Loading...
2004-08-17 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - AUGUST 17, 2004 - - -,5:00 P.M. Time: Tuesday, August 17, 2004, 5:00 p.m. Place: City Council Clambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT - (54957) Title: City Manager. 3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director and Craig Jory. Employee Organizations: Alameda City Employee Association, Management and Confidential Employees Association, Alameda Police Officers Association, Alameda Police Managers Association, Police Association Non - Sworn, Alameda Fire Managers Association, International Association of Firefighters, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. 3 -C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 Number of cases: One 4. Announcement of Action Take ► Closed Session, if any. Bever Va 1 ns')n, Mayor Adjournment CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - AUGUST 17, 2004 - - - 6:45 P.M. Time: Tuesday, August 17, 2004, 6:45 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Property: Negotiating Parties: Under Negotiation: 2315 -2323 Central Avenue and 2314 Santa Clara Avenue. John Cocores, Long's Drugs and Alameda Community Improvement Commission. Price and terms. 3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL. PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Property: 1813 Park Street. Negotiating Parties: Under Negotiation: John Thornton III and Alameda Community Improvement Commission. Price and terms. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Adjournment d S- ssion, if any. 1 Beverly J hair CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY - - - AUGUST 17, 2004 - - - 7:15 P.M. Time: Tuesday, August 17, 2004, 7:15 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council/Authority _ on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: McGee v. City of Alameda 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment 0 r Beverly `'llr, 1. on I Mayor Chair, a ed Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 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 17, 2004 - - - 7:25 P.M. Location: Council Chaxnbers, 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. ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CONSENT ITEM Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings of August 3, 2004 and August 4, 2004. AGENDA ITEM 1. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to amend the Contract with Michael Stanton Architects to provide additional pre - planning services for the proposed Parking Structure and Cineplex Project. 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 17, 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) S. 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 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 6:45 P.M. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 7:15 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 3 -A. Presentation to the Fourth of July Committee recognizing their efforts for a successful Mayor's Fourth of July Parade. 3 -B. Presentation by East Bay Regional Park District regarding proposed measure on the November 2, 2004 ballot. 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 (Closed Session), the Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, the Special City Council Meeting (7:20 p.m.) and the Regular City Council Meeting held on August 3, 2004. 4 -B. Recommendation to approve Agreement for Responses to Hazardous Materials Incidents between the Alameda County Fire Department and the City of Alameda. 4 -C. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding a New Section 24 -9 (Releases of Hazardous Materials - Cost Recovery) to Chapter XXIV (Public Health), Authorizing the Recovery of Costs Incurred for the Abatement of Hazardous Materials Releases. 4 -D. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 3 -28.9 (Payment In -Lieu of Taxes - (PILOT); Adding a New Subsection 3 -28.10 (Return on Investment in Enterprise Funds) of Section 3 -28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) and Adding a New Subsection 18 -4.10 (Exemptions) of Section 18 -4 (Sewer Service Charge) of Article I (Sewers) of Chapter XVIII (Sewer and Water). 4 -E. Bills for ratification. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Reappointing George Humphreys as a Member of the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. 5 -B. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Suzanne T. Storar as a Member of the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. 5 -C. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Cookie Robles -Wong as a Member of the Housing Commission. 5 -D. 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 September 7, 2004] 5 -E. Final Passage 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. 5 -F. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2 -17 (Establishing a Commission on Disability Issues) to Chapter II (Administration). 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (Public Comment) Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda. 7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) 7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nominations (3) for appoint to the Economic Development Commission. 7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's nomination to the Historical Advisory Board. 7 -C. Consideration of Mayor's nomination to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. 7 -D. Consideration of Mayor's nominations (2) to the Transportation Commission. 8. ADJOURNMENT * ** • For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter. • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available. • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print. • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request. • Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: August 11, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint 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 Meetings of August 17, 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 Meetings of August 17, 2004. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CONSENT ITEM Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings of August 3, 2004 and August 4, 2004. It is recommended that the members of the Community Improvement Commission accept the minutes of the meetings of August 3 and 4, 2004. AGENDA ITEM 1. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to amend the Contract with Michael Stanton Architects to provide additional pre - planning services for the proposed Parking Structure and Cineplex Project. It is recommended that the CIC amend the contract with Michael Stanton Architects to provide additional pre - planning services for the proposed Parking Structure and Cineplex Project. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Page 2 May 10, 2004 PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Presentation to the Fourth of July Committee recognizing their efforts for a successful Mayor's Fourth of July Parade. At this time the Mayor will present certificates of appreciation to the members of the Fourth of July Parade Committee. 3 -B. Presentation by East Bay Regional Park District regarding proposed measure on the November 2, 2004 ballot. At this time Douglas Siden, President, Board of EBRPD, will make a presentation regarding a proposed measure on the November 2, 2004 ballot. CONSENT CALENDAR 4 -A. Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting (Closed Session), the Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, the Special City Council Meeting (7:20 p.m.) and the Regular City Council Meeting held on August 3, 2004. The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting (Closed Session), the Special Joint City Council and ARRA Meeting, and the Regular City Council Meeting of August 3, 2004. 4 -B. Recommendation to approve Agreement for Responses to Hazardous Materials Incidents between the Alameda County Fire Department and the City of Alameda. It is recommended that Council approve the agreement for Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents between the Alameda County Fire Department and the City of Alameda. This agreement will provide a safe and cost effective means to protect our community in the event of a hazardous materials incident. Any cost will be absorbed by AFD's existing level of appropriation. 4 -C. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding a New Section 24 -9 (Releases of Hazardous Materials - Cost Recovery) to Chapter XXIV (Public Health), Authorizing the Recovery of Costs Incurred for the Abatement of Hazardous Materials Releases. Introduction of this ordinance enables the recovery of costs incurred for the abatement of hazardous materials releases. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers May 10, 2004 4 -D. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 3 -28.9 (Payment In -Lieu of Taxes - (PILOT); Adding a New Subsection 3 -28.10 (Return on Investment in Enterprise Funds) of Section 3 -28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) and Adding a New Subsection 18 -4.10 (Exemptions) of Section 18 -4 (Sewer Service Charge) of Article I (Sewers) of Chapter XVIII (Sewer and Water). As directed by Council in recent budget work sessions, introduction of this ordinance changes the basis and methodology for application of PILOT, resulting in an additional $625,000 in revenue for the General Fund. 4 -E. Bills for ratification. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Reappointing George Humphreys as a Member of the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. Adoption of this resolution reappoints George Humphreys as a member of the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. 5 -B. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Suzanne T. Storar as a Member of the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. Adoption of this resolution appoints Suzanne T. Storar as a member of the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. 5 -C. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Cookie Robles -Wong as a Member of the Housing Commission. Adoption of this resolution appoints Cookie Robles -Wong as a member of the Housing Commission. 5 -D. 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 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 4 Councilmembers May 10, 2004 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 September 7, 2004] It is recommended that Council continue the public hearing to the September 7, 2004 City Council meeting. The additional time is requested by the appellant and recommended by the City Manager in order to meet legal requirements associated with the mediation and potential resolution agreement subject to City Council review and approval. 5 -E. Final Passage 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. Final passage of this ordinance grants a five -year extension of a non - exclusive Cable Television Franchise to AP &T. 5 -F. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2 -17 (Establishing a Commission on Disability Issues) to Chapter II (Administration). Final passage of this ordinance amends the Municipal Code to establish a Commission on Disability Issues. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS 7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nominations (3) for appoint to the Economic Development Commission. At this time the Mayor will make three nominations to fill the current vacancies on Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 5 Councilmembers May 10, 2004 the Economic Development Commission. 7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's nomination to the Historical Advisory Board. At this time the Mayor will make a nomination to fill the current vacancy on the Historical Advisory Board. 7 -C. Consideration of Mayor's nomination to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. At this time the Mayor will make a nomination to fill the current vacancy on the Rent Review Advisory Committee. 7 -D. Consideration of Mayor's nominations (2) to the Transportation Commission. At this time the Mayor will make nominations to fill the current vacancies on the Transportation Commission. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - - AUGUST 3, 2004 - - - 7:25 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 11:37 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Kerr moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *04- ) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission meetings of July 20, 2004. Approved. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 04 -131, "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." Adopted. AGENDA ITEM (04- )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. Jim Miller, Alameda, urged support. Robert Van De Walle, Alameda, urged support. Allison Bliss, Chamber Ambassador, stated the Marketplace is an open -air market and a beautiful place to shop; urged support. Rick Kellner, Feel Good Bakery, stated the Marketplace has maintained high synergy from day one; urged support. Donna Layburn, The Marketplace, stated that the Marketplace has been in development for two and a half years; have leased nine of Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2004 the ten spaces; before the end of the year, all the business will be open for business; the Marketplace is a valuable project to the City. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) urged support. Commissioner Kerr stated that the Park Street side of the building is covered with paper and a "For Lease" sign; the building looks abandoned; suggested that the Island High School artists display work in the windows. Chair Johnson stated that there is a concern about the bus stop location; inquired whether the City was reviewing the matter. The Public Works Director responded that the City has been working with PSBA and Ms. Layburn on relocating a couple of bus stops; the Transportation Technical Team will be reviewing one of PSBA's requests. Commissioner Kerr inquired whether the recommendation of the Transportation Commission was to place the bus stops on the far corner. Chair Johnson responded that AC Transit's standard is to place bus stops on the far corner; requested the Commissioners be provided a report on the Transportation Technical Team's recommendation for the bus stop location. Commissioner Matarrese stated the matter should be reviewed as a redevelopment project. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of 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 11:57 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 August 3, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY- - AUGUST 4, 2004- -5:35 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the special meeting at 6:36 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA ITEM (04- ) Update on the Catellus /Bayport Project. The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Commissioner Kerr stated the insurance company has indicated that the Navy should pay for unknown environmental contamination; inquired what is preventing the insurance company from paying the City. The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager responded the insurance company is being extraordinary thorough in requests for information to justify the $3.4 million claim; the City has been put through a number of hoops to gather information; 95% of requested documentation has been provided; staff is working on the last few items; although the claim has not been paid, the insurance company has already sued the Navy; the City will be reimbursed by the insurance company regardless of whether the insurance company receives money from the Navy. In response to Chair Johnson's inquiry about the length of the time of the claim process, the Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager stated twelve months; partial reimbursement has been received. Chair Johnson inquired whether the insurance company is paying interest during the time the claim is being processed, to which the Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager responded in the negative. Chair Johnson stated the City should ensure a date is set for payment. Commissioner Matarrese stated the insurance company cashed the City's premium check; that he has a hard time understanding why the City cannot demand payment. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission August 4, 2004 1 The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager responded the City has submitted documentation; the insurance company reviews the documentation and requests more information; the process has been lengthy; however, the insurance company has not indicated payment will not be made. Legal Counsel stated insurance companies require extensive documentation; the insurance company has been cooperative; the claim has been accepted; the company will pay; the $90,000 premium was an excellent investment; the claim was filed within six months of establishing the policy; cleanup took time. Chair Johnson inquired when payment could be expected. The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager responded before the end of the year; stated demolition work took six months; the construction contractor had to be paid before the City could provide proof of incurring cost; in addition, the insurance company's environmental scientists have to review all documentation. Chair Johnson inquired whether undisputed portions could be paid, to which Legal Counsel responded the claim could be segmented; however, there are only a few more items which the City has to submit; the City will be paid the full amount within the next several months. Commissioner Matarrese inquired what are the chances of being able to procure insurance for the next project, the Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager stated the City has environmental insurance at both Alameda Point and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center. The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager continued her Power Point presentation. Commissioner Kerr inquired the number homes that have been sold prior to construction, to which the Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager responded sixty homes. In response to Commissioner Kerr's inquiry regarding the prices, the Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager stated the lowest price was $690,000 and the highest was $917,000. Chair Johnson inquired the number of homes in the first phase, to which the Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager responded Catellus purchased 197 lots; permits have been issued for 75 homes; homes are being sold by lottery; the demand is overwhelming. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission August 4, 2004 2 Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Navy is aware of the home sale prices. The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; the land sale proceeds have been spent very appropriately on planning, infrastructure improvements, and demolition. In response to Chair Johnson's inquiry of how many homes would be occupied by the end of the year, the Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager stated thirteen units would be absorbed in October. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 7:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission August 4, 2004 3 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint Executive Director Date: August 4, 2004 Subject: Recommendation that the Community Improvement Commission amend the contract with Michael Stanton Architects to provide additional pre - planning services for the Proposed Parking Structure and Cineplex Project BACKGROUND Earlier this year, Longs informed the City that their goals for the use of their Santa Clara Avenue site did not match the design that we had been working on with Longs for reuse of this property as a parking structure and a new Longs store. This has resulted in our rethinking of how a parking structure and Cineplex could be located and designed in conjunction with the possible reuse of the Alameda Theatre. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS In order to assist the City with re- evaluation of the proposed project, we have engaged the services of Michael Stanton Architects (MSA) to consider urban design options for this project. This phase of their work is nearly complete and we are requesting that MSA be allowed to continue their pre - planning activities to include preliminary cost estimates. MSA's proposed scope of work is attached. The amendment to MSA's contract would increase the amount of their contract from $64,000 to $105,400. The two additional tasks being added to MSA's scope of work are: 1. Obtaining a preliminary cost estimate. 2. Additional ongoing pre - planning architectural services. FINANCIAL IMPACT This project will be funded by the Merged Areas Bond Issuance and would not impact the General Fund. Report #1 CIC 8 -17 -04 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission RECOMMENDATION August 4, 2004 Page 2 We recommend that the Community Improvement Commission amend the contract with Michael Stanton Architects to provide additional pre - planning services for the proposed Parking Structure and Cineplex Project. JMF/LAL/MJF:ry Attachment Res submitted, Leslie A. Little Development Services Director By: Marc Fontes Business Development Manager cc: Michael Stanton, Michael Stanton Architects Andy Barnes, Barnes and Company Park Street Business Association Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev\MARC \Theatre \Staff Reports \CIC 8 -17 -04 Stanton Arch Contract.doc F: CP /Alameda Theatre /ARG /Staff Reports AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT This Amendment of the Agreement, entered into this day of August 2004, by and between COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION of the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a public body (hereinafter referred to as "CIC "), and Michael Stanton, an individual /sole proprietor, whose address is 444 De Haro Street, Suite 202, San Francisco, CA 94107 -2351 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On June 15, 2004, an agreement was entered into by and between CIC and Consultant (hereinafter "Agreement "). B. CIC and Consultant desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as follows: 1 Paragraph 2 ( "Services to be Performed ") of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: "Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A -1" which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference." 2. Paragraph 3 ( "Compensation to Consultant ") of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: "Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the amount not to exceed $64,400.00 as set forth in Exhibit "A" and in the amount not to exceed $41,000.00 as set forth in Exhibit "A -1" which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference." 3. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT Michael << ton By: Title: COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION James M. Flint Executive Director Michael Stanton Architecture August 2004 Page 1 Michael Stanton Architecture August 2004 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: Leslie A. Little Development Services Director Marc Fontes, Acting Manager Business Development Division APPROVED AS TO FORM: ?J.,/ XZle-4006e--__ Teresa Highsmith Assistant City Attorney Page 2 Exhibit "A -1" AMENDMENT #1 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Submitted To: Marc Fontes Date: 10 August 2004 Submitted By: Michael Stanton, FAIA Regarding: Urban Design Consulting Michael Stanton Architecture (MSA) is pleased to submit this amendment #1 to the City of Alameda for professional services to study the urban design options for the redevelopment of the portions of Oak Street bordering the historic Alameda theatre. This proposal amends the scope of work defined in our current contract. OBJECTIVE OF THE WORK The objective for this conceptual urban design work is to assist the City of Alameda in evaluating urban design options for a possible parking structure and cineplex project: PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Review pricing documentation — MSA will meet with the General Contractor and review in detail the pricing documentation material prepared in Step #9 and other assumptions about the project to help insure that the General Contractor has a thorough understanding of the requirements and expectations of the project. 2. Ongoing Services and Consulting — MSA will attend meetings, continue to coordinate with ARG and prepare exhibits as directed by city staff. MSA will provide design development, construction document preparation, and other architectural services as required by the City of Alameda. If requested, MSA will assist the City of Alameda in the additional presentations, public hearings, and the like. Schedule MSA anticipates that we will be able to complete the scope of services by October 1, 2004. Compensation Step #1 —MSA and the selected general contractor will prepare this work for a lump sum fee of sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000.00). Step #2 - MSA's services for providing these on -going services at the MSA hourly Revised Proposal for Professional Services City of Alameda August 10, 2004 Page 2 rates attached up to a not to exceed limit of twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) CLARIFICATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS 1. The Proposal excludes all work related to Hazardous Materials found on the site. ATTACHMENT I — HOURLY RATES AND REIMBURSABLES Hourly Billing Rates MSA's hourly rates will be: Principal's time at the fixed rate of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY -FIVE DOLLARS ($165.00) per hour (Michael Stanton, FAIA). Associate's time at the fixed rate of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS ($130.00) per hour (Brian Liles, AIA). Project Manager's time at the fixed rate of ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) per hour. Job Captain's time at the fixed rate of EIGHTY FIVE DOLLARS ($85.00) per hour. Technical Level I's time at the fixed rate of SEVENTY FIVE DOLLARS ($75.00) per hour. Technical Level II's time at the fixed rate of SIXTY FIVE DOLLARS ($65.00) per hour. Reimbursables Normal reimbursable expenses (such as long distance telephone calls, messenger services, printing, faxes, automotive expenses, time spent in route, lodging, meals and coach airplane fare with upgrade certificates) will be in addition to the professional fees listed above. They will be billed monthly at 1.1% actual invoice amount. UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - AUGUST 3, 2004- -5:45 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:55 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- ) Public Employment - (54957). Title: City Manager. (04 ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9. Number of cases: One. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employment, the Council discussed public employment of the City Manager; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council obtained briefing from Legal Counsel and gave instructions. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY- - AUGUST 3, 2004- -6:35 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers /Board Members Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (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 negotiations: Price and terms. (04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Alameda Unified School District v. City of Alameda. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Real Property Negotiators, the Council /Board Members received a briefing from Real Property Negotiators; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council /Board Members did not discuss the item. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - AUGUST 3, 2004- -7:20 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:56 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call - Agenda Item Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. (04- ) Status of Harbor Isle Apartments. Public Comment: Sandra Williams, Resident; Vicki Smith, Alameda; Michael Yoshii, Koshland Awardees; Gloria Guerra, Alameda; Teresa Harrison, Resident; Victor Grayson, Resident; Reginald James, Resident; Stephanie Reynolds, Resident; Lester Dixon, Alameda; Blondell Ratcliff (sister spoke on her behalf); Althea Franklin, Alameda; Deborah James, Resident; Garysha Youngblood, Resident; Gariana Youngblood, Resident; Negwa Salih, Resident; Nahid Salih, Resident; Dolly Brooks, Resident; Lynn Christiansen Esquer, Fifteen Group; Samarian Hosea, Resident; Fina Lloyd, Resident; Jeremy Prickett, Campaign for Renters Rights (CRR); Richard Mellor, CRR; Sheila Smith Thomas, CRR; Modessa Henderson, Resident; Delores Wells - Guyton, Resident; Destiny Thomas, Resident; Laura Wolz, Alameda; Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope; Jeanette Spencer, Resident; William Smith, Renewed Hope (submitted information); Margie Pacheco, Resident; C. Lisa Mitchell -Reed, Resident; Merylou Ramirez, Resident; Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope (submitted letter); Carl Halpern, Alameda Multicultural Center; Sharonda Click, Resident; Judy Gant, Resident (Interpreter read statement); Lillie Thornton, Resident; Mickella Pouncil, Resident; Mosetta Rose London, Alameda; Eve Bach, Arc Ecology; Tyra Lewis, Alameda; Gebrehiwot Tesfandrias, Resident; Regina Tillman, Resident; Dr. Robert Tal, Alameda; Quiana Robertson, Resident; Isolina Cadle, Resident; Lorraine Lilley, Resident; Clinton Lenoir, Resident; Haile, Resident; Kristine Vallado, Resident; and Barbara Manning, Alameda. Mayor Johnson stated that she has a list of questions for staff; inquired what are the City's options to deal with the issue; that whether an injunction is a possibility; stated there has been delayed maintenance; inquired whether a landlord can neglect a property and evict all the tenants in order to take care of delayed Special Meeting Alameda City Council 1 August 3, 2004 maintenance; who is on the task force; are residents on the task force; if not, why not; can there be residents on the task force; have building permits been applied for or granted; is there any activity within City departments; stated the task force needs to work to get relocation money; construction should be phased to stop the mass eviction of tenants; there is no reason why renovations could not be completed in a phasing; there is only 60% occupancy; renovations could start in vacant units; the Council has been raising the issue of the building condition for months; inquired why the City has not been more aggressive enforcing the building codes; stated there are known violations; not enough has been done; people cannot live in the conditions mentioned tonight; the task force has been working for a couple years and have developed a working relationship with the owners; inquired why the City did not know about the issue before last week; when staff learned about the mass eviction; requested the Police Chief to address the security guards; stated security guards are not exempt from the law. Councilmember Matarrese requested that the City Attorney address whether there could be criminal charges; stated the City has taken far less egregious code enforcement cases to the criminal level; the landlord has 149 Section 8 vouchers, which is 25% of the tenants; the City should only issue permits to mitigate health and safety violations, such as the backed up toilets, holes in the fence and non - working elevators; the [Fifteen Group] principles need to meet with the City. Vice Mayor Daysog stated people are willing to live through the struggles with the property management company because they believe in Alameda; the Harbor Isle Apartments are an important part of Alameda's identity; many organizations that attended a meeting Saturday to come to the aid of residents; the City of Alameda was missing from the meeting; many solutions were raised at the meeting; City staff needs to work with the Harbor Isle residents; the apartments are a valuable stock of housing for low - income working class families; the City is big enough to accommodate families of all economic levels. Councilmember Kerr stated the City should not stand in the way of the owner getting permits; the buildings need to be repaired; landlords are required to provide a safe place for tenants to live and habitable rental units; for years she has been saying that the City needs to enforce the landlord - tenant laws of the State; the City has done enforcement with smaller landlords, not the big problem spots. Vice Mayor Daysog stated direction needs to be given to staff to work with the community; the residents have come up with workable Special Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 2 solutions. Councilmember Gilmore stated the City needs to get practical about how the problem will be addressed; the property has been neglected for years; there have been repeated requests to have things fixed; the landlord has promised work will be completed, but it is not; any direction to staff should be heavily focused on actions; the landlords needs to be responsive; the City should use whatever tactics, legal or other methods, to get the landlords attention; people in business can make a profit without trampling on people's sensibilities; inquired how an 8:00 p.m. curfew could be established in the summer, when it does not get dark until 9:00 to 9:30 p.m.; stated having a security force which the residents fear makes no sense; hard questions need to be asked; inquired why tenants of Building 15, which is newer, have received eviction notices; stated the City needs to investigate the landlord not fulfilling responsibilities. The Housing Authority Executive Director stated options are: extend the dates of the notices to give people more time to relocate; expedite the return of security deposits; provide relocation services on site; a relocation consultant could prepare a packet with information on utilities, address change, school districts and enrollment dates, and social service resources. Mayor Johnson inquired whether financial assistance with relocation could be included; stated people indicated they want to move, but cannot afford it; owners should offer the people who want to move money to relocate. The Housing Authority Executive Director stated the list of options includes: financial assistance to help with moving costs; crisis intervention; stress counseling; having other Alameda rental property managers accept applications and interview applicants on site; help in packing; van rental; packing supplies; dumpsters on site. In response to Mayor Johnson's requested that phasing be addressed, the Housing Authority Executive Director stated staff would request project phasing. The City Attorney stated the City is dealing with private rental property and is left with indirect remedies; possible remedies are: pursue Section 8 protections; the City can pursue and discuss with Housing and Urban Development (HUD) disparate treatment analysis or if there is ability to assist with the 149 Section 8 units; the City has the authority to pursue criminal or civil code enforcement violations; seek an injunction at the superior or federal court for. Special Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 3 disparate treatment or civil rights violations; all tenants have individual notices and individual rights to object; tenants could choose not to move, fight eviction, and pursue individual actions civilly, criminally and in small claims; the tenants could band together; public nuisance action could be taken based on the consistent violations; under the Charter, the City Attorney cannot authorize litigation without going to the Council or City Manager; a closed session could be held or Council could delegate authority for the City Manager to evaluate possible litigation scenarios and to pursue the litigation which seems feasible. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry about whether Council could take action, the City Attorney responded Council can give direction and guidance. The City Attorney stated that she would contact the owner's local attorney to express the legal options and the Council's dismay; tenants could contact the owner in Florida. Mayor Johnson stated residents asked questions about who are the owners; residents are entitled to the information; requested staff to make the information available. In response to Councilmember Matarrese's request for clarification on filing a discrimination lawsuit in federal court, the City Attorney stated a challenge is the lack of a basis [for a lawsuit] because the City is not a directly affected person; a possible theory for an injunction would be disparate treatment and a civil rights violation. Mayor Johnson stated the City needs to be really aggressive; there were mass evictions in Oakland and the City of Oakland filed a lawsuit; further stated the City needs be very aggressive about code enforcement, which should go to the apartments tomorrow. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City Manager's office should give Code Enforcement staff specific direction to gather evidence; the City is trying to stop people from being sent out on the street, but people should not be sent back into places with raw sewage. Mayor Johnson suggested tenants with code enforcement violations contact the City and allow City staff access to take pictures. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the City has an abundance of resources to work with the community to get the property owners to do the right thing; the City should meet with the leadership of the community to provide focus on how to deal with things. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 4 August 3, 2004 Mayor Johnson stated code enforcement should be done in addition to any other actions. Councilmember Gilmore requested that the Fifteen Group's representative inform the company's management that the City Council is unhappy with the evictions and the City will move aggressively to halt it; the management should come prepared to have a discussion about the issue on Thursday. The Chief of Police stated 5 years ago there was a high amount of crime; the Police Department called a meeting of City staff, the apartment building manager, and other apartment managers in the area; the problem is the management changes rapidly; just as relations are built, new management takes over; the task force has representatives from the City Attorney's Office, Alameda Power and Telecom, and the Police, Fire, Public Works, Development Services, Planning and Building, and Parks and Recreation Departments; having a representative from the community is an outstanding idea; one or two resident representatives could attend the meeting on Thursday; the Fifteen Group's owners will be at the meeting to listen to concerns; residents' concerns raised tonight will be conveyed to the property owners; further stated the eviction notices were a surprise to everyone; the City was blindsided; at a meeting several months ago, the owners made generic comments about improving the property; nothing was definitive; security guards are not exempt from the law; the matter will be addressed with the Fifteen Group; the Police Department was not aware of criminal or misdemeanor violations by security guards. Councilmember Kerr stated the City needs to stop worrying about building relationships with constantly changing management and needs to enforce the landlord tenant laws of the State. In response to Councilmember Gilmore's request for staff to address the question about permits being pulled, the Development Review Manager stated no permits are on file or being processed at the current time. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are any applications, to which the Development Review Manager responded in the negative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff had been involved in any conversations. The Development Review Manager responded in the negative; stated eight to ten code enforcement items have been reported over the last few years; none were as significant as items raised tonight. Special Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 5 Mayor Johnson stated permits would take time to process; the City . does not know the property owner's plans; therefore, there is not urgency to evict people. The Development Review Manager stated business cards are available for people to contact the City regarding code enforcement; suggested a list of items be provided and Code Enforcement staff be permitted to enter the apartments to see the violations. The Acting City Manager stated the Development Review Manager would be available to meet with the tenants after the meeting; provided the telephone number for the Building Services Department. Councilmember Kerr suggested that the landlord give tenants a 24- hour notice of entry; then, Code Enforcement staff would be free to enter apartments accompanied by a landlord representative. Vice Mayor Daysog stated renovations are valued at $13 to 15 million; inquired whether a permit would be needed at some point. The Development Review Manager responded in the affirmative; stated electrical and plumbing permits would be needed at a minimum; staff anticipates there will also be a major design review. Vice Mayor Daysog stated there is a change in how the City is dealing with the crisis at the Harbor Isle Apartments; the next step is to have more focus; people who have taken leadership roles should meet with key City staff to begin to find a solution. Mayor Johnson suggested Council give direction to explore the legal options; inquired whether the matter could to return to the Council quickly; stated an action, such as filing an injunction, could not wait until the next Council meeting. The City Attorney stated there is authority for the City Manager to authorize litigation under the Charter; the Council could address the matter in closed session or the City Attorney could work directly with the City Manager's office on authorizing litigation under the Charter. Mayor Johnson stated the direction would be to authorize the most aggressive litigation possible. The City Attorney stated a particular action is not needed because the City Manager has the authority to authorize litigation; that she understands the direction; there could be multiple cases of litigation. Special Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 6 Councilmember Gilmore stated on the City Attorney mentioned tenants' rights; encouraged tenants to do whatever possible, e.g. file a lawsuit or contact the landlord. Mayor Johnson stated the Council comments should be incorporated into the list of actions; such as, having the landlord refund security deposits and providing moving assistance for tenant who want to move; landlords can find reasons not to give back security deposits; then, tenants have to file lawsuits in small claims court; inquired whether staff understood all of the comments and direction to be incorporated in discussions with the owner. Councilmember Matarrese stated the direction given should be summarized in order to be clear. The City Attorney stated the direction to the City Attorney's office is to seek authorization from the City Manager's office to pursue litigation, pursuant to the Charter; evaluating legal options; aggressively pursuing litigation, including Section 8 protections; criminal and civil code enforcement; injunctions in superior and federal court; public nuisance action; first thing tomorrow, Code Enforcement staff is to set up a process to deal with the potential code enforcement activities; establish a process for inspection and aggressive code enforcement activity; the Fifteen Group representative present tonight is to convey the different activities to management; there has been a general direction of frustration and dismay; suggested Councilmembers provide any additional directions to staff tomorrow. Mayor Johnson stated the apartments are only 60% occupied; questioned why renovations could not begin with the other 40%; phasing should be reviewed; permits have not been pulled. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the City needs to work with the community; the City needs to work with the people who have taken leadership roles to ensure ideas will work. Mayor Johnson stated the Chief of Police would have a process to have a couple of residents on the task force. The City Attorney stated all direction would be communicated to the Fifteen Group's local attorney. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a way residents can be informed after the meeting on Thursday. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded staff can draft Special Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 7 an informational memo and place it on the Housing Authority's website, the City's website and have hardcopy available. Councilmember Kerr stated the City Attorney was restating direction; enforcing the landlord tenant laws of the State was not mentioned. The City Attorney stated said action would be included in public nuisance and different litigation options. Mayor Johnson requested staff be available in the hall to meet with residents and answer questions. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 11:12 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 August 3, 2004 8 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - AUGUST 3, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 11:58 p.m. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of addressing the remaining agenda items after midnight. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES (04- ) Ed Murphy, Alameda, requested that discussion of the Work /Live Ordinance [paragraph no. 04- ] be removed from Council Communications and placed on the regular agenda. Mayor Johnson stated that placing the item [Discussion of the Work /Live Ordinance] under Council Communications was correct; requested the City Attorney provide an explanation. The City Attorney responded that Council could make a motion to direct the item be placed on a future agenda; that the City Manager developed a process for Council to place matters on the agenda. Councilmember Kerr stated the process is a bad system. Mayor Johnson stated that the item could be placed on a future agenda. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he wanted the item placed on the regular agenda for action. (04- ) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the Social Services and Human Relations Board to continue exploration of a Sister City [paragraph no. 04- ] would be heard first. REGULAR AGENDA (04- ) Recommendation to authorize the Social Services and Human Relations Board to continue exploration of a Sister City /Friendship Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 August 3, 2004 City organization and to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to officials of Wu Xi, China. Stuwart Chen, Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) and Jim Franz, SSHRB, presented gifts from the Mayor of Wu Xi. Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the resolution Approving a Parcel Map 8321 [paragraph no. 04- ] was removed from the consent calendar for discussion. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the consent calendar. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *04- ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, and Regular City Council Meeting of July 20, 2004. Approved. ( *04- ) Recommendation to accept the work of Priority Roofing Solutions for the City Hall West roof replacement, No. P.W. 12 -02- 19. Accepted. ( *04- ) 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. Accepted. ( *04- ) 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. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 2 Accepted. ( *04- ) 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. Accepted. (04- ) Resolution No. 13753, "Approving a Parcel Map (PM 8321) and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Advancing California's Emerging Technologies (ACET) Parcel." Adopted. Councilmember Kerr stated that she is voting against adoption of the resolution because ACET is requesting an extension of the construction starting date; ACET wants the City to give them a couple of million dollars worth of property; would be imprudent on the City's part to do so. Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. ( *04- ) 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. Introduced. ( *04- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2 -17 (Establishing a Commission on Disability Issues) to Chapter II (Administration). Introduced; and ( *04- A) Recommendation to accept Amended Bylaws and dissolve the Mayor's Committee on Disability Issues. Accepted. ( *04- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,323,840.71. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (04- ) Public Hearing to consider the formation of a new Underground District, Number 29, on Lincoln Avenue from Oak Street to Park Street; and (04- ) Resolution No. 13754, "Establishing a New Underground District, Number 29, on Lincoln Avenue from Oak Street to Park Street." Adopted. Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the resolution. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 3 Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) 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. [Continued to August 17, 2004.] (04- ) New Main Library Project update. The Project Manager submitted a handout and gave a brief update on the Library Project; stated that one bid received was $4.63 million over budget; interviewed all bidders who attended the pre -bid meeting; found that contractors were either too busy or could not meet the pre - qualification requirements; the architect was responsible for the construction estimate; the Office of Library Construction (OLC) advised that bids throughout the State are significantly over budget. Mayor Johnson inquired what the construction estimate was, to which the Project Manager responded $14.6; that $1 million was' added for the parking structure; stated that the bidder, SJ Amoroso, has developed a $3.5 million value engineering cost savings list. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired what value engineering meant, to which the Project Manager responded a review process determining where Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 August 3, 2004 costs could be cut. Mayor Johnson inquired whether SJ Amoroso found $3.5 million in cost reductions, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that SJ Amoroso is willing to negotiate through an open book process detailing costs and markups; options are: 1) accept the $20 million bid, 2) redesign and rebid the project, 3) negotiate a better price with SJ Amoroso. Mayor Johnson inquired whether working with the architect on redesign and with SJ Amoroso on the open book process was an option. The Project Manager responded a collaborative effort between the contractor, architect, and City staff is feasible; there is a 60- day [from July 21] time constraint to award the contract. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the OLC would accept the parking area as a flat parking lot and not demand the extra spaces that would have been provided by the Hom buildings, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the flat parking lot could endanger the project, to which the Project Manager responded in the negative. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the Library should be built as designed and as the community has desired; inquired what is being given up in the $3.5 million savings, and whether all eyes have reviewed the $20.3 million overall cost. The Project Manager responded that the $20 3 million cost appears to be fair; rebidding could result in a higher bid due to inflation. Mayor Johnson inquired what types of changes could be made with the $3.5 million savings, to which the Project Manager responded anything from foundation to roof changes; that SJ Amoroso has proposed foundation and access flooring redesign. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that SJ Amoroso's options should be assessed with a different eye. The Project Manager stated that the option assessment would be a collaborative effort between the architect, construction manager and City staff. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 5 Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether an independent eye reviewed the $14.6 estimate to ensure that the figure was a correct estimate and whether Council would be having tonight's discussion if March's estimate was $19 million, to which the Project Manager responded there would have been a redesign effort prior to bidding if the March estimate was $19 million. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Ophiem -Lewis missed the mark by $4.6 million, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Ophiem -Lewis was paid, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he was hesitant with someone not knowing what they were doing involved in the project; that he would rather have known that $20 million was a ballpark figure than waiting to find out now. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether value engineering changes would need the State Architect approval, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there would be time lost by submitting the flat parking lot and valued engineering changes, to which the Project Manager responded the changes are separate track items; could institute the flat parking lot track in conjunction with a budget amendment. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Project Manager was requesting direction tonight, to which the Project Manager responded that he was requesting Council consensus. Mayor Johnson inquired what the best option was, to which the Project Manager stated that he could provide Council with a report outlining options and recommendations; cautioned there is a 60 -day trigger period; that SJ Amoroso indicated they would only give a 10 -day extension after 60 days [September 21]. The Acting City Manager stated the architect sent a letter questioning whether receipt of one bid constituted a competitive bid. Mayor Johnson stated that the architect helped the City draft the parameters and qualifications; could be the reason why more bids were not received. The Acting City Manager stated the City needs the architect to work Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 August 3, 2004 with SJ Amoroso and City staff. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the architect works for the City; Council should have received the report prior to the Council Meeting; requested an updated budget; that a decision should not be made tonight; a special meeting should be called, if necessary; stated the project will be more expensive than estimated in March. The Project Manager stated staff provided the report to Council this evening to provide timely information. Mayor Johnson stated that staff should provide Council with the report prior to the Council Meeting and provide an update at the Council Meeting, if necessary. Councilmember Gilmore stated that the City is in a bind; going through the negotiated contract route poses a problem with the architect and the one bid issue; redesign and rebid process takes time; rebid would result in construction being done during the rainy season. Councilmember Matarrese requested a report outlining the advantages and disadvantages of each option be presented to Council immediately. In response to Councilmember Matarrese's request, the Acting City Manager stated that staff would provide Council with a report by the end of the week. Ty Frye, Turnkey Forces, stated that the pre - qualification was awarded irregularly; qualifications were due after bid submittal; contractors were reluctant to invest time and effort to bid project when not pre - qualified; that any packets could be valued engineered; value engineering can be done after the bid is awarded; deductions can be made throughout the project; deferred approvals can be done on different parts of the project; project could be rebid within two weeks if the pre - qualifications were reworded in a way that is standard for general contractors. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a need to go out to bid again, to which Mr. Frye responded that the project could go out to bid within one or two weeks. Councilmember Matarrese requested an explanation on standard versus non - standard qualifications after Mr. Frye's comments. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 7 Mr. Frye stated that an addenda to a project is due 72 hours before bid day. The Project Manager stated that the post - qualification process was Legal Counsel's recommendation. In response to Councilmember Matarrese's request for an explanation on standard versus non - standard qualifications, the Project Manager responded that the pre - qualification process is where the contractors submit qualifications previous to the bid; the pool is limited to those judged qualified; a post - qualification process is where anyone can bid the project; the qualifications were clearly delineated; the assumption was made that bidders would read the qualification process; the qualification section of the bid document can be revised, reprinted and sent back out. Vice Mayor Daysog requested another set of eyes be included in the review. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Project Manager was opposed to rebidding the project, to which the Project Manager responded that there is a significant time advantage in not rebidding; competitive bidders have said that SJ Amoroso is a fine organization. It was noted that the consensus of the Council was to have staff provide a report detailing the pros and cons of each option by the end of the week. (04- ) Recommendation to address financial support to Alameda Unified School District in the Fiscal Year 2004 -05 budget. Councilmember Kerr stated that she was concerned the report only addressed $450,000 in support items and not $1.1 million. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would not want to stop funding any items listed; that he supports funding police at Alameda Unified School District events; sporting events take place without incident; would not like the City liable for someone getting hurt on an improperly dragged softball or hardball field. Councilmember Gilmore stated that Council was to address the $1.1 million in funding, not only General Fund items; there are other items that come from non - General Fund categories; that many departments made 10% cuts which could potentially impact services. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Gilmore; that Council was to be provided with an entire list to review. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 8 Mayor Johnson moved approval of placing review of entire $1.1 million in support of Alameda Unified School District on September 7, 2004 agenda. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Recommendation to authorize fuel surcharge on the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was any feedback from ferry riders. The Ferry Services Manager responded in the affirmative; he received approximately 22 emails from Alameda Harbor Bay and Alameda /Oakland ferry riders; three days of Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service ride - alongs were performed. Councilmember Kerr inquired what the response were, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded that during the ride - alongs, two riders did not object to the fare increase but thought there would be a decrease in ridership; 18 riders understood the reason for the increased fuel prices; emails were all positive. Mayor Johnson stated that said information should have been included in the report. Councilmember Kerr stated that included information would have allowed public to review online. In response to Councilmember Kerr's comment, the Public Works Director stated that there was a feedback timing issue; reports were due two days after the last Council meeting; feedback was not received until after reports were due. Mayor Johnson inquired to whom the reports were due, to which the Public Works Director responded the City Manager's office. Mayor Johnson stated that Council needs to receive updates. Councilmember Kerr inquired why there was a 25 -cent, one -way fare increase for seniors but not for student - teacher chaperone fares, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded that the school group program has been offered for years; every year the District has less money to enjoy the benefit of the program. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 9 Councilmember Kerr stated that the City and ferry system have less money too; that she is tired of hearing that the School District is the only one short of money; requesting the School District to bear the same increase as seniors is not too much to ask. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the staff recommendation with revising the language to have the rate increase apply to the student /teacher rates. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which 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. The Public Works Director stated that the appellant was noticed; the Police Department has indicated that only one of the vehicles is registered. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the problem was still there this morning, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of denying the appeal. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Daysog - 1. Note: Vice Mayor Daysog left the dais at 1:02 a.m. and returned at 1:05 p.m.] ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (04- ) Discussion of the Work /Live Ordinance. Pat Bail, Alameda, urged consideration of Vice Mayor Daysog's suggestion to eliminate the Ordinance; stated an additional ordinance to accommodate work /live in historic buildings should be presented to the community; concurred with Councilmember Kerr regarding the agenda change process. Mayor Johnson inquired what the Council's options are on the matter, to which the City Attorney responded that Council could provide direction, information, vote to bring the matter back for discussion, or provide comments on Vice Mayor Daysog's email; that Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 August 3, 2004 Council could not introduce an ordinance tonight. Mayor Johnson stated that she has no problem with bringing the matter back to Council for discussion; if Council had handled the ordinance differently in 1997, the recent work /live project would not have been as controversial; the ordinance passed with a 3 -2 vote; Measure A was a voter initiated grassroots effort; there have been arguments that work /live is not living; stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor Daysog concerning the need to review the northern waterfront; past Council's intention was to preserve historic buildings; preservation methods are not limited to work /live; Council should identify buildings to preserve; Council should review the economically feasible options; a similar ballot measure in 1991 did not pass; the community may feel differently now. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether that was the consensus of the Council. Councilmember Kerr stated that she would support having the matter brought back to Council; that Council should add historical context language. Mayor Johnson stated that economic feasibility for businesses should be addressed. Councilmember Kerr stated that Council action should address 1) eliminating the ordinance, 2) sending the ordinance to the voters, 3) addressing economic development of the buildings, and 4) preserving the historical buildings along the northern waterfront. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the later two are Council's responsibility; Council should be leaders to promote and propose economic development and preserve historic buildings; the question is whether Council wants the ordinance or not; presenting the ordinance to voters is not a problem; times change and issues need to be revisited; he supports bringing the matter back to Council. Councilmember Gilmore stated she would like to have a count of how many buildings fall under the existing work /live ordinance and how many are on the historical building study list or the historical monument list. In response to Councilmember Gilmore's comments, the Planning Supervisor stated that she has a map outlining the buildings; there are buildings that are clearly residential even though they are in commercial, industrial districts; desire to change the buildings to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 11 an industrial use is unlikely because of costs; buildings that are on the historic building study list and the one City monument [Del Monte Building] are noted on the map. The Acting City Manager stated that discussion of the Work /Live Ordinance could be placed on a future agenda; staff would prepare a report identifying Council's questions; Council's questions regarding economic and redevelopment go beyond work /live; buildings within the redevelopment area could be given priority incentives; the private sector could provide suggestions. Mayor Johnson stated that possible business use and associated costs should be reviewed. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he was happy to see initiation of consistency between ordinances and the Charter. Councilmember Kerr stated that Council needs to consider when an ordinance is approved by a Council 3 -2 vote and not by the voters, there may be enterprising people who persuade the Council into moving the boundary considerably west. The Acting City Manager stated that the matter would be brought back to Council in September. Councilmember Kerr stated the matter should be brought back as a very broad agenda item. (04- ) Consideration of placing the telephone fee for public safety on the November 2004 ballot. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that citizens want to have a say on the fee; Friday is the deadline for placing matters on the November ballot; he would like to have the fee placed on the ballot. The Acting City Manager stated that the fee has not been determined; the adopted budget assumes $1.4 million in revenue from the fee over the next year. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the fee was $2.00, to which the Finance Director responded that the exact number of landlines have been received; a $2 fee will not generate $1.4 million; the fee needs to be approximately $2.75. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the number of cell phones was determined, to which the Finance Director responded in the negative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2004 12 Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer to make an educated estimate on the number of fell phones rather than having a fee that is higher than necessary. The Acting City Manager stated that estimating the number of cell phones would be an eleventh hour guess; the fees are dedicated to the 911 center. Councilmember Kerr inquired into the number of landlines, to which the Finance Director responded 34,964. Councilmember Kerr stated that she has a problem with charging for the first line, which is a lifeline. Mayor Johnson stated there should be a budget update prior to implementing the fee; placing the fee on the ballot puts the City in a difficult situation. Councilmember Gilmore stated that there is an adopted budget which assumes $1.4 million in revenue; citizens may decide they do not value emergency services and vote against it; positions which were to be covered by the $1.4 million would need to remain unfounded if the matter were placed on the ballot. The Finance Director stated that two dispatch positions would be the only new item that could be placed on hold. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the police and firefighter positions would be paid by the fee, to which the Finance Director responded that the positions would not be paid with the $1.4 million. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would be reluctant to freeze the dispatch positions; inquired whether a scenario provides for an advisory vote. The City Attorney responded if Council chooses to place the fee on the ballot, the recommended approach would be to have two measures; the problem is that the specific fee amount is unknown. Councilmember Gilmore stated there is a consensus to place the fee on the ballot; however, the information cannot be presented in time to place the fee on the ballot. Mayor Johnson stated that Council does not have accurate information; voters cannot be asked to vote on a guess. Councilmember Kerr inquired what the $1.4 million would cover, to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 August 3, 2004 which the Finance Director responded 50% of the total dispatch center costs. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the funds are already in the budget; inquired whether revenue from the fee would free up $1.4 million to be used elsewhere, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that residents should vote on the fee. Mayor Johnson stated that she concurred with Vice Mayor Daysog; however, Council should not place something on the ballot without an accurate fee. Vice Mayor Daysog stated a rate was established to project $1.4 million in revenue when the budget was adopted. Mayor Johnson stated that the City could not determine the rate because of lack of information on cell phone lines. Councilmember Matarrese stated that two months ago, the City did know the number. Mayor Johnson stated that the number was an estimate. Councilmember Gilmore stated the budget assumes $1.4 million in revenue from the fee; unless the Council enacts the ordinance, the City would lose $1.4 million in revenues; the budget needs to be brought back to Council; how the State budget impacts the City needs to be reviewed. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that it is odd to have adopted the budget without knowing the rate to be charged. Mayor Johnson stated that the City was dependant on receiving information from phone companies. The Finance Director requested Council to clarify the request for bringing the budget back. Councilmember Kerr responded detailed information on the 10% cuts should be provided. The Finance Director stated that there is an August 17 agenda item which would accomplish the request; she will confer with the Assistant City Manager. Councilmember Gilmore requested information on how the adopted Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 August 3, 2004 State budget affects the City's budget.. Councilmember Matarrese stated that there may be a need for a special meeting; that he wants to receive information prior to the meeting. Mayor Johnson suggested that the meeting be scheduled for early September. (04- ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Historical Advisory Board. [Not heard.] (04- ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations (4) for appointment to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. Mayor Johnson nominated George Humphreys for reappointment and Suzanne Storar for appointment to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Commission. (04- ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations (3) for appointment to the Housing Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Cookie Robes -Wong for appointment to the Housing Commission. (04- ) Councilmember Kerr provided a handout showing Section 8 rental availability throughout the City. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the regular meeting at 1:46 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 August 3, 2004 15 City of Alameda Inter - department Memorandum Date: August 11, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to approve Agreement for Responses to Hazardous Materials Incidents between the Alameda County Fire Department and the City of Alameda. Background Training qualifications required of firefighters to respond to a hazardous materials incident are based on guidelines set forth by the National Fire Protection Association (N.F.P.A.) 472, "Professional Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials Incidents and training requirements cited in Occupational Safety Health Association (O.S.H.A.) section 1910.120 (q). The level of emergency response personnel required to mitigate a hazardous materials release is based on the severity of the incident, the necessary level of expertise, and the resources needed to mitigate and restore the area back to normal. The Alameda Fire Department's current level of training is First Responder Operational. The First Responder Operational level of training is defined as "those persons who respond to releases or potential releases of hazardous materials as part of the initial response to an incident for the purposes of protecting nearby persons, the environment, or property from the effects of the release. They shall be trained to respond in a defensive fashion to control the release from a safe distance and keep it from spreading." Discussion The Alameda Fire Department currently does not have a Hazardous Materials Response Team in the event of a hazardous incident. AFD responds and takes a defensive position due to training and equipment limitations. Additional personnel and equipment are requested from an outside agency (Alameda County Fire Department) when the incident deems it necessary. The cost to operate and maintain a Hazardous Materials team, based on the size of the City of Alameda, is estimated to be between $100,000 - $150,000 annually. This amount includes expenditures for staffing requirements, annual mandated training and recertification of personnel, equipment and supplies. Report #4 -B CC 8 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers August 11, 2004 Page 2 AFD staff performed a cost/benefit analysis, and recommends against developing a hazardous materials response team due to the minimal number of hazardous materials responses and risk exposures in Alameda. Cities such as Hayward had eliminated their Hazardous Materials team for this reason. Alameda County Fire Department is the agency we currently contact for Hazardous Materials incidents. Alameda County Fire Department has the only dedicated staffed Hazardous Materials team near the City of Alameda. They will dispatch apparatus and personnel as appropriate for the incident. A typical response includes three Hazardous Materials Team vehicles with a minimum of six personnel and a Chief Officer. The Oakland Fire Department also has a Hazardous Materials Unit, but it is not a dedicated and staffed unit. The apparatus is crossed staffed with another apparatus in the same station. In the event of a Fire or Emergency Medical Service response, personnel will staff the appropriate vehicle and the Hazardous Materials unit will be left unstaffed. This type of staffing would provide an inconsistent level of service to Alameda and is not recommended. Alameda County Fire Department can provide a consistent level of service and protection needed above our current capability. Even though Alameda County Fire Department has been assisting us in the past through a Mutual Aid Agreement, they cannot continue the services because we cannot provide reciprocating services as defined by the agreement. Therefore, fees for services must be instituted. Fee Schedules The Fee schedule rate is as follows: Level I Fee schedule is $575.00 per hour, with a two -hour minimum, plus the replacement cost for all items and equipment used during the performances of service. A Level I incident is a small release that poses no immediate threat to life or environment and can be managed by fewer personnel and equipment. Level II Fee schedule is $1380.00 per hour, with a two -hour minimum plus the replacement cost for all items /equipment consumed during the performance of service. A Level II incident poses a greater threat and requires additional personnel and equipment above a Level I incident. The level of response required to mitigate the incident and additional resources needed are dictated by the severity of the incident. The Alameda Fire Department Incident Commander shall determine the level of response. Financial Impact Impact to the budget will be minimal due to the few calls per year received that require a hazardous materials incident response. Any cost will be absorbed by AFD's existing level of appropriation. Committed to Excellence, Dedicated to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Recommendation August 11, 2004 Page 2 The City Manager recommends approval of the agreement for Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents between the Alameda County Fire Department and the City of Alameda. Attachments — Agreement Respectfully Submitted, I, / / a « / or es L. Christiansen ire Chief-) Gino Ilacqua Division Chief Committed to Excellence, Dedicated to Service AGREEMENT FOR RESPONSE TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENTS THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 6th day of June, 2004, by and between CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "County "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City. B. Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD), a dependent special district of the County of Alameda, has a Hazardous Materials Team, which is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement. C. ACFD's Hazardous Materials Team, possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification, resources, knowledge and commitment to maintain acceptable levels of staffing and equipment, to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein. D. City and County desire to enter into an agreement for response to hazardous materials incidents, upon the terms and conditions herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 1st day of March 2004. This contract shall automatically renew annually on March 1St, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED: County shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO COUNTY: County shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the amount set forth in Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Page 1 4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: County and City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Agreement. 5. STANDARD OF CARE: County agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel. 6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES: City and County intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement is that of independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of County, 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 County's services. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees, including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from City to County, 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 County. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of County. 7. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA): County assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of his /her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. County shall indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by County. 8. NON - DISCRIMINATION: Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable employer /employee conduct, County agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a job applicant, a City employee, or a citizen by County or County's employee or subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. County agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 9. HOLD HARMLESS: Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement or any attachment hereto, County, on behalf of itself and ACFD, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, and employees free and harmless from any and all claims for damage or injury to persons or property of whatsoever kind or nature, including consequential damages, based or asserted upon any act or omission of or purported act or omission of County_and /or ACFD, their elected or appointed officials, officers or employees in connection with or arising out of the performance by Page 2 County and /or ACFD and its elected or appointed officials, officers and employees of this Agreement. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement or any attachment hereto, City, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County and ACFD, its elected and appointed officials, officers, and employees free and harmless from any and all claims for damage or injury to persons or property of whatsoever kind or nature, including consequential damages, based or asserted upon any act or omission of or purported act or omission of City, its elected or appointed officials, officers or employees in connection with or arising out of the performance by City and its elected or appointed officials, officers and employees of this Agreement. 10. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS: County shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by County from City under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to City by County. 11. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL: Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, no subcontractors shall be used in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that County employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by County. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement. 12. PERMITS AND LICENSES: County, at his /her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. 13. RECORDS: County shall maintain complete and accurate records related to County's performance of services under this Agreement. County shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. County shall provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of City or its designees at all proper times, and gives City the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts there from as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, Page 3 shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. 14. NOTICES: All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from County to City shall be addressed to City at: City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda CA 94501 Attention: James Christiansen, Fire Chief All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to County shall be addressed to County at: Alameda County Fire Department 835 East 14th. St. Suite 200 San Leandro CA. 94577 Attention: William McCammon, Fire Chief 15. TERMINATION: In the event either party fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of fifteen (15) days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, the other party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving written notice thereof. Either party shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days' prior written notice as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 16. COMPLIANCES: County shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City, provided such city enactments are consistent with the terms of this Agreement. Page 4 17. CONFLICT OF LAW: This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules, which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those authorities.) Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of Alameda, State of California. 18. WAIVER: A waiver by either party 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. 19. INTEGRATED CONTRACT: This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and County. 20. SAFETY REQUIREMENT: All work performed under this Agreement shall be performed in such a manner as to provide safety to the public and to meet or exceed the safety standards outlined by CAL -OSHA. City reserves the right to issue restraints or cease and desist orders to County when unsafe or harmful acts or conditions are observed or reported relative to the performance of the work under this Agreement. 21. CAPTIONS: The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement. /// /// /1/ /// /// //1 Page 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA A Political Subdivision of the State of California CITY OF ALAMEDA A Municipal Corporation By By Gail Steele, President Board of Supervisors Title: James Flint, City Manager RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By Title: James Christiansen, Fire Chief APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Page 6 Exhibit A SERVICES PERFORMED Upon request from the City of Alameda Fire Department (AFD), the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD) will respond to hazardous material emergencies within the City of Alameda provided that the ACFD units are not involved in an incident within the ACFD service area or in another jurisdiction. Response standards will be in accordance with the Levels of response as defined in this exhibit. AFD will respond units to support the operations of the ACFD units. Levels of Response: Level 1 - Level one response will include hazardous materials releases or potential releases with no immediate threat to life or property and/or small contained quantities. ACFD will respond one Hazardous Materials Unit with 3 personnel. Level 2 — Level two response will be a full response for all other releases or potential releases that the incident commander believes require a full response. ACFD will respond the full Hazardous Materials Team including 3 Haz Mat Units, with a minimum of 6 personnel, and a Battalion Chief. The ACFD will respond personnel trained to the hazardous materials technician level as defined by state and federal standards for the purpose of assessing and safely mitigating emergencies of both known and unknown chemicals, substances, or other potentially hazardous materials. ACFD Responding personnel will be capable of the following tasks: * Analyzing hazardous materials incidents to determine the magnitude of the problem in terms of outcomes. * Plan a response within the capabilities of the available personnel, protective equipment and control equipment. * Implement a planned response to favorably change the outcomes consistent with state and local emergency response requirements, ACFD standard operating procedures and site safety plan. * Evaluate the progress of the planned response. * Terminate the incident as appropriate. Training/Orientation: ACFD will provide an orientation to AFD department personnel, on the operation of the team. The ACFD will also work with the AFD on the coordination of future training that is mutually agreeable to both organizations. SERVICES REQUIRED OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FIRE DEPARTMENT * Provide initial response and request engine and truck companies trained to the hazardous materials first responder - decontamination level as defined by state and federal standards. * Provide initial assessment of incident and request the necessary response from ACFD. * Establish safe control zones and site access control. * Provide AFD personnel for the purpose of decontamination. Personnel must be capable of utilizing personal protective equipment up to and including "Level B" protective clothing provided by ACFD. AFD will be required to provide necessary self - contained breathing apparatus and training for its personnel. * Provide necessary logistical support for all personnel on the scene. * AFD will authorize private contractors when necessary for remediation purposes. Exhibit B COST RECOVERY The ACFD will be compensated for haz mat response services as follows: Level 1 Response: $575 per hour, with a 2 -hour minimum, rounded up to the nearest hour. ACFD will also be compensated for the actual repair cost of any items /equipment damaged during the performance of services outlined in Exhibit "A" and/or the replacement cost for all items /equipment consumed during the performance of services outlined in Exhibit A. Level 2 Response: $1,380.00 per hour, with a 2 -hour minimum, rounded up to the nearest hour. ACFD will also be compensated for the actual repair cost of any items /equipment damaged during the performance of services outlined in Exhibit "A" and/or the replacement cost for all items /equipment consumed during the performance of services outlined in Exhibit A. City of Alameda Inter - department Memorandum Date: August 11, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding a New Section 24 -9 (Releases of Hazardous Materials -Cost Recovery) to Chapter 24 (Public Health), Authorizing the Recovery of Costs Incurred for the Abatement of Hazardous Materials Releases. Background The purpose of this ordinance is to require persons who are responsible for hazardous materials releases to reimburse the City for the cost of abatement of such releases. Discussion All hazardous material releases require cleanup and documentation of proper disposal. The City of Alameda currently does not have a municipal code that enables cost recovery in the event of a hazardous materials release. Based on the severity of the incident, a level of cleanup is determined. There are two levels of cleanup based on current fire department policies (General Order Bulletin 1 -5 -A). They are classified as a small spill and large spill of the seven motor fluids. Other identified common household items warrant our Service Maintenance Center to respond. All unidentified incidents /spills are beyond the scope of training and capabilities of the Alameda Fire Department and an environmental service is called in for mitigation and cleanup at the responsible party's expense. If the responsible party has remained on scene or the property owner can be located through city services then, we can bill for reimbursement. In the event no responsible party can be located, the cost of abating the incident will remain the City's responsibility. This ordinance allows the City to enforce the duty of a person responsible for a hazardous materials release in any of the following ways: 1) by a court action to enforce the debt, in either Superior or Small Claims Court; 2) by imposing a nuisance abatement lien on the property which will be liquidated when the property is sold, refinanced or when the City files an action to foreclose its lien; 3) by imposing a special assessment lien on the property to be paid with property taxes, and subject to the usual penalties and interest; or 4) by a civil or criminal code enforcement action. These remedies, if diligently pursued by City staff, will allow the City to recover the cost to abate hazardous materials spills when the responsible person can be identified, and when that person has assets (such as vehicles or land) that the City can use to secure the debt. The cost of abating releases by parties without assets ( "judgment- proof' Re: Introduction of Ordinance #4 -C CC 8 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers August 11, 2004 Page 2 parties), and releases for which a responsible person cannot be identified, will remain the City's responsibility. Financial Impact Adoption of this ordinance will enable the City to recoup costs of mitigation and disposal of hazardous materials. Recommendation The City Manager recommends introduction of ordinance "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding a New Section 24 -9 (Releases of Hazardous Materials -Cost Recovery) to Chapter 24 (Public Health), Authorizing the Recovery of Costs Incurred for the Abatement of Hazardous Materials Releases." Respectfully Submitted Gino Ilacqua Division Chief Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 24 -9 (RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — COST RECOVERY) TO CHAPTER XXIV (PUBLIC HEALTH), AUTHORIZING THE RECOVERY OF COSTS INCURRED FOR THE ABATEMENT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASES BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new Section 24 -9 (Releases of Hazardous Materials — Cost Recovery) to Chapter XXIV (Public Health) to read as follows: 24 -9 RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — COST RECOVERY 24 -9.1 PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY This Section is enacted pursuant to the charter authority of the City as well as pursuant to Government. Code Sections 38773 et seq. The purpose of this Section is to require persons who are responsible for hazardous materials releases in the City to reimburse the City for the cost of abatement of such releases. 24 -9.2 DEFINITIONS The following definitions shall apply to the construction of this section except where the context clearly indicates another meaning was intended: (a) "Abatement" means any emergency response, non - emergency response, enforcement or other effort to prevent, mitigate or remedy the actual or potential consequences of a hazardous materials release. (b) "Cost of abatement" means the direct and indirect cost actually incurred by the City for the abatement of a hazardous material release. Costs shall include, but not be limited to, labor costs of City personnel, including benefits and administrative overhead; any costs incurred for equipment, materials, and/or contract services; any costs incurred for supervision or verification of the abatement of a hazardous materials release pursuant to subsection 24- 9.5(b) of this Code; any costs incurred by the City regarding the processing and recording of a lien and providing notice to a property owner as a part of its foreclosure action to enforce a lien as authorized by Government Code Section 38773.1(c)(4); and any other cost incurred by the City in the enforcement of this Section. (c) "Hazardous material" means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or its physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant actual or potential hazard to human health or safety or to the environment if released onto public or Introduction of Ordinance # 4 -C CC 8 -17 -04 private property or released into the environment. "Hazardous material" includes, but is not limited to, "hazardous waste" as that term is defined in subsection 30 -2(b) of this Code, and any material which the Fire Department or its agent reasonably believes poses a significant actual or potential hazard to human health or safety or to the environment if released onto public or private property or released into the environment, whether or not that material is subsequently determined to be actually or potentially hazardous. (d) "Hazardous materials release" means: (1) the threatened or actual release, discharge, deposit, or abandonment of any hazardous material on public or private property in the City, (2) the threatened or actual release of hazardous material into the environment from public or private property in the City, and (3) the improper storage or improper use of any hazardous material in the City that threatens to or does release, discharge, deposit, abandon any hazardous material on public or private property, or threatens to or does release any hazardous material into the environment. (e) "Person" has the meaning set forth in subsection 1 -2 of this Code. (f) "Responsible person" means any or all of the persons listed in subsection 24 -9.4 of this Code. 24 -9.3 RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DECLARED A NUISANCE (a) The City Council of the City of Alameda, acting under the authority granted by the City Charter and Government Code Section 38771, hereby declares that any hazardous materials release in the City of Alameda is a public nuisance subject to summary abatement and is also a violation of this Code. (b) The Fire Department is authorized to provide, or to contract for another to provide, for the abatement of any hazardous materials release in the City. 24 -9.4 RESPONSIBLE PERSONS LIABLE FOR COSTS Each of the following persons is jointly and severally liable to the City for cost of abatement of a hazardous materials release in the City: (a) Any person whose negligent or willful act or omission was a proximate cause of the hazardous materials release; (b) Any person who owned or had custody or control of the hazardous material at the time of the hazardous materials release, without regard to fault or causation; (c) Any person who owned or had custody or control of the container that held the hazardous material at the time of, or immediately prior to, the hazardous materials release, without regard to fault or causation; (d) Any person who owned or was in possession of the property on which or from which the hazardous materials release occurred, without regard to fault or causation; (e) Any person who, by contract or otherwise, arranged for the disposal, treatment, or transport of the hazardous material, without regard to fault or causation, if the hazardous materials release occurred during disposal, treatment, or transport. (f) Any person who accepted hazardous materials for transport, without regard to fault or causation, if the hazardous materials release occurred during transport. 24 -9.5 ABATEMENT BY ORDER OF FIRE CHIEF (a) Study Order. In the event the Fire Chief or his or her designee reasonably determines that a hazardous materials release may have occurred, he or she may order the responsible person to perform, at the cost of the responsible person, investigative studies to determine the existence, nature and extent of the hazardous materials release. If the responsible person fails to comply within the time specified in such an order, the Fire Chief or his or her designee may take any necessary corrective action at the responsible person's cost. (b) Clean-up Order. In the even that the Fire Chief or his or her designee reasonably determines that a hazardous materials release has occurred in the City, he or she may order the responsible person to accomplish, or cause to be accomplished, at the responsible person's cost, the abatement of the hazardous materials release. If the responsible person fails to comply within the time specified in such an order, the Fire Chief or his or her designee may take any necessary corrective action, including but not limited to, abatement of the hazardous materials release by the City or its agents at the responsible person's cost. (c) Supervision. The Fire Chief or his or her designee may take such action is necessary to supervise and to verify the adequacy of any abatement pursuant to subsection 24- 9.5(b) of this Code. 24 -9.6 COST RECOVERY (a) A responsible person shall pay the City the costs of abatement and costs due under subsection 24 -9.5 of this Code within thirty (30) days of the date of a bill issued for those costs. (b) If a responsible person fails to make payment to the City as required by subsection 24- 9.6(a) of this Code, then the City may enforce that payment obligation against that responsible person in a debt action or enforce the payment obligation as a lien or special assessment in the manner provided in subsection 13 -9.4 of this Code and as required by Government Code Section 38773.1 or Government Code Section. 38771.5, as the case may be. (c) In any action or proceeding to enforce the obligations of a responsible person under this Section 24 -9 in which the City elects, at the initiation of that action or proceeding, to seek recovery of its own attorneys' fees, the prevailing party shall be awarded its attorneys' fees actually and reasonably incurred in the prosecution or defense of the action or proceeding. (d) Upon entry of a second or subsequent civil or criminal judgment within a two -year period finding that an owner of property is responsible for a hazardous materials release with respect to his, her or its property, the court may order that person to pay treble the costs of abatement. 24 -9.7 REMEDIES CUMULATIVE The authority and remedies established by this Section 24 -9 are in addition to any other remedy and authority established by any federal, state, or local law and resort to any lawful remedy shall not constitute an election that waives the right to pursue any other remedy permitted by law 24 -9.8 ABATEMENT IS DISCRETIONARY Nothing in this Section 24 -9 shall create a right in any person to compel, or a duty in, the City to abate any hazardous materials release. Enforcement of this Section 24 -9 by the City constitutes discretionary action within the meaning of Government Code Section 820.2. Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Alameda hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage as provided in Section 3- 12 of the Charter of the City of Alameda. 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 Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: August 9, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code Regarding Sewer Services Charges and Payments in Lieu of Taxes as Return on Investments in Enterprise Funds BACKGROUND Alameda Municipal Code Section 3 -28.9 was adopted September 21, 1993. This section establishes a rate equal to one - percent (1 %) of fixed assets in each of the enterprises of the City of Alameda as of June 30tn of the prior fiscal year. This rate generates approximately $1.2 million per fiscal year. The purpose of a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) is to replace property taxes that would otherwise be provided if said property were owned by a private entity. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS During the budget discussion process, Council reviewed various revenue alternatives. An increase to the rate of the PILOT was recommended as one of the revenue strategies to close the General Fund budget "gap" (difference between revenues and expenditures). The Council, by consensus, agreed to consider the proposed increase from 1% of fixed assets to 1.5% of fixed assets. Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) After further review by legal counsel, it was recommended that the basis of the PILOT be amended to use different bases for the Sewer Enterprise than for Golf or Alameda Power & Telecom (Alameda P &T) in order to conform to requirements of Proposition 218 adopted in 1997. The PILOT would be changed to the following: • Sewer Enterprise 1% of fixed assets as of the preceding June 30th • Golf /Alameda P &T 1% of fixed assets as of June 30, 1993, adjusted for the lesser of Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 2% Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Introduction of Ordinance #4 -D CC 8 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Return on Investment (ROI) August 9, 2004 Page 2 Further, it was recommended that a new element be added called Return on Investment (ROI). This methodology has been tested and can be applicable to Alameda P &T and the Golf Enterprise. The PILOT methodology adjusts 1993 assets for inflation whereas the ROI methodology uses the current book value of assets and accounts for the additions and deletions to assets each year. These changes and the inclusion of the exemption procedures for the Sewer enterprise are necessitated by the requirements of Proposition 218 and address issues unique to the Sewer enterprise. • Golf and Alameda P &T 1% of fixed assets as of the preceding June 30th The departments /enterprises assessed the PILOT are Golf, Sewer and Alameda P &T. The ROI is applicable to Golf and Alameda P &T. Each of the responsible department heads has reviewed the proposed changes and has indicated that this rate increase can be accommodated. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The recently adopted Fiscal Year 2004 -2005 Budget included an additional $625,000 in anticipation of Council's adoption of the proposed ordinance increasing the PILOT rate from one percent (1%) to one and one -half percent (1.5 %). The ordinance amendments as presented, while changing the bases and methodology, still achieve this new revenue target. MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE Sections 3 -28.9 Payment In -Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), Section 3 -28 is amended to add Section 3 -28.10 Return on Investment in Enterprise Funds. Section 18 -4 is amended to add the Exemptions for Sewer services. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends introduction and adoption of the ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code regarding sewer services charges and payments in lieu of taxes as return on investments in enterprise funds. Respectfully submitted JAB:dI Attachments G: \FINANCE \COUNCIL \081704 \Staff Report PILOT rev 2.doc le -Ann Bder hief Financial Officer Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service <of chg or 2% .0 U E E U O O O c00) N O) f—mm V C0 O O O m V c0 1-- 0 f— V V O 0 0 0) 0 (0 00 M N(0 V 0 N- - O N O O (n (n O) r r (0 M vvV(0 0). Ni 0 O O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 V 0 0 0 O O O O N O V N- (V (V (V N N (N r N- N- 000_000_00000 co M V (0 0 0 00 M V M o O V CO N m (n 0 M 06 (") C) Ni (O , r N- - 1- N O (() 00 A- 0) N CO O) 0 1- 0 0 O) ��T��0rOi0� M O M M V c0 a0 000 r-00M 00 0 W c0 N CO V 00 M C) M ' 00'4: ' Ca. E9. Ea te 0 0) 0) M V (0 0 I- 00 0 0 N M V 0)0)0)0)0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 O 0)0)0)0)0)0)0) O O 0 O 0 = N N N N N O (0 C 7 ) '(0 O i 0— < C7 (0 . 0) (0 0) ) C O N l6 \° Ta N > X 8m w m in U 7 W 76 Q Od w V1 <om 01.,(01%.„ •(0O C d) t, p M O O 01 (0'N'0) Ern d9 0) 0 O 0 (0000 o v ON-" N0 O O O M 0a O M 69 fA� 69 U) Q U` $137,688,409 O O O 0) M NM V V O V _ M (0 0 0 0) 00 M O O O (OV NON J (0 O U) N N 0 V �M0)(O 1- H • O(( O M ((j M O NOOiCD o N f CD O ° O O W VN r O CD I- 0 0 M O O CD ✓ • J v- 0 0 0 OO CO CO 0 A- 4) O p mom. ° a L m- m 2 0 N CO 0 0 N 0) 00 N X (0 T 03 c 0 ce 1- 0 J_ CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 3 -28.9 (PAYMENT IN-LIEU OF TAXES — (PILOT); ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION 3 -28.10 (RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN ENTERPRISE FUNDS) OF SECTION 3 -28 (PAYMENT OF TAXES) OF CHAPTER III (FINANCE AND TAXATION) AND ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION 18 -4.10 (EXEMPTIONS) OF SECTION 18 -4 (SEWER SERVICE CHARGE) OF ARTICLE 1 (SEWERS) OF CHAPTER XVIII (SEWER AND WATER) BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 3 -28.9 (Payment In -Lieu of Taxes — PILOT) of Section 3 -28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) to read as follows: 3 -28.9 Payment In -Lieu of Taxes (PILOT). City Enterprise Funds shall annually pay one (1 %) percent of fixed assets in lieu of taxes. The basis for the tax shall be the value of fixed assets at June 30th of the preceding year for the sewer fund and, for all other enterprise funds, the value of fixed assets as of June 30, 1993 adjusted annually for inflation since that date in the amount of the lesser of 2% or the increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the San Francisco Bay Area published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor or any successor to that index. Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Subsection 3 -28.10 (Return on Investment in Enterprise Funds) of Section 3 -28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) to read as follows: 3 -28.10 Return on Investment in Enterprise Funds. As permitted by Hansen v. City of San Buena Ventura, 42 Ca1.3d 1172 (1986), each of the city's enterprise funds, other than the sewer service fund, shall make an annual payment to the General Fund, as a return on the City's investment in the assets of the enterprise fund, of 1% of the value of its fixed assets as of June 30, 2004 adjusted annually for inflation after that date in the amount of the lesser of 2% or the increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the San Francisco Bay Area published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, or any successor to that index. Introduction of Ordinance # 4 -D CC 8 -17 -04 Section 3. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Subsection 18 -4.10 (Exemptions) to Section 18 -4 (Sewer Service Charge) of Article I (Sewers) of Chapter XVIII (Sewer and Water) thereof to read: 18 -4.10 Exemptions. (a) The sewer service charge is imposed to recover the cost of providing sewer services to those who choose to make use of those services, as evidenced by an active water meter, electric meter, or other evidence of sewer use deemed reliable by the Public Works Director. Any person subject to the charge imposed under this Section may receive a temporary exemption from the sewer service charge imposed by this Section to the extent that he or she can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that the premises with respect to which the charge is imposed are vacant or, for some other reason, no person made use of sewer services on those premises for at least thirty (30) consecutive days. Evidence that either water or power was not consumed on the premises for that time shall be sufficient evidence of vacancy to justify an exemption for that period of non -use under this subsection. (b) The Public Works Director may promulgate regulations for the submission, processing, decision, and appeal of such applications for exemption, which regulations shall take effect once published in the manner required by Section 3 -14 of the Charter of the City of Alameda for publication of ordinances of the City. Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Alameda hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 5. To the extent the provisions of the Alameda Municipal Code as amended by this ordinance are substantially the same as the provisions of that Code in effect prior to the adoption of this ordinance, those provisions shall be construed as continuations of those prior provisions and not as new enactments. Section 6. 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 as provided in Section 3- 12 of the Charter of the City of Alameda. Presiding Officer of the City Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda August 12, 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 126696 - 127407 EFT 090 E12503 - E12607 Void Checks: 126593 126270 121862 125410 GRAND TOTAL Allowed in open session: Date: City Clerk Approved for payment: Date: Finance Director Council Warrants 08/17/04 Amount 4,753,232.53 24,004.10 58,136.87 (85.00) (8,978.70) (110.00) (527.82) 4,825,671.98 Respectfully submitted, Pamela J. Sibl BILLS #4 -E 08/17/04 E 0 0 ca G) 0 0. 0. CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. REAPPOINTING GEORGE HUMPHREYS AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSING AND BUILDING CODE HEARING AND APPEALS BOARD BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2 -16.4 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, GEORGE HUMPHREYS is hereby reappointed to the office of member of the City Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board of the City of Alameda for the term commencing August 17, 2004 and expiring on June 30, 2008, and to serve until his successor is appointed and qualified. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in 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 Resolution # 5 -A 8 -17 -04 E 7- 0 LL 0 cn eEs CD 0 7- 0 0 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING SUZANNE T. STORAR AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSING AND BUILDING CODE HEARING AND APPEALS BOARD BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2 -16.4 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, SUZANNE T. STORAR is hereby appointed to the office of member of the City Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board of the City of Alameda for the term commencing August 17, 2004 and expiring on June 30, 2008, and to serve until her successor is appointed and qualified. >- I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly zadopted 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 Resolution # 5 -B 8 -17 -04 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING COOKIE ROBLES -WONG AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY HOUSING COMMISSION (MEMBER -AT -LARGE SEAT) BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 2 -12.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, COOKIE ROBLES -WONG is hereby appointed to the office of the Member at Large seat of the Housing Commission of the City of Alameda for the term commencing on August 17, 2004 and expiring on June 30, 2008 and to serve until her successor is appointed and qualified. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly w adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolution # 5 -C 8 -17 -04 City of Alameda Memorandum DATE: August 11, 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 City staff are both requesting a continuance of this public hearing to September 07, 2004. The continuance is requested to provide additional time for the legal counsel representing the applicant and the City to prepare documents incorporating provisions of a potential resolution of the variance and design review issues that are on appeal to the City Council. The parties have been meeting with a Federal mediator appointed by the U.S. District Court. The neighbors who have participated in this process to date will also be notified of this request for a continuance of the public hearing. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Public Hearing and Resolution #5 -D 8 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers DISCUSSION/ ANALYSIS August 11, 2004 Page 2 The City Manager finds that a continuance is appropriate because the additional time is necessary to meet legal requirements associated with the mediation and potential resolution agreement subject to City Council review and approval. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS/ FISCAL IMPACT 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 September 07, 2004. Respectfully su rry . Cormack Development Review Manager 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\2004k1VO4 -0006,07,08,09, 10aontinue.a.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service 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. z NOW THEREFORE be it ordained by the Council of the City of Alameda that: cc O H Section 1. The City Council Ordinance finds that the Grantee is substantially in a compliance with the franchise agreement. Section 2. The City Council does hereby exercise it's right to extend the existing C) franchise with Alameda Bureau of Electricity dba Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T), for a second franchise period of five years. Section 3. That Section 5.10 of Ordinance 2806 is hereby modified to read: 5.10 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 apart 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 City facilities as cet 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 Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -E 8 -17 -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. Nothing in this Section will relate to construction costs exceeding $5,000 per location. 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 i pprovea 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. 4 2 -17.1. Commission Established; Purpose. There is hereby established a commission which shall be known as the Commission on >- Disability Issues. ■ z cc 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 v, 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. Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -F 8 -17 -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 CURRENT APPLICATIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION THREE (3) VACANCY Two Community -at -large seats, One Manufacturing /Industrial Seat Two incumbents eligible for reappointment Member -at -large seat Karen M. Bey Annette R. Brisco X Harry Dahlberg, Incumbent Phuong Lan T. Do X Everett P. Macnamara X Michael J. Schmitz X Gail Wetzork, Incumbent X Manufacturing /Industrial seat X Council Communication # 7 -A 8 -17 -04 CURRENT APPLICATIONS HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD ONE (1) VACANCY REGISTERED ARCHITECT SEAT Thomas F. Saxby, Registered Architect Council Communication # 7 -B 8 -17 -04 Dawn Evans Karen Green Richard L. Hofmann Michael D. Rias Phillip J.J. Scheir CURRENT APPLICATIONS RENT REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE ONE (1) VACANCY Tenant Member Seat Council Communication # 7 -C 8 -17 -04 CURRENT APPLICATIONS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TWO (2) VACANCIES INCUMBENTS ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT Thomas G. Bertken Shriley Clem, Incumbent Jeff Knoth Francisco J. Lira Richard Neveln Robb Ratto, Incumbent Jonathan Soglin Jon Spangler, Incumbent Elizabeth Tuckwell Council Communication # 7 -D 8 -17 -04