2005-11-15 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - NOVEMBER 15, 2005 - - - 6:00 p.m.
Time: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 6:00 p.m.
Place:
Agenda:
City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
1. Roll Call.
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources
Director.
Employee Organizations: Executive Management Employees,
International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management
and Confidential Employees
Association.
3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of case: Citizens for a Megaplex -Free Alameda
v. City of Alameda, et al.
3 -C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: 2900 Main Street.
Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Gateway,
Ltd.
Under Negotiation: Price and terms.
3 -D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of case: Mohlen & Skrinde v. City of Alameda.
3 -E. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiators: Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese.
Employee:
City Attorney.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk
and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the 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
Commission meetings.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - NOVEMBER 15, 2005 - - - 7:27 P.M.
Location: Cit Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by the Commission may speak for a maximum of 3
minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission.
Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you.wish
to speak on an agenda item.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting held on November 1, 2005.
1 -B. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to enter
into an agreement with ERM -West, Inc. in an amount not to
exceed $194,320 to evaluate PAH contamination on a portion of
the Fleet Industrial Supply Center Property. [Development
Services]
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Community Improvement Commission
AGENDA
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.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - NOVEMBER 15, 2005 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City
Hall, Council Chaanbers, 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 CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:27 P.M.
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public.
4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings and
Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement
Commission Meeting held on November 1, 2005. [City Clerk]
4 -B. Bills for ratification. [Finance]
4 -C. Recommendation to approve the purchase of three marked patrol
vehicles from Film Vehicle Services in the amount of $80,493.
[Police Department]
4 -D. Recommendation to approve an agreement with Holland & Knight,
LLP in the amount of $96,000 for federal legislative advocacy
services. [City Manager]
4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Approving Proposed Amendment to the
1986 Measure B Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan.
[Public Works]
4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Establishing Annual Free All -Day
Parking, with a Three -Hour Maximum Per Car Per space, for the
Webster Street and the Park Street Business Districts on
December 3, 10, and 17, 2005. [Development Services]
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter
over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may
take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.
7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council)
7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the
Economic Development Commission (2 vacancies) and Recreation
and Park Commission.
7 -B. Discussion of a proposal for the City of Alameda, as a
participant in the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention
Program, to partially fund a survey to be used in analyzing
the feasibility of increasing the County Service Area fee for
lead abatement education and services. (Mayor Johnson)
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.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - NOVEMBER 1, 2005 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *05 ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission and Special Community Improvement Commission
meetings held on October 18, 2005. Approved.
( *05- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Financial Report
for the period ending September 30, 2005 and approve the
supplemental appropriations. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
November 1, 2005
City of Alameda
Interoffice Memorandum
November 2, 2005
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Re:
Background
Recommendation that the Community Improvement Commission Authorize the
Executive Director to Enter into an Agreement Not -to- Exceed $194,320 with ERM-
West, Inc. to Evaluate PAH Contamination on a Portion of the Fleet Industrial
Supply Center (FISC) Property
Pursuant to special Federal legislation, the City of Alameda acquired the former Fleet Industrial
Supply Center (FISC) property from the United States Navy (Navy) in July 2000. The property was
subsequently conveyed to the Community Improvement Commission (CIC).
Prior to property transfer, the Navy conducted environmental testing that indicated the presence of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's). Therefore, the Navy and State Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) placed a covenant precluding residential reuse on the property as part of
the conveyance negotiations. The property was subsequently entitled for 1.3 million square feet of
office and research and development facilities via a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)
between the CIC and Catellus (now ProLogis by recent acquisition).
With the downturn in the office market, and the continued strong residential market, the CIC and
ProLogis have been exploring alternative reuse scenarios for the FISC property. As the property
owner, the CIC would like to investigate the feasibility of lifting the covenant prohibiting residential
reuse on a portion of the FISC property (see attached map).
Discussion
The first step in evaluating the feasibility of lifting the covenant precluding residential reuse is to do
sampling to determine the nature and extent of PAH's in the soil. In addition to PAH sampling,
there may be required sampling for PCB's and cadmium in one area of the site. Staff has had several
meetings with DTSC to ensure that the proposed sampling is carried out in a manner that is
consistent with DTSC's requirements. This will ensure that at the end of the process, with the
remediation, DTSC will consent to lifting the covenant and allow residential reuse.
Staff recommends that the CIC authorize the Executive Director to enter into a time and materials
agreement with ERM -West, Inc. (ERM), in an amount not -to- exceed $194,320, to conduct the
Report 1 -B
11 -15 -05
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Honorable Chair and Members of the November 2, 2005
Community Improvement Commission Page 2
required sampling and analysis for presentation to, and approval by, DTSC. The work scope
includes:
• compiling historical data, including all Navy sampling records;
• preparing a Remedial Investigation Workplan for DTSC's approval;
• obtaining all necessary permits;
• conducting the sampling at approximately 110 locations with three samples at different soil
depths per location;
• providing the samples to the laboratory;
• analyzing the lab results; and
• preparing a Remedial Investigation Report for DTSC.
Following this scope of work, and based on the Remedial Investigation Report, the next step will be
determining the actual remediation work necessary to lift the covenant precluding residential reuse.
Any contract to undertake remediation work would come back to the CIC at a later date.
ERM has been working at the East Housing/FISC site since 1997, when Catellus retained the firm to
be part of its team during the master developer selection process. ERM has continued to work on all
environmental- related issues for the project including drafting the Remedial Action Workplan that
resulted in the City's Marsh Crust Ordinance; preparing the DTSC- approved Site Management Plan
that contains procedures for handling hazardous materials that are discovered during the
redevelopment process; overseeing all environmental aspects of installing the backbone
infrastructure through the benzene plume; monitoring the chlordane remediation project;
coordinating with the environmental regulators; and attending Navy FISC BCT and RAB meetings
as needed.
Given ERM's on -going involvement at the East Housing/FISC site and existing relationships with
the Navy and the various environmental regulators, particularly DTSC, it was determined that it
would be most cost - effective to retain ERM to undertake this new environmental work at FISC. The
bulk of the work scope, over 50 %, is the field investigation and the laboratory analysis. ERM bid
this aspect of the work, obtaining bids from several laboratories and equipment rental businesses to
ensure the most competitive prices. In addition, due to the large number of samples (330) required
by DTSC, ERM was able to negotiate a reduction in the per - sample cost from the lab's published
price list. Lastly, staff asked Russell Resources, the City's environmental consultant, to provide a
peer review of the work scope and budget. Russell Resources concurs that the budget is appropriate
and competitive based on the sampling grid requested by DTSC.
Budget Consideration /Financial Impact
No general fund monies will be used for this project. The proposed Agreement will be funded from
Bayport project revenues pursuant to the DDA. It is anticipated that these funds will be reimbursed
from future land sale proceeds.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Chair and Members of the November 2, 2005
Community Improvement Commission Page 3
Municipal Code/Policy Document Cross Reference
The Alameda Municipal Code is not effected by the recommendation to award .a contract to ERM to
investigate PAH's on a portion of the FISC property. In addition, the recommendation does not
conflict with existing policy documents.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the CIC authorize the Executive Director to enter into a time and materials,
agreement with ERM -West, Inc., in an amount not -to- exceed $194,320 to evaluate PAH
contamination on a portion of the FISC property.
Respectfnlljy submitted,
e A Little
Development Services Director
Debbie Potter
Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager
Attachments: Map and Agreement
G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp \DebbiePotter \Catellus \11 -22 -05 ERM stfrpt.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
EXIST. BOUNDARY (TYP.)
–,...---.... – . – .. . – –... 1.
MI..I.C.1-1BLI- MC)SLEY ,–.......64.....
. . . ... ...... .: ...
. . . . . . . . , .
. . . . . , .
. . ... . .. ' .. . . .
STORMWATER
TREATMENT
POND
TINKER AVENUE
. ...... ...........
„ ..... .
.....
• . . .
. .
...
RESIDENTIAL
.21.3 AC . •
. .. .
. .
. ... .
.. . . •
. .
39–UNIT
SITE
STORMWATER —
PUMP STATION
PARCEL
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
400
800
ififiteM
4780 Chabot Dr. , Suite 104
MUM Pleasanton, CA 94588-3323
925/396-7700
ENCl/IFEDS I sum/mils/ Pomo,. 925/396-7799 (Fox)
Dr own APL
Job No. 980221-11
EXHIBIT A
Checked APL
Date 8/30/05
Approved DGS
Sheet 1 of 1
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 15th day of November 2005, by and between
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION of the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a public body
(hereinafter referred to as "CIC "), and ERM, a California corporation, whose address is
1777 Botelho Drive, Suite 260, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, (hereinafter referred to as
"Consultant "), is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. CIC is a public body duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State
of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the
statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City.
B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special
services which will be required by this Agreement; and
C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions
described herein.
D. CIC and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for services upon the terms
and conditions herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. TERM:
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 15th day of November 2005, and shall
terminate on the 30th day of June 2006, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED:
Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A ", which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT:
Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the
amount not to exceed $194,320.00 (Exhibit "B ").
4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:
Consultant and CIC agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this
Agreement.
5. STANDARD OF CARE:
Consultant agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the
prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all
services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by CIC
nor have any contractual relationship with City.
6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:
CIC and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement is
ERM
November 2005
Page 1 of 8
that of employer - independent Consultant. The manner and means of conducting the work are
under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation
and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment will
be acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by CIC to its
employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans,
vacation and sick leave are available from CIC to Consultant, its employees or agents.
Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or
other purposes normally associated with an employer - employee relationship from any fees due
Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant.
7. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):
Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment
authorization of all of its employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA
or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and hold CIC harmless
from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of
this provision by Consultant.
8. NON - DISCRIMINATION:
Consistent with CIC 's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable
employer /employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward
a job applicant, a CIC employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee on the basis
of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital status,
pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Consultant agrees that any and all
violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
9. HOLD HARMLESS:
Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CIC, City, its City Council,
boards, commissions, officials, employees and volunteers ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any and
all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable
attorneys' fees ( "Claims "), arising from or in any manner connected to Consultant's negligent act or
omission, whether alleged or actual, regarding performance of services or work conducted or
performed pursuant to this Agreement. If Claims are filed against Indemnitees which allege
negligence on behalf of the Consultant, Consultant shall have no right of reimbursement against
Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence is not found on the part of Consultant.
However, Consultant shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from the
sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees.
As to Claims for professional liability only, Consultant's obligation to defend Indemnitees (as
set forth above) is limited to the extent to which its professional liability insurance policy will
provide such defense costs.
CIC agrees that Consultant shall not be liable to CIC or any third party for the creation or
existence of any type of hazardous or toxic waste, material, chemical, compound, or substance, or
any other type of environmental hazard, contamination, or pollution, whether latent or patent, or the
release thereof or the violation of any law or regulation relating thereto, existing at the site of the
Project prior to commencement of the performance of services hereunder ( "Pre- existing Condition ")
except to the extent any such Pre - existing Condition is exacerbated by the negligence or willful
misconduct of Consultant or its subcontractors."
ERM
November 2005
Page 2 of 8
10. INSURANCE:
On or before the commencement of the terms of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish
CIC with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and
dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B, C and D. Such
certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the
following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or
coverage materially reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage
shall endeavor to provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the CIC by mail, "Attention:
Risk Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the
performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement
with an insurance company that is acceptable to CIC and licensed to do insurance business in the
State of California. Endorsements naming CIC, City of Alameda, its City Council, boards,
commissions, officials, employees and volunteers as additional insured shall be submitted with the
insurance certificates.
A. COVERAGE:
Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage:
(1) Workers' Compensation:
Statutory coverage as required by the State of California.
(2) Liability:
Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits:
Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence
$1,000,000 aggregate - all other
Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence
$250,000 aggregate
If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of
$1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above.
(3) Automotive:
Comprehensive automobile liability coverage in the
following minimum limits:
Bodily injury: $500,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence
or
Combined Single Limit: $500,000 each occurrence
(4) Professional Liability:
Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for the professional
acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount of at least $1,000,000.
B. SUBROGATION WAIVER:
Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed
to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely
to its insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to CIC, on behalf of any insurer providing
comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or CIC with respect
to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer
of said Consultant may acquire against CIC by virtue of the payment of any loss under such
insurance.
C. FAILURE TO SECURE:
If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the
foregoing insurance, CIC shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name or
as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the
ERM
November 2005
Page 3 of 8
insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written
notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.
D. ADDITIONAL INSURED:
CIC, City of Alameda, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees and
volunteers shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any
professional liability and workers' compensation insurance. The naming of an additional insured
shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if
not named as such additional insured. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable
for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any
extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to
contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy.
E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE:
The insurance limits required by CIC are not represented as being sufficient to protect
Consultant. Consultant is advised to consult Consultant's insurance broker to determine adequate
coverage for Consultant.
11. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the services
required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict of interest form if the
services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain governmental decisions
or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 18700 of the California Code of
Regulations.
12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS:
Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest
therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of CIC.
Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee,
hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment,
hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant from CIC under this Agreement
may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent.
Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to CIC by Consultant.
13. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL:
Unless prior written consent from CIC is obtained, only Consultant shall perform services
under Agreement, unless Consultant first obtains written approval from CIC.
In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be required to
furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general,
automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by
Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each
provision of this Agreement.
14. PERMITS AND LICENSES:
Consultant, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement,
all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses, including a City of Alameda Business License, that
may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder.
15. REPORTS:
A. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document,
hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report ", reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by
ERM
November 2005
Page 4 of 8
Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement shall be the exclusive property of CIC.
Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall execute appropriate
documents to assign to CIC the copyright to Reports created pursuant to this Agreement. Any
Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall become the property of
CIC, and all publication rights are reserved to CIC.
B. All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by CIC in execution of
implementation of:
(1) The original Project for which Consultant was hired;
(2) Completion of the original Project by others;
(3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and/or
(4) Other CIC projects as appropriate.
C. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as CIC may require, furnish reports
concerning the status of services required under this Agreement.
D. All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on recycled
paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one original, which shall be
single sided.
E. No report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Consultant
pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization by Consultant
without prior approval by CIC.
F. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, any reuse of the Reports
for any purpose other than that specifically intended in this Agreement, the use of such Reports as
modified by the CIC for any purposes, and /or the use of the Reports in connection with other CIC
projects, will be at CIC's sole risk and without financial liability or legal expense to Consultant.
16. RECORDS:
Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs,
expenses, receipts and other such information required by CIC that relate to the performance of
services under this Agreement.
Consultant shall Maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit
an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide
free access to such books and records to the representatives of CIC or its designees at all proper
times, and gives CIC the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts therefrom as
necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to
this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other
documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final
payment.
17. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW REQUIREMENTS:
A. To the greatest extent feasible, contracts for work to be performed in connection with
any redevelopment project shall be awarded to business concerns which are located in, or owned in
substantial part by persons residing in the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP), the
West End Community Improvement Project (WECIP), or the Alameda Point Improvement Project
(APIP).
B. To insure training and employment opportunities for lower - income residents within
the BWIP, WECIP or APIP, Consultant and any Subcontractors are encouraged to give employment
preference to residents within the BWIP, WECIP or APIP for contracts valued over $100,000.
C. Clauses (A) and (B) shall be included in any subcontract.
ERM
November 2005
Page 5 of 8
18. NOTICES:
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given
in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second
business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or
certified, addressed as hereinafter provided.
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to CIC shall be addressed to
CIC at:
City of Alameda
Development Services Department
950 West Mall Square, 2 "d Floor
Alameda, CA 94501
ATTN: Debbie Potter
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from CIC to Consultant shall be addressed to
Consultant at:
ERM
1777 Botelho Drive, Suite 260
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
ATTN: Michael E. Quillin, P.G.
19. TERMINATION:
In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the material provisions hereof at the
time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance
of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by
Consultant from CIC of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps
necessary to cure such default, CIC may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the
Consultant written notice thereof.
CIC shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this
Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon
termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation
specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination.
20. COMPLIANCES:
Consultant shall comply with all laws, state or federal and all ordinances, rules and
regulations enacted or issued by CIC.
21. CONFLICT OF LAW:
This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California
excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction.
The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and
regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those
authorities.)
Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of
Alameda, State of California.
ERM
November 2005
Page 6 of 8
22. ADVERTISEMENT:
Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any
signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the services
performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from CIC to do
otherwise.
23. WAIVER:
A waiver by CIC of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein, shall not
be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or
condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
24. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature
whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of
whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held
to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written
execution signed by both CIC and Consultant.
25. INSERTED PROVISIONS:
Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be deemed
to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were included
herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly
inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party.
26. CAPTIONS:
The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and
in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement.
27. WASTE HANDLING:
In the event hazardous or toxic waste, material, chemical, compound, or substance materials
and any waste regulated by local, state or federal law, including but not limited to any sampling
materials such as drill cuttings and fluids or asbestos (the "Waste ") are encountered by Consultant or
result from Consultant's performance hereunder, Consultant will appropriately containerize and label
the Waste and, using a manifest signed by CIC as generator, have the Waste transported to a location
selected by CIC for final disposal. CIC acknowledges that at no time under this Agreement does
Consultant assume title to or the risk of loss associated with the Waste. CIC agrees to defend and
hold Consultant harmless from any and all liability (including, without limitation, any liability
derived from any so- called state or Federal "Superfund" law), claims, damages, suits, losses,
penalties; fines, or expenses (including attorney's fees) in any way related to Consultant's storage,
transportation and/or disposal of the Waste, except to the extent such liability, claims, damages,
suits, losses, penalties, fines or expenses result directly and solely from Consultant's negligence or
willful misconduct.
ERM
November 2005
Page 7 of 8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the day
and year first above written.
CONSULTANT
•
Y: 1441444.6:1— E. 64)11.4.-1,-1
Title: 17a,4 J4" • Wier.T to jG. Executive Director
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION
Debra Kurita
RECOMMEND D FOR APPROVAL:
il
Le e A. Little
Development Services Director
rebbie Potter, Manager
Base Reuse & Redevelopment Division
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David Brandt
Assistant City Attorney
ERM
November 2005
Page 8 of 8
Exhibit "A"
Environmental
Resources
Management
1777 Botelho Drive
Suite 260
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 946-0455
(925) 946 -9968 (fax)
Work Scope to Evaluate the Extent of PAH Contamination on a Portion of the Fleet
and Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Property
ERM -West, Inc. (ERM) presents to the City of Alameda (City) this proposal addressing
development and implementation of a strategy for further evaluation of environmental
conditions at the FISCA. The overall objective of the proposed study is to evaluate the
occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in two areas of the FISCA
(totaling approximately 25 acres).
Specific objectives include:
• Develop with DTSC an appropriate sampling strategy for evaluating PAHs in the
two areas noted on the attached map;
• Negotiate with DTSC, as appropriate, a remedial action level for B(a)PE that
considers exposure risk under an unrestricted residential reuse scenario; and
• Collect data for PAHs in soils sufficient to (1) augment the Navy's FS in
demonstrating that the specific parcels of interest are suitable for unrestricted
residential reuse, and (2) determine the response actions that may be necessary to
render the entirety of the specific parcels suitable for unrestricted residential reuse.
• Evaluate the data for IR -02 PCB and cadmium to determine where residential reuse
is acceptable without further remediation and where additional sampling is needed
to determine the remediation effort, if any, needed to allow residential reuse.
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
To meet the stated objectives, ERM proposes a number of activities, as described below.
Compile Summary of Historical Data
Using primarily the ALDD, but with supplemental information provided in previous
Navy documentation (e.g., Remedial Investigation Report), ERM will develop a summary
of historical PAH and IR -02 PCB and cadmium data within the proposed residential
parcels and in nearby areas. ERM's preliminary evaluation of data presented in the
ALDD suggests that some of the PAH data may be useable but that more detailed
sampling and analysis for PAHs will be required. DTSC has independently come to the
same conclusion. Completion of the proposed data summary will be necessary to
implement the next task, which addresses strategy development with DTSC.
Strategy Development with DTSC
In conjunction with development of the data summary, ERM will work with the City
and DTSC to develop a strategy for implementing additional investigation for PAHs,
PCBs, and cadmium. Our objectives will be to evaluate logistical issues surrounding
the potential removal of residential reuse restrictions as a remedy for the prospective
residential parcels on the FISCA, and to develop a conceptual scope of work for
performing the necessary additional investigation.
As part of ongoing strategy development with DTSC, and a topic to be considered
during the initial meeting with DTSC, it will be necessary and appropriate to revisit
DTSC's risk -based B(a)PE (benzo(a)pyrene equivalent) ceiling value to evaluate the
basis for any possible changes in that number (0.62 mg /kg). Furthermore, we will need
to develop with DTSC an appropriate statistical approach to determining the
circumstances under which remediation of soil exhibiting exceedances of the ceiling
value would be necessary. Our scope of work includes up to four meetings with DTSC
(and the Navy, as necessary and appropriate), either at the City's offices or DTSC's
offices in Berkeley, to finalize this strategy.
Workplan/Health and Safety Plan Development
ERM will prepare a workplan detailing the proposed approach to investigating PAHs
in the subject areas. Some of the samples from the subject areas that fall within IR -02
will also be analyzed for PCBs and cadmium. Proposed sampling locations (based on
110 locations and three samples at varying depths per location for a total of 330
samples) will be indicated on a site map. The workplan will also summarize historical
data, identify data gaps, and outline the statistical criteria against which the suitability
of the parcel(s) for residential reuse will be evaluated. The workplan will be provided
to DTSC prior to implementation of the investigation to ensure that all issues of concern
to have been addressed.
ERM will also develop a site - specific health and safety plan (HASP) for implementation
during the proposed field activities. The HASP will address all potential physical and
chemical hazards associated with the proposed work, and will be reviewed and
approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist prior to implementation. All ERM
personnel and other interested parties (e.g., City, Navy, and /or DTSC representatives)
who will be in the work area during implementation of the investigation will be
required to review and adhere to the HASP.
Permitting
ERM will apply for and obtain the necessary drilling permit from Alameda County
prior to implementing the work. All conditions of Alameda County's permits will be
met during implementation of the field investigation.
Site/Utilities Clearance
Prior to implementing field investigation activities, it will be necessary to ensure that
we have access through the City and ProLogis to all proposed sampling locations and to
clear those locations for potential underground utilities. ERM will also require access to
Building 4 in order to collect samples at approximately 12 to 25 locations. ERM will
make every effort to minimize disruption to ongoing business activities at that location.
As required by law, ERM will make appropriate notification to Underground Services
Alert. In addition, we will coordinate with the Navy and its caretaker to facilitate
review of any available as -built drawings that may indicate the locations of
underground utilities. Finally, we will contract with a licensed underground utilities
surveyor, who will clear each of the proposed locations. As necessary, we will move
locations to avoid impacting underground utilities.
Field Investigation
Based on our knowledge of site conditions, we anticipate that using direct -push
technology is the best approach to collecting discrete -depth soil samples and
minimizing the generation of investigation derived wastes (IDW). ERM may make use
of backhoe- excavated locations to collect depth - discrete (sidewall) samples where
access by the direct -push rig is not possible.
Based on the discussion above, we envision implementing the field investigation as
follows:
• 110 locations (approximately 140 -foot grid centers), with samples collected at a
maximum of three depths (0 -0.5 feet, 1.5 -2.0 feet, and 3.5 -4.0 feet bgs);
Some of the proposed sampling locations are within the foundations of existing
structures (e.g., Building 4 and the steam plant) that will require coring the concrete to
create access for direct -push investigation. ERM has assumed coring concrete up to 1
foot thick at a maximum of 40 locations.
The proposed sampling protocol involves collecting discrete soil samples from up to
three depths at each location. We will use proposed final grade elevations provided by
ProLogis to make a determination as to the number of samples to be collected at each
location (two versus three), to the extent possible.
Samples will be preserved in accordance with standard practices and transferred under
appropriate chain -of- custody documentation to a State - certified analytical laboratory.
Each sample will be analyzed for PAHs with selective ion monitoring (SIM) using
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 8270/8310 to ensure
method detection limits that are low enough to be compared to the B(a)PE standards
currently being used by DTSC. Similarly, samples to be tested for PCBs and cadmium
also, will be analyzed using USEPA Methods 8020A and 6010C, respectively, or equal.
During and following completion of the field investigation, ERM will oversee a licensed
land surveyor to survey the horizontal and vertical coordinates of sampling locations.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Upon completing the field investigation and receiving all sampling data from the
laboratory, ERM will prepare a report of findings suitable for submittal to DTSC and
incorporation into the public record as part of DTSC's decision documentation. The
report will include the following information:
• A written summary of field activities and findings;
• Tabular documentation of analytical results, including a conversion to B(a)PE and a
comparison of those results to the criteria to be coordinated with DTSC;
• Field data, including boring logs, field notes, and permit documentation, as
appropriate (as appendices); and
• Conclusions appropriate to investigation findings, and recommendations for follow -
on (remedial) activities, as necessary and appropriate.
ERM will submit a draft version to the City for review and comment, and upon
receiving the City's comments we will finalize the document for submittal to DTSC and
the Navy. We anticipate having a meeting with the City at the time the preliminary
data become available, for the purpose of walking through the preliminary findings and
conclusions, then preparing the draft pursuant to those discussions.
Waste Disposal
ERM anticipates generating a limited amount of IDW (up to a maximum of ten 55-
gallon drums), consisting primarily of soil cuttings and decontamination rinsate. These
materials will be maintained in appropriately labeled drums at the site pending
completion of laboratory analytical work. We will then profile the waste materials and
have them removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.
9
,. _.. ■.
M T' ----L MOSLflY
STORMWATER �..
TREATMENT
POND
ON Ma
fEXIST. BOUNDARY (TYP.)
TINKER AVP,NU7?
39 —UNIT
SITE
STORMWATER
PUMP STATION
PARCEL
EWEN
0 400
800
�•7 , 4780 Chabot Dr, Suite 104
RM�Pleasanton, CA 94588 -3323
925/396 -7700
t nmalostlxVrftl113immixtxx 925/396 -7799 (fox)
Drawn APL
EXHIBIT A
Checked APL
Job No. 980221 -11 Dole 6 /30/05
Approved OGS
Sheet 1 of 1
Exhibit "B"
PROPOSED BUDGET AND SCHEDULE
ERM will complete the proposed scope of work on a time - and - materials, not -to- exceed
basis, consistent with the costs summarized in the following table and in accordance
with the terms and conditions set forth in the Consultant Agreement executed between
the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda and ERM.
The costs presented in the table, which total $194,320, include all ERM labor and
expenses, and subcontractor costs (i.e., utility clearance, drilling, laboratory, and survey
contractors) and a 25% contingency.
Task/Activity Cost
Historical Data Compilation $ 3,365
Strategy Development $ 8,910
Workplan /HASP Development $ 3,685
Permitting /Site Clearance $ 10,825
Field Investigation/ $ 106,875
Lab Analysis*
Data Analysis/ Reporting $ 17,845
Waste Disposal $ 3,950
25% Contingency $ 38,865
Total Cost $ 194,320
* 110 sampling locations, with a maximum of three vertical samples
Only actual costs related to the project will be billed.
Pending the CIC's authorization to proceed, ERM will begin preparing the workplan.
Implementation of the field investigation is scheduled for the week of 28 November
2005. We will coordinate a schedule for providing a report of findings to the City and
DTSC upon confirming the scope of field activities.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - NOVEMBER 1, 2005- -6:05 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- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Management and
Confidential Employees Association.
(05- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing litigation; Name
of case: Citizens for a Megaplex -Free Alameda v. City of Alameda,
et al.
(05- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Management and Confidential
Employees Association, the Council gave instructions to labor
negotiators; regarding Existing litigation, the Council was briefed
by the City Attorney; regarding the City Attorney, the Council gave
instruction to the negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:35 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
November 1, 2005
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - NOVEMBER 1, 2005 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *05 ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission and Special Community Improvement Commission
meetings held on October 18, 2005. Approved.
( *05- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Financial Report
for the period ending September 30, 2005 and approve the
supplemental appropriations. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
November 1, 2005
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - - NOVEMBER 1, 2005 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:46 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05 ) Councilmember deHaan stated that he thought the Public
Hearing to accept new, revised preliminary designs for the Cineplex
and a 352 -space parking structure [paragraph no. ] and the
Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's
approval of Use Permits [paragraph no. ] should be heard in
reverse order.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05- ) Proclamation honoring the developers of the Marketplace,
and declaring November 1, 2005 as Donna Layburn, Paul Hossack, and
Gerald Mackey Appreciation Day.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Donna Layburn
and Gerald Mackey, developers of the Marketplace.
Donna Layburn thanked the Council for the proclamation and support.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the developers for perservering.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he appreciates moving forward with
the developer's vision.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Marketplace is a great place to
shop; tenants have created a wonderful synergy; owners are
friendly, outgoing, and helpful.
Valerie Ruma, Alameda, stated that she is a fan of the marketplace.
(05- ) Library update.
The Project Manager gave a brief project update.
Mayor Johnson requested that the Project Manager alert the Council
on available options if the project is still under budget.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
1
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether items removed through value
engineering were prioritized, to which the Project Manager
responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan requested that items removed through value
engineering be prioritized by cost and gain.
Councilmember Matarrese stated direction was given to review
longevity versus spending; analysis should be given to saving
$26,000 today and spending $60,000 for restroom rehabilitation in
the future because durable countertops were not installed.
The Project Manager stated there was significant discussion on the
countertop issues; countertop prices would be provided to the
Council.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a report on long -term projections
for replacement costs.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *05- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on October 18, 2005. Approved.
( *05 ) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,861,380.74.
( *05- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report
for the period ending September 30, 2005. Accepted.
( *05 ) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to pay Bay
Ship & Yacht Company $134,598.19 for facility upgrades to the Main
Street Ferry Terminal. Accepted.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13906, "Amending Resolution No. 9460 to
Reflect Current Positions and Entities to be Included in the City
of Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and Rescinding Resolution
No. 13726." Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
2
(05- ) Public Hearing to accept new, revised preliminary designs
for the cineplex and a 352 -space parking structure at the corner of
Oak Street and Central Avenue, within the C -C T (Community
Commercial Theater) Zoning District.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation on the
project.
Mr. Towey with Komorous -Towey Architects gave a Power Point
presentation.
Councilmember deHaan stated there are seven parking levels;
inquired whether the elevator tower reached up to the seventh
level.
The Architect responded in the negative; stated the previous and
current designs are the same; the seventh level was extended to
make up for some lost spaces.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the highest peak would be the
elevator tower and whether the roof level was now 70 feet.
The Architect responded that the top of the elevator tower was the
highest point.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the canopies look industrial;
inquired whether other options were considered.
The Architect responded that the industrial nature of the canopies
could be valid, depending on execution; the historical period being
evaluated had very flat and thin awnings; many were roll out
awnings; the intention is to keep the metal very flat and thin as
opposed to having a sloping top; the corrugated metal would not be
visible; the canopies could be executed to look finished.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was another design
which could pull back the 20 inch protrusion.
The Architect responded that the previous design studied what would
occur if the protrusion had to be pulled back; twenty five seats
and a few feet off one of the screen's sides would be lost; his
charge was to work with the approved floor plans.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of the design): Pauline Kelley, Alameda; Pete
Halberstadt, Alameda (read a list of 33 people in favor of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
3
design); Chuck Millar, Alameda; Marilyn Schumacher, Alameda; Sherri
Stieg, Alameda; Harry Hartman, Alameda; Michael John Torrey,
Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of the design): Anthony Mark, Oakland;
Birgitt Evans, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS);;
Jack Boeger, Alameda; Christopher Buckley, AAPS; Richard Rutter,
AAPS; Irene Dieter, Alameda (submitted comments); Valerie Ruma,
Alameda; Victoria Ashley, Alameda; Vern Marsh, Alameda; Robert
Gavrich, Alameda (submitted comments); Jay Levine, Alameda
(submitted comments); Jon Spangler, Alameda; Ron Schaeffer, CMFA
(submitted comments); Kevin Fredrick, Alameda; David Miller,
Alameda; Dave Kerwin, Alameda.
There be no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the project design was light years
ahead of the previous design.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated
Council direction was followed to make the facade less modern,
match the architectural character of the existing theater, and
accommodate the project; the project should be accepted.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is comfortable with the design;
the design addresses some of the AAPS's concerns and project
continuity; he appreciates that time was taken to review the
design.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she is particularly pleased with the
parking garage; the staff and Architect did an excellent job of
following Council direction; thanked AAPS for input; stated the
parking garage is an excellent design.
Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciates the staff's and
Architect's work; improvements are outstanding; the project should
move forward.
Councilmember deHaan stated he is concerned with the 70 -foot high
parking structure, which would be even with the marquee; stated
Mariner Square's new boat storage facility is 50 -feet tall; Alameda
Point Hangers 41 and 39 are 45 -feet tall; massing is a concern.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted against the matter
several months ago on very narrow grounds, which still stand; he is
concerned that the City is not getting the best business deal out
of the project; the rent on the historic theater amounts to 30
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
4
cents per square foot when the market rate is around $1.50 to $1.80
per square foot; charging 60 cents would amount to millions of
dollars over time; the Council cannot treat fiscal issues lightly;
there is pent up demand for a movie theater in Alameda; he is
concerned with project redevelopment; a lot of public dollars are
being put into the project; $9 million is being put into the
historic theater and more is being put into the parking garage and
cineplex; public investment would be paid back through future tax
increments; redevelopment needs to add value and not just recoup
investments; projects need to generate sales tax, more property
taxes, and more revenues; investments are being made that are not
just redevelopment dollars, but dollars that previously went to
other taxing public entities; the promise of redevelopment is not
just to revitalize blighted areas but also to pay back entities;
there would not be associated redevelopment costs if there was a
better business deal; the project is more of a street and sidewalk
public works project, where recouping of public funds is not
expected; he is glad that the historic theater would be restored;
he is concerned with getting the best possible rent for the City; a
beautiful project should never trump bottom line considerations; he
will stick to his guns regarding the fiscal aspects of the project.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council voted on the business plan in
May; Councilmember Daysog voted for the business plan, which
included the square footage rental; the historic Alameda theater
project is not intended to be strictly a business deal, but also a
historic renovation project; a new cineplex could be built for less
money; the historic theater is being significantly restored; she
would hope that a second and third phase restoration could be done;
saving the building first is necessary.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted for the Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA) in May; a DDA is never consummated
until all the land use approvals are put in place per the Municipal
Code; financial feasibility was referenced when the Downtown Vision
Plan was adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the revised design of the
cineplex and the parking structure.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore and Matarrese
and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. Abstentions:
Councilmember deHaan - 1.
(05- ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's approval of Use Permits for: a) multi - screen theatre, live
theatre, and public assembly use in the C -C T district pursuant to
Regular Meeting 5
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
AMC Subsection 30 -4.22; b) fifty eight (58') foot building height
for the Cineplex pursuant to AMC Subsection 30- 4.9A.g.2; and c)
extended hours of operation until 3:00 a.m. for the theatre
pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.c.1(a) for up to 24 days per
year. The site is located at 2305 -2317 Central Avenue, within the
C -C T (Community Commercial Theatre Combining) District.
Applicants: Kyle Conner, Alameda Entertainment Associates, LP.
Appellants: Ani Dimusheva and Robert Gavrich; and
(05- A) Resolution No. 13907, "Upholding the Planning Board's
Approval of Use Permit UP05 -0018 for: A) Multi - Screen Theater, Live
Theater, and Public Assembly Use in the C -C T District Pursuant to
AMC Subsection 30 -4.22; B) Fifty Eight Foot (58') Building Height
for the Cineplex Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30 -4.9A. G -2; and (C)
Extended Hours of Operation until 3:00 A.M. for 24 Days per Year
for the Theater Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30- 4.9A.C.1(A) for
Occasional Special Events and Screenings, with a condition that an
analysis of late -night screening be conducted after 12 events or a
year, whichever comes first." Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation on the project.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Opponents (Not in favor of the project): Jenny Curtis; Citizens for
a Megaplex -Free Alameda (CMFA) (submitted comments); Valerie Ruma,
CMFA (submitted comments); Ani Dimusheva, Appellant; Alice Ray,
CMFA (submitted comments); Kristi Koenen, CMFA; Andy Crockett, CMFA
(submitted comments); Vern Marsh, CMFA; Phyllis Greenwood, CMFA;
Lew Brentano, CMFA (submitted comments); Joe Meylor, CMFA; Robert
Gavrich, Appellant(submitted comments); Paula Rainey, CMFA; Kevin
Fredrick, CMFA; Russell Kirk, CMFA (submitted comments); Richard
McClure II, Alameda (not present); Arthur Lipow, Alameda (submitted
letter); Deborah Overfield; David Kirwin, Alameda; David Miller,
Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Gary McAffe, Alameda; Mark Dombeck,
Alameda; Ana Rojas, Alameda; Clyde Serda, Alameda (submitted
comments); Glen Vivion; Susan Battaglia, Alameda; Rosemary McNally,
Alameda (submitted comments); William F. Assali, Alameda (not
present); Irene Dieter, Alameda.
Proponents (In favor of the project): Rich Warner, Alameda; Gail
Wetzork, Alameda; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Alameda; Cathy Leong,
Alameda; Kevin Leong, Alameda; Fritz Mayer, Alameda; Bruce Reeves,
Alameda (not present); Harvey Brook, Alameda; Lars Hanson, Park
Street Business Association (PSBA); Barbara Marchand, Marchand
Associates; Sherri Hansell, Alameda; Mary Amen; Debbie George,
Alameda; Lowell Schneider,(PSBA); Blake Brydon, Alameda; Barry
Finkelstein, Alameda; Mike Corbitt, Chamber of Commerce Board;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
6
Chuck Carlise; Alameda; Marilyn Schumacher, Alameda (not present);
Robert Doumitt, Alameda (not present); Robert McKean, Alameda;
Sherri Stieg, WABA; Walt Jacobs, Chamber of Commerce (not present);
Kyle Conner, Applicant; Harry Hartman, Alameda (not present); Nancy
Brandt, Alameda; Michael Torrey, Alameda; Frank George, Alameda;
Melody Marr, Chamber of Commerce (read list of 14 people in favor
of the project); Duane Watson, Lee Auto Supply.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Daysog stated that people can always agree to
disagree but should not be disagreeable; Councilmembers he has
worked with since 1996 have all had the interest of the community
in mind; the community must move forward regardless of tonight's
decision; he has always focused on the dollars and cents of a
project; he has reservations with the proposed alternative; other
cities are doing other things; El Cerrito has purchased a historic
theater and is contracting with a company to run the theater;
Orinda is working with a non - profit group to preserve its historic
theater; he will support the Appeal because of the dollars and
cents issue; 30 cents per square foot would generate $3 million
versus 60 cents per square foot generating $6 million over the life
of a twenty year project; stated he respects the other
Councilmembers' opinions.
Councilmember deHaan stated seven downtown parking sights were
reviewed in October 2002; the sites were narrowed down to three:
the Elk's Club, Longs, and Bank of America; the report showing that
Video Maniacs was one of the sites is in error; inquired when the
Video Maniacs site came into play.
The Development Services Director responded that Video Maniacs was
considered as a site in a parking analysis prior to October 2002;
the opportunity was shifted to Long's; there was additional
dialogue combining the two sites; the shift went back to the Video
Maniacs site when Long's no longer wanted to work with the City.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Video Maniacs was identified as a
parking structure before the cineplex review; inquired whether five
screens were ever considered.
The Development Services Director responded there were a number of
proposals that had a combination of multiple screens; five screens
in the historic theater were never considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was referring to five screens
in the cineplex.
Regular Meeting 7
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
The Development Services Director stated that product and screen
size and number of seats were discussed; internal evaluations
included reviewing something smaller.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether five screens were
recommended.
The Development Services Director responded that staff concluded
that five screens would not be viable as competition continued to
increase in the area.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the viability of a five -
screen theater was understood.
The Development Services Director responded different product and
configurations were reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether five screens were considered
and recommended by staff.
The Development Services Director responded moving forward on the
matter was considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Page 7 of the staff report
addresses parking garage availability; the bottom line notes that
the parking garage and available parking would still have an extra
capacity of about 335, the day after the parking structure was
built; inquired whether there was a change in October 2005.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Page 28 of the study notes there
would be additional parking; he is concerned about using off - street
parking; inquired whether off - street private parking could be used.
The Development Services Director responded that the referenced
study includes the Library; the studies are not comparable; there
was some accommodation for off - street parking within the
calculation of the use of the Library; off - street parking has not
been calculated for the parking structure, cineplex or historic
theater.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why private parking was included.
The Development Services Director responded there are a number of
private parking lots that are not owned by the City, such as the
Bank of America lot that make up part of the mix; the parking lots
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
8
become part of the available population when office workers go
home; parking supply is not just public parking.
Councilmember deHaan stated there is no entitlement to private
parking.
Councilmember Daysog moved that the Regular Meeting be continued to
past midnight.
* **
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether private parking could be used
if there was an agreement with the owners.
The Development Services Director responded that covenants are not
sought from owners for parking access.
Councilmember deHaan stated that a parking structure would not be
needed according to information provided in a 2000 study; the study
noted that 204 spaces were available on Saturday evenings; inquired
how impacts from the Masonic Temple, high school, Kaufman
Auditorium and Elks Club were calculated.
The Development Services Director responded that the analysis did
not assume anything other than normal activity; seasonable events
overwork a parking supply and change the normal scenario; the
analysis reviews typical peak times and does not focus on the
unusual.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why the 70 -foot parking structure was
not included in the September 29, 2005 staff report.
The Development Services Director responded the report was prior to
the new project.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 70 -foot parking structure
was equivalent to the Alameda Theater sign and the Twin Tower
spiral.
The Development Services Director responded the 70 -foot parking
structure was the interior of the mechanical system elevator
penthouse on the parking structure only; stated the Oak Street
facade of the parking structure has now dropped to 48 feet; the
final ramp roof of the sixth story goes up to just below 70 feet.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there were always seven
Regular Meeting 9
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
levels to which the Development Services Director responded the
sixth story roof parking was always in place.
Councilmember deHaan stated the setbacks were done well; the cost
per square foot increases with higher levels; inquired whether the
soil conditions have been reviewed.
The Development Services Director responded that the site has sandy
soil.
The Revdelopment Manager stated that a professional geotechnical
consultant prepared a soil report; the loose sand would need to be
removed; compacted, new soil would have to be brought in or the
grade below could be used to add some additional spaces to make up
for the setback.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether exterior architectural
treatment would add to the cost.
The Development Services Director responded there are some cost
savings with the revised design; the goal was to have the parking
garage structure cost under or at budget; removing the brick was a
savings; providing long, side openings would save on ventilation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a cost estimate for
the parking structure.
The Development Services Director responded that there was a
ballpark estimate from the Architect; the Architect feels the
project was close, if not under budget; removing ventilation and
sprinkling would save money.
Councilmember deHaan stated the October 2002 cost estimate for 269
spaces was $5.4 million.
The Development Services stated the estimate was the cost per
parking space without land acquisition, relocation, and all soft
costs for design and engineering; hard construction costs per space
was approximately $18,000 to $19,000.
Councilmember deHaan stated the report shows a cost of $16,000 per
space a few years ago.
The Development Services Director stated that San Jose had a 1999
cost estimate for $15,000 per space which ended up costing $34,000
per space by the time the structure was built four years later;
costs are difficult to estimate without construction documents.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
10
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the cost estimate was $16
million in 2002 -2003.
The Development Services Director responded that $10.5 was bonded
for the parking structure and $7.5 million was bonded for the
historic theater.
Councilmember deHaan stated the November 2004 estimate was $24.7
million and now there was an estimate of $26.8 million.
The Development Services Director stated that the construction
contingency was gone; adding a 15% construction contingency was
requested for the historic theater.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $28 million would consume all
the dollars for the project, to which the Development Services
Director responded very close.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the project might have to be
value engineered.
The Development Services Director responded that there is no place
to value engineer the historic theater.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a recap of the Planning Board
conditions regarding 3:00 am late night screenings.
The Development Services Director stated that the two primary
conditions are: 1) the operator must submit an operation plan which
the Police Department and the City reviews for appropriateness, and
2) the Use Permit would be reviewed by the Planning Board (after a
year) to decide whether additional conditions are needed.
The Redevelopment Manager stated that the 3:00 am use is restricted
to 24 times per year in the bottom four screens.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there would only be first -
run movies at the late night screenings.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the requirement was part of the Development Agreement.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be contract
Police overtime when the theater is in operation past midnight, to
which the Development Services Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Police Department would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
11
be notified a week before the special event.
The Development Services Director responded the Police Department
would be notified a couple of weeks before the special event.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether special showings would be in
the bigger or smaller theater.
The Development Services Director responded special showings could
be a combination of both; the intent is to have all the big
blockbusters start in the bigger theater.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a caveat to review
the Use Permit after a year, to which the Development Services
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how often the Developer ran late
night movies.
The Developer responded that the new Harry Potter movie was being
released Thursday at midnight; Star Wars and Serenity ran at 12:01
a.m.; approximately six movies have been shown past midnight this
year.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether lowering the number of late
night movies would be acceptable.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Planning Board had a very thorough
discussion on midnight showings; there should be flexibility.
Councilmember deHaan stated there was no Planning Board resolution
regarding cueing.
The Development Services Director stated she spoke to the Police
Chief regarding the matter and concluded that nobody believes
cueing would occur.
The City Attorney stated that there is a section in the Resolution
regarding cueing; there are five conditions on blockbuster releases
and special venues.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be contract
overtime for cueing, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why a Public Works and Police
Department review was requested.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
12
The Development Services Director responded the Public Works review
was requested because of street and sidewalk issues; the Police
Department review was requested for insight; special requests would
be discussed among all department heads.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the zoning district allows up
to 60 feet with the granting of the Use Permit.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the parking structure is exempt.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether only the cineplex was being
discussed, to which the Development Services Director responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that comments at the Planning Board
meeting and tonight's meeting are no different; the Planning Board
took diligence in reviewing the Municipal Code for the cineplex
height requirements and did a credible job in reviewing extending
hours past midnight; stated he has no problem as long as the hours
are monitored.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution upholding
the Planning Board's approval with a condition that there be a
monthly analysis of late -night screenings and a review after 12
events or a year, whichever comes first.
The Development Services Director stated that there would be a
master review after 12 events.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board would review the
matter, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes - Vice Mayor Gilmore, Councilmember
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
Abstentions: Councilmember deHaan - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05- ) Status of the Infrastructure Improvement Project /Plan,
including scope, issues, timelines and questions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
13
Councilmember Daysog requested that the Council forward .
infrastructure plan ideas to the staff prior to the matter being on
the agenda in December; suggested community oversight be
established; requested future discussions on how streets are
prioritized for crack sealing treatment.
Mayor Johnson stated she would not want to have the infrastructure
report delayed in order to review options; the Council should
review what other cities do; she was very disappointed when the
Council learned that the infrastructure spending was cut nearly
50 %, which made making the reserve appear to be false; stated the
reserve is not false; deferred maintenance occurred; stated there
is crack sealing all over the City; a decision was made not to do
crack sealing; the Council needs more information on what is
prioritized and the affects of the decisions; a long catch -up game
is required due to the cuts.
Councilmember Daysog requested some level of discussion about an
oversight committee that would inform the Council on issues.
Mayor Johnson stated there should be a discussion on available
options and goals.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the infrastructure report would
be brought to the Council, to which the City Manager responded
December.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether park deterioration would be
included in the report.
The City Manager responded the report includes sidewalks, streets,
street tree planning, field maintenance, facility maintenance,
sewers, and storm drains.
(05- ) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she attended the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Conference in Oakland
last week; the main topic of conversation was affordable housing;
there was a strong recognition that individuals are being priced
out of the Bay Area market; the 20 -30 year old group stated housing
was a real problem; unfortunately the language at the conference
was harsh on both sides and was not a good coming together to
exchange ideas.
(05- ) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Chamber of Commerce
had a briefing on the Ninth Avenue project in conjunction with the
Port of Oakland for 3,500 to 4,000 homes; there is continual build
out on the other side of the Estuary; the City is in litigation
which restricts fulfilling commitments; expressing the City's
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
14
concerns regarding constraints are important.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he previously requested a summary
report on Oakland developments that need to be reviewed; requested
a follow up to his request.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 12:37 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2005
15
November 10, 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
142201 - 142603
EFT 150
EFT 151
E14172 - E14290
Void Checks:
140901
GRAND TOTAL
Respectfully submitted,
Council Warrants 11/15/05
Amount
2,251,671.49
25,610.00
60, 000.00
71,949.34
(1,143.92)
2,408,086.91
BILLS #4 -B
11/15/05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: November 1, 2005
Re: Recommendation to Approve the Purchase of Three Marked Patrol Vehicles
from Film Vehicle Services in the Amount of $80,493.
BACKGROUND
On September 20, 2005, the City Council adopted specifications and authorized calling for
bids for the replacement of three marked patrol vehicles.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The City of Alameda purchasing policy required utilization of a competitive bid process for
this purchase. Therefore, a notice was published in the Alameda Journal, which serves as
the official newspaper for legal advertising for the City and was mailed to a list of
interested suppliers. The formal bid process closed on October 21, 2005, with Film Vehicle
Services as the sole bidder with a price of $26,831.00 per vehicle, which includes tax and
delivery.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed action will not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The total cost for three patrol vehicles is $80,493.00. There are sufficient funds in the
2005 / 2006 equipment replacement fund for this purchase.
Report 4 -C
11 -15 -05
Honorable Mayor and November 1, 2005
Councilmembers Page Two
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the purchase of three marked patrol vehicles from Film Vehicle Services in the
amount of $80,493.
DK/CLO /wjs
Respectfully submitted,
a,
Craig L. Ojala
Interim Chief of Police
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
City of Alameda
November 9, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Subject: Recommendation to Approve an Agreement with Holland and Knight, LLP
in the amount of $96,000 for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Background
On February 1, 2003, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA)
entered into an agreement with Holland & Knight, LLP to provide federal legislative
advocacy services. In June 2004, the City Manager retained the services of Holland
and Knight to provide federal legislative and regulatory advocacy services for the entire
City organization. On July 19, 2005, the City Council extended the agreement for four
additional months to allow the firm to further demonstrate its effectiveness in securing
federal funds.
Discussion /Analysis
In 2004, Holland and Knight's advocacy efforts resulted in an appropriation of $465,000
in the Federal Transportation- Treasury Appropriations bill to fund transportation
planning for Alameda Point. In July 2005, their efforts resulted in another
Congressional appropriation of $1.672 million to plan, design and construct an
intermodal transportation facility at Alameda Point. The project was also designated in
federal legislation as a "New Starts" project which makes it eligible for capital funding in
future federal budgets. More information regarding Holland and Knight's federal fiscal
year 2006 advocacy efforts is attached. Currently, Holland & Knight staff is assisting
the City Manager's Office in preparing appropriations requests for the federal fiscal year
2007.
Budget Consideration /Financial Impact
The cost to retain Holland and Knight to provide federal legislative and regulatory
advocacy is $96,000 for a twelve month period beginning November 20, 2005. This is a
20% reduction in the monthly fee required under the current agreement. A portion of the
funding for the new agreement was appropriated by the City Council on November 1,
2005 in the FY 05 -06 budget for the City Managers Office. Funds for the remaining
Report 4 -D
11 -15 -05
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
November 9, 2005
Page 2
portion of the agreement will be requested in the FY 06 -08 financial plan that will be
considered by Council in May, 2006.
Municipal Code /Policv Document Cross Reference
This action will not affect the Municipal Code.
Recommendation
Approve an agreement with Holland and Knight, LLP in the amount of $96,000 for
federal legislative advocacy services.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra Kurita
City Manager
By:
Christa J nson
Assistant to the City Manager
Attachments
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Holland Knight
Memorandum
Date:
October 11, 2005
To: Mayor Beverly Johnson, City of
Alameda
Debra Kurita, City Manager
From: Richard Gold
Lynn Cutler
Julie Adair
Re: Fiscal Year 2006 Federal Advocacy
Update
INTRODUCTION
Tel 202 955 3000
Fax 202 955 5564
Holland & Knight LLP
2099 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W.
Suite 100
Washington, D.C. 20006-
6801
www.hklaw.com
Richard Gold
202 457 7143
rgold @hklaw.com
This memorandum outlines our federal advocacy accomplishments and on -going legislative
efforts on behalf of the City of Alameda. While the majority of our time is spent advocating for
the City's appropriations and TEA -21 reauthorization priorities, we also provide valuable
authorization and regulatory services in support of local initiatives. We are in constant contact
with the Congressional offices and federal agencies that matter most to the City and over the
several years have built a reliable network of support that allows us to help the City with its most
pressing needs.
I. Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations
A. Status
Upon return from the August recess, the House and Senate continued their consideration of the
outstanding appropriations bills and conference reports in an attempt and meet the 2005 fiscal
year end deadline of October 1St. However, Congress was unable to meet this goal and instead
passed a continuing resolution (CR) that will keep the federal government funded at a
combination of last year's enacted funding levels and this year's committee approved funding
levels until November 18th. Only the Interior and Environment and Legislative Branch
appropriations bills have been successfully conferenced and signed into law, and for these
reasons were not included in the CR.
It is the intent of Congress to have the remaining appropriations bills completed before the CR
expires mid - November, but it remains to be seen whether or not that can be accomplished given
the combination of a short timeframe and busy floor schedule.
At present, the following bills are currently being reconciled between the House and Senate
versions in conference.
Annapolis • Atlanta • Bethesda • Boston • Bradenton • Chicago • Fort Lauderdale •
Jacksonville • Lakeland • Los Angeles
Miami • New York • Northern Virginia • Orlando • Portland • Providence • Rancho Santa
Fe • Sacramento • St. Petersburg
San Antonio • San Francisco • Seattle • Tallahassee • Tampa • Washington, D.C. • West
Palm Beach
Beijing • Caracas* • Helsinki* • Mexico City Tel Aviv* • Tokyo • *Representative
Office
November 8, 2005
Page 2
• Commerce, Justice and Science
• Defense
• Energy & Water
In addition, the Senate has announced plans to start its floor consideration of the Transportation,
Treasury and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia ( TTHUD)
appropriations bill when it returns for a week long October recess on October 17th. The Senate
expects that floor consideration will last two to three business days.
B. Alameda's Priority Projects
Of particular interest to the City are the following:
• Transportation: During conference of the TTHUD appropriations bill all highway and
bus projects will be added. Both the House and Senate elected not to earmark these
accounts earlier in the process. We continue to work with Congressman Stark and
Senators Boxer and Feinstein to ensure that funding for the Park Street Pedestrian Safety
Transportation Improvements project and the Citywide Bus Shelter Program receive
funding. In fact, Lynn Cutler recently spoke personally with Senator Feinstein about the
Park Street project and the Senator conveyed her full support. As mentioned above, the
Senate will begin its floor consideration of this bill during the week of October 17th
Once this bill passes the Senate, the House and Senate will meet to reconcile the
differences and add project earmarks in conference.
• COPS: During conference of the House Science, State, Justice and Commerce and
Related Agencies (SSJC) bill and the Senate Commerce - Justice - Science (CJS) bill, the
Senate will be adding their priorities for COPS earmarks. As you will recall, the House
included COPS earmarks in their bill, but Congressman Stark was unable to secure
funding for the Wireless LAN Infrastructure or the Alameda Public Safety & Community
Crime Resistance Program for SRO and DARE. Upon learning that neither project was
included in the House bill we made Senator Boxer aware of the situation. Through a high
level conversation between Lynn Cutler and the Senator's Chief of Staff, Karen Olick, the
Senator has confirmed that these projects are also a priority for her. Julie Adair has also
been in contact with Laurie Saroff, Senior Policy Advisor for the Senator, and Laurie has
weighed in with CJS Appropriations subcommittee staff, Paul Carliner. Furthermore, our
colleagues Leigha Shaw (a former House appropriations committee staff member) and
John Buscher who have close relationships with House and Senate Republican committee
staff, are working with committee staff to seek their support as well. As you are aware,
this bill is currently in conference.
II. Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations Cycle Preparation
Over the next several weeks, the City will be assessing their departmental needs for the coming
year. These requests will be initially discussed during our upcoming meeting with Debra Kurita,
Paul Benoit and Christa Johnson on October 17th. Like last year, we will work with the City to
prioritize these projects and prepare the necessary white papers and support materials for
Congressional meetings in the early part of calendar 2006. In preparation, attached please find a
November 8, 2005
Page 3
sample project questionnaire to assist in identifying the specific project need and potential
sources of funding.
Ideally, the City's fiscal year 2007 appropriations priorities should be defined by Thanksgiving to
allow for time to prepare associated white papers and support materials over the month of
December.
III. SAFETEA -LU
A. Congressional Passage & Alameda's Priority Projects
As you are aware, on July 29, 2005 the House and Senate approved H.R. 3, the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU)
Conference report, officially putting an end to a three -year struggle which spanned two
Congresses. Included in the final conference report were the City's top priorities. The
intermodal facility project received $1.672 million for planning, design, and construction and the
Fixed Guideway Corridor project received its necessary authorization.
Over the next four fiscal years (FY06 -FY09) the City will receive a total of $1.672 M to plan,
design and construct an intermodal facility. The High Priority Projects Bus and Bus Facilities
funds will be released as follows:
• FY06: $384,560
• FY07: $401,280
• FY08: $434,720
• FY09: $451,440
B. Next Steps for the City
As we noted in our previous update, now is the time for City staff to begin working with the
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) on the release of these funds. Obtaining
these federally earmarked funds from the state is the second part of the process and we can
provide strategic assistance along the way. If the City has not already done so, a good place to
start is to notify the District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE) for District 4, which serves the
City of Alameda, and make them aware of the funds.
C. Alameda Point Major Transit Investment Study
In addition, we look forward to continuing to work with the City as planning and design
continues for the Alameda Point Major Transit Investment Study. As you are aware, this project
received a New Starts project authorization in SAFETEA -LU under the name "Alameda,
California — Fixed Guideway Corridor Project." With the project authorization in hand, the
project can start to apply for federal funds to assist with the movement of buses to Oakland,
ferries to San Francisco and the construction of the Seaplane Lagoon Transit Center.
November 8, 2005
Page 4
IV. Eminent Domain
A. Background
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's June 23 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, several
Members of Congress have introduced legislation to prohibit state and local use of federal funds
in any way to exercise eminent domain for economic development purposes. We are aware that
this is an important issue for the City and have been in close contact with Christa Johnson,
providing updates as appropriate.
We are closely monitoring this issue and are paying special attention to any legislation that
would negatively affect the FY04 HUD Section 108 loan for the theatre project. At present there
is no legislation before Congress that contains retroactivity. However, this issue does have the
attention of Congress and several proposals and moving through the committee process.
B. Congressional Actions
Most recently the House Agriculture Committee passed H.R. 3405, the Strengthening the
Ownership of Private Property (STOPP) Act of 2005. The STOPP Act would mandate that if a
state or local government uses eminent domain for economic development and takes land from
one private entity to give to another, then that state or locality will not be eligible to receive
federal funding for any projects receiving federal economic development assistance.
While this bill has strong bi- partisan support, the House Judiciary Committee has made it clear
that it intends to take the lead on this issue. House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner
introduced his eminent domain bill, H.R. 3135, shortly before the August recess.
Sensenbrenner's bill, which boasts 134 co- sponsors, is much broader in scope and is therefore
likely to be the final legislative vehicle for eminent domain. Congressional aides have signaled
that hearings for this bill would likely take place this fall, but also acknowledged that it is unclear
how quickly a bill will move because of activity surrounding hurricane Katrina.
In addition, this issue is also getting the attention of the TTHUD Appropriations committee. The
House FY06 TTHUD Appropriations committee adopted restrictive language, that if enacted into
law, state and local governments could lose authority to use eminent domain in connection with
federally assisted projects that promote economic development. It is likely that similar language
will be adopted by the Senate during their consideration of the bill next week. Again, these
actions are not retroactive, but we continue to closely monitor them.
V. Housing
We continue to work with Mike Pucci on issues of importance for the Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda (Housing Authority). Over the summer of 2004, we successfully obtained
funds in the amount of $636,161 or 684 unit months from the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Housing Authority. These funds successfully
November 8, 2005
Page 5
prevented 108 families from loosing their Section 8 housing voucher assistance. Without this
critical assistance, these families were at risk of becoming homeless.
Currently we are engaged in efforts to seek a waiver from Fannie Mae to allow the Housing
Authority to use their risk retention pool instead of requiring the Housing Authority to obtain
outside and costly insurance. We also assisting the Housing Authority with continued efforts to
secure nearly $1.2M owed to the housing authority by HUD. HUD has acknowledged their error
in this matter; however they have not followed up on their promise to provide the housing
authority with recaptured funds from other sources.
VI. Grants
Recognizing the benefit of grant opportunities to our local government clients, we have
developed a weekly grant notification service that focuses on federal grants opportunities of
interest to cities and counties. Each day the Federal Register posts grant listings from various
federal agencies, but this information can be confusing and hard to use. Our weekly email
notifications are specifically geared to capture and summarize only the information of interest to
you. Please note that we are pleased to provide this service, however securing federal grants
entails a competitive process which is the sole responsibility of interested parties.
The first email notification was sent on September 26th and a new email notification will be sent
each Monday. Christa Johnson has been identified as the point of contact for these emails. Past
notifications have included opportunities within the Department of Homeland Security,
Environmental Protection Agency and Corporation for National Community Service to name a
few.
VII. 2006 Congressional Meetings
In the near future, the City should begin to identify possible dates to travel to Washington, DC to
meet with Members of Congress and staff to discuss the City's fiscal year 2007 appropriations
and legislative priorities. This year, City staff traveled to Washington the week of February 14th
and spent two days lobbying the Hill and attending political events. This was an ideal time to
come and we recommend similar timing for next year. We will assist you in selecting dates to
best coordinate your visit with other events of interest and to ensure that you best maximize your
time here.
CONCLUSION
As Congress continues their work on the fiscal year 2006 appropriations process, we monitor
these activities every step of the way. We are a critical extension of City staff working to ensure
that federal funds and support are benefiting the most pressing needs of the City. Since federal
funds do not become available overnight, we are in constant contact with key personal and
committee offices to build support and momentum for these projects. We offer our services and
resources to assist staff in any way possible and build long lasting partnerships. Should you have
any questions or need further information please do not hesitate to contact us.
# 3291595_v1
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 15th day of November, 2005, by and
between CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"City "), and Holland & Knight, LLP, a Washington D.C. corporation, whose address is
2099 Pennsylvaina Avenue NW, Suite 100, Washington D.C. 20006 -6801, hereinafter
referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under
the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now
being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City.
B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the
special services which will be required by this Agreement; and
C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background,
certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the
terms and conditions described herein.
D. City and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for federal advocacy
services upon the terms and conditions herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned
parties as follows:
1. TERM:
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 21st day of November, 2005,
and shall terminate on the 30th day of November, 2006, unless terminated earlier as set
forth herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED:
Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT:
Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this
Agreement in the amount set forth in Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference. Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the
treasury of the City, to be taken from the City Manager's Office fund.
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:
Consultant and City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of
this Agreement.
5. STANDARD OF CARE:
Consultant agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate
with the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and
agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who
are not employed by the City nor have any contractual relationship with City.
6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:
City and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this
Agreement is that of employer- independent contractor. The manner and means of
conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are
limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil
service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Consultant's
services. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees, including but not
limited to, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick
leave are available from City to Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not
be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other
purposes normally associated with an employer- employee relationship from any fees due
Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant.
6. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):
Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and
employment authorization of all of his /her employees performing work hereunder,
pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations.
Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any loss, damage,
liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by
Consultant.
7. NON - DISCRIMINATION:
Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable
employer /employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed
toward a job applicant, a City employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's
employee or subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin,
ancestry, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation
will not be tolerated. Consultant agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall
constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
8. HOLD HARMLESS:
Indemnification:
Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards,
commissions, officials, employees, and volunteers ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any and
all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including
reasonable attorneys' fees ( "Claims "), arising from or in any manner connected to
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
Consultant's negligent act or omission, whether alleged or actual, regarding performance of
services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. If Claims are filed
against Indemnitees which allege negligence on behalf of the Consultant, Consultant shall
have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if
negligence is not found on the part of Consultant. However, Consultant shall not be
obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or
willful misconduct of Indemnitees.
Indemnification For Claims for Professional Liability:
As to Claims for professional liability only, Consultant's obligation to defend Indemnitees
(as set forth above) is limited to the extent to which its professional liability insurance policy
will provide such defense costs.
9. INSURANCE:
On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall
furnish City with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered,
effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with
paragraphs 10A, B, C, D and E. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's
indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement: "Should any of
the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the
expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days'
advance written notice to the City of Alameda by certified mail, Attention: Risk
Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the
performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this
Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to City and licensed to do
insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the City as additional
insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates.
A. COVERAGE:
Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage:
(1) Workers' Compensation:
Statutory coverage as required by the State of California.
(2) Liability:
Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum
limits:
(3)
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
Bodily Injury: $500,000
each occurrence
$1,000,000
aggregate - all other
Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence
$250,000 aggregate
If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in
the amounts of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the
required minimum limits shown above.
Automotive:
Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following
minimum limits:
Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence
or
Combined Single Limit: $500,000 each occurrence
(4) Professional Liability:
Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for the
professional acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount
of at least $1,000,000.
B. SUBROGATION WAIVER:
Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he /she
has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance,
Consultant shall look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants
to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive
liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant
herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant
may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.
C. FAILURE TO SECURE:
If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain
the foregoing insurance, City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the
Consultant's name or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the
Consultant for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law
and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been
paid.
D. ADDITIONAL INSURED:
City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees and
volunteers shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except
any professional liability insurance, required by this Agreement. The naming of an
additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be
entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional insured
named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or
expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held
by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or
expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy.
E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE:
The insurance limits required by City are not represented as being sufficient to
protect Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to
determine adequate coverage for Consultant.
10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform
the services required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict
of interest form if the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make
certain governmental decisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division
6, Section 18700 of the California Code of Regulations.
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
11. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS:
Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or
any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior
written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void,
and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by
reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for
money by Consultant from City under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust
company or other financial institution without prior written consent. Written notice of
such assignment shall be promptly furnished to City by Consultant.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and
outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint
venturer or syndicate member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture
or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall
be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or
more of the voting power of the corporation.
12. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL:
Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, only those people and
subcontractors whose names and resumes are attached to this Agreement shall be used in
the performance of this Agreement.
In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be
required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to
carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to
the insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted
hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement.
13. PERMITS AND LICENSES:
Consultant, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of
this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not
limited to, a City Business License, that may be required in connection with the
performance of services hereunder.
14. REPORTS:
A. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other
document, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report", reproduced, prepared or caused
to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be
the exclusive property of City. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this
Agreement and shall execute appropriate documents to assign to City the copyright to
Reports created pursuant to this Agreement. Any Report, information and data acquired
or required by this Agreement shall become the property of City, and all publication
rights are reserved to City.
B. All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by City in execution or
implementation of:
(1) The original Project for which Consultant was hired;
(2) Completion of the original Project by others;
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
(3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and /or
(4) Other City projects as appropriate.
C. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as City may require,
furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement.
D. All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on
recycled paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one
original, which shall be single sided.
E. No Report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by
Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or
organization by Consultant without prior approval by City.
15. RECORDS:
Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales,
costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement.
Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient
detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified
and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to such books and records to
the representatives of City or its designees at all proper times, and gives City the right to
examine and audit same, and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow
inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this
Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate
from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years
after receipt of final payment.
If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns
raised by City's preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City's supplemental
examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal
financial controls, or other breach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then
Consultant shall reimburse City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the
supplemental examination or audit.
16. NOTICES:
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement
shall be given in Writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered
personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States
Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter
provided.
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shall be
addressed to City at:
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda CA 94501
Attention: Christa Johnson, City Manager's Office
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Consultant shall be
addressed to Consultant at:
Rich Gold
Holland & Knight, LLP
2009 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Suite 100
Washington DC, 20006 -6801
17. TERMINATION:
In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at
the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in
the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2)
days after receipt by Consultant from City of written notice of default, specifying the
nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate
the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof.
City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating
this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided
herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that
portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the
effective date of termination.
18. COMPLIANCES:
Consultant shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and
regulations enacted or issued by City.
19. CONFLICT OF LAW:
This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State
of California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws
of another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all
valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this
Agreement (or the successors of those authorities.)
Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the
County of Alameda, State of California.
20. ADVERTISEMENT:
Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited,
displayed any signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind
pertaining to the services performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval
has been secured from City to do otherwise.
21. WAIVER:
A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained
herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any
other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different
character.
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
11/02/2005 11:51 510747 .1
CITY MANAGER
22. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or
nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and
agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein, No verbal agreement or
implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof, Any modification c f this
Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and
Consultant.
22. INSERTED PROVISIONS:
Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall
be deemed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced a5. though
each were included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not
inserted or is not correctly inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such
insertion on application by either party.
23. CAPTIONS:
The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part o:F the
Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed
. on the day and year first above written.
CONSULTANT CITY OF ALAMEDA
A Municipal Corporation
o6 /iD /o3
cassu rAlsrr
By: Debra Kurita
Title: City Manager
RECO NDED FOR A11 RO�+AL:
By: Christa Jo son
Title: Assistant to the City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
By
Tits
PAGE 09
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. In coordination with the City Manager's Office for the City of Alameda, advise
the City of Alameda on potential federal funding that the City or the ARRA
could seek for implementation of redevelopment at Alameda Point or other
locations within the City of Alameda, which may include, but is not limited to,
technology improvements for public safety; transportation planning; transit,
roadway, and pedestrian improvements; streetscape projects; the renovation
of historic municipal buildings such as the Carnegie Building, the Veterans'
Building, the "0" Club, gym and pool at Alameda Point; and aid in
appropriation of such funding. In addition, Holland & Knight will assist City
efforts to restore federal funding for the City's Section 8 and CDBG programs
and other housing related issues.
2. Prepare a written report which sets forth, in reasonable detail, the
comprehensive lobbying strategy necessary to achieve the funding goals set
forth in Section 1 above. Such written report shall, among other provisions,
identify any unique issues /attributes that relate to the City of Alameda that
could affect the likelihood /success of achieving the funding goals set forth in
Section 1 above. Such report shall be updated each thirty (30) days during
the relationship.
3. Obtain information and data from the state and federal government on
matters of interest to the City of Alameda that relate to the goals set forth in
Section 1 above.
4. Advise the City of Alameda concerning any matters that may be of interest to
the City of Alameda with respect to the goals set forth in Section 1 above.
5. Secure and furnish such detailed information as may be available that relates
to the goals set forth in Section 1 above.
6. Assist and educate City of Alameda /ARRA's federal and state legislative
delegation with respect to the goals set forth in Section 1 above.
7. Provide non -legal advice to the City of Alameda City Manager's Office
regarding appearances by City of Alameda /ARRA officials and staff before
federal and state agencies relating to the goals set forth in Section 1 above.
8. Arrange appointments as directed by the City Manager as necessary with
state and federal legislative or administrative representatives and City of
Alameda /ARRA representatives as requested relating to the goals set forth in
Section 1 above.
EXHIBIT B
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
Consultant shall be compensated for the services performed as set forth in
Exhibit A in an amount not to exceed $96,000, paid in 12 equal monthly
installments. Consultant shall submit monthly invoices not to exceed $8,000 per
month. Invoices to be provided to the City Manager's Office within 10 days of
start of month for previous month's work.
ACORD CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
OP ID KT
HOLLA -4
PRODUCER
Brown & Brown, Inc.
P. O. Box 15519
Tampa FL 33684 -5519
.one:813- 226 -1300 Fax:813 -226 -1313
DATE (MWDDIYYYY)
08/02/05
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
HOLDER, THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE
NAIC #
INSURED
Holland & Knight LLP
2115 Harden Boulevard
Lakeland FL 33803
INSURER A: Federal Insurance Company
INSURER B: Sentry Insurance
20281
INSURER C:
INSURER!):
Fed Ins Co /Ohio Cas
20281
INSURER E:
THE
ANY
MAY
POLICIES.
INSR'AOU'L
LTR
POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY
REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH
PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS,
PERIOD INDICATED.
THIS CERTIFICATE MAY
EXCLUSIONS AND
PO-LTCTk`S(PitfTYro r
DATE (MMIDDIYY)
NOTWITHSTANDING
BE ISSUED OR
CONDITIONS OF SUCH
MSRC
TYPE OF INSURANCE
POLICY NUMBER
POLICY EFrSfly
DATE (MM/DDIYY)
LIMITS
A
GENERAL
LIABILITY
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
35798711
0 8 / 01 / 0 5
08/01/06
EACH OCCURRENCE
-DAM*
$1,000,000
X
PR£MIS£S Ea occurence)
51,000,000
CLAIMS MADE X OCCUR
MED EXP (Any one person)
$10,000
X
Contractual Incl.
PERSONAL &ADVINJURY
$ 1,000,000
GENERAL AGGREGATE
$2,000,000
GEN'L
—I
AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG
$ Included
POLICY n T I n l LOC
A
AUTOMOBILE
L.WBILITY
ANY AUTO
ALL OWNED AUTOS
SCHEDULED AUTOS
HIRED AUTOS
NON -OWNED AUTOS
(Insured has no
74986035
08/01/05
08/01/06
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
(Ea accident)
$1,000,000
BODILY INJURY
(Per person)
$
X
X
X
BODILY INJURY
(Per accident)
$
PROPERTY DAMAGE
{Per accident)
$
Owned Autos.)
GARAGE
LIABILITY
ANY AUTO
AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT
S
OTHER THAN EA ACC
5
AUTO ONLY: AGG
$
C
EXCESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY
79818355
08/01/05
08/01/06
EACH OCCURRENCE
549,000,000
$49,000,000
X
OCCUR CLAIMS MADE
AGGREGATE
DEDUCTIBLE
RETENTION $
- --
$
i
$
$
B
_WORKERS
EMPLOYERS'
ANY
OFFICER/MEMBER
If yes.
SPECIAL
- - - -- -- - - - - - — - --- - .._._.
•
901492301
-. —. ..._.�.- -- ...._.
08/01/05
_. ....._..---- - -
08/01/06
- -.. TORY LIMITS ....._— OEH_......—
.. ..- - -.— .._ -- -...._..
COMPENSATION AND. -..
LIABILITY
PROPRIETOR/PARTNERIEXECUTIVE
EXCLUDED?
describe under
PROVISIONS below
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
$500,000
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
$500,000
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
$500,000
A
A
OTHER
Personal Property
Data Process.Equip
35798711
35798711
08/01/05
08/01/05
08/01/06
08/01/06
Spec.Form 126,939.871
InclTheft Included
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS 1 LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT/SPECIAL PROVISIONS •
Certificate holder, its City Council, boards and commisions, officers,
employees and volunteers are General Liability Additional Insureds. Waiver
of transfer of Rights of Recovery Against Others To Us provision applies in
favor of Certificate Holder as respects General Liability, Auto Liability
and Workers Compensation. *Except 10 -days for non- payment of premium
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
CANCELLATION
ALAMEDA
City of Alameda
Att: Christa Johnson
2263 Santa Clara Ave, Room 280
Alameda CA 94501
ACORD 25 (2001/08)
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL 111111111MISIONI MAL 30* DAYS WRITTEN
NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT
AU�R12E0 I�fiPit
By:
oved as to Form
YA1,TOr1V
1,i,„ • s C • • a,•
Assistant -City''orney
AIION..1988
PROQUEST
.INSURANCE.
RISK MANAGEMENT.
FOR LAW FIRMS.
WORLDWIDE.
katy marquardt
client administrator
proquest insurance agency
200 south wacker drive
suite 3850
chicago, it 60606
direct: 312.207.0011
facsimile: 312.207.0022
email:katym@proquestinsurance.com
NEMORANDUM
TO: CHRISTA JOHNSON
CITY OF ALAMEDA
FROM: KATY MARQUARDT
PROQUEST INSURANCE AGENCY
NOV" 3 7 2005
...Y, OF ALAMEDA
CITY 0,.1AN ER'S OFFICE
DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2005
RE: Certificate of Insurance for Holland + Knight LLP
Christa,
Enclosed, please find the Certificate of Insurance you had requested for
Holland + Knight LLP. Thanks!
-Katy
Client #: 12657
ACORDTM CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY
DATE
INSURANCE 1 11
/02/05D/YYYY)
TYPE OF INSURANCE
PRODUCER
ProQuest Insurance Agency
101 Southfield Road
Birmingham, MI 48009
248 540 -3377
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE
NAIC #
INSURED
Holland & Knight LLP
315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600
Tallahassee, FL 32301
INSURER A: Chicago Insurance - Interstate Ins -
GENERAL
INSURER B: St. Paul Companies
INSURER C: Columbia Casualty Company
INSURER D: Lexington
$
INSURER E: Executive Risk Indemnity
DAMAGE TO RENTED
PREMISES IEa occurrence)
COVERAGES
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING
ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH
POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
INSR
LTR
ADD'L
NSRC
TYPE OF INSURANCE
POLICY NUMBER
POLICY EFFECTIVE
DATE (MM /DD/YY)
POLICY EXPIRATION
DATE (MM /DD/YY)
LIMITS
GENERAL
LIABILITY
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
EACH OCCURRENCE
$
DAMAGE TO RENTED
PREMISES IEa occurrence)
$
CLAIMS MADE OCCUR
MED EXP (Any one person)
$
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY
$
GENERAL AGGREGATE
$
GEN'L
AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:
n Tai n LOC
PRODUCTS - COMP /OP AGG
$
nPOLICY
AUTOMOBILE
LIABILITY
ANY AUTO
ALL OWNED AUTOS
SCHEDULED AUTOS
HIRED AUTOS
NON -OWNED AUTOS
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
(Ea accident)
$
—
BODILY INJURY
(Per person)
BODILY INJURY
(Per accident)
PROPERTY DAMAGE
(Per accident)
$
GARAGE
LIABILITY
ANY AUTO
AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT
$
1
OTHER THAN EA ACC
$
AUTO ONLY: AGG
$
EXCESS/UMBRELLA
LIABILITY
n CLAIMS MADE
DEDUCTIBLE
RETENTION $
EACH OCCURRENCE
$
nOCCUR
AGGREGATE
$
—
$
$
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ANY PROPRIETOR /PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
If yes, describe under
SPECIAL PROVISIONS below
STATU- O
OR Y U R
TOR MITS E ER
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
$
E L DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
$
E . DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
$
A
OTHER Lawyers Prof
LDUSA0500776
09/06/05
09/06/06
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES / EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT / SPECIAL PROVISIONS
*A single claim limit of liability in excess of $10,000,000 and with an aggregate claims
limit of twice the single claim limit.
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
CANCELLATION
City of Alameda
Attention: Christa Johnson
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Room 280
Alameda, CA 94501
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL , no DAYS WRITTEN
NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL
IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR
REPRESENTATIVES.
ACORD 25 (2001/08) 1 of 2 #89998
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
KAM @ ACORD CORPORATION 1988
IMPORTANT
If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. A statement
on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may
require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate
holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
DISCLAIMER
The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between
the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it
affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon.
ACORD 25 -S (2001/08) 2 of 2
#89998
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 31, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Approving Proposed Amendment to the 1986
Measure B Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan
BACKGROUND
In 1986, Alameda County voters authorized a half -cent transportation sales tax, commonly
referred to as Measure B, to finance improvements to the County's transportation infrastructure.
The approved Expenditure Plan identified 10 major transportation projects, including the Route
238 Hayward Bypass Project (Bypass Project).
DISCUSSION
The Bypass Project proposed constructing a 5.3 mile segment of Route 238 on a new expressway
alignment to bypass downtown Hayward, between Industrial Boulevard and I -580 in Hayward.
In 2002, after multiple lawsuits, it was ruled that Measure B funds could not be used on the
Bypass Project. The Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA), working with the City
of Hayward, has developed the Route 238/Mission/Foothill /Jackson Corridor Improvement
Project as an alternative to the Bypass Project. ACTA proposes to amend the Expenditure Plan
to allow the substitute project to proceed. Since amendments to the Expenditure Plan require
approval from a majority of the City Councils in Alameda County, ACTA requests the City of
Alameda's approval. The proposed amendment also includes additional project implementation
guidelines. The specifics of the proposed amendment to the 1986 Expenditure Plan are included
as Attachment A.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed action does not affect the City's General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed action does not affect the Municipal Code.
Re: Reso 4 -E
11 -15 -05
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and October 31, 2005
Page 2
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution approving the proposed amendment to the 1986 Measure B Alameda
County Transportation Expenditure Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
-/Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
MTN:gc
Attachment
cc: ACTA
Measure B Watchdog Committee
G:\pubworks\pwadmin\COUNCIL\20051111505\ACTA.doc
Alameda
County
Transportation
Authority
426 17th Street
Suite 100
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone:
510/893 -3347
Facsimile:
510/893 -6489
Webpage:
www.ACTA2002.com
Nate Miley, Chair
Supervisor, District 4
Roberta Cooper, Vice -Chair
Mayor, City of Hayward
Keith Carson
Supervisor, District 5
Henry Chang, Jr.
Councilmember -At- Large,
City of Oakland
Mark Green
Mayor, Union City
Scott Haggerty
Supervisor, District 1
Alice Lai - Bitker
Supervisor, District 3
Gail Steele
Supervisor, District 2
Shelia Young
Mayor, City of San Leandro
Christine Monsen
Executive Director
June 16, 2005
Mr. Bill Norton
Acting City Manager
City of Alameda
2226 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
ATTACHMENT "A"
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to the 1986 Measure B Alameda County
Transportation Expenditure Plan — Request for Presentation to
City Council
Dear Mr. Norton:
The Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA) proposes to amend the
Measure B Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan that was endorsed
by Alameda County voters in 1986. The enabling statutes (Bay Area County
Traffic and Transportation Funding Act) that govern the administration of the
Measure B Program prescribe that an amendment to the Expenditure Plan is
required when a project is added, deleted, or revised in a substantive manner.
The statutes also require that in order for the Amendment to be effective, it must
receive the approval of the majority of the city councils in Alameda County that
represents the majority of the population in the County. Approval is also required
from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors, and the designated sponsor of the project that is to be
deleted from the Expenditure Plan. The proposed amendment does not require
approval of the voters.
This letter is to request that an agenda item be scheduled on a future meeting of
your city council to request its consideration and approval of the Authority's
proposed Amendment to the 1986 Measure B Expenditure Plan, as required by
law. Amending the Expenditure Plan is a matter that rarely occurs and this
proposed amendment is the first one being undertaken by the Authority. As
such, there is a good chance that the City may not be fully aware of details the
proposed Plan Amendment. Therefore, in order to provide some advance
information on this matter prior to our formal presentation to all the city councils,
we have scheduled a presentation to the City Managers in the County at the
monthly meeting of the Alameda County City Managers Association on July 20,
2005.
The specifics of the Authority's proposed amendment to the 1986 Expenditure
Plan is included in Attachment A to this letter. The amendment would essentially
accomplish the following:
1. Delete the Route 238 Hayward Bypass Project and associated Measure B
funding from the Expenditure Plan;
Mr. Bill Norton
June 16, 2005
Page 2
2. Add the new Route 238 /Mission /Foothill /Jackson Corridor. Improvement Project to the
Plan. This new project was proposed by the City of Hayward and approved by the Board
in May of 2005. The Plan Amendment includes $80 million of Measure B funds for this
project;
3. Add the I- 580 /Redwood Road Interchange Improvement Project in Castro Valley. The
Authority proposes a Measure B funding level of $15 million to be programmed to this new
project. The sponsor of this project is proposed to be the Alameda County Transportation
Improvement Authority (ACTIA);
4. Add the Central Alameda County Freeway Operations Study. The Authority proposes a
Measure B funding level of $5 million to be programmed for the study efforts. The
sponsors of the Study are proposed to be the Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency (ACCMA) and ACTA;
5. Add the Castro Valley Local Traffic Improvements Project. ACTA proposes a Measure B
funding level of $5 million to be programmed to this new project(s). The sponsor of this
project is proposed to be Alameda County; and
6. Add additional project implementing guidelines specific to the projects added to the
Expenditure Plan to improve project delivery and to enhance accountability.
With respect to the timeframe for the Expenditure Plan Amendment process, it is our goal to
have the Amendment be fully approved by all the required jurisdictions and stakeholders by the
end of January 2006. The Plan Amendment process and schedule are described in Attachment
B to this letter. As you will note, our ability to meet the deadline for the completion of the
Amendment process will depend on the timeliness of the city councils' actions on the matter. To
that end, we request your cooperation in working with Authority staff in scheduling and bringing
the item forward to your city council for its consideration.
We look forward to presenting the Authority's Expenditure Plan Amendment to the City
Managers Association on July 20, 2005. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact me at (510) 267 -6103, or Arthur Dao, Deputy Director, at 267 -6104.
Sincerely,
Christine Monsen
Executive Director
Mr. Bill Norton
June 16, 2005
Page 3
Attachments: Attachment A — Proposed Expenditure Plan Amendment (Amendment No. 1)
Attachment B -- 1986 Expenditure Plan Amendment Process and Time Frame
cc: Matthew T. Naclerio, Public Works Director - City of Alameda
Zack Wasserman, ACTA Legal Counsel - Wendel rosen Black & Dean
Arthur Dao, Deputy Director - ACTA
Trudye Johnson - ACTA Clerk
Jim Ogren - ACTA Project Controls Team
File: MB 238
Chron file
ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Expenditure Plan Amendment (Amendment No. 1)
to Replace the Route 238 Bypass Project
with the Hayward Route 238/Mission /Foothill/Jackson Corridor Improvement Project
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In 1986, Alameda County voters authorized a half -cent transportation sales tax to finance
improvements to the County's overburdened transportation infrastructure. This tax expires in
2002. A detailed Expenditure Plan guides the use of those funds. Most of the 10 major projects
authorized by the 1986 Expenditure Plan have been completed or are under construction, and
those that are still in the design and environmental review stage are scheduled to begin
construction in the next few years.
One of the 1986 Expenditure Plan projects was the construction of a 5.3 mile segment of Route
238 on a new expressway alignment to bypass downtown Hayward, between Industrial
Boulevard and I -580 in Hayward. This project was commonly referred to as the Route 238
Hayward Bypass Project. In the Expenditure Plan, Caltrans was named as the project sponsor.
The Bypass Project has been embroiled in controversies since Caltrans commenced the project
design in the mid -1960. By the early 1970's, Caltrans had acquired two- thirds of the needed
right of way for the project, which triggered a lawsuit regarding replacement housing by the
Sierra Club and the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County representing La Raza Unida of
Southern Alameda County. The suit resulted in an injunction, which is still in effect. However,
the Court established a mechanism for the removal of the injunction through a Consent Decree
that was approved in 1990.
Through the three decades between the 1970's and 1990's, the development of the Bypass Project
was also impeded by a series of changes in the environmental statutes and regulations, as well as
regional and local transportation plan updates. In 1997, a second lawsuit was filed against the
project by the Hayward Area Planning Association (HAPA) and the Citizens for Alternative
Transportation Solutions (CATS). This suit resulted in a final ruling in 2002 that Measure B
funds could not be used in the delivery of the Hayward Bypass Project, effectively depleting the
only major funding source for the project.
Since the 2002 Court ruling, ACTA and the City of Hayward have been working on the
development of an alternative project to the Hayward Bypass Project that could meet the purpose
of the original project and one be eligible for Measure B funding. In April of 2005, the ACTA
Board voted to approve the City of Hayward's proposed Route 238/Mission/Foothill /Jackson
Corridor Improvement Project and to begin the process to amend the 1986 Measure B
Expenditure Plan to replace the Hayward Route 238 Bypass Project with the Route
238/Mission/Foothill/Jackson Corridor Improvement Project.
Page 1
The Proposed Replacement Route 238/Mission/Foothill /Jackson Corridor Improvement Project
includes the following major features:
• Generally on Mission Boulevard between Industrial Parkway and Jackson Street and on
Foothill Boulevard between A Street and Mattox Road, conversion of the parking lane to
a through traffic lane during peak periods only;
• Foothill Boulevard would become one -way northbound from the
Mission/Foothill /Jackson grade separation to A Street;
• A Street would become one -way westbound from Foothill Boulevard to Mission
Boulevard;
• Mission Boulevard would become one -way southbound from A Street to the
Mission/Foothill /Jackson grade separation;
• B Street would revert to two -way traffic between Foothill Boulevard and Second Street;
• Partial grade separations would be at the Mission/Foothill /Jackson intersection and at
Jackson/Watkins intersection;
• Substantial intersection improvements at the Mission/Carlos Bee intersection; and
• Other improvements as proposed by the City of Hayward.
Page 2
PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 1986 EXPENDITURE PLAN
Thus, pursuant to the enabling legislation of Measure B, under Public Utility Code Sections
131304 and 131050, which allows for the Authority to add, delete a project, or to make changes
of major significance, it is proposed that an amendment to the 1986 Expenditure Plan be
approved to reflect the following:
1. Delete references to the Route 238 Project currently in the project description in the
Expenditure Plan's Essential Transportation Project List as follows:
Project:
Route 238 and Route 84
Cost:
$77 million Sales tax contribution: $67 million
Sponsor:
Caltrans
Description:
Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) will be built as a six lane roadway from
Industrial Parkway to Route 84 near Decoto Road, existing Mission
Boulevard will be widened to six lanes to existing Route 84 will then be built
along a previously adopted alignment where right of way have been acquired
to intersect with 880.
Note: Although the new Route 84 will likely intersect Route 238 somewhere
north of Peralta Avenue, the six lane conventional road is intended to extend
to Peralta Avenue. The remaining $10 million to complete the Route will
come from other sources; i.e., local assessment districts, thus providing
leveraging for the sales tax funds. The project is contingent upon receipt of
the $10 million. If it is not forthcoming, the project will not be built. (2)
Note (2)
Cost break -out is as follows:
A) Rte. 238 through Union City
Widening existing Mission Blvd. to 6 lanes 15M
B) Rte 84 — 4 lane freeway 55M
C) Engineering /Design 7M
Total 77M
Page 3
2. Add the City of Hayward's Proposed Route 238/Mission- Foothill- Jackson Corridor
Improvement Project as follows:
Project:
Cost:
Sponsor:
Description:
Route 238 /Mission- Foothill - Jackson Corridor Improvement Project In
Hayward
$91.5 million ACTA Measure B Sales tax contribution: $80.0 million
(inclusive of $1.5 million for project definition)
City of Hayward
Project Area
Alameda County
uxiux{,\cAn
• ROUT) 238/MISSION- FOOTHILL JACKSON
CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Abt to Scale. Formreeptual untleyandly only.
Route 238 /Mission - Foothill- Jackson Corridor Improvements in Hayward will
include capacity and operational as well as pedestrian and bicycle
improvements on Foothill and Mission Boulevards between Mattox Road and
Industrial Parkway. Between Mattox Road and A Street, Foothill Boulevard
will generally accommodate three northbound and three southbound lanes plus
the conversion of the existing parking lane to a through traffic lane in each
direction during peak periods only. Between A Street and Jackson Street, the
project will convert some existing streets to a new one -way street system as
follows: A Street will become a one —way street with five westbound lanes,
joining Mission Boulevard as a one -way street with five southbound lanes, and
meeting a grade separation at the intersection at Foothill /Mission /Jackson.
From the grade separation, Foothill Boulevard will be reconfigured to a one -
way street with six northbound lanes to A Street. Between the grade
a Tan anrL ndustriaLEarkw z,J.Iis.sion : 'm; wo
lanes northbound and southbound plus a conversion of the existing parking
lane to a through traffic lane in each direction during peak periods. Several
intersections along Foothill and Mission Boulevards will also be improved,
including, but not limited to, the Carlos Bee Boulevard /Mission Boulevard
intersection. The final scope of the project will be determined by the
environmental clearance process.
Page 4
Cost and funding break -out and proposed schedule are as follows:
Tentative Cost Breakdown (Subject to Change):
Scoping
Environmental /Preliminary Engineering
Design
Right -of -Way Support and Capital
Construction Support and Capital
Funding:
$80.0 million — ACTA Measure B
$11.5 million — City of Hayward
$91.5 million - Total
Tentative Schedule:
Scoping
Environmental/
Preliminary Engineering
Design
Right -of -Way Support and Capital
Construction Support and Capital
Total
Begin
Spring 2003
Summer 2005
Summer 2006
Summer 2006
Fall 2008
Cost
($ x 1 million)
1.5
1.5
8.0
12.5
68.0
91.5
End
Spring 2005
Winter 2006
Spring 2008
Winter 2008
Summer 2011
3. Add the I- 580/Redwood Road Interchange Project in Castro Valley as supplemental
improvements to the Hayward Route 238 Corridor Improvement Project as follows:
Project:
Cost:
Sponsor:
Description:
I -580 /Redwood Road Interchange Improvements Project in Castro Valley
$29 million ACTA Measure B Sales tax contribution: $15 million
Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA)
aa!milp\W
Alameda Courr
1- 580 /REDWOOD ROAD INTERCHANGE IN CASTRO VALLEY
Notfo Seel. For[MCep'{W UrN9atandmponly.
The project is comprised of the following elements (subject to definition in the
environmental document):
• Construct a new westbound off -ramp from 1-580 to Redwood Road;
• Construct a new eastbound on -ramp from Redwood Road to 1-580;
• Replace the existing eastbound 1-580 off -ramp to Center Street with a new
off -ramp to Grove Way; and
• Remove the existing westbound on -ramp from Castro Valley Boulevard to
1-580.
Cost break -out and proposed schedule are as follows:
Tentative Cost Breakdown:
Scoping
Environmental /Preliminary Engineering
Design
Rzght -of- ay uppor an apital
Construction Support and Capital
Page 6
Cost
($ x 1 million)
0.7
0.7
2.1
17.0
Total 29.0
Funding:
$15.0 million —
$11.3 million —
$2.7 million
$29.0 million
ACTA Measure B
ACTIA Measure B
— Local
- Total
Tentative Schedule:
Scoping
Environmental /Preliminary Engineering
Design
Right -of -Way Support and Capital
Construction Support and Capital
Begin End
Spring 2003 Summer 2004
Summer 2004 Fall 2006
Summer2005 Spring 2007
Summer 2005 Spring 2007
Spring 2007 Fall 2009
4. Add the Central Alameda County Freeway System Operational Analysis as follows:
Project/Study:
Central Alameda County Freeway System Operational Analysis
Cost:
$5 million ACTA Measure B Sales tax contribution: $5 million
Sponsor:
Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTL4) and
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA)
Description:
i ` . v , A . "'mum
rw a 1 ®i 5B roject
-
CASTROIWMMIT
o
Alameda Coal -LI
FREEWAY SYSTEM OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
ea
mei
,,,�''" i' G i3s� •�
Project
1
Area
1.
r k CENTRAL COUNTY
1 (9%m \c \TY Norroscawe. Cormnoeq,arunamslenanub:Y
The transportation planning study will document the long and short
plan for State highway improvements in the 1-880, 1-580 and I -238
Corridors, in Central Alameda County. The study shall include planning
level traffic operations analysis, traffic congestion and operational
problem /deficiency identification, benefit -cost analysis, project
implementation strategy, and technical report. The Central County
includes the Cities of Hayward, San Leandro and unincorporated areas
Alameda County. The suggested limits for the corridors to be studied
I -880 from Whipple Road to Davis Street; I -580 from Crow Canyon
238; and I -238 from 1-580 to 1-880. Specific projects to be considered
this planning study will include, but will not be limited to those in the
Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan and the ACTIA Measure
Expenditure Plan, as well as those that already have approved Project
Reports. Other roadway improvements may be added as appropriate.
J/w purpose nd_objective of the study involvesJhe_clevelop ent_ofa
technical report that addresses the long -range plan and the sequencing
improvements that will be required to achieve the most practical traffic
relief in the 1-880, 1-580 and 1-238 Corridors. The technical report
summarize the various project scopes, schedules and costs; funding
availability; recommended project sequencing; and an implementation
strategy that will provide the improvements that are most cost effective
consistent with the transportation needs in the area. The technical report
could be also used for preparation of programming documents (Caltrans
range
area
of
are:
to 1-
in
B
Study
of
will
and
Page 8
Page 9
Project Study Report) for possible State funding from the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), State Highway Operation
and Protection Program (SHOPP), and /or proceeds from the sales of excess
right -of -way pursuant to the SB 509 Statute.
Cost break -out and proposed schedule are as follows:
Cost: Costs for the technical studies and subsequent Project Study Reports
will be identified at the initiation of this project.
Funding:
• $5 million — ACTA Measure B.
• No other funding source identified at this time. However, there is
potential funding from sale of state owned right -of -way associated with
Route 238 Bypass Project pursuant to the SB 509 Statute.
Tentative Schedule:
• Technical studies identifying a list of potential projects — 6 months after
Expenditure Plan Amendment approval.
• Project Study Reports for selected projects — 5 years after Expenditure
Plan Amendment approval.
Page 9
5. Add the Castro Valley Local Traffic Circulation Improvement Project as follows:
Project/Study:
Castro Valley Local Area Traffic Circulation Improvement Project
Cost:
$5 million ACTA Measure B Sales tax contribution: $5 million
Sponsor:
Alameda County Public Works Agency
Description:
3y
Wil SAM men
ct Ara __ igun
a
` ,o
B9IBIRB
560
r
Alameda County
cnsTRo VALLEY
li LOCAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WAI
im
'{ f
I �N
�. I * ,
lid
S
ion
wng,B \n M,i rosfaw.. rw. ...e,..0.. pv..,.
Perform a Study in order to identify and prioritize transportation projects,
and implement projects that advance safe and efficient multi -modal
transportation objectives.
Background:
the accompanying ramps from 1-580 to the Route
congestion relief and reduced regional
on numerous arterial, collector and local
of Unincorporated Alameda County. The
238 Corridor Improvement Project does not
The Baywood area of Unincorporated
by Castro Valley Boulevard, A Street and
Works Agency (ACPWA) will develop a list of
use of these ACTA funds that will provide
• c E. s d addre&s tithe
The Route 238 Bypass and
238 Bypass would have provided
bypass and cut through traffic
roads in the Baywood area
proposed Hayward Route
provide these same benefits.
Alameda County is bounded
Foothill Boulevard.
Description:
The Alameda County Public
projects for the potential
ro • • - • - ' • _and potentially
regional bypass and cut through
experiencing. These projects
developed by ACPWA which
reduction, capacity enhancement,
alleviation, cost - benefit, community
project readiness and confidence
-incr- _ -M-• . ,
y
traffic that the Baywood area is presently
will be evaluated against a set of criteria
may include, but not limited to, congestion
regional bypass and cut through traffic
acceptance, political acceptance,
in project implementation. ACPWA will
Page 10
Page 11
develop a list of projects to be pursued with the Measure B funds and
present them to the Board of Supervisors for their review and, if
appropriate, approval. Project information will be shared with the City of
Hayward on an ongoing basis for review and comment.
All phases of project development (preliminary engineering, environmental,
design, right -of -way engineering and acquisition, and construction capital
and support) are eligible for use of these funds.
It should be noted that the list of projects developed by the ACPWA may not
be included presently in any County transportation programming document.
However, the need for these projects has been known by ACPWA staff and
voiced by the Baywood area constituency for some time.
Cost break -out and proposed schedule are as follows:
Cost: Cost for the various project development phases to be developed with
the list of projects by ACPWA.
Funding: $5 million
Tentative Schedule: Completion of List of Projects, Evaluation of Projects
and Approval of List of Project by the Board of Supervisors — 6 months after
Expenditure Plan Amendment approval.
Implementation of List of Projects with Measure B Funds — 5 years after
Expenditure Plan Amendment approval.
Page 11
6. Add Implementing Guidelines as follows:
a. The goal of the Amendment to the Expenditure Plan is to complete the remaining projects
in the Plan in a timely mariner. All added projects will be given five years from the date
of the final approval of this Expenditure Plan Amendment to obtain environmental
clearance, approval from all agencies having jurisdiction over the proposed
improvements, support from the community, and full commitment of funds from all
sources required to develop and construct the project. Projects that cannot meet this
requirement may appeal to the Authority for extension(s) of one year duration.
b. Should an added project become infeasible or unfundable due to circumstances
unforeseen at the time of the Amendment, funding may be applied to other projects in the
Expenditure Plan by the Authority.
c. Under no circumstance may Measure B funds be applied to any purpose other than direct
transportation improvements in Alameda County. The funds may not be used for any
projects or studies other than those specified in the Amendment without an additional
specific amendment to the Expenditure Plan.
d. Project costs in excess of the amount of Measure B funding identified in the Amendment
will be the responsibility of the Project Sponsor. Measure B funding for the added
projects and studies are capped at the amounts identified in the Amendment.
Page 12
ATTACHMENT B
1986 Expenditure Plan Amendment Process and Time Frame
Step
No.
Action
Start
Finish
Responsible Party
1
ACTA Board approves initiation
of Plan Amendment
04/28/2005
04/28/2005
ACTA Board
2.
Preparation of Plan Amendment
language and gathering project
information
04/18/2005
04/28/2005
ACTA and
Hayward Staffs
3.
ACTA Board approves
Expenditure Plan Amendment
05/26/2005
05/26/2005
ACTA Board
4
Proposed Amendment forwarded
to MTC, ACCMA, and Caltrans
05/27/205
05/27/2005
ACTA Staff
5.
MTC reviews the Proposed
Amendment and holds a public
hearing
07/08/2005
08/22/2005
MTC Staff and
Commission
6.
ACTA presents the Proposed
Amendment to the City Councils
(14) and County BOS for
approval
08/23/2005
01/24/2006
ACTA Staff
7
Amended Plan documented and
distributed
01/24/2006
1/31/2006
ACTA Staff
Page 1
IE
0
rl
0
CU
0
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 1986 MEASURE B
ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN
WHEREAS, in 1986 Alameda County voters approved Measure B and
authorized a half -cent transportation sales tax to finance improvements to the
County's transportation infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the approved Expenditure Plan identified 10 major
z transportation projects, which included the Route 238 Hayward Bypass Project;
and
WHEREAS, the Route 238 Hayward Bypass Project was ruled ineligible
for Measure B funds and the Route 238 /Mission /Foothill /Jackson Corridor
Improvement Project was developed as an alternate project; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Authority proposes to
amend the Expenditure Plan to allow the alternate project to proceed and to
include additional project implementation guidelines; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of
Alameda does hereby approve the proposed amendment to the 1986 Measure
B Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to
forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Alameda County Transportation
Authority.
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 15t day of November 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 15th day of November 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda Resolution # 4 -E CC
11 -15 -05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: November 3, 2005
Re: Resolution Setting Free All -Day Parking, with a Three -Hour Maximum per Car per Space,
for the Park Street and the West Alameda Business Districts on December 3, 10, and 17,
2005
BACKGROUND
In November 2002, City Council adopted a Resolution granting free parking the Saturday before
Christmas in both the Park Street and Webster Street Business Districts in perpetuity. Accordingly,
free parking will occur December 24 of this year in each District. Both the Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) and the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) are requesting that this
benefit be extended this year for three additional Saturdays.
DISCUSSION
Last year, City Council authorized three additional "free parking" Saturdays before Christmas in both
Business Districts for a total of four Saturdays. This year, PSBA and WABA are requesting the same
consideration from Council. Both districts have experienced the impact of major streetscape
projects and would like to provide parking incentives to attract holiday shoppers.
FISCAL IMPACT
The free parking Saturday's will result in a reduction in parking meter revenue. The City Finance
Department estimates average daily revenue from parking meters as follows:
• Park Street Business District - $1,331.88
• Webster Street Business District - $271.03
If parking meters are made free an additional three days in each Business District, an estimated
$4,808.73 in parking meter revenue will not be collected. While some parking meter revenue may be
lost to the City, it is quite likely to be offset by increased sales tax due to greater retail patronage. As
in previous years, PSBA and WABA will provide parking meter hoods as well as the staff to place
and remove the hoods on the free parking days.
Re: Reso 4 -F
11 -15 -05
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and November 3, 2005
Councilmembers Page 2
MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS - REFERENCE
Parking meter fees, time limits and holidays are established within the Alameda Municipal Code,
specifically Sections 12- 13.2(a) and 12 -16.4. Council can offer free parking in both the Webster
Street Business District and the Park Street Business District by Resolution in accordance with the
sections of the Code.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends adoption of a resolution setting free all -day parking, with a three -
hour maximum per car per space, for the Park Street and the West Alameda Business Districts on
December 3, 10, and 17, 2005.
R spe• "f.11y submitte
she . Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene Soto
Ma_- usiness D . opment Division
Development
LAL/DS /SGR
cc: Park Street Business Association
West Alameda Business Association
Matt Naclerio, Public Works Director
Interim Chief of Police Craig Ojala
ordinator
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \Comdev \BUSASSOC\Free Parking at Christmas \2005 \3 Saturdays before xmas free parking.doc
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ESTABLISHING ANNUAL FREE ALL -DAY PARKING, WITH A THREE -
HOUR MAXIMUM PER CAR PER SPACE, FOR THE WEBSTER
STREET AND THE PARK STREET BUSINESS DISTRICTS ON
DECEMBER 3, 10, AND 17, 2005
WHEREAS, in 2002 Council set the Saturday before December 25 as a
day that parking meters be free in both the West Alameda and Park Street
Business Districts; and
WHEREAS, both the West Alameda and the Park Street Business
Associations request that the free parking on Saturday practice be extended in
2005 to three additional Saturdays prior to December 24; and
WHEREAS, each District may realize an increase in sales due to free
parking meters and shoppers would be encouraged to shop in each District
should parking meters be free; and
WHEREAS, the City Toss of revenue from free parking meters may be
off -set by increased sales in each District; and
WHEREAS, parking meter fees, time limits, and holidays are established
in accordance with Alameda Municipal Code section 12 -13.2 (a) and 12 -16.4
respectively; and
WHEREAS, parking fees are established by Resolution of the City
Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Alameda that the City Council, by Resolution, hereby suspends meter fees in
both the Webster Street and the Park Street Business Districts between 9:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on December 3, 10, and 17, 2005. Vehicles may not,
however, occupy one space for more than three hours. After three hours, a
vehicle may be ticketed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to
forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the West Alameda and the Park
Street Business Associations.
Resolution # 4 -F CC
11 -15 -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 15t day of November 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 November 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
TWO (2) VACANCIES
COMMUNITY AT LARGE SEAT - Partial term expiring 8/31/2009
REAL ESTATE /LAND DEVELOPMENT SEAT — Partial Term Expiring 8/31/2006*
Arshad A. Ahmed*
Robert A. Bonta
Michael F. Fassler*
Claire C. Fitzgerald*
Frederick F. Hollister*
Jay L. Ingram
Janet W. Iverson*
Kirk H. Knight*
Carrolyn M. Kubota
Lenard L. Lee
Diane C. Litchesnstein
Christopher D. Lundeen
James A. Nations*
James A. Price
Stephanie L. Prothero
Valerie Ruma
Brad C. Shook*
Karen M. Stefonek*
Jay G. Townley*
Morris H. Trevithick*
Kevin D. Waite
Randy K. Watkins
Council Communication #7 -A
11 -15 -05
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
ONE (1) VACANCY
Partial Term Expiring 9/30/2009
Bill L. Bocascci
Kathryn F. Boyle
Michael Cosentino
John F. Curliano
James A. Currier
Lauren R. Eisele
Linda F. Gilchrist
Harry L. Hartman
Lee A. Kaplan
Geoffrey M. Lee
Jessica Lindsey
Scott A. McKay
Tim R. Marr
Lissa V. Merit
Jessica S. Niland
Cookie Robles -Wong
Ruben Tilos
Gail A. Wetzork
Nov 09 05 11:45a Supervisor Lai - Bitker
Al ice Lai- Bitker, SUPERVISOR. THIRD DISTRICT
510 -298 -8004 p.2
ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
November 7, 2005
Mayor Beverly Johnson
Alameda City Council.
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Mayor Johnson:
COMMITTEE$:
Health, Chair
Social Services
Unincorporated Services
This letter is to request from the Alameda City Council $5,000 to be used in conducting
the feasibility of increasing the County Service Arca fee.
In 1991 the Alameda City Council formally joined the County Service Area of the Lcad
Abatement District to address high levels of lead found in many Alameda County
children. Alameda joined with the cities of Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland in
participating in the Alameda County Lcad Poisoning Prevention Program (ACI.PPP) by
assessing a $10 annual fee on all pre -1978 residential units and forming a Joint Powers
Authority (JPA). This fee is used to reduce exposure to lead hazards, to incrcasc
awareness of residential lead source, and to ensure lead hazards arc addressed in a safe
manner_
ACLPPP has been successful in matching the local commitment of funds with grants
from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and State Department of
Health Services. However these funds arc not guaranteed and the ACLPPP fcc has not
been increased since its adoption in 1991 nor does it have a provision for a cost of living
incrcasc.
Currently clue to decreasing federal and state funding, the ACLPPP has reduced its staff
and program scope. During discussions for the 2005 -2006 fiscal year, JPA members
discussed the possibility of increasing the $10 annual fcc as a way to support AC19P
activities. Services most at risk in the city of Alameda include:
- 55 In -home consultations
- 33 Lcad safe painting kits
- 2 Load -Safe Painting and Remodeling classes
- Educational materials, information and literature to a total of 12 Alameda
offices, libraries, hardware and paint stores
- Technical assistance to owners of property where a lead poisoned child has been
identified iee
Re: 7 -B
11 -15 -05
OAKLAND OFFICE: 1221 OAK ST., ROOM 536, OAKLAND, CA 94617 • (510) 272 -6693 • FAX (510) 268 -8004
DISTRICT OFFICE: 15903 HESPERIAN BLVD., SAN LORENZO, CA 94580 • (510) 278 0367 • FAX (510) 278 -046%
www.acgov.org/board/district3
Nov 09 05 11:45a Supervisor Lai - Bitker
510 -268 -8004 p.3
- 1IEPA Vacuums to assist 12 Alameda property owners conduct lead -safe clean
up during and after renovation.
In conjunction with Supervisor Nate Miley and my office, JPA members have discussed
conducting a survey to gauge voter support for different level of fcc: increases. A
proposal by Larry Tramutola, working in conjunction with Godbe Research, was initially
priced at $66,(00 hut negotiated down to $54, 679. To pay for these services an
allocation formula that recognizes the difference in size and resources of each city is
outlined as follows:
Oakland $14,999
Berkeley $ 9, 680
Alameda $ 5, 000
Emeryville S..3„.000
$32, 679
In addition Alameda County Community Development Agency and SEIU local 616 have
already committed to contribute $11,000 each.
The proposal by Tramutola/Godbe will consist ofa 12- minute survey of both property
owners and registered voters. The survey will gauge support for different levels of fee
increases. The results would assist in determining whether to sock a two - thirds majority
vote of the electorate or a simple majority of all affected property owners. The property
owners' vote is weighed on the number of units owned. Godbc has experience in
conducting polls that not only would gauge the level of support for a measure but also at
the same time determine which route would be more advisable. Tramutola will conduct
the planning and feasibility assessment. Funds provided by the cities will only he used to
find out if and under what conditions there is support to increase the CSA lee.
If all the cities agree to support their request for funds, Alameda County Auditor Patrick
0' Connell will establish an independent trust fund for the sole purpose of conducting the
survey and the survey analysis. The County Auditor will monitor the trust fund.
I look forward to Alameda's support of$5,000 to conduct the feasibility survey of'
increasing the CSA Fees.
Sincerely,
ALICE LAI- BITKER
Alameda County Supervisor, 'Third District
ALB! IZB
ALAMEDA COUNTY
LEAD POISONING PREVENTION PROGRAM
City of Alameda
History
In 1987, the California Department of Health Services conducted a study that found high
levels of lead in many Alameda County children. In response to calls for action by local
community organizations, the County Health Officer formed a task force comprised of
city, county and state public health professionals, pediatricians, community groups, and
county housing officials. This task force designed a unique program that combined
housing, health, and environmental programs to serve children and their families at high
risk for lead poisoning.
In 1991, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution establishing the
Alameda County Lead Abatement District, which allowed cities in the county to
participate in the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (ACLPPP) by
assessing a $10 annual fee on all pre -1978 residential units.
On October 16, 1991, the Alameda City Council formally joined the County Service Area
(CSA) of the Lead Abatement District. Other participating cities in the CSA include
Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland.
Since its inclusion in the CSA, the Alameda City Council has voted eight times to
continue its participation in the CSA.
The ACLPPP works with local and statewide organizations to educate the community
about the dangers of lead poisoning. With an approach combining health, environmental
and residential hazard reduction services, the department maintains a leadership role in
statewide, interagency and community collaborations. Its mission is to prevent and
reduce the incidence of childhood lead poisoning by:
• Educating the public to the dangers of lead poisoning.
• Providing case management services to lead poisoned children.
• Identifying, reducing and remediating lead hazards.
1 City of Alameda
ALAMEDA COUNTY
LEAD POISONING PREVENTION PROGRAM
• Assisting local housing departments, contractors, and maintenance crews in
remediating lead hazards.
• Assisting the medical community in identifying and effectively treating lead
poisoned children.
Governance
The ACLPPP is governed by a Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors, comprised of
a representative of the City Council of each CSA city and one ex- officio member each
from Alameda County Board of Supervisors and the community -at- large.
CSA Property Owner Services
The annual CSA service fee is used to reduce exposure to lead hazards, to increase
awareness of residential lead sources, and to ensure lead hazards are addressed in a safe
manner
Property owners are also notified of increasingly strict Federal and State regulations
governing lead hazards, and how to avoid fines and potential liability. CSA services are
provided to property owners in the cities of Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, and
Emeryville, based on the percentage of funds received from each city.
For City of Alameda property owners in fiscal Year 2004 -05, the ACLPPP:
• Conducted 34 lead evaluation site visits
• Responded to 96 Information Line calls
• Conducted two Lead -Safe Painting and Remodeling classes
• Provided educational materials, information and literature to a total of 12
Alameda offices, libraries, hardware and paint stores
• Provided lead education at nine public education events
• Loaned 12 Alameda property owners HEPA Vacuums to assist lead -safe clean -up
during and after renovation.
City of Alameda 2
ALAMEDA COUNTY
LEAD POISONING PREVENTION PROGRAM
In addition, under its HUD Round X Lead Hazard Control Grant, which ended July 31,
2005, the ACLPPP, working in conjunction with the City of Alameda Development
Services Department, financed the remediation of lead hazards in 32 low- income City of
Alameda residential units, at a cost of $160,000.
Since its inception in 1992, the ACLPPP has used CSA dollars to leverage more than 19
million in federal dollars from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
for services to CSA property owners.
Blood Lead Screening & Case Management
Since 1993, the ACLPPP has received California Department of Health Services funding
to provide comprehensive case management services to lead poisoned children and their
families. In addition to medical case management by Public Health Nurses, DHS- funded
activities include advocacy for blood lead screening, and technical assistance and
education to medical providers, Medi -Cal Managed Care Plans, and high -risk
communities. In addition, Environmental Investigations are conducted in the homes of
children with elevated blood lead levels (EBLLs) throughout Alameda County to identify
the sources of lead hazards.
Since program's inception, 1,770 children and their families have been case managed for
lead poisoning and 200,000 children in Alameda County have been screened for lead
poisoning.
3 City of Alameda