2009-01-20 Packet~l'J~°~
~ryl~h ~
`JS n
fl,
~ ~>> ~~
o ~7x~ rrna~~ Q~
_,~
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy
City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor,
approach the podium and state your name;
speakers are limited to three ~3} minutes per
item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in
writing and only a summary of pertinent points
presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited
during Council meetings.
AGENDA - - - - - - -- - - REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - - - - JANUARY 20, 2009 - - ~- - 7:30 P.M.
Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall,
Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St]
The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
4. Consent Calendar
5. City Manager Communications
G. Agenda Items
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.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3-A. Proclamation recognizing Alameda Hospital for its
extraordinary efforts in volunteering excellent healthcare
services to the City's citizens and employees. City
Attorney/ Recreation and Parks}
3-B. Proclamation declaring January 20, 2009 as Encinal Jets
Day. Recreation and Parks}
3-C. Presentation by Alameda County on upcoming retrofit of
Alameda-Oakland bridges.
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 Regular City Council
December 1G, 2008; the Special Joint
Community Improvement Commission Meetir
City Council Meeting held on January
Special City Council Meeting held on
City Clerk}
4-B. Bills for ratification. Finance}
Meeting held on
City Council and
~g and the Regular
6, 2009; and the
January 13, 2009.
4-C. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute an
Agreement with E.S.C. Solutions far Ambulance Billing
Services. Fire}
5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Communications from City Manager?
6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
6-A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Ellen Hui as a Member of
the Youth Advisory Commission.
6-B. Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs
for Community Block Grant Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Annual
Plan. Development Services} [Continued from January 6,
2009]
6-C. Public Hearing to consider certifying a Final Environmental
Impact Report HEIR}, approving the proposed Transportation
Element General Plan Amendment, and rescinding the 1991
Transportation Element;
• Adoption of Resolution Making Findings regarding
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Making
Findings Concerning Alternatives, Adapting a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and Adopting a Statement
of Overriding Considerations in Accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act for the Proposed
Transportation Element General Plan Amendment State
Clearinghouse #2007072075};
• Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Transportation Element General Plan
Amendment State Clearinghouse #2007072075};
• Adoption of Resolution Approving a General Plan Amendment
to Adopt a New Transportation Element of the General Plan
and Rescind the 1991 Transportation Element. Planning
and Building}; and
• Adoption of Resolution Approving the City of Alameda
Pedestrian Plan. Public Warks}
6-D. Discussion of Alameda Peace Network's proposal regarding
Iraq War. City Manager}
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
8~-A. Discussion of bike related issues. ~Councilmember
Matarrese}
9. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Communications from Council?
Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting
on any Conferences or meetings attended
l0. ADJOURNMENT - City Council
***
Materials related to an item on the agenda are available for
public inspection in the City Clerk's office, City Hall, Room
380, during normal business hours
Sign language interpreters will be available on request.
Please contact the City Clerk at 747-4800 or TDD number 522-
7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an
interpreter
Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public
use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747x4800
or TDD number 5227538 either prior to, or at, the Council
Meeting
Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including
those using wheelchairs, is available
Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print
Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request
Please contact the City Clerk at 747-4800 or TDD number 522-
7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda
materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and
enjoy the benefits of the meeting
i
lnrocCamation
1~U~~~~~[S, Alameda Hos i~al..~,has:~ :~ -~art~ered with the Ci of Alameda to
,.~ • -
o de ee~• u ~ .acc too s:~~ o ~•~a ~ ~•~ r
pr v~ fr -,fl~ v ~ ~r~a• ,ri ~~~:~~ r.;~ ~1.~~~.~Y;ty employees and voluntee s,
F1, :• -
tiU~~~~~``/\~} Al ~ -y~.~yJ~~{~~ed :~=~ . os~ ~. ~ 1~~~-~ ~ ~a :~~~;~w~~ k ~ ~~d • .~ - ~d~r~ds~~E~~"~of the Ci s senior
~~~~ ~ ~crt~°z~~:: v~~:: t~e.~, fly ~wa~cc~r~~~ ,~~ ~tro~ ~~ ~~a~: art~ersh~ w~fh the
. ~ l~~st~ck•~5:e.or::Cen.e~; .aid
. ~ ~•~ . .
tiU ~ :Y~ _I ~~ ~~ f •A1 ~~ ~'e H~os. i :al h•.`:~:~. e•~~~i~ ~ unteered their
~~! ~~5, ~-the~..~~~~ .~:~e;~?~d:~~.1u~5e5.0 • ern. ti~,~ , t
.. - 'i;,, " ,+.~.. ~.~."'~ F - i ~ t. ~ ' Cdr-`ra;;: ; ~'o1t:x, " i. ;!!r.~'~,:r"~,' ,i';r"'
•• -- ~,ersonal~S~:rri~e•~:fio=~a~ru~fie~~~vacc~~nat~~ons•:.for o~r~~clu~cs~ and
1 .. 1. ~ ~ ~ - I' ~• ICI
• !i•
tiU~f~~~~[S, ~Al~~:~ae,d°a •• Hos• ~tal~ ~ has offered ~ •• Ci •~:.. ~ ~~em loyees free
Autom~ti~:Ex:terna~l~~•~ebr~l-~ator AED~.~tra~~n"~ ;arid
:.;- .. •
h1~f~~~~[S AI•aeda -Ho$ tai hod's an Anriual•:~Health~Far~•''~where it off ers no-
~ - p ... .r
_+
cos~~:;flu=''va~~~~nation~s~ healfh:s~reeniri.~~~s,~ arid'~•.wellness trainin for
. ., g ~ g
Alamed~a:~res~den~~s. • ~ ~ , .
1VC~l~l1 T~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ,~~ ~~~C~~-L~1~L~, that f Beverl . ohnson, Ma or of
~ yJ l y
the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim January 20, 2409, as
A la,~ne da }f obp i~a.~. D ay
and urge all residents to recognize Alameda Hospital f or their extraordinary efforts in
volunteering excellent healthcare services to the City's residents and employees.
ev r y o o ~~
May r
City Council
Agenda item #3-A
01-20-09
^
i t
^ ^
1~'rocCamation
1~1~f ~~~~lS, the Encinal Jets football team is coached b oe Tenorio, who was
YJ
named the 2008 Oakland Raiders' High School Coach of the Year; and
~f .~ ..~
.r' „
1~U~f ~~~5 the Enc:~1~~ a s~,~ otbal~I ~fe~a ~~ -'e `~~~1~f~, Oo8 season m its new a l
.. - - - .a ~ . ~. ~~~ g~ ~: th etc
le~g~~~ ~ tie: B:a ~ ~~~hor~- At~:~~.fi~c _~Le~. ~~+ ~ ~ •~ an~d~ .
y , a.... .,. ~~.~
• - ~. ~ ~
~~l~~~S, the~~:~:ets ~ concluded~~;~~tl~e X048' B,~~. ~ shore: `AthlQtrc: Lea e season in a
,- Y ~
. - . ~ ~ : ~~ram~~`t~c. fashion; f~ish~~n un~.efe~a'te~d w~t~~ a ~1a0 record; and
g ,~
i'
L ~~~ ~
~tf, - ~ - -
'~ ~`, ~l
~ ! S s.:-e:a~~ ~e~~~~e~~s~wer~~ :rewardd~~w~~tf a~;nutnbe :one seed for th
.~ ~ : ~~Nor:a~o~st~~~ectlon Division:-fly~~la~ro~fs~t~ie:~h~g~hes~t~~rank~ng ~n school
- zY
. :~
! S, ,. ~ al; Jets def ea~ted the three 'hme defend~n ,sham ion Novato
g p
Hornets b,; ~,a scope of 3525 in tie dram ~ ioris~u~~ ~~ ame; and
. Y .::p P g
IN ~~~~[ .; , - ~ .. - -
~ ! ~ the viclo~ ~a~ ~ ~a~nst `the Horn . ~ v I h` ~ - e 1r f rr r
. ry g ,.. ets: ga , e_ t e J ~s a the st No th Coast
Section title.~s~nce 1989 and a~final~record of 13-0; and
1 ~1 ~f ~~L~~l the Ci of Alm i x '
! S, ty a eda s e tremely proud of their success and wishes
them the best of luck in f uture seasons.
1VOW, T~f ~IZ~~OIZ~, 3~ I1~ Z~SOLV~17, that I, Beverly j. Johnson, Mayor of the
City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim January 20, 2009, as
~nc;.v~a.LJet~ Day
in the City of Alameda and call on the residents of Alameda to join me in congratulafiing
the players and coaching staf f of the Encinal Jets football team for their remarkable,
undefeated 2008 season.
~ .City Council
Agenda Item #3-B
41-20-09
^ __ r
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -DECEMBER l6, 2008- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:11 p.m. Boy Scout
Troop 89 led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
REORGANIZATION OF COUNCIL
Installation
X08- ~ The Honorable Judge C. Richard Bartalini administered the
Oaths of Office to Councilmembers deHaan and Gilmore; City Auditor
Kevin Kearney and City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy.
Consideration of Appointment of Vice Mayor
~08W ~ Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of appointing Councilmember
deHaan as Vice Mayor.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Comments by Reelected Councilmembers
SOS- ~ Vice Mayor deHaan, Councilmember Gilmore, the City
Auditor, and City Treasurer each made comments and thanked their
supporters.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
December 16, 2008
asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
~*OS- } Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on
November l8, 2008; the Special City Council Meeting held on
November 25, 2008; the Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on December 2, 2008.
Approved.
~*08- } Ratified bills in the amount of $2,218,632.51.
~*08- } Recommendation to accept the Impact Fee Report far Police
and Fire services Fund 16l}. Accepted.
(*08- } Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk,
Inc, for the repair and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 28,
No. P.W. 04-08-12. Accepted.
~*08- } Recommendation to accept the annual report for the Public
Art Fund as required by the Public Art Ordinance. Accepted.
~*08- } Resolution No. 14291, "Authorizing the City Manager to
Enter into a Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Alameda and
the State of California Department of Transportation for Funding
the Realignment of the Path at the North Side of the Bay Farm
Island Bicycle Bridge in the amount of $40,000." Adopted.
~*08- } Resolution No. 14292, "Approving an Amendment to the
Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alameda City Employees
Association and the City of Alameda for the Period Beginning
January 1, 2009 and Ending December 31, 2009." Adopted.
* * *
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 8:36 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular Meeting at 9:12 p.m.
***
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
SOS- } The City Manager and Deputy City Manager discussed federal
stimulus funding.
Mayor Johnson stated the U.S. Conference of Mayors is pushing for
funding to go directly to cities; Trenton, New Jersey is applying
for funding to help convert city buildings into green buildings.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the report is good and
comprehensive; requested that the report be posted to the website.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
December 16, 2QQ8
The Deputy City Manager stated the unfunded Community Improvement
Project ~CIP} list is extensive.
vice Mayor deHaan stated the concern is how quickly projects can be
implemented; the bidding process and immediate project
implementation are important.
The Deputy City Manager stated that she is working with the Public
Works Department on the matter.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Wilver "Willie" Stargell
Avenue Extension Project has funding.
The Assistant City Manager responded the State committed $4
million; $9 million is committed from a private match.
The Deputy City Manager stated staff is trying to get additional
funding in case the $9 million does not come through.
The Assistant City Manager stated land acquisition already
occurred; the $9 million in developer contributions is uncertain.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether taxpayer money would be
used if development businesses are not doing well; further inquired
whether something could be extracted if the City bailed out the
developer.
The Assistant City Manager responded any money put in by the City
comes out on the back side.
Councilmember~Matarrese stated the matter should be placed on an
agenda.
The Deputy City Manager stated that the City does not know which
projects would be eligible for funding.
Mayor Johnson stated stimulating economic activity is the purpose
of the stimulus package; the Wilver "Willie" Stargell Extension
Project is a critical part of Alameda Landing redevelopment.
Councilmember Tam stated a lot of the projects are for repairs to
existing buildings; the Wilver "Willie" Stargell Extension Project
is a new, major transportation project; inquired how the $5 million
Harbor Bay Parkway reconstruction project falls in the priority
listing.
The City Engineer responded the road is in bad condition but does
not have the traffic f low of other parts of the City; stated the
Regu~.ar Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
December 16, 2008
portion from Doolittle Drive to Ron Cowan Parkway is being
considered for reconstruction.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Harbor Bay Parkway is a City
roadway and is not shared with the State, to which the City
Engineer responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the $5 million Harbor Bay Seawall
Project is high priority.
The Deputy City Manager responded the project is submitted through
the appropriate process every year; stated the project continues to
be a priority.
Mayor Johnson requested an update on the State's budget situation.
The Deputy City Manager stated the State is in bad shape; a $40
billion deficit is projected through June, 2010; the Governor
called an emergency session on December l; the State budget will be
released mid January; a May revise budget will be released; the
picture is not pretty.
Mayor Johnson stated inaction would cause problems at the local
level.
The Deputy City Manager stated initially, the problem would be with
cash flow; payments could be delayed; the situation worsens without
solutions.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the State thought it was over the first
hurdle; the City thought there was a balanced budget; the other
shoe has not fallen yet.
Mayor Johnson stated the problem is compounded by the State
adopting an unbalanced budget.
X08-- } The City Manager provided a brief oral report on the
telecom sale; stated residents can call 567-9350 for service.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
X08- } Eric Otani, M.D., Alameda Hospital Healthcare District,
discussed time critical issues for Emergency Medical Response
calls; stated minutes matter in certain cases; cardiac arrest and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
December 15, 2008
trauma patients need to get to a hospital right away for treatment;
sudden deaths are a big killer in the country; the mortality rate
increases 10% per minute.
X08- } Gretchen Lipow; Alameda, urged Council to immediately
dissolve its relationship with D. E. Shaw; stated hedgefunds are
about to go bust; economics are forecasting a continued downturn in
the economy; the City should be very careful not to step into a
dark hole.
Mayor Johnson requested an explanation on what would happen if D.E.
Shaw failed.
The Assistant City Manager stated D.E. Shaw is funding the project;
D.E. Shaw would be in default of the Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement ~ENA} if funding stopped and the ENA would terminate.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated D.E. Shaw is putting $10 million into the
project; the City will be lucky to get through the first phase; the
next phases are uncertain; all developers are going through a
sorting out phase; that he is looking forward to getting
information on Catellus' status.
Mayor Johnson stated there is good reason for uncertainty;
uncertainty is well justified right now.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the General Fund could lose $1 million to
$2 million each year if the project does not continue.
The Assistant City Manager stated negotiations would be difficult
regarding the developer's capability.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the matter should be a discussion point as
the project moves forward.
Councilmember Tam stated the City does not control funding that the
developer receives; the City can control the relationship with the
developer; the relationship would be terminated if D.E. Shaw goes
bankrupt; the City has protections.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City should be aware; the devil is in
the details.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter could be placed on an agenda for
further discussion; the City would be in the same circumstances no
matter who was the developer.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter should be placed on the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
December 16, 2008
next Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA} agenda; that
he would like to address activities related to SunCal and ARRA and
the tie to the General Fund.
The Assistant City Manager stated SunCal and ARRA activities have
no affect on the General Fund.
Mayor Johnson stated people need to know that the General Fund is
not affected by SunCal dealings.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated he is concerned with SunCal's viability to
support Alameda Point marketing, maintenance, and funding;
marketing decisions need to be made.
The Assistant City Manager stated the matter would be addressed.
(08- } Bill Smith, Alameda, stated that he would like to see the
City Tabby for a stimulus package for Public Works' projects.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(08- } Public Safety service level update.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Fire Department overtime funding is
a concern; requested that the Fire and Police Chiefs and City
Manager provide information on current service levels and
anticipated changes; stated the purpose of the referral is to: 1}
inform the public on the current status of public safety service
levels versus the budget; 2} provide Council with the opportunity
to give policy direction prior to significant changes in public
safety service levels; and 3} prepare f.or mid-year budget reporting
and discussion around future cuts anticipated in 2009 due to
continuing economic downturn.
The city Manager stated the intent is to avoid any major
adjustments in the current fiscal year; cost control measures have
been implemented; the adopted budget includes brown out
implementation in order to manage Fire Department overtime; an
outside firm is conducting an analysis on Measure P impacts; an
outside consultant is conducting an operation and service review
for the Fire and Police Departments.
Mayor Johnson stated projections need to be updated in order to
determine what needs to be done to keep the budget balanced through
the end of this fiscal year.
The City Manager stated the City receives revenue receipts in
December; staff is still assuming a $700,000 revenue deficit;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
December lb, 2008
detailed information would be provided at the February mid-year
review.
Mayor Johnson stated Council requested that numbers be attached to
the proposed savings for this year; numbers were not provided
regarding a hiring freeze; that she is not sure doing a Fire or
Police Department hiring freeze is the right thing to do.
Councilmember Matarrese stated response time needs to be discussed;
the City wants to provide certain services and needs to provide
other services; that he wishes that the Fire and Police Chiefs were
at tonight's meeting; the Animal Shelter showed up as a cut item in
October; knowing Animal Shelter benefits is important from a public
safety versus cost standpoint; seventy five percent of fire calls
are medical; that he is disappointed that a report has not been
provided since he submitted his request eleven days ago; current
public safety service levels need to be known.
The Interim Finance Director stated the strategy is to end the
fiscal year with expenditures at or under revenues and not dip into
the fund balance; larger fiscal policy issues need to be addressed;
Council can address brown out issues once actual numbers are
provided.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not think Council
approved brown outs; Council took money from the Golf fund with the
hope that Measure P would pass and brown outs would not be
necessary; Council was to revisit the issue.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council discussed taking money from
the Golf fund for the Fire Department; everyone agreed that Measure
P was a long shot; the budget was adopted with the assumption that
brown outs would occur once overtime funds were depleted; brown
outs were approved when the budget was adopted; Council needs to
discuss how to apply any Measure P revenues.
Mayor Johnson stated that her recollection is similar to
Councilmember Gilmore's; additional money was found to fund afire
engine for a longer period of time; that she does not have a
problem bringing brown out discussions back to Council; the Fire
Chief needs to advise Council on brown out impacts.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City will get to the point where
funds are unavailable for wants and needs; that she is hesitant to
suggest revenue enhancements that require a vote of the people;
Public Safety comprises two-thirds of the General Fund; the budget
gap cannot be closed without affecting Public Safety; other
departments have been cut to the bone; the community enjoys a high
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council ~
December 15, 2008
level of service from all departments; the City needs to be
fiscally responsible.
Mayor Johnson stated the Fire Chief needs to propose ways to
maintain twenty-seven suppression positions without using overtime;
other alternatives have not been reviewed; staff needs to be very
creative and think outside the box; every possibility needs to be
reviewed before proposals are made; organizational flattening has
been suggested but has not come back for Council discussion.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Councilmember Matarrese is requesting
service level quantifications; response times need to be clarified;
comparing service levels with dollars needs to be discussed;
drastic steps need to be taken; monumental events have taken place
since the budget was adopted.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue needs to be brought back for
discussion.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the timeframe needs to be discussed.
The City Manager stated staff is working on the budget daily and is
waiting to receive revenue figures this month.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he cannot wait until revenue figures
are received; Measure P anticipated bringing in a lot of revenue.
The Interim Finance Director stated the City would not reap Measure
P benefits for twenty-four months; the current and next fiscal year
budgets need to be bifurcated.
Mayor Johnson stated the Fire Chief needs to advise Council on
appropriate service levels.
Councilmember Tam stated Council never assumed Measure P revenue;
transparency is needed and revenues need to be known; Alameda does
not want to end up like the City of Oakland, which over projected
revenues; staff has been working on every changing circumstance;
reports would be provided on anticipated Measure P revenues, auto
dealership sales tax losses, Other Post Employment Benefits ~oPEB}
unfunded liability actuarial study, and State Board of Equalization
negotiations; the Fire and Police Chiefs provided fiscal
sustainability reports; Council may not agree with the findings;
the City Manager is commissioning an independent study.
The City Manager stated said information would be provided in
February or March.
Regular Meeting
Alameda C~.ty Council S
December 16, 2008
Councilmember Tam stated Dr. Otani is familiar Wlth triaging at
Alameda Hospital; Alameda is a lot better off than other cities;
triage levels need to be identified before dipping into the fund
balance.
Mayor Johnson stated the current economic situation is long term;
Council needs to discuss long--term changes now; that she does not
think a hiring freeze is the best way to deal with a budget
shortfall; Council does not want to leave Police Officers off the
streets; all supervisory positions are filled.
The Interim Finance Director stated policies would be discussed in
January; service and programming decisions cannot be made until
costs are known; the goal is to have everything done by June 30,
2009 so that the City has a strategic, sustainable City-wide plan,
Councilmember Matarrese requested that Council consider directing
staff to analyze flattening the organization; stated analysis
should include eliminating top positions where consolidation and
efficiencies could be made at management levels versus individuals
delivering services.
The Interim Finance Director stated analysis would include
flattening the organization and span of control in relationship to
service levels versus line services.
Mayor Johnson stated supervisory and management positions need to
be reviewed to ensure that employees in said positions supervise.
Councilmember Tam stated the organization seems very lean in terms
of top management; the proposed cost center budget would help in
understanding how management positions impact the General Fund; a
number of management positions have not been filled.
The City Manager stated structural changes have been made since
February because of economic changes; the hiring freeze is not a
long-term solution; State and federal funding issues need to be
reviewed.
Mayor Johnson requested a more detailed report on how the budget
would be balanced through the end of the current fiscal year.
The City Manager stated that a report would be provided outlining
mechanisms and generated savings.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a briefing has been scheduled for
PERS issues.
Regulax Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
December 16, 2008
The Interim Finance Director responded that a conference call is
scheduled for tomorrow; stated the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 period
is the worry; the City will be hit with between a lfl and 5%
increase if losses are not recovered.
Mayor Johnson stated people need to know how the PERS system works;
PERS does not take any risks; PERS sends the City a bigger bill if
investment goals are not met; requested a long-term budget
forecast.
The Interim Finance Director stated today's market makes it very
difficult to do a five-year forecast; a five--year revenue and
expense projection could be done once the City gets passed the next
six months and service levels are established for the next twenty-
four months; now is the time to stay cash rich; that she has been
advised that rates will drop 3o to 4% in March or April.
Mayor Johnson stated expenses need to be forecasted.
The Interim Finance Director stated the City would not be able to
write a check for unfunded liabilities in one or two years; the
City can chip away at unfunded liabilities within sixty months.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated a new, national recovery plan is proposed
every week; other cities are closing down one day per week; the
City needs to understand all options.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the Fire and Police Chiefs
make a presentation on current service levels and potential cuts
before any significant change is proposed for service delivery;
stated Council needs to provide policy direction before pulling the
trigger.
The City Manager stated staff would discuss plans for next year's
budget as well as potential brown outs at the next Council meeting.
Mayor Johnson stated discussion should include flattening the
organization also.
The City Manager stated the issue would be part of the policy
discussion.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated other options should be presented also.
Mayor Johnson stated staff should be creative; Sunnyvale and
Rohnert Park police vehicles are labeled "Police/Fire".
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIQNS
Regular Meeting
A1.ameda City Council 10
December ia, aaaa
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Regular Meeting was adjourned
at 11:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 l
December ~5~ 2008
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC} MEETING
TUESDAY- -JANUARY 6, 2009- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan,
Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
X09- CIC} Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property:
1435 Webster Street; Negotiating parties: Community Improvement
Commission and Farrar Family Trust; Under negotiation; Price and
terms.
X09- CC} Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision ~c} of Section
54956.9; Number of cases: Two.
X09-- CC} Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Real
Property, the Commission provided negotiating direction to its Real
Property Negotiators; regarding Anticipated Litigation, direction
was provided to Legal Counsel regarding litigation strategy on two
separate matters of anticipated litigation.
**~
Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened the
Special Joint Meeting at 11:43 p.m.
***
Mayor Johnson announced that regarding the Performance Evaluation,
Council reviewed the City Manager's performance; direction was
provided to the City Manager.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 12:20 a.m.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
January 6, 2009
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 and
Community improvement Commission
January 6, 2009
vNApPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JANUARY 6, 2009- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:41 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(09- } Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing on the
Community Development Block Grant [paragraph no. 09- ~ would be
continued to January 20; that the Resolutions of Appointment
[paragraph nos. 09- and 09- A] would be addressed following
the Proclamation [paragraph no. 09~- ]; and the meeting would be
recessed following the Resolutions of Appointment in order to hold
the Community Improvement Commission meeting.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(09- } Mayor Johnson announced that the Community Action for
Sustainable Alameda (CASA} would hold a meeting at the Alameda Free
Library on January 14, 2009 from 6:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m.
(09- } Proclamation declaring January as National Blood Donor
Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Lisa Eversol.
Ms. Eversol stated last year the community sponsored nine blood
drives and collected approximately 900 units of blood which saved
approximately 2,600 people; a blood drive will be conducted on
Saturday at St. Barnabas Church; people can make appointments by
calling ( 8 00 }GIVE-BLOOD.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(09- } Resolution No. 14293, "Appointing Horst Breuer as a Member
of the Economic Development Commission." Adopted; and
(09- A} Resolution No. 14294, "Appointing Justin Harrison as a
Member of the Economic Development Commission.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolutions.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
January 6, 2DQ9
voice vote - 5.
Mr. Breuer thanked Council for the opportunity to serve; stated
that he hopes his business background will bring a positive aspect
to the Commission.
Mr. Harrison thanked the Council for its trust; stated that he is
looking forward to serving the community.
Mayor Johnson thanked Mr. Breuer and Mr. Harrison for the
willingness to serve; stated serving on the Commission during the
current economic times will be interesting.
The City Clerk administered the Oaths of Office and presented
Certificates of Appointment to Mr. Breuer and Mr. Harrison.
~*~
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 8:07 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular Meeting at 8:37 p.m.
***
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Noll & Tam Architects Contract
[paragraph no. 09- ] and the Public Hearing on Tentative Parcel
Map No. 9757 [paragraph no. 09- ] were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember 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.]
~*09- } 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 l6, 2008. Approved.
(*09- } Ratified bills in the amount of 3,524,697.09.
X09- } 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.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
January 6, 2009
The Public Works Director provided a handout and a brief
presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the grades on the handout represent.
The Public Works Director responded the grades are for the written
proposals; stated the grades established the short list of the four
proposers interviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he requested the item be pulled
for discussion because the staff report did not include information
on the other proposals; the explanation provided in the handout
answered his questions.
Councilmember Tam stated that she has no relationship to the
proposer; there is $2.65 million in Measure o money; stated design,
including contingency, is llo of the total project cost; inquired
whether the amount is within the range that should be spent on
design, to which the Public Works Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson requested that direction be given
to watch the contingency closely and report any changes back to
Council; the Council expects the project to come in within the
amount proposed.
on the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
~*09- } 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. Accepted.
~*09- ~ Recommendation to adopt the Legislative Program for 2009.
Accepted.
~*09- } Resolution No. 14295, "Setting the 2009 Regular City
Council Meeting Dates." Adopted.
~*09- } Resolution No. 14296, "Approving the Second Amended and
Restated Northern California Power Agency Metered Subsystem
Aggregator Agreement." Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
January 6, 2Q09
X09- y Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14297,
"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." Adopted.
The Planning Services Manager provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the next steps be expedited;
stated the project is navel f.or Alameda; the historic house is
being restored; the new house has many green features; the
combination of common ownership of the land and separate ownership
of the houses provides increased property tax; there is urgency to
have the houses sold.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
X09- 7 Discussion on financial policies and principles.
The City Manager provided a statement about the City's financial
status; in response to a television advertisement, stated the City
is not filing for bankruptcy.
The Interim Finance Director reviewed the City's financial status.
Mayor Johnson inquired how much money would be left in the General
Fund after Planning and Building is removed.
The Interim Finance Director responded $8.5 to $S.7 million, not
including the equipment reserve, which is the only reserve in the
General Fund; suggested that a special meeting be scheduled on a
Saturday for a full review and discussion of the policies and
principles.
Mayor Johnson obtained the consensus of the Council regarding
holding a Saturday meeting.
The Interim Finance Director provided an overview of the policies
and principles.
David Howard, Save Our City Alameda, discussed the television
advertisement that he wrote and produced.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
January 6, 2009
Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed partnerships.
Mayor Johnson stated the City needs to build the management tools
that the Council needs, such as financial analysts and people to
analyze data, keep track of money and know how much things cost;
right now, the City does not have the management tools to the
extent needed; a policy should be included that states the City
will maintain the ability to provide the management tools or
analytical data to ensure policies are not developed and then the
ball is dropped; further stated a plan is needed on how to create a
surplus in order to fund reserves.
The Interim Finance Director stated staff would provide
alternatives; depreciation is factored in as an expense in
equipment replacement, which covers operations and creates a fund
balance; the same thing has been done for Information Technology
and needs to be done for all internal service funds; departments
need to contribute proportionally to force starting savings.
Mayor Johnson stated the vehicle fund needs to be revisited; the
policy might need to be changed due to the current economic
situation; a policy should be established that workers compensation
be funded; incurring debt for Other Post Employee Benefits ~OPEB}
could exceed the amount; her first choice would not be to take out
debt, however, debt would force the disciple of paying for OPEB,
which has not been done since 1989.
The Interim Finance Director stated detailed information includes
circumstances under which funding OPEB through a debt might be more
cost effective; the decision could be made to increase the debt
policy because fully funding OPEB now would be more cast effective;
a cost benefit analysis would need to be completed; the issue would
be reviewed at the workshop.
Mayor Johnson stated a full cost recovery policy should be adopted;
the full amount is not being recovered when police service is
contracted.
The Interim Finance Director stated charging for use of the service
should be a fully burdened rate; the calculations would be changed
as soon as possible.
Mayor Johnson stated being able to identify costs by cost center is
needed in order to provide the ability to manage.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the policies would apply
to Alameda Power & Telecom SAP&T}.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
January 6, 2009
The Interim Finance Director responded in the negative; stated AP&T
and the Housing Authority have a different budget process.
Councilmember Matarrese stated both are departments of the City and
the policies should be applied equally; a lot of the points in the
detail need to be tempered; in some cases, open and good government
does not allow for full cost recovery, such as appeals; the
recommendation from the sustainability committee should be
presented at the front end of the workshop or precede the workshop;
more description is needed regarding a deferred maintenance fund;
Council had discussions about the value of having cash versus the
damage being done to the asset by deferring maintenance not making
sense; that he does not understand why the City would save money
when sidewalks and streets are crumbling to the point of
replacement rather than repair; some reserves depend on doomsday
scenarios; assets should not be sacrificed to save money for
something that could happen.
Mayor Johnson stated money needs to be budgeted for building
maintenance, which is not currently done; building maintenance is
deferred and there is no money or reserve to pay for it; a
disciplined system is needed with requirements to fund building
maintenance.
Councilmember Matarrese stated putting together a pile of money and
not doing any work to save the asset does not make sense.
Mayor Johnson stated similar to ~PE$, a disciplined system is
needed to require the City to pay money for building maintenance.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the item about delivering service in
the most cost effective manner needs to be visited; the Library
Contract approved tonight is an example of selecting the best fit
for the City, rather than the most cost effective; a policy has
purposely been established to hire people at prevailing wage rather
than minimum wage.
Mayor Johnson stated expenditures need to be clearer; in the past,
the City has chosen not to pay for things, such as ~PEB; things
that the City is obligated to pay for have to be counted in
expenditures to ensure the City pays for its obligations in the
budget.
Councilmember Gilmore stated there is always going to be a need for
more money; there has to be discipline about what will be paid for;
the Council also has to prioritize; rather than keeping money to
satisfy a doomsday scenario, money should be spent on something
like CPEB or resurfacing the streets before replacement i s needed;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2009
the Council has to decide the order of funding priorities as
reserves are established; clear operating expense policies need to
be established, such as using one time revenues far one time
expenses and not for ongoing expenses; however, there may be times
when cash flow is needed that it [using one time revenues for
operations] is appropriate.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the policies capture the discussion from
the past four years; the policies are good fiscal management and
will force information back so that Council can make the right
decisions; many elements will have dollars and supporting data.
Councilmember Tam stated the City has benefited from extremely
conservative fiscal policies and has low debt with high reserves;
in terms of prioritizing, she would like to understand soft versus
hard earmarks in the fund balance and have a risk assessment done;
for example, the amount needed for workers compensation reserve
should be determined; the City will have to use reserves to make up
for Ca1PERS's 30o value drop; a risk assessment is needed for
deferred maintenance to determine the amount that should be
earmarked in a disciplined savings plan.
Councilmember Gilmore stated capital projects and OPEB alone could
completely wipe out the fund balance; the City has chosen not to
spend or encumber funds, however, the entire amount [fund balance]
could be spent tomorrow on existing liabilities.
The Interim Finance Director stated funds with a balance might have
come from something like the gas tax, which cannot be spent on
operating expenses; the majority of the money is restricted; the
General Fund is the only fund with flexibility.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a policy could be drafted on mid-
year budget reductions; stated how the current fiscal year budget
was balanced is not understood; a list of bullet paints were
provided; specific numbers were requested.
The Interim Finance Director responded $704,000 less in revenues is
anticipated; the amount would be offset by a hiring freeze that
creates a salary savings and holding off on contracts.
Mayor Johnson stated numbers need to be put on the items so that
Council knows where the savings come from.
The Interim Finance Director stated the matter would be addressed
February 3.
Mayor Johnson stated a higher level of financial data is needed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
January 6, 2009
Vice Mayor deHaan stated doing a two year budget becomes concerning
during tough times; good estimates are needed while the City has to
wait for reports to come from the County, etc.; everyday that goes
by without action while waiting for the shoe to fall causes the
City to always be behind; making it through the current year is not
a good way to run a budget; the Fiscal Sustainability Committee is
looking at ten years out and will provide a report on how to
address obligations.
The Interim Finance Director stated the Saturday workshop would be
scheduled as soon as possible.
X09- } Recommendation to receive a report on Fire Department
resource allocation.
The City Manager provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public comment.
Speakers: Domenick Weaver, Alameda Firefighters submitted letter};
Dan Robertson, Oakland Firefighters Local 55; David Howard, Save
Our City Alameda; Jeff DelBono, Local 689 Alameda City
Firefighters; Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Bill Smith, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
comment.
The Interim Finance Director stated the world is not the same as it
was when the Measure P process began in April and May of last year;
on July 18, the Anderson School at UCLA indicated there would be no
recession in the balance of 2008 and 2009; then, the bottom fell
out of the market in August and the country had the blackest
October since the depression; if the Anderson School of Economics
could not have forecasted what occurred in the national and global
economy, no one working at the City or designing Measure P
calculations could have done any better; if the economy recovers in
36 months, the City will reap the rewards of the effort; the tax is
a discretionary fund that the Council can allocate as desired; the
City is not in bankruptcy mode; however, times are tough; the City
hired an economic firm to look at the property transfer tax because
it is a compounded revenue source that depends on the number of
transactions, the value of the house, the time of the close of
escrow and the ability to get financing; the revenues are not going
to be as optimistic as estimated in April and May; the City needs
to remain cautious and retain the reserve; further stated the Fire
Department budget is in line with appropriations and are on
projection; funding would require taking money from other
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council. 8
January b, 2009
departments or the cash reserves; cash reserves should not be used
because there are too many unknowns and using reserves would go
against financial policies; the funding deficit will not go away
until the City has more discretionary resources in the General
Fund .
Mayor Johnson stated the current situation could continue for 36
months and how bad it could get is not known; that she does not
believe that the City is okay for this year; questioned why staff
says the City will be okay for this year just because a budget has
been adopted.
The Interim Finance Director responded staff is saying the City
will survive this year with what Council appropriated as long as
the plan is followed and everyone is diligent about staying under
budget; drastic cuts were already made.
The City Manager stated Mayor Johnson is pointing out that the
Issue is on-going.
Mayor Johnson stated perhaps more money should be saved this year
so that cuts next year would not need to be as big.
The Interim Finance Director stated that she does not see a way to
save any more in the current budget; the budget is a very tight.
Mayor Johnson questioned why expenditures are not being dealt with
more; stated revenues and expenditures do not really balance
because the City is choosing not to pay some obligations, like OPEB
and the workers compensation reserve.
The Interim Finance Director stated said items would be dealt with
in Fiscal Year 2009-10; the last budget cycle was difficult and
involved lay offs; staff is trying to survive this year and come up
with a more comprehensive plan for next year; direction could be
given to start making some changes now.
Nice Mayor deHaan stated there is no choice but to start addressing
the issues now; finding out the budget is $4 million short does not
happen overnight, which has been done continually; the focus should
be on making it through the next three to four years, rather than
making it through this year; there is nothing on the horizon.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether one person was laid off in
the last budget cycle, to which the City Manager responded there
were a couple.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City has not really gone through
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
January 6, 2009
lay offs and that is what is being faced; the report is about the
current service level; requested a detailed description of
preserving 95fl of the current [Fire] service level; inquired what
happens when a brown out occurs.
The Fire Chief stated a lot of data was analyzed; not all data
could be obtained; two things affect service level: response time
and getting the proper amount of resources to the incident; his
statement that 95a of the current service level would be preserved
is based on the two factors; the analysis for 2008 showed no impact
on resources; there was not afire incident where the City was not
able to provide the necessary resources; there will not be a
catastrophic shortage of resources when responding to fires;
response time differs depending on apparatus; less than 5a of all
calls will be impacted with a higher response time.
Councilmember Matarrese requested an explanation of not obtaining
all data wanted for analysis.
The Fire Chief responded staff hoped to obtain data for more years
and by station and company; enough data was obtained to do adequate
analysis and back up the conclusions drawn.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what scenario would involve an
increased response time; stated the average response time is
currently 4 minutes 30 seconds; inquired what would happen during a
brown out when the City is in the 5~ mode.
The Fire Chief stated that he would provide individual scenarios;
for medical calls, the Fire Department responds with an engine and
an ambulance; there are paramedics on the engine and ambulance; if
an ambulance were browned out, the impact would occur when there
are three or more concurrent ambulance calls; said scenario
happened 24l times last year; based on the staffing pattern last
year, an ambulance would only be browned out 150 of the time or 50
days, which translates to about 36 delayed ambulance calls.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how long the delay would be.
The Fire Chief responded the delay would depend on the location of
the call and the ambulance; the range would be anywhere from one
minute to 10 to 12 minutes if relying on AMR; even if the ambulance
would be delayed, the first responding unit would not be delayed.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the impact.
The Fire Chief responded the impact varies depending upon the
medical condition; the matter has been discussed with doctors; for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
January 6, 2409
cardiac patients, the engine needs to get there quickly with the
defibrillator; transport is not as important because the patient
can be treated at the scene; getting an ambulance there quickly
might be more important for internal injuries; statistically, only
15 out of the 3G delayed calls would be critical incidents.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what is the $100,000 for training
and contingency.
The Fire Chief stated $30,000 is for paramedic training; $20,000 is
far a recruit academy; the other $50,000 is to deal with major
incidents and fire fighter call backs for fires; the overtime
savings comes from lowering daily staffing of stations; some money
is needed for call back for major incidents and other activities.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired during what period of time did the
$413,000 State reimbursement accumulate, to which the Fire Chief
responded the amount is for the current fiscal year.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what percentage of the overtime is used
for mutual aid.
The Fire Chief responded the amount of time varies; stated the
money should be fully recovered.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated mutual aid agreements are a substantial
portion of overtime and cannot be neglected.
The Fire Chief stated a Statewide agreement requires the City to
respond if able; the City uses resources from other communities,
too.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the first response is an engine
with a paramedic, to which the Fire Chief responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City ever had four
ambulances, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative.
Councilmember Tam stated the total overtime allocation for the
2008-09 Fiscal Year was $1, 013 million; $978, 000 was used at the
end of last year; to maintain the minimum staffing level of 27, 33
people are required to be available; inquired whether the overtime
charges are primarily due to lack of staff from people out on
injury, people on leave, or various combinations.
The Fire Chief responded it is a little bit of all; stated the
general rule of thumb in most any industry is that employers have
Regular MEetinq
Alameda City Council 1 ~
January 6, 2009
250 over the amount of staff desired on duty to deal with vacancies
due to vacations, sickness, training, and whatever takes an
employee away from the job; the City staffs for 27 people; adding
25o would be six to seven additional positions, which is how the
number was reached; what leads to overtime is anything that takes a
person away from the workplace; in the City's case, it is primarily
vacation and the usage of compensatory time that people have
earned, secondly people on injury leave, and then sick leave; the
City only has 31 people assigned to a shift on average, which means
overtime is used if more than four people are off on any given day;
there were a lot of vacancies last year; nine people were hired in
the spring which cut the overtime in half; vacancies reduce salary
spending and cause overtime to go up; hiring people causes salaries
to go up, but lowers overtime.
Councilmember Tam stated standard procedure is to send an engine
with a paramedic as the first responder; then, an ambulance is
sent; inquired whether the full compliment is sent for every case,
such as an indigent, intoxicated person needing a ride to a medical
facility.
The Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the current
Countywide practice set by the Medical Director requires that any
type of medical call, regardless of priority or severity, requires
an engine and ambulance.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether there is any flexibility.
The Fire Chief responded currently, there is no flexibility; there
are discussions to try to create some flexibility; the Medical
Director realizes the lowest priority of calls that might not be
true emergencies do not need the same level of response.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether fire calls go to County
dispatch, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether dispatch determines what
needs to be sent out, to which the Fire Chief responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether 18 people are sent to a
fire, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what happens if all 18 people are
not needed.
The Fire Chief provided a Power Point presentation outlining the
response.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 2
January 6, 2009
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many times the Fire Department
backed of f of the full, initial response .
The Fire Chief responded there were 32 working structure fires and
28 gas leaks, which would have require the full response resources
sent.
Mayor Johnson stated AMR provides backup; inquired what are the
response time requirements for AMR.
The Fire Chief responded the time requirements are the same as the
City's; the City's average response time is much better than the
requirement; for ambulances, the City's average response time is 4
minutes and the County standard is 8 minutes.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is trying to balance the
deficit of $344,000 against the 50; the Council's purview is
deciding whether or not to sacrifice response time 50 of the time;
that he does not have confidence that someone might not be injured
severely; $344,000 is a small amount against the General Fund; that
he is not willing to take the risk; the City responds faster than
Oakland, but Oakland does not have to cross a bridge to get to a
trauma center; how the response is delivered is the purview of
management; that he expects management to come up with creative
ways to keep the critical level of service; cities are in place to
keep the peace, Whlch is the job of the Police Department, to keep
people healthy and safe, which is the job of the Fire Department
and sewer system, and to preserve infrastructure, which is Public
Works' job; that he voted to take money from Golf in June because
Golf is less important than maintaining fire response at the
current level; services should be prioritized; services that are
less important should be cut to make sure that the [responses range
is met 1000 of the time; the response time is an average; that he
does not want to play odds for $344,000; that he would like
direction given to the City Manager to look for a way to bridge the
$344,000; at the same time, the City should look at how the service
is provided, which is being done by an outside consultant; inquired
when the report is due.
The City Manager responded the organizational review would be ready
in late March or April.
The Fire Chief stated no city can ensure 1000 safety for all
citizens from a risk management point of view; the City achieves a
very high standard of 90o currently; of the 15 critical incidents
medical calls being discussed, on average half would be trauma
cases.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 3
January G, 2009
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not think the seven
calls are worth $344,000.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City of Alameda response time is 4
minutes; inquired the County's time.
The Fire Chief responded the County standard is $ minutes.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what the County's actual time is, to
which the Fire Chief responded that he does not have said
information.
Councilmember Tam stated a speaker addressed the City's obligations
regarding an initiative; requested the City Attorney to provide an
update.
The City Attorney stated the title and summary were prepared and e--
mailed out today.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired when the City would start browning
out an ambulance.
The City Manager responded the browning out of either an ambulance
or rig, which is up to the Fire Chief, would begin at the end of
the month in order to meet the budget.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like the Council to
establish the desired service level; he would like the issue to
come to Council before the service level changes, so that Council
can establish the service level and get alternatives to taking the
service level down by 5a.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue would have to be placed on an
agenda; resources can be discussed at the mid--year budget review in
February.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired when various financial reports would
be provided in response to previous Councilmember questions.
The Interim Finance Director responded the reports being prepared
on the three revenue sources: property tax, property transfer tax
and sales tax will be presented on February 3.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the reports would provide information
on the City's revenue status and indicate whether or not there is
wiggle room.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 4
January 6, 2x09
The Interim Finance Director stated the mid-year report would be in
the same format as the year-end report; the actual revenue for each
source would be extrapolated or projected out to provide a good
estimate of fund balances; the information will indicate whether or
not there is wiggle room.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a possibility that the
overtime in the Fire Department is increasing because of the normal
course of business, such as retirements and injuries and that has
been projected out for the remainder of the fiscal year.
The Interim Finance Director stated the overtime amount projected
out under the two scenarios did not include projection of
additional retirements or injuries.
Mayor Johnson stated nine firefighters were hired in the spring of
2008; inquired whether the City has the ability to hire additional
firefighters this fiscal year if there are retirements.
The City Manager stated there is a hiring freeze.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is money to hire firefighters,
but the hire freeze is preventing hiring.
The Interim Finance Director stated there might be a vacancy in
deployment if someone is on leave, but the person is still paid.
The City Manager stated there are budgeted positions; in order to
have 27 people on duty, some are filled through overtime.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the budget covers the authorized
positions.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; requested the Fire
Chief to address whether there are vacancies due to retirements.
The Fire Chief stated there are two vacancies due to retirements.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether all the positions are funded even if
there are vacancies.
The City Manager stated using the Police Department for example, 99
positions are funded and five are vacant.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has the money to hire
officers since the positions are funded.
The City Manager stated positions are being left vacant in order to
Reguiar Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 5
January 5, 2x09
meet the $700,000 in decreased revenues.
Mayor Johnson stated the explanation provided is why she wants the
Council to receive information on how the budget is being balanced;
Council did not take action; the report did not include numbers.
The Fire Chief stated two funded positions in the Fire Department
are vacant.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether money was included in the
budget and is not being paid out in paychecks.
The Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated money might be
spent in overtime.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is no money to hire staff
because money is being used for overtime, to which the Fire Chief
responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is money to hire two more if
desired, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the salary budget has money
allocated that is not being spent.
The Fire Chief stated money f rom overtime would be used if a
person's absence causes staffing to fall below 27.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the salary savings would
be used to cover overtime.
The Fire Chief responded last year $2.2 million was spent on
overtime; stated $2.2 million was not budgeted; vacancies created
considerable salary savings, which off set the increase in
overtime; the same could happen this year.
Mayor Johnson stated when money allocated for firefighters salaries
is used to cover an overage in overtime, the issue needs to come to
Council; the Council needs to be aware of the issue, even in an off
Agenda Report.
Councilmember Gilmore requested an explanation of whether hiring
adds to the oPEB liability.
The Interim Finance Director stated the two vacancies could be
filled; the calculations in the [staff report] tables do not figure
in vacancies; vacancies would only affect the numbers if more
overtime has to be hired, but the amount would be a push because
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
January 6, 2009
salaries would not be paid on the other side; not filling two
vacancies and having to fill with overtime makes the overtime
number increase.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether salary funds would be used
to pay overtime.
The Interim Finance Director stated the overtime amount would rise
and the salary amount would still be there; if the position is
filled, the overtime number would remain the same; if the position
is not filled, the overtime number would rise and cost more, but
salaries would be less.
Councilmember Gilmore stated it balances out.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the funding is still there and is just
applied differently.
The Interim Finance Director stated regarding OPEB, filling the
positions would create an immediate present liability of $150,000
that is not budgeted this fiscal year.
Mayor Johnson stated the amount should be included in budgeting for
positions in the future.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether $1 million was budgeted in
overtime for the current fiscal year, to which the Fire Chief
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated last year the amount was $2.2 million;
inquired whether aspirations were to cut overtime in half.
The Fire Chief responded the amount of overtime was reduced in
order to meet the necessary budget reductions.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the projection was unreal; close to the
total amount was spent in six months.
The Fire Chief stated staff knew the 27 person staffing level would
not be able to be maintained for the year, which is why there was
discussion back in June and Council was advised that brown outs
would occur.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether only half of the year was
covered, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager stated the initial budget proposal assumed less in
overtime and assumed staffing level would go from 27 to 24;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
January 6, 209
additional funds were identified through the budget process; staff
knew that it [implementation of lowering staffing level] would be
necessary at sometime halfway through the year; $413,000 of the
$978,000 spent was expended for overtime related to mutual aid for
wildfires and will be reimbursed by the State; the amount
[$413,000] was not anticipated and would be credited back; the
balance of $317,000 is expected to be available; the amount cannot
be expended down to zero; an amount must be retained to keep the
staffing level at 24.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the actual amount spent far
overtime of the City's operation around $550,000 if the $413,000 is
removed, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry regarding overtime last
year, the City Manager stated there were nine vacancies last year;
the overtime expenditure was high but salaries were less; now that
staff is on board, the money is coming out of salaries; salary is
being spent on additional personnel, rather than overtime.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what the overtime projection would be
for the rest of the year if everything were left status quo.
The City Manager responded the amount is $344,277, which is in
Table 1 [ of the staf f report ] .
The Fire Chief stated that he would like to make one correction;
there was an additional retirement on December 31, so there are now
three vacancies in funded positions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are plans to fill positions.
The Fire Chief responded hiring is contingent on the OPEB decision.
The City Manager stated the Police Department positions are also
part of the analysis; staff is trying to address OPEB pre-funding;
pre-funding will be required in future years; staff wanted to get
through the revenue analysis; the hiring freeze was put into place
to save money; the goal is not to take anything out of the reserve
for the current fiscal year.
Mayor Johnson stated it needs to be more than a goal; the City does
not have enough to start spending the reserves this year.
The City Manager stated not implementing the hiring freeze would
impact the ability to keep from hitting the reserve; staff is
trying its best to have expenditures equal to revenues.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Counczl 1
January 6, 2009
Councilmember Gilmore stated one policy is that operating expenses
and revenues should match; dipping into the reserve would be using
one time money to cover on going expenses.
Mayor Johnson stated everyone is concerned next year will be worse.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City does not know what the State
is going to do.
Mayor Johnson stated taking money out of reserve to fund something
for a short period of time will not help next year, which is the
sustainability issue in the budget policies; the City has to live
within its means.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the three revenue reports that will be
presented in February are needed in order to have an informed
discussion about the amount of money the City has to spend.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff is confident about the
$740, 000 figure.
The Interim Finance Director responded the amount could be more,
but probably not significantly more; staff is trying to do internal
manipulations to prevent drastic cuts; positions are not being
eliminated; things are not being unfunded; the budget is very tight
and staff is working very hard not to use one dime out of the
reserves this year knowing that the City faces a larger issue in
the future; the dynamic for Fiscal Year 2009-10 changes if pre-
funding OPEB has to be included in Police and Fire budgets.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City would be stuck with
its operating costs and have to look to the fund balance if the
State decides to do the triple flip and issues an I.O.U. to the
City.
The Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated
the fund balance would set the City into an equilibrium; service
levels would be retained while waiting for cash to come from the
State; cash poor cities would end up cutting drastically.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the fund balance has to be taken care
of until the unknown from the State becomes known; the City does
not have a say and just has to deal with the State's decision.
The Interim Finance Director stated the State punted the problem
from last year to this year; resolution is not being reached this
year; the State cannot make payroll, which is a cash flow issue,
and is debting to meet payroll.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 9
January 6, 2009
Councilmember Tam stated the City is not insulated from the State
running out of money; the $413,000 might not materialize.
The Interim Finance Director stated the City is assuming the amount
will be received by close of books on June 30, but might have to
float the cash; monies paid with an I.D.U, drain the City's cash
today.
Uice Mayor deHaan stated the City was under the impression that it
could bond against the I.O.U., which will no longer happen.
The Interim Finance Director stated some of the smaller revenue
sources are being held and the State is not indicating when payment
will be received.
Councilmember Tam stated the City of Hayward is eliminating days of
operation; Oakland is furloughing; inquired what other cities are
doing to maintain public safety.
The Interim Finance Director stated Hayward is requiring every
employee, except frontline Police and Fire, to take a mandated 52
hours of unpaid leave; people could draw down on the time while the
City closed for the holidays; the City Manager has requested her to
run various scenarios.
The City Manager stated in Hayward, the amount would be taken out
of paychecks over a six-month period and was a one-time effort to
obtain savings in the current fiscal year.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated furloughs are being done at various levels
throughout the State; the City might be in a situation and have to
close City Hall down on a given day; there are a lot of options.
The City Manager noted there would be a decrease in service.
Mayor Johnson stated the mid-year budget report would be brought to
Council in February and the issue would be dealt with again.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
X09- 7 Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs
far Community Block Grant Fiscal Year 2009-010 Annual Plan.
Continued to January 2Q, 2Q09.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
X09- } Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed energy.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
January 6, 2009
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
X09- 7 Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Historical Advisory Board and Youth Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Donna Talbot to the Historical Advisory
Board and Ellen Hui to the Youth Commission.
X09-- 7 Councilmember Matarrese stated there was a Council
Referral to have the Youth Commission look at reducing traffic
congestion around schools last year; the Youth Commission sent him
a letter Wlth its results; that he would provide the letter to the
City Manager; the Transportation Commission should review the
letter to determine if any of the suggestions could be implemented;
it was quite well done and should be shared with the Cauncil.
ADJQURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2 1
January 6, 2009
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES of THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY -- - - JANUARY 13, 2009 - - - 6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -~ Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(09- 7 Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jorry and Human Resources
Director; Employee organizations: All Bargaining Units.
(09- 7 Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957; Title:
City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that Council regarding Labor, Council
received a report from its Labor Negotiators and gave direction on
negotiating strategy; regarding Performance Evaluation, Council
discussed the periodic performance review of the City Manager and
provided direction to the City Manager.
Adj aurnment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 13, 2009
CITY 4F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
Members. of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Finance Director
Date: January 15, 2009
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
21 6250 - 21 fi705 $3,036,277.23
V18146 - V18291 $103,184.36
EFT 629 $205,817.12
EFT 630 ~ $5,297.99
EFT 631 $17,930.42
EFT 632 $88,560.83
EFT 533 $18,731.18
EFT 634 $32,952.27
EFT 635 $63,431.59
EFT fi3fi $1,981.00
Void Checks:
GRAND TOTAL
Council Warrants 01/20/09
$3,574,163.99
BILLS #4.g
1/20/2009
Respeci#ully submitted,
CITY nF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 20, 2009
Re: Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreementwith E.S.Q. Solutions
forAmbulance Billin Services
BACKGROUND
The Fire Department responds to Emergency Medical Service GEMS} calls using a
combination of fire engines and ambulances, with the ambulances transporting patients
as needed and then the Fire Department billing the patients for that service. The billing
and record keeping obligations related to the provision of EMS are governed by both
State and Federal laws and regulations that continue to evolve over time. In particular,
the Fire Department anticipates that it will need to be prepared to comply with the new
California EMS Information Systems Standard andlor the National EMS Information
Systems Standard sometime in 2009. In addition, the record keeping standards for
Medicare and Medi-Cal reimbursement continue to become stricter overtime.
The current vendor for billing services and EMS data management has not indicated
that it will be able to meet the new EMS information system standards, and is now
frequently failing to meet the Fire Department's objectives to process patient bills in a
timely manner and maintain compliance with the stricter Medi-Cal and Medicare
requirements. It is the Department's opinion that the current vendor will not be able to
meet the Department's needs going forward. The City's existing contract with its current
vendor permits the City to terminate without cause and without penalty with seven days
notice.
DISCUSSION
The Fire Department performed an informal request for qualifications and identified
three potential vendors for billing and record keeping services: EMS Charts, E.S.a
Solutions, and Zoll Data Systems. The potential vendors were evaluated on both
service capabilities and cost.
City Council
Agenda Item #4-C
0 "i -Z 0-09
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Billin Vendor Evaluation
January 20, 2009
Page2of3
Initial
Cost Monthly
Main. Billing
Service*
Billin ServicelYr
Hardware Cost
Total
ESQ Solutions $0.00 $0.00 5.4°/° $221,789.00 $0.00 $221,789.02
EMS Charts $5,654.00 $49fi.OD 5.5°/°** $225,89fi.22 $i 7,5DO.DD $325 000.00
Zoll Data S terns $fi5,o0D.00 $1,044.00 5.5°/°** $225,89fi.22 $17,500.00 $390,924.00
* Percentage of net collected dollars
** Billing service provided by Wittman, LLC -Sacramento, CA
The recommended vendor, E.S.O. Solutions, presented staff with an in-depth
demonstration of their product and services, which will simplify the billing process and
provide the ability to generate all needed EMS reports at the Fire Department level.
The ability to quickly generate needed data will help staff evaluate future demand for
service by geographic area, track trends in medical need, and develop preventative
programs.
E.S.Q. Solutions was also the only vendor that provides bundled electronic patient care
reporting with billing services. In addition, no other vendor was able to offer licensing
fees, software, and hardware all-inclusive within their bid. E.S.Q. Solutions was also
the lowest cost provider, by a substantial amount compared to the next lawest cost
vendor. Although the agreement with the Fire Department's current vendor allows for
termination with seven days natice, the City would give the current vendor, Toomay
Technologies, Inc., 30 days notice to allow far adequate transition between the two
vendors.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The estimated cost of this contract is $221,789 per year, budgeted in account 001-
3230-51085 ambulance billing service account}. The financial impact from changing
the billing vendor will result in an estimated net savings to the City in the amount of
$65,715 per year. This savings is realized due to the fact that the current vendor
charges the department l°I° of gross collected revenue, while the proposed vendor will
charge 5.4°/0. This net savings will positively impact the department's budget and
therefore the General Fund.
MUNiC1PAL C4DElP~LICY DOCUMENT CRASS REFERENCE
The proposed agreement does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
REC~MMENDATI4N
January 20, 2009
Page 3 of 3
Authorize the City Manager to terminate an existing agreement with Toomay
Technologies, lnc. and execute an agreement with E.S.O. Solutions for ambulance
billing services.
Respectfully submitted,
G-~-~~
David A. Kapler
Fire Chief
By:
Approved as to funds and account,
Ann M ie Gallant
Interi finance Director
~/
Dale V
EMS C
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION N0.
E
~~
0
a~
co
a
ti
~.
~.
a
.~
Q
APPOINTING ELLEN HUI AS A MEMBER OF THE
ALAMEDAYOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuantto
Section 2-19 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the
Mayor, ELLEN HUi is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Alameda
Youth Advisory Commission of the City of Alameda, for a term commencin
g
January 20, 2009, and expiring August 31, 2010.
******
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was dul
y
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 20th day of January, 2009, by the followin
9
vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN ~1111TNESS, UvHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this 215 day of January, 2009.
Lara Uveisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolution #6-Q
~ t -2D-~9
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 20, 2009
Re: Hold a Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development Needs for
the Communit Develo ment Block Grant FY 2009-2010 Annual Plan
BACKGRGUND
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, 2005, 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.
DISCUSSIGN
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-incame
families or neighborhoods.
City Council
Public Nearing
Agenda Item #6-B
Honorable Mayor and January 20, 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
feast l0°/a 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 quar#er of FY
2008-09, all public service subgrantees are meeting performance goals and are
expected to receive similar allocations far 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 2008-09 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 incomefrom residential rehabilitation and other loan
Honorable Mayor and January 20, 2009
Members ofthe City Council Page 3 of 3
repayments. As required by CDBG regulations, the City's FY 2009-2010 public services
allocation will be capped at 15°/0 of the FY 2D09-2010 grant, plus prior year's program
income.
REC~MMENDATI4N
Hold a Public Hearing on 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.
Respectful) ubmitted, Approved as to funds and account,
y
Ann Mari aiian
L ~ ~ ~ Interim Fin ce Director
Development Services Director
By:
.- / " , .~
-,
,.
Debbie Potter
Base Reuse and Community Development Manager
v~
Terri Wright
Community Development Program Manager
LLIDPITVV;dc
Attachments};
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: Cyndy Wasko, President
Social Service Human Relations Board
Subject: SocialService Human Relations Board Recommendations Regarding Housingand
Communit Develo ment Needs
.,
.,; .
The Social Service Human R'elatio~ns Board SSHRB} advises the City Council regarding social
service and human relations reeds in Alameda. In 199?', the Council asked the SSHRB to
participate in the Community Development Block Grant CDBG} process by reviewing and
commenting on the publicservice needs and funding recommendations.This letterrepresentsour
input forthe annual needs process, culminating in the Needs Hearing atthe January6, 2009 City
Council meeting.
At our December 3, 2008 meeting, we received inputfrom fourservice providers ~AttachmentA}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 all
the needs of lower-income residents of our city.
In 2006, the SSHRB completed the City of Alameda Community Needs Assessment. The
Assessment reaffirmed the need to strengthen Alameda's safetynetservices: l9%of respondents
were unable to afford all the food theirfamiiy needed, 16% had fallen behind on rent or mortgage
payments, and 18% indicated that not everyone in their family had health insurance, 14,5%
expressed a need for better transportation services. Twenty-eight percent X28%} of people said that
someone in theirfamilyhasadisability. Residents also cited the need for more livingwage jobs and
increased supports for families with children.
vlle 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 strengthening Alameda's safety net for families and individuals who are
in crisis or vulnerable, through programs such as food, shelter, health and wellness services,
personal safety services, and other homeless prevention services such as short term rental
and utilityassistance. webelievethatcurrentprogramscan besustainedandenhancedby
more consciousand directed collaboration between agenciesandserviceproviders. Funds
and services can be better leveraged if increased attention was given to carefully
City Council
Attachment 1 to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #6-B
O'I -ZO.09
Mayor and Members of the City Council
December ~ 6, 2008
Page 2
orchestrated collaborations and more effective partnerships.
• Empowering Alamedansto improveeconomicand social self-sufficiencyand stability
through education, youth development, job training, health and wellness services,
employment and employment supportservlces 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 that foster increased leveraging of services and funds.
Although the SSHRB recommends no particular order of priority or percentage allocation of CDBG
public service funds among these focus areas, we do believe that in these especially difficult times
of economicchallenges, collaboration among agencies is critical to providing accesstoservicesfor
those in need. Asthe numberoffamilies of need increase, we must beabletocoalesceourefforts
to meetthedemand. Thisyear, moresothan inthepast,weseetheimportanceofactiveandwell
coordinated collaboration.
we hope that the funding allocations will continue to reflect a commitment to:
Empowering families and individuals with tools forself-sufficiency and success;
• Maintaining Alameda's diversity; and
Supporting families and individuals who are vulnerable or in crisis.
INe look forward to reviewing staff's public service funding recommendations when they are
published later this year.
Sin rely,
Cyn vl~asko, President
Social Service Human Relations Board
Attachment
cc: Social Service Human Relations Board
Development Services Director
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.
Priorit :Fair Housin Access*
^ Reduce housing discrimination.
Priorit :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.
Priorit : Su ortive Housin Needs*
Increase the availability of service-enriched housing for persons with
special needs.
Priority: Community Development (Non-Housing) Needs*
r Senior Facilities and Services
^ Parks and Recreation Facilities
Neighborhood Facilities
^ Child Care Facilities and Services
^ Crime Awareness Prevention}
^ Accessibility Needs
^ Infrastructure Improvements
^ Economic Development
^ Publis Services
* These need areas are uniformly set, as required by HUD.
City Council
Attachment 2 to
Public Hearing
Agenda item #fi-B
0'I -20-09
~~
r
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~
~~~~
~,
~ ~
~ ~ q ,~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~~
~~
.~"'
W ~
~~, L +:
L N
1-' ~
N
~}
u. ~ Q
~ O
V
I
I
~~
~~
1 '^
`, ,
'~~ ~~ ~i ~ ~ ~ -~i
kk F
~~
'
4 ~;
^'
a
~'
~,'~,
~~I
ti
,
,'~
~~..y rti+
,~
~~ ~~
~;~:>~
,f
F`r
:.;w,ti
.
~~ ~~ ~ ~
C ~~ ~ ..
~~ f ..x'." ~ „~
~ # ,~~~r, ~`; ~`~i~
..a k~•. ~. __, ..__ __....
,.
., tt r ,, <,t` . .
N~ } ~ ' ,~;
.`
. ;;
h ~ t "~ '
~,...
~ :~ '~ M , ^:: r'a
Fs,
r:~,.o- »~.,,
.y~' 'i yAx~`t;,r;~'~aY~'o~Ci A~'~.`, 'v',~~,~~~~,{~,h ~~f
~, ~ h ~ i - ,v``;
a'\ ~
„
r ~Y
,~
^, ,
, ~~ ;,,
+~ r , .t. - , , ,
~, `
~ ~y ~.Yk ~~pyfi~ !,~~F~ kV.,~ N,ryJ
., «, ': ~' ...}f~'KSFt~t ~! n fry. ...
"i x
a"\~ e
2 h x~
z, { ~ ~ ,~~
r a ~
ff .,fit h ~ ? k~.:~~t
~k k F k rk -,, T~
~~ ~'~ M ~,
t e~x t ~ y
~ ~ ~~ q1~
@ 7 '•.
-Y ~,i. i.:.f .k ~f 3H if~.~q tf ~.
ya~y;~.''`t'f `vk~`~~kk~~l~ki'~`~~ ~~i~~:~l.h: ~,?i
:,:.~,
q.c
~i
~G.~.
~l~
i
~~
rat
~~~ ~ ~
I•~ ~~
~~ !~
•~
~ ~/~~Jy
~~ Y +
~ '~
i~-1 ~ U Rti
''i r 4~
~~ ~~
~~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~~
~ti ~
~~~~~~
M1~~~
L ~ ~ ~
r ti
~~~ ~x
~ h'~
~~ ~~
V
-.
~? ~
2 r~ ~ ~
y r
~~~~
~, ~- ~ ~~
ti ~ ~~
r ~ ~ 'i
~~ ~~
.L ~
~~ ~t4~
~~~~~
~~~~~
~N~~~
City Council
Attachment 3 to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #fi-B
0'I -T0.09
City of Alameda
2000 Census Low- and Moderate-Income Areas
Alameda is an "Exception"community, with the criferia set at 48.4%. Any Block Group where at least
48.4 % of the population does not exceed So % A~l1 qualifies as a low-mod area.
Percent LIM Area
Low-Mod SLIM}
^! Boundaries
CT 4271
BG 4 54.1 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 VistalClementlBlandingRve.
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-9th St.IvUood St., N-Railroad tracks, E-Sherman St.ISt.
Charles St, S-Buena VistalLincoln Eagle Ave.
BG 5 73.1 W-Webster St., N-Stewart Ct., Railroad tracks, E-
Constitutionl9th St., S-Buena Vista Ave.
CT 4274
BG 2 60.0 W-Main St., N-Estuary, E-V1lebster St.15t~' 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 St1UVestline St.
S-San Francisco Bay
HUD 200G Income Limits as of March 8, 2006. 1V.~ediccn Fc~,l2idy l~ico~aze: X82,200
F~,~~~lly size 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8
Very Low Income $29,000 $33,100 $37,250 $41,400 $44,700 $48,000 $51,350 $54,G5D
Low Income $4G,350 $53,000 $S9,GOD $GG,250 $71,550 $7G,850 $52,150 ' $87,450
C~:I000\'CfL l'ACKC`I'S120p911•Janu.~iy101-OG-?Oa~31CDaG Public [-[earinb Att3.cloc
1=: Lcga111Zeg1L•1~[ Are<<s
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 20, 2009
Re: Hold a Public Hearing and Adopt Resolutions to Certify a Final
Environmental Impact Report and Approve the Proposed Draft
Transportation Element to the General Plan Amendment, and Rescind
the 1991 Trans ortation Element
BACKGROUND
!n 2006, the City of Alameda Transportation Commission completed a comprehensive
review of the City's transportation policies and programs and prepared a draft update to
the Transportation Element of the General Plan the "draft Element"}. In Gctober 2006,
the City Council reviewed the draft Element and authorized the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report HEIR} to analyze the potential environmenta! impacts of
adopting and implementing the draft Element, as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}. In August 2005, the City of Alameda circulated the
draft EIR for public review and comment, and the Planning Board and Transportation
Commission held a joint public hearing on August 25, 2008, to receive public comment
on the draft Element and the draft environmental analysis in the EIR.
Qn November 10, 2008, the Transportation Commission considered the Final EIR and
recommended adoption of the Transportation Element with certain amendments. an
November 24, 2008, the Planning Board held a public hearing and considered the
environmental analysis, the Transportation Commission's recommended changes, and
a limited number of additional changes recommended by staff. The Planning Board
approved the EIR and recommended approval of the Transportation Element with one
modification to the Transportation Commission's recommended changes.
The draft Transportation Element, the Final EIR, and Draft EIR are available on the City
of Alameda website at http:llwww.ci.alameda.ca.usltmpfnr public review and are on file
with the City Clerk's office, The Planning Board's final Resolution attachment 1}and
the November 24, 2008, Planning Board staff report recommending approval of the
Element attachment 2}are attached to this report.
City Council
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #6-C
o ~ -zo-o~
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
DISCUSSION
January 20, 2009
Page 2 of fi
In 2004, the City of Alameda Transportation Commission embarked on a
comprehensive evaluation of all of the City's transportation policies and programs. In
2006, after many public meetings and hearings, the Transportation Commission
completed a comprehensive update of the City of Alameda's ~ 991 Transportation
Element.
The draft Element provides an updated set of goals, strategies, and policies to guide
future decision making regarding transportation improvements, regulations, programs,
services, capital improvements, and development project transportation improvements.
The draft Element includes four overarching transportation goals for the City:
1. Circulation: Plan, develop and maintain a safe, barrier-free, and efficient
transportation system to provide the community with adequate present and future
mobility,
2. Livability: Balance the mobility needs of the community with the overall community
objective of creating a livable human and natural environment. Coordinate the
interaction of transportation systems development with land use planning activities.
3. Transportation Choice: Encourage the use of transportation modes, especially at
peak period, other than the single occupant automobile in such a way as to allow all
modes to be mutually supportive and to function together as one transportation
system .
4. Implementation: Implement and maintain the planned transportation system in a
coordinated and cost-effective manner.
Each of the four goals is supported with five to seven specific strategies. Each strategy
is then supported by five to six more specific policies. In total, the draft Element includes
over 140 specific strategies and policies. The draft Element also includes a Street
Classification system that describes the preferred character and function for different
streets throughout the City. In combination, the policies and the Street Classification
system provide guidance and a policy foundation for actions and decisions by the City
of Alameda consistent with the overall themes of the General Plan and the four goals of
the draft Element.
During the public review period, the community at large has been supportive of the
overall policy direction of the draft Element and its specific goals, strategies, and
policies. Over the course of the last two years, the discussion and analysis of the draft
Element have focused primarily on seven polices in the Element that are intended to
ensure that: the City fully consider the potential impacts from new development that
may occur to all transportation modes; project mitigation measures focus on reducing
the number of automobile trips generated by the development rather than expanding
roadway capacity to accommodate the new trips; and that mitigation measures that
Honorable Mayor and January 20, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 6
improve one mode of transportation do not significantly impact another mode. The
policies require that project mitigations focus on Transportation Demand Management
~TDM} measures to reduce automobile trips, improving alternative modes of
transportation transit, bicycle, and pedestrian} to reduce automobile trips, and more
efficient use of the existing infrastructure to address the transportation impacts of new
development, rather than traditional street improvements to increase automobile
capacity.
Specifically, the policies state:
4.4.2.a Roadways will not be widened to create addifiona! automobile travel lanes fo
accommodate additional automobile traffic volume with the exception of
increasing transit exclusive lanes ornon-motorized vehicle lanes.
4.4.2.b lnfersections will not be widened beyond fhe width of fhe approaching roadway
with the exception of a single exclusive left Turn lane when necessary or for fhe
purpose of increasing transit exclusive lanes ornon-motorized vehicle lanes.
4.4.2. c Speed limits on Alameda's new roads should be consistent with existing
roadways and be designed and implemented as 25mph roadways.
4.4.2. d All F1Rs must include analysis of the effects of fhe project on fhe cif y's franslf,
pedestrian and bicycling environment, including adjacent neighborhoods and fhe
overall Cify network.
4.4.2. a F1Rs wi11 not propose mifigafions that significantly degrade fhe bicycle and
pedestrian environment which are bellwethers for qualify of life Issues and staff
should identify "Levels of Service" or other such measurements to ensure fhaf
the pedestrian and bicycling environment will not be significantly degraded as
development takes place.
4.4.2.E Transportation related mifigafions for future development should first implement
TDB measures with appropriate regular monitoring; transit, bicycle and
pedestrian capital projects and more efficient use of existing infrastructure such
as traffic signal re-timing in order to reduce fhe negative environmental effects of
development, rather than attempting to accommodate them. Should appropriate
regular moniforr'ng indicafe fhaf fhese mifigafions are unable fo provide fhe
predicted peak-hour vehicle frig reductions, additional TDM measures,
development specific traffic caps, or mifigafions through physical improvements
of streets and intersections, consistent with policy 4.4.2.a and policy 4.4.2.b, may
be implemented. However, if fhe environmental studies indicate that the required
transportation mifigafions for the project will not be adequate fo fully mitigate fhe
negative environmental effects of fhe development, fhe decision making body
may impose mifigafions in addition to fhe measures described in this policy fhaf
may be inconsistent with policies 4.4.2.a and 4.4.2.b of fhe Time of approval of
fhe project provr'ded fhaf: 1~ thresholds of significance for pedestrians, bicyclists
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
January ~0, Za09
Page 4 of 6
and transit have beery adopted by the City of Alameda, 2} an acceptable level of
service can be mar'ntained for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit, and 3} the
widening is accomplished Through the removal of an-street parking, or the
widening is located on a regional or island arteria! identified in the Transportation
Element Street Classification System.
4.4.2.8 After the implementation of quantifiable/verifiable TD~I measures ~veri~ed
through appropriate regular monitoring}, and mitigation measures consistenf with
4.4.2. f, and identification of how multi-modal infrastructure relates to congestion
concerns, some congestion may be identified in an F!R process as not possible
to mitigate. This unmitigated congestion should be evaluated and disclosed
including intersection delay length of time} during the E1R process, and
acknowledged as a by product of the developrnenf and accepted with the on-
goingfunding of TDlV1 measures.
The above policies ensure that future traffic mitigations will focus on reducing traffic
from the development rather than increasing the traffic capacity of the roadway system.
The only allowed exceptions would be transit exclusive lanes, bicycle [ones, and single
left turn pockets. Traffic capacity enhancements, such as adding a right turn pocket,
would only be allowed if the following conditions were met:
1. The City of Alameda adopts thresholds of significance for bicycle, pedestrian,
and transit. Staff has been working with the Transportation Commission on
developing thresholds of significance. The Commission has reviewed the
methodology for determining levels of service for the alternative modes, and draft
mode preferences by the street function classifications. Staff estimates that the
quantitative thresholds for alternative modes will be presented to the Commission
by spring 2009.
2. An acceptable level of service can be maintained for bicyclists, pedestrians, and
transit.
3. The improvement is accomplished through the removal of on-street parking, or is
located on a regional or island arterial identified in the Transportation Element
Street Classification System. Regional and island arterials are identified in the
Transportation Element as roads whose primary function is for the efficient
movement of people and goods and improved transit operation.
The three conditions were added to the Transportation Commission's recommended
Policy 4.4.2.f by the Planning Board to provide flexibility for future decision makers,
ensure that alternative transportation modes are improved and preferred over
automobiles, and allow capacity enhancements, such as right lanes, to be considered
only if all other modes are operating at an acceptable level of service.
The Planning Board's recommended amendments are supported by the Public Works
Department, Fire Department, Police Department, and Planning and Building
Honorable Mayor and January 20, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 5 of 6
Department because the amendments reflect a policy position that the space in the
public right-of-way should be shared among all modes of transportation. The
amendments also provide the City Council and the Planning Board with the ability to
require a roadway improvement as a mitigation to reduce severe congestion, provided
that the improvement does not result in an unacceptable level of service for all other
modes of transportation. Inaddition, this modification provides the City with the ability to
mitigate severe congestion on a roadway or intersection that, if left unmitigated, could
result in traffic diversion into residential neighborhoods or an increase in the number of
accidents and other safety concerns. The Planning Board's recommended amendments
respect the intent of the Transportation Commission's policy, which is to focus on
reducing trips from new projects, but allow the City's decision makers to approve
roadway improvements, in some circumstances, provided that the improvements do not
significantly impact any other mode, consistent with the Transportation Commission's
recommended policy 4.4.2.e.
In conclusion, the proposed amendment to the General Plan is consistent with the
overall direction and intent of the Genera! Plan and will support the general welfare of
the Alameda community. The specific findings for approval are included in the
recommended Resolution of Approval. Staff recommends that the City Council certify
the adequacy of the EIR, make the recommended findings regarding the environmental
impacts and statement of overriding considerations, and approve the Transportation
Element as amended by the Planning Board.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact from the adoption of the recommended Environmental
Impact Report and approval of the proposed Transportation Element.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPQLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed action is an amendment to the General Plan. The Transportation Element
will assist in meeting the goals of the City of Alameda's Local Action Plan for Climate
Protection.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}, an EIR was prepared for
this project. Gn August 5, 2008, the City of Alameda circulated a Draft Environmental
Impact Report DEIR} for public review evaluating the potential environmental impacts
of the proposal. Gn August 25, 2008, the Planning Board and the Transportation
Commission held a joint public hearing to review the DEIR and receive additional public
comment. Gn September 22, 2008, the City received all the final written comments on
the DEIR from the public and interested agencies. Responses to the letters and the oral
comments from the joint hearing are provided in a Final ElR Response to Comments
document ~FEIR}. on November 24, 2008, the Planning Board held a public hearing,
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
January 20, 2409
Page 6 of 6
considered the documents, and approved a resolution recommending that the City
Council certify the FEIR.
The FEIR for this project was completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA
and all state and local guidelines. The community, adjacent jurisdictions, the State
Clearinghouse and all relevant and responsible agencies were notified early and
regularly throughout the preparation and review process.
REC4MMENDATIDN
Adopt Resolutions certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, making findings
concerning environmental impacts, approving the proposed Transportation Element
General Plan Amendment, and rescinding the 1991 Transportation Element.
Respectfully submitted,
(/Vd~x~%(/'~'
Cathy dbury
Planning and Building erector
By: Andrew Thomas
Planning Services Manager
Matthew Naclerio
Public Works Director
Attachments:
1. Planning Board Resolution of Approval
2. Planning Board Staff Report
cc: Planning Board
Transportation Commission
CITY GF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION No. PB-08-22
RECGMMENDING THATTHE CITY CGUNC[LAPPRGVE THETRANSPGRTATIGN
ELEMENT UPDATE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
' WHEREAS, the Transportation Element Update General Plan Amendment is the
result of a community planning process initiated by the City of Alameda City Council in
2000; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda Transportation Commission held numerous
public workshops and many public meetings to discuss appropriate transportation
policies for the Gity in 2005 and 2006; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda Transportation Commission recommended
General Plan Amendment was circulated for public review beginning in 2006 and
reviewed by the City of Alameda ~ Transportation Commission, Recreation and Parks
Commission, Economic Development Commission in 2006 and 2001; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Transportation Element Update General Plan
Amendment includes policies to guide the future planning, implementation, and funding
of transportation programs, improvements, infrastructure, and development
requirements in manner consistent with the public welfare and the community's mobility
goals and objectives; and
WHEREAS, the an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and circulated for
public review to identify and disclose the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed General Pian Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda's current Transportation Element is over ~ 7
years old; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Transportation Element is necessary to improve
transportation facilities and services throughout the City in a manner that is consistent
with current Alameda needs and priorities; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this proposal on
November 24, 2005, and examined pertinent documents in connection with this
proposal; and
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2o4S, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda
recommended that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report ~"EIR"},
regarding the environmental impacts related to this project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made the following findings that the General
Plan Amendment:
City Council
Attachment 'I to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #fi-C
0'l -20-09
is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan. The City's General
Plan policies focus on five broad themes that strengthen awareness of the City's island
setting, its small town feeling, respect for history, de-emphasis of the autamobile, and
retention of multi-use development on the Northern Vl~aterfront. The proposed
Transportation Element is consistent with these themes. The proposed General Plan
amendments are intended to: plan, develop and maintain a safe, barrier~free and
efficient transportation system to provide the community with adequate present and
future rnobil.ity; balance the mobility needs of the community with the overall community
objective of creating a livable human and natural environment, coordinate the
interaction of transportation systems development with land use planning activities,
encourage the use of transportation modes, especially at peak period, other than the
single occupant automobile in such a way as to allow all modes to be mutually
supportive and to function together as one transports#ion system, and implement and
maintain the planned transportation system in a coordinated and cost-effective manner.
~Illill have beneficial effects on the general welfare of the community. The
amendments will support and facilitate strategies and decision-making that maintain,
protect, and improve the transportation system, facilities, and services for all
Alamedians.
is in the public interest. The amendments represent an important update to a 17-year-
old transportation element and it is in the public's interest to maintain current and up-to-
date transportation policies to ensure appropriate and cost effective decision making for
the community.
THEREFGRE BE IT RESGLVED that the City of Alameda Planning Board
recommends that the City Council approve the approve the Transportation Element
Update General Plan Amendment Exhibit A}with the amendments described below:
Amendment #1: The seven "EIR" policies numbered EIR-1 through EIR ?shall be
inserted under Implementation Strategy 4.4.2 in the Element and renumbered as Policy
4.4.2.athrough 4.4.2.g.
Amendment#2: Policy 4.4.2b shall be amended as follows:
4.4.2. b Intersections will not be widened beyond the width of the approaching roadway
with the exception of a single exclusive left turn lane when necessary with the
exce tiara of increasin transit exclusive lanes or nan-motorized vehicle lanes.
Amendment #3: Policy 4.4.2E shall be amended as follows:
4.4.2.f Transportation related mitigations for future development should
first implem ntnt TDM measures with
a~~ropriate regular monitoringi~ transit, bicycle and pedestrian capital
~~ -.Ili W-1...1~.~1r~rl./~P~i-~1i41..~~i1~
projectsi; a d,_ more efficient use of existing infrastructure v+a-such as
traffic signal re-timing; ets; in order to reduce the negative environmental effects
of development, rather than attempting to accommodate them. Should
Page 2 of 5
a ro riate re ular monitorin indicate that these miti ations are unable to
rovide the redicted eak-hour vehicle tri reductions additional TDM
measures develo rnent s ecific traffic ca s or miti ations throw h h sisal
improvements of streets_ and_,,,intersections, consistent„~ with,_~o,licy_4,.4.2.a and
olic 4.4.2.b ma be im lemented. However if the environmental studies
indicate that the re wired trans ortation miti ations for the ro'ect will not be
adequate to, fully mitigate the ,, nega~<ve environmental effiects„of the dev_ elo_pment,
the decision makin bod ma~~im ose~ miti ations in addition to the measures
,~..._
described in this olio that rna be inconsistent with olicies 4.4.2.a and 4.4.2.b
at the time of approval of the project provided that ~ ~ ,.the City of Alameda has
~•~~.•-~~~irr~-gyn. w
ado fed thresholds of si nificance for bic cle edestrian and transit 2 an
acce table level of service can be maintained for bic clists edestrians -and
transit and 3 the widenin is accom lished throw h the removal of on-street
arkin or the widenin is located on a re Tonal or island arterial identified in the
Trans ortation Element Street Classifica#ion S stem.
Amendrent #4: Policy 4.4.2 g shall be amended as follows:
4.4.2. g After the implementation of quantifiablelverifiable TDM measures verified
' throw h a ra riate re ular monitorin ,and mitigation measures consistent
with 4.4.2.f; ' and identification of haw multimodaf infrastructure relates to
congestion concerns, same congestion may be identified in an ElR process as not
possible to mitigate. This unmitigated congestion should be evaluated and disclosed
including intersection delay length of time} during the EIR process, and acknowledged
as a by-product of the development and accepted with the on-going funding of TDM
measures.
. ,
~.
.. .
Amendment #5: The Street Classifications for Selected Segments shall amended as
follows:
Se rnent Pra osed New Classification Justification
Grand Street
Schoollrecreation zone from Encinal
Vicinity of Franklin, Lum,
Avenue to Gtis Drive Wood, and St. Jose h's
San Jose Schoollrecreation zone from Paru Vicinity of Franklin and St.
Avenue Street to C hestn ut Street Jose h's
San Antonio Schoollrecreation zone from Paru Vicinity of Franklin and St.
Avenue Street to Chestnut Street Jose h's
Blandin
g ~
Primary transit route from Broadway Served by Line 51 and Line
Avenue
to Tilden Way 19, addresses AC Transit
comment
Broadway
Primary transit route from Clement
Served by Line 51; addresses
Avenue to Santa ClaraAvenue AC Transit comment
Mecartney Primary transit route from Island Served by Line 50; addresses
Road Drive to Adel hian Vila AC Transit comment
Page 3 of 5
Amendment #6: The following addition text shall be added to help explain the Street
Classifications.
1} Insert at the end of the introductory section on the Street Classification sys#em just
before the page beginning with "Regional Arterials":
The land use and trans ortation mode classifications were deveio ed to rovide
additional information about the context of each street. To a I this information
to the Cit 's _street network these classifications would be overlaid on the street
tie layer. _ The land use and modal overlays are, then „used,,,, to identify
a ro riate desi n treatments and modal references for each street. For
example, a street that is classif ed as an island arteriai,,,_a prima„ry transit ,street,
but not a bicycle_priorit~street could potentially,.includebus bulbs to facilitate
transit access even thou h this would reclude the installation of a bic cle lane.
2} Under "Land Use Classifications," add the following sentence:
The land use overaa describes the interaction between the roadwa and the
surroundin area as well as the desi n treatment exam les.
3} Under"Modal Classification," modify thefirst sentence to read:
Modal classificati,onsare used, to denote the preferred„ mode of,,travel on a
articular street se meat as well as a ro riate desi n treatments.
4} Under "Transit Priority," modify the second sentence to read:
The Transit Priori street classifcation is broken down into three rau s each
with its own set of desi ,n_and operat~a[.fea~s. The Tra, nsit, Pr_ rity street
classification does not im I that a s ecif c e of transit or level of service will
run on the street it refers to the reference of transit on the street and the a of
desi n features that would be rioritized. Far all Transit Priorit street
ciassif cations _the pedes#rian environment needs to be incorporated in#o plans,
as this is the rima mode of transit access
Amendment #l: The following policies shall be added as follows:
4.1.5.4 Minimize the cross-island portion of regional vehicular trips by providing
alternative connections to ~akfand, , such as Water Taxis,
,,,,,. ~,. ~....... r,,,. ~, ~.. _ ~....
shuttles and a Bic cle Pedestrian Brid a and by encouraging Transportation
Systems Management ~TSM} and Transportation Demand Management ~TDM}
techniques.
4.2.1.b Include landscaping in transportation projects to enhance the overall visual
appearance of the facility,.and mprave~reat urban runoff.
4.2.2.b Maintain a Traffic Calming Toolbox as described on the Cit Website and
implementation program.
Page 4 of 5
1. Integrate traffic calming elements into new facility design and as appropriate,
modify existing facilities to enhance traffic systems management.
4.3.1.g Establish targets for increasing mode share of non-S~V transportation modes
1. Increase daily non-S~V mode share transit, walking, bicycling} by
14 percentage points by 2415.as compared_to,2044-
2. increase the share of children who walk or bicycle to school by 10
percentage points by 2015 as compared to ,2444,
4.3.2.a Include improvements to pedestrian facilities as park of City transportation
improvement projects streets, bridges, etc.}.
1.1111herever ossible ravide wide sidewalks that facilitate and accommodate activities
such as sidewalk cafes and other edestrian friends activities.
4.3.2.b Review City sidewalk design standards to ensure continued compliance with
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and to better serve
pedestrian needs.
1. Evaluate existing sidewalks for compliance with ADA requirements,
and to identify possible improvements such as relocatin utifit
installations and oles which block or hinder edestrian access.
AYES: ~6} Kohlstrand, Ezzy Ashcraft, Autorino, Cook, Cunningham,
Lynch
NOES: (0)
ABSENT: (1) McNamara
ATTEST:
f
1
i
A w Th mas, ecretary
Gi y of Alameda Planning Board
Page 5 of 5
ITEM 9-B
PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 24, 2008
To: HGNORABLE PRESIDENTAND MEMBERS aFTHE
PLANNING BGARD
FROM: Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager
510.147-6881
athomas@ci.alameda.ca. us
APPLICATION: Draft Transportation Element General Plan Amendment
and Draft Environmental Impact Report. A General Plan
amendment to update and amend the Transportation Element
of the General Plan. The proposed Transportation Element
Policies would apply citywide.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2006, the City of Alameda Transportation Commission completed a comprehensive
review of the City of Alameda's transportation policies and programs and repared a
draft update to the Transportation Element of the General Pian the "dr Element"}. In
October 2006, the City Council reviewed the draft Element and authorized the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report HEIR} to analyze the environmental
impacts of adopting and implementing the proposed Transportation Element, as
required by the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}.
In August 2008, the City of Alameda circulated the draft EIR for public review and
consideration. The Planning Board and Transportation Commission held a joint public
hearing on August 25, 2008 to consider the environmental analysis in the EIR. On
November 5, 2008, the City circulated a Final EIR that provides responses to the
questions raised during the public review period on the Draft EIR. The draft
Transportation Element, the Final EIR, and Draft EIR are available on the City of
Alameda website at http:llwww.ci.alameda.ca.usltmp for public review. The draft
Transportation Element is also attached to this report.
This repork includes the staff s analysis of the proposed General Plan amendment and
a recommendation that the Planning Board recommend that the City Council certify the
adequacy of the EIR and approve the new Transportation Element with certain, limited
modifications.
City Council
Attachment T to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #fi-C
~'f -TO-09
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
BACKGROUND
November 24, 2008
Page 2 of 12
The California Supreme Court has described the General Plan as the local jurisdiction's
"Constitution" governing all land use, transportation, housing, open space, and safety
decisions. The State of California requires that a General Plan be maintained as a
current, comprehensive, long term, statement of public policy. The City of Alameda
Transportation Element of the General Plan establishes the City's policy basis and
justification for all transportation related decisions by the Gity of Alameda. The
transportation element establishes a policy foundation upon which the City of Alameda
may approve or deny future transportation improvements, regulations, programs,
services, capital improvements andlor development project transportation
improvements and~or impacts.
In 2004, the City of Alameda Transportation Commission embarked on a
comprehensive evaluation of all of the City's transportation policies and programs. As a
result of this multi-year effort and many public meetings and hearings, the
Transportation Commission completed a comprehensive update of the Gity of
Alameda's 1991 Transportation Element. The proposed new Transportation Element is
attached to this report and includes four overarching transportation goals for the City:
Circulation Goal: Plan, develop and maintain a safe, barrier-free and efficient
transportation system to provide the community with adequate present and future
mobility.
Livability Goal: Balance the mobility needs of the community with the overall community
objective of creating a livable human and natural environment. Coordinate the
interaction of transportation systems development with land use planning activities.
Transportation Choice Goal: Encourage the use of transportation modes, especially at
peak period, other than the single occupant automobile in such a way as to allow all
modes to be mutually supportive and to function together as one transportation system.
Implementation Goal: Implement and maintain the planned transportation system in a
coordinated and cost-effec#ive manner.
Each of the four Goals is supported with fve to seven more issue specific objectives.
Each strategy is then supported by five to six more detailed policies. In total, the
Element includes 96 specif c policy statements. The Element also includes a Street
Classification system that describes the envisioned and preferred character and
function for different streets throughout the City. In combination, the 96 policies and the
Street Classification system will provide guidance and a policy foundation for future
actions and decisions by the City of Alameda consistent with the overall themes of the
General Plan and the four goals of the Element.
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
STAFF ANALYSIS
November 24, 2008
Page 3 of 12
The proposed Transportation Element is comprehensive and long term, and will support
the public welfare and public interest. The transportation element provides an updated
set of goals, strategies, and policies to guide future decision making regarding
transportation improvements, regulations, programs, services, capital improvements
and development project transportation improvements.
Transportation is a critical issue in Alameda: Alameda has a unique island geography
and limited access to the regional freeways ~I-880} and public transportation systems
BART}; Alameda's unique topography and urban fabric supports bicycling and walking;
and Alameda residents support and use transit. 'For these reasons, it is essential that
the City of Alameda plans carefully and uses its resources strategically to improve
access to the region and maintain and improve its excellent environment and facilities
for bicycling and walking.
State Law requires that each city and county maintain an up-to-date General Pian. The
City's current Transportation Element is over 17 years old. The Transportation
Commission's proposed Transportation Element represents an important update to the
1991 Transportation Element. As the City Council's appointed body ofAiameda citizens
responsible for advising the City Council on transportation issues, and through and
extensive series of community workshops, hearings, and surreys, the Transportation
Commission was uniquely qualified to prepare a transportation element that reflects the
community's 2008 transportation goals, priorities, and concerns. The new
Transportation Element will bereft the community, the City decision makers, and the
staff as the City faces the many important and difficult transportation decisions in future
years.
Recommended Amendments
In reviewing the individual policies of the Element, staff has identified a limited number
of policies that should be modified to ensure that the policies are effective in
coordination with the other General Plan policies and with the requirements and
procedures under the City of Alameda Municipal Code.
The General Plan provides genera! direction and guidance for decision-making and
differs from regulations and restrictions found in the municipal code. The municipal
code and zoning ordinance provide specific regulations and restrictions tha# limit future
1 According the 2DD0 Census,l5.l°/0 of Alamedians who commute used transit to commute to work.
Twelve percent X11.9°/°} carpool to work. Sixty three percent of Alamedians drive alone to work. At
15.7°/° transit ridership, Alameda is in the top ten cities in the Bay Area in terms of transit ridership, For
comparison purposes, the City of Berkeley has three BART stations and a university and is ranked 6t"with
18.6% of its commuters commuting by transit. San Leandro is ranked 29t"with only 10.2 % of its
commuters usth g transit. In Alameda, 9.4°/° of all households do not even own a vehicle, placing
Alameda in 16 place on the list of Bay Area places with "zero vehicle" households. For comparison
purposes, San Francisco placed first with 28.6°/0, Berkeley placed 5t"with 17°/o and Emeryville 9t"with
11.4%. Almost three percent X2.6%} of commuters ~91D people} walk to work in Alameda.
Honorable President and November 24, 2048
Members of the Planning Board Page 4 of 12
decisions to ensure consistency with the general plan policies. The municipal code is
more specific and restrictive, but it includes procedures for appeals and variances, for
exceptional or unusual circumstances, where special, unforeseen considerations may
be warranted. The General Plan policies are mare general, but they also do not include
procedures for appeal or variances from the policy direction. If a General Pian policy
proves to be an obstacle to an action ar decision that the community wishes to pursue,
then the only recourse is to amend or delete the policy from the General Plan.
The General Plan is required by State law to cover the seven mandatory elements: land
use, circulationltransportation, housing, open space conservation, noise, and safety.
There are always inherent tensions between policies within the plan that must be
balanced and considered when cities make decisions. For example, a General Plan
land use element may include policies to "preserve and maintain the community's
character" while the land use element might include a policy to "support commercial
development and increase the supply of jobs in the community". These two policies are
not necessarily internally inconsistent, but both require that the city's decision makers
consider and interpret the meaning and intent of the two policies in the context of the
proposed new commercial development being considered. Decision makers must
balance sometimes competing community needs, and then make the decisions on
projects or take actions that to the best of their abilities, advance and support the
community's vision as articulated in the General Plan's various and sometimes
competing priorities.
The General Plan policies must be crafted in a manner that provides guidance and
does not preclude a decision making body from the opportunity to balance sometimes
conflicting priorities. During the environmental review for the proposed Transportation
Element, four policies in the Element were highlighted in the EIR: Policy EIR-1, Policy
EIR-2, Policy EIR-6 and Policy EIR-7. 0n November 12, 2008, the Transportation
Commission considered the EIR analysis and reviewed proposed changes to the
policies submitted by the Public Vllorks Department. The Transportation Commission
approved a recommendation to the Planning Board and the City Council with some
limited changes to the policies. These revisions and the staff analysis are provided
below.
Amendment #~ : Transportation Commission Recommended Change to EIR-
Policies Numbers. The Transportation Commission recommended that the seven
"EIR" policies numbered EIR-1 through EIR l be inserted under Implementation
Strategy 4.4.2 in the Element and renumbered as Policy 4.4.2.1 through 4,4.2.1.
Strategy 4.4.2 reads: "Ensure that new developments implement transportation plans,
including the goals, objectives, and policies of the Transportation Element of the
General Plan and provides the transportation improvements needed to accommodate
that development and cumulative development".
Anal sis: Staff fully concurs with this recommendation because the new policy numbers
conform to the format and numbering convention used for all other policies in the
Element, and the placement helps to clarify that the policies apply to transportation
Honorable President and November 24, 2008
Members of the Planning Board Page 5 of 12
improvements proposed by new development or recommended as mitigations in
environmental documents for new development.
This final distinction is very important. The policies would govern and direct the types of
mitigations imposed on new development, but they would not prevent the City Council
from modifying an existing road or reconfiguring an intersection to improve an existing
condition. For example, if a neighborhood or business association wished to improve
circulation by restriping an intersection to add a turn lane, that decision would not be
precluded by the policies. However, if a new development adds traffic volume and
proposes to restripe the intersection to avoid an impact, that mitigation would be
precluded. This distinction is discussed in more detail below under Amendment #3.
The point of the seven "EIR-Policies" is to ensure that when considering new
development proposals, the City fully considers the potential congestion that may occur
from the development and does not attempt to avoid the impacts of additional vehicle
trips by simply widening or reconfiguring roads or intersections. The policies reflect an
overall theme in the Transportation Element, which is that the City will not be able to
build its way out of automobile congestion by building more roads or bigger roads. The
Element policies are designed to encourage andlor require that the City develop
alternative modes of transportation transit, bicycle, and pedestrians and more efficient
use of the existing infrastructure to accommodate the transportation needs of future
developments and growth. The policies do require that project related traffic impacts be
mitigated, but the policies direct that the mitigations be designed to reduce the project
traffic from the project as opposed to accommodating by increasing roadway capacity.
Amendment #2: Transportation Commission Clarifying Amendments: 0n
November 12t", the Transportation Commission recommended a limited number of
additional amendments to the seven policies that were intended to clarify the intent of
the policies. Those amendments are shown below as strikeout and underline. The
revisions are also shown with the new numbers and location under Strategy 4.4.2.
Strategy 4.4.2: Ensure that new developments implement transportation plans,
including the goals, objectives, and policies of the Transportation Element of the
General Plan and provides the transportation improvements needed to accommodate
that development and cumulative development.
Policies:
4.4.2.a Roadways will not be widened to create additional automobile travel lanes to
accommodate additional automobile traffic volume with the exception of
increasing transit exclusive lanes ornon-motorized vehicle lanes.
4.4.2, b Intersections will not be widened beyond the width of the approaching roadway
with the exception of a single exclusive left turn lane when necessary with the
exce tion of increases transit exclusive lanes.,ornnn-motorized vehicle.lanes.
Honorable President and November 24, 2008
Members of the Planning Board Page 6 of 12
4.4.2.c Speed limits on Alameda's new roads should be consistent with existing
roadways and be designed and implemented as 25mph roadways.
4.4.2.4 All Ellis must include analysis of the effects of the project on the city's transit,
pedestrian and bicycling environment, including adjacent neighborhoods and
the overall City network.
4.4.2.e EIRs will not propose mitigations that significantly degrade the bicycle and
pedestrian environment which are bellwethers for quality of life issues and staff
should identify "Levels of Service" or other such measurements to ensure that
the pedestrian and bicycling environment will not be significantly degraded as
development takes place.
4.4.2.f Transportation related mitigations for future development should ~e-~ele~
fia_rst implement TDM measures with
appropriate re. uq lar monitoring; transit, bic cle and edestrian ca ital
_ -- ~. Y p p
projects; and more efficient use of existing infrastructure via traffic
signal re-timing, etc. in order to reduce the negative environmental effects of
development, rather than attempting to accommodate them. Should a ro riate
re ular monitorin indicate that these miti ations are unable to rovide the
redicted eak-hour vehicle tri reductions additional TDM measures
development specific traffic caps, or_ mitigations through physical improvements
of streets and intersections consistent with olic 4.4.2.a and olic 4.4.2.b ma
be implemented.
4.4.2. g After the implementation of quantifablelverifiable TDM measures verified a~
throu h a ro riate re ular monitorin }, and mitigation measures
consistent with 4.4.2.f a ~ and identification of how multimodal
infrastructure relates to congestion concerns, some congestion may be identified
in an EIR process as not possible to mitigate. This unmitigated congestion
should be evaluated and disclosed including intersection delay length of time}
during the EIR process, and acknowledged as a by-product of the development
and accepted with the on-going funding of TDM measures. The General Plan
Amendment EIR process for the TMP and EIR policies will identify intersection
congestion concerns. This information will be used to facilitate discussion at
multiple public meetings concerning allowable congestion levels a specific
significantly impacted intersections.
Anal sis: Staff is in support of all of the Transportation Commission's proposed
Amendments. The proposed Amendments clarify the intent of the policies.
Amendment #3: Additional Amendments Proposed by the Planning Department.
In addition to the amendments proposed by the Transportation Commission, Planning
staff is recommending the following addition amendments to Policy 4.4.2.8. The
recommended additional text is shown in bold text.
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
November 24, 2008
Page l of 12
After the implementation of quantifiable~verifiable TDM measures verified ~-a
throw h a ro riate re ular monitorin }, and mitigation measures
consistent with 4.4.2.f, and identification of how multimodal
infrastructure relates to congestion concerns, some congestion may be identified
in an EIR process as not possible to mitigate. This unmitigated congestion
should be evaluated and disclosed ~inctuding intersection delay length of time}
during the EIR process, and acknowledged as a by-product of the development
and accepted with the on-going funding of TDM measures, Tha ~~~,~..~t.,.., .,~
..
. ..
.. ..
Anal sis: The recommendation to delete the text about the GPA EIR is simply to clarify
the intent of the policy. The sentences about the current EiR are accurate, but the GPA
EIR identifies the intersections where the City anticipates traffic impacts in 2030 if all
development occurs where it is expected and travel choices and modes do not change
significantly in the next 24 years. In the future, specifc unanticipated projects may be
proposed and evaluated that result in traffic impacts not iden#ified in the GPA EIR, or
the traffic impacts evaluated in this EIR may not occur if travel habits change
significantly in the next 24 years. In staff s opinion, the last two sentences about the
GPA confuse the intent and meaning of the policy, which is to guide future decisions
about future projects and future EIRs.
Amendment #4: Additional Exceptions from the "No-~IVidening" Policies: It is
important that the community and the City's decision makers understand that as
described above under Amendment #1 and in policies 4.4.2.a, 4.4.2.b, 4.4.2.f, and
4.4.2.8 above, future traffic mitigations will focus on reducing traffic from the
development rather than increasing the traffic capacity of the roadway system. The only
available exceptions to these policies would be a left turn pocket, a transit exclusive
lane, or a bicycle lane. Road widening, intersection widening, or restriping to create
additional traffic capacity by adding a right turn pocket or an additional thru lane would
no longer be acceptable mitigations to reduce or minimize automobile congestion from
future development. Therefore, future EIRs for projects would not propose these types
of mitigations, and if TDM measures and other acceptable mitigations under 4.4.2.f are
not adequate to reduce the congestion to acceptable levels then a statement of
overriding considerations will be necessary to approve the project. Alternatively, the
project would need to be denied.
It is important for the community, the Planning Board and the City Council to recognize
that pursuant to these policies, the Planning Board and the City Council will be
prohibited from adding traffic capacity to Alameda roadways as a mitigation for a new
development project, except for left turn pockets, bike lanes, and transit exclusive
lanes. The City may take these actions to improve an existing condition at the request
of a community group, neighborhood organization, regional agency, business
association, or Council request, but the City would not be able to take these actions to
Honorable Presiden# and November 24, 24x8
Members of the Planning Board Page 8 of 12
accommodate new traffic from new development. If the City Council or the community
were adamant about adopting a mitigation inconsistent with these policies for a
particular project, the City Council would need to amend the General Plan policies. An
example might be if the City Council wished to impose a mitigation on future projects in
the west end to fund a fair share for the widening of Willie Stargell Avenue from two
lanes to three or four lanes. Currently, the road is only two lanes, but the City has
maintained the right of way to allow for a latter widening.
Gn November ~ 2#", staff recommended that the list of exce flans be ex added for
. p p
some additional special circumstances. All of the following "s ecial circumstances" were
rejected by the Transportation Commission on November 12
If and acceptable level of service can be maintained for bicyclists, pedestrians,
and transit considered, and
^ The widening is accomplished through the temporary removal of parking, or
The widening is located on a County Congestion Management Agency ~CMA}
network roadway and is necessary to meet the requirements of a CMA
Deficiency Pian, or
^ The widening is necessary to maintain acceptable operations within the
jurisdiction of the State of California ~Caltrans} or the County of Alameda
Bridges}.
The concept behind the staff recommendation is that if, and only if, the measures
allowed under the polices are not adequate to maintain an adequate level of service for
automobiles, and if, and only if, an adequate level of service can be maintained for the
other modes bike, pedestrian, and transit}, then there should be an opportunity to
maintain an acceptable level of service for people in automobiles by increasing the
capacity of the roadway. The staff recommendations also introduced the concept that if
capacity were to be added for automobiles, the most appropriate lacatians would be on
roadways that the Transportation Element itself identifies as the primary automobile
routes through and out of the City.
For these reasons, staff recommends the following amendment to Policy 4.4.2.f.
Transportation related mitigations for future development should first implement
TDM measures with appropriate regular monitoring; transit, bicycle and
pedestrian capital projectsi and more efficient use of existing infrastructure via
traffic signal re-timing, etc. in order to reduce the negative environmental effects
of development, rather than attempting to accommodate them. Should
appropriate regular monitoring indicate that these mitigations are unable to
provide the predicted peak-hour vehicle trip reductions, additional TDM
measures, development specific traffic caps, or mitigations through physical
improvements of streets and intersections, consistent with policy 4.4.2.a a.nd
policy 4.4.2.b, may be implemented. As a final o tion if an acre table level of
service can be maintained for bic clists edestrians and transit miti ation
inconsistent with 4.4.2.a and 4.4.2.b ma be im lemented if the widenin is
accom lished throu h the tem ora removal of arkin or the widenin is
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
November 24, 2008
Page 9 of 12
located on a re Tonal or island arterial identified in the Trans ortation Element
Street classification System,
Amendment #5; Based upon staff recommendations, the Transportation
Commission recommended changes to Street Classifications for Selected
Segments
Se meat Pro osed New Classification Justification
Grand Street Schoollrecreation zone from Vicinity of Franklin, Lum,
Encinal Avenue to Gtis Drive ,
~Illood, and St. Jose h s
San Jose Schoollrecreation zone from Paru Vicinity of Franklin and St.
Avenue Street to Chestnut Street Jose h's
San Antonio Schoollrecreation zone from Paru Vicinity of Franklin and St.
Avenue Street to Chestnut Street Jose h's
Blandin
g ~
Primary transit route from Broadway Served by Line 51 and Line
Avenue
to Tilden ~Illay 19; addresses AC Transit
comment
Broadway Primary transit route from Clement Served by Line 51; addresses
.
Avenue to Santa Clara Avenue AC Transit comment
Mecartney Primary transit route from Island Served by Line 50; addresses
Road Drive to Adel hian UVa AC Transit comment
Anal sis: ~n November 12t", the Transportation Commission a roved all of the
pp
recommended changes to the street classification. Staff supports al! of the
recommended changes.
AC Transit indicated that several street segments that are currently served by major
transit lines, such as Line 5o and 51, were not classified as primary transit streets. In
response, staff recommends changing these classifications as described in the table
above.
Based on public input and further review of the recommended street functional
classification system, staff has recommended classifying several additional segments
as "schoollrecreation" zone due to their proximity to schools and their use by students
to walk to and from school.
Amendment #6: Based upon staff recommendations, the Transportation
Commission recommended the addition text to help explain the Street
Classifications
1}Insert at the end of the introductory section on the Street Classification system Uust
before the page beginning with "Regional Arterials":
The land use and trans ortation mode classifications were develo ed to rovide
additional information about the context of each street. To a I this information
Honorable Presiden# and
Members of the Planning Board
November 24, 24aS
Page 10 of 12
to the Cit 's street network these classifications would be overlaid on the street
t e la er. The land use and modal overla s could then be used to identi
a ro riate desi n treatments and modal riorities for each street. For exam Ee
a street that is classified as an island arterial a rima transit street but not a
bic cle riorit street could otentiall include bus bulbs to facilitate transit
access even thou h this would reclude the installation of a bic cle lane.
2} Under "Land Use Classifications," add the following sentence:
The land use overla describes the interaction between the roadwa and the
surroundin area as well as the desi n treatment exam les.
3}Under "Modal Classification," modify the first sentence to read:
Modal classifications are used to denote the referred mode of travel on a
articular street se meat as well as a ro riate desi n treatments.
4} Under "Transit Priority," modify the second sentence to read:
The t e of transit facili is a function of the ridershi catchment area not
necessaril the level of transit service rovided on that street.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposal to amend the General Plan is subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act. In accordance with CEQA guidelines, an EIR was prepared. On August 5,
2008, the City of Alameda circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report DEIR}
evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposal. On August 25, 2005,
the Planning Board and the Transportation Commission held a joint public hearing to
review the DEIR. On September 22, 2008, the City received all the final written
comments on the DEIR from the public and interested agencies. Responses to the
letters and the oral comments from the joint hearing are provided in a Final EIR
Response to Comments document ~FEIR}.
The EIR for this project was completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA
and al[ state and local guidelines. The community, adjacent jurisdictions, the State
Clearinghouse and all relevant and responsible agencies were notified early and
regularly throughout the preparation and review process. The document was prepared
by experts in their respective fields, and the information was generally well received b
. Y
the community and reviewing agencies.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS
As described above, the proposed GPA is the result of an extensive public plannin
. g
process that began in 2004 with the Council-appointed Transportation Commission. All
of the Transportation Commission's meetings were duly noticed in compliance with the
Honorable President and November 24, 2D08
Members of the Planning Board Page 11 of 12
Brown Act, and the Committee held a series of well-attended public workshops in
addition to their regular meetings. In addition, the Planning Board held study sessions
on the proposed GPA in 2001, and a public hearing on August 25, 2008. In 2006 and
2001, the draft GPA was also circulated for review by the public, the Economic
Development Commission, the Park and Recreation Commission, and the Housing
Commission. In preparation for the November 24, 2005 Planning Board Public Hearing,
notices were placed in the Alameda Journal. Comment received on the Transportation
Element or the EIR are included in the FEIR and any additional comments are attached
to this repork.
CoNCLUSIGNS AND FINDINGS
In conclusion, the General Plan Amendment as revised is reflective of the community's
goals and priorities far transportation in Alameda and the findings can be made that the
proposed General Plan Amendment is.
Is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan. The City's General
Plan policies focus on five broad themes that strengthen awareness of the City's island
setting, its small town feeling, respect for history, de-emphasis of the automobile, and
retention of multi-use development on the Northern Vvaterfront. The proposed
Transportation Element is consistent with these themes. The proposed General Plan
amendments are intended to: plan, develop and maintain a safe, barrier-free and
efficient transportation system to provide the community with adequate present and
future mobility; balance the mobility needs of the community with the overall community
objective of creating a livabable human and natural environment, coordinate the
interaction of transportation systems development with land use planning activities,
encourage the use of transportation modes, especially at peak period, other than the
single occupant automobile in such a way as to allow all modes to be mutually
supportive and to function together as one transportation system, and implement and
maintain the planned transportation system in a coordinated and cost-effective manner.
Will have beneficial effects on the general welfare of the community. The
amendments will support and facilitate strategies and decision-making that maintain,
protect, and improve the transportation system, facilities, and services for ail
Alamedians.
Is in the public interest. The amendments represent an important update to a 17-
year-old transportation element and it is in the public's interest to maintain current and
up-to- date transportation policies to ensure appropriate and cost effective decision
making for the community.
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
RECOMMENDATION
November 24, 2008
Page 12 of 12
Hold a public hearing and adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council certify
the Final EIR and approve the General Plan Amendment with the recommended
amendments described in this report and attached to the recommended resolution.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
Andrew Thomas
Planning Services Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Transportation Element
2. Resolution recommending Certification of the Environmental Impact Report
3. Resolution recommending Approval of the General Plan Amendment
4. Final Environmental Impact Report
ITEM 9-B
Supplemental
PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 24, 2008
T~: HONORABLE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS GF THE
PLANNING BGARD
FR~~I: Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager
510.147-6881
athomas a~ci.alameda.ca.us
APPLICATION: Draft Transportation Element General Plan Amendment
and Final Environmental Impact Report. A General Plan
amendment to update and amend the Transportation Element
of the General Plan. The proposed Transportation Element
Policies would apply citywide.
After distributing the Staff Repor# for this i#em, a number of issues were brought to
staff's attention, that staff would like to correct or clarify with this supplemental report.
Final EIR. The public hearing is to consider the Draft Transportation Element and Fina!
Environmental Impact Report. Although the staff report discussed the Final EIR, the
front page of the report incorrectly referenced the application as a Draft Transportation
Element and Draft EIR. The application is a draft Transportation Element and Final
EIR, as described in the body of the report.
Amendment #4. Gn page 1 under the subheading "Amendment #4" the staff report
makes an argument for providing future decision makers the option to increase traffic
capacity on a roadway if the restriping or widening would not significantly impact other
modes of travel bikes, pedestrians, and transit} and is located on a regional or island
arterial roadways that are designated in the Element as important roads of automobile
circulation}.
The amendment to Policy 4.4.2.f as shown in the report reads as follows:
~ransportatian related mitigations for future development should first implement
ADM measures with appropriate regular monitoring; transit, bicycle and
pedestrian capital projects and more efficient use of existing infrastructure via
traffic signal re-timing, etc. in order to reduce t17e negative environmental effects
of development, rather than attempting to accommodate them. Strould
appropriate regular monitoring indicate fl7at these mitigations are unable to
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
November 24, 208
Page 2 of 3
provide fhe predicfed peak-hour vehicle frip reducfions, addifional TD1U!
measures, developmenf specific fraffic caps, or miflgafions fhrough ph sical
. Y
lmprovemenfs of sfreefs and ~nfersecflons, consistenf wifh policy 4.4.2.a and
policy 4.4.2.b, may be implemenfed. As a final o fion if an acce fable level of
service can be mainfained for bic clisfs edesfrians and fransif mifi afion
inconsisfenf wifh 4.4.2, a and 4.4.2, b ma be irn lemenfed if fhe widenin is
accom fished fhrou h fhe fem ora removal of arkin or fhe widenin is
locafed on a re Tonal or island arferial identified in fhe Trans orfafion Flemenf
Sfreef Classification S sfern.
The intent of the amendment, as described in the report, is to provide the decision
makers with that option at the time the project is being considered. It was not the intent
to make the option available only after the project has been approved and only if the
TDM program proves to be insufficient. However, the wording of the amendment
implies that this option would only be available if TDM monitoring of the approved
projec# showed that the TDM program was not successful.
Staff's position is that the optian of widening should be available when the Plannin
. 9
Board or the City Council approves or denies the project. Therefore, staff is
recommending that if the Planning Baard considers this amendment appropriate, then
the Amendment should read as follows:
Transporfafion related miflgafions for fufure developmenf should firsf implemenf
TD1U1 measures wifh appropriafe regular moniforing; fransif, bicycle and
pedesfrian capifal projecfs~ and more efficienf use of exisfing infrasfrucfure via
fraffic signal re-timing, efc. in order fo reduce fhe negafive environmenfal effecfs
of developmenf, rafher fhan affempfing fo accommodafe fhem. Should
appropriafe regular moniforing indicafe fhaf fhese miflgafions are unable fo
provide fhe predicfed peak-hour vehicle trip reductions, addifional TD1V1
measures, developmenf specific traffic caps, or miflgafions fhrough physical
irnprovemenfs of sfreefs and infersecfions, consisfenf wifh policy 4.4.2. a and
policy 4, 4, 2.b, may be implemenfed. However if fhe environmenfal sfudies
indicate fhaf fhe re aired trans orfafion mifi afions for fhe ra'ecf will not be
ode cafe fo full mifi ate fhe ne afive environmenfa! effecfs of fhe
develo menf fhe decision makin bod ma im ose mifi afions in addifion fo fhe
measures described in fhis-policy,, fhaf maybe inconsisfenf wifh~olicies 4, 4.2. a
and 4.4.2.b of fhe fime of a royal of fhe ro'ecf onl if an acce fable level of
service can be maintained for bic clisfs edesfrians and fransif and fhe
widening is accomplished fhrou~c~h,., fhe removal of on-street parkinq~r„,fhe
widenin is locafed on a re Tonal or island arferial identified in fhe Frans or~afion
Element Sfreef Classificafion S stem.
The revision above also clarifies that the parking being removed is on-street parking
and that it may be a temporary ~cammute hours removal or a permanent removal.
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
ndrew omas
Planning Services Manager
November 24, 2008
Page 3 of 3
CITY 4 F ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 20, 2009
Re: Adopt a, Resolution, to Approve ,the City of,,,Alameda's Pedestrian Plan
BACKGRaUND
As part of the Transportation Master Plan ~TMP}, the Public 1lvorks Department, in
partnership with the Transportation Commission, has collaboratively developed the City
of Alameda's first Pedestrian Plan. The City received a $36,000 Measure B Bicycle and
Pedestrian Countywide Discretionary Fund Grant from the Alameda County
Transportation Improvement Authority ~ACTIA} to support the preparation of the
Pedestrian Plan. The Plan establishes priorities and provides a streamlined and
comprehensive approach to addressing pedestrian issues. An approved Pedestrian
Plan will enable the City to compete more effectively for various federal, state, regional,
and county grants.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the Pedestrian Plan is to develop a program to guide the City of
Alameda in retaining its historic character as a walkable city and in improving pedestrian
access within the City. The Pedestrian Plan uses the goals, objectives and policies
identified in the Transportation Element Update, which include circulation, livability,
transportation choice and implementation. The Pedestrian Plan identifies both streets
and trails within the public right-of way for proposed pedestrian improvements.
The development of the Pedestrian Plan used an extensive and broad collaborative
public outreach process that included eliciting public comment through a survey,
workshop, public meetings, and a dedicated web page. fiver 250 residents responded
to the public input survey, with S5 of them requesting to be added to the study's mailing
list. The survey was distributed to key stakeholders and at events including several
Farmers Markets, Earth Day at Washington Park, Mother's Day Spring Street Fair,
Sand Castle and Sand Sculpture Contest, and the Mayor's Fourth of July Parade. An
on-line version of the survey also was available.
A subcommittee of the Transportation Commission was created as the Pedestrian Task
Farce and held three public meetings and one workshop during the development of the
plan, In addition, the draft plan was presented to and reviewed by the following
City Council
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #6-C IV
~'I -24-09
Honorable Mayor and January 20, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3
commissions and boards, all of which support the City Council's approval of the
Pedestrian Plan:
• Planning Board
• Transpor#ation Commission
• Recreation and Park Commission
• Economic Development Commission
• Commission on Disability Issues
• Alameda Unified School District Board of Education
• Housing Commission
The Pedestrian Plan identifies existing conditions for the pedestrian mode, including
pedestrian education programs, pedestrian infrastructure, pedestrian demand, and
potential safety concerns. Based on this information and public input, a primary
pedestrian network was established to identify streets with the highest potential for
pedestrian demand. This network then was used to develop an implementation plan
that identified and prioritized projects based on demand, geographic equity, and
anticipated funding. To .ensure that the Plan met a wide range of pedestrian needs,
projects were grouped into the following categories:
• Education Programs
• Island Access
• Pedestrian DistrictslCorridors
• Public vllalkways
• Safe Routes to Schools
• Sidewalk Installations and Maintenance
• Street Crossings
• Public Trails
The high-priority pedestrian projects and programs are estimated to cost $5.2 million;
the medium-priority projects are estimated to cost $15.1 million; and the low-priority
pedestrian projects are estimated to cost an additional $13.6 million. fiver the next ten
years, it is estimated that the City of Alameda can expect to receive approximately $5
million from dedicated funding sources such as Measure B, and from common
competitive sources such as the Safe Routes to School grants. Additionally, developers
will provide pedestrian infrastructure improvements in new developments such as
Alameda Point. The City also will aggressively pursue other competitive grants to fund
the remainder of the plan. The complete Plan is on file in the City Cferk's office.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
FINANCIAL IMPACT
January 20, 2009
Page 3 of 3
Funds for the Pedestrian Plan are budgeted in the Public Works Department's Capital
Improvement Program ~CIP} Budget for the Citywide Pedestrian Plan, CIP Number
904 ~ 5 with funding from Measure B Bicycle and Pedestrian Countywide Discretionary
Grant Fund, and the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Measure B funds as the local match.
Total project budget is $45,004.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The Pedestrian Plan does not affectthe Alameda Municipal Code. The Pedestrian Plan
will assist in meeting the goals of the City of Alameda's Local Action Pian for Climate
Protection and supports the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Transportation
Element Update.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Pedestrian Plan policies have been analyzed as part of the Transportation Element
Update Final Environmental Impact Report ~FEIR}, November 2048. The FEIR was
certified by the Planning Board on November 24, 2005, and recommended to City
Council for approval. Project specific environmental review will be conducted at the
time an individual pedestrian project is proposed for implementation.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution to approve the City of Alameda's pedestrian plan.
Respec submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
y: Gail Payne j~ ~
Transportation Coordinator
Approved as tofunds and account,
Ann Mari Gallant
Interim i ance Director
MTN:GP;gc
cc: Watchdog Committee
CITYaFALAMEDA RESOLUTfGN NG.
L
~~
a
MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES, MAKING FINDINGS CONCERNING
ALTERNATIVES, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
#2007072075)
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2008, the Planning Board of the City of
Alameda recommended that the City Council certify that the Final Environmental
Impact Report ~"FEIR"} for the Proposed Transportation Element General Pfan
Amendment the "Project"} was completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act ~"CEQA"}and state and local guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the proposal to make findings regarding environmental
impacts and mitigation measures, make findings concerning alternatives, adopt a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopt a Statement of
Gverriding Considerations is part of an application that includes a General Pfan
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, prior to approving this Resolution and acting on the General
Plan Amendmen#, the City Council certified the FEIR.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the
Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(Attachment A), the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives (Attachment B), the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment C) and the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Attachment D), all of which are attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
*****
Resolution #6-C (1)
01-20-09
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS qF FACT REGARDING ENVIRaNMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIGN
MEASURES FQR THE TRANSPQRATI~N ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PRQJECT DESCRIPT1aN:
The Transportation Element is a comprehensive update of the1991 Transportation Element
policies, priority projects, and implementation actions to maintain and enhance the City of
Alameda's transportation network, facilities, and services
I. THE FINAL EIR: TI^~e Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR"}consists of the
Draft EIR ("DEiR"}, Responses to Comments Addendum and Text Revisions document.
II. THE RECORD: The following information is incorporated by reference and made
part of the record ~"Record"}supporting these findings:
(1} The Transportation Element recommended by the Transportation Commission and the
Planning Board.
(2} The Draft El R.
(3} The FEIR including the Responses to Comments Addendum and Text Revisions
document and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference.
(4} The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
(5} All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered
to the City of Alameda ("City"} in connection with the Planning Board public hearing of
August 25, 2448 on the DEIR.
(6} All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered
to the City in connection with the Planning Board and City Council meetings associated
with the certification of the FEIR.
(7) Ali staff reports, memoranda, maps, slides, letters, minutes of public meetings and other
documents relied upon or prepared by City staff or consultants relating to the Project.
(S} These Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in connection
with the Project.
III. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT 4F FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS
The FEiR for the Project, prepared incompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
evaluates the potentially significant and significant adverse environmental impacts which could
result from adoption of the Project. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations ("CEQA
Guidelines"} Section 15491, the City is required to make certain findings with respect to these
impacts. The required findings appear in the following sections of this document. These
Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ~"Findings"}list all
identified potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project, as well as mitigation
measures for those impacts where passible. All mitigation measures will be enforced through
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ~"MMRP"}, as incorporated as a condition of
approval. vllith regard to impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the
City nevertheless finds acceptable based on a determination that the benefits of the Project
listed in these Findings and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations} outweigh the risks
of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project.
A. SIGNIFICANT 4R POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE
AVOIDED flR MITIGATED TD ALESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and the CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15091,15092, and 15093, the City finds that changes ar alterations have been
required in, or incarporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impacts listed below, as identified in the FEIR.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the
City as stated below. Each significant impact, which can be reduced to a less than significant
level, is discussed below, and the appropriate mitigation measure stated, and adopted for
implementation by approval of these Findings of Fact.
Air Qualit
Construction Related Air Qualit im acts
Si nificant Effect. Construction activities may generate significant temporary air quality impacts.
Miti ation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified
in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
The City shall require the following dust emission control measures be applied to
transportation projects as appropriate and feasible. These measures are consistent with those
recommended for use by BAAQMD.
1) For all construction and similar earth-disturbing activities:
• Apply water on all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often when
conditions warrant.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply anon-toxic} soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites daily as needed
tv control dust.
Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites
and sweep streets daily if visible soil materials are carried onto adjacent public streets.
2} For sites greater than 4 acres in size:
• Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic} soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply anon-toxic} soil binders to exposed
stockpiles dirt, sand, etc.}.
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
• Install appropriate erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
• Replant soil stabilizing vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
3} For sites that are located adjacent to sensitive receptors or warrant additional controls:
• install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving
the site.
• Suspend grading activities when winds exceed 25 miles per hour and visible dust
clouds cannot be prevented from extending beyond active construction areas.
• Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activities at any
one time. '
Require transportation projects to implement construction emission control measures
recommended by BAAQMD as appropriate, taking into account length of time of
construction and distance from sensitive receptors. This may include the utilization of low-
emissian construction equipment, restrictions on the length of time of use of certain heavy-
duty construction equipment, and utilization of methods to reduce emissions from
construction equipment alternative fuels, particulate matter traps, and diesel particulate
filters} as feasible. Limit the idling of diesel equipment, particularly when parked near
sensitive receptors or in other conditions as appropriate, for the construction and operation
aspects of transportation projects consistent with applicable regional, state and federal
standards.
Findin s. The City Council hereby makes finding ~1 }. Finding 1: Changes ar alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.}
Facts in Su ort of Findin s. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level.
The BAAQMD has identified a set of effective and comprehensive control measures for fine
particulate matter and asbestos that might be generated from construction activity. Adherence
to these measures, as adopted by the BAAQMD, constitute mitigation of construction-related
air quaf ity particulate matter and asbestos impacts to a less than significant level, Measures
also exist that will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts from
construction-related exhaust emissions. These measures, will be imposed on the Project
through the MMRP as a condition of approval. Implementation of Mitigation Measures will
therefore avoid or substantially lessen the impact of Project construction-period activities on
local air quality. These facts support the City's findings.
N
Impacts During Demolition and Construction,
,_,__
Si nificant Effect. Buildout of the transportation improvements could result in demolition and
construction activities which could generate excessive noise or groundborne vibrations at
neighboring land uses.
Miti ation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified
in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
The following requirements shall be imposed on all transportation construction projects}
to reduce construction noise impacts to residential uses and other sensitive receptors.
Provision of noise-reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds on
construction equipment, in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations.
• Construction of temporary barriers sufficient to the extent feasible to interrupt line
of sight between onsite construction areas and the nearest noise-sensitive
uses}.
Findin s. The City Council hereby makes finding ~1 }, Finding 1: Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.}
Factsin Support of Findings. Construction activities associated with transportation
improvements could involve demolition, read construction, and utility and roadway
reconstruction, which would create noise and vibration. Noise from construction activities would
be intermittent during construction and would gradually occur over an extended period of time,
driven by market conditions. In order to ensure that demolition construction do not create
excessive noise or vibrations, implementation of Mitigation Measures enforced through the
MMRP as conditions of approval, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
B. SIGNIFICANT 4R PGTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
OR MITIGATED TD A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid
the following significant impacts, and that specific economic, social or other considerations
identified in the Statement of Gverriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite
these significant impacts.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the
City.
TRANSPORTATIGN AND CIRCULATION
Park and Clement Street Intersection
Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on fu#ure
projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that
may result from anticipated future development.
Miti ation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening.
Findin s. The City Council hereby makes finding ~3}. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Gverriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.}
Facts,in Support of Findings, Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in
automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high
quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to
the automobile. Street widening facilitate automobile use and can degrade the level of service
far bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit, Therefore, the impact at the intersection of Park
and Clement is determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Eight Street and Central Avenue intersection
Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future
projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that
may result frarn anticipated future development.
Miti ation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening.
Findin s. The City Council hereby makes finding ~3}, Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Gverriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.}
Facts in Support, of ,Fines s. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in
automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high
quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives tv
the automobile. Street widening facilitate automobile use and can degrade the level of service
for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of Park
and Clement is determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Eight Street and Central Avenue intersection
Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future
projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that
may result from anticipated future development.
Miti ation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening.
Findin s. The City Council hereby makes finding ~3}. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avail this significant impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Gverriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.}
Facts in Support of Findings. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in
automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high
quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to
the au#omobile. Street widening facilitate automobile use and can degrade the level of service
for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impac# at the intersection of
Central and Eighth is determined to be significant and unavoidable.
BroadwaylTildenlEagle Intersection
Si nificant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future
projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that
may result frorri anticipated future development.
Miti ation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening.
Findin s. The City Council hereby makes finding ~3}. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Gverriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.}
Facts in Support of Findings. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in
automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a hi h
9
quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to
the automobile. Street widening facilitate automobile use and can degrade the level of service
for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of
BroadwaylTildenlEagle is determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Broadwayl~tis Intersection
Si nificant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future
projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that
may result from anticipated future development.
Miti ation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening,
Findin s. The City Council hereby makes finding ~3}. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.}
Facts in Su art of Findin s. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in
automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high
quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to
the automobile. Street widening facilitates automobile use and can degrade the level of service
for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of
BroadwaylGtis is determined to be significant and unavoidable.
TildenlBlandinglFernsideIntersection
Si~ nificant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future
projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that
may result from anticipated future development.
Miti ation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening.
Findin s. The City Council hereby makes finding ~3~. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FEiR that would avoid this significan# impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.}
Facts in Su art of Findin s. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in
automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high
quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to
the automobile. Street widening facilitates automobile use and can degrade the level of service
for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of
TildenlBlandinglFernside is determined to be significant and unavoidable.
High StreetlFernside Intersection
Si nificant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future
projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that
may result from anticipated future development.
Miti ation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening.
Findin s. The City Council hereby makes finding ~3~. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures ar Project
alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.
Facts in Su~port,of, Findings. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in
automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a hi h
g
quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to
the automobile. Street widening facilitates automobile use and can degrade the level of service
for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of High
Street lFernside is determined to be significant and unavoidable.
High Streetl~tis Intersection
Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future
projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that
may result from anticipated future development.
Miti ation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening
Findin s, The City Council hereby makes finding ~3}. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of overriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite #his significant impact.}
Facts in Support of Findings. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in
automobile traffc. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high
quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to
the automobile. Street widening facilitates automobile use and can degrade the level of service
for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of High
Street !Otis is determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Island DrivelDoolittle Drive Intersection
Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future
projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that
may result from anticipated future development.
Miti ation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening.
Findin s. The City Council hereby makes finding ~3}. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.}
Facts in Support of Findings. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in
automobile traffic, General Plan policy is tv minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high
quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to
the automobile. Street widening facilitates automobile use and can degrade the level of service
for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of Island
DrivelDoolittle Drive is determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Park St.lBlanding In#ersection
Si nificant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future
projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that
may result from anticipated future development.
Miti ation, This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening.
Findin s. The City Council hereby makes finding ~3}. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.}
Facts in Support of Findings. Removal of the palicies wauld encourage and facilitate growth in
automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high
quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to
the automobile. Street widening facilitates automobile use and can degrade the level of service
for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of Park
StreetlBlandingRvenue is determined to be significant and unavoidable.
C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The impacts listed below are less than significant impacts, even without the implementation of
mitigation measures.
Land Use
Less Than Significant Effect., The Transpartation Element would have a less than significant
impact on Land Use.
Miti ation. None required.
Fin~g: The environmental impact with respect to land use is less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Facts ~n_Su~port of Findings. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and
would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation
of the Transportation Element would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the
established community. The Transportation Element does not establish new land uses. It
supports land uses proposed by the General Plan.
PubEic Policy,
Less Than Si nificant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant
impact on Public Policy.
Miti ation. None required.
Fi_nding: The environmental impact with respect to public policy is than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Su ort of Findin s. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and
would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Adoption of the
Transportation Element would result in new policies, but the new policies are consistent with the
intent of the General Plan as well as other local and regional Transportation Plans
Po~ula#'son and Housing
Less Than Significant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant
impact on Population and Housing.
Miti ation. None required.
Findin :The environmental impact with respect to population and housing is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and
would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation
of the Transportation Element would not result in new residential ar commercial development.
Geolo Soils and Seismicit .
Less Than Significant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant
impact on Geology, So'rls and Seismicity.
Miti ation. None required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to geology, soils, and seismicity is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts_in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and
would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation
of the Transportation Element would not result in new residential or commercial development.
Hydrology and Wa#er Qua_I #y
Less Than Significant Effect. ,The Transportation Element would have a less than significant
impact on hydrology and water quality.
Miti ation. None required.
Fin~din ,: The environmental impact with respect to hydrology and water quality is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Su ort of Findin s. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and
would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation
of the Transportation Element would not result in new residential or commercial development.
All transportation improvement projects would be subject to standard permitting and regulatory
procedures designed to protect water quality and each of these projects would be subject to a
project level environmental review.
Hazards.
Less Than Si nificant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant
impact on hazards.
Miti ation. None required.
Finding,: The environmental impact with respect to hazards is less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Su ort of Findin s. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and
would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation
of the Transportation Element would not result in new residential or commercial development.
All transportation improvement projects would be subject to standard permitting and regulatory
procedures designed to minimize hazards and each of these projects would be subject to a
project level environmental review.
Biolo
Less Th~gnificant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant
impact on biological resources.
Miti ation. None required.
Fin_, ding: The environmental impact with respect to hazards is less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Su ort of Findin s. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and
would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation
of the Transportation Element would not result in new residential or commercial development.
All transportation improvement projects would be subject to standard permitting and regulatory
procedures designed to protect biological resources and each of these projects would be
subject to a project level environmental review.
Public Servr`ces.
Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in an
increased demand for municipal services.
Miti ation. None Required.
Findin :The environmental impact with respect to municipal services is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Su~pv~t of Findings. The Transportation Element would not result in residential or
commercial growth that would then result in a demand for additional municipal services,
schools, water supply, Sanitary Sewer Sub basin Capacity. Storm Drainage., Solid Uvaste,
Electricity. Natural Gas and Telecommunications.
Utilities.
Less Than Si nificant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in an
increased demand for utilities.
Miti ation. None Required.
Findi~nc,: The environmental impact with respect to utilities is less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not result in residential or
commercial growth that would then result in a demand for additional utilities.
Cultural Resources.
Less Than Si,~ nificant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant
impact on cultural resources.
Miti atian. None required.
Findin :The environmental impact with respect to cultural resources is less than significant and
no mitigation is required.
Facts, in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and
would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation
of the Transportation Element would not result in new residential or commercial development.
All transportation improvement projects would be subject to standard permitting and regulatory
procedures designed to protect cultural and archeological resources and each of these projects
would be subject to a project level environmental review.
Aesthetics.
Less Than Significant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant
impact on Aesthetics.
Miti ation. None required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to aesthetics is less than significant and no
mitigation is required,
Facts in Support,of Findings. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and
would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation
of the Transportation Element would not result in new residential or commercial development.
All transportation improvement projects would be subject to standard permitting and regulatory
procedures designed to protect aesthetic environment and each of these projects would be
subject to a project level environmental review.
Transportation and Circulation
Consistency with Existing or Planned Transit Services and Facilities.
Less Than Si nificant Effect. Adoption and implementation of the Transportation Element GPA
would not be expected to result in a significant impact on existing yr planned transit services.
Miti ation. None Required.
Finding,: The environmental impact with respect to consistency with existing or planned transit
services and facilities is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Su ort of Findin s. The transit and transportation policies in the Transportation
Element GPA serve and support existing and planned transit services and facilities,
Emergency Access.
Less Than Si nificant Effect. The Transportation Element GPA is consistent with the City of
Alameda Emergency Access plans.
Miti ation. None Required.
Findin,: The environmental impact with respect to emergency access is less than significant
and no mitigatian is required.
Facts in Su ort of Findin s. Tl~e Transportation Element GPA is consistent with the Cify of
Alamea~a Emergency Access plans
PedestrianlBicycleCircutation.
Less Than Significant Effect. Adoption and implementation of the Transportation Element GPA
will improve pedestrian and bicycle access and safety in the planning area and result in less
than significant impacts.
Miti ation. None Required.
Fin: The environmental impact with respect to pedestrianlbicycle circulation is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of„Find ngs. Public improvements proposed by the Transportation Element
GPA will add and improve bicycle and pedestrian paths. All intersections will be designed to
meet current pedestrian and bicycle safety standards.
Air Quaiity
Odor and Air Toxics.
Less Than Significant Effect. Transportation Improvements could produce short-term
objectionable odors and toxic air contaminants. However, these impacts would be subject to
BAAQMD regulations and impacts would be less than significant.
Miti ation. None Required.
Finding,: The environmental impact with respect to odors and toxic air contaminants is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Su ort of Findin s. The Transportation Element would not generate development of
any long term uses that would generate objectionable odors or toxic air contaminants. While the
GPA would encourage the establishment of transit facilities and services that may generate
some odors, any such uses would need to comply with the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations on
odors and toxic air contaminants and in so doing, would not result in any significant impacts.
Therefore, no odor or airtaxics impacts would occur as a result of the proposed GPA. These
facts support the City's findings,
Accidental ReleaselAcu#ely Hazardous Air Emissions.
Less Than Significant Effect. Any transit facility or service proposed in the future that would
have the potential to generate hazardous air emissions would need to comply with the
BAAQMD Rules and Regulations, reducing potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Miti ation. None Required.
Finding,: The environmental impact with respect to accidental release of acutely hazardous air
emissions is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. There is no information available at this time on any potential
hazardous air emissions related to the adoption and implementation of the GPA. Any use
proposed in the future that would have the potential to generate hazardous air emissions would
need to comply with the EAAQMD Rules and Regulations. Any accidental release of acutely
hazardous air emission would be reported to and handled by the Alameda County Health
Department staff in charge of such issues. Therefore, no significant impact due to accidental
release and acutely hazardous air emissions would be expected to occur as a result of the
proposed GPA. These facts support the Ci#y's findings.
Total Emissions.
Less Than Significant Effect. The would be considered consistent with the growth projections of
the current ~2000~ Clean Air Plan, and adopting the GPA would not result in any significant
changes in the total emission assumptions already incorporated within the Clean Air Plan.
Miti ation. None Required.
Fines: The environmental impact with respect to an increase in total emissions is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. Long-term air quality impacts from the three primary criteria air
pollutants FROG, NOx and PMT 0~ are those that would result from the changes in permitted
land uses within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Mobile source emissions are those that
result from vehicle trips; stationary source emissions are those that would result from energy
consumption and the use of wood stovelfireplaceond consumer products. As transporation
improvements are proposed, analysis of the long-term air quality impacts associated with the
operation of each of these projects will be required during the environmental review process.
These facts support the City's findings.
Local Carbon Monoxide Concentrations.
Less Than Si n~ificant,Effect. CO emissions levels would be less than signif cant at the GPA
area.
Miti ation. None Required.
Findin :The environmental impact with respect to local carbon monoxide concentrations is less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The proposed GPA should result in a decrease in CG emissions
levels as a result in the GPA emphasis on reducing automobile trips. These facts support the
Gity's findings. .
Regional Emissions
Less Than Si nificant Effect. As indicated above, the evaluation of environmental impacts
associated with the adoption and implementation of the GPA is being done at a "program" level
of analysis. Therefore, all future projects will be subject to project-level review. This impact
would be considered less than significant,
Miti ation. None Required,
Fin~din ,: The environmental impact with respect to regional emissions is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The evaluation of environmental impacts associated with the
adoption and implementation of the GPA is being done at a "program" level of analysis. These
facts support the City's findings.
ATTACHMENT B
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
I. INTR~DUCTIGN
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ~"CEQA"}Guideline Section
15126.6, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
Iocatian of the project, which would feasibly attain mast of the basic objectives of the project, but
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative
to a project. Rather is must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that
will foster informed decision making and public participation. If a project alternative will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a propased project, the decision
maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic,
legal, social, technological or other considerations make the project alternative infeasible. See
CEQA §~100~, CEQA Guidelines §15091 ~a}~3}}, The findings with respect to the three project
alternatives identified in the EIR are described in this section.
II. DESCRIPTI4N_ALTE~RNA,TIVE`D FINDINGS
A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
1. Brief Description
The No Project alternative assumes that the Transportation Element GPA is not adopted and
that existing 1991 Transportation Element remains in effect.
2. Comparison to Project
A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and less
than significant impacts of Project is described below.
a. Land Use. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project
Alternative would result in similar less than significan# impacts related to land
use.
b. Public,Poi cy. No direct policy conflicts would result from this
alternative; however, it would fail to achieve many of the transportation oals and
9
objectives articulated by the Citizens of the City of Alameda and regional
transportation plans.
c. Population and Housing. Compared to the proposed project, the No
Project Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to
population,
d. H drolo and Storm Drains e. Compared to the proposed project,
the No Project Alterna#ive would result in similar less than significant impacts
related to hydrology and storm drainage.
e. Geolo Soils and Seismicit .Compared to the proposed project,
the No Project Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts
related to geology, soils, and seismicity.
f. Hazards, Compared to the proposed project, the No Project
Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to hazards.
g. Biology, Compared to the proposed project, the No Project
Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to biology.
h, Traffic and Circulation. The No Projectl Existing Conditions
Alternative would avoid proposed Project traffic impacts. As compared to the
proposed project, this alternative may result in fewer significant impacts to
automobile travel due to policies in the Project alternative that limit street
widening to accommodate additional traffic volume. The No Project alternative
could result in more impacts to bicycle, pedestrian and transit because the
existing Transportation Element includes fewer policies to protect alternative
modes of travel and would allow street widening, which might impact pedestrian
or bicycle modes.
i. Air Qualit .Compared to the proposed project, the No Project
Alternative would result in similar impacts related to air quality.
j. Noise. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative
would result in similar impacts related to noise.
k. Public Services. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project
Alternative would result in similar impacts related to public services.
I. Utilities. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project
Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to utilities.
m. Cultural Resources. Compared to the proposed project, the No
Project Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to
cultural resources.
n. Aesthetics. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project
Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to
Aesthetics.
3. Fina~ings
This alternative is hereby rejected for the fallowing reasons;
a, The No ProjectlExisting Conditions Alternative would fail to satisfy the
objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter Ill of the EIR, Project Description to
maintain an up-to~date Transportation Element of the General Plan and ensure that City
decision making related to transportation facilities and improvements is consistent with the
community's vision fortransportation in Alameda.
b. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will
substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental
effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible,
thereby diminishing or obviating the benefits of approving this alternative.
c, As more fully discussed in the Statement of overriding Considera-
tions, the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project would not
be obtained if this alternative were adopted.
is not feasible.
d. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the No Project Alternative
B. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
1. Brief Descripfion
Under the Environmentally Superior Alternative the proposed Transportation Element
would be modified to allow for street widening to accommodate additional traffic generated by
new development.
2. Comparison ~o Prolecf
A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and less
than significant impacts of Project is described below.
a. Land Use. The EnviranmentallySuperlor Alternative would result in
similar less than significant impacts on land use.
b. Public Policy. The EnvironmentailySuperlor Alternative, like the
proposed Project, would not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with existing
plans and policies.
c. Popula#ion and Housing. This alternative would have similar less than
significant impacts on population and housing.
d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. This alternative would have similar
less than significant impacts on population and housing.
e. Geology, Soils and Seismicit}~. Potential impacts due to seismic
hazards, consolidated soils and subsidence, and shrink-swell potential of soils
would be the same as the proposed Project.
f. Hazards. The Environmentally Superior Alternative would result in
similar less than significant hazards-related impacts as identified for the
proposed Project.
g. Bio~locy. The Environmentally Superior Alternative would result in
similar less than significant biology-related impacts as identifiied for the proposed
Project.
h. Traffic and Circulation. The Environmentally Superior Alternative,
would result in less automobile level of service impacts because street widening
would be allowed to accommodate more vehicles, but the alternative may result
in more pedestrian and bicycle impacts that may occur as a result of street
widening.
i. Air Qualit .The construction activity that would occur under the
Environmentally SuperiarAlternative would be similar to that of the proposed
Project and would have the same less-than-significant air quality impact. Traffic-
relatedair quality emissions would be similar compared to the proposed Project,
j. Noise. Construction activity under the Environmental[ySuperlor
Alternative would be similar to that of the proposed Project and would have the
same less-than-significant noise impact.
k. Public Services. The Environmentally Superior Alternative generally
would have the same impacts related to fire protection and emergency services,
emergency response, solid waste, and police services.
I. Utilities. The Environmentally Superior Alternative would result in
similar less than significant impacts to utilities.
m. Cultural Resources. The Environmentally Superior Alternative impact
on cultural resources would be the same less than significant impact as that
identified for the proposed Project.
n. Aesthetics. The Environmentally Superior Alternative would result in
the same less than signifcant aesthetics impacts that would occur with the
proposed Project.
3. Fina~irrgs
This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons:
a. The Environmentally Superior Alternative would satisfy some of the
objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project Description,
but would fail to satisfy the objectives to the same extent as would the proposed Project
because the environmentally superior alternative would fail to protect bicycle, pedestrian and
transit modes of travel to the extent that they are protected under the Project Alternative. The
Environmentally Superior Alternative may also result in additional traffic on Alameda streets
because there would be less emphasis on TDM and trip reduction in new projects.
b. This alternative would have similar impacts to the Project in the areas
of land use, hydrology and water quality, geology, soils and seismicity, hazards and hazardous
materials, population and housing, biology, public services, utilities, and cultural resources.
c. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and changes
made by the Planning Board and City Council will substantially mitigate or avoid mast of the
significant or potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, except those effects
which are described as unavoidable or irreversible, thereby diminishing ar obviating the
perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this alternative.
d. As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions, many of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project
would not be obtained if this alternative were adopted.
e. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the Environmentally
Superior Alternative is not feasible.
ATTACHMENT C:
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
'~ INTRODUCTIGN
This document is the Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program {MMRP} for the
Transportation Element Update Environmental Impact Report. This MMRP has been prepared
pursuant to Section 21081,E of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public
agencies to "adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the projector
conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment." An MMRP is required for the proposed project because the EIR has identified
significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts.
The numbering of the individual mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence as found
in the EIR.
2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPQRTING PROGRAM
The MMRP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring
responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in
this Final EIR.
The City of Alameda (City) will be the primary agency responsible for implementing the
mitigation measures that are required to be implemented during the operation of the project.
The MMRP is presented in tabular form on the fallowing pages. The components of the FMMRP
are described briefly below:
• Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Draft EIR, in the same
order that they appear in the Draft EIR. No revisions were necessary to the mitigation
measures included in the Draft EIR.
• Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed.
• Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the party that is responsible for mitigation monitoring.
• Compliance Verification Responsibility: ,Identifies the party that is responsible for verifying
compliance with the mitigation. In some cases, verification wilk include contact with
responsible state and federal agencies.
City of Alameda Transportation Element Update
Exhibit C Fr'nai Environmental Impact Report
Q
0
a
~7
Z
N-
0
a
W
O
z
a
C7
Z
0
z
0
z
0
d
L?
a
V
a
z
0
W
T
00
W
J ~
Q
0
0
H
a
i~ r
~~a~:~~~~
~;
~,'~~ ~ ~ r~~
~~~~~
~~
r
Nf~~y
}~ ~
'
~. rM/ Yr fry , f f y
; 4..
• ~'S~Y;1 ~;
l., i4_~`1 {4f~
ii'~'•
r i~i :r,•~7v :;r N (!ice
t~r
` :,s~ :; ,:5 ~r i,~ ~
rSt~,~,~y~,L ~~i
~'y~• }~o
,~~r'~
~
,
,
111. :,~~~ ~~~~ ~~A~.{ 1. r r~.
,~r4~!iti. .~~~uc?
~.~ ,~ y ~~ ~•r~+~`-,{gip} ~ ,lay
'; ~ ~~ Ir
'', ',~(14f~'r- '
•, ''n,~4,5
~:~.~•r: ~
r 1111
'47,?'~~Y c
•~~~,
~ ! "CAS
~ '
~.f+5~"'y7L
~ /~
'rl
~ ~
ar4.;~- ~ ~
,~~is~~'•~f~~ r Ft ''~P~~~
~ ~
ey ~~'
Hx
:i{
reri. ~~a .,,iy~
~' ,y
l
,!~;e~.~; r
:
"kl;i~
~j era
~
;~ ;~~~.~f~.i~~'•ii1~1 .
..~C~y7•jrri
~I; ~~. rrn ~. ~ '~',) w;1~.Y
r~ -:~~'
' ru'.
~I
•'IS'~:ri •:~A~ni 4
1.1 :'
~/
I ~~~~ ~~~~
~
y.
'7. ~
i'lcr4 f .i~
n ,~~, .. ~.,.. ,...
!.- ~
1
u~i r,"~~r.
w;~:
v.`y.,_ 1x~~r`+~
1
N ~
(~
4.
;. ~ ;n
'
"
;i
r ``
'~ ' ~
r N N 41 C
+~ ~+1
~ C A N
L ~ ~~ U
{n
~
~
1 U ~'
,
r
~..
.
-
.f,~ . a ~J L L N
- . r-~
..
~,
.
0
N
~
LO
L
U
~
C
L"
- a.
,
.•.
~,,,
t..
n r
c~
a
._
~
.
~
o
~
~:
:~ ~ 0 • '~ ... ~
~
,.~
;~ ..
~ co
~~
~' 03
U o ,c
~,~ E me
~c~~~ oa
`~,~ ~
o
c
o ~
o ~
a co
°~ m o
c~
~J;~~ •:,:
''''~ ~
~'~ ~g
~ c
~~
m~ C
~
~m~ ~ L
cn
~ o
~~ E ~
~ ~
~
a;~ o
~
~
-.o ~ :'l. oacn ' ~ ~`~ o
~N~"o ~
~`~~ ~ ?- ° m°} o a c~ -v
.
~ - `
~•~' ~o
~c
Nm gin
c ~
~ ~o
' ~`~~
~NC° ~cE co acN
~ ~`~
3a
~ o 'r'v
u
~
- ~ ~ ~~ c cv~ o~ D
i
~ V~ .~o~~ ~ ~~, oo Q_~o _~ o ~ ~oo~ ~~ v a= o ~
•• :
•
~
1 i
~ Qaa~ o
oa ~
N ~'c~ io ~
~ ~ N N
m '~ N
m o o
cnoo aim c~
~ ~ ~~
~ c~
r
.
`'
•
}-
~- . ;
-
T
- rs.
`~~--o
o a
~o ,~
'C
goo
a~~Y~ a
p
a~.c~,~ L
m
o?~ Nc
o~
~L c
~~ c
~ •
-~
, ,
`~
~
r~~~
c
_
a•-~
~
ono
~x~~
3~'~~
~
~mc~
c•o
Eo
~~
oN ~
• .,;
'
1~ r `
.. ' ~N~
~ Q~ f/} ~ Q UE~ a°a~ v~u~-va •~ I.~.~ wcn ~r ~a ~o ~,
L L.
r ~ ~ ~ o
~• ~:~~ ~E~v ~ cv ~
. . ;~,
. ~ ~ • ~.
~.
~: o~ ~ ~ w
cn ~:,
0~ c~
'
~
~~
~-
~. ~
~.
- ~ ~ ~` ~ ~
~~ ~
~o
~N
Q
0
O
U~
a
~~
4v
~Q
~~
~~
WC
,0 C
~ ~~
QC
yW
roC
~~
V
O
a
Z
W
V
Z
0
H
Z
Z
0
~-
Q
J
d
z
0
i~,r~;~;-11,E-1=~ ~': ~-.~~~
~ 1.I~~_ fr y~
~'~• «4ry
vivl~ ~[~ •'~ C~•~
f,.j
'~ltFi.
`
'
~f
f in ~, j
~ r,
I
~ii`:}F . i ~~.' "fF r::
r•~~~''~}~ ~~
:C ~
~ iii'{~~i1~'
; ~,~}r;~
; a',
'' ~j
. ,• ~. •, _ • ~
-x,99
,.k p~';4 ,~~ ~,r'd .
iya ~'I ~v;4 rL`1~,,'
f~' T ~ ry ,
i r-i
'~ri ,4
C
'.,
..
,j' is
SSA ~-' fY
•
t
5
,
'~',.~y„~~~wt~ir'~r '. t
~~~~
}~'i}~ ~
L.L. awl
Icy"Jlr+Y r~~l~t '~':~ry~`1{ C ~ V
::.,. ,4 r. a, o
C
r °~t-'ter
,hsi r. =
~,,.:w:,.... ~.;1 ':'6pv~:
:~,:,~,~y~:
, ..w ~r . t~~'~
.;+ .~ ~'•
~:~.~
~'', ~.
r. '~ ~;~~, x..1,.1,<.~~:.~~~. •...~;,,,;~,
' ~.. ,~'~~a.
,,~:1~.•~;,',•,,,
~_,`..,
;~
o
LnNC
cv~o
'0
c
CNCOCC~~`-..Q}ON
oc~o.caoo~ ~r ~.J
'~`,>`.`'~
RCN
~
NC
o
Gp
., _
V'.~~5; ~.-n'~ _
..•-. ~._
~
-11 'p *•'
A~ C L
W
~
X11 U U ~}r V '{-r p C_ d} •~ ~
` ^ ~ ~ O ~ N ~ T~ c ~ ~ ~ ~~i; `.~'~
•~~.~
<:;.'
',~~
, V V~
C ~ c
Q ~ ~
~ C ~C~ C 0
~L/ o N
-;;.5:;' ~ ~
x~ c
;0 ~ 4~ ~ .^ O a ~
C (~ c V
L C
0 ~
N
C f
•
,
r. ~~: ~:',= ~
c~ ~
E N 7
L c v
_ -'.-~~ o a~ o ~~ ,
,
0
c
o o•c~oN/arL~o~ ~;::;•~,'~ ~o~, ~,
Nao mo'o'
:;~. a~ ~>> ~ ~ oc~ ~aa~
~
c•a~~ - Quo Xoc cva~
'' ; ~4. , .' ,.1z
:;~ ~ ~
m ~~ o ~
"a o C
o •
_
~ ^ At ~ 1~ T~ ~ ~ J 0 Q 'v
y.i W ~! U Li.
f a~ a ~ ~, ~ '~`f~-~,
~'r..-. E ~
~ ~ c A\
W
E
~ ~ L N
..
~
v~~
c
c~,.o
oN
a~
~
o ENE~c aiYac~-
~ sa v ~L ate
a
_
,,;.:,-:,. ~
~c
o o
cam,
a~E ~~,~,
r
~
o
:;'~~. ~~ L~o cap a~~.~'~a~~ ~a mac ; ;; ~o o~ ~
`~ c
-':'~,:y,~..
~
~ ~
-~ 0
~~~ Op
N prNQ? +.1~,~? Nom
pEO~~CC C .,0
~~ ~NL
~,,C ~ 0
~.
, ~. - -
~~ .~ vi ~- ~.• cn ~
• *~ ~ E ~ a ~ ~ o ~ r
~ ~ o o ca o
._ ,oc ~•~ ~•~ o-o~or~r,3c --
;
: •~_ c ~ mac
~'
;: :.. •.
.,;:'.~+::. ~
o ~E
ma ~.o~
c~ ~~
~c~ ~mc~~~°'E~~=roc
•~ ~ rnoEa-.zva•o <
;'..:,`.
~.., ~a~
c c ~oU
o ~ -~
m
~~• ~ '~
_~ E ~ ~
~ r'~
~o' max
c~a ~c
`~o oNoac ~~~ac ~
a~~?°oo~~~~o~ ; ._
r a~ca
E'°~ ENO
~_~ o~~
arc
a
' ~~~~•• c 30 ~a~E ~°~ aa'v~c~c~,c~.~ ~:o ~~a~ ~o E~c
n
•~••" ~' d}C p~ '~ 0*'' p +~0~}``'ad7V~L4?a
CfA
O
a '.•,.' ~N pN~ v-C03
.-~
•
:,.
~ ~
-o
~ LN
~Y o~
~a~
a c OC
Lo
~~ N
NE~
oa,~
LCE.
~ o~ r~a~a`~~ °a
o
•
a '4,.~-
. mco
L°~
o c
X03
° o
c ~
°
°o
.,
~
• ~ -
~ U N a~•Ea
o_c
~
cc-aa .
- m
rn c~ -
;
.
~•: ~ ~
c~ rn_
c~ ~=~~
r~Eaca •E~
~o cc~ o~c°'~E~,a~
coo ^~,~oc~ ao .. oa
ova oca
~~°~~° ~o~
L
~~~
,. ~ ~~~cor~;o~~ 03
a ~~
~
a ~;~ o~.E~
`"a ° 'ov~
`c~ ~Nc
°
a
o
o ~ o
~~
no~
a~c•cc~
L.oa ~,cE~a oc~.
~
rn
~ . ~aa
N ~ac~ a
i
U~~
~
v,
~a~ a~c
~
.. ~asocaa~o~~~~~~
,.
..
~c
'
~,a~o
~'
a ~,
:.o
~
._
o+ •. z, ~
•a. ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~a
Q
C~
~4
~w
,0 ~
Q'~
CC
`W
~ cro
~=
~,
t~
ATTACHMENT D
STATEMENT GF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections
15091 et seq., the City Council of the City of Alameda adopts and makes the fallowing
statement of overriding considerations regarding the remaining unavoidable impacts of the
Project and the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits of the Project.
I. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts, which are
included in the record, the City has determined that the Project would cause significant
unavoidable impacts to traffic and circulation as disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report ~"FEIR"}prepared for the Project, These impacts cannot be feasibly fully mitigated by
changes in or alternatives to the Project.
Il. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding
Considerations that, as part of the approval provisions, the Project has avoided or substantially
lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible, and finds that the remaining
unavoidable impacts of the Project are acceptable in light of specific economic, legal, social,
technological, and other benefits of the Project because those benefits outweigh the significant
unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project. The Council finds that each of the
overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for
finding that the benefits of the Praject outweigh the Project's significant adverse environmental
impacts and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. These matters
are, supported by evidence in the record that includes, but is not limited to, the documents
referenced below.
III. BENEFITS OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The City Council has considered the proposed Transportation Element General Plan
Amendment, the public record of proceedings on the proposed Project and other written
materials presented to the City as well as oral and written testimony at all public hearings
related to the Project, and does determine that adoption and implementation of the proposed
Transportation Element as amended would result in the following substantial public benefits by:
1, Providing the Alameda community and decision makers with an updated Transportation
Element that reflects current 2009 community priorities regarding mobility, the
environment, green house gas emissions, transit oriented design, urban design, and
neighborhood preservation to replace the 17 year old 1991 Transportation Element.
2. Establishing new policies to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of
transportation for the Alameda community.
3. Establishing polices to ensure that the livability and unique character of Alameda
neighborhoods is not impacted by additional automobile traffic.
4. Establishing transportation improvement priorities, which, will enable the community to
focus its limited transportation improvement resources on the improvements that are
most needed and important to the community.
5, Establishing a comprehensive framework and hierarchy for the citywide transportation
network to ensure that the basic transportation infrastructure elements will be
functionally and aesthetically integrated throughout the city.
The City Council has weighed the above benefits of the proposed Project against its
unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental effects identified in the FEIR and
hereby determine that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse environmental effects and,
therefore, further determine that these risks and adverse environmental effects are acceptable,
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adapted and passed by the City Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 29th day of January 2099, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 21 st day of January, 2x49.
LauraUVeisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY GF ALAMEDA RESOLUTIGN NG.
~,
L~
~,
o~
CERTIFING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE #2007072075)
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2007 the City of Alameda issued a Notice of
Preparation notifying the public and relevant public agencies that the City of
Alameda would be preparing a draft Environmental Impact Report HEIR} for the
proposed Transportation Element General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2008, the City of Alameda circulated far public
review a Draft Environmental lmpact Report ~DEIR} evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed Transportation Element General Plan
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Draft ElR was circulated fora 45 -day public review
period ending on September 22, 2008, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a pubiic hearing to accept comments
on the Draft EIR on August 25, 2008; and
WHEREAS, written responses were prepared addressing all significant
environmental issues raised by commentors during the public review period and
published as the EIR Response to Comments Addendum November 2008};
and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR and EIR Response
to Comments Addendum, was made available to the public for review on
November 10, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this Final EIR
on November 24, 2008, examined pertinent maps and documents, considered
the testimony and written comments received; and adopted a resolution
recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings:
1. The Final EIR has been presented to and independently reviewed
and considered bythe City Council,
2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the
City of Alameda, and
3. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, and all applicable state and local
guidef fines.
Resolution #6-C (2J
01-20-09
NQvll, THEREFQRE, BE fT RESQLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Transportation Element General Plan Amendment.
******
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
meeting assembled on the 20th day of January X009, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NQES:
ABSENT;
ABSTENTIQNS;
IN WITNESS, 11~HERE4F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this 21 st day of January, 2009.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADOPT A NEW
~ TRANSPORTION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND RESCIND THE
~ i 1981 TRANSPQRTATIQN ELEMENT
~ ~~
~~
4 ~
~ WHEREAS, the new Transportation Element of the General Plan
Q
~ Amendment is the result of a communit tannin rocess initiated b the '
~ ~ y p g p y City of
o Alameda Transportation Commission in 2004; and
~.
~. _ ~.
~ WHEREAS, the City Council appointed Transpartation Commission held
numerous public workshops and many public meetings to discuss appropriate
transportation policies forAlameda between 2004 and 2008; and
VvHEREAS, the Transportation Commission's recommended General
Plan Amendment was circulated for public review beginning in 2004 and
reviewed by the City of Alameda Planning Board, Recreation, Housing
Commission, Recreation and Parks Commission, and Economic Development
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Transportation Element includes updated
policies to guide the future decision making by the City regarding transportation
improvements, services, and priorities consistent with the public's welfare and
the community's vision for the future of Alameda's transportation network and
services; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and circulated
for public review to identify and disclose the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this General
Plan Amendment on November 24, 2O0S, and examined pertinent maps,
drawings, and documents in connection with the application; and
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2008, the Planning Board of the City of
Alameda recommended that the City Council adopt an Environmental impact
Report ~"EIR"~, regarding the environmental impacts related to this project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings relative to
the Generaf Plan Amendment:
1. The Amendment is consistent with the policies and intent of the
Generaf Plan. The City's General Plan policies focus on five broad
themes that strengthen awareness of the City's island setting, its small
town feeling, respect for history, de-emphasis of the automobile, and
retention of multi-use development on the ~111aterfront. The proposed
Resolution #6•C ~3~
01-20-09
Transportation Element is consistent with these themes. The proposed
General Plan amendments are intended to: plan, develop and maintain a
safe, barrier-free and efficient transportation system to provide the
community with adequate present and future mobility; balance the mobility
needs of the community with the overall community objective of creating a
livabable human and natural environment, coordinate the interaction of
transportation systems development with land use planning activities,
encourage the use of transportation modes, especially at peak period,
other than the single occupant automobile in such a way as to allow all
modes to be mutually supportive and to function together as one
transportation system, and implement and maintain the planned
transportation system in a coordinated and cost-effective manner.
2. The Amendment will have beneficial effects on the general welfare of
the community, The amendments will support and facilitate strategies
and decision-making that maintain, protect, and improve the transportation
system, facilities, and services for Alameda residents and businesses.
3. The Amendment is in the public interest. The amendments represent
an important update to a 17-year-old transportation element and it is 'rn the
public's interest to maintain current and up-to-date transportation policies
to ensure appropriate and cost effective decision making for the
community.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda approves the General Plan Amendment to adopt the new
Transportation Element as recommended and amended by the Transportation
Commission (Exhibit A);
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Alameda rescinds the 1991 Transportation Element (Exhibit B).
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 20th day of January, 2009, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
[N v11lTNESS, vIIHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said City this 2~ ~t day of January, 2009.
Lara vveisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY ~F ALAMEDA RESQLUTI4N NQ.
APPRQVE THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PEDESTRIAN PLAN
E
°~
c~
.~
WHEREAS, demand for additional pedestrian facilities for both recreational
and commuting needs is increasing; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda City Council has determined there is the potential
to increase pedestrian access in Alameda through pedestrian projects and
programs; and
WHEREAS, support for pedestrian infrastructure in the community is an
essential component in the City's efforts to reduce air, water, and noise pollution in
and around Alameda; and
WHEREAS, enhanced pedestrian facilities will offer City visitors and
residents an additional transportation option, resulting in 'rmproved mobility and
reduced traffic congestion; and
WHEREAS, the plan reflects the City's most recently determined priorities
for pedestrian facilities and programs.
NQW, THEREFQRE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda adopts the City of Alameda Pedestrian Plan.
******
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular
meeting assembled on the 20th day of January, 2009, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NQES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIQNS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this 21St day of January, 2009.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolution #6-C (4J
01-20-09
CITY 4F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: January 20, 2009
Re: Discuss the Alameda Peace Network Proposal Regarding Iraq War
BACKGROUND
Qn March 16, 2003, the City Council adopted a resolution encouraging a multilateral
diplomatic approach to the Iraq situation as provided by the United Nations as an
alternative to war. 4n August 21, 2001, the City Council adopted another resolution
related to the war in Iraq. This resolution, entitled "City of Alameda Resolution
Supporting a Diplomatic Approach to Ending the Iraq War and Bringing Our Troops
Home," focused on the human and financial costs of deploying U.S. troops to Iraq. It
also noted that Alameda and other California communities are at an increased risk in
the event of a natural disaster since so many California National Guard and Coast
Guard units have been deployed to Iraq.
At the Gctober 1, 2008, City Council meeting, members of the Alameda Peace Network
submitted a petition during Qral Communications, Non-Agenda, asking the City of
Alameda to place a measure on the November 2008 ballot regarding the war in Iraq and
the high financial and human cost of the war. Since the item was brought up during the
non-agenda portion of the meeting, the City Council asked that it be discussed at a
future meeting.
DISCUSSIQN
The 64-page petition that the members of the Alameda Peace Network submitted on
Qctober 1, 2008, was entitled "Alameda Peace Network Petition to Put Iraq Withdrawal
Proposition on City of Alameda November Ballot." The petition included the following
suggested questions for a ballot measure:
"Shall the Congress and the President of the United States end the U.S. Qccupation of
Iraq and immediately begin the safe and orderly withdrawal of ail U.S. troops and
military bases, to be completed no later than November 4, 2009? Shall the taxpayers'
money being spent on the war be used instead to care for our veterans, help
reconstruct Iraq, and provide funding for unmet needs here at home?"
City Council
Agenda Item #6-D
01-20-09
Honorable Mayor and January 20, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
The three speakers from the Alameda Peace Network noted that the ongoing war in Iraq
takes public dollars away from education, health care, and infrastructure. They also
discussed the California -State budget crisis, the fact that the war is costing the federal
government $12 billion a month, and that those monies could be better spent in California
and other states. Finally, they noted that the majority of Americans favor an immediate
withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Barack ~bama, whose foreign policy differs from that of his predecessor, will become
President on January 20. The 4bama transition team's website notes that immediately
upon taking office, Mr. ~bama "will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders
a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and
phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the
Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from
Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month -- which would remove all of them in 1fi months.
That would be the summer of 2010 -- more than 7 years after the war began."
The State Elections Code sets out specific requirements and deadlines for placing a
measure on a City ballot. The Alameda Peace Network's petition was submitted after the
deadlines for the November 2005 ballot and was not in conformance with these
requirements. Should the City Council choose to place a measure on a future ballot, it will
also need to comply with the relevant Election Cade requirements and deadlines.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Discussing the Alameda Peace Network's proposal will have no financial impact on the
City's General Fund budget. However, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq could indirectly
benefit the City's budget since reducing federal spending on the war could lead to more
monies available for domestic priorities.
The cost of translating, typesetting, and printing a ballot measure depends on the number
of pages needed for the ballot question, the City Attorney's impartial analysis, and any
ballot arguments for or against the measure. Staff estimates the cost for this ballot
measure, should it be placed on a future ballot, would be approximately $3,000 per page.
In addition, the City would be responsible for paying the costs of conducting the special
election; staff estimates a per voter cost of at least $5. There are approximately 44,000
registered voters in the City of Alameda.
REC~MMENDATI~N
Discuss the Alameda Peace Network's proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
r
Lisa Goldman
Deputy City Manager
COUNCIL REFERRAL FORM
(To be submitted to the City Clerk)
Name of Council member requesting Referral: Frank Matarrese
Date of submission to City Clerk must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on the
Monday before the week of the Council meeting requested}: Janus 12 2009
Requested Council Meeting date to consider Council Referral: Janus 20 2009
Brief description of the subject to be printed on the agenda, sufficient to inform
the City Council and public of the nature of the Council Referral:
BEcycle Related Issues
In order to maximize alternative transportation ~bicycle~~an~, etc,~the~^
aut of staff timelcit funds this referral re uests thatthe Council considers ivin
direction to the City Manager forth_e follow actions rel,,ated to „bicycle issues in
Alameda as raised b residents
• Marketing and promotion of use of city bicycle iock~,~a~ City Hall, n
the Civic Center garage etc.}
• Consideration,.of bicycle crossin„g using the,,.Fru~e~ge~,
associated bike lanes
• Details on the im lementation of bic cle arkin servin the block of
Central Avenue between yak and Park Streets s ecific locations
timeline and promoting
Council Referral #8-A
4~-2Q-09