6, 6 \ N 83.4'32" �� ..... ��.�. 530.55' � S 83'44 32 W sallafft J W J IA V O - O W F- Q W , W Z : m �1 CL t, > z • S • 90 --172 \'\ '000 Subject EXHIBIT "B" 4780 CHABOT DRIVE SUITE 104 TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT Job No 20010182 liF ' "' PLEASANTON, CA 94588 I r v, 925-396-7700 By RL Date /1J04 ChkdCK -- — E�tISum=M��at 925- 396 -7799 (FAX) SHEET 1 OF 3 TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT - DETAIL SHEETS S 89'46'04" E 1172.95' I E 83'44' 572.66' • N 32" ri■I• ••■• .111■■ 583'45'57 "E661.41' •� LINE TABLE LENGTH 1.37' o L E 6.80' 0 z a w m N 03'32'28" E S 88'07'13" E 1 S 03'32'28" W h 0 b to o O z DETAIL C SCALE 1 "=40' LANDS OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. N 89'46'04" W 1179.53' N 89'09'06" W 336.33' REMAINDER PARCEL w Z J J J J L7 0) OS OF SOV (11<;RN P F REMAINDEI N 83'44'32" E -16.59'47 " W 5A •25 POB LANDS OF THE STATES OF Atv APN: 074 -0905- RE:1821 IM: 494 (A LENGTH I') n 4 O N O O rn LINE TABLE BEARING N 00'30'13" W N 03'00'46" W W O N m z S 03.00'46" E LINE L1 N J r) J 1 L4 Subject EXHIBIT "B" 4780 CHABOT DRIVE SUITE 104 TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT -7700 4 f• PLEASANTON, CA 94588 Job No. 20010182 BliF 925 - 396 By RL Date 14/04 Chkd CK E�tls nnlrwew 925 - 396 -7799 (FAX) SHEET ______ 2 OF 3 _____ O '— O O O N O N 0 O O O in O Z LINE TABLE LENGTH N. N ,, N M 33.51' N. N O to 15.02' BEARING N 0Z54'40" E] S 02'54'40" W M O (0 O N 82'06'43" W S 83'45'57" E S 82'06'43" E N 83'45'57" W Z L8 O J — J N J r`) J J t ) J 4 ._ (l) ,z17.17071. M „oi,,tiS.ZO s ,017'Si7Z 3 „017,-17S.Z0 N (l) ,9-VSZt7I 3 „0-17,-K.Z0 N c0 N J 0 0 N Q Lc) CL c0 d' 138 - PARCEL 2 0 to N 0 tY W W F 0 Z F a W U X W REFERENCE DOCUMENTS - SERIES NO. 84- 057358 REMAINDER PARCEL BkF EstIonaIPi 4780 CHABOT DRIVE SUITE 104 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 925 - 396 -7700 925 - 396 -7799 (FAX) Subject EXHIBIT "B" TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT Job No. 20010182 By RL Date 5/14/04 Chkca SHEET ___ 3 OF 3 wWrNaysiWM.as\nwsuwascaew m/23/2aD4 01b77163 Mf Pin COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING A NON - EXCLUSIVE GRANT OF EASEMENT OVER APPROXIMATELY 0.98 ACRES AT THE FORMER FLEET INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER TO ALAMEDA POWER AND TELECOM FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRANSMISSION LINES WHEREAS, NAS Alameda closed in April 1997 and FISC closed September 1998; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Navy conveyed the FISC and the East Housing portion of the Alameda NAS to the City of Alameda by quitclaim deed on July 17, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda ( "City") conveyed the FISC and East Housing portion of the Alameda NAS to the Alameda Community Improvement Commission( "CIC ") by quitclaim deed on August 1, 2001; and WHEREAS, the FISC and East Housing portion of the Alameda NAS are within the Business and Waterfront Improvement Plan area, as amended; and WHEREAS, the proposed Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Parcel (Disposition) Map, and Certification of the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development were all approved by the City Council on May 31, 2000 and have since been amended; and WHEREAS, the CIC entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement ( "DDA ") with the Catellus Development Corporation to develop approximately 485 units of housing and 1.3 million square feet of non - residential development on the FISC and East Housing portion of the Alameda NAS on June 16, 2000, and has since been amended; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan, the existing overhead power lines that run along the southern and eastern edge of the subject parcels were required to be relocated in order to construct a 62 -unit affordable housing project, the ACET project, and second phase of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and WHEREAS; the Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements for the second phase of the Catellus Bayport residential, and ACET projects call for the existing overhead transmission lines to be relocated to a new overhead alignment which runs east -west, paralleling the FISC waterfront along the future Mitchell Mosely; and CIC Resolution #1 -B 8 -3 -04 WHEREAS, a plat and legal description for the new overhead alignment has been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda that: A) The Community Improvement Commission hereby authorizes the grant of easement of approximately 0.98 acres at the former FISC to Alameda Power and Telecom for operation and maintenance of electrical and telecommunications lines; and that B) The Executive Director or his designee is hereby authorized to execute the Grant of Easement on behalf of the Alameda Community Improvement Commission that is substantially similar in for to the one attached to the staff report to the Community Improvement Commission dated July 15, 2004. G:\Lynette\Reso\Resolutions04 \080304 \115kV Grant of Easement (Reso).doc I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda in a Special Community Improvement Commission 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 Commission this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, Secretary Community Improvement Commission Beverly Johnson, Chair Community Improvement Commission CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint Executive Director Date: July 21, 2004 Re: Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Prepare and Execute a Reimbursement Agreement with Alameda Marketplace for Improvements in the Public Right -of -Way in the Amount of $65,000 BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to discuss a request by Alameda Marketplace (owned by HLM Development Inc.) to assist their project by providing reimbursement for $65,000 of the $185,000 extraordinary cost of electric utility upgrades performed in the public right -of -way as part of the conversion of this building from an auto dealership to an active retail use. Today, in excess of $1.2 million has been spent by the business owner to convert this landmark building from a vacant and outmoded auto dealership use to an active retail "market hall" use. Alameda Marketplace has a long -term lease for the property and is responsible under that lease to finance the cost of all improvements required for their business. The market hall concept has proven to be a successful business model in many places. It is a good use for this building and it implements the Downtown Vision for Park Street. Alameda Marketplace owners have encountered significantly higher utility upgrade costs than originally anticipated. Because of the many community benefits of this project, the Executive Director recommends that the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) reimburse Alameda Marketplace in the amount of $65,000 for a portion of the extraordinary cost to complete electric utility upgrades in the public right -of -way. DISCUSSION During the course of building out the leasehold improvements the cost of upgrading electric utilities exceeded original estimates by $115,000, increasing the total Alameda Power & Telecom cost from $70,000 to $185,000. This work was required due to the condition of the building and the process of converting the building to a modern retail use. The retrofit of the building from its former use to a new retail use, and the related code and life safety issues, are the greatest impediments to the reuse and conversion of older, historic structures. There are a number of reasons to support this request: • Residents have often complained of the unattractiveness of the "Park Street Bridge gateway" to Alameda and especially about the stretch of Park Street between Blanding and Lincoln. This renovation significantly improves the Park Street/Buena Vista Avenue area. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #2 -A CIC Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission July 21, 2004 Page 2 • The owners are attempting to create retail activity on Park Street, but in area that lies outside the Park Street retail core. The occupancy provides access to services and goods for the local neighborhood. • The owners seek to replicate a market hall concept similar to the highly successful Rockridge Marketplace. This has the potential to increase investment in neighboring properties. • Alameda Marketplace's business model implements many goals of the Park Street Downtown Vision. In addition to their investment in the building, the owners of the leasehold interest also own and operate two of the businesses, the Natural Grocery and the Deli, businesses that occupy 50% of the leasable space. • Alameda Marketplace has recently signed sub - leases with new businesses including an artisan breads bakery, a kitchenware store, a coffee roaster and coffee shop, a meat counter, and a sushi bar to fill the available space. They believe that having a deli is important to the retail mix, and are in the process of creating one along the lines of the Rockridge Market Hall deli. This will be a new business, separate from but owned and operated, by the same owners as Alameda Marketplace. • The owners are actively marketing the remaining restaurant space. Eligibility California Redevelopment law allows the CIC to pay for public improvements associated with economic revitalization activities. FISCAL IMPACT There is $65,000 in Fund Balance remaining in the CIC's Business and Waterfront Improvement Project Fund that can be allocated for this request. Terms (Attachment 1) • Funds will be provided on a documented reimbursement basis. • Funds will be disbursed in four increments on a schedule linked to milestones in the building permit process. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\council reports \6- 24- 04CIC.doc F: CP /1650 Park Street (Alameda Marketplace) Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission RECOMMENDATION July 21, 2004 Page 3 The Executive Director recommends that the CIC authorize $65,000 from the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project Fund Balance and authorize the Executive Director to execute a Public Improvements Reimbursement Agreement with Alameda Marketplace in substantial conformance to the attached Agreement in the amount of $65,000 for documented extraordinary public right -of -way utility upgrade costs. Attachment: Reimbursement Agreement JMF/LAL/MJF/BJMK:ry lly submit 'e Les ie A. Little Development Services Director By: ruce J.M Redeye ager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St \council reports \6- 24- 04CIC.doc F: CP /1650 Park Street (Alameda Marketplace) REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND THE ALAMEDA MARKETPLACE THIS AGREEMENT (Agreement) entered into this day of 2004, by and between the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and HLM DEVELOPMENT INC. (HLM) doing business as Alameda Marketplace located at 1650 Park Street, Alameda, California acting herein by; WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the CIC's Community Improvement Plan calls for programs and activities to stimulate and revitalize the downtown commercial areas of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) Redevelopment Area; and WHEREAS, HLM is uniquely suited to perform a wide range of activities leading to the revitalization of its downtown commercial area; and WHEREAS, HLM's business model implements the goals of the Park Street Downtown Vision with its Alameda Marketplace project, by converting a vacant and outmoded auto dealership building to an owner - occupied active retail business involving a "market hall" retail concept; WHEREAS, HLM has performed over $100,000 in electric utility upgrades in a public right - of -way by installing an Alameda Power & Telecom transformer pad, trenching, conduit, and street and sidewalk paving. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows: 1. REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT The CIC agrees to provide to HLM an amount of Reimbursement Funds not to exceed $65,000 for the electric utility upgrade work completed within the public right -of -way, as shown in Exhibit A. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be for the period beginning July 1, 2004 and terminating June 30, 2006 (Term). At the CIC's discretion, an administrative extension may be granted by the CIC and signed by the Executive Director. 3. STATEMENT OF WORK a. HLM shall be disbursed Reimbursement Funds totaling $65,000 and based on documented actual costs of previously performed, public right -of -way utility upgrades including but not limited G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD CIC agreement.doc Page 1 to: Upgrading electric utilities in the public right -of -way located at the Alameda Marketplace, installing Alameda Power & Telecom electrical conduit and transformer pads, trenching, and street and sidewalk paving. b. The Disbursement Schedule of Reimbursement Funds shall be in four increments related to the building permit process, as follows: 1) 25% disbursement upon renewal of the following expired permits: B -02 -0882 CB -02 -0126 CB -02 -0367 CB -02 -0751 CB -02 -0920 CB -03 -0333 CB -03 -0598 CB -03 -0805 2) 50% disbursement upon finalizing the following permits: B -02 -0882 CB -02 -0126 CB -02 -0367 CB -02 -0751 CB -02 -0920 3) 75% disbursement upon issuance of temporary certificate of occupancy for all spaces except the undeveloped retail (restaurant) space, Unit A. 4) 100% disbursement upon issuance of temporary certificate of occupancy for 1650 Park Street (the entire building). 4. REPORTING, RECORD KEEPING AND MONITORING a. Performance Reports HLM shall prepare Performance Reports describing HLM' s accomplishments in fulfilling the terms and conditions of this Agreement during operation. Such reports shall be submitted to CIC by the 15th day of January of each year and July of each year in a format to be approved by CIC. The CIC may, at its discretion, approve a less frequent reporting schedule. A reporting period and cumulative -to -date summary shall include, but not be limited to: 1) A narrative describing program operations, including any problems encountered or anticipated and corrective actions, program changes made or under consideration; 2) A statement of progress on the project, including a narrative status report of the G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD CIC agreement.doc Page 2 progress made on all outstanding building permits. b. Financial Audit As a condition of receiving funding under this Agreeement, HLMmust agree to maintain files and supporting documentation for three years after the conclusion of the Agreement. HLM must also agree to make its files, books, and records available for an audit by the City of Alameda, CIC, or their duly authorized representatives to assess the accomplishments of the Agreement. Financial audits conducted under this Agreement shall conform to requirements set forth by CIC. c. Timeliness of Submissions Submission of Performance Report(s) which is more than thirty days past the date(s) specified above may result in the CIC withholding Reimbursement Funds until the item is provided. d. Record Keeping Records shall be maintained for a period of no less than one year and in sufficient detail to document performance required under this Agreement. Access to records shall be provided to the CIC upon reasonable notice. e. Monitoring On -site monitoring of HLM may be conducted, as appropriate, with prior notice, to review program progress. 5. REQUESTS FOR FUNDS Within 15 days of execution of this Agreement and renewal of building permits as specified above, the initial disbursement of 25% of the Reimbursement Funds shall be made. Thereafter, HLM shall submit to the CIC substantiated requests for reimbursement funds in accordance with the disbursement schedule set forth in paragraph 3b. 6. DOCUMENT SUBMISSION All reports, 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. City at: All reports, notices, demands, requests, or approvals from HLM to CIC shall be addressed to Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda Development Services Department City Hall West 950 West Mall Square, 2nd Floor Alameda, CA 94501 -7552 Attention: Development Services Director All reports, notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to HLM shall be addressed to HLM at: G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD CIC agreement.doc Page 3 Alameda Marketplace 1650 Park Street Alameda, CA 94501 Attention: HLM Development, Inc. 7. CITY TERMS AND CONDITIONS a. Independent Parties CIC and HLM intend that the relation between them created by this Agreement is that of grantor- independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of HLM, 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 HLM's services. None of the benefits provided by the City of Alameda to its employees, including, but not limited, to unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from City to HLM, 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 HLM. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of HLM. b. Personnel 1) HLM represents that it has, or will secure, all personnel required in performing the services under this Agreement. 2) All of the services required hereunder will be performed by HLM, or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be authorized, if and as required by State and local law, to perform such duties. 3) Any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be specified by written contract or agreement and shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement. c. Assignability HLM shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without the prior written consent of the CIC; provided, however, that claims for money by HLM from the CIC under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution without such approval. Written notice of any assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to the CIC by HLM. d. Policy Prohibiting Harassment and Discrimination Consistent with the City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable conduct, and in compliance with similar federal and state laws, HLM agrees that discrimination in the selection of contractors, employees or clients, or harassment directed towards contractors, employees or clients, 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. G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD CIC agreement.doc Page 4 e. Insurance On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, HLM shall furnish City and CIC with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with Subparagraphs 8.e.(1) -(5). Such certificates, which do not limit HLM'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 CIC by certified mail, Attention: Risk Manager." It is agreed that HLM 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 CIC and City and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the CIC, City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officials, employees and volunteers as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates. 1) Coverage HLM shall maintain the following insurance coverage: a) Workers' Compensation: Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. b) 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 (One Million Dollars) will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. 2) Subrogation Waiver HLM agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, that HLM shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. FILM hereby grants to CIC and City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either HLM, CIC or City with respect to the services of HLM herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said HLM may acquire against CIC or City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. 3) Failure to Secure If HLM at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, CIC or City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the HLM' s name or as an agent of HLM and shall be compensated by HLM 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. G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD CIC agreement.doc Page 5 4) Additional Insured CIC, City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officials, employees and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages 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. 5) Sufficiency of Insurance The insurance limits required by City and CIC are not represented as being sufficient to protect HLM. HLM is advised to confer with its insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for HLM. f. Hold Harmless HLM shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the CIC, City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees and volunteers ( "Indemnities ") 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 HLM'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 Indemnities which allege negligence on behalf of HLM, HLM shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnities for the costs of defense even if negligence is not found on the part of HLM. However, HLM shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnities from Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnities. g. Taxes The HLM agrees to assume full responsibility for payment to Federal, State and County agencies of any and all taxes, including payroll taxes, withholdings and workers' compensation, which may be required of it. h. City Permits The HLM shall be responsible for obtaining all required City permits and licenses, and for complying with all applicable City codes and ordinances. If this responsibility is delegated by the HLM to a consultant, contractor, vendor, or service provider, it remains the responsibility of the HLM to confirm that these requirements have been met. i. City Policy Encouraging Use of Recycled Products It is the policy of the City to encourage HLM to purchase source reduction and/or recycled products containing the highest amount of postconsumer material practicable, or when postconsumer material is impracticable for a specific type of product, containing substantial amounts of recovered material. Whenever possible all equipment bought, leased or rented shall be compatible with the use of source reduction and recycled products. Such products and equipment must meet HLM's performance standards, price ranges, and availability requirements. G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD CIC agreement.doc Page 6 8. WAIVER A waiver by CIC 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 that 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, the State of California. 11. 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 CIC and HLM. 12. 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 was 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. 13. CAPTIONS The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not part of the Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement. 14. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT a. Amendments, changes, modifications and/or deletions to this Agreement shall be requested in writing by HLM and approved in writing by the CIC prior to implementation. b. Changes to the Statement of Work, budget line items, recordkeeping and reporting requirements and similar substantive portions of the work program may be allowed at the CIC's discretion. c. Terms and conditions of this Agreement required by Federal, State or local regulation G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD CIC agreement.doc Page 7 and/or statute may not be waived by the CIC. 15. TERMINATION a. Termination of the Agreement for Cause If HLM is unable to fulfill or fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if FILM violates any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, the CIC shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the HLM of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least ten (10) days before the effective date of such termination. Notwithstanding the above, HLM shall not be relieved of liability to the CIC or City for damages sustained by the CIC or City by virtue of any breach of the Agreement by the HLM, and the CIC may withhold payments to HLM for the purpose of set -off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the CIC or City from HLM is determined. b. Termination for Convenience of the City The CIC, for its convenience, may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving at least thirty (30) days notice in writing to HLM. If the Agreement is terminated by the CIC for convenience, FILM will be paid for the period in which services are provided, or expenses incurred or obligated by contractual agreement as a result of fulfilling the Statement of Work of this Agreement, up to the termination date. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals. ALAMEDA MARKETPLACE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION: Donna Layburn , James M. Flint President Executive Director Date: Date: Leslie Little Development Services Director Date: G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD CIC agreement.doc Page 8 G: \busassn \fy03 -04 \contract for PSBA G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD CIC agreement.doc Page 9 e nopf Redevelopm-f t M. ger Date: 7-72/ 1) if APROVED AS TO FORM: Teresa Highsmith 1 Assistant City Attorney UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -JULY 20, 2004- -5:20 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:35 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (04- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations: Alameda City Employee Association, Management and Confidential Employees Association, Police Association Non - Sworn, Alameda Police Officers Association, Alameda Police Managers Association, Alameda Fire Managers Association, International Association of Firefighters, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council obtained briefing from labor negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY- -JULY 20, 2004- -6:10 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:05 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers /Authority Members Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. (04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case: Alameda Unified School District v. City of Alameda. (04- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: Alameda Point, 2200 Central Avenue and Encinal Terminals; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Alameda. Unified School District; Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was reconvened and Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, the Council /Board obtained a briefing from legal staff; regarding Existing Litigation, the Council /Board did not address the case; regarding Conference with Real Property Negotiators, the Council /Board obtained a briefing from Real Property Negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority July 20, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - JULY 20, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 8:49 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (04- ) Presentation by Rails -to- Trails. Melanie Mintz, Rails -to- Trails Conservancy, submitted a handout and gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired what the next steps would be. Ms. Mintz responded the steps would be: 1) completing the feasibility study, 2) seeking funding to complete a master plan, 3) adopting a resolution in favor of the trail, 4) implementing a phasing plan, 5) negotiating with the railroad, 6) convening a City task force comprised of staff and advocates, and 7) investigating trail extensions. Councilmember Kerr stated that the plan provides further incentive to review the width of the right -of -way behind the red brick building and solutions for the Kaufman and Broad project; the map indicates the trail would go through the Alameda Marina property; the boat yard portion may have some safety problems. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the feasibility study would be completed prior to the master plan, to which Ms. Mintz responded the feasibility study would review street cross sections, widths, and ownership issues; the master plan could be the next step; a master plan could be done for segments. Mayor Johnson requested that Council receive a follow -up report on a future agenda. Councilmember Matarrese requested the report address whether the trail would be considered a transit corridor; stated the Payden Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2004 1 trail should be considered. The City Manager stated that the trails would be a component of a Master Transportation Plan. Ms. Mintz stated Council feedback would be appreciated. (04- ) Presentation of $65,036 Incentives Award by Alameda County Waste Management Authority for the City's estimated diversion over the first year of the Single Family Residential Food Waste and Contaminated Paper Collection Program. Mayor Johnson accepted a check from Brian Mathews, Alameda County Waste Management Authority. (04- ) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on the Annual Art and Wine Faire. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), introduced and thanked Tracy and Robb McKean and City staff for their involvement with the Faire; stated that money from the event promotes Alameda; handled out Alameda Power & Telecom sponsored wine glasses. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the July 6, 2004 Regular Council Meeting Minutes [paragraph no ]; the recommendation to reject the bid for the Webster Street Renaissance Project [paragraph no. ], and the recommendation to approve and adopt the Operating Budget [paragraph no. ] were removed from the consent calendar for discussion. Councilmember Matarrese 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- ) of the Special City Council Meeting of June 10, 2004 and June 15, 2004; the Special Joint City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting and Special City Council Meeting of July 1, 2004; the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, and the Special City Council Meeting of July 6, 2004; and the Special City Council Meeting of July 7, 2004. Approved. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 July 20, 2004 (04- ) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of July 6, 2004. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the minutes with a correction to page 3; she voted no on Resolution No. 13741. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *04- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period Ending June 30, 2004 for sales transactions in the first calendar quarter of 2004. Accepted. ( *04- ) Recommendation to accept the work of SIMCO Construction, Inc. for the Alameda Fire Station No. 3 fagade repair and apparatus upgrade, No. P.W. 08- 03 -17. Accepted. (04- ) Recommendation to reject the Bid; authorize a second Call for Bids, and adopt modified Plans and Specifications for the Webster Street Renaissance Project, No. P.W. 07- 02 -07. The Supervising Civil Engineer provided a brief presentation outlining the bid process. Mayor Johnson inquired who is responsible for the project, to which the City Manager responded that the project is a City project. Mayor Johnson inquired why the project cost estimates were so low, to which the Supervising Civil Engineer responded that the estimate were done before May; there have been price increases; the bid received is non - competitive. The Supervising Civil Engineer stated subcontractors advised the main contractor that there was going to be only one bidder, resulting in bid alterations due to lack of competition. Mayor Johnson stated that certain costs were twice the engineer's estimate; inquired whether the specifications or time of the year resulted in receiving one bid and whether staff could have projected some of the issues. The Supervising Civil Engineer responded that staff was waiting for the relinquishment agreement with CalTrans before initiating the bid process; the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) wanted to go forward with the project as soon as possible. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be enough money for the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 July 20, 2004 project, to which the City Manager responded that the grant was submitted two years ago; the market has changed; proceeding with improvements may require securing additional funding. Mayor Johnson stated circumstances should have been anticipated. The Public Works Director stated the bid was a premium bid; including inflation for concrete and steel costs, the bidder was still high; recommended re- bidding the project; WABA was requested to postpone advertising the project; stated staff was pressured to meet WABA's needs and get the project done as soon as possible; starting the project in September puts construction during the rainy season; WABA continues to request the project move forward. Councilmember Matarrese stated the project is urgent; the 65% cost differential should have been brought to Council. The Public Works Director stated Council could authorize the City Manager to negotiate with the contractor and reduce the scope of work. Councilmember Matarrese stated that staff should realize a discrepancy at a trigger point. The City Manager inquired whether a 65% increase in concrete or steel could be estimated, to which the Public Works Director responded in the negative; estimates were reasonable; the contractor was informed that no one else was bidding. The Supervising Civil Engineer concurred; stated that contractors have concerns about increased fuel costs. Mayor Johnson stated that the project is important and needs to proceed. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the project could be phased out to avoid Christmas shopping disruptions, to which the City Manager responded that provisions are made within the construction schedules to accommodate the needs of the business community. Mayor Johnson requested a copy of the budget and construction schedule. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he did not want to see the project in phases, which could result in not completing the project; the 65% discrepancy should be revisited. Councilmember Gilmore stated starting work in the rainy season Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 July 20, 2004 would take longer and increase costs; inquired whether the bid could stipulate construction should start after the rainy season. The City Manager responded that contractors would not bid and hold back on construction; re- bidding could be postponed until after the rainy season. Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of Council proceeding with the action [approval of the staff recommendation] and approval to have the matter return to Council to address the pros and cons of the issues raised, such as phasing and the rainy season. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Sherri Stieg, WABA, requested Council do whatever possible to ensure that the project moves forward; stated WABA reviewed the bid; construction items were not high; fixed items, such as furniture, doubled in cost; other bidders have indicated they would bid now; there is an expanded bidder's list; the Park Street Streetscape project is proposed for January; questioned the feasibility of City staff managing two projects at two ends of town simultaneously. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Public Works would manage the Park Street Streetscape Project, to which the Public Works Director responded there is a consultant; staff has not determined which department would oversee the Park Street projects, including the Library, parking structure and the streetscape project. Ms. Stieg stated although construction during the rainy season is not optimum, the merchants want the project to move forward; a committee is working on ways to mitigate construction issues; urged Council to move forward with the project. Mayor Johnson stated the motion is to adopt the staff recommendation; inquired when staff could return with a briefing. The City Manager stated staff would provide information as soon as possible. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a reason not to go out to bid. The Public Works Director responded Council could authorize going out for bid; if Council provides different direction when the matter returns, the bid could be cancelled or extended; there are options. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2004 5 Mayor Johnson stated the briefing should address the schedule and budget. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the additional direction in the motion is just a request for information. Councilmember Gilmore clarified that the motion is to reject the current bid, authorize re -bid and ask staff to return with a synopsis of other options. Vice Mayor Daysog and Councilmember Matarrese concurred with the clarified motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Resolution No. 13746, "Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal Years 2004 -06, and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2004 -05, minus $1.1 million in Alameda Unified School District funding, but including funding for crossing guards." Adopted; and (04- A) Resolution No. 13747, "Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Fees Charged for Development Review Activities to Increase Cost Recovery." Adopted. (04- B) Resolution No. 13748, "Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to add a Community Planning Fee Equal to 0.3% of the Project Valuation to All Permit Activities Processed by Permit Center." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese requested a report noting the starting figures in order to communicate with the public and review the budget in six months. The City Manager stated that the Finance Director is compiling the information and a report would be provided to Council. Councilmember Gilmore stated that Council was clear on minimizing service impacts; the report back to Council should outline how the cuts will impact service; inquired whether the budget reflected that the City Clerk and City Attorney offices were not included in the 10% cuts. The City Manager stated information was provided in the summarized document provided at the last budget workshop; another copy of the document would be provided. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 July 20, 2004 Vice Mayor Daysog inquired how the school budget [$1.1 million in funding] was being treated and whether a separate motion would be needed regarding police overtime at school dances for example. The City Manager responded the document provided to Council outlined approximately $1 million from multiple funds; the Police Chief would meet with the School Superintendent and revisit school activity costs; there is no need to take additional action; Council direction was to continue having the largest share of support to the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) come from the Police Department. Councilmember Kerr stated at the budget work session, Council did not vote on the $1 million support to AUSD. The City Manager concurred with Councilmember Kerr; stated a number of funds support AUSD; the General Fund provides the bulk of the funding for law enforcement support. Councilmember Kerr stated that she specifically requested that the motion at the work session not include the $1 million to support AUSD items. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that authorization to spend money for the District could be questioned; the AUSD issue should be brought back. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council could do so procedurally. The City Manager responded that Council could adopt the budget and bring the AUSD support issue back as a separate item. Councilmember Kerr requested that there be two motions; stated that she does not support funding school items, with the exception of crossing guards. Mayor Johnson stated Council would not vote on the school issue tonight. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the budget presented includes support for AUSD, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated Council requested part -time Park Supervisors be funded through the end of the year. The City Manager stated Council requested an Equipment Operator and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 July 20, 2004 full- funding supervisors at all ten parks through the end of the Fiscal Year. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether reserves were being drawn down for the Park's program only. The Finance Director responded that reserves were being drawn in order to preserve: 1) three police officers, 2) two dispatchers, 3) a telephone operator 4) nine firefighters and 5) Park and Recreation staffing; in the first year, there would be a $1.6 million draw down, and in the second year, a $790,000 draw down. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the part -time park positions are covered by special park funds, to which the Finance Director responded the General Fund covers the positions. The City Manager stated the five current park sites would be covered until the end of the summer; $160,000 would cover ten park sites through the end of the Fiscal Year. Mayor Johnson requested a report on whether the $160,000 covers weekends and after school hours in the winter. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the public safety fee was included, to which the Finance Director responded that the appropriations are dependent upon the revenue. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the CalPERS Fresh Start was included in order to generate $1 million for Fiscal Year 2004 -05 and $800,000 for Fiscal Year 2005 -06, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether there would be a $1 million CalPERS payment in Fiscal Year 2007 -08, to which the Finance Director responded the total cash flow savings over 20 years is $3 million; savings over the first five years is a little less than $1 million; restructuring starts in 2005. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired how much the anticipated $1 million in savings would cost over time, to which the Finance Director responded that the City would pay $3.7 million greater than otherwise would have been paid at the end of the 20 years, which would be 2023 -2024. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether there would be a savings in 2007 -08, to which the Finance Director responded there is a savings until the year 2009 -10. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2004 8 Vice Mayor Daysog inquired into the difference in 2009 -10, to which the Finance Director responded $42,000 above the previous payback amount. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City could prepay, to which the Finance Director responded the opportunity has been missed for the current year; PERS offers different options each year. Mayor Johnson stated that the City could advocate for a different type of program with PERS and develop an individual repayment plan. The Finance Director stated repayment plans depend on the earnings ratio. Vice Mayor Daysog requested a separate vote on the reserve issue; stated the City should review more cuts before using reserves. Councilmember Matarrese stated additional cuts should have been addressed weeks ago; using reserves for park staff was clear; that he would not support having a separate vote on reserves. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he raised issues on ways of generating additional revenues such as a one -day furlough. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the question is what level of reserves should be kept in the General Fund as a structural matter or whether the question is drawing down $1.6 million and $800,000. Vice Mayor Daysog responded that reducing the dollars being taken from the reserves needs to be address in the form of cuts; there have been discussions on what other cities are doing to save money. Mayor Johnson stated that the furlough issue could be reviewed; there are contract issues involved. Councilmember Kerr stated that there is a great incompatibility between adding back three sworn police officers, nine firefighters, telephone operator and park attendants and reducing the amount taken from reserves. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Kerr; stated that Council made choices and gave direction to draw down on reserves. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that the costs for preserving the three sworn police officer and adding the nine firefighters come from the public safety fee; there is still need for more cuts elsewhere; once the reserve policy is adopted, there is no incentive for Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 July 20, 2004 bargaining groups to give up anything. The City Manager stated that over the last seven years, reserves have increased from $9 to $19 million; there would be modest withdrawals over the next two years. Mayor Johnson stated that there can be continual review; further adjustments could be made. Councilmember Gilmore stated that Council could set a future policy limiting reserve withdrawals. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the public access fee covers the increased expenses in public safety, to which the Finance Director responded that the fee is intended to cover approximately 50% of dispatch services. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that savings would need to be found if Police and Fire staff are expanded. Councilmember Gilmore stated Council wanted to minimize service impacts; the decision was to drawn down on reserves. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that the suggested one -day furlough would pay for additional police services. Mayor Johnson stated the furlough cannot be implemented without negotiating with bargaining units; inquired what the savings would be for a one -day furlough. The Finance Director responded approximately $170,000; public safety cannot be furloughed. Vice Mayor Daysog stated public safety could be requested to participate in the one -day furlough. Mayor Johnson stated budget adoption could not depend upon the potential success of negotiations with bargaining units. Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is incentive to pursue the furlough issue; direction has been given to the City Manager; Council is not increasing police and fire; Council decided not to cut three sworn police officers, not to have residents reach an answering machine when calling the police department and not to eliminate a fire truck; balancing the budget can only be accomplished through drawing down on reserves; Council did not want to go below certain service levels. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2004 10 Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the budget minus the items that comprise the list of $1.1 million of City services that somehow affect Alameda Unified School District. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese would accept a friendly amendment to the motion to include approving the crossing guards in the General Fund, but leaving out all other funding in support of the School District. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Kerr was proposing to include approving payment for crossing guards in the budget, to which Councilmember Kerr responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the crossing guards could be included even though there was no vote at the work session, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese concurred to amend his motion to have the AUSD allocation not authorized, with the exception of authorizing allocation for the school crossing guards. Councilmember Kerr clarified the crossing guards would be approved as part of the budget tonight. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Daysog made a substitute motion to vote on the reserve separate from the budget adoption. Mayor Johnson stated the budget could not be adopted without including drawing down on the reserves; it is a package deal. The SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED due to lack of second. On the call for the question, the original motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Daysog - 1. Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of resolutions amending the Master Fee resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 13749, "Ordering Vacation of an Existing Pubic Utility Easement (Alameda County Recorder Series No. #2003654531 November 3, 2003) within Lot 9, Parcel Map No. 4744 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (First Marina Village, LLC)." Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 July 20, 2004 Adopted. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 13750, "Delegating Authority to the Public Utilities Board to Select the Appointee to the Utility Joint Powers Authorities." Adopted. ( *04- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,493,338.05. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (04- ) Recommendation to nominate Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee Representatives. Mayor Johnson nominated Sherri Stieg and a Planning Board representative as the representatives, and a Planning Board representative as the alternate; requested appointments be brought back on August 3 City Council consent calendar. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether other parties have nominated representatives, to which Mayor Johnson responded that Oakland understands that Alameda is not appointing Councilmembers and will not do so. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Board would return to Council recommendations for approval, to which Mayor Johnson responded that Council would nominate someone from the Planning Board and the Planning Board would recommend someone as the alternate. The City Attorney inquired whether Mayor Johnson was delegating the authority to appoint the specific person to the Planning Board, to which Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative. (04- ) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of Variance, VO4 -0004 and Design Review, DR04 -0007 at 903 Delmar Avenue to construct a 230 square -foot, single -story addition to the rear of the residence. The height of the proposed addition would measure approximately thirteen feet five inches (13'5 ") from grade. A Variance is required to allow the addition to encroach approximately fourteen feet (14') into the required rear yard setback of fifteen feet five inches (15'5 "). A Major Design Review approval is also requested for the exterior changes to the residence. The project is located within the R -1, One- Family Residence Zoning District. Appellant: Ronald Curtis. Applicant: Ronald and Myrna Put; and (04- A) Resolution No. 13749, "Upholding the Planning Board's Approval of Variance VO4 -0004 and Major Design Review Dr04 -0007 to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 July 20, 2004 Allow a 230 Square Foot Addition at 903 Delmar Avenue." Adopted. Councilmember Kerr stated there is question regarding the legality of existing structures extending into the estuary; there is not a neat, straight line; that she has concerns with approving any construction until a legal line is determined. The Public Works Director stated staff met with the Applicant and the issue has been resolved. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry about other properties, the Public Works Director stated that a procedure has been developed for residents to obtain a use or building permit; the City would investigate; if an encroachment exists, an encroachment permit would be recorded to give the City absolute discretion over having the property owner remove the encroachment whenever the City deems it appropriate. Councilmember Kerr stated the irregular shoreline is not all comprised of structures; there are mounds of dirt; the shoreline is difficult to understand. The Public Works Director stated that Public Works has the same concern and decided to handle on the matter on a case -by -case basis. Councilmember Kerr stated that presently there is an argument between two property owners about blocking light; inquired how Council could decide whether to allow construction before knowing which buildings are encroachments. The Public Works Director stated buildings are not encroaching into the lagoon on the project; the encroachment is a small piece of land. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. Proponent (In favor of appeal) Ron Curtis, Appellant. Opponents (Not in favor of appeal) Ronald Put, Applicant, and Angie Klein, Architect for Applicant. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2004 13 Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the proposed addition would be within four and a half feet of the waterline, to which the Project Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether 902 Regent Street is within four feet of the sea wall, to which the Project Planner responded that the structure is oriented so that the side yard abuts the sea wall; the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) standard requirements for a single -story building would be a five -foot setback. Mr. Curtis stated that the setback is approximately 11.5 feet from the inside edge of the sea wall. Mr. Put stated alternatives were reviewed during the design phase; building the addition on the side adjacent to the Appellant would have a view impact; a low -level addition on the other side was suggested; when he bought the house ten years ago, he planted a lawn along the sea wall. Councilmember Kerr inquired who added the fill, to which Mr. Put responded the fill was in place when he bought the house in 1993. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the property owners are required to get a permit for docks, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated the fill is now legalized with the encroachment permit that has been recorded. Mayor Johnson stated that the Planning Board reviewed the plans twice and vote unanimously in favor of the addition. Councilmember Gilmore requested staff to address the basis for the appeal. The Project Planner stated the appeal addressed three items: 1) addition blocking light on to 901 Del Mar Avenue, 2) door being less than 40 feet from 902 Regent Street causing noise impacts, and 3) the stucco wall funneling sound to 902 Regent Street. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the door is within the setback requirement for the property, to which the Project Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the front door at 902 Regent Street was on the eastern side of the building, to which the Project Planner responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 July 20, 2004 The Supervising Planner stated that the location of the front door does not indicate where the front yard is located; the front yard and side yard setbacks are defined in a different way; a lot is defined as having the side, rear and front in a certain pattern immaterial to the development of the lot; a side yard is always the narrower side of the lot. Councilmember Kerr stated Mr. Curtis indicated that the front door faces west, which is the front of the house; the distance between the south side and sea wall is being defined as a backyard. The Supervising Planner stated the AMC would define Mr. Curtis's front yard as the area to the west, adjacent to Regent Street; the eastern side is the rear yard; the side facing the lagoon and the side facing 904 Regent Street are side yards. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the Council is addressing the back yard of the house on Regent Street and the side yard of the street on Delmar Avenue, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated the Planning Board discussed the matter at length. Councilmember Matarrese stated the point regarding blocking light to 901 Delmar Avenue does not have merit; exposure is south - facing; there will be light; the building addition is low; the point about the door being less than 40 feet from the house on Regent Street does not have merit because it is within the setbacks required for side yards; the relevant issue is noise; inquired whether staff analyzed noise issues. The Project Planner responded staff determined that the addition would enclose an open patio area, which would mitigate noise impacts. Councilmember Matarrese stated the lots are unusual and present unusual circumstances; the Planning Board carefully reviewed the addition; enclosing exterior activities would reduce noise. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Board. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2004 15 Councilmember Kerr stated that she voted no because approval represents the lowest common denominator type of planning; the City should not increase crowding because it has been done elsewhere in the neighborhood; ambiance of neighborhoods should be increased, not reduced. (04- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 30 -17, (Residential Density Bonuses and Incentives) to Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). Not introduced. Mayor Johnson inquired the status of the Housing Element, to which the City Manager responded staff is still in the negotiation process. Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance should be continued until there is progress. Councilmember Kerr stated if Mayor Johnson made a motion, she would support it. Mayor Johnson moved approval of continuing the matter until progress is made on Housing Element certification. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr stated the City should not advance the State's philosophy; the City has made concessions; nothing the City does seems to appease the State; until there is indication that the Housing Element will be approved, the ordinance should not proceed. The City Manager stated the Planning and Building Director is in dialogue with the State. Mayor Johnson noted there might be a change in the density bonus legislation. The City Manager inquired whether the Council would prefer to link the ordinance to the State certifying the Housing Element. Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Kerr responded in the affirmative. The City Manager stated staff would bring back the ordinance at the appropriate time, rather than continuing it to a particular date. Councilmember Gilmore stated staff provided a memo on second -unit legislation going through the legislature; the State is trying to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 July 20, 2004 tell cities how to zone properties. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's decision regarding abatement of cited vehicles and trailers at 1617 Central Avenue. (Continued to August 3, 2004) The Public Works Director requested the matter be continued to the next Council meeting in order to notify the Appellant. (04- ) Recommendation to authorize fuel surcharge on the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service. (Continued to August 3, 2004) Mayor Johnson inquired whether the recommendation is to continue the current surcharge; inquired whether there would be an increase. The Ferry Services Manager responded a fuel charge is not in place currently; last October, Council approved a $0.25 one -way fare increase; a new fuel surcharge is being proposed; if approved, the surcharge would be in place until December 6. Mayor Johnson inquired the amount of the surcharge, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded $0.25 one way. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether there would be an increase in fare, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded in the affirmative. The Ferry Services Manager stated the Agreement with Blue and Gold is a cost plus fixed -fee arrangement; the City pays fuel costs; with Harbor Bay Maritime, there is a clause in the Contract that requires the City to address any extraordinary expense increases beyond the operator's control; traditionally, the City has stepped forward when fuel costs have reached historic highs and permitted the implementation of a fuel surcharge to cover the loss. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the City purchases diesel in bulk, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded in the negative; stated the City received a grant for a fuel facility at Alameda Point, however, there were insurance and planning issues. Mayor Johnson suggested staff review having fuel deliveries in conjunction with the MARAD fleet or AC Transit; stated that in spite of increased fuel costs, she does not wish to continue raising rates. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 July 20, 2004 Councilmember Kerr stated staff should investigate the commercial contractor that delivers to MARAD; there are two large diesel tanks at Alameda Point which were used by the Navy; the question is where the vessels could fill up; buying in bulk is less expensive. The Ferry Services Manager stated Blue and Gold purchases diesel in bulk and has an underground tank at Pier 39; Blue and Gold can get fuel $0.18 to $0.20 less than Harbor Bay Maritime, which is fueled by truck. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the ferry riders received notice. The Ferry Services Manager responded riders were notified; in addition, notice would be given for a week prior to implementing the increase. Mayor Johnson inquired when riders were notified, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded riders were notified yesterday. Councilmember Kerr stated more than one day notice should be provided. Mayor Johnson suggested the matter be continued to the next meeting to allow for notification. Councilmember Kerr stated riders did not receive adequate notice to attend the meeting. The City Manager stated the matter would be continued to August 3 and staff would provide notice to riders. (04- ) Resolution No. 13752, "Calling a Consolidated Special Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on November 2, 2004 for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Deleting References to the Board of Education; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment." Adopted. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether elimination of Section 2 -7(D) concerning vacancies would mean the City would be adopting the alternative provided in California State Government Code Section 36512 (d) . The City Attorney stated the directive was to completely remove the Board of Education; the staff report provide 4 options regarding Section 2 -7(D); staff is seeking direction; the section could be repealed, could remain or an alternate method could be proposed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2004 18 Councilmember Kerr stated staff report Alternative 3 includes creation of a board of three: Auditor, Treasurer and President of the Board of Library Trustees; inquired whether said people would choose who would fill the vacancies or whether they would be the individuals filling the vacancies. The City Clerk responded the three officers would be serving to select the Councilmembers. Councilmember Kerr stated having a majority of Councilmembers appointed gives her a great sense of unease; Councilmembers should be elected; should there be a majority of Council vacancies, a special election should be held as soon as possible. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Kerr. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Kerr's suggestion was similar to staff report Alternative 4. Councilmember Kerr responded Alternative 4 would be the State -based alternative, which uses the next regularly established election date; an election should be held within 60 days. Mayor Johnson stated a Council would have to be appointed in the interim until a special election is held. Councilmember Kerr suggested staff report Alternative 3 be modified to appoint up to three people to have enough to form a quorum; if one Councilmember remained, two people would be appointed; if two Councilmembers remained, one person would be appointed. Councilmember Matarrese suggested that the Auditor and Treasurer, who are both elected officials, serve until an election could be held. The City Attorney inquired in which order the appointments should be made, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded Auditor and Treasurer. Mayor Johnson stated the language could be: "the Auditor and Treasurer and not more than two appointed Councilmembers." The City Attorney stated the language could be: "in no event shall a majority of the Councilmembers be appointed." Mayor Johnson stated if there were a vacancy of all five Councilmembers, three people would be needed [to form a quorum]. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2004 19 Councilmember Kerr stated the Auditor and Treasurer could select a third member. Mayor Johnson suggested the President of the Planning Board be the third person. The City Attorney provided scenarios; stated language would be added about calling a special election. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a special election could be called in 60 days. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated an election held within 60 days would have to be conducted via mail ballot. Councilmember Gilmore inquired how long it would take to set up a normal election, to which the City Clerk responded 88 days. Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of the resolution, with the addition [of language in Section 2 -7(D)] of appointing enough replacements to form a quorum in the order of Auditor, Treasurer and President of the Planning Board, to serve until a special election could be held within 90 days. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the Charter specified certain people serve as Disaster Council in the event of an emergency. The City Attorney responded the issue is not addressed in the Charter; there is a disaster preparedness ordinance; the group does not act as the legislative body. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the presiding officer would have to be selected; suggested the highest vote getter between the Auditor and Treasurer be selected. Mayor Johnson stated if a Councilmember remains, the Councilmember should fill the presiding officer seat first. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, the City Attorney stated other matters must be addressed, such as designating Councilmembers to write a ballot argument. Mayor Johnson stated the School Board members should handle the argument. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the School Board members Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 July 20, 2004 could draft the argument. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the Council needs to decide whether any Councilmembers would sign the argument. Mayor Johnson stated that she would sign the argument; since the District requested the Charter Amendment, School Board members should also sign. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he would also sign the argument. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the argument authors could check with other Councilmembers if additional signatures are needed. The City Clerk responded the argument deadline is August 3; Council should designate a third person to sign if needed. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether other Councilmembers could sign the rebuttal. The City Attorney stated a rebuttal argument would only be needed if an argument against the measure were submitted. Councilmember Kerr amended her motion to include designation of ballot argument authors as discussed. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the third person needed to be designated. The City Attorney responded either designate the person or a method for selecting the person. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would be the third person to sign the argument, if needed. Councilmember Kerr stated that [designating Mayor Johnson, Vice Mayor Daysog, and, if needed, Councilmember Matarrese to sign the argument] was added to her motion. Councilmember Gilmore concurred with amending the motion. Councilmember Gilmore stated there is a cost of $6,800; questioned whether the bill should be split with the School District. Mayor Johnson stated the cost should be split because the request was made by the School District. The City Attorney stated the motion could be made subject to the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 July 20, 2004 School District's concurrence to pay $3,400. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the Council would agree to address payment separate from the ballot measure. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Kerr would like the ballot measure to move forward regardless of payment, to which Councilmember Kerr responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated requesting payment could be added to the motion, rather than making the motion subject to payment. Councilmembers Kerr and Gilmore agreed to amend the motion accordingly. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Interim Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Forty -Five Day Moratorium on the Issuance of Zoning or Use Permits for the Establishment of Work /Live Studios Under Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 -15. Not passed. Ed Murphy, Alameda, stated that he would like to know to whom the 45 -day moratorium would apply and to whom it would not apply. Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated the work /live ordinance is on the books; people requesting changes to the ordinance are either too late or the Courts should decide the issue. Councilmember Kerr moved passage of the urgency ordinance. Vice Mayor Daysog requested the question raised be addressed. The City Attorney stated the proposed ordinance does not apply to the previously approved 7 -unit work /live project on Blanding Avenue, but would apply to any other project in the City. Mayor Johnson seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the MOTION FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Kerr and Mayor Johnson - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore and Matarrese - 3. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the work /live ordinance could still be clarified; that he is not sure whether work /live projects in the pipeline would be approved within the next 45 days. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2004 22 Mayor Johnson inquired whether a particular project could be exempted. The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the existing ordinance would apply; the Council has the legislative ability to amend the ordinance; spot zoning or talking about a particular project, is not permissible; even a moratorium has to apply across the board; Council can review, amend or repeal the ordinance anytime. Councilmember Kerr stated that without the moratorium, a lot of applications could be submitted for buildings outside the initial intent of the ordinance; old shacks in the current geographical zone might be converted, which is the reason the moratorium is a good idea. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she agrees with Councilmember Kerr; the Planning Board or Planning staff should be directed to review the issues, which were also outlined in the staff report; during discussions of the only work /live project, there was testimony about difficultly in complying with the ordinance; there are many hoops and it takes a long time; there have not been a rush of applications in all the years the ordinance has been in place; issues can be reviewed without imposing a moratorium. Councilmember Kerr stated project approval might initiate additional applications. Mayor Johnson inquired how burdensome applications are, to which the City Attorney responded an application starts the process; there are some costs and specific requirements. The Development Review Manager responded the process is not lengthy; once an application is filed, it is processed similar to any other application; the development community has told staff the ordinance is very restrictive compared to other communities. Mayor Johnson inquired at what point in the application process there is a vested interest. The City Attorney stated a legal memorandum could be provided on when an applicant has a vested right to proceed; it is a gray area; the time and money spent to submit an application does not constitute a vested right; a vested right to proceed does not exist for any work /live projects. Councilmember Matarrese stated the ordinance has only been exercised once; projects must meet all codes, go through the staff Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 July 20, 2004 planning process, and be approved by the Planning Board, including the design and ensuring there are no hazards on the property; there are enough restrictions; any project making it through the process should be worthy; the ordinance is specific about locations; a moratorium is not needed; if needed, Council should take action on amending the ordinance. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is an application for the Collins property, to which the Development Review Manager responded that there are no applications on file, other than the Del Monte building. Mayor Johnson inquired the status of the Collins property. The Development Review Manager responded staff met with different developers about work /live proposals on the Collins property; the proposal was to take existing buildings and locate square footage in other areas, which is a different type of application; an application has not been filed. Councilmember Kerr stated a considerable amount of money has been spent once an application is filed; the City could be sued once applicants start spending money on the project. * * * Councilmember Kerr moved approval of addressing the remaining agenda items past midnight. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5 * * * (04- ) Ordinance No. 2927, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsections 2 -8.2 (Membership; Term of Office; Removal) and 2 -8.3 (Qualifications; Quorum; Voting) of Section 2 -8 (Transportation) of Chapter II (Administration) to Reduce the Size of the Transportation Commission from Nine to Seven Members; Allow for Staggered Terms and to Reduce the Size of the Quorum from Five to Four Members." Finally passed. Mayor Johnson requested staff to explain how terms would be staggered. The Public Works Director responded of the seven members, two would expire one year, two would expire the next year, and three would expire the following year, which is consistent with other Commissions. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2004 24 Vice Mayor Daysog suggested that the first sentence [of Section 2- 8.2], which reads: "...nominated by the Mayor and approved by the Council..." should read: "appointed by the Council" instead. The City Attorney stated staff could make said change. Jon Spangler, Alameda, thanked Council for appointing him to the Commission; stated that although his term is over, he wants to serve another term if it is the Council's pleasure. Vice Mayor Daysog moved final passage of the ordinance with the language change. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Ordinance No. 2928, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 21 -1 (Definitions) of Article I (Definitions) and Subsection 21 -20.4 (Charges for Service) of Section 21 -20 (Franchise Agreements) of Article III (Franchise Agreements); and Adding a New Subsection 21 -2.7 (Integrated Waste Collection Required) to Section 21 -2 (Collection and Removal) of Article II (General Regulations) of Chapter XXI (Solid Waste and Recycling)." Finally passed. Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Noes: Vice Mayor Daysog - 1. (04- ) Ordinance No. 2929, "Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA04 -0002 to the Catellus Master Plan and Catellus Site -Wide Landscape Development Plan to Allow for a Stormwater Treatment and Detention Pond, Pump Station and Force Main Along the Western Edge of the Proposed Business Park and a Stormwater Outfall into the Estuary at the Former FISC Site, North of Tinker Avenue, Tract 7179 for the Bayport Housing Development." Finally passed. Vice Mayor Daysog moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA None. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2004 25 COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (04- ) Written communication from the League of California Cities requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the League's Annual Conference. Mayor Johnson moved approval of nominating Councilmember Kerr. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Councilmember Kerr stated a committee was formed to write proposed changes to the development code; inquired when revisions would be brought to Council. (04- ) Vice Mayor Daysog stated staff signed off on work done at a resident's home; resident subsequently found that the work was not up to code, resulting in spending approximately $8,000 more; resident feels City was negligent and requests that the $8,000 be reimbursed. (04- ) Vice Mayor Daysog stated that a business is concerned about the procedure for delinquent business license renewal notices; business was late in paying renewal and had to pay a $600 penalty fee; requested staff to review the procedure. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 12:09 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2004 26 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 15, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Accept the Work of Priority Roofing Solutions, Inc., for the City Hall West Roof Replacement Project, No. P.W. 12 -02 -19 BACKGROUND The roof at City Hall West had required on -going maintenance and the City Manager recommended replacement of the existing roof. On July 15, 2003, Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized a call for bids for the City Hall West Roof Replacement Project, No. P.W. 12- 02 -19. On October 7, 2003, Council awarded the contract in the amount of $280,809 to Priority Roofing Solutions, Inc., for this project. The work included installation of a new roof with insulation, replacement of an existing skylight and removal of a number of mechanical items, which are no longer in use, from the roof surface. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The project has been completed in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The final construction cost was $274,281. A total of eleven change orders totaling $18,580 were approved for the project. Two of the change orders provided for some of the work to be done at night in order to mitigate disruption to the building's inhabitants. A time extension of fifty -one working days was granted due to inclement weather. The remaining changes were required to address unforeseen conditions encountered after demolition of the existing roof. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The project was identified in the current year budget as CIP # 00 -18 in the amount of $331,300 from Alameda Point (AP) Bonds. The required GASB -34 forms have been submitted for this project. th„orawnneda uubIicWorks Department Public Work Wwks for You! Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #4 -B CC 8 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 2 July 15, 2004 The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, accept the work of Priority Roofing Solutions, Inc. for the City Hall West Roof Replacement Project, No. P.W. 12- 02 -19. MTN:JVW:gc Respect fi}lly submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: (/John V. Wankum Supervising Civil Engineer G:\PUB WORKS\PWADMIN\ COUNCIL\ 2004\ 080304 \cityhallwestroofaccept.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Gtvo(wamea uubIItWoiks Department Public Work W,,,i for Yon! CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 19, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Award Consultant Agreement in the Amount of $180,000 to CH2M HILL for Feasibility and Scoping Study of the I -880 Broadway Jackson Street Interchange Improvements Project BACKGROUND In November 2000, Alameda County voters extended Measure B, the Alameda County half -cent sales tax for transportation improvements, which includes the Jackson/Broadway Phase 2 Project. The Measure B Strategic Plan describes the purpose of Phase 2 as improving mobility on SR 260 between Alameda and Oakland, and improving access between I- 880/980 and the Jack London Square District, Chinatown, downtown Oakland and Alameda. The project is physically located in the City of Oakland, with some elements affecting the Port of Oakland. In addition, the project involves state highways under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. The City of Alameda is named as the designated project sponsor in the Measure B Program, which is overseen by Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority ( ACTIA) and involves other funding managed by Alameda County Congestion Management Association (ACCMA). The scope of work is to conduct an in -depth review of a feasibility study prepared in June 2000 by Caltrans. The goal is to identify whether one or more alternatives previously considered unacceptable might be acceptable with minor modifications or design exceptions and to explore new proposals that would be mutually acceptable to all project stakeholders. In April 2004, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Technical Design Consultant for the project. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The City, through advertisement with the Alameda Journal and consulting journals, distributed twenty -nine "Requests for Proposal for a Technical Design Consultant ". The project is subject to the ACTIA Local Business Enterprise (LBE) and Small Business Enterprise (SLBE) Program. On April 28, 2004, five firms submitted proposals. ACTIA reviewed the proposals for LBE /SLBE goal compliance and determination of good faith effort. A selection panel consisting of representatives from the City of Alameda, City of Oakland, Caltrans, ACTIA, and Mason Tillman Associates (ACTIA's LBE /SLBE verification consultant) conducted evaluations of the proposals and held interviews with each firm. The names of the five firms and their proposals for the technical analysis as ranked by the selection panel is as follows: Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service evofAlameda bbIicWorks Department P bfic Works W.kefor Yon! Report #4 -C CC 8 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 July 19, 2004 Ranking Firm Location Cost 1 CH2M HILL Oakland $149,910 2 Korve Engineering Oakland $147,028 3 Mark Thomas & Company Pleasanton $195,000 4 Kimley -Horn San Ramon $286,476.35 5 HQE Inc. Oakland $161,500 Though the City of Alameda is named as the designated project sponsor in the Measure B program, there will need to be mutual acceptability of the project goals amongst all the primary stakeholders: City of Alameda, City of Oakland, Caltrans, and ACTIA. Additionally, there will need to be public participation, dissemination of information, and involvement by the Alameda West Alameda Business Association (WABA), Alameda Point Community Partners /Catellus, Port of Oakland, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA), Oakland Chinatown, and Jack London Village. During contract negotiations with CH2M HILL, the primary stakeholders added an additional task to the scope of work for public information dissemination, coordination and consensus building. A separate consultant, contracted through CH2M HILL, will perform this task. The consultant must meet the ACTIA requirements for LBE /SLBE participation and be acceptable to the primary stakeholders. This added scope of work would result in a total contract cost of $180,000 with CH2M HILL. The agreement will be on file in the City Clerk's office. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The project is funded with Measure B Funds under CIP #98 -08, I- 880 /Broadway /Jackson Phase 2 Improvements. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, award the Consultant Agreement in the amount of $180,000, to CH2M HILL for Feasibility and Scoping Study of the I- 880/Broadway /Jackson Street Interchange Improvement Project. Respe lly submit, i1-c� ��dj Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: Barbara Hawkins MTN:BH:gc Supervising Civil Engineer G: \PUB WORKS\P WADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \080304\Award I880.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Glyofaamem .ubIi(Wotks epattrnent Public Work for r„! CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: James M. Flint City Manager Date: July 21, 2004 Re: Recommendation to Approve $68,000 from the Commercial Revitalization Fund Balance and Authorize Execution of a Commercial Revitalization Reimbursement Agreement with Alameda Marketplace in the amount of $68,000 for extraordinary utility upgrade costs. BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to discuss a request by Alameda Marketplace (owned by HLM Development Inc.) to assist their project by providing reimbursement for $68,000 of the $108,000 extraordinary cost of upgrading EBMUD service as part of the conversion of this building to from an auto dealership to an active retail use. Today, in excess of $1.2 million has been spent by the business owner to convert this landmark building from a vacant and outmoded auto dealership use to an active retail "market hall" use. Alameda Marketplace has a long -term lease for the property and is responsible under that lease to finance the cost of all improvements required for their business. The market hall concept has proven to be a successful business model in many places. It is a good use for this building and it implements the Downtown Vision for Park Street. Alameda Marketplace owners have encountered significantly higher utility upgrade costs than originally anticipated. Because of the many community benefits of this project, the City Manager recommends that the City provide a matching grant to reimburse Alameda Marketplace in the amount of $68,000 for a portion of the extraordinary cost of utility upgrades. DISCUSSION During the course of building out the leasehold improvements the cost of upgrading EBMUD service exceeded original estimates by $68,000, increasing the total cost of EBMUD from $40,000 to $108,000. This work was required due to the condition of the building and the process of converting the building to a modern retail use. The retrofit of the building from its former use to a new retail use, and the related code and life safety issues, are the greatest impediments to the reuse and conversion of older, historic structures. There are a number of reasons to support this request: • Residents have often complained of the unattractiveness of the "Park Street Bridge gateway" to Alameda and especially about the stretch of Park Street between Blanding and Lincoln. This renovation significantly improves the Park Street/Buena Vista Avenue area. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #4 -D CC 8 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council July 21, 2004 Page 2 • The owners are attempting to create retail activity on Park Street, but in area that lies outside the Park Street retail core. The occupancy provides access to services and goods for the local neighborhood. • The owners seek to replicate a market hall concept similar to the highly successful Rockridge Marketplace. This has the potential to increase investment in neighboring properties. • Alameda Marketplace's business model implements many goals of the Park Street Downtown Vision. In addition to their investment in the building, the owners of the leasehold interest also own and operate two of the businesses, the Natural Grocery and the Deli, businesses that occupy 50% of the leasable space. • Alameda Marketplace has recently signed sub - leases with new businesses including an artisan breads bakery, a kitchenware store, a coffee roaster and coffee shop, a meat counter, and a sushi bar to fill the available space. They believe that having a deli is important to the retail mix, and are in the process of creating one along the lines of the Rockridge Market Hall deli. This will be a new business, separate from but owned and operated, by the same owners as Alameda Marketplace. • The owners are actively marketing the remaining restaurant space. Eligibility The City's Commercial Revitalization (CR) Fund was established by a grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development under the former Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) Program. The monies are to be used for Economic Development purposes. The City currently operates a Storefront Assistance Program that reimburses property owners and business on a matching grant basis for qualified work that upgrades commercial buildings. Existing CR Fund balance in the amount of $68,000 can be used to reimburse Alameda Marketplace for a portion of the $108,000 cost to upgrade utilities as part of conversion of the building. FISCAL IMPACT There is $68,000 in Fund Balance remaining in the City's Commercial Revitalization Fund that can be allocated for this request. Terms (Attachment 1). • Funds will be provided on a documented reimbursement basis. • Funds will be disbursed in four increments on a schedule linked to milestones in the building permit process. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that Council authorize $68,000 from the Commercial Revitalization Fund Balance and that the Council authorize the City Manger to execute a Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St \council reports \6- 24 -04CR.doc F: CP /1650 Park Street (Alameda Marketplace) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council July 21, 2004 Page 3 Commercial Revitalization Reimbursement Agreement in substantial conformance to the attached Agreement with Alameda Marketplace in the amount of $68,000 for documented extraordinary utility upgrade costs. JMF/LAL/MJF/BJMK:ry she A. Little Development Services Director By: Bruce J.M. Redevelop ent Attachment: Commercial Revitalization Reimbursement Agreement Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\council reports \6- 24 -04CR.doc F: CP /1650 Park Street (Alameda Marketplace) ger REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND THE ALAMEDA MARKETPLACE THIS AGREEMENT (Agreement) entered into this day of 2004, by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA (City) and the HLM DEVELOPMENT INC. (HLM) doing business as Alameda Marketplace located at 1650 Park Street, Alameda, California acting herein by; WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the City's Commercial Revitalization Fund has been used to reimburse property owners and businesses on a matching grant basis through the City `s Storefront Assistance Program for qualified work that upgrades commercial buildings; and WHEREAS, FY 2004 -2005 City's Commercial Revitalization Funds have been allocated to HLM to implement upgrades on a commercial building located at 1650 Park Street; and WHEREAS, HLM previously performed work to upgrade a commercial building when it upgraded EBMUD service as part of the adaptive reuse and conversion of its building at 1650 Park Street; and WHEREAS, HLM is uniquely suited to perform a wide range of activities leading to the economic development and commercial revitalization in the downtown commercial business district; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows: 1. REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT a. The City agrees to provide to HLM Reimbursement Funds not to exceed $68,000 as specified in the work described in the attached Exhibit A. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be for the period beginning July 1, 2004 and terminating June 30, 2006 (Term). At the City's discretion, an administrative extension may be granted by the City and signed by the City Manager. 3. STATEMENT OF WORK a. HLM shall be disbursed Reimbursement Funds totaling $68,000 and based on documented actual costs of previously performed utility upgrades in EBMUD service, including EBMUD installation of water meters, as part of the conversion of the Alameda Marketplace building. b. The Disbursement Schedule of Reimbursement Funds shall be in four increments related to the building permit process, as follows: G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD City Agrmt.doc Page 1 1) 25% disbursement upon renewal of the following expired permits: B -02 -0882 CB -02 -0126 CB -02 -0367 CB -02 -0751 CB -02 -0920 CB -02 -0333 CB -03 -0598 CB -03 -0805 2) 50% disbursement upon finalizing the following permits: B -02 -0882 CB -02 -0126 CB -02 -0367 CB -02 -0751 CB -02 -0920 3) 75% disbursement upon issuance of temporary certificate of occupancy for all spaces except the undeveloped retail (restaurant) space, Unit A. 4) 100% disbursement upon issuance of temporary certificate of occupancy for 1650 Park Street (the entire building). 4. REPORTING, RECORD KEEPING AND MONITORING a. Performance Reports HLM shall prepare Performance Reports describing HLM's accomplishments in fulfilling the terms and conditions of this Agreement during operation. Such reports shall be submitted to the City by the 15th day of January of each year and July of each year in a format to be approved by the City. The City may, at its discretion, approve a less frequent reporting schedule. A reporting period and cumulative -to -date summary shall include, but not be limited to: 1) A narrative describing program operations, including any problems encountered or anticipated and corrective actions, program changes made or under consideration; 2) A statement of progress on the project including a narrative status report on progress made on all outstanding building permits. G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD City Agrmt.doc Page 2 b. Financial Audit As a condition of receiving funding under this Agreement, HLM must agree to maintain files and supporting documentation for three years after the conclusion of the Agreement. HLM must also agree to make its files, books, and records available for an audit by the City of Alameda, or their duly authorized representatives to assess the accomplishments of the Agreement. Financial audits conducted under this Agreement shall conform to requirements set forth by the City. c. Timeliness of Submissions Submission of Performance Report(s) which is more than thirty days past the date(s) specified above may result in the City withholding Reimbursement Funds until the item is provided.. d. Record Keeping Records shall be maintained for a period of no less than one year and in sufficient detail to document performance required under this Agreement. Access to records shall be provided to the City upon reasonable notice. e. Monitoring On -site monitoring of the HLM may be conducted, as appropriate, with prior notice, to review program progress.. 5. REQUESTS FOR FUNDS Within 15 days of execution of this Agreement and renewal of building permits as specified above, the initial disbursement of 25% of the Reimbursement Funds shall be made. Thereafter, HLM shall submit to the City substantiated requests for reimbursement funds in accordance with the disbursement schedule set forth in paragraph 3b. 6. DOCUMENT SUBMISSION All reports, 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 reports, notices, demands, requests, or approvals from HLM to the City shall be addressed to City at: City of Alameda Development Services Department City Hall West 950 West Mall Square, 2nd Floor Alameda, CA 94501 -7552 Attention: Development Services Director G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD City Agrmt.doc Page 3 All reports, notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to HLM shall be addressed to HLM at: The Alameda Marketplace 1650 Park Street Alameda, CA 94501 Attention: HLM Development, Inc. 7. CITY TERMS AND CONDITIONS a. Independent Parties The City and HLM intend that the relation between them created by this Agreement is that of grantor- independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of HLM, 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 HLM's services. None of the benefits provided by the City of Alameda to its employees, including, but not limited, to unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from the City to HLM, 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 HLM. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of HLM. b. Personnel 1) HLM represents that it has, or will secure, all personnel required in performing the services under this Agreement. 2) All of the services required hereunder will be performed by HLM, or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be authorized, if and as required by State and local law, to perform such duties. 3) Any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be specified by written contract or agreement and shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement. c. Assignability HLM shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without the prior written consent of the City; provided, however, that claims for money by HLM from the City under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution without such approval. Written notice of any assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to the City by HLM. d. Policy Prohibiting Harassment and Discrimination Consistent with the City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable conduct, and in compliance with similar federal and state laws, HLM agrees that discrimination in the selection of contractors, employees or clients, or harassment directed towards contractors, employees or clients, 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. G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD City Agrmt.doc Page 4 e. Insurance On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, HLM 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 Subparagraphs 8.e.(1) -(5). Such certificates, which do not limit HLM'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 by certified mail, Attention: Risk Manager." It is agreed that HLM 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 and the City and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officials, employees and volunteers as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates. 1) Coverage HLM shall maintain the following insurance coverage: a) Workers' Compensation: Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. b) 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 (One Million Dollars) will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. c) Automotive: Comprehensive automotive 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 2) Subrogation Waiver HLM agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, that HLM shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. HLM hereby grants to the City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either HLM or City with respect to the services of HLM herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said HLM may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD City Agrmt.doc Page 5 3) Failure to Secure If HLM at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, the City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in HLM's name or as an agent of HLM and shall be compensated by HLM 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. 4) Additional Insured The City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officials, employees and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages 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. 5) Sufficiency of Insurance The insurance limits required by the City are not represented as being sufficient to protect HLM. FILM is advised to confer with its insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for HLM. f. Hold Harmless HLM shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees and volunteers ( ❑Indemnities❑) from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorney's fees ( "Claims "), arising from or in any manner connected to HLM'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 Indemnities which allege negligence on behalf of HLM, HLM shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnities for the costs of defense even if negligence is not found on the part of HLM. However, HLM shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnities from Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnities. g. Taxes HLM agrees to assume full responsibility for payment to Federal, State and County agencies of any and all taxes, including payroll taxes, withholdings and workers' compensation, which may be required of it. h. City Permits HLM shall be responsible for obtaining all required City permits and licenses, and for complying with all applicable City codes and ordinances. If this responsibility is delegated by HLM to a consultant, contractor, vendor, or service provider, it remains the responsibility of HLM to confirm that these requirements have been met. i. City Policy Encouraging Use of Recycled Products It is the policy of the City to encourage HLM to purchase source reduction and/or recycled G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD City Agrmt.doc Page 6 products containing the highest amount of post- consumer material practicable, or when post - consumer material is impracticable for a specific type of product, containing substantial amounts of recovered material. Whenever possible all equipment bought, leased or rented shall be compatible with the use of source reduction and recycled products. Such products and equipment must meet the HLM's performance standards, price ranges, and availability requirements. 8. WAIVER A waiver by the 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 condition contained herein whether of the same or a different character. 9. 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. 10. 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 that 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, the State of California. 11. 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 the City and HLM. 12. 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 was 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. 13. CAPTIONS The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not part of the Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement. 14. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT a. Amendments, changes, modifications and/or deletions to this Agreement shall be requested in writing by HLM and approved in writing by the City prior to implementation. G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St'Agreements \7.15.04RVSD City Agrmt.doc Page 7 b. Changes to the Statement of Work, budget line items, recordkeeping and reporting requirements and similar substantive portions of the work program may be allowed at the City's discretion. c. Terms and conditions of this Agreement required by Federal, State or local regulation and/or statute may not be waived by the City. 15. TERMINATION a. Termination of the Agreement for Cause If HLM is unable to fulfill or fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if HLM violates any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, the City shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to HLM of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least ten (10) days before the effective date of such termination. Notwithstanding the above, FILM shall not be relieved of liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of the Agreement by HLM, and the City may withhold payments to HLM for the purpose of set -off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from HLM is determined. b. Termination for Convenience of the City The City, for its convenience, may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving at least thirty (30) days notice in writing to HLM. If the Agreement is terminated by the City for convenience, the HLM will be paid for the period in which services are provided, or expenses incurred or obligated by contractual agreement as a result of fulfilling the Statement of Work of this Agreement, up to the termination date. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals. THE ALAMEDA MARKETPLACE: 411 Donna Layburn r James M. Flint President Executive Director Date: Date: THE CITY OF ALAMEDA: G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD City Agrmt.doc Page 8 REC ED FOR APPROVAL: Leslie Little Development Services Director Date: G: \busassn \fy03 -04 \contract for PSBA G: \econdev \Comm Projects \1650 Park St\Agreements \7.15.04RVSD City Agrmt.doc Page 9 Knopf, ce Knopf, Redevelopment : nager Business Develo men Division Date:— �Z��6y APROVED AS TO FORM: Teresa Highsmith Assistant City Attorney EXHIBIT A - 4E3EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT October 11, 2002 HLM Incorporated 888 N. 1st Street, Suite 311 San Jose, CA 95112 SUBJECT: F0286 - INSTALLATION OF ONE 4 -INCH PRIVATE FIRE SERVICE, INSTALLATION OF ONE 11 /2 -INCH DOMESTIC WATER METER, INSTALLATION OF A TWO -METER BRANCH SERVICE WITH 3/4 -INCH METERS, AND INCREASE EXISTING SERVICE TO 3/4 -INCH AT 1650 PARK STREET, ALAMEDA Gentlemen: Enclosed are three copies of a Private Fire Service Application providing for the installation of one 4 -inch private fire service to serve the subject premises. Please have the agreements signed by an authorized representative in the space provided and return with payment of $12,914.00 for the installation charge plus $25.00 for the Account Establishment Fee for a total of $12,939.00. A fully executed copy of the application will be returned. Refer to the enclosed brochure for the monthly fire service charge based on the service size. The fire flow required by the applicant of 460 gpm at a residual pressure of 51 psi for the private fire service is available at the street main location based on hydraulic analysis of the water distribution system. The applicant is responsible for meeting any fire flow requirements beyond the fire service location. The contractor or applicant is responsible for costs arising from damages or changes in grade after the service is installed. You also requested installation of additional services for this location. The breakdown of cost for these services is as follows: 11 /2 -Inch Domestic Service Installation: $ 3,027.00 Unusual Conditions (32 -foot lateral): 511.00 System Capacity Charge (Region 1): 25,700.00 Wastewater Capacity Fee: 17,422.00 Account Establishment Fee: 25.00 TOTAL: $46,685.00 375 ELEVENTH STREET . OAKLAND . CA 94607 -4240 . (510) 835 -3000 . HLM Incorporated October 11, 2002 Page 2 2 -Meter Branch With 3/4 -Inch Meters Installation: Unusual Conditions (32 -foot lateral): System Capacity Charge (Region 1) 2 at $7270 each: Wastewater Capacity Fee: Restaurant: Coffee Shop: Account Establishment Fee (2 at $25 each): TOTAL: Increase Existing Service — From 5/8 -Inch Meter To 3/4 -Inch Meter Installation: System Capacity Charge: Wastewater Capacity Fee: TOTAL: $ 3,665.00 660.00 14,540.00 20,395.00 4,985.00 50.00 $44,295.00 $ 129.00 2,790.00 1,297.00 $4,216.00 If you wish to proceed with the installations, please remit full payment in the amount of $108,135.00. Upon receipt of payment and the three - signed agreements, work orders will be prepared and forwarded to our service yard for scheduling. An excavation permit must be obtained prior to installation. The normal installation time is 4 -8 weeks from the day the permit is received. An inspection is also required to determine concurrence with EBMUD and State backflow prevention requirements. Please contact our Backflow Department at (510) 287 -0815. No meters are to be installed in driveways. Please paint a blue "W" on the sidewalk in the locations you want the meters installed. This offer will be honored for 30 days. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at (510) 287 -1103. Sincerely, Susan Miller New Business Representative /shm Enclosures 463 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT EBMUD P.O. BOX 24055. OAKLAND, CA . (510) 287 -1008 8z, 2y - -.7, 9a RECEIPT No. RECEIVED FROM i .- ADDRESS 11 1 2- t4 - �✓ `' STATE at_ �lla: �'t4 yt..hz.thigz41-44404-ni CITY AMOUNT DATE is -I / - va_ CHARGES /CREDITS Install /Reloc. S cos a-.I Remove Unusual Cond. S (1 Z 1 W C F SP iieR 1 $ 43,b44 FFC $ Acct. Fee S 7� )S< Total Fees Collected $ 95; ZIP 9Y5 / S $ 44,b?9 Annex. Fee $ Credit ( C -228 • 1/94 (093028) C•081 • 1/93 FOR 43861 Tap No.0 / IBd$- 96 'NOS Agr. No. Check No. aI8 - DOLLARS $ 96-; /96 � - &vs,— /! /i & /(3 PS I EBMUD Representative / Office 2. The fire service and all equipment appurtenant thereto, to and including the meter, shall be and become the sole property of the District. 3. The time of installation or maintenance of the private fire service by the District shall be determined by the District on the basis of its overall scheduling requirements and needs, taking into account such factors as the availability of work crews, materials, equipment, other commitments and contracts of the District, and emergency jobs or installations. Questions of overall District priorities shall be determined by the District. 4. This application is subject to any present or future superior obligation of the District to divert and use any or all of the material covered hereby prior to installation or any such obligation as may affect District maintenance after installation. It is also subject to any present or future government regulations, Federal or State, regulating the use of, or establishing priorities for, any of the material hereunder. 5. In the event that Applicant fails to prepare the job site, or otherwise causes delay, such that the installation is not commenced within 90 days of the date signed below by District, Applicant expressly agrees to pay any additional charges then in effect for private fire service installations. It.is further understood and agreed that District shall have no obligation to install fire services as herein provided until said additional charges have been paid in full. B. THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS APPLY TO BOTH ORIGINAL AND EXISTING INSTALLATIONS: 6. The Applicant agrees to abide by the District's rules, regulations and charges in force, and such may be adopted, during the time service is rendered to Applicant at the service address. The Applicant also agrees to pay all statements for such service. 7. The fire service shall be used only for the purpose of extinguishing accidental fires (which shall include any of incendiary origin), and no connections of any kind whatever, other than those to the automatic sprinkler system and to hydrants and hose reels, shall be made or permitted to be made to the pipes providing said service. 8. No cross - connection shall be made or permitted to be made between the said service connection and pipes connected with the consumer's private source or any other source of water supply. Double check valves shall be installed by the Applicant in accordance with designs to be furnished by the District in all cases where another source of water is available or where there is danger of backflow of sewage or other liquids into the District's system. 9. Where fire department pumping connections are used in conjunction with the fire service installation, a single check valve of a design acceptable to the District will be required. 10. No charge will be made for water used for extinguishing accidental fires, but any water lost through leakage or for testing purposes or used in violation of the District's regulations shall be paid for by the Applicant at double the applicable charge for water delivered. Water may be obtained from a private fire service for occasionally filling a tank connected to the private fire service only if permission is secured from the District in advance and if an approved method of measurement is available; in such cases the applicable charge for water delivered will apply to the water so obtained. 11. The District's responsibility for maintenance ends at the discharge side of the detector check meter. The Applicant shall report to the District any conditions, within his lcnowledge, requiring maintenance or repair of the District's facilities. 12. In the event that contaminants are known to be present or encountered during installation or maintenance of the private fire service, Applicant shall provide all related documentation available to Applicant, including site sampling results. If the District determines that the contamination could pose a hazard to District employees, adversely affect water quality or subject the District to extra cost and liability related to trench spoils disposal, the Applicant shall remediate the site. The District will require a legally sufficient, complete and specific written remedial plan establishing the methodology, planning and design of all necessary systems for the removal, treatment, and disposal of all identified soil and/or water contaminants, including hazardous substances and /or petroleum products or by- products prior to accepting the application, and the remediation plan must be carried out before installation of the private fire service. Applicant shall be solely responsible for the costs of all activities related to said removal, treatment, and disposal of contaminated soil. HLM DEVELOPMENT HLM DEVELOPMENT EBMUD RECEIVED OF / /- X 218 f 0/% 1 0 2_ /0 F/-2,5 51N310• DATE: 1/2 e_ 2 /P So Pati,6-- H•000 • 1/00 (074709) LARS o z26j 65-=<_e ICIPAL UTILITY DIST 218 City of Alameda Memorandum Date: To: From: July 26, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Council Members James M. Flint City Manager Re: Request for Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee Representatives BACKGROUND On May 21, 2003, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") for the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment ( "GPA "). Shortly thereafter, the City of Oakland, the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, and Asian Health Services filed notices with the City of Alameda indicating their intention to challenge the adequacy of the GPA EIR. After several more months of negotiations, the City of Alameda, the City of Oakland, the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, and Asian Health Services executed a four party settlement agreement on April 19, 2004. A copy of the Agreement was provided to the City Council in the July 20, 2004 City Council Packet and is currently on file in the City Clerk's Office. DISCUSSION Per the agreement, the two cities and the Oakland Chinatown Committee agree to establish an Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (OCAC) to "serve as an advisory committee to the Alameda City Council and Planning Board and the Oakland City Council and Planning Commission for the purpose of providing ongoing communication and feedback on Oakland Chinatown issues related to the future development and environmental review (CEQA) process for projects within Alameda Point and Downtown Oakland." As stipulated in the agreement, the Alameda City Council is to appoint two representatives and one alternate to represent Alameda on the OCAC. On July 20, 2004, the City Council nominated Sherri Steig to represent Alameda on the OCAC. For the second seat and the alternate, the City Council requested that the Planning Board select a Planning Board member to serve as the second Alameda representative and a Planning Board member to act as the Alameda alternate. On July 26, 2004, the Planning Board selected Gina Mariani to fill the second Alameda seat on the OCAC and Margaret McNamara to serve as an alternate for the Alameda representatives. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #4 -E CC 8 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FISCAL IMPACT Page 2 July 26, 2004 The settlement agreement includes a commitment to fund up to $75,000 to support Chinatown staff or technical consultants. The Council appropriated these funds when approving the agreement. No additional funds are necessary. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council appoint by motion Sherri Steig and member of the City of Alameda Planning Board to serve as a representatives and a member of the City of Alameda Planning Board to serve as an alternate on the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. By: Respectfully submitted, /. F Gregory Fuz Planning and Building Director drew Thomas Supervising Planner G:\PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2004 \o -Aug 03 \OCAC Aug CC rpt.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service City of Alameda Memorandum July 21, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: James M. Flint City Manager Subject: Recommendation to Approve a Resolution Approving Parcel Map (PM 8321) and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for ACET Parcel Background ACET has applied for and obtained various environmental and land use approvals and entitlements related to the Project. These include: 1) an approved Planned Development and Design Review; 2) Development Agreement Amendment to release the ACET parcel from the Catellus development; 3) Master Plan Amendment to the Catellus Master Plan conditions that would modify Catellus' obligations to meet certain requirements of the Master Plan by allocating those obligations between ACET and Catellus; and 4) Amendment to the Catellus Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) modifying Catellus' obligations to meet certain requirements of the MMRP by allocating those obligations between ACET and Catellus. Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 as well as an EIR Addendum were approved by the City Council on May 4, 2004. Discussion / Analysis Parcel Map The Parcel Map creating a new parcel for ACET's separate development is scheduled for review by the Planning Board on July 26, 2004. The CIC is requesting that the City Council approve the attached resolution that would approve the Parcel Map. The Parcel Map should be approved based on the conditions and requirements specified in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement ensures completion of the necessary improvements and requirements. Approval of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement The Parcel Map (on file with the City Clerk) provides for the development of the ACET Parcel. The Parcel Map creates one legal lot of 3.4 acres. This parcel will be conveyed from the CIC to ACET for the construction of a 30,200 square foot bio -tech incubator building on the 3.4 acre site. ACET has requested that the City record the Final Map prior to completion of infrastructure improvements Re: Resolution #4 -F CC 8 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council July 21, 2004 Page 2 and other Parcel Map conditions. The City, in accordance with Section 30 -85 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance has developed a Subdivision Improvement Agreement ( "SIA ") that requires the subdivider (ACET) to construct all necessary in -tract improvements and to complete all outstanding Parcel Map requirements. A copy of the Agreement is available in the City Clerk's office. The SIA includes bonding, insurance and warranty requirements for the in -tract infrastructure. Exhibit B of the SIA contains a list of all outstanding Parcel Map requirements. Environmental Review A second addendum to the Catellus Mixed Use Development EIR was prepared on April 12, 2004, to examine the environmental impacts that may result from the proposed ACET project. The City Council approved the EIR Addendum on May 4, 2004. The second EIR Addendum concludes that: 1) The project would not introduce new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects; and 2) No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the previous EIR or EIR Addendum. The Parcel Map generates no additional environmental impacts. Therefore, this second EIR Addendum covers all potential environmental effects of the proposed project and no further environmental analysis is required for the current application. The applicant has agreed to incorporate the relevant conditions of the Catellus Master Plan and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) into the proposed Project and compliance with those conditions and mitigations has been included as a condition of approval in the resolution approving the Planned Development. The MMRP is also attached to the Development Agreement which is a legally binding contract. Budget Consideration/ Financial Impact No general fund monies will be used for implementation of the project. All project costs related to demolition and the construction of public backbone infrastructure including applicable citywide development fees and traffic mitigation costs will be funded from land sale proceeds generated from the project. Recommendation The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve a Resolution Approving Parcel Map (PM 8321) and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for ACET Parcel. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re y submitted„ /' / f , s ie itt e Development Services Director July 21, 2004 Page 3 By: Debbie Potter Base Reuse & Redevelopment Manager Attachment: 1. Planning Board staff report dated July 26, 2004 2. Planning Board resolution Documents on file with City Clerk: 1. Subdivision Improvement Agreement (including Improvement Plans) 2. Parcel Map Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\DebbiePotter \Staff Reports\PM CCSR 8- 3- 04.doc ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ITEM NO.: 8 -A APPLICATION: PM 8321— Alameda Community Improvement Commission (CIC) 555 Mitchell Mosley. Applicant requests a Parcel. Map approval to subdivide an existing 61.29± acre parcel into one parcel containing 3.4± acres and a 57.89 acre remainder parcel and permit the construction of an approximately 30,200 square foot bio -tech incubator building on the approximately 3.4 acre parcel (ACET Parcel). The site is located in the northeast corner of the former Navy Fleet Industrial Supply Center Site (Tract 7179) northwest ofMariner Square Loop within the M -X, Mixed Use Planned Development District. GENERAL PLAN: Business Park ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A Final Environmental Impact Report, Findings of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and Addendum to the EIR were previously prepared and approved for the Project. A second EIR Addendum has been prepared for the current development proposal. STAFF PLANNER: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the Parcel Map ACRONYMS: AMC -- Alameda Municipal Code DA: Development Agreement EIR: Environmental Impact Report FISC: Fleet and Industrial Supply Center Alameda MX: Mixed Use Planned Development PD: Planned Development ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution for Parcel Map 2. Vicinity Map 3. Proposed Parcel Map 8321 4. Planned Development Site Map (Approved) Staff Report Planning Board Meeting July 26, 2004 Page 1 L PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, the City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission (CIC), seeks approval to subdivide an existing 61.29± acre parcel into one parcel containing 3.4± acres and a 57.89 acre remainder parcel and permit the construction of the ACET building on the approximately 3.4 acre parcel. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, California Government Code Section 66426(c), a Parcel Map may be used instead of a Subdivision Map for division of industrial properties with existing access to streets. Access is from Mariner Square Loop and Mitchell- Mosley in the northeast comer of the FISC site. The parcel would have direct street access from Mitchell- Mosley. The existing 61.29 acre parcel is part of the FISC property that was previously owned by the US Navy and is currently owned by the City of Alameda CIC. The purpose of the subdivision is to allow the CIC to convey the parcel to ACET so that ACET can construct its planned 30,200 square foot bio -tech incubator building. The Planned Development and Design Review for that project were approved by the Planning Board on April 26, 2004. The ACET building is the first commercial project within the boundaries of the Catellus business park (Enterprise Landing). The project is separate from but adjacent to the proposed Enterprise Landing project to be developed by Catellus. IL BACKGROUND A. Existing Site Conditions The subject site consists of a portion of the 215 acre FISC site located in the northeast comer of the Catellus business park and totals approximately 3.4 acres. The parcel is approximately 475 feet in length (along Mitchell- Mosley Avenue) and ranges from 216 feet in width (along the west end) to 430 feet (along the east end). The site (formerly occupied by a Navy guard house and office building) is presently undeveloped. The two Navy buildings were demolished in April of 2004. The site is relatively flat with some residual debris remaining from demolition. B. Surrounding Land Uses West - Existing Navy FISC buildings. North - Vacant FISC Parcel and boat storage facility (under construction) East — Existing office buildings on Mariner Square Loop. South - Existing Navy FISC buildings. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Catellus EIR, as well as the Catellus Project, has undergone an extensive public review process. The Draft EIR was published in December of 1999. The City Council certified the Final EIR in May of 2000. The ACET project is within the boundaries of the Catellus project. The Catellus Mixed Use Staff Report Planning Board Meeting July 26, 2004 Page 2 Development constitutes the proposed Project evaluated in the EIR. The EIR examines the potential impacts to the environment that may result from implementation of the Project, from three alternative scenarios and from a No Project Alternative. A description of the proposed Project, other alternatives to be evaluated and probable environmental effects are included in the Draft EIR. The EIR was recommended for certification by the Planning Board on May 13, 2000, and certified by the City Council on May 31, 2000. Addendum to the Catellus Mixed Use Development EIR: The second EIR Addendum was prepared on April 12, 2004, to examine the environmental impacts that may result from the proposed ACET project. The second OR Addendum concludes that: 1) The project would not introduce new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects; and 2) No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the previous EIR or EIR Addendum. The Parcel Map generates no additional environmental impacts. Therefore, this second EIR Addendum covers all potential environmental effects of the proposed project and no further environmental analysis is required for the current application. The applicant has agreed to incorporate the relevant conditions of the Catellus Master Plan and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) into the proposed Project and compliance with those conditions and mitigations has been included as a condition of approval in the resolution approving the Planned Development. The MMIRP is also attached to the Development Agreement which is a legally binding contract. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff reviewed the request relative to issues of map consistency with the previously approved Planned Development and easements. Consistency with Planned Development: The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that a Preliminary Plan be accepted by the Planning Board as the first step in the Parcel Map approval process. An approved Planned Development may be substituted for this requirement. The previously approved Planned Development is now reflected on the current parcel map. Easements: Necessary easements have been designated on the parcel map to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The access easement from Mitchell- Mosley benefits the proposed parcel. Utility easements would generally share this right -of -way. The owner would maintain access paving and utility mains, as required by restrictions to be recorded with the parcel map. Findings. The project meets the findings required by the Alameda Municipal Code and State subdivision law as described in the draft Resolution. V. CONCLUSION: The Planning and Building Director concludes that the parcel map follows City procedures and previous entitlement approvals. Conditions have been included in the draft Planning Board Resolution. The Engineering Division will require that the applicant comply with all conditions. Staff Report Planning Board Meeting July 26, 2004 Page 3 VI. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Building Director recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, review pertinent information and documents, and then act to recommend approval of Parcel Map 8321 to the City Council, based on the findings and conditions contained in the draft Resolution. G:\PLANNING\PB\REPORTS\2004 \o-July 26\555 Mitchell Mosley_ACET pb stafrpt.doc Staff Report Planning Board Meeting July 26, 2004 Page 4 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. PB- DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PARCEL MAP, PM -8321, AT 555 MITCHELL - MOSLEY WHEREAS, an application was made on July 12, 2004, by the City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission requesting a Parcel Map, PM -8321, . to subdivide an existing 61.29± acre parcel into one parcel containing 3.4± acres and a 57.89± acre remainder parcel and permit the construction of an approximately 30,200 square foot bio -tech incubator building on the approximately 3.4 acre parcel (ACET Parcel); and WHEREAS, the Parcel Map was deemed complete on July 19, 2004; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Business Park on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the MX Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District; and WHEREAS, a second Addendum to the Final EIR was prepared on April 12, 2004, to address any environmental effects of amendments to the Catellus Master Plan, Development Agreement and MMRP as required by the ACET project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Final EIR and the second EIR Addendum, the MMRP amendments would not trigger the need for subsequent environmental review pursuant to section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the second EIR Addendum and MMRP amendments on April 26, 2004, examined pertinent maps and documents, considered the testimony and written comments received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommended that the City Council approve the second EIR Addendum and the MMRP amendments at a public hearing on May 4, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on this application on July 26, 2004, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings: 1. The proposal is consistent with the applicable General Plans and Specific Plans because the proposal does not propose a change in the existing uses allowed in the General Plan and Catellus Master Plan. 1 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable General Plans or Specific Plans because the bio -tech incubator use and associated improvements have been previously approved by the Planning Board. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The 3.4 acre site is adequate to accommodate the building, landscaping, parking and related uses on the site. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the development. The site has ample acreage to accommodate the single story building and associated improvements. 5. The design of the subdivision or proposed improvement is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The building and site improvements do not create any significant environmental impacts, as discussed in the second EIR Addendum. There is no significant wildlife habitat on the site. 6. The design of the subdivision or improvement will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the subdivision. All existing easements are required to be retained and additional necessary access and other easements are being provided. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The subdivision of the property will not affect public health. 8. Conformity with the Planned Development is achieved. Approval of this Parcel Map shall be subject to the subdivider guaranteeing conformance with the previously approved Planned Development for the site. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda finds in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that an Environmental Impact Report for the Catellus Mixed Use Development and a second EIR Addendum, including this site, was approved and pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no new significant environmental impacts have been identified, nor have mitigation measures previously found to be infeasible become feasible since the EIR was adopted; therefore no additional review pursuant to CEQA is required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board hereby recommends that the City Council approve Parcel Map, PM -8321, subject to the following conditions: 2 GENERAL 1. Prior to final approval of the Parcel Map, the subdivider shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City of Alameda in accordance with Section 30 -85.3 of the Alameda Municipal Code. \planninepb4eso\2004\ACET Pagel Map Reso 7- 26- 04.doc « « * * 3 Catellus Alameda Project Master Plan roams °enrmnrw�xa t Mx%Rh Sammie MI:1E Rr6tlpla SOO*?R &wa tot amdw MtSce RvsdvvePadeemia141Ney le Cenidor Relidelthl Cot= gffiOra, elnu6sdlLde adannagdo- Atn6l6& viewc41F4cr rataarLtThn LSuips FR'pma4141 RosilfesyANeramag Land Use Site Plan • u,m° acQommo 0 N?ibhsdaod,ka•Anks ® ev %aemmb. Sigma &4 sss ENRemota ilento Kudos L f Atlerh r4R.4. Multiamily R,aa, • Bes♦aasAvk tOfhaIR &D) paaes8d RobWRgwrmt 11 Note: Drawing is illustrative as to number of buildings, building location & orientation, alignment of minor streets and access drives, location of parks & configuration of public facilities. Attachment 2 01 YYSS §2131. 1114!461 pwA b)n 0.<b F app -ei M g Wb N 4 E !d b o55� °1 z i VOW 5 5 ON B@ t bEa N gg � .280 6 F 21N mLL gg PE: =o { wr to , -ZPa �a ale` 8 _24 m W q ; ;W= v§ 1 gt 24-4 r c ° € >- 1a a < u � ga��n in N g i xa g g xl o8 gV bl mg S od 2 Y1 � b 44 FW t X 3g X Elb o41 l. 01p giR$ 1 1< P1 a i r g g O o 1 iiiS 2 X Ig i 0 0 1- L.1 w V'2^ / Attachment 3 ri GRAPHIC SCALE 1 1. MIME 1 1 BASS OF BEA/TRAM • • (� ) TIE BEARING N 8737'28' W BENTEEN MONUMENTS 1 fmh - 1+A9 K ON 1RIKER AVENUE AS 5110YM ON YAP ENTITLED .N I 1 'TRACT 7511 - BAYPORT FILED FOR RECORD \Pr'• LANDS CIFl COMPANY TRANSIAISSION INNE FASEAEMT ON B JULY 2004, 111 8001( 277 OF YAPS AT PAf1E'i 1 -19 81CWSIVE WAS TAKEN AS THE • \". NBB•29'47'E 952 DEEDS 293 DOG NO.RB4 057358 I BASS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS MAP. '� 183.18'0 1 NBT70'47'E tO S88VT73' II 517'=6_08 _E fR �O �0� 238.51 0_ •� s�9'49'o4'E 121.24' - E 387.67 - 0 Ai'.- R0030'13'W % - _ (sQ - - - - '43'E 841.27 0 28.00'0 - - � ._ 2' R PM r 1 N89I8'04'W 1180.27' 1Q TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT �i' .14 C O 4. 57639'4�W N0030'0 W n SEPERA7CREATED E OCUMENT 1 ��} '� *~ 51.25' 1 15.37' ( 1821 O.R. 494 X101-:-..,A).---,,- 6°j .�, PARCEL 9 ol"oj rtrs PARCEL. A,d ��� A`g ' `. DOC. 84084504 UNE TABLE z �v N SS`"'__ �y O - UNE BEARING LENGTH N87'21'28'W 426.49' FD C7ITON GN TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT 11 I f'', ' a gy h r'j CURVE TABLE L1 N8737'28'W 199.02 } , 0 SPBALE W/ DOG NO. 84- 057358 Si CURVE RADIUS DELTA LENGTH L2 N67R0'47'E 16938 , ;WASHER STAMPED TO BE VACATED BY A g1.94 41 I C 955.37 114'55' 20.62 L3 ■610 t' 17265 -, 24 R 8231. PER SEPERATE UOIVMEN7 C2 55758 1531'00' 154.24 L4 �:lJ4o4PL� 34.50 24 RS 14 03 1136.01 3V509" 80.52 LS 33.50. 1 11 �� t4 � C4 583.14 6'00'30' 59.05 1.8 3.00 1 II C5 2867.82 0330' 30.03 L7 t- 7[:j•1•Y961Mi 30.74 PA II � ' 08 1435.47 112'01" 30.07 L8 C7 958.04 V47'5B' 30.09 1.9 E;V4 } ' 10.00 M �V) (o. o `59�� 0, 08 719.34 112'56' 15.28 1.10 103.21 C9 60.00 631705' 86.27 111 •,L.r1F3'zs 50.99 81 ** I 1_ �rv, .` ��� C Ire IO 1434.10 7109'19' 179.09 1.12 MAL4LYrYM 50.00 81 I� I•. �. �1 011 23.00 10336'07' 41.59 1.13 1�,1.1..4.1..A 45.86 C12 25.00 76.4702' 33.50 114 B:F7ei•41,VI 10.37 7567 0.R 117 N75 11 r !. C13 690.00 2'06'52' 25.46 L15 4� 29.66 . CS BEEEBQIOE$ a. CI4 1350.00 13'4743' 325.04 L16 �I - , I� �•S yC T�,� 10.48 L17 - 213.52 1.1 '/ I 11 1 l'.7--9 O TTRRACT MAP 7387 L18 ,• 34.0 ' }VI FD 1/2' REBAR W/ FlFIV A I' of Z J ® 277 14 1 -19 511 \� $ PLUG PLS 6231.._ 1 - N 1Y TRACT MAP 7 PER 24 RS 14 '1�1 II !FS#TJQ. y___ _- A PARCEL 2 O. W' I NTS N8 ' 43'E IRi DOG. DOCUMENT FD FOUND SCALE 1:50 - - • y.� iSi. + •,` 7567 OR 117 . 'PLS 6231' I 1 1 , ' ',I - AW/EDA YON. MONUMENT - \'a, :; 1 PER 24 RS 14 ' 1 FD 1/Y R ®AR W/ o j 1? IMAGE 888 N}S NOT TO SCALE CO 10 `.. n I$i'�n b•, `‚-® i " U PLUG, PLS 8231, 018 3 O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS 1Z `: 187' -15 O?, ,. 53 Q PER 24 RS 14`. 8Tt#3 • : 24 7'c RAF. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT ,1 J7' 4 'tom I 33259 4 P.S.E. PUBLIC SERIAIE EASEMENT 1,1 IS© C3 ' 7 58792.4.7E ® RUE RADIAL UTILITY EASEMENT I' . L. 0 351.25' 0 ;� N75 I V1 RECORD DATA ``.� -.: !"il N6y51'DTE © F7! 1/2' REBAR W/' (M-11) MONUMENT 1D MONUMENT * N88'43'S9'E ® M-M),. -4L: _� „�, PLUG PLS 8231, 5 I' 90 � ^ PER 24 RS 1 I g RAID IWTH OF SURVEY $ 77.65 iM -M ST W 1R1H ,`,�'` _ � � ! - -' "- 8818 O.R 339 }`1�.' P� / I bi 1 z `` _ - - CONDEMNATION SUIT No. 30735 oln SEF ai L18 2Q • - 06U STANDARD CITY AS NO NT '. ( ) \ 1 n z OETAIL.A , ^ O L79O2 =4(1 �i .� NO2'030D'E __• - 1 • - /4 I.P. SC$CS MONUMENT A5 NONE) ig, L-1.® ® © _L4-.64€1 _Rua' �, P08 L L - 975'T?Y' M �'" �ED.O `�`.. ``` $ �-. _ LOT UNE BOUNDARY UNE ( w<) L y��j C l TIMOR AVENUE (9'L' R -O-W) BA515 OF - - SBS00 - - j�1 ( M �© _tit 'v= '3 ' - - - - - - EASEMENT LINE BEARINGS N87'57'20 -8 1515.82' e " `� r� ,`N. 29.4....‘..„ - MONUMENT LR E - .. -� " °" "� 978 PARCEL MAP 8321 �`�/ /�i�l/0,��1r'�i�11/����0 �� ° ���� REMAINDER PARCEL Z -. 1 FD ROAD NAIL `�`. BEING A SUOMI:RON OF A PORTION OF THE REMAINDER PARCEL. (271 M 1 -34) ��1�: 1_,7 17'112" �m�' W/ PUNCH AS SAID PARCEL IS SHOWN ON 'TRACT MAP 7511 - BAYPORT' 119.14 ACRES* �1 Ellin ����.. _ L�„� „ AND WASHER _ _ , FILED FOR RECORD ON JULY 0•, 2004, L1out 277' OF YAPS AT PAGES 1 -19 INCLUSIVE t ,11 IIIII'I . ,,, li }:i - ,k - ,�,,. I �!^' , p STAMPED 62311-, 14 • ,� GUY OF ALAMEDA M AMEBA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TRANSMISSION LOVE EASEMENT vi . „-$(_ m PER 24 R5 140 DOG SIN 8LINE EASEMENT �I :STLlly;L4��1 _ -.. r. FOR THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CRY OF AlAMEDA TO BE VACATED BY A EIIIIIII#LI.! 01(5 'II117 -_ DOG. N0. JULY 2004 97]'ERAIE DOCUMQIT\ - IIIIII .. 2003- 148352 - B K F E E R 9 Malle�� � = - - - : a;air. 1 - - INN. ,iI SHEET 2 OF 3 .eo•zzz�- �����.{{g0.:mBJ2Ne��a� q e ng � 8g�� f� N9 F N n 3 W W ■ yy� Jn 1� J J J� J mm J J Jg J J J J J J J lei1 tn'k_. Ii` - - ILMIUMI eau vas 7. 03 1 101111111 MN MO IMP ad MI MU "Li IN �i' I E MI 1 M °i w o 10 ' Rd� tiY 1- 1! 011141:4441 1141 el 11 11 1' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KR el. l *OddWgeo3 . • I W 11 g •�i `, to \ T Bg L3 }5 h' : 3.<4 g\ 6 ��Oyv i3 < a. rh\ /eN : 4ity 4� 4 osk. /i F • /�P ph / / z - -- - - -- — -- 7/ - - -L- / / 1. q- /IC / \ •O%`\ d r \ a {s'PSI)/ / /Qed�fN�. at 8 fi g Rm F, rn pA z _ 9 S 9 9 Lb 10fr 4- }` •s: 41, ` / ;s�e�ss ks`er°b�s d n y. av� Pa tt tV �{ yyjjt�m OpIysk s$ " S a a E l b t o E E M b 8yo(V �sx OggOSOmg MSRmOm6mg1 p G §6E7rcic6i'31$�ici 356866ri 9 1 go Z J a 1 1 1 1 ego a! 1 Attachment 4 E 0 CU CL) 0 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PARCEL MAP (PM 8321) AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCING CALIFORNIA'S EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES (ACET) PARCEL WHEREAS, an application was made on July 12, 2004 by the Alameda Community Improvement Commission requesting a Parcel Map, PM -8321, to subdivide an existing 61.29± acre parcel into one parcel containing 3.4± acres and a 57.89 acre remainder parcel and permit the construction of an approximately 30,200 square foot bio -tech incubator building on the approximately 3.4 acre parcel (ACET Parcel); and WHEREAS, the Parcel Map was deemed complete on July 19, 2004; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Business Park on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the MX Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District; and �- WHEREAS, a second Addendum to the Final EIR was prepared on April 12, 2004 to address zany environmental effects of amendments to the Catellus Master Plan, Development Agreement and MMRP RP as required by the ACET project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Final EIR and the second EIR Addendum, the MMRP amendments would not trigger the need for subsequent environmental review pursuant to section N 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the second EIR Addendum and MIvIRP amendments on April 26, 2004, examined pertinent maps and documents, considered the testimony and written comments received; and WHEREAS, the Council approved the second EIR Addendum and the MMRP amendments at a public hearing on May 4, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on July 26, 2004, examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents and recommended that the City Council approve the ACET Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 30, Article VI, Title 30 -81, Final Map, of the Alameda Municipal Code ( "AMC "), the City of Alameda, CIC (Owner) and Developer (Subdivider), have prepared and presented to this Council the Parcel Map of the Subdivision known as Parcel Map 8321; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map 8321 establishes one legal lot of 3.4 acres; and WHEREAS, said Parcel Map delineates thereon vacation and abandonment of appropriate existing public easements; and Resolution # 4 -F CC 8 -3 -04 WHEREAS, Subdivider desires to enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement ( "Agreement ") to construct and complete the improvements in said subdivision, has submitted the Parcel Map therefore for approval at this time, and has posted its bond guaranteeing full and faithful performance of said work which has been approved by City, all in accordance with AMC Section 30 -85; and WHEREAS, it will be to the advantage and benefit of the City to have said work performed in accordance with said Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Parcel Map 8321 is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certain easements dedicated to the public and rights of access are hereby accepted, on behalf of the public and the City, for use in conformity with the terms of the dedication. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said public easements designated for abandonment are hereby vacated and that other said easements offered for dedication but for which improvements have not yet been constructed will be accepted at a later date upon completion of those improvements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the agreement for construction and completion of the public improvements in said subdivision pursuant to the Agreement, and all its terms and conditions be, and hereby are, approved and the City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized and directed to execute and attest to, respectively, said Agreement on behalf of the City of Alameda. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Bonds guaranteeing full and faithful performance of said public improvements, labor and materials are hereby approved as sufficient in amount. G:\ Lynette \Reso\Resolutions04 \080304\PMCC RESO ACET.doc 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: July 19, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance 2806 and Granting a Five -Year Extension of Non - Exclusive Cable Television Franchise To Alameda Bureau of Electricity dba Alameda Power & Telecom BACKGROUND The franchise with Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) was awarded in 1998. The franchise term was for five years, with a five -year extension at the sole discretion of the City Council. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS As previously stated, the decision to extend the existing franchise is at the sole discretion of the City Council. However, the criteria for that decision must adhere to the criteria contained in the Telecommunications Act. The criteria are: 1. The cable operator has "substantially complied" with the terms of the existing franchise and applicable law; 2. The quality and level of service, including signal quality, response to consumers' complaints and billing practices (but not the mix or quality of cable or other services provided over the system) have been reasonable in light of community needs; 3. The cable operator has the financial, legal and technical ability to provide the services, equipment and facilities offered in its proposal; and 4. The cable operator's proposal is reasonable to meet future cable - related interests and needs of the community, considering the cost of meeting those interests and needs. The City Manager believes these criteria are met. AP &T is substantially in compliance with the terms of their current franchise agreement. In 2002, as a result of restructuring their partnership, AP &T reorganized their construction plan and is maintaining a schedule which will bring completion in June 2005. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtyofAlaeda tublic Works Department Public Works krf -Yad Re: Introduction of Ordinance #4 -G CC 8 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 July 19, 2004 Due to the phasing of construction, there are some franchise requirements not yet fully completed such as the requirement to provide a public access studio. The current studio located within the AP &T offices on Grand Street is temporary in nature. Although the studio is small, the needs of the community appear to be met as no local producers are being turned away. There are 9 shows and two internships being supported from this studio. Another franchise requirement influenced by the construction schedule is the requirement to provide a free cable drop at all city facilities and school site. This requirement is being met as the cable system construction passes the locations identified in the current franchise. The franchise has no wording that would automatically include any new public school or city facilities to receive a cable drop. Rather than to continue to update the listing, it is proposed that in conjunction with the franchise extension paragraph 4.10 Service to Public Buildings, be modified to automatically require AP &T to provide cable television service to any new public facilities without the need to reopen the franchise agreement. AP &T is amenable to this modification. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The City receives revenue in the form of a franchise fee on the gross revenue of the cable television services. Failure to renew the franchise would result in loss of General Fund revenue. MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE This ordinance has no effect on the Alameda Municipal Code. ENVIRONMNTAL COMPLIANCE This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by ordinance, amend Ordinance 2806 and grant a five -year extension of non - exclusive cable television franchise to Alameda Bureau of Electricity dba Alameda Power & Telecom. Respectfully submitted, M. thew T. Naclerio P • lic Works Director By: Marge • can MTN:MM:gc Acting ' .lic Works Coordinator G: \PUBWORKS\PWADMIN\ COUNCIL \2004 \080304\RENEW REPORT.DOC Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Gtyof Alarm& public Works Department Public Works Wor for You! E 0 Lr cs U CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING ORDINANCE 2806 AND GRANTING A FIVE -YEAR EXTENSION OF NON - EXCLUSIVE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO ALAMEDA BUREAU OF ELECTRICITY DBA ALAMEDA POWER & TELECOM WHEREAS, the current franchise, Ordinance 2806 between the City of Alameda and Alameda Bureau of Electricity dba Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) hereinafter referred to as "Grantee ", is up for renewal; and WHEREAS, provisions of the current franchise provide for a one time five year extension of the franchise agreement provided all terms and conditions of the franchise have been met; and WHEREAS, Grantee is committed to continuing its construction schedule so as to be able to provide services to all of Alameda by June 2005; and WHEREAS, Grantee has been providing cable communications services to the citizens of Alameda under the existing franchise agreement for five years as their construction progressed. NOW THEREFORE be it ordained by the Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The City Council Ordinance finds that the Grantee is substantially in compliance with the franchise agreement. Section 2. The City Council does hereby exercise it's right to extend the existing franchise with Alameda Bureau of Electricity dba Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T), for a second franchise period of five years. Section 3. That Section 10.4 of Ordinance 2806 is hereby modified to read: 4.10 Service to Public Buildings. The Grantee shall, upon request, provide without charge, one outlet of Basic Service to those Franchising Authority offices, fire station(s), police station(s), and public school building(s) as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Except that service to all City Hall Offices shall not be limited to one outlet. In order to accommodate the relocation or new construction of City facilities and public schools, the Grantee shall provide within three (3) months of the effective date of this Franchise to provide one outlet of Basic Service to all such newly relocated or constructed Git=y facilities as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof. The outlets of Basic Service shall not be used to distribute or sell services in or throughout such buildings, nor shall such outlets be located in areas open to the public. The Franchising. Authority shall take reasonable precautions to prevent any use of the Grantee's Telecommunications System in any manner that results in the inappropriate use thereof or any loss or damage to the Telecommunications System. Users of such outlets shall hold the Grantee harmless from any and all liability or claims arising out of their use of such outlets, including but not limited to, those arising from copyright Introduction of Ordinance # 4 -G CC 8 -3 -04 liability. If additional outlets of Basic Service are provided to such buildings, the building owner shall pay the usual installation fees associated therewith, including, but not limited to, labor and materials. The implementation of the drop policy shall not be interpreted as "non- capital payments" requiring or allowing Grantee to offset the costs against the franchise fee. Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Presiding Officer of the City Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 19, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 2 -17 Establishing a Commission on Disability Issues, Accepting Amended Bylaws and Dissolving the Mayor's Committee on Disability Issues BACKGROUND The Mayor has requested that the Mayor's Committee on Disability Issues (MCD) become a Council Commission established by ordinance, on par with various other advisory Commissions in the City. The Commission, formerly the Mayor's Committee for the Disabled and, later, the Mayor's Committee for the Handicapped, was established in 1975. The new Commission would have 11 members, with a term limit of two four -year terms. To stagger terms for the Commission, a random drawing will be conducted at the first meeting to identify the 4 members whose terms will expire in two years. Like other Commissions, members would be nominated by the Mayor and appointed by the City Council. The duties of the Commission would include providing information and making recommendations regarding disability issues to the City Council, receiving information regarding the disabled from the community at large, and electing officers. With passage of the ordinance, the Mayor will disband the MCD and proceed with nominations to the newly created Commission on Disability Issues. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS At the direction of the City Manager, staff has met with the Mayor and existing committee members and prepared an ordinance that would establish a Commission, with the same foundational basis as other City Commissions. Like other Commissions, the new Commission ordinance would appear in the Alameda Municipal Code. The ordinance describes the Commission's functions, authority, duties and membership. Bylaws for the new Commission have been drafted and are attached to this report (see Attachment 1). Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Cityofillomeda tublicWorks v rtmert DD Pa pa Pmlic Works Ni.* (n k..' Re: Introduction of Ordinance #4 -H CC 8 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE Page 2 July 19, 2004 As a result of this ordinance, Section 2 -17: Establishing a Commission on Disability Issues, will be added to the Alameda Municipal Code. FISCAL IMPACTBUDGET CONSIDERATION There is no impact to the General Fund for this change. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council introduce the proposed Ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 2 -17 establishing a Commission on Disability Issues, accepting amended bylaws and dissolving the Mayor's Committee on Disability Issues. Respectfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director a/ By: Barbara Hawkins Supervising Civil Engineer MTN:BH:gc Attachment 1 — New Bylaws G:\PUB W ORKS\P W ADM IN\COUNCI L \2004 \080304 \MCDreport.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Aimee Public Works Department Public Works Hbohjew. Attachment 1 CITY OF ALAMEDA COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES BYLAWS I. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. These Bylaws shall be known as "Bylaws of the Commission on Disability Issues, City of Alameda." A copy of these Bylaws and amendments thereto shall be filed in the City Clerk's Office for examination by the public. B. These Bylaws, and any amendments thereto, shall be effective on the date of the adoption hereof and shall govern the conduct of the Commission on Disability Issues. C. These Bylaws may be amended hereafter by a 2/3 vote of the Commission on Disability Issues except for the rules of membership and purpose of the Commission, which require City Council action. II PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION The purpose and authority of the Commission on Disability Issues was approved by the City Council at the Council meeting on , 200_. The purpose of the Commission is to provide information and recommendations to the City Council regarding disability issues in support of the City's interest in encouraging persons with disabilities to become an integral part of the community. The Commission receives information regarding those with disability issues within the City of Alameda. In no event shall the authority of the Commission on Disability Issues subvert, duplicate, or lessen the authority, duties, and responsibilities of existing City Committees, Commissions, Boards, and City Manager. III. MEMBERSHIP A. Appointment. The Commission on Disability Issues shall consist of eleven (11) voting members appointed by the City Council. B. Term of Office. Members shall serve four (4) year terms, with the terms of five (5) members expiring two years before the terms of the other six (6) members. Members shall serve a maximum of two full terms plus any unexpired term. The Chair and Vice - Chair, selected by the Commission, shall each serve for a one (1) year term or until successors are appointed. C. Maintenance of Membership. Persons appointed members shall continue to serve except for: a. Expiration of their term and appointment of their successor. b. Voluntary resignation. c. Failure to attend 75% of meetings held during any 12 -month period, whether excused or not excused, d. Members who are no longer residents of the City. In accordance with the above, the Chair is authorized to communicate with individual members whose absences exceed the 75% standard to seek their resignation if they cannot attend the prescribed number of meetings and, if unsuccessful, to remind them that one subsequent missed meeting will mean an automatic dismissal from the Commission. IV. OFFICERS The officers of the Commission shall be: A. Chair: who shall preside at all meetings of the Commission, call special meetings, appoint committees, and perform other proper duties of a presiding officer. Except as otherwise authorized by the Commission, the Chair shall sign all correspondence, reports and other instruments approved by the Commission and perform other activities as directed by a majority of the Commission. B. Vice - Chair: who shall perform the duties of the Chair in the absence or incapacity of the Chair; and in case of the resignation or other permanent absence of the Chair, the Vice Chair shall perform such duties as are imposed on the Chair until such time as the Commission shall select a new chair. C. The Chair and Vice -Chair shall be elected by the Commission from its membership at the first meeting of each year when the Commission is fully constituted. D. Secretary. The Deputy Public Works Director or other City staff as appointed by the Public Works Director shall serve as Secretary to the Commission on Disability Issues. The Secretary shall keep a written record of all business transacted by the Commission, notify members of meetings, maintain the official records of the Commission, and perform such other duties as the Commission may direct. The Secretary of the Commission shall supply the Commission members with such information and make such recommendations as deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of the Commission and to properly administer its affairs. E. Additional Duties. The officers of the Commission shall perform such other duties and functions as may be required from time to time by the Commission. V. MEETINGS A. Regular Meetings. The Commission shall meet at least once per year as necessary, on the fourth Monday of January, at 7:30 p.m. In compliance with the Brown Act, all meetings shall be open and public. An agenda will be prepared and posted 72 hours prior to the regular meeting. B. Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chair or by 5 or more Commission members if determined to be necessary for discharge of the Commission's responsibilities. The Secretary shall poll Commission members and attempt to arrange a date and time convenient to all. A minimum of 48 hours notice shall be given to each Commission member, unless Commission members have unanimously consented to date and time of the special meeting. If all Commission members agree to date and time of a special meeting, the public will be given a minimum of 24 hours notice, consistent with Brown Act requirements. C. Meeting Location. Meetings shall be held in the City Hall Council Chambers or other appropriate location that is accessible by public transit and is American with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible. When the City Hall Council Chambers are unavailable and in exceptional circumstances, the Commission may change this meeting location by notice on its agenda. D. Adjournment. Meetings shall adjourn no later than 9:30 p.m. By a simple majority vote, the Commission may extend the meeting to an additional specified amount of time. VI. AGENDA A. Order of Business. 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda 4. New Business 5. Old Business 6. Staff Communications 7. Announcements 8. Adjournment B. Placement of Items on Meeting Agenda by Commission Members. Any Commission Member may place items on any regular or special agenda pertaining to the Commission's jurisdiction for discussion or action by the Commission. All Member requests for items to be placed on a meeting agenda must be received by the Secretary at least ten (10) working days prior to the scheduled meeting date. Legal holidays and weekends will not be considered regular working days. The Secretary shall accept both written and verbal requests. VII. MINUTES A. General Policy Statement on Minutes of Meeting. It is the general policy of the Commission on Disability Issues to prepare draft minutes of the deliberations of the Commission. These minutes will include speakers on every question and the basic position taken on the issue addressed. Minutes must be finalized and adopted by the majority of Commission members in order to be regarded as an official record of the Commission on Disability Issues. 1. Method of Documentation. In general, the minutes will be summary only, and not verbatim recordation of all discussions during Commission meetings. However, any Commission Member may request through the presiding officer, the privilege of having a written abstract of said Member's statement on any subject under consideration by the Commission entered in the minutes. If the Commission consents thereto, such statement shall be entered in the minutes. 2. Public Comment. Any member of the public during Oral Communications may request that corrections or deletions be made to the minutes. These requests may be acted upon by the Commission on Disability Issues with appropriate review and deliberation and in accordance with the Brown Act. VIII. RULES OF ORDER The following definitions and rules shall govern the proceedings and order of business of the Commission: A. Motions. The acts of the Commission shall be expressed by motion. No motion shall have any validity or effect unless passed by the affirmative votes of a majority of the members present, provided the members constitute a quorum of the Commission. A tie vote is a negative decision of the Commission. All motions and a point of order shall require a second. B. Public Discussion. 1. Description of Item. Prior to public discussion or Commission deliberation, the presiding officer or other person designated thereby shall describe the item or business before the Commission. 2. Permission. Any person addressing the Commission shall first secure the permission of the presiding officer. 3. Not a Debate. Public discussion should not be used to elicit a debate between Commission members and the public. Speakers should not be interrupted unless they are out of order. 4. Time Limits. No one shall speak for more than 3 minutes without permission of the Chair. 5. Pending Motion. When a motion is pending before the Commission, no person other than a Commission Member shall address the Commission without first securing the permission of the Commission to do so. 6. Public Discussion. Public Discussion shall precede Commission deliberation. 7. Further Discussion. No discussion shall be permitted without approval of the Commission after a motion which would terminate further deliberation has been adopted. C. Commission Deliberation. 1. Presiding Officer May Deliberate. The presiding officer may deliberate from the chair; subject only to such limitations of deliberation as are by these rules imposed on all members, and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges as a Member of the Commission by reason of his or her acting as the presiding officer. 2. Conflict of Interest. In situations where there is a conflict of interest, members of the Commission on Disability Issues are required to abstain from voting on the item and participating in the decision - making process. 3. Getting the Floor - Improper References to be Avoided. Every Member desiring to speak shall address the Chair, and upon recognition by the presiding officer, shall confine himself or herself to the questions under deliberation, avoiding all personalities and indecorous language. 4. Interruptions. A Member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless it be to call said Member to order, or as herein otherwise provided. If a Member, while speaking, is called to order, said Member shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined, and if in order, said Member shall be permitted to proceed. 5. Remarks of Commission Member - When Entered in Minutes. Any Commission Member may request, through the presiding officer, the privilege of having a written abstract of said Member's statement on any subject under consideration by the Commission entered in the minutes. If the Commission consents thereto, such statement shall be entered in the minutes. 6. Motion to Reconsider. A motion by a Member to reconsider any action taken by the Commission may be made only on the date such action was taken. It may be made either immediately during the same session; or at a recessed or adjourned session thereof. Such motion must be made by one of the prevailing side, and may be made at any time and have precedence over all other motions or while a Member has the floor; it shall be debatable. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any Member of the Commission from making or remaking the same or other motion at a subsequent meeting of the Commission or a motion to rescind. 7. Motion to Table. A motion to lay on the table shall preclude all amendments or deliberation of the subject under consideration. If the motion shall prevail, the consideration of the subject may be resumed only upon a motion of a Member voting with the maj ority. 8. Motion to Call for Question or Continue to a Date Specific. A motion to call for the question or continue the matter to a specific date shall preclude all amendments to or deliberation of the subject under consideration and is not debatable. 9. Statement of Position. When a motion to call for question or table is adopted, each Member of the Commission may briefly state his /her position on the matter before roll call or call for the next item of business. 10. Privilege of Closing Deliberation. The Commission Member moving the adoption of a motion shall have the privilege of closing the deliberations or making the final statement. 11. Division of Question. If the question contains two (2) or more divisible propositions, the presiding officer may, and upon request of a Member shall, divide the same. 12. Second Required. All motions and a point of order shall require a second. 13. Voting. A majority vote of members in attendance at a properly called meeting shall be necessary for any action of the Commission. Five (5) voting members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. If a motion fails to receive the required number of votes to pass or fail, the request of any Commission member would cause the item to be carried over to the next meeting. 14. Forms of Action. The Commission may act by motion or resolution. All motions shall be recorded in the minutes verbatim. All resolutions shall be in writing and the title shall be recorded verbatim in the minutes as well as the vote thereon. 15. Miscellaneous. All other matters not covered by these rules shall be decided by a majority of the Commission. Robert's Rules of Order may be used as a guide. IX ATTENDANCE A. It shall be the responsibility of each Commission Member to notify the Secretary, who shall thereupon notify the Chair, of an inability to attend a scheduled Commission meeting. X. PREEMPTION A. The applicable City of Alameda's policies, resolutions and ordinances and state and federal laws shall prevail where a conflict exists between any of them and these Bylaws. RpprQvea as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 2 -17 (ESTABLISHING A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES) TO CHAPTER II (ADMINISTRATION) BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) is hereby amended by adding a new Section 2 -17 (Establishing a Commission on Disability Issues), of Chapter II (Administration) thereof to read: 2 -17 Establishing a Commission on Disability Issues. 2 -17.1. Commission Established; Purpose. There is hereby established a commission which shall be known as the Commission on Disability Issues. 2 -17.2. Membership; Term of Office; Removal. The Commission shall consist of eleven (11) members, nominated by the Mayor and appointed by City Council. The term of the Commission members shall be four (4) years. Members shall serve a maximum of two full terms plus any unexpired term. All members of the Commission shall, at the time of their appointment and continuously during their incumbency, be residents of the City. Any member may be removed by a majority vote of City Council. A vacancy in the office of any such member shall be filled and appointed in the manner hereinabove set forth and shall be for the unexpired portion of the term of the office vacated. 2 -17.3. Meetings. The Commission shall meet at least once per year and shall hold such additional meetings as it determines to be necessary for discharge of its responsibilities hereunder. 2 -17.4. Duties. It shall be the duty of the Commission to serve as an advisory commission to the City Council. It shall have as its duties the following: a. Provide information and make recommendations regarding disability issues to the City Council; b. Receive information regarding the disabled from the community at large; c. Select from its regular membership a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, who shall serve in such office for a term of one (1) year, or until their successors are selected; and d. Adopt rules for the proper conduct of its affairs. Introduction of Ordinance # 4 -H CC 8 -3 -04 In no event shall the authority of the Commission on Disability Issues subvert, duplicate, or lessen the authority, duties, and responsibilities of existing City Committees, Commissions, Boards, and City Manager. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration date of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Presiding Officer of the City Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda July 29, 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 126241 - 126695 Void Checks: 124549 124809 126051 GRAND TOTAL Allowed in open session: Date: City Clerk Approved for payment: Date: Finance Director Council Warrants 08/03/04 Amount 4,644,094.16 (316,800.00) (3,231.95) (221.50) 4,323,840.71 Respectfully submitted, Pamela J. Sibley BILLS #4 -I 08/03/04 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 19, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Public Hearing to Consider the Formation of a New Underground District, Number 29, on Lincoln Avenue from Oak Street to Park Street • Adopt a Resolution Establishing a New Underground District, Number 29, on Lincoln Avenue from Oak Street to Park Street BACKGROUND The City of Alameda has plans to construct a new main library at the southeast corner of Oak Street and Lincoln Avenue. The project architect and the Library Building Team have requested that existing overhead utilities on Lincoln Avenue be placed underground. The City Manager has proposed the formation of a Utility Underground District for this purpose. The affected property owners were notified by mail that they were within a proposed district and that the hearing date was set for August 3, 2004 (see Exhibit 1). DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS In order to accomplish the undergrounding, the City Manager is proposing the formation of a Utility Underground District on Lincoln Avenue from Oak Street to Park Street; incidental work will be required outside the district limits. Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 19 -4 and applicable State law provide for company's with overhead utilities to place their facilities underground using funds from their various rate structures. The proposed district includes facilities owned or operated by Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T), SBC, Comcast and the City of Alameda. Property owners who currently receive their utilities overhead will be required to convert to underground service connections. This typically requires installation of conduit, meter conversation and any building modifications. Costs typically range from $2,000 to $4,000 for a single - family residence or small commercial building. In 1988, the City established a policy of requiring the owner of an owner /occupied single - family residence to pay the first $1,000 of the conversion cost. This figure was indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and is currently $1,597. AP &T will reimburse the owner for any verified costs in excess of this amount for the electrical service only. All other property owners are responsible for the total amount of their conversion costs. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service avaralamaaa uubiicWorks Department Public Wad. W,kvfw You! Re: Public Hearing and Resolution #5 -A 8 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 July 19, 2004 AP &T's contractor for each district provides an estimated cost to convert a typical house. The property owner is given the option of negotiating a price for the conversion work with the contractor, doing the work themselves or hiring their own contractor. Conversion work for District 29 is scheduled to start in late 2004 or early 2005 and be completed by the fall of 2005. This work can be done concurrently with the library project. The district is described on the attached resolution and shown on the underground utility location map (see Exhibit 2). The City Manager is also planning the formation of additional districts for utility undergrounding. A community meeting to solicit input from property owners is planned for August 2004. A subsequent public hearing to form the additional districts would be held after completion of the public input process. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT: AP &T estimates the cost of the conversion work for their facilities in District 29 is $661,000. The City will be responsible for the installation or conversion of streetlights and traffic signal wiring within the District, which is estimated to cost $31,000. The cost for the streetlight and traffic signal work will be funded from Gas Tax. SBC and Comcast will be responsible for undergrounding their facilities in conjunction with the work done by the City and AP &T. SBC and Comcast have stated their support for this District; their estimated costs are $185,000 and $32,000, respectively . RECOMMENDATION: The City Manager recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Open Public Hearing; and 2. Adopt a Resolution Establishing a new Underground District, Number 29, on Lincoln Avenue From Oak Street to Park Street. Resp ly submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director VA,L___ By: / . hn V. Wankum upervising Civil Engineer MTN:JVW:gc Exhibits G :\PUBWORKS\PWADMIN\COUNCIL\2004 \080304 \undrgrnd dist29.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service �U �of Nandi Uepar melt Pubic Work Work- for Ymd City of Alameda • California July 15, 2004 ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT 29 - UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT Dear Utility and Property Owner: The City Council will conduct a public hearing on August 3, 2004 to ascertain whether the public necessity, health, safety, or welfare require conversion of overhead (above ground) utilities (electrical, telephone and cable TV) to underground utilities at Utility Underground District Number 29. The project was selected and placed in order of priority using the following criteria: 1. Avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead distribution facilities. 2. The streets in.the district are extensively used by the general public.. 3. Said streets adjoin a civic area. District 29 is part of the Phase 5 recommended future underground districts. District 29 is on Lincoln Avenue, between Oak Street and Park Street. The exact construction schedule for this project has not been set, but construction is anticipated to start in late 2004 or 2005. Your property is included within one of the proposed undergrounding districts. The intent of this letter is to notify you of the proposed project and provide you with the opportunity to express your concerns to the City Council at the hearing on August 3, 2004 at the regular 7:30 p.m. meeting, to be held at 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, 3rd Floor, City Council Chambers. Construction considerations include, but are not limited to, sidewalk removal and replacement, trenching on public and private property, removal and replacement of landscaping, and installation of transformers and local distribution units at ground level. The cost of installing all underground mains, removal of poles and conversion of streetlights to underground will be paid for by the City of Alameda, AP &T, SBC, and Comcast. Once the City Council establishes these projects as underground districts, all overhead services must be converted to underground. If the property owner does not underground his or her service at the time of construction, the City will provide the service and bill the property owner for all costs as allowed by the Alameda Municipal Code. The cost to convert the services has been in the range of $1,000 to $2,600 per installation. The property owner of a commercial or industrial property is responsible for all costs to convert to underground services. In the event your services are already underground, then you will not be asked to participate in the cost to convert the services. Public Works Department 950 West Mall Square, Room 110 Alameda, California 94501 -7575 510.749.5840 • Fax 510.749.5867 • TDD 510.522.7538 E)th I 1 L•y8 Printed on Recycled Paper Establishment of Districi`'` Utility Underground District July 15, 2004 Page 2 If you have any questions concerning the establishment of this underground district or your responsibility s property owner, please call John Wankum, Supervising Civil Engineer, at (510) 749 -5926 or Mike Di Blasi, Construction Manager at (510) 749 -5862. Sincerely, Matthew-T. Naclerio Supervising Civil Engineer Bv' / /John V. Wankum Supervising Civil Engineer JVW:ms cc: Mike Di Blasi O:\Library Project \L IBRARY\CONSTRUC\CORRESP\District 29 Public Notice.doc LEGEND: NEW POLE: • POLE TO REMAIN: 0 REMOVE POLE181 POLE LOCATIONS: 1. 196' WEST OF OAK 2.93' WEST OF OAK 3.80' WEST OF OAK 4.30' WEST OF OAK 5. 18' WEST OF OAK 6. 190' NORTH OF LINCOLN 7. 176' NORTH OF LINCOLN 8. 29' EAST OF QAK 9. 369' WEST OF PARK 10.215' WEST OF PARK 11. 125' WEST OF PARK 12. 117 EAST OF PARK 13. 427' EAST OF OAK 14.334' EAST OF OAK 15. 220' EAST OF OAK 16. 126' EAST OF OAK 17. 30' WEST OF OAK 18. 160 WEST OF OAK 19.209' WEST OF OAK SIGNATURES: AP Z7 WOKATATIVE DATE SBC REPRESENTATIVE DATE COMCAST REPRESENTATIVE DATE ©ate ofl a LA U1F c ©D 1) [I noffT E L... 0 U- 0 0 JCL 0 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ESTABLISHING A NEW UNDERGROUND DISTRICT, NUMBER 29, ON LINCOLN AVENUE FROM OAK STREET TO PARK STREET WHEREAS, the City of Alameda plans to construct a new main library at the southeast comer of Oak Street and Lincoln Avenue and desires to place the utilities underground on Lincoln Avenue between Oak Street and Park Street; and WHEREAS, the City desires to establish Underground District number 29 for this purpose; and WHEREAS, Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 19 -4 provides that companies with overhead utilities must place their facilities underground by using funds from their various rate structures, and whereas the proposed District includes facilities owned or operated by Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T), SBC, Comcast and the City of Alameda; and WHEREAS, Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 19 -4 provides that property owners within the District shall provide all necessary facility changes on their premises so as to be able to receive such service from the underground lines of the supplying utilities; and WHEREAS, affected property owners were notified by mail that they were within a proposed District and that a public hearing was scheduled for August 3, 2004; and WHEREAS, with the exception of single - family residences, all property owners „ are required to pay the full cost of preparing their premises for underground utility service; and WHEREAS, the affected property owners will have the option of negotiating a price for the conversion work with the City's contractor, hiring a contractor to perform the work, or obtaining permits and doing the work themselves; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 3, 2004, and determined that the public necessity, health, safety or welfare requires the conversion to underground utilities in the District; and WHEREAS, the work for the District shall begin in late 2004 or early 2005 and will be completed by the fall of 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that it is hereby ordered that a new underground district, Number 29, be established on Lincoln Avenue from Oak Street to Park Street. Resolution # 5 -A 8 -3 -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 3rd day of August, 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda G:\PUB WORKS\PWADMIN\COUNCIL\2004 \080304 \undrgmdreso.doc City of Alameda Memorandum DATE: July 27, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: James M. Flint City Manager RE: Request for Continuance - Public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's denial of Variances, VO4 -0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and denial of Major Design Review, DR04 -0026 for all development projects at 3017 Marina Drive. The development projects also include the expansion of the residence into the estuary and installation of rear yard decks. Approval is being sought for the following Variances: 1) Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(3)(Maximum Main Building Coverage exceeding 48 percent; 2) Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) and Section 30 -2 (Rear Yard) because the building extends across the rear property line into the estuary; 3) Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 5.7(a)(Roof Eaves) and 30- 5.7(d)(Bay Windows) because the roof eaves above the bay windows encroach to within 3 -feet from the side property line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into side yards; 4) Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(1)(Rear Yard) /Subsection 30- 2(definitions)(Yard -Rear) and Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7)(Rear Yard) because decks over 36- inches in height extend into the required side and rear yard setbacks; 5) Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 5.14(c)(Barrier Heights) because the wind- screens around the patios exceed the maximum permitted 8 -foot height. The Planning Board also found that Variance for the Bay window encroachment be withdrawn because this encroachment is currently in compliance, subject to Design Review approval. The site is located within an R -1, Single - Family Residential Zoning District. Appellant/Property Owner: Rita Mohlen of 3017 Marina Drive. BACKGROUND The appellant and the neighbors are both requesting a continuance of this public hearing to August 17, 2004. The appellant's request is based on her need for additional time to prepare her case for appeal. The neighbors are requesting a continuance because the August 3rd City Council hearing date is in conflict with an annual neighborhood event (see attached letter). DISCUSSION/ ANALYSIS The City Manager finds that a continuance is appropriate because the participants (i.e. applicant and the neighborhood) whom participated in the Planning Board meeting agree that a continuance would best serve their needs. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Public Hearing and Resolution #5 -B 8 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS / FISCAL IMPACT July 27, 2004 Page 2 There will be no additional funding required in the Planning & Building Department budget relating to Planning activities for this project. Application fees and processing costs are the responsibility of the applicant. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, acknowledge the request for continuance, and then, by motion, continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council to August 17, 2004. ATTACHMENT: Respectfully submi ted, Jerry L. Cormack Development Review Manager 1. Request for a continuance from Andrew Stoddard, July 14, 2004 cc: Rita Molhen, Property Owner /Applicant/Appellant Andrew Stoddard, 3011 Marina Drive, Alameda, CA 94501 President, Planning Board Italo A. Calpestri III Laurence Padway Gene Lafollette Greg Fox BCDC Army Corps of Engineers Greg McFann G:\PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2004 \4 V 04- 0006,07,08,09,10continue. doc V 04- 0006,0007,0008,0009,0010/DR04 -0026 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Andrew Stoddard Page 1 of 2 To: Jim Flint Jim Flint City Manager City of Alameda re City Council meeting for 8/3/04 JUL 1 4 2004 D CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Dear Mr.. Flint, On Tuesday August 3rd the City Council is being asked to consider an appeal by Rita Mohlen regarding her home at 3017 Marina Drive. As you may know the planning board rejected four of five applications for variances on her home. This is an important issue to our neighborhood and many neighbors attended and spoke at the two planning board meetings and were pleased with the outcome. Many neighbors are interested in attending the appeal and this is why I am writing. As was evident by the attendance at the two other meeting we on Marina Drive have a very tight neighborhood - not withstanding the residents of 3017 Marina Dr. - and on the same night and time of the council meeting is the annual national night out which we all take very seriously. I therefore am hoping that this appeal might be postponed to the next City Council meeting so as to enable those neighbors to attend both very important meetings. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Andrew Stoddard 3011 Marina Dr. Alameda 510- 864 -2639 7/14/2004 RECERIED J 1 9 2004 PERMIT CENTER AL AMEDA L'A 94501 Attachment #1 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: James M. Flint City Manager Date: July 21, 2004 Re: SSHRB Efforts to Establish and Strengthen "Friendship City" and "Sister City" Ties and Authorizing a Letter of Welcome to Wu Xi, China Civic Leaders Background The Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) is advisory to the City Council and is charged with assessing and facilitating the provision of social services and promoting goodwill, tolerance and understanding in the community. The Board conducts some of its most important work through workgroups comprised of Board and community members. Recently, at the suggestion of SSHRB member Stewart Chen, the Board formed a work group to explore the revitalization of the City's "Sister City" relationships with Arita - Machi, Japan and Lidingo, Sweden and the creation of a new "Friendship City" relationship with Wu Xi, China. Mr. Chen, who has traveled to and hosted guests from Wu Xi, agreed to serve as chair and has started recruiting community members to participate in the work group. As with most SSHRB work group efforts, the goal is to "spin off" the activity to a community -based non- profit once the formative steps have been taken. Discussion and Analysis Sister City and Friendship City relationships typically involve culture, education, sports and business exchanges between official representatives and residents of participating cities. Formal Sister City status entails acceptance by "Sister City International" following certification of the relationship by the participating local governments. While local government approval is required, most Sister City efforts are supported locally by a non - profit volunteer organization that handles fund- raising and arranges exchange visits and related activities. "Friendship City" status is a more informal relationship that gives prospective cities an opportunity to explore whether there is sufficient local interest and reason to move forward with a more formal Sister City relationship. Through the formation of the Friendship City Workgroup, the SSHRB has started this exploration. Workgroup Chair Chen has obtained information from Sister City International regarding Alameda's existing Sister City ties, and has started contacting past supporters and recruiting community members to assist in rebuilding a community -based Friendship City network. This network of supporters will play a critical role in arranging visits and planning and hosting activities for the visitors. While the Workgroup would receive assistance from Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #5 -C 8 -3 -04 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council July 21, 2004 Page 2 staff to schedule Workgroup meetings and similar administrative matters, staff would not be directly involved in planning, arranging or staging trips and events for visitors. Workgroup Chair Chen traveled to Wu Xi, China in April and received gifts for the City and an invitation for City representatives to participate in additional exchanges. Friendship City protocol suggests that the City make a similar gesture, such as a letter of invitation and a representative civic gift. SSHRB President Franz is traveling to China in late August and seeks authorization to represent the City and present an invitation to Wu Xi officials to visit Alameda. Wu Xi, China is located in the southern part of that country, not far from Shanghai. It is a city of 4.5 million people and is one of China's larger economic development centers, with major industries, including machine building, textiles, metallurgy, electronics, medicine and building materials. Wu Xi has a vital cultural and artistic heritage and is known for both its natural beauty and its more recent urban architecture. While Alameda is much smaller than Wu Xi, visitors traveling between the two cities are anxious to establish ties that could lead to greater appreciation and understanding of the cities and their residents. Dr. Chui Ying (Nancy) Li and David Zhao, local residents and business people with ties to Wu Xi, will attend the City Council meeting to answer questions about their native country. Budget Considerations/Fiscal Impact There is no impact on the General Fund. The Workgroup will engage in fundraising as necessary to support a "spin -off' non - profit and specific Friendship City activities. The City itself would not be obligated to pay for travel or accommodations of visiting delegations. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council authorize the SSHRB to continue its exploration of a revitalized Sister City/Friendship City organization in Alameda. It is also recommended that the Council authorize the Mayor to execute a letter on behalf of the City Council and residents of Alameda thanking Wu Xi officials for their gifts and welcoming Wu Xi officials and residents who might travel to Alameda in the future. Respectfully submitted, Jim F : President tewart Chen Socia Service Human Relations Board Chair, Friendship City Workgroup CB:JF:SC:sb cc: Social Service Human Relations Board Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council G:SSHRB \Council\Friendship City04 F:SSHRB \Council Relations 2004 July 21, 2004 Page 3 Information regarding the status of the New Main Library Project will be presented orally at the August 3, 2004 City Council Meeting. CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 22, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Report to the City Council Regarding Financial Support to AUSD Included in the FY 04 -05 Budget BACKGROUND At its July 20, 2004 meeting, the City Council considered and adopted the Financial Plan for FY 2004 -05 and 2005 -06. The Council directed staff to return, for further consideration, the General Fund support to the Alameda Unified School District. The Council excepted from this further consideration the support for Crossing Guards. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The largest portion of the financial support provided to AUSD originates with the Police Department. During the budget workshops, these items were discussed and are reflected in the Comments section of the attachment. There has been minimal discussion of the remaining items provided by the General Fund. The alternative in all cases is to provide the same service for the appropriate fee. BUDGET ANALYSIS /FINANCIAL IMPACT These General Fund items are included in the Budget as adopted but remain sequestered (e.g. not available for use) until completion of the Council's review and direction. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #5 -E 8 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION July 22, 2004 Page 2 of 2 This information is provided for your information and further direction. Respectfully submitted James M. Flint City Manager By: Jue$ nn Boy !r Chie inancial Officer JB /dl Attachment G: \FINANCE \COUNCIL \080304 \Staff Report AUSD Support.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service 9 02 ■Cs1 e u c ° 0 Etc= co 0 o c c� O 22 o vc0 c if 2 0 Comments 00 2 f ?2 »\ % 6 ��� /ƒ \� / / §0/ §g $$ k E m ° 0 O E�% • 2 2 2 $ \ 22\7 2§� / \r t C & & Q — Cr) & 2 = § 2 > / $ o 2 2 2 a G// E / / a) o R § b « a 4= m aa0oa= _0 10 f/< 0 p f -,@± c & § 2 = o 4 c= o� o == ® ® q =co2o =c <«� 2 722•g222§�m . k > 2/ 'cG _0E =cto®o « f §« §ƒ k k\ k k $ E` 0 E ) k -C "CS $ k§52 ==£c ®2 =a =�& a �o0o _ c .- @ ° = c » I © � 0) / E c E/ 2 E% 2- k ui 0 2 m (li % o 3 7 2% o 3 E = 0 m> 5 ®P > s > � S { 1E o= o= E u W D §� 4 2 7 2 0 O@2R @O @a <02@ 4Go_61E \ c - S (7) DARE Program Overtime, staffing AUSD events CO • / \ 0 0 / ; E _ Planning & Building Recreation & Parks Athletic field dragging Miscellaneous Items GRAND TOTAL AUSD Support.xls CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 21, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Authorize Fuel Surcharge on the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service and Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service BACKGROUND In response to dramatic increases in diesel fuel prices, Blue & Gold Fleet (B &GF), Harbor Bay Maritime (HBM), and other vessel common carriers asked the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to give operators authority to adjust their fares within a certain range without specific commission approval ( "Fuel Surcharge "). On June 9, 2004, the CPUC passed Resolution TL -19042 approving the Fuel Surcharge. The resolution restricts the Fuel Surcharge to an upper limit of 15% above current authorized fare. For City ferry services, this limits the maximum increase on a $5.25 ticket to $0.75. With this approval, the City has the option of not raising fares at all or of raising them by any amount less than or equal to $0.75. The City Council implemented a fuel surcharge of $0.25 in the summer of 2001. Unless extended by the CPUC, the Fuel Surcharge will expire on December 6, 2004. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS For both City ferry services, actual diesel costs have exceeded budgeted amounts since February 2004 and continue at historic levels. Harbor Bay Maritime: HBM operates the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry (AHBF) under a fixed subsidy agreement. Under the HBM agreement, unusually large fuel price increases have been considered by the City to be extraordinary expenses beyond the control of the ferry operator. Consequently, the City has in the past worked with HBM to provide a form of financial relief when fuel prices remain at elevated levels. During the four -month period from February through May 2004, HBM paid an average of $1.58 per gallon of diesel compared to the budgeted amount of $1.20 per gallon. During this period, HBM purchased 43,712 gallons of diesel at a cost of $69,085. This is $16,630 more than the $52,454 anticipated in the annual operating budget. CrivoUllarneda QublicWorks Department Puhlie Woks Wrxkvfur You! Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #5 -F 8 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 July 21, 2004 Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS): B &GF operates the AOFS under a Cost Plus Fixed Fee agreement (Cost Plus). Under a Cost Plus agreement, fuel cost is passed through to the City for payment. The AOFS FY 2003/04 pro forma budget assumed a cost of $1.10 per gallon while the FY 2004/05 budget assumes a cost of $1.20 per gallon. During the period from February through May 2004, B &GF paid an average of $1.45 per gallon of diesel compared to the $1.10 budgeted for the period. During this period, B &GF purchased 95,034 gals of diesel at a cost of $137,970. This is $33,432 more than the $104,538 anticipated in the annual operating budget. B &GF purchases fuel in bulk, which they store in an underground tank at Pier 39. The week of July 11, 2004, B &GF paid $1.43 per gals of diesel. This compares favorably with the $1.42 paid by Golden Gate Bridge and Transportation District for the same week. Golden Gate has a diesel fuel storage capacity of 300,000 gallons. The week of July 18, 2004, AC Transit paid $1.46 per gallon of diesel. AC Transit pays a little more for diesel as they use a "highway diesel" as opposed to the "red off road" diesel generally used by the marine industry. The difference is the amount of sulfur in the diesel. Other Ferries: City of Vallejo's BayLink Service does not plan to implement a fuel surcharge since monthly pass fees increased in April 2004 from $227.00 to $245.00. One -way passes were not increased since they already increased by $0.50 in April 2003 going from $9.00 to $9.50. Vallejo determined that given these increases, an additional fuel surcharge would not be well received. On July 1, 2004, the Golden Gate Bridge and Transportation District increased one -way Larkspur fares by $0.55 going from $5.60 to $6.15. The 20- ticket book went from $70.00 to $77.00. They also reduced service by one roundtrip. Alternative Fuel Source: At Council's request, the City Manager directed Public Works staff to contact the Maritime Administrative (MARAD) Ready Reserve Fleet to determine the feasibility of MARAD's fueling the City's vessels. Captain Frank Austin, MARAD Regional Administrator, said it was not possible as: 1) their vessels are fueled by barge and not equipped to fuel small boats and 2) fueling is done once a year. Staff also contacted AC Transit. AC staff stated that their fleet is fueled at fueling islands located at their facilities and that they do not transport diesel fuel in trucks as would be required to fuel at an off AC Transit site location. Fuel Surcharge: Implementation of a $0.25 one -way across the board fuel surcharge will enable the ferry services to recoup a portion of unanticipated diesel fuel costs (proposed fare table attached). Under the proposal, all one -way fares with the exception of that charged to school groups would increase by $0.25 each way. If approved, the fuel surcharge will be implemented on Monday, August 9, 2004. Unless extended by the CPUC, the Fuel Surcharge will expire on December 6, 2004. Public Out Reach: The City Manager directed the Public Works staff to take the following steps to inform the public that Council would consider the fuel surcharge recommendation on August 3, 2004: 1) E -mails were sent to the subscriber lists of each service. This was especially important for riders of the AHBF as that service is suspended until ferry barge repairs are completed. Average AHBF daily ridership is approximately 460 while the e-mail list consists of 388 addresses; 2) Flyers Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service cnvofu.nea blicWorks rtment M61ic Wales W,k J Gm! Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 3 July 21, 2004 were placed on all AOFS runs; 3) Notices were sent to newspapers; 4) Postings were placed on the AOFS and HBM web sites; 5) Ferry service staff conducted AOFS "ride alongs" on July 22, 2004, (morning) and on July 27, 2004, to answer commuter questions; 6) Notices were posted at both ferry terminals, on the City's web site and cable channel scroll. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The General Fund is not currently used to fund ferry operations. The AOFS and the AHBF are budgeted under CIP 621.20 and CIP 621.10 respectively and funded through MTC Regional Measure 1, Regional Measure B, Transportation Improvement Fund, the Port of Oakland and farebox receipts. Increasing fares may have an impact on ridership. The last fare increase of $0.25 one -way was implemented in October 2003. If the fuel surcharge were not approved, the City would have to make up the fuel cost shortfall. The AHBF fiscal year 2004/05 operational contingency of $20,586 could soon be depleted if tapped to cover ongoing high fuel costs. The AOFS operational contingency of $275,255 would also be significantly reduced, thereby, leaving little reserve for unforeseen events. The alternative to depletion of the operational contingencies, is service reduction and/or support from the General Fund. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that Council, by motion, authorize fuel surcharge on the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service and Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service. Respectfully submitted, me Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: Ernest Sanchez Ferry Manager MTN/ES :gc Attachment cc: Julie Braun, Port of Oakland G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004\080304\Ferry Fuel surcharge.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtyafN i da tubIicWorks Department Public Watts Av for You! Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Alameda Ferries — Proposed Fares Alameda Ferries TYPE Current One- Way Fare Proposed One -Way Fare Adult $5.25 $5.50 Junior (5 -12) $2.50 $2.75 Child (under 5) FREE FREE Seniors (65, +)/ Disabled $3.00 $3.25 Active Military $4.00 $4.25 Short Hop ** $1.25 $1.50 Ticket Books: Current Price Proposed Price 10- Ticket Book $42.50 $45.00 20- Ticket Book $75.00 $80.00 40- Ticket Book (AOFS) /Monthly pass (AHBF) $140.00 $150.00 School Groups ** Current Roundtrip Fare Proposed Roundtrip Fare Student, teacher or chaperon $3.00 $3.00 Angel Island ** TYPE Current Roundtrip Fare* Proposed Roundtrip Fare* Adult $12.00 $12.50 Junior (13 to 18) $9.00 $9.50 Child (5 to 12) $6.00 $6.50 Child (under 5) FREE FREE Seniors (62, +)/ Disabled $9.00 $9.50 * Includes park admission * *AOFS only. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Page 4 July 21, 2004 GtyafAlanwda tubli(Works Department Public Wools I f for You! CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 21, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's Decision Regarding Abatement of Cited Vehicles and Trailers at 1617 Central Avenue BACKGROUND The Alameda Police Department (APD) received a report from Code Compliance that 13 vehicles located on the property at 1617 Central Avenue were a public nuisance and in violation of Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Sections 8 -22 -1 and 8- 22 -16. Technician Karen Timney #442 mailed out a "Notice of Intention to Abate and Remove" to the owner of the vehicles on February 10, 2004, in accordance with the AMC. On May 12, 2004, Transportation Technical Team (TTT) held a public meeting on the abatement notice and provided Mr. Doherty, the owner, an opportunity to address the situation. Mr. Doherty provided a description of the 13 vehicles cited and the recent actions he had taken and planned to take to remedy the situation. Public Works staff made their presentation on the matter and the TTT decided that Mr. Doherty had vehicles that were in violation of the AMC. These violations included non - functioning trailers that were also deemed a public nuisance because they were not stored properly. The TTT recommended that Mr. Doherty be given the opportunity to resolve the remaining citations before the next TTT meeting or risk having the vehicles abated. At the June 9, 2004, TTT meeting, Mr. Doherty updated the vehicle registration status. Although some of the vehicles were now registered, they were still on the property and not in compliance with the AMC. The TTT unanimously voted to begin the abatement process by scheduling a meeting with Technician Timney at the residence of Mr. Doherty at 10:00 a.m. the following morning. Either Mr. Doherty was to move the vehicles himself or the City was to begin the process of removing the vehicles at Mr. Doherty's expense. Mr. Doherty submitted a letter on June 10, 2004, to appeal the TTT's decision to begin the process of abatement of the cited vehicles located at 1617 Central Avenue. cyofAlameda uubIICWorks Department Poblic Work Workaj You! Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Report #5 -G 8 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Page 2 July 21, 2004 The APD uses the following sections of the AMC when issuing a "Notice of Intention to Abate and Remove." Alameda Municipal Code Section 8 -22.1 specifies: In addition to and in accordance with the determination made and the authority granted by the State of California under Section 22660 of the Vehicle Code to remove abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof as public nuisances, the City Council hereby makes the following findings and declarations: The accumulation and storage of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof on private or public property not including highways is hereby found to create a condition tending to reduce the value of private property, to promote blight and deterioration, to invite plundering, to create fire hazards, to constitute an attractive nuisance creating a hazard to the health and safety of minors, to create a harborage for rodents and insects and to be injurious to the health, safety and general welfare. Therefore, the presence of an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicle or parts thereof, on .private or public property not including highways, except as expressly hereinafter permitted, is hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance which may be abated as such in accordance with the provisions of this section. Alameda Municipal Code Section 8 -22 -16 specifies: It shall be unlawful for any person to abandon, park, store, or leave or permit the abandonment, parking, storing or leaving of any vehicle or parts thereof which is in an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or physically or legally inoperative condition upon any private or public property not including highways within the City for a period in excess of five (5) days unless such vehicle is completely enclosed within a building in a lawful manner where it is not plainly visible from the street or other public or private property, or unless such vehicle is stored or parked in a lawful manner on private property in connection with the business of a licensed dismantler, licensed vehicle dealer or a junkyard. For purposes of this section, legally inoperative condition shall mean any condition, such as expired or absent vehicle registration, which would render the operation of the vehicle on a public street unlawful. In Mr. Doherty's letter to appeal the decision for abatement, he did not state the basis of the appeal. He did contend at the June TTT meeting that he did not realize that the trailers were an issue. However, Police Department staff has always stated the trailers needed to be abated. It was included in the notice mailed in February 2004, and explained at the May and June TTT meetings. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Crtvafaameda yubIicWorks apartment Public Works 114,11,5 1 You! Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 3 July 21, 2004 APD's position remains that Mr. Doherty has had sufficient time to resolve the issues with the cited vehicles on his property since his initial notification on February 10, 2004. Although Mr. Doherty has taken several steps to resolve registering some of the vehicles, they still remain on his property in violation of the AMC. APD continues to support the recommendation to abate the vehicles promptly. A letter has been sent to Mr. Doherty and a notice has been sent to residents in the area informing them of the Council meeting (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2). BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no impact to the General Fund for this item. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, deny the appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's decision regarding abatement of cited vehicles and trailers at 1617 Central Avenue. Illubmitted, er' Burnham . tthew Chief of Police MTN/PL: gc cc: Mr. Doherty Attachment Respect ubmitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director G:\P UB WORKS\P WADMIN\ COUNCIL\ 2004\072004\abatementappeal.doc By: P ip ee Junior Engineer Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Criyofillarnela uubIicWorks Department Public Wales 1Vo,lsf Y ,! Mr. Doherty 1617 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 City of Alameda • California July 21, 2004 HTTACNIEI'1T 1 Re: Appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's Decision Regarding Abatement of Cited Vehicles and Trailers at 1617 Central Avenue Dear Mr. Doherty: The Alameda City Council will be hearing the appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's decision regarding abatement of cited vehicles and trailers at 1617 Central Avenue on Tuesday evening, August 3, 2004. This meeting will be held at City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Council Chambers beginning at 7:30 p.m. You are welcome to attend the meeting to express your point of view to the City Council. If you have any further questions, please call me at 510- 749 -5847. Sincerely, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: Philip Lee Junior Engineer PL:gc cc: Council Report G:\PUB WORKS\P WADMIN\ COUNCIL \2004 \080304\abateletter.doc Public Works Department Alameda Point, Building 1 950 West Mall Square, Room 110 Alameda, CA 94501 -7552 510 749.5840 • Fax 510 749.5867 • TDD 510 522.7538 C' Printed on Recycled Paper City of Alameda • California July 21, 2004 ATTACHMENT 2 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL TEAM'S DECISION REGARDING ABATEMENT OF CITED VEHICLES AND TRAILERS AT 1617 CENTRAL AVENUE Dear Residents: The Alameda City Council will be hearing the appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's decision regarding abatement of cited vehicles and trailers at 1617 Central Avenue on Tuesday evening, August 3, 2004. This meeting will be held at City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Council Chambers beginning at 7:30 p.m. You are welcome to attend the meeting to express your point of view to the City Council. If you have any further questions, please call me at 510- 749 -5847. Sincerely, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: Philip Lee Junior Engineer PL:gc G: \PUB WORKS\PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \080304 \abatenotice.doc Public Works Department Alameda Point, Building 1 950 West Mall Square, Room 110 Alameda, CA 94501 -7552 510 749.5840 • Fax 510 749.5867 • TDD 510 522.7538 Co Printed on Recycled Paper Lara Weisiger minor revision to ''motion one -- all other remain the same Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: July 23, 2004 Lara Weisiger City Clerk City of Alameda <TDaysog @aol.com> <Iweisiger @ci.alameda.ca. us> 07/26/2004 2:11:55 PM minor revision to "motion one" -- all other remain the same Per Subsection 2 -1 -5 Submission of Matters of the Municipal Code of the City of Alameda, I am submitting this matter for Council deliberation and decision during the course of the regular City Council meeting of August 3, 2004. Please place this communication (including the items below) in the appropriate place in the Council agenda packet for that meeting. Thank you. Tony Daysog, City Councilmember Motion 1: Section 30 -15 WORK/LIVE STUDIOS of the Municipal Code and all the sub - sections therein (as well as relevant ordinance changes resulting from passage of Ordinance No. 2784 of 12/2/1998 [final passage date]) are hereby repealed. Motion 2: Council directs city staff to work with interested parties, including those in the historical preservation community, particularly the Historical Advisory Board, to devise alternative work -live studios legislation for consideration by the Planning Board, City Council and the People of Alameda, paying particular attention to Subsection 2 -1 -5 Submission of Matters. Before 5:00 p.m. on the Monday of the week prior to each Council meeting any City official, board, commission or other municipal body having any reports, communications or other matters for submission to the Council, shall hand the same to the City Clerk whereupon the Clerk shall arrange a list of such matters according to the order of business specified in subsection 2 -1.6 hereof, and furnish a typewritten copy of the list to each member of the Council. (Ord. No. 535 N.S. §2 -115; Ord. No. 1946 N.S.) Subsection 2 -1 -6 Order of Business. Promptly at the hour appointed for each regular meeting, the members of the Council, City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk shall assemble in City Hall in the designated Council Chamber location. Thereupon, business shall be taken up for consideration and disposition in the order established by Resolution of the City Council. The order of business set by the aforesaid Resolution of the City Council may be suspended at any City Council meeting by a majority vote of the members in attendance. A true copy of the minutes of proceedings of regular and special meetings not theretofore approved, as the same shall be entered in the journal of proceedings, shall be provided by the City Clerk to each Councilmember at least twenty-four (24) hours before regular meetings. Unless otherwise ordered by the Council, the minutes of meetings may be approved without a reading of same. (Ord. No. 535 N.S. §2 -116; Ord. No. 2475 N.S. §2; Ord. No. 2486 N.S. § 1; Ord. No. 2533 N.S.; Ord. No. 2556 N.S. § 1; Ord. No. 2812 N.S. § 1) Council Communication #7 -A 8 -3 -04 I7 // Lb/ LF7b4 15:5 / 5.L -54tib1 L j 'A01_.C1.)M 1 Message View - Ncl.scope F . AF'F'L1Lll VEX/ LUUN HAUL ell Lora Weisiger 'u City Clerk City Of Alameda Per Subsection 2 -1 -5 Submission of Matters of the Municipal Code of the City of Alameda, I am Submitting this matter (including two electronic file attachments) for Council deliberation and decision during the course of the regular City Council meeting of August 3, 2004. Please place this communication (including the items below) in the appropriate place in the Council agenda packet for that meeting. The item is submitted with Resolution 12317 in mind. Thank you. Tony Daysog, City Councilmember Question: Should the City Council place the matter of the telephone fee for public ?' safety purposes on the November 2004 ballot for a vote by the People of Alameda? Council Communication #7 -B 8 -3 -04 Of /Lb /LlJ174 10:7! D113- D4tiblZj Art-Litt) VtV tUUN I'AVt 02 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. CALLING A CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ON NOVEMBER 2. 2004 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS A PROPOSAL TO RATIFY ORDINANCE NO. ADOPTED BY THE ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL ON 2004 SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes on its own motion that an ordinance to provide and maintain certain specified public safety services_ particularly full -time staffing for two (2) new police dispatchers, one (1) telephone operator, three (3) police officers, and nine (9) firefighters, implemented by a monthly telephone fee in the amount of two dollars ($2.00) per phone bill, with proviso exempting seniors and from having to pay the fee (Ordinance , adopted , 2004), be submitted to the voters of said City at said election to read as follows: CITY OP ALAMEDA PUBLIC SAFETY FEE (INCLUDING EXEMPTION PROVISO[Sl) TO PAY FOR SPECIFIED PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES "Whereas [placchold.er perambulatory clause]; 'Whereas [placeholder for statement of need]; "Whereas Ordinance _ adopted , 2004, provides for and maintains certain specified essential public safety services, including full -time staffing for two (2) new police dispatchers one (1) telephone operator, three (3) police officers, nine (9) firefighters, , and "Whereas Ordinance implements a monthly telephone fee in the amount of two dollars ($2.00) per phone bill, with provisos that exempt seniors and from having to pay the fee; " Whereas [p.laceh.older perambulatory clause]; "Whereas [placcholder perambulatory clause): "Therefore be it resolved that the residents of Alameda are called upon to ratify the telephone fee (Ordinance , adopted 2004) by answering the following question: "To provide and .maintain specified essential public safety services, particularly full-time staffing for two (2) new police dispatchers, one (1) dispatcher, three (3) sworn officers, and nine (9) firefighters, shall the City of Alameda. ratify and implement Ordinance adopted on , 2004, which. enables the City to assess and collect a monthly telephone fee in the amount of two dollars ($2.00) per phone bill, with provisos that exempt seniors and from having to pay the fee ?" SECTION 2. Thc City Council hereby proposes to and does hereby on its own motion, pursuant to the a.uth.orization provided by Section 9255 (a)(2) and Section 10201 of the Elections Code, submit the proposal to the qualified electors of the City of Alameda in a municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2004. The City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors to consolidate this election with the November 2, 2004, statewide general election to be held on that date. SECTION 3. Thc proposal shall he designated on the ballot as "Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda" and the aforementioned statement of the measure shall rcad as 07/26/2004 15:57 510- 5486123 APPLIED DEV ECON PAGE 03 follows: MEASURE: Proposed Ballot Measure of thc City of Alameda To provide and maintain specified essential public safety services, particularly full -time staffing for two (2) new police dispatchers, one (1) dispatcher, three (3) sworn officers, and ninc (9) firefighters, shall the City of Alameda implement Ordinance adopted on , 2004, which enables thc City to assess and collect a monthly telephone fee in the amount of two dollars ($2.00) per phone bill, with proviso that exempts seniors and from .having to pay thc fee ?" YES NO SECTION 4. The City Council adopts the provisions of subdivision (a) of section 9285 of the Elections Code to permit rebuttal arguments, if arguments have been filed in favor of or against the measure that is being submitted to the voters of the City at this Consolidated General Municipal Election. SECTION 5. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9280, thc City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to thc City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure on existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such. impartial analysis to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Alameda County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County Registrar of Voters in sufficient time 90 that the measure may be included in the November 2, 2004 Consolidated General Municipal Election. ballot. SECTION 7. Notice of the time and place of the election on this proposed ordinance ratification is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by l.a.w. * *:r. * ** CURRENT APPLICATIONS HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD ONE (1) VACANCY REGISTERED ARCHITECT SEAT Thomas F. Saxby, Registered Architect Council Communication #7 -C 8 -3 -04 CURRENT APPLICATIONS HOUSING AND BUILDING CODE HEARING AND APPEALS BOARD FOUR (4) VACANCIES ONE INCUMBENT ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT Two terms expiring June 30, 2008 Two terms commencing August 1, 2004 and expiring June 30, 2006 George Humphreys, Incumbent Raymond E. O'Loan Tom Pavletic David Solis Suzanne T. Storar Council Communication #7 -D 8 -3 -04 CURRENT APPLICATIONS HOUSING COMMISSION THREE (3) VACANCIES 2 MEMBER -AT -LARGE SEATS 1 TENANT SEAT (Two year term) Lou R. Baca Charles H. Brown Betsy P. Elgar Arthur A. Kurrasch Wendy R. Moorhouse Cookie Robles -Wong Patricia S. Rose Timothy Kenneth Swischuk Debra D. Turnage Member -At -Large X X X X X X X X X Tenant Seat X Council Communication #7 -E 8 -3 -04