Loading...
2007-12-18 PacketCITYOFALAMEDA.CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - -- DECEMBER 18, 2007 - - -- 6 :00 p.m. Time: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:00 p.m. Place: 21IX-2R9a9112gttEa22.9aEtESntInT, 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. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (54957) Title: City Attorney 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any 5. Adjournment - City Council AGENDA Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority * * * * * * ** Alameda City Hall Council Chamber, Room 391 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 1. ROLL CALL 2. Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items Only. Tuesday, December 18, 2007 Meeting will begin at 6:01 p.m. Anyone wishing to address the Board on non- agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: Property: Alameda Naval Air Station Negotiating parties: ARRA and Navy Under negotiation: Price and Terms Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. 4. ADJOURNMENT Notes. ▪ Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 749 -5800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. • Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request. CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - DECEMBER 18, 2007 - -- --- 7 :25 P.M. Location: City Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or business introduced by the Commission may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL - CIO 2. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2 -A. Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project. (Development Services) 3. AGENDA ITEMS None 4. ADJOURNMENT - CIC everly Community hair 17 v ent Commission on AGENDA CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY DECEMBER 18, 2007 - - - - 7:30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St] The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. Agenda Items 6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 7. Council Referral 8. Council Communications (Communications from Council) 9. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6 :00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND 6:01 P.M. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION 7:25 P.M. 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 thanking the Social Services Human Relations Board Sister City Workgroup for coordinating the trip to China. (Development Services) 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public 4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on December 4, 2007. (City Clerk) 4-B. Bills for ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recommendation to accept the Special Tax and Local Bond Measure Report. (Finance) 4 -D. Recommendation to approve the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement for the City Manager. (Human Resources) 4 -E. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $150,000 to Pacific Municipal Consultants to prepare the 2009-2014 Housing Element and conduct the Housing Element/Measure A Workshop. (Planning and Building) 4 -F. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $114,605 to Ruth Metz Associates for long -range planning for future Library services and recommendations for the improvements of the neighborhood libraries. (Library) 4 -G. Recommendation to appropriate $144,707 in Fiscal Year 2007- 2008 Citizen's Option for Public Safety Program (COPS AB 3229) grand funding to enhance frontline police services. (Police) 4 -H. Final Passage of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement Amendment DA -06 -0003 to the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project) By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, dated January 16, 2007. (Development Services) 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Public hearing on Housing and Community Development needs for Community Development Block Grant Fiscal Year 2008 -2009 Annual Plan. (Development Services) 5 -B. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 4 -4 to Article I (Littering and Maintenance of Property) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety) to Prohibit Polystyrene Foam Food Service Ware and Amending Section 1 -5.6 of Chapter I (General) to Authorize Additional City Employees to Serve as Code Enforcement Officers. (Public Works) 5 -C. Recommendation to accept the Corica Golf Complex Operational Review and authorize staff to begin the process to secure a long -term operator for the Golf Complex. (Recreation and Park) 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 REFERRALS Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted upon or scheduled as a future agenda item 8. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended 8 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Youth Commission. 9. 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 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: Debra Kurita Executive Director Date: December 18, 2007 Re: Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project Construction Update 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 CIC'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 CIC'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. Additionally, on December 4, 2007, the CIC: 1) approved a loan for Alameda Entertainment Associates (AEA), the movie operator, to improve and install furnishings, fixtures, and equipment in the mezzanine balcony of the historic Theater, adding approximately 250 seats to the main auditorium; and 2) authorized the use of up to $50,000 in interest earnings to complete the enclosure of the historic Alameda theater balcony access corridor. DISCUSSION The status of both the Theater and parking garage projects, including the budget, payments, and schedule, are provided in Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. Both projects are expected to be complete in January 2008. Concurrently, AEA will install tenant improvements in the historic Theater. The grand opening for the parking CIC Agenda Item #2 -A 12-18-07 Honorable Chair and December 18, 2007 Members of the Community Improvement'Commission Page 2 of 4 structure is currently anticipated for early 2008; the Alameda Theater is scheduled to open in March 2008 (Attachment 3). A summary of the status of each project is provided below. Alameda Theater Overaa's contract for the Alameda Theater has achieved substantial completion for the auditorium and concession areas. Final completion for the CIC's contract with Overaa is anticipated for mid- January. The following outlines the major tasks Overaa has accomplished or made progress on over the last month: • Installed all cleaned, repaired, or replicated historic light fixtures. • Constructed the new ticket booth structure. • Continued with final decorative and flat painting in the lobby and auditorium. • Prepared floors for carpet and linoleum installation. • Commenced installation of new and historic doors. • installed tile in concession area and women's restroom. • Continued with final electrical, plumbing, and mechanical work. • Completed roofing work for mechanical room and marquee canopy. Cumulative current and pending contract changes are estimated to require the use of approximately $1,011,000 in contingency funds, or approximately 91 percent of the CIC's contingency budget, including the budget for retail tenant improvement allowances. The total contingency budget for the Theater is $1.1 million (Attachment 1). } Parking Garage Overaa has made progress on the following scope of work for the garage: • Installed stairs and handrails for both stair towers. • Continued work on elevator rails, platform, and car. • Completed plaster work, foam shape installation, and painting of the western elevation. • Completed interior floor striping and floor designations. Honorable Chair and December 18, 2007 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 4 All current and potential contract changes are estimated to require the use of approximately $381 ,000 in contingency funds, or approximately 92 percent of the CIC's contingency budget, including the cost of installing security cameras. The total contingency budget for the garage is $41 5,000 (Attachment 2). Cineplex Theater Equipment, Construction and Service, Inc. (TECS), the contractor for the cineplex, finalized construction of the roof, continued installing framing for exterior and interior metal -stud walls, and continued working on interior theater auditorium systems, drop ceilings, and framing of stadium seating. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT There are no proposed changes to the CIC's total budget for the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Garage project. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 -- Action BI .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. RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only. No action is required. ffully submit Les ie A. Little elopment Services Director By: Dorene E. Soto M nag r, Business Development Division By: Je nife Re _ ev pment Manager Honorable Chair and December 18, 2007 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 4 of 4 DK /LAL /DES /JO:ry Attachments: 1. Monthly Progress Status Report for the Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and Restoration 2. Monthly Progress Status Report for Civic Center Parking Garage 3. Alameda Theater Project Schedule Update Monthly Progress Status Report Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and Restoration City of Alameda December 18, 2007 CIC Meeting BUDGET CONTRACT Construction Contingency Total Contract Budget $8,800,000 $1,106,040 $9,906,040 PAYMENTS CONTRACT STATUS 0-i co a U Previously Paid Payment this Period Total Payment To Date Notice to Proceed: $7,269,996 $2881358 $7,558,355 10- Nov -06 Contract Calendar Days: 410 Time Extensions: 21 Scheduled Completion: Time Used: 14- Jan -08 Time Remaining: Percent Time Expended 47 Base Bid Amount: Amount Paid to Date: 89% $8,800,000 r $7,558,355 Percent Cost Expended: Executed/Pendiinn Change Orders: Project Cost: Percent Contingency Expended: MILESTONES Milestone Notice to Proceed Final Completion for Tenant Improvement Areas Final Completion for Other TI Areas Final Completion for Remaining Areas PROJECT STATUS 86% $1,011,360 $9,811,360 91% Baseline 11/10/2006 11/13/2007 12/17/2007 1/14/2008 Original Contract Amount Previous Changes Executed Change Orders Revise Paint Color on Middle Niche Orchestra Pit Concrete Fire Alarm Annunciator Marquee Lighting Controler Remove Insulation Blanket in Vent House Additional Lengths in Type A Fixtures Additional Rebar Subtotal Executed Changes Pending Change Orders (Cost Estimates) Budget for Retail Tenant Improvement Allowances Waterproof East Exterior of Theater Men's Room Water Heater Marquee Access Hatches /Repair Concession Area Utilities Revisions to Hall Revised Door Hardware and Pulls AP &T Changes Retail Space and Storm Drain Connections Termination Plate Repair SS in Alleyway and Drinking Fountains Plaster Repair in First Floor Lobby Sump Pump /Storm Drain Connections Indirect Wasteline in Concession Area Floor Preparation and Slope Changes HCT Support in Plenum and Vent Rooms Additional Misc. Items Exterior Ladder /Fence at Alleyway Sump Pump Replacement Expose Mezzanine Mural Balcony Handrail Rework Spandrel Glass Rework Subtotal Pending Change Orders Total Changes Estimated Revised Contract Amount Remaining Contingency PICTURES D Forecast 11/10/2006 11/13/2007 12/17/2007 1/1412008 $8,800,000 $489,295 $2,069 $6,127 $24,211 $1,499 $427 $3,574 $3,415 $41,322 $120,000 $13,000 $1,500 $25,000- $5,000 $3,500 $36,500 $35,000 $9,673 $44,789 $26,597 $7,000, $14,000 $4,000 $52,684 $25,000 $24,500 $9,500 $9,000 $7,500 $3,000 $4,000 $480,743 $1,011,360 $9,811,360 $94,680 Approved 11/10/2006 11/13/2007 Work Projects Next Period: Att • Set Air Handler Unit, Install Historic Fixtures, Ticket Booth, and Carpet Age • Complete Punch -List for Entire Theater cIc achment 1 to ida Item #2 -A 12 -18 -07 Monthly Progress Status Report Civic Center Parking Garage City of Alameda December 18, 2007 CIC Meeting BUDGET CONTRACT ::. Construction $8,499,889 Contingency $415000 Original Contract Amount $9,104,000 Value Engineering (Credit) ($604,111) Revised Contract Amount $8,499,889 Previous Changes $224,341 Executed Change Orders Subtotal Executed Changes $0 Pending Change Orders (Cost Estimates) Security Cameras $76,700 Generator until Permanent Power $6,000 Blade and Marquee Changes $3,691 Northern Elevation Banner Design Budget $5,000' Trash Cans, Trees, Other Misc. $15,000 Plaster Finish for Facade $15,000 Bicycle Sharrows & Signs $5,000 Work for Electric Cars and Maint. Vehicle $10,000 Potential Site Work Budget $20,000- Total Contract Budget $8,914,889 PAYMENTS : Previously Paid $6,799,619 Payment this Period $343,342 Subtotal Pending Change Orders $156,391 Total Changes $380,732 Estimated Revised Contact Amount $8,880,621 Remaining Contingency $34,268 Total Payment To Date $7,142,961 CONTRACT STATUS : PICTURES. :. Schedule Notice to' :Proceed: 1 0- Nov -06 ::. -r -- -r - e F .•- • _ ; ,�. _ `.; : :;• ' - _ f. `. 1 ; _ �f ;.- _ .Y -iii . '- + r - . r= - d , [- l +_ °.. , _ ` F' x -•_ --,- ' ' � , f: � ' ii - r ' .. .. �. Contract Calendar Days:' Time E-xtensions: 5 ch tl ed Completion : 9Jan -08 Tlme Used 3 4 • Time ,Remainin9: ` 61 Percent Time Expended : 86% TS a 0 Base Bid Amount: $9,1 04,000 Amount Paid to Date: $7,142,961 Percent Cost Expended:_ 84% ($604,111) $380,732 Value- Engineering: Previous/Pending Chan 9e Orders g � Project Cast: $8,880,621 Percent Contingency Expended: 92% MILESTONES Milestone Baseline Forecast Approved 11/10/2006 Notice to Proceed 11110/2006 1111012006 Final Completion 1/29/2008 1/29/2008 PROJECT STATUS : Work Completed • Installed Hand Rails in Stair Towers This Period: • Completed Installation of EFIS Foam Shapes and Exterior Painting • Installed and Tested Fire Alarm • Completed Striping and Floor Designations Work Projects Next Period: • Continue Elevator and Fire Alarm Installation and Testing • Remove Scaffolding Status: • Project is on Schedule CIC Attachment 2 to Agenda Item #2 -A 12-18-07 Alameda Theater Project Schedule Update co sr. 0 cn -1:3" 0) a 0 0 L. t▪ o a 0 0 CC W 0 2 = = X W J 0 W CIc Z 6 Attachment 3 to Agenda Item #2 -A 12-18-07 Proclamation COMMENDING MEMBERS OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD AND THE FRIENDS OF WUXI FOR ORGANIZING THE TRIP TO WUXI, CHINA TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 3RD ANNUAL SISTER CITY FORUM WEgEAS, W1iE1EAS, the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB), in its advisory capacity to the City Council, is charged with promoting goodwill, tolerance, and understanding in the community; and on March 25, 2004, in an effort to promote cultural goodwill, the SSHRB formed the Sister City Workgroup to explore a Sister City relationship with Wuxi, China, and to revitalize the Sister City relationships with Arita, Japan, and Lidingo, Sweden; and W1-OEIOEAS, the City of Wuxi, China, sent a delegation to Alameda in May 2005 to affirm its interest in a Sister City relationship with Alameda; and W1EgEAS, WffE1EAS, W1E1EAS, in October 2007, a delegation from Alameda, which included the entire City Council, the City Manager, the Planning and Building Director, and members of the SSHRB and the Friends of Wuxi, represented Alameda by participating in the Sister City Forum in Wuxi; and the delegation experienced further cultural exchange opportunities by also visiting the Chinese cities of Jiangyin, Shanghai, and Beijing; and the City of Alameda appreciates the relationship forged during this trip with the people of Wuxi, and looks forward to strengthening long - lasting ties between the people of Alameda, and Wuxi, China. NOW, n(EgEFogt, BE IT 1ESOLVEV. that we, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Alameda, do hereby declare our sincere thanks to Dr. Stewart Chen, Jim Franz, Cyndy Wasko, Cathy Nielsen, Nanci Li, Hans Wong, and Margaret Lu for their dedication, energy and commitment to plannul, and organizing a very successful trip to China, and proclaim December 18, 2007, in nor. Beverly J. May Vice Mayor Lena Tam Councilme . ' er Doug deHaan ember Marie uncilmember Frank Matarrese City Council Agenda Item #3 -A 12-18-07 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - - DECEMBER 4, 2007 - -- - 6:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson -- 5. Absent: None. 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 Public Safety Bargaining Units. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing on the status of negotiations. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - DECEMBER 4, 2007- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:53 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (07- ) Park Street Business Association Proclamation. Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Lars Hansson. Councilmember Matarrese thanked Mr. Hansson for planting daffodils. Mr. Hansson thanked Council for the proclamation. Councilmember deHaan inquired how many bulbs were planted. Mr. Hansson responded 2,000 bulbs were purchased; stated approximately 1,000 bulbs were planted on Park Street. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 07- ], the recommendation to accept the Annual Review of Public Art Ordinance [paragraph no. 07- ], the recommendation to accept Affordable Housing Ordinance Annual Review [paragraph no. 07- ], and Resolution Amending Resolution No. 12121 [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 - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (07- ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings held on Regular Meeting 1 Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 November 13, 2007 and November 19, 2007; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on November 20, 2007. Approved. Councilmember Gilmore requested that clarification be made on Page 5 of the November 20, 2007 Regular City Council minutes; stated the context was that the Museum Board needs to have a discussion regarding educational goals versus fund raising goals and strike a balance between the two. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the Minutes with additional language on Page 5 of the Regular Minutes. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *07- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,603,461.02. (07- ) Recommendation to accept the Annual Review of Public Art Ordinance. Councilmember deHaan stated that Council received an Off Agenda Report that described various projects; Council inquired whether there are funds in the Public Arts Fund; Council did not set a $50,000 benchmark; Council requested that the matter be brought back to make a determination on funding sources; Council needs to review details on how art funds would be applied; requested clarification of the $50,000. The City Manager stated art fund allocations were reviewed; approximately $13,000 could be spent on the Public Arts Grant Program; staff would come back to Council regarding funding sources after the program is established and the criteria are developed; money could come out of reserves; Council would need to take action on the matter. Councilmember deHaan stated that funds would need to come out of reserves or some other funding if Council decided on a total grant program of $50,000. The City Manager stated the amount could increase; staff would continue to provide updates. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Council would receive a report on the Grant Program, to Which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 2 Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *07- ) Recommendation to accept the Impact Fee Report for Police and Fire Services. Accepted. (07- ) Recommendation to accept Affordable Housing Ordinance Annual Review. Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated Affordable Housing discussions always address money and building; lower income neighborhood preservation is never discussed; emphasis should be given to preservation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether former Councilmember Kerr was talking about existing neighborhoods and issues such as home additions. Former Councilmember Kerr responded huge planned projects could be a possible intrusion in her neighborhood; a Planning Board Member suggested moving the Wang Project west of Sherman Street; another Planning Board Member suggested running all the streets northward to the Beltline; traffic protection was discarded. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *07- ) Recommendation to accept the Annual Review of the Citywide Development Fee and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FI SC) /Catellus Traffic Fee. Accepted. ( *07- ) Recommendation to appropriate $17,676 in Measure B Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Funds as the required local match for accepting a Bicycle Facility Program Grant from the Bay Area Quality Management District. Accepted. (07- ) Resolution No. 14161, "Amending Resolution No. 12121 Setting the Order of Business of City of Alameda City Council Meetings." Adopted. Councilmember deHaan stated currently any Councilmember can place any subject matter on the agenda; the proposal would eliminate said process; that he does not have a problem with Councilmembers identifying what they want to place on the agenda; one of the actions [outlined in the staff report] is no action; after a matter gets to Council Referral, the Council can decide that it does not Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 3 want to hear the matter and the issue would never get placed on the agenda in any form; the current system is not broken; that he does not see a need to do this [add Council Referral]; it [Council Referral] takes away the latitude that Councilmembers all have - -the prerogative of placing matters on the agenda; that he is not sure that he is in favor; removing the [staff report] action b (1) "no action" might be useful. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan sees the issue as limiting Council's ability to put things on the agenda. Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative; stated it [Council Referral] is going place it [the matter] not even as a real agenda item, it [the matter] is going to be a Council Referral. Mayor Johnson stated it [the proposal] pretty much follows the current practice; now a Councilmember brings a matter up under Council Communications and if there is consensus the matter is brought back as an agenda item; inquired whether said process is the current practice. Councilmember deHaan responded in the negative; stated matters are not voted upon under Council Communications; the war resolution was the only situation voted upon, which came from the community itself. Mayor Johnson stated the Council acts via consensus. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot recall ever going to the City Manager and requesting a matter be placed on the agenda; what happens is Councilmembers have brought up items under Council Communications and the Council as a body has directed the City Manager to place the matter on the agenda; this [the proposal] formalizes the process. Mayor Johnson stated that she sees the matter as formalizing what has been done. Councilmember deHaan stated former Councilmember Daysog has done it [placed matters on the agenda] quite a few times; a few times former Councilmember Daysog would say that he wanted a matter to be part of the agenda. Mayor Johnson stated not that she was aware of; that she served on the Council with former Councilmember Daysog and she does not recall that [Councilmember Daysog putting matters on the agenda]. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 4 Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated that she recalls going to the City Manager and requesting that matters be placed on the agenda; the workshop when the matter was discussed did not have public input; when she was the City's representative to League of California Cities (LCC), Councilmembers from the few cities with said provision indicated it worked out to be a gag order; if the majority of Council prevents a Councilmember from putting something on the agenda, it would disenfranchise the people who elected that person; furthermore, people interested in the issue would have to come to two Council meetings: one to discuss placing the matter on the agenda and one to address the matter on the agenda. Vice Mayor Tam stated as the LOC representative, she learned from other cities, such as Palo Alto and Fremont, that the process helped increase public awareness and transparency about why certain things get on the agenda and others do not; having the formalized process helps provide fuller Council discussion of issue and helps guide and direct priorities. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Councilmembers would have to complete a referral form if interested in a topic raised by a member of the public at a Council meeting; questioned what the proposal does to the Council's on the fly consensual process. The City Manager responded the process allows staff to provide cost information and whether the item would change priorities or work plans. Councilmember Matarrese stated the process does not have anything to do with cost and addresses whether or not a matter would be placed on an agenda; Councilmember Gilmore's point was if a speaker raises an issue and there is Council consensus, the matter would be placed on an agenda at a future time; it [the proposal] puts in writing what is now handled under Council Communications; the Council makes the formalized vote on placing the matter on the agenda. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she sees two distinct processes; the [referral] form would be used if a Councilmember has an idea to be researched; however, asking a member of the public to go through the same hoops that Councilmembers go through is not fair; former Councilmember Kerr's point is well taken; it takes a lot to get people to come to City Hall or call, whereas, Councilmembers are here and have contact with staff. Mayor Johnson stated Council can make it clear that Council is intending to do so; if a speaker conveys a great idea and the majority of Council requests follow up, the matter could be brought Regular Meeting 5 Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 back. The City Manager stated that she was addressing when individual Councilmembers make a request. Councilmember deHaan inquired how many times individual Councilmembers have brought forward an agenda item in the last year; that he does not believe Council has done so. Mayor Johnson stated Council has done so a number of times, by consensus, under Council Communications. Councilmember deHaan stated it [requesting a matter be placed on an agenda] has been done within Council Communications; with Council Referrals, Councilmembers would be prohibited from talking about matters under Council Communications. Mayor Johnson stated matters cannot be discussed under Council Communications. Councilmember deHaan stated in the past one individual Councilmember was able to put a matter on the agenda. Vice Mayor Tam stated there are provisions to do so [place a matter on the agenda] in the City's Municipal Code, provided that the matter is provided one week in advance. Councilmember deHaan stated said provision is no problem; that he does not think Council wants to stifle it [the provision] by bringing a matter to a vote initially to see if Council wants to discuss the issue; it [the proposal] is not fair and not in the best interest of anyone. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the proposal affects Council's ability to call for review any decision of a board or commission. The City Manager responded in the negative; stated the City of Fremont's model was designed to place a matter on the agenda that might require a change in work plans or a change in direction; the matter would be placed under Council Referral, rather than having Councilmembers raise the issue under Council Communications; the formal structure would allow Councilmembers to place an item on the agenda so that staff could respond and provide information; when staff puts the item on the agenda, Council would have the information to determine whether it wants to move the item forward on the agenda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 6 Councilmember deHaan stated it is no different if Councilmembers go to the City Manager and request the matter be placed on the agenda. Mayor Johnson stated the problem with that [individual Councilmembers directing placing items on the agenda] is that it gets into the area of one Councilmember directing staff. Councilmember deHaan stated the Councilmembers are not doing so. Mayor Johnson stated agenda items have staff reports; one Councilmember directing staff to do necessary work, create a staff report and place the matter on an agenda is in violation of the Charter. Councilmember deHaan stated said situation has not occurred on the current Council's watch. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot remember said event happening; that he has never gone to the City Manager and requested a matter be placed on the agenda; that he brings up the issue under Council Communications to get the consensus to agree to place the matter on the agenda. Councilmember deHaan stated big box is an example; there was not a full vote by the Council, however, bringing up and discussing the issue was still a healthy thing; that he wants to put matters on the agenda to hear more about the issue, costing staff hours is a different thing. Mayor Johnson stated that she has not gone to the City Manager and requested something be placed on the agenda; it sounds like Councilmembers have not done so; that she views the proposal as formalizing what is done now; the Council has always been very generous in complying with requests [to place matters on the agenda] . Councilmember deHaan stated there have not been problems in the past; that he does not foresee future problems; questioned whether this [the proposal] is Mayor Johnson's recommendation. Mayor Johnson responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan inquired who put the matter on the agenda. Mayor Johnson responded it was part of the workshop. The City Manager stated it was an outcome of the workshop; part of the task to staff was to develop the form; due to the way the Regular Meeting 7 Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 system is set up, a resolution is required to put a new section on the agenda. Mayor Johnson stated that she has no problem with Council communicating with staff; that she was on the Council when Council voted to get rid of the Council -staff communication rules established by a prior City Manager; the Council has to be careful with individual Councilmembers directing staff; that she does not see how a matter can be placed on the agenda without numerous staff hours being spent. The City Attorney stated Council cannot legally take a consensus action regarding items raised under Council Communications because there has not been a description on the agenda and the public does not know what may be brought up; the purpose of the formalized rule is to provide an opportunity to get the public involved in the discussion; if the matter is submitted ahead of time, it can be placed on the agenda under the new section with a sufficient description; there will not be a staff report yet so staff resources will not have been expended; however, the title can be a sufficient description so that the public understands what will be considered, Council can take an action that night, there could be no action taken, or Council could request a formal staff report and more information at a future meeting; the purpose is to permit a legal action to be taken and allow public participation. Councilmember Matarrese stated said explanation clarifies the matter and removes the chance of it becoming a gag rule; the matter can be discussed and a vote can be taken, which cannot occur under Council Communications; the proposal enhances the ability to get something from a single Councilmember heard in a fashion noticed to the public without running into the legal problem of providing direction, even by consensus, on a matter that was not on the agenda. Councilmember deHaan stated what the Council is doing today is bringing the matter as an agenda item; questioned why a separate agenda section is needed to do it. The City Attorney stated the Council has never violated the Brown Act during Council Communications because a vote has never been called for; the City Manager has voluntarily placed a matter on the agenda or provided information upon seeing an interest from one or more Councilmembers; the process is being formalized to provide greater public participation; the matter is a follow up of the issue addressed at the workshop. Councilmember deHaan stated that he pulled the February 6, 2006 Regular Meeting 8 Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 minutes regarding the war resolution and there was an official vote; requested the record be reviewed. The City Attorney stated there can be a vote if the matter is placed on the agenda. Councilmember deHaan stated the matter was raised by the public. Mayor Johnson stated that the matter was on the agenda. The City Manager stated a title was placed on the agenda under Council Communications; Council Referral would be the proper place for such an item. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how one Councilmember directing the City Manager to place an item on an agenda tests against the Charter's provision that the Council provides direction to the City Manager. The City Attorney stated under the Charter, the City Manager is responsible for operations and implementing the policy decisions of the majority of Council; a majority of Council is required to direct the City Manager to take an implementing action or to implement anything within the realm of operations. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether that includes putting the agenda together. The City Attorney responded putting the agenda together is part of operations; the City Manager controls the agenda. Mayor Johnson inquired whether one Councilmember directing a matter be placed on the agenda is a Charter violation. The City Attorney responded making a request is not a Charter violation; it is up to the City Manager to put something on the agenda if she determines that it is an operational matter that comes under her authority under the Charter; it does not matter that one Councilmember may have suggested it; however, no Councilmember individually has the authority to direct the City Manager to do a certain thing a certain way if it is under operations; a cleaner way is to try to find a way to seek consensus. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she cannot recall a Councilmember raising something under Council Communications that he or she wanted placed on the agenda and there not being a consensus or that the matter did not come up later as an agenda item; Councilmembers Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 9 are very generous with each other and pretty much put everything on the agenda for discussion; with said history for background, she would suggest that [staff report item] b state: "The City Council after discussing the item may do any of the following ;" she would take out number 1) [take no action] because, by and large, the Council does take an action, the issue is discussed, the matter might be deferred, which is even taking an action; she wants to make sure whatever the item, that the matter gets discussed; putting the matter on the agenda ensures that the matter is discussed; numbers 2 and 3 can be left as is; she would suggest that the practice be implemented and, six months after adoption, the issue be placed on an agenda to discuss whether Council likes the practice and hear what the public thinks. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether said suggestion was a motion, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the City Attorney indicated that the City Manager has the authority [over the agenda]; inquired how an item is placed on the agenda under the jurisdiction of the City Attorney or City Clerk. The City Attorney inquired whether Councilmember deHaan meant Closed Session items, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in the negative. The City Attorney stated the only things that she has the power to put on the closed session agendas are certain attorney - client privileged communications within the Brown Act; she can put said matters on the agenda because she needs to be able to talk to the Council since she works directly for the Council; however, she does not have any authority to go to the City Manager and request that a matter be placed on the agenda; she has no such power under the Charter; she is not a policy maker and is not involved in operations. Councilmember deHaan stated there would be an upcoming discussion on Charter amendments, which do not come under the City Manager. Mayor Johnson stated the matter comes under the voters. Councilmember Matarrese stated a majority of the Council gave direction to place Charter review on the agenda; this [the proposal] puts the items into public view; when an individual Councilmember wants something on the agenda, which the. City Manager Regular Meeting 10 Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 does not have time for, the item can get on the agenda for discussion and a potential action from the entire Council with full public notification, in full public view with a published version of what is going to be discussed; inquired whether he understands correctly. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated if anything the proposal is a way of ensuring that matters of interest to individual Councilmembers get on the agenda because Council would not be dealing with just City Manager discretion. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Vice Mayor Tam has information about other cities practices. Vice Mayor Tam responded the City of Palo Alto adopted a similar protocol as one way to address openness and public transparency regarding discussions between an individual Councilmember and the City Manager. Councilmember deHaan stated the City's current procedure brings it out in the open. Vice Mayor Tam stated the procedure allows Council to formalize it [the procedure]. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember deHaan - 1. Councilmember Gilmore noted that the matter would return in six months and [staff report] item 1 was deleted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (07- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending June 30, 2007. The Finance Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the next report could provide the sales tax percentage in other cities budgets, to which the Finance Director responded possibly. Vice Mayor Tam stated that Page 2 notes that construction sales posted the largest increase related to building materials and wholesale; Alameda does not have a Home Depot. The Finance Director stated Alameda has other businesses in town Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 11 that are classified as being part of the construction and wholesale category. Councilmember Matarrese stated the business that fabricates windows on Oak Street would be classified in said category; the report is good; a two-year budget will be adopted next June; the revenue stream is flat; auto dealerships will be on the decline; requested that the report be posted to the website for public review. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether taxes would be impacted by approximately one third because of a decline in auto sales tax. The Finance Director responded there are a variety of auto dealers such as used auto dealers and yacht sales. Councilmember deHaan stated yacht sales have declined because a portion of a Marina was closed down for housing development; used car dealerships will be lost when the new car dealership moves out. The Finance Director stated there are independent used car lots. Councilmember Gilmore stated the report is timely because a local newspaper editorial exhorted residents to spend money locally; the City needs to promote businesses on the Island. The Finance Director stated the referenced editorial noted that every penny of the sales tax comes to Alameda, which is not true; Alameda only receives three-quarters of one percent. Vice Mayor Tam stated that the Alameda Towne Center has been undergoing construction in the last two years; inquired whether the new stores would offer hope for some minor recovery to offset the auto dealership. The Finance Director responded that she is not sure that there will be a total offset; stated some improvement has been made; more improvement is anticipated as newer stores finish construction and come on line; the impacts from Old Navy and TJ Max are not known because the report only covers the period ending June 30. Mayor Johnson stated that Park Street sales tax generation north and south of Lincoln Avenue is over $500,000 for the second quarter of 2007; inquired what the City of Albany has that makes sales tax generation higher than Alameda. Councilmember Gilmore responded the City of Albany has a Target. Councilmember deHaan stated that people need to pay attention to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 12 the chart that shows General Fund distribution; the impact will be on the General Fund when shortages occur, particularly for Police and Fire. Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (07- ) Consideration of Mayor's appointment to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. Mayor Johnson appointed Jerome Harrison. (07- ) Councilmember deHaan noted that he would place the matter of campaign reform on the agenda using the Council Referral process; he would like to see limits on the amount from individual donors and the total amount spent for a campaign; he hopes to get support in moving the matter forward. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:56 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 December 4, 2007 13 December 13, 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 Amount 204485 - 205078 EFT 445 EFT 446 EFT 447 EFT 448 EFT 449 EFT 450 EFT 451 EFT 452 Void Checks: $2,596,014.30 $11,244.50 $11,244.50 $38,816.30 $271,846.63 $11,244.50 $28,046.00 $53,033.55 $150,023.96 201988 203720 ($795.00) 203474 ($57.00) 204423 ($200.00) 160244 ($40.00) 202797 ($841.24) ($730.00) GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, amela J. Sibley Council Warrants 12/18/07 $3,168,851.00 BILLS #4 -B 12/18/2007 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: December 18, 2007 Re: Accept the Special Tax and Local Bond Measure Annual Report BACKGROUND The Government Code requires the reporting of special tax and local bond measure accountability for those special taxes or local bonds approved after January 1, 2001. The specific purpose, the amount of funds collected and expended, and the status of the project being funded by the proceeds of the special tax or local bond measure are to be reported to the governing body. The City of Alameda has two issues that qualify: the Bayport Special Assessment District and the Measure 0 Library Bonds. DISCUSSION The Bayport Community Facilities District (CFD03 -1) was formed by Resolution No. 13644 dated November 5, 2003, for the purpose of funding the ongoing operation and maintenance of public facilities and public safety services within the district. Fiscal Year 2006 -2007 annual levies produced revenues of $310,786 and interest income of $14,947. The expenditures during the fiscal year totaled $136,347. As the construction nears completion, expenditures in support of operation and maintenance of the public facilities will grow incrementally. The Measure 0 Library Bonds are general obligation bonds approved by the voters and issued in March 2003 to finance the acquisition and construction of a new main library and improvements to two library branches. Fiscal Year 2006 -2007 annual levies produced revenues of $623,079 and interest income of $7,541. The expenditures during the fiscal year totaled $658,250. The main library is complete and serving the community. The Library Board is engaged in a master planning process, which will include the improvements to the branch libraries. City Council Agenda Item #4 -C 12 -18 -07 Honorable Mayor and December 18, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no budget or financial impact as a result of this report. RECOMMENDATION Accept the Special Tax and Local Bond Measure Annual Report as presented. Respectfully submitted, Af' try le -Ann Boyer ief Financial Officer JAB :dI CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Karen Willis Human Resource Director Date: December 18, 2007 Re: Approve Amended and Restated Employment Agreement for City Manager BACKGROUND The City Manager position serves at the will of the City Council. Council approved the initial Employment Agreement for City Manager Debra Kurita in August 2005 and may periodically consider amendments to the existing Employment Agreement. A copy of the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement between the City Council and Debra Kurita, as City Manager, is attached for City Council approval. This Amended and Restated Employment Agreement reflects existing salary, as well as new terms offered by the City Council, including an additional two years added to the term of employment. The other terms, which are effective August 1, 2010, are an additional month of severance in the event of termination for no cause and an additional 18 days notice to be provided by the City Manager to the City in the event of her decision to separate from City employment. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. The Amended and Restated Employment Agreement restates existing salary level only, with amendments affecting non - economic terms. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Debra Kurita for the position of City Manager. Respectfu y submit�� Karen Willis Human Resources Director Attachment City Council Agenda Item #4D 12-18-07 AMENDED AND RESTATED CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This agreement is made by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA (the "City"), a charter city and municipal corporation, and DEBRA L. KURITA ( "Kurita ") RECITALS Whereas, the City desires to employ the services of Debra L. Kurita as City Manager of the City of Alameda; and Whereas, Debra L. Kurita agrees to serve as the City Manager of the City of Alameda; and Whereas, the City Council and Kurita desire to agree in writing to the terms and conditions of Kurita's employment as City Manager; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: Introduction and Term 1. EMPLOYMENT The City hereby agrees to employ Kurita subject to the terms and conditions set forth below, and Kurita accepts such employment. During the term of the Agreement, City agrees to pay Kurita the compensation provided for in this Agreement. 2. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on August 1, 2005 and expire on July 31, 2011. As part of the Kurita annual performance review, the City Council may decide to extend the contract term. Duties and Professional Responsibilities 3. DUTIES Kurita shall serve as the City Manager of the City and shall be vested with the powers, duties and responsibilities set forth in the City Charter. In addition, Kurita shall perform such other duties as may be assigned by the City Council, and which are consistent with the position of City Manager, without additional compensation. 4. HOURS OF WORK Kurita shall be an exempt employee (not subject to overtime requirements under the FLSA) and is expected to devote necessary time outside normal office hours to the business of the City. Kurita's schedule of work each day and City Council Attachment to 1 Agenda Item #4 -D 12-18-07 week shall vary in accordance with the work required to be performed. Kurita shall spend sufficient hours on site to perform Kurita's duties; however, Kurita shall be allowed flexibility in setting her own office hours. 5. OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES Kurita may not spend more than 10 hours per month in teaching, consulting, speaking, or other non -City business for which compensation is paid without the express prior consent of the City Council. In any event, such activities shall not be in conflict with, or bring discredit upon, the City. Further, Kurita shall regularly update the Mayor, or her designee, concerning such outside activities. 6. MEMBERSHIPS In consultation with the Mayor (or her designee), the City shall budget and pay for the professional dues and subscriptions of Kurita necessary for her continuation and full participation in such programs that enhance Kurita's standing and the City's reputation, including national, regional, state and local associations and organizations necessary and desirable for her continued professional participation, growth and advancement, including, without limitation, the League of California Cities City Manager's Department, California City Manager's Foundation (CCMF) and the International City Management Association (ICMA). 7. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Kurita agrees to devote her complete productive time, ability and attention to the City's business during the term of this agreement. Kurita may, however, undertake limited outside activities, including serving as an officer of the California League of Cities, ICMA, or other similar City government organizations; as a board member of the California City Manager Foundation; or other related activities, provided that such activities do not in any way interfere with or adversely effect her employment as City Manager or the performance of her duties provided herein, or otherwise bring discredit upon the City. In consultation with the Mayor (or her designee), the City shall budget for and pay the reasonable travel and subsistence expenses of Kurita for professional official travel, meetings and occasions adequate to continue her professional development and to adequately pursue necessary official and other functions for the City and such other national, regional, state and local government groups or committees on which Kurita may serve as a member, including, without limitation, the annual League of California Cities Conference, the annual League of California Cities City Manager's Conference and the annual ICMA Conference. Kurita shall advise and consult the Mayor, or her designee for approval of professional activities necessitating: out-of-state travel; or an unusual time commitment. Base Compensation and Internal Adjustments 8. COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY As a matter of City policy, the City Council commits to ensuring that the position of City Manager, as the chief executive of the entire City, shall be the highest paid employee of the City of Alameda. 9. BASE SALARY Effective June 24, 2007, Kurita shall receive an annual base salary of $ 189,098 paid at the same intervals and in the same manner as other City employees. Thereafter, Kurita's base salary shall be increased either in accordance with 2 Section 14, or in the same manner as any across-the-board increases provided to other City Department Heads (except for public safety and the City Attorney.) 10. COMPACTION ADJUSTMENT Effective August 1, 2007, Kurita will receive a salary adjustment in the amount of $29,666 to address the compaction within the City workforce. 11. DEFERRED COMPENSATION The City shall provide as additional compensation pursuant to Government Code Section 53214 to Kurita a minimum $15,000 annually as additional deferred compensation pursuant to Section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code. 12. FUTURE COMPACTION ADJUSTMENTS Kurita's Base Compensation (defined as the cumulative of base salary (II 9); Compaction Adjustment (II 10); and Deferred Compensation (If 11)) shall be adjusted, as necessary, to ensure that Kurita's Base Compensation is ten percent higher than the combination of annual salary and other additive benefits (holiday pay, management incentive pay, retention pay, but excluding overtime pay) of the City's next highest paid active employee. In the event of any pay increases that affect the ten % differential, Kurita's compaction adjustment will be increased effective the same date and on an automatic basis without further action from the City Council; provided, however, that Kurita shall give the Council thirty days advance notice of such adjustment. Discretionary Performance Based Pay 13. EVALUATIONS The City Council shall engage in a review of Kurita's performance annually in August or September of each year. Such reviews may be facilitated by a professional mutually acceptable to the City and Kurita. The City Council and Kurita shall establish such goals and performance objectives which they determine necessary and appropriate for the City Council's policy objectives. The City Council and Kurita shall further establish a relative priority among those various goals and objectives. These goals and objectives shall be obtainable generally within the time limits as specified in the operating and capital budgets and appropriations provided. 14. PERFORMANCE PAY In addition to her annual base salary, Kurita shall be eligible to receive a performance bonus in an amount up to five percent (5 %) above her base salary set forth in section 9, above, determined by the City Council at the time of Kurita's annual performance review. The performance pay shall be based upon Kurita's annual performance evaluation as determined in the sole discretion of the City Council. The performance pay shall not increase Kurita's base salary. In addition to the performance pay, the City Council will review Kurita's annual base salary for consideration of additional cost of living or meritorious increases. The City Council also reserves the right to: 1) extend the contract each year, 2) provide additional months of severance and/or 3) provide additional benefits. 3 Retirement, Health & Other Fringe Benefits 15. RETIREMENT The City contracts with the California Public Employees' Retirement System for retirement benefits. Kurita will be covered by the City's "miscellaneous" (non- public safety) plan during her employment. The City will pay the mandatory employer contributions for this benefit; Kurita will pay the employee contributions. 16. VACATION Kurita shall accrue, and may use, up to thirty (30) days1 of paid vacation annually. Kurita may carry over accrued but unused vacation time from one year to the next; provided, however, she may not accrue vacation beyond a balance of sixty (60) days. Upon separation from the City, Kurita, or, in the case of her death while employed by the City, her heirs, shall be paid for all unused accrued vacation allowances. At her discretion, and if permitted under the City's existing contract with PERS, Kurita may apply any unused vacation leave time to service credit for retirement purposes. Accumulated vacation balances shall be paid at Kurita's monthly salary rate at the effective date of separation. 17. OTHER LEAVES Except as provided herein, Kurita shall receive the same paid holidays and leave time benefits as other City Department Heads (except for public safety and the City Attorney). Upon retirement, and if permitted under the City's existing contract with PERS, any unused sick leave may be converted to service credit for retirement purposes. 18. OTHER FRINGE BENEFITS Kurita shall be provided the same disability, health and dental benefits at levels that are provided to other City Department Heads (except for public safety and the City Attorney). The City shall pay such other costs associated with Kurita's employment including unemployment compensation, workers' compensation and Medicare contributions. 19. LIFE INSURANCE The City shall provide term life insurance in the amount of $ 100,000 with the premium to be paid by the City. In the event Kurita chooses to purchase a life insurance policy with a greater and more costly benefit, the City shall contribute up to $500 annually toward the purchase of such a policy 20. AUTO ALLOWANCE Kurita shall receive five hundred dollars ($500.00) each month as an automobile allowance. The allowance is in exchange for Kurita making available for her own use a personal automobile and for her use of this personal automobile for City related business or functions during, before and after normal work hours. Kurita shall maintain liability insurance at appropriate levels with respect to her personal automobile, and she shall list the City as an "additional" insured on her insurance policy. Kurita is not precluded from occasionally using City vehicles for City business during, before and after the normal work day. A City vehicle will not be provided to Kurita for her exclusive use. Should the Council decline to permit Kurita the ' As used in this section only, "day" means working day (8 hours), unless otherwise specified. 4 use of a City vehicle for longer trips (over 200 miles), Kurita will also be entitled to mileage reimbursement at standard rates for such trips taken on City business. One Time Moving and Relocation Expenses / Housing Assistance 21. MOVING COSTS. The City shall reimburse Kurita for all reasonable relocation expenses incurred in moving her residence and family including transportation, packing, temporary storage of household goods and furnishing, unpacking and insurance. In consultation with the Mayor or her designee, the City Manager shall obtain three quotations for such relocation services and shall select the lowest of the bids. The City shall also pay or reimburse the City Manager for the expenses of the City Manager incurred in economy round trip air travel between Orange County and Alameda until the City Manager relocates her residence to the City, but no more than five such trips shall be paid or reimbursed in total. The total cost of five flights shall be capped at $1000. 22. TEMPORARY HOUSING. The City shall pay Kurita the sum of $2000 per calendar month to assist her in obtaining temporary housing in the vicinity of the City while relocating her permanent residence to the City. This allowance shall continue only until the Kurita relocates her residence to the City and only if the City Manager is incurring rental expenses, but shall in no event exceed three months. 23. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE The City shall provide a housing benefit pursuant to the terms of Attachment A. Separation from Employment 1 Severance 24. RESIGNATION/RETIREMENT Kurita agrees to give the City at least forty- five (45) days written notice of the effective date of Kurita's resignation or retirement, unless the Parties otherwise agree in writing. Effective August 1, 2010, Kurita agrees to give the City at least sixty (60) days written notice. 25. TERMINATION /SEVERANCE COMPENSATION The City Council may terminate this Agreement at its sole and absolute discretion, with or without cause. In the event the City Council terminates this Agreement without the consent of Kurita and without "cause" (as defined in ¶ 26), Kurita may, at her option, be deemed to be "terminated" by the City Council and shall be entitled to: (a) a severance payment equal to six (6) months of Base Compensation; and (b) continuation of disability, health, dental and vision benefits for a six month period following termination of employment. The six months severance payment shall be payable at the option of Kurita either on the last day of employment or in installments over the six (6) month period immediately following the termination. Effective August 1, 2010, the severance payment will increase by one month for a total of seven (7) months of Base Compensation. In lieu of receiving the benefits described above, the City Council may elect to pay Kurita the lump sum value of such benefits at any time after the effective date of termination. If the City Council requests the resignation of Kurita, then Kurita may, at her option, deem herself terminated without cause. 5 26. CAUSE The severance pay and benefits shall not be due or payable if Kurita is terminated for (1) continued abuse of non-prescription drugs or alcohol that materially affects the performance of her duties; (2) repeated and protracted unexcused absences from the City Manager's office; (3) conviction of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. In the event any criminal action brought against Kurita implicates this provision, the severance pay and benefits shall not be payable until the criminal action is fully and finally resolved. Alternatively, Kurita may post a bond to cover the cost of the severance pay and benefits pending the outcome of any such criminal action. 27. NOTICE The City Council will provide Kurita with reasonable notice prior to conducting a meeting for the purpose of considering continued Kurita's continued employment, and provide an opportunity for face -to -face dialog, before determining to terminate Kurita's employment. 28. NO ACTION PERIOD During a period of ninety (90) days immediately preceding or following the date of installation of any person newly elected to the Council at a regular or special municipal election or of any person newly appointed to the Council, the Council shall taken no action, whether immediate or prospective, to remove, suspend, request the resignation of, or reduce the salary of Kurita. If the City Council takes such action during this time period, Kurita may at her option, be deemed to be terminated by the City Council and will receive one year's Base Compensation, and disability, health, vision and dental benefits continued for one year, as a severance benefit. Arbitration of Disputes 29. ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, or arising out of or relating to Kurita's employment or termination thereof, including but not limited to claims of employment discrimination based on federal and state law, which cannot be resolved among the parties themselves, shall, on the written request of either party served on the other within the applicable statute of limitations, be submitted and resolved by final and binding arbitration in a manner consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, if applicable, or the California Code of Civil Procedure (including CCP Section 1283.05). Service of the written request shall be made only be certified mail, with a return receipt requested. Time is of the essence; if the request is not served within a one -year period for claims arising out of this Agreement, or within the applicable statute of limitations for the alleged federal and state law claims, the complaining party's claim(s) shall be forever waived and barred before any and all forums, including, without limitation, arbitration or judicial forums. The Arbitrator shall have no authority to alter, amend, modify or change any of the terms of this Agreement unless a provision expressly conflicts with applicable federal or state laws. Any arbitrator selected under this provision shall have the express 6 authority to consider statutory violations of federal and state law in addition to disputes involving this Agreement. The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding and judgment therein may be entered in any court having jurisdiction over the dispute. The Arbitration shall be conducted under the National Rules ( "Rules ") for the Resolution of Employment Disputes of the American Arbitration Association ( "AAA ") current at the time of the dispute. In the event that any of the above Rules are determined to be in conflict with federal or state law, then the arbitrator shall have the authority to amend the Rules accordingly. The City shall be responsible for paying all the AAA's administrative and arbitrator's fees. In all other respects, the parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs except as otherwise required by law. The parties shall have the right to conduct discovery which provides them with access to documents and witnesses that are essential to the dispute, as determined by the arbitrator. The arbitrator's written award shall include the essential findings and conclusions upon which the award is based. The parties intend that this arbitration procedure is mandatory and shall be the exclusive means of resolving all disputes whether founded in fact or law between Kurita and the City and/or its employees, elected officials, directors, agents, officers or managers arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the parties' employment relationship and/or the termination of that relationship, including, but not limited to, any controversies or claims pertaining to wrongful or constructive discharge, violations of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, implied contracts, public policies, anti- discrimination statutes or any employment - related statutes. THE PARTIES EXPRESSLY WAIVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY RIGHT TO HAVE ANY SUCH DISPUTE DECIDED IN A COURT OF LAW AND /OR BY A JURY IN A COURT PROCEEDING. Miscellaneous 30. NOTICES Notice pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing given by deposit in the custody of the United Sates Postal Service, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: TO CITY: Mayor City of Alameda City Hall Alameda, CA 94501 TO KURITA: Debra Kurita City of Alameda City Hall Alameda, CA 94501 31. REIMBURSEMENT Kurita will receive reimbursement for all sums necessarily and reasonably incurred and paid by her in the performance of her duties. 7 Kurita shall submit a claim form to the City in the form and manner required by the City municipal code or practices. 32. BONDS /LEGAL FEES The City shall bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bonds required of Kurita under any applicable law or ordinance. In the event of any legal action between the parties hereto to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; provided that, recoverable attorneys' fees and costs shall not exceed the amount in controversy or $50,000, whichever is lower. 33. INDEMNIFICATION Consistent with the provisions of the California Government Code, the City agrees to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify Kurita against any claims, demands or legal actions, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring within the scope and during the course of Kurita's employment with the City, including, without limitation, claims arising out of personnel actions taken by her, subject to Kurita cooperating in good faith with the City with respect to defense of such claims, demands, or legal actions. 34. SEVERABILITY In the event that any provision of this Agreement is finally held or determined to be illegal or void by a court having jurisdiction over the parties, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless the parts found to be void are wholly inseparable from the remaining portion of the Agreement. 35. PARITY IN CONSTRUING AGREEMENT Each party has had the opportunity to participate in drafting the Agreement. Any terms, conditions or provisions of the Agreement shall not be construed against one party and in favor of another by virtue of who actually drafted or circulated the Agreement. 36. SOLE AGREEMENT The parties acknowledge that this Agreement constitutes the sole and entire agreement of the parties in this matter, and that any modifications may only be effected by a writing signed by all affected parties. The parties agree that there are no representations, agreements, arrangements or understandings, either written or oral, between or among the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are not fully expressed herein. City of Alameda Debra Kurita Date: 8 Approved as to Form: Teresa L. Highsmith City Attorney 9 CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: December 18, 2007 Re: Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $1 50,000 with Pacific Municipal Consultants for Preparation of the 2009 - 2014 Housing Element and to Conduct the Housing Element/Measure A Community Workshop BACKGROUND The City of Alameda is required by the State to update its 2001 -2006 Housing Element for the time period of 2009 -2014. The City Council directed staff to conduct the Housing Element/Measure A Community Workshop as part of that update. DISCUSSION In response to a Request for Qualifications from consulting firms interested in preparing the update to Alameda's Housing Element, responses were received from the following three firms: Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC); Vernazzo Wolfe Associates, Inc. with Lamphier - Gregory; and Design, Community & Environment, Inc. A panel of staff from the Planning and Building Department, Development Services Department, and the Housing Authority interviewed all three firms. Based on these interviews, staff selected PMC due to their familiarity with housing issues and their ability to implement Housing Element programs and policies. At the request of staff, PMC has augmented their original scope of work to include providing services associated with the Housing Element/Measure A Community Workshop, and preparing a Homeless Needs Assessment to support the screening process for the 42 -acre North Housing Parcel, which the U.S. Navy declared as surplus property on October 5, 2007. The contract amount is $150,000 and includes preparation of the draft Housing Element, which must be adopted by June 30, 2009, and preparation of Municipal Code amendments regarding secondary residential units and affordable housing density bonuses to comply with State of California requirements. City Council Agenda Item #4 -E 12 -18 -07 Honorable Mayor and December 18, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The consultant will be paid from monies in the Community Planning Fee for the Housing Element, implementing ordinances, and the Measure A Forum. The Homeless Needs Assessment is anticipated to be funded by the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment in the form of a grant. The $'150,000 contract includes approximately $15,000 in contingency funds. The Housing Element is a multi -year planning process that often requires additional, unanticipated studies as well as additional meetings with staff, the public and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The contingency funds are included to anticipate and provide flexibility in this Tong -range planning process. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This contract is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract in the amount of $150,000 with PMC. Respectfully submitted, Cathy / oodbury Planning & Building Director By: Cynthia Eliason Supervising Planner • CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: December 18, 2007 Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $114,605 to Ruth Metz Associates for Long Range Planning for Future Library Services and Recommendations for the Improvement of the Neighborhood Libraries BACKGROUND In 2000, Alameda voters approved Measure 0, a $10.5 million bond measure for libraries. The Measure 0 monies provided the local matching portion of the construction costs for a new library, enabling the City to secure a $15.5 million State grant to fully fund the library project. The new Main Library opened in November 2006. The remaining Measure 0 funds were designated for improvements to the neighborhood libraries. Approximately $1.5 million remains in Measure O. In March 2007, in order to ensure the maximum return on the investment of the Measure 0 funds available for improvements to the neighborhood libraries, the Library Board requested that the Finance Department invest the $1.5 million in remaining Measure 0 funds in interest - bearing accounts. Those funds have been invested at the Bank of Alameda in three Certificate of Deposit (CD) accounts with graduated maturity dates. As of November 2007, the CD investments total approximately $1,557,000. There is an additional $290,000 in the Library Construction Fund 317; that fund is being used to complete the construction of a cover over the book return area at the main library and also provide improvements to the neighborhood libraries that are not considered Capital Improvements. The purchase of laptops for use in the neighborhood libraries is an example of a service improvement for the neighborhood libraries funded by Measure O. DISCUSSION The Library Board has expressed interest in current and future residential development projects in Alameda and their potential impacts on library services. As various developments progress, there may be a resulting shift in the local demographics that may require a change in the direction of library service. A strategic planning effort can help identify how best to provide library services in the future. A strategic plan for library City Council Agenda Item #4 -F 12 -18 -07 Honorable Mayor and December 18, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 service would review population and city funding forecasts and analyze the issues surrounding new or renovated facilities. This planning process would include recommendations for improvements to the neighborhood libraries. In addition, having a strategic plan would allow the City to move more quickly into the application process should the State Legislature and the voters of California approve another Library Construction Bond. To solicit the maximum number of proposals, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was sent to state and national job posting listservs and publications as well as directly mailed to 18 highly recommended consultants. At the close of the filing period, no proposals were received. Subsequent telephone conversations were conducted with nine of the recommended consultants as to why they declined to respond to the proposal. Most consultants indicated that Alameda's project was a good project but either the filing period was too short or the timing was inconvenient. Several consultants recommended reopening the proposal filing period after the summer months and keeping the filing period open for a longer amount of time. Minor revisions were made to the RFP, and the filing period was reopened. In addition to posting the RFP on library listservs and publishing ads in national trade publications, those consultants from the first round who had indicated interest in the project received direct mailings of the second RFP. The second filing period yielded one proposal from Ruth Metz Associates. Based upon an evaluation of the consultant team's past experience on similar projects, qualifications of the consultant team, strength of their experience in public outreach, and the interview results, the panel found Ruth Metz Associates have the qualifications and experience most suited to facilitate the long range planning process for future library services and make recommendations for the improvement of the neighborhood libraries. A copy of the Consultant Agreement is on file in the Clerk's Office. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The expenditure will be drawn from the reserved Measure 0 Library Construction Branch Improvement Fund 317. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. Honorable Mayor and December 18, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION Award a contract in the amount of $114,505 to Ruth Metz Associates for long range planning for future library services and recommendations for the improvement of the neighborhood libraries. Respectfully submitted, 2 ane Chisaki Library Director CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: December 18, 2007 Re: Appropriate $144,707 in Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 Citizens' Option for Public Safety Program Grant Funding to Enhance Frontline Police Services BACKGROUND In 1996, several Federal and State laws were enacted allowing municipalities to receive grant funding exclusively allocated for frontline police services. Since the inception of the program, the Police Department has received Citizens' Option for Public Safety Program (COPS) grant funding. The use of COPS funds is restricted to supplementing frontline police services, including Patrol Operations, Communications, and Criminal Investigations, as well as training and supporting activities. Supplanting standard operating budget expenditures or existing services is prohibited. DISCUSSION The Police Department intends to utilize the FY 2007 -2008 grant of $144,707 to procure or improve various unfunded technology -based systems and training designed to supplement allowable frontline police services. The grant requires the City Council to appropriate the funds for the exclusive use of frontline municipal police services, in accordance with a written request by the Chief of Police, prior to utilization of the funds. BUDGET CONSIDERATION 1 FINANCIAL IMPACT The COPS grant allotment, which is based on population, provides supplemental funding from the State for frontline police services. The grant allotment for FY 2007 -2008 is $144,707. City Council Agenda Item #4 -G 12-18-07 Honorable Mayor and December 18, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 MUNICIPAL CODE / POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Appropriate $144,707 in Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 Citizens' Option for Public Safety Program (COPS AB 3229) grant funding to supplement frontline police services. Respectfully submitted, Walter B. Tibbet Chief of Police D KNVBT /cl o Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DA -06 -0003 TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (ALAMEDA LANDING MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT) BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND PALMTREE ACQUISITION CORPORATION, DATED JANUARY 16, 2007 BE IT ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. In accordance with Subsection 30 -91 of the Alameda Municipal Code, Development Agreement Amendment DA-06-0003, a copy of z, which is on file in the City Clerk's office, is hereby adopted for the real property generally located north of Wilver ( "Willie ") Stargell Avenue, south of the Oakland Estuary, west of Mariner Square Loop and Webster Street, and east of the United States Coast Guard housing development within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California. Section 2. The above referenced Development Agreement Amendment DA-06-0003 shall be known as and referred to as the First Amendment to the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project) by and between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, dated January 16, 2007, (the "First Amendment "). Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirt y (30) days from the date of its final passage, subject to the execution of the First Amendment. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the Council Final Passage of Ordinance #4 -H CC 12 -18 -07 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of December, 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 December, 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: December 18, 2007 Re: Hold a Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development Needs for Community Development Block Grant FY2008 -09 Annual Plan BACKGROUND The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) is a federal program funded through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As an "Entitlement" city, Alameda receives an annual grant and is required by CDBG regulations to hold an annual public hearing to obtain citizens' views on current housing and community development needs. Noticed in the October 23, 2007, Alameda Journal and on the City's website, this Hearing provides an opportunity for input on the FY2008 -09 Action Plan. The Social Service Human Relations Board ( SSHRB) advises the City Council regarding social service needs in the community. To support the City's effort in soliciting public comment on community needs, the SSHRB held a public meeting on November 15 to discuss the public service needs of the community. The SSHRB findings regarding the City's community needs are included as Attachment 1. DISCUSSION The main objective of the CDBG program, as mandated by Congress, is to develop viable communities through the provision of decent housing, promotion of economic opportunity, and the creation of a suitable living environment for persons with primarily low- and moderate- incomes. As required by HUD, the City's adopted Five -Year Plan (2005 -2009) was developed in conjunction with other jurisdictions in Alameda County and sets forth the identified Priority Needs and Objectives (Attachment 2). Alameda's housing and community development needs include: affordable ownership and rental housing; fair housing access; homeless and supportive housing and services for the disabled; public services benefiting low- and moderate - income persons; and improvements to public facilities that benefit disabled and/or low- and moderate - income families or neighborhoods. City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #5 -A 12-18-07 The Honorable Mayor December 18, 2007 and Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 In addition to identifying Priority Needs as required by HUD, the City strives to continually assess the needs of the community through ongoing collaboration with community groups and housing and social service providers. Through the leadership of the SSHRB, several community forums pertaining to the community and social issues have been co- sponsored during 2007. Consistent with the findings of the Alameda Community Needs Assessment for 2005 -2000 (Assessment), completed in October 2000, the SSHRB affirmed the Priority Needs set forth in the City's Five -Year Plan during its November 15th public meeting. Through the FY 2008 -09 Action Plan, the City will address the objectives identified through this Needs Hearing process. Eligible CDBG activities include property acquisition and rehabilitation, public facilities improvements, public services, accessibility improvements, economic development, and planning and administrative activities. At least 70% of CDBG funds must benefit low- and moderate - income residents or neighborhoods. A limited amount of funds may also be used to eliminate blight in selected areas. Activities not directly benefiting an eligible low- or moderate - income individual or household must meet identified needs in low - income neighborhoods shown on the attached map (Attachment 3). The public service needs identified through this Needs process will guide the development of a Request for Proposals from non - profit organizations to provide services that meet the identified needs. Consistent with past practices, the public service proposals will cover a two -year fiscal cycle beginning on July 1, 2008. The public service priority needs, as proposed by the SSHRB, are included as an Attachment 1. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no impact on the General Fund. Use of CDBG funds helps maintain the affordable housing stock, improve public facilities, and provide needed public services by leveraging public and private investment that help defray General Fund costs. CDBG Entitlement allocations for FY 2008 -09 have not been published by HUD. Industry analysts are predicting that funding levels for FY 2008 -09 will be consistent with those for FY 2007 -08. The City's FY 2007 -08 CDBG allocation was $1,377,853. In addition to the City's FY 2007 -08 federal allocation, staff anticipates receiving approximately $185,000 in Program Income from residential rehabilitation and other loan repayments. As required by CDBG regulations, the City's FY 2008 -09 public services allocation will be capped at 15% of the FY 2008 -09 grant, plus prior year's program income. RECOMMENDATION Hold a Public Hearing on current and anticipated housing and community development needs. After the public portion of the Hearing, Council members may wish to identify additional needs that have not been noted in citizens' comments. The Honorable Mayor December 18, 2007 and Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3 esp; tfully submitted, erne Development Services Director By: ■ eb• ie ' otter Base Reuse and Community Development Manager ....-- Li24eidi WA-4 5,,nr• By: Terri Wright Community Development Program Manager LL /DP/TW:sb Attachments 1. SSHRB Letter 2. Priority Needs and Objectives 3. Census Map cc: Social Service Human Relations Board To: From: Subject: City of Alameda • California November 28, 2007 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Cyndy Wasko, Acting President Social Service Human Relations Board Social Service Human Relations Board Recommendations Regarding Housing and Community Development Needs The Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) advises the City Council regarding social service and human relations needs in Alameda. in 1997, the Council asked the SSHRB to participate in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) process by reviewing and commenting on the public service needs and funding recommendations. This letter represents our input for the annual needs process, culminating in the Needs Hearing at the December 18, 2007 City Council meeting. At our November 15, 2007 meeting, we received input from eight service providers (Attachment A) and reviewed the comments we provided to you in 2007. We also heard a staff presentation on the CDBG. As in years past, we are impressed with the breadth of needs that are addressed with the City's CDBG funds, but we noted with dismay that available funds are never sufficient to address all the needs of lower- income residents of our city. Last year the SSHRB completed the City of Alameda Community Needs Assessment (Assessment). The Assessment reaffirmed the need to strengthen Alameda's safety net services: 19% of respondents were unable to afford all the food their family needed, 16% had fallen behind on rent or mortgage payments, and 18% indicated that not everyone in their family had health insurance, 14.5% expressed a need for better transportation services. Twenty -eight percent (28 %) of people said that someone in their family has a disability. Residents also cited the need for more living wage jobs and increased supports for families with children. We compared the Focus Areas of the past two funding cycles with the comments we received this year and concur with our previous year's findings that certain areas have become even more critical in light of the changes Alameda residents are experiencing. Emphasis should be placed on: • Strengthening Alameda's safety net for families and individuals who are in crisis or vulnerable, through programs such as food, shelter, health and wellness services, personal safety services, and other homeless prevention services such as short term rental and utility assistance; • Empowering Alamedans to improve economic and social self - sufficiency and stability through education, youth development, job training, health and wellness services, employment and employment support services such as transportation and childcare; • Sustain and improve access to affordable housing in Alameda through programs such as fair housing (including disability related housing issues); and Development Services Department 950 West Mall Square Alameda, California 94501 -7552 510.749.5800 • Fax 510.749.5808 • TDD 510.522.7538 City Council Attachment 1 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5 -A 12-18-07 Mayor and Members of the City Council November 28, 2007 Page 2 • Ensuring that people with disabilities, seniors, single parents, and culturally and linguistically isolated populations have awareness of and access to services through increased outreach, publicity, and technologies that encourage collaboration among service providers. The SSHRB recommends no particular order of priority or percentage allocation of CDBG public service funds among these focus areas. However, we hope that the funding allocations will continue to reflect a commitment to: • Empowering families and individuals with tools for self - sufficiency and success; • Maintaining Alameda's diversity; and • Supporting families and individuals who are vulnerable or in crisis. We look forward to reviewing staff's public service funding recommendations when they are published later this year. Sincerely, Cy Wasko, Acting President So I Service Human Relations Board MJ:sb Attachment cc: Social Service Human Relations Board Development Services Director G:ISSH RB\CD BG R ECS\N EEDSO8. DOC Social Service Human Relations Board November 15, 2007 Public Service Speakers Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative Tina Fleeton, Bananas Lilian Gilado, Filipinos for Affirmative Action Tracy Jensen, Alameda Unified School Board Jeanne Kettles, former intern Alameda Unified School District Paul Russell, Alameda Food Bank Jim Franz, American Red Cross, Alameda Service Center Liz Varela, Building Futures for Women and Children Written comments George Phillips, West Alameda Teen Club, Alameda Boys & Girls Club G:ISSH RBICDBGRECS\Needso8AttachA.doc FY 2005 -09 Consolidated Plan Priority Needs & Objectives Priority: Housing Needs* ■ Increase the availability of affordable rental housing for extremely low income, low income and moderate income households. ■ Preserve existing affordable rental and ownership housing for Iow income and moderate income households. ■ Assist Iow and moderate income first -time homebuyers. Priority: Fair Housing Access* • Reduce housing discrimination. Priority: Homeless Needs* • Maintain, improve and expand (as needed) the capacity of housing, shelter and services for homeless individuals and families including integrated healthcare, employment services and other services. • Maintain and expand activities designed to prevent those currently housed from becoming homeless. • Build on inter - jurisdictional cooperation to achieve housing and homeless needs. Priority: Supportive Housing Needs* • Increase the availability of service - enriched housing for persons with special needs. Priority: Community Development (Non- Housing) Needs* ■ Senior Facilities and Services ■ Parks and Recreation Facilities ■ Neighborhood Facilities ■ Child Care Facilities and Services ■ Crime Awareness (Prevention) ■ Accessibility Needs ■ Infrastructure Improvements ■ Economic Development ■ Public Services * These need areas are uniformly set, as required by HUD. G: Comdev \CDBG\Consplan\ AnnsPlan\ 20071NeedsO7 \PriorityNeeds- AttachA F: 33.1 (c) City Council Attachment 2 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5 -A 12 -18 -07 City Council Attachment 3 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5 -A 12 -18 -07 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: December 18, 2007 Re: Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 4-4 to Article 1 (Littering and Maintenance of Property) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety) to Prohibit Polystyrene Foam Food Service Ware and Amending Section 1-5.6 of Chapter 1 (General) to Authorize Additional City Employees to Serve as Code Enforcement Officers BACKGROUND Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam, commonly called StyrofoamTM, is an inexpensive, lightweight, petroleum -based plastic material with good insulation properties that is used by restaurants and other food providers to keep food hot or cold. The typical take -out containers include clamshell products, plates, cups, and bowls either white or other colored. While EPS is an effective food service ware product, it is not compostable, biodegradable, recyclable, or reusable. Since it is lightweight, it is easily carried by the wind, floats in water, and breaks into small pieces creating litter in streets, parks, waterfront, waterways, and open spaces. Marine biologists have concluded that degraded EPS in the marine environment mimics certain natural food sources and therefore, increases the chance of ingestion by wildlife. Recent studies have found plastics to be in the digestive systems of nearly all tested ocean - feeding bird species. Ingestion of EPS by birds and marine animals often results in reduced appetite, reduced nutrient absorption, and possible death by starvation. in addition, EPS collects in the City's storm drainage system blocking catch basins and arch culverts, and increasing the time and expense to the Public Works maintenance crews during storm events. DISCUSSION The City of Alameda is a Leader in Solid Waste Diversion and Recycling In accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, all California jurisdictions are required to achieve and maintain a landfill diversion rate of 50% by the year 2000. In Alameda County, the voter - approved Measure D sets a 75% waste diversion goal by 2010. To achieve this goal, the City implemented a food waste collection program in October 2002 to divert food scraps from the solid waste stream to the organics recycling stream. Since that time, the City of Alameda has been a leader in the organics recycling program, offering the program to both residential and City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #5 -B 12-18-07 Honorable Mayor and December 18, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 6 commercial customers and maintaining an average participation rate of 51.5 %. The average participation rate for all jurisdictions in Alameda County with a food scrap collection program is 36 %. In addition, the California Integrated Waste Management Board's (CIWMB) most recent certified diversion rate for all solid waste in Alameda is 68%. Since EPS represents approximately 25% to 30% of the waste stream, by volume, removing EPS from Alameda's waste stream will ensure that additional solid waste is diverted from landfills. Polystyrene Foam Bans To date, over 100 cities nationwide have banned EPS food service ware. In the Bay Area, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, and Millbrae have passed ordinances banning EPS food service ware. Attachment 1 provides a comparison of the regulations approved by these Bay Area cities. The proposed ordinance for the City of Alameda is based on the Compostable Food Ware Model Ordinance endorsed by the CIWMB, as well as the ordinance adopted by the City of Oakland. The ordinance bans the use of polystyrene foam disposable food service ware, and requires that the disposable food service ware be biodegradable or compostable as long as it is cost - neutral, otherwise products such as clear plastic may be used. The ordinance is proposed to become effective on July 1, 2008, and will implement the following requirements: 1. POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN The proposed ordinance will prohibit the use of EPS food service ware by food service vendors operating in the City of Alameda, including restaurants, itinerant restaurants, and retail food vendors. The food service ware products affected by the ordinance includes clamshell containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, and other items designed for one -time use both on and off the food vendors' premises. The ordinance also applies to the City of Alameda and its facilities, departments, and integrated waste franchisee. Alternatives for Polystyrene Foam and Their Costs, Alternative products to polystyrene foam are widely available and used widely in other cities with polystyrene foam bans. These alternative materials include: • Uncoated Paper • Coated paper • Cardboard • Aluminum • Other plastics • Bio- products typically made from corn starch, sugar cane, or a combination of bamboo, tapioca, and water Honorable Mayor and December 18, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 6 In general, alternatives to polystyrene foam cost a few cents more per item and vary in price with the product type, weight, and durability. The actual cost to a food vendor to switch to an alternative product will be largely dependent on the amount and types of disposable food service ware that the food vendor currently uses. While polystyrene foam is currently the least expensive food service ware available, the cost is expected to rise due to increasing crude oil prices. In addition, the true cost of using EPS is not fully quantifiable due to costs passed on to the public through litter, blight, increased storm drainage maintenance, reduced quality of life, and associated environmental and possible health impacts. Exceptions The proposed ordinance allows for the following exemptions from the polystyrene foam ban: • Food prepared or packaged outside the City of Alameda. • Polystyrene foam coolers and ice chests intended for reuse. • Disposable food service ware composed entirely of aluminum. • Raw butchered meats, fish, or poultry from a butcher case or similar establishment. • Supplies and service procurement during a City - declared emergency. In addition, food vendors may be exempt from the polystyrene foam prohibition for specific items or types of disposable food service ware only if the City Manager or his/her designee determines that the requirement would cause undue hardship or a legally protected right has been violated. Undue hardship will be determined on a case - by -case basis. A food vendor must establish that significant difficulty or expense would be incurred by fully complying with the prohibition or that no alternative food service ware is available for a specific application. Exemptions will be granted for one year and may be extended if the food vendor can provide information that compliance continues to cause significant economic hardship. The food vendor will be required to re -apply prior to the end of the one -year exemption period. 2. USE OF BIODEGRADABLE OR COMPOSTABLE DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE This ordinance would also require all food vendors to use biodegradable or compostable disposable food service ware as long as it is cost - neutral. For the purpose of this ordinance, biodegradable means the entire product or package wilt completely deteriorate and return to nature within a reasonably short period of time and is consistent with materials accepted at the composting facility used by the City's integrated waste management franchisee. Compostable means all materials in the product or package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost in a safe and timely manner in the composting facility used by the City's franchisee or in a home compost pile or device. Honorable Mayor and December 18, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 4 of 6 Alternatives and Their Costs Biodegradable and compostable food service ware includes the following: • Uncoated paper products • Coated paper products • Some bio- products Depending on the product, biodegradable or compostable alternatives often cost the same as their plastic counterparts. However, some specific compostable products, which are new to the market, may cost up to twice as much as their counterparts. Since some biodegradable or compostable food products already cost the same as or less than their counterparts, food vendors should start to use these products now. For example, compostable plastic cups for cold drinks, and clamshells containers for salads are generally the same price as plastic cups and plastic clamshells, depending on the distributor. Many restaurants and cafes already use paper cups and plates because they are affordable and effective. As the demand for biodegradable and compostable products increases, a larger variety of biodegradable and compostable products are expected to become available, leading to lower prices for food vendors. In addition, the ordinance allows food vendors to charge a "take out fee" to cover the cost difference between the non - polystyrene foam product and a biodegradable /compostable product. Exceptions Food vendors may be exempt from specific items or types of disposable food service ware if the City Manager or his/her designee determines that a cost - neutral alternative is not available. Effective Date This ordinance will become effective on July 1, 2008, approximately six months after the introduction of the ordinance. The six -month implementation period is designed to provide sufficient time for food vendors to familiarize themselves with the new requirements, deplete the existing food ware stock, work with Public Works staff to identify suppliers of alternative food service ware containers, and purchase new stock. Enforcement Enforcement of the ordinance will be on a complaint basis only. The Public Works Director and his/her staff will be authorized to enforce the ordinance and issue written warnings and fines for violations if a citizen complaint is not remedied. The amount of the fine will be consistent with the administrative citation procedure contained in Section 1 -7 of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC): $250 for first violation, $500 for a second violation, and $1,000 for all subsequent violations. To enable staff from the Public Works Department to enforce this ordinance, Section 1 -5.5 of the AMC is being amended as part of this ordinance. Honorable Mayor and December 18, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 5 of 6 Public Outreach On November 29, 2007, the Public Works Department held a public meeting in the City Council Chambers to inform food vendors and the community about the proposed ordinance and elicit feedback. Prior to the meeting, an informational postcard (see Attachment 2) was mailed to 255 food - related businesses in Alameda informing them of the meeting and providing some basic information on the proposed ordinance. In addition, Public Works staff made presentations to the Chamber of Commerce, the Park Street Business Association, the West Alameda Business Association, and the Climate Protection Task Force. The combined attendance for all five meetings was approximately 60 people, and attendees expressed unanimous support for the prohibition of polystyrene foam food service ware. To date, Public Works staff has received only one comment from a local business opposing the proposed ordinance because of concerns with increased costs. Next Steps Public Works staff will continue its educational outreach to Alameda food vendors and anticipates developing a Frequently Asked Questions handout, as well as a list of vendors and products that are appropriate for use in Alameda. Staff will also work with Alameda County Industries to determine the feasibility of including additional types of food ware plastic and bio- plastic containers in the recycling and organics programs. BUDGET ANALYSIS /FINANCIAL IMPACT This action does not affect the City's General Fund. Import Mitigation Grant funds from Fund 274 will be used to cover the costs for a polystyrene foam food service ware ban outreach campaign to businesses and residents. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Upon adoption of this ordinance, the following sections of the AMC will be affected: Section 4-4 will be added to Article 1 (Littering and Maintenance of Property) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety) to prohibit polystyrene foam food service ware and Section 1 -5.6 of Chapter 1 (General) will be amended to authorize additional code enforcement officers. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to Title 14 of the California Administrative Code, 15061(b)(3) and 15378(a), this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it is not a project that has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. This action is further exempt from the definition of Project in Honorable Mayor and December 18, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 6 of 6 15378(b)(2) in that it concerns general policy and procedure making. Furthermore, this Ordinance is exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15307 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources) and section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment). RECOMMENDATION Adopt an ordinance amending the AMC by adding Section 4-4 to Article 1 (Littering and Maintenance of Property) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety) to prohibit polystyrene foam food service ware and amending Section 1 -5.6 of Chapter 1 (General) to authorize additional City employees to serve as code enforcement officers. Respectf Ily submitted, Ma hewT. Naclerio Public Works Director j\ '-'1\kR-Cf&">04,1, By: Maria F. Di Meglio Environmental Services Manager MTN:MFD:gc Attachments 1. Comparison of Polystyrene Regulations in Bay Area Cities 2. Informational Postcard Comparison of Polystyrene Regulations in Bay Area Cities Penalties initial written warning followed by escalating fines. Initial written warning followed by escalating fines. Initial written warning followed by escalating fines. Initial written warning followed by escalating fines. Initial written warning followed by escalating fines. U) i 0 #.r 0. E a) x w Undue hardship. Food packaged outside the City, undue hardship, impacts a legally protected right. Foods prepared or packaged outside the City, undue hardship. Food packaged outside City; no affordable biodegradable or compostable alternative exists; undue hardship; coolers /ice chests intended for reuse; all - aluminum service ware; and emergency supplies. If no suitable affordable biodegradablelcompostable or recyclable product available as determined by the City Administrator. Phased Implementation Q z Nine months Three months C 0 E x .u) Six months Affected Parties All food service vendors and all City facilities. All food service vendors and all City facilities. All food service vendors and all City facilities. o CD >, W Z. 0 -- a) CL c 0 a a] • � V] `" Q) 0 co co -0 -00 =' C U i- . C Q CD .a3 CO c 0 lL > CO 4•.- c. .a All food service vendors and all city facilities. Effective Date CD 0) '— CO CO 0 Q (NI L ' = co 0 C7 —0] N CO r c Q -) N CD Q N a] C Required Replacement Product Any non - polystyrene foam material Biodegradable, compostable, or recyclable based on acceptable items in City's curbside program. Biodegradable, compostable, or recyclable based on acceptable items in City's curbside program Biodegradable, compostable preferred, non- polystrene foam allowed if no cost - neutral alternative is available Biodegradable, compostable or recyclable based on acceptable items in City's curbside program Excluded Product Polystyrene Foam C `] (1) E �co 0- u_ C C u) EL, [9 }+ 01 c cu (1) _ E c C ›0>'0 C0 _ u- 0_ ■� .- E `] (1),_ E 'ca Q !L Polystyrene Foam w■ t0 Berkeley a) as E w 0 = M ca ca 0 Council gent 1 to port Re: em #5 -B 12 -18 -07 fioa • :: r.: Yr; iY. ssw' Iw, cec.' 7. C: F�;,;,.^ ds: 1,:- c,: F::......... x7„•1.:; ax4: C:: Wi': ����:< �:, �c: C3Y/.- il/.:: SU, u7/ Xa5ds5r/l/// vx7i':a:%i- F;e;FZCU- :iC�F'f.::, •, 7hYti 5: Ca/ f/ l/ r7tea97irF.::' F/ f/.: a�b' i[e•,: uevH. �i', cuerttir• �sr.• rv: un1• �a:••: x• .crc::f:[S:lY.•/,;;Yr.+ /,r ///�; .,, •:,5: ••, E a 0 City Council Attachment 2 to Report Re: Agenda Item ##5 -8 12-18-07 ',_o = . _ to ° E L -o CD Q L Ul Li -I-• L. cn O -0 c . c -0 0 13 •17:1 7 `o, u a3 a1'4- `� � co L V = 0 _a C a) _ c- a O C 3 .t'6 Off y � C = if) O 0 -70 am (..) .= al C (t ) -0 01 C ro C > C . -D i .e ea c 4.7 0 Li 0 N E �� c0 > AO 75 CL Gi u O co (7) C L _0 v M. > w a) L, i0� p -0 rD = E cu T 0 [D U) D a ..0 L a3 � Fur) E ail 1:3 cv -a O L 4 E o •o cu O -o n .�.r (D p -O C O :3 2,...5 fl:, .c - tr., ...., cc) a) C co L.- ro 0 c■• a E 1_ L CD [D L co rD E ° 0 c.._cm �o E L. v a) ab ry .... LE-) -0 _0 �' > Q: W L- OU L N- C Q to L s o O a r 0 0 - - -- - C 7o 0 0 • L L- c CO O 0 2 = c -0 L C 0 -0 W , o CD c a> = _-D 0_ CO °� ( o L cri 0) 0 C _ C U L .� a3 co a, ° E E 41) 0 L L j E ti > p 0 0 CI) c0 135 E t.- .i > = D d - — 0 0 0 0 Printed on 100% recycled, 50% post - consumer waste, processed chlorine free with soy based inks, 11/8/07 4:11:09 PM 0710060 _COA_Styrofoam_DM_11x6.indd 2 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BYADDING SECTION 4 -4 TO ARTICLE 1 (LITTERING AND MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY) OF CHAPTER IV (OFFENSES AND PUBLIC SAFETY) TO PROHIBIT POLYSTYRENE FOAM FOOD SERVICE WARE AND AMENDING SECTION 1 -5.6 OF CHAPTER 1 (GENERAL) TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL CITY EMPLOYEES TO SERVE AS CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is amended by adding Section 4 -4 (PROHIBITION OF POLYSTYRENE FOAM FOOD SERVICE WARE) to Article 1 (LITTERING AND MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY) of Chapter IV (OFFENSES AND PUBLIC SAFETY), which shall read as follows: 4 -4 POLYSTYRENE FOAM FOOD SERVICE WARE 4 -4.1 Title This section shall be known as the Alameda Polystyrene Foam Food Service Ware Reduction Law. 4 -4.2 Purpose and Findings The City Council finds that polystyrene foam food service ware constitutes a significant adverse environmental impact. Solid waste that is non - degradable or non - recyclable poses an acute problem for any program of integrated waste management. Such waste covers the City's streets, parks, public places, and open spaces. It clogs storm drains, arch culverts, and catch basins thereby significantly increasing time and expense to public works maintenance crews during a storm event. It enters the marine and natural environment and is damaging to the environment and marine wildlife. Products which are degradable or recyclable offer environmentally sound alternatives to non - degradable and non - recyclable products currently used. By decaying into their constituent substances, degradable products, compared to their non- degradable equivalents, are less of a danger to the natural environment, less likely to be a permanent blight on the urban landscape, less likely to engender storm drainage system maintenance expenses, and less likely to cause flooding due to clogged storm drains, arch culverts, and catch basins. Recycling of products reduces costly waste of natural resources and energy used in production of new products as well as costly disposal of waste in landfills. Introduction of Ordinance #5 -B 1 12 -18 -07 4 -4.3 Definitions "Affordable" means purchasable by the Food Vendor of a non - polystyrene form container for the same or less purchase cost than the non - biodegradable, non - compostable alternative. "ASTM Standard" means meeting the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International Standards D6400 or D6868 for biodegradable and compostable plastics. "Biodegradable" means the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal and is consistent with the materials accepted at the composting facility used by the City's franchisee for integrated waste management. "Compostable" means all materials in the product or package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil- conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner consistent with the composting facility used by the City's franchisee for integrated waste management. Compostable disposable food service ware must meet ASTM standards for compostability and must be clearly labeled. "City facilities" means any building, structure or vehicle owned or operated by the City of Alameda, its agencies, departments and the integrated waste franchisee that are located within the City of Alameda. "Customer" means any person obtaining prepared food from a restaurant or retail food vendor. "Disposable food service ware" means all containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, lids, straws, forks, spoons, knives and other items that are designed for one -time use and on, or in, which any restaurant or retail food vendor directly places or packages prepared foods or which are used to consume foods. This includes, but is not limited to, service ware for takeout foods and /or leftovers from partially consumed meals prepared at restaurants or retail food vendors. "Food vendor" means any restaurant or retail food vendor located or operating within the City of Alameda. "Polystyrene foam" means and includes blown polystyrene and expanded and extruded foams (sometimes called Styrofoam, a Dow Chemical Company trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation) which are thermoplastic 2 petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion - blown molding (extruded foam polystyrene). Polystyrene foam is generally used to make items such as cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, meat trays, and egg cartons. "Prepared food" means food or beverages, which are served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared for consumption. For the purposes of this ordinance, "prepared food" does not include raw, butchered meats, fish and/or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance. Prepared food may be eaten either on or off the premises, also known as "takeout food." "Restaurant ", for the purposes of this Article, means any establishment located within the City of Alameda that sells prepared food for consumption on, near, or off its premises by customer. "Restaurant," for purposes of this Article, includes itinerant restaurants, pushcarts and vehicular food vendors. "Retail food vendor" means any store, shop, sales outlet, or other establishment, including a grocery store or a delicatessen, other than a restaurant, located within the City of Alameda that sells prepared food. 4-4.4 Prohibited food service ware a. Food vendors are prohibited from providing prepared food to customers in disposable food service ware that uses polystyrene foam. b. Alt City facilities are prohibited from using polystyrene foam disposable food service ware and all city departments and agencies will not purchase or acquire polystyrene foam disposable food service ware for use at city facilities. c. Except as provided in Section 4 -4.6 of this Article, agents, contractors and vendors doing business with the city shall be prohibited from using polystyrene foam disposable food service ware in City facilities or on City projects within the City of Alameda. 4 -4.5 Required biodegradable and compostable disposable food service wa re a. All food vendors using any disposable food service ware will use biodegradable or compostable disposable food service ware unless they can show an affordable biodegradable or compostable product is not available for a specific application. Food vendors are strongly encouraged to provide reusable food service ware in place of disposable food service ware. In instances where food 3 vendors decide to use a biodegradable or compostable disposable food service ware product that is not affordable, a food vendor may charge a "take out fee" to customers to cover the cost difference. b. All City facilities will use biodegradable or compostable disposable food service ware unless they can show an affordable biodegradable or compostable product is not available for a specific application. c. City contractors and vendors doing business with the City will use biodegradable food service ware in City facilities or on City projects within the City of Alameda, unless they can show an affordable biodegradable or compostable product is not available for a specific application. 4 -4.6 Exemptions a. Prepared foods prepared or packaged outside the City of Alameda are exempt from the provisions of this Article. Purveyors of food prepared or packaged outside the City of Alameda are encouraged to follow the provisions of this Article. b. Food vendors will be exempted from the provisions of this Article prohibiting the use of polystyrene foam food service ware if the City Manager or his/her designee finds that an undue hardship exists. Exemptions may be granted for up to a one -year period. An exemption extension may be granted if the undue hardship continues to exist. The food vendor is required to reapply for an exemption prior to its expiration. The phrase "undue hardship" shall be construed to include, but not be limited to a food vendor demonstrating to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee that there is significant difficulty or expense incurred by meeting the prohibition which directly impacts the food vendor's ability to conduct business or the food vendor has been deprived a legally protected right. Significant difficulty will be established based on, but not necessarily limited to, the food vendor documenting the list of suppliers contacted and explaining how it has determined that no acceptable alternative is available at a commercially reasonable price, for reasons which are uniquely burdensome to the food vendor and its type of operation(s) or the food being served. Significant cost will be established by, but not necessarily limited to, demonstrating that the acceptable alternative food ware is not available at a commercially reasonable price and the additional cost associated with providing the acceptable alternative food ware is uniquely burdensome to the food vendor based on the type of operation(s) affected, the overall size of the business, the number, type and location of its facilities and the impact on the overall financial resources of the food vendor. It shall also consider the ability to recover the 4 additional costs through existing expenses and resources, the availability of tax credits and deductions, and/or outside funding. c. Polystyrene foam coolers and ice chests that are intended for reuse are exempt from the provision of this Article. d. Disposable food service ware composed entirely of aluminum is exempt from the provisions of this Article. e. Emergency supply and services procurement: In a situation deemed by the City Manager to be an emergency for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, City facilities, food vendors, agents, contractors, and vendors doing business with the city shall be exempt from the provisions of this Article. 4 -4.7 Liability and enforcement a. The Public Works Director or his/her designee will have primary responsibility for enforcement of this Article. The Public Works Director or his /her designee is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this Article, including, but not limited to, entering the premises of any food vendor during regular business hours to verify compliance. b. Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Article will be subject to an administrative citation pursuant to Section 1.7 et seq. of the Alameda Municipal Code. c. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this Article. 4 -4.8 Violations -- Penalties a. Enforcement of the provisions of this Article shall be pursuant to the provisions adopted for the imposition of administrative citations and the hearing procedures related to those citations adopted under Section 1 -7 et seq. of the Alameda Municipal Code. Section 2. Section 1 -5.6 (AUTHORIZATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS; LIMITATIONS) of Chapter 1 (GENERAL) of the Alameda Municipal Code is amended to add new categories of employees empowered to issue citations, which shall read as follows: 1.5.6 Authorization of Code Enforcement Officers; Limitations a. The following classification of City employees and agents shall have 5 the authority under Penal Code Section 836.5 to issue citations for violations of the Alameda Municipal Code: 1. Code Compliance Officier; 2. Planner I, II, and III; 3. Associate Planner; 4. Planning Manger; 5. Planning and Building Director; 6. Public Works Director; 7. Maintenance Superintendent; 8. City Engineer; 9. Building Official; 10. Building Services Manager; 11. Combination Building Inspector; 12. Housing Inspector; 13. Building Inspector; 14. Community Service Officer (CSO); 15. Environmental Services Manager; and 16. Environmental Services Program Specialist 1 and 11. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Alameda hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. Section 4. All former ordinances or parts thereof conflicting or inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance hereby adopted, to the extent of such conflict only, are hereby repealed. Section 5. The City hereby finds and determines that this Ordinance is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the basis for the exemptions include, without limitation, the following (each providing a separate and independent basis and when viewed collectively providing an overall basis for an exemption): (1) CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3); (2) CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a); (3) CEQA Guidelines section15378(b)(2); (4) CEQA Guidelines section 15308; and (5) CEQA Guidelines section 15307. Section 6. The City Clerk of the City of Alameda is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in the Official Newspaper of the City of Alameda. 6 Section 7. This ordinance and the rules, regulations, provisions, requirements, orders and matters established and adopted hereby shall take effect and be in full force and effect on July 1, 2008. Presiding Officer of the Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 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 , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda 7 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: December 18, 2007 Re: Accept the Corica Golf Complex Operational Review and Authorize Staff to Begin the Process to Secure a Long -term Operator for the Golf Complex BACKGROUND In early 2007, the City retained a consultant to conduct a comprehensive operational review of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex in order to protect, preserve, and enhance this community asset and ensure its economic viability. A team consisting of the Assistant City Manager, the Golf Complex General Manager, and representatives from the Golf Commission was assembled to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP). The RFP was distributed to a number of qualified firms, and three proposals were submitted in March 2007. The committee reviewed the three proposals and recommended that the City Manager select National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc., to conduct the operational review based on their extensive experience in conducting such evaluations. National Golf began their review in early spring, and the final document, which is posted on the City's website, was submitted in early September. DISCUSSION National Golf Foundation Report The National Golf Foundation (NGF) conducted an extensive review of the Golf Complex, including a physical and qualitative review of the golf courses and support amenities, current marketing position, marketing strategies, management structure, staffing, operational practices, and contractual agreements. The goal of the study was to "identify strategies and policies that can be practically implemented to increase the overall economic performance of the golf complex, and maximize the economic return to the City." In conducting its review, NGF found that activity at the golf complex declined by nearly 73,000 rounds, or 35.2 %, between FY 2001 -02 and FY 2005 -06, while total receipts fell City Council Agenda Item #5 -C 12-18-07 Honorable Mayor and December 18, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 4 by $1.35 million, or 25.3 %. During the same period, wages and benefits increased by $502,000, or 27.7 %, and other operating expenses also rose. NGF described this situation as a "deadly combination" of declining revenues and increased expenditures. Unless this situation changes, the mismatch in revenues and expenditures will cause the golf complex to spend all of its reserves within a matter of three years. After analyzing the golf complex operations, management, and physical plant, NGF developed a number of recommendations to ensure the long -term health and success of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. First, the consultant found that the golf complex must make approximately $10 million in capital improvements, primarily to the Earl Fry and Jack Clark Courses. Investing funds in these courses will both preserve them and position them to offer a better experience for golf complex patrons, thereby attracting new and returning golfers and increasing revenues. The consultant also recommended closing the Mif Albright Course, which has seen a decline in play over the last five years& and a subsequent decline in revenues. NGF's report also contains several options for future management of the golf complex, including continuing as is with the City running the facility; hiring a management company to operate all aspects of the complex; entering into a concession agreement in which a concessionaire operates the facility on behalf of the City; contracting out the maintenance of the facility; and entering into an operating lease with a private company in exchange for an annual lease payment. After analyzing the operations and finances at the golf complex, NGF recommended that the City lease the golf complex to a private operator, structuring the lease in such a way as to protect the City's interests and the golf - playing public's enjoyment of the facility while also requiring significant investment in capital improvements to the golf complex. According to the report, "we have concluded that a lease agreement is the best solution for the City if it wants to stem the financial downturn, and preserve the golf facility asset for future generations." NGF's report also includes a number of minor suggestions, such as improved signage, marketing, and minor facility improvements. These suggestions are being implemented. In addition, earlier this year, the Golf General Manager took a long -term leave of absence and later separated from City service. The Director of the Alameda Recreation and Park Department has served as the Interim General Manager for the golf complex since that time, enabling the golf enterprise to recognize some salary savings by leaving the position vacant. Representatives from the National Golf Foundation presented their findings to the Golf Commission during its meeting on September 19th. The Golf Commission accepted the report and scheduled a work session for October 10th to review the results in detail and to develop a recommendation for the City Council. Following extensive discussion and public input, the Golf Commission approved a recommendation to accept the report and support implementation of all of the associated suggestions except securing a private operator to lease and manage the golf complex in the long term. However, the Golf Commission did reluctantly support turning the long -term operations of the golf complex Honorable Mayor and December 18, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 4 over to a private company should the City be unable to commit the $10 million in funding necessary to complete the needed capital improvements. Long -Term Lease As the consultant noted, the golf complex continues to lose money as rounds and revenues decline and expenses increase. As a result, the golf enterprise reserves continue to be reduced in order to meet ongoing obligations. As of October 31, 2007, the golf complex has approximately $2.1 million remaining in reserves. During the first four months of this fiscal year, the golf complex enterprise has experienced a loss of approximately $42,000 a month. Unless changes are made, the decline in reserves will continue until they are exhausted. NGF recommends that the City enter into a Tong -term operating lease for the golf complex. With a lessee operating the complex under a Tong -term lease, the City will be able to require a significant capital investment in the facility, an investment that the City is financially unable to undertake at this time. In addition, under a long -term lease, the City would transfer all golf complex costs to the lessee, including those related to golf management and golf maintenance personnel, and the City would receive a guaranteed annual payment from the lessee. As a means of gauging interest among potential operators, staff compiled and distributed a Request for Qualifications to a large number of golf management firms. To date, a total of ten firms have expressed interest in submitting a proposal for the long- term operation of the facility, and eight of those firms have submitted the relevant documentation. It is estimated that it would take approximately six months to a year to complete the Request for Proposal process, select a Tong -term operator, and negotiate terms. Next Steps The following tentative timeline summarizes the next steps should Council approve staff's recommendation: January 2008 The City, in consultation with NGF, develops an RFP in order to select a Tong -term operator for the golf complex. April 2008 Potential long -term operators submit proposals. June 2008 Recommendation to City Council to select a company to enter into an exclusive negotiation agreement period. October 2008 Lease agreement with Tong -term golf complex operator to City Council for approval. January 2009 Lessee assumes operation of golf complex. Honorable Mayor and December 18, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 4 of 4 Interim Golf Complex Management Given the financial difficulties facing the golf complex and the time needed to implement the recommendation to secure a lease with a long -term operator, staff collected information on the costs and benefits of an alternative option for reducing expenditures in the near term. That option involved hiring a professional golf management company to operate all aspects of the complex while a long -term operator is secured. Staff contacted four professional golf management companies, and three submitted proposals to operate the pro shop, driving range, and golf cart functions for four to six months until a Tong -term operator can be secured. After analyzing the proposals, staff determined that utilizing a professional management company and its employees to operate the golf functions at the complex would not result in significant savings over the interim period. Staff will continue to explore opportunities for increasing revenues and decreasing expenditures at the golf complex. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT With declining revenues and increasing expenditures, the golf complex continues to experience a negative cash flow, a situation that will cause the golf complex to exhaust its reserves within approximately three years. Leasing the golf complex to a Tong -term operator willing to make the capital investments necessary to restore the Earl Fry and Jack Clark courses will address this situation. RECOMMENDATION Accept the Operational Review provided by the National Golf Foundation and authorize staff to begin the process to secure a long -term operator for the golf complex. Respectfully submitted, a-co Dale Lillard, Director Alameda Recreation and Park Department CURRENT APPLICATIONS YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION ELEVEN VACANCIES Michelle Blackman Hannah Bowman L am ant Carter Jordan Flores Claire Forbes Bridget Kanady Naoise Lane Vincent Margado Mallory Penney Ilya Pinksy Anjuli Sastry Bhaani Singh Angela Sterling -Vick Priscilla Szeto Kaeleigh Thorp Ben Ulrey Council Communication #8 -A 12 -18 -07