2007-05-15 PacketCITYOFALAMEDA.CALJFORNJA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - MAY 15, 2007 - - - 6 :00 p.m.
Time: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6 :00 p.m.
Place: C Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call - City Council
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 REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Properties:
Negotiating parties:
Under negotiation:
Alameda Gateway, Alameda Marina,
Ballena Marina, Encinal Industries,
and Encinal Marina
City and J. Beery, Pacific Shops,
Almar Property, P. Wang and Encinal
Marina
Price and terms
3-B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources
Director
Employee Organizations: All City Bargaining Units
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any
5. Adjournment - City Council
everly • o i ijn, 1 ayor
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TUESDAY - - - MAY 15, 2007 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Location: Council Chimers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue
and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Authority on agenda items or business
introduced by Authority may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per
agenda item when the subject is before the Authority. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on
an agenda item.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
Minutes of the Annual Industrial Development Authority Meeting of
May 16, 2006.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
AUTHORITY COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Authority)
ADJOURNMENT
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.
TUESDAY
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MAY 15, 2007 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall,
Council Chaffers, 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
4. Consent Calendar
5. Agenda Items
. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda
Orders
of the Day and Announcements
(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)
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 7:25 P.M.
AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7 :31 P.M.
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Proclamation declaring May 17, 2007 as Bike -to -Work Day.
(Public Works)
3 -B. Proclamation declaring May 13 through 19, 2007 as National
Police Memorial Week. (Police)
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 Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission meeting held on April 17, 2007, the
Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on May 1, 2007,
and the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission
Meeting held on May 8, 2007. (City Clerk)
4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance)
4-C. Recommendation to set hearing date for June 5, 2007 for
establishment of Proposition 4 Limit for Fiscal Year 2007-
2008. (Finance)
4 -D. Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for period
ending March 31, 2007. (Finance)
4 -E. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $240,000,
including contingencies, to Shaaf & Wheeler Consulting
Engineers for Storm Drainage Study, No. P.W. 03- 07 -08. (Public
Works)
4 -F. Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call for
Bids for Roof Structure for Maintenance Service Center
Transfer Pad and Dumpsters, No. P.W. 04-07-14. (Public Works)
4 -G. Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize
Call for Bids for pruning of City trees within the City of
Alameda for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2008, No. P. W.
04-07-13. (Public Works)
4 -H. Recommendation to accept the work of SpenCon Construction,
Inc., for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 repair of Portland Cement
concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and minor street
patching, No. P.W. 03-06-06. (Public Works)
4 -I. Adoption,of Resolution Preliminarily Approving Annual Report
Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing July 3,
2007 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2;
Adoption of Resolution Preliminarily Approving Annual
Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing July
3, 2007 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-
2, Zones 2 and 3. (Public Works)
4 -J. Adoption of Resolution Preliminarily Approving Annual Report
Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing July 3,
2007 - Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01 (Marina Cove).
(Public Works)
4-K. Adoption of Resolution Approving a Second Amendment to the
Agreement for Additional Funding from the State of California
Coastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina Eradication and
Mitigation Measures and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter
into All Associated Agreements. (Public Works)
4 -L. Adoption of Resolution Accepting $138,000 in Fiscal Year 2007-
2008 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds for the
Signal Coordination and Interconnect for Eighth Street, Park
Street, and Otis Drive Projects. (Public Works)
4 -M. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Open Market Purchase from
Moss Brothers Dodge, Riverside, California Pursuant to Section
3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter for One Dodge Charger in an
Amount Not to Exceed $23,470. [Requires four affirmative
votes] (Police)
4 -N. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to
Complete and Execute a Cooperative Agreement Between the City
of Alameda and the State of California Department of
Transportation for the Stargell (Formerly Tinker) Avenue
Extension Project (CIP No. 04- 105 /CalTrans Project No.
EA448200). (Development Services)
4 -0. Adoption of Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual
Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the
City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 and Set a Public
Hearing for June 5, 2007. (Development Services)
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Public Hearing to consider a Call for Review/Appeal of the
Planning Board's appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee to work
with the Planning and Building Director on a Housing
Element /Measure A Workshop. (Planning and Building)
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)
Councilmembers can' address any matter, including reporting on
any Conferences or meetings attended
8. ADJOURNMENT - City Council
**
• 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
CITYOFALAMEDA.CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - MAY 15, 2007 --- - - 7:31 P . M .
Location: Ci t Council Clambers, 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.
1. ROLL CALL - Community Improvement Commission
2. MINUTES
2 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) meeting and the Special CIC
meeting held on April 17, 2007, and Special Joint City
Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and cIC
meeting held on May 8, 2007. (City Clerk)
3. AGENDA ITEM
3 -A. Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure
Construction Project;
■ Recommendation to authorize staff to approve a change Order
for up to $100,000 for preserving and restoring the
auditorium bas relief niches and ceiling; and
• Recommendation to release $250,000 in project budgeted
funds to Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P. for
Cineplex site work. (Development Services)
4. ADJOURNMENT - Community Improvement Commission
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY- -MAY 16, 2006- -7:25 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 7 :52 p.m. Board Member
deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Board Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
MINUTES
Minutes of the Annual Industrial Development Authority Meeting of
May 17, 2005.
Board Member Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
AUTHORITY COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual
Meeting at 7:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara We i s i g e r
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Annual Meeting
Industrial Development Authority
May 16, 2006
�•��i
.
C..
f4:>*41.
• .;•,e•
*J.
4o*
r.: >>
C.
.
fbn
10/,‘.
•
Aldeii%\J q-#4-S4/71-P-SJ! ./;-';\%/4111/4s■
Ibk-dWArt4 cte./04./04.,04./WAW/046.,i4~4eNt"te./VV•V4 o1V\tp.,
& =‘__IV•‘Z 5 'Y. tf. 4 41- -ZA 4 Z. %=.14 2/4 Ze. fd ff. •
c.,
#'-ip•--WsTN%tt,s-WiSt/rAtATAVikslkniSt/ikst IN‘ tf--AtAit 4v;ANt,n4W
*>.4,4Pap/Atye<vdP<VeAby<vi<Ab.,O",O4b4v4tbteO4*,O4eteO4o,04bivO4keOA.,
e. • 4 * * A * A % A • V • Z.2/4 Za2/40 em Ze, Z-e.A k .NTeA Vi)
4,744
it,
Cf:))
(CV
49)
kr A
:;:;)
44
(0)
(f:Pi
Q740
it >44
Nks.
1111 ,
Zi‘P)
,*
4o,
.,ter.
$Pi
•
Proc&zmation
wffEgt74s, Bicycling to work alleviates traffic congestion, reduces air
pollution, and decreases fuel consumption; and
W1-(EIZEAS, Bike -to -work days have proved effective in converting
drivers to bicyclists and educating citizens about the
environmental and health benefits of biking to work; and
W1-EgEAS, The City of Alameda encourages its citizens to bike to work
to improve air quality, relieve traffic congestion, and
promote the health benefits of cycling; and
W1-(EgEAS, Cities and counties throughout the Bay Area are
promoting Thursday, May 17, 2007, as the Bay Area's
Bike -to -Work Day, 2007.
NOW, fl(EEfOE BE IT 1ESOLWV, that I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor
of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim Thursday, May 17, 2007 as
ALAMEVA 13I7(ETO4VO11( DAY 2007
Fu1ThEgMogE, I commend BikeAlameda for its partnership with the City
and encourage all of our citizens to join with the City of Alameda, the
California Bicycle Coalition, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the
Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service, and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service
in supporting the Bay Area's Bike -to -Work day.
City Council
Beverly J. Johnson Agenda Item #3 -A
Mayor 05-1 5-07
4.:w,,,i4,,,%;-%-ilos:vaitam,,Itaam..,4;9.
#„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,h,,,,,,,.
eV)
4k>it
Zfiede.
LIA
io„
L‘.1.4
AvN*4
(:)) ,
6,9
t:\P)
(f_449)
ift;
NV*
PI:46\1
el;e7444:/ 't *,0V ►.re\-stiriPWiTNWVZ463-
ofilN,Vvt,2/44>'s ;k1
W1E1EAS,
wqE1EAs,
WHEREAS,
w1EgEAs,
W(EgEAS,
WHE'REAS,
W1EgEAS,
W1E1EAS,
Proc(amation
"*.V.4
1144A,4\114,4411?,,,Ntifi,210,'INgVn
National Police Week is the week of May 13 through May 19, 2007; and
this event honors the service and sacrifice of those law enforcement officers
killed in the line of duty while protecting our communities and safeguarding our
democracy; and
there are more than 800,000 law enforcement officers serving in communities
across the United States, including 99 sworn members of the Alameda Police
Department; and
some 56,000 assaults against law enforcement
each year, resulting in 17,000 injuries; and
since the first recorded
enforcement officers in the
death in 1792,
officers
nearly
are
reported
18,000 law
United States have made the ultimate
sacrifice and been killed in the line of duty, including two members of the
Alameda Police Department; and
the names of these dedicated public servants are
walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers
was dedicated in 1991 in Washington, D.C.; and
engraved on the
Memorial, which
382 names are being added to the National Law Enforcement
Officers Memorial this spring, including 145 officers killed
and 237 historical cases involving officers killed in previous years; and
in 2006
May 15 is ' designated as Peace Officers Memorial Day, with federal
law directing that all flags be flown at half -staff on that date in
honor of fallen officers and their families.
NOW, ThEREFORE, 'BE IT 1ESOLVEV, that I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of
Alameda, California, do hereby proclaim the week of May 13 -19, 2007, as
Js[ationaCToCice Week in .Alameda
and publicly salute the service of law enforcement officers in our community and in communities across
the nation.
Beverly J. Johnson
Mayor
City Council
Agenda Item #3 -B
05-15-07
tk 4 . tO
to
4,,,A.
frt.
te
0 4.4„,,,,
0 , 4
0
Ef.,..„.
N.,.
..,„
(f4,44:71
.„„A.
fig.
fit.
4,,,,,,,,,.
cfe)
• ,4„
0
((ill
ki;_ig.
(fie)
,.
.,,,„
Lir.,,opi
(-0
..,,,t
;L:si),)
.4.
(A))SVVCIPt4r
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 17, 2007- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners deHaan,
Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor /Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(07- CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations:
All City Bargaining Units.
(07- CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property:
APN 074- 0905 - 022 -05, 074 -0905 -027 and 074- 0905 - 028 -04; Negotiating
parties: CIC and Union Pacific Railroad; Under negotiation: Price
and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council
received a briefing on the status of labor negotiations from Labor
Negotiators and provided direction; regarding Real Property, the
Commission received a briefing from Real Property Negotiators
regarding potential terms of acquisition and gave direction to
staff regarding negotiating parameters.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7 :10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lana Stoker, Acting City Clerk
Acting Secretary, Community
Improvement Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
April 17, 2007
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -- --- MAY 1, 2007 - 6:35 p . m .
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 4.
Absent: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(07- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:
All City Bargaining Units.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from
its Labor Negotiators on the status of negotiations with City
Bargaining Units and provided negotiation parameters.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 1,2007
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MAY 1, 2007- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:43
p.m.
ROLL CALL -- Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Tam, and
Mayor Johnson - 4.
Absent: Councilmember Matarrese -- 1.
AGENDA CHANGES
(07- ) Mayor Johnson announced that [paragraph no. 07- ] would
be added to the agenda for West Alameda Business Association
(WABA) .
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07- ) Proclamation declaring the months of April through June
2007 as Historic Preservation Season.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Nancy
Anderson, Historical Advisory Board Chair; stated the historic
theater restoration is Alameda's largest historic preservation
project; she took an extended tour of the historic theater on
Friday; encouraged Councilmembers to take the tour.
Ms. Anderson stated THAT she would like to recognize the hard work
of the Ad Hoc Committee; encouraged everyone to view the display on
the second floor of City Hall; a "Leonardville" walking tour will
take place this coming Saturday.
Mayor Johnson stated that theater restoration photos should be
displayed at City Hall.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the theater renovation is
being documented, to which Mayor Johnson responded in the
affirmative.
(07- ) Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of adding an agenda
item for WABA.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. Absent: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 1, 2007
1
Kathy Moehring, WABA, announced that the West Alameda summer
Farmer's Market starts next week; presented Council with a bag of
produce; stated the kick off will be at 4:00 p.m.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 07- ],
THE recommendation to authorize modification of two -way stop
controls at Clinton [paragraph no. 07- 1, and the recommendation
to authorize installation of two -way stop controls at Versailles
[paragraph no. 07- ] , were removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote -- 4. Absent: Councilmember Matarrese - 1. [Items so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(07- ) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on April
17, 2007.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Minutes with the
following correction on page 8: " Councilmember deHaan stated that
the proposed ordinance would provide a ticketing process that would
be enforceable."
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote --- 4. Absent: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.
( *07- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,682,120.24.
( *07- ) Recommendation to authorize Call for Bids for Legal
Advertising. Accepted.
( *07- ) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report.
Accepted.
( *07-- ) Recommendation to set hearing date to consider collection
of delinquent business license fees via the property tax bills.
Accepted.
( *07- ) Recommendation to award Consultant Agreement in the
amount of $144,252, including contingency, to David L. Gates and
Associates, Inc. for the Park Street Streetscape - Phase II.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 1, 2007
2
Accepted.
(*O7- ) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Ballena Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit,
No. P.W. 05--- 00 -09. Accepted.
(07- ) Recommendation to authorize modification of Two -Way Stop
Controls at the Clinton Avenue at Union Street, and Clinton Avenue
at Chestnut Street intersections.
Councilmember deHaan requested that some background information be
provided.
The Public Works Director stated neighborhood residents requested
stop sign installations; the recommendation to authorize
modification of two -way stop controls [paragraph no. 07-
addresses all-way stop installations along Clinton Avenue; the
recommendation to authorize installation of two -way stop controls
[paragraph nos. 07- , 07- A, and 07- B] address all -way stop
installations and some two -way stop installations; residents were
concerned about the amount of traffic coming through the
neighborhood and pass- through traffic being diverted off major
streets onto residential streets; speed and pedestrian safety,
specifically, child safety, were concerns; areas addressed in
[paragraph no. 07- ] are within a school area; the Clinton Avenue
corridor was reviewed and it was recommended that some stop signs
be installed to calm traffic; the whole neighborhood was reviewed
[paragraph no. 07- , 07- A, and 07- B] to find a way to calm
traffic within an area abounded by Broadway, Otis Drive, High
Street and Encinal Avenue; stop signs were alternated; said method
has been successfully used in other jurisdictions.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the areas had prior signals,
such as yield signs, to which the Public Works Director responded
there were no yield signs at any of the intersections.
Councilmember deHaan stated the neighborhood was reviewed in
general; inquired whether adjacent areas would be reviewed
systematically or whether resident requests would initiate the
review.
The Public Works Director responded resident requests initiate the
review; stated a system -wide approach would be used where the same
concerns are noted; having a historic grid system is fortunate and
allows alternating stops in residential neighborhoods were traffic
volumes are low.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 1, 2007
3
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether similar efforts have been
made in other areas, to which the Public Works Director responded
this is the first effort.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would encourage staff to
continue the efforts; consistency is needed throughout the City;
inquired whether the Clinton Avenue warrants justify all -way stops.
The Public Works Director responded no all -way stop warrants were
met on Clinton Avenue; stated stop sign orientation would be
changed by providing an alternating stop sign pattern at two
intersections; Clinton Avenue has a higher traffic volume, which
may be because of access to the Hospital.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how existing, parallel streets would
be affected.
The Public Works Director responded there would be an alternating
pattern; stated all -way stops are at the corners of St. Joseph
Elementary School and St. Joseph Notre Dame High School.
Mayor Johnson stated previously Council discussed a City -wide
strategic approach; inquired whether it is better to strategically
review stops in a specific area rather than City -wide.
The Public Works Director responded issues are being reviewed to
comprehensively address where stop signs should go and to determine
appropriate locations for traffic calming devises.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Fountain Street intersection
referenced is near St. Philip Neri Elementary School, to which the
Public Works Director responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated said intersection does not have four -way stop
signs; Council has stated that the preference is to have four -way
stop signs by schools; she recommended that residents contact the
Public Works Department regarding the issue.
The Public Works Director stated that he would look into the
matter.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to ensure that four -way stop signs
are installed at the Fountain Street intersections adjacent to St.
Philip Neri Elementary School.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendations
[paragraph no. 07- ] and [paragraph no. 07- , 07- A, and 07-
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 1, 2007
4
BJ
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. Absent: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.
(07-• ) Recommendation to authorize installation of Two -Way Stop
Controls at the Versailles Avenue at Washington Street, Clay Street
at Pearl Street, Clay Street at Versailles Avenue, Clay Street at
Mound Street, Calhoun Street at College Avenue, Fillmore Street at
Mound Street, Bishop Street at Washington Street, Madison Street at
Mound Street, Adams Street at Bishop Street, and Fillmore Street at
Fountain Street;
(07- A) Recommendation to authorize modification of Two -Way Stop
Controls at the Calhoun Street at Versailles Avenue, Mound Street
at Washington Street, Adams Street at Court Street, and San Jose
Avenue at Court Street intersections; and
(07- B) Recommendation to authorize installation of an All-way
Stop Control at the Calhoun Street at Mound Street intersection.
[Refer to motion under [paragraph no . 07- . ]
( *07- ) Recommendation to authorize Alameda Power and Telecom
(AP&T) to sell obsolete and unnecessary personal property in excess
of $10,000. Accepted.
( *07- ) Resolution No. 14085, "Authorizing the City Manager to
Submit an Application for Measure B Paratransit Funding for Fiscal
Year 2007- 2008." Adopted.
( *07- ) Ordinance No. 2965, "Amending Alameda Municipal Code
Subsection 23 -6.2 (Operation of Power Boats) of Section 23 -6
(Harbor and Tidelands) of Chapter XXIII (Parks, Recreation Areas
and Public Property) by Repealing Subsection 23 -6.2 in Its Entirety
and Adding a New Subsection 23 -6.2 (Operation of Power Boats) that
Incorporates Speed Limits for Vessels Propelled by Machinery in an
Estuary or Channel and Continues the Prohibition of Power Boats in
Lagoons." Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07- ) Recommendation to accept the work of S. J. Amoroso
Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of the Alameda Free
Library - New Main Library Project, No. P.W. 01-03-01.
The Project Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Project Manager for the great work;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 1, 2007
5
stated Alameda is proud to have built a government building ahead
of schedule and under budget in a difficult time.
Councilmember Gilmore added her congratulations; stated the
building is very well utilized which is the best judge of success;
people are happy to use the Library.
Councilmember deHaan stated another measurement of success is when
other municipalities use the Library as a model.
The Project Manager stated a lot of municipalities have toured the
Library.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she would like to add her commendations;
the Library is a community center; she hopes the theater project
follows the same level of success.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Mayor Johnson stated S. J. Amoroso Construction did a great job
also; the City is glad to have them working on the theater project.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. Absent: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
(07- ) Philip Tribuzio, Alameda, submitted handout, discussed
the consequence of global warming.
(07- ) Mike Sheppard, Frank Bette Center for the Arts, submitted
handout, stated the arts are not tangential but are core to
community development in America; encouraged Council to incorporate
the arts in every possible aspect of policy considerations for the
future of Alameda.
(07- ) John Olson, Alameda, stated that he would like to start a
San Francisco Bay Center for wooden boats; encouraged Council
support.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07- ) Mayor Johnson stated that she attended the Northern
California Power Agency (NCPA) Conference in Washington, D.C.; four
Alameda representatives attended the Conference, which was an
effort to advocate for Alameda and the NCPA on power issues.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 1, 2007
6
(07- ) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she attended the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) General Assembly on
April 19 in San Francisco; housing and regional priorities were
discussed; there was a real focus on green building and green
techniques.
(07- ) Mayor Johnson stated that the Planning Board was looking
at green building ordinances; requested an update on the matter;
stated the Waste Management Authority has green building ordinance
models; Alameda is one of the few cities that has not adopted a
green building ordinance.
The City Manager stated the matter is in the process of being
analyzed; information will be provided.
Mayor Johnson stated the goal should be to have an ordinance by the
end of the year at the latest.
(07- ) Councilmember deHaan stated the former Naval Base sea
level is twelve feet; the seawall is approximately six feet and
gets broached during heavy storms which is of concern and should be
reviewed.
(07- ) Councilmember deHaan stated the San Francisco Maritime
Museum was interested in renting space to renovate ships at one
time; the matter has been discussed and could continue to be
discussed.
(07- ) Councilmember deHaan stated that he is requesting a
review from the Planning Board on the discount fuel station
Environmental Impact Report (EIR); the matter should dovetail with
the Target EIR and be reviewed as a whole; he would like to see the
review done at the Planning Board and Transportation Commission
level, not Council level; the [gas station] negative declaration
accepted by the Planning Board should be reviewed as a whole [with
the proposed Target], not as a part.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan was requesting
a Call for Review for the negative declaration by the Planning
Board, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated there is a timeframe for the Call for Review
process; a Call for Review has to come to Council within three
Council meetings.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have the matter
married with the Target EIR.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 1, 2007
7
Mayor Johnson stated there was another recent Call for Review.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did that one, but it is more of
a discussion.
Mayor Johnson stated it is a Call for Review; inquired when the
matter would come to Council.
The City Manager responded May 15; noted there is an Appeal as well
which will be on the agenda.
Mayor Johnson stated the [previous] Call for Review is on the
Planning Board's decision to establish a committee to discuss
Measure A; further stated any Councilmember can request a Call for
Review, but needs to be clear about what is being called for
review.
Councilmember deHaan stated the other one [formation of a Measure A
committee] is really a discussion, not a [Call for] Review because
the decision was not a variance or similar type of Planning Board.
decision.
Mayor Johnson stated it is a Call for Review and has to be handled
as a Call for Review; inquired whether or not a Call for Review can
be stopped after a request is made; further inquired whether or not
the Council is required to take an action after a Call for Review
is requested.
The City Manager noted an Appeal has also been filed.
The City Attorney responded a Call for Review generally acts like
an Appeal, but is being called up by a Councilmember; in this
particular case [formation of a Measure A committee] because an
Appeal has also been received that would be heard on the same
evening as what would have been a Call for Review, the two
processes would be duplicative; the items are going to be agendized
a little differently; there will be the Appeal and possibly a
discussion on the policy issue; a Call for Review should come to
Council the same as an Appeal, unless withdrawn.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter is procedural and should be
agendized for discussion; the Call for Review and Appeal processes
should be clear; inquired whether the "discussion" would be on the
Call for Review.
Councilmember deHaan responded that he believes the discussion is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 1, 2007
8
on policy.
The City Attorney stated the Call for Review would appear under
Council Communications as a review of the overall policy; otherwise
there would be an Appeal and Call for Review as back -to -back agenda
items or combined [as one item].
Mayor Johnson stated the process should be clear; noted the matter
would not be heard if a Call for Review was cancelled due to an
Appeal being filed and then the Appellant dropped the Appeal;
further stated both a Call for Review and an Appeal were requested
and should be processed as one item; discussion of the process
should be placed on an agenda to ensure the process is clear; just
because an Appeal has been filed does not mean the Call for Review
should be dropped because the Appeal could be dropped and the
matter would not move forward.
(07- ) Councilmember Gilmore stated that a resident informed her
that the Alameda Town Centre bottle recycling center has been
removed; inquired whether Harbor Bay had a recycling center.
Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative; stated retailers
should be obligated to set up a recycling center if there is a-high
glass and plastic bottle usage.
Mayor Johnson stated Marina Village used to have a recycling
center.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Alameda Towne Center recycling
center is not a nice facility but is a necessity.
The City Manager inquired whether information on alternative
recycling centers is being requested, to which Councilmember
Gilmore responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated adequate recycling facilities are needed.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the resident informed her that Harsch
Development did not shut down the recycling center; the entity that
runs the recycling center was downsizing.
(07- ) Councilmember Gilmore stated Buena Vista Avenue between
Constitution Way and Grand Street needs crack sealing.
(07- ) Vice Mayor Tam stated she attended the East Bay Division
of the League of California Cities dinner meeting a couple of weeks
ago; Lisa Vorderbrueggen, Contra Costa Times Political Reporter,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 1, 2007
9
was the key speaker and gave prognostications on some emerging
legislation and initiatives.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 1, 2007
10
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY - - - MAY 8, 2007 - -- --- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:12 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Board Members /Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and
Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *07- CC / *07- CIC) Recommendation to accept the Fiscal Year
2007 Third Quarter Financial Report and budget adjustments.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commission deHaan seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Wei s i ger , City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
May 8, 2007
May 10, 2007
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
19051 - 159488
E16529 - E16663
EFT 349
EFT 350
EFT 351
EFT 352
EFT 353
EFT 354
EFT 355
Void Checks:
.Amount
$1,815,995.10
$94,492.59
$581,081.70
$12,943.50
$12,943.50
$866,073.30
$96,230.37
$1,748,927.00
$104,102.65
156994 ($130.00)
158320 ($45,000.00)
120862 ($3.00)
155654 ($25.00)
158471 ($25.00)
155962 ($25.00)
157070 ($2,123.10)
158455 ($29721)
GRAND TOTAL
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela J. Sibley
Council Warrants 05/15/07
$5,285,161.40
BILLS #4 -B
5/15/2007
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 15, 2007
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Set Hearing Date of June 5, 2007, for Establishment of the Fiscal Year 2007-
2008 Appropriation (Proposition 4) Limit
BACKGROUND
Local governments must annually establish their appropriation limit pursuant to Section
7900 et. seq. of the Government Code. This section implements SB 1352, which passed
in November 1979.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The SB 1352 legislation provides that the public be given adequate notice of the Council's
intended action to set the appropriation limit. Documents in support of the recommended
appropriation limit will be made available for public review in the City Clerk's Office no later
than May 21, 2007.
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the action of settin g a hearing date.
g
RECOMMENDATION
Set June 5, 2007, as the scheduled public hearing for establishing the City of Alameda's
spending limitation for fiscal year 2007 -2008.
Respectfully submitted,
4(.4
ifit
Ile -An -oyer
Chief Financial Officer
JAB /di
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -C
05 -15 -07
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: May 15, 2007
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period Ending December 31, 2006
BACKGROUND
This report relates to the sales tax transactions during October through December 31,
2006. These tax transactions are the basis for sales tax revenues received during the
January through March 31, 2007, time period. These transactions and resulting revenues
occurred within the context of a state economy that continues to grow at a slow pace.
Compared to the same quarter a year ago, the Bay Area experienced 1.6 percent growth in
sales tax receipts, while statewide receipts fell 0.1 percent during the last quarter of the
year. For the year as a whole, receipts grew 2.9 percent overall in 2006.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Taxable sales transactions in the City of Alameda for the period ending December 31,
2006, decreased 2.2 percent, or$30,262, from the same quarter of the prior year. The key
gains were in food products (7.1 percent, or $23,675) and construction (25.4 percent, or
$14,363). The key declines came from transportation ( -8.0 percent, or $30,221) and
general retail (9.1 percent, or $30,158). The top 25 businesses represent 48 percent
($656,052) of the quarter's sales transactions. The top 100 businesses represent 74
percent ($1,019,366) of the quarter's sales transactions.
A comparison of the key economic categories follows:
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -D
05 -15 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Cou ncil members
May 15, 2007
Page 2 of 3
All sub - categories within Food Products posted increases, with restaurants gaining 7.5 %,
or $14,670, more than half of the category gain from the year -ago quarter. Food markets
gained 3.9 %, or $4,376. Overall net decreases were in Transportation. New auto sales
increased 7 %, or $9,844; however, this increase was offset by a decline of 43.1%, or
$39,720, in sales of miscellaneous vehicles (primarily yacht sales). General Retail reflects
decreases primarily from apparel stores of 41.5 %, or $18,598. Furniture /appliances
decreased 27.5 %, or $6,696, and Miscellaneous Retail decreased 6.2 %, or $6,390, with
partially offsetting increases in drug stores of 5.8 %, or $3,648. Business -to- Business
reflects decreases primarily in light industry of 28.6 %, or $22,769. These decreases were
partially offset by increases in chemical products of 51.4 %, or $8,584.
A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the fourth quarter of 2006 as
compared to the same period in 2005 follows.
Percent
Change
Total Sales Transactions
4th Quarter 2006
4th Quarter 2005
Percent
Change
Economic Category
Total
Percent of
Total
Total
Percent of
Total
7.1%
Food Products
$358,451
26.1%
$334,775
23.9%
25.4%
Construction
$70,883
5.2%
$56,520
4.0%
48.5%
Miscellaneous
$20,086
1.5%
$13,527
1.0%
(8.0)%
Transportation
$346,839
25.3%
$377,060
26.9%
(9.1)%
General Retail
$302,832
22.1%
$332,990
23.7%
(5.0)%
Business -to- Business
$273,975
20.0%
$288,455
20.6%
(2.2)%
Total - Quarter
$1,373,066
100.0%
$1,403,328
100.0%
All sub - categories within Food Products posted increases, with restaurants gaining 7.5 %,
or $14,670, more than half of the category gain from the year -ago quarter. Food markets
gained 3.9 %, or $4,376. Overall net decreases were in Transportation. New auto sales
increased 7 %, or $9,844; however, this increase was offset by a decline of 43.1%, or
$39,720, in sales of miscellaneous vehicles (primarily yacht sales). General Retail reflects
decreases primarily from apparel stores of 41.5 %, or $18,598. Furniture /appliances
decreased 27.5 %, or $6,696, and Miscellaneous Retail decreased 6.2 %, or $6,390, with
partially offsetting increases in drug stores of 5.8 %, or $3,648. Business -to- Business
reflects decreases primarily in light industry of 28.6 %, or $22,769. These decreases were
partially offset by increases in chemical products of 51.4 %, or $8,584.
A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the fourth quarter of 2006 as
compared to the same period in 2005 follows.
Percent
Change
Total Sales Transactions
Geographic Areas
4th Qtr 2006
Total
Percent
of Total
4th Qtr 2005
Total
Percent
of Total
7.7%
Park — North of Lincoln
$294,323
21.44%
$273,372
19.48%
0.7%
Park — South of Lincoln
$167,887
12.23%
$166,677
11.88%
7.5%
Webster — North of Lincoln
$79,970
5.82%
$74,394
5.30%
(7.6)%
Webster — South of Lincoln
$28,383
2.07%
$30,726
2.19%
(6.3)%
Alameda Towne Centre
$263,630
19.20%
$281,258
20.04%
(6.6)%
All other Areas
$538,873
39.25%
$576,901
41.11%
(2.2)%
Total - Quarter
$1,373,066
100.00%
$1,403,328
100.00%
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 15, 2007
Page 3 of 3
It is important to note that Alameda Towne Centre had major construction work in progress
during the fourth quarter of 2006.
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT
Sales tax revenues received in the fourth quarter of FYO6 as compared to the fourth
quarter of FYO5 decreased by 3 percent. The payments by the State Board of Equalization
are advanced based on estimated sales tax reports, with a balancing payment at the end
of the quarter, which creates a lag in reported revenues for the City. The sales tax
projections for the FY 2006 -07 budget take into consideration these trends and appear to
be on track. Staff continues to monitor this revenue source closely.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending December 31, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
Juelle- Ann `"Boyer
Chief Financial Officer
by: Annette Brisco
Financial Analyst
CITY OF ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: May 15, 2007
Re: Award Contract in the Amount of $240,000, Including Contingencies, to
Shaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers for Storm Drainage Study, No.
P.W . 03 -07 -08
BACKGROUND
In March 2007, Public Works staff issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and
conducted a selection process to choose consultant services to conduct a storm drainage
study of the City. The study consists of 1) reviewing existing drainage studies, 2) analyzing
the City's current storm drain system under existing land use and with future growth, 3)
proposing capital improvement alternatives to enhance the system reliability, and 4)
providing a geographical information system (GIS) of the City's storm drainage system.
DISCUSSION
Seven qualified civillstorm engineering consultants submitted proposals to the City:
Consultant
Location
Proposal Amount
Shaaf &Wheeler
San Francisco
$1 66,000
Winzler & Kelly
San Francisco
$181 ,000
BKF
Redwood City
$186, 000
Advance Hydro Engineering
San Ramon
$284,000
Systech Engineering Inc.
San Ramon
$294,000
Bellecci & Associates, Inc.
Concord
$328,000
AMWest Inc
Richmond
$961 ,000
The selection process was based on a presentation from each consultant and a follow-up
interview to determine the most qualified firm. Staff recommends awarding a contract to
Shaaf & Wheeler for a total amount of $240,000, including contingencies and additional
work scope not anticipated in the RFQ. The additional scope includes aerial maps, laser
terrain data, ground checks for quality control and accuracy, and field data collection for
subsurface data including pipe diameters, invert elevations and pipe materials. A copy of
the contract is on file in the City Clerk's office.
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -E
05-15-07
May 15, 2007
Page 2
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is funded under CI P# 90 -06 and 90 -46 with funds from the Urban Runoff Clean
Water funds.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is
Statutorily Exempt under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning
Studies.
RECOMMENDATION
Award contract in the amount of $240,000, including contingencies, to Shaaf & Wheeler
Consulting Civil Engineers for storm drainage study, No. P.W. 03- 07 -08.
Respectfyl�sybmitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
&‘k SerrivNyv2
By: Ed Sommeraue�� in
-r
Civil Enl�irieer
MTN:ES:gc
CITY OF ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Cou ncil members
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: May 15, 2007
Re: Adopt Specifications and Authorize a Call for Bids for Roof Structure for
Maintenance Service Center Transfer Pad and Dumpsters, No. P.W. 04-07 -
14
BACKGROUND
Approximately 10 years ago, the City installed a clarifier for the transfer pad and dumpster
area at the Maintenance Service Center. The clarifier collects stormwater from the pad
and dumpster area and filters debris, heavy metals and oil from the water prior to
discharging into the sanitary sewer system. The City has a permit with the East Bay
Municipal Utility District ( EBMUD) to allow for this discharge. Recently, EBMUD informed
the City that they would not renew the permit unless modifications were made to eliminate
runoff from entering their system, thereby reducing wet water flows sent to their treatment
facilities.
DISCUSSION
The proposed project will provide an all- weather roof over the transfer pad and dumpsters
without interfering with the transfer operations. This added roof structure should prevent
stormwater from entering the sanitary sewer system, thereby complying with EBMUD's
requirements. In addition, the lower flows through the clarifier will reduce on-going
maintenance. Specifications have been prepared for the design, fabrication, and erection
of a roof structure over the transfer pad and dumpsters at the Maintenance Service Center.
A copy of the specifications is on file in the City Clerk's office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is budgeted under CI P# 06-65 with funds available from the Urban Runoff
Clean Water funds.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POL1CY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -F
05-15-07
May 15,2007
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is
Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(c), Existing Facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt specifications and authorize a call for bids for Roof Structure for Maintenance
Service Center Transfer Pad and Dumpsters, No. P.W. 04- 07 -14.
Respectfully submitted,
,4,,,,
atthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
'44,ait OAct-arz-)
By: Robert Claire 64.
Associate Civil Eigineer
MTN:RC:gc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: May 15, 2007
Re: Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for Bids for
Pruning of City Trees within the City of Alameda for the Fiscal Year
Ending June 30, 2008, No. P.W. 04 -07 -13
BACKGROUND
The City has approximately 19,000 street trees that have historically been pruned
on a five -year cycle. A private contractor has been performing the pruning work
since 1981, and this has proved to be cost effective to the City.
DISCUSSION
The proposed project consists of pruning approximately 4,000 City street trees,
75 City trees within the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, 400 trees for Alameda
Power & Telecom, and 100 trees for the Recreation and Park Department. The
specifications are consistent with the City's Master Tree Plan and have been
reviewed by a licensed arborist and a local resident who has tree pruning
experience. A copy of the plans and specifications are on file in the City Clerk's
office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is budgeted under 43 -8301 with funds available from the General
Fund for Annual Street Tree Pruning, the Enterprise Fund under Contractual
Services, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the General Fund
under Contractual Services.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -G
05 -15 -07
May 15, 2007
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project
is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(h), Maintenance
of Existing Landscape.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the plans and specifications and authorize a call for bids for Pruning of City
Trees Within the City of Alameda for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2008, No.
P.W. 04- 07 -13.
RespectFj submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
a
By: Pete J. Carrai
Public Works Superintendent
MTN:PJC:gc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: May 15, 2007
Re: Accept the Work of SpenCon Construction, Inc., for the Fiscal Year 2005 -
2006 Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter,
Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, No. P.W. 03 -06 -06
BACKGROUND
On March 21, 2006, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized a
call for bids for the Fiscal Year 2005 -2006 repair of Portland Cement Concrete sidewalk,
curb, gutter, driveway, and minor street patching, No. P.W. 03- 06 -06. On May 16, 2006,
the City awarded a contract in the amount of $436,000, including contingencies, to
SpenCon Construction, Inc.
DISCUSSION
The project has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications and is
acceptable to the Public Works Department. The project repaired 9,771 linear feet of
sidewalk, and the final project cost is $435,876.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funding for this project is budgeted under CIP# 82 -02, using the General Fund,
Measure B, Proposition 42 funds, and the California Joint Powers Risk Management
Authority excess liability pool.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -H
05-15-07
May 15, 2007
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the work of SpenCon Construction, Inc., for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 repair of
Portland Cement Concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and minor street patching,
No. P.W. 03-06-06.
Respectfu submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
ek.f.,
By: CW Chung 4./ ge_.
Associate Civil Engineer
MTN:CWC:gc
cc: Watchdog Committee
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: May 15, 2007
Re: Adopt Resolutions to Preliminarily Approve the Annual Report Declaring the
City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and
Providing for Notice of Public Hearing July 3, 2007 - Island City Landscaping
and Lighting District 84 -2 and Island City Landscaping and Lighting District
84 -2, Zones 2 and 3
BACKGROUND
In accordance with the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1 972, the City Council is required to
annually appoint an Engineer and Attorney to prepare an Engineer's Report and adopt a
resolution preliminarily approving the report, declaring the City's intent to levy and collect
the assessment, and setting a public hearing date on the proposed assessments. The
resolution is required to be published at least twice in a focal paper with a minimum of 45
days between the first publication of the City's resolution and the Public Hearing. The City
Council appointed an Engineer and Attorney for the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment
District 84 -2 and authorized the preparation of the Engineer's Report on February 5, 2007.
DISCUSSION
The Engineer's Report has been prepared in accordance with Section 22565 et seq. of the
California Streets and Highway Code. A copy of the Engineer's report is on file with the
City Clerk. The report provides an annual budget to maintain the improvements within
Zones 1 through 7 of Assessment District 84 -2. Staff worked with district representatives
to develop the budgets and ensure their maintenance requirements were addressed.
An increase in assessments for Zones 2 and 3, Webster Street, is proposed for this budget
cycle. While expenses have exceeded revenue for the last several years, there were
sufficient reserves to cover these shortfalls. The West Alameda Business Association
recommended that the assessments be increased to a level that would be sufficient to
maintain the newly constructed streetscape improvements, before the reserves are fully
depleted. It is estimated that at current budget levels, there would be sufficient reserves
for only one more budget cycle. A vote of the property owners in Zones 2 and 3 will be
required since the City is proposing an increase in the assessment. No other individual
assessments are proposed for increase beyond the allowable CPI.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Items #4 -I
05-15-07
May 15, 2007
Page 2
The budget for Zone 4 is set in cooperation with the Park Street Business Association
(PSBA). Although Zone 4 is also using reserve funds to cover budget deficiencies, the
reserves are sufficient for two more budget cycles, and PSBA has requested that a general
assessment increase not be considered until the 2008 budget cycle.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution preliminarily approving the
Engineer's Report, calling for the ballot in Zones 2 and 3, and setting the regular City
Council meeting of July 3, 2007, as the date for the public hearing.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
District representatives for each Zone develop the individual budgets; expenses are paid
through the property assessment procedure. The City, through the budgets of the Public
Works, Golf, and Recreation & Parks Departments, shares the costs for maintaining the
shoreline park and median area within Zone 5. These costs are included within the
operating budget for each department.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolutions preliminarily approving the annual report declaring the City's intention to
order the levy and collection of assessments and providing for notice of public hearing for
July 3, 2007 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2 and Island City
Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2 Zones 2 and 3.
Respectfully submitted,
atthew T. Naclerio
Pub!' Works Director
By: Ma
Pub
MTN:MM:gc
McLean
Works Coordinator
CITY OF ALAM.EDA RESOLUTION NO.
PRELIMINARILY APPROVING ANNUAL REPORT DECLARING
INTENTION TO ORDER LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING JULY 3, 2007 -
ISLAND CITY LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT 84 -2
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda (the "City ") has duly created the Island City
Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2 (the "District ") under the Landscaping and Lighting
g
Act of 1972 (Sections 22500 and following of the Streets and Highways Code of California)
(the "Act ") to install and maintain certain landscaping and lighting improvements ( the
"Improvements "); and
WHEREAS, the City has directed the City Engineer, as engineer of work for the
District, to file an annual report in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972, and that report is on file with the City and shows the proposed improvements and the
estimated costs and assessments, all for the fiscal year 2007 -2008.
that:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda
1. The report of the engineer of work on file with the City is hereby
preliminarily approved and the City intends to levy assessments on the properties shown in
the report for the fiscal year 2007 -2008, subject to any changes that may be ordered by the
Council.
2. On July 3, 2007, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock P.M., the Council will hold
a public hearing on the proposed Improvements and the proposed assessments for the
fiscal year 2007 -2008. The hearing will be held at the meeting place of the City Council, in
the Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, 94501.
3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the hearing
required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 by publishing a copy of this
resolution twice in the Alameda Journal, a newspaper regularly published and circulated in
the City. The first publication shall be not later than 45 days before the date of said
hearing.
4. The Public Works Department is directed to mail notices to all property
owners who are experiencing an increase in assessment from the 2007 -2008 fiscal year.
These notices will list the total amount chargeable to the district, the amount chargeable to
the owner's parcel, the duration of the payments, the reason for the assessment and the
basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated. These notices
will also advise property owners of the procedures for conducting a ballot.
Resolution #4 -1(1) CC
05 -15 -07
5. Interested persons should contact Marge McLean of the City of
Alameda Public Works Department, 950 West Mali Square, Room 110, Alameda,
California 94501, telephone number (510) 749 -5896, regarding this hearing, the
assessments, and the report.
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting
assembled on the 15th day of May, 2007, 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 May, 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
PRELIMINARILY APPROVING ANNUAL REPORT DECLARING
INTENTION TO ORDER LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING JULY 3, 2007 -
ISLAND CITY LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT 84 -2, ZONES 2
AND 3
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda (the "City") has duly created the Island City
Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2, Zones 2 and 3 (the "District ") under the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Sections 22500 and following of the Streets and
a Highways Code of California) "Act" to install and maintain certain landsc } "Act") aping and
0 lighting improvements (the "Improvements"); and
WHEREAS, the City has directed the City Engineer, as engineer of work for the
District, to file an annual report in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1 972, and that report is on file with the City and shows the proposed improvements and the
estimated costs and assessments, all for the fiscal year 2007 -2008.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the
City Council of the City of Alameda, pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 22587 of the Act that:
1. The City Council hereby finds that the report of the engineer of work on file
with the City contains all matters required by Section 22565 through 22574 of the Act and
is hereby approved and confirmed. Reference is made to the report, which is on file with
the City Clerk of the City of Alameda, for a full and detailed description of the
improvements described in Section 6, the boundaries of the District described in Section 5,
the assessment range formula that is proposed to be levied on the assessable lots and
parcels of property within the District.
2. The City Council hereby declares its intention to increase the assessment
amount in the District and to allow for future annual increases based on an indexed
inflation adjustment formula. The City Council has determined at this time to call an
assessment ballot proceeding therein to authorize the assessment increase ( which is more
particularly outlined in the Engineer's Report) to pay the costs and expenses of the
improvements described in Section 5 of this Resolution. The City Council finds that the
public's best interest requires such levy and collection.
3. Pursuant to Proposition 218, Section 4, Sub - Section 4 (c ), now California
Constitutional Articles XI I I C and XI I I D, (hereafter referred to as the "Proposition 218")
approved by the California voters in November 1990, an assessment ballot proceeding is
hereby called on behalf of the District on the proposition of increasing the assessment and
providing for future increases through an indexed inflation adjustment formula in the
method of spread to allow for reasonable increases within the District.
Resolution #4 -I (2) CC
05 -15 -07
4. The assessment ballot proceeding for the District on the proposition of
increasing the assessment and allowing for future reasonable increases, pursuant to
Section 4, Sub - Section 4 (c and d) of Proposition 218 consists of an assessment ballot,
included with the mailed notice required by Section 22556 of the Act, distributed by mail, to
the property owners of record within the District appearing on the County's last equalized
roll. Each property owner's vote is weighted by the amount of their proposed assessment
and property owners may return the ballot by mail or in person to the City Clerk not later
than the conclusion of the Public Hearing on July 3, 2007. At the Public Hearing, pursuant
to Section 4, Sub - Section 4 (e) of Proposition 218 the agency shall tabulate the ballots to
determine if a majority protest exists. The ballots shall be weighted according to the
proportional financial obligation of the affected property. A majority protest exists if, upon
the conclusion of the Public Hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessments
exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessments.
5. The boundaries of the District are described as the boundaries previously
defined in the formation documents of the original District, within the boundaries of the City
of Alameda, within the County of Alameda, State of California; as shown upon the
boundary map of said Landscape and Lighting District, which is on file in the office of the
City Clerk. The distinctive designation of the District is "Island City Landscaping and
Lighting District 84 -2, Zones 2 and 3 of the City of Alameda," and is comprised of
properties on Webster Street from Central Avenue to Atlantic Avenue.
6. The improvements provided within the District include, but are not limited to,
the operating, maintaining, and servicing of all public landscaping improvements,
consisting of trees, medians, refuse containers, sidewalks, plant materials, pathways,
irrigation systems, lighting systems, and associated appurtenant facilities. Services
include, but are not limited to, personnel, materials, contracting services, electrical energy,
water required for all necessary maintenance, replacement, repair and administration,
required to keep the above mentioned improvements in a healthy, vigorous and
satisfactory condition.
7. For Fiscal Year 2007 and 2008, the proposed assessments are outlined in
the Engineer's Report which details the annual assessments and formula.
8. The City Council hereby declares its intention to conduct a Public Hearing
annually concerning levy of assessments for the District in accordance with Chapter 2,
Section 22626 of the Act.
9. The Public Works Department is directed to give notice of the time and place
of the Public Hearing to all property owners within the District by causing notice to be given
pursuant to Section 53753 of the Government Code. Property owners will also be provided
a mailed assessment ballot to vote on the proposed assessment range formula to allow for
reasonable increases. Ballots must be received prior to the conclusion of the Public
Hearing, at which time they will be tabulated. At the Public Hearing, all interested persons
shall be afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard.
10. Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing on these matters will be held by
the City Council on the July 3, 2007, at 7:30 p.m. at the meeting place of the City Council,
y
in the Alameda City Hall, 2203 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, 94501.
11. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the hearin g
•
required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 by publishing a copy of this
resolution twice in the Alameda Journal, a newspaper regularly published and circulated in
the City. The first publication shall be not later than 45 days before the date of
said
hearing.
12. Interested persons should contact Marge McLean of the City of Alameda
Public Works Department, 950 West Mall Square, Room 110, Alameda, California 94501,
telephone number (510) 749-5896, regarding this hearing, the assessments and the report.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting
assembled on the 1 5th day of May, 2007, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said
City this day of May, 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: May 15, 2007
Re: Adopt a Resolution Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the
City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and
Providing for Notice of Public Hearing July 3, 2007 — Maintenance
Assessment District 01 -01 (Marina Cove)
BACKGROUND
In accordance with the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1 972, the City Council is required to
annually appoint an Engineer and Attorney to prepare an Engineer's Report and adopt a
resolution preliminarily approving the report, declaring the City's intent to levy and collect
the assessment, and setting a public hearing date on the proposed assessments. The
resolution is required to be published at least twice in a local paper with a minimum of 45
days between the first publication of the resolution and the Public Hearing. The City
Council appointed an Engineer and Attorney for the Maintenance Assessment District 01-
01 (MAD 01 -01) and authorized the preparation of the annual budget report on February6,
2007.
DISCUSSION
The Engineer's Report has been prepared in accordance with Section 22565 et seq. of the
California Streets and Highway Code. A copy of the Engineer's Report is on file with the
City Clerk. The report provides an annual budget to maintain the public improvements
within the MAD. It is recommended that the assessments be increased by 3.1 %, which is
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Bay Area for the year ending February 2007. An
annual CPI increase was pre - approved when the district was established, and a vote of the
property owners is not required. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the
resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report and setting the regular City Council
meeting of July 3, 2007, as the date for the public hearing.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Maintenance Assessment District was formed to maintain public improvements
associated with the Marina Cove Development. Funds not yet expended remain within
this assessment district for use against future expenses. There is no impact to the
General Fund.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -J
05 -15 -07
May 15, 2007
Page 2
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution preliminarily approving the annual report declaring the City's intention
to order the levy and collection of assessments and providing for notice of public hearing
on July 3, 2007 - Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01 (Marina Cove).
Respectf mitted,
atthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
ill-cLeetz
By: Marge McLean
Public Works Coillinator
MTN:MM:gc
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
PRELIMINARILY APPROVING ANNUAL REPORT DECLARING
INTENTION TO ORDER LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING JULY 3, 2007 —
MAI NTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 01 -01 (MARINA COVE)
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda (the "City ") has duly created the Maintenance
Assessment District 01 -01 (the "District ") pursuant to Chapter 3, Article V of the Alameda
Municipal Code, and Resolution No. 12417 to install and maintain certain landscaping and
lighting and other improvements (the "Improvements"); and
WHEREAS, the City has directed the City Engineer, as engineer of work for the
District, to file an annual report in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972, and that report is on file with the City and shows the proposed improvements and the
estimated costs and assessments, all for the fiscal year 2007 -2008:
that:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda
1. The report of the engineer of work on file with the City is hereby
preliminarily approved and the City intends to levy assessments on the properties shown in
the report for the fiscal year 2007 -2008, subject to any changes that may be ordered by the
y
Council.
2. On July 3, 2007, at the hour of 7 :30 o'clock P.M., the Council will hold
a public hearing on the proposed Improvements and the proposed assessments for the
fiscal year 2007 -2008. The hearing will be held at the meeting place of the City Council, in
the Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, 94501.
3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the hearing
required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, as that Act is incorporated in
Chapter 3, Article V of the Alameda Municipal Code, by publishing a copy of this resolution
twice in the Alameda Journal, a newspaper regularly published and circulated in the City.
The first publication shall be not later than 45 days before the date of said hearing.
4. The Public Works Department is directed to mail notices to all property
owners who are experiencing an increase in assessment not previously authorized by vote
from the 2006-07 fiscal year. These notices will list the total amount chargeable to the
district, the amount chargeable to the owner's parcel, the duration of the payments, the
reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed
assessment was calculated. These notices will also advise property owners of the
procedures for conducting a ballot, per the attached ballot procedures.
Resolution #4 -J CC
05 -15 -07
5. Interested persons should contact Marge McLean of the City of
Alameda Public Works Department, 950 W. Mali Square, Room 110, Alameda, California
94501, telephone number (510) 749 -5840, regarding this hearing, the assessments and
the report.
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting
assembled on the 1 5th day of May, 2007, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal
of said City this day of May, 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: May 15, 2007
Re: Adopt a Resolution Approving a Second Amendment to the Agreement for
Additional Funding from the California State Coastal Conservancy to
Implement Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures, and Authorizing
the City Manager to Enter Into all Associated Agreements
BACKGROUND
In 2003, the California State Coastal Conservancy (Conservancy) adopted a Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)to
allow for the treatment and control of non - native Spartina in the San Francisco Bay
Estuary. This document required the preparation of site - specific control plans. The San
Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project (ISP), administered by the Conservancy, has
prepared control plans for 22 locations, including three sites along the City's shoreline.
On August 22, 2005, the Conservancy and the City executed a partnership Agreement to
undertake invasive Spartina treatment and eradication activities and public outreach
related to these activities along the City's shoreline. This Agreement granted to the City a
sum not to exceed $38,093 for this effort. On June 22, 2006, the Conservancy and the
City executed an amendment to the 2005 Agreement providing an additional sum not to
exceed $39,080 for invasive Spartina treatment and eradication efforts in calendar year
2006.
DISCUSSION
In 2005 and 2006, the City successfully implemented the first two years of an initial three -
year plan to eradicate non - native Spartina. In 2007, the City and the Conservancy intend
to implement the third-year and final phase of the project and treat the remaining acreage
of invasive Spartina. Treatment methods at the site will include application of aquatic
herbicide via spray truck, backpack sprayer, amphibious tracked vehicles, and boat. To
initiate this phase of work, a second amendment providing up to $68,500 by the
Conservancy in grant funds for the work is required.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -K
05 -15 -07
Page 2
May 15, 2007
Consistent with the efforts of the last two years, the City will be responsible for public
outreach and providing control efforts using either City resources or through
subcontractors. The Conservancy will reimburse the City for this work consistent with the
Agreement's "Conditions Precedent to Commencement of Project and Disbursement and
Additional Grant Conditions." The City intends to schedule a series of public meetings in
the summer of 2007 to continue to provide the public with up -to -date information regarding
proposed actions to control invasive Spartina. A copy of the amended Agreement for
funding from the Conservancy is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Conservancy will provide an additional sum not to exceed $08,500 in funding for
Spartina treatment and eradication activities to be undertaken by the City during 2007. The
City has budgeted an in -kind contribution estimated at $22,140 with funds available from
the Urban Runoff Clean Water fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed Resolution is consistent with several implemented policies of the Open
Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving a Second Amendment to the Agreement for additional
funding from the Conservancy to implement Spartina eradication and mitigation measures,
and authorizing the City Manager to enter into all associated agreements.
Respecty bmitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
PaA,,,r„ 01676-0
By: Maria F. Di Meglio
Servic s 1Vlanager
MTN:MFD:gc
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM THE STATE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
CONSERVANCY TO IMPLEMENT SPARTINA ERADICATION AND
MITIGATION MEASURES, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO ALL ASSOCIATED AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the State Coastal Conservancy (Conservancy) and the City of
y
Alameda (City) executed a Partnership Agreement (Agreement) on August 22, 2005, to
undertake invasive Spartina treatment and eradication activities and public outreach
related to these activities along the shorelines of Alameda in the amount of $38,093;
and
WHEREAS, the City and the Conservancy executed an amendment to this
Agreement on June 22, 2006, for an additional disbursement to the City not to exceed
$39,080 for invasive Spartina treatment and eradication activities in 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Conservancy has authorized the additional disbursement of an
amount not to exceed sixty -eight thousand five hundred dollars to the City for
implementation of continuing invasive Spartina treatment and eradication projects in
2007 under the Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) Spartina Control Program (third ; hase
p )
and
WHEREAS, the ISP and implementation of the Spartina Control Program remain
consistent with Public Resources Code Sections 31160-31164; and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2005, July 26, 2005, August 17, 2005, and July 19,
2006, public meetings were held to inform the public about the proposed Spartina
control efforts. Attendees were supportive of the proposed project but did express
concerns about herbicide usage and the residual habitat effects. Overall attendees
were in favor of the proposed action plans. Staff will schedule another series of public
meeting in the summer of 2007 to continue to provide the public with up -to -date
information regarding proposed actions to control invasive Spartina along the Alameda
shoreline; and
WHEREAS, the additional funds shall be used by the City to undertake Spartina
treatment, eradication activities along the shoreline of Alameda Island for 2007; and
WHEREAS, the City shall carry out the project in accordance with the
Agreement, site - specific plans and a work program to be approved by the Executive
Officer of the Conservancy pursuant to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City shall provide any funds, subject to appropriation by the City
Council of Alameda, beyond those granted under the Agreement which are needed to
complete the project; and
Resolution #4 -K CC
05 -15 -07
WHEREAS, the Conditions Precedent to Commencement of Project and
Disbursement and Additional Grant Conditions shall be met before the City shall
y
commence the project and the Conservancy shall be obligated to disburse any funds
under the Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City approves a second
amendment to the Agreement for additional funding in the amount of $68,500 from the
Conservancy to implement Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures and
authorizing the City Manager to enter into all associated agreements.
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular
meeting assembled on the 15th day of May, 2007, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of
said City this day of May, 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: May 15, 2007
Re: Adopt a Resolution Accepting $138,000 in Fiscal Year 2007/2008
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds Programmed for the Signal
Coordination and Interconnect for Eighth Street, Park Street, and Otis Drive
Proiects
BACKGROUND
In response to the Congestion Management Agency's (CMA) call for application for the
Coordinated Program Cycle for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding,
Public Works staff submitted a preliminary application for the Signal Coordination and
Interconnect for Eighth Street, Otis Drive, and Park Street. The City was successful in
securing $138,000 in those funds.
DISCUSSION
Before the City can access the CMAQ funds, the projects must be included in the Federal
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The CMA is prepared to submit the proposed
CMAQ projects for inclusion in the 2007 TIP amendment; however, the City Council is first
required to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for these funds and the
commitment of the matching funds. Once the City Council has adopted the resolution, the
CMA will recommend the projects for inclusion in the 2007 TIP amendment.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
In order to use CMAQ funds of $138,000, a local match of 11.5% is required. The required
match of $18,000 is available in Measure B funds and has already been budgeted for
these projects.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -L
05 -15 -07
May 15, 2007
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution accepting $1 38,000 in fiscal year 2007/2008 Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality funds programmed for the signal coordination and interconnect for Eighth
Street, Park Street, and Otis Drive projects.
Respectful] sjbmitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By:
c
Virendra Patel
Assistant Engine r"-
MTN:VP:gc
cc: Watchdog Committee
a
C
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
Resolution of Local Support
SAFETEA STP /CMAQ Funding
ACCEPTING $138,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2007 -2008 CONGESTION MITIGATION AND
AIR QUALITY FUNDS FOR THE SIGNAL COORDINATION AND INTERCONNECT FOR
EIGHTH STREET, PARK STREET AND OTIS DRIVE PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda (the "APPLICANT") is submitting an application
to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for Federal Surface
Transportation Program and/or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
rovement
STP /CMAQ funds for $138,000 for the Signal Coordination and Interconnect for Eighth
Street, Otis Drive, and Park Street (the "Project") for the MTC First Cycle STP/CMAQ
Program and MTC Program Resolution number 3547 (the "Program"); and
WHEREAS, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
. � y
A Legacy for Users ( SAFETEA} (Public Law 109 -59, August 10, 2005) continues the
STP (23 U.S.C. § 133) and the CMAQ (23 U.S.C. § 149); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to SAFETEA, and the regulations promulgated thereunder,
eligible project sponsors wishing to receive federal STP/CMAQ funds for a project shall
submit an application first with the appropriate Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO ), for review and inclusion in the MPO s Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP ); and
p g
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the MPO for
the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay region; and
WHEREAS, MTC has adopted a Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC
Resolution No. 3606, revised) that sets out procedures governing the application and
use of STP/CMAQ funds; and
WHEREAS, APPLICANT is an eligible project sponsor for STP/CMAQ funds; and
WHEREAS, as part of the application for STP/CMAQ funding, MTC requires a
resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following:
1. The commitment of necessary local matching funds of at least
11.47 %; and
2. That the sponsor understands that the STP/CMAQ funding is fixed
at the programmed amount, and therefore, any cost increase cannot be expected to be
funded with additional STP/CMAQ funds; and
3. That the project will comply with the procedures specified in
Resolution #4 -L CC
05 -15 -07
Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised); and
4. The assurance of the sponsor to complete the project as described
in the application, and if approved, as included in MTC's TIP; and
5. That the project will comply with all the project-specific
in p
requirements as set forth n MTC First Cycle STP/CMAQ Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Cit y of
Alameda that the City Manager is authorized to execute and file an application for
funding under the STP and CMAQ of SAFETEA for Signal Coordination and
Interconnect for Eighth Street, Otis Drive, and Park Street; and be it further
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant, by adopting this resolution,
does hereby state that:
1. Applicant will provide $18,000 in non - federal matching funds,
2. Applicant understands that the STP/CMAQ funding for the project is
fixed at the MTC approved programmed amount, and that any cost increases must be
funded by the Applicant from other funds, and that Applicant does not expect any cost
increases p y
ncreases to be funded with additional STP/CMAQ funding.
3. Applicant understands the funding deadlines associated with these
funds and will comply with the provisions and requirements of the Regional Project
Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, as revised).
4. Project will be implemented as described in the complete
application and in this resolution and, if approved, for the amount programmed in the
MTC federal TIP.
5. Applicant and the Project will comply with the requirements as set
forth in First Cycle STP/CMAQ Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Applicant is an eligible sponsor of STP/CMAQ
funded projects.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Applicant is authorized to submit an
application for STP/CMAQ funds for the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there is no legal impediment to Applicant
making applications for the funds.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there is no pending or threatened litigation
that might in any way adversely affect the proposed Project, or the ability of Applicant to
deliver such Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Applicant authorizes its City Manager or
designee to execute and file an application with MTC for STP/CMAQ funding for the
Project as referenced in this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution will be transmitted to
the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the MTC is requested to support the
application for the Project described in the resolution and to include the Project, if
approved, in MTC's TIP.
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular
meeting assembled on the 1 5th day of May, 2007, 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 May, 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: May '1 5, 2007
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Adopt a Resolution to Authorize the Open Market Purchase Pursuant to
Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter for the Purchase of One New
2007 Mid-Sized Dodge Charger Police Package Vehicle and Adopt
Specifications and Authorize Purchase of the Vehicle from Moss Brothers
Riverside Dodge in an Amount Not to Exceed $23,470 (requires four
affirmative votes)
BACKGROUND
On May 2, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13951 establishing guiding
principles for the management of the City's fleet. In compliance with the fleet
replacement criteria, the Public Works Director has recommended the replacement of
three marked police vehicles. The Police Department recommends purchasing one
vehicle, a 2007 V-6 Dodge Charger Police Package, by way of open market purchase
pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter. An open market purchase is
expected to reduce the total cost of the vehicle by approximately $3,000.
DISCUSSION
City staff seeks approval to adopt specifications and authorize the purchase of one fully
equipped 2007 mid -sized V-6 Dodge Charger Police Package vehicle in an amount not
to exceed $23,470. This particular model is somewhat new to the California market for
marked police vehicles. It has tested well in overall responsiveness and safety crash
test performance. Staff reviewed the functional requirements of a marked police vehicle
and determined that utilizing an alternative fuel vehicle does not meet the department's
needs. However, procuring a mid -sized V-6 should reduce fuel consumption and lower
emissions. Additionally, this particular model is not available with an electric, hybrid, or
alternative fuel option. Alternative fuel vehicles currently available in the United States
do not meet the performance requirements for a marked patrol vehicle. The Police
Department has a unique, one -time opportunity to purchase this vehicle, which has
4,900 miles and is fully equipped with safety equipment. The specifications for the 2007
V-6 Dodge Charger Police Package vehicle are attached.
The replaced vehicle will be taken out of the fleet inventory and sold at auction. The
revenues raised by the sale will be returned to the fleet replacement fund in accordance
with Resolution No. 1 3951.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -M
05-15-07
Honorable Mayor
and Members of the Council
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
May 15, 2007
Page 2 of 2
The cost for this vehicle, $23,740, is included in the FY 2006/07 managed vehicle
replacement program fund. There is no need for additional safety equipment since the
package price includes all safety equipment. Since this vehicle is considered a
demonstration vehicle and is being purchased with most of the emergency equipment
already installed, the open market purchase is expected to reduce the total cost of this
vehicle. A new V-6 Dodge Charger, including all safety equipment, costs approximately
$32,000.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the open market purchase pursuant to Section 3 -15 of
the Alameda City Charter for the purchase of one new 2007 V-6 Dodge Charger Police
Package vehicle and adopt specifications and authorize purchase from Moss Brothers
Riverside Dodge in the amount not to exceed $23,740.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter B. Tibbet
Chief of Police
Attachment 1
DK/WBT: mcn
SPECIFICATIONS FOR POLICE VEHICLE PURCHASE
The City of Alameda is seeking proposals for the purchase of three new 2007 Dodge
Charger Police Package (27A) vehicles, including all standard equipment and the
following options:
Basics
Description
Suspension
5 Link
Break Type
Rear Disc
Break Type
Front Disc
Vehicle Type
Mid -Range Premium
Steering
Rack & Pinion
Doors
4
Tire Diameter
17 inches
Overall Height
Wheelbase
_
120.0 inches
Overall Length
200.1 inches
Overall Width
74.5 inches
Capacity
5 Passenger
Base weight
r 3227
Fuel Tank
18.0 gallon
Transmission
Automatic
Engine Size
_ 3.5 Liter, V-6
Engine Valve
Configuration
DOHC
Engine Torque
4000
Color
Black and White
_ Cage Partition
Sentina Brand
Emergency
Siren /Box
Whelen Siren/P.A. System and Light Control
Emergency
Light Bar
Whelen Brand
Other Lighting
Red and Blue Deck and Grid Lights
,
Seats
Plastic Rear Seat
Auxiliary Lights
Right/Left Spot Lights
Interior
Console with Cup Holder
WARRANTY
A standard warranty exists on the vehicle. The vehicle warranty has 27 months, 30,000
miles remaining to begin when the unit is placed in service. Dealer will be responsible
for registering the vehicle as an Exempt vehicle with the Department of Motor Vehicles
and have the plates sent or delivered directly to the Police Department.
VENDOR DELIVERY:
Vehicle must be delivered within 14 days of award of contract. Sale should be
contingent on successful mechanical inspection by Maintenance Service Center
mechanics.
City Council
Attachment to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -M
05 -15 -07
City Attorney
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING OPEN MARKET PURCHASE FROM MOSS BROTHERS
DODGE, RIVERSIDE, CA PURSUANT TO SECTION 3-15 OF THE
ALAMEDA CITY CHARTER FOR ONE DODGE CHARGER IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $23,470 (REQUIRES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES)
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2006, City Council adopted a resolution establishing
g
guiding principles for the management and replacement of the City fleet vehicles and
equipment; and
WHEREAS, the Budget and Financial Plan for Fiscal Years 2000/2008
includes approval for the replacement of three patrol vehicles; and
WHEREAS, Section 3-15 of the City Charter provides that the City Council, by
four affirmative votes, can authorize an open market purchase, without competitive
bidding, if it determines that the product can be purchased at a lower price in the
open market; and
WHEREAS, the vehicle is considered to be a demonstration model, and it
comes equipped with most of the necessary emergency lighting equipment already
installed, the City will be able to purchase this patrol vehicle at a lower price in the
open market; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Alameda, pursuant to Section 3-15 of the City Charter, and by four affirmative votes,
hereby authorizes the execution of an agreement for the open market purchase of
one 2007 Dodge Charger from Moss Brothers Dodge, Riverside in an amount not
exceed $23,740.
1, 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 1 5th day of May, 2007, 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 May, 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolution #4 -M CC
05 -15 -07
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: May 15, 2007
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Complete and Execute
a Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Alameda and the State of
California Department of Transportation for the Stargell Avenue Extension
Project (CIP No. 04 -105 /Caltrans Project No. EA448200)
BACKGROUND
The Wilver "Willie" Stargell (formerly Tinker) Avenue Extension Project (the "Project ") is
one of three key major circulation networks required to serve the City of Alameda's West
End redevelopment efforts at the former East Housing, Fleet Industrial Supply Center and
Alameda Point. The Project, which involves the construction of a new 4 -lane roadway that
will extend from Webster to 5th Street, is also a traffic mitigation measure. This measure is
required to help relieve traffic congestion on Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway (formerly
Atlantic Avenue), and help improve the level of service at the Webster Street (State Route
260)/Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway intersection. This Project will also improve entry
into the City of Alameda from the Webster Street Tube with new gateway monuments,
landscaping, pedestrian access, and lighting; and create new access to Bayport, Alameda
Landing, and Alameda Point.
In addition to road construction, new streetscape improvements, matching those along
Webster, will continue along the north and south side of Stargell Avenue west of Webster
Street to 5th Street. The City will construct additional improvements at the intersection of
Stargell Avenue and Mariner Square Loop and create a new north entrance to the College
of Alameda. The City will also construct improvements at the intersection of Stargell and
5th Street as part of phase one of the Alameda Landing Project (see attached ma of the
p g � map
Project Alignment).
Because a major portion of the Project falls within the existing Caltrans right -of -way, the
design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Project requires coordination with
and approval of the State of California Department of Transportation ( "Caltrans "). On
March 20, 2001, following a series of community meetings in 1999 and 2000, the City
Council approved the Project. On December 19, 2001, Caltrans approved a Project Study
Report ( "PSR "), the first step in the design approval process for projects within Caltrans
jurisdiction. In 2002, the City suspended the Project due to the economic downturn in the
office and R &D real estate markets. City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -N
05 -15 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 15, 2007
Page 2
In 2004, the City restarted the Stargell Project in conjunction with the revival of the
Alameda Landing Project. In November 2004, the City submitted a draft Project Report
( "PR ") to Caltrans, the second step in the Caltrans design approval process. In response
to Caltrans' request, the City revised the geometry and alignment of Stargell Avenue to
improve the sight distance and operational safety at the new Webster / Stargell intersection.
On December 18, 2006, Caltrans approved the final PR with the new geometry and
alignment.
DISCUSSION
Upon approval of the project report, Caltrans committed to sign a Cooperative Agreement
with the City. Caltrans requires Cooperative Agreements for local construction projects that
occur within current or proposed State right -of -way. The Cooperative Agreement
addresses the terms and conditions under which the project is to be developed, designed,
constructed, financed, and maintained. A copy of the draft Cooperative Agreement, which
has been developed and reviewed by Caltrans, the City Attorney, and staff of Development
Services, Public Works, and Risk Management, is attached.
Caltrans has tentatively programmed $4,000,000 in State Transportation Improvement
Program ( "STIP ") augmentation funds for the Project for FY 07 -08. The final funding
commitment is scheduled for the California Transportation Commission's consideration on
June 6 and 7. These funds will be used for construction within the State right -of -way on
Webster Street. Construction of the project is scheduled to start in the Spring of 2008, with
completion in the Spring of 2009.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In 2001, the City prepared and approved an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for this
project. On February 13, 2006, the City approved an addendum to the Negative
Declaration, which concluded that the realignment of the Stargell Avenue /State Route 260
approximately 120 feet south of the location proposed in the 2005 design plans for the
project did not require subsequent environmental review. In January 2007, the City
certified the Alameda Landing Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "SEIR "). The
SEIR required the Stargell Avenue Extension Project as a mitigation measure for the
Alameda Landing Project.
The City has determined that the 2001 Negative Declaration, February 2006 Addendum,
and 2007 SEIR adequately analyze the potential impacts of the Project approved by
Caltrans in December 2006 and that no subsequent or additional environmental review is
necessary to comply with CEQA.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Stargell Avenue Project will be constructed in part with STIP funds. Pursuant to the
Alameda Landing Disposition and Development Agreement, approved by the Community
Improvement Commission on December 5, 2006, the Developer is responsible for the
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 15, 2007
Page 3
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed Cooperative Agreement conforms to the City's Fiscal Neutrality Policy.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to complete and execute a cooperative
Agreement between the City of Alameda and the State of California Department of
Transportation for the Stargell Avenue Extension Project.
DK/LALDC: mlf
Attachments: Cooperative Agreement
Map of the Project Alignment
Ily submitte
e
Dev
A. Litt e
ment Servic
edevelopment ► anager
By:
ter
Base Reuse & Community
Development Manager
D -A rnod with J -A 04- Ala - 260 -I{P 1.0/1.9 (PM 0.6/ 1.2)
DRAFT 9/05/03 Tinker Avenue Extension
ES 04250- 44820K
District Agreement No. 4- 1915 -C
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON , 2006,
is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of
Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE," and the
CITY OF ALAMEDA, a body politic and a
municipal corporation of the State of
California, referred to herein as "CITY".
REC I'FAL S
1. SPATE and CITY, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code sections 114 and 130, are
authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements lo Stake Highways
within CITY's jurisdiction limits.
2. CITY has a project to extend and reconfigure Tinker Avenue that consists of elements
located inside and outside of State right of way. This Agreement will only address the
elements that are within current or proposed new State right of way.
3. Within current or new State right of way, CITY intends to fund, develop, and construct
State Highway improvements consisting of at -grade intersections on State Route 260
(SR260) (Webster Street) at Tinker Avenue and College of Alameda entrance, along with
modifications: to SR:260, . referred to. herein as : "PROJECTS ". - - ....... -
4. CITY has performed or will perform all PROJECT development work and construction
activities, which include. Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA &ED),
Right of Way (R /W), and Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) and construction
phases. C1TIY has completed draft PA &ED.
5. STATE will provide quality assurance, at STATE'S expense, on all PROJECT work
performed by CITY within current or new State right of way that are funded with local
non -State CITY dollars.
6. In case of inconsistencies, this Agreement supersedes any prior Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) relating to PROJECT.
7. STATE and CITY are also entering into this Agreement under the authority of
Government Code Section 14529.7(b) and as implemented by the Advance Local
Funding and Reimbursement Guidelines adopted by the California Transportation
Commission (C C) in Resolution G- 02 -13, dated June 13, 2002, hereinafter- referred to
as "GUIDELINES ", which by this reference are made a part of this Agreement.
1.
City Council
Attachment 1 to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -N
05- 15 -07
DRAFT District Agreement No. 4- 1915 -C
S. CITY is willing to advance its own non - State, non - Federal, and non -fuel tax funds up to
the amount of $4,000,000 on STATE'S behalf for PROJECT to finance STATE's share of
the construction capital costs and allow STATE to reimburse CITY at a later date with
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds for PROJECT, if those STIP
funds for construction capital for PROJECT are actually subsequently allocated by the
CTC, subject to annual legislative appropriation, and if State budget authority exists.
9. The parties now define hereinbelow the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is
to be developed, designed, constructed, financed, and maintained.
SECI`ION 1
CI,I'Y AGREES:
1. To fund project development work for PROJECT, including, but not limited to, costs
incurred for the preparation of contract documents, advertising for bids, and for
awarding the construction contract and construction support for PROJECT as shown
on Exhibit A, attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
2. To bear 100% of actual PROJECI' cost using local funds as shown on Exhibit A and
made a part of this Agreement.
3. Notwithstanding CITY's obligation in Article 2 of this Section I, CITY also agrees to
advance STATE's share of construction capital costs, up to $4,000,000, with non-
STATE, non-Federal, and non -fuel tax funds. CITY agrees to continue to advance said
funds up to a maximum of $4,000,000 until such time as the CTC allocates those STIP
reimbursement funds, State budget authority exists, and annual legislative
appropriation appropriation has occurred for that purpose. Upon CTC's allocation of those funds,
CITY's obligation 10 continue Lo advance STATE's share of PROJECT construction
capital costs, shall cease.
4. To perform or have performed all necessary PROJECT preliminary engineering,
including Project Report (PR), environmental documentation (ED), preparation of
detailed Plans, :Specifications. . and: mate : :..:(PS&E)., -.:.. and:- .utility- _Identification.... and. :.
location, perform all necessary right of way activities and to perform all necessary
construction engineering for PROJECT in accordance with all State and Federal laws,
regulations, policies and procedures and standards that STATE Would riorrrially follow.
All this work shall be submitted to STATE for STATE'S review and concurrence at
appropriate stages of PROJECT in accordance with STATE policies and procedures.
5. To permit STATE to monitor and participate in the selection of personnel who will d.o
prepare the PSR/PR and ED, conduct environmental studies, obtain any approvals for
PROJECT, prepare the PS &E, and provide the R/W services. CITY agrees to consider
any request by STATE to discontinue the services of any personnel considered by
STATE to be unqualified on the basis of credentials, professional expertise, conflict of
interest, and failure to perform in accordance with the PROJECT scope of work and/or
other pertinent criteria. To include in the PROJECT design consultant contract, a
"conflict of interest" requirement that the design consultant cannot be employed by the
future PROJECT construction contractor.
6. Personnel who perform the PA &ED, PS&E, and R/W shall be made available to STATE,
at no cost to STATE, through completion of PROJECT construction to discuss issues,
which may arise during construction. CITY will make available its personnel or
consultants to clo all necessary corrections and to furnish the corrected product to
2
DRAFT District Agreement No. 4- 1915 -C
STATE if during the course of PROJECT, within a reasonable time as specified by
STATE, errors or omissions are discovered in any document, study or report which
CITY provided pursuant to this Agreement.
7. To make and have CITY's consultants make written application to STATE for necessary
encroachment permits authorizing entry of CITY and those consultants onto the State
Highway right of way to perform PROJECT preliminary engineering and construction
activities.
8. To be responsible, for the investigation of potential hazardous material sites within and
outside of the existing State highway right of way that would impact PROJECT as part
of the responsibility for PROJECT Environmental Document (ED) preparation. If CITY
encounters hazardous material or contamination within the existing State highway
right of way during said investigation, CITY shall immediately notify STATE and
responsible control agencies of such discovery.
9. CITY shall be fully responsible, as a PROJECT cost, for complying with any and all
mitigation, monitoring, and/or remedial action required for PROJECT, including those
obligations and requirements set forth in the PROJECT environmental documents
and/or any permit and/or agreement issued by the applicable regulatory agencies. All
mitigation shall be performed outside of STATE's right of way,
10. If there is a legal challenge to the PROJECT's CEQA environmental documentation,
including supporting technical studies, documentation, and if applicable, the
mitigation, monitoring, or remedial actions which are required by the environmental
documentation, PROJECT permits and/or agreements, all legal costs associated with
those said legal challenges shall be a PROJECT cost.
11. To provide, at no cost to STATE, survey and mapping services necessary to perpetuate
existing land net and alignment monumentation in accordance with Sections 8771 and
8765 of the Business and Professions Code.; and to permanently monument primary
PROJECT control and right of way acquisitions. All of the above are to be shown on a
Record of Survey filed with the County Surveyor. CITY shall deliver one copy of any
field notes, filed Corner Records, and the Record of Survey required for execution of the
above obligation; .to :.STATJ's . DlstricL Division of Right of Way and Land. Surveys.
12. 12. -. To ... prepare ... Right of Way Engineering I -lard Copies, Right of Way Appraisal Maps,
Record of Surveys, and Right of Way Record Maps in accordance with STATE's Right of
Way Manual, Drafting and Plans Manual, Surveys Manual, applicable State laws and
other pertinent reference material and examples as provided by STATE.
13. To have all necessary Right of Way Maps and Documents used to acquire right of way
by CITY, prepared by or under the direction authorized to practice land surveying in
the State of California. Each Right of Way Map and Document shall bear the
appropriate professional seal, certification number, expiration date of registration
certification and signature of the licensed person in "Responsible Charge of Work ".
14. A copy of all original survey documents resulting from surveys performed for
PROJECT, including original field notes, adjustment calculations, final results, and
appropriate intermediate documents, shall be delivered to STATE and shall become
property of STATE. Three sets of contract prints shall be furnished for aerial mapping.
One set will show control; the second set will contain a complete photo index
consisting of two prints and a copy of the negative; and the third set will contain
original aerial photography negative.
3
DRAFT District Agreement No. 4- 1915 -C
15. If any existing public and /or private utility facilities conflict with the construction of
PROJECT or violate STATE's encroachment policy, CITY shall make all necessary
arrangements with the owners of such facilities for their protection, relocation, or
removal in accordance with STATE's policy and procedure for those facilities located
within the limits of the State Highway and in accordance with CITY's policy for those
facilities located outside the State Highway. The cost of protection, relocation, or
removal inside STATE's right of way shall be apportioned between the utility owners
and CITY in accordance with STATE's policy and procedure. CITY shall require any
utility owner performing relocation work in the State highway right of way to obtain an
encroachment permit from STATE prior to the performance of said relocation work.
The requirements of the most current version of STATE's "Policy on High and Low Risk
Underground Facilities Within Highway Rights of Way" shall be fully complied with.
Any relocated or new facilities shall be correctly shown and identified with any
unmodified facilities on the "As- Built" plans.
16. To furnish evidence to STATE, in a form acceptable to STATE, that arrangements have
been made for the protection, relocation, or removal of all conflicting utility facilities
within the State Highway right of way and that such protection, relocation or removal
of conflicting utility facilities has been the subject of environmental approval and will
be completed prior to the award of the contract to construct PROJECT or is
coordinated with construction in the PS&E for said contract. Evidence shall include a
copy of all required State highway encroachment permits.
17. CITY shall require any utility owner and /or its contractor performing any work within
the State Highway right of way to obtain an encroachment permit from STATE prior to
the beginning of work.
18. To acquire and furnish all right of way, if any, outside of the existing State Highway
right of way and to perform all right of way activities, including all eminent domain
activities, if necessary, at no cost to STATE, and in accordance with procedures
acceptable to STATE. These activities shall comply with all applicable State and
Federal laws and regulations and are subject to STATE's quality assurance to ensure
that the right of way completed work is acceptable for incorporation into the State
Highway right of way:.
19. To utilize the services of a qualified public agency or a qualified consultant, in
accordance with STATE's Local Assistance Procedures Manual and as confirmed by
STAT'E'S District Division Chief of Right of Way, in all matters related to the acquisition
of right of way in accordance with STATE's procedures as published in STATE's current
Right of Way Manual. Whenever personnel other than personnel of a qualified public
agency are utilized, administration of the personnel contract shall he performed by a
qualified Right of Way person employed or retained by CITY.
20. To certify legal and physical control of right of way ready for construction and that all
right of way parcels were acquired in accordance with applicable State and Federal
laws and regulations. Said certification is subject to review and concurrence by STATE
prior to the advertisement for bids for the contract to construct PROJECT.
21, To deliver to STATE legal title to the right of way, including access rights, if any, free
and clear of all encumbrances detrimental to STATE'S present and future uses not later
than the acceptance date by STATE for maintenance and operation of the State
Highway facility constructed as part of the PROJECT. Acceptance of said title by
STATE is subject to a review of a Policy of Title Insurance in the name of the State of
California to be provided and paid for by CITY.
4
DRAFT District Agreement No. 4- 1915 -C
22. To advertise, award, and administer the construction contract for PROJECT in
accordance with requirements of the Local Agency Public Construction Act and the
California Labor Code, including its prevailing wage provisions. Workers employed in
the performance of work contracted . for by CITY, and/or performed under
encroachment permit, are covered by provisions of the Labor Code in the same manner
as are workers employed by S'TA'f'E's contractors.
23. Construction by CITY of those portions of PROJECT which lie within the State Highway
right of way shall not commence until CITY's contract plans involving such work,
utility relocation plans, and the right of way certification have been reviewed and
accepted by STATE and encroachment permits have been issued to CI'T'Y and CITY's
contractor,
24. CITY's construction contractor shall maintain in force, until completion and
acceptance of the construction contract for PROJECT, a policy of Contractual Liability
Insurance, including coverage of Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability,
in accordance with Section 7 -1.12 of STATE's Standard Specifications. Such policy
shall contain an additional insured endorsement naming STA'[E and its officers,
agents, and employees as additional insures. This insurance coverage shall be
evidenced by a Certificate of Insurance in a form satisfactory to STATE which shall be
delivered to STATE before the issuance of an encroachment permit to CITY's
construction contractor.
25. To require the construction contractor to furnish both a payment and a performance
bond, naming CITY as obligee with both bonds complying with the requirements set
forth in Section 3 -1.02 of STATE's current Standard Specifications prior to performing
any PROJECT construction work. CITY shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
STATE and its officers, agents, and employees from all claims by stop notice claimants
related to the construction of PROJECT.
26. To have PROJECT constructed by contract to the satisfaction of and subject to STATE'S
acceptance in accordance with the STATE accepted PROJECT PS &E (contract plans).
27. Contract administration. .procedures - -shall ..conform - to,..-STATE's... Construction .- Manual,
Local Assistance Procedures Manual, and the PROJECT encroachment permits.
28. Construction within the existing or ultimate State Highway right of way shall corriply
with STATE's Standard Specifications, the PROJECT Special Provisions and STATE'S
Construction Manual.
29. All survey work shall conform to the methods, procedures, and requirements of
STATE's Surveys Manual and STATE's Staking Information Booklet.
30. To submit a written request for any "State- furnished material" identified in the
PROJECT plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) a minimum of forty -five (45) days
in advance of the need for such materials. To then pay STATE, within fifteen (15) days
of receipt of STATE's billing, the actual cost invoiced for the requested "State - furnished
material ". CITY may take delivery of the "State - furnished material" after STATE's
receipt of CITY's payment and at the location directed by STATE.
31. PROJECT material testing and quality control shall conform to STATE's Construction
Manua] and STATE's California Test Methods, and shall be performed, at CITY's
expense, by a certified material-tester acceptable to STATE.
5
DRAFT District Agreement No. 4- 1915 -C
32. PROJ ECT specialty testing, asphalt and concrete plants certifications and off -site
source inspection and testing shall be performed by STATE as a PROJECT cost. CITY
shall reimburse STATE for costs incurred for off -site inspection and testing performed
by STATE.
33. To furnish, at CITY's expense and subject to the approval of STATE, a field site
representative who is a licensed Civil Engineer in the State of California, to perform the
functions of a Resident Engineer. If PROJECT PS &E were prepared by a private
engineering company, the Resident Engineer shall not be an employee or subcontractor
of that company or the construction contractor.
34. At CITY's expense, to furnish sufficient qualified support staff, subject to the approval
of STATE, to assist the Resident Engineer in, but. not limited to, construction surveys,
soils and foundation tests, measurement and computation of quantities, testing of
construction materials, checking shop drawings, preparation of estimates and reports,
preparation of "As- Built" drawings, and other inspection and staff services necessary to
assure that the construction is being performed in accordance with PROJECT PS &E.
Said qualified support staff shall be independent of the design engineering company
and construction contractor, except that the designer of PROJECT may check the shop
drawings, do soils foundation tests, test construction materials, and do construction
surveys.
35. Within one hundred and eighty (180) days following the completion and acceptance of
the construction contract for PROJECT, to furnish STATE with a complete set of "As-
Built" plans in accordance with STATE's then current CADD Users Manual and Plans
Preparation Manual and STATE practice. The submittal must also include all contract
records, including survey documents and Records of Surveys (to include monument
perpetuation per the Land Surveyor Act, section 8771). CITY shall also submit:
corrected full -size hardcopy structure plans.
36. To submit, at each quarterly review, details of all allowable PROJECT activities and
reimbursable expenditures to STATE. CITY agrees and understands that any
PROJECT expense, including any expenses relative to project development and
construction, incurred prior to the required CTC action and the execution of this
.:Agreement .wil.l ..not -be:: reimbu.rsable,::.even .if the.:.C'i'C ::should subsequently:::a:llocate the......
necessary STIP reimbursement funds when State budget capacity and authority exist.
37. To retain all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence
pertaining to costs incurred, including support data for cost proposals, and make such
materials available at the respective offices of CITY at all reasonable times during the
contract period and for three (3) years from the date of final reimbursement payment, if
said reimbursement occurs, under this Agreement. STATE, FHWA, or any duly
authorized representative of the Federal Government shall have access to any books,
records, and documents of CITY that are pertinent to this Agreement for audits,
examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and copies thereof shall be furnished if
requested.
38. Upon completion of PROJECT construction, CITY will operate and maintain at CITY's
cost any part of PROJECT located outside of the existing State Highway right of way
(but including underpasses and overcrossings of then existing State right of way), until
acceptance of any part of PROJECT into the. State Highway System by STATE, approval
by FHWA, if required, and conveyance of acceptable title to STATE.
39. If CITY cannot complete PROJECT as originally scoped, scheduled, and estimated,
CITY will, only with STATE's prior written consent, amend the PS&E for suitable
6
DRAFT District Agreement No. 4- 1915 -C
resolution to assure a form of modified PROJECT conforming to that amended PS &E
that all times assures a safe and operable State Highway System.
40. If CITY terminates PROJECT prior . to completion of the construction contract for
PROJECT, STATE shall require CITY, at CITY's expense, to return the right of way to
its original condition or to a safe and operable condition. If CITY fails to do so, STATE
reserves the right to finish PROJECT or place PROJECT in a safe and operable
condition. STATE will bill Cr Y for all actual expenses incurred and CITY agrees to pay
said expenses within thirty (30) days or STATE, acting through the State Controller,
may withhold an equal amount from future apportionments clue CITY from the
Highway User Tax Account or other fund source.
41. If cultural, archaeological, paleontological or other protected materials are encountered
during PROJECT construction, CITY shall stop work in that area until a qualified
professional can evaluate the nature and significance of the find and a plan is
approved for the removal or protection of that material. The costs for any removal or
protection of that material shall be covered as a PROJECT cost contemplated by this
Agreement.
42. All PROJECT support services are to be performed by CITY. Should CITY request that
STATE perform any portion of those services, CITY shall first agree to reimburse STATE
for such work pursuant to a separate executed agreement.
43. To provide a Construction Zone Enhancement Enforcement Program (COZEEP) by
contracting directly with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for all traffic restrictions
as outlined in the STATE's Construction Manual.
SEC.`i']ON 11
STATE AGREES:
1. Subject to annual legislature appropriations and State budget authority for this
purpose, and then only if those STIP funds for construction of PROJECT are actually •
subsequently allocated by the CTC, to reimburse CITY for those funds advanced by
CITY pursuant to this .Agreement,. GUIDELINES, . Government Code Section ..14529,7(b)
up to $4,000,000, but in no event shall that reimbursement amount be more than that
amount advanced by CITY or any higher than the amount programmed for
reimbursement in the STIP including any future STIP amendment, whichever is less.
2. At no cost to CITY, to provide quality assurance effort to assure that CI'I~Y's project
development work is performed in full compliance and in accordance with STATE's
then effective policies, procedures, standards, and practices. This quality assurance
oversight function includes both the obligation and authority to reject PROJECT work
and materials accepted by CITY, to order any actions needed for public safety or the
preservation of property, and to assure compliance with all provisions of the
encroachment permit(s) issued to CITY and CITY's contractor,
3. Upon proper application by CITY and by CITY's consultants and contractors, to issue,
at no cost to CITY and CITY's consultants and contractors, the necessary
encroachment permits for required work within the State Highway right of way, as
more specifically defined elsewhere in this Agreement.
7
DRAFT District Agreement No. 4- 19 1 5-C
4. As a part of STATE'S quality assurance activities, to provide a qualified representative of
STATE during construction of PROJECT who shall have authority to accept or reject
work and materials or to order any actions needed for public safety or the preservation
of property and to assure compliance with all provisions of the encroachment permit(s)
issued to CITY and CITY's contractor.
5. To provide, at CITY's cost, any "State- furnished material" as shown on the PROJECT
PS &E or as determined during construction of PROJECT. Upon receipt of CITY's
request for any such "State - furnished materials ", STATE will order those materials and
STATE's Project Manager will have a bill submitted to CITY for the costs of those
materials. Upon receipt of those materials and Cl'I'Y's payment, STATE will make those
"State - furnished materials" available to CITY at a STATE designated site.
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
I. STATE's contractual obligations are subject to the annual State Budget Act authority,
the appropriation of adequate resources by the Legislature, and the allocation of
required funds by the California Transportation Commission.
2. CITY shall only request that the CT'C allocate funds for reimbursement in each year
that the PD for PROJECT is programmed for allocation in the STIP. STATE agrees to
reimburse CITY in accordance with GUIDELINES, this Agreement and State` Project
Funding Policy, which by this reference is made a part of this Agreement,
3. All applicable procedures and policies relating to the use of Federal and State gas tax
funds shall apply notwithstanding other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary.
4. All PROJECT development work and construction activities are to be performed by
CITY. Should CITY request that STATE perform any portion of PROJECT development
work and construction, CI'T'Y shall first agree to reimburse STATE for such work
pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement and/or a separate executed agreement.
5. The design, right of way acquisition, and preparation of environmental documents for
PROJECT shall be performed in accordance with STATE'S standards and practices
current as of the date of performance. Any exceptions to applicable design standards
shall first be approved by STATE via the processes outlined in STATE's Highway Design
Manual and appropriate memorandums and design bulletins published by STATE. In
the event that STATE proposes and/or requires a change in design standards,
implementation of new or revised design standards shall be done as part of the work
on PROJECT in accordance with STATE's current highway Design Manual Section
82.5, "Effective Date for Implementing Revisions to Design Standards ". STATE shall
consult with CITY in a timely manner regarding effect of proposed and/or required
changes on PROJECT.
6. During the PROJECT construction, representatives of CITY and STATE will cooperate
and consult with each other, and all PROJECT work shall be accomplished according
to the PROJECT PS &E and STATE's applicable policies, procedures, standards, and
practices. Satisfaction of these requirements shall be verified by STATE'S quality
assurance representatives who are authorized to enter CITY's property during
construction for the purpose of monitoring and coordinating construction activities.
8
DRAFT District Agreement No. 4- 1915 -C
7, PROJECT PS &E (contract plans and specifications) changes shall be implemented by
contract change orders, which have been reviewed and concurred with by ST'ATE'S
representative. All changes affecting public safety or public convenience, all design and
specification changes, and all major changes as defined in STATE's Construction
Manual shall he approved by STATE in advance of performing the work. Unless
otherwise directed by STATE's representative, changes authorized as provided herein
will not require an encroachment permit rider. All changes shall be shown on the "As-
Built" plans.
8. CITY shall provide a construction contract claims process acceptable to STATE and
shall process any and all claims through CITY'S claims process. STATE'S
representative will be made available to CITY to provide advice and technical input in
any claims process.
9, In the event that STATE proposes and /or requires a change in design standards,
implementation of new or revised design standards shall be done in accordance with
STATE'S Highway Design Manual Section 82,5, "Effective Date for Implementing
Revisions to Design Standards," STATE shall consultant with CI'T'Y in a timely manner
regarding effect of proposed and /or required change on PROJECT.
10. For the purpose of this Agreement, any hazardous material or contamination found
within the area of PROJECT shall be classified in two categories, HM -1 and HM -2.
Hazardous material or contamination of an 1-IM -1 category shall be defined as that level
or type of contamination which State or Federal regulatory control agencies having
jurisdiction have determined must. be cleaned up by reason of its mere discovery,
regardless of whether it is disturbed by PROJECT or not. hazardous material or
contamination of an HM -2 category shall be defined as that level or type of
contamination which said regulatory control agencies would have allowed to remain in
place if undisturbed or otherwise protected in place should PROJECT not proceed.
11. Any hazardous material or contamination of an HM -1 category found within the
existing State Highway right of way prior to or during construction requiring remedy or
remedial action (as defined in Division 20, Chapter 6.8 et seq. of the Health and Safety
Code) shall be the responsibility of STATE. Any hazardous material or contamination
of an. =HM-1 category found within the local road right of way during :: construction
requiring the same defined rernedy or remedial action shall be the responsibility of
CITY. For the purpose of the Agreement, hazardous material of HM--1. category is
defined as that level or type of contamination which State or Federal regulatory control
agencies having jurisdiction have determined must be remediated by reason of its mere
discovery regardless of whether it is disturbed by PROJECT or not. STATE shall sign
the HM-1 manifest and pay all costs for rernedy or remedial action within the existing
State Highway right of way, except that if STATE determines, in its sole judgment, that
STATE's cost for remedy or remedial action is increased as a result of proceeding with
construction of PROJECT, that additional cost identified by STATE shall be borne by
CITY. As between CITY and STATE, CITY shall sign the HM -1 manifest and pay all
costs for required remedy or remedial action within a local road or other property.
While STATE will exert every reasonable effort to fund the remedy or remedial action
for which STATE is responsible. In the event STATE is unable to provide funding, C1TY
will have the option to either delay further construction of PROJECT until STATE is
able to provide funding or CITY may proceed with the remedy or remedial action as a
PROJECT expense without any subsequent reimbursement by STATE.
12. The rernedy or remedial action with respect to any hazardous material or
contamination of a HM -2 category found within and outside the existing State Highway
9
DRA} T District Agreement No. 4- 1915 -C
right of way during investigative studies shall be addressed by CITY in the ED, PR,
and, as necessary, the PS&E for PROJECT as a PROJECT expense.
13. If hazardous material or contamination of either HM -1 or HM -2 category is found on
new right of way to be acquired by CITY for PROJECT, CITY, as between CITY and
STATE only, shall perform, or cause to be performed, all required cleanup and/or
protection at CITY's expense and shall guarantee STATE that said new right of way is
clean prior to transfer of title to STATE in accordance with Article 20 of Section I of this
Agreement. The generator of the hazardous material or, if none can be identified or
found, the present property owner, whether a private entity or a local public agency, or
CITY, as a last resort, shall sign the manifest.
14. Locations subject to HM -1 or 1-IM -2 remedy or remedial action and /or protection
include utility relocation work required for PROJECT. Costs for remedy and remedial
action and/or protection shall include, but not be limited to, the identification,
treatment, protection, removal, packaging, transportation, storage, and disposal of
such material.
15. The party performing the hazardous material cleanup shall be responsible for the
development of the necessary cleanup plans and designs. Cleanups proposed by CITY
on the State Highway right of way shall be pre - approved by State and shall be
performed in accordance with STATE's standards and practices and those standards
mandated by the Federal and State regulatory agencies.
16. STATE, in exercising its authority under section 591 of the Vehicle Code, has included
any and all of the requirements set forth in Divisions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the
Vehicle Code to the PROJECT areas open to public traffic. CITY shall take all
necessary precautions for safe operation of CITY's vehicles, the construction
contractor's equipment and vehicles and /or vehicles of personnel retained by CITY,
Y,
and for the protection of the traveling public from injury and damage from such
vehicles or equipment.
17. STATE will prepare the revised Freeway Agreement and obtain approval for the new
public road connection(s) from the CTC. CfY will prepare the necessary exhibits to
complete the revised Freeway Agreement;
18. Operation and maintenance of traffic signals, signs, and safety lighting shall be shared
in accordance with existing Maintenance Agreement entered into between STATE and
CITY effective on October 4, 1989. The Exhibit A of said agreement will be amended to
include this signal as a part of said Maintenance Agreement.
19. Upon completion and acceptance of the construction contract for PROJECT by CITY to
the satisfaction of STATE's representative, including a maintenance agreement that
shall be executed prior to acceptance by STATE and completion of PROJECT. CITY will
accept control and maintain, at: its own cost and expense, those portions of PROJECT
lying outside the State highway right of way and those portions of PROJECT lying
within the State highway right of way, including, but not limited to, all landscape, at-
grade bikeway and above the deck of pedestrian /bike overcrossing structures,
including, but not lunged to, safety lighting, electricity, fencing, rails, graffiti removal
and ramp structures. STATE may determine, in its sole judgment, CITY components
require future modifications, repairs, replacement or removal for the protection the
traveling public or to permit future changes to the State Highways.
20. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations
to or rights in third parties not party to this Agreement or to affect the legal liability of
10
DRAFT District Agreement No. 4-1.915-C
either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the
development or design of State Highways and public facilities different from the
standard of care imposed by law,
21. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury,
damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY
under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction conferred upon CITY
and arising under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that CITY shall fully
defend, indemnify and save harmless STATE and all its officers and employees from all
claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under,
including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation and other
theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be
done by CITY under this Agreement.
22. Neither CIrI`Y nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage
or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE,
under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction conferred upon STATE
and arising under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that STATE shall fully
defend, indemnify and save harmless CITY and all its officers and employees from all
claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under,
including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation and other
theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be
done by STATE under this Agreement.
23. This Agreement may be terminated or provisions contained herein may be altered,
changed, or amended by mutual consent. of the parties hereto.
24. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made by
a formal amendment executed by the parties hereto and no oral understanding or
agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto.
11
DRAFT District Agreement No. 4- 191.5 -C
25. Notwithstanding any provisions in this Agreement to the contrary, this Agreement shall
terminate upon completion and acceptance of the construction contract for PROJECT,
or on December 31, 2009, whichever is earlier in time. However, the ownership,
operation, maintenance, indemnification, and claims clauses shall remain in effect
until terminated or modified, in writing, by mutual agreement. Should any
construction- related or other claims arising out of PROJECT be asserted against one of
the parties, the parties agree to extend the termination date of this Agreement.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF ALAMEDA
Department of Transportation
WILL KEMPTON
Director
By: By:
Deputy District Director Mayor
Approved as to form and procedure:
Attorney
Department of Transportation
Attest:
City Clerk
Certified as to funds: Approved as to foram:
District Budget Manager Attorney
Certified as to financial terms and
policies:
Accounting Administrator
12
DRAFT District Agreement No. 4- 1915 -C
EXHIBIT A
COST ESTIMATE BREAKDOWN
Phase of Work
CITY
STATE
PA &ED
$1 25,000
0
PS&E
$560,000
0
R/W Support
30,000
0
Construction
Support
$660,000
0
R/W Capital
$400,000
0
Construction
Capital
$5,100,000 * +SFM
Quality Assurance
by STATE
•
$1.40,000
TOTAL*
S6, 575, 000 +SFM
$,140,000
* Irncludes CITn advance of $4,000,000 under AB3090 GUIDELINES
SFM-State Furnished Material
I.3
•
fir
0-1.! ii*FrR:11
c
Attac
Agend
ity Council
hment 2 to
Report Re:
a Item #4 -N
05 -15 -07
Approves! as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO COMPLETE AND EXECUTE A
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE
STARGELL (FORMERLY TINKER) AVENUE EXTENSION PROJECT (CH' NO.
04 -1051 CALTRANS PROJECT NO. EA448200)
WHEREAS, the City is proposing a new roadway, *Wilver "Willie" Stargell
(formerly Tinker) Avenue* Extension Project (the "Project "), to provide access to
the western part of the City of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2001, the City of Alameda issued a Notice of
Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (the "Negative Declaration") for
the Project after which the City circulated the Negative Declaration for period
. p
of thirty (30) days ending on July 5, 2001; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2001, the Planning Board held a public
. p
hearing on the Negative Declaration and recommended that the City Council
approve the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2002, the City Council held a public hearing on
the Negative Declaration, at which the City Council considered the Negative
Declaration, together with comments received during the public review process
and adopted Resolution No. 13455, adopting the Negative Declaration and
Findings Demonstrating that All Significant Impacts Can Be Mitigated to a Level
of Insignificance; and
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
13456 adopting General Plan Amendment GPA -01 -02 to add Tinker Avenue as
a Major Street from Main Street to Webster Street to Figure 4 -1, Street and
Transit System, of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2006, the City prepared an addendum to
the Negative Declaration, which concluded that the realignment of the Stargell
Avenue /State Route 260 approximately 120 feet south of the location proposed
in the 2005 design plans for the Project did not require subsequent
environmental review; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report ( "SEIR ") for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project (the
"Alameda Landing Project ") between May 5 and June 19, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR identified the Project as a mitigation measure for
the Alameda Landing Project and analyzed the impacts of this mitigation
Resolution #4 -N CC
05-15-07
measure in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2006, the Planning Board held a public hearing
on the SEIR and adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council
certify the SEIR; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing
on the SEIR, at which the City Council considered the SEIR, together with
comments received during the public review process, and adopted Resolution
No. 14047 certifying the SEIR and Resolution No. 14048 Making Findings
Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Making Findings
Concerning Alternatives, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations in Accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Alameda Landing Project;
and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2006, the State of California, Department
of Transportation ( "Caltrans ") approved the Project Report for the Stargell
Avenue Extension Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project Report commits Caltrans to execute a
Cooperative Agreement with the City of Alameda which addresses the City's
construction within the new State of California right -of -way and the terms and
conditions under which the Project is to be developed, designed, constructed,
financed and maintained; and
WHEREAS, the Stargell Project will improve access and minimize
congestion at other locations throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the Stargell Project is identified as a Public Improvement
priority in the City of General Plan; and
WHEREAS, execution of the Cooperative Agreement prior to the June
2007 California Transportation Commission meeting will be helpful in obtaining
$4,000,000 in State Transportation Improvement Program augmentation funds,
which are programmed for the Project in FY 07 -08.
NOW, THEREFORE, BET IT RESOLVED that the City of Alameda finds
that the Negative Declaration, Addendum and SEIR adequately analyze the
impacts of the *Wilver "Willie" Stargell (formerly Tinker) Avenue* Extension
Project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby
authorized to complete negotiations with the State of California Department of
Transportation and execute a Cooperative Agreement for the Project in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney's Office.
1, 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 1 5th day of May 2007, by the followin g vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this day of May 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: May 15, 2007
Re: Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the
Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2007 -08
and Set a Public Hearing for June 5, 2007
BACKGROUND
On May 17, 1 989, the City Council established a Parking and Business Improvement Area
(BIA) for the Park and Webster Street business districts. The City contracts with the Park
Street and West Alameda Business Associations (PSBA and WABA) to administer BIA
funds collected from businesses in their respective areas.
DISCUSSION
The Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 requires the City Council to
appoint an advisory board to make an annual report and recommendations to the Council
on the proposed expenditure of BIA revenues. The appointment of the advisory board is
accomplished through annual adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual
Assessment in which PSBA and WABA are appointed as FY 2007 -08 advisory bodies for
their respective geographic zones of the BIA.
PSBA and WABA have prepared this year's reports pursuant to their existing BIA
agreements with the City. The reports include itemized activities, revenue and estimated
costs for FY 2007 -08 (Attachments A and B). Attachment C provides information that will
enable business owners to determine the amount they will be assessed. After report
approval, the Council must adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment
for FY 2007 -08.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The renewal of the BIA for another year supports both the goals of the Economic
Development Strategic Plan and the Downtown Vision through continued operation of the
two business associations consistent with A.M.C. Sec. 6 -7 et seq.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -0
05-15-07
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
May 15, 2007
Page 2
BIA billing is done concurrently with Business License billing. Revenues from the BIA
directly benefit business owners in specified geographic and benefit zones through the
promotion of business and similar eligible activities. The impact on the General Fund will
be in the form of Finance Department staff costs to process BIA billing and expenditure.
This impact will be absorbed through Finance Department staffing proposed for funding in
the FY 2007 -08 budget.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a Resolution of Intention to levy an annual assessment on the Alameda
Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2007 -08; and
2. Set a public hearing for June 5, 2007.
Respectful) b 'ite
Leslie . Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Busine
By:
opment Division
Dev- .: ent Coordinator
DK/LAL /DES /SGR:ry
Attachments:
A) PSBA letter and report
B) WABA report
C) Assessments
cc: Economic Development Commission
Park Street Business Association
West Alameda Business Association
Business Association
April 17, 2007
Sue Russell
Management Analyst
Economic Development Division
950 West Mali Square, Room 215
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Ms. Russell:
As President of the Park Street Business Association, I am pleased to submit the attached BIA
Report and accompanying 2007/2008 budget for our Association.
We do not anticipate any changes in the BIA for 2007/2008. We have provided a description of
the activities PSBA is proposing for the upcoming year and the associated line item budget.
This proposed budget was approved by the PSBA Board of Directors in a phone poll conducted
this week and will be confirmed at the May 30, 2007 meeting. Based on revenue received to
date, we anticipate 07/08 BIA revenue of $84,000 and a carryover of $ 16,000 resulting from
reduced worker's comp costs, less than anticipated staff benefit costs, and cost containment by
PSBA. This brings our 07/08 BIA budget to $100,000.
We would be glad to answer any questions you have regarding the attached material.
Sincerely,
Lars Hansson
President
Park Street Business Association
2447 Santa Clara Avenue, Suite 302
Alameda, CA 94501
City Council
Attachment A to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -0
05-15-07
(510) 523 -1392
A California Main Street Program FAX (510) 523 -2372
PARK STREET BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
2447 Santa Clara Ave., #302, Alameda, CA 94501
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
FISCAL YEAR 2007/2008
INTRODUCTION:
The Park Street Business Association (PSBR) is recommending a BIA budget of $1 00,000 for
the Park Street Business District for fiscal year 2007/2008. This recommendation is based on the
estimate of the income derived from the BIA assessment in fiscal 06/07 as well as a carryover
from the 06/07 budget. The formulas, budgets, and proposed activities are the result of monthly
Board of Director and committee meetings between December, 2006, and April, 2007.
BUDGET:
The BIA is one of four sources of funding for the activities proposed in this report. The other
three sources are funds raised by the Park Street Business Association, reimbursement from the
Landscape and Lighting Budget, and a proposed grant we will be seeking from the Development
Services Department. PSBA will continue its current activities, as well as implement new ones,
that are in line with the California Main Street Four-Point plan for revitalizing Main Street
Cities.
BOUNDARIES:
We are not proposing any changes this year.
ACTIVITIES :
Attached is a summary of the proposed activities for the fiscal year 2007/2008. These activities
are designed to improve the pedestrian friendly look of the Park Street District, improve the
vitality of the District in order to increase sales and sales tax revenues, promote members'
businesses, attract new businesses to the District and increase the overall business atmosphere in
the Park Street District. Several projects are continuations from the 2006/2007 fiscal year.
PARK STREET BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
2007/08 Membership Committee
Work PIan Outline
1. Conduct Meetings
a. Mixers
b. Special Election Meeting (October)
c. Informational Meetings at half of the meetings
d. Holiday Party
2. Awards
a. Continue current awards program (recognizing PSBA members and city staff)
3. Welcome New Members
a. Update New Member Packet
b. Recruit ambassadors to greet new members
c. Greet new members to the District with packets as they move into their business
4. Newsletter
a. Continue mailing newsletter every month
b. Update mailing list
2007/08 Design Committee
Work Plan Outline
1. Design Guidelines
a. Determine acceptable and not acceptable design criteria
b. Write Guidelines
c. Submit to PSBA Board for Approval
d. Work with City Staff to have new ordinances presented to City Council
2. Streetscape Phase II
a. Work with City staff to plan Phase II
b. Implement Phase II in the summer of 2007
3. Sign ordinance
a. Work with City Staff to ensure enforcement
4. News Rack Ordinance
a. Work with City Staff to ensure enforcement
5. Promote Facade Grant Program
a. Newsletter articles
b. Outreach by Committee
PARK STREET BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
2007/08 Econ -Revi Committee
Work Plan Outline
1. Assist with Business Recruitment
a. Identify empty storefronts
b. Work with City Staff and contract staff to promote the District as a positive business
destination
2. ordinances
a. Vacant Buildings — begin discussions with City Staff to beef up ordinance
b. Parking overlay to exempt developers in the District from in lieu parking fees.
3. Maintenance
Continue current level of service — 7 days a week
2007/08 Promotions Committee
Work Plan Outline
1. Continue Special Events
a. Spring Festival (mother's day weekend)
b. Art & Wine Faire (last weekend of July)
c. Classic Car Show (2 "d Saturday in October)
2. Promotions
a. Shopping Guide produced once a year
b. Continue to upgrade and update our Web Site
3. Print Advertising
a. Continue Best of Alameda PSBA pages
b. Continue Holiday campaign
c. Continue Alameda/Oakland Magazines campaign
d. Continue Book of Savings Campaign begun in January of 2007
4. Cable Advertising
a. Continue ads for special events
b. Continue ads for Holiday Program
5. Holiday Promotions
a. Cable ads two weeks prior to Christmas
b. Free parking all weekends after Thanksgiving
c. Continue print ads in Chronicle, Journal, Sun, Alameda and Oakland Magazines
METHOD AND BASIS OF LEVYING ASSESSMENT
Budget: See Exhibit A
CONCLUSION
PSBA would like to thank the Alameda City Council, City Attorney, Community Development,
Public Works and Finance Departments for their assistance in implementing the BIA. The
increased participation from the business community and the continued quality of projects has
shown the BIA is a valuable tool in our continuing efforts to revitalize the Park Street Historic
Business District.
Exhibit A
Park Street Business Association
2007/2008 BIA Budget Submission
INCOME:
BIA Projection
Accumulated Carryover
$84,000
$12,000
Total Income: $96,000
EXPENSES:
Personnel Services
Staff Benefits $28,000
Staff Salary $6,500
Worker's Comp $12,400
Payroll Taxes $15,300
Sub Total $62,200
Membership Services
Meetings /Training $2,500
Printing $500
Holiday Decorations $1,400
Postage $2,500
Sub Total $7,200
Indirect /overhead
Accounting /Audit $8 000
Rent $12,000
Utilities $1,600
Insurance $5,000
Sub Total $26,600
Total Expenses $96,000
WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
PO Box 215, Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 523 -5955 west_alameda @yahoo.com
www.WestAlamedaBusiness.com
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE
WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008
INTRODUCTION
The West Alameda Business Association (WABA) is recommending the following assessment for
the Webster Street Business District for fiscal year (FY) 2007 -2008. The formulas, budgets and
proposed activities are the result of various Board and Committee meetings. The Business
Improvement Area (BIA) Budget was presented for adoption at the Board of Directors meeting
April 18, 2007.
PROPOSED CHANGES
WABA is not recommending any changes to the Business Improvement Area.
ACTIVITIES
The following is a summary of proposed activities for the fiscal year 2007 -2008. These activities
have been discussed at various Board and committee meetings. WABA's mission is to use these
activities to increase the vitality of Webster Street and West Alameda and preserve Webster Street's
historic character. We seek to generate more foot traffic, increase sales and sales tax, promote
members' businesses and increase the public goodwill and atmosphere in West Alameda.
The BIA is the source of funding for these activities. WABA will continue its current activities and
implement others that follow the Main Street Four -Point Approach established by the National
Trust for Historic Preservation.
It is estimated that there will be no carry forward from the 2006 -2007 budget.
The estimated BIA revenue for 2007 -2008 is $32,000.
The following are activities proposed for 2007 -2008. Several projects are continuations from
previous fiscal years.
City Council
Attachment B to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4-0
05-15-07
ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING
• Facilitate development of high - potential properties
• Work with the City to attract appropriate businesses
• Monitor the impact of new and re -use housing projects
• Determine the potential for eco- tourism as a West Alameda business opportunity
• Investigate sources of entertainment as a business opportunity for West Alameda
• Work with the City and others to implement the Strategic Economic Development Plan,
including parking plan, catalyst project and business attraction strategies
• Continue business retention activities
DESIGN
• Identify projects for facade improvements
• Develop beautification program
• Continue helping members with the Storefront Assistance Program
• Build broad -based community support for ongoing projects
• Work with City to implement recent changes to sign ordinance
• Finish implementing the newsrack district
• Fulfill public art requirements
• Work with the City in accomplishing Phase II of the Webster Renaissance Project
SPECIAL EVENTS
• Participate in July 4th events
• Produce advertising for the Association and businesses
• Produce year -round Farmers' Market
• Produce Thursday night Farmers' Market during summer months
• Produce Concerts at the Cove
• Produce Webster Street Wine and Dine Nights
• Produce annual Halloween event
• Produce 5th annual Peanut Butter Jam
• Produce holiday bazaar and visit from Santa
PUBLIC RELATIONS
• Generate increased favorable publicity about West Alameda
• Maintain contacts with key media representatives
• Update and distribute marketing literature promoting West Alameda businesses
2
• Continue implementing strategic marketing plan, including branding strategy, website, weekly
columns and calendar of events, cooperative advertising program and business attraction
strategy
ORGANIZATION
• Manage the administrative activities of the organization
• Expand community and business participation with WABA
• Develop and implement a fundraising plan, including Community Benefit District
• Organize and host business and community events for members
• Conduct annual self - evaluation of Board members and staff
• Produce and distribute WABA newsletter
• Recruit members from outside the BIA and among residents
• Distribute information door -to -door
• Involve important neighbors e. g. College of Alameda, Marina Village, Alameda Point in
WABA's activities
• Implement enhanced volunteer program, including recruitment, volunteer appreciation activities
and training
• Continue implementing enhanced maintenance program, including clean -up events, keeping up
appearances awards and collaboration with City maintenance staff to resolve issues such as
illegal dumping , littering and public health hazards
METHOD & BASIS OF LEVYING ASSESSMENT
Budget, see Exhibit A
Assessment, see Attachment C
CONCLUSION
WABA would like to thank the Alameda City Council, City Attorney, Development Services,
Public Works, Planning and Finance Departments for their assistance in implementing the BIA.
Please visit the WABA website, www.westalamedabusiness.com, to see the many ways WABA
promotes the West End. The BIA is a valuable tool in our continuing efforts to revitalize West
Alameda's historic business district.
3
Exhibit A
West Alameda Business Association
BIA Budget 07 -08
INCOME
'
BIA Projection
32,000
Accumulated Carryover
0
Total Income
32,000
EXPENSES
PERSONNEL SERVICES
0
MEMBERSHIP SERVICES
Supplies
1,500
Printing
4,000
Postage
1,000_
Newsletter /website /marketing
9,000
Committees
1,000
Subtotal
~
16,500
INDIRECT /OVERHEAD
Accounting /Audit
3,000
Utilities
5,000
Insurance
7,000
Contingency
500
Subtotal
15,500
GRAND TOTAL
32,000
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - NON- RETAIL
FISCAL YEAR 2007-08
Professionals and independent contractors who primarily go out into the public to sell to clients
and/or do not operate retail stores.
Accountant
Advertising
Ambulance AREA A = $ 123.00
Answering service
Architect AREA B = $ 80.00
Attorney
Building maintenance
Business services
Construction
Consultants
Contractors
Counselor
Credit Unions with restricted membership
Decorator PRO - RATED FEES
Electrician
Employment A B
Engineer
Gardener $123.00 $ 80.00
Graphic arts
Handyman JULY 123.00 80.00
Health/Medical professions
Importers AUG 112.00 74.00
Insurance
Landscape SEPT 102.00 67.00
Mail order
Manufacturer OCT 92.00 60.00
Manufacturer's /sales reps
Mortuary NOV 82.00 54.00
Newspaper publishing
Nursing facility DEC 72.00 47.00
Painters
Pest control JAN 61.00 40.00
Plumber
Property management FEB 51.00 34.00
Real estate
School /Instruction MAR 41.00 27.00
Security
Stockbrokers APR 31.00 25.00
Tax consultants
Travel MAY 25.00 25.00
Veterinary
Wholesalers JUNE 25.00 25.00
Misc. professional /office City Council
Attachment C to
Report Re:
B1A07- 08.doc 1
Agenda Item #4 -0
05 -15 -07
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - RETAIL SERVICE
FISCAL YEAR 2007 -08
Businesses that operate a store where people go to purchase a service.
Alarm and fire extinguisher service
Appliance service
Athletic /Health Club
Auto glass
Auto upholstery
Auto wash/parking
Auto repair
Barber
Beauty
Cleaners
Electronics service
Furniture repair
Hotel /motel
Keys/Locksmith
Laundromat/laundry
Marine service
Pet services
Photography studio
Printing
Shoe service
Storage
Tailor
Tattoo
Upholstery
BIAO7 -08. doc
2
JULY
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
AREA A = .40/1,000 GR
MINIMUM = $ 123.00
MAXIMUM = $1,625.00
AREA B = .20/1,000 GR
MINIMUM = $ 80.00
MAXIMUM = $798.00
PRO -RATED MINIMUM FEES
A B
$123.00 $80.00
123.00 80.00
112.00 74.00
102.00 67.00
92.00 60.00
82.00 54.00
72.00 47.00
61.00 40.00
51.00 34.00
41.00 27.00
31.00 25.00
25.00 25.00
25.00 25.00
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - RETAIL GOODS
FISCAL YEAR 2007 -08
Businesses that operate a store where people go to purchase a product.
Alcoholic
Amusement
Antiques
Appliances sales
Art
Auto dealer
Auto stereo
Auto supply
Bakery
Bar
Bicycles
Books
Clothing
Coin
Computer sales
Drug /variety
Electronics sales
Fishing
Floor coverings
Florist
Food
Furnishings
Furniture
Gasoline stations
Gift
Hardware
Hobby
Jewelry
Magazines /newspaper sales
Marine sales
Market
Medical supplies
Music
Nursery
Office supplies /equipment
Optical supplies
Pet supply
Product rentals
Restaurant
Shoe sales
Sporting goods
Thrift/used merchandise
Theater /club
BIA07 --08. dac
3
AREA A = .40/1,000 GR
MINIMUM =$ 244.00
MAXIMUM = $1,625.00
AREA B = .20/1,000 GR
MINIMUM = $ 123.00
MAXIMUM = $ 816.00
PRO -RATED MINIMUM FEES
A B
$244.00 $123.00
,
JULY 244.00
AUG 224.00
SEPT 204.00
OCT 183.00
NOV 163.00
DEC 143.00
JAN 122.00
FEB 1 02.00
MAR 81.00
APR 61.00
MAY 41.00
JUNE 25.00
12 3.00
112.00
102.00
92.00
92.00
72.00
61.00
51.00
41.00
31.00
25.00
25.00
Video
Other retail goods
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONSIUTILITIES
FISCAL YEAR 2007 -08
Banks
Savings and Loans
Credit Unions operating to the general public
Utilities
BIA07 -08. doc 4
AREAA &B= $816.00
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
INTENTION TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON THE ALAMEDA BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT AREA OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR FY 2007 -08 AND SET A
PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 5, 2007
WHEREAS, Section 6 -7 of Article 11 of Chapter Vi of the Alameda Municipal Code
p
establishes the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda (hereinafter
"Area " ); and
Y
WHEREAS, the Area comprises all of the Park Street Business Area, included by
reference on the map and list of inclusive addresses included in this Resolution as Exhibit
A and C, respectively; and all of the Webster Street Business Area included by reference
on the map and list of inclusive addresses included in this Resolution as Exhibit B and C,
respectively; and
WHEREAS, the improvements and activities authorized by the Ordinance include
the general promotion of business activities in the Area, the promotion of the public events
. p
which are to take place on or in public places in the Area, the decoration of any ublic
place in the Area, the furnishing of music in any public place in the Area, and the
acquisition, construction or maintenance of parking facilities for the benefit of the Area; and
WHEREAS, agreements between the City of Alameda (hereinafter "City") and the
Park Street Business Association (hereinafter "PSBA") and the West Alameda Business
Association (hereinafter "WABA") designated PSBA and WABA to administer Business
Improvement Area (hereinafter "BIA") funds for their respective geographic zones of the
BIA; and
WHEREAS, PSBA and WABA have filed reports with the City Clerk describing the
surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from FY 2006 -07 and describing the
improvements 0
mprovements and activities, estimated costs and methods and basis for levyin g the
assessment for FY 2007 -08.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda
that PSBA and WABA are hereby designated as the BIA Advisory Body for 2007 -08; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby sets a public hearing to
consider the annual assessment for the Area and to consider any modification of benefit
areas or change in boundary for June 5, 2007, at which time written or oral protests may be
made; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise said
public hearing by causing this Resolution of Intention to be published once in a er news a
p p
of general circulation in the City not less than seven days before the public hearing.
g
Resolution #4 -0 CC
05 -15 -07
EXHIBIT A:
Park Street
geographic zone
47777777....
• 1: 1
.1 1 • •
I I::
ttgq!! eleti
-41 a. it, 6.14t.,44
- raja--zea iivoimanguot
rammmiumumint ntnimmutrmna
1 PARK STREET COMMERCIAL AREA
A: Benefit Area A
B: Benefit Area B
r �+. �r w w■
•r .rr fir.. � � -,F,
EXHIBIT B;
Webs %r Street
geographic zone ,
✓
4(14;141P
G
4 T.
•
111110
rir
�J �+.�flllll�[iIA
• Ii1l1Ilrrr "mod
I1I��r7ir� Al
M +PD
■
iiH
I
1
i Ii�il • OW
l •
/1111/ii it lin '-
... 1;:f1 .
,ham .-, - - _- - _. - ' . . 4.:Z -- . . . 7 7: ..1. i
■ ID: • -1
t
., fIrri, .0 rr..4.--.;•• I: - 7 1.-1. j. ;11r-%gL .-'! :it-
.. f�J
FrIIIAII ?rr,� i...� .:
:y'• A
~tVr
p
■
WEBSTER STREET COMhhERCIAL
A:. Benefit Area A
B: Benefit Area B
EXHIBIT C
LIST OF ADDRESSES WITHIN BIA BOUNDARIES
Combined List of Benefit Area "A" and "B" Zones: Geographic Area:
Alameda Ave. 2300 -2399 oddleven Park St.
Broadway 1400 -1590 odd only Park St.
Buena Vista Ave. 616 -750 oddleven Webster St.
Central Ave. 630 -760 odd/even Webster St.
2300 -2499 odd/even Park St.
2501, 2521 Park St.
Eagle Ave. 633 -707 oddleven Webster St.
Encinal Ave. 2300 -2499 oddleven Park St.
Everett St. 1400 -1519 oddleven Park St.
Haight St.
629 -728 oddleven Webster St.
Lincoln Ave. 627 -726 oddleven Webster St.
2267 -2499 odd/even Park St.
Oak St. 1300 -1599 even only Park St.
Pacific Ave. 626-730 oddleven Webster St.
Park Ave. 1300-1399 odd only Park St.
1400 -1499 oddleven Park St.
Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1999 Park St.
oddleven
San Antonio Ave. 2312 -2399 odd/even Park St.
Santa Clara Ave. 700 -720 oddleven Webster St.
2300 -2599 oddleven Park St.
Taylor Ave. 634 -725 odd/even Webster St.
Times Wy. 2300 -2399 oddleven Park St.
Webb Ave. 2400 -2499 oddleven Park St.
Page 1 of 2
H:\ CHER YL\RESO\RESDLUTION50710515471E HfB C LIST OF ADDRESSES.DOC
F: Parking and Business Improvement Area /Assessment/2004 -05
Webster St.
1345 -1 999 oddleven Webster St.
Memo: Benefit Area "B" Zone Only
Broadway 1400 --1509 odd only Park St.
Everett St. 1400 -1519 oddJeven Park St.
Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1251 Park St.
odd/even, 1600 -1 999
Santa Clara Ave. 2500 -2599 odd/even Park St.
Lincoln Ave. 2267 -2499 oddleven Park St.
Central Ave. 2431, 2433, 2440, 2501, 2521 Park St.
Page 2 of 2
1-1:I CHERYL\ RESOIRESOLUTIONS0710515071EXHIB C LIST OF ADDRESSES.DOC
F: Parking and Business Improvement Area /Assessment/2004 -05
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2007, by
the following vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this ,day of , 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: May 16, 2007
Re: Consider a Call for Review and Appeal of the Planning Board's Appointment
of an Ad Hoc Committee to Work with the Planning and Building Director on
a Housing Element/Measure A Workshop.
BACKGROUND
City Charter Article XXVI, commonly referred to as Measure A, was incorporated into the
Charter on March 13, 1973, and amended in 1991. This provision specifically prohibits
constructing multiple dwelling units, defined in the Alameda Municipal Code as three or
more attached dwelling units, and restricts housing density to one housing unit per 2,000
square feet of land.
During the course of the past year, as the Planning Board considered site plans,
architectural designs and other entitlements for several mixed -use and residential
developments, questions arose about how the projects might be developed differently in
the absence of Measure A restrictions. At several meetings Planning Board members
raised the idea of a public workshop to discuss Measure A in light of its land use
implications in today's environment. In addition, representatives of Housing Opportunities
Make Economic Sense (HOMES), the League of Women Voters, and community members
urged the Planning Board to hold a public forum regarding Measure A. Subsequently, a
number of Planning Board members requested that staff schedule a Planning Board
workshop or other public forum to discuss Measure A.
After the City received a planning study grant from the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission to perform an analysis of a Station Area Plan to create a multi- transit station
at Alameda Point, the Planning and Building Director recommended at the January 8,
2007, meeting that the Planning Board use that forum for the discussion of the effects of
Measure A on development. The staff memorandum from the January 8 meeting is
included as Attachment 1. Additionally, in response to continued requests by the Planning
Board for an expansion of the discussion of the impact of Measure A, the Planning and
Building Director recommended on March 26, 2007, that an ad hoc committee be
appointed to assist staff in developing a workshop in conjunction with the State - mandated
Housing Element update. At the Planning Board meeting when the appointment was
considered, there was significant community interest in the issue with 16 people speaking
against the Housing Element/Measure A workshop and three speaking in favor. The
City Council
Agenda Item #5 -A
05-15-07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
May 15, 2007
Page 2 of 5
Planning Board voted 6 -1 to appoint three Board Members to the ad hoc committee. The
staff report from the March 26 meeting is included as Attachment 2, and the minutes of the
meeting are included as Attachment 3.
Subsequent to that meeting the action was called for City Council review by
Councilmember deHaan and appealed by a group of residents. The petition of the appeal,
dated April 4, 2007, is included as Attachment 4.
DISCUSSION
The provisions and requirements of both the Station Area planning grant and the Housing
Element update include an analysis of Measure A constraints on housing development.
The following provides a detailed review of these provisions:
Station Area Plan
• In 2003, the City completed an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a General Plan
Amendment to incorporate the Community Reuse Plan policies for Alameda Point into
the City of Alameda General Plan. The City was sued by Chinatown and the City of
Oakland over concerns about traffic impacts identified in the EIR. Chinatown asserted
that the Measure A restrictions on housing development and the proposed single - family
housing would contribute to traffic that would adversely impact Chinatown.
• As part of the settlement agreement,. the City agreed that the Alameda Point Project
El P would include a detailed discussion of "a transit oriented Project Alternative ", which
maintains the same number of units included in the project but proposes "a higher
density, more clustered, transit- oriented site plan than the proposed project ". The
Settlement Agreement goes on to say that: "The fact that the Alternative would require
an amendment to the City of Alameda's Charter, zoning ordinance, or general plan
shall not be deemed grounds for screening out the Alternative for detailed discussion or
analysis, but Charter inconsistency may be grounds for determining an Alternative is
infeasible ".
• In 2004, the City began developing a Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for
Alameda Point and through that process, the community asked that the PDC include an
evaluation of the effects of Measure A on the land use plan for Alameda Point. In
response to community requests, the third, fourth, and fifth workshop of the six
workshop series included extensive discussion of the effects of Measure A on the land
use plan.
• In 2006, the City was awarded a $221,000 grant from the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) to continue the planning efforts for Alameda Point by developing a
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
May 15, 2007
Page 3 of 5
Station Area Plan. The grant requires that the City use the funds to develop
alternatives to the PDC that are "designed to facilitate a public discussion of potential
benefits of different mixes of land use within 1/2 mile of the transit center, different
residential densities and types of housing within the development ". It will also serve as
the transit - oriented alternative that will be the subject of the El R alternatives analysis,
required by the Chinatown Settlement Agreement.
• The Station Area Plan is intended to relocate the Main Street ferry terminal and create
a multi - transit station at Alameda Point as recommended in the PDC. A primary
element in this planning process is comparison of two conceptual land use and
development alternatives. One of the alternatives will maintain the overall intensity and
development program set forth in the PDC that is consistent with Measure A. The other
alternative will explore scenarios not constrained by Measure A that might provide
higher density and potentially greater support for transit. These alternatives will be
used to facilitate a public forum consisting of three community workshops that examine
the potential benefits of different mixes of land uses, residential densities, employment
types and locations; modifications to vehicular circulation; enhancements to the transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian systems; and strategies for accommodating parking with
increased development intensities. Comparing the alternatives in a workshop format
ensures that the community and members of the City's various Boards and
Commissions could attend and participate as Alamedans.
Housing Element Update
• The State is requiring that all cities and counties in California adopt a new update to
their Housing Elements by June 30, 2009, for the period 2007 -2014. The update will
consist of any necessary amendments to the 2003 Housing Element, including an
updated Housing Land Availability Table. As required by the State, the community will
be engaged in a robust public participation process to evaluate the accomplishments of
the previous Housing Element; identify current needs; assist in the development of
community goals, policies, and actions; and analyze resources and constraints to
housing.
• The production and availability of housing is constrained in virtually every community in
California both by government regulations and by non - governmental factors, such as
the costs of construction and interest rates on home mortgages. Since governmental
actions also can constrain the development and affordability of housing, State law
requires that the Housing Element provide, "an analysis of potential and actual
governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of
housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their
enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and
local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
May 15, 2007
Page 4 of 5
efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its
share of the regional housing needs..." [Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)]
• While local governments have little influence on such market factors as interest rates,
their policies and regulations can affect both the amount of residential development that
takes place and the affordability of housing. City Charter Article XXVI (Measure A) is
described and analyzed in the City's 2001-2006 Housing Element on Pages V1-17
through VI -21. In updating the Housing Element, the City must re- examine its
constraints, including Measure A.
In summary, two planning projects in progress require review and discussion of the effects
of Measure A on housing development in Alameda. The Station Area Plan grant requires
an analysis of a land use and development alternative not constrained by Measure A. The
State mandates the Housing Element analyze the impact of Measure A on housing.
ANALYSIS OF APPEAL
The basis of the appeal is that the Planning Board overstepped its authority by establishing
an ad hoc committee to discuss "eliminating Measure A in the entire city." However, this
was not the intended purpose of the sub - committee.
The appellants acknowledge that the forum for which the committee was established was
to update the Housing Element, but they question the necessity and scope of that review.
Since the Housing Element update must be adopted by June 2009, and the State has
mandated an analysis of the constraints to housing, the necessity and scope of the review
are defined by State law. Consequently, as the action of the Planning Board was to form
an ad hoc subcommittee to work with staff in developing a workshop to review the
constraints on the development of housing and not to discuss "eliminating Measure A," the
basis for the appeal does not have merit. However, in order to avoid the inference that any
workshop or forum held on the topic is directed at the elimination of Measure A as alleged
by the appellants, it is important to clarify and define the context of the discussion.
Therefore, the following two options are provided for Council consideration:
Option 1: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Board's appointment of an ad hoc
committee to work with the Planning and Building Director on developing a Housing
Element/Measure A workshop as proposed, providing clear direction that the workshop be
structured so that the Measure A agenda item is in the context of the Housing Element
update.
Option 2: Uphold the appeal, set aside the appointment of the ad hoc committee, and
provide direction to staff that the required Housing Element analysis of governmental
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
May 15, 2007
Page 5 of 5
constraints be prepared and presented to the Planning Board as part of the legally
mandated approval process.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Station Area Plan is funded by a $221,000 grant from the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, a $25,415 matching grant from the Alameda County Transportation
Improvement Authority, and $3,585 in City funds. Consultant services to assist staff on the
Housing Element Update will be paid from Community Planning Fees.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Board's appointment of an ad hoc committee to
work with the Planning and Building Director on developing a Housing Element/Measure A
workshop as proposed, providing clear direction that the workshop be structured so that
the Measure A agenda item is in the context of the Housing Element update.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy : odbury
Planni g and Building ■ ector
cW
Attachments:
1. January 8, 2007 Memorandum
2. March 26, 2007 Planning Board Staff Report
3. March 26, 2007 Planning Board Minutes
4. Petition for Appeal
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: President Lynch and
Members of the Planning Board
From: Cathy Woodbury
Planning & Building Director
Date: January 8, 2007
Re: City Charter 26, Measure A Public Forum
11 -A
Over the course of the last year the Planning Board considered site plans, architectural
designs and other entitlements for several mixed -use and residential developments, which
prompted questions about how these projects might be developed differently in the
absence of Measure A restrictions. The Board expressed a strong desire for a public
forum regarding the land use implications of Measure A in today's environment and
discussed several formats for the forum including holding a special Planning Board
meeting, asking a community organization to sponsor a forum and other options. President
Lynch recommended, and the Board agreed, that he and the Planning and Building
Director would propose a means for the Measure A forum and that it would be scheduled
after the first of the year. The recently initiated planning effort to develop a Station Area
Plan for Alameda Point provides a unique opportunity for a community discussion about
Measure A and is recommended as the public forum requested by the Planning Board.
The Station Area Plan, funded by a grant from the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC), is intended to relocate the Main Street ferry terminal and create a
multi- transit station at Alameda Point as recommended in the Alameda Point Preliminary
Development Concept and Transportation Plan (PDC). A primary element in this planning
process is comparison of two conceptual land use and development alternatives. One of
the alternatives will maintain the overall intensity and development program set forth in the
PDC that is consistent with Measure A. The other alternative will explore scenarios not
constrained by Measure A that might provide higher density and potentially greater support
for transit. These alternatives will be used to facilitate a public forum consisting of three
community workshops that examine the potential benefits of different mixes of land uses,
residential densities, employment types and locations, modifications to vehicular
circulation, enhancements to the transit, bicycle and pedestrian systems, and strategies for
accommodating parking with increased development intensities. Comparing the
City Council
Attachment 1 to
Agenda item #5 -A
05-15-07
alternatives in a workshop format would ensure that the community and members of the
City's various Boards and Commissions could attend and participate as Alamedans.
The first workshop is anticipated in late February and the goal for completion of this phase
of the project is early June 2007. More detailed information about the Station Area Plan
process, current status and milestone dates is provided in the attached memorandum.
Attachment: Memorandum from Douglas Vu, Planner 111
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Cathy Woodbury
Planning & Building Director
Douglas Vu
Planner RI
January 2, 2007
Status of Station Area Plan at Alameda Point
BACKGROUND
In early 2004, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency (ARRA) initiated a planning effort to
engage the Alameda community in developing a detailed development program and transportation
plan for Alameda Point. The ARRA Board accepted the resulting Alameda Point Preliminary
Development Concept (PDC) and Transportation Plan in February 2006 that recommends relocating
the Main Street ferry terminal to a new Seaplane Lagoon Town Center at the terminus of Atlantic
Street, a new transit station, and neighborhood retail and community services, restaurants, museums,
and waterfront open spaces.
During the development of the PDC, ARRA was awarded a Station Area Planning Grant from the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in July 2005 in the amount of $221,000 for further
planning activities to support transit oriented development at Alameda Point. Specifically, the MTC
Grant will fund the preparation, review, and adoption of transit oriented zoning requirements,
development criteria, and public improvement standards to implement the PDC and direct the design,
review, entitlement, and implementation of the full range of mixed uses envisioned. The funding also
includes an exploration of residential densities that will support transit.
In May 2006, the City issued a Request fro Proposals (RFP) for a land use planning and community
engagement consultant team to assist in the fulfillment of the MTC Grant Agreement's scope of
work. In June 2006, a multi-disciplinary selection panel of staff from the City, Water Transit
Authority, AC Transit and Alameda Point Community Partners interviewed two consultant teams.
The selection panel unanimously agreed that the team led by WRT/Solomon was the most qualified
and best prepared team to provide the necessary services. In October 2006 ARRA authorized the
execution of the consultant agreement with WRT /Solomon.
DISCUSSION
The consultant team's approved scope of work is divided into three phases that will result in a Plan
that will identify station area access and circulation plans, transit ridership estimates, minimum
Page 2
building heights and residential densities, maximum and required shared parking standards, required
transit and bicycle facilities, minimum Alameda Point homeowner and business association dues to
support transit operations, and other key criteria to ensure the development is transit supportive,
pedestrian friendly, and results in a truly unique place envisioned in the General Plan.
Phase one includes interviewing key stakeholders and assessing the market demand for transit -
oriented residential and commercial development in Alameda Point. Staff and the consultant team are
in the process of completing this phase by late January 2007.
Phase two will include the development of two refined land use and development concept alternatives
that will reflect input from the City, stakeholders, and marketing analysis. One of the alternatives will
maintain the overall intensity and development program set forth in the PDC that is consistent with
Measure A. The other alternative will explore higher density scenarios not constrained by Measure A
that might provide greater support for transit. These alternatives will be designed to facilitate a key
aspect of this phase, a public forum consisting of three community workshops that will examine the
potential benefits of different mixes of land uses, residential densities, employment types and
locations, modifications to vehicular circulation, enhancements to the transit, bicycle and pedestrian
systems, and strategies for accommodating parking with increased development intensities. The goal
is not only to educate the public about the different alternatives but to also involve them in the
selection and adoption of the Final Station Area Plan. The goal for completion of phase two is early
June 2007.
Phase three will refine the fully build on the preferred development, land use and urban design
concepts identified earlier into a draft Plan. A fourth and final community workshop will then be held
to present the draft Plan and answer questions as well as receive community feedback. Finally, the
consultant team will incorporate edits and revisions to the draft Plan based on direction from City
staffbefore preparation of the Final Station Area Plan for adoption anticipated in late October 2007.
G:IPLANNING\CURRCORRI7 - Doug Vu1SAP Status Report.doc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
9 -C
March 26, 2007
President Lynch and
Members of the Planning Board
Cathy Woodbury
Planning and Building Director
Appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee to work with the Planning and
Building Director on a Housing /Measure A Workshop.
BACKGROUND
Over the course. of the last year the Planning Board considered site plans, architectural
designs and other entitlements for several mixed -use and residential developments,
which prompted questions about how these projects might be developed differently in
the absence of Measure A (City Charter 26) restrictions. As a result, the Board and
community members expressed a strong desire for a public forum regarding the land use
implications of Measure A in today's environment.
DISCUSSION
The recently initiated planning effort to develop a Station Area Plan for Alameda Point
includes a public workshop on March 29, 2007 to discuss land use and transportation
alternatives including site plans and designs for housing types that are both Measure A-
compliant and those that are not in conformance with Measure A. This workshop will lay
the foundation for a subsequent community forum to discuss the implications of Measure
A on housing throughout Alameda. In light of Alameda's responsibility to update the
Housing Element by June 2008, the forum will also provide an opportunity to evaluate
the accomplishments of the previous element, identify current needs, resources and
constraints, and to assist in the development of community goals, policies and actions.
It would be beneficial to have 2 -3 Planning Board members assist staff in developing the
workshop forum and framing the housing /Measure A discussion to ensure that it
addresses the Board's and community's questions.
RECOMMENDATION
Appoint an Ad Hoc Committee of up to 3 Planning Board members to work with the
Planning and Building Director on a Housing /Measure A Workshop.
G:I PLANNING\ PB \Reports12007103- 26- o7\Housing- Measure A Workshop Ad Hoc Committee.doc
Alameda Planning
Staff Report
Meeti. . March 12, 2007
City Council
Attachment 2 to
Agenda Item #5 -A
05 -15 -07
9 -C. Appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee to work with the Planning and
Building Director on a Housing/Measure A Workshop (CV).
Ms. Woodbury presented the staff report, and summarized the background of the
development of this workshop.
President Lynch noted that 15 speaker slips had been received for this item, and invited a
motion to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
Board member Cunningham moved to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 7.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva inquired about the impulse behind the Committee idea, and noted
that there had been a lot of discussion surrounding Alameda Point. She was not sure why
the discussion around Measure A needed to be framed, and believed the discussion
should be at the grassroots and community level. She inquired who the interested parties
in this issue were, especially with respect to ABAG and other outside entities. She
inquired whether the role of the committee would be in addition to facilitating public
discussion. She inquired whether a ballot measure would be in the future.
Ms. Diane Coler-Dark noted that the staff report stated that the Board and community
members had expressed a strong desire for a forum on Measure A, and she had not
perceived any strong desire to change Measure A. She inquired how many people had
approached the Planning Board to change it, and recalled the various groups, such as
ARRA, BRAG and the Community Reuse Plan, that had addressed Measure A. She
believed the community goals and standards had been established. She inquired whether
this was a method to get Measure A on the ballot again.
Ms. Susan Battaglia was surprised to hear this committee would be forming to discuss
Measure A, and supported leaving Measure A in place as it stands. She noted that
multiunit buildings had replaced some grand homes, and added that a police position had
been eliminated while the cost of getting Measure A on the ballot was $150,000. She
noted that speed limits in Alameda were being violated constantly, and that parking was
scarce in both commercial and residential neighborhoods. She did not believe that new
residents would use public transit, and that the streets would become congested with
more multifamily housing.
Christopher Buckley believed this was an expansion of the scope of the much of the
previous Measure A discussions, and supposed that it was part of the Housing Element
discussion with respect to constraints. He noted that AAPS has not had time to review
this proposal in detail, and to provide a formal response. He believed that AAPS would
probably oppose a wholesale amendment of Measure A throughout Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
March 26, 2007
City Council
Attachment 3 to
Agenda Item #5 -A
05- 15 -07
Ms. Helen Sause commended the Planning Board on initiating this committee, and was
dismayed that previous speakers seemed to have assumed a foregone conclusion. She
noted that the Homes organization was only interested in modifying Measure A for
Alameda Point, and emphasized that they did not intend to destroy Measure A throughout
the City.
Mr. Scott Brady believed the framework for this discussion had been laid in staff s
development of an Alameda Point Measure A compliant and non- Measure A compliant
plan. He did not believe that staff should create contingencies not in accordance with the
City Charter. He believed that discussion of Measure A, which was a citizen- driven
amendment, should be citizen - driven, not staff - driven. He noted that it was not only
about housing and saving old homes -- it was also about limiting density, abating
increasing traffic congestion and controlling development that was designed by
developers contrary to public input.
Mr. Jim Sweeney expressed concern about the possibility of mischief regarding Measure
A, and believed it would skew the purpose of the Planning Board's role as a unit. He
noted that the subcommittee would function as an advocate, not an adjudicator. He did
not believe there was an imperative to further study Measure A, and believed it had been
done. He believed the citizens had to be an important part of this discussion, and wanted
to retain impartiality and clarity in this discussion.
Mrs. Jean Sweeney provided a history of how ABAG obtained its housing numbers. She
did not see a major plan to solve the traffic problem at Alameda Point, and was very
concerned about the toxic materials in that area. She noted that the Navy would not
address the PAHs or marsh crust on that site. She believed the traffic problem should be
solved before any more houses were planned, and she did not believe that Measure A
needed to be studied any further.
Ms. Dorothy Freeman believed that reexamining Measure A was a citizen item, not a
staff item. She cited a study that concluded that increased density provided only a short-
term benefit. She believed that the long -term effects of increased density should be
studied further before implementing higher density in Alameda.
Ms. Barbara Kerr did not believe that a Measure A forum was necessary because it had
already been voted on. She did not believe that it should be overturned in order to meet a
bureaucratic deadline. She recalled the 1980 Housing Element had been badly written,
and that it was subsequently rewritten by citizens on a committee that she chaired. She
noted that was the last Housing Element that had been approved by the State. She noted
that friends of the developers could get signatures for a ballot measure to overturn
Measure A. She believed that until Alameda had more bridges and tubes, that Measure A
should not be discussed further.
Ms. Denise Brady concurred with Ms. Kerr's comments, and believed that if the citizens
of Alameda wanted to overturn Measure A, they could bring it to the ballot box. She
noted that when Mayor Johnson ran for reelection, she prominently displayed her support
Planning Board Minutes Page 11
March 26, 2007
for Measure A. Ms. Brady believed that the Mayor's reelection was an indication of
Alameda's support for Measure A.
Ms. Selina Faulhaber noted that the current issue was not preserving older homes or
building many units at Harbor Bay Isle. She believed the issue was to look at 2008 and
beyond, and supported a frank discussion of Measure A. She supported the Planning
Board's decision to look at this issue, and noted that the public's opinion would be
sought.
Mr. David Howard believed that if this committee were to be formed, it should be
comprised of members of the public, held in open session in Council Chambers to be
televised and videotaped. He did not believe this committee should operate behind closed
doors to discuss such a controversial issue.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein noted that the purpose was not to discuss whether Measure A
should exist or not, but that a subcommittee would be formed. She was surprised at some
of the interpretations of the staff report, and believed the Planning Board had the right to
determine who would be on the subcommittee. She was surprised at the fears expressed
that the committee would be held behind closed doors, and that the public would not be
allowed to attend. She noted that a public forum would be open to the public by its
definition. She supported this subcommittee.
Mr. David Kirwin was surprised at the doggedness of what he believed to be friends of
developers pushing to repeal Measure A. He noted that one of the reasons Alameda was
so special was because its density was protected. He was concerned about the framing of
the issue and the direction of the workshop. He believed that all of the effects of density
should be discussed outside of traffic; he believed that increased crime, social costs and
use of City funds should be discussed as well. He noted that access, egress and parking
at shopping centers and schools should be addressed as well, and believed the City should
also have an exit strategy. He did not believe the City could support much more
infrastructure.
Mr. Lil Arnerich believed that Measure A made Alameda the livable community it is, and
hoped that the Planning Board did not have a preconceived notion about it. He did not
believe the dialogue was extraneous, and expressed concern that the Alameda Point -only
focus of Measure A would remain as such. He believed that any change to Measure A
would eventually spread to the rest of the City. He noted that he welcomed new people to
Alameda, and has not heard anyone on the street expressing an interesting in overturning
Measure A. He noted that the Planning Board's mission was to serve the people, and
reiterated the Mayor's support of Measure A prior to the election. He did not want the
Planning Board or staff to front for the developers' interests. He cited several outspoken
opponents to Measure A that had since moved out of the City. He urged the Planning
Board to vote against this item.
Ms. Barbara Thomas noted that the developments that have been criticized by the
residents were approved by Planning staff and previous Planning Boards. She noted that
Planning Board Minutes Page 12
March 26, 2007
it was possible to have beautifully designed tract homes, and noted that residential homes
generally do not pay for the services they demand. She believed that density did not
generate mass transit, but did generate more congestion and air pollution. She inquired
whether staff had requested the formation of this subcommittee, and inquired whether it
was now staff, rather than City Council, that set policy for the City. She suggested that
any Councilmember who supported it would be open to recall, and believed that support
of this subcommittee may indicate that a new Planning Director may be in order. She
believed that having another police officer on the force was more important than the cost
of this study and subcommittee. She believed the people had spoken already, and
suggested that she and Ms. Kerr be members of the committee instead. She believed this
subcommittee would be a waste of the City's time and resources. She noted Ms.
Sweeney's efforts to get more open space in the City.
Ms. Mercedes Milana wished to remind the Planning Board that Alameda was an island
with a limited number of entrance and exit points, and recalled the days when it took
Navy workers half an hour to exit the Island. She was very concerned about parking
issues, and recalled the previous discussion about people parking on their front yard. She
noted that she had lodged complaints about illegal parking, and believed that if Measure
A were overturned, the parking problems would be worse. She was concerned about the
future desirability of Alameda if Measure A were to be overturned.
Ms. Pat Bail noted that she was the past secretary and chairman of the Keep Measure A
group. She believed the Planning Board's responsibility was to protect current citizens of
Alameda, not future citizens. She noted that the citizens had spoken about their support of
Measure A, and she was very concerned about some Board member opinions that
considered overturning Measure A. She was concerned that the City would not be able to
accommodate children in parks and sports field if many more families moved in to
Alameda.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch called for a three - minute break.
Board member Cunningham noted that based on public input, he supposed that the
Measure A forum should be used to tighten Measure A up. He emphasized that he would
come to those discussions with an open mind and without preconceived notions. He
believed that with limited resources, Alamedans owe it to themselves to study how best
to use them. He encouraged open discussion as much as possible, and believed the ideas
and comments should be collected and synthesized as much as possible. He did not
believe it was a good idea to remain stuck in the same rut to address the land use
challenges.
Vice President Cook would like to apologize to staff for pushing them to the point of
putting this item on the agenda. She had felt frustrated within the last year to put this
discussion on the agenda, and now understood why staff had been reluctant to do so. She
believed that staff had taken great personal abuse over this issue, and did not believe it
Planning Board Minutes Page 13
March 26, 2007
was right. She had heard people speak passionately on both sides of the Measure A issue,
and believed that some people had misconceptions on what Measure A actually meant.
She noted that Measure A could be changed without any greater density, and that more
open space could be created; in addition historic resources could be preserved as well
under Measure A. She believed it was possible to discuss it without it being an all -or-
nothing issue. She noted that there was no attempt to hide this discussion and believed
that a public discussion about the process going forward was important. She noted that
she was a fan of Measure A, appreciated Victorian homes, and would like to see some of
the big stucco buildings on her block disappear. She would like to continue to have this
discussion and see where it progressed.
Board member McNamara noted that she was disillusioned because she believed the
intent of this forum was misconstrued during the public hearing. She believed the intent
was to educate the community and citizens of Alameda about the history, consequences,
legal aspects of Measure A and to put it in context with respect to the current issues. She
noted that the Planning staff had not made a decision, and could not unilaterally change
Measure A. She noted that it was not even stated that staff or the Planning Board wanted
Measure A to change. She believed that having an informed background was essential to
making an informed decision with respect to Measure A.
Board member Kohlstrand echoed the previous comments, and noted that staff did not
initiate this forum. She had advocated for a forum because she did not grow up in
Alameda and did not understand all the history; she wished to help the community as a
whole become well versed in its history and effect on the community going forward. She
believed that such a forum was important because people had wanted to become better
informed as housing and industrial uses evolved over time. She would like to see
Alameda's main island character move to Alameda Point, and would like the general public
to have the opportunity to learn about the measure and comment on it as Alameda continues
to change.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was able to attend the League of California
Cities Planning Institute in San Diego the previous week, and that Ms. Woodbury had
attended several programs together. She had attended an interesting workshop on how to
configure commercial and residential density in nontraditional ways. She encouraged the
public to attend the workshop at Mastick Center on March 29, which would include one of
the speakers she heard in San Diego. She acknowledged that density was a hot - button word,
and noted that there was more common ground than people may think. She noted that she
grew up in an apartment on Pearl Street in Alameda. She noted that the building had a big
backyard, and added that it would not be Measure A- compliant. She believed that many
conclusions had been drawn from a very brief staff memo, and wished to assure the public
that decisions would not be made in a back room by staff and an ad hoc committee. She
noted that the purpose was to bring this public and important issue into a public arena. She
noted that to have a public discussion, people may not feel intimidated and attacked; she did
not believe that approaching the people involved with such vehemence and personal attacks
were an appropriate approach. She urged people to have an open mind, and noted that no
one had all the answers. She believed that if the public's perception of Measure A was clear
Planning Board Minutes Page 14
March 26, 2007
and strong, there was no threat in undertaking the discussion. She added that looking at
different facets of Measure A did not mean that Victorians would be tom down. She noted
that areas such as Alameda Point, the Boatworks and Alameda Landing that were coming up
for development. She believed that people should be able to discuss the issue freely, and she
believed that a better - informed decision would result. She noted that it may be possible to
develop more open space and parks, and added that the discussion was a way to do the best
for the community.
Board member Mariani noted that she had not pushed for any forums with respect to
Measure A, nor had she advocated for it. She recalled asking City Council for guidance on
this issue, and suggested that occur again. She believed the presentation by Woody Minor
would be very informative. She noted that Ms. Woodbury placed this item on the agenda at
the request of some Board members, and added that Alamedans were very protective of
their community. She did not believe it was their intent to behave in a threatening or
intimidating manner. She noted that there had been numerous discussions of Measure A in
the past, and did not feel comfortable advocating for or against it.
President Lynch asked that the individuals in the room speak with those who had since left,
and noted that it was unfortunate that this issue seems to have been mischaracterized. He
had yet to hear any Board member advocate for more density at any time, to which many
speakers had referred; he wished to emphasize that was not the case. He noted that as part of
the land use determination, this Board examined the design elements on Alameda Point. He
noted that the desires of various groups in the community must be incorporated into these
plans. He noted that the design questions addressed how various actions would be taken if
the City so chose, and what they would look like, given Measure A. He noted that did not
mean it must necessarily be done. He emphasized that there had been no advocacy on the
Planning Board to repeal Measure A, and added that it may be strengthened. He noted that it
was strictly an educational exercise.
Board member Cunningham noted that the Planning Board was fairly impartial about this
issue, and supported having several Board members, as well as members of the public on
the Committee.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the Mayor appoint several people to join the
committee.
Board member Mariani believed that the Planning Board should run this appointment by the
City Council, and inquired who authorized it.
President Lynch noted that this was not a policy issue, and that others had interpreted it as
an educational presentation.
Board member Mariani proposed that the Planning Board invite people to make
presentations on Measure A.
Planning Board Minutes Page 15
March 26, 2007
Vice President Cook wanted to know what the constraints on this the Board's discussion
would be.
Board member Cunningham noted that this would be an informative presentation because
Measure A was currently in force.
Board member Kohlstrand understood that this was an emotional and heated issue, and
relied on staff for guidance with respect to procedure. She did not recall similar instances
where the Planning Board was required to ask City Council for permission to act on an
agendized item.
Ms. Woodbury clarified that this was a policy issue, and City Council dealt with policy
issues. She added that when staff analyzed projects, it was under the auspices of existing
policy and that Measure A was in the charter; neither staff nor the Planning Board could
change that. She noted that staff had a finite amount of resources in the form of time, staff
and money. She advised that adding more to the work program would further stretch the
resources, which was a significant issue.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that it had been a challenge to have the joint meeting with
City Council, and noted that would be helpful in this instance. Ms. Woodbury noted that the
City Clerk was still looking at calendars to arrange a joint meeting.
President Lynch inquired whether the ad hoc committee could recommend a workshop. Ms.
Woodbury noted that would be possible.
Board member Cunningham noted that the Planning Board had been approached by
members of the public for some time, and believed that providing an open forum would be
the best approach. He did not believe the City Council was the only entity to address
Measure A, and recalled a Measure A forum at Kaufmann Auditorium approximately six
years ago.
Mr. Thomas suggested that a subcommittee of the Planning Board be established and ask it
to return to the Board in one month at a public meeting in chambers. Logistics for the forum
and proposals for the structure would be presented at that time. At that time, it could be
decided whether to approach Council.
Vice President Cook strongly believed that this discussion should talk place in a developer-
free zone. She disagreed with the characterizations of the Planning Board as being a front for
developers, and noted that she was quite stringent with developers.
Board member Mariani inquired who had actually requested this subcommittee, and added
that she had seen the same few people asking for noncompliant Measure A alternative. She
emphasized that she had never heard that herself, and did not request it herself.
Planning Board Minutes Page 16
March 26, 2007
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the League of Women Voters was a well- regarded
group locally and statewide, and that they had come before the Planning Board on more than
one occasion.
President Lynch invited volunteers to identify themselves to serve on the subcommittee.
Vice President Cook and Board members Kohlstrand and Ezzy Ashcraft volunteered.
Board member Cunningham moved to nominate Vice President Cook and Board members
Kohlstrand and Ezzy Ashcraft to serve on the subcommittee.
Vice President Cook proposed an amendment that the subcommittee return to the
Planning Board with a recommendation and further definition of the committee's scope
after one month.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote — 6. No: Mari ani .
Board member Mariani left the meeting prior to Item 9 -A.
Planning Board Minutes Page 17
March 26, 2007
PLANNING/OM
PETITION FOR APPEAL OR CALL FOR REVIEW
This petition is hereby filed as an appeal or call for review of the decision of the
PP (e
1.\ )
(PlanniriDirectiectoZonirig g Administrator °tanning BoardMistori al Advisory
(-; which
oard)
for application,
(Denied /Granted/Established Conditions) (Application type)
at
(Application Number) (Street Address)
on 3 2 (?,
(Spe fy Date
The basis of the appeal or call for review is:
a.7)(
RECEI\TED
F PERMIT CENTER
IALAMEDA, CA 94501
(If more space is needed, continue on the reverse side or attach additional sheets.
L� �- 0'r g CV 12( C1- � -p 6� '`� � � � �� pc la-ts E -- G� L ?iG2� r ,
Appelland:G!.�.L: rL.� `� � f�(&otJ,t' J � S 0,7
(Appellant Name(s), Planning Board Member or Council Member)
Address: �� �� j qY
( ppellant Address))
AMC Section 30 -25, Appeals and Calls for Review, provides that within ten (10) days a decision
of the Planning Director or Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Board, and
decisions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board may be appealed to the City
Council. In addition to the appeal process, decisions of the Planning Director or Zoning
Administrator may be called for review within ten (10) days to the Planning Board by the
Planning Board or by the City Council and decisions of the Planning Board or the Historical
Advisory Board may be called for review by the City Council or a member the City Council.
(c
A processing fee of $100.00 must accompany the Petition for Appeal. No fee is required for a
Call for Review.
* * ****-Orirkiric** ******* **** * *** ***** **** Ink irk *kir****** *****.*
(For Office Use Only)
Received By:
Receipt No.:
Date Received Stamp
City Council
Attachment 4 to
Agenda Item #5 -A
05 -15 -07
Page 1
April 3, 2007
The Honorable Mayor Beverly Johnson
Honorable Members of the Alameda City Council
We are appealing to the City Council the Planning Board's action of March
26, 2007, Agenda Item 9 -C. This appeal is to reverse the decision of the
Planning Board to set up an ad hoc committee to construct a forum to discuss
the implications of Measure A on housing throughout Alameda. The
Planning Board discussion on this item was about eliminating Measure A in
the entire city.
The Planning Board overstepped its authority. The City Charter gives this
board the authority to investigate and recommend plans for future
development. Advocating overturning the City Charter does not fall within the
definition of their duties.
The forum for which the Ad Hoc committee was appointed was billed as
necessary to update the Housing Element. That is not true. No Alameda
Housing Element has ever advocated overturning Measure A. It is not
necessary. The last Housing Element that was state certified was written in
the 1980's by a citizens committee because the staff version was so
unacceptable to the then City Council. Yet the Planning Director's memo in
the packet for the 3/26/07 meeting stated that the proposed forum was needed
because of the update of the Housing Element due in 2008. The planning staff
is repeating the egregious zealousness of the 1984's.
The forum proposed at the Planning Board meeting on 3/26/07 has no chance
of being a fair and balanced venue. That forum was described in the packet
information for that Planning Board meeting as a public workshop to discuss
the implications of Measure A throughout Alameda. Note that the gloves are
off. Staff is not just gunning for Measure A at Alameda Point any more. Yet
the willingness to mislead the public about the purpose of a future forum on
Measure A was illustrated by the Planning Director's Packet on 3/26/07 in
which she described the purpose of the first forum, held on 3/29/07, as a
forum to discuss housing types that are both Measure A compliant and non
Measure A compliant. No discussion of Measure A compliant housing was
Page 2
discussed on Thursday, 3/29/07. The Ad Hoc committee was voted in at the
meeting on 3/26/07 based on untruths in the packet.
The proposed forums were described by a planning manager as mandated by
the acceptance of an MTC grant by the City Council. Yet that grant was
accepted by Council to study transportation. Staff has decided to use the
money to study housing instead. So the ad hoc committee was formed at a
meeting based on bad information and at the urging of the planning manager
furnishing that information.
Part of the discussion by Planning Board members on the formation of the ad
hoc committee was based on the idea that Measure A is responsible for the
design of Bayport. That is not true. We have many attractive housing
developments that were designed under Measure A.
The City is not allowed to pay for campaign material. The planned forums to
discuss Measure A including the one on March 29, 2007, to discuss
eliminating Measure A are campaign activities, not discussions. The City of
Alameda has no business paying for campaign meetings. The taxpayers
should not have to pay or support propaganda from the anti - Measure A force.
The forum on March 29 was not a discussion which was how it had been
described by the Planning Board majority and the Planning staff. Only one
side of the issue was presented.
An excuse for calling these forums "discussions" might be marginally justified
by having a debate in which people from both sides of the issue were sitting
at the head table and actually debating.
The proposed propaganda meeting was well described by a public speaker at
the Planning Board Meeting on March 26, 2007. He said that it was like a
Fuller Brush man coming to the door. With a little persuasion he talks himself
into the living room by saying he only wants to show a dust brush. Before he
leaves, he has been in every room of the house selling every product his
company manufactures. These forums are intended to vacuum Measure A out
of Alameda.
Page 3
The members of the ad hoc committee proclaimed at the Planning Board
meeting that they needed the forums because they needed education on
Measure A. Yet they volunteered to be on the ad hoc committee because of
their expertise. Two members of the ad hoc committee have stated at a
Planning Board meeting that they want to change Measure A throughout
Alameda. Those statement are on tape. That eliminates any hope that the
forums would be balanced.
The Planning Board should spend its time solving problems for the people
who are already here. There is a serious shortage of recreation spaces for
Alameda's children now. If they haven't solved existing problems, they are
not qualified to plan for future developments.
There was no recognition at the Planning Board meeting that the main island
has limited access. The "solution" seems to be to run all traffic from Alameda
Point along the north side of the city to the Fruitvale BART station.
The Planning Board majority advocated high density in the name of
"affordable" housing, yet they appear willing to destroy one of the main
existing supplies of moderate income housing in Alameda, the north side
neighborhoods, in order to build high density at Alameda Point. An ad hoc
committee that hasn't looked at a map should not be allowed to guide a
Planning Director.
The housing quotas which the Planning Board majority uses to justify high
density are based on fictional numbers. The ABAG housing numbers were
calculated for a jobs/housing balance. But they calculated the total jobs by
keeping all of the Navy jobs and NADEP jobs on the books, even though
these jobs had gone when the base was closed. They then added in future
civilian. jobs that would become available at the base only if the Navy had
left. They then added these two mutually- exclusive numbers to get a fictional
job total to justify a large housing requirement. Yet the members of the ad
hoc committee have never recognized this. They are not qualified to advise
the Planning Director.
Page 4
Thirty five .petroleum plumes on Navy property are not due to be cleaned up
until 2015. There will still be marsh crust, and all of the polyaeromatic
hydrocarbons that are scattered over the base. Alameda Point is a Super
Fund site. Children will be playing not just in the houses, but all over the site.
For every housing unit over the original plan, the Navy expects the purchaser
of the property to pay a surcharge because the Navy expects us to provide
jobs for the ones that were lost.
Mayor Johnson had "Protect Measure A" on her lawn signs. The majority of
her election gives a good idea of what people in Alameda think about
Measure A. This fact negates the claim by the Planning Director in the
3/26/07 packet that their was support from community members.
The only valid forum on Measure A is a vote of the people. That was the
original forum. The thirty or so people who want to overturn Measure A can
always go out and get the signatures to put it on the ballot. That they have not
tells you that here is almost no support for overturning Measure A. The
Planning Board majority is deliberately trying to override the wishes of the
people of Alameda. That is not their job. The claim in the staff report is that
the formation of an ad hoc committee was due to a significant community
desire is simply not true.
The ad -hoc committee meetings will be secret. Bad government. If the
Planning Board wants to have discussions on Measure A, then they should do
it in an open meeting where it is televised. Every resident of Alameda is
aggrieved by bad government.
Every one at the Planning Board meeting on March 26th knew that the plan
was to pressure the City Council into putting the repeal of Measure A on the
ballot in which case it would have a better chance to pass than if it were
initiated by a few activists.
SUMMARY: The formation of the ad hoc committee was not within the
authority of the Planrnng Board, and it was based on the quicksand of
untruths.
Attachment: Planning Director's Packet for Item 9 -C
Respectively Submitted,
The Honorable fit . : ch, Former Vice Ma or
Patricia
-LJ
4/
Diane Coler -Dark, Former Economic Development Commissioner a'c=2 (',4 c.
The Honorable Barbara Kerr arm = City Councilm ber, Former Chair of the Housing
/-'. tA.—
r
Element Committee
Jean Sweeney, Former Member of the North Waterfront Specific Plan Committee
James Sweeney, Esq., Former Member of the Economic Strategic Plan Committee
The Honorable Barbara Thomas, Former Vice Mayor
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 17, 2007- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners deHaan,
Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor /Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations:
All City Bargaining Units.
) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property:
APN 074- 0905 - 022 -05, 074 -0905 -027 and 074 - 0905 - 028 -04; Negotiating
parties: CIC and Union Pacific Railroad; Under negotiation: Price
and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council
received a briefing on the status of labor negotiations from Labor
Negotiators and provided direction; regarding Real Property, the
Commission received a briefing from Real Property Negotiators
regarding potential terms of acquisition and gave direction to
staff regarding negotiating parameters.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lana Stoker, Acting City Clerk
Acting Secretary, Community
Improvement Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
April 17, 2007
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - APRIL 17, 2007 - - - 7:31 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 10:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL -- Present: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent calendar.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
( *07_012) Minutes of the Community Improvement Commission meeting
held on April 3, 2007. Approved.
( *07 -013) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
execute a Consultant Agreement with Harris & Associates in an
amount not to exceed $540,000, to be reimbursed by the Developer
pursuant to the Disposition and Development Agreement, to provide
Engineering Review and Construction Support Services for the
Alameda Landing Project. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
(07 -014) Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking
Structure Construction Project; and
(07 -014A) Recommendation to amend the Construction Contract with C.
Overaa & Co. for the Civic Center Parking Garage to increase the
Scope of Work and approve reduction of the contingency budget.
The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether either alternative would add
to the length of the Contract.
The Redevelopment Manager responded that she hopes to stay on
schedule; stated the marquee and blade sign are custom items; shop
drawings would need to be prepared; no additional costs would occur
with a week or two delay.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the blade sign and marquee canopy
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
April 17, 2007
1
would be difficult to do later, to which the Redevelopment Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Chair Johnson inquired whether other canopies could be added later,
to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he likes Alternative #1;
inquired whether either alternative would have an effect on the
ability to get a tree easement or put a vine trellis /mural on the
northern wall.
The Redevelopment Manager responded architecturally there would not
be a problem.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there would be a financial
impact.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the easement would have to be
negotiated with Longs; stated that she does not know whether there
would be financial implications.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether vines could be planted
without obtaining an easement.
The Redevelopment Manager responded external planters become a high
maintenance issue because the plants tend to die.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired what would be the option for making
the northern side look decent.
The Redevelopment Manager responded vines take five to seven years
to grow; stated an alternative would be to architecturally retrofit
the northern elevation in the future; additional funding would be
required; another alternative would be to do a temporary vinyl
mural; a mural could be placed on the three, middle bay windows to
break up the facade and cover the slope.
Chair Johnson stated hopefully more contingency money would become
available and other options could be explored.
Commissioner deHaan inquired why the marquee canopy price changed
drastically.
The Redevelopment Manager responded that she speculates the
original bid was not correct; stated staff would negotiate to
reduce the cost if the Commission decides to pursue the option.
Commissioner deHaan stated the northern elevation treatment changed
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission 2
April 17, 2007
drastically.
The Redevelopment Manager stated staff requested that the entire
facade be retrofitted with additional concrete, foam, and pipe
rails.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether any economy would be gained
by having the same people work on the parking garage marquee who
are working on the Historic theater marquee.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the matter could be explored;
stated the parking garage signage was competitively bid.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Redevelopment Manager is
comfortable with the contingency.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the Construction Management
Team is comfortable.
Commissioner deHaan stated the contingency issue is different for
the Historic Theater.
The Redevelopment Manager stated the Historic Theater is a design -
build project; the 1O% contingency is very prudent.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether street and parking
constrictions would last until the end of the project.
The Redevelopment Manager responded that she hopes to alleviate the
constrictions prior to the holiday season.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Park Street Business
Association is comfortable with the timeline.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), responded
staff has done an excellent job in keeping the lines of
communication open; stated PSBA understands that the Oak Street
closure could last until the end of the project; PSBA Board Members
and merchants are much less concerned with the northern exposure
than signage at this point; the PSBA Board will take a tour of the
theater next Wednesday at 8:00 a.m; stated Council is invited.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval to add Alternative #1 to the
scope of work.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that the blade sign is distinctive
and important; other features can be added at a later date without
difficulty if money is available; requested that staff continue to
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
April 17, 2007
3
explore good solutions for the northern facade of the parking
structure.
Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote -- 5.
ADJOURNMENT
(07 -015) There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned
the Special Meeting at 10:30 p.m. in a moment of silence for the
Virginia Tech massacre victims and with sympathy to the
families and community.
Respectfully submitted,
Lana Stoker
Acting Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
April 17, 2007
4
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) , AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY - - - MAY 8, 2007 - - - 7:00 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:12 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present:
Councilmembers /Board Members /Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and
Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *Q7- CC / *O7- CIC) Recommendation to accept the Fiscal Year
2007 Third Quarter Financial Report and budget adjustments.
Vice Mayor /Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commission deHaan seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:13 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 Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
May 8, 2007
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Chair and Members
of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: May 15, 2007
Re: (1) Receive Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure
Project Construction Update; (2) Authorize CIC Staff to Approve a Change
Order for up to $100,000 for Preserving and Restoring the Auditorium Bas
Relief Niches and Ceiling; and (3) Release $250,000 in Budgeted Funds
for Cineplex Site Work to Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P.
BACKGROUND
The City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission (CIC) approved
construction contracts with C. Overaa & Co. ( Overaa) on July 26, 2006 for the
rehabilitation and restoration of the historic Alameda Theater and the design -build new
construction of the Civic Center Parking Garage. The CIC approved the Theater
construction contract for $8,800,000 and approved the parking garage design -build
contract for $9,104,000, with the condition that the garage project be value- engineered
within the CIO's budget before the construction phase commenced. Since contract
approval in July, CIC staff and Overaa finalized the value- engineering for the garage
design, reducing the contract price to within the C1C's budget. The original contract
price of $9,104,000 was reduced by $604,000, resulting in a final contract price of
$8,500,000.
The Theater construction contract commenced in October 2006; the design phase of
the parking garage project started in August 2006; and the construction phase of the
parking garage began in October 2006. The overall project consists of an eight- screen
movie theater, including a 484 -seat, single - screen theater in the historic Alameda
Theater and seven screens in the new Cineplex, 6,100 square feet of retail, and a 341 -
space parking garage.
DISCUSSION
The status of both the Theater and parking garage projects, including the budget with
contingency, payments, and schedule, are provided in Attachments 1 and 2,
Special CIC
Agenda Item #3 -A
05-15-07
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
May 15, 2007
Page 2
respectively. Both projects are expected to be substantially complete by the end of
2007. Subsequently, Alameda Entertainment Associates (AEA), the movie operator, will
install tenant improvements in the historic Theater. The grand opening for the Alameda
Theater is currently anticipated for early 2008 (Attachment 3). A summary of the status
of each project is provided below.
Alameda Theater
Work on the Alameda Theater rehabilitation and restoration in the past month focused
on finalizing the seismic work, scaffolding the lobby, removing and repairing the
marquee's and blade sign's neon and sheet metal, installing electrical switchgear,
commencing paint preparation and plaster repair, and continuing with mechanical,
plumbing, and electrical work. CIC staff allocated an additional $25,000 from the
contingency line item within the overall budget for additional concrete reinforcement for
the alleyway improvements; $5,000 for a previously undetected break in the men's
restroom sewer line; and $5,000 for foreign importation of curtain material to match the
original hand - painted auditorium curtain, as the United States manufacturer assumed in
the bid recently discontinued the required material.
Once Overaa installed scaffolding in the auditorium several weeks ago, the plaster and
decorative painting restoration work in the auditorium commenced. The metal leafed
bas relief niches on the side walls of the auditorium and the decorative ceiling were
lightly cleaned with ivory soap and water in accordance with the architect's
specifications. Despite the care taken to protect the original finishes, paint and metal
leaf has flaked off, and a number of new white areas have become visible (Attachment
4). Also, previously unidentified white patches were discovered on the ceiling due to
water and trade damage that occurred after the CIC's architect developed its
construction drawings. Trade damage includes damage caused by fire sprinkler and
electrical subcontractors working above the ceiling to install new systems. CIC staff is
working closely with its construction management team and architect, along with
Overaa, to develop pricing for conducting additional work on the niches and ceiling to
plaster repair, touch up and, in some instances, repaint these areas. Those areas
affected by trade damage will be the financial responsibility of Overaa to repair and
repaint to the satisfaction of the CIC's architect.
It will be difficult to conduct this work in the future once the scaffolding is removed and
the stadium seating is constructed. Additionally, the timing of removal of the scaffolding
in the auditorium is a "critical path" milestone that if delayed could affect the contract
schedule. As a result, it is recommended that the CIC provide staff with the authority to
approve a change order for up to $100,000 for preserving and restoring the auditorium
bas relief niches and ceiling. CIC staff, its construction management team and Overaa
will examine the entire ceiling to identify what areas of the ceiling are the financial
responsibility of the CIC and which are the responsibility of Overaa. Until that is
completed, it is unknown how much the change order will be, but it is projected that the
CIC's portion will be under the $1 00,000 change order. As soon as staff has determined
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
May 15, 2007
Page 3
the exact costs, staff will update the Council. CIC staff and its construction management
team have analyzed the CIC's remaining contingency funds and Overaa's remaining
rehabilitation and restoration work on the Theater and are confident that there is
sufficient contingency to allocate $100,000 to additional plaster repair and painting
work. Additional scope of work on the niches and ceiling are also likely to delay the
schedule several weeks depending on the extent of work approved. If CIC staff were to
wait to present a firm price change order and an exact schedule delay from Overaa to
the CIC in June, the schedule would be affected even more significantly. CIC staff will
provide an update of the plaster and decorative painting change order and schedule
delay at its June CIC update.
The rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater is 41 percent complete. Cumulative current
and pending contract changes are estimated to require the use of approximately
$274,000 in contingency funds, or approximately 25 percent of the CIO's contingency
budget. If the full $100,000 in contingency funds are required for additional plaster
repair and decorative painting, the CIC will have used $374,000 in contingency funds or
approximately 34 percent of the CIC's contingency budget. The total contingency
budget for the Theater is $1.'1 million (Attachment 1).
Parking Garage
Overaa has poured the slab -on -grade for the garage. They also have commenced
forming and installing rebar for the second level deck. The parking garage is 38 percent
complete. Current and pending contract changes are estimated to require the use of
approximately $252,000 in contingency funds, or approximately 61 percent of the CIC's
contingency budget, including the CIC - directed addition of the previously eliminated
blade and marquee signage for the Oak Street facade. The total contingency budget for
the garage is $41 5,000 (Attachment 2).
A Parking Garage Management and Operations Plan has been developed by staff to
help facilitate the effective and successful operation of the City of Alameda's first public
parking garage. A draft of the Plan was endorsed by the Economic Development
Commission (EDC) on April 19, 2007, and presented to the Transportation Commission
for review and comment on April 25, 2007. The plan includes community outreach to
educate the public on how to use the "pay -by- space" payment technology for the
garage. A "pay -by- space" meter is a highly advanced computerized multi -space parking
machine that functions in a similar manner as the conventional single space meters,
except that it manages multiple vehicle spaces from one location. Located near the
ground floor elevator bank in the garage, the pay -by -space machines will feature a
keypad for input and a graphic screen for operating instructions. The motorist will note
the space number that his or her vehicle is parked in (stenciled at the rear of each
parking space), select that space on the machine's key pad, and insert payment up to
the maximum allowed time in the same manner as a single -space meter. The screen
indicates the amount of time remaining and prints out a receipt. The transaction time is
very quick, taking just a few seconds. The pay-by-space approach has become
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
May 15, 2007
Page 4
increasingly popular and is being adopted by jurisdictions such as BART and the Port of
San Francisco. The Parking Garage Management and Operations Plan will be
forwarded to the City Council for final approval this summer.
Cineplex
Theater Equipment, Construction and Service, Inc. (TECS), the contractor for the
cineplex, completed grading and site compaction, foundation excavation, sewer line
installation, and permanent power utility trenching and installation. TECS has also
almost completed installing rebar, forming, and pouring grade beam and spread
foundations.
on July 26, 2006, the CIC approved and allocated funds, consistent with the terms of
the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), in its project budget for cineplex
property site work, including the CIC's demolition and grading work and CIC's removal
and remediation work. Per the project budget, $250,000 remains available and has
been earmarked for costs associated with site work and unanticipated soil and
groundwater conditions at the cineplex property.
AEA is currently performing work that the CIC was originally anticipated to perform
under the DDA, including removal of existing below -grade improvements and facilities
presently located under the cineplex property. The DDA anticipated that the CIC would
perform the subsurface excavation, demolition, and soil removal on this site, which, as
with the other two parts of this project (the parking structure and historic Theater), is
owned by the CIC. The DDA contemplated that this work would be completed at the
same time as the garage excavation. Since the three components of the project
followed different timelines, that work was impossible to undertake. The DDA
anticipated that AEA would be responsible for costs associated with the site once the
ground lease was executed. The DDA also made the ground lease execution a pre-
condition of construction commencement by AEA. Unfortunately, the timing of the varied
construction starts made this unworkable, and required the developer to assume the
subsurface work and subsequent building condition evaluation as a part of his work
plan.
AEA has requested the release of the $250,000 in project budgeted funds for this
excavation, demolition, and removal work, as well as other site work and grading
requirements, including unforeseen and exceptional site conditions that have resulted in
extraordinary costs. The removal work, exceptional site conditions, and other related
site work are estimated at $280,000, exceeding the $250,000 budgeted amount. Any
expenses above this amount will be borne by AEA. These exceptional and unforeseen
conditions include:
• Additional excavation and re- compaction of the cineplex site due to encountering
a substantial amount of sub -grade debris and old construction material, including
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
May 15, 2007
Page 5
old brick, water and sewer lines, and concrete foundations from buildings
previously located on the site;
• A requirement for drilled piers to avoid undermining the existing footings of the
adjacent historic Alameda Theater and additional structural design and
construction due to existing conditions differing from the original as -built drawings
for the Alameda Theater;
• Complications with drilling piers due to groundwater and soil conditions including
the need for larger hole excavation, and additional concrete;
• Additional underpinning work along the parking garage footings to ensure that
the cineplex footings do not undermine the garage foundation, including a sub -
footing constructed below the cineplex's typical spread footings. The sub - footing
consists of controlled density fill (CDF), which is more expensive than the typical
spread footing construction.
Similar to the CIC's publicly funded project costs, the privately funded costs associated
with the cineplex component of the project have escalated significantly since the CIC's
approval of the DDA in May 2005. AEA has committed $6.73 million in capital
investment for the privately funded component of the cineplex project, while the DDA
requires a minimum capital investment of $5.36 million. Based on the below -grade and
unforeseen site conditions encountered at the cineplex property and the overall higher -
than- expected privately funded cineplex costs, staff recommends that the CIC release
the budgeted $250,000 in funds already earmarked for cineplex site conditions. This
authorization and disbursement will not increase the CIC's overall project budget as this
budget line currently exists in the overall project expense program. The project budget
approved on July 26, 2006, and updated on January 16, 2007, is provided as
Attachment 5.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
There are no proposed changes to the CIC's total overall budget for the Alameda
Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Garage project. Cl C staff recommends that the C1 C
release the budgeted $250,000 in cineplex site work and hazardous materials funds to
AEA.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 — Action B1.0 — Renovate /restore Alameda
Theater.
Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 — Action F4 — Consider building a parking
structure as part of a Downtown parking management program.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
RECOMMENDATION
May 15, 2007
Page 6
1. Authorize CIC staff to approve a change order for up to $100,000 for preserving
and restoring the auditorium bas relief niches and ceiling.
2. Release the budgeted $250,000 in Cineplex site work and hazardous materials
funds to AEA.
Resp : ctf Js tam
Leslie A. Li le
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development Division
By: Jennifer Ott
Redevelopment Manager
DK/LAL /DES /JO:ry
Attachments:
1. Monthly Progress Status Report for the Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and
Restoration
2. Monthly Progress Status Report for the Civic Center Parking Garage
3. Alameda Theater Project Schedule Update
4. Photographs of Restoration Work and Visible White Areas on Auditorium Niches
and Ceiling
5. Approved Project Budget for Downtown Theater Project
Monthly Progress Status Report
Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and Restoration
City of Alameda
May 15, 2007 CIC Meeting
a•
_ •f
r].i ice., .};:'''.v �I== =. - i.r.s.�. ;,••y .; ..7...-
-
Construction
Contingency
Total Contract Budget
Original Contract Amount $8,800,000
Previous Changes
Executed Change Orders
Unforeseen Hazardous Materials Abatement $11 ,489
Re- Routing Power to Viva Mexico $19, 765
Subtotal Executed Changes $31,254
Pending Change Orders (Cost Estimates)
Seismic Clarifications -$60,000
Add( Hazardous Materials Abatement $5,511
Unforeseen issues with Alleyway Improvements $41,000
Value- Engineering Enclosure $45,000
Curtain Escalation $4,603
Repair Break in Men's Restroom Sewer $5,000
AP &T Electrical Changes $35,000
Revise Electrical Room $35,000
Power and Telephone Conduit for Retail $6,222
AT &T Connection Conduit $5,122
Temporary Alleyway Trash Enclosure 2 500
Subtotal Pending Change Orders $244,958
Total Changes $274,433
Estimated Revised Contract Amount $9,074,433
Remaining Contingency $831,607
',La.,. •a.i,•� } S� fS >�1� 1'C: t4'• � � rS1Y' ;Jr'�i'�Y.l'. '�"+'.�<Jti•.�,�5�'��� R�,.;�e
Previously Paid
Payment this Period
Total Payment To Date
f R , _'�;; �'•:'�
Q• �
4 .vG' ,
Substantial Completion
Final Com • letion
a a • .�. -Y R`i`-r �-- �'!+i.. �,u.?�Y.+ •Z +;l; r��- ✓,7lK�iri +.� +,R.-. -.r "�:-rr.;- �,-.e,-, w •.."tn I�
�y r��` , i - .r.•
rc'•
Work Completed
This Period:
This Period:
Work Projects
Next Period:
Status:
- ^. r. •. �'ti;. ;�.;�' -; �:'_�•;`::. ::: �,= �;`,•%' -; err. .•._:.•::- �;. -cy -: �. r'•�:;L:Y
ur.:r�::.i� ..r�r...y7:� t- ui>1..1:s'lna..r:i.G �cL:: �•_ _ �:i::.ri �� %.',.:�..::�ti:- r�i�:. � -.sw xu. �.cs.fG.:ifi ' wriv�C -..i?r1•.1.•n.,�.Y.ix.... -o_r� Yrii�:w:: �r-�s "�,�s
• Continued with Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing Rough -In
• Completed Scaffolding Lobby
• Continued with Fire Sprinkler Installation
• Completed Concrete Pour for Front Columns and Beams
• Continued with Decorative Painting Preparation
• Continued wtih Marquee /Blade Removal
• Commenced Plaster Repair
• Commenced Installation of Switch Gear
• Commence Roofing Work
• Commence Alleyway Improvements
• Commence Primary Electrical Routing
• Project is on Schedule
Special CIC
Attachment 1 to
' Agenda Item #3 -A
05 -15 -07
Monthly Progress Status Report
Civic Center Parking Garage
City of Alameda
May 15, 2007 CIC Meeting
BUDGET
Construction
Contingency
Total Contract Budget
$8,499,889
$415,000
$8,914,889
PAYMENTS
•
Previously Paid
Payment this Period
Total Payment To Date
$2,482,143
$703,220
$3,185,363
CONTRACT
• • • . • .;
• • " .
Original Contract Amount
Value Engineering (Credit)
Revised Contract Amount
Previous Changes
Executed Change Orders
Subtotal Executed Changes
Pending Change Orders (Cost Estimates)
Blade Sign and Marquee Canopy
Dewatering of Site Groundwater Budget
Groundwater Contamination Budget
Conduit for eLockers (Bike Lockers)
Owner Provided Field Office
Potential Site Work Budget
Deletion of Handheld Device (Credit)
Subtotal Pending Change Orders
Total Changes
Estimated Revised Contact Amount
Remaining Contingency
$9,104,000
($604,111)
$8,499,889
$1,363
$0
$128,000
$55,000'
$65,000
$1,000
($550)
$17,000
($15,000)
$250,450
$251,813
$8,751,702
$163,187
••
a)•
•c
Cl)
tice to Proceed
�v-06
ontract Calendar' Da 's:
ensions:
Scheduled
ornpletion:
Time Used:
167
270
Percent :Tiniea0.600,ed-.•,:
38%
Base Bid Amount:
Amount Paid to Date:
_ $9,104,000
$3,185,363
Percent Cost Expended:
Value-Engineering:
Previous/Pending Change Orders
Project Cost:
37%
($604,111)
Percent Contingency Expended:
$251,813
$8,751,702
61%
MILESTONES •
Milestone
Baseline
Forecast
Approved
11/10/2006
Notice to Proceed
11/10/2006
11/10/2006
Substantial Completion
12/15/2007
12/15/2007
Final Completion
_____. •___ ....._ ..._. __. . .
1/29/2008
1/29/2008
• ISIAIUS -
Work Completed
This Period:
Work Projects
Next Period:
Status:
• Installed Underground Electrical
• Poured Slab-on-Grade
• Installed Sumps and Drains
• Formed Second Floor Deck
▪ Completed Backfill at Ramp
• Pour Second Floor Deck
• Commence Rebar and Form Work for Additional Deck Pours
• Project is on Schedule
Special CIC
Attachment 2 to
Agenda Item #3-A
05-15-07
a)
ii-•
co
no
Q
- 5
it,
cp
i
v
u)
v
as
' o
L
a
L
2
co
. c
ca
ci)
E
as
Zsti
W
J
IL
W
z
0 Special CIC
Attachment 3 to
Agenda Item #3 -A
05 -15 -07
Special CIC
Attachment 4 to
Agenda Item #3 -A
05 -15 -07
0)
c:
■ M
IMIIIIIMIIIIII
• MIMI
as)
0
mo
Ell.
a)
45
U
173
a)
U
co
L__
I--
-(7)
.-E
Q
. 0)
"6
a)
0
a)
-0
0
.-- a)
-a. ›
Q iriz
< 2 >,
%., 0 .0
co 0 .0
a) a) 0
� 0 J -0 4_,_ c
-a- 0 .
O%3
-o 1 cf)
co U cz
LO
51-
Q
0
o
0
•
U
c1
o SD ›N
mr)
0
Eml
0
•
"I0
■■■•
0..
a�
a�
��r
(1)-
(i)
LLJQ
o
(f)
Q
< (f)
a) a)
LE U
z
■ o
• =MON
=
IN
Approved Budget for Downtown Theater Project
Item
Approved
Budget
7126/2006 (1)
USE OF FUNDS
Parkinp Garage
Land Acquisition $811 000
Other Costs $1,521 ,000
Construction Costs $8,500,000
Construction Contingency $415,000
Subtotal $11 ,247,000
Cineplex
Public Contribution /Loan $2,800,000
Hazardous Materials Clean -up /Site Conditions(2) $250,000
Theater Connections §675,000
Subtotal $3,725,000
Alameda Theater Rehabilitation
Property Acquisition /Relocation $3,418,000
Other Costs $1 ,907,000
Rehabilitation Costs $8,800,000
Construction Contingency $1,106,000
Subtotal $15,231,040
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $30,203,000
(1) The overall project budget was approved by the CIC on 7/26/2006 and has not changed.
The uses of funds for the cineplex have also not changed. The distribution of funds for
the parking garage and historic Theater components were updated at the 1/16/2007 CIC
meeting. This budget reflects the overall project budget approved on 7/26/2006 and then
updated at the 1/16/2007 CIC meeting.
(2) None of these funds have been expended to date.
Special CIC
Attachment 5 to
Agenda Item #3-A
05 -15 -07