2008-08-05 Packet~~ ~ 1
~ ~4
m ~ n' y (L
1 Y4
`pr,~.~#~~~ ~ F' CITY ~F ALAMEDA • SAL
,:~ ,,r'~, IF~RNIA
~~. ~ •-.
't'~ 'rn ~ti L[~7
r` y + f~'
~5'm_ ~rt~ i~~~ tiy~~ ~~~
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC}
TUESDAY -- - - AUGUST 5 , 2 0 0 8 - - - 7 : 2 5 P . M .
Location: Cit Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council/Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by the Council/Commission may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the
Council/Commission, Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy
City Clerk if you wish to speak.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1, ROLL CALL -- City Council, CIC
2. MINUTES
2-A, Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
Meeting held on July 15, 2008. City Clerk} [CIC
3. AGENDA ITEM
3~-A. Recommendation to approve Affordable Housing Agreement with
Warmington Homes for the Grand Marina Project. Development
Services} [City Council/CICJ
4. ADJOURNMENT - City Council, CIC
~~
Beverly J ns M or
Chair, CIC
p~`~ ~~
V A
' z~
~ ~'~ ~'
~~
n q~~
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 ~3y 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-------AUGUST 5, 2448-----7:34P.M.
Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at ?:30 pm, City Hall,
~ou~tcil ~~~er~, corner of Santa Clara Ave and aak St]
The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
?.
8.
9.
Roll Call
Agenda Changes
Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
Consent Calendar
Agenda Items
Oral Communications, Non-Agenda Public Comment}
Council Referrals
Communications Communications from Council}
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 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 7:25 P.M.
COMMUNITY IMPRO~IEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1, ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3-A. Presentation by East Bay Municipal Utility District
Representative Doug Linney regarding drought.
3-B. Presentation by the Library Foundation regarding public art at
the new Main Library.
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 July 1, 2008; and the Special City Council Meeting, Special
Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board Meeting, and
Regular City Council Meeting held on July 15, 2008. City
Clerk}
4-B. Bills for ratification. Finance}
4-C. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $511, 680,
including contingencies, to Golden Bay Construction, Inc. for
repair of Portland cement concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter,
driveway, and minor street patching, Fiscal Year 2008-2009,
Phase 9, No. P.W. 05-08-13. Public Works}
4-D, Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $211, 543,
including contingencies, to D&D Pipelines, Inc. for Woodstock
storm drain improvements, No. P.W. 06-OS-18. Public Works?
4-E. Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize
Call for Bids for pruning of City trees for Fiscal Year ending
June 30, 2049, No. P,W. 07-OS-20. Public Works}
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Leslie Krongold as a Member
of the Commission on Disability Issues; and
Adoption of Resolution Appointing Donna Milgram as a Member
of the Economic Development Commission Community-at-Large
Seat } .
5-B, Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Plannin Board's
g
denial of a variance and Major Design Review to build first
and second-story covered decks at the rear of an existin
four--unit a artment buildin g
p g located at 2243 Santa Clara
Avenue within the R-6, Hotel Residential Zoning District; and
adoption of related resolution. Planning and Buildin }
g
5-C. Recommendation to adopt the Alameda Free Library Strate is
g
Plan, 2009-2014, and authorize staff to begin Neighborhood
Library Short Term Improvements. Library}
5-D. Adoption of Resolution Opposing Fiscally Irresponsible State
Budget Decisions That Would Borrow Local Government,
Redevelopment, and Transportation Funds. City Manager}
5-E, Adoption of Resolution Providing, as Official City Reference
Documents, the Alameda County Residential Green Building
Guidelines for New Home Construction, Home Remodelin and
g-
Multifamily Residential Development; the U.S. Green Buildin
g
Council's LEED Rating Systems for New Commercial Construction
and Remodeling; and Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines, and
Recommending Their Use in the City of Alameda. Planning and
Building}
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Public Comment}
Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter
over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may
take cognizance, that is not on the agenda
7. COUNCIL REFERRALS
Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted
upon or scheduled as a future agenda item
S. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Communications from Council}
Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on
any Conferences or meetings attended
B-A. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Transportation Commission.
9. ADJOURNMENT -- City Council
***
• Materials related to an item on the agenda are available for
public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, City Hall, Room
380, during normal business hours
• 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 inter reter
p
• 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, includin
g
those using wheelchairs, is available
• Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print
• Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request
• Please contact the City Clerk at 747-4800 or TDD number 522-7538
at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda
materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy
the benefits of the meeting
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - JULY 15, 2008 - - - 7:31 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Community Improvement Commission Meeting
at 11:11 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None,
MTATTTrPT~'C
X08- } Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Public
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on June 17, 2008.
Approved.
Commissioner Tam moved approved of the minutes.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
X08-- } Public Hearing to consider the Periodic Review of the
City of Alameda's Alameda Point Improvement Project Five-Year
Implementation Plan.
The Development Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether any comments were received
from the Economic Development Commission ~EDC}.
The Development Services Manager responded no specific comments were
received; stated the EDC appreciated being kept up to date.
The Development Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Commissioner Tam stated the staff report notes that SunCal would be
updating the Sports Complex Master Plan in September; inquired
whether the Master Plan would be previewed at the August workshop,
to which the Development Services Director responded in the
negative.
The Assistant City Manager stated SunCal will be having meetings
with the Youth Commission and Recreation and Park Commission in
August.
Special Meeting 1
Community Improvement Commission
July 15, 20Q$
Chair Johnson inquired whether the Recreation and Park Commission
would make recommendations to Council and the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority ~ARR.A7, to which the Development Services
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Chair Johnson stated the demand for athletic facilities has changed
since the mid 1990's.
~~08- ~ Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
enter into Contracts with the Park Street Business Association and
the West Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2408-2009.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the CIC budget increased by
0
~.
The Development Services Director responded the general tax
increment increased by approximately 3.50 overall; stated the CIC
budget did not increase; business associations are important to the
City as an economic development engine.
Chair Johnson stated the City does not spend money on business
promotion; grant funding allows the West Alameda Business
Association ~WABA7 and Park Street Business Association ~PSBA~ to
market City businesses.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the grants bolster business; the
General Fund budget is impacted because sales tax is generated;
questioned whether the proposed funding amount is enough; inquired
whether there is a way to quantify how the City's investment
correlates to an increase in sales tax.
The Development Services Director responded that she did not know.
Commissioner Matarrese stated said matter should be reviewed
because the General Fund is impacted by investing approximately
$225,000 din the business associations].
Chair Johnson stated that she is comfortable with the grant funding
increase; business districts need to fund themselves; Alameda Towne
Centre pays for maintenance and other costs; PSBR and WABA spend a
lot of money on marketing and promotion; shopping centers are
required to be open for certain hours and days per week; the City
does not have the same control over the business districts; PSBR
members contribute $140,417 to their own organization; WABA members
contribute $66,700 to their awn organization.
Special Meeting 2
Community Improvement Commission
July 15, 2008
**~
(08- } Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the
meeting past midnight.
Chair Johnsan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
**~
Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents ~In favor of the staff recommendation}: Robb Ratto, Park
Street Business Association PSBA}provided handout}; Kathy
Moehring, West Alameda Business Association ~wABA}; Patty Jacobs,
Greater Alameda Business Association ~GABA}.
There being no further speakers, Chair Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing,
Chair Johnson inquired why is PSBA's Landscape and Lighting
assessment reduced.
Mr. Ratto responded the assessment was not utilized for a number of
years and resulted in a surplus, which has run out; PSBR was going
to request a 1000 increase in the Landscape and Lighting
assessment; property owners are not in support of an additional fee
since the passing of Measure H.
Chair Johnson inquired how much PSBA spends on marking and
promotion, to which Mr. Ratto responded approximately $90,000.
Chair Johnson inquired whether PSBA pays the electric bill [for the
streets] through the Landscape and Lighting assessment, to which
Mr. Ratto responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Tam stated that Landscape and Lighting assessment
income is reduced from $69,850 to $57,417; the Business Improvement
Area ~BIA} income is reduced from $102,317 to $$3,000; PSBA income
is reduced from $147,755 to $121,500; and the grant fund amount
would be increased from $108,020 to $111,446.
Mr. Ratto stated PSBA leaves a $20,000 cushion when event budgeting
is prepared just in case something happens; most of the $20,000
goes back into the promotion budget.
Following Ms. Moehring's comments, Chair Johnson inquired how much
WABA spends on marketing and promotion, to which Ms. Moehring
Special Meeting 3
Community Improvement Commission
July 15, 2008
responded $71,000.
Commissioner Matarrese stated data needs to be gathered on the
correlation of increased sales tax and the City's return.
Following Ms. Jacob's comments, Chair Johnson stated wABA and
PSBA's marketing, advertising, and promotion costs justify the
investment; GABA provides an excellent service to its members;
public benefit needs to be highlighted.
Ms. Jacobs stated that there is a direct correlation between
strong, healthy businesses and public benefit; GABA does not put on
public events; GABA's advertising remains consistent; a monthly
two-page spread is placed in the Alameda Sun which lists all GABA
members; GABA affords low-cost, full color advertising to any GABA
business.
Chair Johnson stated a certain percentage of grant funding should
be used for marketing and promotion; a threshold should be set.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the City receives three benefits from
PSBA and wABA: 17 street maintenance; Z} sales tax revenue; and 3}
business license tax revenue; investments should be reviewed every
year to see the correlation with the return.
Chair Johnson stated GABA's administrative costs are funded; that
she is not sure whether using grant funding for said purpose is
appropriate.
Commissioner deHaan stated GABA is a very small operation, but is
viable and important; four members would be impacted when Orchard
Supply Hardware moves into the Alameda Towne Centre; GABA's
proposed grant amount is not that monumental.
Chair Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with the
amount, but with funding administrative costs; requiring that a
certain percentage of funding be spent on marketing, advertising,
and promotion would satisfy the requirement of ensuring a return to
the public; the City does not fund the Chamber of Commerce and
Harbor Bay Business Park.
Ms. Jacobs stated one of the reasons for the inception of GABA was
to afford businesses outside the two districts an opportunity and
venue to be an association.
Chair Johnson stated GABA provides a very useful, valuable function
to its members; the question is how to ensure that the public is
getting a return; Alameda has many worthy non-profits that are not
Speciai Meeting 4
Community improvement Commission
Juiy 15, 2008
funded; inquired whether PSBA or WABA would have any problem with
setting a 400-50o threshold for advertising and promotion], to
which Mr. Ratto and Ms. Moehring responded in the negative.
Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Chair Johnson stated that a requirement should be added regarding
spending a certain percentage of grant funding on marketing and
promotion.
Cammissioner Matarrese seconded the motion with inclusion of a
policy for promotion and evaluation for GABA din addition to PSBR
and WABA; stated the issue is a policy decision; a return is needed
if the City invests approximately $225,000 in tax dollars; the
return can be predicated on 500 of grant funding going to
promotion; evaluations need to be performed.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the measurement Hof success] would be
difficult for GABA because GABA is spread across the City.
Chair Johnson stated customer survey's could be performed.
Commissioner Matarrese stated business license fees are calculated
on gross; increased performance could be reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan concurred that an evaluation needs to be
performed .
Commissioner Tam stated sales tax revenue has been flat for many
years; a better measurement would be the return to the City;
business districts take care of the street maintenance and
advertising, which the City cannot do; she does not want
measurement tied directly to producing a business tax increment.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that business license tax and sales
tax revenues are a bottom line measurement.
Commissioner Tam clarified that the motion is to fund recommended
levels to all three business districts; inquired what would be the
threshold for advertising and promotion.
Chair Johnson responded 50a; stated GABA can advise how their
success would be measured.
Commissioner Gilmore stated GABA is different from PSBR and WABA;
PSBR and WABA are spending an incredible amount of money on
advertising; GABA has never spent 500 of grant funding on
advertising.
Special Meeting 5
Community improvement Commission
July 15, 2008
Eric Kos, GABA President, stated that he has been GABA President
for f our terms; grant funding was not provided in the f first two
terms; an attempt was made to provide a public event that benefited
the community; a successful location was not available; educational
roundtables are being proposed.
Chair Johnson stated that having a public event would not be a
requirement; the intent is to use some of the grant funding on
marketing and promotion; increasing membership would help.
Commissioner Gilmore stated GABA is being requested to spend $6,000
on advertising.
Mr. Kos stated most promotions are done on a volunteer basis.
Chair Johnson stated dollar amounts could be assigned to in-kind
donations.
Commissioner deHaan stated GABA could provide their own measuring
devise.
Commissioner deHaan amended the motion to include that GABA would
come back with a measuring devise showing fulfillment to their
commitment.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the motion should include that PSBA,
wABA, and GABA spend 500 of CIC grant funding on advertising and
promotion; the policy is that the City would get a return when
contributions are made to business associations and requirements
are in place.
By consensus, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:33
a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act,
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
July 15, 2Q08
CITY of ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
City ManagerlExecutive Director
Date: August 5, 2008
Re: Approve Affordable Housing Agreement with UVarmington Homes for the
Grand Marina Project
BACKGROUND
Cn November 14, 2006, the City Council approved the Grand Marina Master Plan for a
new 40-unit subdivision at Grand Avenue and Fortmann 1Nay. Grand Marina Master Plan
Conditions #15 and #16 require the applicant to enter into an affordable housing
agreement with the Community improvement Commission ~CIC} consistent with CIC
Resolution No.04-127, establishing an inclusionary housing policy for the Business and
UVaterfront Improvement Project ~BWiP}. The inclusionary housing requirement for the
BWIP is 25 percent; the Grand Marina Master Plan provides for 30 market-rate homes
and ten affordable housing units to be constructed within the proposed Marina Village
residential community. The applicant, Warmington Homes, has signed an Affordable
Housing Agreement, which is on file with the City Clerk's office. The proposed Affordable
Housing Agreement would provide VVarmington Homes the option of off-site construction
of the iow-and very low-income units at Island High in lieu of providing five of the ten total
required affordable units on site, Gn June 23, 2008, the Planning Board considered a
Master Plan amendment in order to facilitate the construction of a portion of the affordable
housing off site and made a finding that construction of affordable housing units off site, at
the former Island High School site, would support and better serve the City's affordable
housing policies.
DISCUSSION
The proposed Affordable Housing Agreement requires Warmington Homes to provide ten
units, affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, within the Grand
Marina residential community. At the applicant's request, the agreement includes a ~,..
provision that would allow warmington Homes to replace the five low- and very low-
income units in the project with market rate homes if V1Jarmington Homes constructs an
affordable housing project with at least nine low- and very iow-income units at a property
City CouncillClC
Agenda Item #3-A
D8-D5-0S
Honorable Mayor and August 5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 5
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
known as the "Island High Site" located at the corner of Eagle Avenue and Everett Street,
one block east of Park Street, The potential Island High site project could yield as many as
16 to 18 Measure A-compliant, affordable units, or up to 36 units constructed under the
Guyton exemption. The Island High Site is currently owned by the Alameda Unified School
District AUSD}and is designated in the AUSD master facilities plan for affordable housing
purposes. As such, it is proposed that the affordable units constructed on this site could be
offered on a first come, first served basis to AUSD employees.
If vvarmington Homes was unable to secure control of the land from AUSD or unable to
secure the necessary land use entitlements for the project, then all ten units would be
provided at the Grand Marina site. Alternatively, if vllarmington were to identify an
alternative site, then they would be required to return to the Planning Board for approval of
that alternative site. Approval of the Affordable Housing Agreement in no way implies
approval of any specifc development project at the Island High Site.
Off-site development of affordable units is allowable under the CIC's inclusionary housing
policy provided that the Planning Board makes a finding that the City's affordable housing
policy is better served by the off site development. an June 23, 2008, the Planning Board
adopted Planning Board Resolution No. PB-o8-15 Attachment 1 }and made the following
finding:
f) The construction of affordable Dousing units off site of the Island Nigh site would
support and better serve the City's Affordable housing policies.
a. The relocation of affordable housing from the Grand Marina site to fhe Island
Nigh site would result in a better distribution of the affordable housing units
across the Cify. The vast majority of the City's existing and proposed
affordable housing units are located in western Alameda. The Island Hr'gD Site
is located in the east end of Alameda in an area of Alameda that has very
liffle affordable housing.
b. The City of Alameda would gain more affordable Dousing units if Warmington
Homes is allowed to move five units off site to the Island Nigh Site. Under the
existing plan, the City would gain 10 affordable units a# the Grand Marina site.
Under the proposed plan, fhe Cify would gain five ~5} units at the Grand
Marina site and nine ~9} units of the Island Nigh Sete for a focal of 14
affordable housing units.
c. The Island Nigh Sife is well located for affordable housing. The site is within
one block of fhe major Park Street bus routes and retail services and three
blocks from the Bridgeside Shopping Center.
Honorable Mayor and August 5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 5
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
The Planning Board also recommended two changes to the Affordable Housing
Agreement:
Recommendation 9:
Amend Secfion 3.3 of fhe Affordable Noosing Agreemenf fo clarify fhaf if an
alfernafive sife is considered because fhe developmenf of Island Nigh becomes
infeasible, fhaf yet fo be determined alfernafive sife would require a finding by fhe
Planning Board pursuant fo C1C Resolution #04-927 Secfion 4.b fhaf fhe need for
affordable unifs in fhe area of the proposed sife is greater than fhe need for unifs
in fhe area of the Grand Marina project.
Recommendation Z:
Consider maintaining a mix of very low, low, and moderate income unifs of the
Grand Marina sife and providing a mix of very low, low and moderafe income
unifs at fhe off sife location instead of fhe current proposal to move all fhe low
and very low income unifs fo fhe off-sife location and maintain only moderafe
income unifs of fhe Grand Marina sife for fhe purposes of maximizing fhe
diversify of income levels in all housing developments.
With respect to Recommendation ~ ,since the Planning Board has made a very specific
finding that allows off-site construction exclusively at the Island High site, UlJarmington
Homes would have to return to the Planning Board for consideration of an alternative
site. Recomendation 2 reflects the City's existing policy and preference to mix all
income levels within proposed new housing developments. However, in this case,
adhering to this preference may significantly reduce the ability of the City to produce
housing at the low-and very low-income levels at all.
Cne of the main purposes of the request to move the low- and very low-income units to
one off-site location is to bundle the units to create a project attractive for affordable
housing financing: specifically, State Multi-family Housing Program ~MHP} funds and
housing tax credits. Both sources of funding are proposed to be used for a project on
the Island High site for low-, and very low-income rental units. These funds are not
available for for-sale units, rendering the units at Grand Marina, if distributed throughout
the development, ineligible for low-interestlsupportive funding. The size of the Grand
Marina site, as well as the small number of required low- and very low-income
inclusionary units, makes the development of an affordable rental component infeasible.
Also, bundled together, Alameda gets the benefit of more affordable units than would be
developed at Grand Marina, and the units benefit from an on-site manager and
permanent, on-going maintenance and screening of residents to ensure awell-kept site
In addition, affordable for-sale units citywide have presented their own set of
challenges. While ownership is an admirable goal, it does not always present the best
Honorable Mayor and August 5, 2448
Members of the City Council Page 4 of 5
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
way to deliver housing to all. It is very difficult, and has become increasingly more
difficult, to qualify very low- and low-income buyers for mortgages. Applicants must
possess credit scores of 634 or above, and have savings for a down payment and
closing costs. At very low- and low-income levels, households that can qualify far
.conventional mortgages, especially in the current credit market, are very few. Gnce the
home is purchased, the home must remain available for very low- yr low-income
residents; therefore, residents are restricted from taking out equity loans. At the time of
sale, they are further restricted from equity participation as the next owner must be able
to purchase the home at the very low- orlow-income-qualified level.
In addition, very low- and low-income residents typically do not benefit from the tax
advantages of home ownership, because households at these income levels do not
have tax liabilities large enough to utilize the home mortgage deduction. Finally, most
households who qualify for the homes at these restricted income levels have a limited
ability to save. Therefore, when maintenance or repairs are required, e.g., a roof must
be replaced; or carpets, cabinets, and plumbing need repair; the homeowner has little or
no resources to care for the property. For these reasons, staff does not recommend
requiring Warmington to create very low-and low-income for-sale units on site.
BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGNIFINANCIALlMPACT
All costs associated with the implementation of the Affordable Housing Agreement,
through either on-site or off-site construction, would be borne solely by the applicant,
Warmington Homes, with no contribution of City or C1C funds.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIP4LICY DGCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed Affordable Housing Agreement is consistent with CIC Resolution No.44-
121, establishing an inclusionary housing policy forthe Business and Waterfront and West
End Community Improvement Projects.
ENVIRGNMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to Section 15~ 62 of the CEQA Guidelines, no additional environmental review
is required for the application to amend the Master Plan because there have been no
significant changes in circumstances that require revisions to the previously approved
environmental documentation for the Grand Marina project.
Honorable Mayor and August 5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 5 of 5
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
RECOMMENDATION
City Council: Authorize the City Manager to enter into the Affordable Housing
Agreement with vVarmington Homes for the Grand Marina Project.
Community improvement Commission: Authorize the Executive Director to enter into
the Affordable Housing Agreement with vUarmington Homes for the Grand Marina
Project.
Respec u b itt ,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
ti
By: Dorene Soto
Manager, Business Development Division
DKILALIDES:rv
Attachment
~ . City of Alameda Planning Board Resolution No. PB-08-~ 5
;n
C
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. PB-08-15
A RES4LUTiQN QF THE PLANNING BQARD QF THE CITY QF ALAMEDA RECGMMENDING
THAT THE CITY CQUNCIL AMEND THE GRAND MARINA MASTER PLAN TQ ALLQW FCR A
PQRTIQN ~FTHEAFFQRDABLEHQUSING UN[TSTO BE BUILTOFF SITEAND FINDING
THAT PROVISIGN QF AFFORDABLE HQUSING AT THE ISLAND HIGH SITE ~IUQULD
SUPPQRT THE QBJECTIVES OF THE CITY QF ALAMEDA AFFQRDABLE HQUSING
PQLICIES.
WHEREAS, on November ~4, 2007 the City Council approved the Grand Marina Village
Master Pfan proposed by the applicant, Warmington Homes; and
WHEREAS, the Grand Marina Master Plan provided for 3D market rate homes and 1D
affordable housing units to be constructed within the proposed Marina Village residential
community; and
WHEREAS, on March 3'l, 2D08, the applicant submitted an application to modify the
approved Master Pian to provide the opportunityto movefive of the affordable homes~to an off-
site location as part of a larger affordable housing project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Alameda Municipal Code Section 3D-~6.6.b, the affordable
units may be built at an off site location if the Planning Board is able to find that the purposes of
the City's affordable housing policieswould be betterserved by the construction of off-site units;
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposed Master Plan
Amendments and considered the Island High Siteforaffordablehousing onJune 23, 2DD8 and
made the following findings relevant to the proposals:
~ } The construction of affordable housing units off-site at the Island High site would
support and better serve the City's Affordable housing policies.
a. The relocation of affordable housing fromthe Grand Marina sitetothe Island High site
would result in a better distribution of the affordable housing units across the City.
The vast majority of the City's existing and proposed affordable housing units are
located in western Alameda. The Island High Site is located in the east end of
Alameda in an area of Alameda that has very little affordable housing.
b. The City of Alameda would gain more affordable housing units if Warmington Homes
is allowed to move foe units off-site to the Island High Site. Underthe existing plan,
the City would gain ~ 0 affordable units at the Grand Marina site. Under the proposed
plan, the City would gain five ~5} units at the Grand Marina site and nine ~9} units at
the Island High Site for a total of ~ 4 affordable housing units.
c. The Island High Site is well located for affordable housing. The site is within one
Page ~ of 3
City CouncillClC
Attachment to
Agenda Item #3-A
oa-o5-os
block of the major Park Street bus routes and retail services and three blocks from the
Bridgeside Shopping Center.
2~ The proposed Master Plan amendments would supportthe City's affordable hausing
program while maintaining the integrity and quality of the Grand Marina Village
Project.
NGUU, THEREFGRE, BE IT RESGLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City ofAlameda
hereby determines that the Grand Marina Master Plan proposal was evaluated previously in a
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared byLamphire-Gregoryand approved bythe CityCouncii
on November 14, 2006. Under Section 151 ~2 of the CEQA Guidelines, no additional
environmental review is required for this application to amend the Master Plan, Pursuant #o
CEC~A Guidelines Section 15162, there have been no significant changes in circumstances that
require revisions to the previously approved environmental documentation forthe Grand Marina
project.
NGVI~, THEREFGRE, BE 1T FURTHER RESGLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City
ofAlameda hereby determines that findings regarding the island High Site are exempt pursuant
to Public Resources Code 21159.23 Exemption for Affordable Low-income Housing}
Furthermore, the Planning Board's recommendation regarding the Island High site constitutes a
finding about the potential benefits of a potential future project forthe City's affordable housing
program. The Board's finding does not constitute a preliminary orfinal approval of that project,
nor does it commit any funding or other, nor does it commit the City to pursue or approve the
project at a future date. The finding has no legally binding effect on later activities by the City of
Alameda that may result in physical changes to the environment. Any future proposal for the
Island High Site will be subject to a full environmental review and the City of Alameda reserves
its ability to approve or deny the project for environmental or if the finding cannot be made for
project approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESGLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby
recommends that the City Council amend the Grand Marina Master Plan as follows:
1. Amend Section ill, subsection "Affordable Housing" to include the following text:
"U to fve 5 affordable units ma be re laced with fve 5 market rate units rovided
that . the__City of Alameda Community, ~,Imp~ovement Commission h,as approved an
Affordable Housin A regiment for the ro'ect which establishes the conditions and
requirements for the ~eiocation of the units to an alternate site within Alameda and that
the Planning Board _has made the fi,ndin that the purposes :,,~ the,,, City's inclusionary
housing poiicies,would be bettered by the construction ofoff-side units. In the e~ven,,,t_
that five 5 units are relocated to an alternate site arcels number 1 H 10 26 and 28
shown on the Landsca a Master Plan shall be reserved for the five remainin affordable
units."
Page2of3
2. Amend the Master Plan to include the revised Site Plan shown in Attachment 4 of the
June 23, 2008 Staff Report.
BE it further resolved that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda recommends that the
Community Improvement Commission:
1. Amend Section 3.3 ofthe Affordable Housing Agreement to clarify that if an alternative
site is considered because the development of island High becomes infeasible, that yet to
be determined aiternative site would require a finding bythe Planning Board pursuantto
CIC Resolution #04-121 Section 4.b that the need for affordable units in the area of the
proposed site is greater than the need for units in the area of the Grand Marina project.
2. Consider maintaining a mix of very low, low, and moderate income units at the Grand
Marina site and providing a mixof very iow, low and moderate income uFiits atthe off-site
location instead of the current proposal to move all the Ivw and very iow income units to
the off-site Eocation and maintain only maderate income units at the Grand Marina site far
the purposes of maximizing the diversity of income levels in all housing developments.
The decision of the Planning Board shall be f nal unless appealed to the City Council, in writing
and within ten X10}days of the decision, by f sing with the Planning and Building Department a
written notice of appeal stating the basis of appeal and paying the required fees.
PASSED ANa ADGPTED this 23rd day of June 20x8 by the Planning Board of the City of
Alameda by the following vote:
AYES: ~5} Cook, Kohlstrand, Autorino, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft
NOES: ~o}
ABSENT: ~2} Lynch, McNamara
ATTEST:
ndrew Thomas, Secretary
City of Alameda Planning Board
Page 3 of 3
uNAPPROvED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 1, 2008- -6:30 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
X08- 7 Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
~54953.9~; Name of Case: Gabriel J. Hurst v. City of Alameda, et
al.
X08-- 7 Conference with Legal Counsel - Liability Claim X54956.95} ;
Claimant: Erin Astrup; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Existing Litigation,
Council gave direction to Legal Counsel regarding defense;
regarding Liability, Council gave settlement direction to Legal
Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda pity Council
July 1, 2008
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY -- - -- - - - JULY 1, 2008 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(08- } Mayor Johnson announced that Resolutions of Reappointment
and Appointment [paragraph no. 0$- ] would be heard before the
Consent Calendar.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(08- } Presentation of Certificates of Service to Nancy Anderson,
Jim Franz, Leslie Krongold, Robb Ratto, and Suzanne Storar.
Mayor Johnson read and presented a Certificate of Service to Robb
Ratto.
Mr. Ratto stated that it has been a pleasure to serve on the
Transportation Commission; thanked Council for the Certificate of
Service.
(08- } Proclamation expressing greetings and best wishes to the
community of Asuchio, El Salvador and encouraging continued
exchange with Asuchio.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Councilmember
Matarrese.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he will deliver the
proclamation; delegations have been going back and forth from
Alameda to Asuchio for the last ten years; visas were denied in
2002 and 2006; communication is still regular; that he hopes the
State Department will allow visits to reoccur.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(08-~ } Resolution No. 14227, "Reappointing Kenneth I. Dorrance as
a Member of the Film Commission." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
Regular Meeting 1
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2008
voice vote - 5.
(08- A} Resolution No. 14228, "Reappointing Patricia A. Grey as a
Member of the Film Commission." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. .
(08- B7 Resolution No. 14229, "Reappointment Teddy Tabor as a
Member of the Film Commission." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of
appointment.
(08- C} Resolution No. 14230, "Reappointing Aiesha P. Balde as a
Member of the Housing Commission." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of
appointment.
(08- D} Resolution No. 14231, "Reappointing Arthur A. Kurrasch as
a Member of the Housing Commission." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -~ 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of
appointment.
(08- E} Resolution No. 14232, "Appointing Gail A. Wetzork as a
Member of the Library Board." Adopted.
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
Regular Meeting 2
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2008
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of
appointment.
(08- F} Resolution No. 14233, "Reappointing Patrick Lynch as a
Member of the Planning Board." Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(08- G} Resolution No. 14234, "Appointing Elizabeth A. Candelario
as a Member of the Pubic Art Commission." Adopted
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of
appointment.
(08- Hy Resolution No. 14235, "Appointing Eric Ibsen IV as a
Member of the Public Art Commission." Adopted
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution,
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of
appointment.
(08- I} Resolution No.14236, "Reappointing Peter W. Holmes as a
Member of the Public Utilities Board." Adopted.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of
appointment.
' (08- J} Resolution No. 14237, "Reappointing Regional L. James as
a Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board." Adopted.
Regular Meeting 3
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2008
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of
appointment.
(OS- K} Resolution No. 14238, "Appointing Kathy L. Moehring
(Business District Seat? as a Member of the Transportation
Commission." Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilrnember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of
appointment.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that Resolution Calling for a General
Municipal Election [paragraph no. 08- ] and Final Passage of
Ordinance [paragraph no. 08- ] were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
~*08- } Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings held on June
5 and June 9, 2008; the Special Joint City Council and Public
Utilities Board Meeting held on June 16, 2008; and the Special and
Regular City Council Meetings held on June 17, 2008. Approved.
~*08- }Ratified bills in the amount of $1,733,216.82.
~*08- } Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Woodstock Storm Drain Improvements, No.
P.W. 11--06-23. Accepted.
X08- } Resolution No. 14239, "Calling for a General Municipal
Election to be Consolidated with the Statewide General Election to
be Held in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 4, 2008 and
Requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to Permit the
Regular Meeting 4
Alameda City Council
July 1, 20x8
Registrar of Voters to Render Specified Services to the City
Relating to the Conduct of Said Election." Adopted.
Vice Mayor Tam stated election costs have doubled; inquired what
the cost would be to place measures on the ballot.
The City Clerk responded costs would be for printing, translation,
and typesetting each measure; stated the approximate cost is $3,000
per page; an average size measure could be three to four pages.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the cost would be brought back for
budget adjustment once costs are known.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the Registrar
of Voters does not provide estimates; election costs were based on
2006 costs with a slight increase.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what is the justification for the
increase [in cost for conducting the election}.
The City Clerk responded increased printing costs and new Secretary
of State requirements; stated that she was advised to use 2006
costs when the budget was prepared.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(08- } Ordinance No. 2982, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Subsection 8-26.1 Use of Coasters, Roller Skates, and
Similar Devices Restricted} of Section 8-26 Coasters, Skates,
Etc. of Chapter VIII Traffic, Motor Vehicles, and Alternative
Transportation Modes} and Subsection 23-1.3 Riding of Bicycles and
Skateboards in Parks, Etc.7 of Section 23-1 Parks and Squares} of
Chapter ~.XIII Parks, Recreation Areas and Public Property} to
Expand the Prohibition to Include Skateboards and Their Use in City
Owned or Leased Property, Buildings or Structures Unless Authorized
by Subsection 23-1.3." Finally passed.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance's original intent was to keep
bicycles and skateboards out of the parking structure; revised
language allows bicyclists to ride bicycles to lockers; requested
that speakers only address Council if in disagreement with revised
language.
Speakers: Garret Conklin, Alameda; Bill Smith, Alameda; Jon
Spangler, Alameda; Ani Dimusheva, Alameda.
Regular Meeting 5
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2008
Councilmember Matarrese stated complaints were received regarding
skateboards and BMX bikes barreling down from the top level of the
parking garage; the intent is to have an ordinance that would allow
the Police Department to issue tickets; motorized wheelchair and
golf cart users would like to use bike lanes; the matter should be
evaluated.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter would require a separate ordinance;
directed staff to bring the matter back for Council consideration.
Councilmember deHaan requested that the City Attorney review
changes that have occurred [with the ordinance] over time.
The City Attorney stated in the early 1940's the City adopted an
ordinance prohibiting riding bicycles in all parks; in 1959 the
ordinance was amended to permit bicycles and roller skates in parks
except where posted; the ordinance was updated between 1999 and
2001 to address the Skate Park.
Ms. Dimusheva requested that the new language be read.
The City Attorney stated the new language reads: "It shall be
unlawful when and where posted for any person to operate or ride a
bicycle or skateboard propelled wholly or in part by muscular power
within or upon any public park, playground, or school property, in
the City or parking lot, parking structure owned or leased by the
City, except that a person may ride a bicycle to and from bicycle
racks or lockers provided within any City parking lot or parking
structure. The use and operation of skateboards, roller skates, and
in-line skates shall be authorized at the Skate Park at Alameda
Point. All person using, operating, or riding a skateboard, roller
skates, or in-line skates at the Skate Park at Alameda Point shall
wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads at all times."
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of final passage with amended
language allowing bicycles, skateboards, etc, at parks and other
facilities unless otherwise posted and allowing bicycles to go to
and from the lockers and racks in the parking structure.
Vice Mayor Tam encouraged the community to participate actively as
the Transportation Commission develops the Bike Master Plan
relating to bicycling throughout the City.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan requested a report on ways
to enforce a ban on loitering within the parking structure.
By consensus, the motion carried by unanimouse voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 1, 20Q8
X08- } Public Hearing to consider the proposed implementation of
a fuel surcharge for the City of Alameda Ferry Services, approve
the proposed fuel surcharge, and authorize the City Manager to
execute the necessary amendments to the Operating Contracts for the
Ferry Services.
The Ferry Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired when the Water Emergency
Transportation Agency WETA} would take over the ferries.
The Ferry Services Manager responded new legislation requires that
WETA adopt a transition plan by June 200.
The Deputy City Manager stated WETA needs to adopt a transition
plan by July 1, 2009; the transition would take approximately one
year.
Mayor Johnson stated WETA authorized existing operators to use two
new boats; inquired whether the new boats are more fuel efficient.
The Ferry Services Manager responded both boats are under warranty
for the first year; stated insuring each boat would cost
approximately $30,000 to $35,000; additional house maintenance
would be required the first year; the boats carry fewer passengers,
but the overall footprint is approximately the same as the Peralta;
the new boats are the cleanest burning engines on the bay.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the interim operator would have to
incur the additional costs.
The Ferry Services Manager responded the issue is part of
negotiations; stated the City does not want to incur additional
expenses.
vice Mayor Tam inquired whether a fuel surcharge would need to be
considered as a result of the two new boats.
The Ferry Services Manager responded in the negative; stated the
staff recommendation is based on operating the existing boats; WETA
would take care of any additional operating expenses.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Port of Oakland has
been approached regarding an increased subsidy.
The Ferry Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
staff met with the Port of Oakland's Director of Commercial Real
Estate; the Director reported that sixty eight positions are being
Regular Meeting 7
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2008
eliminated and that the Port of Oakland is not in the position to
increase the subsidy for the ferry.
Mayor Johnson requested that staff advocate on behalf of using gas
tax windfalls to offset increased public transportation costs and
investigate whether the League of California Cities is doing
anything regarding the matter,
The Deputy City Manager stated last year a resolution encouraged
not diverting transportation money; said diversion took place
anyway; that she would advocate.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the breakeven point to
increase ridership to supplement the additional fuel cost.
The Ferry Services Manager responded the Alameda/Oakland Ferry
Services ~AOFS} had a slight decline of 436 tickets in the first
few months of 2007-2008; stated the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry ~.AHBF}
is doing quite well; AHBF tickets increased by 2,657 tickets for
the first five months of this year; annual farebox revenue would
generate $663,000, which would be approximately $45,000 short of
what would be needed if fuel costs are $4.75 per gallon.
Councilmember deHaan stated a twenty-five cent increase is proposed
for AOFS and a fifty cent increase for AHBF,
The Ferry Services Manager stated revenue would need to be obtained
right away in order to offset the $4.75 per gallon fuel cost; AHBF
is operated by Harbor Bay Maritime; Harbor Bay Maritime is already
spending more than $4.75 per gallon for fuel; staff has requested
Harbor Bay Maritime to reconsider vendors and also consider the
possibility of not fueling by truck, but by barge.
Councilmember deHaan stated AHBF has constraints and cannot grow
much more; the terminal parking lot is almost full.
The Ferry Services Manager stated the terminal parking lot has
approximately 20Q capacity left.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he observes that approximately
nine spots are available.
The Ferry Services Manager stated restriping is being considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated that restriping would only add eight or
ten more spots.
Vice Mayor Tam stated 10,000 additional AHBF ticket sales would be
needed to cover the fuel increase; AOFS and AHBF cannot subsidize
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2008
each other; inquired whether the proposed increase would cover
costs for the next two years.
The Ferry Services Manager responded using additional Measure B
reserves might be necessary.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilrnember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote ~~5.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the City should formally oppose
having the gas tax windfall go to the State's General Fund, and
request that the money be directed to public transportation.
Mayor Johnson stated transit agencies may want to do the same
thing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter should be brought up at
the AC Transit Liaison Meeting tomorrow.
(08- } Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14240,
"Approving the Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and
Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City
Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, All Zones." Adopted.
The Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarresse moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous vice vote - 5.
(08- } Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14241,
"Approving the Engineer's Report, Confirming
Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessments,
Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove}." Adopted.
Diagram and
Maintenance
The Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(OS- } Recommendation to approve the membership of the Fiscal
Sustainability Committee.
Mayor Johnson read the names of the Committee members.
Regular Meeting g
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2008
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is very impressed with the
number of people with expertise in the City; the City received a
large number of applicants; the decision was difficult; all members
are Alameda residents with the exception of ,Ms. Riski, who is
Peet's Coffee Controller.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the committee's timeframe is six
months; a lot of community interest was received; the cross-section
is quite commendable.
Mayor Johnson stated that she considers the committee to be one of
the most important things right now because of the City's economic
challenges; informing the public is important.
Councilmember deHaan stated today the City is living with decisions
made twenty five years ago.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council wants to know long--term impacts
when decisions are made.
vice Mayor Tam thanked Councilmember Matarrese and Councilmember
deHaan for the hard work; stated public sector encourages people to
use less services and products; private sector tries to increase
use as much as possible.
Mayor Johnson stated the capitalistic view is very important;
dollars are needed to pay for commitments made.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the people who volunteered.
Mayor Johnson stated the committee needs to have access to whatever
information is needed.
The City Treasurer stated access to information is critical;
requested that information be routed to him or the City Auditor in
order to make it easier for staff to respond in a timely manner.
Mayor Johnson requested that meetings and all information provided
to the Committee be posted to the website for the public.
The City Treasurer encouraged the public to pay attention when the
conclusion is provided.
Mayor Johnson stated it is important for the public to know how
conclusions are reached.
The City Treasurer stated that the committee will have a very
impartial, objective look at the City budget and spending.
Regular Meeting 1 O
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2008
Lorre Zupan thanked the Council for the opportunity to be on the
committee; stated the issue is important.
Former Councilmember Tony Daysog stated that he looks forward to
being involved.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he appreciates staff efforts
throughout the budget cycle; budget information will be helpful.
The City Treasurer stated the goal is to have the first meeting at
the end of the month; he assumes that staff will advise committee
members of the meeting location and dates.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
X08- } Resolution No. 14242, "Updating the City of Alameda
Emergency operations Plan by Adding the Required National Incident
Management System ~NIMS} Components and Including Functional
Annexes and Supporting Appendices." Adopted.
The Acting Division Chief/Disaster Preparedness Coordinator gave
a Power Point Presentation and provided a handout.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Fire Department would
be the document keeper, provide updates, and whether controlled
copies would be provided.
The Acting Division Chief/Disaster Preparedness Coordinator
responded the Disaster Preparedness Coordinator would be
responsible for the document; stated virtual copies would be on the
City's network; hard copies would be kept at the Fire Department
and Police Department Communication Center.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether City Hall would have a
copy, to which the Acting Division Chief/Disaster Preparedness
Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how outreach is done throughout the
community.
The Acting Division Chief/Disaster Preparedness Coordinator
responded training includes Personal Preparedness and Community
Emergency Response Team Programs; stated a Personal Preparedness
Guide is provided to citizens.
Regular Meeting 1 1
Alameda City Council.
July 1, 2QQ8
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion
Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed earthquakes.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is glad an evacuation plan is
included.
X08- }Recommendation to accept the Golf Complex Master Plan and
consider options for future operation of the Chuck Corica Golf
Complex.
The Interim General Manager gave a brief review of past actions.
Richard Singer, National Golf Foundation ~NGF} Director of
Consulting Services, gave a brief presentation.
Forrest Richardsan, Forrest Richardson and Associates, gave a Power
Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr, Richardson thought that the
north course changes would be more reflective of the original
design.
Mr. Richardson responded the proposed changes are more of a
faithful restoration.
Mayor Johnson requested more information on the drainage issue.
Mr. Richardson stated the canals are choked up and overgrown with
invasive vegetation; water comes to the Golf Course from a dozen or
more points.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether water drains into the bay.
Mr. Richardson responded water goes into one of the Golf Course
water areas; stated the Public Works Department operates large
pumps to help force evacuation to open water.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether fertilized water drains into the
bay.
Mr. Richardson responded the Golf Course acts as a huge filtration
basin because of the plants; stated the canal is doing a great job;
the fertilizer used on the Golf course is very docile compared to
Regular Meeting ~ 2
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2008
material found in urban runoff; street runoff is more concerning.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how much of the irrigated area would
be reduced by having thirty-six holes.
Mr. Richardson responded approximately 50 acres; stated the Mif
Albright Course would add another twenty acres.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the Golf Course would compare to
surrounding golf courses, to which Mr. Singer responded it would be
a notch above Monarch Bay and Metropolitan Golf Links.
Councilmember deHaan stated competition would be the same as now;
event play is an important segment.
Councilmember Matarrese stated phasing and descriptions are
methodical; the plan is great; however, financing is hard to
follow; he does not see a side by side analysis for executing the
plan under the current management structure, a complete lease out,
or hybrid approach; he does not understand how anyone could provide
the City with a $500,000 per year lease payment, serve the debt on
$10 million, and make a profit; questioned how golf play could be
sustained under constant renovation.
Mr. Singer stated the goal is see if there is interest; the City of
Phoenix posed the same question [as Councilmember Matarrese] and
was surprised to have three qualified bidders willing to come up
with $12 million to do a similar plan.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired when the bids were received, to
which Mr. Singer responded 2007.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he heard a rumor that Stockton
and Modesto are in the process of taking back City control of the
golf courses.
Mr. Singer stated that he was not aware of said situation but would
not be surprised; he has seen every type of scenario.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she understands that Oakland did
some major renovations and leased the golf course to an outside
operator; the operator wants to renegotiate the lease because the
cash flow is not there; inquired how the City would be protected
from the same situation.
Ed Getherall, NGF Project Manager, responded the operator entered
the lease when the market was at its peak; stated operators run out
cash flow models; he would be surprised if Alameda did not get some
interest.
Regular Meeting 1 3
Alameda City Council
July 1, zoos
Vice Mayor Tam stated currently, the City receives approximately
$900,000 to $1 million in golf revenue; $500,040 would be generated
with a private operator and lease holder; the report indicates that
transfers would need to cease in order to help with the economic
recovery and that the current path would ultimately close the Golf
Course; inquired what would be the threshold for delaying action.
Mr. Singer responded the clock is ticking rapidly.
Mayor Johnson stated that the fund balance is $1.1 million and that
next year's projected loss is $700,000.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the Golf Course has deteriorated even with
reduced staffing and improved pro-shop sales; inquired whether two
or three years could be bought by closing the Mif Albright Course
and undertaking some renovations with increased fees.
Mr. Singer responded perhaps, but the problem would reoccur again.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is any scenario that would
allow the City to continue to run the Golf Course as it does now.
Mr. Singer responded in the negative; stated reducing the holes
from 45 to 18 might buy some additional time.
Councilmember Gilmore stated placing a band aid on things would
just allow the City to operate the Golf Course, not .take care of
infrastructure or improvements.
Councilmember deHaan stated the original proposal included finding
an operator and sounded viable; now a major overall is being
proposed; inquired whether the original proposal would still be
viable.
Mr. Singer responded potentially; stated cost is the issue; the
City would need to come up with money to do improvements.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Council was told that a banquet
center would be needed to encourage tournament play; the plan shows
a banquet center in Phase 7, which seems contradictory.
Mr. Singer stated conceptual reuse was placed at the end, but could
be done in the first phase.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the RFP could be left open,
to which Mr. Singer responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Getherall stated Golf Course improvements are the top priority.
Regular Meeting 1 4
Alameda City Council
July 1, 20x8
Councilmember deHaan stated the original proposal was along the
design of what the Golf Commission requested.
Mr. Getherall stated initially, NGF was told that the City could
fund a banquet center under the self-operation scenario.
Mr. Richardson stated reusing the existing building is not a
sensible use of money.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be a demand for
mixing a 9-hole course and 18-hole course.
Mr. Richardson responded the 18-hole course could be a stand-alone
course; the 9-hole course could be used when needed to provide a
27-hole course; stated flexibility would be added.
Mr. Singer stated that weak demand is not the problem with the Mif
Albright Course, but overall cost benefit and maintenance costs;
the proposed plan's flexibility would allow a choice to play a
regulation championship course, a shorter executive-type 18-hole
course, a full-length regulation 9-hole course, or a shorter Mif
Albright 9-hole course.
Councilrnember deHaan stated some of the choices are already
available, but not in good condition; inquired whether the north
course is a concern because of the limited length.
Mr. Singer responded that he does not see the north course as a
concern, but may limit marketing to some degree; stated the
proposed plan allows for a wide variety of lengths.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what percentage of golfers play
longer length courses.
Mr. Singer responded nationally, approximately eight to ten
percent; stated locally, the percentage is lower.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the golf course would be
designed to cater to eight percent of golfers.
Mr. Singer responded in the negative; stated the golf course would
be designed to be sufficient for people willing to pay a higher
fee, but would also be sufficient for people wanting to play the
current length or shorter.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.
Speakers: Ron Salsig, Alameda; Robert Wood, Alameda; Jane Sullwold,
Regular Meeting 1 5
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2008
Golf Commission Chair; James D, Leach, Alameda; Bill Smith,
Alameda; Joe VanWinkle, Alameda; Barbara Wood, Alameda; Jim
Strehlow, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the meeting.
***
X48- } Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of continuing the meeting
past midnight.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -- 5.
~**
Mayor Johnson inquired what Ms. Sullwold does not like about the
Master Plan.
Ms. Sullwold responded something would be lost by giving up the
south course; stated redesigning the north course is not a
reasonable choice.
Mayor Johnson stated she understood that the Golf Course would be
restored to more of the original design.
Ms. Sullwold stated that the feel would be restored, but the Golf
Course would be completely redesigned; she does not see how the
expense could be justified.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Sullwold does not recommend the
Master Plan because the Plan is not economically feasible.
Ms. Sullwold responded in the affirmative; stated the operational
review and Master Plan should be used as guidelines.
Mayor Johnson stated the RFP should be left open and be flexible.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the City would not be controlling its destiny
by having bidders come up with ideas; community consensus is
needed; inquired whether the Golf Commission's current vision is to
maintain the facility as a recreational golf facility that is very
specific to Alameda without turning it into a national class
tournament play facility.
Ms. Sullwold responded that she does not think that the Golf Course
has the capacity or amenities to attract national class play.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the next step would be if there was no
response to the RFP.
Regular Meeting 1
Alameda City Council
July 1, 20Q8
Ms. Sullwold responded shutting down the Jack Clark and Mif
Albright Courses; laying off all personnel not needed to maintain
one 18-hole facility; and raising rates are the only options to
preserve golf in Alameda; stated subtracting actual revenues from
current operating expenses would provide a positive cash balance;
outside operators would be able to cut labor costs by approximately
45a.
Councilmember Gilmore stated an operator may want to reconfigure
everything.
Ms. Sullwold stated that she does not think there is any choice;
it is important to be as open as possible.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is very skeptical of the
Plan's financial feasibility; a hybrid approach could be
considered; he would like to see options laid out side by side to
see what it would take to do the necessary capital improvements to
keep the Courses running either entirely by the City, totally
contracted out, or something in between; the City cannot afford to
run 45 holes anymore because of the water situation; he would like
to get away from language stating that the City dips into funds;
the RFP needs to have some general framework outlining City control
of maintenance and facility infrastructure, and obtaining experts
to draw players; the Master Plan has some elements that could be
dropped into the RFP; Council should adopt the Golf Commission's
recommendation issue a RFP and mothball the Mif Albright Course so
that some time is bought and costs are cut in order to bolster the
asset.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the RFP would be for
operations only.
Councilmember Matarrese responded the RFP would be for turf and
facility maintenance; current employees have skills that are
applicable across the City.
Mayor Johnson inquired how Councilmember Matarrese's plan would
generate revenue for capital improvements.
Councilmember Matarrese responded by ceasing to take money from the
Golf Course operators that would be marketing and operating the
Golf Course on a profit basis.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is not happy with the Master
Plan; the Master Plan is too costly and has too many risks;
previous options included contracting out operation, management, or
both; a lot of improvements have been made at the Golf Course;
Regular Meeting ~ 7
Alameda City Council
July 1, 208
reluctantly, he accepts mothballing the Mif Albright Course; he
would like to review the fee structure, particularly the $5 Junior
fee; the Golf Course supports junior programs and seniors; the
General Fund anticipates a $500, 000 shortfall next year; the RFP
process would take six months to a year; once something is
contracted out, it is never gotten back; he was hoping to get more
information on marketing and capital improvements for the existing
operation.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of seeking both operation and
management proposals.
Councilmember deHaan stated full time management is needed in the
interim period; some improvements can be made on a daily basis with
current staff.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Councilmember DeHaan's motion was
to issue a RFP to secure a long-term and interim operator.
Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative; stated that he
wished the original report was included.
The City Manager stated staff recommends a RFP for a long-term
operator and an interim operator for operations and management.
Mr. Singer stated the recommendation is for both operation and
maintenance [to be contracted out] because the maintenance cost
structure is the biggest problem.
The City Manager stated just doing management is not cost
effective; the interim operator could reduce costs immediately and
the [RFP] process would take 60-90 days.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she would second Councilmember DeHaan's
motion with an amendment; stated more discussion is needed on
whether there should be a passive park, recreational specific
activity such as the Skate Park, or a national class tournament-
type facility; said discussion should be tabled; that she is
conscious that the General Fund will be impacted very soon with
respect to potential shortfalls in rounds of golf for the next two
years; that her amendment to the motion would be to proceed with
the RFP for an interim operator in order to stop the hemorrhaging
and directing staff to work with the Golf Commission on the Master
Plan and seek community feedback on a long-term vision.
Councilrnember deHaan stated that he would accept the amendment to
the motion regarding engaging the public to review uses of the
property.
Regular Meeta.ng 1
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2008
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff is being instructed to
issue a RFP for an interim operator for maintenance as well as
operations until a RFP is issued for a long-term operator, and that
the community would be engaged regarding other options; stated she
was never in favor of an open ended RFP because a lot of
professionals would think responding would be a waste of time if
the community did not know what they wanted; bracketing the
parameters would be helpful.
Councilmember deHaan stated the banquet facility should be a long-
term option.
Councilmember Gilmore stated an operator would want to stabilize
infrastructure before considering amenities.
Mayor Johnson stated golfers think that it is more important to
address Golf Course issues first before spending money on a banquet
facility.
Ms. Sullwold stated tournament business cannot be encouraged
without a banquet facility; tournament business is the highest
revenue stream at golf courses; higher rates are charged; a banquet
facility is more urgent than it seems; the Golf Commission has not
been given any information on interim management options.
Mayor Johnson stated there are a number of ways to address a
banquet facility.
Ms. Sullwold stated the operational review has a list of expenses
on what to do the first year, which includes building a banquet
facility, improving the driving range, and improving the south and
north courses.
Councilmember Matarrese stated on-site management is key; an
individual would be contracted to manage the Golf Course on an
interim basis; he would like the RFP to include both a hybrid with
the City contracting the management operation and a fully
contracted operation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether an individual would be hired
to run the Golf Course full time in the interim, and the City would
still be responsible for maintenance and operating costs.
Councilmember Matarrese responded the maintenance and operating
costs are already in place; a person would be brought in on a
commission basis; salary would depend on how many rounds are
generated.
Mayor Johnson stated community feedback has indicated that the City
Regular Meeting l g
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2008
should not be subsidizing the Golf Caurse.
The City Manager stated the proposal was to issue a RFP for a
management and maintenance interim operator and issue a RFP for a
long-term operator.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is okay with someone providing a
proposal to do management and leaving maintenance staff in place.
The Interim General Manager stated in response to Ms. Sullwold's
statement [the Golf Commission has not been given any information
on interim management options] he does not have any definite
numbers yet; hard numbers would not be known until a RFP is issued.
The City Manager stated that the General Manager and Golf Services
Manager positions are unfunded; approximately 300 of the Recreation
and Park Director's salary is allocated to Golf.
Councilmember Gilmore requested that the motion be restated.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he stands corrected on the interim
operator; the interim operator would be for both operations and
maintenance; then the next step would be to look at the long-term;
the stop gap effort would be just to keep the Course going while
looking at the overall long-term and capital investment needed to
continue on.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she does not want an interim
operator to assume that they would be the long-term operator.
The Interim General Manager stated interested interim operators
have stated that they do not want to be precluded from being the
long-term operator but understand that they might not be.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much the RFP would cost, to which
the Interim General Manager responded $20,000.
Councilmember deHaan stated the motion is to move approval of
issuing a RFP for an interim operator for management and operation
and that said operator could be considered as the long-term
operator.
Mayor Johnson stated the motion should include that community
engagement would be the next phase.
Councilmember deHaan stated community engagement would include how
excess land should be used if the Mif Albright Course is
mothballed.
Regular Meeting 2 0
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2008
Councilmember Gilmore requested that the motion be approval of
issuing a RFP for an interim operator to take care of the
maintenance and the operation side so costs are reduced.
Councilmember deHaan agreed to amend the motion accordingly.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the interim timeframe is anticipated
to be one year until a long-term RFP in place.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the amended motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Tam,
and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of engaging the community to
seek input for the RFP for a long-term operator.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the RFP should have parameters based
on community and Golf Commission input.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Council gave direction to close the Mif Albright and bring back
rates.
Ms. Arnerich, Alameda Junior Golf Club President, stated the
Northern California Golf Association initiated the Kids on Course;
the Alameda Junior Golf Club has jointed the Plan; Northern
California Golf Association will give $8.00 back when juniors pay
$1.00 to play.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be done with the Master
Plan.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Master Plan would be part of the
community engagement.
Mayor Johnson stated NGF brought back many items for discussion and
that she appreciates all the work.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Public Comment}
X08- } Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed imported scooters.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
~D8- } written Communication from the League of California Cities
Regular Meeting 2 1
Alameda City Council
July 1, 200$
requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the League's 2008
Annual Conference.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of Vice Mayor Tam being the
City's representative and Councilmember deHaan as being alternate.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the
fallowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese deHaan, and
Tam - 3. Absent: Councilmember Gilmore and Mayor Johnson- 2. [Note:
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Gilmore were away from the dias for
the motion.
~08-~ ~ Councilmember Matarrese stated the budget was approved on
June 17, 2008; requested an Off Agenda Report summarizing where the
City is starting in terms of number of employees, impacts of the
approved budget, and a comparison between the current and previous
budget .
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Vice--Mayor Tam adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 12:43 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting ~ 2
Alameda City Council
July 1., 2Q08
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES of THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 15, 2008- -6:20 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
RILL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
X08- 7 Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
X54956.97; Name of Case: Hart v. City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that Council provided direction and
authorization to Legal Counsel regarding a potential offer of
compromise.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act .
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2008
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD PUB} MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 15, 2008- -6:45 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:05 p.m.
RQLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson; Board
Members Hamm, Holmes, Kurita, McCahan,
and McCormick -- 10.
Note: Board Member Hamm was present via teleconference from Royal
Meridien Hotel, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri East, Mumbai, 400099,
India.
Absent: None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
X08- } Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
X54956.9}; Name of Case: Vectren Communications Services, Inc. v.
City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council and the PUB
received a briefing from Legal Counsel regarding the status of the
litigation; Council and the PUB authorized expenditure of defense
costs.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Public Utilities Soard
July 15, 2006
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - - - - JULY 15, 2008 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Councilmember Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
t08- ~ Mayor Johnson announced that Resolution Commending Alameda
Chief Financial Officer [paragraph no. 08- ] would be heard
before the Consent Calendar.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(08- } Introduction of Fiscal Sustainability Committee Members.
Mayor Johnson introduced Committee Members; stated educating the
public is one of the committee's purposes; choices will need to be
made once options are known.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the committee has a fine
representation of expertise; he has confidence that the City
Auditor and Treasurer will help guide the process; it is important
that staff provide needed information; thanked the members for
volunteering.
Councilmember deHaan stated this year's budget process is a
reflection of decisions made ten to twenty years ago; ensuring that
today's decisions will be easier to handle in the future is
important.
(08- ~ Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on
the 24 Annual Art and Wine Faire.
Robb Ratto presented wine glasses to Council; stated the Art and
Wine Faire will be held from 10:00 a.m, to 6:00 p.m, on July 25 and
July 27.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(08- } Resolution No. 14243, "Commending Alameda Chief Financial
officer Juelle-Ann Boyer for Her Many Contributions to the City of
Regular Meeting 1
Alameda City council
July 15, 2008
Alameda." Adopted.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the resolution to Ms. Boyer.
Ms. Boyer stated that she has enjoyed working for the City; thanked
Council for the resolution.
Kevin Keearney, City Auditor, stated that he has enjoyed working
with Ms. Boyer; Ms. Boyer has done an outstanding job and will be
sorely missed.
The City Manager stated Ms. Boyer has helped her tremendously; that
she has relied on Ms. Boyer's advice and assistance.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval 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.]
~*08- } Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Public
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on June 17, 2008.
Approved.
~*08- } Ratified bills in the amount of $1,346,956.64.
~*08- } Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for traffic striping, Phase 6, No. P.W. 10-
07-31. Accepted.
~*08- } Resolution No. 14244, "Authorizing the City Manager to
Submit Two Grant Applications to CalTrans for the Federal Safe
Routes to School Program for Fiscal Year 2008-2009, and to Execute
All Necessary Documents to Implement the Project." Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
X08- } Recommendation to adopt the City's Americans with
Disabilities Act Transition Plan update.
Regular Meeting 2
Alameda City council
July 15, 200$
The Administration Management Analyst ADA Coordinator gave a brief
presentation.
Jim Fruit, Sally Swanson Architects, gave a Power Point
presentation.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that retrofitting casts are pretty daunting;
requested confirmation of the total estimated cost.
Mr. Fruit stated that costs cannot be nailed down to the penny
because there are so many variables; an averaging was done; some
costs may be underestimated but become closer to actual costs
because of inflation.
The Administration Management Analyst ADA Coordinator stated the
Public Works Department set aside $250,000 each year for the next
two years; future improvements would be based on when funding
becomes available.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that costs could add up to approximately $20
million by using today's dollar.
The Administration Management Analyst ADA Coordinator stated the
City is not required to spend a certain amount of money or complete
a certain amount of work; the City needs to show the Department of
Justice that consistent efforts are being made toward making
improvements and removing barriers.
Councilmember Matarrese stated an unfunded liability exists; it is
important to know what the cost would be to completely comply
today.
The Administration Management Analyst ADA Coordinator stated the
Transition Plan totals $29 million, which includes $9 million in
concrete work and $20 million in public right-of-way work, which is
based on a five-mile sample of one hundred and thirty miles.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the public needs to know that the
City would be cutting $z9 million of unfunded liability.
Mayor Johnson stated the Fiscal Sustainability Committee should
take the matter into consideration.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how priorities are set.
Mr. Fruit responded City Hall and Alameda Power and Telecom would
Regular Meeting 3
Alameda City council
July l5, 2x08
be the highest priority and provide the most accessibility for the
least cost; stated priorities are listed on a scale of one to five.
Councilmember deHaan stated City Hall was renovated approximately
fifteen years ago and was ADA compliant.
The Administration Management Analyst ADA Coordinator stated laws
have changed.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
X08- ~ Resolution No. 14245, "Submitting to the Electors at the
Consolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on November
4, 2008, a Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Municipal Code to
Increase the Real Property Transfer Tax." Adopted.
The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what is the timeline for getting
the proposed measure on the November ballot.
The Deputy City Manager responded August 8 is the deadline for
submittal; stated a real property transfer tax is a general tax and
can only be placed on a general election ballot.
Curt Below, Fairbank, Marlin, Maullin & Associates, gave a Power
Point presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what percentage of individuals polled
were owners, to which Mr. Below responded 680.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the recent [School District] parcel tax
measure had a low-income and senior exemption; the parcel tax and
proposed real property transfer tax would be limited to twenty
years; inquired whether the time limit is common or whether cities
have the option for a CPI increase over time.
Mr. Below responded both options are available,
Mayor Johnson stated that people seem to prefer cuts over payin
g
additional taxes to maintain services.
Mr. Below stated results indicate that people support some cuts.
Regular Meeting 4
Alameda City councii
July ~5, 20Q8
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the survey addressed cuts to pay for
unfunded liabilities, to which Mr. Below responded in the negative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated reactions were strong regarding cuts
to public safety and paramedic services; said services are the most
expensive to provide.
Mr. Below stated opposition to public safety cuts is common.
Councilmember Gilmore stated everybody likes the level of City
services, particularly public safety, but nobody wants to figure
out a way to pay for said service.
Mayor Johnson stated closing all libraries would not pay for what
is needed to start paying unfunded public safety retiree benefits;
Council needs to do a much better job of educating the public.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what was the exact question asked
regarding Police and Fire salaries and benefits.
Mr. Below responded the question was "The City of Alameda currently
has a budget shortfall of $5 million. If additional revenues are
not found, the City may have to make cuts in existing City
Services, with this in mind, I am going to mention some of the
services the City provides its residents. After you have heard
each one, please tell me whether you think large cuts should be
made to that service in order to balance the budget, or just some
cuts should be made, or no cuts at all should be made to that
service to balance the City budget."
Councilmember Matarrese stated that retiree benefits should have
been separated out.
Mr. Below continued the presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the public understands the
ramifications [if the proposed tax does not pass].
Mr. Below responded generally no; stated more detail could have
been given if the proposed real property transfer tax was the only
issue surveyed.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she sees very little elasticity within
the margin of error by going from a $5.40 tax rate to $12.00 or
$15.00.
Mr. Below concurred with Vice Mayor Tam; stated that he could not
Regular Meeting 5
Alameda City council
July 15, 2Q08
say points would be gained by dropping the amount a few dollars.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether lack of elasticity is typical, to
which Mr. Below responded definitely.
Mr. Below continued the presentation.
Vice Mayor Tam requested clarification on projected revenue
generation; stated the City would expect to receive $4.1 million by
using the $5.40 per $1,000 value calculation; $14.50 per $1,000 of
value would generate $6.9 million.
The Deputy City Manager stated $6.9 million would be added to the
$4.1 million.
Vice Mayor Tam stated $4.1 million is based on a conservative
assumption that real estate turnover would continue at the current
level.
The Deputy City Manager stated that she did not make any market
slowdown or turnaround adjustments.
The City Manager stated the $4.1 estimate is less than what was
anticipated for last fiscal year; assumptions were made that the
transaction volume would stay the same.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council knew that the budget would
need to be revisited in three months; all realistic cuts have been
made that would nat greatly affect the level of City services.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the budget is affected by mutual aid
response costs.
The City Manager responded State mutual aid costs are reimbursed at
the overtime rate.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the State reimburses the City for
overtime incurred within the City when mutual aid calls are
requested.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City is reimbursed at the
City's rate, not the State flat rate.
The City Manager responded information would be provided.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a list of
comparables [tax rate for other Alameda County cities].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City council
July 15, 2008
The Deputy City Manager responded real property transfer tax is
only an option for Charter cities; stated currently, Albany's tax
rate is $11.50 per $1,000 value; Albany voted to place a measure on
the ballot to increase the tax rate to $14.50; Berkeley's tax rate
is $15.00; Hayward's tax rate is $4.50; Oakland's tax rate is
$15.00; Piedmont's tax rate is $13.00; San Leandro's tax rate is
$6.00.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the tax was raised last.
The Deputy City Manager responded initially, the tax was imposed in
1967 and was f if ty-five cents per thousand; stated the tax was
raised to $2.20 per $500 value in 1978; the tax was raised to $5.40
per $1,000 value in 1993.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether an option could be to raise the tax
rate on a step basis.
The City Attorney responded a CPI adjustment is not recommended;
stated a step base would require a very specific number on a
specific schedule.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a step percentage basis would be an
option.
The City Attorney responded percentages are not done for real
property transfer taxes.
The Deputy City Manager stated that Mayor Johnson was referring to
$12.00 for the first $700,000 value and a different amount for the
balance.
The City Attorney stated such formula could be done.
The Deputy City Manager stated a $12.00 tax rate would generate an
additional $5 million for a total of $9.1 million; Berkeley and
Oakland make fifty cents of the $15.00 rate available to property
purchasers for seismic retrofits; adding fifty-cents for seismic
retrofitting would turn the tax into a special tax and would
require a two-thirds vote.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when Oakland's tax rate was
increased.
The Deputy City Manager responded that she did not know; stated
information she has dates back to June, 2006.
Regular Meeting 7
Alameda Ca.ty council
July 15, 2008
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a comparison was made on taxing
mechanisms in other cities.
The Deputy City Manager responded Alameda is relatively low for
northern Alameda County; stated Oakland and Berkeley have extra
taxes.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 52a support is a good
threshold.
Mr. Below responded 52fl is a pretty soft number; stated going
forward would be risky, but could be done.
Mayor Johnson stated the margin of error is 50.
Mr. Below stated that he would like to see definite numbers higher.
The Deputy City Manager continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.
Opponents Not in favor of resolution: Rob Platt, Alameda
Association of Realtors; Troy Staten, Alameda Association of
Realtors; Steve Sorensen, Alameda submitted document.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Alameda Association of Realtors
supported raising the real property transaction tax several years
ago.
Mr. Platt stated the market was different at that time.
Councilmember Gilmore stated other tax mechanisms have less support
than the proposed real property transaction tax; inquired whether
Mr. Platt has any ideas on how the burden could be shared equally.
Mr. Platt responded that people who are forced to sell would bear
the burden of the entire budget deficit.
Councilmember Gilmore stated citizens do not want public safety
services cut; the City does not have the revenue to maintain the
same level of public safety services.
Mayor Johnson stated budget cuts were made by taking money out of
Regular Meeting g
Alameda City council
July 15, Zaa$
the fund balance and refinancing bonds; that she is surprised to
hear that the Alameda Association of Realtors would actively oppose
any increase.
Mr. Platt stated that the Alameda Association of Realtors opposes a
$12.OD or $14.00 rate; there is an overwhelming opposition to any
increase given the current state of the economy.
Mayor Johnson stated that cuts would need to be made if revenue is
not increased; it would be helpful to know what the Alameda
Association of Realtors would oppose or support.
Mr. Platt stated that he is not in a position to provide said
information; he would guess that opposition would be less vigorous
if the increase was lower.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is sympathetic to Mr. Platt's
position, but the membership should be concerned that potential
buyers would be faced with the possibility of closed parks,
decreased library hours, and possible fire station brown-outs.
Councilmember deHaan stated Council has been working through the
budget for quite a while; Council had discussions with the real
estate community in the past and needs go through an education
process regarding the current crisis.
Mr. Platt stated the City Manager spoke to the Alameda Association
of Realtors last week; the Association did not have much time to
discuss the matter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he apologizes for the short
notice.
Mayor Johnson stated budget problems have been discussed at many
public meetings.
Councilmember deHaan stated the media reported that the City has a
balance budget, wh1Ch is not the case.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council was very clear regarding
the budget]; funds are available for three months of Fire
Department overtime before possible brown-outs; closing all of the
libraries and parks would not balance unfunded liabilities; ADA
compliance requirements total $29 million.
Mayor Johnson stated Council was not happy with a bandaid approach
to balance the budget and wanted to explore options for revenue
Regular Meeting
AJ.ameda City council.
July 15, 2008
enhancements before making dramatic cuts to services; the proposed
real property transaction tax has been an option for several years.
Councilmember deHaan stated an excellent point has been made
regarding the burden being shared disproportionately; Council did
not discuss taxes in general.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she respectfully disagrees with
Councilmember deHaan; staff did a very comprehensive job in
reviewing an array of thirty remedy-enhancing measures; discussions
involved whether or not one tax generated more revenue than
another; all taxes would affect one segment of the population
versus another.
Mayor Johnson stated the polling consultant tested potentially
viable revenue options; the real property transaction tax would be
the most likely to succeed; voters need to be given a choice before
cuts are made to pay for unfunded liabilities.
Councilmember Gilmore stated a lot of time was spent on reviewing
various options; a lot of the options would not provide the
necessary revenue.
Mr. Sorenson inquired whether sales tax or a utility users' tax
would generate enough revenue.
Mayor Johnson responded Alameda does not generate enough sales tax
to be a significant budget factor.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City's sales tax base is very low;
citizens oppose major tax contributing entities coming into the
City because of potential increased traffic congestion; residents
end up carrying the tax burden.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City's sales tax generation is dismal
compared to other cities.
vice Mayor Tam stated that service cuts should not be made to the
point that there is an outcry from the community; City government
does not operate to the detriment of its citizens.
Mayor Johnson stated public safety retirement benefit costs have
not been paid; the public has been sheltered from the realities of
budget issues.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Council opted not to pay principle
or interest in the first two years when bonds were refinanced;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City council
July 15, 2008
increasing the real property transaction tax to $10.00 would
generate $3.5 million; all sales tax for the next fifteen years
would not equal said amount.
Mayor Johnson stated increased sales tax is not a viable solution
to the problem; residents are contributing money to other cities.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the real property transaction tax is
a sales tax on house sales; people need to know that the proposed
tax would go for public safety services; the proposed tax has not
been raised since 1993 and is due; employee medical cost benefits
have risen by 600a since he was on Council a couple of years ago;
the approved budget was a three month budget because that is when
Fire Department overtime funds run out and brown-outs may occur;
Alameda is comparable to the City of Vallejo; people were very
generous on voting for Measure H; house values decline when
services deteriorate.
Mayor Johnson stated the proposed real property transaction tax
amount needs to be discussed.
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of resolution with an
amendment to change the real property transfer tax rate to $12.00
per $1,000 of value; requested that a Plan B be established prior
to the election in case the measure does not pass.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that he would prefer
a $10.00 tax rate; homes sold for approximately $120,000 in 1993;
homes sell for approximately $600,000 today.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer no increase, but an
amount needs to be determined to help the budget situation.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she supports the motion; that she
cautions against lower amounts because some assumptions are built
in regarding volume of home sales; depressed home sales would
decrease revenue.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Alameda Point activity needs to be
factored in as well.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the motion needs to include
direction regarding preparation of ballot arguments.
The City Manager responded separate motions can be made; stated a
Regular Meeting 1 1
Alameda City council
July 15, 20Q8
subcommittee could write the ballot argument and rebuttal.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the motion stipulated the $12.84
rate and included a Plan B.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the City Manager would present
Plan B, which would address where cuts would be made if the ballot
measure does not pass; she does not want Plan B to be included in
the motion because it should be a stand-alone item as opposed to
being bundled into the proposed real property transaction tax.
On the call of the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing the City
Attorney to prepare the impartial analysis.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of having Councilmembers deHaan and
Matarrese prepare the argument in favor and having the Mayor sign
on behalf of the Council.
The Deputy City Manager stated the Mayor could sign on behalf of
all Councilmembers; other signatures could be obtained to show
broad based support for the measure.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the subcommittee could organization
a community task force.
The City Attarney responded in the negative; stated the
subcommittee would be preparing an argument in favor of the measure
and a rebuttal if necessary.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
X48- } Resolution No. 14246, "Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the
Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City
of Alameda Charter by Amending Sections 2-4, 2-6, 2-9, 3--7~A}, 3-
7 ~B} , 3-7 ~C} , 3-7 ~F} , 3-7 ~I} , 3-15, 9--1 ~E} - 12-3 ~D} , 17-10, 22-4,
and 28-6 ~A} Thereof ; by Deleting Sections 3--7 ~E} , 3-15.1, 17-11,
23-4, 23-5, Art. xXV, and 28-6~B} Thereof; and by Adding Section 2-
16 Thereto, to Delete Obsolete and Unclear Language and Conform to
General Law and Other Sections of the Charter; and Proposing Said
Regular Meeting 1 2
Alameda City council
July 15, 2aas
Charter Amendments." Adopted;
X08- A} Resolution No. 14247, "Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the
Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City
of Alameda Charter by Requiring the Auditor to Have a Certified
Public Accountant License or a Related Degree, and Eliminating the
Bond Requirement; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment." Adopted;
X08- B} Resolution No. 14248, "Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the
Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City
of Alameda Charter by Requiring the Treasurer to be Licensed and
Revising the Duties of the Office; and Proposing Said Charter
Amendment." Adopted;
X08-- C} Resolution No. 14249, "Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the
Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City
of Alameda Charter by Eliminating Transportation from the
Jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Board; and Proposing Said
Charter Amendment." Adopted;
X08- D} Resolution No. 14250, "Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the
Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City
of Alameda Charter by Requiring Contracts to be in Writing and the
City is not Bound by a Contract that Does not Comply with the
Charter; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment." Adopted;
X08- E} Resolution No. 14251, "Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the
Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City
of Alameda Charter by Deleting Reasons for Removal of Historical
Advisory Board Members; and Propasing Said Charter Amendment."
Adopted;
(08- F} Resolution No. 14252, "Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the
Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City
of Alameda Charter by Authorizing Council to Determine when City
Offices are to be Open for Business; and Proposing Said Charter
Amendment. Adopted; and
(OS- C} Resolution No. 14253, "Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the
Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City
of Alameda Charter by Allowing the City Manager or Designee to
Regular Meeting 1 3
Alameda City council
July 15, 2008
Exceed Sum Provided by General Law and Forego Competitive Bid for
Public work or Improvement or Purchase of Materials or Supplies in
an Emergency; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the subcommittee did a good fob.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Gilmore gave a brief review of the Charter Review
Meeting.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Council discussed potential, future Charter
amendments regarding Mayor and Councilmember compensation;
authority of Council over the appointment of departments; and
Council's role in the appointment of Board and Commission members;
comments received revolved around the form of government Alameda
residents want to see; empowering Council with more
responsibilities would require commensurate staffing support.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the public thought that the matter
should be a Citywide discussion.
Councilmember deHaan stated the issue can be discussed in the next
wave.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -~ 5.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of directing the City Attorney
to prepare the impartial analyses.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of having the subcommittee
[Vice Mayor Tam and Councilmember Gilmore] prepare the arguments in
favor and having the Mayor and four Councilmembers sign.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -- 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON--AGENDA Public Comment}
X08- } Alan Elnick, Alameda City Employees Association ~ACEA},
discussed contracting out services for the Golf Course to a private
enterprise; requested that ACEA be allowed to provide input to any
Requests for Proposals.
Regular Meeting 1 4
Alameda City council
July 15, 208
X08- } Terry Flippo, ACEA, stated ACEA would like to be part of
the solution to the Golf Course situation.
X08- } Bill Hudson, Recreation and Parks Department employee,
stated that the City's well-trained workers would be sacrificed by
contracting out services at the Golf Course.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
X08- } ICLEI update with specific auto use and congestion issues
highlighted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated cuts made to the tree program were
almost directly counter to what was approved in the Climate
Protection Plan; requested a status report on 1} the City Vehicle
Use Policy; 2} Eco-pass for City employees, including alternatives;
and 37 biodiesel use in City vehicles; directed the Youth
Commission and Transportation Commission work on an automobile trip
reduction plan for various schools in time for the 2008--2009 school
year; stated Island Drive and Central Avenue and Qak Street have no
traffic problems during the summer; traffic problems come back when
school resumes; the City discussed the matter at a joint meeting
with the School District in March 2007; Lincoln Middle School,
Alameda High School, and Chipman Elementary School were recognized
as areas that needed attention.
Mayor Johnson stated that Amelia Earhart Elementary School should
be added.
Councilmember Matarrese stated said school is tied to Lincoln
Middle School.
Mayor Johnson stated the Lincoln Middle School Parent Association
performed surveys and have encouraged students to ride bicycles and
carpool.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the ICLEI Plan is to be evaluated
bi -annually .
The City Manager stated an update is scheduled for August; she is
not sure whether anything could be accomplished before the
beginning of the school year.
Mayor Johnson stated School Board student representatives could
meet with Youth Commission members to start putting things in place
to work on in the fall.
Regular Meeting 1 5
Alameda City council
July 15, zoos
Councilmember deHaan stated the City Vehicle Use policy would be
coming back to Council.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Eco-pass survey should be reviewed
before other options are considered.
The City Manager stated the green building and landscaping
ordinance would be presented at the next Council meeting.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the Styrofoam ban goes into effect, to
which the City Manager responded the ban went into effect on July
1St.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City of Oakland is going through
litigation regarding plastic bags; Alameda can move forward on the
matter when the coast is clear.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what policy is in place regarding
employee use of City vehicles.
The City Manager responded a number of administrative procedures
are in place; information would be provided to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants to know what steps are
taken when employees drive a City vehicle, such as determining
whether the trip is necessary or carpooling is available to reduce
costs and carbon footprint.
Vice Mayor Tam stated a complaint was received from an employee
regarding being required to use an electric vehicle; inquired
whether there was a procedure requiring that the employee had to
use the electric vehicle.
The City Manager responded the electric vehicle was assigned to the
function of the job.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether electric vehicles are stationed
throughout the City.
The City Manager responded various departments have been assigned
electric vehicles; stated some are used for carpooling, others are
assigned to individuals; the electric vehicles have charging
issues; two electric vehicles are fast charging.
Councilmember deHaan requested an evaluation of electric vehicles
to see whether the vehicles' purpose is being fulfilled; stated
future decisions will need to be made.
Regular Meeting 1
Alameda City council
July 15, 2D08
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
X08-- ~. Consideration of Mayor's nominations for the Commission
on Disability Issues and the Economic Development Commission
Mayor Johnson nominated Leslie Krongold for appointment to the
Commission on Disability Issues and Donna Milgram for appointment
to the Economic Development Commission,
SOS- ~ Councilmember Matarrese stated that a group went to
Asuchio, El Salvador last week; a greeting card was sent back which
he will have translated and circulated to Council.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lora Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting 1 7
Alameda Cintypcouncil
July 1Jr 2C~°
July 31, 2008
Honorable Mayor and Counciimembers:
This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the
City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers Amount
211516 - 212285 $5,fifi1,572.42
V17291- V17434 $9fi,99fi.47
EFT557 $51,223.D1
EFT558 $8fi7,445.54
EFT559 $108,258.35
EFT5fiD $74, 345.24
E FT561 $ ~ 9, 042. DO
EF~5fi2 $1,122,587,10
EFT5fi3 _ $174,920.DO
EFT5fi4 $106, 884.51
EFT5fi5 $375,391.99
EFT5fi6 $429, 054. DD
EFT567 $2fi,29fi.D7
Void Checks:
21D549 ~$fi99.D0}
21 D733 ~$2DD. DD}
211508 ~$22a.4o}
GRAND TOTAL
Respectfully submitted,
~~ <
Pamela J. Sib y
Council vllarrants 0815108
$9,112,893.30
BILLS #4-B
81512D48
CITY of ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 5, 2008
Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $511,680, Including Contingencies, to
Golden Bay Construction, Inc., for Repair of Portland Cement Concrete
Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal Year
2008-2009, Phase 9. No. P.W. 05-08-13
BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2008, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized a call
for bids for repair of Portland Cement Concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and minor
street patching, fiscal year 2008-2009, phase 9, No. P.W. 05-08-13. The project will
replace approximately 5,400 linearfeet of sidewalk. When a streettree is involved with a
sidewalk repair, staff will work closely with a certified arborist to exam and evaluate the tree
to determine the best course of action for the long-term viability of the tree, and to minimize
future sidewalk uplift. The project also includes the construction of bus stop pads on
Shoreline Drive, Grand Street, and WillowStreetfortheanticipatedfuture rerouting ofAC
Transit Line 63 from Otis Drive.
DISCUSSIaN
To solicit the maximum number of bids and most competitive price, specifications were
provided to 17 separate building exchanges throughout the Bay Area. A notice of bid was
published in the Alameda Journal. Three contractors submitted bids, and the bids were
opened on July 15, 2008. The listof qualified bidders, from lowestto highesttotal project
costs, is:
Bidder Location Bid Amoun#
Golden Bay Construction, Inc. Hayward, CA $444,940.25
SpenCon Construction, Inc. Foster City, CA $57?,813.00
Sposeto Engineering, lnc. Union City, CA $592,573.00
Staff contacted several references provided by the low bidder and received positive
feedback about the quality and timeliness of their work. Staff proposes to award a contract
to Golden Bay Construction, Inc., for a total amount of $511,680, including a 15°/0
contingency. A copy of the contract is on fife in the City Clerk's office. As with all annual
City Council
Agenda Item #4-C
48-05-g8
Honorable Mayor and August 5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
contracts, this contract may be mutually amended on a year-by-year basis, for up to four
additional years, based on satisfactory performance of all aspects of this contract. If
extended, the contract would be for the same terms and costs, plus an annual increase
equal to the construction price index increase for the San Francisco Bay Area appropriate
to the trades associated with the work as reported in the Engineering News Record for the
previous calendaryear.
BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGNIFiNANCIALANALYSlS
The project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program Project No. 06-72, 82-02,
and 86-OS}, with monies allocated from the General Fund, Measure B and the California
Joint Powers Risk Management Authority excess liability pool.
MUNICIPAL CCDEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CRASS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}, this project is
Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301~c}, Existing Facilities.
REC4MMENDATI~N
Award a contract in the amount of $511,680, including contingencies, to Golden Bay
Construction, I nc., for repair of Portland Cement Concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway,
and minor street patching, fiscal year 2008-2009, phase 9, No. P.W. o5-OS-13.
Respectf I ubmitted,
~~
~~~~~~~ Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
5,~~P
By: Shilpa Patel ~
Junior Engine
MTN:SP:gc
cc: Watchdog Committee
CITY of ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 5, 2005
Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $211,543, Including Contingencies, to
D&D Pipelines, lnc., for Woodstock Storrn Drain Improvements, No. P.W.
06-08-18
BACKGROUND
4n July 1, 2008, the City Council adopted plans and specifications, and authorized a
call for bids for the Woodstock storm drain improvements, No. P.W. 06-OS-18. The
project will replace the existing 15-inch pipe with a 24-inch pipe from Brush Street to the
Third StreetlAtlantic Avenue pump station, replace a portion of the Brush Street pipe
adjacent to Woodstock Park, and replace two flap gates.
DISCUSSION
To solicit the maximum number of bids and most competitive price, specifications were
provided to 1l separate building exchanges throughout the Bay Area. A notice of bid
was published in the Alameafa Journal. Two contractors submitted bids, and the bids
were opened on July 24, 2008. The list of qualified bidders, from lowest to highest total
project costs, is:
Bidder Location Bid Amount
D&D Pi elines, Inc. San Francisco $183,950
Romar Construction Enter rises EI Dorado Hills $196,360
Staff contacted several references provided by the low bidder and received positive
feedback about the quality and timeliness of their work. Staff proposes to award a
contract to D&D Pipelines, lnc., for a total amount of $211,543, including a 15%
contingency. A copy of the contract is on file in the City Clerk's office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIALlMPACT
The project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program Project No. 908-08~, with
monies allocated from the Urban Runoff funds and a contribution from the Alameda
Unified School District.
City Council
Agenda Item #4-D
48-05-08
Honorable Mayor and August 5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
MUNICIPAL CODEIPCLICY DGCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
ENViRCNMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project causes negligible or no expansion of use beyond existing land
uses, therefore, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA},
this project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 1530'1 ~b},
Existing Facilities.
RECGMMENDATIGN
Award a contract in the amount of $211,543, including contingencies, to D&D Pipelines,
Inc., for Woodstock Storm Drain Improvements, No. P.V1~. 06-08-~ 8.
Respectfully submitted,
-~ atthew T. Naclerio
Public ~IJorks Director
~ S~
By: Ed Sommerauer ~ ~.
Associate Civil Engineer
MTN: ES:gc
cc: AU S D
CITY of ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 5, 2008
Re: Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for Bids for Pruning
of Cit Trees for the Fiscal Year Endin June 30 2009 No. P.vv. 07-08-20
BACKGRaUND
The City has approximately 19,OO0 street trees that have historically been pruned on a
five-year cycle. A private contractor has been performing the pruning work since 1981,
and this has proved to be cost effective to the City.
DISCUSSION
The proposed project consists of pruning City street trees, trees within the Chuck Corica
Golf Complex, trees for Alameda Power & Telecom, and trees for the Recreation and
Park Department. The specifications are consistent with the City's Master Tree Plan
and have been reviewed by a licensed arborist.
As with all annual maintenance projects, the specifications allow for the contract to be
mutually amended on a year-by-year basis, for up to four additional years, based on
satisfactory performance of all aspects of the project. If extended, the same terms will
apply and costs will be escalated by the annual construction price index increase for the
San Francisco Bay Area, as reported in the Engineering News Record for the previous
calendar year. A copy of the plans and specifications are on file in the City Clerk's
office.
BUDGET C4NSIDERATIGNIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program Project No. 43-8301},with
monies allocated from the General Fund for Annual Street Tree Pruning, the Enterprise
Fund under Contractual Services, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the
General Fund under Contractual Services.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
City Council
Agenda Item #4-E
08-05.08
Honorable Mayor and
Members ofthe City Council
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
August 5, 2008
Page 2 of 2
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}, this project is
Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 ~h}, Maintenance of
Existing Landscape.
REC~MMENDATI~N
Adopt plans and specifications and authorise a call for bids for pruning of City trees for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009, No. P.W. Ol-O8-20.
Respectfully submitted,
c
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
~ 1~.~~
By: Flavio Barrantes q~
Interim Public Works Superintendent
MTN:FB:gc
GlTY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING LESLIE KRONGOLDASAMEMBEROFTHE
CITY COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
E
~.
'~
~.
~.
.4
L?
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to
Section 2-~7.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 293, and
upon nomination of the Mayor, LESLIE KRONGOLD is hereby appointed to the
office of member of the Commission on Disability Issues of the City of Alameda to
fill the unexpired term of MARGARET HAKANSON for a term commencing on
August 5, 2o08, and expiring on June 3D, 2a~ ~, and to serve until her successor
is appointed and qualified.
******
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 5th day of August, 20~$, 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 6#h day of August, 2g0~.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolutions #5-A
08.05 OB
CITY OFALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING DONNAMILGRAMASAMEMBEROFTHE
CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSfON
COMMUNITY-AT-LARGE SEAT}
~ BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that
~ o pursuant to Section 2-14,2 of the Alameda Munici al Code and Resolution No.
~a ~ p
~ 4
~ ~ 12149 and u on nomin i
~ p at on of the Mayor, DONNA MILGRAM is hereby appointed
~ to the office of Community-At-Large Member of the Economic Development
Commission of the City of Alameda to fill the unexpired term of ARTHUR
ARTURINO for the term commencing August 5, 2008, and expiring on August 31,
2009, and to serve until his successor is appointed and qualified.
***~*~
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adapted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular
meeting assembled on the 5t~ day of August, 2008, by the followin vote to wit:
g
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
fN v1lITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 6th day of August, 2008.
Lara vlleisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 5, 2008
Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider An Appeal of the Planning Board's
Denial of a Variance and Major Design Review to Build First and
Second-Story Covered Decks at the Rear of an Existing Four-Unit
Apartment Building Located at 2243 Santa Clara Avenue Within the R-6,
Hotel Residential Zonin District
BACKGRaUND
4n March 24, 2008, the Planning Board considered a proposal for a Variance and Major
Design Review to build first and second-story covered decks at the rear of an existing
four-unit apartment building at 2243 Santa Clara Avenue. Each deck level would be 16
feet in length and 8 feet in width and would be accessible to one apartment unit. The
decks would bring the building into a higher level of compliance with the Alameda
Municipal Code RAMC}, which requires private open space for all residential units.
Currently, no private open space is provided for any of the units in the building, which
was built in 1941, prior #o the adoption of the current open space requirements. The
decks would create private open space for two of the four units.
A Variance is required for this project because both deck levels would be located l' 3"
from the rear property line, where a minimum 20-foot rear yard setback is required,
pursuant to AMC Section 30-5.1.c.2~c}. The existing main building is already non-
conforming at 14 feet from the rear property line.
Staff recommended that the Planning Board approve the Variance and Design Review
applications for the decks. Based on a review of the proposal and comments from the
public, the Planning Board could not make the Variance Endings and voted 5-0 to deny
the Variance and Major Design review applications.
Gn April 1, 2008, following the Planning Board's denial of the Variance and Major
Design Review, the owner of the subject property filed an appeal Attachment 1 }, which
stated
City Council
Publi~~ Flea~ing
Agenda lten~ #5-B
08.05-~$
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
August 5, 200
Page 2 of 4
^ The Planning Board's decision denies the applicant privileges extended to others
^ The addition of these decks would have no effect on the neighbors view, light, or
enjoyment of privacy
^ The decks would provide private open space to both the lower and upper tenant
whereas the existing common back yard is not easily accessible to either
^ The proposed alterations would upgrade the natural light and ventilation far these
units
alscussloly
The subject parcel includes the 4,219 square foot two-story apartment building X2243
Santa Clara Avenue}, and an office building X2245 Santa Clara Avenue} of
approximately the same square footage. The four-unit apartment building is directly
behind the office building, which is located at the front of the site. Parking spaces for
the office building and a sloped driveway leading to the underground apartment parking
lot occupy the 54 feet between the office and apartment structures. The offce and
apartment buildings were both built in 1941 and are listed as "S"~ historic resources on
the City of Alameda Historic Building Study List. The site provides some common open
space for the apartment tenants but does not meet zoning requirements for private open
space. The appellant makes the following statements in support of his request to grant
the appeal:
The Planning Board's decision denies the applicant privileges extended to others
The appellant noted that other apartment units in the vicinity of the project site offer
private open space in some form to their tenants and that approval of the variance
application would allow the property owner to offer similar privileges. Comments by
the Planning Board indicated that other larger apartment buildings in the area did not
provide private decks. Staff did notice that some of the neighboring apartment
buildings did have rear yard setbacks that were large enough to accommodate
decks that would not encroach into rear yard setbacks. Staff determined that the
placement of the existing building within the required 20 rear yard setback
constituted an exceptional circumstance that warranted variance consideration.
The addition of these decks would have no effect on the neighbors view, light, or
enjoyment of privacy.
The proposed deck would occupy an open space at the rear of the subject
apartment building. This space is bordered by the wall of a gymnasium at the north,
parking lot and drive aisles at the east, and the side wall of a multi-level apartment
building at the west. Given the separation distance between the proposed decks and
other buildings and the types of adjoining uses, staff does not expect there will be
negative effects on neighbors' views, access to light, or impacts to the enjoyment of
1 A historic "S" resource is distinguished by its architectural, historical, or envixonmental significance, eligible for
inclusion in the State Historic Resources inventory, and of secondary priority for inclusion on the list of Alameda
Historic Monuments.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
August 5, Zoos
Page3of4
their privacy. Board members were concerned that the required setbacks were
intended to address these impacts, and an exterior deck should be no closer to a
property line than allowed by the zoning code.
The decks would provide private open space to both the lower and upper tenant
whereas the existing common back yard is not easily accessible to either.
The existing common open space is located at the rear of the property, behind the
apartment building. Access to this open space is by paths at either side of the
apartment building. Given the placement of landscape plantings and staircases
along the paths leading to the open space, access is not convenient or inviting.
There also is no direct access to the open space from the interior of any of the
apartments in the building. The proposed decks not only provide private open space,
they also allow direct access to the common open space from one apartment unit.
Planning Board members raised questions about the equity of providing private open
space to two of the units and reducing the amount of common open space, which
results in an inequitable situation for the other tenants in the building.
The proposed alterations would upgrade the natura! light and ventilation for these
units.
The Planning Board members did not support the argument that there would be an
upgrade to the natural lighting due to the proposed decks. The proposed decks will
provide some upgrade to the ventilation for the two apartment units at the rear of the
building because each will now have a door that opens on to the deck areas. There
may be some upgrade to access natural light to the upper deck given the difference
in the interception of shadow lines, but the lower deck and apartment unit will be
cast in the shadow from the deck above.
On file with the City Clerk is the Planning Board staff report including attachments
provided at the March 24, 2008, Planning Board meeting. The report contains
background information and staffs analysis of the project along with the suggested
findings and recommended conditions of approval.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT
No additional funding is necessary related to planning activities for this project.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
AMC §34-5.12 Definition of Required Open Space, X30-21.1 Variances and X30-31
Design Review Regulations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEVI~
Construction of the two-story deck will not have a significant effect on the environment
and is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA} under
Sections 15301 ~e},15303~e}and 15331 of the CEQA Guidelines as follows:
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
August 5, 2008
Page 4 of 4
Section 15301 fie} exempts additions to existing structures provided that the
addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of
the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less
^ Section 15303~e} exempts the construction of limited numbers of new, small
structures, including accessory structures
^ Section 15331 exempts historic resource restoration, rehabilitation, maintenance
and repair projects
REC4MMENDATI~N
Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the appeal and granting the Variance and
Major Design Review applications, which will allow the applicant to build f rst and
second-story covered decks at the rear of an existing four-unit apartment, based on the
suggested findings and recommended conditions contained in the resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
F - -
V
Cathy W dbury ~~~°
Director, Planning and Building Department
,,
---~
r
.r
By: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Appellant's application to appeal the Planning Board's decision
City ~ ~ Alameda
Perm~t~ Center
223 Santa Clara Avenue, Roo 194
t A~arneda, CA 945 a ~
Application ~m1
RECEIVE~~
Aft -~ 12~ ~8
PERMIT CENTER
,AMEDA~_CA 94501
before the
V
PLANMIN~ ~ BUILDING
Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board Fee: $100.00
Appellant Information PER ACTNITY
(PLEASE PRfNn
Name
//S/ ~i~h~ 1~~v ~a r k 6~Pa- v #~ ~ o ? , ,~ 1~~ rn~d~ 1..~ 9 ~-1'S`d 2
Mailing Address (Street Address, C ,State, and ZIP Cvae~ ~
:5/D-~6S ~3z5~ si -~~z^3~sz/
Telephone (Day) (Evening) _
Pro a Lacatian andlar Pro`ect Cannec#ed wi#h A eal Matter
Property Address; ~
Project T'itfe: ~
Permit Number: + -~
A eal Matter Descri tiara Describe specific nature of a ea! matter
pp and ~nd~cate the desired rei~ef bung sought};
Su ordn Ar ument s Describe ail material facts in support of the a eai matter
pp .Please use additional sheets
if necessary, and attach copies of any supporting information AND copy of JoB DARD
Pro aced Schedule of wank to be Done with ~s~ma#e~ Date •
.~~„ s for Pra ect Com let~on
~a#tach separate sheet as needed};
igna ure of Appella Date
FOR O~FlcE USE ONLY
RECEfVED
DATE SIGNED PEAS #
HEADING DATE
Q:~c~~r.a~o~vrs~>x,~t
SIGNED
City Council
Attachment to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #5-B
08-D5-08
r• '
April ~, 204$
,,
Project: New rear decks
232 2243 Santa Clara Ave,
Alameda, CA 94502
Unit C and Unit D
Planning Board decision denies the applicant privileges extended to others, The addition of these
decks has na affect on the neighbors view, light, or enjoyment of privacy. The decks rovide rivate
o en s ace to b ~ P• p
p p oth the lower and upper tenant whereas the existing common back yard ~s not easel
y
accessible to either. The proposed alterations would also upgrade the natural light and ventilation for
these units,
~,,,^r'~`'~~
~~ ~}~
~~~~
CITY GF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
OVERTURNING THE PLANNING BOARD'S DECISION TO DENY MAJOR
DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE (PLN07-0020) ALLOWING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY COVERED DECK LOCATED SEVEN
FEET AND THREE INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT 2243
~ SANTA CLARA AVENUE
0
a ~ WHEREAS, an application was made on October 2, 2001, by Italo
~ o Calpestri to build a rear two-story deck, at the existin four-unit buildin
~o ~ g g
~ $ apartment building located at 2243 Santa Clara Avenue; and
~ ~,
~ WHEREA
~, S, the Planning Board held a publEC hearing on thES application
,~ on March 24, 2008, examined the pertinent maps, drawin s, documents and
g
~ testimony, and denied the Variance and Mayor Design Review; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an application to appeal the
Planning Board's decision on Aprii ~, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 5, 200$
and examined pertinent maps, drawings, documents and testimony; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R-6, Hotel Residential
zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 5, 2005
and examined pertinent maps, drawings, documents and testimony; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings relevant to
the Variance;
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances app~y~n to the
9
property involved or to the proposed use o#th~s property,
The office and apartment buildings on the site were both constructed in
194, prior to the adoption of the current zoning code in ~ 958.
Consequently, the apartment building is located 'l4 feet from the rear
property line instead of the 20 feet required by the current AMC, This
extraordinary circumstance limits the property owner's ability to bring the
site into conformance with current private open space requirements
without the rear yard setback variance. Other multi-family residential
properties constructed in conformance with current zoning regulations
can or do provide private open space without a rear yard setback
variance. Afield study and research shows that the subject buildin is
. g
one of five out of a total of 48 multi-family buildings in the vicini that
have nonconforming rear yard setbacks and do not provide private o en
p
Resolution #5-B
D8.05.48
space.
In addition, the buildings on .the site, which are listed as "S" historic
resources on the City of Alameda Historic Building Study List, are
protected from major alterations and demolition due to their age and
architectural significance. The extraordinary set of circumstances applying
to the subject property necessitate a rear yard setback variance in order to
create conforming private open space while preserving the historic
structure.
2. Because of such exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, the
literal enforcement of specified provisions of this section would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such as #o
deprive the applicant of a substantial property right possessed by
other owners of property in the same class of district.
The rear of the property is the only feasible location on the parcel for the
creation of private open space. A parking lot and driveway are located in
front of the apartment building; an entry porch that provides ingress and
egress for the four apartment units is located to the east fright side} of
the structure; and a five foot side yard -with one foot of clearance at two
points between two side staircases and the property line - is located to
the west cleft side} of the building.
If the Variance is not granted, and the AMC rear yard setback
regulations are literally enforced, the property owner and his tenants
would continue to be deprived of a substantial property right -the right
to enjoy private open space on the property -possessed by other
property owners in the same class of district. Private open space in the
R-6 zoning district and other residential zoning districts is common
among developed parcels in the vicinity of the subject property and
throughout Alameda.
In addition, by creating private open space when none currently exists on
the property, the properly owner is bringing the property more into
compliance with the current AMC.
3. The granting of the variance will not, under the circumstances of the
particular case, be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
persons or property in the vicinity.
The proposed project, as conditioned, will not have adverse effects on
adjacent properties or on the public. The upper and lower-level decks
would be attached to the rear of the apartment building, which faces a
solid wall with no windows to the north -the rear of the Alameda Elks
Gym building; the Alameda Elks parking lot to the east; and an outdoor
storage area for a multi-family apartment building to the west.
The Fire Department has verified that the construction of the proposed
deck structure would not present a problem for emergency access or
jeopardize public safety. The California Building and Fire Codes would
require athree-foot separation, at most, between the proposed deck
structure and the rear of the Alameda Elks building. The proposed decks
would be aver l feet from the property line and over 11 feet from the rear
wall of the Elks building.
UI~HEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings relevant to
the Major Design review:
1. The project is compatible with its site, any adjacent and neighboring
buildings and surroundings, and promotes harmonious transitions in
scale and character in areas between designated land uses.
The subject site is located on a block with predominately multi-family
residential and office buildings. The two-story rear deck structure would
be compatible with the adjacent and neighboring properties because many
of the apartment buildings on the block were built with upper and Iower-
level balconies and access decks. The two apartment buildings located to
the west of the subject property each have multi-level access decks.
As conditioned in the resolution, the proposed doors and sidelight
windows on the rear elevation would be compatible with the existing
apartment building and the adjacent office building on the same parcel to
the south. The new doors and windows must be made of either metal or
wood, include true divided-lites, must be made of either metal or wood,
and match the style of the existing windows on the rear of the building.
NOVI~, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council has
determined that this project is Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}, pursuant to Sections 15301 ~e}, 15303~e},
and 15331 of the CEQA Guidelines as follows:
^ Section 15301~e} exempts additions to existing structures provided
that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent
of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,504 square
feet, whichever is less.
^ Section 15303~e} exempts the construction of limited numbers of
new, small structures, including accessory structures.
^ Section 15331 exempts historic resource restoration, rehabilitation,
maintenance and repair projects
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Council of the City of Alameda
hereby approves PL07-0020 Major Design Review and Variance to allow the
construction of a two-story deck seven feet and three inches from the rear
property line at 2243 Santa Clara Avenue with the following conditions:
1. The new windows and doors on the rear of the structure shall include
true divided-lites, must be made of either metal or wood, and will match
the style of the existing windows on the rear of the building.
2. The rear yard -- not including the area directly below the proposed deck
structure -- shall remain landscaped and the existing accessibility to the
rear yard shall not be compromised.
3. EXPIRATION. The Major Design Review and Variance approvals shill
expire two ~2} years after the date of approval or by August 5, 2010,
whichever is later, unless all of the above conditions have been met to
the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director prior to the date of
expiration or, alternatively, an extension request is filed and approved by
the City Council prior to the date of expiration unless authorized
construction or use of the property has commenced. The applicant may
apply for a time extension, not to exceed two ~2} years. An extension
request will be subject to approval by the City Council and must be filed
prior to the date of expiration.
4. HOLD HARMLESS. The applicant shall defend with counsel
reasonably acceptable to the City}, indemnify, and hold harmless the
City of Alameda, its Redevelopment Agency, the Alameda City Planning
Board and their respective agents, officers, and employees from any
claim, action, or proceeding including legal costs and attorney's fees}
against the City of Alameda, Alameda Redevelopment Agency, Alameda
City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers or employees to
attack, set aside, void ar annul, an approval by the City of Alameda, the
Planning and Building Department, Alameda City Planning Board, the
City of Alameda Redevelopment Agency or City Council relating to this
project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action
or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in such defense. The City
may elect, in its sole discretion, to participate in the defense of said
claim, action, or proceeding.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety
~9D} days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6
NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include
certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section
66020 ~d} ~~ }, these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the
amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and
exactions. The applicant is hereby further notified that the 90-day appeal
period, in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions,
pursuant to Government Cade Section 66020 ~a} has begun, if the applicant
fails to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all requirements of
Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such
fees or exactions.
*~,~**
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 August, 2008, by the following
vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIGNS:
IN vllITNESS, vvHERE4F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said City this 6th day of August, 2008.
Lora vveisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY ~F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 5, 2008
Re: Adopt the Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan, 2009-2014, and Authorize
Staffta Be in Nei hborhood Libra Short-Term Im rovements
BACKGROUND
In 2000, Alameda voters approved Measure 0, a $10.6 million bond measure for
libraries. The Measure 0 monies provided the local matching portion of the construction
costs for a new library, enabling the City to secure a $15.5 million State grant to fully
fund the library project. The new Main Library opened in November 2006. The
remaining Measure ~ funds were designated for improvements to the neighborhood
libraries. Approximately $2.5 million dollars remains in Measure 0 funding.
Prior to authorizing the expenditure of Measure 4 funds on the neighborhood libraries,
the Library Board expressed an interest in current and future residential development
projects in Alameda, the changing demographics within the city, and their potential
impacts on library services. In December 2001, the City Council approved contracting
with Ruth Metz Associates to assist the Library Board in developing a strategic plan for
library services. That planning process would include recommendations for short- and
long-term improvements to the neighborhood libraries.
DISCUSSION
The City entered into an agreement with Ruth Metz Associates to complete afive-year
strategic plan for library services; the work began in January 2008. Ruth Metz and
members of her consultant team met with library management and representatives from
the Library Board, the Library Foundation, and the Friends of the Library prior to
beginning their work in order to gain insight, direction, and input to outline a larger
community based advisory group. The outcome of that meeting formed the scope of
work for the project. The project included four separate but interdependent documents:
a five-year Strategic Plan; a Neighborhood Library Improvement Report; a Community
Survey Report, and a Technology Review report. All of these documents, with the
exception of the Neighborhood Library improvement report, are attached. That report is
on file in the City Clerk's office.
City Council
Agenda Item #5-C
08-~5-08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Strate is Plan
August 5, 2008
Page 2 of 4
A ten-member, citizen-based Strategic Planning Committee SPC} was appointed by
the Library Board. The members represented a broad cross section of the Alameda
community: men and women, diverse ethnically and geographically, by age and
profession, as parents or singles, as library users and admitted non-library users. The
consultant used a nationally recognized library strategic planning model to guide the
planning process. The basic assumptions of this model are that: excellence must be
defined locally to result in library services that match community needs, interests and
priorities; excellence is possible for both small and large libraries, resting more on
commitment than on unlimited resources; and excellence 'rs a moving target.
Community-based planning, library service priorities, measures of progress, and
managing change are key points to this process. Library service priorities are defined
as what a library does for, or offers to, the public in an effort to meet a set of well-
defined community needs. A service priority can describe the primary service role or
priorities of a public library; suggest target audiences for some services; include a list of
organizations that might partner with the library; define resources required to support
specific service priorities; and provide suggested measures that can be used to
evaluate services in priority areas.
The consultant conducted a visioning process with the SPC, with the goal of setting
service priorities. The SPC recommended seven service priorities for the library based
on an analysis of community demographics, library statistics, the members' vision for
Alameda, and other data. on a parallel path and to provide additional information for
the SPC, a community telephone survey, community stakeholder interviews, and focus
groups were conducted. The service priorities selected by the SPC were taken to the
library staff and the Library Board for comment and input. Final selections were tested in
the community with an online survey. Library staff developed core institutional values
and organizational initiatives to support the community based service priorities. A
Technology Review was also conducted to assess the readiness of the library system to
support the current and future goals, objectives, and priorities of the new strategic plan.
The resulting Strategic Plan, 2009-2014, is a flexible document that can be expanded or
contracted with varying levels of available resources.
Nei hborhood Libra Im rovements
The Neighborhood Library Improvement report provides an assessment of current
library services and facilities, and recommendations for long- and short-term
improvements. The consultants assessed whether there was still a need for library
services in the east and west end neighborhoods after the opening of the new main
library, They found that the communities on both the east and west end of Alameda do
need and desire access to library services in their local neighborhoods. For that
reason, the report provides recommendations for both long-term and shock-term branch
library service and facility improvements. The Library Board reviewed the report at a
special meeting on July S, 2008, and recommends proceeding with the short-term
Honorable Mayor and August 5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 4
service and facility improvements. These improvements include complete makeovers of
the interiors of the neighborhood libraries within the existing footprints of the buildings.
Lang-term recommendations, which are more costly, include expanding the Bay Farm
Island Library building and securing a new location to build a new, larger, west Alameda
library facility.° The cost to expand the Bay Farm Island Library to the recommended
7,500 sglft would be approximately $4.6 million to $5.3 million in 2008 dollars. The
construction cost for a new west Alameda facility would be approximately $9.l million to
$11.1 million in 2008 dollars, excluding the cost to acquire the property on which to
build.
The City's 2008-2010 Capital Improvement Program includes $2.5 million for
improvements to the neighborhood libraries. The Public works Department expects to
release a Request for Proposal in mid August for a consultant with architectural and
structural engineering experience, and space planning expertise in libraries, to design
the interior remodels and necessary structural changes in both neighborhood libraries
using the recommendations from the Neighborhood Library Improvement Report as a
guide. Interviews for responding firms will take place in late September or early
October. Barring unforeseen circumstances construction could begin in four months.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONlF1NANCIALIMPACT
Approximately $2.5 million in Measure 0 funds are available to spend on the
improvement of library services for the neighborhood libraries. The funds are currently
invested in three Certificate of Deposit ~CD~ accounts with graduated maturity dates at
the Bank of Alameda. One of the CDs will mature on August 8, 2005, thereby making
the funds available to begin improvements. There are no deadlines for use of these
funds or any restrictions beyond financing the neighborhood library improvements. It is
anticipated that all of the Measure 0 funds will be spent on the short-term
improvements. In addition, the Friends of the Library and the Library Foundation have
pledged contributions to assist in purchasing furnishings and equipment for the
remodeled neighborhood libraries.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adapt the Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan 2009-2414 and authorize staff to begin
working on neighborhood library short-term improvements.
Res ectfully submitted,
n Chisaki
Library Director
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Attachments:
1. Strategic Plan, 2009-2014
2. Technology Review
3. Community Telephone Survey
August 5, 200$
Page4of4
Alameda Free Library
STRATEGIC PLAN, 2009-2014
June 2008
Prepared with the assistance of
Ruth Metz Associates
1001 SvU 5#~ Avenue Suite 1100
Portland 4R
In Association with
Page + Moris LLC
130 Sutter Street
Suite 480
San Francisco CA 94104
City Council
Attachment ~I to
Agenda Item #5-C
08-45-08
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY
STRATEGIC PLAN, 2009- 2014
LIBRARY BDARD
Ruth Belikove, President
Michael Hartigan, Vice President
Karen Butter
Dr. Alan Mitchell
G a i 1 Vlletzo rk
LIBRARY STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Michael Hartigan, Chair (Library Board)
Luzanne Engh (Library Foundation)
Barbara Krummel (Friends of the Library)
Stephanie Lipow (Library Foundation)
Karen Sepp (Community)
Mary Lee Shalvoy (Community)
Nathaniel Williams (Community)
Helen Yu Wirth (Community)
Amapola Beenn (Community)
Niel Tam (Community)
Jane Chisaki (Library Director), ex officio
Lisa Goldman (Deputy City Manager), ex officio
Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan 2009-2014 2
Introduction
In December 2007, the City of Alameda authorized a 7-month, multi-faceted
library planning project. This project included the development of a strategic plan
and recommendations for the improvement of neighborhood libraries. A
community survey and a technology review were also conducted to document
existing conditions for planning purpose.
The project resulted in four separate, interdependent documents. The strategic
plan is contained in this document while the recommendations for neighborhood
libraries are presented in a companion document. Likewise, the community
survey report and the technology review are each separate documents.
Key to the strategic planning process was the Library Board-appointed Library
Strategic Planning Committee Committee}. This citizen-based Committee was
intentionally representative of a broad cross-section of Alameda residents. The
Committee included Library Director, Jane Chisaki, and Deputy City Manager,
Lisa Goldman, as ex orficio members.
The purpose of the Committee was to set service priorities for the Library based
on its analysis of community input and data. Community input included a
community-wide telephone survey, interviews of community stakeholders, focus
groups, and an online survey to test the Committee's conclusions about service
priorities.
The Library Management Team and staff assessed the Library's readiness to
undertake the recommended service priorities. Library consultants Ruth Metz
and Kathryn Page assisted the Committee and the Library Management Team in
the collection of input and data and in its analysis.
Library Values
Underlying the strategic direction of the library are these core institutional values:
Pub1~c Trust: We commit to being fiscally responsible with public resources, to protecting
customer confidentiality, and to providing safe, well maintained, and accessible facilities.
Equal Access: We believe in equal access to all Alameda Free Library resources
Dtverslty: We are committed to reflecting the diversity of our community through our
collections, services and staff.
Excellent Service: We commit to providing excellent service by providing accurate and
reliable information in a respectful interaction between well trained, friendly and efficient
staffand all members of our community.
Outreach and Partnership: We will actively develop partnerships and joint activities with
community institutions and organizations to further the Alameda Free Library mission.
Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan 2009-2014 3
Library Mission Statement
The Alameda Public Library is an inviting and comfortable place where people of
all ages develop and enjoy a love of learning and reading, connect to the online
world, and find the information they need fordaily living.
Goals, Objectives, and Activities Under Consideration
The fallowing interdependent goals underpin the service priorities the Library will
emphasize in the next five years. The goals are listed in order relative to the
effort and resources that will be required to achieve them. The activities listed are
examples under consideration by the Library Management Team and staff at this
time.
GOAL 1: Alameda residents will find the Library to be acustomer-centered
and welcoming place.
Objective 1: Eighty-five percent of Alameda residents will express in a
community survey that the Alameda libraries are welcoming,
dynamic, and engaging places to use, meet, and engage with
others.
Objective 2: Library card registrations will increase by 5% per year
Ac~lvl~ies urr~er cons~derat~on:
1. Short term goal to remodel the interiors of both neighborhood branches
and long term goal to plan and build a newwestAlameda library facility
and enlarge the Bay Farm Island Library.
2. Maintain welcoming atmosphere and physical space at the Main library
3. Create "Vllelcome" packets for new Alameda residents that include a
library card application
4. Continue "First grade, First card" campaign
GOAL 2: Alameda residents will use the library website as a virtual branch.
Objective 1: Use of general web site visit statistics will increase by 10°/o per
year.
Objective 2; Use of the databases will increase by 10°/° per year.
Objective 3: Use of the cataloglreservelrenewal remote user statistics will increase by
10%.
Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan 2009-2014 4
Activities under consideration:
1. Provide Alameda residents with a more user-friendly library website.
2. Encourage use of the library website among Alameda residents by
promoting its use in news releases, flyers and online surveys and word of
mouth.
3. Provide workshops on using catalog, circulation, and databases.
4. Monitor use statistics ofthe library's virtual branch.
GOAL 3: Visitors to the neighborhood libraries will have safe, welcoming,
and comfortable spaces to use the libraries' resources and
programs and to interact with each other.
Objective 1: Eighty-five percent of Alameda residents will express in a community
survey that the neighborhood libraries are safe, welcoming, and
comfortable spaces.
Objective 2: Attendance at the neighborhood libraries as measured by door count
will increase by 10°/o per year.
Objective 3: Use of the neighborhood library collections will increase by 10°/o per year.
Objective 4: The number of programs offered at neighborhood libraries will increase
by 5°/° per year.
Activities under consideration:
1. Provide library visitors with remodeled or redesigned libraries in which to
use the resources and attend programs.
Z. Provide library visitors with comfortable seating in which to read and relax.
3. Provide library users with an attractive display area for new books or
themed displays.
4. Provide library visitors with additional computers at the neighborhood
libraries.
GaAL 4: Alameda teens will have space to socialize, to share thoughts and
ideas, and to attend programs relevant to them.
Objective 1: Use of the teen collection will increase by 5°/° per year.
Objective 2: Attendance at programs for teens will increase by 5°/° per year.
activities under consideration:
1. Create inviting and useful space at the neighborhood libraries forteen
activities and collection.
Alameda Free Library Strategic Pian 2009-2014 5
2. Provide genre or other special interest book lists for teens.
3. Present 4 teen programs per year.
4. Host annual teacher orientation and invite din writings classes for visits.
GOAL 5: Children ages ~-5 and their caregivers will have programs and
materials that promote school readiness.
objective 1: Attendance at programs for children ages 0-5 will increase by 5°/0
per year.
objective 2: Presentation of programs for children ages 0-5 at off-site locations
will increase by 5°/o per year.
Objective 3: Participation in the "Read Ta Me"summer program will increase by
5a/o per year,
Ac~lv~t~es under cons~dera~lon:
1. Provide online access to pod casts and a-Books far children ages 0-5.
2. Maintain displays of picture books and other materials of interest to
children ages 0-5 and their caregivers.
3. Provide off-site class visits to centers far low-income and at-risk preschool
children.
4. Provide workshops for early literacy for parents and caregivers.
GGAL # fi: Children in the neighborhood libraries will have adequate space
for programs, interaction, and use of materials.
objective 1: Attendance at neighborhood library programs for children will increase
by 5°/o per year.
Objective 2: Use of materials for children at the neighborhood libraries will increase
by 5a/o per year.
Objective 3: The majority of parents and caregivers will express in a targeted
community survey that neighborhood libraries provide satisfactory
programming and library materials for children.
Ac~~v~f~es under cons~dera~~on:
1. Increase the number of programs for children at neighborhood libraries.
2. Produce displays that highlight materials far children and their parents and
caregivers.
3. Provide programs that address the needs of parents and caregivers of
children.
Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan 2009-2014 6
4. Provide appropriate seating that encourages adults and young children to
use library materials together.
GOAL #l: Alamedans will be able to more easily and effectively connect to
the online world.
Objective 1: Use of databases wilt increase by 10°/° each year.
Objective 2; Each year, the number of unique visitors to the library portal
web pages will increase by 10%.
Objective 3: The majority of Alameda residents will express in a community
survey customer satisfaction with library technology.
Objective 4: Uptime for all computer systems will be 95% on an ongoing
basis.
Activities under consideration:
1. Provide classes for the public an database use.
2. Run a "did you know?" campaign did you know you can get reading
recommendations through the AFL website, you can practice for the GED
online, etc.}.
3. Provide pathfinders to online resources and other electronic services.
GOAL #8: Visitors to the neighborhood libraries will have increased access
to computers and internet resources.
Objective 1: Availability of public Internet computers will increase by 3 in each of
the branches by December 2009.
Objective 2: Sufficient funds will be raised annually to progressively purchase
the library consultant's recommended number of public access
computers overtheterm of this plan.
Objective 3: Use of public Internet computers at the neighborhood libraries will
Increase by 10°/° per year.
Ac~ivi~ies under consideration:
1. Provide pathfinders for patrons to aid them in finding information on
databases and the Internet.
2. Provide high speed Internet access.
Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan 2009-2014 7
GGAL #9: Alameda residents will have the skills to find, evaluate, and use
print & online resources to meet their needs.
Objective 1: 180 Alameda residents will attend the library's information literacy
workshops annually.
objective 2; 100 Alameda residents will receive one-on-one information literacy
assistance from library staffannually.
Objective 3: Attendance at basic computer skills & software application classes will
increase by 5% annually.
Objective 4: At the conclusion of information literacy workshops offered by the library,
85°/° of participants will indicate that the workshop provided skills and
confidence beneficial for finding, evaluating and using library resources.
Activities una~er consi~era~ian:
1. Information literacy workshops will be provided by the library.
2. Computer classes will be offered by the library in basic computer and
internet searching skills.
GOAL #~ 0: Students in Alameda will use electronic and print resources for
both school and personal interests.
Objective 1:500 students per year will attend a basic library orientation.
Objective 2: Use of electronic databases and print resources, introduced to
students by the library will increase by 10% a year.
Objective 3: At the end of each school year a survey will show that S5% of
students surveyed have found that library print and electronic
resources were beneficial.
Activities unafer consiafera~ion:
1. Basic library orientation offered to students.
2. vllorkshop for print end electronic resources offered to students.
3. Safe Internet "surfing" workshop offered to students.
Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan 2009-2014 8
GGAL #~ ~ :Alameda adults and teens with low literacy skills will improve
their ability to read and write in order to meet their personal
goals.
Objective 1: Alameda Reads will maintain a minimum of 50tutor-learner pairs annually.
Objective 2: Each year 90°/° of the learners in Alameda Reads will achieve at least one
predetermined personal goal.
objective 3: Use of the literacy collection will increase by 10°/° each year.
Activities under consideration:
1. Provide resources for local literacy related agencies.
2. Provide life skills classes for learners with low literacy skills.
3. Provide one to one tutoring for learners with low literacy skills.
4. Provide access to core technology through specially designed computer
skills classes for learners with low literacy skills.
5. Host an annual Library Literacy Event.
GGAL 12: Alameda residents will enjoy programs and materials that
stimulate their thinking, sa#isfy their curiosity, and expand their
knowledge.
objective 1: Attendance at library programs will increase by 10°/o each year.
Objective 2: Circulation of all materials will increase by 10% each year.
Objective 3: Ten programs per year will be provided in collaboration with other
agencies.
Ac~ivifies under consideration:
1.Offer a greater variety of programs at the library.
2. Provide in-house displays of new materials and themed displays.
3. Provide genre or other special interest book lists.
Grganizational Competencies and Initiatives
The Library Management Team identified several organizational components that
need strengthening to meet the goals of this Plan. The Library Management
Team will allocate or reallocate resources to achieve the following desired
organizational competencies:
Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan 2009-2014 9
1. Marketing
The Alameda Free Library will actively market the services of the library in
the community.
2. Staff training and development
The Alameda Free Library will provide training and development to enable
staff to efficiently, effectively, and consistently perform the functions
associated with the strategic plan.
3. External partnerships
The Alameda Free Library will actively seek and maintain relationships
with agencies, organizations, and institutions that will enable the library to
enhance service to its customers.
4. Measurement and evaluation
The Alameda Free Library will be able to accurately evaluate the goals of
this strategic plan.
4rganiza~ior~al lrritiatives
The Library Management Team has adopted these organizational initiatives to
achieve the desired organizational competencies:
Marketin
1. By 2009, assign responsibility for marketing and public relations to a
library manager and develop a marketing strategy with a budget.
Staff Training and Development
1. By December 2009, create a comprehensive, up-to-date employee
handbook for the purposes of staff orientation of training.
2. Beginning in fiscal year 2009110, train staff on policies, procedures, and
customer service annually.
3. Beginning in 2009, create and present annual workshops for staff on early
literacy, childhood development, and materials for children ages 0-5.
Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan 2009-2014 10
External Partnershi s
1. By January 2009, create a comprehensive and accurate list of all
organizations and agencies with which the library has or could have a
format or informal partnership to achieve this Plan's goals.
2. By January 2009, establish criteria that will be used when assessing
existing or potential partnerships.
3. By January 2009, establish a core set of external partners and a clear
protocol forestablishingand maintaining these partnerships.
Measurement and Evaluation
1. By November 2008, create a comprehensive list of the data elements
needed for the strategic plan.
2. By November 2008, create a comprehensive list of the data elements
collected by the Library, evaluate the necessity of the elements, and refine
the list for greatest efficiency and effectiveness.
Implementation of the Strategic Plan
This strategic plan is a flexible blueprint forAlameda's city and library leadership.
It is also a point of reference for the Friends of the Library and the Library
Foundation. Library management can direct the use of library resources to the
stated priorities and goals and the Friends of the Library and Library Foundation
can also orient their fund-raising and resource allocation accordingly.
Throughout the five-year period, library leaders will monitor the objectives and
activities and community and library user feedback, adjusting these to meet
changing needs and conditions.
Acknowledgements
The Library Board wishes to especially acknowledge the enthusiastic, able, and
dedicated participation of the individuals who served on the Strategic Planning
Committee. The Library Board appreciates their participation and the expert
leadership of Michael Hartigan, chair of the Committee, and outgoing Library
Board President, Leslie Krongold. Further, the Library Board acknowledges with
appreciation Li Volin and ex officio members Lisa Goldman and Jane Chisaki for
their assistance to the Committee.
The Library Board gratefully acknowledges the Library Management Team for its
purposeful and focused development of goals consistent with the community
vision and service priorities: Arta Benzie-Youssef ~Supenrising Librarian, Branch
Services}, Laura Choquette Circulation Supervisor}, Jordona Elderts Literacy
Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan 2009-2014 11
Director}, Eva Volin Supervising Librarian, Childrens Services}, Annemarie
Meyer Supervising Librarian, Adult Services}, David Hafl Supervising Librarian,
Technical Services}, David Boxton Computer Services Coordinator}. Likewise,
the Library Board thanks the library staff for its participation in the planning
process at crucial points along the way.
City staff not previously named in these acknowledgments and several
community members provided interviews to assist the consultant team in
assessing the needs of the community. The Library Board gratefully
acknowledges these individuals: City staffers Cynthia Eliason Supervising City
Planner}, Leon King ~f T Manager}, Jackie Krause ~Mastick Senior Center},
Rachel Reed Alameda Point Collaborative}, and Andy Wong Youth
Commission} and community members Amapola Beenn, Teacher, Ruby Fridges
School, and Kathy Moehring, Executive Director, West End Business
Association.
Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan 2009-2014 12
Alameda Free Library
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
June 2008
Prepared by
Kress Consulting
1526 NE Alberta St., #234
Portland, OR 91211
I n Association with
Ruth Metz Associates
17335 NW Lucy Reeder Road
Por#iand aR 91231
City Council
Attachment Z to
Agenda Item ~5-C
08-~5-D8
Summary;
The Library recently completed a substantial upgrade to its technology infrastructure,
with the opening of a new main building. Neighborhood libraries are also undergoing
some technology upgrades, In general, the Library's technology is in a good position to
support current service offerings. This report lists areas in which the Library can improve
existing technology and prepare for new service offerings.
Current Technology:
The Library currently has three major servers serving components of the Horizon
integrated library system, There are several ancillary PC~based servers serving telephone
notifications, email notifications, and SIP authentication.
The Library provides approximately 4o staff computers, 16 staff printers, 73 public thin-
client stations, 21 public lab computers, f ve print station computers, f ve public printers,
and four self check stations. Library computers are organized in a Microsoft windows
workgroup and are managed by a combination of technologies, including Veicon,
Envisionware, and VNC.
The Library is connected to the Internet and to City Hall via fiber (provided by Alameda
Power & Telecom [APTJ). Neighborhood libraries are connected to the Main building via
point-to-point T1. Network devices consist of Cisco routers and switches. A Cisco
firewall (PIX S 15E) filters the Internet connection.
In addition to a wired local area network, the Library provides wireless network access to
patrons by way of 12 wireless access points connecting to a Cisco 2950 switch. In
addition, the Library provides laptops for patron use within the Library buildings.
The Library also provides a Point of Sale system (Envisionware) for collecting fines and
fees, and an RFID system for inventory management.
The Library has a healthy relationship with City IT. The Library's dedicated IT staff
person is funded by the Library but paid and managed by City IT. The City provides
same enterprise services, as well as providing expertise and infrastructure support. The
relationship currently does not provide much potential for resource and knowledge
sharing.
Alameda Free Library Technology Review Page 1
Current Capacity:
The Library's technology is adequately resourced to support services at the current level,
The Horizon ILS is able to support 200 simultaneous users at its current server
configuration; the maximum simultaneous use during January 2008 was 189 users, with
an average simultaneous use of 3 users. Even adjusting for peak periods, the estimated
average peak simultaneous use of 19 users is well within the system limit. However, the
Library should continue to monitor use on a weekly basis,
The Library's public PCs and thin clients are well used, without exceeding current
capacity, However, there is significant unmet demand at the neighborhood libraries.
Veicon provides a relatively Iow-maintenance reservation system for the thin clients,
though there have been some concerns about vendor support levels. Similarly, the lab
computers are equipped with reservation and configuration management via
Envisionware, When current software contracts are renewed, the Library should consider
reducing support and licensing casts by standardizing on one management system ~i.e.,
Veicon or Envisionware}, as well as evaluate the indirect casts of poor vendor support.ln
the meantime, it may be helpful to review and update the service level agreements with
major vendors, including SirsilDynix, Veicon, and Envisionware.
The current T 1 connections between the Main building and the neighborhood libraries are
adequate, but place a limit on expansion of services at the neighborhood libraries.
Consider upgrading to DSL or fiber as needs increase.
The Library's fiber connection to the Internet and City Hall is more than adequate;
however there should be some transition planning in case the current vendor RAPT}
ceases to support the fiber.
Staff PCs are up-to-date and appear to provide most of the staff s needs, However, lack
of a Windows domain structure and unrestricted user security lead to ineff ciency,
inability to share files effectively, and the potential far expensive downtime. I highly
recommend adding a domain controller server and managing staff computers through
Microsoft's Active Directory.
The Library website is adequate, given the constraints of being integrated with the City
website and depending on an outside provider. The ability to make the website a primary
means of providing information to patrons, and in particular the ability to better integrate
the website with the Library's catalog, requires bringing website management
responsibilities inside the Library.
The Library's current Ievel of technology support is insufficient, A previous technology
audit had recommended 3.5 FTE of technology support, which now appears to be an
overestimate since maintenance and system management is eased by use of tools such as
Envisionware and Veicon. However, current technology support staff are also responsible
for non-technical computer lab management, as well as other tasks, Due to current
staffing levels, technology staff is largely unable to specialize, and there is insufficient
Alameda Free Library Technology Review page ~
coverage during absences and vacations, In addition, technology support is less timely at
the neighborhood libraries, due to the need to schedule site visits.
Technology staff need additional training, including training in library processes ~e.g.
check-in, check-out, point of sale, offline circulation, etc.}, RFD and security, and
domain management ~Microsaft or Novell},
Patron Survey Responses:
The Steve Johnson Community Telephone Survey provides insight to the value patrons
place on the Library's technology resources and services. The survey responses indicate
that patrons are generally appreciative of the Library's technology resources. Several of
the open-ended answers indicate that Library computers and computer classes are
magnets for patrons who might otherwise not visit the Library.
The survey results also indicated a low awareness of online offerings other than the
library catalog and website. Approximately 86% of respondents had used the catalog, and
76% had used the website, Of those who had used these resources, satisfaction was very
high, However, 82% had not used subscription databases, S 1 % had not downloaded
media, and 92% had not used ~M reference, Satisfaction with these services was also
lower than with the catalog and website,
These results suggest the need for better marketing of online services, and better training
in their use.
Strategic Goals and Facilities improvements
The goals selected by the Strategic Planning Committee include several which are
specifically technological in nature, as well as others which will be supported by
technology.
In particular, several goals require the improvement and promotion of the Library's
website and online resources; several goals require an increase in the number of public
computers at the neighborhood libraries; and several goals require an increase in the
number and variety of computer classes offered to patrons. Other goals having to do with
community space, school readiness, and literacy, for example, are less directly related to
technology but will be supported by improved technology infrastructure.
Recommended facilities improvements include substantially increasing the number of
public computers; substantially increasing the number of electrical drops available to
laptop users; and adding a new computer lab at the neighborhood library that serves the
west region of the city, once that new facility is built,
Alameda Free Library Technology Review Page 3
Recommendations
I have attempted to sort the recommendations into several broad categories. However,
note that these recommendations are all interconnected and generally do not fall neatly
into a single category.
The first set of recommendations is primarily oriented to improving the Library's ability
to reliably and effectively provide services, regardless of specific service goals or
facilities improvements,
• Implement an equipment replacement plan, and budget accordingly.
• Create a transition plan for wide-area network connections, in case Alameda
Power & Telecom discontinues support for fiber.
• Join staff PCs to a Microsoft '~Vindaws or Novell domain, and manage them
through available directory services, domain management tools, and other
available tools.
• Review and update service level agreements with major vendors, including
SirsilDynix, Veicon, and Envisionware.
• Consider standardizing on a single public-access management system ~e.g.
Veicon or Envisionware} to reduce complexity and save on licensing costs.
• Implement lab management software to reduce staff time required for scheduling
classes, configuring lab computers for specific types of classes, etc.
• implement a helpdesk ticket management system to track help requests and
solutions.
• Add technology support staffing levels by 1 } removing nontechnical
responsibilities from current staff job descriptions, and 2} adding 1 FTE of
additional staffing.
• Provide additional technology training to Library staff.
The second set of recommendations primarily supports the Library's goals related to
online services and web presence.
• Bring responsibility for designing and maintaining the Library website fully into
the Library.
• Enhance access to online resources through findability and usability projects.
• Increase staff engagement in social networking technologies, with an eye to
making the Library's online resources more visible to patrons.
• Provide time and incentives to Library staff to research and develop new
technology services.
• Rewrite the Internet Use Policy and Public Computer Use Policy to clarify and
better communicate the Library's policies.
• Create additional documentation ~pathf nders, cheatsheets, and tutorials} for
patron use.
The third set of recommendations is oriented toward facilities improvements and
expansion of public computer resources.
Alameda Free Library Technology Review Page 4
• Continue to monitor the Horizon servers' access levels with the expectation of
adding resources in the event of adding additional buildings or integrating the
online catalog with the Library's website.
• Replace current T 1 s between Main and neighborhood libraries with f ber or DSL.
~ Ensure that any new neighborhood library space has adequate data and power
drops to support additional workstations.
• Add customer service desks that are designed to maximize space and provide
patron access to self check stations, etc.
• Add additional public computers and laptop workstations at neighborhood
libraries; expand the laptop loaning program where space limitations prevent the
addition of computers,
Conclusions;
Alameda Free Library is well on the way to providing good technological support to its
service responses and offerings. Emphasis should be given at this point to standardizing
and organizing the technology the Library has already implemented, providing staff
support and training to make the most of technology, and improving findability and
usability on the Library website to maximize benefit to patrons, Building improvements
and new buildings should follow the model of the new central building for infrastructure
improvements that will allow and support future technology enhancements.
Alameda Free Library Technology Review Page 5
Alameda Free Library
COMMUNITY TELEPHONE SURVEY
April 2008
Prepared by
Stephen M, Johnson
Kim Langolf
Christine McCaslin
Northwest Survey & Data Services
In Association with
Ruth Metz Associates
11335 NU1! Lucy Reeder Road
Portland CR 9131
City Council
Attachment 3 to
Agenda Item #5-C
OS-~5-48
'I~i ~L~• ..~'
~:~~I: 1~:r ~~y~i~. •~~
jl':'+pi~'~+N
Northw~s~ ~un~~~~ & Date 5ervic~s
Summary of Results
Alameda Library Survey
By Stephen .M. Johnson, Kim Langolf
~ Christine 1L1cCaslin
~4pril ZOO$
Introduction
Alameda, California is an island city located near the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay.
The city of Alameda has three libraries, including a brand new centrally located main
library and smaller libraries on the west end of town and on Bay Farm Island. As part of
a current effort to assess library services, in particular use patterns among the three
libraries since the opening of the new main library, Alameda hired library consultant
Ruth Metz to conduct a library services and needs assessment, Zn close association with
Ruth Metz Associates, and with representatives from the Alameda Free Library,
Northwest Survey & Data Services ~NSDS} planned and implemented a March 200$
survey of Alameda residents. The survey was designed to poll all residents of Alameda
and to be large enough to allow for investigation of the results from three different
geographic regions of Alameda, the west end; central Alameda; and the east end and Bay
Farm Island.
Because of the desire to learn about the opinions of residents of specif c urban areas, the
survey sample size X660} was Larger than a typical residential survey, in order to insure
that there were sufficient respondents from each of the three areas. When looking at the
survey results for Alameda as a whole, the margin of error for any result is ± 3.8% at the
95% confidence level. Since only 469 of the respondents use any of the Alameda
libraries, the margin of error for any question asked only of library patrons is ± 4.5%
Survey Results
This report summarizes the major survey results. Readers may refer to the 70 tables in the
Banners section of this report for more detail. There they will end cross-tabulations of
each question with a wide range of demographic information and responses to the
questions related to use of the library, library services and features, the desire for
materials in languages other than English, the library website, and the willingness to
support a special Library tax. Readers can also look at the Topline Frequencies section for
the summary responses to each question, In addition, the Narrative section of the report
has the exact question wording and the narrative responses to any open-end question.
Use of The Alameda Free Library System
After identifying where in Alameda respondents lived, the survey f rst questioned people
about their use of public libraries, starting with how often they or family members used
an Alameda library. Nineteen percent of Alameda residents use one of the libraries at
least once a week and an additional 25% use an Alameda library once or more a month,
~~~rth~~~e~t Silr~~;;~~ ~; Data S~;i-~~ic~~ Pa~~~ l
.~~Ia1~~~~da I..i~~r~u'y Sur~,~y ?~3~)~ ~L1I11111a1'y ~~f Re_~~il€w
However, a large number of the respondents X42°/a) rarely or never use an Alameda
library. See Figure 1 below for a complete distribution of Alameda library use.
Figure 1: How often Library is Used
Frequent library use was greatest among mid-island residents, with 21 % using the library
at least once a week. VL~est end residents were the least likely to be firequent users, with
only l.4% using the library at least once a week, but were more likely to be occasional
library users. All residents of Alameda, independent of the geographic location of their
residence, were equally likely to be infrequent users of the library, or non-users. See
Banner Table 2 for more information,
In addition to asking about the frequency with which Alameda residents visit one of the
libraries in the Alameda Free Library system, the survey also asked respondents about
which branch or branches of the library system they had used in the last 12 months, If a
respondent used more than one branch they were asked additional questions about which
branch they used most and why they used a second library.
A large majority of respondents X60%} had used only the main Library. Using only the
main library was more common among mid-island residents (66%}, but a majority of
residents from the west end (59%} and from the east end and Bay Farm Island X51 %) also
used only the main library.
Very few respondents ~ 12%} used only the west branch library or the branch on Bay
Farm Island. For those who did use only these branches, the majority were residents of
~i~~I't~1~~`~'Sr ~111'l'~~' c~'" I~~l~t] ~t'.l'~~1Ct5 I~~~r~ ~
...
~1I~~n~~~~a I..ihr~lrv 5i~r~.~v ~~~~(~~ SLl~l3ztla~'~ o~ R~~~~l~~
f
the geographic area that the branch they used was located in. It was also very rare for a
respondent ~4%} to have visited all three libraries within the past year.
Many respondents X24%} had visited two Alameda libraries within the last year. It was
most common X13°/a} for someone to have used both the Bay Farm Island and the main
branches, although it was almost as common ~ 11 %} for someone to have visited the west
end branch and the main branch. Less than 1 % of respondents had visited only the west
end and the Bay Farm Island branches. The majority of respondents X70%} who had
visited the Bay Farm Island and main branches lived either on the east end or on Bay
Farm Island. However, the majority of respondents who had visited both the west end
branch and the main branch X66%} lived on the mid-island portion of Alameda. To a
great extent this latter pattern of library use can be explained by the relatively small
population of the west end, which has only half the population of the ;mid-island portion
of Alameda. See Banner Table 53 for more information.
In order to learn more about library use patterns, the 28% of respondents who had used
more than one Alameda library in the last 12 months were asked which branch they had
used the most, in effect which was their primary library. The majority X62%} had
primarily used the main branch, although 19% primarily used the Bay Farm Island
Branch, while 11 % primarily used the west end branch. See Figure 2 below for a graphic
display of the library use patterns for Alameda residents.
Figure 2: Which Libraries Are Used
90 --- -~- ----~-----------------..------
80 ~-- -_.-~_......----------_-_--...-----_.._-----------------------_.____ _ - --
70
~0
54
40
30
~0
10
0
^AIl
®Bay
^ West
_~.__._.__..__ _.Y_ _.._... ~ Primary
Bay only All
As you can see from Figure 2, the main library dominates the library use pattern, Very
few people use either the west end or the Bay Farm branches exclusively, and for those
who use one of the small branches and the main library, the majority thinks of the main
library as their primary library, When you add up those respondents who only use the
main library, with those who use two or more libraries, but think of the main library as
~~~~rth~ti~~~t 5~~~~~v ~~; Dat~1 Se~'~~lc~~ P~~~x~ ;
:~1~~1~~~~a I.iI~~~~~ry 5i~rti.~y. ?~~~J~ ~u«~~~~ar~~ ~~t~R~~~~ltw
Main West + Main Bay + Main West only
their primary library, the percentage of library patrons who rely on the main library
reaches 77%.
~n arger to learn something about why people exhibit this pattern of library use, the
respondents who use more than one library were asked the reason why they used one
library more than the other, and they were also asked why they used the secondary
library. For respondents who had picked either the west end branch or Bay Farm Island
branch as their primary library, essentially the only reason given was the proximity of
that branch library to where the respondent lived. The typical response being, "it's
closer."
Many of the multi-library users who primarily used the main library also mentioned the
proximity of the library to their homes, but an even larger number mentioned attributes of
the main library, primarily the larger collection, the increased access to computers, and in
some cases the fact that it is new.
when asked why they used a secondary library branch, almost all multi-library users
cited proximity, although those for whom the main library was their secondary library
also cited improved features of the main library.
Finally, respondents were asked what features, services, or characteristics they would like
to see added to their secondary Alameda library. A large number of respondents were
unable to offer any suggestion. For those who did have a suggestion, more space, longer
hours, and improvements to the collection were the main requests. of course, for the few
respondents for whom the man library was their secondary library they generally were
completely satisfied with it as it is. See the Narrative section for the complete narrative
responses to these questions.
~l~Ct~ll~'~'St Slll~"t'.y' ~~ I)aC~3 ~il~~'!"~'~ ~~~3t~c.' ~
:11~i~~~z~~a I..it~r~try~ 5~~r~-~y ?~_it~4 ~u,~~~~lar~ t?r Rc~~~lt~
What Features do Library Patrons Use
Library users were asked about their use of 21 separate features, services, or activities
associated with the library. The use rate for these features, services or activities varied
from a high of 83 % for checking out books, to a low of 3 % for receiving tutoring services
or working on one's taxes at the library. The following f gore shows the seven most
popular features, services, or activities at the library.
As you can see, these features, services, or activities are part of the library experience for
half or more of all library patrons factually from 49% on up}. These items are all
generally very standard and traditional library uses, and include at the top of the list
library activities that have been part of the library experience for over a century, checking
out books, getting help from the library staff, and browsing the collection. Even the last
item, "uses library computers", is just the use of a modern technology to do the
traditional activities of research at the library and accessing library materials.
~lr~I't~~«'e~C SL[i`G~~..~' C~. L/c~~c~ ~~~ti 1LG~ --- Pclt~~
'~~~311~~d~ I.II~Cci1'y' Sllrl~~y` ~~~~~ ~lll7]tllidl'V t~~ R~~ll~t~
The next figure shows those features, services, or activities that between 20% and 40% of
all patrons have as part of their library experience.
Figure 4: More Features Library Patrons Use
~aa~~o
~a°/o
~o~lo
7a°/a
sa°lo
50°l0
4a°lo
3a4/a
2a°/o
~o~~o
a°/a
check-out read work attend check-out meet people story hours
DVD's magazines research programs CD's
From Figure 4 you can see the importance to patrons of some of the more "modern"
library uses, such as checking out CDs and DVDs and attending programs at the library.
Although included are the very "traditional" uses of reading periodicals and doing work
related research.
N~~~~th~~~c.~,~ ~~Fr~~~~. ~~ Data S~r~~ic~•~ _ ~'a~~c, l~
:~~~1?1~t'(~~l ~.ll~l'~~1'y' ~llC~'ty' 7~~~)~ ~U11~i1]~ll'ti' t~f ~~t~U~t~
What Features are most Important for Libraries to Provide
Following the questions about the features library patrons use, respondents were asked to
rate the importance of 23 different features that their library currently provides, or might
add to their service. In all cases respondents were asked to think about the library they
patronize the most. The following figure shows the top eight features or services ranked
as "very important" by the largest numbers of respondents.
As you can see, the features people think are most important for libraries to provide are
very similar to the features that they most commonly use today. Once again, the
importance of a high quality staff, a collection of classic materials, space and services for
children, and a quiet pleasant place to read with comfortable seating, all stand out.
~+r~~rtl~tivetit ~~lr-~~~~v ~ ~~~ta Ser~~ii:~~ p~~~~'
.r~l~~ll~~~a L.i~~rary~ ~ur~~ey~ ?I:~~~~ SLil1~Z11~lfV ~~~~ lZ~~ult~
The next f gore shows additional features that were also rated as very important by at
Least one-third of Alameda library patrons.
Figure: More Features Libraries Should Provide
Leading this second set of features thought of as very important, are services for children
and teens and collection characteristics such as non-fiction, best sellers, and new books.
Following these items are broader community services, such as events information and
multicultural exhibits. At the bottom of this list are computers with Internet access. Here
again the importance of traditional library services and services to children and teens
stand out.
~~~l~~t~ti~'~;tit ~L111L•v ~~ I)~lta ~~r~i~~~~ ~~lt~~'
:~I:11~l~C~G1 ~.ll~l'~l['~' ~L11'~~~''r' ~~_~l,)~ ~LlFilll~:ll'~` t)I ~~ till~C~
Use of the Library Website
All respondents were asked about their use of the Alameda Free Library Website. Seven
percent of respondents report that they or family members use the library Website at least
once a week, An additional 16°/a use the Website at least once a month. However, over
half the population X55°/a} has never used the Website. See Figure 7 below for the
complete use pattern for the library Website.
In addition to the use pattern seen in Figure 7, it is interesting to note that almost all of
the respondents X86%~ who did not visit any of the Alameda libraries, also did not use the
Alameda Free Library Website. Clearly, the Website is not acting as a substitute for the
physical library and taking people away from visiting the library. See Banner Table 56
for more information.
4
:1~.1~1~~d~ I_.i1}r~ry~ 5urti.~y. ~OC~~ ~u~71d11c~fV car R~,t~4t~
Satisfaction with the Library Website
Respondents who used the library Website were asked for their level of satisfaction with
five different Website services. Figure $ below shows the percentage of Website users
who were very satisfied with each of the services, and the percentage of Website users
who had not used each of the f ve services.
Figure S: Satisfaction with Website Services
100°/a
90°/0
$0°l0
l0°l0
GO°/o
'~0°l0
40°/0
30°/0
~~°l4
0°I°
o°~o
online catalog subscription IM reference downioadabie homework help
databases media
every satisfied ^neverused
As Figure $ shows, with the exception of the on-lane catalog, the on-line services were
generally used by only a small number of people. For people who do use any of the
services, about half of them were "very satisfied" and the other half were usually
"somewhat satisfied." It was very rare for an on-line user to not be satisf ed. The highest
rate of dissatisfaction was 3% for the book and music download service.
Desire for Materials in Languages other than English
All respondents were asked if they would use library materials or services in languages
other than English, Twenty-three percent of people responded that they would use
materials in other languages. When asked which language that would like materials in, a
large number of languages were mentioned. The most common language desired was
Spanish, followed by Chinese and then by Vietnamese.
Interestingly, the desire for library materials in languages besides English does not play a
factor in library use rates. Respondents who wanted different languages were primarily
current library users ~7$%}, and only 17% of the library non-users were interested in
materials in languages other than English. See Banner Table ~4 for more information.
~~~~rtll~~~t~~t S~ir~ Gv ~: Dat~~ ~c~:r~ ic~~ ~'a~~~ l tl
.~~~~~m~~~a I.i~~rtiry fii~r~.ey ?~)()~ ~~I~711t1i~1-V (l~ Rt',~ll~t.ti
Library Non-Users
In every community there are a fairly large percentage of residents who do not use the
public library. In this survey an effort was made to learn something about the reasons
people do not use the Alameda Free Library and also about their attitudes to values a
library brings to a community. To begin, a111ibrary non-users were asked for the main
reason they did not use the library. Although many reasons are mentioned by
respondents, there were three main reasons for not using the library: using the Internet at
home to gather information; buying one's own books; and issues related to age, disability,
or the difficulty of getting to the library. In addition, a small number of people
mentioned that they had stopped using the library after their children were out of school.
The survey also asked non-library users if there was anything the library could do, or any
service It might offer, that would encourage them to use the library. Unfortunately,
almost all respondents said that there was really nothing the library could do that would
make them more likely to go to the library. Avery small number of people suggested
specific classes and three people mentioned improved parking. See the Narrative section
for the complete responses to these questions.
Library non-users were also asked for their level of agreement with six value statements
commonly associated as benefits a library brings to a community. Figure 9 below shows
the level of agreement library non-users had with these six values.
Figure 9: Value PeapleAttach to Libraries
goo°~
°
~o°~~
~o°Io
7o°I8
fi0°fo
50°/0
40°l0
~o°i°
zo°~o
~o°~°
p4'°
quality of life relocation safe for kids invtoves important updates
elderly service public
~s~rvng~y agree ^agree
Interestingly, a large majority of library non-users are in agreement with all six of the
library value statements, and in many cases In strong agreement. This result fits well
~~~r~h~uc~~t S~~n~~~~ ~ D~~t~~ ~e~~ F~.~ti PaL,:~ 11
:~1~~i2~~~~~ Lil~rar4~ St~r~~~~~~ ?c7~~~ ~ll1i][~lai'y at~ Rv~~il~~
with the reasons people gave for not using the library, which were generally a statement
of their personal situation and not a statement opposing libraries.
Library Website Non-Users
Respondents who did not use the library website were also asked why they did not use
the website. Far and away the main reason given was that the respondent had not been
aware that the Alameda Free Library had a website, In addition, a small number of
people mentioned that they felt that other websites provided them with all the information
they wanted.
As a final question to website non-users the survey asked them if there was any service or
feature that could be added that would encourage them to use the website. Similarly to
the response from non-users of the physical library to a similar question, respondents had
almost no suggestions. In this case many also added that since they had not ever visited
the website they really could not say anything about what it should have on it. See the
Narrative section for the complete responses to these questions.
Special Tax for Alameda Libraries
At this point in the survey, respondents had been asked all the library specific questions
and were now all respondents were asked if they would be willing to support a special tax
for Alameda libraries, if the city budget could not afford the library services a ma j ority of
residents desired. A substantial majority of respondents, 71% said that they would be
willing to vote for such a tax, while the opposition to a tax was only 19%. An additional
10% had either no opinion, did not know, or refused to answer,
The level of support for a special library district was almost uniformly high among each
of the three geographic areas surveyed. The level of support from both the west end and
the mid-island areas was 75%, while the level of support on the east end and Bay Farm
Island was 68%. All of these support levels are essentially within the survey margin of
error from the overall support level and should be considered to be identical.
Support levels did not vary based on which library people used, but they did vary
depending on how often people used an Alameda library. Respondents who used the
library at least a few times a year all had generally high levels of support for the library
tax, on average 80%. Those who had either used the Alameda libraries "rarely" or
"never" had a support level of 60%.
Support levels also varied significantly among different groups of people based on their
backgrounds. Support for a special library tax went up with higher levels of educational
attainment, from a low of 56% among those with only a high school education, up to S 1 %
among those with graduate degrees. Similarly, support levels declined with age, going
from a high of 85% among respondents ages 15-34, down to SS% among respondents
over age 65. Support was also much higher among those with children under age 1 S
living in the home DSO%}, than it was among those without children at home X66%}.
Finally, gender had no effect on support levels. See Banner Table 66 for more
information on the demographics of library tax supporters.
~;~~rtl~t~~~~C Sur~ev ~~ Darn 5e~~~~~~:~~ I'~{~c~ 1?
4
:~~~1117~C~i1 L~bt'~ll'v Sll1"~'~y' ~~)~~ ~11E11I11~1E'V ~)t ~~~Ul~~
The most important point from this examination of tax support level is that the support
for a special library tax is very high, above 70%. Even among groups such as those with
a low level of education, the elderly, or those who do not use libraries, there is a majority
of supporters, with support levels typically around 60%.
Conclusion
Residents of Alameda generally use their public libraries in a manner that is consistent
with the traditional role of a library, that is, as a place for reading, research, and specif c
types of education. In addition to the features they personally use at their library, they
think that a wide range of library services are important and should be provided.
The new main library is used by the majority of library patrons and seems to be highly
regarded for both its collection and services, and for it aesthetics. A large number of
people continue to use the smaller branch libraries, and enjoy having a library close to
their residence.
Finally, a large majority of Alameda residents are supportive of the idea of a special
library tax, if such a tax is necessary to provide library services people want.
"~~~rth55~~~~~t Surety ~ l7at~i ~EI'1~~i~c'ti - -- Pa{~~ ~ ;
.~1~I~latz~~~ I_il~r~~ry 5ur~~ry ?~)~~~ 5~~~~~i7~~~rv ~7F Reti~~~t~
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 5, 2008
Re: Adopt a Resolution Gpposing Fiscally irresponsible State Budget
Decisions That Would Borrow Local Government, Redevelopment, and
Trans ortation Funds
BACKGROUND
In 2004, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 1A, which significantly
restricts the State's ability to take local government revenues to help solve the State's
budget deficit. The measure passed with 84°/0 of the vote. Similarly, in 2006 voters
approved a new Proposition 1 A by l7%, thereby indicating their strong support for using
transportation funding for transportation projects. Despite these voter-approved
protections for local governments, members of the State Legislature are now seriously
considering taking local revenues, in the form of property taxes, redevelopment tax
increment, and transportation sales tax funds, to help balance the State's budget.
DISCUSSION
The 2004 Proposition 1 A protects local governments from State takeaways, but it also
allows the State to begin "borrowing" local property tax dollars in FY 2008-2009. To do
so, the State must declare a severe state fiscal hardship, and the Legislature must
enact a statute providing for repayment, with interest, within three years. In addition,
the State may not suspend the Proposition 1A protection more than twice in any ten-
year period, and it must repay the funds and the interest prior to taking additional local
dollars. The 2006 Proposition 1 A provides similar protections for transportation funds,
requiring the Legislature to declare a severe state fiscal hardship and enact a statute
providing for repayment of the funds, with interest, within three years.
According to the League of California Cities, although redevelopment tax increment
dollars were not specifically included in the 2004 version of Proposition 1 A, they are
protected from State takeaway. Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution,
which was adopted by the voters in 1952, provided far tax increment financing but
included no loan or seizure provisions. Thus, according to the League, the State is
prohibited from taking these dollars in order to balance its budget.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #5-D
08.05-48
Honorable Mayor and August 5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
The State is now facing a $15.2 billion budget shottfall, and the Governor and
Legislators have been unable to agree on ways to balance the budget for the fiscal year
that began more than one month ago. vVhile a balanced budget will require both
expenditure reductions and revenue increases, the Democrats in the Legislature are
unwilling to support cuts in services, particularly in education and health and welfare,
sufficient to balance the budget, while the Republicans are opposed to increased taxes.
Given this stalemate, many local government organizations are now concerned that the
State will once again turn to cities, counties, and special districts to help balance the
State's budget. Such a step will devastate local governments, which are already
contending with their own difficult budget decisions, while doing nothing to fix the State's
structural budget problems.
The City Council was forced to make difficult choices in balancing the City's budget this
year. The final budget relied on a combination of steep reductions in spending in all
areas, including police and fire, and increased fees to close this year's deficit. Taking
local government revenues at this juncture, even if those revenues are paid back within
three years, will cripple the City's ability to provide services to its residents and business
community.
BUDGET C~NSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The magnitude of the State's potential takeaways is unknown at this time, but
Proposition 1 A ~2004~ limits the total amount of property tax revenues the State may
take to H°/o of the prior fiscal year's property tax revenues. For the City of Alameda, that
could mean a loss of approximately $1.7 million in property taxes that now flow to the
City's General Fund. The potential impact on transportation funds and redevelopment
funds is unknown at this time. In addition, the Legislature is considering a variety of
reductions in public safety funding that could affect the Police Department.
REC~MMENDATIGN
Adopt a Resolution opposing fiscally irresponsible State budget decisions that would
borrow local government, redevelopment, and transportation funds.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Goldman
Deputy City Manager
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTIGN NO.
OPPOSING FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE STATE BUDGET DECISIGNS
THAT WOULD BORROW LOCAL GOVERNMENT, REDEVELOPMENT,
AND TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
f
0
~o
~.
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2008, the State Legislature missed its
Constitutional budget deadline; and
WHEREAS, both the Governor and the Legislative Budget Conference
~.
~ Committee have recommended balanced budgets without resartin to "loans" or
a 9
seizures of local government property tax, redevelopment tax increment, and
v transportation sales tax funds; and
WHEREAS, in 1952 the voters of California approved Article XVI,
Section 16 of the California Constitution, providing for tax increment financing
for community revitalization, not balancing the State budget, and the voters
never authorized the Legislature to take ar "borrow" community redevelopment
funds for State programs; and
WHEREAS, in 2004 by an 84°/° margin of approval the voters of
California approved Proposition 1A and sent a loud and unambiguous message
to State leaders that they should stop the destructive and irresponsible practice
of taking local government funds to finance the State budget and paper aver the
State deficit; and
WHEREAS, in 2006 by a 7l °lo margin of approval the voters of California
also approved Proposition 1A, providing similar protections to transportation
funding, including important street maintenance and public transit programs;
and
WHEREAS, both ballot measures allow the Governor to declare a
"severe state of fiscal hardship" and "borrow" these funds if they are repaid in
three years with interest, but the Governor believes it would be irresponsible to
"borrow" such funds because it would deepen the State's structural deficit and
cripple focal government and transportation services; and
WHEREAS, refusal by the Legislature to fulfill its constitutional obligation
to compromise on a balanced budget is not a "severe fiscal hardship" and
would not justify reductions in critical local services, community revitalization
programs, and infrastructure maintenance at a time when cities are struggling to
balance their own budgets during this economic down turn; and
WHEREAS, city investments in infrastructure, affordable housing, and
basic public safety and other community services will create needed jobs and
speed economic recovery; and
Resolution #5.p
08.05.08
WHEREAS, the Legislature should balance the State budget with State
revenues and respect the overwhelming support of voters for not using local
property taxes, redevelopment tax increment, and transportation sales tax funds
to fund the day-to-day operating cost of state programs; and
WHEREAS, it would be the height of fiscal irresponsibility to paper over
the State's structural deficit with more borrowing, and Californians deserve
leaders who will tell them honestly what needs to be done to produce a
balanced budget; and
WHEREAS, it is time for the State of California to cut up its local
government credit cards and deal with the budget deficit in a straightforward
way.
NOW, THEREFaRE BE fT RESOLVED, that the City of Alameda
opposes any and all efforts by the State of California to borrow or seize focal tax
funds, redevelopment tax increment, and transportation sales tax funds to
finance State operations. Such a move would be fiscally irresponsible and
hamper effective local services and infrastructure investments.
***~~~
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 5th day of August, 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 6~"day of August, 2088.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 5, 2008
Re: Adopt a Resolution Designating the Alameda County Residential Green
Building Guidelines, the U.S. Green Building Council's LEEDT"" Rating
Systems, and the Bay-Friendly Landscape and Gardening Guidelines as
the Official City Reference Documents for Green Building and
Sustainable Desi n
BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2008, the City Council adopted a Civic Green Building Ordinance, joining
numerous other cities in requiring that City-owned or occupied buildings meet specific
green building standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design ~LEEDT""} rating systems. The ordinance amended the
Alameda Municipal Code RAMC} to incorporate green building requirements for City
building projects, Capital Improvement Projects, and public-private partnerships, any of
which exceed three million dollars in value.
On May 14, 2005, the Planning Board adopted a resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt guidelines to be used as the official City reference documents for
homeowners, businesses, and building professionals voluntarily seeking to incorporate
green building and sustainable landscaping techniques into their projects. The
guidelines recommended by the Planning Board included the Alameda County
Residential Green Building Guidelines, the U.S. Green Building Council's LEEDT"" rating
systems, and Stopwaste.org's Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines and Bay-Friendly
Gardening Guide.
DlscussloN
one of the adopted goals of the City's Local Actian Plan for Climate Protection is to
include sustainable design and green building standards for all new, substantially
expanded and remodeled buildings. Ullhile the recently adopted Civic Green Building
ordinance amended the AMC to incorporate requirements for City building projects,
Capital Improvement Projects, and public-private partnerships, it did not set standards
for homeowners and businesses or others that may wish to incorporate green and
sustainable design elements into their buildings and landscape design.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda item #5-E
48.45-08
Honorable Mayor and August 5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3
In response to this increased level of interest by the public, many organizations have
developed voluntary guidelines designed specifically for the residential building industry,
landscape professionals, and homeowners. For example, Stopwaste.org assisted in the
development of the Alameda County Residential Green Building Guidelines for new
home construction, home remodeling and multifamily buildings, which provide guidance
for applying these techniques to residential building projects. Stopwaste.org also
developed Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines and Bay-Friendly Gardening Guide
designed specifically for landscape professionals and homeowners. The U.S. Green
Building Council developed a series of guidelines designed specifically for the
commercial building industry, including Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
~LEEDT"'~ rating systems, such as LEEDT"" NC 2.2 for new construction and major
renovations and LEEDr"" CI for commercial interiors renovation.
The overarching principles for green building, as described in the Build it Green
guidelines are: Build for the long-term: Build durable domes & livable commurrifies;
Build for our children: Make their domes, communifies & environmenf safe; and Build for
the planet: Use nafural resources wisely. The environmental impact of the building
design, construction and operation industry is significant. Green building practices can
substantially reduce or eliminate negative environmental impacts and improve existing
unsustainable design, construction and operational practices. The standards address:
• Sustainable Sites
• Water Efficiency
• Energy & Atmosphere
• Materials & Resources
• Indoor Air Quality
• lnnovation in Design
The practices contained in the aforementioned guidelines and rating systems are
recommended for adoption at this time because of their viability in today's market and
their ability to promote sustainable buildings, landscapes and communities. Many other
cities and counties in California, including many in Alameda County, are also promoting
the use of these guidelines and rating systems by their constituencies. The City is also
reviewing the Green Building Code, which was unanimously adopted by the California
Building Standards Commission on July ~ 1, 2008. Those rules are voluntary for now,
but become mandatory in 2074. Early adoption of that Green Building Code may be
appropriate forAlameda to further the goals of the Local Action Plan.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The publications that include the guidelines will be available to the public at the
Planning & Building Department in City Hall and at the City's Library branches. These
publications are currently provided at no cost by Stopwaste.org and are also available
via the web.
Honorable Mayor and August 5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3
MUNICIPAL CGDEIPOLICY DaCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE
Adopting the guidelines will have no impact on the City's budget or on the budget of the
Planning and Building Department. The resolution will assist in the implementation of
the Local Action Plan for Climate Protection, and is consistent with the Plan's initiative
to include sustainable design and green building standards for all new, substantial)
Y
expanded, and remodeled buildings.
RECGMMENDATIGN
Adopt a resolution designating the Alameda County Residential Green Buildin
,, g
Guidelines, the U.S. Green Budding Councils LEEDTM rating systems, and the Ba
. y
Friendly Landscape and Gardening Guidelines as the official City reference documents
for green building and sustainable design.
Respectfully submitted,
vV~
Cathy W dbury
Planning and Building Director
r
By: Cy this Eliason
Supervising Planner
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION N0.
E
d
v
~~
~~
PROVIDING, AS OFFICIAL CITY REFERENCE DOCUMENTS, THE
ALAMEDA COUNTY RESIDENTIAL GREEN BUILDING GUIDELINES,
FOR NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION, HOME REMODELING AND
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; THE U.S. GREEN
BUILDING COUNCIL'S LEEDT"' RATING SYSTEMS, FOR NEW
COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION AND REMODELING; AND BAY-
FRfENDLY LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES, AND RECOMMENDING THEIR
USE IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
WHEREAS, one of the adopted goats of the Local Action Plan is to
include sustainable design and green building standards for alt new,
substantially expanded and remodeled buildings; and
WHEREAS, green building and sustainable landscape design,
construction, operation and maintenance can have a significant positive effect
on energy, water and resource efficiency, waste and pollution generation,
wildlife habitat and the health and productivity of a property's occupants over
the life of the building andlor landscape; and
WHEREAS, green buildings and sustainable landscapes benefit building
industry professionals, residents, and communities by improving construction
quality, increasing building durability, reducing utility, maintenance, water and
energy costs, creating healthier buildings and landscapes, and enhancing
comfartand livability; and
WHEREAS, in recent years, green building and sustainable landscaping
design, construction, and operational techniques have become increasingly
widespread in California and the nation, with many homeowners, businesses,
and building professionals voluntarily seeking to incorporate green building and
sustainable IandscapEng techniques into their projects; and
WHEREAS, in May 2008, the Alameda City Council unanimously
adopted a Green Building Ordinance, joining numerous other cities in requiring
that City owned or occupied buildings meet specific green building standards
set by the U.S. Green Building Council's ~USGBC} Leadership in Energy and
Env~ronmentaf Design BLEED} rating system; and
WHEREAS, StopWaste.Org has developed a series of voluntary
guidelines designed specifically for the residential building industry for New
Home Construction, Home Remodeling and Multifamily ~"Alameda county
Residential Green Building Guidelines"} that provide helpful and valuable
guidance for applying these techniques to residential building projects; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Green Building Council has developed a series of
guidelines designed specifically for the commercial building industry, including
LEEDrM ~Leadersh~p in Energy and Environmental Design} Rating Systems,
such as LEEDT"" NC 2.2 far new construction and major renovations and
Resolution #5-E
08.05.08
LEEDTM Cl for commercial interiors renovation; and
WHEREAS, StopWaste.Org has devekoped the Bay-Friendly Landscape
Guidelines and Bay Friendly Gardening Guide designed specifically for
landscape professionals and homeowners; and
WHEREAS, the practices contained in the Alameda County Residential
Green Building Guidelines, U.S. Green Building Council's LEEDTM' Rating
Systems, and the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines were selected for their
viability in today's market and their ability to promote sustainable buildings,
landscapes and communities; and
WHEREAS, a number of cities and counties throughout California are
promoting the use of these guidelines and rating systems; and
WHEREAS, making these guidelines and rating systems easily available
as reference documents and recommending their use would not constitute a
"project" within the meaning of California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}.
NOUN, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED, that the City of Alameda
provides, as official city reference documents, the Alameda County Residential
Green Building Guidelines, the U.S. Green Building Council's LEEDTM Rating
Systems, and the Bay-Friendly Guidelines as they may be amended from time
to time, and ensures their availability at accessible locations including the
Planning and Building Department, public libraries, and through website links,
and recommends their use on new development projects and retrofits.
BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Alameda encourages the
use of the guidelines and rating systems by private developers and builders of
residential and commercial construction and landscaping projects within the
City and encourages the use of green building and sustainable landscape
design, construction, and operation whenever feasible.
*~~**
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 August, 200$, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN UvlTNES5,111lHEREOF, Ihave hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said City this 6t~ day of August, 2005.
Lara Vlleisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ONE VACANCY
(SCHOOL DISTRICT SEAT-FULL TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2012)
Jane Q. Lee
Re: Agenda Item #8-A
os-o~-os