Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2009-09-15 Packet
AGENDA Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda City Hall Council Clamber, Room 391 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS ONLY Tuesday, September 16, 2009 Meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER: 3-A. CONFERENCE WITH REA.LPROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54966.8 Property: Alameda Point Negotiating parties: ARRA and SunCal Under negotiation: Price and Terms Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any 4. ADJOURNMENT Motes Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 747 -4800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request. ii zn Z fry T�1 CITY OF ALAMEDA e CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item 2. Lengthy testimony should be ,submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council. meetings .AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 15, 2 7:3 P M [Note Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall., Council Chambers, Corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St] The order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. City Manager Communications 6. Agenda Items 7. Oral Communications, Non Agenda (Public Comment) 8. Council Referrals 9. Communications (Communications from Council) 10. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council SPECIAL, MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND 6: P M REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 7:31 P.M. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND 7 :32 P.M. REDEVELO AUTHORITY, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3-A. Presentation on the Fiscal year 2008 -2009 Fagade Assistance Program. (Economic Development) 3-B. Presentation by East Bay Regional Parr District on Measure WW. City Manager) 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public 4 -A. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on September 1, 2009. City Clerk) 4-B. Bills for Ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2009. (Finance) 4 -D. Recommendation to Accept the Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center/East Housing Residential Phase II Infrastructure Improvements for Interim Emergency and Vehicle Access to the Storm Mater Treatment Pump Station and for the Storm Drain out f all Project and Authorize the City Clerk to Record Notices of Completion for the Improvements. Economic Development) 4 -E. Recommendation to Adopt Specifications and Provisions for Tow Contract for Vehicles Identified as Abandoned by the Police Department. (Police Department) 4 -F. Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for Bids After Receipt of the State Water Resources Control Board Approval Letter for the Installation of Mechanical Trash Racks at Stormwater Pump Stations, No. P.W. 08-09-23. Public Works) 4 -G. Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for Bids After Receipt of the State Water Resources Control Board Approval. Letter for the Rehabilitation of the Structural Stability of Approximately 3,000 Linear Feet of the Southshore Lagoon Seawalls Adjacent to City Streets, No. P.W. 08- 09 -24. (Public Works) 4-H. Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $221,136, to J. J. R Construction, Inc. for Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal Year 2009 -2010, Phase 10, No. P.W. 06-09-15. Public Works) 4 -I. Recommendation to Accept the Work of Golden Bay Construction, Inc. for Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal Year 2008 2009, Phase 9, No. P.I. 05- 08 -13. (Public Works) 4 -J. Recommendation to Adopt a Revised Proposition 1B Local Streets and Roads Funding Proposal for Fiscal Year 2008 -2009 to the State Department of Finance, and Appropriate $425,000 in Proposition 1B and $54,000 in Sewer Funds for Additional Work Under the Pavement Management Program, Phase 29, and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents. Public Works) 4 -K. Introduction of ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal code by Adding Section 59 at Article IV to Chapter II Pertaining to Contracts in Writing. (City Attorney) 4 -L. Final Passage of 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 Planning Development District Zoning Designation. (Community Development) S. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from City Manager) 5 -A. Telephone Contract Update 5 -B. Council Referral Policy 5 -C. Boys Girls Club Request for Funding 6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 6 -A. Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Robert McKean and Bruce C. Reeves as Members of the Economic Development Commission and Appointing Matthew D. Hoffman as a Member of the Historic Advisory Board. 6-B. Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 30--5.14 (Barriers and Fences) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter xxx (Development Regulations) by Adding Subsection 30 -5.14 (e) to Require Administrative Use Permits in Non- Residential Districts for Temporary or Permanent Barriers or Fences Within a Required Setback or Along a Property Line that Faces a Public Street or a Public Access Easement. Applicant: City of Alameda. (Community Development) 6-C. Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of ordinances Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. to Rezone Approximately: 4.7 Acres Located at 1 Singleton Avenue, APN 074-0905- 010 --01, from M -2- PD, General Industrial (Manufacturing) Planned Development District, to R -4 -PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District Zoning Designation; 5 Acres Located at 2189 and 2201 Clement Avenue, APNs 071 -0289- 007 -03 and 074 0289-004 -00, from M -2, General Development Residence District, to R -2 -PD, Two- Family Planned Development District Zoning Designation; 4.14 Acres Located at 20/5/2025 Grand Street, APN 072- 4381 002 -00 and 072 0381- 001 -00, from M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R-4 -PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District; 2.78 Acres Located at 2100 Clement Avenue/1924 Willow Street, APN 071 -0228- 001 -02 from M -1, Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R-2 -PD, Two Family Residence Planned Development District Zoning Regulation; 1.9 Acres Located at 1913 Sherman Street, APN 074 0905 031-08, from M -1 -PD, Intermediate Industrial.. (Manufacturing) Planned Development District to R -2 -PD, Two Family Residence Planned Development District Zoning Designation; 2.1 Acres 1590/1616 Fortmann Way APN 072 -0381- 018-00, from 'M -2, General Industrial. (Manufacturing) District to R-4 --PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District Zoning Designation to Bring Zoning Designations for Six Properties into Conformance with -the General Plan and Housing Element. Applicant: City of Alameda. (Community Development) 6 -D. Recommendation to Accept the Report of the Economic Development Commission's Business Retention Subcommittee. Economic Development) 6 -E. Recommendation to Accept the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study. (Public Works) 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda 8. COUNCIL REFERRALS Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted upon or scheduled as a future agenda item 9 COUNCIL COMMUN I CAT I ON s Communzcat ions from Council) Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended 9-A. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Housing Commission. 10. ADJOURNMENT City Council Materials related to an item on the agenda are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office, city Half., Room 380, during normal business hours Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -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 Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting C ITY OF L AMEDA CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 74:31 P.M. Location: City Council Chambers, Cit Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street Public Participation An wishin to address the Council/Commission on a items or bus -Lness introduced b the Council/Commission ma speak for a max-mum of 3 minutes per a item when the subject is before the Council/Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deput Cit Clerk if y ou wish to speak. 1. ROLL CALL Cit Council, CIC 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2-A. Minutes of the Special Joint Cit Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authorit and CIC Meetin and the Special CIC Meetin held on September 1. 2009. [Cit Council, CIC] (Cit Clerk) 2-B. Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $171, 414 to Moreno Trenchin Ltd, for Park Stre and Buena Vista Avenue Utilit Under [CIC (Economic Development AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Public Hearin to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amendin Municipal Code b Addin Subsection 30-17 (Densit Bonus Re to Article I (Zonin Districts and Re of Chapter XXX (Development Re to Allow Densit Bonus Units and Incentives or Concessions to Developers that Voluntaril Provide for Affordable Housin Units as an Element of Their Residential Development Pro [City Council]; and Adoption of Resolution Amendin Resolution No. 04-127 to Reduce the Inclusionar Unit Re Polic for Residential Developments in the Business and Waterfront and West End Communit Improvement Project Areas from at Least 2S% to at Least 1S%. CIC (Communit Development 4. ADJOURNMENT '--.'it Council CIC Chair, AGENDA Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda City Hall Council Chamber, Room 390 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Tuesday, September 15, 2009 Fleeting will begin at 7:32 p.m. 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 Board or a member of the public. 0■� 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Approve Comment Letter on Draft Final Record of Decision for Alameda Point Installation Restoration Site 1 (1943 -1966 Disposal Area). 4. ORAL REPORTS None. 5. ORAL. COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.) 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. Notes a Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 747 -4800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. N Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. 9 Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request. 522--0126 MOM, M Ma M� r�Yi Re: Acrenda Item 0 Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council. i. s. -fi a -ff parcel holders in the Cit c ere l y (W Re: Agenda Item #343 09-15-09 Local Grant Pro Guidelines for Eli Eli Applicants Cities are eli the Cit of Alameda is eli Eli Pro must be consistent with General Plan The Alameda Beltline Open Space Project is consistent with the Park and recreation element and is a park that is contemplated in our General Plan in Section 6,1 Eli parties must have fee title to the land or a lease for at least 25 y ears. The Alameda Belt y ard will soon be eli The 20 acre parcel of land will be held in fee once the Cit of Alameda tenders a check for $996,000 to the Union Paciffic Railroad. The cit of Alameda has set aside a sum to cover the purchase price. Eli projects have to be for recreational use. The development will include construction of a visitor's center and renovation and reuse of former Railroad offices. There will be trails. a service road,, vernal ponds, picnic areas, a hill composed of an toxic material that ma need to be disposed of), a faux river that will contain water in the sprin a water feature for the children, mountain bike trails, a children's pla we will plant native g rasses and provide habitat for vernal fro toads, lizards, newts, birds, rabbits, and other small creatures. Eli must be free to ever The Beltline Rail Yard Park will be open and accessible to ever at all times. Eli projects must be completed within 18 y ears. The Beltline Rail Yard Park can be completed within that time. With Measure WW mone the citizens of Alameda are expected to make a g reat volunteer effort to make this a g reat park in Alameda for passive use. Eli Projects must make provision for up keep. The Beltline Rail Yard Park will be a publie park Within the Recreation and Parks Department of the Cit of Alameda. 011" Jean Sweene _n.� �r 212 Santa Clara Ave Alameda CA UNAPPROVED MINU'T'ES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- SEP'T'EMBER 1, 2009- --7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:48 p.m. Roll Call Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matacrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 09- Proclamation Declaring September 19, 2009, as Coastal Cleanup Day. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Sharol Nelson Embry, Supervising Naturalist with the East Bay Regional Park District Crab Cove visitor Center. Ms. Nelson-Embry thanked Council for the proclamation. CONSENT T CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Quarterly Treasury Report [paragraph no. 09- and the Public Hearing [paragraph no. 09- were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.. Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion., which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] *09- 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. Approved. *09- Ratified bills in the amount of $1 0,529,125. 06. 09- Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Treasury Report for Period Ending June 30, 2009. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council Z September 1, 2009 Councilmember Gilmore inquired how the City made $4.8 million in interest when $1.8 million was budgeted. The Interim Finance Director responded interest was not included in the budget for most of the funds last year. Mayor Johnson inquired how interest has been allocated. The Interim Finance Director responded interest has been allocated based on account balances; stated last year's budget should have included interest income as part of the revenue source. Councilmember Tam stated that she is happy that the report notes idle cash has been invested for various assessment districts and bond funds. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. *09- Resolution No. 14375 "Approving the Amended and Restated Third Phase Agreement with NCPA and Exercising Alameda's withdrawal. Rights to Terminate Alameda's Participation in the Western Geopower Incorporated Geothermal Energy Project." Adopted. *09-- Resolution No.14376 "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." Adopted. *09- Resolution No. 14377 "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." Adopted. 09- Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance "Amending ordinance No. 1277, N.S. to Rezone Approximately 2 3 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 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 September 1, 2009 Designation." Introduced; and 09-- A Resolution No. 14378 "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." Adopted. The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired why so much time lapsed between. the Planning Board's review and now. The Planning Services Manager responded the Applicant was working on the maps and some site improvements Mayor Johnson stated two years is too long between the Planning Board's recommendation and the matter corning to the City Council. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. Opponents (Not in favor of staff recommendation) Jacqueline Riley, Alameda; and Anne Taylor, Alameda. Proponent In favor of staff recommendation) John Medulan, Property owner. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Following Ms. Riley's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Riley is opposed to the project or hours of construction. Ms.. Riley responded that she is opposed to the project; stated construction hours should be limited if the project is approved. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Riley received a notice of tonight's public hearing, to which Ms. Riley responded in the negative. Councilnember Gilmore inquired what existed on the lot in the neighborhood that now contains a large home] when Ms. Riley moved in two years ago, to which Ms. Riley responded nothing. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the current houses [under consideration] are mansions, to which the property owner responded in the negative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 September 1. 2009 Vice Mayor deHaan stated the properties [on Briggs Avenue] are unique, have very deep lots, and usually have two houses with one in the back. Councilmember Gilmore stated there seems to be some property confusion; the pictures do not show any construction or a large house; the neighbors have an issue with a different property. Mayor Johnson stated the neighbors are concerned with what type of development could be done after the proposed subdivision; the lag in time should not have occurred. The Planning Services Manager stated that he concurs with Mayor Johnson; the property owner was trying to meet Planning Bcard requirements. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a full public process would be required to do an add on or exterior renovations, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether building an additional structure in the backyard `mould be more difficult it the property is subdivided. The Planning Services Manager responded without subdividing, there would be one less property line to deal with and one less parking space required. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there could be greater density in the back. part of the lots [if not subdivided] to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the same number of units would be allowed with or without the subdivision, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired why the project was not sent back to the Planning Board, to which the Planning Services Manager responded the application seemed to be straight forward. Councilmember Matarrese stated the Planning Board needs to take another look at the project. Councilmember Gilmore stated the underlying issue seems to be straight forward; there is a potential for four units regardless of approving or disapproving the subdivision; the mass of the units that could be built on the site is much greater without a subdivision; the owner fulfilled the Planning Board's requirements. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 September 1. 2009 Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Gilmore suggested that the speakers contact staff about the other referenced property. Mayor Johnson stated the neighbors should have concrete, real answers regarding what can be built; sending the project back to the Planning Board would be best. Councilmember Matarrese stated placing the public hearing on the Consent Calendar is inconsistent with past practices. Councilmember Gilmore stated a public hearing occurred two years ago; the Planning Board gave the property owner a list of conditions that needed to be fulfilled in order for the project to come to Council; the property owner would be penalized Cif the matter went back to the Planning Board] for doing what was expected; that she has sympathy for the property owner because time is money. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the ordinance is being introduced tonight and final passage would be agendized for the next meeting. The Planning Services Manager responded the ordinance would come back to Council for final passage at the next meeting; however, the subdivision issue would. not. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was anything onerous about what the Planning Board required in 2007. The Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Board wanted utilities separated and a portion of the garage removed so that the garage would not cross the property line. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether utilities have been split, to which the Planning services Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Tam stated the neighbors' concerns would be addressed with the Planning Board's seven findings with respect to the subdivision. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ages: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore and Tam 3. Noes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Johnson 2. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 September 1, 2009 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 09- Resolution No. 14379 "Reappointing Hannah Bowman as a Member of the Youth Advisory Commission." Adopted; 09- A Resolution No. 14380 "Reappointing Jordan Flores as a Member of the Youth Advisory Commission." Adopted; 09- B Resolution No. 14381 "Reappointing Anjuli Sastry as a Member of the Youth Advisory Commission." Adopted; 09- C Resolution No. 14382 "Reappointing Bhaani Singh as a Member of the Youth Advisory Commission." Adopted; 09- D Resolution No. 14383 "Reappointing Angela Sterling Vick as a Member of the Youth Advisory Commission." Adopted; and 09- E Resolution Appointing Valerian Zee as a Member of the Youth Advisory Commission. Not adopted. The City Clerk announced that the resolution appointing Valerian Lee was withdrawn from the agenda. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the remaining resolutions. Councilnlember Tarn seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. The City Clerk administered the oath of Office and presented certificates of appointment to Ms. Bowman, Ms. Sastry and Ms. Singh. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS 09- Fire Department Response Standards The Interim City Manager gave a brief introduction. The Fire Chief gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmenber Tam stated Ruby Bridges Elementary School has experienced many false alarms in the past; inquired how the Fire Department responds to school alarms. The Fire Chief responded school alarms are treated the same as commercial buildings; stated one engine and one truck would be dispatched; a full response is sent for hospital fire alarms. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the National Fire Protection Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 September 1, 2009 Association (NFPA) minimum personnel requirements are the same as the occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the OSHA requirement is the two in and two out rule. Mayor Johnson inquired. whether NFPA standards are guidelines, not requirements, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. The Fire Chief continued the presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Fire Department meets the one minute turn -out standard, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the Fire Department's turn -out time, to which the Fire chief responded two to two and a half minutes. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Emergency Medical Services (EMS) turn --out tine is faster. The Fire Chief responded EMS turn -out time is slightly longer; stated staff is reviewing ways to improve the time. The Fire Chief continued the presentation. Councilmerrber Tam stated a ten minute ambulance response time would result in a patient being declared brain dead. The Fire Chief stated the County is revising the standard; the matter is a cost issue. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated fire and EMS turn --out times are both within two or two and a half minutes; the County does not separate out turn -out time standards. The Fire Chief continued the presentation. In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated a cardiac arrest is a life threatening Code Three; a non- threatening Code Three would be someone who is experiencing chest pains; a Code Two would be a non serious trauma, such as a broken bone, flu symptoms, dizziness, or maternity complications. Mayor Johnson inquired who develops the protocols, to which the Fire Chief responded the codes are world -wide. The Fire Chief concluded the presentation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 September 1, 2009 Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Fire Department has any standards other than NFPA standards. The Fire Chief responded the Fire Department does not have any policy standards. Councilmember Tam stated the City's budget documents are considered policy. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is the incremental benefit of sending sixteen firefighters as opposed to fourteen; further .inquired whether responses to multiple incidents at the same time would be better if fourteen f i re f i ght e rs are sent. The Fire Chief responded. the Fire Department can handle one medical call and one fire call at the same time with the current response standard; responding to two medical calls and one fire call at the same time would leave the department short one engine; the Incident Commander would assess the situation and determine whether or not mutual aid is needed. Councilmember Matarrese stated some of the fire facilities are old; firefighters live in the house next door to Station 3; replacing Station 3 would be in the millions of dollars as would be additional staff. The Fire Chief stated modern fire stations are designed to minimize the distance between where firefighters are in the building and the apparatus. Councilmember Matarrese stated standards have progressed with design; suggested that the matter be reviewed. The Fire Chief stated that firefighters a.re wearing more gear, which adds to the turn -out time. REGULAR. AGENDA ITEMS 09- Discussion of 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. The Transportation Coordinator gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated transportation to BART is critical; the Transbay service is being left in tact. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 September 1. 2009 Councilmember Matarrese stated the most feedback has been received regarding the Line 63 service; urged people to attend the community workshop on September 12. Councilmember Gilmore stated. AC Transit has been very thoughtful regarding the proposed changes; that she has concerns with service at En.cinal High School; ridership numbers need to be carefully reviewed before cutting service. Vice Mayor deHaan stated reductions have been made every two years; bus service will be Alameda Point's transportation backbone; demographics and density have changed; the Summerhouse area is extremely dense. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the reason for the proposed discontinuation of Line 50 is because ridership is low due to the Harbor Bay Business Park's contract with a private transit contractor for service to the airport. Cory Lavigne, AC Transit Service and Operations Planning Manager, responded in the affirmative; stated competing with a free, reliable service is impossible. Mayor Johnson inquired whether AC Transit has an overall policy regarding transporting passengers long distance versus BART. Mr. Lavigne responded Ac Transit has different policies to address various concerns; stated the primary issue is reviewing service that does the least amount of harm to the most people; the East End's connection to the Fruitvale BART station will be reviewed. Speakers: Debra Arbuckle, Alameda; Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; and Kathy Moehring, west Alameda Business Association (WABA) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he takes Line 19 from Farina Village; that he is the last passenger when he gets off in Emeryville. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA 09-- Michael John Torrey, Alameda, thanked the City for implementing the Code Red system. COUNCIL REFERRALS 09- Consideration of Allocating $2 Million of Measure ww Funds for the construction of a New Boys and Girls club Recreation Center Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 September 1. 2009 on the Former Woodstock School Site. The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Tam provided brief comments. Proponents George Phillips, Alameda Boys Girls Club; Sally Rudloff, Alameda Boys Girls Club; Joyce Guy; Mike McMahon, Alameda Unified School District; Jon Thurston, Alameda Boys Girls Club; Gig Codiga, Boys Girls Club; Randy Marmor, Alameda Youth Basketball, Inc.; Burney Matthews, Alameda Boys Girls Club; Barry Parker, Alameda Boys Girls Club; Kathy Moehring, WABA; Irene Kurarhusk.as, Alameda Family Services; Reverend Roger Bauer, Alameda; Mario Mariani, Alameda; Nancy O'Malley, Alameda; and Don Sherratt, Alameda Boys Girls Club. Opponents Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Joseph Woodard., Alameda; Pat Colburn, Alameda; Red wetherill, Alameda; Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Debra Arbuckle, Alameda; Richard Bangert, Alameda; and Lily Leung, Alameda. Councilmember Tam stated Measure ww has a provision which allows for recreation facilities close to residents; that she thinks the Woodstock Park Recreation Center renovation could be easily integrated into the Boys and Girls Club recreational improvement effort; sufficient funds could be left over for priority projects because of distressed economic times. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Council Referral process is to allow Council to hear the request and provide direction, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired how late the Boys and Girls Club is open. Mr. Phillips responded weekdays until 7:00 p.m.; Friday's until 8 :00 p.m.; all day Saturday; every day during summer and spring and holiday breaks; the building is available for others to use on Sundays. Councilmember Gilmore stated the State approval process would need to be completed in order to have the building approved since the building would be on school district property; the State building codes change as of January 1; inquired whether a new approval process would be necessary if a shovel is not put into the ground by January 1. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 September 1. 2009 Mr. Phillips responded the Boys and Girls Club has a Joint Use Agreement with the School District; the Alameda Unified School District uses the facility during the day; the City, Boys and Girls Club, and School District would jointly govern and operate the facility; a general contractor has been selected with compliance of prevailing wage laws; a new approval process would be necessary if construction does not start by January l; $3 million in grant funding will expire in January. Vice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda Point is the key area earmarked to receive $6.5 million; parks and recreation has $3.5 in discretionary funds; knowing what can and cannot be done is necessary; the question is whether to go forward and have staff work on the matter. Councilmember Tam stated the Council Referral would be to direct staff to apply for the $2 million grant and enter into a Joint Use Agreement; that she would be happy to ensure that language includes the appropriate amount of staff work. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Tam's direction can be done under the referral process. The Senior Assistant Attorney II stated the agenda description is fine from the Brown Act standpoint; action has been taken in the past under council Referral. Councilmember Matarrese stated the intent of Council Referrals] is to prevent Coun.cilmembers as individuals, from loading the city Manager and staff with tasks that are not the will of the council; that he does not feel comfortable allocating $2 million tonight without having questions answered; council needs to know whether the $2 million would finish the project and whether the City would get public equity to meet the public investment; that he wants to know whether there is anything in the national Boys and Girls club organization that would result in the city getting less than $2 million worth of equity; the city would put up cash, not the School District; that he wants to know more about whether the project would meet the requirement of investing public money in a public use facility. Councilmember Gilmore inquired how quickly staff could get back with answers; stated time is of the essence. The Interim city Manager responded numbers could be provided; stated a determination cannot be made on behalf of the Park District; executing final documents would take quite a while. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 2009 Councilmember Gilmore stated the first step should be to receive a better document from the Parr District regarding eligibility; that she is concerned with the time frame. The Interim City Manager stated the application would be a reimbursement, not a grant; questioned who would float the money in the interim. Councilmember Tam stated the Boys and Girls Club has funds to front the project if the City enters into an agreement; the Boys and Girls Club would be reimbursed through the City's pass through. The Interim City Manager stated an oral report could be provided at the September 15 Council Meeting; the financial analysis could be provided later. Mayor Johnson stated costs should be reviewed; estimates may be on the high side. Councilmember Matarrese stated. the Boys and Girls Club programs provide things that the City cannot do or does not provide enough of; everything comes down to dollars and cents; the biggest concern is whether public use requirements are met, that the public use is memorialized, and whether the project can be completed with the contribution. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City has provided $450,000 in redevelopment funds. Mr. Phillips stated $265,000 was provided. Vice Mayor deHaan stated $250,000 was provided for the architectural portion two years ago; another $200,000 was committed; that he would like to receive a clarification of the ref erral process. 09- Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to answer the technical questions outlined as well as other concerns and provide an oral report at the next Council Meeting. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 September 1, 2009 Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS 09- Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Economic Development Commission and Historical Advisory Board. Mayor Johnson nominated. Robert McKean and Bruce C. Reeves for appointment to the Economic Development Commission and Matthew D. Hoffman for appointment to the Historical Advisory Board. 09- Vice Mayor deHaan stated the three soccer fields at Estuary Park are unusable because of the lack of watering; requested that the mater be reviewed. The Park. and Recreation Director stated that he would review the matter. 09-- Councilmember Tam provided a report on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) emergency training she attended; stated the best part of the training was the interaction with City staff; policy changes need to be made on response times; labor contracts need provisions that reflect the need to deal with disasters. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the nature of the provisions was discussed. Councilmember Tam responded the Public works Director in Oakland said that his staff can only do certain things; stated multi tasking is necessary in a disaster. The Police Chief stated the Police Department will be having meetings with the Interim City Manager and Fire Department regarding lessons learned from Oakland as well as other communities; an exercise is planned for the winter. Mayor Johnson stated the School District should be included in the exercise. The Interim. City Manager inquired whether Councilmember Tam was referring to amending vendor contracts or contracts with other agencies, to which Councilmember Tam responded both. The Interim City Manager stated Alameda is an island; supplies need to be on hand; the City should be prepared to function longer than Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 3 September 1, 2009 ninety --six hours; the city needs to be diligent. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the regular meeting at 12:09 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara weisiger City clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 September 1, 2009 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Glenda D Jay Interim Finance Director Date: September 10, 2009 Re: List of warrants for Ratification This is to certify that the claims listed on the attached check register and shown below have been approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. Check Numbers Amount 222445 222779 $2,195, 858.13 V1 9308 V1 9457 $105, 243.33 EFT 719 $11 3953.50 EFT 720 $21,195.86 EFT 721 $255,836-29 EFT 722 $1 1,953.50 EFT 723 $71 ,055.24 EFT 724 64 $73,856.25 EFT 725 $11083,969,14 EFT 726 $238,151.91 EFT 727 $9,769..00 EFT 728 $18,806.57 EFT 729 $2,927,053..75 EFT 730 $2 12-50 EFT 731 $50,000.00 EFT 732 $50,000.00 EFT 733 $147438.97 EFT 734 $5,615.15 EFT 735 $50)000.00 Void Checks: 222422 ($1 222312 ($238.44) 222201 ($514.33) 222006 ($300.00) 222666 ($2,046.00) GRAND TOTAL $9,772,654.72 Respectfully submitted, Iriteri an Director Council Warrants 09/15/09 BILLS #4 -B 911512009 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Cit Mana Date: September 15, 2009 Re: Accept the Quarterl Sales Tax Report for the Period Endin March 31, 2009 OWJAAGI F IB-] 00% This report summarizes the sales tax transactions for. the period Januar 1 throu March 31, 2009, which is the basis for sales tax revenues re b the Cit betw April 1, and June 30, 2009. For pu .of this report, sales tax revenu exclude Proposition 172 funds, the allocation from the statewide pool for public safet services. DISCUSSION Sales tax continue to be the fourth lar source of General Fund revenue for the Cit of Alameda, representin 7.5% of total. projected revenues for FY09M10. Proposition 172 revenu projected .as $0..5 million, when combined with local sales, increases the percenta of total s ales .to 8.3% of all General Fund -revenues. Taxable soles.transa in .the .Cit of Alameda for. the period endi ,March.31, 2009 decreased 1.4.0%, or $214,968., �from the same fterin the:prior fiscal y ear. The .:top q ua 25 businesse represent 51 or $675,436., ofthe. q uarter's sales transactions. The. top 100 businesses represent 76.5%, or $1,013,155, of the q uarter s sales transaction s. A historical compa.rison of per c s tax in Alameda to state and cou n t to :is illustrated in Attachment 1. Additional attachments. h been inclu ded in this report which summarize benchmark y ear comparisons for the current. and previous eight q uarters (Attachment 2) a historical sales tax per capita c omparison for the past lo y ears (Attaohrnent 3); a sales tax capture anal for Alameda for the 3rd calendar q uarter (Attachment 4); comparison of sales b municipalit within Alameda Count (Attachment :5) an a comp of third q uarter Sales within northern California (Attachment 6); a a q uarterl y compariso of s b benchmark :year for Park and Webster Stree North of Lincoln and Park and Webster Streets South of Lincoln (Attachments 7-10) Followin is a comparison of the ke economic cate with subcate detail. City Council A Item #4-C 09-1 5=09 Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 Business -to- Business gained 24.9 or $104,496, as a result of gains in the Light Industry segment. Construction gained 23.5 or $12,375, as a result of gains in both the wholesale and retail building materials segments. Transportation declined 58.2 or $225,534, as a result of the fluctuating gasoline prices and the continuing effects of the closure of new car businesses in Alameda. Used car sales in Alameda actually had an increase from the first quarter of 2008. The slight increase in the Miscellaneous category of 1.6 or $161, reflects an increase in the healthcare category. A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the first quarter of calendar year 2009, as compared to the same period in 2008, shows an overall loss of 14 or $214,968, largely due to decreased sales at Alameda Point, Park Street North and South of Lincoln and Bridgeside Center areas. Increases were noted in the Harbor Bay Business Park area as a result of several new businesses. Total Sales Transactions 1st Quarter 2009 1st Quarter 2008 Percent Change E Economic Category Total Percent of Total Total Percent of Total to l 58.2% Transportation $162 12.3% $389,103 25.3% -9.5% Food Products $337,792 25.5% $373,388 24.3% 23.6% General Retail $225 17.0% $295,105 19.2% 24.9% Business -to- Business $523,637 39.5% $419,141 27.2% 23.5% Construction $65 4.9% $52,692 3.4% 1.6% Miscellaneous $10,085 0.8% $9,924 0.6% 14.0°/ Total Quarter $19324 100.0% $1,539,353 100.0% Business -to- Business gained 24.9 or $104,496, as a result of gains in the Light Industry segment. Construction gained 23.5 or $12,375, as a result of gains in both the wholesale and retail building materials segments. Transportation declined 58.2 or $225,534, as a result of the fluctuating gasoline prices and the continuing effects of the closure of new car businesses in Alameda. Used car sales in Alameda actually had an increase from the first quarter of 2008. The slight increase in the Miscellaneous category of 1.6 or $161, reflects an increase in the healthcare category. A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the first quarter of calendar year 2009, as compared to the same period in 2008, shows an overall loss of 14 or $214,968, largely due to decreased sales at Alameda Point, Park Street North and South of Lincoln and Bridgeside Center areas. Increases were noted in the Harbor Bay Business Park area as a result of several new businesses. Total Sales Transactions 1 st Quarter 2049 1 st Quarter 2008 Percent Change Geographic Areas Total Percent of Total Total Percent of Total -62.2% Park North of Lincoln $116,652 8.8 $308 20.1% 18.2% Park south of Lincoln $131 9.9% $160,938 10.5% 21.3% Webster North of Lincoln $78 5.9% $99 6.4% -7.3% Webster South of Lincoln $27 2.1% $29,458 1.9% -18.6% Bridgeside Center $41,657 3.1% $51,186 3.3% -4.5% Alameda Towne Centre $206 15.6% $215,995 14.0% -2.2% Marina Village shopping Center $38 2.9% $39,241 2.5% -12.1% Harbor Bay Landing $43 3.3% $49,711 3.2% 1.2©/° Marina Village Business Park $153,297 11.6% $155 10.1 34.9% Harbor Bay Business Park $283,087 21.4% $209,846 13.6% 27.4% Alameda Point $30,610 2.3% $42,161 2.7% -2.3% All Other Areas $173,648 13.1% $177 11.5% 14.0% Total Quarter $1,324,385 100.0% $1,539,353 100.0 °I° Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FINANCIAL IMPACT September 15, 2999 Page 3 of 3 As of June 30, 2909, fiscal year sales tax revenues were $4,922,341, or 96 of the $5.1 million projected for fiscal year 20032009. In comparison, in the prior fiscal year, sales tax revenues were $4,905,422, or 95% of the $4.9 million projection. Therefore, there is little variation in percentage of sales tax receipts when comparing year to year. RECOMMENDATION Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending March 31, 2009. GDJ:dl Attachments: 1 Historical Gross Sales Tax Per capita comparison 2 historical Amounts by Benchmark Year 3 Historical Sales Tax Per capita by calendar Year 4 Alameda 1 st quarter 2009 Sales Tax Capture Gap Analysis 5 Sales Tax Net Cash Receipts Analysis in Alameda county E Northern California: Quarterly comparison 200901 to 200801 7 Historical Amounts by Benchmark Year Webster St. North of Lincoln 8 Historical Amounts by Benchmark Year Webster St. South of Lincoln 9 Historical Amounts by Benchmark Year Park St. North of Lincoln 10 Historical Amounts by Benchmark Year Park St. South of Lincoln ALAMEDA 2000Q1 2001Q1 2002Q11, 2003Q1 2004Q1 2005Q11 2006Q1 2007Q11 2008Q11 20 0901 ALAMEDA 98.26 79 .73 73.57 69.51 72.85 77.35 75.90 75.99 78.74 84.58 M D A DE 134.57 145.28 135 89 '128.27 133.90 137.81 146.831 149.82 149.111 130-87 STATE. WIDE COUNTYWI '107.93 11 fi.2 112,_12 8 .53 112.82 118,31 124 11 133.541 136.161 133.641 121.21 SOURCE: MUNISERVICES, LLC PREPARED BY: MUNISERVICES, LLC City Council Attachment 1 to Agenda Item #4 -C 09- 15 -09 Historical Gross Sales Tax Per Capita Comparison J J tl7 Q7 U Q] U3 a 0 w C LL V J J Lv 2 r C) C) Q W Q a Z LU m W 0 ao Q um o� 0 C) C.� a� Q N Q W C� Q C) Z W m td �7 Cl] Cl) Co Lo U) 0 cV C� aD n M N x co NNI o� Zalllo Ctrl co CV Cr) o LM 1{] J co LOW CL CN o L CV) o C6 K CS V I (6 C\i C�i v c6 h o r CO Q? a ti to 6 cy) v-: co `a tv Lo M tit o co U co cr) 00 ai Cv CS co o z C\I r Co 4) op I C� "t CV 04 [D C as r. o 0 0o o W hl: Lo r C\i C") CD cy 0 cr; "t Lo Co ov C\1 0 CCNJ C6 C114 td �7 Cl] Lo Cl) Co Lo o td cV C� 10 n t► Ld x co NNI o� Zalllo Ctrl co CV Cr) o L] 1{] J u7 LOW CL j 6 o L C7 o co c td D3 Cl] C 3 L7 Co Lo o o T7 (6 o I.r Co Co 0 Ld CV) co NNI o� Zalllo 0i ON CV E C L] 1{] J u7 LOW CL r Coo NL 0 L co o co c a (6 C\i C�i v c6 h o Co CO Q? a LL 6 CV c6 r a; 6 C'q v-: `a tv Lo M tit o co U co ai Cv r co o C\I r td D3 Cl] C 3 L7 Co Lo o o T7 (6 o I.r Co Co 0 OD CV) X37 co 10 EU o� Zalllo ❑\0,a. •v ON E L] 1{] J u7 LOW CL r Coo NL 0 a 00 L6 co c Cl] D3 Cl] 4) to y CU 43 m E Co Co 0 co I.r Co Co 0 X37 co 10 EU o� 0 a C6 ❑\0,a. •v ON J v N LOW CL v 0 C =a'0o a� C) o LLL O L o v ;CO o h o H U) J Cc cv V U] J m Q} Cr Z .L (1) m Q LL U] U U a o a_ U C~ Co U C= U) C Cd C) C D3 E r [p E v� u. CD W �M=) cr MCO L W U) C/3 4" C W v U U C13 U Vi Q N D Z7 V_ "a C v? p N o 'CL 0 a COcj Q W Cn W [1? N N C= to CU m Uj 'Co o [V 5 m �i 0 g. 0 Z W c o cr U c RS CI] J m CD C Z3 a v -�e m o Q N Q oa��'�� cr L a U- W o oa�U0 Co v cu 0 C6 L. Co a- C] 0 Q. 1a) 0 ❑o :3< m :3 M cn U C 2 m o fn a) C.a C: 0 C: v o o ro E m E M U U 0 X37 co co 41 J v N o C� v V J .J [I] W V_ ry W Z U J J C�] W V_ w U) z D ri V ry D 0 v) 0 N ti tl+ C13 Q IA r C? W L cc x cu E s as m w w CD m cr o► C* OC a W Q Z W J Q 7 m Q Q LLJ Q W J a Q H C0 W J Q U) J Q [.7 0 H cn Z U J V! v C17 W U E]_ M D CD Non-Confidential Alameda,-, 1st Quarter 2009 Sales Tax Capture Gap Anal Report Total Consumer Purchases Apparel Stores Department Stores Furniture/Appliance Dru Stores Recreation Products Florist/Nurser Miscellaneous Retail Restaurants Food Markets Li Stores Food Processin E Auto Parts/Repair Auto Sales New Auto Sales Used Service Stations Misc. Vehicle Sales Bld Matls-Whsle Bid 0% 100% 200% 300% Percent of Potential Sales Tax Under 100% indicates Gap Over 100% indicates Capture Parent Economic Categories: Chart's Meaag Total Consumer Purchases The chart provides an overview of how well Alameda is capturin potential sales tax based General Retail Se on its residents' effective bu income (disposable income compared to purchasin habits Food Products Se in the S.F. Ba Area re Transportation Se Construction Se Sales Tax Capture Gap Anal 2009QI Sources: MuniServices and Claritas Cit Council Attachment 4 to A Item #4-C 09-15-023, NON- CONFIDENTIAL CITY OF ALAMEDA* NON CONFIDENTIAL SALES TAX NET CASH RECEIPTS ANALYSIS (BRADLEY BURNS 1 MuniServibes, LLC City Council Attachment 5 to Agenda Item ##4- 09- 15009 240614 200711 200712 200713 200714 200811 1 FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR BENCHMARK BENCHMARK BENCHMARK 200714 200811 200812 200813 200814 200911 2007 -2008 2008 -2009 CHANGE /6CHG YR 200811 YR 2009/1 YEAR /oCHG %CHG %aCHG /6CHG %aCHG %CHG 4 QUARTERS 4 QUARTERS PU AMOUNT AMOUNT GRANGE °IoCHG 1 OAKLAND 6.2 4.2 -92.3 -14.9 24.4 27.6 50 „455,920 40,577,089 9,878,831 19.6; 50,455,920 40,577,090 9,878,830 19.6 2 FREMONT 8.3 .1.0 -0,6 -10.2 -10.8 -21.4 3424,930 30.482,616 3,602,314 -10.6 34,084,930 30,482,515 3,602,314 -10.6 3 HAYWARD 5.2 -9.7 -8.2 -1,2 -113 •15.0 28,317,551 25,818,092 2,499,459 -8.8 28,317,551 25,818,092 2,499459 -8.8 4 SAN LEANDRO -3.7 -11.1 -5.7 -10.2 -15,9 -8.8 21,656,585 19,414,355 2,242,220 -10.4 21,656 „585 19,414,366 2,242,219 -104 5 PLEASANTON -6.1 -9.7 -2.4 -15.4 -13..6 •28.8 20,996, 17,953,,585 3,042,450 -14.5 20,996,035 17 3,042,449 -14.5 6 LIVERMORE -9.3 -18.5 20,,0 -7,8 -10.2 -11.5 19,028,495 16,633,040 2,395.,455 -12.6 19,028,496 16,633,040 2,395,456 -12.6 7 BERKELEY -8.1 -3.9 -2.4 -1.6 4.7 -4.8 14534,736 14377,139 157,597 -1.1 1034,736 14,377,139 157,597 -1.1 8 DUBLIN 5.1 -2.0 -5A -10.2 -18.2 -13.2 14,219,023 12,543,786 1,675,237 -11.8 14,219,023 12,543,787 1,675,236 -11,8 9 NEWARK -2.2 -14-5 -7.4 -26.9 -14.7 -7.5 10,X052,743 8,508,149 1,544,,594 -15.4 10,052,744 8,508,150 1,544,594 -15.4 10 UNION CITY -0.1 3.9 -17.0 3.6 3.7 •10.8 8,861,033 8,351,185 499,848 -5.6 8,861,033 8,361,185 499,848 -5.6 11 ALAMEDA COUNTY -2.5 -3.6 17.1 -4 B -12.1 -12.9 8,058,699 7,854,026 -204, „673 -2.5 8,058,700 7,854 tl026 204,674 -2.5 12 EMERYVILLE -10.0 -5.5 -6.7 -22.7 -9.8 -8.1 7,721,869 6,743,295 978,574 -12.7 7,721,870 6,743,296 978,574 -127 13 CITY OF ALAMEDA 2.3 15.7 7.6 1.7 34.6 -11.1 6,174,375 6,677,374 502,999 8.1 6,174,374 6,677,373 502,999 8.1 14 ALBANY -7.6 -1.0 5.8 14.1 0 *6 0.2 2,034,766 2,138,930 104,164 5.1 2,034,765 2,138,930 104,165 5.1 15 PIEDMONT 15.1 -8.4 -8.4 23.3 -27,7 -10.11 181,229 167,251 13:978 -717 181,228 167,251 13,977 -7.7 ALAMEDA CO. j 0.5 -4.6 -6.8 -10.0 -12.4 -17.3 246,317,989 118,249,922 28,128,067 11 246,377,990 218,249,927 •28,128,063 -11.4 CONTRA COSTA CO. -0.8 -1.7 23.7 -3.4 9.3 12.4 137,036,977 136,917,528 119,449 -0.1 137,036,978 136917,528 119,450 -C.1 MARIN CO. 1.6 -0.1 •3.1 -31 -11.5 -98.0 44,088264 40,219,426 3,868,838 -8.8 44,088,264 40,219,426 3,868,838 -8.8 NAPA CO. 4.8 2.1 -1.5 1.6 -3.0 •12.9 25,783,290 24,857,111 926,,179 -3 -6 25,783,290 24,857,112 926,178 -3.6 SAN FRANCISCO CO. 5.2 3.1 0..6 6.5 -8.6 -15.2 149,153,706 142,891,817 6,261,889 -4.2 149,153,706 142,891,818 6,261,8138 -4.2 SAN MATEO CO, 2.8 16.4 1.3 0.8 -9.9 -28.8 132.392,623 119,776,113 12,616,510 -9.5 132,392,623 119,776,114 12,616,509 -9.5 SANTA CLARA CO. 2.3 2.9 -4.1 -2,8 -9.7 -21.5 341,251,573 309,414,378 31,837,195 -9,3' 341,251,573 309,414,378 31,837,195 -9.3 SOLANC CO. -2.1 -6.4 -6.5 -1.7 2,5 -7.5 61,720,528 59,764,434 1,956,094 -3.2 61,720,529 59,764,433 -11956,096 -3.2 SONOMA CO. -2..1 -3.4 -5.1 -2.6 -9,9 -16.4 76,868,519 70,583,187 6,285,332 -8.2" 75,868,520 70,,583,185 6,285,334 -8.2 S.F. BAY AREA 1.5 1.3 0.4 -2.8 9.4 18.5 1,214,673,469 1,122,673,916 91,999,553 7.6 1 1,122,673,922 91,999,551 -7.6 CENTRAL COAST 2.6 .5.4 -3.3 -0.5 -12.2 •15.9 130,035,062 120,072,605 9,962,457 -7.7 130,035,061 120.,072,607 9,962,454 -7.7 CENTRAL VALLEY 0.1 -3.1 -1.5 -1.2 -6..4 -14.1 500,369950 472,683,121 27,686829 -5.5 500,369,950 472,683,123 27,686,827 -5.5 NORTH COAST -1.8 •3.0 -3.8 0.0 -9.4 .18.1' 46,654,590 43,200,294 3,454,296 -74 46,654,590 43,200,296 3,454,294 -7.4 OTHER NORTHERN 1.0 -0.8 -4.0 -1.6 -13.0 -18.2 57,371,402 52,361,179 5,010,223 -8.7 57,371,402 52,361,183 5,010,219 -8.7 SACRAMENTO VALLEY 4.1 -13 -6.0 -2.6 -10.4 -13.8 394,721,532 363,114,023 31,607,509 -8.4 394,721,532 363,114,022 31,607,510 -8.0 NORTHERN CALIF 0.2 -0.8 -2.0 -2.2 -9.2 16.6 2,343,826,005 2,174,105,138 169,720,867 -7.2 2,343,826,008 2,174,145,153 •169,720,855 -7.2 INLAND EMPIRE 2.9 -7.6 6.3 8.5 -14.6 -17.5 585,543ti740 517,764,976 67,778,764 -11.6 585,543,739 517,764,976 67,778,763 -11.6 OTHER SOUTHERN 11.5 -2.7 1.1 -31 -11.2 -8.7 25,714,358 24,289,674 1,424,684 -5.5 25,714,358 24,289,676 1,424,682 -5.5 SOUTH COAST 0.5 -2.0 -3.5 -2.9 -11.5 .16.0 2,605,035,382 2,387,885,023 217,150,359 -8.3 2,605,035,383 2,387,885,022 217,150,351 -8.3 SOUTHERN CALIF 0.1 -31 4.0 .3.9 12.0 •16.2 3,216,293,480 2,929,939,673 286,353,807 8.9 3,216,293,480 2,929,939,674 286,353,806 -8.91 MuniServibes, LLC City Council Attachment 5 to Agenda Item ##4- 09- 15009 NON- CONFIDENTIAL CITY OF ALAMEDA* NON- CONFIDENTIAL SALES TAX NET CASH RECEIPTS ANALYSIS (BRADLEY BURNS 1 yD /l vvc io1' mi !rlyll P ilJair i �,iiipy r i w 200614 200711 2007/2 200713 200714 200811 FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR BENCHMARK BENCHMARK BENCHMARK 200714 200811 200812 200813 200614 240911 2007 -2008 2008 -2009 CHANGE /oCHG YR 200811 YR 200911 YEAR /oCHG %CHG %CHG %CHG °/oCHG °/oCHG 4 0UARTERS 4 QUARTERS AMOUNT AMOUNT CHANGE /6CHG STATE TOTAL 0. -2.1 -3.1 -3.2 10.8 16.4 5,560,119,485 5,104, D44 811 456 074,674 8.2 5 564119 5,104,044,827 456,074,661 8.2 MuniServices,, LLC NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: QU ARTERLY COMPARISON 2009Q1 TO 2008Q'I T ULARE COUNTY MMMM L Lakeport -6.4% 3,0a/a 3 nuY�a 2 a 5% -5 0 7 39 /a 15. 457 529 386 15.6% Restasra W- Miscellaneous Retai nis it Auto Sales New Service St ations Porterville -1.6% -6.9 33 ..9°/0 ���27.1°la 35,1° -36.3% '12.5°10 IJ51, '135 938,768 -18 4% De partment Stores Li quor r Stares Auto Sal es N "--f Service Sta tions Tulare 0°/6 a m 5 9 /0 -14.2% p D 37w /0 a 21 5/a 1 693,270 1,390 17.9°/6 ores Restaurants Apparel St �Matls- mmm Service Stations Bld Retail �m� o 33/0 72 710 0 25.7 20.916 34rr 14 51 1 310 4 71 2 530 4 012, 665 P roducts 14.9 /6 Chemical Pro ducts Recreation Prod Serv Stations Bid Mails -Retai g• I TUOLUMNE COUNTY s5s 471 0 0 °I° -2T '1 ,rvrvrvrr mm -rvrvm. Sonora 9..7 /a 7.n 5 k 26.4% /a a 15.0 /a 16.3 la 570 168 497 637 12.7 Electronic Eq Recreation P Prod De ar#me~it Sto����� p res Ener Sales qy LAKE COUNTY L Lakeport -6.4% 3,0a/a 3 3.0 °1° 42.8 4 4.4% -323% 262,21 2 218,538 MENDOCIN COUNTY Fort Bragg -12.8% -21% -20,4% 2 22,4 %a 43.3°/0 3 32-1% 3 344,708 2 281,708 Mendocino County 16.6% -14.2% -31.2% 2 24..6% 24.9 17 .5% 9 942,3 7 715,880 Point Arena 5 57.7% 1 0 0 100..0% 1010 8 8,708 9 9,86 Ukia 1 10.0% 9 92%6 -30 r -20S% -6. 19.7x/ s5s 471 0 0 °I° -2T '1 24.,6% 3 301 ,074 2 238,245 SHASTA COUNTY Reddln 0 o o -32 7 2 27.7/6 20.0% -19.1 /o 4,325,537 3 3,497,747 AL4MEDA COUNTY m m °n w w9 5 58.:2% 2 23.5% 2 2 4,916 i i ,6 1 1,539,354 1 1,324,386 Alameda Count -6 -33.4% 3 7 677 545 1 Albany Y 14n5% A AO L% -22,6% 14...9% 4 454 84 4 442,985 Berkeley ry rvrvrvry mm ry rvry ry 1 1 m -23,3 /6 19.7°/0 5 5...4% 0.8% 3 3,319,403 3 3,016 „162 2 �13 4 o m�,,, A Flo rist/Nursery Offi Equip Servic Stations Auto Sales New -18.3% Auto -sales New Health Govemment Energy Sales Service Stations c q- P -e mm t l 24.4% Department Stores Electronic E ui ment Servic Stations Auto Sales New 1 ry Auto Paris/Repair Restau 13. 6° Leas F oristlNurs A 9. ry Auto Sales New 81dg.Matls- Retail 9% Bldg. Stations Tans Food Markets 19.3 Light lndu Food mmmm Electronic Equipe 4.a% Light Industry m 21.8% Miscellaneous Other Furniture/AppliancE n -2.6% Auto Sales New Auto PartslReaiir -9. 1% A are! Stores Chemical Products 21.3% Miscellaneous Other Electronic Equ�pme 14.91 Auto Sales Used Liquor Stores 2% Health Government Liquor Stores i SK g ,m. qp C emm, w d1JCt5 44.5% Elect e quipment Chemi Products ducts 14,8 Misc. Vehicle S Auto Parts /Repai -19.2% Heath Gove rnment Leasing -m 1 7. a 6% Fu ltuE!APp Heavy Industry s -Whsle F ood Proc essing E 12.7% Electronic Equi ment Auto Sales Use 12 1% Electronic Equipment Hea Industry Auto Sales New Service Stations Auto Sales New nY o w Service 5ta #ion wwwww Auto Sales Used Service Stations Servic Stations Bidg Matls R etail A u t o Food Markets S tations ro S a l es New ,Bldg Matls- Retail Fum'iture/ .mmrRr .n.nn Applia Office Equ me nt li Office Equipment Auto Sales -New Service Stations m.. Aut N Service Stations B d R .Matls e tail Bldg.Matis- Retail Service Stations Service Stations Restaurants Service Stations Miscellaneous Other Office Equi Service Stations Auto Sales New Service Stations Service Stations B1dg.Matls- Re tai l FloristlNurse Business Services Auto Sales New Service Stations -6 3 a A arel Sto e Ia r s seta R uranis 12,410 D rug Stores Products Serv Stations 8 d Matls- Retail, g Miscellaneous Retail Restaurants 11.6% Es r Sales Li ht Industr�► Au Sales e Stations g q p g g Bld Maus -W hs a S «««<,a Stations -7.210 Electronic meet !_eosin g. c E ui -m. nn 14.4°/0 Restaurants Light Industry Service Stations Business Services 16.610 Recreation Products Apparel Stores es Department Stores Auto Sales N 13.6% Service Stations Hea Industry Food Markets Hld r,�Matls- Retail 16.4% Heavy industry M iscellaneous Other Service Stations Restaurants -23.8% Bid Matls -Whsle Chemi Energy sales B1dg.Matls- Re tail ica Pr .4 °I° Fumiture /A fiance Apparel Stor .0 1'>� pp es Service Stations Miscellaneou Retail Processi E S Stations Auto Sales Used Resta urants Service Products Resfau 3.310 B id Mails -Whsle Food P ice Stations Restaurants o Chegmical: 9 MuniServices, LLC 19.3 Light lndu Food mmmm Electronic Equipe 4.a% Light Industry m 21.8% Miscellaneous Other Furniture/AppliancE n -2.6% Auto Sales New Auto PartslReaiir -9. 1% A are! Stores Chemical Products 21.3% Miscellaneous Other Electronic Equ�pme 14.91 Auto Sales Used Liquor Stores 2% Health Government Liquor Stores i SK g ,m. qp C emm, w d1JCt5 44.5% Elect e quipment Chemi Products ducts 14,8 Misc. Vehicle S Auto Parts /Repai -19.2% Heath Gove rnment Leasing -m 1 7. a 6% Fu ltuE!APp Heavy Industry s -Whsle F ood Proc essing E 12.7% Electronic Equi ment Auto Sales Use 12 1% Electronic Equipment Hea Industry Auto Sales New Service Stations Auto Sales New nY o w Service 5ta #ion wwwww Auto Sales Used Service Stations Servic Stations Bidg Matls R etail A u t o Food Markets S tations ro S a l es New ,Bldg Matls- Retail Fum'iture/ .mmrRr .n.nn Applia Office Equ me nt li Office Equipment Auto Sales -New Service Stations m.. Aut N Service Stations B d R .Matls e tail Bldg.Matis- Retail Service Stations Service Stations Restaurants Service Stations Miscellaneous Other Office Equi Service Stations Auto Sales New Service Stations Service Stations B1dg.Matls- Re tai l FloristlNurse Business Services Auto Sales New Service Stations -6 3 a A arel Sto e Ia r s seta R uranis 12,410 D rug Stores Products Serv Stations 8 d Matls- Retail, g Miscellaneous Retail Restaurants 11.6% Es r Sales Li ht Industr�► Au Sales e Stations g q p g g Bld Maus -W hs a S «««<,a Stations -7.210 Electronic meet !_eosin g. c E ui -m. nn 14.4°/0 Restaurants Light Industry Service Stations Business Services 16.610 Recreation Products Apparel Stores es Department Stores Auto Sales N 13.6% Service Stations Hea Industry Food Markets Hld r,�Matls- Retail 16.4% Heavy industry M iscellaneous Other Service Stations Restaurants -23.8% Bid Matls -Whsle Chemi Energy sales B1dg.Matls- Re tail ica Pr .4 °I° Fumiture /A fiance Apparel Stor .0 1'>� pp es Service Stations Miscellaneou Retail Processi E S Stations Auto Sales Used Resta urants Service Products Resfau 3.310 B id Mails -Whsle Food P ice Stations Restaurants o Chegmical: 9 MuniServices, LLC FloristlNurse Business Services Auto Sales New Service Stations -6 3 a A arel Sto e Ia r s seta R uranis 12,410 D rug Stores Products Serv Stations 8 d Matls- Retail, g Miscellaneous Retail Restaurants 11.6% Es r Sales Li ht Industr�► Au Sales e Stations g q p g g Bld Maus -W hs a S «««<,a Stations -7.210 Electronic meet !_eosin g. c E ui -m. nn 14.4°/0 Restaurants Light Industry Service Stations Business Services 16.610 Recreation Products Apparel Stores es Department Stores Auto Sales N 13.6% Service Stations Hea Industry Food Markets Hld r,�Matls- Retail 16.4% Heavy industry M iscellaneous Other Service Stations Restaurants -23.8% Bid Matls -Whsle Chemi Energy sales B1dg.Matls- Re tail ica Pr .4 °I° Fumiture /A fiance Apparel Stor .0 1'>� pp es Service Stations Miscellaneou Retail Processi E S Stations Auto Sales Used Resta urants Service Products Resfau 3.310 B id Mails -Whsle Food P ice Stations Restaurants o Chegmical: 9 MuniServices, LLC NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: QUARTERLY COMPARISON 2009Q1 TO 2008Q1 Dru Stares Pinola 9,7% -7,,2% -29 8% -30.8% 4.5% 100+% 298 -12.80A res Leasin Service Stations Bldg-Matls-Retail ZZ% Zg% -.9 3% 100+% 11.3% 1,�_89,9_3'7"' 1,740,233 16.8% Heav Ind"'u" s tr i Auto Sa Service Stations Pleasant Hill -141% -22% -329% 15,71% 1.267.022 -16.3% Heaw lndu--try ❑ffiniq Pnninmimnl qprvino qt=tin_nc r-nearmt? czmlme Richmond -13,5% -36.2% -19,0% -30.0% -16 0% 2,875,525 2,1 B2, -24.8% Department Stores Leasin SerZ; stat Heav Indu ry st -7.5% -16,7% -10.8% 391,900 339,545 -13.4% Bldg.Matls-Retail Auto Sales Used Ser\tice Stations _Fo_odMar�ets San Ramon -114% -14.9% -24.0% -23.2% -222% 1,1315.017 Zl,�,,_,��,,_A.,- 1,477253 -18.6% Health Government Miscellaneous Other a, �ther b Bid Matls-Retail Service Stations Walnut Creek 1-11 114A% -33% -22,6% -26.9% 1.4% -124% 3,871.92-2 1,,,3,06.862 -14Z% Electronic E Food Processin E p �1 Auto Sales New Service Stations MARIN COUNTY Fairfax -13.3% 1.8% -193% -186% -21.1% 6,,7% 85,399 78,815 -7 30/6 ❑0 Stores Food Markets Bidg-MatIs-RZ11 service Stations Larkspur -11.3% -9.8% -46.0% -1,0% -53.0% -249% -187% 0%' 427.276 335,644 -21.4% BIdQ.fAatIs-Whsle L! uor Stores 9 J. Health A" Service Stations Li Indus Mill VaII 11.116.0% -5.8% -461% -1 5.8i�`_" 16' 532,037 393,071 Govei uto Parts/Repair S _erZ ions Auto Sales New San Anselmo o -24�8% -3.6% -30.7% -32.2% 55. 8% 6.3% 223,221 179,808 .40/6 H -1 9 Ind 1-�ieaw, Stores Miscellaneous Retail Stations ri t -11,,30/0 0 �i 10. 7 �/D f.9% -28A% 1.7% 287,598 268,6R1 -6.6% Restaurants Heav In du Business SWices service Stations XA_PA COUNTY Napa 10.3% -&,3% .4% -13.4% -18.2% -13Z% 2,544,655 2 ,146,822 -15.6% Ener es gy Sal Health Governmen't'' S e ic"e Stations Auto S Ill, a "I ies, New Saint Helena -17,4% -7.6% -32.8% -29.1% -60.2% -27,0% 522,423 423, 9 8.i Office Equipment Chemical Products Bidg.Matls-Whsle B! Yountville -15.2% 3,8% -63.3% -35,8% 100+% 5.5% 113,232 114,794 .4% Food Processin E Restaurants Apparel Stores Service Stations COUNTY A—' 11 111111111111111111111111111� San Francisco -18-9% 8,6% -31.9% -23.0% -21.1% -11.9% 30,069,260 24,7S3,445 -www -17.6% Electronic Equipment Food markets Restaurants Service Stations SAN MATEO COUNTY Belmont -19-16/o -10.2% -36.4% _%8. -22,2% 16,8% -3,9% 730,564 621,506 -14.90/a Electronic Equipment Leasin to S a l e s 11 I'll New serZe_ _Station Brisbane �.WW "d 8 15 3% 100% 21.2-0/6 950 A54 929,436 -2.21/o Office Equipment Electronic E Fumiture/Appliance 6 It -34.4% -12.2% 11.7% -14,6% �?.168111.461 I—. 1 1,788,694 -17.5% n �19ht ln�dustr Auto Sales New Stations East Palo Alto .1110-2% -8.8% 11111�1�1 -18A% -17.0% -14.7% 8 Z% 549,455 -12.4% Rec;ii�ion Products Food Markets Furnft Bld G ,0/ ly 0 A% -25,0% -87% 6.7% 1,013,649 914,184 -9.8% Light Industry Business Services -1-11,111,111,111,11,'ll""I'll""I'll'.. Office Equ Electronic Equipment H alt Moon Ba -9.6% -'�'&,,8% -291% -28.5% -54,5% -15.9% 425,797 333,972 -21 .6% Food Markets Misce[laneous Other Restaurants -M Service Siation` Menlo Park 10% -8.1% -35-5% -22.9% -22.9% -30,5% 1605,116 1,254,846 -21.8% Li Industr Leas' Electronic Equipment Office Equipment Redwood Cit -11.90 6% -303% -21.8% 10.8% -1 7,7"A 3,852,788 3,347,696 -13.1% Electronic E �Hea%� Industr Auto Sales"-" New Service Stations San Bno 4A% 11 1 11 -240 -35,1% I I -39,5% �-30� 1 19 /6 -13.3% 1,367,523 1,188,823 1�.164 F i) Miscellaneous Retail Pl Service Stations Auto Sales New San Mat eo _1151% -T,5% -291% -2-22% -36,14%.11 -_1 `7 11.2%, 3,498,213 2,857,375 -1 8.3% Health Government Service Stations ____IM iscellaneous Retail Fh§in"Vrancisrc -47% 0 6 -21 2, 6 3 2 VS 4`_ -37,0% 2,631,625 2,244,006 -14.7% Auto Sales New c e I i a e"ous Retail Bid -q.Mails-Whsle Service Stations SANTA CLARA CO UN Campbell -17.5% -6,5% -29�56�6'`_'!i '7K 18.1% -2U6% 2,012,966 7 661 2'B"' 8_' -18.0% Office E Chemical Products H""eafth Service Stations Sid i Cupertino -15 5% -�0.9% -339% 6.4% -35 2% 7.5% 3.935,205 2,751,779 -36 I Government Bldg.Mails-Retail B u s i n e s _sS e"'ry i ce' s"'_ Electronic E mn[ e Gi -56% -78% -36,5% _-3 -39 7% _-3 -247% -28.9% 65.2% 2,664,972 2,159 0 -19.0% Business Services Miscellaneou 0' Auto Sales New _1 __,qul -p Service Stations C6s Altos -305% 1 1,8% 4. 4 8_74_% 1" 49 0 D 515,53B 388,172 -24.7% L ht industry O SeW&;_S1,1_io Restaurants Los Gatos 2Z% -9 9% -3Z9% -26.0% -19,,3% -22 5% 1,879,375 1,6B6,059 -10.3% Miscellaneous Retail Business Services s. Auto Sales New Service Stations .1 2,2 -9Z% -41,,4% -34,3% 20.2% -2,� 1 3209,653 2,880, ��7F'10t3° Office E Heavy Industry Auto Sales New Flectmnic Equipment Monte Sereno -44.1% -10&0% 15.3% -100,0% 100+% -13,9% 2,540 2,64 1041 Auto Parts/Repair Che ical Products n Miscellaneous Ret Store S` M an Hill -7,1% -41.9% -26.5% ,28.6% 8.7% 1.306�318 947,852 -27�A%Heafth Government Recreation Products Service Stations Misc. Vehicle Sales Mountain View -2.9% -2.0% -34,9% -3.7% -25.9% 100+% 3 000,913 -il% Health Government 'C A Service Stations Li lndust� Palo Alto -21.9% -122% -12-0% -13,11% -14 9% -14,30/D 4,270,208 3,545,450 -17.0% Misc. Vehicle Sales Li Industr Mis cellaneo u s Retail San Jose -11.5% -10.4% -29.9% -2&5% -28.2% 0.8% 29,434,751 _T'961,132 23,205,262 -21.2% Florist/Nurser Health Government Service station _Furnhure E -14Z% -117% -29.4% -157% _:49 -189% 36� 0 6,492,527 -1 .4% Health Goverriment Heav industr es Auto S ew Electronic E uipment Santa Clara 40 -9 Z% 9 .09/0 §OY,739 �ib -20.3% Health Govemment Misc. Vehicle Sales Bicig-Matls-Whsle Service Stations Sara a -185% _10.6% -12.1% -43% -12.8% 8.0% 200,743 174,973 -12.801. 6ffi��E Food Processing E Electroni E uipmert Restaurants Sunn -14.3% -113% -29�3% -24,3% -25.1% 31.0% 5,998,881 4,618,037 -23.0% Li Ind Miscellaneous Retail Electronic E Auto Sales 'N'ew SOLANO COUNTY Fairfield �5% -8,,6% -40A% -31.2% 8 .8% 1 1 DS 3 A97,366 2,846,652 -18.6% Heavy Industr Electronic E uip Auto Sales New Service Stations MuniServices, LLC NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: QUARTERLY COMPARI 2009Q1 TO 2008Q'I R` -4y7 ®2 ,1 °/0 3.0 l0 mm 3 m 200,421 1 mm� 90 -20.4% Light Indu A Heavy Indust Auto Sales New S Servi SONOMA COUNTY c H fl 3 35.PD/a '100 6 679,3 5 58'1,657 7 4.4% Ele ctronic Equipment Furniture liance H Hea Serv st at i ons Petaluma r 121a -67% 1 5 10 22. S la r 2 386 93 l 1 2 222% Misc_ Vehicle Sales A Apparel Stores E Electronic Equipment Auto Sal a m Rohnert Park 1 13.9 /0 -7,4% 3 38.910 1 13.6% 36.0% 3 9.4°/0 1 1 518 062 1,248,2 sle D Drug Sto res 5 5 Stations D Depa rtment R Rasa -8.4 3 31.4°1° 2 20.910 o 22.0°/c 6 6,419 388 5 -m S e ,�n,�.... w Snoma S e b asto p ol 0 1 39... -1 &6% 5 5.1 3 327,309 2 276., m 15.4% Miscellaneous Reta E „rwww S Bld a Sonoma o 12.3 /0 2 n71a 2 2b 410 '1 a.7 /0 5 5. -S.M 405,299 •7.6% Auto Sales New B Bldg.Matis Retail S Service Stations R Restaurants BUTTE COUNTY Qrovllle 7-4 -�n�:: B Business ,.�m����::µ« NFVa�a couNrr Truckee ®i® 11 3% 7 7. °f® 7 77.0 /a 5 598,390 458,085 -23.4° C Acct- Ad Misc. Vehic m� Service Stations B PL�4CER CIDUNTY 4.3 °/0 1.0% 25.8% 3!].9°Y0 1 8 8 6 850 Appare Stores A Auto New S Servic e p SACRAMENTO COUNTY 4 S Carus Heights 24 $/0 1 -45 13.6 2,,349,6 2,031,806 -13.5% Business Services H Heavy IndustrDr B Bidg.hlfafls -Retail S Service Elk Grave -4,0 0 7 749 663 9 B .m ,,,mmm, M 47% 14.9 27.7 43x8°/° 1 1 7.1 Ib 6 6,,91° 3 3.349195 2 2 764 079 �7M5 Fu si n B B,y s Bldg Matls Retail Galt 1 1 10 1 /a 1 31,3 6 /o 2 258 23.3 to Restaurant Miscellaneous Retail H iy m Food Markets fs leton 2 29 0 /0 1 1. °Io °lo 'i dOt°/n 1 1 2°I 1 1 1 14 ,755 5 5 8 s Safes m Rancho Cordova 6 6 10 a 6� 0 6010 1 13n.0 4 40Ifl �-40 1 S O Bu n ess services S Se s O Sacramento 8 9 6 l0 8 10 0 0 3% -23.8% 2 26.3% 2 27.2 2 1 11,607,039 1 15 m Misc. Vehicle Sales S ,mmm p 81dM Sacram Coun 5 a a 0 0 0 0 0 1 p 2 service Stations A h n s MuniServices, L-L-C CITY OF ALAN[[ E DA HISTORICAL AMOUNTS BY BENCHMARK YEAR WEBSTER NORTH OF LINCOLN TRANSPORTATION FOOD PRODUCTS GENERAL RETAIL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS TO BUSINESS TOTALS 181 202,648 214 119 121,771 122,029 67 67,823 68 1 7 1 412 15,201 13 1,954 1,964 2,038 388,287 4P%407 419,743 195,378 120,.510 67,833 13,'145 2 398,882 179,116 118,860 67,475 13, 039 2 363,310 168,642 161,295 116 114,025 67,038 67,139 12,588 11,668 2,186 2,173 366,932 356,300 167,937 112 66,162 11,231 2,224 360,148 1 73,525 111,017 65,055 11,841 ,I,...1 363.592 SERVICE STATIONS 153515 173 184 184,312 147 137 129,957 135 141 RESTAURANTS 106 108,207 108 107,220 105,821 103 101 100,173 98 DRUG STORES 67,167 67,605 67 67,725 67,400 67,019 67 66,132 65 MISC. VEHICLE SALES 19. 20 21 22 22,906 23,414 23,293 22,689 23,189 BLDG. MATLS RETAIL 1 7,412 15,201 13,171 13,145 13,039 12 11 1 668 11,231 11,841 FOOD MARKETS 10,105 10 9 9,833 9 9 9 8 8 AUTO PARTS/REPAIR 8 8,259 8 8,350 8 8,018 7 7,877 7.,615 LIQUOR STORES 3 483 3,547 3 3 1 457 3,461 3,430 3,552 3,499 3,417 AUTO SALES USED 45 58 88 88 88 130 175 425 858 LIGHT INDUSTRY 1711 1 1 1,795 1 '1,976 1 2 2 LEASING 243 223 221 212 211 201 180 176 106 MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL 184 218 105 104 71 15 16 18 24 BUSINESS SERVICES 0 0 9 9 18 9 237 228 228 RECREATION PRODUCTS 0 0 4 4 4 4 12 12 12 APPAREL STORES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 BLDG.MATLS -WHSLE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEPARTMENT STORES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FLORIST/NURSERY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FURNITURE/APPLIANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HEALTH GOVERNMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MISCELLANEOUS OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS w,rv» 388,287 409 407 4'19,743 398,882 363,3'10 366,932 355,532 360,371 363.81 5 Cit Council Attachment 7 to A Item r 09 -15w09 MUNISERVICES, LLC CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL AMOUNTS BY BENCHMARK YEAR WEBSTER SOUTH OF LINCOLN FOOD PRODUCTS 86, 025 88,368 88,838 87 83 83, 643 83 85 84 GENERAL RETAIL 2 0,648 2 0,,816 2 0,347 2 0,437 19,476 19 20,042 2 0,429 21,,,323 TRANSPORTATION 13, 943 13 13 13 13,561 13 12 11 10 BUSINESS TO BUSINESS 1 2 1 2 2,319 2 2 2 2 MISCELLANEOUS 1 1 969 951 1 1,077 1,072 994 982 CONSTRUCTION 501 470 434 280 299 321 365 339 301 TOTALS 124,302 125,438 'i 25,'143 124,750 120J61 120 120,738 1 20,961 120.210 RESTAURANTS 77 79 80 78,008 73 72 70,989 71 71 MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL 13,920 14,449 14 14,376 13 13,478 13,514 13,,822 14 AUTO PARTS/REPAIR 10 10,372 10 10,365 10 1 ❑,395 10 9,700 9,015 LIQUOR STORES 8 6 6,717 8 6 6 6 6 6,695 FOOD MARKETS 2,130 2 1,878 2,456 3,530 4 5 6,420 6 DEPARTMENT STORES 3,642 3 3 3 3 3 3,470 3 3 �.IGHT INDUSTRY 1,919 2 1 2 2 2,156 2,398 2,288 2 J RN ITU REIAPPLIAN C E 269 284 349 384 432 526 642 664 676 RECREATION PRODUCTS 1 1,458 1 1 y ;543 1,504 1 1 1,849 2 MISC. VEHICLE SALES 1,045 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DRUG STORES 482 493 489 485 506 515 524 539 526 HEALTH GOVERNMENT 1 1 969 951 1 1 1,072 994 982 APPAREL STORES 737 603 171 0 0 0 0 0 50 LEASING 0 0 0 0 137 239 313 424 409 BLDG. MATLS L 501 470 434 280 299 321 365 339 301 FLORIST /NURSERY 0 0 100 100 100 140 142 142 142 BUSINESS SERVICES 0 0 0 0 9 9 232 232 243 BLDG.MATLS -WHSLE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MISCELLANEOUS OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AUTO SALES -USED 2,444 2 2,038 2 1 1,244 782 80 0 HEAVY INDUSTRY 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 124,302 126,458 126,143 124,750 120,159 120 120,738 120,961 120,210 City Council Attachment 8 to Agenda Item #4 -C 09 -15 -09 MUNISERVICES, LLC CITY OF ALAM E DA HISTORICAL AMOUNTS BY BENCHMARK YEAR PARK NORTH OF LINCLON TRANSPORTATION 6009 548,469 L 728,817 836,354 909.,048 953,945 976050 962,032 989,380 H 956,889 CONSTRUCTION 15,8 142,515 148 153,681 H 148,835 134,086 137,280 136,185 139,175 130,678 L FOOD PRODUCTS 1&,2 91,973 L 95,082 95,839 H 95,263 93,837 94,121 95,022 95,094 95,023 BUSINESS TO BUSINESS 9 2 82,673 L 84,632 85 85,718 84,466 84,105 86,406 87,975 88210 H GENERAL RETAIL 3.6 32,232 L 33,041 32,655 32,929 33,078 33,044 34,173 34,362 34,990 H MISCELLANEOUS 0.2 2,210 H 2,141 2,061 2,061 2,102 2.,076 1,993 L 2,038 2,,006 TOTALS 1 00.0 900,072 L „1,092 5,130 1,205, 877 1 ,273, 854 1 1,326,676 1,315,81 1,348, 024 H 1,307,796 AUTO SALES NEW SERVICE STATIONS BLDG.MATLS -WHSLE RESTAURANTS LEASING AUTO PARTS /REPAIR MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL 1TO SALES USED OD MARKETS BLDG. MATLS -RETA1 L BUSINESS SERVICES LIGHT INDUSTRY LIQUOR STORES HEAVY INDUSTRY HEALTH GOVERNMENT RECREATION PRODUCTS MISC. VEHICLE SALES FURNITURE/APPLIANCE OFFICE EQUIPMENT FLORIST/NURSERY 33.5 301,685 L 469,798 18.8 169,542 L 186,746 13.6 122,437 127,858 6.8 61,408 L 64,119 6.6 59,266 L 61,425 5.4 48,325 48,974 3.4 30,265 30,885 H 3.1 27,466 21,,651 2.7 24,481 H 24,372 2.2 20,078 L 20,563 1.3 11 11,679 0.8 7,544 H 7,215 0.7 6,084 L 6,591 0.5 4,279 L 4,308 0.2 2,210 H 2,141 0�2 1,692 1,783 0.2 1,451 L 1,648 0.0 275 L 373 0.0 6,232 5L 0.0 0 0 570,616 653,522 195.,839 H 184 131,430 H 126,386 64,578 H 63 60,837 62:,052 50,067 50,723 30,279 29,914 18,018 L 18,058 24,097 23,966 22 22,449 11,884 12,044 H 6,627 6,447 7,164 7,492 5,939 H 5,175 2,061 2, 061 1 ,839 1,768 1 ,814 1,998 537 1,247 0 0 0 0 693,677 710 698,592 724,139 H 701,451 186,612 187,198 184,097 188,368 180,268 109,430 110,778 109, 111,830 103,230 L 62,807 63,284 63,,548 64,151 64 62,419 63,662 66,612 67,567 68,163 H 51,552 52,127 H 50,415 47,894 44,627 L 29,748 29,357 L 29,690 29,561 29,836 19,973 23,897 26 26,832 28,294 H 23,485 23,466 L 24,302 24,203 24,.453 24,656 26,502 26,845 27,345 27,448 H 10,784 9,164 8,532 7,523 7,265 L 6,232 5,838 5,563 5,533 5,244 L 7,545 H 7,371 7,172 6,740 6,352 5,031 4,882 4645 5,576 5,130 2,102 2,076 1,993 2,038 1,962 L 1,654 1,612 1,591 L 1,661 1,852 H 2,132 2,108 2 H 2,147 2,249 1,675 2,074 2,,881 3, ®36 3,041 H 0 559 1,054 1 2,408 H 1 1 1 1 57 H TOTALS 900,0 L 1,D9 1,205,877 1,273, 854 1,301,515 1,326,676 e 1,315,811 1,348,024 H 1,307,796 C Cit Attachment 9 to A g end a 1' L LOWEST PERIOD H HIGHEST PERIOD CURRENT PERIOD LESS THAN PREVIOUS PERIOD MuniSetvices, LLC CITY OF ALAM E DA HISTORICAL AMOUNTS BY BENCHMARK YEAR PARK SOUTH OF LINCOLN FOOD PRODUCTS GENERAL RETAIL TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS TO BUSINESS MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION TOTALS RESTAURANTS SERVICE STATIONS MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL DRUG STORES .5PPAREL STORES TO PARTS/REPAIR .MCREATION PRODUCTS FURNITURE/APPLIANCE FOOD PROCESSING EQP FOOD MARKETS BUSINESS SERVICES HEALTH GOVERNMENT LIQUOR STORES FLORISTINURSERY MISCELLANEOUS OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY OFFICE EQUIPMENT BLDG.MATLS -RETAIL BLDG. MATLS -WHSLE MISC. VEHICLE SALES TOTALS 330 H 318 877 304,798 303,775 296,334 288,201 2$6 729 L 112,200 H 104 102 101 99,321 105,090 106 76 77 77 H 77 77,195 75,332 74 L 34,138 34 34 33 34,045 34 34 H 38,751 39 41 ,,975 42,616 43,174 H 42 39,427 31 32 33 34,083 34 35 35 H 15 14 13,273 12 12,702 12,603 11,889 L 14 14,495 15 15 15 15,898 16,590 H 9 9 10 10 10 11,141 H 10 x ,374 8 H 8 8, 141 7, 993 7,638 7 7 L 11 14 14,689 15 15 15,147 16 H 7,,260 7,185 7,179 6 L 10 12 13 H 5 5,072 L 5 5,183 5,301 5,223 5,390 6 1 083 H 5,932 5,944 5,932 5 5 892 5 1 1 L 1 1,928 2 H 2,461 1,917 2 2 H 2,160 2,181 2 2 2,058 1,525 1 1,821 1 1,995 1,989 2 H 1 1,476 H 1 1 1,329 1,327 1,403 204 408 H 344 345 336 123 92 L 515H 515H 515H 515H 0 0 0 708 ,97'1 H 695 75 7 684 682,041 677 674,523 671,722 City Council Attachment 10 to Agenda item #4 -C 09 =15 -09 523 342 345 26.5 1 73,588 L 181 ,170 17.9 117 L 134,153 1.6 10,634 L 12,,440 1 A 9 9 0.2 1,121 L 1,431 100.01654, 352 L 683,582 353 H 341 185 186 143,847 H 137 14, 852 18 9 9 1,632 1 H 328,960 327,844 320 188,838 H 188,358 188 136 136 133,822 18,670 19 19 9,140 8 L 13,352 1,763 1 1 312 309 L 186 182,857 140 142 19 20 H 14 14 H 1 1 ,495 708,971 H 695 757 684,179 682,041 677,701 674,523 671,722 48.7 318 321,614 13.6 88 L 104,401 11.41 74,718 76,374 5.1 33,290 L 34,107 4.9 32 L 35 4.4 28,496 L 29,752 2.4 15 15 H 1.9 12 L 13,241 1.4 9,301 L 9,335 1.2 8 8 1.2 7 L 9,282 1.1 7,154 7,011 1.01 6,731 H 6,103 0.9 5,602 L 5 0.31 2,014 1 0.3 1 L 1,795 0.2 1 3 195 L 1 0.1 913 L 1.,186 0.0 208 245 0.,0 0 0 100.0 1654.352 L 683.582 L LOWEST PERIOD H HIGHEST PERIOD CURRENT PERIOD LESS THAN PREVIOUS PERIOD MuniServices, LLC CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: September 15, 2009 Re: Accept the Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center /East Housing Residential Phase 11 Infrastructure Improvements for Interim Emergency and Vehicle Access to the Storm Water Treatment Pump Station and for the Storm Drain Outfall Project and Authorize the City Clerk to Record Notices of Completion for the Improvements I IUII III Catellus Development Corporation (Catellus) was selected as the Master Developer for the East Housing /Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) mixed use development in 2000. Pursuant to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), Development Agreement, Joint Implementation Agreement, and Construction Reimbursement Agreement among Catellus, the City, and the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) for the Bayport Project, Catellus Construction Company (CCC) serves as the General Contractor for the CIC. Pursuant to the DDA, the CIC is responsible for demolition and construction of public backbone infrastructure improvements. The interim access driveway to the pump station and construction of the storm drain outfall project are part of the required Residential Phase 11 Infrastructure Improvements. McGuire and Hester Construction Company, as a change order to its contract to construct intersection improvements at Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Webster Street and Constitution Way and Mariner Square Drive, completed the interim driveway project. Mountain Cascade was hired to complete the storm drain outfall through a Competitive bid process and was awarded the contract to complete the Storm drain outfall project in October 2004. DISCUSSION Interim !EmeLqencv and Vehicle Access The interim driveway was constructed to provide access for City vehicles to the storm water treatment pump station. The pump station was accessed for some time through the Shinsei Gardens property, but once construction on the site began, it was necessary City Council Agendas Item ##4 Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 to provide alternative access. Therefore, an interim driveway was constructed to provide access until the Stargell Avenue improvements are completed and a permanent driveway can be installed. As part of the development of Alameda Point, two additional lanes will be constructed on Stargell Avenue, and a permanent access driveway will be provided at that time. The interim driveway allows for City maintenance crews to deliver routine and emergency service to the pump station. All work related to the interim driveway is complete. The work was performed in accordance with the contract documents prepared by BKF Engineers. Harris and Associates, City Engineer for the Bayport Project, issued a certificate of final completion for the project on June 19, 2009. The work is also acceptable to the Public works Department. A copy of the certification documentation is on file in the City Clerk's office. Storm Drain Outfall Pro "ecL The Storm drain outfall project is the final segment of the Bayport Alameda residential backbone infrastructure project. The storm drain system is designed to handle the project's storm water runoff and pretreat it, by eliminating sediment, via the treatment pond prior to discharge of water into the bay. The storm drain system consists of the pump station, water trunk line to the treatment pond, the treatment pond, including overflow weirs, and storm drain pipes that provide the connection from the treatment pond to the estuary. The storm drain outfall project, which consists of the overflow weirs and the storm drain pipes, is the last leg of the storm drain system. The system, which is now completed, assures that 100% of the storm water is treated, by eliminating sediment, prior to its release into the bay. The City has accepted previous components of the storm drain system, including the pump station, fire water trunk line, and the treatment pond. The storm drain outfall project is now completed. The work was performed in accordance with the contract documents prepared by BKF Engineers. Harris and Associates, City Engineer for the Bayport Project, issued a certificate of final completion for the project on August 14, 2009. A copy of the certification documentation is on file in the City Clerk's office. FINANCIAL IMPACT The funds for the improvement projects were budgeted in the Bayport Project budget (256.1). There is no impact on the General Fund to accept these improvements. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Plans and specifications for the project were prepared, and the project was constructed, in accordance with City standards. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW September 15, 2009 Page 3of3 An environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified in 2000 for the Catellus mixed -use project at FISC /East Housing. Based on that EIR, this project is a required mitigation for completion of the Bayport project and no additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review was required. RECOMMENDATION Accept the Alameda FISCIEast Housing Residential Phase II Infrastructure Improvements for interim maintenance and emergency vehicle access to the storm water treatment pump station and for the storm drain outfall project and authorize the City clerk to record a Notice of completion for the Improvements. Approved as to funds and account, Glend J Interim Finance Director AMGILALIDP:dc CITY of ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: September 15, 2009 Re: Adopt Specifications and Provisions for Tow Contract for Vehicles Identified as Abandoned by the Police Department BACKGROUND The current service contract with A B Towing for towing of abandoned vehicles will expire on October 0, 2009. A B Towing has agreed to continue to provide .services until a new contract is approved by the City Council. Staff proposes to solicit formal bids for the towing of abandoned vehicles for the five -year period of October 20, 2009, through October 20, 2014. DISCUSSION The Specifications and Provisions for the abandoned vehicle tow services which are attached, have been updated and approved by the city Attorney's Office. They will be available to potential bidders upon request from the office of the city Clerk. The schedule for the bid process is: September 15, 2009 September 10, 2009 October 0, 2009 October 20, 2009 FINANCIAL IMPACT City Council authorizes release of tow services specifications Bid documents and specifications available for pickup by potential bidders Deadline for submitting bids, 2:00 P.M. City council reviews recommendations and awards bid There is no financial impact to the city from this process. The costs associated with the Police Department- ordered tows for vehicles abandoned, dismantled, or inoperative on public streets are charged to the registered owner of the vehicle. vehicles abated from private property under A.M.C. 8 -22 are by law dismantled and not reconstructed or City council Agenda Item ##4mE Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council September 15, 2009 Pa 2 of 2 made operable. The tow compan recoups the cost of removal from the owner of the parcel of land pursuant to 8-22.11 A.M.C. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Specifications and Provisions for tow contract for vehicles identified as abandoned b the Police Department. Respectfull submitted, Walter B. Tibbet Chief of Police LUTJ too] I Attachment: 1. Specifications and Provisions CITY OF ALAN// E DA SPECIFICATIONS AND PROVISIONS Proposals will be received until the hour of 2:00 PM on the 0th day of October 2009. Proposals will be opened at 2:99 PM in the office of the City Clerk on October 0, 2909. 1 FOR PROPOSALS TO THE CITY OF ALAMEDA: For the towing and storage of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled and inoperative vehicles from public and private property as directed by authorized. representatives of the Alameda Police Department for a five (5) year period commencing October 21, 2009 through and including October 21, 2014, strictly in accordance with the instructions, terms, conditions and specifications as herein described. 2 PROPOSALS FORM: All proposals must be. made upon blank forms to be obtained, upon application, from the City Clerk at her office at City Hall, 2203 Santa Clara Avenue Room. 3 CA 9450.1. Proposals and .all riders attached thereto or in support thereof, must be. signed by the bidder, if the proposal is made by an individual, his/her name and ousiness address must be shown. If made by a.firm or partnership, the name and post office address of each member of the firm or partnership must be shown. if made by a corporation, the proposal must show the name of the state. under the .laws of which the corporation. was chartered and. the name, titles, and business addresses of the president, secretary and treasurer. 3. PRESENTATION AND MARKING: Proposals must be presented to the city Clerk at City Hall. under sealed ...cover and must be plainly marked on the outside: "Proposal to Furnish Abandoned vehicle Towing Services, to be opened on October 0, 20.09. at 2:00 PM 4. BIDDER'S GUARANTY: All proposals must be accompanied by a cashier's check or a certified check, drawn on a responsible bank, or by a Bid. Bond furnished by a surety company authorized to transact business. in the State of California and made. payable. to. the. City of Alameda for an amount of not less than Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00), and no bid shall be considered unless such check is enclosed therewith. 5 RETURN OF B /DOER'S GUARANTY: Within. ten (10) days after the opening of proposals, the. City Clerk shall return the proposal guaranties accompanying Such of the proposals that are. not to be considered in making the award. All other proposal guaranties will be held until an award is made and a subsequent contract shall have been finally executed, after which they will be returned to the respective bidders, whose proposals they accompanied. City council Attachment to Agenda Item ##4 -E A9 =15 =09 6• REJECTION OF PROPOSALS CONTAINING ALTERATIONS. ERASURES OR IRREGULARITIES: Proposals ma be rejected if the show an alterations of form, additions .not called far, conditional or alternative bids, incomplete bids, erasures, or irre of an kind. An statement or q ualification in proposal form or attached to, or included therewith, servin to q ualif y proposal, or containin conflictin statements, or otherwise renderin the proposal ambi or uncertain, will dis the bid. The ri is reserved to reject an or all proposals. 7. AWARD OF CONTRACT: The award of the contract, if it is awarded, will be made within thirt 35 da after the openin of the .proposals. Proposal ma be wi b the bidder if.the award of contract is not made within thirt 35 da after o penin g of bids. 8. DISCRETION IN AWARDING CONTRACT: The Cit of Alameda reserves the ri to accept or re tids for any service. or combination of services. and to award a contract to. separate bidders f an service, or combination. of services. 9. PENALTY FOR COLLUSION: If at an shall that the.pe.rson, firm or corporation to whom a. contract .has been awarded.has in presentin an y bid, colluded :wi an o th e r pa or par then the.con so awa be null. and Void and the bidder and :his /her b.ondsmen shall be liable.to 1he Cit for all. l or d which.th Cit ma suffer thereb and the Cit Council ma adver .for a ne w contract for s.aid..services. and. materials. The fore shall not �be construed as rma i n the fo tgo of a le entit b person firms o r corporations fo the purpose of. s a bid for the..ser herein specified. 10. EXECUTION OF CONTRACT: The..contractlin form and contents satisfactor to the .:.City, shall be .execute by: the successful bidder and retu rned to -the. Cif y with the. necessar faithful performance bond.within ten (10): wor da after the bidder.has notice that.the contract ha been .award and is read for si No proposal shall be co bindin upon.. the Cit until th e execution of the.contract. The cashier's check or. certified check.encl with the proposal of the -bidd to whom the contract shall be awarded shall be retained a s a as li dama to the Cit of Alam the. eve that such bidder shall .fail to enter into a contr a furnish the. bond as herein re time. bein of t he essence hereof. CONTRACT FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND: Unless herein otherwise specificall provided, the successful bidder. shall.furnish to. the Cit at the. time the contr is delivered, an.approved f Pe rforman c e bond exe b a Suret Com siness pan to do bu. in.the. State. of California, Count of Alameda, Cit of Alameda and in fo satisf to. the Cit Attorne in an amount. of not .l.ess.than Five Th.ousand. Dollars ($5,000.00), which .bond shall g uarantee faithful performance of said contract b the succes bidder. 2. PAYMENT: Payment will be made by the City within forty -five (45) days after aborted tow service Claims, as appropriate and their acceptance by the City or as otherwise noted herein, in the same manner that claims of like character are paid by the City, with warrants drawn on the Treasury of the City of Alameda. 13. GENERAL. INFORMATION: All invitations to bid are offered subject to all terms, conditions and specifications herein contained. All bids.. shall be evaluated by the City and the recommended award, if it be made, shall be made upon the basis of. the..lowest ..and best bid submitted. Included in the evaluation will be the following. factors: a) Local facilities as required fo.r...Performance. including City Planning Department approval for compliance with zoning requirements; b) Number of and quality of all personnel employed.; c) Adequacy and. location of storage facilities, including evaluation of storage facilities located. within the city of Alameda; d) Inspection of all equipment that the bidder proposes to use in the .performance of this contract; e) The City's past experience, if any, with the. bidders and the general reputation of the bidder. The City will inspect bidder'.s facilities and equipment, prior to the recommendation of the award: and reserves. the right to inspect facilities and equipment at any time during the period of the contract. After the written proposals have. been examined and during the evaluation process, the. City may seek additional information from the bidders to clarify responses to aid in the final selection. process. 14. CONDITIONS INSTRUCTIONS AND ADDITIONAL. REQUIREMENTS: Proposals. su brnitted by agents or by. an attorney in -fact o f agent shall be accompanied by a true. copy of hisher Poorer of Attorney, or ether evidence of his /her, authority to act on. b of the. principal. If the proposal .is.: submitted by a corporation the certificate of corporation su brr itting the :proposal must be eecated if the proposal is signed by the Secretary of the: Corporation, the certificate rnust be executed by some. other officer of the. corporation, under the corporate seal. In Iieu of the. certificates of .corporation .submitting proposal,. the information required may be. attached to the proposal, copies to include the records of the cerporatio.n .as will. how the official character and authority of the officer. signing, duly curb f ied by the. Secretary or Assistant Secretary under the corporate seal, to be. true. copies. All proposals submitted shall be ..deemed to have been made with the. full acknowledgement. of all terms, conditions and requirements. herein contained. Bidders may submit more than one proposal. Each proposal shall be submitted separately with separate guaranties. It shall be the responsibility of each individual or entity submitting proposals .to see that his /her proposal.. is .dei.ivered within the time. and at :the :place prescribed in these provisions and specifications. Proposals received prior to the time of opening gill. be securely kept, unopened. No proposal or modification received after the time set for opening shall be considered. Proposals may be withdrawn by written or telegraphic request, which must be received, from those submitting proposals prior to the tirne fixed for opening. Proposals may be modified in the same manner and in compliance with the same terms and conditions of this invitation. Negligence on the part of the individual or entity submitting proposals in preparations of the proposal confers no right for the withdrawal of the proposal after it has. been opened. 16. rtel INTERPRETATION OF SPECIFICATIONS AND ADDENDA THERETO: Should it appear that the description of services to be furnished, or any .matter relative thereto., is not sufficiently. detailed or. explained. in these specification, the bidder may apply to.the City. Police. Department, Bureau. of Services Captain for further explanation. Upon such application by any bidder, or in .the event that it appears expedient to the .City. Police Department, Bureau of Services. Captain to correct any ambiguity in these specifications, the City Police Department, Bureau of Services Captain. may issue addenda thereto not later than seventy to (72) hours prior to the time set. for the opening of .bids. Such addenda shall be mal to those prospective bidders holding these specifications in the manner set fortis in Section 16. hereof. NOTICE TO BIDDERS: Any notice or addenda required. to be. mailed .to the bidder or prospective bidders by the City. of Alameda must be. mailed by certified mall to said bidder ©r bidders t the. business .address of said bidder. filed with the City of Alameda at the time that these specifications .were delivered to said prospective. bidder or in lieu thereof at.his/her.last:known business. address..Any such notice of addenda may be personally served. Evidence of such mailing shall be deerned the equivalent of personal. service of such notice of addenda. 17. GENERAL PROVISIONS: Scop of Work: A. Successful bidder. shall provide twenty -four (24) hour tour services, on call as directed .by the City of Alameda Police.Department. Be Successful bidder shall. provide outdoor secure storage.for toured vehicles as explained later .in this .spe.cification. C. Successful bidder and his/her operators shall cooperate with and. assist Police Department representatives. in removing hazards and. vehicles. as directed by the Police Officer at the scene. The successful bidder will assist in obtaining vehicle identification numbers, motor. numbers or .other identifying information as requested. Quantity of Work: The city makes no guarantee whatsoever, expressed or implied as to the number of tows, which the Police Department shall. request during the contact period. With. the exception of aborted togs and services performed on. city owned vehicles, the city of Alameda shall not be liable for any charge or charges for towing or any other allied. service unless. expressly a g reed to in written form. by the chief of. Police and /or. his representative. It being expressly understood and agreed that the successful bidder /bidders shall. nuke all charges to the owner or owners of the vehicles to which the service is rendered. Assignability: Any assignment of this contract without the prior written consent of the city shall be voided. subcontractors: The successful bidder shall perform all functions of this contract award without the use of sub contractors. Inspections: The city reserves the right to periodically inspect the successful bidder's..storage facilities, have vehicles towed .and stored by the successful. bidder at no charge for the purpose of observing the conduct .of the successful bidder's employees towards the public, and to eveluate procedures to guard against theft or damage to towed vehicles exercised by the successful bidder. char es for services: The rate structure will be established. by competitive bid. The bidders. must complete Exhibit A for. all cost elements.. Exhibit A will become. the rate structure for the contract.. Except as herein provided, the successful bidder shall not snake any other. charge .unless specifically authorized by. the vehicle owner or his /her authorized representative. In addition, no charge will be made by the successful bidder if the vehicle to. be towed is removed, prior to the arrival of the towing truck. If, however, the .tow. truck has arrived, the owner of the vehicle. to be towed will be subject to. a service charge as described under the definition for an aborted tow in lieu of the touring charge when the vehicle is not toured to the storage area. Aborted Togs: A. An aborted tour is defined as a police tow where a tow truck is dispatched, but no tow is made. B. In the .event that a police tow is dispatched, but no tour is made (an Aborted. Tow), the successful bidder will be allowed to collect a service charge in lieu of the towing charge from the vehicle owner or owners. If the successful bidder is unable to collect the aborted tour service char e 0 from the vehicle owner or owners, the successful bidder ma y submit billing to the city of. Alameda, together Frith. assignment of collection for the :charges. Such billing and .assignment to the City must be made. within a maximum period of One Hundred Eighty .(180) days from the date of the aborted tow service, but in any .case, the successf ul bidder. is. required to make every effort to collect from the. vehicle. owner and the billin g and assignment to the city gill follow only after a mini rum of One Hundred Twenty (120) day collection. period effort by the successful bidder computed from the date of the aborted tour service. In addition, billing and assignment of collection to the City will be .allowed only after it is shorn that the tour truck responded to the original call within theminimum response tune :as shown in this specification. 11v11ere the initial response time is longer than the minimum response time, no billing or.assignrnent to the city .rill be allowed. Response Tune: Successful bidder shall dispatch. equipment and personnel to arrive at the location. prescribed by. the Police. Department no later than twenty -four. (24) hours .front receipt of order from the Police. Department. Average response .time will be .measured overtime. The successful bidder gill. be evaluated periodically and advised of the results. Storage: All vehicles, which are abandoned, wrecked, dismantled and .inoperative, may be stored in an outdoor. facility. that must be fenced and protected from unauthorized entry. The fencing shell provide. sepu rity and be of a type to. provide adequate screening .so as to not :present an unsightly appearance. The City will consider bidders that have outdoor storage within a ten (10) ile m driving radius from central Alameda (Central Avenue and Grand Street). 24 -1-our Operation and Public Accessibiiit Successful bidder shall be required to have facilities available to the public for removal of toured vehicles on a seven (7) day, normal work hours (8am to 6pm) basis and the successful bidder shall post all the following information conspicuously at all office .locations open to the public: A. Schedule .of fees authorized by.this contract. B. Notice that copies. of the. contract and specifications are available at the office of the tow contractor for public inspection by any interested party. C. check cashing nd credit card policy of the contractor. g p y Protection of Vehicle contents: A. successful bidder gill, when assuming custody of a vehicle toured or stored. by Police Order, inventory the contents of the vehicle including property in the unlocked. storage compartments. This .inventory will be made. by the successful bidder's operator and shall be on forms approved by the.. chief of Police. potation .rill be made of any locked compartment. By signature on th invento the successful bidder acknowledges acceptance of legal. responsibility through the action of his /her. employees, or him /herself for the safe a nd proper tow and storage of the vehicle and for the security of the. inventoried personal property. Release of Toured Vehicles: The successful bidder shall have one telephone number that the public or Police Department maY call for .information on vehicles towed pursuant to.. this contract. Successful bidder's personnel answering such. telephones shall. be courteous and. provide complete information regarding the location of the vehicle. and method. of obtaining its release= including directions.to the.location to effect the .release, documentation required, charges to be paid and terms of payment. Sufficient telephone. lines, equipment and personnel shall be employed to provide public service without. unreasonable. delay. The successful bidder will fo.11or the .guidelines for releasing stored. vehicles as stated below: A. claimants shall be required to provide evidence satisfactory to the tour firm representative that they are entitled to receive the vehicle. They must have a copy of the release from the Alameda Police Department. Responsibility for release of the vehicle to a person without such evidence devolves fully on the successful bidder. When necessary, the Police Department will provide the successful bidder with reasonable assistance in verifying vehicle registration information, except those vehicles towed as abandoned during the normal course of performance under this contract. B. When the successful bidder's representative is satisfied that the requester is entitled to the vehicle, the fees provided :in this contract award .shall b.e collected and the requester promptly provided. possession of the vehicle. If the vehicle is stored at a location other than the one where the fees. are paid, transportation to the vehicle .gill be provided by the successful bidder without any charge and in a reasonable length of time. If transported. in a tour truck, successful bidder shall take reasonable precautions to avoid any inconvenience and /or soiling of the customers garment. C. PRIVATE PROPERTY ABATEMENT: In the event the towed vehicle has been abated :from private property under the sections 8 -22.1 through 8- 22.1 7 of the. Alameda Municipal Code it shall not thereafter be reconstructed or rnade..operabie .as provided for in section 8 -22.1 8 .of the Alameda .Municipal code and .22661 (f) of the California Vehicle code. Repair or Alteration of Vehicles: Successful bidder shall ..not snake any repairs or alterations to any vehicle without the express authorization of the registered. or legal owner, and the owner's insurance carrier. Contractor. may make only emergency alterations in order to tour the vehicle; however, no charge may be made.to the owner of the vehicle. Two-Way Radio Communications E ui spent: Each tour truck shall be equ I ipped with equipment capable of communications between the successful bidder's dispatching office and the tow truck. Error or Omissions: A When any vehicle .has. been ordered towed by the Police Department and it appears that the tour was in error. through a mistake of fact, the successful bidder shall release the vehicle to the owner at.no cost to the owner. I n the event of a clerical error. or oversight on the part of the Police Department wherein a vehicle is. stored. for a period longer than it should have .been, the successful. bidder shall release the vehicle to the owner at no storage cost for such excess storage period. B. In the above cases, if the tow or excess stora char resulted from an error of the Alameda Police throu a mistake of fact or a clerical error, the succe bidder ma char the Cit at the rate of 50% of the towin and 50% of the stora char per da of stora be the owner's re Provided, however, that if the circumstances were be the. contr of the Police department, neither the Cit nor the owner shad be liable for such char The .chief of Police and/or his desi shall make the determination as to errors or mistakes of fact and shall notif the successful bidder in writin Administration of Contract: The administration of this contract, after award, is assi to the Police Department. An appeals of .decisi made b the Chief of Police. ma be made to .the Cit Mana of t he Cit of Ala within ten (10) da the.d.etermination b the Chief of. Pol.ice. An appeals of. decisio :mad a ft e r t his ten (10) da period shall be deemed null.and. void. An .by the Cit Mana for the Cit of Alameda shall .be final and without further appeal. 18. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: On o.r.before.the.comm nt of the terms of this. a Ahe. successful.. bidder shall furnish Cit with certificates showin the amount, class of operations. covered .effective dates and dates of ..expiration o f insurance covera in compliance with the followin para Such certificates no mi �:successful bidders Which do. Ii it th e indemnification, shall also. c ontain substantiall t he follo s an of the above ins covered by this certification.: be c .or covera reduced before the. expiration date thereof, the insurer :affordin covera shall provide. thirt (30) da a notice.. to the Cit of Alameda b certified mail, 'Attention: Risk Mana It is. a that the successful.bidder shall maintain in force at all tunes durin the p erformance of this A all a ppropriate coverage of. i required by this A w ith an insura compan that i acceptabl to the Cit and licensed to do insurance business in the State of Endorsements naming .the Cit as additional insured shall be submitted with the insur certificates. A. COVERAGE: Contractor shall maintain the followin insurance covera 1 Workers' Compensation: Statutor covera as re b the State of California. 2) Liability: Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodil y Injury: $500,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate all other Property Damage: 1 00,000 .each occurrence $250,000 aggregate If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of $1, 000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. 3} Automotive: Comprehensive automobile liability coverage in the following minimum limits: IOM JTOH Property Damage: $500,000 each occurrence $100,000 each occurrence Combined .Single Limit: $1,000,000 each occurrence 4) Garage beeper's Legal Liability: $1 ,000,000 each occurrence B. SUBROGATION WAIVER: The. successful. bidder agrees that in the .event of loss due to .any. of the perils. for wh.ich has agreed to provide comprehensive general and ..automotive liability insurance that the successful bidder shall look solely. to its. insurance for. recovery. The successful bidder. hereby grants to City, on behalf of an insurer p comprehensive. general and automotive liability insurance to either. the successful bidder or. City With. respect to the services of the successf bidder herein, a. waiver of any right.to subrogation which any such insurer of said successful bidder nay acquire against City by virtue.. of the payment of any loss under.such insurance. C. FAILURE TO SECURE: If the successful. bidder at anytime during the term h fail or maintain the foregoing insurance, City shall. be permitted to. obtain such insurance in the .su.cc.es.sful bidder's name or as an. agent of the successful bidder and shall be compensated by the. successful bidder for the cost of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid. D. ADDITIONAL INSURED: City, its City Council, boards and commissions, Officers and employees shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverage. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy. E. SUFFICIENCY of INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by the City are not represented as being sufficient to protect the successful bidder. The successful bidder is advised to consult the successful bidder's insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for the successful bidder. All insurance shall be maintained at all times during the Agreement at the expense of the successful bidder. 19. HOLD HARMLESS: The successful bidder shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its. C.ity Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, cost and expenses whats ©ever, including reasonable attorneys' fees, regardless of the merits or outcomes of any such claim .or suit arising from or in any manner connected to the successful bidder's negligent performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. The successful bidder shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and.. against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, cost and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorney's fees, acpru i ng o.r resulting to any and all persons, firms or corporations furnishing or supplying perk, services, materials, equipment or .supplies arising from or in any manner connected to the successful bidder's negligent performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. 20. BIDDER: Shall be a corporation, partnership or individual. of sound. financial responsibility and must offer proof of the. same to the City's satisfaction by submitting with any proposals either of the following: A. A current business financial statement for the entity submitting a proposal that has been prepared on a responsible bank's standard financial statement form and that has been accepted by that bank for the purpose of establishing a line of credit for entity submitting a proposal. B. A notarized statement attesting to the financial ability of the organization submitting a bid to fulfill the terms of the specifications. This may be submitted either on the basis of existing operations within the. City of Alameda or a statement showing, under penalty of perjury the financial capability required to operate a business which would rneet the specifications, and the ability to maintain such financin includin g g available assets. and credit references. This notarized Statement must support a business st .aterr. ent for. an. existing corporation, partnershi or p individual that is nor. qualified to operate as a tam contractor. Such notarized. statement must be complete and signed by an acceptable financial .institution. C. In either case, the bidder must submit a separate listing of any and all personal property and equipment either personally owned ardor presently. leased for: the. purpose of .use to execute this contract award. if such .property is leased, proof of lease of said equipment must be provided to her the true financial statement as indicated in paragraph 20A or 20B. 21. FORCE MAJEURE: Neither party shall be liable for default or delay caused. by any occurrence beyond .its .r'easonable .control, including but not .limited to fires., strikes, accidents, or acts of God. 22. CERTIFICATION: We. hereby certify that the preceding comprises all the Specifications. and Provisions No. MSP..9 -01-2. adopted. b the City. Council of Y Y. the City of. Alameda on Septem 1 5., 2009 and are .alike in reproduction to any Y and all that will be issued to interested parties responding to the City's imitation to bid for these services. CITY of ALAMEDA, Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim city Manager Date: September 15, 2009 Re: Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a call for Bids After Receipt of the State water Resources Control Broad Approval Letter for the Installation of Mechanical Trash Racks at Stormwater Pump Stations, No. P.W. 08 -09 -23 BACKGROUND The Public Works Department has applied for a State Water Resources control Board (SWRCB) grant to install automatic trash racks for two storm drainage pump stations: Main Street and Webster Street. The Main Street station is located on the south side 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. DISCUSSION The proposed project will modify the existing storm drain structures, as needed, to install the trash racks and conveyor mechanisms, chain slatted fencing for security, and complete 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 outside of their 'loo -foot jurisdictional authority. Therefore, the Webster Street trash rack will be installed approximatel y 170 feet south of the Mariner Square Drive terminus within the parking lane on the west side of the street. By raid- September, the SWRCB intends to issue project approval letters for those projects that meet the funding requirements. Subsequent to the receipt of the approval letter, the funding agreement will be executed by the Interim city Manager per Resolution No. 14376. The award of contract has been scheduled for the October 20, 2009, City council meeting so that the SWRCB construction award deadline of the fall of 2009 is met and the first phase of construction can begin before the rainy season. A copy of the plans and specifications is on file in the city clerk's office. City council Agenda item #4-F Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council FINANCIAL IMPACT September 15, 2009 Pa 2 of 2 The SWRCB g rant is a no interest loan with the principle for 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 the California Environmental Qualit Act (CEQA the Main Street pro is Cate Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Class 1, and 15301(c), Existin Utilit Facilities/Existin Street. The Webster Street project is Cate Exempt under CEQA Guideline Section 15301(f), Addition of Safet or Health Protection Device in Con with Existin Structures, Facilities or Mechanical E RECOMMENDATION Adopt plans and specifications and authorize a call for bids after receipt of the SWRCB approval letter for the installation of mechanical trash racks at stormwater pump stations, No. P.W. 08-09-23. Respectfull submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Approved as to funds and account, Glen a y lnterimFina ce Director ES:gc CITY of ALA EDA Memorandum To: honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim city Manager Date: September 15, 2009 Re: Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for Bids After Receipt of the State Water Resources control Board Approval Letter for the Rehabilitation of the Structural Stability of Approximately 3,000 Linear Feet of the Southshore Lagoon Seawalls Adjacent to city Streets, No. P.W. 08 -09 -24 BACKGROUND The Public Works Department has applied for a State water Resources control Board (SWRCB) grant to rehabilitate the structural stability of approximately 3,000 linear feet of the Southshore lagoon seawalls adjacent to city streets. The work will take place in the City right -of way between LaJolla Drive and Caroline Street. DISCUSSION The proposed 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 gall. 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 gall will be performed when the lagoons are lowered as part of the city's annual cleaning. By raid- September, the SWRCB intends to issue project approval letters for those projects that meet the funding requirements. subsequent to the receipt of the approval letter, the funding agreement will be executed by the Interim city Manager per Resolution No. 14377. The award of contract has been scheduled for the October 20, 2009 city council meeting so that the SWR.CB construction award deadline of the fall of 2009 is met and the first phase of construction can begin before the rainy season. A copy of the plans and specifications is on file in the city clerk's office. City Council Agenda Item ##4 =G Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council FINANCIAL IMPACT September 15, 2009 Page 2 of 2 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (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 plans and specifications and authorize a call for bids after receipt of the SWRCB approval letter for the rehabilitation of the structural stability of approximately 3,000 linear feet of the southshore lagoon seawalls adjacent to city streets, No. P.W. 08-09 24. Respectfully su bmitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Approved as to funds and account, Glenda .Jay Interim finance Director RC:gc CITY o f ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: September 15, 2009 Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $221,136, Including Contingencies, to J.J.R. Construction, Inc., for Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal Year 2009 -2010, Phase 10. No. P.W. 06 -09 -15 a L f M me] III -ki I On July 21, 2009, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized a call for bids for repair of Portland Cement Concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and minor street patching, fiscal year 2009 -2010, phase 10, No. P.W. 06-- 09 -15. The project will repair approximately 4,000 linear feet of sidewalk in accordance with the parameters identified in the Comprehensive Sidewalk Repair Program. DISCUSSION To solicit the maximum number of bids and the most competitive price, specifications were provided to 18 Separate building exchanges throughout the Bay Area. A notice of bid was also published in the Alameda Journal. Seven contractors submitted bids, and the bids were opened on August 25, 2009. The list of bidders from lowest to highest for total project cost is as follows: Bidder Location Bid Amount J.J.R. Construction, Inc. San Mateo, CA $192,292.13 Sposeto Engineering, Inc. union City, CA $243,272.30 Bonatech Engineering Stockton, CA $254,912.40 Golden Bay Construction, Inc. Hayward, CA $277,067.65 FBD Vanguard Construction Livermore, CA $296,541.90 AH I San Francisco, CA $305,498.16 S penCon Danville, CA $308,447.70 City council Agenda Item #4 -H 1 1• Honorable [Mayor and Members of the city council September 15, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Staff contacted several references provided by the lover bidder and received positive feedback about the quality and timeliness of their work. staff proposes to award a contract to J.J.R. construction, Inc., for a total amount of $221,135, including a 15% contingency. A copy of the contract is on file in the city clerk's office. FINANCIAL IMPACT The project is budgeted for FY09 -10, in the Capital Improvement Program (Project No. 98202.10), with monies allocated from Measure B. There is no impact to the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the sidewalk repair project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), Repair of Existing Facilities. RECOMMENDATION Award a contract in the amount of $221,136, including contingencies, to J.J.R. construction, Inc., for repair of Portland cement concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and minor street patching, fiscal year 2009 -2010, phase 10, No. P.W. 06-09-15. Respectfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Approved as to funds and account, Glend J Interim finance Director am cc. Measure B Watchdog Committee CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: September 15, 2009 Re. Accept the Work of Golden Bay Construction, Inc., for Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching Fiscal Year 2008/2009 Phase 9 No. P.W. 05 -08 -13 BACKGROUND On June 17, 2008, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and called for bids for the repair of Portland Cement Concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and minor street patching, fiscal year 200812009, No. P.W. 05-08-13. On August 5, 2008, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $511,680, including contingencies, to Golden Bay Construction, Inc., for this work. This project also included the construction of bus stop pads on Shoreline Drive, Grand Street, and willow Street for the anticipated future rerouting of AC Transit Line 63 from Otis Drive. DISCUSSION The project has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications and is acceptable to the Public works Department. The project repaired approximately 4,600 linear feet of sidewalk and upgraded ten bus stop pads, and the final project cost is $345 BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT Funding for the project is budgeted under the Capital Improvement Program (Project No. 06 -72 and 82 -02) with monies allocated from Measure B and the Joint Powers Risk Management Authority excess liability pool. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. City Council Agenda Item ##4-1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW September 15, 2099 Page 2 of 2 In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the sidewalk repair project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), Repair of Existing Facilities. RECOM Accept the work of Golden Bay Construction, Inc., for repair of Portland cement Concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and minor street patching, fiscal year 2008/2009, phase 9, No. P.W. 05- 08 -1 Respectfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio ¢Public Works Director Approved as to funds and account, llz� Glenda Ja Interim inan e Director s P:gc cc: Watchdog Committee CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Cit Mana Date: September 15, 2009 Re: Adopt a. Revised Pr 1 B Local Streets and Roads Fundin Proposal for Fiscal Year 2008.2009 to the State Department of Finance, Appropriate $425,000. in Proposition 1 B Funds and. in Sew Fu for A Work U Pavement Mana Pro Phase. 29, and Authorize the Interim Cit Mana to Execute all Necess Documents In November 2006, voters approved Proposition 1 B (Prop 1 B) which provided bond fund for a variet of tran priorities, includin $2.�billion. for.citi and c ounties to fund the ma.in and i.rnprovern en 'of. local transportation 'facilities. The. State. Controller's Office determined that. the Cit of. Ashare. o f Prop 1 B fu was $1,210,409 for fiscal. y ear 2007/2008. and $1,11 8,7.52 for. fiscal y ear 20.08/2009. The first allocation .was used forthe. Citywide resurfacin .project. :constructed. in.t.he summer of 2008. On.D.e.cember 2, 20087 the... Cit .:Co appr the fundi proposal (proposal) for utilization.of .the..second allocation. Due. tochan in fund sources and const schedulin the Prop 1B proposal .is now in need of revision. DISCUSSION The ori Prop 1 B. prop for th fiscal. y ea r 2008/2009 allo of funds w as for two projects Fernside. Boulevard from Hi Street to Thompson Avenue, and Central Avenue, from Pacific Avenue to Webster. Street. After the prop was approved. b the Cit Council. and the State, funds :became.%available from the American Rec and Reinvestment Act of 20.09 to..fu.1. I y fun C Avenue... Central. Ave Js. nor under construction. Due to funding and construct sc hedulin g chan Fer Boulevard will not be const until th sum of 2.01 This. rev.ised. proposal..is necessar to reassi t he P rop :1. funds from. Central Avenue to other streets :and to chan the dates of construction for Fernside Boulevard. This proposal also modifies th.e..fis.cal y ear 2009 2010 and fisc y ear. 201.0.2011 bud recentl passed b th Ci C In. th bud the Prop 1 B funding for fiscal y ear 2009-2010 is $x'12,000 a.n fiscal y ear 2010-2011 is :$42 This.se.con. amount included. approximatel $18,0.00 in expected interest. The Public ..Works Department PWD has since been advised that the entire principal of available Prop 1 B Cit Council A Item #44 0945-09 Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 4 funds, $1,118,752, must be encumbered by .duly 1, 2010. In order to encumber all of the Prop 1 B funds by this date, all of the funds must be brought into the fiscal year 2009 -2010 budget. To implement the revised Prop 1 B proposal, the City Council must first approve and then authorize the submission of the proposal electronically to the State Department of Finance (DOF) Prop 1B website for approval. This submittal must be approved by the DOF before the program's October 1, 2009., annual report filing deadline. The revised proposal must include, at a minimum, he following information: 1. A description and location of the proposed projects). 2. The amount estimated to be spent on each project. 3. A proposed schedule for the completion of each project. 4. The estimated useful life of each project. The revised Prop 1 B proposal include the following streets: 1. Fernside Boulevard, from Tilden Way to Thompson Avenue.- This 0.85 -mile stretch .carries a high volume of traffic to the .High Street Bridge and has bike lane and bus traffic. as well. Staff proposes to reconstruct the. failed. areas and resurface the street, including slurry sealing from Tilden Way :to. Nigh Street, and rubberized asphalt concrete. from .High Street to Thompson Avenue. The cost is estimated. at $1,1 7.5,000. Prop 1B provides prin.cipa.l fundn The balance of the g revenue is to come from the City's Recycle Fund and a Recycle Asphalt Concrete (RAC) grant from the state. If interest is available, it will be used as Drell. 2. Rosewood Way and. the. associated short connectors .ar d.oul -de -sacs aloe Rosewood Way These streets comprise.. approximately 0660 miles, and are located on the south side of Otis Drive. They have. been heavily damaged in some areas by grater resin and .water service breaks, and by typical aging. This summer, the East. Bay Munidipal Utility District removed and. replaced several sections of defective. pipe to. avoid. :any, further damage. to. the streets. As part of the utility repair, Rosewood. Way pavement was. restored .to the. pre construction condition.. PWD staff proposes. to reconstruct the failed areas and. resurface the entire street, not justthe segments impacted by utility construction. Using Prop 1 B funds, the cost is estimated at $208,000. The specific streets are as follows: a. Rosewood flay, Ta.rryton Isle to Otis Drive b. Tarryton .1sle, Otis Drive .to south end .cul. -de -sac c. L_archrnont Isle, Otis..Drive to Rose ood Way d. country Isle, Rosewood Way to the south end cul-de-sac e. Amber Isle, Rosewood flay to the south end cul -de -sac Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 15, 2009 Page 3 of 4 3. Cyclic Sewer Phase 5 streets These streets, totaling approximately 2 miles, have had sewer mein repairs. within the past year. PAID staff proposes to reconstruct the failed areas and resurface the streets with asphalt concrete or slurry seal, depending on th.e.ir level of service and condition of pavement. The cost is estimated at $277,000,.of which $223,000 will carne from Prop. 1 B .funds, while $54,00.0 will come from the Serer Fund. The specific streets are. as follows: a. Garfield Avenue, High Stre.et-to Fernside.Boulevard b. Pearl Street, Fernside Boulevard to. Central .Avenue c. Taylor Avenue, Eighth Street..to Page Street d. Pacific Avenue, Willa Street.to Park Street e. College Street, Calhoun Street to.. Encinal.Avenue f. oak Street, Powell Street to Encinal Avenue. Construction on the move- mentioned streets. wi r between June 1 and September 30, 2010, as part of the City's Pavement Management Program Phase 29. The estimated useful life of the asphalt .concrete pavement is 20 .years, while slurry seal is estimated to last five years. FINANCIAL IMPACT The Prop 1B funds are fully appropriated under the Cfiscal year 2009 2010.. and fiscal year 2010 -2011 resurfacing program, which includes the Pavement Management Program, Phase 29 and Phase. 30..On August 3., 2009., the. City Council approved these projects in the Capital. I n provement Program. In. order to. enourilber the funds before July 1, 2010 the fiscal year Z01 g- 20.1.1, Phase 30, Prop .l .B. funds will have to be roved up to fiscal year 2009 -20.1 0, Phase 29. The city has Iready received these funds, which amount to approximately $425,000, including principal and interest. There is. funding in the Serer Fund (602):to..cover the $54. proposed appropriation. :All. other funds required to. fully fund the construction of Fernsde Boulevard have .already been appropriated under Phase 29. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Alameda. Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with the California EnYironmental (CEQA), resurfacing projects are Categorically Exempt under CEoA Guidelines Section 1 5301 (c), Existing Facilities. A CEOA Categorical Exclusion. d filed Frith .the County immediately upon approval of this revised funding proposal by the City Council. Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council RECOMMENDATION September 15, 2009 Page 4of4 Adopt a revised Prop 1 B Local Streets and Roads proposal for fiscal year 2008 -2009 to the State DOF, appropriate $425,000 in Prop I B funds and $54,000 in sewer funds for additional work under pavement management program, phase 29, and authorize the Interim city Manager to execute all necessary documents. Respectfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio h Public Works Director Approved as to funds and account, Glend Ja Interim Finance Director LK:gc CITY of ALAMEDA Memorandum To: honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Teresa L. Highsmith City Attorney Date: September 15, 2009 Re: Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 59 at Article IV to Chapter II Pertaining to Contracts in Writing BACKGROUND The voters adopted a Charter amendment in November 2008 to require that contracts with the City must be in writing. The amendment, Measure R, stated that the dollar value triggering the requirement for a contract to be in writing would be set by Council by ordinance. DISCUSSION The Charter subcommittee of City Council last year proposed an amendment to clarify how a contract is formed and enable the City to better defend itself against contract claims. The ordinance implements the Charter amendment. The ordinance establishes that every contract with a value of more than $1,000 must be in writing. The ordinance also states that the City is not bound by any contract unless the requirements of the ordinance are met. In addition to the dollar threshold, the ordinance clarifies several aspects of forming a contract. when a public works contract must be approved by City Council, the plans and specifications for the work must be approved by Council. Any contract for a duration of more than five years, regardless of the dollar amount, must receive Council approval. Contracts for personal or professional services for $75,000 or more must be approved by Council. Contracts must be signed by an authorized employee, or in the situation where Council approves the contract, the signing party must be the person authorized by Council. City Attorney approval as to form is required for any contract except those involving services or supplies of $5,000 or less. The ordinance exempts emergency contracts from the requirements. FINANCIAL IMPACT The adoption of the ordinance will have no cost to the City. City Council Report Rev Agenda Item ##4 -K 02-131.09 Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The ordinance adds Section 2.59 to the Municipal Code. The ordinance implements new Art. 22 Sec. 13 of the City Charter, adopted by voters in November 2048. Adopt the ordinance establishing the dollar amount requiring contracts to be in writing and providing additional clarifications about contract formation. Respectfully submitted, Teresa L. Highsmith City Attorney I1:►�i1 CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 59 AT ARTICLE Ill TO CHAPTER 11 PERTAINING TO CONTRACTS IN WRITING Al WHEREAS, at the consolidated election of November 4, 2008, Alameda voters amended the City Charter b passage of Measure R and 1 a T WHEREAS, Measure R added Article XXI I, Section 13 to the City Charter, which requires a written contract when the consideration involved n the transaction is reasonably valued at more than an amount specified by ordinance; and WHEREAS, related requirements would aid in the proper administration of contracts; and WHEREAS, the addition of contract protocols to the Municipal code will provide notice to prospective contracting parties of legal requirements and provide legal protection to the city. BE IT ORDAINED by the city council of Alameda that: Section 1 The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Article IV to chapter ll, which shall read as follows: ARTICLE IV CONTRACTS 2-59 AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS 2 -59.1 Formalities Approval Except as otherwise provided by ordinance, every contract involving consideration reasonably valued at more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) shall be made in writing or other manner as provided by ordinance. The draft of the contract shall be approved by the employee authorized to make the contract. Every contract must be approved by the City Attorney as to form, except the following: contracts involving a sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), or less, for the purchase, rental, repair or maintenance of materials, supplies and equipment; (2) Contracts involving the sum of Five Thousand Dollars {$5,000 or less, for the purchase of professional or personal services, or for construction or maintenance services; Introduction of Ordinance #4 -K CC 00 -15 -00 (3) Contracts not required to be made in writing or other manner as provided by ordinance. The contract shall be signed on behalf of the City lay: (a) the employee authorized to enter into the contract; or (b) in the case of a contract authorized by Council, the person authorized by the Council. The City shall not be, and is not, bound by any contract u n less it complies with the requirements of this section and all other applicable requirements of the Charter. The restrictions of this section shall not apply to a case of a sudden, unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services as provided in section 3 -15.2 of the Charter. 2 -59.2 submission of Terms to Council. Whenever any public works contract with the City of Alameda must be approved or authorized by the City Council, the head of the department or other employee of the City entering into such contract shall submit to the City Council for its approval the plans and specifications for the work, services and materials to be furnished the City under such contract. 2 --59.3 Limitation and Power to make Contracts. (a) Except as otherwise provided in the Charter or this Code, no employee of the City shall make any contract, obligating the City, or any department of the City, to make or receive payments of money or other valuable consideration for a period longer than five (5) years, unless such contract shall have been first approved by the Council. (b) For the purpose of this section, a contract obligating the City, or any operational department of the City, to make or receive payments or other valuable consideration for a period [anger than five (5) years, shall include: a contract which contains a provision, such as, but not limited to, an option clause, which allows for a cumulative period longer than five (5) years, said period calculated as of the date of execution of the contract. (c) Contracts for personal or professional services involving specialized knowledge, including without limitation architects, engineers, or accountants, in the amount of $x'5,000 or more must be approved by Council. 2 -50.4 Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to the following terms used in this article: "contract" means any agreement, franchise, lease, or concession, including agreements for any occasional professional or technical personal services for the performance of any work or service, the provision of any materials or supplies, or the rendition of any service to the city of Alameda or to the public, which is let, awarded or entered into with, or on behalf of, the City of Alameda or any awarding authority thereof. Section This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Section 3 severability clause. It is the declared intent of the city council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provisions of this ordinance. Presiding officer of the city council Attest: Lara Weisiger, city Clerk 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 2009 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set ray hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of 2009. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12772 N.S. TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY .23 ACRES LOCATED AT 3236 AND 3238 BRIGGS AVENUE, APN 069 0076046011 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: -116 of Ordinance No. 1277 Section 1: Section 11 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 Final Passa of Ordinance #4-L CC 09-15-09 Exhibit N OWE- 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 Grote to wit: 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 CTS" OF ALFA Memorandum To: honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From Debra Ku rita City Manager Teresa Highsmith City Attorney Lara Weisiger City Clerk Date: December 4, 2007 Re: Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution loo. 12121 Setting the he Order of Business of Cit y of Alameda City council Meetings At the November 13, 2007 workshop, the City Council discussed protocols for 'Individual p nd�rr�dual Counc lrr embers seeping information, new policies, or projects. other cities' s practices were reviewed, and the council indicated an interest in implementing t p g he City of Fremont's model. DISCUSSION The City of Fremont City Council Referrals practice is*, a) Any Councilmember may, prior to any regular City ouncil meeting, ng, bring any matter to the attention of the city Council. that is not otherwise scheduled on a City Council agenda. The matter will be placed on the agenda in the Council g unc�l Referral section. The sponsoring Council r ember shall give the City Manager g er a brief description of the subject to be printed in the agenda, sufficient to inform the City Council and public of the nature of the referral. b) The City council, after considering the referral, may do an of the following: 1 Ta Ise no action, y y 2} Refer the matter to staff to schedule as a future City ouncil agenda y g item. 3) Take dispositive action if Council finds that sufficient notice to the C ouncil and the public has been provided by the published agenda, sufficient information has been received by the Council, and no formal published notice of a publi+c hearing is required. Re: Agenda Item 5- 09-15-09 Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council December 4, 2007 Wage 2 of 4) The Councilme giber who requested the referral has the privilege of sp eaking first on the item. Attach 1 is a form for Cou nci lrnernbers to use to make Referrals. BUDGET CONSIDER TIO N /FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no impact on the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Alameda Municipal code section 2 -1.5 addresses submission of Matters. It reads: "Before 5 :00 p.m. on the Monday of the week prior to each council meeting any Cit official, board, commission or other municipal body having any reports, communications or other matters for submission to the council, shall hand the same to the City lerk whereupon t y p he clerk shall arrange a list of such matters accordin to the order of business specified in subsection 2 -1.6 hereof, and furnish a typewritten copy of the list to each member of the council. 11 Compliance with this Municipal code section requires Cou ncilmembers to submit Council referrals by 5 :00 p.m. on Monda y the week prior to regular meetings. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution amending Resolution Flo. 121 setting the order of business of Cit Council of Alameda City c meetings. Respectfully submitted, Debra Kurita City Manager Teresa Highsmith City Attorney r La a Weisiger City clerk Attachment: council Referral Form COUNCIL REFERRAL FORM (To be submitted to the City Clerk) Name of Council member requesting Referral: Date of submission to City Cleric (must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on the Monday before the week of the council meeting requested): Requested Council Meeting date to consider council Referral: Brief description of the subject to be printed on the agenda, sufficient to inform the city council and public of the nature of the Council Referral: City Council Attachment to Report e: Agenda Item 12-04-07 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 12121 SETTING THE ORDER OF BUSINESS OF CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 2� WHEREAS, Councilmembers at the November 13, 2007, City Council meetin indicated a desire to have a Council Referral section at Cit Council meetin and WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 36812 and 54954.3 g ive the Cit Council direction to adopt reasonable regulations concernin the proceedin and order of business of C Council meetin and WHEREAS, the Cit Council at the Ma 21, 1991, City Council meetin approved Ordinance 2556, establishin that Order of Business ma be established b Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Cit Council at the June 18, 1991, City Council meetin approved Resolution No. 12121, settin the Order of Business of Cit of Alameda Cit Council Meetin and WHEREAS, it is desired that the Order of Business be amended to include Council Referral as a standard a item on the regular a NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Order of Business be amended as follows.- Section 1. At the hour appointed for ea re meetin the members of .the Councii, Cit Mana Cit Attorne and City Clerk shall assemble in the desi location. Thereupon, business shall be taken up for consideration and disposition in the order established b Resolution of the Cit Council in the followin order: 1 Roll Call 2. A Chan 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Da and Announcements 4, Consent Calendar 5. Age nda Items 6. Oral Communications, Non-A (Public Comment 7. Council.Referrals 8. Council Communications (Communications from Council 9. Adjournment Resolution #4-H CC 12-04-07 Section 2,, The order of business set b the aforesaid Resolution of the Cit Council ma be suspended at an Cit Council meetin b a ma vote of the members in attendance. 1, the undersi hereb certif that the fore Resolution was dul and re adopted and passed b the Council of the City of Alameda in re meetin assembled on the 4 th da of December, 2007, b the followin vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS, IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m hand and affixed the official seal of the said Cit this 5 th da of December, 2007. Lara Weisi Cit Clerk City of Alameda City of Alameda Summary of Priority Setting Workshop November 13, 2007 Combine #4 and #6 Add something about workforce Planning and development Concern about the items being too specific Department vs. citywide (Council) priorities currently seems disproportionately a few depts. Need to clarify structure of objectives to priorities /work plan; what is the framework; are the "City Objectives" actually "policy objectives" Tie priorities back to budget City Council Referral Procedures The purpose of this discussion was to create an orderly process through which Council members and staff can be clear about work that is being requested, whether the work can be done in a reasonable period of tune, and whether it is consistent with Council direction. There are tunes where one Councilmember will have an interest in the staff exploring something or preparing a report on an issue; staff is not always clear about whether the one Coun.cilrnernber is representing the interests of the entire Council. since staff has a full work program, it means redirecting staff from existing priorities and Council direction. This can inadvertently re- arrange Council priorities. Additionally, during the year, needs will emerge, 3 requiring new attention, and it means we need to be able to modify our priorities. Therefore, the purpose of this portion of the agenda was to create a process that Council and staff. can follow. Management Partners prepared a memo, which described. the process used p by several cities that have created methods of handling council requests. The memo was reviewed at the workshop and a discussion then took place. The quest.ion p osed for discussion was: `when new 'issues arise from a Councilmernber, what are our options for dealing with them Several rnethp s .are used by other cities to determine Council direction on a Council member's request, including: If the request can be handled in approximately one hour, and it is consistent with current..C.ounc l policy and direction, the City Manager can assign it to be done. This is referred to as the "one -hour rule." 2. A Counpilmernber prepares a "Council referral's which is written in advance and placed on Council Agenda for discussion. 3. The City Manager gives a verbal or written report on ghat would be required to handle the request. 4. There is no change in policy or practices without Council direction. 5. Copies of information provided to one Council member goes to all Council members Council and EMT Comments: a Management needs to better clarify the impact or time involved to respond to a request. p 'q The impact of a request needs to be part of the Council's consideration of the request from a Counpilmember. what are the casts in staff tune, dollars, impact on other priorities, other costs? routine operational items should not be affected by a new process (i.e. citizen complaints). A new process should only apply to special requests or new initiatives, since we're talking about impacts on or shifting of priorities or resources. Management Partners, Inc. 5 City of Alameda Summary of Priority setting workshop November 13, 2007 city Manager needs to clarify or provide input if what is involved to fulfill a request is more than was expected or is not feasible (i.e., cruise line research too many hours of work impacting other priorities). Give council the information needed to make an informed decision about whether the request is important enough to pursue. Use the "reasonableness test." Staff asks that the council be clear about the direction; staff does not feel comfortable asking if all other councilrnernbers are interested in pursuing something seems disrespectful), and assume if a council member requested 'it then staff must do it. This is the reason for a need for a clear procedure so everyone understands the request and ghat is involved. New council Referral Process A consensus of all 5 council members resulted in the following process: 1. Apply "one flour" Rule, but expand the tirnefrarne to a few hours (does not refer to constituent complaints or routine operations; only special requests) q 2. Use Fremont Model of "council Referrals." councilmembers agendize information requests or new assignments for council consideration and staff~ inform as to ghat will be involved in responding -and impacts on other work. 3. If changes in priorities or information.. requests come out at council meetings, council will give specific direction to staff, and staff will seek clarification when needed as well as providing information on impacts. 4. If no clear direction is given, then it's not direction from the council. clarify direction at end of an item -with consensus (through the City Clerk 5. If more time is needed, the stern has to go back to council for direction: Use the Council referral process (agendize) Requests first go through city Manager or Assistant city Manager Issue Bn Curing the course of the workshop, various items were raised to be handled at another time and place. Those items were: Would like to have a 2r discussion of priorities will be placed on a council agenda Consider a document retrieval database 0 Review Palo Alto protocols Next Steps At the end of the workshop, the next steps in the priority setting process were reviewed, as follows: EMT will create and implement a revised reporting format, to be further revised as useful improvements are identified. Council discussion of priorities will be set for a future council meeting. Council referral process will be written up and implemented. Objectives and priorities (once agreed to at a Council meeting) will be incorporated into the decision making process for the next two -year budget. Management Partners, Inc. 0 unanimous voice vote 5. (-*07-565 Recommendation to accept the Impact Fee Report for Police and Fire Services. Accepted. 07-566 Recommendation to accept Affordable Housing ordinance Annual Review. Former coun.c i lmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated Affordable Housing discussions always address money and building; lower income neighborhood preservation is never discussed; emphasis should be given to preservation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether former coun.ci lmember Kerr was talking about existing neighborhoods and issues such as home additions. Former councilmember Kerr responded huge planned projects could be a possible intrusion in her neighborhood; a Planning Board Member suggested moving the Wang Project west of Sherman Street; another Planning Board Member suggested running all the streets northward to the Beltline; traffic protection was discarded. counc i lm.emher Matarres e moved approval of the staff recommendation. councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. *07 -567 Recommendation to accept the Annual Review of the Citywide Development Fee and the Fleet Industrial supply center (FISC) /catellus 'traffic Fee. Accepted. *07-568 Recommendation to appropriate $17,676 in Measure B Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Funds as the required local match for accepting a Bicycle Facility Program Grant from the Bay Area Quality Management District. Accepted. 07- -569 Resolution. No. 14161 "Amending Resolution No. 12121 Setting the order of Business of city of Alameda city council Meetings." Adopted. Coun.c i lmember deHaan stated currently any Counc i lmember can place any subject matter on the agenda; the proposal would eliminate said process; that he does not have a problem with coun.cilmembers identifying what they want to place on the agenda; one of the actions [outlined in the staff report] is no action; after a matter gets to council. Referral, the council can decide that it does not want to hear the matter and the issue would never get placed on the Regular Meeting 3 Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 agenda. in any. f orm o the current system is not broken; that he does not see a need to do this [add Council R e f e r r a l it [Council Referral] takes array the latitude that Councilmembers all have- -the prerogative of placing matters on the agenda; that he is not sure that he is in favor; removing the [staff report] action. b (1) "no action" might be useful.. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan sees the issue as limiting Council's ability to put things on the agenda. Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative; stated it [council Referral] is going to place it [the matter] not even as a real agenda item; it [the matter] is going to be a Council. Referral. Mayor Johnson stated it the proposal] pretty much follows the current practice; now a Councilmember brings a matter up under Council Communications and if there is consensus the matter is brought back as an agenda item; inquired whether said process is the current practice. Councilmember deHaan responded in the negative; stated matters are not voted upon under council Cornunications; the war resolution was the only situation voted upon, which carne from the community itself. Mayor Johnson stated the council acts via consensus. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot recall ever going to the City Manager and requesting a matter be placed on the agenda; what happens is councilmembers have brought up items under council. Communications and the Council as a body has directed the City Manager to place the matter on the agenda; this [the proposal] formalizes the process. Mayor Johnson stated that she sees the matter as formalizing That has been done. Councilmember deHaan stated former Councilmember Daysog has dome it [placed matters on the agenda] quite a fever times; a few~ times former Councilmember Daysog would say that he wanted a platter to be part of the agenda. Mayor Johnson stated not that she was aware of; that she served on the Council with former Councilmember Daysog and she does not recall that [Councilmember Daysog putting matters on the agenda] Former Councilmember Barbara. Kerr, Al ameda stated that she recalls Regular Meeting 4 Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 going to the City Manager and requesting that matters be placed on the agenda; t he workshop when the matter was discussed did not have public input; when she was the City's representative to League of California Cities (LCC) Counc i lrr embers from the few cities with said provision indicated 'it worked out to be a gag order; if the majority of Council prevents a Counci lmerrber from putting something on the agenda, it would disenfranchise the people who elected that person; furthermore, people interested in the issue would have to come to two Council. meetings: one to discuss placing the matter on the agenda and one to address the matter on the agenda. Vice Mayor Tam stated, as the LCC representative, she learned from other cities, such as Palo Alto and Fremont, that the process helped increase public awareness and transparency about why certain things get on the agenda and others do not; having the formalized process helps provide fuller Council discussion, of issue and helps guide and direct priorities. Counc i lmember Gilmore inquired whether Counc i lmembers would have to complete a referral form if interested in a topic raised by a member of the public at a Council meeting; questioned what the proposal does to the Council's on the fly consensual process. The city Manager responded the process allows staff to provide cost information and whether the item would change priorities or work plans. Councilmember Matarrese stated the process does not have anything to do with cost and addresses whether or not a matter would be placed on an agenda; Counci lmember Gilmore s point was if a speaker raises an issue and there is Council consensus, the matter would be placed on an agenda at a future time; it the proposal] puts in writing what is now handled under Council Communications; the Council makes the formalized vote on placing the matter on the agenda. Coun.c i l member Gilmore stated that she sees two distinct processes; the [referral] form would be used if a Coun.ci.lmember has an idea to be researched; however, asking a member of the public to go through the same hoops that Coun.cilmembers go through is not fair; former Coun.cilmember Kerr's point is well taken; it takes a lot to get people to come to City Hall or call, whereas, Coun.c i lmembers are here and have contact with staff. Mayor Johnson stated council can make it clear that Council is intending to do so; if a speaker conveys a great idea and the ma3 on ty of Council requests follow up the matter could be brought back. Regular Meeting 5 Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 The City Manager stated that she was addressing when individual Counc i lmembers make a request. Councilmember deHaan inquired how many times individual Counc i lmembers have brought f orward an agenda item in the last year; that he does not believe Council has done so. Mayor Johnson stated Council has done so a number of times, by consensus, under Council Communications. Councilmember deHaan stated it requesting a matter be placed on an agenda has been dome within Council Communications; with Council. Referrals, Counc s lmembers would be prohibited from talking about matters under Council Communications. Mayor Johnson stated platters cannot be discussed. under Council Communications. Councilmember deHaan stated in the past one individual. Councilmember was able to put a matter on the agenda. Vice Mayor Tam stated there are provisions to do so [place a natter on the agenda] in the City's Municipal Code, provided that the matter is provided one week in advance. Counc i lmember deHaan stated said provision is no problem; that he does not think Council wants to stifle it [the provision] by bringing a matter to a vote initially to see if Council wants to discuss the issue; it the proposal] is not fair and not in the best interest of anyone. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the proposal affects Council's ability to call for review any decision of a board or commission. The City Manager responded in the negative; stated the City of F'remont's model was designed to place a matter on the agenda that might require a change in work plans or a change in direction; the platter would be placed under Council Referral, rather than having Counc i lmembers raise the issue under Council Communications; the f ormal structure would allow Counci lmembers to place an item on the agenda so that staff could respond and provide information; when staff puts the item on the agenda, Council would have the information to determine whether it wants to move the item forward on the agenda. Councilmember deHaan stated it is no different if Couno i lmembers go Regular Meeting 6 Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 to the City Manager and request the matter be placed on the agenda. Mayor Johnson stated the problem with that [individual Cou.nci lmenbers directing placing items on the agenda is that 'it gets into the area of one Couneilmember directing staff. Counc i lmember deHaan stated the Counc i lmembers are not doing so. Mayor Johnson stated agenda items have staff reports; one Coun.ci lmember directing staff to do necessary work, create a staff report and place the matter on an agenda is in violation of the Charter. Councilmember deHaan stated said situation has not occurred on the current Council's watch. councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot remember said event happening; that he has never gone to the City Manager and requested a matter be placed on the agenda; that he brings up the issue under Council Communications to get the consensus to agree to place the matter on the agenda. Counci lmember deHaan stated big box is an example; there was not a full vote by the council, however, bringing up and discussing the issue was still a healthy thing; that he wants to put matters on the agenda to hear more about the issue, costing staff hours is a different thing. Mayor Johnson stated that she has not gone to the requested something be placed on the agenda; Coun.c i lrnembers have not done so; that she views formalizing what is done now; the Council has generous in complying with requests [to place agenda]. City Manager and it sounds like the proposal as always been very matters on the councilrnem.ber deHaan stated there have not been problems in the past; that he does not foresee future problems; questioned whether this [the proposal] is Mayor Johnson's recommendation. Mayor Johnson responded in the negative. councilmember deHaan inquired who put the matter on the agenda. Mayor Johnson responded it was part of the workshop. The City Manager stated it was an outcome of the workshop; part of the task to staff was to develop the form; due to the way the system is set up, a resolution is required to put a new section on Regular Meeting 7 Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 the agenda. Mayor Johnson stated that she has no problem with Council communicating with staff; that she was on the Council when Council voted to get rid of the council -staff communication rules established by a prior city Manager; the Council has to be careful with individual Council.members directing staff; that she does not see hoer a matter can be placed on the agenda without numerous staff hours being spent. The City Attorney stated Council cannot legally take a consensus action regarding items raised under council Communications because there has not been a description on the agenda and the public does not know what may be brought up; the purpose of the formalized rul e is to provide an opportunity to get the public involved in the discussion; if the matter is submitted ahead of time, it can be placed on the agenda under the new section with a sufficient description; there will not be a staff report yet so staff resources will not have been expended; however, the title can be a sufficient description so that the public understands what Sri 1 l be considered., Council can take an action that night, there could be no action taken, or Council could request a formal staff report and rror e information at a future meeting; the purpose is to permit a legal action to be taken and allow public participation. Coun.cilmember Matarrese stated said explanation clarifies the matter and removes the chance of it becoming a gag rule; the matter can be discussed and a vote can be taken, which cannot occur under Council Communications; the proposal enhances the ability to get something from a single counci lmember heard in a fashion noticed to the public ,without running into the legal problem of providing direction, even by consensus, on a matter that was not on the agenda. Councilmember deHaan stated ghat the Council, is doing today is bringing the matter as an agenda item; questioned why a separate agenda section is needed to do it. The city Attorney stated the Council has never violated the Brown. Act during council Communications because a vote has never been called for; the City Manager has voluntarily placed a matter on the agenda or provided information upon seeing an interest from one or more counci lmembers the process is being formalized to provide greater public participation; the matter is a follow up of the issue addressed at the workshop. counci lmember d.eHaan stated that he pulled the February 6, 2006 minutes regarding the war resolution and there was an official Regular Meeting 8 Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 vote; requested the record be reviewed. The City Attorney stated there can be a vote if the matter is placed, on the agenda. Councilmember deHaan stated the matter was raised by the public. Mayor Johnson stated that the matter was on the agenda. The City Manager stated a title was placed on the agenda under Council Communications; Council Referral would be the proper place for such an item. Councilmember ber Matarres e inquired how one Councilmember directing the City Manager to place an item on an agenda tests against the Charter's provision that the Council provides direction to the City Manager. The City Attorney stated under the Charter, the City Manager is responsible for operations and implementing the policy decisions of the majority of Council; a majority of Council is required to direct the City Manager to take an implementing action or to implement anything within, the realm of operations. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether that includes putting the agenda together. The City Attorney responded putting the agenda together is part of operations; the City Manager controls the agenda. Mayor Johnson inquired whether one Councilmember directing a matter be placed on the agenda is a Charter violation. The City Attorney responded making a request is not a Charter violation; it is up to the City Man.a.ger to put something on the agenda if she determines that it is an operational matter that comes under her authority under the Charter; it does not matter that one Councilmember may have suggested it; however no Councilmember individually has the authority to direct the City Manager to do a certain thing a certain way if it is under operations; a cleaner way is to try to find a way to seek consensus. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she cannot recall. a Councilmember raising something under Council Communications that he or she wanted placed on the agenda and there not being a consensus or that the matter did not come up later as an agenda item; Counci lmembers are very generous with each other and pretty much put everything on Regular Meeting 9 Alameda City Council December 4, 2CD7 the agenda for discussion; with said history for background, she would suggest that [staff report item] b state: "The City Council after discussing the item may do any of the following;" she would take out number 1) [take no action] because, by and large, the Council does take an action, the issue is discussed., the matter might be deferred, which is even taking an action; she wants to make sure whatever the item, that the matter gets discussed; putting the matter on the agenda ensures that the matter is discussed; numbers 2 and 3 can be left as is; she would suggest that the practice be implemented. and, six months after adoption, the issue be placed on an agenda to discuss whether Council likes the practice and hear what the public thinks. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether said suggestion was a motion, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the City Attorney indicated that the City Manager has the authority [over the agenda]; inquired how an item is placed on the agenda under the jurisdiction of the City Attorney or City Clerk. The City attorney inquired whether Councilmember deHaan meant Closed session items, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in the negative.. The City Attorney stated the only things that she has the power to put on the closed session agendas are certain attorney -client privileged communications within the Brown Act; she can put said matters on the agenda because she needs to be able to talk to the Council since she works directly for the Council; however, she does not have any authority to go to the City Manager and request that a matter be placed on the agenda.; she has no such power under the Charter; she is not a policy maker and is not involved in operations. Councilmember deHaan stated there would be an upcoming discussion on Charter amendments, which do not cone under the City Manager. Mayor Johnson stated the matter comes under the voters. Councilmember Matarrese stated a majority of the Council gave direction to place Charter review on the agenda.; this the proposal] puts the items into public view; when an individual Councilmember wants something on the agenda, which the City Manager does not have time for, the item can get on the agenda for Regular Meeting 10 Alameda City Council December 4, 2007 discussion and a potential action from the entire Counci i wi th Pull public notification, in full public view with a published version of ghat is going to be discussed; inquired whether he understands correctly. The City A.t torney responded in the affirmative; stated if anything the proposal is a way of ensuring that matters of interest to individual Counc i lmembers get on the agenda because Council would not be dealing with just City Manager discretion. Councilmenber deHaan inquired whether vice Mayor Tam has information about other cities practices. Vice Mayor Tam responded the City of Palo Alto adopted a similar protocol as one way to address openness and public transparency regarding discussions between an individual Counc i lmember and the City Manager. Counc i lmember deHaan stated the City's current procedure brings it out in the open. Vice Mayor Tam stated the procedure allows Council to formalize it the procedure] On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Counc i. lmenbers Gilmore, Matarres e Tarn and Mayor Johnson 4. Noes: Counc i lmember deHaan 1. Councilmember Gilmore noted that the matter would return in six months and [staff report item 1 was deleted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 07-570 Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending June 30, 2007. The Finance Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the next report could provide the sales tax percentage in other cities budgets, to which the Finance Director responded possibly. Vice Mayor Tam stated that Page 2 notes that construction sales posted the largest increase related to building materials and wholesale; Alameda does not have a Hone Depot. The Finance Director stated Alameda has other businesses in town that are classified as being part of the construction and wholesale Regular Meeting Alameda city Council December 4, 2007 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING ROBERT McKEAN AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (COMMUNITY AT LARGE SEAT E &W 0 BE IT RESOLVED b the Council of the Cit of Alameda that LL \IV, pursuant to Section 2-14.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code and Resolution No. A 9and upon nomination of the Ma ROBERT McKEAN is hereb appointed 1214 1 to the office of Communit at Lar Member of the Economic Development Commission of the cit of Alameda, for a term commencin September 15, 2009, and expirin on Au 31, 2013. 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 re meetin assembled on the 15th da of September, 2009, b the followin vote to wit.. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN VVITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m hand and affixed the official seal of said Cit this 16th da of September, 2009. Lara Weisi Cit Clerk Cit of Alameda Resolutions #6-A 09-15-09 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING BRUCE C. REEVES AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (COMMUNITY AT LARGE SEAT) E BE IT RESOLVED b the Council of the Cit of Alameda that 0 LL pursuant to Section 2 m M -14.2 of the Alaeda unicipal Code and Resolution No. N, V 12149, and upon nomination of the Ma BRUCE C. REEVES is hereb 4� appointed to the office of Communit at Lar Member of the Economic Development Commission of the Cit of Alameda, for a term commencin September 15, 2009, and expirin on Au 31, 2013. 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 re meetin assembled on the 15th da of September, 2009, b the followin vote to wit.. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS.- IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto se m hand and affixed the official seal of said Cit this 16th da of September, 2009. Lara Weisi Cit Clerk Cit of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING MATTHEW D. HOFFMAN AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD 0 0 U. 0 0 C1 CL MR BE IT RESOLVED by the council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the provisions of Article x of the charter of the City f Alameda, and upon nomination of y p the Mayor, MATTHEW D. HOFFMAN is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Historical Advisory Board of the city of Alameda for the terra commencing September 15, 2009, and expiring on June 30, 2013. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 15 th day of September, 2009, by.the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WH EREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said city this 10th day 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 15, 2009 Re: Introduce an Ordinance to Amend the City of Alameda Municipal Code to Require an Administrative Use Permit in Non- Residential Districts for Temporary or Permanent Barriers or Fences within a Required Setback or Along a Property Line that Faces a Public Street or a Public Access Easement The Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) includes section 30 -5.14 Barriers and Fences, which establishes regulations and restrictions for the construction of fences or. other types of barriers in Alameda. The provisions define different fence types and materials; establish limitations on heights to protect light, air, visibility, and aesthetic qualities; and include some prohibitions such as the use of barbed or razor wire. The provisions are relatively detailed and comprehensive for residentially zoned or developed properties, but much less detailed for commercially zoned or developed properties. Over the course of the last year, a number of questions have been raised about the adequacy of the City of Alameda's municipal code requirements for fences in commercial areas. with the downturn in the economy, some businesses have closed on Webster Street and on Park street. Under the provisions of 30 -5.14, the City has minimal control over the type of fences and barriers that can be placed. on a vacant commercial property. The lack of this type of control has not been problematic in good economic times when commercial properties are fully occupied or when commercial property owners are requesting entitlements for new construction or new uses, and any proposed fences or barriers can be reviewed under those proposals. However, the downturn in the economy has revealed the City's inability to prevent or control property owners of vacant properties from erecting inappropriate fencing or barriers within Alarreda's historic commercial districts or in the other business areas. On July 27, 2009, the Planning Board held a public hearing and recommended that the City Council adopt an amendment to Section 30 -5.14 that will give some control to the City to regulate the location and design of fences in commercial areas, in cases where the property owner is not requesting any other entitlement or has no plans to redevelop the property. The proposed amendments are specifically designed to give the City the ability to regulate fencing on vacant or underutilized commercial properties to ensure City Council Report Re: A Item w 09-15-0,Q71, Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 that fencing of vacant properties does not unduly harm or reduce the commercial viability of neighboring businesses or the economic health and vitality of the City's important commercial areas. (The full text of Section 30-5.14 with the draft; amendment is attached DISCUSSION In commercial or industrial districts, Section 30 -5.14 permits fences up to eight feet in height (subsection c.4.) in required setback areas and up to the "allowable building height" if the fence is not located in a required setback area (see subsection d.4.). On Park and Webster Street, the zoning does not require any front yard setback and the building height limit is between 40 and 00 feet. Luckily, barbed mire and razor mire is prohibited in all zones, but chain link and any other material is permitted in commercial and industrial districts by right. (See subsection 5.e.) Therefore, under the current provisions, a temporary or permanent fence could be erected around a recently vacated property on Park or Webster Street of almost any size without any City review or discretion. If the fence is over six feet in size, the fence requires a building permit, but as long as the fence is structurally sound, the City would have little to no ability to deny the building permit. The City would have no authority or ability to require a lower fence or deny the fence based upon concerns about aesthetic or design quality or based upon concerns about the impact of the fence on the commercial vitality of nearby businesses or impact on property values of neighboring properties. The Planning Board and staff are recommending a simple amendment to Section 30- 5.'14 that would add a requirement that fences in commercial and industrial zones require an administrative use permit. The administrative use permit process requires notice to the surrounding property owners and provides the ability for the Zoning Administrator (Planning Services Manager) to consider whether the proposed fence would impact adjacent businesses or the commercial viability of the business area. The administrative use permit process provides the ability for the City to require modifications to the proposed fence material, size or location, or deny the proposal. Zoning Administrator decisions are reported to the Planning Board, which may then call the decision for review if necessary. Zoning Administrator decisions are also subject to appeal to the Planning Board. The Webster Street and Park Street business associations support the proposed amendments. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to the City from the proposed zoning text amendment. Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City council Page 3 of 3 MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 -22.5 requires that the city Council consider the following findings before approving an amendment to the Zoning ordinance. The effect of the proposed amendments on the integrity of the General Plan. The proposed zoning text amendment is necessary to ensure that temporary or permanent fences and barriers constructed within the commercial and retail districts do no inhibit achievement of General Plan goals for walkable, pleasant, commercially vital, visually appealing commercial districts. The effect of the proposed amendments on the general welfare of the community. The proposed Zoning text amendment will ensure that inappropriate fences and barriers will not be built adjacent to the public right of way in commercial and industrial areas. The equitableness of the proposal. The proposed Zoning amendment is equitable in that it establishes a process to ensure that all fences and barriers in non residential areas are not harmful or detrimental to the area or adjacent properties. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEI! The proposed amendments are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. The proposed amendments amend the review process for fences and barriers and do not increase the intensity or density of use that would be permitted on property in Alameda. RECOMMENDATION Introduce an ordinance to amend the city of Alameda Municipal code to require an administrative use permit in non residential districts for temporary or permanent barriers or fences within a required setback or along a property line that faces a public street or a public access easement. Res pectu l ly s u b matted A f hd-rew Thomas Planning Services Manager Attachment: 1. Draft Amendments 30 -5.14 Barriers and Fences. Barriers, as defined herein, may be construed in all land use districts within the property boundaries of the individual lots according to the definitions, standards, and provisions of this subsection. a. Purpose. The purpose of this section shall be: 1. To provide adequate light and air into and between buildings and streets. 2. To protect the character of Alameda's neighborhoods and promote the objectives of the "Design Review Manual." 3. To develop streets which encourage pedestrian use through the maintenance of visually pleasant streetscapes. 4. To protect public health and safety by prohibiting potentially dangerous fencing materials and by limiting fence heights in visibility zones. b. Definitions. The definitions included in this subsection are a partial list of definitions which are specific to the interpretation of this subsection. Additional definitions are listed in section 30 -2. 1. Arbor is defined as a decorative latticework structure or trellis made of see through style materials which is used as an entrance focal point along a barrier. 2. Barrier is defined as anything which is used as a boundary or means of protection or confinement including but not limited to, fences, walls, and hedges and the elements of such barriers including, but not limited to, posts and other supporting framework. 3. Building Envelope is the area of l and on a parcel within the required yards for a main building as regulated by this chapter. 4. Chain -Link Fencing is defined as any fencing composed of or appearing to be composed of diagonal grid woven wire fencing material including, but not limited to, cyclone fencing, chain -link fencing, or diamond shaped plastic -link fencing. 5. Edge of vehicular Travel Way is the curb -line of a public or private roadway or the edge of payment or driveway where no curb -line exists. City Council Attachment I Attachment to Report Re: Agenda Kenn 4#6 09 -15-09 6. Grade is defined as the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk. 7. Public or Quasi Public Land Uses are those uses including, but not limited to, public streets; public open space and waterways; commonly owned, private open spaces and waterways; schools and their grounds; churches and their surrounding open areas; and other non residential, institutional uses. 8. See Through Style refers to any fencing material in which the amount of opaque fence material, excluding its supporting posts, is less than fifty (50 percent of any square foot of said fencing material and may include, but is not limited to, pickets, lattice, or decorative wrought iron. 9. Street Sine Yard is the area of a corner lot that consists of the side yard adjacent to the street, and that portion of the rear yard that would be included in the rearward extension of the side yard adjacent to the street. 10. Visibility Zone is determined by the City Engineer, and is generally the area on a corner of two (2) intersecting vehicular travel ways encompassed by a triangle, two (2) of the sides of which are no less than twenty (20') feet in length and are coincident with the edge of a vehicular travel way, except in specific cases where the city Engineer determines that safety considerations require a modified visibility zone. c. Barrier Heights. Barrier heights shall be subject to the following limitations, except as otherwise specifically provided in this title: 1. The height of a barrier at any given point shall generally be the distance between the maximum vertical extent of the barrier at that point and the level of the grade within eighteen (18 inches horizontally of a point direct[ y below a given point. The height of barrier over the Bay shall be measured starting at four (4') feet above City of Alameda datum, which is the same as sixteen and one half (16-5) feet above mean lower low tide. 2. In front yards on residentially zoned or developed properties_ barriers shall not exceed three (3') feet in height except as permitted elsewhere in this subsection. 3. In side and rear yards on residentially zoned or developed properties barriers shall not exceed six (6') feet in height, except as permitted elsewhere in this subsection. 4. In required setback areas on parcels in commercial and industrial districts barriers shall not exceed eight (8') feet in height, except in visibility zones or on residentially developed lots, as permitted elsewhere in this subsection. Attachment I Page 2 of 5. In visibility zones no barrier shall exceed three (3') feet in height. d. Exceptions to Limitations on Barrier Height 1. Barriers otherwise limited to three {3'} feet in height may be vertically extended up to four (4') feet in height with see through style fencing material. 2. Barriers otherwise limited to three (T) feet in height may be vertically extended up to five (5') feet with see through style fencing material, subject to approval by the Planning Director, who shall consider the compatibility of the fence design with its site and surrounding uses. 3. Barriers otherwise limited to six (6') feet in height may be extended up to eight (8') feet in height with see through style fencing material. 4. Barriers located within a permitted building envelope may be extended up to the allowed building height in that zone as permitted by this chapter. 5. Arbors and decorative fence posts, subject to approval by the Planning Director, who shall consider the compatibility of the arbor or fence post with the barrier, its site and surrounding uses. e. Non-Residential Fences. Can non-residentially developed or zoned ro ernes any permanent or tern ora barrier which is visible from a public right of way or public access easement shall re wire an Administrative Use Permit pursuant to section 30-21.4 unless such barrier is included as part of a Use Permit governin the greater use of the propeqy, a Develo meat Plana roved uant to a Planned Development zoning or a Des1 n Review approval or unless the fence is re wired to address health or safety concerns caused by fire or other natural disaster for not more than 30 days. Barriers of chain link or similar material shall be screened and all barriers shall provide ade uate access for safety and emer enc ersonnel. e. Prohibited Fencing Materials: 1. Barbed wire, razor wire and other similar materials shall not be permitted as any part of any barrier, as defined and regulated by this section. 2. The use of chain -link fencing shall not be permitted as a part of any barrier on a residentially zoned or developed property except as specifically permitted by this section. f. Exceptions to Prohibited Fencing Material: 1. Chain --link fences up to six (6') feet in height may be permitted in rear Attachment 1 Page 3 of 4 and side yards on residentially developed properties, where such yard is not a street side yard nor a rear yard of a corner or double- frontage lot, and where any such yard is not adjacent to public and quasi public land uses. 2. If not otherwise permitted, and where no feasible fencing material alternative exists, chain -link fences, not located in the front yard of residentially developed parcels, may be permitted when required for recreation or safety reasons, subject to Use Permit Approval, which shall be conditioned to mitigate negative visual impacts. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to any or all of the following: (a) Inclusion of decorative elements, such as varied mesh sizes, vinyl or other colored coating, and alternative post materials. (b) Inclusion of landscaping or other screening alternative fence locations. (c) Maintenance of fencing materials and landscaping. g. 'on- Conforming Peaces. Non- conforming fences may be permitted as regulated by subsection 30 -20.3. (Ord. Flo. 2030 N.S. 3) Attachment 1 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE No. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 30-5.14 (BARRIERS AND FENCES OF ARTICLE l ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS OF CHAPTER XX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) BY _a ADDING SUBSECTION 30-5.14(e) TO REQUIRE ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMITS IN NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT BARRIERS OR FENCES WITHIN A REQUIRED SETBACK OR e 40 ALONG A PROPERTY LINE THAT FACES APUBLIC STREET ORA PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT 1lvHEREAS, the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) does not adequately S regulate the construction of fences and barriers in commercial and Industrial zones; 4 F and LAT WHEREAS, the visual and aesthetic quality of commercial and industrial properties is critical to maintaining property values in these areas and maintaining a successful business environment; and WHEREAS, the historic Alameda commercial districts and the appearance of these districts is critical to the economic health of the community; and WHEREAS, construction of an inappropriate or poorly designed fence can have negative effects on adjacent properties in a business area; and WHEREAS, vacant commercial properties must be carefully managed to ensure that they do not result in negative affects on neighboring properties; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning text amendment is necessary to ensure that temporary or permanent fences and barriers constructed within the commercial and retail districts do no inhibit achievement of General Plan goals for a walkable, pleasant, commercially vital, visually appealing commercial districts; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning text amendment will ensure that inappropriate fences and barriers will not be built adjacent to the public right of way in commercial and industrial areas; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is equitable in that it established a process to ensure that all fences and barriers in nonresidential areas are not harmful or detrimental to the area or adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, the Alameda Planning Board has held public hearings and recommended adoption of the proposed amendment to the city Council. Introduction of Ordinance #6 -113 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. Subsection 30 -5.14 (Barriers and Fences) of Article I (Zoning Districts And Regulations) Of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) is hereby amended to add new subsection 30- 5.14(e) to read as follows: e. Non Residential Fences. On non residentially developed or zoned properties, any permanent or temporary barrier which is visible from a public right of way or public access easement, shall require an Administrative Use Permit pursuant to section 30 -21.4 unless such barrier is included as part of a Use Permit governing the greater use of the property, a Development Plan approved pursuant to a Planned Development zoning, or a Design Review approval or unless the fence is required to address health or safety concerns caused by fire or other natural disaster for not more than 30 days. Barriers of chain link or similar material shall be screened, and all barriers shall provide adequate access for safety and emergency personnel. Section 2. severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City Council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provision of this ordinance. Section 3. All former ordinances or parts thereof conflicting or inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance hereby adopted, to the extent of such conflict only, are hereby repealed. Section 4. This ordinance and the rules, regulations, provisions, requirements, orders, and matters established and adopted hereby shall take effect and be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Presiding officer of the city council Attest: Lara VVeisiger, city Clerk City of Alameda I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by council of the city of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 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 official seal of said city this day of 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 16, 2999 Re: Introduce Six Ordinances Amending the City of Alameda Municipal Code 1 277 N.S., Section 11-116, by Reclassifying and Rezoning Several Parcels from Industrial to Residential or Mixed Use Zoning Districts to Comply with the General Plan Designations BACKGROUND State Government code Section 65683(c )(1) requires that the city maintain residential zoning on sites identified in the General Plan and Housing Element as suitable for housing development. The Planning Board and staff have identified a number of properties that should be rezoned to allow residential development to ensure consistency with the General Plan and Housing Element policies and designations. The Planning Board held public hearings and approved recommended zoning for each of the following properties: Site Assessors G±eheral Recommended Number Parcel Address Plan Present Zoning Zoning Number Designation 0 3 -5 6 -7 074 0905 010 -01 1 1 Singleton Ave 074 -0906- 031 -08 1 1913 Sherman St. 072 -0381- 002 -00 201512025 Grand 072 -0381- 001 -00 St. and 1590/1616 072 -0231- 018 -00 Fortmann Way 071 -0289- 007 -03 2189/2201 Clement 071 -0289- 004 -00 Ave Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Aa0 Mixed Use -5 M -2 -PD General Industrial (Manufacturing) Planned Development District M -1 -PD Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) Planned Development District M -2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) District M -2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) District R -4 -PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development R -2 PD Two Family Residence Planned Development District R -4 -PD Neighborhood Residential Planned Development R -2 PD Two Family Residence Planned Development City Council Report Ste: Agenda Item ##6 -wC 094 5 -09 Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 7 aennm District M -1 R -2 PD 2100 Clement intermediate Two Family 8 071 0228 -001 -02 Avell924 Willow Mixed Use -5 Industrial Residence Planned St. (Manufacturing) Development District District DISCUSSION Site I I _Singleton Avenue The 4.7 -acre site is occupied by Allsafe Self Storage and is located on the north side of Singleton Avenue adjacent to Alameda Point, Alameda Gateway, and Coast Guard housing. The site is currently zoned M -2 -PD General Manufacturing (Planned Development). The M -2 zoning designation does not allow for residential development. In 2003, the general Plan Diagram was amended to designate the property for Medium Density Residential use. The proposed R -4 -PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development zoning designation would ensure consistency With the General Plan designation and Housing Element. An R-4 -PD zoning designation allows for a future residential development on the site that is consistent in density and scale to that of the neighboring Bayport development and adjacent Coast Guard housing area. Under the proposed zoning, the residential density is restricted to 21 units per acre with a height limit of 30 feet. The PD overlay will allow for flexibility in the site design process that may be necessary to ensure compatibility between neighboring uses and appropriate design and arrangement of common open spaces. Site 2 1913 Sherman Street The 1.9 -acre site is occupied by a self storage facility and is located north of Eagle Avenue, west of Sherman Street and immediately south of the former Beltline property. The property is immediately adjacent to a neighborhood of one- and two- family homes and is currently occupied by a self storage facility. The site is currently zoned M -1 -PD, Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) Planned Development District. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council In 2407, the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment designated this property Medium Density Residential, which allows for one- and two- family residential buildings consistent with the character of the adjacent neighborhood. The M -1 -PD zoning allows manufacturing, commercial, and other similar uses but prohibits residential use. September 15, 2009 Page 3 of 7 Site 3 5 201 512025 Grand Street and 1 519/1515 Fortmann Wa In 2007, the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment designated these properties as MU -6, Specified Mixed Use, in the General Plan Diagram. The General Plan policy for these properties state: G -M 1. Redevelopment of the Grand Marina Site should replace the existing animal shelter, corporation yard, and industrial uses with a mix of new uses which may include residential, senior housing /assisted Iiving; marina related Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 15, 2009 Page 4of7 commercial, office, restaurants, general commercial, retail and/or open space. (in the General Plan, the "Grand Marina Site" refers to all of the properties between the water and the Marina Cove Residential development.) Currently, the sites are zoned M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) Zoning District, which allows heavy manufacturing and commercial uses, but does not allow residential use. The proposed rezoning would change the M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to a R- 4--PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District. The R-4 residential designation allows residential use, senior housinglassisted, and other uses compatible with residential use. The. proposed zoning is consistent with the R -4 -PD zoning on the adjacent Marina Cove Project. The PD overlay is recommended to allow for a creative site design and for the extension of clement through the Pennzoil property and the extension of Hibbard north to the Grand Marina project. (The Grand Marina project was designed to accommodate the extension of Hibbard from clement to the marina.) Sites 8 -8 2100 Clement Ave /'1924 Willow Street and 218912201 Clement Ave The property at 2100 Clement/1924 Willow Street is a 2.78 acre site located south of clement Avenue, west of Thompson Park and south of the Marine Reserve Center. (See Parcel 1 on map to the right.) The property is zoned M--1, Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) District. The properties at 2189/2201 Clement Avenue are approximately 5 acres in size and are located north of clement Avenue on either side of Walnut Street. (See 2A and 2B on the map to the right) The properties are zoned M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District. The three properties are part of a group of properties that are designated for housing and open space in the General Plan and Housing Element. The General Plan calls for development of approximately 300 housing units and ten acres of open space in the MU -5 area. The General Plan also states that the City should attempt to purchase a band of land 300 feet deep for a waterfront park of 10 acres in size within the MU -5 Area. While the city has not been in a position to purchase the land for a park, the City has pursued the rezoning of properties to bring properties into conformance with the General Plan designations. In 2008, the City rezoned two of the properties in the MU -5 Area owned by Mr. Francis Collins. During the deliberations for the rezoning of the Collins properties, the City Council considered the General Plan policies and the scale and density of the adjacent Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 5 of 7 neighborhood. Consistent with the Planning Board's recommendation, the city council decided that the front 300 feet of the property should not be rezoned for residential use and that the remaining property behind the Soo -foot boundary line should be rezoned to R -2 -PD to reflect the character and density of the adjacent neighborhoods south of Clement Street. At that time, the city council also directed staff to proceed with the rezoning of the remaining parcels in the MU-5 area. The Planning Board and staff are recommending that all of Parcel 2A and all of Parcel 2B be rezoned R -2 -PD. As determined by the City Council in 2007, staff and the Planning Board found that the R -2 -PD designation would allow residential development of the properties at a density consistent with the adjacent neighborhoods south of Clement. sand owned by the Army Corps of Engineers (approximately 30 feet in depth) 300' waterfront area designated for future purchase 1 Approximately 9,472 square feet Approximately 21,750 square feet Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 6 of 7 Therefore, the Planning Board and staff are recommending that all of Parcel 2A and all of Parcel 2B be rezoned R -2 -PD. As determined by the City Council in 2007, staff and the Planning Board found that the R_2 -PD designation would allow residential development of the properties at a density consistent with the adjacent neighborhoods south of Clement. FINANCIAL IMPACT The funds to cover staff time for this rezoning are budgeted in the Community Development Department's account for Community Planning. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The rezoning of these properties will amend Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Sections 1277 N.S., Section 11 -116 and ensure consistency between the Zoning flap and the General Plan and Housing Element. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 Subsequent Environmental Impact Reports, the proposed zoning map amendments were considered in the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment for the Northern Waterfront certified in 2007, the Environmental Report for the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment in 2003, or the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update in 1991. Accordingly, staff finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence in the record that the previous EIRs fully analyzed the potential environmental effects of the rezoning and incorporates mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid any potentially significant impacts in accordance with CEQA. None of the circumstances necessitating preparation of additional CEQA review as specified in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including without limitation Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, are present in that (1) there are no substantial changes proposed in the project or the circumstances under which the projects are undertaken that would require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and (2) there is no "new information of substantial importance" as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a )(3). RECOMMENDATION Introduce six ordinances amending the City of Alameda Municipal Code 1277 N.S., Section 11 -116, by reclassifying and rezoning several parcels from Industrial to Residential or Mixed Use zoning Districts to comply with the General Plan designations. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Respectfully submitted, r y And rewr Thomas Planning Services Manager Approved as to funds and account, GI d D.. a Int Fin ce Director September 15, 2009 Page 7of7 Sll :nm CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12771 N.S. TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.7 ACRES LOCATED AT 1 SINGLETON, APN S 07 4 0905 010 -01 AVENUE FROM M-2-PD, 74 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (MANUFACTURING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 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 Section 1: Section 11 -110 of Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. is hereb amended b reclassif all the real propert situated within the Cit of Alameda, Count of Aarne a, State of California, consistin of 4.7 acres and located at 1 Sin Avenue, APN 074-0905-010-01, as shown on the attached Exhibit A from M-2-PD, General Industrial (Manufacturin Planned Development 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. 204 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 Introduct'l'on of Ordinance #6-C 1 09-15-09 Exhibit A: Cur Zonin Z*JIUU MPLLIq 5 1 at* cri i 09 ro 51 Ok ?0 Tk 10,61 F.qrON t�. 21,0005 &lp� two. zvVU MAIM rJaI Proposed Zoning 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 2009 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set ray hand and affixed the official seal of said city this I day of 2009. Lara Weisig er, city clerk City of Alameda Section 2: The above amendment shall be known as and referenced to as Rezoning Amendment No. 209 to Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. Section 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Presiding Officer of the City Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, city Clerk City of Alameda ntroduction of Ordinance #6 -C (2) 09 -15-09 CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series F AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1277, N.S. TO REZONE g APPROXIMATELY 5 ACRES LOCATED AT 2189 CLEMENT AND 2201 CLEMENT AVENUE, APNs 071 `i A 0289 N D 074 9289 994 09, FROM M-2, i� GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (MANUFACTURING) DISTRICT, TO R-2-PD TWO-FAMILY LY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED b DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DESIGNATION BE IT ORDAINED by the city council of the city of Alameda that: Section T. Section 11 119 of Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. is hereby amended by reclassifying all the real property situated within the city of Alameda, county of Alameda, State of California, consisting of 5 acres and located at 2189 and 2291 clement Avenue, APN# 071 0289 907 03 and 074- 0289- 004 -00, as shorn on the attached Exhibit A from M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R -2 -PD, Two- Family Planned Development Residential District. Section 2: The above amendment shall be known as and referenced to as Rezoning Amendment No. 209 to Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. Section 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Presiding Officer of the City Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, city Clerk City of Alameda ntroduction of Ordinance #6 -C (2) 09 -15-09 Exhibit A: Current Zonin Proposed Zoning 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 2009 by the following vote to wit: AYES: DOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of 2009. Lara Weisig er, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 1277, N.S. To REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.14 ACRES LOCATED AT 2015/2025 O RAND STREET, APN 072 -038 1 002 -00 AN D 072- 0381 001 -00, FROM M-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (MANUFACTURING) DISTRICT To R -4 -PD, NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 0 BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: 0 Section 1: Section 11 -110 of ordinance No. 1277, N.S. is hereby MIA amended by reclassifying all the real property situated within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, consisting of 4.14 acres and located at 201 5/2025 Grand Street APN 072- 0381 002 -00 and 072- 0381 -001- 00, as shown on the attached Exhibit A from M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R -4 -PD Neighborhood Residential District Planned Development District. Section 2: The above amendment shall be known as and referenced to as Rezoning Amendment No. 208 to ordinance No. 1277, N.S. Section 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Presiding officer of the City Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Introduction of Ordinance #6 ..0 (3) 09 -15 -09 Exhibit A: 4 W Current Zoning M -2 MA 97 '711 4. Proposed Zoning R -4 -PD I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of 2009 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of 2009. Lara vveisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1 277 N.S. TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 2.78 ACRES LOCATED AT 2100 CLEMENT AVENUE/1 924 WI LLOW STREET, APN 071 -0228- 001 -02, FROM M -1, INTERMEDIATE INDUSTRIAL (MANUFACTURING) DISTRICT TO R -2 -PD, TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DESIGNATION BE IT ORDAINED by the city council of the city of Alameda that: Section 1: Section 11 -110 of ordinance No. 1 277, N.S. is hereby amended by reclassifying all the real property situated within the city of Alameda, county of Alameda, State of California, consisting of 2.78 acres and located at 2100 Clement Avenuel1924 Willow Street, APN 071 -0228 -001 -02 as shorn on the attached Exhibit A from M-1, Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R -2 -PD, Two Family Residence Planned Development District. Section 2: The above amendment shall be known as and referenced to as Rezoning Amendment No. 207 to ordinance No. 1277, N.S. Section 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Presiding officer of the City council Attest: Lara Weisiger, city clerk City of Alameda Introduction of Ordinance #6 -c (4) 09 -15 -09 Exhibit A: Proposed Zoning Current Zoning I, the undersigned, hereby Certify that the foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of 2009 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this I day of 2009. L.ara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series U. 0 0 S AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12771 N.S. TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.9 ACRES LOCATED AT 1913 SHERMAN, APN 074-0906-031-08, FROM M-1-PD, INTERMEDIATE INDUSTRIAL (MANUFACTURING) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, TO R-2-PD, TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DESIGNATION BE IT ORDAINED b the Cit Council of the Cit of Alameda that: 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 1.9 acres and located at 1913 Sherman Street, APN 074-0906-031-08, as shown on the attached Exhibit A from M-1-PD, Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturin Planned Development District, to R-2-PD, Two Famil Residence Planned Development District. 01 Section 2: The above amendment shall be known as and referenced to as Rezonin Amendment No. 206 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 #6-C (5) 09-15-09 Exhibit A: Current Zoning Proposed Zoning I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of 2009 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WH EREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this I day of 2009. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Section 2: The above amendment shall be known as and referenced to as Rezonin Amendment No. 205 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 VVeisi Cit Clerk Cit of Alameda Introduction of Ordinance #6-C (6) 09-15-09 CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1277 N.S. TO REZONE V APPROXIMATELY 2.1 ACRES LOCATED AT 1590/1616 FORTMANN WAY APN 072-0381-018-00 FROM M-2 0 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (MANUFACTURING DISTRICT TO A R-4-PD NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED 4-4 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DESIGNATION �-W BE IT ORDAINED b the Cit Council of the Cit of Alameda that: U4 Nl� 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 2.1 acres and located at 1590/1616 Fortmann Wa APN 072-0381-018-00, as shown on the attached Exhibit A from M- 2, General Industrial (Manufacturin District to a R-4-PD, Nei Residential Planned Development District. Section 2: The above amendment shall be known as and referenced to as Rezonin Amendment No. 205 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 VVeisi Cit Clerk Cit of Alameda Introduction of Ordinance #6-C (6) 09-15-09 Exhibit A: Current Pro R -4 -PD 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 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES: DOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of 2009. Lara Weisig er, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAM E CAA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: September 15, 2009 Re: Accept the Report of the Economic Development Commission's Business Retention subcommittee BACKGROUND The Economic Development Commission (EDC) created the Business Retention Subcommittee in March 2009 to help "support and .maintain our current cornmerdial and retail businesses in Alameda." The subcommittee eras charged with reporting back to. the EDC with a series of low -cost or no -cost recommendations within three to four months. DISCUSSION At its July 10 regular meeting, the EDC endorsed and referred to the City Council the report presented by the Business Retention Subcommittee. The subcommittee based its report on the opinions it heard within the local business community about the City's efforts to reta.in and support commercial. and. retail businesses. The subcommittee invited local business owners and ..representatives to three community forums and to complete. an on -Line business retention and support survey posted on the City's website. This short, anonymous survey, completed by 123 respondents, was intended to identify how .the City may best serve the local business community during the current economic recession. Finally, the subcommittee members also individually solicited comments in personal conversations. they had ..with local business representatives. The report contains 19 recommendations to help support and retain local. businesses, including the following four main recommendations: Promote customer service and facilitation, particularly with new business improvements and business expansions; support Alameda Municipal Power's Economic Development Incentive Discount program; Compare City fees with other local cities; and City Council Agenda Item #6 -D Honorable mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 0 Revise information on the city's website with new links to business resources. With the city Council's acceptance of the report, the Economic Development Department will implement the recommendations. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact from the EDC's Business Retention Subcommittee Report. Adequate resources were budgeted for the Subcommittee's public engagement process. The recommendations contained in the report are intended to be no -cost or low- cost" approaches. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The Alameda Municipal Code 2 -14.1 created the. E with the stated purpose "to provide planning and leadership in the area of economic development, redevelopment, and commercial revita. ization in Alameda; to. enhance policy advice to Council; and to. encourage greater integration, coordination, and cooperation for economic development." Accept the report of the Economic Development commission's Business Retention Subcommittee. DES:EF:ry Attachment: 1. Final Report of the city of Alameda Business Retention Subcommittee of the Economic Development Commission, September 15, 2009 Cit of Alameda Business Retention Subcommittee of t he Economic Development Commission September 15,2009 Submitted by the Business Retention Subcommittee Justin Harrison, Chair Robert Bonta Horst Breuer Lorre Zuppan City Council Attachment to Agenda Item #6 09=15 ®g I. Executive Summar 1 11. Communit En Process 1 111. Ke Findin 1 IV. Recommendations 2 Appendices: Appendix A: Surve Summar Results Appendix B: Informational Fl for Forums Appendix C: Forum A Appendix D: Forum Minutes l Executive Summary The Economic Development Commission created the Business Retention Subcommittee in March 2409 to help "support and maintain our current commercial and retail businesses in Alameda." The subcommittee was charged to report back to the EDC with a series of recommendations within three to four months. II. Community Engagement Process The subcommittee reached out to the local business community to solicit perspectives about measures to retain and support the City's current commercial and retail businesses. The subcommittee held three community forums, which were noticed in newspapers and the city's website and promoted through e -mails to business organizations. The subcommittee also invited local business owners and representatives to complete an on -line business retention and support survey posted on the city's website. This short, anonymous survey was intended to identify how the city may best serve the local business community during the current economic recession. Finally, the subcommittee members also individually received comments in personal conversations they have had with local business representatives. iii, Key Findings The Subcommittee found that local businesses feel burdened by the City's taxes and regulatory operations. These perceptions may be more pronounced during the current economic crisis. Survey Findings The survey provides a cross section of the small business community (41 office or professional, 39% retail, and 29% business to business). A significant portion has been in business more than ten years, with most of that time being in Alameda. Most have less than ten employees; 38% own their own property; 80% live in Alameda. Most respondents view knowing or being known in the community as one of the biggest advantages of doing business in Alameda. Alameda's business associations were also considered an important benefit. A significant portion view the city's regulatory functions (Planning and Building Department) and tax policies as major disadvantages. Many mentioned Measure H, though this is not a City of Alameda tax. Many respondents consider Alameda's attributes to be clean, safe, well maintained, family/children-friendly community with strong business associations. Also, many respondents consider the City's disadvantages to be bureaucratic procedures, "endless fees," and Measure H. A majority of the respondents felt neither helped nor hindered by city policies, incentives, or programs. o The city has made little impression that it has been especially helpful for doing business in Alameda: 24% answered "yes" that there are city policies, incentives, or programs that are helpful for doing business. Nine respondents specifically mentioned the Fagade Improvement Program as a valuable program. Page o Almost 30% thought that there were City policies that adversely affected their businesses. Issues mainly consolidated around the Planning Building Department, taxes and fees (permits, transfer tax, business license, sales tax, and Measure H). 0 Close to 40% experienced more difficulty in obtaining financing during the last year. i 23% experienced safety or security concerns within last year. Few claimed inadequate attention by Alameda Police Department (APD) while others wrote that APD was "extremely responsive." Two thirds would be interested or possibly interested in City- sponsored workshops. Some suggested topics include: networking with other businesses, navigating the City permitting process, small business financing /SBA loans, marketing /joint marketing with other businesses, marketing specifically to Alameda residents, business -to- business marketing, pricing, and women in business. Iv. Recommendations Planning and Building Promote customer service and facilitation, particularly with new business improvements and business extensions. 2. Bolster staff training to provide and maintain consistent code enforcement from application through inspection. 3. Allow small project applicants the .option to pay additional fees if they would like to be assigned a specific team member to follow them through the process, just as that option is offered for larger developments. 4. Support the continuation of the Customer Service Improvement (CSI) Team or appoint a citizen volunteer ombudsman to monitor the City's planning and building regulatory functions. 5. Produce information sheets and flow charts clarifying the. City's permitting process. This information should also. be available on the City's website. Alameda Municipal Power's. Economic Development Incentive Discount. 6. Endorse AMP's continuation of the Economic Development Incentive Discount program and encourage it to accommodate extending the discount to new or expanding tenants that do not occupy an.. entire building. Accommodations should include steps such as sub metering, and. to the extent they are truly concerned about landlords not passing on savings in a. form AMP finds. acceptable, they can suggest standard lease language that will address their concerns. 7. Strengthen AMP's web site description of the discount program for a business attraction audience. 8. Endorse AMP's promotion of the discount program in its general marketing materials. 9M Business Attraction and Retention Focus 9. Support adequate City staff resources for business attraction and retention efforts City Fees o. Encourage the City to compare its fees with other local cities. Staff should also research temporary measures other local cities may be implementing to help existing business and to attract new businesses during this economic crisis. At present, Development Services staff periodically researches .cost comparisons for commercial office and R &D lab space (analyzing lease rates, business license tax, electric utility rates, and parking costs). Business workshops and Seminars 1 1 Encourage the city to work with local business associations and regional organizations to cosponsor business workshops. 2. Support internal staff development and training programs to facilitate coordinated and effective cross department communication. City we bs ite 13. Review and bring up to date the City web site pages. that appear under the heading "Doing Business in Alameda." Delete or revise dated marketing material and catchphrases. 14. Provide links to current demographic data, such as the 200 American Community Survey estimates from the. US census .:Bureau. 5. Provide links to explain City requirements and processes. 6. on the "Starting A Business" and "Business Resources" pages, highlight links to (a) the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) in Oakland that has numerous classes,. consultants and other resources such as free assistance in certifications or updating business plans; and (b) the East Bay Economic Development Alliance, which has a pride array of helpful. data not available on the City's site. 7. Allow the business associations to revise the sections about the benefit of their associations to businesses and to describe the information and resources available on their web sites (such as their own newsletters). 8. Reference and provide links for benefits for existing businesses, such as the fagade grant program, enrollment at schools, and AMP's commercial programs. Measurement and Continuous Improvement. 19. Conduct a similar business .retention survey within the next two years using some of the same questions to .deterrnine .is working well and what other changes may have the greatest impact in whatever the economic environment happens to be at that time. Page 3 Appendix A: Survey Summary Results Ilya) H6W Would you cWssiN your business? Please select all that app of Join `business n What. are:the .greatest advanta9es and:`dLSadl►antages g a` lameda fc r ovr u5h ts. Appendix A Page 1 Appendix A Page 2 Appendix A Page 3 Appendix A Page 4 Appendix A Page 5 Appendix A Page 6 Appendix A Page 7 Appendix A Page 8 Appendix A Page 9 Appendix A Page 10 Appendix A Page 11 APPENDIX B NOTICFm UBLIC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BUSINESS RETENTION SUBCOMMITTEE COMM FORUMS The Business Re Subc of the Cit of Alameda's Econ Development Commission invites .local business owners_ a rep res.enta to participate in Communit Forums ms on the ..Cit Busines s. Retention activities The purpose of the Forums is to solicit perspective about measures to r etain and supp our current commercial and retail businesses in Alameda d these difficult business times and be Please Join us at one of the followin three forums: Tuesda M 19, 2009 8.00 to 9.*.30 a.m. Cit Cou ncil Chambers 2263 Santa Clara Ave. Tuesda Ma 26, 2009 6:30 to 8:00 M. A I A a IP -mcici T ]-%-r a vxr C fN 1," rn in +x T? r% mill" 2. Purpose of the Forums Lorre Zuppan, Chair of the Economic Development. Commission 3. Presentation regarding Business. Assistance programs and upcoming projects -Eric Fonstein, Development Services:staff 4. Brainstorming Session All 5. Next Steps Justin H arrison 6. T Subcommittee thanks you. for your participation! Economic Development Commission Business Retention Community Forums Compiled Notes from Cheld on: Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 8:00.a.m. in City Council Chambers Tuesday, May 28, 2009, 8:30 p.m. in the Alameda Free Library Community Room Thursday, May 28, 2009, 8.00 a.m. at East ocean Seafood Restaurant Concerns stated by attendees: 1. The Alameda Fire Department requires its own safety plan with hazardous material. fees.. This is. basically a duplication of the plan that. is submitted to Alameda County Environmental Health. Businesses have to pay both the. City and the County. The City does. no allow for a total cap on. hazardous material fees. This is also hurting small auto body shops .in Al.arreda. 2. The r;it mandates installing a sprinkler systen^ for expansions of 800 squarC feet and greater. 3. The process .for. getting permits for. home improvements discourages business. The permit counter. gives inconsistent information. 4. Alameda's employee base is really :good. The City should be focusing on transportation and. housing issues to support the e.moloyees. A light .rail connection to.BART would help very much. 5. Measure H has hurt businesses. that happen to be .situ.ated on multiple parcels. 0. we need to work nn maintaining our roads. 7. The City needs to. interview. bus.in.esses .that have-not renewed their business licenses and find out why.. they are no longer doing business. in Alameda. Surveys should be.sent to.the.m. 8. The City needs to encourage the employees of businesses to shop in Alameda (welcome Bags The business license. database should be available online. 9. The City needs a help desk/ambassa at City Hall to direct peaple to the help they need. 10. There should be a Frequently -Asked Questions section on the City permits web page. 11. The zoning at the .Stations needs. to be addressed. We are losing potential new businesses at the stations. 12. The City has a dynamic marine industry that is being ignored. 13. Alameda needs signage on 880. once off the highway, people need. better directional signage to business districts. Improved signage will better enable Appendix D Page 1 Alameda to take advantage of its proximity to the airport, 880, and San Francisco. 14. We should not take "No for an answer. We need to keep asking questions to find out what people are really afraid of so we can work to address it. 15. The city should plan more events that would attract people into. the city. For example, the boat show. at Jack London Square will be looking for a new venue. Wind River would be a good. venue .for that; temporary .docks could be installed. A "Bicycle Fest" around the island would help retail businesses and restaurants. 18. Has anyone in the city spoken with Emeryville to find .out hoer they attract and retain .retail? It was noted that Ron Gerber of the city of Emeryville used to work for Alameda and still lives here. 17. The city's commercial vacancy list is out of date. 18. There should be an Alameda virtual tour on.the City's website. 19. Police presence on. Park..S.treet should be .increased during the late .afternoon to closing time .hours., as there have been theft problems. The. you ng .employees of the nearby restaurants check out the store, then pass on information to their friends who. come in and steal things. 20. The Fort Knox building is empty. The landlord chooses to. keep it empty. This is a prime space right at a bus .stop. What can the city do about things like this? 21. The former Hair Tech space. has. been empty for three years. The owner is looking at putting in another hair salon. There. are already eight hair salons. on the street. The city does not a IJmit on the number. of hair. salons on Webster. The City pelic.ie need to be re- evaluated. 22. Would like to see Wilmot Books move into the former Webster Pharmacy space. 28. Would like to see a bike shop .on Webster. 24. Use permit fees need to be discussed. Maybe a committee could be formed to review uses in the business districts maybe reduce use permit fees to encourage more retail. Appendix D Page 2 CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: September 15, 2009 Re: Accept the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study BACKGROUND The City's Bicycle Master Plan identifies the development of a bicycle /pedestrian estuary connection to Oakland as its top priority. This connection is also identified as a high priority project in the City's Pedestrian Plan and is listed as a high priorit project in the City of Oakland's 2007 Bicycle Master Plan Update. In addition, the estuary crossing project is included in Alameda County's Countywide Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan, as well as the San Francisco Bay Trail Plan. In 2007, the City received $100,000 from the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority's (ACTIA) Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Discretionary Fund to prepare an Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study (Study) to identify and evaluate various alternatives. other financial contributors to the Study included $10,000 from the City of Oakland, and in -kind support from Caltrans to promote and advertise the study workshops with its on -call outreach consultant. The City Council also authorized $100,000 in Measure B monies for the Study. on March 25, 2009, and again on May 27 2009, staff presented the Draft Study to the Transportation Commission (TC). At its May meeting, the TC approved the Draft Study and recommended acceptance by the City Council. ACTIA requires the City Council to accept the Study as part of the grant funding. DISCUSSION The overall vision for an improved estuary crossing is to create an easy -to -use, safe, and enjoyable crossing to enhance the Bay Area's regional bicycle, pedestrian, and transit networks. The goal of the Study is to develop an estuary crossing that appeals to the patron, adjacent communities, decision makers, transit providers, and funding authorities. A key aspect of this Study was the establishment of a public involvement process at the early stages and the engagement of the public throughout the development of Study alternatives. The Caltrans District 4 office of Community Planning provided its on -call outreach consultant to develop and implement the public engagement action plan. The City Council Agenda Item ##6 E 09a 5 -09 Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 5 Study was managed by the City of Alameda, with technical guidance and leadership provided by a Multi Jurisdictional Task Force (Task Force) as well as policy guidance from the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). The Task Force met in March, April, August, and December of 2008. The PAC met in May, August, and December of 2008. In addition to the Task Force and PAC meetings, the City of Alameda hosted a series of six community outreach workshops, three each in Alameda and Oakland, and presented the study to six City Boards and Commissions, the Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, and the west Alameda Business Association. Selection of Alternatives: The study team evaluated a total of 17 estuary crossing alternatives and the following three final recommendations were determined: Short Terra Improvement Existing Service Improvements Minor Modifications to PoseV Tube Modification to .the existing pathway within the tube can allow improved conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists as a short -term solution. Potential improvements to the existing path include replacing the existing plate covers, filling in grooves on the concrete path, and establishing a regular maintenance program. Converting the maintenance path on the west side into a pedestrian /bicycle path and installing face mounted railing on the existing path were considered, but are not recommended due to the cost of these improvements. Intermediate Improvement New Water Crossing Water shuttle /Taxi A water shuttle could operate between Alameda and the Jack London square District utilizing new or modified existing docks. As proposed, the water shuttle would have 15- minute service headways, and operate as a scheduled service with the potential to expand to additional stops on either shore. Although AC Transit services currently operate at eight to ten minute headways, during peak commute hours, the TC and community identified the water shuttle /taxi option as the preferred alternative until the long term crossing alternative becomes feasible because the buses are subject to delays associated with congestion in the tubes, AC Transit charges $2.00 to cross the estuary, and the limitations associated with the existing bike racks on the buses. Long Tern Improvement Bridge, Tunnel, or Elevated Structure Bicycle-Pedestrian Bride Moveable Low Hei ht Option) A bridge designed for pedestrian and bicycle use will provide a link across the estuary. This alternative proposes a 000 -foot moveable center span that will be raised to a 75 -foot height to allow for the passage of maritime traffic. Users will need to ascend to the bridge deck via a ramp or elevator. This option is termed "Low Height" to distinguish it from the fixed structure termed "High Level" in the report, which does not have a moveable span. Due to concerns with the cost and environmental impacts associated with constructing the Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 5 bridge approaches to achieve the required height of the bridge span, the fixed structure was not identified as the preferred longterm option. Based on previous direction by the City Council, a Bicycle- Pedestrian Bridge (loveable, Love Height option) with transit lanes was proposed to the stakeholders, however, the City of Oakland and AC Transit did not favor pursuing this option. At this tune, it is unknown if a moveable bridge would provide transit operations with acceptable run -tune or reliability advantages over the Posey and Webster Tubes. At the proposed location, a moveable bridge plus the railroad crossing at the Ernbarcadero, pose significant challenges to transit operations. It is also unknown how this alternative would spatially and visually affect Jack London square. Next Ste The following next steps were identified for the three selected alternatives: Short Term Improvement m Minor Modifications to Posey Tube This alternative would require coordination with Caltrans as the state owns and maintains this facility. City staff would work with Caltrans to identify funding opportunities for this improvement. It is anticipated that a project- scoping document would be required for this work, which could be prepared in consultation with Caltrans, as part of the construction funding for this short terra solution. The City will continue to work with AC Transit, Caltrans, and the City of Oakland on other minor improvements such as the Webster Street SMART Corridor project and improved bike racks on AC Transit buses. Dater shuttle /Taxi Preparation of a Project Study Report (PSR) equivalent would be needed for this alternative before grant funding for the capital and operations could be pursued. The Ps R is estimated to cost $150,000. I n fiscal year 2001-2002, the City received $35,000 in Transportation For Clean Air (TFCA) grant funding from the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCIVIA) to implement a pilot project to assess the viability of a water shuttle taxi service for 15 months. Although the City entered into a contract with a private contractor for this service, the contractor could not obtain docking rights from the Port of Oakland to operate the service. Public works staff was unable to locate another contractor willing to implement the pilot program and the project did not proceed. Based on this experience, it will be important to work with the Port of Oakland early in the process to identify acceptable docking locations. In addition, the ACCMA has informed staff that it is unlikely that a water shuttle /taxi project would meet the cost effectiveness targets under the current TFCA fund requirements, and other funding sources should be pursued. In addition to pursuing funding for the capital portion of the project, on -going funding for the operation and maintenance of this option will need to be determined. It is anticipated that a low -cost fare for use of the service will be required. Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 4 of 5 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge (Moveable, Low Height option) As currently proposed, the moveable bridge could result in up to 24 minutes of delay for bicyclists and pedestrians when opened to maritime traffic. This delay may not make the project attractive to bicyclists and pedestrians, and the following constraints would need to be addressed prior to pursuing this option: The United States Coast Guard allows the bridge to remain closed during peak commute hours; The width and height of the moveable bridge span is reduced to similar dimensions of the existing bridges, thereby requiring less time for raising and lowering the span; and There is regional funding support for this alternative based on the number of vehicle trips diverted and the number of bicyclists and pedestrians projected to use the facility. The City will work with stakeholders to determine if vessel restrictions during commute hours could be possible, vertical and horizontal clearances could be reduced, and funding could be obtained. Staff also recommends that the transit option be investigated further as part of this solution to gain support from transit stakeholders. Once these constraints have been addressed, a separate PSR equivalent document would need to be developed. FIMAINCIAA. IMPACT The cost estimates for the preferred alternatives and the moveable bridge transit option are provided below: I This estimate 1s $12 million more than what was reported in the City's Pedestrian Plan because previous estimates were only preliminary order -of- magnitude cost estimates. Operations/ Contract Environ. Environ. Maintenance Alternative Design Admin. Review Mitigation Construct annual Modifications to 250 000 $250,000 $35,000 N ane $2.511 $50,000 P T ose ube $2-5M (24/7 $500,000 serv.i e); Water Shuttle /Taxi $200,000 $200,000 to None $3M $1.25M for 12 $750,000 hours; $825K for 0 hours Bi cle /Ped cy $500,000 $1.5M. Moveable Bridge g $8M $5111 to $1 M $80M (assumes 24/7 operations Bicycle /Ped $2M (assumes Moveable Bridge $20M $10M $1 M $14M $125M 24/7 with Transit operations I This estimate 1s $12 million more than what was reported in the City's Pedestrian Plan because previous estimates were only preliminary order -of- magnitude cost estimates. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 15, 2009 Page 5 of 5 The short -terra solution, "Minor Modifications to the Posey Tube," is estimated at $2.5 million in construction costs and $535,000 in design and administration costs. Caltrans support of this project would be critical in securing funding for this work. Staff proposes to work with Caltrans to gain its support and seek grant funding. In addition, staff proposes to pursue grant funding to prepare the PSR equivalent for the Water Shuttle/Taxi. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Guiding Policy 4.1.8.d, "Study options for an estuary crossing in Alameda's West End for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit." ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Acceptance of the Feasibility Study does not require an environmental review. Individual projects listed in the report will be required to conduct the necessary California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) reviews, depending on the funding source. RECOMMENDATION Accept the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study. Approved as to funds and account, Glenda Interim 'na 3 2e CDirector EM CURRENT APPLICATIONS HOUSING COMMISSION ONE VACANCY FOR SENIOR TENANT SEAT (Full term expiring 06/30/11) Pauline Beck Cullen L. Jones Re: Agenda Item #9 -A 99 -15-09 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAME DA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ARRA AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CO MMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- -SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 6: 0 0 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the special joint meeting at 6:22 p.m. Roll Call Present: Councilmenbers Board Members Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tarn and Mayor/Chair Johnson 5. Absent: None. The special joint meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to Consider: 09- CC /ARRA/ 0 9- CIC Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: Tideland Trust Properties Negotiating parties: City of Alameda, ARRA, CIC and various .leaseholders; Under negotiation: Price and terms 09- CC Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: 1855 N. Loop Road and 1 Clubhouse Memorial Drive; Negotiating parties: City Manager and Harbor Bay Isle Associates; Under negotiation: Price and terms Speakers: Robert Sullwold, Alameda; and Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission, discussed 1855 N. Loop Road Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint meeting was reconvened and Mayor /Chair Johnson announced Tideland Trust Properties the Council /Board /Commission provided instruction to the negotiator; and regarding 1855 N. Loop Road the City Manager discussed issues of price and terms; Council provided instruction. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Cha =r Johnson adjourned the Special Joint meeting at 7 :38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Wei,siger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, A -ameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission September 1, 2009 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- SEPTEMBER 1, 2009- -7:29 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special meeting at 7:47 p.m. Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of .Allegiance. Roll Call Present: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Chair Johnson 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Chair Johnson announced that the recommendation to award Contract [paragraph no. 09- was removed and would return at later date. Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by as asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] 09- Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and CIC Meeting held on August 3, 2009. Approved. 09- Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $151,315 to Ray's Electric, Inc. for Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue Utility Undergrounding. Not heard. AGENDA ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community improvement Commission September 1, 2009 CITY of ALAMEDA Memorandum To. Honorable chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Executive Director Date: September 15, 2009 Re. Award a contract in the Amount of $171,414 to Moreno Trenching, Ltd. for Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue Utility Undergrounding BACKGROUND The Park Street Gateway District Strategic Plan. identified that utility poles.. located. on sidewalks fronting the commercial and retail streets are an impedimer t to development and business expansion in the District. The removal of utility poles and placing the utility lines underground will create amore 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 that 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, is a major impediment to .econo.mic development and reuse in .t.he District. The utility pole services Alameda Municipal Power.(AMP), AT &T, and Corncast. 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 June .24 2009. It was noticed on the city's website, published. three. tires in the. Alameda. Jo.0 rnal and. mailed to local planroorns. The notice. directed prospective bidders. to the on -Line planroorn. of Ford Graphics to obtain plans and specifications. Selection Process: Eight companies attended the C mandatory pre -.bid meeting and walk- through of the site on Wednesday, July 8. Qf.,those eight, the CIC received four proposals, which ranged from $151,315 to $348,038.50. community Improvement Commission (CIC) staff reviewed the. b and determined that the lowest bidder's packet was incomplete. Staff identified the second lowest bidder, Moreno Trenching, Ltd., as the lowest, responsible bidder. Moreno Trenching has over 30 years experience CC /CIC Agenda Item #2 **B Honorable chair and September 15, 2009 Members of the Community Improvement commission Page 2 of 3 with dry utility construction and joint trench installations, mainly working with residential developers such as Centex Homes. Proposed Scope of work: The contract with Moreno Trenching (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 reeving and .installing their respective cables. The entire project is estimated to be completed within 90. days. The work will be performed along Buena Vista Avenue on b of Park street, in front of the chevron Gas Station. and the former Cavanaugh Motors and through the Park street intersection. The Economic Development DepartmentBDD) 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 .S.treet will be limited to the hours between 9.00 a.m. and 3:30 p. m. Next Steps: With the CIO's approval of the contract, EDD staff will issue a Notice to Proceed and schedule .a pre construction meeting Frith .the contractor, AMP, AT &T, and Corncast to review the construction schedule and to approve required .contract submittals before start of construction. FINANCIAL IMPACT The contract amount is for $171,414, which includes. a ten percent contingency of $15,582. The amount does not include additional funds if soil or water contamination is discovered. AMP has worked in the area on other projects and has not encountered contamination. 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 (Phase 1). There is a $7,000 cost savings from this phase that will be applied to the construction portion of the :project. The remaining balance of $164,414 will come from Fund 227.1 (Commercial Revitalization). This is an unbudgeted project requiring funds to be transferred from Fund 227.1 to Fund 203.71103 (BWIP). The transfer of funds will be for construction. This action amends the budget for this project and does not impact the General Fund. Honorable Chair and September 15, 2009 Members of the Communit Improvement Commission Pa 3 of 3 MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Park Street Gatewa District Strate Plan, Streetscape General Principal #3: "Under utilit lines where possible." Award a contract in the amount of $171,414 to Moreno Trenchin Ltd. for Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue utilit under Respe fu Iv submitted, Leslie A. Little Economic Development Director Approved as to funds and account, Glenda D)Ya Interim Finance Director DES:EF:ry CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Cit Mana Date: September 15, 2009 Re: Introduce an Ordinance Amendin the Cit of Alameda Municipal Code b Addin Subsection 30-17 that will Provide for. Densit Bonuses and Concessions or Incentives to Pro that Voluntaril Propose Affordable Hou Unit Adopt a Ne Declaration in Compliance with the California .E nvi ron mental Qualit A ct, and Adopt Resolution Reducin the Incl.usionar U nit-Re q uire.ment Polic for. Resi d enti a l D e velopme n ts i the Busin and Waterfront and .West -End Communit Improvement Proect Areas from at Least 25% to at Least 15% BACKGROUND The California Le has created an incentive pro the "Densit Bonus Laws," to encoura priv dev to include. afforda ble units in their. market rate housin developments. With the enactment of these -laws, which appl to charter cities, the Le has show a.clear in that affordable. housin senior. housin childcare are of statewideconcern, and that local re in conflict with t hese lags are preempted. The state densit bonus. laws are desi g n.ed to improve. t he finan feasibilit of pro that include specified amounts of hous.in restricted to lowerincorne households. The state law achieves this objective b re bonuses I incentives and concessions, and waivers. The "Bonus". Projects that provide the specified amo of affordable hous must be g ranted additional market rate units to off -set the cost of providin the afforda un The "Incentives and Concessions". Projects that pr o vide a specified amount of affordable housin must be g ranted incentives or concessions to..Iow the c o s t of developin the project, such as reductions in development standards and/or reduced parkin re The "Waivers". The Cit must waive an development standard that ph precludes construction of the development with its additional bonus units. Honorable mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 10 In Alameda, the maximum density allowable is 21 units per acre pursuant to Alameda City Charter Article 20. Some sites are limited to a lower density pursuant to the General Plan. Under the state law, the maximum allowable bonus is 35 which would result in a project of 29 units per acre. The Alameda Municipal Code and the City Charter include a variety of development standards, such as parking, setback, height limits, and a prohibition on multi- family housing. Pursuant to the state laws, a project may request a reduction or waiver of any development standards. If the project is requesting the waiver or reduction as a "concession or incentive then the City is required to grant the request unless a finding can be made that the request is not required to achieve affordable housing costs; that the request would have a specific adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment or any real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact; or the request would violate state or federal law. If the request is made as a waiver, then the City must grant the request, unless a finding can be made that the waiver would have a specific adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment or any real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact; or the request would violate state or federal law. DISCUSSION Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Density Bonus ordinance The Density Bonus Law applies when an applicant "seeks a density bonus" and `seeks and agrees to construct" the required percentage of qualifying units. Much of the law relating to density bonuses is mandated by the State; however, there is one area where the City appears to have some discretion in customizing its local density bonus regulations. Cities may craft their ordinances to grant density bonuses for affordable units that are provided above and beyond the City's inclusionary housing requirements. The Cities of San Francisco, Salinas, and Fountain view are among jurisdictions that have taken this approach. Some cities in California have chosen to allow units that are included in the project in compliance with a local inclusionary housing requirement to be counted toward the total number of affordable units needed to qualify for a density bonus, including the City of Berkeley. The recommended ordinance for Alameda takes the latter approach. However, staff is also recommending that the 25% inclusionary requirement in redevelopment areas be reduced to the citywide 15 so that all projects in redevelopment areas would not automatically qualify for a density bonus. As drafted, Alameda's proposed Density Bonus Ordinance specifies that units required by the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance must comply with the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, even if those requirements are more rigorous than those specified by state density bonus law. For example, state law specifies that a unit must remain affordable for 30 years to qualify as an affordable unit. Alameda's local inclusionary ordinance requires 59 years. Therefore, in this example, the project may Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the City council Page 3 of 10 count its inclusionary units toward the total number of units required for a density bonus, but those lnclusionary units must remain affordable for 59 years, not 30. If the developer chose to increase the number of affordable units to qualify for a density bonus, the additional units would only need to be affordable for 30 years. INCOME LIMITS The following table represents the various income levels for Alameda County. As an example, a family of four with a household income of $44,660 per year would qualify as a very low Income household as shown in the table below. Income Category (Persons Per 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Household) Extremely Love 18,750 21 24,100 26,800 28 31 33 36,400 Very Low 31 35 40,200 44,650 48 51 55, 350 58,950 Income Lower Income 46 53 59 66 71 76 82 87,450 Median 62500 71,450 80,350 89 300 96 103 110 117,900 Income Moderate 75,000 85 96,450 107,150 115 124,300 132 141,450 Income Source California Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR DENSITY BONUSES Density bonuses are available for five categories of residential projects as described below. The smallest density bonus is a five percent increase in density for providing ten percent of a development's units for moderate- income households, and the maximum bonus is 35 percent. 1. Affordable Housing Pro'ects Oncludigg Common Interest Developments with Affordable Housing� To be eligible for a density bonus by providing affordable housing, one of the following must be included: (a)Five percent of the units must be affordable to very low income households earning 50 percent of median income or less. This makes the project eligible for a 20 percent density bonus. Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council (b) Ten percent of the units must be earning 80 percent of median in eligible for a 20% density bonus. September 15, 2000 Page 4 of 10 affordable to lower income households ,once or less. This makes the project (c) Ten percent of the units must be affordable to moderate income households earning 120 percent of median or less, but only if the project is a common interest development. (A common interest development consists of individual ownership of private dwellings with the shared ownership of common facilities, which is most often a condominium complex). This makes the project eligible for a 5% density bonus. In addition, there is a sliding scale that requires: (a) An additional 2.5 percent density bonus for each additional increase of one percent very low- income units; (b) An additional 1.5 percent density bonus for each additional one percent increase in lower income units; and (c) An additional one percent density bonus for each one percent increase in moderate- income units. The proposed density bonus ordinance contains the relevant calculations in a table format. A developer can qualify for a density bonus from only one affordability category (either very low, low or moderate incomes) and cannot combine categories, The highest density bonus provided for by the proposed ordinances 35 These required percentages of affordable housing are calculated before the density bonus is applied. For example, in a 100 -unit project entitled to a 20 percent density bonus (which is one in which ten percent of the units must be affordable to lower income households), 120 units would be allowed, but only ten affordable units would be required. Continued Affordabilit All very low income and lower income units must remain affordable for at least 30 years, or longer if required by the City's inclusionary housing requirements or other public subsidy program. In contrast, when a common interest project (e.g., a condominium or planned development project includes units designated for moderate- income families, these units need to remain affordable only for initial owners/occupants. Subsequent owners may purchase the units at market rate. Upon resale of the units designated for moderate income households, the seller of the unit can retain the value of any improvements, the down payment, and the seller's proportionate share of appreciation. The City is able to recapture any initial subsidy and its proportionate Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 15, 2009 Page 5of 10 share of appreciation, which must be used within five years for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate- income housing available at affordable housing cost. The City's proportionate share of appreciation is equal to the percentage by which the initial sale price that the moderate- income household paid was less than the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale. Total housing costs for affordable rental units include rent, utilities, and fees and service charges levied by the landlord. Total housing costs for ownership affordable units must include principal, interest, property taxes, insurance, private mortgage insurance (if any), utilities, homeowners' association dues, and an allowance for maintenance costs. 2. Senior Housing ng A senior citizen housing development is eligible for a density bonus even if none of the units are affordable. A senior citizen housing development is a residential development that is developed, substantially rehabilitated, or substantially renovated for senior citizens that has at least 35 units. I n order for a senior citizen housing development to be eligible for a density bonus, primary residents must be at least 55 years old. For developments meeting this criteria, the density bonus shall be 20% of the number of senior housing units. 3. Ponations of Land A land donation to the City or another housing developer can qualify a project for a density bonus if the donated parcel is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit development of at least 40 units. The transferred land must be within the boundary of the proposed development or, if the City agrees, within one quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed development. The land must also have the correct general plan designation and be properly zoned with appropriate development standards for a housing development. For donated land, all of the permits and approvals (other than building permits) necessary for the development of the very low income housing units on the transferred land must be in place no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application. The City retains the authority to subject the proposed development to design review. The State law further requires that a proposed source of funding for the very low income units be identified no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision reap, parcel reap, or residential development application. Given that much of Alameda is already developed and the supply of sites that could accommodate 40 dwelling units is quite limited, it is unlikely that a donation of land Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council September 15, 2009 Page 6 of 10 in exchange for a density bonus would occur; Regardless, in keeping with State law, the density bonus must contain the provisions identified above. When a developer of an affordable housing project or a senior housing project donates land for very lour income housing, an additional density bonus can be granted. A density bonus of 15 percent may be granted for land donation that can accommodate ten percent of the market rate units in the development. An additional one percent density bonus is available for each one percent increase in the number of units that can be accommodated on the donated land, up to a maximum of 35 percent. 4. Condominium Conversions with Affordable Housir� When an applicant for approval to convert to a condominium project agrees to provide at least 33% of the total units to persons and families of love or moderate income, or 15% of the total units to lower income households and agrees to pay for the reasonably necessary administrative costs incurred by the City, the City shall either grant a density bonus, or provide other incentives of equivalent financial value to the applicant. The city may place conditions on the project, including assurance of continued affordability of units to subsequent purchasers. The density bonus is an increase in units of 25% over the number of apartments. Since condominium conversions involve the conversion of existing buildings, there would be little opportunity in Alameda to take advantage of a density bonus unless the apartment site were to have enough vacant land to accommodate additional units or if existing units were to be restructured so as to create additional dwelling units (e.g., taking three, two- bedroom units to create four, one bedroom units). Instead of a density bonus, the applicant may request other incentives of equivalent financial value. 5. childcare Facilities The State law requires density bonuses when childcare facilities are included in a housing project. Pursuant to State law, a density bonus is granted based on the square footage of the childcare center, with the amount of square feet of residential space equal to or greater than the amount of square feet in the childcare facility. Therefore, if a project includes a 10,000 square foot childcare center, the project may request an additional 10,000 square feet in residential floor area. In return for the bonus, the City must require that the child care facility remain in operation fro a period of time that is as long as or longer than the period of time during which the density bonus units are required to remain affordable. The city is not required to provide a density bonus or concession if it finds, based on substantial evidence, that the city has adequate childcare facilities. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council CONCESSIONS AND INCENTIVES September 15, 2099 Page 7of10 An applicant who applies for a project that is eligible for a density bonus may also request from one to three "concessions or incentives," depending on the number of affordable units. An applicant may submit a proposal for specific incentives or concessions. State lair defines incentives or concessions to mean any of the following: A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning. code requirements or architectural design review requirements that exceed the minimum building standards, including but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. "Development standard" includes a site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an on -site open -space requirement, or a parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation. California Government Code Section 65915(o) (1). Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. By increasing the percentage of affordable units, a development will qualify for additional incentives. A developer may request both a density increase and incentives or concessions for the corresponding percentage of affordable units at a specific income level. Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2000 Members of the City Council Page 8 of 10 In addition to the specific incentives and concessions provided, if requested by a developer, the city must reduce the required parking for the entire project, and not just for the "affordable" units. Alameda's residential parking requirements call for two parking spaces for houses of 3000 square feet or less and three parking spaces for larger homes. The State law requires that, when requested, no more parking than the following be required: Zero to one bedroom one parking space *Two to three bedrooms two parking spaces Four or more bedrooms 2.5 parking spaces The spaces may be in tandem and uncovered. Additional reductions in .parking could be requested as a concession. COMMUNIITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AND THE DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE The City of Alameda has a citywide inclusionary housing ordinance that requires at least 15% of the units in a new residential development be designated as affordable housing. In redevelopment areas, Community Improvement commission policy requires that at least 25% of the units be designated as affordable housing. Within the Alameda Point Improvement Plan area, this policy was mandated as a condition of the settlement of prior litigation of the Reuse Plan EIR. There is no such contractual obligation in the City's other redevelopment areas. Given that the City of Alameda has an inclusionary policy of 25% in redevelopment areas, most applications for residential projects of five or more dwelling units would be eligible for a density bonus and would have the opportunity to request an incentive or concession because the number of affordable units a developer is required to provide meets the density bonus threshold. For example, a loo -unit project in a redevelopment area is required to provide six very low- income units. The minimum number of very low income units needed to be eligible for a 20% density bonus is five; thus, in this scenario, the developer would be entitled to an additional 20 market -rate dwelling units, plus an incentive. If the inclusionary unit policy was changed from 25% to 15 a developer would not automatically be entitled to a density bonus and incentive because the required number of very low income units is four, which does not meet the density bonus unit threshold of five. Staff is recommending that the Community Improvement Commission rescind the 25% inclusionary requirement policy in the Business and Waterfront Improvement Plan and West End community Improvement Plan redevelopment areas and reduce the percentage to 15 consistent with the inclusionary ordinance and the minimum percentage required by California redevelopment law, which accomplishes the following: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 15, 2009 Page 9 of 10 The inclusionary unit requirement for every project in Alameda is at least 15 with the exception of the Alameda Point Improvement Area. The Density Bonus Ordinance becomes an incentive to provide more affordable units. A density bonus is not automatically triggered by inclusionary unit requirements. The Planning Board considered the proposed Density Bonus Ordinance at meetings on March 9 and 23, 2009. The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of this ordinance to the City Council. The Board also recommend on a 4 -1 vote to recommend that the inclusionary housing requirement policy for redevelopment areas be reduced from 25% to 15% on the condition that this recommendation be considered by the Economic Development Commission and the Housing Commission. The Economic Development Commission unanimously supported the recommendation to reduce the inclusionary requirement at their meeting of April 16, 2009. The Housing Commission considered this recommendation at a number of meeting and at their August 19, 2009 meeting voted unanimously to forward the following comments to the City Council: Several Commissioners expressed their position that city ordinances or programs were needed to improve the financial feasibility of housing projects that included affordable housing. One commissioner suggested that it might be difficult to obtain a construction loan with a density bonus, that it might be interpreted as a tax. He also suggested it might pose a difficulty with the pro forma. A commissioner noted that the ordinance will not ensure that the Housing Element is approved by the state but that it might help the City make an argument that the density bonus helps meet the requirements. one commissioner believes Leasure A is a deterrent to the development of affordable housing and revisions to it and other deterrents to affordable housing should be the focus of the conversation. It was noted that if a developer requests a density bonus to build multi- family units it must be granted over Treasure A restrictions. FINANCIAL IMPACT The funds for this project have been budgeted in the Community Development Department account for development code updates. The Community Development Department will recover any expenditure incurred by the department from applicants for the processing of density bonus applications. Honorable Mayor and September 15, 2009 Members of the city Council Page 10 of 10 MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The proposed ordinance inserts subsection 30-17 in Article I of chapter XXk, Development Regulations of the Alameda Municipal Code. The proposed reduction in the percentage of inclusionary unit requirement would amend Community Improvement Commission Resolution Number 94 -127, sections 2.a. and 2.c. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Negative Declaration, which is on file in the City Clerk's office, is proposed for this project because completion of an initial study found that the proposed ordinance would not have a significant effect on the environment. RECOMMENDATION Introduce an ordinance amending the city of Alameda Municipal Code by adding Subsection 30-17 that will provide for density bonuses and concessions or incentives to projects that voluntarily propose affordable housing units and adopt a negative declaration in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. Respectfully submitted, n Bigg Planning Services Manager Approved as to funds and account, Glend Ja Interi_ F na c Director TRAI LH EAD September 2, 2009 City Council of Alameda Alameda City Hall 2203 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Ttt Regarding: Recommendation to vote to apply inclusionary housing requirements towards fulfilling Density Bonus ordinance requirements. Madame Mayor and honorable Members of the City Council, My name is Jamie beating, and I am a life -long resident of Alameda and the manager of a real estate and investment company. As the Density Bonus ordinance comes before the City Council on September 15, 2009, 1 urge you to consider applying required Inclusionary Housing Units towards fulfilling the requirements for the Density Bonus. The Community's Vision For years, the Park Street district north of Lincoln Avenue has been suffering from disinvestment, and the recent closure of the Toyota and Chevrolet Dealerships in combination with the economic downturn has only worsened the district's blighted appearance. We were very excited to read the Gateway District Strategic Plan in which the community calls for a transformation of the Park Street corridor. The community's goals include attracting new investment "to transform the look and feel of the district while helping to make it more livable and attractive to residents" and to "remedy the auto oriented feeling throughout the district." To accomplish this goal, the Plan recommends that the City "establish and change policies and regulations to attract and guide desired n ew in vestme n t." Financial Feasibility Implications of the Density Bonus Ordinance For eight years, my firm has been involved in development and construction projects in other cities. However, despite my local know ledge and passion for Alameda, and my desire to assist in the revitalization of Park Street north of Lincoln Avenue, the density and units per building limitations established by city Charter Article XXVI, Created an environment such that my firm, like so many other development companies, has not considered Alameda as an economically viable environment for investment. There are many sites within the Strategic Plan area -and throughout the City -that at first glance appear to be excellent candidates for new investment. My firm has performed market analyses, concept -level development concepts, and financial proformas for key opportunity sites to access the feasibility of new residential, commercial, and office uses. S. 1/ 8 0 i Ls f C a i .i v L.a S i? c�. �l a.� e �y �"i "f �3 f L s x -Y J .L i 3 �S „t 9 e Re: Joint CC, C C #3 -A 09 -15 o9 To summarize our findings quite briefly: The projected return on retail and/or office uses on the opportunity sites will not cover the costs of acquiring land (including costs of remediation where applicable) and completing new construction. In addition to a simple cost /benefit analysis, we do not think that the development of a single commercial use building and associated parking lot is in line with the community's desire for transformation. When we introduce a residential component to the analyses without the Density Bonus, we found that the City's density limitations in combination with the two dwelling units per building limitation imposed by City Charter Article XXVI resulted in total costs remaining far in excess of returns. When we introduce the Density Bonus, assume a waiver of a provision of Measure A to allow for attached dwelling units, and assume that required Inclusionary Units will apply toward the Density Bonus requirements, we begin to shift the proforma back to where it can begin to make sense from an investment Point of view. If Inclusionary Units coo not count towards Density Bonus unit requirements, the resulting costs remain far in excess of possible returns, and development becomes unfeasible. Conclusion Recommendation City leadership has a very unique opportunity to enable new investment in Alameda as it considers the Density Bonus ordinance. The project that my firm is envisioning would help to revitalize the Park Street corridor by adding a mix of residential and commercial uses where they would support neighborhood character, support transit ridership, and revitalize a blighted property along one of our City's gateway corridors. our project concept even goes a step further by introducing an attractive public plaza to enhance the look and feel of the district, support pedestrian activity, and boost adjacent property values. Once again, I urge you to apply Inclusionary Dousing units towards Density Bonus Unit requirements. Council is in position to catalyze revitalization, and to turn the Community's vision into reality by enacting regulations that attract private investment. Sincerely, CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE No. New Series AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SUBSECTION 30 -17 (DENSITY BONUS REGULATIONS) TO ARTICLE I (ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS) OF CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) TO R ALLOW DENSITY BONUS UNITS AND INCENTIVES OR CONCESSIONS TO DEVELOPERS THAT VOLUNTARILY PROVIDE FOR AFFORDABLE I HOUSING UNITS AS AN ELEIVIENT OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS in 1 979 the State of Cal adapted legislation that provided incentives to encourage private developers to include affordable units" in their market rate residential projects and this legislation has been amended numerous tunes since its inception most recently in 2008; and P y F WHEREAS, with certain exceptions, California Government Code Section 65915 requires that a City provide for a density bonus and other incentives or concessions if a developer, among other things, agrees to construct specified numbers of affordable housing units; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the city of Alameda General Plan, adopted in May 2003, includes an objective calling for the adoption of a density bonus ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Alameda Planning Board has held public hearings at which public comment was received and considered and has recommended adoption of a density bonus ordinance to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to maintain an economically balanced community with housing available to households of all income levels and this Council seeks to provide incentives for the creation of affordable housing units; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to add density bonus regulations to Article 1, Chapter XXX, Development Regulations, of the Alameda Municipal Code, subject to compliance with all standards requirements and appropriate review as provided for in the density bonus regulations; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for this ordinance, which proposed that a Negative Declaration be approved; and WHEREAS, Public Notice of the proposed as required by Section 21 092 of the Public Declaration was circulated for public review and connection with the Negative Declaration; and Negative Declaration was given Resources Cade, the Negative no comments were received in Introduction of Ordinance Joint CC, CIC ##3 -A 09 -15 -09 WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted by the Planning Board on March 9th and March 23rd, 2009, and by the City council on September 15, 2009 to consider the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration prepared for this ordinance, and to accept public testimony regarding this proposed environmental determination for the proposed ordinance; and WHEREAS, based on the information contained in the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration prepared for this ordinance and testimony received as a result of the public notice, the city Council finds no substantial evidence that there would be a significant impact on the environment if the ordinance was approved. NOVA, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the city's independent judgment, the City council of the City of Alameda does hereby approve a Negative Declaration for this ordinance in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Ordinance Adoption. Article I of chapter xxx of the Alameda Municipal code is hereby amended to add a new Section 30-17, Density Bonus Regulations, to read as follows: 30 -17 DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE 30 -17.1 Purpose The purpose of this Density Bonus ordinance is to create incentives for the provision of affordable housing in Alameda. The California Legislature requires each local government to adopt an ordinance that specifies how the jurisdiction will comply with Section 05915 et seq. of the California Government code. This ordinance is intended to satisfy the requirements of that code. 30 -17.2 Findings Rising land prices have been a key factor in preventing development of new affordable housing. New housing construction that does not include affordable units aggravates the existing shortage of affordable housing by absorbing the supply of available residential land. This reduces the supply of land for affordable housing and increases the price of remaining residential land. 30 -17.3 Definitions Unless the context plainly requires otherwise, the following words and phrases used in section 30 -17 shall have the following meanings. Capitalized terms not defined here in 30 -17.3 and used in this section 30 -17 shall have the meanings 2 attributed to there in Government code section 65915 as it now exists or may hereafter be amended. a. Affordable Housing or Affordable Housing Unit shall mean a dwelling unit required to be offered at Affordable Rent or available at Affordable Housing Cost to Very Low, Lower or Moderate Income Households pursuant to this section 30 -1T b. Affordable Housing Agreement means a written agreement between an applicant for a development and the city of Alameda ensuring the continuing affordability of housing pursuant to this section 30-17. C. Applicant is defined as any person who seeks residential property development permits or approvals from the city of Alameda. d. Child care Facility is defined as a child day facility other than a family day care home, including but not limited to infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities and school -age child care centers, installed, operated and maintained for the nonresidential care of children. e. Development means all development pursuant to a proposal to construct or place one or more dwelling units on a lot or contiguous lots including, without limitation, a planned unit development, site plan, subdivision, or conversion of a nonresidential building to dwelling units. f. Marketing Plan means a plan that describes how the applicant will inform the public, and those within appropriate income groups, of the availability of Affordable Housing Units in a development for which a density bonus is granted under this section 30 --17. g. Maximum Allowable Residential Density means the density allowed under the zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, or if a range of densities is permitted, means the maximum allowable density. Where the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevail. h. Mixed-Use Development Project means a Development that includes residential as well as commercial, office, or industrial uses. 30 -17.4 Application The provisions of this section 30 -17 apply to: a. Nim residential development projects of 5 or more dwelling units, regardless of the type of dwelling units proposed; b. New mixed -use developments which include at least 5 dwelling units; C. Renovation of one or more multiple family residential structures containing at least 5 units so to increase the number of residential units; d. A new or renovated Mixed -lase Development Project in the Park Street and Webster street Business Districts, as depicted in Exhibits A -1 and A -2 to Ordinance loo. which adopted this section 30 -17; e. Development that will change the use of an existing building from nonresidential to residential and that will provide at least 5 residential units; f. Development that includes the conversion of at least 5 residential rental units to ownership housing. Developments subject to this paragraph include projects undertaken in phases, stages, or otherwise developed in distinct sections. If the site of a development proposal is located in two or more zones, the number of dwelling units permitted in the development is the sum of the dwelling units permitted in each of the zones. The permitted number of dwelling units may be distributed within the development without regard to the zone boundaries. For projects subject to section 30-16 of this code, "lnclusionary Housing Requirements for Residential Projects," the inclusionary units required by that section may be counted toward the affordable unit requirements of this section 30- 7. To the extent that the provisions of this section and section 30-16 conflict, the more demanding provisions in terms of affordable housing production of section 30- 0 shall prevail. 30 -17.5 Specified Housing Units The city shall grant a Density Bonus, and incentives or concessions as described in section 30-17.10, when an Applicant seeks and agrees to construct a Development that meets or exceeds one or more of the following criteria: a. 10 percent of the total dwelling units of a Development or Mixed Use Development for Lower Income Households; or b. 5 percent of the total dwelling units of a Development or mixed Use Development for Very Low Income Households; or C. A Senior citizen Housing Development or a mobile home park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to section 798.70 or 799.5 of the civil code; or 4 d. 10 percent of the total dwelling units in a common interest development as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code (typically a condominium or small -lot single family development) for persons and families of Moderate Income, provided that all units in the development are offered for purchase to income qualified members of the genera( public. The applicant shall elect whether the Density Bonus shall be awarded on the basis of paragraph a., b., c., or d. of section 30 -17.5. The granting of a Density Bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a General Plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval. All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For residential developments that include 10 percent of the total dwelling units for Low Income Households, the Density Bonus shall be calculated as follows: Percentage Low-Income Units 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 17 18 19 20 Percentage Density Bonus 20 21.5 23 24.5 28 27.5 29 30.5 32 33.5 35 For residential developments that include 5 percent of the total dwelling units of a Residential Development for Very Low Income Households, the Density Bonus shall be calculated as follows: Percentage very Low Income Units 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 Percentage Density Bonus 20 22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35 For a Senior citizen Housing Development or Mobile Horne Park, the Density Bonus shall be 20 percent of the number of senior housing units. For Residential Developments that include 10 percent of the total dwelling units in a common interest development for persons and families of Moderate Income, the Density Bonus shall be calculated as follows: Percentage Moderate Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 10 5 11 0 12 7 13 8 14 9 15 10 10 11 17 12 18 13 19 14 20 15 21 10 22 17 23 18 24 19 25 20 25 21 27 22 28 23 29 24 30 25 31 20 32 27 33 28 34 29 35 30 30 31 37 32 38 33 39 34 40 37 An applicant shall agree and the city shall be entitled to ensure continued affordability of all low-- and very -low- income units that qualified an applicant for the award of the density bonus for 30 years or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. An applicant shall agree and the city shall be entitled to ensure that the initial occupant of the moderate income units that are directly related to the receipt of the density bonus in a common interest development are persons and families of moderate income and that units are offered at an affordable sales price and housing cost as defined by section 30 -17 and Government code section 05915 as it exists when a complete application for a Development is submitted to the city. Developments incorporating a Density Bonus require review and approval by the Planning Board; provided, however, that if a Development involves another permit or entitlement requiring city council approval, then the Planning Board may deny the project or recommend its approval to the city council. Decisions of the Planning Board may be appealed to or reviewed by the city council as provided in section 30 -25 of this code, Appeals or calls for Review. 30 -17.6 Land Donation When an Applicant for a tentative subdivision map, parcel reap, or other residential development approval donates land to the city in accordance with this section 30 -17, the Applicant shall be entitled to a 15 percent increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density for the entire Development as follows: Percentage Very Lover Income 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 27 28 29 30 Percentage Density Bonus 15 10 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 The Density Bonus for land dedication shall be in addition to any Density Bonus allowed by section 30 -17.5, up to a maximum combined increased of 35 percent if the Applicant seeks an increase under this section and the increase under section 30 -17.5. 7 An applicant shall be eligible for the increased Density Bonus described in this section if all of the following conditions are met: a. The Applicant donates and transfers the land to the city no later than the date of approval by the city of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or Application of the Development seeping the Density Bonus. b. The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being transferred are sufficient to permit construction of units affordable to Very Low Income households in an amount not less than 10 percent of the number of residential units of the proposed Development seeping the Density Bonus. C. The transferred land: (i) is at least one acre in size or of- sufficient size to permit development of at least 40 units; and (ii) has the appropriate General Plan designation and is appropriately zoned for development of very -low- income housing; and (iii) is or will be served by adequate public facilities and infrastructures for the development of very-low-income housing when transferred; and (iv) has appropriate zoning and development standards to make the development of the Affordable dousing Units feasible; and (v) No later than the date of approval of the final subdivision neap, parcel map, or of the Development application seeking the Density Bonus, the transferred land shall have all of the permits and approvals, other than building permits, necessary for the development of the Very Low Income housing units on the transferred land, except that the city may subject the proposed Development to subsequent design review, if the design is not reviewed by the city prior to the transfer. d. The transferred land and the Affordable dousing Units shall be subject to a deed restriction, which shall be recorded on the property upon dedication, ensuring continued affordability of the units for at least 30 years. e. The land is transferred to the City or to a housing developer approved by the city. f. The transferred land is within the proposed Development or, if the City agrees, within one quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed Development. g. A proposed source of funding for the development of very -low- income units shall be identified not later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application. 8 30-17.7 Child care Facilities When an Applicant proposes to construct a Development that conforms to the requirements of section 30-17.5 and includes a child care Facility located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to the Development, the City shall grant either of the following: a. An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal to or greater than the amount of square feet in the child care facility. b. An additional concession or incentive designated by the city that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child Care Facility. In order to qualify for a Density Bonus as provided in this subsection 30 -17.7, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning and Building Director a financial report (pro forma) for the proposed Child Care Facility that includes sources of operating revenue to ensure that the center remains open and provides the promised services for the life of the project. The City shall require, as a condition of approving the Development that: a. The child care Facility shall remain in operation as long as or longer than time during which the Affordable Housing Units are required to remain affordable pursuant to this section 30 -17; and b. Of the children who attend the Child care Facility, the children of Very Low Income Households, Lower-Income Households, Moderate Income Households shall equal a percentage that is equal to or greater than the percentage of Dwelling Units that are made affordable to Very Low Income Households, Lower Income Households, or Moderate- Income Households. Notwithstanding any requirement of this subsection 30 -17.7, the city need not provide a Density Bonus or concession for a child care Facility if it finds, based upon substantial evidence, that Alameda has adequate child care facilities. 30 -17.3 Condominium Conversions When a Development is the conversion of an existing apartment complex to a condominium complex and the Applicant agrees to make at least 33 percent of the total units of the Development affordable to Moderate Income households for 30 years, or .15 percent of the total units of the proposed Development affordable to Lower-Income households for 30 years, and agrees to pay for the administrative costs incurred by the City to process the application and to monitor the continued affordability and habitability of the Affordable Housing Units, the city shall either: I a. Grant a Density Bonus of 25 percent; or b� Provide other incentives of equivalent financial value as determined by the city. An Applicant shall be ineligible for a Density Bonus or other incentives under this subsection 30 -17.5 if the apartments proposed for conversion are in a Development for which a Density Bonus or other incentives were previously provided under this section 30 -17 or section 30 -15 of this code. 30.17.9 Design, Distribution and Timing of Development of Affordable Housing Units Affordable Housing Units must be constructed concurrently with market -rate units. Affordable Housing Units shall be integrated into the Development and be comparable in infrastructure (including sewer, water and other utilities), construction quality and exterior design to the market -rate units. The Affordable Housing Units must also comply with the following criteria: a. Rental Developments: Rental units shall be integrated within and reasonably dispersed throughout the project. All Affordable Housing Units shall reflect the range and numbers of bedrooms provided in the project as a whole, and shall not be distinguished by design, construction or materials. b. owner- occupied Developments: owner- occupied units shall be integrated within the project. Affordable Housing Units may be smaller in size and have different interior finishes and features than market -rate units so long as the interior features are durable, of good quality and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing as determined by the Planning and Building Director. Al[ Affordable Housing Units shall reflect the range and numbers of bedrooms provided in the project as a whole, except that Affordable Housing Units need not provide more than four bedrooms. No building permits will be issued for market -rate units until permits for all Affordable Housing Units have been obtained, unless Affordable Housing Units are to be constructed in phases pursuant to a plan approved by the city. Market -rate units will not be inspected for occupancy until all Affordable Housing Units have been constructed, unless Affordable Housing Units are to be constructed in phases pursuant to a plan approved by the City. 30-17.10 Requests for Incentives or Concessions When an Applicant seeks a density bonus or seeks to donate land for housing, the city shall provide the Applicant with incentives or concessions for the a production of housing units and child care facilities. The Applicant must submit a Density Bonus Application, 'as described in subsection 30-17.11 below, identifying the specific incentives or concessions that the Applicant requests. The city shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the Applicant unless the city makes any of the following written findings, based upon substantial evidence: a. The concession or incentive is not required to provide for Affordable Housing Costs as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and safety Code or for Affordable Rents for the targeted units; b. The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources or the city's List of officially Designated Architecturally and Historically significant Buildings and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to Lower and Moderate- Income households; C. Is a request to modify the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. d. is a request for direct financial incentives for the development, including the provision of publicly owned land or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. e. The concession or incentive would be contrary to State or federal law. 30 -17.11 Granting of Incentives or Concessions If the conditions of section 30-17.5 are met, the following incentives or concessions shall be granted: a. one incentive or concession for a Development that makes: at [east 0 percent of the total units affordable to Lower-Income Households; or at least 5 percent of the total units affordable to Ilea Low-Income Households; or at least 10 percent of the total units affordable to persons and families of Moderate- Income in a common interest development. b. Two incentives or concessions for a Residential Development that makes: at least 20 percent of the total units affordable to Lower-Income Households; or at least 10 percent of the total units affordable to Ilea Low-Income Households; or at least 20 percent of the total units affordable to persons and families of Moderate Income in a common interest development. II cs Three incentives or concessions for a Residential Development that manes: at least 30 percent of the total units for Lower Income Households; at least 5 percent for Ilea Lour Income Households, or at least 30 percent for persons and families of Moderate- Income in a common interest development. 30-17.12 Incentives, concessions, Waivers, and Parking For the purposes of this section, concession or incentive may mean: a. A reduction in site Development Standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements resulting in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. "concession or incentive" may include but is not limited to any of the following: (i) Reduced minimum lot sizes and /or dimensions (ii) Reduced minimum setbacks (iii) Increased height limitations (iv) Reduced onsite open -space requirements (v) increased maximum lot coverage (vi) Increased floor area ratio (vii) Reduced parking requirements (viii) Allowance for attached dwelling units, considered a waiver of a provision of Article XXVI of the Alameda city charter, if shown to be necessary to make the project feasible, and (ix) Development standards that physically preclude construction of the development. b. Approval of mixed use development in conjunction with the Development if nonresidential uses will reduce the development cost of the residential portion of the Development and if the non residential uses are compatible with the Development and with existing or planned development in the area. C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the provision of direct financial incentives for a Development, including the provision of publicly owned land by the city or other waiver of fees or dedication requirements. 12 Moreover, concessions or incentives shall not include any exceptions, waivers or departures from health and safety standards of building and fire codes or from solid waste and recycling standards established by the state of California and the City of Alameda. d. Upon the request of the developer, a development meeting the criteria of section 30 -17.5, shall be subject to the following on -site parking ratios: (A) Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space. (B) Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces. (C) Four and more bedrooms: two and one -half parking spaces. (2) If the total number of parking spaces required for a development is other than a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subdivision, a development may provide "onsite parking" through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through on-- street parking. (3) This subdivision shalt apply to a development that meets the requirements of section 30 -17.5 but only at the request of the applicant. An applicant may request parking incentives or concessions beyond those provided in this subdivision. d. In no case shall any development standard be applied that will physically preclude construction of a Development meeting the criteria of subsection 30-17.5 except as required by Section 30-17.10. 30 -17.13 compliance The provisions of this section shall apply to all agents, successors and assignees of an Applicant proposing a Development governed by this section 30- 17. No tentative reap, use permit, special development permit or occupancy permit shall be issued for any Development that has been granted a density bonus under this section unless that map or permit is exempt from or in compliance with the terms of this section 30 --17. The City may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance herewith, including but not limited to actions to revoke, deny or suspend any permit or development approval. 30- 17.14 Density Bonus Application In order to receive concessions and/or incentives under this section 30-17, an Applicant must submit to the city a Density Bonus. Application which will be treated as part of the development application. At any time during the review process, the Planning and Building Director may require from the Applicant 3 additional information reasonably necessary to clarify and supplement the Application or to determine the Development's consistency with the requirements of this section. The Density Bonus Application shall include the following: a. A description of the Development, including the total number of proposed Affordable Housing Units, senior housing units or mobile home park units; b. The zoning and General Plan designations and assessor's parcel number(s) of the project site; C. A vicinity reap and preliminary site plan, drawn to scale, including building footprints, driveways and parking layout. da A description of the concessions or incentives requested. e. If an additional incentive(s) is requested, the application shall describe why the additional incentive(s) is necessary to provide the Affordable Housing Units. below. f. The Affordable dousing Unit Plan described in subsection 30-17.15 g. Any other information reasonably requested by the Planning and Building Director to aid in the implementation of this section 30 -17. 30-17.15 Affordable Housing Unit Plan An Applicant shall submit an Affordable Housing Unit Plan as part of the development application. The Affordable Housing Unit Plan shall include the following: a. The location, structure (attached, semi- attached, or detached), proposed tenure (sale or rental), and size of proposed market -rate, and Affordable Housing Units and the proposed tenure and size of non residential uses included in the Development; ba A floor or site plan depicting the location of the Affordable blousing Units and a floor plan describing the size of the Affordable Housing Units in square feet; C. The income level to which each Affordable Housing Unit will be made affordable; 14 d. Drafts of the documents to be used to ensure that the units remain affordable for the required tern-, such as resale and rental restrictions, deeds of trust, and rights of first refusal; e. For phased Developments, a phasing plan that provides for the timely development of Affordable Housing Units in proportion to other housing units in each proposed phase of development as required by this section; f. A marketing plan that describes how the Applicant will inform the public, and those within the appropriate income groups, of the availability of Affordable Housing Units; g. A financial report (pro forma) to evaluate: i) whether the concessions or incentives sought would result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions and ii) whether the concessions or incentives sought are necessary to reduce the cost of the housing project sufficiently to make feasible the provision of the Affordable Housing Units; and h. Any other information reasonably requested by the Planning and Building Director to assist evaluation of the Affordable Housing Unit Plan. 30-17.16 Affordable Housing Unit Agreement Each Development for which a density bonus and incentive or incentives is granted pursuant to this section 30 -17 shall be the subject of an Affordable Housing Unit Agreement the provisions of which will vary depending on how a Development satisfies the provisions of this section 30 -17. The Affordable Housing Unit Agreement shall be recorded as a restriction on the parcel.or parcels on which the Affordable Housing units will be constructed. The Affordable Housing Unit Agreement shall be approved and recorded before final neap approval, or, where a map is not requested, prior to issuance of building permits for market -rate units. The Affordable Housing Unit Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. An Affordable Housing Unit Agreement must include: a. A description of the Development, including the total number of units, and the number and tenure (sale or rental) of Affordable Housing Units. b. The size, in square feet, and location of Affordable Housing Units; c. A description of the income group to be accommodated by the Affordable Housing Units, and the formula for determining the Affordable Rent or sales price and Affordable Housing Cost for each Affordable Housing Unit; d. The duration of affordability for the Affordable Housing Units; 15) e. A schedule for completion and occupancy of the Affordable Housing Units, f. Provisions and/or documents for resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal or rental restrictions or other appropriate means to maintain the affordability of the Affordable Housing Units; g. A Marketing Plan approved by the city for sale or rental of the Affordable Housing Units, which shall use an equitable method to select renters or purchasers of the Affordable Housing Units; h. Provisions for subletting units consistently with affordability restrictions; i. Procedures for qualifying tenants and prospective purchasers of Affordable Housing Units. Provisions for monitoring the ongoing affordability and habitability of Affordable Housing Units; and k. A description of the concession(s) or incentive(s) provided by the City. 30-17.17 Affordable Housing Unit Agreements for Ownership Units In addition to the requirements of subsection 30- 17.16, an Affordable Housing Unit Agreement for an ownership Development must provide the following conditions governing the sale and use of Affordable Housing Units during the use restriction period: a. Affordable Housing Units shall be sold to Very Low Income households, Lower Income households or Moderate Income households in a common interest development, at an affordable sales price and Affordable Housing cost as defined by this section 30 -17 and Government code section 65915 as it exists when a complete Application for the Development is submitted to the City. b. The Affordable Housing Units shall be owner- occupied by /Very Low or Lower Income households or by Moderate Income households within common interest developments. c. With the exception of Moderate Income housing units, the resale price of any affordable unit shall not exceed the purchase price paid by the owner of that unit with the following exceptions: (i) Customary closing costs and costs of sale, (ii) Cost of real estate commissions paid by the seller if a licensed real estate salesperson is employed, and 16 (iii) Consideration for permanent capital improvements installed by the seller. d. Upon resale of Moderate Income housing units, the seller of the unit shall retain the value of any improvements installed by the seller, his or her down payment, and the sellers proportionate share of appreciation. The city shall recapture any initial subsidy and its proportionate share of appreciation, which shall then be used within five years for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the city's supply of Lower and Moderate Income housing available at affordable housing cost. The city's proportionate share of appreciation is the ratio of the initial subsidy to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale. The initial subsidy is the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale minus the initial sale price to the moderate- income household, including any down payment assistance or mortgage assistance. if upon resale, the market value is lower than the initial market value, then the value at the time of the resale shall be used as the initial market value thereafter. e. The purchaser of each Affordable Dousing Unit shall execute an instrument or agreement approved by the city restricting the sale of the Affordable Housing Unit in accordance with this section 30.17 during the use restriction period. Such instrument or agreement shall be recorded against the parcel containing the Affordable lousing Unit and shall contain such provisions as the city may require ensuring continued compliance with this section 30 -17 and with Government code section 65915. with respect to Moderate income Affordable dousing Units, the instrument or agreement shall provide for equity- sharing as set forth in Government Code Section 65915 and paragraph d. of this section 30- 17.17. 17. f. Any additional obligations relevant to the compliance with this section 30- 30-17.18 Affordable Housing Unit Agreements for Rental Units. In addition to the requirements of subsection 30- 17.17, an Affordable Housing Unit Agreement for a rental Development must provide the following conditions governing the use of Affordable blousing Units during the use restriction period: a. Specific property management procedures for qualifying and documenting tenant income eligibility, establishing Affordable Rent and maintaining Affordable lousing Units for qualified tenants; b. Provisions requiring property owners to maintain books and records to demonstrate compliance with this section 3017. C. Provisions requiring the Property Owner to submit an annual report to the City which includes the name(s), address, and income of each 17 household occupying Affordable Housing Units, and which identifies the bedroom size and monthly rent or cost of each Affordable Housing Unit. The information included in this report shall be maintained in confidence by the city and used only to enforce the requirements of this section 30-1 d� Provisions describing the amount and time for payment of Administrative Fees to the city for the on -going monitoring of the Development's compliance with this section 30 -17 as provided in subsection 30-17.19 below. e. Any additional obligations relevant to the compliance with this section 30 -17. 30 -17.19 Administrative Fee The city shall charge an Administrative Fee to Applicants to cover the city's cost to review al.l materials submitted in accordance with this section 30-17 and for on -going enforcement of this section. The amount of the Administrative Fee shall be established from time to time by city council resolution. Fees will be charged for, inter alia, staff time and materials associated with: review and approval of applications for the Development; project marketing and lease -up; long terra compliance of the Applicant, and successors -in- interest to the Applicant, with respect to the maintenance of the Affordable Housing Units as such. 30 -17.20 violation of Affordable Housing cost If the Planning and Building Director determines that rents in excess of those allowed by this section 30 have been charged to a tenant residing in a rental Affordable Housing Unit, the city may take the appropriate legal action to recover, and the rental unit owner shall be obligated to pay to the tenant (or to the city in the event the tenant cannot be located), any excess rent paid. If the Planning and Building Director determines that a sales price in excess of that allowed by this section 30-17 has been charged for an ownership Affordable Residential Unit, the city may take the appropriate legal action to recover, and the Affordable Residential Unit seller shall be obligated to pay to the purchaser (or to the city in the event the purchaser cannot be located), any excess sales costs. Section 2 Severability clause. It is the declared intent of the city council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provision of this ordinance and to that end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. 18 Section 3 This ordinance and the rules, regulations, provisions, requirements, orders, and matters established and adopted hereby shall take effect and be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Presiding officer of the city Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, city clerk City of Alameda 19 Exhibit A.1 Park Street Business D'Istr'lct 2 BUENA VISTA T PACIFIC LJ 1-4 LINCOLN SANTA CLARA EA 1> EAGLE EAGLE if rime+ g i K Jag" 3rza�� y ggg LIJ _J -4 LL 7 L t f it r L,NCOLN 7 4 0 0 SANTA C LARA CENTRAL =iT T I f i F _ILI ILI. n 4� f F. ''.�wx ..e S„,..� 5 �.^�rre:Fx� Y ¢a�..x»w -.c.:� pi xx..,...r,�,ex,y,x�wrom r LL p ENCiNAL 4 CENTRAL L SLreets ISE an u i din Departrnl6nt 312009 _��ource. Pianni g -3 1 n a AMMM a Exh'lbl't A.2 Webster Street Business DIstralct RALPH'APPE_ZZATO MENICRIAL BUENA `VIS BUENA VIST I PACIFIC PACIFIC LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN l LJ U_J HAIGHT HAiGHT HAiGHT z Ll cm z Li I s I r SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA SAN TA CLARA F .M. I a M L_j TAYL 0, R PALACE i— _JU L ='.AIA R 7 s z 1-4 j p SAx wro�xdi EAGLE EAGLE z BUENAVSTA n, 0 00 1 J J PACIFIC PACIFiC L.P-4 co 0 i i m LINCOLN LINCOLN HAIGHT HAIGHT SANTA CLARA ra J1 L TAY L O R L -4 E37 ERBROCK C U R L Ehf 4 BUENA `VIS BUENA VIST I PACIFIC PACIFIC LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN l LJ U_J HAIGHT HAiGHT HAiGHT z Ll cm z Li I s I r SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA SAN TA CLARA F .M. I a M L_j TAYL 0, R PALACE i— _JU L ='.AIA R 7 s z 1-4 j p SAx wro�xdi EAGLE EAGLE z BUENAVSTA n, 0 00 1 J J PACIFIC PACIFiC L.P-4 co 0 i i m LINCOLN LINCOLN HAIGHT HAIGHT SANTA CLARA ra J1 L TAY L O R L -4 E37 ERBROCK 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 2009 by the following vote to wit: AYES: [DOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said city this day of 2009. Lara Weisiger, city clerk City of Alameda COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 04 -127 TO REDUCE THE INCLUSIONARY UNIT REQUIREMENT POLICY FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT AND WEST END COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AREAS FROM AT LEAST 25% TO AT LEAST 15% a a WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) remains t. committed to increasing the prod action and availability of affordable housing; and WH EREAS the City Council has approved a Density y pp Bonus Ordnance that provides density bonus units and incentives plus concessions for developers who voluntaril propose affordable housin y p p g units as an element of their residential development project and p p WHEREAS the CIC desires that the inclusionary housing requirement be the same for all areas in the City of Alameda; and WHEREAS, this CIC feels that a density bonus plus related incentives and concessions should not be automatically triggered; and WHEREAS, this CIC has determined that a density bonus plus related incentives and concessions should be an incentive to provide more affordable housing units; 8 nd WHEREAS, the CIC has made the following finding regarding the California Environmental Quality Act: The project is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations and 15061(b) (3) Review for Exemption. The proposed policy amendment would not permit or prohibit any land uses that are not currently permitted or prohibited under the General Plan or Municipal Code. As described above, the intent of the proposed amendments is to provide for greater a greater incentive for the production of affordable housing units. Therefore, the proposed policy amendment does not have the potential to cause changes to the physical environment that could result in significant adverse environmental effects within Alameda or other jurisdictions. Consequently, the proposed amendments are Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations; and Section 15061(b)(3), Review for Exemption. NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are adopted as findings of the City council as though set forth fully herein. CIC Resolution Joint CC, CIC #3 -A o9 -15 -09 SECTION 2. community Improvement Commission Resolution No. 04 -127 Section 2. a., Inclusionary Unit Requirements, is amended to read as follows: a. [.grit Requirement. For all Residential Developments of three or more units in the Business and Waterfront and west End Community Improvement Project Areas, at least 16 percent of the total units must be Inclusionary Units restricted for occupancy by very Low- Low or Moderate Income Households. The number of Inclusionary Units required for a particular project will be determined only once at the time of project approval. If a change in the Residential Development design results in a change in the total number of units, the number if Inclusionary Units required will be recalculated to coincide with the final approved project. SECTION 3. Community Improvement Commission Resolution No. 04 -127 Section 2. c., Inclusionary Unit Requirements, is amended to read as follows: c. Types of Inclusionary Units: Four percent (4 of the total units must be restricted to occupancy by Low-- Income Households; four percent (4 of the total units must be restricted to occupancy by very Low Income Households; and seven percent (7 must be restricted to occupancy by Moderate-Income Households. For Residential Developments with sixty -nine (69) or fewer total units, Inclusion'ary Units shall be restricted for occupancy by very low low- or moderate income households in the following proportions, which are based upon the above calculations: Total Units nc usiionar Units Income lev 06 to 9 1 1 moderate 10 to 16 2 1 moderate, 1 low 17 to 23 3 1 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 24 to 29 4 2 moderate, 1 law, 1 very low 30 to 36 5 3 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 37 to 43 6 3 moderate, 2 low, 1 very low 44 to 49 7 3 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low 60 to 66 8 4 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low 67 to 63 9 4 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low 64 to 69 10 5 moderate, 3 low, 2 ver low SECTION 4E. This Council finds the architecture and general appearance of the building will be in keeping with the neighborhood and the completed project will not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the City nor impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood. 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda in a Special Community Improvement Commission meeting assembled on the 15th day of September, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOBS: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, l have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the official seal of said Commission this 16th day of September, 2009. Lara Weisiger, Secretary Community Improvement Commission Beverly Johnson, Chair Community Improvement Commission Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum 3 To: Honorable chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Ann Marie Gallant, Interim Executive Director Date: September 15, 2009 Re: Approve comment Letter on Draft Final Record of Decision for Alameda Point Installation Restoration Site 1 (1943 -1955 Disposal Area) BACKGROUND The Navy issued its Draft Final Record of Decision (ROD) for Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1 on August 3, 2009. IR Site 1 is the landfill located at the northwest tip of Alameda Point. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) has consistently submitted comments, beginning with comments provided on the Navy's Proposed Plan (PP) in November 2000, and concluding as recently as its October 2007 comments on the Navy's draft ROD, requesting that the Navy excavate the landfill and dispose of it off Alameda Point. However, the Draft Final ROD continues to specify isolation beneath a soil cover as the rernediation strategy. In addition, the Draft Final ROD, as written, includes two other provisions, discussed below, that are inconsistent with previous ARRA comments. However, subsequent discussions over the last four creeks between the Navy and the environmental regulatory agencies suggest that these issues may be satisfactorily resolved before the ROD is finalized. At its October 1, 2008 meeting, the ARRA Board directed staff to prepare a comment letter on the draft final ROD once it was issued. The draft comment letter is attached for ARRA Board consideration and approval. A chronology of IR Site 1 Remedial Decision- Making is also attached. DISCUSSION The comment letter (a) reiterates the ARRA's objection to any remedy that leaves buried waste in IR Site 1; (b) insists that contaminated soil and debris in Area lb be excavated and disposed off site, to the extent needed to protect human health and the environment; (c) reiterates that ICs restricting digging where all wastes are to be removed, such as Area 1 b, would be burdensome and unnecessary; and (d) requests the Navy to include in its IR Site 1 remedial design the radiological investigation sought by CDPH. A Item #3-A I ARRA Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 15, 2009 Page 2 of 4 Area la (main historic landfill) The Navy and the environmental regulatory agencies that make up the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAG) Cleanup Team (BCT) have expressed the opinion for several years that excavating the buried wastes in Area 1 a for off -site disposal would be very costly and disruptive, without commensurate benefit to human health and the environment. The results of the Navy's exploratory trenching into Area 1a suggest that the landfill may already have been excavated and moved elsewhere, probably to I R Site 2. The recent discovery of more extensive radiological contamination at lR Site 1 than had previously been documented likely= makes excavation and off -site disposal of contaminated soil and debris even more costly than originally estimated. Based on the discovery of radiological contamination, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), the California agency concerned with cleanup of radiologically contaminated sites, has become involved with review of the Navy's Site 1 a remediation activities. CDPH commented to the Navy on Larch 12, 2009 "If the non federal entity [in this case, the ARRA accepts the transfer of radiologically impacted sites, then the non federal entity will be required to obtain a radioactive materials license or license exemption from the CDPH Radiologic Health Branch." In its comments on the Draft Final ROD dated August 25, 2009, the CDPH states the following "Also, please note that, if the transferee of the site is required by CDPH Radiological Health Branch (RHB) to apply for a radioactive materials license/license exemption application, CDPH -RHB may require site radiological characterization of the surface and subsurface soil, final status survey data with dose assessments and additional information." The Department of Toxic Substances. Control (DISC) is working with CDPH to craft Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Institutional Controls (ICs) for the ROD that could substitute for a license from CDPH. This is a similar approach to that used for a former landfill at Hunters Point. If the CDPH does not accept CERCLA lCs 'as a substitute for a radioactive materials license/license exemption, then the ARRA could be asked to conduct an expensive radiological investigation of Area 1 a, and potentially other areas of I R Site 1. The Navy should have completed this investigation earlier in the CERCLA process. However, if the Navy were to incorporate this work into its remedial design for I R Site 1, then the CDPH would have the information it seeks, and the ARRA would not be burdened with an expensive investigation. Therefore, the comment letter to the Navy requests that the Navy conduct the requested work as part of the remedial design. Area 1 b (burn area) The Draft Final ROD appears to scale back the extent to which the Navy will remediate the burn area. Even though numerous Navy documents and statements made in presentations to the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) and BCT indicate all contamination will be excavated from Area 1 b and disposed off site, the Navy maintains that the Draft Final ROD simply clarifies, rather than changes, the PP's remediation proposal for Area 1 b. Honorable chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 15, 2009 Page 3of4 The Draft Final ROD states that excavation in Area 1 b will be done only "to the extent of visible waste." BCT members pointed out that basing removal on the presence of a visible burn layer likely will fail to remove all contamination. First, burning could have occurred in some areas of Area 1 b so that underlying soil became contaminated before heavy equipment pushed the ash and debris westward into the Bay. Such contaminated soil would not be cleaned -up under the Draft Final ROD, because a "visible burn layer" would no longer be present. Second, working the burn area with heavy equipment could mix burn residue with soil so that a burn layer is no longer visible and the contamination would be evident only with laboratory analyses. The burn area is defined on the basis of historical aerial photography. The Navy should conduct the cleanup proposed in the PP and draft ROD: excavate soil and debris from Area 1 b to the extent it exceeds remedial goals, dispose of the excavated material off site, and backf ill the excavation with clean backf ill. It is not appropriate to clean up contamination only if it is visible. Discussions within the BCT, since publication of the Draft Final ROD, may lead to resolution of this issue. one proposal is for the Navy to excavate contamination anywhere burn residue can be detected, regardless of depth. Such removal would extend as deep as necessary to excavate all contaminated soil and debris that is above remedial goals, whenever burn residue is observable. In addition, soil in portions of Area 1 b that do not exhibit burn residue would be excavated down to groundwater to the extent remedial goals are exceeded. The draft comment letter supports this proposal. The Draft Final ROD contains provisions for stringent ICs restricting digging throughout IR Site 1. The BCT is revisiting the need for such ICs in areas, such as portions of Area 1 b, where contamination above remedial goals is to be removed completely. Because IR Site 1 ICs will be a burden to redevelopment by the transferee, the comment letter requests the Navy to appropriately tailor the ROD's IC requirements. Area 5 (shoreline area) In a change from the Draft ROD, the Draft Final ROD requires placement of riprap over exposed sand areas along the shoreline after removal of soil contamination in the top two feet. The riprap is to extend from the high tide line to approximately two feet below mean sea level. once this is done, access to the shoreline may be limited. This component of the remedy was added to help stabilize the shoreline and prevent exposure to potential contamination greater than two feet deep. The Navy plans to issue a fact sheet to the general public that includes a discussion of the need for placing riprap on IR Site 1's beaches. Honorable Chair and Members of the September 15, 2009 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4 of 4 FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial Impact from submitting comments to the Navy on its draft final ROD. RECOMMENDATION Approve Comment Letter on Draft Final Record of Decision for Alameda Point Installation Restoration site 1 (1943 -1955 Disposal Area). Reupe 1.fflully submitt d, V. Leslie A. Little, Director Economic Development Department LL:DP:sb Attachments: 1. Comment Letter 2. Chronology ATTACHMENT 1 September 15, 2009 Mr. Pat Brooks BRA.0 Environmental Coordinator Navy BRAC Program Management office 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 900 S an Diego, CA 921 S -4310 Re: Comments on the July 31, 2009 Draft Final Record of Decision f Site 1, 1943 -1956 Disposal Area, Alameda Point, .Alameda, Calif Dear Mr. Brooks: stallation Restoration The Alameda Reus an Redevelopment s a Authority ``reviewed ty vy s July 3l, 2009, Draft Final Record of .Decision for installation Restorat� [IPl Site 1, 1943` 6 Disposal Area P oint p oznt Alamo ecla Fin ali ornia D raft I ROD;" Final f its meet on Septe..15, 2009, the A Bard i AR o d rected t f s of to submit the followin g commen tss The ARRA is ��are that the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is considering requiring the trans fer�� e ARRA) to obtain a radiological materials license /license exemption from CDPH for IR Site 113 in part because CDPH believes the site is insufficiently characterized radiologically. Please include an investigation in the remedial design for IR Site 1 to complete the radiological characterization that CDPH may otherwise force the ARRA to do. 1. The Navy should remove all wastes from the IR Site 1 landfill, with off -site disposal. At its November 1, 2006, meeting, the ARRA Board acted to adopt the following two positions. The ARRA Board unanimously reaffirmed these positions at its October 3, 2007, and September 15, 2009 meetings. Mr. Pat Brooks September 15, 2009 Page 2 of 5 Alternative S 1 -5 (complete removal of wastes in the landfill) is the only appropriate remediation for soil in Area 1, and Alternative Sl -4a (soil cover on the landfill) is unacceptable remediation for soil in Area 1. Among the considerations favoring Alternative 51 -5 are: The Navy's only characterization of wastes buried in the Area 1 landfill consists of eleven, twenty- foot -long trenches, approximately one trench per acre. This landfill was the primary waste disposal location for the Naval Air Station Alameda from 1943 until 1956. The base generated large amounts of hazardous wastes during this time, many of which have caused extensive soil and groundwater contamination elsewhere on Alameda Point. It is reasonable to assume similar wastes are buried in Area 1. Although no chemical analyses were done, the trenching encountered widespread low -level radioactivity. No intact drums were found. If the radioactivity and other contaminants .migrate from the landfill, they likely will constitute unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. The landfill should be excavated and disposed of offsite before this occurs. The landfill is very close to San Francisco Bay and the Oakland Inner Harbor. Earthquakes, tsunamis, storm surges, and long -term shoreline erosion could lead to hazardous wastes reaching these water bodies. If the wastes were disposed offsite, aquatic habitats in the area would be protected from these hazards. The Draft Final ROD proposes to remediate contaminated groundwater flowing from the landfill toward San Francisco Bay using in situ chemical treatment. Yet potentially buried wastes will continue to recontaminate groundwater, unless the source of the groundwater contamination the landfill is removed. The Navy may need to continue groundwater remediation for the foreseeable future because the source of contamination is still present. The planned treatment will not clean up toxic metals or radioactivity in the groundwater. Excavating the landfill with offsite disposal allows permanent groundwater cleanup. Future land use of the landfill footprint will be complicated and more costly because buried hazardous wastes and radioactivity are present. The planned future use of the landfill is recreational. Design, maintenance, and operation of recreational facilities will be more difficult due to the wastes, for example, topographic contouring, irrigation, landscape planting, accommodation of wells for landfill monitoring, etc. If the landfill were excavated and disposed offsite, routine design, maintenance, and operation of the recreational facilities could occur. The public's enjoyment of this area will be lessened by the presence of a hazardous waste landfill. Some potential users of this planned segment of the Bay Trail may avoid the area for fear of the low -level radioactivity and other wastes. Regardless of whether Mr. Pat Brooks September 15, 2009 Page 3 of 5 such fears are justified, the public's recreational use of park areas should not be compromised, unless necessary. The A.RRA believes a soil cover over the landfill (Alternative S1-4a, the Navy's preferred alternative) is unacceptable. It is highly uncertain that a soil cover will be effective into the future. If groundwater migration from the landfill worsens the environmental regulatory agencies likely would require the Navy to upgrade the soil cover to an engineered cap and install a perimeter, impermeable barrier. Retrofitting an engineered cap and perimeter, cut -off wall will severely disrupt the operations of any recreational facilities. 2. The Navy should not scale back the plan to excavate all soil and debris that exceed remediation goals from Area 1b, the burn area. The Navy's September good Proposed Flan and its April 2007 graft ROD both describe excavation of all contamination from Area lb. "Excavation and off -Site Disposal: Excavate soil from Area lb (3.7 acres), and dispose of excavated soil and radium- impacted items at an off -site facility." (Proposed Flan, p. S) "Alternative S14a for Soil Area 1. This alternative would achieve the Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) by removing soil. from Area lb. Excavated soil would be screened for radiological contamination and contaminated soil would be disposed of off site." (Proposed P lan, P. 15) "The former burn area (Area lb) occupies approximately 3.7 acres, and is located entirely within Area 1. "Alternative S 14a will remove all contaminated soil, waste material, and, if found during the Final Status Survey, radiological material from Area lb; dispose of the soil off site; and replace removed materials with clean imported backfill." (Draft ROD, p. 9 -1 and 12 -1) The burn area was originally identified on the basis of historical aerial photographs. But in the Draft Final ROD the Navy scales back the scope of its remediation, potentially to a much smaller area. "The Navy will excavate Area lb to remove the burn layer, including any portions of the burn layer located below the water table, and to remove soil with contamination above the remediation goals so that the base of the excavation meets the remediation goals. The Navy will continue to excavate Area lb Laterally to remove the visible burn layer. Once the burn layer is removed and remedial goals have been met at the base of the excavation, the Area lb excavation will be considered complete." (p. 12 -2 and 12 -3) Mr. Pat Brooks September 15, 2009 Page 4 of 5 During historic burning operations, the Navy routinely used heavy equipment to push the burned waste into San Francisco Bay. This may or may not have resulted in a "visible burn layer" depending on the nature of the material burned and the amount of mixing with soil occurred while pushing the burned waste into the Bay. Further, burned or unburned wastes could have leached into the ground at specific burn sites, contaminating underlying soil that was not pushed into the Bay with the burned wastes. Such contaminated soil would not be associated with a "visible burn layer" and would not be excavated for off -site disposal according to the Draft Final ROD. It is not appropriate to excavate contamination solely on the basis of visible residues. Chemical testing must be used to confirm that remedial goals have been met throughout the historic burn area. In discussions among BCT members after issuance of the Draft Final ROD, a proposal was developed that appropriately remediates Area lb to protect human health. and the environment. The proposal includes comprehensive soil sampling of Area lb for chemical contamination, radiological contamination, and evidence of burn residue. In areas where evidence of burn residue is present, contaminated soil and debris above chemical or radiological remediation goals would be excavated regardless of depth. In areas of Area lb where evidence of burn residue is not present, contaminated soil above remedial goals would be excavated down to the water table. If the radiological disposal trench in Area lb is encountered, contaminated soil and debris above remedial goals would be excavated regardless of depth and regardless of whether evidence of burn residue is present. Excavated soil and debris that is above remedial goals would be disposed off site, and the excavation filled with clean imported backfill. This proposal is much more protective of human health and the environment than the strategy described in the Draft Final ROD. Please conform the ROD to this proposal. 3. The ROD needlessly specifies ICs restricting land disturbing activities in Area 1b. Once soil and debris in the burn area has been excavated and removed, ICs restricting digging will be unnecessary, except perhaps to support the seismic stability of adjoining areas. Nevertheless, the Draft Final ROD imposes ICs, including those restricting digging, across all of IR Site 1, irrespective of the fact that contamination above remedial goals will have been removed from portions, if not all, of Area lb. The final ROD should recognize that less stringent ICs are appropriate for Area 1b. Summary Merely covering the landfill with four feet of soil is unacceptable. The buried low -level radiological waste and other wastes should be excavated and removed from Alameda Point. only landfill removal will restore the area to the environmental quality it had when the Navy acquired it. Area lb, the burn area, should be excavated, with off --site disposal, so that human health and the environment are protected. The proposal described above, which is based on removal of soil and debris above remedial goals, should be specified in the ROD. The Draft Final ROD currently includes ICs that would restrict digging in Area lb, even though soil and debris that exceeds remedial goals will be removed. These restrictions on land- disturbing Mr. Pat Brooks September 15, 2009 Page 5 of 5 activities will be a tune- consuming and costly burden on ARRA, the transferee, without any commensurate benefit to public health or the environment. Please include radiological characterization to the satisfaction of CDPH in the remedial design for IR Site 1. The ARRA cannot undertake an expensive radiological investigation of IR Site 1 as part of obtaining a radiological materials license exemption from CDPH. Thank you for considering ARRA's comments. Sincerely, Leslie A. Little, Director Economic Development Department cc: Xuan -Mai Tran, USEPA Anna -Marie Cook, USEPA Dot Lof strom, DTS C Robert Wilson, CDPH John west, water Board Peter Russell, Russell Resources, Inc. ATTACHMENT 2 CHRONOLOGY OF IR SITE 1 REMEDIAL DECISION MAKING The following description of the milestones leading to the draft final ROD highlights the evolution of the Navy's cleanup plans for IR Site 1, especially Area la (main historic landfill) and Area 1 b (burn area). September 2006: The Navy issues its PP for IR Site 1, which proposes to isolate the landfilled waste beneath a soil cover. The PP specifies excavation of Area 1b, the burn area, to meet remedial action objectives, with off -site disposal of contaminated soil. November 9, 2005: The ARRA comments in a letter to the Navy that the ROD should specify removal of all wastes from the IR Site 1 landfill, with off -site disposal. February 2007 through March 2008: The Navy conducts a Time- critical Removal Action (TCRA) to excavate and dispose off site the low -level radiological contamination that is in shallow soil and in a disposal trench in Area 1 b.. In some locations, not all radiological contamination was removed because it extends deeper than had been anticipated. April 11, 2007: The Navy issues its draft ROD for IR site 1, which carries forward the remedy outlined in the PP. The burn area remedy is clarified to. include removal of all contaminated soil and waste material, with offsite disposal. The draft RO D's Responsiveness. Summary responds to the ARRA's November 2006 comments on the PP by asserting that burying wastes beneath .a soil cover best satisfies the Comprehensive Environmental Response, compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) selection criteria. June 25, 2007: The ARRA comments in a letter to the USEPA that further characterization of Area la is needed before selecting a remedy. The letter suggests trenching. August 28, 2007: The Navy finalizes its work plan for digging exploratory trenches into Area 1 a to address the A R RA's June 2007 comment that the landfill is too poorly characterized. for remedy selection. October 4, 2007: The Navy updates the RAB on the results of the exploratory trenching, which occurred in early September 2007. The trenches encountered surprising little buried refuse, but low -level radioactive contamination is present more extensively than had been expected. October 25, 2007: The ARRA comments on the draft ROD in a letter to the Navy that the ROD should (a) specify a remedy that removes all waste, with off -site ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 disposal, and (2) not require institutional controls (ICs) restricting digging in areas, such as Area 1 b, where all wastes are to be removed. May 10, 2008: The Navy issues a report of findings from exploratory trenching into Area 1a, the main historic landfill. June 25, 2008: The Navy issues a letter proposing to transfer the eastern portion of IR Site 1 to IR Site 32, an adjacent site, for remedial decision making. The unexpected, widespread presence of low -level radiological contamination in soil would have delayed remedy selection for I R Site 1. Areas 1 a and 1 b remain in I R Site 1. October 20, 2008: The ARRA comments to the Navy in a letter that the results of exploratory trenching into Area 1 a strongly suggest that the landfilled wastes may have been relocated and are no longer present, contrary to .the conceptual model for IR Site 1. The letter asks that further investigation of this issue be conducted before selecting a remedy for Area 1 a, but that cleanup of the balance of I R Site 1 should not be delayed. December 15, 2008: The Navy responds to the ARRA's October 2008 letter, rejecting the idea that IR Site 1 wastes may no longer be present. The Navy says trenching and prior investigations are consistent with the conceptual model for Area 1 a that a landfill exists. April 8, 2009: The Navy issues its draft TCRA report for cleanup of near surface radiological contamination at IR Site 1 (and nearby IR Sites 2 and 32 August 3, 2009: The Navy issues its draft final ROD. for I R Site 1, which carries forward the remedy proposed in the PP. This is the first document in which the Navy states that it will (a) only remove contamination in Area 1 b if it is associated with a "visible burn layer and (b) place riprap on all exposed beach sand. August 31, 2009: The Navy issues its final TCRA report for cleanup of near surface radiological contamination at IR Sites 1, 2, and 32.