2009-01-06 Packet%;~ ~~
~~ti
~ ~ rr~y
~'r ~rry'~~' f~
~q~~-~~ ~,~. CITY ~F ALAMEDA • CALIF
~ ~ ~~~~.~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ R N I A
:,. ~ ~.~
~~ rra ~t 7
:~~p ~~Jf.S\ CC11i~~~~\~
~~~'~~~?~-' SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE ITY
`~~ ~ C COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC7
TUESDAY - - -- JANUARY 6 , 2 0 0 8 - - - ~ : d 0 P . M ,
Time: Tuesday, January 6, 2008, 6:00 p.m.
Place; Ci t Council Chambers Conference Raom, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
ArrQnr~a
1. Roll Call.
2, Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Council/Commission on agenda
items only, may speak far a maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider;
CITY COUNCIL
3-A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION X549577
Title: City Manager
CIC
3-B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property:
Negotiating parties;
Under negotiation:
1435 Webster Street
Community Improvement Commission and
Farrar Family Trust
Price and terms
CITY COUNCIL
3-C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision ~c7 of
Section 5495G.9
Number of cases: Two
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
Beverly oh n, ayor
Chair, C
j. w
~r +
o-;, ., ,.
~ ,.
,~ 1 ~ ~ i ~
~. i ~ f
f~ '4 y
701 Atlantic Avenue -Alameda, California 94501-2161 -TEL: (510) 747-4300 -FAX: (510) 522-7848 - TDD: (510) 522-8467
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Executive Director, and
upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and
state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a
summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Board of
Commissioners meetings.
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
DATE & TIME
LOCATION
Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 7:25 PM
City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 390, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA
Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
meeting. Regular Board of Commissioners meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each
quarter in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by
Commissioners may speak for a maximum of three minutes per agenda item when the
subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Housing Authority Executive
Director if you wish to address the Board of Commissioners.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL -Board of Commissioners
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
^ Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved or accepted
by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is
received from the Board of Commissioners or a member of the public.
2-A. Minutes of the Regular Board of Commissioners meeting held October 7, 2008.
Acceptance is recommended.
2-B. Housing Authority Budget Revision No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2009. The Housing
Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of Commissioners:
Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners
January 6, 2009 Page 2
1. Approve the proposed budget for revision number 1 for FY 2009, and
2. Adopt the resolution revising the Budget for the Conventional Low-Rent Housing
Program (Esperanza).
2-C. Approve Submission of an Application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development for Section 8 Family Unification Program Vouchers. The Chief Executive
Officer recommends the Board of Commissioners approve Housing Authority submittal
of an application to HUD for 50 Section 8 Family Reunification Vouchers.
3. AGENDA
None.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, Non-Agenda (Public Comment)
5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, (Communications from the Commissioners)
6. ADJOURNMENT
***
Note:
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board of Commissioners
after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Housing
Authority of the City of Alameda, 701 Atlantic Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501 during
normal business hours.
Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Carol Weaver,
Secretary, at 747-4325 voice or 522-8467 TDD at least 72 hours before the meeting to
request an interpreter.
Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is
available.
Minutes of the meeting are available in large print.
Audiotapes of the meeting are available on request.
Please contact Carol Weaver at 747-4325 voice of 522-8467 TDD at least 72 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.
f,, + .
~ ~
~~~
~. ;
~~ ~u,
~ ~~. .1 ~,
~ ~~ ~~, ~
A \ ~_~1]
~u 157'E1lIlAb ~(~'~,
G'~Ir1~~i
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 X37 minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
AGENDA - -- -- - - - - - - - -REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - - - - JANUARY 6, 2009 -- - -- - 7 : 30 P. M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall,
Ccuncil C~.am~aer~, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St]
The Order of Business for City Council
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special Orders
4. Consent Calendar
5. City Manager Communications
G. Agenda Items
Meeting is as follows:
of the Day and Announcements
7. Oral Communications, Non-Agenda Public Comment}
S. Council Referrals
9. Communications Communications from Council}
10. 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 G:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda Closed Session}
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD 7:25 P.M.
OF COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:31 P.M.
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3-A. Proclamation declaring January as National Blood Donor Month.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public
4-A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Alameda Public
Financing Authority Meeting held on November 18, 2008; the
Regular City Council Meeting held on December 2, 2008; and the
Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meetings held
on December 16, 2008. City Clerk}
4-B. Bills for ratification. Finance}
4-C. Recommendation to award a Contract in the amount of $298,000,
including contingencies, to Noll & Tam Architects for the
design of the Neighborhood Library Improvement Program No.
P.W. 08-08-21. Public Works}
4-D. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to Execute
Agreements for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report for the Proposed Project at 2229 Clement Street.
Planning and Building}
4-E. Recommendation to adopt the Legislative Program for 2009.
City Manager?
4-F. Adoption of Resolution Setting the 2009 Regular City Council
Meeting Dates. City Clerk}
4-G. Adoption of Resolution Approving the Second Amended and
Restated Northern California Power Agency Metered Subsystem
Aggregator Agreement. SAP&T}
4-H. Public Hearing to consider a Resolution Approving Tentative
Parcel Map No. 9757 for the Purpose of Establishing a
Subdivision of Ownership to Condominium Form for Two Detached
Single-Family Dwellings on One Site Located at 1531 Morton
Street. Planning and Building}
5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Communications from City Manager
5-A. Discussion on financial policies and principles. Interim
Finance Director?
5-B. Recommendation to receive a report on Fire Department resource
allocation. Interim Finance Director and Fire Chief
6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
6-A. Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Horst Breuer and Justin
Harrison as Members of the Economic Development Commission.
6-B. Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs for
Community Block Grant Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Annual Plan.
Development Services
7. 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
8. COUNCIL REFERRALS
Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted
upon or scheduled as a future agenda item
9. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Communications from Council}
Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on
any Conferences or meetings attended
9-A. Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the
Historical Advisory Board and Youth Commission.
10. 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 7474800 or TDD number 522-7538 at
least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter
• Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use.
For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747-4$04 or TDD
number 522-7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including
those using wheelchairs, is available
• Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print
• Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request
• Please contact the City Clerk at 747-4844 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
~~....~.
~ C~ly; ~.
/4
,~~ ,~~
u ~1
~~`
,,3.fi. ~ ~ CITY ~F ALA.MEDA • CALIF
~~~~~ ~ R N I A
ti. =:.
n , ~ ~
~ti~ri ~~ f~S •f ,µP~~ I~~G/
SPECIAL MEETING OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC}
TUESDAY - - - JANUARY 6 , 2 0 0 9 ~- - - 7 ; 31 P . M ,
Location; Cit Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by the Commission may speak for a maximum of 3
minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission,
Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish
to speak.
1. ROLL CALL - CIC
2, MINUTES
2--A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority and CIC Meetings held on December ~.6,
2008, City Clerk}
3. AGENDA ITEM
3-~A, Recommendation to maintain the current facade of the northern
elevation of the Civic Center parking garage and re-allocate
funds to other redevelopment priorities, including improvement
of the appearance of the Bill Chun Service Station,
Development Services}
4, ADJOURNMENT - CIC
~'1
Beverly J n C air
.~_
Housing
Authority of the City of Alameda
701 Atlantic Avenue -Alameda, California 9450(-2161 -TEL: X510) 747-43x0 -FAX: (510} 522-7848 - TDD: X510} 522-8467
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2008
The Board of Commissioners was called to order at 7:40 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Torrey and Chair
Johnson
Absent: None
~. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Tam moved acceptance of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
deHaan seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Items accepted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk.
~2-A. Minutes of the Special Board of Commissioners meeting held August 19, 2008.
Minutes were accepted.
*2-B. Recommend Award of Contract for Kitchen and Bath Cabinet Replacement at Anne B.
Diament Plaza. The Board of Commissioners:
1. Awarded a contract to F.K. Construction for an amount not to exceed
$160,000.00 to replace kitchen and bath cabinets and countertops in 23 units at
Anne B. Diament Plaza; and
2. Authorized the Executive Director to execute the contract with F.K.
Construction.
3. AGENDA
3-A. Recommend Acquiring Two Housing Complexes from the Filipino American
Community Services Agency at l45 Lincoln Avenue and 1416 Sherman Street in
Alameda. There was a brief discussion and Commissioner Tam moved the Board of
Commissioners:
1. Approve in concept the acquisition of l45 Lincoln Avenue and 1416 Sherman
Streetfrom the Filipino American Community Services Agency; and
HABOC
Item #2-A CC
1-06-09
Minutes of the October 1, 2008
Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners
Page 2
2. Direct staff to prepare a financial package to acquire the two pro erties which
p
includes an appraisal, refinancing of the U.S. Bank loans and cost estimates
for improvements to the twa properties.
Commissioner Matarresse seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
4. ORAL C4MMUNICATI~NS
None.
5. C~MMISSI4NER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:48 p.m.
Attest:
Beverly Johnson, Chair
,Michael T. Pucci
Executive Director 1 Secretary
^~ -
~u~h~ri o the ~t o ~. a~e~a
la1 Atlantic Avenue -Alameda, California 945Q1-21fi1-Tel; (510 141-43Q0 ~ Fax; (510y52~-1$48 - TDD; ~a10} 6~2-8467
To: Honorable Chair and Members
of the Board of Commissioners
From: Debra Kurita
Chief Executive Officer
Date: January 6, 2009
RE: Housin~Authority Budget Revision Na.1 for Fiscal Year 2D.09
BACKGRGUND
On April 15, 2008, the Board of Commissioners passed and approved atwo-year
operating budget for all programs covering the fiscal years July 1, 2008 through June
30, 201D. The budget for the fiscal year July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009, was prepared
more than eight months ago and needs to be updated with current income, expenses,
Extraordinary Maintenance Expenses ~EMP's} and capital improvements.
DISCUSSION
Several operating and capital budget changes have occurred since the last budget
revision and a new updated budget needs to be approved to reflect these changes.
Updated information from HUD regarding operating subsidies at Esperanza indicates an
increase in previously budgeted operating subsidy by more than $39,000. It is expected
that legal, financial and appraisal consultants will need to be retained for development
activities over the next several months and it is proposed to increase the pre-
developmentline item by a little more than $35,000 in FY 2D09. Interest income is being
adjusted down to reflect the current low interest rate environment. Several other income
and expense line items have been adjusted to reflect current and expected operational
changes from the previously approved budget. Overall changes to the budget proposed
are shown on Attachment 1.
Several changes are recommended to the Schedule of Extraordinary Maintenance
Projects (EMP) and Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) Schedule (Attachment 2).
ABD1-09 is proposed to be increased by $10,000 to include kitchen floor replacements
in all affected units. ABD2-09 for $37,000 will replace exposed heating system piping at
Ann B. Diament. Replacement window EMP's for Lincoln Willow and Stanford House
have increased from $13,400 to $24,900 due to building code requirements and
expanded number of windows to be replaced. The cost to replace decorative roof
shingles at Lincoln Willow is $3,030 higher than budget so it is proposed to increase the
budget to $6,530. The Independence Plaza parking expansion project is now expected
to increase to $250,000 from $190,000 due to architectural fees and permit fees. Two
new EMP's for Esperanza are proposed to be added for replacement of kitchen
HABOC
Item #2-B CC
1-06-09
Honorable Chair and Members January 6, 2009
of the Board of Commissioners Page 2 of 2
cabinetslcounters and unit repainting for $15,000. It is also proposed to spot resurface
all of the playground areas for $16,360.
The Housing Authority's lease on two of its copy machines recently expired. The
Housing Authority believes that a purchase is the more cost effective solution. Together
the cost of these machines will be $25,280; however, only one has a dollar value over
$10,000 that requires capitalization x$16,400}. The other machine will be purchased as
office supplies.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The result of these budget changes would be to increase the budgeted operating
income (surplus). The actual operating income (surplus) at the fiscal year ending
6/30/2009 is proposed to be $728,695 compared to $708,894. EMP/CIP changes will
increase by $169,290. CIP projects will be paid from cash generated from ongoing
property revenues. The Independence Plaza (IP) parking expansion will be paid from IP
replacement reserves. The approved operating transfer to Esperanza from the Housing
Authority General Fund will be reduced by $105,891 ($206,891 to $101,000).
RECCMMENDATIaN
The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Gfficer recommend the Board of
Commissioners:
1. Approve the proposed budget for revision number 1 for FY 2009, and
2. Adopt the resolution revising the budget for the Conventional Low-Rent Housing
Program (Esperanza).
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Pucci
Executive Director
MTP:A~ICAW
Attachments:
1. Budget Revision No. 1
2. Schedule of EMP and CIP Projects
3. Resolution (form HUD-52574)
rwl
u
4~
4~
4-~
0
..
L
~~~..II
i+~l
,C
rf
~r
E
z
C
0
...
.,.~
8~
i~
r~
W1
M~
F~
x
01
0
N
Q
M
~7
C
.~
"~
C
W
L
e~
~I
V
•~
v
V
~OV10~N O OONN N V)O VI C+f~'V ~ O~C~OO ~O aO~ONM ~ a0 O~D +D 00 0 ~ VI
~ VloVlaon
ooO~~N n
[~ ~~~o
ooMN ~
r~ o0
v~N 0
n o-•a,
~O~iM N
tl on+n
N~N ~
~ oM ~M
O+-~ n~ ~
M r
N tt~o
a~ o
C^ C~o
aoO o+
oo r
O o,
~0
v~ w
co
a O ooaoori
MNO~co
rti *K ~ M rs
N
O ori~o
~D~M
1 ~ ~ ai
M
N n~o
~cM M
O
~ n<rM
oN~D
M ~ eti
C~
'ti aDN+o
ac~~
vD *~ N n
M
M oM ao0
-+M a+N
N ~ 00 oo
a
N v
~
~ yr~o
+Dr
C~ t~ N
~t
i~ rivi
Mr- [=
o
*~ Vi
o,
N o0
N
1~
~ ~ N N M ~ [~ ^~ N *~ N +~ ~p DO C~ ~G
~., ~ N N *~ *^ N
0
~.
4
oooNa,N ~ ~aNN O Vlo vl a,r-pr o a~o~v, M aa+oaM ao ~c oo a o~ ~ o ~
Q aoaa,aot-
~DOf+1V1N ~
C~ V1~~D
OMM M
[~ o0
NN 0
n o*~o~
~D'tfM N
'tf on~c
NC~M in
VI oM NM
O~ V1'~ O~
0 o
V1 tt~o
CN o
N a~
~O~ ~
M vl
O d~
OD
_
Cd u M1 O r+ C~ M V, C5 N ~-+ N C~ ~C M 1~ ~ M Vi 04 N .K N O M N 00 ~1 CQ V? 0 ~G N tiG N n Op
~ >0+
~ 0 C~NMC~O
O -1 ~ trj N
O aO~M
~ ~ ~G
N ~CM O
~ ON~G
M *~ T
'17 p~Q~V1
00 ~ N ~
M ~M 00N
N ~ d4 VI
N ~
'~! ~DO
C~ aG ~D
C~ VIM O~ r+
M O
1~
c N N M W C~ ~ N ~ N ~ ~G 04 Oti ~0
E N N +~ ~ N
oO~aO ~ OOV1 V1 00 0 O~ON 00 OO~D ~D 00000 0 C~ 00 0 00 0 T V7
~ ~ N N
M ~ VY DO
N O M V7
Vi O ~-+ 00
~D O
~ O
~ N ~D 00
M n ~ O~
~ ~D M
N '~t Q~
~D C- ~ CQ
1- T O ~D
t- M
00 ~
M ~
M t~
~-, O
.-i
~+ r"
te Vi ~ ~ e ~ n oo ~ •~ ~i oo a ~ a~ ao b ~ vi
g
r o o
o N r
- o
r ~ ac
.~ c, ~ e
oo ~ vs
o
~ -• ~ N a~
N N
M o
~ n
n n
n oa
-•
~
a Q 00 ~ N -~ a0
..c aD
w O
N
0
04
C
OO~DOO
~G
f~000
V1
00
0
O~DN
00
OO~D
~O
OOOMO
N
r+
00
0
00
0
-•
VI
,~
~ '~f C~ N
M O 1!^ ~
CT M M O
C ~ O Vw l~
N O
*~ O
~ V) ~D 00
M [~ ~ d~
~f1 ~D M
N ~ C~
~C C~ *~ DO
~ C~ O~ ~
~D M
r+1 ~
M ~
M 1~
~D 00
N
~D O i~ M i~ *~ N +~ [~ DO ~ ~ V1 DO ~ [= -~ t~ ~D ~D M
~
~ ~ p
~ o
~ N f~ N
f ~ ~!
: O
N N *~ ~
C~ *~ OQ
O
~ *4 .~ N a0
N N
M N
~ [~
[~ C~
C~ O
N
Q oa •
,~ O
N •, 00
,~, a0
,~, O
N
OOONN ~ L~~N N NO N ~[~OD O~ VYVI*~ ~ O~DOOO ~D O ON N 00 0 N N
'O ~O ~~
C~ ~G ~ P O
h *-+aoM
N ~D N r.
r-i MO
~D +-~ M
i~ 1~NN
00 C~ 0 N
04 V}nN
OQ n O VI
~D C~C~ ~
VIM O Q~
Q~ N
M ~
M b
M OD
~O N
O
~ v~, Or b N1 ~ G~ ~ ~ t~ ~ Ci ri rl O Ni O ~7 M t"7 O r 'tf Vi *~ O '~1 N N ~C ~
N
~ 0 p
a 0 ~D ~G +~
~D N U)
G~ ~ ~D
N r-i
M N N ~0 ~ N N
*K N '~f V1
N N ~
N N VI ~D
~ '~l
N N
N 00
'~f DQ
'~t O
1~ ~
N
a~
V ~ N
~ ~
~ ..
~
.y
.~
rr
~
~ oC00NN
'~! O '~t V1 N
'tt C~~M
*~ CD ~ ~
Q+ Na
MO N
M ~1~00
P N N 0~
N VIV)DO
VI 1~ N a4
~ O~D00~0
[~ h O~ V1
~ 00
VI ON
~D N
~D 00 0 O
N N
N
~ N ~D ~ [~ M N ~D M N ~0 ~ l~ 00 CTS O OD OD 1~ ~ I~ ~ M M M 01 M M M O
y gip, 0~M r+O~ ~ '~thtD CQ .. *~ oMO ~ MMN N ~V1 O~ C+ ~G N N C~ V1
.d
C ~ O
F O ~ ~D +~
~D N ~
~ '~t ~D
N ra
M N N ~ ~ N N
M N ~ Ui
N N N
U7 N VI VI
w M
N N
N 00
~ 00
~ O
~ ~
N
N~00~0
.r 00 a (~ N
1~ ~DM*-~
O V] oo ~
~ OCO
~D O oO
~D tiGNO
O '~! N aD
~o M1~N
ao O oo N
t- aMOMO
V] V] N M ~D
ui V)
O 0~
~ 7
e Oa
M 0
M C+
t~ M
~
~ ~ -~ v ~ o M ~ ns oo r; ,~ ~ •• n vl rr VI ~ ~c M ~ V~ o n t ~ oo c~ a~ u~ ~n r~ ~
vyi Q~
O p ~ Qt O l~
0 ~ V1 ~
~ O M ~D
~ ~ *~ Cn
~O r+
N rr
N .. M 'tf
00 ~! M Qt
VI O OD V1
0 VIM ~
C~ O ~O N N
M ~+ VI .ti
O b
~ N
N N
N ~D
*^ ~D
,~ ~D
O6 ~
N
R O
N ~ f~ 00 N +~ M *~ N M Vi .~ N M N1 ~
~ ~ .~ rl r+ ,~
C",
3
o
N'~t00~0
X00 0l~ N
I~ tiDMO~
O~n 00
M 000
~DO OQ
~D ~GNO
O'~lN DO
~D MC-N
aDOO M
r OMOV)0
NV1 ~DM 00
O~ VI
~ O9D
M 00
M Oa
O 0
a M
00 O+
O
x 9 v-~ c~ o rfr•n~ t~ r~*K ~ -•nv~ M ~n~~o M ~v~ et~ •, •• e~a ra e ~ r ra
o Q ~a~ on
O tr 1p .•
N ori~n
~ r-i +~ oo
~D ••
N -~
N -:M~
Op '~t M a
V1 voovi
O VI M ~
Ot O~ oN
M .. V) O
O a
~ a
~ ~
7 +n
V1 ~
Ui ~
~ v;
n
~0
C N 0n oo N ~ M *~ N M ~ r• N M ~ M
a .y ~ r-i ~.
N~ooa oo -•o~n r ~o ~ MC+'~i `0 t-o~ o o-•oea v; M ao a oo a M ~i
~
~ r~ Mo
00 MO ~
~ vaooo
v~at~ M
r~ ro
o*• n
-• ~aa
1~-~M a+
*r ~or-
a0oorv a~
oo r-~c na
oao r~c o
t~ o
M ~c
~c ~c
~c ~
~ v,
e
h ~, a+ ni ri M a. ~ M r vi Vi M vi ~ '~t r= ~= N r= Mao Vi ri ~ ~c .: ~ r v,
,~
"'~ 0 Q
R O '~i •^ ~
~. V) r
10 ,D V7
*• N
N n .r dl O ~ CQ
N N M
~!} ~ M N ~
~ N
N 00
O r
N (~
N Vl
M +~
M
""
~
..i O N
~
L~
W N~oooo 00 -~oo ~+ eo n MC~~ `D no~ *~ or.OVlO VI n aa o 00 o r .~
~ nr. Mo
00 My ~
~ U700M
v~oo ~D
~c ro
o,~ n
~ ~~o
r-~M o+
•~ ~•at-
ooooN v.
OO r-~n o00
boo e~ •-+
~ M
r, ~
~c ~o
~o c~
a« N
~
0
~
~
~o
c c G1 N N
~r• -~
~ V> M
r
>p Q~ ~ N1
~o ~
.. ~D
N
N Vi V1 r'f V1 V1
r-~ '~!
v+ t~ C~ N
atiao
N N t~
M
~ M 00 ~ M
~M N*~
~ O
N
N ~
oo
O ~
r
N ~
n
N V1
+n
M t~
.-~
M
4
ooaroo v, ~nv,oa ao ••o ~ ~aMO O+ art-Vl ~o o~OOM ~ o0 oo a oa o 0o M
'd No -yo
VIN M Vl ~
V~ oo~aO
SD M 04 Vl
00 Mo
~ 00 M
I'd MM~D
Vl a4 O N
'~t VIM~t
C~ O a0 M
OG ~~ ~-+o
L ~ M N .-~ -~
R ~
~ +n
M ~
M N
~ o0
~
H ~
O O ~ V) Mao
'ef O~ ~! ~
C1 V'1 ~D ~
O~ V7 ~D
V1 C5 VS
r~ M Vl
VI .~ rri M]
4~ .K a0
O V1 Cn ~D
~ M ~D +~
1~ N ~G CO N
00 ~ V1 •-~ Qt
~D ..
~D ~
-Y ~
,~ 00
l~ tiD
00
R O
N
0 M VI N ~ *-~ N ~ N M ~D rr N M
~ M
~ +~
N y
, ~
C
CC
w
.
~
~AQOf~OG
~
V7VIN
r~
O
rr
tiGMO
C+
etCrV1
~G
O.~OO~M
M
O
OO
a
Oa
0
O _
O~
y
W
~ ~O -y0
nN r?v~ R
r OG~DV7
~cr» 0
ra MO
~00 M
N MM1D
V1aGO N
'~! V1M~
C^Oao M
oo ~~G C90
rte V)r• Q~
r Qr
~ GT
e ~
~
a p tf N M a4
O O~ ~ ~
V1 N ~D ~
O~ U'1 ~D
VJ 0~ V1
-y M VI
V1 .~ tri ri
0~ ~ v0
O V1 0~ ~G
~G M ~D *^
l~ N ~O ~D N
DO ~ V) .~ ~
~D Or
VI O~
V1 l~
a
~ O
a N M VI N ~-+
.. +-+ N ~ N M ~D ~ N M M N
~.
a '" '" '"
oo••o~a r o00 0 00 0 000 0 000 0 Oaoo~no M M Oa a oa o M ~
b o MOB
~D ~ ~0 O ~
f~ ~
~ ~c
In r- O
O ~D oo
~D ~
N a
~D a
~D o
0 o
O a
00 =,
0
H a~ v~ r vi o0 0 •~ •~ •: ri e ~ o; ~ Vi vi o 0
0 0
O N 00
~ .,
N .~ •-~ r• ao
.-i 0o
~ r n oo
N r
~
~ 4
w
C~
F' Oa~GO~G N 000 0 00 0 000 0 000 0 Oa00vIO M M 00 0 O~ ~ f~ vi
°'
~ o ao~
N ~ a b r a ao
~ ~ o
~ o
~ ~ a oo
~ n
d ~D
V1 O
~
ma
j
q ~ V1
i V?
i O ~D
'7 D N D D O~ C~ f M
r r~
V ~ p~
~ O
a O Q
„
y ~-
O
a0 rr
r~ ~
N
N ,-
,~ r
~ ~ r+ ~ ~G
•~ C+
a9 C~
DO ~0
M ~0
M N
N ~+
v
aN
4
~ O L
W " a
w ~' o
w ~
~~ ~ ~,
Fr ~~ ~
~ z •E
y v
4
°
O
O a ~ w w 'L w A
FPM ~ ,C V
w~4 r~
~/1 ~
~
~ u~ ~, w 4 ~
~?~ ~~ w ~
~~~ X
w 4
e L ~
~~ _ w
~ v
y ~
~> a
~4~
a y
d
~ ~
~~=o
a
~ z ~
w~ z ~
o
~ ~
~7 O ~a
c a ~ 4 v ~ um~ ~ w = 4 ~ ~ w u
~
_ ~
~w ~ o ,
~E~~ w
va u vav~~, V .~~vv61q C4 ~7 ~ ~C,~o ~ ""
F('a~. ~„~ ~ F~o
Q ~ ,~ F ~,Q ,~ ~~ a ,~ ~
w ~ ~ w ,~ NQNu~ cQ a,•°
~ -~ 0 ~ ~,~ w~a ~~
6
~ ~ ~
v W ~ ~ ~ L.
W
v
p
~ I.a
d Q
I y "" -
~4
~a Q
F• ~ .~f.
L
ec
Q C,
F. ~ 4. ~L
n'~ 01 ar Q
F ~" •~ I. ~
L+ 41 a+ Q
(~ C U
W CJ ~
L
W v
~ a~' Q
F a
4 CI Q
~ a+
0
F• i
41 Q
~C "I~
w L F. ~
d ~++
ca
.~ „
~ ~
wd~~~~ F ea
w~o~= o ~
z-v o „ u y
a~~~ o ~.. _
~-go o ~•
z'oy~ea o ~ a
, ~
Quo
° x~~o ~
= a~ca~~o o 4pF~~ H W~F F ~3wt~ F Q~~u F w4~uwu F o ~c~F ~'w4F o
cq 0 F oQ F a ~ V E- ~ 0 F O
r•
0
00
00
`'~`..
.•
N
0
n
~..
r-~
M
O
v
r-~
W
00
O
I1'i
y
Q~
O
M
O
M
r~
r
N
r
00
~o
r
r
..
e-
N
a
4
.~
0
00
N
~r
.•
N
r
00
00
v
r
M
O
L
W
y
C
a
a~
a
a
c
0
a
a+
A
a
A
w
0
u
c
~.
.~
w
a
D
U
U
I
-}~
`ti-
1-'l
`V
~~,,nn
~1
O
1~
N
V
10
0
0
i
ry
~~~yy
ri~l
V
d
~ 01
0
~ Q
N
~ ~
^I
~.~~
~, ~ ~
~ ~ ti
~z~
~ ~
..a
~ O W
o ~~ ~,
+~+ ~ ~
.~+ +~
'IJ ~
~y
~r "~ V1
~ MM~ r~I
Y+I w
.C ~
Q
x
iii 1D vi ~ N N r o0
,c o c, M o ~~
~ ~ ~ ~o ~ M r
~ r
~
~'"
~ O 00 r ~fi ~D U7 V7
~ C~ M `'' rl ~
~p v
GQ
~ ~ N r.r V N v v
O
L
~ N ~D ~l ~ N N n 0~
~ n ~ o°o r~i rc'i ~ ~
~
~
`~
' h ~
++ ~ 0 y,.0
o
Q
-
0~0 n M o i
C 0
0
OD
~' N
~ ~ N ~
a v ~
~f l O N N r
~ ~ 1"7 M N
L
~ O p
~ O 0p
~ OQ
rti OQ
~
CJ ~' N N v ~
~ a
O
OD .-. r-.
,O ~ .~ .~ (~ N r-i
O V7
OD
,~ V i
0p
.ti lf1
00
r-i
~
aN
a N N
.. N
..-
~ ~D b '~ N ~ O
~ M V1 C+ O N
DO oG O ~G M M
00
C~ w ~ O ~ QO ~ N O
~ a°o `~ M ~' ~ `~ ~
W
EJ ~ N
~" `-'
u
u
'ti
sr
~ M a ~ rv
.,
o
~+
~ o ° v goo rN,
w w w o
y •" ~ ~0 ~ OG ~ N
v `~
L ~G
~,
C ~o
N
G ~ ~
i.y .
d
Q~ ~ C~ N M N
~ O OC C~ r
tl7 N N O^ ~
O N
~
v, p~ M rr ~ ~
M ~
v Ili
~ 00
G. o '-' ~
~
~ wN
~
I:i
0
c N
4 .. oo
o~ ~ a, r r
N o0
by
W a
V M DO N O~ ~D O
M ~ H rl
~
N ~
~ O
N `. M
e
Q
r o0 0 0 00 ~n
a~ b ~ ~ ~ nOiw oNO o'"D
~ op ~ ~ O M ~ n
~ V N
Q+ v
!0
W
, ~D ~fi R O ~ Op
~
L
~ p
L1 N r a M N
~ ~D O M
rr ~ rl ~' a
M
DO
+~
~
a ~
4 u
n ~r o ~
~ ~ ~a ~
~ a~ o ,~
o. M
~a
0 0 0 -. v -. o0
~l G
0 '~t N
`
' N *~
`~'
14
~ N
~
a -
w
v ~ us o n r
W , ooaw o o °o r
a~
CN
a ti N N ~
~ o o ~ ~
b rN- ~ °o ~ o
a o ~ o0 0 00
C C N v ~ ~+
~
rT
W
V
~' ~ ~D O O '~D Ifi
~ ~ M o
O t+, r
ro M ~
O ~ M
u- ; ~
O O 00
~ .. ^' o0 •~
M
~
~ p ~/ `r ~
~N
4
C
a~ C~
G ~ ~ K.' Vl
~ v
a ~,
U e q
A 0.
W ~ Q ~ ~
~ ~
~
C W 47 6~
.
~ W ~ 0. d ~ •~ ~ 0 ~
~, r a~ ~ .C° au ~ °' 0. a w
~ o v ~~ W a o ~ U
-.~ V ~ E a
~
~
~ L. ~ ~, C
C 0 ,
~~
rr
~ 3 ~
G ~i W ~ ~ z c~.
~ ~ i
~ 'd u u ~ u ~ 4 ~ w
~, ~ ~ Q ~ ~ m ~ ~' ~ ~ ~
~
Q W y ~ y ~ w a O ~ 61
~~~ F
~ x Q a
o ue
~7 ~~~
/"~ /
00~00~ GO C
MOM aoO o
w w
~N~ ~~ 4
N N ~ ~
OONON 00 G
MOM O C
00 Q~ r ~ ~
wrlM ~ ~
N N v ~
N N 00 C
M M
~ V1
~ ~
N N
~ ~ 00 G
M N'w
DO o0
r~ rti
N N
00 00 G
O O O C
YO1 vOi VO1 u
N N N, r
00 00 c
°a°o 0o r
00 o c
O~ O+ C~ C
ti ~ ~
•- ~
.. r
O o0 C
'~ ~
~ ~
v ~
0 00
o c
v ~
0 0o c
O O O IC
00
0
0
.;
0
..
i °o°o c
~ oo c
vi o ~
~ ~• O c
a v r•i
+~ O o c
~ a,
00 oa
a o
N N
a o 0o c
00 °a °~ c
~o ~
0 0
V+ ~-
re r~ O O ~
c, c,
00 OD
O O
v v
L L
C C h
Vl
V
DL
~ ~ ~+ •~
~~ C ~ Q
~ u
a~ a
a
~
~ ~~ ~ y a
~
~ G
°'
'
~, ~, ~
~ c
d
~ ~
~
H C .~
y ~ ~
~~
5~z
~ ~W ~~
Q
« y
Qworo
«C~'~U h
~
Q
p
sa .. ~ v ~
e ~~ ~ ~A oz z
ooxx u uu~a
Attachment 2
PROPOSED REVISED SCHEDULE OF EMP AND CIP PROJECTS
JULY 1, 2008 -JUNE 30, 2009 (FY2009)
~. -
. _ . - :~
- ~~,~ .. v P ~~Rr~ ~ osed
~,~ ~A ro ed~ .ro osed o
~~ ~ ~'~
~~~
. p
.pp p
:: - -
_ ,;
~~ , .
.. CI .C1P~
~E M P~ & P~~ ~.E ~l ~P
Pro ect~ - ~:
- ~.
J
~No~ . ~.Project~:Description :: ~ , ~~.. ~ : ~ . ~ ~~~FY2~~9' ~~F-Y2009~~.~ - .FY2009
H~USiNG AUTH~~RITY'GE~NERAL1FUND: ~ . ~ :.~~ . .~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
GF1-09 Two new office copiers 0 16,400
PROPOSED TOTALS 0 0 16,400
. ,
ES;PERANZA
ESP1=09 __ Replace_kitchen_cabinets/counter_____________ _________ 0 ___ _ 15,000
------------------- ----------------- ---- - -
--ESP2-09 __ Resurface Play~round_Areas ------------------------------------- ----------------- ------16,360 ------------- 0
............... ............................... 0 0
PROPOSED TOTALS 0 16,360 15,000
EAGLE VILLAGE. AN D- PARROT VI LLAG~E ~ 1 ~ ~ ..:: ~ : ~ ~ ~ .
0
0 0
0
PROPOSED TOTALS 0 0 0
HDUSIN~G :AUTH~~RI.TY-OWNED ~ . ~ :: ~ ~ -~ : ~ : ~ ~ ,~ ~ - .:
Existing A~~raved Housing Authority_Owned_Pro~ects__ ___
Replace kitchen cabinets~countertops, repaint and change
ABD1-09__ floorin~_as_needed ~3~d12nd Floo~~_______________________________
ABD2-09 _ Replace_exposed piping for heating system ___________________
__LVU2:08 Replace_windows_______
SH3-08 __ Replace_remainin~ windows _
LIN3-OS Re lace decorative roof shin les 135,50
_______60,000
__ ___0
__ 8,000
__ 5,400
3,500 _______10,00
___ __ D
_
____ ~
0
6,530 125,500
_____10,000
_ 37,000
_ 11,800
13,100
0
PROPOSED TOTALS 312,400 16,530 351,400
1NDEPENDENCE~PLAZA: ~:;~= :~.. ~ ~, - . ~ _ ~ _
IP1-09 Build new arkin area for 20 cars 190,000 0 250,000
0 0
PR4PGSED TOTALS 190,000 0 250,000
,, .; .
PRaP~S~ED-GRAND~:TOTALS.. ~ ~ ..... ~ . ~ .~ ~ .. ~
-502,404
,32;,890
638,800
Current Approved EMP/CIP Total $502,400
Proposed Revised EMP/CIP Total $671,690
Difference $1 fi9,290
Attachment 2. to Agenda ftem #2-B CC
1-06-09 HABaC
Attachment 3
PHA Board Resolution U.S. Department of Housing 4M6 No. 2577-0026
Approving Operating Budget and Urban Development ~exp.10131l2009~
Office of Public and Indian Housing -
Real Estate Assessment Center ~PIH-REACT
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including the time far reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This agency may not collect this information, and you are not required
to
complete this farm, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This information is required by Section 6(cj(4) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The information is the operating budget for the low-income public housing program and provides a
summary of the propased~budgeted receipts and expenditures, approval of budgeted receipts and expenditures, and justification of certain specified amounts, FIUD reviews the
information to determine if the operating plan adapted by the public housing agency (PHA and the amounts are reasonable, and thak the P»A is in compliance with procedures
prescribed by FEUD. Responses are required to obtain benefits. This information does not lend itself to confidentiality.
PHA Name: Housing Authority of the City of Alameda PHA Code: CA062
PHA Fiscal Year Beginning: _ July ~, 2008 _ _ Board Resolution Number:
Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the above-named PHA as its Chairperson, I make the following
certifications and agreement to the Department of Housing and Urban Development THUD} regarding the Board's
approval of check one or more as applicable}:
DATE
^ Operating Budget approved by Board resolution on:
^ Operating Budget submitted to HUD, if applicable, on:
Q Operating Budget revision approved by Board resolution on: 0110612009
^ Operating Budget revision submitted to HUD, if applicable, on:
I certify on behalf of the above-named PHA that:
1. All statutory and regulatory requirements have been met;
~. The PHA has cuff cient operating reserves to meet the working capital needs of its developments;
a, Proposed budget expenditure are necessary in the eft cient and economical operation of the housing for the purpose of
serving low-income residents;
4. The budget indicates a source of funds adequate to cover all proposed expenditures;
5. The PHA will comply with the wage rate requirement under 24 CFR 968.110~c} and ~f}; and
b. The PHA will comply with the requirements for access to records and audits under 24 CFR 968.11 Obi}.
I hereby certify that all the information stated within, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith,
if applicable, is true and accurate.
Warning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal andlor civil penalties. ~ 18
U.S.C. 1001,1010,1012.31, U.S.C. 3729 and 3802}
Print Board Chairperson's Name: Signature: Date;
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Previous editions are obsolete form HUD-525T4 ~08120Q5}
Attachment 3 to Agenda Item #2-BCC
t-06-49 HABOC
.~
~~ a rr R4.
•a•
~ r, ~ ~i
~~l~~lll
~uthori
t~.e
~ ~~t ~~
~~
am~da
lp1 AtiantioAvenue -Alameda, California 945p1-161-Tel: {510} 747-4300 ~ Fax: {5~0}~~~-754 - TDD: {51Q} ~~2-8457
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Board of Commissioners
From: Debra Kurita
Chief Executive Officer
Date: January 6, 2009
Re: Approve Submission of an Application to the U.S. Department of Housin
g
and Urban Develo ment for Section S Famil Unification Pro ram Vouchers
BACKGROUND
On November 24, 2008, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
THUD} issued a 2005 Notice of Funding Availability ~NOFA} inviting public housing
authorities to apply for Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers under the Family Unification
Program FUP}. Funding nationwide is set at $20 million. FUP provides homeless and
poorly housed families in the child welfare system with decent and affordable housing
and supportive services to allow parents tv reunite with their children. FUP vouchers
also are available to prevent homelessness of youth who age out of the foster care
system.
The FUP is administered through partnerships between public housing authorities and
public child welfare agencies. Housing authorities issue Section S FUP vouchers to
families and former foster youth certified as eligible for the program by the child welfare
agency. Child welfare agencies assist housing authorities in gathering the necessary
Section 8 paperwork and provide services to help the households obtain and maintain
safe, stable and permanent housing.
Families and former foster youth in the child welfare system face many economic
challenges. Child welfare agencies work with families to meet these challenges and, as
a result, the majority of children reunite safely and successfully with their parents.
Nearly a third of the 500,400 children in the foster care system, however, remain
separated from their parents because the family lacks safe, decent housing. Keeping
these children in foster care is costly. On average, it costs nearly $45,000 per family for
children to enter foster care. By contrast, it costs just over $15,000 annual) to house a
y
famlly and provide supportive services.
DISCUSS[ON
Housing Authority staff met with staff from Alameda County Social Services Agency
~SSA~ and Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Service {BRCS} on Wednesda
y
December 17, 2008, as we[I as representatives from other housing authorities in
Alameda County. This meeting was held to determine the need for the FUP in our
jurisdictions. The meeting also provided an opportunity to determine if an application
submitted by the Alameda Housing Authority might be successful.
HABOC
Item #2-C CC
1-06-09
Honorable Chair and Janua 6, 2009
rY
Members of the Board of Commissioners Pa e 2 of 2
g
Attached is information provided by the Alameda County Department of Children and
Family Services Attachment A}, This chart shows that there are 19 children in 13
families currently receiving family maintenance services through that agenc .Another
Y
14 children in 10 families also are receiving family reunification services. These data
show tha# there are currently 23 families in Alameda that would benefit from Section 8
FUP Vouchers. For a Housing Authority the size of Alameda, we may apply for up to 50
vouchers.
The Alameda County and Oakland Housing Authorities have submitted applications for
FUP Vouchers in the past. one application was successful, the other was not.
Chances of success must be measured by the criteria that HUD plans to use in
selecting housing authorities for this program. Under the formula, California housing
authorities would be able to obtain approximately 284 vouchers. The process is not
competitive; however, to qualify, a housing authority must meet specific criteria. The
Alameda Housing Authority should be able to meet the qualifying criteria. If other
housing authorities throughout the state also meet the criteria, the number of vouchers
available will be inadequate to meet the need. When this situation existed previously,
HUD provided vouchers at a later date when additional funding became available. As
such, the Housing Authority recommends applying for Section 8 FUP vouchers.
The meeting with local service agencies and other housing authorities took place on the
morning of the Housing Commission meeting; therefore, it was not possible to include
this topic on the agenda for the Commission's formal recommendation. At the meeting,
however, the topic of applying for Section 8 FUP vouchers was discussed. The
Commissioners individually expressed support for the application.
FISCAL IMPACT
If awarded 50 FUP vouchers the Housing Authority will receive approximately $570,400
annually in Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments and approximately $48,000
annually in Section 8 Administrative Fees.
RECaMMENDATI4N
The Chief Executive Officer recommends the Board of Commissioners approve Housing
Authority submittal of an application to HUD for 50 Section 8 Family Reunification
Vouchers.
Respectfully submitted,
~_
~~~
Michael T. Pucci
Executive Director
MTP:caw
Attachment:
A. Alameda County Dept. of Children and Family Services
Alameda County Department of Children and Family Services
Children and families served by Housing Authority, November 2008
Children ~ families receiving Family Maintenance services
Alameda City Housing Authority
Berkeley Housing Authority
Livermore Housing Authority
Oakland Housing Authority
Alameda Cvunty Housing Authority
Children Families
19 13
21 15
49 25
2l2 1l9
369 209
Children ~ families receiving Family Reunification services
Alameda City Housing Authority
Berkeley Housing Authority
Livermore Housing Authority
Oakland Housing Authority
Alameda County Housing Authority
Children Families
14 10
26 18
15 14
152 119
202 132
Attachment A. to Agenda Item #2-C CC
I-06-09 HABOC
^ ^
~'rocCamation
I~V~`f~R~~IS, the American Red Cross Northern California Blood Services Region
distributes 130,000 pints of blood per year for the protection of local
patients, yet fewer than 100,000 pints of blood are collected in the
region annually; and.
W~f~R~flS, one blood ;donation .may help save three lives; and
1N}f~R~~r4S, sQiYie 40 percerifi of the public is eligible to d+~nafe, yet fewer than 5
percent{;donate blood;. and
W}~£R~~4S, there is a need for additional healfhy, regular: volunteer donors to
join . the ranks of"those who already give- 'of themselves so
generously; ,and -
W~`f~R~~4S, there is a need for..ci~ic and service organizations-:and businesses to
sponsor k~Tood drives..
IOW, 7r}f~IZ~~O2~ l3'~ Ir ~~SOLV~'7, t11at.I, Beuerly j: Johnson, do hereby
proclaim the month of January- as
Natu~v~a~L 31.o~aaL.~o-vi,ar l~1 o-vitlti
in the City of Alameda and hope all residents will pay tribute to those among us who
donate for others in need. I urge residents in good health to donate regularly and all
civic and service organizations and businesses, if they have not already done so, to form
blood donor groups to provide blood for others.
ev r j. hnson
Mayor
City council
Agenda Item #3-A
01-06.09
^
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ~APFA} MEETING
TUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 18, 2008- -?:32 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 11:36
p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Authority Members deHaan,
Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA ITEM
X08- CC} Resolution No. 14287, "Authorizing the Execution and
Delivery of an Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement Related to the
Partial Prepayment and Defeasance of the Alameda Public Financing
Authority's Series 2004 Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes Alameda
Power & Telecom}, and Approving Related Documents and Actions."
Adopted; and
X08- APFA} Resolution No. 08-18, "Authorizing the Execution and
Delivery of an Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement Related to the
Partial Prepayment and Defeasance of the Authority's Series 2004
Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes Alameda Power & Telecom}, and
Approving Related Documents and Actions." Adopted; and
X08- CC A} Ordinance No. 2986, "Approving and Authorizing the
Execution of All Necessary Agreements and Documents for the Sale of
the Alameda Power & Telecom Telecommunications Business Line to
Comcast of Alameda, Inc." Passed.
The Alameda Power & Telecom SAP&T} General Manager gave a Power
Point presentation.
~**
X08- CC} Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of continuing the meeting
past midnight.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
~**
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether tonight's presentation was
provided to the Public Utilities Board last night.
Special Joint Meeting 1
Alameda City Council and Alameda Public
Financing Authority Meeting
November 18, 20Q6
The AP&T General Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the
presentation was provided to the public at a workshop last
Wednesday.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member Tam inquired what the projected net
loss would be after repaying loans, transaction costs, and the
employee severance agreement; stated that she is trying to
understand potential impacts on electric rates.
The AP&T General Manager responded the $44 million interfund
transfer would be written off and carried as an asset on the
electric books and a debt on the telecom books; electric assets
would be reduced by approximately $40 million for a total of $120
million; rating agencies look at AP&T as a cash flow business;
asset value is a factor, but not a primary factor; the main concern
is whether the electric business would have telecom interfund
transfers in the future; the sale would remove said possibility;
telecom interfund transfers are a negative; the positive side is
having a powerful portfolio, which is mostly renewable power; most
utilities need to buy additional renewable power; the impact will
most likely be positive.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan requested information on the
$2.2 million transfer from the General Fund.
The AP&T General Manager stated the $2.2 million is part of the
litigation; that he will need to defer comment until litigation is
complete; the $2.2 million was advanced to AP&T from the General
Fund as part of the financing for system construction.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the $2.2
million would not expire because of the proposed transaction.
The AP&T General Manager responded the issue would be discussed
with the external auditors and would be influenced by pending
litigation.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan requested information on
litigation exposure.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she would provide
information in a confidential, attorney--client privileged memo;
currently, there are two lawsuits; the City has been sued by
Vectren who was the original partner; Vectren sued the City because
of allegations that the system should have made a larger net
profit; the City is also in litigation with Nuveen because Nuveen
would be receiving fifty cents on the dollar if the system is sold.
Special point Meeting 2
Alameda City Council and Alameda Public
Financing Authority Meeting
November l8, 200$
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.
Proponents ~In favor of the staff recommendations}: Kevin Kennedy,
City Treasurer; Former Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the
public portion of the meeting.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan stated that he wholeheartedly
supports selling the system; employees have been exceptional; a lot
of people think that the system should not be sold, but he
disagrees; the industry is more competitive than expected; that he
commends everyone for putting the matter into prospective.
Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore complimented the AP&T
General Manager and employees; stated that she is in support of the
sale, but the issue is bitter sweet; the proposed sale is the
fiscally responsible thing to do; customer service has been
personable, attentive, and timely; the service has been great for
the community.
Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese thanked the AP&T General
Manager and employees for all the work and great service; stated
there is no other choice than to sell the system; the note exceeds
the value of the system; AP&T is unable to compete in the telecom
market.
Mayor/Chair Johnson thanked the Public Utilities Board for the hard
work and exceptional advice.
Vice Mayor/Councilmember Tam stated the environment was different
ten years ago when the community voted to enter the telecom
business; fifteen thousand residents subscribe to the system;
thanked subscribers for support; stated the City Council will work
with the Public Utilities Board to provide opportunities to
increase competition in order to provide competitive rates for
Alameda residents; thanked the City Manager/Executive Director,
City Attorney/Legal Counsel, and AP&T General Manager for the
intense effort to get the best deal; stated that she is in favor of
the sale.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she appreciates the AP&T General
Manager's comments regarding current and future re-organization to
ensure that AP&T is operating in the most efficient way; that she
appreciates the pro-active approach.
Special faint Meeting 3
Alameda City Council and Alameda Public
Financing Authority Meeting
November 18, 2006
Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore moved adoption of
resolutions and passage of ordinance.
Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJQURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 12:26 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Alameda Public Financing
Authority
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting 4
Alameda City Council and Alameda Public
Financing Authority Meeting
November 18, 2008
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - - - - DECEMBER 2, 200$ - - - - 7;30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:39 p.m. Vice Mayor
Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance.
RQLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor Johnson -- 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
Nane.
PRQCLAMATIQNS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CQNSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the
Quarterly Sales Tax Report [paragraph no. OS- ]; the
recommendation to accept the Special Tax [paragraph no. 08- ];
the recommendation to approve an Agreement [paragraph no. OS- ];
the recommendation to accept the annual review [paragraph no. 08-
]; and the recommendation to award a Contract [paragraph no. 08-
] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
~*OS- } Minutes of the Special and Adjourned Regular City Council
Meetings held on November 6, 2008. Approved.
~*08- } Ratified bills in the amount of $2,595,473.24.
~*O8- ~~ } Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Treasury Report
for the period ending September 30, 2008. Accepted.
SOS- } Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the period ending June 30, 2008.
Regular Meeting 1
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
Councilmember deHaan requested additional information on auto sale
losses.
The Interim Finance Director stated the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
is starting to show a gradual decline in sales tax; the City
budgeted $4.8 million and received $4.6 million for Fiscal Year
2007-2008 sales tax; the total sales tax loss is approximately
$680,000 for automobile sales services; staff will be doing a
comprehensive Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget review; policy choices
will need to be made; $5.1 million has been budgeted for sales tax
for this Fiscal Year; projections are accurate.
The City Manager stated the loss of one dealership was budgeted
this fiscal year.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there may be further impacts
because of associated businesses; stated used car dealerships and
repairs shops could close.
The Interim Finance Director stated staff would review the matter.
Councilmember deHaan stated sales tax increased by 1400 for the
Bridgeside Shopping Centre; Towne Centre is showing an increase;
that he is concerned with the area south of Lincoln Avenue on Park
Street; Webster Street is doing better; catalyst projects are
anticipated for the south of Lincoln Avenue area; that he is
surprised that sales tax increased by only $5,100.
The Interim Finance Director stated an Off Agenda Report could be
provided on the matter.
Mayor Johnson stated Park Street had a boom last year; the City is
very fortunate to have redevelopment on Park Street, the Bridgeside
Center and Webster Street; auto dealership losses are out of the
City's control; that she appreciates the Harbor Bay Business Park,
but the Business Park does not create a lot of revenue.
The Interim Finance Director stated a major Harbor Bay Business
Park business did not report correctly; the business still has an
outstanding amount that needs to be corrected.
Mayor Johnson stated people need to see that the Harbor Bay
Business Park does not generate a lot of sales tax; the area is
appreciated for job generation; inquired whether figures noted on
Attachment 1 are for the unincorporated area of Alameda County.
The Interim Finance Director responded numbers represent all cities
Regular Meeting 2
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2x08
in Alameda County.
Mayor Johnson stated the average per capita sales tax for Alameda
County is $126; Alameda is still below the county average.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $1.1 million assigned
to Alameda by the State Board of Equalization skews the numbers.
The Interim Finance Director responded the amount is not reflected
in the current losses; stated the City would start repayment in the
second calendar year quarter of Fiscal Year 2010; eight quarters
are the maximum allowed for repayments.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the mistake was not the City's.
The Interim Finance Director stated the State Board of Equalization
will split the money if the City can provide proof that the firm
existed in Alameda in 1999-2000.
Vice Mayor Tam stated sales tax transactions for the area south of
Lincoln on Park Street do not capture the full affect of the
theater opening; numbers should go up.
Mayor Johnson stated the City is doing pretty well; that she is
impressed that the City is still holding ground and is ahead in
some areas.
The Interim Finance Director stated sales tax has increased
approximately two to three percent more than expected from July to
December.
Mayor Johnson stated sales tax revenue would increase by $4.2
million if the City was closer to the county average in spending.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not want revenue gain to
be at the expense of something else.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -- 5.
X08- } Recommendation to accept the Special Tax and Local Bond
Measure Annual Report.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that Measure 0 Fiscal Year 2007-2008 bond
revenues, including interest income, seem to be less than
Regular Meeting 3
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
expenditures; inquired whether the issue would put the City in a
deficit mode moving forward for branch libraries improvements.
The Interim Finance Director responded in the negative; stated
there is a positive fund balance in the debt service; the City does
not want to over collect and is required to use interest earned;
the fund has a positive fund balance of $357,000, which is enough
to offset any unearned interest to help pay the debt service.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is concerned that there may be less
money for the branch libraries.
The Interim Finance Director stated that she would do some
forecasting regarding available branch library improvement
financing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City is obligated to make
library branch improvements.
The Interim Finance Director stated that she would provide an Off
Agenda report on the matter.
The City Manager stated bond proceeds are in a different fund.
The Interim Finance Director stated the report is for the debt
service fund specifically and includes money collected on tax rolls
to pay the principle and interest on the debt and any interest
earned in addition to improvements.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the next step for the strategic
Library planning.
The Assistant City Manager responded the Architect contract would
be coming to Council early next year.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Bayport Community Facility District
generated $474,000; expenditures are $150,000; inquired what
happens to the delta.
The Interim Finance Director responded a traditional Codified
Community Facilities District debt has a variety of formulas;
stated the City has elected to assess it on a flat line
consistently; the fund has a significant balance of approximately
$500,000 to $600,000; the balance would be drawn down once the
project is built out; funds will be needed for infrastructure
maintenance and services.
Regular Meeting 4
Alameda City Council
December 2, 20Q8
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the funds are isolated for
the project, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what would happen if there were not
enough funding.
The Interim Finance Director responded a public hearing would be
needed to change the assessment.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
X08- ~ Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Ian Wolfe
Ross Urban Design in the amount of $98,254 to develop zoning
regulations and design guidelines for the Park Street Commercial
District and authorize the City Manager to approve a Contract
amendment of up to ten percent, if needed, for unexpected
contingencies.
Mayor Johnson requested the Ranger Pipelines Contract [paragraph
no. OS- ] be addressed at the same time; stated contingencies
need to be monitored; the City expects contractors to come in at or
under the bid amount.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether funding has been approved or
is waiting Council approval.
The City Engineer responded the City is obligated to finish paying
for the project; stated the City is not obligated for projects
going out to bid; recently, contingency funds from other sewer
projects were used for a sink hole at the intersection of Lincoln
Avenue and Eighth Street; contingency uses can be tracked.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association ~PSBA~, urged approval
of the recommendation to approve an Agreement with Ian Wolfe Ross
Urban Design; stated the Planning and Building Department noticed
loopholes in the CC district; that he hopes the issue will be
addressed along with the north of Lincoln Avenue zoning.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendations.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting 5
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
X08- } Recommendation to award a Contract in the amount of
$315,210 including contingencies, to Ranger Pipelines for Alameda
Power & Telecom Webster Street Joint Trench Utility Relocation
Project, No. P.W. 08-08-23.
Refer to the Ian Wolfe Contract [paragraph no. OS- ] for the
discussion and motion.
~*0.8- } Recommendation to accept Affordable Housing
ordinance Annual Review. `
X08- } Recommendation to accept the annual review of the
Citywide Development Fee and the Fleet Industrial Supply
Center/Catellus Traffic Fee.
Councilmember deHaan requested additional information on the
matter,
The City Engineer stated the Citywide Development Fee was initiated
in 2001; there are approximately 35 projects; the cost in 2001 was
approximately $99 million; a portion was to be funded by new
development; the other portion was to be funded by existing
development; staff is presenting what the fees are for new
development; the Bey Area construction cost index is used; fees are
increased every July along with the Master Fee Plan.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much the fee increased from last
year, to which the Development Services -Director responded 1.70.
Councilmember deHaan stated the concern is lack of new
construction; inquired whether costs are going down.
The City Engineer responded costs are going down substantially;
stated bids have been coming in much lower than estimated.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
~*08- } Recommendation to accept the work of D&D Pipelines, Inc.,
for Woodstock storm drain improvements, No. P.W. 06-08-18.
Accepted.
~*08- } Recommendation to accept the work of Saurez & Munoz
Construction, Inc., for Rittler Park irrigation and field
Regular Meeting 6
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
renovation improvements, No. P.W. 11-07-34. Accepted.
~*08- } Recommendation to accept the work of Redgwick
Construction, for Fernside Boulevard bike path and street
improvements, San Jose Avenue to North of Otis Drive, No. P.W. 03-
08-10. Accepted.
~*08- } Recommendation to accept the work of Pacific Liners
Pipeline Rehabilitation for the Citywide sewer mains and laterals
video inspection, No. P.W. 10-06-21. Accepted.
~*08- } Recommendation to accept the work of Schaaf & Wheeler
Consulting Civil Engineers for Storm Drainage Study, No. P.W. 03-
07-08. Accepted.
(*08- } Recommendation to adopt the Proposition 1B Local Streets
and Roads Funding Proposal for Fiscal Year 2008/2009, and authorize
the City Manager to execute all necessary documents. Accepted.
~*08-- } Resolution No. 14288, "Reappointing T. David Edwards as
Trustee of the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Board."
Adopted.
~*08- } Resolution No. 14289, "Declaring the Canvass of Returns
and Results of the Consolidated General Municipal Election held on
November 4, 2008, including Enacting ordinance No. 2987 N.S.,
Amending Section 3-58 of Division 1 of Article II of Chapter III of
the Alameda Municipal Code, the Real Property Transaction Tax."
Adopted.
~*08- } "Resolution No. 14290, "Granting Another Designated Period
for Two Years Additional Service Credit as Provided for Under
Contract Amendment Between the City and the Public Employees'
Retirement System, and California Government Code Section 20903.
Adopted.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
X08- } The City Manager provided an update on the sale of the
AP&T telecom system.
Councilmember deHaan stated recording studio closures are not
connected with the AP&T telecom sale.
Mayor Johnson stated recording studio closures are the result of a
change in federal law.
The City Manager stated Comcast is closing down three of five
Regular Meeting 7
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
studios and will no longer be in the production business for
community groups.
Mayor Johnson stated public access channels still needs to be made
available.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
X08- } Public Hearing to consider ordinance No. 2988,
the Moratorium on the Establishment or Expansion
Marijuana Dispensaries Until June 30, 2010." Passed.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.
"Extending
of Medical
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how the proposed extension would
affect the Planning and Building Department fund.
The Supervising Planner responded the matter would be put into the
work program,
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether something else would get
bumped.
The Supervising Planner responded staff is considering its next
work program; stated that she does not anticipate anything being
bumped.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has a hard time believing
that the budget will not be impacted.
Councilmember Gilmore stated adding the matter to the existing work
program causes the extended timeline.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the issue needs to be watched.
Councilmember deHaan requested further information on the on-going
hearing.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that she declines to comment
other than to say that the hearing was held on November 18; stated
the Hearing officer will issue a decision.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff can provide a
description of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson responded the hearing was about revocation of the
license.
Regular Meeting 8
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
The Assistant City Attorney stated that a letter was sent out in
order to show cause for a business license revocation hearing
pursuant to the Municipal Code.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents
Christian
Association,
~In favor of Ordinance: Dion Evans, Chosen Vessel
Church; Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business
submitted handout; Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Opponent Not in favor of Ordinance: Scot Candell, Americans for
Safe Access .
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember deHaan moved passage of Ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -- 5.
~O8- } Public Hearing to consider Introduction of an Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 24-10 Cost
Recovery for False or Non-Emergency Response} to Chapter XKIV
Public Health}. Continued.
Mayor Johnson stated the report was well done except there needs to
be more clarity on what the City will charge for and associated
fees; inquired what the cost would be for three firefighters and an
apparatus for a half an hour.
The Fire Marshall responded $210; stated the cost is $420 per hour
for a Captain, Apparatus Operator, and Firefighter.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether hourly rates are calculated on full
costs.
The Fire Marshall responded in the affirmative; stated costs
include full benefits.
Mayor Johnson stated that the numbers need to be checked; charges
need to be provided as well as who is responsible for payment;
language needs to be clarified; building owners need to be
responsible for commercial building calls; the Fire Department
should not respond to repeated calls at the Laundromat on Park
Street.
Regular Meeting 9
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
The Fire Marshall stated language can be added.
Councilmember Matarrese stated dollar figures need to be added;
inquired whether the Fire Department deals with chronic
emergencies, to which the Fire Marshall responded infrequently.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a trigger point needs to be
established for maintenance issues.
Mayor Johnson stated that people should not call the Fire
Department for water heater issues.
The Fire Marshall stated a pilot light could be extinguished if a
basement floods and would create a natural gas leak.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Fire Department would turn off
the gas valve, to which the Fire Marshall responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the gas main would not be turned off.
The Fire Marshall responded service would be turned off to the
entire building.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Fire Department provides emergency
services; commercial businesses can take care of maintenance
issues.
Mayor Johnson stated most taxpayers object to tax dollars being
used to pump out basements or lock outs.
The Fire Marshall stated the Fire Department does not respond to
non-emergency car lock outs.
Mayor Johnson inquired about house lock outs.
The Fire Marshall stated the Police Department would be called for
identification purposes; people are advised to call a locksmith if
there is not an emergency; the Fire Department would charge for the
call.
Mayor Johnson stated that people need to know the dollar amount of
the call.
vice Mayor Tam inquired whether costs are recovered for fire
inspection as noted in the Laundromat situation, and whether the
matter could be dealt through violations; that she does not think
Regular Meeting 1 ~
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
that $420 per hour is cheap.
The Fire Marshall stated the Fire Department makes sure that there
is no lint accumulation when inspections are done at laundromats.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether inspections have full cost
recovery, to which the Fire Marshall responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired how much full cost recovery would cost, to
which the Fire Marshall responded that he would provide the
information.
Mayor Johnson stated the minimum could be set at one hour instead
of a half an hour; inquired how commercial elevator calls are
handled.
The Fire Marshall responded many times the Fire Department responds
to elevator calls and finds no one in the elevator.
Mayor Johnson stated building owners could be allowed one free call
per year; other calls could be charged a one hour minimum.
Councilmember deHaan stated the hourly rate seems low.
Mayor Johnson stated fees need to be high enough that people do not
have the incentive to call the Fire Department.
Councilmember deHaan stated Council is trying to put together a
realistic cost recovery fee.
The Fire Marshall stated that he will take Council's comments back
and provide a revised report.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, urged Council to
consider one free non--emergency call for commercial business
owners.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the problem is not dust cost
recovery; the Fire Department needs to be used for emergencies
only; times are tight.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the item and
bringing the item back with suggested changes.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Tam - 1.
Regular Meeting 1 1
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
X08- } Recommendation to accept the monitoring findings and
conclusions of the Monitoring Plan for the transportation
operations at the Central Avenue and Oak Street intersection.
The Supervising Civil Engineer gave a presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether parking permits are for day use
only, to which the Supervising Civil Engineer responded in the
of firrnative .
Mayor Johnson inquired whether bike locker usage is being tracked,
to which the Supervising Civil Engineer responded that he would
provide said information.
Mayor Johnson stated the information would be useful to see how
many people use the bike lockers; inquired how the bike oasis
provides more parking.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded the bike oasis does not
provide more parking but just provides cover.
Mayor Johnson stated collisions have gone down in the area.
The Supervising Civil Engineer stated citations have increased
approximately 20%.
Mayor Johnson stated that she worries that the proposed crosswalk
might create a dangerous situation; crosswalks are a problem in the
middle of the block on Park Street; pedestrians do not always press
the light button; inquired whether it is possible to require
pedestrians to use the light button.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded making usage mandatory
would be difficult; stated one approach would be to use a laser
beam, which would automatically trigger the light.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is not thrilled about having
a crosswalk mid block; drivers are not used to the concept of
having a crosswalk mid block; inquired whether any thought has been
given to ticketing jaywalkers.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded that the Police Department
has provided information and warnings, but no citations.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she would prefer to go the
citation route before spending money to put in a crosswalk;
pedestrians would have expectations of being safe because of the
Regular Meeting 1 2
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
crosswalk; the passenger loading zone is 33 feet; inquired how many
cars fit within 33 feet.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded one car; stated four
additional spaces would be available in front of Angela's.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the bike oasis would have a
bulb out.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated
a 20 foot wide bulb out is proposed for pedestrian crossing and
cars existing Lot C.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the bulb out would not be needed if
there is no crosswalk, to which the Supervising Clvll Engineer
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated putting bike parking under the marquee would
not be a good idea; bike parking should be across the street.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the collision analysis is
reflective of the general safety of traffic f lowing in or about the
theater area; stated there was a huge increase in traffic at
Central Avenue between Park Street and oak Street from May to
August; questioned whether there is a~problem; stated the area was
a dead zone in 2005 and 2006; that he does not see any reason to do
anything other than the bulb out to protect the marquee; there is
not enough convenient bike parking.
The Supervising Civil Engineer stated collision information is one
piece of the puzzle; other information is being collected.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the area was much more dangerous
with fewer people.
The Development Services Director stated the proposed bulb out is
not just for traffic calming but is to provide additional capacity
on the sidewalk.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the issue was mitigated by working
with the operator.
The Development Services Director stated Angela's would be adding
patio dining also.
Mayor Johnson stated that a bulb out is needed to protect the
marquee; concurred with Councilmember Gilmore regarding the
Regular Meeting 1 3
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
crosswalk.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many people were observed
jaywalking.
The Police Chief responded specific data is not available.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether anyone has been ticketed for
jaywalking in front of the theater.
The Police Lieutenant responded in the negative; stated data was
not collected for tonight's report; information will be provided.
Councilmember Gilmore stated a crosswalk can always be added.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she agrees with her colleagues; a lot of
effort is being made to encourage people to use the garage; that
she would like to tease out the citation summary on Table 5,
recommendation #7; there seems to be a difference in prospective on
whether the report was responsive to Council's direction on May 6;
requested the City Clerk read the motion made by Councilmember
Matarrese on May 6.
The City Clerk read the motion; "Councilmember Matarrese moved
approval of the staff recommendation with the following direction;
a report be brought back ninety days after the Theater opens; the
Police Department is to provide enforcement and education; and that
any mitigations brought back be reviewed by interested parties."
Vice Mayor Tam stated the Police Lieutenant mentioned that
westbound traffic overtakes cars making a left turn onto Oak Street
from Central Avenue by going into the bike lane, which would not be
cited because it is not outside the norm of other intersections; of
the twenty-five citations issued in the May through August period,
none were associated with cars making said violation of the vehicle
code.
The Police Lieutenant responded in the affirmative; stated patrol
officers have been directed to provide additional enforcement at
the intersection for any or all violations; he does not have data
on how many people were stopped or how many were given a warning,
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether none of the 25 citations
issued from May through August were for overtaking another car, to
which the Police Lieutenant responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether any of the citations were
Regular Meeting 1 4
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
for jaywalking, to which the Police Lieutenant responded in the
negative; citations were issued for U-turns, turning left out of
the garage onto Oak Street, running a red light; and seat belt
violations.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the 25 citations were issued in the
block between Park Street and oak Street on Central Avenue, to
which the Police Lieutenant responded citations were issued in each
direction from the intersection [on Central Avenue and oak Street.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the bulb out and bike oasis issues
were vetted through interest groups such as Bike Alameda and
Transportation Commission.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded staff responded to Bike
Alameda concerns; stated issues were presented to the
Transportation Commission; Exhibit 1 outlines actions taken on the
Monitoring Plan.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the bulb outs and redesign were
presented to the Transportation Commission.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated
comments are noted on Page 2 of the staff report.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has the same thoughts as Vice
Mayor Tam; inquired about the Lot C exit.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated
one exit would be for a left turn, and another exit would be for a
right turn.
Councilmember deHaan stated Council has an overload of information;
questioned whether the entire area is needed far drop offs.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded all nine spaces are not
needed; stated staff feels that the drop off zone could be reduced
to four or five spaces .
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the cost for embedded lights,
to which the Supervising Civil Engineer responded $70,000.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the crosswalk idea is to address
jaywalkers.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated
another issue is bike parking.
Regular Meeting 1 5
Alameda City Council.
December 2, 2008
Mayor Johnson stated the block is short.
Councilmember Gilmore stated having the bulb out on the theater
side is important; the area gets very congested when block buster
movies are featured.
Kyle Conner, Theater Operator, stated cueing has been adjusted; the
bulb out is very important and should be done; the walkway should
be pedestrian friendly.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Operator is okay with
the passenger loading spaces.
The Operator responded in the affirmative; stated people have a
tendency to stop or do a slow roll by to see what is playing.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.
Speakers: Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda; Robb Ratto, PSBA.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the meeting.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how Ms. Gigli feels about the bike
oasis.
Ms. Gigli responded that she did not hear about the bike oasis
until yesterday; stated that she is not in a position to evaluate
the issue.
Councilrnember deHaan inquired how many people are purchasing
monthly parking permits, to which Mr. Ratto responded very few.
Councilmember deHaan stated people have to go to the top of the
structure; permit users should not be limited to the top level
during the week when the structure is not heavily used.
Mayor Johnson stated protecting the marquee is important.
The Supervising Civil Engineer stated the design ensures
protection.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the sidewalk area for
Angela's would be the same as others.
The Development Services Director responded the sidewalk area would
Regular Meeting 1 6
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
be eight feet, which is the length of the restaurant.
The operator stated the sidewalk area would be approximately two-
thirds of the building.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates all the work
that has been done; the intention is to look at what is going on in
the theater area; that he does not subscribe to needing a
crosswalk; the public would be served better by enforcing
jaywalking laws; that he opposes putting back any parking in the
area; crowd control is the responsibility of the operator; safety
is better than before; bike parking is needed and should be in Lot
C; a canopy is not needed; people can use the parking structure for
covered bike parking; that he likes the idea of a bulb out to
protect the marquee.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of two bulb outs on theater
side; installing bike racks at Lot C; not having a mid-street cross
walk; continuing traffic enforcement; and improving signage.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council needs to address the traffic
flow of Lot C tonight, to which the Supervising Civil Engineer
responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council needs to address permit
parking.
The City Manager responded permit parking would be the next step.
Mayor Johnson stated increasing the parking limit to eight hours
could be included in the motion.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she appreciates endorsing actions
included in Exhibit 1; bicycle safety should be preserved; warnings
and citations should be issued to people who violate the Vehicle
Code by using bicycle lanes to pass a car that is waiting to make a
left turn from Central Avenue onto Oak Street.
Councilmember Matarrese stated enforcement is not just for the
theater area but is a general policy of the Police Department.
Councilmember deHaan stated the bulb out protecting the marquee is
three feet out; the second bulb out is four and a half feet; bulb
outs should be the same.
The Supervising Civil Engineer stated the designs are based on how
trucks move out of the area.
Regular Meeting 1 ~
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
Councilmember deHaan stated the bigger bulb out should be closer to
the theater; the situation is unique; the bulb outs would protect
the marquee and provide an extra area for cuing; that he would not
like to set a precedent.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to have more areas to
widen sidewalks; widening sidewalks is a benefit.
Councilmember deHaan stated three feet is a good limitation.
Mayor Johnson stated the design should accomplish the goal.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that staff provide information on
bike locker usage; data on jaywalking citations; and possible
funding sources for the northern elevation facade.
oRAL COMMUNICATIONS, NoN-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
SOS- 7 Council discussion and direction regarding adoption of a
policy regarding payment to employees for all accrued time.
Mayor Johnson stated Council needs to consider developing a policy
regarding payment of accrued time; the matter is an unfunded
liability issue.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the matter is a Memorandum
of Understanding ~MOU~ issue .
Mayor Johnson stated the accrual is a M4U issue, payment is not.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the issue would be subject to
meet and confer.
Mayor Johnson requested a report on whether the matter is an MOU
issue and policy suggestions from management.
The City Manager stated a report would be provided.
Mayor Johnson stated unfunded liabilities need to be researched and
tracked.
Regular Meeting 1 8
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2H8
Councilmember Matarrese suggested requesting the Fiscal
Sustainability Committee to look at unfunded liabilities; stated
the accrual issue should be used as an example.
Councilmember deHaan stated other companies require cashing out
accrued time; that he thinks the matter is a meet and confer issue.
X08- ~ Direction regarding adoption of budget policies.
The City Manager stated budget policies would be reiterated and
expanded on at the January 6, 2009 City Council Meeting.
Mayor Johnson stated that a policy is needed to identify and
implement payment for unfunded liabilities.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the source of the policy is needed;
a policy is needed for flattening the organization and cutting
farthest from the point of service delivery.
Councilmember deHaan stated the equivalent of full time employees
needs to be discussed.
The Interim Finance Director stated each department's program would
be broken down; a laundry list would be provided to Council.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he wants to see staffing costs.
The City Manager stated that revenue sources will be included.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Planning and Building
Department's revenue stream can only be used for its activities; if
there are other revenue streams in the General Fund that can only
be used for a certain activity, Council should discuss whether the
streams should be in the General Fund or not; the public needs to
have a clear picture of what is discretionary and what is directed.
Councilmember deHaan stated a lot of General Fund staffing has a
revenue stream; the Fire Department supports the State for wild
fires; that he hopes that the City gets reimbursed for overtime.
Mayor Johnson stated the City gets some reimbursement; inquired
whether policies are compiled in one area.
The City Clerk responded the word "policies" has not always been
used in the past; the General Fund balance policy has been
captured; policies have been traced back to the mid 1994's.
Regular Meeting 1 9
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
Mayor Johnson stated policies should be categorized on the website.
The City Clerk stated that she has been working with the
Information Technology Department on the matter.
(08- } Discussion and direction regarding the proposed soft
story ordinance and schedule for implementation.
The Building Official gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why Council is receiving a report
since the item is a Council Referral.
The City Manager responded the item is for general review; stated a
public session is scheduled for January; no decision is required..
Mayor Johnson stated the matter is a significant safety issue that
needs to move forward.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Alameda Point hangers are
considered soft story structures.
The Building official responded in the negative; stated the hangers
are steel structures.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she does not think the hangers have
enough sheer walls.
The Building official stated part of the process is identifying and
defining what a soft story building is for Alameda; the real hazard
is to residential buildings.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have
information on what other cities have done and when, and how
Alameda rates.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there has been outreach to
realtors.
The Building official responded the original outreach was a public
workshop; stated additional outreach would be done with realtors
before the next workshop.
Councilmember Gilmore suggested outreach to the Rental Property
Owners Association.
Regular Meeting Z ~
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
The Building Official stated staff worked with the Apartment Owners
Association, structural engineers, lenders, and insurers at the
last workshop.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is surprised that insurance companies
would insure soft story structures.
The Building official stated insurance companies have not provided
a clear answer.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired who attended the first workshop, to which
the Building Official responded mostly apartment owners and real
estate agents.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(08- } Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Economic Development Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Horst Breuer and Justin Harrison.
X08- } Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended the League of
California Cities Board Meeting in Orange County before
Thanksgiving; the Board noted that there will not be any increase
in dues; there was a good session on efforts to put together a
Constitutional Convention to deal with the structural and political
issues on the inability of a Governor or State legislature to get
the kind of budget reforms necessary to adopt a budget; the League
is trying to help local cities deal with redevelopment fund take-
aways.
Mayor Johnson stated the Governor is calling a second emergency
session; a fiscal emergency has been declared and opens up
opportunities for the State to come after local government.
(08- } Councilmember deHaan stated the Mastick Senior Center
governing Board decided to close down Sunday activity; the closure
is not part of previous budget discussions.
The City Manager stated Mastick Senior Center has experienced
participant reduction on Sunday's since 2007; some of the programs
have been moved to Saturday or Wednesday nights.
X08- } Councilmember deHaan stated the City has some projects
that are federally funded; the wish list should be pushed.
The Deputy City Manager stated the stimulus package form is
unknown; projects need to be ready to go in 120 days; the Public
Regular Meeting ~ 1
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
Works Department is gathering information on projects that would be
ready to roll within the 124 day period; everyone is collecting
lists to prove the case of needing money.
Councilmember deHaan stated there will be first, second, and third
waves; staff cannot give up.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $108 million price tag
on the former Base could be put on the list.
The Assistant City Manager responded opportunities could include
Alameda Landing.
Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda Point remediation projects have
been designed and have not been funded in the past; the projects
would generate jobs.
X08- 7 Councilmember deHaan stated the theater projection union
has not settled; that the matter could be placed on Council
Referral .
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:18
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act,
Regular Meeting 2 2
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA} AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC} MEETING
1UC.~lini - - - li~~,~l~ltsr~tt 1e, ~uu~ - - - b: UU r.1"1.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:10
p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
[Note: Councilmember deHaan arrived at 11:09 p.m.]
Absent: None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
X08- CC/ARRA} Conference with Real Property Negotiators X54956.8};
Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating parties: City, ARRA and
SunCal; Under negotiations: Price and terms.
X08- CC} Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
~ 54 956.9 } ; Name of cases : Chow v. City of Alameda; Gong v. City of
Alameda; Velarde v. City of Alameda; Hurst v. City of Alameda.
X08- CC} Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision fib} of
Section 54 95 6.9; Number of cases : One .
X08- CIC} Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property:
1829 Paru Street, Alameda; Negotiating parties: JP Morgan--Chase
Bank and CIC; Under negotiations: Price and terms.
X08- CC} Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency Negotiators:
Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations: All Bargaining
Units.
**~
Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 7:45 p.m. to hold the
Regular City Council Meeting and reconvened the Closed session at
11:09 p.m.
**~
Special Jaint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
And Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
December 16, 2008
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Alameda Point,
Council and the ARRA received a briefing from staff regarding a
matter relating to negotiations with SunCal; Council and the ARRA
provided direction to staff and agreed to waive a legal conflict
regarding SunCal negotiations; regarding Existing Litigation,
Council provided direction to Legal Counsel regarding settlement
parameters; regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council discussed the
claim and two EEOC claims; no action was taken; Council follow up
is expected; regarding 1829 Paru Street, the Commission received a
briefing from its Real Property Negotiators and gave direction to
negotiate the purchase of the affordable unit; and regarding Labor,
Council discussed labor negotiations with its Labor Negotiator;
Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiator; no action
was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 11:3 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
And Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
December 16, 2008
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA}, AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC} MEETING
TUESDAY- -DECEMBER 16, 2008- -7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 11:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Authority Members/
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the transmittal of the CIC
Annual Report [paragraph no. 08- CC/0$- CIC] was removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved
approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
SOS- CC/OS- CIC} Recommendation to authorize the transmittal of
the Community Improvement Commission's Annual Report to the State
Controller's Office and the City Council and accept the Annual
Report.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated people have called for
independent audit of the City's books; the City gets independently
audited every year; the City Auditor is in charge of hiring an
outside, independent audit firm; the firm audits all funds,
including enterprise and special funds; the audits are available in
the City Clerk's office and on the website; compliance reports have
to be filed with the State and federal governments; a department
head spent a week doing the report, which is generally the job of
manager; the organization is so lean; there is front line staff and
only rare instances of mid level staff; department heads are doing
work which would generally be done by lower level staff; that she
was shocked to hear how much time it takes to complete the reports;
the work reports prepared a year ago listed said type of work below
the line; the focus was on the work that affects the residents and
mandated things did not receive discussion.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff
recommendation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 1
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 7.6, 2Q08
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated mandated
reports are required before the City can receive funding for a lot
of its capital projects; funding can be delayed if the reports are
not done correctly and on time.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the audits include
redevelopment.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
X08- CC/ARRA/08- CIC} Recommendation to accept transmittal of
the: 1} Auditor's Agreed Upon Procedures Report on compliance with
Vehicle Code Section 40200.3 Parking Citation Processing; 2} Agreed
Upon Procedures Report on compliance with the Proposition 111
21005-OG Appropriations Limit Increment; 3 Police and Fire
Retirement System Pension Plans 1079 and 1092 Audit Report for
Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2008; 4} Metropolitan Transportation
Commission Grant Programs Financial Statements for Year ended June
30, 2008; 5} Community Improvement Commission Basic Component Unit
Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30, 2008; and~6}
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Basic Component Unit
Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30, 2008. Accepted.
X08- CC/08- CIC} Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA
and CIC Meetings of October 7, 2008 and October 21, 2008. Approved.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 11:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lora Weisiger
City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 2
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Tmpravement Commission
December 1b, 2008
CITY 4F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Finance Director
Date: December 31, 2008
Re: List of Warrants for Ratification
This is to certify that the claims listed on the attached 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
215888 - 21 fi249 $2,772,402.94
EFT 622 $499,028.94
EFT 623 $503,192.00
EFT 624 $259,471.00
EFT 625 $7,993.50
EFT fi26 $23,769.16
EFT fi27 $7,993.50
EFT 628 $800.40
Void Checks;
EFT 622 x$499,028.94}
214413 x$45, 609.70}
215722 x$590.32}
215793 x$480.00}
215750 ~ x$600.02}
210788 ~$2, 850.00}
215798 ~ x$560.00}
215626 x$235.37}
GRAND TOTAL $3,524,fi97.09
Respectfully submitted,
C~~G~~~
Interim Finance Dire or
BILLS #4-B
Council Warrants 01/06/09 ~ 1/6/2009
CITY aF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 6, 2009
Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $298,000, lnc[uding Contingencies, to
Noll & Tam Architects, for the Design of the Neighborhood Library
!m rovement Pro ram No. P,W. 08-08-21
BACKGROUND
!n March 2000, Californians passed Proposition 14, a $350 million bond measure that
enabled cities and counties to apply for grant funding to pay for 65% of the construction
costs of a new library. In November 2000, the citizens of Alameda approved Measure
0, a $10.6 million bond measure to provide the local match for the construction costs of
a new main library, as well as funds to renovate the West End and Bay Farm Island
neighborhood libraries. On August 5, 2008, the City Council adopted the "Alameda
Free Library Strategic Plan 2009-2014," which included a needs assessment report for
the neighborhood libraries. This report stated that during "the short term, the existing
neighborhood libraries need to be remodeled within their current footprints, to refresh
the existing interiors, create environments that support the Library's strategic plan goals
and objectives, and introduce new service delivery models." To advance the
improvements to the neighborhood libraries, the City created the Neighborhood Libra
ry
Improvement Project ~NLIP}Team, composed of representatives from Library Services,
Public Works, the Library Board, the Friends of the Library, the Library Foundation, and
library users from both the Bay Farm and west End neighborhoods. The NLIP was
tasked with assisting in the selection of an architectural firm and to review the progress
of the design.
DISCUSSION
At the City's request, staff from the State Library furnished a list of fifty consultants who
had library experience working on State bond library construction projects, and who had
offices in the Bay Area or Sacramento area. To solicit the maximum number of
proposals, notification of the Request for Proposal ~RFP} was sent to all of the
consultants, A notice was also published in the Alameda Journal and on the City's
website. The City received eleven proposals, however, two proposals were determined
to be non-responsive. One of these proposal was submitted after the due date while
another was from a consulting firm that did not attend the mandatory field meeting to
review both neighborhood library facilities.
City Council
Agenda Item #4-C
4'I -06.09
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
The list of proposers includes:
January 6, 2009
Page 2 of 3
4n December 3, 2008, the NLIP Team reviewed the nine res onsive ro osals and
p pp
selected four firms for personal interviews, based on library desi n ex erience
. 9 P ,
responsiveness to information requested through the RFP, and a demonstrated
understanding of the specific neighborhood library facility issues. The individual
interviews were held on December ~6, 2008, and the NL1P Team determined that Noil
& Tam Architects was best qualified for the work based on experience, ca abilities
p
understanding of the Essues, cost, and staffing availability,
Staff proposes to award a contract to Noll & Tam Architects, for a total amount of
$298,D00, including a 20°/o contingency. The scope of work in the contract includes
design and technical support during the bid and construction phases, includin review
. g
of construction change orders. Due to the uncertainties inherent ~n buildin u rades a
9 pg ,
2D°/o contingency is recommended. A copy of the contract is on file in the Cit Clerk's
. Y
office.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funds for this contract are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Pro ram Pro'ect No,
g ~ J
90505} with monies allocated from the Measure 4 bond proceeds and its accumulated
interest Project No. 9206}. These funds are dedicated solely to im rovements for the
p
neighborhood libraries. No General Fund monies are required.
After this appropriation, $2,65 ,906 of Measure 4 bond proceeds remain for com letion
P
of the actual project construction. Should the construction bids exceed remainin bond
.. g
proceed funds, utilization of other capital funds, such as impact fees, ma be re uired.
Y q
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3
MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Award a contract in the amount of $298,000, including contingencies, to Noll & Tam
Architects, for the design of the neighborhood library improvement program, No. P.vv.
D8-O8-21.
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
j~Q,~,uusz. .,~
By: Laurie Kozisek ~
Associate Civil Engineer
and ane Chisaki
Library Director
Approved as to funds and account,
Ann Mari allant
Interim C ' f Financial officer
MTN:LK:gc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 6, 2009
Re: Authorize the City Manager to Execute Agreements for the
Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed
Project at 2229 Clement Street
BACKGRQUND
In 2008, the City of Alameda received an application to redevelop the property at 2229
Clement Avenue ~Boatworks}, which is subject to review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal will
be evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report HEIR} prepared by the City. The EIR
and the proposed project will require public hearings before the Planning Board and the
City Council, who will consider thre environmental consequences of the proposal and
determine whether the project is appropriate forAlameda.
Staff has prepared three agreements, which are on file in the City Clerk's Office, to
cover the costs and preparation of the required EIR:
1. An agreement between the project applicant and the City, in which the applicant
agrees to fund the preparation of the EIR.
2. An agreement between the City and Environmental Services Associates MESA} to
prepare the EIR.
3. An agreement between the City and Dowling Associates to prepare the
transpor#ation analysis, which will be used in the EIR prepared by ESA.
In accordance with the contracts, ESA and Dowling will be working directly with the City
of Alameda to complete the necessary environmental evaluations. The agreement with
the project applicant ensures the provision of the funds necessary to pay the costs of
the work. This agreement does not constitute any approval of the proposed project or
any alteration to it, nor predisposes the City towards any such approvals in the future.
DISCUSSION
Staff solicited proposals from three environmental consulting firms for this work. Two
f rms responded to the proposal. ESA was selected based upon their experience with
large complex development proposals, their understanding of the conditions in Alameda
City Council
Agenda Item #4-D
01.06.09
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
MESA prepared the Supplemental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Project in
2006}, and their cost competitiveness. Dowling was identified as the most qualified firm
to prepare the traffic analysis based upon their extensive experience working in the Bay
Area and their knowledge of the Gakland and Alameda transportation network. Dowling
recently completed a citywide transportation model and analysis for the City of Alameda
Transportation Element Update.
The recommended agreements are on file for public review at the City Clerks Gffice.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No City funds are involved in the preparation of this project EIR and related traffic
analysis. Approval of the agreements will ensure that the project applicant pays all
costs incurred in the preparation of the environmental documents, in accordance with
City policy.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIPQLICY DQCUMENT CRASS REFERENCE
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Alameda is required to
prepare an analysis of potential environmental effects resulting from the proposed
project.
RECQMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements for the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project at 2229 Clement Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbu ~~`
Planning and Building Department
Approved as to funds and account,
Ann M i Gallant
Interi F ante Director
C~~~
y: Andrew omas
Planning Services Manager
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 6, 2009
Re: Ada t the Le islative Pro ram for 2009
BACKGROUND
Many cities and counties adopt a legislative program annually to guide the agency's
legislative advocacy efforts during the year. Adoption of such a program enables both
the City Council and staff to react quickly to most legislative issues as they arise and
helps to ensure that there is a formal City position on a variety of legislative matters.
DISCUSSi4N
The City Council last adopted a legislative program in February 2008. That program,
which was shared with the City's state and federal representatives, guided City Council
and staff advocacy efforts during the year. Similar to last year, the issues included in
this year's program, are primarily those that the League of California Cities is tracking,
but they also include other matters that have arisen in the Legislature and Congress in
the recent past and can be expected to resurface in the future. Issues that arise mid-
yearthat are not covered by the legislative program will be brought back for City Council
consideration as needed.
In order to provide staff with the flexibility to respond quickly to legislative alerts from the
League of California Cities, the California Redevelopment Association, and other local
government advocates, the recommended legislative program contains an overarching
statement of support for local control as well as positions on broad government-related
issues.
Le islative Pro ram:
General Principle:
The City of Alameda opposes any legislation or regulations that preempt
local authority, negatively affect the City's budget, or impose unfunded
mandates on the City. The City supports the use of incentives to encourage
local government action, rather than the imposition of mandates.
City Council
Agenda item #4-E
0'I -06.09
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Revenue and Taxation:
January 6, 2009
Page 2 of l
Fiscal Reform: Since 1991, the State has drained more than $34 billion of local
property taxes from cities, counties, and special districts, costing cities alone more than
$l billion over the last 12 years. According to the League of California Cities, the State
took $52,434,482 from the City of Alameda between 1991 and the end of FY 2001-
2008. Even in years of budget surpluses, the State has used local monies to finance its
constitutional funding obligation to public education, allowing it to increase State general
fund spending for other programs at the expense of vital local services.
The passage of Proposition 1 A on the November 2004 ballot guaranteed the City some
measure of protection against future State raids. Under the terms of Proposition 1A,
however, the State can declare a fiscal emergency and once again take local revenues,
twice within aten-year period and providing prior loans have been repaid.
Earlier this year, the State took $354 million from redevelopment agencies statewide,
including more than $911,000 from Alameda's Community Improvement Commission, in
order to help balance the State budget. Despite that takeaway and other difficult
reductions, the State is facing more than a $40 billion budget deficit through the end of
FY 2009-2010. Given the magnitude of this deficit, and the current inability of the State
Legislature and the Governor to develop real solutions to this budget problem, it is likely
that the State will, once again, take local revenues to help solve its problem.
Local government cannot continue to subsidize the State. Every time Sacramento looks
to local coffers to help balance its budget, cities and counties must cut critical local
services, such as public safety and maintenance. The City opposes State efforts to take
additional local revenues and encourages the State to find other ways to balance its
budget.
Lower threshold for local special taxes: Local governments cannot easily raise
revenues. Taxes to fund specific, important services, such as park and street
maintenance, public safety, and library hours must be approved by atwo-thirds majority
of the voters. This high vote requirement makes it extremely difficult for many cities to
raise needed monies. The City therefore supports a constitutional amendment to lower
the threshold for approval of local taxes to either 55°/0 the same requirement schools
now face} or to a simple majority.
F-commerce: Sales of goods and products over the Internet pose a serious threat to
the City's overall sales tax revenue base. At a minimum, the Legislature should enact
legislation to close the loophole in current law that allows corporations with a physical
presence, or nexus, in California to evade their sales and use tax obligations by setting
up related web-based businesses based outside California.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Homeland Security and Public Safety:
January 6, 2009
Page 3 of 7
Reimbursement: Since the events of September 11th, cities have had to assume
additional staffing and equipment costs for emergency preparedness and public safety.
Although local governments are usually the first to respond in cases of natural disasters
and acts of terrorism, they receive little financial and technical assistance from the State
and federal governments. The City supports legislation to provide resources for
emergency planning, training, exercises, and equipment for emergency workers.
CAPS Funding: The City supports funding far the Citizens' Option for Public Safety
COPS} program, which helps pay for police officer salaries and benefits at levels
sufficient to enhance current services.
Fire Service Funding: The City supports funding for disaster preparedness and
training, parkicularly the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response SAFER}
program, which helps pay for firefighter salaries and benefits.
!n#eroperabilify: The City is a member of the East Bay Regional Communications
System, a Joint Powers Authority established to build and operate a coordinated public
safety communications system in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The City
supports legislation to provide funding for such systems to ensure that public safety
agencies can communicate with each other during an emergency.
Spay/Neu#er Laws: The City supports legislation to encourage spaying and neutering
of domestic cats and dogs in order to reduce overpopulation in animal shelters. A bill
currently pending in the Legislature would prohibit a person from owning a cat or dog
that is over six months old unless the animal has been spayed or neutered or the
person has a permit to own an intact animal. The bill exempts from the spaylneuter
requirement dogs used by law enforcement, fire agencies, and working dog
organizations; pets owned by licensed breeders; show animals; pets whose owners
provide a veterinarian's letter stating that it is unsafe to spay or neuter the pet because
of health risks; dogs used for herding or guarding livestock; and guide dogs. The bill
also allows households to receive an intact permit so that the family dog can have a
single litter.
Transportation and Infrastructure:
Economic Stimulus: As the economic recession deepens, both the President-elect
and Congressional leaders have been calling for an economic recovery initiative that
would include major investments in infrastructure to create jobs and fuel long-term
economic growth. Although the provisions of the stimulus bill are still being negotiated,
the bill will likely address such infrastructure investment areas as transportation, clean
water, flood control and water resources, housing, school modernization, and energy
development. It may also include funding for the Community Development Block Grant
program, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program, and public
safety. The City supports the passage of an economic stimulus bill that delivers funding
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 4 of l
directly to cities, where the monies can be used immediately to invest in infrastructure
and create jobs.
Lower fhresl~old for approval of transportation sales faxes: As stated earlier, the
City supports a constitutional amendment to lower the threshold for approval of sales
and use taxes for transportation purposes. Currently, such taxes must be approved by
two-thirds of the voters. The City supports lowering the requirement to either 55°/0 the
same requirement schools now fiace} or to a simple majority in order to provide much-
neededfunding for transit and transportation infrastructure.
Fuel fax increase: The voters last increased the State fuel tax in June 1990 when
Proposition 111 passed. This measure doubled the State fuel tax to 18 cents a gallon.
Since then, California's fuel tax rate has lost much of its buying power. The City
supports fuel tax indexing or an increase to ensure funding for local street projects and
maintenance.
Preservation of eminent domain for infrastructure and economic development:
The negative public reaction to the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo case threatens
traditional uses of eminent domain for acquisition of property needed for public
infrastructure projects and for economic development and blight removal actions
traditionally undertaken by redevelopment agencies. Proposition 98, a proposal on the
June 2008 California Ballot that was rejected by the voters, would have limited the use
and increased the costs to acquire property, thereby having a direct negative impact on
the public. The City opposed this measure and will continue to oppose efforts to reduce
the reasonable use of eminent domain for infrastructure and economic development.
Land Use:
Preservation of iota! land use authority: The City opposes legislation that would
remove or limit local government land use authority.
Housing elements: The City opposes legislation that penalizes local governments for
noncompliance with their housing element requirements. Proposed penalties have
included loss of gas tax funds and court-ordered penalties for noncompliance.
Employee Relations:
Mandated employee and retiree benefits: Decisions about health and retirement
benefits should be made at the local level, through the collective bargaining process,
not mandated by the State. Therefore, the City opposes legislation mandating new or
enhanced local employee and retiree benefits because such benefits can impose
financial costs and administrative burdens on local governments.
485D benefits: Under current law Labor Code Section 4850}, public safety employees
who are totally temporarily disabled by injury or illness on the job are entitled to a leave
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 5 of l
of absence at full salary, tax free, for up to one year. The City opposes legislation to
extend that timeframe.
Workers' compensation: The City opposes any new or additional workers'
compensation benefits and supports legislation to further reform the system and lower
employer costs.
Second tier Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS} benefits: Existing law
allows a CaIPERS local contracting agency to amend its contract with Ca1PERS in order
to create a second tier of benefits, subject to certain restrictions. The second tier can
only apply to employees who are hired after the contract effective date or who change
membership classification after the contract amendment date. Existing law also
prohibits local agencies from amending their contracts with CaIPERS to reduce
employee benefits for existing employees. However, a second tier, which applies to
prospective employees only, may provide a lesser ar different level of optional benefits
than exists for employees in the first tier. The City opposes legislation to eliminate a
local contracting agency's ability to reduce or modify benefits for new employees of the
agency.
Pennon reform: Employer costs for the State's defined benefit retirement system
~CaIPERS} have increased significantly in recent years. The Governor and the
Legislature are exploring various means of achieving cost control and budget certainty.
The City supports pension reform, provided that it achieves savings without imposing
additional costs.
Refiree medical: As a result of a Governmental Accounting Standards Board change,
local agencies are now required to account for their liability for retiree medical benefits,
also known as Other Post-Employment Benefits ~CPEB}. Instead of accounting for
these benefits on apay-as-you-go basis, which is what many local governments do
now, agencies will be required to report their annual GPEB costs and their unfunded
actuarial liabilities for past service costs. The new GASB regulations are intended to
improve transparency in government accounts by making it easier to know what the
future liability for GPEB expenses will be for a given government and to assess whether
the government has a strategy for meeting these requirements. The California Public
Employees Retirement System is offering local agencies a program to pre-fund their
GPEB obligations. While the City may choose to participate in such a program in the
future, the City opposes any legislation that would make such participation mandatory.
Environment:
Recycling: The City supports continuation of existing Source Reduction & Recycling
Act CAB 939 waste diversion requirements. The City also supports diversion
measurement and reporting improvements that do not adversely impact the assessment
of compliance efforts made by local jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions should be
considered in compliance with AB 939 goals if they have met the waste diversion goals
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 6 of l
or if they are making a good faith effort to implement applicable Source Reduction and
Recycling Element ~SRRE}programs.
Clrma#e pro#ec#~on: The City supports legislation and policies that assist local
government in reducing global warming pollution levels. These efforts may include
reducing dependence on fossil fuels, developing alternative energy resources and fuel-
efficient technologies, and implementing sustainable development practices such as
transit-friendly development.
Polys#yrene Foam: The City of Alameda supports legislation to ban the use of
polystyrene foam disposable food service containers, similar to the City's ordinance
enacted last year. Such containers have already been banned in over 100 cities
nationwide, including San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, and Millbrae.
Loca! au#onomy: The City opposes legislation that preempts local planning decisions
regarding solid waste facility siting, preempts local solid waste and AB 939 fee-setting
authority, or imposes taxes or fees on local solid waste programs to fund State
programs not directly related to solid waste management.
Litfer con#ro! and aba#emen#: The City supports legislation to address litter control
and abatement problems in California, including measures to expand the enforcement
authority of the California Highway Patrol to include enforcement measures for any
vehicle generating litter on public roads; provide for effective enforcement of antilitter
laws; implement a strong statewide anti-litter outreach campaign; and provide for
cleanup of littered areas.
Producer respons~bill#y: The City supports legislation to require manufacturers to
assume financial andlor physical responsibility for the costs of collecting, processing,
recycling, or disposing of products at end-of-life, especially products that create
significant economic burdens on local government for end-of-life management because
high volumes of the material exist in the waste stream, or because the nature of the
product makes it difficult to manage in the current integrated waste management
system; including computer, electronic and other products that incorporate hazardous
materials requiring special handling.
Recycled produc# marke# develapmen#: The City supports legislation encouraging
manufacturers to include post-consumer recycled material in their products, and
encouraging state and local government agencies and school districts to purchase
products made with post-consumer recycled material, that reduce waste, and that
reduce toxicity of materials that may be discarded or disposed in the future.
S#ormwa#erprogram funding: The City supports legislation that would make it easier
for cities to fund and comply with new and increasingly stringent storm water quality
permit requirements, including adding fees for storm water management programs to
those voter approved exemptions already included in Proposition 218.
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page ? of l
Home-generatedf pharrnaceutica! waste: Home-generated pharmaceutical and
sharps ~needie}waste are difficult to dispose of safely and can pose a hazard to waste
haulers and recyclers. For that reason, the California Integrated Waste Management
Board is sponsoring legislation to require the State Board of Pharmacy to coordinate
with other state agencies, local governments, drug manufacturers, and pharmacies to
develop sustainable, efficient policies and programs to manage pharmaceutical wastes
and the disposal of sharps. The bill would also authorize a pharmacy to accept the
return of home-generated pharmaceutical waste and home-generated sharps waste.
The City supports this legislation, which would also make local programs, such as the
City of Alameda's, eligible to receive grants to help prevent the improper disposal of
these products.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adoption of the Legislative Program for 2009 will have no impact on the City's budget.
RECCMMENDATIGN
Adopt the Legislative Program for 2009.
Respectfully bmitted,
Lisa Goldman
Deputy City Manager
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Date: January 6, 2009
Re: Adopt a Resolution Setting the 2009 Regular City Council Meeting
Dates
BACKGROUND
On November 4, 2008, the voters approved Measure Q, a CharterAmendment to delete
obsolete and unclear language and conform to general law and other sections of the
Charter. Section 3-l ~B} of the Charter was revised to require that the City Council
adopt a resolution setting the dates of its regular meetings.
DISCUSSION
The Charter Review Subcommittee proposed the Charter amendment to allow a recess
similar to other governmental agencies. The proposed regular City Council meeting
schedule for the 2009 calendar year sets the Regular City Council meeting dates as the
first and third Tuesdays of each month, with no meetings during the month of August.
The proposed schedule continues the practice of convening the regular City Council
meetings at 7:30 p.m.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution setting the 2009 regular City Council meetings dates.
Respecfifully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
City Council
Agenda item #4-F
o~-os-o~
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESGLUTiGN NG,
SETTING THE 2009 REGULAR CITY CGUNCIL MEETING
DATES
WHEREAS, Section 3-l ~B} of the City Charter of the City of Alameda
requires that the City Council hold regular meetings in the calendar ear as
~ y
~ fixed by resolution;
~ ~
a ~ ,
~, ~ WHEREAS, the City Council at the July 15, 2008 City Council meetin
g
~ ~ approved Resolution No, 1424G, calling a Consolidated Munici al Election in
~ ,, p
~ ~ the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008 for the purpose of submitting to the
o electors a proposal to amend the City of Alameda Charter to delete obsolete
~ and unclear Ian ua a and conform to eneral law and oth
~ g g g er sections of the
Charter, which was proposed to the electors as Measure Q;
WHEREAS, the electors of the City ofAlameda at the November 4, 2008
election passed Measure Q by majority vote;
WHEREAS, the City Council at the December 2, 2005 City Council
meeting approved Resolution No. 14289 declaring the canvass of returns and
results of the Consolidated General Municipal Election held on November 4,
2008; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 34459, the
Amendments to the Charter of the City of Alameda, ratified by the voters at the
election on November 4, 2008, were filed in the Cffice of the Secretary of State
on December 4, 2008 and assigned Charter Chapter Number 12;
NQVV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESGLI~ED BY THE CCUNCiL OF THE
CITY 4F ALAMEDA THAT:
Section 1. 2009 Regular City Council meetings shall be held on:
January 6, January 20, February 3, February 1l, March 3, March 1l, April 1,
April 21, May 5, May 19, June 2, June 1G, July 1, July 21, September 1,
September 15, October 6, October 20, November 3, November 1l, December
1, and December 15.
Section 2. 2009 Regular City Council meetings shall convene at 1:30
p.m.
Section 3. Notice of the date and time of the 2009 Regular City
Council meetings is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed
and directed to give further or additional notice of the meetings, in the time,
form and manner as required by law.
Resolution #4-FCC
01.06-09
i
* * * ~
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that fhe foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in
regular meeting assembled on the 6th day of January, 2009, by the following
vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN vVITNESS, vvHEREOF, i have hereunto set my hand and affixed fhe
official seal of the said City this lth day of January, 2009.
Lara Il~eisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY ~F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 6, 2009
Re: Adopt a Resolution to Approve the Second Amended and Restated
Northern California Power Agency Metered Subsystem Aggregator
A reement
BACKGROUND
At its December ~ 5, 2008, meeting, the Public Utilities Board the Board} approved the
Second Amended and Restated Northern California Power Agency NCPA} Metered
Subsystem Aggregator MSSA} Agreement and authorized the General Manager to
execute the agreement contingent upon the City Council's ratification of such
agreement. Since the term far this agreement exceeds 15 years, the agreement must
be ratified by the City Council as required by the City Charter Section 12-2~A},
DISCUSSION
Alameda Power & Telecom Alameda P&T} is a member of NCPA. NCPA participates
in the California Independent System Gperator's ~CAISO} wholesale electricity markets
to schedule, purchase, and sell power to meet the load serving obligations of Alameda
P&T as well as nine other NCPA members. This aggregated group is officially known
as the NCPA Pool and also as an aggregated Load Following Metered Subsystem.
Current NCPA Pool Members are Alameda P&T, the cities of Biggs, Gridley,
Healdsburg, Lodi, Lompoc, Pafo Alto, and Ukiah, the Plumas Sierra Rural Electric
Cooperative, and the Port of Oakland.
The NCPA Pool's parkicipation in CAISO electricity markets is governed by two separate
agreements: the CAISO Tariff, and the NCPA MSSA Agreement. The current MSSA
Agreement, which was originally executed by Alameda P&T in July 2002, became
effective on September ~ , 2002. The MSSA Agreement defines the terms and
conditions under which NCPA coordinates and executes aggregated Load Following
Metered Subsystem operations with the CAISO, including load and resource
scheduling, generator unit information sharing, interconnection standards, transmission
access, safety and reliability, metering standards, market settlements, and other
functions.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda item #4-G
01.06-09
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 4
The CAISO is currently in the process of testing and implementing a new market
structure that will change the environment in which Alameda P&T and NCPA transact
for wholesale electric power services. This restructuring effort, known as the Market
Redesign and Technology Upgrade MRTU} initiative, has been under development for
more than five years and is scheduled to be implemented on March 1, 2009. MRTU
implementation necessitates a number of substantive revisions to the existing MSSA
Agreement in order to bring the Agreement into conformance with the new market
structure. In order to participate in the new CAISO market structure, all NCPA Poof
Members, including Alameda P&T, will need to execute a revised MSSA Agreement,
referred to as the Second Amended and Restated NCPA Metered Subsystem
Aggregator Agreement. Parties to the Agreement are the CAISO, NCPA, and each
NCPA Pool Member.
NCPA staff has worked very closely with the CAISO since Fall 2001 to incorporate
MRTU-related provisions into the revised MSSA Agreement. The negotiation process is
now complete, and the CAISO, under its own discretion, has elected to unilaterally file
the revised MSSA Agreement with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ~FERC}.
Once approved by FERC, the Second Amended and Restated MSSA Agreement will
become effective and will replace the existing MSSA Agreement, Notwithstanding
FERC's authority to make the Agreement effective on its own action, NCPA, and NCPA
Pool Members as named parties to the Agreement, will need to formally execute the
Agreement. The NCPA Commission approved the revised MSSA Agreement at its
December 4, 2008 meeting.
A copy of the Second Amended and Restated MSSA Agreement, along with an NCPA
Commission Staff Report dated December 4, 2008, are on file at the City Clerk's Office.
Significant changes to the agreement include, among other things: clarifications of
responsibilities associated with complying with electric system reliability requirements,
updated CAISC dispatch authority, updated loads and resources scheduling provisions,
and revised CAISC settlement provisions. NCPA's summary of major modifications to
the agreement is attached Attachment 1}. The revised MSSA Agreement will allow
NCPA to continue operating the NCPA Poo! Members' resources to meet the members'
load serving obligation as a vertically integrated utility.
Fffect~ve Term
Once the agreement becomes effective, any NCPA Poo! Member may withdraw from
the Agreement; however, if the Parties cannot agree on an effective terminatian date,
such termination will require at least one-year advance notice. In addition, NCPA and
the CAISO each have the right to terminate the agreement with at least one-year
advance written notice. It should be noted that there is no sunset date provision. Given
that the term is open-ended and could possibly exceed 15 years, the Board's action
approving the agreement must be ratified by the City Council.
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2449
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 4
Relalionshi~ to ,ofher 1VCPA Agreements lnvolvirrg Alameda P&T
At its Goober 21, 2048, meeting, the City Council ratified the Board's action approving
the Amended and Restated NCPA Pooling Agreement, which was modified to bring it
current with the pending implementation of MRTU. The NCPA Pooling Agreement is an
important business practice agreement that documents the protocols governing the core
operations of the Poof and sets forth the obligations of participating Pool Members.
Whereas the Pooling Agreement primarily addresses internal operations among Pool
Members and NCPA, the MSSA Agreement is primarily focused on the interaction
between NCPA, acting on behalf of Poo! Members, and the CAISG. As such, the
CAISG is a party to the MSSA Agreement, but is not a party to the Pooling Agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no new direct cost associated with the execution of the revised MSSA
Agreement. However, given that implementation of MRTU market rules will result in
changes to the way in which NPCA transacts in the CAISG markets, there could be
future cost impacts to Alameda P&T. Since NCPA has not yet developed a full analysis
of the cost impacts that Alameda P&T may see from MRTU, the full cast impact of
operating underthe market rules remains uncertain at this time.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIPGLICY DGCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
ENVIRGNMENTAL REVIEVy
This action to approve the Second Amended and Restated MSSA Agreement is not a
project pursuant to CEQA as defined by Title 14 CCR Section 15318 in that it has no
potential for resulting in either a physical change in the environment or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
RECGMMENDATIGN
Adopt a Resolution to approve the Second Amended and Restated Northern California
Power Agency Metered Subsystem Aggregator Agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
A b
Girish Balachandran
General Manager
Alameda Power ~ Telecom
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 4 of 4
~ ~
gy: ` .~.~..... .~.~.._
Brad Wetstone
Utility Analyst
BVV:ra
Attachment:
1. NCPA's Summary of Major Modifications to the Second Amended and Restated
MSSA Agreement
cc: Public Utilities Board
NCPA Summary of Major Modifications to the Second Amended and
Restated Metered Subsystem Aggregator Agreement
Purpose of this Document
This document provides a section by section summary of the notable modifications that have
been incorporated within the Second Amended and Restated Metered Subsystem Aggregator
Agreement ~"MSSA Agreement"} to reflect the implementation of the California Independent
System operator Corporation ~"CAISG"} Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade
~"MRTU"}. The following is a summary of the notable modifications incorporated within the
MSSA Agreement:
Formattin & Tariff References
^ General formatting and CAIS4 Tariff references throughout the MSSA Agreement have
been updated, including the addition of a table of contents, to improve the readability and
accuracy of the agreement
Party References
^ Party references have been clarified throughout the agreement to include the CAISO,
NCPA and the MSSAA Members
Article I -Definitions and Inte retation
Section 1.2 Special Definitions for this Agreement} -new definitions have been added
to the agreement, existing definitions have been deleted from the agreement, and existing
def nitions have been modif ed within the agreement
Article II -Term and Termination
Section 2.1 Effective Date} -the effective date of the agreement has been modified to be
coincident with the later of MRTU implementation or FERC acceptance of the
agreement; provisions dealing with possible CAISO Tariff reversion have been added
^ Section 2.2,4 MSS Withdrawal} -the deadline for submission of notice of termination
has been increased to twelve X12}months
^ Section 2.2.5 MSS Entry} -new provisions have been added to the agreement to address
the addition of new MSS entities to the agreement
Ci#y Council
Attachmen# #o
Report Re:
Agenda I#em #4G
O'I.Ofi-09
Second Amended and Restated MSSA Agreement
December 4, 2008
Page 2 of 7
Article III -General Terms and Conditions
^ Section 3.2.2 NCPA Responsibility} -clarifying language has been added to the
agreement to confirm that references to wECC and NERC Reliability Standards
throughout the agreement do not make any alteration or enlargement of the requirements
or standards applicable to NCPA or the individual MSSAA Members beyond their
individual registrations with NERC
Article IV -Interconnection
Sections 4.3 & 4.4 ~Operatian, Maintenance, and Load Serving Responsibilities 1
Expansion, Retirement, and Modification ofFacilities} - clarification of roles and
responsibilitiesbetveen NCPA and members regarding operation, maintenance,
expansion, and retirement of controlled facilities
Article V - 0 erations
Section 5.2 Safety and Reliability} - clarif ed the CAISO responsibility to operate and
maintain the CAISO Controlled Grid and the operation of the CAISO Balancing
Authority Area in accordance with applicable Reliability Standards pursuant to wECC
and NERC requirements as applicable, regulatory requirements, operating guidelines,
and Good Utility Practice so as to avoid any material unplanned-for adverse impact on
NCPA's System
Article VI -Information Sharin
^ No specif c notable changes
Article VII - Emer ency Operations
Section 7.1.2 ~CAISO Dispatch Instructions} -clarified applicability of Exceptional
Dispatch and NCPA's obligation to respond to CAISO Dispatch Instructions
Section 7.4 Load Shedding} -clarified role and responsibility regarding automatic and
manual load shedding during CAISO system energy deficiencies and system
emergencies
Article VIII -~ Local and_Re Tonal Reliability
^ No specific notable changes
Article IX -Access & Scheduling
Section 9.2.1 Energy, Ancillary Services and RUC Capacity} - clarified NCPA's right of
access to CAISO Markets, including Energy, Ancillary Services, and RUC Capacity
Second Amended and Restated MSSA Agreement
December 4, 2008
Page 3 of l
^ Section 9.2.2 Participation in the Integrated Forward Market} - clarif ed NCPA's right
of access and participation in the CAISO Integrated Forward Market
^ Section 9.2.3 Scheduling Timelines} - clarified applicable scheduling timelines and
limits associated with participation in the Integrated Forward Market, the Hour Ahead
Scheduling Process, and Real-Time Market
^ Section 9.3 Congestion Revenue Rights} - clarified NCPA's ability to act on behalf of
the NCPA Pool Members regarding the acquisition, administration, and settlement of
Congestion Revenue Rights instruments
Article X= Generating, Units and,,,Market-Participating Loads,
Section 10.3 ~CAISO Authority to Dispatch NCPA Resources} -specified that CAISO's
authority to issue Dispatch Instructions, including Exceptional Dispatch Instructions, for
any portion of the capacity of any Generating Unit of NCPA or the MSS Members, other
than in accordance with a Bid submitted to the CAISO by NCPA's Scheduling
Coordinator, is set forth in and subject to Section 7.1 of the agreement
Article ~I -- Meterin
^ No specific notable changes
Article XIS -Charges
^ Section 12.2 Congestion Management} - clarif ed that costs associated with relieving
Congestion within any MSS Member's Service Area which is not directly attributed to
MSS Member operations will not be solely allocated to NCPA, but will rather be
allocated to the market in accordance with the CAISO Tariff
^ Section 12.5 Neutrality Costs} - clarified NCPA's obligation to pay neutrality
adjustment costs and Existing Contract cash neutrality charges based on net metered MSS
Demand and exports from the CAISO Balancing Authority Area
^ Section 12.7 Allocation of Net IFM Bid Cost Uplift} -clarified the recovery and
allocation of Minimum Load, Start-Up, and Energy Costs as def ned under MRTU; costs
allocated in a two tiered process and is adjusted per MSS settlement election and Load-
Following election
^ Section 12.8 Allocation of Net RTM Bid Cost Uplift} -clarified the recovery and
allocation of Minimum Load, Start-Up, and Energy Costs as defined under MRTU; costs
allocated in a single tiered process and is adjusted per MSS settlement election and Load-
Following election
Second Amended and Restated MSSA Agreement
December 4, 2008
Page 4 of l
Section 12.9 Grid Management Charges Based on Uninstructed Imbalance Energy} - if
the CAISO is charging Gird Management Charges for Uninstructed Imbalance Energy,
and should NCPA elect on behalf of the MSS Members to perform Load-Following,
GMC charges assessed for Uninstructed Imbalance Energy should be based on the net
quantity of Energy either delivered to or received from the CAIS4 Real-Time Market,
excluding the quantity of Energy provided as Instructed Imbalance Energy, other than
MSS Load-Following Energy, and the quantity of Energy used to perform Load-
Following
^ Section 12.10 Grid Management Charges Based on Instructed Imbalance Energy} -
clarifiedthat NCPA will not be assessed Grid Management Charges for Instructed
Imbalance Energy associated with MSS Load Following Energy
^ Section 12.11 MSS Deviation Band} -provides an explanation of the MSS Deviation
Band formula
^ Section 12.12 Load Following Deviation Band Compliance} -provide an explanation of
Load-Following Deviation Band Compliance
^ Section 12.13 Deviation Band Penalties Calculation} -provide an explanation of the
pricing used within the Deviation Band Penalty Calculation; based on LMP pricing rather
than ex-post pricing
^ Section 12.16 MSS Net Negative Uninstructed Deviation} -clarifies the relationship of
MSS Load Following Energy to the calculation of MSS Net Negative Uninstructed
Deviation
^ Section 12.17 Residual Unit Commitment} - clarif es NCPA's exemption from cost
associated with RUC procurement and Bid Cost Recovery from RUC; pursuant to Load-
Following election
^ Section 12.18 Emissions Costs} -describes options for election of eligibility to receive
emission costs recovery, or to be exempted from the allocation of emission costs recovery
Article ~XIII -Penalties and Sanctions
^ No specific notable changes
Article, ~N -Dispute Resolution
^ No specific notable changes
Article ~V --Representations and..warranties
^ No specific notable changes
Second Amended and Restated MSSA Agreement
December 4, 2008
Page 5 of l
Article XVI - Liabilit and Indemnification
^ No specif c notable changes
Article XVII -Uncontrollable Forces
^ No specific notable changes
Article XVIII -Miscellaneous
^ No specific notable changes
Schedule 1- NCPA's System Facilities
- ._...
^ Updated Coincident and Non-Coincident Peak Load (MVO
Schedule 2 ~- Interconnected ~ eration Standards
^ No specif c notable changes
Schedule 3 - R.i is of Access to Facilities
^ No specific notable changes
Schedule 4 -Maintenance Coordination
^ No specific notable changes
Schedule 5 -Critical Protective S. sus
^ No specif c notable changes
Schedule 6 - 0 erational Contact
^ Updated operational contact information
Schedule 7 - Emer eg ncies
^ No specif c notable changes
Schedule S - Underfre uenc Load Sheddin
^ No specific notable changes
Schedule 9 -- ether Automatic Load Shedding
Second Amended and Restated MSSA Agreement
December 4, 2008
Page 6 of 7
^ No specif c notable changes
Schedule 10 -Manual Load Shedding
^ No specif c notable changes
Schedule 11- Emer enc Action Plan
^ Updated NCPA Emergency Action Plan to bring current with existing business practice
^ Attachment A - clarified MSSAA Member's responsibility, either individually or in
aggregate, for complying with the WECC Coordinated Off Nominal Frequency Load
Shedding and Restoration Plan
^ Attachment B -Updated Load Shedding Scenarios l Potential Power System Stress
Scenarios
^ Attachment C -~ Updated procedures for Relocation of Dispatch Operations in the event
of an emergency
Schedule 12 -Load Restoration
^ No specific notable change
Schedule .13 -Existing Contracts, Encumbrances and Transmission Ownership Rights
^ Updated applicable entitlement Mw quantities and scheduling timelines
Schedule_ 14 -- Generating Units and Market-Participating Loads
^ Updated Schedule 14 to include specific generation unit information and constraints
Schedule 15 -Metering Ob1i ations
^ Updated NCPA SQMD (Gross MSS Demand) calculation to reflect MLAP and Custom
LAP scheduling points
^ Provided description of Custom LAP Meter Submission and Settlement process for SVP,
Plumas and SOTP Custom LAP
^ Updated technical meter information Schedule 15.1 ~
Schedule 16 -- Transmission Reliabilit Criteria
^ No specific notable change
Second Amended and Restated MSSA Agreement
December 4, 2008
Page l o~ l
Schedule 17 -Contacts for Notice
^ Updated applicable contact information
Schedule 18 -MSS Members
^ Def ned MSSAA Members and SVP
Schedule 19 - MSSA,Load Following Deviation Ener~y~Formula
^ incorporated detailed schedule into the agreement for durability; describes the process,
information, and calculations used to derive Deviation Energy ~DOPD}, which xs used to
measure Load~Following compliance and any associated penalties
CITY GFALAMEDA RESGLUTIGN NO.
APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY METERED
SUBSYSTEM AGGREGATORAGREEMENT
E+
u°. WHEREAS, Alameda Power & Telecom Alameda P&T is a member of the
~ }
~ ~ Northern California Power Agency NCPA} Power Pool and is a signatory to the NCPA
~ ~ Metered Subsystem Aggregator MSSA} Agreement that has been in place since
~ ~, September ~ , 2002; and
a. WHEREAS, NCPA, acting as Scheduling Coordinator for the NCPA Pool,
~ operates and schedules Pool Member resources and loads within an
aggregated
portfolio forthe benefit of Pool Members including Alameda P&T; and
WHEREAS, NCPA exercises its Scheduling Coordinator responsibilities for the
NCPA Pool pursuant to the California Independent System Operator ~CAISO} Tariff and
the NCPA MSSA Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the CAISO is currently in the process of testing and implementing a
new market structure within California, known as the Market Redesign and Technology
Update MRTU} initiative, under which NCPA Poo[ Members will transact in the near
future; and
WHEREAS, in light of the pending implementation of MRTU, NCPA staff has
worked very closely with the CA[SO over the past year #o update the MSSA Agreement
by incorporating current MRTU related provisions; and
WHEREAS, the resulting Second Amended and Restated MSSA Agreement will
allow NCPA to continue operating Pool Member systems as a vertically integrated utility
under the MRTU structure and will allow NCPA to continue to perform load-following tv
meet the service obligations of the NCPA Pool Members; and
WHEREAS, the Second Amended and Restated MSSA Agreement has been
unilaterally filed by the CA1SO with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ~FERC},
and once accepted by FERC, the Second Amended and Restated MSSA Agreement
will become effective and will replace the existing MSSA Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the NCPA Commission formally approved the Second Amended and
Restated MSSA Agreement at its December 4, 2008 meeting and authorized the NCPA
General Manager to execute the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda Public Utilities Board has reviewed and approved the
agreement and recommends that the City Council ratify its action as required by City
Charter Section 12-2(A).
Resolution #4-G CC
~Q
D~~~6.09
d
~~ NaIN, THEREFGRE, BE IT RESGLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda
that:
~. The Council ratifies the action of the Public Utilities Board recommending
approval of the Second Amended and Restated Northern California Power
Agency MSSA Agreement and hereby approves the Agreement.
2. The General Manager of Alameda Power & Telecom is authorized to execute
the Agreement without material change.
*~~**~
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 an the 6th day of January, 2009, by the followingvote to wit:
AYES
NGES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIGNS:
IN vI11TNESS, VvHERE4F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this lt~ day of January, 2009.
Lora vlJeisiger, City Cleric
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 6, 2009
Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No.
9151 File No. PLN08-0260}, for the Purpose of Establishing a
Subdivision of Ownership to Condominium Form for Two Detached
Single Family Dwellings on One Site Located at 1531 Morton Street
BACKGROUND
On October 2?, 2008, the Planning Board recommended that the City Council approve
the tentative parcel map for 1531 Morton Street, subject to a number of conditions. This
application would permit the subdivision of ownership of the two single-family dwellings
on the site to condominium form. Council approval of the Tentative Parcel Map would
provide the applicants 24 months t0 complete the Final Map and submit it to the City
Council for final approval, pursuant to the Alameda Municipal Code RAMC}, Section 30-
81~Final Map}.
DISCUSSION
The project's analysis is described in more detail in the Planning Board staff report of
October 2l, 2008 Attachment 1 }. In summary, the subject site is a 6,000 square foot
interior lot located in the R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. The site
contains an historic three-story single-family residence fronting the lot and a new three-
story single-family residence under construction at the rear of the lot. Design Review
approval for the new house was issued on October 24, 2001. That approval required,
as an element of this infill project, that all parking, open space, and water conservation
requirements of the Municipal Code be brought into compliance. Building permits have
been issued, and construction of the rear house is underway and nearing completion.
The original building was built in 1901 and is an example of a Pitched Gable-Colonial
Revival architectural style. The structure has been vacant since the transfer of the
property to the current owners. Prior to the transfer to the present owners, the structure
had been owner occupied, which simplifies the approval process by removing the
necessity for City consideration of renter relocation, rental housing, pursuant to Section
30-8.6 of the Alameda Municipal Code.
City Council
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #4-H
01-06-09
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3
This project will not result in negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The
division would allow each dwelling unit on the site to be owned independently.
Therefore, it is not expected to result in significant increases in traffic or parking
demand.
This application divides ownership of the residential units, but allows for the common
ownership of the common areas. These details will be provided in the Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions ACC&R's} that are required to be recorded with the Final
Map. The Final Map requires approval by the City Council.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The costs associated with processing this Tentative Parcel Map are paid by the
applicant, in accordance with the City's adopted fee resolution. No City funds are
required.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATIGN
This agenda item was advertised in the Alameda Journal at least ten days prior to the
meeting. Notices were mailed on December 16, 2008, to residents and property owners
within 30o feet of the project location. No additional parties, other than those included
on the original mailing list, have filed requests to be notified of upcoming hearings for
this project.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIP4LlCY DGCUMENTCRGSS REFERENCE
Municipal Code standards prescribing Planning Board and City Council action on
Tentative Parcel Maps are contained in AMC, Section 30-18.5 Action on Tentative Map
or Parcel Map}. AMC, Section 30-81 defines the process of filing and City Council
action regarding Final Maps.
ENVIRGNMENTAL REVIEW
The project is Categorically Exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions -when the division is in
conformance with the General Plan and Zoning, no variances or exceptions are
required, and all services and access conform to local standards. The proposal does
not include new construction and changes in land use and conforms to al! General Plan
and Municipal Code standards regarding residential density, access, the provision of
open space and off-street parking.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
REC~MMENDATI~N
January 6, 2009
Page 3 of 3
Hold a public hearing and conditionally approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 9757 File
No. PLNOS-0260} for the purpose of establishing a subdivision of ownership to
condominium form for two detached single family dwellings on one site located at 1531
Morton Street.
Respectfully submitted,
~-
Cathy Woo ury ~'~
Planning and Building Director
Approved as tofunds and account,
Ann Mari allant
Interim F nce Director
Dennis Brighton
Planner III
Attachments:
1. October 27, 2008 Planning Board Staff Report ~wlout attachments}
2. Planning Board Resolution No. PB-08-21
3. December 1 D, 2DDS, Memorandums from Public Works Department
4. Project Site Plan, Received, December 16, 2008
ITEM 8-A
PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 2l, 2008
TG: HONORABLE PRESIDENTAND MEMBERS GF THE
PLANNING BOARD
FRAM: Dennis Brighton, Planner 111
X510} 147-6873
dbrighto a~ci.alameda.ca.us
APPLICATION: Resid®ntial Condominium Conversion - PLN08-
~260 -1531 Morton Street. Subdivision of ownership
to condominium form for two detached single-family
dwellings on one site.
ZaNING Dl5TR1CT: R-4 Neighborhood Residential}
GENERAL PLAN: Medium Density Residential
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting subdivision of ownership to condominium form for
the two detached single-family dwellings on the site. The project complies with
all zoning requirements for this type of permit.
BACKGRGUND
The subject site is a 6,400 square foot interior lot located in the R-4,
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. The site contains an historic 3-story
single-family residence fronting the lot and a new 3-story single-family residence
under construction at the rear of the lot. Design Review approval for the new
rear house was issued on October 24, 2401. That approval required, as an
element of this infill project, that all parking, open space, and water conservation
requirements of the Municipal Code be brought into compliance. Building
permits have been issued and construction of the rear house is underway and
nearing completion.
City Council
Attachment ~ to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #4-H
~'1-4g-Q~
Honorable President and October 2l, 2008
Members of the Planning Baard Page 2 of 4
The original building was built in 1981 and is an example of a Pitched Gabie-
Calanial Revival architectural style. The structure has been vacant since the
transfer of the property to the current owners. Prior to the transfer to the present
owners, the structure had been owner occupied, which simplifies the approval
process by removing the necessity for City consideration of renter relocation,
rental housing, pursuant to Section 3g-8.~ of the Alameda Municipal Code.
STAFF ANALYSIS
This project will not result in negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
The division would allow each dwelling unit on the site to be owned
independently. Therefore, it is .not expected to result in significant increases in
traffic or parking demand.
The infili development of the site was reviewed under the Major design Review
process. This process insured that the site was brought into compliance with all
zoning standards, including standards associated with off-street parking, open
space, and water conservation. The new single-family structure was also
designed to be compatible with the site and in compliance with design guidelines
provided through the Guide to Residential Design.
This application divides ownership of the residential units, but allows far the
common ownership of the common areas. These details will be provided in the
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ACC&R's~ that would be required to be
recorded with the Final Map. The Final Map requires approval by the City
Council,
FINDINGS
In order to approve this Condominium Conversion application, the Planning
Board must make the following findings, pursuant to the requirements of Section
34-8.3~Conversions to Multiple Houses-Other Conversions:
1. The Building GfFicial has certified that that there are no violations of
codes or statutes applicable to the structures on the site
This finding can be made. The Building Official was provided with a pest
report and documentation from a licensed Engineer that states that the
original residential building complies with the State Historic Building Code
see attachments. The Building Official recognizes that Design Review and
Building Permit approval was issued for the development of the second
detached dwelling. This approval was predicated on compliance with City
Gode standards relating to infili development. Based upon these reports and
Ci#y actions, the Building Official certified that there are no violations of codes
ar statutes perkaining to the structures on the site.
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
4c#ober 27, 2008
Page 3 of 4
2. The conversion has been reviewed and reported upon by Design
Review.
This f nding can be made. The development of the site has been reviewed
through the Major Design Review process. This process assured tha# the
development of the site complied with Municipal Code standards and
residential design guidelines,
3. The project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section ~53~5 ~Ilinor
Land Divisions that requires conformance with the General Plan and
Zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, and all services and
access conform to focal standards.
This finding can be made. The proposal is consistent with Guiding Policies:
Residential areas, 2.4.d because it limits residential development to two
detached single-family residences; and 2.4.e because the conversion would
expand opportunities for households in all income groups by providing the
opportunity of separate ownership for each of the single-family residences on
the common site. The Major Design Review approval for the original infill
project assured that the site meets all zoning standards pertaining to site
development that includes off-street parking, open space, and water
conservationllandscaping. Access is provided by the Morton. Street right-af-
way with a conforming 8.5-foot wide driveway to the dwelling at the rear
portion of the site.
4. The project would not affect the avaiiabifity of rental housing, remove
rental housing, or result in the displacement of tenants occupying rental
units.
This finding can be made. The original single-family house was last occupied
by an owner occupant. The conversion does not limit the property to either
owner occupant or rental status.
ENVIRaNMENTAL REVIE~I
The project is Categorically Exempt from additional environmental review
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 153 5 Minor Land Divisions -when the
division is in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning, no variances or
exceptions are required, and all services and access conform to local standards.
PUELIC NOTICE
A notice for this hearing was mailed to residen#s and property owners wi#hin 3Dg
feet of this site on ,published in the Alameda Journal on September 23, 208,
and posted at the subject property. Staff has not received any public comments
on this project.
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
actober 27, 2448
Page 4 of 4
RECDI~MENDATI~N
Find the project Categorically Exempt from CEQA, approve Condominium
Conversion, PLN08-0260, and recommend approval of the Final Parse! Map to
the City Council subject to compliance with conditions presented in the attached
Resolution.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
r
ennis Brig ton
Planner III
REVIEWED BY.
nQrew ~ namas
tanning Services Manager
Attachment(s):
1. Draft Resolution
2. Engineer Report, September 2, 2008
3. Engineer and Pest Report, July 1, 2~0$
4. Tentative Parcel Map and Landscape Plan ~2 sheets
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. PB-08-21
A RESOLUTION GF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APPROVING
PLN08-0260 -CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION, AT 153 MORTON STREET
WHEREAS, an application was made on May 19, 2048, by Jahn Gutierrez,
requesting Subdivision of ownership to condominium farm fortwo detached single-family
dwellings on one site; and .
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on September 3, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on October
2l, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made the following fndings concerning the
project:
~. The Building official has cer'tifed thatthatthere are no violations of codes or
statutes applicable to the structures on the site.
This fnding can, be made. The Building Offcial was provided with a pes# report and
documentation from a licensed Engineer that states that the original residential building
complies with the State Historic Building Code see attachments. The Building Official
recognizes that Design Review and Building Permit approval was issued for the
development of the second detached dwelling. This approval was predicated on
compliance with City Cade standards relating to infill development. Based upon these
reports and City actions, the Building Official certified that there are no violations of codes
or statutes pertaining to the structures on the site.
2. The conversion has been reviewed and reported upon by Design Review.
This finding can be made. The development of the site has been reviewed through the
Major Design Review process. This process assured that the development of the site
complied with Municipal Code standards and residential design guidelines.
3. The project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section ~53~5 Minor Land
Divisions that requires conformance with th® General Plan and Zoning, no
variances orexceptions are required, and all services and access conform to
local standards.
This finding can be made. The proposal is consistent with Guiding Policies: Residential
areas, 2.4.d because is limits residential development to two detached single-family
residences; and 2.4.e because the conversion would expand opportunities for households
in all income groups by providing the opportunity of separate ownership for each of the
City Council
Attachment T to
Public Nearing
Agenda Item #d-H
0'! -06.09
single-family residences on the common site. The Major Desi n Reviewa royal forthe
9 pp
original infill project assured that the site meets all zoning standards pertaining to site
development that includes off-street parking, open space, and water
conservationliandscaping. Access is provided by the Morton Street right-of-way with a
conforming 8.5-foot wide driveway to the dwelling at the rear portion of the site.
4. The project would not affect the availability of rental housing, remove rental
housing, or result in the displacement of tenants occupying rental units.
This finding can be made because the original single-family house was last occupied by an
owner occupant. The conversion does not limit the property to either owner occupant or
rental status.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the project is Categorically Exempt from additional
environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 153 5 Minor Land Divisions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby
approves Condominium Conversion, PLN08-~2G4 far the subdivision of ownership to
condominium form for two detached single-family dwellings on one site recommend
approval of the Final Map to the City Council sub}ect to compliance with the followin
.. g
conditions:
{1} This approval shall expire and become void if a final subdivision map is not filed
within two years after this approval, or by October 20, 204.
~2} The f nal map shall include the sheet defined as the Tentative Parcel Map No. 9l5?,
prepared by Andreas Deak, submitted on September 3, 2009 and shall include the
Proposed Site Landscape} Plan, prepared by Sinan Sabuncuoglu, submitted on
September 3, 2048 and on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning and
Building Department, except as modified by the conditions listed below.
~3} The f nal map shall be approved subject to the satisfaction of the Planning and
Building Director, the City Engineer and the City's Consul#ant sunreyar.
~4~ The subdivider shall pay far all reasonable office and engineering cos#s expended
by the City Engineer's office, including overhead, in conjunction with reviewing the
Tentative Parcel Map and in obtaining the map signature of the City's consulting
surveyor on the Final Parcel Map.
~5} The subdivider shall post a refundable cashier's check in the amount of $4og to
guarantee that the Mylar copy of the site plan and landscaping plan are provided in
the form approved by the City Engineer.
{~} The subdividershall arrangefora Title Companyto recordthe Final Parcel Map and
provide a Mylar copy of the recorded Final Parcel Map, site plan and landscaping
plan.
{l} Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions {CC&R's}including estimated homeowner's
fees shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director, the
City Engineer and the City Attorney prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map by the
City Cauncrl for purposes of verifying maintenance and care of common areas.
{S~ The CC&R's shall be recorded with the Final Parcel Map.
{9} The Final Parcel Map shall comply with all City Code requirements including but not
limited by Section 30-8~ of the Alameda Municipal Code.
X10} HGLD 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 or 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 1494.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety X90}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 66024 ~d} ~1}, 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 fur#her notifed that the 90~
day appeal period, in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions,
pursuant to Government Cade Section 66024 ~a} has begun. If the applicant fails to file a
protest within this 9D-day period complying with all requirements of Section 66g20, the
applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions.
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 filing with the Planning and
Building Department a written notice of appeal stating the basis of appeal and paying the
required fees.
AYES: ~6} Kohlstrand, Ezzy Ashcroft, Autorino, Cook, Lynch, McNamara
NOES: (0)
ABSENT: ~1 } Cunningham
A
~4nc~rew Thomas, Secretary
City of Alameda Planning Board
r
M
~~
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: Decembex 10, 2005
To: Permit Qffice
\ ~ s ~~~
From: Shilpa Patel
Public Works Department
Re; Permit # CBOS-0947 279 S Ft Addition
r
,Applicant: Dennis Brighton
Alameda, CA
Job Address: 162$ Buena Vista Avenue
RECEII/~D
DEC 1 ~? 2008
PERRAIT CENTER
ALAMEDA, CA 84501
- Public works staff approves Permit CB08-0947 as submitted.
Be advised that the following apply to the work:
1. The contractor must submit a Construction and Demolition Debris waste Management Plan
~WMP}. A WMP form may be obtained at 2263 Santa Clara Avenue. Assistance in
understanding the form may be obtained by contacting the Environmental Services Division
at X510} 749-5840.
2. Drama e: Section 30-84.12, of the Alameda Municipal Code states that drainage across
interior property sines is not permitted. New construction must not cause storm runoff to be
diverted to any adj scent parcel. Roof leaders must discharge above ground.
3. The Contractor shall have a superintendent or representative on site at all times during
construction.
4. The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining all encroachment, excavation, concrete,
electrical, plumbing, etc. permits necessary prior to beginning construction for any work.
5, Construction activities shalh be linuted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday. Noise-generating construction activities shall be limited between the hours
of 5:00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m. All construction vehicles shall adhere to City of Alameda truck
routes. Storage of construction material and equipment on City rights-of way will not be
permitted.
6. Construction equipment shall be properly muffled. Unnecessary idling of grading
construction equipment is prohibited.
CEty Council
Attachment 3 tv
Public Pleating
Agenda Item #4N
v1.06~v9
*'
Permit Gffice December 10, X00$
Re: Permit CBO$-0947 {16~$ Buena Vista Ave,} Fage 2
7. Stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as compressors shall be located as
far as practical from occupied residential housing units.
$. Contractor shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction
Horse.
9. Construction equipment, tools, etc. shall not be cleaned or rinsed into a street, gutter or storm
drain.
10. A contained and covered area on-site shall be used far storage of cement bags, paints,
flammables, oils, fertilizers, pesticides; or any other materials that have potential for being
discharged to the 'storm drain systern by wind or in the event of a material spill.
11. All construction debris sha11 be gathered on a regular basis and placed in a dumpster, which
is emptied or removed weekly.. when feasible, tarps shall be used on the ground to collect
fallen debris or splatters that could contribute to stormwater pollution.
I2. Any temporary on-site construction piles shall be securely covered with a tarp or other
device to contain debris.
13. Concrete trucks and concrete finishing operations shall not discharge wash water into the
street gutters ar drains.
14. Trash and debris shall be cleaned up daily on all public streets in the project vicinity and
along haul routes. Sweep as needed and as directed by the Public Works inspector.
15. The Contractor shall notify the Constructionlinspection Supervisor at X510} 749-5940, 4$-
hoursprior tobeginning any work within the Cityright-of-way. work performed or covered
without adequate notice will be subject to rejection.
This approval notice is only from the Public Work Department. Additional hold notices MIGHT be
forthcoming from other plan check departments.
Should you require further clarification regarding these comments, contact Shilpa Patel at X510} 749-
5 $4fl.
SP:Ic
G:IpubwarlcslL'i1PERMiTS1200$1B3dg1Combi~ation BuildingICB08-0447 1 b28 bueaa Vista additian.DOC
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
December 10, X008
To: Dennis Brighton
Plan~ung Department
From: Robert Claire ~~~
Public Works Department
Re: Parcel Ma s 9757 -for 1531 Morton Street ~ En 'veer's Re ort
CITY OF ALAMEDA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATNE PARCEL MAPS 9757
(1531 Morton Street)
Review by staff of the submittal of the subject Parcel Map No. 9757, revised November 14, 2008
indicates that this map is Suitable for Review ~MSFR} and Filing ~MSFF}. You may schedule it for
the Planning Board meeting.
The following conditions of approval apply to Tentative Parcel Maps No. 9757. Tentative Parcel
Map 9757 consists of a one-lot subdivision for two residential condominium units in accordance
with Article VI, Real Estate Subdivision Regulation of the Alameda Municipal Code. The property
is located at 1531 Morton Street.
I. COMMENTS DN TSE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBMITTAL
1. The Site Plan, Sheet A1.1 and Landscaping Plan, Sheet L.1, should be included as part of
the Tentative Parcel Map and labeled "For Information Purposes Dnly
II. C4NDITYDNS APPLICABLE PRIOR T~ THE APPRI)VAL ~F THE PARCEL
MAP BY CXTY COUNCIL.
1. The parcel map shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City's
consultant surveyor.
~. The parcel should show the address for Unit B. Obtain address from Crreg McFann.
3. The subdivider shall pay for all reasonable office and engineering costs expended by the City
Engineer's office, including overhead, in conjunction with reviewing the Parcel Map and in
obtaining the map signature of the City's consulting surveyor.
RE: Parcel Maps 975? for 1531 Morton St. December 10. BOOS
Engineer's Report Page 2
4. The identification of the units and the common areas on the fugal map should match those in
the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ~CC~R's}. Examples are:
i. Units should have a number, i. e. Unit 1 and Unit 2, not letters.
ii. Excusive Use Common Areas should be identified as such. Exclusive Use
Common Areas may be identif ed by the letters "b" (deck}, "P" patio}, "PS"
(parking space}, "SP" (stairs, porch & landings} and "Y"yard} followed by the
number of the corresponding unit. include the abbreviations in the legend.
5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ACC&R's} shall be prepared to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to recording with the Department of Real Estate.
Provide an estimate of the condominium owner's fees.
6. The subdivider shall post a refundable cashier's check in the amount of $400 to guarantee a
Mylar copy of the recorded Parcel Nlap.
I. C4NDITIUNS APPLICABLE AFTER APPROVAL 4F THE PARCEL MAP BY
CITY COUNCIL.
7, Provide a Mylar copy of the recorded parcel map.
S. The subdivider shall arrange for a title company to record the parcel map.
Cc; ron Biggs, Planning
B~:RC:Ic
G:1pu~warlcslL'1~Parcel Maps1~M 9fi57, 1531 Morton St.lconditions of approval engineers report~rev.).doc
~,..
,;.~.
.j .~;~
F~ .
ri~~,.
~•.:
.• ~ - ,.
. l ~:, ~".., ,~. .
k k,.~.-...,.r......., s
~4
D
T..._--_ _,...,~.r..._.~..
Cam` ar ~~4 ~ •.
., _....
~~.~.1.,r,t~„ ., ... _.
i.
~_~....._. _~ ~¢ ~ yl
. ~ '~Qa
_. ;~.~ ...._.~.F~_ _ .
I
w
.. _ __- .... w _ .. ..._._.. ~ ~„_.._ r..____. w ~..___.~_.__
>,}~IiraRY iCJc'R ~rrJE i
ti
11
rrlr Nail r:~rr ,rCd
' y1d G~d+~-" , 'rysfc ~w'
~^ ~ 173.1}' „ y~~.~l5 ,
;~ ~.
' .o
~~„~ n^ •~ i~~~ 3H~RhJr1 7,ddlp P~~iRSd~
I 1
l ~ ~ ~ x',~~'ra'~ ~o.oa
• ~" t ,~
ita~ 14~ro ^~'
.
~•
~~ ® Y d ~ b 8
I
. SITEPLAN . ~~~ aA.oo
~...~. $
E ~ ~.
~i V I
~~ ~ ~NIT.~
II a a
! ~ °
. O "' N
. ~_ ~ ~I $
~ ~
~ ,~ ~4
„ ~ t IPDi: 1 +a _ ~3 M
Z ~.
I ~ ;~ ~~;
n
~ ~ ~.
;n ~ g.ao ~~~ ~ ~d7Z~
~f _ ~
' ~ l ~ y~ ~~ f~ PARkuJG '3,,C ~ II
l ! ~ ~ ~s I
• ~ j. ~ r~ak+w4 o TTT111 • ~.
._,.~.:
` ,. .. .~ ~ P`~ !~
t I! 4 ~~
~ ~; ~
~ '~ 9 i a~ ; ~~ ~
~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~',r~ a~
t b ~ ~ ~ I II
!~ ~ ~ ~, ~~
' • ~• ~ i i l W I I n
I r~ i ~ 7.'M 1'~J~1 M9f'rT~Ff 4T ~ ~ 6
~ ~ ~ f ~~
~~I~~ri rM rf ~+.~~~ 1 Z ~r ~ f /~ '~
~ A..1456~ YaiJ ~ i r L[lf4 G
- + J Hurie4'
J is 27.7;4 ,•
-~~ --•- f ~a~ '4 - !~ -
~,
------~ '~ 1'
~ ; nl YA R.D f1 " ~
_~ N
I ~ ~~~._._._
~ Ii ,-boa
• ~ N 1
~p J+f yi7~1 A 1Z~rA 1
I
~ M
or Jn I r1 L~49~~io ~pOG °.
r1: r ~
City Council
Attachment 4 to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #4H
0'1-ofi-o9
CITY GF ALAMEDA RESQLUTI~N N0.
a
v
0
~.
APPRQVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. g157
FQRTHE PURPQSE GF ESTABLISHING ASUBDIVISIQN aF QWNERSHIP
TO CQNDQMINIUM FARM FQRTWO DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLINGS ON QNE SITE LGCATED AT 1531 MQRTQN STREET
WHEREAS, an application was made on May 19, 2008, by John Gutierrez,
requesting Subdivision afownershiptocondominiumformfortwodetachedsingle-
familydwellings on one site; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on September 3,
2008; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a publichearing onthisapplication on
Qctober Z7, Z008 and considered or examined all pertinent maps, drawings,
documents and testimony and recommended approval of the Tentative Parcel
Map to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda held a public hearing on
January G, 2009 and considered or examined all pertinent maps, drawings,
documents and testimony; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings relevant to the
Parcel Map:
1. The Building official has certified that there are no violations of codes
or statutes applicable to the structures on the site.
This finding can be made because the Building official has certified that there are
no violations to Codes orstatutes applicabletothe structures involved based upon
documents provided by the applicant which included a pest report and
documentation from a licensed Engineer that states #hat the original residential
building complies with the State Historic Building Code. The Building Qfficial
recognizes that Design Review and Building Permit approval was issued for the
development of the second detached dwelling, This approval was predicated on
compliance with City Code standards relating to infill development.
2. The conversion has been reviewed and reported upon by Design
Review.
This finding can be made because the initial infill development of the site had been
reviewed through the Major Design Review process. This process assured that
the development of the site complied with Municipal Cade standards and
residential design guidelines.
Resolution #4-H CC
~1-06-D9
3. The project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15315 Minor
Land Divisions that requires conformance with the General Plan and
Zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, and al! services and
access conform to local standards.
This finding can be made because the project would be limited to providing
individual ownership of existing single-family detached residences on a single lot
and would not affect or alter existing residential density in the neighborhood and
would not affect any public facilities. The project is also consistent with General
Plan Guiding Policies: Residential areas, 2.4.d because is limits residential
development to two detached single-family residences; and 2.4.e because the
conversion would expand opportunities for households in all income groups by
providing the opportunity of separate ownership for each of the single-family
residences on the common site. The Major Design Review approval for the
original infill projectassured that thesite meetsallzoning standards pertainingto
site development that includes off-street parking, open space, and water
conservationllandscaping. Access is provided by the Morton Street right-of-way
with a conforming 8.5-foot wide driveway to the dwelling at the rear portion of the
site.
4. The project would not affect the availability of rental housing, remove
rental housing, or result in the displacement of tenants occupying
rental units.
This finding can be made because the original single-family house was last
occupied by an owner occupant. The conversion does not limit the property to
either owneroccupant or rental status.
NGvv THEREFGRE BE IT RESGLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda approvestheTentativeParcel Map No. 9751 File No. PLNO8-0260},for
the PurposeofEstablishing aSubdivision of 4wnershipto Condominium Formfor
two Detached Single-Family Dwellings on one Site Located at 1531 Morton Street,
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
~1 } This approval shall expire and become void if a Final Parcel Map is not filed
within two years afterthis approval, or byJanuary 6, 2011.
~2} The Final Parcel Map shall include the sheet defined as the Tentative
Parcel Map No. 9151, prepared by Andreas Deak, submitted on May ~ 9,
2008 and shall include the Proposed Site Landscape} Plan, prepared by
Sinan Sabuncuoglu, submitted on September 3, 2008 and on file in the
officeof the City afAlameda Planning and Building Department, except as
modified by the conditions listed below.
~3} The Final Parcel Map shall be approved subject to the satisfaction of the
PlanningandBuilding Director, the City Engineer, and the City's Consultant
surveyor. This shall include, but not be limited to the following issues:
a. The identification of the units and the common areas on the final map
should match those in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
ACC&R's}. Units should have a number ~i.e., Unit 1 and Unit 2} not
letters.
b. Exclusive Use Common Areas shall be identified as such. Exclusive
Use common areas may be identified by letters "D" for deck, "P" for
patio, "PS"for parking space, "SP"for stairs, porch, and landings, and
"Y" for yard followed by the number of the corresponding unit.
Abbreviations shall be included in the legend.
~4} The subdivider shall pay for all reasonable office and engineering costs
expended bythe City Engineer's office, including overhead, in conjunction
with reviewing the Tentative Parcel Map and Final Parcel Map and in
obtaining the map signature of the City's consulting surveyoron the Final
Parcel Map.
~5} The subdivider shall pos# a refundable cashier's check in the amount of
$400 to guarantee thatthe Mylarcopyofthe site plan and landscaping plan
are provided in the farm approved by the City Engineer.
~6} The subdividershall arrangeforaTitleCompanyto recordthe Final Parcel
Map and provide a Mylar copy ofthe recorded Final Parcel Map, site plan
and landscaping plan.
~l} Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ACC&R's} including estimated
homeowner's fees shall beprepared tothe satisfaction of the Planning and
Building Director, the City Engineerand the CityAttarney priorto approval
of the Final Parcel Map by the City Council for purposes of verifying
maintenance and care of common areas.
~8} The applicantlproperty owner shall provide and estimate of the
condominium owner'sfees.
~9~ The CC&R's shall be recorded with the Final Parcel Map.
X10} The Final Parcel Map shall comply with all City Code requirements
including but not limited by Section 30-81 of the Alameda Municipal Code.
X11} The subdivider shall arrangefor a title company to record the Final Parcel
Map and CC & R's.
X12} 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 RedevelopmentAgency,Alameda CityPlanning Board
and their respective agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void
or 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 prompt#y 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 CiviE Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety X90}
days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6
NOTICE. Theconditionsofprojectapprovalsetforthherein includecertainfees
and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 ~d} ~1 }, these
Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amountof 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 Code 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 6th day of January, 2009, bythe following vote to
wit:
AYES
NGES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIGNS:
IN vvITNESS, vvHEREOF, l have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said City this 7th day of January, 2009.
Lora Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY 4F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 6, 2009
Re: Discussion of General Financial Policies and Guiding_,-Principles
BACKGROUND
A FY09-10 budget preparation calendar Attachment 1} was transmitted to the City
Council at the regular meeting of December 2, 2008. At that time, the City Manager and
the Interim Finance Director presented the implementation schedule for preparation of
the City's annual resource allocation plan budget}, The first step in that process is City
Council discussion and ultimate adoption of financial policies and guiding principles,
which will provide the necessary policy direction to management staff in preparing the
FY09-10 annual budget.
DISCUSSION
A draft of comprehensive general financial policies and guiding principles for
preparation of the City's financial resource allocation plan is on file in the City Clerk's
office. This draft includes optimum standards for financial management; it is a basis
upan which to engage the City Council in a dialogue on the preferred, best management
practices in municipal financial management, which will be the foundation upon which to
build the City's two-year financial resource plan for the subsequent two fiscal years.
After City Counci! discussion and feedback, staff will prepare a final draft for City
Council adoption by resolution on February 3, 2009.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adoption of these general financial policies and guiding principles will impact the City's
annual budget in FY09-10 and thereafter.
City Council
Agenda Item #5-A
01-06-09
Honorable Mayor and
Members ofithe City Council
RECGMMENDATI4N
January 6, 2009
Page 2 of 2
Provide feedback and comments on the draft General Financial Policies and Guiding
Principles as presented.
Respectfully submitted,
G~
Ann Marie Ilant
Interim Fi a ce Director
AMG:dI
Attachments:
1. Budget Preparation Calendar
ATTACHMENT I
FY 09-10 BUDGET PREPARATION AND CALENDAR
DATE DEPARTMENT 1TEMIACTIVITY
January 6 Finance City Council policy discussion on draft budgetlfiscal policies
January 10 All Departments Final Organization Charts due to Finance
January 25- Ali Departments City Manager budget and service level reviews with
February 15 departments
February 1 All Departments Final mission statements due to Finance
February 1 & Al! Departments Program descriptions finalized by Finance; department
thereafter except Housing reviews with Finance Director
Authority & AP
February 1 Finance Complete preliminary revenue estimates for all City funds
February 3 Finance Mid-year review; fund balance "cleanup"; capital project
encumbranceslreservesfnr City Council action
February 3 Finance City Council OPEBIDebt Analysis and Funding Report
February 3 Finance City Council presentation on programlperformance budget
format; cost center listing
February 3 FinancelCity Council City Council adoption of budgetlfiscal policies
February 15 Finance Finalize interfund transfers with non-General Fund
departments
March 1 Finance Finalize projected revenues fall funds}
March 1l Finance City Council approval of cost allocation plan for FY 09-10
April 2-15 All Departments Final budget balancing fall funds}
April 15-30 Finance Budget document production
May 2 Finance Annual consolidated fee resolution of user fees, impact fees,
cost-recovery rates
May 5 & Finance City Council budget presentation and study sessions
thereafter
May 19 Finance Gann Limit resolutions adopted by City Council
June 16 Finance City Council budget adoption and implementing resolutions
CITY 4F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayar and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 6, 2009
Re: Receive a Re ort on Fire De ar#ment Resource Allocation
BACKGROUND
This report responds to various City Council requests for information, data and analysis
of Fire Department resources in relationship to current Fire Department staffing and
emergency response time. The report analysis addresses service level response times;
the cost-benefit of hiring additional full-time personnel rather than using overtime to
maintain the staffing levels; the status of FYOS-09 overtime funds, and resultant service
level impacts through June 30, 2009.
DISCUSSION
Response Time Data
The Alameda Fire Department receives approximately 6,000 calls annually. The City's
practice is to respond to all calls within 4 minutes of notification on at least 90 percent of
all emergency calls. In analyzing the Fire Department's current response times, staff
compared data for the period January 1 -December 20, 2001, to the period January 1
- December 20, 2005. Response time is defined as the time elapsed from receipt of the
notification of the call for service in the fire station to the time the first unit arrives on the
scene. The analysis includes only actual calls in the City of Alameda, not aborted or
canceled calls.
The data show that the four-minute response time is achieved 90°/° of the time. Further,
the data shows that the average response time for all calls in the City of Alameda, which
is approximately four minutes and 30 seconds, improved by five to ten seconds in 2005.
The National Fire Protection Association ~NFPA} Standard 17~ 0 also recommends
response time standards. The NFPA standard is consistent with the City practice;
specifically, afour-minute response time for 90°/° of calls.
City Council
Agenda Item 5-B
01-06-09
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
AFD Res onse Times: 111101-121ZOlOl
Suppression!
All EMS Non-
Emer enc
Average
Response 0:04:21 0:04:16 0:05:04
90°/° Cail
R 0:04:00 0:03:56 0:04:15
es onse
Total Calls 5145 4023 1122
AFD Res onse Times: -1!1108 -12120108
Suppression!
All EMS Non
Emer enc
Average
Response 0:04:24 0:04:11 0:05:13
90°/° Call
Res onse 0:03:53 0:03:50 0:04:06
Total Calls 5313 4161 1152
January 6, 2009
Page 2 of 7
Under the existing response model, current response times are consistent with both City
and NFPA standards.
Response Time Impacts of Polenlia! Brownouts
In order to balance the City budget for fiscal year 2008-2009, all department directors
developed strategies for reducing expenditures. The Fire Department, in order to
address the budget constraints and maintain the existing staffing levels, has
implemented a number of cost saving mechanisms over this and previous budget years.
These include the reorganization of administration with the unfunding of a training
captain and an administrative analyst position, and the reassignment of an
administrative captain to suppression.
Far the Fire Department, the fiscal year 2008-2009 final adopted budget included a
reduction of approximately $400,000 that was to be accomplished through the
managing of overtime by eliminating a portion of callback overtime beginning in January
2009. As a result, upon implementation of this approach, whenever daily staffing is
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 7
below 27 suppression personnel on duty due to injuries, illnesses, or planned vacations,
the department will remove a unit from service for the day, in order to avoid paying
overtime costs. This would result in a staffing level of not less than 24 personnel on
duty,
To analyze the impact of a fire company closure, it is important to understand the
standard response to a fire call. In Alameda, when there is a call for a potential
structure fire, three engine companies, two truck companies, an ambulance, and a
Division Chief are dispatched to the call. This standard response complement of 1 S
sworn fire personnel is within the recommended response standard for a structure fire.
X15 to18 firefighters including command staff}.
The following data is provided to understand the impacts of the closure of a truck or
engine company,
Total first alarm res oases per ear 186
Total workin structure fires er ear 32
Total gas leaks per ear 28
First alarms that went to a rester alarm 7
~f the 32 structure fires that occurred last year, there were no occurrences of a
shortage of first alarm or second alarm resources. The data suggests that the impact
on resource availability from removing a fire company from service will be minimal.
However, based on travel distance and fire location, if a structure fire occurs in a district
where a fire unit is not available, the response time may be impacted. The same impact
may occurfor medical responses in a districtwhere no other units are available.
To analyze the impact of an ambulance closure, it is important to understand the
standard response to a medical call. An engine company and ambulance are
dispatched to every medical call. There is a paramedic on each engine and on each
ambulance. For purposes of emergency medical responses, the first responder
advance life support unit is generally the engine company. In a case where an Alameda
ambulance is not available, the closest Alameda fire engine would be dispatched and a
mutual aid call would be made to the County's contract ambulance transport entity.
Under this scenario, the response time of the first arriving unit, the engine company with
its paramedic, would not be impacted. However, the transport vehicle could be
delayed, depending on the location of the mutual aid ambulance.
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 4 of l
The following data is provided to describe a potential impact of removing an ambulance
from service.
Total Annual EMS Res onses 4218
Number of times three ambulances are
simultaneous) on a call 240
42% of EMS calls are prioritized as
critical incidents, i.e., cardiac, trauma,
etc. 42% of 240 100
This data is based upon call experience during calendar year 2008, in which
approximately 240 calls per year could receive a delayed ambulance response if an
ambulance were removed from service. Approximately 100 of those EMS calls would
be critical incidents, based upon this call experience. The actual delayed time of the
transport vehicle is difficult to forecast due to many variables including location of the
incident, location of responding vehicle, weather conditions etc. However, when all
engine and truck companies are in service, there will be no impact on the arrival of a
first response advanced life support unit.
Given the current budget and economic conditions, the implementation of the reduction
in expenditures through the management of overtime expenses is necessary to remain
within the appropriation for the Fire Department, vllhile any reduction in staffing or
program service level is difficult, historical incident and response data suggest that the
reduction of the on duty emergency response force from 2l to 24 personnel is a
reasonable measure to implement without causing significant adverse impact to service
delivery for the majority of Fire Department emergency responses. The Fire Chief
estimates that under this change in staffing level, 95 percent of the current service level
will be preserved. The Fire Department will continue to monitor the service levels
during the year and report to the City Manager any significant impact to response times,
resource availability or service delivery.
Full-dime Personnel vs. overtime
n order to determine whether it is more cost effective to pay overtime to existing Fire
Department personnel in order to maintain staffing levels, or to hire additional full time
staff, the Fire Department and Finance Department analyzed fire personnel overtime
costs and usage since July 1, 2005. Results of this analysis were previously submitted
to the City Council in the Fire Department's Sustainability Report, transmitted on
October 15, 2008.
This analysis indicates that afull-cost firefighter position salary and benefits, excluding
other post-employment benefits at Step 4 is $130,000. tither start-up costs for new
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2049
Members of the City Council Page 5 of 7
employees, including recruitment, and testing, are included in existing operatin
g
budgets. The average cost of replacing one firefighter with overtime for one ear ~s
. y ..
$151,280; therefore, the average overtime savings, without including the future liabili
tY
for retiree health benefits, ~s $21,280 per employee. However, to avoid increasing the
City's future liability for public safety retirement benefits, it is the City Mana er's
.. g
administrative direction that a contribution of $76,000 to cover the present value of the
actuarially determined liability cost of that benefit must be made whenever a new sworn
public safety employee is hired. Therefore, the net cost of hiring a new employee in the
first year is $53,720; in subsequent years, assuming there are no salary increases, the
$21,280 of annual savings would be realized.
FY08-09 ~vertrme Budget Status Report
The following table illustrates the current rate of actual overtime expenditures in FY08-
09 through December 31, 2008, at a staffing level of 27 personnel on a 24 hour, seven
day a week basis, and extrapolates through June 30, 2009 based upon the same
staffing level.
Table 1: 27 Personnel on Dut
Total overtime bud eted $1,013,280
Actual overtime aid 711108 -12131108 $978,547
ave rti me ro'ected 111109 --11341D9 $130, 000
State reimbursement $413,044
overtime balance available $317,773
Avera a overtime er da $ 3,747
overtime to staff at 27 er shift for211109 - 6130109 $562,050
Trainin IContin enc $100,000
Sur lust Deficit $344,277
An additional budget appropriation of $344,277 would be required to continue staffin at
g
its present level of 27 personnel on duty.
The following table illustrates the actual overtime expenditures in FY48-49, but
extrapolates them through June 30, 2009 based upon a 24 personnel on duty, 24 hours
a day, seven days a week staffing level.
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 6 of 7
Table 2: 24 Personnel on Dut
Total overtime bud eted $1,013,280
Actual overtime aid 711108 -12131105 $978,547
overtime ro'ected 111109 -1130109 $130,000
State reimbursement $413,040
overtime balance available $317,773
Avera a overtime er da $1,240
Ove rti me to staff at 24 e r sh ift for 211109 - 6130109 $186, 000
Trainin IContin enc $100,000
Sur lust Deficit $31,773
In order to meet the budget authorization, the staffing configuration of 24 personnel on
duty will begin the last week of January. It is projected that by implementing this staffing
level no additional funding will be required through June 30, 2009 as the department
would be operating within its approved appropriations.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The overtime allocation for fire department personnel approved in the 2008-2009 fiscal
year budget is $1,013,280. As of December 31, 2005, $978,547 of this overtime
allocation had been expended; $34,733 is the balance available through June 30, 2009.
However, this cash balance does not reflect a reimbursement of $413,040 due from the
State, which results in actual net remaining balance of $447,773.
Maintaining a staffing level of 27 personnel on duty for the remainder of the year would
require either reducing programs or services in other departments, utilizing reserves, or
identifying new revenues in the amount of $344,277. If this amount is allocated from the
unreserved, undesignated General Fund fund balance, it would decrease the cash
balance to $8.7 million. If the $344,277 is reallocated from the fund balance currently
designated to the Fire Department for the fire station improvement project, it would
basically eliminate this reserve. As any reallocation would involve appropriating one-
time funds for ongoing expenditures, the Interim Finance Director is not recommending
utilization of either funding source for this purpose. In either case, applying designated
or unreserved fund balances, would be a funding solution for this fiscal year only.
In terms of new revenues, in November 2008, the voters approved an increase in the
property transfer tax rate effective for transactions beginning in December. At this time,
it appears unlikely that the City will benefit significantly from the rate increase in this
fiscal year, due to the impact of the economy on the housing market throughout the
nation as well as the job market in California. The budget for the current fiscal year
assumed revenues of $4.1 million from the property transfer tax at the previous rate,
and little change in the volume of transactions. During the first 75 days of the fiscal
year, estimates for this revenue source were projected to be $250,000 less than
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 7 of 7
budgeted, or $3,S50,oo0. This revenue shott#all, as previously discussed with the Ci
tY
Council, was to be absorbed by expenditure cost controls in operating departments.
The most recent data that the Finance Department has collected indicates that it is
unlikely property transfer tax revenues will meet this revised budget projection, despite
the fact that the rate more than doubted. From April though September of this year, the
prime real estate quarters, actual receipts totaled $1.4 million, which extrapolates to a
very approximate estimate of $3.5 million for the fiscal year. This calculation makes
major assumptions regarding the number of sales, the valuation of those sales, and
access to mortgage financing. In order to develop a more reliable projection, the
Finance Department has a consulting firm specializing in projecting and analyzing
property transfer tax revenues preparing an analysis based on detailed market
assumptions and sales prices in Alameda. This analysis has yet to be received by the
City. The results of the analysis will be incorporated into the mid-year budget review
and presentation scheduled for February.
RECOMMENDATION
This report is provided for information only; no action is required.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
David Kapler
Fire Chief
~~~-.
Approved as to funds and account,
Ann Mar' Gallant
Interim Hance Director
AMGIDK:dI
0
0
~.
~.
~.
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESGLUTIGN NG.
APPOINTING HORST BREUER AS A MEMBER OF THE
CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL SEAT)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that
pursuant to Section 2-14.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code and Resolution No.
12149, and upon nomination of the Mayor, HARRY DAHLBERG is hereby
reappointed to the office of Manufacturingllndustrial Member of the Economic
Development Commission of the City of Alameda, commencing January 6, 2009,
and expiring on August 31, 2012,
******
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular
meeting assembled on the-6th day of January, 2009, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NaES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN ~IVITNESS, vVHEREflF, l have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this lth day of January, 2009.
Lora lllleisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolutions #6-Q
9~-06-49
CITY 4F ALAMEDA RESnLUTION N4.
0
L
~.
APPOINTING JUSTIN HARRISON AS A MEMBER OF THE
CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
~ (MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL SEAT)
'' BE IT RESGLVED by the Gouncii of the City of Alameda that
a pursuant to Section 2-14.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code and Resolution No.
12149, and upon nomination of the Mayor, HARRY DAHLBERG is hereby
reappointed to the office of Manufacturinglindustrial Member of the Economic
DevelopmentCommission oftheCityofAlameda, commencing Januaryfi, 2009,
and expiring on August 31, 2012,
*~~**~
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular
meeting assembled on the 6th day of January, 2009, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NGES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIGNS:
IN vvITNESS, WHEREGF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said Gity this lth day of January, 2009.
Lara Weisiger, Gity Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY ~F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 6, 2009
Re: Hold a Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development Needs for
the___Communit~evelopment Block Grant FY 2009-2010 Annual Plan
BACKGROUND
The Community Development Block Grant CDBG} is a federal program funded through
the Department of Housing and Urban Development THUD}, As an "Entitlement" city,
Alameda receives an annual grant and is required by CDBG regulations to hold an
annual public hearing to obtain citizens' views on current housing and community
development needs, Noticed in the November 21, 2008, Alameda Journal and on the
City's website, this Hearing provides an opportunity for input on the FY 2009-2010
Action Plan.
The Social Service Human Relations Board SSHRB} advises the City Council
regarding social service needs in the community, To support the City's effort in soliciting
public comment on community needs, the SSHRB held a public meeting on December
3 to discuss the public service needs of the community, The SSHRB findings regarding
the City's community needs are included as Attachment 1,
DiSCUSSI~N
The main objective of the CDBG program, as mandated by Congress, is to develop
viable communities through the provision of decent housing, promotion of economic
opportunity, and the creation of a suitable living environment for persons with primarily
low and moderate incomes. As required by HUD, the City`s adopted Five-Year Plan
X2005-2009} was developed in conjunction with other jurisdictions in Alameda County
and sets forth the identified Priority Needs and objectives Attachment 2}. Alameda's
housing and community development needs include: affordable ownership and rental
housing; fair housing access; homeless and supportive housing and services for the
disabled; public services benefiting low and moderate-income persons; and
improvements to public facilities that benefit disabled andlor low- and moderate-income
families or neighborhoods,
City Council
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #6-B
o'I -06.09
Honorable Mayor and ~ January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3
In addition to identifying Priority Needs as required by HUD, the City strives to
continually assess the needs of the community through ongoing collaboration with
community groups and housing and social service providers. Through the leadership of
the SSHRB, two community forums pertaining to community and social issues were co-
sponsored during 2008. Members of the SSHRB and City staff also supported two
initiatives to improve health services in Alameda. The Dental Assistance program, a
partnership that includes the College of Alameda and the Alameda County Public
Health Department, is working to provide dental services for low-income residents who
are unable to access dental care. The Health Is Not Health Care initiative, a
collaboration of several Alameda social service providers, is working to increase
awareness regarding the effects of social and economic inequalities upon the health of
Alamedans. The group is currently assessing the needs of youth and the effects of
inequality upon their health, by preparing a Community Youth Development
Assessment.
Through the FY 2009-2010 Action Plan, the City will address the objectives identified
through this Needs Hearing process. Use of CDBG funds helps maintain the affordable
housing stock, improve public facilities, and provide needed public services by
leveraging public and private investment that help defray General Fund costs. The
following CDBG activities have an identified community need: property acquisition and
rehabilitation, public facilities improvements, public services, accessibility
improvements, economic development, and planning and administrative activities. At
least 70% of CDBG funds must be expended to benefit low- and moderate-income
residents or neighborhoods. A limited amount of funds may also be used to eliminate
blight in selected areas. Activities not directly benefiting an eligible low- or moderate-
income individual or household must meet identified needs in low-income
neighborhoods shown on the attached map Attachment 3}.
In April 2008, the City Council approved CDBG-funded public services through atwo-
year Request for Proposal ~RFP} process, covering FY 2008-09 and FY 2009-10. This
two-year cycle for public service funding enhances program stability and directs
resources towards program delivery. Second year funding is contingent upon
availability of funds and satisfactory contract performance. As of the first quarter of FY
2008-09, all public service subgrantees are meeting performance goals and are
expected to receive similar allocations for FY 2009-10. During its December 3r~
meeting, the SSHRB reaffirmed the public service needs, but also acknowledged that
the current state of the economy may have a significant effect upon the community's
needs, and funding priorities may need to be reassessed at a later date.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
CDBG Entitlement allocations for FY 2009-2010 have not been published by HUD.
Industry analysts are predicting that funding levels for FY 2009-2010 will be consistent
with those for FY 2008-09. The City's FY 2005-09 CDBG allocation was $1,329,612. In
addition to the City's FY 2009-2010 federal allocation, staff anticipates receiving
approximately $200,000 in Program Income from residential rehabilitation and other
Honorable Mayor and January 6, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3
loan repayments. As required by CDBG regulations, the City's FY 2009-20~ 0 public
services allocation will be capped at 15% of the FY 2409-2010 grant, plus prior year's
program income, There is no financial impact on the Genera! Fund.
REC~MMENDATIDN
Hold a Public Hearing an current and anticipated housing and community development
needs, After the public portion of the Hearing, City Council members may wish to
identify additional needs that have not been noted in citizens' comments.
Res ly submitted,
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
By:
Debbie Potter
Base Reuse and Community Development Manager
.~ 7~
Terri Vvright
Community Development Program Manager
LLIDPITIN:sb
Attachment(s):
1. SSHRB Letter
2. Priority Needs and Objectives
3. Census Map
cc: Social Service Human Relations Board
December 16, 2008
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Cyndywasko, President
Social Service Human Relations Board
Subject: Social Service Human Relations Board Recommendations Regarding Housing and
Community Development Needs
The Social Service Human Relations Board SSHRB} advises the City Council regarding social
service and human relations needs in Alameda. In 1997, the Council asked the SSHRB to
participate in the Community Development Block Grant CDBG} process by reviewing and
commenting on the public service needs and funding recommendations. This letter represents our
input forthe annual needs process, culminating in the Needs Hearing atthe Januarys, 2009 City
Council meeting.
At ou r December 3, 2008 meeting, we received input f rom four service providers Attachment A}and
reviewed the comments we provided to you in 2007. vlle also heard a staff presentation on the
CDBG. As in years past, we are impressed with the breadth of needs that are addressed with the
City's CDBG funds, but we noted with dismay that available funds are never sufficient to address a!I
the needs of lower-income residents of our city.
in 2005, the SSHRB completed the City of Alameda Community Needs Assessment. The
Assessment reaffirmed the need to strengthen Alameda's safety net services:l9% of respondents
were unable to afford all the food their family needed, l 5°/° had fallen behind on rent or mortgage
payments, and 18% indicated that not everyone in their family had health insurance, 14.5°/°
expressed a need for bettertransportation services. Twenty-eight percent X28%} of people said that
someone in their family has a disability. Residents also cited the need for more living wage jobs and
increased supports forfamilies with children.
we compared the Focus Areas of the past two funding cycles with the comments we received this
year and recognized that there is an even greater need for services for Alameda families now than
in previous years. The recent economic downturn has resulted in an unprecedented need for
services. Anecdotal reports from service providers support this increase.
Primaryemphasis should be placed on:
Preserving and strengtheningAlameda'ssafety netforfamilies and individualswho are
in crisis or vulnerable, through programs such as food, shelter, health and wellness services,
personal safety services, and other homeless prevention services such as short term rental
and utility assistance. we believe that current programs can be sustained and enhanced by
more conscious and directed collaboration between agencies and service providers. Funds
and services can be better leveraged if increased attention was given to carefully
City Council
AttachMent '1 to
Public Nearing
Agenda Item #6-B
01.08.09
Mayor and Members of the City Council
December 16, 2008
Page 2
orchestrated collaborations and more effective partnerships.
• Empowering Alamedans to improve economic and social self-sufficiency and stability
through education, youth development, job training, health and wellness services,
employment and employment support services such as transportation and childcare;
• Sustain and improve access to affordable housing in Alameda through programs such
as fair housing including disability related housing issues}; and
• Encouraging collaboration among service providers so that people with disabilities,
seniors, single parents, and culturally and linguistically isolated populations will have
awareness of and access to services. Collaboration might include increased outreach,
publicity, and use of technologies thatfoster increased leveraging of services and funds.
Although the SSHRB recommends no particularorderof priorityorpercentage allocation ofCDBG
public service funds among these focus areas, we do believe that in these especially difficult times
of economic challenges, collaboration among agencies is criticalto providing accesstoservicesfor
those in need. As the number of families of need increase, we must be able to coalesce our efforts
to meetthe demand. This year, more so than in the past, we see the importance of active and weft
coordinated collaboration.
We hope that the funding allocations will continue to reflect a commitment to:
• Empowering families and individuals with tools for self-sufficiency and success;
• Maintaining Alameda's diversity; and
• Supporting families and individuals who are vulnerable or in crisis.
vl~e look forward to reviewing staff's public service funding recommendations when they are
published laterthisyear.
Sincerely,
Cyndy asko, President
Social ervice Human Relations Board
Attachment
cc: Social Service Human Relations Board
Development Services Director
ATTACHMENTA
Social Service Human Relations Board
December 3, 2008
Public Service Speakers
Jim Franz, American Red Cross, Alameda Service Center
Laura Hurst, Family Violence Law Center
Julia Brown, Women's Initiative for Self Employment
Liz Varela, Building Futures for Women and Children
G.ISSHRBICDBGRECSINeeds09AttachA.doc
FY 2005-09 Consolidated Plan Priority Needs & Objectives
Priorit : Housin Needs*
^ Increase the availability of affordable rental housing for extremely low
income, low income and moderate income households.
^ Preserve existing affordable rental and ownership housing for low income
and moderate income households,
^ Assist low and moderate income first-time homebuyers.
Priority; Fair Housin ~ Access*
^ Reduce housing discrimination.
Priority: Homeless Needs
^ Maintain, improve and expand has needed the capacity of housing,
shelter and services for homeless individuals and families including
integrated healthcare, employment services and other services,
Maintain and expand activities designed to prevent those currently housed
from becoming homeless.
^ Build on inter-jurisdictional cooperation to achieve housing and homeless
needs.
Priority; Supportive Housing Needs*
^ Increase the availability ofservice-enriched housing for persons with
special needs.
Priority: Community Development (Non-Housing) Needs*
^ Senior Facilities and Services
^ Parks and Recreation Facilities
^ Neighborhood Facilities
^ Child Care Facilities and Services
Crime Awareness ~Prevention~
^ Accessibility Needs
^ [nfrastructure Improvements
^ Economic Development
^ Public Services
* These need areas are uniformly set, as required by HUD. city council
Attachment ~ to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #6-B
01-06.09
-~
^
~~~~
`~ .~
~~
~"'
.~ i + n
~""' ~
~ air
(f~ C?
u- c o
~ p~ o
7^
~.,~ ~
..
4
~ir;'~' ' ~~I .4
1 ~
r'l ~ ~~I
~.'
;;,~ ~~ ~ .
y f
j~~;}Ti ~~ ~ fr
'~:>r~°'
.4 `::~~' 1 r~
{~~~ ~ 4'7
;yN+.~ ``k ~ , ~
+~ .,,u'`
~'«~ ~ ~ ~ .
~ ~ *~ 1
\;; ;Y~
Z ~J` '`
1 „~~~~~''~7~E`~'~~ ~ i ~ ,^ ~._~~ ~ ~ ,rte
`~'n ~~
~ ~
~ x,, ;=.
,{ w~ t~: ~
- k Cpl, t`'~'`.. a;.,'
~1 „ ,
h ~ ~ fie, , ~,
~~~
~ ~~
4'~ ,~
~~ ~
~ ~i
~ ,~ ~ '~o.
~~~~
~~~
~~~~~
i ~
w +~ ~ 4ti
+s ~ '~ 4'~
47
~~ ~ ~~
.~ ',~ ~
~} 4ry i.s l~
~ ~~~ ~~
~, ~~-,~~
~ ~~~~x
~~~
~ ~ }-+ `"~
~ H ~~~
~~~
~? ~~
6'S ~ P~ ~ ~
d}
•,i
C? ~ ~~ ~ ~
~ ~~
~~
~~ ~,, ~ ~
~~~
~a ~ ~
~~~~
~ rte. ~
r u ~ ~ ri
qty Gounc
^~
Attachment 3 to
Puhlic Hewing
Agenda Item #6-8
0'1.06-09
City of Alameda
2000 Census Low- and Moderate-Income Areas
Alameda is an "Exception" community, witf~ the criteria set at 48.4%. Any Block Group where a~ ieas~
45.4% of t~-e population does not exceed 80% AMi qualifies as a low-mod area.
Percent LIM Area
Low-Mod LIM Boundaries
CT 4271
BG 4 50.1 W-Park St., N-Estuary, SIE-TildenlFernsidelVersailles
CT 4272
BG 2 53.3 W-Chestnut St, N-Clement Ave, E-Walnut St., S-Lincoln
Ave.
BG 3 55.2 W-Grand AvelMinturn St., N- Buena VistalClement Ave., E-
Chestnut St, S-Lincoln Ave.
BG 4 48.4 W-Stanton StlHibbard St.IGrand St., N-Buena
VistalEaglelEstuary, E-Grand AvelMinturn St.ICak St.IPark
St., S- Lincoln Ave.l Buena VistalClementlBlanding Ave.
CT 4273
BG 1 49.1 W-St. Charles St, N-Buena Vista Ave,
E-Sherman StlStanton St., S-Lincoln Ave.
BG 3 50.6 W-9t~ St.IvUood St., N-Railroad tracks, E-Sherman St.ISt.
Charles St, S-Buena VistalLincoin Eagle Ave.
BG 5 73.1 W-Webster St., N-Stewart Ct., Railroad tracks, E-
Constitutionl9t~` St., S-Buena Vista Ave.
CT 4274
BG 2 60.0 W-Main St., N-Estuary, E-Webster St.15th St.,
S-Atlantic Ave.ITinker Ave.
CT 4275
Entire Tract 74.5* W-San Francisco Bay. N- Estuary, E- Main St.,
S- San Francisco Bay
CT 4276
Entire Tract 61.2 W-Main St. N-Atlantic Ave, E- Webster St.,
S- Pacific AvelMarshall WaylLincoln Ave.
CT 4277
BG 1 54.4 W-Linden St16th St., N-Lincoln Ave,
E-Webster St., S-Santa ClaralCentral Ave.
CT 4279
BG 4 54.4 W-Sherman St., N-Lincoln AvelSanta Clara Ave.,
E- Stanton St.ICottage St., S-Central Ave.
CT 4281
BG 4 58.5 W-Park St., N-Lincoln Ave., E-Versailles
S-Central Ave.
CT 4286
BG 2 54.0 W-McKay St., N- Central Ave., E-8th StIVIJestline St.
S-San Francisco Bay
HUD 200G Income Limits as of Ma~c1z 8, 2006. IVledict~z Fc~»ai~y ~'i2conie: $$2,200
Frtn~i~y Size 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 $
Very Low Income $29,000 $33,100 $37,250 $41,400 $44,700 $48,OOD $51,350 $54,G50
Low Income $4G,350 $53,OD0 $59,G00 $GG,2S0 $71,550 $7G,$SO $82,150 $87,450
G;ICDBG1cONSPLAN1AnnPlans12np81p8 NeedslAttcli B.doc
1=. LegallRec~IL-M Are~~s
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
ONE VACANCY
(PARTIAL TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2009, BUILDING DESIGN SEAT)
Donna Talbot
Jasper Thomas
Re; Agenda Item #9-A
01-06.49
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
YOUTH COMMISSION
THREE VACANCIES
(FULL TERMS EXPIRING AUGUST 31, 2010)
MelinaGohen-Bramwell
Kia~~a Heath
Ellen Hui
Trent Liu
McCaulay Singer-Milnes
Re: Agenda Item #9-A
0~ -06-09
UNAPPRQVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA~ AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC} MEETING
TUESDAY - - -- DECEMBER 16, 2008 - - - 6:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meetin at 6:10
g
p.m.
ROLL CALL -- Present: Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
[Note; Councilmember deHaan arrived at 11:09 p.m.]
Absent: None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
X08- CC/ARRA} Conference with Real Property Negotiators X54956.8};
Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating parties: City, ARRA and
SunCal; Under negotiations: Price and terms.
X08- CC} Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Liti ation
X54956.9 Name of cases: g
} Chow v. Clty of Alameda, Gong v. City of
Alameda; Velarde v. City of Alameda; Hurst v. City of Alameda.
X08- CC} Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision fib} of
Section 54956.9; Number of cases: one.
t08- CIC}
1829 Paru
Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property:
Street, Alameda; Negotiating parties: JP Morgan-Chase
Bank and CIC; Under negotiations: Price and terms.
X08- CC} Conference with La~ Negotiators: Agency Negotiators:
Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations: All Bargainin
Units. g
***
Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 7:45 p.m, to hold the
Regular City Council Meeting and reconvened the Closed session at
11:09 p.m.
*~*
Special faint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
And Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
December 16, 2008
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Alameda Point
Council and the ARRA received a briefing from staff re ardin a
g g
matter relating to negotiations with SunCal; Council and the ARRA
provided direction to staff and agreed to waive a legal conflict
regarding SunCal negotiations; regarding Existing Liti ation
Council provided direction to Legal Counsel regarding settlement
parameters; regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council discussed the
claim and two EEOC claims; no action was taken; Council follow u
is expected; re ardin 1829 P ~ ~ p
g g aru Street, the Commission received a
briefing from its Real Property Negotiators and gave direction to
negotiate the purchase of the affordable unit; and regardin Labor
Council discussed lab ~ g ~'
or negotiations with its Labor Negotiator;
Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiator; no action
was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson ad'ourned the
J
Special Joint Meeting at 11:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lora weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was pasted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
And Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
December 16, 2008
UNAPPRD~TED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA}, AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC} MEETING
TUESDAY- -DECEMBER 16, 20Q8W --7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 11:02 .m.
p
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Authority Members/
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the transmittal of the CIC
Annual Report [ aragraph no. 08- CC/08-- CIC~ was removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved
approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
t08- CC/08- CIC~ Recommendation to authorize the transmittal of
the Community Improvement Commission's Annual Report to the State
Controller's Office and the City Council and accept the Annual
Report.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated people have called for
independent audit of the City's books; the City gets rode endentl
p Y
audited every year; the City Auditor is in charge of Kirin an
g
outside, independent audit firm; the firm audits all funds
r
including enterprise and special funds; the audits are available in
the City Clerk's office and on the website; compliance reports have
to be filed with the State and federal governments; a de artment
p
head spent a week doing the report, which is generall the 'ob of
Y ~
manager; the organization is so lean; there is front line staff and
only rare instances of mid level staff; department heads are doin
work which would enerall be don g
g y e by lower level staff; that she
was shocked to hear how much time it takes to complete the re orts;
P
the work reports prepared a year ago listed said type of work below
the line; the focus was on the work that affects the residents and
mandated things did not receive discussion.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff
recommendation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 1
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 1G, 2008
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated mandated
reports are required before the City can receive funding for a lot
of its capital projects; funding can be delayed if the reports are
not done correctly and on time.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the audits include
redevelopment.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
X08- CC/ARRA/OS- CIC} Recommendation to accept transmittal of
the: l} Auditor's Agreed Upon Procedures Report on compliance with
Vehicle Code Section 40200.3 Parking Citation Processing; 2} A reed
g
Upon Procedures Report on compliance with the Proposition 111
21005-OG Appropriations Limit Increment; 3 Police and Fire
Retirement System Pension Plans 1079 and 1092 Audit Re ort for
p
Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2008; 4} Metropolitan Trans ortation
p
Commission Grant Programs Financial Statements for Year ended June
30, 2008; 5} Community Improvement Commission Basic Com onent Unit
p
Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30, 2008; and 6
}
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Basic Component Unit
Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30, 2008. Acce ted.
p
~O8- CC/08- CIC} Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA
and CIC Meetings of October 7, 2008 and October 21, 2008. Approved.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 11:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lora Weisiger
City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council Alameda Reuse and 2
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December lb, 2008
CITY ~F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: January 6, 2x09
Re: Maintain the Current Facade of the Northern Elevation of the Civic
Center Parking Garage and Re-Allocate Funds to Other Redevelopment
Priorities, Including Improvement of the Appearance of the Bill Chun
Service Station
BACKGROUND
The Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda CIC} approved the
design-build construction of the Civic Center Parking Structure in July 2006. The
parking structure was completed in February 2008 and is now open and operating.
During the design phase of the project, the CIC engaged in avalue-engineering process
with the intent of reducing the cost of construction for the parking structure to within the
GIC's budget. As part of this process, it was determined that a structural shear wall on
the northern facade should be moved into the interior of the building thereby reducing
costs and creating a more open and airy structure. This modification to the facade
exposed the sloped ramps of the structure, creating a less symmetric exterior design.
Additionally, mast of the exterior design articulation, such as fluted columns, was
reserved for the front of the building along Gak Street, as it is assumed that the adjacent
property owner, Longs Drugs, will develop its surface parking lot eventually and obscure
the northern facade.
At the direction of the CIC, staff investigated alternatives to modify or treat the north
facade. The CIC executed a contract with Komorous-Towey Architects KTA} to develop
facade treatment options for the northern elevation of the parking structure with the
intent of modifying the current appearance. KTA developed various visual schemes,
including architectural and landscaping options, evaluated the pros and cons of the
options, and provided a preliminary cost estimate for each Attachment 1}. If the CIC
decides to select an improvement option, CIC staff will work with KTA to develop a final
design, and prepare a detailed budget and bid documents. The CIC approved a budget
of $50,x00 this fiscal yearfor a facade treatment along the northern elevation.
CIC
Agenda Item #3-A
Q'I -06-09
Honorable Chair and January 6, 2009
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 5
DISCUSSIaN
As requested, KTA, in conjunction with CIC staff, explored various alternatives for
improving the northern facade, including architectural and landscaping options. The
fallowing outlines the options that were evaluated:
• Status Quo. The parking structure opened six months ago, and many downtown
patrons have grown accustomed to the new structure and the appearance of the
northern facade. Liven that CIC funding is limited and there are other
redevelopment and revitalization priorities throughout the city, the $50,000 could
be reallocated to supplement budgets for other priority projects, such as a
catalyst project on Webster Street, revitalization efforts along Park Street north of
Lincoln Avenue, and Phase II of the Park Street Streetscape Project.
Improvement Cost = $0]
• Banners. Another option involves installing vinyl or metal decorative banners
with graphic images onto steel frames and mounting those on the northern
facade. The banners could have images of the interior of the recently restored
Alameda Theatre, or pictures could be selected through a competitive public art
process administered through the City's Public Art Commission. Cost varies by
number and size of banners and the type of banner material. Some of the banner
sub~options exceed the budgeted amount and would require the identification of
additional funding sources. [Improvement Cost = $44,000 to $50,000]
• Retrofit. Foam shapes could be applied to the top and bottom of existing
concrete spandrels to create a more level appearance, and the columns could be
widened to match the aak Street facade. Additionally, decorative articulation,
similar to features on the Oak Street facade, could be added to the northern
elevation. While this option would create the most uniform appearance between
the northern and western facades, it is also the most expensive and is likely to
block significant interior light and views, potentially requiring expensive interior
changes to the structure, such as additional lights and mechanical equipment for
air circulation. The cost varies by the extent of the retrofit and the amount of
additional articulation. This option greatly exceeds the budgeted amount and
would require the identification of significant additional funding sources.
[Improvement Cost = $215,000 to $400,000]
• Landscaping. There are numerous landscaping options that were considered.
All options require ongoing maintenance and time for the plants to grow to their
maximum height, although these time periods vary by plant species. The species
presented in KTA's report for each landscaping option were selected in
consultation with a landscape architect and based on their appropriateness for
the proposed environment. The praposed planting area is a small strip along the
northern facade within a built urban environment. All landscaping options will
require soil remediation with new soil imports and present some risk that the
landscaping will initially tail. Astub-out for irrigation to this northern planting strip
Honorable Chair and January 6, 2009
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 5
was installed as part of the site work for the parking structure. Lastly, the planting
of trees was excluded from the analysis because it is not a viable option due to
inadequate soil depths and planting area.
o Vines. There are two vine landscaping options: vines wi#hout structure,
and vines with structure. The "vines without structure" alternative would
consist of afast-growing climber such as Ficus pumila creeping fig},
which would attach itself to any flat vertical surface including the columns
and spandrels of the parking structure. The vine would take approximately
one to two years to grow to the height of the first story and ten to 15 years
to cover the entire building, if growing conditions are suitable. Additionally,
this option requires expensive bi-annual maintenance from a scissor or
cherry-picker lift and is difficult to remove in the case of its demise or a
decision to change the facade appearance.
The "vines with structure" alternative is comprised of an attractive
stainless steel trellis system that extends approximately six inches from
the face of the vertical columns. Appropriate climbing vines for this option
would be passiflora family passion flower}, Rosa banksiae ~Banksia
roses}, and Clytostoma callistegioides violet trumpet vine}. For
maintenance purposes and a neat and orderly appearance, it is not
recommended that the structure extend beyond the third floor. Unlike the
vines-without-structure option, these vines only grow where supported,
making them much easier to maintain and remove. one of the drawbacks
of this option is that it is not recommended for installation along the
horizontal spandrels of the garage due to the potential for unkempt vines
hanging over the openings of the garage. As a result, this option only
creates an attractive visual appearance at the columns, leaving the
sloping horizontal spandrels unimproved. [improvement Cost = $1,444
for vines-without-structure and $35,000 for vines-with-structure]
o Foundation Planting. Ground level landscaping could be planted along
the length of the building, including numerous plant species that result in a
variety of heights, shapes, textures, and colors. This option only helps to
beautify the base of the building and does not address the sloping facade
at higher levels. [Improvement Cost = $10,000
o Bamboo. Bamboo can be planted along the entire length of the facade
supported with a simple horizontal metal structure at two different heights.
The bamboo is likely to grow between 15 and 35 feet high between the
third and fourth levels} and take two to three years to grow eight feet. The
overall effect of the bamboo will provide an attractive greening of the lower
half of the building that catches people's attention and distracts them from
the sloping upper floors. Additionally, the bamboo allows light to enter the
structure and creates a translucent green screen from the inside of the
garage. Bamboo requires minimal ongoing maintenance, but once a year
Honorable Chair and January fi, 2009
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 4 of 5
bamboo sheds its leaves, which will need to be raked and shaken. This
maintenance effort is likely to add a minimal amount per yearto the CIC's
contract with AMPC~ System Parking, the parking management company
for the parking structure. Bamboo is an attractive and effective option
within the CIC's budget that does not create a significant maintenance
burden. [Improvement Cost = $25,000 to $30,000]
a Combination. There are numerous potential combinations of landscaping
options, including vines with foundation planting or bamboo. Costs vary by
combination. Improvement Cost = $10,000 to $35,000]
C1C staff~recommends maintaining the northern facade in its current condition and re-
allocating the $50,000 budget for other redevelopment priorities, including cleaning and
repainting the Bill Chun Service Station at Santa Clara Avenue and Cak Street. The
Station owners have been involved in a long and expensive remediation process and
want to assist in alleviating the blighted appearance of the property. In exchange for
painting, they have agreed to finalize the remediation at an estimated cost of over
$200,000, remove the existing chain link fence, and clean the lot. The Park Street
Business Association will donate planters and maintain them as well. The planters
would be positioned strategically to block driveways and prevent unauthorized parking.
The City's Facade Assistance Committee would develop the final color palette of the
project to assure an attractive finish. The remaining funds could be used to supplement
budgets for a catalyst project on vvebster Street, North of Lincoln revitalization efforts,
including utility under grounding, and Phase II of the Park Street Streetscape project.
If the CIC decides to improve the northern elevation, CIC staff recommends selecting
the bamboo landscaping option. Of all of the improvement options, this is KTA's
preferred alternative. Bamboo offers many benefits; it is an attractive landscaping option
that will grow to a sufficient height, making it effective at obscuring the lower floors
where people's attention is typically focused. It will not prevent light from entering into
the interior of the structure, but will divert people's attention from the upper sloping
floors. It is easy to remove, does not require significant ongoing maintenance
obligations, and is within the CIC's current $50,000 budget allocation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The current CIC budget allocates $50,000 for improvement of the northern elevation of
the Civic Center Parking Structure. The options presented in the attached report range
in cost between $1,000 for the most basic landscaping option to $400,000 for an
extensive exterior retrofit. If the CIC decides to select an improvement option, CIC staff
recommends selecting the bamboo landscaping option, which is estimated to cost
approximately $25 - $30,000, The ongoing maintenance cost is likely to add a minimal
amount per yearto the CIC's contract with AMPCO System Parking. if the CIC selects
an option that costs more than $50,000, then additional sources of funds would need to
be identified. If the CIC elects to fund the bamboo landscaping option or to allocate
these funds to other redevelopment activities, sufficient funds exist to also fund facade
Honorable Chair and January 6, 2009
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 5 of 5
and site improvement of the Bill Chun Service Station, which is expected to cost $7,500.
The remaining $42,500 could be used to fund other City redevelopment priorities.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIPOLiCY DGCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Alameafa Downiown ~/ision Plan 2000 -Action F4 -Consider building a parking
structure as part of a Downtown parking management program.
REC4MMENDATIGN
Maintain the current facade of the northern elevation of the Civic Center Parking Garage
and re-allocate funds to other redevelopment priorities, including improvement of the
appearance of the Bill Chun Service Station
Respectfully submitted,
y
~ •
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By; Dorene E. Soto
Ill~na~er, Business evelopment Division
By: Jer~if r Ott
Redev lopment Manager
DKILALIDESIJG:rv
Attachment:
1. Civic Center Parking Structure North Facade Improvement Options Report,
prepared by Komorous-Towey Architects
clc
wttacnment to
Agenda Item #3-A
,-~Ir.rillc~r.~ci C'i~~r~;° C~.'c~rlir,~~~• 1'r.rr~~l~it~~~~ ~S'li~r~c~l~,rr~
i1~'cai~ll7 ]~`rr~~~~rlc:~ l~rrl~~t~n7~c~rr~c~~i.t C~~~~~in~~l,sY
~~
~ - .. -I ~--.:__:~...
...~. ~:; F°-~ ._.,:~.~,...,, -, ..f ~y ter....,,..
_w._i r......LL~., w~.F...
~w.,~.~11 +i4rr.,...... ~ ~ ~~ -~a~j i- - --
~..._...1 i.~r.~w r~ar~~ M1v~.wvir~-i 11. ~~u.+.~•
~'1; ,~, ~ r y'a~i
-.~ -
'~ ~'~s'~it may,..
F: i7r r i
- _
~. 1. ~ sy~r. _ .....
~ . yj. .~' - I CCC+++
r= "•` '
-:,.Y, - as -., `
~;,,
Br,~~eR;SCti~F:B
Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure
North Facade Improvement Options
Recently, the Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure was
successfully completed and is now open and operating. During the
construction process, various value~engineering ideas were
considered in order to conserve funds and optimize dollar value for
the project.
One of the design features that was changed was to move the shear
wall on the ~7orth facade i~7to t17e interior of tl7e structure, while
this rez77oved a large blank face frajn the north facade, it also
altered the aesthetics of this elevation. The sloped ramps of the
parki~7g structure are now visible from the exterior. Most of the
f nish details such as fluted columns and capitals were reserved for
the front fa~acle and the elevator and stair towers, not the northern
elevation. It was assumed that the adjacent Long's Drugs surface
parking lot would be redeveloped in the n7id- to long-term and
would obscure this elevation.
The ~~~llawing arc options for improving the visual appearance of
the no~•tl7 ~a~ade. The pros and cans of each option were evaluated
and an estimated order~of magnitude price was developed. Further
researcl7 and design would be required for the preferred treatment.
C)ptions include both architectural modifications and landscaping.
All landscaping optio~7s will require soils ren7ediation with new
soil ii77ports. All landscaping options will also require irrigation.
It is assumed that an irrigation system was installed for the street
trees and a stub for irrigation added in this northern wall strip.
Any now irrigation will be able to connect to the existing street tree
system. Planting of trees as an imp~•ovement solution is not a
viable option, Soils depth and footprint area are inadequate to
support trees, Any tree would be much too close to the structure.
Time is an issue with all the landscaping solutions as well. The
plants req~~ire a filll growing season to establish their root system.
This translates into a year to year and a half before a ~77ajar change
i~7 overall size, 'This is true ~f or all of tho landscaping options. There
are differences betwee~7 tl7e planting materials and they are noted
ill the individual options, Please note tl7at it is impossible to
accurately predict rate off' growth and final plant size due to the
nun7bcr of variables that affect both, These include the weather,
soil depth, n7aintenance, fertilizers used, reflected heat and
vandalism. Tl7e size of the plant when planted is also a variable.
li,r~r~7r~i~r~lr.~-1 r~7'i~c~~ .rl~'~'111tc~~.l.,.5'
. f~c.rirrr.~rlrt ~'r~~~r.'~~ ~'~~r~rrc.~rr 1'rrr~litr~,~r ~~'~rr~c:~tur°~
~~~'~~r~rlr 1f~c.r~~crc~c.~ 1i~ri~»-ra~rc,~r~rc~r-rr C~iar~ivrr,s
Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure
North Facade Improvement Options
Please note that as with any landscaping, maintenance is a major
issue to consider. Any landscaping option will require routine and
long-teri~1 care. Cost fc~r l~naintenance is not included in the
following estimates.
ltr~r;r~}rr}r.r.~~~ l«~~~'cr~~ ,~~Irc~~ti~c~c~s
~ C~St
~D
~0
~~
~V
~o
~a
~o
a~
~o
~~
~~oo~
~o
~a
}o
~o
~o
~o
~o
~o
it lr'r 171 r'11'Iif I lfl ~f r'~ /yf7l/1 ~'I'1 !r l.~I'T f.~1 r~I TA I'f 1r~lal lrl ~~l rlnl'1
;`~~rJ11r('(~(,•r ~'11`r(.' ~.~('111('1' l~l:X1'',lirJ'1~f.; ,~TI]'1~1C.'~JlJ'C'•
,l~~~{~r11r 1'~cr~:~~r{Ic:~ ~JJJ1~)J'Cyl'(''JJJ.r'J'r1 C~~.~~iaJJt~`
Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure
North Facade Improvement Options
0 tion ~
Decorative vertical Canvas
or vinyl l3anncrs
~iY~l T'*J, _
~J ~,• ~•-
6~~ •' ."_
~.,r;_ ~ a
• ~..
... ~ ~: ".
_ .., :,~~. ..n
_ ~:~ 7
f ~r
+~~ . r •
.. f: :~':fi'1;i :~ f
Scheme 1 ~
-g~;~i=, ,1,
Schct»e: 1 C;
~~
,.~;~r; .. .Y•V _ i
f ~•
_ r,,, ~ ~.
r• - I
ixhr+`r.5tc:lftµt'JB 1t,
Scl~r;mc 11~
Description:
Install decorative banners with g~•aphic images stretched on steel
frames ina~rnted to the building. Printing oflarge-format color on
vinyl or canvas with fade-resistant inks, The projected life of the
fabric banners is 3-5 years, though the steel frames should last
much longer,
The basic panel size is 10' x 34' Scheme 1 A~. The 10' is the width
of two strips of 64" wide fabric, seamed and edged. The length is
three stories, This will keep the bottom edge out of the reach of
vanrlalis~~n. Tl1e fabric is stretcl~ed over 2" square painted steel
tube fi•aznes, bolted to the concrete spandrels with about 3"'stand
ol'f legs. An additional cost alternate would include galvanizing
the frames to reduce tnaintcnance and potential for rust.
Pr05;
~ Can be a visually attractive option depending on the images
selected. A process for selecting the appropriate images
would need to be finalized.
• Images could be changed every 3-5 years when the fabric
wears aut.
• Fabric could perhaps besemi-transparent.
• Otl~er cities 11ave used this concept to highlight histot~c
resources of surrounding neighborhood.
Cons:
• Tl7e fabric material is generally intended for temporary use.
• Fabric, printing and installation costs will add up as fabric
is changed often,
• Soma light is blocked in tl~e three affected bays on each
level except First.
• li abric could be easily vandalized from inside the structure.
Estimated Cost:
lA: Printed fabric, Steel Frames, installation, Design; $40,800
1B; One additional banner: $53,000 •
1C. Langer banners on three bays, $53,000
1D: Monger banners on four bays; $~9,Oa0
The cost would be increased if the recommended galvanizing of
the ~~netal flames to reduce maintenance and potential far rust were
included. The Design fee includes detailing of the steel frames,
coordinating bidding, and image selection and composition.
Lamera-ready digital iznages sent to the printerlfabricator.
li: caJa~JC~J~•f~r,r,s- ~ ca ~,~,~~ ~. ~I J~'C`J~x r Gc:'C~S
Schc~mc 1~1
.~'~~~1l11c:'(:~(! ~.yll'f('' ~.r('!?I(.'1" ~~~ZI"jtilt'l~r ~~~~1''I~f(';~'G11"G
~...
,~'U1'~~1 ~•'(l~~cr(1(~ ~17lj")!x(11-(~1~•!C'!1~ ~)~")~lf)l~IIS'.
Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure
North Facade Z~~provement options
o Lion 2 Description;
Decorative Vertical Install decorative banners with graphic images screw-fastened to
Metal Banners steel frames 1~7otilnted to the building, 1'rintil~g of large-format
color on alulninul~l-slcin "Dibond" material, This material will be
more rignd than the fabric, and as it is a panel, the material is less
,fir , ~ 4~~:i~`~ ~~:':s : ~ subject to weather and otller d amage,
. ~- ~
• ~: ~•` The basic panel size is l o' x 34' ~Schelne 2A}, The length is three
.r...
•°~-J~ ` - ' ' ~ ~ ~ .° •~ stories. This will lteep the bottom edge out of the reach of
~~ . ' 1 . ~+5 II. - t
.: ~- r`.~~~~ ~-~ ';~-~ • :• vandalism, rrhe metal panels are mounted an 2" square painted
~•'~°~~~=~-~~.,,, , , ` steel tube fralncs, bolted to the concrete spandrels with about 3"
-s~.~•,c , ~f
}~ ~
~~ •~ ~ ~~~ : ~~-~m~"~-L~ ~~ standoff legs, An additional cost alternate would include
... ~.Y ~:.~~-r;: s:;~•~r~ ~~ ~;A` ~~~-~ ~•~"~~"' galvanizing the frames to reduce maintenance and potential for
Scheme 2A rust.
+~~.~ ~;~~= ~~ - pros
•~ . •~ .N : ~ - ~_.: • ~,an be a visually attl dctlve option depending on the images
~:.,~ --
- ~°~~~~ w ~~.. r ~~}~=~~:}_ ;}~: selected. A process for selecting the a ro riate ima es
~,.:.~~ pp p g
m, - ~~ would need to be tnalized.
Yf ..7" ,~~I .w ~ '1 ..
r, -~ ~~~ ~ ~~ '~~~~_ - ~~ ~~ Images could be changed when replacement is required.
L ~ {
~• ,,, N.'Ir~
`:~:....~- ~c._ ~• ~ • ~~ ~~~: This material should last at Least twice as Iola as the fabnc
,~. :.- ~ g
.:~~Fr ....,:.- _ -- ,~, ._~. ~ ~-~ material.
+ Calais are much more resistant to fading than the fabric
Schet~~e ?13 o tion, and the material l~nore durable.
P
• installation lrlay be simpler.
ix.z~,~.
~'~~`~~55'Ir: - ~ ,. Low maintenance costs.
'Y .;':
~~~~~- ~'~ • Less prone to vandalis~rl from inside the structure than
r ~• . ;.I ~~,.wr.~::= fabric,
- s _ ~~`
•.z iii •:.,~ ,~
,. - 1~:• _ Cons'
I~.~_~--:...
- ~,~~ ~~:~~~-=~~~ ~~ • + There is no option for semi~transparency with the "Dibond"
41MIE11i~ - ,;,,;; ~. ,.f.;, }.r,:.~a l~~aterial, Some li ht is blocked in the three affected ba s
Sc:henle ~C on each level except First.
~~~_ =1~:~'!: ~'~ - - Estimated Cost;
SPY;': tit`.• I •' ..
• - ~ tl- , 2A: Printed Alum., Stee] Frames, Installation, Deslgn: $47,400
_.;._ _ _ ~ 2B. $G~,UUO; ZC: $61,UUU, 2D,$79,UOU
.:, - ~ r ~ ud : ~ ~
:~ ~~-}-~~~ ~.,~:.•• ,~;.~.. '•~ - • ~~ The cost would be increased if the reconll~nended alvanizin of
:{ ~ g g
- ` ~-~ - ~`~`~~``~ '~ the metal flames to reduce maintenance and potential for rust were
• - • - ~` `~ ~~``~` ~- included, 'rhe Designs fee includes detailing of the steel frames,
- a"N4CR55C!~EMCia~' ••~~.rT'• t
coord~nating b~dding, and linage selectlon and eolnposrtlon.
Scheme 2D Camera-ready digital il~nages sent to the printerlfabricator.
h. c~l~l~l ryl~r}!-l.s -1 c~ ~~'c7~' : ~ l'G'~~~ ~•~~~;I~~~'
.~~lc:lrrrc~c~~lr ~~'r.'~~rc~ ~~.'~~r~rfc:~j~ ~~c:r.l~~-rj~~r ~S"~i~tr~'~~rr'~~
~.
;~1~~~1,~1lr l~~rr;~c,c.1c~ 1,~,~~rc~~rtftrrr~rll C)pl~inr~r,s~ .
Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure
North Fa4ade Improvement Options
~ tion 3
Hori7ontai Decorative
Banners
Description:
This scheme utilizes the same basic materials as described in
Option 1 and 2 above. Zt would be fabricated and installed in a
similar manner. This scheme has dive S' x 60' panels, The very
horizontal nature of these proportions would make them less
desirable as a platfor~~ for graphic images. The ~~nore rectangular
.
proportions are more con ucive to typica Images.
Option 3, Horizontal Decorative Banners, is not recommended due
to the reasons listed below, perhaps the most important being that
the horizontal scheme blacks bore of the Tight coining into the
structure than tl~e vertical options, and tl~e horizontal "strip"
proportions work against the overall vertical look of the building,
creating a less harmonious relationship between the North facade
a~~d tl~e rest of the project.
Pros:
• lnstallation may be simpler than other options.
~ A standard 4'x8' panel site would work well with the
horizontal ~orn7at.
• Can be a visually attractive option depending on the images
selected. A process for selecting the appropriate images
would need to be i~nalized.
• lmages cauld be changed when replacement is required.
• ~ Metal panels should last at least twice as long as the fabric
~~~atcrial,
• Colors are much mole resistant to fading than the fabric
option, and the material more durable,
• low n~aintenancc costs.
• Metal panels wo~~ld be less prone to vandalism from inside
the structure than fabric.
~ fabric could perhaps be seini~transparent.
+ Other cities have used this concept to highlight historic
resources of surrounding neighborhood.
l~{}ns:
In addition to the same Con issues as Uption 1 and Z above,
• The horizontal scheme blocks amore of the light coming into
the st~`ucture than tl~e vertical options, and propot-tionally
works against the overall vertical look of the building.
• The format is more like a typical "Billboard" and less like
deco~•ative banners,
h'c~rr~l.r~r~~~r~r,s~ 1 ~~~~~~r~.' :~(r•c`Irr.'fc~~'~s
,~'~ ~lll l1 i'c~c'! ~ '11,'l~(~ ~ C'17l f:'Y f ~~f:l1~'~i ll~'1 ~r ,~'l'1'~f (.'~l ~i"G
~,
;'~~rll'j11 ~' 11C.'Crf~l' trr~j')!"U1-f'!'l~C'-'1~ (,~~711n~1S'
~ tion 3
~ori7ontal Decorative
Banners
continued}
~... ,- . , .W..~. !1•~, r.,r~f i''~rr'~~rif'~i~ f I --.. _
~!l iffy/ r r.'~~i'~f ~~%J '~ ~ ~'v..r~°^.,rv.+
.~
;~.
Alameda Civic tenter Parking Structure
North Facade Improvex~nent options
• ~l,hore is 4U% moro sur~F'acc area than Schel~ne 1 A12A and
7% more than 1 BIB or 1 CI~C. This results in less light in
tl~e structure, and more material costs,
• Image selection may be more difficult due to the very
narrow horizontal format versus a more compact rectangle
ia~ the vertical scheme.
Estimated Cost;
Fa~rie Uption~ Five banners, 8' x Go', Printing oflarge-format
color on vinyl or canvas, fadewresistant inks,
Printed fabric, Steel Frames, Installation, Design:
rTotal Cost; approx, $61,000
Metal "Dibond" option: Five banners, S' x 34'. Printing oflarge-
format color on "Dibond" alu~~ninuln slain panels.
Printed alurr~inu~n panels, Steel Frames, Installation, Design:
Total Cost: approx, $8S,o00
The cost would he increased if the recommended galvanizing of
the; ~~netal frames to reduce maintenance and potential for rust were
included, rl~he Dc;sign foo includes detailing of the steel frames,
coordinating bidding, and image selection and composition.
Camera-ready digital images sent to the printerlfabrieatar.
1~~~l~fc~l~t~1.1.4~-1 ~11~'G'~, ~rll~~.~lrcrl~~c~~,~~
,~~Icr~rlc~r:err c."rt~lc` ~..~'cr~~rc~r~ I'czr~l~r.'r~r.~~r ~~~r~r~c.~~rrr~e
:~~~~r~rlrl~'~r~~c.rc~c:' Irrrj~r~~>>~~>>r1c.~r~rr C)~~~~rn~r,~~
Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure
North Facade Improvement Options
~ flan 4
Level Spandrels and Widen
Columns
~escrip~ion:
Apply foam shapes onto top and bottom of existing concrete
spandrelslrails to create a `level' appearance, The columns can be
widened to better match the Oak Street proportions, and detailing
at tl~e caps could be added. This construction would look the mast
similar to the fa~;ade treatment of Oak Street. Depending on the
amount of framing and f oam shapes added, the facade design could
match tho column widths andlor create 1 U' deep, level rails in the
enter three bays,
Option 4, Level Spandrels and widen Columns, is not
recommended due to the fact that it is the most expensive scheme
presented, and will block out a significant portion of the light, air
and view in the center three bays on every level.
Pros;
Looks the incest l~armonious between the North elevation
and Uak Street fa~;adc.
Could cre~ttc a level spandrell~•ail appearance.
Maintenance is limited to repainting, on a similar schedule
as the Oalc Street facade,
Cons:
• The most expensive sclzeine presented, and the longest time
to complete.
• if level rails are part of'tl~e chosen scheme, they will block
out a significant portion of the light and view in the center
three bays on every level,
Estimated Cost; $275,000-$400,000
l~~r»r~1~~r~~~l,r,S~-'1 ~~~ ~-~r~v rrl r•c.'l~ct~~c:'ts
~~~~lc:rrrlr:'c~c.r C'rl'i(:~ C'c>»~c:~fr I'c:zj~~rr~4~~ 4~r~1~uC~~~r.rrcl
~'cll'1~1 l°tr~~r:rrlc.~ l~r~j»'ct7~c~l1rC:~f~l~ C)p~rc~i7,5r
Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure
North Facade Improvement Options
0 tion 5
Se1f~Supporting vine
No Structure
Description:
Plant ricus putnila creeping fig} at the columns. This climber
attaches itself to any flat vertical surface, so it will cover the
columns and the spandrelslrails. It is evergreen, has no flowers
and small heart shaped ]caves. In time it will g~•ow to three or four
stories or taller. The depth of the sail available in this case will
limit the spread. Tl~is is a very reliable plant with few
requirements to grow well,
Plant small~scale ground cover between the columns ar cover with
attractive gravel such as the smooth, peach colored Salmon River
~n•avc;l.
Pros;
• will cover much of tl~e building with an attractive green
living texture, rl,his plant can easily cover two to three
stories, also see above. In time it could cover tlae entire
building.
• Low Cost.
Cons;
• This vine requires commitment. If' you change your minds
and would like it removed, it will belabor intensive, The
vine supports will need to be scraped off the building, and
the wall re-painted.
• 5onletimc;s tl7C v]nC 1S slow to Start cl~lnbing. In
approximately one to two years it should cover the first
story. Ater tl~at the growth will be exponential and the
plant will build momentum. ~ reasonable guess maybe
above to three stories after five years, The soil depth and
di~l'f cult growing conditions inay negatively affect the
growth, It is entirely possible that the plant will cover most
oI'the building in a period of ten to fifteen years.
• The maintenance costs will climb as the vine climbs higher.
1~s the vine matures it changes in character and starts
growing fruiting steles that project away from the wall.
These need to be cut off' once or twice a year this estimate
needs to be verified. This maintenance will need to be
done from a scissor lift or a cherry picker type lift.
Estimated Cost: ~G,9UU, inciuding design.
-~~~!!1lc~c:~r.! ~~'r~ric~' ~:'i1l7~r~!' 1'~:11~1~ir~.S~x ~S"tJ't~~'~lrl~c~
~1~'u!'llr l~'cJ~~r:lc~c~ Jlr~i~~rc~ti~c~J~lr.~l~lt ~~~~tioJJ,s'
Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure
North Facade Improvement Options
~ tion 6
Shrubs and ether
Foundation Planting
Description;
Plant g~~ound level landscaping along the length of the building,
Plant materials would be chosen to provide a variety of heights,
shapes, texture and color, rlryaller evergreen shrubs such as
Pittosporum eugenioides would be planted in front of the columns,
Shorter shrubs such as Pittosporum tobira in one of the variegated
forms can be planted in Mont of the spandrelslrails. This would be
intermixed with different farms of Phor~nium tenax.
rros;
• Low cost.
~ relatively easy maintenance,
Cons:
• Requires maintenance.
• very limited plant palette due to difficult growing
con it~ons see species mentio~led above}.
• Chan only beautify the base of the building. The difficult
growing conditions will limit the height of the tall shrubs at
col~u~~n bases, An opti~nistic estimate would be between 10
to 2U feet, approximately up to the third level, The upper
portion nl'building would remain as is, A reasonable size
esti~~nate nay be three feet tall after one year, six feet after
two years.
Estimated Cult: X9,900, including design,
h.('117?f.~!'()1d,S'-1 ~7 ~i%C'~.' ~~1'"C'~1 f (~'C.'t~.~'
1- alt(}SE]t}1'llill t(11]liil
!'lic~rmiun~ tcn~x
'llr:!!lr(`!~!t ~.Yl1'1~(~' C..L'l~~C.'!'' 1')l;rJ'~i!!'tf~r ~~'I!'J~~c.'~c~!"C'
~.
iU'~.1!'(~r jt'cl~:rxcl(;~ ~rlJ~~l~r.,ti~c~l~rcyl~J~ f"~~~~~i~l7~s~
~ tion 7
Bamboo with
~orilontal Metal Supports
Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure
North Facade Improvement Options
Description;
Plai7t clumping- bamboo such as Bambusa 1x~ultiplex `Alphonse
7{arr' aIong~ the entire length of the facade, Support with horizontal
metal structure at two heights, This support can be very simple,
such as two parallel metal tubes attached to the columns and
spanning tl~e lowest two openings, This bamboo will grow
between l S' to 35' high between the third and fourth levels. rt
will provide a translucent green screen from the inside. Bamboo is
relatively slow to get established. A reaso~~ablc cstiinate may be
that it will reach 8' in two to three years, The growth should
increase expo~~cntial a~'ter that,
Pros:
• would provide a uniform attractive green screen. Bamboo
is very sculptural,
• would allow light into the structure while visually
scrcea7ing it fro~~n the outside.
* The ~r~etal supports would be relatively inexpensive.
Cons:
• 1Zequires reg~ilar n~aintenance. once a year bamboo sheds a
large quantity of leaves, which Dave to be raked but also
shal~en and otherwise groomed from the bamboo ste~~s.
Tl~e leaves would also fall on the area of the parking lot
adjacent to tl~e planting. This would need to be swept.
Again, wl~ilc some leaves would be shed year-round, the
bulk is shed once a year.
• 'Dill not enhance tl~e appearance of the building above
approximately 3o f eet above f`ourtl~ level},
estimated Cost; $Z7,ODU, including design.
h~c~rr~Jrrl~r7l.r,s-li»-1~c~i~.~~~rr~rit~:1c~~~5~,
...~.n... , :_.~....::.~::~.~,
~~!!ll!(~'[~~(1 ~. !1'1(' ~.~~'11~(.~'1., ~~Itl'~iif'L~r ~~Y~1'!,{L','~~lll'C'•
,'~'(1!'1I! f'cl~.'cl,C,r(.' jlll~~)1`'~)1'~'171C'1?:1 ~~1~)firlYt,S'
~ tion 8
Metal Structure Supported
Vine
Ptissi(lora
Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure
North Facade Improvement Options
Description:
Stainless steel trellis system along the vertical columns of the
garage similar to product installed at Alameda Towne Centre. Use
with vines or climbing plal7ts, Numerous design and layout
options are available, Pre~asse~nbled modular metal and cable
system such as the Jakob systel~n} would be attached to the
concrete columns and would extend approximately ~"past either
side of the column to make it wider, Cables can be removed or
replaced if necessary with minimal impact to the structure,
Evergreen climbing vines would climb only where supported.
Suitable climbing vines include the passiflora passion flower}
family, Rosa banksiae ~Banlcsia rases} and Clytostoma
callistegiaides Violet trumpet vine},
For maintenance and neat appearance of the plant material, the
support structure should not extend above the third floor. The
limiting factor for healthy, vigorous looking plants is the limited
al~nount of soil available at the base of'the building, Vines would
probably be t11e ~f astest growi~~g landscape option. T1iey are
designed to reach upward fast,
Note; l~ttaching the support to the horizontal spandrelslrail is not
recommended, The vines would climb along such supports, but
they would also hang down below the supports and create a very
unkempt appearance, Maintenance could not keep up with rapid
growth,
Pros;
~ Very attractive appearance, would "green~up" the building,
Allows for selection of vines, whicl~ produce flowers,
f Suppo~•t structure can be prc~assembled, easy installed,
• Support structure and plant material can be removed if
necessary and only the hales at connection points patched,
~ Plant material is held away from building surface, Controls
heigl~t of plant growth.
• would produce the desi~•ed effect quickly.
• Many design options for tlae support structure,
Cons;
• Higher start-up cost due to support structure.
• Maintenance to keep the vines neat and tidy would have to
be regular,
• Does not enhance the appearance of the top floors,
Estimated Cost; ~35,OOO, including design.
l~r)l~rl.r)!~r)!{.~-1 ~~~~-t`ca~-~ :'Er~~~l~li~c.~c:~~~s
-~jr!»1c~~,irr ~..r1~~~~r~ ~'c~~~~~~,~~- ~'(.z~~]trl7~~~ ~S'~rucl,~rr1-('
;~-~ui~~ll ~~~'rr~.~rrr:~c~ Ii~~l~jrr}7~~~i~~c~~t~ C.)f~~~ir~~,s~
r
Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure
North Facade Improvement Options
~ tion 9
Combination ot'vincs
And ether Plant Materials
rev r~ - .~~W.._~~ -~. ~~:..-.~ :-
Options 5 and ~ -.. ~~ icu5 end Shr~Eb
T ... F,.....,..~,..,~ -- - ,.
.. _.
.,.,.~..i ~ r'" "~
,...~,.. ,,., ....,:~ t..-.,.~.,. ~,.
~ptlt)11S ~ alld ~ - ~lzpp()C~c~d vlnGS
alld Shrubs
Description:
• Combine the ficus with shrub planting, options S and 6.
• Combine the f cus with the bamboo, options 5 and 7.
• Combine the structure-supported vines with floe shrub
foundation planting without the taller shrubs at columns,
option b and S.
Pros:
• Would provide interest at the base of the building as well as
higher up.
• faster results, more immediate impact.
Cons:
• l~c;quires more regular maintenance than any planting
schc~r~e alone,
• C~reatcr upfront capital expense than individual options.
~stirnated Cast:
options 5 and ~: $lO,ZUO, including design
Uptions 5 and 7: $Z~,5oo, including design
options 6 and l~: $34,860, including design
h:r~1~7-~rr~r~~1r.S~- t~r~-~°c~~~~ ~~~~'c~hiEc~cy~~s'
options 5 and 7 ~~ ~~~ ices a~~d 13Zlllbc~o
:~1lLr11rc''('?~C! ~Yll'!('' ~, c:'17~(~'1'' ~~r:Zl''l~~I1?fir ~~Y/,1'ld(;~~11"C'
;~~~c.,r'~Il 1~~'rr~~cr.c,lc' lrlr~~~!°r~~-t~lrrc~l~r ~1ja~~ir~l7,s
Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure
North Facade Improvement Options
a tion ~U
Box Trellis
Description:
Three-dimensional, welded-wire trellis system. CJse with vines or
climbing plants. Pre-assembled modular metal, in 2" to 4" depths,
are attached to the cancrcte columns andlor panels, Panels can be
removed or replaced as necessary with minimal it~npact to the
structure,
~ptior~ 1 U,13ox 'I~rellis, is not recommended due to the tendency of
t]~e cage tc~ trap dead leaves and debris, leaving unsightly view
from inside, and it is di~'ticult to maintain,
Pros;
# Looks nice only when initially installed.
Cons;
• C~agc t~•aps dead leaves and debris, leaving unsightly view
from inside.
• Difficult to maintain.
Estimated Cost: ~24,UOU
ft~~ll~l.r~lr~~rd,5'- ~c1~~~c~},~ ,.::11'~c.~lirtc7cy~~5'