2008-01-15 Packet~~~~ ~ ,
~,
~~ ~I
~ ~ ~~~ CITY~FALAM •
~~ ~ ~~~~~y~~(J!~'~' EDA CALIFORNIA
A ~ y f
u p~
y..~ F
~`
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - -- - JANUARY 15, 2005 - - - 6; 00 P.M.
Time; Tuesday, January 15, 20D8, 6:00 p.m.
Place: Cit Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street
AnAnrla
1. Roll Call - City Council
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only
Anyone wishing to speak on agenda items only, may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3-A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision fib}
of Section 54956.9
Number of cases: One
3-B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources
Director
Employee Organi2ations; All Public Safety Bargaining Units
3-C. WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM X54956.95}
Claimant: James Ritchey
Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any
5. Adjournment - City Council
Beverly oh n, ayor
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - -- - JANUARY 15, 2008 - - - 7;25 P.M.
Location: Cit Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and oak Street
Public Participation
anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by the Commission may speak for a maximum of 3
minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission.
Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish
to speak on an agenda.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL - Community Improvement Commission
2. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2-A. Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure
Project. Development Services?
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3-A. Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
Meeting of January 2, 2008. City Clerk}
3-B. Recommendation to approve a Contract with City Design
Collective in the amount of $74,925 for the North of Lincoln
Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business District.
~Develapment Services}
3-C. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Substitution of a
Surety Bond for the Cash Funded Reserve Account Relating to
the Commission's $17,510,000 Community Improvement Commission
of the City of Alameda Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
Business and Waterfront Improvement Area}, Series 2003C, and
the Commission's $1,025,000 Taxable Tax Allocation Refunding
Bonds Business and Waterfront Improvement Areal, Series
2003D, Approving the Form and Authorizing and Directing
Execution of a Guaranty Agreement Relating to Such Surety Bond
and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect
Thereto. Finance}
4. AGENDA ITEMS
9--A. Recommendation to adopt the update to the Economic Development
Strategic Plan. Development Services}
5. ADJOURNMENT -- Community Improvement Commission
Beverly J n '
air
~~~ ~, ,
`J n
z r`~%
P ~%
(~~yp ~ r..
~ ~+ .' ~`
~+
r ~~
p k NTPR~F~ ~~`y
~~~~
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the
podium and state your name; speakers are limited to
three ~3~ minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
AGENDA - - - - - - - - - - -- REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - - - - JANUARY 15, 2008 - - -- - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall,
Co~.~,~il C~~er~, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak Std
The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
4. Consent Calendar
5. Agenda Items
6. Oral Communications, Non-Agenda Public Comment
7. Council Communications Communications from Council}
S. Adjournment
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business
introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address
the City Council
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda Closed Session
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:25 P.M.
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
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 January 2, 2008. City Clerk}
4-B. Bills for ratification. Finance}
4-C. Recommendation to approve Amendment No. 6 to the Alameda
County Emergency Dispatch Consortium Mutual Aid Agreement to
Assign the Rights and Obligations of Lawrence Livermore
National Security, LLC to the Alameda County Fire Department.
~ Fire}
4-D. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter into a
Consultant Agreement in the amount of $200,000, including
contingencies, with ARUP for the Estuary Crossing Feasibility
Study. Public Works}
4-E. Recommendation to approve a Cooperative Agreement between the
City of Alameda and AC Transit for formalizing collaboration
on projects of mutual interest and authorize the City Manager
to enter into such an agreement. Public Works?
4-F. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit
an Application to Caltrans for $45,000 in Transit Technical
Planning Assistance Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2008/2009 to
Conduct a Citywide Transportation Systems
Management/Transportation Demand Management Plan, Commit
$5, 830 in Measure B Funds as the Local Match, and Authorize
the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents to
Implement the Project. Public Works}
4-G. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit
an Application to Caltrans for $96,OOD in Community-Based
Transportation Planning Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2008--2009
to Conduct an Update to the Long Range Transit Plan, Commit
$24,OOD in Measure B Funds as the Local Match, and Authorize
the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents to
Implement the Project. Public Works}
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Lamont Carter, Vincent
Margado and Bhaani Singh as Members of the Youth Commission.
5-B. Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's denial of a Certificate of Approval ~CA06-
Oo3l} of demolition for 433 Taylor Avenue; and adoption of
related resolution. Planning and Building}[Continued from
January 2, 200$]
5-C. Recommendation to accept report on the Government Accounting
Standards Board Statement No. 45 on accounting for other post
employment benefits. Finance}
5-D. Recommendation to approve the proposed New Bus Stop Locations
and the proposed future rerouting of the AC Transit Bus Line
63 within the City of Alameda. Public Works}
5-E. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Implementation of Parking
Restrictions at Bus Stops on State Route 61 to Provide
Curbside Access for Buses. Public Works}
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
7-A. Consideration of developing a transit hub on the land between
Marina Village Drive and the entrance to the Posey Tube in
order to address congestion in the Tubes. ~Councilmember
Matarrese}
8. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
9.
Communications from Council}
Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on
any Conferences or meetings attended
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 email 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.
AGENDA
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
***~~~*
Alameda City Hail
Council Chamber, Room 390
Zz63 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Meeting will begin at 7:31 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
2. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
2-A. Authorize the Expenditure of $200,000 to Remove a Barge and Ship illegally Moored and
Abandoned at the Former Fleet industrial Supply Center.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regaxd to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
5. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be cablecast live on channe115.
Notes:
^ Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the AR.RA Secretary at 749-58ao 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 4F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: January 15, 2008
Re: Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project
Construction U date
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 $9,104,040 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
$5,500,000.
The Theater construction contract cammenced 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 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 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. A summary
of the status of each project is provided below.
CIC
Agenda Item #2-A
0~-~5-os
Honorable Chair and January 15, 2008
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 5
Alameda Theater
Overaa's contract for the Alameda Theater has achieved completion for almost the
entire Theater. There are a few items that will remain incomplete beyond the January
14, 2008, completion date, including installation of sound-proof frames and doors,
stainless steel handrails for the stadium seating, and carpet in the auditorium. Also, the
testing of the heating ventilation air conditioning ~HVAC} systems is delayed until gas
service is installed. Staff is expecting a!I of these unfinished items to be complete in
February. The Theater also shares several operating systems directly with the cineplex,
such as fire alarm, fire sprinkler, and telephone services. Although all of these systems
have been installed and inspected in the Theater, the cineplex must be fully constructed
before final testing and approval can be granted by the City of Alameda. The pending
completion of these items will not affect the construction of AEA's tenant improvements.
The opening of the Theater complex is dependent on the final completion of the
cineplex and AEA's construction of the tenant improvements in the Theater,
Additionally, the major storm in early January caused leaking on the interior eastern
sidewall of the auditorium. A waterproofing sub-contractor has evaluated the situation
and attributes the leaking to cracks in the exterior wall. The contractor proposes
stripping and sandblasting the paint to expose the original concrete surface and all
cracks; injecting the cracks with an epoxy based bonding sealer; and then repainting the
eastern facade with a waterproof paint sealant.
This waterproofing and paint work will result in two change orders for a total of $55,000,
including aten-year warranty for the work. The cost of this unforeseen work will fully
deplete the theater contingency. If pending change orders, outlined in Attachment 1,
result in additional costs beyond their current budget estimates, additional funds for the
theater contingency will be sought from the CIC's existing project budget, including from
funds remaining in the CIC's construction management contract, the garage
contingency, and interest income earned from the cineplex and United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development THUD}Section 108 loan funds.
C!C staff has also requested that the CIC's environmental consultants determine if lead-
based paint is present on the eastern facade. If it is, then additional lead abatement
procedures will need to be undertaken, which will significantly increase the cost of the
waterproofing work. CIC staff will have more information on the results of the lead tests,
as well as their impact on the project budget, by the January 15, 2008, meeting date.
The CIC's administrative funds will be used to fund any required lead abatement.
The following outlines the major tasks that have been accomplished or advanced over
the last month:
• Completed installation oftile and fixtures in women's restroom.
• Installed glazing for the new ticket booth structure.
Honorable Chair and January 15, 2008
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 5
• Set air handler unit on top of the mechanical room in the eastern alleyway.
• Upholstered banquette seating in auditorium.
• Completed interior shadow box and lettering above main entrance doors.
• Completed installation of tile, sinks, and marble partitions to match original
design in historic men's restroom.
• Completed electrical and sheet metal repair of underside of marquee and
commenced painting.
• Commenced installation of custom carpet to match the original carpet design.
• Commenced installation of doors and door hardware.
• Lastly, Burgermeister, the retail tenant for the larger retail space, commenced
demolition work.
Cumulative current and pending contract changes are estimated to require the use of
approximately $1,106,000 in contingency funds, or 100 percent of the CIC's
contingency budget, including the budget for retail tenant improvement allowances
Attachment 1 ~.
Parkin Gara e
The Civic Center Parking Garage is expected to be finished by the completion date of
January 29, 2008, with the potential exceptions of the final State of California elevator
inspection and final architectural facade details, due to delays in energizing permanent
power for the garage and delays caused by rain. The parking garage derives permanent
power from the switchgear in the cineplex, and the activation of the cineplex switchgear
for permanent power was not achieved until early January. State elevator inspections
require up to a six-week lead-time, which Gveraa was not able to initiate until
permanent power was energized. There is still a possibility that the State inspection and
the final City of Alameda inspections could occur before the completion date. ff not, the
garage is expected to receive a temporary certificate of occupancy until the elevator
inspection is complete, and be allowed to open without the elevator by the grand
opening date of Thursday, January 31, 2005.
Gveraa has accomplished or made progress on the following scope of work for the
garage overthe last month:
• Completed grinding and paving for portions of Gak Street affected by
construction.
Honorable Chair and January 15, 2008
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 4 of 5
• ~ Completed plaster work, foam shape installation, and painting of the western
elevation and removed scaffolding,
• Commenced marquee and blade sign installation.
• Installed handrails for both stair towers.
• Completed interior floor striping and designations and installation of interior
signage.
• Completed work on elevator rails, platform, and car; and initiated call for State
elevator inspection.
All current and potential contract changes are estimated to require the use of
approximately $373,000 in contingency funds, or approximately 90 percent of the C[C's
contingency budget, including the cost of installing security cameras. The total
contingency budgetforthe garage is $415,000 Attachment 2},
Cine lex
Theater Equipment, Construction and Service, Inc. ~TECS}, the contractor for the
Cineplex, finalized construction of the roof and roof drains, completed framing of the
exterior and interior metal-stud walls, commenced installation of sheet rock, and
continued working on interior theater auditorium systems, drop ceilings, framing of
stadium seating, and acoustical panel installation.
The opening date for the entire Alameda Theater complex was originally anticipated to
be by the end of March 2008; it is now expected that it will be completed, and the
Theater opened, in April or May 2008. This delay is attributable to numerous rain days,
unforeseen framing issues, and delays in securing gas service from Pacific Gas &
Electric LPG&E},
BUDGET CONSIDERATI~NIFINANCIAL IMPACT
There are no proposed changes to the CIC's total budget for the Alameda Theater,
Cineplex, and Parking Garage project.
MUNIC[PAL C4DEIPGL[CY DGCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE
Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 -Action B1.0 - Renovatelrestore Alameda
Theater.
Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 -Action F4 -Consider building a parking
structure as park of a Downtown parking management program.
Honorable Chair and January 15, 2008
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 5 of 5
RECGMMENDATION
This report is for information only. No action is required.
Res ~ectf submitted,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development Division
~~\~~ ~ ~~
By: Jenn er Ott
Redevelopment Manager
DKILALIDESIJG:rv
Attachments:
1. MonthEy Progress Status Report forthe Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and
Restora#ion
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
January 15, 2008 CIC Meeting
BIi~:G~ET:. , . ~:.: ~ :" COAITRAGT " . ' " ,,.
Original Contract Amount $8,800,00
Executed Change Orders
Construction $8,8gq,gq
Contingency 1 1 as a4
Total Contract Budget $9,906,04
P'.YME. .
A h1T~'
~ N.I
Previously Paid $7,814,54
Payment this Period 288 35
Total Payment To Date $8,102,90
T~ T
:" :... ; .. .. 'No~~ce to:~P:rodeed .: ~ 1~0=Nou-0:6
:~ .. :" ~, , a"
" ~ :Codtract"~alerid r Dpi: " ~ ~ :~ . .
. ~" 4~:0
""
~,; AExtens~a:ns
~T~me ~" ~ ~ ~ " ~ .:~1.
~~°' ~
-~
" :: . ~ ",: ~c~edule~=?Con~ ~ ~let~~~
..: ::14~an=d8
~ .. ,
:. .: ~ :: .. ~ ~ :::Time: `,Used; 4~
:..
:
:
:: - ~~mer Remam~n .~ .
.
.
:::::.::::: ~ :.:::...:~
"Percent-Tme~~", nded~ .:::::::fDO°
Base Bld Amount: $8,800,OOD
Amount Paid to Date: $8,102,902
u, Percent Cost Ex ended: 92%
~ fxecutedlPendin Chan a Orders: $1,105;676
Pro`ect Cast: $9,905,fi16
Percent Contingency~Expended: 100%
Milestone
Notice to Proceed
Final Completion for Tenant Improvement Areas
Final Com letian far Other TI Areas
Final Com letian for Remainin Areas
PROS CTS S A~'US ~:: ~ : ;.
` E: T~... ...
Work Completed
This Period:
Work Projects Nexf Aerr"od_
Baseline
~ 111 a12ao6
11/13/2007
Previous Changes $530,61
Infill Depressions in Original Aisles $16,622
Retail Space and Storm Drain Connections $9,673
Termination Plate $39,247
Repair 55 in Alleyway and Drinking Fountains $26,597
Plaster Repair in First Flaar Lobby $35,719
Auditorium Floor Slope Changes 23 7q1
Subtotal Executed Changes $151,559
Pending Change Orders Cost Estimates)
Budget for Retail Tenant Improvement Allowances $120,gg0
Waterproofing and Re-Painting of Eastern Wall $55,ggq
Men's Raom Water Heater $1,5gq
Add'I Marquee Underside Repair $27,ggq
Concession Area Utilities $5,gg0
Revisions to Hall $3,580
Revised Door Hardware and Pulls $43,5gD
AP&T Changes $35,gg0
Add'I Plaster Repair in First Floor Lobby $7,000
Sump PumplStorm Drain Connections $14,000
Indirect Wasteline in Concession Area $4,000
Floor Preparation and Slope Changes $21,500
HCT Support in Plenum and Vent Roams $25,000
Additional Misc. Items $1 fi,00q
Exterior LadderlFence at Alleyway $~ 2,000
Sump Pump Replacement $9,000
Expose Mezzanine Mural $7,500
Balcony Handrail Rework $13,000
Spandrel Glass Rework 4 qOD
Subtotal Pending Change Orders $423,500
Total Changes $1,105,676
Estimated Revised Contract Amount $9,905,676
Remaining Contingency $364
.,"I'
Forecast A roved
1111 012006 1111 012006
11/13/2007 11/13/2007
i 2/17/2007 12/1712007 12/17/2007
1/14/2008 111412008
• Completed Punch-List for Auditorium and Concession Area
• Set Air Handler Unit and Installed Historic Fixtures
• Completed Flaar Preparation and Carpet Installation
• Finalized Electrical and Sheet Metal Repair of Underside of Marquee Att.
• Complete Punch-List for Entire Theater
A rr w rr
CSC
:hment 1 to
~y~~~wa Item #2-A
0~-~5-os
Monthly Progress Status Report
Civic Center Parking Garage
City of Alameda
January 15, 2008 CIC Meeting
,..-,
,...
.. -~
-~,
.. ..:.:
. -..
BUDGET:::::::..:.. . -
:..:::: ~ , ,, ~,
,
g ount
final Contract Am
Ori
$9,104,000
Value Engineering (Credit} x$604,111}
Construction $8,499,889 Revised Contract Amount $8,499,889
Contingency 415 000 Previous Changes $224,341
Total Contract Budget $8,914,889 Executed Change Orders
Security Cameras $17,499
.:.:...:
,...
,.
.....
.:...... , . ::
:: .::::.......:....:::: ::.......:.::.:.: .
..
EN :5
PAYM
:::<::<~-
.
N. Elevat~o
.: ,
:
.
Ad ' 'te Work
d l 5i
$5,339
Plaster Finish for Facade $15,000
Blade and Marquee Design Changes 3 691
Subtotal Executed Changes $106,529
Pending Change Orders Cost Estimates}
Generator until Permanent Power $6,000
Trash Cans, Trees, Other Misc. $15,000
Bicycle Sharrows & Signs $5,000
Work for Electric Cars and Maint. Vehicle $10,000
Add'I Signage $5,000
Previously Paid $7,531,741 Add'I Paint Mock-Ups 1 DDD
Payment this Period 343 342 Subtotal Pending Change Orders $42,000
Total Payment To Date $7,875,082 Total Changes $372,870
Estimated Revised Contact Amount $8,872,759
Remaining Contingency $42,130
.
., ~.
.... .
.
......
T ....::.... :::.,
CONTRACT: STA .l~S .::... ...
......,
. .
.... ..... :
tG U .::::.::::::.
-~-
S ~::;:::::.::
..... T RE '~:::~
.. : ~ ..: -~~Nv#i~ce~to`P~roceed:- .. -~~~ov~fi
.~~r
Contracts ~Calendar:~~a~a s
~~ ::::4.45 ,
..
~mw .. ;:::.. ,~meExtensld~is~
::... ~ ....~ -,T..
,
' [etiadi:
~``
.~:~ ; :.Shcr~duled-Com :: 29-Jan=08 ..i ,
.:
.
;c; , .
~. .... ...:. ... .:..T~rr~e~sed: . .. f ~ :
. .:,.. :431: r :.
.....-:Time -Remainm . - , 7,•;
~. Pe~cent;TimeEx-ended:: :. ~ :.:::. :97°/0
Base Bid Amount; $9,104,000 •~
Amount Paid to Date: $7,815,082
~, Percent .Cost Ex ended: 93°/°
o Value-En ineerin : $604;11 ~
v PreviouslPending Change orders $372,870 .
Pro'ect Cost: $8,872,759 ' z.~,:Y
~~,; ~.~
.fg M•.?<
Percent Cvntin enc Expended: 90°/°
....::::::.:
TD .::.. .
Milestone
._
Baselin ,...
a Forecast
.
roved
Notice to Proceed 11/1012006 1111012006 111101200E
Final Com letion
1/29/2008 1 29
t , ......... ..... .........
. ..................
T. ......... .::..
ECT 5 .......
TA U5 - -. , - ,
. .
PROJ
.........
....:::::.;..~
plated
Work Com Installed Hand Rails in Stair Towers
This Period: ~ Completed lnstallation of EFIS Foam Shapes and Exterior Painting
• Removed Scaffolding
• Commenced Installation of Marquee and Blade Sign
Work Projects
Next Period: ~ Complete Marquee and Blade Sign Installation
• Schedule and Complete State Elevator and City of Alameda Inspections
CIC
Attachment 2 to
Agenda Item #2-A
0'I-15-08
N
u
~~':~
~'
~:
~
~
~~ o
o
~N
~7i
~; N
~D ~
~`,;;~
:~~~ N r
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
;,~t N=
~
~ ~ ~ ~
s
~:
..
~
Q ~,
~
~
~
~~ ~ a
~
~
0
~ U
a ~:: .~
a~
.~ ~~ ~-
s
:~ H
~- m ~~
~::
r~ F. ~~
~
~ ~°
~~~~
~ ,,,.~.
~ ~~
~ ::
~~--~-
~ ~ ~~ ~.
~;
a a
~~~ M
-~~.
~~ .M
~:~:
.:
:~-
'ice
w~
°~::~'wL
C ~~
~::
o
~~
. --,~
-~
-c
~a
`r
C
C ~
}'
~ ~ C C
0
~+ ~-
c
_a c~~
~ U
;« - E
~ ~ -~:
-C
L
c o
~ ~ v :
,~-
'
~ ~ :~x
o ~
a_ is o ~
au. f~
--
W ~;;
~;~ _ -<<
~
~ :`:~.
`~.
~ y' ~<
.o ~'.'.
~:., ~ ;~'
~,
,~
-;
~o!
<~~
' ~
o
~ .
.
~~c
~.
~ . `.
~
:~: r
.,~ ~:
~o
-:
o~~-
:,~-
:f:
~:..
-,
t
o
:
::
-~:
~:
a~--
.-
~
::
~
-~ ~~ ~~,..~
~~
~-
.
~,~,
,,~- -
~,
0
v
:z
~: -~
w
~
.'w
:-
a::
.
. ~
_
~ ~ ~.
o
.
~~
~~
:~ N~
,~
~
~.,m ~ .~
.~~::
:~
.~
:-~:...
,,~ .
V
:~~t
.:~
'f~:
~;-
~;
-~:.
(~ DC ('3 W W
~ W
~~ Z (~
Ya .~
a
~ a
N W ~~
a a W
? clc
_ ~ a~ v
Attachment 3 to
Agenda Item #Z-A
4'I -'15-08
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 2, 2008- --7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL ~- Present: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Chair Johnson -- 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*08- } Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of December 4, 2007, and the
Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of December 18,
2007. Approved.
(*08- ~ Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing the Contract
amount by $23,840 to provide additional Construction Administration
Services for the restoration and rehabilitation of the Historic
Alameda Theater. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lora Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community improvement Commission 1
January 2, 2aaa
CITY OF ALAM EDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: January ~ 5, 2008
Re: Approve a Contract with City Design Collective in the Amount of
$74,925 for the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street
Business District
BACKG RD U N D
The commercial district on Park Street north of Lincoln Avenue, traditionally known as
"Auto Row," is an area in transition Exhibit A: Map of North of Lincoln Study Area}. In
today's market, auto dealerships prefer larger sites than their properties in Alameda and
with more immediate freeway access and visibility. Toyota of Alameda formerly known
as Ron Goode Toyota} will be moving to Oakland when its new facility on Hegenberger
Road is completed sometime within the next year. Cavanaugh Motors, another major
Alameda dealership, closed its facilities last fall. Additionally, the former Ford dealership
closed several years ago and has been redeveloped as the Alameda Marketplace, a
successful independent specialty retail center.
Auto dealerships have been the primary source of sales tax revenue for the City's
General Fund. The 2000 Alameda Downtown Vision noted that as these former auto
dealership properties become available, new retail uses would increase the diversity of
non-automobile related commercial uses in the area and would increase pedestrian
activity on the street, as well as generate sales tax for the City. Also, a recent
community survey found that city residents were interested in a mix of retail, office, and
housing uses in the Auto Row area.
The City recently issued a Request for Proposals ~RFP} for a consulting firm to prepare
a North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Auto Row area in the Park Street district. The
purpose of the Strategic Plan will be to:
• Identify the type of development in the Study Area that will be marketable, support
economic develapment, enhance the urban environment, and receive community
support;
• Recommend strategies for redeveloping the Study Area, including a broad land use
vision and urban designlstreetscape principles that could be used as a basis #or a
future zoning overlay, general plan amendment, andlor design standards for the
area; and
CIC
Agenda Item #3-B
01-15.08
Honorable Chair and January 15, 2008
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 4
Outline major steps and priority actions necessary to achieve the recommended
strategies.
DISCUSSION
The City issued the RFP on October 8, 2001, by posting it on the City's website, mailing
it directly to nine prominent community design organizations, and advertising notices in
local newspapers and regional planning association websites.
Selection Process: The City received four proposals, which ,were reviewed by a
selection committee comprised of representatives from the Park Street Business
Association ~PSBA}, the Planning Board, the Economic Development Commission
~EDC}, and staff from the Planning and Building and Development Services
Departments. The selection committee determined that two of the proposals were either
incomplete or unqualified. The committee decided to interview the other two firms,
based on criteria that considered the proposer's capabilities, relevant experience,
workload, and local preference. The committee selected the City Design Collective
CDC}, a well-qualified team that provided a clearly defined and comprehensive
proposal, including a mix of land use, urban design, and economic analysis.
Proposed Scope of Work: Specifically, CDC will perform the tasks summarized below
and detailed in the proposed contract, a copy of which is on file at the City Clerk's office.
CDC's work will be performed in three stages.
Stage ~-CDC will meet with City staff to discuss project goals and refine the project
schedule; conduct a market overview and assessment of recent economic and land use
trends; evaluate existing conditions and identify opportunity sites; and meet with local
stakeholders such as City officials, representatives of the Park Street Business
Association, and major property and business owners in the study area. Stage 1 will
culminate in a preliminary urban design analysis of the Study Area that addresses what
tale this district area plays, or could play, relative to surrounding districts and nearby
commercial centers.
Stage 2--CDC will facilitate aone-day, highly-participatory community design charrette
to help forge community ownership of the Strategic Plan. Following the charrette, CDC
will produce the initial draft urban design concepts, land use concepts, streetscape
design principles, and revitalization strategies. CDC will present these draft concepts at
a community open house for public review and comment. Stage 2 concludes with a
"check-in" conversation with City staff on the key elements of the concepts and
strategies prior to drafting the Plan document.
Honorable Chair and January 15, 208
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 4
Stage 3--CDC will produce the Strategic Plan, which will include the Community Vision,
the Strategic Plan, and an Action Plan of economic revitalization strategies. CDC will
modify an administrative review draft of the Plan to produce the Public Review Draft
based on staff comments. The scope includes a presentation to the EDC, the Planning
Board, and the City Council.
Next Steps:
• If the contract is approved, the City will meet with CDC in late January for an initial
kick-off meeting to review project base materials;
• CDC will conduct a market overview and assessment and existing conditions
analysis for the study area; and
• The City will schedule a series of meetings with stakeholder groups, including City
officials, property owners, businesses, and community members, to help the design
team understand the range of issues and opportunities that exist along the Park
Street corridor.
BUDGET CONSiDERATIONIFINANCIALlMPACT
CDC's budget for the proposed contract is $74,925. Sufficient funds in Fiscal Year
0ll08 from the Merged Areas Band Issuance proceeds have been allocated for this
project.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Strategy #2 in the Economic Development Strategic Plan seeks to increase the
availability and quality of retail goods and services in Alameda.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Preparation of the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business District is
statutorily exempt under California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA} Guidelines
Section 15262 Feasibility and Planning Studies} in that the Strategic Plan involves only
#easibility and planning studies for possible future actions that have not yet been
approved, adopted, or funded by the City of Alameda, City Council, or City Boards and
Commissions.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a contract with City Design Collective in the amount of $14,925 for the North of
Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business District.
Honorable Chairand
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
R s tfullysubmitt ,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E, Soto
Manag r, Business Development Division
~. ~1,~ ~
By: Eric Fonstein
Economic Development Coordinator
DKILALIDESIEF:dc
January ~5, X008
Page 4 of 4
Attachment:
Exhibit A: Map o~ Proposed Study Area
EXHIBIT A
MAP OF NORTH OF LINCOLN STUDY AREA
,y.~ ~~~ .
,~ ~
.. ~ r' . r
f~k
•~ •' ~~~
4ti
! `~`
~.
r~
,~ ~ f ~~ .
:' , '~ ,~ ,ti• ~
"~,
it / ~~. ~ iy ~ I f r ,5' ~.~
~r ,' ~ .
~~ ~~~ i~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .
~.. l ,,
•. ,• . , ..
• •.•; ~ ~
. 1 1
~ ~ ~ ~ r ~
• r.
(STUDY AREA SHADED)
~ of ~
CIC
Attachment to
Agenda Item #3-B
o~-~ 5-os
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: January 15, 2008
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Substitution of a Surety Bond for the
Cash-Funded Reserve Account Relating to the Community Improvement
Commission's $11,510,000 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Business and
Waterfront Improvement Area}, Series 20030, and the $1,025,000 Taxable
Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Business and waterfront Improvement
Area}, Series 2003D, Approving the Form and Authorizing and Directing
Execution of a Guaranty Agreement Relating to Such Surety Band and
Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto ~~
BACKGRaUND
Debt Management is a priority function within the Finance Department. The City's
financial advisor assists with review and management of existing debt as well as advisory
services during the issuance of new debt. The financial advisor has been working with
staff to examine the status of two series of refunding bonds that were issued by the
Community Improvement Commission CIC} in Gctober and December 2003. The financial
advisor concluded that these two debt instruments, Series 20030 and 2003D, were not
being optimally managed to maximize revenue to the CIC.
DISCUSSION
Series 2003 C and D were issued for a total amount of $15,535,000. Included in the use of
these funds was $1,263,765.15 cash to fund the debt service reserve account as required
by the Trust Indenture. Shortly after the bond transaction was closed, the cash in the debt
service reserve was used to purchase a guaranteed investment contract ~GIC}.The holder
of this contract is willing to "break" the agreement for no fee and allow replacement of the
cash with a surety bond. The Trust Indenture provides that with the prior consent of the
bond insurer, the C!C may substitute another form of security for the debt service reserve.
Specifically, the Trust Indenture permits the CIC to purchase a surety bond for a small
fraction of the amount of the debt service reserve account and release the balance of the
reserve account for use on new redevelopment projects,
CIC
Report Re:
Agenda Item #3-C
0'I -~I 5-48
Honorable Chair and January 15, 2008
Members of the Community improvement Commission Page 2 of 2
The financial advisor reviewed the details of each bond in order to determine whether it
was economically advantageous to substitute a surety bond for the debt service reserve
account held in theform of a guaranteed investmentcontract. He identified the conversion
of the guaranteed investment contracts to surety policy for Series 2003C and D as a
potential method of maximizing funds from the original issue for use towards new
redevelopment projects today. The rate of return on the guaranteed investment contract is
low enough that it economically justifies breaking that contract and utilizing the debt service
reserve account funds to pursue new redevelopment projects or liquidate obligations
related to existing redevelopment projects.
The resolution provides the CIC's approval for the substitution of the surety bond for the
cash held in the guaranteed investment contract. The CIC also agrees to apply any
remainder of the above transfer to interest payments or capital projects. The resolution
also authorizes the Executive Director to execute the surety bond, other agreements,
documents, or certificates necessary to complete this transaction.
BUDGET CONSIDERATICNIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The Community improvement Commission budget will realize approximately $1.2 million
that will be available for projects not currently budgeted. There is no impact on the General
Fund budget.
RECnMMENDATION
Adopta resolution authorizing the substitution of a surety bond forthe cash funded reserve
account relating to the Community Improvement Commission's $~ 1,50,000 tax allocation
refunding bonds Business and v`Jaterfront Improvement Area}, series 2o03C, and the
$1,025,000 taxable tax allocation refunding bonds Business and vvaterfrvnt Improvement
Area}, series 2003D, approving the form and authorizing and directing execution of a
guaranty agreement relating to such surety bond and authorizing and directing certain
actions with respect thereto.
Respectfully submitted,
U~
elle-Ann oyer
Chief Financial Officer
JAB:dI
COMMUNITY fMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE SUBSTITUTION OF A SURETY BAND FGR THE CASH
FUNDED RESERVE ACCOUNT RELATING T4 THE COMMISSION'S $17,510,000
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA TAX
~ ~ ALLOCATION REFUNDING BANDS BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT
u°, , ~. IMPROVEMENT AREA} SERIES 20030, AND THE COMMISSION'S $1,025,000
o ,~ COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA T
ARABLE
~ ~~ ° TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BANDS BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT
~ ~ IMPROVEMENT AREA}, SERIES 2003D, APPROVING THE FORM AND
o ~ AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF A GUARANTY AGREEMENT
~. `~ RELATING TO SUCH SURETY BAND AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
~ CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO
a
WHEREAS, the Commission has previously issued its $11,510,000 Community
Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
Business and Waterfront Improvement Area}, Series 20030, and its $1,025,000
Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda Taxable Tax Allocation
Refunding Bonds Business and Waterfront Improvement Area}, Series 2300D
collectively, the "Bonds"}, pursuant to that certain Indenture of Trust, dated as of
October 1, 2003 the "Indenture"}, by and between the Commission and Union Bank of
California, N.A., as trustee the "Trustee"}; and
WHEREAS, at the time of execution and delivery of the Bands, the Cammission
applied a portion of the proceeds thereof to cash fund a reserve account the "Reserve
Account"} in an amount equal to maximum annual debt service with respect to the
Bonds the "Reserve Requirement"}; and
WHEREAS, to secure payment of principal of interest on the Bonds, Ambac
Assurance Corporation the "Municipal Bond Insurer"} issued its municipal bond
insurance policy; and
WHEREAS, the Indenture provides that, at any time, moneys on deposit in the
Reserve Account may, with the prior written consent of the Municipal Bond Insurer, be
substituted by the Commission with a "Qualified Reserve Account Credit Instrument"
being an irrevocable standby or direct~pay letter of credit or surety bond issued by a
commercial bank or insurance company and deposited with the Trustee pursuant to the
Indenture provided that all of the following requirements are met: ~a}the long-term credit
rating or claims paying ability of such bank ar insurance company is in one of the two
highest rating categories by S&P and Moody's; fib} such letter of credit or surety bond
has a term of at least twelve X12} months; ~c} such letter of credit or surety bond has a
stated amount at least equal to the portion of the Reserve Requirement with respect to
which funds are proposed to be released pursuant to the Indenture; and ~d} the Trustee
Resolution #3-C
Special CIC Mtg
41.15-08
is authorized pursuant to the terms of such letter of credit or surety bond to draw
thereunder an amount equal to any deficiencies which may exist from time to time in the
Interest Account, the Principal Account or the Sinking Account has such terms are
defined in the Indenture} for the purpose of making payments required pursuant to
indenture; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has made application to the Municipal Bond Insurer
to issue a surety bond in substitution of moneys on deposit in the Reserve Account and
the Municipal Bond Insurer has issued a commitment to issue its surety bond the
"Surety Band"} in the full amount of the Reserve Requirement; and
WHEREAS, the Surety Bond is a Qualified Reserve Account Credit Instrument.
NOW, THEREFGRE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
Section ~ . A royal of Suret Bond. The Board hereby approves the
substitution of the Surety Bond for the moneys on deposit in the Reserve Account.
Such moneys, when released to the Commission following the issuance of the Surety
Bond, will be segregated by the Commission and applied solely to the funding of capital
projects or applied to the payment of interest with respect to the Bonds.
Section ~. Approval of. Guaranty A rc,~eement. A guaranty agreement, by and
between the Commission and the Munici al Bond Insurer relatin to the Suret Bond
p g y ,
substantially in the form on file with the Secretary, be and is hereby approved, and the
Executive Director, or any assignee thereof, is hereby authorized and directed to
execute said document, with such changes, insertions and omissions as may be
approved by such official, and the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to attest
to such official's signature.
Section 3. Additional Authorization. The executive Director, the Secretary and
all other appropriate officials of the Commission are hereby authorized and directed to
execute such other agreements, documents and certificates as may be necessary to
effect the purposes of this resolution and the transactions contemplated thereby.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption by
the Board.
*~**~
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duty and
regularly adapted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City
of Alameda in a Special Community Improvement Commission meeting assembled on
the day of , 2008, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT;
ABSTENTIONS:
IN vvITNESS, VIJHERE~F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said Commission this day of , 2008.
Lara 1Neisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Community Improvement Commission
CITY aF ALAi~EDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: January 15, 2008
Re: _ Adopt the Update of the Economic Development Strategic Plan
BACKGROUND
The Economic Development Strategic Plan EDSP} is the City's long-term roadmap to
achieving economic growth while at the same time improving the quality of life of
Alameda residents and employees. As foreseen by the initial Task Force in the year
2000, many changes and events have occurred in the local, regional, and national
economies and in public policies that compel a periodic review and realignment of the
EDSP with these new realities. The most notable of these new realities, with the
potentially most significant and far-reaching effects on the future of economic
development in the city, is the redevelopment and re-integration of the former Alameda
Naval Air Station Alameda Point}, representing a substantial portion of the city's land
area, into the existing Alameda community.
The Economic Development Commission ~EDC} established a subcommittee to guide
its mid-paint review of the EDSP. The review involved an extensive community
engagement process to ensure that the updated EDSP addresses the economic
development priorities of major stakeholders and the community-at-large. The City's
Public Works, Planning and Building, Recreation and Park, and Development Services
Departments also participated in the review process. The Draft EDSP update is on file
at the City Clerk's office.
DISCUSSION
Now the mid-polnf review was conduced? As part of the community engagement
process, the City:
• hosted two community forums, on February 23, 2DD6, and March 2, 2006, to
discuss ways to update the EDSP;
• met with representatives of the local business associations, Alameda Unified
School District, and College of Alameda to solicit their comments on future economic
development opportunities far the city; and
• conducted a survey of Alameda residents to ensure that the updated EDSP
addresses the economic development priorities of the community-at-large.
CIC
Agenda Item #4-A
0'1-15-08
Honorable Chair and January 15, 2008
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 4
Finally, the City coordinated these efforts with the development of the City's draft
Transportation Master Plan, the City's current and advanced planning efforts, the
Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept, and the work of the City's newly
formed Climate Protection Task Force.' The goals and principles of the draft
Transportation Master Plan and the Climate Protection Location Action Plan are
incorporated into this EDSP update. The EDSP is not intended to supersede these
formulating policy documents.
Fconom~c Development Pr~orrtr"es. The following provides a summary of some of the
major issues raised during the community engagement process and haw they are
addressed in the updated EDSP.
Transportafion. Traffic was the top un-prompted answer when residents were asked if
there was a local issue that they were especially concerned about. Traffic received 12
percent of the responses, with Alameda Point a close second with 10 percent.
Residents also ranked traffic congestion as the highest priority when they were read a
list of local issues. To address these public concerns, the updated EDSP incorporated
elements of the draft Transportation Master Plan that include, but are not limited to,
these major initiatives:
• For large-scale development, consider park-and-ride areas at major
transportation access modes.
• Work with regional, state, and federal agencies and developers to provide stable
funding for a BART shuttle service to Marina Village Business Park.
• Wark with the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority ~UVTA, now
known as the Water Emergency Transportation Authority} and AC Transit to
increase connectivity of ferry and bus services.
• Develop an action item list that targets how to spend the collected commercial in-
lieu parking fees, Transportation Demand Management fees, and Transportation
System Management fees on alternative transportation systems, similar to the
Emeryville-Go-Around.
Alameda Polnt. When asked specifically about Alameda Point, 82 percent agreed that
redeveloping Alameda Point should be a high priority. Most residents emphasized a
desire for more recreational amenities. There was little support for preserving historic
buildings and pursuing the development of aresort-quality conference center at
Alameda Paint. One of the major intents of the EDSP update has been to incorporate
Alameda Point within the framework of the EDSP's goals. As a result, the attached
update incorporates Alameda Point under each of the seven economic development
strategies, including, but not limited to, these major initiatives:
' The Climate Protection Task Force is charged with setting a Citywide greenhouse gas reduction rate
and developing a Local Action Plan that will help both the City and Alameda community reduce
greenhouse gas emission that are harmful to the people, environment, and economy of Alameda.
Honorable Chair and January 15, 2008
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 4
• Create a network of major streets to facilitate the seamless integration of
Alameda Point with the rest of the city and to minimize traffic congestion.
• Develop Alameda Point with multi-modal, transit-oriented-development concepts.
• Develop the non-residential space at Alameda Point to allow for long-term
flexibility and a mix of commercial uses, such as office, research and development,
service-commercial, maritime, industrial, and warehouse uses. Promote green
building and sustainabiiity efforts at Alameda Point.
• Develop a town center at Alameda Point with community retail shops and
services, potentially including an anchor grocery store, drug store, restaurants, and
other community-serving stores. Create links to transit, ferry service, and
transportation nodes.
• Create a network of public parks, promenades, piers, and plazas at Alameda
Point to maximize waterfront accessibility.
Green City. The survey revealed strong support to promote Alameda as a Green City
as an economic development objective with 8l percent approval} and to take deliberate
steps to address global warming ill percent approval}. To address these public
concerns, the updated EDSP incorporated elements of the draft Climate Protection
Location Action Plan that include, but are not limited to, these major initiatives:
• Develop and implement sustainable building design ordinances that include a
green building ordinance to promote sustainable design principles on residential,
commercial and public facilities, and adaptive reuse at a minimum to LEED-certified
levels.
• Develop a brochure or press kit that showcases the City's sustainability efforts
and economic and greenhouse gas reduction impacts.
Nlaln Streets. There is also substantial support X81 percent approval} to continue to
enhance shopping and entertainment opportunities in the Park Street and Webster
Street commercial districts. The proposed updated EDSP includes these major retail
initiatives:
• Work with new and existing retail development to set aside existing parking areas
as well as develop and promote mode transfer points, such as park-and-ride lots, to
enhance the use of alternative modes of transportation and to help the development
of an inter-modal transportation system.
• Encourage continuity between Alameda Landing retail development and West
Alameda Business District.
• Continue streetscape projects along Alameda's Main Street commercial districts.
• Promote retail districts at the International Council of Shopping Centers ~ICSC}
annual convention in Monterey and at other venues.
Honorable Chair and January ~5, 2008
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 4 of 4
Next steps. The update to the EDSP was presented and endorsed by the EDC on
November 15, 2007, by the Planning Board on December 10, 2007, and by the
Transportation Commission on December 12, 2001.
The Climate Protection Task Force final recommendations are anticipated to be
presented to the City Council in February 2008. Finally, the major policies of the draft
Transportation Master Plan are expected to be considered by the City Council next
summer.
BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGNIFINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact on the General Fund for the update to the July 2000 EDSP.
Adequate resources are budgeted for astaff-supported effort to update the EDSP. The
Community Improvement Commission ~CIC} approved Strategy Research Institute's
contract for $~ 1,000 to develop and conduct the survey, which was funded by
Commercial Revitalization funds.
MUNICIPAL C4DEIPGLICY DGCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
",,.
The EDSP's objective states that the long term plan should provide for periodic review.
REC4MMENDATI4N
Review and adopt the update to the Economic Development Strategic Plan.
Respectfully bmitted,
.~
Leslie A. Little
Develo ment Services Director
_~
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development Division
~-~
~ . ,~ ,
By: Eric Fonstein
Economic Development Coordinator
DKILALIDESIEF:rv
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES of THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHQRITY ~ARRA} MEETING
WEDNESDAY -~ - - JANUARY 2, 2008 - - -- 6:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers/Board Members deHaan,
Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed session to consider:
O8- Conference with Labor Negotiators X954957.6}; Agency
Negotiators: Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City
Attorney.
ARRA Conference with Real Property Negotiators X54956.8}; Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station; Negotiating parties: ARRA and Navy;
Under negotiations: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor Council met
with the negotiators and provided direction; no action was taken;
regarding Real Property, the Board met with negotiators and
provided instruction; no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lora Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was pasted in accordance with the Brown
Act .
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting
January 2, 2005
uNAPPRovEn
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 2, 2005- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:44 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
X08- ~ Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing
[paragraph no. OS-_ ]would be continued to January 15, 2008.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. OS- ] was
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
X08-- y Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission
Meeting of December 4, 2007; Special City Council Meetings of
December 5, 2007; Special City Council Meeting of December 11,
2007; and Special and Regular City Council Meetings of December 18,
2007. Approved.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that Page 7 of the Special Joint December 4
minutes should state Vice Mayor Tam instead of Mayor Tam.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the minutes with said correction.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
~*08 ~ Ratified bills in the amount of $2,511,250.8D.
Regular Meeting 1
Alameda City Council
January 2, 2048
~*08- } Recommendation to approve Amendment No. One to the
Agreement between the Navy and the City for conveyance of the Fleet
Industrial Supply Center ~FISC} property attaching as a new
"Exhibit J" a Memorandum of Agreement among the Navy, City and
Palmtree Acquisition Corporation PAC} allowing PAC to carry out
remediation of the FISC property in order to construct the Alameda
Landing Development. Accepted.
~*08- } Resolution No. 14163, "Approving an Amended Boundary Map
for Community Facilities District No. 03-1 Bayport Municipal
Service District}." Adopted.
~*08- } Resolution No. 14164, "Approving Revised Part-Time
Classifications Salary Schedule Effective January 1, 2008."
Adopted.
~*08- } Ordinance No. 2977, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding Section 4-4 to Article I Littering and Maintenance of
Property? of Chapter IV Offenses and Public Safety} to Prohibit
Polystyrene Foam Food Service Ware and Amending Section 1-5.6 of
Chapter I General} to Authorize Additional City Employees to Serve
as Code Enforcement Officers." Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
X08- } Resolution No. 14165, " Appointing Michelle Blackman as a
Member of the Youth Commission." Adopted;
X08- A} Resolution No. 14166, "Appointing Hannah Bowman as a
Member of the Youth Commission." Adopted;
X08- B} Resolution No. 14.167, "Appointing Jordon Flores as a
Member of the Youth Commission." Adopted;
X08- C} Resolution No. 14168, "Appointing Ilya Pinsky as a member
of the Youth Commission." Adopted;
X08- D} Resolution No. 14169, "Appointing Anguli Sastry as a
Member of the Youth Commission." Adopted
~0$- E} Resolution No. 14170, "Appointing Priscilla Szeto as a
Member of the Youth Commission." Adopted;
X08- F} Resolution No. 14171, "Appointing Ben Ulrey as a Member of
the Youth Commission." Adopted; and
X08- G} Resolution No. 14172, "Appointing Angela Sterling Vick as
a Member of the Youth Commission." Adopted.
Regular Meeting 2
Alameda City Council
January 2, 2006
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to Youth Commission Members.
X08- } Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14173, "Amending
Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Permit Fees Charged for
Installation of Photovoltaic Systems." Adopted.
The Building Official made a brief presentation.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -- 5.
(08- } Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's denial of a Certificate of Approval (CA06-0031} of
demolition for 433 Taylor Avenue; and adoption of related
resolution. [Continued to January 15, 2008]
(OS- } 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.
The City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Richard Singer, National Golf Foundation ~NGF} Director of
Consulting Services, provided a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired what was the extent of the Operational
Review.
Ed Getherall, NGF Project Manager, responded several days were
spent at the site; stated concentration was given to major
operational issues.
Mr. Singer stated line items were reviewed; the review was
extensive.
Mayor Johnson stated the report is more of an overview and not a
detailed description of operational issues.
Mr. Singer stated detail was provided; significant, bottom line
issues were reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated Council needs to have detailed information
regarding Golf Course management issues; all options should be
Regular Meeting 3
Alameda City Council
January 2, 2008
considered; inquired whether the Golf Course could turn around
given management issues over the past several years.
Mr. Singer responded the issue was not addressed; stated bigger
issues were found; labor costs are 13o higher than the standard;
turning the Golf Course around would be very difficult under the
current management scenario.
Mr. Getherall stated many things could have been done better; the
big picture is the numbers; the NGF would be irresponsible in
saying that better management would bring back 180,000 to 190,000
rounds; decisions need to be made based on reality; everyone is
fighting for market share; the expense side is a problem.
Mayor Johnson stated the cost per round is $38.67 and is based on
current operating costs; inquired what impact a fee increase would
have on the Golf Course.
Mr. Getherall responded fees would need to be raised significantly;
stated the facility is priced appropriately for the product.
Mr. Singer stated more rounds would be lost if fees were raised.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Mr. Singer.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired when the General Fund would start
subsidizing the Golf Course under the "as-is" scenario.
Mr. Singer responded that he is not sure; stated a decision would
need to be made regarding whether making money or serving the
community is more important.
Mr. Getherall stated a $4 million loss is projected over the next
five years.
Mr. Singer stated that three to five years [for the General Fund to
start subsidizing the Golf Course] is a fair estimate.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether employees are represented by
organized labor at profitable golf courses.
Mr. Getherall responded there is every type of scenario.
Mr. Singer stated some golf facilities are self operated by a
municipality with unionized labor and earn more in green fee
revenue than is needed to spend on facility maintenance; all
municipalities are facing the same wage and benefit increases;
Regular Meeting 4
A1.ameda City Council
January 2, 2008
expenses are being cut and positions are being reduced to make ends
meet.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the report itemizes a series of improvements
in year one and two that add up to approximately $1d million; noted
that Mr. Singer mentioned that golfers only care about the
condition of the greens; the banquet facility is listed as the last
priority; inquired which improvements are necessary.
Mr. Singer responded improvements were categorized according to
those which would lead to increased revenue; stated better drainage
and irrigation are high priority issues; golfers care about the
greens, but fairways, tees, and sand traps are important also.
Mr. Getherall stated non-resident golfers are important; resident
golfers will play regardless [of conditions]; people travel to play
golf; a Master Plan is needed.
Councilmember deHaan stated the report brought to light a lot of
what was already known; inquired whether an analysis has ever been
made on a successful, local golf course.
Mr. Singer stated the NGF worked with the cities of Concord,
Livermore, and San Francisco.
Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda's cost per round is lower or in
the middle compared to other listed golf courses; inquired whether
other courses will be in trouble, to which Mr. Getherall responded
many golf courses are in trouble.
Councilmember deHaan stated there has been a steady decline after
1996.
Mr. Singer stated municipalities find it difficult to self operate
a golf facility with the current wage situation.
Councilmember deHaan stated a leasing option is not a cure all.
Mr. Singer stated leasing is not a cure all but is the best
opportunity in terms of revenue to the City.
Councilmember deHaan stated all three scenarios have risk.
Councilmember Matarrese stated San Mateo's golf course is the
closest type to Alameda's; San Mateo's per round production cost is
$1D less than Alameda's; inquired what San Mateo is doing
differently.
Regular Meeting 5
Alameda City Counci].
January 2, 2008
Mr. Getherall responded some municipalities included debt service,
others did not.
Councilmember Matarrese stated San Mateo is operating under the
same constraints as far as salaries, etc; he has a hard time
understanding how San Leandro produces rounds at $5.40.
Mr. Getherall stated $6.40 is the cost to San Leandro; maintenance
expenses accrue to the lessee.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is money to be had so
breaking even should be possible; management affects the bottom
line.
Mr. Singer stated some municipal
type of management contract in
management expertise.
golf courses lease or have some
place; private vendors bring in
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether some management agreements
do not have a f fixed f ee but are performance based where gain is
shared if rounds go up, and pain is shared if rounds go down, to
which Mr. Singer responded in the affirmative.
Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission Chair, gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether consideration was given to moving
the Par 3 to the 4th nine-hole course.
Ms. Sullwold responded possibly; stated another idea would be to
increase fees and have the increase be dedicated to capital
improvements.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council would be getting
an official recommendation from the Golf Commission.
Mayor Johnson requested that Ms. Sullwold go through the
recommendations.
Ms. Sullwold stated recommendations were to: 1} use half of the
current Enterprise Fund for the banquet facility and driving range
improvements; 2} explore leasing out five to six acres behind the
south course; 3} consider closing and leasing out the Mif Albright
land; 4} advertise; 5} mothball nine holes of the Jack Clark Course
and run the Course as a twenty-seven hole facility; and 5} have the
City stop taking Payment in Lieu of Taxes PILOT}, Return on
Investment ~R4I}, and surcharges.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council.
January 2, 2008
Councilmember Matarrese stated tough decisions need to be made; the
Mif Albright recommendation would be helpful.
Councilmember deHaan stated the banquet facility, driving range
priorities, and cost savings that could be derived from alternative
methods were discussed.
Ms. Sullwold stated the Golf Commission feels that the banquet
facility and driving range were potential revenue generating
improvements.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked the Galf Commission for creative,
out--of-the-box thinking; inquired whether the Golf Commission's
recommends continuing on a parallel course; stated Council could
decide to issue an RFP and also explore other options.
Ms. Sullwold responded exactly; stated recommendations may not be
feasible after hard cost estimates are obtained.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the Golf Commission thought of NGF's
priority to put money into the Golf Course first.
Ms. Sullwold responded most of NGF's scenarios assume the banquet
facility first; stated other recommendations follow.
Gpponents: Not in favor of the staff recommendation7: George
Humphreys, Alameda; Joe Williams, Alameda; Alan Elnick, Alameda
City Employees Association; James D. Leach, Global Perspectives;
Don Peterson, Alameda; Connie wendling, Alameda; Norma Arnerich,
Alameda; Ron Salsig, Alameda; Former Councilmember "Lil" Arnerich,
Alameda; and Dan Gonzalez, Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated the Golf Course needs to be run like a
business; businesses advertise; there is a lot of room for
improvement in managing the Golf Course.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a decision should not be made
tonight; he does not like the idea of leasing out the operation
completely; the difference between what an outside company can make
and what the City can make is made on the backs of the benefits
provided to employees; he reviewed labor cost increases versus
raises given to each bargaining unit; benefits are the issue;
someone will not have health insurance without benefits; he would
like to see a breakdown to illustrate hard facts; San Mateo can
produce a round for $28; the issue should be studied; everyone
agrees that City facilities suffer from deferred maintenance and
Regular Meeting 7
Alameda City Council
January 2, 20Q8
that [deferred maintenance] was how the City was able to transfer
the PILOT and RQI to the City's General Fund; the Golf Commission
did a great job in pulling together top priorities; a Master Plan
is needed before moving forward with anything.
Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese;
stated it is important to follow up and explore the Golf
Commission's ideas regardless of an RFP; money should be allocated
for a Master Plan; the golfing public needs to have a better
understanding of transfers from the Golf Fund to the General Fund;
the General Fund pays for services such as public safety,
libraries, and parks; currently, there is no money in the General
Fund to run the Golf Enterprise as a public service; a community
discussion may be instructional to find out whether the community
feels that the ability to play golf Is important enough to be
willing to pay increased fees or more taxes; she is not advocating
more taxes but the matter should be discussed.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was at the Mif Albright Course
on Christmas Eve; seeing fathers play with sons and daughters was
rewarding; the Junior Golf Program is a model; there is no
substitute for good management; challenges are there; formulating
priorities is rewarding; the banquet facility is all important.
Mayor Johnson inquired what percentage of golfers are full fee,
non-resident golfers, to which the Recreation and Park Director
responded that he did not know.
Mayor Johnson stated that a lot of non-resident golfers have been
last.
The Recreation and Park Director stated non-resident golfers have
gone down from 21 o to 15.5 0 .
Mayor Johnson stated full fee golfers are not going to pay to play
under current conditions; a balanced budget is needed while taking
time to review the issue; Council needs to direct staff to review
the budget; loosing $40,400 to $50,000 per month is eating away at
the reserve; the reserve was not set aside for operation but was
set aside for capital improvements; the fund cannot continue to
dwindle; the fund needs to be preserved to every extent possible.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the timeframe for an
RFP, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded nine
months to a year.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council would have
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 2, 20Q8
approximately nine months to explore other options if a two-track
approach was considered, to which the Recreation and Park Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how much an RFP would cost, to
which the Recreation and Park Director responded approximately
$15,000 to $20,000 according to the NGF.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how much a Master Plan would cost.
The Recreation and Park Director responded a Master Plan was
investigated for the Recreation and Park Department four years ago;
stated the cost was approximately $50,000 to $100,000.
Councilmember deHaan stated an RFP would be a learning process and
would help set priorities; inquired when the PILOT was put into
place, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded
approximately three years ago.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the ROI was put into place, to
which the City Manager responded the ROI was implemented in 2004
and was reduced during the budget process.
Councilmember deHaan stated additional burdens were placed on the
PILOT and RQI within the last couple of years in order to balance
same budget shortfalls within the General Fund.
The City Manager clarified that the PILOT has been in place since
1993.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the issue should be brought back
into proper context; cost allocation is a percentage of operation
and support; an expert would be needed to oversee a contract if the
Golf Course was leased.
Mayor Johnson stated Golf Course administrative expenses have
increased substantially over the last ten years because of added
positions; the matter needs to be reviewed; a bloated bureaucracy
is being funded at the Golf Course.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is hearing that a City managed
alternative is worth pursuing to fruition; the Golf Commission has
suggested renovating the back of the Clubhouse in lieu of building
a new, clubhouse; making driving range improvements; advertising;
looking at leasing five to six acres of the south course for
revenues; and potentially leasing ten to twelve acres of the Mif
Albright Course; it would be very helpful to get the NGF's help in
Regular Meeting 9
Alameda City Council.
January 2, 2008
coming up with hard numbers for said suggestions.
The Recreation and Park Director stated staff could work with the
NGF to attach a value to the options; a Master Plan would take
approximately nine months by the time community outreach was done.
Councilmember Matarrese stated nine months seems excessive; a lot
of work has been done already; a plan is essential even if the
operation is leased out entirely; otherwise, a blank slate would be
given to proposers; developing a Master Plan and attaching values
to all ideas for reducing costs per round need to be done as
quickly as possible; he would like to include a breakdown of labor
costs and true costs of a lease operation; the RFP would address
operating the Golf Course in the current configuration.
The Recreation and Park Director stated the RFP would address
operating the Golf Course and completing desired capital
improvements.
Mr. Getherall stated the City could solicit alternatives from
potential operators.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she does not like the idea of
having a potential operator tell the City want the City wants; a
Master Plan should be provided to potential operators indicating
what the City wants.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of allocating money for staff
to start on a Master Plan, requesting the NGF to help the Golf
Commission explore options discussed and potentially starting the
RFP process that would provide enough wiggle language so that
bidders understand that the City would have a Master Plan upon
which to build.
Cauncilrnember Matarrese stated that he seconds the first part of
the motion regarding allocating money to put a Master Plan together
and getting the value assignment for all suggested ideas for
implementation; the RFP process should be a separate motion.
Councilmember Gilmore agreed to address the RFP later; stated
options should be explored and dollar values established; she is
not sure whether ideas should be implemented before a report is
received.
Councilmember Gilmore amended the motion to move approval of
allocating money to start a Master Plan for the Golf Course as soon
as possible and exploring the Golf Commission options and any other
Regular Meeting 1 O
Alameda City Council
January 2, 208
ideas, with the assistance of the NGF.
Councilmernber Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to
include looking at the issue of tightening up the budget; she does
not want to put everything on hold for a year and deplete the
reserve fund every month because of the unwillingness to review
what needs to be done in the interim; she would like to direct
staff to look at staffing, particularly administrative, to see
whether cuts can be made to help balance the budget so that the
reserve fund is not depleted on a month-by--month basis.
Councilmember Matarrese amended the motion to include directing
staff to look at balancing the budget, particularly the
administrative area.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated cost
savings is a concerning factor; inquired whether a contractor would
be able to service a debt such as the banquet facility; further
inquired whether a contractor would encumber any City property.
Mr. Getherall responded that the banquet facility would be
encumbered by the contractor.
Mr. Singer responded a contractor would not be able to encumber
against any City property.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired what a private lessee would bring in terms
of resources that the City could not..
Mr, Singer responded capital; stated operation funds have been
depleted.
Vice Mayor Tam stated a private vendor would try to recoup the
capital through management.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how long it would take a contractor
to recoup said costs, to which Mr. Singer responded ten years and
perhaps longer.
Mayor Johnson stated another arrangement would be a public/private
partnership.
Mr. Singer stated a hybrid arrangement would be possible but would
require the City to come up with a portion of the capital.
Regular Meeting 1 1
Alameda City Council
January 2 , 2 a a ~
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the Master Plan would need to be
done.
Councilmember Gilmore responded nine months to a year; staff needs
to initiate tasks as soon as humanly possible.
Mayor Johnson stated a balance budget is needed as soon as
possible.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she understands that the Golf
Fund would have a small profit without the RoI and surcharge; the
consultant's projections show that a dip into the reserves would be
necessary if operations continued as is even without the RoI and
surcharge.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the concern is allocating funding into a
depleting fund; a fund is being depleted right now to off set
operating losses at the Golf Course and would be used to pay for a
Master Plan.
Councilmember deHaan stated that an advertising plan needs to be
reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated $70,000 or $80,000 was allocated when the
budget came to Council in June; allocations have increased to
approximately $200,000; measures need to taken now.
The City Manager stated that
efforts needed to balance
operational efficiencies; 2}
Plan process and bring back
the Golf Commission list to
savings.
the motion is three fold: 1} identify
the current year budget through
work with staff to identify a Master
the costs and process; and 3} review
identify the feasibility and costs
Mayor Johnson inquired how much of the reserve fund was approved
for operational shortfalls, whether a cap was set for last fiscal
year, and whether a cap has been set now.
The City Manager responded a cap has not been set but is something
that has been identified in terms of a monthly report.
Mayor Johnson stated it is important to be aware of how much money
is spent every month.
The City Manager stated expenditures are on track; revenue is down;
there have been 8,000 fewer rounds than last year; the Golf Manager
position has not been filled.
Regular Meeting 1 2
Alameda City Council
January 2 , 2 0 0 $
Mayor Johnson stated that the Recreation and Park Director is doing
a great fob.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Recreation and Park Director spends
part time at the Golf Course; the intensity of management oversight
has to be ongoing; he leaves the possibility of a part-time Golf
Complex Manager up to the City Manager; Recreation and Park
Department land has certain leasing restrictions; the legal aspect
needs to be reviewed.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she would like to be prepared for
any eventuality; she hopes that the City can continue to operate
the Golf Course in a more prudent manner.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of pushing forward with an RFP
so that there is an option if it becomes apparent that there are
things the City cannot do; the RFP should be tied to the Master
Plan; wiggle language should be added to the RFP so that the City
can tell the potential operator what the City would like done; the
City needs to have something to hold the potential operator's feet
to the fire.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the RFP could be deferred to
a manth or so.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what type of information would be
provided in a month from now that is not available now.
Councilmember deHaan responded Council would have quite a bit more
information; strong facts would be coming from the Golf Commission.
Mayor Johnson stated that she thinks that the Golf Commission
viewed the matter in a two prong process: 1} looking what the City
can do and 2} moving forward with an RFP; the RFP should have
flexibility; concurred with Councilmember Gilmore regarding more
information not being available in a month.
Councilmember deHaan stated the parameters of the RFP have changed.
Mr. Singer stated an open ended RFP is an option which would allow
potential vendors to propose what should be done.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether preferences could be included in the
Regular Meeting 1 3
Alameda City Council
January 2, 20D8
RFP .
Mr. Singer responded in the affirmative; stated all four items
could be managed as one project simultaneously over the next three
or four months.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would not like to go through an RFP
process and have all responses be for long-term leases if that is
not what the City intends to do.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not think the City
should be in the business of leasing out the Golf Course entirely;
he supports an RFP that solicits various portions; he cannot
believe that someone holding the Master Lease would lay $10 million
on the table, make a profit, pay people decently, and be
successful.
Mayor Johnson stated she would like the RFP to include the
possibility of a hybrid public/private partnership idea; questioned
why the City should put out all the money to build a banquet
facility and whether the caterer could provide funding.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the consultant has been given a lot of
ideas regarding the RFP; the consultant should go forward with the
Master Plan and RFP and come back to Council with some language for
Council review; Council's goal is to improve the Golf Course asset
and play, and hopefully attract full fee, outsider golfers.
Councilmember deHaan stated a marketing plan is needed.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a marketing plan could be part of
the Master Plan, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing the City
Manager to oversee the preparation of an RFP for Council review,
which would include a variety of options with the stated preference
not to lease out the entire facility.
The City Manager stated the action is to prepare an RFP with a
variety of options.
Mayor Johnson stated the RFP should indicate that Council's
preference is not to lease out the entire facility.
The City Manager stated the RFP would include a facility Master
Plan; staff would get back to Council regarding scope, cost, and
Regular Meeting 1 4
Alameda City Council
January 2, 20Q8
timing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether not wanting to lease out the
whole operation would cause problems with candidates.
Mr. Singer responded the issue is a big unknown; stated the NGF
could work with the City to craft what Council wants.
Councilmember deHaan stated contracting out the management portion
was reviewed and did not pencil out; inquired why the other portion
would pencil out.
The City Manager stated that the other portion did not pencil out
on a short-term basis.
Councilmember Matarrese stated long-term management was never
explored.
Mr. Singer stated a lot would be learned from an RFP.
Ms. Sullwold inquired whether the motion included having the NGF
help cost out some of the Golf Commission's recommendations, to
which Councilmember Gilmore responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked the Golf Commission and members of
the golfing public for coming tonight; encouraged everyone to play
more rounds of golf.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
X08- ~ Ricardo Lopez and Diana Wong discussed the Homeowner and
Bank Protection Act.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
X08- ~ Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Youth Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Lamont Carter, Vincent Margado and Bhaani
Singh.
Regular Meeting 1 5
Alameda City Council
January 2, 20Q8
~a8~- ~ Councilmember deHaan thanked Public Works for removing
tires from the San Leandro Bay.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk .
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brov-m
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 2, 2 0 0 8
January 10, 2008
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
205511- 205941
EFT 459
EFT 460
EFT 461
EFT 452
Void Checks:
205088
204924
205202
204141
G RAN D TGTAL
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela J. Sible
Council vllarrants 01/15/08
Amount
~..~.
$1,985,674,94
$37,572.16
$490,092.63
$54,454,74
$11,244.50
($704.50)
($250.00)
($57.00)
($381.84)
$2,577,645.63
BILLS #4-B~
1/1512008
CITY of ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 15, 24D8
Re: Approve Amendment No. 6 to the Alameda County Emergency Dispa#ch
Consortium Mutual Aid Agreement to Assign the Rights and obligations
of Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC to the Alameda County
Fire Department
BACKGROUND
an January 15, 2002, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California
~"LLNL"}, the County of Alameda, and the City of Alameda the "Parties"}entered into a
Consortium Agreement ~"Agreement"} to establish, fund, and operate the Consolidated
Dispatch Center for Consortium Members at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
~"Centel'}, The members of the consortium are the City of Alameda, City of Fremont,
City of Union City, Alameda County Fire Department, Camp Parks Fire Department, and
the Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency.
The recently remodeled Center provides fire and emergency medical dispatch services
and support communication services to members of the Consortium. The Center also
functions as the Alameda County Office of Emergency Services Mutual Aid Coordinator,
coordinating resources of all fire departments in times of disaster or major emergency.
DiSCUSSIGN
Until September 3D, 2007, the University of California Regents had both administered
and operated the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on behalf of the Department
of Energy ~DDE}. Following a bidding process, the DCE awarded the new contract to
the Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC ~"LENS"}, an entity not affiliated with the
University of California. That contract became effective October 1, 2oDl. An
amendment to the Agreement, Amendment 5, was executed by the Parties on
November 6, 2DD7, to assign the rights and obligations of the Regents of the University
of California underthe agreementto LENS.
City Council
Agenda Item #4•C
01-15.08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
January 15, 2008
Page 2
The purpose of Amendment 6, which is attached, is to assign the rights and obligations
of the LLNS under the Agreement to the Alameda County Fire Department. These
obligations include the responsibility for administration and operation of the center as of
January 20, 2008. LLNS is assigning the rights and obligations to Alameda County Fire
Department because LLNS is a Limited Liability Corporation and has no interest in
managing a pubic entity. .
BUDGET C~NSIDERATI~NIFINANCIAL IMPACT
There are no General Fund impacts.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIPGLICY DGCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE
This action will not affect the Municipal Code.
REC4MMENDATIGN
Approve Amendment 6 to the Alameda County Emergency Dispatch Consortium Mutual
Aid Agreement to assign the rights and obligations of the LLNS under the Agreement to
Alameda County Fire Department.
Respectfully submitted,
David A. Kapler
Fire Chief
~, .~
~~
By: Michael J. Fisher
Division Chief
MF:adl
Attachments:
1. Amendment 6 to the Alameda County Emergency Dispatch Consortium Mutual Aid
Agreement
~. List of Consortium Property-Dispatch Center
Amendment 6 to the
Alameda County Emergency Dispatch Consortium
Mutual Aid Agreement
0n January 16, 2002, The Regents of the University of California, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, ~"LLNL"}, the County of Alameda and the City of Alameda the
"Parties"} entered into a Consortium Agreement ~"Agreement"} to establish, fund and
operate the Consolidated Dispatch Center for Consortium Members at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory ~"Center"}. The Center provides fire and emergency
medical dispatch services and support communication services to members of the
Consortium.
0n September 20, 2002, the original members of the above Agreement agreed to accept
the Parks RFTA Fire and Emergency Services ~"Parks Fire Service"} to the Consortium
and the Fire Chief of the Parks Fire Service became a member of the Article IV Advisory
Board. Because the Parks Fire Service was a Federal entity, it was permitted to be self
insured notwithstanding the Article HIV insurance requirements. Amendment # 1 }
On August 28, 2003, the members agreed to accept the City of Fremont to the
Consortium and the Fire Chief of Fremont became a member of the Article IV Advisory
Board. Amendment #2}
Cn October 1, 2003, the members agreed to an allocation plan for the remodel of the
Center's dispatch facility. This plan called for the costs associated with the remodel to be
allocated to the Alameda County Fire Department ~ACFD} and Emergency Medical
Service Authority, City of Alameda Fire Department and Parks Reserve Force Training
Area. Amendment #3 }
0n January 29, 20D4, the members agreed to accept the City of Union City to the
Consortium and the Fire Chief of Union City became a member of the Article IV
Advisory Board. It also established Union City's share of the capital improvement cost
for equal membership. Amendment #4}
nn November 6, 2007, the members agreed to assign the rights and obligations of the
Regents of the University of California ~"UC"} under the Agreement to Lawrence
Livermore National Security, LLC ~"LENS"}. Amendment #5}
RECITALS:
The purpose of Amendment #6 is to assign the rights and obligations under the
Agreement from LENS to the ACFD.
N~~w, THEREFORE, the agencies, entities, and municipalities who are Parties to this
Agreement agree as follows:
City Council
Attachment 1 to
. Agenda Item #4-C
Confidential Page 1
0~-~5-os
1 D eration
It is agreed that ACFD will assume responsibility for the administration and
operation of the Center as of January 20, 2005.
2. Transfer of Personnel
ACFD agrees to hire all existing Center personnel effective January 20, 2008.
Salary and benefits will be substantially equivalent to the current package under
LLNS.
All Center employees will retain their seniority within the rank structure of ACFD
as it relates to vacation accrual and requests, shift bids, and sick leave accrual.
3. Transfer of Bud etar Res onsibilit
ACFD agrees to operate within the amended ACRECC Fiscal Year 2008 budget.
ACFD will invoice and collect funds from each individual agency in accordance
with the Fiscal Year 2008 budget.
Funds that have been collected in advance by LLNS shall be transferred to ACFD
within fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement.
4. Lawrence. Livermore Fire Department ~LLFD} Cost Allocation
LLFD's cost allocation will be amended to reflect the number of actual incidents
on LLNL and Sandia properties.
5. Bud et Develo ent
Budget Development: The operating budget for the Center will be developed by
the Center Manager and presented to the Advisory Board for approval no later
than February of each calendar year. The budget is to include all services,
supplies, personnel and operating costs. ACRF will provide the budget
accounting services to the Center Manager to help develop the operating budget
for the Center. Security costs associated with the operation of the Center shall be
considered as a cost to be borne by the Consortium members. The cost for
security clearances, however, for consortium members will be borne by the
requesting party.} The budget will be adopted by the Advisory Board and used as
the basis for the cost allocation for the Consortium members.
6. Outreach and Miscellaneous Matters
Article IV, H. of the Mutual Aid agreement is hereby substituted by the
following:
Confidential Page 2 1/2/2008
outreach and Miscellaneous Matters: Addition of new members to the
Consortium requires prior written approval by the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
7. LLNL Facilit Char es
All proportional costs associated with the maintenance of Building 313 and
offices in B323 at LLNL, will be remitted to ACFD and paid 90 days in advance,
on a monthly basis.
8. Purchase of E ui ment
Article VI of the Mutual Aid agreement is hereby substituted by the following:
The cost of any equipment necessary for the operation of the Center shall be
borne by the Consortium. Installation of equipment shall be accomplished in
accordance with Center policies and procedures and performed by
certifiedltrained personnel approved by the Center. Each agency shall be
responsible for funding the installation of equipment necessary to perform dispatch
of their agency. Equipment must be compatible with the Center's existing equipment
and must be installed by certifiedltrained personnel approved by the Center.
Reference attached "List of Consortium Property --Dispatch Center," dated 11116107.
8. Dis osition of Pro ert and Funds U on Termination of A eement
Article VII of the Mutual Aid agreement is hereby substituted by the following:
All equipment that is considered integral to the operation of the Center will be
transferred to the JPA when one is formed.
Any party to this Agreement who withdraws from the Agreement shall have no
right to any portion of the assets purchased by the Center by virtue of
participation in this Agreement. If a party withdraws from the Agreement any
equipment originally provided by that party will be removed and returned to that
agency, if the removal does not render the system inoperable for the remaining
parties. If the equipment is not independently removable, the equipment will
become the property of the Center.
9. Entire A eement
This Amendment 6 hereby incorporates by reference all terms and conditions set
forth in the Consortium Agreement and Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 unless
specif tally modified by this Amendment. All terms and conditions set forth in
the Agreement and Amendments which are not specifically modified by this
Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.
Confidential Page 3 1/2/2008
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment 6 to the
Agreement.
Lawrence Livermore
National Security, LLC
County of Alameda
City of Alameda
Alameda County Emergency Medical
Services Agency
Camp Parks CSTC
City of Fremont
City of Union City
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Confidential Page 4 1/2/2008
V U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U L U
OIUV(RUC)UUUUUUUUUUUC)U{)UUUUL)UUUUUU{.}UO0ODUUUUUUUC)C)UUUUUU G!U
~WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W
3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
oUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUOU
¢Qd¢¢¢¢¢¢¢Q¢Q¢¢¢¢4000¢¢¢¢Q¢¢¢Q¢¢¢¢¢Q¢¢¢QQ4¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ Q
E~~MM~rMrro(r]Cr}oMr~-oMMMc~ M r~MM OvorMMMMC~mMcDc~O~cD rQCr1MM0 ~r
0 ~"rr'OrrOrDOOr~-OODrO~r- r-~-Or~DOO~-rODDOOOODNt-O rNrrr(y Or
Ooooo~oooooooooaoDOODDO o~ooooDOOOOOOOOOVDOOO 00000000
~ C7C7rr- rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrC7r r- rr('7rre-~~-r~-rrrr~-rrMMr rMrrr~~/r
pa C~MMt~('~i'~MMc~('~c~')C7[+7cY1MMC~Mc')MMMrC~C7('~(~'}C~?MMC~C~C~(~7MMMc'7cr]C7MMC+}C~('~C7c~7MC~Mc+7 C'7
'0 NNrrNrrrrrr~-~-rrrrrr~-(1Jr{+~r(1~rrNrrrrrrrr~-rrrrNNrNrfllrrr-(y~r
m ('~c~Cr1C~Cr]C~C~MMCr](~(hc'~7MC'7r7C~C~(~MMMrC7e7(r?C~f~}MMC~c~MMMMMMc~('7MMc~tYJ('~C'7f'7~'](~7Mc+~mM
vOOOVOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO oooao voOaoooOOO o D
h I` h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h
h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h
UHF-F-H~Hf-F-HH~1-h-F-I-H~~~h-F-F-F-~~H~ F-HI-HH ~f-~HHF~I-H~~ ~ I-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ Z Z
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwvwwwwwwwwww w w
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.aaaaaaaaa aaaaahaaaaaaaaaa a a
c~aaaac~aaaaaaac~ac~aaaaac~c~aaar~c~ aaaaaZoaaac~csaaaa c~ a
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww w w
~C7C7(7[7C~C7C7(7f7C~C7C7C7C7C7C7C7C7C7C7(7C7(7C7C7(7L~t7ooo(7(~C7C7C7d(7(7C7C7C7C~{~C~C7(7ooO~ ~~
aZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZNNNZ_ZZZ_Z_-ZZZZZZZZZZNNNZ Z
F VJfA(AU~fllfA~fAU)fl1V1U)NV7V1NV1LA(1)(/){I}V}fAN~/JLTV?(Ahhhffl(11NU1~dU)V1LAfA(A{IyV?C!}(ANhhhN U]
f~~V1(A(/)(AVON(A(/)(AU7VJlA{AV){ANNU}V?U?(A(ANfn{/}V}~I-h-N(A(AfnV1wIA~(A(IJVJNV}fAV1V1~~-~N~~
awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwzZZwwwww wwwwwwwwwwzzzwww
hUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUWWWUUUUU^UUUUUUUUUUWWWUHU
Nooooo000000000000000ooooovoo~~~oooooZoooooooooo~~~oyo
Q ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~aa.a~~~~~¢~~~~~c~~~~~aaa~Q~
aaaaaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa---aaa.aawaaaaaaaaaa---a a
¢¢¢¢a¢¢¢¢¢¢¢a¢¢a¢¢aa¢¢¢¢aaaaaa~¢a¢¢¢~¢¢a¢¢aaa¢¢~vv¢
¢a¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢www¢¢¢¢¢~-¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢www¢
^o^^o^oaoo^^a^^^^^oo^oooao^^~~}o^oo^Z^o^o^o^^^a~}}^ v
UUUU~UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU~~~UUUUU~UUUUUUUUUU~~~U U
¢¢¢ ¢aa ¢¢a¢¢¢¢¢¢a¢¢a a ¢a¢a aa¢¢¢ a¢¢a ¢a¢¢ ¢ a
vooooo00000000000000000000000ooooovo_ooo00OOOOOOOOO 0
Q¢¢a¢¢aa¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢a¢a¢aaaa¢¢¢~~~aa¢aao¢¢aa¢a¢¢aagg~¢ a
y OrONcDhhhhh[`hhhhhhhCQG?OOOo0o0C~7Oot7~f}It7~Ohl~hhOoOogo000aQ(DhNm(OOOOQ~ OD
0 DNO(DN~OOOG]00)00?Q}0}0000~~0~-~-hr(D060DOOhC7C7Cr]C7DMC7C7C70O~~00OOOOr Or
~ ONNN('7(A(~(Dhhhl`I~hhhhl~hhlt?lt~st~(D(po0~}OU~~t7~t7NLpCp(p(D~ hhl~l~Oll7cD~l~(DODO~ ~~
' hN~r'N~~L7u7C7MP7P'?i~7MMMMC~7hhCD(DM~~0000~~5OOO0QGOOOOOr~d'd'~OOhOhrlt~000Q0000 QO
~ Opr(+7M{OhhhCO{0{0(DCDCO(D(0(D(OlL"3~CDIOC~NNrrN'~~~CO~^~-rr~ hhh1~00O ~O(OOOOr~r
~ M Nr ~rlQrrrrNNNN ~rre-rNN (Dlnrr~-rte ~d'
y rrr t- N
6R H
d9 69 63 69 ffl d4 64 bg 6g ffl 6R d9 6f} 6f} EA Ff} 64 bg Ef? EA 63 b3 b9 E9 54 b9 69 6R 6f} 6F} 6F} EA 59 d3 F/-} Ef3 d3 69 6F} b9 59 ffl Sfl EA d4 53 59 64 b4 b9 Q ~}}
L COrnJr~-M'~hICJM~'fQ~17O~CQG}(DhOrr(~Nr'O~-r~Nf7r'~IQYN(flrrrrrrhlLDr~7C+7~m ~^
000 C~hpOprr~--OONWN~-[001~11J117}IC?[!?lnhhNNNh(VN(~¢rOOOOOO~ON()~L7NN0 O
~ C7 O~JM~h000000~~~OhG7a0h00~hC0OU}U)l'7O~000DOOZ~ID ~rlf'1L~l~7lnZNODrOOro~~~L
O~c'1aNOo0hhhho~aOhhl~hhSAh~SDpp~~r11ZOD0 ==u7=h(n(n U7(nY ]~r~~L7~!]lnO £O
OoO~r hoooDOOOOOVOOOOO~rnooo~~JNNN~~tA~~jO}UUU^~vUN`~~htio7c°
Z m N V ~ 0 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ O ^ N {U ~ p r ~^I1 ] ~ ^ ^ ^ ¢ a ¢ U SO ~ ~ ~ O ^ 0 0 O N ty
cnSh UNNNNNNNNNNNNN°~NMaQO--~ V2~000~rrQr7OU-M(~m[+')MM~= cDZcD
~rouU} {7U ~c~~~~c~iM~~~c~~M~~ m Vm ~~~m>>>]Y ~~oo. Q ~Q
OoooOOOOOOOODaa ¢ Z NNN ~ym~,.~M oC7~ ~~~~
w~ N o000000oooooDOO ~ U rrr ]>>7 Mfnab N Q!N
N {7 {7 C7 C7{~C7{~C7C'3C7C7(7C7C7Cry o°oo W N N
e~-rrrrrrrrrrrti-rr OOpD a
l~] lL"] !(} lC} lC? ~!] lf} ~(} In In lf) l~7 In !D In
Vl U?V}V}V}U?iA U}IA fA fq (A fgU?N
4s J¢~~~7[7C7C7C7C7C7C7C7C7C7t7C~}U~ {~ggo~gQg~QQQoWWWWOJJJJJJNQ111~^^^000
~'~ rrrrs-rrrrr~-rrrr D {D ~rrr~~~~~Mrrr~-lf]L~N~ry~ ODO
'a o002= 22Cp=2h=rMMMhZZZZNrrrrr-rNlf}r~~~~NNN
p ~tnu7u7~t]~~tntAlA~t]tAU]~u7
~Qiaeov^^[n(nV)V~(!~(A(A(ANV)NU?(!?(A(A^Oc~^^~^ac~c~c~wWWWWNaaadaa N~~XXXc~coc~
(AV~vJN~r~cnuJNUJ(~U}Vaf~f/] O N aMMM ~.F~~~aaaaaa r
U U N d J J J Q~~~~ w d a o v a~~
U W.Z7»>j 2Z2
~h-~~F-~ ~aa
o ~ ^^^
a
~,~ ~ ~ ~ a°c~~
~~~a~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~N~ ~~~
~~~~~~ ww~ww ww w wwwwww gw
»W»¢» > a»»» ¢w~ ¢¢¢
~aaaa~. aaNaaaaa a ~aaaaaa a~a aaa
~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~g~~~ o~~~~~~
~~o~oo oonoo~oooooo ~oooooo ~~oooo~~~
~ U UU UU UUwUU~~~U zUUUUUU w U^^owww
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J~ J J J J J O O O J~~~~ O J J J J J J~ J O J~ a~ J J J
J~ J J Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q Q¢ Q J J J J~ J J~~ ~'J J J J J Z J J J J J J J~ J [[~~
wwwwwUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUwwNwwwwwooow¢¢¢¢¢wwwwww¢wNwY~Ywww
=^=^^zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz^^U^^=^^~~~oaaaaU^^^^ooa=U^mmm===
0
W J W WWWWUWWWWW W ZZZ
m O J ~ U U U U~ J J J J J J V O O o
~ ¢ U m WWWWW~.mmmmmmw f-~I-
~ O ¢ ~zzzz~aaaaaaz aaa
z o ° ~ Woooo~~~Q~~~~o~~ n i~
a~ ~ o ~,~~~~~ooooo0 o wwwYY~
a Uw
'~wU~UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU~UUwUU ~UUUUw~~~~~~U~~Ummmooo
~c~a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaao.Jaac~aa ,~~aaazaaaaaaapwa¢¢a~~~
og~z~~~~~~~~ar~~~~~~a~~~~~~~g~~ n nN~~~~a~=~~~~~~~Jz~~~~~~~
~w~wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww,ww~ww¢Q¢wwwwwUwwwwwwwa~wpppwww
~H~F-l-~~~I-F-~~~~~I--I-H~HHI-~F-HLLH~mmml-NNNNQF-F-~H~-~-N~JF-aaa~l--~
W~W»»»»~»»»~~»W»W» ~ ~ ~ ~ZZZZ~»»»ZWa~ ~ ~ ~ ~»
~a~-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa~aa~an.oooa¢¢¢¢}aaan.aa¢~~aoooaaa
z~z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~z~~ooo~c~t~c~c~a~~~~~~c~zw~ooo~~~
aoaooooo00ooooovooooooo~ooaoo~~~oooooU°ooooooa~o~~~ooo
~ [~00~~-'~1}OD03ONON0)CflMOh0000D(~7rN67(+3NO~D00~17NOO04 NO(OhCFri7QOOOOO00N0(OOh~
[prrNN~DON OrN('~~~](flONhOO~D00~"~(GNrh00OlnO~rMO~IC}iQhO~hl[1r~hC4OM~ln
NhOMNhhCQ lLyl[ylt7 In rrNM(D~ ODh00rrrN5}' NOOrrrr[10hrN~DMNNNhhh
+'' OONrLf?OOt~'}C+7('7 ~et~~~~~~~hhOO(~~!}1f1C700OOOOh1f~~CQCflOOOOOrd'll7lnG~4f7~~~hhh
C rI~h000OOOOOOOOOOO0OO0NN~t7hh00O0NNNN~ ~~hOOp}OOOO'd'gpp0i0OQ)OD
~ lnhCOmlt~cDc~cD(D(~(p(pcQcOLDSO {O CO (A CDcOcD(D(~(DcD(pl~hhhhhh hhhhhhhhho000o0COc~6oDGOCQo0Q0
'~ SCcpSDC0o0OWa~a~oOOa~aaa0a0a0opWa0S70a0a0o0a0o0opOOW Wc~a0aoSlQWo~S10o0o0OWOOOWOOOOWc0aDO
~~~0
C N ~ ~
~ ~+ r
v=fir
°~ ~ o
~ ~
v~~Q
a~
a
UUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUU
WWWWWWWWWWWW
UUUUUUUUUUUU
¢aa¢a¢¢¢¢¢aa
rr~^~-rrrrr rr~
rr~-~-~-rrrrrr~-
000000000000
rrrr-~-~-rrr rr('7
c''~MMc'7c'~~'3c'7c'~c"}MM~'}
~^rrrrrrrrr~-(y
Mc~Mt~r?c~7c~c+')MC~Mc+7
ooooovooooo0
hhhhhhhl+I~ hl`h
hhhhhhl~hf~hhh
ZZZZZZZZZZZZ
WWWWWWWWWWWW
aaaaaaaaaa.aa
ac~c~c~oc~c~oaac~a
wwwwwwwwwwww
C7 C7 C7 C7 C7(?L~(7{7C7(7t7
zzzzzzzzzzzz
U]~fAV?U}NV?U?V}(AU}U}
NNNNNNNNNNNN
WWWWWWWWWWWW
UUUUUUUUUUUU
000000000000
a.aaaaan:aaaaa
¢¢¢a¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢
¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢
^^^^o^^^o^o^
UUUUUUUUUUUU
~~F~HNNH~F~H
QQQ ¢¢QQQdQ
000000000000
QQQQQQdQQQQQ
0)0)OOC?G}~NNNNOM
r r r r e- w r r r r r r~
00 ~0 ~ 00 a0 00 00 OQ 00 Cn l70 W lt]
rrrrrr~-~~~OrO
rn
r
~~~~~s~~~~~~~~
C7UhaornWc~2-'~`7Y2
0000ooo~[Ca7Mo
~.I~W~.ta.Wti Uhot~
0ooooovU ZZo
cD cD cD cD cD cfl cp Z Z ~- ~ cD
N N N N N N N~~ N N N
cD cD cD cD cD cfl cD N N cD tD cD
QQQQQQQ~~WWQ
» > > > W W N N ~
N N N N N N N]]~~ N
000000oooooc~
0oooooaococoaovo
NNNNNNC~C7C~MNC~
c0 cD cp Cfl cp cp J J J J cD c+7
~~~~
zzzz
¢_¢¢¢_
J J J J
0000
a~~~~
~~aa.
^^^^^^^o^^^
UUUUUUUUUUUU
QQQQQQQQ¢QQ
a~a.a,aaaaaaag
WWWW WWWWWW~
J J J J J J J J J J J
wwwwwwwwwww¢
I2222=222220
vvoooo 0
~~~~-~~ ~
ZZZZ
{AfI)U}V1UJ{I?I-~~E~f~J
»» w
~~~~~~oooo~W
~~~~
000000 0-
~~~~~~YYYY ^
~~~~~~UUUU~p%
~~~~HH~~~~~0
~~~~
~~~~~~WWWw~Z
~~~~
0ooooowwwwoW
UUUUUUv1NNNU~7
rOpl[}NODIDN~cp ('7ho0
c.0 h oD Oi O r- N C7 ~t In lfj I~
h h h h o0 oQ 00 aQ o0 a0 r t0
hhhhhhhhhha0h
Q1 T ~} O O d» Q) X 0 0 ~7
00 CO Cn Op CO Oa 00 00 00 OD OD c0
CO 04 aQ a0 a0 a0 a0 c0 a0 oD o0 ~
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 15, 2448
Re: Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Consultant Agreement in the
Amount of $240,400, Including Contingencies, to ARUP, for the Estuary
Crossin Feasibilit Stud
BACKGROUND
The City's Bicycle Master Plan identifies an improved bicyclelpedestrian estuary
crossing between Alameda and Oakland as the City's highest priority project. The
current crossing through the Posey Tube does not meet current standards and does not
meet the needs of the bicycle and pedestrian community. The purpose of the Estuary
Crossing Feasibility Study is to evaluate options to improve pedestrian and bicyclist
travel between Alameda and Oakland for both residents and visitors, either by
upgrading the existing crossing or providing a new alternate crossing. The study will
also consider transit connectivity as well as the feasibility of including transit and
neighborhood electric vehicles in any alternate estuary crossing proposal.
DISCUSSION
On October 1l, 2401, the City issued a Request for Qualifications RFQ} to conduct the
feasibility study. The following three consultant teams responded to the RFQ: ARUP,
URS, and DKS. Staff from the City of Alameda Public Works Depar#ment, the City of
Oakland's Community & Economic Development Agency, the Port of Oakland, and the
Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority ~ACTIA}, as well as a
representative from Bike Alameda, reviewed the RFQ responses and interviewed the
three consultant teams. Bayed upon evaluation of the consultants' past experience on
similar projects, qualifications of the consultant teams, and interview results, the panel
agreed that ARUP was the preferred consultant. Staff proposes to enter into a
consultant agreement with ARUP for a total amount of $244,400, which includes a
$25,044 contingency. A copy of the contract is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
As part of this contract, ARUP will evaluate a range of potential alternatives such as:
improving the existing crossing; utilizing the maintenance tube within the existing
structure for access; providing a new alternative mode only tube or bridge; or utilizing
amphibious vehicles, bus barges, and water taxis. ARUP will identify at least three
recommended preferred alternatives between Afameda's West End and Oakland.
Since the estuary and the abutting land uses are in different jurisdictions, ARUP will
City Council
Agenda item #4-D
o'I.15-o8
Honorable Mayor and January 15, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
provide interagency coordination and establish a public involvement process to engage
the public throughout the project cycle.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIALlMPACT
ACTIA awarded the City of Alameda a total of $~ 00,000 from the Measure B
BicyclelPedestrian Discretionary Fund for the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study. This
study also requires iacal matching funds in the amount of $100,000. On June 19, 2001,
the City Council adopted Resolution 14103 approving the matching funds from Measure
B Bicycle and Pedestrian allocations.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE
The proposed project is consistent with the City's adopted Bicycle Master Plan, which
identified an improved Oakland connection near the Poseyfwebster Tubes as the
highest priority project in the City's adopted Bicycle Master Plan X2002}. The proposed
project does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a consultant agreement in the amount of
$200,000, including contingencies, to ARUP, for the estuary crossing feasibility study.
Respectfully bmitted,
atthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Obaid Khan ~
Supervising Civil Engineer
MTN:BB:gc
DITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 15, 2001
Re: Approve a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Alameda and AC
Transit for Formalizing Collaboration on Projects of Mutual Interest and
Authorize the City Managerto Enter into Such an Agreement
BACKGROUND
The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District SAC Transit} is responsible for providing
public bus service for the East Bay. Since AC Transit relies on the cooperation of each
municipality to fulfill its responsibilities, they have developed a draft Cooperative
Agreement to facilitate interagency coordination and to help ensure that the roles of
both parties are clearly understood.
DISCUSSION
Staff from the City of Alameda and AC Transit currently work together to review transit
service operational requirements and concerns, including modifications to bus stop
locations and temporary route modifications. To further improve coordination between
both agencies, the City established the interagency Liaison Committee ~ILC}that meets
approximately four times a year to discuss issues of mutual concern beyond routine
operational issues. Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese currently represent
the City on the ILO, and Board Members Christian Peeples and Elsa Ortiz represent AC
Transit. Public Works and AC Transit staff also participates in ILO meetings.
AC Transit has already established a similar agreement with the City of Oakland and is
interested in pursuing such cooperative agreements with all jurisdictions within its
service area. The agreement with the City of Alameda will formalize existing advisory
activities between the two agencies, clarify the process for eliciting comment and
feedback on proposed projects, and provide continuity as staff changes occur.
The keygoals of the Agreement areas follows:
• To increase the number of City residents who ride AC Transit's service and other
transit modes.
City Council
Agenda Item #4-E
o'I -~ 5-08
Honorable Mayor and January 15, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3
• To assure that the City streets can support efficient travel by transit, pedestrians,
bicycles, trucks, cars, and other vehicles.
• To work together on expanding transit service for redeveloping areas within the
City, such as Alameda Landing and Alameda Point.
• To use existing processes to the maximum extent possible.
• To not establish any legal duty or obligation or any grounds for legal action by
either party.
At the August 9, 2006, ILC meeting, AC Transit submitted a draft Cooperative
Agreement for discussion. Following this meeting, staff from both agencies worked to
finalize the agreement language. Gn September 26, 2001, the Transportation
Commission endorsed the modified agreement and recommended forwarding it to the
City Council for approval. Furthermore, the ILC met on December 4, 2001, and also
recommended forwarding the Cooperative Agreement to the City Council for approval.
A copy of the Agreement is on file in the City Clerk's office.
BUDGET CgNSIDERATI~NIFINANCIAL IMPACT
Funding for on-going coordination with AC Transit is budgeted in various transportation
program components. There is no impact to the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIP~LICY DGCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE
The Cooperative Agreement supports General Plan Guiding Policy 4.3.b, "Encourage
AC Transit to maintain a dialogue with Alameda to ensure continued high levels of
coverage and transitfrequency."
ENVIRGNMENTAL REVIE111J
Pursuant to Title 14 of the California Administrative Code, 15061 ~b}~3} and 18318 ~a},
this Agreement 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 15318
~b}~2} in that it concerns organizational or administrative activity. Furthermore, many of
the future projects that may be considered by the City or AC Transit will be categorically
exempt as per Section 15301 Existing Facilities}. Any future projects by the City or AC
Transit that do not fall under the Section 15301 Existing Facilities} will have project
based environmental review.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
REC~MMENDATI~N
January ~5, 2008
Page 3 of 3
Approve a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Alameda and AC Transit for
formalizing collaboration on projects of mutual interest and authorize the City Manager
to enter into such an agreement.
Respectful bmitted,
atthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Barry Bergman ~ ~
Transportation Co rdinator
MTN:BB:gc
CITY OF ALAI~EDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 15, 2008
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application
to Caltrans for $45,000 in Transit Technical Planning Assistance Grant
Funds for Fiscal Year 200812009 to Conduct a Citywide Transportation
Systems ManagementlTransportation Demand Management Plan,
Commit $5,830 in Measure B Funds as Local Match, and Authorize the
City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents to Implement the
Project
BACKGROUND
The California Department of Transportation Caltrans} is accepting applications far
Transit Technical Planning Assistance funds for fiscal year 2008109. This program
provides funding for public transit or intermodal transportation planning projects
targeting areas with populations of 100,000 or less.
For the 200812009 funding cycle, Caltrans will award approximately $1 million in
competitive grants to local governments throughout California, with a maximum award
of $100,000 per project and a required 11.41 percent local match. Staff proposes to
submit an application to develop a citywide Transportation Systems
ManagementlTransportation Demand Management ~TSMITDM} Plan, which would be a
component of the Transportation Master Plan ~TMP}.
DISCUSSIGN
The City had previously developed a draft TSMITDM Plan, which identified a set of
strategies that could be used to reduce single occupancy vehicle ~S4V} trips in West
Alameda. In addition, the Transportation Commission ETC} has developed and the City
Council has accepted draft citywide TSMITDM policies.
The scope of work for this project will include the following:
1. Review TSMITDM strategies previously identified by the City to confirm that they
are applicable and the estimated SGV reduction is appropriate, and identify
additional strategies that should be considered.
2. Evaluate TSMITDM plans successfully implemented in other jurisdictions to
identify project-related SGV reduction goals and options to finance the projects.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4-F
41-'I 5.08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
January ~ 5, 2008
Page2of2
3. Develop a draft list of TSMITDM projects required to meet the city's future traffic
capacity needs and S4V reduction goals.
4. Develop an implementation strategy to create a citywide transportation
management association ~TMA}.
5. Develop evaluation methodologies for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of
effectiveness of TSMITDM measures.
6. Develop a community outreach process that involves business organizations,
developers, and transportation advocates in the development ofthe plan.
BUDGET CCNSIDERATIONIFINANCIALlMPACT
The cast of completing the citywide TSMITDM Plan is estimated to be $50,000. The
Transit Technical Planning Assistance grant application will request $45,000 in funding,
with the $5,530 required local match from the City's Measure B Street and Roads
allocation.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIPaLICY DGCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The use of TSMITDM strategies is consistent with the General Plan policy 4.2.c:
Require development west of Grand Street which significantly impacts peak hour traffic
volumes in the vllebsterlPosey Tubes to provide transportation alternatives such as:
pricing and management of the parking supply; providing preferred carpool parking;
provision of transit stops; implementing compressed work weeks, telecommuting,
staggered hours, flex time; providing discounted transit passes; providing subsidized
shuttle service; providing bicycle facilities; implementing shuttle, or contribute toward
expanding AC Transit service to ferry terminals and BART stations.
RECCMMENDATI4N
Authorize the City Manager to submit an application to Caltrans for $45,000 in transit
technical planning assistance grant funds for fiscal year 200812009 to conduct a
TSMITDM plan, commit $5,830 in Measure B funds as the local match, and authorize
the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to implement the project.
Respectfully submitted,
~•
Matt ew T. aclerio
Public Works Director
By:
s~~
Barry Bergman ~ ~
Transportation Coordinator
MTN:BB:gc
CITY GF ALAMEDA RESGLUTI4N NG.
E
v
u~
0
a~
0
a
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATIGN
TO CALTRANS FGR $45,000 IN TRANSIT TECHNICAL PLANNING
ASSISTANCE GRANT FUNDS FCR FISCAL YEAR 2008/2009 TC
CGNDUCT A CITYWIDE TRANSPGRTATIGN SYSTEMS
MANAGEMENTITRANSPORTATIGN DEMAND MANAGEMENT
PLAN, CGMMIT $5,830 IN MEASURE B FUNDS AS LGCAL
MATCH, AND AUTHGRIZE THE CITY MANAGER TG EXECUTE ALL
NECESSARY DGCUMENTS TG IMPLEMENTTHE PRGJECT
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan establishes policies de-em hasizin
p g
the use ofsingle-occupant vehicles during peak periods; and
WHEREAS, the City currently requires new development west of Grand
Street that significantly impacts peak hour traffic volumes in the VllebsterlPose
. Y
Tubes to provide alternatives to single-occupant vehicle travel; and
WHEREAS, the City anticipates significant new development which will
impact on traffic levels on the bridges and the Tubes leadin to and from
g
Alameda s main island; and
UIlHEREAS, the Transportation Systems ManagementlTrans ortation
P
Demand Management ~TSMITDM} Plan is one element of the Cit of Alameda's
Y
Transportation Master Plan ~TMP}, a comprehensive approach to addressin
r
the City s current and future transportation needs; and
VIIHEREAS, the TSMITDM plan would develop a framework for re uirin
q g
new development and redevelopment projects to contribute towards ro'ects
pJ
and programs that would reduce single-occupant vehicle travel; and
WHEREAS, The City of Alameda wishes to submit a grant application to
Caltrans for funds from the Transit Technical Planning Assistance Grant
Program for the following project:
1, A Citywide TMSITDM Plan, to develop a framework for ensurin
9
that new development and redevelopment projects throughout
Alameda contribute toward TSMITDM programs and projects.
NflW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESGLVED by the Alameda Cit Council
Y
that the City Manager ~s authorized to execute and file an application for fundin
. g
under the Transit Technical Planning Assistance Grant Program in the amount
of $45,004 for a Citywide TSMITDM Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESGLVED that the Alameda City Council b ado tin
. Y p 9
this resolution does hereby state that:
Resolution #4-FCC
01-15-OS
The City will provide $5,830 in local matching funds from its Measure B
allocation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall submit a copy of
this Resolution to Caltrans in conjunction with the filing ofthe application.
**~***
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 15th day of January, 2408, by the following
vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN v111TNESS, UIIHEREQF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this f" day of January 2008.
Lora Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITYOF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 15, 2DDS
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application
#o Caltrans for $96,000 in Community-Based Transportation Planning
Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2008/2009 to Conduct an Update to the Long
Range Transit Plan, Commit $24,000 in Measure B Funds as the Local
Match, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute all Necessary
Documents to Implement the Project
BAC KG RG U N D
The California Department of Transportation Caltrans} is accepting applications for
Community-Based Transportation Planning ~CBTP} funds for fiscal year 200812009.
The CBTP program provides funding for projects that include transportation planning
activities to support more livable or sustainable communities and encourage community
involvement.
For the 2008109 funding cycle, Caltrans will award approximately $3 million in
competitive grants to local governments throughout California, with a maximum award
of $300,000 per project, and a required 20 percent local match. Staff proposes to
submit an application to conduct an update to the City's Long Range Transit Plan
LRTP}, a component of the Transportation Master Plan TMP}.
DISCUSSIGN
The City of Alameda's LRTP was completed and accepted by the City Council in 2001.
In 2003, the City Council directed staff to implement a comprehensive TMP, which will
serve as an umbrella for individual modal plans. Staff has been working on activities to
follow this direction and is continuing to seek funding for the remaining elements of the
TMP, including the transit plan.
The scope for the LRTP update will include the following:
• Community Involvement: Conduct a comprehensive public outreach effort
throughout the City to elicit input on the transit needs of the City. This could
include surveys, public meetings, and interviews with key stakeholders.
City Council
Agenda Item #4-G
O'I -'I 5-08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
January 15, 2008
Page 2 of 3
• Evaluation of Current System: Review of existing policies, service
characteristics, access to transit stops and stations, and passenger amenities.
• Recommended Improvements: List of recommended policy changes, service
modifications, transit options, and capital improvements, including cost
estimates.
• Implementation Plan: Prioritization and phasing of recommended
improvements.
• Funding: Identify funding requirements and available grants to implement the
recommended improvements.
The LRTP update is estimated to be completed by the end of 2009.
BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGNIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost of completing the LRTP is estimated to be $100,000. The CBTP rant
g
application will provide $96,000; a local match of $24,000 is available from the City's
Measure B Street and Roads allocation, for a total project cost of $120,000.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPGLICY DOCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE
The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan policies to enhance
transit service:
• 4.3.b: Encourage AC Transit to maintain a dialogue with Alameda to ensure
continued high levels of coverage and transit frequency.
• 4.3.d: Develop transit-oriented streets where feasible.
• 4.3.e: Encourage AC Transit to consider Transit Centers to facilitate transfers at
the following locations: South Shore Center, vicinity of Blanding and
Broadway, along vVebster Street, Main Street Ferry Terminal, and the
Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal.
• 4.3.f: Support ferry service as an effective means of reducing demand for
greater road capacity, offering commute alternatives, and minimizing
pollution.
• 4.3.i: Seek both technologies and service providers capable of expanding transit
use in Alameda.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
REC~MMENDATIGN
January 15, 2008
Page3of3
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit an application to Caltrans for
$96,000 in Community-Based Transpor#a#ion Planning Grant Funds for fiscal year
2008/2009 to conduct an update to the LRTP, commit $24,000 in Measure B funds as
the local match, and authorize the City Manager to execute a[1 necessary documents to
implement the project.
Respectful) submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
~~~~
By: Barry Bergman lq..~. ~.
Transportation Coordinator
MTN:BB:gc
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
E
0
L
0
cd
v
a~
0
a
a
1 ~
0
a
U
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION
TO CALTRANS FOR $96,000 IN COMMUNITY-BASED
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GRANT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR
200812009 TO CONDUCT AN UPDATE TO THE LONG RANGE
TRANSIT PLAN, COMMIT $24,000 IN MEASURE B FUNDS AS THE
LOCAL MATCH, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda is a Transit First City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda's General Plan calls for the
development of transit-oriented streets, transit centers, and ferry service to
encourage increased transit usage in Alameda; and
WHEREAS, over 15 percent of employees living in Alameda use transit
as their primary means oftraveling to work; and
WHEREAS, many seniors, children, low-income residents and people
with disabilities depend on transit for their mobility needs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda anticipates significant development and
redevelopment, which will generate demand for additional transit services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda's Long-Range Transit Plan was
completed in 2001, and requires updated information to meet the City's
anticipated transit needs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda wished to submit a grant application to
Caltrans for funds from the Community-Based Transportation Planning Grant
Program for the following project:
• City of Alameda Long-Range Transit Plan Update
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Alameda City Council
that the City Manager is authorized to execute and file an application for funding
under the Community-Based Transportation Planning Grant Program in the
amount of $96,000 for City of Alameda Long-Range Transit Plan Update.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alameda City Council by adopting
this resolution does hereby state that:
The City will provide $24,400 in local matching funds from the City's
Measure B allocation.
Resolution #4-G CC
01-15-08
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall submit a copy of
this Resolution to Caltrans in conjunction with the filing of the application.
**~**~
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 15th day of January, 2008, by the following
vote to wit:
AYES:
NDES;
ABSENT;
ABSENTI~NS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this t~ day of January X008.
Lara Weisiger, City Glerk
City of Alameda
CITY GFALAMEDA RESGLUTIGN NG.
APPOINTING LAMANT CARTER AS A MEMBER OF THE
E ~ ALAMEDA YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
L
o~
~" BE IT RESGLVED b the Council of the Cit of AI
a y y ameda that pursuantto
~, ~ o Section 2-~ 9 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the
`~ a Mayor, LAMANT CARTER is hereby appointed to the office of member of the
~ .~ ~ , ,
a ._ Alameda Youth Advisory Commission of the City of Alameda, for a term
commencing January ~5, 2008, and expiring pursuant to sta erect term
~, .. 99
~ requirements ofthe Alameda Municipal Code.
****~*
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was dul
. .y
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 5th day of January, 2008, by the followin
g
vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIGNS:
IN WITNESS, vIIHERE~F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this day of January, 2008.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolutions #5-A
01-~ 5-08
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESaLUTIGN NG,
E
L
0
0
~v
0
a
~.
APPGINTING VINCENT MARGAD4 AS A MEMBER ~F THE
ALAMEDAYGUTHADVISORY COMMISSION
A BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to
Section 2-19 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the
~ Ma or VINCENT MAR '
~ y GADG ~s hereby appointed to the office of member of
,~ the Alameda Youth Advisory Commission of the City of Alameda, for a term
~' commencing January 15, 2008, and ex iris ursuant to sta erect ter
p g p gg m
requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code.
*~****
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 15th day of January, 2008, by the following
vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTi4NS:
IN vvITNESS, VIJHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this day of January, 2008.
Lara vlleisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION N0.
APPOINTING BHAANI SINGH ASA MEMBER OF THE
ALAMEDAYOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
~ BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to
o , Section 2-19 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the
Mayor, BHAANI SINGH is hereby appointed to the office of member of the
y , o Alameda Youth Advisory Commission of the City of Alameda, for a term
`~ ~ commencin Janua ~5 2008 and ex iris
~ ~, g ry p g pursuant to staggered term
~ ~, requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code.
0
a
r
.,
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was dul
y
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the ~ 5th day of January, 2008, by the following
vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT;
ABSTENTIONS;
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this day of January, 2008.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Frorn: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 15, 2008
Re: Hold a Public HearingtoConsideranAppea[ ofthe HistoricalAdvisoryBoard's
Denial of a Certificate of Approval for Demolition ~CA06-0031} for 433 Taylor
Avenue
BACKGROUND
~n June 7, 2007, the Historical Advisory Board denied a Certificate of Approval that would
have permitted a 100-percent demolition of asingle-family residential structure at 433 Taylor
that was built prior to 1942. The site is not listed in the Architectural and Historical Resources
of the City of Alameda's Historical Building Study List. The Board was generally dissatisfied
with the design of the applicant's Major Design Review proposal. The Board was also
concerned with the proposed demolition of the house. In denying this application, the Board
made the following findings in support of its action:
"There are elements associated with this property that make a significant
contribution to the history or cultural heritage of local or regional history. Even
though this residence does not show identifying marks, it should be saved because it
completes the cultural fabric of the neighborhood. Houses that are eclectic surround the
residence and they are historic. This house has retained some historical characteristics
and could be remodeled and returned to its original Colonial Revival style."
Planning staff recommended in favorof the demolition based upon the inabilitytofind thatthe
existing building retained historical significance. The Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society ~AAPS} also supported the demolition see attached Correspondence}. However, staff
and AAPS did not supportthe approval ofthe Major Design Review forthe proposed dwelling.
The Major Design Review application proposed replacing the small, one-story Colonial Revival
cottage with atwo-plus-story duplex that would approximately double the size of the original
building's footprint. Planning staff subsequentlydeniedthe MajorDesign Reviewapplication on
November 14, 2007, after reviewing a numberof alternative designs provided bythe applicant
see attached Notice of Design Review Denial}.
City Council
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #5-6
01-15.08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
DISCUSSi~N
January 15, 2008
Page 2 of 4
According to available resources, the small cottage style, single-family residence at433 Taylor
was constructed in 1906 as asingle-family dwelling. A detached garage, which was built in
1963, is also located on the site. The residential building is not listed on the Architectural and
Historical Resources of the City of Alameda's Historical Building Study List. City records
indicate that significant alterations were made to the structure in 1964. These alterations
included the removal of the front porch, the installation of mismatched wood siding and
aluminum sliding windows, and the addition of a used-brick wainscot and fireplace with
chimney.
Together, these changes have compromised the original architectural and historic integrityof
the home. Efforts to restore the home to its original condition and allow for expansion would
require extensive alterations to the structure that would be prohibitively expensive, and make
it incapable of earning an economic return on its value. The applicant's contractor estimates
that the restoration work would cost approximately $531,000 see attached Contractor's
Estimate}.
Staff recommended approval of the Certificate of Approval, CA06-0031, to the Historical
Advisory Board based on findings that the building has no historical significance., and staff
continues to support the request. In recommending approval, staff su ested the followin
g9 g
findings to the Historical Advisory Board in support of the request;
1. The structure that would be demolished does not represent the work of a master or
possess high artisticvalues. Staffwas unabletofind records that the originalstrncture
was the work of a master. Photographs of the structure are provided that show that the
existing structure is a simple design that had been poorly modified with a mixture of
modern aluminum windows and siding styles. The numerous alterations to the original
structure have not improved the appearance of the building and have only succeeded in
obliterating the architectural integrity of the original structure.
2. There are no events associated with this property that make a significant
contribution to the history or cultural heritage of local or regional history. The
building is not listed on the Historical Building Study List that defines evaluation criteria of
"Historical Significance." The fact that this structure is not listed suggests that this building
has no historical orcultural significance. There is no additional information available that
suggests that this structure has historical orcultural merit.
3. The property is not associated with persons important to local, state, or national
history. Staffwas unable to find records that associate this propertyto important local,
state, or national history.
Honorable Mayor and January 15, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 4
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFlNANCIALlMPACT
No additional funding is necessary related to planning activities for this project.
MUNICIPAL CQDEIP4LICY DQCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Issuance of the Certificate of Approval is consistent with the Municipal Code, Article Illl,
Chapter 13-21 Preservation of Historical and Cultural Resources},
ENVIRQNMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categaricallyexemptfromadditional enviranmentalevaluation pursuanttothe
California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA} Guidelines, Section 15301 ~I}~1 } -Existing
Facilities, Qne Single-Family Residence, i.e. the project includes demolition of one sing[e-
family residence that is not an historical resource.
RECaMMENDATIQN
Consider an appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's denial of a certifiicate of approval for
demolition ~CA06-0031} for 433 Taylor Avenue.
Staff recommends the following finding, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code RAMC}Section
13-21-5, in addition to the originally recommended findings:
Based on the evidence of qualified sources, efforts to restore the structure to its original
condition and allow for expansion will be incapable of earning an economic return on its
value. In order to restore the modest cottage to its original architectural configuration, it
would requirethe restoration of thefrontporch and stairs, the replacementofallwindows
and restoration of window trim, the removal of a used-brick wainscot and fireplace with
chimney, the removal of some internal walls, and the restoration and infill of portions of the
wood siding.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbury
Planning & Building Director
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
t
~'~
By: Dennis Brighto
Planner III
on Biggs
Planning Services Manager
January 15, 2008
Page 4 of 4
Attachments
1. Application for Appeal, June 13, 2007
2. Notice of Design Review Denial, November 14, 2007
3. Historical Advisory Board Resolution No. HAB07-09
4. Planning and Building Department Staff Report, May 3, 2007 without attachments}
5. Correspondence, Architectural Preservation Society, May 3, 2007
6. Photographs of the House and Site
7. Contractor's Estimate
.. , ~ C~fy r~ ~ Kameda `{ ~~
E ~~ ~
Per~~c ~enfer ~ -~
2263 Santa Ciara Avenue, Roam ~ 90
Alameda, CA 94501
Application for Appeal Nearing PINING & BUILDING
before the
Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board Fee: 100.00
Appellant Information PER ACTIVITY
(PLEASE PRINn ~
~f?L[.Y y~~~noTJ
Name
'r7F~/ Aye- ~lJ~ . /~~ivl t~.~
Mailing Address (Street Address, Cify; State, and ZIP Code)
__ CS~v~ S'~x -o~S"5 5'~n~F
Telephone (Day) (Evening)
Pro a Location andlor Pro'ect Connected with A
~~
Property Address: ~ ~ /.4~tda2.
S6 l
JUN 14 2~G7
PERA~IIT CE~~~~
ALAMEDA, C.4 ~~5^ 1
.~
Project Title: ~t~KOl./T70D~.! ~•e%i~iU~T~
Permit Number. ~~~ " ddb/
Appeal Matter Description (Describe specific nature of appeal matter and indicate the desired relief being sought):
//~+C,h~~D aCgTl~~. ~.l~? AN1~ lJ,G4tifiJ/.vG, 4tAFF QFPrr~P-r
SuppoPtinq Arqument(S) (Describe all material facts in support of the appeal matter. Please use additional sheets
if necessary, and attach copies of any supporting information AND copy of JOB CARD):
Proposed Schedule of Work to be Done with ~stima~e~i Dates for Project Comuletion
(aftach separate sheet as needed):
.qi~T Co~Lf~L~T~ ~5 SDD~tJ ~} 055/ s~L
7
SCgnatu
/~Gi~lr'` G~l3`o7
Appellant Date
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIVED
DATE 51GNED ~ - - -
HEARING DATE
G:~c~E~, Bn~o~s~~~~, ~
SIGNED
9ysa~
City Council
Attachment 'I to
Public Hearin8
Agenda Item #5-B
01-'I 5.08
APPLICATIQN FCR APt'EAL I CA06-OO31 Sally Harmon
Appeal Matter Description and Supporting Arguments:
1 ana appeasing the decision by the H.A.B. to deny a demolition certificate for 433 Taylor
Avenue.
H.A.B. from my understanding, was to make a ruling for a demolition certif cafe by
finding fact as whether this property had any historical significance:
1. "The structure that would be demolished does not represent the work of a master
or possess high artistic values".
2. "There are no events associated with this property that make a significant
contribution to the history or the cultural heritage of local or regional history".
3. "The property is not associated with persons important to local, state or national
history"
H.A.B. held two hearings on November 2006 and May 2007, at both hearings my
demolition certificate was denied without reason. Another hearing was called on June
2007 for the Board to give reason for denial. 1 do not have their reasons in writing, but
from what i understood, their denial was based on personal opinion that they want the
existing house to be restored.
X33 Taylor Avenue has no historical significance, either by features or by history. !
See enclosed photos}
X am asking for an overruling of the H.A.B. ruling because being old does not make it
historical, just unsafe. I am requesting a demolition certificate to take down. areas that are
not structurally safe or do not meet building code. An example of that is the roof
structure, which consists of a 1 "x4" roof ridge with 2"x4"supports.
The Planning department approves of demolition. A.A.P.S. stated they have no objection
to the structures demolition.
This demolition certificate should have no bearing on any new construction. Safety
should be more important.
It is very alarming and concerning to me as an owner, occupying and paying for this
structure, to be told by others that I must restore the existing house. City personnel and
rulings change, but as an owner,l then would have to live and pay for their decision. The
owners choice should be considered first as long as it is within reason. The surroundings
of the neighborhood can change at any tune, since it is an R-3 zoning, owners can add on
Znd stories, extend and modify. what is 1 sto . toda could be 2 sto tomorrow.
rY Y ry So
future potential due to zoning should also be taken into consideratio
~~~~
Sally H on, Dwner
City of Alameda • California
NQTICE ~F DESIGN REVIEW DENIAL
Sally & Robert Harmon
433 Taylor Avenue
Alameda, CA 945a 1
Project Number: Major Design Review, DR06-0037
Project Address: 433 Taylor Avenue
Project Description: The proposed project involves the demolition of the 1+-stor Colonial
y
Revival cottage and detached garage and construction that would include a 2+-story du lex with
P
two attached, two-car garages. The site is located within the R-3 Garden Residential} Zonin
g
District.
Findings for Denial:
Staff's denial is based upon review of the plans submitted on August 2$, 2007 and the inabilit
. y
to make the following two findings that are derived pursuant to Alameda Munici al Code
p
RAMC},Section 30-37.5~Z through D}:
I. The project is not compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the
surrounding properties. This incompatibility is supported by the following specific deli
standards as contained within the City of Alameda, Guide To Residential Design, ado ted on
p
March 15, 2005:
1. Massie Hei ht and Setbacks: Although the 7-foot side yard setbacks exceed the
minimum required 5~foot side yard setbacks, the excess height and depth of the pro ased
P
building would create a building mass that is incompatible with other buildings within the
block face. The proposed building would be approximately 6 to 7-feet higher than the
original cottage. At a maximum height of 29-feet, $-inches at its highest peak, the du lex
P
would be the tallest structure on the block face. The appearance of building mass would
be accentuated by the building's extensive depth, which would exceed 103-feet.
2. Excessive Site Develo meat: The proposed site development exceeds the level of site
development that exists an adjacent properties. The proposed duplex would exceed 103-
feet in depth and would be developed to within 20-feet of the rear property line, where
adjacent structures are approximately 70-feet in depth and maintain approximatel 56-
y
foot rear yard setbacks. The new duplex would look into the open space areas of ad' acent
. ~
properties and would block the visual open space of the adjacent properties.
3. Incom atible Use of 0 en S ace: The proposed use of second-story terraces and the
use of balconies to accommodate open space needs is inconsistent with the neighborhood
standard where open space needs are addressed at ground level. Additional dwellin
g
units are generally accommodated in detached one or two-story structures that utilize
open space areas between buildings. while the proposed second-story common open
space area located between dwelling units permits greater building coverage, it also
produces one very Iarge structure with a common open space area that overlooks the
adjacent property with only a 7-foot side yard separation,
Planning & Building Department
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 city Council
Alameda, California 945x1-4477 Attachment 2 to
510.747.6850 ~ Fax 510.747.6853 ! TDD 510.5ZZ.7538 G:IPLANNINGIStreetnames A-
Public Pleating
Agenda Item #5•B
0'I -'I 5.48
4. Architectural Detail: The proposed pra ject provides some architectural details that
generally match other structures within the neighborhood but the excessive use of bays,
gables, and dormers of varying levels presents an incohesive and confused design without
producing any particular architectural style. In addition, the extensive use of multiple
interior split levels serves to ~ maximize interior floor area while minimizing building
height, but at the cost of overcomplicating the structural design to a level that it is
inconsistent with the simple design characteristics of the Colonial Revival or California
Bungalow architectural styles present in the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed
duplex does not represent a defined architectural style and would not represent any
particular style in the neighborhood.
II, The project will have significant adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity.
Detriment is established when projects are not deemed compatible with their site, adjacent
neighboring buildings or surroundings and do not promote harmonious transitions in scale
and character. Pursuant to AMC, Section 30-37.5, a detriment is deemed to exist when there
is an inconsistency with principals and standards of the Design Review, as above noted.
Summary:
This project is denied because it overdevelops the site, its scale, massing, and architectural
characteristics are not compatible with the site and with the adjacentlabutting properties and it
constitutes a detriment to existing property values within the immediate neighborhood.
Note: This Notice of Decision is required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-36.3. To appeal
this decision, a written appeal must be flied with the required appeai fee and submittal of
the appropriate form and 15-copies of any supporting plans andlor exhibits in accordance
with Section 34-36.4 within ten X10} days of this denial. The application must be
received at the Permit Center by November Z6, ZOO7 by 4:OO pm.
Approved: Cathy Woodbury, Director of Planning and Building
per; Date: November 14, 2ao7
Dennis Brighton, P1 er III
Cc: Sam & B. Elaine Short, 439 Taylor Avenue, Alameda, CA 94541
G:IPLANNINGIStreemames A-ZIS~eemames R-TlTaylar ~331DR06-0037.denial.doc
CITY OFALAMEDA
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. HAB07-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD OF THE ClTYOF
ALAMEDA DENYING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, CA06-0031, FOR THE
DEMOLITION OF MORE THAN THIRTY PERCENT OF AN EXISTING DWELLING AT
433 TAYLOR AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application Major Design Review was submitted to the Plannin and
. .. g
Bu~fding Department on May 3, 2006 that would include a demolition of the one-sto
cottage and detached garage; and
WHEREAS, the applicant was informed to apply for a Certificate of Ap royal
. p
because the cottage was built prior to 1942 and the proposed demolition would exceed the
30% threshold for demolition, pursuant to AMC, Sections 13-21.2~Definitions -Demolition
}
and 13-21.7~lnterim Review}; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2006 the applicant applied for a Certificate of
Approval for the demolition of more than 30°/° of the dwelling located at 433 Taylor Avenue;
and
WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on October 8, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan designation of the site isMedium-Density Residential;
and
WHEREAS, the parcel is located within the R-3, Garden Residential Zoning District;
and
WHEREAS, the Historical Advisory Board finds that the proposal is Categoricafl
. .. ,y
Exempt from CEQA Guidelines, SectEon 15301 ~I}~1 } - the demolition of one stn le-famil
g y
residence; and
WHEREAS, the Baard held a public hearing on this application on May 3, 2007 and
denied the Certificate of Approval; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2007 the made the fallowing finding to support the denial of
the Certificate of Approval:
• There are elements associated with this property that make a significant
contribution to the history or cultural heritage of local or regional history.
Even though this residence does not show identifying marks, it should be saved
because it completes the cultural fabric of the neighborhood. Houses that are eclectic
City Council
Attachment 3 to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #5•B
41.15.08
surround the residence and theyare historic. This house has retained some historical
characteristics and could be remodeled and returned to its original Colonial Revival
style.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historical Advisory Board hereby denies
Certificate of Approval CA06-0031.
HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition o~ this approval that the
applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The~~City ofAlameda shall notify
the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the
defense, If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceedin , orthe
g
City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to
defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
The decision of the Historical Advisory Board shall be f nal unless appealed to the City
Council, in writing and within ten X10}days of the decision, by Notice of Appeal stating the
appellant claims that either the Board's decision is not supported by its f ndings or its f ndings
are not supported by the evidence in the record.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Historical Advisory Board of the City of Alameda
on the lth day of June 2007 by the following vote:
AYES: ~4}Anderson, Lynch, Iverson, Miller
NOES: (0)
ABSTAIN: (1~ Irons
~..
Approved: ~t,~-~
Cynthi Eiiason, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:IPLANNINGIHABIRESO12oollTaylor 433 CAO6-OO31 final reso
2
.l
. ~~
~~.,
1~
CfTYOFALAMEDA
PLANNINGANDBUILDING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO.: 6-A
APPLICATION: Certificate of Approval CA06-0031--Sall Harmon --4
y 33 Taylor
Avenue. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of A roval
ply
for a complete ~~ 00°/Q} demolition of a residential structure that
was built prior to ~ 94~ but is not on the Historic Buildin Stud
g y
List. The site is located at 433 Taylor Avenue within an R-3
Garden Residential Zoning District.
GENERAL PLAN: Medium Density Residential
ENVIRONMENTAL Categorically Exempt from State GEQA Guidelines S '
DET ect~on
ERMINATION: ~ 5301 ~~ }, demolition of one sin le-famil residence.
g Y
STAFF PLANNER: Dennis Brighton, Planner III
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
ATTACHMENTS: ~ . Draft Resolution
2. Photographs ~6-pages}
3. Plan Packet X13-pages}
I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The project involves the demolition of nearly 100-percent of the existin '
famil ~ g. one-story, s~ngle-
y res~dentral structure and the detached garage in order to construct atwo-
story
duplex.
On November 2, 200G, the Historical Advisa Board initiall rev'
rY y sewed this project.
However, na action wastaken by the Board because of confusion refs '
tang to the extent of
demolition and design issues associated with the level of demolition. B
oard consideration
of the Certificate of Approval was withheld until the ro'ect was redesi
p 1 gned to make the
project more architecturally compatible with the neighborhood.
If. EXISTING CONDITIONSIDISCUSSION
Site visits to the property, noted that the neighborhood is com osed of '
p drffenng architectural
styles and bu~ld~ng mass, ranging from 2-plus sto Victorians and Conte '
rY mporary residences
to single-story Colonial Revival and Craftsman bun slows. Man of the '
. , , 9 y structures in the
ne~ghbarhaod had been modified by incompatible arch~tectural~ alteration '
s that pravtde an
eclectic mixture of building styles and massin within the nei hborh
g g ood, of which this
subject property ~s one example.
Alameda Historic Advisory Board
Staff Report
Meeting of IUlay 3, ~OOl
City Council
Attachmar~t 4 ~o
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #~-B
~1-'I 5-OS
According to available resources, the small Cottage style, single-family residence at 433
Taylor was constructed in 1906 as a single-family dwelling. The detached garage is exempt
from HAf3 review because it was built in 1963. The residential building is not listed in the
Architectural and Historical Resources of the City of Alameda, Historical Building Study List.
City records indicate that significant alterations had been made to the structure in 1964.
These alterations included the removal of the front porch that was relocated to the westerly
side of the residence. Other poorly conceived and executed alterations included the
installation of mismatched wood siding, aluminum sliding windows, and the addition of a
used-brick wainscot and a fire place~chimney.
Ill . STAFF ANALYS I S
Staff is able to make the following findings in order to justify the recommendation for the
issuance of the Certificate of Approval:
1. The structure that would be demolished does not represent the work of a master
or possess high artistic values. Staff was unable to find records that the original
structure was the work of a master. Photographs are provided that show that the
existing structure is a simple design that had been poorly modified with a mixture of
modern aluminum windows and siding styles. The numerous alterations to the original
structure have not improved the appearance to the building and have only succeeded in
obliterating the architectural integrity of the origins[ structure.
2. There are no events associated with this property that make a significant
cantributic~n to the history or cultural heritage o~ local or regions! history. The
building is not listed on the Historical Building Study List that defines evaluation criteria
of "Historical Significance". The fact that this structure is not listed, suggests that this
building has no historical or cultural significance. There is also nat any additional
in#ormation available that suggests that this structure has historical~and cultural merit.
3. The property is nat associated with persons important to local, state or national
history. Staff was unable to find any records that define the property as containing
historical and cultural merit.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from State CEQA Guidelines, Section
15301 ~I~, the demolition of one single-family residence.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Find that the demolition is Categorically Exempt from CEG~A and approve Certificate of
Approval, CAa6-o031, to demolish more than 30°/a of a residential structure built before
1942.
G.IPLANNENGIHABIREPORTSI~OOl105-03-a7lTaylor 433_CAOfi-o031.doc
Alameda ~-listoric Advisory Board
Staff Report
Meeting of May 3, 2441
2
The
L~~
~-
~. Preservahon_~
Society
3
/.~iv~~.y 2007
fir. Dennis Brighton
City.of Alameda Planning Department
Z~G3 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda California 945 I
~By electronic transmission}
Subject: Design Review Revision far 433 Taylor Avenue
Dear Nfr. Brighton:
The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society ~AAPS} reviewed the plans far this property an
November 2, 206 and made the following determination; "The Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society ~AAPS} has no objection to demo fishing the existing building as long as the
replacement structure is compatible with the neighborhood as described in the City's Guide to
Residential Design. However, we do not believe that the proposed building has achieved such
compatibility."
After review of the revised plans, RAPS feels that the current design is further removed from the
styles represented in the neighborhood than the original drawing. The fallowing items should be
considered:
I } Distinctive architectural style determined by cornices, lintels, braces, arches, decorative
woodwork or chimneys as suggested previously, is still not apparent. Characteristic design
treatments of windows and porch railings were removed an the revised drawings, making the
structure more contemporary in appearance. we believe that a more successful plan would
incorporate traditional design elements of a 1 ~~Os and l ~30s Period Revival style. with interior
architecture reflected on the exterior design.
2} A fireplace is a major feature of the front of the house and it is not visible on the exterior
elevation. A faux chimney flue pap-out stops at the first floor to accommodate a window on the
second Hoar. we feel the chimney could be a major organizing design feature afthe front
elevation. It should extend to the second floor with windows on either side.
3}windows are shown in a square style and an arched style in various sizes. windows should
have one consisterrt style and where passible, cansistenrt size on all elevations.
P. D. fox 1677
Alameda, CA 94501
510-986-9232
City Council
Attachment 5 to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #5-B
~'1-'15.48
Re: 43 3 Taylor Avenue
5 May 2406
4} ~'e appreciate the effort made to lower the roof hei ht '
. g on the right snde of the structure. Also,
the change in the pitch of the dominant roof ns an nrn rov
. p ement. However, the front porch gable
should have a lower gable and a greater itch to be su e '
. p gg stave of a 1920s and 1930s Penrod
Revival style. Also, there are no specifications as to what '
materials are used for the roof.
our approval of the demolition of the one sto 1906 altered '
. . ~ Colonial Revival hawse and
replacement with a large duplex ns ~tlll cont~n ent u on the des'
g p xgn bung compatnble wrth the
neighborhood, we believe the pernut for demolition should not
be issued untnl the plans ~des~gn
review and building permit} for the new house have been a rov '
pp ed. Regardnng the design
compatlbtlnty zssue, our pre~nous letter contains comments ke ed to select '
G . y ed sectzons of the
wide to Resrdentzal Design, which still apply to this revised deli n. '
g Attached is a copy of our
previous letter far your use.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Please contact me at 814-9431 or ekrase all2eas .net if ou have uestio '
. y q ns or would lake to
dnscuss these comments.
Sincerely,
~+
Elizabeth Rrase
Preservation Action Committee
acting for Christopher Buckley, Chair}
cc: Cathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director electronic transmission
~y }
Andrew Thomas, Planning Manager ~By electronic transmission
., ~
Cynthia Elnason, Supervlsnng Planner ~By electronic transmission
7
Mayan and Councnl members ~By electronic transmission
}
H~storncal Advisory Board ~By electronic transmission
}
AAPS Board and Preservation Action Committee members B electronic trans '
~ y mnssron}
The
~~~
~r ~
o. P~~o
Society
~avember ~, ~Q4~
~By ~lec~ronic Transmission}
I~ir. Dennis frighten
Cif of Alameda Planning Uepar~nen#
~~~3 ~a~.ta Clara Avenue
Alameda, Ca~.ifomia 94~ 1
Subject:- -Iles~gn ~ev1ew for 4~3 Tsylor Avenue
Dear Mr. l~rxghten:
This project consists of demolis]ting Mast of a one story I ~~6 altered Colonial revival
house ana, replacing it with a large duple, which zs essentially two attached one fanul
houses. The existin house has had its on i Y
g g nal recessed front parch ion the right side of
the front eleva~.Qn} enclosed and the entry relaca#ed to the lel~ side elevatlan. The
front
eleva#ian has been covered with new siding ar~d a brick wainscot and aluminum slider
windows have been installed.
The Alameda Architectural Prescrvation Society ~AAPS~ has no ob'ection to demolishin
the ems ' burl ' ~ g
d.~g as long as the replacement structwre is can~patthle wzth the
ne~gh~rhoad as descnbed in the City's Guir~e t4 ~esrd~~~~~ ~~sr' .However vie do
~.
not bel%~~e, that the proposed building has achieved such compatihi~ty. iV~ore s czf call
Fe y~
the proposed structure does no# conform. to the fur"ad's First Guidln Parameter on a
~ and to the fast ' ' g p ge
three prQV~rons on page ~ I concg new "infiil" construction.
These pravisia~s from the Guide read as follows:
gage 5:
F.n~.ST PA TE)~; e r e i ilitie is to fished b the nei hbarhoa
d
co~ one of the mast cherished gitxes of Alameda's historic nei barhoods is
the wade variety of character between the neighborhoods and the historic axchitec
t~ual
styles found wi#hin the IIeighbarhoads, IVlany neighborhoods in Alameda have
nQ
one domutiant style and, therefore, can accommodate a more eclectic e o
archi#ectural ~ f
design, Sher Alameda netghborhood~ captain boil ' s of cohesive
styles that cannot accbm~nadate an overly eclec~c range of architectural desi
game especially cohesive areas such as ~
the bungalows an Burbank street, require
that any new cons~ructian closely follow the established s le of that nei hbor
tY g hood,
P. ~. fox ~ ~~T
~4iarneda, C~ 9~S4i
SI d-98b-9~3Z
~renerallY~ the ``ne~ghbprhood" far this parameter is defined a ~ ~~
s that ~mmed~ate area _
'Wlth~n visual range pf the subject Site - which is often the s
block fat ubject site and opposite
e.
Page 51:
1. fill pra~ects should incorporate the distinctive axchitectur 1
a chaTaGter~s~cs of
development m the surrounding neighborhood. For exam le: '
p w~ndaw and door
spacing~rhythm, building materials, roof style and itc finished-ffo '
P ~ or height,
porehes, and the like.
~. Similarity of architectural detail may be accomplished b the use o .
lintels Y f cornices,
braces, arches, decorative woodwork, clvmneys~ st~.rs, etc. This similari
of detail is e~(xemel im a ~
y p rtant m enswnng a compafible appearance in new
canstruc#ion.
~. The height of new ~l pra~ects must be considered within the context of th i
er
surrou~adings. Buildings with greater height should consider setbacl~s at the
second story to reduce impacts an adj scent buildings,
The p~ject does not conform with these Guide pravrsians far the fvllowin reasons: _.
g
Page ~
(`uidzn-~
~rst 1 arameter:
- ..
There are 37 properties knot including the subject proper~r}along bath sides cf Ta for
Avenue between ~~ and ~~ streets, of the ~ Y .
se, Z~, or about 70%, are ~ictonan, Coion~al
Revive and BungalowfCraftsman structures. The distribution of these ~~ r erties
accordi to each st leis 11 ~ P ~
~ y ~'~ctorian, nine ~ungalowfCra~sman and six Colonial
Revival, Qr 30°~0, ~4°~o and i ~% respectively, Although Wont of these three les is
ii ! ~
domra~ant' , they have enough s~n~ar~ty to establish a geuexally "cohesive" stxeetsca e.
There are onl two Mediterranean ro erti a e P
Y l? p es f n of ~vhich is a bungalow court, .
representing only about 5% of the total number of properties. l3esigning the ro osed .
PP
structure in a h~editerranean style therefore seems inconsistent with the l~'ust ~uidin
Paaran~eter. g
Fage ~1:
The following three enumerations refer to the enumerations of the three Guide ovision
Pr s
stated above:
1. The proposed building as seen dam the street has various s lit levels ro'ec#~ons
P iP J
cantilevers, asy~nrnetxically angled waifs and discontinuous vertu. and
hari~ontal alignments, This results in a somewhat tom licated sad confused
tom osition e ~ P .
p ~ omet~ry and mass~ng~ that zs lncons~stent with the clear vertical
and h~rntal allglm~ents a~~ sim ~~ '
p geometry and masS~lg of the surrounding
StI'i.1Ctl1~~S,
Z. since it is in a Mediterranean style, the buildin uses diffe `
than the redam' g ren# architectural detail
P uiant victor~an, Bt~ngalo~r~~raftsman and ~oloni~ ~evi~ral
structures.
3. The second story with raised basement des results m }- '~
eav ~ ~ 2S $ height at the
e which w~l be separated by only l~ from the ad scent one st
located to the ri t ~ ory bungalow
gh at 43 g Taylor Avenue, which is about I ~' ~ at the ea
about 18' ~ Ve and
m heYght Q~reraln. However the design does not rovide s. s o
setback alon the ri h F ~ nd story
g g t side wallas sugges#ed by Provision 3 on pa a 51 of the
Guide. g
Thank you far the opportunity to conunent. Please intact me at 523-44 ~
chuckle alamedane ~ ar
t.net if you have questions ar would. like to discuss these com~,cnts,
Please provide us copies of ar~y decision letters or other ' ortant cvrxes a e
p nd nce
ca~cerning this project and any notices of ptan rev~sians. Since AAPS does notch '
eck ids
posy oflzce box every day, please either mail these materials to nee directl at 1 X17 S
Antonio Avenue A}arced ~A. ~ y an
f a, ~ S01 or to c~uckle~alame~a~et.net,
~...,.,~
Si
~~$to~h r Buck ,
Preservati n Actio
cc: lathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director ~By electronic transmisslan
Andrew ~ ~ ~
Thomas, Plaarnag Manager ~By electronic transmission
~ ~ r •
~yntlua El~asaa, St~perv~ng Planner ~Y electronic transmission
Mayor and ~aunc~lrnembers ~By electronic transmission
I~istorical Advisory Board ~y electronic ~'at~sm.7issivn~
AAP~ Board and Preservation Action ~omm.ittee members electronic
. ~Y
tt~ansmxssran~
3
~unc~l
~6to
aring
#5-B
0'~ -'I 5.08
+a~.,n .^ ~ ~~.•....~~:~..i. ~ ~. ,. .~ w.:..k~: r.•,n. ~. b:u' •r ~~.+~..iuiw;r. u. •~.,d»v r.vo~ rn~,.•r~„wrv ai,.n.r.v•r.n~.M~~rn~o~iun~,r.a~~n:.s,rr..i•,.4oa..,.~-~.~, ~. i„•n.i..,vri
nka'~+.rw i. ,r. rn-.ten nwuvl~~r..::. ~.,. ~ .~
if ~:iv fM .W~-~5 ... .4 . YA .:r~1 .n IV .vl u .~1a1• .ir4A`, .i'F• V v ' n4 ,.awl
yr Dennis r~RIGHT~N - DSC01~1 QD.JP Pa e 1
Y .nr nria. R.,. M~waa-. ~~vn,~.n~.~ v.••mn •,y.i ~ ,.nwr -.v.,. •. n. •>.r ~+•r ~~ r'r v.r r.~-~ ..nr~i.~L ~n.x.au,+r-i~•,.r.+~^,rrra•..r ;,.,,n~iy siar..~r~~+r:•n u~n~. rj~:.y.•v..L~•.in,~
r~r..-.i~~a~~:r ~:,:.•t.Y.i, n•yn ,;ti ...nnv- -,rx-•_~.. .,.~~n :rs..M
~~~ c 14f3G[~ 1~.1~~hA
'~ S
c'ontractor's ~Desi~n Inc.
License # $59552
This agreement is between:
Job Number 1013200501
lleSCrl 11011 Of prO~eCt According to plans and specifications, including materials to be used ar installed}
Demolition and reconstruction of properly as described:
Demolition- structure 57x28
All Roofing, roof framing, all brick and fireplace, all entries, interior lath and plaster, sheetrock, 34% of sub flooring.
All plumbing, electrical, floor supports, ceiling framing, and removal of debris
Structural drawing and calculations plus energy calcs- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -$ 7,ODD.04
(Estimates only, subject to field changes and permit costs)
Reconstruction:
New roof framing, sheath and roofing
Reinforce all exterior walls and bearing walls to support new roof structure
Reinforce the entire 57x2$ foundation and add walls and piers where determined to support new roof load
Reconfigure walls to restore original entry
All new windows and doors
Sandblast and replace existing siding where needed
All new electrical, plumbing, hvac, insulation, sheetrock, fireplace
Interior; Kitchen, bath laundry, lighting, paint, carpet, tile, interior doors,
Exterior: Paint, stairs, railing, lighting
Estimates only, subject to field changes and permit costs} r---M--~--~--~----------------~~-----~~--~-_..___w________.__-_--_-------~._-------_ -$485,DOD.OD
Work start.
~pproxi.maie srarc aace
Time of completion:
Payment: Owner agrees to pay Contractor's Design lnc, a total cash price of X0.00_
Dvwn Payment: 1000.00
Material: 0.00
Checks made payable to Coatractor's Design lnc.
City Council
contractor's ~}esign ~ru. Attachment l to
Public Hearing
Paget Agenda Item #5-B
07.15-08
Contractor's design tnc. shall furnish all labor, materials, and equipment to perform in a workmanlike manner unless otherwise
specified:
INTEREST: Overdue payments will bear interest at the rate of 1.5% per month.
contractor's ~Desi~n Inc.
License # 859552
Contractors are required by law to be licensed and regulated by the California State License Board which has jurisdiction to investigate complaints against
contractors if a complaint regarding a patent act or omission is filed within four years of date of the alleged violation. A complaint regarding a latent act ar omission
pertaining to any structural defects must be f led within 10 years of the date of the alleged violation. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referred to the
Registrar, Contractors' State License Board, P.0. Box 26000, Sacramento, California 95826,1-800-321-2752
You, the buyer, have the right to require the contractor to have a payment and performance band. However the contractor can require you to pay far that bond.
Owner:
Owner:
(Owner signs here} (Date}
~lf mare than one) {Date)
Terms and conditions on next page
1. Changes in Work. Should the Owner, Construction
Lender, ar any Public body ar inspector direct and modification or
addition to the work covered by this contract, the contract price shall
be adjusted accordingly.
Modification ar addition to the work shall be executed only when a
Contract Change Order has been by Owner and Contractor. The
change in the contract price caused by such Contract Change Order
shall be agreed to in writing, or if the parties are not in agreement as
to the change in the Contract Price, the Contractor's actual cost of all
labor, equipment, subcontracts, and materials, plus a contractor's fee
of ~ % shall be the change in the Contract Price. The Change Order
may also increase the time within which the contract is to be
completed.
Contractor shall promptly notify the Owner of {a} Latent physical
conditions of the site differing materially from those indicated in the
contract, ar by {b}unknown physical condition differing materially
from those indicated in the contract, Any expense incurred due to
such conditions shall be paid far by the Owner as added work.
2. Owner's Responsibilities. Owner agrees to allow
and provide Contractor and his Iher equipment access to the
property.
3. Delays. Contractor agrees to start and diligently pursue work
through to completion, but shall not be responsible far delays for any
of the following reasons: failure of the issuance of all necessary
building permits within a reasonable length of time, funding of loans,
disbursement of funds into control or escrow, acts of neglect or
omission of Owner, or Owner's employees, ar Owner's agent, Acts of
god, Stormy or inclement weather, strikes, lockouts, boycotts, or
other labor union activities, extra work ordered by Owner, acts of
public enemy, idiots or civil commotion, inability to secure material
through regular recognized channels, imposition of Government
priority ar allocation of materials, failure of Owner to make payment
when due ar delays caused by inspection ar changes order by
inspectors of authorized Government bodies, or for acts of other
contractors, holidays, or other causes beyond Contractor reasonable
control
4, Subcontracts. The Contractor may subcontract portions of
this work to licensed and qualified Subcontractors.
5. Taxes and Assessments. Taxes and assessments of
all descriptions will be paid for by Owner.
6. Znsuranee and Deposits. Contractor shall carry
Worker's Compensation Insurance for the protection of Contractor's
during the progress of work, Contractor shall carry Liability
Insurance to caner any damage to Owner's property resulting out of
the acts of Contractor, Owner shall obtain and pay for insurance
against injury to his own employees and persons under Owner's
direction and persons on the jobsite at Owner's invitation.
Owner shall procure at awn expense and before the
commencement of work hereunder "ail risk" insurance with course of
construction, theft, vandalism, and malicious mischief endorsements
Contractor's Design Inc,
Contractor or Agent:
{Contractor or Agent signs here} {Date)
attached, the insurance to be in a sum at least equal to the contract
price, The insurance will name the Contractor and the Subcontractor
as additional insureds and will be written to protect Owner,
Contractor, and Subcontractors as their interests may appear. Should
Owner fail to procure such insurance, Contractor may do so at the
expense of the Owner, but is not required to da so. Owner and
Contractor weave rights to subrogation against each other to the extent
of any loss is covered by valid and collectible insurance. If the project
is destroyed or damaged by accident, disaster, or calamity, such as
f re, storm, flood, landslide, subsidence or earthquake, work done by
Contractor in rebuilding or restoring the project shall be paid for by
the Owner as extra work,
7. Rights to Stop Work. Contractor has the rights to stop
work if any payment shall not be made, when due, to Contractor
under this agreement: Contractor may keep the job idle until all
payments due are received. Failure to make payment within 5 days of
the date due is a material breach of Agreement and will entitle
Contractor to cease any further work,
g. Clean Up. Contractor shall remove from Owners property
debris and surplus material created by his operation and leaves it in a
clean broom clean condition.
9. Compliance with Laws. In connection with the
performance by Contractor of hislher duties pursuant to this
Agreement ,Contractor shall pay for all permits and comply with
Federal, State, County and Local laws, ordnances and regulations.
10. Asbestos and Hazardous Waste. Unless the
contract specifically call for the removal, disturbance, or
transportation of asbestos or other hazardous substances, the parties
acknowledge that such work requires special procedures, precautions
andlar Licenses. Therefore, unless the contract specifcally calls far
same, if Contractor encounters such substances, Contractor shall
immediately stop work and allow the Owner to a duly qualified
asbestos andlar hazardous material Contractor to perform the work ar
da the work himself at the Contractor's option. Said work will be
treated as an extra under this contract.
~ 1. Limited Warranty. Contractor hereby warrants its
work for a period of 1 year after completion against any defects in
workmanship ar material. This limited warranty is in lieu of any other
warranty express or implied.
12. Asbestos, Lead, Mold, and other
Hazardous Materials. Owner hereby represents that
Owner has no knowledge of the existence of an or in any portion of
the premises affected by the Project of any asbestos, Lead Paint, mold
{including all types of microbial matter or microbiological
contamination, mildew ar fungus), ar other hazardous materials.
Testing far the existence of mold and other hazardous materials all
only is preformed as expressly stated in writing. Contractor shall not
be testing ar performing any work whatsoever in an area that is not
identified in the Scope of Wark.
~'ontractar's ~Desi~n .Inc,
Page Z
Contractor's ~esi~n inc.
License # $59552
13. Unless the contract specifically calls for the removal, disturbance,
or transportation of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB}, mold,
lead paint ar other hazardous substances or materials, the parties
acknowledge that such work requires special procedure, precautions,
andlar Licenses. Therefore, unless the contract speci~caily for same
if Contractor encounters such substances, Contractor shall
immediately stop work and allow the Owner to a duly qualif ed
asbestos andlor hazardous material Contractor to perform the work or
da the work himself at the Contractor's option, Said work will be
treated as an extra under this contract, and the Contract term setting
faith the time for completion of the project may be delayed.
In the event that maid or microbial contamination is
removed by Contractor, Owner understands and agrees that due to the
unpredictable characteristics of mold and microbial contamination,
Contractor shall not be responsible far and recurring incidents of
maid ar microbial contamination appearing in the same ar any
adjacent location, subsequent to the completion of the work
preformed by Contractor. Owner agrees to hold Contractor harmless,
and shall indemnify Contractor harmless for any recurrence of mold
ar microbial contamination, Owner also agrees that Contractor shall
not be responsible, and agrees to hold Contractor harmless and
indemnify Contractor, for the existence of mold or microbial
contamination in any area that Contractor was not contracted to test
andlor remediate. Further Owner is hereby informed and hereby
acknowledges, that most insures expressly disclaim coverage for any
actual or alleged damages arising from mold ar microbial
contamination. Contractor makes no representations whatsoever as to
coverage for mold contamination, though at Owner's additional
expense, if requested in writing Contractor will inquire as to the
availability of additional coverage for such contamination ar
remediatian, and if available, will obtain such coverage if the
additional premium is paid for by Owner as an extra,
Contractor's ~Desi~n inc.
Page 3
Contractor's Design Inc,
License # 859552
Notice to Owner
Under the California Mechanics' Lien Law, any contractor, subcontractor, laborer, supplier or other person or entity who helps to improve your
properly, but is not paid for his or her work or services, has the right to place a lien an your home, land, or property where the work was performed
and to sue you in court to obtain payment.
This means that a court after hearing, your home, land, and property could be sold by the court off ter and the proceeds of the sale used to satisfy
what you owe. This can happen even if you have paid your contractor in full if the contractor's subcontractors, labors, or suppliers remain unpaid.
To preserve their rights to file a claim ar a lien against your property, certain claimants such as or material suppliers are each required to provide you
with a document called a "Preliminary Notice." Contractors and laborers who contract with the owners directly do not have to have to provide such
notice since you aze aware of their existence as an owner. A preliminary notice is not a lien against your property. Its purpose is to notify you of
persons or entities that may have the right to Fle a lien against your property if they are not paid, in order to protect their lien rights, contractor,
subcontractor, supplier, and laborer must file a mechanics' lien with the county recorder which then becomes a retarded lien against your property.
Generally, the maximum time allowed for filing a mechanics' lien against your property is 90 days after substantial completion ar your project.
TO INSURE EKTRA PROTECTION FOR YOURSELFAND YOUR PROPERTY, YOU MAY WISH TO TAKE ONE OR MORE
OF THE FOLLOWING STEPS:
1 Require that your contractor supply you a payment or performance band (not a license bond}, which provides that the bonding
company will either complete the project ar pay far the damages up to the amount of the bond. This payment and performance band as
well as a copy of the construction contract should be filed with the county recorder for further protection. The payment and
performance bond will usually cost from 1 to S percent more of the contract amount depending on the contractors bonding ability. If a
contractor cannot obtain such a bond, it may indicate his or her financial incapability.
Z Require that the payments be made directly to subcontractors and material suppliers through a joint control. Funding services maybe
available, for a fee, in your area which establishes voucher or other means of payment to your contractor. These services may also
provide you with lien waivers and other forms of protection. Any joint control agreement should include the addendum approved be
the registrar.
3 Issue joint checks far payment, made out to both your contractor and subcontractors or material suppliers involved in the project. The
joint checks should be made out to the person or entities which send preliminary natives to you. Those person or entities have
indicated that they may have lien rights on your property: therefore you need to protect yourself This will help to ensure that all
persons due payment are actually paid.
4 Upon making payment on any completed phase of the project, and before making any further payments, require your contractor to
provide you with a unconditional "Waiver and Release" forms signed by each supplier, subcontractor, and laborer involve in that
portion of the work for which payment was made. The statutory lien releases are set forth inexact language in Section 32b2 of the
Civil Code. Most stationary store will sell the "Waiver and Release" forms if your contractor does not have them, The material
suppliers, subcontractor, and laborers that you obtain releases from are those persons or entities who have filed preliminary notices
with you. If you are not certain of the material suppliers, subcontractors, and laborers working an your project, you may obtain a list
from you subcontractor. On project involving improvements to a single family residence or a duplex owned by individuals, the
persons signing these releases lose the right to file a mechanics' lien claim against your property. In other types of construction, this
protection may still be important, but may not be as complete.
To protect yourself under this option, you must be certain that all material suppliers, subcontractors, and laborers have signed the
"Waiver and Release" form. If a mechanics' lien has been filed against your property, it can be voluntarily released by a recorded
"Release of Mechanics' Lien" signed by the person ar entity that filed the mechanics' lien against your property unless the lawsuit to
enforce the lien was not timely filed. You should not make any final payments until any and all such liens are removed. You should
consult and attorney if a lien is filed against your property.
[Language effective 111193.]
Contractor's ~Desi~n Inc,
Page 4
Sally & Robert Harmon
431 Taylor Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
City of Alameda, California
Planning. & Building Department
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 19D
Alameda, CA 94501-4477
Re: Demolition Certif cafe for 433 Ta to
y r Avenue
To whom it concerns:
December 31, 2007
...r.,.w,..~~~.~.,_.... M .....~....._...__...._.~..~.
S .4 ~.W~ ~ 1 +~ '::G
~~
..~...e..~,...~.,,. ,,.,....~.~.,.,..~..~
o~~ ~ ~ 200
w..._...._'...~~_.~..~
~~.~~~~ w~~TE~
Demolition cost, structural calculations
and replacement costs are; 532 000 a ro
x.
Living space is approximatel 1600 s '.
y q Ali the casts incurred from ermits dem ' '
new construction replacement and ' ' p °l~~°n'
ut~l~ty upgrades in addition to cost of I
existing home price could not and and the
be recuperated from the sale of this ro
restoration. p perty after
~i~s~~
G~\
Owner, Sa11y armon.
CITY GF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
GVERTURNING THE HISTGRICAL ADVISORY BOARD'S DECISION TG
DENY A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL CA46-0031, FOR THE
DEMOLITION OF MORE THAN THIRTY PERCENT OF AN EXISTING
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 433 TAYLOR AVENUE
~ WHEREAS, the application was made on September 8, 2006, requesting
~ approval of a Certificate of Approval for a complete X140%} demolition of a
residential structure that was built priorto 1942 but is not on the Historic Building
~ o Study List; and
t~
~ ~
a ~ WHEREAS the Historical Adviso Board '
c ry held a public hearing on this
a application on June 7, 2041, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, documents
~ and testimony and acted to deny the Certificate of Approval; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an appeal the Historical Adviso
ry
Board's action on June 13, 2447; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda held a public hearing on
January 15, 2008, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, documents and
testimony; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings:
1. The structure that would be demolished does not represent the work of a
master or possess high artistic values. No records have been found to
support that the original structure was the work of a master. Photographs of
the structure are provided that show that the existing structure is a simple
design that had been poorly modified with a mixture of modern aluminum
windows and siding styles. The numerous alterations to the original structure
havenotimprovedtheappearanceofthebuildingand haveonlysucceededin
obliterating the architectural integrity ofthe original structure.
2. There are no events associated with this property that make a significant
contribution to the history orcultural heritage of local orregional history.
The building is not listed on the Historical Building Study List that defines
evaluation criteria of "Historical Significance." The fact that this structure is not
listed suggests that this building has no historical or cultural significance.
There is no additional information available that suggests that this structure has
historical or cultural merit.
3. The property is not associated with persons important to local, state or
national history. No records have been found to associate this property to
important local, state or national history,
Resolution #5-B
D 1.15-D8
4. Based on the evidence of qualified sources, efforts to restore the
structure to its original condition and allow for expansion will be
incapable of earning an economic return on its value. In orderto restore
the modest cottage to its original architectural configuration, it would require
the restoration of the front porch and stairs, the replacementof all windows and
restoration of window trim, the removal of the aused-brick wainscot and
fireplace with chimney, the removal of some internal walls, and the restoration
and infill of portions of the wood siding.
VIJHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project is categorically exempt
from additional environmental evaluation pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act ~CEQA} Guidelines, Section 15301 ~l}~1 } -Existing Facilities, One
Single-Family Residence, i.e. the project includes demolition of one single-family
residence that is not an historical resource.
NOINTHEREF4RE BE ITRES~LVEDthattheCity Council of the City of
Alameda hereby upholds the appeal and overturns the Historical Advisory Board
denial of Certificate of Approval, CA06-D031.
******
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the
regular meeting assembled on the day of
fallowing vote to wit:
AYES
NaES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIGNS:
Resolution was duly
City of Alameda in a
, 2008, by the
IN UVITNESS, UVHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said City this day of , 2008.
Lora UVeisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY of ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 15, 2448
Re: Receive a Report on the Governmental Accounting Standards Board
Statement No. 45 on Accountin for Qther Post Em io ment Benefits
BACKGROUND
In 2044, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board adopted new regulations ~GASB
45} regarding non-pension related benefits paid by public employers to retirees. These
benefits, which are a part of the compensation negotiated by the employer and its
employees, but are not received until retirement, may include medical, dental, vision,
hearing, life insurance or long term care insurance. Currently, the City of Alameda ap lies
p
a "pay-as-you-go" approach for budgeting these benefits on an annual basis; the current
budget appropriates $1.861 million for this purpose.
The regulation encourages, but does not legally require, current funding of the promised
future benefits. However, the cost of these benefits is large and will only increase over
time creating a potentially greater demand on future funds. As a result, the government
agency's plan for addressing these future obligations will become a component of any
analysis performed by the credit rating agencies.
DISCUSSIQN
GASB 45 was promulgated in order to focus attention on an important national issue:
funding retiree healthcare. The purpose of the new regulation is to better measure and
report these post-employment liabilities by recognizing the cost of the benefits in the time
period when the service is received; by providing information about the actuarial liabilities
for promised benefits in an open and transparent manner; and, by providing information
regarding the potential demands on future cash flows.
The liability for post-employment benefits other than pensions ~QPEB} is substantial. In
2045, Bartel Associates, LLC, prepared the City of Alameda's first actuarial valuation
report, which was presented to the City Council in May 2045. At that point, staff began the
process of reviewing various funding alternatives, learning from other cities and
organizations the steps taken to create funding plans for their organizations, and attending
City Council
Agenda item #5-C
0~-~5-os
Honorable Mayor and January 15, 2008
Members of the City Council Pa e 2 of 3
g
a variety of presentations in order to have the most current information on all aspects of the
regulation. The actuarial valuation study was updated as of January 2007 for the period
beginning with fiscal year 200112005. An Executive Summary of the valuation stud is
Y
attached to this report.
Stuff Results
The City of Alameda offers post-employment health and dental care to its fire emplo ees
. Y
after vesting in the retirement system and to its police employees after fifteen or twen
. tY
years, depending on the date of hire. Miscellaneous employeeswho retire from the Cityof
Alameda may elect to continue buying health care insurance from the CaIPERS s stem
.. Y
and then become el~g~ble for a minimum contribution from the City.
The first task in measuring and reporting the liability for CPEB is conducting an actuarial
valuation. This actuarial study is based upon the current demographics of the participants,
the benefits included in the plan, and assumptions about the future costs of those benefits.
Although there are a variety of funding approaches available to the governmental enti ,
tY
the actuarial study is designed to provide information on two basic methods: fundin of
.. 9
existing annual obligations and future Inabilities using the City's investment vehicles, ar
funding of these obligations using an irrevocable trust far these investments.
City lnvestment Approach Analysis
In the budget for 2001-2005, the City appropriated $1.551 million, which is the amount
necessary to pay actual expenditures far these benefits in the current year. However, the
actuarial analysis is required to calculate the amount to fund the presentvalue of benefits
earned by current employees during the year, which is referred to as the Normal Cost.
Further, the analysis identifies the dollar figure for the present value of the liability for the
future benefits that have already been earned by the workforce. When the city investment
method is being applied, this number, which is referred to as the "Actuarial Accrued
Liability" ~AAL~, is calculated using an average investment rate of return, which is 4.5
percent far the City of Alameda. As detailed in the attached summary of the report, the
AAL for Alameda using a city investment method is $15.4 million.
The actuarial analysis also determines the "Annual Required Contribution" ~ARC~, which is
a dollar number that includes both the Normal Cost and the cost for future benefits. Under
this scenario, the amount identified for the future benefits is the Unfunded Accrued
Actuarial Liability, which is composed of the unfunded AAL amortized as a level percent of
payroll over a 30- year period. Under the city investment approach, the ARC for the
current fiscal year would be $6.03 million.
Trust lnves~ment Approach Analysis
Under the trust investment method, the calculation for the AAL for the City of Alameda
assumes the use of a Section 1 ~5 Irrevocable Trust, an investment vehicle approved by
the Internal Revenue Service. The analysis assumes a return of 7.75 percent by usin this
g
investment approach. As reported in the attachment, by assuming the use of this
Honorable Mayor and January 15, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3
approach, the AALforAlameda is reduced to $47.3 million. Underthisscenario, the ARC
for Fiscal Year 2001/2008 would be reduced from $6.03 million to $4.4 million. However,
even though the ARC is reduced from $6.03 million to $4.4 million under this scenario, fully
funding the ARC would represent a $2.54 million increase in expenditures for fiscal year
2001/2008 over the current budgeted amount.
The second task required by the new regulation regards the process forthe disclosure of
this information in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The information in the
financial statements will provide a much more detailed description of the offered benefits,
the study assumptions, and the results of the actuarial valuation study for the current fiscal
year. This disclosure requirement will be incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2001/2008
Annual Report. Additionally, this data, together with the dollar figure for the net obligation,
will be detailed in ai! future annual reports.
BUDGET CaNSIDERATIaNIFINANCIAL IMPACT
There are two approaches to calculating the ~PEB obligation that are at opposite ends of
the spectrum: "pay-as-you-go" or "pre-funding". Under the "pay-as-you-go"approach, the
governmental entity continues to pay the benefits on an annual basis without pre-funding
any of the future liabilities. Under the "pre-funded" approach, the governmental entity
annually budgets the amount required to fund the present value of the benefits earned by
currentemployeesluring the year, plusan amortized amountappliedtowardthefunding of
the future liabilities. The portion of the spectrum in between the two opposite ends offers
many opportunities to meet the budgetary and cash needs of the City of Alameda.
Approximately 94% of the Annual Required Contribution is associated with the City's public
safety units and would be funded by the General Fund. The remaining 6% is generated by
the miscellaneous employees and would be funded primarily by the General Fund with
contributions by the other operating funds. The "pay-as-you-go"amounts for Fiscal Year
2008/2009 and 200912010, respectively, are: $2,129,000 and $2,366,000. The full pre-
fundedamounts for Fiscal Year 2008/2009 and 200912010, respectively, are: $4,502,000
and $4,648,000. The resources available will determine the amount, if any, above the
"pay-as-you-go"amount that will be included in the proposed budget and financial plan.
REC~MMENDATI4N
This report is for information purposes only. The development of the plan and the annual
amount will be discussed as part of the budget process for the 2008-2410 fiscal years.
espectfully submitted,
elle-An oyer
Chief Financial officer
Attachment: Retiree Healthcare Plan Executive Summary
City of Alameda
Retiree Healthcare Plan
January 1, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
Executive Summary
January 2008
City Council
Attachment to
Agenda Item #5-C
41-15-08
Executive Summary
City of Alameda
Retiree Healthcare Plan
January 1, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
On June 21, 2004, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board approved Statement No. 45 (GASB
45), Accounting Standards for Other (than pensions) Post Employment Benefits (OPEB). This report
is based on the financial reporting standards established under GASB 45 and assumes the City will
implement GASB 45 for its 2007/08 fiscal year. Historically the City has accounted for retiree
healthcare benefits as they were paid, projected to be approximately $1.861 million for the 2007/08
fiscal year. GASB 45 will require the City account for this promise on an accrual basis (as benefits are
earned).
S UDY RES~JLTS
Funded Status: The plan funded status is equal to the Actuarial Accrued Liability see definitions and
assumptions section below} less plan assets. When assets equal liabilities, a plan is considered on
track for funding.
To consider a retiree healthcare plan funded for GASB 45 purposes, assets must be set aside in a trust
that cannot legally be used for any purpose other than to pay retiree healthcare benefits. The City's
retiree healthcare plan is not currently funded. However, we understand the City intends to begin
funding the plan through CaIPERS Section 115 Trust, This has important implications for the discount
rate assumption used to calculate plan liabilities see definitions and assumptions section below}. We
have prepared valuation results under 2 scenarios:
^ No Pre-Funding -Benefits paid from the City's general fund which is assumed to earn a
4.50% long-term rate of return.
^ Pre-Funding -Contributions made to the California Employer's Retiree Benefit Trust
~CERBT}with diversified assets which are assumed to earn a 7.75% long-term return.
The following table summarizes the plan's January 1, 2007 funded status ~000s omitted}:
Na
Pre-Funding Pre-Funding
4.54 % 7.75
^ Actuarial Accrued Liability ~AAL}
• Actives $32,984 $18,669
• Retirees 42,393 2$,655
• Total $75,377 $47,323
^ Plan Assets p 0
^ Unfunded AAL ~UAAL} $75,377 $47,323
l
January 2005
~4'' *1;.
4
"n,
}
.:
~4 ~•
Executive Summary
City of Alameda Retiree Healthcare Plan
January ~, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
Page 2
Annual Required Contribution (ARC}; GASB 4S doesn't require an agency make up any shortfall
(unfunded liability} immediately, nor does it allow an immediate credit for any excess assets. Instead,
the difference is amortized over time. An agency's Annual Required Contribution is nothing more
than the current employer Normal Cost, plus the amortized unfunded liability or less the amortized
excess assets, Simply put, this contribution is the value of benefits earned during the year plus
something to move the plan toward being on track for funding. For the City's valuation we calculated
the 2007108 ARC as the Normal Cost plus a 30-years amortization (as a level percent of pay} of the
Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (OOOs omitted}:
No
Pre-Funding Pre-Funding
4.50% 7.75%
^ Normal Cast $ 2,779 $ 1,273
^ UAAL Amortization 3,250 30$8
^ 2007108 Annual Required Contribution $ 6,029 $ 4,361
^ Annual Required Contribution as a
percentage of estimated 2007108 payroll 10.8°/0 7.8%
^ Estimated 2007108 Payroll $55,763 $55,763
Net QPEB Obligation (N~4}: An agency's Net OPEB Obligation is the historical difference (from
implementation}2 between actual contributions made and the Annual Required Contributions3. If an
agency has always contributed the required contribution, then the Net OPEB Obligation equals zero.
However, an agency has not "made" the contribution unless it has been set aside and cannot legally be
used for any other purpose.
Annual aPEB Cost (AUC): GASB 45 requires the Annual OPEB Cost equal the Annual Required
Contribution, except when an agency has a Net OPEB Obligation at the beginning of the year. when
that happens an agency's Annual OPEB Cost will equal the ARC, adjusted for expected interest on the
Net OPEB Obligation and reduced by an amortization of the Net OPEB Obligation (OOOs omitted}:
Na
Pre-Funding Pre-Funding
4.50 % 7.75 %
^ 2007108 Annual Required Contribution $ 6,029 $ 4,361
^ Interest on Net OPEB Obligation 0 0
^ Amortization of Net OPEB Obligation 0 0
^ Total 2007108 Annual OPEB Cost $ 6,029 $ 4,361
~ GASB 45 allows up to a 30-year amortization.
z GASB 45 specif es the initial Net OPEB Obligation (at implementation} be set to zero.
3 Benefits paid for current retirees are considered contributions.
.,
January 2008
Executive Summary
City of Alameda Retiree Healthcare Plan
January 1, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
Page 3
The following illustrates the City's June 30, 2008 Net OPEB Obligation if the City adopts GASB 45
for the 2007108 fiscal year ~OOOs omitted}:
No
Pre-Funding Pre-Funding
4.50% 7.75%
^ June 30, 2007 Net OPEB Obligation $ 0 $ 0
^ 2007105 Annual OPEB Cost 6,029 4,361
^ 2007105 Contributions 1~~4 4 361 5
^ June 30, 200$ Net OPEB Obligation $ 4~1bS $ 0
The City's actual June 30, 2008 Net OPEB Obligation will differ slightly from the above because
actual benef t payments will be different from estimated.
Projected Benefit Payments: Following are 10-year open group benefit payout projections, assuming
the number of active City employees remains constant ~OOOs omitted}:
Y" Benefit Y~ Benefit
Pa ments Pa ments
2007108 $1,861 2012113 $3,158
2008109 2,129 2013114 3,435
2009110 2,366 2014115 3,733
2010111 2,634 2015116 4,035
2011112 2,900 2016117 4,342
Sensitivity: The above results are based on a 30-year amortization of th e unfunded liability.
Following illustrates the impact of changing the amortization period to 20 years ~OOOs omitted}:
No
Pre-Funding Pre-Funding
4,50% 7.75%
^ 20-year amortization
• Total 2007108 ARC $ $ 7,383 $ 5,157
• Total 2007108 ARC % 13.2% 9.2%
^ 30-year amortization
• Total 2007108 ARC $ $ 6,029 $ 4,361
• Total 200710$ ARC % 10.8% 7.8%
4 Estimated 2007108 benefit payments.
s Assumes full ARC is contributed.
l l
January 2008
+ L
1\ ~ .~
.'~ i~ ~ W~
ff .
~ ~.
'. ,r:'
Executive Summary
City of Alameda Retiree Healthcare Plan
January 1, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
Page 4
Cash and Accrual Projections: The City should consider the above ~"No Pre-Funding" and "Pre-
Funding"} scenarios as book-ends, with an infinite number of alternatives between them. For
illustration purposes we are showing three alternative plans, the two book-ends along with one phase
~n alternative. All three assume the City implements an Other Post Employment Benefits ~aPEB}
funding plan for the 2007108 #iscal year:
^ No Pre-Funding: The City contributes only the pay-as-you-go cost
^ ARC isphased-in over 5 years, starting with 2007/086
Fiscal Year 5-Year Phase-fin Contribution
2007108 PayGo + 20% x Full ARC -PayGo}
2008109 PayGo + 40% x Full ARC -PayGo}
2009110 PayGo + b0% x (Full ARC - PayCro}
2010111 PayGo + 80% x Full ARC -PayGo}
2011112+ Full ARC
^ Full Pre-Funding: The City contributes the ARC every year
The phase in and full pre-funding illustrations are based on a 30-year amortization and 7,75% discount
rate ~OOOs omitted};
$7,000
$b,000
$s,ooo
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$-
~ Phase in projections are for illustrative purposes only. If this method is chosen, the projections need to be
recalculated based on a revised discount rate.
January 2008
200710$ 2012113 2017118
~ Pay-As-You-Go -~-- 5-Year Phase In --f-Full Pre-Funding
Executive Summary
City of Alameda Retiree Healthcare Plan
January 1, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
Page 5
Projected amounts are (OOOs omitted):
Pay-As 5-Year Full Pre-
You-Go Phase In Funding
Y ar Cost Contribution Contribution
2007108 $1,861 $2,361 $4,360
2005109 2,129 3, l OS 4,502
2009110 2,366 3,$34 4,648
2010111 2,634 4,546 4,799
2011112 2,900 5,205 4,955
2012113 3,158 5,364 5,116
2013114 3,435 5,524 5,282
2014115 3,733 5,689 5,454
2015116 4,035 5,555 5,631
2016117 4,342 6,032 5,$14
If the City chooses to continue the pay-as-you-go method, the Net OPEB Obligation will increase to
approximately $26 million at June 30, 2017,
Comparison of the City's results to other agency's results: The following graphs compare the over
150 Miscellaneous and Safety GASB 45 studies prepared by Bartel Associates with the City's results.
The first graph provides sample percentiles for interpreting the information that follows. All graphs
provide the Ot", St", 25t"' 50t", 75tH, 95t" and 1001h percentiles the Xt" percentile is the level at which X
percent of the data fall below the given level -for example 25% of the data falls below the 25t"
percentile. As noted on this chart, the dark blue shaded area in the middle of each column includes
results between the 25t" and 75t"percentiles representing 50% of the agencies, with the line in the
middle indicating the 50t"percentile.
GASB 45
Retiree Medical Beocfils Comparison
5amplc Perceolile Graph
l J
January 2008
e~
ss74 r 100th Peree4[ge
~ 95th P
tll
5074
~ 0174 ertcd
e
F 75
h P
J974
3574
,,,
°
R ]1174
u
~
Ar u9. 1
rrcrnl0r
30°/. d!
rnul[[
err
+-~SOIhPrrcrntlle wlthln
Ihis
Hoge
90°/. o!
rnullr
ire
xllhtd
lhl~
r~ngr
100°/. o!
mull
stet
vrlthid
Iht1
Hoge
2074
15X F 25th Percentllt
luv.
y ~ 51h Prrrenlllr
w 01h PerctnlAr
y
!t
~ ~~~I li Yi r~ ~
J 1 f~'.
L f ..Y~~
`~ .
f ~~. (S r u.{4 /
Executive Summary
City of Alameda Retiree Healthcare Plan
January 1, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
Page 6
The following graph compares Normal Cost (NC} and Annual Required Contribution ARC} as a
percentage of payroll for Miscellaneous and Safety employees. City information is noted in red on
both the bars and it ~,_ _ ~___~ _~ ~,_ _ ,_ _ L~ _ ~ ., ,
>~ intr ~cx~ ai ins vo~iam or ine ~rann.
CASE 45
Retiree Medical Benefits Comparison
Normal Cost & Annual Required Contribution
45%
40% - -- - --- --------
a
C
u ?0% ---•- -- ---- ---- - ---•-
~.
a
a I S% --- ----
10% --- -- ~ . -------_ --_ --- -
5% -- - --- _._
D%
Miscellaneous Safe
NC ARC NC ARC
95th Percentile 15.8°/° 27.3% 17.5% 30.6°/°
75th Percentile 11.7% 20.2% 13.5% 23.5%
50th Percentile 7.4°l0 14.9°/° b.8% 1 I.8%
25th Percentile 2.9% 5.8% 3.0°/° 7,2%
5th Percentile 1.2% 2.1°/° 1.2% 2.3%
Percent of Pay l .4% 2.5% 10. l % 22.5%
Percentile 7% 8% 69% 70%
Discount Rate = 4.50%, Amortization Period = 30 Years
The next graph compares Actuarial Liability (AL) as a percentage of payroll for Miscellaneous and
Safety employees. Ag, ' ~' ~ ~ -
ain, [;i information is noted in red.
GASB 45
Retiree Medical Benefits Comparison
45D%
40D°/° Actuarial Accrued Liability
350% ---
~ 300% ---
Y -w _._._
--. -
C
u zDD°r°
~
as
a
150%
100% - -
----- - -
,
----
--
0%
Miscellaneous Safe
95th Percentile 332% 376%
75th Percentile 205% 260%
50th Percentile 132% 137%
25th Percentile 63% 76%
5th Percentile 18% 22%
Percent of Pay 25% 290%
Percentile 9% 81 %
Discount Rate = 4.50%, Amortization Period = 30 Years
January 2008
Executive Summary
City of Alameda Retiree Healthcare Plan
January 1, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
Page 7
. . , ~BAS~IC.DEFINIT ~ .. ,i ~.
1 ~ ~ .I~NS~AND ASSUMPT~~NS
Present Value of Benefits: When an actuary prepares an actuarial valuation, (s}he first gathers
participant data (including active employees, former employees not in payment status, participants and
beneficiaries in payment status} at the valuation date (for example January 1, 2007}. Using this data
and actuarial assumptions, (s}he projects future benefit payments. (The assumptions predict, among
other things, when people will retire, terminate, die or become disabled, as well as what salary
increases, general (and healthcare} inflation and investment return might be.} Those future benefit
payments are discounted, using expected future investment return, back to the valuation date. This
discounted present value is the plan's present value of benefits. It represents the amount the plan needs
as of the valuation date to pay all future benef is - if all assumptions are met and no future
contributions (employee or employer} are made. The City's January 1, 2007 retiree healthcare Present
Value of Benef is is $105.7 million using a 4.50% discount rate ($55.1 million using a 7.75% discount
rate}, with $42.4 million of this for former employees who have already retired ($25.7 million using a
7.75% discount rate},
Actuarial Accrued Liability: This represents the portion of the present value of benefits that
participants have earned (on an actuarial, not actual, basis} through the valuation date. The City's
January 1, 2007 retiree healthcare Actuarial Accrued Liability is $75.4 million using a 4.50% discount
rate ($47.3 million using a 7.75% discount rate}, with $42.4 million of this for former employees who
have already retired ($28.7 million using a 7.75% discount rate}.
Normal Cost: The Normal Cost represents the portion of the present value of benefits expected to be
earned (on an actuarial, not actual, basis} in the coming year. The City's 20071DS retiree healthcare
Normal Cost is $2.S million (5.0% of payroll} using a 4.50% discount rate and $1.3 million using a
7.75% discount rate (2.3% of payroll}.
Actuarial Cost Method: This determines the method in which benefits are actuarially earned
(allocated} to each year of service: It has no effect on the Present Value of Benefits, but has significant
effect on the Actuarial Accrued Liability and Normal Cost. The City's January 1, 2007 retiree
healthcare valuation was prepared using the Entry Age Normal cost method.
Actuarial Assumptions: Under GASB 45, an actuary must follow current actuarial standards of
practice, which generally call for explicit assumptions -meaning each individual assumption represents
the actuary's best estimate.
GASB 45 requires that the discount rate is based on the source of funds used to pay benef ts. This means
the underlying expected long-term rate of return on plan assets for funded plans. Furthermore, since the
source of funds for an unfunded plan is usually the general fund and California law restricts agencies'
investment vehicles, this valuation uses a relatively low, 4.50%, discount rate. If the City establishes a
Trust (that could only be used to pay plan benefits} using CaIPERS CERBT then the discount rate would
be based on the Trust's expected long-term investment return (established by CaIPERS at 7.75%}.
l 1
January 2005
~i ,r
.~' ~ 4'
ri
'•~ ~.
F
4~ '1
fQ. `4, ~
Executive Summary
City of Alameda Retiree Healthcare Plan
January 1, 2407 Actuarial Valuation
Page 8
Another key assumption is future healthcare inflation rates. The inflation rate for HMfl's starts at 11
the increase in 2008 premiums' over 2007} and grades down to 4.5% X2018 premiums over 2017} and
remains at 4,5% into the future. The inflation rate for PP4's starts at 12% the increase in 2008
premiums over 2007} and grades down to 4.5% X2018 premiums over 2017} and remains at 4.5% into the
future, This assumption means healthcare is assumed to increase, on the average, S.1 % for HMS's and
$.6% for PPQ's a year for the next 10 years. Furthermore, since the valuation's general inflation
assumption is 3%, it also means healthcare is assumed to level off at 1.5% over general inflation.
Dental premium inflation is assumed to be a constant 3% per annum
Actual 2007 premium rates used for PEMHCA plans
l 1
January 2008
`x+14 e~lrp~
T. •r~}.
!~ ~ i
',r
'y ~ 1
'4 ~~
.~a~ 4s.,
fq 4.!~.
Executive Summary
City of Alameda Retiree Healthcare Plan
January 1, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
Page 9
. ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ . ~ ,RETIREE :HEALTHCARE BENEFI:~'S ~;~ ,
,.
,..
Miscellaneous SafetylAppointed ~fiicials
^ Eligibility • Service and disabled retire di rectly from the City
• CaIPERS re uires a e 50 & 5 YQS
^ Medical Benefit •PEMHCA Minimum • City pays full premiums for retiree and
Employer Contribution spouse
• PEMHCA Minimum Employer Contribution
for Police retiree if
Hired<71111995 <15 YES ~APOA only}
Hired~71111995 <20 YES APIA&APMA
• PEMHCA Minimum Employer Contribution; AB 2544 recent change to
"Unequal Method."}
- No longer prior year's retiree contribution plus 5% of active
contribution
- Now 5% of active contribution times years City in PEMHCA increase
each year not greater than $100 per month}
- .loined PEMHCA in 1992 for all bargaining units
- New method im lementation date; 2008
^ Dental Benefit • None • Self insured: currently MetLife, changing to
Delta Dental
• Ci a s all cost for retiree
^ Surviving • Contribution continues to surviving spouse
S ouse Benefit
January 2008
~~,~;,~,o,.;..
~.~
~,
~. .
'4 ~~
~'~~ ~4 .~'~46,
CITYDFALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 15, 2005
Re: Approve the Proposed New Bus Stop Locations and the Proposed Future
Reroutin of the AC Transit Bus Line 63 within the Cit of Alameda
BACKGROUND
AC Transit's Line 63 Attachment 1 } provides service to the east and west ends of
Alameda with direct connections to the 12t" Street and Fruitvale BART stations on
weekdays. On weekends, Line 63 terminates at the Main Street Ferry Terminal, with no
connection to the 12t" Street BART station or downtown Oakland. The service o erates
P
from 6:00 a.m. until midnight, seven days a week, with 30-minute headways. In
addition, it is the sole bus transit service on the west end, and during weekdays, it
essentially functions as a shuttle to BART forthe west end.
According to AC Transit, Line 63 currently has difficulty remaining on schedule during
the weekdays, and service cuts or rerouting are required to improve its on-time
performance and reliability. Initially, AC Transit indicated that approximately four
minutes of run time would need to be eliminated from the existing route to achieve an
acceptable on-time performance. However, after additional review and discussions, AC
Transit suggested that reducing the route by four minutes might not be sufficient to
provide the required rest time for drivers, which is established by union contract.
On March 6, 2001, the City Council heard an appeal from a resident regarding the
Transportation Commission's ETC} decision to install bus stops at the intersection of
Otis Drive at Pond Isle for the Line 63 bus route. In consideration of the public
testimony received at the appeal hearing, the City Council requested that staff work with
AC Transit and the TC to evaluate additional alternatives, including the potential to
reroute a segment of Line 63 onto Shoreline Drive between Grand Street and willow
Street.
DISCUSSION
working with AC Transit and Public works Department staff, the TC ~ established a
subcommittee to respond to the City Council direction. The TC subcommittee reviewed
12 possible options for modifying Line 63, as presented in Attachment 2. Since Line 63
currently is at least four minutes over-scheduled, the subcommittee could not suppork
City Council
Agenda Item #5-D
0'I-'I5-08
Honorable Mayor and January 15, Zoos
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 6
shifting a portion of the existing route from Otis Drive to Shoreline Drive, which is
estimated to add an additional two minutes to the schedule. The subcommittee was
concerned that the Shoreline Drive rerouting would exacerbate an already serious
reliability issue for the Line 63 and could result in AC Transit seeking additional service
cuts on the route, which could seriously impact transit service in the west end. The
subcommittee supports rerouting a segment of the service to Shareline Drive between
Grand Street and vUillow Street only after the Line 63 has been sufficiently modified to
keep the bus consistently on schedule.
At the October 24, 2001, TC meeting the subcommittee's report was considered and a
recommendation was developed for the City Council. Consistent with the
subcommittee, the TC sought to streamline the Line 63 runtime to improve reliability and
keep the bus on schedule rather than implement a route change from Otis Drive to
Shoreline Drive. The TC determined that the potential ridership increase associated
with this rerouting did not outweigh the immediate need to improve the ongoing
unreliability of the existing service. Based on ridership concerns, the only
recommended route changes the TC supported were the proposed modifications of the
route at Alameda Point and near Encinaf High School ~EHS}. They reluctantly
considered other service cuts only as a means of improving Line 63's on-time
performance, recognizing that while the improved schedule adherence would be
beneficial to many riders on the line, the proposed cuts would make the bus less
convenient to access at certain locations. A copy of the minutes from the TC meeting is
included as Attachment 3.
The TC approved the following recommendation:
1. Implement a route change at Alameda Point by removing stops on Monarch
Street and rerouting the bus onto Lexington Street see Attachment 4}. This
includes removal of six on-street parking spaces.
2. Implement service modifications near EHS to provide service to the school at
peak school hours only, and during remaining hours reroute the bus to Main
Street and Pacific Avenue see Attachment 5}. This includes removal of four on-
street parking spaces and reduced restrictions in existing red zones.
3. The two proposed cuts described above should be made on an interim basis to
evaluate whether additional modifications are needed to keep the bus on
schedule.
4. Since the Line 63 schedule cannot currently accommodate the additional run
time needed to operate on Shoreline Drive, the bus service should remain on
Otis Drive, and bus stops should be implemented at the intersections of Otis
Drive at Sandcreek vlJay and Otis Drive at Willow Street.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
January 15, 2005
Page 3 of 6
5. Pursue rerouting a portion of Line 63 onto Shoreline Drive between Grand Street
and Willow Street only after the service has achieved consistent on-time
performance and refiabifity and the recommended improvements have been
made at the future bus stops. This includes removal of nine on-street parking
spaces and increased hours of restrictions at 12 on-street parking spaces.
6. The westbound bus stop at the intersection of Whitehall Road and Willow Street
should be the City's top future priority for bus stop improvements. This stop is on
private property.
1. If AC Transit indicates that the time removed from the first two recommendations
above is not sufficient, or they decide to put an extra bus on the line, they should
return to the TC for recommendations regarding how to proceed.
To address the ongoing traffic concerns expressed by residents, the TC also requested
that staff evaluate the feasibility of modifying the current street cross-section for Otis
Drive west of Park Street from four travel lanes to three travel lanes with bike lanes.
This analysis is most appropriately done as part of the traffic analysis associated with
the Transportation Master Plan currently in process and expected to be complete by the
summer of 2008.
AC Transit Comments - AC Transit has indicated that it supports recommendations
one, two, four and five above, as indicated in the two letters included as Attachment 6.
As noted previously, AC Transit had initially estimated that four minutes of run time
would have #o be eliminated from the existing route to enable the bus to remain on
schedule throughout the day. However, they have since indicated that this may be
insufficient, since additional time may need to be added to the schedule to provide for
the rest periods required in their driver union's contract.
In January 2001, AC Transit indicated that if the bus route remains on Otis Drive, the
recommendations for new stop locations would be at the intersections of Otis Drive at
Sandcreek Way and Gtis Drive at Willow Street. The Sandcreek Way intersection was
preferred because of the crossing enhancements provided by the City, and the atis
Drivelwillow Street stop was recommended due to the ridership potential associated
with nearby land uses. AC Transit continues to recommend these bus stop locations.
Staff Analysis -Staff supports the TC recommendations one through six. Regarding
recommendation seven, if the additional run time resulting from the route changes at
Alameda Point and near EHS are insufficient #o keep Line 63 on time and provide
adequate rest time for drivers, the City of AlamedalAC Transit Interagency Liaison
Committee ~ILC}should investigate the possibility of adding an extra bus.
Regarding recommendation two, modified service near EHS, staff suggests including
the addition of signage at the bus stops that will not be served throughout the day to
Honorable Mayor and January 15, 2008
Members ofthe City Council Page 4 of 6
indicate the hours when bus service will be available. Staff has contacted EHS and the
Alameda Community Learning Center personnel regarding this proposal, and they have
indicated that they do not object to the partial rerouting, since the schools will be served
directly at the times of peak usage.
Staff concurs with the TC recommendation to retain the Line 63 route on Otis Drive at
this time. Tv attract new transit riders, it is essential that the Line 63 route achieves and
maintains acceptable on-time performance and reliability. The reliability of the Line 63
is a major obstacle to this goal, and this issue needs to be resolved satisfactorily before
making additional route changes. Originally, AC Transit had indicated that four minutes
of run time would need to be eliminated from the existing route; however, after
additional review, AC Transit is suggesting additional reductions to the run time may be
necessary to provide the required rest time for drivers. The only options available to
improve on-time performance and reliability are route cuts or securing funding for an
additional bus. The TC has proposed route cuts that should result in four minutes less
of run time but was unwilling to support further cuts which would be needed to offset the
additional run time associated with relocating a segment of the route from Otis Drive to
Shoreline Drive. In fact, the TC is concerned that additional route cuts will significantly
affect the ability of Line 63 to provide adequate coverage for west end riders to access
transit service. Staff concurs that rerouting at this time may jeopardize service in the
west end.
If Line 63 is to remain on Otis Drive, bus stops should be installed at the recommended
locations with the required improvements, including paved boarding areas, curb ramps,
and red curb. Vvhen the route is ultimately relocated onto Shoreline Drive, the ramps,
which account for the majority of the cost for these improvements, would continue to be
of benefit to pedestrians, even though the location is not served by transit.
Another option for AC Transit to improve the on-time performance and reliability of Line
63 is to add an additional bus. Currently, to provide for the 34-minute headway, there
are four buses operating on the Line 63 at any one time. AC Transit has indicated that
adding a fifth bus to the route would allow them to incorporate additional run time into
the schedule and should improve on-time performance and reliability. The cost for the
additional bus is estimated to be $300,000 to $500,040 per year, depending on the
number of hours of service per day. It is possible that this cost could be reduced
because of AC Transit's practice of "interlining," by which the operations of multiple lines
may be linked together to prevent drivers from having excessively long break times and
maximize efficiency in their operations. AC Transit currently does not have the funding
to provide an additional bus to the route. In addition, the TC was reluctant to suppork
the addition of a fifth bus to Line 63 because increasing the operating expenditures on
Line 63 could reduce farebox recovery, one of the measures used in determining
service cuts, thereby jeopardizing future transit service in the area. Lastly, the general
Honorable Mayor and January ~5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 5 of 6
consensus of the TC was that providing an additional bus in Alameda would be more
beneficial to Alameda transit riders on routes otherthan the Line 63.
Staff shares the TC's concerns regarding the allocation of limited transit resources
within Alameda. Rather than make incremental route changes at this time, rerouting to
Shoreline Drive should be pursued as part of the comprehensive review of all transit in
Alameda in conjunction with proposed service modifications to serve Alameda Landing
and the update of the City's Long-Range Transit Plan ~LRTP}. The LRTP update is
scheduled to be complete by the end of 2009, approxima#ely the same time that transit
service would be needed to serve Alameda Landing. In the mean time, if an additional
bus is determined to be feasible by the City and AC Transit, the route change could be
implemented in conjunction with bus stop improvements needed on Shoreline Drive. As
noted above, staff recommends exploring the additional bus issue at future ILC
meetings.
Next steps -The City Council's decision regarding service changes to the Line 63 will
be forwarded to AC Transit's Service Review Committee for evaluation. Service
recommendations typically need to be finalized two to three months in advance, and are
implemented quarterly. The earliest date for possible route changes is March 2008.
The ILC and TC will be regularly updated on service changes.
BUDGET C~NSIDERATIGNIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost for improvements at the proposed bus stops for Ctis Drive at Sandcreek vUay
and Qtis Drive at vllillow Street is estimated to be $50,000. There are sufficient funds
available in CIP# 06-12, Accessibility DADA} Upgrades. The cost for the proposed
improvements along Shoreline Drive is $~ 62,000. Staff will pursue grant funding for
these locations with the objective of having them in place by 2009.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIPGLICY DGCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The recommended service changes support General Plan Guiding Policy 4.3.b,
"Encourage AC Transit to maintain a dialogue with Alameda to ensure continued high
levels of coverage and transit frequency."
ENVIRQNMENTAL REVIEVII
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}, the proposed
capital improvements are Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section
15301~c}, Existing Facilities.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
RECOMMENDATION
January 15, 2408
Page 6 of 6
Approve the proposed new bus stop locations and the proposed future rerouting of the
AC Transit bus line 63 within the City of Alameda.
RespectFully submitted,
/"`
atthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
~~
By: Barry Bergman
Transportation Co rd~inator
MTN:BB:gc
Attachments}:
1. AC Transit Line 63 Service Area
2. Summary of Line 63 Alternatives Analysis
3. Excerpt from October 24, 2001 Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
4. Proposed Reroute of Line 63 at Alameda Point
5. Proposed Reroute of Line 63 Near Encinal High School
6. Letters from AC Transit Regarding Line 63 Routing and Bus Stop Location
cc: Transportation Commission
di
.~
0
.~
.~
a
V
d
~~
m
LL
C
%~
~~`~•~ i
~`/
1 ~% `
II ~~' ~.
-^ _' ~ Y
`~ ~~. i
~r ,
~~~
~-
// ~ 1 ~
~, , r .o
~ ~ '~ ' ;-~
~.
~~
,~ C
~~H
N ~ _
N~
rC
~~
~- Qr., fr~ ~ r~
~I
~-fir ~ f ~ ~.f _.~, ~~1~~ I~
~~~ ~rf , ~ a ~~-__.. ~,T._
~~ i ~ ~_
n~ ~
~~,
~~
,~_
i ~ ~ ~~
t ~L'~1~_{r~l`~_ j__f-_!
n~S~ ~, ~~
G
0
N
0
0
1 ,~ ~ , ~_. - _~ ~
Lf - +L__I _ __ .__._.._~ ~ r .._
~ M ~ c~
~U
-
i ~~~~~
~~
~
y
'C
-~ N
N
0
~
.U ~
~ ~
~ Y _
+~
` N ,~
~ ~C J
~- ~ ~ ~ 1 r
~ U
I r~~r~ - _~-- ~
~.. ~ 1 ~ ~
"~ i
C
~--~~ ._~_.I_. J
/f 4
'~ ~ ~~
~k~ ~~~
~~. ~~!i
~~~~~
®ff. ~,
f ~ J/J/~
rte, ~! / I ~~
/ ~r r ti 4
t~i f~ ~/
~ , \/ ~
I~ /f/II ~ ~-`~1r
~,l J
I~~ ~`~.
~` ~..
~ J ; ~~~
Ir `~~ ly
~ ~`• 1
r~
,ap ~ ~
~ - r`
_ t ~I ~r°
'tom. _~ .~.__ --a 1- ~ I f 1 rr
-.~~._ I r -- ~ _.` _--_ r I-- _ t
~J f,~irt r~ ~ ~ ~ i
il~~~ _ ~ r
~ ~~~VV i rt.-
V..~_
~...r~
~ -
City Council
Attachment 1 to
Agenda Item #5-D
41-15-D8
~~
\ ~f`\~
/, ~~ ; ti,
1 ~~ ~ ,~
i
i ~,.~'
,,
r
r~ ~: ~T_.~...
V ~/ ~~~~
~~ ~~ '~
\\~
~~!~ ~, ~ i
,~r~ ,-. i
.,
\f~~~ 4 ti~_1 ~
1
f \
~~ ~
~+\ ,~~~
1 ~ ~F ~ / r
.. ~~~' I
.I
O (D C
' C
Q
~ a
~ N
) .~ }~ 0
N
~C ~ C
o y _
~ ~
~. 0 m
c~
a o U a
~.L~ cu y
any .o C
~ -o
a
• N
~ cn can N ~ p V
g
m N y
~c 'X
°' ~
E ~ N m N N
m
N~ ~~-v
aom y
a
Nay
o
~~
~
~ >
~ >
ca a~
~ >
~
~
i~
~ o y C m O L r C U 'O N O C O 0 N
~ ~ ~ C
~ j
~ V ~ ~
~ ~
~ O
l~ •w
c +~
C +r
0 +~
0 +~
0
N ~
O ~ ~
O C
.- N
~ O
~
O
0 N
O O p
N 'D ~
N
+, •~
N V N
.O N
C
• C ~ Q
y Q C
GaCQ
• ~
~W
mm
~W
~m
W~
~
C
mm
W~
mm
W~
mm
~W
mm
~W
m~
{
!)Z
' r C C
•
C C
•
C C
.
• E
~~
Q
~
C C
•
C C
.
C C
C C
. ,
C C cU
E
.~
E .~
~ E
E ~ o z c ~ .E .E .E E
.~ E
.~ .E •E .~
~a ~rn cow, ~oa rn N~ ~m p~' ~Q? ~o E
~ ~(V
~ r0
~ rr
* t [q y p
~ ~ rN
~ ~ rr
~ ~ rp
~,
r N
C O
++ O
C
`C J ~ m ~ ~ i N
~ N
~ C ~
-
f~ ~ N
] 0 N
'O N
t
u°~ o .a _ _
~
3 ~ o m ~ 'L m
~•°c_' ~~ ~L ~ o ` ~
~ o ~~, 0~ r~ mc~ °0 7
Q E
i6
0 O" ~ C C N 'C y
~' C~ .0 ~ ~
v
N a
L~ ~
Oc~ ~ oN a
c~~ ~ U) ~o~ a
~ EN of ~ _~ a~C E ~~ U
~
m ~ ~Q -o cu •
J ~L O~~ ~ ~ om
~
~ ,~
C ~ y
~. ~
L ~ ~
a~
~ -p
m y N
~ ~ 0 N L
~
~ ~ C
o
Y W
~, 0 0
~ s ~
~E
~
• O
~
Q~ o
~~ ~
o ]+ U
~'ro ~,
Nom' ;~,
3a ~
~ L N
~~
~
~ ~E
a Era
E ~c E
E ~m
_~ aciy~
° o~ a N~~
7 ~
^ ~, ~
c~
v ~ °N'
~.._ ~' ~o
~
o
~ ~ ~
E
a~ ~ .~ N°
a~ ~
~' c
~ o
~
E
a
~~
E ~~~
v~o ~°~
~o ~ Ea
- rno
yio ~~
•~.
O ~
o o
•
m~
v
°'
4? N ~cn•-
O N
O =
~ o
L '0 s~L
~
~' E N
C a
L ~ E
'C'
o .~
E E E
~°~ p
N~ ~ ~~
0 L
omU ~.~ '_'
' ~o ~
~ .
C
s ~v ~ N
C~ L
~ N
~ ~`
C 3 y~„= ~
y
C i C
O ]
~ N ~+
y N L
`o
~~ C
E
'~EQ
`"~
~
E~ 0
y ca
~~~ y
y
~m
s
a 3
oo ~
co
' C
a~ L
~ ~
n
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ -
°?`~ ~
~~~~ ~
as ro N
ro {p C
~ o
° ~
C
~y
mC
~
~
LO'a
.C a C
~
N•N+~
O
C
~{~
C (A
ON
U NL
~0
C U
~
C
'~
~}'
~Y _
U-p
O N
~
Q
~ ~ ,m
~ cn v
.~ ~ o
~.~ ~ a~ ~ N
~~ ~
c~ o ~
~0 a~ o °~
`U C~ y
°
~~
.O
- a ~
v 3 ° •~
~.~
~ ~
U)
~
' 'n
E
O
7
O
L L
r~
~ N
~
~ a
~ a ~
~ i °
a
o ~ a
~ ~ ~
a r
°~ r U
°~
E
• C
~
O y _
0-
p_ ~ •
N O
N L }'
~. C L ~'
~ C
N
~ L N~ ~ C
a ~ 0 0
E 0 0
E ~
a
E a~
EN a
`o ~~
o ~a~N ai
E ~o
a~ No
v ~
E a
E a~
E
~,~,
• C 0-
~,~
C
~
•L
~
~~_
~ ~ ~.co
-vim
~ N ~
~
C _
vo
~ ~ _
vm
~ ~
~
C
~
C
~
C o
a
O
L N ,
L ~ ~ ~ (~ ' V N ~ L n
W~ O) ~ L L L
N
U~ OL
U O Q
.U N O'O
C
~ 0 A C C
U~O~ N
U O N,~
(~. N,~+
N. O
V O
U N
U ?
O
~ N ~ N C .
E C G N U 0 ~~ V N U~ `D ~ ~ O-
N > ~ N N N N cn ~ N (~ ~ ~ C ~ C ~ N `? ~ E
Y
~ ~
0
O-
p C
N
U C
N
] C
~~
~ A
~
~
"
~ C O N C
¢
O
(0 {4
~ ~
N
C N
~ ~
C N
N ~
p N
~ ~ E ~
~ ,~.,;
~ U
~ ~ ~ ~, L~ ~ ~ N
~
• U
~ ~ Q
c
. o ~
~ m ~
]
~
U
E Q
m
~
' ~
~ ~ c
. ~
~E ° a
~ c
`
.
.- ^
o ~
~ ~ v
L
a~
N
~ ~ ~
~ 0
O ~ c'7
~ L
~ 'O N
N O N
C
p ~
N
~' ~
- N
~ L
~
O ],
~ ~j
~ L 0
~ ~ N
C U ~
L y
E O
N ~ .
L~
~ y ]
Q O
~ 0
m
~
'i
~
• d~ ~ °~ J•~ ,; ~ m o~ o E ~ a
~ ]+
-0 C~
N - N 3
+~ 0 ~ N
N y U
C r N N
C V ~ C o ~
4?Z
E U o 0 = ~ o
L m =
~ _~
E 0 ~
E J
E o.
o U
E ao
o ~~
~°
o~
o~
aC
~
oar ~,
0O
0
~'
o ~
~'~ aQ
C O
N"''
N N
O.~
~ C
OJ
NN
N
~
N ~ ~
,~ C
.
7 0
~=
C~
0~
N~
..
~,
N O
N N
~~'
p :0
O~
O C
C
O
U*-'
O~
~
p ~ 0
o 3 ~,N
O
X
s~ m ~ a~ ,~ a
~ N
' ~ a a~ o ~
o L a~ a~.~ m as o a L
cn~ ~ y ~C7 Q ~ ~ 3 ~ E ~C7 pC ~cn ~ ~~ ~
~
-
V ~ty
r N c'~ ~ N tD ti OD Q~ O
r r
r
Attac m~
Council
ant 2 to
Agenda item #5-D
o ~ -'15-os
Excerpt from October 24, 2007 Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
6. OLD BUSINESS
6A. Options for Rerouting AC Transit Line d3 and Locations of New Bus Stops. outcome:
Commission to Provide Comments.
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and displayed a graphical presentation of the route.
He noted that this was a direct follow-up from the March 6, 2007, City Council meeting, in
which an appeal of the Commission's recommendation to install bus stops at the intersection of
Otis Drive and Pond Isle was reviewed. The Commission recommended the stop due to the gap
between the existing bus stops on the intersection of Otis Drive and Grand Street, and the
intersections of Whitehall Road and Willow Street. The distance was approximately 3,000 feet,
where the City's goal was to have stops approximately 1,000 feet apart. In addition to the
concern about spacing, Line 63 has had significant operational problems; there is currently
insufficient run time in the schedule to enable the bus to remain on-time throughout the day. The
Council directed the Transportation Commission to review additional bus stop alternatives, to
evaluate the ridership potential of rerouting Line 63 from Otis Drive to Shoreline Drive between
Grand and Willow, and to examine other routing alternatives. The Commission established a
subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Ratto, Schatmeier and Krueger to examine Line 63
in more detail, working closely with staff and AC Transit. At this meeting, staff will present the
Commission's and staff s recommendations regarding the line. He provided an overview of
where the route runs, as well as its frequency and schedule.
Staff Bergman noted that a key issue at the Council meeting was the density along the Shoreline
corridor, compared to Otis Drive, and whether that would attract additional ridership. He
provided overview of the density in that area, which was displayed on the overhead screen. He
noted that there were over 1,000 housing units in the vicinity of Shoreline Drive, and
approximately 330 in the vicinity of Otis Drive. At previous meetings, public input had primarily
been received from residents of Otis Drive, where the proposed stops had been. A survey was
distributed to collect input from riders of the bus in this area, and 12$ responses were received.
Most of the respondents overall indicated that the proposed stop locations, comparing Otis Drive
to Shoreline Drive, would not impact their riding habits, although the proposed Shoreline stops
were identified by sigrif cantly more riders than the Otis Drive stops.
Staff Bergman noted that additional input was solicited from more Shoreline Drive residents, and
received a total of 38 calls and emails; Z9 of those supported rerouting the bus onto Shoreline
Drive, and 9 were against.
Summarizing all of the input received to date, Staff Bergman noted that the following comments
had been received:
1. 65 people opposed stops at Otis Drive and Willow Street;
2. 40 people supported the Shoreline Drive the route;
3. 10 people were opposed to the Shoreline route;
City Council
Attachment 3 to
Agenda I~~er-~ #5~D
41-15.48
4. 11 people were opposed to the proposed stops at Otis and Sandcreek;
5. 8 people were opposed to the stops at Pond Isle;
6. 1 person supported the proposed stops at Otis and Sandcreek;
7. 1 person opposed all stops in the Otis corridor;
S. 4 people indicated they wanted one stop somewhere along the Otis corridor;
9. 2 people supported the Otis and Pond Isle stops;
10,1 person indicated they wanted to maintain the stops within Alameda Towne Centre;
11.2 people wanted to maintain stops at the Ferry Terminal; and
12.1 person opposed the removal of stops at Alameda Point on Monarch Street.
Staff Bergman noted that scheduling was a key issue, identif ed by approximately 24 respondents
in the survey; on-time performance was a major problem on the line. The key segment of the
route that was problematic has been between the Atlanticlwebster intersection and the end of the
line near 12~` Street BART, which had to do with Tube con estion and con estion in downtown
g g
Oakland. For Line 62 to achieve acceptable on-time performance, approximately four minutes
must be eliminated from the run time.
Staff Bergman added that funding was also discussed; four buses remain in service at any given
time on the 63 in order to maintain the 30-minute headways. The annual cost of adding a fifth
bus, depending on the number of hours per day it would run, would be $300-500,000. Depending
on rerouting recommendations, it could require significant expenses on the City's part; the City
would be responsible for making capital expenditures at bus stops. With respect to future transit
demand, particularly in the west End, Alameda Landing was expected to be online fairly soon,
with early tenants coming in mid-2009.
Staff Bergman noted that the subcommittee examined a number of options for modifying Line
63, which he also displayed on the screen:
1. Potential reroute at Alameda Point, which would save approximately two minutes off
the run times. Staff Bergman noted that of the two sets of stops eliminated on
Monarch Street, AC Transit's data indicated there were six riders per day using all the
stops.
2. Rerouting the line near Encinal High School, estimated to save 1.7 minutes in one
direction, and just under a minute in the other direction. The schools have indicated
that they would not object to the modification, as long as the students' needs would
be served during the peak times.
3. The current route goes up Park Street, down Encinal, up High over to Fernside, and
out to Fruitvale BART. The idea was discussed of a more direct line to Fruitvale
BART, going up Broadway saving considerable time}; that would be implemented in
conjunction with other modifications. AC Transit is in the process of evaluating Line
51.
4. It was suggested that the 63 be shifted to Shoreline Drive between Grand Street and
willow Street, as there is more housing density and greater ridership potential.
5. The route by Encinal High School went to Pacific, Marshall, Lincoln, down Webster
Street. A more direct route would be to continue straight down Central. while a fairly
dense corridor, and therefore it was not recommended.
6. With respect to operations near the Ferry Terminal, the route currently ran along
Main Street, went into the Terminal, stops, and exits to Alameda Point. The option
was to establish stops along Main Street, away from the Ferry Terminal, which would
require a 600-foot walk to the terminal from its present location. That option would
save approximately one minute in each direction.
7. They discussed maintaining the existing route along Otis Drive and relocating the
stops to Otis Drive, removing them from Alameda Towne Centre. That was estimated
to save approximately two minutes in one direction, one-and-a-half minutes in the
other, and eliminates the bus having to slow down for traffic and pedestrians through
the route. The major disadvantage would require shoppers to take their groceries out
to Otis Drive.
Staff Bergman noted that subcommittee's recommendations were as follows:
1. To eliminate the portion of the Alameda Point route along Monarch Street, saving
approximately two minutes;
2. To implement the reroute away from Encinal High School during the non-peak hours
associated with the school.
He noted that AC Transit indicated that if it was not possible to make sufficient cuts to reduce
run time that they may be obligated to add an extra bus because of their obligations to their
drivers. The subcommittee did not reach a consensus regarding how to proceed given this
scenario. Two options were discussed by the subcommittee:l }The additional bus could operate
on Line 63 on an interim basis, while the Transportation Commission would have a specified
amount of time to develop a plan to use that bus most effectively. If no plan is developed, the
additional bus should be removed, and more drastic cuts be implemented. 2} The additional bus
should not be run on an interim basis, but only if a plan is already in place for utilizing the
additional bus.
In both scenarios, the subcommittee agreed that if a satisfactory plan could not be developed to
make use of the additional bus, that the following additional service cuts be made to Line 63, in
the following order, only as necessary to provide additional run time:
1. The stops be relocated away from the Ferry Terminal to Main Street;
2, Implementing the changes at Encinal High School throughout the entire day; and
3. To relocate the stops from the interior to the perimeter of Alameda Towne Centre.
The subcommittee stressed that they felt these were undesirable changes, but was necessary. He
noted that the initial reluctance by AC Transit to add an additional bus on the route had to do
with the impact it might have on farebox recovery, and whether this poor performance might
impact the future viability of the route. The subcommittee also recommended that Line 63 should
be rerouted from Otis Drive to Shoreline Drive, between Grand and Willow, once the run time is
available, and once the capital improvements have been made at the bus stops, particularly on the
south side of Shoreline Drive. This potential service change should be part of any discussions
regarding how an extra bus might be used.
Staff Bergman noted that another recommendation was: Since the schedule could not currently
accommodate the additional runtime required to serve Shoreline, bus stops should be installed at
the intersections of Otis and Sandcreek, as well as Otis and willow to support the City's bus stop
spacing guidelines. This was a change from the TC's previous recommendation to install sto sat
p
Pond Isle. The change was in response to the shift in position by the Alameda Police
Department, which determined that the Otis and Sandcreek location was the preferred bus stop
location.
Staff Bergman noted that the final recommendation from the subcommittee was that the
westbound bus stop at the intersection of Whitehall and willow should be made the highest
priority for improvements at bus stops in the City. There is not currently a sufficient landing area
for people to stand while boarding the bus.
Staff Bergman noted that staff analysis addressed the farebox recovery issue that was a concern
to the Commission, that an additional bus would reduce farebox recovery, and that the might
impact the future of the Iine. AC Transit's data indicated that the 63 currently exceeded the
minimum standards for buses along its route; it is ranked in the middle with respect to passengers
per service hour and farebox recovery. While the additional bus would affect the performance, it
is not clear what the impact would be at this time.
Staff supports the following recommendations outlined by the subcommittee: The elimination of
the portion of the Alameda Point route; the modified service to serve Encinal High School at
peak school hours only. If AC Transit determines that an extra bus would be available, staff
recommended that this should be done on an interim basis, enabling the Transportation
Commission to develop a plan to best utilize that bus over time. That would enable the route to
stay on schedule and serve the existing route, as well as to enable the Transportation
Commission to develop a longer term strategy to serve the West End's upcoming development in
the next few years. Also, the lane would be more effective and less convoluted.
Staff had significant concerns about some of the more severe cuts that the subcommittee
recommended be implemented if needed:
1. The relocation of the stops away from the Ferry Terminal was not supported by City
policies, which encourage intermodal connections. It would also undermine the potential
for people to use those connections.
2. The elimination of the direct service to Encinal High School was also problematic. The
partial reroute away from the school during the day would enable about half the riders to
be served with the school times; people in the neighborhood would lose transit access as
a result of that. The school prefers to have the students board in front of the school, so the
staff can monitor them while they wait.
3. Relocating the buses ~ to the perimeter of Alameda Towne Centre would affect some very
heavily used stops. There were over 400 boardings and alightings per weekday at those
three stops. Staff recommended that they not be relocated at this time.
Staff recommended that if the new bus is available, that it be run on a pilot basis for up to 12
months. If the pilot service is implemented, the Transportation Commission should continue to
work with City staff, AC Transit and community stakeholders to develop a recommended
reconfiguration ofthe route. Alternative configurations should include, at a minimum, rerouting
the Line 63 onto Shoreline Drive between Grand Street and Willow Street; servicing Alameda
Landing, and splitting the route into two separate pieces to more effectively serve the destination
points along the line.
Commissioner Krueger wished to stress that with respect to staff not wanting to endorse the
options for the Feriy Terminal, the direct service to Encinal High, and the relocation of the stops
at Alameda Towne Centre, from the subcommittee's perspective, these were last-resort options
that they did not mention lightly. They considered these to be options in the event that nothing
else worked, and nothing else could be done.
Chair Knox White noted that under "Funding" in the staff report, it was suggested that a move to
Shoreline would require the establishment of new bus stops on Shoreline. He noted that they
currently had bus stops used by the W. Staff Bergman noted that was a more general reference
regarding any route changes.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the surveys and fliers were actually posted at the bus stops
on Willow and Grand. Staff Bergman replied that he did not believe they were, and that they
focused more on the origin and destination points, such as Alameda Towne Center and the
hospital.
Chair Knox YYhite inquired whether the survey gathered address information from the
respondents, Staff Bergman replied that they received at least intersection information.
Chair Knox White inquired what the daytime off peak ridership on the Encinal High School line,
Staff Bergman replied that it was about half the total.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether interlining was considered at the bus
stops, Sean Diest Lorgion, ~4C transit, replied that they had discussed it at MLK and 12~' Street
in Gakland, where line 12 runs. They did not do much interlining at Fruitvale BART because
there were so many bridge lines and the congestion on the bridge. They would be able to
examine that possibility. He noted that interlining did play a significant role in how the service is
run, as it enables AC Transit to more effectively use its drivers.
Open public comment.
Lip Cleves, speaking on behalf of Diane Yoss, read her statement into the record:
"At the Transportation Commission meeting on May 24, 2006, the Alameda
Police Department raised concerns about the safety of the mid-block bus stop in front
of the crosswalk at Lum School and Otis Drive at Sand Creek ~Vay. Crossing guards,
residents and parents have repeatedly expressed their concerns regarding the safety of
the crosswalk. In spite of alI the efforts the City has made to make that crosswalk
safe, it still poses safety concerns. Since the May 2006 meeting, the Police
Department has changed their view, and according to the staff s current report, the
Alameda Police Department is comfortable with the location of the bus stop at the
Otis and Sand Creek intersection.
Comfortable. Are they comfortable with the vehicles exiting the drop-off area,
and stopping on top of the crosswalk, and sometimes in the crosswalk? Are they
comfortable with the number of vehicles that do not stop behind the Yield to
Pedestrian arrows? Are they comfortable with the fact that when the bus is stopped in
front of the crosswalk, oncoming vehicles cannot see the pedestrians, and therefore
will not stop behind the arrows? Are they comfortable with the fact that the crossing
guards will not be there all day, every day? who will give further protection to
children on weekends, holidays, school closure days, and during summer vacation?
Please keep in mind that the crossing guards are there only during the weekdays
for two hours in the morning, and three hours in the afternoon. A great deal of time
has been spent talking, designing surveys, posting signs, soliciting opinions, writing
reports, etc. How much time has been spent watching the crosswalk as children
arrive, and when they leave school? How much time has been spent watching the
crosswalk when no crossing guards are present? The added drive-through drop-off
area has added new safety concerns. The flashing lights in the pavements cannot be
seen on bright, sunny days, and a bus blocking the driver's view of pedestrians will
add an even greater safety hazard. Many children are not going to wait for the bus to
leave the area before they dart out in front of the bus to cross the street. There is
probably nothing that can make this crosswalk 100% safe, but there are things that
can make it less safe. A bus stop in front of the school crosswalk is one of those
things.
If you check with the Alameda Police Department, you will find that they've
been citing many drivers lately for failure to yield to pedestrians at the crosswalk.
They are mostly present during the morning and afternoon times. They can be there
issuing tickets all day long. City Councilmember Doug DeHaan, even after the
installation of all the safety devices, remarked that he finds this crosswalk dangerous
and is reluctant to use it with his family. A bus stop first installed on Dtis and Sand
Creek in June 2004 was removed shortly after doing safety concerns. why are we
runming around and around, only to end up back where we started? fiver and over
again, we have read and you've heard the fears, the complaints of Alameda Landing
residents, Lum School parents, crossing guards.
At the City Council meeting on March 2, 2007, Councilmember DeHaan was
before the City Council, and he asked to answer the problems of a bus stop on Dtis
and Sandcreek. He said to put the Line 63 back on Shoreline."
biz Creves noted that the staff report stated that the density at the Shoreline area far exceeded that
in the Otis Drive area, and that the Shoreline area has 1,077 housing units, and the Dtis Drive
area has 330 housing units. The Shoreline corridor has three times the number of housing units
than the Dtis area. She believed that the ridership generated in the Shoreline area would be
greater. She noted that of the l28 responses staff received from the survey; ~3 of those responses
X18%} stated that the Shoreline alternative would increase their ridership, compared to 8
respondents ~6%} in the Dtis area. Sixteen respondents favor a new stop at Dtis and Willow. She
noted that with respect to rerouting Line 63 and the locations for the new bus stop, Attachment 3
read, "By shortening one of the Alameda Point route, this would reduce the run time by 1.8
minutes westbound, and 2 minutes eastbound. This change would eliminate low-usage stops. The
change at one would require riders to walk an additional 1,350 feet." She noted that AC Transit
Board Policy 508 read, "Bus stops or locations where bus passengers access the AC Transit
system: Bus stops must therefore be convenient to the places where passengers wish to go.
Convenience and speed will be balanced in determining appropriate bus stop placement, as too
many bus stops can slow down travel times. Outside the downtown areas, AC Transit generally
seek to have bus stops 1,000 feet apart. Passenger usage of bus stops is an important factor when
considering bus stop placements or removals." She believed the proposed increased in walking
distance was too far.
Jonathan Martin wished to address the reroute of Line 63 from Otis to Shoreline between Grand
and Willow. He liked the quietness of Willow Street, and objected to the rerouting of the 63,
which would put noisy buses in front of his house at all hours. He requested that Line d3's
current route be kept.
Lucy Farber noted that she lived in Berkeley but was the office manager at St. George Spirits at
2401 Monarch Street, which was halfway between the two stops that were proposed for
elimination. She noted that people come from all over the world to visit their tasting room, and
encouraged people from San Francisco to take the ferry and then use Line 63. They attach a
coupon at the bottom of the ferry ticket to take the d3. She noted that the temp crew they hire to
bottle the vodka frequently take the bus, and she objected to the proposed elimination of their
bus stop. She was concerned about the cold and windy weather, which would make it
inhospitable to require people to walk to their business. She noted that they encouraged people to
take the bus after drinking at the tasting room, and that the removal of the bus stop would make it
more difficult for them to use the bus.
Deborah James expressed concern about the possible stoppage of the bus to the ferry terminal, as
well as to Alameda Towne Centre. She suggested eliminating service to the ferry terminal during
the times when the ferry did not operate. She did not believe that all of the drivers were aware
that they should come into the ferry terminal, which has happened a number of times.
Jim McDonald spoke on behalf of his elderly mother, who lives on the corner of willow and
Shoreline. She was very concerned about bus and passenger noise, as well as pollution,
generated by the current route. She believed that rerouting the 63 line would aggravate that
condition, as would the litter from the passengers.
Claudia Davison distributed her letter to the Commissioners, and spoke in opposition to the
proposed bus stop on the northwest side of Otis and 'Willow. She noted that the location was
adjacent to high-density condominium residential units, and added that there was already
insufficient parking at that location. She added that youths already passed through the complex
en route to school, and she was concerned that this would add to their security, vandalism and
parking problems. She had previously requested removal of the red curb zone on the north side
of Otis, across from V~illow Street. She did not believe that was a suitable location for a bus stop,
which would add to the underutilization of that curb space. She believed that bus drivers should
idle their buses and take their breaks in commercial, rather than residential, areas. She proposed
that this stop be relocated to the east side of Willow between Otis and the fire hydrant to the
south, which was adjacent to commercial medical facilities with off street parking. She believed
that fewer people would be adversely affected on a daily basis seven days a week, and for fewer
hours, since it no one would be there after business hours. She believed it was important that
Alameda be connected to the two BART stations.
Tamara Rouse noted that she and her children had problems crossing the street on the way to
Lum School, and believed that adding a bus stop at that location would be a safety hazard. She
noted that she was a property manager at 1901 Shoreline, and that while the residents liked
having the morning and evening bus stop at that location, the off-pea1~ buses created a lot of
noise, traffic and unpleasant smells. She was also concerned about vandalism and strangers
loitering around their property during that time.
Susan White, 1901 Shoreline Drive, echoed Ms. Rouse's comments, and objected to the diesel
fumes in the middle of the day. She added that she suffered from asthma, which was aggravated
by the fumes. She noted that she moved to this area to live in fresh air.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, noted that less than half of the residents on Alameda
Point have cars. He believed that Line 63 was broken. He noted that their growing youth project
discovered that the lack of convenient access to affordable, healthful food stores was a major
issue leading to food insecurity in the West End. He noted that the bus line at Alameda Point was
heavily used and relied upon by the community, including many students who attend Island High
School and Bay School. He noted that the bus was a lifeline for those traveling to the food bank,
and that the schedule should not erode at Alameda Point. He has heard stories of buses skipping
the Alameda Point loop altogether to regain the on-time schedule. He did not believe that moving
the line from Towne Centre should not be considered, even as the Towne Centre is being
redesigned as a more upscale shopping center. They would welcome any further efficiency on
Line 63, but did not want to see any reduction in service.
Christine Fall noted that she lived at Willow and Shoreline, and expressed concern about the bus
noise outside her window.
Jack Bogor thanked the Transportation Commission for the special meeting regarding the ferry,
and for their efforts to improve the bus service for the riders. He noted that it was very difficult
to walk across the street safely to Lum School. He noted that cars trying to pass the stopped
buses at the crosswalks created a very unsafe situation, and had witnessed the Alameda Police
Dept. pull many violators over. He believed that a bus stop adjacent to the crosswalk was very
dangerous, and should not be allowed to stand.
C.J Kingsley noted that she lived near Lincoln and Webster. She believed that it would be nice if
the Towne Centre-bound bus would arrive at :20 and :50, rather than :1$ and :4$. Riders who
disembark from the normal hourly ferry would be more likely to make the connection. Because
of the erratic bus schedule, she suggested that the inbound W, except at Atlantic and 'Webster, be
allowed to pick up Line 63 passengers with a transfer.
Ursula Apel, Kitty Hawk Road, noted that she lived eight blocks away from Safeway, and added
that it was difficult to carry groceries that distance. She noted that it was difficult to cross
Wi11owlWhitehall, and that there was no legal crosswalk at that location to reach the bus stop.
She noted that many families signed a petition to have a bus stop on Otis that would be safer and
closer to Lum School.
George Wales recalled the City Council meeting in March 2007 was meant to address
improvements in the bus system from the riders' perspective. He believed that the reduction of
run times would be beneficial to the riders.
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, believed it was very important that as many people
as possible have access to public transit, and looked forward to seeing the gap in Line 63 filled.
She noted that solutions to reliability problems were critical, and that having direct access to the
ferry as well as bus stops that are close enough. She believed it would be advantageous to move
another bus to Shoreline, but because of its cost, she would be happy to solve the problems on
Line G3 some other way in the short term.
Kevin Gong supported the rerouting Line G3 to Shoreline, because the Transportation
Commission's data stated that the density along Shoreline was three times that of Otis. Also 50%
of the survey respondents replied that it would increase their ridership if the d3 were to run on
Shoreline. He believed that AC Transit and the City had a responsibility to ensure that the public
transportation system was successful and accessible. He believed that a stop at in front of the
school on Sandcreek would be irresponsible, and that the City fought hard to make that area safe
for the children,
Close public hearing.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the Monarch stops, Staff Bergman
replied that there were a total of six riders per day.
Commissioner Schatmeier complimented staff on an outstanding staff report, particularly the
items for which consensus was reached, and not reached. The Transportation Commission did
not want to cut transit service, which they viewed as an asset to the community. He emphasized
that some options were a last resort, and found the arguments with respect to the Monarch stop to
be particularly compelling. He wished that more businesses advertised their proximity to transit,
and encouraged their customers to use ~ansit. He believed that show of support should be
rewarded, not penalized. They reached the consensus that Line 63 was very unreliable, which
was echoed by the speakers. The subcommittee reached the conclusion that four minutes needed
to be cut from it. He hoped that interlining could be used to achieve economies throughout the
system, and he did not believe AC Transit should add a bus on an interim basis to an existing
route. He shared the experience expressed by a speaker regarding the bus not going into the ferry
terminal, and noted that it happened too often. He agreed with the woman who suggested
carrying local passengers on the V~ line; he noted that was already done on the ~ and 0~. He
believed that would be a good supplement for transferring passengers, and for local passengers
from Webster Street to Shoreline.
Chair Knox White inquired whether AC Transit has considered offering a free transfer within a
specific geographic area.
fir. Diest Lorgion replied that AC Transit has not been consistent about which Transbay lines
offer local service. He noted that they examine local service on the W, and added that they were
generally allowed where local service is not available.
Chair Knox White noted that he would rather see consistency in favor of allowing local transfers
on all the lines.
~Vlr. Diest Lorgion noted that adding local passengers while a Transbay bus is trying to get to San
Francisco was a concern for the Transbay passengers.
Zn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding adding another bus, ~Vlr. Diest Lorgion
noted that they had to balance between offering reliable transportation versus being able to cut
only so much.
Chair Knox White noted that last year, the Transportation Commission made a bus stop spacing
recommendation to City Council that would adopt the spacing that AC Transit used, with more
flexibility up to 1,3~o feet between bus stops. He inquired about the status of that
recommendation.
Staff Khan recalled that was an interim recommendation until the Transit Plan was developed or
implemented. Staff Bergman noted that the Transit Plan mentioned 1,00o feet as an
approximation, and that it did not establish a minimum.
Chair Knox White noted that in terms of Line 63, the subcommittee seems to have recommended
that the current line did not work. He agreed that ridership should be the primary goal on this
Line, and that unreliability would destroy ridership on this line. He agreed that either a new bus
should be added, or that certain stops should be cut. He noted that City Council did not rule on
the appeal when they heard it in March, and asked for more information. He indicated that the
next step would be for the Transportation Commission recommendations to be brought back to
the City Council for a final decision. He hoped that any decision would support ridership and
reliability on Line 63.
Chair Knox White noted that a primary concern was the safety issue in front of Lum School, and
was not personally convinced that a bus stopping in front of the school is a major safety issue.
He noted that there was clearly a problem with respect to the use of the roads in front of Lum
School. He did not believe there was a need for four lanes of taff c along Otis. He suggested that
any motion sent to City Council should ask them to prioritize looking at ntis between Westline
and Park, and to redesign the road, possibly to three lanes to shrink the crossing distance. He
supported moving the bus line to Shoreline, and added that it may need to happen as part of a
longer term plan for rerouting. He supported asking AC Transit to examine the ability to interline
that route. He would like to know whether run time could be found within the route.
Chair Knox White noted that eliminating the East End Loop along High Street, Encinal and
Fernside was rejected because of the ridership of 50-60 riders per day. He found the
subcommittee recommendation rerouting near Encinal to be problematic. He was willing to
support the Monarch Loop cut, and noted that segment jeopardized ridership along the entire
route of the rest of the line. He described Line 63 as an ugly transit route, making frequent turns.
He suggested bifurcating the line, which may allow for better, more usable transit. He would be
willing to support a conditional motion stating that the Transportation Commission supported
moving the line to Shoreline if interlining will allow for an incremental increase in the cost of the
line. He emphasized that the 63 must run on time and reliably once the changes have been made.
Commissioner Krueger endorsed the cut to Monarch, and recalled mentioning St. George, and
found that to be a difficult decision. He noted that he had attended several events at St. George
and used Line 63. He was curious about the ridership stemming from the temp work staff, and
noted that there was no way to fix the line without finding time and thereby cutting pieces of the
route off.
Cammissianer Schatmeier noted that he had been emphatic at the subcommittee level about not
adding another bus. He noted that timing was a critical component, and stated that if they could
identify changes to the route that would make the expenditure of the additional bus worthwhile,
rather than just adding a bus to preserve the schedule, he would like to see a chance to make the
case of adding another bus to serve places that are currently unserved, and gain additional riders.
He did not support the strategy of adding another bus to this route on an interim basis. He
disagreed with staff s findings in that regard, and strongly advised against adding another bus an
an interim basis. He would like to try the four minutes of cuts they were originally asked to make
on an interim basis; during the evaluation period, the contingency of adding another bus by
serving additional areas should be examined. If the four minutes did not solve the problem, then
additional cuts or an additional bus must be added.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether four minutes was not enough, ~Vlr. Diest
Lorgion replied that when they originally looked at the route, the current scheduled running time
is 50 minutes one way. He added that during peak periods of the day, the running time was 57-55
minutes. AC Transit anticipated a reduction to about 54 minutes may work, while allowing the
drivers' contractually required six minutes of layover. He noted that while the contract stated a
six-minute layover, it has become an issue with the operators, and that additional time might be
necessary.
Chair Knox White requested that AC Transit speak with drivers about the layover issue, and
added that the City did not want to constantly change the schedule, which would lead to
confusion and a drop in ridership.
Commissioner Schatmeier believed the trial cuts would enable the City to develop a way to use a
fifth bus, or to further adjust the schedule. He was not comfortable with a trial period of adding
another bus on the same route.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to support the elimination of the Monarch Street stops and to
implement the school-peak service only on Central Ave., on an interim basis, to remove four
minutes of run time. The TC would then examine and prioritize the additional two to four
minutes, and to develop a plan for best using an extra bus should it become available.
Cammissioner McFarland seconded
Commissioner Krueger inquired what would happen if the cuts were made, and did not work
before another plan was ready. He wanted to be ready to put another bus out there, in the worst
case scenario. He agreed that the plan should be ready as soon as possible.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he did not define the interim period in the motion, and
suggested that it be the time between signups.
Mr. Diest Largion replied that the earliest that any change could happen would be March, or
possibly June 2008. He said that route changes and signups occurred every three months. He
noted that major changes were made every six months.
Commissioner Schatmeier suggested that the interim period be six months. He did not believe
that every single cut had been explored.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the driver's union could wait that long, or whether an
extra bus must be added sooner. ~Ir, Diest Largion replied that the Commission's
recommendations would still go to City Council, so if the TC provided alternative
recommendations, this would help any changes to be implemented more quickly.
Chair Knax White wished to make several friendly amendments. He noted that a key item from
the City Council meeting was the move to Shoreline, and would like the motion to include that
item. He suggested adding language to the motion that if an additional bus was needed, the bus
routes would be re-examined.
Commissioner Krueger believed that if the required time at Shoreline were to be added, further
cuts must be made somewhere else.
Chair Knox White agreed with Commissioner Krueger's assessment. Cammissioner ~Ic~'arland
noted that as the seconder of the motion, that was agreeable to him.
Chair Knox White believed that any cuts were to be made, he believed the Transportation
Commission should wait until they could discuss all the lines and the best way to run transit in
Alameda.
Staff Khan noted that if they discussed adding a bus, it would not be restricted to Line 63. He
noted that the time issue must be discussed before implementing any cuts.
Cammissioner Krueger noted that he would rather add the bus on an interim basis than make
deeper cuts.
Chair Knox White noted that the motion did not include a number of subcommittee conclusions,
such as:
• The bus schedule cannot currently accommodate additional runtime. Ta serve Shoreline,
a bus stop should be installed at the intersections of Sandcreek and Willow and Otis to
support it;
• Eliminate W. MidwaylMonarchlw. Redline fat Alameda Point} portion of route
• Reroute from Centrall3~d to Pacific, away from Encinal HS, except at peak times for
school trips near the beginning and end of the school day
• The prioritized list of additional cuts: l }removing the bus from the Ferry Terminal; 2} if
that did not work, removing all direct service to Encinal High School; 3} if that did not
work, relocate the buses from the interior to the perimeter of Alameda Town Centre. He
personally did not believe the Towne Centre stops should be removed, as they were one
of the highest use stops in the City;
• Line 63 should be rerouted to Shoreline once runtime is available and capital
improvements have been made at the bus stops. Since there is no available runtime, bus
stops should be installed at Gtis and Sandcreek, and Otis and willow to support the
City's guidelines.
• The westbound bus stop at Whitehall and willow should be made the highest priority of
improvements at the bus stops in the City.
• Line 63 should be rerouted from Gtis Drive to Shoreline Drive between Grand Street and
Willow Street once run time is available and capital improvements have been made at bus
stops. This potential service change should be included as part of any discussions
regarding how to best use an extra bus if that becomes available.
• Since the bus schedule cannot currently accommodate the additional run time required to
serve Shoreline Drive, bus stops should be installed at the intersections of ~tislSandcreek
and Gtislwillow to support the City's bus stop spacing guidelines. This change in the
TC's previous recommendation is in response to the Alameda Police Dept. indicating that
they are comfortable with the location of the bus stop at the GtislSandcreek intersection.
• The cuts will be on an interim basis, and if they do not work, additional cuts or rerouting
should be identified
Commissioner Krueger suggested an additional amendment discussed in the subcommittee that
was not included in the report: The ferry terminal cut should not be made without the capital
improvements at the terminal.
Chair Knox White noted that there were 18 unfunded bus shelters in the City already.
Staff Khan wished to clarify that the area on Main Street was a wetland area, and constructing a
stop there may have some serious environmental implications. He noted that an environmental
document may need to be prepared.
With respect to the need for more run time, Chair Knax White inquired whether the
Transportation Commission preferred going straight to the ferry terminal and Encinal High
School all day, or whether those locations would be examined after an interim period.
Commissioner Schatmeier preferred the latter choice.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the capital improvements could be made a priority, if
not a contingency, for shifting the line. .
Chair Knox YVhite noted that the installation of a new stop must meet all ADA requirements,
which would prevent it from becoming a muddy swamp.
Following a discussion of which items would be retained in the motion, Chair Knox White
summarized the Commission's consensus that Items #3 and #4 should be removed from the
discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the date this item would go to the City
Council, Staff Khan replied that at the latest, it would be in December.
Chair Knox White nated that it would be difficult far him to support a motion that discussed
additional buses on an interim basis before other cuts are made.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that it was not correct that he would never support another bus;
he would not support another bus on the existing route to make up six minutes that were missing.
1~r. Diest ~orgion replied that the line must be reviewed internally by AC Transit staff, and they
would determine whether they need to come up with other cuts on their own, with feedback from
the Transportation Commission, or add another bus.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that would work for him.
Chair Knox White suggested that the Commission not prioritize the items, and that #4 Ferry
Terminal} would be removed from the discussion until it was necessary. Commissioner
Schatmeier agreed with that suggestion.
Chair Knox White believed that it would be important to look at the road design for Otis. He
added that Items 3 and 4 would be removed from the discussion, and the motion amended to
examine the Otis design. In addition, if AC Transit says that four minutes would not be enough,
they will come back to the TC for additional recommendations.
Commissioner Schatmeier amended the motion to include the following:
1. Implement the proposed route change at Alameda Point, removing stops on Monarch
Street and rerouting the bus onto Lexington Street
2. Implement service near Encinal HS to serve the school at peak school hours; at other
times the bus would be rerouted off Central Avenue and 3r~ Street, and would run on
Main Street and Pacific Avenue
3. The two proposed cuts described above should be made on an interim basis to evaluate
whether they are sufficient to keep the bus on schedule
4. Line d3 should be rerouted onto Shoreline Drive between Grand and willow once run
time is available and capital improvements have been made at bus stops to meet ADA
requirements
5. Since the Line 63 schedule cannot currently accommodate the additional run time needed
to operate on Shoreline Drive, bus stops should be implemented at the intersections of
Otis Drive at Sandcreek way and Otis Drive at willow Street
6. The westbound bus stop at the intersection of Whitehall Road and willow Street should
be the City's top priority for bus stop improvements
7. Evaluate Otis Drive west of Park Street to see if the street can be redesigned from four
travel lanes to three travel lanes with bike lanes
S. If AC Transit indicates that the time removed from the first two recommendations above
is not sufficient, andlor they decide to put an extra bus on the line, they will come back to
the TC for recommendations regarding how to proceed
Commissioner McFarland seconded. Motion passed 5-1 Krueger}. Commissioner Ratto was
absent.
H
z
0
a
A
W
a
H
M
W
z
a
w
O
W
N
O
a
a
w
0
a
0
a
a
City Council
Attachment 4 to
Agenda Item #5-D
Q~I-~15-DS
PRGPGSED RERGUTE GF LINE 63
NEAR ENCINAL HIGH SCHGUL
^
!r
^
^
^
~5 f 1812 t
1
2 ~~
J ' S 11 '~,, y 0~ i 1808
2 ~ ` r ~~' -~~... _ ~ ~ 1802 ~.,
7 4 J ~---.,... .,,.~._ _„~,,.~_.
f ~ 2 .:~~
711 17g ~ ~ ~ ,
~ r.,, ,,,,_ r~ I
...,~,,,._,,.._,. ' - • X711
.r-~P~fl~°1N w-a..u~
..._
1,,,, „
~~
1 j fool ~ ~ j ~j...~.,.~ { ~.. ~. .r_ r.
. ~.
_.. _,..~..W..,...; ; < < ; 106 I ~ ~ ~ I J
~1,11,,,,,.~.. ~ .,, _„ 110 ~ ~1~^..,,,,, ,,, .'r.,. ~,........ }., ...,j,,...,rw, ~ ~ ~ 1
,..~..,_
,,,a.. ,. ~ ~ 110 ~ . .
.111 1625 I
j115 r 112j ~i ° 11 .....,,. ~ ~
w - ...............
.,,~.
,...w......_......j..._......~_ ~ 113 ~ 112; ,.w...~. . ~.....
~ti,
,,..~~ ~ ~ 115
..w.....~.,-. ,~,,,, ~ ;-..
. ....
.~.,, i
j .. .~ ~ .....~. i 1 ~ ~-....,...
621' !
,117....._.,.... l.w_...~...114~ 1117 114 f,,,..;~.,,, ,,,,~ j ~i_
~11
119 ~ 118 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f
_ ~-...
y..,,,~..........fw.....,,~-.,,,.~ ;N 4119 ... ~ 118! { ~._.~ ~ ~ ~161~
'123
122j ~ ~ 123 j 120 ~ ~ _
..-....
127 ~.~ 124 i 127 ~ f.. ~ 124 I ~ ,,.,~;~..-~.. ~,.-~ ~„ ,.~, ~,..~
~31 . ~.... ~ ~-,~ 128 ~ ~ :131..'-.. , r -;'~~-1~28,~ ~ ~,,~..,.;,,.~.,,,~,,,1 ._.
1133 ....., ~.„~.134~ ~ ~133~.....~~.. -.1~,~. ~i ~~ „ ~5~ ~...,. j
r ,,,.r,~ ,..~ „
..,. r L.... '
t'
135 136: `135 r ~ f 1543 .
..._........~.... .... 1 .~.........._~. ~ 1~ ~..~..1
'~139Y ... ,.8'` i 139 .:~~ /~ ~' ~ 1541 ~ :1
i 143 "~ 1 ~ ` ~ 0143 f 4 ~~f'~, `~~~ ~ "' ~ ~ 152 ~ 1
~,,~ ' 146 ~ :.,~ / ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,,,
7 /
~,
tit 4 ~ ~~ ,-~'''~~~48 `a i /f , f f~ z/" 1`~~` ~ ,J 1~~~
~+! % ?
~ .F7 .,~''~f ; ~ ~fo` ~~~~41 f /'~~~ f ~~~~ j1524 ~~~i,,,~
167
~15 +6 ~ ~ j ~ j j
I .
. .
~..f = '
I142~
~~
' 141
...~...
405 1406
~~,. ~ 402
C
,~-~~
\h
/ ~'
i 02
30
..~.
Potential Bus Stop
Existing Bus Stop
Bus Stop Proposed for
Removal
Proposed Non-Peak
Route
CurrentlProposed
Peak Time Route
City Council
Attachment 5 to
Agenda item #5-D
01.15.08
+~
~' 1~. /s/
1' F ~~I
r
y.., .s r ,
E ~L,%. ~ '
~ i~ta'' '~ ... ,...
~'[w»
1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, CA 94612 - Ph. ~9Qf8„9,1r4,~;,E~c. 510/891-7157
RCC.~ t~)
Nancy Skowbo
Deputy General Manager -Service Development
November 16, ~Oal
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Matt Naclerio, Public Vvorks Director
City of Alameda
263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Ladies and Gentlemen:
100] NOV 2 p p 3; 3 $
C TY C ER (~S OFF C~
AC Transit The District} has considered the recommendations made by the Alameda
Transportation Commission regarding Line 63. The recommendations ofthe
Commission are as follows:
~ . eliminate the segment of Line 63 west of Lexington Avenue
2. bypass the segment of the route south of Pacific Avenue along Central Avenue
and 3r~ Street for the majority of Bail tri s
Y p
The objective of the recommended changes is improved reliability of Line 63. Available
data indicates that for some trips, schedule adherence is an issue. The above chan es
9
should result in improved on~time performance, as the overall route would be shortened
but the scheduled running time would remain unchanged. District s#aff would continue
to monitorthe line and quantify any improvements in performance.
The District would consider implementing the above recommendations, as the chan es
g
affect only a small portion of the overall route, As mentioned above, it is antici ated
that the ch p
angel would improve schedule adherence on Line 63. Finally, these
changes would allow for the continued provision of 3g-minute service on Line 53 in
Alameda, and the retention of important transit connections at 12t" Street and Fruitvale
BART in Oakland, at no additional cost.
The District is also aware of the City Council's request to investigate whether Line 63
should be rerouted from Otis Drive to Shoreline Drive between Grand and vVillow
Streets. District Staff agrees with the Transportation Commission's findings that the
higher density residential areas along Shoreline Drive could potentially increase
ridership on Line 63.
However, moving the route to Shoreline would increase the running time needed to
operate the route, and it is likely that an additional bus would be required to maintain 30
minute frequencies on the line. The changes to route 63 described earlier in this letter
City Coc~ncii
Attachment 6 to
Agenda Item #5-~
0~-~5.0~
City of Alameda
November 1 ~, 2007
Page ~
would simply improve reliability of the route. They are not adequate tv allow for the
rerouting along Shoreline Drive without financial impact to the District. At this time staff
would recommend further evaluation of cost neutral options to serve Shoreline Drive,
The District looks forward to continuing to work with the City of Alameda on the
improvement of Line 63. Thank you for your consideration.
Yours Truly,
~~~
Nancy M. Skowbo
Deputy general ManagerforService Development
Nslkv
C: Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer, City of Alameda
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator, City of Alameda
~baid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer, City of Alameda
2
;~
`{
~~~~~~
;;~;~ : .
~I~r,~~~~:J~,-~~~r~jir(a 4;;:c~,~#~ ~f•+~rtisi~ ~i~ir~~:f
~a.r~~~ar~< ~ ~. ~~i~~
~~n~~r~~~Y ~ac~er-ia
~~z~~li~; a:r~s ~ir~ctar
~i~~r ~o~ Is~~ia ~ub~ia 4~ar~s ~partrt~en~
~~~~~ '~~t tali ~c~u~ar~
~~atn~~a.~ ~~ ~~~~1~T~~~
~~~;: Otis ~~,r~.~t bus fops
scar ~~:r, ~aal~rio.
M
~~~` ~ra~~s~~ bas b~~ra ~~parkin~ ~~ i`tb ~~~~ ~3arrrrar~, a~" ~°oc~r ~t~~f~`~; ra~ardi~~~ i~~~alla~ian a~ ~~u~
Maps ou ~~is ~riv~;. b~t~~~a~:~~ ~~i11a~~~ ~~tr~;~~ aid a~ad ~~;~t: "~`~lis ~att~;~ is to ~ammur~i~at~ ~.C
"1~ra~~~ic's pasi~ion a~z fi~~c bars Mops ~aard~:r~a.~.~~ ~~~.~~ ~~.:~~r~n~u,
~t ~~+~ a~rarZ~b~~ ~~". ~~ ~'i~~~ o~~:~~arra~da ~'~.~s~tian ~"~~m~i~t n~~cting. ~~ bus dap
~o~tia~~s ~~~r~~ia~~~ ~isauss~~ r~i~~~ fir. ~~r~an~ ~~~~r~ pr~s~~"~~~~r
~~" "Tran~ifi ~f~r~n~~ ~s ~`t~r r~;irrst~l~a~ia~. a~'tb~ bus tap rat ~ ori~.~in~.I ~a~~iorr a~ ~~zs
ri ~~~ ~arrd~r~~~ ~a~~. "~y~l~s lacatioa~ is p~~~~rab~c~ b~~~usc; o~ t~b~ nu.~~rau .i~t~~ it~txr.l~t~d
crass~~~~ sa~et~ ~r~'l~anc~n~~;~~s at ibis Iara~iarr, s~r~~a as ~rr.~ss~~alk i.n-pa~~~n~,at li~.~s, .rear
spce~s s~~~ a~ bate s~c~~: a~ the cr~r~ss~~~al.~., and ~~ossix~~ ~,uards era p~sent b~far~ ~.r~d. a.~r
s~~lao~~
.~~' "~"r~s~t ~~°aul~ ~~~sa b~ aac~~pb~ ~~f~th ~itb~r a bus s~~p at Otis ~ri~r~ a~td ~anda~~~~~a~ ~s~a
az• a~ Otis Drina ~~~ ~a~~ ~~~~, ~~i~b ~~~~ ca~adi~ian ~~~t ~ ~~ass~~alk is ir~sta:ll~ a~ ~o app~~a~~r~
~a.tio~~~ ~s is ~~ y~.r~ar~si~ sta~~`r~:~ar~n~~adatian a~zd ~'it~r sta`sho~rld ~~ak~ ~r~a~
c~~t~r~i.~a~i.an i~`a ~rass~a~~ :a.~an~ ~~i~ su~c~ ~d~irat~: t~~~trr~~rlt ~`ar p~d~st~~,n ~rassit~~
of ~~s .~r~~r~.
~~ a~~it~~a~ to ~~ a.ba~~~, ~~~~ ~~a~°~ alsn r~~~r~st~~ ~~ r~ppra~~a! of bus s~~ps o~x his a~ ~'~i~~a~~~
~rect~, ~an~ ~~r. ~orna~r. ~~'~ b~~i~~r~; the ad~aer~t ~Iar~d ~~s~s s~rpp~r•~ .irrst~i~a.~ior~ a`bus steps
ar~d ~~r~ ~ar~ ~'it~~ a~~rQVal a~t~.b~;s~ stuffs.
"~'~xa~a~ r~a~r and you n~a~~ ~arzt~~ct rna r~~ ~ ~ 0~~~ 1 ~-7~? i~,~ ~~au i~au~ an~~ ~u~s~ians,
in~arc~~~,
r ~~
~f
~~~~
~ ~~
~~
~`~s~z.:~u~a~
~"ra~~.s~t .w "~`~~~.~ ~n~i~~~;cr
~:
~~anc~; ~~:ati~~bu~ ~3epl~~y. +~a~~r~~1 ~.~i~aar• ~`ur ~~r~io~ ,~~~-a~ap~il~r~t
~~ ~~i~,s~,ur~iun~ T~,spu~r"t~tic~c`~ ~l~~r
1~~~~ ~~~.;,r~s~f3~ ~~~~~~+, ~~ri,~~~r7c~, ~ ~~ ~~~~ 1 ~ ~E~ ~:~ 1 ~a~ ~~ 1 ~d~~l ~ww.~a~'rCar~Sil.~r~~
CITY ~F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date; January 15, 2008
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Implementation of Parking Restrictions at
Bus Sto son State Route 61 to Provide Curbside Access for Buses
BACKGRGUND
The City is implementing parking restrictions at all bus stops throughout Alameda to
provide unobstructed curbside access for buses. Several stops are located on State
Route 61, and per the California Vehicle Code ~CVC}, Section 22506, Local Regulation
of State Highway: Stopping, Standing, or Parking, "local jurisdictions may implement
parking restrictions on State highways, if a resolution or ordinance is submitted to and
approved by Caltrans."
DISCUSSIaN
The City has been implementing parking restrictions at all bus stops in Alameda to
enable buses to have unobstructed curbside access. This allows passengers to board
the bus more easily and also reduces the impact of bus operations on traffic circulation.
A number of the remaining bus stops where parking restrictions are not yet in place are
located on State Route 61, along Central Avenue and Encinal Avenue.
Staff proposes three sets of changes that will impact bus stops along Central Avenue
and Encinal Avenue:
• Additional parking restrictions are being requested at nine existing bus stops.
These restrictions will impact on-street parking for specified time periods at the
following locations:
o Encinal Avenue: one parking space at the southwestern corner of the
intersection with Grand Street for a period of 12:00 noon to 4:34 PM,
Monday through Friday.
o Encinal Avenue: one parking space northwest of the northwestern corner
of the intersection with Grand Street for a period of 1:00 AM to 9:00 AM,
Monday through Friday.
o Encinal Avenue: two parking spaces northwest of the southwestern corner
of the intersection with Chestnut Street for a period of 12:00 Haan to 4:30
PM, Monday through Friday.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #5-E
O'I -'I 5.08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
January 15, 2008
Page 2 of 3
o Encinal Avenue: one parking space southeast of the northeastern corner
of the intersection with Chestnut Street for a period of 1:00 AM to 9;00
AM, Monday through Friday.
o Encinal Avenue: one parking space northwest of the southwestern corner
of the intersection with Paru Street for a period of 12:00 noon to 4:30 PM,
Monday through Friday.
o Encinal Avenue: one parking space northwest of the northwestern corner
of the intersection with Benton Street for a period of 1:00 AM to 9:00 AM,
Monday through Friday.
o Central Avenue: one parking space northwest of the southwestern corner
of the intersection with ~Illeber Street for a period of 12;00 noon to 4:30
PM, Monday through Friday.
o Central Avenue: two parking spaces at the southwestern corner of the
intersection with Bay Street for a period of 12:00 noon to 4:30 PM,
Monday through Friday.
o Central Avenue: three parking spaces at the northwestern corner of the
intersection with Bay Street for a period of 1:00 AM to 9:00 AM, Monday
Through Friday.
• Cne bus stop is recommended for relocation and parking restrictions added to
prevent it from interfering with a crosswalk at the north side of Central Avenue at
the intersection with ~Illeber Street. The bus step will be relocated west of the
existing stop and one parking space will be impacted for a period of 1:00 AM to
9:04 AM, Monday through Friday.
• Two bus stops are recommended for removal, due to minimal usage and spacing
between the adjacent stops that conforms to the City's recommended bus stop
spacing guidelines. These bus stops include:
o Encinal Avenue: at the northeasterly corner of the intersection with Paru
Street
o Central Avenue; at the northeasterly corner of the intersection with Ninth
Street
BUDGET CGNSIDERATICNIFINANCIALlMPACT
The cost for the parking restriction signs is estimated to be $3,850, with funds available
from the Bus Accessibility project in the Capital Improvement Program ~CIP}. This
projectwiil not affect the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL GCDEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
General Plan Guiding Policy 4.3.d states that the City should "Develop transit-oriented
streets where feasible." This includes provision of parking restrictions at bus stops.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEVIJ
January 15, 2008
Page3of3
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}, the proposed
capital improvements are Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section
15301 ~c}, Existing Facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing implementation of parking restrictions at bus stops on
State Route 61 to provide curbside access for buses.
Respectfully submitted,
atthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Barry Bergman Ip,~ ~
Transportation Coordinator
MTN:BB:gc
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTfON NO.
AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS AT
BUS STOPS ON STATE ROUTE 61 TO PROVIDE CURBSIDE
ACCESS FOR BUSES
E ~~
o L WHEREAS, the City of Alameda is a Transit First City; and
u. _
° WHEREAS the Cit in accordance with AC Transit uidelines '
~. , res ric s
~' Y:
~ ' ~ arkin at bus sto s throw hout Alameda to im rove transi
,~ ~ p g p g p t operatEOns and
~, ,~ improve traffic circulation by allowing buses to fully pull to the curb for the
o " boardin and all htin of assen ers without blockin vehicular traffic and
L g g 9 p g 9 ,
a
a~
~ WHEREAS, Section 22506 of the California Vehicle Code ~CVC}, Loca!
Regulation of State Highway: Stopping, Standing, or Parking, states that local
jurisdictions may approve parking restrictions on state highways, if a resolution
or ordinance is submitted to and approved by the California Department of
Transportation ~Caltrans}; and
WHEREAS, under Section 8-1.2 of the Alameda Municipal Cade the
Public Works Director has the authority to designate "no parking" zones in
Alameda; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has conducted adequate
transportation studies to identify the locations and hours for parking restrictions
required on State Route 61 to adequately serve the bus stops along the route.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Alameda City Council
that, based on the recommendation of the Public Works Director, the Gity of
Alameda approves implementing parking restrictions at the following bus stops
along State Route 61 to provide curbside access for buses:
1. Encinal Avenue, at the southwestern corner of the intersection
with Grand Street, starting 2l feet northwest of the curb return
and continuing in a northwesterly direction for a distance of 28
feet, prohibit parking from 12:00 noon to 4:30 PM, Monday
through Friday.
2. Encinal Avenue, at the northwestern corner of the intersection
with Grand Street, starting 30 feet northwest of the curb return
and continuing in a northwesterly direction for a distance of 35
feet, prohibit parking from 1:DO AM to 9:DO AM, Monday through
Friday.
3. Encinal Avenue, at the southwestern corner of the intersection
with Chestnut Street, starting 20 feet northwest of the curb return
and continuing in a northwesterly direction for a distance of 44
Resolution #5-E
01.15.48
feet, prohibit parking from 12:00 noon to 4:30 PM, Monday
through Friday.
4. Encinal Avenue, at the northeastern corner of the intersection with
Chestnut Street, starting 24 feet southeast of the curb return and
continuing in an southeasterly direction for a distance of 31 feet,
prohibit parking from 1:00 AM to 9:00 AM, Monday through Friday.
5. Encinal Avenue, at the southwestern corner of the intersection
with Paru Street, starting 25 feet northwest of the curb return and
continuing in a northwesterly direction for a distance of 30 feet,
prohibit parking Pram 12;00 noon to 4:30 PM, Monday through
Friday.
6. Encinal Avenue, at the northwestern corner of the intersection
with Benton Street, starting 30 feet northwest of the curb return
and continuing in a northwesterly direction for a distance of 30
feet, prohibit parking from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, Monday through
Friday.
1. Central Avenue, at the southwest corner of the intersection with
Uveber Street, starting 38 feet northwest of the curb return and
continuing in a northwesterly direction for a distance of 22 feet,
prohibit parking from 12:00 noon to 4:30 PM, Monday through
Friday.
8. Central Avenue, at the southwest corner of the intersection with
Bay Street, starting at the curb return and continuing in a
northwesterly direction for a distance of 55 feet, prohibit parking
from 12:00 noon to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday.
9. Central Avenue, at the northwest corner of the intersection with
Bay Street, starting at the curb return and continuing in a
northwesterly direction for a distance of 65 feet, prohibit parking
from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, Monday through Friday.
10.Central Avenue, along the northerly curb at the intersection with
vVeber Street, starting 5l feet northwest of the crosswalk and
continuing in a northwesterly direction for 26 feet, prohibit parking
from 1:00 AM to 9:00 AM, Monday through Friday.
BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED that the Public vvorks Director shall
forward a certified copy of this resolution to Caltrans for their review and
approval to allow the City of Alameda to implement these parking restrictions
along State Route 61.
*****~*
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the ~ 5th day of January, 2008, by the following
vote to wit:
AYES:
NDES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTI~NS:
IN v1lITNESS, ~lllHERE~F, I have hereunto set my hand and affi~ced the
official seal of said City this th day of January, 2008.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
COUNCIL REFERRAL FORM
(To be submitted to the City Clerk)
Name of Council member requesting Referral: Frank Matarrese
Date of submission to City Clerk must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on the
Monday before the week of the Council meeting requested}; J~ l 2005
Requested Council Meeting date to consider Council Referral: Janua 15 2008
Brief description of the subject to be printed on the agenda, sufficient #o inform
the City Council and public of the nature of the Council Referral:
This referral requests consideration of developing a transit hub on the land
betwee,n_,MarinaVjllage Drive and the„entrance to the Posey Tube in order
address congestion in the Tubes.
^ ii ^ ~ r
The hub could consist of a parking lot, bus stop also a stop forthe future sh,ut_tfe
serving Alameda Landing and Alameda Point}, pedestrianlbike path access to
the tube and associated lightinglla,ndscaping. Street improvements to Marina,
Village Drive could be,considered to address.the chronic flooding which occ
when there is rain. Additionally, this project could provide a West End "ride
share" parking.
This project is consistent with past Council direction to address congestion at the
Tube during commute time and could meet the traffic related objectives
discussed at the Council's priority setting workshops.
Staff could be directed to come up,with project details and funding sour
Regional, State and Federal} and to work with Cal Trans on use of the property.
Note Public Works has, in the past,.,produced a drawinq.~illustrating a potential
ride share lot at this,location~
Council Referral #l-A
01.15.08
The staff report for this item will be
provided under separate cover
Re: ARRA Item 2-A
01-15-OS