The URL can be used to link to this page

2009-09-01 PacketN M77TTNTr- n7 THE COU NC IL SPECIAL JnT (-TrPV ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 6:00 P.M. CITY OF ALAMEDA *CALIFORNIA Time: Tuesda September 1, 2009 6:00 p.m. Place am, Cit Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak stree A Roll Call. Cit Council, ARRA, CIC 2. Public Comment on A Items Onl An wishin to address the Council on a items onl ma speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: Cit Council, ARRA and CIC 3-A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (54956.8) Propert Tideland Trust Properties Ne parties: Cit of Alameda, APRA, CIC and various leaseholders Under ne Price and terms Cit Council 3-B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (54956.8) Propert 1855 N. Loop Road and 1 Clubhouse Memorial Drive Ne parties: Cit Mana and Harbor Ba Isle Associates Under ne Price and terms 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if an S. Ad Cit Council, ARRA, CIC am=% 7 00ff T7 C r 11 so Mayor CITY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA F- �r�m SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT C014MISSION (CIC) TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 7:29 P.M. vocation: Cif y Council Chimers, Cit Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation An wishin to address the Commission on a items or business introduced b the commission ma speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per a item when the subject is before the Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deput Cit Clerk if y ou wish to speak. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL CIC 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2-A. Minutes of the Special Joint Cit Council, A.ameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authorit and CIC Meetin held on Au 3. 2009. (Cit Clerk) 2-B. Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $151,315 to Ra s Electric, Inc. for Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue Utilit Under (Economic Development) 3. AGENDA ITEM None 4. ADJOURNMENT CIC erlV 1 01 Chair (3 I 'Y� 'br.' pta g.: Ham. CITI' OF ALAMEDA •CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: I. 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 MEE'T'ING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUES DAY SEPTEMBER 1 200 7:30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7 :30 pm, City Hall, Counc Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St) The order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows 1. Roll Call 2 Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special orders of 4. Consent Calendar 5. City Manager Communications 6. Agenda Items 7. oral Communications, Non Agenda 8. Council Referrals 9. Communisations Communications 10. Adjournment Public Participation the Day and Announcements (Public Comment) from Council) .Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may spew for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subj is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip wi th the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council SPECIAL MEE`T'ING of THE CITY COUNCIL 6: P M CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda Closed Session) SPECIAL MEE'T'ING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7: P M COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROL CALL City Counc i t 2. AGENDA. CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ENTS 3 -A. Proclamation Declaring September 19, 2009, as Coastal Cleanup Day. (Public harks) 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 City Council and Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meetings held on August 3, 2009. (City Clerk) 4-B. Bills for Ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recoxrmendation to Accept the Quarterly Treasury Report for Period Ending June 30, 2 0 0 9 (Finance) 4 -D. Adoption of Resolution Approving the Amended and Restated Third Phase Agreement With NCPA and Exercising Alameda "s Withdrawal Rights to Terminate A.lameda's Participation in the Western Geopower Incorporated Geothermal Energy Project, (AMP) 4 -E. Adoption a Resolution Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Submit an Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for Financial Assistance, Certify that the City Will Comply with All Applicable State and Federal Statutory and Regulatory Requirements, and to Negotiate and Execute All Necessary Documents to Implement the Installation of Mechanical 'Trash Racks at Storm. Water Pump Stations. Public Works) 4--F. Adoption a Resolution Authorizing the Interim. City Manager to Submit an Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for Financial Assistance, Certify that the City Will Comply with All Applicable State and Federal Statutory and Regulatory Requirements, and to Negotiate and Execute All Necessary Documents to Implement the Rehabilitation of the Structural Stability of Approximately 3,000 Linear Feet of the Southshore Lagoon Seawalls Adjacent to City Streets. (Public Works) 4-G. Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance "Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. to Rezone Approximately .23 Acres Located at 3236 and 3238 Briggs Avenue, APN 069 007604601, From R--4, Neighborhood Residential zoning District, to R -4 -PD, Neighborhood Residential. Planned Development District Zoning Designation" and Adoption of Resolution "Approving Applications for Rezoning (R07 -002), Planned Development (PD07- -0002) and Parcel Map (PM07 -0004) at 3236 Briggs Avenue" for Parcel Map No. 9326 to Allow the Subdivision of the Property into Two Separate Parcels. (Community Development) 5. CITY SAGER COMMUNICATIONS Communications from city Manager) 5 -A. Fire Department Response Standards 6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 6--A. Adoption of Resolutions Reappointing Hannah Bowman, Jordan Flores, Anjuli Sastry, Bhaani Singh and Angela Sterling Vick and Appointing valerian Lee as Members of the Youth Advisory Commission. 6 -B. Discuss Alameda- Contra costa (AC) Transit's Service Reductions and Provide Direction to Staff for Alameda- contra Costa (AC) Transit's September 12, 2009 Community Workshop. (Public Works) 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment Any person m ay address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda 8. COUNCIL REFERRALS Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted upon or scheduled as a future agenda item 8 -A. consideration of Allocating $2 Million of Measure WW Funds for the Construction of a New Boys and Girls club Recreation Center on the Former Woodstock School Site. (Councilmember Tam) 9. COUNCIL COMMUNICA'T'IONS (Communications from Council) Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any conferences or meetings attended 9--A. Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Economic Development Commission and Historical Advisory Board. l 0. 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 red is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clem at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 --7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request Please contact the City Clem 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 SPECIAL JOINT CITY CoUNC I L, ALA MEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION C I C) MEETING MONDAY- AUGUST 3, 2009- 7: 0 0 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7 :I7 p.m. Counc i. lmember /Authority Member/ Commissioner Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmerbers /Authority Members /Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Chair Johnson 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 09- CC/og- CIC and Resolution Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association [paragraph no. 09- CC were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Coa.ncilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (09 _CC/09- CIC) Minutes of the Special City Council. Meeting, Council Special the Regular City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City and Community Improvement Commission Meeting, and the City Council Meeting held. cn July 21, 2009. Councilmember /A.uth.ority Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated that page 3 of the Regular City Council Meeting minutes should read: ...every day will be a conscious budget day. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes as corrected. Councilmember /Authori.ty Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded, the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Councilmembers /Authority Members /Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson 4. Abstentions: s Counciimerruber/tiuLnority iviem.ber /C:ommissioner Tam 1. *09- CCU Resolution No. 14369 "Approving a Revised Memorandum of Understanding Between the International Association of Firefighters and the City of Alameda for the Period of January 61 2008 Through January 2, 2010." Adopted. CC) Resolution No. 14370, "Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association, Alameda Fire Management Association, and Executive Management Salary Schedules." Adopted. Counci lmember /Auth.ority Member /Commissioner Tam questioned why [Fire] Command staff would be increased at the expense of street level line staff; inquired whether reclassifying the Deputy City Clerk position to Assistant City Clerk was being done to deal with. Y rating, to which the Human. Resources Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember /Authority Member/Commissioner Tam .inquired whether amending the Deputy City Manager salary schedule is due to the Deputy City Manager taking on additional line functions; stated the Deputy City Manager classification is lower than the League of California Cities' classification; inquired whether the intention is to bring the classification up to a level that would be on par with being competitive in the area. The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated. most Deputy City Managers and Assistant City Managers have no line authority; the Deputy City Manager would assume line authority with respect to Finance and IT functions. Counci /member /Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired why a Division Chief position would be eliminated in order to create a Deputy Fire Chief classification. The Interim City Manager responded the Police Department's command structure is far stronger than the Fire Department; stated the Fire Department command staff needs to be strengthened. The Human Resources Director stated the Fire Department would have two Deputy Fire Chief positions and three Division Chiefs. The Interim City Manager stated three dedicated to Battalion Chief duties and structure at management level.. Division Chiefs would be would allow for a command Special Joint Meeting 2 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Vice Mayor /Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of the resolution. Councilrrerber /.Authority Member /Commissloner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ages: Counc i lmemhers /Authority Members /Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor /Chair Johnson 4. Abstentions: Councilmember /.Authority Member/Commissioner Tam 1. CITY MANAGER COMMA NT C.A`T` T ONS (09- Financial State of the City FY09 -10 State Budget Impacts Present and Future; and City Budget Forecast FY10 -11 and Thereafter. Ron Matthews, Alameda Little League, discussed the importance cf saving parks for children. The Interim City Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Counc i.lmember /.Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired when hard, definitive PERS numbers would be received. The Interim City Manager responded. preliminary PERS numbers would be released to the PERS Executive Board in October; stated, the City will be advised of anticipated rates in February or March for Fiscal year 2011-2012 and Fiscal Year 2012 -2013; the City should have hard numbers by April of next year if past practices are followed. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated having a PERS representative come to the City in October would be a good idea; stated the City should know what would happen to PERS if cities start defaulting on payments, The Interim City Manager stated PERS is a pool investment and she does not know how PERS would allocate a city's inability to pay a liability. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore requested clarification on State takeaways and cities' inability to pay its fair share. The Interim City Manager stated that she received an email from local representatives commenting on new details of the State budget yesterday; Alameda County cities would need to make up a proportionate share if an Alameda County city has financial Special Joint Meeting 3 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 hardship and cannot pay. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated other cities' budgets need to be watched. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated PERS takes no risk; cities would be billed more if obligations are not covered. The Interim City Manager stated the burden is on the employer, not- the employee. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether cities are looking at other retirement options. The Interim City Manager responded some orange County cities are discussing joining the County retirement system and dropping out of PERS; stated dropping out of PERS takes two to three years; the City has not analyzed the issue. Councilmenber/Authority Member /Commissioner Tam stated the budget memo states that the City has relied on staffing cuts to preserve a fund balance of $8.8 mi 1 l i on the amount could drop down to $7.9 million with the State Board of Equalization sales tax shift; inquired whether the intent is to preserve $8.8 million. in Fiscal Year 2010 and $7.9 million in Fiscal Year 2011 in order to address economic uncertainty. The Interim City Manager responded the City's hope is to hold the $8.8 million firm for twenty-four months; stated the City would need to use approximately $1 million out of fund balance in Fiscal Year 2011 if other strategic things are not done. Councilmenber /.Authority Member /Commissioner Tarp stated page 14 shows new revenue sources would be needed in the future to maintain current service levels; inquired whether current service levels are identified and proposed in this budget. The Interim City Manager responded previous levels are identified; stated options are to increase revenues or decrease expenses; programs Sri l l be evaluated and prioritized after Labor Day; cuts have to be made if revenues are not .increased. Councilmerrber /Authority Member/Commissioner Tara stated headlines suggest that the economy might turn around; Measure P funds could provide some revenue in 2011. The Interim City Manager stated the upside to Measure P is that the Special Joint Meeting 4 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 City has not had many foreclosures. Vice Mayor/Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the 8% expenditure growth includes an increase in PERS, to which the Interim Cit Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired what the General Fund deficit has been over the last two years. The Interim City Manager responded the City broke even this gear; stated the deficit was approximately $4.5 to $5.5 million in the prior two gears; the deficit was $6.6 in Fiscal Year 2007-2008. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (09- CC) Resolution No. 14371 "'Appointing Lorre Zuppan as a t Member of he Planning Board Adopted. Counci .member° Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Counc i lmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. The City Clerk administered the oath of office and presented a certificate of appointment to Ms. Zuppan, Ms. Zuppan thanked Council for showing support and confidence. (09-- CC) Resolution No. 14372 "Calling a Special. Election in the City of Alameda for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors an Initiative Charter Amendment Entitled, "Fire and Emergency Medical Services Minimum. Protection." Adopted; and (09- A CC) Adoption of Resolution Calling an Election in the City of Alameda for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Adding Sections 17 -I8 Regarding Funding of Minimum Staffing and Equipment Requirements and Proposing said Charter Amendments. Not adopted. The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation. In response to Councilmember /A.uthority Member /Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the $750,000 Cost for a fire truck is not included in the $4,054,476 [initial cost of the mandated minimum staffing]. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired ghat are the election options. Special Joint Meeting 5 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission. August 3 2009 The City Attorney responded, under Election Code 9255, the Council has the discretion and authority to set a Charter amendment for any election as long as the action is at Least eighty -eight days before the set date; stated there is no outside date. The City Clerk stated the established election dates are November 3, 2009, June 8, 2010, November 2, 2010, June 7, 2011, and November 8, 2011. Proponents: In favor of placing the matter on the November 8. 2009 election) Dom.enick weaver, Alameda Firefighters; Deanna Johe, .Alameda; Jeff De Dono, Local 689 Alameda. Opponents: (Not in favor of placing the matter on the November 8, 2009 election) Robert Sullwold, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Alameda; Gail. A. wet zork, Alameda; Ron. Basari ch, Alameda; Marshall Comer, Oakland; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBR); Walter Schlueter, Alameda; Former Coun.cilmember Nadi Monsef, Alameda; Bill Sonneman, Alameda; Kathy Moehring, west Alameda Business Association (WA.BA) Rob Bonta, Alameda; Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce; Marilyn Schumacher, Government Relations Committee; Lorre zuppan, Alameda. Vice Mayor de3aan stated the deficit built up over a long period of time; the question is whether the City should have a special election when there are many unknowns; inquired whether the companion measure would cost property owners $200 per parcel, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Council.member Matarrese stated Council needs to decide whether to place the matter on the November election or a later election; that he does not support placing the matter on the November election; time is needed to absorb ghat the state is going to do; that he prefers a June 2010 election in order_ to analyze all points referenced in the staff report; the right people need to show up with the right equipment in an acceptable amount of time when a 911 call is received; that he puts very little faith in the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) report; practical and fiscally f eas ibl e deliverable core services need to be examined; other Post Employment Benefits OPEB need to be addressed. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the City Clerk repeated possible election dates. Counc i lmember Gilmore inquired when the City would be advised of Special Joint Meeting 6 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 PERS' 2010 rate estimate, to which the Interim City Manager responded February or March, 2011. Counc i lmember Gilmore stated knowing service costs is important; more time is needed because the City needs to understand what the State will do; the City cannot afford a special election; the City does not have an option to not have an election on the matter because the issue is a ballot initiative; placing the matter on the ballot before November 8, 2011 would be fiscally irresponsible. Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution setting the election for November 8, 2011. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, vice Mayor deHaan stated uncertainties still exist; time is needed. Councilmember Tam stated that she would like to propose another motion; the City's b allot measure requires a funding mechanism before the firefighters initiative is implemented; core services have been discussed; public safety was an overwhelming core service when polling was done for Measure P; funding should rest with City management; the amount of risk the community is asked to take on is a Council prerogative; the City's ability to respond to an emergency would be compromised by depending upon Oakland or San Leandro. Councilmember Tam moved approval of placing both measures on the June 8, 2020 ballot; the next ten months can be spent evaluating appropriate staffing levels, exploring whether there are additional revenues beside taxes, and working with the International. Association of Fiore Fighters IAFF) to see if there is an opportunity to develop a collaborative measure; inquired whether the motion is allowable and what are the deadlines for a June 8, 2010 election. The City Attorney responded a date cannot be changed once an action is taken to set the matter for an election. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether both, measures need to go on the ballot at the same time. The City Attorney responded, in the amendment can be set by the Council election is not set earlier than resolution calling the election. negative; stated any Charter at any election as long as the eighty -eight days after the Special Joint Meeting 7 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Councilmember Matarrese inquired ghat the timing would be to get the measure ready to place on the ballot. The C-ty Attorney responded an action needs to be taken on the IAFF measure; stated Council can put off taking any action on the companion measure. Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer not to take action on the companion measure tonight; the City did not expect Measure P to solve all problems; that she is reluctant to have a tax measure to fund additional fire staffing levels; November 2011 i s a reasonable date. Co unc i lmenlber Tara stated June 8 2010 provides timely accountability for 9,048 signatures secured by the fire fighters and provides enough time to work on a collaborative effort with the fire fighters. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he believes in a competing measure, not a companion measure because staffing should not be in the City charter; the Fire Chief and City Manager should ensure correct staffing levels; that he agrees with having a June 2010 election because he wants to put a sense of urgency on the matter; funding is part of the issue; the other part is whether the City is taking a risk; staff should be able to determine whether there would be a difference in response time and service with reduced staffing and apparatus; PERS' worse case scenario can be projected; the matter is urgent. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not understand why the matter is urgent; the fundamental question to the voters would be whether the Charter should require a minimum level for staffing and apparatus units; providing voters with needed inf ormat ion is important. Councilmember Tam inquired why seventeen new firefighters would be added if staffing levels are restored to 27 fire fighters. Mayor Johnson responded the City paid $5 million, in overtime in thirty months. Councilmember Gilmore stated information received from the Fire Chief shows that response times and service levels have not changed significantly since the brown outs; a ballot measure is the wrong place for minimum staffing issues. Councilmember Matarrese stated Measure P polling indicated that Special Joint Meeting 8 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 public safety ranked high but nobody wants to pay; a public safety parcel tax, which requires a two- thirds vote, did not even poll 50%. Councilmember Tara stated the question is whether to have the election for the IAFF measure on June 8, 2010 or November 2011. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a second. for Councilmember Tam's substitute motion. There being none, the MOTTON FAILED. Councilmember Gilmore clarified that her motion is just f or the IAFF measure, not the companion measure. on the call for the question, Councilmember Gilmore' s motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council.menbers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson 4. Noes: Councilmember Tam 1. Councilmebmer Matarrese inquired what are the next steps. The Interim City Manager responded the issue wi l l be addressed with the budget item.. 09- CC) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution "Establishing Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriation Limit) Year 2005-- -2010. Adopted. for Fiscal. The Interim Finance Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated the City is $4 million below the conservative Jarvis /Gann cap on government spending Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the ratio is the same as in years past, to which the Interim Finance Director responded the ratio is getting gorse every year. Mayor Johnson stated income is not keeping up with the cost of Living. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. Mayor Johnson called a recess at Special. Joint Meeting at 9:53 p.m. special Joint Meeting 9 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2€09 9:38 p.m. and reconvened the No. 143 73 (09- CC/AR CIC) City Council. Resolution No. 14374, ARRA Resolution No. 46, and CIC Resolution No. 09- 161, ".Approving and Adopting the operating and Capital Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided. in Fiscal. Year 2009-2010. Adopted. The Interim City Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor /Chair Johnscn thanked the interim City Manager nor the ambitious plan. Counc i lmember /A.uthority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the VeL-erans' Building is not listed on the parks, facilities and amenities chart. The Assistant City Manager stated the veterans' Building is shown on the map, but not the chart. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner de3aan, stated Mastick Senior Center is not listed. The Interim City Manager stated the chart would be revised. In response to Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commiss4oner deHaan's A nquiry regarding the $3.5 million reduction between 2008 and 2009, the Interim City Manager stated at the end of Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 expenses exceeded the General Fund revenue by $6.6 million, which was adjusted to $2.1 million. Counc i lmember /Auth.ori ty 'Member/ Commi ss ioner Tam inquired why the Fiscal. Year 2009-2010 ambul. anc e transport expenditure has been cut in half [from Fiscal. Year 2007 -2008] The Interim City Manager responded data is hard to pull from past history; stated the intent is to have Fiscal. Year 200 fund by program; everything was merged together in the past; the best comparison is to look at total department dollars, rather than a trend in administration. Counc i lmember /A.uthority Member /Commissioner Tam inqui red whether the same situation occurred for the Disaster Preparedness Program. The Interim City Manager responded a lot of administration overhead was allocated to the Disaster Preparedness Program in the past; stated a specific amount of money for a position would be allocated Special Joint Meeting 0 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 to the Disaster Preparedness Program in the future. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam noted Homeland security requires documentation on cost centers in order to secure reimbursement, even for volunteer services. In response to Councilmember/Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore' s inquiry, the Interims. City Manager stated page 86 shows General Fund expenditures by program. The Interim City Manager continued the presentation. Vice Mayor /Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan, inquired whether the Capital Improvement Project Fund actual revenue to expense charge has flattened out or whether funding has been moved, to which the Interim City Manager responded revenues are reducing. The Public Works Director stated the full costs are funded at the beginning of a project. Vice Mayor /Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Gas Tax revenue staying flat is typical. The Interim City Manager responded the City has not had a lot of population growth. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated cars are becoming more fuel. efficient. In response to Councilmember /Authority Member/ Commissioner Matarrese' s inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the City will always have some projected negatives; the idea is not to have all negative funds and be able to recover in a year; that she would recommend zeroing out the $87,650 n.egat ive balance in the Police /Fire Construction Impact Fund at the end of the neat fiscal year if recovery does not occur; the amount would come out of the $8.8 million General Fund balance; stated the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Revenue Fund has come a long way from the initial negative; the FISC cash balance is dropping. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired 'whether the drop will continue. The Development services Director responded the City received a developer advance that is paid off annually with tax increment from the Bayport project; construction of a community building is the only outstanding obligation at Bayport; $2 million in expenses is expected for Bayport this year; the API P debt is being kept as a Special Joint Meet ng 1 Alameda. City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 debt because redevelopment requires debt in order to collect tax. increment; only interest is being paid on the API P loan. Counc i lmember /A.uthori ty Member/Commissioner Warn inquired whethe r funds intended for the Carneigie Building renovation help keep the community development funds positive. The Interim City Manager responded $887,206 in community planning fees were transferred into Capital Improvement Fund; the expectation was that the money would be used for capital improvements for the centralized planning facility at the Carnegie Building; money could have been left in the Capital Improvement Fund; however, it would not be prudent because she does not see the project happening within the next three to five years; the fund would be negative $500,000 without the $877,260; the Worker's Compensation negative was $2.1 million last January and February; departments worked very hard in five to six months to reduce the amount to approximately $1.5 million; a chargeback system is now in place; departments will pay on a proportionate consumption rate. Vice Mayor /Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether chargeback formulas will be revisited, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Counci lmember /Authority Member /Commissioner `dam inquired where is the $400,000 intended for the Fire Station 3 replacement study. The Interim City Manager responded the $400,000 continues to be a reserve within the General Fund. The Interim City Manager continued the presentation. Cou.ncilmember /Auth.ority Member /Commissioner Matarrese inquired where is the money for the special. election.. The Interim City Manager responded nothing was budgeted; stated approximately $150,000 is in non departmental funds as a contingency. In response to vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated. the 5.5 authorized positions is Council plus half of the Deputy City Manager position that works on intergovernmental relations Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the Library's collection level is anticipated to be stable f ram year to year. Special Joint Meeting 12 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 The Library Director responded t'ne number of items would remain the same because more money will be spent for fewer items and there will be less money to spend. Councilme rber /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether any City services are leveraged with the Boys and Girls Club, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative, especially dances and sports. Counc i lmember /Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated constituents complain about the Lincoln Park Bartell. :Field maintenance; the field is not being dragged. The Recreation and Park Director stated the matter would be investigated.. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam inquired what is the thinking regarding evaluating the transition of the Meyers House Garden to a history preservation non-profit. The Recreation and Park Director responded the thought is to review different options for the property. The Interim City Manager stated opportunities have been raised with respect to utilization of the facility. Councilmember /Auth.ority Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated the City spent money on property that the City does not own. The Recreation and Park. Director stated there was a subsidy in the past; now, the City only spends money from the trust. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired when information would be avail able on the trust. The Interim City Manager responded staff has done some preliminary research on the matter, stated there is confusion about what would happen if the City cannot use the facility because of lack of parking. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tara stated. the Golf Fund balance started with a fund balance of $748,430 in Fiscal Year 2009; the Fiscal Year 2010 projected balance is $275,590; potentially, reserves could be drained before Fiscal Year 2010 is over; Golf Course operating expenditures are exceeding revenues by almost $500,000. Special Joint Meeting 13 Alameda City Coun.c i l, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 The Interim Cit Mana stated Kemper Sports has slowed the draw down decisions need to he made this y ear. In response to Vice Ma Member/Commissioner deHaan's in the Interim Finance Director stated that the Teen Pro personnel services expenditure includes part-time personnel. Vice Ma Member/Commissioner deHaan stated all part- time personnel should be included [in the personnel summar The Interim Cit Mana stated that she could not come up with a formula base or standard format that would work a footnote could he added statin that part-time wa are included. The Interim Cit Mana continued the presentation. In response to Vice Ma Member/ Commi s s ..over deHaan's in the Interim Cit Mana stated the Assistant Cit Mana position is bud 50% in Communit Development and 50% in Economic Development. Councilmember/Authorit Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the Economic Development Department is responsible for commercial leasin at the former Base; there should be a discussion re past direction and whether direction is still applicable in the current or future environment. The Interim Cit Mana stated the matter is scheduled for the September 1 Cit Council meetin Councilmember/Authorit Member/Commissioner Tam in what needs to happen to ensure that there will be enou Fire personnel to staff current e further 'in whether an apparatus would be browned out if personnel falls below 24. The Fire Chief responded in the affirmative stated approximatel $550,000 is bud for overtime. Ma Johnson stated the Police Chief's monthl communit newsletter is ver g ood the Fire Department should do the same. The F Chief stated the Fire Department has started a weekl newspaper article. Ma Johnson stated the Fire Department should do a monthl communit newsletter because not ever reads the newspaper the Special Joint Meetin 14 Alameda Cit Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment A and Communit improvement Commission Au 3, 2009 Police Department posts the newsletter on the website; people need to be educated on when to call 911 and when to call a locksmith or plumber. The Fire Chief stated all avenues would be entertained.. Councilmerber /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam stated the community will be placed at risk if equipment is not staffed in the event of gas fires; in.quired ghat needs to happen to ensure that equipment is staffed. The Fire Chief responded staffing levels could drop below 24 40% to 50% of the time based. on July statistics. Councilmember /Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated a, trigger point is needed that looks at response time and impact so that Council can make a policy decision not to exceed a threshold that puts the community and staff at risk; the Fire and Police Departments have periods of intense activity that punctuate long periods of less activity; that he wants to make sure that the public and personnel are not put at uninformed risk; trigger points are needed to ensure that the natter is brought back to Council if trends are going the wrong way. The Interim City Manager stated that she would work with the Fire and Police Chiefs on trigger points and standards and bring the matter back to Council on September 1; the Fire Department issue would be addressed first. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam inquired whether now is an appropriate time for Council to discuss using the $400,000 discretionary reserves intended for Fire Station 3 in order to keep apparatus staffed through the end of the next fiscal year. The Interim City Manager responded Council took action a while back to earmark the $400,000 for Fiore Station. 3 rehabilitation; stated reserves are earmarked at Council discretion.. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated Council needs to be reserves and fund balances; inquired how many scheduled per shift, to which the Fire Chief eight. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner opportunities are available to use overtime to the City has obtained a portion of the Beltline very protective of fire fighters are responded twenty deHaan. stated make up the delta; property. Special Joint Meeting 15 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Councilmember/Authorit Member/Commissioner Tam stated g ettin g another fire station seems ludicrous if staffin would be reduced. Ma Johnson stated that she would be reluctant to have Council use the $400,000 for overtime without further anal Councilmember/Authorit Member/Commissioner Gilmore in whether there has been a situation this fiscal y ear where staffin has dropped below twent and over time was not used, to which the Fire Chief responded in the ne Councilmember/Author-it Member/Commissioner Gilmore in how lon it would take to deplete the overtime bud The Fire Chief responded each month is different stated $100,000 was spent in Jul Councilmember/Authorit Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated there is time to stud options and discuss whether or not to shift the $400,000. (09- CC/ARP-A/09- CI CI Councilmember/Authorit Member Commissloner Matarrese moved approval of continuin the meetin past midni Counc-ilmember/Authorit Member/ Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried b unanimous voice vote 5. Vice Ma Member/Commissioner deHaan stated $400,000 was intended to be used for a stud for Fire Station 3 replacement the buildin is not ade plans need to be evaluated. Councilmember/Authorit Member/Commissioner Matarrese re that staff provide matrices and a report showin whether add ustments need to be made. Councilmember/Authorit Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 false alarm response prodections are the same as Fiscal Year 2009-2010 the public should be educated more a to ensure that the number of false alarms drop. Ma Johnson stated false alarm response numbers are ver hi The Fire Chief stated all cities are experiencin a hi volume of Special Joint Meeting 16 Alameda cit council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment A and communit Improvement Commission. Au 3, 2009 false alarms; fees have been implemented; the number of false al arm responses is not that high in consideration of the number of smoke alarms, sprinkler heads, detectors, and pull stations within the city. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether calls for plumbing problems have decreased, to which the Fire chief responded in the affirmative. Speaker Domenick wearer, Alameda Fire Fighters. Counc i lmember /Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the ambulance transport expenditure is approximately $3.1 million. The Interim city Manager responded approximately $2 million [of the $3.1 million] is for staffing the Ambulance Transport Service Program. Coun.ci lmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Ci lmore inqui red whether FMS billable collections are $1.8 million. The interim City Manager responded the program, brings in approximately $2,040,000. Counc i lmember/ Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the $1.8 million is a subset of the $2,040,000, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated one extreme would be keeping things status quo; another extreme would be outsourcing to the county; that he would like to revi insourcing, including the hospital; the Police Department should follow the same matrices as the Fire Department to ensure that the community and police officers are not put at risk. Coun.ci /member /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam stated the Police Department does not have a way of charging for an inappropriate call such as Fire Department false alarms. The Police Chief stated the Police Department does not want to discourage anyone from calling 911. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired ghat would be the response for someone calling the Police Department for being locked out of a house. The Police chief responded the call would be referred to a private Special, Joint Meeting 17 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 entity if not a safety, welfare issue Councilmember /Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated the dichotomy seems to be that the Fire Department is allowed to respond within six minutes for a cardiac arrest call, but the Police Department's standard is three minutes if the matter is life threatening. Coun.cilmember /Authcrity Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated the Fire Department is di spat ched from the Ccunty and has no say in how many people respond; the Police Department is different. Coun.cilrrember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated the Fire Department was staffed at twenty- -seven at one time; the delta between, twenty-four and twenty-seven should be reviewed. The Police chief stated the Police Department has a process that monitors staffing; personnel is moved out of other units if staffing gets to a. point of needing additional resources. The Fire Chief stated response tames for automatic device calls are reduced; stated a full response would not be sent for said calls. Vice Mayor /Authority Member/Commissioner d.e3aan inquired how the Police Department's three minute response time is measured. The Police Chief responded the response time is measured from the time the dispatcher answers the call to the first arriving unit on the scene; stated the benchmark in most communities is under a five minute response for a priority -one life threatening emergency and is an excellent response time. The Interim City Manager continued the presentation. Councilmember /Au.thcrity Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired how the depreciation allocation is calculated for the equipment maintenance reserve. The Interim City Manager responded the purchase price is depreciated; stated that she would find out whether depreciation of an inflated number would be allowed, Councilmember /Auth.ority Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated that she is afraid that the depreciation would be short of actual money needed. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether plans for keeping up with Special Joint Meeting is Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community improvement Commission August 3, 2009 street and sidewalk maintenance is being reviewed. The Public works Director responded more money is available for resurfacing th.i s year because of ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) funds; stated $4.2 million is budgeted this fiscal year; $350,COQ is budgeted for sidewalks; $550,000 should be budgeted, the city is receiving less Measure 2 money. Mayor /chair Johnson stated new development should be responsible for putting sidewalks on both sides of the street. The Public works Director stated developers are now required to maintain public infrastructure. Councilmember /Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated an eye should be kept on the health of the sewer system to ensure that the City does not cost itself out down the road; the stormwater runoff and lagoon system are high price tag items. The Public works Director stated lagoon project funds come from; the Tirb an. Runoff Fund, which is separate from the Sewer Fund; master plans are being developed for the 'Urban Runoff and Sewer projects staff is very close to receiving ARRA funding for the lagoon seawalls. Counc i lm.ember /A.uthori ty Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether mapping has been completed for sewers, to which the Public Works Director responded mapping is in Phase 2. councilmember /Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore clarified references to ARRA, means the American. Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is federal stimulus money, and not the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. F Councilmember /A.uthority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired, whether federal money is coring to Alameda, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the public should know about the funding; information should be posted on the website. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deRaan inquired whether the Appezzato Parkway parking strip and Alameda Beltline landscaping are budgeted. The Public works Director responded currently, funding has not been allocated; stated the current General Plan r equi re s the Alameda Special point Meeting 19 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3. 2009 Point developer to build a multi -modal facility; the current ballot initiative removes the requirement. Councilmember /A.uthority Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice Vote 5. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese complimented the Interim City Manager on the report's clarity. Co unc i lmember /Authority Member/ Commi s s i oner Gilmore thanked the Interim City Manager for the new format; stated the public will be more informed on how the City is spending money. Mayor /Chair Johnson concurred with Counc i lmember /Authority Member/ Commissioner Gilmore; stated everyone worked very hard on the budget. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan stated seeing the final product is nice; the budget is more understandable; a department staffing summary is the only thing missing. The Interim City Manager stated a summary would be provided. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint. Meeting at 12:35 a m Respectfully submitted, Zara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown. Act. Special Joint Meeting 2 0 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: honorable chair and Members of the community Improvement Commission From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Executive Director Date: September 1, 2009 Re: Award a contract in the Amount of $151,315 to Ray's Electric, Inc. for Park Street and Buena vista Avenue Utility Undergrounding l: Kel000111 1� The Park Street Gateway District Strategic Plan identified utility poles located on sidewalks fronting the commercial and retail streets as an impediment to development and business expansion in the District. The removal of utility poles and placing the utility lines underground will create a more attractive and pedestrian- friendly environment that supports new investment throughout the District. The strategic plan recommended undergrounding the utility lines where possible. In addition, the utility pole at the corner of Buena vista Avenue and Park Street is the sole service for several commercial sites along Park Street and presents a great risk of business interruption in its current location. A single car collision with this pole could potentially cut service to several business locations. DISCUSSION Staff has identified the utility pole at the southeast corner of Buena vista Avenue and Park Street, a prominent location between the Alameda Marketplace and the former Cavenaugh Motors, as a major impediment to economic development and reuse in the District. The utility pole services Alameda Municipal Power (AMP), AT &T, and Comcast. After preparation of design work to underground the related services on this pole, the project was put to bid. The call for Bids was issued on .dune 24, 2009. It was noticed on the city's website, published three times in the Alameda Journal, and mailed to local planroorns. The notice directed prospective bidders to the on -line public planroorn of Ford Graphics to obtain plans and specifications. Selection Process: Eight companies attended the mandatory pre -bid meeting and walk through of the site on Wednesday, July 8. Of those eight, four submitted proposals which ranged from $151,315 to $345,038.50. Upon review of the bids, community Improvement Commission (CIC) staff determined that the lowest responsible bidder was Ray's Electric, Inc. CIC Agenda Item ##2 -E Honorable Chair and September 1, 2009 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 3 Ray's Electric has completed similar undergrounding work with local municipalities, including the City of Alameda. Ray's Electric worked with AMP and the Public works Department on the underground joint trench and substructure at Park Street from Lincoln Avenue to Central Avenue, and Santa Clara Avenue from Park Street to oak Street. Both departments are familiar with Ray's Electric and supported their selection for this project. Proposed Scope of Work: The contract with Ray's Electric (on file with the City Clerk) is to provide trenching, sidewalk and street saw cutting, sidewalk and street removal and replacement, and the removal and installation of underground substructures at Buena vista Avenue, in accordance with City standards. The contractor will also be responsible for supplying and installing a new streetlight to replace the one currently attached to the wooden utility pole on the corner by the former Cavanaugh Motors. Once all substructure work has been completed by the contractor, AMP will install the underground high voltage cables and remove the overhead electrical facilities. This work will take AMP crews two to four weeks to complete. AT&T and Comcast will be responsible for removing and installing their respective cables. The entire project is estimated to be completed within 99 days. The work will be performed along Buena vista Avenue on both sides of Park Street, in front of the Chevron Station and the former Cavanaugh Motors, and through the Park Street intersection. The Economic Development Department (EDD) will work with the contractor to notify and communicate with respective businesses, business associations, homeowners, and residents regarding the project. Construction activities along Buena vista Avenue will be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Construction activities on Park street will be limited to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3.30 p.m. Next Steps: with the CIC's approval of the contract, the EDD as the project manager will issue a Notice to Proceed. The EDD will schedule a pre construction meeting with the contractor, AMP, AT &T, and Comcast to review the construction schedule and to approve required contract submittals before the start of construction. FINANCIAL IMPACT On February 9, 2009, the CIC authorized the use of $150,000 of tax exempt bond funds from the Merged Area Bond for the design work for electrical upgrades at the Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue. In addition to the design, the funds were to reimburse AMP and AT &T for their involvement in the project. Comcast's work is covered through its franchise agreement with the City and involves no additional costs. The EDD will use funds remaining in Fund 227.1, interest from the theatre parking garage construction, for the contract with Ray's Electric to complete this project. Honorable Chair and September 1, 2009 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 3 This is an unbudgeted project requiring funds to be transferred from Fund 227.1 (Commercial Revitalization) to Fund 203.71103 (Business and Waterfront Improvement Project). The design portion of the project was funded in Fund 203. Transfer of funds will be for construction. This action amends the budget for this project and does not impact the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Park Street Gateway District Strategic Plan, Streetscape General Principal #3. "Underground utility lines where possible." RECOMMENDATION Award a contract in the amount of $151 315 to Ray's Electric, Inc. for Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue utility undergrounding. Respectfully submitted, Leslie A. Little Economic Development Director Approved as to funds and account, Glend J Interim Finance Director ;CONCUR: L ,,Matthe ,T. Naclerio Di blic �'rks Director DES: EF:dc Proclamation WHEREAS, Coastal Cleanup Day provides an opportunity to recognize the need to protect the ecological health and beauty of Alameda; and WHEREAS, Alamedans take great pride in their city's natural beauty and support a clean and safe environment in which to live and raise their children; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda will sponsor a Coastal Cleanup Day event in partnership with Alameda County Industries and the East Bay Regional Park District, between 9:00 a.m. and noon on September 19. NOW., T'fEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim September 19 as COASrAL CLEANUP DAY 2009 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL C I TY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY AUGUST 3, 2009 6:40 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Counc i lmernbers deHaan Gilmore, Matarre se Tam, and Mayor Johnson 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (09- Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation (54956.9; Name of Case: weisiger v. International Association of Fire Fighters. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that the City Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel on the status of the litigation and gave direction to Legal Counsel to dismiss the lawsuit. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6 :30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara wei siger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council August 3, 2009 UNAPPROVED MINU'S'ES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALA.MEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING MONDAY- AUGUST 3, 2009- -7:00 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:17 p.m. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers /Authority Members /Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor /Chair Johnson 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph. no. 09- CC/ 0 9 CIC] and Resolution Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association [paragraph no. 09- CC] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember /A.uthority Member /Commissioner Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (09- CC /09- CIC) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Regular City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting, and the Special City Council Meeting held. on July 21, 2009. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated that page 3 of the Regular City Council Meeting minutes should read: ...every day will be a conscious budget day. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes as corrected. Councilmember/Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Special Joint Meeting Z Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Councilmembers /Authority Members /Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor /Chair Johnson. 4. Abstentions: Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam 1. *09- CC) Resolution No. 14369 "Approving a Revised Memorandum of Understanding Between the International Association of Firefighters and the City of Alameda for the Period of January 6 2008 Through January 2, 2010." Adopted. (09-- CC) Resoluti No. 14370, "Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association, Alameda Fire Management Association, and Executive Management Salary Schedules." Adopted. Counci /member /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam questioned why [Fire] command staff would be increased at the expense of street level line staff; inquired whether reclassifying the Deputy City Clerk position to Assistant City Clerk was being done to deal with Y rating, to which the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember /A.uthority Member /Commissioner Tam inquired whether amending the Deputy City Manager salary schedule is due to the Deputy City Manager taking on additional line functions; stated the Deputy City Manager classification is lower than the League of California Cities' classification; inquired whether the intention is to bring the classification up to a level that would be on par with being competitive in the area. The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated most Deputy City Managers and Assistant City Managers have no line authority; the Deputy City Manager would assume line authority with respect to Finance and IT functions. Councilmember /Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired why a Division. Chief position would be eliminated in order to create a Deputy Fire Chief classification. The Interim City Manager responded the Police Department's command structure is far stronger than the Fire Department; stated the Fire Department command staff needs to be strengthened. The Human Resources Director stated the Fire Department would have two Deputy Fire Chief positions and three Division Chiefs. The Interim City Manager stated three dedicated to Battalion Chief duties and structure at management level. Division Chiefs would be would allow for a command Special Joint Meeting 2 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers /A.uthority Members /Commissioners deHaan., Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson 4. Abstentions: Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam 1. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (09- Financial State of the City FY09 -10; State Budget Impacts Present and Future; and City Budget Forecast FY10 --11 and Thereafter. Ron Matthews, Alameda Little League, discussed the importance of saving parks for children_ The Interim City Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired when hard, definitive PERS numbers would be received. The Interim City Manager responded preliminary PERS numbers would be released to the PERS Executive Board in October; stated the City will be advised of anticipated rates in February or March for Fiscal year 2011 -2012 and Fiscal Year 2012 -2013; the City should have hard numbers by April of next year if past practices are followed. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated having a PERS representative come to the City in October would be a good idea; stated. the City should know what would happen to PERS if cities start defaulting on payments. The Interim. City Manager stated. PERS is a pool investment and she does not know how PERS would allocate a city's inability to pay a liability. Councilmember /Auth.ority Member /Commissioner Gilmore requested clarification on State takeaways and cities' inability to pay its fair share. The Interim City Manager stated that she received an email from local representatives commenting on new details of the State budget yesterday; Alameda County cities would need to make up a proportionate share if an Alameda County city has financial Special Joint Meeting 3 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community improvement Commission August 3, 2009 hardship and cannot pay. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated other cities' budgets need to be watched. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated PERS takes no risk; cities would be billed more if obligations are not covered. The Interim City Manager stated the burden is on the employer, not the employee. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether cities are looking at other retirement options. The Interim City Manager responded some orange County cities are discussing joining the County retirement system and dropping out of PERS; stated dropping out of PERS takes two to three years; the City has not analyzed the issue. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam stated the budget memo states that the City has relied on staffing cuts to preserve a fund balance of 8 8 million; the amount could drop down to $7.9 million with the State Board of Equalization sales tax shift; inquired whether the intent is to preserve $8.8 million in Fiscal Year 2010 and $7.9 million in Fiscal Year 2011 in order to address economic uncertainty. The Interim City Manager responded the City's hope is to hold the 8.8 million firm for twenty -four months; stated the City would need to use approximately $1 million out of fund balance in Fiscal Year 2011 if other strategic things are not done. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam stated page 14 shows new revenue scurces would be needed in the future to maintain current service levels; inquired whether current service levels are identified and proposed in this budget. The Interim City Manager responded previous levels are identified; stated options are to increase revenues or decrease expenses; programs will be evaluated and prioritized after Labor Day; cuts have to be made if revenues are not increased. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam stated headlines suggest that the economy might turn around; Measure P funds could provide some revenue in 2011. The Interim City Manager stated the upside to Measure P is that the Special. Joint Meeting 4 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 City has not had many foreclosures. Vice Mayor /Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the 8% expenditure growth includes an increase in PERS, to which the Interim Cit Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired what the General Fund deficit has been over the last two gears. The Interim City Manager responded the City broke even this gear; stated the deficit was approximately $4.5 to $5.5 million in the prior two gears; the deficit was $6.6 in Fiscal Year 2007 -2008. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (09- CC) Resolution No. 14371 "Appointing Lorre Zuppan as a Member of the Planning Board." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented a certificate of appointment to Ms. Zuppan. Ms. Zuppan thanked Council for showing support and confidence. (09- CC) Resolution No. 14372 "Calling a Special Election in the City of Alameda for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors an Initiative Charter Amendment Entitled, "Fire and Emergency Medical Services Minimum. Protection." Adopted; and (09- A. CC) .Adopt ion of Resolution Calling an Election in the City of Alameda for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Adding Sections 17--18 Regarding Funding of Minimum Staffing and Equipment Requirements and Proposing said Charter Amendments. Not adopted. The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation. In response to Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the $750,000 cost for a fire truck is not .included in the $4,054,476 [initial cost of the mandated minimum staffing]. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired what are the election options. Special Joint Meeting 5 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 The City Attorney responded under Election Code 9255, the Council has the discretion and authority to set a Charter amendment for any election as long as the action is at least eighty -eight days before the set date; stated there is no outside date. The City Clerk stated the established election dates are November 3 1 2 0 0 9 June 8, 2010, November 2, 2010, June 7, 2011, and November 8, 2011. Proponents: (In favor of placing the matter on the November 8, 2009 election) Domenick weaver, Alameda Firefighters; Deanna Johe, Alameda; Jeff De1Bon.o, Local 689 Alameda. Opponents: (Not in favor of placing the matter on the November 8, 2009 election) Robert Sullwold, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Alameda; Gail A. Wetzork, Alameda; Ron Basarich, Alameda; Marshall Comer, Oakland; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) Walter Schlueter, Alameda; Former Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda; Bill Sonn.eman, Alameda; Kathy Vloehring, west .Alameda Business Association (WABA) Rob Bonta, Alameda; Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce; Marilyn Schumacher, Government Relations Committee; Lorre Zuppan, Alameda. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the deficit built up over a long period of time; the question is whether the City should have a special election when there are many unknowns; inquired whether the companion measure would cost property owners $200 per parcel, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated Council needs to decide whether to place the matter on the November election or a later election; that he does not support placing the matter on the November election; time is needed to absorb what the State is going to do; that he prefers a June 2010 election in order to analyze all points referenced in the staff report; the right people need to show up with the right equipment in an acceptable amount of time when a 911 call is received; that he puts very little faith in the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) report; practical and fiscally feasible deliverable core services need to be examined; other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) need to be addressed. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the City Clerk repeated possible election dates. Councilmember Gilmore inquired when the City would be advised of Special Joint Meeting 6 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 PFRS' 2010 rate estimate, to which the Interim City Manager responded February or March, 2011. Councilmember Gilmore stated knowing service costs is important; more time is needed because the City needs to understand what the State will do; the City cannot afford a special election; the City does not have an option to not have an election on the matter because the .issue is a ballot initiative; placing the matter on the ballot before November 8, 2011 would be fiscally irresponsible. Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution setting the election for November 8, 2011. Nice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, vice Mayor deHaan, stated uncertainties still exist; time is needed. Councilmember Tam stated that she would like to propose another motion; the City's b allot measure requires a funding mechanism before the firefighters initiative is implemented; core services have been discussed; public safety was an overwhelming core service when polling was done for Measure P; funding should rest with City management; the amount of risk the community is asked to take on is a Council prerogative; the City's ability to respond to an emergency would be compromised by depending upon Oakland or San Leandro. Councilmember Tam moved approval of placing both measures on the June 8, 2020 ballot; the next ten months can be spent evaluating appropriate staffing levels, exploring whether there are additional revenues beside taxes, and working with the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) to see if there is an opportunity to develop a collaborative measure; inquired whether the motion is allowable and what are the deadlines for a June 8, 2010 election. The City Attorney responded a date cannot be changed once an action is taken to set the matter for an election. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether both measures need to go on the ballot at the same time. `I"h.e City Attorney responded in the amendment can be set by the Council election is not set earlier than resolution calling the election. negative; stated any Charter at any election as long as the eighty -eight days after the Special Joint Meeting 7 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Councilmember Matarrese inquired what the timing would be to get the measure ready to place on the ballot. The City Attorney responded an action needs to be taken on the IAFF measure; stated Council can put off taking any action on the companion measure. Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer not to take action on the companion measure tonight; the City did not expect Measure P to solve all problems; that she is reluctant to have a tax measure to fund additional fire staffing levels; November 2011 is a reasonable date. Councilmember Tam stated June 8 2010 provides timely accountability for 9,048 signatures secured by the fire fighters and provides enough time to work on a collaborative effort with the fire fighters. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he believes in a competing measure, not a companion measure because staffing should not be in the City charter; the Fire Chief and City Manager should ensure correct staffing levels; that he agrees with having a June 2020 election because he wants to put a sense of urgency on the matter; funding is part of the issue; the other part is whether the City is taking a risk; staff should be able to determine whether there would be a difference in response time and service with reduced staffing and apparatus; PERS gorse case scenario can be projected; the matter is urgent. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not understand why the matter is urgent; the fundamental question to the voters would be whether the Charter should require a minimum level for staffing and apparatus units; providing voters with needed information is important. Councilmember Tam inquired why seventeen new firefighters would be added if staffing levels are restored to 27 fire fighters. Mayor Johnson responded the City paid $5 million in overtime in thirty months. Councilmember Gilmore stated information received from the Fire Chief shows that response times and service levels have not changed significantly s ince the brown. outs; a ballot measure is the wrong place for minimum. staffing issues. Councilmember Matarrese stated Measure P polling indicated that Special Joint Meeting 8 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 public safety ranked high but nobody wants to pay; a public safety parcel tax, which requires a two- thirds vote, did not even poll p 50 Councilmember Tam stated the question is whether to have the election for the IAFF measure on June 8, 2010 or November 2011. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a second for Councilmember Tam's substitute motion. There being none, the MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Gilmore clarified that her motion is just for the IAFF measure, not the companion measure. On the call for the question, Councilmember Gilmore's motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan., Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson 4. Noes: Councilmember Tam 1. Councilmebmer Matarrese inquired what are the next steps. The Interim City Manager responded the issue will be addressed with the budget item. (09-- CC) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution "Establishing Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriation Limit) Year 2009 -2010. Adopted. for Fiscal The Interim Finance Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated the City is $40 million below the conservative Jarvis /Gann cap on government spending. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the ratio is the same as in years past, to which the Interim Finance Director responded the ratio is getting worse every year. Mayor Johnson stated income is not keeping up with the cost of living. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. Mayor Johnson called a recess at Special Joint Meeting at 9:53 p.m. Special Jcint Meeting 9 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 9 :38 p.m. and reconvened the No. 143731 (09- CC /ARRA /09- CIC) City Council Resolution No. 14374, A.RRA Resolution No. 46, and CIC Resolution No. 09- 161 "Approving and Adopting the operating and Capital Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2009 -2010." .Adopted. The Interim City Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson thanked. the Interim City Manager for the ambitious plan. Councilmember /Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the Veterans' Building is not listed on the parks, facilities and amenities chart. The Assistant City Manager stated the Veterans' Building is shown on the reap, but not the chart. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan stated Mastick Senior Center is not listed. The Interim City Manager Stated the chart would be revised. In response to Vice Mayor/Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding the $3.5 million reduction between 2008 and 2009, the Interim City Manager stated at the end of Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 expenses exceeded the General Fund revenue by $6.6 million, which was adjusted to $2.1 million. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam inquired why the Fiscal Year 2009 -2010 ambulance transport expenditure has been cut in half [from Fiscal Year 2007-20081. The Interim City Manager responded data is hard to pull from past history; stated the intent is to have Fiscal Year 2009 -2010 fund by program; everything was merged together in the past; the best comparison is to look at total department dollars, rather than a trend in administration. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam inquired whether the same situation occurred for the Disaster Preparedness Programs The Interim City Manager responded a lot of administration overhead was allocated to the Disaster Preparedness Program in the past; stated a specific amount of money for a position would be allocated. Special Joint Meeting 10 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 to the Disaster Preparedness Program in the future. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam noted Homeland. Security requires documentation on cost centers in order to secure reimbursement, even for volunteer services. In response to Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore' s inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated page 86 shows General Fund expenditures by program. The Interim City Manager continued the presentation. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Capital Improvement Project Fund actual revenue to expense charge has flattened out or whether funding has been moved, to which the Interim City Manager responded revenues are reducing. The Public Works Director stated the full costs are funded at the beginning of a project. Vice Mayor/Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Gas Tax revenue staying flat is typical. The Interim City Manager responded the city has not had a lot of population growth. Mayor /chair Johnson stated cars are becoming more fuel efficient. In response to Councilmember /Authority Member/ Commissioner Matarrese's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the City will arrays have some projected negatives; the idea is not to have all negative funds and be able to recover in a year; that she would recommend zeroing out the $87,650 negative balance in the Police/Fire Construction Impact Fund at the end of the next fiscal year if recovery does not occur; the amount would carne out of the $8.8 million General Fund balance; stated the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Revenue Fund has come a long way from the initial negative; the FISC cash balance is dropping. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the drop will continue. The Development Services Director responded the city received a developer advance that is paid off annually with tax increment from the Bayport project; construction of a community building is the only outstanding obligation at Bayport; $2 million in expenses is expected for Bayport this year; the APIP debt is being kept as a Special Joint Meeting Z 1 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 debt because redevelopment requires debt in order to collect tax increment; only interest is being paid on the APIP loan. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tara inquired whether funds intended for the Carneigie Building renovation help keep the community development funds positive. The Interim City Manager responded $887,206 in community planning fees were transferred into Capital Improvement Fund; the expectation was that the money would be used for capital improvements for the centralized planning facility at the Carnegie Building; money could have been left in the Capital Improvement Fund; however, it would not be prudent because she does not see the project happening within the next three to five years; the fund would be negative $500,000 without the $877,260; the worker's Compensation negative was $2.1 million last January and February; departments worked very hard in five to six months to reduce the amount to approximately $1.5 million; a chargeback system is now in place; departments will pay on a proportionate consumption rate. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether chargeback formulas will be revisited, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam inquired where is the $400,000 intended for the Fire Station 3 replacement study. The Interim City Manager responded the $400,000 continues to be a reserve within the General Fund. The Interim City Manager continued the presentation. Coun.cilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese inquired where is the money for the special election. The Interim City Manager responded nothing was budgeted.; stated approximately $150,000 is in non departmental funds as a contingency. In response to Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated. the 5.5 authorized positions is Council plus half of the Deputy City Manager position that works on intergovernmental relations. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the Library's collection level is anticipated to be stable f rom year to year. Special Joint Meeting 12 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 The Library Director responded the number of stems would remain the same because more money will be spent for fewer items and there will be less money to spend. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether any City services are leveraged with the Boys and Girls Club, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative, especially dances and sports. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated constituents complain about the Lincoln Park Bartell Field maintenance; the field is not being dragged. The Recreation and Park Director stated the matter would be investigated.. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam inquired what is the thinking regarding evaluating the transition of the Meyers House Garden to a history preservation non profit. The Recreation and Park Director responded the thought is to review different options for the property. The Interim City Manager stated opportunities have been raised with respect to utilization of the facility. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated the City spent money on property that the City does not own. The Recreation and Park Director stated there was a subsidy in the past; now, the City only spends money from the trust. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired when information would be available on the trust. The Interim City Manager responded staff has done some preiiminary research on the matter; stated there is confusion about ghat would happen if the City cannot use the facility because of lack of parking. Councilm.ember/Authocity Member /Commissioner Tam stated the Golf Fund balance started with a fund balance of $748,430 in Fiscal Year 2009; the Fiscal Year 2010 projected balance is $275,590; potentially, reserves could be drained before Fiscal Year 2010 is over; Golf Course operating expenditures are exceeding revenues by almost $500,000. Special Joint Meeting 13 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 The Interim City Manager stated. Kemper sports has slowed the draw down; decisions need to be made this year. In response to Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan's I nquiry, the Interim Finance Director stated that the Teen Program personnel services expenditure includes part -time personnel. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan stated all part time personnel should be included in the personnel summary]. The Interim. City Manager stated that she could not come up with a formula base or standard format that would word.; a footnote could be added stating that part -time wages are included. The Interim City Manager continued the presentation. In response to Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the Assistant City Manager's position is budgeted 50% in Community Development and 50% in Economic Development. Councilmember/Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated. the Economic Development Department is responsible for commercial leasing at the former Base; there should be a discussion regarding past direction and whether direction is still applicable in the current or future environment. The Interim City Manager stated the matter is scheduled for the September 1 City Council meeting. Cou.ncilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam inquired what needs to happen to ensure that there will be enough Fire personnel to staff current equipment; further inquired whether an apparatus would be browned out if personnel falls be 1 ow 24. The Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated approximately $550,000 is budgeted for overtime. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the Police Chief's monthly community newsletter is very good; the Fire Department should do the same. The Fire Chief stated the Fire Department has started a weekly newspaper article. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated. the Fire Department should do a monthly community newsletter because not everyone reads the newspaper; the Special Joint Meeting 14 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Police Department posts the newsletter on the website; people need to be educated on when to call 911 and when to call a locksmith or plumber. The Fire Chief stated all avenues would be entertained.. Councilmember /A.uthority Member /Commissioner Tam stated the community will be placed at risk if equipment is not staffed in the event of gas fires; inquired what needs to happen to ensure that equipment is staffed. The Fire Chief responded staffing levels could drop below 24 40% to 50% of the time based on July statistics. Councilmember /Authority Member/Commi.ssioner Matarrese stated a trigger point is needed that looks at response time and impact so that Council can make a policy decision not to exceed a threshold that puts the community and staff at risk; the Fire and Police Departments have periods of intense activity that punctuate long periods of less activity; that he wants to make sure that the public and personnel are not put at uninformed risk; trigger points are needed to ensure that the matter is brought back to Council if trends are going the wrong way. The Interim City Manager stated that she would work with the Fire and Police Chiefs on trigger points and standards and bring the matter back to Council on September 1; the Fire Department .issue would be addressed first. Councilmember/Authority Member /Commissioner Tam inquired whether now zs an appropriate time for Council to discuss using the $400,000 discretionary reserves intended for Fire Station 3 in order to keep apparatus staffed through the end of the next fiscal year. The Interim City Manager responded Council took action a while back to earmark the $400,000 for Fire Station 3 rehabilitation; stated reserves are earmarked at Council discretion. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Council needs to be very protective of reserves and fund balances; inquired how many fire fighters are scheduled per shift, to which the Fire Chief responded twenty- eight. vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan stated opportunities are available to use overtime to make up the delta; the City has obtained a portion of the 3eltline property. Special Joint Meeting 15 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam stated getting another fire station seems ludicrous if staffing would be reduced. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that she would be reluctant to have Council use the $404,000 for overtime without further analysis. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether there has been a situation this fiscal year where staffing has dropped below twenty -four and over time was not used, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired how long it would take to deplete the overtime budget. The Fire Chief responded each month is different; stated $100,000 was spent in July. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated there is time to study options and discuss whether or not to shift the $400,000. (49- CC/ARRA /09- CIC Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. Vice Mayor/Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan stated $400,400 was intended to be used for a study for Fire Station 3 replacement; the building is not adequate; plans need to be evaluated. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese requested that staff provide matrices and a report showing whether adjustments need to be made. Councilmember/Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated the Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 false alarm response projections are the same as Fiscal Year 2009 -2010; the public should be educated more aggressively to ensure that the number of false alarms drop. Mayor /Chair Johnson Stated false alarm response numbers are very high. The Fire Chief stated all cities are experiencing a high volume of Special Joint Meeting 16 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 false alarms; fees have been implemented; the number of false alarm responses is not that high in consideration of the number of smoke alarms, sprinkler heads, detectors, and pull stations within the City. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether calls for plumbing problems have decreased, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. Speaker Domenick weaver, Alameda Fire Fighters. Councilmember/Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the ambulance transport expenditure is approximately $3.1 million. The Interim City Manager responded approximately $2 million of the $3.1 mi 1 lion] is for staffing the Ambulance Transport Service Program. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether EMS billable collections are $1.8 million. The Interim City Manager responded the program brings in approximately $2,040,000. Councilmember /Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the $1.8 mill ion is a subset of the $2,040,000, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember /Auth.ority Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated one extreme would be keeping things status quo; another extreme would be outsourcing to the County; that he would like to review insourcing, including the hospital; the Police Department should follow the same matrices as the Fire Department to ensure that the community and police officers are not put at risk. Councilmem.ber /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam stated the Police Department does not have a way of charging for an inappropriate call such as Fire Department false alarms. The Police Chief stated the Police Department does not want to discourage anyone from calling 911. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired what would be the response for someone calling the Police Department for being locked out of a house. The Police Chief responded the call would be referred to a private Special Joint Meeting 17 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 entity if not a safety, welfare issue. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam stated the dichotomy seems to be that the Fire Department is allowed to respond within six minutes for a cardiac arrest call, but the Police Department's standard is three minutes if the matter is life threatening. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated the Fire Department is dispatched from the County and has no say in how many people respond; the Police Department is different. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated. the Fire Department was staffed at twenty -seven at one time; the delta between twenty-four and twenty-seven should be reviewed. The Police Chief stated the Police Department has a process that monitors staffing; personnel is moved out of other units if staffing gets to a point of needing additional resources. The Fire Chief stated response times for automatic device calls are reduced; stated a full response would not be sent for said calls. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired how the Police Department's three minute response time is measured. The Police Chief responded the response time is measured from the time the dispatcher answers the call to the first arriving unit on the scene; stated the benchmark in most communities is under a five minute response for a priority --one life threatening emergency and is an excellent response time. The Interim City Manager continued the presentation. Councilm.ember /Auth.ority Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired how the depreciation allocation is calculated for the equipment maintenance reserve. The Interim. City Manager responded the purchase price is depreciated; stated that she would find out whether depreciation of an inflated number would be allowed. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated that she is afraid that the depreciation would be short of actual money needed. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether plans for keeping up with Special Joint Meeting 18 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Street and sidewalk maintenance is being reviewed. The Public works Director responded more money is available for resurfacing this year because of ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) funds; stated $4.2 million is budgeted this fiscal year; $350,000 is budgeted for sidewalks; $550,000 should be budgeted; the City is receiving Less Measure B money. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated new development should be responsible for putting sidewalks on both sides of the street. The Public works Director stated developers are now required to maintain public infrastructure. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated an eye should be kept on the health of the sewer system to ensure that the City does not cost itself out down the road; the stormwater runoff and lagoon system are high price tag items. The Public works Director stated lagoon project funds come f rom the Urban Runoff Fund., which is separate from the Sewer Fund; master plans are being developed for the Urban Runoff and Sewer projects; staff is very close to receiving ARRA funding for the lagoon seawalls. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether mapping has been completed for sewers, to which the Public Works Director responded mapping is in Phase 2. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore clarified references to ARRA means the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is federal stimulus money, and not the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether federal money is coming to Alameda, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the public should know about the funding; information should be posted on the website. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Comma...ssioner deHaan inquired whether the Appezzato Parkway parking strip and Alameda Beltlin� landscaping are budgeted. The Public Works Director responded currently, funding has not been allocated; stated the current General Plan requires the Alameda Special Joint meeting 1 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Point developer to build a multi -modal facility; the current ballot S nitiative removes the requirement. Councilmember /Auth.ority Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. Councilmember /A.uthority Member /Commissioner Matarrese complimented the Interim City Manager on the report's clarity. Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore thanked the Interim City Manager for the new format; stated the public will be more informed on how the City is spending money. Mayor/Chair Johnson concurred with Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore; stated everyone worked very hard on the budget. Vice Mayor/Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan stated seeing the final product is nice; the budget is more understandable; a department staffing summary is the only thing missing. The Interim City Manager stated a summary would be provided. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 12:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk. Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting 2 0 Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community improvement Commission August 3, 2009 CITY OF.A LAM EDA Memorandum To; Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council From: Glenda D Ja Interim Finance Director Date: Au 27, 2009 Re: List of Warrants for Ratification This is to certif that the claims listed on the attached check re and shown below have been approved b the proper officials and, in m opinion, represent fair and just char a the Cit in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. Check Numbers Amount 221447 222445 $7,558,517-93 V1 9159 V1 9307 $1051208.21 EFT 702 $15,409.00 EFT 703 $1,176,817.10 EFT 704 $199,272.61 EFT 705 $357,005-69 EFT 706 $86,866.46 EFT 707 $10, 558.07 EFT 708 $11,913.50 EFT 709 $103,715-79 EFT 710 $11,953-50 EFT 711 $436,275-00 EFT 712 $30,117.18 EFT 713 $31,110,54 EFT 714 $23,074-30 EFT 715 $755448-49 EFT 716 $1925411-81 EFT 717 $7,865-50 EFT 718 $1 08,779.52 Void Checks: 220752 ($175,00 221242 ($10-35) 220219 ($711.86 207130 ($644-57) 221612 ($414.20 221615 ($9.54.00) 221636 ($28,00) 221766 ($95988.16) 221428 ($129.00) 221745 ($140.00) GRAND TOTAL $10,529,125.06 Respectfull submitted, Interim Finn e �Jr ctor BILLS #4-13 Council Warrants 09/01/09 9/1/2009 CITY of ALAM EDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim city Manager Date: September 1, 2009 Re: Accept the Quarterly Treasury Report for the Period Ended June 30, 2009 BACKGROUND Each fiscal quarter an Investment Summary Report is provided to the city council for review, per city policy. The report includes all cash available at quarter -end summarized in five major Categories: 1} cash on hand includes funds in petty cash, change boxes, and vault; 2} cash on deposit funds in checking and payroll bank accounts; 3) working capital funds on deposit with the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF); 4) idle cash funds under management by registered investment advisors (RIAs); and 6} bond proceeds funds on deposit with trustees or fiscal agents. Attachment 2 to this report is the Treasury Report for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2009. DISCUSSION As of June 30, 2009, the city's cash assets were as follows: Cash-on-hand 3 Cash -on- deposit 127721631 Working capital 38 67,066 Idle cash 77,919,299 Bond proceeds 24,394,711 Total $142 The cash management portfolio summary also identifies the city's invested idle cash, as well as funds invested for various assessment district and bond funds. Detail as to rate, yield, maturity date, par, and market value are also included. City council Agenda Item #4. 09-01 -09 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council September 1, 2009 Page 2of2 All investments have been made in accordance with the provisions of the city's approved Investment Policy. The city of Alameda's expenditure requirements for the next 180 days are more than sufficiently covered by anticipated revenues from city operations and liquidity from cash on hand, working capital, or maturing investments. FINANCIAL IMPACT As of June 30, 2009, the City had received 271% of the budgeted interest income for fiscal year 2008 -2009. Budgeted interest was $1,803,932; actual receipts were $4 RECOM Accept the Quarterly Treasury Report for the period ending June 30, 2009. Respectfully submitted, Gle a Interim Finance Director Attachment(s): 1. Review Letter from Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer 2. Investment Portfolio Summary Report cc: Kevin Kennedy, city Treasurer 1 4 J September 1, 2009 Honorable Ma and Cit Council I have reviewed the Cit of Alameda's Treasur Report for the q uarter endin June 30, 2009, and find that it complies with the Investment Polic established b m office. The interest of the Council is alwa appreciated. Sin evin Kenh6d Cit Treasurer KK/dI Finance Department 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, California 94501-4477 5M747.4881 o Fax 510.747.4890,o T 510,522,7538 City Council Attachment I to A Item #4.,C 09-01-09 C O A-1 n ted o n Rer Paper CJ7 0 0 N O CO z z F LLI w Q W W Q Q ._3 0 LL 0 �0 U O .,..1 0 0 LL z LIJ H CO z c� a City Council Attachment 2 t® Agents Item #4=C 09MO -®9 C7 et' o M N N (0 CO a C) r C7 N C7 M LO LC] CY3 0 N CY) r CY) (0 t„ I LL[ C] CO Ca C7 M f` CY") C7 r` CO :N a 6:6. :i C6 :t` U Q J `Q U .1- CY) L0 CO M 0) Ci7 CC] CY? 00 (S} C r a C.0 :zl CO N U) Q U a� a N a N (0 00 N ch CO Q C) r 0 LO o N a or) [77 W C)0 CC) cc ni J O CD (D rl cY (D CO N Q 00 Cv C) "Zf CO 1�-- 69- t� M (D [i7 M O) [9 CO LO Q cv cn z 00 -r-+ U] C) CY) CY) CO r r_ cfl 00 N CO Csi CY) m:D: L7 C7 N1 C) 00 00 N :0 0 CL W 0 CD C) r M LS] C] CD C7 [Y] u C7 r- Liz LLJ C) 0 r CY") CY-) r-- 0 r Q W r r- 00 t` r Q Z;Q rN O m LIJ W LLJ— O O 8 G C 8 Q] a W C3] C73 l� Li) LC} a t` L O O0 ILO C3] CA CSC 00 C] a U3 LC] 07 M N J CD LO CY) T N C] CY] CD CD C \j CO r'. CY) CD r 4 C D Z Cr] a M z.❑ 00 00 Q. W d' r r N o LL CCU W W .z LU (D V' (D CD 0') LO Cfl 00 C) ti: a rn �r LC3 C Y) OL3 r J a C7 d CY] J W Co0C�NC\1 -00'sO "t M o Oa L�] CO CD Cv 0 CO ti rx� d' I N m Z) O CD "ct" CV CY7 Ca DD CC) 00 W .J Q CO N C 1 CY) LO N CO t` 69- r- M ;1- r 1� CA CD C11 Z 6g J Z" t` 00 L O 00 T O0 D U-: r Cx7 M C3' 00 0 Z Z r Q m to Z LL W W Z z w; U) Q Cf) W ...a C) Q Q W J U LL fY W V3 U7 U3 U W W Q Q U z W CO z LL! UJ W W --1 J W W I.L_ W W Ll. LJ W�-� Z o �n� z w w N _:.z z U) U3 U7 w W U3 W W U3 (L` c17 W W U] W w W Z LL [r Q o Q W Q Q 12f 0� H Z Ui w Z W f- W Z W' C� Q Q Z W w Z Q� W W Q W z LIJ Q W C'� Z W W Q W U) _0 �F F' Q W z Z U3 W C7 C- U C3 Q J J C7 rn 0 z LI I t� WW W W w 2 W. U) [I3 W U} U QQw wL17 r` a Q C 1- 4- W W N W :r :.N m g LO :Cfl :t 00 c� a City Council Attachment 2 t® Agents Item #4=C 09MO -®9 d� C7 N CY] W z D CD _z z W 0Y Q W W Cr Q Q W LL Z 0E— C �0 U U 0 J 0 LL c� 0 CL F— z w 2 w z U7 [s3 CL CD N C; co LLJ z 7) z Ul w UJ LLJ 2i :D 1 0 LIJ r z M 0 0 LL 0 -j 0 LL 0 rl Lij 75 F- U) W 0.0 0. 00. C) 0. 0. 0 Lr). 0: -o o: o o o a) Lo C9 C. to Qo: LO: LF) Ln Ln: 141 c) oo o Lq: 0: (C) 0. 0 Lr) (.0 LO N co: 0� r-- CO CC) (N: 0: tn n Lr) Q0. T- 4 ri --..kD.Lr).O.CN CN C114. cr) %zr 00 0 r: (7) Q0 LO r N KT M. Ln: 0: 00 0 (Y) 00 LO co Kt 00 cy) CD C) 00 (D 00 (D LO r�, Lr) Ln r,�, C) cD Lr). M. (D. r�,. 00 C) r,-. 00 Co r- 0-) 0 W W r--, Lr): Lr) N c) ko co C- .00 0.0 oo: oo c3) cr) Lo Ln f�- M Cr) Lr) Q0 Q0 LO 0. LO I*,- ILO (.0 M ::T QO. CN. co ai .�b o r- 0� oo czr Ln 0: rl-. 00 oo 00 .0.417- C%4: T-. 0 qzr 00 i n cr) (N. Ln. o. Zo. o R:zr 00 r�- 00 Co. I-- CT) IZT 0 r�- (D CN LO OD C-0 00 M CO Lr) 1�- LO CNN CM0 ©.0 C) 0 CD. C). 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0© C). 0. C) 0 0 0 0 C C 0 0. 0: C). 0 C):C7;© 0. 0 0: 0 0.0.0:0.0.0.0.0 LO �N :m r` 0:0 0. 0. C). C. 6 0'. C) 0' cil 0' 0* C). �C). 0 0 0 0 0 O.O.O.C) 0 0 0 0.0�0�cr Ar). NI 00 CD C). C). Cl. C) (D 0 C) C) C) C) C) 0 C) C) C C) C) 0 0 C) C) C) CD�. CD. Co "Zi 0 00 W 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.0:0.0.0.0.0.0 0. 0 C). CD 0. (D. Lr) C). 0. 0 0. 0. C). LO. 0 LO. (D LO. (Y) co cr) (Y) 0 C): Ln. 0 Lr). 0. LO. C). C5: c): F�, Ln. o: 5. Ln. Ln. cr). F-� Lr).cN:o:c):c) Ln.(N.F, o.cN.o 0) to _j r--. r-.. r--� r*-,: oo.. f r... CO 0 It' T 0 r�, (0. (N. LO 00 (.0 00 C4. 6q. LO n C\j C\A.Cyi ..Co. cr):p (D (.0 ILO Q0 (D r�- Ln Ln Ln Lo Lr):tzr.r- a) Ln rf) (D 0) v- U') CN T- Ir- 00 00 00 (M CN 00 0 r-, n M.Cr).Lr):O.C'l4 IZT r• n CN C) C) �O.RZT C) C) CD C) (\I CN C\j N CN C\j C\I.M.IZT %zr %zr CZT lq* Ln Lr) .(-O.(D.to (0 T-- T-- Iz- T-- r- T- v- Ir, T- T- r- T- R7- 7- 00 W CO (D CN n K7r Qc) CS-11 M C�lj f-0 (.0 .(7) Ln M.00:M:Lr).11,0 to 00 .(.0 M C) QD -r--.00 C7 t- oD r-� CN rl-. M 0) cr) Iql, MID :ql -OC).U'):00 r-% ILO r-� CN M ILO t:zr (5 Lri r-.. r r-% r-, irN r., I r (Y) C\l CM0 LLI 4 04: N C*,4 :CN:" N N 04:N CN:: M. M M M M: M M m m M. M. 4:zT r-T. qzt. .(7) cr):". 0) C). 0. C 0 n r-l. 0: Q0 Lr) Lr) LO Cr) qT. N Lr) (.0 00 r�-: Lr). LO. C) O.T CL (Y PO CN r r r 0 04 T- T (.0 CD.(o M Lr) Lf) (.0 r--, r- M. C) CN CN: (N:: r) c): 0 0 0.0 C C). C).O:C): C\l C) C) LLI Cf) cr). cr): cr).: r--�. co co rn o,). oo. a) oo. o,). co oo: 00 00. 00. cr). CO r�, r*- ol cr) 01) cr) C) 0') C) C C: 0) LID C) C) LLJ :(=):C).C).C).C).O 0 C).0 0. 0.. 0. C). 0. 0. C) 0 0 0. 0 C) 0. C). 0. 0. $L. cr) m. r 0 LO. R:*. CZT c) czr Lo C) C) 0 tzt r-. Lr) r�- cn a) a) Q0. 0. C) CL. CL: CL. U d 0: CN C).0 N. 0. 0. C). C) C). 0. C)! 0 C. (N. 0 C�4 M (0: LO. QO rl-- IzT O..,N M: M. 'LD cZT QD a) T-: r�,: OC) K) Lr) U') C).. 0 O.C).C) o. 0 0.0 00 C) 0 �0C) 0. C C) C.CD c):C CL X0 -C -l �-o I- R O\P R c] \O(R) IORC) �C 0-0\ C) �ON �01 C C 0 'ON IC) C)\ .0 NO NO I-C �o N\O -0-0- --0 0 UJ (-0.c0.a).r-- t3 r C�4 M 00 LO 00 0 Ln r�- C C) C) C t CN KZII r�-- tzr r%o CY) r�- rl�l 00 ".7 OD::r- r- M N M tzt a7 M Ln (.0 CF) a) .T CN C) (40 ..CN Ln rl- tzr.N (.0 (L7 C CN C).C) CD %Lr). LO 0 CD CD LO It CN U') CN It pr) M:CN:CN.C,4.M CN M I:zr IzT lzt r4(j .�r C) C) LO 0 LO W cs I-C) C) I C l C 1 �O o 0 I c, 0 LN 0 I OR OR L -C- 1 1 I C I P 0 O l 11 0- 0 1 1 0 I R OIR OI F- :.Lr).Lr).Lr).Lr).O.O.(=)Lr) Lr) 0.0 0: 0 Lr) ul: Lo Ln 0 C).C�Cl CD ..Ln.Lf) 0 0 Ln o 0 0 r�-. r�-. rl%:: r�-. C114. M. 0. 0. r%% CN. CN. 0. (.0 0 Ln C�4 r%-. 0 N: r�l 0.0.0 C) C) 0 C) C) C) .00.00 00 C- 0 (N Ln Ln M Ln Lf) 0 r-4, (.0 00 00 Lo 0 �o 00 LO Lr) Lr) Qc) C] (D. (D C) C7 91T d• Cr to C14 CN C7 CN M.M PO d C,• m CN CN C7• C#' LO C) T-- %C) U') LO Nr ::Lr) C):Lr) (N C). 0 rIT iLO 0 0 M. 0. 0 Ln Lr). 0 0 0 0 0. C. LO 0 00 0 OD LO N 00. G) tl-- W M. C): P0. CC). M M qzr: Ln, M Ln. Ln: (.0. C). 0:0 0 r%, r.�, Lo Ln (.0 Oo CD.O. cy') CO 00 00 a) K:zr 00 (D r�l ko CN CD: C) (N "%T. C o 0%00 C 0 00 a). 0. 00 'Itt Cr cr 0): C"J.. r�-.: 0: Lr): (N. po. lzr M.0 0. 00. I:zt n 0. (D: o 'D: P�-. N) CN. tn co: 0: 'D. CN 0. a). 0). (D. Oo 0 (.0 CN LD Nd- Iltd• It CD o0 et' CV (77 Ni. (37 C�. C) C) Qc) 00 Cr) Ln C) M 00. ZT: 1"n: C) c7r CN. [r7 (D o).o r%.. C. N. 00: 00. (n r�, Q0. CN. C). 0 r%... M 00 0 Lr) 0') r�- r%-� CO N:: 00 r... r,.,. CC). T-: 0. KZr a). r-,:: (D. CN. LI). OD. LO: 0D.: N). C\j N (my) 69- L.0 F- LL LL. .0. z Z Z w CD W W Co t1! w i uj. V) o per w 0 0 W F- uj: U .0. 0. F- a- W z 0. W LL. M Lu LLI L L i u U Z Z F W CL Lu Z LLJ LLJ w CD. UJ .LLI:W: 'o U). LU U) o U). f): (n u U). Lu. w i Cl) U) UI U) cn:u 2! LJJ w w Lu. Lu. w LL LL U CL: LU U) w :Z Z. Z. F- LLI LU 2! z LU z o u) UJ z 0 0 0.0 0 0. .0 0 LU LLJ u m LU: z LU w Lij LLJ m 2!.Z. z Z:. M: M F- U F Z. Lu m u -j -1 <:o 0 w LL z z :(D U M Z Z W m m LJJ 0 M M 0 D M D F-: M M u u U) U) (f) 0 0: 0 -J m 0. tn O C) o 0� z z w q �.O.o 0 0 %U�L c) U 0. L) C). D: W.>. LL: D w. Lu w m m w a�: U. u Q� C- oe: Q�. Lu. u 0 L LU: Lu. M cl Cl) z A L cr- F- M M M m m m W U U N N z u tn U) U): Ll- LL U) U-J CL YZ 2! M M 2! M LL LL LL. LL ZD. ZD D. LL. LL. Z). (D. LL. LL F-. LL: LL LL LL: U- Q- 0- LL LL LL z C) rn m C).C) Q LL1 LL TZ o� F-0 LL 0 0 LL 0 LL C) LO a7 LO 'n I` Ef3 t C>� o o o C o:o 0 �t o U') o rm Cv co C) ©ni c� r. Lo 67 o N Nt a M cV J N tf7 N Ef} N: CY7 N LO C5 U!)- ct N 67 ff} Lid C7 :O 67 L{7 0. o© v co zr CY) o o C) Cv co Cl 0 rn o 0 N tv C) CY) N :w N LO Cf} co r C\J LO Q N �..J co N [f3 bit 0 co Z Z W .J G) CD 0) 0) CY) 0) C37 67 G) 0 w C37 67 C37 C37 C37 0. W I I 1 1 f 1 E M 1 1 1 f W CY) m CY) o 0) -e U] C) o o o C). o p o W CL J w' o p CD o o C7 00 o 00 CD. 0 p p (p 0;00 C7 C7:C7; o;C) C7 r Cfl:.© 0 C7:.© o C) p 0 0. N .o. o C7 :o 0 W cs o a o.. a o o o o o o p C) :o o C) C7 O 0 C) o o CD.0 o;o p o 0 o o CC) p p p r• r r oo; CDC ©o C14 C) C7 C7 o p p p p p Cy') LS7 d" 'Itt DJ ©i C7 o W M C6 LO CY) 0 o i O o o `CV co ©Cvo' J mot o o r�Ln 67 r N Cti1 i7 p C11 Y N t` C 7 CD CY) o OD o m m o J o iN U7 U3 U? U3 U) U3 W V] L1 CL [L tl. UJ �1 4-a Z LL LL L].. Z o LL LL U W W U3 U] (j) W U3 U3 U3 tC] F-- U) C1) p Z Z z W C7 W Q¢ F.. C) W. W W W Z (j Z.z W W W W W I- w I- O o; 0 w 0 0:0. .0.0. w n.. z 4- c� c C� CD o X o 0 0 LL U� U t� U Z u 0 z LL LL LL tl. L LL W �wacL Z p W o U3 U} U] U] Cf) w U W .J J J .J: U Z Z Z IL U U) W 3 W z W W Z W W' LL: LL' W Lt.; ❑m m m U m W Z ZZ' u) W LO 0 N CD: Joao Gl w U ;z LL m r z m U :z .Z m m o U Z z mim t- z. m J :Z Z Z Lr i D U LL D 0 D CL 0o rte- r N O C\l CY) 00 d' 00 a m O O 00:T-- :m o a CD I- C\f CD et C) N r Q (Y] Lil W r U31 C37 Cp m d7 t� [Y3 Ef} CO Cfl LC) r [Y7 r C5] m I:* C11 ct CV N oQ O C37 C37 CD CY) 1` .00 .00 (3) LO LO J Cry OQ M C0 Cfl i r CY7 LO d d r N co r C0 Li] 1` (C] LO LO r C�1 o) 00 t co O..'. r 0 CO 0 N N CY] C7 O N r CCU a 1` ['7 OC] r p 0 00 Ct7 C37 [Y� b -:00 QD to r- CY] r a) CY} N ty' C1[ N co W C33 CD r CY) 1- 00 00 C37 LO LO [Y7 N OC7 CY] Cfl i CCJ d r CY] Itt LO J N [)C7 r Cfl Lf7 c o LO Lf3 W CD z r r r r r...... r C7 d CY] 00 LD CN d uj 2 .LL W J n! r r CD C5] r• :r- C37 C3] .r r C33 0) CO 0) r r r r r r C3] M m m C D C) r :r C33 It Cfl d LO .Itt o `t r W LL d C37 .0) C3) C3] C33 C3] CD d3 0) Q] C� 0) ...p).. 0 r C) O a :a 0 C) C) a ;O :O O :O i© a CD :r LIJ U LL .d r :r^ p Q r :r C7 r r� I :r C7 C] C7 p r r r• :'tom r r r I co d O C7 O C7 C7 O 00 o W CY) M: C37 Cn M M,CY).M c) c) CD C] C3) ai .CA Cf) oa o;o C O ©;n C7 COO ©a CL Ud QQ QQ QQ ❑Q QQQQQQ QLLLL r r C) :C) C) C) Q:.C7 T .'.O: r O`C]C7i.CJ: ©`O: 00 O.00' tl o o 0 61 0 v a 0 0O an 000CD ac,OOOC) a;a;O; o a O;C) o;Caao o ©a oo QQp o© co C� ©'ter© CD©CDCio.CD ©N O G d fl o n Q 0 c c Q CD C) Oo; ©;a O; C)'aaao;o o ooa ©O ©o CD o O o© o;o O ©o 0.0: a LO O CD C o o O O Lo C) O O C) C7 a o; 1 Co. Co ca ©c� 0 CD ©0CD UJ ti C7 N C� 00 d' D L7 r C D CO M (D O� W r N� CV a co d OrJ CIO 0) r"- C.N. r N CS] C] f�- CY) 1� C) N a) 1` et` r a CY) J Cf' V> r 64 CS) 00 CY) 00 (D LC] r CO It N i d OD O ❑7 1�- CY) Y O CZ[ r 00 CY} It LO C'7 CV 00 r CC] Li CL3 L{ LO D d U CY) W m m r Q U) N W M D D CO [.1..[ a CD. W a W W N N W W U3 U7 U U3 z z W Z Z :Z .Z Z Z .Z Z Z Z z 77 D om; z Z 7 ��D_ _aDD Z LL LL N LL LL D LL LL CI] LL o LL L� LL i LL LL LL.. a_ W W LL N �7 W F-- H CL' Q d W u CI) Z z U7 UJ U U3 U3 Z C13 U U3 U? U3 'U7 U? j CC m Z z J D Z z W Z o Z Z Z Z.Z.Z. W CO LL L!_ U D: Z Z z Z d Z z-Z Q Z Z Z Z Z'Z o uJ L i LLI W W` W W Z W` W L1.f W W W W CL' LLI x DD m DD m DDQD Co. 000000 o;QQ Q rr� D D CL CL U) CL d U3 M M Cl {n C CL L1 C1 W L m d W Z D Y'Y' r t3 YY`•,•�Y Y Y LL MG.. UJ d d F^ z z U Z Z. U Z Z— Z U Z Z z z Z Z d J J J add; �L d; d d` d d d d dd d; Z d dd d d d d i� W t.L LL LL' W L 1 Cr! W Co CO IMLI m Cpl ©C] m M Co ,M tM co Ca D o U z: z Z Z Z Z L� Z! W Z z Z z Z Z ...1 �n d 0 0 d` o o 0 0 o U_ D 0 0 0 0 0. m Y'Y Lu z z z z d Z: Z❑ z Q Z Z Z z z Z z' Z d[ d o LL LL I o� C U LL .c "d' CD CD p 00 .0 d' a) f` m M Lam- CIO to r C11 CD CD 00 CC] N Cl) QD d' tD r r- N MCC] C7 p: Q W W OC? C7rJ C� CD r C5] CO �f' r ;C37 LO N tD tt M LO L! 3 00 r CD C77 Lf'] LO p Q j 00 to �t 0.0 CD 00 (D It t- CF) t� CIO CY3 L CY7 Cfl r C) n N �4 00 (0 CD �t o LO N C7 C e) C.0 "ef" CS3 C;7 N CY) 00 C 1l L` co co CF) D C? p p W Lz i N 00 Coo Co C,3 r M oo "tt r 0 ti LO LO C-0 d' CY3 Liz LO 00 r to Cf• ti C37 0) CY] CYO p Cx] .r co GO it r rd- Q (N :N Z Q UJ L.L Lll J fy C13 r C�7 LC] LO to (D Q CO m C) W Q C D CD LLl -a O C] Q to .CY) L.L.I F CD C57 C37 C) C) �L W L �U C LL p! (Y) J W 0 C7 C) C 0 C) r CD 0 r C7 C� c can ©cam ©ocnornrc� Q'p ©c� C) 0 Q `C] 0 r" :C) :C7 C) :L7 r C7 tD ;C7 LO (o Q r r Qa C7 Q fY Liz Ll.� Q© CD C7 C7 p N C] N I �f CC] N N co Q Cn m CY3 ti Co CC7 Q C) p J N 0 C) Q v0 Q Q N tY3 ti? ct tC7 r N C3] Cfl Q N(Y) v0 D L% to CY) 6] C) C Q d� C7 L-0 CO 00 CY 3 C3? r- Q) 00 "qr r C37 bg co It :CYO tf7 Li"] O"J r l` C37 Q CY} w CY7 U') LJO o CZ) to 0 m tee m o W W Q Q Q Q 'r Z Q Ll1 W Z J .J Q Cl) :W Z Q Q it W Y W W L.L.I m 0 CL .0- C'3 W E- F- Z Z Z QQQ000 a. U o W W a. a_ a. U3 U� tf7 Z W U,z ❑-�Cl Q Q Q Q U Z U❑ Z Z W U7 co Q [L Q ;Q U' f1 'L1 ,W W ;W O J U LL_ .J :J !Q 2. J J Y Lll W U U d. Q W Q Q�,..,.w.,...lJJ LU Z o CL Q W�-- ��Q�Q Q QQQQQQ'QQ Q LL o QQ D W ;Q (D C!3 Z W LLI z z Z W, Q o0 H _U 2i U o J (D C'3 QQQQ' -�'QQQ d LL Q Z U U] m Q Z CL fY Q Q Q Q .Q :Q Q Q Q C) U Q Q LL Z Z o U W Q cn LL {y, LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL v3v, LL [L LL o Li Y Q -..a Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y W U3 Z Y. ti7 W J 0 Q U3 Q W Q L) J Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W W Q Q Q Q Q Q< L.] Z lw_ c N Cn L) M C] :.0 r- ca co C� tr1 co cn m m N E— m LL LL I o� C U LL .c 00 0) co Q C9 CD N CC] Liz C D LC) W. CD CD CO 't p Cr] N OD C37 ti t!? tL 1 d 00 r Cv N Q3 OC3 C7 r Q O(] r C37 o a "qt i t` co 00 co C37 r� C o C7 Rl a CY7 ll CY7 C37 t` Q (1l N Lt"7 CO LLl r CxJ r C7 ct Liz C7 N r CO C0 t� [Y3 t` C) C1j C33 l` Ct ti C) C N 00 C3C) C0 D o CY N Oo C37 OC3 cY7 O0 CO LO r r7 d' d' CV p W Y J Q ts~3 Ln C11 N CD p p C37 co r C37 CY? (N N CC} C\l T Cfl to C37 C33 N C 3 CV Ul) C7 CY) 0 6] 0) to r CY) t. co 00 0 LO LO Q o 0 M r r t�3 Q91: C37 d C33 N CY� N r {7C] CO to ..'d r (Y} Lf7 bg N N 00 r (D LO tD LO to N N Cr] rte. r CV C] Q CY N 00 C37 t` Lt 3 Lf ti L(] C) C7 C) r N N CY) 00 00 C) r CD co r CD C7 C) t` C� C7C3 Cn CY3 CD C7 0 r t� N C) CY) 193 00 C•+7 0) r- r C D N C) N r d• r co C) :N C) N C) LC] 00 'd" r .0 a !1 C7 �3 N o i LO CO o M f` N Cy) ti 't I` r o cr) CV I mt lztl Cl 00 L7 C7 C7 0 CD Cn C7 p M Cpl OD r :643 CS] 00 CO (At Od [,C] Li r co C CN EF:� mot• d- N Ctij C7 0) co Y-•• C37 co I N N 00 J Q Q M N r N C3] C CD CD Cn (3) N Ev4 rry ti C l Lc7 c� CY] (3) J C,r} fl- 00 Cn Liz L[3 C3] r r Cfl L17 u5 t C37 d" 5g N CY7 N CY] CCU CD d' r CY) It LO LO co Q V' CN N r N CO r CCJ LO CD LC] LO CV CV CY) r U 09- r m Z C) t r r r r Y,.,, t r r ...x- r- r ...a] Cc co Z c:zr-L (.0 CY7 .00 CC) LLJ LL W J ry U) rn m r CO Lo r r r-• tw r r r r r- r r r- r r r r r t r r r r T- r C3) m M L{ y o CT) .0) rn G) o CD cy) CD 0) CF) 0) CY) C3) C3) a) C3) CO 0') a) m or) rn rn CD rn Q rnnn C Y) N CB ti �y�r C C C N 'ZI r 1— UI W C) LL N .J :D c•+7 Q Lli Z M Cl` C7 0") C V) CN (Y) t M C) M cr) m 0) m M M C3? C3] Ci7 Cn C}7 C37 p7 p7 C}7 p7 C37 C37 C37 a) CD p7 r C) p p p 0..0.0 Q:a ©:CD C�' ©::Q Q p Q p p Q p p r .p Z W T- to u� -0 5 5 CD Z i r :r r r r r- r 'r "r^ r r 'r r r 'r- w 1— C) Cl. 0 .e--• r r r .r :r :r- i :r CD Cv C) N o c C) 0© o o C) o C) o C) 0 0© a C) o o C3 o o C) o 00 aD o o a o C) d W Q W C3) 0l CU C3] LC) 00 C F) C3] C3] M 0) 0) C37 C D C3] 0) .b C3] C3] Cn..:.C3) m CD o ©a a o U) rn rn;rn Q 0.0 0 ©o o a C) C7 a ©a o L L 5,... L :.1- 1... L L L» S� L LLJ J C: cr) L... 5,... L L� LL L L LL L L, 5.... L. C� CL CL C L CL. L) :3 1 a is a. 1 a a Q. Cl Q Q CL Q C1 Q CZ C>_ C� CZ Cl Q CZ Q Q "7 Q [U Q W UQ ©S-CV 0] [U QQQQO QQQQQQ< QQ;QQ ❑QQ;000QQQ 1L 0- 1 rLn;u7 r r r r r T-' :T- r r t~~ r r r r r r- :r :r ;r r :r .r C6 C�C)C) C=) C) C)oo C) CD C) 0 r; C)C) o a_ �-o Cy C3 C7 O C7 C7 a o C3 C] C7 o C7 C) O C7 C7 Ca a C7 J W© o �n� n ©o ©;o ao ©.C)oC�© a;oC)o;C) C� 0 LO (o C) 0 0 C7 C) C) r-- t- r C3 C7 r• p r r t C7 t-- r r "r•- r C7 LC] C) LL 1i] 0 .a O '©;a ;o o O a ;o ©:C7 o Q LC] Q o o Q :'Q C) p r-_ ;pp p C7o CSI o0. 0 00 00 0 0Ctil o 1 NCR 0 a v a a v v v c v v o v 1- 0 :a o 0� 1 0 0 0 0 .0 Q C7 Q ;C7 .0 C) 'C7 C) ;o C) C) C) ;C7 ©;0 o C) ;C7 C) C) C) C C) CD 0 C7 (D ;0 C) C) C) C) CD C� o o C7 o Z LL] �n LO ©C] L t C) CD o c3 C) C) C) a Cl: o o o a C) CO a o o C C C) Cl L C] t7;o cfl a CC]:C7Qi°;oDC7 C7 r r-: a rr rr ;r- 0 LC] C] a U) C) LC] a C) C) C) 0 CJ C) C) Ca C7 o o o o C7 0 ©o o o ©ti- O0 0 o ©U') ©,O CD C) 'o?co00© 0o o w Z C) Q Q u j Cl LO N 00 C3] t` co LO ma y LC7 :'t 00 o o C3 co C7 N Q] 00 t CCt e- o 00 r 0) p o co co oa Oo Cn cy C::) t n r- cY7 C) C) C) C� •r- N N C) C o ct• oo m 07 C7 Ctit p -1 C37 Q 00 M C-4: OZ) r OD i d' d" r D N C7 i s N C) N 0 (D C) tr3 r C7 CV CY) t` d' :tom- r C7 Cyr} N LO ll�f d• o 00 It. C37 L d' o LO 6+� r F�} C37 DJ [Y3 bF} 07 (fl Liz r CO 6�} i CV Qrn- ca It �t N U') Cy to cv 00 o M t Cy) rn c t N N ao CF) Y I tc7 t to N Cr) [r C Y) I qt 0) C r) C� C 0 c�7 co N Cyy l!7 LO 'd" LO "�f I` tC] m N Ef} N co N 00 r Ci7 Lf7 tC] Liz l{) N d4 ,r- 0 C�1 (r) 5g m G G. LLI LL LL o Cl) z zz; w 1L n_ w W W W W Cn CO U) W U) U] U) U U) W W W D Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Q Z Z Z Z Z Z Z= LL LL .W !13 D D Z) 'J o 0.. W CL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL co U- LL LL LL LL LL LL W 0 uj UR cr- CD !.L f.�.. LL l L. L L.L i.€.. to 1 F 1 :F W U) U) U7 U) U) U) UJ U] t17 Z U) C) Z Z_ Z_ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z— Z Z Z Z Z Z U) U] U) U) U3 U) U] LL LL h- Q W :1- W Q Q Q Q Q Q C 1�-- F- 1-... F- 1- j-- F- F- W 1` F-- f- F-- F- 1-... r� W.. Z W W W F'"' Lll F•- W W W W` Ll l LL1 W z z zz z zz z z>- z zz z 'z z z LU LL" Y ;Y I�' W W W W W '111 W 1]J W Z ;L.1 W 'W W W LLj W 'W W F– (D z W QoQQ�0000O.0 :0 ��>o�' �cD °c�° cn W W Q L 0000°oo;ooQOOOO.o:oo °Q� z rz o 01- rr X'� ilr C D H 1 F- W Q W W F-- Q Q Q Q Q Q p_ a `CL fL CL cL 0.. a.. 0.. V` d. C].. LL [L a. LL CL Q W W C'j Z .z z w Z LL Z LL LL LL :LL LL LL i i i r l,• :J 0U) oz U U) cn U) c� cn U YYYYYYYYY Z YYYYYYYU) D zz :Z;Z ZZZ'Z F- CL CJ U Q--; C] Z Z J W ❑U J:J J:JJJm Z Z Z:ZZ LL:Q!Q:Q;Q'000Q:Q. Q Q Q Q Q Q Q .`�:Q,Q: W Z U) W W .,1 W W W Z W [L tz n! l� U7 w CL] CC] CC] Cfl flC7 C]Cl m m flC] LL LL CL Z CL CC] 1 Co. Co. m m m o z z z z z z z z z LL Z z z z 'z Z z Y m �0° 0000❑_oo YOU cn. Ll.l —.>-.z Z Z Z C1 El LL L.L Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z'Z Z'Z Z Z'Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Q Q� C-L C-L Lo U CCl i 7 U U LL CYO t 3 m m m d] Z U co co m co CD 00 cy") C6 W W [MY) a Z) J 00 C37 CD Q Z (Y) 4— U CD OQ t'7 Cd C'r] CD L u Coe) oC] t•. �d7 c o CD r Cr] CY W Z F- .p Q LU U Lij J CI3 C a7 Q o 0.0 O W J- Q C7 LL n! �Q C)m O CM W Co z W D Q W W W 0 UJ C? C37 JOQ W C:L Q W U Q Q Q W O p a F--- o a- U LL O C) J W O 57- C7 L.L r LO r F 4 CL. W F Z C) C] W r LO C) Cr3 W......: Z Q0 W CC] cY7 oC] C.0 Q c�7 a t� Q0 ❑3 00 r pp" O m cY) U� a O Q Z 4— z W Cr] Z W Z F- LU U Z z LL Lu o Q �Q C)m CM Co U� a U3 U3 U to V S L. t 3 El El El W v v J CL LLI z r M H L] CN T LU c) C%4 C) LL LU 0 z D CID cz n cu 0 [D LL M L M Cu LL Cv 0 CD 0 0 0 C) CD C) 0 CD 0 CD C) CD CD CD CD CD 0 CD CD CD CD 0 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD co co Nt CID CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: September 1, 2009 Re: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Amended and Restated Third Phase Agreement with NCPA and Exercising Alameda's Withdrawal Rights to Terminate Alameda's Participation in the Western Geopo er Incorporated Geothermal Ener Pro'ect BACKGROUND At its August 17, 2009 meeting, the Alameda Public Utilities Board (the Board) approved a resolution recommending that the City Council authorize. the General Manager of Alameda Municipal Poorer (AMP) to withdraw .Alam.eda's participation in the Western GeoPower geothermal energy project due to the increase from the originally established contract price of $98 per Megawatt -hour (MWh) to $117 per. MWh. Nameda's participation in the project was originally established in March 2008. when the City Council authorized the General Manager. to. execute the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Third. Phase Agreement for the Western GeoPower Incorporated. (WGI) Renewable Poorer Purchase. Agreement (P PA). This agreement. was recently. revised by NCPA to alloy project participants, such as Alameda, to withdraw from the project due to the price increase. This revised agreement is referred to. as .the. Amended. and Restated Third Phase A Because. the City .Council previously authorized the General Manager of AMP to execute the original Third Phase Agreement for the Western GeoPo. rer project, per city charter. Section 1 -2(A), action by the city Council is again required to withdraw. Alameda's participation. from the project. A copy of the Amended and Restated Third Phase Agreement is on file in the City Clerk's Office. DISCUSSION Project Overview Project Approval History In 2008, WGI proposed to develop a geothermal pager plant in the Geysers Geothermal Meld located in the Mayacamas Mountains of Sonoma and Lake Counties. When initially presented to NCPA, the project was expected to have a generating capacity of 25 to 38 MW and be operational in April 2010. The purchase price of energy, capacity and associated environmental attributes eras established .at $98 per IVIWh fixed for period of 20 years. City council Report Re: Agenda Item #4 -D 09mol -09 Honorable Mayor and September 1, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 4 At its February 25, 2008 public meeting, the Board approved the 20 -year PPA between NCPA and WGI, approved the Third Phase Agreement between NCPA and the project's participating members, and recommended that the Alameda City Council ratify its actions. The City Council did so at its March 4, 2008 meeting. The Third Phase Agreement was executed by [CPA and its members during March through May 2008. Alameda's percentage allocation of the project was established at 5.95 percent, giving it between 1.52 MW and 1.98 MW of capacity rights in the project. Western GeoPower's Current Project Financing status With the Third Phase Agreement in place, vv 0 1 began drilling geothermal wells and ordered major equipment including turbines .and generators. WG.I. was. on pace toward beginning plant construction in February 2009; however, the project became stalled once WCI ran out of funds and was not able to secure additional project financing. Since December 2008, all project development work has been on hold. In the meantime, the capital cost of the project .has escalated, including associated labor, materials and financing costs, and the reevaluation of the steam supply has caused the plant size to be reduced to 25 MW, resulting in a .reduction of WGI's projected revenue stream. NCPA staff and WGI representatives have been in contact to discuss and explore the feasibility of alternative project financing arrangements. To remedy its financial difficulties and bring the western Ceopoer project back on track, WCI announced it would combine its operations with three other firms to form a new. publicly traded company. The infusion of near equity financing.. in the company is expected tohelp revive development work for the pro jest. However, the proceeds from the equity financing will not be sufficient. WGI's financial advisor has. determined that the PPA price would need to increase frorn the. original flat price of $98. per MWh to $117 per MWh, over the 20 -year life of. the. contract. The.. increased PPA price will allow the company to maintain a.minirnally adequate debt coverage ratio so that additional project financing can be accessed if needed. Given the circumstances described above, the NCPA C.om.m ssion adopted a resolution at its July 23, 2009 meeting authorizing the NCPA General Manager to execute an Amended and Restated PPA with WGI that reflects a revised price of $117 per MWh. The execution of an Amended and Restated PPA is contingent, however, on the NCPA project participants approving an Amended and Restated Third Phase Agreement reflecting the $117 per MWh contract price. Assessment of the Higher contract Price AMP staff finds that at a price of $117 per MWh this renewable PPA resource is uneconomical and does not merit inclusion into Alameda's supply portfolio. While prices for renewable resources in California vary considerably and some currently are very high, other options remain that are less expensive or offer greater value, such as small local resources that provide both local capacity and transmission savings. Honorable Ma and September 1, 2009 Members of the Cit Council Pa 3 of 4 There are renewable resources available at lower. costs compared to this project. Examples can include wind landfill g as and biomass, small h and some forms of solar power. One specific example is the output from a small h facilit that has recentl been under ne and is expected to come in: below :$90 per MWh. One wa to compare prices of renewable resources.. is to compare thern with non- renewable power and add the cost of: obtainin environmental attributes, such as g reenhouse g as emissions offsets, and make adjustments for other value addin attributes, such as the local capacit value.-that is expected from this project. NCPA and AMP have performed such anal for this project and concluded that the price is 13 to 20 percent too hi AMP alread has. a..ver hi eli renewabl level. of:abo.ut 6.5 percent, and its carbon-free :portfolio when lar h are added. is percent. Since need. for additional power. is not exp until.. the 2014-201.5 timeframe, the added cost of purchasin output from this expensive resource cannot be j ustified. Additionall it should b noted .that fou o th e r NCPX m h.ave indi th the will take action to withdraw from this project. as a result. of the p incre The se members are: Cit of Lodi, BART, Cit o and Truckee-Donner PUD. At its Au 17, 200..9 meetin the Board.di this issue: and determined that the increased expense. of the project does. not justif Alameda stay on as a project participant. The Board voted. unanimousl to recommend that. th C.1t Council terminate Alameda's participation in th Western GeOP project. In order to. achieve this effect, two k re First, the. General.ta of AMP will need to execute the Amended and Restated Third Phase. A for tree project. Executin the amended a is necessar because the ..original ,.term&�of the Third Phase, a �do not allow for withdrawal. b e.. participants. y an proj ct The Amended and. Restated. Third. Phase A g reement now include.s...a provis.lon authorizin participants to withdraw and to be.held..harmle b the.remainin participants.from an liabilit arisin out.of.the a after ithd r.awal S.econd, the. General Manager Will have to exercise. Alameda..s withdrawal ri pursuant.to. Section 8 of the Amended and Restated Third Phas A These actions are refl in. th accompan Cit Council Resolution. FINANCIAL IMPACT At the revised: price .of $117 per MWh, and. g iven. A curren participati level of 5.95 percent, the annual cost of power from this resource would. ab $1.4 mil.lion. per y ear and A would.:.. to 3 percent of.Alameda's.olec.tricit Over the 20- term of the PPA, the Net Present Value (NPV) of th total -ca flo would be approximatel $17.7 million. The financial impact of. not participatin in this. pro is uncertain and will .be related to the cost of the resources .a.c red..to.take its place. Honorable Mayor and September 1, 2009 Members of the City council Page 4 of 4 MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFEREN This action does not affect the Municipal code. Although Alameda's participation in this renewable energy project would assist in meeting the goals of the City of Alameda's Local Action Plan for climate Protection, withdrawing from the project will not undermine the city's .climate protection efforts. AMP continues to pursue cost effective opportunities for expanding the city's already high levels of renewables. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This action to withdraw Alameda's participation in the Western OeoPower geothermal energy project is not a project pursuant to CEQA as defined by Title 14 CCR Section 15378 in that it has no potential for resulting in either a physical change in the environment or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving the amended and restated Third Phase Agreement with NCPA and exercising Alameda's withdrawal rights to terminate. Alameda's participation in the Western Oeopower Incorporated Geothermal Energy Project. Respectfully submitted, Oirish Balachandran General Manager i CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 0 �s 4 APPROVING THE AMENDED AND RESTATED THIRD PHASE AGREEMENT WITH NCPA AND EXERCISING AL.AMEDA'S WITHDRAWAL RIGHTS TO TERMINATE ALAMEDA'S PARTICIPATION IN THE WESTERN GEOPOWER .INCORPORATED GEOTHERMAL ENERGY PROJECT WHEREAS, the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) has executed a renewaoie energy roger rurcnase agreement wan vvestern (3eoHower, Inc., to purchase the entire project output from a new geothermal project located in the Geysers Geothermal Field in the Mayacarnas Mountains of Sonoma and Lake Counties in the State of California; and WHEREAS, NCPA, under the terms of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and on behalf of its participating members including Alameda Municipal Power, would purchase the plant output at a fixed price of $98 per megawatt- hour for a period of 20- years; and WHEREAS, Western GeoPower, Inc. is requesting that NCPA revise the purchase price to $117 per megawatt -hour to make it possible to finance the project and deliver the energy to NCPA participants; and WHEREAS, NCPA has developed an Amended and Restated Third Phase Agreement between NCPA and participating members establishing rights g g and obligations, including the obligation to pay the revised price for energy deliveries from the new power plant; and WHEREAS, the terms of the original Third. Phase Agreement for the Western GeoPower project do not allow for participants to withdraw from the agreement; and WHEREAS, in recognition of certain NCPA participating members' desire to withdraw from the project due to the proposed price increase, NCPA has included an amendment to the Third Phase Agreement that affords project participants the opportunity to withdraw from the agreement as a result of the price increase; and WHEREAS, at its August 17, 2009 meeting, the Alameda Public Utilities Board adopted a resolution finding that at an increased price of $117 per rnegwawatt -hour, the Western GeoPower renewable PPA resource is uneconomic; and WHEREAS, the Public Utilities Board also determined that given Alameda Municipal Power's exceedingly high level of renewable resources and given the fact that the need for additional power does not materialize until the 2014-2015 Resolution #4 -C CC 09-01-09 timeframe, it is not prudent to incorporate the Western GeoPower PPA into Alameda's electricity supply portfolio; and WHEREAS, the Alameda Public Utilities Board further recommends that the City Council take action to terminate Alameda's participation in the Western GeoPower project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that: 1. The Council approves the Amended and Restated Third Phase Agreement between NCPA and its participating members. 2. The Council authorizes the General Manager of Alameda Municipal Power to execute the Amended and Restated Third Phase Agreement without material change or with changes that are beneficial to Alameda. 3. The Council authorizes the General Manager to exercise Alameda's withdrawal rights pursuant to Section 8 of the Amended and Restated Third Phase Agreement thereby terminating Alameda Municipal Power's participation in the project without any future liability in connection with the agreement. 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 1st day of September, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this 2nd ay of September, 2009. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY of ALAMEDA Memorandum To. honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: September 1, 2009 Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Submit an Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for Financial Assistance, Certify that the City will Comply with all Applicable State and Federal Statutory and Regulatory Requirements, and Negotiate and Execute all Necessary Documents to Implement the Installation of Mech anical Trash Racks at Stormwater Pumr) Stations I on i�i1;I1 The State water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has State revolving grants available as part of the Federal Economic Stimulus package. The grants are given as a loan with no interest and with the principle forgiven. To be eligible for these grants the SWRCB requires public agencies to submit a resolution from the Governing Board of the Agency authorizing a representative to sign documents. The selection of projects will occur later in the year. It is unknown at this time whether or not the City will obtain these funds. Since the resolution and grant application were due in August, staff submitted a draft application, subject to City Council approval. The SwRCB granted the City a time extension until September since there were no regular City Council meetings in August. DISCUSSION The Public Works Department has applied for a grant to install automatic trash racks at two storm drainage pump stations. Main Street and Webster Street. The Main Street station is located on the southside of Main Street, approximately 170 feet west of the west driveway entrance to the Alameda ferry terminal. The Webster Street pump station is located at the northerly end of Mariner Square Drive, adjacent to the mini park. The project consists of modifying the existing pump station roof structures, as needed, to install the trash racks and conveyor mechanisms, installing chain slatted fencing around the pump stations for security, and conducting related electrical work. Staff has discussed the installation of a trash rack at the Webster Street storm drain pump station with the Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC). Due to its proximity to the Alameda /Oakland estuary, BCDC has required that the trash rack be installed City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4 -E Honorable Mayor and September 1, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 outside of their 100-foot jurisdictional authority. Therefore, the trash rack will be installed approximately 170 feet south of the Mariner Square Drive terminus within the parking lane on the west side of the street. FINANCIAL IMPACT The SWRCB grant is a no interest loan with the principle forgiven. There is no impact to the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFRENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with CEQA, the Main Street project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(b), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Class 1, and 15301(c), Existing utility Facilities /Existing Street. The Webster Street project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guideline Section 15301(f), Addition of safety or health protection device in conjunction with existing structures, facilities or mechanical equipment. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution authorizing the Interim City Manager to submit an application to the SWRCB for financial assistance, certify that the City will comply with all applicable State and Federal statutory and regulatory requirements, and negotiate and execute all necessary documents to implement the installation of mechanical trash racks at sto rmwate r pump stations. Respectfully submitted, c Matthew T. NacleriaV Public Works Director Approved as to funds and account, Glendel% D Ja Interim a Director ES:gc CITY OF ALAI'IIIEDA RESOLUTION NO. elm AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, CERTIFY THAT THE CITY WILL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, AND TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE INSTALLATION OF M ECHANICAL TRASH RACKS AT STO RIV MATE R PUMP STATIONS WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has State revolving grants available as part of the Federal Economic Stimulus, and WHEREAS, the SWRCB requires that public agencies submit a resolution from the Governing Board of the Agency authorizing a representative to sign documents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that the Interim- City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to sign and file, for and on behalf of the City of Alameda, a Financial Assistance Application for a financing agreement from the SWRCB for the planning, design, and construction of the installation of mechanical trash racks at storrnwater pump stations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Alameda hereby authorizes the Interim City Manager or his/her designee to certify that the City of Alameda will comply with all applicable state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements related to any financing or financial assistance received from the SWRCB. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Interim City Manager or his/her designee of the City of Alameda is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute all necessary documents to implement the installation of mechanical trash racks at three storm water pump stations on behalf of the City of Alameda. Resolution #4 --F CC 09 -01 09 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 1st day of September, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTIONS: IN VVITN ESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 2nd day of September 2009. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITE' OF AL.AMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: September 1, 2009 Re. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Submit an Application to the State Water Resources control Board for Financial Assistance, certify that the city will comply with all Applicable State and Federal Statutory and Regulatory Requirements, and Negotiate and Execute all Necessary Documents to Implement the Rehabilitation of the Structural Stability of Approximately 3,000 Linear Feet of the Southshore Laqoon Seawalls Adiacent to city Streets J M 11 Kollum I The State Water Resources control Board (SWRCB) has state revolving grants available as part of the Federal Economic Stimulus funds. The grants are given as a loan with no interest and with the principle forgiven. To be eligible for these grants, the SWRCB requires that public agencies submit a resolution from the Governing Board of the Agency authorizing a representative to sign documents. The selection of projects will occur later in the year. It is unknown at this time whether or not the city will obtain these funds. Since the resolution and grant application were due in August, staff submitted a draft application, subject to City Council approval. The SWRCB granted the City a time extension until September since there were no regular city council meetings in August. DISCUSSION The Public Works Department has submitted an application for a SWRCB grant to rehabilitate the southshore lagoon seawalls adjacent to the city streets that terminate at the wall. The project will repair railings, barriers, and fences above the walls and restore the face of the seawall by repairing cracks, removing loose aggregate and concrete, and applying shotcrete to the damaged sections of the wall. The work will be done in two stages. Work on rehabilitating the facilities on top of the seawall will begin upon award of contract. To minimize impacts to the residents' enjoyment of the lagoons, work on the face of the wall will be performed when the lagoons are lowered as part of the city's annual cleaning. City Council Report Re: Agenda Item ##4 =F Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council FINANCIAL IMPACT September 1, 2009 Page 2of2 The SWRCB grant is a no interest loan with the principle forgiven. There is no impact to the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFRENCE This action does not affect the Municipal code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with CEQA, the rehabilitation of the lagoon seawall is categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(d), Restoration or Rehabilitation of Deteriorated or Damaged Structures. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution authorizing the Interim city Manager to submit an application to the SWRCB for financial assistance, certify that the city will comply with all applicable State and Federal statutory and regulatory requirements, and negotiate and execute all necessary documents to implement the rehabilitation of the structural stability of approximately 3,000 linear feet of the southshore lagoon seawalls adjacent to City streets. Respectfully submitted, eel Matthew T. NacleriocIp Public Works Director Approved as to funds and account, Glen D. y Interim Finance Director RC:gc CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD L FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, CERTIFY THAT THE CITY WILL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, AND TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE REHABILITATION OF THE STRUCTURAL STABILITY OF APPROXIMATELY TELY 3,000 LINEAR FEET OF THE SOUTHSHORE LAGOON SEAWALLS ADJACENT TO CITY STREETS WHEREAS, the State Water Resources control Board (SWRCB) has State revolving grants available as part of the Federal Economic Stimulus; and WHEREAS, the SWRCB requires that public agencies submit a resolution from the Governing Board of the Agency authorizing a representative to sign documents. BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the City of Alameda that the Interim City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to sign and file, for and on behalf of the city of Alameda, a Financial Assistance Application for a financing agreement from the SWRCB for the planning, design, and construction of the lagoon seawall rehabilitation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city of Alameda hereby authorizes the Interim city Manager or his/her designee to certify that the City.of .Alameda will comply with all applicable state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements related to any financing or financial assistance received from the SWRCB. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Interim city Manager or his /her designee of the city of Alameda is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute all necessary documents to implement the lagoon seawall rehabilitation on behalf of the city of Alameda. Resolution #4 -F CC 09-01-09 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 1st day of September, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: E ABSI= NTIONS. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the official seal of said city this 2nd day of September 2009. Lara Weisiger, city clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable mayor and Members of the City council Prom: Ann Marie Gallant Interim city Manager Date: September 1, 2009 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Introduce an ordinance to Add a Planned Development overlay Zoning Designation, and Approve Parcel flap No. 9326 to Allow the Subdivision of a Property at 3236 and 3238 Briggs Avenue into Two Separate Parcels in the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoni District. BACKGROUND On August 27, 2007, the Planning Board adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Rezoning, Planned Development and Parcel Map to allow the subdivision of the property at 3236 and 3238 Briggs Avenue into two separate parcels. A map of the location of the property, as well as the Planning Board staff report, resolution, and minutes, are included with this report as Attachments 1-4. The current parcel contains two single family dwellings, and the proposed subdivision would create two lots with one building on each lot. The Planned Development overlay zoning permits flexibility in site development standards to accommodate the siting of existing buildings and configuration of a site in addition to establishing the off street parking requirements and parking space locations for the project. The applicant does not propose any additional new residential units or additions on the property. The current parcel contains two single family dwellings, and the proposed subdivision would create two lots with one single family residential building on each lot. Access to the home at the rear site will be provided by means of an easement across the front site. To comply with current parking requirements, pursuant to AMC 30 -7.6 (a)(1), the proposal includes one new u nenclosed off street parking space at 3236 Briggs, which will be located in the rear yard setback and is consistent with AMC 30- 7.8 {a }(1). The applicant proposes the demolition of a portion of the existing detached garage because it would cross the new property line. This detached garage was constructed after 1942 and is not a significant historic resource. DISCUSSION Following its review and consideration of the proposal, the Planning Board was able to recommend approval of the application for the project based on its opinion that the City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #4-G Honorable Mayor and September 1, 2000 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 required findings for a Planned Development zoning overlay and Parcel Map could be suggested. Although the two parcels created by the proposed subdivision do not meet minimum width and square footage requirements, or provide the required number of off street parking spaces, the Planned Development regulations, pursuant to AMC Section 30- 4.13, allow for these nonconforming conditions. Such nonconforming conditions may be permitted if they will not adversely affect neighboring properties and provide a more effective use of the property. It was the opinion of staff and of the Planning Board that these two criteria were met because the residential use, by its existence, has not had adverse affects on the property, and separating the site into two parcels is a more effective use of the property because it provides additional residential home ownership opportunities. The following table provides the development standards for the site, with the standards that are not in conformance with the zone district regulations in bold font. Compliance with Development Standards Description p AMC S Standard Parcel 1 Parcel 2 (3238 Briggs) (3235 Briggs) Front Setback 20' 45' 27' Right Side Setback 5' 0' 12' Left Side Setback 5' 4.75' existing 10' Rear Setback 20' 21' 30' Lot Size (sq. ft.) 5 4,885.4 4,85 7r5 Lot Width 50' 48' 481 Parking spaces 2 spaces/lot 2 spaces 1 space existing Required 2 spaces proposed Parking in front yard (front 20 feet) Not allowed 2 spaces Com p l ies FINANCIAL IMPACT The applicant, in accordance with the city's adopted fee schedule, pays the costs associated with processing this application. No city funds are required. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE AMC 30 -7.6 (a)(1): Schedule of Required Minimum Off Street Parking Space for Dwelling Units with 3,000 square feet or less AMC regulations AMC 30 -7.8 (a)(1): Location of Parking Spaces and Prohibited Parking Areas for Residential Zones AMC 30 -4.13: PD, Planned Development Combining District Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW September 1, 2009 Page 3of3 The project entails the subdivision of an existing developed property into two parcels. No new development or intensification of use is proposed. The property is located in an urbanized area and all necessary public services are available. The project will not cause significant environmental impacts and is Categorically Exempt from further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions. RECOMMENDATION Hold a Public Hearing to: Introduce an Ordinance to add a Planned Development overlay based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Draft Ordinance; Approve the tentative Parcel Map to allow the division of the existing 9,744 square foot residential lot into two parcels and direct staff to approve the Final Parcel Map, subject to compliance with City of Alameda standards. Respectfully submitted, Jon Biggs Planning Services Manager Attachments: 1. Proposed Parcel Map 2. Planning Board Minutes, August 27, 2007 3. Planning Board Staff Report, August 27, 2007 4. Planning Board Resolution, PB- 07 -28, August 27, 2007 ¢Y 6ulie'GH oilqud n} Waua��1' a=; jounoo A41 E 1u -J. Nt q C} 3 +q T d z 1 Sn o Q e. lu A€ NSF F vl a- a 1 1 L LJ L�• I -4 ill C1 3] v< a N L tg tk y zz o tig A a 1 1) q h A J 0 yy u tj tZ 1 L a Lij tt I LL. CL f L g U IL L r F V A r S 01} tm p A U 7. e m o a �.e a L) m tb -3 C� 31 yA i k p 14 D H. Y n} Waua��1' a=; jounoo A41 E 1u -J. Nt C} 3 +q T d z a Q e. lu A€ NSF F vl a- a L LJ L�• J f4 w k ,1, a C N tl x J v_ L to d x 4 7 a 1 1) Q n V 1 cr- �t yy u tj US Lij tt I LL. CL f 3 W VS m -1 V x VL n U IL L r F V A 01} tm p A U 7. Q o L I Hy U. L) m tb -3 C� 31 yA i k p 14 D H. Y L a cc I] q 4 1n €:u n y ty R p ko 3U C3 t7 1 �1 CN kx z1 LJ r s �L 14 IL W V3. Cl- 6 J sr w X13 Ca L D '.l a g cJ r q L L{1 bp Lil _L V �c Q sL ts UY CR :r 0'. E� LLJ U LL— nr ��f� h7 i f r� W j i. 0 f F iu V 1 3 4 Z 4 J a D c zt r +s r Ls U s a h T tL C a Q I I s i E {i S j d Or u q 3: 4 r J J X l a 1 :n ,nn `d Tl- YY.... V• W. Z Y >.S S]- 1' i a+ 1S[ a A? a a n :i i s V E 1u -J. Nt IJ to e T d z a j V 3 lu A€ NSF tv vl a L�• J f4 w k ,1, .3 kh lu r- x bs 4.. Z N tl x J N s to d x 4 7 a 1 1) Q n V lu yy u tj US d tt I ;L X r r Z Is m -1 V x VL n w it IL L A 01} tm p A U 3 9 QL rl J o ZE I Hy U. O tb -3 C� 31 yA k p 14 D H. Y L a cc I] q 4 1n €:u n y ty R p ko 3U C3 t7 1 �1 CN kx z1 r s �L 14 IL W V3. j i. 0 f F iu V 1 3 4 Z 4 J a D c zt r +s r Ls U s a h T tL C a Q I I s i E {i S j d Or u q 3: 4 r J J X l a 1 :n ,nn `d Tl- YY.... V• W. Z Y >.S S]- 1' i a+ 1S[ a A? a a n :i i s V lz 13 H l i to IL Q� .�i ku tp. q a 0 N 4 s w i. 1 �I A W C JUN Q w 2 6 0 Z Z r W h -6 I n `Q p Q 3 of Ll L► W T r A Z a 41 iu E 1u -J. Q t r a L�• J f4 w k ,1, 1 N s i y 4 7 Q n V 1u US d I IL L 01} tm p A U 3 z T ZE IL W t lu 0 CN Ag �L 14 IL W V3. +31 Y 7 S f33 An IA IL ►L j 4 S to k t lu I ul C] W u n w 5 S, lr ti aA D s: 1 a So tu lz 13 H l i to IL Q� .�i ku tp. q a 0 N 4 s w i. 1 �I A W C JUN Q w 2 6 0 Z Z r W h -6 I n `Q p Q 3 of Ll L► W T r A Z a 41 iu s �nn az a Q 1u US A 01} tm p A U 3 z ZE LL i W t lu 0 CN �L 14 IL W V3. +31 Y 7 S f33 An lz 13 H l i to IL Q� .�i ku tp. q a 0 N 4 s w i. 1 �I A W C JUN Q w 2 6 0 Z Z r W h -6 I n `Q p Q 3 of Ll L► W T r A Z a 41 iu Cz U.1 ill v C.3 0 Ck 9yy 0.�� ^L z. s. Y i g'{ j J 12 LLJ _.a i c) �,se It Ljj Q tL T Lo lk C=D cr L N A t7F% b. zoning Administrator Report Ms. Woodbury provided the Zoning Administrator report. Board member Ezzy Asheraft inquired whether the biodiesel storage tank was intended for City vehicles. Ms. Woodbury replied that it was for private use. 7. ORAL. COMMUNICATION bone. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR None. S -A Annual Review of Development Agreement DA89 -1 Harbor Bay Business Park .Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and Harbor Bay Entities Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle) Board member Cunningham moved to continue Item S -A to September 10, 2007. Board member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote 6. Absent 1 (Mariam). The motion passed. S -B rezoning R07- 0002/Planned Development PD07- 0002/Parcel Map PM07- 0004 Applicant: John Andrea Medulan 3236 Briggs Avenue. The applicants request a zoning Amendment to add a Planned Development (PD) overlay zoning designation to the property located at 3236 Briggs Avenue; and a Development Plan and Parcel Map (PM) approval to divide the existing 203 -foot by 48-foot parcel into two parcels, each with an existing single family residence. The site is located within an R -4, Neighborhood Residential zoning District. (LA) Board member Cunningham moved to adopt A draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned Development (PD) overlay zoning designation to the property located at 3236 Briggs Avenue; and a Development Plan and Parcel Map (PM) approval to divide the existing 203 -foot by 48 -foot parcel into two parcels, each with an existing single family residence. Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote 6. Absent: 1 (Mariam). The motion passed. 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 9 -A workshop to Develop Recommendation for Planning work Program Priorities Ids. Woodbury summarized the staff report and detailed the work program priorities, particular those required by State law. City Council Attachment 2 to Page 3 of 11 Public Hearing Agenda item ##4 -G 09 -01 -D9 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.: 8 APPLICATION: P 07 -0002; PM07 -0004 John Andrea Medullan 3236 Briggs Avenue. The applicants request a Zoning Amendment to add Planned Development (PD) overlay zoning to the property located at 3236 Briggs Avenue; and approval of a Development Plan and Parcel Map (Pill) that would divide the existing 203 -foot by 48 -foot parcel into two parcels, each with an existing single family residence. The site is located within an R---4, Neighborhood Residential zoning District. GENERAL PLAN: Medium- Density Residential ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15315 minor Land Divisions. STAFF PLANNER: Laura Ajello, Planner l 510.747.6870 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Development overlay zoning and Parcel Map to create two lots. ACRONYMS: AMC Alameda Municipal Code R -4 Neighborhood Residential Zoning District ATTACHMENTS: 1 Draft Resolution 2. Parcel Map 3. vicinity flap and Photographs The applicant requests approval of Planned Development overlay zoning on an existing 9,744 square foot parcel in a Neighborhood Residential District (R -4) and a Parcel Map to allow the division of this property into two parcels. The parcel contains two single- family dwellings. The proposed subdivision would create two lots with one of these buildings on each lot. The Planned Development overlay zoning allows flexibility to accommodate the existing buildings in their current configuration and the establishment Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of August 27, 2007 City Council Attachment 3 to Public Hearing Agenda Item ##4 -G 09-01 -09 of off street parking in the front yard setback for the new parcel to be created on the rear of the existing parcel (3238 Briggs Avenue). Staff recommends approval of the Planned Development zoning overlay and the Parcel Map. err s: A. Existing site conditions The subject site is located in the East End neighborhood. Briggs Avenue is only one block long. The lots on Briggs Avenue are, on average, larger than the typical Alameda parcel. Currently, the properties on both sides of Briggs Avenue are zoned R -4, and are designated Medium- Density Residential on the General Flan Diagram. Neighboring properties have 4 -7 units. A zoning map from the 1940's shows that originally this area was zoned R-1. At some time prior to the passage of Measure A, this area was rezoned to R -4, Neighborhood Apartment District, where a density of one unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area was permitted. The subject parcel is 9,744 square feet in size, 48 feet wide, and 203 feet deep. The parcel is located on the south side of Briggs Avenue and contains two single family homes and two driveway curb cuts. one existing building, 3236 Briggs Avenue, was built in 1939 and is set back approximately 27 feet from the front property line. An existing driveway leads to an attached one -car garage. An additional unenclosed parking space is proposed. The space will be added in the rear yard and access will be provided via the second existing driveway. No modifications are proposed to the main building. The other building on the rear of the existing lot, 3238 Briggs Avenue, was built in 1955 and is set back approximately 141 feet from the current property line along Briggs Avenue. If subdivided, the existing two -car detached garage will be located in the new required front yard setback. The attached shed, which straddles the proposed new property line, will be demolished. The surrounding residential properties on three sides of the project site are zoned R-4, the properties directly behind the site are zoned R -1 one Family Residence. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of August 27, 2007 2 B. Proposal summary Due to the existing lot width of 48 feet, where 50 feet is required for newly created parcels, the applicant is requesting the addition of Planned Development zoning to the property and Development Plan and Parcel Map approval to allow subdivision of the lot into two parcels that do not meet current minimum width or square footage requirements. Planned Development zoning allows development standards such as lot size and lot dimensions to be customized to the characteristics of the site. The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels. Each parcel would be occupied by one of the two existing homes. No new residential units or additions are proposed. An access easement will be provided for the existing rear house that would otherwise be landlocked. To comply with current parking requirements [AMC 30 -7.6 (a)(1)] the proposal includes one new unenclosed off street parking space at 3236 Briggs to be located in the rear yard setback, which is consistent with AMC regulations AMC 30- 7.8(a)(1). A portion of the existing detached post -1942 garage will be demolished because it would cross the new property line. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of August 27, 2007 3 3236 Briggs (front), 1 car attached garage 3238 Briggs (rear), 2 car detached garage Composite photo of detached garage, shed portion to be removed Ill. STAFF ANALYSIS The width of the subject lot is 48 feet wide by 203 feet deep. The newly created lots will be less than 50 feet pride and have an area of less than 5,000 square feet as currently required in Alameda. The location of the detached garage on the rear parcel will not conform to all setback requirements for the R -4 district. Data highlighted in bold tent in the table below denote aspects of the project that do not conform to the development regulations for the R -4 district. lender Planned Development regulations, (AMC 80- 4.18 these nonconforming conditions may be permitted if it will not adversely affect neighboring properties and will provide a more effective use of the property. Table 1: compliance with Development standards Description p AMC Standard Parcel I Brr s (3238 Briggs) Parcel 2 3236 Bri g gs) Front Setback 20' 45' 27' Right Side setback 5' 12' Left side setback 5 3 4.75' existing 10 3 Rear Setback 20' 21' 30' Lot size ft. 5 4 4,857.8 Lot Width 50' 48' 48' Parking spaces Required 2 spaces 2 spaces 1 space existing 2 spaces proposed Parking in front yard front 20 feet Not allowed 2 spaces 0 spaces C. Development Plan Findin In order to approve the Development Plan application, the Planning Board must make all of the following findings: The Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan supports the creation of diversity in housing products in response to variations in income levels, the changing live work patterns of residents, and the needs of a diverse population as well as opportunities for homeownership. The General Plan Diagram designates this property Medium Density Residential, with a minimum lot density of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. The proposed parcels will be 4,880 square feet and 4,857 square feet. Approval of the subdivision will not change the density of the subject property or neighborhood. 2. The proposed development is a more effective use of the site than is possible under the regulations for the district with which the FD District is combined. The lot split will create two individual parcels, with existing residences, which improves economic opportunities for homeownership that would otherwise be unavailable with the multiple units on a single parcel. The Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of August 27, 2007 0 Planned Development overlay provides the necessary flexibility in development standards to permit this subdivision to occur with a lot width that is two feet narrower than the current standard width and that is over twice as long as a standard lot. Because no major physical changes are proposed, the project preserves the historic fabric and quality of the neighborhood and will bring the residences into compliance with the number of required off street parking spaces. 3. The project will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses in the city. The site is already developed with two single family homes. The Planned Development and Parcel Map would divide the existing parcel without adding any new development or increasing the intensity of use. Therefore, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses in the city. D. Parcel Map Findin In order to approve the Parcel Map application, the Planning Board must make all of the following findings: The proposal is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. The project complies with the density requirements in the General Plan and is compatible with the variety of lot sizes found in the surrounding neighborhood. This project is consistent with General Plan policies to maintain and enhance the residential environment of Alameda's neighborhoods and expand housing opportunities for households in all income groups. 2. The proposed design /improvements are consistent with applicable General and specific Plans. The property includes two existing single-family residences. The only proposed physical changes are the addition of one unenclosed parking space and the demolition of a shed that would be located across the new property boundary. The existing design is consistent with the density, physical, and aesthetic character of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. No new development is proposed that would conflict with any of these aspects of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. The property is not located within a Specific Plan area. 3. The site is physically suitable for this type of development. The site is physically suitable for this type of development because the site and surrounding properties are already developed with other single and multi- family buildings. Additionally, the site and surrounding properties on three sides are zoned Neighborhood Residential (R-4) and are designated for Medium Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The General Plan designates this property Medium Density Residential, with a minimum lot density of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit, and an overall ,Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of August 27, 2007 5 expected density range of 8.8 to 21.8 units per acre. The proposed parcels will both include over 4,800 square feet. This proposal will not change the density of the subject property or the surrounding neighborhood. 5. The proposed subdivision and its related improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or cause injury to fish or wildlife habitats. The site is located within a developed urban area. The property is already developed. The project will result in only minor site alterations to provide one unenclosed parking space in an area that is not environmentally sensitive and remove part of an existing accessory structure that is not an historic resource. 6. The design of the subdivision and its related improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or the use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The subject property fronts onto an existing public street and sidewalk. It does not abut any parks or other public facilities that would require access easements for the public at large. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposal would continue existing residential uses at the site without changes to the existing main building structures. Both parcels would have continued access to Briggs Avenue. Iv. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project entails the subdivision of an existing developed property into two parcels. No new development or intensification of use is proposed. The property is located in an urbanized area and all necessary public services are available. The project will not cause significant environmental impacts and is Categorically Exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions. A notice for this hearing was mailed to properties within 800 feet of the site, published in local newspapers and posted in public areas near the subject property. staff has not received any public comments on this proposed project. f Recommend that the City Council approve Rezoning R07 -0002, Planned Development PD07 -0002 and Parcel flap PM07- -0004, based upon the findings contained in the attached Draft Resolution. GAPLANN1NGtStreetnames A- ZtStreetnames A- Wriggs 32361PD07- Q0021StaffReport PB.doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Deport Meeting of August 27, 2007 0 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO, PB -07 -28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE REZONING R07- 0002, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD07 -0002 AND PARCEL MAP PM07 -0004, THIS WOULD ADD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) OVERLAY ZONING TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3230 BRIGGS AVENUE; AND WOULD DIVIDE THE EXISTING 203 -FOOT BY 48 -FOOT PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS, EACH WITH AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN AN R -4, NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. W HEREAS, an application was made on February 7, 2007 by John and Andrea Medulan requesting approval of a Planned Development Rezoning 807- 0002, P D07 -0002 Parcel Map and P M07 -0002 to subdivide a parcel with two existing houses into two lots and on Larch 27, 2007; and WHEREAS, the applications were deemed complete on July 12, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on August 27, 2007, and examined pertinent reaps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, pursuant to AMC Section 30 -4.13, the Planning Board hereby makes the following findings of fact regarding the Rezoning and Development Plan: 1. The Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan supports the creation of diversity in housing products in response to variations in income levels, the changing live -work patterns of residents, and the needs of a diverse population as well as opportunities for homeownership. The General Plan Diagram designates this property Medium Density Residential, with a minimum lot density of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. The proposed parcels will be 4,880 square feet and 4,807 square feet. Approval of the subdivision will not change the density of the subject property or neighborhood. 2. The proposed development is a more effective use of the site than is possible under the regulations for the district with which the PD District is combined. The lot split will create two individual parcels, with existing residences, which improves economic opportunities for homeownership that would otherwise be unavailable with the multiple units on a single parcel. The Planned Development overlay provides the necessary flexibility in development standards to City Council Attachment 4 to Public Hearing Agenda item ##4.G 09-01-09 permit this subdivision to occur with a lot width that is two feet narrower than the current standard width and that is over trice as long as a standard lot. Because no major physical changes are proposed, the project preserves the historic fabric and quality of the neighborhood and additionally will bring the residences into compliance with the number of required off street parking spaces. The project gill not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses in the City. The site is already developed with two single- family homes. The Planned Development and Parcel Map would divide the existing parcel without adding any new development or increasing the intensity of use. Therefore, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses in the city. WHEREAS, pursuant to AMC Section 30 -78.5 the Planning Board has made the following findings of fact regarding the proposed Parcel leap: The proposal is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. The project complies with the density requirements in the General Plan and is compatible with the variety of lot sizes found in the surrounding neighborhood. This project is consistent with General Plan policies to maintain and enhance the residential environment of Alameda's neighborhoods and expand housing opportunities for households in all income groups. 2. The proposed design /improvements are consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. The property includes two existing single- family residences. The only proposed physical changes are the.addition of one unenclosed parking space and the demolition of a shed that would be located across the new property boundary. The existing design is consistent with the density, physical, and aesthetic character of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. No new development is proposed that would conflict with any of these aspects of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. The property is not located within a Specific Plan area. 3. The site is physically suitable for this type of development. The site is physically suitable for this type of development because the site and surrounding properties are already developed with other single and multi- family buildings. Additionally, the site and surrounding p ro erties on three p sides are zoned Neighborhood Residential (R -4) and are designated for Medium Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The General Plan designates this property Medium Density Residential, with a minimum lot density of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit, and an overall expected density range of 8.8 to 21.8 units per acre. The proposed parcels will both include over 4,800 square feet. This proposal will not chan the densit of the subject propert or the surroundin nei 5. The proposed subdivision and its related improvements are not likel to cause substantial environmental dama or cause injur to fish or wildlife habitats. The site is located within a developed urban area. The propert is alread developed. The project will result in onl minor site alterations to provide one unenclosed parkin space in an area that is not environmentall sensitive and remove part of an existin accessor structure that is not an historic resource. 6. The desi of the subdivision and its related improvements will not conflict with easements, ac b the public at lar for access throu or the use of, propert within the proposed subdivision. The subject propert fronts onto an existin public street and sidewalk. It does not abut an parks or other public facilities that would re access easements for the public at lar 7. That the desi of the subdivision or the t of improvements is not likel to cause serious public health problems. The proposal would continue existin residential uses at the site without chan to the existin main buildin structures. Both parcels would have continued access to Bri Avenue. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Plannin Board of the Cit of Alameda finds that the project consists of the subdivision of an existin developed propert into two parcels. No new development or intensification of use is proposed. The propert is located in an urbanized area and all necessar public services are available will not cause si environmental impacts and is Cate Exempt from further review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alameda recommends that the Cit Council Planned Development PD07-0002 and Parce subdivision of 3236 Bri Avenue in to two conditions: Planned Development Plannin Board of the Cit of approve Rezonin R07-0002, I Map PM07-0004 to allow the parcels, subject to the followin 1. The applicant shall secure approval of a Parcel Map. The Parcel Map shall compl with all conditions of this Planned Development approval. 2. An additions to either sin residence shall re a Planned Development Amendment. 3. No structures shall extend over propert lines, the existin shed portion of the detached g ara g e shall be demolished prior to recordation of final map. 4. The parcel at 3238 Briggs Avenue (parcel 1) may retain the existin s detached garage in the existing location, to meet the parking requirement of two spaces. No additional parking in the front yard setback shall be permitted. The existing concrete area not necessary for garage access shall be removed and replaced with landscaping. Prior to approval of the Parcel map by the city Council, the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan. The landscaping plan shall be subject to approval by the Planning and Building Director. 5. Pursuant to Alameda M unicipal Code Section 30 4.f (7) this Planned Development approval shall terminate one year after the effective date of approval unless construction of required improvements and demolition of the shed commences within that time. The applicant may apply for an extension prior to expiration of the Planned Development. Parcel flap minninininnn.ni ni nnninrr�rnr.r�....w.w. Conditions applicable prior to the approval of the Parcel flap by Cit Council 1. The Parcel Map shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Planning and Building Director. The subdivider shall pay for all reasonable office and engineering costs expended by the Cit Engineer's office, including overhead, in conjunction with reviewing the Parcel Map, preparation of staff reports, and in obtaining the map signature of the city's consulting surveyor. 2. The subdivider shall install separate utilities (gas, water, and electrical) and sewer lateral for rear Parcel #1 and obtain permits for the construction. Trench reconstruction and reconstruction of any sidewalk, curb and gutter removed for installation of the utilities and sewer lateral shall be to City of Alameda standards and to the satisfaction of the city Engineer, Building Department and utility companies. Any unused existing sanitary surer lateral shall be removed to the satisfaction of the Building and Public Works Departments. All costs shall be borne by the subdivider. 3. The subdivider shall install the required parking spaces for Parcel #1 Parcel #2. Design improvement construction plans for the parking area, including grading and any landscape modifications shall be submitted for permit review and approval prior to construction. Submit plans to the Building Permits' office for proper routing. All costs shall be borne by the property owner including plan review. 4. The subdivider shall post a refundable cashier's check in the amount of $400 to guarantee that a rnylar copy of the recorded Parcel Maps is i provided n the form approved by the city Engineer. Conditions applicable after approval of the Parcel Map by City Council 5. After the Parcel Map has been approved by City Council, the subdivider shall subunit a rr ylar copy of the recorded parcel reap to the Public Works Department. Miscellaneous 6. Hold Harmless. The city of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the city concerning the subject property. The city of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the city shall cooperate in the defense. If the city fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the city fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the city. 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 1 094.6 The decision of the Planning Board shall be final unless appealed to the City council, in writing and within ten (10) days of the decision, by filing with the Planning and Building Department a written notice of appeal stating the basis of appeal and paying the required fees. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27 day of August 2007 by the Planning Board of the city of Alameda by the following vote. AYES. (5) Kohlstrand, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch, McNamara NOES: (0) ABSENT: (1) Mariani ATT ES =A ncfre"-T-h ,offas, Secreta ity Planning Board CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12771 N.S. TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY .23 ACRES LOCATED AT 3236 AND 3238 BRIGGS AVENUE, APN 069 007604601 FROM R-4 NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, TO R -4- PD, NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DESIGNATION BE IT ORDAINED b the Cit Council of the Cit of Alameda that: ,a A Section 1: Section 11-116 of Ordinance No. 1277 N.S. is hereb amended b reclassif all the real propert situated within the Cit of Alameda, Count of Alameda, State of California, consistin of .23 acres and located at 3236 and 3238 Bri Avenue, APN 069 007604601, as shown on the attached Exhibit A from R-4, Nei Residential Zonin District, to R- 4-PD, Nei Residential Planned Development District Zonin Desi Section 2: The above amendment shall be known as and referenced to as Rezonin Amendment No. 203 to Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. Section 3.- This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirt (30) da from the date of its final passa Presidin Officer of the Cit Council Attest: Lara Weisi Cit Clerk Cit of Alameda Introduction of Ordinance #4.G CC 09-01-09 Exhibit A. 1, 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 day of September, 2009, by the following vote to grit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said city this day of September, 2009. Lara Weisiger, city clerk City of Alameda CITY OF AL.AMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING (R07 -002), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD07- 0002), AND PARCEL MAP (PM07 -0004) AT 3236 BRIGGS AVENUE I q WH EREAS applications were made 0n February X007 b pp y y John and Andrea Medulan requesting approval of a Rezoning, Planned Development, and Parcel Map to subdivide a parcel into two sites; and WHEREAS, the applications were deemed complete on July 12, 2007; and WHEREAS the subject property is designated as Medium p p y g Density Residential on 'ZI the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a' Neighborhood Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the property is currently occupied by two houses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on August 27, 2007, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, in recommending approval of the application, the Planning Board attached a condition requiring compliance with certain requirements of the Public Works Department prior to consideration of the project by the City Council; and WHEREAS, these requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board adopted Resolution PB- 07--08 recommending that the city Council approve of the proposed tentative Parcel Map and the Planned Development zoning amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this application on September 1, 2009, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings: The Planned Development zoning designation is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan supports the creation of diversity in housing products in response to variations in income levels, the changing live -work patterns of residents, and the needs of a diverse population as well as opportunities for homeownership. Resolution #4 -G CC 09-01-09 The General Plan Diagram designates this property Medium Density Residential, with a minimum lot density of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. The proposed parcels will be 4,886 square feet and 4,857 square feet. Approval of the subdivision will not change the density of the subject property or neighborhood. Z. The proposed development is a more effective use of the site than is possible under the regulations for the district with which the Planned Development district is combined. The lot split will create two individual parcels, each containing a single family dwelling, which improves economic opportunities for homeownership that would otherwise be unavailable with the two units on a single parcel. The Planned Development overlay provides the necessary flexibility in development standards to permit this subdivision to occur with a lot width that is two feet narrower than width requirements of current regulations, yet is the current standard width and over twice as long as a typical lot. Because no major physical changes are proposed, the project preserves the historic fabric and quality of the neighborhood and provides the required number of off street parking spaces for single family dwellings. 3. The project will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses in the City. The site is already developed with two single family homes. The Planned Development and Parcel Map would divide the existing parcel without adding any new development or increasing the intensity of use. Therefore, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses in the city. WHEREAS, pursuant to AMC Section 30 -78.5 the city council has made the following findings of fact regarding the proposed Parcel Map: The proposal is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. The project complies with the density requirements in the General Plan and is compatible with the variety of lot sizes found in the surrounding neighborhood. This project is consistent with General Plan policies to maintain and enhance the residential environment of Alameda's neighborhoods and expands housing opportunities for households in all income groups. 2. The proposed design /improvements are consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. The property includes two existing single- family residences. The only proposed physical changes are the addition of one unenclosed parking space and the partial demolition of a garage that would otherwise be located across the new property boundary. The existing design is consistent with the density, physical, and aesthetic character of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. No new development is proposed that would conflict with any of these aspects of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. The property is not located within a Specific Plan area, 3. The site is physically suitable for this type of development. The site is physically suitable for this type of development because the site and surrounding properties are already developed with other single and multi- family buildings. Additionally, the site and surrounding properties on three sides are zoned [Neighborhood Residential (R -4) and are designated Medium Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The General Plan designates this property Medium Density Residential, with a minimum lot density of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit, and an overall expected density range of 8.8 to 21.8 units per acre. The proposed parcels will both include over 4,800 square feet. This proposal will not change the density of the subject property or the surrounding neighborhood. 5. The proposed subdivision and its related improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or cause injury to fish or wildlife habitats. The site is located within a developed urban area. The property is already developed. The project will result in only minor site alterations to provide one unenclosed parking space in an area that is not environmentally sensitive and remove part of an existing garage that is not an historic resource. 0. The design of the subdivision and its related improvements gill .not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access.through or the use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The subject prop .erty fronts onto an existing public street and sidewalk. It does not abut any parks or other public facilities that would require access easements for the public at large. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not.likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposal would continue existing residential uses at the site without changes to the existing main building structures. Both parcels would have continued access to Briggs Avenue. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda finds that the project consists of the subdivision of an existing developed property into two parcels. No new development or intensification of use is proposed. The property is located in an urbanized area and all necessary public services are available. The project will not cause significant environmental impacts and is Categorically Exempt from further review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA) Section 15315 —Minor Land Divisions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city council of the city of Alameda approves Rezoning R07 -0002, Planned Development PD07 -0002 and Parcel Map PM07 -0004 to allow the subdivision of 3238 Briggs Avenue. into two parcels, subject to the following conditions: Planned Development 1. Any additions to either single family residence shall require a Planned Development Amendment. 2. No structures shall extend over property lines. 3. The parcel at 3238 Briggs Avenue (parcel 1) may retain the existing detached garage in the existing location, to meet the parking requirement of two spaces. No additional parking in the front yard setback shall be permitted. Prior to Final Map the existing concrete area not necessary for garage access shall be removed and replaced with landscaping, subject to approval of the Planning and Building Director. 4. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 -4.fi (7) this Planned Development approval shall terminate one year after the effective date of approval unless construction has begun under valid building permits. The applicant may apply for an extension prior to expiration of the Planned Development. Parcel Map Conditions applicable after approval of the Parcel flap by City Council: 1. After the Parcel Map has been approved by City Council, the subdivider shall submit a rnylar copy of the recorded parcel reap to the Public Works Department. Miscellaneous 1. HOLD HARMLESS. The applicant shall defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda, the City Council, the Redevelopment Agency, the Alameda City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (including legal costs and attorney's fees) against the City of Alameda, Alameda Redevelopment Agency, Alameda City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval by the City of Alameda, the Planning and Building Department, Alameda City Planning Board, the City of Alameda Redevelopment Agency or City Council relating to this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in such defense. The City may elect, in its sole discretion, to participate in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 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 certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (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 90 -day appeal period, in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (a) has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 1 5t day of September, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set ray hand and affixed the seal of said city this 2 nd day of September, 2009. Lara Weisiger, city clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. N 0 U. M� 70 APPOINTING VALERIAN LEE AS A MEMBER OF THE ALAMEDA YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2 -1 9 of the Alameda on nomination of the Municipal code, and u p p e Mayor, VALERIAN LEE is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Alameda Youth Advisory Commission of the city of Alameda, for a terra e commencing September 1, 2009, and expiring August 31, 2011. 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 1st day of September, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the seal of said city this 2 d day of September, 2009. Lara Weisiger, City clerk City of Alameda Resolutions 6 -A 09 -a1 -09 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. T REAPPOINTING HANNAH BOWMAN AS A MEMBER OF THE w ALAMEDA YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION g BE IT RESOLVED b the Cou e y of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2-19 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, HANNAH BOWMAN is hereby reappointed to the office of member of Q the Alameda Youth Advisory Commission of the City of Alameda, for a term commencing September 1, 2009, and expiring August 31, 20 1 1 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 1st day of September, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN VVITN ESS, WH EREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the seal of said City this 2 d day of September, 2009. Lara We siger, City Clerk City of Alameda t 1 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. REAPPOINTING JORDAN FLORES AS A MEMBER OF THE :T ALAMEDA YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that y pursuant to p =w= Section 2 -19 of the Alameda Municipal code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, JORDAN FLORES is hereby reappointed to the office of member of the �l Alameda Youth Advisory Commission of the City of Alameda, for a term y commencing September 1, 2009, and expiring August 31, 2011. 3 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 1st day of September, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN VVITN ESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this 2 day of September, 2009. Lara Weisiger, city clerk City of Alameda G -F� CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. REAPPOINTING ANJULI SASTRY AS A 11IE111BER OF THE ALAMEDA YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2 19 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, ANJ U LI SASTRY is hereby reappointed to the office of member of the Alameda Youth Advisory Commission of the City of Alameda, for a term commencing September 1, 2009, and expiring August 31, 20 1 1 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 1st day of September, 2009, by the following vote to grit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said city this 2 d day of September, 2009. Lara Weisiger, City Clem City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. REAPPOINTING B.HAANI SINGH AS A MEMBER OF THE ALAMEDA YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED b the Council of the Cit of Alameda that pursuant to ro Section 2-19 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Ma BHAANI SINGH is hereb reappointed to the office of m O ember of the il Alameda Youth Advisor Commission of the Cit of Alameda, for a term commencin September 1, 2009, and expirin Au 31, 2011. 1, the undersi hereb certif that the fore Resolution was dul and re adopted and passed b the Council of the Cit of Alameda in a re meetin assembled on the 1st da of September, 2009, b the followin vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m hand and affixed the seal of said Cit this 2nd da of September, 2009. Lara Weisi Cit Clerk Cit of Alameda E CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. REAPPOINTING ANGELA STERLING VICK AS A MEMBER OF THE ALAMEDA YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION `S BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2 -19 of the Alameda Municipal code and upon nomination f p p o the Mayor, ANGELA STERLING VICK is hereby reappointed to the office of �t member of the Alameda Youth Advisory Commission of the city of Alameda, for a terra commencing September 1, 2009, and expiring August 31, 2011. e I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 1st day of September, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said city this 2 d day of September, 2009. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: September 1, 2009 Re: Discuss Alameda- Contra Costa (AC) Transit's Service Reductions and Provide Direction to Staff for Alameda- Contra Costa's (AC) Transit's September 12, 2009 Community Workshop BACKGROUND Alameda- contra Costa (AC) Transit is experiencing a significant reduction in revenues impacting its operations. As a result, it is proposing to reduce transit service by 15 percent throughout its service area, including service within the City of Alameda. Ac Transit conducted a series of workshops in May to identify service priorities to guide it in its process of evaluating existing services. On June 24, 2009, AC Transit staff presented .its recommended service reductions and restructuring to the AC Transit. Board of Directors AC Transit has begun to conduct additional outreach to elicit feedback on the proposals from the affected jurisdictions and the public. To date, the impacts in Alameda have been discussed at a July joint meeting of the Transportation Commission (TC) and Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB), and at the August city of Ala.rneda /AC Transit I nteragency Liaison Committee (ILC) meeting. AC Transit will also hold a public workshop on September 12, from 2:00 -3:30 PM, at Independence Plaza to solicit additional public input. DISCUSSION Prior to AC Transit's development of recommended service. changes, city staff consulted with the TC's Transit Subcommittee to identify key services that should. be protected. Staff presented a series of recommendations to AC Transit, emphasizing the critical role of transit service. in Alameda .and focusing on preserving transit service to BART, in major commercial areas, and for transit dependent populations. These recommendations are included as Exhibit 1. Upon consideration of Alameda staff's concerns, AC transit prepared specific recommendations, which were presented to the Board on June 24, Zo09. Exhibit 2 is a summary of the proposed service reductions and impacts as identified by AC Transit staff. Exhibit 3 consists of a portion of the AC Transit General Manager's memorandum that was presented to the AC Transit Board outlining the criteria for the system wide City council Agenda Item #6-13 wim Honorable Mayor and September 1, 2009 Members of the city council Page 2 of 4 cuts. Exhibits 4 and 5 are reaps of AC Transit's existing service and the proposed service under AC Transit's recommended service changes. As outlined below, AC Transit's proposal would eliminate direct transit service from several streets in Alameda: Atlantic Avenue, east of Challenger Drive /Buena vista Avenue This area is currently. se.rved by Line. 19, which continues to the Fruitvale BART station. There are an estimated 409.boardings and 437 alightings per day on this portion of the route. Ac Transit intends to minimize. the impact to these riders by extending the existing Line 51 service .(proposed Line 3 in Exhibit 2) to Fruitvale BART. This service is. three blocks south of the existing Line 9 service, and operates far more frequently. Line 19 operates every 30 minutes during peak hours, while Line 51.operates every eight to ten minutes. Harbor Bay Parkway, Bay Edge Road to Ron Cowan Parkway This area is currently served. by Line 50. There.. are an estimated 71 bosrdings and 97 alightings per day on .this portion of the route. ABC Transit anticipates reduced impacts due to the existing employee shuttle provided by the Harbor Bay Business Park (HBB.P), which serves both the. harbor. Bay Ferry T.e.rminaI and Coliseum BART station. Any reductions to the. shuttle program could exacerbate impacts to the transit users in the area, and therefore HBBP should be e pt involved in the discussions on this issue. Main S Avenue /Central AvenueLincoln Avenue This area is currently served by, Line 63. There are an estimated 241. boardings and 285 alightings per day: on this. portion of the route, with a arge percentage associated with Encinal High School (EHS), the Alameda Community Learning center, and Island high School (IHS). The nearest transit service to this area would be on Ralph. Appezzato Memorial Parkway (RAMP) and Webster Street. AC. Transit staff h that modifications to the school service (Lines 531 and 532) could potentially address .the needs in this area. In general, AC .Transit has done ..a cv.mmendable j identifying service cuts. yet maintaining critical services for Alameda residents. The proposed extension of. the current Line 51 service mould significantly enhance access beteen Alameda and Fruitvale BART. However, staff does have some concerns, and recommends the following: consider relocating the proposed service .for RAMP to Pacific .Avenue /Marshall v ay/Lin.col n Avenue. This route would be more centrally located and ou ld provide transit access. to more crest end residents, particularly those in the Central Avenue corridor. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 1, 2009 Page 3 of 4 Provide additional resources to school service at BHS, Alameda Community Learning Center, and IHS to compensate for the loss of Line 03 service. In 2008, an estimated 134 trips per day accessed Line 03 at the bus stops closest to EHS, and 93 trips per day at the stops nearest to IHS; most of these trips were by students. Staff also recommends that AC Transit work closely with Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) staff to adequately address their needs. In addition to the comments raised by City staff, several additional public concerns were raised at the TC /SS H RB and I LC meetings: With the exception of trunk lines and all -day transbay services, AC Transit will be eliminating all service .after 1 0:00 PM. In Alameda, the only routes that would continue to operate after 10;00 P.M. would be Line 511851 (operates all night) and Line O (operates until midnight). This will significantly. impact mobility for many residents, especially those on the west end, who are disproportionately reliant on transit for their mobility. Transit service would. link Alameda Point directly to Oakland, while access to the east end of Alameda would require a transfer. AC Transit made this recommendation in response to requests from west end residents to improve their connection to downtown Oakland. Service to the Oakland Airport would be eliminated, which would be problematic for airpert employees and passengers. Riders who use Line 19 on B.uena Vista Avenue, especially those. who are seniors, expressed concern. about this service being eliminated. AC Transit's justification for this recorr mendation .eras based. on ridership and the potential for some riders to use Line .51, located three blocks away. Perhaps peak -hour only service could. be provided in the corridor that Line .19 currently serves to minimize some of the .service gaps. FINANCIAL IMPACT The proposed route modifications would not require the establishment .of. any near. bus stops. Some stops on current routes would be removed if the current proposal. is approved. AC Transit would be responsible for the removal of bus poles at these locations, while the City would be responsible. for removing parking restrictions where appropriate. This work could be completed using the City's existing maintenance budget. Honorable Ma and September 1, 2009 Members of the Cit Council Pa 4 of 4 MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Polic 4.3.1.c in the Transportation Element of the General Plan states that the Cit will encoura increases in public transit, includin fre and g eo g raphic covera ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed service chan would not introduce transit service on additional streets, or re the implementation of new bus stops. 0 'Ile 1 7 1 1 j y j I k JA'j 'M Discuss Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit's service reductions and provide direction to staff for Alameda-Contra Costa AC Transit's September 19, 2009 Communit Workshop. Respectfull submitted, �atth Naclerio ew Publi Works. D irector Approved as to funds and account G y Interim Finance Director BB: Attachments: 1. Comments on Proposed Service Chan Submitted to AC Transit 2 Summary of Proposed AC Transit Service Reductions in .the Cit of Alameda 3. ExcerptFrorn A.0 Transi GIVI Memo 4 AC Transit's .Current ..Service .in Alameda 56 AC Transit's Proposed Service in Alameda cc: Elsa Ortiz, AC Transit Board Nanc Skowbo, AC Transit Cor Lavi AC Transit Michael Krue TC EXHIBIT 1 City of Alameda Public works Dept. Comments on Proposed Service changes Submitted to AC Transit Importance of Transit to Alameda Being an island city, transportation access to the regional transportation system is heavily dependent on transit. The City's connections to Oakland, the Webster /Posey Tubes and bridges, are already at capacity, so frequent and reliable transit service is the only available option for moving large numbers of people to and from Alameda. In January 2009, the Alameda City Council formalized this commitment to transit in the update of our General Plan's Transportation Element, which places a heavy reliance on transit and transportation demand management measures. We are currently working with AC Transit staff to develop a transit level of service measure to ensure that future development does not create significant impacts to transit service in Alameda. The Alameda City Council has adopted a `Transit First" resolution, indicating the priority placed on maintaining a vital transit service in Alameda. The City has recently entered into an agreement with AC Transit for an EasyPass program for full --time City employees. The Peralta colleges, which include the College of Alameda, have entered into a similar agreement. For these programs to be effective, the integrity of the bus service must be maintained. Alameda residents rely heavily on transit for commuting. According to the 2000 Census, over 13 percent of Alameda commuters travel by bus as their primary commute mode. Some populations in Alameda are especially transit- dependent, either because they do not have access to an automobile or because they are unable to drive. According to a draft study by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, 10 percent of households (over 1,000 households) in the lower income sections of Alameda do not have access to an automobile. These residents are concentrated primarily in Alameda's west end. Alameda is not directly served by BART, and many residents rely on AC Transit service to access BART, Key Transit Service Priorities The City (along with the rest of the District) has experienced previous service reductions in recent years. So while any additional AC Transit service reductions will cause a significant hardship, we hope to work with you to minimize the upcoming service cuts in light of our special needs. To begin this dialog, staff has consulted with the Transit Subcommittee of our Transportation Commission to identify some key services that need to be protected. City council Attachment I to Agenda Item #6 -113 Line 61 is the most heavily used service in Alameda. It operates with the greatest frequency and geographically is the route that most riders have access to. Frequent transit service to our two primary business districts Park Street and Webster Street is critical for our residents and our local economy. The City has significant resources in implementing transit plazas, bus shelters, and other amenities in these corridors to enhance service here. Since the City does not have direct BART access, the transbay services are essential for many Alameda residents that work in San Francisco, who make up nearly 20 percent of employees according to the 2000 Census. Similarly, reliable connections to BART are critical. The City has worked closely with Ac Transit staff to improve service on Line 63, which runs across the main island. Despite the fact that the service operates only every 30 minutes, and has had significant difficulty in remaining on schedule, the line has significant ridership. Beyond the numbers of boardings and alightings, the populations that use the 63 tend to be lower income individuals and seniors, many of whom do not have access to a vehicle. The 63 provides the only transit service to Alameda Point, where the Alameda Point Collaborative is located, and also provides direct service to Independence Plaza and Anne B. Diament Plaza, the City's two largest senior residential facilities. LLJ LU wj Cn z City Council Attachment 2 to Agenda Item #6,B >1 0 C: a) 0) 0 cc 0) M L) M 12 d. N a) C E M 0 -4-1 C N 0 7 M 2 r- M 12 to C M C: (6 -C: r 0 a) 0- a) Cn 0 v© -0 M -0 4-4 rn M -a 4-0 M co 0 t -W 4-A M 4-A M U) (1) CU A- to 0 Ams (1) CL U a) >1 4-0 CU a (v a) ca U) Cn M 0— 0 6 L- 'a E CU Er L- (D 4t: =F C: v 5 U-) a) -�4 M L a) I- r- 0 E ia m w a) 70 0 0 -0 E Uj a) 0 E W -5 0 0 a) ca 70 U) L) M a 0 (D (D 0 _0 a) M W o E a) 0 E a) a) cL a) w M o a) W -0 M io E E M Cc a) 0 L.L a) ca M -0 t-- -a 0 a) IL (D W E U) M a) 0 i .0 M (a M a) cn 0 a) a) 0 M T -0 M a) N 0 1� 0 a) -pa M C: E 2 E E -0 0 cu =1 w 0 4- 70 4- a) ca 0 0 CL a) w (n M 0 0 a) cn Q� C L 0 4" 0 w C[S 0 E E cm: -0 LL ❑0) ca 0 0 E W 0 E a) x m 0 (D 0 0 a) 3e >0 W G 7w 0 M D '0 Cc cn w a) to a) U.- 2 M M a) m a) E 4-0 M ca a) w a) o-- (,n E J M (D L.: 0 a) 0 0 0 14 U) 0 M a a) Ca w CD 0 r a (D -J -0 (D S 4- E U) C: C: CN LO to 0 4-A Q) 0 4-A 0 C 0 0 0 E LZ CL 0 (5 Co Ca L) EU M vc� a v- as a) A-) :3 >1 a) M M U) LL E cn i> 0 a) C C J :5 0 ❑0 0 M 0 U) 0 CU W E w M =3 0 a) a) m 0 L- 2! 10 a) L- =1 (1) 0 -a M 0 CU E (n CO C: a) -6.4 Cn U) M 3: m C/) 25 M M z z Z F- ai a) c(s a a (D LL 0 x a) E Uj 0 >1 3; 0 a) CU CL 4-j 0 a) M.— (3) (D E M 0 4-0 C: ca ce) C) 0 -4,j M 4-' :3 n C) cn -G a) 4" M CL LU U) (D E LO CL 0 (0 a) w M c LL cm M E E M 0 M M M M M -0 C: ca a) M 0 -5'a a) C 3 0 E cu M ca 0 E 0. 0 'D 0 C r] C 4-a M 6 0 C: CD M CU ca O'D 4- -;0 0 U) M C/) a) Me 0 U) E M a) 5 (0 Q) a) 0 (1) m 0 4., =3 N a) r- 4-j 0 C cia (1) f CU LL L) 0 0 CL ca G) C U CU 76 -r-- ia) 0 U :3 U) U) (1) 0 3: 4a :3 C 0 2 0 a) 0 r W Cn 4- 4-f CO 0 Ca 0 11�- -0 L) 4- 0 (1) 7 Or 0 M 0 w E C14 0 E -j 0 c W Cn (D d -0 10 0 75 L- cn E M (D w c: r ca a) E Ei 0 (U W L- E 0 CL a) w M I" c) a) 0 -1 CT S-- C: =1 0 4- D- a) M 0 UZ -Ne 0 CO 0 4- 7 0 0 w a) 4-0 a) E) 4- M 0 C -4-- x 0 w r- a) cp .5; 4 a) 4-- w 0 0-0 0 0 a) 0 0 a) 0 0 C 0 0 .0 E 0 o 0 -0 CU 0 0 cc 0 Cc M 0 0 io w co a) (D 0 CD M 010 4-- Z, -a w a) L;7- a) E CO a) 0 0 (D Co v© w U) 0 U) T- CO W 0 C: M a) cr_� ZZ a) -0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 z z 0 z 0 F— CO LO (N M (0 CO 0 X 0 CO s 0 CO 1 a. z Z to. City Council Attachment 2 to Agenda Item #6,B EXHIBIT 3 Excerpt From AC Transit GM Memo Outlining Process for Determining Service Priorities and Description of Proposed Service Changes T AC TRANSIT DISTRICT GM Memo No. 09 -161 Board of Directors Executive Summary Meeting Date: June 24, 2009 Committees: Planning Committee Finance and Audit Committee External Affairs Committee Operations Committee Rider Complaint Committee F Paratransit Committee Board of Directors Financing Corporation SUBdIECT4 Presentation of Draft 2009 Service Adjustments Plan and Consider Setting Public Hearing Regarding the Implementation of the Draft 2009 Service Adjustments Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION 7 Information only 0 Briefing item N Recommended Motion Consider Setting a Public nearing for September 9, 2009, Regarding the Implementation of the 2009. Service Adjustments Plan (Plan). In Anticipation of Robust Public comment, it is Recommended that the nearing be Structured as Follows: Convene hearing 2prn to 5prn Recess 5pm to 6pm Re- convene hearing oprin to 8pm Additionally, the Board is Requested to Consider Setting a Separate Public Tearing Related to Proposed Service changes in Special District 2 (Fremont and Newark) After Discussions with the Special District 2 Technical and Policy Advisory Committees. FiscalIm act: Implementation of the Proposed 2009 Service Changes Plan (Plan) will result in an estimated annual District -wide savings of $18 billion, net of fare revenue. Background /Discussion: BOARD ACTION: Approved as Recommended Other Approved with Modification(s) The above order was passed on: Linda A. Nerneroff, District Secretary By City council Attachment 3 to Agenda Item ##61w1I3 09 =01 -09 GM Memo No. 09 -161 Meeting Date: June 24, 2009 Page 2 of 14 On April 22, 2009 the Ac Transit Board of Directors set a public hearing for the "Intent to Declare a Fiscal Emergency" citing that ten -year financial projects require that the District implement an $18 Million (net of fare revenue) service reduction. The Board received public testimony on May 27, 2009 and subsequently will consider formally declaring a fiscal emergency on June 24, 2009. Assuming $18 Million in service reductions, the District will operate approximately 5,700 hours on weekdays and just under 2,900 hours on weekend days, which translates to service reductions of approximately 905 hours per day on weekdays and 458 hours on weekends. This represents just under a 5% reduction of the District's current operating hours. At this time, the District operates 6,700 hours of service on weekdays, and 3,400 hours on weekends. Reductions in service of this magnitude demand a complete review and re- allocation of hours to ensure that the remaining service is meaningful. It is important to note that the Service Development staff approached this effort as a service building exercise, rather than a service cutting exercise. However, a difficult side effect of the implementation of such a severe service change will be the requirement for additional transfer activity to complete trips for a greater number of patrons. Policy Background and Operating Elements Staff has prepared a Draft 2009 Service Changes Plan for both District 1 and District 2. As stated in GM Memo 09 -030a (Guidelines for Service Adjustments), policy guidance for this effort was obtained from the District Strategic Plan, the District Guiding Principles and the Service Deployment Policies. Additionally, Chapter 3 of the Short Range Transit Plan (Board Approval —July 2008) was also used to ensure that a complete policy review was conducted. The following specific policies factored heavily in the development of the Plan: Allocation of service must reflect some consideration of geographic equity, but ultimately productivity and usefulness of the service should be given greater weight Strategic Plan The transit system must be seamless to the passenger regardless of the operator. Services, transfers and fares must be transparent to the passenger Guiding Principles Service must be prioritized to those areas with the greatest potential for transit use, with good patronage regarded by better service and shorter waits Guiding Principles The District should maintain minimum route spacing /coverage Service Deployment Policies The District Should provide seamless transfer (time, location, provider) Service Deployment Policies GM Memo 09 -030a also provided a framework for line operating performance analysis and used this information to aide in the development of the Plan. operating principles used include: 0 Routes should be planned for efficient and effective operations GM [Memo No. 09 -151 Meeting Date June 24, 2009 Page 3of14 In more suburban portions of the District, lines should be targeted to a select number of generatorslattractors to ensure effective operations Planning services that complement the character of the existing service area (urban core vs. suburban) Coordinating service provision with private "shuttle" operators to minimize service duplication to the greatest possible extent Service to schools should be accommodated on the base system to any extent possible to minimize additional supplemental service. To this end, many lines that had long one -way running times (more than 60 minutes) were reviewed for effectiveness, and the Plan includes several instances of splitting lines with the goal of improving service reliability and on -time performance. Methodolo The Plan development used several different types of analyses and study, as well as a heavy reliance on District provided data taken from the Automatic Passenger Counting (APC) System. service Development requested the assistance of the District statistician to assist with the development and subsequent documentation of the data methodology, to ensure a good foundation for service planning. A team comprised of the District's Statistician, senior Planner Geographic Information systems (GIS), and senior Planner Data Analysis was established, and this group worked collaboratively to assess the integrity of the data collected and then its eventual use in a GIS context. Attachment 1 reflects a detailed description of their work. To begin the process, staff completed the following analyses: Load Profiles (board i ngs/al ig hti ngs and average load) by both Stop and Trip Analysis of Service Span by Service Type Analysis of Line On -Time Performance Analysis of Trunk and Major Corridor Frequency Reductions and Implications In addition to the analytic work, District GIS staff assisted by completing analysis that provided graphic tools to aide in the development of the Plan. At a base level, stop- specific APC data was condensed and displayed on maps of various areas of the District. Concentrations of boardings and alightings were graphically displayed as "demand dots" and were either large based on extensive use, or smaller based on minimal use. The "demand dot" analysis was then placed on the following additional neap layers: Landmarks (from the 511 .org list, combined with ACTIA Pedestrian Plan Information) Commercial Districts Title VI .Areas Tract Level Population Density Cross Tabulation of Zero -car Households and Median Income Areas CM Memo Igo. 09 -161 Meeting Date: June 24, 2009 Page 4 of 14 Title III Anat�sis Attachment 2 provides a detailed line -by -line analysis of the proposals as compared to the current service The Title VI status of each line is indicated, and where service adjustments or eliminations are proposed for Title VI lines, supplemental analysis on disparate impacts will be required. This analysis will be conducted prior to Board adoption of the proposed service adjustments. As stated above, the preliminary analysis used for the development of the Plan included the use of maps with CIS overlays showing ridership and use by stop location as compared to minority concentrations, zero -car households and median income. Public Outreach On April 22, 2009 staff presented the Board with a plan to conduct Community outreach sessions throughout the District. The sessions were designed to elicit information and feedback from patrons and the general public on service delivery concepts, routing and related matters. While no specific service reductions scenarios were presented to the community, a great deal of excellent and meaningful information was received that was used in the development of the Plan. Sessions were held on the following dates and locations: Saturda May 9, 2009 Ba fair Mall Att endee s 49 Satu rday, May 9, 2009 Newark Senior center 4 Monday, May 11, 2009 West Berkeley Senior center 43 Monday, May 18, 2009 Tuesday, May 19, 2009 Maple Hall, San Pablo Ac Transit General offices 30 106 As part of the outreach sessions, staff conducted a discussion and brief survey on a series of "trade- offs" that were designed to help the public frame their priorities for service. The table below provides additional detail on the subject areas that were discussed, ci A rade Off Scen Tr a d e O ff Sc Buses should run frequently Freq v during morning and afternoon q y Buses should run at commute hours, s, and operate moderate levels throughout minimal serviced during the rest of the day. the day. AC Transit currently operates AC Transit currentl y o erates most routes at 10-, 1 20 most routes at 10 16-1 20 or or 30- minute intervals. Ac Clockface Headwa s 30- minute intervals. AC Transit y Tran i Transit should schedule serve should continue to operate at at non- standard intervals standard intervals. (e.g., a bus every 23 minutes instead of every 20 minutes) where it improves efficiency. E Weekend Service on weekends, Ac Transit should 1 weekends, AC Transit GM Memo No. 09-161 Meeting Date: June 24, 2009 Page 5of14 Penetration operate trunk routes only, and at should operate all service the current frequency. types at reduced frequency. Weekday Serv AG Transit should focus service AC Transit should focus on 3 Penetration on the major a or corridors that serve providing more coverage in the most riders. neighborhoods. AC Transit should aerate the p AC Transit should operate a Weekend Levels Service same level of service on both higher level of service ❑n q Saturday and Sunday. Saturday and a lager level of service on Sunda y. Weekday Service Buses should operate into neighborhoods and shopping Buses should stay on mayor Penetration centers and operate less p roadways and operate more frequently. frequently, Buses should operate more Buses should operate less Service Span frequently for, fewer hours of the frequently, during more day. hours of the day. Given that AC Transit m ust Free Transfer reduce service more transfer etween bus routes may be Timed T�ed Transfer at your Transferring g to complete a try If necessary p p Connection you had to transfer, which of the Long 3. Lon Usag Time g g would ou refer: following N Period In addition to the public community workshops, an e news survey was sent out to all users asking the same set of trade -off questions above, as well as some demographic data information. Staff is still analyzing both sources of this informal and non scientific poll, and will present the results in greater detail at a subsequent meeting. .`3 h P. rJ111P. In Gull Memo 09 -030a, a timeline for completion of activities in connection with the Plan was provided; however, this timeline reflected the requirement to complete an Initial Study under CEQA guidelines. Since the presentation of that schedule, the District has initiated a process to declare a fiscal emergency, which abrogates the need for an Initial Study, requiring a revision to the previous schedule. The schedule below has been revised from the original timeline. The public hearing has been postponed one month to enable the Schedules Department the time needed to perform a run -cut on the proposals contained in the Plan. The benefit of this approach is to ensure that the "planned" savings brought about by service reductions are true and in keeping with estimated savings amounts. The bullet points below reflect the anticipated timeline for completion of the implementation of the Plan: June 24 Board Reviews Draft 2009 Service Adjustments Plan and considers Setting Public Hearing GM Memo No. 09 -101 Meeting Date: June 24, 2009 Page 0 of 14 June 24 to September 9 Public outreach for the Draft 2009 Service Adjustments Plan September 9 Board Conducts Public Hearing September 23 Board Considers Plan Implementation September 23 to January 10 Implementation Period January 10, 2010 Plan Initiation Service Adjustment Proposals Staff has identified service adjustments in five (5) general areas: 0 Western Contra Costa County 0 Northern Alameda County 0 Central Alameda County 0 Special District 2 Transbay Services The attached chart (Attachment 2) summarizes staff's recommended service concepts to this point. The descriptions below provide a conceptual outline of the recommended service changes only for lines that are being altered. In addition to the geographic breakdown, this section is also defined by the following subject areas: a Lines to be Discontinued Existing Lines to be Changed New Line Introductions Upon final approval by the Board of Directors, the service proposals will be entered into the scheduling system, where it is anticipated that further efficiencies will be identified, possibly through interlining.. Western Contra Costa Count Several of the lines in this part of the District have long one -way running times which were shortened and given greater focus. Service on the 72 and 72M was preserved; however, the remaining lines in the area were adjusted to create shorter running times as well as offer a more direct trip from end to end. Lines to be Discontinued. None Existing Lines to be Changed. Lire 70 The route is truncated to operate between Richmond BART and the Richmond Parkway Transit Center via Appian Way. Line 71 The route will operate from the Richmond Parkway Transit Center to Parchester Village, to Contra Costa College and Richmond BART via Rumrill. The line will no longer serve Carlson Ave. GM Memo No. 09 -161 Meeting Date: June 24, 2009 Page 7 of 14 Line 72 The line is removed from Robert Miller Drive, where it made no stops, and re- routed to Moyers Road to cover the route of the former 74 and 76 lines. Line 74 Service from El 5obrante will operate from Contra Costa College to Richmond BART via 23r Avenue. From there the line will operate along MacDonald to 37 Street, serving the new Civic Center area, to Fl Cerrito Del Norte BART via Carlson. Additionally, service to Orinda BART is being discontinued. Line 76 Will provide service from Hilltop Mall to El Cerrito Del Norte BART via Contra Costa College, Richmond BART and Cutting Blvd. New Line Introductions: None Northern Alameda Count All services in this area were reviewed for efficiency, and several lines were altered. Trunk services remain strong and fairly un- touched with the exception of the Line NL. Proposed Changes to the Line 51 are detailed in a separate portion to this report below. Lines to be Discontinued. Line 13 This line will be discontinued as a standalone line. Portions of the existing service will be accommodated by the return of a modified Line 56 as discussed below. However, service to the Crocker Highlands /Mandana area will be discontinued. Line 4'1 Line 47 Lines 59 and 59A Line 67 A portion of the 67 is being retained as detailed under "Line 65" below. Line 79 Portions of the 79 are being retained as detailed in the "North Berkeley Neighborhood Shuttle" below. Existing Lines to be Changed: Line 7 Frequency is reduced to 30 minutes and the line shorturned at the Marin Avenue Circle. Service along Arlington is preserved but at 60 minute frequency. Line 11 This line will be reduced to a 30 minute frequency with no routing change. Line 14 This line will still operate in the Fruitvale District of Oakland; however, it will be truncated in downtown Oakland. Line 18 The line is split in downtown Oakland and will operate as two distinct segments. The northern piece will operate from Solano and San Pablo to downtown Oakland via its established segment along Shattuck Avenue to Martin Luther King Junior Way, to San Pablo Avenue, to Clay and terminating at 14 and Broadway. However, the line will no longer turn on MacArthur and directly serve the MacArthur BART station and Telegraph Avenue. The Oakland portion will operate between downtown Oakland and Montclair along Park Blvd, also terminating at 14 and Broadway, on Broadway. Line 52L This line will operate from UC Berkeley to University Village in Albany, where it will terminate. Line 52L will no longer serve the Pierce and Buchanan area. Line 45 and 56 These routes will be combined into a new crosstown line that will serve Seminary Ave, San Leandro Street, Hegenberger Road, Bdes Ave, the Sobrante GM Memo No. 09 -151 Meeting Date: June 24, 2009 Page 8 of 14 Park loop, and 105 Avenue to Foothill Square. The route will have a 15 minute peak hour service, and it will also serve the Eastmont transit center, Mills College, Coliseum BART, the Sobrante Park neighborhood to Foothill Square. Line 51 The line will be extended across the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge replacing the former service provided by Line 19 and 03. This proposal was not included in the Line 51 Service and Reliability Report. Lines 55 and 98 These routes will be combined into a new East Oakland circulator which will serve 98 Ave, 90 Ave, and 85 Ave and operate at a peak 15 minute frequency. It will also serve Castlerront High School, Coliseum BART, the Edgewater business district, and the Alameda County Food Bank. Line 57 This route will now operate on 40 Street and MacArthur Blvd between San Pablo Avenue and Foothill Square at a 12 minute frequency. This will replace a portion of the former Line 50 service on MacArthur Blvd from Eastmont Mall to Foothill Square. Line 55 Certain portions of Line 87 will be added to Line 55. Specifically, the Beloit loop and the Senior Loop will be preserved and operated by Line 85. Line 88 This route will be extended to downtown Berkeley via Cedar Street with no other routing or frequency change. This extension is designed to provide a direct connection to downtown Berkeley for the former Line F passengers on Market Street. The line will no longer enter the North Berkeley BART station, and will board /alight on Sacramento. New Line 1ntroducfrons Include, North Berkeley Neighborhood Shuttle A neighborhood service is proposed for implementation from downtown Berkeley to Pierce and Buchanan, the Target store on Eastshore, and University pillage, then via 81h Street to Cedar Street and returning to downtown Berkeley via Martin Luther Ding. This line replaces portions of the current 19, 52L and 79 Lines. 73 Avenue and Hegenberger Road Line New Major Corridor line created from the former Line 50. This route will operate at a 15 minute frequency between the Eastmont Transit Center and the Airport. It will also serve Coliseum BART and the Edgewater business district. Fruitvale Avenue, Park Street, and Bay Farm Island New Urban Crosstown line created from the former Lines 53 and 50. This route will operate at 30 minute frequency between MacArthur Blvd and the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal while also serving the Dimond business district, the Fruitvale business district, Fruitvale BART station, downtown Alameda, the Alameda Towne Centre, and Bay Farm Island. The current Line 50 provides service to the Oakland International Airport, via Harbor Bay Business Park. The demand for service to the Airport from Alameda /Fruitvale was minimal and the Harbor Bay Business Park contracts with a private transit contractor for service. Given these two variables, this element of the service is proposed for discontinuation. Fruitvale Avenue, Park Street, and Shoreline Drive New Urban Crosstown line created from the former 53, 50, and 03. The route will operate at 30 minute frequency between MacArthur Blvd and downtown Oakland via Alameda. It will serve the Dimond business district, the Fruitvale business district, Fruitvale BART station, downtown Alameda, the Alameda Towne Centre, Shoreline Drive apartment area, the Webster GM Memo No. 09 --101 Meeting Date: June 24, 2999 Page 9 of 14 Street business district, and downtown Oakland. currently, the Line 53 provides service to the Lyman /Tiffin and Lincolnlwoodminster areas on 30 minute frequency. Due to minimal use, staff's proposal would be to discontinue these portions of the service. Alameda Point and vilest Oakland Line New neighborhood route that will run every 30 minutes between the Alameda Point and Emeryville via Vilest Oakland on Peralta Street. The route will serve the Ferry Terminal, the Webster Street business district, the Marina Village shopping center, downtown Oakland, Vilest Oakland BART station, the East Bay Bridge Center, and the Emeryville Amtrak station. MLK Jr way and Grand Ave Line New cross -town route that will run every 20 minutes between downtown Berkeley and downtown Oakland. It will also serve the Ternescal business district, the Piedmont Avenue business district, and the Grand Ave /Grand Lake business district. West Oakland Neighborhood Line Combines lines 13 and 14 and runs every 20 minutes between MacArthur BART and Lake Merritt BART via Adeline St and 14 Street. It will also serve the East Bay Bridge shopping center, the Post office sorting facility on -nth Street, West Oakland BART, and downtown Oakland. MacArthur Blvd to downtown Oakland Line This new line provides a direct line between the MacArthur Blvd corridor, Chinatown, downtown Oakland, and Jack London Square. It is a limited stop service that will also serve Eastmont, the Laurel district, Dimond district, Grand Lake district at 30 minute frequencies. It will run along the eastside of Lake Merritt picking up the route of the former Line 13. Central and Southern Alameda Count This section of the county has a predominantly suburban character to land use planning and the proposed changes reflect the need to revise service accordingly. With this in mind, a series of circulator routes supported by trunk lines, are being proposed for Central and South county as an alternative to the existing point to point grid route structure. These routes offer the following: 1. Area coverage 2. Operating on two or more corridors with a single route, 3. connecting passengers to key destinations without need for transfers 4. Increase passenger flexibility in a clockwise or counter clockwise direction. Central Alameda Count Lines to be Discontinued: None Existing Lines to be Changed: Line 86: South Hayward Bart to Hayward BART via Tennyson, Industrial, Depot Rd., Cabot, Winton, Division 0, Southland Mall, into Hayward BART. The routing change to this line will result in direct service to Southland Mall. CM Memo No. 09 -151 Meeting Date: June 24, 2009 Page 10 of 14 Hayward Line 92 "Box Hayward BART, Winton Ave, Southland Mail, Hesperian Blvd., Chabot College, Tennyson Ave. Kaiser Hospital, St. Rose Hospital, South Hayward BART, Mission Blvd. into Hayward BART. Line 99 Bay Fair BART to Fremont BART connecting all BART stations in-between via Mission Blvd. Decoto Road, Fremont Blvd., Walnut Ave. and into Fremont BART. This routing represents the former Line 211 and the continuation of Trunk -level service down Fremont Blvd. New Lire Introductions Include. San Leandro, Marina (Line C1) a bi- directional circulator route connecting east and west San Leandro via San Leandro BART, Marina Blvd, Doolittle, Williams, Neptune, Fairway, Bermuda, Farrallon, Wicks, Llewelling, Farnsworth, Floresta, Bay Fair Mall, Bay Fair BART, Bancroft, San Leandro High School, Dutton, east 14 San Leandro City Hall, and return to San Leandro BART, San Leandro, Foothill (Line C2) a bi- directional circulator route connecting east and west San Leandro via San Leandro BART, Williams, Merced, Spruce, Wiley, Farnsworth, Llewelling, Greenhouse marketplace, San Lorenzo High School, Elgin, Bay Fair BART, Fairmont, Mac Arthur, Foothill Square, Estudillio, return to San Leandro BART. Castro Valley, Ashland (Line C3) a bi- directional circulator route connecting San Lorenzo, Cherryland, and Ashland to key local destinations. Hayward BART, West "A Meekland, Blossom way, Hathaway, Hacienda, Brockman, Grant, Washington Ave., Paseo Grande, Elgin Way, Bay Fair BART, Mission Blvd. return to Hayward BART. Cherryland, Castro Valley (Line C4) a bi- directional circulator route connectin ty Castro Valley, Cherryland, and Ashland to key local destinations. Bay Fair BART, 154 Ave, Miramar, Lake Chabot, Mt. Eden Hospital, Castro Valley Blvd., Castro Valley BART, Redwood Rd., Grove, Foothill Blvd, Hayward BART, vilest "A Western, Blossom Way, Meekland, Llewelling, Hesperian, return to Bay Fair BART. Hayward Hills (Line C5) Hayward BART, 2nd Ave., East St., Hayward High School, Windfelt, 2nd Ave., Campus Dr., Hayward Blvd. to Fairview roundabout and return to Hayward BART via same route. CSJEB Shuttle (Line C6) Hayward BART, 2 nd Ave, Campus Dr., CSUEB Loop return via same route. South Hayward Circulator (Line C7A) A bi- directional circulator operating from South Hayward BART, Tennyson, Tampa, Folsom, Ruus, Buckingham, Stratford, Industrial, Dyer, Union Landing Transit Center, Dyer, Whipple, Huntwood, Tennyson, return to South Hayward BART. Central Hayward Circulator (Line C71B) A bi- directional circulator operating from Hayward BART, West "A Santa Clara, Winton, Amador, Jackson, Evergreen, Underwood, Gorner, Patrick, Tennyson, South Hayward, Huntwood, Manon, Shafer, Gading, Harder, Soto, Jackson, and return to Hayward BART. San Leandro, Castro valley (Line C9) Bay Fair BART, 159 Foothill Blvd., Lake Chabot, Somerset, Redwood, 7 Hills, Central Ave., Hayward BART. Special District Two (Fremont Newark) GM Memo No. 09 -161 Meeting Date: June 24, 2009 Page 11 of 14 Lines to be Discontinued. None Existing Lines to be Changed: Line 210 Union Landing Transit Center to ohlone College Fremont via Dyer, Alvarado, Fremont Blvd, Centerville, Fremont Hub, Irvington, Washington Blvd. Mission San Jose, into ohlone College. Line 333 Demand responsive service from Fremont BART to Union City BART via Decoto Rd., deviated routes with Newark, return to Fremont BART via Stevenson Blvd. New Line Introductions Include: Mowry /Stevenson Circulator (Line SI) Fremont BART, Kaiser Hospital, Fremont main Library, Stevenson, The Globe Shopping Center, Cherry, ohlone Newark Campus, New Park Mall, Mowry return to Fremont BART. Fremont Blvd I Pacific Commons (Line S2) Fremont BART to New Park Mall via Pacific Commons Shopping District Albrae, the Globe Shopping Center, and Fremont Blvd. Niles Central Line (Line S3) Union City BART to ohlone Newark Campus via Niles, Fremont BART, Centerville, Central Ave., New Park Mall and Cedar. Linking communities with Washington High School and Fremont Blvd. Mission /Cedar Line (Line 54) Fremont BART to New Park Mall via Mission Decoto, Paseo Padre, Ardenwood, Lido Faire, and cedar linking California Terrace I Sikh Temple to Union city BART, Newark and Fremont BART. Thornton /Mowry Circulator (Line S6) Fremont BART Thornton, old Newark, Willow, Enterprise way, Newark Sr, Center, Cherry, ohlone college Newark, New Park Mall, Mowry return to Fremont BART. Paseo Padre /Newark Blvd Line (Line S7) Union city BART to New Park Mall via Paseo Padre, Fremont Blvd., American High School, Paseo Padre, Ardenwood, Newark Blvd., Cherry, ohlone college Newark campus, New Park Mall. Grimmer /Warm Springs Line (Line S8) Fremont BART to War m Springs via Grimmer, Mission Blvd., warm Springs Dr. loop via Kato Road, Milmont, and Dixon Landing. This route will support the increased population density with a direct link to Irvington High School and Fremont Main Library. Lido Faire /Thornton Circulator (Line S9_ Union city BART Decoto Road, Lido Faire, Haley, Thornton, Fremont Blvd, Decoto Road, and return Union city BART. This route offers Newark passengers a more direct trip into Union city BART and generators along Fremont Blvd. Osgood /Fremont Industrial (Line S10) Fremont BART to Fremont Industrial Area via School of the Deaf, Osgood, Warm Springs Blvd. Warren into Industrial Area. Transbay Service There were very few routing changes proposed for the Transbay services. Most service changes involve the removal of select trips that were not well patronized. Every effort GM Memo No. 09 -161 Meeting Date: June 24, 2009 Page 12 of 14 was made to make adjustments to frequency and span to prioritize higher -used trips and limit the anticipated load factor to 1.00 per Board policy. Specific changes include: Lines to be Discontinued: Lines S and SA Eliminate the S Line and extend the SA to travel along Hesperian Blvd. and Eden Shores Blvd. Existing Lines to be Charged: Line F This line will be rerouted in a more direct path to provide a direct connection between downtown Berkeley, Emeryville, and San Francisco via Shattuck Ave, Adeline Street, Stanford Avenue, and Powell Street. It will allow both directions of the line to serve the Powell Street business area in Emeryville. Staff has been working with the City of Emeryville to site stop locations on Powell Street, to serve the Powell Street Plaza. Line NL This line will be reduced to a 30 minute frequency with no routing change. Line NX 4E operate along Castro 'Valley Boulevard to the Park Ride at center Street. Eliminate service along Lake Chabot Rd, Seven Hills Rd and Center St. Lines S and SA Eliminate the S Line and extend the SA to travel along Hesperian Blvd and Eden Shores Blvd. Line LA Removal of select trips from Hilltop Green due to complaints. Line M: Hayward BART to oracle via Winton, Hesperian, Hwy 92, chess Dr., Metro Center, Hillsdale Blvd. Hillsdale Caltrain, oracle HQ. The Line M will no longer provide service to the Dumbarton Bridge corridor and consequently the Ardenwood Park and Ride facility. Line o The line will be extended to serve the portion of High Street formally served by Line 63. New Line Introductions Include. None 2009 Draft Service A stm erg is Plan S ecial Considerations Two proposals in the Plan have special circumstances which must be considered during the evaluation process. Line 51 The Line 51 is the subject of a Report (Route 51 Service and Reliability Report) that details its operating and reliability characteristics. There are several recommendations for improving performance of the line that include service design and route management techniques, as well as physical improvements. Specific recommendations that are being considered in connection with the Plan include: 1. Splitting the route —Staff recommends splitting the route at Rockridge BART station into two distinct lines. Below is the estimated number of through passengers based on selected location: Downtown Oakland 1 MacArthur BART 11639 GM Memo No. 09 -101 Meeting Date: .dune 24, 2009 Page 13 of 14 0 Rockridge BART 2 As shown above, splitting the line at Rockridge BART impacts an estimated 2,400 patrons (or 13% of daily riders) per day, forcing these patrons to transfer to complete their trip. This location was chosen because of the unpredictable nature of traffic along the College Avenue corridor. By splitting the line at the beginning of the most impacted traffic segment on the route, the remainder of the line will operate more effectively and efficiently. This will increase service hours slightly, but staff feels it is necessary to ensure reliability on the line. 2. Bus stop Removals The Report also provides estimated time savings on the route by eliminating bus stops that have close spacing. The staff proposal includes the removal of these stops. Attachment 3 contains a list of the additional recommendations as well as the list of proposed bus stop removals. Line NL The proposal for Line NL service involves operating the Transbay line every 30 minutes to the Transbay Terminal, and the restoration of a modified Line 53 from Eastmont Mall to Downtown Oakland, via Lakeshore. There are several implications associated with this proposal: 1. The AC Transit Vision has indicated that the Grand /MacArthur Blvd corridor is the next priority for development of a Rapid /BRT line. 2. The District has received a Federal planning grant to conduct the alternatives analysis for the development of transit along this corridor. It is unknown whether these funds could be shifted to another project, or would be required to be returned. 3. There is an eligibility requirement for participation in the FTA Very small starts grant program that all subject lines have at least 3,000 boardings per day. currently, the NL has 3,450 hoardings per day and meets the criteria. If the staff proposal were implemented, it is likely that the project would not be compliant with this requirement. 4. Physical improvements to the corridor have been completed along Grand Avenue in connection with the Grand /MacArthur project. Staff will continue to research the issue and present alternatives for the future project along Grand /MacArthur. Next steps: Upon approval by the Board to set a public hearing, staff proposes to conduct additional public outreach through focused meetings by Board Member District. During these outreach sessions, specific service proposals will be reviewed with the general public and comments taken. Staff recommends that these workshops be conducted in coordination with each district's boundaries and that they are hosted by the elected Director. Prior Relevant Board Actions /Po icier: GM Memo 09 -097 consider Recommending that a Public Hearing be set for May 27, 2009 Regarding the District's Intention to Declare a Fiscal GM Memo No. 09 -151 Meeting Date: June 24, 2909 Page 14 of 14 Emergency under Public Resources code Section 21080.32 and California Environmental Quality Act Implementing Guidelines Section 15285 GM Memo 09 -030x: Guidelines for Service Adjustments Attachments: 1. 2009 Service Adjustments Data Methodology 2. 2009 Service Adjustments Workbook 3. Recommendations chapter of Line 51 Service and Reliability Report Approved by: Rick Fernandez, General Manager Nancy Skowbo, DGM Service Development Reviewed by: Bill Doffel, Scheduling Manager Prepared by: Cory LaVigne, Service and Operations Planning Manager Date Prepared: June 12, 2009 1 1 t ;,,I L v I fi I T3 C mmmm Qf 1II140 g p T II VIII NIUµ I'4 Y gwf J IIIIIIII d L L O City Council Attachment 4 to Agenda Item #6 -B D9 -01-O9 Mj 11 low w U rl S Cit Council Attachment 5 to A Item #6=13 09*01=09 COUNCIL REFERRAL FORM Name of Councilrnember requesting referral: Lena Tam Date of submission to City Clerk (must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on the Monday before the Council meeting requested): August 19, 2009 Council Meeting date: September 1 2009 Brief description of the subject to be printed on the agenda, sufficient to inform the City Council and public of the nature of the referral: In February 2009, the City Council authorized staff to apply for grant funds from the East Bay Regional Park District under Measure WW. No projects have been submitted for funding yet, but the Recreation and Park Commission discussed a number of potential projects during their December 2008 meeting and identified four high priority projects for the City's $3.4 million. (The list of projects is attached.) Subsequent to the City Council's action, the Alameda Boys Girls Club asked the City to include the building of a new recreation center on the former Woodstock School site to serve the public, with a focus on underprivileged youth, as a priority project for pass through funding under Measure WW. The funds under Measure WW are administered by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), and the Club is requesting an allocation of $2 million. George Phillips, the Executive Director of the Club, secured pre approval of the recreation center from the EBRPD. Council action in designating the recreation center as a priority project allows Alameda to leverage limited dollars during these recessionary times in order to build a shovel -ready project for the community. The Alameda Boys Girls Club is investing over $6 million in this project, and will provide over $30 million in youth and community services over the life of the building. Through its Parks and Recreation Department, the City will leverage the contributions of community partners, including the Alameda Unified School District, Alameda Youth Basketball, Alameda Family Services, Alameda Civic Light opera, Alameda Point Collaborative, East Bay Regional Parks, Alameda County Regional occupation Program, and the Alameda Adult school. This facility will also be able to offer quality recreational and educational opportunities to our community's adult population as well. Seniors may access the gymnasium, computer lab, games room and other features. Adult leagues can run in the evenings and on weekends. Community groups can meet in the various rooms in groups from 3 to 300. This center will be a hub for recreational and educational activity for our entire community and will have the same transformational effect that the new library and the Alameda Theatre complex have had for the City of Alameda. Council Referral #8-A o9 -o1 -o9 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: December 2, 2008 To: Recreation Park Commission From: Dale Lillard, Director Alameda Recreation and Parks RE: Discussion of possible projects for East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Measure WW Funds (Discussion Item). The recent passage of the East Bay Regional Park District's (EBRPD) Proposition WVV will result in the City receiving approximately $8 million to fund park improvements. Listed below are a number of potential projects. This item will be discussed during the meeting of December 11 th. Highest Priority 1. Resurfacing of Washington Park Basketball Courts 2. Renovation of Littlejohn Park Recreation Center 8. Renovation of Woodstock Park Recreation Center Additional Projeets 4. Replacement of Krusi Park Recreation Center 5. Renovation of Godfrey Park Play Area 6. Resurface Washington Park Tennis Courts 7. Renovation of Field Lighting (Washington, Woodstock Leydecker) 8. AP Gym Renovations 9. Improvements to DeWitt o' Club 10. Renovation of Field in Coast Guard Dousing 11. Acquisition of Collins Property (Estuary Park) Dale Lillard, Director Alameda Recreation Parks $100 $250,000 $500,000 $750,000 $100 $350,000 $1 $750,000 $500,000 $750,000 $3 -5 million City Council Attachment to Report Re: Agenda helm #6 -113 02 -03 -09 Alameda Boys &Girls Club West Alameda Teen Club To: Beverly Johnson, Mayor Doug deHaan, vice -Mayor Marie Gilmore, Councilmember Frank Mataresse, Councilmember Lena Tangy, Councilmember Anne Marie Gallant, City Manager Re: Alameda Boys Girls Club Youth Development Center Project On behalf of the thousands of youth we have served and will serve we would like to thank you for reviewing the Measure WW funding, The Boys &+Girls Club requests that you invest $2 million from the wily fund to allow us to complete the construction of our Youth Development Facility in a timely manner. We have enclosed financial information and highlights for your review and consideration. In the current economic climate, finding collaborations that allow any city and its citizens to leverage their dollars is extremely important. Current fundraising is over $6 million in this project, but the completed project will provide well over $30 million in youth and community services over the life of the building. This figure does not include the services that will be provided by our many other partners, including the Alameda Unified School District, Alameda Youth Basketball, Alameda Family Services, Alameda Civic Light opera, Alameda Point Collaborative, Bast Bay Regional Parks, Alameda County Regional occupation Program, Alameda Adult School, Cal State University Bast Bay, Peralta Community Colleges, and the City of Alameda itself through the Recreation and Park Department. The planned facility will serve thousands of children and adults each year through not only Boys Girls Club programs, but through the services of all our partners and potential partners. This project will serve generations of Alamedans just as the Boys Girls Club has done since 1949. In exploring the value of this facility to the City of Alameda, the first thing that comes to mind is the children from all over our community who will come to participate in the after school, Saturday, holidays, and vacation programs that the Club will provide; the children from the surrounding schools who will use the building each school day for recreational and educational programs; the Recreation and Parks programs (Tiny Tots, short Shooters Basketball, Indoor Soccer, etc.) that will have a new state -of -the art facility for their use; the youth in the ACLO Performance Arts Summer Camp; and the children who participate in Alameda Youth Basketball every year. This facility will also be able to offer quality the highest quality recreational and educational opportunities to our community's adult population. seniors programs may include health and safety clinics, the gymnasium, computer lab, games room and other features. Adult basketball leagues can possibly run in the evenings and on weekends. Community groups can meet in the various rooms in Alameda Boys &Girls Club West Alameda Teen Club groups from 3 to 300. Service Clubs like Rotary and Kiwanis, schools and other non profits can hold events and fundraisers. This center will be a hub for recreational and educational activity for our entire community ,providing a centerpiece in the vilest End to compliment the new library and the Alameda Theatre complex recently opened on the East End. There are many compelling reasons for the Club and the City to move quickly to begin this project: Starting construction now, before the rainy season can cause delays in the ground preparation, will hopefully allow this building to be opened in time for the opening of the 2010 school term rather than having to wait until 2011. The need for services for our youth are critical right now and the sooner we can expand services, the sooner the benefits to our community will begin. It is expected that construction costs may begin to rise as early as this winter or next spring, so delay may mean a more expensive project. The Club has $3 million in committed grants that expire at the end of 2009 and extensions are never a certainty. The attached information not only demonstrates will power to serve the community, but also our financial capacity to complete construction with the help of WW funds. The attached pro forma shows sustainability of the operation to make sure that the Club remains a vital, contributing member of the community's service network in the future. We request that the Council take action at its September I st meeting to include and prioritize a $2 million appropriation from Measure WW funds for the purposes of building the Alameda Boys Girls Club's proposed Youth Development Center. The City, along with the Boys Girls Club and the Alameda Unified School District and committed citizens can make this effort a reality and provide for the health of our community for years to come. Respectfully Submitted 0 George Phillips, Executive Director Alameda Boys &Girls Club Construction Feasibility Cost of Construction* $8,198,867 Cash on Hand* $1,484,575 Contracted Grants $3,275,000 Pledges 562,017 Subtotal Available X5,321,592 Measure WW bequest $2 Total $7,321,592 Pending Kresge Grant 750 Public Campaign 600000 Grand Total Funds Available $89671 These figures do not include the Club's endowment, which we intend to preserve and use for any shortfalls in our building project and to supplement operating income to insure the sustainability of our program after the facility is opened. Line Item. Budget Attached Does not include Club endowment of $2,848,294 Alameda Bo &Girls Club Sustainabilit Pro The Bo &Girls Club understands its responsibilit to have lon ran plannin in order to undertake this pro and ensure the continued abilit to sustain the operation and pro it will provide. Attached is a projected operatin bud and revenue stream that is based on the s foota and expected client population of the Club. The expenses are calculated on the hi side and do not include the potential cost savin that will occur b sharin the facilit and offerin pro with our communit partners. As an example, California State Universit East Ba will provide service-learnin interns that will provide pro supervision and reduce our staff costs. Alameda Youth Basketball volunteers will conduct clinics and supervise g ames, a reducin our personnel costs. The revenue side is also conservative. Over the 60 y ears that the Club has served the communit we have consistentl met all our financial responsibilities. In addition, the buildin campai has allowed the Bo &Girls Club to broaden our donor base and provide a number of philanthropic foundations and corporations that will continue their support of our pro after the facilit is opened. The Club's Board of Directors are ver confident that the necessar resources to sustain our operations in the future will be available for the new Youth Development Center. 8/19/2009 New Facility Alameda Boys Girls Club Projected Expenses Expenses: Amount Revenue: Amount Salaries 425,000 Special Events* 170,000 Benefits 85 Endowment 50,000 Workers' Comp 20 Annual Sponsors 100,000 Training 7,000 Contributions 125 Total personnel 537,000 CDBG /HA Grants 50,000 Grants 60 Bid Ins. 7 Legacies Memorials 10 Property 1 Program Fees 30 Liability 15 Public Use Fees 5,000 Auto 2,000 D &O 3 TOTAL REVENUE 7003000 Total Insurance 28,500 Accounting /Audit 8,500 'net of expenses Repair Maintenance 7,000 Custodial Supplies 2 Office Supplies 5 Printing Mailing 9 Payroll 1 ,500 Dues Subs. 5 Adv. Public Rel. 8 Utilities 16,000 Misc. 4 Telephone 6 Total Operations 73,700 Program Supplies 30,000 Camp Field Trips 10,000 Auto 10 Total Program 80 TOTAL EXPENSES 089,200 From: Jeff Ras mussen [JRasmussen ebparlcs.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:22 PSI To: George Phillip Cc: Dave Collins Subject: RE: Measure WW Application George, I have reviewed the Boys and Girls Club project and I believe it is eligible under the WW Local Grant Program. If the project application meets the programs guidelines including, but not limited to CEQA, Land Tenure, Budget, operations and Maintenance then I would recommend the application for approval. I think a Joint Use Agreement would be fine. I don't think the City needs to be on the school district lease. Be certain the Joint use Agreement meets the requirements of Section V of the guide lines. Please send an early draft of the agreement to me for feedback to insure that we are on the right track. Also please send nee a copy of the school district lease. As an additional step to insure everything progress properly please send me a copy of all the construction contract documentation you have per page 8 of the guidelines. I realize you don't have everything yet, but I would like to see ghat you have so far. Jeff Rasmussen Grants Manager I Grants Department East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, CA 94605 Tel: 510- 544 -22.04 I Fax: 5 10-5 69 -1417 Rasmussen c e6par ks.org I www. STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY I This electronic message and any files or attachments transmitted with it may be confidential, privileged, or F Regional Park District. The information is solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it was intended to be addressed. If the reader of this messa� hereby notified that use, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e -mail in error, please notify the sender immediatel; your system. j Please consider the environment before you print (612 /2UUU) Lara vveisiger l-wo: Measure VVVV Local Grant Program Page 1 From: Christina Baines To. Ann Marie Gallant; Lara weisiger Date: 8/27/2009 8:20 AM Subject: Fwd: Measure ww Local Grant Program fyi Marilyn Schumacher marilynschu_gmail _cor 8/27/2009 1:35 AM Dear Honorable City Council Members, It's over. Most of us know it is. And the rest will soon find out. The city can no longer provide the services we have come to expect. Among those services are those offered for decades by the Alameda Recreation and Park Department and our public schools. Revenues no longer support immensely valuable youth programs in the manner we feel we are entitled to. our citizens have spoken loud and clear that maintaining those services is a priority. It's time to open our eyes to other ways our expectations can be met and maybe even be exceeded. Partnering with excellent organizations that can and will fill those gaps is no longer a luxury. It's the way city services must be delivered. And we need only look in our back yard. There is an opportunity before you at your September 1 meeting. You are in a position to allocate funds for our own 'shovel ready' project, the building of a new Alameda Boys and Girls Club facility on OUR west end, yes, OUR west end. You all know the project. 77% of the funds are in place and the City is eligible for Measure ww funds via the WW Local Grant Program. I urge you to allocate 2 million dollars of the funds dedicated to the city via Measure WW. The side benefits to the city are many and have been presented to you over the past years. They are quantifiable: educational opportunities are increased; police services are decreased because better citizens are developed; partnerships with other organizations expand the usefulness of this project by reaching deeper into the community. But the primary benefits go directly to the kids and their families in ways we may not know of for many years. The Youth Development Facility will allow kids to discover interests and talents many of them have NEVER been exposed to and develop them in a clean, safe, secure, and encouraging environment. They are taught respect for others and property. There is guidance when it lacks at horse. There is the chance to find dignity and personal worth by learning the value and rewards of a strong work ethic. Mentoring is learned and shared. This project is ready to go NOW. Please vote to allocate two million dollars to the Alameda Boys and Girls Club Youth Development on Monday, September 1st. Maybe it's not really over, once the Alameda Boys and Girls Club Youth Development: Center becomes a reality, with your help Thanks for your kind consideration. Marilyn Schumacher Broker Associate, Harbor Bay Realty 510.814.4709 The Second Story (Slog) http://ma Marilyn's Alameda Website (htt are4s.com "Results exceeding the challenges" DRE# 904530 Re: Council Referral #8 -A 99 -01 -09 CURRENT APPLICATIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TWO VACANCIES (Community -at -large and Marine /Waterfront seats; full terms expiring 8/31/13) John M. Armstrong Community -a -large seat Kim C. Brickman Community -a -large seat James A. Edison Community -a -large seat Robert McKean Community -a -large seat David A. Mitchell Community -a- large seat Shalabh Moonat Community -a -large seat Bruce C. Reeves Community -a -large seat Sim B. Richards Marine /Waterfront seat Re: Agenda Item #9 -A 09-01-09 CURRENT APPLICATIONS HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD ONE VACANCY (Full term expiring 6/30/13) John Armstrong Jennifer Bowles Matthew D. Hoffman Re: A Item #9-A 09-01-09