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