The URL can be used to link to this page

2009-03-17 Packet~~ ~;;~ ~s ~~ ~~ ~, :~~ ~I Po~ Y~. _ r :,~ }i ~~~ Po a ., ~.ti;` f, ; ~ p ~4 Time U1 ~r© ArYOnr~a + CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY -- - - MARCH 17, 2009 - -- - 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, March I7, 2009 6;00 p.m. Ci t~~ Counci 1 Chambers Conference Room, City Ha 11, c0 me r of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street, 1. Roll Call - City Council 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3-A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency negotiators; Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee organizations: All bargaining units 3-B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ~- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision ~c7 of Section 54956.9 Number of cases: One 3-C. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR X54957.67 Agency Negotiator; City Attorney Name: City Manager 3-D. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT Title: City Manager 4. Announcement of Action.Taken in Closed Session, if any 5. Adjournment - City Council ~ti Beverly o n, Mayor ~~~~ ~ ~., ~ CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY APFA} TUESDAY----MARCH I7, 2009----7:25P.M. Location: Counoil Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Partici ation Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by Board Members may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. Roll Call -- APFA 2. Minutes 2-A. Minutes of the Annual APFA Meeting of March 18, 2008; Special Joint City Council, APFA and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of June 17, 2008; and the Special City Council and APFA Meeting of November 18, 2008. City Clerk} 3. Agenda Items None. 4. Oral Communications Public Comment} Any person may address the Board in regard to any matter over which the Board has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda. 5. Board Communications Communications from the Board} 6. Adjournment - APFA ~~~yv ~`• 'a , ~ ^ ~r~ ;~~3 ~ ~~~~ t f' S 4~~~~ t CITY ~F ALA ~ ~,~~~ry~~.. MEDA CALIFORNIA ~~.: ~, ~' q ~^~ ,,tip'' ~u • ~~1. 74 S I kh~- C~~ ~~~Ixtltl~~y- SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC} TUESDAY - - - MARCH 17, 2009 - - - 7;27 P.M. Location; Cit Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation anyone wlsning to address the Council/Commission on agenda items or business introduced by the Council/Commission may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Council/Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak. 1. ROLL CALL -- City Council, CIC 2. MINUTES 2-A. Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on March 3, 2009. City Clerk} jCIC] 3. AGENDA ITEM 3--A. Recommendation to approve a $3 million loan from the City Sewer Fund to the Community Improvement Commission for matching funds for construction of the Webster Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Avenue Intersection Project, No. P.W. 10-08- 26. Development Services} [City Council/CIC~; and Recommendation to approve funding and award a Contract in the amount of $6, 923, 869, including contingencies, to Top Grade Construction for the Webster Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Avenue Intersection Project, No. P.W. 10-08-26. Public Works} [City Council] 4. ADJOURNMENT - City Counc a, y,'' 1 ~r~ 1 ~~ 11 ~M1 4 f ' '1 R (~V` ~~~~ 'a 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--------MARCH I7, 2009-----7:30P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall, Co~~~ll C~aam~ers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and oak Std The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. City Manager Communications 5. Agenda Items 7. Oral Communications, Non-Agenda Public Comment} 8. Council Referrals 9. Communications Communications from Council} 10. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL G:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda Closed Session} ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING 7:25 P.M. AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 7:27 P.M. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3-A. Proclamation declaring March 16-21 as Women's Military History Week. 3-B. Proclamation declaring March 22-28 as Boys' and Girls' Club Week. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public 4-A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on March 3, 2009. City Clerk} 4-B. Bills for ratification. Finance} 4-C. Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Alameda and the Alameda County Fire Department to establish a Cooperative Agreement to administer a Department of Homeland Security Assistance to Firefighters Grant and allocate matching grant funds. Fire} 4-D. Recommendation to award a Consultant Agreement in the amount of $77,936, including contingency, to Kier & Wright Civil Engineers & Surveyors, Inc. for survey and mapping services. Development Services} 4--E. Adoption of Resolution Supporting A Maritime Administration Small Shipyard Grant to Bay Ship & Yacht Co. to Establish a Job Training Center and Program. Development. Services} 4-F. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Funding for Repair and Resurfacing of Fernside Boulevard and Central Avenue, and Stating the Assurance to Complete the Project. Public Works? 4-G. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XX Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Soft-Story Residential Buildings} to Chapter XIII Building and Housing} and Amending Subsection 30-7.12 Reduction in Parking Requirements for Existing Facilities} of Section 30-7 Off-Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations? of Chapter XXX Development Regulations}, By Adding Subsection 30-7.12~c} to Allow for Reduction in Parking Requirements for Seismic Retrofit. Planning and Building} [Continued from March 3, 2Q49~ 4-H. Final Passage of ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Subsection 30-4.1 ~R-1, One-Family Residence Districts} of Section 30.4 District Uses and Regulations} of Article I Zoning Districts and Regulations} Chapter xxx Development Regulations} By Deleting Subsection 30-4.1 in Its Entirety and Replacing with a New Subsection 30-4.1 to Allow Ministerial Approval of Secondary Units on Sites Having a Single family Dwelling and Meeting Specific Standards. Planning and Building} 4-I. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Various Sections of the Alameda Municipal Code Contained in Chapter II Article I Pertaining to City Council Meetings, Chapter II Article II Pertaining to the Historical Advisory Board, and Amending Ordinance No. 1082 As Amended by Ordinance No. 2497 Pertaining to an Existing Pension Fund. City Attorney? 4-J. Public Hearing to consider a subdivision of ownership to condominium form for two detached single-family dwellings on one site at 3211 and 3215 Fernside Boulevard. The site is located within an R-2, two family residence zoning district; and adoption of related resolution. Planning and Building} 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Communications from City Manager} 5-A. Receive a Progress Report on financing the City's Other Post Employment Benefit obligations. Finance} 6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS S--A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Ardella Dailey as a Member of the Social Services Human Relations Board. 6-B. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Fees Charged for Appeals to the Planning Board and to the City Council. Planning and Building} 6-C. Public Hearing to consider introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 24-10 Cost Recovery for Recurring Calls for Service to Respond to and/or Abate Properties Due to Specified Conditions or Owner Neglect} to Chapter xxIV Public Health}; and adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise and Add Various New Fees. Fire} 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 cogni2ance, that is not on the agenda 8. COUNCIL REFERRALS Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted upon or scheduled as a future agenda item 9. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Communications from Council Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended 9-A. Consideration of Mayor's appointments to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. 10. ADJOURNMENT - City Council *~~ • Materials related to an item on the agenda are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, City Hall, Room 380, during normal business hours • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747-4800 or TDD number 522-7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747-48DD or TDD number 522-7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print ~ Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request • Please contact the City Clerk at 747--4800 or TDD number 522-7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ~APFA~ TUESDAY- -MARCH 18, 200$- -7:27 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 8:42 p.m. Roll Call ~- Present: Board Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. nrt; w-,,, ~ „ ~, X08- } Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Financing Authority Meeting of March 20, 2007. Approved. Board Member Gilmore moved approval of the minutes. Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Agenda Items None. Oral Communications None. Board Communications None. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual Meeting at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Annual Meeting Alameda Public Financing Authority March ~.$, 2Q08 UNAPPRQVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY APFA} AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA} MEETING; AND ANNUAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC} MEETING TUESDAY- -JUNE 17, 2005- -7:31 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint City Council, APFA and ARRA Meeting and Annual CIC Meeting at 8:53 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Board Members ~/ Gilmore, Matarrese, Johnson - 5. Absent: None. MTIITTTTF C Authority Members Commissioners deHaan, Tam, and Mayor/ Chair SOS-276 CC/08-03 APFA/08-35 CIC} Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on June 3, 2008; and the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on June 4, 2008. Approved. Councilmember/Authority Member/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes. Councilmember/Authority Member/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEM (OS-277 CC108-04 APFA} Public Hearing and related actions regarding the Fiscal Year 2005-09 Budget: (OS-277A CC} Resolution No. 14222, "Authorizing and Directing the Preparation and Execution of Certain Lease Financing Documents, Authorizing the Preparation and Distribution of a Preliminary Official Statement in Connection with the Offering and Sale of Certificates of Participation Relating Thereto, and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto." Adopted; and SOS-04A APFA} Resolution No. OS-17, "Approving, Authorizing and Directing Preparation and Execution of Certain Lease Financing Documents and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto." Adopted. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 1 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008 Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the new interest rate. Bill Reynolds, Gardner Underwood & Bacon Financial Advisor, responded rates are excepted to produce present value savings in excess of 4Q; stated the exact rate would not be known until the sale date; the assumption is that the rate would be in the mid 4~ range. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Reynolds is confident with the assumption. Mr. Reynolds responded in the affirmative; stated the upgraded rating makes the process very competitive; refinancing would not move forward without a good rate. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she was opposed to refinancing before; now she is happy to see that the term would not be extended and there would be a lower interest rate. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the first year would not have interest or principal payments and the second year would have interest payments only. The City Manager responded interest payments would be made in the first year. Councilmember/Authority deHaan inquired whether the cost of the loan would be amortized, to which Mr. Reynolds responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the estimated savings, to which the City Manager responded $317,500. Mr. Reynolds stated market data would be available on the date of pricing to show comparables. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what percentage would be the breaking point. The City Manager responded 5.5o is set in the resolution. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the old and new interest rate for each issuance. The City Manager responded the original issue rates ranging from Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 2 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Cammissian June 17, 2008 5.8~ to 7.25 would mature in 2015; $2.77 million was issued for the Police facility; stated Library and Golf issues in the amount of $4.9 million have rates of 3.9o to 5.750. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that a maximum should be set for each issuance. The City Manager stated 5.5p is a blended rate; refinancing would not go forward if expected savings are not realized. Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated the 2022 date should not be exceeded; the previous proposal did not go forward because there was no savings, the term was extended, and debt would be pushed back; now, debt would not be pushed back and the term would not be extended. Mr. Reynolds stated the interest rate and savings are two different numbers; a $317,600 savings is the underwriter's best guess based on current market conditions; 5.5o would produce less than $317,600 in savings. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the savings goal should be approximately $317,000. Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated that anything over $300,000 in savings works. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan stated that he would like the first two-year savings to be at least $400,000. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that deferring debt payments is not the best way to do budgeting. Mr. Reynolds stated that bond counsel drafted the resolution with the idea that a limit would be placed on the average interest rate. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the most important issue is savings; management's goal is to defer payments to limit budget cuts; that she does not want to pay more and save less due to deferring. Mr. Reynolds stated an interest only payment would be made; savings would be limited in the first two years; the present value savings would change slightly with annual savings versus up front savings. Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese moved adoption of resolutions as long as the duration of the bond would be the same Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda REUSe and 3 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008 and the savings threshold would not be less than $300,000. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan seconded the motion with the caveat that principle would be pushed out, Under discussion, Mayor/Chair Johnson stated refinancing makes sense because the interest rate would be lower and over $300,000 would be saved. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (OS-277B CC} Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14223, "Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191." Adopted. The Assistant City Manager provided a brief presentation. Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the prior fire inspection fee. Mayor Johnson stated a chart showing fee comparisons would have helped. In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Fire Marshall stated fire inspection fees are based on an hourly rate and do not have 1000 cost recovery; currently, a business fire inspection fee is $77.50; full cost recovery would be approximately $148. Mayor Johnson questioned whether Building staff should perform inspections instead of firefighters; stated business owners have complained about inspection fees; the proposed increase would result in more complaints. The Fire Marshall stated the Fire Department uses civilian inspectors, which lowers the expense. Mayor Johnson questioned what the cost would be if Building staff performed inspections. The Fire Marshall stated Fire Department civilian inspectors have the same salary as the Building Inspectors. Councilmember Gilmore stated Building inspectors are busy already; new personnel would need to be added. The Fire Marshall stated that fire and storm water inspectors are Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 4 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008 very specialized and require additional training. Councilmember Matarrese stated an 80o increase is stiff; inquired whether building fees could be raised by a very small amount over inflation in order to subsidize fire inspection fees. The Assistant City Manager responded fees cannot be over 100% cost recovery for any service. Councilmember deHaan stated many inspections are a one hour minimum and cost $215; inquired how often inspections occur, to which the Fire Marshall responded annually. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association ~PSBA7, stated increased inspection fees would put an undue burden on small businesses. Alan Elnick, Alameda City Employees Association ~ACEA}, stated ACEA feels that Council should, not pass a blanket resolution for a no fee increase for the Golf Course. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the collection rate on ambulance service. Councilmember Matarrese responded the report notes the collection rate was 51a in 2007 and excludes Medicare and Medi-Cal write offs. Councilmember Gilmore inquired when was the last time ambulance fees were raised. The City Manager responded rates were restructured by the County last year. Mayor Johnson stated Council needs to know the cost recovery for ambulance service. The Fire Chief stated the collection rate is approximately 85o if Medicare and Medi-Cal are taken out as non-collectibles; new revenue anticipates a 50o collection rate. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the cost to provide ambulance service and how much revenue is received, to which the City Manager responded information would be provided. Vice Mayor Tam stated Page 8 shows that $1,297 is the base rate for the ambulance fee; inquired whether said fee is a significant Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community improvement Commission dune 17, 2008 portion of the City's cost for providing the service. The Fire Chief responded the fee is close to the cost. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City charges above what insurance pays. The Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated generally, insurance pays approximately 800; the patient is billed the remaining 2 0 a . Mayor Johnson inquired what is the recovery rate for private ambulances, to which the Fire Chief responded that he did not know. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how much of the $300,000 would be accountable to inspection fees. The Fire Chief responded the EMS portion is approximately $280,000; stated inspection fees are estimated at approximately $G5,000. The City Manager stated $20,000 would be related to the new fees. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there would be a $15,000 shortage, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot see raising fees 800. The Fire Chief stated false alarm fees were not included and are estimated at $20,000; $300,000 could be achieved in new revenue if false alarm fees were included. Mayor Johnson stated false alarm fees should be included; inquired what is sent out for a fire alarm, to which the Fire Chief responded three engines, one truck, and a Chief officer. Mayor Johnson inquired whether one free false alarm is allowed per quarter, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated one free false alarm should be allowed every six months, not every quarter. The City Manager stated that the Fire Department responded to 454 false alarms in 2007. Mayor Johnson stated second false alarms fees should be raised to $125; $200 should be charged for the third false alarm, and $250 Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 6 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission ~7une 17 , 2 Q Q 8 for the fourth false alarm. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether businesses have different fees, to which the City Manager responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson stated commercial businesses should be allowed one free false alarm per year. The Fire Chief stated fire alarms might be disconnected if restrictions are too severe. Mayor Johnson stated commercial false alarm rates should be $125 for the second alarm; $250 for the third; and $375 for the fourth. Councilmember Matarrese stated the first free false alarm should cover a period of six months. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Assistant City Manager stated the Golf Commission has not recommended golf fee increases at this point. Mayor Johnson stated said increases could come back. The City Manager stated the last golf fee increase was not in conjunction with the annual Master Fee resolution. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with the following revisions to the Master Fee Schedule: 1} the false fire alarm schedule for residential be $125 for the second alarm, $200 for the third alarm and $250 for the fourth alarm; 2} the false fire alarm for commercial be $125 for the second alarm, $250 for the third alarm and $375 for the fourth alarm; 3} that the period far false fire alarms be changed from quarterly to every six months; and 4} the rest of the fees be increase by CPI. Councilmember Gilmore inquired haw much less revenue would be raised with the proposed revisions. Mayor Johnson responded the amount is not known now; stated the matter can be brought back. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he understands that $280,000 of the $300,000 comes from the ambulance fee increase; an additional $65,000 would have come from increased fire inspection fees; revenue would drop from $65,000 to $15,000 by using the CPI. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 7 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008 Mayor Johnson stated that she wants ambulance collection fees brought back because collection should be improved. Councilmember Matarrese requested that information be brought back on haw much the uncollected ~ambulance~ fees represents in dollars. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that Alameda goes to Oakland 273 times versus Oakland coming to Alameda 23 times; the recovery rate could change if determinations are made later. Mayor Johnson stated the Contract should state that mutual aid should be proportionate. Councilmember deHaan stated revenue generation would be impacted if the City does not provided services to Oakland. The City Manager stated the issue would be monitored and adjustments would be made in the quarterly report if necessary. Councilmember Matarrese stated reports need to be provided more than quarterly; some issues need to be monitored continually and constantly. Mayor Johnson requested monthly reports. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote - Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Tam - 1. (08-277C CC} Public Hearing to Establish Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriation Limit} for Fiscal Year 2008-2009; and Resolution No. 14224, "Establishing Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2008-09." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated data is based on the amount of City or County population growth and CPI; Alameda's population growth is smaller than other cities in the County; inquired where is the demand for services and commensurate need for increased costs if population growth has not increased. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 8 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission dune 17, 2008 Mayor Johnson responded services are decreasing, but costs are increasing. Vice Mayor Tam stated that complete cost recovery is recommended far~some areas, but no others; there seems to be some disparity in which services are more valuable. Councilmember Matarrese stated small businesses provide sales tax; CPI is recommended instead of cost recovery because small businesses are taking on the extra burden of property tax; businesses need to be kept alive. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is in support of giving small businesses a break; the City seems to be subsidizing the Golf Course. Councilmember Gilmore stated Council had previous discussions regarding only being able to raise fees so high and get same number of players. Mayor Johnson stated the City is not subsidizing the Golf Course now; raising golf fees would result in less revenue; golf fees would not be frozen. Councilmember Matarrese stated discussing the Golf Master Plan would be premature. the Golf Commission would be soon; looking at golf fees today On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Johnson stated a policy is needed regarding not having the General Fund subsidize the Golf Course. ~ARRA} Resolution No. 42, "Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2008-09." Adopted; X08--36CIC} Resolution No. 08-157, "Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 200$-09." Adopted; ~0$-277D CC} Resolution No. 14225, "Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2008-09 and Establishing an Other Post Employment Benefit ~OPEB} Plan," Adopted; Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 9 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2408 X08-277E CCU Resolution No. 14226, "Establishing Guidelines for Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business Travel.' Adopted. The City Manager/Executive Director provided a handout on issue bin items from previous workshops and gave a brief presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the cost for a Park Director, to which the City Manager responded $25,000 per year. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether $25,000 would fully restore Park Directors at sites without reducing hours, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated direction should be given to not reduce Park Director hours; inquired how much it would cost to light tennis courts, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded $7, 500. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated efforts should be made to find money to light the tv~o tennis courts. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how long it would take to go through the $300,000 restored to the Fire Department overtime budget, The Fire Chief responded the current overtime usage is averaging four people per day which costs $6,000 per day for a twenty-four hour shift. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how long it would take to implement rotating a truck out of service. The Fire Chief responded early July; stated operationally, the Fire Department could be ready within four to six weeks; the meet and confer process would take longer. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated adding $300, o0o would still leave a $520, o0o shortage; inquired how the $520,000 would be absorbed in the budget. The City Manager/Executive Director responded overtime would still need to be managed; stated the $520,000 would not be restored back into the budget. Special Jaint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 1 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Smprovement Commission June 17, 240$ Mayor/Chair Johnson stated an engine replacement plan should be reviewed; the vehicle replacement policy may need adjustments. The Fire Chief stated deferring purchases would build a huge, future liability; another truck is scheduled to be replaced next year. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the total price. The Fire Chief responded an engine would cost between $4DO,OOD to $425,000 and would have a ten to twelve-year lease. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the compliment of Fire Department staff. The Fire Chief responded nine firefighters have been hired due to retirement vacancies; currently, eight positions are unfunded; new hires will be necessary as retirements occur; otherwise, additional overtime would be created. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how much overtime would be reduced [with new hiresa. The Fire Chief responded average overtime covers four positions; stated adding two to three positions per shift would be beneficial; money would be saved in the long run. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how said scenario is equated into percentage of overtime. The Fire Chief responded that he guesses that 60o to 700 of overtime would be saved. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the total compliment. The City Manager/Executive Director responded 110 funded positions are assumed for 2008-20D9; stated 1D2 positions are for sworn officers, 8 are non sworn. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether overtime would still exist with total staff compliment, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 1 1 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008 overtime costs would be with total compliment, to which the Fire Chief responded $200, o0o to $300, 000. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that numbers are needed regarding hiring seven firefighters versus overtime; overtime should be reduced since nine new firefighters were hired; specific numbers are needed. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated replacement vehicles could be deferred; additional replacements will be needed next year; inquired whether take home vehicle casts have been discussed, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the vehicle replacement policy needs to come back for discussion. The City Manager/Executive Director stated the vehicle replacement policy was changed; only a limited number of safety related vehicles were identified for replacement. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is being proposed for vehicle replacement next year. The City Manager/Executive Director responded $717,750, which includes some vehicles carried forward from the current fiscal year. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that vehicles should not be replaced until the matter is brought back to Council; shortfalls could be covered by taking less out of department budgets. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated discussions are needed regarding deferring an engine or command vehicle replacement; a fall back position is needed. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated $200,000 is proposed to be spent in one year for a Fire Department command vehicle, Division Chiefs' and Deputy Chief vehicles. The City Manager/Executive Director stated said vehicles met the criteria last year. The Fire Chief stated delivering service in the streets takes people, good tools, and training, Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the issue Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 1 2 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June l7, 208 will be revisited many times for many reasons; mechanical assessments are needed; repair costs need to be evaluated versus replacement costs. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated vehicle use needs to be identified; fuel efficiency needs to be reviewed if a vehicle travels a lot of miles. The Fire Chief stated the proposal is to replace Fire Department sedans with hybrid vehicles, Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether vehicles would be replaced with the Toyota Prius. The Fire Chief responded vehicles would be replaced with Ford Escapes. Mayor/Chair Johnson questioned whether the command vehicle needs to be replaced next year. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated annual fuel costs need to be reviewed for take home vehicles; decisions need to be made regarding reassigning vehicles and reduction of the overall inventory, Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that the proposed budget reflects a certain level of trade offs; $300, 000 would be generated through the proposed fee structure and would offset the $820,000 in mandatory [Fire Department] overtime costs; there still would be $520,000 in mandatory overtime cost expenditures that would be controlled through rotating the closing of a fire truck; inquired what differs other than postponement. The Fire Chief responded hopefully some other revenues enhancements will occur in the fall; stated the additional $300,000 would be counted on to delay the immediate closure [of afire truck]. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that additional funds could be generated by not replacing vehicles. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated said savings is not on--going . Mayor/Chair Johnson stated continued discussions are needed regarding long-term issues. Special :Jr~int. Meeting Ala!neda City Council, Alameda Public 13 f~'inancir~c~ Authority, A~.ameda Reuse and !~ec~evelop~~ient Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 7.008 Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated increased Police Department grant and fee revenues would be allocated to the Crossing Guard program; the proposed rescheduling results in approximately 40o cost reduction; inquired whether the $93,000 is expected to offset the reduction. The Police Chief responded $93,000 would help to recover the additional cost not budgeted for the next fiscal year. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what would be the reporting procedure for Fire Department overtime. The City Manager/Executive Director responded the Fire Department would be monitoring the issue on a daily basis; stated monthly or quarterly reports could be presented to Council. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the Public Works Capital Improvement Program CIP} would be addressed. The Public Works Director responded the CIP would be adopted with the budget. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the deferred maintenance; stated the report shows medium priority projects total $66.5 million. The Public works Director responded the deferred maintenance report will be coming to Council in approximately four weeks; Council will see the Pedestrian Plan later in the year; high, medium, and low priority projects were identified for the Pedestrian Plan; appropriations will be reviewed this coming year; the only Pedestrian Project included in the next two year CIP is for access across the Estuary. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the concern is that $4 million was spent from the General Fund to catch up on some of the deferred maintenance and this year $1.5 million will be deferred. The Public Works Director stated all Measure B funds are being used; staff was successful in receiving Proposition 1B funds. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a funding stream has not been identified for other post employee benefits; the proposed General Fund budget totals $75.4 million for the fiscal year; the accrued liability for post employment benefits was $75,4 million as of January 2007. S~~ecial Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 1 4 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission . June l7, 2008 Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that deferred costs are between $75 million and $107 million for health and safety post employment benefits. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that same of the fund balance could be used to seed the trust fund. Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Speakers: Carol Quintal, Crossing Guard; Janet Crandall, Citizen Emergency Response Team ~CERT7; David Baker, Alameda; Fred Blass, Alameda; Christine Novosel, Crossing Guard; Christopher Buckley, Alameda; Rich Bennett, Alameda; Jeff DelBono, Alameda Firefighter; Domenick weaver, Alameda Firefighters; Steve Floyd, Local 659; Tim McNeil, Retired Fire Chief; Diane Coler--Dark, Alameda; Chuck Millar, Alameda; Robb Ratto, PSBA; Kathy Moehring, wABA. There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. ** SOS-27SCC~ Councilmember/Authority Member/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past 12:00 midnight. Mayor/Chair Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ~~* Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City will not be spending money on the Met'er's House; Greater Alameda Business Area ~GABA7 funding should not be approved until information is brought back; $50,000 is allocated to the EcoPass program. The Public works Director stated the total program is approximately $36,OOD; $14,000 is from the.General Fund; the AC Transit General Manager is allowed to reduce the passes by 150. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a better to way to encourage people to take public transit, such as discount tickets for BART or other forms of public transportation; suggesting performing an employee survey. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that open dialogue should be initiated regarding the Met'er's House; Special Joint Meeting Alal~eda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 1 5 ?:edevelop~nent i~uCharity, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2DD8 additional funding might become available. The Recreation and Park Director stated Trust representatives have not indicated that any additional funding would be available but are willing to review how current funds are invested. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the community gets more per dollar for funding Park Directors than the Met'er's House. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how much the Fun Fair costs. The Recreation and Park Director responded the Fun Fair is funded through fees charged to participants; stated funding is also received through recycling grants; costs are a wash. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the proposal regarding the Art in the Park, The City Manager/Executive Director responded the proposal is to use money from the Pubic Art fund. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Art in the Park should be self- sustaining. vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated major issues still exist regarding keeping current public safety levels; Council and the community want to have a safe community; she would rather buy more time for the Fire Department than the Golf Complex. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a gap would still exist if revenue raising options are placed on the November ballot and revenues start coming in January. Mayar/Chair Johnson stated overtime needs to be monitored; the vehicle replacement policy also needs to be reviewed. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the vehicle replacement policy is a mechanism to buy time. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue would be understood better when the vehicle replacement policy comes back; keeping vehicles longer might be possible. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a lot of phone calls and emails have been received regarding not cutting Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda public rinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 1 6 Redevelopment Authority, and Community improvement Commission June 17, 2D08 public safety and increasing staffing levels; maintaining current levels is difficult, let alone adding additional staff; contractual agreements cannot be made unless there is revenue in hand. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether hiring people is a contractual obligation; stated people can be laved off; the Fire Chief mentioned that two to three positions per shift should be added; more information is needed; enough direction has been given to the City Manager/Executive Director to approve numbers provided tonight; trees need to be addressed so that further liability is not incurred; plenty of notice needs to be given before spending down the $300,000 of overtime; some matching fund capability needs to be left to provide an incentive to the Museum; information has been requested regarding setting up a trust this year for unfunded post employment benefits. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what agreement has been arrived at regarding trees. The Public Works Director responded Zone 4 will commence duly 1; Mr. Buckley suggested not pruning specific species at all, which does not make sense; structural pruning will be performed; left over money will be applied to new street tree planning, Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the process would equate to manpower, The Public Works Director responded the tree crew would be reduced by a Maintenance Worker I and a Team Leader; stated $50,000 has been added to the Consultant Contract. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated some of the work would be outsourced. The Public Works Director stated all mature tree pruning is done by an outside contractor; currently, emergency response to down limbs, some new tree planting, and young tree pruning is done in house; emergency removal of down limbs and young tree pruning is being proposed to be done by existing contractor, Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated time would be provided if the Golf Return on Investment ~ROI} and surcharge were not rebated and put into the General Fund; the money would be able to fund Fire Department overtime and not take a truck out of service. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 1 Redevelop:~lerit Authority, and Cammulzity Improvement Commission June 17, 20Q8 Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the projected Golf Course deficit is approximately $700,000; the Golf Course cash reserve is $1.1 million; the Golf Course would still be able to cover the shortfall for this year without the rebate. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the 2004--2005 RDI for the Golf Course and AP&T was to be for a short period of time. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the proposal is to rebate both the ROI and surcharge, to which the City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is the surcharge. The City Manager/Executive Director responded $171,960; stated $99,040 is the RoI revenue. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how long the surcharge has been in place, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded since 1991. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated intending to fund Fire Department overtime needs to be done with the realization of buying more time in hopes that revenue enhancement ideas pass in the fall; another plan needs to be in place if the revenues do not pass. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he would support additional time being gained on the back of Golf. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that everything is being put on a fast track; the top priority is public safety. Nice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the $300,000 is not going to buy enough time past the fall; having the extra $271,000 would provide the comfort needed not to rotate a fire truck out of service, The City Manager/Executive Director stated $271,000 revenues would be taken from the Golf Course and added to the General Fund. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that three years ago he stated that the Golf Course was on a death spiral; Alameda Point is placing the City in another situation of eroding Special Tint Meeting A1.ameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 1 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission dune 17, 2008 the General Fund; lease revenues needs to be increased as much as possible; the crises is here. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the public is starting to understand the challenges. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions with direction provided tonight; stated that he would not reiterate all points, but summarized the following direction; 1} supplement the $300,000 [from fees] in Fire Department overtime funds with the [reinstatement of the] Golf RQI and surcharge; 2} require matching funds [of $3,800] for the Museum subsidy [and reduce the allocation by $7,500]; 3} use grants or savings to re-adjust the Tree Maintenance Program so that young trees are pruned and trees are replaced; 4} bring back information for putting aside a seed amount for the Trust Fund for ether Post Employment Benefits ~oPEB}; 5} bring back operational plans for sustaining services long-term; 57 look for funding to light the tennis court [proposed to be turned off]; 7} bring back the Vehicle Replacement Plan, including potential reduction in the fleet; 8} bring back an analysis of increasing fire staff by two to three per shift; stated the motion includes approving the numbers presented to Council [including changes outlined in the staff report: allocation of $93,340 to the Police Department for crossing guards; use of $25,000 in Meyers Housing funding for a Recreation Leader] and adoption of resolution Establishing Guidelines for Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business Travel. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint City Council, APFA and ARRA Meeting and Annual CIC Meeting at 12;55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lora weisiger, City Clerk APFA and CIC Secretary The agenda for meeting this was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Author. i_ty, Alameda Reuse and 19 ~~cadevelop~nent A~ithority, and Co!rununi~y Improvement Commission dune 17, 2008 UNAPPRQVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ~APFA} MEETING TUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 18, 2008- -7:32 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 11;36 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Authority Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent; None. AGENDA ITEM SOS-493 CC7 Resolution No. 14257, "Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of an Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement Related to the Partial Prepayment and Defeasance of the Alameda Public Financing Authority's Series 2004 Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes Alameda Power & Telecom}, and Approving Related Documents and Actions." Adopted; and SOS-05 APFA7 Resolution No. OS-18, "Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of an Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement Related to the Partial Prepayment and Defeasance of the Authority's Series 2004 Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes Alameda Power & Telecom}, and Approving Related Documents and Actions." Adopted; and SOS-493 CC A7 ordinance No. 2986, "Approving and Authorizing the Execution of All Necessary Agreements and Documents for the Sale of the Alameda Power & Telecom Telecommunications Business Line to Comcast of Alameda, Inc." Passed. The Alameda Power & Telecom SAP&T7 General Manager gave a Power Point presentation. * ~ (OS-494 CC} Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. **~ Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether tonight's presentation was provided to the Public Utilities Board last night. Speciai Joint Meeting 1 Alameda City Council and Alameda PubJ.ic Financing Authority Meeting November 18, 2008 The AP&T General Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the presentation was provided to the public at a workshop last U~ednesday . vice Mayor/Authority Member Tam inquired what the projected net loss would be after repaying loans, transaction costs, and the employee severance agreement; stated that she is trying to understand potential impacts on electric rates. The AP&T General Manager responded the $44 million interfund transfer would be written off and carried as an asset on the electric books and a debt on the telecom books; electric assets would be reduced by approximately $40 million for a total of $120 million; rating agencies look at AP&T as a cash flow business; asset value is a factor, but not a primary factor; the main concern is whether the electric business would have telecom interfund transfers in the future; the sale would remove said possibility; telecom interfund transfers are a negative; the positive side is having a powerful portfolio, which is mostly renewable power; most utilities need to buy additional renewable power; the impact will most likely be positive. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan requested information on the $2.2 million transfer from the General Fund. The AP&T General Manager stated the $2.2 million is part of the litigation; that he will need to defer comment until litigation is complete; the $2.2 million was advanced to AP&T from the General Fund as part of the financing for system construction. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the $2.2 million would not expire because of the proposed transaction. The AP&T General Manager responded the issue would be discussed with the external auditors and would be influenced by pending litigation. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan requested information on litigation exposure. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she would provide information in a confidential, attorney-client privileged memo; currently, there are two lawsuits; the City has been sued by vectren who was the original partner; vectren sued the City because of allegations that the system should have made a larger net profit; the City is also in litigation with Nuveen because Nuveen would be receiving fifty cents on the dollar if the system is sold. Special ~]~~int Mceti2~g 2 Ai al~eda C ;. t y Counc i ]. anc~ Alameda Pub1 i c Financing Authority Meeting ~lovem~~er :~8, 2008 MayorlChair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting. Proponents ~In favor of the staff recommendations}: Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer; Farmer Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the meeting. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan stated that he wholeheartedly supports selling the system; employees have been exceptional; a lot of people think that the system should not be sold, but he disagrees; the industry is more competitive than expected; that he commends everyone for putting the matter into prospective. Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore complimented the AP&T General Manager and employees; stated that she is in support of the sale, but the issue is bitter sweet; the proposed sale is the fiscally responsible thing to do; customer service has been personable, attentive, and timely; the service has been great for the community. Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese thanked the AP&T General Manager and employees for all the work and great service; stated there is no other choice than to sell the system; the note exceeds the value of the system; AP&T is unable to compete in the telecom market. Mayor/Chair Johnson thanked the Public Utilities Board far the hard work and exceptional advice. Uice Mayor/Councilmember Tam stated the environment was different ten years ago when the community voted to enter the telecom business; fifteen thousand residents subscribe to the system; thanked subscribers for support; stated the City Council will work with the Public Utilities Board to provide opportunities to increase competition in order to provide competitive rates for Alameda residents; thanked the City Manager/Executive Director, City Attorney/Legal Counsel, and AP&T General Manager for the intense effort to get the best deal; stated that she is in favor of the sale. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she appreciates the AP&T General Manager's comments regarding current and future re-organization to ensure that AP&T is operating in the most efficient way; that she appreciates the pro-active approach, Special Joint Meeting 3 Alameda City Council and Alameda Public Financing Authority Meeting November i8, 2008 Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore moved adoption of resolutions and passage of ordinance. Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 12:25 a.m, Respectfully submitted, Lora weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Alameda Public Financing Authority 1 The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act . Special :J.:int: i~~ieeting 4 Alameda City Council and Alameda Public Financing Au~horiCy Meeting November 1.8, ~U08 UNAPPRQVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - - MARCH 3, 2009 - - - 7:31 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 11:47 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Chair Johnson announced that the Minutes paragraph no. 09- ] were pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Commissoner 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.] X09- } Minutes of the Special Joint Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and CIC Meeting held on February 3, 2009. Commissioner Gilmore stated that she does not recall that the Facade Grant Program has any money; inquired whether the $800,000 would be split between water repairs and electrical upgrades. The Development Services Director responded $150,000 would go towards water repairs; $200,000 would be used from interest earnings from the 2003 Merged Bond to pay a portion of the $450,000 in water repairs; $200,000 would be taken from the Fleet Industrial Supply Center revenue and transferred to the Facade Grant Program; the staff report incorrectly noted $750,000 instead of $800,000. ~*09- } Resolution No. 08-158, "Referring the Proposed Ninth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Community Improvement Project and the Proposed Seventh Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the West End Community Improvement Project to the Planning Board for Report and Recommendation and to the Economic Development Commission for Review and Consideration." Adopted. AGENDA ITEM X09- } Update on the Alameda Landing Project and presentation by Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission March 3, 2009 Catellus. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a brief presentation. *** (09- ~} Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Mayor Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - Ayes: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson -- 4: Noes: Commissioner Tam - 1. *** Tom Marshall, Catellus Managing Director, gave a brief update. Commissioner deHaan stated seeing Target in the mix is nice; that he is fearful of a stand-alone project; surrounding businesses would be cookie cutter in nature. Mr. Marshall stated just having a Target makes no economic sense; Target is an important component to the project; a collective decision needs to be made regarding moving forward with Target or do nothing at all. Commissioner deHaan inquired what safe guards are in place to ensure a necessary level of development. Mr. Marshall responded the site plan is an old site plan that has Target laid out with the rest of the center; stated the rest of the center is in jeopardy, which is a temporary situation. The Assistant City Manager stated whatever is built would still need to comply with the Site Plan; the Disposition and Development Agreement has timelines; default would occur if development did not occur within the timelines and the project would be taken back and remarketed to a different developer; a market cannot be guaranteed. Commissioner deHaan stated check off points need to be met; retail types need to be reviewed; focus cannot be lost. Mr. Marshall stated tenant enthusiasm has cut back within the last nine months; having a Target partially pays for the Webster Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Project. Commissioner deHaan stated check off points need to be met; that he does not want to have Target surrounded by tumble weeds. Speciai Meeting Community Improvement Commission March 3, 2009 Commissioner Matarrese concurred with Commissioner deHaan; requested continual updates on milestones. Mr. Marshall stated a Purchase and Sale Agreement could happen late spring and would start the Target process; a binding deal would not happen until the end of the year; pursuing a Target requires a significant amount of money. Chair Johnson stated looking at phasing adjustments makes sense; that she is not hearing that Catellus is giving up on the rest of the project; Target is an important tenant. Mr. Marshall stated Catellus has an alternative first phase and views the project as mixed use. Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the projected Target revenues, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded approximately $225,000. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Target would be approximately 80,000 square feet, to which Mr. Marshall responded a little larger. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Clif Bar is still a possibility. Mr. Marshall responded that Clif Bar is pursuing another opportunity on the Island and got caught up in the peanut recall. Commissioner Tam inquired whether Catellus has no funding for the Webster Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Project unless the Target project moves forward, at which point Catellus would be able to leverage and capitalize the infrastructure for the street or demolition and horizontal infrastructure to provide service for Target. Mr. Marshall responded Catellus' obligation to complete improvements to support retail commences when demolition starts; the Webster Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Project is required to for retail; Catellus' commitment is commensurate to the amount of initial retail. Commissioner deHaan stated times are tough; open communication is very important; Catellus is important to the City. Mr. Marshall stated that Sean Whiskeman, Catellus Vice President, is a good resource for specific questions regarding retail. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission March 3, 2009 ADJOURNMENT X09- } There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:17 a.m. in memory of former Police officer Robert Davey, Jr. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Speciai Meeting Community improvement Commission March 3, 2009 The report for CIC Item #3-A will be provided under separate cover. ^ Proclamation W~E~R~AS, Wif~R~~IS, W}E£R£,45, W}E£R~,45, W~f~R~,4S, W}E£R£tlS, 'J, f rom the da s of; the::A•merican~-Revolution to the current lobal war Y _ ' ,,;r:', :: .~ g on terror :woe~:~,~`ve~ b~rav~:~:`, aerv~d~ ~a~us~~-.countr /and ' r . .I~~~ •.:'1 •' i~'v,~. .;iivs~r-:iI1'- ,~.~.:~'F~~'~r-~,., '[;;,i7y:'~i~:y,.•".'i':: -;lei,; •, '.. •' F:. ; 5„rrr ~:•SiYr t'<<;.~;.,y 1'. ~r•'r.:!' „I. ~~~-•4':•ri ~.+'+}:~~, r','; "~r;1~'fl%.~, •I:- ..r•,• ~ •f,:: ~, - 1~ /' ,~'i l 1' . [ 7 :.C' 3 :~e~~ ~h~ r~b~e~n ~ ~:~ ~~ :.~~:~: ~~ .d7~f~ ~1 -W:~~ '~a~' said th 1 ,,,,: .1 ~, ?~. ~.~ ~r I .~: ;.: `=; ~. ~~.~~ e u tirrtate '~ a•r ,.i}` ;~L;ti.ll;'S~~h~' f'rr~ ra~'~n(1,l.nl:r~:.1,' E t•, { fi <.~d"•~~ r ?~ ,r~ ;•1rn'~`,rr+l-,,::~' ~pr,:: <, r ,> , S-~,5•, { n~:,~~ ,,> 4,,ti •,.J,..r°~ ~ ~.... t' ,r~r.7.,.,Tj .,: ,,~, ,. ~'~ rr~;Y,.' .'Lr~ ((~~~ir.,. }5Se, r.r' ~''( S•' 1.r ~ t•'~!r~t, C~,~ti;:,:`:•~'';I'•I.r Ir•";•~ '%1 :il'~ r.. ,I ''7:.~, Ili ~'.7,,i~'1': 1r1 .•J ~(/"'}'.,~~}~If'~.jl'~,1"1: .Y¢¢r~~ rir~i:~ •4J, ~, ~ .I; +'•'~ ,~C~ .,~~r 1~ ''r ., ' 1 !~i rig: ~~•~: :'./6~'~j°lti~a, +,C ,ar.: i(~,r~;y~~~.;:}il~~J sr.. l~ .ri `,i~~r ~..~,; ~?. ~r; ;^,l'•j~); 1:~7~~', :'~~~75i'~ . , r - -,,`, '•i;~ .Y ,v,'~ ,r.+r.• .,--'i. '1 ~:1{n.~•,_a~;~,ir .r~_I ~'i~•. ~ti' r, i:~;'`;,h'rn.. ~ ~1' , .: . - I f(~' ,..-'r. j"Ji',`.v". r'11•.)'•I'7Y1 ~~;:.',7 t ,I.' sa~~r~Yxce.~~~ r:: '~,x,;,~.`~~•j.~~.~~~~:;. r - ,.~•, „1•r~':f:+c+,~,_.,~a,_ ,• tt ~{. ~Yl••i, !f,~:,i~7J1~.,Ti., F~,%: !. •, r~r~ I 1%~ ''~`L~'~:: ~.: ~ ! 1r, ~: ~~ ~ •.\';' "'' l'r''~,~'. $~,ti.fJ.!!r•''rli .:~:[y..l !.~•~~.. ;r: /..r, 77iif 7. ~':. f!-.,~,~:,J:, ~y.- Yi. •'.: J`1.1/. .1.'R:iri: !~•,: ~~ {. ~'i'c •: r;1 ';l:'- i~Sr.,A!1''. ~• h,Y~' ~.!''.~r, .y. :Jrr ~.I..r,kfalr1i;C,, n t~S~'; •' , i ~, r ,~}~~1;s.r ~yrl.jllr:':~?'+1 ~,.li~; !. y.;. p ,~'Y~•'"f?: r ~~ i"••1;,,;t'.\~. ''.'.`r~:ii 1„ , ": Pi;i•''7r , 1: ' P"::: ~r••r `ar:'~: {'I„ '~1'';r. M ,V::.. ~,;7~), . S.."~• }.+, ~}'tic-;'^'~ ;.,Py~,n' 1',• .`r f ~G Lip`„'. I,:..:ti~;. :.x;.~.'. ~~i~'~ ~~~ .f~i~ l'+~ .~~.-,,{--,r}'•~'•~'rrll:",' ..~i'~:..~ ~.!~F S •Ni~~'af i.. ~,~~F~' ~.J' x:': r:t:.;fi~t~ ~ ,r'i }. I,Y! ~'1~,~ . ~+r;~ '.rJ.7Vn~-f`}~.a..'d{.~- ,~7•„fr..ir./.:'+ti,-rrll;f'+'..•~{. i ~.;f ~ .1.•.-rti-Sli,,'. ~d .i ~~.r~, YY, dr ,~r•.: •~'I' I I !r~ 4:l~ I, f~' ` fr,:. ~, las: ;.'1n[''/ • 1 1r, '~ ~ i.l .•'.C•'.:'y~1 .! ~ ~.1'~f .'1,, i"fj'i'~'~`~~~._.• , r :r :1 ±';:;~,•~;r.'•~'~ ~', ~~'. ,,1,". ;~,:.:,r,,..'.il 'y •.~:~•rl ,." •,~~-r~:.r,r..•-:.:,fir f::i:l, r;;r r `.I~ i ~ ~; A., i ll: ~~ j•.•!\ il~N,, r .1 r~ ~ '~~i(' ~l..~y ; L,f,~: ':~' ~i ~ ,~ r;! - •;,•• - .; r,' I'• :~~~~; •; lv,, :`6r~r -r u .1:G~",,'.}E:','1 ~'•`r~~~"~' ' 1''r r 1•'• :1 :+4,': '~!+1.:: n1•''~:~, ~ ~' - +'(.'.~y~`S, ~r:,~r'75rj•, •k,v;" - .h, .:li ~4~~; ~'. ~`~~','N•;:t. .~.~;~Y.: ..S%/l •{ .j,. •'~~.~ ;ri v,, t. .1• ,,:f' 'r'i.. .~l'~ ,u~i'~i'~;•iJ ;'•li'*~t-r~~~r `.~''4'l,- :%,rb r•,1: ri,1~~~. ,~: .~r,, - ,.lK rv`s'Fr"r~,l1j+. 7r. ., 5., ,,-:r1,}~ r v;G•'c.. 1: ~,.,e,'.' ,n~rl~r r,~'',''~ ! 1~ I}rr:'!,:~,r'!~,j" ''~~• •,SS'~ ~.C•a ~r:a;~~s~~~hbr~e~~to~:;~~,6~~~`90`~~•wo~•~~:~,':~~ie.;~.~:4:~~r, ~+ ;,,',,~~~.: , ; ..- ~~{•'d.~;~; ..I",~,::~;*:~.+i ;.rs.: ,'•~Kr(,.; •rra''~.:, t.. .~1:.!hiyi;yr',:~• ~'V~~ .~.'ar 'din:, .4''i.^f::': r7': ~ •'r - - ,;.~ - •'II,:"~r,.'.' ;Ir 1.Y' 'rJ.: ~I. :1~ ~ .I~.~," `:4~'Y•~•r" , :r~. .,15.. ,I;r. 'i.i%.'~•rl:iJ~!":ri~,:,h..q':'I.'i~ti+.' .; r;• ,"rf'~`•:~'r`'..,,;,r,.;n,'.';:i'::~i~.'' - ~ .,~~: •( .rr•: -.rf'y:,,•71• r. ` '1.; ,iq;.. ~~ti",~ !I^ sr :lye ~1",i', - .i ,tiA:„ rr ~• r4•"- •r:T ,, I. •wo~ -e~n..`r:::are`~`::~• `e.~Y '~'s,~es-t~:.::. • r~ ~v~n` r ,., , ~. 7~.. .,, , - ~t~. ,. r,•: _~~ o oil' v~~~t~lr:~~'~':t~~ veteran [~, ' d:'~:;i.~I~~, ~ ~~`,)•, I, . ~.]'iy.,. i:,~ '\.J,~:~ ~i s. ~: fir: ~.,~'~.~ '•: i',L':~••J•'~,': ~.'. ',f - - :'4,,11. it f. rri ~:'~ •,'r:5j~r r'n /f~rl-•7. .:i'I':`'~+'~!2 ..lr-r i • S . •'',• ~.4'Cr:' i.r',':~; • ~-''~:. ~•r •'rr.~..: ~ :,a} i. ,. t.::~ri,',:.'._'; i,.. !~;i.j ~, '~1. ~': ~• - ';rJ ..l'-,,d::. ~:`. .,Ir., 1.',i i.-1•!'i~' nlS. !r'~i. i ~,. r. 4d;, T~^ ;I~' ~' •1~ • •,o~ .t~1a~t~o i d`. u I i ~ hrY - ~ 1'• • y ^~ ~~'~r! y~.'~~L~ ,~. bJ/~'!~~•;th~,n~imbers ~n r ~ ~`~:;~1~.~~s~t~;:3~~ ~ ~~a~s• and ,1 .L's~~ .~'~~~'iF~:.. •:l ~; ;N ~•,~ ,;hfr .ti~fl„r .~/~':: ~.':.i,.' '~ r I r. ~,~ .v~:' 'i+. ~' '~~4'~ I.J., i'=1." ! e~~'t •ry''... ~~, l~•! - ~I'rr::~'vrr,il:•. ..IT •,.~ '.i~, .~r~. ~•F., r~~Y1,.~.'. ~.~,j, ~' Iv~:~ ,~., ,i'I:. 'fit ~ , ~ - - i~'r'"~ '. lll7•f f. i~r"•'' :Ili. ' ..':I . is :r . ! ti• ~~~, .;. \ -.woert~ a~re~~ •~ ~l~a~`":~ ari~~:~~ `oa~t~ari~.and~:.ro~v~~ri :r•~~ l , P,.: Y:: ~. - ., , ~ - . ~: ~ o• a u~~~the mlhtarv, art :14° `'~~` f - - `! ~~ d~ /o o act~ve~~~d~~ =.de; ,ao ed•`~of~:rers are~wromen and ~'~:: _ . - •' - - - C;; cry' • _ , ::,.: ~. ~ - .. I - - - women~have~~•~•selflessl 1fo• .:h. f'1 ~ ~ • .~: ~ : r . ^~~ - •• •,y ug t orl~.our~=~lilie~.tes,'and defended our y r' - - ~~ - ,. Y .; U ~ r r: ~~I~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ?~ R ~ R , ~ ,~~ R~$D ~.~~, that I, Beverl ~. ahnson, Ma or of Y~ y the pity of Alameda, do hereby express my thanks to women in the military who have served courageously and honorably in all campaigns, and proclaim March 16-21, 2449, as Wmnevv~Mi,L;xary }ELStory Wee~v in the City of Alameda and urge residents to loin me in thanking all women who have served and are serving our nation as members of the United States Armed Forces. ~..~ ve . j son Mayor City Council Agenda item #3-A 03-'~ 7-09 ^ - ^ Proclamation W }E~R~,4S, W}E£R~+4S, W}E~R£+45, W~E~R~,4S, WiE~REAS, W}f ~R£tiS, the young people of Alameda, California, are tomorrow's leaders; and man such oun ~ ~o le :rte~d ~rof esslonal ouch services to hel them co ,' , .+ ~~k: l... r :., ~. ; ~ ~~ - .~ ~~~ ..~:a ,,,,., ',,1:, ' ' ~. ' ~ ~ ~. A+ p~1';~~ ~~t~~ ~:;w~z~'~~;tir~ +e~ o~~~ I gal ~~,~ ~f ~nancial h r • ``~ Q )' a dshi s and I n 1 r,+,r.,3r'„jr•' - ;io:".'i:i~L"," ~'}'+'' ~~,' ~I rr,':-.1 ":,la~!4:1+ i. •r 7.• ~• 'u.:,r~ p i.'.r~ ~~rl:~ ..yl.rt.;'i'.'i:{'ii'•~,•i~a;i~r~7~iZv:!-v..i.y.f;'i~;,zAb{:~4;~~~y~.'S'"~'' *. '''^: 'v_')~~ :!4';.j'•~'"~i'~. tie'' .f?•• i'I''+,wuJs:yr r~, r..• r,r r:!~'~'~5, :ri:ti~';:{'•~r~ ~'j r'ru ~l~ii'~~.. ~:rr,' ~ •5r. rf l:: rl`i.~:. ~'iir }..'1'F'. ~"lr' "•1 ~yY:: ~'f.~,5.~~~L1 .:, r~'.i .,/,• ~~~I.• ' ' rr''A5%,+Y;~'.°.L''1. +~ ~ "1.;:+~f~.il •,. +, :;. ~,r';(l. 5 r'.'~~1, -':+ .'I'. - r•cr: •:l'p i.',r • r. +:-• ~i ~.',•il Jr.,,:,~'~y.~ .~ r:lr'.. -.M :.' ~+:r'?r;i ~rv.~ir;~~~;W~•r~";'`.'7.'::~ ~~ • 'r:,. ~}~~.: i'r:. i'`Irr. -•!l~k,r; ,4r_,'~~~++ ~ ~'~~~i ~~ ~ ~,'; rir i,~'Tri (s: }. i:r y~~ :'+i ~irt~?J~~!.~I~ ' .r.^ firs;{Y'r,:y~„J r ;F,.'.r~S'~-. J.r Y: L ~~,,,, r• :Y.' - 1+ - '~3' ,r I s . .f:. r• '~~`,~• ~~ ~:r(~r`, a r~"('.z .., ''1. r k ii+ • l,r,, /r'i rll.;'i' r r H ~~ lP 5,'H',.. ~~r:: 4•~~, rtY,7~ r; ~Il'+.~iv -: rl : i ~ ~ ~ f 'r r ;iic'r~_r } 1ti~.`f~~'~I, k mr r"'~ ,^" , ja r•~, r, .~`}ti ~.t '~~1: ~' }l rti:y~:'!5-rf, l~. .:i.•^ :ill ''~~r: •,.I~'+ ! r ..~'.,,~:~{~'''; •'S,''ir.r~y~. }j'z' ilr'iij .~!}ly~rf~ ~~ti. lY~~e~n~ i'~' 'rri .`'', ` ~" 7ri.: *.? ~ .I~rr. c;,.. y. ~. ' }j7r • ,~; Ir ,~y ~~r F~}~ i~~r:7i... ~:r~'. •:.S r.., ~ ~ • + i. the. r,5.3 4. Y ~•, ~~o ~s~&~I(~~„~L,~~~•,,'!IF ub!.~~~- r.~..,,a~i~z ob~~i, ,~ ~. ces t ..Y.. - hr ,~,~~' ,~~r~'~1 ,k,~a. ' ~-~ ' ~~ .~ rr Ir~ ~.Y..~ar~e~,a~~~: `~rovYdes serve o ~I:yr?}5.;• ,.C:%~'R', ,f••+}:4.':''r: ,.Ipr JVr~'.': ,C',g:;^.,L,'. i7i~,.Y' l' YSfi +r,r Ur '1q •r.:•. •_.p •:r;• - '' ~r;l. ~,;. ~1;•'; }. "~;~':~'+:' I ~1~.• r'~ 'YJ.:s^~.rr '.~,{'Sl?~' ~ I~.l, ~•:r'FJ'~': `7'~I•' i'a - :'li.r+;:"M'.,4;.in•~•r;x!'~. 1U. ', ~.j1{..~: + ~'rtrki'~,.;+.r+.:,+~~';. ,i,l,„?~•/': I r 'Y' '~>r'~• ~iJS11 ~i f.~lr'}I~+Ah}}.~l+r F it tJS~r%H~' ~`r. ''' r ~l,d;i :., :' r , ~' ~~~~.i. ,r r l:~`~r,.r,~, ~. 1 l ,. .~irJ~.JrD { ) :')•,r~ 11:`X~:~,Lr.~r •I~, ./'.'r,l ' rnore;• th~~ n~ 1ao+,.., ~ (~~ P ~A+rI r + ;, t y ' ' ~r~ r1.~i:lr ~ i i. I ;i. !!~±',',r:i. .,rF...r ,,}°,\;IC G~: :•TO .~.~i;annr ~'S rrd~~:~;,•,.`~k~~ ~;I;';..:~~. rr ~ •'I.",5:;~,'•'~;'~ii~ i~'[~o i' r i' ~, ~n1; i; rye,^`' '~~..~lr•r.~ . .. ~ ,+' :~i~r ,.4~ '~~: ~i .:~,•, .~C:,<r..~~~::,. ~., r+,•r.f~?r:r(ifo•. wi_,+':~~,~.:;~.~:.~ ~. :.5;'i` ,` I,' .,i, i'' ''J'rGir :hj' ~ - : f,'- ~.ir.:.;,; ! ~t;r.•}7~ffr},:, '!rr''i ~15:.Y; ~.:~ + :r .. ':'~:.', ti.. ~:!• .4y:Yr •1.T '.1. 'o%'M1; :r:, - :1:.^f ~! ~:F-•r/;~ ~ It.~Gi S.~:~i)r'~'.•4„; Ti, ~:a r J.'rV r~Lr.' ~ ~ l :i'CNI~ .}:''S'f'. ) ~L.•.•.~ ~ ::1•.F-i,I, •~rr, :k: 1;;1•,,~:•f '~4:li"':,~~:;:':irl'' ,7:`~,::.' ~ `r~7,;r~ ~ q ,r': .'a;'•. ^}~,. }.' a. nrS ~.i` .r'al .s Id~^: r(! ~ .•r'`:[:' 5N_ ~11. __.: +. ~ )•: ' p I 1 ..~ `;Bo;.:s:,$~ ~ :xr~ s:~+Clu~s.. are ~ at ~-~ . ,fF~or fir, r ~^;: ..Y.. •r+:,.,.: .,' r~ ":r.}.•~ .:,, ,r. ~~ .,.:..~~ ~.v ,,Q~.~:.of~~~~effa~rts to romote - .;+~ c~.;:`t 'r' r' .,k•. ~~~:: Yr. ;r. ..~}.. ley,,. '',r:y,i .. ,~7 + r,. ~ +,~. ~l . - - ''S. - rr~ .~~'.;'? . ,,,.:.,,.a~.-, ~tir.: .,• ~•~~e~o .,n~~~n~~ re~~atx+on~~. and career '`l,~.',t~:, r7 r~: .~L,1~~ '. l,l, .r ~7'j; ~J, ~'F~~~~:V.;:,'~ ~ :L :Y /;'.:'~'~ '~.'.~ '~.rr;. ~~~~, r..ii.. - ..T~•'Cr} :.I. -i':r' .~lt•~,': h' ^r'•.~, r ,,~• it r,_1,,; 'r.' rl~'+ '~1.- !:Il`„j •f ~~'l1' 1.511. ~. i+}i ;'f;'F. f.. i.: r.'~ r~ ~~,[~`..Y•? , ~', ::L'r - - ~ ern ' f; ': 1'N•r• ' '.1'..! ~• - ")~ %~'/~; _ :!l'..i;:,' ~.r. I 7r~ ~„L.~, r:~~',J Imo..,, ~ 5j .'~,~'~. Y.':. :}.~r~•' rr~•:y, .~~..,-- ;.'.`,~ :, •.5 ',tiy..+ nl. `;,.,.'r.,: }....;:;:•;~,1; ri,.~ r -~Ve o" w: nt.,.,,~.~ealth:_ ~..~nd.~~~life~~: sills,+"~:,,, r ~F,~,~p.. , r~r , .~, _ .:, ..r, .rr: .:, • _..,...,~e::~,:;ar~t~s,~ a~ }~~or~s~ fitness and - ~recreati,'~. ~subs~tan' ~ - ~~~' 1 - ., -,o , , cep abuse: ~ reventior~ I d~~~~-~ ~u~c reventron and J~ ~r,.- .,; - •,~p - ~~•. - :q.'.. gy=p. to ac: 'rb 'zas :,;arid'- .. ~, :,~, , . . ~' I,~i:,:: ,,I.,.. ,... ti ~ - .. -,,, ,.,,•, - ~:~ „i:~~'-': '; k'i Sa 'i :, : :~ r the~~B;o~ .a~~~`Gir~~s:Clubror~ ,azu2a~~oris`-in.~oura:~- ~.~` . y. ,. _,.,.!gY - tafe~~hel ensure that our ...-1r~rr:~ - '''r'r - - .~+• t l'I - _ ~, r young;,people stay' off ~tle streets,: of ~eri~ •~ therY%-a:~~saf a and supportive :~+ - ,g' place~:a~:r ~ o arid;;provd~~ them vir~~~~`~~u'ali~.~ ~ `~ ~ro ramsr and ,, . ~,. ':1,'. . - ~. , . .. • . - ,: - the Boys & Girls ~~ubs o~ Alamed~a:~,wll~~,celebrate National Bo s & .•;. ~ Y Girls Club week Z~~~9 ~~alon ~• ! ~~ withsome 3 70o clubs servin over 4.5 g ~ r g million kids nationwide. n10W, ~~R~~OR~, ~~ IT R~SOLVf~, thatI, Beverly j. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim March 22 through March 28, 2009, as 8oys~~'r GirL~Clu.U-Wee#~ in the City of Alameda and call on the residents of Alameda to join me in recognizin and g commending the Boys & Girls Club organizations in our state for providin g comprehensive, of f ective services to the young people in our communities. -~ City Council ~ son A enda Item #3-B 9 r D3-'I T-D9 ^ UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - - MARCH 3, 2009 - - - 6:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL ~ Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: Tam, The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: X09- 7 Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation X54955.9}; Name of case: Alameda Gateway Ltd. v. City of Alameda. X09- } Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations: Alameda Police officers Association ~APOA} . X09- } Conference with Labor Negotiator X54957.6}; Agency Negotiator: City Attorney; Name: City Manager. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Litigation, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel and gave direction to Legal Counsel regarding its defense; regarding APOA, Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators regarding the status of Contract negotiations; and regarding City Manager, Council provided negotiating parameters to Legal Counsel. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:45 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 March 3, 2dQ9 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - - - - - MARCH 3, 2009 - -- - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:55 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (09-- 7 Proclamation declaring March 2009 as Polio Awareness 1'1Vl11.11 . Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to John Stafford, President of Alameda Rotary. Mr. Stafford thanked Council for the proclamation; stated more work needs to be done to eradicate polio once and for all. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 09- ], the recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report [paragraph no. 09- ], and the Final Passage [paragraph no. 09- ] were pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] X09- ~ Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on February 7, 2009, the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on February 17, 2009, and the Special City Council Meeting held on February 24, 2009. Councilmember Tam stated that she would abstain from voting on the February 17, 2009 minutes. Regular Meeting 1 Alameda City Council March 3, 2009 Councilmember Tam moved approval of the February 7, 2009 and February 24, 2009 minutes. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -- 5. Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the February 17, 2009 minutes. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3. Abstentions: Councilmembers Gilmore and Tam - 2. ~*09- } Ratified bills in the amount of $3,417,521.53. (09- } Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending September 30, 2008. Speaker: David Howard, Alameda, submitted handout. Councilmember Gilmore complimented the Finance Department for the report; stated the report is complete; that she is impressed with the County and State information; comparative quarters show that the City has not varied much; that she would like to have next quarter's receipts compared to this quarter receipts. The Interim Finance Director stated the sales tax consultant advised public information could not be released if a particular category had less than three businesses; staff is in the process of revising the chart; the restaurant category saw an over 20% increase. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Harbor Bay Business Park change is because more businesses are coming in and the reverse is true of Alameda Point, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the reoccurring decline is a concern; the State held half way stable because of service station figures, which are currently declining. Councilmember Matarrese requested clarification on the increase in wholesale building materials which is a triple digit increase. The Interim Finance Director stated Kohl's construction contributed to the increase; projected sales tax is $5.2 million for this year; the f figure was reduced to $4.8 million mid year; staf f hold f firm that $4.S million will come in this year. Regular Meeting 2 Alameda City Council March 3, 2009 Councilmember Tam stated that she is impressed with the North of Lincoln Avenue and Webster Street sales tax; inquired what triggered the increase. The Interim Finance Director responded that the next report would target geography and provide a better understanding of growth. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ~*09- } Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute Agreements with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority and Harbor Bay Maritime for the Operation of the MV Pisces. X09- } Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article Xx to Chapter xIII Building and Housing} and Amending Subsection 30-7.12 Reduction in Parking Requirements for Existing Facilities} of Section ~ 30-7 ~Of f ~-Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations? of Chapter xxx Development Regulations}, By Adding Subsection 30-7.12~c} to Allow for Reduction in Parking Requirements for Seismic Retrofit. Continued to March l7, 2009. Speaker: Former Councilmember Barbara Derr, Alameda, provided a handout. Vice Mayor deHaan requested an explanation of the fee structure. The Building Official stated the property owner would have eighteen months to provide an engineering report once notification is given; a $750 fee would be charged once the report is submitted. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the fee would be per unit, to which the Building Official responded the fee would be per building. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a condominium would be charged as one unit, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired why "soft story" is not included in the title. The Building Official responded that he does not know; stated "soft story" is noted throughout the report; several articles have been Regular Meeting ~ Alameda City Council March 3, 2009 written on the matter; property owners were notified of two public workshops. Councilmember Tam stated an apartment manager expressed some desire to have Council look at extending the time to twenty months because the magnitude of work would make it difficult for owners. The Building Official stated the proposed ordinance would request a report within eighteen months, not that the work be done. Mayor Johnson stated the first step is the report requirement; Council has not adopted any mandatory action yet. The Building Official stated the only requirements would be to have the report done within eighteen months and install a shut-off value within sixty days of notification. Mayor Johnson stated the second part would address soft story structure issues; there is still quite a bit of time in terms of taking action. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a fee would still be charged if a determination is made that there is no impact. The Building Official responded the property owner would have the ability to appeal before completing the report; stated there would not be a cost until the report is submitted; staff is being careful in identifying the buildings; volunteer engineers would be inspecting the buildings. Mayor Johnson stated a speaker at the last Council meeting mentioned that he did some retrofitting and believes that his structure is sound; inquired whether the speaker could appeal before a study is performed, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Tam inquired whether insurance companies and banks penalize property owners once the buildings are identified as soft story. The Building Official responded insurance companies know whether a building is soft story; Berkeley and Fremont owners have been able to obtain insurance and loans. Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance. Mayor Johnson seconded the motion. Regular Meeting 4 Alameda City Council March 3, 20Q9 Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated that she was not at the last Council meeting; that she does not have the real flavor of the speakers' comments and is uncomfortable voting either way on the matter. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he will withdraw his motion and defer the matter until the next Council meeting. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS None. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS X09- } Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's denial of a request to remove 2413 Buena Vista Avenue from the Alameda Historical Building Study List and denial of a Certificate of Approval to allow demolition of the structure; and X09- A} Resolution No. 14309, "Upholding the appeal with direction that the demolition permit not be issued until project permits are pulled and additional efforts be made to relocate the house." Adopted. The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents: ~In favor of appeal}: Bill Phua, Appellant/Applicant; Hugh K. Phares, Alameda; John M. Costello, Alameda; Leonard Goode; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association ~PSBA}; Debbie George, PSBR: Donna Layburn, Market Place. Opponents: ~In favor of appeal}: Adam Garfinkle, Alameda; Patsy Paul, Alameda, submitted comments}; Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Randall Miller, Historical Advisory Board ~HAB}; Valerie Turpen, Alameda; Betsy Mathieson, Alameda, submitted handout}; Richard W. Rutter, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society ~AAPS}; Christopher Buckley, AAPS; Erik Miller, Alameda; Nancy Clark, Alameda; Melanie Wartenber, Alameda; Corinne Lambden, Alameda. Neutral: Mark Irons, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Matarrese requested information on the zoning of the Regular Meeting 5 Alameda City Council March 3, 2009 parking lots. The Planning Services Manager stated the parking lots are zoned Commercial Manufacturing ACM} . Councilmember Matarrese inquired what the zone is for the parking lot behind the Market Place, to which the Planning Services Manager responded that he believes the parking lot is zoned CM. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether zoning information is part of the real estate transaction. The Planning Services Manager responded that he does not know; stated staff would provide the information to anyone who checked with the City. Councilmember Gilmore stated speakers spoke about the house being a labor of love; that she has no doubt that the house could be restored; the problem is finding someone to love the house; anything is possible with enough money, love and desire; inquired how many parking spaces would be needed for the proposed project and how many parking places the lot would provide. The Planning Services Manager responded 50 parking spaces would be required for the proposed project; stated the total number of parking spaces on site is 40; X413 Puena Vista Avenue has approximately 17 compact parking spaces. Councilmember Gilmore requested clarification on whether 10-150 of the structure would remain original and the rest would be replicated. The Planning Services Manager stated the engineer noted that 10-15a of the structure could remain; the remaining portion would be milled to match or would be as close as possible to what is there now. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there are any rules for replication and whether it would be treated as historic preservation. The Planning Services Manager responded considered a demolition if the entire siding replacing the siding with something that considered replacement in kind and would not threshold; currently, staff is working o: historic preservation regulations. a project would be was eliminated; stated would match would be trigger the demolition n the wording of the Regular Meeting 6 Alameda City Council March 3, 2009 Councilmember Tam inquired whether the house would no longer be eligible to be on the National Register of Historic Places list if 80-90% of the materials were replaced. The Planning Services Manager responded the historic resource would not be preserved if the original siding and windows were replicated; further responded that the historic building study list was developed in late 1970's and listed properties in Alameda that were afforded historic preservation; the house no longer retains eligibility on the State list; a subsequent change in the zoning code gave historic consideration to buildings built prior to 1942. Councilmember Tam inquired whether a demolition permit would not be needed if the house was removed from the list. The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the HAB would still need to grant a Certificate of Approval because the house was built prior to 1942. Vice Mayor deHaan stated it is hard to believe that only l00 of the building would remain in tact; the roof, siding, and interior walls would remain; a house located at 1423 Morton Street was on the historical building study list; staff recommended upholding the HAB's denial of a request to tear the house down; the only difference in tonight's situation is retail upgrading. The Planning Services Manager stated the Buena Vista house was placed on the historical building study list because it is a Queen Anne Victorian cottage; that he feels that the house is no longer eligible for inclusion of the State Historic Resource Inventory because of deterioration, streetscape changes, and that the architect, designer and builder are unknown. Vice Mayor deHaan stated consistency is important; inquired whether staff is helping the owner to relocate the house to the former Island High School site. The Planning Services Manager responded the matter has been considered; stated specifics have not been discussed with the property owner. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether dialogue has been closed regarding relocation. The Planning Services Manager responded in the negative; stated the property owner is still willing to entertain proposals to relocate the house. Regular Meeting 7 Alameda City Council March 3, 2049 Vice Mayor deHaan inquired about deconstruction. The Planning Services Manager responded the reuse of existing materials is strongly encouraged; community members have expressed an interest in reusing some of the building materials. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether homes wedged in the R-5, R-2 and commercial areas would be endangered. The Planning Services Manager responded tonight's decision would be specific to the site; stated a precedent would not be set. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is hard pressed to consider removal of the house for eight spaces. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there would be 17 spaces, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how deep is the lot, to which the Planning Services Manager responded 149.85 feet deep and 40 feet wide. Mayor Johnson stated each case needs to be considered individually; that she was on the Council at the time of the Morton Street project; that she voted against demolition; the Morton Street project was not part of a larger project or parking issues; the owner owned the property for many years and allowed the property to deteriorate significantly. Councilmember Matarrese stated the system is set so that each property has its own hearing; the Morton Street house was in a residential area; the Buena Vista Avenue house is in a transition zone; decisions are difficult when there is residential next to commercial activity; the Buena Vista house is isolated from residential by the fact that there is a parking lot on the southern side; there is no indication of a noteworthy resident, architect or builder. The Planning Services Manager stated some of the architectural and historic features have deteriorated over time due to neglect; the historic neighborhood has been altered over time; the site is not associated with a historic event. Mayor Johnson stated a number of speakers stated that they do not want the building to be demolished; however, revitalization in the area is highly dependent on parking; AAPS suggested more marketing to find someone to take the house; inquired whether the owner has Regular Meeting 8 Alameda City Council March 3, 2009 any objection. Mr. Phua responded that he has no objection to giving away the house in a reasonable amount of time. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the timeframe for getting permits for the rest of the project. Mr. Phua responded as soon as the entitlement process is complete, which could be six months. Councilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the affect on the project if the demolition was contingent on obtaining a permit for construction. Mr. Phua responded there would not be a problem if building and demolition permits would be granted; stated other processes could make the project uncertain. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether deconstruction was considered, to which Mr. Phua responded not seriously. Vice Mayor deHaan stated deconstruction could result in a tax write off. Mr. Pua stated that he has not studied said option. Vice Mayor deHaan stated staff opened dialogue regarding the former Island High School site through Development Services. The Assistant City Manager stated staff discussed the matter with the School District; the house would need to be integrated into a larger project; economics need to be reviewed. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like other alternatives to be reviewed. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of granting the appeal with the condition that the demolition permit not be issued until the permits for the project are pulled. Councilrnember Matarrese stated that his motion is made by weighing the benefit of preserving a house with debatable costs against the value of a retail project on Park Street to replace sales tax loss and pushing forward the north of Lincoln Avenue project for revitalizing from Lincoln Avenue to the bridge. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the motion could include a Regular Meeting 9 AJ.ameda City Council March 3, 2009 deconstruction requirement. Councilmember Matarrese responded the motion would include having the feasibility of deconstruction and reuse to the highest extent possible. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the motion could include efforts to relocate the building. Councilmember Matarrese responded that the motion would encourage relocation without holding up permits. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion as modified. Under discussion, Councilmember Tam stated that she supports the motion; forcing the property owner to restore the house against his will and possibly not receiving any historical value after restoration seems to defeat the purpose of forcing a restoration on the site. Councilmember Gilmore urged the owner to do everything possible to try and give away the house. On the call of the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor deHaan - 1. ~D9- } Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's decision to conditionally approve a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent of the value of a historically significant residential building located at 1150 Bay Street for the purpose of remodeling a previous addition and adding a front porch, The site is located within an R-1, one Family Residential Zoning District; and adoption of related resolution. Councilmember Gilmore and Vice Mayor deHaan stated that they would recuse themselves on the matter because of living in close proximity of the subject property. The Planner III gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the existing porch is the original porch. The Planner III responded the existing porch is the original porch but has been modified; stated the side porch entrance was removed. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Regular Meeting ~ O Alameda City Council March 3, 2Q49 Proponents: ~In favor of appeal}: Robert Wooley, Appellant, submitted handout}; Robert Ramos, Alameda; John Gaskill, Alameda; Sally Damson, Alameda; Dee Keltner, Alameda. opponents: Not in favor of appeal}: Robert Mackensen, Yuba City, submitted letter}; Mark Irons, Alameda;; Tricia Emerson, Alameda; Karen Thompson, Alameda; Jerry Wilkins, Custom Kitchens; Linda McKenna, Custom Kitchens, Inc.; Craig Combs, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Mayor Johnson requested clarification on the HAB process. The Planner III stated there were two vacancies when the project went before the HAB; there were only three sitting members; the first time the project went to the HAB, the HAB voted two to one to deny the Certificate of occupancy; the second time the HAB voted two to one denying the Applicant's request for Certificate of Approval; the third time the HAB voted two to one in favor of granting the Applicant Certificate of Approval. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a minimum of three votes were needed or whether a majority of those present were needed, to which the Planner III responded a majority of those present. Mayor Johnson inquired why the project was brought back so many times. The Planner III responded the project was brought back a third time because after the HAB denied the Certificate of Approval, the Applicant was directed to redesign the porch and return the following month with a new design. The Planning Services Manager stated the HAB voted to continue the item to a future meeting to allow the Applicant to go back and redesign the project. Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter sounds like a Design Review issue, which would be handled by the Planning Board; inquired why the matter went to the HAB. The Planner III responded the project went to the HAB because the Applicant was proposing to alter more than 300 of the building; the City's Historical Preservation Ordinance requires that the Applicant receive a Certificate of Approval from the HAB; the Applicant went to the Planning Board after receiving a Certificate Regular Meeting 1 1 Alameda City Council March 3, 2009 of Approval because the approved design required a side yard set back variance; in December 2005, the project went before the Planning Board for Design Review of the entire project; the Planning Board approved the project. Councilmember Matarrese stated the ordinance needs to be revisited because the HAB was doing Planning Board work. Ms. Damson stated that one HAB Member felt compelled to revisit the previous month's vote and she changed her vote. The Planning and Building Director stated staff has been working on the ordinance for some time; the ordinance is almost ready; another item on tonight's agenda reflects a change in the Charter that would require a quorum of the full HAB to make a decision rather than a quorum of those present. Mayor Johnson inquired what was the Planning Board's decision. The Planner III responded the Planning Board granted the Applicant the variance for the side yard set back reduction and Design Review approval for the entire project, which included the porch. Councilmember Tam stated the staff report notes that a number of porches on the block have the same design as the one proposed tonight; inquired how the designs affect the streetscape in comparison to the proposed project. The Planner III responded 1150 Bay Street is in the middle of a uniform front yard set back of 34 and 3 7 feet ; many neighbors would like to have the set back maintained; the set backs are less in the 1200 block. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a reason why the porch needs to stick out beyond the roof line of the main house. The Planner III responded the Applicant would like to utilize the front portion by incorporating French doors; stated a porch would allow an opportunity to utilize more of the front yard; the design is appropriate for the house from a functionality standpoint. Mayor Johnson stated having porches on the side of the houses was deliberate and was the intent of the original neighborhood designers; having the porch extend is not a necessary part of the project; front yard extensions would significantly change the neighborhood. Councilmember Matarrese stated a chalk line could be drawn down the Regular Meeting ~ 2 Alameda City Council March 3, 20Q9 street; the historic context of the street should have been evaluated by the HAB rather than a Design Review. The Planner III stated the 1200 block of Bay Street has set backs of approximately 30 feet or less; approximately twelve homes near 1150 Bay Street maintain the 34-37 foot set back; the west side of Bay Street does not have a uniform set back. Councilmember Tam inquired whether 1115, 1128, 1134, and 11G0 Bay Street have less than a 30 foot set back and have porches with similar designs. The Planner III responded 1232 and 1114 Bay Street have a set back less than 34-37 feet; stated that he cannot confirm set backs for the other houses. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of granting the appeal with reference only to the seven foot extension of the porch into the yard. Councilmember Tam inquired what would be done with the HAB decision to grant a Certificate of Approval to alter more than 30 0 of the value of the building. Mayor Johnson stated that the Appellant has indicated that the only issue is the front porch. Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion is to uphold the appeal specific to the seven feet of the front porch area. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the property owner could proceed if a porch was built that would not encroach seven feet. The City Attorney responded that there is no legal issue with the fact that the design of the porch extends forward seven feet; stated there is no set back violation in the front yard; the porch design is the issue based on the 30% value of the building or alternatively the variance of the side yard set back. Councilmember Tam stated the Planning Board considered the design review and approved the entire project, including the front porch and the variance for the front porch and reduced side yard set back. Councilmember Matarrese stated the houses were built in a certain fashion and none of them have front porches; a similar issue occurred on Encinal Avenue; a row of three or four Victorians are viewed as historic. Regular Meeting 1 3 Alameda City Council March 3, 2409 Councilmember Tam stated Councilmember Matarrese's motion is formulated around a seven foot set back that is legal but is based on an appeal of a Major Design Review that is incorporated as part of the 30o alteration that was before the HAB; inquired whether a porch would be feasible without a seven foot encroachment. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is thinking of a side porch. Mayor Johnson inquired why the porch needs to extend beyond the front of the house. Mr. Combs responded the intent is to provide cover for the entry steps. Mayor Johnson stated side porches were deliberate. Mr. Mackensen stated the design is actually a trellis over a patio; the French doors would provide light and ventilation and need to go out somewhere; the pillars would disappear into the shrubbery and would not impose on the lawn. Councilmember Tam stated that she cannot support the motion; the Planning Board approved the seven foot legal requirement; the Encinal Avenue situation is not the same; the Bay Street homes are not exactly the same and create a nicely landscaped corridor which can still be preserved with the proposed energy efficient improvements. Mayor Johnson seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 2. Noes: Councilmember Tam - 1. Abstentions: Vice Mayor deHaan and Councilmember Gilmore - 2. The City Attorney stated three votes are required in order to take action; two Councilmembers announced conflict on the matter; the lower [HAB] decision will stand. X09- 7 Resolution No. 14310, "Revising the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alameda Police Officers Association and the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing January 6, 2008 and Ending January 2, 2010." Adopted. *** Mayor Johnson called a recess at 11:27 p.m, and reconvened the Regular Meeting at 11:31 p.m. *** Regular Meeting 1 4 Alameda City Council March 3, 2009 The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is pleased to have an agreement; thanked the Police Officers Association for helping with the City's fiscal needs; expressed appreciation to the negotiating team. Councilmember Tam echoed Councilmember Matarrese's appreciation to the Police Officers Association and negotiating team. Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. X09- ~ Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Subsection 30-4.1 ~R-1, One-Family Residence Districts} of Section 30.4 District Uses and Regulations} of Article I Zoning Districts and Regulations? Chapter xxx Development Regulations} By Deleting Subsection 30-4.1 in Its Entirety and Replacing with a New Subsection 30-4.1 to Allow Ministerial Approval of Secondary Units on Sites Having a Single-family Dwelling and Meeting Specific Standards. Introduced. The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese requested clarification of the ownership provision and conformance with State law. The Planning Services Manager stated State law allows a city to require owner occupancy on site of a second unit; people want to see the requirement in the regulations in order to preserve the character of the single family neighborhood; an owner living on the site might be more responsive to any concerns. Councilmember Tam inquired whether there would be an exception if an owner had to relocate for a short period of time. The Planning Services Manager responded the Code provides an exception of two years. Councilmember Tam inquired how realistic it would be to monitor owner occupancy of the secondary unit; further inquired whether the matter would be monitored through complaints. The Planning Services Manager responded complaints would be one way to monitor; stated another way would be to send out annual certification letters. Regular Meeting 1 5 Alameda City Council March 3, 2DD9 Councilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the penalty for non- compliance. The Planning Services Manager responded staff would need to come back to Council for a monetary penalty; stated initially, enforcement action would be taken; ultimately, citations would be issued which would be difficult. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether an owner would need to ensure that a person buying a property would live on the site; further inquired whether the City would advise the owner of record that both units could not be rented out. The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the City would require the property owner to put a deed restriction on the property; the owner would be required to live on the site. Councilmember Gilmore suggested that the owner-occupancy requirement be removed. Councilmembers Matarrese and Tam concurred with Councilmember Gilmore. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether staff would bring back the ordinance with the owner-occupancy requirement removed, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motions which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Johnson clarified that the motion included removal of the owner occupied requirement. The Planning Services Manager stated Standard T would be removed. X09- }Introduction of Ordinance Amending Various Sections of the Alameda Municipal Code Contained in Chapter II Article I Pertaining to City Council Meetings, Chapter II Article II Pertaining to the Historical Advisory Board, and Amending Ordinance No. 1082 As Amended by Ordinance No. 2497 Pertaining to an Existing Pension Fund. Introduced. Councilmember Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by Regular Meeting 1 6 Alameda City Council March 3, 2009 unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATION (4 9 - } Consideration of Mayor' s nomination for appointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board. Mayor Johnson nominated Ardella Dailey for appointment to the Social Services Human Relations Board. ADJOUNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting 1 7 Alameda City Council March 3, 2009 CITY 4 F ALAM E DA Memorandum To; Honorable Mayor and .. Members of the City Council From; Ann Marie Gallant Interim Finance Director Date: March 12, 2D09 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;ust charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. C~hecK Numbers Amount 217158 - 218151 $1,776,694.61 V18437 - V18581 $101,957.3D EFT 655 $239,272,51 EFT 656 $fiO,DOD.00 EFT fi57 $11,458.81 EFT 658 $983,325.26 EFT 659 $72, 864.03 EFT fifi0 $7,993.50 Vvid Checks: 215119 x$322.93} GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, Interim Finance Director p,s Council Warrants D3117109 $3,253,243.49 BILLS #4-B 3/11/2009 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: David Brandt Acting City Manager Date: March 17, 2009 Re: Authorize the Acting City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Alameda and the Alameda County Fire Department to Establish a Cooperative Agreement to Administer a Department of Homeland Security Assistance to Firefighters Grant, and Allocate Matchin Grant Funds BACKGROUND The City of Alameda Fire Department and its regional fire department partners, Alameda County Fire Department ~ACFD}, Fremont Fire Department, Livermore Fire Department, Pleasanton Fire Department, Newark Fire Department, and Union City Fire Department, have been awarded a Department of Homeland Security Assistance to Firefighters Grant ~AFG} to purchase interoperable portable radio equipment. The purpose of the AFG Program is to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire related hazards. DISCUSSION The attached Memorandum of Understanding ~MOU} gives the ACFD the authority to administer the grant on behalf of the City afi Alameda and its regional partners. The MOU identifies the purpose and background of this grant, the responsibilities of all partners, and the duration of the agreement. The grant, which totals $829,591, provides for the purchase of 302 Project 25- compliant portable radios with mobile chargers, spare ~ batteries, collar microphones, and installation. The grant allocation for the City' to purchase 38 radios is $130,454 which requires a 20% match of $26,091. ~'~These portable radios will equip every on-duty firefighter with interoperable communications with the Gity's regional partners and other Project 25-compliant communication systems. The purchase of these radios within this grant will lessen the future financial burden on the City by reducing the number of radios that need to be purchased to operate on the East Bay Regional Communications System. City Council Agenda Item #4-C o3-'I 1-09 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FINANCIAL IMPACT March 17, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Funds necessary far the grant match were not budgeted in FY08-09. However, sufficient funds are available in Fund ~ 19, Contingency Reserves, to serve as a match for this grant. The Interim Finance Director recommends that $26,091 of the contingency reserve be utilized as a grant match, resulting in a net fund balance of $2,816,908. MUNICIPAL C~DEIPCLICY DOCUMENT CRASS REFERENCE This action will not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Acting City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Alameda and the Alameda County Fire Department to establish a cooperative agreement t~ administer a Department of Homeland Security Assistance to Firefighters Grant, and allocate $26,091 matching grant funds. Respectfully submitted, Approved as to funds and account, i" ~°i Ann Mari allant David A. Kapler Interim Fi a ce Director Fire Chief By: Michael Fisher Division ChieflFire Marshal Attachment: Memorandum of Understandin 9 between the Alameda County Fire Department and the City of Alameda Fire Department Pur ose ' To establish a cooperative agreement between the Alameda County Fire Department thereinafter "ACED"} and its Regional Partners, including the City of Alameda Fire Department thereinafter "Department"} to provide portable radios for the purpose of enhancing interoperability communications in the fire service and to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related hazards. The ACED and Department accept and agree to abide by the terms and conditions of the grant as set forth in this document and as explained in distributed materials in the Regional Partners Handbook. Both parties agree that Federal funds under this award will be used to supplement, but not supplant, State or local funds for first responder preparedness, ^pfinifinn~ State Communications Interoperability Plan -refers to the State plan to promote interoperability communications. Regional Partners- include the fire service agencies in the cities of: Alameda, Fremont, Livermore, Pleasanton, Newark and Union City. Radio Equipment -refers to portable radios, collar miss, batteries and battery chargers as allowed by the Assistance to Firefighters Grant ~AFG} Program. Back round~,e Assistanc,,e F_ fighters Grant Prom Problem Statement: In Alameda County, the ACED and Regional Partners operate on different radio systems; thus weakening inter and infra agency daily operations and firefighter safety. Pur ose The purpose of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant ~AFG} Program is to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related hazards. The Department of Homeland Security ~DHS} has determined that the Alameda County Fire Department's AFG ~peratians City Council Attachment to Page 1 Agenda Mtem #4-C 43-'I T-D9 and Safety grant proposal met the program's purpose and has granted funds to be used towards the purchase of Radio Equipment. The AFG Regional Interoperability Project reflects the Department of Homeland Security's ~DHS} overall investment strategy priorities in: 1. Enhancing National Capabilities -grant funding will assist in moving Regional Partners closer in meeting one of the national ~ priorities under the ,National Preparedness Goal by strengthening interoperable communications capabilities. 2. Risk Based Prioritization -- grant funding will assist in moving Regional Partners closer to cost-effective, sustainable and interoperable communications systems with seamless integration into existing communication infrastructure. Regional Partners will build andlor .leverage on existing resources to strategically invest in enhancing fu#ure communications capability. 3. Interoperability -grant funding will allow Regional Partners to develop short and long term goals, activities and a training program to continue to enhance regional interoperability, consistent, in concert, andlor in parallel with the State Communications Interoperability Plan ~SCiP}. IV. Responsibilities ofACFD ..-~ -- The ACFD as lead for the 2008 Assistance Firefighters Grant and will: a. oversee the grant implementation and coordinate with state grantor. b. Act as the fiscal agent for grant including i. Invoicing Department for share of cost of equipment ii. Arranging payment to vendor iii, Prepare fiscal and program reports for state grantor iv. Audit and track grant funds~and deliverables c. Manage grant activities including but not limited to project and fiscal reports for state grantor. d. Coordinate wi#h the Department throughout the grant term. e. After receiving input from Regional Partners, make the final determination of the Radio Equipment types} to be ordered for the Department. f. Coordinate procurement of the Radio Equipment. g. Procure and deliver Radio Equipment to the assigned Department: h. Develop and provide training curriculum to Regional Partners and ensure completion. i. Verify that standard frequencies for Radio Equipment, will be used by Regional Projects in concurrence with the Alameda County Fire Mutual Aid Plan. 'Regional Partners have joined a ten County Consortium agreeing to leverage and pay a share of cost in a multimillion dollar communication infrastructure project to procure andlor maintain repeater towers and additional interoperable communication systems East Bay Regional Communication Systems - EBRCS) Page 2 V. Responsibilities of the Regional Partners ,,.~.. The City of Alameda Fire Department ~"Department"} will: a. Provide funding for 20% of the share of cost for equipment to be purchased. Share of cost shall be paid within 30 days of receipt of invoice from ACFD, in advance of equipment procurement. b. Provide inventory tracking, operational readiness and maintenance of equipment and supply written verification on or before any established deadlines, andlor as requested by ACFD. c. Participate and train its employees on the. new radio system, and supply written ~verifiication on or before any established deadlines andlor as requested by ACFD. d. Provide the following assigned liaisons} a. Primary Lead who is responsible for: Department paint of contact, program implementation and equipment installation. b. Training Lead who is responsible to oversee Department training and supply written verification of training in a timely manner and when requested, c. Fiscal Lead: responsible for accounting, fiscal reporting and payment. e. Assume liability for loss, damaged, andlor destruction ofi equipment due to its own use and may be required to replace fat own expense} such equipment as requested by ACFD, f. To the extent the Department may be eligible to receive reimbursement of funds they must submitted any requested documentation in a timely manner to the ACFD fiscal contact. ~~ g. Promptly provide any additional documentation to ACFD as requested that may be necessary in connection with grant. h. Ensure that all documents demonstrating programmatic completion are completed timely, are accurate and forwarded to ACFD documentation contact. i. Department understands that packingldistribution errors can occur and agrees to promptly return all equipment that is received in error to the ACFD Project Lead. j. Maintain a record log of equipment placement including apparatus ID and provide copies on or before any established deadlines andlor as requested by ACFD. k. Install equipment received from ACFD on or before any established timeline andlor as requested by ACFD. Vl. Duration of the MaU This M~U shall remain in place unless otherwise agreed to by both parties. Termination of this M4U shall occur upon written notice from ACFD, such termination shall not occur until all required documentation has been received from the Department and reviewed by ACFD. Page 3 An agency may terminate the MOU with ACFD any time prior to accepting radio equipment. To #erminate the agreement, advanced written notification must be received by Alameda County Fire Department Project Lead. VII, Amendments This M4U may be amended by written agreement by both parties if approved in advance according to grant contract terms and conditions. VIII. Points of Contact Agency Position Name Contact No. Emai! Project Lead Dave Lord 925.422.3401 David.lord ac ov.or ACF Fiscal ~ Lisa Hisatomi 510.618.3429 Lisa.hisatomi ac ov.or ~Trainin John VlJalsh 510.616.5518 John.walsh ac ov.or Documentation Marla Bla 51D.618.3468 Marla.bla ac ov.or Agency Position Name Contact No. Email Prima Michael Fisher 510.755.7002 mfisher alamedafire.or ALA Trainin Jim Scarborou h 51 D.337.22D1 'scarbro ci.alameda.ca.us Fiscal Michael Fisher 510.755.7oD2 mfisher alamedafire.or IX. Conflict of Law This Agreement shat! be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdictian. The M~U and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this M~U for the successors of those authorities.} Any suits brought pursuant to this M~U shall be filed with the courts of the County of Alameda, State of California. - X. Waiver A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether ofthe same or a different character. Page 4 XI. Integrated Contract This M~U represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Xil. Inserted ;Provisions ,, Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the M~U shall be deemed to be enacted herein, and the MflU shall be read and enforced as though each were included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly inserted, the M~U shall be amended per Section VII to make such insertion on application by either party. XIII. Severabiiity Should any part of this MOU be declared by a final decision of court or tribunal of compe#ent~urisdiction, #o be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority of such party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this M~U, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this MCU, absent the unexcised por#ion, can be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties. XIV. Authority to Enter into I~I~U ~. R The persons executing this MnU on behalf of their respective entities hereby represent and warrant that they have the right, power, legal capacity, and appropriate authority to enter into this MDU on behalf of the entity for which they sign. Alameda County Fire Department Sheldon Gilbert, Fire Chief City of Alameda David Brandt, Acting City Manager Date: 3~6~~0 9 Ap r ved as o Form: ~~ Richard E. Winnie, Alameda County Counsel Date: Approved as to Form: Mohammed Hill, Assistant City Attorney Page 5 CITY ~F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: David Brandt Acting City Manager Date: March 1l, 2009 Re: Award a Consultant Agreement in the Amount of $77,936 to Kier & Vvri ht, .. g Civil Engineers & Surveyors, Inc., for Surrey and Mapping Services BACKGRGUND The Development Services Department DSD} has been working with the Public Works Department DPW} to coordinate survey work needed by both departments to further projects and goals. DSD's workplan includes completion of a surve of the State Y Tidelands parcels currently under lease to Alameda Gateway that are subleased to Ba Y Ship & Yacht and Rosenblum Cellars. DSD also wants to surve the ro osed Mitchel!- Y p p Mosley Avenue, while PVV wants to survey the City-owned prope that houses the ~Y ferry terminal. A Request for Proposal RFP} was sent out that incor orated all of the ,p above project needs ~n hopes of obtaining a better price for the consolidated work. DlSCUSSIGN DSD issued a RFP for survey and mapping services for the City-owned Tidelands and surrounding area at 2900 Main Street, the ferry terminal property located on Main Street, and the proposed Mitchell-Mosley Avenue to eight firms. Gn Februa 26, 2049 ry a fve frms submitted proposals for the project. City staff evaluated the ro osals for ,p p project understanding, expertise, relevant experience, cast, and responsiveness to the RFP. The low bid from Bellecci & Associates was not a complete bid acka a as the p 9 Y did not give a price for the survey work that would be required for the interior of the Sawtaoth building. Meridian Surveying was also not selected as they did not ive a cost g for the survey work on the Mitchell-Mosley portion of the project and therefore, was considered an incomplete bid. The firm of Kier & Wright, Civil Engineers & Surve ors, . Y Inc., was selected. A copy of the agreement is on file ~n the City Clerk's office. The list of qualified bidders, from lowest to highest total project costs, is: Bidder Location Bid Amount Bellecci & Associates Concord $43,671 Meridian Surve in San Francisco $47,500 Milani & Associates Concord $69,498 City Counci! Agenda Item #4-D 43-'11-D9 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council March 17, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Bidder Location Bid Amount Kier & vllri ht Pleasanton $77 936 Wood Rodgers oakland $87,1 g0 FINANCIAL IMPACT The project is funded with Tidelands funds the survey and mapping services by Kier & $71,936. and Measure B bond monies. The cost for Wright, Civil Engineers & Surveyors, Inc. is REC~MMENDATI4N Award the Consultant Agreement in the amount of $77,936 to Kier & Wright, Civil Engineers & Surveyors, Inc. for survey and mapping services forthe City-awned marina located at 2904 Main Street, ferry terminal property located vn Main Street, and proposed Mitchell-Mosley Avenue. Respe . submitted, Leslie A. Little Development Services Director Approved as to funds and account, Ann Mari allant Interim Fi a ce Director By: Dorene E. Soto Manager, Business Development Division DBILALIDES:dc CITY 4F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: David Brandt Acting City Manager Date: March 1l, 2049 Re: Adopt a Resolution in Support of a Maritime Administration Small Ship and . y Grant to Bay Ship & Yacht Co. to Establish a Job Training Center and Program BACKG R0 U N D The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 20D9 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 authorize the U.S. Deparkment of Transportation's Maritime Administration to establish an assistance program for small shipyards. Under this program, "Supplemental Grants for Assistance to Small Shipyards", $98,000,000 is available for grants for capital improvements and related infrastructure improvements at qualified shipyards that will be effective in fosterin .. g efficiency, competitive operations, and quality ship construction, repair, and reconfiguration. Grant funds may also be used for maritime training programs to foster technical skills and opera#ional productivity in communities whose economies are related to or dependent upon the maritime industry. The Maritime Administration must receive the applications by April 20, 2009. The Maritime Administrator intends to award grants no la#er than August 11, 2009. DISCUSSIGN Bay Ship & Yacht Company Bay Ship} is a full service ship repair com an p Y headquartered in Alameda with a second facility ~n Richmond. Bay Ship has captured a significant share of the San Francisco Bay commercial dry-docking business, with the Alameda shipyard emerging as a state-of-the-ark facility. Bay Ship is current) .y completing a $10 million expansion protect, which includes reconstructing the shoreline, removing buildings, and locating a "ship elevator", known as a syncrolift, facing the estuary that can be used to lift and transfer up to five large ferry vessels at a time to a new shoreline vessel repair area. The Port of Oakland and other agencies are helpin g to fund the project. Bay Ship employs more than 250 skilled workers in Alameda. The Maritime Administration publicly noticed Supplemental Grants during the first week of March. Bay Ship is quickly preparing amulti-million dollar application, the recise p amount has not yet been determined, to create a tob training center at its Alameda City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4-E g3-'IT-09 Honorable Mayor and March 1l 2009 Members of the City Council Pa e 2 of 2 g shipyard to provide training in skilled metal work, machine work, i e fittin ,and related pp g trades. Bay Ship expects to hire many of the graduates at its ship ard. Ba Shi would Y Y p also use the grant funds to invest in new equipment to increase their efficient and . Y capacity to generate more business. Bay Ship believes that it has an excellent opportunity to receive a rant for its fanned .. 9 p training programs and shipyard improvements see Attachment}. It calculates that as few as 100 companies nationwide are eligible for the Supplemental Grant ro ram. A pg Resolution from the City of Alameda would further strengthen its application. FINANCIAL IMPACT Adoption of the Resolution has no fiscal impact on the General Fund. Su ort for Ba pp Y Ship & Yacht's grant appf ication may benefit the City by preservin and increasin g g employment and expanding the capabilities of a mayor local business. MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The City of Afameda's Economic Development Strategic Plan U date, a roved .. p pp January 2005, specif~cafly mentions Bay Ship & Yacht s $10 million ex ans~on ro'ect. p pJ The Strategic Plan states as a continuous priority: "Support the develo meat of ,. p maritime industries in Alameda. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution in support of a Maritime Administration Small Shipyard Grant to Ba . Y Ship & Yacht Co. to establish a lob training center and program. R~ully submj~d, Leslie A. Little Development Services Director By: ~~~ ~~ Eric Fon in Development Manager DBILALIEF:dc Attachment: 1. Letter from Bay Ship & Yacht Co., Regarding Job Training Center «v,K~~ ~~ Ma~'el1 ~, 2~0~ 1~ YAC~lr ~Hr ~~~a ~~~~~ 5~~~~~~1 ~~2~~n x~lt~i~~~c~~, ~,~~ ~~~~~~ {~10) X37-~I?? ~'~~~x ~SIC1) i~7-~)lti~ ~~ ~~~~~~.I,~,y- ~ h~ I~. ~~~~ ~~~~ Leslie Little, I~i~'ictar l:~evel~}pn,cant Se~~vices .i~epactnlcnt City off` Ala~,~eda 9~~ ~4r~;st Mall Sq~~are Ala~aleda, Cali~o~•nia ~4~O1 Re: Bay Ship ~; Yacht Ca. --- bola Tx•aizain~ Ce~1te~' ~ca~• ~~csl~e: Bay Ship ~ Yacht Cca. has a~1 excellent c11a11ce o1' receivixlg a federal Sti1,l~tl~~s ~~•ailt to set i~~~ a ~1~4V ~,lariti~llc joh trai~li~ag pro~;ra~11. ~~Jnder tl~c; I1G~~~ Stimulus lc~isiatian, ~~IOQ lali~iion has iacen set aside far small sllilayarcls, ad~~~i~liste~•ed by the Tederal Maritime A.c~n,i~listration, This nao~~ey is separate a~1d apart ~`~'ai11 ~~r~y funds the City ~1light otller~vise ~uaiif}~ fox•, An1oi1~, atller thins, the b~~aaat ~~~a~1ds are ~a~~ xllaritime t~~ainin~; pro~~'atns. "~f~'11ey have two L;leI11e11tS. 1~~i~'st, the prog~•atal must be anc to ~'aste~' tecl,l~ical skills and. opcratio~lal prod~~ctivity. Second, tl~e p~•ob~'alll ~11ust be 111 a Co~111,111I1~~~' w~,ose eco~~ol,~}' i5 related tD ar depe~~de~1t upon the .t1,ar1t~I11~ industry. ~e tl,i~,k. Alazlleda ~,1orc th~~1 q~taliiies as o~ae oC thcase comt]1Lll,ities, ~~~itll its st~•ot~~ Inaa~iti~alc traditioaa and tl~e i~11pa~'tant coklt~~~u~t~~ .tole that the ~~larlt~me anCl~~stry pla~rs i~~ its c~co.~1a~1~y. I~ay Slip prapases to estak~lisll ~~ jab trai~ai~ag cctater in ncv~~ space added to its ea~istin~ lacatia~, at Ala~aacda Gat~~-ay. "I~'h~ ~,L~v cct~tel' ur~li tk'ax~a Alameda ~~esidEnts aaad oti~e~~s i~a t~1C sktllcd I11~tc1l tivo]'k, ~a~achi~,.c; ~~ol'k, pipe ~ttial~ aaad reacted t~'ades. day Ship expects to employ ~,laiay o1'tlle p~•ogra111'S braduates at its ship ya~~cl. City Council Attachment to Report Re: Agenda Item #4-E 03-'I T-09 City of A.lanaeda Re: Bay Ship & Yacht Co, ~ fob Training Cente~• March 5, 2449 Page ~ The Federal fi~lads a~•e not agive-away. Bay Ship must advance 104% of the cost, and in the end must pay at least 2~% of that cost. Bay Ship is prepared to do this. Last year 52 companies applied for a total of $102 million, but since o~}iy $10 mllllon was available unde~• this progl•am, only 19 companies received awards. with $144 million this yea14, Bay Ship's chances of success look very good. one of the c~•iteria for the grant is the can~inunity's n~at•itirne ecanomy and its deed for the facility, Your staff is already Helping us develop the information we need on this. Another factor is con~mtinity support fo~• the jab training pl•aject, This is what brings our request that the City Council pass the enclosed resol~ztion suppo~~ting the job training Center and the grant application, '~Ve understand that i~~ a close case, something like this resolution can make the differe~ace in wi~~ning the grant. This being a Stimulus project, we must move quickly to be entitled to the funds a~ad demonst~•ate that we are ready to proceed, and we will do that. The City Council and staff have st~•oiagly suppo~~ted Bay Ship at key points in the past, not least when the Poet of Oakland threatened to take our pier space and put us out of business. with the City's help we have the much-improved facility that you see today, with its ship Iift and numero~is dry berths, the City has a st~•azag contributol• to the Alameda ecanomy. we at Bay Ship Look forward to cantinuixag to work in partnership with tl~e City to our mutual benefit in in~p~•oving bath aul• company and our comnlt~nity. Sin erely, VL~i 11 iam C. Elliott, General Manager CITY 4F ALAMEDA RESQLUTIQN NQ, 1 SUPPORT QF A MARITIME ADMINISTRATIaN SMALL SHIPYARD GRANT TO BAY SHIP & YACHT CQ, TQ ESTABLISH A JQB E TRAINING CENTER AND PRQGRAM ,~ y ~ WHEREAS, the City of Alameda, a community of approximate) 14,000 ~ ~ people located on Alameda island in San Francisco Ba , has a Ion histo as a ~~ .. y 9 ry ~ ~ maritime community with a significant maritime industry. o ~' a. WHEREAS, the City's once thriving maritime Indust and its econom ~. ry y ~ suffered a sign~fican# loss and still have not recovered from the closure of the Nav Y and other military bases on San Francisco Bay in the 1990s. The closure of the Alameda Nava! Air Station in 1991 alone eliminated thousands of direct 'obs and , 1 heavily impacted the entire Alameda Island and surrounding communities. WHEREAS, these blows to the City's economy, together with other changes, have left this City with sharply reduced revenues, forcing cutbacks in needed and longstanding public services. WHEREAS, the accelerating and deepening recession is having a severe impact on the California and Alameda economies. Recent statistics show unemployment in the County of Alameda, 9.3°/° in January 2009, as one of the highest in the San Francisco Bay Area, and California unemployment rates are over 10°/°, among the highest in the nation. WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Area and its inland waterways are a gateway to the Pacific Rim and critical to the local, State and nation's economies, providing a large, complex marine transporkation system for cargo and passer er g movements and intermodal transfer of cargo throughout the world. WHEREAS, Bay Ship & Yacht Co., with its shipyard facilities in this Cit of y Alameda, is one of the largest employers in the City of Alameda and the Cit 's , y largest maritime service provider, Bay Ship employs more than 250 workers, including hundreds of technically skilled, blue collar workers, who provide a vital service for ship construction, reconfiguration, refurbishment, dry-dockin and 9 repair for hundreds of government, domestic and foreign ship owners and operators annually, WHEREAS, by the authority of Section 3505 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 Pub. L. 110-417} and the section entitled "Supplemental Grants for Assistance to Smali Shipyards" in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Maritime Administration is offerin . g grants to small shipyards for among other things} ~i} maritime training programs to foster technical skills and operational productivity in communities whose economies are related to or dependent upon the maritime industry, and ii ca ital ~} p improvements and related infrastructure improvements at qualified ship ands that Y will be effective ~n fostering efficiency, competitive operations, and ualit shi q Y p construction, repair, and reconfiguration. Resolution #4-E CC 43.11.09 VvHEREAS, Bay Ship & Yacht Co. proposes to establish a job training center at its shipyard to provide training in the skilled metal work, machine work, pipe fitting and related trades, and expects to employ many of the graduates at its shipyard. VvHEREAS, a small shipyard grant to Bay Ship and Yacht Go. for this job training center will allow Bay Ship to develop the technical skills of its work force and to be more productive, and thus provide greatervalue added and cost savings to its government and commercial customers. Such a grant will also benefit the City of Alameda and the greater San Francisco Bay Area by providing employment for skilled workers and support for the City of Alameda's local economy. NO1~l, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda as follows. 1. The City of Alameda strongly supports the application of Bay Ship & Yacht Co. for a small shipyard grant from the Federal Maritime Administration, inasmuch as the maritime industry is a vital part of this City's economy and the grant will foster job training, employment and the growth of this City's economy. 2. The City of Alameda urges the Federal Maritime Administration to give the application of Bay Ship & Yacht Co. its most favorable consideration and to award a small shipyard grant to Bay Ship & Yacht Co. to establish its job training center and program. ~~**~* I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duty and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 17th day of March, 2009, by the followin 9 vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTI~NS: IN ~IIIITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 18th day of March, 2009. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALA~IEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From; David Brandt Acting City Manager Date: March 17, 2009 Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Funding for Repair and Resurfacing of Fernside Boulevard and Central Avenue, and Stating the Assurance to Complete the Proiect BACKGRGUND On February 3, 2009, the City Council adopted a resolution to endorse the street rehabilitation projects for the federal economic stimulus program, and to authorize the City Manager to approve plans and specifications and call for bids for the annual resurfacing project Project No. 82-01-29}. To standardize the process for the approval of federal stimulus funds, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ~MTC} developed a resolution template, "Resolution of Local Support, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ~ARRA} Funding" that all applicants are required to adopt to be eligible to receive funds. The Congestion Management Agency ~CMA} wilt be collecting all resolutions on behalf of MTC. To meet this request, applicants are requested to provide the CMA with an approved resolution at the time the project's Request for Authorization is submitted. DISCUSSION The following two projects were approved by the City Council on February 3, 2009: ~. Fernside Boulevard, from High Street to Thompson Avenue. This 0.35-mile stretch carries a high volume of traffic to the High Street Bridge and has bike lane traffic as well. Public vVorks proposes to reconstruct the failed areas and resurface the street. The cost is estimated at $~ ,115,000. The estimated useful life of the pavement is 20 years. 2. Central Avenue, from Pacific Avenue to Webster Street. This 1.04-mile stretch needs extensive repair. Central Avenue accesses Encinal High School, carries Bus Route 63, and is a designated truck route. Public Works proposes to reconstruct the street at an estimated cost of $1,880,000. The estimated useful life of the pavement is 20 years. City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4-F 03-'I 1-09 Honorable Mayor and Members ofthe City Council FINANCIAL IMPACT March 17, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Funds for the City's annual resurfacing program are identified in the Capital Improvement Program Project No. 52-01-29}. The estimated cost to reconstruct the two streets included in the funding proposal is $3,460,000. It is estimated that the City will receive $1,304,000 in ARRA funding. The balance of funds are available from Measure B, Gas Tax, Construction Improvement Tax, Proposition 42 monies, and the CMA -Transportation Improvement Pfan funds. There is no impact to the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CGDEIP~,LICY DnCU„MENT CRGSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. ENVIRGNMENTAL REVIEW in accordance with the California Environmental Act ~CEQA}, this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 ~c}, Existing Facilities. RECGMMENDATIGN Adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of an application for Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding for repair and resurfacing of Fernside Boulevard and Central Avenue, and stating the assurance to complete the project. Respe submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Approved as to funds and account, Ann Mari allant Interim Fi a ce Director By: Barbara. Hawkins Ind ~ City Engineer MTN:BH:gc cc: Watchdog Committee CITY OF ALAMEDA RES~LUTI~N N4. E a ~~ °~ RESGLUTIGN AUTHGRIZING THE FILING CF AN APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL AMERfCAN RECGVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT GF 2009 FUNDING FGR REPAIR AND RESURFACING GF FERNSIDE BGULEVARD AND CENTRAL AVENUE, AND STATING THE ASSURANCE TG CGMPLETE THE PRGJECT WHEREAS, the City of Alameda (herein referred as APPLICANT) is submitting an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for approximately $1,305,000 in funding from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) for the Repair and Resurfacing of Central Avenue and Fernside Boulevard Project (Project No. 82-01-29) (herein referred as PROJECT) for the MTC Regional ARRA Program (MTC Resolution No. 3885) (herein referred as PROGRAM); and WHEREAS, pursuant to ARRA, and any regulations andlor guidance promulgated thereunder, eligible project sponsors wishing to receive Re Tonal 9 ARRA funds for a project shall submit an application first with the ap ro riate p p Metropolitan Planning Grganization MPG}, for review and inclusion in the MPG's Transportation Improvement Program ~Tlf'}; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission MTC} is the MPS for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay region; and wHEREAS, MTC has adopted a Regional Project Funding Delivery Polic . y MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised applicable to federal ARRA fund delive and ry has adopted for is scheduled to adopt} in MTC Resolution No. 3855 such additional requirements as are necessary or appropriate to meet the obligationslaward deadlines in the ARRA; and WHEREAS, APPLICANT is an eligible project sponsorforARRAfunds; and wHEREAS, as part of the application for ARRA funding, MTC re uires a . q resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the followin ; 9 ~ ~ that the sponsor understands that the ARRA funding is fixed at the programmed amount, and therefore any cost increase cannot be expected to be funded with additional ARRA or other MTC-programmed funds; and 2) that PRGJECT will comply with the procedures specified in MTC's Re Tonal 9 Project Funding Delivery Policy MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised and } with all project-specific requirements as set forth in MTC's Regional ARRA Program MTC Resolution No. 3885}; and PRGJECT as described in the application, and if approved, as included in MTC's TIP; and 3) that PRGJECT will comply with all the project-specific requirements as set forth in the federal ARRA and appropriate applicable re ulatians or g guidance. Resolution #4-FCC 43-11.09 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that APPLICANT is authorized to execute and file an application for funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for PROJECT; and be it further RESOLVED that the APPLICANT by adopting this resolution does hereb y state that. 1. APPLICANT understands that the ARRA funding for the project is fixed at the MTC approved programmed amount, and that any cost increases must be funded by the APPLICANT from other funds, and that APPLICANT does not expect any cost increases to be funded with additional ARRA orMTC-programmed funds; and 2. APPLICANT understands the funding deadlines associated with these funds and will comply with the applicable provisions and requirements of the Regional ARRA Program MTC Resolution No. 3855} and Re Tonal 9 Project Funding Delivery Policy MTC Resolution No.3606, as revised ; and 3. PROJECT will be implemented as described in the complete a lication pp and in this resolution and, if approved, for the amount programmed in the MTC federal TI P; and 4. PRGJECT will comply with ali the project-specific requirements as set forth in the ARRA and appropriate applicable regulations or guidance; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT makin 9 applications for the funds; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no pending or threatened litigation that mi ht in g any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, Genera! Manager, or designee to execute and file an application with MTC for ARRA funding for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and be it further RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application; and be it further RESOLVED that the MTC is requested to support the application for the PRGJECT described in the resolution and to include the PROJECT, if a roved in pp MTC s TI P. ***~** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the ~It"day of March, 2009, by the followin vote to wit: g AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREaF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this ~8#"day of March, 2009. Lara vveisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE N0, New Series v a ms AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING ARTICLE XX (EARTHQUAKE HAZARD REDUCTION IN EXISTING SOFT-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS) TO CHAPTER XIII (BUILDING AND HOUSING), AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 30-7.12 (REDUCTION IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING FACILITIES) OF SECTION 30-7 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING SPACE REGULATIONS) OF CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) BY ADDING SUBSECTION 30-7.12(c) TO ALLOW FOR REDUCTION IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC RETROFIT BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is amended by adding Article XX, Earthquake Retrof t Standards and Requirements for Soft-Story Residential Buildings, to Chapter XIIi, Building and Housing, consisting of subsections 13-80,1 through 13-80.16, which shall read as follows: ARTICLE XX. EARTHQUAKE HAZARD REDUCTION IN EXISTING WUDD FRAME RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WITH SQFT-STGRY, WEAK GR GPEN FRONT WALLS 13-$0. ~ Purpose The provisions of this article are intended to promote public safety and welfaz•e by reducing the risk of death or injury that may result from the effects of earthquakes on existin . g wood frame multi-unit residential structures with soft-story, weak or open front walls. The minimum standards contained in this Article shall substantially improve the seismic performance of these residential buildings, but will not necessarily prevent all earth uake q damage. When fully followed, these standards will strengthen the portion of the structure that is most vulnerable to earthquake damage. This Article does not require alteration of existin g electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or fire safety systems unless they constitute a hazard to life or property. Z3-$o.2 Scope The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all existing wood frame multi-unit residential buildings or portions thereof that contain five or more dwelling units that were permitted for construction prior to December 17,1985, where the ground floor portion of the wood frame structure contains parking or other similar open floor space that causes soft, weak, or open wall lines as defined in this Chapter, and having one or more levels above the ground floor, These brildings are hereinafter referred to as "soft-story" construction. Final Passage of Ordinance # 4-G CC 03-~ l-a9 The provisions of this Chapter shall apply equally to apartment buildings and condominiums. Buildings listed on national, state or local historical registers shall also com 1 py with the provisions of this Chapter. At the Building official's discretion, modifications to the code requirements contained in this Chapter maybe permitted when such modifications are consistent with the provisions of the State Historical Building Code, 13-50.3 Findings and intent. ~a} The City of Alameda is located within Design Category D B~ E, as defined in the 2007 California Building Code. fib} The City Council desires to lessen the risks to life and property of the residents of the City of Alameda posed by a major earthquake along the Hayward Fault. ~c} Buildings with soft, weals or open front ground floor stories are recognized by engineers, and other seismic safety experts, as having potential for sustaining serious damage including collapse, in the event of strong earthquakes. ~d} Neither the International Building Code nor the California Building Standards Code contains provisions governing the earthquake retrofit of soft-story residential buildings. fie} In 2006, the International Code Counsel published the second edition of the International Existing Building Code IEBC}. Chapter A4 of that Code, entitled "Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Wood-Fame Residential Buildings with Soft, Weak, or open-Front Walls", which is the basis for this chapter. ~I} In 2005, California Health and Safety Code sections 19162 and 19 } 63 were amended to expressly authorize local jurisdictions the authority to adopt by ordinance, retrofit standards for soft-story residential buildings that comply with a nationall . y recognized model code relating to the retrofit of existing buildings or substantially equivalent standards. fig} The current nationally recognized model code for the retroft of soft-story residential buildings is Appendix Chapter A4 of the 2006 IEBC. The provisions of this chapter, as amended by this ordinance, comply with or are substantially equivalent to Appendix Chapter A4 of the IEBC. ~h} These codes are not intended to provide structural performance equivalent to that provided by new construction built to the current City Building Code, rather these codes identify and provide for improving the structure's more vulnerable portions and, if identif ed improvements are made, can be expected to s~ibstantially reduce the likelihood of excessive building drift or collapse and substantially lessen the loss of human life. ~i} The establishment of aninventory ofsoft-story buildings and the notification of owners and residents is a necessary first step in developing a mitigation program and will provide the basis for obtaining input from affected parties for any future mandatory retrofit program. ~j} Although the general vulnerability of such buildings is known, determinin the . g seismic adequacy of each of the structures and the appropriate elements of a retrof t to remedy vulnerabilities requires a detailed evaluation by a licensed engineer, ~k} Such an evaluation is also necessary far the City to identify fully the risks to the city and its inhabitants and to determine the feasibility of programs to address the vulnerabilities. ~l) This ordinance requires the establishment of an inventory of potentiall Y hazardous, wood frame, multi-unit ~5 units or more} residential structures with soft- story,weak oropen front walls; provides for notification of the owners, residents, and users of such buildings; adopts Appendix Chapter A4 of the 2006 IEBC and requires owners to provide analysis of their building's seismic adequacy. 13-80.4 Adoption and modifications of Chapter A4 of the 2006 IEBC. Chapter A4 of the 2006 International Existing Building Code ~"IEBC"}, as published by the International Code Council is hereby adopted by reference, except where this cha ter . p provides alternative language. For purposes of this Chapter, the standards in the IEBC shall be used for the analysis of seismic weakness and to formulate the elements of work re wired q remedying any identified weaknesses. 13-50.5 Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Scary Buildings. Multi-unit wood frame residential buildings with five or more residential units identified by a survey conducted by the City as containing a Soft, weak, or O en Front p Ground Floor shall be defined and or designated as soft-story buildings and placed on the Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings. The Inventory of Potentiall . y Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings shall be maintained and revised as necessary by the Buildin . g Official. A copy shall be available for inspection in the office of the Building Official. 13-80.6 Notification of Owners and administration ~a~ Contents of Notice and Order. when the Building Off cial determines that a building is within the scope of this Chapter, the Building Official shall issue aNotice and Order as provided herein. The Notice and Order shall specify that the building has been determined by the Building Official to be within the scope of this Chapter, placed on the Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings, and, therefore, is required to meet the seismic analysis and other provisions of this Chapter. The Notice and Order shall set forth the owner's obligations under this chapter, the time limits for compliance, and appeal rights. The Building Official's determination shall be final at the end of 60 days unless a timely appeal is filed as provided below. fib} Service of Notice and Qrder. The Notice and Order shall be in writing and may be given either by personal delivery thereof to the owner or by deposit in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the owner of the property as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the county, or as known to the Building Official, as well as to the following, if known ordisclosed from offcial public records: the holder of any mortgage or deed of trust or other Tien or encumbrance of record; the owner or holder of any lease of record; and the holder of any other estate or legal interest of record in ar to the building or the land on which it is located. The failure to serve any person required herein to receive service shall not invalidate any proceeding hereunder as to any person duly served or relieve any such person from any duty or obligation imposed by ~~e provisions of this section. 13-80.7 Appeal of Notice and order to Building Official Any person entitled to service of notice under Section 13-80,6 ~a} may request the Brilding official to reconsider a determination to include a building on the Invento of rY Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings by submitting information that the building's ground floor is not soft, weak, or open as defined by the applicable standard, that the building has been substantially reconstructed in accordance with the 1977 or later Uniform Buildin g Code. The appeal to the Building Official shall be filed within 6o days from the date of the service of such Notice and Order of the Building Off cial. 13-80.5 Appeal of Decision of Building official ~a} Any person entitled to service of notice under Section 13-80.6 ~a}may appeal the decision of the Building Official to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board Board} by filing a written Application for Appeal Hearing with the Secretary of the Board within ten ~ l o} days of service of the Building Official's determination under Section 13-80.7. fib} The fee for fling an appeal shall be established by resol~~tion of the City Council. The appeal fee shall be required at the time that the appeal is filed. Appeal forms shall not be accepted without the appropriate appeal fee. ~c} The appeal shall contain the following information: 1. The specif c identification of the subject property. 2, The name, address, telephone number, date and signature of all appellants. 3, The appellants}' legal interest in the property. 4. A statement in ordinary and concise language of the grounds for the appeal and all material facts in support thereof. 5. The address to which all notices shall be sent. 6. The verification under penalty of penury of at least one ~ 1 }appellant as to the truth of the matters stated in the appeal. ~d} The Secretary to the Board shall serve, or cause to be served, a written Notice of Hearing in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, certified, return recei t P requested, addressed to all appellants at the address designated in the Application for Appeal Hearing. Such notice shall be served at least ten ~ 1 ~}days prior to the time set for the hearing. The Notice of Hearing shall contain the date, time and place of the hearing. Service shall be deemed complete on the fifth day after service. (e) The Secretary of the Board shall set a date for a hearing not less than ten (10) days nor more than sixty (60) days from the service of the Notice of Hearing, unless the Board determines good cause exists for an extension of time. ~~ The Board or employee, upon giving notice of aforesaid, shall file an aff davit or declaration certifying the date of mailing the Notice of Hearing, and file it in the records of the Building Official. (g) Failure of the person filing the appeal to appear at the hearing after notice has been served shall be deemed a waiver of the hearing. (h) The Board shall determine whether the building is a soft-story building. ~i} The Board shall prepare a written Statement of Decision, which shall contain findings of fact for each decision of the Board. (h) The Secretary of the Board shall serve, or cause to be served, a copy of the decision of the Board on the owner any person entitled to service of notice under Section 13-80.6 (a). ~3-80.9 Analysis of structural selsmlc adequacy. Within 1$ months of the date of service of the notice of inclusion on the Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings, the owner of each building on the Invento of rY Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings shall submit an Initial Screening and a detailed seismic engineering evaluation report prepared by a qualif ed California licensed structu~•al or civil engineer that analyzes the structural ability of the building to resist the seismic effects of earthquakes and the extent to which the building meets the standards for struct~lral seismic adequacy as set forth in Appendix Chapter 4 of the 2006 IEBC, as modified by this ordinance, identif es any hazardous exterior design elements, describes the elements of work needed to remedy the identified weaknesses, and provides other relevant information as requested by the Building official. This Chapter does not require the retrofit of any building and does not require the submittal of plans of the type required with an application for a building permit. The purpose of the analysis is to investigate the structural systems of a building that resist forces imposed by earthquakes and to determine if any individual portion or combination of these systems is inadequate to prevent a collapse or partial collapse or other damage hazardous to life. 13-SO.10 Earthquake-Actuated Gas Shutoff Valve Within 60 days of the date of service of the notice of inclusion on the Invento of rY Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings, the owner of each building on the Invento of Pot n ~ e Bally Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings shall install an earthquake-actuated gas shutoff valve certified by the State Architect as conforming to California Referenced Standard 12-16- 1 contained in the 207 California Referenced Standard Code. 13-80.11 Fees ~a} Engineering Report Review Fees. Engineering report review fees shall be established by resolution of the City Council, Review fees shall be reduced as follows; 100% for qualifying reports submitted within 3 months of the date of service of the notice of inclusion on the Inventory, 75% for qualifying reports submitted within 6 months of the date of service of the notice of inclusion on the Inventory, 50% for qualifying reports submitted within 9 months of the date of service of the notice of inclusion on the Inventory, and 25%for qualifying reports submitted ~vithin 12 months ofthe date of service of the notice of inclusion on the Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft Story Buildings. fib) Plan Review and Ynspection Fees. Plan review and inspection fees shall be established by resolution of the City Council. All plan review and inspection fees shall be waived for soft-story retrofit projects for which permits are issued prior to 1$ months of the date of service of the notice of inclusion on the Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Sto rY Buildings. 13-SO.12 G~vners' and tenants' obligations. ~a} Gbligation of owners to notify tenants and post building, Within 1$ months of the date of service of the notice of inclusion on the Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings, the owner of each building on the Inventory of Potentially Soft-Story Buildings shall; 1. Notify each tenant in writing and notify each new tenant at a change of tenancy, that the building is included on the Inventory of Potentially Soft- Story Buildings. 2. Post in a conspicuous place within five feet of each main entrance of the building, and maintain until the building is removed from the Inventory of Potentially Soft-Story B~zildings, a clearly visible warning sign not less than S" by 10"the following statement, with the first two words printed in 50-point bold type and the remaining words in at least 3~-point type; "Earthquake Warning. This is a soft-story building with a soft, weak, or open front ground floor. occupants and Visitors may not be safe inside or near such buildings during an earthquake." 3. Mail, within thirty X30} days of service, a copy of each tenant notification form in compliance with this section and a completed proof of service addressed to: Building Official, Planning and Building Department, 2263 Santa Clara Ave, Alameda, CA 94501. fib} Obligations of tenants to cooperate, Each tenant of a building on the Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings shall cooperate with the owner and the owner's agents, including but not limited to engineers, contractors, and ins ectors to p , accornpllsh the required analyses. In so doing, tenants shall allow reasonable access to the building and their ~rnit or space as needed and as permitted by California Civil Code Section 1954. 13-SO.13 Removal of building from the inventory. A building shall be removed from the inventory under the following circumstances; ~a} A determination by the Building Official that the building does not contain a weak, Soft, or open Front Story and meets the applicable standards; or fib} The satisfactory completion of a seismic retrofit and appropriate ins ectians . p bringing the Soft, weak, or Open Front Story of the building up to the re uirements of the ~l applicable standards of Chapter A4 of the 2006 IEBC; or ~c} A determination by the Building Off vial or a decision on appeal that the building is not a building with Soft, Weak, Cr Qpen Front Stories; or (d) Lawful demolition of the building. 13-SO.14 Compliance schedule for submittal of seismic analysis. ~a} Deadlines. All owners of potentially hazardous soft-story buildings shall submit the required analysis of structural seismic adequacy in accordance with this Cha ter no . p later than 1 S months from nonce by the City. fib} Acceleration of deadline. Notwithstanding subdivision ~a} of this section, this deadline shall be accelerated, and the owner shall submit the required analysis of structural seismic adeq~iacy, whenever any one or more of the following occurs: 1. The building will undergo a remodel, alteration, addition or structural repairs valued at more than $100,000, except for repairs found by the Building Off cial to be required for routine maintenance or emergency. 2. The use ofthe building changes such that Section 110 ofthe 2007 California Building Code applies. 3. The building is identified by the Building Official as an Unsafe Building as defined in Section 115 of the 2007 California Building Code or AMC Section 13-10.2.4, ~c} Extensions of deadline. The Building official may extend the deadline for the required analysis by up to six ~~} months if the owner submits to the Building Official a detailed written statement requesting the extension, explaining why it should be granted and clearly documenting the reasons therefore in accordance with the requirements of this pa~•t, Extensions granted under this part shall not extend deadlines for correction of any other violations of any other ordinances. ~d} Required findings, In order to grant an extension, the Building Official must find that: 1. The building does not present an imminent threat to life safety of occupants or the public, based on a report from a California licensed structural or civil , engineer; 2, The owner has demonstrated there are unique and exceptional circumstances that prevent compliance. 13-80.1 Fifteen year exemption for retrofitted buildings Any building, or any portion of a building that is identified under this Chapter as being a Potentially Hazardous Soft, weak, Open Front Story Building and is retrofitted in compliance with the applicable standards or the City of Alameda Building Code shall not, within a period of 15 years, be identified as a Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Building because of a Soft, UVeak, or Open Front Story pursuant to any local building standards adopted after the date of the building retrofit unless such building no longer meets the standards under which it was ret~•ofitted. 13-80.16 Violation and remedies. ~a} It shall be unlawful for any person, business or corporation to maintain, use or occupy a building that is not in compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. For purposes of this section, any person includes an owner, lessor, sublessor, manager, or person in control of a building subject to this Chapter, brit shall not include tenants in residential units. fib) All remedies available to the City for co~•recting violations of any other Chapter ~n this Code shall be available to remedy violations of tl~is Chapter, The remedies described het•ein are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies available for violation of this Chapter. Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is amended by adding Section 30- 7.12. (c) Reduction in Parking Requirements for Existing Facilities of Chapter XXX, Development Regulations to read as follows: 30-7,1Z Reduction in Parking Requirements for Existing Facilities ~c} Additional parking spaces serving existing multi-family dwellings may be eliminated from properties with five ~5) or more units, with the approval of the Planning and Building Director, if needed to seismically retrofit these structures to meet health and safety requirements, Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Alameda herby declal•es that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, s~~bsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. Section 4. All former ordinances or parts thereof conflicting or inconsistent with tl~e provisions of this ordinance hereby adopted, to the extent of such conflict only, are hereby repealed. Section 5. The City Clerk of the City of Alameda is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in the Off cial Newspaper of the City of Alameda. Section 6. This ordinance and the rules, regulations, provisions, requirements, orders and matters established and adopted hereby shall take effect and be in fill force and effect 30 days after the date of its final passage and adoption. Presiding officer of the City Council Attest: Lara 11~eisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda ****** !, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 17t"day of March, 2009 b the followin vote to wit; Y g AYES: NOES; ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS; IN vVITNESS, vIIHERE4F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 18t"day of March, 2009. Lara vveisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OFALAMEDA ORDINANCE No, E °~ ,~ New Series Introduction Of An Ordinance Of The City Of Alameda Amendin Munici al Code g p Subsection 34-4.1 ~R-1, One-Family Residence Districts} Of Section 30-4 District Uses And Regulations} Of Article f Zoning Districts And Regulations Of Cha ter } p XXX Development Regulations} By Deleting Subsection 30.4,1 In Its Entiret And y Replacing 11Uith A New Subsection 30-4.1 To Allow Ministerial A roval Of pp Secondary Units On Sites Having ASingle-Family Dwelling And Meetin S ecific g p Standards UvHEREAS, in 2002 the State Legislature restated its commitment to second units as a valuable form of housing with the passage of Assembl Bil! . Y 1866, which amends Government Code Section 65852,2 by eliminatin the , g authority to require a conditional use permit or any discretionary review for second units and mandating ministerial approval of such units; and WHEREAS, Section 65852.2 authorizes a local agency to ~i} desi Hate 9 areas where second units may be permitted based on criteria that ma include . Y adequacy of sewer services, impact on traffic flow or other factors identified b the , y city; and ~i~} impose standards that include parking, height, setbacks, lot cavera e , 9~ architectural review, maximum size and standards that prevent adverse im acts to p real property listed on the California Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, Section 65852.2 also allows a local agency to provide in an ordinance that second units do not exceed the allowable density forthe lot u on p which the second unit is located, and that second units are aresidential -use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation forthe lot; and WHEREAS, the Alameda Planning Board has held public hearin s and g recommended adoption of a second unit ordinance to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to permit second units, sub'ect to the standards identified in this ordinance, ~n all residential areas of the City; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to establish the ministerial approval of second units, subject to established standards and criteria, in compliance with the standards in Government Code Section 65852.2; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to require off-street parking for second units in a manner consistent with such requirements throughout the city; and WHEREAS, the adoption of this ordinance regarding second units in residential zones district to implement the provisions of Government Code Section Final Passage of ordinance # 4-H CC 03.11-09 65852.2 is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Qualit Act « Y ~ CEQA } pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.11 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15282~i}. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance Adoption. Subsection 30-4.1 ~R-1, One-Famil Residence Y District} of Section 30.4 District Uses and Regulations} of Article I Zonin . ~ 9 Districts and Regulations} of Chapter XXX Development Re uiations of the .. g } Alameda Municipal Code is hereby deleted ~n its entirety and replaced with a new subsection 30-4.1 to read as follows: 34-4.1 R-1, ane-Family Residence District. a. General. The following specific regulations, and the general rules set forth in Section 30-5, shall apply in all R-1 Districts as delineated and described in the zoning maps. It is intended that this district classification be a lied in . pp areas subdivided and used, or designed to be used for one-family residential development, and that the regulations established will promote and rotect a p proper residential character in such districts. b. Uses Permitted. 1.One-family dwellings, including private garages, accesso buildin sand rY g uses; reconstruction of destroyed two-family dwellings, provided that all zoning requirements other than density shall be met and that an Y requirement that would reduce the number or size of the units shall not apply; private, noncommercial swimming pools, boat landings, docks, iers p and srmilar structures; and home occupations in compliance with the standards as set forth in Section 30-2 of this Code, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. Upon the approval of the Plannin and . g Building Director, a Registration of Home Occupation form shall be completed and filed with the Planning and Building Deparkment. An ro ert Yp P Y owner aggrieved by the approval ornon-approval of the Planning and Building Director shall have the right to appeal such action to the Cit Y Planning Board in the manner and within the time limits set forth in Section 30-25 of this Cade. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to den the . Y right of appeal under Section 30-25 following the determination of the Cit Y Planning Board. 2. Agriculture, horticulture, home gardening, excluding retail safes of nurse . ry products or the raising of rabbits, dogs, fowl or other animals for commercial purposes. 3. Underground and above ground utility installations for local service exce t p that substations, generating plants, gas holders, and transmission lines must be approved by the Planning Board priorto construction. 4. Public parks, schools, playgrounds, libraries, fire stations and other ublic . p buildings and uses included in the General Plan. 5. Signs: As provided in Section 30-6 of these regulations. 6. Multiple houses. ?'. Family day care homes, Large and Family day care homes, as licensed b y the State of California. 8. Residential care facilities providing care for no more than six ~6} persons. 9. Second Units on a single parcel containing one single-famil dwellin Y g, when in compliance with the following standards: ~a} A11 building coverage, yard areas, and setback requirements of the R-~ District shall be met for new structures and additions to existin g dwellings intended for second units, unless the requirements for exceptions provided for in the Chapter 30, of the Alameda Munici al p Code are met. Second units are not accessory structures. (b) Aggregate lot coverage of building footprint(s) and nonpermeable surfaces shall not exceed 60%. ~c} The minimum lot size on which a Second Unit shall be allowed is 7,500 square feet. (d) A Second Unit may be attached to or detached from the primary living unit. fie} Uvhen detached from the primary dwelling, the design of the Second Unit shall be consistent with that of the primary residence, incor oratin p g the same materials, colors and style as the exterior of the rims p ry dwelling, including roof materials and pitch, eaves, windows, accents, distinctive features, and character defining elements. ~f} V~ hen attached to the primary dwelling, the design of the Second Unit shall appear as an integral part of the primary dwelling and incor orate p the same materials, colors and style as the exterior of the rims p ry dwelling, including roof materials and pitch, eaves, windows, accents distinctive features, and character defining elements. Creation of the second unit shall not involve any changes to existing street-facin walls g nor to existing floor and roof elevations fig} An attached Second Unit shall have no more than one bedroom and contain no more than 600 square feet of habitable space, includin the g stairwell contained entirely within the second unit, if any, or be no more than 50 percent of the primary living unit, whichever is less. In no case shall the attached Second Unit be less than 350 square feet. (h) A detached Second Unit shall have no more than one bedroom and be no more than 600 square feet of habitable space and no less than 350 square feet of habitable space, including the stairwell contained entirely within the second unit, if any. Detached Second Units may exceed one story when the primary dwelling has more than one story; otherwise, the detached Second Unit may not exceed 1 G feet in hei ht, unless .. g additional height is required to match the roof pitch of the rims p ry dwelling. The Second Unit shall maintain the scale of and be v'rsuall . ,. y compatible with ad~aining residences and the residences in the immediate vicinity. ~i} Utilities extended to a detached Second Unit shall be underground, (j) No protected tree(s) shall be removed to accommodate a Second Unit. (k) Property owner shall record a deed restriction prohibiting the separate sale of the Second Unit. (I) The Second Unit shall have one permanently surfaced parking space. The parking space shall be located in accordance with Section 30-7.8, Location of Parking Spaces and Prohibited Parking Areas. (m) The parking space for the Second Unit shall function independently of other parking spaces on the site. A tandem parking space shall not count as meeting the required parking for the Second Unit (n) Building permits for Second Units shall be issued when all the above standards are met. No discretionary action is required. (o) If applications for building permits for Second Units are rejected because the application fails to meet the standards listed herein, any appeal of that action shall be considered by the Planning and Building Director, who shall take action on the appeal based solely upon the Second Unit approval standards listed in Subsection 30-4.1 (b) (9), (a) through (s), of the Alameda Municipal Code. (p) Second Units which conform to the requirements of this section shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located and deemed a residential use consistent with the general plan and zoning designation of the lot. (q) Second Units that do not conform to the standards of this section may be established with use permit and design review approval. fir} Before obtaining a second~unit building permit, the property owner shall file with the county recorder a declaration or an agreement of restrictions, which has been approved by the City Attorney as to its form and content, containing a reference to the deed under which the property was acquired by the owner and stating that: (1) The second unit shall not be sold separately. (2) The restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in ownership of the property and lack of compliance shall result in legal action against the property owner. ~s} Nothing in this section supersedes requirements for obtaining development permits pursuant to this chapter or for properties subject to the preservation of historical and cultural resources set forth in section ~ 3-21 of Chapter XI II of the Alameda Municipal Code. c. Uses Requiring Use Permits. It is the intent in this paragraph that the following uses shall be reviewed by the Planning Board far their appropriateness in aspecific location, ar for such other factors as safety, congestion, noise, and similar considerations. 1. Public parks, schools, playgrounds, libraries, fire stations and other public buildings and uses not included in the General Plan, 2. Private and religious schools, day care centers and churches. 3. Community care facilities not listed under uses permitted. 4. Temporary tract sales offices, advertising signs, construction offices, equipment storage yards or structures therefore, which are incidental to the development during the construction andlor sales period. 5. Automobile parking lots and ancilfaryfacilities forferry terminals serving the general public, provided that ~a} Parking lots and ancillary facilities adjoin a commercial planned development zoned area or an industrially zoned area in which terminals are permitted; ~b}There is an entrance to the automobile parking lots and ancillary facilities for ferry terminals adjacent to nonresidential areas; and ~c}Any additional parking lot entrances adjacent to residentially zoned areas shall be allowed only if conditions are imposed to minimize the nonlocal automobile traffic to the terminal through the residential areas. d. Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements. 1. Lot Area: Five thousand ~5,oD0} square feet per dwelling unit. 2. Lot Width: Fifty ~5D'}feet. 3. Maximum Main Building Coverage: Forty X40°l°} percent of lot area; provided, however, that where the garage is attached to the main building the permitted lot coverage may be increased to forty-eight X48°/°} percent. 4. Building Height Limit: Nat to exceed thirty ~3D'}feet. 5. Front Yard: Twenty ~~o'}feet. In any full block frontage of lots in a new residential development the Planning Board may approve front yards which vary from fifteen ~~5'} to thirty X30'}feet, provided that the average of all front yards in the block shall not be less than twenty X20'}feet. 6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty X20°/0} percent of the lot width has defined in Section 30-2--Definitions}, and no side yard may either be less than five ~5'} feet or be required to be more than ten ~~ 0'}feet. The side yard on the street side of a corner lot shall not be less than ten ~~ 0'} feet. 7. Rear Yard: Twenty X20'}feet. Not more than forty X40%} percent of the rear yard, as defined in Section 30-2 may be occupied by accessory buildings or structures swimming pools excepted}. 8. Yards for Corner Lot Adjacent to Key Lot: The side-yard setback on the street side of the corner lot, within twenty feet X20'} of the side property line of the key lot, shall be equal to the front-yard of the key lot, as defined in Section 30-2, "yard, front," and no struc#ure, excluding barriers, may be permitted within five ~5'} feet of the rear property line on the corner lot. 9. off-Street Parking Space: As regulated in Section 30-7 of this Code. Section 2. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City Council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or uncanstitutional by a cour# of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provision of this ordinance. Section 3. AI! former ordinances or parts thereof conflicting or inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance hereby adopted, to the extent of such conflict only, are hereby repealed. Section 4. This ordinance and the rules, regulations, provisions, requirements, orders, and matters established and adopted hereby shall take effect and be in full force and effect from and afterthe expiration of thirty X30} days from the date of its final passage. Presiding Officer of the City Council Attest: Lara vveisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda ****** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the ~7t~ day of March, 2009 by the followin vote to wit: g AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN Uv1TNESS, VvHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this ~ 8t~ day of March, 2009. Lara ~IVeisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OFALAMEDA ORDINANCE N0. E .~ ~~ L New Series AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE CONTAINED IN CHAPTER II ARTICLE I PERTAINING TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, CHAPTER !I ARTICLE !I PERTAINING TO THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD, AND AMENDING ORDINANCE N0. 1082 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO.2497 PERTAINING TO AN EXISTING PENSION FUND WHEREAS, at the consolidated election of November 4, 2008, Alameda voters amended the City Charter by passage of Measures O, R, S, T, U, V, IN and X, and WHEREAS, the Alameda Municipal Code needs to be modified to achieve consistency with the City Charteramendments, and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1082 as amended by Ordinance No. 2497 regarding an existing pension fund needs to be modified to achieve consistency with the amendment to Charter Art. III Sec. 7(I) that was included in Measure Q; BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Alameda that: Sec. 1. City Council. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended b y modifying Section 2-1.1, to read as follows: 2-1.1. Council meetings. The regular meetings of the City Council shall be held in the designated location of the City Hall at 1:30 p.m. in the calendar year as fixed by resolution in December of the preceding year. All meetings shall be open and public, except as otherwise provided by law. If it reasonably appears to the Clerk of the Council that: ~a} the Council Chamber is not large enough to accommodate the number of persons likely to attend any meeting, or fib} special facilities other than the Chamber are required far a particular meeting, or ~c} a meeting will constitute a joint session with another agency to be held at the tatter's usual meeting place, or ~d} advantages exist in having an on-site meeting, the Clerk may, with consent of the Mayor, give appropriate written or oral notice at the commencement thereof that such meeting will be called to order in the Council Chamber and thereupon continued to the time and place required by reason of the special circumstances hereinabove mentioned, Sec. 2. Historical Advisory Board. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by modifying Section 2-10.24, to read as follows: 2-10.24 .Any member may be removed from the Board by majority vote of Council. Final Passage of ordinance # 4-I CC 03.11-09 Sec. 3. The Alameda Municipal code is hereby amended by modifying Sec. 2- 10.3, to read as follows: 2-10.3 Meetings; Officers; Rules. The Board shall hold regular meetings on the first Thursday of each month in the City Council Chambers, unless proper notification is given for a change of location or time, and shall hold such additional meetings as it determines to be necessary for discharge of its responsibilities hereunder. The Board shall select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from their membership who shall each serve for one ~1 } year terms or until successors are appointed. Office holders may be returned to office. The City Manager or his~her designate shall be the Board's Secretary and helshe shall cause minutes and records of the Board's meetings to be kept. Sec. 4. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by modifying Sec. 2-10.4, to read as follows: 210.4 C~uorum. A majority of the entire membership of the Board shall constitute a quorum. Sec. 5. Ordinance No. 1082 as amended by Ordinance No. 2497 is hereby amended by modifying Sec. 28. Section 28. Amendment or Repeal This ordinance shall not be amended except by majority vote of the full Council, and shall not be repealed except by a vote of the people. Sec. 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Sec. 1. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent ofthe City Council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provisions of this ordinance. Presiding Officer of the City Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda ****~* I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinancewas duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council ofthe City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 11t~ day of March, 20g9 by the followin vote to wit: g AYES: NQES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIQNS: IN vvITNESS, vVHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 1 Huh day of March, 2009. Lara vveisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY aF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: David Brandt Acting City Manager Date: March 17, 2009 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 9181 File No. PLN08-0264}, for the Purpose of Establishing a Subdivision of Gwnership to Condominium Form for Two Detached Single-Family Dwellings on Gne Site Located at 3211 and 3215 Fernside Blvd, Alameda, CA BACKGROUND Gn January 12, 2009, the Planning Board recommended that the City Council approve the tentative parcel map for 3211 and 3215 Fernside Boulevard, subject to a number of conditions. This application would permit the subdivision of ownership of the two single- family dwellings on the site to condominium form. Council approval of the Tentative Parcel Map would provide the applicants 24 months to complete the Final Map and submit it to the City Council for final approval, pursuant to AMC, Section 30-81 Final Map}. DISCUSSIGN The subject site is an 11,533 square foot interior lot located in the R-2, Two Family Residence District. The site contains two two-story single-family residences. Design Review approval for both homes was issued on March 1, 2006, and the Building Permit for both structures was finaled on March 14, 2008. The rear structure is owner occupied, while the front residence is renter occupied, which requires City consideration of a tenant relocation plan prepared by the applicant, pursuant to Section 30-8.6 of the Alameda Municipal Code. This project will not result in negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The division would simply allow each dwelling unit on the site to be owned independently. Therefore, it is not expected to result in any significant changes to the physical environment or neighborhood because no substantial changes to the site are proposed. City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #4-J 03'11-09 Honorable Mayor and March 1l, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 Each dwelling on the site was recently constructed and their design was evaluated under the Major Design Review process. That process ensured that the dwellings and site were in compliance with all zoning standards, including standards associated with off-street parking, open space, and water conservation. This application divides ownership of the two residential units, but provides that common areas will be under joint ownership. These details will be provided in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ACC&R's} that need to be recorded with the Final Map. The Final Map requires approval by the City Council. FINANCIAL IMPACT The costs associated with processing this Tentative Parcel Map are paid by the applicant, in accordance with the City's adopted fee schedule. No City funds are required. PUBLIC NGTIFICATIGN This agenda item was advertised in the Alameda Journal on March 6, 2009. Notices were mailed on March 6, 2009, to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project location. No additional parties, other than those on the original mailing list, have filed requests to be notified of upcoming hearings for this project. MUNICIPAL C~DEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CRASS REFERENCE Municipal Code standards prescribing Planning Board and City Council action on Tentative Parcel Maps are contained in the Alameda Municipal Code RAMC}, Section 30-18.5 Action on Tentative Map or Parcel Map}, AMC, Section 30-81 defines the process of filing and City Council action regarding Final Maps. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEUV The project is Categorically Exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions -when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, and all services and access conform to local standards. The proposal does not include new construction and changes in fond use and conforms to all General Plan and Municipal Code standards regarding residential density, access, the provision of open space and off-street parking. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION March 17, 2009 Page3of3 Hold a Public Hearing and conditionally approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 9181 File No. PLNOB-0264} for the purpose of establishing a subdivision of ownership to condominium form for two detached single-family dwellings on one site located at 3211 and 3215 Fernside Blvd, Alameda, CA. Respectfully submitted, Cathy VI1 ury Planning and Building Director s ~~~-~ By: Simone Wolter Planner Attachments}; 1. Planning Board Resolution No. PB-09-01 2. Planning Board Staff Report, January 12, 2009 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. PB-09-01 A RESOLUTION GF THE PLANNING BGARD OF THE CITY GF ALAMEDA APPROVING PLN08-0264 -CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AT 3211 & 3215 FERNSIDE BOULEVARD ~IUHEREAS, an application was made on May 20, 2408 by Elaine Luong, requesting Subdivision of ownership to condominium form for two detached single-family dwellings on one site; and UUHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on December 8, 2008; and 1NHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on January 12, 2009; and UUHEREAS, the Planning Board has made the following findings concerning the project: 1. The Building Off cial has certif ed that that there are no violations of codes or statutes applicable to the structures on the site. This f nding can be made. The Building Official was provided with a pest report and documentation from a licensed Engineer. The Building Off cial recognizes that Design Review and Building Permit approval was issued for the development of both single-family residential structures. This approval was predicated on compliance with City Code standards. Based upon these reports and City actions, the Building official certified that there are no violations of codes ar statutes pertaining to the structures on the site. 2. The conversion has been reviewed and reported upon by Design Review. This finding can be made. The development of the site has been reviewed through the Majar Design Review process. This process assured that the development of the site complies with Municipal Code standards and residential design guidelines, 3. The project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section ~53~5 Minor Land Divisions that requires conformancewith the General Plan and Zoning, no variances orexceptions are required, and all services and access conformto local standards. This f nding can be made. The proposal is consistent with Guiding Policies: Residential areas, 2.4.d because it limits residential development to twa detached single-family residences; and 2.4.e becausethe conversionwouldexpand opportunitiesfarhouseholds in all income groups by providing the opportunity of separate ownership for each of the single-family residences on the common site. The Major Design Review approval for the original infill project assured that the site meets all zoning standards pertaining to site develapment that includes off-street parking, open space, and water conservatianllandscaping. Access is provided by the Fernside Boulevard right-of way with a conforming 14-foot wide driveway to the dwelling at the rear portion of the site. City Council Attachment ~I to Public Hearing Agenda Item #4J 03.1 T-Q9 ~~~ 4. The project would not affect the availability of rental housing, remove rental housing, or result in the displacement of tenants occupying rental units. This finding can be made. The single-family house in the rear was last occupied by an owner occupant, while the front is renter occupied. The conversion does not limit the property to either owner occupant or rental status. BE IT RESGLVED THAT, the project is Categorically Exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions. BE 1T FURTHER RESGLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby approves Condominium Conversion, PLN08-0264 for the subdivision of ownership to condominium form for two detached single-family dwellings on one site recommend approval of the Final Map to the City Council subject to compliance with the following conditions: ~1 } This approval shall expire and become void if a final subdivision map is not filed within two years after this approval, or by January 12, 2011. ~2} The final map shall include the sheet defined as the Tentative Parcel Map No. 9787, prepared by Andreas Deak, submitted on November 12, 2005 and shall include the Proposed Site Landscape} Plan, prepared by Lung HVI1A Associates, submitted on November 12, 2008 and on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning and Building Depar#ment, except as modified by the conditions listed below. ~3} The final map shall be approved subject to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director, the City Engineer and the City's Consultant surveyor prior to the City Council hearing. ~4} The subdividershall pay for all reasonable office and engineering costs expended by the City Engineer's office, including overhead, in conjunction with reviewing the Tentative Parcel Map and in obtaining the map signature of the City's consulting surveyor on the Final Parcel Map. ~5} The subdivider shall post a refundable cashier's check in the amount of $400 to guarantee that the Mylar copy of the site plan and landscaping plan are provided in the form approved by the City Engineer. ~6} The subdivider shall arrange for a Title Company to record the Final Parcel Map and providea Mylarcopyof the recorded Final Parcel Map, site plan and landscaping plan. ~7} Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ACC&R's} including estimated homeowner's fees shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director, the City Engineer and the City Attorney prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map by the City Council for purposes of verifying maintenance and care of common areas. ~8} The CC&R's shalt be recorded with the Final Parcel Map. ~9} The Final Parcel Map shall comply with all City Code requirements including but not limited by Section 30-8 of the Alameda Municipal Code. X10} The applicant shall revise the Tenant Relocation. Assistance Plan to meet all AMC provisions including but not limited to sections 30-8.2, 30-5.3, and 30-5.6. Page 2 of 3 ~~ ~ } HOLD HARMLESS. The applicant shall defend with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City}, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda, its Redevelopment Agency, the Alameda City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding including legal costs and attorney's fees} against the City of Alameda, Alameda Redevelopment Agency, Alameda City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval by the City of Alameda, the Planning and Building Department, Alameda City Planning Board, the City of Alameda Redevelopment Agency or City Council relating to this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in such defense. The City may elect, in its sole discretion, to participate in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subjectto review pursuantto California Code of Civil Procedure Section ~ 094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety X90}days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civi! Procedure Section 1094.6 NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 ~d} ~~ }, these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and exactions. The applicant is hereby further notified that the 90-da Y appeal period, in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 ~a}has begun. !f the applicant fails to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. The decision of the Planning Board shall be f nal unless appealed to the City Council, in writing and within ten X10} days of the decision, by f ling with the Planning and Building Department a written notice of appeal stating the basis of appeal and paying the required fees. AYES: ~7 Kohlstrand, Ezzy Ashcraft, Autorina, Cook, Cunningham, Lynch, McNamara NOES: ~0} ABSENT: (0) ATT Andrew Thomas, Secretary City of Alameda Planning Board Page 3 of 3 ITEM 8-A PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT DATE: January 12, 2449 TG: H4NGRABLE PRESIDENTAND MEMBERS GFTHE PLANNING BGARD FRGM; Simone Vllolter, Planner I 510.141.65$2 swolter~a ci,alameda.ca.us APPLICAT1aN: Residential Condominium Conversion - PLNO8-0264 - 3215 Fernside. Subdivision of ownership to condominium form for two detached single-family dwellings on one site. ZONING DISTRICT: R-2, Two Family Residence District GENERAL PLAN: Medium Density Residential EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting subdivision of ownership to condominium form for the two detached single-family dwellings on the site. The project complies with ail zoning requirements for this type of permit. BACKGRGUND The subject site is a 11,533 square foot interior lot located in the R-2, Two Family Residence District. The site contains two 2-story single-family residences. Design Review approval for both homes was issued on March 1, 2006, and the Building Permit for both structures was finaled on March 14, 2008. The rear structure is owner occupied, while the front is renter occupied, which requires City consideration of renter relocation, rental housing, pursuant to Section 308.6 of the Alameda Municipal Code. City Council Attachmen# 2 to Public Hearing Agenda item #4-J 03-'I l-~9 Honorable President and Members of the Planning Board STAFF ANALYSIS January 12, 2009 Page 2 of 4 This project will not result in negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The division would simply allow each dwelling unit on the site to be owned independently. Therefore, it is not expected to result in any significant changes to the physical environment or neighborhood. The development of both buildings was reviewed under the Major Design Review process. That process insured that the site was brought into compliance with all zoning standards, including standards associated with off-street parking, open space, and water conservation. This application allows individual ownership of each residential single-family unit, but allows for the common ownership of the common areas. Responsibilities for maintenance and upkeep are provided in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ACC&R's} that would be required to be recorded with the Final Map. The Final Map requires approval by the City Council. The condominium conversion requires a tenant relocation and assistance plan to accommodate current tenants. The submitted plan meets the intent of an assistance plan. The submittal outlines that the current tenant, whose rental lease ends in February 2009, has the option to purchase the residence at market value. The estimated market value lies between $850,400 to $950,004. If the tenant is unable to purchase the residence, then the tenant has 60 days to find suitable accommodations. In addition, the current owner will pay up to $1,000 in moving expenses and provide relocation assistance. If the tenant is elderly or handicapped, then the property owner will pay up to $1,500 in relocation costs, and provide up to $500 in interior accessibility alterations in the new rental. If the rental is vacated at the time when the Final Map is being recorded by the County, then this relocation assistance plan is not necessary. FINDINGS In order to approve this Condominium Conversion application, the Planning Board must make the following findings, pursuant to the requirements of Section 30- 8.3~Conversions to Multiple Houses-Other Conversions}: 1. The Building official has certified that that there are no violations of codes or statutes applicable to the structures on the site. This finding can be made. The Building official was provided with a pest report and documentation from a licensed Engineer see attachments}. The Building Official recognizes that Design Review and Building Permit approval was issued for the development of both single-family residential structures. This approval was predicated on compliance with City Code standards. Based upon these reporks and City actions, the Building official certified that there are no violations of codes or statutes pertaining to the structures on the site. Honorable President and Members of the Planning Board January 12, 2009 Page 3 of 4 2. The conversion has been reviewed and reported upon by Design Review. This finding can be made. The development of the site has been reviewed through the Major Design Review process. This process assured that the development of the site complies with Municipal Code standards and residential design guidelines. 3. The project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section 153 5 Minor Land Divisions that requires conformance with the General Plan and Zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, and all services and access conform to local standards. This finding can be made. The proposal is consistent with Guiding Policies: Residential areas, 2.4.d because it limits residential development to two detached single-family residences; and 2.4.e because the conversion would expand opportunities for households in all income groups by providing the opportunity of separate ownership for each of the single-family residences on the common site. The Major Design Review approval for the original infill project assured that the site meets all zoning standards pertaining to site development that includes off-street parking, open space, and water conservationllandscaping. Access is provided by the Fernside Boulevard right-of way with a conforming 10-foot wide driveway to the dwelling at the rear portion of the site. 4. The project would not affect the availability of rental housing, remove rental housing, or result in the displacement of tenants occupying rental units. This finding can ~be made. The single-family house in the rear was last occupied by an owner occupant, while the front is renter occupied. The conversion does not limit the property to either owner occupant or rental status. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEVIr The project is Categorically Exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA~ Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions -When the division is in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, and all services and access conform to loco[ standards. PUBLIC N4TlGE A notice for this hearing was mailed to residents and property owners within 300 feet of this site on December 19, 2008 published in the Alameda Journal on December 10, 2005, and posted at the subject property. Staff has not received any public comments on this project. Honorable President and Members of the Planning Board REC4MMENDATIGN January 12, 249 Page 4 of 4 Find the project Categorically Exempt from CEQA, approve Condominium Conversion, PLN08-O~fi4, and recommend approval of the Parcel Map to the City Council subject to compliance with the conditions presented in the attached Draft Resolution. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: ~- ; 1 ~~ , ,~ SIMGNE W4LTER PLANNER I Attachment(s): REVIEW D BY: A DREW THOMAS PLANNING SERVICES MANAGER 1. Draft Resolution 2. Relocation Assistance Plan, Qctober 1l, 208 3. Engineer Report and Pest Repork, November 12, 2448 4. Tentative Parcel Map and Landscape Plan ~2 sheets} i CITY 4FALAMEDA RESOLUTIGN NG, ~ v A RESGLUTIGN APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NG, 9187' FGR ~. ~ ~ THE PURPOSE 4F ESTABLISHING A SUBDIVISION GF GWNERSHIP Tfl ~ C4NDGMINIUM FGRM FGR TWC DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY ~ ` Q DWELLINGS GN N 0 E SITE LOCATED AT 3211 & 3215 FERNSIDE ~ ~ BOULEVARD ~ ~, ~. ~ WHEREAS, an application was made on May 20,~20oS by Elaine Luon , g ~ requesting Subdivision of ownership to condominium form for two detached sin le- g family dwellings on one site; and WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on December 8, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on January 12, 2009 and considered or examined all pertinent maps, drawings, documents, and testimony, made findings and recommended approval of the Tentative Parcel Map to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda held a public hearing on March 1l, 2009 and considered, or examined all pertinent maps, drawings, documents, and testimony; and WHEREAS, the CityCouncil has madethefollowingfindings relevanttothe Tentative Parcel Map: 1. The Building official has certified that that there are no violations of codes or statutes applicable to the structures on the site. This finding can be made. The Building Official was provided with a pest report and documentation from a licensed Engineer. The Building Gfficial recognizes that Design Review and Building Permit approval was issued for the development of both single-family residential struc#ures, This approval was predicated on comp[iancewith City Code standards. Based upon these reports and Cityactions, the Building Official certified that there are no violations of codes or statutes pertaining to the structures on the site, 2. The conversion has been reviewed and reported upon by Design Review. This finding can be made. The developmentofthesite has been reviewedthrough the Major Design Review process. This process assured that the development of the site complies withMunicipal Codestandardsand residential design guidelines. Resolution #4-J 03.11-09 3. The project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions that requires conformance with the General Plan and Zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, and all services and access conform to local standards. This finding can be made. The proposal is consistent with Guiding Policies: Residential areas, 2.4.d because it limits residential development to two detached single-family residences; and 2.4.e because the conversion would expand opportunities for households in all income groups by providing the opportunity of separate ownership for each of the single-family residences on the common site. The Major Design Review approval for the original infill project assured that the site meets all zoning standards pertaining to site development that includes off-street parking, open space, and water conservationllandscaping. Access is provided by the Fernside Boulevard right-of-way with a conforming 14-foot wide driveway to the dwelling at the rear portion of the site. 4. The project would not affect the availability of rental housing, remove rents[ housing, or result in the displacement of tenants occupying rental units. This finding can be made. The single-€amily house in the rear was last occupied by an owner occupant,. while.the-front-is r-enter-occupied. The conversion does not limit the property to either owner occupant or rental status. N4v11 THEREFQRE BE IT RESGLVED, that the City Council of the City of Alameda approvesthe Tentative Parcel Map No. 9187 File No. PLN08-0264}, for the purpose of establishing a subdivision form of ownership to condominium form for two detached single- family dwellings on one site located at 3211 and 3215 Fernside Blvd, subject to the following conditions: ~1 } This approval shall expire and become void if a final subdivision map is not filed within two years after this approval, ar by March 17, 2011. ~2} The final map shall include the sheet defined as the Tentative Parcel Ma p No. 9757, prepared by Andreas Deak, submitted on January 2S, 2009 and shall include the Proposed Site Landscape} Plan, prepared by Lung HvIIA Associates, submitted on November 12, 2008 and on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department, except as modified by the conditions listed below. ~3} The final map shall be approved subject to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director, the City Engineer and the City's Consultant surveyor priorto the City Council hearing. ~4} The subdivider shall pay for all reasonable office and engineering costs expended by the City Engineer's office, including overhead, in conjunction with reviewing the Tentative Parcel Map and Final Parcel Map and in obtaining the map signature of the City's consulting surveyor on the Final Parcel Map. ~5} The subdivider shall post a refundable cashier's check in the amount of $400 to guarantee that the Mylar copy of the site plan and landscaping plan are provided in the form approved bythe City Engineer. ~6} The subdivider shall arrange for a Title Company to record the Final Parcel Map and provide a Mylar copy of the recorded Final Parcel Map, site plan and landscaping plan. ~7} Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ACC&R's} including estimated homeowner's fees shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director, the City Engineer and the City Attorney prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map by the City Council for purposes of verifying maintenance and care afcommon areas. ~8} The CC&R's shall be recorded with the Final Parcel Map. ~9} The Final Parcel Map shall comply with all City Code requirements including but not limited by Section 30-8 of the Alameda Municipal Code. X10} The applicant shallsubmitaTenantRelacation Planforreviewandapproval by the Planning and Building Director prior to the recording of the Final Map. X11 } HELD HARMLESS. The applicant shall defend with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City},indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda, its Redevelopment Agency, the Alameda City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding including legal costs and attorney's fees} against the City of Alameda, Alameda Redevelopment Agency, Alameda City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside void or annul, an approva! by the City of Alameda, the Planning and Building Department, Alameda Cfity Planning Board, the City of Alameda Redevelopment Agency or City Council relating to this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in such defense, The City mayelect, in its sole discretion, to participate in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 NOTICE, The conditions of project approval set forth herein include cerkain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66D2D ~d} ~1 },these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and exactions. The applicant is hereby further notified that the 9D~day appeal period, in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66D2D ~a} has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this 9D-day period complying with all requirements of Section 66D2D, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions, *~~*~* I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 17th day of March, 2D09, by the followin vote to wit: g AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN vvITNESS, VvHERE4F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 18th day of March, 2009. Lora Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: David Brandt Acting City Manager Date: March 17, 2009 Re: Receive a Progress Report on Financing the City's other Post Em to meet Benefit GPEB Gbli ations BACKGRGUND At the Gctober 21, 2005 City Council meeting, a staff report, presented to the City Council, discussed various 'seed capital' options for pre-funding the City's Other Post Employment Benefit GPEB} obligations. In accordance with Government Accounting Standards Board ~GASB} 45, the present value of this unfunded, accrued actuarial liability ~UAAL} must be reported each year in the City's audit. At January 2009, the present value of this UAAL was projected to be $14.5 million. The October staff report outlined several cash options available to the City, whereby the cash would be deposited into an GPEB 'savings' account. However, these cash options, including interest earned, did not contribute in any substantial way to reducing this UAAL liability in the near term. Thus, staff was requested to analyze any debt scenarios that would increase immediate cash deposits into this GPEB account, and thereby reduce the GPEB UAAL at an accelerated pace. During the Financial Management Workshop held February 7, 2009, the Interim Finance Director presented a financing scenario which leveraged an existing City liability -its Legacy Plans 1019 and 1082 -and utilized this leverage to generate cash basset} to reduce the UAAL at a more accelerated rate. The City Council consensus was that staff should pursue the debt scenario as a method to accelerate the GPEB savings deposits, and to pursue an implementation schedule which included validation of the transaction. DISCUSSIGN This communication provides an update on staff progress to date on the City Council discussion of February 1. City Council Agenda Item #5-A 03-1 T-09 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council During the past 30 days, the Interim Finar with the requisite skills and experience tc market -both retail and institutional. The familiar with validation proceedings for concurred on a proposed schedule for attachment to this receive and file repork. March 1l, 2009 Page2of2 ce Director has assembled a financing team manage this transaction in the public debt City Attorney has selected a bond counsel pension obligation bonds. This team has implementation, which is included as an During the City Manager Communications scheduled for March 1l, 2009, the Interim Finance Director will discuss this schedule and financing construct in more detail, as an informational item only. FINANCIAL IMPACT No funds are required for this staff analysis. Financing team compensation is paid from bond proceeds, as costs of issuance, if and only if the debt is issued. RECOMMENDATION Accept the progress report on financing the City's tither Post Employment Benefit ~OPEB}obligations. Respectfully submitted, Ann Mari allant Interim Fi nce Director AMG:dI Attachments: 1. Memorandum of March 6 from the Fiscal Sustainability Committee: Recommendations toAddress the City's Unpaid Benefit Obligations -Retiree Medical 2. Underwriter's Analysis 3. PGB & GPEB Financing Team CITY 4F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From; Kevin Kennedy, Chair Fiscal Sustainability Committee Date: March 6, 2009 Re: Recommendations to Address the City's Unpaid Benefit Obligations -- Retiree Medical BACKGROUND In early February, the City Council referred to the Fiscal Sustainability Committee a financing proposal to establish a payment for the retirement of the City's tither Post Employment Benefits retiree medical}~ DISCUSSION In review of the plan presented to address the City's unpaid benefit obligations, the Fiscal Sustainability Committee Committee} recommends the following and makes several observations. In general, the Committee believes that the program as presented by the City's Interim Chief Financial Officer has merit, as it commits the City to a path of payment towards the true cost of the obligation. The Committee endorses a plan that requires progress towards payment of the true cost of the unfunded obligations. That being said, the Committee suggests the following; ~ } Timing -- the Committee is concerned that with current market conditions, immediate issuance of a taxable bond may not be in the City's best interest. The Committee suggests that the City consider a financing only when the spread between what the bonds cost at time of issuance is no greater than 300 basis points maximum, above what the City could achieve in same sort of guaranteed investment vehicle. It was noted that it might be prudent to wait a few months to see if the market stabilizes some, before offering bonds for sale. ~} The Committee understands that the only way for this financing plan to be successful is if the interest earnings and savings achieved by this financing plan structure in out years after debt service are required to be utilized to pay toward the benefit obligation. 3} The Committee also understands that the only way for this financing plan to be successful is to require that a minimum annual payment of $2.5 million be maintained in each FY budget towards the Other Post Employment Benefits ~OPEB}obligation and not just the minimum bond debt service payment. City Council Attachment 'I to Agenda Item #5-A 03-17-49 Honorable Mayor and March 6, 2oD9 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 The Committee had a number of concerns about how the commitment to the minimum Fiscal Year payment and the retention of savingslinterest could be tied together with the plan, to require the financing plan to operate in the way outlined. Finally, the Committee continues to be concerned that; • While this financing proposal addresses the oPEB, the City's "pay as you go" retiree medical obligation payments continue to increase annually, and if current conditions or commitments to future medical benefits continue, the escalating costs of employee contracts will be unsustainable. This means that with this payment commitment, the City will lock in $2.5 million to band debt service and oPEB obligations and have $2 million plus in "pay as you go" costs to continue to budget for the foreseeable future. FINANCIAL IMPACT This is a recommendation from the Fiscal Sustainability Committee. There is no financial impact. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive the recommendations of the Fiscal Sustainabi[ity Committee to address the City's unpaid benefit obligations, retiree medical. Resp ctf Ily submitted, /~ evin Kennedy; Chair iscaf Sustainability Committee G:1~'iscal Sustaii~a~ility CammitteelFSC Recammendatian to Council Memo.doc 0 .~ .~ 0 U c~ P~ U c~3 bA N a N ~ ~ ao ~ ~ o o ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~o ~ ~o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ • N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~' '~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ . ,..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~, `~ o ~ v ~N ~ n ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° `~ ~ °~ ~ a ~;~ ,~ o ~ ~a ~ ~ u~' ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~° ~'~ oNo ~ ~ o ~ o 0 ~ 0 ,~ ~~ ° ~ ~ ~ o~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ o ~'~ ~ ~ ~~ ~o o '~ . ~ o ~•, ~[ ~ •~ ~ C/] ~ ~ ~ ~a~ o ~~ ~ o ~~ o ~ , ~o ~'~ ~ N ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ,~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~~ ~~, ~ ~o .,~ ~ I ~ ~ o ~ ~ ^ ^ ~~ Q ~~ .~ Cit Council ~ y W Atta hment 2 to c Agenda Item #5-A 03-11-09 N 3 . ,,.., C~ U O oN0 O .-~ 'C3 01 O .-~ ,--. a U Cd bA . r-, w b U . ,.., ~--~ O a U .,.i ~ +~ ~ ~ ~ Q 0 a ~i U ,~ a~ ~ ~ U 0 a 0 ~R -~~ 0 a G .. a~ .~ a Q 0 a 0 .~ I I I I I I I I I I ~ N O~ I I I I n O O "''~ ~ I I I I O ~ ~ ~ I I I I I I I I M w w ^ ^ I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I o I I I I V I I I I I I II .~ ~ I I I I I Q I I I _ a I I I I I I ~ ~ I I I I ~ ~ ~ I I ~y ~~II I I I I I I I ~I ~ ~ I t I I I I ~ I a~ ~4 I I I I I ~ V I a ~ W °o o° o ~ °v o o° o ~ c ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ {spu~sno~{Z$) atioZ s£oz 9£aZ ti£UZ Z£oz o£az szaz ~ZOz bzaz ZZaZ ozoz ~iaZ gioZ tiioZ zraZ aioz L£aZ s£aZ ££oZ i£aZ bZaz LZQZ szaZ £zoZ iZOZ dial LiaZ SiaZ £iaZ iiaZ boot o° +°n^ °v ~ °o ° o ~°n (spaesnogy$} O . ,.~ ~, ,-~ N 00 O ,--~ 'L~ D1 O ~--, a U C~ b~Q c}-+ O b~A ....~ '.G 4~ 00000000000000000000000©0000000 0 ooooovvooov,ooooooooovooooooooco v, oo~~oaooooo00000000000ooooovovo 0 00 000ooooovooooo00000oooooaoo 0 vovvovooooooovovooovoooooooovoo 0 ~riouioooocv~N'a~uioooo~ui~~+ooo~iui~oo~oovcvmooo m ~~G~D ~OG~r-~d~~D~r~[~~r3~D~~u~N~t[~Qc~oONd+~O~ri o (~ t*yNr+~N~oooa,vNm~u~~anooa~oo~+NNNmmmmrr~~n o NNNNN ---~r-~rsr-+~N+,-{fir-~NNNNNNNNNNNNN M 00000000000000000000oooooa o ~~~~~oooovooovoooooooovooooo00o v 0000000000000000 000000000 0 voooooaoovooo^oogooooo000o v ooovvooovoooooooooovoooovv o ooooo'ooooo0000000000000000 0 o~ooooo00000000ooooovoovovo c+ ~~+n~cn~~~~~N~rn~cn~~+n~~~~~~~rn m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o D O O D o o D o p D 0 0 0 0 o O o o O o 0 0 D o D O o o p 0oooooaooovooooo000oooovoooDOO p o ooooaooooo00000ooooovooooaoooo 000000000000000000000000000000 o 0 oovovoooooooovooooo00000ooooov h \ \ \ \ • \ \ \ \ \ • \ • - \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ • • • [nOtc)oo00o0d+o0r-~~NNtiDtr3r~+~DONN[rid~OcrioNoO[~DO o N tiD ~ ~D di m O ap ~ c~i O o0 ~ d+ m c*~ m ~ t~ o d+ ~ to ,-~ oo ~ N o ~ oo m N rt O Q~ 00 ~G In d3 c+) r~ O ~ 00 L1 ~ u~ d+ 'rH c'~7 N N N r -~ N a lA r r r . . N N N N N s-+ r+ ,--~ r-i r-~ r~ r~ r-+ ~p ~ N O r-~ N m '~ tta ~ n oo ~ O r-~ ccvy m d+ tiD [~ oo ~ o ~-+ N c+~ d+ ~ ~D l~ ao ~ O ~-+ r-+ ~ r+ N r+ r+ ~ ri r{ N N N N N~ N N N N m tai m t+~ m m m m c+~ m d+ N N N N N N N ON N N N N N N N N N N N N ON N N N ON ON N N N N N '"~ o D O o D o O o 0 0 0 o D O o D v o Q p O p p O O D o D v v p [•~ mmmmmmmmc~mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0 ~~~~m~~~~~~~ww~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ H 0~ r-+ o t+7 ~ 01 d, ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o .~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ N U o ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ •~ . ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ U ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~o ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U~ ~A A ~ ~~ ~ awe • N .~ 0 ti ~~ v O . r, 0 N 00 O ,--~ 't~ O ~--~ a. .-, .-, ~ n .-~ .ti .-, r\ r~ rti r1 r1 r1 ~ Apr ~ .-, r, p~ r-, .~•, r-, r~ ,•• ~~~°v°o°o°o,°0°o,0°QO,°o °o,~000OOD~00~DOO[Of)GOO O n~~Nl~~u~l1jD0000oODO0000G 000 NOD Q oonnnnnnnooooovoooooooogooOC~~~noc~ ,~ d+a~a~rno~rna~rnoovvOVOVOOOOOOOOOOOoooa+~m N h \ \ h \ \ - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - \ \ • \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ 1 \ \ \ 00 ~D r+ ~D di tG'tK O 0~ ~ 00 00 di N ~ O D4 [n I.f') 40 0 n O a0 N t~ N O oo a0 O~I1 ~Nrn-iiO~~Gr~-~c+~dm+t~[)~~o0~O0~N~N[Nc~lt~rlmd0'~d~d~'~ n NNr~~r~r~~ ~+"'~'~`~~~~"~~r~+~(VNcVNN[VNN(VNNN[J M r..r 0ooo0ovoooaooo0 000 00000000000 0 ~noov,voooooooooogoOVgvooooov~nvOO o N~~c~~~~~ v°°°o°O°oo°°°o0°OO°00°°°0°0°0°oo°°°O °vc~~~°n°oc~ ° nooooo00~ooo0ovoooovoooo00000o~+-~m n~ ~OC~c+)c~c*yc'~c~c~7OVDOp0000o000000o00oN~o0 G h~NN~l~u~c~0000DO000000DO00000~~Q~~pO Gp mnnnnnnocnNcn~n+n~nu~~a~n~ncn+ncn~n~ncnu~~n~a+a+d+~+ c~ r-~(VNNNNNNN(VN(VNNN[V[dNNN(VcdN(V O O D O O O O O O O O O o D O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D O O D O O O O O O D O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D D ~ 0 0 0 0 O O ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 o a o a o~ O O O O O O O O O D O D O O O D O O O O O O O O O O O O D O D O 00000000000000000oooovoo0oo000 h \ \ \ \ \ \ t~ocnooo0aod+obr~~NN~[!~s-~~CaNtr)u~d+OmoNo4noo 0 \ ~~ ~ d+c~o oo+n r*~ o 00 ~ ~+m cri cn u7 n o ~+rn ~ ~-+oo ~n N a rnao MNr~O~ODtiDL.tSdic'~r-iO0~00n~D~'d{di[+~NNNraN -{ ~ N ixa r r \ \ h N N N N N r-~ ,~ r-+ rl N r-r f-I r-i `p ~ N Or-~Nc*id+~si~no~O~Or+N~yc~d~+ ~DnoOQ~Oc-+Nc~~~++~~nfl00ti0 r-~ r~ r+ rl r-I -~ N r-i -~ r-{ N N N N N ~ N N N N c+~ t~l cr] m tr'~ rra ('+') t~ m M d+ N N N N N N NO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~"~ O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 D 0 c~mcnc~amc+~cnr+,c~icnmMc~mmmcnmmmc~mmmr~~,c~r~m~,~ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i ~D ~D ~D ~D ~G ~D ~~0 ~D ~ ~D ~G ~0 ~D ~0 tiD t0 ~0 ~D ~D ~d ~D ~ ~ ~p 1D ~0 ~0 ~0 ~ ~ ~p N ~ b ~ U ~ ,o ~ ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ob ~~~ U .°~ c~ ~o~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ° a aM Q ~ ~ ~ o ~ '~ ~ y ~ ,~ o~~~~~~ ~~ ~o ~ •• ~ U ~ ~ ~° ~ ~~ ~, o ~ b ~U ~ ~ 43 r~ U ~ U ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ a~ ^ ^ . ^ 0 U ,~ ~~ ~ .o b~ ,~ •,~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ 4 ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~, +.+ 0 U ~ • o ~ ~; c~ ~ ~ .~ a w N .a 0 ~~ v a .~ v O . ~.., r-+ ,--~ I N 00 O 'C~ O r--~ a U C~ b.Q 4J O bA ..-, "C3 W .. ,o V oooovOOOOOOaooooo00ooooovooooo0 0 env,ooooooov,oooovoooocn~r?oou~ovrnou,oo 0 ~~~~~~~~c~yn~n~nR~~°o~°n~m~°nnoRO°o rR+~ionNncora v° RR~~rnn~+~+a~Ra~o~aa~oa c*~ ~D N Lt N O N O a 0 ~D N~ M N N a ri N OQ N~ R o~ 0 OD ~1 p o0 ,...~ Op 00000oo[~NmooQdi[~~,~m d+ o~N Brio ooNd+~D~oNOt l~oal~~Drc~d+t~N `--',~Nd+~na[~oO~DO~r+N~Nc~c~imc~di~i+d+ d+ r~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a~ ~... U~~ ~~ b o~ ~ ~ ~ ~b,o o~ ,,..~ .~ ~ ~ C+'1 ~' ~ N ~ N U ~ r~ a 0oooooD000OVOOOVOOOOVOOOOOOOOOO O ~noooooooov,oooooov,oo~n~noocnoo~no~no0 v, R~i~i~ricri~i~nui~i~nua~i~iN~i~i~n0ocvrio~i~o RoN+~o 0 o0 i~i~[~[~I~E~R[~Rl~ L~ l~ o[t~~Dc'~~7L~o0DNc~lnr-{L~~ O 00[~l~l~[~[~R[~[~L~[~L~n[rl~[~L~ricriL~~r~d+R~Gd+G1~DG~0a c+7 \ • \ • • \ • \ \ \ \ 1 • \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ • \ \ \ \ • h ooRRR~RRRRR~R~ oo,~~ooavoRRoo~oa mRRRRRRRRRRRR~~~~~oooooo,ooa,rnrnoa~ "~ [~ d{ d+ d+ d's d+ d{ dt di d+ d{ di d{ d{ d{ d+ dt N ~ N u7 ~ ~ di cn u7 d+ di d+ N di N r~r+r-~~ r-+-"~~rir-ir+r-ir~r-irar~r-~N,N[VNNNhlN\NN[VNN\CJ G1 ooovooooo0000000000oooooOOOOOO ooovooooo00000000000000000000o o v 000000000000000000000000000000' 00000000000000oooooDOOOOOVOOOO o o 000000oooooDOOOOOOOOOOVOOOOOOO o ~oNDODOoO~}+OOr-+NNN~u~riaON[,tilt']d+OCtjONo0L~o0 d+ ~D a ~D di c'~ O oO ~i c~ o 00 ~0 d+ c~ t~7 c+'} M l~ D dt Q~ tt'1 r-+ op tc} N O ~ oO N !A dimNr~ornoOaNd+c~i~ornoo~a~n~+d+c*aNNNrir+Nr-i . • \ N N N N N r-t N r~ r-{ r-~ r-~ r-+ r~ a ~ N O r-~ N M d+ CC7 tD 1~ 00 0ti o ~ ~~yy cry d{ ~j a [~ 04 ~ D e-i N m ~r ~n a ~ ~a o, o +~ r+ N r-~ rl +`~ N r-{ N r-+ N N (V N N N N N N N !~ m M t~7 t~ t+~ m m m m d+ O O o 0 0 0 D O O D O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D o o O O o O O D N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N '"~ ovooooooovoovaoooooooooovoooovo mmmmmmc~c~mmmc~mmc~mc~MmMmmc~mMmm~amMm ~ ~~~~~~~~w~~w~~~~~~~~a~~~~~m~~~~ H .,~ 0 ~.., N '~ l~ 00 ~N ~~ ~ ~ ~~ U '-' ~-" U a ~~ ~N ~ ~ ~o ~~ •~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~a b 0 ~ a 0 ~,,~ ~ r-+ .~ ~ ^ 0 oo°"'o 0 N ~~~ ~~ N 0 ~, U .,., ~... ~~~ o ~ ,~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ awH ,a 0 ~~ v ..,, 4) L/~ U O 4~ . ~..., N r--~ r--~ ~C a~ . ,~ 0 .,.., c~ . ,.., c~ d C U C a U e~~~'y~~; G.i r~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + 'b ~ ; ~yrr i ;;., ~ va ~ '~~ f ,.~w~u'1 ~S 11~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ n ~ A' ~ 1~1 ~I h) h V! }I ~ ~ ~ }~I , i~l r~~~.~~;~ ~ ~ti ~ i..S.r o ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ N a o +~ 'ti ~ ~ ;~' ~~~~a~ ~ ~ ~°~ o ~ ~ ~~~ 3 ~~oa ,q~~~ ~ v~ ~~~~~ o ~ ~ ~ }~ v ~ 0 ~ as ~ ~"ti ~ ~ a b ~ o ~ 'rs a~ ~:r ~ ~~ ` ~"~ ~ ~ ° o ~ a ~ 0 o '~ cd ~" ~ ~° a ~ 1~4 ° o . t ~ J ~'.;1a.~ ~.N~ o ~ '~~° ~° ~ ° ~ o ~ ~ r... s r~ , .,.., . ~ ~, a~ a a., ,..~ U .. -~ ~ A ~ ~ ~w ~ a~ o .~ ~,:xw <<: ~ ~ ~ U w ~ w w~ U~wa~a ~ ~. ;~ 4`~'7~'~j~ ~+~. ^i+t ~~ ~ ' ~j5''. ~ [~ ~~~~~-~~~~ N D1 o Q1 0 41 01 00 Q1 O1 00 Q1 ~1 01 G1 Q1 000 ° ° 1 ~.,~, ~f. ~ ~ N . o ~ Nv ~~ ~o ~~ 000 o o ~~N NN - ~~ ~~,.~ N ,~ M ~, o 00 0 o~ ~ oo ~~ N N c*~ oo ~ NNN o~ +a ~ ~ r+ ~ vo ~ ~n N ~ V) ~ ~ '~ U ~ ~ C~ w `r' ~ ~ rev ~y, N 0 ~ • ~..~ ~ ~ v f ;4~ n '~ n ~ o ~ o W ~ ~ N i Ot ~ N p ~ ~ ~ O r"'~ o ~ ~ 0 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p~ va ~ *-+ DO V'1 A N N ~ N ~ .~ o b ~ ~ ~ G 4 a~ ~ . { ~` ~ N ~ ~~ 0 ~ R3 '~' 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° N ~~~ ~~,~ ~ o ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ••~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +~•- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N Q} ~O ~ I-~t +"'~ ~ ~ V} ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ U o ~ ~ ~ rn ~ N o ~ ~ _ c~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ° ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~' o~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ N , ~' 0 +--t ^ C,.~. U1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N c*~ ~ , .t rrl V ~ ~ ,b +~-+ ''"~ (,~ U y ~ ^ ~ ~ o o ~ N rn ~ ry o ~ ~ 00 ~ *~ N N 0~ N ~ ^ ^ 0 0 'S .°~i' ~ •~ ~a . ~ s~ w II ~ ~ o ~n w . ~ ~ drryy ~ ~ ~I V ~ ~ 0 W o ~ I! II ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ N N ~ N G~ ~ ~ *-~ r+ N ~ ~ *~ N `Y' o ~ N 3 N O~ ~0 c~ O ~ *-+ N f~ ~ oo ~1 N Gt ~ N N n ~ N N N fl1 D N o ~ ~ ~ N u, N n ~ H N N ~ ~ O N ~ N Qti ~D ~ *~ ,~ ty ~ ~ aa ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~~ ~; ~ M O l~ ..: . rt ~-+ A e~ v 0 x POB & OPEB FINANCING TEAM CITY OF ALAMEDA ISSUER Alameda Finance Department 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Room 220 Alameda, CA 94501 Ann Marie Gallant, Interim Finance Director a a11an1 ci. alameda. ca. us Dorey Larsen, Executive Assistant dlarsen ci. alameda. ca. us Alameda City Attorney's Office 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Room 280 Alameda, CA 94501 Teresa L. Highsmith, Esq., City Attorney 11~i hsmi ci. alameda. ca. us FINANCIAL ADVISOR Magis Advisors 1301 Dove Street, Suite 380 Newport Beach, CA 92660 1Nilliam IN. Reynolds, Principal wre Holds me. com BOND COUNSELIDISCLOSURE COUNSEL Quint & Thimmig, LLP 575 Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105-2874 Brian D. Quint, Esq. b uinl 111 .com Karen L. Aczon, Assistant to Mr. Quint kaczon 111 .com (510) 747-4888 Fax: (510) 747-4890 (510) 747-4887 Fax: (510) 747-4890 (510) 747-4750 Fax: (510) 747-4767 Ext. 25 (310) 455-1930 Fax: (310) 455-4006 (415) 765-1550 Fax: (415) 765-1555 (415) 765-1550 Fax: (415) 765-1555 City Council Attachment 3 to Agenda Item #5-A o3-'I l-D9 UNDERWRITERS Wedbush Morgan Securities 1000 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90030 Richard L. DeProspo, Managing Director X213} 633-4387 richard. de ros o wedbusn. com Fax: X213} 685-4388 John Phan, Vice President X213} 688-4389 'ohn. han wedbusl~.com Fax: X213} 688-4388 601 California Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94108 Roberk Larkins, Managing Director X415} 273-7311 robert.larkins wedbush.com Fax: X415} 273-7389 Westhoff, Cone &Holmstedt 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Mark Holmstedt, Managing Director (925) 472-8747 mah(c~wcah.com Fax: (925) 939-5099 TRUSTEE Union Bank of California 350 California Street, ~ 1 t" Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Douglas J. Schlafer, Corporate Trust Department X415} 273-2518 dau las, schlafer uboc. com Fax: X415} 273-2492 TRUSTEE CaUNSEL Union Bank of California, N.A, 445 South Figueroa Street,12t" Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Janis Penton, Esq. X213} 236-5454 'anis. enton uboc.com Fax: X213} 236-7575 ACTUARIAL G~NSULTANT Bartel Associates 411 Borel Avenue, Suite 445 San Mateo, CA 94402 John Bartel, President (650) 377-1601 ibarte/(c~barte/-associates. com Fax: (650) 345-8057 f- ` CITY GFALAMEDA RESGLUTION NG. } APPOINTING ARDELLA DAILEYAS A MEMBER 4F THE E ~ SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIGNS B L ~ 4ARD ~° o ~, ~ ~, a ~ ~ ~~.~ ~ BE IT RESGLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuantto ~ ~ ~ ~~,; ~ ® ~~~ ~ the provisions of Article X of the Charter of the City of Alameda, and u on p ~ ~ti ~t t~ nomination by the Mayor, ARDELLA DAILEY is hereby appointed to the office of ~i member of the Social Service Human Relations Board of the City of Alameda, to fill the remainder of the unexpired term of Stuart Chen and a full term, commencing March 17, 2009, and expiring on June 30, 2013. *~*~** 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 adjourned regular meeting assembled on the 17t" day of March, 2009 b the ,y following vote to wit: AYES: NQES: ABSENT; ABSTENTIONS: IN VvITNESS, WHEREGF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 18t" day of March, 2409. Lara Vlleisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolution #fi-A 03-17.09 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: David Brandt Acting City Manager Date: March 17, 2009 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Amending the Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Adjust the Appeal Fees to the Planning Board and to the _~~ty Council BACKGROUND The Alameda Municipal Code ~AMC~ includes a mechanism for reviewing decisions regarding development and land use applications to ensure that they are consistent with the purpose of the Code, and to provide anyone affected by the decision a forum for reconsideration. AMC Section 30-25, Appeals and Calls for Review, provides that a decision of the Planning Director or Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Board, and decisions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board may be appealed to the City Council. The appeal process may be initiated by any person who feels the decision was made in error or by any officer, agency, or department of the City affected by the decision, determination, or requirement. In addition to the appeal process, decisions of the Planning Director or Zoning Administrator may be called for review to the Planning Board by the Planning Board or by the City Council and decisions of the Planning Board or the Historical Advisory Board may be called for review by the City Council or a member of the City Council. The City of Alameda has endeavored to maintain a fee structure for processing appeals that is affordable, while cast covering related expenses. A review of the records shows that the appeal fee beginning in fiscal year 199311994 was a flat rate of $250, which was increased annually by the Consumer Price Index ~CPI~, until the 199111998 fiscal year when this rate was reduced to $100 with an annual CPI step increase, which was $122 in 200112002. In fiscal year 200212003, the cost of time and materials was added to the base fee in order to recover the full cost of processing the appeal. The time and materials cost was established based on a blended hourly rate that includes salary, benefits and overhead for the staff working on the appeal. The appeals fee was reduced to a flat rate of $100 in 2006. The following table shows the appeals fees for fiscal years 1993/1994 through 200812009. City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #6-B 03.17-49 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council HISTORY of THE CITY ~F ALAMEDA APPEALS FEES FoR FISCAL YEARS 199311994 -2408!2449 YEAR FEE BASIS FaR CHANGE 93194 PB $250 Flat CC $350 Flat Appeal fee was added by council Burin this fiscal ear 94195 PB $252 Flat CC $353 Flat CP! Increase 95196 PB $259 Fla# CC $362 Flat CPI Increase 9619? PB $263 Flat CC $368 Fla# CPI increase 97!98 PB & CC $100 Fla# Reduced b resolution 1214196 98199 PB & CC $103 Flat CPI Increase 99100 PB & CC $107 Flat CPI Increase 00101 PB & CC $111 Fiat CPI Increase 01102 PB & CC $122 Flat CPI Increase 02103 PB & CC $125 + t & m CPI Increase 03104 PB & CC $126 + t & m CPI Increase 04105 PB & CC $100 + $500 Deposit + t & m Increased by Resolution, 7/20/2044 05106 PB & CC $100 + $500 Deposit + t & m No increase 09!06 - Present PB & CC $100 flat rate All appellants CC action 4118106 DISCUSSION March 17, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Recent discussions among the City Council and staff regarding the cost to the Planning and Building Department to process an appeal has led to an evaluation of the current fee structure. A survey of 10 Bay Area cities revealed that appeals fees vary widely from one municipality to another. For instance, the City of San Jose does not charge anon- applicant for filing an appeal and instead charges the cost of time and materials for processing the appeal to the project applicant. This is in sharp contrast to the $278 fee that the City of San Leandro charges anon-applicant who files an appeal. See Attachment 1: Comparison of Appeals Fees in Bay Area Cities. The approximate average cost of each appeal during fiscal years 2006/2001 through 2008/2009 was $1,759. During that time period the Planning and Building Department received $2,404 in appeal fees and the actual cost of hearing the appeals was $38,691. See Attachment 2: Summary of Appeals since September 2006}. A fee based on the actual cost to process the appeal would allow the Planning and Building Department to recover its cost. The addition of a cap on the appeals fee would ensure that the appellant would be informed of the maximum cost at the onset of the process. The cap on the appeal for a commercial project should be higher than the cap for a residential project. The following alternative fee structures could achieve this goal. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council March 17, 2009 Page3of3 1. Abase rate of $400 plus the actual cost of time and materials up to a maximum of $1,~DO presidential} and $5,DV0 commercial} to be paid by any appellant whether applicant ornon-applicant. 2. A flat rate of $400 for non-applicants, with the cost of time and materials paid by the applicant at the hourly rate established in the City of Alameda's Master Fee Schedule to a maximum of $5000. FINANCIAL IMPACT Approval of this fee increase would result in full cost recovery consistent with City Council discussion and policy direction at the February 2009 City Financial Workshop. MUNICIPAL CODEIP~LICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Actions taken on this item would not affect or deviate from any local Codes, Regulations, and Policies. REC~MMENDATI~N Amend the Master Fee Schedule by adopting the following fee structure for appeals: A base rate of $400 plus the actual cost of time and materials up to a maximum of $1,500 (residential) and $5,000 (commercial) to be paid by any appellant whether applicant or non-applicant. Respectfully submitted, Cathy W ury Planning and Building Di ctor Approved as to funds and account, Ann Mari allant Interim Fi a ce Director CW:nm Attachment(s): 1. Comparison of Appeals Fees in Bay Area Cities 2. Summary of Appeals since September 2006 W ~_ U a W a a m W W J a W 0. a 0 Z _o _~ a a 0 ~ ;,,.,~ m o ,, -- , . p N ,... o ~, co ~ aka ~,~ -~o.a ~~ ~~ ;~o cm u; ~+~ v ~o m~ o~ o ~ ~;m Lr o -op ~ 0 ,C +r ~ ~ a T, ~ r fl- p3 ~~is UQ ~ C,~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ +~ ~ ~~~ ~_~ c~ r~v1~4~ ~ ~ ~?~~ a~ a ~ ~ ~ ~~, V N D A L N ++ ro +, ~ ~ L O ~~ ~r~~ U ~ ~~~w ~'`~ Eck Eoc.~o ~ o N v~, as '~~ ° r ~ ~_ ~ ~' o a ~ ¢ ~ ~ p~ ~ ~ N ~ o ~ a~ r. o ~~ ~ ~~ ~ y ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ a ~ ~ ° ~ N ~O ~ ~,~~ ac -~,~,~ o'~ ao~, o ~ o ~ c ~. ~ ~' ~ ~;:. ~ ~ p cam ~m~,~ ~ o , ~ ~ N ~~ ~ ~.c ~a~ ~ .30~ cn s ac~o m o ~ ~ ` 1' N ~ c p~ .y ~ a ; a N C Q? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L o , ~ Q N z" c d ,r o ~ L -Q ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ,vc, ~ o c o~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~ _~ r as c o~ a `4 O ~ ~~~ tc~r V v~ .fir ~ ~ ~LO C C ~ ~ E` U r ~ ~~? ~~~ aao ~~vo= a~N° ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ N ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L c `a N ~+ ~ ~r ~Q~~ 3NNo+r 4? ocy~n 4~~~c cn ~~t~ a ~ ~Q o ~ r a~ ~ 'c~ m o ~ ~ - ~ a~ ~ *~ a~Y~~,. oa~ ~04~, ~~cw~N ~ o ,~ v,~E _~o o~~~ ~: m ~ o :~ ~ ~-v~ o ~ o 0 0 'a ,~ ~s~ ~~ ooci~ A~°~o~~v~ ~ ~ ~F~ ~' maa~ r x~ a ~ ~~'~ Q3 z~.NV~ `~mo~~Q w ~- pco ~~ ~{t1t' o ~ ~~~ c - o ~y ~, i`{~~ ~ ~ o r Cti7 ~ ~ {~ `U ~a~~f Q ; ~ ~ V N ~ N ~~ c ~ o ~:. - o c fry= ~. ~. '~ ~ ~~ o ~ o ~~ t` 0 c ~ d C ~ ~" +r ~~`' ~ }' i ~~~ N ~~ C d ~:. ~ N '' ~ C ~ r 0 ., . ~ V c ~:-,~ c~ s~~ a ~ f ~ r ';~ a~ p V ~ ~ p C ~ ~ ~~ ~ L p ;~: o o~ ~ ~ ov ~ o- o N ~ ~ ~~s ~ U c N ~' c ~ o '~ c~ cvr ~ r ,U c a E ~ ~ ~~ -:U ~ U .~ a. r i ~~~ ~ ~ U~ p~ c c ~a ~ o N. o }~~ °~ ~ ~ c N •c c a~ cn o ,~~ m a , ~ ~ ; m ° W a °h° ~, o ~ cD ~' d ~ a ~ ~ d i. ~ .N c ~ N c p ~ `~ o ~ o ~o~ .. o a= cam ~ ~ ~i~ ~``_' N r~ o ,c v, o a oo c 'a ~ ,: rn [r,` ~ ~ o fq ~ •Y .` Q ~N Q a a ~a o~ ~ ~~~. Q ~ 4 Q d Q z Q ~ t~ ~~~ ,~ ~-~` o Cit Council ~r L y ~' ,~,:. ~ ~ .; ~ ~, Attachment 1 to ~, ~~ ~ p N ~, ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ' ~ ~ Public Flearing ~ U N ~ ~ ~ c c c w ~;~ w ~i = ~ o ;~ ; ~ ~ ~ r ~ Agenda Item #6-B 03.17-09 0 GC a 0 m C~ Z z Z J a a a~ ..~ N U~ ~m Q~ U~ ~a UN W ~Z J~ a `~ a a a LL 0 ~c a N c o t~ ~ = m ~ 'o U U C o U U U mo~3 =v U m m c~ mo '' ~ ~, ~- mo ''v ~ o E=av c~ ~a~ 3 ' ' ,~ Nm ~ m ~ o ~ a~ m ~~^ ' o o ~ ~ ~ ~ .3 ~ 0 u ~ - ~ ,~ 3 m o .~ r ,~ ma ~ .~ ~, c ~ o a ~ ~ ° ~ o a ~ 3 ~ o a ~ c > 0 0 'c~ a > .a ,~ 0 ~ a'c° 'i a a~~~ ~~ `~mc ~ ~0 - 3 ~,~ mu a m 'a m acc m33 mina 'o m am'~ myE cc 33 c 3 cc~ mm~ o~ Sao°- ~ ~ m mwm m ~acom o,c3 ~ 'o ~~~ ~'Eyi~ ~i~~ L~ ~~ EEa a . as a =~~ a ~.~ ~ ~aa~,m m a ~. a m a~~ mo m a ~°a mm aa'~~ ~~ tr ~~ rm mm mra as a as a mm aa`~-mamm' ~~o as 3~ ~a y L a Q a3~ Q~~a 3 a aa~~ aac ===m ~~3 E ~ ~ o m ~ m c ~ , o a a m ~= a +~ as m a m m m m a m mmm mm Q Q~ ~~ ~ a a s a r a aaa as r r yy N a ~ ~ H ~ C 01 ~ C ~ mm o m m m ~ m m m ~ m m o = ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 , a , a . 3 ~ c o '~ c '~ ° '~ ~ L m ~ . ~ ~- ~~ ~°-' p o mm ~ OC _ r ~ m ~ E m m ~ ~c c c~ plc ` ~ m m E ' c ~ o E c ~ = ~a o~c~m~ c, 0 ~ G} c c to rh m m ~ 'y m m EmEm ~ ~Q 0 ~, 0 c m . ~ m O ... m ~ ._ m m mm ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~;,a~c_ H~ e o ,- ,~, H'- E ~d1 H Ho G ~m~~ _ o m m m m m m 0 o m°aE ~~E ~ `~ o ~ ,o ~,®,o~ ~~m~=~o o`: oa `o ~ ~ ~~av Ufa r w ~ ~ ~ ~ m~] ~ a 7~ m'y ~~ ~~ ~ m ~ o or 3 m ~ ~ m c~ m ~ id ~.n a v u i~ ~ r a~ a ~ ~w o - a ~ c Mr r a ~ c ~ c v w a v ~ ~ ~ cac u ~ ~ ac ~ ~ w c a~ ~ ~ cc ~' c Q,~ a a~ a ~ a a ~ ._ a a ~ ._ ~ ,_ a a ~ am ._ a ~ am a ,~ m a~ ~ a m ~a m a c 0 c c 0 0 U c ~ o a a c o a a c. a~ c a "'ca a o a c a o a c a o as a s a- a: a z za z ~ z a z a~ a z aza za a z- as a 0 0 0 0 y co ti 00 0 ov N 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 000 00 ov 0 0~ o o~ 00 oo 0 0 v v Q Os M o o h ~~ h o ~G D 0 D 0 r 0 r 0o Oa ca Cs oo u~ ~ Qs r o ch ~D N ro o~ h r- ~ o0 0o ~0 W di r h Qs U r r N M O !V N r et ~ ~ N M D iD O " r OD o Gs " ~ D D D' 'et ~ N~ D ~ r N r Y'i N OQ ~ M a ~0 0 ~0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 v .~ 0 o 000 000 00 00 0 0~ 0 0 00 00 0 0 o a a.o c 0 0 C r r o0 0 00 0 r r r o v 0~ 0 -' o 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0! 0 0 0 000 oov 00 o0 0 0~ 0 0. 00 00 0 0 0 0 r r r r r e- r r ~- r N ~r N r ~- r r ~ 0 N a ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~; ~~ ~ - m a ... z N ~ ~, ~ ~ W H N o ~m ~~ E ~ a N y ~ G H L N Of t~ ~ c :a ~ m ~ N N N ~r C ~ t NM ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v ~ ~ ~ o UZIN ~ m ] ~ ~+~ ' ~ ~ ++,~, N y C ~'~ aM m ~N a ~ m ~ J o ~ ~ ~ c ~, .5 C N ~ ~; m rs c ~. C. ~~, r ~ " N ~ ~ ~ ~ N Va m U 3 ~ ~ m ~ ~ r ~ m m NLLa ~ ~ ~ m m 1 ,_ ~ Wa U ~3~' ~ ~ ~A N ~~, y R ~ N ~ U U F ~ o M ~ ~ E ~ ~ ch o O c"~hh A N C vo O F ~n o; r Y'! Ct '- r 0 r r M M ~+±~ r M N N ~ ai a r U a M ~ 00 N N M ~D Nchr aN N ~ C ~~ ! ' U ~ e0 ~o ~0 0 ~0 0 h h h 00 0 oa o h h 0 0 a o !^ 0 0 h 0 0 h 0 0 Ca 0 GO 0 OD 00 00 000 00 OD 0o 4~ C~ v o ~, "-' a h h o0 Q N N N N N N N N_ N N 0 N 0 N oov N N N o0 N N 0 0 N N~ ~ 00 N N {~ ' ~: - CD ~ ~ - ret ~ ~ ~ D D r ~ ~ to ~A ~ DOD Dom' h OQ o- M C9 ~ M M' N 00 C~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ DO 00 r r ~ r o N J r t•• a ; ~' ~ ~ City Council ... a~ Attachment 2.to Public Hearing Agenda Item #6-B 03-'I T-09 CITY OFALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. L AMENDING MASTER FEE RESOLUTION N0.12191 TO REVISE FEES CHARGED FOR APPEALS TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Alameda Municipal Code and the California Government Code provide that the City Counci! shall set fees reasonable to recover cost,of providing various services by resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at the August 27, 1991 Special City Council meeting, directed City Staff to amend the Alameda Municipal Code to reflect that City fees shall beset by City Council Resolution; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 12191 ~"Master Fee Resolution"}, as amended cod~~es existing fees for various City services and permits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that the fees charged for appeals to the Planning Board and to the City Council be revised to a flat rate of $400 plus the actual cost of time and materials up to a maximum of $1500 (residential) and $5000 (commercial) to be paid for by any appellant whether applicant or non-applicant. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Ordinance No. 1928, the City Fees are subject to administrative adjustments not greater than 5% annually over existing recovery levels. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all fees established by Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 which are inconsistent with the fees established b Y this Resolution are hereby repealed. *****~* Resolution #6-B 43-~1-49 !, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 17t~ day of March, 2009, by the followin vote g to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN VvITNESS, vvHEREOF, !have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 18t~ day of March, 2409. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY ~F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From; David Brandt Acting City Manager Date: March 17, 2009 Re: Introduce an ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 24-10 Cost Recovery for Recurring Calls for Service to Respond to andlor Perform Abatement on Properties Due to Specified Conditions or owner Neglects to Chapter XXIV Public Health; and amend Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise and Add Various New Fees BACKGROUND Every year, the City of Alameda responds to a number of calls for service caused by certain conditions that do not typically require the City's emergency response farce to rectify a problem due to the condition of the property or neglect on the property owner's part. In order to defray some of the costs associated with responding to these calls, the department has been analyzing charging fees for service when there are recurring calls to the same property for these types of responses. DISCUSSION Government Code Section 53158 clarifies that although the Government Code has provisions to enable cost recovery for emergency response by public agencies, the state has no intent to occupy the field or limit the remedies available to any public agency to recover the expenses of an emergency response. Charging a fee for recurring calls for service to respond to or abate properties due to circumstances not requiring the emergency response or due to owner neglect not only provides restitution for the City but also deters property owners from causing strains on City resources. The proposed ordinance would establish fees to recover emergency response costs associated with service calls that result from specified conditions that do not require an emergency response or that are due to owner neglect by the property owner. All City emergency responders, including law enforcement, would be authorized to charge full cost recovery. Some Fire Department examples of the type of responses that would be subject to cost recovery may include bu# are not limited to: elevator malfunctions with no occupants; faulty electrical wiring; water removal; and lock-ins and lock-outs of City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #6-C 43-'l 1-09 Honorable Mayor and March 11, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 buildings absent exigent circumstances. If code violations are identified, they will be referred to the appropriate code enforcement division for abatement. Under the proposed ordinance, the Fire Department would charge for full cost recovery for the second and subsequent times emergency personnel respond to a property for the specified conditions within atwelve-month period. The twelve-month period would begin on the date of the prior call. The initial response would generate a warning letter from the Fire Department aler#ing the property owner that he or she would be charged a fee, as set in the City's current Master Fee Schedule, should the department be required to respond to the same incident within twelve months. The Fire Department's initial response to these types of calls varies from a single unit to three engines, two trucks, one ambulance, and one Chief Officer. The current full cost hourly rate for one fire company with three personnel is $339. This includes the fire apparatus, base salary for one Fire Captain, one Apparatus operator, and one Firefighter; 30% for benefits; and an 18°/o administrative overhead fee. The cost for a full first alarm assignment of three engines, two trucks, one ambulance, and one Chief Officer X18 personnel} is $2,118 per hour: The fee will be adjusted pro-rata in fifteen minute increments, and the property owner will be billed the appropriate amount. The billing cycle would be in twelve-month intervals from the initial call for emergency response personnel. At the end of the twelve-month period, the calls would reset to zero. The Fire Department and Police Department have developed new protocols to screen 911 calls when no emergency exists. vlJhen the Police Department receives calls for lock-outs of vehicles and buildings where there are no exigent circumstances or an elevator malfunction with no occupants inside it, those calls will not be initiated for the Fire Department or Police Department response. The City Manager's office and Fire Department staff will work jointly to provide information to the community regarding the new fees, which would be levied when there is negligence or lack of maintenance on the property owner's part. FINANCIAL IMPACT It is difficult to project the tots! amount of revenue that this new fee will raise. The Fire Department will monitor the calls and related collections during -the first 90 days of program implementation. At that point, an annual collection amount can be projected. Revenues will be deposited into the General Fund. MUNICIPAL C~DEIPCLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This Municipal Code change affects Chapter XXIV Public Health} by adding Section 24-10 Cost Recovery for Recurring Calls for Service to Respond to andlor Perform Abatement on Properties Due to Specified Conditions or owner Neglect}. Each section Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council March 17, 2009 Page 3 of 3 has been thoroughly analyzed and found to be compatible with the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code. RECCMMENDATI~N Introduce an ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Section 24- 1 D Cost Recovery far Recurring Calls for Service to Respond to andlor Perform Abatement. on. Properties Due to Specified Conditions or Cwner Neglect} to Chapter XXIV Public Health}; and amend Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to revise and add various new fees. Respectfully submitted, a'~`~i ~j' ""~ David A. Kapler Fire Chief Approved as to funds and account, Ann Marie allant Interim Fi nce Director By: Michael Fisher Division ChieflFire Marshal CITY OF ALAMEDAQRDINANCE N0. New Series E L 0 0 0 AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 24-10 (COST RECOVERY FOR RECURRING CALLS FOR SERVICE TO RESPOND TO AND/OR ABATE PROPERTIES DUE TO SPECIFIED CONDITIONS OR OWNER NEGLECT) TO CHAPTER XXIV (PUBLIC HEALTH) BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is amended by adding Section 24-10 (COST RECOVERY FOR RECURRING CALLS FOR SERVICE TO RESPOND TO AND/OR ABATE PROPERTIES DUE TO SPECIFIED CONDITIONS OR OWNER NEGLECT) to Chapter XXIV (PUBLIC HEALTH), which shall read as follows: 24-10 CAST RECGVERY FOR RECURRING CALLS FOR SERVICE TO RESPGND TG AND14R ABATE PRGPERTIES DUE TG SPECIFIED CGNDITIDNS GR GINNER NEGLECT 24-10,1 Purpose and Authority, This chapter is adopted pursuant to the Charter authority of the city and the general police power as has specifically been acknowledged by the state legislature to enable cost recovery for emergency response purposes in Government Cade Section 53158. Qwners of properties causing recurring calls for emergency response andlor abatement due to a specified condition listed in subsection 24-1D.3.A or owner neglect as defined in subsection 24.1O.2.D will be held liable for the cost of the city's emergency response to such incidents. Cost recovery for recurring calls for service to abate properties due to the conditions specified or owner neglect is necessary in order to provide restitution for expenses incurred by the city and to deter owners from causing strains on city resources. 24-90.2 Definitions. The following definitions shall a I to the construction of this section ppy except where the context clearly indicates another meaning was intended: A. "Abatement" means any emergency response that includes law enforcement, fire, ar other emergency response provider personnel and related equipment, to prevent, mitigate or remedy the actual or potential consequences of a nuisance existing on a property due to due to a specified condition listed in subsection 24-1O.3.A or owner neglect. Introduction of Ordinance #6-C 03.11-09 B "Emergency response costs" shall mean the cost to the city to provide !aw enforcement, fire, or other emergency response provider personnel and related equipment to respond to abate a property due to the conditions specified in subsection 24-10.3.A or owner neglect. Such expenses shall include the costs, including salaries or contractual casts, of providing law enforcement, fire, ar other emergency response provider personnel and related equipment rescue on-scene at the property. C. "Owner" shall mean the record owner of the title to property, wherever that person or entity may currently reside. D. "owner neglect" means that the owner has failed to carry out or perform the necessary maintenance, repair, replacement or other appropriate abatement measure on the property to a degree that an emergency response by the city to provide law enforcement, fire, or other emergency response provider personnel and related equipment is required to respond to andlor abate the existing nuisance. E. "Plumbing systems" shall include all the potable water, building supply, and distribution pipes; all plumbing fixtures and traps; all drainage and vent pipes; and all building drains and building sewers, including their respective joints and connections, devices, receptors, and appurtenances within the property lines of the premises and sha[I include potable water piping, potable water treating or using equipment, medical gas and medical vacuum systems, liquid and fuel gas piping, and water heaters and vents for same. F. "Nuisance" shall have the same meaning as defined in California Civil Code Section 3419. 24-~0.3 Liability for emergency response costs. A. An initial response by a law enforcement, fire, or other emergency response provider to a private property for at least one of the following specified conditions will initiate a warning letter to the owner: ~ .Sudden and accidental release of water onto properties or into buildings due to broken plumbing systems; 2. Water intrusion resulting from structural leakage; 3. Basementflooding due to malfunctioning sump pumps; 4. Persons} locked out of a building absent exigent circumstances; 5. Elevator malfunctions; 6. Lock-outs out of a vehicle with no occupants or animals in the vehicle; or 1.Owner neglect as defined in subsection 24-~0-2.D. B. When a law enforcement, fire, or other emergency response provider makes an initial response to a private property due to at least one of the fallowing specified conditions in subsection ~4-~O.A or owner neglect, the city's official shall, in writing, warn the owner that: 1. The official has determined that the law enforcement, fire, ar other emergency response was required due to one ofthe conditions specified in subsection 24-10.3.A or owner neglect; and 2. If law enforcement, fire, or otheremergency response providers make any further emergency responses to the same property for the same specified condition or arising from the same condition of owner neglect within twelve months of the initial response, the ownerwill be charged forthe emergency 4 response costs. B. vvhen a law enforcement, fire, or other emergency response provider responds to the property because of the same specified condition or arising from the same condition of owner neglect within twelve months after the warning in subsection 24-10.3.B. has been given, any and all owners shall be jointly and severally liable forthe emergency response costs. C. The emergency response costs incurred under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council. The emergency response costs incurred under this section shall be deemed a debt owed to the city and are due 30 days after receipt of the bill. Any owner owing such debt shall be liable in a civil action brought in the name of the city for recovery of such debt, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The bill shall contain the following information: 1. The names} ofthe owners} being held liable for the payment of such costs; 2. The address of the private property where the recurring emergency response due to a condition specified in subsection 24-10.3.A ar arising from the same condition of owner neglect occurred; 3. The date and time of the emergency responses; 4. The names of law enforcement, fire oremergency service providers who responded; 5. The dates}and times} of any previous warning given pursuant to subsection 24-10.3.B, andlor previous responses to the private property in question due to the same specified condition or arising from the same condition of owner neglect within the previous twelve months; and 6. An itemized list of the emergency response costs for which the owners} is being held liable. 24-~ 0.4 Payment and collection. A. Any owner causing a recurring response by law enforcement, fire, or other response provider personnel and related equipment due to a specified condition listed in subsection 24-10.3.A or arising from the same condition of owner neglect shall be liable for all of emergency response costs. The emergency response costs shall be a charge against the owner causing the response. The charge constitutes a debt of that person and is collectible by the city in the same manner as in the case of an obligation under a contract, express or implied. B, The provisions of subsection 13-9,4 of this Code shall apply to the payment and collection of the emergency response costs due to a recurring response to a specified condition listed in subsection 24-10.3,A or arising from the same condition of owner neglect. !n the alternative, the city attorney may bring civil suit or other action to collect the expense of emergency response costs due to a recurring response to a specified condition listed in subsection 24- 10,3,A or arising from the same condition of owner neglect. 24-~0.5 Non-exclusive remedy. This chapter provides for the recovery by the city of its expense of emergency response due to a specified condition listed in subsection 24-10.3,A or arising from the same condition of owner neglect, is not the exclusive remedy for recovery of such costs, and is in addition to all other legal and equitable remedies, administrative, criminal or civil, that may be pursued by the city to provide for recovery of its emergency response costs due to a specified condition outlined in subsection 24-10,3,A or arising from the same condition of owner neglect. Section 2, Severability Clause, If any of the provisions of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provisions or applications of this chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. To this end the various provisions of this chapter are severable and each would have been enacted without the other. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Attest: Lora Weisiger, City Clerk Presiding Officer of the City Council *~**** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 17t" day of March, 2009 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS,INHEREOF, !have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 1St" day of March, 2009. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION N0. E AMENDING M ASTER FEE RESOLUTION N0. 12191 TO REVISE ~ THE MASTER F EE SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE FEES FOR COST ~ RECOVERY FOR RECURRING GALLS FOR SERVIC ~' E TO N 4 ~ ca ~ RESPOND TO AND1OR PERFORM ABATEMENT ON PROPERTIES ~ .~ DUE TO SPECIFIED CONDITIONS OR OWNER NEGLECT a ~ 0 L ~. ~ WHEREAS, the Alameda Municipal Code and The California Government Cade provide that the City Council shall set fees reasonable to recover the cost of providing various services by resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at the August 27, 1991 Special Council meeting, directed City staff to amend the Alameda Municipal Code to reflect that City fees shall be set by City Council Resolution; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 12191 ~"Master Fee Resolution"}, as amended codifies existing fees for various City services and permits; and WHEREAS, State law authorizes local governments to charge fees for services based on the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that said Council hereby codifies fees for various City services and permits as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuantto Ordinance No. 1928, the City fees are subject to administrative adjustments not greater than 5% annually over the existing recovery levels, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all fees established by Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 which are 'inconsistent with fees established by this Resolution are hereby repealed. ****** Resolution #6-C 03-~ 1-09 Exhibit A CITY 4F ALAMEDA MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT Fees for Cost Recovery for Recurring Calls for Service to Respond to andlor Perform Abatement on Properties Due to Specific Conditions or owner Neglect For the first response to andlor perform abatement on the property due to specific conditions or owner neglect, there is a written warning, Every response of a similar type within a twelve month period to the same property to respond to andlar perform abatement on the property due to specif c conditions or owner neglect is charged to be charged full cost recovery per fifteen minute increments based on the following types of personnel and equipment response, based on the following hourly rates:. Fire Engine with Staff $339.00 per hour Fire TrucklAerial with Staff $398,00 per hour Ambulance with Staff $18.00 per hour Command Vehicle with Staff $119.00 per hour Technical Rescue Vehicle with Staff $339.00 per hour Fire Boat with Staff $280.00 per hour Staff Vehicle with Staff $119,00 per hour !, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was dul and y regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a re ular th g meeting assembled on the 1l day of March, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTI~NS: IN v111TNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 18~h day of March, 2Q09. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CURRENT APPLICATIONS RENT REVIEW ADVISORY BOARD TWO VACANCIES (Landlord and Tennant Seats) Cassandra Caron (Tennant) Jennifer Goodman (Tennant) Cassandre Fecht (Tennant) Jonathon Dove (Tennant) Caelo Marroquin (Landlord) Yvette Dunmore (Tennant) Henry Hernandez (Tennant) Brad Travis (Tennant) Daniel Bower (Tennant) Thuy T. Nguyen (Landlord) Stephanie Williams (Tennant) Re; Agenda Item #9-A 03.17-og