2005-06-21 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 21, 2005 - - - 6:00 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, June 21, 2005, 6:00 p.m.
Place:
City Council Chambers Conference Room and City Council
Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak
Street.
Public Comment
Anyone wishing to speak on the agenda items only may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes.
Roll Call
Agenda Items
1. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
Title: City Manager
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
2. Recommendation to approve Agreement Appointing Debra Kurita as
City Manager.
Adjournment
* * *
Refreshments
* * *
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 21, 2005 - - - 6:40 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, June 21, 2005, 6:40 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call.
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3 -A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Title: City Attorney.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
AGENDA
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 391
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
1. ROLL CALL
2. Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items Only.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall will open at 6:45 p.m.
Anyone wishing to address the Board on non - agenda items only, may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
EXISTING LITIGATION — GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9
CASE NAME: Juvenile Court Case Number 187780
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Notes:
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary, Irma Frankel at
749 -5800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
• Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
• Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 21, 2005 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, Santa Clara Ave. and Oak St.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council /Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by Councilmembers /Commissioners may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the
Council /Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy
City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
Meeting held on April 5, 2005; and the Special Joint City
Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on June 7, 2005.
AGENDA ITEM
1. Joint Public Hearing to review and approve concept of
Affordable Rental Housing at Island High as an eligible use of
District Housing Fund.
ADJOURNMENT
Beverly Joh
Chair, Community
Commission
Improvement
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 podium and state your name;
speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per
item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing
and only a summary of pertinent points presented
verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY
JUNE 21, 2005 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City
Hall, Council Charters , corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St.]
The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
4. Consent Calendar
5. Agenda Items
6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment)
7. Council Communications (Communications from Council)
8. Adjournment
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business
introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if. you wish to address
the City Council.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:40 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND 7:00 P.M.
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 7:25 P.M.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 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. Proclamation recognizing Alameda Reads 20th Anniversary of
formal literacy service to adults.
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 held on June 1,
2005; and Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on
June 7, 2005.
4 -B. Bills for ratification.
4 -C. Recommendation to award Contract for Legal Advertising for
Fiscal Year 2005 -06.
4 -D. Recommendation to amend the Construction Contract with Golden
Bay Construction Inc. for the Webster Renaissance Project, No.
P.W. 07 -02 -07 in the amount of $50,000 using Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for the purchase and
installation of bus shelters.
4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Recommending the Inclusion of Projects
in the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Peter W. Holmes as a Member
of the Public Utilities Board. [Partial term expiring June 30,
2008]; and
• Adoption of Resolution Appointing John R. McCahan as a
Member of the Public Utilities Board.
5 -B. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
to Change the Name of the Public Art Advisory Committee to
Public Art Commission, Transfer Reporting for Recreation and
Park Commission to City Council, and Transfer Staffing from
the Recreation and Park Department to the Planning and
Building Department by Amending Subsections 30 -65.3
(Contribution Requirements), 30 -65.4 (Public Art), 30 -65.5
(Alameda Public Art Fund), 30 -65.7 (Public Art Advisory
Committee), 30 -65.8 (Application and Approval Procedures for
Placing Public Art on Private Property) , 30 -65.10 (Guidelines
for Approval), and 30 -65.11 (Appeal to the City Council) of
Section 30 -65 (Public Art in New Commercial, Industrial,
Residential and Municipal Construction).
5 -C. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting
two Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce
Street. The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new
development proposals, was required by the Historical Advisory
Board as a condition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak
tree in 2001; and adoption of related resolution. The site is
located at 301 Spruce Street within the R -4 Neighborhood
Residential Zoning District. Applicant: Bill Wong for Hai Ky
Lam. Appellant: Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader. [Continued
from June 7, 2005]
5 -D. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution, "Approving
Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment and
Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and
Lighting District 84 -2."
5 -E. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution, "Approving
Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment and
Ordering Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District
01 -01 (Marina Cove)."
5 -F. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution,
"Authorizing Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste
Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills."
5 -G. Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to execute
extension of the Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry Operating
Agreements for Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service (AHBFS) and
adopt associated budget.
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. Discussion of the proposed baseball stadium along Alameda and
Oakland's shared estuary. [Councilmember Daysog]
7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the
Civil Service Board, Historical Advisory Board, Housing and
Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board, Housing Commission,
Library Board, Planning Board, and Social Service Human
Relations Board.
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: June 15, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: Karen Willis
Human Resources Director
SUBJECT: Agreement Appointing a City Manager Effective August 1, 2005
BACKGROUND
On March 14, 2005, City Manager James M. Flint retired. The City Council hired The Mills
Group, a consulting firm, to conduct a national recruitment for the City Manager position.
DISCUSSION
The City Council met with Lisa Mills of the Mills Group in early January 2005 to indicate the
qualifications they were looking for in a City Manager. They met on March 15, 2005 to screen
applicants to determine which candidates to invite for interviews. The first round of interviews was
conducted by City Council on April 7 and April 8, 2005. Second interviews were conducted on
April 21, 2005 by a community panel, a panel of City staff and by City Council. On May 4, 2005,
the City Council conducted more interviews of candidates and made a determination on a lead
candidate. The City Council then made on -site visits to the current employer of the lead candidate
on May 23 and May 24, 2005. On June 7, 2005 the City Council agreed to offer employment to
Debra Kurita. Ms. Kurita has accepted the offer of employment with the City of Alameda and will
assume the responsibilities of City Manager on approximately August 1, 2005.
The contract is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funds for this position are already part of the City Manager's department budget. No additional
funds are required.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of City Council's negotiated agreement between the City of Alameda and
Debra Kurita.
Respectfully ubmitte
en Willis
Human Resources Director
Re: Agenda Item #2
Special Council Meeting
6- 21 -05, 6:40 p.m.
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - APRIL 5, 2005 - - - 7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:24 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
MINUTES
(05- ) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
(CIC) Meetings of March 1, 2005 and March 15, 2005, and the Special
Joint City Council and CIC Meeting of March 15, 2005. Approved.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(05- ) Recommendation to accept report on the Alameda West
Strategic Retail Implementation Recommendations.
The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager provided a brief report.
Consultant, Linda Congleton, Linda S. Congleton and Associates,
gave a Power Point Presentation on the optimal retail
implementation strategy for the City.
Commissioner Daysog stated a 300,000 square foot center would be
needed in order to compete regionally; inquired whether it would be
wiser to have a shopping center with said scale of square footage
that could be a regional draw.
Ms. Congleton responded that increasing the square footage would
not produce a regional draw because there is no freeway access.
Commissioner Daysog stated that the South Shore Shopping Center
draws people from Oakland; the potential.to capture from the region
should not be undersold.
Ms. Congleton stated that making the center larger would not change
the fact that two- thirds of sales would come from Alameda.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
April 5, 2005
1
Commissioner deHaan stated there is a transportation concern with
building out at the west end; walkable shopping needs to be
established; inquired whether the Del Monte building would be a
good location for a grocery store.
Ms. Congleton responded that there would be some challenges; stated
the building would not give the retailer visibility and does not
lend itself to a traditional grocery store; noted that grocery
stores prefer to locate on major streets.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that the report did not reference the
Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP); that he was looking for
more connection to the Alameda Point Reuse Plan and walkable
neighborhoods; noted the EDSP had certain goals to improve and
support neighborhood commercial districts as well as the districts
on Park Street and Webster Street; stated that he was not ready to
accept the report; the report does not reference the context of all
the other plans.
Ms. Congleton stated the report is not intended to be a policy
document; the report addresses retailed out there and interested
[in locating in Alameda].
Commissioner Matarrese stated that the public direction [in other
plans] would have been valuable to help form recommendations.
Ms. Congleton stated that she was aware of the goals [in plans];
that her job as a retail analyst was to outline options.
Chair Johnson stated the next step would be to review the existing
plans and strategies.
The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager stated the intent of the
report was to tier off the existing policy initiatives, review four
specific sites, provide the most tools possible to evaluate
proposals, and have the retailing consultant make some very
specific recommendations on what can be accommodated at the sites
and on the trade offs; suggested the introduction to the report be
revised to reference the existing documents.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that the report [introduction]
indicates that it is an implementation strategy, which it is not.
Commissioner Gilmore stated that subtracting the amount of possible
retail square footage and noting the types of retailers that could
be potentially successful can be accomplished by integrating the
information with the previous reports and the expressed citizen
preference.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission 2
April 5, 2005
Ms. Congleton concurred with Commissioner Gilmore; noted small
shops cannot be supported without an anchor.
Commissioner Daysog stated that the presented information is an
envelope from which decisions can be made.
Ms. Congleton stated that typically a grocery store is 30,000 to
65,000 square feet and needs to serve 4,000 to 7,000 homes; noted
walkable neighborhoods need to have a sufficient amount of density.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the additional grocery store
should be at Enterprise Landing or Alameda Point.
Ms. Congleton responded that there could be support for grocery
stores at both Enterprise Landing and Alameda Point in theory;
noted it would be necessary to wait for all of the homes at Alameda
Point to be built out.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the City should be considering
a Target or urban type center.
Ms. Congleton responded the City should considering a Target type
center; stated that Target has wanted to be in Alameda for years;
the City should try to get Target at Enterprise Landing, if not
South Shore.
Chair Johnson inquired whether a smaller sized urban type center
would be feasible, to which Ms. Congleton responded there would be
a great resistance from Target.
Commissioner Daysog stated that he would encourage a regional
approach review that goes beyond boundaries.
Ms. Congleton stated that down sizing the anchors does not attract
the mini anchors.
Chair Johnson stated the intention in the introduction should be
made clearer.
The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager stated staff could add a
more comprehensive introduction and circulate it as an off agenda
report.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he would like the matter brought
back to the Commission; that he fears an off agenda report would
disappear; stated he would like to engage the community.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
April 5, 2005
3
Commissioner Daysog stated he would like to have a timeline on what
would be done with the information provided.
Chair Johnson stated that she was glad that the analysis was done
before going forward with any decisions.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:07 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
April 5, 2005
4
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 7, 2005- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 7:59 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners /Board Members
Daysog, deHaan Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
MINUTES
(05- CC /05- CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting of May 17, 2005. Approved.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member deHaan moved approval of
minutes with the amendment that the minutes state: "Recommendation
to receive and file revised Alameda West Strategic Retail
Implementation recommendations."
Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
ARRA Resolution No. 36, "Approving and Adopting the Operating
Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures
Provided in Fiscal Year 2005 -06." Adopted.
(05- CIC) Resolution No. 05 -137, "Approving and Adopting the
Operating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the
Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2005 -06." Adopted.
(05- CC) Resolution No. 13845, "Approving and Adopting the
Operating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the
Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2005 -06." Adopted.
The Acting City Manager /Executive Director stated that this is the
first time that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
(ARRA), Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and City Council
budgets have been presented at one time; noted it is important to
receive the budgets together because there is a considerable amount
of interaction between the three agencies; a long -term financial
plan for ARRA is provided and a ten -year financial plan for the
Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, 1
and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting
June 7, 2005
City would be provided in the near future; additional CIC
information would lay the ground work for the next fiscal year
budget; the balanced budget has no new or increased taxes; there is
a significant deficit in the infrastructure maintenance; the City
needs to spend considerably more than what is included in the
budgets to maintain the City streets, sidewalks, and trees; a
proposal on how to approach the backlog will be presented to
Council during the next six months; stated that service delivery
impact presentations will be presented to the Council by the
departments with the most significant impacts.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation on the changes in
revenues for the next fiscal year.
The Fire Chief gave a brief presentation on the Fire Department's
budget reduction impacts.
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations gave a brief
presentation on the Police Department's budget reduction impacts.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Police Department is being asked to
do more with less resources; crime statistics and how the Police
Department handles duties matter to the citizens in Alameda; that
she received an e -mail recently stating how well the Police
Department fights crime and that overall crime statistics have gone
down; requested statistics be shared with the public.
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations outlined the following
statistics for 2004: Part 1 crimes for more serious crimes
decreased by 16.5 %; Part 2 crimes for misdemeanors decreased by
4.6 %; arrests were up 3.5 %.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether 2005 statistics were available, to
which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded that
Part 1 and 2 crimes are down, but that he does not have the exact
numbers; arrests are on par with last year.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates the hard work of
the Police Department and the pro active approach; Alameda has an
earned reputation to be a place where people who have served time
do not want to come; reaching appropriate staffing levels is a
challenge; his suggestion [to increase the number of police
officers] addressed 18 months ago should be revisited.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he leaves the ability to keep
crime levels down to experts; Council should be advised when
staffing levels dip below 99 officers; stated the City has 5,000
Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, 2
and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting
June 7, 2005
marine slips for property tax paying boats; inquired whether the
Council wants to make a policy decision not to have patrol boat
services; inquired what the cost would be to restore the police
patrol boat to last summer's level..
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded the Harbor
Patrol Program has never been full time; the Program takes two or
three officers out of patrol on weekends, which requires overtime
backfilling.
Councilmember Matarrese requested figures on what it would cost to
restore the patrol operation to last summer's level.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Oakland Police Chief was advocating
for boat funding from Homeland Security; inquired whether the City
could join the Coast Guard, City of Oakland, and Sheriff's
department, to provide patrol services on the Estuary.
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded that the
Sheriff's Department has been a wonderful resource for harbor
assistance.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Sheriff's Department has estuary
patrol, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Sheriff's Department performs
enforcement patrols, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of
Operations responded in the affirmative; stated that the Coast
Guard's priorities are different from municipalities and counties;
stated that he will research the Harbor Patrol Program costs.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City of Oakland utilized their
boat, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Opetations responded
that the City of Oakland was not spending much time on the boat due
to the shortage of patrol cars on the streets; the situation might
have changed; he would look into the matter and report back to
Council.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the figures for revitalizing the
estuary patrol should also include the boat repair costs.
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations stated that the boat is
a very expensive piece of equipment; one of the problems with the
boat program is that officers' skills diminish due to the limited
time spent on the boat; lack of expertise and training also add to
the expense of the boat operation.
Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, 3
and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting
June 7, 2005
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the City Attorney's
office budget reduction impacts.
Mayor Johnson requested further explanation on the impacts of the
City Attorney's office reductions.
The City Attorney stated that the duties of two full -time positions
that are being cut would be absorbed within the existing staff and
would result in some delays in quantity and timeliness of the
workload.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the reduction would cause delays in
reviewing contracts.
The City Attorney responded that the current contract review time
is two days; contract review will continue to be treated as a
priority.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether two days is an average time for
contract review, to which the City Attorney responded the two day
turnaround time was the average time for contract review during the
last five months.
Mayor Johnson inquired what service impacts the City departments
could expect; stated that a Charter change might be necessary if
there was a delay in the City Attorney's office approving a
contract.
The City Attorney responded that the existing workload would be
spread among existing staff; phones may need to be placed on voice
mail at lunch time; there may be a delay in document production and
routine tasks; stated the City Attorney's office is trying to work
smarter; the workload that is handled by the Administration
Management Analyst would need to be spread among the remaining
staff; there would be a need to have Department Heads do more in
terms of contract preparation and review.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a way to advise the
Department Heads which contracts need to be approved by the City
Attorney's office and which do not.
The City Attorney stated that she has tried to triage the contracts
by preparing a training program and getting forms and options on
line to enable the departments to do more of the routine tasks; the
level of the budget cut requires that things be done differently.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a separate
Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, 4
and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting
June 7, 2005
presentation for Risk Management, to which the Acting City Manager
responded that Risk Management has been included in the City
Attorney's presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would address the litigation
contingency account issue later.
Councilmember Daysog stated that service to the departments is an
important issue; every Councilmember is in agreement with
streamlining efforts; the Council appreciates the service that the
City Attorney's office has rendered to the public on issues such as
the Casino and the Oakland Airport; an 18% cut is a huge hit;
stated that the value of the City Attorney's service to the
citizens could not be overstated.
The Acting Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation
on the impacts of the budget reduction.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the cost would be to implement the Park
Master Plan.
The Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded estimates are
between $75,000 and $125,000, depending upon the number of public
meetings, the review process, and the number of times the matter is
brought back to various entities.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether maintenance would be included in the
Park Master Plan, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks Director
responded the Park Master Plan would be an overall park plan
covering almost every detail of the park system.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many grants are successfully
applied for each year, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks
Director responded that the City received approximately $860,000 in
grants from the last two State bonds [Propositions 12 and 40]; the
three grants pending are Estuary Park, Paden School Trail, and
Alameda Point Gym.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there has been a full -time
grant writer in the past, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks
Director responded in the negative; grant writing has been divided
among the administrative staff.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that a grant writing position might be
worth reviewing.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a grant writing position could be
Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, 5
and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting
June 7, 2005
utilized by all departments.
The Acting City Manager responded there has been consideration to
have an experienced grant writing volunteer; stated grant
application opportunities will not be missed.
Councilmember Daysog stated there are consulting companies that
provide grant search and administration services and only charge a
portion of the grant amount.
Mayor Johnson stated that a professional grant writer might be more
aware of grant opportunities; the possibility of contracting out
Citywide grant writing services should be reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $75,000 to $125,000 for the
Park Master Plan consulting services is included in the budget, to
which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the
negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether anything has been done on the
Park Master Plan, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director
responded the initial research has been performed; a Citywide needs
assessment was performed a few summers ago.
The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation on the Human
Resources Department's budget reduction impacts.
The Building Official gave a brief presentation on the Planning and
Building Department's budget reduction impacts.
Mayor Johnson stated that there are part -time planners at Alameda
Point and City Hall; inquired whether having all planners at one
location would be more efficient.
The Building Official responded there is one Planner working two
days a week at Alameda Point and the rest of the week at City Hall;
the schedule has worked out well; the Planner will need to spend
more time at City Hall because of the Planning Services Manager
cut.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Department's cost
recovery is still at 90 %, to which the Building Official responded
cost recovery is at 1000.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that cutting a position that generates
revenue may need to be re- thought; the City needs to be business
friendly.
Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, 6
and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting
June 7, 2005
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City uses contract
assistance when there are surges in the workload and whether the
costs would be covered by the fees, to which the Building Official
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the cut of the Planning
Services Manager would slow down the permit and plan review
process, to which the Building Official responded that there would
be a slow down in plan review with a ripple effect on advanced
planning projects.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the cut is not large enough to
justify the slow down; the costs incurred due to the cut would be
far greater than the savings.
Mayor Johnson inquired about the possibility of utilizing outside
consultants.
The Acting City Manager responded that surges and decreases in
activity make it difficult to maintain even staffing levels;
outside consultants are used to staff up for surges and are paid
for by the applicant.
Mayor Johnson stated that staffing should not be leveled to meet
the peak demand.
The Acting City Manager stated that the new Planning and Building
Director could determine the right amount of staffing to handle the
workload.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned with the
intermediate and smaller projects whose proponents and owners do
not have the ability to absorb the delay; doing work without
permits might be encouraged and cause a deterioration of the
housing stock across the City; the City should be mindful in trying
to save a small amount of money and paying a large price in the
future.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the status was for establishing
a one -stop permit center and whether it was within the budget.
The Building Official responded that staff is working with the
Acting City Manager to determine where an appropriate one -stop
permit center could be; funding has been set aside.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is an improvement in
Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, 7
and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting
June 7, 2005
the over - the - counter permit processing.
The Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated front
line staff upgrades have freed up Planners' time.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether goals can be met with
streamlined staffing, to which the Building Official responded in
the affirmative.
The Development Services Director gave a Power Point presentation
on the Development Services Department, CIC and ARRA budget.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether there would be a Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) grant available for the Phase 2 of
the Park and Webster Streets Streetscape Projects next year, to
which the Development Services Director responded that MTC believes
the City would be a better candidate once the project has been
completed.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the City would apply for grant
funding next year, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired how much the City's match would be.
The Development Services Director responded that the formula
criteria is not known; stated that a number of funding options have
been identified, such as supplemental tax increment payments or
unused redevelopment bond money earmarked for the Library project.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that it is important to ensure that
money is budgeted for Phase 2 next year.
Commissioner /Board Member Daysog stated that the City needs to be
very careful in Fiscal Year 2005 -06; what happens in the coming
year will ripple into the following years; stated there are a lot
of committed projects.
The Development Services Director concurred with Commissioner /Board
Member Daysog; stated that the Development Services Department is
anticipating the resignation of a division director mid year; the
position will not be filled; a number of the Development Services
Department funds cannot cross pollinate into other activities; the
overhead and staffing in the CIC budget is a little over 10 %; there
are very few bodies managing CIC projects; Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funded staff cannot be moved to CIC projects
because it is not eligible for them under the grant dollars; there
Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, 8
and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting
June 7, 2005
is flexibility within ARRA and CIC staff; only four people are
funded through lease revenues; one person will be eliminated; the
Development Services Department will continue to morph throughout
the year; almost all of the cash flows have been completed, which
will provide a good picture of all obligations, pass - throughs,
contractual arrangements, etc.
Commissioner /Board Member Daysog stated there is a greater control
over the operating costs for staff; the City will need to keep a
close eye on projects.
The Development Services Director stated there is not a lot of
cushion built in for all of the capital projects.
Commissioner Daysog stated that the $2 million earmarked for the
Library might not go for the Library because the money might be
needed for the redevelopment projects.
The Development Services Director stated the cycle is very common;
when large construction projects are started there is a slip period
of 18 months to three years before the projects hit the tax rolls.
Commissioner Daysog stated that it is important to be very cautious
with the large budget projects; the Alameda Power & Telecom cable
television project was estimated at $16 million and cost $29
million.
The Development Services Director stated that construction costs
continue to escalate.
Commissioner Daysog thanked the Development Services Director for
the leadership shown.
Commissioner /Board Member deHaan stated the budget is fragile at
the best; any Alameda Point glitches would be a major concern;
noted he has deep concerns for the future years; stated that he
would like to see budgeting for the retail recruiter position in
the future.
The Development Services Director stated that a retail recruiter
has been funded for one year.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that if recruiter benefits are realized,
funding can be added for the future years; re- emphasized that 2005,
2006, and 2007 will be extremely lean years; stated that she
appreciates the complex and difficult work done by the Development
Services Department; efforts will help to bring Alameda back to the
Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, 9
and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting
June 7, 2005
viable community and good business center of 20 to 50 years ago.
Commissioner /Board Member Gilmore thanked the Acting City
Manager /Acting Executive Director and Department Heads for an
extremely useful budget presentation; requested additional
information on the COPS Unit and additional staffing of the DARE
Program,
Councilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report providing up to
date information on the issue of telephone tax for public safety.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the proposal to fund
infrastructure included an increase in the property transfer tax
and the legality of using the funds for streets and sidewalks.
The Acting City Manager responded that he would include the
property transfer tax increase in the proposal; the City Attorney
will look into the legality of the matter; Proposition 218
addresses what can and cannot be done.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that she would like to continue to look
at attorney and risk management costs; she would like to spend as
little as possible on attorneys so that the money could be spent
elsewhere; stated that it is important to be efficient with money
and not cut in ways that eventually lead to spending more; stated
that the Council needs to exercise some oversight over the
litigation contingency budgets; the total amount budgeted for Risk
Management is approximately $470,000 and approximately $350,000 for
Alameda Power & Telecom; suggested that the money be allocated as
proposed in the budget but that the City Attorney bring requests
to hire outside counsel to the City Council; the City Attorney
could be authorized to spend around $2500 for emergencies until the
approval to hire outside counsel can be brought to Council; stated
she is open to suggestions from the City Attorney; noted that the
Charter gives the Council oversight of hiring outside counsel.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning and Building
reduction is a lay off or an unfilled position, to which the Acting
City Manager responded the position would not be filled; stated he
would like to fill the Planning and Building Director position
first and then get staffing recommendations.
Councilmember Matarrese reiterated that the dollar amount of the
reduction is small; that he likes the idea of contracting services;
having a reduction in the processing of permits and review of plans
costs the City and customer money in the long run; other budget
issues are hard realities; stated City services cost a lot of
Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, 10
and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting
June 7, 2005
money.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was $150 million in
permits this year, to which the Building Official responded permits
have totaled $138 million.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there was not a budget for FY
2004 -05 for nine months; the ten -year plan will give better
insight; he is concerned with the future years; praised the efforts
of all involved with the budget preparation; stated the information
provided is good, hard data; it is important to have some balances
in equity within pay structures and labor management agreements.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was glad that the public was
present at tonight's meeting; she hoped that more people attend
when the ten -year budget is presented; the City's past commitments
will pay a big role in the future.
Councilmember Daysog stated that having a ten -year budget is great
but it is important to have a strong hold on the budget situation
for the next 6 to 18 months; suggested devising a system to track
spending and see how the budget is evolving every two weeks.
The Acting City Manager stated that he always reviews the budget
with the Finance Director; stated that said information can be
passed on to Council.
Councilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report on grant models
and payment options; stated he looked forward to the City
Attorney's review on how to handle the budget issues regarding
attorney and risk management costs; encouraged there be a six or
eight month test period to determine whether or not the proposal
works.
Mayor Johnson stated that there is a litigation contingency in the
budget; the Charter states: "at the request of the City Attorney,
the Council can consent to hiring outside counsel "; $470,000 has
been budgeted in the past, but there has not been any follow
through on the oversight of hiring of outside counsel; stated she
would like to have a six month review; she does not want to bog
down the process; the right amount of money needed for urgent
matters should be set; the Charter also allows the Council to
delegate the authority to other boards and commissions; the Council
should consider delegating the hiring of outside counsel for
Alameda Power & Telecom to the Public Utilities Board.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not feel there is over
Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, 11
and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting
June 7, 2005
spending in the City Attorney's office.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is not suggesting to change the
budget amount; she is trying to follow the Charter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the budget began with focus on the
General Fund; special revenue funds, capital projects, debt
service, and enterprise funds also need to be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that all the funds are intermingled to a
certain extent and have impacts on each other.
Board Member deHaan moved adoption of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Resolution.
Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of the Community Improvement
Commission Resolution.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote- 5.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the City Council Resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05- CIC)Recommendation to approve the Determination that
planning and administrative expenses incurred during FY 2004 -05 are
necessary for the production, improvement or preservation of low -
and moderate- income housing. Accepted.
Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 9:54 p.m.
Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission,
and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting
June 7, 2005
Respectfully Submitted,
12
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary,
Community Improvement Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Ace.
Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission,
and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting
June 7, 2005
13
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Community Improvement Commission
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Date: June 8, 2005
Re: Joint Public Hearing to Review and Approve Concept of Affordable Rental
Housing at Island High as an Eligible Use of District Housing Fund
Background
In 1991, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Unified School
District (AUSD) entered into an agreement (the "Agreement ") whereby the CIC agreed to
set aside 8% of the total tax increment from the Business and Waterfront Improvement
Project (BWIP), specifically 40% of the Housing 20% set aside funds, into a special fund
called the District Housing Fund. The agreement requires the AUSD to use the money
from the District Housing Fund for increasing and improving the supply of low or moderate
income housing. The agreement also requires that prior to March 1st of each year
(extended to April 1st this year), the AUSD present the CIC with a prioritized list of housing
programs and projects for use of these funds.
Also under the terms of the Agreement, prior to July 1st of each year, the CIC and City
Council are to hold a joint public hearing to review the proposed housing projects or
programs. The purpose of the joint public hearing is to determine whether the proposed
housing project(s) meet the requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and the
terms and conditions of the Agreement as to the District Housing Fund, the Guyton
Settlement Agreement and the City's Housing Element of the General Plan. The
Agreement states that the CIC shall approve those projects which meet the applicable
requirements.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \HOUSING\AUSD \Staff Report2.doc
F: Housing /AUSD
Re: Public Hearing #1
Council /CIC
6 -21 -05
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
Discussion /Analysis
June 8, 2005
Page 2
On March 30, 2005, the AUSD submitted a description of various development scenarios
for affordable rental housing at the site of Island High School at the corner of Eagle Avenue
and Everett Street. On May 24, 2005, the Board of Education approved the District's
Facilities Master Plan, which identifies the Island High site for housing development.
The AUSD has conceptually described a project to develop rental housing for District
employees at Island High. Options range from the development of six new units of
affordable rental housing subject to the Agreement, plus an additional ten rental units and
daycare center funded by the AUSD but developed outside the terms of the agreement, to
28 multi - family rental units as a joint venture with the Housing Authority (using the Housing
Authority's Measure A exception).
If the Island High affordable rental- housing concept is approved, as a next step staff will
work with the AUSD to refine their scenarios into a development plan. The CIC will then
enter into an agreement with the AUSD to ensure that the development complies with all
sections of Community Redevelopment Law which govern the use of 20% set -aside funds,
as well as the terms of the Agreement pertaining to the Guyton Settlement Agreement. In
addition, the new agreement would include a scope of work, project budget and eligible
expenses, project schedule and disbursement of funds for the development of rental
housing at Island High. This agreement would be presented to the CIC for approval within
90 days of project approval.
The proposed development concept conforms to the City's Housing Element, which
identifies the District Housing Fund as a funding source to develop new units on a site to
be determined. The 2000 Housing Element anticipated that $1.8 million in housing funds
would be sufficient to subsidize at least sixteen units; however, the AUSD's current
proposal anticipates that $1.4 million will be needed to develop six new units. Staff will
work closely with the AUSD to maximize the number of units that can be developed using
the District Housing Fund, but development costs have risen considerably since the
Housing Element was drafted.
Fiscal Impact
There is no impact on the General Fund. The District Housing Fund currently contains
$1,345,730 and is expected to receive another $260,000 in tax increment at the end of this
fiscal year. The AUSD anticipates that the District Housing Fund will be used to leverage
additional public and private funds.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \HOUSING\AUSD \Staff Report2.doc
F: Housing /AUSD
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
Municipal Code /Policy Document Cross Reference
June 8, 2005
Page 3
This project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan; however the
number of units developed might be fewer than anticipated in the Housing Element.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the concept of rental housing
at the Island High site as an eligible use of the District Housing Fund.
It is recommended that the Community Improvement Commission review and approve the
concept of rental housing at the Island High site as an eligible use of the District Housing
Fund.
Respectfully bmit ed,
Leslie-". Little
Development Services Director
By: achel Silver
Development Manager, Housing
LL \RS: mlf
cc: AUSD Superintendent
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \HOUSING\AUSD \Staff Report2.doc
F: Housing /AUSD
City of Alameda California
Proclamation
RECOGNIZING ALAMEDA READS 20TH ANNIVERSARY
OF FORMAL LITERACY SERVICE TO ADULTS
Whereas, in 1985, the Alameda Free Library launched a formal Adult Literacy
Program specifically to address the needs of illiterate adults; and
Whereas, one in five adults is considered functionally illiterate; and
Whereas, the children of illiterates are twice as likely as their peers to be illiterate
also; and
Whereas, when adults learn to read, they also improve the lives of their children,
enabling them to succeed in school and to assure their future success as
adults; and
Whereas, Alameda Reads has served over 700 adults who needed help with their
reading and writing over the past 20 years; and
Whereas, more than 500 volunteers have donated over 60,000 hours of service to
provide instruction to low literacy adults; and
Whereas, increased literacy skills enhance people's self - confidence and give adults
more power as family members, as workers, and as community members;
and
Whereas, adult learners, through their work in basic skills programs have greater
access to information, have more voice in the world, are better able to take
independent action on their own behalf and on the behalf of their families,
and develop lifelong learning skills; and
Whereas, 2005 marks the 20 year anniversary of providing formal literacy services
by the Alameda Free Library.
Be it resolved that, in recognition of the accomplishments and commitment of hundreds
of adult learners who pursue their educational goals and the hundreds of volunteer tutors
who teach them, we honor Alameda Reads and the Alameda Free Library on the 20th
anniversary of providing formal literacy services
e rl
Mayor
Office of the Mayor
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room #320
Alameda, California 94501 -4477
510.747.4701 Office • Fax 510.747.4704 • TDD 510.522.7538
Proclamation 3 -A
6 -21 -05
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY - - - JUNE 1, 2005 - - - 6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05 ) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction
regarding City Manager recruitment.
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
June 1, 2005
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 7, 2005 - - - 5:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call.- Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05- ) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Manager.
(05- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: McGee v. City of Alameda.
(05- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and
Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA).
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Performance Evaluation, the Council discussed the performance of
the Acting City Manager; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel -
Existing Litigation, the Council obtained briefing from Legal
Counsel; and regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the
Council obtained briefing from the Human Resources Director.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2005
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 7, 2005- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05- ) Mayor Johnson presented the Proclamation expressing
appreciation to Pacific Gas & Electric and Alameda Power & Telecom
[paragraph no. 05- ], the Proclamation recognizing contributions
to the City by our Gay and Lesbian Citizens [paragraph no. 05- ],
and the Resolution Commending Officer Frank Damian [paragraph no.
05- ] prior to the Consent Calendar.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05- )Proclamation expressing appreciation to Pacific Gas &
Electric and Alameda Power & Telecom for the prompt response in
relocating a gas line, thereby greatly aiding the City's efforts in
the construction of the new Main Library.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Susan Yee and
Tom Gaurino from Pacific Gas & Electric (PG &E) and Dean Batchelor
from Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T).
Susan Yee thanked the Council for the proclamation; stated PG &E's
priory has always been to be customer focused and provide the best
level of service possible.
Tom Gaurino thanked the Council for the recognition.
Dean Batchelor stated that AP &T appreciates the proclamation and
looks forward to working with departments to ensure the Library
project's success.
(05- )Proclamation recognizing contributions to the City by our
Gay and Lesbian Citizens and encouraging the community to recognize
these contributions, particularly during the month of June, Gay
Pride Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Debra Arbuckle
from Out on the Island and the Alameda Lesbian Potluck Society.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
June 7, 2005
Ms. Arbuckle thanked the Council for the proclamation and for the
recognition of the Gay and Lesbian citizens.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05- ) Resolution No. 13846, "Commending Alameda Police
Department Officer Frank Damian for His Contributions to the City
of Alameda." Adopted.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Resolution to Officer Frank
Damian.
Officer Damian thanked the Council for the Resolution and stated
that it has been an honor to serve with such a great department.
The resolution was adopted by consensus - 5.
* **
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:58 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular City Council Meeting at 9:55 p.m.
* **
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05- ) Update on the new main library project.
The Project Manager provided a brief update.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Project Manager for ensuring
that the project is on time and on budget; stated that it would be
nice not to have to draw down on the $2 million fund redevelopment
bond money that has been earmarked for the project.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the City
of Alameda Long -Term Park Use Policy [paragraph no. 05- ] and the
recommendations regarding Alameda Ferry Services [paragraph no. 05-
] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are noted by an asterisk preceding the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
June 7, 2005
paragraph number.]
( *05- )Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on May
12, 2005; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on
May 17, 2005. Approved.
( *05- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,017,578.09.
( *05- )Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute a temporary Agreement with Alameda County for the exclusive
provision of ambulance services by the City of Alameda Fire
Department to the City of Alameda. Accepted.
(05- )Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Long -Term Park
Use Policy.
Loretta Ferraro, Alameda, requested that there be a provision in
the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) which would allow the Gold Coast
Coffee Mobile Expresso owner (proposed vendor) to use a parking
space at the Lower Washington Park area and operate his truck in
Alameda.
Michael Ferraro, Alameda, urged acceptance of the staff
recommendation; stated that there is no ordinance permitting mobile
vendors to operate within the City; provided a handout regarding a
Recreation and Parks Department public hearing on June 9, 2005.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council has been in contact
with the proposed vendor and staff has been requested to look into
the operational issues.
Susan Potter, Alameda, stated that other trucks are doing business
in Alameda without licenses which causes revenues leave the City.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the ordinance allows ice cream
trucks to roam through the City; the proposed vendor's request is
for parking; inquired whether the Recreation and Park Commission
would address the matter.
The Acting City Manager stated that there is an ordinance that
addresses mobile vendors; the proposed vendor's request is working
its way through the system.
The Assistant City Manager stated that there is a section in the
AMC that prohibits rolling stores from using City streets, with the
exception of selling fruit, vegetables, packed or labeled ice
cream, peanuts or popcorn; the proposed vendor would like to park
in the parking lot near the Dog Park and then move from park to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
June 7, 2005
park; there is a Use Permit provision in the Open Space section of
the Zoning Code that allows commercial concessionaires; the
proposed vendor would need to get permission from the Recreation
and Park Commission first in order to get a Use Permit from the
Planning Commission to vend from a City park.
Mayor Johnson suggested having a workshop involving the business
community and Recreation and Park Commission; stated that there is
a significant difference in using a park versus a City street; the
possibility of 10 trucks selling coffee in one place needs to be
considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated there was a mobile canteen at Alameda
Point; it is important to review the whole picture.
Mayor Johnson stated that she was not clear on the recommended
policy.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not believe the draft
policy is ready for adoption; the policy does not establish or
define standards for non -City use, long -term use, construction or
renovation, or private uses; concessionaire needs to be defined;
stated that he would oppose any private use that is 25% of the
total park acreage available; the park application and review
process is a procedure and not a policy; procedures and policies
need to be kept separate; suggested that the policy be sent back to
the Recreation and Park Commission.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; noted that
the statement regarding the Recreation and Park Department's
authority to deny non -City uses is unclear; Recreation and Park
Commission decisions need to be able to be appealed to the City
Council; stated that it was not the Council's intent to have the
Recreation and Parks Department have the sole determination to deny
non -City uses; the language needs to be changed; the Council did
not request a policy that limited any appeal rights or delegation
of Council authority.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that it appears that the policy was
combined with the process and did not follow through on either one
completely.
Councilmember deHaan stated there is a need for a policy.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that the matter be sent back to the
Recreation and Park Commission.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
June 7, 2005
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council was clear on direction
regarding the Recreation and Park Commissions review the coffee
vendor issue, to which the Acting City Manager responded the
Recreation and Park Commission is currently reviewing the matter.
Councilmember deHaan stated it appears that the matter is farther
reaching than just the Recreation and Park Commission and could
spill over into other activities.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is no need to change the
ordinance if the proposed vendor does not want to have a rolling
store; the proposed vendor's sole intent to park his truck would be
a separate issue.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter would come back to the Council if
necessary.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Council's intent was to
have a policy in place before another request for use of parks was
received which might cause some difficulty with the neighbors or
the use of the park; stated that he wants the matter to come back
to the Council regardless of what the Recreation and Parks
Commission determines.
( *05- )Recommendation to approve First Amendment to Agreement
with Consolidated Construction Management extending the term, scope
of work and price for the New Main Library Project. Accepted.
( *05- )Recommendation to set June 21, 2005 as the hearing date
for Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Charges. Accepted.
(05- )Recommendations regarding Alameda Ferry Services:
(05- A) Resolution No. 13847 "Applying for Five Percent
Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Revenue Funds
for Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for the City of Alameda
Ferry Services, and Authorizing the Acting City Manager to Enter
into All Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds." Adopted;
(05- B)Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute extension of the Ferry Service Agreement with the Port of
Oakland.
(05- C)Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute extension of the Blue and Gold Fleet Operating Agreements
for the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Services (AOFS) and adopt associated
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
June 7, 2005
budget.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that there was a public hearing
regarding the Harbor Bay ferry which addressed increasing ridership
and marketing services; the public should know that the City is
trying to get as much grant money as possible to keep the ferries
operating; the ferries need to be in front of the public's eye;
encouraged people to take the ferries.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Water Transit Authority (WTA)
joined forces with the City in moving forward with publicity; noted
the Port of Oakland's $140,000 contribution is now reduced to
$83,000; there is talk about the Port not contributing at all;
noted there would be a major glitch if the contribution amount was
not maintained at the current amount or higher.
The Acting City Manager stated the contribution was going to be a
budget cut for the Port of Oakland; the Port was persuaded to make
a contribution of $83,325 for the next fiscal year; getting the WTA
to take over in the future would solve the problem with the Port of
Oakland funding the ferries.
Councilmember DeHaan stated that it appears that the WTA is going
forward to establish runs in various directions; inquired whether
it was the Council's desire to join forces with the WTA at some
point.
The Acting City Manager responded that joining forces with the WTA
would be a Council decision; the WTA's first goal is to establish
new ferry services; the WTA is starting to look at the Harbor Bay
Ferry Service for merchandising and providing some other services
to the City.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the WTA would have
jurisdiction over funds.
Mayor Johnson responded that the WTA is a transit agency and would
have access to funding that the City does not have.
The Acting City Manager stated that the WTA has access to Regional
Measure 2 Funds which are difficult for the City to access except
through the WTA; the City is currently using Regional Measure 1
Funds through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution and
acceptance of the staff recommendations.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
June 7, 2005
needs to be careful with the WTA taking over the Harbor Bay ferry
or any of the ferries; the Blue and Gold ferry, and to some extent
the Harbor Bay ferry, are locally controlled; the WTA might decide
to have the ferry leave from somewhere else.
Mayor Johnson stated the level of service and location can be
negotiated.
On the call for the question, Councilmember Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13848 "Approving the Paratransit Service
Plan and Applying for Measure B Paratransit Funding." Adopted.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13849 "Authorizing Open Market Purchase
from Cogent Systems, Inc., Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda
City Charter, of Cogent Automated Palm /Fingerprint Identification
System Upgrade in the Amount of $37,815." Adopted.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13850 "Adopting an Agreement for
Participation in Alameda County Operational Area Emergency
Management Organization." Adopted.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13851 "Designating All Alameda Fire
Stations as Receiving Points for Surrendered Babies Under the
California State Health and Safety Code Section 1255.7, known as
the Safely Surrendered Baby Law." Adopted.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13852 "Requesting and Authorizing the
County of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property
in the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General
Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held
November 7, 2000. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05- ) Ordinance No. 2941 "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to
Increase the Composition of the Recreation and Park Commission from
Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2 -7.2 (Membership;
Appointment; Removal), 2 -7.3 (Qualification; Voting) of Section 2 -7
(City Recreation and Park Commission)." Finally passed.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05- )Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
June 7, 2005
Advisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting two
Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce Street.
The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new development
proposals, was required by the Historical Advisory Board as a
condition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001; and
adoption of related resolution. The site is located at 301 Spruce
Street within the R -4 Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Applicant: Bill Wong for Hai Ky Lam. Appellant: Patrick Lynch and
Jeanne Nader. Continued to June 21, 2005.
(05- )Resolution No 13853 "Confirming the Business Improvement
Area Report for FY 2005 -2006 and Levying an Annual Assessment on
the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY
2005 - 2006." Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(05- )Recommendation to accept the Donor Recognition and Names
Gifts Policy for the Library.
The Library Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $30,000 contribution for the
mural was reflective of the cost.
The Library Director responded in the affirmative; stated that four
or five works of art have been selected for the new Main Library;
there is funding for only one.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed policy has been
patterned after other libraries, to which the Library Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan commended the Library Director's ingenuity;
inquired whether plaques would be placed in appropriate spots
reflecting the donation.
The Library Director responded there would be a donor wall;
individuals who donate $5,000 over their- lifetime would be
recognized on the donor wall; rooms and pieces of furniture would
also be recognized; areas of the library will be built without
donations; donations can specifically name and honor the donor in a
particular area of the Library.
Mayor Johnson inquired who would decide on the wording and size of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
June 7, 2005
the plaques.
The Library Director responded that there would be different sizes
for different donation levels; the donor and the Foundation will
work together to finalize wording and ensure appropriateness.
Mayor Johnson stated the size and approved wording should be
established; inquired whether there would be a provision to not
accept a donation.
The Library Director stated that the final bullet in Exhibit A of
the staff report states that final approval rests with the City
Council; inquired whether the Council would like to review the
policy again.
Mayor Johnson responded that the Council would like to review the
policy when the finer details are in place.
The Library Director stated that the named gift list is not final.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council may want to move
slower and get more public input.
The Library Director stated that there has been a public process.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Library is public space and almost
becomes a quazi - privatized space with all the donation recognition
markings; it is important to have balance.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the criteria regarding the ability
to refuse a contribution, prohibiting corporate logos, and
appropriate recognition should be spelled out.
Mayor Johnson stated criteria for appropriate wording should also
be included.
The Library Director stated some suggested wording could be "Gift
from" or "In honor of."
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a wall recognition was considered
instead of plaques on objects throughout the Library.
The Library Director responded the wall recognition was also
intended.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether it was necessary to have both the
wall recognition and the plaques, to which the Library Director
responded that having both is usual.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
June 7, 2005
Councilmember deHann stated the Council is concerned with
positioning too many plaques through various areas of the Library;
inquired whether the donor plaque recognition would be replicated
on the wall.
The Library Director responded that any donor who gives $5,000 or
more would be recognized on the donor wall; noted the Library
Foundation has begun to schedule meetings with donors.
Mayor Johnson stated she likes the idea of the large item and area
recognition; inquired whether fund raising efforts would be
impacted.
The Library Director responded that having recognition for large
items and areas might be an incentive.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council should get
clarification on the legal issues of refusing a contribution.
The City Attorney stated that any reasonable rules can be imposed;
the City cannot say no for the wrong reasons; parameters can be
drafted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he agrees with the concept and
framework of the policy; inquired when the policy defining the
criteria to refuse a contribution and appropriate recognition would
come back to Council, to which the Library Director responded that
she would hope the policy could come back at a City Council meeting
in July.
Councilmember DeHaan stated how the plaque would read is important.
Mayor Johnson stated she would like to have a recognition wall only
as long as there would be no fundraising impact; suggested looking
into what other libraries and public buildings have done.
The Library Director stated it was not unusual to place names on
shelves.
(05- )Recommendation to accept the Webster District Strategic
Plan Report.
Councilmember deHaan stated that having a grocery store as a key
anchor was not possible; inquired whether parking is being
proposed.
The Business Development Division Manager responded she is talking
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
June 7, 2005
to an owner.
Councilmember deHaan stated parking accommodations are all
important for any business and retail area.
Councilmember Daysog encouraged doing an analysis on the demand for
parking spaces.
The Business Development Division Manager stated that the report
addresses the need to review parking in the entire area; when new
businesses try to existing buildings to a new use, meeting the
parking requirements is difficult; there is a need to look at a
parking policy for the area which would met the parking demand.
Councilmember Daysog stated that quantifying is important; there
are pros and cons; some neighbors might not want parking structures
while businesses would.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council gave direction to purchase
an existing parking area that was previously rented.
Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), expressed
her appreciation for the support that WABA has received from the
Council and City staff; stated WABA supports the goals of the
Strategic Plan and urges implementation as soon as possible; WABA
does not want the Plan to close off viewpoints for other
opportunities; the funding for Goal #5 [Small Business Assistant
Program] has been eliminated because of reduced funding; there is
continued funding for the Facade Grant Program and some funding for
a recruiter; noted the analysis of opportunity sites was limited to
vacant land on Webster Street; there are other opportunities; WABA
will address the need for long- and short -term parking solutiions;
stated she receives daily calls regarding parking issues; parking
will bring in additional business.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA
(05- )The following speakers spoke in opposition to the proposed
theatre multiplex and parking structure: Deborah Overgfield,
Alameda; Jay Levine, Alameda; Robert Gavrich, Alameda; Richland
Tester, Alameda; Jennifer Van Airsdale, Alameda (submitted letter);
Griff Neal, Alameda; Ani Dimusheva, Alameda; Kevin Fredrick,
Alameda; Valerie Ruma, Alameda; Carl Minns (submitted letter); and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 11
June 7, 2005
Pat Bail, Alameda.
(05- )Wilbur Richards, Alameda, acknowledged the Council for
tightening belts throughout the budget process; stated that damaged
branches or tree fungus maintenance cannot be deferred.
(05- ) Albert Ortega, Alameda, stated that his loan for the
Alameda Bayport Housing Lottery Program was denied because of the
loan type; a letter sent by Alameda Development Corporation to the
City never stated that any loan type would not be allowed.
Mayor Johnson inquired why Mr. Ortega's loan was rejected.
Mr. Ortega responded that his second loan was interest only and was
deemed to be damaging to the housing program; the City Attorney
advised him that the loan type violated State of California
Redevelopment Law.
The Acting City Manager stated that the City Attorney advised Mr.
Ortega that if one person was granted an interest only loan then
everyone else would need to be treated the same; the risk was
deemed not acceptable for the agency; Mr. Ortega was advised that
interest only loans would not be accepted because of the risk.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether it would be possible for the Alameda
Development Corporation to develop some information to provide
potential buyers.
The Acting City Manager stated that a report would be provided to
Council.
(05- )Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated that public transit is
still a problem in Alameda; parking is allowed at bus stops;
temporary bus stops should be fixed to allow accessibility.
(05- )Michael Ferraro, Alamda, stated that the proposed coffee
vendor [who would like to park near City parks] is seeking a
working permit for the whole City; he is not proposing to do
business within the Park Street or Webster Street areas; stated Mr.
Siden, East Bay Regional Park District, suggested seeing if there
was a way the proposed vendor could have access to the park for his
business.
(05- )Sherri Stieg, WABA, stated that the Grand Opening of the
Webster Street Farmers Market will be Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to
8:00 p.m.; Friday night will be the first of the Concerts at the
Cove; the third Thursdays of the month will offer a variety of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
June 7, 2005
festivities; encouraged everyone to attend.
(05- )Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, stated there
is a misconception that the Park Street streetscape is being done
to eliminate parking in order to create a need for the parking
structure; two parking spaces have been lost on Santa Clara Avenue
because of the new bus plaza and one parking space has been lost in
front of Bonniere Bakery on Park Street; stated he spoke in favor
of the original Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for the theatre
four years ago; a Request for Proposal was sent out and no one ever
came forward with any plans.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of addressing the Council
Communications items past midnight.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05- )Discussion regarding City of Alameda Management Practice
#37: Staff - Council Communication Policy.
Mayor Johnson stated that an informational library is being
compiled which would allow Council to have access to information at
one location at City Hall; she feels that Alameda Management
Practice #37 is more restrictive than what the Charter provides;
the Practice should be reviewed and either revoked or replaced.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Mayor Johnson.
Councilmember Daysog stated that issues that led to past
discussions on the matter should be discussed when brought back to
Council.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that everyone seems to agree to place the
matter on the agenda.
(05- )Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Public Utilities Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Peter W. Holmes and John R. McCahan.
(05- )Councilmember Matarrese requested an update on the
Bridgeside Center; stated there were previous discussions regarding
the Video Station's ability to either occupy a space at the Center
and the possibility having a Blockbuster; requested an update on
when construction would start and the leasing mix.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
June 7, 2005
(05- )Councilmember deHaan requested staff to review how existing
transit operations, such as paratransit and Kid's Coach services,
could provide inter - Alameda transportation intertwining with
Alameda Point.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 12:04 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2005
14
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 14, 2005 - - - 5:30 P.M.
Acting Mayor Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 5:40 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Note: Mayor Johnson was present via teleconference from The
Hilton, 720 S. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60605.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05- ) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Acting Mayor Gilmore announced that the Council discussed
public employment of the City Manager.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned
the Special Meeting at 8:10 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
June 14, 2005
June 16, 2005
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
137197 - 137702
E13586 - E13699
EFT 118
EFT 119
Void Checks:
134935
137135
GRAND TOTAL
Respectfully submitted,
P meta J. Sibley
Council Warrants 06/21/2005
Amount
2,453,735.57
69,034.86
389,124.94
33,250.00
(200.00)
(310.10)
2,944,635.27
BILLS #4 -B
06/21/05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: June 9, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
From: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Re: Award of Contract for Legal Advertising for Fiscal Year 2005 -06
Background
The City Charter requires the City Council to annually award a contract for publication of all legal
advertising of the City to the responsible bidder who submits the lowest and best bid. The
newspaper published by the successful bidder is known as the Official Newspaper of the City.
At the Regular Council Meeting held on May 3, 2005, Council authorized the City Clerk to advertise
for bids for legal advertising.
Discussion/Analysis
Bids were due in the Office of the City Clerk on May 25, 2005. Bid results were as follows:
Newspaper Rate Per Column Inch
1st insertion 2nd insertion 3rd & subsequent insertion
Alameda Journal
Alameda Times Star
$3.36 $3.22
$9.30 $9.30
$3.22
$9.30
Budget Consideration
Budget appropriations for legal advertising are approved by the City Council during the budget
process. The City Clerk and Planning and Building Department spend approximately $9,000
annually for legal notices.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Legal Advertising Contract (attached) for Fiscal Year 2005 -06 be
awarded to the Alameda Journal.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Attachment — 1 (Contract)
Report 4 -C
6 -21 -05
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of June,
2005, by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation of the State of
California, hereinafter called the City, and the ALAMEDA JOURNAL, a published
daily newspaper, hereinafter called Publisher,
WITNES SETH:
WHEREAS, the Alameda Journal submitted its bid, in writing, for the
publication, of all legal advertising of the City for the period ending June 30, 2006,
whereupon the Council of said City, on the 21St day of June 2005, duly accepted said bid
and awarded the contract for such legal advertising to said Publisher;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the
undersigned parties as follows:
1. Publisher agrees that during that fiscal year the said Alameda Journal
shall be maintained as a newspaper of general circulation as that term is defined in Title
I, Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 1, of the Government Code of the State of California.
2. Publisher, hereby agrees to publish and advertise in said Alameda
Journal, for and during the period from July 1, 2005 and ending June 30, 2006, such
legal advertisements and notices and such other matters as the Council and other officers
of the City deliver to Publisher for publication.
Said Publisher further agrees that it will make all of such publications in
the manner and form required by law and that on the completion of publication it will
promptly file with the City Clerk an affidavit of publication as required by law.
Said advertising shall be in accordance with the following specifications:
All advertisements shall be set in six -point capitals, except that by
request of the officer authorizing the same such advertisement maybe set in such larger
type and with such spacing between lines as such officer may direct.
Title and sub - heading shall be set in six -point type or in such larger type
as may be specified by the officer authorizing the advertisement.
In consideration of the faithful performance by the Publisher of the
agreements hereinabove set forth, the City hereby agrees to pay for said advertising and
publication at the following rates, to wit:
1
authority heretofore give by its City Council.
Approved as to form
4
CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal
corporation,
By
City Manager
ALAMEDA JOURNAL
By
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 8, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Amend the Construction Contract with Golden Bay Construction Inc.
for the Webster Renaissance Project, No. P.W. 07 -02 -07 in the Amount of $50,000 Using
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for the Purchase and Installation of
Bus Shelters
BACKGROUND
On September 7, 2004, the City of Alameda awarded a construction contract to Golden Bay
Construction, Inc. (Golden Bay), in the total amount of $2,086,410, including contingencies, for the
Webster Renaissance Project (from Central Avenue to Pacific Avenue). Subsequently, Council
approved additional amendments to the contract to allow for the construction of full sidewalk
replacement and to enable Alameda P &T to install additional cable television cable and power
conduits with the sidewalk replacement. The project is funded by a grant from the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), Alameda P &T, and the City of Alameda Community
Improvement Commission (CIC).
The project consists of constructing curb and sidewalk extensions for six (6) transit plazas and
pedestrian amenity plazas, adding new architectural lighting, providing new trees and landscaping,
installing a new irrigation system, street furnishing, installing storm drains and structures, and
placement of underground conduits for future utility extension. Each transit shelter has been
designed to accommodate a bus shelter; however, due to funding constraints, the original contract
authorized by Council did not include bus shelters. The City received an add - alternate bid from
Golden Bay for the purchase and installation of the shelters in anticipation of finding additional
funding for this element of the project.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Gtvofalmnda
uubIicWorks
apartment
Public War' F rl f ,Y ,!
Report #4 -D CC
6 -21 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Page 2
June 8, 2005
A new funding source, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, is now available to
acquire and install the six (6) shelters. In Alameda, all CDBG - funded activities are used according
to the national objectives for the program to:
• benefit low- and moderate - income persons,
• prevent or eliminate slums or blight, or
• meet a community development need having a particular urgency due to existing conditions
posing a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community.
The FY 2005 -06 CDBG Action Plan, approved by City Council on April 19, 2005, included an
authorization of $50,000 in CDBG funds for the installation of ADA- compliant bus shelters,
designed with input from the Commission for Disability Issues. When these shelters are installed
within the Webster Renaissance Project area, they will serve Alameda's low - income residential
neighborhoods.
The shelter design was developed with assistance from the West Alameda Business Association
(WABA) Design Committee working with BMS Design Group, the landscape architectural firm
guiding the Webster Renaissance Project since its inception. When the bus shelters are delivered to
the construction site, they will be "field- located" by BMS Design Group representatives working
with WABA, the on- street business and City staff.
Since this work is not currently in the contract with Golden Bay, the City will need to issue a change
order to install the bus shelters and increase the contract authorization by $50,000 to pay for the
work.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FISCAL IMPACT
The FY 2005 -06 CDBG Action Plan, approved by City Council on April 19, 2005, included an
authorization of $50,000 in CDBG funds for the installation of ADA- compliant bus shelters.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This project is consistent with the Economic Development Specific Plan and the General Plan.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GlrofAlanede
QubIi(Works
Department
Public Wads Woiafor You!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
Page 3
June 8, 2005
The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, amend the construction
contract with Golden Bay Construction, Inc., for the Webster Renaissance Project, No. P.W. 07- 02 -07,
in the amount of $50,000 using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for the
purchase and installation of bus shelters.
Respectful bmitted,
Les ie Little
Development Service : ' e •tor
anagement Analyst
MTN: SR: gc
cc: WABA
Golden Bay Construction, Inc.
Sally Kueh, Finance
G :\PUBWORKS \pwadmin \COUNCIL\2005 \062105 \webster bus shelters.doc
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
avofAlmed+
tublicWorks
apartment
Public Woft Wrr.6far raid!
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 15, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Adoption of Resolution Recommending the Inclusion of Projects in the Alameda
Countywide Bicycle Plan
BACKGROUND
The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) completed the Alameda
Countywide Bicycle Plan in 2001. The CMA is about to begin updating this plan, and is seeking
input from cities regarding facilities that should be included in the updated plan.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The CMA oversees several significant sources of funding for bicycle projects. One of the
criterion a proposed project must meet to be eligible for grant funds is inclusion in the
Countywide Bicycle Plan. In addition, a project receives extra consideration if it is included on
the list of the plan's priority projects.
There were several projects located in the City of Alameda that were included in the Countywide
Bicycle Plan. The City's Bay Trail projects were excluded because Alameda routes were not
considered to be of countywide significance, although the Bay Trail was recommended as a high
priority project in all other jurisdictions in Alameda County. The City has been seeking funding
for several Bay Trail projects, including the Cross Alameda Trail and the path behind Paden
Elementary School, so inclusion in the Countywide Bicycle Plan could enhance the City's
chances to access needed funds.
The update of the City's Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) is under way as part of the Transportation
Master Plan (TMP) process. However, the update is not due to be completed until October 2005,
and CMA staff has indicated that any recommendations to the Countywide Bicycle Plan must be
submitted by June for consideration. CMA staff recommends that a resolution adopted by City
Council be provided to show City support for these projects.
The Transportation Commission's (TC) BMP Subcommittee met with members of the public,
including representatives of Bike Alameda, and Public Works staff, to develop a recommended
list of projects for inclusion in the Countywide Bicycle Plan. This list was presented to the TC
on April 27, 2005 and the TC unanimously voted to forward these recommendations to the City
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Gnoraaa
tubIi(Works
apartment
Public Work Works fir You!
Re: Reso 4 -E CC
6 -21 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
June 15, 2005
Council for approval. The recommended projects include paths, bike lanes, and bike routes,
depending on the particular segment. The projects are as follows:
1) Feasibility study and capital costs for a bicycle /pedestrian estuary crossing from
Alameda's west end to Oakland (see attached description from current
Countywide Bicycle Plan);
2) Complete all segments of the Bay Trail located in the City of Alameda;
3) Completion of a cross -city bikeway through central Alameda, including the
following segments: along Main Street from the Main Street ferry terminal to
Pacific Avenue, along Central Avenue from Pacific Avenue to Fernside
Boulevard, along Fernside Boulevard to the Bay Farm Island Bike Bridge, the
bridge itself, and along Doolittle Drive from the Bay Farm Island Bike Bridge to
the City's border with Oakland;
4) Completion of Bay Farm/Harbor Bay bikeways as follows: along Island Drive
from Doolittle Drive to Mecartney Road, along Mecartney Road from Island
Drive to the Harbor Bay ferry terminal.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the City's General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed projects are consistent with the Transportation Element of the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by resolution, support the inclusion of the projects
described above in the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan.
MTN:BH: gc
Attachment
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Barbara Hawkins
Supervising Civil Engineer
G :\PUBWORKS \pwadmin \COUNCIL\2005 \062105 \cobikeplan - Pinal doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GryofAlameda
I ubIicWorks
Department
Public Wort. Wor k for Nxt!
Project 51 - Oakland- Alameda Connection - Corridor Route 1 5:
from Constitution Way, Alameda to Bay Trail - Jack London Square
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
Jurisdictions: Alameda and Oakland
Description: This project is currently undefined but would close the gap between the island of
Alameda and Oakland in the vicinity of Jack London Square and the Webster and Posey tubes.
A placeholder amount of $4.2 million dollars has been estimated for the capital costs associated
with this project. Operational and maintenance costs must also be identified for this project. In
this particular corridor, the estuary is currently a formidable, virtually insurmountable barrier for
pedestrians and bicyclists. However, the latent demand for such travel between the two cities
due to the proximity of downtown Oakland, Jack London Square, BART, the College of
Alameda and Laney College is considerable. The current link for bicyclists and pedestrians is a
narrow and hazardous sidewalk within one of the existing tubes. Constructing a third tube or
widening one of the existing tubes for bicyclists and pedestrians appears to be financially and
physically infeasible due to activities at the Port of Oakland and other structures. The existing
link, even if widening were feasible, would remain a health hazard not to mention unappealing to
non - motorized users due to the conditions of the dark, exhaust - filled tunnel.
A bridge (either pivot
or drawbridge) could
provide an efficient
link for bicyclists and
pedestrians. However
the costs, including
operations and
maintenance,
associated with this
concept appear to pose
a serious constraint.
Additionally, ship
traffic at the Port of
Oakland, which is
projected to increase,
would pose a
considerable constraint
for a bridge sited in
proximity to the existing tube.
The most attainable short term solution would incorporate a consistently scheduled water
taxi/ferry with reasonable fares servicing recreational and commuter pedestrian and cyclists.
Next Steps: A task force should be established to identify long -term options that warrant further
consideration and address operations and maintenance issues. The task force could review the
bridge concept, as well as future technologies that could reduce the costs and increase the
feasibility of constructing another tube (intended for bicycle, pedestrian and transit use), as
possible options.
344860
ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE PLAN WILBURSM /THASSOC /ATES
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
RECOMMENDING THE INCLUSION OF PROJECTS IN THE ALAMEDA
COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE PLAN
WHEREAS, enhancing the City's bicycle infrastructure through a
combination of paths, bike lanes, and bike routes will provide encouragement for
E bicycling and safer facilities; and
0
LL - w WHEREAS, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
,a (CMA) is undertaking an update of the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan; and
Occ
��-.. WHEREAS, inclusion in the countywide bicycle plan will enhance the
City's access to funding opportunities for these projects; and
L
0
WHEREAS, the following proposed bicycle facilities in the City that
would provide connections to destination points of countywide significance:
1) Feasibility study and capital costs for a bicycle /pedestrian estuary crossing from
Alameda's west end to Oakland;
2) Complete all segments of the Bay Trail located in the City of Alameda;
3) Completion of a cross -city bikeway through central Alameda, including the
following segments: Along Main Street from the Main Street ferry terminal to
Pacific Avenue, along Central Avenue from Pacific Avenue to Fernside
Boulevard, along Fernside Boulevard to the Bay Farm Island Bike Bridge, the
bridge itself, and along Doolittle Drive from the Bay Farm Island Bike Bridge to
the City's border with Oakland;
4) Completion of Bay Farm/Harbor Bay bikeways as follows:
Along Island Drive from Doolittle Drive to Mecartney Road, along Mecartney
Road from Island Drive to the Harbor Bay ferry terminal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Alameda recommends that the CMA include the projects described above in the
Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan.
Resolution #4 -E CC
6 -21 -05
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 , 2005, 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 , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
E
0
o sJ
0
ca
0
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING PETER W. HOLMES AS A MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the provisions of
Article X of the Charter of the City of Alameda, and upon nomination of the Mayor, PETER W.
HOLMES is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Public Utilities Board of the City of
w
cc Alameda to fill the unexpired term of Karin Lucas for the term commencing on June 21, 2005 and
0
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 regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2005, 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 , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City Clerk
Resolution #5 -A
6 -21 -05
E
0
LL
0
CL
a
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING JOHN R. McCAHAN AS A MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the provisions
of Article X of the Charter of the City of Alameda, and upon nomination of the Mayor, JOHN R.
: McCAHAN is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Public Utilities Board of the City
of Alameda for the term commencing July 1, 2005, and expiring on June 30, 2009, and to serve
-until his successor is appointed and is 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 regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2005 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 , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolution #5 -A
6 -21 -05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 7, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
RE: Introduction of Ordinance Amending Section 30 -65 of the Alameda Municipal
Code: Public Art in New Commercial , Industrial, Residential, and Municipal
Construction in Chapter XXX (Development Regulations)
BACKGROUND
On March 4, 2003 the City Council adopted an ordinance that created the Alameda Public Art
Program.
It is requested that the Council consider amending the ordinance in order to change the name of
the Public Art Advisory Committee to the Public Art Commission. It is also requested that the
ordinance be amended so that the Public Art Commission reports directly to the City Council
instead of to the Recreation and Park Commission.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The intent of the City of Alameda Public Art Program is to promote a diverse and stimulating
cultural environment to enrich the lives of the City's residents and visitors, and contribute to
the vitality of the City's economic development. Public art will be included in private and
public development projects to insure the positive impacts of development without diminishing
public resources. The program seeks to provide art that is easily accessible to the general
community throughout the City and is dependent on public - private cooperation between the
City, artists, and the applicant.
As described in the Alameda Municipal Code, the Public Art Advisory Committee advises the
Recreation and Park Commission and City staff on applications for the installation of Public
Art, the selection of Public Art, and matters pertaining to the quality, quantity, scope and style
or art in public places. The Committee also makes recommendations to the Recreation and
Park Commission regarding an annual Public Art Plan. Currently, the Recreation and Park
Commission has the authority to approve or deny an application for placing public art on
private property. The Commission can also make recommendations regarding possible
changes, modifications or additions to the application proposal.
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) as recommended would perform the following
actions:
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Re: Intro of
Ordinance 5 -B
6 -21 -05
Honorable Mayor and Page -2-
Councilmembers
1. Change the name of the Public Art Advisory Committee to the Public Art Commission.
Currently, the Committee serves as an advisory body to the Recreation and Park
Commission.
2. Transfer the responsibility for approving or denying applications for the placement of
public art from the Recreation and Park Commission to the Public Art Commission.
The applicant would retain the right to appeal the decision to the City Council.
3. Transfer the responsibility for staffing the Public Art Program from the Recreation &
Park Department to the Planning & Building Department. Recent management work
force reductions in the Recreation and Park Department have restricted the
department's ability to staff the Public Art Program. In addition, the Planning &
Building Department has regular interaction with development applicants. This
interaction will enable the City to provide information to development applicants
regarding public art requirements earlier in the application process.
The Recreation and Park Commission approved the concept of having the Public Art Advisory
Committee become a stand alone Commission reporting directly to the City Council during
the Recreation and Park Commission Meeting on May 12, 2005.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
None. Costs related to the staffing of the Public Art Program are recouped through fees that
are generated by the program.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Introduction of this ordinance amends sections 30 -65.3 — 30.65.11 of the Alameda Municipal
Code.
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Manager recommends introduction of ordinance to amend Section 30 65 of
the Alameda Municipal Code: Public Art in New Commercial, Industrial, Residential, and
Municipal Construction in Chapter XXX (Development Regulations).
WCN:DL:CJ:bf
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
By: /
Dale "i lard, A t g Director
Recreation and Park Department
A,
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE
NAME OF THE PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO PUBLIC ART
COMMISSION, TRANSFER REPORTING FROM RECREATION & PARK
COMMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL, AND TRANSFER STAFFING FROM
THE RECREATION & PARK DEPARTMENT TO THE PLANNING &
BUILDING DEPARTMENT BY AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 30 -65.3
(CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS), 30 -65.4 (PUBLIC ART), 30 -65.5
(ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART FUND), 30 -65.7 (PUBLIC ART ADVISORY
COMMITTEE), 30 -65.8 (APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES
FOR PLACING PUBLIC ART ON PRIVATE PROPERTY), 30 -65.10
(GUIDELINES FOR APPROVAL), AND 30 -65.11 (APPEAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL) OF SECTION 30 -65 (PUBLIC ART IN NEW COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION)
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1. Subsection 30- 65.3(f) is hereby amended to read as follows:
f. Subject to the approval of the Public Art Commission, an owner or developer
may incorporate into the development Public Art that has a value lower than the
Program Allocation and pay a Public Art In -Lieu Contribution to the Public Art
Fund for the balance of the Program Allocation.
Section 2. Subsection 30- 65.4(b)(vii) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(vii) Any other form of cultural program determined by the Public Art
Commission to satisfy the intent of this section.
Section 3. Subsection 30- 65.5(d) is hereby amended to read as follows:
d. The Public Art Commission shall present annually to the City Council for
approval a Public Art Plan that recommends the use of Alameda Public Art Fund
monies consistent with the purpose of this Section. The Public Art Plan shall be
administered by the Planning & Building Department.
Section 4. Section 30 -65.7 is hereby amended to read as follows:
30 -65.7 Public Art Commission.
a. There is hereby established a Public Art Commission that shall consist of five
members appointed by the City Council, who are knowledgeable about
contemporary visual public art, and capable of engaging effectively in a jury
process.
Introduction of Ordinance #5 -B
6 -21 -05
b. Membership, term of office, and removal of the members of the Public Art
Commission shall be set by City Council Resolution.
c. The Commission shall make decisions regarding applications for the
installation of Public Art, the selection of Public Art, and matters pertaining to
the quality, quantity, scope and style of art in public places.
d. The Commission shall make recommendations to the Council regarding the
Public Art Plan.
e. The Commission shall assist private property owners, as requested, regarding
the selection and installation of Public Art.
f. The Commission shall review and promote City inventory of meritorious
Public Art in public view.
Section 5. Section 30 -65.8 is hereby amended as follows:
30 -65.8 Application and Approval Procedures for Placing Public Art on
Private Property.
a. An application for the installation of Public Art on private property shall be
submitted to the Planning & Building Department on forms furnished for that
purpose and shall include the following information, as applicable:
(i) Landscape and site plans indicating the location and orientation if
the Public Art and the landscaping and architectural treatment
integrating the piece into the overall project design;
(ii) A sample, model, photograph or drawings of the proposed Public
Art;
(iii) Material samples and finishes if appropriate;
(iv) A resume of the proposed artist;
(v) Slides and/or photographs of the proposed artist's past Public Art,
which demonstrates like Public Art to the proposal;
(vi) A written statement by the artist describing any theme or
development of the Public Art, as well as a discussion of the
manner in which the proposed Public Art meets the Guidelines
described in section 30- 65.10, and the manner in which the Public
Art will be displayed in an area that is visible from a public right -
of -way or public property; or, if an on -site cultural program or art
space or cultural facility, the means by which the public will gain
access to such programs, spaces, or facilities.
(vii) A written statement by the artist declaring the valuation of the
Public Art.
(viii) A maintenance plan for the Public Art.
(ix) Any such additional information or material as may be required by
the Planning & Building Director, or designee.
b. The application submitted pursuant to subparagraph (a) shall be referred to the
Planning & Building Director or his/her designee for preliminary review to
determine whether the application is complete. The completed application
along with the recommendation of staff and/or consultants shall be forwarded
to the Public Art Commission for review and decision.
c. The Public Art Commission shall review the permit application within sixty
(60) days of receipt of a complete application. The Public Art Commission
may make recommendations regarding possible changes, modifications or
additions to the proposal. Fourteen (14) days' prior written notice shall be
provided to the applicant of the time and place of the meeting at which the
application will be considered.
d. The Public Art Commission shall approve or deny the application in
accordance with the Guidelines for Approval referenced in section 30- 65.10.
The Public Art Commission may conditionally approve an application subject
to such conditions that the Public Art Commission deems reasonably
necessary to conform the Public Art Guidelines for Approval.
e. Failure of the Public Art Commission to act on an application and to notify the
applicant within seventy -five (75) calendar days of receipt of a complete
application, or such extended period as may be mutually agreed upon by the
applicant and the Public Art Commission, shall be deemed a denial of such
application.
f. The application required by this section shall be made, approval obtained and
the Public Art installed prior to final building inspection or issuance of
approval of a certificate of occupancy for the new construction. If installation
prior to the date of occupancy is impracticable, as determined by the Planning
and Building Director or his/her designee, a certificate of occupancy may be
approved for the building or portion thereof if the application submitted
pursuant to this section has been approved, the applicant has executed a
written agreement with the City to install the Public Art, and the applicant has
filed security in an amount and form acceptable to the City Attorney to
guarantee installation of the Public Art.
g. The property owner shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, in good
condition the Public Art continuously after its installation and shall perform
necessary repairs and maintenance to the satisfaction of the City. The
maintenance obligations of the property owner shall be contained in the
covenant and recorded against the property by the applicant. Should the
property owner wish to remove the Public Art, the City must be notified in
advance. The property owner shall replace the Public Art with Public Art of
equal or greater value, and consistent with the California Preservation of
Works of Art Act and the Federal Visual Artists' Rights Act and any other
relevant law.
Section 6. Subsection 30- 65.10(a) is hereby amended to read as follows:
a. Guidelines for approval and maintenance of Public Art ( "Guidelines for
Approval ") shall be adopted by the City Council, upon recommendation
from the Public Art Commission. Guidelines shall be adopted within sixty
(60) days of the Ordinance codified in this Chapter.
Section 7. Section 30 -65.11 is hereby amended to read as follows:
30 -65.11 Appeal to the City Council.
Any final decision of the Public Art Commission may be appealed to the City
Council within ten (10) calendar days following the decision of the Public Art
Commission. Said appeal shall explain the grounds for the appeal in writing.
Section 8. 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 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 , 2005, 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 , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Date: June 14, 2005
Re:
June 21, 2005
Page 1 of 4
Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's
approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting two Coast Live Oak trees on the
vacant property at 301 Spruce Street. The submittal of a Landscaping Plan,
as part of new development proposals on the site, was required by the
Historical Advisory Board as a condition for the removal of one Coast Live
Oak tree in 2001. The site is located at 301 Spruce Street within the R -4,
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Applicant: Bill Wong for Hai Ky
Lam /Appellant: Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader.
BACKGROUND
This item regards an appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's approval of a landscaping
plan to plant two Coast Live Oaks on the vacant parcel at 301 Spruce Street. The
appellants are immediate neighbors Jeanne Nader and Patrick Lynch of 305 Spruce
Street.
The City Council first heard the appeal on May 17 and, having considered public testimony,
requested the following of the applicant: 1) the applicants must conduct a soils test on fill
material that was brought to the site in 2002; 2) the applicants must have the arborist
determine whether damage was done to the existing Oak trees by recent site cleaning
activities; and 3) the applicants must have the arborist advise on how to protect the trees
during construction of the single family dwelling. All of these items were completed by the
applicant and are discussed below.
At the May 17 hearing, Council also asked staff to: 1) report on code enforcement activity
at the site and 2) provide conditions in the resolution which would require the applicants to
enter into a landscape maintenance agreement (to be recorded with the County) and post
a bond to ensure that the trees will be protected as a condition of the design review
approval for the single family dwelling. Staff has completed these items which are further
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing and
Reso 5 -C
6 -21 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
discussed below.
DISCUSSION
June 21, 2005
Page 2 of 4
Soils Test: The applicants hired Wallace Laboratories to perform the soils test. (See
Attachment 1.) The results of the soils test show that the fill is non -toxic and the mineral
contents are within State environmental health standards. The test results also identified
the soil as having proper fertility for plant growth, which will be beneficial to the existing and
proposed oak trees.
Arborist Report re: alleged tree damage: At the May 17 hearing, the appellants expressed
concern that the roots of one oak tree were damaged and that the unidentified fill material
on the site was disturbed as a result of the owner's use of a "Bobcat" front loader on the
property during recent site cleaning activities. It should be noted that the applicants
engaged in site cleaning activities at the request of code enforcement to abate weeds and
debris. The applicants hired certified arborist, Chris Bowen, to determine whether the tree
roots had been damaged by the recent site cleaning activities. On May 18, the arborist
conducted field investigations and found that the exposed roots were damaged in the past
and unrelated to the recent activities. The arborist also confirmed that the damage had
minimal impact on the root system. (See Attachment 2.)
Arborist Report re: future tree protection: The arborist has marked the actual location of
the trees' driplines with orange mesh construction fencing. The arborist also cleaned the
area around the tree to restore the proper grade base around the tree. Finally, the arborist
has been retained by the architect and applicant to guide and oversee the protection of the
two trees during construction of the single family dwelling.
Staff's report on code enforcement activity: As stated above, code enforcement responded
to a complaint about weeds and debris and asked the applicants to clean the property.
The applicants complied and the case has been closed.
Future protection of the trees: Staff will continue to work with all parties to ensure that
development of the site will preserve the existing and proposed Oak trees. Moreover, as a
condition of this approval, the applicants will be required to sign and record with the County
Recorder's Office a Landscape Maintenance Agreement which will ensure the health and
maintenance of the Coast Live Oak trees on the property. This Agreement will follow the
recommendations set forth in arborist Christopher Bowen's report dated September 14,
2004. (See Attachment 3.) As part of that Agreement, the applicants will be also required
to provide a bond (as approved by the City Attorney's Office) to ensure that the
landscaping plan (dated March 23, 2005) is completed and to ensure that the two Coastal
Oaks are protected.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
June 21, 2005
Page 3 of 4
There will be no additional funding in the Planning & Building Department budget
necessary relating to Planning activities for this project.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Actions taken on this subject do not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The review of the subject Landscaping Plan is categorically exempt from further
environmental review pursuant to Section 15304(b) of the CEQA Guidelines — New
Landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, review all
pertinent testimony and information then act to uphold the Historical Advisory Board's
approval of the Landscaping Plan with conditions by adopting the draft City Council
Resolution included in the agenda packet. Should the City Council take no action, the
decision of the Historical Advisory Board stands.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg McFan
Acting Planning Director /Building Official
B
ATTACHMENTS:
Allen Tai
Planner III
1. Soils test results prepared by Wallace Laboratories.
2. Site investigation results by Certified Arborist Christopher Bowen.
3. Report of Arborist Christopher Bowen dated Sept. 14, 2004.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
4. City Council Staff Report, May 17, 2005 (with attachments).
June 21, 2005
Page 4 of 4
cc: Chair McPherson, Historical Advisory Board
Hai Ky Lam, 1101 Buena Vista Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501
Ivan Chiu /Bill Wong, Applicants, 373 9th Street #301, Oakland, CA 94607
Patrick Lynch & Jeanne Nader, Appellants, 305 Spruce Street, Alameda, CA 94501
G: \PLANNING \CC \REPORTS\2005\I-Jun 21\ Spmce301_supplementalreport.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
JUN 03,2005 19:27
WALLACE LABORATORIES
365 Coral Circle
Fl Segundo, CA 90245
phone (310) 615 -0.116 fax (310) 640 -6863
May 27, 2005
(:lurisuopher 1'iowcn, Certified Arborist
85 Tlurusand Oaks •
Oakland, CA 94605 -4618
Page 1
RL: composite soil sample from 301 Spruce St., Alameda
Sample received May 26, 2005
1)ear ( :hristopher,
The mineral content of the soil does not exceed Title 22 limits.
'I'Iie k pi I neutral. The Salinity is low at 0.43. The fertility is moderate for nitrogen
and potassium. Phosphorus, iron, manganese, zinc and copper are well supplied.
Recommendations
The soil has the proper fertility for plant growth.
Nitrogcu can he applied several tildes per year. Calcium nitrate (15.5 -0 -0) can he
applied at 6 pounds per 1,000 square feet over the active rooting areas.
Do not apply zinc or copper. Boron may be needed in the future. Such need will need
to be based on leaf tissue analysis.
Sincerely,
r•Ciarar A. Wallace, Ph. D.
Executive Director
(;AVv:II
RECEIVED
JUN 082005 I
PERMIT CENTER
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
Attachment #1
JUN ..03, 2005 19:27
WALLACE LA fiS
365 Coral Circle
El Segundo, (.A 90245
(310) 615 -0116
cicuacats
aluminum
arsenic
barium
boron
cadroiunr
calcium
chromium
cobalt
copper
iron
lead
lithium
Inagnesium
Inaneaue e
mercury
molybdenum
nickel
phosphorus
potassium
selenium
silicon
silver
sodium
slrontiuiu
sulfur
tin
titanium
vanadium
zi nc
chloride
TOTAL ANALYSIS DATE: May 27, 2005
1.ocatinn 301 Spruce St.. Alameda
Requester Christopher Bowen, Certified Arbarist
Method EPA 3051
Material soil
05- 1461' -03 title 22 limit
11,15().69
2.17
60.20
:x.14
0.29
3,082.68
27.22
3.66
12.05
8,227.09
38.13
8.61
2,307.15
170.12
0.15
1.02
26.02
255.15
K01.48
.. 0.25
144.01
4.04
477.79
26.37
167.59
< 2.50
301.64
21)0.08
59.34
50
500
10,000
100
500
8,000
2,500
1,000
20
3,500
2,000
100
500
2,400
5,000
l:lernenls expressed as nig /kilogram (parts per million) on a dry weight basis.
Page 2
JUN,03r2005 19:28
WALLACE LABS
365 Coral Circle
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 615-0116
SOILS REPORT
I„ Ix'ntion
Requester
:301 Spruce Si.. AlarriecI
Cht istt>pher tlawen, Certified Arhluist
•rlphic iu0.Ypttldtlult: • v ry low, •• low. 4•* uxldtrtlitt
ammonitun bicarbonate/ )TPA
extractable 111!':Li' sail
Inic:rpniii11inn of dept
low ,ncdiunl hl,_h cltmt•nls
0 - 7 8 -15 ttt.t•r 15 phosphorus
0 -60 60 -120 12.1 1 h0 potassium
0 - .3 .3 5 of cr 5 iron
0- 0.5 0.0- 1 t,tci 1 manganese
0 1 1 1.5 1IV 11.5 zinc
U
0.2 0.3 0.5 '"•.•r 0.5 copper
0- 0.2 0.2 0.5 (Ivt t 1 boron
;arks of calcium to nr :tsne Jiiun calcium
needs ur htsntnre 11:,111 ' Ilr .i in :l};raxirtrn
should be h•N. than pnta+si.hlt sodium
sulfur
neolyhtlerunn
The following trace aluminum
Moments may be toxic arsenic
The degree of toxicity barium
ium
depends upon the pH of cadmium
the soil. sots texture, chromium
ottmoic ;nutter, ;Intl tnal Call ;lit
eorrcrtltrOtlanrs of the lead
individual nlnnlrntti ;n lilltlurn
well its to their Tlicrcur_y'
interactions. ti ickt'I
selenium
The ply optimum rlcpcnQx silver
upon soil organic sl r oftium
mailer aril clay cuntelti- lin
for clay and loan; soil~: vonaditlm
under 5,2 is too acidic
':tunpk ID 'rualher
6.5 in 7 is itlr:d
over 8.5 is too alkaline
.444. high,
er-
as 146 0.3
Soil Sample Received 5/26;05
graphic
20.50 t.1(.'
110.85 '"^'
48,53 *4* *•
4 83 "44
111,76 .""
.K.w.;
0.09 4
417.56 ""
78A &
20.43
10.06
0.01 *.
d •
0.09
198
0.13 •
0 09 •
006 •
13.36 "'
0.15 *
rd
126
rd
cl 4
2.16
0.1»;
0.33
The 1?f'.e' ix :9 rra•:Itiure- of
the soil salinity:
1 -2 alTeCtS n rem ghosts
2 -4 rtITcrrtitianu' pl :Iris,
4 affects many plants,
problems over 150 rpm
punt 20 - 30 (yin
toxic over 1100
toxic over 1 for many plant.~
[tinturation Extract
flill value
ts( :e (tnilii-
tttlut /cm)
calcium
111 :igncsiun]
socliunl
potassium
Cal inn }urn
r.h1aride
nitrAte .tc N
phosphorus as 1'
sulfate al; S
anion sum
boron as R
itrlrt•u. fnR iii' hlt•rns marl :11 .4 SAR
est. gypsum requirement lbs,11000 sq. ft.
relative infiltration rate
rntitnuttrd soil texture
lintt (calcium carbonate)
nrp+ttlit' platlrr
inoi:rlure content of soil
half saturation percentage
7 0.3 " 4
0.43 *`
null Iig /I
36.1 1.8
9.? 0.8
25.8 1 1
13.6 0.3
4.0
6 0.2
23 1.7
0.4 0.0
12.2 0,h
0.10 *
1.0 *
3
fair• /slow
silty Insun
nu
l owf fltir
5.5'X,
17.1'%
2.6
JI !.. -r n4..re4;..., nw4rnn4
May 26, 2005
Page 3
JUN. 03, 2005 19:28 Page 4
WALLACE LABORATORIES
365 Coral Circle
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone (310) 615. 01.1.6 fax (310) 640 -6863
CREDENTIALS OF WALLACE LABORATORIES
Key Personnel
Arthur Wallace
Education: 11.S. Utah State University, 1943 (chemistry)
Ph.1). Rutgers University, 1949 (soils and plant nutrition)
Academic Appointments: Professor Emeritus of Plant Physiology at University or Calilbrnia,
Los Angeles (leaching and research, 1949 -1989)
!lotion; mid Awards: Elected Fellow of the American Society of Agronomy, of the Soil Science
Society of American, of the (.'rop Science Society of America, and of The American Society for
horticultural Science
Cara A. Wallace
Education: B.S. Brigham Young University, 1968 (chemistry)
Ph.D. University of California, Los Angeles, 1972 (biochemistry)
Postdoctoral in Surgery, University of California, 1.os Angeles, 1972 - 1974
Academic Appointments: Research Biochemist, Laboratory of Biomedical and Environmental
Sciences, University of California, l.os Angeles, 6 years
honors and Awards: U.S. Public Health Service Trainee
Scientific and Professional Organizations: Soil Science of American, Society of Plant
• i'hysioIogists, American Chemical Society, Arneriean Society of Agronomy, Iicological Society
of Soil Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Consultancies and Contracts: Egypt, Greece, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Ciba Geigy, • Dow Chemical
Co., Pennzoil: National Science Itounda.tion, 11.S. Department of Interior and Department of
Energy, city /county /state /federal agencies, teal estate developers, manufacturers,
Publications: Related to ecology - 120 titles
Related to land reclamation and salinity - 45 tides
Related to fruit tree horticulture - 60 titles •
Related to general plant nutrition and agronomy - 350 titles
Related w soil science - 100 titles
Related to soil amending and soil conditioning — 50 titles
Soil Analyses Plant Analyses Water Analyses
FROM : CHIU_DESIGN_GROUP
CERTIFIED
ARBORIST
PHONE NO. : 510 655 8923 Jun. 08 2005 09:26AM P1
CHRISTOPHER W. BOWEN
CERTIFIED ARBORIST
(510) 777 -1551
es THOUSAND OAKS
OAKLAND, CA 114808
CA LICENSE S 761588
...Detailed pruning-. -.Careful removal of trsee & ehrubs.,....Free estimates...
...Aesthetic approach._
re: 301 Spruce St . Alameda
Protecting 2 Live Oaks - Above and below ground level to minimize / prevent damage to
trees' branches, trunks, and root systems.
Area under drip -line of 2 Oaks has been fenced off by Arborist with 4 foot tall orange
mesh construction fencing (photos attached)
2 previously cut 1 12" diameter surface roots were exposed when part of site was re-
graded during site cleanup in early May '05 by present owner. Minimal damage was
done to the root system.
The area around the base of larger Live Oak has since been cleaned up by arborist
including a partial root -crown excavation to restore the correct grade around the base of
this tree. 5/18/05
The present owner and his architects Bill Wong and Ivan Chlu have hired Christopher
Bowen, certified arborist to follow -up with site preparation and to guide and oversee
protecting the 2 Oak trees during construction. The arborist will be present and will
speak at the June 7th '05 council meeting.
-Chris Bowen
RECEIVED
JUN p82
AERMIT CENTER
AL
MEDA, CA 94501
Attachment #2
MAY 25,, 2005 19:22
CERTIFIED
�. •
ARBORIST
CHRISTOPHER W. BOWEN
CERTIFIED ARBORIST
(510) 777 -1551
85 THOUSAND OAK$
OAKLAND, CA 64604
6NIC -4204
CA UCENSE Iit T01555
...Detailed pruning... ...Cargill removal of trees & ahruba......Free estimates...
...Aesthetic approach...
b 7 ,
5e
Pr
a(
J)W( S�Jo/l2h cv/
Page 1
25. My 2..8I.'
4. yam u kJ 30/
se4 off q ro1051=te 5� s /e (i � fig az
-f�X16 Mlf°v( Corte -710 pv t ' .the
//s c� diY Man-- 741)X %G . Vte /teStii3
--/eY5- xi '1 ./A f‘A*6/ P41 r7.3 a93
4
& a 20 aid e i . " i c
P/eAce i rvvidi yowl- ky1/4/ Mitej. 6,z /e, si...ite
eto Mk * 4,7 /1/)./A /a /0114-6-5 :,i Aio1 1 ,I4k
Des
01 .s5. otce 0, 5116 1( /1N/fl 0•6'n&fr-4 krowiii dri c @Pe i 2. e / /5 - fr! -.(7'4 / "ii-ovnd
.. , , _ <
hAce 47(7 Oa��` • V /Vjj^ /G /1C' d w°1Pd /b°ic //a; i 1 zoi ill i- ,,-',W fait
udef-' -1111 P'° f � ATA.s dpv pavioc45 514c #P 2 (-)00*
6ii kt � � -� �vr° o4-K brwdN ukrc � 3,1 fmvi
_ ,. _ FILL. 4.. y lmi IMfvsv; YJl nfled l°1�r P av
16 /,,& /-./ £ 4
- SBC Yahoo! Mail - sings8889( bcglobal.net
SBC Yahoo! Mail
Mail 4
MAIL
Welcome, sings8889@sbcglob...
[Sign Out, My Account]
Addresses Calendar 'v Notepad
Page 1 of 2
Fide: eh
the wait I r e arc it
Mall Home ! Tutorials 1 Help
What's New - Mail Upgrades - Mail Options
Folders [Add - Edit]
In box
Draft
Sent
Bulk [Empty]
Trash [Empty]
My Folders [Hide]
sings
Previous I Next 1 Back to Messages
arch •the Web
Printable View - Full I-
Delete' • Uleat.A . forward :':::'.: Sp .:
am
This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread ]
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
04:' "Christopher Bowen" <bowentrees @yahoo.com> InAdd to Address Book
From: Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com. Le
more
Subject: # Spruce Oak
To: sings8889 @sbcgiobal.net
10 pictures of 301 Spruce showing fencing around drip - line of 2 Live Oaks & 2 pil
soil / sand mixture. My fencing installed 18 May 2005.
Please add your best photos and show previously damaged roots picture.
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
Attachments
.
Attachment scanning provided by: MANI
Photos:
Save to Computer
Save to Yahoo! Photos
ispruce.9pg(181k) [View]
Save to Computer
Save to Yahoo! Photos
• Save to Computer
Save to Yahoo! Pho
2sprucedoo(190k) [View]
Save to Computer
Save to Yahoo! Pho
CERTIFIED
• MS
i Pm
_
MS ...
-Wm••
NMI ...., J t 'I •
,■. in
ARBORIST
HRISTOPHER W. BOWEN
CERTIFIED ARBORIST
(610) 777 -1661
85 THOUSAND OAKS
OAKLAND, CA 94605
#WC -4204
CA LICENSE # 761558
...Detailed pruning... ..Careful removal of trees & shrubs......Free estimates....
...Aesthetic approach...
September 14, 2004
Attention: City of Alameda Historical Advisory Board
EIVE
OCT 17 2004 I
PV.AMiT CENTER
re: Approving Certificate of approval, CA- 01 -08, 301 Spruce St. ' ° 9.4 0
The property owner, Bill Wong, shall plant a minimum of two Live Oak Trees with a
minimum size of 10 gallons as part of any development of the site (see site plan for tree
placement). The two trees will be planted opposite the garage midway between the northern
facade of the proposed residence and the property line. There is a 20 -foot setback which will
allow 10 feet between the trees and the house; and 10 feet to the property line /fence.
Due to the sandy soil the two Live Oaks Trees should be planted slightly high within a
mound to allow for future settling. Two inches of compost material and two inches of mulch
should be spread around the trees in a six -foot diameter circle. A lawn is not appropriate for this
area due to the Live Oaks no summer watering once trees are established after two years of
planting. The 10 gallon or larger Live Oaks shall be staked with two wood poles for each tree
and watered two times weekly during the dry season for the first two years. Fall planting is
preferable.
The Live Oaks shall be maintained during the first three years by a landscaping
professional to ensure proper planting, watering, mulching and staking. The trees should not be
pruned during the first three years. Subsequent pruning shall be done by a certified arborist.
The property owner shall follow tree preservation and other recommendations as outlined
by the Arborist report prepared by Stephen Batchelder 15 June 2001 as part of any development
of the site. The two mature Live Oaks on the site are vulnerable to construction and site
development damage. Care must be taken when excavating the foundation to protect roots larger
than 1 inch in diameter. An airspade is recommended to reveal anchoring roots on the 42"
diameter Live Oak along 3" Street. This tool can be obtained by hiring "Treescapes" Inc. -
Oakland. An Arborist from "Treescapes" would excavate around the Live Oak where the
foundation is to be dug to reveal anchor roots and to avoid cutting large roots over a 1" diameter.
A pier and beam foundation may be necessary to bridge over large roots after wrapping them
with burlap.
Attachment #3
CERTIFIED
olmonolinoroa••• MEN
.,sor _
- i.I�
_.•
—w
— • I ar. -
a ..a►-a-
_( -- .-
- 11.- I11111111IM M■ •
ARBORIST
:HRISTOPHER W. BOWEN
CERTIFIED ARBORIST
(610) 777 -1661
85 THOUSAND OAKS
OAKLAND, CA 94605
#WC-4204
CA LICENSE 0 761555
...Detailed pruning..: ...Careful removal of trees & shrubs... ..,Free estimates...
...Aesthetic approach...
- Strap hay bales to and around both mature Live Oaks
- Apply 2" compost, then 6 " mulch/wood chips and cover with 1" plywood to minimize root and
soil compaction of area around Oaks, i.e., under their dripline within 8 -20 feet of trees -as
possible.
It is recommended that the property owner secure a bond to protect the two mature Live
Oak to protect against: damage during construction and subsequent decline. This bond would
hold the builder financially responsible for damages. The larger Oak = 42" diameter = $15,000.
Bond. The 16" diameter Oak = $10,000. Bond. Be advised that after damage to these root
systems it may take 10 years for the trees to decline and possibly die.
The two mature Live Oaks ere heavily pruned to remove limbs and branches facing the
property. The trees' canopies are therefore heavy over the street and sidewalk and will require
pruning every 3 years to these branches and reduce overweight for balance and to lessen the risk
of limb failure.
Christopher Bowen
Certified Arborist
Report dated 09/14/2004
City of Alameda
Memorandum
DATE: May 5, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
RE: Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's approval of
a Landscaping Plan for planting two Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at
301 Spruce Street. The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new development
proposals on the site, was required by the Historical Advisory Board as a condition
for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001. The site is located at 301 Spruce
Street within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Applicant: Bill
Wong for Hai Ky Lam/Appellant: Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader.
BACKGROUND
301 Spruce Street is a vacant lot located at the comer of Spruce and Third streets in the West
Alameda neighborhood. In 2001, the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) gave approval (Certificate of
Approval no: CA01 -08) to remove one oak tree that was damaged by a previous property owner. As
a condition of approval, the Board required the installation of two Coast Live Oaks to replace the
damaged tree. Furthermore, the Board required future proposals for development on the site to
include a landscaping plan for the placement of the two new trees. Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader
of adjacent 305 Spruce Street appealed the Board's decision to the Council, but the Council denied
the appeal after finding no merit in the basis of appeal. The property changed ownership in 2004,
and the current owners have submitted a Design Review proposal for the construction of one single -
family dwelling. In compliance with the 2001 condition of approval, the property owners have
submitted a landscaping plan to the HAB for review and approval. The Board approved the
landscaping plan for the placement of the two new Coast Live Oaks during the April 7, 2005 hearing.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Mr. Lynch and Ms. Nader of 305 Spruce Street are appealing the HAB's approval of the
Landscaping Plan (Attachment 2 — Petition for Appeal). The bases of appeal are highlighted in bold
followed by Staff discussion:
1. The HAB's review and approval of the Landscaping Plan is not exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The HAB's action on April 7, 2005 is limited to the review of the Landscaping Plan for the
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Attachment #4
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 5, 2005
Page 2
placement of the two new Coast Live Oaks, as required by condition of approval in Resolution
HAB01 -08 from 2001. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(b) - New Landscaping, the
installation of landscaping and planting of two new trees are exempt from CEQA's environmental
review process.
2. The proposed new construction may adversely impact the two existing Coast Live Oaks
and, therefore, the Design Review process should not be exempt from CEQA.
Parallel to the HAB's review of the landscaping plan is a Design Review application for a new single
family dwelling currently under review by Staff. The proposed new construction and the CEQA
determination for the Design Review do not fall within the HAB's purview. Therefore, the
appellants cannot appeal the HAB's decision on the basis that the Design Review should not be
exempt from CEQA. The protection of Coast Live Oaks in Alameda is a local regulation that
reflects the City's desire to preserve these trees, but because Coast Live Oaks are not an endangered
species extensive environmental assessment is not required under CEQA.
Staff will continue to coordinate with the appellants and the property owners to ensure that the
design will be compatible with the oak trees. The appellants were provided opportunities to address
the concerns of the proposed single - family house. Several arborist reports and recommendations
have been requested by Staff to identify necessary measures to protect the existing trees during
construction. Since the HAB hearing on April 7, 2005, the applicants have revised the landscaping
plan to locate the building further away from the trees; the latest plan shows a minimum thirteen -foot
setback from the existing trees. Furthermore, the conditions of approval for the Design Review
approval will require protection of the existing trees and recordation of a Landscape Maintenance
Agreement to ensure proper maintenance of the new and existing trees on the property. The
appellants will also be notified of actions taken by Staff on the Design Review, which may be
appealed to the Planning Board.
ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT REFERENCE
Actions taken on this item would not affect or deviate from any local Codes, Regulations, and
Policies.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS / FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no additional funding in the Planning & Building Department budget necessary
relating to Planning activities for this project.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, review all pertinent
testimony and information then act to uphold the Historical Advisory Board's approval of the
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 5, 2005
Page 3
Landscaping Plan by adopting the draft City Council Resolution included in the agenda packet.
Should the City Council take no action, the decision of the Historical Advisory Board stands.
By:
ATTACHMENTS:
Respectfully submitted,
J
rmack
terim Planning Director
Allen Tai
Planner III
1. Historical Advisory Board Staff Report, April 7, 2005 (with attachments).
2. Petition for Appeal, April 15, 2005 (with attachments).
3. Draft Minutes of April. 7, 2005 Historical Advisory Board hearing.
cc: Chair McPherson, Historical Advisory Board
Hai Ky Lam, Property Owner of 301 Spruce Street
Ivan Chiu/Bill Wong, Applicant
Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader, Appellant
G:\PLANNING\CCIREPORTS\20051j -May 17\Spruce301_CA01- 08appeal.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
ITEM NO.:
APPLICATION:
GENERAL PLAN:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
STAFF PLANNER:
RECOMMENDATION:
ACRONYMS:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF REPORT
2
Review of Certificate of Approval CA01 -08 — Bill Wong/Ivan
Chin for Hai Ky Lain — 301 Spruce Street. A review of the
Landscaping Plan for planting two Coast Live Oak trees (Quercus
agrifolia) on the vacant property at 301 Spruce Street. The
submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new development
proposals on the site, was required as a Condition of Approval by
the Historical Advisory Board under Resolution HAB 01 -08,
which approved the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001..
The site is located within an R -4 Neighborhood Residential
District.
Medium Density Residential
Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section
15304(b) - New Landscaping
Allen Tai, Planner III
Staff recommends approval; specify any additional conditions.
AMC — Alameda Municipal Code
1. Draft Resolution
2. Landscape Plan dated March 23, 2005
3. Certified Arborist Report October 17, 2004 with
recommendations for protecting existing oak trees
4. Previous Arborist Report dated June 15, 2001
5, HAB -01 -08 Resolution 2001
L BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS
301 Spruce Street is a vacant parcel located at the northeast comer of Third and Spruce Streets.
The size of the parcel is 5,000 square-feet (50'0" wide by 100'0" deep). No development ever
occurred on the property. Recent project records indicate that the property had four large trees
including three Coast Live Oaks and one Pine tree. The four trees included:
A) a 26" diameter Coast Live Oak that was located near the rear of the property; (Removed)
B) a 42" diameter Coast Live Oak located along the property line of the street side yard;
C) a 18" diameter Coast Live Oak located at the front of property on the City right -of -way;
Historical Advisory. Board
Stab Report
Meeting of April 7, 2005
Attachment #1
D) a 27'' :diameter Italian Stone Pine located atthe. front corner of the property (Removed)
The history of events began in 1998, when a previous owner damaged Tree A through extensive
trimming. .The owners were requited to preserve the tree despite it beiing severely pruned. By
2001.. the tree showed signs of deteriorating health, and the Historical Advisory Board approved a
new owner's request to remove the damaged tree in order to allow a proposed residential
development to . proceed (Certificate of Approval Application No.: CA01 -08; Resolution HAB-
01-08). The Board's approval was subsequently appealed to the City Council, where the Board's
decision was upheld upon the Council's finding that there was no merit to the appeal.
This public hearing is a result of the Board's approval in 2001 to remove Tree A. The Historical
Advisory Board approved the request with the condition that two new oak trees be planted on the
property. The Board also required the submittal of a landscaping plan for review and approval
by Board when new construction is proposed on the site. Ownership of the property changed
hands again in 2004 and the current owners have submitted a proposal to construct a single -
family residence on the site. A landscaping plan for the planting of two new Oak trees has been
prepared in conformance with Resolution HAB- 01 -08. The plans for the new construction are
currently under review by Design Review staff. Conditions of approval for the Design Review
will require protection of the existing trees per the arborist and landscape architect's
recommendations, as well as the recordation of a Landscape Maktenance Agreement to ensure
maintenance of the oak trees on the property.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The review of the subject Landscaping Plan is categorically exempt from further environmental
review pursuant to Section 15304(b) of the CEQA Guidelines — New Landscaping
III. DISCUSSION:
The applicants have secured the services of a Landscape Architect as required by the Board in
2001 to prepare a landscaping plan and recommendations for the location of the two new trees.
The proposed landscaping plan identifies two new Coast Live Oaks located in the rear yard.
The proposed trees will be located approximately fifteen feet from the rear of the proposed
building and five feet away from the rear property line. The new ten -gallon Oaks will also
maintain a separation of fourteen feet.
The applicants have also secured services of a certified arborist who has provided
recommendations for protecting the existing trees during construction.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Historic Advisory Board open the public hearing, review pertinent
information and documents, then act to approve the proposed Landscaping Plan.
G:IPLANNING\HAB\REPORTS12005\Apr pruce301_CA01 -08repert.doc
Historical Advisory Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 7, 2005
CITY OF ALAMEDA
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. HAB -05 -07
A RESOLUTION OF THE•HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
APPROVING THE LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR TWO NEW COAST LIVE OAK TREES
REQUIRED UNDER CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, CA01 -08, FOR THE REMOVAL OF ONE
COAST LIVE OAK TREE IN 2001 AT 301 SPRUCE STREET.
WHEREAS, the Historical Advisory Board approved Certificate of Approval CA01 -08 in
2001 for the removal of one coast live oak tree and required the installation of two ten -gallon Coast
Live Oak trees as part of any development project on the site; and
WHEREAS, the Historical Advisory Board required the submittal of a Landscaping Plan to be
submitted for review and approval; and
WHEREAS, Bill Wong on behalf of Property Owner Hai Ky Lam on submitted the
recommendations from a Certified Arborist on October 11, 2004 and a Landscaping Plan prepared by
a Licensed Landscape Architect on March 23, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan designation of the site is Medium Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, the parcel is located within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District;
and
WHEREAS, the Board has held a public hearing on this application on April 7, 2005 and
reviewed the proposed plan and considered all pertinent documents and testimony; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Historical Advisory Board ofthe City of Alameda
hereby finds that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, Guidelines, Section 15304(b) —
New Landscaping; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Historical Advisory Board of the City of Alameda
hereby approves the Landscaping Plan subject to the following conditions:
1. APPROVED PLANS. The planting of the two ten -gallon Coast Live Oak trees shall be
completed in substantial compliance with the landscaping plan dated March 23, 2005,
prepared by PGA Design Landscape Architects, marked as "Exhibit A ", on file in the City of
Alameda Planning and Building Department.
2. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for the development on the site, the applicants shall sign
and record with the County Recorder's Office a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the
City to ensure maintenance of the Coast Live Oak trees on the property.
HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the
applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the
subject property, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code
Section 65009(c). The City of Alameda shall cooperate promptly, notify the applicant of any claim,
action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly
notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
City.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all
of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with full
awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for this
approval to be exercised.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this
decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
The decision of the Historical Advisory Board shall be final unless appealed to the City
Council, in writing and within ten (10) days of the decision, by Notice of Appeal stating the appellant
claims that either the Board's decision is not supported by its findings or its findings are not supported
by the evidence in the record.
G :IPLANNING\HAB\RES 0120051Spruce301 _CA01- 08reso. doc
•
■•••••1111 MMMMM11•••••••••11 f
...
■t■
•••
•••
ro■
mom
t
t
OAK TREE PLACEMENT
301 Spruce Street
Alameda, CA
CERTIFIED
ARBORIST
;HRISTOPHER W. BOWEN
CERTIFIED ARBORIST
(610) 777 -1661
85 THOUSAND OAKS
OAKLAND, CA 84608
8WC -4204
CA LICENSE 8 761856
...Detailed pruning......Careful removal of trees & shrubs......Free estimates...
RECEIVED
OCT 17 2004
taKFIMiTCENTER
...Aesthetic approach...
September 14, 2004
Attention: City of Alameda Historical Advisory Board
re: Approving Certificate of approval, CA- 01 -08, 3.01 Spruce St.
4*- Aa CA 945E1 1
The property owner, Bill Wong, shall plant a minimum of two Live Oak Trees with a
minimum size of 10 gallons as part of any development of the site (see site plan for tree
placement). The two trees will be planted opposite the garage midway between the northern
facade of the proposed residence and the property line. There is a 20 -foot setback which will
allow 10 feet between the trees and the house; and 10 feet to the property line /fence.
Due to the sandy soil the two Live Oaks Trees should be planted slightly high within a
mound to allow for future settling. Two inches of compost material and two inches of mulch
should be spread around the trees in a six-foot diameter circle. A lawn is not appropriate for this
area due to the Live Oaks no summer watering once trees are established after two years of
planting. The 10 gallon or larger Live Oaks shall be staked with two wood poles for each tree
and watered two times weekly during the dry season for the first two years. Fall planting is
preferable.
The Live Oaks shall be maintained during the first three years by a landscaping
professional to ensure proper planting, watering, mulching and staking. The trees should not be
pruned during the first three years. Subsequent pruning shall be done by a certified arborist.
The property owner shall follow tree preservation and other recommendations as outlined
by the Arborist report prepared by Stephen Batchelder 15 June 2001 as part of any development
of the site. The two mature Live Oaks on the site are vulnerable to construction and site
development damage. Care must be taken when excavating the foundation to protect roots larger
than 1 inch in diameter. An airspade is recommended to reveal anchoring roots on the 42"
diameter Live Oak along 3"I Street. This tool can be obtained by hiring "Treescapes" Inc. -
Oakland. An Arborist from "Treescapes" would excavate around the Live Oak where the
foundation is to be dug to reveal anchor roots and to avoid cutting large roots over a 1" diameter.
A pier and beam foundation may be necessary to bridge over large roots after wrapping them
with burlap.
CERTIFIED
....v..�....
I WWI
Mimi, 7
IMP
-
_
• ■•11
:V
•
vs/ G-
ARBORIST
:HRISTOPHER W. BOWEN
CERTIFIED ARBORIST
(610) 7774661
88 THOUSAND OAKS
OAKLAND, CA 94605
IC -42A4
CA LICENSE S 781555
...Detailed pruning— ...Careful removal of trees & shrubs......Free estimates...
...Aesthetic approach...
- Strap hay bales to and around both mature Live Oaks
- Apply 2" compost, then 6 " mulch/wood chips and cover with 1" plywood to minimize root and
soil compaction of area around Oaks, i.e., under their dripline within 8 -20 feet of trees -as
possible.
It is recommended that the property owner secure a bond to protect the two mature Live
Oaks to protect against damage during construction and subsequent decline. This bond would
hold the builder financially responsible for damages. The larger Oak = 42" diameter = $15,000.
Bond. The 16" diameter Oak = $10,000. Bond. Be advised that after damage to these root
systems it may take 10 years for the trees to decline and possibly die.
The two mature Live Oaks ere heavily pruned to remove limbs and branches facing the
property. The trees' canopies are therefore heavy over the street and sidewalk and will require
pruning every 3 years to these branches and reduce overweight for balance and to lessen the risk
of limb failure.
Christopher Bowen
Certified Arborist
Report dated 09/14/2004
Bo vue,kv
Stephen Batchelder, Consulting Arborist
1534 Rose Street
Crockett, California 94525
State Cont. Lic. (C -27) #533675
Phone (510) 787 -3075
Fax (510) 787 -3065
Mr. HInh
10 Castlebar Place
Alameda, Ca 94502
Date: June 15, 2001
Subject: Tree Review on Potential Development Lot
Location: 301 Spruce Street, Alameda
Date of Site Visit: June 12, 200
Mr. Hinh requested an assessment for condition and viability of four trees on the lot at 301
Spruce Street, where he is considering developing the property. Prior assessment of the trees
is always advised. This report contains inspection data inspection and recommendations for
tree treatment and care.
SUMMARY
It is recommended that one, and possibly two trees, be removed prior to beginning construction
on the house. Coast Live Oaks tree #1 has suffered severe pruning and is considered to have a
negative value. It is not a good candidate for retention. The Italian Stone Pine is also
recommended for removal or possibly severe pruning. This pine tree shades two valuable
Coast Live Oak trees both recommended for retention.
TREE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION
Supplemental information has been
provided regarding care of native oak
trees on home grounds. Good
specimen oak trees are highly valued.
Photo shows Coast Live Oak tree #1,
recommended for removal. Red
arrow indicates the recent, very large
pruning wound. The remaining
portion of the tree has been previously
headed in a similar manner (large
cuts). There is no practical reason for
retaining this tree, as it will likely have
a negative value if retained.
Attachment #2, Item #2
"1
DESCRIPTION OF TREES
Tree #1 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
DBH 26 inches Health Fair to poor
Height 25 feet Structure Poor
Recommendation: Remove tree
Tree #2 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifoiia)
DBH 35 inches Health Good
Height 30 feet Structure Fair
Recommendation: Protection during construction.
Tree #3 Italian Stone Pine (Pinus oinea)
DBH 27 inches Heatth Good
Height 35 feet Structure Fair
Recommendation: Either remove or prune to allow light to the Coast Live Oak trees.
Tree #4 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifoiial
DBH 18 inches Health . Good
Height 25 feet Structure Good
Recommendation: This tree requires little_care other than protection during construction.
Photo to the right shows the
four trees described above.
This report is submitted by
Steve Batchelder, Consulting Arborist
Certified Arborist #228
CITY OF ALAMEDA
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. HAB -01 -08
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
APPROVING CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, CA- 01 -08, 301 SPRUCE STREET
WHEREAS, Hinh D. Nguyen made an application on June 28, 2001 for a Certificate of
Approval to the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree, a protected species, from his property; and
and
WHEREAS, application complete June 28, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan designation of the site is Medium Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, the parcel is located within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District;
WHEREAS, the Board has held a public hearing on this application; and
WHEREAS, the Board has made the following findings:
1. The Live Oak Tree has been severely pruned and is in very poor condition.
2. Retention of the Live Oak Tree would significantly restrict the possibility of
development of the site.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Historical Advisory Board of the City of
Alameda hereby finds that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, Guidelines, Section
Section 15304 -- replacement of existing landscaping which does not involve the removal of a
healthy tree; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Historical Advisory Board of the City of Alameda
hereby grants Certificate of Approval, CA -98 -6, subject to the following conditions:
1. The property owner shall plant a minimum of two Live Oak Tree with a minimum
size of 10 gallons as part of any development project of the site.
2. The property owner shall secure the services of a registered landscape architect to
provide advice on the best location for planting of the Live Oaks in compliance with
Condition #1.
3. The property owner shall submit the plan for locating the Live Oaks prepared by the
landscape architect to the Historical Advisory Board for review and approval.
4. The property owner shall enter into a Landscape Agreement with the City of
Alameda for a period of not less than three years from date of installation in order to
ensure the maintenance of the required replacement trees.
The property owner shall follow the recommendations of the Arborist Report,
prepared by Stephen Batchelder, dated June 15, 2001, and on file in the Planning
Department Offices, as part of any development project of the site.
6. The property owner shall record a deed restriction which would inform any
subsequent owner of the property of Conditions #1 through #5 as part of any
development approval by the City for the site. A copy of the deed restriction shall be
submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this
decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
The decision of the Historical Advisory Board shall be final unless appealed to the City
Council, in writing and within ten (10) days of the decision, by Notice of Appeal stating the appellant
claims that either the Board's decision is not supported by its findings or its findings are not supported
by the evidence in the record.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Historical Advisory Board of the City of Alameda
on the 2nd day of August 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: (5) Gill, Tilos, Jacopetti, McPherson, Brady
NOES: (0)
ABSENT: (0)
ATTEST:
Judith Altschuler, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNING\HAMES01301SPRUC.WPD
2°'-' a7O!
April 15, 2005
City Council
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190
Alameda, CA 94501
PATRICK G. LYNCH
JEANNE A. NADER
305 SPRUCE STREET
LAME0.A. CA 94501
• (51 0) 522 -2165
Reference: ..Appeal of Historical Board Resolution HAB -05 -07
301 Spruce Street
Dear Council Members:'..:....
•
We are appealing the above referenced Historical Advisory Board Resolution. Our interest in
appealing this decision is to ensure two mature Live Coast Oak Trees located on and adjacent to
301 Spruce Street are protected during the development of a single- family home. A third Live
Coast Oak tree had previously been removed from. this lot under a set of circumstances that
resulted in revisions to the Historical Preservation Ordinance to prevent other Alamedans from
sharing our disappointing experience.
The Historic Advisory Board made a finding that the project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that is not supported by the evidence considered at the
meeting. CEQA includes exceptions, when unusual circumstances exist at a project site, where
a categorical exception is not appropriate. One of these unusual circumstances is when
historical resources, in this case the two remaining Live Coast Oak Trees, ma y be adversely
impacted.
An arborist report (attached) prepared on behalf of the property owner contained a number of
measures necessary to protect the two remaining trees from mortality during site development.
Given..tl e4high potential that the. two remaining tree 'mayb'ead Verscly impacted by site'
development the Historical Advisory Board should have found that the project is not
categorically exempt from CEQA environmental review.
Sincerely
Patrick G. Lynch
Attachment: Christopher Bowen, September 14, 2004, Arborist Report
Attachment #2
CERTIFIED
.. _1
now
-
�•.. -,
.. , , .R.
Nor �r
A'wWrM.lIm 11IA= •
ARBORIST
;HRISTOPHER W. BOWEN
CERTIFIED ARBORIST
(510) 777 -1551
85 THOUSAND OAKS
OAKLAND, CA 94605
#WC-4204
CA LICENSE # 761555
...Detalled: pruniflg...,.Careful removal of trees & shrubs". —Free estimattes...
...Aesthetic approach...
- Strap hay bales to and around both mature Live Oaks
- Apply 2" compost, then 6 " mulch/wood chips and cover with 1" plywood to minimize root and
soil compaction of area around Oaks, i.e., under their dripline within 8 -20 feet of trees -as
possible.
It is recommended that the property owner secure a bond to protect the two mature Live
Oaks to protect against.darnage during construction and subsequent decline. This bond would
hold the builder financially responsible for damages. The larger Oak = 42" diameter = $15,000.
Bond. The 16" diameter Oak = $10,000. Bond. Be advised that after damage to these root
systems it may take 10 years for the trees to decline and possibly die.
The two mature Live Oaks ere heavily pruned to remove limbs and branches facing the
property. The trees' canopies are therefore heavy over the street and sidewalk and will require
pruning every 3 years to these branches and reduce overweight for balance and to lessen the risk
of limb failure.
Christopher Bowen
Certified Arborist
Report dated 09/14/2004
arw
Bo we4,1„
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior to
approval by Historical Advisory Board
2. Review of the Landscaping Plan for planting two Coast Live Oak trees (Quercus
agrifolia) on the vacant property at 301 Spruce. Street. The submittal of a Landscaping Plan
(as part of new development proposals on the site) was required as a Condition of Approval
by the Historical Advisory Board under Resolution HAB 01 -08, which approved the removal
of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001. The site is located within an R-4 Neighborhood
Residential District.
Ms. Altschuler gave a brief history of the project. In 1988, the previous owner damaged an
Oak tree through extensive trimming. The owners were required to preserve the tree despite
it being severely pruned. In 2001 the tree showed signs of deteriorating health, and the
Board approved a new owner's request to remove the damaged tree in order to allow a
proposed residential development, with the condition that two new oak trees be planted on
the property. The Board also required the submittal of a landscaping plan for review and
approval by the Board when new construction is proposed on the site. The Board's approval
was subsequently appealed to the City Council, where the Board's decision was upheld upon
the Council's finding that there was no merit to the appeal.
The applicants have secured the services of a Landscape Architect as required by the Board
in 2001 to prepare a landscaping plan and recommendations for the location of the two new
trees. The applicants have also secured services of a certified arborist who has provided
recommendations for protecting the existing trees during construction.
Board member Tilos opened the floor for public comment.
Patrick Lynch, 305 Spruce St., spoke in opposition of this project. He has several issues with
this application. He stated that the Board should be aware that the conditions contained in
CA -01 -08 have not been complied with and his requests to the City for enforcement have
been ignored. In 2002 a grading permit was issued for the development project at the site
without requiring replacement trees. He is concerned with the recent changes to Alameda's
Historical Preservation Ordinance that allows Oak Trees with a trunk diameters Less than 10"
to be removed without a Certificate of Approval. The proposed replacement trees will not
likely have trunk diameters of this size for 10 to 20 years, and could be removed at the end of
the period required for the landscape maintenance agreement. He therefore requests that the
replacement trees have a diameter greater that 10" at 4.5 ft. above the ground. He also
disagrees with staff's decision that this project is categorically exempt from the CEQA
guidelines. The tree removal together with the proposed single - family home project may
cumulatively cause additional and substantial adverse change in the condition of the
remaining oak trees.
Ms. Altschuler addressed Mr. Lynch's concerns as followed:
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting Attachment #3
i )
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior to
approval by Historical Advisory Board
1. Mr. Lynch's concern with the issuance of the grading permit does not fall under the
prevue of the Historical Advisory Board.
2. To resolve Mr. Lynch's concern regarding the size of the trunk diameters of the
replacement trees, the Board can extend the landscaping maintenance agreement to five years
and require the replacement tree to be larger than 10" diameter.
3. His issue with staff's decision that this project is exempt from CEQA guidelines do not
fall under the prevue of this Board and should be addressed during the design review process.
4. According to city records, the Certificate of Approval CA01 -08 was valid on the day the
tree was removed. The Board approved the request with the condition that two new oak trees
be planted on the property. The Board also required the submittal of a landscaping plan for
review and approval when new construction is proposed. The current owners have submitted
a proposal to construct a single - family residence on the site. A landscaping plan for the
planning of two new Oak trees has been prepared in conformance With Resolution HAB -01-
08. The plans for the new construction are currently under review by Design Review staff.
Conditions of approval for the Design Review will require protection of the existing trees per
the arborist and landscape architect's recommendations, as well as the recordation of a
Landscape Maintenance Agreement to ensure maintenance of the oak trees on the property.
Staff understands that Mr. Lynch has enjoyed living next to a vacant lot, but the owner is
entitled to develop his lot.
Ms. Altschuler advised the Board that the decision before this Board tonight is to approve the
location of the replacement trees as stated in the Landscaping Maintenance plan.
Board member Tilos opened the floor to Board discussion.
Board member Miller is in favor of extending the Landscaping Plan to 5 years. He is also in
favor of requiring the replacement trees to be bigger than a 10" diameter.
The Certified Arborist, Chris Bowen was present. He suggested that the replacement trees be
24" box, which would be close to 8 ft tall when planted. He feels this would improve the
property value.
M/S to approve the Landscaping Maintenance Plan with the following revisions: (1) Change
the replacement trees from two 10- gallon trees to two 24" box trees. (2) Extend the
Landscape Maintenance Agreement from 3 to 5 years.
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
UPHOLDING THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A LANDSCAPING
PLAN FOR PLANTING TWO COAST LIVE OAK TREES ON THE VACANT PROPERTY AT
301 SPRUCE STREET. THE SUBMITTAL OF A LANDSCAPING PLAN, AS PART OF NEW
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON THE SITE, WAS REQUIRED BY THE HISTORICAL
ADVISORY BOARD AS A CONDITION FOR THE REMOVAL OF ONE COAST LIVE OAK
TREE IN 2001. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 301 SPRUCE STREET WITHIN THE R -4,
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, in 2001 the Historical Advisory Board conditionally approved Certificate of
® } Approval CA01 -08 for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree at 301 Spruce Street and required a
c w landscaping plan to be submitted for the planting of two Coast Live Oak trees at the time
a CC development was proposed on the vacant parcel; and
O
H WHEREAS, Hai Ky Lam, property owner of 301 Spruce Street, submitted a proposal to
d construct one single - family dwelling on the property and a landscaping plan in accordance with the
Historical Advisory Board Resolution HAB- 01 -08; and
o
0
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Medium Density Residential on the
General Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning
District; and
WHEREAS, the Historical Advisory Board held a public hearing on April 7, 2005 and
considered public testimony and comments on the proposed placement of the two Coast Live Oak
trees and approved the landscaping plan; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2005 and June 21, 2005 the City Council of the City of Alameda
held a public hearing for the appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's approval and examined
pertinent documents as well as the record of the Historical Advisory Board hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the project is
Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15304(b) —
Landscaping;
NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the proposed
Landscaping Plan complies with the Historical Advisory Board's condition of approval for
Certificate of Approval CA01 -08 for planting two Coast Live Oak trees to replace one tree that was
removed in 2001;
NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council denies the appeal and upholds
the Historical Advisory Board's approval of the Landscaping Plan as required under Certificate of
Approval CA01 -08 and Historical Advisory Board Resolution HAB01 -08, subject to the following
conditions:
Resolution #5 -C
6 -21 -05
1. APPROVED PLANS. The planting of the two Coast Live Oak trees (minimum twenty -four
inch box) shall be completed in substantial compliance with the landscaping plan dated
March 23, 2005, prepared by PGA Design Landscape Architects, marked as "Exhibit A ", on
file in the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department.
2. RECORDED LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT AND BOND: Prior to issuance of Building
Permits for development on the site, the applicants shall sign and record with the County
Recorder's Office a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City. This Agreement shall
contain the recommendations set forth in arborist Christopher Bowen's report dated
September 14, 2004. As part of this Agreement, the applicants will also be required to
provide a bond (as approved by the City Attorney's Office) which ensures that: 1) the
landscaping plan dated March 23, 2005, is properly completed; and 2) that the two Coastal
Oaks are protected.
3. HOLD HARMLESS: The City of Alameda requires that the applicant, or its successors in
interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City. The City shall
promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate
in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this
decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted
and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2005, 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 , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
City of Alameda
Inter - departmental Memorandum
June 6, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming
Diagram and Assessment and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City
Landscaping & Lighting District 84 -2
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the City Council appointed the
engineer and attorney for the annual proceedings. Council has also preliminarily approved
the Engineer's Report, declared an intention to order levy and collection of assessment, and
set a hearing for June 21, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Alameda City
Hall.
DISCUSSION
The Engineer's Report provides an estimate of cost by each of the seven Zones to be
addressed for fiscal year 2005 -06. The Zones are as follows:
Zone 1:
Zone 2:
Zone 3:
Zone 4:
Zone 5:
Zone 6:
Zone 7:
Lincoln Avenue between Sherman and St. Charles Streets.
Webster Street between Central and Lincoln Avenues.
Webster Street between Lincoln and Atlantic Avenues.
Park Street from the Bridge to San Jose Ave., including areas of Webb,
Santa Clara, Lincoln and Central.
Harbor Bay Business Park.
Alameda Marina Village commercial areas.
Bay Street: 1100 and 1200 blocks.
The purpose of the assessment district is to provide for enhanced maintenance not regularly
performed by the City. A copy of the Engineer's Report is on file in the City Clerk's Office
and at all Public Library branches.
Enhanced maintenance or special projects contained in this budget are:
Zone 1: Maintenance of landscaped median in the 1100 and 1200 blocks of Lincoln Avenue;
Utilities for operating the irrigation. No increase in assessment is proposed for this Zone.
lityofAhmeda
bliCW0116t
Public Woda Wodafor Yo '
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing and
Reso 5 -D
6 -21 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
June 6, 2005
Zones 2 & 3: These two zones work together on their projects. Together they pay for general
litter and clean up of the public areas. The Business District has been working to save funds
for use in implementing the streetscape improvements of the Webster St. Renaissance project
and expects to spend these funds within this budget cycle. The maintenance cost for the
revitalized area is expected to increase in the next budget cycle. No increase in assessment
is proposed for this budget year. This Zone will be requesting a rate increase in the next
budget cycle.
Zone 4: Staff met with the Park Street Business Association to develop the proposed budget. The
budget for this Zone covers general linter and clean up of the sidewalk and public areas. This zone
will be utilizing the previous years' budget savings to assist with purchasing stylized street furniture
for the Park Street Streetscape Project. The monthly sidewalk cleaning, as well as daily litter control
managed by the Association, will continue in the present budget. No increase in assessment is
proposed for this budget year. This Zone will be requesting a rate increase in the next budget cycle.
Zone 5: The budget for this Zone is developed in conjunction with the Harbor Bay Business Park
Association. The budget covers all irrigation costs and landscape maintenance costs. All tree
trimming, sidewalk and pathway repairs, and streetlight repairs are also included. There is a CPI
adjustment in the budget as allowed by previous vote of the property owners.
Zone 6: The budget for this Zone is developed in conjunction with the Marina Village Management
group. Budget for this district covers all irrigation costs and landscape maintenance costs. It also
covers all street lighting maintenance and energy costs. All tree trimming, sidewalk repair and
pathway repair are included. No increase is proposed for this budget year.
Zone 7: The property owners have cooperatively developed a maintenance schedule for the elm trees
that allows for a $350, per year, per property assessment. The maintenance work began in Spring
2000 and continues. No increase in assessment is proposed for this Zone.
Balloting: For the 2005/06 tax year, there is no requirement for a Proposition 218 ballot.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The maintenance costs for the various zones are described in the Engineer's Report, which is also on
file with the City Clerk. Costs incurred by the City for the Engineer of Work and Attorney of
Record, are paid for by the Districts under the budget item incidental expense.
Maintenance costs for landscaping along Harbor Bay Parkway, from Doolittle Drive to Maitland
Drive, are shared between the City and the property owners within the business park, via the
assessment district. The split is one third City, two - thirds assessment district. The City's one -third
share is split between the Public Works Department and the Golf Course. The total cost for City's
off -site maintenance for fiscal year 2005 -06 is $32,929 requiring a payment of $16,464 each from
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
amine&
D�eparhnent
wnr worsW*,forYou!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
June 6, 2005
Public Works and Golf. Funds for this expense have been budgeted in the proposed FY 05 -06
budget.
Additionally, the costs to maintain Shoreline Park are shared equally between Zone 5 and the City, as
provided for in a settlement agreement. The City's share has been estimated at $15,000, which is
included in the Recreation and Park Department budget for FY 2005 -06.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council hold the Public Hearing. It is also recommended that the City
Council, by resolution, approve the Engineer's Report (as may be amended by the public hearing)
confirming diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of assessments for the Island City
Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2.
Respectfully submitted,
cr
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
MTN:MM:gc
Attachments
G:\PUBWORKS\PWADMIN\COUNCII ,\2005 \062105\FINAL LTC FOR 06 AD.DOC
%M a&
tublicWorlo
wpartment
Public Wales Wok for You!
Marge Lean
Acting ' ublic Works Coordinator
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
!!rill- J1 -CUU4 WCU U4.10 Cfl HLHIICUH PUtfL1U WUKU PHA NU. 51Uflid060t3
„rug vi LUVY VL'V Ut•1U 111 nLn11GVn rUDL1V wvnna
r nn 111J. o l U NOUDOo
r, uo
IIAD -J1 GUVY WLV UY.LV Ill RLIAIGUI7 r WVIIIW I" 1111 I7V. JLUPWJOVO f. UY
•
tour,! -Guu4 WCU V4.10 rtt I1Lri11CU11 ruDLIt, MAW CINA !Rh D1U14V0000
r. u0
l lnn_ J 1 "GUUY WLV V4.10 rl l 11Lrn icijn r UDL l li WUlil10
rnn !u. 010f400000
r. U0
tam J 1 LUUY nu ./ U 1 1 J 1 11 FILI1I LL:U17 1 UUL 1 U 11VL%RJ
11111 11V. J1 1J 1YJJUUU
1L7R- 0 I -GVUY WLV VY•GU [11 nLnhIG!!t1 FUDL14 WVISRJ
rr1A !iV. V I V f YOUOU0
r. VO
lu Ala va I_VV'T nl.✓ VZ•LA/ 111 /Il.I111L✓II I VLLIV PIVIINJ 1'C111 11V. :J1V1`*OUDOO
•
,rl
ZO
c
C. u
a 22211 V1 LVV• .2LY V'i• LV 212 :ll.l 22 IL.2/11 2 VYL11 I2VI•11V
■
21211 IIVI V1V 1TVVVVV 2. 1V
•
i
•
rL
11• �•
1,4... --a d io1a.ibiGNK'-ti
�.w.a• rr.w -..
.mss.. -� -c• r.• •-.- a . -•�•- sr
o ,.
. 0
. .»
: as
fi
..4::.411211
ratty
C- H'f'C ►G
s sw
•
•
• • U.
4. a%
. 1.
IYILL Vi LVVT •Lf/ VT•L1 114 ILA 111L4/11 1 VLLSV AVI111V
•
1 SUL 11V1 VLVITVVVVV
1 I 1
• 3 ±•
•
us: -a
9Y--: I
.s3
e*
f
k4 Ica
7/. •SC
1
1"m1-aa1 �ce3 -rs
iN
1
1
i£ 7u_
tt
ZI 'd B98SOLOI5 '0N Kdd
r'=
SA1OCI OIlH ld VQ3Wd1d Wd IZ: VO 43M 1700Z- 1£ -IUM
ATTORNEY
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND
ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS, ISLAND
CITY LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING DISTRICT 84 -2
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 13815 a resolution directing preparation of
Annual Report for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2, this Council designated
the City Engineer, as Engineer of Work and ordered said Engineer of Work to make and file a
report in writing in accordance with and pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972;
and
WHEREAS, the report was duly made and filed with the City Clerk and duly
considered by this Council and found to be sufficient in every particular, whereupon it was
determined that the report should stand as the Engineer's Report for all subsequent proceedings
under and pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, and that on Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at the hour of
7:30 o'clock p.m., in the regular meeting place of this Council, Council Chambers, Alameda City
Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, was appointed as the time and place for a
hearing by this Council on the question of the levy of the proposed assessment, notice of which
hearing was duly and regularly published; and
WHEREAS, at the appointed time and place the hearing was duly and regularly
held, and all persons interested, desiring to be heard, were given an opportunity to be heard, and
all matters and things pertaining to the levy were fully heard and considered by this Council, and
all oral statements and all written protests or communications were duly heard, considered and
overruled, and this Council thereby acquired jurisdiction to order the levy and the confirmation
of the diagram and assessment prepared by and made a part of the Engineer's Report to pay the
costs and expenses thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that:
1. No vote of the property owners is required because proposed increases are
allowed based on previous approval of the property owners owning more than fifty percent
(50 %) of the area of assessable lands within the District.
2. The public interest, convenience and necessity require that the levy be made.
3. The District benefited by the improvements are to be assessed to pay the costs and
expenses thereof, and the exterior boundaries thereof, are as shown by a map thereof filed in the
office of the City Clerk, which map is made a part hereof by reference thereto.
4. The Engineer's Report as a whole and each part thereof to whit:
(a) the Engineer of Work's estimate of the itemized and total costs and
expenses of maintaining the improvements and of the incidental expenses in connection
therewith;
Resolution #5 -D
6 -21 -05
(b) the diagram showing the assessment district, plans and specification for
the improvements to be maintained and the boundaries and dimensions of the respective lots and
parcels of land within the District; and
(c) the assessment of the total amount of the cost and expenses of the
proposed maintenance of the improvements upon the several lots and parcels of land in the
District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots and parcels,
respectively, from the maintenance, and of the expenses incidental thereto; is finally approve and
confirmed.
5. Final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans
and specifications, the estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram and the assessment, as
contained in the report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, shall refer and apply to the
report, or any portion thereof, as amended, modified, or revised or corrected by, or pursuant to
and in accordance with, any resolution or order, if any, heretofore duly adopted or made by this
Council.
6. The assessment to pay the costs and expenses of the maintenance of the
improvements is hereby levied. For further particulars pursuant to the provisions of the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, reference is hereby made to the Resolution directing
preparation of Annual Report.
7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, including the Engineer's Report,
offered and received at he hearing, this Council expressly finds and determines (a) that each of
the several lots and parcels of land will be specially benefited by the maintenance of the
improvements at least in the amount, if not more than the amount, of the assessment apportioned
against the lots and parcels of land, respectively, and (b) that there is substantial evidence to
support, and the weight of the evidence preponderates in favor of, the aforesaid findings and
determination as to special benefits.
8. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, but in no event later than the
third Monday in August following such adoption, the City Clerk shall file a certified copy of the
diagram and assessment and a certified copy of this resolution with the Auditor of the County of
Alameda. Upon such filing, the County Auditor shall enter on the County assessment roll
opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown in the
assessment roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown
in the assessment. The assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner
as County taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of
County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments. After collection
by the County of Alameda, the net amount of the assessments, after deduction of any
compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the Director of Finance of this City.
9. Upon receipt of moneys representing assessments collected by the County, the
Director of Finance of this City of Alameda shall deposit the moneys in the City Treasury to the
credit of an improvement fund, which improvement fund the Director of Finance of this City is
hereby directed to establish under the distinctive designation of the District. Moneys in the
improvement fund shall be expended upon for the maintenance of the improvements.
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
21St day of June, 2005, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this day of 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 6, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram
and Assessment and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01
(Marina Cove)
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972, the City Council appointed the engineer and
attorney for the annual proceedings. Council has also preliminarily approved the Engineer's Report,
declared an intention to order levy and collection of assessment, and set a hearing for June 21, 2005
at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Alameda City Hall. The District was formed as a
condition for development of Tract 7170 that required the developer to have a funding mechanism
for maintaining the required public improvements.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
This district budget covers the maintenance costs for the all improvements within the public right of
way. A copy of the Engineer's Report is on file in the City Clerk's office. The maintenance costs
for the improvements were initially determined in conjunction with the developer, utilizing standard
costs for work. Costs are spread to the parcels by a per square foot basis.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund. Any costs associated with the annual proceedings will be
reimbursed by the District.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Not applicable.
6tyofAlnrda
blic Works
Public Woks Works for You!
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing and
Reso 5 -E
6 -21 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
May 25, 2005
It is recommended that the Council hold the Public Hearing. It is also recommended that the City
Council, by resolution, approve the Engineer's Report confirming diagram and assessment, and
ordering the levy of assessments for the Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01 (Marina Cove).
MTN:MM:gc
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Margaret . McLean
Acting Pu • lc Works Coordinator
G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN\COUNCIL\2005 \062105\FINAL MAD FOR 05- 06.DOC
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
61rdd4mede
tublicWorks
ma tment
Public Works Works for You!
E
0
0
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ORDERING THE FORMATION OF A MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT, CITY OF
ALAMEDA MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 01 -01
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13816,
Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for City of Alameda Maintenance District 01 -01, and
directed said Engineer to prepare a written report; and
>- WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the City Clerk and was
zpresented to the City Council for consideration; and
cc
WHEREAS, said Council considered said report and each and every part hereof and
�-- - found that it contained all the matters and things called for by the provisions of said Code and said
Resolution No. 13416, including (1) plans and specifications of the existing improvements and
W proposed improvements, (2) estimate of costs (3) diagram of the district, and (4) an assessment
0 according to the benefits, all of which was done in the form and manner required by such Code; and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the report should stand as the Engineer's Report
for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, and that on Tuesday,
June 21, 2005, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., in the regular meeting place of this Council, Council
Chambers, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, was appointed as the
time and place for a hearing of protests in relation to the formation of a maintenance assessment
district pursuant to the City of Alameda Maintenance Procedure Code, to said proposed
improvements and the levy of the proposed assessment; and
WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearings were duly and regularly published
and mailed in the time, form and manner required by said Code, as evidence by the affidavits and
certificates on file with said City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, persons interested in objecting to the formation of said maintenance
assessment district, or of said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both,.
Thereof, or to the extent of the maintenance assessment district, or any zones therein, or to the
proposed assessment or diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, were given an
opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to the levy were fully heard and
considered by this Council, and all oral statements and all written protests or communications were -
duly heard, considered and overruled, and this Council thereby acquired jurisdiction to order the levy
and the confirmation of the diagram and assessment prepared by and made a part of the Engineer's
Report to pay the costs and expenses thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that:
1. The property owners owning more than fifty percent (50 %) of the area of
assessable lands within the District had not, at the conclusion of the hearing, filed written protests
Resolution #5 -E
6 -21 -05
against the proposed levy, as a whole or as to any part thereof, or against the District or the extent
thereof to be assessed for the costs and expenses of the levy as a whole, or as to any part thereof, or
against the Engineer of Work's estimate of costs and expenses, in whole or in part, or against the
maps and description, in whole or in part, or against the diagram or the assessment to pay for the
costs and expenses thereof, in whole or in part.
2. The public interest, convenience and necessity require that the levy be made.
3. The District benefited by the improvements is to be assessed for said costs for
the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both,
thereof, are situated in the City of Alameda, California, the exterior boundaries thereof, are as shown
by a map thereof filed in the office of the City Clerk, which map is made a part hereof by reference
thereto.
4. That said district be, and is hereby designated as "City of Alameda
Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01" by which name it shall hereafter be referred to in all
subsequent proceedings, including proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments.
5. The Engineer's Report as a whole and each part thereof, to whit:
(a) the Engineer of Work's estimate of the itemized and total costs and
expenses of maintaining the improvements and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith;
(b) the diagram showing the assessment district, plans and specification
for the improvements to be maintained and the boundaries and dimensions of the respective lots and
parcels of land within the District; and
(c) the assessment of the total amount of the cost and expenses of the
proposed maintenance of the improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in the District in
proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots and parcels, respectively, from said
improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of the expenses
incidental thereto, is finally approved and confirmed.
6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, including the Engineer's Report,
offered and received at the hearing, this Council expressly finds and determines (a) that each of the
several lots and parcels of land will be specially benefited by the maintenance of the improvements
at least in the amount, if not more than the amount, of the assessment apportioned against the lots
and parcels of land, respectively, and (b) that there is substantial evidence to support, and the weight
of the evidence preponderates in favor of, the aforesaid findings and determination as to special
benefits.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, but in no event later than the third
Monday in August following such adoption, the City Clerk shall file a certified copy of the diagram
and assessment and a certified copy of this resolution with the Auditor of the County of Alameda.
Upon such filing, the County Auditor shall enter on the County assessment roll opposite each lot or
parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown in the assessment roll opposite each lot
or parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown in the assessment. The assessments
shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected, and all
laws providing for the collection and enforcement of County taxes shall apply to the collection and
enforcement of the assessments. After collection by the County of Alameda, the net amount of the
assessments, after deduction of any compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the
Director of Finance of this City.
8. Upon receipt of moneys representing assessments collected by the County, the
Director of Finance of this City of Alameda shall deposit the moneys in the City Treasury to the
credit of an improvement fund, which improvement fund the Director of Finance of this City is
hereby directed to establish under the distinctive designation of the District. Moneys in the
improvement fund shall be expended upon for the maintenance of the improvements.
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 21st
day of June, 2005, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this
day of 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 15, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Collection of Delinquent
Integrated Waste Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills
BACKGROUND
The State Public Resources Code and Health and Safety Code require proper disposal of all refuse
and discards. To maintain these required public health standards, the City of Alameda's Solid Waste
and Recycling Ordinance requires all residential and commercial properties to receive and pay for
Integrated Waste Management (IWM) services, as provided by the City's Franchise Hauler, Alameda
County Industries (ACI). Collection services may be paid by the property owner or a tenant;
however, since 1996, the City has held property owners responsible for delinquent accounts that are
unpaid by their tenant.
In accordance with Chapter XXI, Solid Waste and Recycling, of the Alameda Municipal Code
(AMC) and the Franchise Agreement between the City of Alameda and Alameda County Industries
(ACI), ACI is obligated to make at least four (4) attempts to collect from delinquent IWM accounts,
after which time, ACI may assign its rights to the City. Following the assignment, City may then
send a letter to each assigned account requesting payment, and if payment is not promptly received,
the City may consider the collection of delinquent accounts by means of the property tax bills. The
City Council is required to hold a Public Hearing prior to collecting through the property tax bills.
On June 7, 2005, the City Council set June 21, 2005 as the date for this Public Hearing.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
On March 22, 2005, ACI, in accordance with the AMC and their Franchise Agreement, assigned a
list of delinquent IWM accounts to the City for collection by placing a lein. In accordance with the
AMC, the City sent letters to each assigned account requesting payment, stating that if payment is
not promptly received, the City will consider collecting delinquent accounts by means of the property
tax bills at a Public Hearing on June 21, 2005. The City is obligated to pay ACI for all delinquent
accounts. Accounts that remain delinquent and are not approved for collection through the property
tax bills are considered "bad debt" and will be included in the next rate review (commencing July 1,
2007), potentially resulting in an increase in the rates.
aalN.tr
biicWorks
Public Itiviefir
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing and
Reso 5 -F
6 -21 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
June 15, 2005
Page 2
With adoption of the Resolution by the City Council, delinquent charges shall constitute a lien
against the property. The total sum of unpaid delinquent charges consisting of the unpaid charges,
penalties, simple interest, and any fees to recover staff costs (hereinafter "Collection Fees ") will be
forwarded to the County Auditor and placed on the property tax bills.
The AMC provides that delinquent IWM charges shall become a lien on the real property at which
the service is received. There are 73 active accounts that have not been paid as of March 15, 2005
for the services received. This includes 19 rental unit properties, 53 single - family residences and 1
commercial/business account. The total amount due for this group of non -paid accounts, not
including Collection Fees, is $44,353.11. ACI has made numerous attempts to collect the balances
due per the methodology specified in the Franchise Agreement; however, the accounts remain
delinquent. ACI has provided all requisite documentation so that the City Council may conduct the
Public Hearing. A list of delinquent accounts and corresponding properties (see Attachment) is on
file in the City Clerk's Office. The City sent notification letters to all affected tenants and property
owners advising them of the public hearing and requesting their immediate payment of delinquent
bills by 5:00 p.m. June 21, 2005. If payment is received, these names will be removed from the list
considered by Council at the Public Hearing.
As stated previously, while collection services may be paid by the property owner or a tenant, since
1996, the City has held property owners responsible for delinquent accounts that are unpaid by their
tenant. There are 19 accounts associated with rental unit properties that are delinquent. In each case,
the property owner has been notified by ACI that their tenant is delinquent and advised that they are
ultimately responsible for payment of the IWM account.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City receives a 10% franchise fee from ACI. This revenue is deposited in the General Fund.
Unpaid IWM fees, therefore, result in a loss in General Fund revenues. The total amount due for this
group of non -paid accounts, not including City fees, is $44,353.11. The loss in General Fund
revenue is approximately $4,435.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
The City's Integrated Waste Management Program is consistent with the General Plan Health &
Safety Element Guiding Policy 8.4.k.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
aa1
blkWods
Public Wm*, for You!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
June 15, 2005
Page 3
The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, open the public hearing and
adopt the resolution authorizing collection of delinquent Integrated Waste Management accounts by
means of the property tax bills.
Respectfully ubmiffed,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
tatAia- Ney45
By: Maria DiMeglio
Program Specialist II
MTN:MD:gc
Attachment
G:\PUB WORKS\ pwadmin\ COUNCIL\2005 \062105\hearingwaste - final.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Gry Aimed'
tubIi(Works
Department
Pua• Works w„ for You!
ACI Property Owner Lien List - June 1, 2005
NT
C
G
E
0
❑
N
O1
N
oO
O
O
M
1D
00
-+
N
N
00
00
O
-•
N
01
7
Vl
-•
M
V
00
Vl
01
V
.M.
—
N
N
00
00
V
7
er
h
.4.
10
O1
M
-.
N
N
00
00
O
N
1D
0\
M
7
01
4
N
01
vs
h
-•
N
N
O
-
10
0
N
N
10
--�
00
01
N
00
01
-.
N
N
00
00
N
N
CO
00
M
h
O
V1
00
M
00
N
�
Vl
h
0
N
b
N
O
0
10
0
10
N
00
01
V
7
00
10
00
V)
01
N
7
st
0
<r
01
0
O\
-.
N
ON
00
01
Ol
00
O1
01
0,
V)
V)
sr
M
VD
0-
01
N
Os
R
ON
'0
..
00
10
00
r-
•--i
01
00
-.
10
00
00
Ni
01
10
N
O
01
01
00
M
0'
01
10
N
00
of
V1
IN
0
-.
W
0)
0)
k"
10
sr
4
10
sr .
V
b
V
7
10
V
7
10
7
V
10
4
4
10
4
7
10
V
v
b
7
v
b
7
7
10
V
7
10
'd.
7
10
7
a
10
7
V
10
7
d'
10
V
10
7
7
10
.
V
10
sr
4
10
V
4
10
sr
V
10
7
4
10
.
7
10
V'
4
10
'd.
v
10
V
4
10
sr
7
10
sr
7
10
V.
4
'0
7
a
10
4
l0
V
a
10
V
4
10
.
V
10
.
7
10
C'
7
10
sr
7
C
O
()
1
N
M
1
N
M
V1
N
M
vl
N
M
V1
N
M
V1
N
M
Vl
N
M
11
N
M
V1
N
M
111
N
M
Vl
N
M
Vl
N
M
Vl
N
M
V1
N
M
01
N
M
01
N
M
V1
N
M
01
N
M
01
N
M
01
N
M
01
N
M
01
N
M
01
N
M
41
OV
M
V1
N
M
Vl
N
M
Vl
N
M
Vl
N
M
V1
N
M
V1
Ni
M
V1
N
M
01
N
M
01
N
M
V1
N
M
V1
N
M
vl
fV
M
vl
N
M
.1
10
CO
-
4-
00
S
0
7
10
00
o
V
,--.
O
vl
0l
M
N
N
O1
O
7
N
1D
00
N:
7
'0
O
O
R
vl
co
O
N
10
00
o
V
01
M
O
N
h
M
00
M
7
N
O
s.
,.
vl
N
M
7
N
M
10
M
ON
O
M
10
00
o:
7
10
00
N:
sr
00
O
16
V
01
O
N
N
vl
10
N:
M
0
O■
.-.
M
M
sr
01
V
S
10
16
M
R
N
N
N
M
O
O
N
_
O
01
1D
O1
1.i
h
er
S
en
N
o:
N
10
N
o
M
10
V
N
7
S
Vi
10
10
00
o
N
7
M
-
M
01
N
t--:
M
O
10
O
d'
U
d
N.
N0
7
N
-.
10
01
h
h
st
s
N:
6
N"
00
^.
Vi
M
00
00
V1
N
o
M
00
00
7
M
.N.
01
N�
N"
01
N.
V'
l�
S
1D
10
00
-.
01
M
M
sr
h
N.
O1
S
sr
N
O1
M
M
10
01
6
M
1p
O
IN
O
.S.
0
0;
-.
7
01
V1
M
N
10
0
V'
V
0;
-•
V1
et
S
N�
O1
IN
sr
IN
o
01
0
sl.
O
00
10
0-
en
00
10
M
O1
7
to:
N
10
10
S
--
M
01
1D
01
O
V
S
N.
-.
-+
-.
1O
M
IN
O
S
M
h
N
M
00
01
00
.-.
01
M
00
..
V
Oi
01
00
b
01
01
M
—
O1
4--
vl
V
V1
O
-.
N
10
7
h
S
0
N
en
lD
00
O
as
M
V
10
V
-.
M
N
N
V1
00
V
N
1D
10
1D
10
N�
10
2nd Notice
April 12, 2004
1 April 12, 2004
April 12, 2004
April 12, 2004
1 June 16, 2004
April 12, 2004
April 12, 2004
1
April 12, 2004
June 16, 2004
April 12, 2004
April 13, 2004
June 16, 2004
1November 22, 2004
June 16, 2004
December 14, 2004
June 17, 2004
April 13, 2004
April 13, 2004
April 13, 2004
v
o
O
N
vi
0.
d
V
o
o
N
vi
.0.
d
1 June 17, 2004
R
O
O
N
vi
0.
d
1 June 17, 2004
June 17, 2004
1 April 15, 2004
0 O
O
N
er
0.
d
April 15, 2004
April 15, 2004
April 15, 2004
April 20, 2004
April 20„ 2004
April20,2004
April 20, 2004
April 20, 2004
June 17, 2004
April 21, 2004
1 1st Notice
March 17, 2004
March 17, 2004
March 17, 2004
March 17, 2004
May 20, 2004
I March 17, 2004
March 17, 2004
March 17, 2004
May 20, 2004
March 17, 2004
March 17, 2004
! May 20, 2004
September 13, 2004
May 20, 2004
-1September 10, 2004
1 May 20, 2004
March 17, 2004
March 18, 2004
1 March 18, 2004
1 March 18, 2004 E
March 18, 2004
May 20, 2004
March 18, 2004
1 May 20, 2004
May 20, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004 1
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
[ May 20, 2004
March 18, 2004
Service Address
3127 Bayo Vista
2821 Bayview Drive
1641 Broadway
[779 Buena Vista Avenue
1534 Buena Vista Avenue
1715 Buena Vista Avenue #
11722 Buena Vista Avenue
1730 Buena Vista Avenue
11303 Caroline Street
1227 Central Avenue
1501 -1503 Central Avenue
1617 Central Avenue
214 Centre Court
1808 Chapin Street
1224 Chestnut Street
'1207 College Avenue
1239 College Avenue
124 Cork Road
11 Damon Court
1019 Eagle Avenue
1809 Elm Street -Upper
2040 Encinal Avenue #B
2121 Encinal Avenue
506 Fitchburg Avenue
1557 Fourth Street
630 Haight Avenue
1025 Island Drive
1714 Jay Street
147 Justin Circle
421 Kitty Hawk Road
3016 Lincoln Avenue
114 Maitland Drive
1514 Mintum Street
1816 Mintum Street
1304 Ninth Street
1624 Ninth Street
550 Pacific Avenue
Zip
O
ON
94501 -6347
94501 -3053
94501 -2115
01
N
.-.
0
V'
01
0
N
0
7
01
01
N
.-.
0
01
01
194501 -1269
01
01
M
O
V
0`
194501 -3245
94501-2425
0
V
01
N
0
V,
7
01
94501 -1107
94501
.M.
V
V
0
7
01
0
7
01
94502 -7705
94502 -6542
94501 -1110
94501 -1424
.�-,
7
O
7
ON
94501 -4321
94502 -6755
94501 -3883
94501 -3310
94502 -6951
94501 -1233
N
0
7
01
N1
M
100
—
0
ell
7
01
94501 -3134
NI
N
'0
CV
0
VI
7
01
-.
N
0
01
94501 -1211
94501 -3954
94501
94501 -2125
Nn
U
0
U
U
0
U
0
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
(.)
U
0
0
0
U
0
U
0
0
U
0
(..)
U
0
U
0
U
0
0
U
0
«
U
N
e0
((4
<
ed
0
N
d
eel
C0C
5Fd
d
eel
00))
ecd
d
eel
0
(44
d
ed
0
E
d
ed
0)
E
d
ed
0
E
d
(4
N
E
d
eel
4c)
(Fd
d
eel
G0�)
e^G4
d
of
c0
(0
d
ed
0
.
d
(4
0
a
d
eel
0
((4
d
e0
C0
e^cd
d
e0
0
(4
d
ed
-0
(4
d
ed
0)
(4
d
ed
C0
E
d
ed
0
E
d
eel
0
(Gd
d
N
0
(4
d
ed
0
E
d
ed
E
eel
d
eel
c0c
eel
d
ed
0
N
d
(4
-0
(0
d
ed
C0C
eFd
d
ed
0
E
d
0
0
(4
d
(0
0
E
d
ed
c0
G0
d
to
0
(4
d
(4
0
E
d
ed
0
N
d
ed
0
N
d
Street Name
1Bayo Vista
Bayview Drive
Broadway
Buena Vista Avenue
Buena Vista Avenue
Buena Vista Avenue #.
Buena Vista Avenue
Buena Vista Avenue
Caroline Street
Central Avenue
Central Avenue
Central Avenue
Centre Court
Chapin Street
San Antonio Avenue
College Avenue
College Avenue
Cork Road
Damon Court
Eagle Avenue
Elm Street
Encinal Avenue #B
Encinal Avenue
Fitchburg Avenue
Fourth Street
Haight Avenue 1
0)
❑
0
Jay Street
Justin Circle
Kitty Hawk Road
Lincoln Avenue
Maitland Drive
Mintum Street
Mintum Street
Ninth Street
Ninth Street
Pacific Avenue
#
I�
CI
M
-.
N
CO
N
-.
7
1D
01
N�
N`
01
M
01
tel
-.
IN
N
N
N—
co
M
N-
M
0
M
No
N
N
M
0
01
..
N0
10
7
N
00
0
00
.-+
co
0
CV
s
0
CV
as
M
.N.
7
.N.
-.
01
0
—
O1
0
00
..
O
7
O
N
N
..
N
1D
O
V1
0-
0'1
01
_..
0
M
10
01
N
0
sr
h
.-.
l-
sr
-.
Ni
<r
10
O
M
er
^
�
01
..
10
00
..
V
OM
7
VD
0
011
Property Owner Name
!Arlene D. Ameigh
Cynthia Margulis
Heung S. Song
Elbia Gomez
Marc Marmor
Dorothy Benson
Napolean T. Pena
Pamela Jones
Graham Clayton III
Nickolas Ramirez
Alice Wheless
John M. Doherty
Nancy Schlegel
John Kaso
Thomas Gorman, Family Trust
Joseph Willis
Carl Arada
Roxanne M. Clement
Karon Hopkins
Annette M. Wilson
Sofia V. Carp
Daniel Curran
Eleanor MacDonnell
Jerry Johnson
Cathleen Borensztein
Colleen Anderson
Michael Miterko
Nancy L. Estigoy
Robyn Valdes
Adelbert C. Scoville
Catherine Douat
Hossein Khalaji 1
Sheila Riach
Richard P. Vargas
James R. Hopping 7
Victoria J. Valledor
0)
O
O
a
Acct #
89234 1
2625788
165274
177187
00
01
OMO
-.
01
01
0'-
..
187218
187874
00
0
N
N
1757304
2467728
2707729
4495118
2236412
332491
382145
3105215
393074
429227
450030
"•
as
M
'n
N
4490601
00
b
00
O�
4845837
2081761
681277
753364
01
o0
n
772637
788281
897452
918750
2292325
M
O
V1
001
^
C4
M
O
01
O
N
(01
00
1084038
APN #
069 - 0120 -014
074 -1185 -073
070 - 0168 -014
073 - 0412 -019
072 - 0355 -004
072- 0295 -007
072 - 0297 -001
072 - 0297 -003
M
0
01
O
S
ON
M
O
M
0
0
Q
0
00
10
V
0
V
0
0
0
O
M
7
M
0
N
S.
0
1D
O
N`
--
M
O
N
0
0
01
0
N
M
M
-•
V
0
0
�
0
0'1
00
M
0
A
0
0
N
0
10
sr
N
0
0
O
.—
O
d'
MM.
..
0
Ql
10
O
01
O
7
O
01
10
0
.M.
N
N
M
-.
0-
0
0
N
O
10
M
.M.
7
0
0
00
O
V1
N
R
O
0-
0
0
01
O
11
N
N
O
0
0
0t
O
01
d'
N
O
0
0
ON
O
N
M
N
O
l.-
O
O1
9
N
0
0
N
0
V
0
0
.-.
0
4
10
R
0
7
0
O
00
O
00
N
R
0
0-
0
0
.-.
O
O
N-
0
er
0
0
001 ■
O
V1
V1
M
O
N
O
0
00
O
N-
N
M
-•
V
0
0
00
0
O
N
..
4
0
0
V
0
00
01
O
co
01
1D
0
vl
0
10
M
0
-•
7
0
0
01
O
O
M
co
N
0
O
—
O
.0..
O
er
O1
N
O
N
0
0
M
O
00
01
M
co
to
IN
0
-.
O
N_
O
o0
0
V
O
M
0
0
O
N`
M
V'
O
R
0
0
^1
N
M
R
01
1D
N`
00
01
0
-.
N
M
V
h
10
S
00
01
O
N
.-.
N
N
N
M
N
<r
N
01
N
10
N
h
N
00
N
01
N
O
M
-.
M
N
M
M
M
sr
M
01
M
10
M
0-
M
ACI Property Owner Lien List - June 1, 2005
C
C
r
Q
1O
et
M
O
et
00
V
Vi
N
00
S
Cl
rn
V1
L-
et
CO
et
t
N
VI
r
r'1
N
S
0)
et
VI
00
V1
et
o
l�
N
00
^
o
Vi
00
00
00
0■
ON
C.
O
O
O
00
O
01
N
NO
t+l
01
ON
00
....
00
0
e
N
et
01
Vi
NO
01
N
N
01
rn
Cl
N
CO
N
tel
00
V
Cl
ao
0
—
W
NO
et
00
0
V
00
0
V
00
NO
V
00
VD
Cr
00
0
et
00
l0
et
et
'0
el-
et
.0
et
00
lO
et
00
.0
C
00
'0
et
4
.0
et
00
.0
et
00
l0
et
00
l0
7
00
00
m
b
rrl
N
E
Vl
fV
to
Vl
N
00
V1
N
rn
V1
N
00
V1
N
00
V1
N
00
0)
rV
00
V1
N
rn
V1
N
fn
VI
N
en
VI
N
to
VI
N
rr)
11
N
00
Vl
N
00
V1
N
re)
V1
N
en
VI
O\
0
l�,
l'n
E.
0
l0
!\
O
N
00
10
et
00
!`
VI
O
et
0
O
O
et
et
41
V1
.--.
N
00
-
00
00
rn
N
et
l`
rn
NO
S
l0
M
0
--.
M
00
CO
le
M
et
V1
l\
00
a
00
M
et
et
0)
—
N
O
b
fJ
V)
00
00
00
01
el:
00
Ol
0
Q
ON
O
0
et
00
N
N
00
et
s
ON
O
1p
00
10
et
00
10
10
00
01
00
V1
N
00
!`
M
ee
NO
CO
00
01
tel
VI
M
si
10
O
00
t`
-.
NO
01
M
01
00
ee
NO
01
N
1.
et
VI
rV
-.
00
et
V1
O
00
00
0
Vi
10
rn
O
S
10
00
00
tel
V1
Vi
00
N
NO
00
00
---i
01
N
00
2nd Notice
April 21, 2004
April 21, 2004
April 21, 2004
November 22, 2004
November 22, 2004
April 22, 2004
November 22, 2004
October 19, 2004
April 22, 2004
April 22, 2004
January 11, 2005
April 22, 2004
April 22, 2004
April 22, 2004
April 22, 2004
1November 22, 2004
- l
I st Notice
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
September 10, 2004
September 13, 2004
March 18, 2004
September 13, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
Service Address -
1430 Parts Street
992 Post Street
11 Redondo Court
1260 St. Charles Street
2212 San Jose Avenue
11149 Sand Beach Place
546 Santa Clara Avenue
1552 Santa Clara Avenue
6 Shannon Circle
3422 Solomon Lane
585 Tanyton Isle
1015 Taylor Avenue
3437 Tonga Lane
1741 Versailles Avenue
2609 Washington Street
636 Windemere Isle
Zip
94501-2533
94501 -1136
94501 -3924
0
01
00
ON
V1
0
ON
0
ON
.v-1 -,
01
1O
0
ON
N
00
ij
N
0
0)
94502 -7047
94501
94501
0
0
00
N
0
ON
0 N
1100 rn
V1
0 0
ON 01
Vl
O1
NO
0
01
00
U
U U U
U
U
U
U
U
U 0 0
0
0 0
0
Y
U
aim
v
0
0)
R
N 0
-0 v 0
0 0) 0
0a 00 00
d¢¢
0)
v
0)
0)
d
0
no
0)
n
d
m
0
0
00
Q
0 7
-0
0
00)
6
0
v
0
0)
Q
00 0 0
v v v
0 0) 0
0) 0) 0)
Q¢¢
as
v
0
0)
d
O 0
v'0
0) 0)
002 0)
d d
0Y
.0
0
00)
Q
Street Name
Paru Street
Post Street
Redondo Court
St. Charles Street
Fairway Place
Sand Beach Place
Santa Clara Avenue
[Windemere Isle
Shannon Circle
Solomon Lane
Tarryton Isle
Taylor Avenue
Tonga Lane
Versailles Avenue
Washington Street
Windemere Isle
It
-
0
M
'
N .--. 0
01 b
ON 00
et
et
01
00
ee
10
00
VI
1D
rn
NO
b
N VI V1
N CO -+
et VI 0
n
l�
00
et
M
0)
00 O
0 1D
N
10
en
10
Property Owner Name
•
Leo H. Beaulieu
Jean L. Stang
Mary IJlman
Akiba D. Pedro
Wanda Trujillo
Alice Schaefer
Michael Shelly
Cynthia Ridenour
Lisa D. Saraspi
Robert Hines
Antero Caillaux
Nancy Barnettmoore
Kimberlee Burke
Ignacio Lastra
James A. Brown
Cynthia Ridenour
00
U
Q
N
01
S
0
-
1213201
1236280
2931658
1327611
1344234
NO
01
ON
V1
r0rt
—
1844988
1445970
1493213
2963662
1551035
2077032
1624296
1647189
1691457
00
r')
CI
0
l�
en
O
CV
00
0
O
0)
O
O
0)
—
0
o
01
0
O
10
ON
0
et
'R
en
-,
el-
00
o
00
00
0
N
00
M
o
CV
00
0
N
tel
0
A
N
O
-,
00
0
00
et
0
O
00
N
--
et
00
0
0
et
0
N
Cr
et
o
et
00
O
rn
0
0
N
r)
rn
o
N
00
o
N
1p
N
0'1
--1
et
n
0
01 01
et N
0 0
A 00
tel N
O M
-r —,
00 of
00- S
0 0
N
..+
0
01
tel
o
00
00
O
0
00
0
rn
rn
0
-�
et
00
o
00
N
0
00
et
-+
o
O
00
0
ee
0
0
1p
rn
0
o
01
10
0
el-
00
0
V1
00
N
--o
of
00
0
CO
M
0)
tel
0
00
00
N
et
r'1
et
et
et
V1
et
NO
et
� 00
Cr 00
00
et
0
00
VI
N
V1
tel
V1
ACI Property Owner With Tenant Lien List - June 2, 2005
0
£.
d
Due
237.87
420.21
882.21
00
b
809.721
M
01
0
V1
495.351
.-.
N
000
CO
V1
CO
0
10
N
01
N
N
10
Cl
01
N
.•
V1
'0
V1
.-.
M
O
Vw
^
00
M
0
10
S
0
O
V1
414.491
.-.
N
00
10
0
N
fV
Cr, 0
VD
00
O
CO
610.171
12,853.87
N
CO
eV
000
10
M
S
10
1Q
ON
V'
00
• ❑
w
y
w
10
V'
V'
10
•
V'
10
7
4
0,
Cr
7
10
R
V'
10
V'
V'
10
cr
V'
0
7
V'
10
V'
R
10
V'
V'
10
V'
V'
10
Cr
V'
0
Cr
d:
b
V:
d•
10
V'
V•
0
V'
cP
10
V'
V'
0
V:
V
10
V'
V'
0
••
V'
O
N
01
00
00
M
10
M
N
CO
VI
V1
N
01
O
Q
Vl
en
V1
N
en
Vl
N
V1
N
VI
N
VI
N
M
V1
N
V1
N
V1
N
V1
N
01
N
V1
N
VI
N
V1
N
V1
N
V1
N
01
N
V1
N
VI
(-4
VI
N
O
O
01
V
to
V1
01
M
O
—
V)
ON
1O
V
en
N
Interest
01
M
^'
21.71
10
00
N
32.75
43.761
00
N
10
N
N
01
V1
N
10
00
e:
V
VI
V'
41
M
O1
V•
O
Cr
4
O
O
O
M
01
0-
N
00
01
N
n
01
CO
01
(0
N
01
M
'.
N
M
10
10
01
01
N
..
01
48.351
32.471
CV
10
00
10
00
D\
V•
(0
01
O
1••I
'0
10
N
-.
O
[�
o
(0
00
01
00
•-•
01
CO
.r
10
M
V'
N
e`
01
h
N
00
V1
7
V1
V1
M
D`
N
(
Cr
0
00
M
V'
(
S
N
M
7
h
h
ON
(0
01
h
O
01
V1
N
CO
0
(
V'
N
O
V'
N
O
Cr,
01
Ol
7
T
0.
(0
M
00
cr
.-.
N
\O
00
M
10
'0
V'
01
Cr
10
Vl
M
N.
.
O_
10
10
00
d•
V1
00
0
01
01
0
00
01
O
7
V1
01
V1
V1
M
7
..
10
V1
(0
—
01.
,
c.
e11
V)
e?
4
2nd Notice
November 22, 2004
June 16, 2004
April 12, 2004
November 22, 2004
April 13, 2004
April 13, 2004
November 22, 2004
April 20, 2004
April 20, 2004 l
April 20, 2004
April 21, 2004
June 17, 2004
March 29, 2005
April 21, 2004
April 22, 2004
April 22, 2004
April 22, 2004
April 22, 2004
April 22, 2004
April 22, 2004
Subtotal Page 3
Subtotal pages 1 & 2 1
GRAND TOTAL
1st Notice
September 13, 2004
May 20, 2004
March 17, 2004
September 10, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
September 13, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
May 20, 2004
November 29, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
March 18, 2004
Service Address
2110 -A Alameda Avenue
2850 Barbers Point
25 Brehaut Court
317 Coral Reef Road
1730 Cornell Drive
3519 Depassier Way
0)
Q
0
01
O
O
1809 Ninth Street
849 Oak Street
1709 Oak Street
1526 -A Pacific Avenue
2269 Pacific Avenue
1313 Park Street
1125 Regent Street
2109 -B San Antonio Aven
1420 San Jose Avenue
1249 Versailles
3204 Washington Street -L
3206 Washington Street
1315 Willow Street
�• 01
N v
ON
0
V1
-
01
0 0
01 01
V• V.
01 01
0 0
V1 V1
. -
0' 01
0
V1
v
01
0
V1
V•
01
0
V1
Cr
01
0 0
V1 10
,Zr v
01 01
0
V1
.
ON
'0n
V1
v
Cr,
0 0
V1 V1
V• v
01 01
0
V1
v
01
0
1O
v
01
0
01
V•
01
0 0
V1 0
v 'I-
01 01
0)
iU
v
U
U U
U U
<
U
<
U U
<
U
U U
U
U
U
U U
City
Petaluma
(0
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
Oakland
Alameda
Castro Valley
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
d
O
Alameda 1
Alameda
Burlingame
Address
9 Wren Court
2850 Barbers Point
25 Brehaut Court
1031 Rosewood Way
1730 Cornell Drive
3519 Depassier Way
1009 Island Drive
1809 Ninth Street
2802 Bayview Drive
1038 High Street
3841 Malcomn Avenue
3333 Fernside Boulevard
25678 Secret Meadow Court
PO Box 400
PO Box 2531
1420 San Jose Avenue
4330 Rettig Avenue
1038 High Street
1038 High Street
104 Peninsula Avenue
PO
Silvia Thompson
PM Property Mgmt.
Richard Louie
Walter Light
Julie K. Daniels
Robert Beeson
Sang Nguyen
Patrick Lough
Truyen T. Dang
Stuart S. Williams
Heirs of Alice Alves
'Stuart S. Williams Trust
Chuen Lau
John E. Mitcheom
John J. Sullivan
Julie A. Yosofzay
Charles Roberts
Stuart S. Williams
Stuart S. Williams
Mike Y. Qi
10
10
S
U 1D
0
10
V'
0
ON
V1
V'
M
CO
V'
M
V1 1p
M 01
V1 7
Cr h
01 (0
-
10
.-+ 00
V'
00 ti
V
01 ...
M N
e0
10
01
•-•
O
00
Cr
0
0,
7
01
--.
01
N
(0
01
N
10
N
0
V' 01
01 e0
e` (0
O1 00
O
0 V1
M V'
e0
01
CO
V'
V'
N
N
0
01
N
M
M
r
7
(0
0 h
e0 00
M h
V1
0 01
N N
0,
00
10
Tr
en
e,
e0
01
O1
V1
0
01
V1
.M.
0
10
N
V' CO
M e0
00
.. 7
V1 00
10 10
APN #
071 - 0237 -030
PM Property Mgmt
074 - 1342 -163
074 - 1265 -110
069 - 0119 -001
074 -1338 -039
074- 1070 -037
073 - 0410 -050
074- 1225 -069
071- 0221 - 005 -00
072 - 0349 -035
071 - 0221 -005
W
O
O
V1
0
N
0
e`
0
074- 1344 -096
071- 0238 -020
072 - 0337 -005
070 - 0161 -014
0
9
10
M
0
0
01
b
0
069 - 0036 -001
071- 0247 -003
.-•
N
01 7
V1 10
(0
00
01
O .-.
N
01
V' V1
0,
r
00
O1 0
N
6/2/05 revised
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT INTEGRATED WASTE
MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS BY MEANS OF THE PROPERTY TAX BILLS
E
O >- WHEREAS, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code subsection 21 -20.6b
v- w (Ordinance #2886, Solid Waste and Recycling, Failure to Pay) which states that the amount of
0 Z charges, penalty, and interest imposed is assessed against the property and, if not paid when due,
cc
N p shall constitute an assessment against the property and shall be a lien against the property; and
ca
P-
c( WHEREAS, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code subsection 3 -58.16 (Notice of
). Hearing on Lien), the Public Works Director shall file with the Acting City Manager a written
I' notice of those persons on whom the City will file liens; and
V
WHEREAS, upon receipt of such notice, the Acting City Manager shall present
same to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council shall hold a public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Alameda and pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code subsections 21- 20.6b:
1. The City's Franchise Hauler, Alameda County Industries (ACI), has submitted a list of
delinquent accounts and corresponding properties. ACI has established that each
delinquent account is at least 60 days late in payment.
2. ACI has established that it sought collection for one year from the invoice date and has
made at least four efforts to collect on the delinquent account.
3. On March 22, 2005, ACI assigned its right to the unpaid accounts to the City in writing.
4. City staff provided Council with a report and filed said report with the City Clerk listing
each property and the amount due in unpaid charges, plus any penalties, interest, and
other collection fees.
5. On June 2, 2005, the City Clerk mailed a letter to each property owner (as well as to
tenants) requesting payment and stating that if payment was not received by 5 p.m. on
June 21, 2005, the City will hold a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers
to consider placing a lien on the property in order to collect the delinquent amount with
the property tax bill.
6. On June 7, 2005, the City Clerk published Notice of the filing of the report as well as the
time, date and place for the public hearing to be held on June 21, 2005.
7. On June 21, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing and confirmed the staff report
and directed the Clerk to forward to the County Auditor the total sum of unpaid
delinquent charges including any penalties, interest and other collection fees.
Resolution #5 -F
6 -21 -05
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 regular meeting assembled on the 21st day
of June 2005, 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 21st day of June 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 15, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Authorize Acting City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Extension of the Harbor Bay
Maritime Ferry Operating Agreements for Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service (AHBFS) and
Adopt Associated Budgets
BACKGROUND
In June 2004, the City and Harbor Bay Maritime (ISM) entered into the Sixth Amended and
Restated Operating Agreement for the East End Ferry Service (Agreement). The Agreement is a
multi -year fixed subsidy contract with an 11 -month initial term beginning August 2004 and
providing for four (4) additional one -year extensions subject to City and HBM agreement on fares,
subsidy, insurance requirements and service levels. The Agreement is a modified fixed subsidy
contract under which HBM receives a fixed subsidy and use of two City-owned boats. On January 2,
2005, HBM notified the City that it wished to exercise its option to extend the Agreement.
Subsequently the City and HBM began negotiations on terms for the year effective July 1, 2005.
In April 2002, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) established a 40% Farebox
Recover Ratio (FRR) as a condition for continued Regional Measure 1 (RM1) grant eligibility and
gave grant recipients three years to reach or exceed that goal. RM1 provides about 55% of the
ferry's public subsidy. After negotiations with the City, MTC agreed to extend AHBFS's RM1
eligibility through June 2006 if the City proposed and implemented a plan acceptable to MTC that
demonstrated that the FRR requirement could be met or exceeded for the year ending June 30, 2006.
A proposal to achieve an estimated 40.8% FRR has been developed and if approved by City Council
will be formalized in the First Amendment to the Sixth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement
for the East End Ferry Service. If the City and HBM cannot agree on extension terms, the
Agreement will terminate on June 30, 2005. However, the Agreement contains provisions for HBM
to continue operating the AHBF on a month -to -month basis until the City finds another operator
providing that the City pays HBM's ongoing operational costs.
Farebox Recover Ratio — The FRR is the ratio of farebox revenue to total operating cost subsidized
with public funding. FRR is widely used as one indicator of the cost effectiveness of public funding
for transit services. For purposes of RM1 grant eligibility, the FRR calculation includes only those
expenses that are paid for through either farebox revenue or through public provided funding. In the
case of the AHBFS, public funding consists of revenue from the Transportation Improvement Fund
(TIF), Measure B and RM1. MTC uses the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) definition
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report 5 -G
6 -21 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
June 15, 2005
Page 2
of FRR that excludes charter and concessions revenue from the FRR calculation. HBM's estimated
FRRs for the first five months of 2005 are: January, 35.3 %; February, 36.8 %; March, 36.3 %; April,
35.5 %; May, 40.6 %.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The Acting City Manager and HBM have agreed on the following to increase farebox revenue and
reduce operating costs. Farebox revenue will be increased through the following steps:
• Fare Increase — Increase fares across the board by $0.50 each way. The fare increase will be
implemented immediately and is in addition to the existing $0.25 fuel surcharge. Results of
May 5, 2005 survey showed that 77% of respondents were either neutral or in favor of a
$0.50 fare increases if: a) it was needed to continue the service; b) every effort was made to
reduce operating costs; and c) marketing of the AHBFS was improved. In order to
implement the $0.50 increases immediately, the fare increase will be implemented under the
existing authority granted by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a fuel
surcharge. HBM will apply to the CPUC for a formal tariff change. The new fares are
provided in Table 5 (see attached tables).
• Marketing - To improve the marketing effort, the City has established an Ad Hoc Committee
to develop a Marketing Action Plan (MAP). The committee, which began work on May 23,
2005 consists of the San Francisco Water Transit Authority (WTA), Johnson & Ukropina
(Marketing Research/Advertising Agency), Robert Anthony Advertising, HBM and the City
Ferry Manager. In addition, the City has contracted with Lorre Zuppan, of `Branes, LLC" to
assist with MAP development. The MAP will also incorporate rider suggestions and explore
ways to enlist rider volunteers in some components of plan implementation. AHBFS riders
have been invited to submit their suggestions via e-mail or by attending one of two public
meetings scheduled for May 25, 2005 and for June 1, 2005. Staff has also been working with
the WTA to secure $30,000 in Regional Measure 2 Revenue for MAP implementation. The
WTA has already agreed to spend up to $10,000 before June 30, 2005 on a direct mail
promotion targeting Bay Farm Island. As the year progresses, the City will keep riders
informed on the ferry's FRR progress through onboard announcements and postings on the
web site.
HBM operational costs will be reduced through the following steps:
• Service Reduction — The 7:30 p.m. San Francisco Ferry Building departure will be
eliminated for an estimated net savings of approximately $31,000. HBM will operate the
7:30 p.m. run on Friday only for the six -month period May through October, as family -night
to increase ridership and improve awareness of the services to families.
• Insurance Cost — HBM's Hull & Machinery (H &M) premium will be reduced by $17,000 by
increasing Hull & Machinery deductibles. The H &M deductible for the Bay Breeze will
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
as +r.rr
bl�
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
June 15, 2005
Page 3
increase from $25,000 to $50,000 whereas the deductible for the Express II will increase
from $15,000 to $30,000. The Agreement will be modified to make the City responsible for
deductible payment unless the damage was due to HBM's sole negligence.
• Onboard Labor Costs — Labor costs will be contained by freezing wages and benefits and will
be reduced by $8,000 by using the HBM General Manager as a relief captain. In initial
negotiations, HBM asked the Inlandboatmen's Union (IBU) to freeze wages and benefits and
reduce crew hours from 16 per weekday (two 8 -hour shifts) to 14 hours per day. However,
through subsequent negotiations, the three parties were able to settle upon a package of
expense reductions and a fare increase that allows the 16 -hour workday to be retained. HBM
still requires a wage and benefit freeze. As an offset to this, HBM has agreed with the IBU to
share 25% of any farebox revenue over the projected $484,000.
• Reduce HBM Administration cost — The HBM General Manager will be reduced to a four -
day week, thereby saving $14,000.
• HBM Overhead and Profit — Reduced by $15,000.
• HBM Operating Contingency - Reduced by $6,749 to $19,251.
Operator expenses are summarized in Table 1 (see attached tables).
City AHBFS administrative cost will be reduced through the following:
• Eliminate one staff position and reduce the amount of staff time dedicated to overseeing
AHBFS operations and contracts. A savings of $25,725.
• Elimination of a paid Facility Security Officer position for a savings of $7,820. A Facility
Security Office for each ferry terminal is required under the Homeland Security Act of 2000.
HBM will assign these duties to its General Manager.
City AHBFS expenses are summarized in Table 2 (see attached tables).
The City's ferry services are not alone in needing to reduce service and increase revenue. Almost all
Bay Area public transit agencies are considering service reductions and/or fare increases. Since 2000,
AC Transit has reduced service by 20% and is considering a 15% fare increase. MUNI is considering
a 7% reduction in service and a fare increase while BART will eliminate 115 staff positions, charge
parking fees, apply a $0.10 per ticket surcharge and reduce the senior, disabled and child discount.
Additional Agreement terms are:
• Duration: The term of the First Amendment is for one year beginning July 1, 2005. There
are three additional one -year extensions subject to City and HBM agreement on fares,
insurance requirements, service levels and subsidy.
• Pro Forma Budget: Projected FY 2005/06 operator expenses are $1,074,625. In addition,
there are City expenses of $221,175. The $221,175 includes $110,500 in capital reserves.
Therefore, total AHBFS costs (operational and capital reserves) are expected to be
abeillare
blkWorks
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
June 15, 2005
Page 4
$1,295,800 compared to the $1,396,500 budgeted for FY 2004/05 (see Table 1). Capital
Reserves are the "sink funds" accumulated over several years for major facility or vessels
maintenance, overhauls and refurbishment. According to a 2004 consultant study, adequate
funding of AHBFS reserves (vessels and terminal) requires an annual contribution of
$465,000.
• Subsidy: HBM will receive an operating subsidy of $590,625. Sources of AHBFS public
funding are detailed in Table 3 (see attached tables).
• Re- assignment of the Express II: The Express II is currently assigned to HBM as the backup
boat for the AHBFS. HBM estimates that the cost to insure and maintain the boat is $40,000
per year. To reduce this cost, staff has begun discussions with the WTA concerning the
transfer of the Express 11 to the WTA. Under the transfer proposal, the WTA would make
the boat available to Bay Area ferry operators on a bareboat charter basis for backup service.
HBM is required to keep the Express II as a service back up until it is transferred to the
WTA. Transfer of the boat will require City Council and WTA Board approval. Approval
of the HBM operating contract extension by Council authorizes transfer of the Express II to
the WTA subject to WTA Board approval.
• Ridership Projection: HBM projects farebox revenue of $484,000 on estimated ridership of
106,373 at an average fare paid of $4.55 per one -way ticket. The 106,373 estimate is based
on actuals for January through March 2005 projected to 12 months. However, elimination of
the 7:30 p.m. Ferry Building departure and imposition of a $0.50 one -way fare increase will
result in some loss of the existing ridership base. This should be offset by the increased
marketing effort. Therefore, staff believes that 106,373 passengers is a reasonable estimate.
Additional Steps To Reduce Costs:
• Reducing Fuel Expense: At the suggestion of the Inlandboatmen's Union (IBU), the WTA is
investigating the possibility of a joint bulk fuel purchase by a consortium of ferry operators.
Staff will work with the IBU and the WTA to determine the feasibility of this proposal.
• Reducing Port of San Francisco Docking Fees: The IBU has approached the Port of San
Francisco concerning the possibility of reducing Ferry Building landing fees for City ferry
services. Staff will work with the IBU and the Port of San Francisco to determine the
feasibility of this proposal.
• Eliminating San Francisco Pier 48 Rent: HBM pays $12,000 per year to rent Pier 48 in San
Francisco. Pier 48 is where the Express II and the Bay Breeze are layberthed and maintained.
The City is exploring the possibility of relocating the boats to Alameda Point. If the vessels
are relocated to Alameda, the cost reduction of the relocation, net of capital relocation costs
and any east bay dock rent or fees (utilities, rent, etc), will be split equally between the City
and HBM.
aaiI
bkWaks
Public IfEksfr /bid
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
June 15, 2005
Page 5
• Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR): Under the proposed terms of the First Amendment to the
Agreement, HBM will receive a total FY 2005/06 subsidy payment of $590,625. In addition,
the City's non - capital AHBF costs will be $110,675. Therefore, total public funding for
AHBFS operations will be $701,300. If farebox revenue is $484,000, the FRR will be
40.8 %. FRR calculation is provided in Table 4 (see attached tables).
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
This project is funded under CIP# 621.10. There is no impact to the General Fund associated with
AHBFS operations. Public funding for FY 2005/06 totals $811,800 and is detailed in Table 3 (see
attached tables). The farebox revenue estimate of $484,000 assumes a $0.50 each way fare increase
and ridership of approximately 106,373 passengers. The AHBFS Pro Forma Budget is provided as
Table 1 (see attached tables).
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed Ordinance does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
The City's Ferry Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element Guiding Policy
4.3.f
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, authorize Acting City
Manager to negotiate and execute an extension of the HBM Ferry Operating Agreements for AHBFS
and adopt associated budgets.
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public rks Di ctor
By: Ernest Sanchez
Ferry Manager
MTN:ES:gc
Attachment
cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee
G:\PUB WORKS \pwadmin\ COUNCIL\ 2005 \062105\HBMcontractextension2. doc
thyofbmedi
uubIicWorks
Department
PublicWorks Worksfr ru!
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Table 1
AHBF FY '05/06
Operator Expenses
ITEM
FY '04/05 Budget (3)
FY '05/06 Budget
Change
I. Commute Service
Vessel Expenses
Fuel (1)
$172,900
$228,800
$55,900
Labor:
Wages, P/R taxes, Health, Pension
$420,002
$412,002
- $8,000
Insurance (Vessels)
$145,400
$110,000
- $35,400
Vessel Maintenance:
$109,880
$96,000
- $13,880
Total Vessel Expenses
$848,182
$846,802
- $1,380
Non Vessel Expenses
SF Pier 48 rent
$12,000
$12,000
$0
Utilities, auto, legal, payroll processing
$111,112
$61,572
- $49,540
Admin Salaries
$118,000
$104,000
- $14,000
Ticket printing, web site, directory advertising (2)
$0
$12,000
$12,000
Total Non Vessel Expenses
$241,112
$189,572
- $51,540
Operator Fees:
Overhead /Accounting
$30,000
$15,000
- $15,000
Operator Contingency
$26,000
$23,251
- $2,749
Total commute cost
$1,145,294
$1,074,625
- $70,669
II. Charter
Vessel Expenses
Fuel
$8,000
$13,750
Labor
$12,200
$12,200
Insurance (4)
$2,000
$4,000
Vessel Maintenance:
$7,000
$10,500
Total Vessel Expenses
$29,200
$40,450
Non Vessel Expenses
Docking fees ( Sacramento, SF)
$2,000
$2,200
Ticket printing
$8,000
$8,000
Misc.: Concessions, catering, ground transportation
$36,740
$26,200
Total Non Vessel Expenses
$46,740
$36,400
Operator Fees:
Overhead /Accounting
$90,000
$90,000
Total charter cost
$165,940
$166,850
Total (Charter + Commute)
$1,311,234
$1,241,475
City Expense
$251,206
$221,175
-$30,031
Total (Operator commute only + City)
$1,396,500
$1,295,800
-$100,700
I I) ror'UJ /Ub, assumes 104,000 gallons at $2.20 per gallon.
(2) In '04/05, this item was included in the City budget.
(3) There are only 9 months of service in 2004 due to ferry terminal storm damage
(4) In 05/06, calculated at $40/hr x 100 hrs.
Note: Shaded area items not included in FRR calculation.
Table 2
City Expenses
ITEM
FY '04/05 Budget
FY '05/06
Budget
Change
Maintenance & Docking fees:
Less private
subsidy
Public funding
TC RM1 -5%
Ferry Bldg.
$23,000
$23,000
$0
Harbor Bay (1)
$21,600
$9,500
- $12,100
MUNI
$18,000
$15,000
- $3,000
Marketing (excl charter)(2)(3)
$30,000
$0
- $30,000
City Admin
$55,300
$29,575
- $25,725
Facility Security Officer
$7,820
$0
-$7,820
Office supplies
$1,600
$1,600
$0
Back Up boat
$0
$30,000
$30,000
Audit.
$2,800
$2,000
-$800
Reserve Accounts
$484,000
Total
Vessels
$1,295,800
Express II
$20,000
$25,000
$5,000
Bay Breeze
$40,586
$55,000
$14,414
HB Terminal
$30,500
$30,500
$0
Total _
$221,175
- $30,031
, $12, l00 will be paid through the LLMD for maintenance costs
only.
(2) For 2005/06, Marketing allocation has been moved to the HBM budget.
(3) Staff expects WTA to provide $30,000 for marketing.
Table 3
AHBF - FY 2005/06
Adjustments
Source
REVENUE
Less charter &
concessions
Less private
subsidy
Public funding
TC RM1 -5%
$450,000
$450,000
Measure B '04/05 revenue
$144,400
$144,400
TIF
$217,400
$217,400
HBBPA
$96,000
$96,000
Concesions
$28,000
$28,000
Charter
$50,000
$50,000
subtotal
$985,800
$78,000
$96,000
$811,800
Farebox
$484,000
$484,000
Total
$1,469,800
$1,295,800
Table 4
Farebox Recovery Ratio
FY 2005/06
ITEM
Total
Less Capital
Reserves
Net operating
cost
Operator costs subsidized by
public revenue
$590,625
$0
$590,625
City Expenses
$221,175
$110,500
$110,675
Total
$811,800
$3.75
$701,300
Farebox revenue
$484,000
$484,000
Total operating cost subsidized
by farebox and public funds.
$1,185,300
FRR
40.83%
Table 5 AHBFS Fares
TYPE
Current One -Way Fare (1)
Effective by July 2, 2005 (2)
Adult
$5.50
$6.00
Junior (5 -12)
$2.75
$3.25
Child (under 5)
FREE
FREE
Seniors (65 and older)(Disabled)
$3.25
$3.75
Active Military
$4.25
$4.75
Ticket Books
Current Price
Effective by July 2, 2005 (2)
10- Ticket Book
$45.00
$50.00
20- Ticket Book
$80.00
$90.00
Monthly Pass
$150.00
$170.00
(1) Includes $0.25 fuel surcharge
(2) Includes $0.50 each way fare increase
I Lara Weisiger - Council Communication Agenda Item
From: <TDaysog @aol.com>
To: <Iweisiger @ci.alameda.ca.us>
Date: 6/13/2005 8:40:43 AM
Subject: Council Communication Agenda Item
Council Communication Agenda Item
Per Subsection 2 -1 -5 ( "Submission of Matters ") of the Municipal Code, please include the article below on
the proposed baseball stadium along Alameda and Oakland's shared estuary for Council Communication
discussion. Thank you.
Tony Daysog, Councilmember
Subsection 2 -1 -5 Submission of Matters.
Before 5:00 p.m. on the Monday of the week prior to each Council meeting any City official, board,
commission or other municipal body having any reports, communications or other matters for submission
to the Council, shall hand the same to the City Clerk whereupon the Clerk shall arrange a list of such
matters according to the order of business specified in subsection 2 -1.6 hereof, and furnish a typewritten
copy of the list to each member of the Council. (Ord. No. 535 N.S. §2 -115; Ord. No. 1946 N.S.)
OAKLAND
A's realign their site search
De La Fuente pushes for new ballpark on estuary's waterfront
By Glenn Dickey, Chronicle Staff Writer
SF Chronicle
Saturday, June 11, 2005
The As have given up on the Coliseum area as a site for a proposed new park and Oakland City Council
President Ignacio De La Fuente has proposed a new site on the waterfront.
When Lew Wolff first bought into the A's last year, with the goal of building a new park, he decided to
concentrate on the Coliseum area as the most feasible option, but opposition from the Raiders and
Warriors has caused him to abandon that site.
"The other tenants objected to our building a new park," Wolff said, "and frankly, I can't blame them.
They're trying to run their own operations, and this would get in their way."
Wolff, who meets with De La Fuente every two weeks to discuss the park project, said he has had only
one brief conversation with the councilman on the proposed new site and did not want to comment on it.
De La Fuente said the site is a city- owned, 65 -acre parcel of land west of Interstate 880. It is south of the
Lake Merritt Channel, which runs from the Oakland Estuary to Lake Merritt.
"We're going to have 3,100 units of housing and 2,000 square feet of retail on that parcel," he said. "We
already have an agreement with Signature Properties."
He said, though, that there still would be room for a park. Typically, ballparks are on about 15 acres,
though the Giants' park in China Basin was shoehorned into 12 1/2 acres. The kind of development about
which De La Fuente is talking, a ballpark amid housing and retail, has been the model for other new parks
around the country for the past 15 years.
Michael Ghilmetti, president of Signature Properties, which is trying to get permission for the housing /retail
operation, said, "We've told the A's that if they want to put a park on this site, we'd be happy to sit down
Council Communication #7 -A
6 -21 -05
Lara Weisiger - Council Communication Agenda Item Page
and talk about working something out. So far, nobody has asked us to do that."
Because of the housing /retail aspect of the development, urban renewal funds would be available for part
of the financing of the park. Such funds were part of the formula for the first of the new era of smaller,
neighborhood- integrated baseball parks, Camden Yards in Baltimore, as well as for what is now HP
Pavilion in San Jose.
Access to the park would not be as convenient as the Coliseum, which is right next to 880 and a BART
station. Since the BART system was built years after the Coliseum, it was a simple matter of planning to
put a station there. It's a different matter now. Because of the cost, it's very unlikely a new station would be
added now that would be convenient to a new park in the area.
As it is now, access to the area would be like access to Monster Park at Candlestick Point, fairly close to
the freeway but with difficult city streets to transverse. With housing and retail going into the area, though,
it's likely that the streets will be greatly improved.
Probably the biggest advantage that site has now is the backing of De La Fuente, who is given a good
chance of succeeding Jerry Brown as Oakland's mayor next year.
Traditionally, ballparks do not get built without solid support from the city's mayor. In San Francisco, Mayor
Art Agnos spearheaded an effort to build a park in China Basin in 1989 that narrowly failed. A later mayor,
Willie Brown, gave strong support to the successful effort to build the current Giants park, which was
privately financed but still needed city support for zoning and infrastructure.
In contrast, Oakland's Mayor Brown, whose antipathy to sports is well known, has been actively opposed
to building a ballpark. When then -City Manager Robert Bobb pushed hard for a ballpark in the uptown
area, Brown pressured him to leave. Bobb went to Washington, D.C., which is building a new park for the
relocated Montreal Expos, now the Washington Nationals.
E -mail Glenn Dickey at gdickey @sfchronicle.com.
Automatic message to all e-mail
recipients: please excuse
any mis- spellings or grammatical
errors, as I use e-mail primarily
as an informal means of communication.
Thank you for your consideration.
- Tony Daysog
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD
ONE (1) VACANCY
INCUMBENT ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT
Dr. Jerome D. Healy
Nakmin Odie, Incumbent
Raymond O'Loan
Council Communication #7 -A
6 -21 -05
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
ONE (1) VACANCY
ONE INCUMBENT ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT
Craig S. Halvorson
Michael Henneberry
Randal S. Miller, Incumbent
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HOUSING AND BUILDING CODE HEARING AND APPEALS BOARD
TWO (2) VACANCIES
ONE INCUMBENT ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT
Edward Depenbrock, Incumbent
Raymond E. O'Loan
James A. Price
David A. Solis
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HOUSING COMMISSION
TWO (2) VACANCIES
TWO INCUMBENTS ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT
Lou R. Baca
Nancy W. Gormley, Incumbent (Senior Tennant Seat)
Garnetta S. King, Incumbent
Patricia S. Rose
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
LIBRARY BOARD
TWO (2) VACANCIES
TWO INCUMBENTS ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT
Tony P. Albanese
Ruth K. Belikove, Incumbent
Alan D. Mitchell, Incumbent
Gail A. Wetzork
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
PLANNING BOARD
TWO (2) VACANCIES
TWO INCUMBENTS ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT
Jeff Cambra
Edward R. Depenbrock
Michael R. Fassler
Michael Henneberry
Greg J. Klein
Rebecca L. Kohlstrand Parsons, Incumbent
Margaret McNamara, Incumbent
James A. Nations
James A. Price
Roderick L. Smith
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THREE (3) VACANCIES
THREE INCUMBENTS ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT
Tony P. Albanese
Stewart Chen, Incumbent
Dr. Jerome B. Healy
Karen Hollinger Jackson, Incumbent
Thomas W. Hurtubise
James A. Price
Jonathan D. Soglin
Cynthia Wasko, Incumbent